Monday, November 30, 2015

Life Of Brian (1979) - An extended classic gag show

Review : 0004
Title : Monty Python’s Life Of Brian
Year : 1979
Director : Terry Jones
Country : United Kingdom
World’s Verdict : Rotten Tomatoes – 96%; Metacritic – 75 out of 100; IMDB – 8.1 out of 10.0.
My Verdict : 2.9 out of 5.0.


I was looking for the funniest movie, one that would make me laugh out loud, and my research told me that Monty Python’s Life Of Brian is one of the funniest movies ever made.  Sadly, it wasn’t hilarious as I thought it would be.  It’s funny but it failed to make me laugh hard.


Life Of Brian starred and written by the Monty Python (a British comedy group).  It tells the tale of Brian Cohen, a man who was born on the same day as Jesus.  His adventure started when he joined a rebel group that fights the Roman who conquered Judea.  His life turned into a series of misadventures, falling in love, being captured by Romans, escaping Pontius Pilate’s guards, becoming an accidental prophet, flying with UFOs in space and being crucified.  Brian’s life was almost futile but in the end he chose to look at the bright side of life. 


This movie is a comedy gag show.  It’s a historical and religious satire and the jokes are still true to this day.

This is a type of film that will make you smile a lot and will make you think of the satirical references.  I enjoyed watching it but it doesn’t have a lot of LOL moments.

Almost forgot, this movie has one of the best uplifting songs in cinema history.

Did I like the movie?  A little.  I was a little disappointed because I thought I would be as funny as the reviews said it was .  Am I going to watch it again?  Yes and will also watch other Monty Python movies.  Would I recommend it to you?  Yes but do not watch it with kids.



Monday, November 23, 2015

Into The Woods (2014) - The original tales in a single complex but not chaotic story

Review : 0003
Title : Into The Woods
Year : 2014
Director : Rob Marshall
Country : United States
World’s Verdict : Rotten Tomatoes – 71%; Metacritic – 69 out of 100; IMDB – 6.0 out of 10.0.
My Verdict : 3.7 out of 5.0.


It was after watching the film and checking Into The Woods in Wikipedia that I learned that this film was based on a musical by Stephen Sondheim.  At first I thought that Disney was pretty smart to stitch a story from different fairy tales, sort of like what was done in Shrek.  I was really surprised when I learned it was based on a musical from the 80s.  Imagine that.


I admire the creativity embedded in the plot.  Fairy tale characters meeting in the woods, each one having a different agenda.  Jack (in the beanstalk) wanted to sell his cow, the witch from Rapunzel wanted to be young again, a couple wanted to have a child, Cinderella wanted to go to the ball, Little Red Riding Hood wanted to visit her granny.  All of them crossed paths in the woods.  When I thought the story was about to end with a happy ending a new conflict began, the last thirty minutes of the movie seemed like a sequel.  I do applaud the writers of the original play.


In this review I will focus more on the performance of the actors.  Here are what I can say for each of them:

Meryl Streep as The Witch – No question that it was a good performance but does she deserve an Oscar nominee for Best Actress in a Supporting Role? Nah, I don’t think so.  1) Her role was not even supporting, she was one of the lead actors in the movie.  In my blog I decide if a role is a lead or a supporting one.  2) Her portrayal reminds me of a cross between her Mamma Mia! and Death Becomes Her characters.  She was okay in Mamma Mia! but terrible in Death Becomes Her.

Emily Blunt as The Baker’s WifeBlunt was good in this film.  I adored her when she wanted to be a mother in the film, got worried for her when she started to fall into temptation and got sad on what happened to her at the end.

James Corden as The Baker – His acting was a little gayish in the first part of the film then became more masculine in the latter part.  He reminded me of Jack Black in this movie and I think Jack Black would have been better for this role.

Anna Kendrick as Cinderella – She did not fit the role.  She sounded a little pitchy, too.  She did not even feel the role.  It almost was a lazy acting.  She was like a singing Kristen Stewart, you just don’t get too much expression on her face.

Daniel Huttlestone as Jack – This boy’s good.  I believe he is my favorite character in the film.

