Author: Admin

For world building purposes in movies I generally like it if the characters have last names. Just makes it feel more “Real” to me, or at least gives the false impression that they spent some more time working on the plot.

But sometimes, movies can say fuck character names in general and go a more simpler route. For Faster, we get characters like Driver, Cop, and Killer! Yeah! Fuck names!

Guess which name he gets!

Dwayne Johnson is…the driver. Yes. Correct. He gets out of prison at the start of the movie, and he is mad. So mad that once he gets out of the gate (of course on an abandoned desert road?) he just starts running. He runs to a car, drives said car, and then kills a telemarketer. Damn.

Mike Epps plays the guy who got him the car, and with that car, a list of names of people who helped put him in jail. He was double crossed after a heist with his brother. They shot him in the head! But it ricocheted around his skull in one way, out the other, avoiding his brain, so somehow he survived.

At the same time, the cops Carla Gugino and Billy Bob Thornton (who is of course about to retire) are looking for him/trying to figure it out. Also also Oliver Jackson-Cohen plays the Killer, who is (re?)hired to kill the Driver, before he enacts revenge on all of the people who have mostly changed their lives around.

Like Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje, who is now a traveling Evangelist. And the last name on the list. But who actually shot him and failed at being an assassin?

And why does BBT look so sad when he is about to retire?

The movie is a pretty simple plot, so it will have to rely on at least decent acting or surprises along the way to keep interest. It kind of delivers on small scales. I think I have heard of people surviving shots to the head the same way. Maybe I have heard of that just in movies though.

I think the ending was decent given the premises too, was acceptable. I also liked that they tried to give the other non-Rock characters some story lines too. I really didnt like BBT or the other cops involvement though. Felt like a weaker plot line of the movie.

But hey. The movie is called Faster. What can you expect. Its not like they are going to one up it with an unrelated movie called Fastest, right?

I could say a lot about this movie, but it is one of the more simpler movies to understand.

Sure some history might help, but Frost/Nixon is about two people. David Frost, and Richard Nixon.

The entire movie is just their floating heads, talking.

But seriously. Frank Langella plays Richard Nixon, who just had the Watergate scandal and has since resigned from being president. Michael Sheen plays David Frost, a British TV reporter who likes to interview people. At the time of the movie I don’t think he was as famous as he is right now. A lot of the fame came from his interview with Nixon, as he was the first reporter to really get a crack at it after the resignation.

Do you want your movie reviews to be a history lesson? Didn’t think so. That is what watching the movie is for.

Eventually the interview happens over a few parts. After the first part, Nixon is walking all over Frost. He is a big time guy, carries a lot of power behind his voice, and can steer the topics his way. But it is up to Frost to man up, so to speak, take control of the interview, and get Nixon to talk about the scandals!

Sam Rockwell and Kevin Bacon are also in this movie, but you shouldn’t be watching it for them.

Here is a picture of the real interviews. Everyone is uglier in real life.

“But Gorgon Reviews, why would I want to watch a movie about two people just talkin’? Not only just that, but two people talkin’ about stuff almost 40 years ago. Fuck the past!”

Well, foul-mouthed reader, they talk pretty good like.

I mean, that might be my whole argument. I was captivated some how by all of it. The sense of history being made (or at least the possibility) and the mental chess match between Frost and Nixon for the debate. Had a lot more than those two, producers, agents, bodyguards, PR people, etc getting in the way too. And money. But just watching the conversations was good enough for me.

I have heard about the Waitress movie for awhile. Mostly positive things. And once I got rid of all the opinions from people who thought I was talking about Waiting…, turns out people still overall liked Waitress. I knew not much about it, just assumed because it was about a woman, that there would be a love element!

This mostly being necessary for a review coming out on Valentine’s Day.

And she’s happy!

