Argo

Well for my final review in America I am going to do a film of patriotism and bravery that was apparently so good it was Oscar worthy...no not Lincoln, Argo. Yes, the film that is beloved by Americans( but not other countries so much) about the American spirit( in spite of it being a covert operation) and gave us the facts of the operation hidden from us for so very long( but changed a lot to add extra action, tension and suspense).

OK, as far as you have been reading my reviews, you know that I don't like this movie. Not the worst, but not the best either. It's boring, slow, historically inaccurate and overrated. ( I should point out in my list of overrated films, the list extends from overrated slightly but still good to extremely overrated and quite bad.)
As you know, since most of you saw it , the story is about Tony Mendez(played by a not Mexican
Ben Afflec) and his plans( you know not Canada) to extract six American hostages from a hostile
1980s Iran. And how is this done but by making a fake movie and using Iran for test shots( I won't lie, that plan is incredible) the rest of the film is a race against time to remove the hostages before they are discovered.

The film suffers from extreme patriotism by stuffing it down our throat how hurt America is by this crisis that they come up with the idea and did most of the work and put themselves on the line to commit such a daring deed. It also glorifies America and the CIA even though they were the contributing factor to this uprising. They also underplayed Canada's role, who had pretty much supported the idea the whole way throughout, making them seem against the plan as it might endanger Canada and its embassy.

I think some of this directorial decisions came from Afflecs time on Pearl harbour(because let's be honest they are both similar). Lets see: based on a true event, certain points are dramatised, made out
to promote American spirit and patriotism, first half good due to character development and
progression of story, while the second half is poorly done and both glorifies Afflec and America.

Much of this criticism relies on how much you realise the academy have made mistakes over the years. These films were not bad, just the competition that year was clearly better.

Example 1: Gone with the wind won best picture as the academy believed this film to stand the test of time better than The wizard of Oz.

Example 2: Citizen Kane lost to how green was the valley, remember that film...no, we'll OF COURSE NOT.

Example 3: Although I have yet to see it, Gladiator is believed to be cliched and pretentious and many question why it won.
For more examples check out watchmojo.

For all the problems I have with this movie it has but one saving grace, build-up. The first half of this movie was done very well with good supporting by John goodman and Alan Arkin. I liked seek the process that went into this plan and the interactions. But ultimately it just struck a bad cord with me due to its slowness, confusing plot points, forced patriotism, boring and taking an idea a bad place. There is two ways they could have gone, one they could have followed it the whole way through with the history and it accurate and not offend the Canadians. Or they could have taken the concept and taken liberties with it the whole way and placed it in a different time period or country and get across the same messages.

If any snubbing happened it would be that films like Lincoln, life of pi, django and armour had everything Argo had and more. Lincoln had patriotism, historical accuracy, powerful delivery by all the leading actors and supporting. Life of pi dealt with faith, had amazing visuals and emotion, Django told a story with class and fun, it was well written and the academy is too stuffy for controversy( they try to avoid it but that also limits their ability to award artistic integrity). Of all the films that were nominated in the Oscars, save for armour and frankenwenie which I have not seen, any of them would have been better as best picture. I know it's against all my blog stands for, but Argo, why don't you Ar-go f**kyourself. I hope you enjoyed please comment if you believe there is a snubbed film out there.

                                                                    

The Hill and Wood

You know the way I said that my opinion on film, television and music differs from that of an average Irish teenager, well I would like to address the opinions I express in my reviews. I have noticed that I am much too positive and would like to resubmit at least four of my previous entries after re-reviewing the films I will be more critical in my opinion. With that said, lets examine all areas in the Independant/cult culture. So now I will be doing my first of...most likely very few...reviews of indie rock bands. Today it's a concert I went to in Washington last week.

