minjoe Blog

Lets be honest...

minjoe — Thu, 17 Apr 2008 05:44:59 GMT

...movie trailers are, without a doubt, the best part about going to a movie. So the questions becomes, at least for this particular film, will the actual movie live up the splendor that is the trailer?

Let me first be perfectly honest: The top superhero trailer, in my opinion, goes to "The Dark Knight" not Iron Man. This movie looks to be a great action movie with a lot of amazing special effects and what seems to be a spot-on performance by Robert Downey Jr. Though I enjoy the Dark Knight trailer more for giving me more of a storyline to go on--I believe the Iron Man trailer is one of the best in a long time.

The trailer has a lot of great things going for it. First off, Robert Downey Jr. is perfect as Tony Stark (or so it would seem). His mix of sarcasm, wit, and power make me very excited to see this film. Furthermore, the choice of music in the trailer is top notch and every rock & roll fan out there should be jacked to see a movie thats trailer features such hits as Iron Man (obviously), Back in Black, and so forth.

Simply put, this trailer makes me very, very excited to see this film--I can't wait....

I'm an Expert.

minjoe — Thu, 17 Apr 2008 02:08:37 GMT

When it comes to the Film Speed, I would be willing to say, with confidence, that I am the worlds foremost expert on this flick. You see, I moved out of a house when I was in 4th grade and had to spend an entire summer living with my grandparents and family in a little tiny house while our new home was being built. Almost everyone of my posessions was packed away, execpt for one glorious movie that made my summer one to remember.

To be honest, I'd say I've seen this movie well over 100 times. I am not exaggerating. That summer, I lived in one of the most boring neighborhoods in the world and all I would do was watch this movie--often several times a day. What kept me coming back to this film time and time again? A few things...

First off, I am more than willing to admit that my first "Hollywood crush" was Sandra Bullock and it was because of this movie. She is sassy, in-control, and absolutely rockin' hot in this movie (or at least I thought so when I was like 11). Furthermore, Jeff Daniels puts in a solid supporting role performance as he so often does. Then we move on to more key roles..

Keanu Reeves....I don't know if you're like me--but I hate this man. I hate him so much that I can't stop loving everything he is in. I don't know what it is about him. He says lines so poorly that full theatres are brought out of their seats with laughter (Street Kings anyone?) and yet I find him intriguing in every role I see him in. In this movie, he plays his usual semi-lost self and I found it entertaining. But what really made the movie for me was Dennis Hopper.

Dennis Hopper is perfect in this movie. I don't even know what else to say. As a child I recited some of his more memorable lines over and over again throughout the day and managed to develop one hell of a spot-on impression for a 4th grader. Dennis is great as the psychotic, ex-cop who wants to stop people who prevent his bombs from "becoming explosions" (ok, so the dialouge is a little cliche--deal with it...).

As much as I personally love this film--I don't expect everyone to jump on board. It is full of your usual cop cliches, Keanu Reeves is, as usual, completely uncomfortable looking with what he is doing, and the entire premise is a little--well--stupid.

However, if you're looking for moments that defy logic--and physics for that matter--as well as some unintentionally funny dialouge--check out Speed at once!

I love it.

minjoe — Thu, 17 Apr 2008 00:37:22 GMT

Let me come right out and say it: I am a 23 year old man who owns this movie on DVD and I am not afraid to say it. Some may call this movie a "guilty pleasure" film--I however, prefer to call it a damn fine movie.

Adventures in Babysitting is a roller-coaster ride from start to finish and the more ridiculous and campy it gets, the better the movie becomes. What is amazing about this movie is that, despite the rather zany storylines, nothing ever becomes so overly convoluted that you can no longer take the film seriously. Adventures in Babysitting walks a fine line that screams, "we didn't take ourselves to seriously" while also clearly stating "we still think we made one hell of a movie."

Elisabeth Shue is fantastic as "Chris Parker" the babysitter who gets herself into a night she is not soon to forget. Also, who couldn't love the craziness of a young Anthony Rapp playing Brads best friend. Oh yeah, thats right, the lead from the movie & play RENT plays an obnoxious, crazy teenager in this movie and he is perfect.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly--you can never go wrong with a movie in which a teenage babysitter shoves a knife in a gangsters face and delivers the line, "Don't F@$& with the babysitter."

