22 February, 2013
26 April, 2012
The Raven (2012)
First off, this movie is rated R for some gore... but not as much as you'd expect from a dark murder-mystery thriller. There is not much by way of gruesome scenes. Only one stood out in particular but take a long blink and you'll miss it. You'll know when it's coming (SPOILER!!!: It involves a Pendulum). Other than that, you just see some corpses that have been hurt and may or may not be covered in blood.
There is also some minor language, including one F-word.
Overall, a few blinks and the movie is easily PG-13. If you're hesitant, go see it and trust me.
Ok, so here's what is awesome about it.
It opens up saying how 3 days before he died, Edgar Allan Poe was found nearly dead on a park bench. No one knew why. The movie then delves in to a fictional story about his last three days. A murderer starts killing people based on some of the more grotesque Poe stories. The main investigator recognizes a murder as a Poe story and recruits Poe to help. Things take a more dramatic turn when the killer beings leaving clues and in fact calls out that he wants Poe to solve things.
There are some pretty beautiful one-liners. I left the theater wishing I had a note pad with me because my arm was covered in pen. A few of the more memorable lines follow, but I will forgo context to avoid ruining things.
"Is imagination now a felony?"
"God gave him a spark of genius, then drowned it in misery."
"I feel like I've gone from Author to Character in one of my tales."
And this one was very well delivered:
"You know I find you as revolting as some of your works." to which the reply comes, "Some, not all."
John Cusack captures Poe's attitude quite well. He fluctuates from manic-depressive drunk author to excited artistic man to many things in between. Poe's lines are delivered very well. The characters are engaging and real. The twists and turns keep you right in it. It is NOT a horror flick. It's a character drama mixed with a suspenseful mystery.
Also, Alice Eve (She's Out of My League) plays the main female interest. She does a good job at attracting Poe.
Brendan Gleeson (Harry Potter) plays Alice Eve's father and a minor antagonist to Poe before the murders start.
My vote: Must see for anyone who appreciates Poe, good writing, or cool twists. Worth a full price admission.
30 October, 2011
I didn’t know Anonymous wrote Poetry. I do love his Prose!
This review is a little more detailed than the rest - but that's because I used it for a homework assignment as well and it had to be 3 pages long. If you read the whole thing, I'll be impressed!
The mark of a decent movie is it will touch you for a moment. A good movie, however, will stick with you for days, and a great movie will change your mind. By the middle of the movie, “Anonymous,” I was growing more and more upset with William Shakespeare. The dialogue, imagery, and acting, were all powerful enough to nearly convince me that one of my personal heroes was a fraud!
Very much in the tradition of the Bard himself, the film uses a frame story. The film opens up on a busy, New York Street and pans up to Broadway. An elderly gentleman steps out of a cab and walks into a theater, which is displaying a marquis reading, “Anonymous.” He is met by a young man who informs him he is late, takes the elderly mans coat, and hands him an umbrella. A curtain rises, showing the man is onstage, and he begins addressing the audience in a very powerful monologue about how Shakespeare, the most famous playwright of all time, may have never written a word in his life. The monologue states a few of the traditional conspiracy theorist’s main points – that no manuscripts were found in his own handwriting, his plays were never mentioned in his will, etc. All the while, people backstage are milling around and the camera shows a stagehand lighting torches for actors on the stage. As the elderly man finishes up his monologue, he asks the audience to allow him to paint them a different picture of history and how these things actually happened. At this, the camera zooms in, the stage disappears, and we find ourselves in 16th/17th century England, watching a group of palace guards (holding the lanterns lit) chasing a man who is holding what appears to be a book.
