So I'm putting this on hiatus for a few days.
Watching a movie each day has become somewhat burdensome, plus I feel I don't gain as much from movies if I'm watching so many in a short span of time. I'm considering tuning it down to 2-4 per week to make it easier.
-Ben
Full title: Dr. Strangelove (Or: How I learned To Stop Worrying And Love The Bomb)
I really enjoyed this film. Not because it was exciting (it wasn't especially) but because it had a very interesting message.
Essentially, Dr. Strangelove explores the likelihood of an imminent nuclear holocaust. In the film, such an event takes place within a matter of about three hours. Scary stuff. Strangelove demonstrates man's rash nature and even man's immaturity in areas of foreign relations. This issue is brilliantly highlighted by absurdist humor.
This is one of Stanley Kubrick's earlier films (1964), yet it does not fail to impress.
Had a hankering for some Kevin Costner today. Yes, such a thing exists.
So this is a pretty fun movie. Full of wonderful paranormal goodies and such. That's really about all there is to it. Costner is as cool as ever. Yeah.
I would write more tonight. But I'm not.
I know I've been watching more "cheap entertainment" type films lately. But you watch an art movie every day. You'd rake out your eyeballs. Not that they're not enjoyable (they are), but as with any "art," you can only handle so much at once. Like fine wine, or something.
No, I haven't read the book.
Yes, I wanted to watch a documentary-ish movie anyway.
Sue me.
That being said, I don't think I'll be watching too many more movies that aren't intended for art/entertainment (at least not for this blog) as they don't leave me with much to talk about.
I can say things like "this is a very interesting movie" and "they make some very valid points." However, the book is probably even more interesting, but this isn't a book blog. And I'm entirely unqualified to judge whether any of these points are valid. So the only things I can say with assurance are along the lines of "I like this" and "that seems reasonable." Hardly earth-shattering.
Yet, this isn't really a documentary, so I see no reason why I wouldn't watch those. After all, movies "based on a true story" are just documentaries with actors right? (Sarcasm.)
Holy Bale, Batman (see what I did there)!
Yay for my first in-theater movie of this streak.
This post is terribly late (I watched the movie last night); I've been way too tired to write this.
The Fighter has a very authentic feel. While Micky Ward (Mark Wahlberg) is the protagonist of the film, his character is pretty static. His older brother, Dicky Eklund (Christian Bale) is a much more colorful character, and Bale truly steals the show with an incredible performance. Bale's character is nothing like that of his recent movies. He is excitable, thin (Bale lost something like 30 pounds for the role), and incredibly authentic. That's not to say Wahlberg wasn't good, he just didn't have as much to work with.
This movie breaks many of the stereotypes of athletic movies. Not. But I won't complain, because it fits those stereotypes in a non-irritating way. Yes, there are the trademark obstacles and the epic, edge-of-your-seat, final match, but they are presented amidst a slew of subplot-related drama, which serves as a sort of buffer.
This is incredibly un-Clint-Eastwood, despite his directing it. On the other hand, this is an incredible film.
Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil features John Kelso (John Cusack), a writer for Wine & Country Magazine from New York who has come to Savannah, Georgia to cover one of the wealthy Jim Williams' (Kevin Spacey) famous Christmas parties. But, when tragedy strikes, Kelso's purpose in Savannah changes.
This is an incredible performance both by Cusack, who plays the role of the skeptical journalist very well, and Spacey, who incredibly accurately captures the warm regality of the southern upper-class. His Georgia accent is nice too.
The film is an intriguing blend of criminal trial and cultural exploration, and it definitely demonstrates Eastwood's depth.
The thing about preachy movies is they're only annoying when they do not have a legitimate message. This one does. A really legitimate one.
Essentially, Pay It Forward speaks to how good deeds on a small scale can really add up, yet it does not overlook how significant they can be on that small scale as well. In doing so, the movie does a very effective job of doing its preaching (the good kind).
Unfortunately, as nearly all of the thematic content in the film is plot-based, I can't go into much detail about it. I refrain from spoiling movies because I think any movie can be sufficiently discussed without giving away the plot, and because I have this little fantasy that at some point I'll inspire someone to watch one of these (lame on my part, I know).
If you've been reading these in the past week or so, you'll know what I think of him, but it just needs to be said that Kevin Spacey is an incredible actor. I'm trying to watch more of his movies to get a better feel for his acting range, but he really does a great job in every film I've seen him in. I look forward to more.
Well this is a grim one. It's also pretty trippy/creepy, so forgive me for not writing a whole lot. I'm in a strange space at the moment.
Shutter Island is quite an interesting mystery flick. Sort of like an Agatha Christie novel, but less happy. A lot less.
I don't really know what else to say about this one. It was very well produced, but I guess I was expecting it to be more of a thriller than it is.
However, if this film does one thing well, its immersing the viewer in the chaos of the plot. As the story unravels and insanity emerges, the viewer is right there, swimming in every detail of artificial worlds and false realities.
I'd really hate to be crazy.
There really is nothing like a good Clint Eastwood war flick. I'm just about ready to go on a commie hunt after this one.
In Heartbreak Ridge, Eastwood plays Thomas Highway, an aging, tough-as-nails (no surprise there) Marine Gunnery Sergeant in the '80s unwilling (or perhaps unable) to let go of the Marines he knows and loves, whipping a platoon into shape along the way.
Just imagine the stock Eastwood character's (Dirty Harry, The Good, the Bad and the Ugly, etc.) reaction to hot pants and the Moonwalk. That's pretty much what this movie is.
This isn't a traditional war movie in the sense that for most of its duration, the film focuses on Highway's training of his platoon. Think Stanley Kubrick's Full Metal Jacket with less combat and without the... gloom.
So I was adding all of the Kevin Spacey movies on Netflix instant watch to my queue the other day, and today I wound up watching this one. He doesn't star in it, but Dustin Hoffman does. So I'm not complaining.
Outbreak is a thrilling film about (you guessed it) an outbreak of a new highly lethal and contagious virus. It's scary.
The plot is fairly simple so I won't go into that too much. The best acting in the film is probably Morgan Freeman's, as unfortunately Dustin Hoffman's and Kevin Spacey's characters were too static to do much with.
With that said (and that's mostly all there is to say, as Outbreak is fairly simple), I'd like to go off on a little tangent. It has to do with the fact that this movie has a 59% on Rotten Tomatoes and how little I care about that.
My view is that movies (the ones we see, at least) are inherently good, for one reason or another. The folks who spend millions of dollars and thousands of hours to create movies wouldn't do so if they didn't think they had something good on their hands. As such, the bad ones tend to get sifted out and aren't made. But this poses a problem to the consumer. If every movie is good, how do we know which to see? I doubt there is anyone who sees every movie that hits box offices, and many see very few at all. Thus, people need a mechanism by which to make decisions about which movie they should spend their twelve dollars on. Therein lies our demand for critics.
Film criticism is very easily accessible (handy sites have even developed ranking systems created from scores of critic reviews) and so, for simplicity's sake, people have come to rely on them. Yet, with so many critics out there, the consumers who'd like to read actual reviews have come to prefer critics who provide a greater spark to their reviews. After all, everything (even reviews of entertainment) is entertainment. This has given credence to more critical critics and, as such, this has become the norm. Because of this, every movie that isn't the Mona Lisa on film is regarded as sub-par. For the sake of not beginning to rant, I'll end my tangent right about here.
I can't help but feel that we're moving in the wrong direction here. I have no means of uprooting societal tendencies like these, but what I can do is present a view of the films Hollywood spits out as they are: inherently good.