Absolutely priceless.

Great Performance

minjoe — Fri, 11 Apr 2008 04:16:04 GMT

When I rented P2 I wasn't expecting anything more than the usual gruesome horror that we have come to expect these days. It seems almost impossible to find a decent movie in this genre anymore. Therefore, I was particularly suprised that P2 turned out to be such a good film.

As a whole, the film brings nothing necessarily new to the genre of horror films, but it does expand upon and perfect what we have come to expect from these types of movies. The feeling of being trapped, working against a superior foe, running scared for your life, and facing increasingly insurmountable odds all come into play in P2. Each and every scene is crafted to keep the audience yelling at the screen in a desperate plea to help the young damsel in distress played by Rachel Nichols.

However, what makes this movie more than just an average flick is the powerful and haunting performance delivered by Wes Bently. He captured the depth and mental instability of a man who's loneliness masks a deeper psychotic problem. In each and every scene he delivers his dialouge in a manner that will remind you of a certain cross-dressing murderer from a little film called Psycho. He had sharp wit, cool yet menacing dialouge, and outright rage from time to time and each different "character mode" he delivered in a big way.

Definitely a film that suprised me and would certainly reccomend it!

Never Listen to Friends...

minjoe — Sat, 05 Apr 2008 03:04:00 GMT

...my friends tried to convince me that seeing The Ruins would be a good idea. Obviously, I disagreed with a passion and pointed out to my my friends that they may very well be considered "stupid" for wanting to see this film. As it turns out, I was correct.

The Ruins follows the tale of 4 American tourists (and a random German) on their quest to find a Mayan temple to explore. However, that would be far too easy and not mysterious at all. Thus, a random German man stumbles upon the young Americans lounging around the pool, casually explains that his brother (and his lady friend) went to excavate a ruin not on the map (A two-person excavation? Really?), and he thinks they should all go check it out because he's a day late coming back so he "must be having a really wild time."

. . . . . .

Once stumbling upon the temple things begin unravelling rather quickly--mainly because this movie has to scratch and claw its way to that honorable 90 minute mark.

The deaths in this movie are not new, not creative, and not interesting. Their entire plight had the audience chuckling throughout since they were being attacked by plants.

Thats right, if you saw the preview, you guessed it right--plants attack and kill people.

Now I know what you're thinking--Jon! Plants killing people is an AWESOME premise for a movie, just look at the classic musical Little Shop of Horrors! Unfortunately for me, and everyone in the audience, Rick Moranis never popped out of the temple to perform a little "Suddenly Seymour" action--though that would have been a welcomed reprieve from the monotony of this film.

If you're looking for a good horror flick--The Ruins is not for you. I enjoy good and bad horror movies alike so long as I know they're not taking themselves to seriously. The saddest part about this movie is that I genuinely believe they thought they had something wonderful.

The Ruins ruined my night. (See what I did there!?)

What I Expected...

minjoe — Fri, 04 Apr 2008 00:21:37 GMT

Did I really want to go see Stop-Loss? No.

Do I see too many movies, was bored, and therefore had no other movies currently available for me to see? Yes.

Anyone who happened to stumble upon a trailer for the film Stop-Loss could probably give you the idea of what the movie was going to be about. Part of me wondered whether or not they would deviate, in any way, from the trailers message of the war in Iraq being wrong and the United States Stop-Loss program being evil. As I expected, the film veered very little from the path of shoving the idea that the war in Iraq is wrong and being handled poorly down the audiences throat.

To be fair, the film was well shot, had some fairly consistent and well thought out characters, and an ending that made you think. However, the film will be simply catalouged as "another anti-war" picture because of its inability to grow beyond that subtext. There were many opportunities for the film to examine, more in-depth, the effect the war has on a soldiers mind, on his family life, etc. Unfortunately, the plot revolves around the main character going AWOL and essentially running away from all those issues which could have made for an infinitely more interesting and poingant movie.

