Dell's Good, Bad & Ugly Movie Reviews

[dell71]

Battle: Los Angeles
Directed by Jonathan Liebesman.
2010. Rated PG-13, 116 minutes.
Cast:
Aaron Eckhart
Ramon Rodriguez
Cory Hadrict
Michelle Rodriguez
Ne-Yo
Bridget Moynahan
Michael Peña
Adetokumboh M’Cormack
Noel Fisher

Let’s not kid ourselves. If you’re interested in Battle: Los Angeles you’ve already seen it a dozen times or more. Random aliens land on Earth and promptly start exterminating humans. There is no “I come in peace,” or “take me to your leader.” They just land their ships and hop out shooting. We follow a small group of heroes who’ve been suddenly thrust into war with an intergalactic enemy. In this case, it’s a platoon of Marines led by Staff Sgt. Nantz (Eckhart), sorta. Lt. Martinez is supposed to be in charge and talks like it. However, he’s fresh out of school and apparently just recently stopped wetting the bed. The crew is made up the normal Hollywood band of merry men. There’s a few white guys, a few black guys, a couple guys of other nationalities. Of course, they each have their issues. One guy is stressed over helping his fiancée plan their wedding, another guy has anger management problems, and so on. Which guy is which is largely irrelevant. The only thing that matters, aside from some very grumpy extra-terrestrials, is that a bunch of Marines under Nantz’ command were killed the last time he was in a combat situation. Oh, one other thing: along the way they pick up a few random Marines and a dad with two small children. That’s more than you need to know.

If you’re looking for non-stop action, this is the place to be. If plot is important to you, this is not. For what it is, it’s well done. Danger lurks around every corner, down every dark corridor and surrounding the outside of whatever our heroes are trapped in. They strategize, build each other up, tear each other down, strategize some more and still don’t always make the most logical decisions. It’s a fun time. Still, it is what it is: rehashed, predictable and far too lazy to bother with any reasonable explanation for what the aliens hope to accomplish. Well, there is a reason. Assuming they had to come from millions of miles away, it makes no sense. It’s basically equivalent to getting in your car and driving six hours to get gas. Watch it for the action. It’s an effective popcorn flick. If you think about what you’re seeing though, you’re asking for trouble.

MY SCORE: 6/10

[dope]

there are two movies that no matter how many times i see them i'll cry and cry hard, one is simon birch and the other is big fish. brnt has really conveyed the main reason i feel such emotion when that movie plays

[LiquidLarry2GhostWF]

I Saw the Devil
Directed by Jee-woon Kim.
2010. Not Rated, 141 minutes.
Cast:
Byung-hun Lee
Min-sik Choi
Gook-hwan Jeon
Ho-jin Jeon
San-ha Oh
Yoon-seo Kim

Joo-yeon (Oh) is stranded on the side of the road on a snowy night with a flat tire. She is on the phone with her husband Kim Soo-hyeon (Lee) who is also a secret agent of some sort. In fact, he’s at work at this precise moment. A stranger approaches Joo-Yeon’s door, offering to help. Wisely, and with the agreement of her hubby, she only cracks the window enough to tell him she going to wait on the tow truck she’s already called. Obviously, they’ve seen a horror movie or two. Pretty soon, duty calls and hubby has to hang up the phone and get back to work. Just in case you can’t figure out where all this is going the creepy dude bashes in Joo-yeon’s window, knocks her out in a most untidy manner and drags her, quite literally at some points, back to his place. That’s when he really has his fun. Suffice it to say when the police find her, it’s not all at once. Trust me, this is only the beginning of a very bumpy ride.

Not one to sit idly by, Kim decides he’s going after the bad guy himself. Don’t you worry. This movie won’t bore you with detective work. He quickly learns the police have four main susupects who have been accused of similar crimes in the past. He immediately takes bereavement leave and starts tracking them down where they live and does some not so nice things to them.

