Amph What was the last movie you saw?

Ant-Man.

Loved it.

 

I discovered it solely on the basis of going straight home after Ex Machina and looking Vikander up to see if she had anything else in the pipe. Didn't know at that time if the movie would ever get a U.S. release or not, but thankfully, it did.



Citizenfour (2014) – Laura Poitras

Finally caught up with Poitras’ riveting documentary about Edward Snowden and it’s exactly the movie you think it’s going to be, a damning look at government surveillance and the plight of the modern whistleblower. This movie tracks everything from Snowden’s first contact with Poitras, using the screenname “citizenfour”; the bulk of the film is taken up with the meeting of Glenn Greenwald, Snowden & Poitras in a Hong Kong hotel room for an interview/investigation that lasted for days. The film is, however, equally compelling during the times when it isn’t focused on this; there’s an early section surrounding a lawsuit over phone surveillance that is riveting and infuriating in the cavalier way the government treats the privacy of its own citizens and the role of the judiciary. But when we’re in that hotel room with Snowden, it really does feel like we as the audience are there and Snowden comes across in a very compelling way, as an articulate, intelligent, principled young man, not at all the erratic, irrational traitor that the American government has attempted to paint him as. He’s not a fool and he’s not dangerous; he’s just a normal, intelligent guy. This humanizing of Snowden might be the most important things the film does, really; yes, the information remains shocking and Poitras is able to craft her film in such a way that all of the illegal behavior of the government lands with an impact even though we’ve heard it before, but we, well, we have heard it all before, at least hopefully. But in its portrait of the whistleblower, the film has the potential to change people’s minds about Chelsea Manning & William Binney and all the other whistleblowers over the years that have been demonized. Humanizing Snowden is humanizing everyone that’s fighting against the illegalities and civil rights violations perpetrated by the American government and this feels just as important as anything else in the film. Will anyone buy the “traitor” line the next time some whistleblower exposes corruption in the government? No one that’s seen this film. So, see it. 4 stars.

tl;dr – documentary follows whistleblower Edward Snowden, both humanizing him and exploring the damning revelations of corruption & law-breaking by the government; essential & timely. 4 stars.

More Movie Reviews!

 

Trainwreck - Didn't expect much going in, but I was consistently surprised throughout the movie by how much I was enjoying it. Some parts had me in stitches (John Cena being a particular highlight) and there was a surprising amount of heart to balance out the raunchiness. Great movie.

 

Birdman - given all the accolades, it wasn't as original or as good as I'd hoped. The plot and character cliches mount up pretty quickly, and Michael Keaton has almost no skills as a dramatic actor. I'm not entirely sure Edward Norton can act either. But the female leads are all decent despite not having enough to do. Norton's only two decades older than Emma Stone, so it's not surprising how unconvincing the chemistry between those two is.

Definitely one of those movies about which no more than five or six years from now people will already be bewildered about why it cleaned up at the Oscars. Maybe voters got tired of Boyhood's gimmicky appeal, but Birdman is fueled by its own gimmicks, and I was already bored with them before the movie was even over.

 

Disc One of Star Wars: Droids. With no credits shown, the episodes can be considered a film with four acts.

 

The New One Armed Swordsman (1971) - yeah I just watched this a couple of days ago but it was so much fun, I just had to again if only to see Mr. Chiang's title character obliterate dozens of baddies in the climax. I really enjoy these early 70s Shaws. Simple story well told can be pretty great. And the mirroring at the end was terrific too. Once I get the copy of Vengeance on dvd I see double feature in my future.

 

I pretty much agree with this, except for the criticism of the acting. Keaton's and Norton's (and everyone's) performances were fine, IMSIO, but the script they've been given to interpret is just dull. I did like Keaton's anti-critic screed in the bar, but the rest was so joyless and tiresome I could hardly keep my eyes open.

 

Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation

A master class in Darth Guy's "No one cares about the villain" genre.

 

Disc Two of Star Wars: Droids. With no credits shown except at the start and end, the episodes can be considered a film with four acts.

 

Yeah, I understand that Birdman's not for everyone, but tearing it to shreds is totally unwarranted, especially when dealing with the likes of Keaton and Norton who've put together extremely respectable careers. I for one was completely enthralled for every second of that movie.

 

In theater - Ant Man
at home - Due to Roddy Piper's passing, me and some friends got together to watch They Live.

