downthesun's Summer of Movies

Finding Nemo

It is widely accepted that Pixar are the masters of animated movies. From Toy Story to Monsters Inc, they keep churning out hits year after year. Finding Nemo is no exception. Made back in 2003, it is a visual treat and a movie that both children and parents alike will enjoy.

It follows a clown fish, Marlin on his journey to find his son Nemo who has been taken out of the sea by humans and put in a salt water aquarium in a dentist's office. Along the way Marlin meets Dory, a forgetful and funny fish who is voiced by Ellen Degeneres, as well as turtles and “Fish Eaters Anonymous” sharks. Nemo also meets his fair share of interesting characters in the aquarium.

Visually, Finding Nemo is spectacular, in my opinion it meets and potentially surpasses other Pixar movies in this department. The colours used jump out at you and attention to detail is second to none, from the beginning scene on the coral reef to the inside of the aquarium, it is clear Pixar can use their magic both below and above water. The animators have done their homework on the fish as well, but at the same time have made some animals like the turtles more child friendly then their real life versions.

Finding Nemo has underlying adult themes in it, which are put across in a very subtle manner so that even younger children can appreciate what the movie is really about. It looks at the themes of parenthood, loss , letting go of children and diversity. Finding Nemo also contains the signature quirky humour of a Pixar flick. By using these themes the characters become more identifiable and real to us.

Voice casting is perfect, Ellen Degeneres as Dory is by far the star of the show and is hilarious in many scenes like in the whale's mouth when she tries to communicate with it. Experienced actor Albert Brooks is also well suited to his role as Marlin the clown fish. Other cast members include Willem Dafoe and Alexander Gould from Weeds fame.

Pixar did again, an instant classic.

Elephant


Elephant is the 2003, Palm D'Or and Best Director winner at Cannes from director Gus Van Sant. It follows a number of students on a seemingly regular day at school in America. However, in Van Sant's take on what drives kids to cold bloodidly gun down their fellow students, the day is anything but regular. Opinions on Elephant have been quite divided, indeed I have some friends who consider it great, whilst others consider it poor.

The movie follows a person or group as they go about their everyday lives in school, and keeps changing viewpoints between a number of different characters. Occasionally the people know each other and their paths intertwine through the day. As the movie goes on it becomes clear that the whole film takes place in the space of an hour or so prior to the deadly shooting at the end.

Elephant doesn't show us anything new, it showcases most school sterotypes from the jock with the beautiful girlfriend to the geeks who get bullied, the only difference from other such movies is that it involves a massacre at the end.

Van Sant, unlike directors like Tarantino and Ritchie, is a lot more about the visuals rather than the script. In fact at many times the dialogue seems improvised which wouldn't surprise me. Watching a GVS movie is a new experience for me, with the sparse dialogue a lot of the movie is spent in a dreamlike manner using trailing camera work to follow people around whilst Bethavon plays in the background. The sound effects used such as thunder rumbling in the distance and birds chirpiing quietly help to build tension for the final scene. I thought the boys buying a rifle online was a nice little touch showing how easy it is to get your hands on a gun and how low gun control is in America.


Elephant does have a number of negatives. Whilst I understand what Van Sant was trying to achieve by using untrained school students for his cast, they at times seem rather selfconscious, and the script, if there is one is poor at best. There is no character development, possibly due to the number of characters introduced in the short running time. We also see little of the shooters before the actual shooting. The film raises some important questions, doesn't really explore or answer them and leaves a few plotlines open at the end. Fans of the movie will argue that this is because Van Sant wants to show there are a number of reasons that drive students to do these kind of things and also doesn't want to attempt to pinpoint a certain reason that caused it. This movie shows there isn't really an answer to the question “WHY?”

In terms of style this was something new to me and was an interesting watch but all together I think GVS misses the target, if you want to watch a good movie on similar subject matter watch Bowling for Columbine, Elephant is quite boring and ends up really going nowhere.

Coming in the next few days will be:
Amores Perros
Pride and Glory
potentially Air Force One as well, but I can't really be bothered to review it

Amores Perros


Amores Perros has been showered with praise and awards since it's release in 2000. I've literally been wanting to watch this movie for years now and finally got round to doing it a few days ago and boy was it a good choice. It straight away enters my top 10 favourite foreign movies.

