Yeah, but he also directed Junior, Father's Day and Six Days Seven Nights, so......

Last edited by Jimmy B (2013-12-06 23:00:15)

Murder at 1600 (1997) - 6/10

Pretty solid thriller, albeit not particularly distinctive in style or execution. Quite laid back which I enjoy, Dennis Miller is one of the more calm and natural people here which is refreshing, most other movies would just have him play the Rob Schneider character by default.
Nothing spectacular, but competently made and devoid of any artificially heightened drama.

The Naked Gun: From the Files of Police Squad! (1988) - 8/10

Yep, it's still hilarious. It may be 25 years old, but smart rarely goes out of style.

The Clone Returns Home (2008) - 6/10

Slow, meditative, sometimes slightly empty-feeling Sci-Fi movie. Some good performances, but this is quite abstract about human cloning, and contemplations on life and death. Good, but I won't be seeing it again. Needs more connective tissue and a slightly more traditional plot for me to really get on board. Lots of static camera shots, and next to no music.

The Devil's Advocate (1997) - 6/10

Overall very good movie. Keanu Reeves best performance I've seen I think. One of those movies where it's kind of hard to summarize what it is actually about once it's over. Like "Rosemary's Baby" this is more about the mood and atmosphere than hitting big plot points. Al Pacino is great.

Beverly Hills Cop (1984) - 7/10

Surprised how good this first installment actually is. This first entry really is about the characters, and Eddie Murphy gives a very honest and toned-down performance. Axel Foley seems like a real person here. Feels a bit like a 70s Dirty Harry movie, the plot is fairly simple, the draw is the characters and the interactions between them.

Beverly Hills Cop II (1987) - 5/10

This sequel, however, is not a good movie at all. On the surface it looks like a good Lethal Weapon-type movie, but this is so devoid of any substance, and it completely changes the Axel Foley character, from a 3-dimensional human being to a caricature. It basically consists of actual scenes to move the plot forward, interspersed with 3-minute SNL sketches for Eddie Murphy to perform. It's just so inappropriate considering what the plot is about, finding the people who almost murdered a close friend of Axels. This should be a "let's get down to business" type film, but instead we have Axel one minute consoling the relative of the friend at the hospital, and the very next scene is Axel driving up to a random Hollywood villa, waving his badge around, "hilariously" messing with the construction workers there for a few minutes, before sending them away and proceeding to just take over the house and living in it like some common criminal. It's supposed to be charming and hilarious but to me it's just baffling. And this was also preceeded by a scene where Axel is driving around Hollywood and the camera zooming in on some woman's butt, and Axel smiling and chuckling to himself. And again, the scene right after he is at the hospital where his friend is at death's door.
You'd expect the series and the character to gradually move in the direction this movie takes it, but they didn't waste any time at all here.

Magnolia (1999) - 9/10

One of the best movies I've ever seen. I initially gave this a 10/10, but after some digesting I bumped it down one point. The thing is, after the fact, or looking at it structurally, it's hard to say what it is about, or whether or not there really is an overarching theme, and how diffuse it may or may not be.
But when you are watching it, it is such a powerful film. There are literally 10 scenes in here with performances that deserve an Oscar nod. The camera work and cinematography is at times breathtaking. The music is great, and sometimes a single musical piece runs across several of the various stories in the film to set the overall mood, as opposed to hitting a plot point or accentuating just one thing. The music is also the key to the emotional core of the film. Since the film doesn't necessarily hinge on a specific plot moving to a specific resolution, getting drawn in to the characters emotions really is what the movie is all about, and the music is really moving and engaging.
The runtime is 3h08m, basically the same as Titanic, but it's so worth it. Tom Cruise, Phillip Seymour Hoffman and Julianne Moore are exceptional here. Possibly the best I've ever seen them.

Last edited by TechNoir (2013-12-07 09:59:53)

Goblet of Fire.

Yeah, I went there.

That's for sure. Magnolia itself states different intentions at different times. The opening montage is this little essay on life's dumb luck. And there's plenty of chance and randomness in the movie. So someone can say it's about that and not be off-base. But then the movie seems just as interested in the ripple effects of childhood trauma. So one can say it's about that and not be wrong. Late in the movie someone says (something like) "We're done with the past, but the past isn't done with us." And since nearly every major character has a past that is screwing up their present, you'd be justified in saying the movie's about that. I'd bet there's a half-dozen clear themes that Magnolia spends substantial time exploring if not stating outright. But yeah, I've happily seen it a few times and am still puzzled as to whether there is a central one, or whether there's supposed to be.

Agreed- although my personal fave from PT Anderson is still Boogie Nights, Magnolia is a fascinating piece of work with many outstanding performances.   Everybody's good in it, but the true standout for me is Melora Walters.  The way Anderson chooses to end the movie with one long take of Walters reacting to John C. Reilly without even letting us hear what he's saying is just fantastic.

Month and a half later finally getting around to writing this one:

(SPOILERS-ish)

Star Trek: Into Darkness-

I went into this with the full force wave of the internets and this forums rage and hate at my back. And I gotta say. I didn't hate it. It wasn't bad. I spent the movie going...wait... This is actually pretty enjoyable, it's no masterpiece sure, but it definitely doesn't deserve raging hatred, wtf is going on?

And then it kept being...not horrible... and I had fun.

And then about 15 minutes before the end it just lost it's freaking mind for about 10 minutes. Pretty much as soon as Daddy shows up I think it was, everything just kind of got flipped turned upsidedown, and I still have no idea what really happened in that section. It just got really pretty horrible for 10 minutes.

