One man leads two others into a place called The Zone. This man, called a Stalker, is an expert at navigating the treacherous area. The others are looking to reach The Room, where when entering will fulfill their greatest desire. Much of the film involves the journey in The Zone. The Zone itself is auspicious enough, but there is a nervousness around that reminds you of the danger. The cinematography is the highlight of this film and it perfectly captures the delicate nature of The Zone. Despite this, it still feels like something is missing from this film. Maybe because it feels like at times it is about 3 men we do not know much about travelling an area with a danger that cannot be seen seeking something that can not be felt. Perhaps that is the intention. Most of the film's tension comes through dialogue, often consisting of dense philosophical monologues. This is probably where the film suffers the most. I generally dislike theatrical/Shakespearean aspects in film, and this is how the dialogue usually comes off as. Ultimately, film is a different medium than theater and has different qualities and features to present the drama. In essence, Film shouldn't be asking philosophical questions, it should be presenting them through action. In other words, show, don't tell. Overall, while being well shot, the film often fails to fully capture the tension in a compelling manner.
Reviews
13 Reviews
The Towering Inferno
(1974)
The Best of the 70s Disaster Flicks
25 May 2020
The Towering Inferno is the best execution of the disaster formula of the 70s. Get an all-star cast and put them into a B-movie disaster scenario. In this case it's a massive fire in a recently constructed skyscraper. The developer (William Holden) cut corners which allowed the fire to start. His son in law (Richard Chamberlain) was an electrical subcontractor for the building. Paul Newman is the architect that designed the building, Steve McQueen is the fire chief who arrives at the scene, yada yada. The back story isn't really that interesting. The main attraction is the disaster, and although it's a bit of a slow burn in the beginning, things soon heat up (ok no more fire puns). The set pieces and action sequences, all made with very good practical effects, still hold up today. Nothing feels cheap about it. And the cast is good enough to keep the movie going along unlike The Poseidon Adventure where stars Gene Hackman and Ernest Borgnine play guys who just yell all the time. Paul Newman and Steve McQueen are, in a word, cool. They aren't just A-list actors, they're stars. None of the disaster movies had the star power this movie has. The supporting cast of William Holden, Faye Dunaway, Fred Astaire, etc. is also impressive. Richard Chamberlain in particular is great, it's impossible to like him at all. And that's where The Towering Inferno succeeds. It's the most engaging, least hammy of all the disaster films in the 70s, and it is worth the watch.
The Evil Dead
(1981)
Good old fashioned spooky cabin movie
5 April 2020
There must be really something inherently creepy about cabins in the middle of the woods. Whether it's the isolation, vulnerability, the proximity to nature or the fact that it's pretty cheap to shoot a movie there (like this one), creepy cabins keep showing up in horror movies. It's basically a trope at this point.
While this film series is well-known for incorporating humor and action elements, those are lacking in this film.. In a way, it kind of feels like a band's first album where they are piecing the elements together but still haven't found their sound. Ash Williams (played by Bruce Campbell) in the later films would become more action hero like, but in this movie him and the rest of the characters that venture to the cabin are just regular people.
The story premise, which involves evil spirits being summoned through a book of the dead, is a bit silly (which is why Evil Dead 2 works so well as a kind of parody of the first movie), but The Evil Dead is so well made that this can be gladly ignored. Director Sam Raimi uses a lot of inventive camera work to make the horror feel real. Through POV shots, the invisible evil spirits in this film have a real physical presence, and there are plenty of great long takes that build up suspense perfectly. The effects are low-budget but work really well, and nothing is held back because there was no major studio they needed to deal with when making this movie.
This movie is kind of the black sheep in the franchise, but it is still a very effective horror movie.
While this film series is well-known for incorporating humor and action elements, those are lacking in this film.. In a way, it kind of feels like a band's first album where they are piecing the elements together but still haven't found their sound. Ash Williams (played by Bruce Campbell) in the later films would become more action hero like, but in this movie him and the rest of the characters that venture to the cabin are just regular people.
The story premise, which involves evil spirits being summoned through a book of the dead, is a bit silly (which is why Evil Dead 2 works so well as a kind of parody of the first movie), but The Evil Dead is so well made that this can be gladly ignored. Director Sam Raimi uses a lot of inventive camera work to make the horror feel real. Through POV shots, the invisible evil spirits in this film have a real physical presence, and there are plenty of great long takes that build up suspense perfectly. The effects are low-budget but work really well, and nothing is held back because there was no major studio they needed to deal with when making this movie.
