Tuesday, May 25, 2010
Help me out!
I decided to not review Kick Ass because I don't feel too strongly either way about it. I want you to give me a movie to review. Any movie. Any movie at all. Please. I'm dying. I don't care really. I'll sit down, watch, and review any movie that you know of and think I'll love or hate. Seriously. Either way. Let me know.
Friday, May 14, 2010
Thursday, May 6, 2010
Wednesday, May 5, 2010
Bloody Mary
The first rule of a horror movie is that it should be something that...scares you...correct? Indeed. And while it certainly did try, a little known, absolutely low- (if not no-) budget film by the name of "Bloody Mary" did not succeed. Quite the contrary, this film had me laughing at it or feeling bad for those who were "lucky" enough to have their names in the credits. While you should always take pride in your work and yes I applaud the filmmakers for finishing a production, it utterly pains me that such a mildly offensive, completely out of context, and laughable film film was made from their hands.
I'm going to do something different in this review. I'm going to split it into different parts. 1. Main Characters 2. Supporting Characters 3. Plot 4. Production
1. Main Characters.
Natalie is Nicole's (the missing girl) sister. She spends the whole film in an emotionless state of blank face looking for Nicole. She tries to get help from others but apparently wants to do everything herself. There's no character development with her and I at least don't care if she finds her sister or not.
Jenna is the main antagonist (a.k.a. bitchy girl) of the film. She's just a bully who tries to force everyone to do everything she does. She forces Nicole into the tunnels which leads to her missing. She lies straight faced to Natalie. She (I guess) leads people to Mary who (I guess) eats them? (Or at least their eyes) She's again a one dimensional character who no one should care about. She also speaks the whole time like she's trying to hide an accent. What accent I can't detect but she speaks awkwardly.
Johnny is a cop(?) who tries to help Natalie find her sister (and in turn himself into Natalie's pants). He is usually seen doing nothing of importance and is generally not important himself.
Dr. Simmons is possibly the only character that grows. He begins (as we first meet him) as a mild mannered doctor that is trying to do everything he can for Natalie, but as the film progresses, he tries to kill her. I didn't say it was a good growth but it's something at least. A for effort movie makers!
2. Supporting Characters
Oh the supporting cast. Why oh why are they even in this film?
Scooter is Jenna's boyfriend(?) who spends the whole stretch of the film under Jenna's thumb and being a Paul Rudd lookalike. He is generally boring and does nothing of importance. What he does for the film is...minimal at most. Really he does nothing.
Paul is Nicole's ex boyfriend. He dies very quickly after we meet him. Not important, boring, does nothing for the story.
April, Tabitha, and Shelby are the same character. Jenna's cronies. They do nothing but fearfully listen to the will of Jenna. One dimensional, sheepish, boring.
And now my favorite supporting character of anyone, RailRoad. His name is Ricky Reynolds and he has...club foot? Palsy? Mental retardation? I'm not sure but he's there. No growth, no thought to character, no sensitivity. He is the reason I've stated that this film is offensive. It's just strange to see someone playing that role. I'd feel bad about it at least.
3. Plot
There isn't one. There is but it's minimal. Nicole goes missing (or is killed) after her "Friends" (Jenna and crew) convince her to go into the tunnels under the mental hospital where they all work. Natalie spends the whole film looking for Nicole with no help from basically anyone. Natalie asks Nicole's patient/friend Heather about some things and Heather is afraid of mirrors. Blah blah blah doctor talk about mirrors. Paul dies because a shattering mirror cuts the soles of his feet...somehow. Railroad walks into Heather's room late at night and hands her a plate with a mirror on it. Mary kills Heather. Someone is taking the eyes of the victims and putting them into a metal cabinet (I wonder who...). There is a man with boils all over his face who likes rocking back and forth and muttering things through the vents of the hospital. Why he is there I have no idea. The majority of the film is Natalie looking blank faced about everything and nothing happening. Blah Blah Blah Natalie breaks an already broken mirror and Mary disintegrates.
Jenna's nose bleeds. A lot. Again no idea why.
