Another lost bet...another movie watched that I probably never would've watched otherwise. At first I said "no," since I don't like scary movies and end up crying like a little girl--but he assured me that it wasn't really scary, just more of a thriller. We have a rule (Shmovies and I) that whenever we make one of these "movie wagers", the movie has to be at least a 7 rating or higher. I will give him the benefit of the doubt since I don't like thrillers that much.
Starring Bill Paxton, Matthew Macohnekahhehankshgayahay, and Wiley Bill from Tombstone, Powers Boothe.
The good: It was surprising to say the least. The story was pretty interesting: "God" asks a man to kill demons in the world. The man teaches his young children to kill these demons as well. Police search for this serial killer.
Seemed like the typical serial killer movie at first, but as the movie progressed, there were a lot of elements of the movie that stirred some intrigue.
SEMI-SPOILER: There are a couple twists at the end--my gf was able to call it before it happened. I didn't.
The bad: Yet another "Bill P." that I dislike. Although he directed this film fairly well, Bill Pullman's character in the movie is just not very believable. He made me want to punch him in the face every time he talked.
The way Wiley Bill's character acted throughout the movie seemed unbelievable. No one would ever blindly act the way he did.
Overall, it was a good experience. Lovers of the thriller movie would enjoy this.
Rating: 6.5 out of 10
Monday, February 16, 2009
Thursday, February 12, 2009
...stop watching Heroes.
So I watched the season premiere of Heroes the Monday after the Superbowl...it was mediocre at best. I decided that I would give it a couple more weeks to draw me--bad idea. This week was possibly worse that the first. And how many times do we have to hear this story? Man hunts mutants. Sound familiar? I think this will again be a recurring theme in the Watchmen movie.
Anyways, the whole idea of gaining powers, losing powers, temporarily having powers is getting ridiculous. It leaves too much room for bad story telling, which, unfortunately is the problem with this show.
Do I give it one more week? How long does it take for one to decide that a show is bad. It took me SIX shows to decide that I didn't like the show Jekyll.
Halleluiah for 24! Still going strong.
Anyways, the whole idea of gaining powers, losing powers, temporarily having powers is getting ridiculous. It leaves too much room for bad story telling, which, unfortunately is the problem with this show.
Do I give it one more week? How long does it take for one to decide that a show is bad. It took me SIX shows to decide that I didn't like the show Jekyll.
Halleluiah for 24! Still going strong.
Thursday, February 5, 2009
...Documentary happy. (Man on Wire review)
I don't get it. I never WANT to watch a documentary...but, every time I start watching one, I always get involved and normally end up liking it. An Inconvenient Truth, Planet B-Boy, Sicko...all pretty good.
So I hear about this documentary on a podcast that I listen to, then it ends up being nominated for Best Documentary at the Oscars. And luckily, its on Netflix instant streaming (Netflix, are you reading this? Show me the money!)
Man on Wire is a true story of a French dude that decides that he wants to walk across the twin towers (r.i.p.) by way of a tight rope. It shows how he has done the same sort of thing at other famous buildings, like Notre Dame. This dude was crazy.
The Good: Its pretty amazing to see how confident this guy was. Whats funny is that he never gets permission to do any of these tight rope stunts on any of the famous buildings, so he always ends up getting arrested.
In a way, its like a caper movie because it shows how he plots his way to the top of the world trade center.
The Bad: A lot of the film is re-enactments. Since they had to sneak their way to the top, they didn't have any real documentation (mind you, this was in 1974). The only thing that there is documentation for is that he actually did walk on a tight rope across. How they actually get up there is just story telling.
Overall, I found this documentary to be entertaining enough. Not the best, but worth a watch. I'm surprised that I had never heard of this person before until this film came out. A man walking across the tallest buildings in the world seems like something I wouldve heard about. Maybe my brother heard about, since he's the only one that was alive back then...
Rating: 6 out of 10
So I hear about this documentary on a podcast that I listen to, then it ends up being nominated for Best Documentary at the Oscars. And luckily, its on Netflix instant streaming (Netflix, are you reading this? Show me the money!)
Man on Wire is a true story of a French dude that decides that he wants to walk across the twin towers (r.i.p.) by way of a tight rope. It shows how he has done the same sort of thing at other famous buildings, like Notre Dame. This dude was crazy.
