Hello, WORLD!! This morning, reading the Chicago Red Eye, I saw one of my favorite journalist issue a challenge (See the nature of the challenge here: http://www.chicagonow.com/blogs/kyles-files/2010/10/kyles-files-scare-dare-2-in-3d.html). Here's my emailed response:
Hey, Kyra! Now you KNOW movies is my deparrtment and I love a great horror movie! Have you seen Mulholland Drive? While not really a horror movie, it certainly scares the hell out of me! Seriously it's pretty good. I know your time is limited so I'll make this a quick list of ten good ones from within the last 10 years:
1. Feast (2005): This movie is in the vein of Scream (makes plenty fun of the horror cliches, characters & the genre itself) but with actually monsters! Funny & scary.
2. Dead Silence (2007): While mainly just a so-so movie, the twist of this movie puts it over the top into a decent horror movie.
3. The Skeleton Key (2005): See my comments on the movie above? Copy and paste those here.
4. House of the Devil (2009): This movie is a throwback in every sense of the word! It has an 80's feel to it. The end is quiet but efficent.
5. The Mist (2007): Stephen King is my idol! He is the reason I write today. To bad his movies are never better than the books...until this one. The ending here is actually better than in the book!
6. Audition (1999) (JAPANESE): I'm cheating here; this is more than 10 years old. I still get chills everytime I think of "Ki Ki Ki Ki". No details here, just watch it. Speaking of cheating...
7. Don't Look Now (1973): I know right:1973? Trust me on this. When I was a kid it scared me for the normal reasons. Now that I really understand it, I scares me more. With Donald Sutherland.
8. Nine Dead (2010): Not really a horror movie; more like the first Saw. 9 strangers are chained in a room by a man who plans on killing them, unless they figure out how they are all connected.
9. Martyrs (2008)(FRENCH): For YEARS, we have looked to Japan for great horror movies. This French movie is about 2 tortured women. It's not how they're tortured, but why that scares!
10. Inside (2007)(FRENCH): A pregnant woman is stuck inside her house because a demented woman is trying to kill her. This movie has some of the most surprising scenes I've ever seen.
I hope I listed a few movies you haven't seen yet and if so, I hope you enjoy them. That was a great question though because it had me thinking hard of the best horror movies I've seen in recent years. Thanks Kyra!
(BTW: I turned your question and my response into one of my blog posts. I hope you don't mind.)
Smokkee Singleton
Friday, October 29, 2010
Wednesday, August 25, 2010
STORYTELLING (2001). A BIZZEE Pick.
Hello WORLD!!! I haven’t done a movie review in a minute but since I’ve been movie going a lot lately, I figured I better pick up the pace a little. I just seen SCOTT PILGRIM VS THE WORLD, a great movie with a great cast. A few of the cast members stand out for various reasons. One of the uncredited cameos was Clifton Collins Jr, who played the drug dealer Rupert in RULES OF ATRACTION and Cuba Gooding Jr’s partner in DIRTY. His role was very short but funny in here and I’m surprised I spotted him. Another familiar face was Mark Webber, who played Steven “The Talent” in SCOTT PILGRIM. I’ll admit it took me a minute to place his face though; after doing a bit of research, I found out he starred in a little known movie called LIFE IS HOT IN CRACKTOWN (not bad but it won’t be a BIZZEE pick either) which also starred his SCOTT PILGRIM costar Brandon Routh. Doing a little more research, I found the movie which I knew and respected for: Todd Solondz 2001 masterpiece, STORYTELLING.
What can I say about this movie? Well I saw it one night not knowing anything about it or the director but I was hooked from the beginning. It is a movie of two separate tales. The first tale, simply titled FICTION is a about a college student named Vi (a young Selma Blair) with a handicap boyfriend (Larry Clark’s KIDS villain Leo Fitzpatrick, showing a little depth) who has an argument with him regarding their teacher, played wisely without any type of emotion by Robert Wisdom (no pun intended). Right after the argument, Vi runs into the same teacher and that’s where this tale turns weird. Anything else about this half of the movie is a spoiler but if you have heard anything about it, it’s the scene that this scene sets up, which may be brutal for some of the audience (I won’t say who). As a writer I can not think of a better more satisfying ending than the one that occurs here.
The first story was called FICTION but it dealt with non fiction. The second, longer story is called NON FICTION but it might as well be fiction. The always enjoyable Paul Giamatti is a film maker who has plans on releasing a documentary on a high school student named Scooby (PILGRIM’s Mark Webber). In the scenes with his parents, John Goodman is hilarious. Documentary turns out to be a hit, but not how Scooby expects it and THEN tragedy hits in the most unlikely of ways. Look, I don’t recommend any bullshit, but I guarantee that one of these stories, if not both, will have you discussing it the next day. Definitely a must see. That’s it for now, WORLD, but I’m sure it’s enough for now!
Friday, July 30, 2010
SAW: The Best Horror Series Ever? Maybe….
Hello WORLD!!! I’ve been thinking about writing this ever since I saw SAW 6 for the first time a while back but a small piece in Tuesday’s Chicago Red Eye furthermore made my think my opinion is right. The snippet read: “It may not be the greatest horror movies of all time but the SAW films are…the most successful horror movie series of all time. The 6 movies have netter $733 million worldwide….”. WOW!! Even with the dozens of FRIDAY THE 13THs, NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREETS, HALLOWEENs and NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD & all of there sequels, it took just 6 movies to take that title, with the seventh set to be released in October around it’s usually date, which is Halloween. In my opinion, SAW and it’s sequels are one of the best movie series of all time PERIOD. Yeah, I said it! Not just in terms of horror movies but including all genres, it is right up there with some of the best movie series ever. Think about it; each SAW from 1-4 was absolutely pitch perfect as far as story telling goes and the twist endings, especially 1 and 4, were brilliant without cheating. SAW 5 was probably the weakest movie in the series and it had a great plot. I think the misstep with 5 was the direction of the story going away from Jigsaw and into **I DONT DO SPOILERS SO SEE THE DAMN MOVIE FOR YOURSELF!!!**, which was kinda stupid but setup part 6 to be absolutely fantastic BUT….. I’ll get right back to that. In the meantime, I’ll admit that this year’s SAW 3D is probably the most anticipated (by me) SAW in the whole series. What makes this series so good? Well, here is my theory on the good & great movies in general: a good movie is a movie you wouldn’t mind seeing again while a great movie is a movie that makes you want to see it again after you just saw it for the first time. Most of the SAW movies fits the latter description and if not that then the first description. Conversely, a bad movie is one you don’t want to watch again PERIOD.
I haven’t really talked about SAW 6 that much for a reason. I enjoyed the movie, that much is clear, but it isn’t a flawless movie. I hate spoiling movies so I can’t go into too much detail here but the ending isn’t quite possible is it? If everything that happened in 3 and 4 are to be believed, then there is NO WAY that 6 could even have happened! Does that stop it from being a great movie. Not at all. I enjoyed SMOKING ACES to death and there is NO CHANCE IN HELL the big reveal of that movie is even possible. Besides that, there’s movies like David Lynch’s INLAND EMPIRE and Terry Gilliam’s BRAZIL that I also love & I watch repeatedly but I couldn’t tell you what either one of them is really about. Who really knows what those movies are about besides the directors? I also love INCEPTION but there’s been so many theories on the meaning of that movie that it almost seems like we’re debating a religion instead of a great movie. BTW:It is a great movie whether all the interpretations are valid or not, but I suggest you see it for yourself before you past judgement. I got a true understanding of it on the first take!
That’s all I wanted to say, WORLD, but let me check to make sure I said it: The SAW franchise is the best series of all time and definitely a contender for best horror franchise ever. Yep I said it! That’s it for now WORLD, but ain’t that enough? Well, it gotta be until I catch up with Jigsaw, for the last time, this October.
Friday, July 23, 2010
Top 5 CURRENT Next Level Directors
Hello WORLD!!! I got my mind all set on seeing either INCEPTION (at the Imax, of course) or SALT today and watching which ever one I don’t see on Sunday, sandwiched between DESPICABLE ME w/my daughter Adria tomorrow on Saturday. I’m really leaning toward INCEPTION because of the director, Christopher Nolan, who directed one of my Top Ten favorite movies of all time, MEMENTO. If you seen this movie, you undoubtedly saw it more than once before you got a full understanding of it or you saw it multiple times and STILL don’t have a full understanding of it. Either way, I’m more than sure you enjoyed this movie, as you have most of his other movies, including THE PRESTIGE & last years smash hit, THE DARK KNIGHT. To be sure, he is one of the most sought after directors now, but definitely not one of your typical directors. I would categorize Mr. Nolan as a NEXT LEVEL director; a director that is not above taken risks. He would be in a class by himself if not for trailblazers like Sam Peckinpah, Stanley Kubrick, Martin Scorsese, Steven Spielberg, and the likes. These directors told unconventional stories (like Kubrick’s CLOCKWORK ORANGE, 2001) or common stories in the most unconventional manner (like Spielberg's adorable alien classic ET or Scorsese award winning reimagining of the mobster genre, THE GODFATHER) So, who are the best Next Level currently making movies? Here’s my list:
5. Todd Solondz: You might not have heard of this director before, but I have a feeling he’ll be mentioned with the greats in no time. To prove my point, watch his movies STORYTELLING, HAPPINESS, and his debut film WELCOME TO THE DOLLHOUSE. STORYTELLING is an instant classic that if you have not seen, then I strongly recommend you go watch before you even finish this blog post!