 

Yup. I can't help but be compelled by Gonzalez Inarritu's volte face into comedy, and using it to speculate on his own career's value. And I think the performances across the board range from solid to great. Keaton is perfect.

 

Seventh Son (2015) - Do you ever find yourself asking "Gee, I wish they made more movies like Eragon."? Ever hope that Jeff Bridges will dust off the 'ol Rooster Cogburn accent? Well, you're in luck! Featuring perhaps the worst world building of any fantasy film I've ever seen--and that includes D-movies like Yor: The Hunter From The Future--this dull and uninspired pastiche was so bad that it had me pining wistfully for the Hobbit trilogy. - 4/10

 

Mulholland Falls (1996)
Dir. Lee Tamahori

Has a career ever disappointed so thoroughly post-debut more than Lee Tamahori's? I don't quite understand the nothing he was going for with this film, which is basically a straightforward 40s cop flick that would have been summarily dismissed as filler if it was released in the period it's set. There's one interesting element, which is John Malkovich... outside of that there are somehow too many characters and also too few - there's no need for Madsen and Penn, it would have worked fine if it was just Notle and Palminteri. And yet in terms of suspects there's... two? There's no mystery, no intrigue, no pathos, no nothing. Poor Dave Grusin's excellent score is wasted.

 

It's a quirky movie, to be sure, but the quirkiness is a thin layer sprayed over a tedious pastiche of conventional character and plot stereotypes.

I've liked Norton in a few parts, e.g. Fight Club, where his style fits perfectly. But he's uncharismatic and incapable of anything but a relentless monotone as if he's always auditioning for the part of a text-to-speech app. He reminds me of me in that his emotional range is limited to always being vaguely irritated about something.

 

One of your best yet Juke. Thanks for the laugh. Sorry you decided to sit through that. I heard Bridges doing Rooster in the trailer and thought No, no, NO.

 

My only preface is that I don't condone anything that happens in this movie, but it's just so great.

The Wolf of Wall Street (2013)

It's been criticized for its glorification of money laundering, drug abuse, gratuitous sex, and just overall immoral behavior--not to mention it has the highest "f word" count in movie history besides an eponymous documentary. But there truly is a message in there, buried, at times--yes. But it's there. Scorsese isn't building a narrative that teaches you how to live your life; in fact, he seems to be doing quite the opposite. It's hilarious that the real Jordan Belfort actually makes an appearance at the end of this film given that the film really does trash him.

Spoiler

In the end, after all he's done, he's a loser. His wife has left him, he'll never get to see his kid again, he'll probably lose the house, his friend has betrayed him, and now he's going to jail.

Or is he?

His Stratton days are over, no doubt about that. And he is going to jail. But in the end of the film, there are two shots that really, really stuck with me.

First, is FBI agent Denham sitting on the subway, reading the newspaper. The headline shows that Stratton has been taken down, and Belfort's been indicted. He closes the paper, and looks around. He's still surrounded by poverty and unpleasantness. In a way, Jordan was right--he still is living a life that is, although noble, definitely not glamorous.

Second, is after Jordan gets out of prison. He is introduced at a seminar, where he is teaching people how to become successful businessmen. In a way, he's a role model for people. This guy is a role model.

This is a comment by Scorsese & crew, no doubt about it. After Jordan gets out, he's able to keep riding high and making money. Ultimately, he's still going to be very successful. Denham? He's still barely making ends meet, having to take the subway home just like Belfort says. The bad guy still came out on top, and the good guy still, in a way, lost.

Who's to blame for this injustice? Well, I think this shot perfectly summarizes that:



Jordan's just living the American dream: get rich, and do it quick. He's the product of a broken system--one that divides the classes more and more as time goes on. Denham is a hero, but exists in a society that isn't good enough for him. He's too noble--and if he wants to thrive in this system, he can't do it nobly.

Overall, I love this film. The things it says about our society and the American Dream are interesting and insightful; and, if you're not averse to the "Scorsese style" of harsh language and graphic sex and drug use, then I highly recommend it. It's my personal favorite film of 2013, and I still think it should've won for Best Picture. 10/10.