Eventually, Kim not only gets to the right guy, but there is no doubt about it. That guy is Kyung-chul played by Min-sik Choi. Fans of Park Chan-wook’s “Trilogy of Vengeance” will remember him from the two best movies in that series, Lady Vengeance and most notably as our hero in Oldboy. Here, he the other side of the coin and barely recognizable (that’s him in the pic). He’s a completely amoral merciless homicidal maniac. Much like Javier Bardem’s performance in No Country for Old Men, he goes about his business in an awfully calm manner making him far more menacing than he would’ve been had he been a screaming, raging lunatic. It’s a remarkable performance.

The two men meet rather early in the movie. Because they do, a question presents itself and weaves itself into the fabric of the movie: To truly get revenge on a monster, do you have to become one yourself. It seems Kim does. Whenever our two combatants square off there are considerable fireworks. Kim is not content with merely killing Kyung-chul. He wants to make him suffer as much as possible which involves tracking him down beating him half to death and maiming him in some way then letting him go so he can do it all over again.

Between their meetings there is great tension and, thanks to our villain’s excursions plenty more very nasty happenings. This movie is not for the squeamish. It may be one of the more brutally violent films you’ll ever see. Still, despite the seemingly gallons of blood spilled and dozens of blows to various heads with heavy blunt objects (pipe, fire extinguisher, etc), this is no simple gore-fest. It blends the genres horror, thriller and action to create an unflinching and slyly complex revenge flick. It’s one downfall, aside from the violence if that’s too much for you, is that the end is a bit predictable. However, even then the manner in which it’s handled is brilliantly grotesque. Then we have to decide whether this ordeal was really worth it for the one left standing. As the credits roll bringing our thrilling and disturbing journey to a close we still have one more important question to ponder: Who really won?

MY SCORE: 9/10

I liked this movie...but the more I think about it, the more off the wall it is.

The bad guy is being chased by the good guy and the bad guy is just killing motherfuckers in his path of trying to get away from the good guy.

My issue is, I wish they slowed the film down a little bit. They made it into this shoot'em up film but I think the concept would have been better if they slowed it down and drew out the tension a little bit. As is there was a lot of filler in there.

[dell71]

Great stuff on "Big Fish". Thanks fellas.

Larry:

I see your point on "ISTD", but I thought the pace and length all worked well together. They took me deep inside these guys' worlds, especially the bad guy. No denying that the whole thing is completely off the wall, but I'm perfectly fine with that.

[dell71]

Hereafter
Directed by Clint Eastwood.
2010. Rated PG-13, 129 minutes.
Cast:
Matt Damon
Cécile De France
Frankie McLaren
George McLaren
Jay Mohr
Thierry Neuvic
Bryce Dallas Howard
Lyndsey Marshal

Let me start with this: Clint Eastwood is one of my favorite directors working today. He’s made some of my favorite movies across several genres. There’s Unforgiven (western), Million Dollar Baby (sports), Letters From Iwo Jima (war) and Gran Torino (bigoted old fart).

With that out of the way, let’s talk about Hereafter. It’s one of those movies that follows several supposedly unrelated storylines that will, at some point, intersect. First, we meet Marie (De France) the French TV news reporter who miraculously survives a tsunami while on vacation in Indonesia. By the way, this is the first ten minutes of the movie and by far, the best scene. Next, there’s Marcus and Jason (Frankie and George McLaren), the English twin brothers who miraculously survive a constantly drunk mother. Finally there’s the American, George (Damon) who’s miraculously survived boring himself to death. He also happens to have a genuine ability to talk to the dead.

Starting with Marie’s little tangle with the tsunami, the question that hangs over the proceedings is: what happens to us after we die. She pontificates on it every chance she gets. Don’t worry, despite all her talking she doesn’t actually say anything. Eventually, she pens a book claiming to have scientific proof. Um…okay. Any chance we can get a peek at this? Of course not. The twins get in on this whole issue because Jason dies and Marcus goes on a quest to find someone to help him communicate with his brother. Hmmm, wonder where this is going. George tries not to know. He’s a little ornery because his ability has robbed him of a normal life. His own brother keeps trying to get him to use his powers because there is big money in it. However, it’s the big money and accompanying spotlight that drove George into self-induced exile. Anyhoo, this plays out for two hours. Two long hours. Two long, boring hours.

