|
Post by lorelei on Oct 30, 2012 18:01:17 GMT -8
Have a movie you love? Hate? Want to snark the shit out of? Well, here's the place to do so! Just be constructive in your review; instead of saying "this movie sucks", say "this movie sucks because x y z". XD
Enjoy!
For the record, I'll mostly be doing movies currently in theatres.
|
|
|
Post by Jack on Oct 30, 2012 18:12:18 GMT -8
And so Crane Reviews was reborn.
|
|
|
Post by lorelei on Oct 30, 2012 18:19:33 GMT -8
ARGO (2012)
Directed by: Ben Affleck
Starring: Ben Affleck, Bryan Cranston, John Goodman.
Rating: 4.5 out of 5
Official Synopsis (courtesy of IMDB): In 1979, the American embassy in Iran was invaded by Iranian revolutionaries and several Americans are taken hostage. However, six manage to escape to the official residence of the Canadian Ambassador and the CIA is eventually ordered to get them out of the country. With few options, exfiltration expert Tony Mendez devises a daring plan: to create a phony Canadian film project looking to shoot in Iran and smuggle the Americans out as its production crew. With the help of some trusted Hollywood contacts, Mendez creates the ruse and proceeds to Iran as its associate producer. However, time is running out with the Iranian security forces closing in on the truth while both his charges and the White House have grave doubts about the operation themselves.
Yup, exactly what it says on the tin. I'm not going to bother exploring the plot because a) I don't want to spoil the movie for anyone who hasn't seen it yet, and b) the above synopsis is basically explains the entire premise of the movie.
This film is incredibly well made, which is surprising coming from something written and directed by Ben Affleck, aka He-Who-Is-Only-Ever-In-Romantic-Comedies-Or-Shitty-Action-Films. The cinematography is crisp, the storyline well constructed, and it's nearly impossible to tell the difference between what actually happened and what was Hollywood-ized. Also, major props for the movie actually being able to build tension to edge-of-your-seat levels, even though the audience already knows the six fugitives made it out because it's based on a real CIA mission. It's entertaining, and has the perfect balance of drama (everything shot in Iran) and comedy (everything that happens in Hollywood), and a surprisingly dry and at times positively snarky script.
My only main gripe about this movie is the acting, especially the six fugitives and Affleck himself. There was no distinguishing difference between the fugitives; hell, I can't even remember who's who and I just saw it two days ago. They have essentially no personality traits, instead relying on character types, namely "the asshole", "the loyal wife", "the worrywort", and "the smart chick". I couldn't even tell you what the other two were because they had little to no lines and/or individualized screen time. Also, Affleck's performance is incredibly wooden. I get that he's trying to be the tall dark and brooding CIA agent who just wants to get these people out of Iran, but there really isn't anything to his character besides being determined as hell. Sure, he snarks occasionally, and the screenwriter tried to make him a bit more human by showing his connection to his son to tie in with the plot, but I felt that he was more man than machine.
Anyway, acting annoyances aside, I highly recommend this film!
|
|
|
Post by lorelei on Oct 30, 2012 18:19:58 GMT -8
And so Crane Reviews was reborn. Yes. Yes it is. XD
|
|
|
Post by clove on Oct 30, 2012 19:09:14 GMT -8
Oh Hell I'm going to have to spam you guys now with weird ass movies. I feel like I've been challenged. The glove has been thrown. The compulsion to post reviews will be too strong to resist now.
I can't apologize in advance, 'cause it'll really be all you fault.
|
|
|
Post by lorelei on Oct 30, 2012 19:12:54 GMT -8
THE PERKS OF BEING A WALLFLOWER (2012)
Directed by: Stephen Chbosky (who also wrote the novel and screenplay. Go figure.)
Starring: Logan Lerman, Hermoine Emma Watson, and Ezra Miller.
Rating: .5 out of 5
Official Synopsis (courtesy of IMDB): Based on the novel written by Stephen Chbosky, this is about 15-year-old Charlie (Logan Lerman), an endearing and naive outsider, coping with first love (Emma Watson), the suicide of his best friend, and his own mental illness while struggling to find a group of people with whom he belongs. The introvert freshman is taken under the wings of two seniors, Sam and Patrick, who welcome him to the real world.
What. The. F***.
I just got home from seeing this movie, and words cannot describe how absolutely terrible it is. I'm starting to think Bella Swan from Twilight came to life and wrote this screenplay, because it is nothing but a whiny, bitchy, and just quite frankly depressing plot with equally abysmal dialogue and downright atrocious acting!
