Movie

Shooter (6/10)

Jack — Sun, 21 Oct 2007 01:05:00 GMT

This is a mediocre movie with an unrealistic perception of how sharpshooting works, some good action scenes, and a very generous helping of Hollywood partisanship. The theme of a lot of my recent posts has been the total impregnation of American media with liberal messages. I literally can't watch a movie anymore without obvious, heavy handed attacks on the Bush administration. So, this is a decent action movie with strangely mumbled and inaudible diologue. I enjoyed watching it, but not a ton.

On to the ridiculous partisanship.

First off, there's this: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/thomas-de-zengotita/must-see-movie-shoot_b_45406.html

“Ok, I saw this movie yesterday, on impulse, just plugging into my retrograde and boyish American male love of bang-bang action movies--and lo and behold what did I find? A really smart bit of left wing (I'm for it!) propaganda aimed at the Bush administration, the Iraq War and, especially, Dick Cheney.“

Smart? Dude? It was hamhanded and obvious, and not at all insightful. It had all the usual “they fight wars for oil, but nobody will challenge them on it“ crap that makes my skin crawl. Nobody challenges them on it? Please go kill yourself.

But anyway, the arch badguy is a Senator named Charles Meachum, and he's meant to be Dick Cheney, only much more obese, poncey and ridiculous. He's a Senator from Montana... Which borders Wyoming... And we cut to a scene of him shooting clay pigeons, and making gay eyes at a waiter tending to his opulent outdoor spread. And later we cut to a scene of Danny Glover's character joking with him, saying “So I said, nice shot Senator! In the face!'' AHAHAH! Cause Dick Cheney shot a guy in the face, remember that?

It's just laden with anti-Bush messages, to the point it starts to get a bit sad and embarassing. And I have to sit through this.

How many movies have you seen where there's a Hillary Clinton character, who is comically evil, pandering and power hungry? How many movies have you seen where there's a John Kerry character who fakes his military service and is really a coward and an idiot? None.

So, sure, you're probably saying “Hollywood is liberal, duh, tell us something we don't know.” To that I would respond that it certainly is obvious, and given how obvious it is, it's a mystery to me why we can't be equally objective about the fact that the left has near total control over all other media (not just movies) consumed by our populace, and that they use it constantly to push their message?

Ultimately this movie's argument is a paradox. It proffers up the argument that greedy men like Dick Cheney go to war for oil, and we, as a nation, are too scared to face that fact. But this is a major motion picture, a popcorn flick, and it's making the very argument it claims is off limits. If we're not allowed to to talk about how evil Republicans fight wars for oil, then how come we do it so much that it's become a mandatory inclusion in every political thriller in the past three years?

We're not allowed to talk about it? You sure? I think we're more than allowed to talk about it. I think we're required to talk about it, to the point it's become a meme in our society.

But, whatever, you fuckwits over at Huffington Post can keep telling yourself it's “subtle.” Then it'll be ok for me to shoot you in the face, because that'd just be “argumentative.”

P.S: The character played by Elias Koteas is ridiculous, and I forbid Hollywood to include this forumla in any more films. He's that bizzare, gropey, sexual badguy who always seems to get his hands on the female love interest, and start slurping words into her ear, and acting all manic and deranged when the hero is in peril. It speaks to the “subtlety” of this film that they felt the badguys weren't suitably evil when they murdered a bunch of Etheopian villagers, murdered an Etheopian Cardinal, framed an American hero, and generally acted like jerks. The need to be rapist perverts, too.

Bourne Ultimatum (8/10)

Jack — Tue, 07 Aug 2007 22:29:00 GMT

I don't really need to review this movie, because I've reviewed the previous ones, and the same thing goes. It's a fun movie, it's got cool spy drama and action, the camera shakes too much, I give it an 8.

What I want to talk about is how annoying it is to be me.

There is a scene in this film in which the pragmatic but compassionate CIA agent, we'll call her “Hillary C” is challenging the reckless, triggerhappy CIA agent. He tells her how dangerous things are these days, how there's threats out there, and how his program is good because it “cuts through all the red tape.” She can't believe his audacity, and wonders how long this can go on for, how long before it's used against the good guys, against Americans. He tells her it will go on “until we win the war.”

This quote makes no real sense in the context of the scene, or the film. There's no war going on in the film. There's really no direct mention of terrorism or the “war on terror.“ It's just CIA dudes trying to catch Bourne. The only reason to write the line that way is to reference the Bush administration.

So, to me parallels to the liberal whining about Bush's wiretapping programs is obvious. To me, at least. Which is why it sucks to be me, as I mentioned earlier.

See, the average American sees that and they might miss it entirely. They might just associate it with some generalized criticism of government in general. I can't do that. I know the people who wrote the screenplay are liberals. I'm not even going to bother googling it to see if I can prove it, because I know they are.

Actually, strike that, I think I will.

Which will lead me to note that Tony Gilroy just directed Michael Clayton, a movie starring noted liberal George Clooney, and which is about a heroic lawyer who is fed up with corporate greed and malfeasance, and must take a stand.

