This review pleases me; I was worried that the movie wouldn't live up to my already high expectations but seeing as watching the film results in rainbows streaming out of the eyes of the viewer, my doubts have vanished.
This review pleases me; I was worried that the movie wouldn't live up to my already high expectations but seeing as watching the film results in rainbows streaming out of the eyes of the viewer, my doubts have vanished.
Fair warning: rainbow tear stains do NOT come out of clothes.
As for Tex, I noticed that too but not until I listened to the soundtrack after the movie so it didn't bother me.
As Good As It Gets - 10/10 - It's like watching Jack Nicholson playing this lovable bastard everyone else despises and wishes would just die - you know, me. I love every second of it, and it has some of the greatest dialogue I've ever heard. Honestly, this is my favorite Nicholson movie.
Die Another Day - 0/11 - This movie is like torturous Bond-age with barbed wire.
I had a lot more problems with the Muppets then most, I believe.
My main problem is it failed to feel like a Muppet movie - it felt like the show. In that, it did a terrible job at getting the celebrity cameos in a Muppet way - Jack Black and Jim Parsons being the only cameos that actually add anything other than 'lol i'm a celebrity' (first person to say Alan Arkin shall be promptly reminded his character was not delivering or recieving jokes at any point in his scene). I love the Muppet Movie's use of cameos, and I was eagerly awaiting seeing that in this - nope.
And, yes, the person who plays Fozzie seemed really off a number of times, because apparently Frank Oz is unable to reprise his role for the Muppets but perfectly capable to return to Star Wars.
Also, inconsistent main character! Walter seems to be the only focus for quite a while, and it suddenly becomes the Muppets, and at the end there's a solid ten minutes where Walter does not appear. What a waste.
I don't want to assign the movie a rating; I enjoyed it. I just think it could have been far better.
Also; I never see movies the week they open, but I could not wait for this. I had an awful time at the theatre, and will not be seeing movies the week they open for the forseeable future.
...apparently Frank Oz is unable to reprise his role for the Muppets but perfectly capable to return to Star Wars.
Actually Frank Oz has gone on record as saying he turned the movie down because he didn't like the script and the way that Kermit was portrayed. He's hardly alone in that regard; many people who formed the original creative talent behind The Muppets have talked negatively about the movie.
Having seen the 'fart shoes' gag in the trailer, I dare say I tend to concur.
For years, Frank Oz has been the voice (and hands) of Miss Piggy, but when he got the script for the new 'Muppets' film, he turned it down. "I wasn't happy with the script. I don't think they respected the characters," he tells the British site Metro. "But I don't want to go on about it like a sourpuss and hurt the movie."
Oz might remain somewhat diplomatic, but he's not the only one concerned with the "Muppets" script by star Jason Segel and Nicholas Stoller ('Forgetting Sarah Marshall', 'Get Him to the Greek'): other longtime Muppeteers are also displeased that the beloved characters' repertoire now includes fart jokes, and the fact that Kermit seems to have become a 1-percenter.
Per THR, 'Muppet insiders' worry that Segel and director James Bobin (a writer on 'Da Ali G Show' and 'Flight of the Conchords') have sacrificed the characters' integrity for easy laughs. "They're looking at the script on a joke-by-joke basis, rather than as a construction of character and story", one insider said to the trade magazine.
"Take Fozzie's fart-shoes joke featured in the trailer: We wouldn't do that; it's too cheap", another Muppets veteran says. "It may not seem like much in this world of [Judd] Apatow humor, but the characters don't go to that place." They're also worried that Kermit is now a fat cat who lives in a mansion and that the other Muppets now resent his wealth, leading to the band breaking up.
Oh, I guess that's somewhat better but still, a fart gag in a Muppets movie.
I'll reserve my true judgement until I've watched it myself. I just wanted to share the behind the scenes controversy.
Honestly, for me, watching the film without knowledge of anything going on behind the scenes, the fart gag felt alright. I mean, Fozzie's whole thing has always been telling jokes that are, frankly, bad and based on pretty simple gags. Maybe not farts, but very simplistic slapstick humor and extremely terrible puns. It felt in line with his character to me, though obviously Oz is in a better position than I to determine such things. All the same, it's true, everyone finds the shoes obnoxious and they show up very briefly.
