Change Your Image
oliverz-91768
Reviews
Back to the Future (1985)
Haha I like this movie.
Sure it's not art-Housey or anything. But Marty McFly seems kinda cool. This movie is awesome. Introduced me to wonderful actors and the world of Robert Zemickis.
The Stunt Double (2020)
Chazelle is amazing! - 3.5/5
Damien Chazelle is an amazing director. I think the Stunt Double lacks a bit of a story, but to its credit, it does a lot in 9 minutes. There aren't really any characters or story arcs, but the cinematography and filmmaking is on full display.
Chazelle forces the viewer to look horizontally instead of vertically; he conditions the audience to up and down movement. It's quite amazing how he is able to create fluid and interesting images with horizontal film making. Also he used an IPhone 11.
It's amazing what you can do with technology these days. Good short. Awesome promotion.
Cool Cat's Crazy Dream (2019)
I never watched this
To preface, I've never watched this movie. But I've heard of Cool Cat and Daddy Derek from some YouTube videos.
I was scrolling through IMDb and then I found this movie. After some digging, I found out that Lea Thompson is in this movie. She's one of my favorite actresses from Back to the Future, and was a big part of my childhood along with Michael J Fox and Christopher Lloyd.
How much money did he promise you?
Road to Perdition (2002)
Road to Perdition - 5/5
I don't know what calls to me in this film. I'm not sure if it is the powerful dynamic between son and father, the grand star-studded cast, and the themes of family and patriarchal bonds.
Road to Perdition is a movie that is violent, traumatizing, and even oddly therapeutic. At its heart is the dynamic between Tom Hanks and his onscreen child. Known for playing the nice or good guy, Hanks gives his coldest performance in this film. His character is dangerous in both his profession and temperament. Yet he is often restrained and caring. But without his son, his softer side would never show. The main dynamic allows Hanks to deliver a layered performance. It also adds to the themes of father and son, and how one provides comfort and protection to their family. The film explores these ideas with depth. Although Hanks' character is no doubt a terrible person, he watches over his son. His son also provides him comfort and something to live for. With the two characters, Road to Perdition explores the bond between the two patriarchs of the family.
Of course Road to Perdition has a great advantage in its supporting cast. With names as famous as Newman, Craig, and Law, Road to Perdition provides a great cast of intricate and fascinating characters. Like Hank's character, each of the supporting roles are both multifaceted and intriguing. Well thought out motives give each character a unique depth and prevent them from falling into an archetype. There's not a single character without distinctive traits. And yet none feel one-dimensional.
Road to Perdition is one of my favorite comic book movies. The film is both therapeutic and visceral. The soft image of the waves backdropped with calm piano music is juxtaposed with the shady morals and violent action of the assassin profession. Just like it's great cast of characters, Road to Perdition is a film about depth. About finding facets in evil, and finding the calmer moments in a life filled with death and tension.
Scream 2 (1997)
Okay - 3/5
I really liked Scream 1. And I do like Scream 2.
There's a lot to like here. Neve Campbell actually does better in this one than Part 1. Her acting is slightly better and the character feels a lot more mature. Gale Weathers gets a TON of development and it's really nice to see her go from one of my least favorite characters to somehow you can really cheer for at the end. They went that route with the first Scream but didn't really quite get there. It's quite impressive when you consider that Scream 2 had more a ways to go.
However, the biggest problem is that the film shelves a lot of terror for character development and plot. The plot is a bit more well-rounded than the first. The characters are deeper and generally more likable. But it definitely shelves it's scares for characters. The first film managed to balance scares and substance. The ratio was more scares to substance, but this one is mostly substance over scares. Unfortunately, this film somewhat fails to balance the elements. It feels less like a horror film and more like a pretty good college flick.
Not bad though. I had a blast watching it, even if I was bored during the second act.
Also that twist came from left field. I don't want to talk about it but geez it was stupid
Scream (1996)
Great - 4/5
I actually kinda liked this one. It manages to be funny, somewhat scary, and absolutely fun throughout its runtime. It's a very clever poke at common horror movie tropes, and it's a horror movie that actually feels like it has a purpose. Ofc the writing is a bit off at times, and this movie can feel a bit cheesy. But it manages to be scary, exciting, and self-parodying. It manages to achieve its goal, so that's a success to me.
