Movieman90's Blog

Review of “Up in the Air”

movieman90 — Thu, 31 Dec 2009 03:48:41 +0000

“Up in the Air” can easily be classified as one of the best movies of the year, if not one of the most timely. The subject matter of this film will hit quite close to home with some viewers as it deals with job loss and trying to move on with one’s life.
The film follows Ryan Bingham (George Clooney) as he travels around the U.S. delivering the news to people that they have been fired (or as it is gently put in the film, “let go”). Despite this quite depressing job, Bingham finds joy in his nomadic lifestyle and tries not to get too tied up in the emotional aspects of his work. During the course of the film, he meets a fellow frequent flyer (Vera Farmiga) and the two have a “no strings attached” relationship that begins innocently enough but has quite a devastating and unpredictable outcome. Bingham also meets and eventually has to travel with a new coworker (Anna Kendrick) recently hired by his boss (Jason Bateman). The two learn different things from each other throughout the film: Kendrick’s character learns to get rid of her naivete Clooney’s character learns that there are more things to life than just being by ones self and not committing to anything/anyone.
A very obvious theme in the film is commitment. Clooney’s character could not commit to anyone, so he was left without a wife and (practically) without a family. He chose that lifestyle for himself, but as he has different experiences during the movie, he starts to change is mentality of being a lone wolf. Unfortunately, when he tries to create a serious relationship with Farmiga, she already has a family. This causes him to resort back to his old, more unfulfilling life. Farmiga’s character was unwilling to commit to her life at home with her husband and children. She started an affair with Clooney’s character instead. Also, she was unwilling to commit to having a SERIOUS relationship with Clooney’s character and divorcing her husband. Finally, Kendrick’s character was the only person in the film who committed to what she really want to do (first, following her boyfriend all the way to Nebraska to just be with him, and second, going to San Francisco to apply for a job). Her character was determined and optimistic about her future, and therefore achieved what she set out to achieve by the end of the film.
Another noteworthy theme was how what we think is most important really isn’t. Clooney’s character has the goal of reaching 10 million “air miles” and getting his name on the side of a plane (among other things). This goal is overshadowed by wanting to be closer to his sisters and their families. He tries to make up for his past greed by giving his sky miles to his sister and her new husband (who didn’t have enough money to go on a honeymoon).
Clooney’s character starts out being pleased with his empty lifestyle, always meandering through life. Interestingly enough, his job of telling people they’re fired doesn’t change his attitude towards himself or how he sees his future. The workers he usually fires care about their families and don’t necessarily have a bright future and all of them had no prior notice that they were being let go. This issue of life being unpredictable doesn’t register with Clooney during the movie. At least at the very end of the film, he starts to appreciate what he has.
Overall, I would give this film a 5/5 stars due to it’s strong plot, great acting, and important “messages” about life. Of course, I encourage you to see it for yourself!

Review of “Sherlock Holmes”

movieman90 — Thu, 31 Dec 2009 02:55:56 +0000

Some movies don’t quite live up to their trailers. Some movies start out interestingly enough, but then fall short of the blockbuster hit they were promised to be. But some movies surpass your expectations. Sherlock Holmes definitely surpassed THIS moviegoer’s expectations – with flying colors.

