Reply to Thread

Viddy's Views

Outland (1981 Peter Hyams)



Peter Hyams seems to make very decent science-fiction pictures, and Outland is one of his top ones. You may even label him a "sci-fi" director. Of course his movies tend to be more layered than a simple genre label can describe. Outland has been described as High Noon in space, but I think that is a bit of an over-simplification. Yes the plot is similar with Sean Connery standing in for Gary Cooper as a new marshall sent to keep order on a mining operation on Jupiter's moon "I-O." Peter Boyle plays the head administrator stationed on the moon for the company and after a series of suicides and unlikely deaths Connery uncovers a plot. Boyle sends two hired-killers to stop him.
The first half of the film has some excellent build-up and atmosphere. The special effects are clunky, but for me they work in putting me in the mining station and believing that the world Hyams creates exists beyond the camera. I enjoy the subtle acting Connery employs here, which is the opposite of his arrogant and seemingly invulnerable Bond character. I will probably go so far as to say Outland is Sean Connery's best role from an acting perspective. Outland does contain several nice action scenes. The finale is servicable, though predictable. The most tense bit of the film is an extended foot-chase through the bars, operations, and corridors of the mining facility. Excellently paced and edited to follow the action. It takes place roughly an hour into the film.

Grade: B

Viddy's Views

Inception (2010, Christopher Nolan)



Dreams aren't exactly a new concept to focus a film around, and Inception is the latest of several "action idea" films to hit the screens. Dreams within dreams within dreams is a cool concept, I'll admit. A few other films that treaded down similar territory as Inception - some more alike, some less include; Total Recall, The Matrix, Dark City, and so on. Movies that deal with dreams and reality that are in less of an action vein include Vanilla Sky, The Science of Sleep, Being John Malkovich, and on and on... Why do I name drop these other films? I do so to point out that Inception is really not groundbreaking at all, and this concept has been floating around in Hollywood for several decades now. I guess I find it a bit perplexing when I read reviews or hear people discuss how groundbreaking and inovative the film is. Not really, audiences have seen this type of thing before and done much better.
The film begins with putting the audience into the action and then progresses into an extended exposition explaining the premise. Leonard DiCaprio is a thief and fugitive who steals information by putting people to sleep and then entering their dreams to extract information. Even more difficult to do is to implement rather than extract information, thus the title of the film. Cillian Murphy, one of my favorite young actors, plays Leo's target for the film for whom our protagonist must dissaude from following in his father's business.
A simple plot really, but the film would like the viewer to think it's more complicated than it really is. Of course Christopher Nolan throws in a backstory about how Leo lost his wife and now she haunts his dreams and his career and so on. This would work if there was any chemistry between the two characters of which there is not. Also there is no effort spent on developing the relationship or scenes spent on showing the two together in love aside from a couple scenes where they say they are in love. Regardless this romantic/haunting love backstory is thrown into the film for two main purposes. Number one is of course marketing and demographic based. Without this sideplot the film would be a difficult sell to females who must tag along with their boyfriends to see the film. The second reason of course is to give Leo's character a movtivation and driving force, but to show he is fallable, which gives the illusion of a three dimension character, when really his character is very thinly drawn.
Juno Hard Candy is also thrown into the film who looks a little too young and child-like for the role of a person responsible for creating a dreamworld. But she's a fresh face who will attract young audiences who would normally go see a Michael Bay film this time of year, so it was for all purposes a smart casting move. As a viewer I found it insulting that her character is let in on everything and understands more after a day or two of working with Leo than his entire crew who has been working with him for years. But that fits within the film rules because Leo's crew are secondary characters, while Juno is a primary character. Also miscast is Joseph Gordon-Levitt who plays an action role, but also looks like a little kid. For this part it calls for someone a bit more gruff.
Up until now my complaints about Inception have mainly been limited to the plot, which by the way the film breaks every rule that it builds up with the last frame. SPOILERS, but either the top will spin or it won't spin. If it spins it is a dream. If it falls it is reality. Well Nolan jerks his audience around by having it wobble and then stand up straight, clearly going for the ambiguous "let's discuss it and try to figure it out" ending. Too bad he can't stick to his own film's rules. I dare anyone who has not seen this film, but will or who will see it a subsequent time to count how many seconds each shot is held. I don't think you will get above five seconds. The camera is constantly moving and the editing is as frentic as a Michael Bay film, with no shot held to enjoy the beauty of the mise en scene. The soundtrack is stock "urgent" music and never lets up. There is very little dialogue in the film outside of exposition, and plot. There is no chemistry between any of the characters, or reason I should care about any of this.
Chris Nolan is a fine filmmaker, but clearly he has been goaded by the suits in Hollywood to make hybrid films that attract both the film snob viewer and the Michael Bay viewer. In that regard Inception is a masterpiece of marketing because it is able to attract and cater to a broad group of viewers. Memento was amazing, but Inception... ehhhh not so much. If I want a "thinking film" I'll watch one, and if I want an action film I'll watch one. I'll even watch Total Recall if I want a brilliant hybrid of the two. I'll watch Inception again if I want a headache.

