Tag: Drama

The Ides Of March

Hopefully when you first heard of the title The Ides Of March, you thought of the Ides of March. If not, I demand that you brush up on your Roman history. It is the time when Caesar was killed by the Senate, in the streets of Rome. Considered the ultimate act of betrayal in history, by some.

Clooney
“Et tu, Ryan?”

The main star of the film is actually Ryan Gosling, not George Clooney. Must be getting too old. Clooney is, however, running for the democratic bid for president. If he can take Ohio, he takes it. If not, well, he still can win with the rest. His opponent is lame compared to him.

Gosling works on the campaign, I think second in charge, despite his young age. Philip Seymour Hoffman is running their ship though. And Paul Giamatti is the campaign manager for the other guy. Both of them are older and have been around the block before.

But when Giamatti calls Gosling to set up a secret meeting, and suggests the possibility of him jumping ship, Gosling says “Fuck that!” but more eloquently. Unfortunately (apparently) in politics, shit like that is bad news. If word gets out that the meeting even took place (possibly by Marisa Tomei, since she is a reporter), he could lose his job and hurt Clooney’s side. Oh, and there is also the other part dealing with Evan Rachel Wood, an intern for their campaign, and daughter of the Democratic National Convention head guy, who might be trying to get it on with Gosling. Politics suck!

:|
I think this is the best real life example of the “:|” face I have ever seen.

Anyways, as expected by the title, there is a lot of backstabbing and treachery in the movie. More than I thought. To me it took awhile to build up, and through most of it, I just thought it was okay. Apparently all politician and politician helpers are cold and corrupt. Ryan should get out of there before it corrupts him too! After a point you really don’t know who is being played, and who can out bluff one another.

But the ending, I really really liked how it ended. The last 20-30 minutes were solid and unexpected. Everyone did a great job. I don’t think its perfect of course. Felt there was a bit of unnecessary stuff in the first half, that didn’t matter as much. But maybe that was the point? To throw you off?

If you like political movies, you will like this. I like political movies, but hate politics. Real people aren’t this clever.

3 out of 4

Courageous

Courageous is by the same people who brought us Facing the Giants, Flywheel, and Fireproof. Do you know those movies? I don’t. But I do applaud these people on making a movie that didn’t start with F. That is good news. Those movies have something to do with football, used car salesmen, and firemen. This one cops. That is about all I knew.

Oh, and for some reason the quote about how amazing it is is not done by a critic, but Tony Dungy. A former NFL football coach. Err, alright.

Courageous
Maybe a message about family too?

This movie centers around four cops. The main guy is played by Alex Kendrick. Who also directed this movie. And the other 3 listed. And has only been in four movies overall counting this one. Yes. He is one of those guys. His partner is played by Kevin Downes, who is the only main character to be an actual “Actor”. The other two cops are Ken Bevel (two roles. This and fireproof) and Ben Davies (first role).

So the premise is that a “shocking event occurs” that changes all of their lives, and because they are cops, you expect it to have something to do with that. Nope. Main dudes daughter ends up dying by a drunk driver in the middle of the day (seriously, at like 2pm). Eventually Alex wants to change his life, thinking he didn’t get to do enough with his daughter and not wanting to feel the same with his son. So he makes a pledge up for everyone to sign, if they choose, that is pretty long, about being the head of their house, raising their kids right, etc.

Robert Amaya also is friends with them, since he accidentally got a job from Alex (thanks to having a common name and the guy he meant to hire being injured, whoops). But more or less that is about it. One of them eventually turns out to be stealing drugs from evidence, which goes against “Everything” they pledged to do. And then there is a kind of gang story line. That takes quite a long time to get anywhere.

Oh yeah. There is the other parts of this movie that are super about Christianity. Possibly the main focus of all of these films, and I had no idea.

Courageous
No, that did not give it away either.

As I already mentioned, of the five main guys, only one of them has actually been in other movies and seems to make a life acting, and it shows. Not that they had to do much in terms of strenuous acting. Pretty much go from “Be calm! Be Sad! Be Angry! Be Calm!” or something like that. Movie was wayyyy too long for what actually happened. I think having 5 main people was too much. THey just wanted to show many examples of them being “Courageous” in their fatherly duties. Like getting back with an ex wife, not lying on the job, and marrying your daughter.

What? Ken Bevel’s character plot got super weird to me in this dinner scene, and no part of it seemed believable. The best storyline belonged to Robert Amaya’s character. Mostly because he had an interesting scene as the “Snake Gang leader” and you really felt proud of him as a person.