5. Christopher Nolan: The current IT director has not had many hits in his career. He has only made 7 movies starting with 1998’s cult classic FOLLOWING. Besides FOLLOWING, the other 6 movies could be considered hits. These hits include one of my Top Ten (& a future BIZZEE pick), MEMENTO (2000), the Al Pacino / Robin Williams powered INSOMNIA, and the Christian Bale / Hugh Jackman vehicle THE PRESTIGE. In my book each of his 6 previous movies, besides INCEPTION which I haven’t seen yet, are worth owning or at least worth multiple viewings. We’re going to end the discussion of Nolan’s skills on that note; not even mentioning how HUGELY successful his Batman reboot has been….
4. David Croenberg: I’ll admit, there are a handful of movies by this director that I haven’t seen yet, NAKED LUNCH, SHIVERS, & THE BROOD among them, but the ones I have seen have been strange but satisfying. The fact that he started out in 1969 w/ STEREO and hasn’t slowed down yet is a testament to his longevity; he just released a his take on modern mafia movies with EASTERN PROMISES last year and has a plan to release another feature next year. Without knowing any details, I’m sure it can be no stranger than VIDEODROME, his remake of THE FLY or his Steven King penned classic THE DEAD ZONE.
2. Quentin Tarantino: Do I even have to explain who he is? The most recognizable name on this list, which movie of his has been conventional and has NOT been a hit? Nuff said!
1. David Lynch: The UNDISPUTED master of WTF?!?! movies and OMG directing these days is David Lynch. While I’ve seen his last movie, INLAND EMPIRES, over a 100, I cannot explain it nor do I even try to understand it anymore. That does not make it any less than the beautiful movie experience it is. Oh, and did I mention that his MULHOLLUND DRIVE is ranked higher than MEMENTO in my top ten movies of all time? If you haven’t checked out those movies or his classics like BLUE VELVET or WILD AT HEART then you owe that to yourself too.
Well, that’s it for now WORLD, but isn’t that enough? My take on INCEPTION & SALT next Monday!
Thursday, July 1, 2010
There is no Plan B
Great casting meets non-stop action! This is technically my first impression after watching The A Team.
When I learned about this remake, I quickly anticipated the actors who would fill-up the shoes of the characters and how they would give justice to their performances.
The cast. When it was revealed that Liam Neeson will play Hannibal Smith, I predicted that he would suck on the role (because I was rooting for Bruce Willis to play Smith).
But after watching the film, I could not even imagine Bruce Willis as Smith because of
Liam Neeson's knockout performance. Quinton Rampage Jackson filling-up for Mr. T's character, B.A. Baracus, is a good choice compared to earlier rumors that Ice Cube was considered for the role. Bradley Cooper as Face is just OK. But the character who steals every scene he was in is 'Howling Mad' Murdock, brilliantly portrayed by District 9's Sharlto Copley.
Patrick Wilson also gave a noteworthy performance as the film's bad guy.
(I enjoyed watching him in this film than in Watchmen and Hard Candy)
The only miscast in this movie was Jessica Biel as a DOD agent. She looks ridiculous playing that strong character.
The plot. The movie stayed true to the TV series. War veterans (Vietnam updated to Iraq) on the run clearing their names for a crime they didn't commit. They were apprehended but broke out of prison to get even with the guy who set them up. So expect a lot of cat-and-mouse sequences. The one scene that stands out was when the team escaped from a blown C-130 plane. Anyway, if you're looking for a fun and entertaining action flick, forget the plot of this one and just enjoy the ride because The A Team is a brainless-action-comedy-CGI fest kind of movie with lots of funny one-liners. But absoultely better than the G.I. Joe remake.
If you want a more enjoyable actioner with a good script, character development and action-comedy-CGI fest, go and rewatch James Cameron's True Lies.
But The A Team, fairly enough, qualifies as an entertaining film.
I just hope the producers wouldn't mess this one up by making an unecessary sequel!
There should be no Plan B for this film.
Once is enough!
When I learned about this remake, I quickly anticipated the actors who would fill-up the shoes of the characters and how they would give justice to their performances.
The cast. When it was revealed that Liam Neeson will play Hannibal Smith, I predicted that he would suck on the role (because I was rooting for Bruce Willis to play Smith).
But after watching the film, I could not even imagine Bruce Willis as Smith because of
Liam Neeson's knockout performance. Quinton Rampage Jackson filling-up for Mr. T's character, B.A. Baracus, is a good choice compared to earlier rumors that Ice Cube was considered for the role. Bradley Cooper as Face is just OK. But the character who steals every scene he was in is 'Howling Mad' Murdock, brilliantly portrayed by District 9's Sharlto Copley.
Patrick Wilson also gave a noteworthy performance as the film's bad guy.
(I enjoyed watching him in this film than in Watchmen and Hard Candy)
The only miscast in this movie was Jessica Biel as a DOD agent. She looks ridiculous playing that strong character.
The plot. The movie stayed true to the TV series. War veterans (Vietnam updated to Iraq) on the run clearing their names for a crime they didn't commit. They were apprehended but broke out of prison to get even with the guy who set them up. So expect a lot of cat-and-mouse sequences. The one scene that stands out was when the team escaped from a blown C-130 plane. Anyway, if you're looking for a fun and entertaining action flick, forget the plot of this one and just enjoy the ride because The A Team is a brainless-action-comedy-CGI fest kind of movie with lots of funny one-liners. But absoultely better than the G.I. Joe remake.
If you want a more enjoyable actioner with a good script, character development and action-comedy-CGI fest, go and rewatch James Cameron's True Lies.
But The A Team, fairly enough, qualifies as an entertaining film.
I just hope the producers wouldn't mess this one up by making an unecessary sequel!
There should be no Plan B for this film.
Once is enough!
Tuesday, June 29, 2010
BIZZEE Picks: TOP 5 GENRE BUSTING MOVIES
Hello, WORLD!!! Smokkee here. Yesterday, I reviewed the controversial STRAW DOGS and I called it a "one of the greatest examples of a GENRE BENDER" movie. Sometimes I call movies like a GENRE BUSTER. What kinda movie is it? Just like the name says, it's a movie that can't be confined to any one genre or a movie that transcends more than one genre. STRAW DOGS is such a movie; it could be considered a horror movie, a thriller, a romantic dramedy (I know I laughed a lot even if the laughs were inappropriate). Anyway I got to thinking about it after I posted "Is it the greatest?" Now that I thought about it, while it is still a great example, it isn't in my top 5 of all time. I can think of at least 5 that's better. They are in no particular order:
MALICE(1993): Off hand, I would that this early vehicle for a young Nicole Kidman is THE best example of a genre bender. To try and describe this movie is hassle in itself. What starts out as a murder mystery quickly becomes something else much more darker. How can you get darker than murder? I have no idea but this does it. The fact that the mystery is solved and the murderer is arrested half way through the movie does nothing but push this movie into a completely different territory and it's here that this movie really transcends any type of description. A true must see, this movie is one of the few movies that sent a chill up my spine that has done so without the element of horror involved, the ending of this movie STILL sends a chill up my spine and I have no idea exactly why. Sidenote: I would have also mentioned Kidman's first starring vehicle DEAD CALM but that movie is easily a physiological thriller with just bare traces of any other type of movie. Still both are must sees.
FROM DUST TIL DAWN(1996): OK, NOW it's easily defined as a horror movie. THEN however, it was taboo to even mention anything after the first half of the movie. This movie starts off as a buddy-criminals on the run-comedy-drama-hommage to the popcorn munchers of the 70's- type movie before it steers into what is clearly a horror movie. Watching the first half only, there is no way you would be able to tell me what the movie was about or how it would end. An interesting note is that the the beginning part which is so hard to categorize is directed by Quentin Tarantino who made another hard to categorize movie in PULP FICTION while the horror part was directed by his frequent collaborator Robert Rodriguez.
MULHOLLAND DRIVE(2001): How could I put together a list like this and NOT use a David Lynch film? Not. Quite. Possible. My personal favorite Lynch movie is as hard to describe as anything else on this list, but I could have easily used BLUE VELVET, ERASERHEAD, or his 2006 IDKWTF is going on INLAND EMPIRE instead of this beautiful but deadly movie. It stars a pre-KING KONG/THE RING Naomi Watts as an aspiring starlet who offers to help a beautiful young amnesiac played by Laura Elena Harring. Well, that's the premise of this movie...or is it? This movie has so many interpretations and Mr. Lynch most certainly clarified any one thought about what this movie is actually about so who knows. The only thing I do know is this is the only movie that came with a set of 10 clues from David Lynch himself to figure out WTF is going on; trust me you'll need em!
MOMENTO(2000): OK. So technically you can call this a psychological thriller but really, once you've watched this mind fuck of a movie and you've figured out what's really going on, can this still be considered a thriller? I doubt it. I consider it a case study on the effects of trauma on man, a revenge movie,& a mystery of the highest order. The only movie in recent years that comes close to the paranoia that this film projects is SHUTTER ISLAND and although I loved that movie, it pales in comparison to this Christopher Nolan directed masterpiece. Another must see.