My main problems with the film, actually, were:
1. The movie is a structural mess. There are plot threads that are badly designed, plot threads that go nowhere, resolutions that seem pulled out of someone's ass at the last minute, etc. This is mainly do to rewrites, reshoots, and slapdash editing, since we've heard about how the original script was supposed to handle things, and on paper the approach they intended to take is far better. There are a variety of problems with the general plot structure, and it would take a lot of time to get into them all, but some core problems include:
-What was the core theme/message of the movie? There seem to be several, and none of them are quite well. Where one would place a message worthy of "film central theme" material, Segal's character says(of Walter) "
He's finally grown up
". No he didn't, we didn't see anything of the sort, and this is a theme thrown into the movie late in the game in a reference to a sight gag at the VERY start of the film. It doesn't work.
-The
Moopet
s go nowhere, never make a point, and honestly the film would be better without them.
-What was the message of the two intertwining romances supposed to be? I never quite got this. That they worked the two together does work, but this is one of those plot threads that never quite finishes off well. Also, I found it weird that the romance between the two puppets had more going on sexually than the one between two humans.
-The actual resolution of the ending is revealed in newspaper headlines over the credits. Really.
2. Walter is boring. Oh my god, this character has absolutely NO character traits whatsoever beyond being a Muppet fanboy. There is a scene in the movie where the film directs the audience's thoughts to what Walter could be good at, which I feel is a mistake. Making the audience think about what positive attributes Walter could have then forces them to realize he DOESN'T HAVE ANY, and his part of the film(up until then supported entirely by the virtues of the secondary cast) collapses under the weight of this realization.
3. The puppetry is EXTREMELY constrained. I'm not sure if anyone else noticed this, but the puppetry feels more suited to the Muppet SHOW rather than a Muppet movie. In the 1979 Muppet movie, we have Muppets in full frame playing banjos, a Muppet riding a bicycle, and two Muppets dancing on a stage, all with no puppeteers or rigging in sight. Here is a preview clip they've uploaded of the opening musical number. Notice Walter's movement. Notice how it's always extremely simple, how he's never fully in the fame. THE WHOLE MOVIE is like this. I can't recall a single
4. Many of the cameos are terrible. The vast majority are cameos that go "Look at me, I'm famous, haha." Now, since the plot worked around what's popular now and the Muppets' past, I think I can see what they were going for, but the cameos still are executed in a way that feels cheap. The exceptions to this are Sarah Silverman, Emily Blunt, Kristen Schaal, and oddly enough the first half of Jack Black's cameo. I usually find Jack Black's stuff intolerable, so that his role worked even half the time for me is pretty impressive. On the other hand, he was accompanied by a pretty solid Animal joke and Kristen Schaal's performance, so that helped. For anyone else you see, the cameo joke is pretty much "I'm famous, haha". Oh, Jim Parsons has a mostly visual cameo, but that made a pretty bad song number a lot more enjoyable.
5. The songs are a mixed bag for me. There's only one(new) song that I felt was really solid. The rest of the musucal numbers, to me, felt like either bad executions of musical numbers that, in theory, should really work, and solid executions of songs that, honestly, have no reason to exist.
Ultimately though, it does feel like The Muppets. Moment to moment, the writing for the gags and the characters feels more in line with the characters with anything Muppets related in the past few years, possibly since Henson's death. The characters are themselves again, and that makes a lot of people happy and probably a bit less critical than they should be. It makes the movie fun to watch, but does that mean it's also a great movie? I can't really say yes.
On the other hand, I feel like the people treating Kermit as a "moneybags 1 percenter" are looking for messages where there weren't any. Kermit succeeded and lives in a pretty opulent house, sure(whose design is actually well explained by who we learn designed it), but The Muppets don't resent him for his wealth or popularity. Miss Piggy resents him for deciding not
This is perhaps the strangest and most difficult films to critique that I have ever come across, outside of The Human Centipede 2. Where to start? Well, it's a comedic anthology film set in a hotel being single handedly staffed by a bell-hop named Ned (played by Tim Roth), working his first shift on New Years Eve. Each segment of the film is set in a different room of the hotel, as Ned tries to satisfy the bizzare needs of the various guests.
Each segment is written and directed by a different person. Those people are...
Allison Anders
Alexandre Rockwell
and most notably...
Robert Rodriguez
and
Quentin Tarantino
The film opens with an animation that pays homage to the opening of the Pink Panther movie (the good one starring Peter Sellers, not that Steve Martin trash). The use of music during this credit sequence (Vertigogois by Combustible Edison) perfectly sets up the off-kilter nature of what's to follow. Check it out for yourself...
We are then introduced to the aforementioned character of Ned, which is essentially Tim Roth doing a very bad impression of Jerry Lewis. What's interesting is that as the film progresses and the directors switch places, Roth's acting becomes a lot more subtle and therefore humorous and quite frankly, bearable.