The movie focuses on three main stories which are all joined together by a car crash involving many of the main characters in the movie.

The first story is about Octavio, a young man who is in love with his brother's wife and has been entering dog-fighting contests and winning a lot of money using the family dog Cofi. He intends to use this money to run away with his brothers wife.

The second story centres around Daniel and Valeria, a married man and a model who are having an affair. Their relationship is strained when Valeria gets in a serious accident and is confined to a wheelchair, to make things worse her beloved dog Richie, who at many times she seems to love more than Daniel, disappears into a hole in the floor of the appartment they stay in. His disappearance causes a lot of strain on the relationship and leads to many fights between them.

The final segment is about El Chivo, a homeless man who walks the streets with his group of stray dogs and is also a hitman.

The structure of this film is similar to Tarantino's work where stories are inter locked and spread across time, sometimes meeting and other times moving forward or backwards in time. In fact the opening scene is strangely similar to the opening sequence from Reservoir Dogs, with a dog in the backseat instead of a man.

This isn't however a cheap rip off of a Tarantino flick, director Inarritu has his own distinctive style and brings it across in this masterpiece. Respect must be given to cinematographer Rodrigo Pieto who shoots the movie superbly. The car scene which connects the movie together was apparently shot with 9 cameras, including one hidden in a trash can. The script is also powerful and conveys the emotions of the movie beautifully.


The performances from the cast are just as brilliant as the behind the scenes work and Bernal as Octavio is arguably the strongest performance of the lot. The soundtrack is brilliantly done and the songs chosen are perfect for the scenes they are used in.

If you can make it through the brutal and violent dog fighting scenes at the beginning of the movie you're in for a cinematic experience. The acting, directing, sound and script fit together perfectly to create one of the best movies, foreign or otherwise, from the past decade. Any director would be hardpressed to make better use of a $2 million budget. Amores Perros is the first movie I have awarded a 5 star rating to and it is certainly deserving.

Role Models


I've already watched this movie three times in the last week, which shows just how much I like it. You could be forgiven for thinking this is another Judd Apatow flick, it does have a lot of the actors he uses such as Rudd, Banks, Jane Lynch and of course Christopher Mintz-Plasse (a.k.a Mclovin). It also has the same sort of raunchy dirty humour that Apatow flicks have whilst having a softer more caring side as well.

The movie is about two energy drinks salesmen, Danny and Wheeler who are given the chance to avoid jail time and do community service after going on a semi rampage whilst leaving a school where they go to promote their drinks.

Their community service is with Sturdy Wings, an organisation aimed at getting adults to help children. Danny is partnered up with Augie, a quintessential nerd who's passion in life is LAIRE, a fantasy game where people dress up like elves and dwarfs and “fight” each other. Wheeler on the other hand is put with Ronny, a potty mouthed and sex obsessed 10 year old who no other “big” has been able to cope with for more than a day. If they don't complete their 150 hours of service, the two main characters face jail time.


Seann William Scott and Paul Rudd have a great chemistry in the movie and their wit and comedic timing is hilarious. I particularly enjoyed how both of them are constantly questioning everything said by the head of Sturdy Wings, played by Jane Lynch, who is an ex cokehead. Mintz-Plasse and Bobb'e J.Thompson are the both brilliant in this movie, I don't think I've ever seen a 10 year old kid use as many profanities as Thompson does in this movie. Lynch is also very funny and strange in her role.

The humour in this movie is pretty standard and is nothing new, but there are a large number of quotable lines and on repeat viewings, the movie is still funny which can't be said of all comedies. Lines like “now the get out of jail free card, is that based on something real?” had me in splits of laughter. A lot of lines in the movie are homophobic and racist yet it is done in such a way that I don't believe it is offensive at all.

Credit must be given to director David Wain who takes a formula we've seen many many times before and makes it something memorable.

Role Models isn't as good as Superbad but it is one of the best non-Apatow movie I've seen in recent times. It is a movie that will appeal to a fairly large audience and if you did like movies like Knocked Up and Superbad, I recommend you check it out.

The Good, The Bad, The Ugly


What can I say which hasn't already been said? This is the movie that got me into westerns and made me really appreciate how good some westerns are. Leone is a genius.

