Day 92: July 31st, 2010

Deep Rising



If the cash is there, then we do not care. What kinda philosophy is that?

When I decided to do this little thing again I did it to broaden my film watching experience. To watch movies I haven't seen like Raging Bull (it's coming) and Rear Window (I loved it). Yet every so often you find yourself watching crap, crap can be bad crap or guilty crap. Deep Rising is somewhere confusingly in the middle. I know it's crap, I know it's bad bad bad crap, yet I can find the humour in it. Intentional or not.

It stars Treat "I'm a badass" Williams in the lead role with Famke Janssen as the female we all like to oogle over. A military unit hires Williams to take them to a location, what is at that location? A giant cruise ship, but he doesn't know that. On that cruise ship are a bunch of wealthy people having a fun time. Cue monster attack, dead bodies, blood and some murky CGI. The crew arrives, everyone is dead and now they are fighting for their lives.

The director of this little gem is Stephen Sommers, of The Mummy and G.I. Joe fame. So you know it's loud and makes no sense what so ever. All the subplots involving the owner wanting to sink the ship to collect the insurance is laughable. Character actions are bizarre and the action sequences are off and on. I only really watched it because I remember watching it as a kid. I tend to do that to see if what I remember is actually true to the film and to see if it still holds up.

The monster is a mutation of some sorts. It's tentacles have their own mouths and sensory. Think an Octopus/Doc Ock/Anaconda/ Predator hybrid. How these tentacles can move around the ship at such ease is beyond me, especially since we see the full creature at the end of the film.

Kevin J. O'Connor is the comedic sidekick. He seems to be in every Sommer's film now. He gets a few laughs at his own expense. What made this film memorable was not the spoiler ending on the cover, but the final few minutes in which they arrive on an island and have to face off with another giant mutation creature. Is it King Kong? Is it the Black Smoke Monster from Lost? Who knows. I still want a sequel. Ha.

5.5/10

Day 91: July 30th, 2010

Antitrust




Truth can be dangerous... Trust can be deadly.

This was one of those random 90's flick that no one ever saw (well I did) and there was a reason for it. It's not that great. The film stars a bunch of good looking people who are computer nerds (yeah right). Ryan Phillippe leads this tech savvy flick that tried to capitalize on the fast rising usage of computers and the internet and so on.

Phillippe plays a computer programmer and he gets his dream job at a successful Portland-based firm. It turns into a nightmare when he discovers his boss (Tim Robbins in his Bill Gates outfit) has a secret and deadly way of dealing with competition or anti-trust problems.

Rachel Leigh Cook and the beautiful Claire Forlani, it's her eyes, also star. The film has a few suspenseful set pieces, but the overall product is a forgettable thriller that tries to capitalize on technology that most of it's audience would not understand. Robbins doesn't do much in the villain role, he plays nice when he's really naughty.

Antitrust has a lot of neat ideas, but it doesn't all come together in the end. It's kind of a mess. I wish I could like it more, but it is honestly a forgettable film. It killed Rachel Leigh Cook and Claire Forlani's career and almost took out Phillipe's. In my opinion of course.

5/10

Day 90: July 29th, 2010

Insomnia



Days never end. Nightmares are real. No one is innocent.

Well, I've seen every Nolan film (even his student film) with the exception of The Prestige (expect to see that one pop up sometime on this list) and until now this one. Insomnia a remake with Pacino, Swank and Robbins. Most people view it as that other movie where Robin Williams is serious. Of course the other film is One Hour Photo. Here Robin Williams is not a creepy guy like his character in Photo, he's a normal joe.

Anyways, there is a murder in Alaska and two L.A. detectives are brought in to find the killer, in a town where the sun never goes down. Hence the title, our lead character gets insomnia. Pacino in his older years doesn't really need to look too tired, that's his natural essence now. He plays this role with a little less extravagance as we have seen before. He's suppose to be tired after all.