As far as period action movies go, Sherlock Holmes was one of the best. Despite the fact that the titular character was portrayed by an American, the movie played out very well, and the cast was very well-chosen. Jude Law played the character of Watson in a very believable and enigmatic way. His witty repartee with Sherlock Holmes was very enjoyable to watch, as both actors have a very interesting and unique chemistry together on-screen. Rachel McAdams was a femme fatale suitable for the darkness the film puts forth, and against the gloomy London backdrop, shone as bright as her outfits. The only drawback to McAdam’s character is that she was shoved quite abruptly into the plot and, though an important part, didn’t offer much when it came to explaining her previous “relationship” with Sherlock Holmes. All the audience gleans from the conversations between Holmes and Watson about her is that she was an early adversary and perhaps love-interest of Holmes. Maybe in the next movie (since there is sure to be another) this “relationship” will take more of a leading role in the plot…
As for Sherlock Holmes, played by Robert Downey Jr., he used his brain as much as his brawn, though he was at times a little too “physical” in dealing with certain dilemmas. Downey Jr. did a wonderful job of conjuring up the Holmes of countless novels and added a little bit of his own spin to it. It was a Holmes for the modern audience, and his interpretation will be much appreciated. The way Holmes handles certain situations is also very interesting and intriguing to watch since the film makers came up with a way to show his thought process when dealing with solving problems. Holmes carefully goes through his plan of action, citing every detail and every movement he will make adding the effect it will cause on his adversary. This was shown in slow motion as Holmes recites a monologue explaining what is playing out on-screen. Then we see the full sequence of actions speeded up so as to witness it in practice after hearing about it in theory. This was a very effective and clever way to show the logical approach Holmes takes to solve most of his problems. Another aspect of Downey Jr.’s portrayal of Holmes is his very convincing British accent. It seems Robert Downey Jr. has better acting chops than was once suspected.
Another redeeming quality of the film was the special effects. They were quite spectacular and weren’t so fantastic as to give the film a sense of the surreal and preposterous. They lent themselves quite well to the overall pacing and structure of the film.
A point to note is the relationship between Watson and Holmes. At times they seemed like an old married couple, which was the more comical aspect of their relationship, but the way Holmes dealt with and thought about Watson’s impending marriage was the serious part. The film makers did a very nice job in balancing the story of Watson’s engagement and Holmes’ attitude towards it and the main plot of the film (dealing with the villain). If there was any more added to the “action” part of the story or the “sentimental” part of the story, the whole plot would have been off-balance and a bit slow-paced. Luckily, this was not the case. In fact, it was a superb balancing act between the two.
One slightly bothersome element of the plot is that the villain, Lord Blackwood, played by Mark Strong, wasn’t a real magician/conjurer. He just used science to create elaborate illusions to frighten and convince. This was somewhat of a let-down since it would have made for a more interesting plot if the villain knew REAL magic and challenged the ideas/views of Watson and Holmes (the logical vs. the illogical). For some time during the film this sort of happens, but once it is revealed how Lord achieved all his tricks, it isn’t as impressive as it could have been.
A final note: the soundtrack to this movie was very entertaining and very exciting. Hans Zimmer’s use of gypsy music and more “classical” music mirrored the hectic and adventurous lives of Holmes and Watson. Holmes DOES play the violin (though not directly in the film) so the use of solo violin was very effective as well.
All in all, I would rate this movie a 5/5 for the plot, special effects, and music. It has some low moments, but these are definitely overshadowed by the punch this movie packs with its fabulous storytelling and the illustrious escapades of Holmes and Watson.

Review of “The Box”

movieman90 — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 01:28:26 +0000

“The Box,” starring Cameron Diaz, James Marsden, and Frank Langella, was a quasi-effective look at morality in modern society. This film does try to explore some ethical issues and succeeds, but to a limited extent. Diaz’s character is one the audience can sympathize with, but also one the audience questions the judgement of. Marsden’s character is a little more interesting and dynamic, but still suffers much of the same characterization pitfalls as Diaz’s character (both question pressing the button instead of flat-out rejecting to press it). This then brings us to Langella’s character, a mysterious deformed salesman who seems a little too unattached to the people he “sells” the box to.

The movie starts out with a view of typical suburban life for the Lewis family, particularly during Christmas time. Then Norma Lewis (Diaz) recieves a strange package on her doorstep. Soon after the exposition, the film takes off and morphs into a drama/thriller/sci-fi movie, complete with slightly confusing storyline and surprising plot twists. The audience soon learns that Langella’s character is working for “those who control the lightening” and thus is taking part in conducting an experiment in ethics involving the human race. If the humans are selfish and press the button that grant them one million dollars AND kill someone whom they don’t know, then the human race is to be exterminated. Fortunately, the movie is left at a sort of “cliff-hanger” which allows viewers to decide for themselves whether or not mankind can redeem itself. The promise of redemption is a thought that plague’s Norma in the film after she presses the button and finds out the consequences of doing so, and both her and her husband wish for everything to go back to normal, which in turn inspires Langella’s character to have respect and admiration for them.

The moral “lessons” of the story seems to be that a human life has no price. This “lesson” is taken well above and beyond during the film until it is a tiresome necessity of the story’s plot line. Interestingly enough, it’s always the wife who presses the button, so there are subtle hints of the story of Adam and Eve, where Eve doomed mankind by eating the forbidden fruit. Thankfully, Diaz’s character learns that she made a huge mistake and is willing to end her life to save her son (the only selfless thing she has done the whole movie). Unfortunately, this leaves Marsden’s character in a bind, considering he has to shoot his wife in order to restore his son’s hearing and vision, and in so doing, has to go to jail.