The dialogue in the film is very powerful. It is cleverly crafted and beautifully written. Shakespeare himself would be proud of the banter between characters. In one particular scene, a man’s wife walks in on him writing a play, and she begins to get upset with him. “Edward,” she says, “ You’re writing again aren’t you? After you promised me you’d quit!” The scene is quite emotional, and the actors portray it well, but I couldn’t help but picture a modern woman yelling at her husband because he began drinking or smoking again. Writing was this man’s vice. Some of the dialogue is so powerful, it might
The imagery (costuming and scenery) is used very effectively to create a sense of despair among the characters. The costuming seemed very appropriate for the time. No objects seemed to be anachronistic. The streets in the “city” where the majority of the film takes place are muddy and wet. There are wooden planks strewn about on the ground, acting as a sort of rudimentary sidewalk system. The sky is almost always gray and cloudy, adding to the depressing nature of the film. The writers in the story are generally poor, alcoholic philanderers. These writers live off of their plays and cannot make much money doing so. They all had dirty hands from writing with quills and inkwells. It was very easy to get into the period and experience life through these characters’ eyes.
The powerful acting from the main characters is perhaps the strongest element in the film. Rhys Ifans plays Edward De Vere, the Earl of Oxford. In the film, he is the one who supposedly wrote all of “Shakespeare’s” plays. The reason he can’t publish his works is because he comes from a royal family and it is expected that he will focus on politics. The movie uses flashbacks to show how he wanted training in literature as well as politics and fencing. He was not allowed to write, as it was deemed a sacrilege and a form of idol-worship. He called on Ben Jonson to take the plays and perform them on stage – and when the audience goes wild, Shakespeare, a man from the acting company, pretends to be the author of the plays. After seeing an audience riot against the actors shortly after the “St. Crispin’s Day” from Henry V, Edward realizes that, through his words, he can sway masses.
A few very important scenes really show the power of the actors. In a scene where Edward and Shakespeare finally confront each other, we can see the terror in Edward’s eyes. Shakespeare, a drunken actor, is threatening blackmail against a member of the royal class. If Shakespeare reveals Edward’s secret, Edward would lose his status as an Earl. He would lose all respect in the kingdom. It was a shame for a nobleman to want to be a wordsmith. He knows, however, that the world needs his plays. More than that, they need his words. In the end, he makes the ultimate sacrifice. He bargains with the Queen, and to save someone’s life, he agrees that his plays will never be published under his name. The emotion present here in these two scenes is almost enough to bring tears to eyes. The characters prove to be so worthy of our sympathy that many in the audience forgot it was just a film. The bought in to the premise, which, I must admit, was presented very convincingly,
Listening to the comments of those in the audience with me, many believed it was more of an exposé than a piece of fiction. They were convinced that Shakespeare was, in fact, a fraud. “Anonymous” was a great movie. It did not change my mind about who actually wrote Shakespeare’s works (I still believe it was William Shakespeare), but it did have many lasting effects on me. The most noticeable effect is that I will never take for granted the power of words. The pen truly is mightier than the sword. Words can calm, and words can enrage; words can inspire benevolence and incite revolutions. Words have power.
MPAA Rating - PG13 for violence and brief sexuality.
Final word: If you like well-done movies, clever period-pieces, suspenseful character-dramas, Shakespeare, or english accents, This movie is a MUST SEE.
The mark of a decent movie is it will touch you for a moment. A good movie, however, will stick with you for days, and a great movie will change your mind. By the middle of the movie, “Anonymous,” I was growing more and more upset with William Shakespeare. The dialogue, imagery, and acting, were all powerful enough to nearly convince me that one of my personal heroes was a fraud!
Very much in the tradition of the Bard himself, the film uses a frame story. The film opens up on a busy, New York Street and pans up to Broadway. An elderly gentleman steps out of a cab and walks into a theater, which is displaying a marquis reading, “Anonymous.” He is met by a young man who informs him he is late, takes the elderly mans coat, and hands him an umbrella. A curtain rises, showing the man is onstage, and he begins addressing the audience in a very powerful monologue about how Shakespeare, the most famous playwright of all time, may have never written a word in his life. The monologue states a few of the traditional conspiracy theorist’s main points – that no manuscripts were found in his own handwriting, his plays were never mentioned in his will, etc. All the while, people backstage are milling around and the camera shows a stagehand lighting torches for actors on the stage. As the elderly man finishes up his monologue, he asks the audience to allow him to paint them a different picture of history and how these things actually happened. At this, the camera zooms in, the stage disappears, and we find ourselves in 16th/17th century England, watching a group of palace guards (holding the lanterns lit) chasing a man who is holding what appears to be a book.
