Saturday, April 21, 2012
But there is a difference in the two world's. In the Ozarks the poverty was brought on by dis-functional people clinging to a way of life that should have long ago passed in to history. In Panem the poverty was a conscious decision by those in power to keep down the members of the 12 slave districts.
Is the movie too far fetched? Could there ever really be a world like this? Looking at modern society we see shows like Survivor, Big Brother and Jerry Springer where the audience cheer for their favorites and hope the losers will get embarrassed on national TV.
The parallels to the world of the Coliseum in ancient Rome also are brought to the forefront by the movie. How could 50,000 spectators cheer as people battle to the death or were torn apart by wild animals? But then again how can we explain the Holocaust, or Pol Pot, or Stalin, or Hiroshima, or Idi Amin?
I liked this movie. I think it has the possibility of opening up intelligent discussions with young people about history and about current world affairs. I think the one thing that we have learned from history is that humans are capable of anything, and this is a good movie to remind us of that.
I don;t think Roger like it as much as i did. He gave it 3 stars but he said "The Hunger Games is an effective entertainment, and Jennifer Lawrence is strong and convincing in the central role. But the film leapfrogs obvious questions in its path, and avoids the opportunities sci-fi provides for social criticism; compare its world with the dystopias in Gattaca or The Truman Show. Director Gary Ross and his writers (including the series' author, Suzanne Collins) obviously think their audience wants to see lots of hunting-and-survival scenes, and has no interest in people talking about how a cruel class system is using them. Well, maybe they're right. But I found the movie too long and deliberate as it negotiated the outskirts of its moral issues."
I understand what Roger is saying, but I think that this movie presents enough issues to get young people thinking about history, and poverty and the world in which we live.
Monday, October 11, 2010
There are so many things I like about this movie. In the way the days just unfold it reminds me of the day in Spike Lee's Do the Right Thing. But it is even more realistic than that. It almost looks like someone's home movies. The film is grainy and the scenes are true. The movie is well worth watching just for the music alone.
Killer of Sheep is to 1977 Watts what Rome : Open City or Germany Year Zero were to Rome or Berlin in the 1940's. It is a neorealistic look at a society with all the glamour stripped away. But unlike those societies, which were the result of the World War, the society portrayed in Killer of Sheep, is the result of the complex historical and societal events that led up to it.
There probably isn't much of a market for great movies like this. The people who are going through this kind of life want to escape from it, not be reminded of it, and others don't want to admit that it exists. However, the critically acclaimed movies of Ramin Bahrani, (Chop Shop, Goodbye Solo and Man Push Cart) do have the style and feel of Killer of Sheep.
A fascinating movie, really well done movie. Another great pick from Roger.
Sunday, October 10, 2010
The normal things that occur in Leolo's life are not examined, but every bizarre thought that crosses his mind is thoroughly dissected.
The movie is very well done and has an excellent film score. The music is as bizarre as the scenes it complements.
I know that this movie was really well done, and beautifully composed by a very talented writer, but it just made me feel too uncomfortable. But, for those who are a lot more twisted, and enjoy bathroom style humor, Leolo could become one of their "Great Movies."
Saturday, October 9, 2010
Friday, October 8, 2010
To me, the movie was just OK, definitely not great. Bruce Dern 's acting was great, however. One thing that bothered me was that in the voice over they made it seem like Kevin was mentally impaired. He came off as a simpleton as he talked about himself.
The plot also moved along very slowly, although I did enjoy watching Bruce Dern, Jason Patric and Rachel Ward eat up the scenes.
I love noir, and this was a good attempt at neo-noir, but overall the whole thing was just OK for me. Well worth seeing, but great? Not in my book.
Thursday, October 7, 2010
But I have found someone he likes even more - Jason Patric. I was watching a movie from 1990 that Roger had added to his Great Movies list, After Dark, My Sweet. I thought it was a pretty good movie. But great? No way. Just OK. It has a 6.5 on IMDB and it isn't even on Metacritics.
Roger had also given another Jason Partric movies, Speed 2, which was one of the worst movies ever made, a rating of 88.
So I started looking at some of Jason Patric's other movies from the last 15 years and found out Roger really likes Jason.
|Movie||Metacritic Rating||Roger's Rating|
|The Losers (2010)||44||88|
|My Sister's Keeper (2009)||51||88|
|In the Valley of Elah(2007)||65||100|
|The Alamo (2004)||47||88|
|Your Friends & Neighbors (1998)||70||100|
|Speed 2 (1997)||23||88|
Thursday, September 2, 2010
What is Roger talking about? The last thirteen movies he has made have been pretty weak. The highest rating on Metacritics was Grace is Gone with a 65. Roger gave Serendipity 1 1/2 stars. He gave Martian Child, Must Love Dogs and America's Sweethearts 2 stars. These were part of the "remarkable run?"
In 2000 John Cusack made High Fidelity , which had a 79 rating. I love that movie. But the ones since? A "remarkable run"? I think not.
|Movie||Metacritic Average Score||Roger's Score|
|Hot Tub Time Machine||63||75|
|Grace is Gone||65||75|
|The Ice Harvest||62||75|
|Must Love Dogs||46||50|
- 1 1/2 Eberts
If you are going to make a bad movie please keep it short. This disaster of a movie went on for 158 minutes. I was really cheering for the world to end much, much sooner.
I very seldom see a movie with this low of a rating on IMDB (5.9), but Roger gave it 3 1/2 stars so I figured I had to see it.
I like sci-fi and I especially like apocalyptic movies. I also really like John Cusack, so I was hoping to like this movie, but I didn't. It was slow and boring.
In his review Roger said : "This is fun. 2012 delivers what it promises, and since no sentient being will buy a ticket expecting anything else, it will be, for its audiences, one of the most satisfactory films of the year. It even has real actors in it. Like all the best disaster movies, it's funniest at its most hysterical. You think you've seen end-of-the-world movies? This one ends the world, stomps on it, grinds it up and spits it out."
I know I can't get my 158 minutes back, but I wasn't satisfied and I think Roger owes me a $1 for the money I spent at Redbox.
Monday, August 23, 2010
I've never been entertained by gross out humor and this movie is filled with it. There were a few clever things, but far too few to make this worth while viewing.
Roger said in his review : "I wasn't disappointed. This is a step or two below The Hangover, but occupying similar turf. It's another guy picture, which is like a buddy picture, except usually without cops. The guys bond, they seek to relive their misspent youth, there are women and even wives around, but they're strictly in supporting roles."
I agree that it is a couple steps below The Hangover, but both of them probably appeal to the same audience that would follow "The Jersey Shore" or the "Kardashians." Sophomoric, silly and poorly written.
A similarly themed movie, which is much, much, much better is Pleasantville. Intelligent, well written and witty- everything this movie is not. Even if you've already seen Pleasantville skip this movie and watch Pleasantville again.
P.S. Don Knotts is much funnier than Chevy Chase