Hey guys, I know it's been a little while. With summer school ending (yay!) I haven't had much time to watch any movies. (Boo). But, everyone needs a break from cramming math into their head, so I went today to see The Conjuring the 2013 movie about Ed and Lorianna Warren, Demonoligists who were very prevelant in the 1970s, I'm sure you've heard of of the movie Amnityville Horror, right? Ed and Lorianna investigated the original case.
Now, I'm not a skeptic..I do believe in demons and all that, do I believe in possession? No, not really. But that's probably just because I've never seen one that wasn't in a movie.
Anyway, I do like demon movies. The Exorcist is still my favorite horror of all time, even though there are some that are far superior.
Would I call The Conjuring better than The Exorcist? No, not in a million years...but you also have the The Exorcist being a classic, and The Conjuring only being in theaters for a few weeks.
Is it a good movie? Hell to the yes.
It pulled the usual stops, creepy dolls, creepy clowns, etc. But it wasn't solely about the creepy dolls and the creepy clowns. Even though the doll and the music box (with the clown inside) were the items possessed.
It was actually about the people being haunted, by these spirits. Rather than just blood and gore, that happens to involve a spirit or two.
I also really liked how they gave the spirit a back story, rather than just "Oh, there's a demon in this house...let's defeat it, the end"
The soundtrack was also used not to the films detriment...it wasn't used to signal something was GOING to happen, it was used AFTER or DURING something had happened/was happening.
It had jump scares, sure. But it wasn't loaded with them to the point it was all about the jump scare. It had blood, but it wasn't too to the point it was all the blood.
The ending of most scary movies go like this..."end. Oh no, demon is gonna jump out at you. Credits" this one, there was no demon at the end to jump out at you before the credits rolled, and in a weird way, even though the demon had been defeated, it was more unsettleing than if it hadn't been defeated.
Oh, and the reference to Alfred Hitchcock's The Birds was a really nice touch.
Check it out, you won't be disappointed.
Tuesday, July 23, 2013
Tuesday, July 16, 2013
Why is the Rescuers Down Under (1990) an underrated film?
So, we're going to look at things a little differently tonight, rather than review the film "The Rescuers Down Under" because honestly, I don't feel I can add anything that hasn't already been said... we're going to look at why it's underrated movie.
I have 2 theories...
But first, I feel the need to point out...I don't like movies about talking animals. Live action or animation. Not even as a kid. So, some of these theories might be a little biased. (I do like TRDU, for whatever that's worth..but it's the exception, not the rule)
1) The first film, simply titled "The Rescuers" came out in 1977. 36 years ago, let's put it in perspective, "The Rescuers" came out the same year, Star Wars: a New Hope came out. But aside from probably being overshadowed by Star Wars (I'm just assuming, I wasn't even thought about in 1977). The original film, isn't very good. At least compared to things Disney had put out prior...(this is just before "The Golden Age of Disney" which started with The Little Mermaid, which came out in 1989). At by "it's not very good" I simply mean, it's forgettable, have I seen it? Yeah. Do I remember anything about it? Other than Eva Gabor as Miss Bianca (and I only remember her, because even as a kid growing up in the late 90s early 2000s, I loved Green Acres)....no, not really.
The Rescuers Down Under came out 1990, 13 years after the original film. With the first film being pretty forgettable, 13 years was too long to wait for a sequel, because by then, people had moved on...bigger and better things, if you forgot you saw the first film in a franchise...are you gonna see the sequel? Probably not. Besides that...the people who saw the original film, were probably fairly grown up the time 1990 came around, mu uncle was born in 1977, and so at 13 in 1990 I don't think this would have been up his alley because "animation is kids stuff", whether that's true or not...is up for debate, but it's a fair correlation.
2) I started thinking...do I remember a single film that came out in 2001? I'm sure I saw some, multiple ones, can I name a specific title? No. Why? Everything was overshadowed by September 11th, (and it should have been).
I wasn't born until 1992, so I don't know what 1990 was like in itself, although I doubt a whole ton changed in just 2 years...
There were just three major points that I found: In no particular order:
1) Hubble Telescope launced into space
2)Lech Walesa Becomes First President of Poland
3) Nelson Mandela Freed.
*You do have the gulf war, but that didn't technically begin until 1991, even though it was hostile in 1990
I'm sure there were other major things, but hey...I only did one google search.Yeah, they're important...but not on the level that 9/11 was.
