Movie reviews action

Featured Articles

Movie review The Siege (1998)

1:21 am by Post in 2006

I’ve forever loved director Ed Zwick’s films. The Civil Warfare drama Gloriole is 1 of my all time favorite pictures. Legends of the Fall and Bravery Under Fire were besides beautiful pieces of exercise. Enter The Siege, the third quislingism between Zwick and thespian Denzel Washington D.C..

In The Siege, several terrorist acts of the Apostles transpire in New House of York City forcing F.B.I. agent Washington to take activity. Bruce Thomas Willis is a blow-hard U. S. Army officer wHO is arranged by the President to identify and eliminate the terrorists. The film has come under attack for it’s portrayal of the Arabic community, which is absolutely ridiculous. The point of the movie is obvious - the real enemy is us. Zwick and his screenwriters actually go out of their way to make this apparent. Regular one of the films heroes, played by Tony Shalhoub from TV’s Wings, is Arabic. In fact, he’s genuinely the best part of the flick.

Unfortunately the movie reached a point where I didn’t buy into what was happening. It never felt material or threatening. It is also predictable and replete of cliches. Washington is solid as always, just not enough to sweep over the bogged-down screenplay. Annette Bening is also along for the ride and I was surprised by how annoyance her character was. Willis is completely forgettable in an super underwritten role.

Zwick has done a good task putting the film unitedly. It looks sharp, just doesn’t add up to much. In the end The Siege isn’t a really unsound movie, only it is a far cry from the director’s earlier films.

Comments (0)

Movie review Revolver (2007)

9:57 pm by Post in Years

I’d heard so much about Guy wire Ritchie’s Revolver before I entered that dark room this weekend. About a year agone I knowledgeable that Mr. Madonna had recruited Ray Liotta, Andre 3000, Vincent Pastore and muse Jason Statham, so naturally I was wired for this movie, especially after loving his first two movies, Lock Stock and the superb Snatch. To be honest, I didn’t think that Swept Away was all that bad, just I was soooo proud of with the news that he was returning to the genre where he made his name.

So, a year on and its finally in cinemas. I’d heard the first reviews. ‘Confusing’, ‘rubbish’ and even ‘worst film of the year’ were being quoted from the UK press. I thought to myself, ‘it can’t be that forged — can it?’ This is Guy Ritchie for God’s sake?" Well, I’ll save me opinion until after I attempt to explain the film’s patch.

Jake Park (Statham) is released from prison afterwards a seven-spot year stretch, presumably because of an incident with Ray Liotta’s character Dorothy Macha and a trio of goons named the ‘three Eddies’. After getting out, and making a ton of money gaming, due to a can’t-lose-formula he picked up in the agitate, Green heads back to Macha’s Vegas-styled casino, where he challenges him to a few ludicrous high stake bets. After doing him proscribed of a substantial measure of dosh, Macha sends out his henchman to ‘off him’, and convey his money back. And that’s most all I can decode.

The problem with this movie is that it’is too goddamn hard to follow. I mean, after learning of its complexity, I made a pointedness of concentrating extremely hard at the screening. I was okay until about halfway in, and then everything just sort of rambles out of control. Perhaps if all of the bloaks on the same side wore the same semblance of hats, and if they’d handed out a nice computer program with easy to read instructions, I might’ve been able to stay with it - but as it is, I was as bewildered as everyone else appears to take been.

I’ll begin with the plus points of the photographic film. It looks good. There’s a superb use of color, in that respect are some really tasty camerawork, and the editing is spot on, in particular in a scene toward the end of the film where a hit man goes demented in a house. This all nods to the superb work Ritchie achieved in Snatch. Then on that point are fairish performances by Statham and Ray Liotta, and Andre 3000 and even Vincent Pastore.

So what’s wrong? Well, where do I start. The first half of the movie is great. The opener was extremely cool, and I was enjoying myself right up until we have to a completely wasted Kill Bill style anime section about half way in. From this point on the only way to maintain the crowd following the bouncing ball, would’ve been to full point the movie about every 10 seconds and offer up an explanation as to what the hell the previous 10 seconds were all around. Guy power just as well have named this film "Lost." Because that’s exactly where the audience spends the second half of the film. And just when I thought I might’ve by some stroke of luck picked up the narrative thread and establish my way - in an inst I was Swept Out again.

