The Family starts off as an off-kilter, dark comedy with a promising storyline and some nice views of Normandy. However, the filmmakers waste the rest of the film with violence that doesn't let up, horrible plot points, and an unfulfilling ending; the movie sinks deeper and deeper every minute. DeNiro's character is just so sadistic and unforgivingly violent with no regard for human life whatsoever. If you give him back the wrong change at the grocery store, he'll practically smash your head on the counter, and his character is anything but likable. The kids are smart and resourceful, but their talents get wasted on gunfights and unnecessary bloodshed. Michelle Pfeifer is really the only person in the movie with any shred of morals. Tommy Lee Jones just smirks and scowls as usual, not really adding anything more to his character. Though, I can say that I enjoyed the little Goodfellas in-joke for DeNiro. It was a nice touch to an otherwise brutal movie. Watch "The Family" on a Friday night if you dare, but do not pay full price for it, whatever you do.
Reviews
33 Reviews
Leone's Masterpiece, and the Best of the "Dollars" Trilogy
2 May 2014
Warning: Spoilers
The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly is Sergio Leone's masterpiece. It is beautifully shot, first of all, with creative cinematography and a certain style that many westerns have tried to copy but can never live up to. The musical score drives the movie forward and can be suspenseful or adventurous interchangeably. The acting is pretty good, and the story is intriguing. The character motivations are very sensible, and not predictable (most of the time). The dialogue crackles with wit and chutzpah that produces many a movie quote. The best part of The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly (besides the classic, tense, edge-of-your-seat final shootout scene), is the beginning. For the first five minutes there is no dialogue spoken, something only the best movies and best filmmakers can do. This is one of the best movies ever made, behind The Shawshank Redemption and The Godfather.
The Tree of Life
(2011)
Not For Everyone, But Those Who Are Patient Enough to See It Through Will Be Emotionally Rewarded.
23 April 2014
Well, this is certainty a love-it-or-hate-it movie. It's not that the movie is the best film I've ever seen, and I'm sure those who will hate it won't think it's the worst movie they've ever seen, either. It almost feels like an experimental film. It uses nature and beautiful cinematography to tell its story, and uses words less. It paints a great picture of life in general, and almost feels like 2001: A Space Odyssey in some cases. The actors involved give Oscar-worthy performances, the kids included. This movie is definitely only for certain people, and I am one of them. Those who don't like it probably didn't understand it; but that's okay, it's not supposed to be for everyone.
Gravity
(2013)
A Cinematic Experience Like No Other
20 October 2013
There is no other film experience on Earth like Gravity. Which makes sense, keeping in mind the whole movie was located in space, with only the ending scene being on Earth.
Alfonso Cuaron has struck gold with his masterpiece Gravity. It explores the silence of space where all you can hear are your breaths and your thoughts as you spin around aimlessly. This is usually harmless until a crisis like debris comes into play. From then on, Sandra Bullock puts on an amazing performance which will definitely give her an Oscar nod, and George Clooney is his usual affable self.
One thing that really defined this movie's greatness was its careful attention to being realistic. From the tears slipping down Sandra Bullock's cheeks actually floating off her face, to the oxygen in her suit depleting at a steady rate, this movie doesn't look over any detail or flaw. Instead, it uses simplicity and directness to flow the movie along. Nothing was that unbelievable in this movie.
Even though sound was a luxury in this movie, the emotional side of the film was not. Confined to tight spaces, Bullock couldn't really do anything to hide her emotions. She couldn't run anywhere to hide, or walk into a different room. Instead, we all saw and felt what she was going through, and actually cared about what happening to her character.
Another thing this movie did that was great was switch perspectives of the camera. We went from seeing what was happening from the character's eyes, to a third person view, to a wide camera angle, all in a few seconds. And the best part is, the camera was so fluent and coherent that we didn't even notice that the perspectives were changing until it actually happened. Genius filmmaking.
I could go on about this things this movie did right, because to be honest I can't think of anything I didn't like in the movie, which is extremely rare. Overall, this is a new kind of cinema experience that cannot be replicated again. (Yes, that was a challenge, directors!) Everyone in the target audience and beyond should see this movie because of its realistic sense of things and its careful attention to detail. The cinematography is beautiful, and the views and perspectives this movie gives are to die for. The emotional core, themes, and moral lessons this movie offers should be soaked up with ease. And the way it draws you into the story and what's happening is truly an amazing feat.
Alfonso Cuaron has struck gold with his masterpiece Gravity. It explores the silence of space where all you can hear are your breaths and your thoughts as you spin around aimlessly. This is usually harmless until a crisis like debris comes into play. From then on, Sandra Bullock puts on an amazing performance which will definitely give her an Oscar nod, and George Clooney is his usual affable self.
One thing that really defined this movie's greatness was its careful attention to being realistic. From the tears slipping down Sandra Bullock's cheeks actually floating off her face, to the oxygen in her suit depleting at a steady rate, this movie doesn't look over any detail or flaw. Instead, it uses simplicity and directness to flow the movie along. Nothing was that unbelievable in this movie.
Even though sound was a luxury in this movie, the emotional side of the film was not. Confined to tight spaces, Bullock couldn't really do anything to hide her emotions. She couldn't run anywhere to hide, or walk into a different room. Instead, we all saw and felt what she was going through, and actually cared about what happening to her character.
Another thing this movie did that was great was switch perspectives of the camera. We went from seeing what was happening from the character's eyes, to a third person view, to a wide camera angle, all in a few seconds. And the best part is, the camera was so fluent and coherent that we didn't even notice that the perspectives were changing until it actually happened. Genius filmmaking.
I could go on about this things this movie did right, because to be honest I can't think of anything I didn't like in the movie, which is extremely rare. Overall, this is a new kind of cinema experience that cannot be replicated again. (Yes, that was a challenge, directors!) Everyone in the target audience and beyond should see this movie because of its realistic sense of things and its careful attention to detail. The cinematography is beautiful, and the views and perspectives this movie gives are to die for. The emotional core, themes, and moral lessons this movie offers should be soaked up with ease. And the way it draws you into the story and what's happening is truly an amazing feat.
360
(2011)
A Movie With a Dozen or So Interconnecting Stories... Is It Worth Watching?
16 October 2013
Some movies with seemingly connecting stories about central themes may succeed, like Pulp Fiction, but 360 doesn't seem to live up to that completely. The whole movie is like a dozen or so separate stories intertwined into one motion picture, so I can't judge the whole movie as a whole. Instead, I will go through each one:
My favorite storyline in this movie was the one with Sergei and the woman he rides with in his car. I really felt for him as his abusive boss sleeps with hookers, bosses him around, and gives him no respect, because all Sergei could really do was watch and act polite so that he won't get fired. The woman in his car symbolizes his escape from all this, the start to a new life, in which Sergei can be happy. She makes him smile and both seem to like each other. Once Sergei drove off with her, all was right with the world and I couldn't help but smile.
The storyline with the Algerian man (Jamel Debbouze) and the woman he loved was intriguing but never fully captured my attention. When he decided to solve the problem of his urgings, I was both sad and mad with how he handled it, and wished it could've ended differently. But, that's the way life works.
Jude Law and Rachel Weisz's storyline seemed pointless to elaborate on. It connected with the other story lines, and was a crucial link to pull the stories together, but it wasn't interesting at all.
The storyline with the sex offender and Lara had a good ending and a lesson learned, but it was kind of stupid. Would a woman be *that* naïve to let a man into her hotel room without any knowing who he was? A hookup at a bar is one thing, but hooking up with a random man at the airport who acts suspicious and is unwilling to go to any hotel room is plain stupid and foolish. To add to that, he is a recently released sex offender! While she obviously didn't know he was a sex offender, she didn't know who the man was to begin with, and that plot point was desperate and unrealistic.
Anthony Hopkins' quest to find his daughter was very well done, and I loved this storyline. His interactions with Lara were realistic and excellently written.
The story of the two hookers at the beginning was unsettling and unsatisfying. It was realistic, but the depth on which the movie pursued them was unnecessary.