Oh yeah, and from the ending speech, it really seems to kind of throw some anti-gay marriage stuff in there. What’s this? Tony Dungy (that poster quote guy) is the spokesman for All-Pro Dad? Which is founded by Family First, a group known for being against gay marriage? Just making sure.

1 out of 4

Toast

Apparently Toast is actually a biography movie for Nigel Slater, which is some British food dude. I don’t think I have heard of him, but thats because I am not a food dude?

Maybe someone here knows who this man is?!

Nigel Slater
So mysterious.

So, this goes over Nigel’s early life. When he is a kid and played by Oscar Kennedy, and he loves the idea of food. Like cheeses. Crazy right? But his mom can’t cook! She can really only cook Toast good, and apparently you will always remember who gave you your first piece of amazing toast. This could be a British thing. But she ends up dying because of something. So him and his dad are sad (Ken Stott). They also a richer family, or upper class. But still, cooking sucks.

The dad ends up hiring Helena Bonham Carter, a married woman to clean their house for them. She does it pretty sensually too. Partially because she is not his mom, and partially because she is lower class (or at least that is what it looks like as a pouty kid). Eventually she leaves her husband and moves with them to a new house, far from the city. Oh, and bonus fact, she can cook damn well.

FLASH FORWARD. And by that I mean, this movie is 90~ minutes long, and after about 60 minutes, the kid is now 16 or 17. Now he is Freddie Highmore. In the credits, he is Nigel. While Oscar Kennedy is “Young Nigel”. Despite the fact that he is in 2/3 of the film. I think that is dumb.

Anyways. He still loves food. He even takes home ec instead of shop. WHAT. A GIRL. He then tries to become a great cook. Why? So his dad will see no reason to keep his new wife. Yes. His hatred for her, because of her being a lesser class and not his actual mom drives his whole life. He thinks if he can out cook her, she will leave. Yes. Great strategy.

Highmore
I just wanna put my face in all of that cream.

At this point I feel like I can spoil what happens? Because it is a dudes life and stuff. Eventually the dad dies, so it is just Freddie and Helena. And then he leaves home. He goes on to start his life. He leaves Helena alone in their house, despite her begging to stay. He gets a job. I think the moral of the story is that despite his extreme prejudices towards that woman, he wouldn’t be who he was today with out her?

If you watch this movie, you will hate the main character. He is never appealing. He is a jerkface.

The story is interesting. And the acting is decent. But this movie just takes so long to get to the “important plot points” in the last half hour. I think if it would have been brought up earlier, it would have been a lot more interesting. I spent the first 2/3 wondering what the point was. Then of course by the end realized it was a real dudes story. Guess that is why it wasn’t too exciting?

2 out of 4

A Shine Of Rainbows

Another Irish movie! But this time I didn’t know it was Irish. I mean. I could have guessed it from the title. A Shine of Rainbows? Rainbows make you two things, gold pots/leprechauns, or gay people. Image association at its finest. But I didn’t even think of the title, just wanted to try something different.

Because I care, damn it.

cHARMS
I mean, those kids brutally beat up and trap poor Lucky and steal his damn cereal. What is that shit? How can he live in a world like that? Hey. Lucky. It might not get better.

The movie is about a poor orphan boy played by John Bell. He is picked on by the other orphans, because he is smaller, even more of a ginger, has a kind of stutter, and you know. Isn’t manly yet. But that doesn’t stop that crazy lady, played by Connie Nielsen. After a lot of research she picks him to adopt, and quickly whisks him on a boat to Ireland. Hooray Ireland. Now he is a small town boy from the big city. Well, a familyless big city.

Things are bound to get better right? Yes.

Because his mom is awesome. She wears pretty clothes, wants to show him the whole world, and help him have the best life he could possibly have. But the dad, played by Aidan Quinn. He is disappointed, thinking she brought home the runt of the litter. He also has a bit of problem connecting with him, since he is just a kid and not his own son.

This is potentially a spoiler? But it also happens like halfway through the story, so I deem it necessary.

The mom ends up dying about halfway through the story, leaving the boy an obvious wreck. What am I talking about. The dad was more of a wreck, he knew her a lot longer, the boy only a few months, if that. But he is in a strange place, with a man who he thinks hates him. The dad is left with a “son” who would never have been his first pick, and seen more as a thing his wife wanted to help out with.

Can they become a family? CAN THEY?