The strange parts of this movie occur when Diaz’s character is teaching and is humiliated by a student, and when both Diaz and Marsden are in a records building/library and Marsden is transported back home in a tall column of liquid. The obvious science fiction elements don’t lend much to the story besides heightening the superfluity of having them in there in the first place. If all the sci-fi elements were taken out, as well as the action sequences, then this movie could lend itself well to a stage play. The most compelling parts of the storyline are the family issues and the question of ethics, which could be taken more in-depth and converted to a dramatic adaptation for stage.

Overall, I would give this movie 3/5 stars since the plot line was a bit confusing to follow, what with all the random details added in (seemingly on a whim), and because the acting is so-so. I would still encourage you all to see this film because of the general message it tries to convey. But don’t take my word for it! Go see it for yourself!

Review of “2012″

movieman90 — Sun, 15 Nov 2009 22:36:23 +0000

Two words: breathtaking visuals. That pretty much sums up the film “2012″, directed by action movie master Roland Emmerich. Though the plot line is rather thin, and the characters are a bit two-dimensional, this movie is one of the most amazing films of the year. In the same vein as “The Day After Tomorrow” and “Poseidon” ( to a certain extent), “2012″ chronicles one group’s adventure during a cataclysmic event and their struggle for survival. The basic plot is the same as “The Day After Tomorrow” and the group dynamics are similar to those found in “Poseidon,” but with people from different nations.

The beginning of this movie was very interesting and quite an effective way of storytelling. The viewer is shown vignettes of major events that lead to the end of the world in 2012. For instance, we are shown how in 2009, the earth’s core is superheating, and by 2012, we have billionaires buying tickets for seats on gigantic arks meant to save a bit of humanity. The “intro” to the rest of the movie sets up the film very well, and is once again, somewhat reminiscent of what is shown in “The Day After Tomorrow” (little bits of news reports from around the world). After the title card, we are introduced to the main character (or at least the one we are meant to sympathize with the most) Jackson Curtis (Cusack). Yes, there is also the scientist Adrian Helmsley, another important character, but he doesn’t go through nearly as many dangerous situations, nor see the destruction first hand (at least not until the end of the movie) as Cusack’s character. The ex-wife (Peet) and her failing relationship with an irksome cosmetic surgeon (McCarthy) adds a tiny bit of a break from the “end of the world” theme in the movie. Some secondary characters are entertaining to watch, but don’t add much depth to the film, such as the Russian Billionaire Yuri Karpov (Buric), his bimbo girlfriend Tamara (Rosen), their pilot Sasha (Urb), and the crazy comedic Charlie Frost (Harrelson). The element that makes this film very exciting but very scary at the same time is the amazing CGI work. Scenes of Los Angeles sinking beneath the sea and Washington DC being pounded by a tsunami are chilling. The amount of destruction in this movie is enough to make any die-hard action movie lover swoon. It definitely tops the other special effects-ladened movies of the year in terms of sheer awe-inspiring action sequences.

Generally, the acting in this movie was just good enough to keep the film going. Of course, no Best Actor or Best Actress nominations are destined for this film, but in terms of believability, this movies delivers. The academy awards this film COULD garner are Best Sound Mixing, Best Special Effects, and Best Film Editing, and Best Sound Editing.

The general pull of this movie is it’s obvious tie to the predictions the Mayans made about the year 2012. This movie DOES NOT delve into those predictions, but DOES touch upon the pseudoscientific predictions which makes for a more realistic (although farfetched) film.

To conclude, I would give this movie 4 out of 5 stars for its amazing special effects and workable plot line. The film is able to leave one superbly entertained, if one lets it. But, once again, don’t take my word for it. Go see it for yourself!

Review of “Paranormal Activity”

movieman90 — Sun, 15 Nov 2009 21:02:07 +0000

Being one of the people who voted for “Paranormal Activity” to be released nationwide, I had very high hopes for the film. Was it going to be like “The Blair Witch Project?” Perhaps it will be bigger? Well, for this moviegoer, neither of those happened.