Nolan does a good job at keeping us interested in the case and the pace of the film works for this mystery thriller. The twist here is that the killer and Pacino have more things in common then they think. The film has to deal with more than one murder and the audience has to look at the cover up of one and the solution of the other.

While Insomnia is not one of his better known films it is still a well written and directed mystery. It doesn't necessarily pull you into the story that well nor do we get involved with the town folk. Insomnia has it's problems, but it still works on a level that most films don't. It was also made more Hollywood friendly compared to the Norwegian original.

7/10

Day 89: July 28th, 2010

Apocalypse Now: Redux



Stick with the original, Redux Bores.

I decided to give the Redux another try and yet I still find myself being bored to death every single time everything he added in comes in. The French Plantation sequence is what puts me to sleep because the film comes to a stalling pace of death. I would strongly suggest to stick to the original version over the Redux.

It's no secret that the tiresome road to get this film made is that of cinema legends. I applaud Coppola to no end, this film is without a doubt an achievement. Yet I still find myself not loving it as much as I probably should. There are moments of greatness yes, but the overall effect is not one that makes me want to talk about it to other people.

It is a flawed film that with the added scenes makes it even more flawed, severely with it's pacing. The redux doesn't ruin a classic film it simply makes it longer and boring. The cast all work well, even to the small roles given to Brando and Ford. Hopper stands out as the photojournalist is genius and is one of his more memorable roles in a list of eccentric characters.

Coppola is far from a favourite director of mine. I find his films overly long and tedious. He is talented, no doubt about that and deserves his place in the legends of filmmakers, but to me he should have left Apocalypse Now alone and not George Lucas it up. Pretentious or not, you decide.

6/10

Day 88: July 27th, 2010

Jurassic Park III



Evolve or Die.

Jurassic Park 3 is the one in the series that is not directed by Spielberg. It gets a lot of flack and deservedly so, the film is a poor excuse to get another film in the theatres to make money. Let's look at the reason they go back to the island. A couple trick the poor Dr. Grant into going back to the island. He thinks they are flying over it, when in reality they land on the island to look for their son who has disappeared on it. Start the dino attacks.

This film is famous for two things, one is the Spinosaurus, the so called new king of the jungle. We are given a small useless fight scene between the Spinosaurus and the T-Rex to prove this point. Ram it down out throats, we get it a new dinosaur that is more dangerous. The second would be the Pterodons stuck in their bird cage. An exciting sequence yes, but something small that is stuck in a ridiculous film.

Given that the point of this film is really useless, I like to look at it as a simple popcorn flick that serves no purpose other than to give the viewer a decent time at the theatre. The first two were at least based on books. The film does give decent chase sequences but we don't care for the characters other than Grant, from the first one. How the kid survived is a brain teaser. He'd be dead in reality, also how the boat they were parasailing on was destroyed and the crew killed is a plot hole to me. There are theories, but to me it's just lazy writing.

Jurassic Park 3 is a short film too, they basically arrive on the island, find the kid, then leave. The sense of adventure is lessened in this one than the previous two. The stakes aren't as high and the new dinosaur is pretty much a yawn. This is the obvious weakest entry in the series which I guess makes me appreciate even the weaker Spielberg films even more.

5/10

Day 87: July 26th, 2010

The Lost World: Jurassic Park



Something has survived.

Think we saw the last of those pesky dinosaurs from the original Jurassic Park? Think again. This time around we are going to another island, called Site B. It's here where the dinosaurs actually run free, no cages. Which means that the filmmakers have up the ante a bit. Our humans are stuck on this island while another group of humans decide to go hunting. For some strange reason the film finishes with the T-REX running around San Diego.

How can a film live up to the original? The first was such a huge moment in blockbuster history. Well we are giving no Sam Neil and more Jeff Goldblum. The sequel, is a little too ambitious that it loses itself in all of its grandeur. How could they raise the stakes in this film? Well, for one they thrown the characters into a world that they have absolutely no control over. No cages, no wires or buildings. This is a natural and free environment, this is the dino-environment. Second, we have a freaking T-REX run around San Diego. Yup, to raise the stakes they needed to bring one of those guys back. In a way it feels like a failed King Kong experiment.