In the end, Stop-Loss just left me wanting so much more. It wasn't a terrible movie, but it wasn't very great either. I haven't felt so much indifference toward a movie in a long time.

If you're a big advocate for or against the war, you may want to take a look at Stop-Loss to see what it has to say--but don't expect to hear anything new or original.

Dissapointing.

minjoe — Fri, 04 Apr 2008 00:06:31 GMT

Not since the hit gambling film Rounders have I found myself looking forward to seeing a movie of this nature. While I enjoy playing cards, I usually find blockbusters about any form of gambling to be riddled with cliches and usually pretty boring. With a cast that included the likes of Kevin Spacey and Kate Bosworth, I expected 21 to be different...

...I was wrong...

This movie revolves around a group of MIT students who learn how to count cards and spend their weekends in Vegas racking up cash. In theory, this sounds like an action packed, solid idea. However, the movie is painfully long and takes a great deal of time to get going. About 45 minutes into the movie I found myself already losing intererst wondering why I should care about their method to counting cards when it was incredibly obvious the director of this film had no desire to actually try and make the audience understand how that works.

Thus, for around the first hour you are treated to some of the most trite and over the top dialouge I have ever heard from someone playing a college professor, courtesey of the usually great Kevin Spacey. In fact, as a whole the dialouge throughout this film was laughable at best and downright embarassing at worst. The problem is that the plot of the film is also flimsy and is therefore reliant on the actors to save it and they fail miserably in their attempt to do so...

As the film "picks up steam" it does have redeemable moments, but they are far outweighed by the negatives. So much of what they do is never fully explained, their trips to Vegas are filled with gaping plot holes, and their time at MIT is so cliche at times that you will laugh out loud with the rest of the audience.

At the end of this film, which runs a touch over 2 long hours, you will be very happy to be leaving the theatre.

Great Political Film

minjoe — Sat, 08 Mar 2008 22:20:06 GMT

Anytime I sit down to watch a political film, I let out a deep sigh before pushing play, wondering what sort of far leftist nonsense I am going to get myself into. When I caught "...So goes the nation" on the IFC channel, I prepared myself to be told that the Bush victory was the result of bullying at polls, lies, and deception (as most political movies these days argue). However, I was treated to a very open and intriguing look into the 2004 Presidential race that gave a very fair look at both candidates and their campaigns.

So Goes the Nation is unlike many political films out there currently because rather than have some Hollywood narrator hold our hands like we are children, the movie brings out political heavyweights from both sides of the aisle. James Carville and Paul Begala most notably did an excellent job of explaining the pros and cons of the Kerry campaign while Matthew Dowd did a great job of showing the inner-workings of the Bush strategy.

The story of the film explains how Bush, who non-supporters despise with every fiber of their being, went on to easily win a 2nd term in office. To tell that story, the filmakers choose to study the state of Ohio in-depth. The audience follows political commentators and everyday volunteers. Both sides plainly admit to their strengths and their weaknesses and give credit to the opposing sides. When the filmaker puts forth anything controversial you get both sides of the story which is incredibly refreshing in this day and age.

As a political junkie I found this to be a remarkably great film. The in-depth analysis of how Bush targeted his message down to the individual voter and motivated so many people who had not cast a ballot in years was amazing. You learn what worked, what didn't work, what both sides laughed at each other about, and what both sides saw as their defining moments.

If you enjoy politics, movies, and are tired of Michael Moore as much as I am--this is a great movie to pick up!

My Problems...

minjoe — Fri, 07 Mar 2008 21:03:08 GMT

Hi, my name is Minjoe and I have a problem with this movie.

"What's your problem with it Minjoe?"

Ummm, you remember the original correct?

"vaguely."

Let me refresh you. Michael Myers is institutionalized. We know he kills his sister in the original but we don't know what led up to that night other than him apparently being an evil kid.

"Ah yes, I recall. But the remake filled in the gaping plot hole by showing you the man behind the mask and why he became the killer he was."

Right, and in theory, that sounds like a good idea. However, you didn't show us the man behind the mask, you showed us the boy--and when you take a character that was great because he was essentially the incarnation of evil and turn him into an angst-filled kid who doesn't have the best home life it takes something away from the film I think. In the original we are left to let our imaginations run wild with why a small child would knife a family member, in the new one we are to presume its because he was a kid who led an incredibly difficult life and snapped.