To be fair, Eastwood manages to inject some intrigue here and there. We get a few interesting scenes and our interest piques because we get the sense that this whole thing is eventually going somewhere. It doesn’t. Actually, it does. It just doesn’t go anywhere near where we though it was going. Often, this is a good thing, gives a movie the element of surprise. Here, it’s a bad thing. It’s a very bad thing. It makes an already pretentious movie even more so. The three strands of the story come together in a most contrived manner for an utterly corny ending. Worst of all, it never even bothers attempting to answer the question it spends nearly its entire runtime beating us over the head with. If you’re curious about the possibility of a hereafter go speak to your local clergy, read some books on the subject or google it. Whatever you do, don’t try to find the answers here.

MY SCORE: 2/10

[LiquidLarry2GhostWF]

After I finished Hereafter, the first thing I thought was..."whats the point"...not of life or death, but what was the point of watching that movie.

The definition of a waste of time.

[Senser81]

Dell, have you reviewed the original Wall Street movie? Too lazy to search.

[dell71]

Yeah - think its in the same post as the sequel. Haven't gotten around to fixing all the links in the op since the whole server deal and my cheapo phone won't let me do anything more complicated than type this post so I'll have to wait until I get home to dig it up for you.
TXT8026/T05_0 UP.Browser/6.2.3.2 (GUI) MMP/2.0

[Houston]

Dell, have you reviewed the original Wall Street movie? Too lazy to search.

Just type "Wall Street" in the "Search this thread" box.

http://www.virtualsportsdaily.com/forum/showthread.php?p=1663015&highlight=wall+street#post1663015

[dell71]

Blue Valentine
Directed by Derek Cianfrance.
2010. Rated R, 112 minutes.
Cast:
Ryan Gosling
Michelle Williams
Faith Wladyka
Mike Vogel
John Doman
Carey Westbrook
Ben Shenkman
Marshall Johnson

Dean (Gosling) and Cindy (Williams) are a young married couple with a very cute little girl. Blue Valentine is both the story of how they got to this point and where they’re going next. Their marriage clearly lacks passion. It seems to have been replaced by the daily routines of work, sleep and mutual doting on their daughter. Like most unions that aren’t arranged or otherwise forced, it wasn’t always this way. To illustrate this, we first meet them as they are now. Then we meet them again before they’ve even met each other. Back and forth in time we bounce until the many fragments form a complete picture. Since this is a slice-of-life film, there really is no plot. We’re simply voyeurs to their relationship, watching to see what happens between them. What happens is their relationship goes through all of the emotional ups and downs we’d expect. The big question is: are the ups enough to carry them through the downs?

The remarkable thing about BV is that it doesn’t feel like we’re watching a movie play out. It really feels like we’re witnessing the lives of the people onscreen. It feels shown to us, not staged for us. To this end, the writing and acting are remarkable. Both effortlessly give us multi-dimensional characters. The writing, though saddled with the task of making fiction seem like reality, it turns the trick without straining. It helps that it is unencumbered by having to adhere to the conventions of a date movie. It also doesn’t appear to be on anyone’s side, leaving us to decide for ourselves who to root for, if we choose either. The best compliment I can pay the acting is that its completely natural. We never feel that stars Ryan Gosling and Michelle Williams are playing roles. Don’t be mistaken, though. This isn’t the same as mega stars like Jack Nicholson, Denzel Washington or Al Pacino who often just apply their well-known personas to whatever role they happen to be playing at the time. These two feel like real people.

Even though this is a remarkable film, its not for everyone. As mentiond, it is not a date movie despite the fact we’re focused on a relationship. That means it’s certainly no rom-com. It’s not an over-the-top melodrama, either. It might be a tear-jerker. Whether you cry or not, it’s not a feel-good movie. What it does is give us food for thought, something to discuss. This isn’t about characters in a movie. This is about people we know, perhaps even about the people we are.

