Nick of Time

Nick of Time, directed by John Badman and produced by D.J. Caruso, was one of those films that, even though it was an hour and a half long, it did not seem to be that long. It took almost half an hour for the story to get going, though. The title sequence, a montage of close-ups of a gun being loaded and a clock working that turns into actual film sequences, was interesting, but reminded me of the title sequences of "Charlie & The Chocolate Factory" and "Sweeny Todd: Demon Barber of Fleet Street", both of which Johnny Depp also stared in (although after Nick of Time). Now, I am a huge fan of Johnny Depp, but this was not the only similarity I saw to some of his other films. He did do a wonderful job portraying a father who is forced to become a killer, which is not a recurrent roll. However, we have seen him wear glasses before, and be a killer before. The father roll was a nice change, as he is a father himself.
I am confused however, as to when the film was supposed to take place. Made in 1995, the glasses Depp wears look like glasses that would have been worn in the 50's, and the hotels they filmed in, supposed to be the Westin Bonaventura Hotel, looked like they are trying to portray some kind of time frame between the 50s and 80s, which is confusing. Other elements, such as a hand held PDA that another character uses puts the film in a more modern setting.
It does take awhile for the entire plot to unfold. It takes almost an hour, to be exact, to find out who has really ordered the hit. I am glad that I did not see this film in theatres, because overall, it is not that great of a film. However, I am glad that I saw it because it is a character Depp has played that I have not seen before. I would not recommend you see it though, if you have something better to do.
So, until next time--

WANTED

An action packed movie, 'WANTED', directed by Timur Bekmambetov, definitely includes some scenes and ideas never before seen. By me, anyways. And I have seen a fair share of action films. Unbeknown to me, this film was based on a comic. However, this film was far from simple drawings. Although I was able to call out who the main characters' father really was before you actually found out, the story line was so detailed and so well mapped out, that I almost didn't catch it. There were a few other surprise elements in the plot as well. However, the dialogue of another main character, Sloan, played by Morgan Freedman, could have been cleaned up, and was reminiscent of Samuel L. Jackson's dialogue in 'Snakes on a Plane'. Wesley, played by James McAvoy, is the protagonist in this plot, who gets drawn into "The Fraternity" by Sloan. At one point, it seems that Fox, played by Angelina Jolie, and Wesley will end up together. However, fate (as the film would put it) would not allow that.
Of course, because she is an assassin, a role we see her play alot, Jolie wears mostly black, form-fitting clothing, and of course khaki shorts with the gun belt on. McAvoy is a new face to me, but I must say that he looked very good wearing jeans and a leather jacket that belonged to his father, near the end of the film. Since there is not really a noted year for this film, I will assume that it was to take place in modern time, or in 2008, when it was released, and that the costuming was correct. There is one shot of Jolie that shows off her entire backside naked, with multiple, very intricate tattoos. There are other tattoos as well on her body that are seen throughout the film. Most are actually her own, if not all, as far as I am aware. However, the scar that the film created on her neck looked very realistic. Most of the scenes where blood was shed looked very realistic as well. So congrats to the make-up and special effects departments for a job well done.
I also have to say that the graphics department did an excellent job. However, there are two notable clips where it was clearly computer generated action. The car crash where the red car drives off of the tour bus, and at the end of the train crash, where the car descends to the bottom of the mountains. However, all other scenes looked quite real. Particularly the scenes where Jolie and McAvoy were on top of a moving train. For once, it did not look like they were standing in front of a green or blue screen. Also, the scenes where the bullets crash into each other, and the scenes where the bullets curved, though not so realistic, were phenomenal! Therefore, much applause should be awarded for that. I did not pay much attention to the dialogue since I did not note any amazing lines or conversations throughout the film.
Overall, 'WANTED' is a great action film, that had a few rough edges. But, those rough edges were greatly appreciate a welcome break from the majority of the action films made in the last few years.

The Taking of Pelham One Two Three

The music at the beginning of the film already reminds me of an older movie from the 60s or 70s. As soon as you see visuals, you can automatically see that it is an older film. However, you may know that I love grainy films because of when or how they were made. It make me happy. The acting so far is wonderful. In fact, I am watching to it right now. I'm in the middle of watching it. It is clear that in this film, made in 1974, the events take place in the early 70s. This is evident through the costumes and the way people talk. It is also self-evident that it takes place in New York, by the accents.
Now, even though this movie is classified as a drama/thriller, there are elements of comedy (for example, when the directors of the Japanese subway system start to speak clear English and one of the transportation lieutenants' has been speaking to them like they are stupid. Another amusing element of this film is that a bunch of the major characters are named after colors. To me this amusing because many of the lines in the New York subway system have color names. Jerry Stiller does a wonderful job as Lt. Rico Patrone, but I must admit that the longer I watch this film, the drier the script becomes. There is a lot of cursing throughout the film which, although does not bother me, and is reminiscent of the 70s, seems a little too full.
In fact, it has become rather boring, and I am barely watching it. Even though I would know the actors of the 2009 version, I honestly don't think that I will like it any better. I simply am not interested in it. There is not much of a hook in this film, except that I love older films, so I will obediently watch it in it's entirety.
The conductor of the car reminds me of Shia LaBeouf a bit, in his facial hair and the looks he gives. And even though I have watched this film in it's entirety, I am still not convinced that they did as well as they could with this film. Even though I grew up with 80s and 90s films, I think that Pelham coul dhave been made better. Cinematographic-wise, it was very good (no shaky shots, no weird running shots, great close-ups, no squares, etc.) but the acting could have been better. Jerry Stiller of course, did great, as did a handful of other, not-so memorable, actors. But honestly, after seeing this version, I really don't want to see the 2009 version, no matter how much I love John Travolta.
So, until next time--

