Movie news on your iPhone today!
Advertisement
Sign in
Username   Password         Forgot password?
Wanna join? Sign up
Find movies you'll love

NevermoresRaven Blog

  • Is this a movie about racing?

    Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]
    Under discussion:

    What happened to racing films? Where did we lose our way? How did we go from "Days of Thunder" to things like "Fast and the Furious"(which calling it a racing film is a big stretch and giving it too much credit) and "Talladega Nights: The Ballad of Ricky Bobby"?

    So let's talk about the latter, shall we? According to "Talladega Nights" all NASCAR drivers and fans are nothing but moronic rednecks from the deep south, giving the film a very one demensional feel with a "HURR HURR, REDNECKS ARE STUPID!" vibe. Will Ferrell's character(Ricky Bobby) has no depth and comes across as just a stupid southern boy(he names his kids "Walker" and "Texas ranger" for god's sake!). Even the other characters just come off as nothing more than yamering white trash drunks(with the exception of Ricky's pit cheif and Sacha Baron Cohen's French import driver).

    Speaking of Sacha Baron Cohen, this guy just ain't that funny. He does a somewhat decent job here as the French driver Jean Girard. The only problem is the film relies on such low-brow humor that they made his accent so thick that everything sounds like he's talking into a pillow(I won't use the line from the film because it's just stupid sounding). This ruined what could have been a good character in this film.

    So are there any good characters? Yes, Michael Clarke Duncan gives a good role as the sort of voice of reason and Ricky's pit cheif. Another mention goes to Amy Adams, even if she does have a small part she is a wonderfully talented actress, and damn good looking to boot.

    So how do I, as a NASCAR fan, stand on this film? While the racing scenes are fairly accurate to the real thing(with drafting and what not), the whole "NASCAR is for rednecks, HURR HURR" thing will forever bring this movie down. Don't  bother with this, unless you're a closed minded moron.

  • A good film, but not the best by any stretch.

    Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]
    Under discussion:

    Juno  (2007)

    I'm the type of guy who's sort of on the fence when it comes to teen comedy-dramas that involve people getting pregnant, simply because it's been done before. Maybe it's also got to do with the fact that I knew so many girls in highschool who were pregnant that it's made me take a sick and twisted view of teen pregnancy issues. Yet something about 2007's "Juno" made me forget most of my quarrels with this style.

    As you know, Juno(Ellen Page) gets pregnant by Bleeker(Michael Cera), and goes off to find a good family to give the child to(Jason Bateman and Jennifer Garner). Ok so the plot is pretty thin, but that's to be expected when you think about most films these days.

    There's a lot of talk on the ol' interwebs about how this movie is nothing more than "worthless hipster bullshit", which makes no sense to me. Most people are just bitching about it because it was the big popular movie, just like they did with "Transformers" and "The Matrix". People online will find anything to complain about so that they can seem cool, popular, and intellectual. Don't listen to these poeple, but please listen to me.

    Ellen Page gives a good(not great) performance as a semi-geeky girl who has no quarrels spitting out pop-culture references whenever able. Sure there's some things that seem a little odd and out of place, but people bring up that "She's supposed to be 16, no 16 year old talks like that". That's a BS argument, because I was spewing pop-culture satire and the likes when I was that age(and that was only 6 years ago mind you). I like the fact that she makes a Thundercats joke(and I don't want to hear the whole "she got the line wrong! RAAAAAGGGGEEE!" crap because you're a moron if you can't just accept a fun reference). Michael Cera gives a somewhat half-assed performance as Bleeker, but that seems more due to the fact that his part really isn't as big as one might expect. In fact, I think Jennifer Garner has more screen time than Cera does. I can't blame it all on him, but in the long run Michael Cera is sort of a one trick pony, kind of like Rachel Dratch...that same tone and facial expression no matter the role.

    J.K. Simmons(of Spiderman fame) does an exceptional job as Juno's father, with the sort of wit and charm you'd expect from him(and the line "I'm gonna' punch that Bleeker kid in the weiner" is great).

    The music is a big downside to this film. it's all acoustic "indie"-pop junk that could have been taken out n favor of something to better suit the personalities of the characters. Sure there's a Sonic Youth song in there, but who even likes Sonic Youth anymore? Nobody, that's who.

    So in the long run this is an enjoyable film, if you don't mind some missed character development, a thin plot, and some strange lines(yes, even I admit that "honest to blog?" is fake as all get out), and a few missed jokes. Just don't let the whiney idiots that lurk about the lands of the internet deter you with all their anti-"hipster"(what the hell does "hipster" even mean?) junk.

  • Silent classic that holds it's ground

    Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]
    Under discussion:

    The General  (1927)

    "The General" is another one of those silent classics(like "The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari") that seems to hold it's own 81 years after it's debut. I won't go in to the details of the plot, needless to say it's a slapstick comedy taking place during the United States Civil War(yes, other countries have had civil wars too).