None of this movie made sense. I’ve seen Ritchie in interviews saying that it’s all down to the single, and if they don’t get the movie, then they motivation to question their intelligence. Well, I consider myself to be the median moviegoer, with better than average cognitive skills and if I didn’t catch it, then neither volition the rest of the people stipendiary their intemperate earned cash to discover it. Revolving door obviously suffers from nerve-wracking to be too intelligent, and it’s also also damn long. Just when you think it’s over, and you’ve thanked the good almighty, you’re treated to a completely pointless final reel. At this point, both myself and the majority of other cinemagoers were praying for the picture to ending. Liotta even got vexation in the end, and so did Statham’s overused and repetitive voice-over.

I won’t go as far to say that this is the worst flick of the year, merely it’s up there. I actually best-loved Swept Away. At least you understood just what the blaze was passing on. Revolver is a colossal misfire, and word of honor of lip for this movie won’t be sound, especially as the picture promised so much, and delivered so little.

Guy, if this is your return to form, we’d all favor the Mrs. running round half naked on the beach.

I’m surprised that a Cat ?Ritchie film with such a noteworthy cast has not been released in the states - what’s the deal?

What the hell happened to Guy cable Ritchie, has Madonna sucked all the life force play out of his creativity? This picture show sucked as bad as the one he made with Madonna on the island.

Great movie! It’s to bad you don’t get it. But, then you are just

Comments (0)

Movie review The Original Kings of Comedy (2002)

6:47 am by Post in 2000

First of all, it should be noted that although this film is directed by Spike Lee, he hasn’t done anything special in terms of technical style. This is, after all, a sales booth up comedy concert plastic film, and the action pretty much speaks for itself.

The Original Kings of Comedy are comprised of comics Cedric the Entertainer, Steve William Harvey, D.L. Hughley, and Bernie Mackintosh. Harvey hosts the event. He sort of does his procedure in between the other comedians floater. He gets howls of laughter with his heady commentary–particulary funny is his take on the difference between current hip hop and old school.

First up is Hughley from the TV. series The Hughley’s. He’s sort of the youth guy in the group, but for certain wise beyond his days, as good evidencded by his highly energetic and very insightful routine. Following Hughley is the elderly but equelly funny Cedric the Entertainer. He’s uproarious as he comments on aging and pays a laugh stunned loud court to the art of break dancing.

The finale is Bernie Mac wHO you english hawthorn remember from the celluloid Life. He’s certainly the raunchiest of the bunch–but by this point, you’re hard to offend and you’ve already laughed your ass off.

One very interesting aspect of the Original Kings of Drollery is how hard these guys actually work. We capture glimpses of the real workforce back stage, then in character in front of thousands of laughing fans. These guys poor thither hearts into their work and they earn there paycheck, standing out on that point brimming with energy, sweating bullets, and thriving off the vigor of the crowd, much like an athlete or rock star would. I had a new appreciation for this artform when this film was over.

The Original Kings of Comedy is one of the most consistently amusing comedies I’ve seen all year. I also admired the work force themselves. These guys get something to say and they exercise comedy to express themselves. This film makes many important social comments without beating you over the head. In their have way, William Harvey, Cedric, Hughley and Macintosh are breaking barriers and telling us all to love one another. You couldn’t ask for a better message in from a movie–though granted The Original Kings of Comedy is an unlikely source. It’s sort of ironic that although this isn’t an actual Spike Leeward Joint, it is 1 of the most important projects he’s been a part of for some time. It’s a shame that many people will be cast off by the oral communication and miss the handsome picture, (as was the case with Richard Pryor) because The Original Kings of Funniness isn’t only one of the funniest films of the year, it’s besides one of the almost earnest.