Public Enemies

As many of you may know, I absolutely love any movie that Mr. Johnny Depp does. Well, the same goes for this movie. Even though he plays a hardened criminal who robs banks, I could not help but feel empathy for his character (it must be that I just love him so much!). But otherwise, as I was watching the movie, despite the bad sound system and people coughing during the quiet parts, I enjoyed it very much. The make-up people did a wonderful job covering Mr. Depp's many tattoos, and I am sure they even had to change around some details like where he got shot in order to keep his character up. There was one mistakes on make-up's part, however, and that was the fake mustache they used for Depp, did not cover his own mustache (you could see hte stubble growing, and it was very distracting). Obviously the costuming was done superbly (the movie is based in the 1930's) snd matches the time period perfectly. They even found old pocket watches that worked. One thing noticed however, was the irony of a certain pair of glasses Depp's character, John Dillinger, wore, which were rose colored. During this scene, Dillinger refuses to accept that he might die at the hands of police men, who might catch him after his next crime spree. Of course, in the next scene, his glasses were different.
The shots of the movie however were wonderful. IN the very beginning there is a moving shot of a car, which at first seems a little unusual (as I have never seen this type of shot before) but once I started to see some of the other shots, I was very pleased. There are many many MANY close-up shots (so if you do not like Depp or Christian Bale, don't watch this movie) and also many different angles of each scene. During one scene, I stopped counting after 5 different angles. And of course, like almost every movie now, there is (what I consider) a 'sex scene', but a nice refresher was that Depp did not take his shirt off and Marion Cotillard (who portrays Billie Frechette) went down to a nightie, but nothing anymore revealing. What I found exciting but also disappointing was that Cotillard's character, Billie, turns in Dillinger's jacket, but not too much comes of it, nor does Dillinger seem to mind much that he lost his wonderful jacket. However, I may have also been confused, since it is mentioned that 'the girl at coatcheck' identified him, and Billie's job, before becoming Dillinger's girl, was a coatcheck girl.
Some of the scenes were a little shaky (literally), where the camera man (or woman) must have been holding the camera by hand, and well, it should not have happened. The acting in this film, as far as I know (or can tell) was very close to what really happened. The movie was based on John Dillinger, Charles Arthur "Pretty Boy" Floyd, and George "Baby Face" Nelson's crime sprees in the 1930's after the great depression. One of my favourite movies is 'O Brother, Where Art Thou?', which also features George "Baby Face" Nelson, and the comparison of him in these two movies is very close. I am glad to see that the creators of Public Enemies (as well as the author of the book this movie is based on) did their research well. It is always wonderful to see a movie based on actual events that is portrayed so well. Overall though, it was an absolutely fabulous movie. But as with all movies, there is always room for improvement.
So, until next time--

"America's Worst Mom"

I just read up on "America's Worst Mom" in my favourite news source - The Week Magazine.
In case you haven't read or heard about this, a mom, Lenore Skenazy, let her 9 year-old son, Izzy, ride the subway home alone from Bloomingdale's in New York City.
I think that that whole situation has been completely blown out of proportion. I mean, honestly, why can't parents raise their children the way that they want to? Why does the entire nation have to make their opinion known? Clearly, Izzy was safe, and was very proud of himself for making his own way home. His mother did not abondon him. Her and her husband had agreed that Izzy would be allowed to do this. Izzy himself asked to be left anywhere, any time, to find her own way home.
I think this idea is wonderful, actually. I know that I am not parent, but I did help raise my 6 year-old nephew, and will probably help raise my not-yet-born niece or nephew. I was also around when my 6 younger cousins were growing up (though 1 is only about a 1 year 1/2 younger than me). And also, three of my second cousins. I am sure that when the time came, all of my aunts and uncles, and my cousins would do the same for my cousins and second-cousins. My parents hae even done the same. Granted, I did not take the subway by myself, considering that if they made one in Florida, it would probably flood. But, with me, it was when my parents let me go out with friends on my own, and someone else brought me home. And then of course, they upped that when they started to let me drive their vehicles on my own. And then again, when I got my own car. And now, they are allowing me to go on a week long trip with my boyfriend up to Pennsylvania. Granted, I am 19 now, but still, parents let go of their children on their own pace.
To wrap this up - STOP JUDGING OTHERS!!!!
((P.S. Sorry for the bad quality of the photo - it's a picture of the magazine. Caption said 'Izzy re-enacts his famous subway ride for the Today show.'))
So, until next time--