So, first things first. The plot, if I can dare to call it that:
Charlie is your stereotypical teenager who is entering his first year of the evil thing known as high school. As the clichè demands, because he is smart he is automatically deemed "the nerd" and viciously harassed by every upperclassman in the entire bloody school. The only solace he gets during the day is seeing a senior, Patrick, who's stuck in a Freshman-level Woodshop class for some inexplicable reason and is about as straight as a swirly lollipop, imitating the teacher before said teacher-- You guessed it!-- walks in behind him and glares at him before speaking up. Charlie, our "hero" and by far the best actor in this entire damn movie, mentally notes that he feels that Patrick did that to make the Freshman feel more welcome. Never mind the fact that Patrick clearly has it out for the teacher and just simply does not like the guy.
And things just get worse from here. Now, Charlie is repeatedly mentioned to have been in the hospital. And, to make things more entertaining, you never actually find out why through the entire movie! About three different possible reasons are hinted at, none of which is clarified at all. But, the kid clearly has issues. Personally, I thought it was schizophrenia through most of the movie, but I think they wanted it to go more along the lines of PTSD. *le shrug*
Then, during the Homecoming dance, about a good half hour into this bloody train wreck of a movie, Charlie becomes best buddies with Patrick and his step-sister, Sam, and he instantly develops a huge crush on her. And things just keep going... Hell I'm not even going to explain the rest of the plot because IT IS JUST THAT TERRIBLE. SERIOUSLY. HOW THE HELL DID THIS MOVIE GET PRODUCED?!?!?
I guess this movie was supposed to be a "coming of age" story. But, it fails miserably. It isn't funny, it isn't heartwarming, it's overly dramatic, and the acting is GOD AWFUL. From what I've read, this is Chbosky's first directing venture. And good god does it show. The acting is completely unnatural, the lines are delivered like it was part of a line read, and some of the character choices are quite frankly obnoxious and unneeded. The only redeeming part about this film is that it's technically well-shot and well-lit. That's really about it.
So yeah, avoid this film at all costs. It's a waste of time and money.
|
|
|
Post by Jack on Oct 30, 2012 19:50:05 GMT -8
Silent Hill : Revelation
Okay, beware as SPOILERS follow. MKAY, THANKS BYE. So, the new Silent Hill thingamajigger. Overview, it was incredibly alright. Very average. We are talking stupendously mediocre. Not bad, per say, but nothing to write home about. Or to really write a review about, but I felt like wasting time, so why not.
Let's start on a high note, and I don't mean drugs, though several of the characters appeared to be on some pretty wicked stuff. Then again, Silent Hill. The place kind of does that to a person. Wait, shit, this is supposed to be a high note. OKAY. Well this is a sequel, not a remake like I originally thought. Which was surprising, considering that the original pretty well wrapped things up. WAIT, HIGH NOTE, BLAST IT ALL. Give me a moment, I can do this. Okay. WELL, the dad from the last movie was the dad in this movie, which was rather cool. Also, apparently Sharon got cute when she got older, who'd have thought. And on to the rest of the review.
So the story begins with a rather attractive young woman in the middle of a dilapidated traveling carnevil, erm, carnival, which you just KNOW will end well. After a wonderful fire show we see some goth girl with poorly done makeup growling angrily, and then it was all a dream. We then see dad, who has now changed his name to Harry Mason as a poke of fun to fans of the games. Apparently Sharon is no longer Sharon, but has changed her name to Heather. She also apparently is suffering from amnesia, and she and her dad are on the run from the cops for whatever reason. But now I'm getting into detail, and there's a lot to cover. ANYWAY. So we follow Sheather to school, where we find out that she is in the running for the all-time champ of melodrama contest. Despite this, some random fellow decides to latch onto her. Shenanigans ensue, and we're on our way to Silent Hill with a guy who randomly decides he is now infatuated with Sheather. Watch the movie to see just how ridiculous this is, I cannot accurately describe it without going into detail. ANYWAY. So we are now in Silent Hill. I swear that at least one person we see in the town was someone who died quite horribly in the original. We briefly meet Dahlia who explains the previous movie for those who didn't see it, then we never see her again. And then the darkness comes and the town is transformed. However, unlike the previous movie, the town stays this way for the rest of the film. Which kind of sucks, in my opinion. It's just not as scary when it's there constantly. Then comes an asylum, which doesn't give me much material to work with as it was rather dull. Moving past that, we find out who exactly little miss goth is, and you can really appreciate her poor makeup job. Sheather then proceeds to defeat an embodiment of rage and evil using the power of love. I shit you not. She wins the battle because she loves her dad a lot. SO THAT JUST HAPPENED. Onwards to the ending, which makes very little sense and was probably just thrown together for fanboys to fangasm over (let's just say it involves Red Pyramid and a swordfight). And then it just kind of ends and we leave with two 18 year olds hitch-hiking across the country with no plans for the future.