Room 1
The first segment from Allison Anders is by far the weakest of the four stories. This room of the hotel is host to a coven of witches, whom desire to resurrect a legendary sorceress but in order to do so they require some, uh... semen and it falls upon Ned to come (no pun intended) up with the goods!
It reminds me of the latter, soft-core porn films of Ed Wood. Much like Mr. Wood's films, it's strangely engaging to watch (in that train wreck kind of a way).
Room 2
Next up is the story from Alexandre Rockwell, which once again is somewhat sexual in nature. Ned is called upon to deliver a bucket of ice to room 409 but he mistakenly enters room 404, where he is promptly greeted by the business end of a magnum revolver and it's aggressive owner, who insists that Ned partakes in a strange role-play scenario with his wife, who is tied to a chair.
This section was a definite improvement over the last tale, with some nice performances but it's very confusing and hard to follow (I found myself questioning the motivation of Ned and the two guests at several points). At this moment you may be asking why on Earth I've rated this film any higher than 3 out of 10 but all will become clear with the next segment...
Room 3
This part of the film by Robert Rodriguez is the best story within this mixed anthology. In fact, it's really quite wonderful. We join a husband and wife as they prepare to leave the hotel for the evening in order to attend a party. However, there's one problem; who's going to keep an eye on their two children whilst they're gone? Why, Ned the bell-hop of course!
As the father is leaving the hotel room, he instructs the children to behave themselves. Unfortunately for poor old Ned, they do anything but and the discovery of a dead hooker under the bed certainly doesn't help matters (note that this particular detail is a disturbingly common occurrence within hotels in real life)!
The acting, direction and pacing for this segment are all superb. The catastrophes build up, one by one until melting point and there's a belting punchline to this farce.
Room 4
Quentin Tarantino writes, directs and *gulp* stars in the final tale. However, thankfully his "acting" is closer to his portrayal of Richie in 'From Dusk till Dawn' than it is in the game 'Director's Chair'. The story has Tarantino playing a sort of version of himself; a director named Chester Rush. Chester and his friends have decided to place a delivish bet based off a classic episode of 'Alfred Hitchcock Presents' and naturally they require Ned's assistance.
Although this segment isn't as good as the last, it still makes for a fun ride and is well made. It's certainly miles ahead of the first two segments. By this point Tim Roth is virtually unrecognisable from the buffoonish fool he played at the start of the film (showing that a good director of actors can go a long way).
Summary
So there you have it; a film of two halves, shit and sugar if you will. Keeping that in mind, I felt that the average 5 out of 10 was an appropriate score. However, the film is never less than engaging even when it's terrible and it's for that reason that I urge you to ignore the score and give Four Rooms a watch yourself. You might just thank me for it, there's nothing else quite like it.
I enjoyed Four Rooms for the most part. Room 1 was the worst, by far, but the rest were very memorable and bizarre. It is by no means a great movie, however, it does have it's place. Tim Roth gave a fantastic performance, especially in his silent shots.
I enjoyed Four Rooms for the most part. Room 1 was the worst, by far, but the rest were very memorable and bizarre. It is by no means a great movie, however, it does have it's place. Tim Roth gave a fantastic performance, especially in his silent shots.
Thinking about it; watching Four Rooms kind of reminds me of watching The Rocky Horror Picture Show. Not that they're necessarily similar in most regards (save for the sexual themes) but they both feel unique, engaging, colourful and utterly bat shit crazy.
I saw Breaking Dawn Part 1 with my wife on our wedding anniversary, and having read the books I'd have to say the movie was spot on with the story. The movie actually was really pretty good. I imagine that anyone who has never read the books would be annoyed/confused/disinterested about many aspects of the movies.
I told my wife (and later told my mother) that I liked it, and that anyone who complains at length about it either has never read the books or is trolling or both. You don't have to like the books, but if you read the books and hated them, chances are you wouldn't darken the doors of the theater and would therefore have little to say about it.
I saw Breaking Dawn Part 1 with my wife on our wedding anniversary, and having read the books I'd have to say the movie was spot on with the story. The movie actually was really pretty good. I imagine that anyone who has never read the books would be annoyed/confused/disinterested about many aspects of the movies.
I told my wife (and later told my mother) that I liked it, and that anyone who complains at length about it either has never read the books or is trolling or both. You don't have to like the books, but if you read the books and hated them, chances are you wouldn't darken the doors of the theater and would therefore have little to say about it.
So you're a 13 year old girl and you have a wife! How does that work?!
When you are a movie lover, there are in your lifetime a very small number of extremely exceptional films, special films. These are the movies that are the very reason you love movies, they speak to your core and strum at your emotional spectrum like a fucking harp. These are the movies that, from the opening segment to the last moments, have you engaged, invested, and unapologetically lost in it.