The dialogue in the film is very powerful. It is cleverly crafted and beautifully written. Shakespeare himself would be proud of the banter between characters. In one particular scene, a man’s wife walks in on him writing a play, and she begins to get upset with him. “Edward,” she says, “ You’re writing again aren’t you? After you promised me you’d quit!” The scene is quite emotional, and the actors portray it well, but I couldn’t help but picture a modern woman yelling at her husband because he began drinking or smoking again. Writing was this man’s vice. Some of the dialogue is so powerful, it might
The imagery (costuming and scenery) is used very effectively to create a sense of despair among the characters. The costuming seemed very appropriate for the time. No objects seemed to be anachronistic. The streets in the “city” where the majority of the film takes place are muddy and wet. There are wooden planks strewn about on the ground, acting as a sort of rudimentary sidewalk system. The sky is almost always gray and cloudy, adding to the depressing nature of the film. The writers in the story are generally poor, alcoholic philanderers. These writers live off of their plays and cannot make much money doing so. They all had dirty hands from writing with quills and inkwells. It was very easy to get into the period and experience life through these characters’ eyes.
The powerful acting from the main characters is perhaps the strongest element in the film. Rhys Ifans plays Edward De Vere, the Earl of Oxford. In the film, he is the one who supposedly wrote all of “Shakespeare’s” plays. The reason he can’t publish his works is because he comes from a royal family and it is expected that he will focus on politics. The movie uses flashbacks to show how he wanted training in literature as well as politics and fencing. He was not allowed to write, as it was deemed a sacrilege and a form of idol-worship. He called on Ben Jonson to take the plays and perform them on stage – and when the audience goes wild, Shakespeare, a man from the acting company, pretends to be the author of the plays. After seeing an audience riot against the actors shortly after the “St. Crispin’s Day” from Henry V, Edward realizes that, through his words, he can sway masses.
A few very important scenes really show the power of the actors. In a scene where Edward and Shakespeare finally confront each other, we can see the terror in Edward’s eyes. Shakespeare, a drunken actor, is threatening blackmail against a member of the royal class. If Shakespeare reveals Edward’s secret, Edward would lose his status as an Earl. He would lose all respect in the kingdom. It was a shame for a nobleman to want to be a wordsmith. He knows, however, that the world needs his plays. More than that, they need his words. In the end, he makes the ultimate sacrifice. He bargains with the Queen, and to save someone’s life, he agrees that his plays will never be published under his name. The emotion present here in these two scenes is almost enough to bring tears to eyes. The characters prove to be so worthy of our sympathy that many in the audience forgot it was just a film. The bought in to the premise, which, I must admit, was presented very convincingly,
Listening to the comments of those in the audience with me, many believed it was more of an exposé than a piece of fiction. They were convinced that Shakespeare was, in fact, a fraud. “Anonymous” was a great movie. It did not change my mind about who actually wrote Shakespeare’s works (I still believe it was William Shakespeare), but it did have many lasting effects on me. The most noticeable effect is that I will never take for granted the power of words. The pen truly is mightier than the sword. Words can calm, and words can enrage; words can inspire benevolence and incite revolutions. Words have power.
MPAA Rating - PG13 for violence and brief sexuality.
Final word: If you like well-done movies, clever period-pieces, suspenseful character-dramas, Shakespeare, or english accents, This movie is a MUST SEE.
30 April, 2011
Sucker Punch
Sucker Punch
MPAA Rating – PG13 (for thematic material involving sexuality, violence and combat sequences, and for language.) I don’t remember much language, the sexuality is more sensual than erotic (meaning it isn’t sexy for the sake of being sexy), and the violence and combat is mostly stylized (video game-esque.)
Be prepared, you won’t know what hit you with Sucker Punch.
Some movie critics/reviewers gave Sucker Punch poor (if not terrible) reviews. They grossly misunderstood the movie. The reviews I read looked at the movie superficially. They portray the movie as a tale about 5 young girls in skimpy outfits fighting the most cliché villains: Nazi-Zombies, Orcs, a dragon, Robots, and Samurai-warriors. Certain scenes even play out like a video game.