Lilla Crawford as Little Red Riding Hood – She was annoying at first but she sang very well so you will eventually forgiver her.

Chris Pine as Cinderella’s Prince – He was actually good in this film and he had a good singing voice, too.

Johnny Depp as The Wolf – The problem with this role for Depp was that I saw him as Johnny Depp and not The Wolf.  If I see more of the actor than the character that means it’s either bad makeup or bad acting.

Tracey Ullman as Jack’s Mother – Good.

Billy Magnussen as Rapunzel's Prince – He was okay, too.

Christine Baranski as Cinderella's Stepmother – She was perfect for this role.

MacKenzie Mauzy as Rapunzel – Why didn’t she sing in the movie?  Her character was essential to the story but seemed useless because she was the only one who did not sing.  Her character wasn't well thought of.  She cried a lot, ran away during an earthquake because she was scared (who wants to be alone during an earthquake?).  She did not even meet her brother (The Baker), there was no closure on that one.  I just didn’t grow to love her character in the film.


Fairy tales are actually gruesome stories that became child-friendly over time.  The original Rapunzel fornicated with the Prince, and her prince was blinded by the witch.  One of the original versions of Cinderella tells how the step-sister cut parts of their feet to fit the glass slipper and how the birds of Cinderella pecked their eyes for revenge.  I liked how these details were incorporated in Into The Woods it shows that the writers relied on the original fables rather than sugar-coated Disney fairy tales.  Into The Woods, just like original fairy tales, is a story for adults but became friendly when it became a Disney film.


Did I like the movie?  Yes, but not so much.  Am I going to watch it again?  Not in the near future.  Would I recommend it to you?  Yes, but don’t expect too much from this movie.


Saturday, November 21, 2015

Anchorman (2004) - All smiles and just a couple of LOLs

Review : 0002
Title : Anchorman: The Legend Of Ron Burgundy
Year : 2004
Director : Adam McKay
Country : United States
World’s Verdict : Rotten Tomatoes – 66%; IMDB – 7.2 out of 10.0.
My Verdict : 2.9 out of 5.0.


We all know that Will Ferrell is very funny.  Just thinking about Blades of Glory (2007) makes me smile, it’s one of the funniest movies I have ever watched.  Anyway, it’s time for me to judge a Ferrell film, Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy (2004).  This is my first time to watch this film, according to reviews this is a good film but somehow I beg to differ.

Characters: 

  • Ron Burgundy (Will Ferrell) - an Emmy Award-winning journalist and the main anchorman for a fictional Channel 4 News.
  • Veronica Corningstone (Christina Applegate) – an ambitious staff member who wants to become an anchor.
  • Brian Fantana (Paul Rudd) – a field reporter who thinks too much sex.
  • Brick Tamland (Steve Carell) - the stupid weatherman.
  • Champion Kind (David Koechner) – the annoying sportscaster.


Unspoiled Plot:

  • Ron Burgundy and his alpha-male newscasters holds the top spot in TV news rating.
  • The producer hires an ambitious female journalist, Veronica.  She becomes the target of sexist jokes by the rest of the alpha male newscasters.
  • Ron and Veronica start to go on romantic dates.
  • Ron fails to report for the 6 o’clock news one time.  Veronica does the job in being an anchor for that evening.
  • Veronica’s successful anchor stint triggers Ron’s jealousy and sparks a silly rivalry between them.
  • You better watch the movie to know if:
    • Veronica will become a permanent anchor
    • Veronica and Ron will continue their romantic relationship
    • Ron will retain his status as the most famous news anchor


Top Reasons Why You Should Watch Anchorman:

  • Most of the scenes will make you smile. It’s is not the type of comedy that would make you roll on the floor laughing.
  • Cameos.  The  appearances of other comedian and dramatic actors are a surprise treat.


