JakeStevens Blog

Ryan Reynolds: Why?

JakeStevens — Fri, 18 Jul 2008 18:19:29 GMT

Ryan Reynolds. All I can say is: WTF? NOTHING about him is funny. He even manages to make Chris Klein seem funny, and if you know me, you know how much I loathe Chris Klein. Anna Faris and Ryan Reynolds seem to be "acting" the same - over the top, totally unbelievable, annoyingly grating personalities...and yet Anna Faris made me laugh several times. Ryan Reynolds: ZERO. Oops...I take that back. The end credits where he's mouthing the words to All-4-One's "I Swear" right into the camera made me chuckle. A little. Everyone else in this film has great comic timing (Julie Hagerty, Anna Faris (GREAT skewering of recent pop brats, BTW)...even *barf* Chris Klein). You know who doesn't? Take a wild f**king guess. He single-handedly ruined this film for me. Thanks a lot, Ryan Reynolds. Listen, wherever you came from, Ryan Reynolds...go back there. Don't return. Casting agents: Please don't cast him anymore. Movie going public: Please don't encourage this misguided behavior. He is not an actor. He is not a comedian. Go away, Ryan Reynolds.

Yet Another Comic Book Adaptation

JakeStevens — Fri, 18 Jul 2008 17:54:38 GMT

As far as the new wave of comic book adaptations go, this is admittedly one of the better ones. But for crying out loud...really? Did we need this movie? Again, I'll admit that Robert Downey, Jr. as Tony Stark is perfectly cast, Jeff Bridges pulls in a fine performance as Obadiah Stane and most surprisingly, Jon Favreau manages to make this otherwise-by-the-numbers film palatable (you've got your very noticible "acts" and your very literal "arch villain"). OK, OK, OK, it is a very entertaining film. But it's a very dim beacon in a sea of recent superhero/comic adaptation movies...and I mean a SEA (in the last 10 years, what do we have? Sin City, 300, Daredevil, Elektra, Ghostrider, Constantine, Monkeybone, Cat Woman, The League Of Extraordinary Gentlemen, From Hell, Ghost World, Mystery Men, Art School Confidential, Man-Thing, The Punisher, Bulletproof Monk, A History Of Violence, Road To Perdition, Josie And The Pussycats, ANOTHER Superman, ANOTHER Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, TWO Incredible Hulks, TWO Batmans, TWO Fantastic Fours, V For Vendetta, TWO Hellboys, THREE Spider-mans, THREE X-Mens, FOUR Blades...I'm sure I'm missing some and you and I both know there are plenty more to come). Again, I ask: Did we need this film? Or better yet...did we need some of those other films? It's impact is softened thanks to the plethora of pap it has to contend with. Am I being overly harsh? Perhaps. Aren't most films "adaptations" of novels or biographies or short stories or other such previously released reading material? Yes. I suppose I'll let you be the judge of that...but if you're looking for an entertaining film about a comic book hero's origins expertly-but-typically made, look no further.

Simply Put: Genius

JakeStevens — Fri, 18 Jul 2008 15:24:52 GMT

It's scary to realize that this film was made 32 years ago, and the topics so perfectly satirized in the script are still relevant today. It's genius lies in the script: Paddy Chayefsky had a finger on the pulse of the people then, and apparently, today. Even the title is darkly humorous: Network. How bland can you get? I realized I was watching one of the best films I'd ever see by the time I got to Ned Beatty's monologue - what a showstopper! If you have a strong dislike for today's television programming (as I do), you absolutely have to do yourself a favor and watch this movie - you'll be laughing, you'll be thinking about it long after it is done, and you might even get mad as hell.

A Nice Satirical Send Up

JakeStevens — Wed, 09 Jul 2008 19:06:09 GMT

As stated below (in the All Movie Guide Review), this film is at times funny, other times sloppy, but Brando and Broderick hold the film together with their fine performances. I can't recall another film where I've seen Bruno Kirby with such a large role, and he's surprisingly good (and funny). Definitely worth a watch, particularly if you're a Brando or Broderick fan.

