xBenjaminMichae lx

Under discussion:

Inglorious Basterds  (2009)

Quentin Tarantino garners a very big mixed reaction.  A lot of people find him overrated, while a lot of people find him to be one of the more brilliant minds in cinema today.  I tend to find myself leaning somewhere closer to the brilliant, so when a movie comes out he has written/directed it tends to be a big event for me.

Enter Inglorious Basterds.  It follows three main stories: that of a group of Jewish soldiers lead by Aldo Raine (Brad Pitt) that are attempting to kill as many Nazis as possible, much to the chagrin of Adolf Hitler himself.  It also focuses on German officer Hans Landa (Christoph Waltz), known by the Jewish people as the “Jew Hunter” due to his ability to sniff them out of hiding.  Finally, we see Shoshanna Dreyfus (Melanie Laurent), a woman whose entire family was snuffed out by Hans Landa and his men.

The film is pretty typical Tarantino.  A misconception is this is a remake of a film with the same title; they have nowhere near the same plot.  Quentin hasn’t lost his knack for dialogue, and may be at his best here.

Brad Pitt was superb as Aldo Raine.  You could tell he was really having fun with the character.  One thing I’ve always enjoyed about Pitt is he’s not afraid to take on interesting, different roles.  This is far from anything I’ve seen him do, and he shined in it well.  A particular scene with him

I must admit though, no one shocked me more so than Christoph Waltz, playing Hans Landa.  He was phenomenal, and seemed to steal every scene he was involved with. I hope to see him in more English language films from here on out.

A lot of people will compare this film to his other works, and rightfully so:  people will always compare a film-maker’s catalog.  If I were to compare, I would honestly say this film could potentially be his best yet.  It’s too early to tell, as I’ve had multiple viewings of each other one.  I must say this does give his other flicks a run for their money.

If you like Tarantino, you will not be disappointed.

Under discussion:

Timecrimes  (2008)

Time travel is a tricky subject.  Many films attempt it, but a lot of films also mess it up.  It’s a very touchy topic to take on.  Timecrimes takes swing, and hits a home run.  It’s one of the best movies involving time travel that I have ever seen.

Timecrimes follows Hector; a man sent traveling back in time after being chased in the wilderness by a strange man with a bandaged face.  There really isn’t much more to be said about the plot without giving away the twists and turns that it follows.

I watched the film with the overdubbing.  I can’t say anything about the subtitles, but the overdubbing could have been better, but wasn’t bad.  At no point did I ever get distracted by the English in the film.  The acting itself is hard to say, again, because it wasn’t the actors themselves speaking.

The direction and writing of the film is very excellent, both tasks by Nacho Vigalondo.  This is his first film behind the lens, and he is starting out incredibly strong.  His shots are powerful, and there is not a wasted frame anywhere.  He does a lot with his time, and makes it all worthwhile.

Timecrimes is a must-see for any fan of time travel, sci-fi, and unexpected twists and turns.

Under discussion:

The Goods: The Don Ready Story  (2009)

I had very high hopes for The Goods: The Don Ready Story.  I had seen the standard trailer and the red-band trailer as well, and thought it looked hilarious.  What I got was an uneven outing.  I found myself laughing hysterically at some parts and wincing at others.

In the title role, Jeremy Piven played the jerk well, but he’s been doing it for years on Entourage so it was nothing new to him.  He was supposed to be the main character, and he was, but he didn’t have as many jokes as I was expecting.  He played backseat in the funny department.  Ed Helms did great as his nemesis Paxton.  Helms is always on-point and rarely will you find him to not be funny.

Dave Koechner, Ving Rhames, and Kathryn Hahn all played roles on Piven’s team, and all were funny in their own right.  Rhames probably had the best line of the movie, specifically when talking about his past sexual exploits.  All the supporting roles in the film were good, and Craig Robinson was his usual hilarious self

The problem I found was a lot of the jokes just didn’t land, and that isn’t good in what appeared to be an improv-comedy.  Robinson and Helms were the only consistently funny characters, as all the others wavered between hilarious and flat.  Will Ferrell had an amazing cameo in the movie as McDermott, told in a flashback.  The second and third Ferrell cameos however, again, fall flat and just don’t land.

The Goods is an easy-premise with paper-thin substance.  This is a comedy that will deliver some laughs, but won’t reach the levels of quoting that Anchorman or 40 Year Old Virgin possesses.

Under discussion:

The Informers  (2009)

Informers is a film that follows interweaving characters who are all connected by a very thin premise – they are all going to the same concert.  Set in the 1980’s, There are a plethora of characters, all of which are boring and have nothing of importance to say.

Billy Bob Thornton plays William; a man who wants both his wife (Kim Bassinger) and his mistress (Winona Ryder) but neither will share. Mickey Rourke plays a useless character that doesn’t get enough time to be effective.  Chris Isaak is a creepy father who tries to steal away his son’s new lady on their Hawaiian vacation.  All of the aforementioned characters problems are there, and are generally legitimate, however all of the personality traits and quirks these people possess don’t even leave you rooting for them to overcome their issues: you just don’t care.