    The comedic aspects of this film are great, and the slapstick works well. In fact, it tends to work better than most modern slapstick attempts. It's really simple stuff too, a guy falling through a hole in a bridge, or tossing a plank of wood over the train car he's trying to get it into. Yet it made me laugh out loud, which is something this movie should be proud of.

    The acting isn't really something you can comment on when it comes to silent films, because it's not like you can really get into a character if they have no voice right? So i'm going to avoid trying to comment on this for fear of being yelled at by the mavens.

    Overall? A good laugh, Buster Keaton really knows(knew, whatever) how to get people laughing. Even if you don't like silent films, this is good for it's lack of dialouge.

  • Classic Film Noir, classic goodness

    Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]
    Under discussion:

    The Third Man  (1949)

    War is hell, and the second world war drove that point home in Europe. Vienna is one such place that took a beating during the war. This crumbling, war torn, damp, conflict riddled hell hole(no offence Vienna, you're beautiful now) is the backdrop to the 1949 film noir classic "The Third Man". As I've said before, some older films don't hold up too well, but others still stand out decades after(we're talking 59 years already for this one). This is one such film.

    The film is a mystery(what, a film noir as a mystery? Crazy, I know), where a man who comes to Vienna to work for a friend is instead left to figure out what happened after his death. The different occuping armies(United States, Britian, France, and Russian) are all playing a part somewhere along the road, and none are too keen on playing well with others it seems.


    The acting is very well played, Joseph Cotten plays the protaginist Holly Martins(I kid you not, he's a guy named Holly) with passion, humor, and a style that seems all his own. Orson Welles plays his recently dead buddy Harry Lime, giving that wonderful Welles touch that we've seen him add to characters so often("Citizen Kane", and even Unicron in the 1986 "Transformers" animated film). Another honorable mention goes to Trevor Howard as Major Calloway, he just seemed so confident, yet confused and over the top at the same time.

    The cinimatography  adds a feeling of depth as well, with city streets only so visible  and almost every cornor shrouded in darkness. The ending scenes in the sewer are almost haunting as vocies echo from the darkness, and nobody's quite sure where the others are.

    The music is on a whole different level, using some odd multi-stringed insturment that I cna't recall the name of(but it has something like 8 million strings). This is the only insturment heard in the entire film, which gives the film a somewhat laid back feel amongst all the deception, lies, and attempted murder. It could have taken away from the overall feel of the film, but really it gives it a great little sense of humor.

    In the end, this is another one of those classics that I just have to say "go, watch, now!". The acting is top notch, the music is fun, and the whole thing just rings of greatness. No wonder it's considered one of the best film noir's ever.

  • I'm singin' a review! What a glorious thing to do!

    Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]
    Under discussion:

    Ok, not really. I think people would freak out if I sang this entire review, and that has nothing to do with my total lack of singing skill. Anyway, we all know the 1952 classic "Singin' in the Rain" and the song that goes along with it.

    The plot follows Don Lockwood(brilliantly portrayed by the immortal Gene Kelly) and his co-star Lina Lamont(Jean Hagen) as their carrers in the silent film industry are challenged by the new technology on the block, the talkie. To stand up to this new threat Don, his best friend Cosmo(Donal O'Connor), and his love interest Kathy(Debbie Reynolds) decide to make a musical out of Lockwood and Lamont's flop of a first talkie.

    This film is called a classic for a reason, because it sets a standard not easily met by most. The last few years have seen the semi-resurgance of the musical genre(Hairspray and Sweeny Todd being the tow biggest offenders), but nothing seems to hold a flame to this film. Now i'm not a big fan of musicals, but this movie is just so much fun to watch. The songs are captivating(the title track being the most obvious along with "make 'em laugh"), however the whole "Broadway Meoldy" seemed to go on a little too long. The dancing is even fun to watch(in particular, Cosmo and Don at an alliteration coach and they start danicing in his office...thus scuffing the hell out of the guy's floors).

    The acting is top notch, and the singing adds a feeling of depth to the characters and seems to give the actors a good chance to show off thier pipes. Gene Kelly gives a mesmerizing performance, and Donald O'Connor's song and dance number "Make 'em Laugh" was spectacular(considering they had no special effects to speak of, those stunts are impressive).

    Overall, this is a must see. Even if you're like me and very skeptical of musicals(something about throwing songs in to advance the plot randomly irks me I guess). This is a great movie, regardless of your views on the song and dance thing.

 

Like what you're reading?

Subscribe
Search
  Go

Browse previous
<April 2008>
SunMonTueWedThuFriSat
303112345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
27282930123
45678910


Categories
 


Advertisement