This is one of those movies.
From its opening moments, the movie sells you on its premise, sells you on its ability to pull it off. This is a silent film made in 2011, and it's well aware. The way it coaxes you into the universe from the starting moments is, simply, brilliant. There is no other way to put it. It lulls you in, first using imagery you might expect in a silent film, then pulling out, showing the audience. We see the screen, the camera, we go behind the screen to the orchestra, and we see the film flipped from the back of the screen. The audience reacts, they are engaged and in love with the characters on screen, and the movie ends.
They applaud, noiselessly.
There is so much to praise about this movie I have no idea where to begin. The acting is amazing across the board, there is not a single performance that doesn't exude sheer brilliance at every passing moment. Jean Dujardin's very physical acting style suits him extremely well here, and his Best Actor award at the Cannes is more than well-deserved, but there is not a single person in the primary cast who is not equally deserving. Hell, even THAT isn't kind enough, there is a dog in this film that deserves an Oscar. That's not a joke, that's not an exaggeration, there is a dog in this film whose performance is brilliant, emotionally charged, and simply fantastic to the point that I would seriously consider him for a Best Actor award(and after the Academy shafted Rin Tin Tin in the 1920s, I suppose dogs are somewhat overdue for an award).
This is a film that knows it's silent. It plays with the concept in ways that I don't wish to spoil, but each and every one is brilliant. For the most part, the film is GORGEOUSLY authentic. The film is in a very classic aspect ratio, the score is entirely in line with what would be used in the era, every performance would feel perfectly at home in a film made at the time, every set and prop is crafted for period accuracy or commentary....there is nothing in this movie that feels out of place. There is one major "effects shot", there are three places where the movie breaks a major design rule, and each is brilliantly conceived and intentional.
The story is...well, it's as engaging as they can be. The film is about the rise and fall of a great star, in a period of time in which stars rose and fell with the frequency of the tides. A great industry is born, dies, and is born anew. A man rises to unbelievable heights and falls to his lowest lows. A simple, elegant love story, charming characters, a fascinating place in time. There are few ingredients that have greater potential for timelessness than the ones on display here.
There are so many things to say, and so few that I want to say, about this movie. It's perfect. It had me grit my teeth, on the edge of my seat, on the verge of tears. This is one of those movies you don't get to see many times in your life, one of those movies that will have your soul, one of those movies that you'll never forget for your entire life. I don't know how I can convince you to check your local theaters and see if it's playing. I don't know what I can say to convince any of you that this is more worthwhile than Tintin or The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo or The Muppets or whatever cinematic pleasure you've had lined up. I don't know how, but I wish I could, because when the credits rolled I was as speechless as the characters onscreen.
Oh no, not you again! Quit riding me all the time. You're the pony, if anyone should be riding the other like a bitch; it should be me.
Look, I'm not that kind of fan, okay? Just because I'm a brony does NOT mean I'm obsessed with the series.
Anyway, as long as I'm here let me share my thoughts on my favorite Christmas movie.
Die Hard: 11/10
I fucking LOVE this movie. It's the perfect example of an action comedy done right. Plenty of blood and violence, but also has enjoyable comedic moments (Now I have a machine gun. Ho ho ho!) and even better characters.
Bruce Willis as John McClane is one of the best action heroes I've ever seen. He's not an over the top Schwarzenegger wannabe, but he's not an everyday normal guy either. He's just the kind of hero that everybody wishes they could be. (Except when his feet start bleeding out due to him stepping on piles of broken glass. Ouch.)
The side characters like the cops who are trying to handle the terrorists from outside are also extremely fun to watch. They're trying to keep things under control and yet almost everything is LITERALLY blowing up in their faces. Classic.
But my favorite part about this movie is Alan Rickman as Hans Gruber. This guy is just the ultimate villain: cold, calculated and casual to boot. Even when his plans are in jeopardy he still acts sophisticated and formal like always does. That voice. Oh my f**king god, that voice. It's just wonderful. It fits the character perfectly. Eerie, emotionles, and yet still empowered. The absolute best movie villain ever concieved.
Sure there are some slow moments, a lot of technobabble and obligatory action scenes, but the plot is solid and it makes sense, which is more than you can say about most action movies.
At the end of the day, it's a classic example of an action movie done right. And, because it takes place at Christmastime, it gives me an excuse to watch it repeatedly. Yippie-ki-yay, motherf**ker!
Happy holidays to everybody, and god bless us all. ESPECIALLY John McClane.
Since the greatness of Mr. Popper's Penguins have I rated movies on the Penguin scale:
1/5 - Bad and there were no penguins
2/5 - Good but there were no penguins
3/5 - Bad and there was penguins
4/5 - Good and there were penguins
5/5 - Never.