Otter
There is also a few scenes with a sick Otter, which is not pictured, because I suck.

I thought the movie was both pretty sad and pretty wonderful. It has such a good message throughout it, and is very well acted. The kid is going to be in Battleship and that Hobbit thing, so apparently other people like him too. Definitely was a great “Random pick up”.

3 out of 4

Beastly

When I saw the movie Beastly, I figured it was about what everything figured it’d be about. Some retelling of Beauty and the Beast, somehow. Probably modernized. Well. This is true. A modern live action retelling of that movie.

Hmm. I am fine with this as a concept. But depends on whether or not they execute it at all.

mary-kate olsen
Also depends o- OH GOD WHAT IS WRONG WITH HER?

Alex Pettyfer plays pretty bow awesome dude. His dad (Peter Krause) is a wealthy music executive or something who has always taught him that good looking people get farther in life, and he has made that his motto.

But then something crazy happens. He makes fun of Mary-Kate Olsen too many times and she casts a spell on him! (Let that be a lesson for all you Olsen haters). She turns him into a freak, more or less. Tattoos, bald, piercings, and these weird scars that don’t make any sense. All over his body.

In order to save himself, he must find true love in a year (and have someone say they love him) or else he will stay like that forever. It freaks out his dad, who lets him stay in a house outside of the city, telling him he will go there too, but never making that trek. (Ashamed of his ugly).

He has to live alone with his housekeeper, Lisa Gay Hamilton, who hasn’t seen her children in decades, and eventually Neil Patrick Harris, a blind tutor.

Eventually he actively tries to find love, with Vanessa Hudgens who (through a series of moves) has to stay at his seemingly empty mansion. Can he make her love him in time? (Oh yeah, and if he does, NPH gets his sight back and his housekeeper will be able to find her children).

scars
Seriously. Do the scars make any sense? The bloodyness look of them always?

Anyways, I liked the overall plot of the movie, but two certain things bugged me.

One, the love between the two leads. Nothing about it seemed real at all. It all seemed fake and forced. At the end one is left wondering how the hell she came to love him. What, they read some poetry? It was pretty bad acting and distracted me from everything else.

Second, the “lesson”. I am not sure what he learned, after it all. I know this is also a problem with beauty and the beast…but what was it? That ugly people find love? Based off of how the movie was set up, it would make more sense for him to find true love in a less attractive person, the people he made fun of. Yet somehow, he was an asshole all his life (okay raised that way), and he is rewarded with an attractive on the outside woman too?

This is probably just a Hollywood problem, because they love doing “ugly/mediocre guy” with hot woman, and never the other way around. There was no “Gaston” character in the movie either. Aka, someone who was like Beast before transformation, who gets killed, without getting the chance to have his own year to reconsider his lifestyle.

I don’t know, the bad lead acting and the message just bug me a lot in the movie. If they at least made their love seem like it was real, and not this BS love that happened, I would have enjoyed it. But the latter problem would never have been fixable.

1 out of 4

The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo (Swedish)

This is for the Swedish version of The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo, not the newer one, and definitely not the Swedish book.

GWTDT
Got that? I am already tired of writing out the title.

I kept putting this off, not because I didn’t want to watch it, I just didn’t want to watch a bunch of long swedish movies, and read subtitles. But hey! At least the Blu-Ray versions all have English dubs. Great. As long as I don’t stare at the mouths, I am good to go.

Michael Nyqvist is the main dude, and just lost some court case. He wrote an expose on some famous guy, who took him to court over the alleged facts and won. But instead of trying to appeal, he kinda just blahs out. He then (I really cant see how this happens) gets hired by this old dude to research and look into a death from 40 years prior.

My guess is because he is a research journalist, so the guy wants him to do research?

Noomi Rapace plays “that girl”, and works for some security company as a private investigator, and is hired to follow Nyqvist. There is also this other story about her having a guardian still (I think she is supposed to be 17 then?), and it is very rapey.

Rapey? Yeah. Rape appears a lot in this movie.

Rape APE
So much rape it will make your head spin.

Anyways. They eventually team up, find the truth, fix the problems, and everything works out. Kinda.

It was definitely an interesting, if not weird. Acting was good, and it was disturbing at parts. Nudity, for those who like that, but not “sexy nudity”. I think there were lot of different themes and sub-stories that appeared in the book, but were only lightly touched upon in the movie. Half-assing stuff like that irks me. Putting things in movies just because it was in the book, but not as fully as it was in the book. Appeals to those who read the book, but angers people who like to consider the movie to be its own thing (well, me? And no one else maybe).

