An indie dramedy that reminds me a lot of Six Feet Under. It's pretty good, despite some unfortunate implications.

I'm out.

Rashomon

I've seen a few Kurosawa films before (Seven Samurai, Hidden Fortress and Throne of Blood) and this is one I've been meaning to get round to watching for quite a while. Going in to it I knew pretty much nothing apart from the title and it being supposedly good - I'm glad I went in cold.

This film got me hooked within minutes and held my interest all the way through. What I first thought would be a simple samurai tale became so much more. There are twists and turns at every corner, but they themselves aren't what makes this movie great - it's the questions it brings.

Definitely check this out.

Yeah, as if we couldn't figure out a way to chemically block our fear...

I saw Last Days on Mars

I knew nothing about it other some of the cast, and had even avoided the trailer. I was therefore expecting something like Moon or Europa Report. What I got was... very different. I won't give away anything and will simply say that my slightly flabberghasted reaction was 'wow, really, you went for that?'

I finally saw Gravity on DVD.

I avoided the film in theaters for a couple reasons. One, the plot, as I understood it, didn't interest me too much. It's a castaway story, abet one where living off the land won't last for long. Second, I no longer care much about visuals for visuals sake, if I ever did. I've seen real space in Imax, did I need to see the CG version? So, I stayed home, and waited for the movie to come to me.

It was... eh. It's hard to articulate. I fast forwarded through George Clooney's stories. Part of it was, yes, that the "mission specialist" non-astronaut wouldn't be on the space walk, they'd be in the shuttle directing things from there. I know it wasn't the movie's intention, but after the shit went down I had a feeling of "oh, so YOU are the one who survived. That's not fair." Understandably, that never came up If nothing else, it made me want to re-watch "Marooned", the 1969 Gregory Peck and Gene Hackman film about a Skylab crew who's Apollo capsule can't land.

I pretty much held the same opinion based on having seen both movies first. If nothing else, aquainting myself with the source material further clarified why I had serious problems with Mr. Ripley and TWBB from a filmmaking perspective. And vice versa with Catching Fire.

Meh, I've seen worse Jim Carrey family movies (The Mask, Ace Ventura: When Nature Calls, The Grinch). It was worth sitting through just for 3 mins of Captain Sham.

  Show

6/10

5.5/10

8.5/10

6/10

6/10

6.5/10

7.5/10

Also has the greatest wheelchair race ever captured on film.

6/10

I'm not sure I quite follow. Those other Jim Carey movies at least felt like they were going somewhere.f

I know not every movie needs to have a happy ending or a neatly tied up, warm loving reunion, at the Cleavers over Christmas dinner as the snow flies and happy music plays (one more cliche and I win a steak knife set ). However, it is hard for me to invest in the characters of a movie that pretty much guarantees that the children will never have anything positive in their lives, that they will never trust adults because every adult that comes in to their life will die. It pretty much comes down to "How will they die next?" I don't care to watch that.

The Mask at least had stakes (and was hilarious) and the Grinch knew exactly what it was. Series of Unfortunate Events is a prescription for causing clinical depression. I wasn't nearly as depressed walking out of "Fight Club" or "The Grey" as I was with this movie.

But, hey, I'm a sentimental, overly emotional, type of a guy so take it for what it's worth.

Captain America: The Winter Soldier

Watched this in the theaters last Saturday, and I have been trying to make up my mind this whole week about what I actually feel about it. It is one part excellent spy action with some very competently directed action scenes, and one part overly convoluted (but not very exciting) spy thriller with some comic book elements mashed in.

The action scenes are generally, like I mentioned, very good. They (the writers/directors) have gone the route of the "Fast and the Furious"-series with some very grounded set-pieces shot without adding to much digital flair. Some unwelcome shaky cam exists throughout but it is by no means the basis for the look and feel of the actions scenes. Some very cool and well handled stunts and action moments throughout. Neither Captain America nor the Winter Soldier have powers beyond that of the physical realm (although they push it frequently ), which makes this the least flashy and gimmicky of the recent comic book movies. The logic and momentum of all the action throughout I think is a sign of it being in good hands, and gives all the scenes enough extra oomph to impress.