4. Production
The whole film looks very strange. What I think the problem is, is that they shot in HD when the thought of HD was still new and they hadn't tweaked it to perfection. It looks like the backgrounds were added in in post and they didn't use the same resolution as they did for the actors.
Every image is blown out. They apparently don't know how f-stops work. Especially in the tunnel scenes, where there should be no light, the doctor's white coat is blown out so that he looks like some sort of angelic figure. Who knows maybe this was a directorial decision.
Final verdict is that this is a horrible film. Offensive, no plot, no character that I can identify with or care about, nothing that I want to see ever again. Sadly I own this film. Luckily I paid under $2 for it (It came in a pack of 4 for $5). If you can see this film for free, don't. Make someone pay you to see it. It's full of bad effects, worse acting, EVEN worse visual production detail.
2/10 because as a movie it's....definitely a movie.
I'm going to do something different in this review. I'm going to split it into different parts. 1. Main Characters 2. Supporting Characters 3. Plot 4. Production
1. Main Characters.
Natalie is Nicole's (the missing girl) sister. She spends the whole film in an emotionless state of blank face looking for Nicole. She tries to get help from others but apparently wants to do everything herself. There's no character development with her and I at least don't care if she finds her sister or not.
Jenna is the main antagonist (a.k.a. bitchy girl) of the film. She's just a bully who tries to force everyone to do everything she does. She forces Nicole into the tunnels which leads to her missing. She lies straight faced to Natalie. She (I guess) leads people to Mary who (I guess) eats them? (Or at least their eyes) She's again a one dimensional character who no one should care about. She also speaks the whole time like she's trying to hide an accent. What accent I can't detect but she speaks awkwardly.
Johnny is a cop(?) who tries to help Natalie find her sister (and in turn himself into Natalie's pants). He is usually seen doing nothing of importance and is generally not important himself.
Dr. Simmons is possibly the only character that grows. He begins (as we first meet him) as a mild mannered doctor that is trying to do everything he can for Natalie, but as the film progresses, he tries to kill her. I didn't say it was a good growth but it's something at least. A for effort movie makers!
2. Supporting Characters
Oh the supporting cast. Why oh why are they even in this film?
Scooter is Jenna's boyfriend(?) who spends the whole stretch of the film under Jenna's thumb and being a Paul Rudd lookalike. He is generally boring and does nothing of importance. What he does for the film is...minimal at most. Really he does nothing.
Paul is Nicole's ex boyfriend. He dies very quickly after we meet him. Not important, boring, does nothing for the story.
April, Tabitha, and Shelby are the same character. Jenna's cronies. They do nothing but fearfully listen to the will of Jenna. One dimensional, sheepish, boring.
And now my favorite supporting character of anyone, RailRoad. His name is Ricky Reynolds and he has...club foot? Palsy? Mental retardation? I'm not sure but he's there. No growth, no thought to character, no sensitivity. He is the reason I've stated that this film is offensive. It's just strange to see someone playing that role. I'd feel bad about it at least.
3. Plot
There isn't one. There is but it's minimal. Nicole goes missing (or is killed) after her "Friends" (Jenna and crew) convince her to go into the tunnels under the mental hospital where they all work. Natalie spends the whole film looking for Nicole with no help from basically anyone. Natalie asks Nicole's patient/friend Heather about some things and Heather is afraid of mirrors. Blah blah blah doctor talk about mirrors. Paul dies because a shattering mirror cuts the soles of his feet...somehow. Railroad walks into Heather's room late at night and hands her a plate with a mirror on it. Mary kills Heather. Someone is taking the eyes of the victims and putting them into a metal cabinet (I wonder who...). There is a man with boils all over his face who likes rocking back and forth and muttering things through the vents of the hospital. Why he is there I have no idea. The majority of the film is Natalie looking blank faced about everything and nothing happening. Blah Blah Blah Natalie breaks an already broken mirror and Mary disintegrates.
Jenna's nose bleeds. A lot. Again no idea why.
4. Production
The whole film looks very strange. What I think the problem is, is that they shot in HD when the thought of HD was still new and they hadn't tweaked it to perfection. It looks like the backgrounds were added in in post and they didn't use the same resolution as they did for the actors.