Kari Russell plays a waitress in a small town diner. She likes to make pies, and is good at it. Did the whole pie thing since she was a child. She is married to Jeremy Sisto though, who doesn’t treat her right. Doesn’t beat her or anything, but he also just seems to be controlling. Won’t let her have a car, doesn’t care about her pies, and doesn’t seem to “love” her.

But she gets pregnant! Damn it, damn it! She won’t get rid of it, but she wants to leave her husband anyways, maybe win a pie contest. Unfortunately her doctor just retired, and all she is left with in the small town is Nathan Fillion. Who is awkward around her.

So Keri has to deal with putting up her husband, secretly going to a birthdoctor, possibly wanting to tap said doctor, and still make a lot of pies for the shop. Her friends try their best, fellow waitresses Cheryl Hines and Adrienne Shell, but even the owner, played by Andy Griffith, seems to give her a hard time every time he stops in for meals (and PIES).

The movie isn’t really about love or her looking for love. No it is about a woman, who wants to just live her life the way she wants to live it, with the unfortunate side effect of getting pregnant with a man she doesn’t love. Nathan Fillion is a nice doctor, but he might not be the answers she needs either.

Although they make such nice pies together.

I liked this movie a lot. As I just said it was nice to see a movie about an independent woman who is not working towards getting a man the whole time. Everyone in the movie does a great job conveying the small town feel. Even though Sisto’s character is a jerk that you will hate, he also does a great performance.

This must be where Sisto first met Hines, since they both are now in the show Suburgatory together. Connections, also, are one of the more fun things you can do with movies and tv shows.

Overall, great movie, with an ending that isn’t entirely predictable. Yay!

The cover of The Resident makes it look like it involves a stalker of some sort. Probably someone who shares the apartment complex. Awesome. I don’t mind creepy thrillers, they are like a lame horror.

Unless of course this movie decides to make it not too creepy or thrillery…just weird and dumb. Which it does. Damn it.

“In before the ‘rape’ talk.”

The plot is very simple, because well, the movie is very simple. Hilary Swank is an ER doctor, and is breaking up with her boyfriend. She needs a new apartment, finds a big one in a complex that is being reconstructed, with only about one other tenant (Christopher Lee, with maybe the smallest/most pointless role in his career).

Also the price is damn cheap, since she’d have to hear construction noises. Jeffrey Dean Morgan, the owner, isn’t bad looking either. EXCEPT HE IS OBSESSED WITH SWANK AND SPIES ON HER AT NIGHT AND SOMETIMES SNEAKS IN AND TOUCHES HER. ALSO HE MIGHT BE DRUGGING HER TO TAP THAT. Very romantic.

Eventually she finds out, freaks out but not with enough time to tell authorities. Long struggle. Eventually he dies. Movie over.

Before I analyze why I hated it, fun fact, in P.S. I Love You, Hilary Swank loses her husband and takes forever to get over him. Eventually she does, and partially because of some “sexy Irish man” she meets, who is played by, of course, Jeffrey Dean Morgan. From love to rape. It happens.

They don’t even make the “whodunnit” part suspenseful.

This movie is not good. That is an opinion, but I will say it in a stern voice. There is no possibility that the early tampering with Swank is not done by any other character other than the one who does it. Most of the scenes show him sitting in between walls and shaking. All Swank does is take awkward baths and take, well…some abuse. Until she finds out.

I didn’t find it creepy, just weird. I didn’t find it scary, just weird. I didn’t find it good, just stupid. I felt like very little happened. Even tried to show a whole bunch of scenes over, to show how weird the guy is, and it just confused me more than anything.

I award this movie no points and may god have mercy on its soul.

My original interest in watching Cyrus was not because of its all-star cast (exageration maybe. But at least one person in it was in a Best Picture movie, and the other has now been nominated for best supporting actor, so…). Nope, I watched it because it was previewed on another movie I liked, surrounded by previews of other movies I liked. Very simple idea.

You just have to for some reason not skip the previews.

“But if you skip the previews how will you know what to love!?”