AUDITION (1999) If you have heard anything about this Japanese masterpiece from Takashi Miike besides the fact that the audition of the title happens early in the movie, then somebody has ran their mouths too much. This is one of those films where you're suckered in then surprised from behind. The movies quiet confident way of character establishing undermines what lurks beneath this movie's surface. Everybody who I have suggested this movie to, even those who don't like subtitled movie experiences, have all agreed this is one hell of a movie! Miike also directed some of the most disturbing movies I've ever seen, including ICHI THE KILLER, DEAD OR ALIVE, ONE MISSED CALL (see the Japanese version & avoid the American remake at all costs!)and an episode of the Showtime original horror series Masters of Horror titled IMPRINT, which was supposed to be scary but was so disturbing Showtime decided not to air it.
Well, that's not ALL the movies that I call GENRE BUSTERS or BENDERS, just some of the better ones. Maybe I'll add another 5 movies to it, or maybe not, who knows. All I know is this is it for now, WORLD, but isn't this enough?
MALICE(1993): Off hand, I would that this early vehicle for a young Nicole Kidman is THE best example of a genre bender. To try and describe this movie is hassle in itself. What starts out as a murder mystery quickly becomes something else much more darker. How can you get darker than murder? I have no idea but this does it. The fact that the mystery is solved and the murderer is arrested half way through the movie does nothing but push this movie into a completely different territory and it's here that this movie really transcends any type of description. A true must see, this movie is one of the few movies that sent a chill up my spine that has done so without the element of horror involved, the ending of this movie STILL sends a chill up my spine and I have no idea exactly why. Sidenote: I would have also mentioned Kidman's first starring vehicle DEAD CALM but that movie is easily a physiological thriller with just bare traces of any other type of movie. Still both are must sees.
FROM DUST TIL DAWN(1996): OK, NOW it's easily defined as a horror movie. THEN however, it was taboo to even mention anything after the first half of the movie. This movie starts off as a buddy-criminals on the run-comedy-drama-hommage to the popcorn munchers of the 70's- type movie before it steers into what is clearly a horror movie. Watching the first half only, there is no way you would be able to tell me what the movie was about or how it would end. An interesting note is that the the beginning part which is so hard to categorize is directed by Quentin Tarantino who made another hard to categorize movie in PULP FICTION while the horror part was directed by his frequent collaborator Robert Rodriguez.
MULHOLLAND DRIVE(2001): How could I put together a list like this and NOT use a David Lynch film? Not. Quite. Possible. My personal favorite Lynch movie is as hard to describe as anything else on this list, but I could have easily used BLUE VELVET, ERASERHEAD, or his 2006 IDKWTF is going on INLAND EMPIRE instead of this beautiful but deadly movie. It stars a pre-KING KONG/THE RING Naomi Watts as an aspiring starlet who offers to help a beautiful young amnesiac played by Laura Elena Harring. Well, that's the premise of this movie...or is it? This movie has so many interpretations and Mr. Lynch most certainly clarified any one thought about what this movie is actually about so who knows. The only thing I do know is this is the only movie that came with a set of 10 clues from David Lynch himself to figure out WTF is going on; trust me you'll need em!
MOMENTO(2000): OK. So technically you can call this a psychological thriller but really, once you've watched this mind fuck of a movie and you've figured out what's really going on, can this still be considered a thriller? I doubt it. I consider it a case study on the effects of trauma on man, a revenge movie,& a mystery of the highest order. The only movie in recent years that comes close to the paranoia that this film projects is SHUTTER ISLAND and although I loved that movie, it pales in comparison to this Christopher Nolan directed masterpiece. Another must see.
AUDITION (1999) If you have heard anything about this Japanese masterpiece from Takashi Miike besides the fact that the audition of the title happens early in the movie, then somebody has ran their mouths too much. This is one of those films where you're suckered in then surprised from behind. The movies quiet confident way of character establishing undermines what lurks beneath this movie's surface. Everybody who I have suggested this movie to, even those who don't like subtitled movie experiences, have all agreed this is one hell of a movie! Miike also directed some of the most disturbing movies I've ever seen, including ICHI THE KILLER, DEAD OR ALIVE, ONE MISSED CALL (see the Japanese version & avoid the American remake at all costs!)and an episode of the Showtime original horror series Masters of Horror titled IMPRINT, which was supposed to be scary but was so disturbing Showtime decided not to air it.
Well, that's not ALL the movies that I call GENRE BUSTERS or BENDERS, just some of the better ones. Maybe I'll add another 5 movies to it, or maybe not, who knows. All I know is this is it for now, WORLD, but isn't this enough?
Monday, June 28, 2010
STRAW DOGS, directed by Sam Peckinpah,1971 (A BIZZEE Pick)
Hello, WORLD!! This is my first review in a minute. Have ya missed me? Well never again. I promise to post a movie review every day or at least 7 times a week. I also promise that each movie will be a worthwhile movie, one that doesn't waste your time, UNLESS the movie is so bad I feel like it's my duty to warn you off!! Also I got other critics going in on movies on this page now too. So, to differentiate from my fellow critics, my movie reviews, or other type of reviews, will be called BIZZEE picks. Clear? Cool!!!! Let's begin with a classic that you might soon be talking about again.*************************************************************************
In 1971, 5 years after his breakout role in THE GRADUATE, Dustin Hoffman appeared in a movie by director Sam Peckinpah called STRAW DOGS. Hoffman, who has since went on to one of the most respected Hollywood careers & Peckinpah, who had one directed one of Hollywoods most greatest Western movies, THE WILD BUNCH (1969) and would go on to direct 1 of the greatest crime love story's of all time the next year, THE GETAWAY (1972). Anyway, this is one of the greatest examples of what I call a GENRE BENDER because there is no one genre that describes this movie. In some eyes, it's a coming of age story. On many levels it plays like a drama but the end is pure horror on so many levels. The story, based on the novel The Siege of Trencher's Farm (1969) by Gordon Williams, concerns David & Amy Sumner, a couple comprised of an American man and his young British wife (Hoffman and the absolutely stunning Susan George), who leaves the USA, for some reason I wasn't quite clear on, to live in her childhood home. Complications arise at the arrival of the natives who come to spruce up their home; one of the natives is infatuated with Amy, which leads to some complications... Look, I could go into detail about this movie but this is one of those movies where it is best not to know what happens EXCEPT FOR ONE PART that I feel all women who watch may need to hear about. Midway through this movie, Amy is brutally raped by 2 of the guys and this one scene alone makes this movie as complicated as any I've ever seen, which leads to more complications. The ending feels, well, like the only way this movie could have ended but it's as painful as the rape scene itself in many ways. There are so many conflicts that are going on that one may need a score card to see who's actually on whose side. The reason I recommend this movie aside from the fact it's one of my personal favorite movies is the fact that it's due to be remade starring James Marsden & Kate Bosworth (both of whom can be found in the god awful SUPERMAN RETURNS) in February of 2011. PLEASE see the original before you see what is bound to be a butchering of one of the finest, most controversial of Peckinpah's career. That's all for now WORLD, but isn't that enough?
In 1971, 5 years after his breakout role in THE GRADUATE, Dustin Hoffman appeared in a movie by director Sam Peckinpah called STRAW DOGS. Hoffman, who has since went on to one of the most respected Hollywood careers & Peckinpah, who had one directed one of Hollywoods most greatest Western movies, THE WILD BUNCH (1969) and would go on to direct 1 of the greatest crime love story's of all time the next year, THE GETAWAY (1972). Anyway, this is one of the greatest examples of what I call a GENRE BENDER because there is no one genre that describes this movie. In some eyes, it's a coming of age story. On many levels it plays like a drama but the end is pure horror on so many levels. The story, based on the novel The Siege of Trencher's Farm (1969) by Gordon Williams, concerns David & Amy Sumner, a couple comprised of an American man and his young British wife (Hoffman and the absolutely stunning Susan George), who leaves the USA, for some reason I wasn't quite clear on, to live in her childhood home. Complications arise at the arrival of the natives who come to spruce up their home; one of the natives is infatuated with Amy, which leads to some complications... Look, I could go into detail about this movie but this is one of those movies where it is best not to know what happens EXCEPT FOR ONE PART that I feel all women who watch may need to hear about. Midway through this movie, Amy is brutally raped by 2 of the guys and this one scene alone makes this movie as complicated as any I've ever seen, which leads to more complications. The ending feels, well, like the only way this movie could have ended but it's as painful as the rape scene itself in many ways. There are so many conflicts that are going on that one may need a score card to see who's actually on whose side. The reason I recommend this movie aside from the fact it's one of my personal favorite movies is the fact that it's due to be remade starring James Marsden & Kate Bosworth (both of whom can be found in the god awful SUPERMAN RETURNS) in February of 2011. PLEASE see the original before you see what is bound to be a butchering of one of the finest, most controversial of Peckinpah's career. That's all for now WORLD, but isn't that enough?
Monday, June 21, 2010
Testing Smokkee's WORLD Twitter Page!
Hello WORLD! No reviews of any kind here now; move along to the next post if that's what ya here for (of course, that's what you're here for!) Actually this is a MAJOR annoucement of sorts: Most of yall already know ya can find me on Twitter & Facebook (Twitter as @SmokkeBizzee, Facebook as Smokkee Singleton), but now you can find my Blog updates to on Twitter!! Follow @SmokkeeWORLD for all my latest Blog posts. That's it fa now WORLD, but aint that enough?