MY SCORE: 9/10

[dell71]

Ip Man 2
Directed by Wilson Yip.
2010. Rated R, 108 minutes.
Cast:
Donnie Yen
Sammo Hung
Lynn Hung
Simon Yam
Siu-Wong Fan
Kent Cheng
Darren Shahlavi
Xiaoming Huang

At the end of the first movie, we’re told Ip Man relocates to Hong Kong and begins teaching martial arts. Roughly ten years later, he finds his prize pupil in none other than the legendary Bruce Lee. Ip Man 2 covers the time in his life between those two events. When we catch up with our hero he hasn’t been in Hong Kong, nor had his school open, for very long. In fact, he doesn’t even have any students yet. Eventually, one young man finds his way to Ip’s school hoping to learn Wing Chun. Of course, before he decides if he wants Ip as a master he has to try to defeat him first. After all, no sense learning how to fight from a guy you can beat up. If you saw the first movie then you know how such things turn out. Not only does the young man become Ip’s student, he brings back a bunch of friends before fully agreeing. Yes, they all try to beat him at once before they figure he’d be a good teacher to have.

If you know anything about movies then you know things aren’t all hunky dory after this. After word spreads about Ip’s school he fins he’s run afoul of the local crime-boss who also leads sort of a syndicate of martial arts masters. It seems you can’t teach martial arts in Hong Kong without their permission. How do you get their permission? Yup, gotta do some more fighting. This time it’s on a tabletop. You gotta see it to believe. In addition to all this, the British Army has a large presence in the city. One of their high-ranking officers has recruited their country’s heavyweight boxing champ to show these “Chinamen” a thing or two. He’s big, brash and has his WWE swag going full tilt.

Both films in th set are formulaic. The first is expertly crafted, helping us to gloss over its flaws. This one is well done also, just not quite as well. With such a easy reference point as its predecessor the formula, and the cracks in it, are more apparent. There is also an additional problem. Ip’s family recedes even farther into the background despite the fact they are about to add another mouth to feed. This lessens the overall experience. They help the first movie become greater than just a kung fu flick. That movie is about growing as a man, accepting responsibility, revenge and national pride. This one keeps the last two elements, but is much more about fighting than the original.

Don’t get me wrong. IM2 is still a very entertaining watch. The formula still holds together. It’s not quite as moving as it was t he first time, but it does the job. Then, there are those fight scenes. Once agina, we get a number of adrenaline pumping battles for us to feast our eyes on. To thank for that, we have the one and only Sammo Hung. He’s been in tons of kung fu flicks since the 1960s. To most Americans, he most remembered for starring in the TV series “Martial Law.” Here, he plays Master Hong, the crime-boss/martial arts master. However, he has a dual role. He also choreographed the fighting, as he did for the original film. Kudos to him. Martial arts fans and fans of the first movie should definitely check out this installment.

MY SCORE: 7/10

[dell71]

Exit Through the Gift Shop
Directed by Banksy.
2010. Rated R, 87 minutes.
Cast:
Thierry Guetta
Banksy
Space Invader
Shepard Fairey
Rhys Ifans
Deborah Guetta

For all of his adult life Thierry (pronounced Terry) has carried around a video camera and filmed everything he came across. To say he was obsessed with the activity is an understatement on the level of saying the sun is kind of warm. By chance, he meets and latches on to a street artist named Space Invader. Invader’s specialty is putting up characters from the iconic video game on any surface he could get to and get away with around Los Angeles. Thierry tags along on Invaders excursions with the camera always rolling. Through Invader, Thierry starts meeting all sorts of street artists, some would call them vandals. He becomes entrenched in their community, allowed to film them constantly. Eventually, his new obsession of recording as much street art as possible takes him around the world. It also puts him on a collision course with Banksy, the most notorious and mysterious street artist in the world. With this and the mound of footage he’s amassed Thierry decides he’s going to make a documentary. Exit Through the Gift Shop is not that movie. In essence, this is a documentary about a documentary no one has ever seen. It’s also about what happens to Thierry after it becomes apparent he’s no documentarian. I realize that sounds ominous, but it’s not like that at all. Thierry’s life is a fun and amazing journey. The question is: is what happens to Thierry good for his beloved street art and what does his experience say about it?

Exit is intriguing, funny and cautiously triumphant. It’s also visually captivating watching thes guys take a guerilla style approach to getting their work seen. Fans of graffiti, of which street art is a direct descendant, will thoroughly enjoy this aspect. Once Banksy is introduced, what we see is not only candy for our eyes, it offers food for thought. The artist himself is a shadowy and compelling figure. However, Thierry is the unquestioned star. He has fun talking. We have fun listening.