Every image is blown out. They apparently don't know how f-stops work. Especially in the tunnel scenes, where there should be no light, the doctor's white coat is blown out so that he looks like some sort of angelic figure. Who knows maybe this was a directorial decision.
Final verdict is that this is a horrible film. Offensive, no plot, no character that I can identify with or care about, nothing that I want to see ever again. Sadly I own this film. Luckily I paid under $2 for it (It came in a pack of 4 for $5). If you can see this film for free, don't. Make someone pay you to see it. It's full of bad effects, worse acting, EVEN worse visual production detail.
2/10 because as a movie it's....definitely a movie.
Tuesday, May 4, 2010
The Invention Of Lying
The Invention Of Lying, starring Ricky Gervais, is a film that was released in October of 2009. It delves into the fantasy genre, asking the question "What if there was no such thing as a lie?"
The immediate answer is, as it was for me, "Well that would be great. In a world with only truth, things would be much easier." While this is true, the opening scene also shows how hurtful the truth can be. Ricky Gervais stars as Mark Bellison who is an overweight film writer who is trying to get a date with Jennifer Garner's character, Anna McDoogles. Anna is on the phone with her mother when she actually first sees Mark. Anna immediately expresses her disappointment with Mark's appearance. This sets the tone for the rest of the movie. Anna is not attracted to Mark and doesn't plan on starting a relationship with him because of this. The overall opinion of everyone in the film is that marriage should only be done to provide both partners with favorable offspring (good looking children) and Mark's genes won't provide that for Anna.
Mark, as I briefly mentioned earlier, is a film writer. Don't think of this as writing films that you or I may see. Because there is no lying, there are no tall tales, no myths, no legends, and no films of the sort. Instead, films are shot where one single actor sits and retells a story of some historical happening. Mark is unsuccessful at his job, mostly due to the fact that the period of time he has been assigned to cover also happens to be the time when the Bubonic Plague was at it's worst.
Throughout the film, there are small cameo parts by big name actors, including Tina Fey who plays Mark's secretary, Jeffrey Tambour, his boss, Rob Lowe, his rival coworker, and Phillip Seymour Hoffman as the bartender. There are more, but we'll cover them when we get to their small parts in the plot.
Mark Bellison is able to tell a lie shortly into the film and it confuses him as to how he "can say something that isn't". He uses this to better his own life, in ways such as writing a story that is completely made up to get ahead in his career. This gains him fame and money. Before all that, but immediately after the first lie, he goes to Jim the bartender and his friend Greg (played by Louis C.K.). He tries to explain to them what happened, and tries to even demonstrate by telling them false things about his life. ("I invented the bicycle" "I love your work" "I'm a German astronaut" "When's your launch date?")
In a world without lies, there is no such thing as false. Without false, you would not need the opposite, truth. While the concept of truth is there and everyone is always expressing it, the word truth is not, which is why it's hard for Mark to express what happened.
Mark eventually is in a jam as the city, nation, and world is asking how he knows things they do not. Sadly this is where the film takes a turn for the worse.
The film is now something that's more up to par with Bill Maher's views than a lighthearted tale. Mark makes up yet more lies and tells the world that a "Man in the sky" is telling him things. The people ask him questions about the Man in the sky and he has to make up more lies about Him. After a while, (since there are no lies to the rest of the population) everyone believes Mark and they form a religion. (Christianity, catholocism, call it what you will.)
The film began in such a funny manner that this is a complete curveball. It actually angers me. I'm not saying that I believe in a religion, but to so boldly say that all religion is just a story that someone made up because they could is insensitive, immoral, and plain rude. Even if it is your opinion that all things religious are false, please take into consideration that they are something that millions of others believe in and hold closely to who they are.
Maybe I'm taking this too heavily and I should just sit back and enjoy the film for what it was. But after that turn of events the film lost it's fun tone and became a serious drama. It tried to regain the initial lightheatedness but it never really did. It felt forced after the shift.
If this movie could be split into two separate movies with similar plots but you took them separately into the tones they were in, I think that you would have two very good films. But as it stands right now, the film just seems like it's trying to mend the two together.