"Yes and that turned him into the evil killing machine that is Michael Myers"

...which brings me to my next point. In the original, the man behind the mask appeared to be an average sized guy who moved and killed completely without sound or mercy. The white mask adequately conveyed the emotionless character who lurked behind it.

"Yeah...but isn't that a bit...strange?"

Yes. It is a horror movie. Strange, unexplained things are supposed to happen. But apparently in your world, that is not good enough, everything can, and must, be explained. Which is why the unstoppable killer in your remake appears to be a 7 ft tall monster who is anything but silent. Every 5 seconds you could hear his heavy breathing or his grunts--it was wildly distracting. in the original the only time you hear him is when he is breathing and the camera is portraying a first person view point through the killers eyes. Furthermore, the scenes of him showing his long lost little sister pictures and trying to empathize with her behind an emtionless mask came off as, dare I say it, stupid.

"Well you're more than welcome to have your opinion, but aren't you glad to have the back story of this invincible killer!?"

Ah yes, that brings me to my final point. Michael Myers is invincible. Throughout the original, and countless sequels, he is shot, stabbed, and brutalized in pretty much every way possible and yet he never falls and always comes back for more.

"Absolutely, its part of the horror of the character"

So would you mind explaining to me, now that you gave us your wonderful back story, how an angsty kid who grew up to be 7 ft tall is also invincible--where is the back story on that one? You seem keen on having an explanation for everything except this, why? In the original the answer was that he was pure evil stalking the earth and we could think about that in any way we choose. After seeing some 12 year old actor picking through candy in the opening scenes and crying about his terrible life, the idea of him becoming invincible for unknown reasons seems a bit--strange...

"Well....ummm.....we.....backstory...umm....remake..."

Yeah, thats what I thought. But hey, don't get to down. The movie was still filmed pretty decent and the kills were ok I suppose. Chin up buddy, I won't give you a 1 star rating--you'll get a two star for when I "lost interest" over the backstory of Michael Myers.

"Thanks for doing that for me, we'll try to come up with better ideas next time..."

Thank you.

Redefining Powerful.

minjoe — Fri, 07 Mar 2008 20:31:06 GMT

My Grandfather, and all of his brothers, volunteered for the Second World War because they felt it truly was a battle of good vs. evil. They all talk about their fears that one day people will forget what they did over there and the sacrifices they made. Films like "Saving Private Ryan" help ensure that no one will forget about the Greatest Generation.

I was only 15 years old when I first saw this movie and I have watched it many times since that day. The opening sequence of this film, which shows soldiers landing in Normandy, is without a doubt one of the greatest scenes of all time. I am not a soldier. I have never been to war. I hope to God that I never have to go to war. But upon seeing this film, I felt for the first time in my gut, the horrors and savageness of battle. No film has ever come close to making a viewer truly understand what battle is like until this movie. Spielberg does an amazing job of showing how the brave and cowardly can fall with equal regularity when a rain of steel is falling on you. To this day I still do not truly have words to describe the emotions that scene evokes within me.

However, I feel this movie is judged too much on the opening sequence alone. Hanks, Sizemore, and the rest of the actors do a wonderful job of showing the highs and lows of battle throughout the film. The spirit of the fighting man, the fear and hopelessness of battle, and the voice inside that keeps telling them to go despite how desperate situations may seem are all on display in "Saving Private Ryan."

Perhaps Spielbergs greatest victory is in simplifying a war that spanned the entire world, took millions of lives, and changed the world politically for the next generation, into a story about one man. War movies always discuss the big picture and what it all means to the overall effort. While there are times in Saving Private Ryan where such things are discussed, the overwhelming majority of the plot devotes itself to the search for one man in the chaos. They are given a mission to do the impossible, and we in the audience are granted the joy of watching them work toward that goal.

The ending of this film can bring a tear to the eye of anyone, and when it concludes, you will sit there trying to wrap your head around everything you just saw and find yourself completely unable to do so.

Saving Private Ryan redefines what a "powerful" film is all about.