 

Alright, here's your backlash: people who write a review preemptively stating that they expect their opinions to be met with "hate" are in reality coloring their positions as immediately suspect. Rather than convincing me that you genuinely adore a movie that I also quite like, I'm coming away wondering just how much you're exaggerating and glossing over any potential flaws in the name of drawing cheap heat. It's one thing to be all "COME AT ME BRO" when taking the position contrary to the overwhelming position established in a thread, but when you do it with essentially no context it just seems like cheap hedging.

SMH, do you even lift?, etc.

 

That wasn't really my intention, but I know that this film has garnered a lot of criticism for its use of animals, as well as its depiction of what many see as immoral. It was my understanding that a lot of people don't like this film. That was really all I meant by that.

I'm sorry if I offended.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

I'm not actually that mad, I was just obliging your request.

Though it is a pet minor annoyance of mine.

 

With my reviews my motto is "You get what you pay for" , but I'm glad you enjoyed it. He did a really exaggerated version of it in R.I.P.D. as well. Maybe that's his go to accent now when he's doing really lousy movies for the paycheck.

The Craft (1996) - Not as painfully 90s as I'd feared, but the phantom of Lollapalooza is hiding in every plaid clad shadow, like Tabitha Soren waiting to pounce on you like you're Eddie Vedder getting off a tour bus. The young quartet of lead actresses really carry the movie, such as it is. Particularly the lovely goth goddess Fairuza Balk, who chews through scenery in the third act like a rabid beaver. - 6/10

 

We really do need that dislike/thumbs down button...

 

I saw Mission Impossible Rogue Nation. It was quite fun, nothing mind blowing but very good. the only thing that sucked was this dude in the theatre who thought literally every witty line was the funniest thing ever said ever over the top laughed at everything.

 

Gracious you're on fire lately. All I can say is please keep doing what you do.

Swordsman and Enchantress (1978) again. Having just finished the source material on which this is very loosely based, the novel made me appreciate the film even more and vice versa. Master Thief Xiao (the always awesome Ti Lung) is accused of theft, kidnapping of a rival's wife and other unpleasant things by a nasty young person (a girl playing at being a boy, apparently something that happens frequently in wuxias.) It's all a ploy to get Xiao and the rival husband of the kidnapped wife under the control of a rather evil overlord. And yet Xiao and the rival's wife fall in love... OOOOPS. Like the novel, the film crosses into fantastic WTH? territory with the puppet villa. It works because Ti's Xiao is a likable anti-hero who rises above evil. Of the two sources, I prefer the film because the awesome sets and costumes really make the story pop. The film also boasts the great Zombie Caster villains with their White Nether Claw kung fu technique (the lady Zombie caster is awesome.) And Ti looked absolutely hot with a thick beard. The man was gorgeous in his hey day, but holy crap... The only things I do not like are the mushy elevator music playing in the quasi-romantic parts and Candy Wen is her usual annoying self. If you have access to an all region dvd player, try to find the out of print IVL region 3 dvd - the widescreen print and sound are terrific. Skip Well Go's region 1 non anamorphic dvd which stinks. 8.5/10 (I do not remember my last rating but needless to say this is one of my favorites with Ti Lung.)

Roving Swordsman (1980) This is almost James Bondian as far as the villains go. The Muruang family wants to restore their name in the martial world and plots to kidnap the lovely daughter of their rivals in order to obtain the Tang (not the powdered drink mix) Arsenal manual. Disguises, explosives, extremely fake looking sets (which only add to the fun of this one) and a Sherlockian Ti Lung swordsman named Shen Shengyi make this one of the more entertaining and outthere wuxias. It's definitely a park your brain at the door and have fun film, just like the most OTT Bond films. 7.5/10

All Men are Brothers (1975) - yes I watched this sequel to the Water Margin first. And frankly, with the massive amount of characters (108 heroes working with the Emperor to undermine and defeat rebel government officials), I was absolutely lost until John (ne: David) Chiang and Ti Lung popped up. Chiang made the opening sequence delightful and I'd hoped he steal the movie out from everyone else as he was prone to do in early 70s Shaw Bothers movies. It was pretty cool to see a well known late 70s Shaw villain pop up as one of the doomed failed heroes. If you've read the Water Margin both films will be much easier to deal with, but this was one of those times were I was utterly defeated by a huge cast. The only thing I realized was Ti Lung has played notable Water Margin hero Wu Song in three films (this and two Wu Song-centric films.) All Men are Brothers could be a really great film but I could not keep up. 4/10 (large casts swallow my brain.)