(I missed the first half-hour or so, but was still able to pick up the basic plot. Some of the intricacies and sub-plots may be lost on me though)
This was a fun film. The animation was fantastic, and the fight sequences were absolutely amazing, to the point where I wish there were more of them. The plot is amazingly stock, but the characters and their voice artists made it seem interesting and entertaining. Great film, recommend it, and am now going to rent the sequel.
Anyone seen the Furious Five mini-movie that was exclusive to Tesco? Curious to know if it's worth getting or not.
So you're a 13 year old girl and you have a wife! How does that work?!
No. I have a wife. I love her. I try to show interest in things that she likes, so we can have meaningful conversation about it. Likewise, she doesn't know much about computers nor is she much of a gamer beyond playing RuneScape, but she does talk to me about such things since I am interested in them.
Are you married? Probably not. Okay then. Shut your trap.
Comments
Looking forward to seeing it on Friday. Today is Thanksgiving, so there aren't really any plans for today other than the usual bidness.
This review pleases me; I was worried that the movie wouldn't live up to my already high expectations but seeing as watching the film results in rainbows streaming out of the eyes of the viewer, my doubts have vanished.
1. Tex's past seems to have been cut from the movie... it sort of ruins the
2. Fozzie's voice in a car scene, but this wasn't really that big of a problem.
Otherwise, I was really pleased with it. Heck, I might go see it again today.
Fair warning: rainbow tear stains do NOT come out of clothes.
As for Tex, I noticed that too but not until I listened to the soundtrack after the movie so it didn't bother me.
Die Another Day - 0/11 - This movie is like torturous Bond-age with barbed wire.
It actually lived up to my expectations. This is not particularly easy to do, mind you.
The simple combination of nostalgia, development and energy all turned this movie into one of the best that I've seen in a long time.
Sadly, this movie will, without a doubt, get shunned by the academy next year.
Just watched it. Must say that this review pretty much sums up the experience for me.
My main problem is it failed to feel like a Muppet movie - it felt like the show. In that, it did a terrible job at getting the celebrity cameos in a Muppet way - Jack Black and Jim Parsons being the only cameos that actually add anything other than 'lol i'm a celebrity' (first person to say Alan Arkin shall be promptly reminded his character was not delivering or recieving jokes at any point in his scene). I love the Muppet Movie's use of cameos, and I was eagerly awaiting seeing that in this - nope.
And, yes, the person who plays Fozzie seemed really off a number of times, because apparently Frank Oz is unable to reprise his role for the Muppets but perfectly capable to return to Star Wars.
Also, inconsistent main character! Walter seems to be the only focus for quite a while, and it suddenly becomes the Muppets, and at the end there's a solid ten minutes where Walter does not appear. What a waste.
I don't want to assign the movie a rating; I enjoyed it. I just think it could have been far better.
Also; I never see movies the week they open, but I could not wait for this. I had an awful time at the theatre, and will not be seeing movies the week they open for the forseeable future.
yup.
The only reason I didn't cry was because all the cry-worthy bits were immediately followed by funny bits
Actually Frank Oz has gone on record as saying he turned the movie down because he didn't like the script and the way that Kermit was portrayed. He's hardly alone in that regard; many people who formed the original creative talent behind The Muppets have talked negatively about the movie.
Having seen the 'fart shoes' gag in the trailer, I dare say I tend to concur.
Oh, I guess that's somewhat better but still, a fart gag in a Muppets movie.
I'll reserve my true judgement until I've watched it myself. I just wanted to share the behind the scenes controversy.
My main problems with the film, actually, were:
1. The movie is a structural mess. There are plot threads that are badly designed, plot threads that go nowhere, resolutions that seem pulled out of someone's ass at the last minute, etc. This is mainly do to rewrites, reshoots, and slapdash editing, since we've heard about how the original script was supposed to handle things, and on paper the approach they intended to take is far better. There are a variety of problems with the general plot structure, and it would take a lot of time to get into them all, but some core problems include:
-What was the core theme/message of the movie? There seem to be several, and none of them are quite well. Where one would place a message worthy of "film central theme" material, Segal's character says(of Walter) "
-The
-What was the message of the two intertwining romances supposed to be? I never quite got this. That they worked the two together does work, but this is one of those plot threads that never quite finishes off well. Also, I found it weird that the romance between the two puppets had more going on sexually than the one between two humans.
-The actual resolution of the ending is revealed in newspaper headlines over the credits. Really.
