3:10 ot Yuma

I really am not a fan of westerns. Ys i do enjoy the occasional John Wayne movie, but as far as anything in the past decade I'm not an avid fan. I must say that I was drawn to this movie by the great reviews and trailers. Plus I know that Russel Crowe and Christian Bale are bound to give a half decent performance, but on this one I was completely wrong. They gave amazing performances. Crowes character tried to get into everyone's head and mess with their minds. He seemed to me like he was a crosse between John Wayne and Hannibal Lecter. As the film opens yyou see he is a rutheless outlaw who will stop at nothing to achieve his goals. Christian Bale is a poor hard working rancher who puts his family before himself.When the two meet it becoems apparent that he has to do something drastic to save his land from a corrupt official. He volunteers to escort Wade (Crowe) to Yuma via a 3:10 train. Along the way the encounter Apaches and corrupt mine workers. Through this time both characters bond and develope a sort of mutual understanding. In the end they are hold up in a hotel room waiting for the train, but Wades gang has found them and prepare togive Bale and his friends the fight of his life. I incredibly enjoyed the well staged acton sequences, and intense chases, but these are not the films only strengths. As I said before the acting was amazing, and the directing was fantastic. The only issue I have with the film is its ending (which i will not discusshere for fear of spoiling it for others) All in all it was a great movie and I highly recomend it. If you want my opinions on the ending read my next post.

The Asylum

Ladies and gentlemen the validity of movies are at stake. In today's world the summer blockbuster is one of a studios biggest source of revenue. Recently a small independent movie company has decided to compete with major companies for prophets, while the face impossible odds and are sure to fail their methods endanger all big budget films. The Asylum fist came to the public light around the time of Steven Spielburg's film War of the Worlds. shortly before the films release the Asylum released their own straight to DVD abomination, generally considered a terrible movie. This film was followed by the Da Vinci Treasure and infamously Snakes on a Train. Not only do these "mockbusters" clearly rip off the titles of popular films, but they are flat out terrible. The Asylum was brought back into the spotlight with their epic disaster Transmorphers (coincidentally released before Transformers). This movie sported some of the worst acting and special effects ever in a film after the year 2000. You know they are scraping the bottom of the barrel when they created Sunday School Musical, High school musical is bad enough! One of the most shocking aspects of their rise to notoriety is the fact that Blockbuster actually orders these films and displays them prominently in New Releases (If you don't believe me go to Blockbuster and look for The Day The Earth Stopped) Even sadder is the fact they actually make money! This begs the question "Is Blockbuster stupid if they make money?" Absolutely not! The people who rent these films, allow the Asylum to continue butchering films. We know most of these films will not go down as classics, but that gives no studio the right to rip them off, and make some of them even worse. Take AVH: Alien vs. Hunter for example. Alien vs. Predator Requiem was an OK movie enough blood and gore to satisfy, and a sufficient lack of plot to bore, but AVH? THE TITTLE ISN"T EVEN CREATIVE!!! How bout the Asylum's smash flop The 18 Year Old Virgin (are they even trying anymore?) There are many more that I do not want to waste my time listing. It is my firm belief that the Asylum be stopped at all costs!

Blade Runner

One of my favorite directors is the great Ridley Scott. Many of his movies show incredible attention to detail and despite some having terrible screenplay's are very enjoyable. So in September I managed to watch one of his most critically acclaimed films, Blade Runner. To my shock I didn't enjoy it that much. All of the trailers and adds for it seemed to pitch it as this futuristic action film, but in reality Blade Runner was far from it. As I thought about it more I realised just how good of a movie it was. The film is set in a futurist world complete with planetary colonization and flying cars. In this new world overpopulation many animals have gone extinct, and genetic engineering creates replacements for lost species. In time genetic engineering was harnessed to create human like organic robots, known as replicants. These replicants are used off world for the most dangerous and dirty jobs. They are given a life span of only 4 years to prevent them from developing any "human feelings" such as love or hate. Ironically the company that makes them advertises with a motto of "more human than human" As a result of a replicant rebellion they are outlawed on Earth and hunted down and "retired" by blade runners. The film follows Deckard (Harrison Ford) retired blade runner who hunts down a group of brutal replicants that have escaped. The film plays out like a detective movie from decades ago to the point were certain cliches are used to further the plot and give a nod off to those films. Deckard soon cares for a woman named Rachel, who to her surprise is a replicant. The company has implanted memories of their CEO's niece to make her think she was a real human in order to control her better. As Deckard sits drunk looking at old photos the viewer begins to see hints at whether or not he is in the same position although it is never explicitly stated. As the film progresses we see that the antagonists led by Roy, merely seek to extend their lives. This gave me a realization that maybe the true antagonist in the film isn't the replicants but the humanity that created them and destroyed their own environment. The films imagery and effects are astounding, especially for 1982. Its acting is superb, surprisingly Rutger Hauer (the replicant Roy) gives a better performance than Ford. It is a movie that you can't watch out of boredom, because you really will have to think about it to get it. The pacing is very slow. The music is incredible, setting a tone of uneasiness and suspense, but it adds to the slowness. I only truly appreciated this film after it was over, and had a chance to think about it. After watching it again today I can say that my initial impressions of my first view are wrong, and it is in fact a great movie. I highly recommend it, but any viewer must know they have to give it a chance.