I wouldn't suggest this film to everyone. It's full of British humor, which is very subtle, and a heavy religious undertone. If you'd like to check it out I'd say go ahead but don't pay too much for a rental. Try to find it online or somewhere that rents free movies first.
At last I'll make a judgment on a scale of 1 to 10. Because of the heavy religious undertone it loses points. But also the first of the film is strong, funny, and very expository of the characters without that exposition be all dialogue. This film gets a 6.5/10.
The immediate answer is, as it was for me, "Well that would be great. In a world with only truth, things would be much easier." While this is true, the opening scene also shows how hurtful the truth can be. Ricky Gervais stars as Mark Bellison who is an overweight film writer who is trying to get a date with Jennifer Garner's character, Anna McDoogles. Anna is on the phone with her mother when she actually first sees Mark. Anna immediately expresses her disappointment with Mark's appearance. This sets the tone for the rest of the movie. Anna is not attracted to Mark and doesn't plan on starting a relationship with him because of this. The overall opinion of everyone in the film is that marriage should only be done to provide both partners with favorable offspring (good looking children) and Mark's genes won't provide that for Anna.
Mark, as I briefly mentioned earlier, is a film writer. Don't think of this as writing films that you or I may see. Because there is no lying, there are no tall tales, no myths, no legends, and no films of the sort. Instead, films are shot where one single actor sits and retells a story of some historical happening. Mark is unsuccessful at his job, mostly due to the fact that the period of time he has been assigned to cover also happens to be the time when the Bubonic Plague was at it's worst.
Throughout the film, there are small cameo parts by big name actors, including Tina Fey who plays Mark's secretary, Jeffrey Tambour, his boss, Rob Lowe, his rival coworker, and Phillip Seymour Hoffman as the bartender. There are more, but we'll cover them when we get to their small parts in the plot.
Mark Bellison is able to tell a lie shortly into the film and it confuses him as to how he "can say something that isn't". He uses this to better his own life, in ways such as writing a story that is completely made up to get ahead in his career. This gains him fame and money. Before all that, but immediately after the first lie, he goes to Jim the bartender and his friend Greg (played by Louis C.K.). He tries to explain to them what happened, and tries to even demonstrate by telling them false things about his life. ("I invented the bicycle" "I love your work" "I'm a German astronaut" "When's your launch date?")
In a world without lies, there is no such thing as false. Without false, you would not need the opposite, truth. While the concept of truth is there and everyone is always expressing it, the word truth is not, which is why it's hard for Mark to express what happened.
Mark eventually is in a jam as the city, nation, and world is asking how he knows things they do not. Sadly this is where the film takes a turn for the worse.
The film is now something that's more up to par with Bill Maher's views than a lighthearted tale. Mark makes up yet more lies and tells the world that a "Man in the sky" is telling him things. The people ask him questions about the Man in the sky and he has to make up more lies about Him. After a while, (since there are no lies to the rest of the population) everyone believes Mark and they form a religion. (Christianity, catholocism, call it what you will.)
The film began in such a funny manner that this is a complete curveball. It actually angers me. I'm not saying that I believe in a religion, but to so boldly say that all religion is just a story that someone made up because they could is insensitive, immoral, and plain rude. Even if it is your opinion that all things religious are false, please take into consideration that they are something that millions of others believe in and hold closely to who they are.
Maybe I'm taking this too heavily and I should just sit back and enjoy the film for what it was. But after that turn of events the film lost it's fun tone and became a serious drama. It tried to regain the initial lightheatedness but it never really did. It felt forced after the shift.
If this movie could be split into two separate movies with similar plots but you took them separately into the tones they were in, I think that you would have two very good films. But as it stands right now, the film just seems like it's trying to mend the two together.
I wouldn't suggest this film to everyone. It's full of British humor, which is very subtle, and a heavy religious undertone. If you'd like to check it out I'd say go ahead but don't pay too much for a rental. Try to find it online or somewhere that rents free movies first.
At last I'll make a judgment on a scale of 1 to 10. Because of the heavy religious undertone it loses points. But also the first of the film is strong, funny, and very expository of the characters without that exposition be all dialogue. This film gets a 6.5/10.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