Per un pugno di dollari (1964)
A Fistful of Dollars - 4/5
Fistful of Dollars is a fast-paced Spaghetti Western with excellent action, a riveting score, and a jaded yet vulnerable character. The film stars Clint Eastwood as the iconic Man with No Name.
Fistful of Dollars gets a slight edge over The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly. I like Fistful a bit more because of its quick pacing. A lot happens in an hour and forty minutes, but it never feels too disorienting or overstuffed. The film is energetic and never lets down, yet really does a great job of never dealing pacing whiplash. The Good, The Bad, and the Ugly often feels slow, with the first hour setting up Eastwood's character in that film. Fistful of Dollars allows you to get familiar with the environment and the character in its opening scene, allowing it to be more efficient and fast-paced than its sequel. If you don't like The Good, The Bad, and the Ugly, than consider watching Fistful of Dollars.
Part of its memorable pacing is its excellent and well-rounded score. As with all Morricone scores, Fistful of Dollars provides riveting and fast-paced instrumental music. An example is its main theme that blares whenever the action gets heavy. The score allows for the film to maintain its energy while still being a fun Morricone score.
Of course no Western film would be great without a cowboy. In Fistful of Dollars, our protagonist is Clint Eastwood's iconic Man With no Name. Once again, The Man with No Name is a stoic and brutal, yet charismatic character. Eastwood plays the character perfectly, given The Man with No Name a rugged and hardened charm. One great moment is the three-way Mexican Standoff between The Man with the No Name and members of the Rojo Gang. Eastwood gives The Man with No Name a cunning yet cold feeling. This allows the viewer to really feel the tension of the scene, as we do not really know what will happen next. We do know that Eastwood's character knows what he is doing, so we have anticipation for the scene but also a trust that the Man with No Name will barely make it out alive.
Additionally, The Man with No Name is a physically vulnerable character. He gets beaten up near the end of the second act, but he eventually comes out back on top. We root for the character because he is able to overcome hardships, something a lot of movies with a "cool" protagonist forget to do. The Man with No Name is celebrated for his cunning and hardness, yet we know he can still get hurt and come back up. Eastwood's character is truly among the great cinema icons.
A Fistful of Dollars is one of the greatest Western films of all time. Through it's high energy pacing, magnificent gunfights, and legendary protagonist, Sergio Leone created the blueprint for all Western films.
The Rock (1996)
The Rock - 2.5/5
Is it weird that Tarantino and Sorkin actually were script doctors on this film? Look it up.
The Rock is no means a bad movie. I watched it last night and I have to say, it's an interesting film. It stars Nicolas Cage and Sean Connery as two marine corps members who must infiltrate Alcatraz to stop the release of a deadly weapon.
It's a fun film full of Michael Bay explosion action. The fight scenes are quite well done. Adrenaline is pumped, people are blown up, and fist fights also ensue. The fights really do make up for the weird problems I will get into soon. If you're a Michael Bay film, this is the ultimate Bay film for you, as it is quite explosive and intense. There's not much subtlety in this film. It's the ultimate movie for one to enjoy when they're bored one night and want a popcorn flick to watch.
Now the weirdly bad. I have to address the over-the-top elephant in the room. Nicolas Cage is such a weird force in this movie. He's so over the top. It is Nicolas Cage, but he seems a little out of place. There are a lot of jokes in this movie, but his overacting "technique" is a step too far. He doesn't really fit here. While the film is mostly quite serious (although some jokes are fit in between), Cage sticks out like a sore thumb. Yet as out-of-place as Cage may seem, his performance is oddly mesmerizing to watch. When he's onscreen, you watch. When he's shouting, you listen. I have a huge love-hate relationship with his performance. Even as a kid, I found his overacting to be a bit too much. I have nostalgia for his film, and I still can't get over how bizarre Cage is in the role.
The writing is so bizarre too. While mostly serious, there are so many jokes that don't make sense. And they always revolve around Cage. There is a joke about a famous Elton John song at the end of the film. And it really takes you out of it. That's my problem with the movie. It sometimes doesn't takes
itself seriously. Normally that's a compliment, but in this case I can't take this film seriously either. The premise is a bit grim, and yet Cage is cracking jokes endlessly. It's difficult for me to accept both Cage's jokes and the grim situation the characters are in.
