An above average, if predictable horror slasher, All The Boys Love Mandy Lane has all the typical slasher movie tropes with a twist I saw coming miles away. Worth at least one watch, but not a second viewing.
Reviews
7 Reviews
American Sniper
(2014)
Watchable action-drama with glaring character omissions
10 June 2015
While American Sniper is an entertaining movie, I don't think it's as thought-provoking as I'd like it to be. This seems like a wasted opportunity to me. Instead of an interesting character study, we instead get what is mostly an action movie, with some hammy drama thrown in. Chris Kyle always felt in the right even when he was clearly wrong. He seemed a nearly flawless man, when in actuality he was quite flawed. He's a proved liar, and slanderer, yet the film portrays Kyle as some kind of flawless American Hero. At no point in the story did I feel the tension Eastwood was trying to invoke. The situation with his wife, and child, are clearly meant to be stressed, nigh on the breaking point, but it never felt like the weight was there to back up the performances. Everything felt so safe, and not at all stressful. It's shot beautifully, and there are some interesting visual choices. One example: a sandstorm where we can see just as little as the soldiers can. Little touches like this make American Sniper at least enjoyable for one watch, but repeat viewing is unnecessary. If you can get past the glaring omission of some of Kyle's less-desirable character traits, you'll most likely enjoy the film.
Under the Skin
(I) (2013)
The film that truly proves what a visual medium film is
20 January 2015
I implore anybody that has seen this movie once, and not liked it, to watch it once more. This time, however, take into account that film is a visual medium. Instead of expecting a narrator or a character to easily explain to you what is happening try paying attention to what is happening. Examine and truly THINK about what is expressed visually. The brilliant part about Under The Skin is how well it tells a story without dialog, without running commentary, and without the central character saying much at all.
Think about the purpose of what the female character is doing. The entire story tells itself so easily if you let it. The problem with the modern movie-goer, and admittedly myself, is that we want things explained to us. We're happy to be treated like ignorant flatheads that don't know our butts from our elbows. Look at any other review here on IMDb and pay close attention to what is being criticized. They are mostly the same things over and over again.
They don't criticize what is conveyed through the film's imagery. Instead, they say things like "Not enough was explained." "This film had no plot." "The movie went nowhere." or "Nothing happened." At the risk of sounding smug, I will say that these people are looking for the wrong things in this movie, or any movie. When going into any new film it's important to remember the medium you're choosing to entertain you. It's not like a book on tape, or music. Movies can explain the plot, story, character motivations, and roles without having to have a character, or narrator explain it to you.
I was one of those people that didn't "get" this film and gave it an extremely low rating of 1 star. But I decided to change to a 7 after much reflection on the content and thoughts it provoked afterward. After reading over 5 or 6 positive I got curious. Why do so many people think this movie is fantastic and innovative? I implore you to look up the video review by Renegade Cut.
This one video, in addition to Under The Skin, made me rethink what I think a movie should be. It can be artistic, and different, and entertaining without following the well established formula for modern movies. Personally, I feel like people in general are too harsh. A one star rating should be reserved for terrible films, with nothing to say at all. Well, that's not this film. It certainly has plenty to say about what it's like to be an outsider, and what a gift it truly is to be human.
A one star rating should be reserved for the most thoughtless trash in existence. This isn't even close to that. Was it for me? No, but I certainly "get" it. I get what the message is, and what it was trying to do. That I had to think to myself "What did I just watch?" was enough for a 7 star rating. It made me think, re-evaluate, and wonder. As much as I like Guardians of the Galaxy, or Indiana Jones, I have to ask myself "Did either one of those films make me feel this way?" No, they didn't.
And also, do films necessarily have to be for entertainment? To which I also say no. Films can be about raising a question, or provoking a thought, or experiencing emotions. Maybe the tedium of a scene evokes boredom, but what if that's the point of the scene being shown? Look past your eyes, think about what the director's intent was, and I think you'll enjoy this one way more on a repeat viewing.
Think about the purpose of what the female character is doing. The entire story tells itself so easily if you let it. The problem with the modern movie-goer, and admittedly myself, is that we want things explained to us. We're happy to be treated like ignorant flatheads that don't know our butts from our elbows. Look at any other review here on IMDb and pay close attention to what is being criticized. They are mostly the same things over and over again.
They don't criticize what is conveyed through the film's imagery. Instead, they say things like "Not enough was explained." "This film had no plot." "The movie went nowhere." or "Nothing happened." At the risk of sounding smug, I will say that these people are looking for the wrong things in this movie, or any movie. When going into any new film it's important to remember the medium you're choosing to entertain you. It's not like a book on tape, or music. Movies can explain the plot, story, character motivations, and roles without having to have a character, or narrator explain it to you.