Top Reasons Why Anchorman Is A Waste of Time:

  • It is pure silliness.  Stupid plot, moronic people, impossible settings.  Don’t get me wrong, I like this type of films, as I have mentioned I liked Blades of Glory.  But if you want to create this type of movie you should be able to make it very very funny and not just “half funny”.
  • Sex Jokes.  This is almost a sex comedy with no nudity.  It’s just not my cup of tea.
  • Steve Carrell is a flop in this film. I love Steve Carrell in the TV series The Office but not in this movie.  I think it’s his underwhelming character that made him so corny in Anchorman.  So corny that when I was watching it I dread to see his next scene and hear his next line.


Conclusion and Recommendation:

  • Did I like the film? Not really.
  • When will I watch it again?  Never, but I might watch Anchorman 2 (2013).
  • Would I recommend it for you to watch it?  No.

Let me know if you agree with me by writing on the comments section below.


East of Eden (1955) - A modern version of Cain and Abel

Review : 0001
Title : East Of Eden
Year : 1955
Director : Elia Kazan
Country : United States
World's Verdict : Rotten Tomatoes – 88%; IMDB – 8.0 out of 10.0; Academy Award – Best Supporting Actress; Cannes Film Festival – Best Dramatic Film.
My Verdict : 3.7 out of 5.0.


Lately, I love to watch films that I have already seen.  So today I did my best to expand my horizon by watching a movie that I haven’t seen yet.  I decided to watch a James Dean movie.  I like Dean, I like his acting in Rebel Without A Cause (1955) and Giant (1956) and that’s enough for me to pick East Of Eden as my movie today.  This 1955 film was directed by Elia Kazan, a director who loves to use “method actors” like Marlon Brando and James Dean.  His films include A Streetcar Named Desire (1951), On The Waterfront (1954) and Splendor In The Grass (1961).

Characters:

  • Cal Trask (James Dean) – A wayward young man who strives for the attention and respect of his father.  This guy has a lot of insecurities and issues.
  • Aron Trask (Richard Davalos) – Older brother of Cal.  A refined young man and that’s why he is favored by his father.
  • Adam Trask (Raymond Massey) – A religious father of Aron and Cal. He raised his two sons because their mother abandoned them when his children were young.
  • Abra (Julie Harris) – Girlfriend of Aron but flirts with Cal.
  • Kate (Jo Van Fleet) – Mother of Aron and Cal.  She abandoned her young children to pursue her dreams.  Ends up owning a profitable brothel.


Unspoiled Plot:

  • Cal discovers that his mother isn’t dead at all, but a rich lady who owns a brothel in another town.  He keeps this secret from his father and his brother because he knows that knowing the truth will hurt them.
  • Cal strives to impress his father by helping in the family’s business ventures.  His father is not so impressed.
  • Cal’s father lost a lot of money in his business venture.
  • Abra flirts with Cal.
  • Cal wants to impress his father so he goes to his mother to borrow money.  He uses the money to invest in a new business.
  • Abra continues to flirt with Cal.
  • You better watch the movie to know if:
    • Cal will be successful in his business
    • Cal’s father will be proud of him
    • Cal’s family will know his secret about his mother
    • Abra will continue to flirt with Cal 

Trivia:

  • East of Eden is loosely based on the second half of John Steinbeck’s 1952 novel of the same name.


Top Reasons Why You Should Watch East Of Eden:

  1. The best of James Dean.  Of the three great films of James Dean [other two are Rebel Without A Cause (1955) and Giant (1956)] this for me is his best when it comes to his acting.  I find the role emotionally draining but Dean is just right in portraying different moods of Cal, whether its paranoia, anger, sweetness, jealousy and despair.
  2. Good cinematography. Shots of the scenes are very artistic.  I love how Kazan tilted the cameras and how he played with shadows.  The shots where James Dean is on top of a moving train are classically beautiful.


Top Reason Why East Of Eden is Not a Perfect Film:

  • Julie Harris and Richard Davalos do not really shine in this movie.  They both have traces of classic Hollywood acting that I’m really not a big fan of.  I’m not sure why Kazan hired them, they don’t look like method actors to me.


Conclusion and Recommendation:
  1. Did I like the film? Yes.
  2. When will I watch it again?  Five years from now, I guess.
  3. Would I recommend it for you to watch it?  Absolutely.
Let me know if you agree with me by writing on the comments section below.