If there is a major flaw in Exit, its that it brings up the tough questions then sidesteps them. We never really get a serious discussion on whether or not street art is actually art. We don’t find out about the current state of the relationship between Thierry and the street art community. Is he an artist? What about the effect all of this has had on his wife and children whom he spent many nights away from on what appears to be a fruitless endeavor. All of these things are touched on, but not delved into. This is much more about Thierry’s account, as well as of those who were there, of how he arrives at the place we meet him. If you’re looking for a seious meditation on street art or a chronicling of its history, don’t look here. If you want a fun time, an interesting story and to see some cool stuff then Exit Through the Gift Shop.

MY SCORE: 7.5/10

[dell71]

True Grit
Directed by Henry Hathaway.
1969. Rated G, 128 minutes.
Cast:
John Wayne
Kim Darby
Glen Campbell
Robert Duvall
Jeff Corey
Dennis Hopper
Strother Martin
John Fiedler

After her dad is murdered, Mattie Rose (Darby) decides she wants to do something about it. She finds the law’s approach insufficient. Despite having the identity of her father’s killer, the sheriff is not willing to go after the man because he’s believed to be hiding out in “Indian Country”. None too please, Mattie enlist the help of the town’s meanest U.S. Marshall, Rooster Cogburn (Wayne) to help her track down the murderer Tom Chaney (Corey) and bring him to justice. He’s reluctant, to say the least, to work for a teenaged girl. Because Rooster is known around town as a man with grit, she never second guesses her own decision to hire him. However, she does have to contend with the fact that he’s quite often drunk.

The two engage in a tremendous battle of wills. They both desperately need to call the shots. Since Mattie has the money, she wins more often than not. She’s also a shrewd businesswoman who wields her bargaining chips many times more fiercly than Rooster does his gun. She is a force of nature seemingly unable to be deterred. Her drive, not only compels the people around her, but us the viewers as well. It’s a complex role written simply. What it boils down to is this: We like her, “they” do not. She rubs them the wrong way. Darby plays the role to perfection. She makes us understand why Mattie is disliked by many in her world while simultaneously making us like her in ours.

Opposite Darby, John Wayne turns in an Academy Award winning performance. Through him, and an excellent script, we see a man full of bravado spouting off the rhetoric of the overtly macho whenever challenged. We also see a man emotionally crippled by his past. This second trait reveals itself slowly over the course of the film. As the pieces of his life before Mattie drift into focus we understand him more and more. What we’re watching is the deconstruction of the John Wayne persona. In my opinion, it’s not quite as good as his work in The Searchers, but it isn’t far from it.

Through it all, we get a western that’s not built on shootouts. They are an element, not the point. It’s much more about outwitting the opposition than gunning them down. Our heroes are more cerebral than instinctive. However they’re not like Hamlet, over-analyzing everything to the point of exhaustion. They are a potent mix of thought and action, as is the entire film.

MY SCORE: 8.5/10



True Grit
Directed by the Coen Brothers.
2010. Rated PG-13, 110 minutes.
Cast:
Jeff Bridges
Hailee Steinfeld
Matt Damon
Josh Brolin
Barry Pepper
Dakin Matthews

Fear doesn’t enter into Rooster Cogburn’s (Bridges) thinking. This is why Mattie Rose (Steinfeld) picks him when she decides to hire a U.S. Marshall to track down Tom Chaney (Brolin), her father’s murderer. Mattie is all of fourteen years old. Whe’s left her widowed mother behind with her younger sister and aims to dee justice done. Rooster reluctantly accepts the job since he’s not one to turn down money. He’s definitely not keen on her insistence on tagging along. However, he learns rather quickly she is not to be denied. Off they go, on the trail of a killer. Much to Mattie’s chagrin, they’re joined by Texas Ranger Mr. LaBoeuf (Damon). He’s after Chaney himself for killing a senator back in the lone star state. This is a remake of the Academy Award winning 1969 western which stars John Wayne in the role of Rooster.

