After leaving The Bourne Ultimatum a few days ago, someone said, “That was the same as Shooter.” Then it clicked – Matt Damon and Mark Wahlberg are two sides of the same coin – their projects ALWAYS mirror each other (see right). Well, almost always. This is not the first time two rising Hollywood stars have churned out similar projects, but this time seemed to be TOO similar. But just like any other “product” one is better than the other, one is the established “name brand”, while the other is the latecomer, the “generic brand”. So I decided to run down through the films and see who the real McCoy was, and who the pretender was.
Continue reading this article at SaltyStix.
Wednesday, August 8, 2007
Tuesday, August 7, 2007
The Fountain...springing forth
The Fountain - Darren Aronofsky - 2006 - 9/10
Summary:
This summary likely won't do The Fountain justice, but here goes. The movie intersperses three stories which I ultimately decided (you could come to another conclusion) that one was reality, one was a dream, and one was a story. In the end, which was which is mildly debatable. So the first one follows Tommy (Hugh Jackman), a doctor looking for an experimental cure for tumors, in the hope he will find a cure for his wife, Izzy (Rachel Weisz). The second one follows a hairless Hugh Jackman piloting a nebulous orb incasing himself and a tree that he is steering torward a dying star. The third one follows a conquistador, again Jackman, who's unshakable loyalty to the Queen of Spain, again Weisz, sends him to the lands of the Mayas in search of the tree of life. Each story looks to take place 1000 years apart from each other, but all three stories share one thing - Weisz is Jackman's everything.
Critique:
This movie was really powerful. I'm new to Aronofsky's genius - I haven't seen Pi or Requiem (I know, I know, I'm working on it). Beyond calling the movie "powerful" its tough about where to go from there. It's Aronofsky's show through and through - he wrote the script, wrote the story, directed it, even had his girlfriend play the lead female role. I guess I can go from there. Rachel Weisz is GREAT. She shows real acting chops that really distances her from the drudge she had to dish out in The Mummy movies. She has the same sort of inner confident sadness with the outward optimism that we see in The Constant Gardener - playing a somewhat similar, less metaphysically charged role. Jackman is no slouch either - playing three roles that take us to the edge of each possible character - a high tempered, pigheaded doctor, a deeply calm buddhist?, and a loyal but solemn conquistador. Each role is given the same dedication and the same reality. Jackman's facial features are especially endearing as we can feel all of his sadness, all of his frustration. To top it all off Aronofsky makes the movie look very classy - everything is beautiful, and it's easy to understand why. A little imdb background revealed that Aronofsky shunned CGI for micro photography of chemical reactions in petri dishes. The result is something that is truly masterful art that makes a huge difference in creating an atmosphere that is leaps and bounds different than what we would have seen with CGI. So I was clearly blown away by the movie - but I will say - the movie probably needs to be watched a few times so you can really appreciate it (probably like Aronofsky's other movies I hear).
Verdict:
Buy it (multiple viewings).
If you liked this movie, see...
...Pi
...Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind
...Solaris
Summary:
This summary likely won't do The Fountain justice, but here goes. The movie intersperses three stories which I ultimately decided (you could come to another conclusion) that one was reality, one was a dream, and one was a story. In the end, which was which is mildly debatable. So the first one follows Tommy (Hugh Jackman), a doctor looking for an experimental cure for tumors, in the hope he will find a cure for his wife, Izzy (Rachel Weisz). The second one follows a hairless Hugh Jackman piloting a nebulous orb incasing himself and a tree that he is steering torward a dying star. The third one follows a conquistador, again Jackman, who's unshakable loyalty to the Queen of Spain, again Weisz, sends him to the lands of the Mayas in search of the tree of life. Each story looks to take place 1000 years apart from each other, but all three stories share one thing - Weisz is Jackman's everything.
Critique:
This movie was really powerful. I'm new to Aronofsky's genius - I haven't seen Pi or Requiem (I know, I know, I'm working on it). Beyond calling the movie "powerful" its tough about where to go from there. It's Aronofsky's show through and through - he wrote the script, wrote the story, directed it, even had his girlfriend play the lead female role. I guess I can go from there. Rachel Weisz is GREAT. She shows real acting chops that really distances her from the drudge she had to dish out in The Mummy movies. She has the same sort of inner confident sadness with the outward optimism that we see in The Constant Gardener - playing a somewhat similar, less metaphysically charged role. Jackman is no slouch either - playing three roles that take us to the edge of each possible character - a high tempered, pigheaded doctor, a deeply calm buddhist?, and a loyal but solemn conquistador. Each role is given the same dedication and the same reality. Jackman's facial features are especially endearing as we can feel all of his sadness, all of his frustration. To top it all off Aronofsky makes the movie look very classy - everything is beautiful, and it's easy to understand why. A little imdb background revealed that Aronofsky shunned CGI for micro photography of chemical reactions in petri dishes. The result is something that is truly masterful art that makes a huge difference in creating an atmosphere that is leaps and bounds different than what we would have seen with CGI. So I was clearly blown away by the movie - but I will say - the movie probably needs to be watched a few times so you can really appreciate it (probably like Aronofsky's other movies I hear).