The Hill and Wood is a band from Charlottesville, Virginia. Starting off with their folk rock style they eventually evolved towards a rock/pop sound with a mix of country, blues and jazz. The one thing I like about independently made music or film is the fact that they have little to no restrictions, other than their budget, to make stellar work and produce what they love. The songs these guys have can range from a slow, toe-tapping melody to a fast paced mover and shaker. In most songs there
is subtle message hidden beneath the riffs and lyrics, here I can't find it. Keep in mind that this was a live performance, but the equipment was  just terrible. There moving songs could hardly be heard above the baseball system of audio amplification. Sometimes the songs are well paced and slow so you can make out each word and really get a feel for the song. But that is only one problem with the performance another is the song lineup. I loved the songs they chose, but before the show began there was a montage of performers who got the whole crowd dancing. Also the crowd was just to stuffy and mainstream I think for this band. Any interaction with the crowd was met with the ever dreaded sound of awkward silence. I think one the reasons was the lack of stage presence. These guys should really try to take advantage of the power of live performances. When I went Paul McCartney in Dublin, he had lights, smoke, fireworks and jokes a plenty for the crowd. He composed them, played games and teased them. These guys just wanted to know if we enjoyed the song they just played. Feel confidant with the song guys, know the crowd liked it and if not play games like "the next one is better". They must get better presence, but I say it might be out of the zone they are more common with assosiating with. The stage would be smaller and full of fans. So those are my problems with the show itself, but as for the band, they are very good. Very few have heard of these guys and they really need to get more recognition. From a critical point of view the band is interesting. If they come to Ireland with better stage presence, you can garauntee that I will watch them. If there is one thing I would change is Fiona Dougherty(female lead) getting some more solo's. her voice is haunting and melodic and I would love to hear more from her. The lead is amazing to say the least. His vocal talents span everything from slow to upbeat to head banging. My favourite song of theirs would have to be "Let a good thing grow" and with that I shall leave you with that song.

                                                                 

American psycho

For the first time, I am writing from America on my iPhone and I have decided to use a different format for this review, please tell me if I should keep this style or keep the original. I hope you enjoy so let's get started.
Set in the hustle of New York, banker and stockbroker, Patrick Bateman is just like any yuppy in business, not much individuality or originality, all about the rank, the apartment you own, the card you hand out and the restaurants you can book. He comes off as a perfect asshole, no redeemable qualities but one, he is completely bonkers. He kills, he rapes, he mutilates, tortures and humiliate his victims. Through this brief view, we see into the psyche and double life of a business yuppie. Prostitutes, cocaine, affairs and envy. We spiral through the days in which he really loses it and we just get knocked right out of our wits. Combining social commentaries with gruesome horror, we are treated to a real spectacle of choice cinema. A lot of things are off putting in this film. Two full on sex scenes, gruesome murder(including a gruesome death scene in the extende edition that I will not furnish you with the details about) and clever but almost perverted social commentary on business and upperclass society. But this ultimately is what makes it good. It pushes the boundaries of what can be put in a film while still remaining tame and artistic. What saves it is Christian Bales performance as Batman(I mean Bateman). Sorry, but you can make multiple jokes and references towards Batman on the dark side or what if Batman had gone the other way and turned into a sociopathic killer while as Bruce Wayne he would be a completely unlikable asshole. That is what gives it a cult following, that and it is considered to be one of Christian Bales performances and all anyone can think of is his performance in the Dark Knight trilogy.

This film got a lot of criticism at the time of release due to the graphic violence. But I ask what is the point of film if you can't express opinion. Because that is what film is, art. We tell stories and express opinion on society, politics, art and pop culture. If this film is to be a martyr for films to express opinion, then so be it. I love the cast, I love the acting, I love the story and the film is memorable as a good psychological horror. I dislike the gore, but only a little bit and the sex scenes are a little over the top and sometimes distracting. If you enjoy Bale, horror and good commentary, then this is your film. I would avoid it if you are squeamish or just like Bale too much as Batman. Also don't watch with your parents, you will regret it.

