Showing posts with label movies. Show all posts
Showing posts with label movies. Show all posts

Monday, January 31, 2011

Review: Repo! The Genetic Opera

2008
Directed by: Darren Lynn Bousman
Starring: Alexa Vega, Anthony Stewart Head, Paul Sorvino, Sarah Brightman, Paris Hilton



Ok, the first thing you're thinking, I'm sure, is why would you ever watch a movie with Paris Hilton in it? (again... hmm... House of Wax...). Well, rest assured that she actually does decently in this and besides, only has a few scenes. This is a horror movie, as you might have guessed from that poster. But it's also... a musical? And it's funny, in a black humor sort of way.

It's the not-so-distant future, and due to a crisis of organ failures there is now a company that can replace all your organs. But if you fail to pay, they can also repossess them. Enter the Repo Man, played by Anthony Stewart Head, who was basically blackmailed into the job so that he could raise his daughter (Alexa Vega), who has a rare blood disease, instead of going to jail. One day his daughter goes out to her mother's tomb and begins to suspect all is not what it seems.



This movie is pretty gory, in kind of an absurd, unrealistic way. The fact that it's a musical makes it rather surreal and delightful. I already knew Anthony Stewart Head could sing, due to Buffy, and I liked him in this as well. It is a fun watch if you don't mind a lot of blood and violence. Bizarrely, there's a cameo by Joan Jett. The plot kept me guessing.

Grade: B

On an unrelated note, when I Google-image-searched 'Repo!', this came up:

Wednesday, April 7, 2010

Day 2: My Favourite Movie

Well, crap. I already missed a day. But that's because we did trivia last night, and I didn't have time since I didn't go home first. Trivia was in Alexandria this week, and it was pretty decent, though the place got pretty smoky at 9 o'clock. So anyway! Time for: my favourite movie. So for a while now I've been saying it's Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind. It's sweet, but also weird. A bizarre love story. I like it a lot.



But there are certainly other movies I really like. The Lives of Others is one of those, as is The Talented Mr. Ripley. Those are kind of darker, and very clever. I enjoy a clever film. I also like watching sweet romantic comedies like Love Actually, or mindless action like, most recently, the new Clash of the Titans (though that last is definitely not a favorite). So it would be a lot easier to pick my favourites from each genre (and even then, still hard). I know "it totally depends on what mood I'm in" is a crap answer, but there it is, the best I can do.

Sunday, December 6, 2009

Review: Brothers

2009
Directed by: Jim Sheridan
Written by: David Benioff, Susanne Bier (she wrote the Danish version)
Starring: Tobey Maguire, Natalie Portman, Jake Gyllenhaal


Brothers is about a man, Sam (Maguire), who goes off to war and is reported dead. His wife Grace (Portman) is devastated, and his brother Tommy (Gyllenhaal) steps in to help with the house and the kids. Sam ends up not being dead and returns, having gone through a harrowing experience and coming back changed. His kids don't like him anymore and he suspects his wife and brother are sleeping together.

The movie seeks to portray what war does to a person, and how our soldiers are not properly treated, psychologically. It probably does a good job of just how much it would suck to come home and know you can't relate to people in the same way. And what that does to a family. It's tragic, it's sad, but it's well done. Good acting. Oh, and it's based on a Danish movie.

Grade: B-

Thursday, November 26, 2009

Review: 2012

2009 (so many numbers!)
Directed by: Roland Emmerich
Written by: Roland Emmerich and Harald Kloser
Starring: John Cusack, Amanda Peet, Chiwetel Ejiofer, Oliver Platt, Woody Harrelson, etc.

My mom and I went to Salisbury to shop around and ended up deciding to see 2012. It wasn't my top choice (that was Pirate Radio but they didn't have it) but I figured the crazy CGI might be worth seeing.

And boy, was I right! I mean, this is one of those movies that you can watch and totally forgive its ridiculous plot, fake science, and downright dumb things that happen for its sheer awesomeness. It's monstrously epic. They destroy everything - yes, you've got your famous monuments going down, but also just random shit like Yellowstone Park, all of California, Las Vegas, etc. That shot of a tidal wave pushing the USS John F Kennedy onto the National Mall is pretty crazy amazing. Basically, they destroy the entire world. It is beautiful, heart-pounding, thrilling action and has its fair share of explosions and volcanoes. It will get you excited, scared, and laughing, and maybe a little teary-eyed, all in the same movie.

So basically, yes, you should see 2012, in all its gloriously epic disaster-movie terribleness which is always especially good in theaters. But don't worry - all that stuff won't happen. Right?

Grade: B+

Tuesday, November 24, 2009

Review: New Moon

2009
Directed by: Chris Weitz
Written by: Melissa Rosenberg and Stephenie Meyer (novel)
Starring: Kristen Stewart, Robert Pattinson, Taylor Lautner

If you want to get the hots for a 17 year old kid, this movie's for you (I feel less creepy because I'm only 21 I suppose). Seriously... Lautner is really excellent looking in this and fabulously buff. RPattz's supposedly compelling pouty look is really getting annoying though, but at least we can giggle at the sparkle motion moments.