2. Walter is boring. Oh my god, this character has absolutely NO character traits whatsoever beyond being a Muppet fanboy. There is a scene in the movie where the film directs the audience's thoughts to what Walter could be good at, which I feel is a mistake. Making the audience think about what positive attributes Walter could have then forces them to realize he DOESN'T HAVE ANY, and his part of the film(up until then supported entirely by the virtues of the secondary cast) collapses under the weight of this realization.
3. The puppetry is EXTREMELY constrained. I'm not sure if anyone else noticed this, but the puppetry feels more suited to the Muppet SHOW rather than a Muppet movie. In the 1979 Muppet movie, we have Muppets in full frame playing banjos, a Muppet riding a bicycle, and two Muppets dancing on a stage, all with no puppeteers or rigging in sight. Here is a preview clip they've uploaded of the opening musical number. Notice Walter's movement. Notice how it's always extremely simple, how he's never fully in the fame. THE WHOLE MOVIE is like this. I can't recall a single
4. Many of the cameos are terrible. The vast majority are cameos that go "Look at me, I'm famous, haha." Now, since the plot worked around what's popular now and the Muppets' past, I think I can see what they were going for, but the cameos still are executed in a way that feels cheap. The exceptions to this are Sarah Silverman, Emily Blunt, Kristen Schaal, and oddly enough the first half of Jack Black's cameo. I usually find Jack Black's stuff intolerable, so that his role worked even half the time for me is pretty impressive. On the other hand, he was accompanied by a pretty solid Animal joke and Kristen Schaal's performance, so that helped. For anyone else you see, the cameo joke is pretty much "I'm famous, haha". Oh, Jim Parsons has a mostly visual cameo, but that made a pretty bad song number a lot more enjoyable.
5. The songs are a mixed bag for me. There's only one(new) song that I felt was really solid. The rest of the musucal numbers, to me, felt like either bad executions of musical numbers that, in theory, should really work, and solid executions of songs that, honestly, have no reason to exist.
Ultimately though, it does feel like The Muppets. Moment to moment, the writing for the gags and the characters feels more in line with the characters with anything Muppets related in the past few years, possibly since Henson's death. The characters are themselves again, and that makes a lot of people happy and probably a bit less critical than they should be. It makes the movie fun to watch, but does that mean it's also a great movie? I can't really say yes.
On the other hand, I feel like the people treating Kermit as a "moneybags 1 percenter" are looking for messages where there weren't any. Kermit succeeded and lives in a pretty opulent house, sure(whose design is actually well explained by who we learn designed it), but The Muppets don't resent him for his wealth or popularity. Miss Piggy resents him for deciding not
5/10
This is perhaps the strangest and most difficult films to critique that I have ever come across, outside of The Human Centipede 2. Where to start? Well, it's a comedic anthology film set in a hotel being single handedly staffed by a bell-hop named Ned (played by Tim Roth), working his first shift on New Years Eve. Each segment of the film is set in a different room of the hotel, as Ned tries to satisfy the bizzare needs of the various guests.
Each segment is written and directed by a different person. Those people are...
Alexandre Rockwell
and most notably...
Robert Rodriguez
and
Quentin Tarantino
The film opens with an animation that pays homage to the opening of the Pink Panther movie (the good one starring Peter Sellers, not that Steve Martin trash). The use of music during this credit sequence (Vertigogois by Combustible Edison) perfectly sets up the off-kilter nature of what's to follow. Check it out for yourself...
We are then introduced to the aforementioned character of Ned, which is essentially Tim Roth doing a very bad impression of Jerry Lewis. What's interesting is that as the film progresses and the directors switch places, Roth's acting becomes a lot more subtle and therefore humorous and quite frankly, bearable.
The first segment from Allison Anders is by far the weakest of the four stories. This room of the hotel is host to a coven of witches, whom desire to resurrect a legendary sorceress but in order to do so they require some, uh... semen and it falls upon Ned to come (no pun intended) up with the goods!
It reminds me of the latter, soft-core porn films of Ed Wood. Much like Mr. Wood's films, it's strangely engaging to watch (in that train wreck kind of a way).
Next up is the story from Alexandre Rockwell, which once again is somewhat sexual in nature. Ned is called upon to deliver a bucket of ice to room 409 but he mistakenly enters room 404, where he is promptly greeted by the business end of a magnum revolver and it's aggressive owner, who insists that Ned partakes in a strange role-play scenario with his wife, who is tied to a chair.
This section was a definite improvement over the last tale, with some nice performances but it's very confusing and hard to follow (I found myself questioning the motivation of Ned and the two guests at several points). At this moment you may be asking why on Earth I've rated this film any higher than 3 out of 10 but all will become clear with the next segment...