There were many other stories that happened, but the ones I mentioned were my favorites, and the others I didn't mention seemed like filler.
Overall, the script in this movie was wonderful, but some of the stories were weak and some were excellent, so some stuck out while others didn't. One big thing about this movie is how realistic it was. Nothing in it seemed to good to be true, except maybe the story with Lara. This movie was basically about human interaction and the consequences following it. It showed how everything in life is connected somehow. In fact, the whole movie seemed to be about people meeting and interacting with each other as they are sad in their own lives because of a cheating husband, abusive boss, etc. That is the main theme, and it is presented well and repetitively.
HandHStudios Rating: 6/10
My favorite storyline in this movie was the one with Sergei and the woman he rides with in his car. I really felt for him as his abusive boss sleeps with hookers, bosses him around, and gives him no respect, because all Sergei could really do was watch and act polite so that he won't get fired. The woman in his car symbolizes his escape from all this, the start to a new life, in which Sergei can be happy. She makes him smile and both seem to like each other. Once Sergei drove off with her, all was right with the world and I couldn't help but smile.
The storyline with the Algerian man (Jamel Debbouze) and the woman he loved was intriguing but never fully captured my attention. When he decided to solve the problem of his urgings, I was both sad and mad with how he handled it, and wished it could've ended differently. But, that's the way life works.
Jude Law and Rachel Weisz's storyline seemed pointless to elaborate on. It connected with the other story lines, and was a crucial link to pull the stories together, but it wasn't interesting at all.
The storyline with the sex offender and Lara had a good ending and a lesson learned, but it was kind of stupid. Would a woman be *that* naïve to let a man into her hotel room without any knowing who he was? A hookup at a bar is one thing, but hooking up with a random man at the airport who acts suspicious and is unwilling to go to any hotel room is plain stupid and foolish. To add to that, he is a recently released sex offender! While she obviously didn't know he was a sex offender, she didn't know who the man was to begin with, and that plot point was desperate and unrealistic.
Anthony Hopkins' quest to find his daughter was very well done, and I loved this storyline. His interactions with Lara were realistic and excellently written.
The story of the two hookers at the beginning was unsettling and unsatisfying. It was realistic, but the depth on which the movie pursued them was unnecessary.
There were many other stories that happened, but the ones I mentioned were my favorites, and the others I didn't mention seemed like filler.
Overall, the script in this movie was wonderful, but some of the stories were weak and some were excellent, so some stuck out while others didn't. One big thing about this movie is how realistic it was. Nothing in it seemed to good to be true, except maybe the story with Lara. This movie was basically about human interaction and the consequences following it. It showed how everything in life is connected somehow. In fact, the whole movie seemed to be about people meeting and interacting with each other as they are sad in their own lives because of a cheating husband, abusive boss, etc. That is the main theme, and it is presented well and repetitively.
HandHStudios Rating: 6/10
The Dark Knight Rises
(2012)
Director Christopher Nolan Strikes Again.
19 September 2013
The best installment of the Batman trilogy, The Dark Knight Rises is involving, gripping, and riveting. The story is on par, as well as a great cast new to the series (Tom Hardy, Anne Hathaway, Marion Cotillard, etc.). The movie never lags, and Tom Hardy's Bane comes across as a testosterone-fueled hunk of a man who knows true pain and wants to do justice in his own twisted ways.
While some may say that the background story of Bane isn't what's in the comics, just stop. Did it fit the movie? Maybe it didn't, because I bet my ass director Christopher Nolan took that into consideration. I bet they did a screen test, and that storyline didn't work. To be honest, it's not that big of a detail and can be easily overlooked, and it didn't do any damage to the story. In fact, it made it *that* much more interesting.
HandHStudios Rating: 10/10
While some may say that the background story of Bane isn't what's in the comics, just stop. Did it fit the movie? Maybe it didn't, because I bet my ass director Christopher Nolan took that into consideration. I bet they did a screen test, and that storyline didn't work. To be honest, it's not that big of a detail and can be easily overlooked, and it didn't do any damage to the story. In fact, it made it *that* much more interesting.
HandHStudios Rating: 10/10
Looper
(2012)
An Annoying Plot Shift Ruins a Could've-Been 10/10 Movie
17 September 2013
Looper starts out great. The plot is fresh and original, the acting is pretty good, Joseph Gordon Levitt looks a hell of a lot like an actual young Bruce Willis, and the movie goes from there, with JGL trying to chase his "future self" through the present. This movie is complex, but once you hit Nirvana with the idea, like Inception, you will understand everything.
As Levitt chases his future self through the world, he stumbles across a farmhouse, and there lies Emily Blunt. From that point in the movie --a little under halfway-- the plot shifts, and is all about Blunt's son. (I won't spoil what happens anymore).I hated this plot shift as the focus of the movie veered off the side of the road of getting to the intended finale. other than this, the movie isn't half bad.
HandHStudios Rating: 7.2/10
As Levitt chases his future self through the world, he stumbles across a farmhouse, and there lies Emily Blunt. From that point in the movie --a little under halfway-- the plot shifts, and is all about Blunt's son. (I won't spoil what happens anymore).I hated this plot shift as the focus of the movie veered off the side of the road of getting to the intended finale. other than this, the movie isn't half bad.
HandHStudios Rating: 7.2/10
Saw
(2004)
Saw Left A Bad Taste In My Mouth... But That's the Point of It!
12 September 2013
Warning: Spoilers
Saw is the perfect movie for hardcore horror fans who want to see a good gory film, because Saw has more gore than a pig slaughterhouse. Seriously, I mean there's always someone bleeding profusely at some point of this film! Yet another reason fans of the genre will be enamored with Saw.
Besides surpassing the average genre fare, Saw is intelligent. Unlike the usual slasher or gory pic, Saw's story is, for the most part, logically sound, although I put "logically" very lightly. Obviously, it's not every day you wake up in a dirty abandoned bathroom chained to a pipe! For what the film was, it made relative sense. At least, it made more sense than most of the other horror flicks I've seen. The story was engaging, and very compelling. There were a few gaps in logic and minor plot holes, but that's pretty standard for any horror movie. The real logical person in that situation would either find a way out in the first 5 minutes or give up and find a way to kill themselves. But a 5 minute movie where the main character dies in the first 5 minutes wouldn't sell at the box office, would it? So the filmmakers have to suspend logic in some places to move the story along, something most critics don't understand. That doesn't make the movie bad, because believe me, if the mentioned critic saw the "5-minute Saw" I talked about before, he/she wouldn't complain about the real film at all.
Moreover, Saw actually had pretty decent acting. The characters were well-rounded, and this movie was a good kick-starter for the career of Leigh Whannell. Cary Elwes, who I've seen in Twister, Princess Bride, and Robin Hood: Men In Tights, turned his usual goofy character into a serious, dramatic role as Doctor Lawrence Gordon. Desperateness loomed in his eyes the whole film, as he had no idea what was to happen to his wife and child being held captive by an unknown man he thinks is "The Jigsaw Killer". Danny Glover, who almost always dies in a movie, (It seems he's almost surpassed Leonardo DiCaprio in movie deaths!) takes on a detective role as Detective Tapp, obsessed with finding the Jigsaw Killer after Jigsaw kills Tapp's partner, played by Ken Leung.
This film was a good watch, especially if you like horror films, and will leave a bad taste in your mouth. But that was the point!
HandHStudios Rating: 7.7/10
Besides surpassing the average genre fare, Saw is intelligent. Unlike the usual slasher or gory pic, Saw's story is, for the most part, logically sound, although I put "logically" very lightly. Obviously, it's not every day you wake up in a dirty abandoned bathroom chained to a pipe! For what the film was, it made relative sense. At least, it made more sense than most of the other horror flicks I've seen. The story was engaging, and very compelling. There were a few gaps in logic and minor plot holes, but that's pretty standard for any horror movie. The real logical person in that situation would either find a way out in the first 5 minutes or give up and find a way to kill themselves. But a 5 minute movie where the main character dies in the first 5 minutes wouldn't sell at the box office, would it? So the filmmakers have to suspend logic in some places to move the story along, something most critics don't understand. That doesn't make the movie bad, because believe me, if the mentioned critic saw the "5-minute Saw" I talked about before, he/she wouldn't complain about the real film at all.
