Seeking A Friend For The End Of The World

I'm generally not a stickler for romantic films, but there's a sweetness to this one that I liked. Carrell and Knightley have good chemistry, and I think it shows how good of a serious actor Steve Carrell really is. Not everything works in this movie, but most of it does. I approve.

I sat through the whole thing in a theater. It doesn't improve.

Never on Sunday (1960) ***

There comes a time in every film fan's life when he makes it through Tier 1 of acknowledged masters and then hits on one of the gems from Tier 2: Jules Dassin. In movies like Brute Force, Thieves Highway, Night and the City, and Rifiifi, he's been blowing away cinephiles for years. However, he only got one Best Director nomination, and it wasn't for any of those films, but 1960's Never on Sunday.

It's not as good as any of the those movies, but Never on Sunday is a fun film about an American who arrogantly tries to change a free-spirited Greek prostitute but gets more than he bargained for.

Toy Story 3 (2010)

Probably the best of the lot. I loved the opening scene depicting the adventures of the toys through the imagination of a young Andy. Brilliantly done. A very strong film overall.

9/10

The Girl Next Door (2004)

Many bad reviews have been written about this and some of the detractors make valid points - but in its defence this film captures the mad, logic-defying rush being posssessed by a beautiful woman has on a young man far more effectively than 99% of straight-laced romantic films do. I'm not ashamed to say that this is a good film owed to its brutal honesty in matters of obsession and sexual jealousy..... and a kick-ass soundtrack.

8/10

Ikiru

Ikiru is the third film I have seen by Kurosawa, after Seven Samurai and Rashomon. Before I get into my opinion of it, I want to point out that just based on those two, I fucking love Akira Kurosawa. His creation and depiction of characters is fascinating; they are profound yet easy to understand. Part of this process does owe itself to the fantastic work of actors like Mifune and Shimura, but I doubt either would have a reputation had it not been for Kurosawa's direction.

Shimura plays a man stuck in a middle management position in the bureaucracy of post-war Japan. He has been there for decades, and as the narrator tells us right away, has never truly lived. When he discovers he only has 6 months to live, he plunges into confusion and depression. He realizes his plight; he doesn't know his son, and he has no other real relationships. After failing to alleviate his woes through parties and the company of a young girl from his office, he realizes that vitality and happiness are derived from a different source.

I believe that Ikiru can be interpreted in two different ways. The first is the obvious one; doing good for others is the path to happiness. But I think that's too simple. The interpretation I prefer is that you validate your life by deciding upon a goal and setting out to accomplish it. The first interpretation makes Ikiru a film about the destruction of the self while the second makes it about rediscovering and affirming the self. I suppose the meaning you take out of it depends on your own personal philosophy.
Either way, Kurosawa's style (and the Russian literature Ikiru was based on) are not ambiguous works. In this sense, Ikiru is consistent and well written.

Shimura brings the movie to life. Like ed said above, his style is subtle and physical. It's not often you find a protagonist so beaten and defenseless. Apart from this, the acting was pretty good, although it got ridiculous towards the end. I understand they were supposed to be drunk, but if you rewatch the scene at Watanabe's funeral dinner without subtitles on, it's impossible not to laugh. It's just too much.

I wasn't impressed with the cinematography. There were two scenes I thought were beautiful, both towards the end: the sunset scene and the swingset scene. Other than that, I felt more could have been done with the claustrophobic sets that were so meticulously constructed.

The pacing was uneven. The exposition is quick and tidy, but the middle section drags for about half an hour too long. It was cool seeing the Tokyo nightlife, but it didn't make the movie any better. The final act was by far the best. It doesn't completely redeem the first two thirds, but it comes close.

Overall, I have to say I was a little disappointed with Ikiru. I still give it 3/4, but I expected more from Kurosawa.

It's funny you should mention this, because based on that film (and Ran and Yojimbo) I would say the exact opposite, that his character development is noticeably poor

Interesting. How so?