This part of the film by Robert Rodriguez is the best story within this mixed anthology. In fact, it's really quite wonderful. We join a husband and wife as they prepare to leave the hotel for the evening in order to attend a party. However, there's one problem; who's going to keep an eye on their two children whilst they're gone? Why, Ned the bell-hop of course!
As the father is leaving the hotel room, he instructs the children to behave themselves. Unfortunately for poor old Ned, they do anything but and the discovery of a dead hooker under the bed certainly doesn't help matters (note that this particular detail is a disturbingly common occurrence within hotels in real life)!
The acting, direction and pacing for this segment are all superb. The catastrophes build up, one by one until melting point and there's a belting punchline to this farce.
Quentin Tarantino writes, directs and *gulp* stars in the final tale. However, thankfully his "acting" is closer to his portrayal of Richie in 'From Dusk till Dawn' than it is in the game 'Director's Chair'. The story has Tarantino playing a sort of version of himself; a director named Chester Rush. Chester and his friends have decided to place a delivish bet based off a classic episode of 'Alfred Hitchcock Presents' and naturally they require Ned's assistance.
Although this segment isn't as good as the last, it still makes for a fun ride and is well made. It's certainly miles ahead of the first two segments. By this point Tim Roth is virtually unrecognisable from the buffoonish fool he played at the start of the film (showing that a good director of actors can go a long way).
So there you have it; a film of two halves, shit and sugar if you will. Keeping that in mind, I felt that the average 5 out of 10 was an appropriate score. However, the film is never less than engaging even when it's terrible and it's for that reason that I urge you to ignore the score and give Four Rooms a watch yourself. You might just thank me for it, there's nothing else quite like it.
Thinking about it; watching Four Rooms kind of reminds me of watching The Rocky Horror Picture Show. Not that they're necessarily similar in most regards (save for the sexual themes) but they both feel unique, engaging, colourful and utterly bat shit crazy.
Best part though was seeing the trailer for The Dark Knight Rises. I was totally not expecting it, and it made me happy!
I told my wife (and later told my mother) that I liked it, and that anyone who complains at length about it either has never read the books or is trolling or both. You don't have to like the books, but if you read the books and hated them, chances are you wouldn't darken the doors of the theater and would therefore have little to say about it.
So you're a 13 year old girl and you have a wife! How does that work?!
Don't be a dick, Davies.
Oh no, not you again! Quit riding me all the time. You're the pony, if anyone should be riding the other like a bitch; it should be me.
I'd rather you just put me on 'ignore' instead of slagging me off continually.
The whole thing reminds me of this...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=we-zND9Ihes&feature=related
... the above clip makes for essential viewing. Not only is it true but it's hilarious to boot.
10/10
When you are a movie lover, there are in your lifetime a very small number of extremely exceptional films, special films. These are the movies that are the very reason you love movies, they speak to your core and strum at your emotional spectrum like a fucking harp. These are the movies that, from the opening segment to the last moments, have you engaged, invested, and unapologetically lost in it.
This is one of those movies.
From its opening moments, the movie sells you on its premise, sells you on its ability to pull it off. This is a silent film made in 2011, and it's well aware. The way it coaxes you into the universe from the starting moments is, simply, brilliant. There is no other way to put it. It lulls you in, first using imagery you might expect in a silent film, then pulling out, showing the audience. We see the screen, the camera, we go behind the screen to the orchestra, and we see the film flipped from the back of the screen. The audience reacts, they are engaged and in love with the characters on screen, and the movie ends.
They applaud, noiselessly.
There is so much to praise about this movie I have no idea where to begin. The acting is amazing across the board, there is not a single performance that doesn't exude sheer brilliance at every passing moment. Jean Dujardin's very physical acting style suits him extremely well here, and his Best Actor award at the Cannes is more than well-deserved, but there is not a single person in the primary cast who is not equally deserving. Hell, even THAT isn't kind enough, there is a dog in this film that deserves an Oscar. That's not a joke, that's not an exaggeration, there is a dog in this film whose performance is brilliant, emotionally charged, and simply fantastic to the point that I would seriously consider him for a Best Actor award(and after the Academy shafted Rin Tin Tin in the 1920s, I suppose dogs are somewhat overdue for an award).
This is a film that knows it's silent. It plays with the concept in ways that I don't wish to spoil, but each and every one is brilliant. For the most part, the film is GORGEOUSLY authentic. The film is in a very classic aspect ratio, the score is entirely in line with what would be used in the era, every performance would feel perfectly at home in a film made at the time, every set and prop is crafted for period accuracy or commentary....there is nothing in this movie that feels out of place. There is one major "effects shot", there are three places where the movie breaks a major design rule, and each is brilliantly conceived and intentional.