So as just a movie, it was pretty decent. But had too many smaller announces that bugged it for me. Ending was kind of weird too. Didn’t understand everything after the first “conclusion” of the movie, and it felt weird by itself. Oh well.

3 out of 4.

Moneyball

“Inspirational sports movies” has got to be one of my favorite categories of movies. They are usually long, have drama, and sports! And they hopefully make you feel good at the end. Also preferably with nice quotes during locker room moments, you can you steal their good words later when you are playing a non important Intramural game or maybe even a video game.

Jeez, I pretty much like most of the ones I have seen too. I did not like We Are Marshall, Gridiron Gang, or Miracle though (even as a huge hockey fan). Seemed like they were just copies of other things I had already seen, don’t care if they were “true stories” either.

Moneyball is another “True Story”, based on the Oakland As of 10 years ago going for a title, with little money, and a different way of evaluating players. I’d say the biggest problem with it is that it is so soon, and MLB, so even if I hate baseball, I know enough to know that the team hasn’t done squat after when this movie takes place. So very disappointing in that regard!

Hill
But hey! Those movies didn’t have a serious Jonah Hill.

Shit. But each one of them had an action star as the head coach. Oh, what? Philip Seymour Hoffman is the coach/manager, but Brad Pitt is the GM? Thank god.

So Pitt is the GM, and just saw his team lose in a best of 5 series after going up 2-0. Shame. They are losing their star first baseman. With no real payroll available to find one guy as a suitable replacement. Even though trades are attempted, including with the Indians. Pitt sees Jonah Hill in the corner, and thinks he is secretly calling the shots, so he finds him, talks to him, and buys him from the Indians to be his assistant GM (a huge upgrade). He is a Yale graduate in Economics, and think the best solution to replacing the first baseman is to bring in three different guys, undervalued. None of which play first base.

Chris Pratt plays the catcher, who no one wants, and has to change position. He also has a smaller role than I would have expected, but does a nice job of being “Serious”. Stephen Bishop plays David Justice, a “washed up” athlete who the Yankees cut, and therefore the As can afford.

Of course since this is based on a true story, all the trades / transactions that happened in the movie, actually happened, and it isn’t just a team of misfits, like The Replacements or Major League. But the movie is about the first attempt to try and rebuild a team through this new method of evaluation, and their quest for the world series.

Pratt
Chris Pratt’s character may be important.

Overall I thought the movie was very well down. I think people argue on whether or not Pitt acted good, or acted at all. They try to show his character to have a lot of past demons, based on his own dealings as a MLB player when he was younger. I thought he did a good job, like most of the leads. I think the manager character was probably way too stubborn in all of the talks with the GM, but hey, what do I know?

Movie is over two hours, and has a touching ending too, and I think is interesting enough. Don’t even have to understand much baseball to get it. Hitting percentage is probably the easiest thing to grasp, and one of the things talked about most.

But I might have enjoyed a fictionalized movie about this more, just to have a better outcome.

3 out of 4

1911

To understand the important of 1911, is to understand China. I guess. You know how much they apparently love number symbolism, with the 2008 Olympics. THis movie was theatrically releases in 2011, 100 years after the events of the movie. It also happens to be Jackie Chan’s 100th acting appearance. Coincidence? Or Jackie Chan?

ahhhaha
Often considered to be the Chinese Chuck Norris.

This movie is about the 1911 Revolution in China, which overthrew the last Dynasty (Qing) and lead to the creation of the Republilc of China. I think Dynasties existed for about the last 2000 years before that, so this was a big change indeed. Dynasties, however, are why there are so many historical Chinese movies from way in the past, full of war. So Dynasties, great for entertainment, bad for “freedom”.

Anyways. There are tons of characters in the movie. In fact, during it, a person will often start talking and on the side it will display their name and title, even if they are only shown once/have one line. If you are watching this movie with subtitles, it can be very distracting. Often instead of showing actual events, giant subtitles will pop up in the middle of the film, (usually when no one is talking thankfully) to explain what happened. Blah blah group got killed, blah blah happened, etc. This happens a LOT.

It was already a movie I was reading, so reading more wasnt the problem. Just seemed to take me away from the action. In American films usually that type of thing is only done at the end, to explain what happens next/after the movie. Not during the movie that they dont want to show. Just seems weird, like it could have been done way better.