Thursday, June 17, 2010
Dish Network - Sponsored Post
Dish Network - ad.doubleclick.net
Do you love TV in crystal clear HD? Now get HD free for life with DISH Network.
Thursday, June 3, 2010
Farmville - Southwestern items - Sponsored Post
Farmville - Southwestern items - apps.facebook.com
Join me all your new friends in Farmville on facebook. Southwestern items have come to Farmville! Play free
Tuesday, May 18, 2010
Iron Man 2
Hello WORLD!!! I saw about 200 movies since I last updated the Favorites blog and I'm sorry I haven't been updating this blog or my others lately. I sorry if Blogs were children, DCFS would be on my ass!! But enough with the banter; yall came here for reviews and yall shall receive...
IRON MAN 2 (2.5):
One of the most anticipated sequels of this year was to 2008's successful superhero vehicle IRON MAN, which re solidified Robert Downey Jr as a Hollywood A-Lister. He should have never left that list; despite all of his well documented battles with substance abuse, his movies (or more acurately, his roles in various movies) have all been on point. I don't see a flaw in his entire career with the exception of AIR AMERICA (which is a guilty pleasure of mine so I don't count it as a failure) and maybe KISS KISS BANG BANG (see what I said for AIR AMERICA). Anyway IRON MAN did manage to do a rare thing as far as superhero movies go: it produced quality over the top action sequences while still managing to believable, which is the amazing part. I recently seen KICK ASS too and even though there wasn't any superpowers per se... I'll save these comments for THAT review but you get the idea. Downey continues that trend here but is it enough to save this movie from itself? Let's see:
The sequel starts with the great ending to the first movie that really alludes to the character of Tony Stark (you know how the conceited millionaire who just so happens to save the WORLD-types are, right?) where he has just announced to the WORLD that he is in fact Iron Man. What follows after that is only logical: the Government wants in on the whole Iron Man bit and forces Mr. Stark to go to Washington, under the whole you have a weapon of destruction and we want it guise. This scene is thoroughly entertaining, partly because it retains the same crisp freshness that the first movie did. Another winning aspect from the original that is still intact is the relationship between Starks (played by Downey,Jr) & his secretary Pepper Potts, played with irresistible charm by Gweneth Paltrow. If this was another universe, I could see a whole movie dedicated to them trying to figure out why they haven't gotten together yet. Rounding out the returning characters is Col Jim Rhodes played this time around by Don Cheadle, who replaced the just as good Terrence Howard. Of the newcomers, the beautiful Scarlett Johansson plays the mysterious new secretary for Pepper who turns out to be.... I don't do spoilers but I'm more than sure you already know, Samuel L Jackson is SHIELDS leader Nick Fury, and Mickey Rourke plays a villainous Russian whose father's path is somehow intertwined with Stark's own father's path. While I did leave the theater not as happy as I did for the first movie, I can not say that this is a bad movie. I CAN say that Tony's smugness and Pepper's charm are enough to carry the so-so plot to the finish line. I CAN say that the introduction (FINALLY) of Rhodes WarMachine (it's not a spoiler if ya seen it on the damn poster people!) wasn't enough to throw my final judgment of this movie over the top. And I CAN say that despite Mickey Rourke's somewhat entertaining evil genius in this movie, the action was sorta ho hum the whole way. With that said, I CAN say that if you waited for the DVD you wouldn't be to hard on yourself for not see the theatrical release. I enjoyed this movie more than I have a lot of movies this year but then again that isn't saying much. Overall, I say it's worth a viewing IF you liked the original (& you're not looking for more than an update of the characters) and/or IF you're a fan of the comic books. Otherwise, you can probably wait for the DVD.
IRON MAN 2 (2.5):
One of the most anticipated sequels of this year was to 2008's successful superhero vehicle IRON MAN, which re solidified Robert Downey Jr as a Hollywood A-Lister. He should have never left that list; despite all of his well documented battles with substance abuse, his movies (or more acurately, his roles in various movies) have all been on point. I don't see a flaw in his entire career with the exception of AIR AMERICA (which is a guilty pleasure of mine so I don't count it as a failure) and maybe KISS KISS BANG BANG (see what I said for AIR AMERICA). Anyway IRON MAN did manage to do a rare thing as far as superhero movies go: it produced quality over the top action sequences while still managing to believable, which is the amazing part. I recently seen KICK ASS too and even though there wasn't any superpowers per se... I'll save these comments for THAT review but you get the idea. Downey continues that trend here but is it enough to save this movie from itself? Let's see:
The sequel starts with the great ending to the first movie that really alludes to the character of Tony Stark (you know how the conceited millionaire who just so happens to save the WORLD-types are, right?) where he has just announced to the WORLD that he is in fact Iron Man. What follows after that is only logical: the Government wants in on the whole Iron Man bit and forces Mr. Stark to go to Washington, under the whole you have a weapon of destruction and we want it guise. This scene is thoroughly entertaining, partly because it retains the same crisp freshness that the first movie did. Another winning aspect from the original that is still intact is the relationship between Starks (played by Downey,Jr) & his secretary Pepper Potts, played with irresistible charm by Gweneth Paltrow. If this was another universe, I could see a whole movie dedicated to them trying to figure out why they haven't gotten together yet. Rounding out the returning characters is Col Jim Rhodes played this time around by Don Cheadle, who replaced the just as good Terrence Howard. Of the newcomers, the beautiful Scarlett Johansson plays the mysterious new secretary for Pepper who turns out to be.... I don't do spoilers but I'm more than sure you already know, Samuel L Jackson is SHIELDS leader Nick Fury, and Mickey Rourke plays a villainous Russian whose father's path is somehow intertwined with Stark's own father's path. While I did leave the theater not as happy as I did for the first movie, I can not say that this is a bad movie. I CAN say that Tony's smugness and Pepper's charm are enough to carry the so-so plot to the finish line. I CAN say that the introduction (FINALLY) of Rhodes WarMachine (it's not a spoiler if ya seen it on the damn poster people!) wasn't enough to throw my final judgment of this movie over the top. And I CAN say that despite Mickey Rourke's somewhat entertaining evil genius in this movie, the action was sorta ho hum the whole way. With that said, I CAN say that if you waited for the DVD you wouldn't be to hard on yourself for not see the theatrical release. I enjoyed this movie more than I have a lot of movies this year but then again that isn't saying much. Overall, I say it's worth a viewing IF you liked the original (& you're not looking for more than an update of the characters) and/or IF you're a fan of the comic books. Otherwise, you can probably wait for the DVD.
Monday, March 29, 2010
Mr HIV by I.b. Freeman (Smokkee's first book review!)
Hello WORLD! Here's my first book review and I'm proud to say that it is a very fine first effort from an up & coming writer I'm sure you'll be hearing more about in the near future (in one aspect or another) I.B. Freeman. I'm also happy to mention he's a friend of mine as well! Even if he was my worse enemy, I'd still say BUY THIS BOOK!! and I'll explain why after I give you a brief description of the book. But before THAT, one last brief message: HIV is out there so get tested!
The story is pretty straight forward. The story revolves around Darren Wade, a young African American who, SPOILER ALERT HERE! contracts the HIV virus. Kidding about the spoiler; if you didn't know the main character had "the monster"(what one character descibes the virus as), then obviously you didn't read the title of the book. Giving anything else a way would be considered spoiling, although it can't be that far of a stretch to guess where this is going. Then again, most of the previews I've read give away the main focal point of the story. The backcover does as well. But knowing what direction you're heading and where you actually end up is not necessarily the same thing, now is it? This book does a couple of 360s here & there and then lowers the boom. I'd better stop here before I go into anymore details.
Now I'm about to talk about DETAILS! LOL! Before I do that, I'd like to mention here that I read this book, which is 300+ pages,in 1 day and a few times more after that. Back to the details: I'll admit I had a small problem with the storytelling at first because of details but then I came to realize maybe this was done intentionally. You see, other than Darren and his doting mother are the only two characters you get a complete picture of throughout the entire book, and even they seem a little like composite characters. At first, this did not sit well with me. I mean the characters kept changing on me. At a few points, Darren kept reminding me of different people I've met over the course of my life but it wasn't until Darren started reminding me of a few friends I still have around me now that I started to get the way this book was written. I'm mean this book goes lite on the character's details and heavy on other details, REAL heavy in some cases. In detail, this book covers various illness and sicknesses associated with HIV as well as enough of the concoctions of life-extending drugs that you got a pretty clear idea what names you see should be looking for on them medicine bottles & packages if you go searching through a sex partner's medicine cabinet (SPOILER ALERT: This actually happens in the book, too!). By the time I realized that I DID know most of the characters & they were MEANT to be like composite characters, I was already hooked. I think Mr. Freeman wrote this book with this intention; maybe you are suppose to recognize these characters as friends or maybe even yourself because these people ARE your friends....or even you! That's why I STRONGLY suggest you get this book. A sidenote: this book is graphic but not too dirty, too dirty meaning like maybe a story by Zane. I say children from ages 12 and up should be required to read this book, even with the graphical descriptions; I'm sure in this day and age the school lot talk is probably more advanced than I remember and we had some of the rawest mouths THEN! There are people in this WORLD like Darren out here and people like Darren who don't even know they're like Darren because they haven't gotten tested yet. Sad but true... Hell, I just got tested back in January and I'm seriously thinking about getting tested again today when I go in for my checkup. Actually I was getting another test anyway.