The film starts out innocently enough with the recent quintessential mockumentary staple, the claim that it is from official records of some sort and what we are about to see actually happened. Well, KNOWING it was a fictional movie did not help one “get into” the verisimilitude of the opening, let alone the rest of the movie. As things progress, hokey yet effective supernatural phenomena occur in the residence of the two main characters, Micah and Katie. The brash and obnoxious (yet funny) Micah decides to first document the strange happenings with a camera and THEN try to get rid of whatever is causing all the mischief. His wary girlfriend Katie is found to be the subject/cause of the paranormal activity due to a past of being haunted/followed by a demon. Katie initially tries to shrug off the “demonic presence” but becomes more terrified after each new unexplained activity (ie. keys mysteriously moving from the counter to the floor, doors closing by themselves, things making loud noises in the night). Generally, there is a good build-up to the “climax” of the movie, but the ending is a bit of a let down. Not only do we find that Micah has been killed, we ALSO find out that Katie killed him because she was possessed by the demon, and evidently has gone missing soon afterwards.

This movie was not as riveting as “The Blair Witch Project” and thus did not seem to be as terrifying as all the tiresome tv spots promise it to be. Yes, there were some genuinely creepy moments (Katie standing over her beau for 2-3 hours at a time before going back to sleep), but these were just interesting instead of unsettling or flat-out horrifying. The mockumentary style of filming was a very nice touch and did lend itself very well to this film. Instead of wowing us with special effects, it creates seemingly realistic footage of a couple in a possessed house. The acting is pretty good in this movie, partly due to the very tangible on-screen chemistry between Sloat and Featherston. Both played their parts very well as suburbanites caught in a very peculiar situation. It almost made the average moviegoer think “Hey, this could happen to me!” But, like I said…ALMOST.

Overall, I would give this movie a 3 out of 5 stars, seeing that it made a very brave attempt to deliver everything it promised in the trailer, and that it was very realistic as far as mockumentaries go.

Review of “District 9″

movieman90 — Fri, 14 Aug 2009 19:04:36 +0000

There are many words to describe “District 9,” but the word I choose is “epic.” The scenery, the subject matter, and the characters are epic and awe-inspiring in this new film by Peter Jackson. The film takes place in South Africa in the city of Johannesburg. Aliens are being held in a massive slum called District 9 because their ship broke down and they aren’t able to get back to it. As the film progresses, it focuses on one man and his experiences with working first for the South African government, then against them. The cinematography in this movie is reminiscent of “Cloverfield” and “Quarantine,” but the only difference is that even if you aren’t looking through a cameraman’s point of view, your view still “shakes,” like you’re there in person. This isn’t as overdone as in “Cloverfield” and lends to the verisimilitude of the film.

The messages and the morality of what the government does is blatantly obvious but nonetheless effective. The way the aliens live in slums, fraternize with Nigerian gang leaders, and are called the derogatory term “prawn” brings to mind racism today and the general intolerance of “different” people. Another message the movie conveys is how morally acceptable are the actions of a government on a mission to recover information on weapons, and in so doing, harming innocent people. The government in this movie do horrible things to the aliens, and eventually, a human being who used to work for the government at a desk job.

Some of the events in the film are a bit cliche (humans making friends with aliens in order to overcome a common foe) and don’t lend as much to the plot as the film makers wanted them to.

The special effects in this movie are amazing, and only Peter Jackson could bring these kinds of effects to an audience in the grandeur style it is in. But, after all, some of the best action/adventure movies are directed by Jackson.

Overall, I would give this movie a 5/5 for it’s mature subject matter and how a seemingly boring story line was made into an exciting and emotional journey. But, if you want to come to your own conclusions, go see it! “There are many secrets in District 9″

Review of “500 Days of Summer”

movieman90 — Thu, 13 Aug 2009 01:29:04 +0000

Just like the narrator tells you at the beginning of the movie, this IS NOT a love story. “500 Days of Summer” is about two people who fall in and out of love. Deschanel’s character is a free-spirited charismatic woman you works at the same greeting card company as Gordon-Levitt’s character, who is a idealistic man. Deschanel and Gordon-Levitt have great chemistry on screen, which is why some may not like the ending. Eventually, the two go their separate ways, but they each find happiness. The ideal-reversal of each character is somewhat interesting and a tad cliche, though Deschanel’s character development is surprising when you take into consideration her views of love at the beginning of the movie. The cinematography is great in this movie, and the “musical” sequence is especially charming. The title of this movie is misleading in some ways. Upon entering the film, I thought it was going to be 500 days of sheer bliss for the two main characters, but at about day 200, it took a turn for the worst. This was actually refreshing as far as stereotypes go for romance films, BUT it was disappointing nonetheless.