This movie is kind of the black sheep in the franchise, but it is still a very effective horror movie.
The Irishman
(2019)
A Swan Song of Sorts
15 December 2019
Martin Scorsese's movies often examine the lives of those involved in nefarious activity. Movies like Goodfellas, Casino, and The Wolf of Wall Street on first glance may seem like they are glamorizing the lifestyle of the gangster or the wall street banker. The appeal of these lifestyles is only part of the story, and there is always the eventual downfall. The Irishman may seem like a retread of movies such as Goodfellas and Casino initially, but it is a far different story. The Irishman examines Frank Sheeran, who was involved with mob activiy, a friend of Jimmy Hoffa and (allegedly) the man who killed him. The first 2 and a half hours run like any regular Scorsese gangster flick with the first person narration. The rest of the film deals with the inevitable, death. Being forgotten and becoming a relic of a certain era from a long time ago. There's a funny gag throughout the film where when characters shown up it's told how they die (most of the time it involves bullets), but beneath that it's a stark reminder of the frailty of the mafia business and what the inevitable cost of being involved is. Robert De Niro, Al Pacino and Joe Pesci are all great in this film. Al Pacino as Jimmy Hoffa is a larger than life character who is not afraid to go after what he wants, even if it eventually becomes fatal. If Joe Pesci is engraved in your mind as the hot head from both Goodfellas and Casino, then you should be pleased to know that Joe Pesci's character is the exact opposite in this movie. He is a quiet but strong mafia leader who delivers his message not through outbursts but through subtle glances and a calm demeanor.
Knives Out
(2019)
Good Old Whodunnit
15 December 2019
Warning: Spoilers
On the surface Knives Out is a whodunnit murder mystery, but beneath is a subtle examination and critique of wealth acquired through family legacy in the form of the Thrombey family. While neither are necessary reinventing the wheel, both are compelling. The murder mystery is fun, unpredictable and humorous. At the center of it is Daniel Craig as Benoit Blanc, a private detective hired anonymously under suspicious circumstances and Ana de Armas as the nurse and friend of the deceased Harlan Thrombey (Christopher Plummer). This movie isn't just interested in the mystery but in the characters that are caught up in the suspicious death of Mr. Harlan Thrombey, who by chance has just cut off the family from his money, legacy, and inheritance. The one scene that stood out in this film to me was about halfway through, where Michael Shannon's character, one of Harlan's sons, weakly attempts to extort Ana de Armas' character into giving up the inheritance gifted to her. It's a scummy move, but it's given nuance coming from someone who has just lost his father and left out of a substantial inheritance he was expected to receive for a number of years. Rian Johnson, like all good filmmakers (he also wrote the excellent script), realizes that good characters are the centerpiece of a good movie. All together this is an excellent movie, and I should mention again that it is also very funny.
The Imitation Game
(2014)
Just go and watch A Beautiful Mind (or watch it again)
29 October 2019
Warning: Spoilers
Consider this the textbook example of Oscar-bait. Benedict Cumberbatch stars as Alan Turing, a brilliant and influential mathematician and computer scientist who helped decode the Enigma machine that the Nazis were using to send encrypted messages (this saved countless lives) and was later prosecuted for being gay and forced to be chemically castrated. It's an appalling story that this movie does no justice.
The first fatal flaw is its portrayal of Turing. Apparently getting all of its information about genius mathematicians from movies such as Rain Man and A Beautiful Mind, Turing is portrayed as a sort of savant like character who is incapable of social interaction (in real life Turing was not like this). Benedict Cumberbatch is solid, but you can't help feel like he's playing only a slightly altered version of Sherlock (socially inept, eccentric, brilliant). There are other numerous historical inaccuracies as well (it's a movie so full historical accuracy is not needed, but just don't expect to get a good history lesson here).
The other main characters in this film are okay to forgettable. Kiera Knightly is fine as Joan Clarke, another brilliant codebreaker who struggles to gain acceptance because she is a woman. We unfortunately don't get enough time with her. Charles Dance is the tough military guy (he's got a good tough guy routine) and Mark Strong is the mysterious spy. Both completely forgettable.