Admittedly, that is what the images show us but the movie is about so much more than that. Without giving away too much, it is an endearing tale of Baby doll, the nickname given to the main character. Her mother dies and her stepfather (who is abusive to her and her younger sister) gets upset because the two girls inherit everything. After a tragic accident, Baby doll ends up in a mental hospital. There, she meets up four other girls who have been put in the institution. Their names are Rocket, Blondie, Sweet Pea, and Amber.
I will try to avoid spoilers, but this next part will dive a little deeper into the plot.
In order to escape the terrible situation that she is in, Baby doll creates an alternate reality to live in. In this reality, the hospital is actually a brothel, the head-orderly is a pimp, and the psychiatrist uses Polish Dance Therapy (pole dancing without the pole). In this reality, the girls all wear fairly traditional dancewear, i.e. leotards. So while the girls aren’t wearing pants and shirts, we see much less than in other PG13 movies. This secondary reality is better than the first, but it’s still not great so she creates an alternate reality inside the other (like Inception’s Dream-within-a-dream concept). In the 3rd reality, she uses an awesome 1911 handgun and a samurai sword, along with other weapons, to defeat the villains mentioned above. These villains are each guarding some object that will help the 5 protagonists escape the hospital. They need a map, fire, a knife, a key, and a 5th mystery-object. Whenever Baby doll dances, everyone in the room gets stunned into a trance, allowing the other girls to go find the real objects needed. If the movie were in fact meant only to arouse men with girls and guns, the director could have shown the girls doing their seductive dances. However, every time someone begins to dance, the camera zooms in to the dancer’s eye and transports her and the audience to this 3rd reality. The story isn’t about sex, arousal, or guns. Yes, the protagonists are good-looking girls, all about 23-25 years old, but that is just a median to portray the much deeper meaning of escapism, or making the best of your situation.
If you don’t understand the movie, you will see what the reviewers saw. If you have half a brain, you will see a beautifully artistic film about the quest for inner-peace (it almost has a religious aspect of it, without being religious at all). I gave this movie 4 stars. It is unique and bizarre, but it is definitely worth watching.
MPAA Rating – PG13 (for thematic material involving sexuality, violence and combat sequences, and for language.) I don’t remember much language, the sexuality is more sensual than erotic (meaning it isn’t sexy for the sake of being sexy), and the violence and combat is mostly stylized (video game-esque.)
Be prepared, you won’t know what hit you with Sucker Punch.
Some movie critics/reviewers gave Sucker Punch poor (if not terrible) reviews. They grossly misunderstood the movie. The reviews I read looked at the movie superficially. They portray the movie as a tale about 5 young girls in skimpy outfits fighting the most cliché villains: Nazi-Zombies, Orcs, a dragon, Robots, and Samurai-warriors. Certain scenes even play out like a video game.
Admittedly, that is what the images show us but the movie is about so much more than that. Without giving away too much, it is an endearing tale of Baby doll, the nickname given to the main character. Her mother dies and her stepfather (who is abusive to her and her younger sister) gets upset because the two girls inherit everything. After a tragic accident, Baby doll ends up in a mental hospital. There, she meets up four other girls who have been put in the institution. Their names are Rocket, Blondie, Sweet Pea, and Amber.
I will try to avoid spoilers, but this next part will dive a little deeper into the plot.
In order to escape the terrible situation that she is in, Baby doll creates an alternate reality to live in. In this reality, the hospital is actually a brothel, the head-orderly is a pimp, and the psychiatrist uses Polish Dance Therapy (pole dancing without the pole). In this reality, the girls all wear fairly traditional dancewear, i.e. leotards. So while the girls aren’t wearing pants and shirts, we see much less than in other PG13 movies. This secondary reality is better than the first, but it’s still not great so she creates an alternate reality inside the other (like Inception’s Dream-within-a-dream concept). In the 3rd reality, she uses an awesome 1911 handgun and a samurai sword, along with other weapons, to defeat the villains mentioned above. These villains are each guarding some object that will help the 5 protagonists escape the hospital. They need a map, fire, a knife, a key, and a 5th mystery-object. Whenever Baby doll dances, everyone in the room gets stunned into a trance, allowing the other girls to go find the real objects needed. If the movie were in fact meant only to arouse men with girls and guns, the director could have shown the girls doing their seductive dances. However, every time someone begins to dance, the camera zooms in to the dancer’s eye and transports her and the audience to this 3rd reality. The story isn’t about sex, arousal, or guns. Yes, the protagonists are good-looking girls, all about 23-25 years old, but that is just a median to portray the much deeper meaning of escapism, or making the best of your situation.