The Fight Scenes "Make" This Film

JakeStevens — Wed, 09 Jul 2008 18:58:26 GMT

As stated, the one reason I kept watching this film was the fantastically choreographed, filmed and edited fight scenes - the sword clashes resonate with you long after the victor has triumphed. Other than that, I can't say much else for this film. Orlando Bloom is laughable as Paris, the Prince of Troy and Brad Pitt, Eric Bana, Brendan Gleeson and Brian Cox (all superb actors in their own right) manage to barely hold their own with the stilted dialogue they had to work with. My interest waned between the fight scenes, and there were just enough of them for me to last through the end credits. I do, however, feel the casting of Diane Kruger (Helen, Queen of Sparta) was just, as she is beautiful enough to be a catalyst for the epic war that takes place, but perhaps, and maybe I'm being a bit too harsh here, her acting chops weren't up to par with such a cast of heavy hitters? A noble attempt at bringing the Legend of Troy to the big screen...but I think it could have been done better (minus the fight scenes, of course).

Perfect Blend Of Scares And Humor

JakeStevens — Wed, 09 Jul 2008 18:11:14 GMT

I remember seeing this film for the first time, with no expectations (perhaps with even slightly lowered expectations) surrounded by my closest friends...and having the time of my life. We were genuinely freaked out at the somewhat cheap thrills and belly laughing at the witty repartee between the characters. On this umpteenth viewing, it still hasn't lost any of it's charm or, most surprisingly, it's thrills. I would HIGHLY recommend watching this film with good friends (and beers) for a fun filled evening in.

Not Terrible, Not Great

JakeStevens — Wed, 09 Jul 2008 17:51:05 GMT

While Marlon Brando pulls in a finely restrained performance, as does Eiji Okada, this movie is bogged down with didactic dialogue and somewhat stilted direction. I'd rate this for Brando completists only.

Underappreciated "Shortest" Best Picture Winner

JakeStevens — Wed, 09 Jul 2008 06:37:00 GMT

Ernest Borgnine sort of reminds me of one of my father's relatives, so just in appearance alone I felt a connection to his character, let alone the fact that, for a film from the mid-fifties, Mr. Borgnine's performance has a genuine hint of sadness not seen in films of this kind for another decade or more. To wit, it doesn't seem like he's "acting" like he is miserably lonely, he really looks miserably lonely, and when he meets Clara, he's practically jumping out of his skin with excitement and joy, much like a "real" person would had they felt a strong connection to someone of the opposite sex. It's strongly anchored in the anachronisms of its time, but in a film like this (SET in the mid-fifties), it is easily overlooked, and some might even appreciate that fact, since the story itself is timeless. One of the most attractive traits of this film, for me personally, is the central theme of acceptance and tolerance: It doesn't matter what you look like on the outside, it's what's on the inside that counts. And if other people can't accept that, well that's their problem. My only gripe is it's 50's-television feel in the cinematography department (at one point losing focus very noticably for several seconds before cross-fading into another scene) and the song tacked onto the end is pretty damned cheesy, again, giving it a 50's-sitcom feel. But that's where my criticisms end - many kudos to Mr. Borgnine for such a heartfelt performance, and I believe his Best Actor Oscar win is deserved, even against the likes of James Dean in "East of Eden". Some might argue that fact, but that's for another place, another time...

For Lovers Of GOOD 70's Cinema

JakeStevens — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 16:45:40 GMT

This film has Sidney Lumet written all over it, and according to me, that's a good thing. That's a GREAT thing, actually - films with this pacing don't get made anymore (see "Crank"). Wonderfully shot, again, cinematography like the type in this film is slowly going the way of the hand-held phenomenon (unfortunately). Admittedly, I had to watch it twice to fully comprehend the scope of the story, and that should be taken as a compliment. I thoroughly enjoyed this film, and as stated above, if you like the GOOD films of the 70's by the likes of William Friedkin, Sidney Lumet and Arthur Penn, chances are you will enjoy it, too.

A Modern-Day "Citizen Kane"?

JakeStevens — Sun, 29 Jun 2008 20:36:16 GMT

I don't even know where to start. This is an expertly written film - the dialogue is chock full of subtext, an expertly directed film - the cinematography is breathtaking, an expertly scored film - the music goes places you would never expect, and most importantly, an expertly acted film - Daniel Day-Lewis IS Daniel Plainview. In all regards, you need to see this film, especially if you enjoy Kubrickian mastery of form, and P.T. Anderson has that in spades. My biggest question after seeing this...should this have won the Best Picture Oscar? "No Country For Old Men" was stunning, but so was this. It's a tough call, and I'm glad I'm the one who didn't have to make it, because both of those films are fantastic works of art. Do youself a favor and WATCH THIS MOVIE!