I was one of those people that didn't "get" this film and gave it an extremely low rating of 1 star. But I decided to change to a 7 after much reflection on the content and thoughts it provoked afterward. After reading over 5 or 6 positive I got curious. Why do so many people think this movie is fantastic and innovative? I implore you to look up the video review by Renegade Cut.
This one video, in addition to Under The Skin, made me rethink what I think a movie should be. It can be artistic, and different, and entertaining without following the well established formula for modern movies. Personally, I feel like people in general are too harsh. A one star rating should be reserved for terrible films, with nothing to say at all. Well, that's not this film. It certainly has plenty to say about what it's like to be an outsider, and what a gift it truly is to be human.
A one star rating should be reserved for the most thoughtless trash in existence. This isn't even close to that. Was it for me? No, but I certainly "get" it. I get what the message is, and what it was trying to do. That I had to think to myself "What did I just watch?" was enough for a 7 star rating. It made me think, re-evaluate, and wonder. As much as I like Guardians of the Galaxy, or Indiana Jones, I have to ask myself "Did either one of those films make me feel this way?" No, they didn't.
And also, do films necessarily have to be for entertainment? To which I also say no. Films can be about raising a question, or provoking a thought, or experiencing emotions. Maybe the tedium of a scene evokes boredom, but what if that's the point of the scene being shown? Look past your eyes, think about what the director's intent was, and I think you'll enjoy this one way more on a repeat viewing.
The Strangers
(2008)
What brutal events?
11 July 2008
Warning: Spoilers
This review contains minor spoilers, nothing that will crush the movie for you.
The Strangers is what I'd call one of the bigger disappointments of recent memory for me. While it is a scary film it's most definitely not great. I'm a man with a theory and that theory is that a film is only as good as its ending. A poor ending can completely ruin a movie even if what happened previous to it was above average. It can leave the viewer feeling ripped off and like they've wasted their time. This is the case with "The Strangers".
The opening monologue from the narrator would have you believe that you are about to watch as brutal a movie as you've ever seen. In fact he even takes the time to mention that "The brutal events that took place there are still not entirely known.". I would like to know exactly where the brutality is. There is barely any violence in this movie. While that's fine the opening kind of sets you up for a letdown.
It's a solid thriller but nothing ever really happens. There are lots of jumps and of course the occasional fake scare as we're used to in today's modern horror films but brutality there is not. Take this scenario into consideration: Protagonist walks down a long dark hall way with the camera facing his back. As he comes to a stop the camera suddenly switches to a view of his face as his ponders his next move. As we're waiting an antagonist slowly creeps towards the protagonist with a weapon in his hand. The protagonist turns around and nothing is there.
Now if you find that scary I would see why but nonetheless it's a fake scare and sadly that example mirrors every thing that happens in "The Strangers". It happens over and over and over again. And then we're left with the ending. The poor sad excuse for an ending. I won't spoil it for you but I will say that it's realistic and that's part of the problem. I understand the movie is based on real events but let's look at that word "based".
Did the film makers have any idea what that means? Well I guess not because they went for the ultra real approach. Think about what would happen if you were awaken suddenly in the night by 3 strangers and you have your outcome. The problem with all this is that when I see a movie I realize that I'm watching one. There has to be a plot that drives you to ask "What happens next?". We all realize we're watching a movie and it's for entertainment and the ending certainly doesn't do any thing to entertain the moviegoer.
Let's take a look at the antagonists of the film, what have we got to work with? Three strangers (hey look at that) wearing spooky masks. We get nothing more than this, no back story, no reasoning, they just do what they do. Sounds pretty cool right? Well it's really not. The real drive behind any good movie is that the antagonists are motivated by something. You know, revenge or something like that? Well not these guys, nope they are here because they felt like it. Seriously, we never get any more elaboration than that.
I was impressed by Liv Tyler's performance as it showed the range and depth of emotion she can add to a character. It's just too bad she chose this movie to show it in. Cinematography is alright but not phenomenal. A good use of browns and earthly tones when there is any color but overall a very hard film to watch because of how dark it is. You can't really fault it for that, though it can be uncharacteristically dark even for a horror movie. The Strangers can be commended for trying to stand out as it sets us up with characters we like at first.
Both are in a dire situation that only adds to the tension they are faced with later. At one point we're treated to a back story that elaborates on things. Again none of this does any thing to alleviate the inevitable let down that happens later. After about 45 minutes of watching the characters make what are decidedly some of the dumber decisions I've ever seen people in general make I would say you may end up disliking them and want them to die.
Overall I'd say "The Strangers" is solid entertainment for about 45 minutes to an hour depending on how much repetition you can take.