Moreover, Saw actually had pretty decent acting. The characters were well-rounded, and this movie was a good kick-starter for the career of Leigh Whannell. Cary Elwes, who I've seen in Twister, Princess Bride, and Robin Hood: Men In Tights, turned his usual goofy character into a serious, dramatic role as Doctor Lawrence Gordon. Desperateness loomed in his eyes the whole film, as he had no idea what was to happen to his wife and child being held captive by an unknown man he thinks is "The Jigsaw Killer". Danny Glover, who almost always dies in a movie, (It seems he's almost surpassed Leonardo DiCaprio in movie deaths!) takes on a detective role as Detective Tapp, obsessed with finding the Jigsaw Killer after Jigsaw kills Tapp's partner, played by Ken Leung.
This film was a good watch, especially if you like horror films, and will leave a bad taste in your mouth. But that was the point!
HandHStudios Rating: 7.7/10
Pulp Fiction
(1994)
Good Tarantino Flick About Gangsters, But Not Great.
8 September 2013
Warning: Spoilers
Pulp Fiction is one of those movies I liked more in retrospect than at the time. I think Tarantino's genius does play a part in this film, and the product is substantial; but Reservoir Dogs is better.
All the characters use witty, random dialogue about European hamburgers and the sexual implications of foot massages, but to what avail? I mean, as fun as it is to hear and watch, I just found that the whole movie lacked something. Maybe a little bit more editing would've done the trick; maybe it was something else. I can't quite put my finger on it.
Don't get me wrong. I think this is a classic Tarantino movie. I enjoyed Samuel L. Jackson's quotable lines, as well as a couple of outstanding scenes. (The OD, the Big Date, the scene where Harvey Keitel gets rid of the body, etc.) As a whole, the movie does work. But some minor details would make it even better.
The storyline of Bruce Willis and Ving Rhames was a little much. (Did Ving *really* have to get raped?) I know Tarantino just wanted to add some shock value to his film, but even for a person who doesn't mind that kind of thing in movies I found it a little extreme.
Oh, and one more thing: I learned that "zapateria" means "shoe store" in Spanish, courtesy of Butch. ;-)
HandHStudios Rating: 8/10
HandHStudios
All the characters use witty, random dialogue about European hamburgers and the sexual implications of foot massages, but to what avail? I mean, as fun as it is to hear and watch, I just found that the whole movie lacked something. Maybe a little bit more editing would've done the trick; maybe it was something else. I can't quite put my finger on it.
Don't get me wrong. I think this is a classic Tarantino movie. I enjoyed Samuel L. Jackson's quotable lines, as well as a couple of outstanding scenes. (The OD, the Big Date, the scene where Harvey Keitel gets rid of the body, etc.) As a whole, the movie does work. But some minor details would make it even better.
The storyline of Bruce Willis and Ving Rhames was a little much. (Did Ving *really* have to get raped?) I know Tarantino just wanted to add some shock value to his film, but even for a person who doesn't mind that kind of thing in movies I found it a little extreme.
Oh, and one more thing: I learned that "zapateria" means "shoe store" in Spanish, courtesy of Butch. ;-)
HandHStudios Rating: 8/10
HandHStudios
Raiders of the Lost Ark
(1981)
Asps; Very Dangerous.
5 September 2013
Warning: Spoilers
Review #5 of "My Top Ten Favorite Movies" Reviews "Spielberg can never top this. Period." - Luke Y. Thompson, Dallas Observer Luke is right. This is the best Spielberg film as of yet. I don't believe he can top this. The movie's charm and adventure just captivate you and fully engage you in the movie. It works like clockwork.
This film combines adventure, greed, power, love, Nazis, Harrison Ford at his best, and many other things to make the best adventure film ever made.
All the actors seem to enjoy their roles, and I especially love Paul Freeman's crazy French archaeologist character, Belloq.
There are many iconic scenes here; the boulder chase scene, the plane explosion, the U-boat scene, the "kidnapped Marion" scene, the "Indy-shoots-the-guy-with-the-sword" scene, and of course the melting faces scene. I could go on and on. You will like every moment of this movie, and will want more. Since you want more, you have 3 almost-as-good sequels to watch! HandHStudios Rating: 10/10
This film combines adventure, greed, power, love, Nazis, Harrison Ford at his best, and many other things to make the best adventure film ever made.
All the actors seem to enjoy their roles, and I especially love Paul Freeman's crazy French archaeologist character, Belloq.
There are many iconic scenes here; the boulder chase scene, the plane explosion, the U-boat scene, the "kidnapped Marion" scene, the "Indy-shoots-the-guy-with-the-sword" scene, and of course the melting faces scene. I could go on and on. You will like every moment of this movie, and will want more. Since you want more, you have 3 almost-as-good sequels to watch! HandHStudios Rating: 10/10
Goodfellas
(1990)
Goodfellas- Better Than The Godfather?
5 September 2013
Review #3 of "My Top Ten Favorite Movies" Reviews
Goodfellas is a 'true' picture; unlike some mob movies, it doesn't glorify organized crime, per se, it captures it perfectly on-screen.
The key in the success of Goodfelas is the dialogue. The script is just absolutely amazing. As profane and raw as it is, it really gives you a glimpse of how gangsters actually work and what they actually do. There's no denying the realistic nature of the film and how Scorcese's genius puts this film on the same level as "The Godfather", if not better.
The characters in this movie are captivating. De Niro's calm, collected character is offset by Pesci's loose cannon, loud-mouthed performance. Pesci definitely deserved the Oscar he won for this role, as he plays a character that is sick, as shown by his actions, yet likable all the same. That just shows what a great actor Pesci is.
Liotta gets Henry Hill down perfectly. His performance is one of the best in his whole acting career. He is innocent, yet violent; quiet, yet he has a temper at times; calm, yet crazy; his personality contradicts itself throughout the movie, yet this isn't a bad thing. In fact, it makes his character *that* much more interesting to watch.
Overall, this Oscar Winning, highly acclaimed picture deserves all the hype it gets: it's smart, realistic, and raw. These elements combine to form one of the best Gangster movies ever made. And yes, I think it is even better than "The Godfather".
HandHStudios Rating: 10/10
Goodfellas is a 'true' picture; unlike some mob movies, it doesn't glorify organized crime, per se, it captures it perfectly on-screen.
The key in the success of Goodfelas is the dialogue. The script is just absolutely amazing. As profane and raw as it is, it really gives you a glimpse of how gangsters actually work and what they actually do. There's no denying the realistic nature of the film and how Scorcese's genius puts this film on the same level as "The Godfather", if not better.
The characters in this movie are captivating. De Niro's calm, collected character is offset by Pesci's loose cannon, loud-mouthed performance. Pesci definitely deserved the Oscar he won for this role, as he plays a character that is sick, as shown by his actions, yet likable all the same. That just shows what a great actor Pesci is.
Liotta gets Henry Hill down perfectly. His performance is one of the best in his whole acting career. He is innocent, yet violent; quiet, yet he has a temper at times; calm, yet crazy; his personality contradicts itself throughout the movie, yet this isn't a bad thing. In fact, it makes his character *that* much more interesting to watch.
Overall, this Oscar Winning, highly acclaimed picture deserves all the hype it gets: it's smart, realistic, and raw. These elements combine to form one of the best Gangster movies ever made. And yes, I think it is even better than "The Godfather".
HandHStudios Rating: 10/10
Reservoir Dogs
(1992)
Classic Tarantino... and Then Some
5 September 2013
Review #4 of "My Top Ten Favorite Movies" Reviews
I'm just gonna go ahead and say it: I think this movie is better than Pulp Fiction.
Unlike most of the Tarantino fans, I think this movie was a little bit better than Pulp. I just liked the story and characters more.