If you don’t understand the movie, you will see what the reviewers saw. If you have half a brain, you will see a beautifully artistic film about the quest for inner-peace (it almost has a religious aspect of it, without being religious at all). I gave this movie 4 stars. It is unique and bizarre, but it is definitely worth watching.
01 February, 2011
Chapter 27
This is not a new movie - it was made back in 2007 but I recently watched it and wanted to share a review.
Jared Leto (Lead singer for the band 30 Seconds to Mars) stars as Mark David Chapman, the man who shot John Lennon. The movie follows him on his 3-day journey in New York the days before he committed a murder that shook the music world, if not the world as a whole.
The story is laid out in "Stream-of-Consciousness" style, much the same way that Holden Caulfield in Salinger's "Catcher in the Rye" - the book that influenced Chapman and drove him to his heinous crime. We see flashes of his past and flashes of the future interlaced between moments of the present. We hear his thoughts as he speaks and interacts with the other members of the cast. The supporting cast itself is very small. Lindsay Lohan plays Jude, a Beatles fan that MDC meets a few times. Judah Friedlander (Frank from 30 Rock) plays Paul, a photographer. A few other characters we meet: A few cab drivers, a few doormen, a prostitute, a young Sean Lennon, and John Lennon. Yoko makes a quick appearance.
This is the kind of movie that you probably shouldn't watch alone. As it's about a murderer and follows his thought-processes, it can be a little hard to digest. Being able to discuss the movie and work out your feelings after watching it would be very helpful. I watched it alone and had to find something to calm me down before I went to bed. I listened to "Hey Jude", and was recommended by a friend to listen to "All you need is Love" because, as she said... "It's what John would want." That helped for sure.
Worth the watch, especially if you're a Beatles fan. As I said though, Probably don't watch it alone. Have someone to talk about it with after!!
MPAA Rating: R for A scene of violence, brief nudity, and Language.
SPOILER ALERT:
Just as "Catcher in the Rye" ends with an admission that the whole story has been Holden Caulfield talking to us from a Psychiatric Hospital, We find out that MDC has been telling us about his 3-day journey from a Pschiatric Hospital as well, furthering his dillusion that he was Holden Caulfield. "Catcher in the Rye" only has 26 chapters, and MDC believed that he was living in Chapter 27 of "Catcher in the Rye", hence the name of the movie.
Jared Leto (Lead singer for the band 30 Seconds to Mars) stars as Mark David Chapman, the man who shot John Lennon. The movie follows him on his 3-day journey in New York the days before he committed a murder that shook the music world, if not the world as a whole.
The story is laid out in "Stream-of-Consciousness" style, much the same way that Holden Caulfield in Salinger's "Catcher in the Rye" - the book that influenced Chapman and drove him to his heinous crime. We see flashes of his past and flashes of the future interlaced between moments of the present. We hear his thoughts as he speaks and interacts with the other members of the cast. The supporting cast itself is very small. Lindsay Lohan plays Jude, a Beatles fan that MDC meets a few times. Judah Friedlander (Frank from 30 Rock) plays Paul, a photographer. A few other characters we meet: A few cab drivers, a few doormen, a prostitute, a young Sean Lennon, and John Lennon. Yoko makes a quick appearance.
This is the kind of movie that you probably shouldn't watch alone. As it's about a murderer and follows his thought-processes, it can be a little hard to digest. Being able to discuss the movie and work out your feelings after watching it would be very helpful. I watched it alone and had to find something to calm me down before I went to bed. I listened to "Hey Jude", and was recommended by a friend to listen to "All you need is Love" because, as she said... "It's what John would want." That helped for sure.