This should be fun..

After all these discussions on great movies I figured I'd talk aobut a bad movie, a really bad movie. I like zombie films, there fun to watch and they don't require much effort or thoughts to enjoy or make, but a few actually hold powerful metaphors about human life. Such films are George A Romero's classic's Night of the Living Dead, Dawn of the Dead, and Day of the Dead. Unfortunatly these movies were profittable enough to spawn a sequel that in no way even supports the events of the past films. The horid film is of course Day of the Dead 2: Contagium. This film was so bad that the only thoughts that went through my mind were "suicide is a viable option"and "I cant move!". Not only do zombies not appear throughout most of the film, but the main characters who are infected develope a mental link with each other, and manage to impregnate a young girl so effectivley that in 5 days she gives birth. Literally in one scene she appears normal, and as son as they enter a room suddenly shes massive pregnant. Am I the only one who thinks someone screwed up in the continutiy department? This movie is one big trainwreck right fro mthe start. It starts in the 50s with a Russian voice heard talking about how he defected. Then the military is called in and starts killing everyone. A scientist manages to take a vial and leave. Now lets think about his thought process shall we? "Oh my god theres an infectious diseas that raises the dead... I should try to sneak it out!". So he gets shot and the vial falls where it is picked up in 2005 by a work crew from the local mental institution (aka the writers). Now to begin deriding the movies effects we must look at this scene. A 2d computer genated helicopter flys across the screen. Oh god here we go! Then the army begins to fire on the horde of mindless undead, but theres something wrong. There are no muzzle flashes. A closeup of a gun reveals the barrel to not even be hollow. O wait it gets worse. Now normally in a movie (an the real world) when you shoot someone the blood spatters come out of the persons head. This movie is so cheap that a man of stage throws the fake blood AT the dead zombie. So fast foreward to 2005, a group of crazy peopel find the vial and think its treasure and when they open it a bright light appears, and that night little while flying dots fly over their heads. ????????? Excuse me???So then they begin to roam around and try to eat, but begin throwing up orange and black goo. You think in a mental institution someone would notice right? Nope. So it is eventually revealed that the original infected crave human flesh and once they taste it become zombies, who talk and give long eloquent speeches!!! How did i manage to get through this movie? To sum things up the infection spreads and the world becomes infected thus beginning the events of the first film, but wait isn't their a problem? the prequel is set in 2005, and the original film, night of the living dead was in 1968. Again score one for the continutiy guys. Basically this movie is the worse sequel and worst movie I have ever seen. It makes Jaws the Revenge look like an achievement in film making. The makers of this film must have saw Forrest Gump and thought "Wow lets make an entire cast of the mentally retarted and turn them into zombies!! Because the public lovescharacters that have problems" You idiots. You mindless bafoons. The writers directors producers and actors should be black listed and never again allowed to work in film again. To end this review I will qote a good movie "The horror, The horror". Day of the Dead gets 1 out of 100.

Thoughts on Brando in Apocalypse Now

Marlon Brando, some hate him, some love him, all respect him. One of his most enduring and haunting performances was in Apocalypse Now, where he played a psychotic soldier in Vietnam. Martin Sheen's character is sent to terminate his command with "extreme prejudice". Although the movie is best known by the line "I love the smell of npalm in the morning" (spoken by Robert Duvall's character) the films most memorable line's are a Brando's final monologue of the film. Listening to him speak sends shivers down the spine, and although you know he is crazy it makes you wonder whether or not he is truly a villain. The way the scene is shot also adds to the eerieness of the monologue. When speaking only Brando's head is visible surrounded by darkness with flys buzzing aobut his head even landing on him (in a funny outtake he actually swallows one). While movie critics argue that this darkness is to depict his sole and how evil he has become, they fail to realise the reasoning behind it. The fact of the matter is that Brando showed up to film overweight and in bad health. His completely out of shape form had to be hidden. In fact very few scenes show him in the light, or not partially hidden. Regardless he manages to give what I believe to be the deepest performance of his entire career. Coppola's ingenutiy with the camera not onlyhid Brando, it heightened the sentiment of the scene.