Anyway, let me talk about THIS movie.
Reservoir Dogs is a timeless classic. There are no smartphones, iPads, or laptops. Just good old fashioned killing.
No spoilers, the story is about a group of men who are pulling off a bank heist. But when it goes terribly wrong, they think they have a rat working for the police in their midst. This is followed by paranoia, suspicion, and rage. (I didn't differ very much from the IMDb description, so I don't believe any spoilers were revealed.) This story is very captivating, and the actors make it that way with no-bull performances. Michael Madsen, Tim Roth, and Chris Penn were all in the early stages of their acting careers, and this movie was their big break. In fact, if Harvey Keitel hadn't agreed to produce it and star in it, it probably wouldn't have even seen the light of day; or at least it wouldn't have been as big as it is now.
The script is very compelling and stylish. It gives a certain edge to the movie that made it better. A lot of this movie's dialogue has been quoted many times. My point- it was a very memorable movie.
Overall, you have to see Reservoir Dogs. It is a timeless classic that defined Tarantino movies for the rest of his career.
HandHStudios Rating: 10/10
I'm just gonna go ahead and say it: I think this movie is better than Pulp Fiction.
Unlike most of the Tarantino fans, I think this movie was a little bit better than Pulp. I just liked the story and characters more.
Anyway, let me talk about THIS movie.
Reservoir Dogs is a timeless classic. There are no smartphones, iPads, or laptops. Just good old fashioned killing.
No spoilers, the story is about a group of men who are pulling off a bank heist. But when it goes terribly wrong, they think they have a rat working for the police in their midst. This is followed by paranoia, suspicion, and rage. (I didn't differ very much from the IMDb description, so I don't believe any spoilers were revealed.) This story is very captivating, and the actors make it that way with no-bull performances. Michael Madsen, Tim Roth, and Chris Penn were all in the early stages of their acting careers, and this movie was their big break. In fact, if Harvey Keitel hadn't agreed to produce it and star in it, it probably wouldn't have even seen the light of day; or at least it wouldn't have been as big as it is now.
The script is very compelling and stylish. It gives a certain edge to the movie that made it better. A lot of this movie's dialogue has been quoted many times. My point- it was a very memorable movie.
Overall, you have to see Reservoir Dogs. It is a timeless classic that defined Tarantino movies for the rest of his career.
HandHStudios Rating: 10/10
The Shawshank Redemption
(1994)
A Closer Look at Shawshank's Genius
5 September 2013
Warning: Spoilers
Review #1 of "My Top ten Favorite Movies" Reviews
I'm not going to go through a whole review, since there are plenty of reviews detailing why this is the greatest movie of all time. I'm just gonna give a quote:
"The Shawshank Redemption is the best movie I have ever seen because of its ability to capture raw emotion."
I'm also going to elaborate on the three biggest reasons people dislike this movie.
1. It's too slow.
The Shawshank Redemption may be a tad slow, but it is justified. I believe director Frank Darabont wanted to show Andy's time at Shawshank by showing how slow prison time really is. Some movies are just slow; this movie does it for a deeper reason, adding to Shawshank's genius.
2. Andy Dufresne barely shows emotion.
Those people obviously didn't get what kind of character Andy was. Tim Robbins did this on purpose. Andy was quiet, mellow, and was obviously quite shocked and angry he was going to prison for a crime he didn't do. Did you really expect the man to jump up and start singing "Kumbaya"? No! So I don't get what the problem is. The fact that he acted like this just added to the realistic atmosphere of the movie.
3. This is not realistic.
Oh yes your right, since these men in prison smoked, cursed, drank, and kept their eyes peeled in the shower room for potential rapists. That is not realistic at all. (sarcastic) Overall, I think some of the hate on Shawshank is solely because it is the highest rated movie on IMDb, for a fact. (User rating is 9.3 to this date). I think some people hate this movie because everyone else loves it, and that is a bad way to think about anything, not just movies.
HandHStudios Rating: 10/10, and everything higher.
I'm not going to go through a whole review, since there are plenty of reviews detailing why this is the greatest movie of all time. I'm just gonna give a quote:
"The Shawshank Redemption is the best movie I have ever seen because of its ability to capture raw emotion."
I'm also going to elaborate on the three biggest reasons people dislike this movie.
1. It's too slow.
The Shawshank Redemption may be a tad slow, but it is justified. I believe director Frank Darabont wanted to show Andy's time at Shawshank by showing how slow prison time really is. Some movies are just slow; this movie does it for a deeper reason, adding to Shawshank's genius.
2. Andy Dufresne barely shows emotion.
Those people obviously didn't get what kind of character Andy was. Tim Robbins did this on purpose. Andy was quiet, mellow, and was obviously quite shocked and angry he was going to prison for a crime he didn't do. Did you really expect the man to jump up and start singing "Kumbaya"? No! So I don't get what the problem is. The fact that he acted like this just added to the realistic atmosphere of the movie.
3. This is not realistic.
Oh yes your right, since these men in prison smoked, cursed, drank, and kept their eyes peeled in the shower room for potential rapists. That is not realistic at all. (sarcastic) Overall, I think some of the hate on Shawshank is solely because it is the highest rated movie on IMDb, for a fact. (User rating is 9.3 to this date). I think some people hate this movie because everyone else loves it, and that is a bad way to think about anything, not just movies.
HandHStudios Rating: 10/10, and everything higher.
Die Hard
(1988)
Why Die Hard Defined the Action Genre
5 September 2013
Review #2 of "My Top Ten Favorite Movies" Reviews
In 1988, when Die Hard came out, my parents and a family friend went to see it in New York City in a big theater. The movie was so crowded, they all did not even get to sit together. (And I don't even think it was opening weekend!) Take that into consideration for how big a movie this was back then and still is.
Die Hard is the best action movie, and probably my favorite movie, with a close second or tie with The Shawshank Redemption.
Die Hard combines well-executed action scenes with cheesy but iconic one-liners and a great main character. As sarcastic, profane, and messed up John McClane is, you have to find yourself rooting for him.
Bruce Willis, Alan Rickman, and Bonnie Bedelia, Reginald Veljohnson, and many others will have their acting skills defined by this movie forever. After all, it definitely gave a career boost to some, although Willis already had a nice acting resume on his plate. Nevertheless, it redefined the whole genre.
Action movies consist of a bunch of key elements that come together to form a coherent picture. (At least I hope it will be coherent, as some tend to fail at this process.) They combine action scenes (obviously), at least a couple one-liners, a car (there's always a car or some kind of vehicle), a villain, and usually an explosion or two. Or three. ;-) All of these elements and many more were all in Die Hard, and it kind of changed the genre for good. You will hear people say "Oh, that movie is a Die Hard rip-off", or "That stunt was first made famous in Die Hard." It's not that action movies didn't have these elements before Die Hard, it's just that Die Hard made them better and/or famous.
Die Hard will keep you on the edge of your seat, and is an extremely well-done picture that doesn't lag or slow down at all. It eases into the action in such a way that it feels natural and not forced or unnecessary.
HandHStudios Rating: 10/10
In 1988, when Die Hard came out, my parents and a family friend went to see it in New York City in a big theater. The movie was so crowded, they all did not even get to sit together. (And I don't even think it was opening weekend!) Take that into consideration for how big a movie this was back then and still is.
Die Hard is the best action movie, and probably my favorite movie, with a close second or tie with The Shawshank Redemption.
Die Hard combines well-executed action scenes with cheesy but iconic one-liners and a great main character. As sarcastic, profane, and messed up John McClane is, you have to find yourself rooting for him.
Bruce Willis, Alan Rickman, and Bonnie Bedelia, Reginald Veljohnson, and many others will have their acting skills defined by this movie forever. After all, it definitely gave a career boost to some, although Willis already had a nice acting resume on his plate. Nevertheless, it redefined the whole genre.