If you genuinely want to see how funny Cedrick and Steve and the boys ar - you gotta check out this out. Almost as funny as the definitive Richard Pryor bits that they shamelessly steal

Comments (0)

Movie review Spy Game (2001)

4:09 am by Post in 2007

There are quite a few wish that I can pay the new film Sleuth Game. First base, it’s much deeper than I expected it to be. Subsequently all, this is from director Tony Scott, a film creator that usually engages in commercially pleasing pictures (see Top Throttle). Secondly and more importantly, this is a yield to shape by image Robert Robert Redford who off in one of the most mediocre performances of his career in the overly melodramatic Last Castle.

Spy Game opens with CIA operative Tom Bishop (a magnetic Brad George Dibdin-Pitt) having a rescue try foiled in China and finding himself held in prison. Back in the states, ex-serviceman CIA military personnel Nathan Muir (an piquant Robert Charles Robert Redford) learns of Bishop’s catch. It seems these deuce vastly different men have a history. During a briefing with the highest powers in the CIA, Muir gives a profile of Bishop through a series of flashback sequences.

Pitt has often been compared to Redford in the early days. Charles Robert Redford even directed Pitt in the earnest A River Runs Through It. Observance these deuce towering stars work together is one of the things that really makes Spy Game soar. Robert Redford is wondrous here. He’s quietly potent as Muir and this is a movie that reminds us of why he’s the legend he is. Interestingly enough, this is variety of an extension of his memorable character in Three Days of the Condor.

Pitt offers up the perfect contrast as Bishop. He’s flashy but effective as a soldier with a heart. Of course director Scott factors in as well. He gives much insight into how the CIA deeds. And piece we got glimpses of similar activity in his Enemy of the State, this impression pulsates with a different kind of energy. Patch the story itself moves at a leisurely pace, Scott spruces things up with dynamic cinematography, nimble cutting, alternating film stocks and an interesting tale. At moments, this image feels like the love child of Oliver Stone and Boche Bruckheimer. The only veridical negative commentary I tin can make about the technical aspect of the film is that I matt-up the sexual conquest was a bit intrusive. This, of course, is a minor quibble.

Spy Game has a lancinate sense of timing as well. Given all that has happened in this country in the last couple of months, this picture seems to come across with it’s look at the exponent of government and the horror that is terrorist act.

In the end, nevertheless, this is only a movie, only an entertaining one. Pitt and Robert Redford are at their identical best, and Scott engineers them perfectly. Spy Game ended up being practically better than I expected it to be.

Comments (0)

Movie review South Park: Bigger, Longer & Uncut (1999)

2:29 am by Post in Genres

A few years agone, virtual unknowns Matt Endocarp and Trine Parker unveiled a inadequate cartoon called The Spirit of Yule at the Sundance Film Festival. It instantly became a festival favorite and caused bidding wars ‘tween television networks wanting the rights for a weekly series. In the end, Comedy Cardinal won the war and saw full-grown ratings from a designate that presently became notorious for push the envelope. Recently, South Park has suffered in the ratings, but if this full-grown screen variation is whatever indication, it may find itself rejuvenated.

Bigger, Longer & Uncut takes risible stabs at race, organized religion, sexual orientation, censorship, and whatever else finds its way into Stone and ParkerÕs crosshairs. But much to my surprise, South Park is an flakey riot that had me laughing from one scene to the next. I needn’t mention this, just I will anyway–Do not take the kids or anyone that will be easily offended! This moving picture breaks records in the naughty speech and grownup subject matter department.

Foul language and potty temper aside, this film manages to be a fierce satire on censorship and an engaging comedy at the same time. It’s also quite consistent, with the exception of a bizarre beloved affair ‘tween Satan and Saddam Husain. It should also be noted that the film contains some truly divine musical numbers pool created by Parker and composer Marc Shaiman.

Parker and Stone’s main goal with their television series has always been to offend; only, and some will surely disagree with me, it’s always in good fun–if you don’t take it seriously. Plus, this endeavour works much better than last years Orgazmo.

With its nifty musical numbers, vulgar witticism, and no-holds-barred comedy, South Park: Bigger, Longer & Uncut is one of the summers biggest surprises. It’s one great big inside joke and Parker and Stone are riant all the way to the bank.

Comments (0)

Movie reviews action Authors

• 
  
• post post