I Love You, Man

Alright so, I totally got an awesome opportunity tonight - I got to see a private screening of a movie. This has not happened for me before. The movie? I Love You, Man.
Not only was this movie hilarious, but the actors were great, as was the story-line. Now, it is a little twist off of a combination of other movies but it is pretty original. The only problem I had with it, was that it took a bit too long to get to the climax of the story. Sure, it was great to see the friendship develop, but at the same time, I even caught myself looking at my watch. This rarely happens, as I am such an avidly fanatically-minded person, but when it does happen, it's for a reason. This time, it's because the development of Peter & Sydney's relationship took a bit too long.
However, as sexual as some of the jokes were, the costumes were fine, the lighting was great, transitions and shots were put together beautifully, and most of the wide frames were good. However, some of the moving wide frames were a little fuzzy, leaving the viewer confused as to if the editor was using footage from the area, or just used it as a fill, and the footage was from some place that had nothing to do with the setting.
All in all, this was a great film, though there could have been some improvement in certain areas for sure. However, for the current economic situation, this film did well on it's budget (presumably). There were definitely some memorable quotes from this movie, though; "Give some back", "You whore!", and course, "I'd like to make a spee-- NO!!!!"
So, until next time--

Epic Movie

A complete and total waste of an hour and a half. Seriously. The only good part of the movie were SOME of the costumes. The movie took parts of Narnia, Harry Potter, Snakes on a Plane, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, The DaVinci Code, Pirates of the Caribbean, Harold & Kumar go to White Castle, X-Men, Nacho Libre, MTV's Cribs, Click, some Jackie Chan moves, Flavor of Love, Borat, Star Wars, James Bond, and of course American Pie. I am sure there are more that I missed, but as I said, it was a waste of time, and I barely paid attention to it.
However, I decided to stick it out. The filming was pretty bad, although a lot of the accents were good. The costumes for the Narnia part were fairly accurate, and Chewbacca and the Storm Troopers were correct (minus Chewbacca's blue hair, of course). However, the outfits for the Charlie/Chocolate Factory were totally off (Willy Wonka looked REALLY creepy), the Oompa-Loompas were just WRONG, the shots of the entire movie were okay, could have been better, and the transitional shots were, well, practically non-existent.
One major part of the movie where it is obvious that this film is terrible, is where "Aslo" and "Silas" are fighting 'Jackie Chan style'. Aslo, played by Fred Willard, is replaced by some Asian guy, who can actually do the moves, and the shots clearly show his face, making it obvious the editor and director were not paying much attention to the shots being taken.
I was also very disappointed that Jennifer Coolidge stooped down to take this part. She played the "White Bitch" (parody of Narnia's White Witch), and, although she was amazing, as always, I still can not believe that she took this mediocre part. Within taking this part though, she reprised her role as "Stiffler's Mom". This is made self-evident by "Edward's" (Kal Penn, Harold & Kumar and now, House - he's awesome!) line, "Oh man, Stiffler's Mom!" Also, there is a shot from Harold & Kumar go to White Castle, wherein "Edward" says, "I have a feeling I've been here before," and later another character calls him Kumar.
You would think that the director/producer would have tried to make some of the parodies more subtle. But then again, this movie just goes to show how terrible movie really can be.

That's the end of my review. I don't want to waste any more time on this crappy film.
So, until next time--

Teacher/Student "Sex Crimes"

Okay so, I was watching this program about all the "sex crimes" of teacher/student relationships. Now, I can understand how some of the cases are sexual exploitation. However, does that mean all of them are? Sure, many teenage boys have a fantasy of having sex with their 'hot, young teacher', which I think is completely normal. As well as some teenage girls have similar fantasies. But, if these fantasies are played out, as in, the student and teacher have a sexual relationship, how different can their relationship be, than one of a teenager, and an adult the same age as one of those teachers, but of another occupancy? Is it really much different, if say, while I was in high school, I had a sexual relationship with a teacher the age of 25, when I was 16; versus, having a sexual relationship with a 25 year old college student, or office worker (not at the school) while I was 16? I'm not saying that ever happened to me - no, I never had teachers whose age was anywhere close to mine by less than 2 decades. However, I know that situations like that have happened. And, I know of situations where students had sexual relationships with those who were 7 - 10 years older than they were, though not teachers. How different are these relationships, honestly?
Many of these teachers and student claim to be in love as well. Love knows no boundaries! Read my previous post about love - it is no different in this situation. Although, I must say, I do believe that many of the student/teacher sexual relationships are much about love. However, I would not deny that none have love wrapped into them. But nevertheless, I think that if these situations do come up, as many hormones that may be taking over the teenagers minds, I believe it should be up to them. Well, at least those aged 15 or 16 and older. Younger than 16 is pushing it, but a lot of teenagers aged 15 now a days are a lot more intelligent in street smarts than before. Well, actually, I'm really only speaking for my generation.
But anyway, I have to get to class.
So, until next time--