The script suffers too, mostly playing it by the book with cliches we have seen a thousand times before. There's a corny inspirational line that gets a call back not once, but twice! And there's a eureka scene in a bar that feels like a direct rip off of A Beautiful Mind. I have no idea how this won an Oscar for Best Adapted Screenplay.
Overall, just go and watch A Beautiful Mind. Or go and watch it again if you've already seen it.
The first fatal flaw is its portrayal of Turing. Apparently getting all of its information about genius mathematicians from movies such as Rain Man and A Beautiful Mind, Turing is portrayed as a sort of savant like character who is incapable of social interaction (in real life Turing was not like this). Benedict Cumberbatch is solid, but you can't help feel like he's playing only a slightly altered version of Sherlock (socially inept, eccentric, brilliant). There are other numerous historical inaccuracies as well (it's a movie so full historical accuracy is not needed, but just don't expect to get a good history lesson here).
The other main characters in this film are okay to forgettable. Kiera Knightly is fine as Joan Clarke, another brilliant codebreaker who struggles to gain acceptance because she is a woman. We unfortunately don't get enough time with her. Charles Dance is the tough military guy (he's got a good tough guy routine) and Mark Strong is the mysterious spy. Both completely forgettable.
The script suffers too, mostly playing it by the book with cliches we have seen a thousand times before. There's a corny inspirational line that gets a call back not once, but twice! And there's a eureka scene in a bar that feels like a direct rip off of A Beautiful Mind. I have no idea how this won an Oscar for Best Adapted Screenplay.
Overall, just go and watch A Beautiful Mind. Or go and watch it again if you've already seen it.
Day of the Dead
(1985)
Chilling, but missing a reason to care
29 October 2019
Warning: Spoilers
Day of the Dead is a movie bleaker than its two predecessors, Night of the Living Dead and Dawn of the Dead. The cities are abandoned, overrun by the dead. The zombies have won. What's left of humanity is hidden away, fighting a hopeless battle to find a cure that will never come.
This is a claustrophobic movie. Most of the time is spent in an underground base. You can feel the walls closing in (or zombies breaking through as is portrayed in one of the dream sequences). There's also a sense of hopelessness impossible to shake off. The movie asks implicitly if there's even a point of survival.
What the previous two movies in the Romero Zombie Trilogy have that this movie doesn't is good characters and good fun. Not all movies have to be fun. But we need, if not someone to care about, someone to analyze and examine. Night of the Living Dead had those (save for Barbara). So did Dawn of the Dead. In Day of the Dead, we have overacting in the form of big shouty military guys and mad scientists. We're left with stereotypes.
In the end it seems like a lot of good atmosphere and effects (these aren't your grandpa's blue zombies) wasted on the plights of characters we could care less about. Also the ending blows.
This is a claustrophobic movie. Most of the time is spent in an underground base. You can feel the walls closing in (or zombies breaking through as is portrayed in one of the dream sequences). There's also a sense of hopelessness impossible to shake off. The movie asks implicitly if there's even a point of survival.
What the previous two movies in the Romero Zombie Trilogy have that this movie doesn't is good characters and good fun. Not all movies have to be fun. But we need, if not someone to care about, someone to analyze and examine. Night of the Living Dead had those (save for Barbara). So did Dawn of the Dead. In Day of the Dead, we have overacting in the form of big shouty military guys and mad scientists. We're left with stereotypes.
In the end it seems like a lot of good atmosphere and effects (these aren't your grandpa's blue zombies) wasted on the plights of characters we could care less about. Also the ending blows.
Dawn of the Dead
(1978)
A fun surreal experience
28 October 2019
Dawn of the Dead is one of the few movies that I will constantly re-watch. It's a combination of post-apocalypse dread thrilling action and smart humor that's hard to pull off.
There is no real story arc in this film. It starts in a local news station beginning to fall apart and follows the main characters as they eventually come upon an abandoned shopping mall (abandoned by humans at least). The simplicity of the story makes it easy to get immersed into,. At the crux of it, this is just a story of survival.