Lemony Snicket's A Series of Unfortunate Events

When it comes to cult movies, I don't think this comes under the full meaning. I mean it was well received by most critics and the audience liked it, as well as making a profit in the Box-office. But some part of me thinks that this film is underrated. But at the same time it was like a guilty pleasure of mine. Many flaws and some strengths. It's much like 'The Prince of Egypt', it was good, but it doesn't have the recognition it deserves. But know I see all the flaws and that the book is much better. Why? Just read on to find out.  For the first time, a film that has no obvious connection to cult movies is going to be reviewed on the cult section of this Blog. So let's dive right into A Series of Unfortunate events.

The plot is a bit contrived and a little silly(sometimes silly due to it only covering three of the thirteen books in the series. So you may not be satisfied unless you've read the books). Three children of remarkable skills(Violet, the inventor, Klaus, who can remember everything he has ever read and Sunny{still a toddler}, with teeth so sharp the can cut through anything.) The siblings are all shocked to discover that one day their parents have died in the fire. Now orphans, they are sent to live with their evil uncle, Count Olaf. At first meeting they are subjected to cruel treatment and slavery. Realizing he only wants their vast inheritance(did I forget to mention that they are billionaires.) they try to escape his grasp at every turn. Of coarse that is a grim storyline, but the film is just too light hearted for that

Now, the good things about this film is and it's only saving grace for the audience is the comedy. Jim Carry's over the top delivery, the garbles of Sunny translated into insults and the quirky characters around them Like their uncle Monty played by Billy Connolly and Aunt Josephine by Meryl Streep. The other saving grace in my opinion, is the Burtonesque look. It's not very dark, but the twisted, skinny, harsh colored world that Brad Silbering created is so well done, I actually thought it was directed by Tim Burton. It captured the look and feel the book was trying to get across. For the most part the acting is very well done, so props to them for that. The acting is very well done and considering who and what they were working with, well done to Emily Browning(Violet), Liam Aiken(Klaus) and Kara and Shelby Hoffman(Sunny). 

And now for my problems.  It is so different from the novel. As much as I love Carry as Olaf, the Darkness is almost completely gone. It cuts away from death when it happens and rather alludes to the death, like when someone dies the narrator is just, "you get the idea"(he actually said that when the scene cuts away from the death.) Also Olaf was never funny in the novel, he was almost pure evil, killing, lying and stalking. Not to say Carry was miscast, I now wish he was a little more evil. My other problem is the Differences from the book. Like shorter times with the other relatives, problems not being taken seriously and the ending. I won't spoil it and it isn't a bad ending, it just made it a stand alone movie in what should obviously be a quadrilogy. It ended on a high note and not much connection to the next book, leaving the audience satisfied with just one movie and not leaving them hungry for more. Another problem is the the setting. I have said the world looks good, but it also look's a little modern mixed with the past(steampunk anyone) I am kind of confused due to the 'fashion' they wear. And there that modern talk in what should obviously be the late 50's to early 60's. It can be funny, but is also quite distracting.

All those problems aside, I won't really recommend not watching it and it isn't anything special, but if you want a good laugh and you ant to start reading a series that is dark, depressing and an acquired taste.
Premise: 1 star(silly, but also very dark)
Direction: 1 star(very burton without the burton and well crafted to the silver screen)
Acting: 1 star( enjoyable, but can be quite deadpan and sometimes jaded)
Effects: 1 star(considering the use of models and puppets more than CGI)
Script: 0 star(dialog is a bit corny and not wholey adapted from the book)
**** stars(good for a few viewings, not the best movie you have ever seen, but could have been much, much worse.).

I hope you enjoy this review for I am travelling to America next week and therefore will not be able to write my next review for at least another two weeks and a half. Maybe I will meet some of the American fans during my travels(unlikely, but I like to hope).

Scott Pilgrim vs the world

This film is seriously underrated. Unlike the other films I have reviewed on this blog(with the exception of Donnie Darko), where they are guilty pleasures or enjoyably bad or has that feeling to it, this film has everything a cult film should have and the best parts of a mainstream film. It has rock bands with questionably artistic songs, comedy(thank you Edgar wright), comic book and video game styles, teenage angst themes and some really awesome action. I won't call it a perfect film, but it is a really good film. It really makes me question how some of these films can be seen by only a small majority of the population, be considered good by most critics and still not earn enough in the Box-office. So let us look at why this is a good movie and see why some critics and audiences dislike it.