So this was a movie that was aimed at fans who wanted to see another movie in the series without caring much for how good it was. The plot isn't very good, the visual effects at the beginning weren't very well done, and I have no clue who thought teenage goth girl was a good idea. On the plus side, dad was in it, girl was cute, Vince had a snappy dress sense, aaaaand...well, it's a movie. I'll be honest, I greatly enjoyed the first one, so I went into this one excited as f*** expecting an awesome film. I was disappointed.
Verdict : This movie get's the Big Ehh. If you're bored and want to see a movie, this is indeed a movie. Feel free to burn a few hours.
|
|
|
Post by clove on Oct 30, 2012 19:59:06 GMT -8
Little Monsters (1989)Why you should watch it: it’s fucked up, it’s all on Youtube, Maurice and The Boy are worth your time. It’s rushed/drawn out in inappropriate places and dreadfully cheesy and just awful in that way that makes it a such great movie to watch with a dark lager or two glasses of white wine and at three AM. The movie was not intended to be taken seriously and that's part of its charm/fucked-up-ness. Howie Mandel as Maurice is charismatic and lovable even if you don’t get off on the monstrous make-up and the horns like I do. You'll wish he'd crawl out from under your bed to be your buddy in no time. That's really all there is to say on him. Howie Mandel and Fred Savage. (Hussie took inspiration from Maurice for his Trolls.) Anyway, it’s supposed to be a kid’s movie but the whole thing has these undertones that leave you feeling disturbed. The premise is that a child meets the monster that lives under his bed (Maurice) and then gets introduced to the underworld-like place underneath all children’s beds. All the monsters were once children like the main character once upon a time and they are forever bound to live there and they get their kicks by being unruly and fucking over human children. Frank Whaley as The Boy. (He needs a hug and I'd like to volunteer.) The Boy (or just Boy) is the master, the head honcho, the delightfully oppressive lord of these pitiful monsters. The Boy is a jaded Peter Pan and helps cement all those uncomfortable niggling feelings you’ve been having in the back of your mind while watching this shit. You find out with The Boy that this movie isn’t about lame pranks and pissing in someone’s apple juice, it’s about the corruption of innocence. Long after it gets unveiled that they were once children that either chose to or got tricked into becoming permanent residences of The Boy’s realm, the still human children barrel through immediately attacking the monsters who had nothing to do with The Boy’s ploy and who only ran screaming from the little shits. The human children do not hesitate in their quest to be the good guys and the movie doesn’t seem to acknowledge that what just happened was wrong and that’s why that bit was disturbing. If the movie wanted to show innocence being corrupted, they would have done things a lot better and this movie would have been worse for it. The fact that they were going for a cheesy kids’ comedy is what makes the movie so amazingly fucked up. Of course, The Boy really did a number and made sure all this shit I’m saying is not just speculation or me stretching. The role was small, but the actor was surprisingly phenomenal. He’s got that strained dramatic flair at first that makes it obvious he’s not grown up but trying to mimic an adult and when he gets rejected he is noticeably holding back from crying and lashing out. The Boy is dressed in a very old fashion school uniform and he spits out the word Teachers more vehemently than the word Parents—and from that we can easily construct the whole damn backstory for this unnamed character and that it just impressive. He's probably in less than ten minutes of the whole movie and we know more about him than Maurice. But, yeah, the actual kid actors (who are what, seven?) were just terrible and that really didn't help the bad directing and editing. Howie Mandel and Frank Whaley were both adults at the time (so I'm not a pedophile concerning my love for The Boy) and they did a really great job despite everything else being really poorly done.
|
|
|
Post by lorelei on Nov 13, 2012 16:47:40 GMT -8
SKYFALL (2012)
Directed by: Sam Mendez:
Starring: Daniel Craig, (Dame) Judi Dench, Javier Bardem, Ralph Fiennes
Rating: 5 out of 5
Official Synopsis (courtesy of IMDB): Bond's mission is to keep a computer drive that has a list of British agents from being used against them. He chases the man who has it and they have a brawl on top of a train. Eve, an agent sent to assist Bond has them in her cross hairs but hesitates to take the shot because she might hit Bond but M orders her to take it. She does, and hits Bond who falls into the river and is believed to be dead. A few months later, the British government is upset with MI6 for losing the list; specifically with M. She is told that she'll be allowed to retire but she refuses to leave till the matter is resolved. So she returns to HQ to work on it but as she arrives, there's an explosion. In the meantime, Bond, who is not dead, has been laying low. When he learns of what happened, he returns. And M tasks him with finding the one who has the information. He eventually learns that the man who has it, is someone from M's past and who has it in for her.