Action movies consist of a bunch of key elements that come together to form a coherent picture. (At least I hope it will be coherent, as some tend to fail at this process.) They combine action scenes (obviously), at least a couple one-liners, a car (there's always a car or some kind of vehicle), a villain, and usually an explosion or two. Or three. ;-) All of these elements and many more were all in Die Hard, and it kind of changed the genre for good. You will hear people say "Oh, that movie is a Die Hard rip-off", or "That stunt was first made famous in Die Hard." It's not that action movies didn't have these elements before Die Hard, it's just that Die Hard made them better and/or famous.
Die Hard will keep you on the edge of your seat, and is an extremely well-done picture that doesn't lag or slow down at all. It eases into the action in such a way that it feels natural and not forced or unnecessary.
HandHStudios Rating: 10/10
Elysium
(I) (2013)
If Your Looking For a Good Action Movie, This Is It
2 September 2013
"Elysium has spectacular visual effects, an interesting story, and a good performance by Matt Damon." Even though Matt Damon has done some "paycheck" movies lately (We Bought a Zoo), I believe he really wanted to do Elysium.
Elysium combines great action with an interesting storyline, good acting, and enough eye candy to give you a cavity.
The visual effects in this movie are stunning, and Elysium has some pretty cool gadgets to go along with it. I especially liked Damon's "drilled-in neurological droid suit".
I didn't get Jodie Foster's accent throughout the movie, and I believe she was sort of a weak link, but it didn't really take away from the story, so I guess I can forgive the movie for that.
HandHStudios Rating: 8.3/10
Elysium combines great action with an interesting storyline, good acting, and enough eye candy to give you a cavity.
The visual effects in this movie are stunning, and Elysium has some pretty cool gadgets to go along with it. I especially liked Damon's "drilled-in neurological droid suit".
I didn't get Jodie Foster's accent throughout the movie, and I believe she was sort of a weak link, but it didn't really take away from the story, so I guess I can forgive the movie for that.
HandHStudios Rating: 8.3/10
Boiling Point
(I) (1993)
I Just Had to Chime In....
2 September 2013
With everyone battling each other over this movie, I just had to put my own say in it as well.
Boiling Point is a movie that I got for free on a giveaway shelf. There's a reason it was on that shelf.
Boiling Point has less action than any other Wesley Snipes movie I've ever seen. A documentary about real boiling points would've had more thrills than this wannabe actioner.
Almost nothing about this movie made me want more. Wesley Snipes put on an okay performance, but nothing more than marginal. Dennis Hopper acted weird the whole movie with over-exaggerated hand movements that made his character very off-putting. Except for a few killings, there was literally no action in this movie. The story could've been interesting, but instead it moves slow and lags at many places. The cinematography was nothing interesting, no better than any other average movie. And the script was dull and didn't move the story at all.
Overall, this movie was well beyond average, not Snipes best at all. Even The Art of War (and we all want to forget he was in that) wasn't as bad as this movie. This movie has already found its way to giveaway shelves and $.99 bins all over the country. Take that as a warning.
HandHStudios Rating: 2.5/10
Boiling Point is a movie that I got for free on a giveaway shelf. There's a reason it was on that shelf.
Boiling Point has less action than any other Wesley Snipes movie I've ever seen. A documentary about real boiling points would've had more thrills than this wannabe actioner.
Almost nothing about this movie made me want more. Wesley Snipes put on an okay performance, but nothing more than marginal. Dennis Hopper acted weird the whole movie with over-exaggerated hand movements that made his character very off-putting. Except for a few killings, there was literally no action in this movie. The story could've been interesting, but instead it moves slow and lags at many places. The cinematography was nothing interesting, no better than any other average movie. And the script was dull and didn't move the story at all.
Overall, this movie was well beyond average, not Snipes best at all. Even The Art of War (and we all want to forget he was in that) wasn't as bad as this movie. This movie has already found its way to giveaway shelves and $.99 bins all over the country. Take that as a warning.
HandHStudios Rating: 2.5/10
The Butler
(I) (2013)
Great Historical Film.
31 August 2013
"Rarely does a film come along that gets every element of history in it so precise and accurate as the 'Lee Daniel's The Butler' does." - HandHStudios
"Lee Daniel's The Butler"-- originally called "The Butler", but changed after a brouhaha with copyright claims-- is a masterpiece. Lee Daniels (Precious) directs with such certainty of the material he brings to the screen that you forget these are actors in a movie. Speaking of that, each and every cast member did a good job here. I especially liked Alan Rickman as Ronald Reagan and Liev Schreiber as LBJ.
This movie mixed drama, wit, and humor into a smart script by Danny Strong that never felt forced or ill-conceived. The acting was tremendous, with an Oscar-worthy performance by Forest Whitaker. And, to my surprise, Oprah was actually very good as an actress in this movie! I mean, to be honest, I didn't know what to expect when I heard Oprah would be in this film!
Overall, the film went through each time period and showed events with real emotion, accuracy, and thoroughness. This is a great film that could also be labeled as a historical biopic.
HandHStudios Rating: 10/10
"Lee Daniel's The Butler"-- originally called "The Butler", but changed after a brouhaha with copyright claims-- is a masterpiece. Lee Daniels (Precious) directs with such certainty of the material he brings to the screen that you forget these are actors in a movie. Speaking of that, each and every cast member did a good job here. I especially liked Alan Rickman as Ronald Reagan and Liev Schreiber as LBJ.
This movie mixed drama, wit, and humor into a smart script by Danny Strong that never felt forced or ill-conceived. The acting was tremendous, with an Oscar-worthy performance by Forest Whitaker. And, to my surprise, Oprah was actually very good as an actress in this movie! I mean, to be honest, I didn't know what to expect when I heard Oprah would be in this film!
Overall, the film went through each time period and showed events with real emotion, accuracy, and thoroughness. This is a great film that could also be labeled as a historical biopic.
HandHStudios Rating: 10/10
Amélie
(2001)
Even in French, I Could Connect With Amélie!
29 August 2013
I watched Amélie with English subtitles, since I do not speak French. If I can connect and understand a movie so well, even when the dialogue spoken is in a different language, then that is the mark of true genius.
Although this is a foreign film, it didn't feel awkward or messy, like some other foreign films I've seen. Instead, it played out well with a moving soundtrack and beautiful cinematography. The shots of Paris were breathtaking, and the acting was very well done. Love was in the air in this film, with some very funny and erotic scenes entailing. The dialogue, although in French, was still very well-spoken and had a sharp wit to it. I don't want to give more away if I don't have to, so I'll just say don't take your kids to this film until they're at least 16 or so ;-)
HandHStudios Rating: 9.3/10
Although this is a foreign film, it didn't feel awkward or messy, like some other foreign films I've seen. Instead, it played out well with a moving soundtrack and beautiful cinematography. The shots of Paris were breathtaking, and the acting was very well done. Love was in the air in this film, with some very funny and erotic scenes entailing. The dialogue, although in French, was still very well-spoken and had a sharp wit to it. I don't want to give more away if I don't have to, so I'll just say don't take your kids to this film until they're at least 16 or so ;-)
HandHStudios Rating: 9.3/10
Gangs of New York
(2002)
Gripping, Riveting, Undeniably Good; Until the Final Third
15 August 2013
Gangs of New York had my eyes glued to the screen as an amazing, stunning, historical piece to Martin Scorcese's filmography, until the final third of the movie where it fell a little flat. The plot twists and smooth storytelling Scorcese is famous for just went into thin air. I don't want to spoil the movie, but after a major scene between Daniel Day-Lewis and Leonardo DiCaprio, the movie gets a little banal and dried up until one of the very last dramatic scenes. The pace and the throbbing heart that kept this movie alive just suddenly fails to keep going. The story slows down, and not much happens for a while. Now, don't get me wrong; this "final third" isn't the worst part of a movie I've ever seen. It's just that compared to the rest of the movie, this part lags and is a touch dry.