Don Q, Son of Zorro. Zorro's son, Don Cesar de Vega (Don Q is an alias) is sent to Spain for an education where he gains the attention of Queen Isabella II and Archduke Paul of Austria, by his skill with the whip and heroism in capturing an escaped bull. He also gains the emnity of Don Sebastian (Donald Crisp), a captain of the Queen's guard, by his skill with the whip then saving Don Sebastian's life from the bull. The rivalry turns more dangerous when Don Cesar and Don Sebastian discover they are wooing the same girl, Dolores (Mary Astor), and Paul aids Don Cesar. Paul then mocks Don Sebastian, for which Sebastian unintentially kills Paul, then frames Don Cesar. Since killing Archdukes has international implications, things look bleak for Don Cesar, but fortunately he has friends.

Douglas Fairbanks has a dual role as Zorro and Don Cesar and is his classic swashbuckling self (although he looks a bit old for Mary Astor, who was a teen at this time). Donald Crisp also directed. I prefer this to The Black Pirate and much prefer it to Robin Hood, but I liked The Mark of Zorro and The Three Musketeers better. The Thief of Bagdad is one of the classics of cinema. In this one, look for Mary Pickford's younger sister Lottie as Lola; it was Lottie's last screen role, although she lived until 1936.

The book this is based on was published a decade before the first Zorro story, so it took a bit of rewriting to add the masked man. Since the first Zorro movie was a big success, doing a sequel was natural. Many people prefer this to the original.

7 of 10.

Every character is defined by having one trait. Mifune, for instance, is usually angry. Look at him in Seven Samurai. Though in Yojimbo, his trait is instead cunning. They occasionally go beyond their nature, but never show any depth. I've been assured that in other films by him it's not the same, but from the four Kurosawa films I've seen I've been really disappointed by this

Earth vs. The Flying Saucers (1956)
1950ies sci-fi schlock about, well, Earth vs. The Flying Saucers.
Occasionally, 50ies sci-fi/horror is excellent (‘Invasion of the Body Snatchers’, ‘The Incredible Shrinking Man’). Often, it is fun in a “so bad it is good” way (Ed Wood’s back catalogue, arguably, although its charms elude me). Unfortunately, despite of a promisingly cheesy title, ‘Earth vs. The Flying Saucers’ is just dull. 90 % of the time, it is about stereotypical scientists arguing or aliens making threatening radio announcements in distorted voices. There is a halfway decent battle with unremarkable special effects by the legendary Ray Harryhausen, but that’s not enough to save this boring movie. 3/10

The Lady from Shanghai (1948)
Seaman Michael O’Hara (Orson Welles) is smitten with Elsa Bannister (Rita Hayworth, Welles’s wife at the time), the wife of an successful attorney, and, against his better judgement, joins a cruise trip on Bannister’s yacht in order to protect her from ... something. When Bannister’s law partner Grisby joins the cruise trip, it takes a turn to the bizarre when Grisby asks O’Hara to confess to having murdered Grisby, so the law firm can collect on some insurance money. When Grisby actually winds up dead without O’Hara’s involvement, he is in trouble.
‘The Lady from Shanghai’ is a typical film noir featuring a conflicted protagonist with a shady past, who is seduced by a femme fatale and gets involved in a convoluted plot about adultery and murder. Rita Hayworth is fantastic, some individual scenes are great (such as an acerbic argument between Bannister, his wife and Grisby) and the famous ending in a maze of mirrors is simply brilliant. Still, individually great elements don’t necessarily make a great movie and ‘The Lady from Shanghai’ is decidedly less than the sum of its parts.
The relative failure of 'The Lady from Shanghai’ can be blamed on writer, producer, director and actor Orson Welles. Of course, it is true that this movie as well as all other post ‘Citizen Kane’ Hollywood movies by Welles suffered from studio interference – in this case, Welles was asked to include more glamour shots of Rita Hayworth and include a scene in which she would sing a song. However, the studio can hardly be blamed for ‘The Lady from Shanghai‘s incomprehensible plot and intrusive, flowery voiceover. I concede that convoluted and even nonsensical plots as well as extensive voiceovers are staples of the film noir style, which usually don’t bother me. But ‘The Lady from Shanghai’ makes it seem at first as if the plot truly mattered, hints at dark secrets which aren’t really there and then messes it up big time. The voiceover simply isn’t hardboiled enough and Orson Welles’s delivery makes it seem as if he was too much in love with hearing his own voice. Actually, in contrast to Rita Hayworth, Orson Welles’s acting is terrible in general. He is never believable as a tough Irish sailor and comes across as a rather smug screen presence.
Overall, ‘The Lady fro Shanghai’ isn’t bad and individual aspects make it well worth watching, but it had the potential to be great or at least very good, which it just isn’t. Above-average 6/10