Enough about looks, let's talk about the movie itself. I thought it was a pretty good adaptation of the book on screen, and perhaps better than the first (Twilight). However, it was also often unintentionally hilarious. Slow motion Edward with his shirt blowing in the wind - hilarious. Tender moment with Bella and whoever - hilarious. Especially the 'serious' parts. There are some pretty dumb lines ("you're kind of beautiful") which if I recall correctly are close to what's in the book.

Perhaps I should be embarrassed that I actively loved the books when I was reading them. But I think the movies are terrible. Fabulously, hilariously terrible. So yeah, pretty much the most entertaining and enjoyable movie-going experience for me in a long time, perhaps ever, thanks to the girls I went with, Sarah and Katy, and the fact that everyone in the theater was a college kid and we were all laughing.

Grade: Too awesomely bad to grade.

Sunday, November 22, 2009

Review: Fantasia

1942
Directed by: James Algar and Samuel Armstrong
Written by: Joe Grant and Dick Huemer
Starring: Leopold Stokowski (the conductor)

Now, I've seen Fantasia before, when I was little, and probably more than once. But this is the first time I've seen it as an 'adult.' Some lovely people and I went to Blair and watched it in a classroom. The parts I had remembered were the myth part, the Mickey part, and the dancing hippos. The little unicorns and pegasi were my favorites as a kid.

My first impression was, holy crap, did I just drop acid? The beginning at least is like that. It gets a little less weird, though, when instead of trippy colors they have actual scenes. Some parts bored me to tears. Other parts were great. I still like the myth part. But now I also like the Rite of Spring part with the dinosaurs.

My friend Amanda kept pointing out parts of the movie that make recurrences in later Disney films, which was quite interesting! This is a movie that most people saw as a kid, and it's a classic, so I guess I think you should watch it. But you might laugh at it, a whole lot, and be a little shocked at the blatant racism. But that's the 1940s for you I guess. And Disney.

Grade: C

Saturday, November 21, 2009

Review: (500) Days of Summer

2009
Directed by: Marc Webb
Written by: Scott Neustadter and Michael H. Weber
Starring: Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Zooey Deschanel, Geoffrey Arend, Chloe Moretz

(500) Days of Summer is a lovely little film about breaking up (yes, it's not a love story). I loved the use of anachronistic storytelling, it actually drew you in more instead of being confusing. Plus, it's kind of the way you think about the past - not usually in chronological order like a traditional story, and there's the 'oh wait right that happened' aspect.

Gordon-Levitt is adorable and so is Deschanel... their interactions make a lot of sense and seem so realistic. They're both somewhat average characters - as in, you probably know people like that. The message is mostly that yeah, there will be girls (or guys) like Summer who will be total bitches, but in the end life doesn't end when the relationship does. There are other people out there.

The movie reminded me of one of my all-time favorites, Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind. It was similarly quirky and disjointed, though not quite as weird. There are also little tidbits that push it to that next level, like the 'author's note' in the beginning, and Tom's friend's comment that "you should turn it into a novel." Kind of great.

Grade: A

PS - Awesome soundtrack, too. Two Regina Spektor song including "Us" which might be my favorite of hers, the Smiths, and a bunch of indie stuff I'd never heard before but really liked.

Sunday, November 15, 2009

Review: Fiddler on the Roof

1971
Directed by: Norman Jewison (seriously that's his name)
Written by: Sholom Aleichem and Joseph Stein
Starring: Topol, Norma Crane, Leonard Frey, Rosalind Harris

This is a classic musical about Jews. It's about changing times in Russia and the struggle between change and tradition. The dad tries to stop his daughters from doing things outside of tradition but loves them too much and fails, and accepts their decisions until finally one of them challenges his faith.

The songs are really catchy, and there are some funny moments. In fact it seems that Gwen Stefani song "Rich Girl" is based on a song from this musical which I think is kind of hilarious. But in the end the story turns rather depressing. However, I still liked it and thought it was quite good.

But I REALLY don't want to know how they made that horse lame...

Grade: B

Tuesday, November 3, 2009

Review: A Beautiful Mind

2001
Directed by: Ron Howard
Written by: Akiva Goldsman, based on the book by Sylvia Nasar
Starring: Russell Crowe, Jennifer Connelly, Ed Harris, Paul Bettany

This was a lovely, I might even say beautiful, movie with fantastic acting. I didn't expect the thing about the roommate despite knowing it was about John Nash's craziness. Russell Crowe and Jennifer Connelly are fantastic (who am I kidding, Connelly is always good).

I have little to say except to confirm that yes, it's really as good as they say. Also yay for a movie about economics (despite it being often talked about as mathematics in the movie)!