The violence and gore in this movie can be quite cartoonish and unrealistic. (Unintentionally I think) Most of the zombies end up looking blue and the blood is a bright red, but it ends up working in favor for this film, juxtaposing a grounded story and characters to create a surreal kind of imagery.
There are a lot of different cuts of this film, the one I watch (and based this review on) is the 2Hr19min cut. There's an extended edition and a shorter version too, but I would recommend watching the 2Hr19 minute version
There is no real story arc in this film. It starts in a local news station beginning to fall apart and follows the main characters as they eventually come upon an abandoned shopping mall (abandoned by humans at least). The simplicity of the story makes it easy to get immersed into,. At the crux of it, this is just a story of survival.
The violence and gore in this movie can be quite cartoonish and unrealistic. (Unintentionally I think) Most of the zombies end up looking blue and the blood is a bright red, but it ends up working in favor for this film, juxtaposing a grounded story and characters to create a surreal kind of imagery.
There are a lot of different cuts of this film, the one I watch (and based this review on) is the 2Hr19min cut. There's an extended edition and a shorter version too, but I would recommend watching the 2Hr19 minute version
Independence Day: Resurgence
(2016)
It's Just Bad
29 October 2017
Roland Emmerich has never been one of my favorite filmmakers. Mainly that his films have always lacked nuance, intelligence, or anything worth saying. Usually at the very least Emmerich can make an entertaining film. The original Independence Day was and still is a good popcorn flick thanks to a nice pace, good action, and decent if not completely 2-dimensional ensemble cast.
However, this movie is a giant mess. One of the bigger problems is that the cast is too big. Most of the cast from the first movie (with one of the notable exceptions being Will Smith) return in one way or another, but added on to that are a bunch of new characters (a lot I couldn't even remember until I looked at the cast and crew description) that aren't given enough time to develop. Apart from not caring about or knowing half the people in this movie, the other main problem is that the whole plot makes no sense. Why is there a moon base? How did everything get rebuilt so fast? How did they build a moon base so fast? Alien technology only goes so far when major cities get wiped out (which if I remember from the first movie was a lot of them).
Thanks to this combination of boring, undeveloped characters and a convoluted, unintelligible plot, I can't even remember what happened in this movie. To be fair, I saw this movie quite a while back, but I don't think I could have described it with much detail then either. Apparently there will be an Independence Day 3 coming out. I will be staying far away.
However, this movie is a giant mess. One of the bigger problems is that the cast is too big. Most of the cast from the first movie (with one of the notable exceptions being Will Smith) return in one way or another, but added on to that are a bunch of new characters (a lot I couldn't even remember until I looked at the cast and crew description) that aren't given enough time to develop. Apart from not caring about or knowing half the people in this movie, the other main problem is that the whole plot makes no sense. Why is there a moon base? How did everything get rebuilt so fast? How did they build a moon base so fast? Alien technology only goes so far when major cities get wiped out (which if I remember from the first movie was a lot of them).
Thanks to this combination of boring, undeveloped characters and a convoluted, unintelligible plot, I can't even remember what happened in this movie. To be fair, I saw this movie quite a while back, but I don't think I could have described it with much detail then either. Apparently there will be an Independence Day 3 coming out. I will be staying far away.
Blade Runner 2049
(2017)
A Visual Masterpiece, but not Perfect
7 October 2017
Blade Runner 2049 is visually the best movie I have seen in theaters, thanks to Roger Deakins, the best cinematographer in the business who may finally get an Oscar after 13 previous nominations, and director Denis Villeneuve, whose movies are always visually at the top of their game. To compliment the visuals is an interesting and thought-provoking story that continues and expands the ideas initially explored in the original Blade Runner about what it means to be human. There are good performances from all the cast, although some are unfortunately wasted and not given too much to do.
The only real problem with Blade Runner 2049 is the pacing and plot direction of the story. Blade Runner 2049 has a slow pace and a nearly 3 hour run time, which isn't a problem by itself (and I actually enjoyed the slow pace), but somehow rushes the final act of the movie to a somewhat awkward conclusion. I also felt Ryan Gosling's character's initial motivations were left unclear and made his character's development weaker which was a problem since Gosling is in about 85% of the movie. Another problem is that Ryan Gosling is in about 85% of the movie, leaving little time to establish the characters that are after him and what he knows.