Worth the watch, especially if you're a Beatles fan. As I said though, Probably don't watch it alone. Have someone to talk about it with after!!
MPAA Rating: R for A scene of violence, brief nudity, and Language.
SPOILER ALERT:
Just as "Catcher in the Rye" ends with an admission that the whole story has been Holden Caulfield talking to us from a Psychiatric Hospital, We find out that MDC has been telling us about his 3-day journey from a Pschiatric Hospital as well, furthering his dillusion that he was Holden Caulfield. "Catcher in the Rye" only has 26 chapters, and MDC believed that he was living in Chapter 27 of "Catcher in the Rye", hence the name of the movie.
31 January, 2011
The King's Speech
"...Because I Have a Voice!"
Warning: If you want action, explosions, and blood... this isn't the movie for you.
If you want a great, must-see movie... You know what to do.
"The King's Speech" - This movie was an excellently made character-drama. It follows "Bertie"... the Duke of York, son of King George V. He has a bad stutter. As Radio emerges, he has the need to give speeches in public. He has tried many speech-coaches but nothing works. That is, until he meets Lionel Logue. It follows his progression from Duke to King.
Cast: Collin Firth (Bertie), Geoffrey Rush (Logue), Guy Pearce (Edward, Bertie's Brother), Helena Bonham Carter (Elizabeth, Bertie's Wife), Michael Gambon (King George V), Timothy Spall (Winston Churchill)... Quite a high-class cast.
The story is quite endearing. You really get to know Bertie/King George VI. You feel his pain, you understand what it's like to stutter. In a few scenes, you might actually cry.
In other scenes, you will laugh. Sometimes the humor is subtle and witty, other times it's a little more obvious.
MPAA Rating: "R" For Language. There are 17 F-words and a few other S's, D's, and perhaps a few A's. An interesting fact about this, in England it was originally going to be rated at Age 15 due to the language, but the makers fought it down to an Age 12 because the language isn't used to be vulgar, offensive, or sexual. It is merely the word itself with little context... or to quote IMDB.COM, "Contains strong language in a speech therapy context".
(For those of you not familiar with those actors, Here's a cheat-sheet...
Geoffrey Rush plays Captain Barbosa in Pirates
HBC plays Bellatrix LeStrange in Harry Potter
Michael Gambon plays Dumbledore (the second incarnation) in Harry Potter
Timothy Spall plays Wormtail in Harry Potter.
that's right... A HP Reunion!)
Warning: If you want action, explosions, and blood... this isn't the movie for you.
If you want a great, must-see movie... You know what to do.
"The King's Speech" - This movie was an excellently made character-drama. It follows "Bertie"... the Duke of York, son of King George V. He has a bad stutter. As Radio emerges, he has the need to give speeches in public. He has tried many speech-coaches but nothing works. That is, until he meets Lionel Logue. It follows his progression from Duke to King.
Cast: Collin Firth (Bertie), Geoffrey Rush (Logue), Guy Pearce (Edward, Bertie's Brother), Helena Bonham Carter (Elizabeth, Bertie's Wife), Michael Gambon (King George V), Timothy Spall (Winston Churchill)... Quite a high-class cast.
The story is quite endearing. You really get to know Bertie/King George VI. You feel his pain, you understand what it's like to stutter. In a few scenes, you might actually cry.
In other scenes, you will laugh. Sometimes the humor is subtle and witty, other times it's a little more obvious.
MPAA Rating: "R" For Language. There are 17 F-words and a few other S's, D's, and perhaps a few A's. An interesting fact about this, in England it was originally going to be rated at Age 15 due to the language, but the makers fought it down to an Age 12 because the language isn't used to be vulgar, offensive, or sexual. It is merely the word itself with little context... or to quote IMDB.COM, "Contains strong language in a speech therapy context".
(For those of you not familiar with those actors, Here's a cheat-sheet...
Geoffrey Rush plays Captain Barbosa in Pirates
HBC plays Bellatrix LeStrange in Harry Potter
Michael Gambon plays Dumbledore (the second incarnation) in Harry Potter
Timothy Spall plays Wormtail in Harry Potter.
that's right... A HP Reunion!)