All in all, I would give this movie a 5/5. It was a thoroughly entertaining movie and very imaginative. But, to make a thorough assessment, you should see it for yourself!

Review of “Funny People”

movieman90 — Sat, 08 Aug 2009 02:43:09 +0000

“Funny People” was not your typical Judd Apatow film. The subject matter was quite depressing for a comedy, and offered the audience a harsh dose of reality. Seth Rogen’s character is a struggling comedian who happens to get a (seemingly) lucky break from Adam Sandler’s character, who has problems of his own. As the movie develops, the emotional struggle of Sandler’s character is like a roller coaster ride, with Rogen’s character suffering many of the consequences. This movie seems to paint a harsh picture of the REAL life of a celebrity; Sandler’s character appears to “have it all” but is really making up for the emptiness he feels of not having a family or at least a lasting relationship with his would-be wife (Leslie Mann). Mann’s character is caught in a supposedly difficult marriage, which, at first, stems from her lingering feelings for Sandler’s character, but this proves to be a falsehood and adds to the emotional complexity of the film’s major themes and plots. So, this is a generally depressing movie. It gives the audience what it wants in terms of “dirty” humor (an Apatow trademark) BUT it also gives the audience what it didn’t expect: a deep and resounding message about life and it’s set-backs.

Jason Schwartzman, Eric Bana, and Jonah Hill are all nice comic relief characters, but even some of their side-plots are a bit sad. Schwartzman’s character thinks he “made it” in Hollywood by having a stint as a teacher on an unfunny kids show. Hill’s character is the only one that has some comedic chops and the promise that makes a great stand-up comedian. Bana plays Mann’s husband, who has fidelity issues but only has them because of his job, which keeps him from home and his loving family.

All in all, I would give this 4/5 stars, since it has a really interesting and fresh approach to a comedy and some of the one-liners are hilarious. But, don’t take my word for it! Go see it and draw your own conclusions!

Review of “Public Enemies”

movieman90 — Sun, 19 Jul 2009 23:43:04 +0000

OK, so this movie was quite the gangster/biography film. Johnny Depp and Marion Cotillard were great in their roles, and Christian Bale was just so-so. Depp really changed the typical view of a 30′s gangster from a fast-talking, brutish ruffian to a more subdued, calculating mastermind. Some might argue that the script and the plot were lacking in action and excitement, and storyline of course, but this movie wasn’t about some fictional character. This movie was about a real-life person and his zeal for life and all it could bring him. Yes, the movie moved quickly and didn’t have much character development or internal struggle, but it DID capture the life of John Dillinger properly. As Depp’s character mentions in the movie that life is fleeting and he doesn’t know how much longer he’ll be around, this movie treats the plot the same way. Fleeting, exciting, and violent. The cinematography was documentary-like and added to the film’s sense of Carpe Diem. Cotillard could have done more with her character, though what she DID do was great. Bale’s character was not very likable and he was a little stiff, even for a strict lawman. Michael Mann did a wonderful job with capturing the pre-WWII era on film, and making it seem very timely despite being outdated 70 years.

All in all, I would give this movie a 4/5 for it’s acting, cinematography, and sense of realism.

Review of “Away We Go”

movieman90 — Sun, 19 Jul 2009 23:31:14 +0000

This movie was actually a very good film, despite what I initially expected from the main actors. Krasinsky and Rudolph were very likable characters and their acting was superb. I thought the supporting characters were very enjoyable as well. Each city the main characters were in was like a vingette of what their life would be like, and this film worked really well with having all these different locations and people in it. Each time the couple stopped, it was like a new movie beginning and this starting and stopping surprisingly didn’t seem disjointed or annoying at all. Some of the language and situations are a bit mature and awkward, but at the same time give the movie a sense of verisimilitude.
All in all, I would give this movie a 4/5 stars for the plot, acting, and the script. Of course, you don’t have to believe me. Go and see it for yourself!