John C. Reilly is not Cyrus! No, his character is John. That is convienient. Jonah Hill is Cyrus, be he comes in later.

John is miserable and divorced, has been for years. And now his ex-wife is getting married, and she wants him to come to it, and go out with them to a party to try and meet people. He strikes out on everyone, and bares his heart and soul to one chick, and even she runs away. But not Marisa Tomei. She was eavesdropping and figured she’d give it a go on that drunk guy.

And they have sex! Hooray! They are also super honest about everything. Except that she has a 22 year old son who lives a home (What a loser!) He finds this out on a surprise visit. Tomei is not there, just Cyrus. He shows him his techno, and hey, they talk about the fact that John had sex with his mom. Fun!

The story unfolds weirdly, with the relationship going pretty quickly, but Cyrus seems to be upset, and plots to get John out of the house. Small things, like stealing John’s shoes, lying to his mom, and other tactics that someone who is 22 shouldn’t be up to. John confronts with his ex-wife over all of this, played by Catherine Keener, but refuses to be as honest in his own relationship.

This builds up until a physical altercation at his ex-wife’s wedding, and possibly an end to this fling of a relationship.

Did I mention the techno?!

The movie definitely doesn’t follow the normal format. If you were to stick this idea into a machine to determine if it’d be a success, you’d probably get a yes! But it would also probably assume there was a lot more jokes in the movie. I think about two scenes in the movie I actually found funny. The techno scene, and a late night threatening scene about being knocked out.

Everything else was kinda of blah. Too real, not too funny, not too serious either. Just was, you know, blah.

Ah ha! A Johnny Depp movie! Not only that, The Rum Diary is the kind of prequel to everyone’s favorite movie from 1997, Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas. That movie and this one were both written by the same guy, and both kind of about his life. The Rum Diary was written in the 60s or something, but not published until after the FaLiLV movie came out.

So unofficially it is a prequel, but stars the same character 10 years before the events in FaLiLV, and has the same actor playing that character. Yes, 14 years later, he is playing the same role, but supposed to be 10 years younger. Go with it.

What a great way to open a movie.

Lets see what I can figure out of the plot. Depp’s character is mad at the US journalism, so he leaves the country and goes to work in Puerto Rico. He finds a PR newspaper, lead by Richard Jenkins, and eventually gets a job. Then he has to do dumb tourist stories.

Eventually he finds Amber Heard and wants her. He also drinks a lot of rum. Unfortunately the woman is married to a shady business man, played by Aaron Eckhart, a real estate guy. He ends up getting mixed in their business and other journalist stuff, that leads to crazy drunken adventures around Puerto Rico. Also maybe some lessons learned about journalism. Not sure.

Puerto Rico has got style, yo.

It is amazing how little I cared for this movie as I watched it. I kept trying to figure out the point of the whole thing. It is in no way at all similar to Fear and Loathing, a movie that I personally didn’t like much, but appreciated how much effort went into it and how great the acting of Depp was. But this didn’t give me that latter satisfaction. Apparently this movie took about 10 or so years to make, after initial rights and development, first with Depp, then someone else, then Depp again. Now I know why it kept sputtering out of control.

Not sure how different it is from the book, or if the book is way better, but this movie on its own is just dumb.

Take Shelter is a…well it is a weird movie. Crazy shit happens, but only kind of. Crazy people happen, but only kind of, as well.

What a nonsensical thing to say!

Ahh birds!

Michael Shannon is just a normal individual. Has a wife (Jessica Chastain) and kid (Tova Stewart), and he works in a construction company. Sure, his kid is deaf and they are trying to learn sign language, but hey.

And sure, he is having some sleepless nights. Having very vivid dreams, with birds flying in weird formations, being attacked and grabbed by strangers, dogs biting him, and other giant ass scary storms! This changes his behavior unfortunately and doesn’t tell anyone about the dreams.