By the way, the ONLY people I don't recommend this book to is a hypochondriac; there would be no joy for them by the end of the book, it's that many details about the aforementioned illnesses.
Everybody else, BUY THIS BOOK! Oh, yeah, AND GET TESTED!!!
The story is pretty straight forward. The story revolves around Darren Wade, a young African American who, SPOILER ALERT HERE! contracts the HIV virus. Kidding about the spoiler; if you didn't know the main character had "the monster"(what one character descibes the virus as), then obviously you didn't read the title of the book. Giving anything else a way would be considered spoiling, although it can't be that far of a stretch to guess where this is going. Then again, most of the previews I've read give away the main focal point of the story. The backcover does as well. But knowing what direction you're heading and where you actually end up is not necessarily the same thing, now is it? This book does a couple of 360s here & there and then lowers the boom. I'd better stop here before I go into anymore details.
Now I'm about to talk about DETAILS! LOL! Before I do that, I'd like to mention here that I read this book, which is 300+ pages,in 1 day and a few times more after that. Back to the details: I'll admit I had a small problem with the storytelling at first because of details but then I came to realize maybe this was done intentionally. You see, other than Darren and his doting mother are the only two characters you get a complete picture of throughout the entire book, and even they seem a little like composite characters. At first, this did not sit well with me. I mean the characters kept changing on me. At a few points, Darren kept reminding me of different people I've met over the course of my life but it wasn't until Darren started reminding me of a few friends I still have around me now that I started to get the way this book was written. I'm mean this book goes lite on the character's details and heavy on other details, REAL heavy in some cases. In detail, this book covers various illness and sicknesses associated with HIV as well as enough of the concoctions of life-extending drugs that you got a pretty clear idea what names you see should be looking for on them medicine bottles & packages if you go searching through a sex partner's medicine cabinet (SPOILER ALERT: This actually happens in the book, too!). By the time I realized that I DID know most of the characters & they were MEANT to be like composite characters, I was already hooked. I think Mr. Freeman wrote this book with this intention; maybe you are suppose to recognize these characters as friends or maybe even yourself because these people ARE your friends....or even you! That's why I STRONGLY suggest you get this book. A sidenote: this book is graphic but not too dirty, too dirty meaning like maybe a story by Zane. I say children from ages 12 and up should be required to read this book, even with the graphical descriptions; I'm sure in this day and age the school lot talk is probably more advanced than I remember and we had some of the rawest mouths THEN! There are people in this WORLD like Darren out here and people like Darren who don't even know they're like Darren because they haven't gotten tested yet. Sad but true... Hell, I just got tested back in January and I'm seriously thinking about getting tested again today when I go in for my checkup. Actually I was getting another test anyway.
By the way, the ONLY people I don't recommend this book to is a hypochondriac; there would be no joy for them by the end of the book, it's that many details about the aforementioned illnesses.
Everybody else, BUY THIS BOOK! Oh, yeah, AND GET TESTED!!!
NOW PLAYING:Brooklyn's Finest, Shutter Island, The Bounty Hunter
Hello, World!!! If you're planning to go out this week, you're in luck. I just saw 3 great but completely different movies, all of which take tired formulas and flip them into so much more. Let's start with my favorite of the three, Martin Scorsese's Gothic-like thriller SHUTTER ISLAND. This movie stars Leonardo DiCaprio as Teddy Daniels, a US Marshall sent to investigate a missing person from a mental hospital on Shutter Island (didn't see that coming did you?). He is assisted on this investigation by Us Marshall Chuck Aule, played by rising actor Mark Ruffalo. From the beginning it seems our two Marshalls are in over their heads, getting no answers and more questions than they care to admit. The head runarounder (yall know I make up words I go along), Dr Cawley is played by that great actor Sir Ben Kingsley in his usually "Stop calling me Ghandi" malice. it worked great in that crime thriller SEXY BEAST but it works better here. This movie starts off in standard enough procedure that you can almost see where it goes until the second act when....no more information will be given on this here. What info I can give up is this movie will demand a second viewing, possibly a third, and no matter how many times you view it, the ending is so up in the air you may not want to figure out what it all means. Leo is Leo of course, but Mark Ruffalo paces the action as well with his loyal sidekick role and you already know how great an actor Sir Ben is. I'm mostly impressed with how Mr Scorsese takes a tire genre and breathes a new life into it to the point that although there is minimum violence in this movie, it still will haunt you. This is DEFINITELY worth a few viewings(4.5)
*********************************************************************
Next, I saw BROOKLYN's FINEST. Man, was I going to light into this movie!! It start's off as a rip off of damn near EVERY police flick cliche you can think of, from DEEP COVER to DONNIE BRASCO. Let's see, you got a suicide cop (Richard Gere ala LETHAL WEAPONS Marty Riggs) who just happen to be nearing his retirement (ala LETHAL WEAPONS Roger Murtaugh). You got "Tango" (played by Don Cheadle), an undercover cop who is starting to become to entranced with his undercover side ala DEEP COVER & IN 2 DEEP for that matter. We got a druggie cop ala BAD LIEUTENANT played by Ethan Hawke as crooked as if he was going for the Denzel role from TRAINING DAY. Wesley Snipes gangsta Caz switches between a Nino Brown type to CARLITO's WAY trying to reform type gangsta with a scary ease. You know, I can keep going with the cliches but thankfully I don't have to. Once this movie set up the cliches, it does it's best to break them down and by the end of the movie, the cliches have been smashed and mashed together. What the torn undercover cop does at the end I haven't seen before. Ditto for the retiring cop. This movie does start slow but if you invest the time in it, you'll be rewarded with a new experience at the end. At the end is the main point here; I'm not sure a lot of people will sit through til then. Worth at least one viewing. (3.0)******************************
Lastly, I saw THE BOUNTY HUNTER. World, you gotta know before I continue this review that I NEVER been a fan of "romantic comedies". Even the term "romantic comedy" makes me wanna run out of the theater. I mean think about it; any time a couple falls in love, isn't that romance? Isn't a comedy a movie where you probably laughed at some point during viewing? You know how many movies can fit this criteria? Movies ranging from THE WATERBOY to MENACE II SOCIETY all fit the bill. Anyway, that's just my take. Now moving on to the review, I liked this movie. Surprise. Trust me, nobody is more surprised than ME! Between Gerald Butler and Jennifer Anniston, I think I only liked maybe 4 out of their dozen or so movies (off the top, I'd mention DERAILED, THE GOOD GIRL, 300, & I'm reaching for a forth movie... ROCK N ROLLA, maybe? IDK!) I just KNEW I would hated this movie but I didn't. But Instead of dumbing down the plot, the plot got more interesting to the point it kept me interested. Maybe this is because the plot isn't one of the mindless plots most comedies get stuck with in today's movies. BTW: If one more homeowner falls head over hills for his maid, I'm screaming like a newborn baby. The premise of this movie started simple enough and there isn't much I'll say after this: Gerald Butler is Milo Boyd, THE BOUNTY HUNTER and his target is Nicole Hurley, who just happens to be THE BOUNTY HUNTER's ex wife. That's all I need top tell ya about this movie. Thsi is one of those movies that either you like or you don't. I thought I wouldn't like it and I was pleasantly surprised that I did. It has been one of the few times I was glad I was wrong all year. Still giving it just a 2.5, because I can't stand romantic comedies, whatever that phrase means.***********************************************************************
SHUTTER ISLAND (4.5)
BROOKLYN's FINEST (3.0)
THE BOUNTY HUNTER (2.5)
*********************************************************************
Next, I saw BROOKLYN's FINEST. Man, was I going to light into this movie!! It start's off as a rip off of damn near EVERY police flick cliche you can think of, from DEEP COVER to DONNIE BRASCO. Let's see, you got a suicide cop (Richard Gere ala LETHAL WEAPONS Marty Riggs) who just happen to be nearing his retirement (ala LETHAL WEAPONS Roger Murtaugh). You got "Tango" (played by Don Cheadle), an undercover cop who is starting to become to entranced with his undercover side ala DEEP COVER & IN 2 DEEP for that matter. We got a druggie cop ala BAD LIEUTENANT played by Ethan Hawke as crooked as if he was going for the Denzel role from TRAINING DAY. Wesley Snipes gangsta Caz switches between a Nino Brown type to CARLITO's WAY trying to reform type gangsta with a scary ease. You know, I can keep going with the cliches but thankfully I don't have to. Once this movie set up the cliches, it does it's best to break them down and by the end of the movie, the cliches have been smashed and mashed together. What the torn undercover cop does at the end I haven't seen before. Ditto for the retiring cop. This movie does start slow but if you invest the time in it, you'll be rewarded with a new experience at the end. At the end is the main point here; I'm not sure a lot of people will sit through til then. Worth at least one viewing. (3.0)******************************
Lastly, I saw THE BOUNTY HUNTER. World, you gotta know before I continue this review that I NEVER been a fan of "romantic comedies". Even the term "romantic comedy" makes me wanna run out of the theater. I mean think about it; any time a couple falls in love, isn't that romance? Isn't a comedy a movie where you probably laughed at some point during viewing? You know how many movies can fit this criteria? Movies ranging from THE WATERBOY to MENACE II SOCIETY all fit the bill. Anyway, that's just my take. Now moving on to the review, I liked this movie. Surprise. Trust me, nobody is more surprised than ME! Between Gerald Butler and Jennifer Anniston, I think I only liked maybe 4 out of their dozen or so movies (off the top, I'd mention DERAILED, THE GOOD GIRL, 300, & I'm reaching for a forth movie... ROCK N ROLLA, maybe? IDK!) I just KNEW I would hated this movie but I didn't. But Instead of dumbing down the plot, the plot got more interesting to the point it kept me interested. Maybe this is because the plot isn't one of the mindless plots most comedies get stuck with in today's movies. BTW: If one more homeowner falls head over hills for his maid, I'm screaming like a newborn baby. The premise of this movie started simple enough and there isn't much I'll say after this: Gerald Butler is Milo Boyd, THE BOUNTY HUNTER and his target is Nicole Hurley, who just happens to be THE BOUNTY HUNTER's ex wife. That's all I need top tell ya about this movie. Thsi is one of those movies that either you like or you don't. I thought I wouldn't like it and I was pleasantly surprised that I did. It has been one of the few times I was glad I was wrong all year. Still giving it just a 2.5, because I can't stand romantic comedies, whatever that phrase means.***********************************************************************
SHUTTER ISLAND (4.5)
BROOKLYN's FINEST (3.0)
THE BOUNTY HUNTER (2.5)
Friday, March 12, 2010
The Return's delay?