This time around, Rooster is played by Jeff Bridges. Though he’ll never be anywhere near as iconic as the Duke, I believe Bridges to be the superior actor. Both men do a superb job with the role. After all, Wayne won an Oscar for his effort. Still, Wayne is undercut by his own celebrity. We’re always watching John Wayne, just with an eyepatch. In Bridges’ case, the eyepatch, unruly beard, weathered skin and gruffier-than-usual voice all help him to get lost int his character. He moves differently than the Dude (The Big Lebowski), or Bad Blake (Crazy Heart). He is not Jeff Bridges, he’s Rooster Cogburn.

To maximize Bridges’ performance he has to have someone who’s work can stand next to his without wilting. Hailee Steinfeld gives us that and more. Her Mattie is as feisty and determined as they come. She selects Rooster for the job because she wants a man with true grit. It becomes apparent she may be even grittier than he. It seems fear doesn’t enter into her thinking, either.

Narratively, there are differences between this and the original. Of course, the movie explicitly tells us at the beginning it’s based on the novel of the same name. Having not read it, I’m ignorant of which changes come from those pages and which are from the minds of our directors, the Coen brothers. Almost all of their choices feel right. Most notably, the character Mr. LaBoeuf is very different. In the original, Glen Campbell played him with a “gee-willikers” look on his face and a “just happy to be here” attitude. Damon plays him straight-faced and just as head-strong as his two uneasy partners. As a result, the dynamics between the three works differently. It’s more contentious. Best of all, we believe this LaBoeuf stands a real chance in a fight with Rooster. We thought the original did not.

A few of the changes are pure 21st century. For one, the violence is certainly more violent. This is no gore-fest, but the camera doesn’t shy away either. We never meet either of Mattie’s parents. It’s clear that even her dad is not important to this movie. Mattie’s quest to avenge him is. This version is also wisely much more politically correct. Tom Chaney is hiding out, but the place he takes refuge in is not called “Indian Country”. The Asian store owner is barely in the movie. The same goes for the Black farmhand, presumably an ex-slave, who escorts Mattie into the town where her father was killed. However true to its source keeping those things may be, they’re not needed. The Coens have effectively trimmed the fat, giving us leaner and still fulfilling meat. Rare is the remake that can stand up next to its inspiration. This one not only does, I believe it surpasses it.

MY SCORE: 9/10

[Houston]

Breathless AKA À bout de souffle
1960. Not Rated, 90 minutes.
Director: Jean-Luc Godard.
Starring Jean-Paul Belmondo, Jean Seberg, Daniel Boulanger, Jean-Pierre Melville.
Small time hustler Michel (Belmondo) kills a police officer. While the cops look for him, he loods for love, well mostly sex, and a few quick bucks here and there. Its lauded as a classic because the artistry on display is spectacular. The way the camera is used is ahead of its time. The nuances of conversation are also well captured by both the dialogue and the performances. Its also paced nicely as we zip through the story but it doesn't rush or drag. Its a technical marvel of a film. Many of the techniques used have become rather commonplace in film but were pioneered here. However, the actual story strikes me as inane. This should've been a nice cat-and-mouse with the police intertwined with a heartfelt love story. Instead, the cops are barely in the picture and the love story mostly consists of our hero begging Patricia (Seberg) to sleep with him. It gets to be a little off-putting for both her and us until the end when we just can't believe the stupidity of decision Michel makes. This might not have been so bad if he were more likeable. Likeability is not usually something I require from lead characters but this movie so obviously wants to build him up into some sort of antihero but he never comes across as anything other than a jerk. So yeah, its an expertly made movie that was so far ahead of its time in terms of style, I have to give it a positive score. That said, I'm not grading it terribly high because what was going on was so much less intriguing than how it looked.
MY SCORE: 7/10

Just got done watching it Shame this film.

Very pretty to look at, not much if any substance. I'm not quite sure what the point or morale of the movie was.

[BrntO4Life]

Just got done watching it Shame this film.

Very pretty to look at, not much if any substance. I'm not quite sure what the point or morale of the movie was.

Honestly, I'm shocked.

Although I mostly like the film for the camera work and the awesomely weird cuts. Plot isn't as big of a deal here.