18 January, 2011
The Green Hornet
If you like Seth Rogen, go see The Green Hornet.
The Green Hornet was an interesting movie. Kato was quite a fun character to watch. The fight scenes, although often drawn out, were mostly very intense. They were shot really well and I enjoyed the unique way that Kato saw the fights, weapons outlined in red. It reminded me of the Sherlock Holmes scenes where Robert Downy JR would pre-choreograph the fight in his head using his awesome deductive reasoning skills.
Seth Rogen was hardly playing Britt Reid.... he once again played Seth Rogen. This is ok, however, if you like Seth Rogen. A lot of the comedy was low-comedy, i.e. a lot of men were kicked and/or hit in the junk.
I felt the daddy-issues were resolved a little too quickly, but it made for an interesting plot-twist. The story was time-realistic. I thought that was clever as well. When Britt knocks himself with the Gas-Gun, he is out for 11 days and wakes up with a much fuller beard. Another time, Britt is thinking, piecing parts of the puzzle together and it takes him a little bit. One of the characters says something like "I can see by the look you've had in your eye for the last 5 minutes that..."
Back to the fight scenes... they were gruesome but not graphic. People getting crushed inside of cars, stabbed with table-legs, etc. but there is minimal blood. I thought Christoph Waltz's character, Chudnofsky/Bloodnofsky was very 1-dimensional and terribly clever. He was so simple, not complex at all, yet altogether likeable as a villian.
Some of the funniest parts of the movie were subtle lines, like Waltz's explanation of the double-gun or why he wants to wear red.
I personally enjoyed seeing Edward James Olmos, but cliche, he was James Reid's number-2 man and when Britt inherited it, he tried to run the company instead of letting Britt (reminds of Jeff Bridges character in Iron Man.) They do address this issue and work it out, which was a clever change of pace.
All in all, I give the movie 3.5 stars. Worth seeing at least once, but if you aren't a Seth Rogen fan, you'd be fine to wait for it to come out before seeing it.
Rated PG-13 for violence, language, and intense sequences.
The Green Hornet was an interesting movie. Kato was quite a fun character to watch. The fight scenes, although often drawn out, were mostly very intense. They were shot really well and I enjoyed the unique way that Kato saw the fights, weapons outlined in red. It reminded me of the Sherlock Holmes scenes where Robert Downy JR would pre-choreograph the fight in his head using his awesome deductive reasoning skills.
Seth Rogen was hardly playing Britt Reid.... he once again played Seth Rogen. This is ok, however, if you like Seth Rogen. A lot of the comedy was low-comedy, i.e. a lot of men were kicked and/or hit in the junk.
I felt the daddy-issues were resolved a little too quickly, but it made for an interesting plot-twist. The story was time-realistic. I thought that was clever as well. When Britt knocks himself with the Gas-Gun, he is out for 11 days and wakes up with a much fuller beard. Another time, Britt is thinking, piecing parts of the puzzle together and it takes him a little bit. One of the characters says something like "I can see by the look you've had in your eye for the last 5 minutes that..."
Back to the fight scenes... they were gruesome but not graphic. People getting crushed inside of cars, stabbed with table-legs, etc. but there is minimal blood. I thought Christoph Waltz's character, Chudnofsky/Bloodnofsky was very 1-dimensional and terribly clever. He was so simple, not complex at all, yet altogether likeable as a villian.
Some of the funniest parts of the movie were subtle lines, like Waltz's explanation of the double-gun or why he wants to wear red.
I personally enjoyed seeing Edward James Olmos, but cliche, he was James Reid's number-2 man and when Britt inherited it, he tried to run the company instead of letting Britt (reminds of Jeff Bridges character in Iron Man.) They do address this issue and work it out, which was a clever change of pace.
All in all, I give the movie 3.5 stars. Worth seeing at least once, but if you aren't a Seth Rogen fan, you'd be fine to wait for it to come out before seeing it.
Rated PG-13 for violence, language, and intense sequences.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)