Hello, World!!!! Did you miss me? Yeah? REALLY??! That's too bad for 3 reasons. Reason 1)This was just to let you know that I'm still around this isn't even a full blog update but the next on.... Reason 2)I will be running THREE blogs from here on out, the third and newest will be Smokkee's World Debt-Free. It will chronicle me try to raise my credit score so that I can..... Reason 3)NO!!!! Not yet ready to explain this one...Let's just say miss me now because you won't have a chance to any time soon after these next few months. I TRULY AM WORLD APPROVED NOW!!! Thanks for your approval, World! I will not let you down!
Monday, March 1, 2010
The Hangover plus really funny movies.
I finally got a chance to see "The Hangover" starring Bradley Cooper and Ed Helms after all the hoopla on how funny it is. It's funny that I don't listen to hoopla. That's about all that's funny about watching this sick, poor excuse for a comedy. I'm trying to figure out what the greatest film critic ever, Roger Ebert of the Chicago Sun Times, saw in this movie; this is probably the most baffling 3 1/2 stars I ever seen him give out. The plot should have made a funny movie. It revolves around 2 friends, Phil (Bradley Cooper)& Stu (Ed Helms) who plan a bachelor road trip for their soon to be married friend Doug (Justin Bartha). Tagging along for the ride is Doug's soon to be brother-in-law Alan (Zach Galifianakis, who probably should have had a bigger role). After arriving and taking an unknown drug thinking it was Ecstasy, the friends lose track of the night and Doug, resulting in back tracking the events of the previous night. While the events themselves, including a run in with former boxing heavyweight champ Mike Tyson and a Asian gangster(or something else maybe)played by Ken Jeong, are funny I find the main characters aren't likable in the least. Maybe Alan would be a better friend for Doug, at least he has a personality. Phil and Stu are just throwbacks to characters who are what they do. Especially Phil, who at the end of the movie, doesn't even get the valuable lesson most fools learn, although I will admit he seemed pretty well ground except for in the squad car. Look, this movie might not have been my cup of tea as far as comedy is concerned but there are a few times I genuinely laughed so who knows what the next person will think. I was trying to figure out if I lost my sense of humor or not because of the lack of times I laughed. Go figure.
I did happen to like how Stu at least learned a little something about himself at the end though. I also liked the Asian gangster scenes. This is ironic because the next movie I saw, "The Goods: Live Hard, Sell Hard" directed by Neal Brennan (best known as Dave Chappelle's "Chappelle's Show" writer and director & "Half Baked" co-writer), features both Helms & Jeong and this movie is hilarious! I don't know how this movie slipped under my radar. It features one of the most Chicagoan-est (OK, I make up words. Sue me!) actor I've ever seen: Jeremy Piven. It's just something about Piven's charisma that just seems so familiar to me; maybe because I see it almost everyday. Chicagoan's have a cockiness about themselves that just can not be described or matched. For example, an extreme excample would be Kanye West, who is almost too Chicago to be real right now. The brashness he displays is real, albeit over the top lately, but genuine nonetheless. Back to "The Goods", this movie is preposterous and Kanye West-level over the top, but I laughed from beginning to end. The story? IDK if it even makes a bit of difference if you knew it or not. It invovles a family owned car lot trying to unload 210 cars over a 3-day holiday weekend. Jeremy Piven and "entourage" (wink,wink) are some Car Salespeople for hire and WTF else do you need to know about this movie? Car Salespeople for hire?!?! Whatever. This movie is as funny as it is preposterous and I have know problem with that. BTW: Will Farrell turns in some of the most hilarious cameos I've seen in a few years. His scenes alone made me laugh more than I did through the whole "Hangover". If you need a laugh, check this movie out. Watch "The Hangover" too if only to see how to mismanage comedic talent.
The Hangover:1.5 The Hangover (R-Rated Single-Disc Edition)
The Goods:Live Hard,Sell Hard:4.0 The Goods: Live Hard, Sell Hard
I did happen to like how Stu at least learned a little something about himself at the end though. I also liked the Asian gangster scenes. This is ironic because the next movie I saw, "The Goods: Live Hard, Sell Hard" directed by Neal Brennan (best known as Dave Chappelle's "Chappelle's Show" writer and director & "Half Baked" co-writer), features both Helms & Jeong and this movie is hilarious! I don't know how this movie slipped under my radar. It features one of the most Chicagoan-est (OK, I make up words. Sue me!) actor I've ever seen: Jeremy Piven. It's just something about Piven's charisma that just seems so familiar to me; maybe because I see it almost everyday. Chicagoan's have a cockiness about themselves that just can not be described or matched. For example, an extreme excample would be Kanye West, who is almost too Chicago to be real right now. The brashness he displays is real, albeit over the top lately, but genuine nonetheless. Back to "The Goods", this movie is preposterous and Kanye West-level over the top, but I laughed from beginning to end. The story? IDK if it even makes a bit of difference if you knew it or not. It invovles a family owned car lot trying to unload 210 cars over a 3-day holiday weekend. Jeremy Piven and "entourage" (wink,wink) are some Car Salespeople for hire and WTF else do you need to know about this movie? Car Salespeople for hire?!?! Whatever. This movie is as funny as it is preposterous and I have know problem with that. BTW: Will Farrell turns in some of the most hilarious cameos I've seen in a few years. His scenes alone made me laugh more than I did through the whole "Hangover". If you need a laugh, check this movie out. Watch "The Hangover" too if only to see how to mismanage comedic talent.
The Hangover:1.5 The Hangover (R-Rated Single-Disc Edition)
The Goods:Live Hard,Sell Hard:4.0 The Goods: Live Hard, Sell Hard
Thursday, February 4, 2010
War! (Movies)"The Hurt Locker",Saving Private Ryan","Inglorious Basterds"
Hello, World. Are you ready to find out what my favorite movie is? Good, glad to hear it. I was just getting ready to reveal the title today, but then this weekend I came across a movie that got me just as excited as our mystery movie does! Like my fave, it is a movie that begs to be watch again after the first viewing. Unlike my favorite movie, it can completely be understood in the first viewing.
Enough about my favorite movie; obvisously, I'm not going to reveal it today. I'm going to talk about war and the movies that sprout from them. Not that I'm that big of a war film fan. This past weekend, I did manage to see 3 great movies that happen to be war pictures, 2 of them I had not previously seen and 1 of them I am now kicking myself over not seeing it sooner.
I won't keep you in suspense about the best movie I've seen in a while. That would be Quentin Tarantino's "Inglorious Basterds". In a nutshell, this is "Pulp Fiction" played out during World War II in it's correct order and minus one suitcase. Yeah, that about sums it up. All I can say is WOW! From the opening scene, where a French father of 3 young ladies greets German soldiers at his front door for a talk that is basically very one sided, to the end scene, which almost serves as the perfect coda to this symphony of comedic mayhem and melodrama. Going back to the opening scene where Tarantino's mastery of characters communication shines brightest, where the main antagonist of this film (if there is a main antagonist in this film, considering who this man works for), SS Colonel Hans Landa played with weird glee by Christoph Waltz (who has to be a shoe-in for a best supporting Oscar nod), simple questions the French father on trivial matters such as nicknames & rumors & the differences between rats & squirrels. While these questions are being asked & other statements are being made, there is a key scene that doesn't stray to far from where the conversation is taking place but shines a light on the conversation to the point that we now know what Colonel Landa really wants to know,as well as shine a light on the emotions and thoughts of the Frenchman to the point where, even though he hasn't said too many words, you know what he WILL be saying, sooner than one would have thought having watched him since the beginning of the scene. Aside from the introduction of the Colonel, the opening scene serves one other purpose, that I won't reveal out of love for this movie. In fact, I won't reveal any more of the plot accept that Brad Pitt is in charge of a rag tag group of soldiers (that have been labeled Jewish Americans by some reviewers; although some of the soldiers are I didn't find any info within the movie to back that up regarding all of them) named the Inglourious Basterds who are to kill as many Nazis as possible. Of course, the main Nazi they wouldn't mind getting a crack at would be Adolph Hitler and when a chance presents it's head to get this one major kill, the Basterds pounce on it but they're not the only ones. I don't think it would be a spoiler to say Adolph Hitler does make an appearance.