Verdict:
Buy it (multiple viewings).
If you liked this movie, see...
...Pi
...Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind
...Solaris
Pacman enters the ring
Adam "Pacman" Jones, former Titans cornerback, who has been suspended for numerous clashes with the law, IS going to enter the pro wrestling game. If that wasn't embarassing enough, this quote, from Total Nonstop Action Wrestling co-Founder Jeff Jarrett was in the paper today: "He [Pacman] wants to prove he's the best team sport athlete...He wants to concentrate on the tag-team aspect of wrestling."
So Pacman is "justifying" his decision to become a pro wrestler because he wants to be a team athlete? That's pretty pathetic. Maybe a good team athelte wouldn't have gotten in trouble with the police so much so he could help his original team, the Titans improve. Instead Pacman is going to make himself even more of a mockery (it is remotely possible that pro wrestling will make him more of a joke than he has already made himself).
Bourne Again
The Bourne Ultimatum picks up exactly where The Bourne Supremacy left off – with Bourne (Matt Damon) running from authorities in Russia. And he never stops running, throughout the whole movie. Thinking he is finally leaving it all behind, Bourne picks up the paper to read a column about himself and a possible CIA cover-up. When Bourne inquires into the story he uncovers a new operation beyond Treadstone – Blackbriar. Deputy Director Noah Vosen (David Strathairn) benches Pam Landy (Joan Allen) and takes over – ordering his agents to shoot to kill Bourne. Bourne gets the message early, and as his memory starts to return, he begins to uncover more and more that connects him, to Blackbriar.
Continue reading this article at SaltyStix.
Continue reading this article at SaltyStix.
Monday, August 6, 2007
Tristan + Isolde...atop the round table
Tristan + Isolde - Kevin Reynolds - 2006 - 9/10
Summary:
The story that many say influenced Arthurian lore begins in the early Dark Ages, shortly after the end of Pax Romana where a weak Britain is mired in war as several clans jockey for control. The "good" one the movie focuses on, is Marke (Rufus Sewell), who tries to unite the country and defeat the rampaging Irish army led by their ferocious general, Morholt (Graham Mullins).
On one of these raids Morholt destroys the British, taking many slaves, and killing the parents of Tristan (James Franco), a young boy who Marke saves, although he loses his hand in the process. Years pass and Tristan grows into a great fighter who finally meets Morholt in battle. Although Tristan kills Morholt, Morholt's sword delivers a powerful blow that posions Tristan. Believing he is dead, Tristan's friends and fellow soldiers launch his funeral boat into the tide. The ship washes up on the shores of Ireland, where it is discovered by Isolde (Sophia Myles) who cares for the wounded Tristan. Isolde tells Tristan another name instead of her own, fearing he will realize she is the princess of Ireland. The two slowly fall ddeeply in love, but Tristan is forced to flee when his boat washes ashore. King Donnchadh (David O'Hara) decides that he will hold a contest for the hand of his daughter, Isolde, for whoever can win her - in an attempt to create a false peace with the British tribes. Each tribal leader sends a champion in their stead, and Tristan begs to go, hoping to see his love, unbeknownst to him that his love is the woman he will be winning for Marke.
Critique:
I loved this movie. I'm a sucker for action movies with good love stories, but this movie is advertised as the greatest love story of all time - and then the movie crams in a bunch of really good action scenes. And Franco shows us how he learned to act between Spiderman and Spiderman 3 - by making real movies instead of slacking like Tobey. Sophia Myles is great too - playing her role perfectly as a woman who is torn by the passion she feels for Tristan and the respect she has for Marke. Just as Tristan is distraught by the choice he has to make - loving Isolde or fulfilling his duty to Marke. Rufus Sewell turns in a great performance as Marke, creating compassion for a face I associate with the evil Armand from A Knight's Tale. Woven into the love story is more than just good fight scenes - there is also a bunch of great history and folklore here that sets the movie apart from just another love story. Things are realistic too - from Tristan and Isolde's love to the fight scenes, to the characters - and I'm left with a big smile on my face at the end of the movie, despite the somewhat bittersweet ending.
Verdict:
See it now!
If you liked this movie, see...
...King Arthur
...Troy
...Kingdom of Heaven
Summary:
The story that many say influenced Arthurian lore begins in the early Dark Ages, shortly after the end of Pax Romana where a weak Britain is mired in war as several clans jockey for control. The "good" one the movie focuses on, is Marke (Rufus Sewell), who tries to unite the country and defeat the rampaging Irish army led by their ferocious general, Morholt (Graham Mullins).
On one of these raids Morholt destroys the British, taking many slaves, and killing the parents of Tristan (James Franco), a young boy who Marke saves, although he loses his hand in the process. Years pass and Tristan grows into a great fighter who finally meets Morholt in battle. Although Tristan kills Morholt, Morholt's sword delivers a powerful blow that posions Tristan. Believing he is dead, Tristan's friends and fellow soldiers launch his funeral boat into the tide. The ship washes up on the shores of Ireland, where it is discovered by Isolde (Sophia Myles) who cares for the wounded Tristan. Isolde tells Tristan another name instead of her own, fearing he will realize she is the princess of Ireland. The two slowly fall ddeeply in love, but Tristan is forced to flee when his boat washes ashore. King Donnchadh (David O'Hara) decides that he will hold a contest for the hand of his daughter, Isolde, for whoever can win her - in an attempt to create a false peace with the British tribes. Each tribal leader sends a champion in their stead, and Tristan begs to go, hoping to see his love, unbeknownst to him that his love is the woman he will be winning for Marke.