The KHAAAAAANN was definitely forced and ham fisted. I understand the impulse, and if they had spent the time to earn it, it could have been really powerful and cool. But as it is Spock just flips from cool Vulcan to screaming to the heavens in the blink of an eye and it just doesn't work.

Also, bravo to the marketing crew for managing to kill ALL of the suspense from that action scene with the trailers. It's Avengers all over again, I know there's a majestic shot of the Enterprise coming up through the clouds at some point in here and it hasn't happened yet...wait the enterprise is plummeting through the atmosphere and we don't know if they'll get the engines back online? Oh gees, I wonder whats gonna happen? -slow, painfully sarcastic, claps all round-

And then right when I was confused as all get out, the movie pulls it out of the nose dive in the last few minutes with an ending that just makes you wanna get out of your chair and scream hell yes.

I still don't get what happened. TL;DR. First hour-fortyish was great and fun, then the movie hit black ice and started spinning out for 10 minutes and then became awesome again.

I'm probably forgetting a bunch of stuff I wanted to mention, but I watched it like a month and half ago, and enjoyability aside, not that memorable.

As a day-one Star Trek fan - the thing that defined Trek in the beginning and (mostly) throughout its many incarnations was that it was smart.   It didn't get science perfectly right and used plenty of magic beans, but still the intention was there.   There are a lot of scientists on the planet now who were inspired to become so because of Star Trek.

Star Trek into Darkness... is pants-on-head stupid-as-fuck when it comes to the science.  It makes up its own rules on everything, including such basic concepts as gravity and how far away the Moon is.    As a yarn, an adventure tale, it's fine and even engaging.  But every eight seconds something pants-wettingly dumb happens just to keep the story moving forward. 

This was exactly what Trek set out to NOT be, and what set it apart from what passed for "science fiction" on television at the time.    And so as a Trek fan, I was insulted.  Repeatedly.

Abrams however is just about perfect for Star Wars, because there's no science to explain or understand - Star Wars is supposed to be pure adventure in a wonderland where wizards fight with fire swords and monkeys can fly spaceships.   I'm looking forward to what he does with that - and for somebody who passed third grade science to tackle the next Star Trek.

No offense to my fellow Trek fans but I don't feel like it goes against EVERYTHING Trek stood for. First of all, science is bad and I will not defend that part. Yeah, it's dumb but that is as much a failing of other series as Abrams trek. Abrams Trek just hyped it up and said no, we will do what we want. No argument there.

One place (and I may stand alone in this) is that Abrams recaptured a sense of fun and adventure that the Original Series had but was lacking, at times, in the other series. Abrams also attempts some social commentary, in both films, that I found more engaging that any of the TNG era movies.

Abrams Trek, for me, is driven by the characters. One aspect of Roddenberry's future was humans becoming more enlightened and reaching for their potential. I don't think he would set himself on fire (and I could be wrong) because Abrams takes a different tack at this future. It isn't that humanity isn't working towards a more peaceful and united world but that the vision is being challenged, either from within or without. TOS had a couple of episodes like this, and DS9 took it on more fully with the Dominion War.

Abrams does so mainly through characters. You have Kirk, who was the poster child Starfleet captain, a man of principle but flawed at times, but trying to become better. In Abrams Trek, Kirk is not reaching for anything beyond himself. He is not seeking to fulfill his potential but is willing to squander it. It takes the influence and guidance of Pike to make him take a step towards becoming better, to cultivate that potential within himself.

So, again, no offense, but I don't see it as antithetical to every aspect of Roddenberry's vision. I think that Pine's Kirk is more related to Shatner's Kirk than many realize. Shatner's Kirk is a flawed man who recognizes it, while Pine's Kirk is just now learning and maturing. The flaws are still there, but one is trying to correct them while the other is learning about them.

Fair point, and I certainly feel the first one is much better. I know that you, Trey, are much more of a science stickler than I am, so I don't begrude that point either. It just doesn't enrage me, mostly because Voyager and Enterprise are packed full of stupid science so I think I just roll my eyes and move on.

I think Into Darkness suffered for many reasons beyond the science, but none of it broke the movie in the sense that it is, to me, a bad movie. The characters are really what I focus on and that pushes it forward for me. I liked the social commentary of both movies as well.

But, but, I certainly can see where you are coming from. It was the more hateful comments, things that make your prequel treatments look tame, that confused me.

In that case Trey, I'd like a Duncan Jones, Neil Blomkamp or Alphonso Cuarón Star Trek next, please.

Last edited by Aural Stimulation (2013-12-11 13:52:01)

Maniac (2012)

This was something. Based on the 1980's exploitation flick of the same name, Maniac stars Elijah Wood as Frank, a mannequin restorer who also happens to be a delusional, psychotic killer with some pretty severe mommy issues.

Rather than following the tired slasher formula, the entire movie takes place from Frank's perspective. Literally. Much of the movie is filmed in first person perspective. In fact, you could argue that one of the main themes of the film is perspective itself: how we see ourselves, how others see us, what happens when our perspective shifts or changes. And the camera work illustrates that quite effectively as we occasionally leave Frank's body and look at him before returning to his perspective.

While we certainly get to see through Frank's eyes as he commits his horrendous acts, we also get to see what his troubled personal life is like. Frank is a sad and lonely person afflicted with crippling migraines, paranoid delusions and psychotic episodes. I really liked that  Frank was the protagonist and not his victims. Of course, there's the visceral thrill of "being the killer" as well.

Overall, a really solid movie. Performances were good all around. Lots of neat camera work and clever editing kept the movie flowing nicely. I especially liked the way transitions were used to tell the story. Very effective.

If you have the stomach for it, I'd recommend this movie because it's one of the better slasher flicks you'll likely see.

The redhead who gets murdered in Maniac is the woman who introduced me to my wife.