The Lost World gives fans what they wanted, more raptors. Yet these raptors are different, more deadly apparently. Velociraptors, yippie, yet they can be taken out by a little girl because she is also a gymnast. Yes, people still moan about that scene and there is a good reason for it. It is utterly ridiculous. I can forgive a character being scared of a snake and getting killed by the Rex, but not that damn gymnastic scene.

Vince Vaughn is in this flick and I think after this and Psycho, he decided that comedy was his one and only place to be. Sure he tried again with The Cell and Domestic Disturbance, but both films failed. He's not bad here, but he also seems out of his element. I wouldn't mind seeing him in another film like this though, give him another chance, but his strong elements are clearly comedy.

Lost World is not as great as the original, but it's also not the travesty people make it out to be. There are many parts in the film that don't live up to the expectations it sets out for itself. The San Diego sequence is insane and you either love it or hate it. I remember seeing this film in the theatres when I was a kid, my opinion of it has lessened since then. I was 10 then, I'm 22 now. It almost feels like the Temple of Doom of the series. It's something kids love but adults seem to roll their eyes at. But that would have to make Jurassic Park III good, when it's just like this one, mediocre.

6/10

Day 86: July 25th, 2010

Jurassic Park



Classic Filmmaking And Entertainment.

What? Dinosaurs are cloned and are running amok in an amusement park? Well, that can't be good. Something must go wrong. Well, something does go wrong, thanks a lot Newman. Know the guests who are at the park before it opens to the public are fresh meat for the so called extinct species.

Spielberg in his hey day, cranking out a film that defined a generation and changed the way special effects are used in films. Jurassic Park is a nail biting, amazement that dazzles and makes you smile with glee. If Superman made you believe a man can fly, then Jurassic Park made you believe we can re-create dinosaurs. Never before have dinosaurs looked so life like and realistic on the screen. Say whatever you want about the special effects today, I still like them, in 1993 it gave audiences and Hollywood something to gawk at.

Three doctors are invited to the preview tour of the park. Sam Neil, Laura Dern and of course the one guy you want to play a doctor/scientist, Jeff Glodblum. While on the tour, a major storm hits and the power goes down. It doesn't help that Wayne Knight is trying to steal the embryos to make some ca-ching. Well, those dinosaurs who eat meat eventually escape and we are in for a thrilling ride. Our first introduction to the T-REX stands as one of the best introductions and visual film achievements to this day.

The cast do well together and the kids aren't AS ANNOYING as they use to be. They still make me grind my teeth though. As a kid, this film was all about the raptor chase sequence. Others seemed to like everything with the T-REX. Either or, every scene that has a dinosaurs is indeed spectacular. A giant leap forward in filmmaking, from a technical standpoint.

A great theme song to tie things up and we have ourself a blockbuster film that doesn't disappoint on repeat viewings. It is still today, as good as it was back in the day. It might seem a bit dated when our little heroine decides to use the computer and we see how freaking basic everything is, but Jurassic Park is a flick that should be seen by everyone looking for a good time at the movies.

8.5/10

Day 85: July 24th, 2010

The Score



There are no partners in crime.

DeNiro is a thief and a very good one at that. He gets jobs thrown his way from Marlon Brando, but he wants out. Isn't that always the case? Brando says he has one more job for him, DeNiro agrees to do one last job. Again, isn't that always the case? Ed Norton is also in on the plan, much to the dislike of DeNiro. They have to steal a scepter that is worth a lot of money. But can they trust each other?

The Score was an interesting film because it brought together 4 generations of actors. Brando, DeNiro and Norton. All three very talented and gifted actors in one film? Must be a recipe for success. Frank Oz, most famous for his business with the Muppets was directing. Now, the film isn't bad, but it isn't great either. The biggest problem is that the film doesn't try to be anything more than a simple crime caper flick.