Perfection

Miller's Crossing



One of the best film noir's I've seen. They proove once again they can tackle any genre and do it well. Miller's Crossing falls under the underrated movie category as far as I'm concerned.

The Coens do a brilliant job in this strongly character driven gangster drama. It is full of double crossing, plotting and has a solid script. Gabriel Bryne puts in arguably his best performance and John Turturro is certainly one of the stars and excels as Bernie Bernbaum, his speech in Miller's Crossing is one of the highlights of the movie.

The score and choice of music is very smart with the music always contrasting the brutal violence being shown on screen. For example, Leo's gun battle with two men sent to kill him whilst “Danny Boy” plays in the background.

This is one of the Coens finest works.


Pride and Glory



Pride and Glory tries at least to some extent to be a movie different from the many generic police dramas which have filled cinemas in recent years. It tries to add a bit of creativity to a fading genre where too many movies use an all to familiar plot. However, in the end this movie ends up like many of it's predecessors.

For at least 80% of Pride and Glory it is a solid piece of filmmaking with enough drama and tension to keep audiences tuned in. Whilst it isn't anything new it is still a good effort. Then in the last 20 minutes the whole film falls apart in one of the worst endings I've ever seen. The ending is essentially ridiculous.

The quality of acting is a saving grace in Pride and Glory with both Norton and Farrell doing what they do best and conveying huge screen personas. Supporting actors such as Ehle, Voight and Emmerich do their part to add to the movie. The acting pulls this movie up from an average cop film to something a little special.

If it wasn't for that ending this movie would have got a 4 star rating as for the most part the writing is just as good as the acting mentioned above. The ending however seriously derails a good film and I had many problems with how this film finished (If you want to know what they were PM me as they are slight spoilers). All in all this is the perfect example of how a good movie can be destroyed but a pathetic ending.


Lucky You


One thing I really liked about Lucky You was how the majority of the character development takes place at the poker table. Being a poker fan, and also a person who enjoys watching poker events on TV like the WSOP I was happy to see that director Curtis Hanson who has the classic L.A Confidential on his C.V, managed to bring some of the excitement of poker to the movie.

One of my criticisms would be the running length of this movie, it could have been 20 minutes shorter as I did find some of the scenes were unnecessary. There are times when the pace of the movie slows down and causes the film to lose some of it's power.

Bana and Duvall are both brilliant in their roles as I believe both of them understood their characters and what was required from them. The interactions between the two at the poker tables are the best parts of Lucky You. When they are at the same table whether in the same hand or not, it is no longer about the poker but about the emotional tension between these two and about their egos.

The love story between Huck and Billie is quite unnecessary but I guess is needed for certain members of the audience. Arguably Billie is needed as a conscience for Huck in times when he considers cheating and may go off the rails. I was pleased that this relationship took the back-seat to the one between Huck and L.C.

I loved seeing a lot of familiar poker players in this movie like Daniel Negranu and Sammy Farha so I can only assume the poker community approves of the movie too. It is not Hanson's best work but is an enjoyable piece of cinema.


The Incredible Hulk


This follow up to Ang Lee's 2003 feature is significantly better in my opinion. I think the studios made the right call in choosing to redo The Incredible Hulk character instead of creating a sequel to The Hulk. This new feature has a lot more action and much less talk and is more of a traditional superhero movie. As you'd expect from one of the Marvel Universe's most destructive characters there is a lot of smashing to keep fans happy.

I loved the cameo appearance from Downey Jr to promote Iron Man and it was a nice little way of showing how Iron Man and The Incredible Hulk are set in the same universe. Perhaps this leaves the door open for a future Iron Man and Hulk movie. However whilst Iron Man could be watched by anyone and enjoyed, this film lacks its wit and genius and is more of a movie made for comic book fans.

This is a good action movie and the acting is what you'd expect it to be, Tim Roth is great as the villain and Norton does what is needed to portray Banner. Tyler and the rest of the cast are all very average.

The finale is a fitting one after all the build up, the pace of the movie is good for an action flick with only occasional breaks from the action to further the love story. The CGI is all right whilst not breathtaking it does what is needed. The final scene especially must have taken some time to construct.