The pacing is terrible too. The exposition takes way too long, and the ending kind of drags on. The strongest section of the film is definitely its action packed second act. The second act is intense and suspenseful, while still maintaining Bay's signature in-your-face action.
Finally, the film feels like a video game. Now that's a pretty great thing, as it leads to some excellent Bay action. But it's also a terrible thing, because the music suffers from it. Or adds to it I suppose. Some scenes feel like levels in a game, and the music adds to the effect. The score is some gaming soundtrack in this film. Sometimes it feels like less of a film and more like a game. But sometimes it allows for the mind blowing action to run its course.
Maybe I'm a bit too serious. I probably can't let loose. But there are so many weird writing choices involving humor, along with bizarre overacting, that's it's really difficult for me to accurately assess a score for this film. I'm going to give it a 5. It's not the worst thing I've ever seen, but it's still really weirdly flawed.
1917 (2019)
Technically brilliant...
And that's the last good thing I will say about this film besides the obvious fact that the production value is amazing.
1917 fails to deliver an intriguing story, instead providing us with a generic "time is running out" plot line. The two characters we follow throughout the film aren't even that interesting, because we know nothing about them. Sure one of them has a brother, but Mendes did not make it easy for me to get invested with the character's journey. There was not much tension from the characters. Instead the tension came from Deakens' bleak cinematography and Newman's intense score. I did not feel much for the characters. Mendes expects you to care because it's war, and not actually because he made fascinating people. So at the end of the film, there is no satisfaction that the goal was achieved. 1917 has a characterization problem. If I cared more about the characters, I would be a lot happier. But instead, all the struggles they went through didn't feel that rewarding. Additionally, there were no strong supporting roles either. Every person that wasn't our main duo felt like a cameo. I shouldn't expect to love them or even know everything about them, but when a commander is on-screen, I should feel the gravitas of his information.
Overall not a great film but definitely technically solid.
Scott Pilgrim vs. the World (2010)
Scott Pilgrim (3.5/5)
Note: I wrote this review about a year ago. If it's a bit poorly written, that's because I was getting started written reviews. It took me a while to get into it. But I had this laying around. I figured this could serve as my first review.
Edgar Wright is a great director. His style is so distinct and unique that a viewer will immediately recognize a Wright film. Intensive quick cuts and a powerful rhythm fill up Wright's films to the brim. That said, Wright's distinctive directorial style has never been more apparent than in Scott Pilgrim vs the World.
Scott Pilgrim vs the World stars Michael Cera, Elizabeth Mary-Winstead, and Brie Larson. The film is amazing, yet it is not for everyone. Scott Pilgrim vs the World sees the titular character, Scott Pilgrim, fight for the love of a beautiful girl named Ramona Flowers. The style of the film is a homage to classic arcade video games, and each of the fights contain video game elements. For example, video game iconography and lush arcade sounds fill the screen. Some fights are split into comic panels. I am struggling to describe the editing in this film. The fights, transitions, and overall presentation are possibly Wright's best.
The main character, Scott Pilgrim, is portrayed memorably by Michael Cera. Pilgrim is a dorky nerd who has no self-confidence. Most comedic moments from Cera are extremely unexpected. So while Scott Pilgrim is a loser who has no trust in himself, his determination to be with Ramona makes the audience root for Pilgrim. However, the main highlight performance is Elizabeth Mary-Winstead. While Ramona Flowers effortlessly exudes a natural coolness, she has a deep layer of vulnerability. Her (SPOILERS) desire to escape her past as a cold and arrogant person creates a dimension to her that is quite layered. Her colorful hair and vibrant clothing juxtaposes her deadbeat and monotone personality. Flowers is a truly unique and interesting character (No more spoilers, you're in the clear). The other characters aren't that significant, except Envy Adams. Envy Adams is an easily jealous and manipulative character, and is a delight to watch on screen. Additionally, Larson sang a really great song in the middle of the film.
One major problem I have with the film is that the villains are not as iconic and memorable as the protagonists. Since Pilgrim must do battle with the League of Ramona's Ex Boyfriends, there ceases to be an interesting and menacing villain. I wish the final boyfriend was Chris Evan's character, instead of the final boss we got. Evan's villain was one of the most menacing and interesting exes, and it was a shame that the film somewhat wasted him.
Overall great movie with a very defined sense of style. Basically what you'd get in an Edgar Wright film.