The story is...well, it's as engaging as they can be. The film is about the rise and fall of a great star, in a period of time in which stars rose and fell with the frequency of the tides. A great industry is born, dies, and is born anew. A man rises to unbelievable heights and falls to his lowest lows. A simple, elegant love story, charming characters, a fascinating place in time. There are few ingredients that have greater potential for timelessness than the ones on display here.
There are so many things to say, and so few that I want to say, about this movie. It's perfect. It had me grit my teeth, on the edge of my seat, on the verge of tears. This is one of those movies you don't get to see many times in your life, one of those movies that will have your soul, one of those movies that you'll never forget for your entire life. I don't know how I can convince you to check your local theaters and see if it's playing. I don't know what I can say to convince any of you that this is more worthwhile than Tintin or The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo or The Muppets or whatever cinematic pleasure you've had lined up. I don't know how, but I wish I could, because when the credits rolled I was as speechless as the characters onscreen.
This is a perfect film.
Go see it.
Please.
...because nothing will keep me from watching that one anyway.
Opening in Germany January 26th; but I doubt that "cinemas" in my area might play it. What the heck, at least I'll catch the Muppets.
Look, I'm not that kind of fan, okay? Just because I'm a brony does NOT mean I'm obsessed with the series.
Anyway, as long as I'm here let me share my thoughts on my favorite Christmas movie.
Die Hard: 11/10
I fucking LOVE this movie. It's the perfect example of an action comedy done right. Plenty of blood and violence, but also has enjoyable comedic moments (Now I have a machine gun. Ho ho ho!) and even better characters.
Bruce Willis as John McClane is one of the best action heroes I've ever seen. He's not an over the top Schwarzenegger wannabe, but he's not an everyday normal guy either. He's just the kind of hero that everybody wishes they could be. (Except when his feet start bleeding out due to him stepping on piles of broken glass. Ouch.)
The side characters like the cops who are trying to handle the terrorists from outside are also extremely fun to watch. They're trying to keep things under control and yet almost everything is LITERALLY blowing up in their faces. Classic.
But my favorite part about this movie is Alan Rickman as Hans Gruber. This guy is just the ultimate villain: cold, calculated and casual to boot. Even when his plans are in jeopardy he still acts sophisticated and formal like always does. That voice. Oh my f**king god, that voice. It's just wonderful. It fits the character perfectly. Eerie, emotionles, and yet still empowered. The absolute best movie villain ever concieved.
Sure there are some slow moments, a lot of technobabble and obligatory action scenes, but the plot is solid and it makes sense, which is more than you can say about most action movies.
At the end of the day, it's a classic example of an action movie done right. And, because it takes place at Christmastime, it gives me an excuse to watch it repeatedly. Yippie-ki-yay, motherf**ker!
Happy holidays to everybody, and god bless us all. ESPECIALLY John McClane.
My comment was not made in reference to any kind of assumed fandom on your part. My pony remark was purely made due to your pony based avatar.
I must agree, that's an unforgivable omission.
Batman - 1/5
Batman Returns - 10/10
Citizen Kane - 1/5
Happy Feet - 100/5
You gotta be kidding me...
What did you expect? There's no Penguins. As we all know, a movie's greatness has a direct correlation to the amount of penguins therein.
Don't be a dick, Johro.
1/5 - Bad and there were no penguins
2/5 - Good but there were no penguins
3/5 - Bad and there was penguins
4/5 - Good and there were penguins
5/5 - Never.
Is this whole "don't be a dick..." your comeback to everything ever?
Also, allow me to preempt your expected response... "don't be a dick, Davies"!
Is it any different than "bummed in the gob"?
Hey, if you're trying to make "bummed in the gob" a meme, why can't I try something similar?
Touché.
(I missed the first half-hour or so, but was still able to pick up the basic plot. Some of the intricacies and sub-plots may be lost on me though)
This was a fun film. The animation was fantastic, and the fight sequences were absolutely amazing, to the point where I wish there were more of them. The plot is amazingly stock, but the characters and their voice artists made it seem interesting and entertaining. Great film, recommend it, and am now going to rent the sequel.
Anyone seen the Furious Five mini-movie that was exclusive to Tesco? Curious to know if it's worth getting or not.
No. I have a wife. I love her. I try to show interest in things that she likes, so we can have meaningful conversation about it. Likewise, she doesn't know much about computers nor is she much of a gamer beyond playing RuneScape, but she does talk to me about such things since I am interested in them.
Are you married? Probably not. Okay then. Shut your trap.