Together with Iron Man, The Incredible Hulk has created a potential franchise to be exploited by studios. It certainly performed well in the box office and home video sales.


Choke


It is sometimes the case that adapting a book into movie form doesn't really work out and doesn't really convey the characters and tone of the book properly. Unfortunately Choke is one such case. Being a huge Chuck Palahniuk fan and loving Choke after reading it, I was hoping for a movie which would to some extent come close to being an adaptation somewhere near as good as Fight Club, I was however left disappointed.

Whilst I criticised Lucky You for running too long, I think Choke was too quick and too rushed. Perhaps adding a few more scenes to make us really connect with the characters would have gone some way to improve the movie. It is due to this lack of character development that at the end of the movie when the protagonist is hit with two bombshells, the audience doesn't really feel too much for him. The script is witty enough but doesn't make us feel anything for Victor. We understand why he is like how he is but don't really feel it through the films writing.

The movie changes tones effortlessly from hilarious to sombre and credit must be given to director, Gregg and the cast. Sam Rockwell is truly one of the stars of this generation of actors and shows yet again just how talented he is.

Choke attempts to be more than it actually is but doesn't quite get there. Fans of Rockwell and Palahniuk will enjoy the movie if only due to the fact it is another adaptation of a great book. Lets hope future adaptations of Palahniuk books are nearer to Fight Club.

Time to get this thread back up and running, summertime again, no more exams, got some free time to watch a few movies. In the next few months I'll be reviewing a few of the following movies:
A Serious Man, Leaves of Grass, The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, Shutter Island, The Blind Side, O Brother Where Art Thou and many others.

Alpha Dog


Alpha Dog shows that not all criminals are masterminds and that not all "nerds gone wild" stories have happy endings. Nick Cassavetes should be commended for the unflinching manner in which he tells the story - it packs a punch, although it runs a bit too long to be truly unsettling. There's an art to figuring out when to end a movie and this time Cassavetes doesn't get it right, in my opinion.

Alpha Dog transpires in the late 1990s and focuses on drug dealer Johnny Truelove (Emile Hirsch) and his posse, which includes jokester Frankie Ballenbacher (Justin Timberlake) and gofer Elvis Schmidt (Shaun Hatosy). When Johnny has a falling-out with one of his customers, Jake Mazursky (Ben Foster), who owes him money, all hell breaks loose. The escalating conflict results in a prisoner being taken: Jake's naďve younger brother, Zack (Anton Yelchin), who's the lamb to Johnny's wolves. Although Zack is initially kidnapped, he adapts to his captivity, playing video games with members of Johnny's crew, drinking and doing dope, and flirting with girls. It's paradise for this sheltered lad, and he doesn't want to go back to being Mommy and Daddy's Perfect Boy. However, life lessons for Zack aren't foremost on Johnny's mind. He's trying to figure out the best way to stay out of prison or end up in a body bag, and that may require Zack to be in a position where he can never testify.

It's interesting to watch a movie in which the criminals are idiots and wimps. Most of the time, bad guys in movies such as Alpha Dogs are geniuses and ballsy thugs. Johnny plays at times is a sophisticated badass, but when it comes down to it, he's a fraud. He's not smart and he's intimidated by guns. There are many times when he has a chance to pull the trigger but doesn't. Johnny's playing the role of the gangster until one of many unintelligent decisions puts him in a situation in which the consequences are severe.

Most of the characters are not the kinds of people the average person would feel comfortable spending a couple of hours with. Then comes Zack. He's a good guy whose situation is not of his own making. He happens to have a crazy half brother who's in debt to Johnny.

The movie bypasses the perfect ending point - a mock-interview with Sharon Stone as Zack's mother - and instead spends 15 extra minutes with Johnny and his gang. This part of the movie is unneeded and drags the on a bit. While Alpha Dog may start out being about Johnny, it quickly becomes about Zack and Zack's developing friendship with Frankie.