Critique:
I loved this movie. I'm a sucker for action movies with good love stories, but this movie is advertised as the greatest love story of all time - and then the movie crams in a bunch of really good action scenes. And Franco shows us how he learned to act between Spiderman and Spiderman 3 - by making real movies instead of slacking like Tobey. Sophia Myles is great too - playing her role perfectly as a woman who is torn by the passion she feels for Tristan and the respect she has for Marke. Just as Tristan is distraught by the choice he has to make - loving Isolde or fulfilling his duty to Marke. Rufus Sewell turns in a great performance as Marke, creating compassion for a face I associate with the evil Armand from A Knight's Tale. Woven into the love story is more than just good fight scenes - there is also a bunch of great history and folklore here that sets the movie apart from just another love story. Things are realistic too - from Tristan and Isolde's love to the fight scenes, to the characters - and I'm left with a big smile on my face at the end of the movie, despite the somewhat bittersweet ending.
Verdict:
See it now!
If you liked this movie, see...
...King Arthur
...Troy
...Kingdom of Heaven
Elephant...abandoning the ivory tower
Elephant - Gus Van Sant - 2003 - 8/10
Summary:
Elephant shows a normal day of high school from many different perspectives. We see students going in and out of class, the cafeteria, the gym, the library, the office, and more. The long shots and the unique camera angles combined with the "non actors" (what imdb refers to them as) gives the film a documentary feel. We see boyfriends and girlfriends, cliques, outcasts - everyone as they experience the day - often seeing the same shot from the eyes of those different characters. It keeps building and building, and you start to wonder what Van Sant has in store. Then you remember what you read on imdb - the movie is about a school shooting. And then you begin to fear what is coming.
Critique:
I thought this movie was really good. At the same time - it's really hard for me to write about the movie. Especially "summarizing" what happened. The movie was only eighty minutes and spends most of its time building characters and showing how ordinary they all. And then when they start dieing, you really care about these characters. I guess my biggest problem is that the shooters - the antagonists - get very little screen time. I won't be one of those people who want to know WHY they started shooting up the school - but I want to be one of those people who pushes for well developed characters all around. What else is there to say about a movie that tells the story of a school shooting? It was well done - excellently shot, and all of the characters are believable. The shooting itself is done right too - Van Sant recreates the fear students would have as two guys walk through the school shooting at anyone that moves. And Van Sant's showing multiple scenes over again from different viewpoints was really intense and lent a lot of depth to the movie.
Verdict:
If you can stomach it, sit down and watch it.
If you liked this movie, see...
...Brick
...Mean Creek
...Bowling for Columbine
Summary:
Elephant shows a normal day of high school from many different perspectives. We see students going in and out of class, the cafeteria, the gym, the library, the office, and more. The long shots and the unique camera angles combined with the "non actors" (what imdb refers to them as) gives the film a documentary feel. We see boyfriends and girlfriends, cliques, outcasts - everyone as they experience the day - often seeing the same shot from the eyes of those different characters. It keeps building and building, and you start to wonder what Van Sant has in store. Then you remember what you read on imdb - the movie is about a school shooting. And then you begin to fear what is coming.
Critique:
I thought this movie was really good. At the same time - it's really hard for me to write about the movie. Especially "summarizing" what happened. The movie was only eighty minutes and spends most of its time building characters and showing how ordinary they all. And then when they start dieing, you really care about these characters. I guess my biggest problem is that the shooters - the antagonists - get very little screen time. I won't be one of those people who want to know WHY they started shooting up the school - but I want to be one of those people who pushes for well developed characters all around. What else is there to say about a movie that tells the story of a school shooting? It was well done - excellently shot, and all of the characters are believable. The shooting itself is done right too - Van Sant recreates the fear students would have as two guys walk through the school shooting at anyone that moves. And Van Sant's showing multiple scenes over again from different viewpoints was really intense and lent a lot of depth to the movie.
Verdict:
If you can stomach it, sit down and watch it.
If you liked this movie, see...
...Brick
...Mean Creek
...Bowling for Columbine
Bunny rabbits and Office space
Last week’s Entourage episode centered on a bet between Drama and Vince about who could have unemotional sex first – E or Turtle. The guys think E cannot sleep with any girl without looking for a relationship – and E thinks Turtle flat out cannot sleep with anyone. Meanwhile, the Gold storyline about Ari’s son not getting into private school was revived and Ari’s son is being denied entrance to every private school in the valley. Generally, the episode is pretty weak, which is to be expected with so much happening in the first couple episodes.
Continue reading this article at SaltyStix.
Continue reading this article at SaltyStix.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