Again, it has 3 great actors from different generations. All of them are pretty intense and serious about their craft, yet non of them are used to their full potential. Brando sits around and shows up to chat up with DeNiro here and there and DeNiro himself doesn't make a very believable thief. He has that no nonsense attitude down, but we've seen that before when he was on the run from Pacino in Heat. Norton is given a little bit to work with as he plays two roles, the other is one of a mentally challenged cover act who works the place they plan to steal the scepter from. Norton is the one out of the three given the most interesting character with the biggest struggle.

Frank Oz directs it with no special flare. It could have been anyone behind that lens and I wouldn't have cared. There was no stamp of originality or sense of ownership. It was pretty much like Deniro's character traits. Safe and simple. Nothing fancy, nothing risky. The scenes with suspense seem to be mildly interesting and you never feel the threat of danger. Oz was able to handle to 3 actors fine, but again, could have done so much more. I can't fault the script because that was the story going into it. He had the chance to make it special and beef it up, but chose not to.

The Score is decent and as far as heist films go, it was manageable. The film basically no violence in it whatsoever, which was interesting to see, specifically in this era. It tried to rely on character, performance and story to intrigue. It works to a certain point, but when you have so much going for you, it's hard to live up to that expectation. The Score fails to dazzle and it decides to work on a more moderate level.

6/10

Day 84: July 23rd, 2010

2012



We Were Warned.....About How Crappy This Movie Is.

2012 is a jumbled mess of a film. Roland Emmerich stated that for his last disaster flick he wanted to make it so that no other disaster flick could come after it. Well, mission accomplished because I don't want to see anymore. Upping the disaster scale to the entire world might do well for the special effects guys, buy not the paying viewer.

2012 has a very thin plot. People must survive. Is that a plot? It's more of a story. John Cusack is one of those people and he is with his ex-wife, his two kids and their step father, whom he hates. He gets the word that disaster is going to strike when a crazy old hippie guy, Woody Harrelson (big stretch) tells him about the world crumbling beneath our feet. This happens and the poop hits the fan. It seems that every single person in California dies, except for this one group. Why might you ask? Apparently Cusack, who is not only a writer, but a limo driver, has the skills and the vehicle power (a limo) to outrun global destruction.

Emmerich is not that bad of a director. He is often compared to Michael Bay for choosing big scale productions and not caring about story or characters. 2012 is the perfect example of this. In his earlier film, Independence Day, he gave us big explosions and aliens to shoot. Characters were lacking but the charisma of Will Smith, the character actor of Jeff Goldblum and Randy Frickin Quaid gave us something to smile at. John Cusack is wooden, Amanda Peet cries and a big Russian guy speaks with a thick accent. We are given zero, nadda, not even an inch of anything interesting to care about these characters. Why do I care if they live? Why do I want to spend the next 90 plus minutes with them. The answer is you don't. I wanted to spend my time with Woody I'm higher than a kite right now Harrelson.

The film is really just an excuse for the special effects guys to do their thing. Yet this is also a hit or miss. Sometimes it's actually entertaining and interesting to see the world fall beneath your feet. Other times it's painfully obvious how fake everything is. Check out the grocery store scene when the entire store literally splits in half. It's like the green screen was done in the 80's. The big event happens while Cusack and co and driving through the thick of it. They drive through buildings, jump obstacles, get covered in human feces. You read that right.

The children cry and are annoying. The older son doesn't seem to respect his dad, he calls him by his first name and not dad. Yet of course, because the world is about to end, he re- evaluates his outlook on his flawed hero of a father and calls him dad. He even risks his life to be with him. The daughter just tries to not wet her bed. The step father is a nice guy, yet for some reason who are told to hate him. The conclusion of his character is sad and a pathetic excuse to get the torn family back together. Am I really ruining anything for you?

Danny Glover is the president...remember the last time Hollywood had a black president, I think there was a giant asteroid heading towards the earth. Is Hollywood trying to tell us that we are doomed the day a black man becomes president. I wonder when that day will come...oops.