Don't you hate as moviegoers the fact that you go into a movie review not wanting to know exactly what happened but end up finding out anyway? I don't do that. I feel that for a person to enjoy a movie there has to be an air of the unknown involved. That's how I went into this movie. Even though Tarantino is one of my favorite directors, probably favorite director that I watched since his first movie, I don't see him as one of the great ones yet. Maybe because he doesn't have a total of 10 movies attributed to his directional resume yet. Maybe because in order to compare him to others, I am still waiting on his first misstep as a director (no, "Grindhouse"'s Death Proof segment was no misstep; IMO it was highly ingenius, entertaining and a prime reason that I believe Tarantino can make a movie about a man taking a crap and make it a great movie.)
With that said, the only other information I can give you regarding this movie is it is told in 5 scenes, all in order unlike "Pulp" which works. I guess it could have been told in a non linear manner as well & probably still worked, but I never was a fan of this gimmick. It worked for "Pulp" because nobody knew it was telling the same story upon first viewing; after viewing it sorta became the main reason to watch the movie again. "Basterds" and it's 5 chapters are all in correct order but none of that really matters. this movie is told in a disinterested,deattached voice that gives it a life of it's own. A life filled with the same eccentric brand of characters from the beloved "Pulp" film. I really don't want to stop talking about this movie but I must before I tell you everything that happens in it.
I also saw the latest indie movie darling, Kathryn Bigelow's "The Hurt Locker". Also a great war movie, this movie did something that "Inglourious" didn't. Instead of romancing the soldiers and their mission, "Hurt" manages to make a soldiers job look just as mundane as any desk job, with the drama actually coming from the interaction between the members of a bomb squad, Sergeant JT Sanborn (a pitch perfect as always Anthony Mackie)& Specialist Owen Eldridge (a mousy but equally inspired performance by Brian Geraghty, whose acting I don't know much about) and the replacement soldier to the unit, bomb specialist Staff Sergeant William James. James is played by Jeremy Renner, who I remember as one of the few standout performances in the that god awful remake "S.W.A.T."that featured a tuned down maybe a little too much Samuel L Jackson. Sergeant James is attuned to the consequences of a misstep in his line of work brings and decidedly embraces it. He thrives off of.... he gets a rush from... actually, that's all I've heard in other reviews but I never saw exactly what he gets a rush from to pinpoint it with one sentence. I did see that he has a dangerous job compared to mine but I saw similarities to how he goes about his duties versus how I go about my duties. To me, this movie was more of a workplace drama than a war film. The fact that these guys work during a war in a war zone does nothing to change this into a war movie. Regardless of how one views this movie, be it as a war movie or workplace drama, this movie works. I felt the characters. I felt the drama, the tension, caused by the situation that the soldiers found them selves in or the drama caused by a soldier not following commands of communication; if I'm a temp, how can another temp tell me what to do? Then explain how does work if we are refering to Sargeants. I would love to know that. Well, whatever. However you choose to view this movie, it will work on that level. This movie is that good. It's tension doesn't just come from the war itself or the bombs that are disarmed, but from the
most common kind of tension; the tension between people of different mindsets stuck in a circumstance that forces them together. Everybody has had that kind of tension in real life.
After viewing those two movies and realizing the war connection, I tried to figure out what other war movie I could watch because obvisously I was in a war kinda mind. To me, there's not a whole lot of great war movies. There's a trunk load of good movies, a boat load of ok movies, and a cruiseship worth of war movies that aren't worth enough to even call bad. The standout war movie greats incude "Deer Hunter", "Platoon",& "Full Metal Jacket", each movie, oddly enough, puts more emphasis on the bonds of the soldiers than the actually war itself. The whole first half of "Full Metal Jacket" is about the training of the soldiers and the alienation of one soldier with horrific results. The second half, the war half, works only because we become invested in the lives of these marines (if I remember correctly they were marines) during the first half. I digress but it serves purpose.
I decided, after the comedic style war of Tarantino and the domesticated war style of Bigelowe, I needed to see war at it's worst. For that craving I chose "Saving Private Ryan", directed by a Steven Spielberg, who just might go on to be a great director someday. LOL! We all know who Mr. Spielberg is so forgive me for trying to be funny. Anyway, this is probably one of the most sincere war movies I've seen, portraying the anguish amongst the soldiers who are handed the seemingly impossible and highly irregular task of trying to find one soldier in a war torn country were the war is still occuring to bring him home because of the deaths of his three brothers, who died in the same war that the currently still living Ryan brother is currently fighting. Imagine trying to find the needle in the haystack if the hay stack was on fire and you'll get the point. It's not impossible, but it sure is harder than just finding the needle, which was hard enough already. The team of soldiers setting out to find Ryan is led by Tom Hanks, who had just won two best actor Oscars before this movie. He may have gotten one for this movie too, but the ensemble cast really took the movie out of one actors hands. The cast includes Tom Sizemore, Barry Pepper, Casey Affleck, Vin Diesel, Edward Burns, & Matt Damon as the eponymous private. There's also cameos by the always delight full Paul Giomatti, Ted Danson, and others, but the real star of this movie is the war itself. Shot with a kind of lighting that would make even sunny days seem gloomy, you get the feel of the war from the opening scene. I am trying to think if I have ever seen so many people dying in the beginning of a movie as in "Saving". I probably have but I cannot for the life of me think of any right now. Whatever. This movie works. All three movies work so if you haven't seen them, do yourself a favor.
Inglourious Basterds (2-Disc Special Edition) [Blu-ray]
-4.5
The Hurt Locker [Blu-ray]
-4.5
Saving Private Ryan [Blu-ray]
-5
Enough about my favorite movie; obvisously, I'm not going to reveal it today. I'm going to talk about war and the movies that sprout from them. Not that I'm that big of a war film fan. This past weekend, I did manage to see 3 great movies that happen to be war pictures, 2 of them I had not previously seen and 1 of them I am now kicking myself over not seeing it sooner.
I won't keep you in suspense about the best movie I've seen in a while. That would be Quentin Tarantino's "Inglorious Basterds". In a nutshell, this is "Pulp Fiction" played out during World War II in it's correct order and minus one suitcase. Yeah, that about sums it up. All I can say is WOW! From the opening scene, where a French father of 3 young ladies greets German soldiers at his front door for a talk that is basically very one sided, to the end scene, which almost serves as the perfect coda to this symphony of comedic mayhem and melodrama. Going back to the opening scene where Tarantino's mastery of characters communication shines brightest, where the main antagonist of this film (if there is a main antagonist in this film, considering who this man works for), SS Colonel Hans Landa played with weird glee by Christoph Waltz (who has to be a shoe-in for a best supporting Oscar nod), simple questions the French father on trivial matters such as nicknames & rumors & the differences between rats & squirrels. While these questions are being asked & other statements are being made, there is a key scene that doesn't stray to far from where the conversation is taking place but shines a light on the conversation to the point that we now know what Colonel Landa really wants to know,as well as shine a light on the emotions and thoughts of the Frenchman to the point where, even though he hasn't said too many words, you know what he WILL be saying, sooner than one would have thought having watched him since the beginning of the scene. Aside from the introduction of the Colonel, the opening scene serves one other purpose, that I won't reveal out of love for this movie. In fact, I won't reveal any more of the plot accept that Brad Pitt is in charge of a rag tag group of soldiers (that have been labeled Jewish Americans by some reviewers; although some of the soldiers are I didn't find any info within the movie to back that up regarding all of them) named the Inglourious Basterds who are to kill as many Nazis as possible. Of course, the main Nazi they wouldn't mind getting a crack at would be Adolph Hitler and when a chance presents it's head to get this one major kill, the Basterds pounce on it but they're not the only ones. I don't think it would be a spoiler to say Adolph Hitler does make an appearance.
Don't you hate as moviegoers the fact that you go into a movie review not wanting to know exactly what happened but end up finding out anyway? I don't do that. I feel that for a person to enjoy a movie there has to be an air of the unknown involved. That's how I went into this movie. Even though Tarantino is one of my favorite directors, probably favorite director that I watched since his first movie, I don't see him as one of the great ones yet. Maybe because he doesn't have a total of 10 movies attributed to his directional resume yet. Maybe because in order to compare him to others, I am still waiting on his first misstep as a director (no, "Grindhouse"'s Death Proof segment was no misstep; IMO it was highly ingenius, entertaining and a prime reason that I believe Tarantino can make a movie about a man taking a crap and make it a great movie.)
With that said, the only other information I can give you regarding this movie is it is told in 5 scenes, all in order unlike "Pulp" which works. I guess it could have been told in a non linear manner as well & probably still worked, but I never was a fan of this gimmick. It worked for "Pulp" because nobody knew it was telling the same story upon first viewing; after viewing it sorta became the main reason to watch the movie again. "Basterds" and it's 5 chapters are all in correct order but none of that really matters. this movie is told in a disinterested,deattached voice that gives it a life of it's own. A life filled with the same eccentric brand of characters from the beloved "Pulp" film. I really don't want to stop talking about this movie but I must before I tell you everything that happens in it.