He secretly does make an appointment with a psychiatrist, after doing his own researching, trying to determine if he had some form of schizophrenia. Oh, and he takes it on his own time to borrow company equipment to turn his small storm shelter for tornadoes into a larger, more secure building with lots of food and gas masks and everything!

Eventually he does has to confront these dreams and decisions with his wife, but only after also losing his job and spending a lot of their necessary money.

But when a big storm does hit, who will have the last laugh?

Is this the real life? Is this just fantasy?

Writing this review bugs me because it is one of those that I want to spoil the whole thing for. So feel free to ask me later, hah. The climax was pretty powerful, and the final scene questionable. The film is about 2 hours but moves very slow. Like super slow. That is probably what would prevent me from ever re-watching. This could have been an epic 40 minute movie, which is a weird thing to say. Sometimes the long scenes help, but other times just doesn’t feel as much.

The acting though from Michael Shannon’s character is off the charts. Watching him become more and more paranoid, yelling, having the fear of the outside world once he is in the shelter. All because of some dreams? I mean, everyone knows but him that he is being ridiculous. He has to be crazy? Right? Right?

Shea Whigham and Katy Mixon are also in this movie, supporting roles, not as important.

So although the acting is so damn good, and deserves many accolades, the overall slowness of the movie really ruins it for me.

When I saw the poster for Lars and the Real Girl years ago I assumed it had to be some sort of joke. If not a joke, then some sort of horribad movie, that was on the levels of Epic Movie and other such trash. Some comedy where they have a guy buy a sex doll, and treat her like a real person? Go bowling with her maybe? That sounds stupid.

And it would have been. If it was a straight comedy “oh look at how silly that guy is!” type of thing. Instead it treats the subject way more seriously, involving social disorders, and a whole small christian town coming together to help one person.

You know. If that bitch Bianca would stop talking so loudly in Church.

Lars (Ryan Gosling) is a weird guy. He lives in the garage of his brother (Paul Schneider) and sister-in-law (Emily Mortimer). He tends to keep to himself, goes to work, rarely talks to the cubicle-mate, goes to church, sits in the back trying to not make a sound. Never goes to the parties that people throw, or special occasions. Work, church, home. Hell, despite Emily’s best efforts, most of the time he refuses to come eat meals with them. She really wants to break him out of his shell.

Well at work he finds out about the anatomically correct love dolls. Next thing you know, he is telling his family he has a girlfriend, who flew in from Brazil, but she doesn’t speak much English, and is in a wheel chair. They are excited! Sure she can stay in one of their rooms! Sure she can come to dinner. And yeah, Bianca the love doll.

They convince him to take her to a doctor, Patricia Clarkson, who also is a psychiatrist, who lets Lars know she has to come back every week, mostly so she can talk to Lars and work this stuff out. From his social disorder, she realizes no one could convince him that she isn’t real, so she makes the family go along with it. And this spreads to the church, work, and whole town. Perhaps most upset is Kelli Garner, who plays Margo, the office worker who really liked Lars, but not that he has a woman. If she looks familiar, it is because she was in Pan-Am, but that had 12~ episodes, so she probably doesn’t look familiar.

Soon the whole town is using Bianca, and she is volunteering at more and more places, with the help of Lars. Lars begins to come out of his shell, hold better conversations with people, even when Bianca is not around. But how will he cope when Bianca’s sickness turns deadly?

“This woman has no pulse!”

Overall, I was astounded at how good this movie was. The acting was phenomenal on all parts, and it seemed to capture the essence of a small Northern/mid-west Christian town. Or at least what I imagine what those are like from the movies.

This is years before Ryan Goslings more famous performances from 2011, Crazy Stupid Love, Drive, and The Ides Of March, yet it turns out he kicked ass back then too. A lot of his acting had to come from facial tics, and the way he spoke, but the whole time you felt bad for the guy and hoped he could eventually himself become a real man.