I've been thinking about this, and I think you're right. I will say that I think Ikiru had better characters than the other Kurosawa films I've seen. I think I just confused character development with story telling. He's much better at the latter.

Moonrise Kingdom 0.5/4

PAIN! SEARING PAIN! GET ME AWAY FROM ALL THE PRETENTIOUSNESS! GET ME AWAY FROM WES ANDERSON!

Seriously, though, this movie is less fun than staring at a blank wall. At least then you'll have your imagination and not have to deal with Anderson's pretentiousness.

Anderson has a good set designer, but he's a terrible filmmaker. His movies are so self-important and his shot selection is unbelievably static. His visual perspective never changes. It's all about the center of the image and wide open shots to say, ooh I'm artsy and I'm making a statement.

Say what you want about James Cameron and Kevin Costner, but there is no one on this earth who is more narcissistic and and love with his talent than Wes Anderson. Seriously JB, you dropped the ball on this one. And his ravenous hipster fans are terrifying. They are more loyal to him than cult members. Believe me, I've been attacked in a huge flame war numerous times because I said I didn't like him.

I made it through about 2/3rds of Yimou Zhang's breathtaking Hero before the Netflix disc started acting up. I hate it when that happens.

Do you have any problems with the actual movie, or did you just want to go on, yet again, about how much you hate Wes Anderson?

Also, there's nothing terrifying about a hipster. Even if they fought you, they'd probably fake punch you because that would be ironic.

Me too. It's one of the times I get most angry. It makes me doubt in the existence of a God.

Could you please comment on the movie itself. Because I've said many things you've said about Wes Anderson before, but I liked Moonrise Kingdom a great deal. Also, a 0.5/4 star rating is essentially as low as you can go without saying the movie is morally repugnant. That's a full half star below what I gave I Know Who Killed Me. Care to clarify?

I thought I made myself pretty clear on why I hated the movie (static camera angles, lack of change in visual perspective, pretentiousness), but whatever.

First of all, the humor. There were only a few mildly amusing moments (and one bit involving the paper mache dummy that made me laugh out loud). It's not funny. I believe that humor is subjective, but the humor is a nonentity here. Anderson's humor is so understated that it ceases to exist. I think that some of the people in the audience were laughing because they were guessing when the jokes were.

Second, the acting, apart from Norton, Willis and McDormand, was lifeless. The two kids were boring, and Bill Murray is awful unless he's playing humor straight like he did before he met Anderson.

Not all hipsters annoy me. Some are nice people. In fact many of them are. But the ones who define their life by being underground and not mainstream and obsessively hate/love Steve Jobs (RIP) and Apple are in the words of Holden Caulfield, phony. They're pretentious douchebags who aggravate me because when they tell you the fine print of everything you like by being "tell it like it is" or "realists," they just enjoy crushing everything you enjoy for the hell of it.

Saw The Avengers with my boy last night and we both came out of it with huge smiles. We both loved the comedy provided by Robert Downey Jr. and were blown away by the action elements of the story. Maybe its just because I saw it with a nine year old, but I'll go 9/10. Most fun I've had at the cinema in years.

Did you both stay to the end of the credits to see the easter eggs that were planted there?

Yeah you mentioned a few things, but "static camera angles" don't really make for a 0.5 star movie. Unless the camera, in a static angle, is focusing on somebody shitting on your mother.



I actually would agree with you -- I don't think the movie is very funny. However, I think it's a comedy second, so that doesn't bother me.



Okay. Good to know. Not all conservatives annoy me but the extremists certainly do. That doesn't stop me from enjoying Master and Commander