The Strangers is what I'd call one of the bigger disappointments of recent memory for me. While it is a scary film it's most definitely not great. I'm a man with a theory and that theory is that a film is only as good as its ending. A poor ending can completely ruin a movie even if what happened previous to it was above average. It can leave the viewer feeling ripped off and like they've wasted their time. This is the case with "The Strangers".
The opening monologue from the narrator would have you believe that you are about to watch as brutal a movie as you've ever seen. In fact he even takes the time to mention that "The brutal events that took place there are still not entirely known.". I would like to know exactly where the brutality is. There is barely any violence in this movie. While that's fine the opening kind of sets you up for a letdown.
It's a solid thriller but nothing ever really happens. There are lots of jumps and of course the occasional fake scare as we're used to in today's modern horror films but brutality there is not. Take this scenario into consideration: Protagonist walks down a long dark hall way with the camera facing his back. As he comes to a stop the camera suddenly switches to a view of his face as his ponders his next move. As we're waiting an antagonist slowly creeps towards the protagonist with a weapon in his hand. The protagonist turns around and nothing is there.
Now if you find that scary I would see why but nonetheless it's a fake scare and sadly that example mirrors every thing that happens in "The Strangers". It happens over and over and over again. And then we're left with the ending. The poor sad excuse for an ending. I won't spoil it for you but I will say that it's realistic and that's part of the problem. I understand the movie is based on real events but let's look at that word "based".
Did the film makers have any idea what that means? Well I guess not because they went for the ultra real approach. Think about what would happen if you were awaken suddenly in the night by 3 strangers and you have your outcome. The problem with all this is that when I see a movie I realize that I'm watching one. There has to be a plot that drives you to ask "What happens next?". We all realize we're watching a movie and it's for entertainment and the ending certainly doesn't do any thing to entertain the moviegoer.
Let's take a look at the antagonists of the film, what have we got to work with? Three strangers (hey look at that) wearing spooky masks. We get nothing more than this, no back story, no reasoning, they just do what they do. Sounds pretty cool right? Well it's really not. The real drive behind any good movie is that the antagonists are motivated by something. You know, revenge or something like that? Well not these guys, nope they are here because they felt like it. Seriously, we never get any more elaboration than that.
I was impressed by Liv Tyler's performance as it showed the range and depth of emotion she can add to a character. It's just too bad she chose this movie to show it in. Cinematography is alright but not phenomenal. A good use of browns and earthly tones when there is any color but overall a very hard film to watch because of how dark it is. You can't really fault it for that, though it can be uncharacteristically dark even for a horror movie. The Strangers can be commended for trying to stand out as it sets us up with characters we like at first.
Both are in a dire situation that only adds to the tension they are faced with later. At one point we're treated to a back story that elaborates on things. Again none of this does any thing to alleviate the inevitable let down that happens later. After about 45 minutes of watching the characters make what are decidedly some of the dumber decisions I've ever seen people in general make I would say you may end up disliking them and want them to die.
Overall I'd say "The Strangers" is solid entertainment for about 45 minutes to an hour depending on how much repetition you can take.
War
(2007)
An action movie that attempts to make you think
1 March 2008
War pits Jason Statham and Jet Li against each other. Both are known for their insane action and martial arts sequences, but for all that talent we never really see one good hand to hand fight between the two. It's your basic revenge story, Jet Li kills Statham's partner and Statham wants to crush his nuts. You know, your basic action movie. Don't expect War to win any awards. Unless there's some sort of awards show with all action movies in it nowadays. If you go into this movie expecting the next Shakespearean masterpiece, you're in deep deep trouble. It's a little more paced than some people make it out to be. There are huge breaks in the action that take time to tell the story and a little character development. Note that they are not small breaks but huge ones. Action comes in doses, but when it does it hits you like a train to the jaw.
There is a slight twist in the movie that helps to accentuate that it's trying to be different from other movies in this genre but it doesn't quite succeed. The "twist" ends up coming off as another of a hundred ways this is just like every other action movie ever made. In the same way most action movies treat themselves (and they should) lightly and with as little detail to realism as possible, so too does War. It knows that it's an action movie, and never expects you to think any thing more about it than that. In this same genre I would recommend Shoot 'Em Up over this, if you have already seen that this might feel a little tame in comparison. In that same way though, this movie has a different flavor and succeeds in its own way. Worth watching, but there are much better picks in this genre.