I think it all goes back to, the fact the sequel to a forgettable movie was made 13 years later, and it's animated. Which meant, unless adults were taking their kids, they were probably going to skip the film. Probably for Dancers with Wolves (which one best picture that year).
But hey, it's just speculation.
I have 2 theories...
But first, I feel the need to point out...I don't like movies about talking animals. Live action or animation. Not even as a kid. So, some of these theories might be a little biased. (I do like TRDU, for whatever that's worth..but it's the exception, not the rule)
1) The first film, simply titled "The Rescuers" came out in 1977. 36 years ago, let's put it in perspective, "The Rescuers" came out the same year, Star Wars: a New Hope came out. But aside from probably being overshadowed by Star Wars (I'm just assuming, I wasn't even thought about in 1977). The original film, isn't very good. At least compared to things Disney had put out prior...(this is just before "The Golden Age of Disney" which started with The Little Mermaid, which came out in 1989). At by "it's not very good" I simply mean, it's forgettable, have I seen it? Yeah. Do I remember anything about it? Other than Eva Gabor as Miss Bianca (and I only remember her, because even as a kid growing up in the late 90s early 2000s, I loved Green Acres)....no, not really.
The Rescuers Down Under came out 1990, 13 years after the original film. With the first film being pretty forgettable, 13 years was too long to wait for a sequel, because by then, people had moved on...bigger and better things, if you forgot you saw the first film in a franchise...are you gonna see the sequel? Probably not. Besides that...the people who saw the original film, were probably fairly grown up the time 1990 came around, mu uncle was born in 1977, and so at 13 in 1990 I don't think this would have been up his alley because "animation is kids stuff", whether that's true or not...is up for debate, but it's a fair correlation.
2) I started thinking...do I remember a single film that came out in 2001? I'm sure I saw some, multiple ones, can I name a specific title? No. Why? Everything was overshadowed by September 11th, (and it should have been).
I wasn't born until 1992, so I don't know what 1990 was like in itself, although I doubt a whole ton changed in just 2 years...
There were just three major points that I found: In no particular order:
1) Hubble Telescope launced into space
2)Lech Walesa Becomes First President of Poland
3) Nelson Mandela Freed.
*You do have the gulf war, but that didn't technically begin until 1991, even though it was hostile in 1990
I'm sure there were other major things, but hey...I only did one google search.Yeah, they're important...but not on the level that 9/11 was.
I think it all goes back to, the fact the sequel to a forgettable movie was made 13 years later, and it's animated. Which meant, unless adults were taking their kids, they were probably going to skip the film. Probably for Dancers with Wolves (which one best picture that year).
But hey, it's just speculation.
Monday, July 1, 2013
The Heat (2013)
Okay, we all the know the formula "Strict-play-by-the-rules cop meets do-your-own-thing cop, but become buddies to take down a bad guy"
That's basically The Heat in one sentence. Was it an incredible movie? No. But it was good, why?
Chemistry.
Melissa McCarthy and Sandra Bullock had the most amazing chemistry on screen that I've ever seen in this type of movie.
It's a formulaic movie in every sense of the word, and yeah, there's a twist...but it's pretty much handed to you on a silver platter...
I felt like Sandra Bullock was trying to escape the "Miss Congeniality" phase of her career, did it work? Maybe, I don't know. But I got the feeling she was trying.
Although, I am a little sad that in one scene, the bad guy has Sandra Bullock in a choke hold with a knife to her neck, and Melissa McCarthy pulls a gun on him. It would have been awesome if Sandra shouted "Shoot the hostage!" (Ya know, from Speed) which no, wouldn't have worked at all in the context of the given scene, but I was waiting for it nonetheless
I don't feel like I can say anything about this movie that hasn't been said about every other buddy cop movie, but it's totally worth a watch just for the chemistry McCarthy and Bullock present.
That's basically The Heat in one sentence. Was it an incredible movie? No. But it was good, why?
Chemistry.
Melissa McCarthy and Sandra Bullock had the most amazing chemistry on screen that I've ever seen in this type of movie.
It's a formulaic movie in every sense of the word, and yeah, there's a twist...but it's pretty much handed to you on a silver platter...
I felt like Sandra Bullock was trying to escape the "Miss Congeniality" phase of her career, did it work? Maybe, I don't know. But I got the feeling she was trying.