The Story( I just realized how ridiculous it is but at the same time original and kind of cool) is about Scott Pilgrim(Michael Cera) and his meeting of Ramona Flowers(Mary Elizabeth Winstead. It begins with the audience meeting Scott, his band and his new girlfriend, Knives Chau. Soon we see him meet Ramona who is quite literally the girl of his dreams(she appeared in his dreams while he had a random hallucination about being alone.). For the rest of the film, Scott continually tries to impress Ramona and the two go out. But before they can officially be declared a couple, Scott must defeat her "Seven Evil Exes". From there the awesome action of band battles, full scale fist fights and a whole lot of twist and turns for our suffering hero.

What I and most who have watched this movie like is the Comic book elements(not surprising considering it came from a Graphic Novel). I also like the video game feel, with flash-words like 'fatality', 'game over' or 'KO' just popping up on the screen. As well as the effects and animation, it also feel's like a comic book. Another element is the music. If this wasn't a film about video games and fighting evil exes, it would definitely be a comedy about a indie rock band trying to make it big. The songs they have aren't exactly funny, but rather very good ones. My favorites are 'garbage truck' and 'Launchpad McQuack'(I think that's how it's spelled). It's just good old fashion rock/grunge music. A good battle in this, which is quite symbolic is their band "Sex Bob-omb"(isn't that just the best name!) vs the kantianagi twins. It's Rock vs Electro! And of course you know who wins, but the fun is seeing it. That is another thing. It is a very visual film, if you have seen other Wright films like Hot Fuzz of Shaun of the Dead, you will notice that they really just tell the story through the characters and their interactions, this does so as well but with more emphasis on imagery and visual effects. Also I love the lead, Micheal who is very funny in this role. The same can be said for most of the cast. With Brandon Routh giving a more decent performance as a villain than superman, Anna Kendrick as a socially driven, sometimes spiteful sister and Wallace as a bitch of a gay roommate.

But when I really analyzed it, the problems were still there, some small, others...pretty-big. My main problem is Mary's performance for a large majority of the film. She keeps the same 'I'm bored' face, like this was really phoned in. She also has a very monotone voice, but in some way it emphasizes Ramona's unhappiness with having to run away from a disappointing love life. But that is only one problem. The other is that too much is happening in this movie. The band, the romance, the battles and  the past. it just feel's a bit crowded sometimes, but that is just more of a pet peeve. Sometimes the humor dies. Yes I pointed out that the humor is very good and it is...on the first viewing. This is what I call a memorable film. A film that is very funny or very clever or very scary that it sticks in your memory like flies to the tongue of a Venus fly trap. And it takes a while to forget. I usually like to forget a lot of what i see in a movie so that I can watch it again and regain that feeling of awe. But this is usually my problem. Another way th humor can die here is that sometime's the joke isn't funny or is overused, like Knives being obsessed with Scott, her heart isn't broken, in fact I am happy that Scott dumped her for Ramona, because the obsession is really freaking creepy.

Those problems aside, it is a genuinely good film. I think the reason there is a Cult following around Scott Pilgrim is because of how trippy it comes off as (As well as the classic example of being well received by audiences, but doing poorly at box-office). In fact only in the first third is there some really trippy moments. After that it is rather tame. In my opinion the film should be re-released with maybe an extended/directors cut. This film reflects both an element of the hipster crowd, mainstream crowd and the cult crowd, all because of one man Edgar Wright. I love ya Ed, we all do. So for my final verdict here it is:
Premise:1/2 star( a bit contrived, but still original and good fun)
Cast: Exceptional, 1 star
Direction:1 Star
Script: excellently transcribed from the Graphic novel, very funny dialog, 1 star
Effects: Very well done. 1 star
****1/2 stars out of five. As a treat here is my favorite(hopefully, spoiler free) scene from the movie.