The majority of the screen time goes for Jon Foster, who no longer wants his girlfriend (Amber Heard) to have sex with the man he is having sex with (Austin Nichols).  His internal debate just seems to be immaterial and selfish since he’s asking his woman to be faithful when he cannot be.  Amber Heard is wasted in the movie as his girlfriend, who barely has any speaking roles.  Her entire existence in the movie is to have sex and be nude in every single scene she is in.  I actually found myself shocked in a scene when I saw her wearing clothing.

Informers is a jumbled up, boring mess that loses you every second of the way.  There are too many characters with too many problems to even know who is who or to care about anyone.  The gratuitous nudity was bothersome, even as a straight male.  Unfortunately for director Gregor Jordan, the nudity was the only interesting scene in this 90-minute waste of time.  Foster’s character states in a car during the film “I need someone to tell me what is good and what is bad.”  Well, Mr. Foster, this film is bad.

Under discussion:

Film Name  Production Year

The Bridge to Nowhere  (2008)

It's not that the story itself of Bridge to Nowhere is uninteresting.  And it's not that ALL of the actors are bad.  In fact, I found myself caring about a couple of the side characters, and enjoying certain scenes with the side characters.  The problem comes with the implausibility of some elements of the story, and the acting by the main character.

Bridge to Nowhere is about four friends from the rough streets of Pittsburgh.  They are all struggling to pay bills, and earn money by taking bets on sports games and dead-end jobs while they each have their own family problems they struggle with.  A chance meeting with two newly-arrived women, who happen to be hookers, sets them into a spiral of prostitution and drug-dealing that leads them to financial riches.  The story follows the rise and fall of their empire.

I found Ving Rhames to be spot-on in his role as a drug-lord giving the young men advice on how to deal for a cut of their profits.  He was humorous in parts, and also heartless when the story turns.  Danny Masterson did a good job as the friend torn between his money and love.  The other two friends, played by Daniel London and Sean Derry (his first – and only – theatrical role) did a fine job as well.

However after that, the casting seems odd.  Ben Crowley plays Brian, the main character who occupies nearly every scene.  However Crowley just didn’t get it done as the self-proclaimed catalyst of the group.  He speaks in a white-guy-who-wants-to-be-black accent, when none of the other characters do.  His dramatic scenes intending viewers to feel sympathy for him are made less potent by his poor acting.  Thomas Ian Nicholas is a talented actor wasted in the film as the fifth friend who opts not to join his buddies in their illegal activities, and rarely makes the screen.  Why not give him a more important role, or demote the screen time Brian receives?  Maybe a role-reversal would’ve benefited both.

The main theme of the movie is that these guys made a lot of money and lost it all.  However, there seems to be an issue with the math in their finance department.  They claim to have made over seven million dollars in the course of one year, selling drugs and with their prostitutes.  However, they only sold drugs to the men using the prostitutes.  And they only had five of them.  The numbers just don’t seem to add up.  I feel the writers should have maybe looked into the prices hookers charged and how that would add up before filming began.

Overall, the film could’ve benefited by some casting changes and a little bit of foresight by the filmmakers.  Blair Underwood seemed to be a very serviceable director in only his second movie behind a camera, and wouldn't mind watching additional films he helms.  However, Crowley is an albatross around the neck of what could have been ultimately an entertaining film.

Under discussion:

Strange Wilderness  (2008)

Before going to far into this, I want to say that I like all the main actors in this, including Steve Zahn, Allen Covert, Jonah Hill, Justin Long, and Kevin Heffernan (who finally does something unrelated to Broken Lizard).  However, overall, the film falls short on laughs.

That's not to say that it is a borefest.  I laughed out loud a handful of times, mostly during the overdubbing of nature scenes, and to the first Bigfoot scene.  Overall, a lot of jokes fall short.  Jonah Hill was surprisingly off in this film, but he was a minor role.  I liked Justin Long's short one-liners despite his terrible character.  Steve Zahn's glory, as aforementioned, was mostly in the overdubbing scenes.  A scene with Zahn and Covert battling with the gangster in the car was terribly unfunny.

Robert Patrick's part was also a waste.  No reason for him to be there.

 The plot was something I was very excited for, and I thought the payoff was perfect.   However, after the perfect climax, the film has nowhere to go, and just kind of fizzles out.  Even without the ending, the pacing of the story just... wasn't on, I would say.  There wasn't anything glaringly wrong, but It just didn't feel right.

 
Overall, I would say that it isn't a waste of watching, but not a hilarious comedy in the vein of Superbad, Grandma's Boy, or Saving Silverman, all of which are funnier films featuring the actors in this film.