Although, I am a little sad that in one scene, the bad guy has Sandra Bullock in a choke hold with a knife to her neck, and Melissa McCarthy pulls a gun on him. It would have been awesome if Sandra shouted "Shoot the hostage!" (Ya know, from Speed) which no, wouldn't have worked at all in the context of the given scene, but I was waiting for it nonetheless
I don't feel like I can say anything about this movie that hasn't been said about every other buddy cop movie, but it's totally worth a watch just for the chemistry McCarthy and Bullock present.
Monsters University (2013)
So ladies, and gents...let's look at the most recent movie I've seen. Monsters University, starring John Goodman and Billy Crystal...
So, a short synopsis...Mike (Billy Crystal) wants to become a "scarer" (the thing he is the Monsters Inc, go scare children to power the Monster world) but he isn't scary enough once he gets to college, so Dean Hardscrabble (Helen Mirren, who I'll get to in a minute) kicks him out of the program.
The University has a thing called the "Scare Games" which is exactly what it sounds like, Mike and Sully (John Goodman) who has also been kicked out of the program for failing his final exam, make a team to compete with the "geeks" of the school...under the condition that if they win, Mike and Sully can join the program again, and if they loose, both of them leave the University forever. Well, obviously they win.
I don't think it was better than Monsters INC, by any stretch of the imagination, but I think it's one of the better Pixar sequels. Even if you don't like sequels, it's worth a watch. I enjoyed it.
But, what I wanted to talk about wasn't the movie, because I feel like there isn't anything to talk about that wasn't covered when the first film came out.
Dean Hardscrabble...is she a villain? I went to see MU with my boyfriend, and my 7 year old cousin...me and my boyfriend thought she wasn't a villain, just a cliche "mean dean" type thing, my 7 year old cousin was adamant she was a "bad guy".
I think the way you look at a lot of characters, but specifically Dean Hardscrabble, is how much "wordy experience" you have. Yes, DH was mean, no doubt, but I've dealt with people worse, even deans worse, for that matter. Ben, my cousin...the meanest person he's ever met is probably my Aunt when he's told "No."
His naive view on the world made him believe Dean Hardscrabble was a villain, while Mine and Chris' non-naive view of the world made her seem.....simply, human. (monster, whatever..you get my point).
I don't think Helen Mirren created a bad character, quite the contrary, I thought she was excellent...whether or not she's a villain or not. But she created a character with layers...the dean is simply trying to do her job and not play favorites, even though it mentions several times that Sully, is from a family of "scarers"
Either way, kid, adult, villain or not...it's worth a look.
So, a short synopsis...Mike (Billy Crystal) wants to become a "scarer" (the thing he is the Monsters Inc, go scare children to power the Monster world) but he isn't scary enough once he gets to college, so Dean Hardscrabble (Helen Mirren, who I'll get to in a minute) kicks him out of the program.
The University has a thing called the "Scare Games" which is exactly what it sounds like, Mike and Sully (John Goodman) who has also been kicked out of the program for failing his final exam, make a team to compete with the "geeks" of the school...under the condition that if they win, Mike and Sully can join the program again, and if they loose, both of them leave the University forever. Well, obviously they win.
I don't think it was better than Monsters INC, by any stretch of the imagination, but I think it's one of the better Pixar sequels. Even if you don't like sequels, it's worth a watch. I enjoyed it.
But, what I wanted to talk about wasn't the movie, because I feel like there isn't anything to talk about that wasn't covered when the first film came out.
Dean Hardscrabble...is she a villain? I went to see MU with my boyfriend, and my 7 year old cousin...me and my boyfriend thought she wasn't a villain, just a cliche "mean dean" type thing, my 7 year old cousin was adamant she was a "bad guy".
I think the way you look at a lot of characters, but specifically Dean Hardscrabble, is how much "wordy experience" you have. Yes, DH was mean, no doubt, but I've dealt with people worse, even deans worse, for that matter. Ben, my cousin...the meanest person he's ever met is probably my Aunt when he's told "No."
His naive view on the world made him believe Dean Hardscrabble was a villain, while Mine and Chris' non-naive view of the world made her seem.....simply, human. (monster, whatever..you get my point).
I don't think Helen Mirren created a bad character, quite the contrary, I thought she was excellent...whether or not she's a villain or not. But she created a character with layers...the dean is simply trying to do her job and not play favorites, even though it mentions several times that Sully, is from a family of "scarers"
Either way, kid, adult, villain or not...it's worth a look.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)