As Zack, Anton Yelchin develops a sweet, baby-faced character in which bookworms everywhere will relate. Zack is every high school student who spent more time studying than socializing. It's an effective performance, right to the end. Also strong, which did somehwat surprise me, is Justin Timberlake as Frankie. It doesn't take long for him to get rid of his reputation and do some real acting. Frankie is a tragic figure - a boy who's in way over his head. Ben Foster is brilliant as Jake and was one of the stand out performances from the movie. Emile Hirsch is decent as Johnny, but it's neither a memorable or a compelling performance. A little star power is provided by Bruce Willis in a small role as Johnny's dad and Sharon Stone as Zack's mom. Both play very little roles and apart from an interview with Sharon Stone at the end, they have very little screen time.

Cassavetes approaches the subject matter with a clear eye and a very dark sense of humor. Most of Alpha Dog's jokes are dark, darker, and darkest. The film is designed to make viewers feel uncomfortable and it achieves this with a shocking ending, which although predictable, is like a punch to the stomach. Cassavetes isn't interested in generating suspense; this is more of a study of human nature. The picture he paints isn't pretty but it's accurate. Alpha Dog isn't a happy movie, but it's solid and the impressions it leaves will not be easily shaken away.

Leaves of Grass


Tim Blake Nelson is an up and coming director whose work until now had been received well critically but didn't manage to make an impact at the box office. By snagging Edward Norton to play the lead role(s) in Leaves of Grass he may be able to change that.

The movie centres around twins, Bill & Brady who lead very different lives. Whilst both are geniuses in their own right, they've chosen to use their brains in very different ways. Bill is a renowned professor who has been offered a job at Harvard, whilst Brady makes a living by growing and selling top quality marijuana. When he runs into trouble with a local drug lord he finds a way to lure Bill back to Oklahoma to help him deal with his problems.

Edward Norton as usual is brilliant with his handling of both roles and when Brady and Bill are seen together it really seems like Norton has found his perfect co-star. In this film he strays away from his slightly stereotyped roles as a crazy, violent man (American History-X, Fight Club, Primal Fear) and does so by showcasing his great range in this leading role. The story of the film is nowhere near as intense as some of Norton's previous roles and one of the downsides is the shoddy special effects used when showing the twins together. My sister commented that it reminded her of the same technology used to generate two Lindsay Lohans (god forbid) in Parent Trap.

Tim Blake Nelson wrote, directed and acts as the main supporting actor in Leaves of Grass. The script and directing at some points reminded me of a Coen Brothers movie with the quick and unexpected violence and some decent dialogue between the twins. Whilst primarily being a comedy, Leaves of Grass does switch genres and tones throughout and what we are left with is a movie that slightly lacks in edginess but shows the potential that Nelson has.


The Hurt Locker

Hurt Locker veers away from the general formula followed by war movies that would be classed as Action or Drama flicks. Kathryn Bigelow shows that it is possible to make a war thriller that is packed with tension without making it a movie that merely glorifies the violence of war. I literally spent the majority of the film on the edge of my seat, waiting for the next explosion or gunshot, as I'm sure many of you did.

Some people I have met have argued that the film has no real story to it. I on the other hand believe it is a simple story about a team of bomb defusal experts finishing their tour of Iraq and trying to get the whole team back in one piece, much like the mini-series Generation Kill. On the surface it is a simple story about the good guys against the bad guys and the lack of a political motive behind the movie is refreshing. The Hurt Locker has some of the most intense scenes I have seen in recent memory and this is in no small part due to Bigelow's excellent directing.

The Hurt Locker is well crafted and will leave many people on the edge of their seats and exhausted by the time the end credits roll round. I for one felt almost drained after watching it. However, whilst suspense is built up excellently in this film, the characters and setting are also equally well developed. The audience at points almost feel like they are in Iraq with the bomb disposal squad. Despite the appearance of actors such as Guy Pearce, the majority of the film largely lacks any big name stars which works well to keep the audience focussed on what is going on and to helps them appreciate this masterpiece in film-making.


A Serious Man

If I've learnt one thing over the many years I have been watching movies, it's that the Coen Brothers can never be accused of making the same kind of movie over and over again. With A Serious Man, Joel and Ethan yet again prove they are the masters of versatility and constantly test themselves and succeed with flying colours. As a big fan of their work, every Coen Bros film I have seen has hit the spot and that is the case with A Serious Man as well.