The making of this movie started out as a joke, but ended up, well, still a joke. The Grindhouse movies that came out awhile ago came included with multiple fake trailers. I personally wanted to see the one involving a Pilgrim horror movie, about Thanksgiving. But the most popular of these was a gritty action movie called Machete, starring Danny Trejo. If you have a daily motion account, you can watch the first and arguably fake, trailer here.

But why do they call him Machete?

Machete used to be a Mexican Federale, but was betrayed on a kidnapping mission by the chief, Steven Seagal, who also had his wife and kids killed. Years later he is wandering Texas, doing small work, until Jeff Fahey gives him an offer. The Senator (Robert De Niro) is running on re-election and planning on deporting a whole mess of illegal aliens, and he wants Machete to assassinate him.

But while he has him in the scopes, he finds himself shot in the shoulder by a second sniper, who then also intentionally misses the senator. Ah! Jeff Fahey is an asshole! He set up Machete, to make it look like he, an illegal alien, tried to kill the senator who was trying to stop illegal immigration!

Well Machete escapes, and goes into hiding, into an organization lead by Michelle Rodriguez for illegal Mexicans, and with the help of Cheech Marin, a priest. While Fahey’s henchmen are trying to stop him, Jessica Alba is working as an immigration officer, trying to get to the bottom of it. Oh yeah, Lindsay Lohan plays the daughter of Fahey, whom ends up having a sexual encounter with her mom and Machete, before he kidnaps both of them.

So yeah, the movie involves trying to shed light to what Fahey/De Niro attempted, and free Machete from blame. But if he can also somehow deal with Seagall and the Mexican Cartel at the same time, why not? If anything, it probably means more killing and death.

“God has mercy. I don’t!” – Actual awesome quote.

So, I know exactly what this movie was going for. Gritty feel, fake trailer, over the top action, nakedness, whatever. It certainly tried. I just think it could have been more over the top. I don’t think it went far enough. The film obviously had a big political message attached to it, and that annoyed me. I wanted a more carefree mindless action thing, not them attempting to do a political plot. Generally when action movies only try to do a plot, it comes off worse than no plot, or a really good plot.

That is why my rating is low. I think it could have been more awesome.

Remake alert!

Did anyone even know that? Did anyone even care that The Mechanic was a 1972 film? I know I don’t. Back to the violence, please.

I am cutting my original joke, because this screen shot from the movie is hilarious.

What is a mechanic? If you answer a guy who fixes shit, that is an acceptable answer. But in the world of assassinations, it is a guy who will kill and make it look like natural causes, or an accident, or suicide. Very useful, that ability to kill and make it look okay. Right?

Jason Statham is one of those guys, of course, and the movie opens showing him do that shit. He gets paid mad monies from Donald Sutherland, one of the few people he gets missions from. Good friends they are.

UNTIL TONY GOLDWYN SHOWS UP. He gives him a new mission, to kill Sutherland! Why? Because he might have intentionally failed a mission in South Africa, and blah blah plot. So he does it. Unfortunately. At Sutherland’s funeral, Statham meets his son, Ben Foster, who has that young guy rage. So JS is all, hey lets make him a mechanic too! So he uses him as bait / to help kills, get him in the know.

Sure, there’s the fact that JS killed his dad, and made it look accidental, but that probably won’t come back to bite him in the ass, right? Right!

That chihuahua is not Photoshopped in.

Overall though, the story I just didn’t find that interesting. It went the obvious route, especially the supposed “twist” near the end. That twist is actually what was expected. Not having the twist would be a better twist. But you know, billing order and stuff, that matters. Jason Statham is the star, damn it. Acting is as you’d expect for the movie.

Action scenes were fine. But its amazing how these professionals tend to have things go wrong so often, despite all the supposed planning. I guess we have to assume that in the movie, that first success he did is how it normally goes, and that every other time in the movie happens to be not the norm, despite evidence showing the contrary.