And I'll find this, which is hilarious. That's right. One of the writers, Scott Z Burns, is the producer of An Inconvenient Truth.

And then I'll find this, in which the director of The Sentinel, Clark Johnson, talks about how he dislikes George W Bush (apparently even more than David Duke), how we're all being watched since the Bush administration came into power. The writer on this film is George Nolfi, who also has writing credits on The Bourne Ultimatum. Maybe that's not proof of anything, but I doubt a guy like that will work with somebody who's not similarly left-leaning.

Unreal.

I wish that for just one day America could see the extent to which everything they see, everything they hear, everything they read, is controlled by liberals. I can't go to watch an action movie and not be surreptitiously fed spoonfuls of anti-Bush propaganda.

I can't even imagine what would befall the Democrats if they lost their near total control the media. Of print, of television, of film... They can barely win elections when they tell everyone what to think. Take their brainwashing away, and they wouldn't just lose elections, they'd cease to exist as a political party.

Miami Vice (9/10)

Jack — Sun, 30 Jul 2006 19:00:00 GMT

While it's not for everyone, Miami Vice is definitely a movie for me. I'm a big fan of heist type movies with internecine dealings, people carrying guns around, etc. The tone of this film was really nothing like the TV show. It was very gritty and serious, with punishing and gruesome gunfights, rough camera work and grainy postprocessing effects to emphasize the feel.

The story did take a while to get moving, and the plot was, at times, a bit hard to track, which detracted from the overall experience. On the other hand the cinematography worked for me, created suspense with the camera's position and movement, and the grainy night scenes gave an impression of heat, sweat and tension.

The final gunfight was very impressive, with great sound, relative realism, and brutal consequences for the participants. The blend between Hollywood and real life was perfect for my taste. Nothing goofy, like leaping dual pistol shooting, but a few improbable shots here and there to add some flash to it.

I just liked the movie a lot. I can point to so many flaws in pacing, in the plot, in the English skills of Li Gong... But it all just doesn't matter relative to the overall effect.

Inside Man (9/10)

Jack — Sun, 26 Mar 2006 18:44:00 GMT

I had liked the trailers I saw of this film, it seemed like a good heist/mystery movie. Then I found out it was a “Spike Lee Joint.” There are few directors I like less than Spike Lee, so it worried me that he was behind this film, but apparently he's mostly gotten over himself, and is just trying to direct good films. This is a very good screenplay, a nice series of mysteries, solutions, and mysteries on top of those, plus clever twists, interesting characters, and Lee manages to bring it all together without too much of his usual crap.

That's not to say it's not there. There's a Sikh character, a hostage, and when the cops see him they say “oh shit, he's an Arab!” Then he spends a long time explaining he's a Sikh. Then there's shots where the villain is in his office with pictures of him posing with George HW Bush, and Margaret Thatcher. There's scenes of Jews acting Jewy... Generally the Manhattan centric stuff that Lee seems to think the entire world revolves around.

But, this is all incredibly minor, only noteworthy as one searches for Lee's fingerprints on things. For the most part, he stays out of the way, and lets the screenplay do the work, which it does admirably. It's hard to comment too much without spoiling the plot, but suffice to say got some nice twists and surprises, and is generally a very believable film (Jodie Foster's character being the exception).

Waiting (8/10)

Jack — Thu, 13 Oct 2005 14:08:00 GMT

Waiting is one of these “young man coming of age amongst his zany friends” summer comedy deals, that revolves around a Bennigans-like restaurant, with lots of zany staff, with lots of zany quirks. The sensitive main character ponders his future, thus providing a backbone on which to mount various scenes of Ryan Reynolds doing his schtick, which is a pretty good one, as these things go.

Considering that this film is basically a shallow plot, decorated with humorous side stories, as all movies of the genre are, an 8/10 is about as good as it can do. There's no plot twists, no special effects, just some solid toilet humor and penis jokes, and lots of fratboy sexual content. I thought it was pretty damn funny, overall.

A History of Violence (6/10)

Jack — Thu, 13 Oct 2005 14:02:00 GMT

I wouldn't have even noticed this movie, were it not for the fact that various critics were flipping out over what a gift to humanity this film is. Even Viggo, while appearing on the Daily Show, suggested this film was better than LOTR. Of course, Viggo is a very strange man, so that might explain how wrong he is.

This movie, I think, gives a major insight into how film critics work. If I go see a film that makes me say “what the hell was that all about,” that's a film that critics will love. If you feel like you want a friend to go see the movie, just so they can tell you what the hell they think it was all about, that's a film that critics will love. Beyond that, they're not very discerning people. There's a difference betweem “oh, that could have so many meanings, I need a friend to see what they think” and “uhh, I'm pretty sure that was insane and meaningless, Hussain, care to confirm?” These, to a critic, are about the same. Being confused, apparently, makes them feel entertained.

A History of Violence was insane and meaningless. That's my conclusion. It wasn't a horrible film, I didn't feel angry about watching it, but that's about it. Hence the 6/10 score. It's just a bizzare movie. It's confusing. It's not confusing as far as what's going on, in fact, it's so linear and straightforward that when combined with the rave reviews, it's confusing.