*Cue Bond Theme* The latest installment in the Bond series is definitely nothing to sneeze at. For M's sake, you have Bond (supposedly) getting killed IN THE FIRST FIVE MINUTES OF THE MOVIE. And it is AWESOME. For the record, this review is going to be spoiler-free (as best as I can anyway), so I'll try not to go into the plot too much.
Anyway, SKYFALL has definitely succeeded where prior Bond movies have failed. Bond himself has gotten himself knocked down quite a few pegs, going from the super suave agent with incredibly improbable aiming skills to a drunkard who can barely hit the broadside of a barn, adding more realism to his character and making him incredibly sympathetic (while also managing to get snarkier, akin to Sean Connery). The Bond villain this time around, Silva (Javier Bardem) is absolutely terrifying at times; seriously, think of Heath Ledger's Joker but a computer hacking genius who desperately wants revenge. Oh yeah. M actually gets off her ass and does something in the field instead of just snarking (!!!), and VOLDEMORT IS IN THIS MOVIE. HOW MUCH BETTER CAN IT GET?!?
Ahem...
Fangirling aside, the plot is riveting. It is suspenseful from the moment MI6 gets blown sky high (again, not spoilers! This is within the first ten minutes of the film!), and you can practically hear the clock ticking as the cast searches for a way to stop Silva from killing more people and blowing more shit up. Also, it has tons of plot twists to keep even the most knowledgeable Bond fan on his/her toes. The cinematography is absolutely beautiful, taking just the right amount of time on shots while painting stunning images, with great uses of locations and light and shadows. And the score is fantastic, pulling in faint echoes of the main 007 theme every now and again, while not pulling attention away from the film. Also, Adele's song Skyfall for this movie is just the perfect mix of a haunting melody and meaningful lyrics. No wonder it topped the chart the very day it came out!!
If you're a Bond-fan, then you're going to have a field day for the sheer amount of call backs and shout out that are peppered throughout the movie. From lines to actual props (the iconic Aston Martin with the guns behind the headlights and ejector seat is back in action, baby!!), there are plenty of "I see wut u did thar!!" moments to enjoy! I personally haven't seen too many Bond films (which I really need to do, btw...), but even I caught a few of the references.
All in all, this is a MUST SEE!!! Seriously, get your butts out there and see this puppy!
|
|
|
Post by clove on Dec 1, 2012 0:16:45 GMT -8
Melancholia (2011)Why? Because Kristen Dunst has perfect boobs. They're just the right size and color, you know? So, I would not recommend this movie to any of you. Maybe Owl if he's being morose or had a couple of beers. I don't know the rest of your lot to be more specific. Fuck, you're pretty much strangers. Anyway. This movie is very tense and intelligent. You need some observational skills and a cynical outlook to pick up on what's all really happening. I'm not saying that to imply the rest of you don't, but... it's a very British drama, okay? It's great. In the movie this planet (Melancholia) is passing by Earth and had been hiding behind the sun. It's not a realistic explanation at all, but as the movie is not an actual sci fi genre work, I think we can over look that and the countless (seriously, countless) technical flaws. This movie is actually a sad drama. So, I had the TV playing when I was being the miserable sod I am and staring at pictures on my phone when I heard Charlotte Gainsbourg sobbing--like completely broken down sobbing. So, obviously I put my phone down and rewinded to the beginning of whatever the TV was playing, which happened to be Melancholia. Out of pure coincidence, I was already in the right frame of mind to be watching this movie. Melancholia is not something you watch unless you're in a very thoughtful and sad mood. It's not a quirky sci fi drama, it's just human life and it ending. When Kristen Dunst is... I don't know, fondling herself naked outside while staring at their impending doom, you have to be able to move from the WTF expression and catch on to everything. It's a fucking off movie. I think you people would hate it. I'm going to be looking for a physical copy, though. It didn't have an amazing impact on me or anything, but it felt overall pretty. It's still fucking weird and not fun to watch, but I guess that's what i liked about it. It felt a lot like Never Let Me Go (2010) which, if no one has seen, I recommend locking yourselves in a small dark room and watching it without any distractions whatsoever. It's the same sort of British movie with a small sci fi element that while being very important is not the main focus. (Only this movie could actually happen since humans are dicks, while Melancholia is just ridiculous with it's shiny blue planet.) So, if you look at any summery of Melancholia it'll mention the wedding and the sisters' strained relationship. I don't know if that's really a good way to try to pitch the movie. Really, it's a movie about two sisters' lives