The Good: Its pretty amazing to see how confident this guy was. Whats funny is that he never gets permission to do any of these tight rope stunts on any of the famous buildings, so he always ends up getting arrested.
In a way, its like a caper movie because it shows how he plots his way to the top of the world trade center.
The Bad: A lot of the film is re-enactments. Since they had to sneak their way to the top, they didn't have any real documentation (mind you, this was in 1974). The only thing that there is documentation for is that he actually did walk on a tight rope across. How they actually get up there is just story telling.
Overall, I found this documentary to be entertaining enough. Not the best, but worth a watch. I'm surprised that I had never heard of this person before until this film came out. A man walking across the tallest buildings in the world seems like something I wouldve heard about. Maybe my brother heard about, since he's the only one that was alive back then...
Rating: 6 out of 10
Friday, January 30, 2009
...bet the under for the Super Bowl.
2 blogs in one day, amazing!
A short conversation regarding the Super Bowl I had yesterday:
Friend: Yo, who are you pickin for the Super Bowl?
Me: The Cardinals.
Friend: Oh, nevermind, I guess I can't place a bet with you then.
Me: Ok, I'll take the Steelers.
Friend: Man, naw, naw.
Me: Don't you think Arizona's gonna win?
Friend: Yeah.
Me: Then place the bet. I just switched my pick so that you could bet.
Friend: Naw.
I don't really have a moral to this story, I just thought it was funny how unsure my friend was when I confirmed his pick, but switched just to bet.
Who do I think will win? I have talked to my brother about how uncomfortable I was writing about sports. I know enough to play fantasy sports, but not enough to intelligently talk about them. I tend to watch games by their stats, not by their actually quality of play (as many of us in the fantasy world do). But here is my poor analysis:
Steelers' defense is too tough. And I always feel like a good defense better prepares for a good offense than a good offense can prepare for a good defense. Edge is a joke. I don't wanna hear any of this "he got rested up all season on the bench, now he's ready to go." THERES A REASON HE WAS ON THE BENCH! I foresee Arizona being held under 90 total running yards. With that said, Steelers only have to focus on the passing--however cliche that may sound.
I realize that the Steelers don't have the best offense in the world, but its very balanced. They can use what works and can consistently put up 20+ points. In order for the Cards to win, they would have to score 30+, and I don't see that happening.
But let me clarify, I want the Cards to win. But I think the Steelers are too good for them.
Score: Steelers 28-Cards 17 (totals is at 47)
A short conversation regarding the Super Bowl I had yesterday:
Friend: Yo, who are you pickin for the Super Bowl?
Me: The Cardinals.
Friend: Oh, nevermind, I guess I can't place a bet with you then.
Me: Ok, I'll take the Steelers.
Friend: Man, naw, naw.
Me: Don't you think Arizona's gonna win?
Friend: Yeah.
Me: Then place the bet. I just switched my pick so that you could bet.
Friend: Naw.
I don't really have a moral to this story, I just thought it was funny how unsure my friend was when I confirmed his pick, but switched just to bet.
Who do I think will win? I have talked to my brother about how uncomfortable I was writing about sports. I know enough to play fantasy sports, but not enough to intelligently talk about them. I tend to watch games by their stats, not by their actually quality of play (as many of us in the fantasy world do). But here is my poor analysis:
Steelers' defense is too tough. And I always feel like a good defense better prepares for a good offense than a good offense can prepare for a good defense. Edge is a joke. I don't wanna hear any of this "he got rested up all season on the bench, now he's ready to go." THERES A REASON HE WAS ON THE BENCH! I foresee Arizona being held under 90 total running yards. With that said, Steelers only have to focus on the passing--however cliche that may sound.
I realize that the Steelers don't have the best offense in the world, but its very balanced. They can use what works and can consistently put up 20+ points. In order for the Cards to win, they would have to score 30+, and I don't see that happening.
But let me clarify, I want the Cards to win. But I think the Steelers are too good for them.
Score: Steelers 28-Cards 17 (totals is at 47)
...read the comment section.
Let me start by saying, my brothers are really cool. Like, really cool.
Comment sections are tough. Since I'm new to this blogging thing, I don't know what to do with them. Do I respond to comments in the comment section? Or do I assume no one reads the comments and respond as another blog (as I am doing here)?
Also, are the amount of comments a direct relation to the interest of the readers? I would say so. However, given that I only have about 3 to 4 readers, I will not grieve that I only get 1 or 2 comments every 3rd blog. I understand that if people really wanted to write, they may have a blog themselves.
