05.31.06
Da Vinci De Coded (in German)
via The Movie Blog
This is a must-see!!! An online Da Vinci Code trailer from Heavy that is absolutely hysterical. Go there now!!!
05.30.06
X-Men Unite Again!!! (Damn it)
Unfortunately I have yet to check out Art School Confidential and based on bendi's review, perhaps I'll pass. However, since he brings up Brett Ratner, let's talk a little bit about the man. The wannabe auteur that brought us the Rush Hour movies has taken over directing responsibilities for the third X-Men installment. Frankly, I have little faith in Ratner and expect nothing higher than mediocre output from the director. To be honest, I did not even care much for Red Dragon and found the schlocky imagery in Hannibal more appealing than Ralph Fiennes dashing around his house naked with his junk flopping.
I recently saw X-Men 3 and I have to say…….Ratner really does suck as much as I think he does! I sat in the back row of the theater and carefully analyzed what worked and didn't work with this film. The screenplay: completely solid. The premise revolves around an antidote that can cure the mutants of their "sickness". Professor Xavier's bunch continues to strive for positively directing powers, and Magneto continues to strive for hostile takeover.
Cool storyline right? Too bad Ratner had to muck it up with his flaccid choices. I've come to the conclusion that Brett Ratner does not have a vision. In scenes where most directors try to take one angle or the other, Ratner doesn't do that. He just points the camera and shoots. The actors in the film have little depth and act over dramatic than the first two installments. Whose fault is that? Considering it is the director's responsibility to direct actors…….Brett Ratner!!!!
I know, this seems like a tirade that is biased and prepared in advance. The truth is, it isn't. After sitting through X-Men 3, it just so happens that the cons I have drawn from it are based on direction. This is supposed to be the final installment, but the open ending hints at more sequels. I say kill the franchise while the first two installments still have their dignity. However, judging the mucho bucks this film brought in over Memorial weekend and rising above last year's box office slump, I have a feeling this will only get worse.
Grade: C
Brett Ratner being hauled off the set by mental ward authorities.
05.26.06
Dear Terry Zwigoff, WTF?!?
Crumb, Ghost World, Bad Santa — all solid Indy comedies, a pretty decent streak if you ask me, and, sure, every hot streak must come to end, but how can anyone end a hot streak with something as terrible as Art School Confidential?
It is relatively rare that I refer to film as downright terrible, usually that honor is reserved for the work Michael Bay, Brett Ratner or starring Julia Roberts, Terry Zwigoff should never have been mentioned in the list, yet there he is.
Basic Plot: Kid wants to be a great artist – kid goes to art school – wackiness ensues. This leaves a lot of room to work with but somehow Zwigoff and writer Daniel Clowes turn this film into jumbled mess of stereotypes, that you can't help but groan at. For the purpose of this review, I'm not going to go into too much detail, it doesn't deserve the attention. Suffice it to say I can't recommend this film to anyone, even on rental. Watch at your own risk.
Three Cheers for Three Burials
I'll keep this short because, by now, most movie fans have heard the word about Three Burials of Melquiades Estrada, but I just got around to checking it out and I can't help myself — this is a damn good movie. I've been a fan of Guillermo Arriaga's scripts since Amores Perros, and still he seems to be unable to pen a bad screenplay and for a directorial debut, Tommy Lee Jones isn't too shabby either.
Out on DVD in the next two weeks, do not miss this flick!
05.16.06
How Money Is It?
Just a few weeks ago, Bendi was telling me of his lasting impression after seeing the indie drama Friends With Money. As this blog is devoted to two movie-lovers agreeing or disagreeing on whether certain movies are worth a damn, I took it upon myself to go out and see Friends so that we can provide feedback for your reading pleasure.
I will not disclose any information about Bendi's opinion. It is only fair that he do that himself. However, I will say that I agree with him that the film is pretty good.
The plot focuses on four longtime friends played by Jennifer Anniston, Joan Cusack, Frances McDormand, and Catherine Keener. They all have similar interests, but one thing sets Anniston apart from her peers: money. While her pals are married to wealthy men and devote dinner conversation to how many millions they have given to the most recent fund-raising shindig, Anniston miserably tries to reconfigure her life while working as a house cleaner.
Friends With Money is not likely to top my favorites list of the year (well…that depends on how many good movies 2006 has to offer). However, it is probably a better choice in film this week than say Poseidon. The film is flawed by the way it jumps from character to character not giving the audience a chance to really invest in them. The always charming Cusack is hardly given any screen time and McDormand spends her time ranting like a lunatic. At the same time, it is this ambiguity which benefits the film at times. Take for example the role of Simon McBurney as McDormand's sexually ambiguous husband. The character is fashion-centric and misidentified (or is he?) as gay by men and women on the street. While the film primarily focuses on Anniston's predicament, it is hard not to take an interest in McBurney's character. This may have a lot to do with him being the only husband character that is given attention.
Overall, Friends With Money is what it is. While not spectacular, it is a quality effort that is worth the admission, at least as a way of dodging flacid blockbuster fare.
Grade: B