Other than that, this is a great movie with a talented cast and a great director. The story isn't all that complicated, but Scorcese's great filmmaking talents pull it off and make it interesting. It is for all I can see historically accurate, and it really has the feel of the violence and desperation of that time period. This is officially the second best role of Daniel Day-Lewis, in my opinion. (The first being Lincoln, of course (; )
HandHStudios Rating: 7.5
Other than that, this is a great movie with a talented cast and a great director. The story isn't all that complicated, but Scorcese's great filmmaking talents pull it off and make it interesting. It is for all I can see historically accurate, and it really has the feel of the violence and desperation of that time period. This is officially the second best role of Daniel Day-Lewis, in my opinion. (The first being Lincoln, of course (; )
HandHStudios Rating: 7.5
Trouble with the Curve
(2012)
Worth Watching if You Like Clint Eastwood, But Don't Expect Any Character Development.
13 August 2013
Warning: Spoilers
Possibly Eastwood's last movie, this could be a solid conclusion of his acting career.
Trouble with the Curve is a good-at-best baseball drama with a star-studded cast and an interesting story. It succeeds for the most part, but a couple of flaws bring it down from what could've been an Oscar-nominated or -winning drama with Eastwood as its front man.
The flaws include: - A clunky script and illogical moments. - Clint Eastwood's character almost never redeeming himself. - Repetitive, annoying fights between Adams and Eastwood's characters. and some more.
Ill say the positives first. The cinematography and shots I this film were up to par: never going beyond, but never going backwards either. The acting was good, setting the standards for a movie of this caliber. The cast had a lot of Hollywood greats such as Clint Eastwood, Amy Adams, John Goodman, and Justin Timberlake. I liked Timberlake the most, the only male character in the film to actually have the where-with-all and be completely sane. ;-)
That being said, the film lacked many good qualities. The script was clunky and never seemed to fit in at the right moments. Of course, Eastwood had his one liners ("What are you fellas staring at, I'm not a pole dancer."). But there was just constant fighting, and repetitive lines of dialogue between Eastwood and Adams. He would grunt, she would yell at him for not being there for her as a child, blah blah blah. The first time was acceptable, but then it just got plain tedious. And after about a minute of talking to him, she would storm out of the room, and then they would be shown together the next scene like everything was fine and dandy. There was never any redemption of Clint Eastwood's character until the very end, as if the first 45 minutes of the movie were a waste. And Justin Timberlake's character was very good; the guy can act! And even though he was a relief for the whole movie, he didn't get enough screen time to outdo the mess that Eastwood and Adams made throughout the movie.
Even though it seems like I had a million things to complain about, I still recommend this movie. Why? Because, flaws aside, it meshes together baseball, Clint Eastwood, a good cast, and enough family drama to compete with the Kardashians.
HandHStudios Rating: 6.7/10
Trouble with the Curve is a good-at-best baseball drama with a star-studded cast and an interesting story. It succeeds for the most part, but a couple of flaws bring it down from what could've been an Oscar-nominated or -winning drama with Eastwood as its front man.
The flaws include: - A clunky script and illogical moments. - Clint Eastwood's character almost never redeeming himself. - Repetitive, annoying fights between Adams and Eastwood's characters. and some more.
Ill say the positives first. The cinematography and shots I this film were up to par: never going beyond, but never going backwards either. The acting was good, setting the standards for a movie of this caliber. The cast had a lot of Hollywood greats such as Clint Eastwood, Amy Adams, John Goodman, and Justin Timberlake. I liked Timberlake the most, the only male character in the film to actually have the where-with-all and be completely sane. ;-)
That being said, the film lacked many good qualities. The script was clunky and never seemed to fit in at the right moments. Of course, Eastwood had his one liners ("What are you fellas staring at, I'm not a pole dancer."). But there was just constant fighting, and repetitive lines of dialogue between Eastwood and Adams. He would grunt, she would yell at him for not being there for her as a child, blah blah blah. The first time was acceptable, but then it just got plain tedious. And after about a minute of talking to him, she would storm out of the room, and then they would be shown together the next scene like everything was fine and dandy. There was never any redemption of Clint Eastwood's character until the very end, as if the first 45 minutes of the movie were a waste. And Justin Timberlake's character was very good; the guy can act! And even though he was a relief for the whole movie, he didn't get enough screen time to outdo the mess that Eastwood and Adams made throughout the movie.
Even though it seems like I had a million things to complain about, I still recommend this movie. Why? Because, flaws aside, it meshes together baseball, Clint Eastwood, a good cast, and enough family drama to compete with the Kardashians.
HandHStudios Rating: 6.7/10
The Departed
(2006)
Scorcese Strikes Gold Again. (No Spoilers)
11 August 2013
I can't shake the feeling of how much this movie reminds me of "Goodfellas".
The Departed is a slam-bam thriller, exceeding my expectations, which were already very high. The way Scorcese moves between scenes and plays this movie up is genius.
The script is excellent, providing rich dialogue to move the gripping story along, and the cinematography is just wonderful. The angles and style of filming that Martin Scorcese is famous for emanates here, shining brighter than films of kin.
The acting is just amazing, with a star-studded cast that delivers the goods, and then some. I enjoyed Matt Damon in the title roll, and Leonardo DiCaprio trails right behind him. Jack Nicholson brings charisma to the roll of Frank Costello, and executes with Oscar-worthy style. I especially liked Mark Wahlberg and Alec Baldwin's loose cannon-like characters. They provided a stunning edge to an already sharp blade of a film.
I can go on and on about everything else that is good in this movie, how it all clicks together, but I suggest you watch it for yourself if you haven't already, and find out what all the hype is about! I would give it more than 100 if I could.
HandHStudios Rating: 11/10 :-)
The Departed is a slam-bam thriller, exceeding my expectations, which were already very high. The way Scorcese moves between scenes and plays this movie up is genius.
The script is excellent, providing rich dialogue to move the gripping story along, and the cinematography is just wonderful. The angles and style of filming that Martin Scorcese is famous for emanates here, shining brighter than films of kin.
The acting is just amazing, with a star-studded cast that delivers the goods, and then some. I enjoyed Matt Damon in the title roll, and Leonardo DiCaprio trails right behind him. Jack Nicholson brings charisma to the roll of Frank Costello, and executes with Oscar-worthy style. I especially liked Mark Wahlberg and Alec Baldwin's loose cannon-like characters. They provided a stunning edge to an already sharp blade of a film.
I can go on and on about everything else that is good in this movie, how it all clicks together, but I suggest you watch it for yourself if you haven't already, and find out what all the hype is about! I would give it more than 100 if I could.
HandHStudios Rating: 11/10 :-)
We're the Millers
(2013)
A Marginally Funny Comedy With Some Love-It and Hate-It Moments
11 August 2013
Warning: Spoilers
I saw the trailer for "We're The Millers" and two things hit me: 1. I've never seen Ed Helms (who's in this movie) in another movie besides The Hangover Series (and if I decided to see this).
2. Jennifer Aniston plays a stripper.
So I said "What the hell, why not see it." This movie wasn't as bad as some critics are saying: it had some laughable moments, and some parts fit right into the movie like a shoe. That being said, there are parts of the movie nobody asked for or wanted, and moments I didn't like.
First off, this movie had a sort of funny comedic overtone, but the hard fact is that this movie's central plot was drugs, drugs, and more drugs. As David (Jason Sudeikis)says a quarter through the movie, "This is not a smidge. You've got me moving enough weed to kill Willie f**king Nelson!" This movie is placed in the genre of comedy, but leave out all the laughs and goofy moments, and it has messages about "family" and "sticking together" at its core, a feat achieved by a handful of these kinds of comedies. So, there's a plus.
The comedy was decent, there were a few memorable scenes that deserved a few laughs. But other than that, I wasn't laughing that much. The movie took a lot of chances, and only had a few payoffs. But as I said before, it had a deeper layer of family morals, sticking together, and so forth, which balanced out all the guilty laughs and stripper jokes.
This comedy had some love-it and hate-it moments, for sure. It was really balanced in terms of how much I hated it and liked it, so I can't say there were more love-it moments, or more hate-it moments. There were some parts of the movie I can't stand, and some parts I thoroughly enjoyed.