Back to the comment. Chick-flicks are alright... Every now and then a good one pops up: High Fidelity, The Apartment, Smart People. If I hear good enough things about a movie I will go watch it. Keep in mind, that I don't necessarily go to any of these movies during opening weekend at the theater. There is just this thing called "word of mouth" that may suggest a good movie. I feel this same way about Westerns...I don't watch them unless I've heard lots of good things.
When my gf and I pick movies, we take turns: Sex and the City was her choice, Smart People was my choice. Thats just how it happened to work out this time, luckily they were both good.
Grey's Anatomy: The Movie. Has a nice ring to it...jk. Who is Grey?
Comment sections are tough. Since I'm new to this blogging thing, I don't know what to do with them. Do I respond to comments in the comment section? Or do I assume no one reads the comments and respond as another blog (as I am doing here)?
Also, are the amount of comments a direct relation to the interest of the readers? I would say so. However, given that I only have about 3 to 4 readers, I will not grieve that I only get 1 or 2 comments every 3rd blog. I understand that if people really wanted to write, they may have a blog themselves.
Back to the comment. Chick-flicks are alright... Every now and then a good one pops up: High Fidelity, The Apartment, Smart People. If I hear good enough things about a movie I will go watch it. Keep in mind, that I don't necessarily go to any of these movies during opening weekend at the theater. There is just this thing called "word of mouth" that may suggest a good movie. I feel this same way about Westerns...I don't watch them unless I've heard lots of good things.
When my gf and I pick movies, we take turns: Sex and the City was her choice, Smart People was my choice. Thats just how it happened to work out this time, luckily they were both good.
Grey's Anatomy: The Movie. Has a nice ring to it...jk. Who is Grey?
Thursday, January 29, 2009
...apparently watch romantic comedies (Smart People review).
Dennis Quaid, Sarah Jessica Parker, Ellen Page, and Lowell from Wings. Good, right?
At one point last year, I read a review that said that this movie was one of the best of the year. One of the best? No... Good? Yes.
This is a classic disfunctional family movie. You know the story, the dead-beat adopted brother moves in with the pompous, middle-aged, widowed professor whose son hates him because he doesn't pay attention to him and his daughter idolizes him because he is smart, but the daughter is too arrogant herself so she lives a repressed life then ends up falling for the dead-beat adopted brother who gets her high and drunk, then to get away from the arrogant daughter, the dead-beat adopted brother moves in to the unappreciated son's dorm, where the son ends up writing a poem that the new yorker buys which ends up grabbing the pompous father's attention but only after the pompous father falls in love with the ER doctor who turns out to be a former student of his--we've all heard it before.
The good: This is pretty funny. Not funny haha, but funny strange. There is enough strange things that go on that made me laugh. The story is pretty original and not your normal romantic comedy. Oh, and its pretty short 1 hour 35 mins, which made it a good late night watch, without staying up too late.
The bad: I don't really have anything bad too say about it.
Which brings me to a crossroad. How do I rate a movie I don't have anything bad to say about? I mean, I enjoyed it, I would recommend it. But it didn't blow me away. Does a movie rating start at 10 and get minus points for having bad things in it? In which case this would be a 10? or does it start at 0, and as the movie progresses, the score goes up? I guess, I do neither. It just needs to be my overall feel for the movie.
Rating: 7.5 out of 10
At one point last year, I read a review that said that this movie was one of the best of the year. One of the best? No... Good? Yes.
This is a classic disfunctional family movie. You know the story, the dead-beat adopted brother moves in with the pompous, middle-aged, widowed professor whose son hates him because he doesn't pay attention to him and his daughter idolizes him because he is smart, but the daughter is too arrogant herself so she lives a repressed life then ends up falling for the dead-beat adopted brother who gets her high and drunk, then to get away from the arrogant daughter, the dead-beat adopted brother moves in to the unappreciated son's dorm, where the son ends up writing a poem that the new yorker buys which ends up grabbing the pompous father's attention but only after the pompous father falls in love with the ER doctor who turns out to be a former student of his--we've all heard it before.
The good: This is pretty funny. Not funny haha, but funny strange. There is enough strange things that go on that made me laugh. The story is pretty original and not your normal romantic comedy. Oh, and its pretty short 1 hour 35 mins, which made it a good late night watch, without staying up too late.