2001 A Space Odyssey: Brief Analysis

Well after first watching this movie I wasn't sure if I loved it or completely hated it. Although I am an avid fan of Kubrick's work I found this movie to be overly long and pretentious for a Kubrick film. I quickly realised that the pretentiousness and the bizarre plot were what made me like the movie. I have since stopped thinking aobut the movie, but after a dsicussion with Nick (whom I tried to defend the movie against his bitter hatred) he began to like it. So as I sit here I will try to maybe crack some of the finer if not quite possibly irrelevent interpretations I have formed. The first thing I have noticed is that the human characters, especially Bowman show no emotions, fears or anxieties. The minimal dialogue in the film is often irrelevent compared to the actual plot. The only instace where a character speaks about their fears is the line "I am scared" (so simple I know) spoken by ironically none other than HAL the computer. Possible scholarly theories I have looked up upon have noted this as a way to show how man has become so used to their enviornment they no longer feel.
Another interesting thing I noticed was the monolith itself. This monolith appears 3 times in the movie. Once on earth, once on the moon, and once floating in space. Each time it appears an eerie music plays that gets louder and louder (instantly recognizable). Given the shape of this monolith (rectangular) standing up it appears to just be an object, more on this seemingly irrelevent fact later. The eerie music I previously mentioned appears only one other time. An intermission like black screen. Upon looking closely at the monolith you will see that when turned on its side it resembles... yes the movie screen itself. So Kubrick tries to imply that we are apart of the movie by staring at the monolith itself. Now in the book the monoliths purpose is to give knowledge and casue evolution. So is it possibly that Kubrick himself is trying to tell us to evolve and become enlightened? During the Stargate sequence (those who have not seen the movie will get completely lost in this discussion aobut now) we see the lights coming towards us at a vertical angle, but suddenly in the middle of the sequence they switch to vertical, possibly a reference to the monolith.
As an avid Kubrick fan I am well aware of Kubrick's fascination with sex. In fact in any given kubrick film you will find some overexemplified sexual reference. Yet as I sat through 2001 I found none, and as the credits rolled I felt in a way cheated, but upon my second viewing I was wrong. Immediatly at the star of the stargate sequence it hit me like a brick. A long slendar ship sailing through space into the monolith floating on an angle through space erupting into flashing lights and an actual scene of an embryo being formed, and then the epic ending showing the star child floating through outer space. Wow how could I have missed that!
In the end I am left to wonder, Is the merit of 2001 based only on the ways of interpreting Kubricks superior technique? or does the story and plot actually hold merrit? I believe that it is both. The movie is so dense that if watched in class we would spend months on it. I highly recomend the film not becasue it is good, just so you can join the debate, and lastly if I missed anything let me know.

Joe Buck idiot?

Well as we are in the middle of the film I feel I cannot give a definitive view on the character. All I know is that he is the worst prostitue I have ever heard of. I'm not sure if he realizes he has the worlds oldest profession backwards. He should get the money for his "good deeds" not give it away. Even Deuce Bigalow had a more succesful career. The problems with his chracter starts with his idea of even going to New York to be a "hustler" is possibly one of the stupedist decisions in all of movie history, right behind the inclusion of Jar Jar Binks in Star Wars Episode I, and The Godfather 3 (basically that whole movie). Another interesting note about Joe is why in the hell is he so gullible, it is clear that Ratso Rizzo is a liar yet he still follows him around. It could be quite possible that by the end of the movie he makes a complete character turn around, or he could die, or maybe even a better ending in which Joe dies and Rizzo lives. Hows that for moral ambiguity. One thing that botters me is the classroom editing of the film. Upon returning home i went on youtube and watched the removed movie theater scene, and found it to be overly hyped up as this controversial scene. It had little to no effect execpt massive pitty fo Joe. I eagerly await more of the film and hope unrealisticly that no further scenes be removed.