I also saw the latest indie movie darling, Kathryn Bigelow's "The Hurt Locker". Also a great war movie, this movie did something that "Inglourious" didn't. Instead of romancing the soldiers and their mission, "Hurt" manages to make a soldiers job look just as mundane as any desk job, with the drama actually coming from the interaction between the members of a bomb squad, Sergeant JT Sanborn (a pitch perfect as always Anthony Mackie)& Specialist Owen Eldridge (a mousy but equally inspired performance by Brian Geraghty, whose acting I don't know much about) and the replacement soldier to the unit, bomb specialist Staff Sergeant William James. James is played by Jeremy Renner, who I remember as one of the few standout performances in the that god awful remake "S.W.A.T."that featured a tuned down maybe a little too much Samuel L Jackson. Sergeant James is attuned to the consequences of a misstep in his line of work brings and decidedly embraces it. He thrives off of.... he gets a rush from... actually, that's all I've heard in other reviews but I never saw exactly what he gets a rush from to pinpoint it with one sentence. I did see that he has a dangerous job compared to mine but I saw similarities to how he goes about his duties versus how I go about my duties. To me, this movie was more of a workplace drama than a war film. The fact that these guys work during a war in a war zone does nothing to change this into a war movie. Regardless of how one views this movie, be it as a war movie or workplace drama, this movie works. I felt the characters. I felt the drama, the tension, caused by the situation that the soldiers found them selves in or the drama caused by a soldier not following commands of communication; if I'm a temp, how can another temp tell me what to do? Then explain how does work if we are refering to Sargeants. I would love to know that. Well, whatever. However you choose to view this movie, it will work on that level. This movie is that good. It's tension doesn't just come from the war itself or the bombs that are disarmed, but from the
most common kind of tension; the tension between people of different mindsets stuck in a circumstance that forces them together. Everybody has had that kind of tension in real life.
After viewing those two movies and realizing the war connection, I tried to figure out what other war movie I could watch because obvisously I was in a war kinda mind. To me, there's not a whole lot of great war movies. There's a trunk load of good movies, a boat load of ok movies, and a cruiseship worth of war movies that aren't worth enough to even call bad. The standout war movie greats incude "Deer Hunter", "Platoon",& "Full Metal Jacket", each movie, oddly enough, puts more emphasis on the bonds of the soldiers than the actually war itself. The whole first half of "Full Metal Jacket" is about the training of the soldiers and the alienation of one soldier with horrific results. The second half, the war half, works only because we become invested in the lives of these marines (if I remember correctly they were marines) during the first half. I digress but it serves purpose.
I decided, after the comedic style war of Tarantino and the domesticated war style of Bigelowe, I needed to see war at it's worst. For that craving I chose "Saving Private Ryan", directed by a Steven Spielberg, who just might go on to be a great director someday. LOL! We all know who Mr. Spielberg is so forgive me for trying to be funny. Anyway, this is probably one of the most sincere war movies I've seen, portraying the anguish amongst the soldiers who are handed the seemingly impossible and highly irregular task of trying to find one soldier in a war torn country were the war is still occuring to bring him home because of the deaths of his three brothers, who died in the same war that the currently still living Ryan brother is currently fighting. Imagine trying to find the needle in the haystack if the hay stack was on fire and you'll get the point. It's not impossible, but it sure is harder than just finding the needle, which was hard enough already. The team of soldiers setting out to find Ryan is led by Tom Hanks, who had just won two best actor Oscars before this movie. He may have gotten one for this movie too, but the ensemble cast really took the movie out of one actors hands. The cast includes Tom Sizemore, Barry Pepper, Casey Affleck, Vin Diesel, Edward Burns, & Matt Damon as the eponymous private. There's also cameos by the always delight full Paul Giomatti, Ted Danson, and others, but the real star of this movie is the war itself. Shot with a kind of lighting that would make even sunny days seem gloomy, you get the feel of the war from the opening scene. I am trying to think if I have ever seen so many people dying in the beginning of a movie as in "Saving". I probably have but I cannot for the life of me think of any right now. Whatever. This movie works. All three movies work so if you haven't seen them, do yourself a favor.
Inglourious Basterds (2-Disc Special Edition) [Blu-ray]
-4.5The Hurt Locker [Blu-ray]
-4.5Saving Private Ryan [Blu-ray]
-5
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
My All Time Favorite Movies
Hello, World. Bizzee here, finally ready to write a review for the first time. This wont be my first review of course, just the first time I've written one down. I figured I would review James Cameron's blockbuster "Avatar" but then I figured most of yall already seen it. Then I decided to go ahead with the "Avatar" review anyway but then nixed that thought again because I wanted to start my review blog off with a positive review. I know, somebody gotta be going "WTF?!?!" right now but I didn't say the movie wasn't good either. I just can't totally give it a great review off the cinematic experience, which I do highly recommend and I'm very glad I did decide to see this one on the big screen among the masses. I won't be buying this movie when it comes on DVD, however, and that's why I can't give this movie a great review. Even with the extras that's sure to be packed into the DVD like extra footage to the already maddening lenth or a sneak peek at the inevitable "Avatar 2", I don't think I need to see it again any time soon. Once is enough.
So how do you know you're watching a good movie, a bad movie you are just relating to, or a GREAT movie that you'd recommend to everybody? It's all a matter of opinion,IMO,LOL! Sorry, I guess I'm still in Facebook mode. Seriously, it is a matter of opinion & everybody has one. What makes mine better than others? Nothing whatsoever, period. Well, in that case, why should anybody listen to me? That's an easy question with a simple answer: I KNOW movies. I've watched everything I could at least once so that I can have an opinion about the movie; sometimes I know a movie will suck but I gotta watch it so I can explain why it sucked. It's like good eating. If you ate hot dogs & nothing but hot dogs all of your life, then a steak or some chicken would probably blow your mind. Conversely, if all you ate was steak, when you come across that hot dog for the first time, you'll try it and probably never eat another one just for the fact that it is not a steak.
I guess this is part one of my review of my favorite movie because I haven't even gotten to the name of it yet and I'm leaving work to go play. I dont just work & watch movies; I have kids, a life, & adult needs that need to be taken care of in that order. Besides, this isn't just a movie review site. This is a site of MY favorite things; coming soon I'll have help reviewing different aspects of entertainment, mainly Chicago based for a year or so before I (then we) expand. What is my favorite movie by the way? I'll tell yall tomorrow but I'll give a little hint: I dont like to many movies that you can only see once (aka no replay value). I like a movie that makes you wanna watch it again after you just saw it the first time. Hmmm, I wonder which one I like the best (just joking; I already know it..). Til tommorrow, outta......
So how do you know you're watching a good movie, a bad movie you are just relating to, or a GREAT movie that you'd recommend to everybody? It's all a matter of opinion,IMO,LOL! Sorry, I guess I'm still in Facebook mode. Seriously, it is a matter of opinion & everybody has one. What makes mine better than others? Nothing whatsoever, period. Well, in that case, why should anybody listen to me? That's an easy question with a simple answer: I KNOW movies. I've watched everything I could at least once so that I can have an opinion about the movie; sometimes I know a movie will suck but I gotta watch it so I can explain why it sucked. It's like good eating. If you ate hot dogs & nothing but hot dogs all of your life, then a steak or some chicken would probably blow your mind. Conversely, if all you ate was steak, when you come across that hot dog for the first time, you'll try it and probably never eat another one just for the fact that it is not a steak.
I guess this is part one of my review of my favorite movie because I haven't even gotten to the name of it yet and I'm leaving work to go play. I dont just work & watch movies; I have kids, a life, & adult needs that need to be taken care of in that order. Besides, this isn't just a movie review site. This is a site of MY favorite things; coming soon I'll have help reviewing different aspects of entertainment, mainly Chicago based for a year or so before I (then we) expand. What is my favorite movie by the way? I'll tell yall tomorrow but I'll give a little hint: I dont like to many movies that you can only see once (aka no replay value). I like a movie that makes you wanna watch it again after you just saw it the first time. Hmmm, I wonder which one I like the best (just joking; I already know it..). Til tommorrow, outta......
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
My First Review, well, Preview
Hello, World. I have an admission to make, I'm a critic. I know I was in denial a long time, but I've finally come to terms with it. I criticize a lot. I would say all the time but honestly there are some things I like. That's sorta why I started this page...
IMO(isn't my opinion the reason why you're here anyway?), a critic is a person who will waste countless hours observing whatever could be observing, hearing what could be heard, experiencing...well you get the idea; let's just say testing & trying stuff, movies, yadda yadda yadda, just so you dont have to.
That's it World. What I listen to, observe, read, play, and whatever else it is that I do, I will be back to let yall know what I think about it or them or whatever.
IMO(isn't my opinion the reason why you're here anyway?), a critic is a person who will waste countless hours observing whatever could be observing, hearing what could be heard, experiencing...well you get the idea; let's just say testing & trying stuff, movies, yadda yadda yadda, just so you dont have to.
That's it World. What I listen to, observe, read, play, and whatever else it is that I do, I will be back to let yall know what I think about it or them or whatever.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)