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!!!
Monday, March 29, 2010
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)