Overall, this movie had some core values of "family morals" that redeemed its ways of slapstick humor and sexual jokes. Ironically, for an R Rated comedy focusing on drugs, this was really a "family movie".
HandHStudios Rating: 6.4/10
2. Jennifer Aniston plays a stripper.
So I said "What the hell, why not see it." This movie wasn't as bad as some critics are saying: it had some laughable moments, and some parts fit right into the movie like a shoe. That being said, there are parts of the movie nobody asked for or wanted, and moments I didn't like.
First off, this movie had a sort of funny comedic overtone, but the hard fact is that this movie's central plot was drugs, drugs, and more drugs. As David (Jason Sudeikis)says a quarter through the movie, "This is not a smidge. You've got me moving enough weed to kill Willie f**king Nelson!" This movie is placed in the genre of comedy, but leave out all the laughs and goofy moments, and it has messages about "family" and "sticking together" at its core, a feat achieved by a handful of these kinds of comedies. So, there's a plus.
The comedy was decent, there were a few memorable scenes that deserved a few laughs. But other than that, I wasn't laughing that much. The movie took a lot of chances, and only had a few payoffs. But as I said before, it had a deeper layer of family morals, sticking together, and so forth, which balanced out all the guilty laughs and stripper jokes.
This comedy had some love-it and hate-it moments, for sure. It was really balanced in terms of how much I hated it and liked it, so I can't say there were more love-it moments, or more hate-it moments. There were some parts of the movie I can't stand, and some parts I thoroughly enjoyed.
Overall, this movie had some core values of "family morals" that redeemed its ways of slapstick humor and sexual jokes. Ironically, for an R Rated comedy focusing on drugs, this was really a "family movie".
HandHStudios Rating: 6.4/10
The Tortured
(2010)
Were the Editor and Audio Synchronizer High????
5 August 2013
Warning: Spoilers
For a movie called "The Tortured", I feel pretty tortured from watching it. I would've given it 0 stars if it was possible.
This wannabe horror-movie thriller is badly acted, coarsely edited, the audio is unsynchronized, the list goes on and on. Oh, and of course it's disgustingly graphic, which can be justified and work in some movies (i.e. Se7en), but it was just unbearable and gross in this movie.
To start off, this movie's plot just screams cliché. In fact, a good way to describe this movie is just one big horror movie cliché. The horrible plot is this: A psychotic man kidnaps a couple's son while the dad is distracted and the wife is at work. The police can't find sh*t, and of course the mom, being emotionally vulnerable as she should be, blames the cops for not finding her son. Screw logic! I mean seriously, investigations take a long time, and if the killer left no clues or evidence, then it will be harder. But, the mom just "needs someone to blame", as she says later, and of course she has to stick it on the hard-working, low-paid officers. Then, the police find the man, illegally enter his home, only to discover the son is already dead. Wow. Then, as the clichés roll on, the couple decide to get revenge on the man. Nothing in this movie ever deviates from formula. In fact, I'm not even sure if there IS a formula to this movie, as it seems like a jumbled mess.
Besides the formulaic, cliché plot line, the editing is horrible. Many times, a character might be saying something but their mouth isn't moving, or it's unsynchronized. Hence, the title of my review. Whoever edited this movie needs to go back to film school immediately.
Another thing is the picture and cinematography. The whole movie, save the flashbacks, is all washed out in color. This is a misconception with horror film directors that by washing out your film, it makes it scarier. All it does is make you look desperate and your film look amateurish. On another note, the cinematography was also abysmal, scoring no points for this otherwise dismal film. The shots were rough, almost feeling like a montage. They would have the same shot just moved a couple of inches over. Why they felt the need to do that is beyond me. Also, the shots had no style or feel to them, as if the editor and cinematographer just said "screw it" and slapped together the shots to make this movie.
Moreover, the movie is disgustingly graphic. What was once fresh and gripping in Se7en is now overall gross and appalling here. The couple shows no mercy as they torture their sons killer. At least John Doe had SOME shred of human decency! Additionally,it was horribly acted. I cannot fathom how these actors made it into Hollywood. They cannot act! I am half confident that I could do a better job then they did! Jesse Metcalf just sulked and sat there while Erika Christensen blathered on about how they would move on and find a better life. That was the whole first half of the movie.
Also, the script was disappointing. The dialogue was-- yes, you guessed it!-- all clichés! Jesse Metcalf says to Erika Christensen, "Killing (our sons killer) isn't going to change anything." Wow, the screenwriters couldn't come up with anything more original? That's sad.
To close, this was an abysmal, depressing, disgustingly graphic D movie with D list stars. I leave you with one thing: You'd be hard-pressed to find a worse horror movie then this.
HandHStudios Rating: 0/10
This wannabe horror-movie thriller is badly acted, coarsely edited, the audio is unsynchronized, the list goes on and on. Oh, and of course it's disgustingly graphic, which can be justified and work in some movies (i.e. Se7en), but it was just unbearable and gross in this movie.
To start off, this movie's plot just screams cliché. In fact, a good way to describe this movie is just one big horror movie cliché. The horrible plot is this: A psychotic man kidnaps a couple's son while the dad is distracted and the wife is at work. The police can't find sh*t, and of course the mom, being emotionally vulnerable as she should be, blames the cops for not finding her son. Screw logic! I mean seriously, investigations take a long time, and if the killer left no clues or evidence, then it will be harder. But, the mom just "needs someone to blame", as she says later, and of course she has to stick it on the hard-working, low-paid officers. Then, the police find the man, illegally enter his home, only to discover the son is already dead. Wow. Then, as the clichés roll on, the couple decide to get revenge on the man. Nothing in this movie ever deviates from formula. In fact, I'm not even sure if there IS a formula to this movie, as it seems like a jumbled mess.
Besides the formulaic, cliché plot line, the editing is horrible. Many times, a character might be saying something but their mouth isn't moving, or it's unsynchronized. Hence, the title of my review. Whoever edited this movie needs to go back to film school immediately.
Another thing is the picture and cinematography. The whole movie, save the flashbacks, is all washed out in color. This is a misconception with horror film directors that by washing out your film, it makes it scarier. All it does is make you look desperate and your film look amateurish. On another note, the cinematography was also abysmal, scoring no points for this otherwise dismal film. The shots were rough, almost feeling like a montage. They would have the same shot just moved a couple of inches over. Why they felt the need to do that is beyond me. Also, the shots had no style or feel to them, as if the editor and cinematographer just said "screw it" and slapped together the shots to make this movie.
Moreover, the movie is disgustingly graphic. What was once fresh and gripping in Se7en is now overall gross and appalling here. The couple shows no mercy as they torture their sons killer. At least John Doe had SOME shred of human decency! Additionally,it was horribly acted. I cannot fathom how these actors made it into Hollywood. They cannot act! I am half confident that I could do a better job then they did! Jesse Metcalf just sulked and sat there while Erika Christensen blathered on about how they would move on and find a better life. That was the whole first half of the movie.
Also, the script was disappointing. The dialogue was-- yes, you guessed it!-- all clichés! Jesse Metcalf says to Erika Christensen, "Killing (our sons killer) isn't going to change anything." Wow, the screenwriters couldn't come up with anything more original? That's sad.
To close, this was an abysmal, depressing, disgustingly graphic D movie with D list stars. I leave you with one thing: You'd be hard-pressed to find a worse horror movie then this.
HandHStudios Rating: 0/10
Liberal Arts
(2012)
Tasteful and Smart Film by Josh Radnor.
2 August 2013
Warning: Spoilers
I like Josh Radnor in CBS's "How I Met Your Mother", so I decided to watch the second film he directed.
I liked it! Josh incorporates elaborate story lines and the transitions flow smoothly. Here are some positives and negatives about the film:
Positives:
-Good casting; a talented cast. Elizabeth Olsen is the shining star here. Josh Radnor puts on a good performance, but Olsen steals the show. Playing "Zibby", she had so much energy and zip to her. She delivered her lines with confidence, and it made me feel like she really became the character: a good talent to have in the acting world. I bet she will have a bright future ahead of her in Hollywood.