There is a slight twist in the movie that helps to accentuate that it's trying to be different from other movies in this genre but it doesn't quite succeed. The "twist" ends up coming off as another of a hundred ways this is just like every other action movie ever made. In the same way most action movies treat themselves (and they should) lightly and with as little detail to realism as possible, so too does War. It knows that it's an action movie, and never expects you to think any thing more about it than that. In this same genre I would recommend Shoot 'Em Up over this, if you have already seen that this might feel a little tame in comparison. In that same way though, this movie has a different flavor and succeeds in its own way. Worth watching, but there are much better picks in this genre.
Beowulf
(2007)
Beowulf the film, not the poem
1 March 2008
Beowulf is not the old school poem. It's a story retold like mythical tales that have different revisions. A wolf becomes a bear, a bear becomes a troll, a troll becomes a dragon, etc. It's like another take on an old story, and told from the lips of a different story teller; this is all completely fine. The story is about Beowulf's quest to kill the creature Grendel and his story after that event.
It doesn't sound particularly interesting but when you add in the fact that Beowulf can kill monsters with nothing but his pinky and thumb it starts sounding a lot better. If you are a big fan of medieval swords and shields tales you're going to love Beowulf. If you are big fan of blood, violence, and sexual themes, you're going to love Beowulf. The special effects and sound of Beowulf are top notch and the best technology has to offer these days.
Every breaking bone, every ripple in every face, and every flexing muscle look as good as CGI probably ever will at this time. Sound effects, from the clang of swords, arrows firing, water, wind, the ocean, every thing sounds great and is a treat to hear. I saw the Unrated version so I can't speak for the PG-13 one but Beowulf is a very sexually charged movie, I will tell you that. It is not for children and when I say children I mean any one under 16 years of age.
This movie should have been R rated from what I've seen. I can't imagine they took much out of the movie because the director's cut is only a fraction longer than the theatrical version. Now with the negative parts of this movie. The movie can be very paced to the point of silence. Some parts feel long and drawn out, I never got this feeling but I can see how some may not like this. I myself was too focused on soaking up all the lovely high-techery CGI.
The point is don't go into this movie expecting THE Beowulf and you'll be all right. If you think that the retelling of a story should be 100% accurate with the poem it's based on, don't even rent this. You will not be happy. If you are looking for a great epic, and an all around entertaining film, watch this. It suffers from crappy ending syndrome but is well worth the price of admission, that is if you watch it for what it is; Beowulf the film, not the poem.
It doesn't sound particularly interesting but when you add in the fact that Beowulf can kill monsters with nothing but his pinky and thumb it starts sounding a lot better. If you are a big fan of medieval swords and shields tales you're going to love Beowulf. If you are big fan of blood, violence, and sexual themes, you're going to love Beowulf. The special effects and sound of Beowulf are top notch and the best technology has to offer these days.
Every breaking bone, every ripple in every face, and every flexing muscle look as good as CGI probably ever will at this time. Sound effects, from the clang of swords, arrows firing, water, wind, the ocean, every thing sounds great and is a treat to hear. I saw the Unrated version so I can't speak for the PG-13 one but Beowulf is a very sexually charged movie, I will tell you that. It is not for children and when I say children I mean any one under 16 years of age.
This movie should have been R rated from what I've seen. I can't imagine they took much out of the movie because the director's cut is only a fraction longer than the theatrical version. Now with the negative parts of this movie. The movie can be very paced to the point of silence. Some parts feel long and drawn out, I never got this feeling but I can see how some may not like this. I myself was too focused on soaking up all the lovely high-techery CGI.
The point is don't go into this movie expecting THE Beowulf and you'll be all right. If you think that the retelling of a story should be 100% accurate with the poem it's based on, don't even rent this. You will not be happy. If you are looking for a great epic, and an all around entertaining film, watch this. It suffers from crappy ending syndrome but is well worth the price of admission, that is if you watch it for what it is; Beowulf the film, not the poem.
30 Days of Night
(2007)
Finally! A modern horror classic
29 February 2008
Based on the graphic novel of the same name, 30 Days of Night is about the survivors of a vampire raid on the small Alaskan town of Barrow. The cinematography is clear, chilling, and stylish. From the very beginning, before things even go bad, you feel a dark event on the horizon. The mood of the movie is unyielding and never lets go of its serious tone; You really feel the sense of struggle, hope, and loss at every turn. The performances are spot on and never seem too plastic or fake. I was really impressed by the soundtrack too as it's filled with ambiance and subtlety that helps build suspense and tension. Note that this movie is your typical hard core horror movie. You won't get any comic relief here (hello I Am Legend), this will creep you out. From beginning to end 30 Days is every thing I expected it to be. My only disappointment comes from the ending. I won't spoil it but will say that it is less than fulfilling. A sad addition to a very common problem with good movies. It never quite feels finished, but maybe that's intentional.
Tell Your Friends