A side plot involving rich people being the ones who will be saved is tiresome. The film tries to villainize a rational man. 2012 tries to make you believe that it's a small world, all these people who meet at one point will meet again. This is suppose to be WORLD DESTRUCTION. There is another problem, too many characters to not care about. Are we really suppose to care about George Segal and the conflict with his son that lasts all about 3 minutes?

2012 is a blunder, a disaster of a disaster film. Bigger is not always better. It lacks the science, logic and intelligence it needs to be taken with any credibility. Universal Soldier, Stargate and Independence Day are all entertaining flicks in my mind. Everything since has been crap, let's just name those films off shall we? Godzilla? The Patriot? The Day After Tomorrow? 10,000 B.C. God, I forgot that film even existed. 2012 was a film to see in the theatres for the loud sound and big screen special effects. Now that the theatre time has passed, there is no point in seeing it.

3/10

Day 83: July 22nd, 2010

Rear Window



So Simple and Yet So Effective.

Bart Simpson breaks his leg when the family gets a new swimming pool. He is stuck in his room with a cast on his leg and he is bored out of his mind....oops wrong synopsis. Sub Jimmy Stewart for Bart Simpson and you have your story of Rear Window. L.B. 'Jeff' Jeffries suspects his neighbour has killed his own wife and tries to solve the mystery while stuck in his wheelchair. The premise is pretty simple, yet Hitchcock gives us something more with this film, he gives us exactly what our society craves voyeurism. Even to this day we can't go by without thinking or wanting or actually trying to peak into the lives of others.

Rear Window marks my fourth Hitchcock film I've seen, yet it sneaks into my favourite spot. Is it boring for someone to say that one of the more popular Hitchcock films is currently his favourite? I don't care, I know a good film when I see one and Rear Window is just that. More than 50 years later this film manages to still be relevant today and hold up successfully well in the suspense department. The recent Shia LaBeouf remake Distrubia, while a good thriller, suffers from the technology syndrome. Years from now the film will be dated with that ankle bracelet technology holding Shia in, just like the giant cell phone Zack Morris carries with him everywhere. Rear Window doesn't feel dated and this is credited to Hitchcock and his attention to detail.

I absolutely love, adore and cherish the art direction in this film. How beautiful is the set design? Knowing that they used the basement as part of the set design only heightens my enjoyment of it. The second floor of the apartments was actually the stage floor. Stunning in my opinion. The opening scene giving us a glimpse into the lives of the people who live in the apartments around Stewart is marvelous. We never go into their lives, we just see it from Stewarts (and our) viewpoint. We never leave his room, save for the ending and a scene that involves the death of a dog. Those close ups of the people listening to the lady yelling seem out of place because we immediately jump out of Stewart's room and into the open area. It's alarmingly jarring and seems out of place for no apparent reason.

Hitchcock ones again proves us that a good story (he most certainly had his hand in crafting the story) trumps everything else. How suspenseful can a film be when our hero never leaves his room, hell he never really leaves his wheelchair. Hitchcock manages to pull it off gracefully. It's nice to see where films today get their inspiration from. When the lights in the hallway go out at Stewart's apartment, I thought of No Country For Old Men. Hitchcock truly was the master of suspense.

Grace Kelly is absolutely stunning. I never really cared for the looks of the actresses of the old 50's or 60's. None of them caught my eye, Grace Kelly think is the first one to do so. I don't even think Marilyn Monroe did. Her introduction shot is graceful and most certainly memorable. I can't finish this review without mentioning Thelma Ritter. She was hilarious and everything she did felt so natural. I absolutely loved her character.

Rear Window is more suspenseful today than most thrillers that come to theatres. The little glimpses into the lives of the people around the setting is what really drew me in though, the song writer, Miss Torso, Miss Hearing Aid, and the balcony couple. These are nice little addition from the master himself, Alfred Hitchcock.

8.5/10