-Great script with rich dialogue. For example, the post-coital scene with Jesse (Josh Radnor) and the professor (Allison Janney) was a nice touch, and you may not get what they're saying at first, but if you think about the dialogue on a deeper level, you'll get it, and the film will seem so much better than what you originally thought.
-Overall, the movie had lots of meaning, and Jesse's journey throughout the film will stick with you and perhaps remind you of even your life, if not the life of someone you know. The movie has a familiarity that I couldn't escape.
Negatives:
-Ana (Elizabeth Reaser), Jesse's "girlfriend" at the end, was kind of forgettable. After seeing what an amazing performance Elizabeth Olsen put on, I think they could've gotten a better actress to play Ana. She just didn't seem like a round character, and seemed kind of like a cardboard cutout of Jesse's girlfriend instead of actually giving something memorable to the role.
-The cinematography was up to par mostly, but in a couple shots in the beginning and throughout the movie, I noticed the editing was a little choppy and could've been tighter between shots.
-Josh Radnor, instead of putting a new take on the role, kind of plays the usual "Ted" (his character on How I Met Your Mother) role: a romantic man who is quietly nice and innocent. Though he played the role well, I wish he would've done something different with it.
-The scene with Peter (Richard Jenkins)and Bob (I forget the actor)was confusing to me. Peter asks for his position at the university back after he says he's retiring, and Bob informs him it's gone to someone else by now. Bob specifically says (paraphrasing) "We already have a new candidate with very good credentials...I'm sorry." The way he said it, I thought he was hinting that Jesse got the job, and I quickly thought this could've been possible, since he wanted to see Elizabeth Olsen, and that maybe he did that to be with her more. The scriptwriters should've been more clear on that and put it in a different way to not act like they're hinting at that.
I definitely recommend this movie; see it. I hope you enjoy it as much as I did. Except for those small flaws, the bigger picture and overall message of this film overpowers them.
Also, I still haven't seen his directorial debut, Happythankyoumoreplease, and I definitely will be seeing that. Hopefully you'll see a review from me soon for that movie ;-)
HandHStudios 9/10
I liked it! Josh incorporates elaborate story lines and the transitions flow smoothly. Here are some positives and negatives about the film:
Positives:
-Good casting; a talented cast. Elizabeth Olsen is the shining star here. Josh Radnor puts on a good performance, but Olsen steals the show. Playing "Zibby", she had so much energy and zip to her. She delivered her lines with confidence, and it made me feel like she really became the character: a good talent to have in the acting world. I bet she will have a bright future ahead of her in Hollywood.
-Great script with rich dialogue. For example, the post-coital scene with Jesse (Josh Radnor) and the professor (Allison Janney) was a nice touch, and you may not get what they're saying at first, but if you think about the dialogue on a deeper level, you'll get it, and the film will seem so much better than what you originally thought.
-Overall, the movie had lots of meaning, and Jesse's journey throughout the film will stick with you and perhaps remind you of even your life, if not the life of someone you know. The movie has a familiarity that I couldn't escape.
Negatives:
-Ana (Elizabeth Reaser), Jesse's "girlfriend" at the end, was kind of forgettable. After seeing what an amazing performance Elizabeth Olsen put on, I think they could've gotten a better actress to play Ana. She just didn't seem like a round character, and seemed kind of like a cardboard cutout of Jesse's girlfriend instead of actually giving something memorable to the role.
-The cinematography was up to par mostly, but in a couple shots in the beginning and throughout the movie, I noticed the editing was a little choppy and could've been tighter between shots.
-Josh Radnor, instead of putting a new take on the role, kind of plays the usual "Ted" (his character on How I Met Your Mother) role: a romantic man who is quietly nice and innocent. Though he played the role well, I wish he would've done something different with it.
-The scene with Peter (Richard Jenkins)and Bob (I forget the actor)was confusing to me. Peter asks for his position at the university back after he says he's retiring, and Bob informs him it's gone to someone else by now. Bob specifically says (paraphrasing) "We already have a new candidate with very good credentials...I'm sorry." The way he said it, I thought he was hinting that Jesse got the job, and I quickly thought this could've been possible, since he wanted to see Elizabeth Olsen, and that maybe he did that to be with her more. The scriptwriters should've been more clear on that and put it in a different way to not act like they're hinting at that.
I definitely recommend this movie; see it. I hope you enjoy it as much as I did. Except for those small flaws, the bigger picture and overall message of this film overpowers them.
Also, I still haven't seen his directorial debut, Happythankyoumoreplease, and I definitely will be seeing that. Hopefully you'll see a review from me soon for that movie ;-)
HandHStudios 9/10
Lockout
(2012)
"Solid B-Actioner, But Thinks It's Better Than It Is"
29 June 2013
Warning: Spoilers
When I saw the trailer for Lockout back in 2012, I thought, "oh, here we go again. Another CGI, messy, violent action movie with one liners and bad acting." Lockout proved a little bit of that to be true, but still exceeded my expectations.
Lockout is a fun movie for a party night or a couple of bros hanging out, but its not one to take your girlfriend to---- unless she can take that kind of stuff!--- and is not for your grandma either. It mixes a smart, but somewhat sluggish script, with a surprisingly well-thought out story line, and gets a solid B Actioner; but this movie thinks too highly of itself for what it is. Sometimes, it caves into itself, overstepping its boundaries, and the product is an adrenaline rush: the bad kind. More like a kid running around after having too much candy. Again, this is only at parts of it. Most of the movie is decent.
As awesome as ever, this movie has Guy Pierce, who has proved his talents as a character actor over and over again. From playing a geeky, by-the-books cop in L.A. Confidential, to an Irish evil-doer who wants to destroy the world in Iron Man 3. Now, he plays a bad-ass, flirty, lets-get-this-over-with man who was wrongfully convicted of Espionage against the U.S. He also needs a shave ;-). He's offered his freedom by rescuing the president's daughter from a prison she was visiting that got taken over by the prisoners. Trouble arises when he gets there, obviously, since this is a MOVIE, and nothing is simple and/or seems to go right.
I did, in fact, very much like one of the final scenes where they explained what happened to the whereabouts of the "package" that contained valuable information; the thing that got him arrested in the first place. I'm not gonna spoil it too much, but the way the writers played up the scene and its symbols was very creative. To find out what the hell I'm talking about, you'll have to see the movie (if you haven't already)! Overall, this movie is definitely worth a watch. Oh, and did I mention it takes place in 2079?
HandHStudios Rating: 6.3/10
Lockout is a fun movie for a party night or a couple of bros hanging out, but its not one to take your girlfriend to---- unless she can take that kind of stuff!--- and is not for your grandma either. It mixes a smart, but somewhat sluggish script, with a surprisingly well-thought out story line, and gets a solid B Actioner; but this movie thinks too highly of itself for what it is. Sometimes, it caves into itself, overstepping its boundaries, and the product is an adrenaline rush: the bad kind. More like a kid running around after having too much candy. Again, this is only at parts of it. Most of the movie is decent.
As awesome as ever, this movie has Guy Pierce, who has proved his talents as a character actor over and over again. From playing a geeky, by-the-books cop in L.A. Confidential, to an Irish evil-doer who wants to destroy the world in Iron Man 3. Now, he plays a bad-ass, flirty, lets-get-this-over-with man who was wrongfully convicted of Espionage against the U.S. He also needs a shave ;-). He's offered his freedom by rescuing the president's daughter from a prison she was visiting that got taken over by the prisoners. Trouble arises when he gets there, obviously, since this is a MOVIE, and nothing is simple and/or seems to go right.
I did, in fact, very much like one of the final scenes where they explained what happened to the whereabouts of the "package" that contained valuable information; the thing that got him arrested in the first place. I'm not gonna spoil it too much, but the way the writers played up the scene and its symbols was very creative. To find out what the hell I'm talking about, you'll have to see the movie (if you haven't already)! Overall, this movie is definitely worth a watch. Oh, and did I mention it takes place in 2079?
HandHStudios Rating: 6.3/10
Tell Your Friends