Grade: A

Friday, April 3, 2009

A Jihad For Love

Parvez Sharma's A Jihad for Love is the first ever documentary to discuss the coexistence of Islam and homosexuality. Like other monotheistic religions, Islam bans homosexuality pretty much across the board. This film showed people from various parts of the world (South Africa, Egypt, France, Iran, India, Turkey) and their personal struggle (or jihad, which translates to struggle) to find a place for their homosexual desires or acts in their religion. Some people clearly had an easier time reconciling their relationship with Allah with their personal tendencies than others. It was very interesting, and taught me a lot about laws governing homosexuality around the world, and a lot about Islam, a religion I knew little about. One of the people interviewed was a South African imam who had been cast out by his community after coming out, but was trying to argue a different interpretation of the Qur'an in the only verses in which it (arguably) covers homosexuality, which is with the story of Sodom and Gomorrah. After the film, there was a discussion led by a professor of Middle Eastern Studies. A few things really stuck out for me in the discussion. First, the professor argued that if the clerics and scholars did not keep up with lived experience they would become marginalized, as has happened with Christianity. Also, someone argued that the movement for gay rights would gain momentum much like the movement for women's rights. Someone countered, saying there are a lot more women than there are homosexuals. Then a member of Lambda mentioned that while there aren't as many homosexuals, there are plenty of allies. As soon as someone realizes that homosexuality hurts no one, and therefore the marginalization of homosexuals is more harmful than homosexuality itself (as one Muslim woman in the film put it, "I was just loving, I didn't hurt anyone") and will see that that is unjust.

The film was certainly eye-opening, but left space for hope that Islam may come to see homosexuality as another type of love, and not as haram. All monotheistic religions have trouble with this, and some of the worst trouble comes from interpretation.

Tuesday, February 24, 2009

Our Daily Bread Review

The documentary Our Daily Bread showcases some tough and thought-provoking issues. Rarely does one get such an intimate glimpse of the food production process. This makes such a stark presentation of the process quite shocking, and at times disturbing.

The filmmaker wants the audience to think about several things. First, he is highlighting the distance between the modern consumer and the way food is produced. Most people don’t even know how their food is made. He wants to show how mechanical, orderly, and efficient the process is. He wants us to see that there is cruelty involved in the making of animal products, and destruction in the making of plant products.

The film does have stars, depending on how you look at it. You could certainly see the workers as stars. He often focuses on them or at least includes them in most shots. Also, he shows them eating and socializing as well as doing their jobs, which makes them appear in the most contexts. On the other hand, you could see the plants and animals being made into food products as the stars, since they are what is focused on the most.

Several techniques are used to convey the film’s message. The most obvious one is the lack of any narration, and in fact the near silence of the whole thing. The only sounds are those the machines make, those the animals make, or the conversations between workers that the audience can’t hear well. The silence requires the viewer to interpret what’s being shown on their own. It also reinforces the distance that the viewer has from the methods of food production. The camera angle often shows the food product or the machinery most prominently, which puts the focus on what’s being produced, and also on the weird, almost futuristic ways it’s done. Some of the machines are really interesting and ingenious. A third technique is the juxtaposition of workers’ dirty, horrifying jobs with their break times. This affects the way the viewer sees the people in this film.

People in Our Daily Bread are workers in repetitive jobs that are often also shocking and gross to the viewer. Showing the people on their lunch breaks, on their smoke breaks, and simply interacting allows the viewer to see that although they have potentially horrifying jobs, they are used to them and it is just a job to them. Despite working in dehumanizing conditions, they are still quite human. This is also shown in the scene where the woman drops the chick and instinctively cradles it. It also shows that even when modern people are not distanced from the food production process, they must create distance for themselves in order to be alright with what they do.

The film shows that in the modern world we are much more distant from our food sources than in the ancient world. Today, getting food is automatic, guaranteed, and we don’t have to think about how it became a burger, for instance. In the ancient world, however, people were working directly off the land, and would slaughter their own animals for meat (when they ate meat). However, one can see the beginnings of specialization in the various roles for those who slaughtered animals for the sacrifice. One could see the modern way of producing food as a natural progression from ancient ways, after the implementation of our new technologies. In the ancient world, people got as much food as possible for themselves out of the land, and that is the purpose of our means of food production today.

I liked seeing many of the ways we produce food today – a lot of the technology is quite fascinating, like the machine to shake the trees to get its fruit and even the machines used in gutting the fish. As expected, the scenes involving animals were quite disturbing. I didn’t really like seeing them, but I think it should be necessary to know how we’re getting the meat products we have. I was definitely grossed out, and horrified by some of the poor conditions animals were kept in, but also definitely enlightened. This documentary is definitely worth viewing, at least as much as you can stand. Everyone today should know how their food becomes what it is, so they can have an informed opinion when it comes to issues like whether or not to eat meat.



This review was written for CLCV 412: Food and Drink in the Ancient World.

Monday, February 16, 2009

hey, this reminds me of something...

I read on BBC News today that Dutch researchers think that beta-blocker drugs, generally used as a heart medication, could affect memories. They could even potentially be used to erase bad, painful, or traumatic memories. Of course, there's a whole slew of ethical repercussions and potential unwanted side effects, but my immediate thought was: Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, anyone?

So... could you really erase them fully from your memory, or just from conscious knowledge? Would there still be an emotional connection?

(PS - if you haven't, see Eternal Sunshine, it is brilliant!)