Thanks to his goal of making it factually correct, I guess, Chan doesn’t fill it up with silly martial arts either. There is zero of that, but a few gun fights.

But that becomes the bigger problem. Boredom. It seems like a long history lesson on this event that, while important (maybe), just isn’t that interesting. A lot of the fighting was done with politics and arguing, and getting monetary allies. That is all. That could be entertaining, but it wasn’t in this movie. Bingbing Li played the other main role in this movie, but it didn’t seem to be particularly great, her role. There was a lot of scenes filled with people just yelling things at each other, as if their emotion went from dull to AHHH and no in between.

Bing bing
Here is a picture of Bingbing, you’re welcome!

Despite just watching a movie on it, and actually liking History (I majored in it), I cannot say I know anything more about the 1911 revolution than I did before. Well. I now know it was the Qing dynasty that was last? But uhh, that is about it. So I feel like having retained zero knowledge of the actual events seems to be another fault of the storytelling.

Hopefully Chan will get over his period piece obsession, and do something modern, if only to break up these films.

1 out of 4

Sinners and Saints

Dumb titles aside, Sinners and Saints does what…well, a lot of movies seem to be doing since Katrina. Apparently a post-Katrina New Orleans is a gritty, bad place to live. Or maybe the gangs are bad there, and the cops are the most dedicated (for not moving?) that they all warrant movies, fictionalizing the neighborhoods.

Even pre-Katrina though, I have found New Orleans “Area” to be yucky. So I hate seeing the same area, just “worse looking” on my movies. Thats all I will say on that!

sinners and saints
Hey look, violence!

I am feeling lazy, so here is the plot from IMDB!

In the gritty New Orleans underbelly, beleaguered Detective Sean Riley (Johnny Strong) is trying to cope with the death of his young son and his failed marriage. Facing a probable suspension from the department, Riley is teamed with a young homicide Detective, Will Ganz (Kevin Phillips), to help solve a series of brutal murders that have plunged the city into a major gang war. The two quickly realize there is something much bigger and far more sinister going on than either could have ever imagined.

There is also Costas Mandylor, playing another cop dude, and Method Man, playing a gangster with a disfigured face. I looked very hard for a picture of it, but alas, the internet does not giveth.

I want to describe the brutal murders though. Usually they involve strapping someone to a chair, dousing them in gasoline, and of course, setting them on fire. They keep finding people burned and dead in chairs! That is fucked up. And messy. NO is crazy.

Brees
I can’t help but think this is the work of Drew Brees!

The film I only found kind of interesting. The low budget of it really took away from the story from me. Tried to make it seem even grittier than it needed to be. Not a good feeling.

Or I don’t love it from my distaste of the area. One or the other.

2 out of 4.

Where The Wild Things Are

Where The Wild Things Are is a “classic children’s book” about nothing at all, really. Just a wild kid, who gets punished, and has a lot of imagination. That is about it. Pretty simple!

Wild shit
And man, his imagination is quite the party.

But theres more. Before he wears the wolf costume, and goes to wild land, Max (played by Max Records) is weird at shit. Starts snowball fights and cries when he loses. Then he bites his mom (Catherine Keener) and gets grounded. Then somehow, WILD LAND.

Lot of weird wild things, mostly looking like the books. And they all seem childish too. The “main one” was voiced by James Gandolfini.

So plot? Eventually Max becomes king, just by saying he is King mostly, and by lying. And he is bad at it. Eventually he is lonely and goes home. The end.

This movie is kind of fucked up. Not at all a kids movie. Kids might like it just because “Ooh, wild people!” in costumes doing stuff. But the kid in the movie is pretty damn near insane. He seemed psychotic to me. He is horrible at home, from what we see, and he is more horrible when he has no one to tell him what not to do. He even seems to laugh at the pain he ends up causing to the wild things.

The wild things are also screwy, they all are just depressed individuals. I am not sure what the movie is going for, but it is not a good feeling, that is for sure. It is very deep, and uncomfortable, and I hated it as it happened.

Pain
There is pain in his eyes.

By all means I may have missed the point, but this is definitely not a movie I was hoping to see a giant deeper meaning behind. The only reason I expect a better story from something like Transformers is that they have had series (namely Beast Wars) where about halfway through the first season, the writing in the show kicked it up a huge notch and became a work of art. But this went from kids book to movie, 50~ years later almost.

Just felt odd the whole time, and I did not have a good experience.

1 out of 4.