It is not shot like "The Raid", with long and wide shots of extremely well choreographed action, but a fight scene in a cramped elevator with 10+ guys including the Captain was still very good and quite easily decoded without to many cuts and narrow angles. There are also some nice stunts and acrobatics shot on location that makes you feel like everything cool happening isn't just added in post, but meticulously planned and shot "in camera".

The plot will not be discussed, since I have very little interest reciting something so absurd. It is what keeps this movie from being great.

The acting is fairly standard. Given that the material tries to go deeper with both Captain America and Black Widow, it show the shallow depth of Scarlett Johansson and Chris Evans. Scarlett has been given increasingly more diverse and interesting roles in the last few years ( with under the skin coming out soon and Lucy starting to get some airtime ) and gets to dig a bit deeper into the past of Black Widow, but the results are a few sad faced monologues and some competently handled combat. Chris Evans on the other hand, is given some interesting material to work with, with his adjustment to the modern world and the morally grey society we live in. Does he pull it of? No way! He totally lacks any sort of emotional delivery throughout, and made me realize how perfect he would have been playing Robocop.

All in all it was a very good ride, and thanks to the very varied and well directed action sequences , I would recommend this to people who would appreciate a good action flick.

7/10

Last edited by Skepton (2014-04-04 00:42:24)

I marathoned Atttack on Titan when I was sick as well. I think I had more patience for it because of that. I agree with most of what you said, but I would hesitate to call it mediocre. There is just so much crap anime out there, and this one has an uncommon spark of life to it, despite the mains being so dull. The only one who really annoyed was our hero, Eren. The show would be a hell of a lot better if Jean were our lead instead, or any of the secondary characters, really (of the ones who haven't been eaten yet, of course).

I saw it twice. Rummy seems to think he checkmated Errol Morris, but it was more like a stalemate. The man is impervious to evidence.

That's a big part of what the film is about--evidence. It's also about language. Rumsfeld, like many good equivocators, is a master of semantic trickery, palpably proud of his ability to abuse language.

In THE FOG OF WAR Morris was fascinated by McNamara's conflictedness--RM was an old man who was willing to own up to some of his mistakes but unwilling to face the full gravity of those mistakes--but here Morris is fascinated by this man's ability to deny reality at all costs.

When Morris does nail him on certain things (for example, DM says the administration never implied a link between Saddam and bin Laden, but the evidence shows otherwise), Rumsfeld just shrugs it off. Fascinating and infuriating all at once.

I was interested in The Unknown Known based on the subject matter, but then Morris was on the Colbert Report a week or two ago, and they showed a clip of the film. The style of filmmaking really annoyed me. There was this very obtrusive background music (Stephen quipped about it being horror movie music, which was dead-on) and Rumsfeld's talking head was jump cutting around to different positions in frame, seemingly at random. I can't stand that style of editing in a documentary, and the music just seemed lazy. Is that indicative of the whole of the film or did they just pick a bad bit to sell it on?

That style is Morris signature style, filmed on a device he designed called, The Interratron.  Basically, the subject sits in front of a series of cameras, all with slightly different framings.  On the main camera, sits a teleprompter, but instead of displaying lines of dialogue, it displays an image of Errol Morris, since its hooked up to a camera focussed on him in the other room.

Errol Morris used to be a private investigator, and early in his filmmaking career (basically anything after Vernon, Florida) he realized that when you interview a person in the flesh, there is a natural confrontational element to him.  Also, he wanted the eyeline to be DIRECTLY at camera, and if you interview someone, their eyeline is almost always to wherever you're sitting.  With the Interrotron, he found his subjects to be much more relaxed, and it freed him up in the edit. 

The jump cut style is in no way lazy.  In fact it's much more work than you would imagine.  It's his signature style (broken up with graphics, recreations, etc) and if it isn't your thing, no worries.  But make no mistake, there is not a better interviewer in the history of Documentary film than Errol Morris. 

Oh, and the music was Danny Elfman.