Grade: D

Viddy's Views

Yes actually I did find the finalle of Dark City to be cheesy, especially with the stagey bits where Rufus Sewell is floating up in the air, but the buildup to that moment is so incredibly brilliant and the viewer wants the him to succeed in destroying this nightmarish dystopic Hell so much, that I can easily forgive those five minutes or so that are completely out of sync with the brillance of the previous 90 minutes of the film.

Viddy's Views

You didn't find Dark City's "fight scene" at the end to be painfully cheesy?

But yes, I agree about the pacing of Watchmen. The graphic novel should've been a mini-series instead of a film -- it's too much.

Viddy's Views

Nice review I would give it a C too

Viddy's Views

Watchmen (2009, Zach Snyder)



"From the director of 300" doesn't mean much to me, as I thought 300 was a boring testosterone-fest which holds little appeal for people over 16, but it did have some nice Sin City emulating style and flair. If they label Snyder's next flick as from the director of Watchmen, I would be even less impressed.
There's several things wrong with this movie. The first is starting off with Bob Dylan's "The Times, They Are a Changin." It adds a bit of seriousness to a comic book film, which is hard to take serious and lacks any fun. When comic book films try to be overly dramatic and meaningful, they generally fail with a few exceptions of course. (Dark City) And the running time of the film is far too long. This may be to stay faithful to the source material, but written works (even comic books) are not films and do not always transition well. Pacing is very important and Watchmen tries to do too much. It is an ensemble film, as no one character is the main focus, but it tells the story poorly. Instead of having several minute long scenes going back and forth between characters such as an Altman or P.T. Anderson ensemble, Watchmen will focus 30 minutes on a character and then drop them to focus 30 mintues on the next character. This makes the film incoherent and difficult to get into. Sure the special effects are nice. I enjoyed some of the gore and blood-letting. Ending is OK, but I don't understand the point of moving back to NYC if it is destroyed. I did enjoy the human elements of all the characters. I thought the alternative reality with Nixon as president was clever and a tad fascinating, but not enough to keep me distracted from the horrible pacing.

Grade: C-

Viddy's Views

The weather was nice, but it seems like we skipped fall. It went from 70's to the 40's in just a week with not much between. So summer and then winter. We already had our first snow.

The job is going well, though busy since I'm coaching debate and speech now and I'm still trying to figure out what I'm doing with both.

Hancock is not a movie I'd normally go out of my way to watch, but with Netflix streaming over my 360 it makes it very easy. And I try to watch all kinds of films, indie, classic, or mainstream.

One film I love which may come as a surprise is Step Brothers.

Viddy's Views

Forrest Gump (1994, Robert Zemeckis)



Of course this film is a modern classic. Is has a star, stellar pacing, instantly quotable. I regard Forrest Gump as an entertaining romp through the 60's greatest hits, but of course I wasn't alive back then so I'm sure the film failed to resonate with me on a nostalgic level as it has done with many others. I don't really need to bother with the story. Yes, it's the ultimate "tard-card" Oscar bait picture. I don't think the story is as political as some might make it out to be. Naturally no one human, especially a mentally challenged human would accomplish what Forrest did given his circumstances. I don't read the film as an after school special claiming that if a retard can do this, imagine what a normal person can do! Rather I see the plot device of having the main character as retarded serve to explemplify his innocence and naiveity to the harsh world around him whether it be the Civil Rights movement, AIDS, of the Vietnam War.
Yes the film works, but I would say it's shallow and slightly gimmicky. The film follows the same structure as an infinitely better film, Little Big Man. Whereas that film has heart and a point, Forrest Gump's message gets muffled and by taking the viewer through the 60's greatest hits, the viewer tends to forget how little story there really is. The best parts of the film are clearly the scenes in Vietnam and those involving Lieutenant Dan (Gary Sinese). It seems to me that the TV show "The Wonder Years" did the same thing with the nostalgic voice over narration vibe, but to much better effect and "The Wonder Years" had characters I cared for. So does Forrest Gump, ala the title character, Lt. Dan, and to a lesser degree Jenny. The rest were basically props.

Grade: B-

Viddy's Views

I don't mean to say that you make up your mind in advance about every film. I just thought that Hancock was a weird film for you to watch, let alone go out of your way to watch. Yes, we love The Incredibles, so that's cool. I'm not trying to make any personal attacks, but it's kinda fun to interract again after so long, so forgive me if it seems like I'm being an ass instead of making interesting or pertinent comments. I'm pretty sure you do want comments though, don't you?

How's the weather in Iowa? I'm serious. How's the job?

Viddy's Views

Thanks Viddy I am a Star Trek tragic