The only real problem with Blade Runner 2049 is the pacing and plot direction of the story. Blade Runner 2049 has a slow pace and a nearly 3 hour run time, which isn't a problem by itself (and I actually enjoyed the slow pace), but somehow rushes the final act of the movie to a somewhat awkward conclusion. I also felt Ryan Gosling's character's initial motivations were left unclear and made his character's development weaker which was a problem since Gosling is in about 85% of the movie. Another problem is that Ryan Gosling is in about 85% of the movie, leaving little time to establish the characters that are after him and what he knows.
Deadpool
(2016)
A movie too conventional for an unconventional anti-hero
20 October 2016
Let me just say off the bat that I liked this movie overall. The action and the humor were both very good, and Ryan Reynolds nailed the role of Deadpool.
With that said, Deadpool, the infamous anti-hero known for constantly breaking the 4th wall and just overall being unconventional, is stuck in a way too conventional movie that doesn't take enough risks. Deadpool in this film is very much himself, and there's plenty of R-rated humor the usual PG-13 Marvel film tries to avoid, but in the end, the film gets bogged down by a typical 3rd act finale (the weakest point of the film), another forgettable Marvel villain in Ajax (possibly the worst),plus the typical supporting characters like the love interest and goofy sidekick. It's all a little too conventional for such an unconventional character in Deadpool, and the movie suffers.
With that said, Deadpool, the infamous anti-hero known for constantly breaking the 4th wall and just overall being unconventional, is stuck in a way too conventional movie that doesn't take enough risks. Deadpool in this film is very much himself, and there's plenty of R-rated humor the usual PG-13 Marvel film tries to avoid, but in the end, the film gets bogged down by a typical 3rd act finale (the weakest point of the film), another forgettable Marvel villain in Ajax (possibly the worst),plus the typical supporting characters like the love interest and goofy sidekick. It's all a little too conventional for such an unconventional character in Deadpool, and the movie suffers.
Pride
(I) (2014)
Thankfully more than a rah-rah feel-good movie
21 July 2015
It would have been really easy for Pride to have been a preachy, feel-good movie with a caveman message of "Gay rights good! Bigots bad!" (not necessarily wrong, but it would have made for a pointless and overall bland movie). Thankfully, save for a couple of scenes straight from the inspirational movie handbook, it avoids these clichés and instead focuses on the characters involved in this unusual alliance between gay rights activists and a small-town of unionized miners and the strength of its spectacular cast (especially Imelda Staunton and Bill Nighy) that carry both the characters and the movie. Watching the gay rights activists struggle for acceptance and the small mining town being forced to reconsider what they believe in are equally as interesting and again helped by the amazing cast which are able to deliver both humorous and dramatic moments, although the movie underplayed the dramatic moments by not going into detail which, in my opinion, hurt the effectiveness of those scenes. Then again, maybe I am just a masochist. Overall the movie is able to avoid many of the pitfalls movies similar to it have fallen victim to and be pretty compelling as well.
Enter the Dragon
(1973)
What Could Have Been for Bruce Lee
26 June 2015
When watching this film, which would be Bruce Lee's last fully completed film, it's not hard to wonder what could have been, for Enter the Dragon is, although with shortcomings, a great action movie. The plot is simplistic itself, following three characters Lee (Bruce Lee), Roper (John Saxon), and Williams (Jim Kelly) all attending a martial arts tournament on a secluded island for different reasons. Lee looks to spy on Han (the owner of the island played by Kien Shih), who is involved in some illegal activities for some agency and to avenge his sister's death. Roper looks to get rid of some debts he owes to somebody, and Williams is looking to just win or something (he doesn't get a lot of back-story but he does beat up some hilariously racist cops so whatever). The story isn't very detailed but it doesn't really matter because it allows the film to move at a nice pace and let the spectacular action be the real focus of the movie, and what's not to like about it? The action scenes are clear, well-shot, engaging, and creative, and the credit goes all to Bruce Lee, who acted in most of the action sequences as well as choreographing and directing the scenes. It's not hard to believe Lee could have become a great director if his life had not been cut short. As great as the action is there are a few flaws with the film. The acting is a bit hammy at times (Jim Kelly being the biggest culprit) and there are a couple of editing issues, but these are very minor complaints for an otherwise great movie.
Tell Your Friends