Similarly to the previous film I reviewed, the Coens shy away from big name A-list actors for their latest feature. The only recognisable faces were “that guy with the annoying face from Mad About You” (Richard Kind) and “that Nazi from Sons of Anarchy” (Adam Arkin). Whilst the leading actor Michael Stuhlbarg has made his name on stage, he has no significant experience in films. However, he along with the rest of the cast are excellent. Like The Hurt Locker, small name actors help the Coens to set the scene very well.

The movie is a modern day version of the Book of Job and the Coens clearly have a message they want to deliver with this film. Like their previous work, A Serious Man has as much going on beneath everything as there is going on on the surface. What starts off as a fairly straightforward plot quickly twists and turns into a movie that only the Coens could make work. Without a proper ending, the movie leaves the audience to make their own conclusions on what happens. Undoubtedly some will be pessimistic whilst others will be optimistic with their own ideas on what happened to all the characters and I have a sneaky feeling that's exactly what the Coen brothers wanted. Whilst not being their best movie, A Serious Man is a very good film and I wait with bated breathe for what these two geniuses have in store for us next.

I really enjoyed Lucky You. Probably my favorite poker movie of all time.

Really rauldc? You enjoyed it more than Rounders?

After a long absence, I'm on holiday again and have had some time to get back into reviewing and watching movies. Expect to see a few more reviews in this thread in the coming weeks.

The Rock



After a 13 year break from the genre, Sean Connery returns to action movies in The Rock, this time without the famous tuxedo and martinis (shaken not stirred). He is without a doubt the star of the movie and steals the spotlight away from 1996 Oscar winner, Nicolas Cage. Connery's ability to mix action and comedy make it seem as if 007 has merely aged and changed his name. The chemisty between Connery and Cage builds nicely throughout the film and results in a classic buddy action movie.The rest of the cast is also top class with Ed Harris pulling off a very good portrayal of the key villan in the film. David Morse, John Spencer and Michael Biehn also put in good performances to complement the main stars.

There are a couple of reputable gentlemen behind the scenes as well with Michael Bay of Bad Boys fame in the directors chair and doing a commendeble job taking control of a the action genre and making it his own. Jerry Bruckheimer adds another excellent title to his already impressive resume alongside Top Gun and other classics.

One of my main critcisms of the film would be it's length. Certain aspects could have been cut down to shorten the running time to be more in line with other action movies. The beginning of The Rock featured a bit too much character building for my liking however the flaws are more than made up for the fast paced action and usual action move sequences.

If you're looking for an action movie that's just a little bit different from the usual overdose of violence with weak storylines then I'd recommend giving The Rock a look.




Predators



After the shockingly bad Alien vs Predator 1 & 2, Robert Rodriguez does his best to breathe some life into a slowly dying franchise. Rodriguez's best move was pretending the previous cross-franchise movies never existed which works to create an installment which doesn't look out of place against previous Predator films.

One particular aspect of the film I enjoyed was seeing good and bad individuals come together to fight a common enemy, something you don't see too often in many, if any movies. Director, Attal makes some attempts to give the main characters degree of development but as expected from a Predator film, they're anything but 3 dimensional. The plot of the story is very much the same as any horror or alien movie, with the audience merely guessing and placing bets as to the order of how the characters will die.

I found the pacing of the movie to be completely uneven. It begins at a very slow pace with the characters walking around a jungle, without much character development or plot development. In contrast the final third of the film seems extremely rushed and a little too much happens in a very short period of time.

As far as casting goes, Adrien Brody as the lead in an action movie was never something I thought I'd see and certainly wasn't something I'd thought would ever work, but somehow...it does. Unquestionably, Brody has the acting talent as shown in The Pianist, but in Predators he displays a different side of his talents, taking on the role of the anti-hero. With a new physique and deep growling voice to boot, he manages, against all odds to convincingly portray a hard-ass special ops vet. I had no qualms with the rest of the casting as these characters were merely fodder for the Predators. I did however take issue with Laurence Fishburne's appearance, a role which very seemed like it was written for someone else and thrown to Fishburne as a last resort.

Fans of the Predator franchise should definatly watch this film, as it's one of the better installments in the series. If you're looking for a bit of entertainment that doesn't require much brain power check it out as well.

I can't understand how or why there are any Predator fans after the first film.