The Island (7/10)

Jack — Sun, 24 Jul 2005 23:15:00 GMT

If you're a car, I suggest you keep the fuck away from Michael Bay. He destroyed about two dozen “future cars” in this movie, all of which looked generally like Chrysler 300s. In fact, pretty much all cars look like the Chrysler 300, Dodge Magnum, or Dodge Charger in the future.

In any case, this was a pretty good storyline by Bay's standards, had his usual requisite action and chase scenes, and was generally entertaining to watch. Going in, I expected this movie to be a Matrix ripoff, but was pleasantly suprised to see how it managed to avoid any really obvious comparisons. It's actually a fairly original screenplay, though the ending is predictably sappy, and there's an odd hole/plot device that is left unexplained. I won't spoil the film by getting too far into it.

It's also worth noting that this film is, apparently, Hollywood's version of political even-handedness, as it casts cloning (i.e. stem cell research) in a fairly negative and morally problematic light.

Saw (Gay/10)

Jack — Thu, 21 Jul 2005 22:48:00 GMT

Oh my GOD is this a bad movie. Never, never, never watch this movie, if you can possibly help yourself. For some reason I now can't even begin to explain, I kept thinking I aught to check this movie out. Everyone I know has the good sense to recognize a travesty in filmmaking from the trailers, but apparently I do not. Luckily, Uncle BT got me the film for free, so I watched it today, because my cable/internet went down.

It's simply hideous. Cary Elwes is a bad actor. I'm sorry to say it, because I love the Princess Bride, but he was utterly hideous in this film. When he starts having to convey real emotion, he gets this bizzare half British, half American accent that just doesn't work. After he sawed his own foot off, which he fully, fully did, he did some incredibly bad acting. I can't say that it'd be easy to act like a person that just sawed their own foot off, but I can say for sure that Cary Elwes failed at the task.

This film also features something that screenwriters put in films, and which should literally carry the death penalty: the person who has the killer at gunpoint, but won't shoot, and diddlefucks around until the killer manages to snatch the gun away. It has this EXACT conceit, along with the lesser varient, in which somebody fails to shoot the killer and instead attacks them physically, and even has the misdemeanor version, which is the old “take seven shots at the killer while he runs away, and only wing him, or miss entirely.” Considering that the screenwriters included the 1st degree felony version, the 2nd degree felony version, and the misdemeanor version, I think they need to be tortured to death, then killed. Sawing off their feet would be a good start.

Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith (4/10)

Jack — Thu, 19 May 2005 17:00:00 GMT

George Lucas is a retard. I don't say this lightly, because I know that every blogger in the world is saying the same thing, making me a totally unoriginal little jackass. I don't care. The guy is a fucking retard. Before this thing came out, I heard rumblings about the political undertones. Lucas himself insisted that it wasn't about Iraq, even though "the parallels between Vietnam and what we're doing in Iraq now are unbelievable." Sure they are, George. The American military is at war, and yet the primary threat is the idiot traitors in our midst. Too bad you don't know why you're right, George. And too bad you don't know how to write, either. The diologue in this film is fucking PAINFUL. The hamhanded attempts to tie it into Iraq are obvious and pitiful. Even if it's directed at Vietnam, as Lucas insists, I'll remind his stupid fucking ass that JFK brought us that war, Lyndon Johnson turned it into a debacle, and no matter how bad he wants Nixon to be the Emperor, Nixon not only got us out of the war, but resigned his office. Ending a war, and surrendering power... Is that how the Emperor operates, George? No. You're stupid, you're a terrible writer, and based on these three piles of crap you've produced, it's clear that your entire fortune is built on luck, and Harrison Ford.

My suggestion to George Lucas is simple: Take your millions of dollars, take your infantile politics, and retire to your ranch. If you ever feel like assaulting the nation with your crappy ideas again, give Harrison Ford a call, and have him come over and beat you unconscious.

The film is visually stunning, and on that basis it gets 4 points. Ewan McGregor does a great job as Obi Wan. Not much else going on.

Kingdom of Heaven (8/10)

Jack — Fri, 13 May 2005 13:20:00 GMT

I liked this movie, I liked the battle scenes, the characters, the view into history it provided. It was slow in parts, a bit predictable, but still very good overall. I read some poor reviews, which point to the lack of development of the main character, Balean (played by Elven actor Legolas). I have to admit, these complaints are pretty well founded. Balean is basically introduced in the same state he leaves the film. There's some token attempts to show him growing, or learning, or solidifying his creed, but really he doesn't change much. He's a good fighter, a moral guy at the start, he goes over to Jerusalem, contines to be a good fighter and moral guy, and then it ends. I suppose that for somebody looking for a Odyssian sort of tale of personal growth, this would be a problem. I didn't really mind it, as there were other things to look at, other characters to watch, etc. The portrayal of Arabs as honorable warriors, and Templars as bloodthirsty profiteers, was a bit hamhanded and politically safe, but forgivable.