The bad: I don't really have anything bad too say about it.
Which brings me to a crossroad. How do I rate a movie I don't have anything bad to say about? I mean, I enjoyed it, I would recommend it. But it didn't blow me away. Does a movie rating start at 10 and get minus points for having bad things in it? In which case this would be a 10? or does it start at 0, and as the movie progresses, the score goes up? I guess, I do neither. It just needs to be my overall feel for the movie.
Rating: 7.5 out of 10
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
...snore. (Revolutionary Road review)
Happy Birthday, baby! (well, Jan 23rd)
So her birthday wish was to watch the movie Revolutionary Road. I hadn't heard too much about it, but Leo has been pretty strong over the past few years. So I look this movie up on IMDB and it had an 8.3; and if you frequent IMDB, 8.3 is a really good score (I looked it up again today, it has since gone down to 7.9).
Sweet, an 8.3 movie with Leo. Leo's previous 6 movies: Body of Lies, Blood Diamond, The Departed, The Aviator, Catch Me if you Can, and Gangs of New York. This dude is on a roll.
WHAT THE HELL?! After nearly falling asleep a few times in the first 40 mins or so, I was trying to figure out what went wrong. Then I figured it out--if a movie isn't funny, or if there is no action, or if there isnt any interesting dialogue or interesting conflict, I apparently don't like it.
Just because a movie is supposed to be "good," does not mean its entertaining! Take, for example, Citizen Kane. "The best movie of all time." Have you ever seen this movie? Were you riveted? Did you laugh? Could you sit there for 2 hours? THE ANSWER IS NO!!! Now, I have come to appreciate Citizen Kane after watching it about 5 times (forced most of the time by movie classes I took in school). Maybe thats what is needed to appreciate this movie, but hopefully I won't be taking any classes that will force me to watch it.
The Good: Leo is good as usual. And After the first half of the movie, the suspense builds up a little. I was mildly entertained the 2nd half. The acting in general was good.
The Bad: Boooring. I mean, the story was ok. A young family in the 1950's trying to break lose from the "normal" life they are "supposed" to live. But they did not throw anythign else into the mix. No twists, no comedy, no action (well, Leo almost punches Kate a couple times). I just wanted the movie to end--and that is a bad sign for the movie.
Now, I am not trying to totally bash this movie. I can see how people would like it, my gf liked it a lot. Its just that if you like "entertaining" movies, rather than movies that are "well done," this isn't for you.
Rating: 5 out of 10
So her birthday wish was to watch the movie Revolutionary Road. I hadn't heard too much about it, but Leo has been pretty strong over the past few years. So I look this movie up on IMDB and it had an 8.3; and if you frequent IMDB, 8.3 is a really good score (I looked it up again today, it has since gone down to 7.9).
Sweet, an 8.3 movie with Leo. Leo's previous 6 movies: Body of Lies, Blood Diamond, The Departed, The Aviator, Catch Me if you Can, and Gangs of New York. This dude is on a roll.
WHAT THE HELL?! After nearly falling asleep a few times in the first 40 mins or so, I was trying to figure out what went wrong. Then I figured it out--if a movie isn't funny, or if there is no action, or if there isnt any interesting dialogue or interesting conflict, I apparently don't like it.
Just because a movie is supposed to be "good," does not mean its entertaining! Take, for example, Citizen Kane. "The best movie of all time." Have you ever seen this movie? Were you riveted? Did you laugh? Could you sit there for 2 hours? THE ANSWER IS NO!!! Now, I have come to appreciate Citizen Kane after watching it about 5 times (forced most of the time by movie classes I took in school). Maybe thats what is needed to appreciate this movie, but hopefully I won't be taking any classes that will force me to watch it.
The Good: Leo is good as usual. And After the first half of the movie, the suspense builds up a little. I was mildly entertained the 2nd half. The acting in general was good.
The Bad: Boooring. I mean, the story was ok. A young family in the 1950's trying to break lose from the "normal" life they are "supposed" to live. But they did not throw anythign else into the mix. No twists, no comedy, no action (well, Leo almost punches Kate a couple times). I just wanted the movie to end--and that is a bad sign for the movie.
Now, I am not trying to totally bash this movie. I can see how people would like it, my gf liked it a lot. Its just that if you like "entertaining" movies, rather than movies that are "well done," this isn't for you.
Rating: 5 out of 10
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)