being shit, getting shittier, and about the world ending. There's a scene where Charlotte Gainsbourg checks the stick with the wire to see if the planet is getting closer or farther. It's getting closer. She then makes breakfast and has her son and sister sit on the terrace to eat. Gainsbourg sits there awkwardly watching them, she tries to, but she jumps up and grabs the stick with the wire again and shakily gets into place to check on the planet's progress. And. Just. Shit. It's so, so much closer all of a sudden. And this was where I had originally turned my attention to the movie. She freaks. She picks up her son and rushes to the car. It won't start, so she gets into the truck. That also won't start. She is whimpering and sobbing and grabs her son again and gets in the golf cart. Getting as far the fuck away as possible is all she can think about even though it's useless. She ends up just running on foot while carrying her son who seems to have caught on that, you know, mommy went bat shit crazy and that it would be best for him to stay quiet. At first I was thinking maybe it was bad acting on his part, but then there's a later scene where the kid is just staring at their yard, at the horse his father had supposedly taken to go to the village. He doesn't start screaming questions or crying, he just stares at the horse and then when his aunt comes over and he says "Dad says there's nothing to do then. Nowhere to hide." and Kristen Dunst goes yeah, but, let's put up a front that we have a way of being safe because you're too young to really be addressing the death of absolutely everything. I felt like the kid during the entire movie in truth. I had a vague idea of how it would all turn out and I couldn't think of any real objections to it or even excitement for when it would happen. I remember watching Sanctum (2011) and I was moaning and jumping up to move closer to my TV screen when the chick's scalp was ripping off her skull. There is no reason why I shouldn't have been just thrilled to bits at seeing our world die such a violent death as colliding with another planet. For some reason I couldn't form any opinion or emotion about it until half way through the closing credits. It was pretty. That was what I had decided about the ending. I didn't get a thrill out of it or anything and I'm still kinda surprised about that. "Life is only on earth, and not for long." -Justine, Kristen Dunst's character. In the end, I say if you see this is playing, just switch to a different channel. Go watch some Disney cartoons and laugh at some joke and just enjoy your evening. Okay? Don't put yourself through watching a bunch of famous actors do an excellent job of acting like real, miserable people. Or better, if you want to be properly sad, go watch Never Let Me Go (2010) instead of Melancholia (2011).
|
|
|
Post by clove on Dec 1, 2012 3:26:55 GMT -8
Excision (2012)
Seriously. Who was waiting for this? I have to do this.
I have to talk about it.
I have to talk about Excision.
Richard Bates, Jr wrote and directed it.
AnnaLynne McCord plays Pauline.
It's beautiful. Orgasmic. It was made for psychopaths like me.
Pauline wants to be a surgeon. Her younger sister has Cystic Fibrosis (shitty lungs, they don't last long). Pauline is lovely and delusional.
You should watch Excision. Now.
It was a year ago I think when it was mentioned on Bloody Disgusting that the final cut version was coming. I'd heard about the 2008 version on Fear but I hadn't actually watched it. Hearing about a lengthier version being put out sold me. Also, whoever runs the FB page mentioned early in the year that Walmart refused to sell the DVD due to the content. It's not really... that bad.
IMDb: "A disturbed and delusional high school student with aspirations of a career in medicine goes to extremes to earn the approval of her controlling mother."
It's listed as a horror due to the content. It's not horror, though, and the gore is hot. All I knew about the movie before watching was the review on Bloody Disgusting mentioning the psychosexual fantasies concerning graphic surgery--so I was horribly excited. I was planning to masturbate to the movie in retrospect. I was expecting it to be pure shock value with all the crap the movie has been getting, but it wasn't at all the pure gore fucks I was ready to enjoy. There's still some hot scenes in there, so don't think it was disappointing, it's just the movie was really well written it turns out. It was touching, I think.
This is one of my favorite movies even though it makes me feel like I'm probably as crazy as Pauline for getting off on the same shit she does apparently. I know I usually go for awfully sad movies, but this had great energy. I mean, I love the sad movies but I don't want to watch them over and over again. Excision has made my list, though.
This movie and Ginger Snaps (2000) are my loop movies. I can watch them on repeat for days. (You now know my plans for my birthday: I'm going to watch these movies over and over in the dark and drink a sixty dollar bottle of Riesling.)
Okay. I'll go back to my own board now and I'll be a creepy insomniac over there.
|
|