Moon (2009)
VERDICT:
8/10 Crappy Jobs on the Moon
Isn’t it great to get really psyched up about a movie and not get let down by it? Love that feeling.
Moon takes place in the future…on the moon. It’s about a guy who’s been hired by an energy company to harvest nutrients from the moon for three years by himself and he’s got two weeks left before he gets to go back home to Earth. Then things get weird when he finds another guy on the moon who looks exactly like him. Maybe it’s his twin, maybe he’s been on the damn moon too long and he’s going batshit, who knows?
And that right there is the draw to Moon.
I love science-fiction movies, especially original ones. And if Moon gets major points in any category here, it’s definitely in the originality department. This is going to be one of those reviews where I have to be careful about what I can say because I don’t want to give anything away, but trust me, the synopsis alone should be enough to convince you that this is a really unique story, one of the more unique science-fiction movies in recent memory in fact (Sunshine and Children of Men being the noteworthy exceptions).
It’s the debut effort by screenwriter Nathan Parker and director David Jones (who’s freakin’ David Bowie’s son, who was once called Zowie Bowie before he changed his name), and while you can tell Jones is somewhat green behind the ears when it comes to directing, it does the trick, and it’s a damn impressive first effort by Parker. They keep the movie very simple in terms of pacing and plot and do a good job of making a potentially complicated-as-all-hell story pretty manageable to follow.
The guy on the moon is also played by one of my favorite actors who still doesn’t get the due credit he deserves, Sam Rockwell. Don’t know Sam Rockwell? Check him out in The Green Mile and Galaxy Quest for starters. He’s got great range and he does a fine job of carrying Moon’s script along considering he’s in every single scene.
And it’s really something else to watch Rockwell playing the two lead roles at the same time. I’ve seen a lot of movies where there’s the same guy on-screen playing twins or something along those lines (there’s a great movie called Dead Ringers that does awesome things with this premise, too), but this is the first time I’ve ever been really impressed not only by how it was pulled off from a technical standpoint, but by how well the two characters interacted with each other. Bonus points for that one.
Even though I really liked Moon, I can’t shake the feeling that more could have been done with it, like it was almost too simple for its own good at times. I don’t know how I would change it or add to it, but I felt like Jones could have sped things up a bit at times. A small complaint considering I never looked at my watch once and it’s also his first movie.
Anyway, if you liked 2001: A Space Odyssey, you will really like Moon. It’s got that same kind of desolate, “I’m-alone-in-space-and-the-shit-has-hit-the-fan” vibe to it. And even though it’s not going to convert anyone if you’re not into science-fiction, it’s really worth taking a look at as it’s unlike anything else you’re going to see this year.
Did I mention it’s made by David Bowie’s son, Zowie Bowie? And Sam Rockwell’s the man, so see it for him, too.
The Taking of Pelham One Two Three (1974)
VERDICT:
8/10 Worst. Commutes. Ever.
Yes, The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3 is a remake of this movie. And while it may not be as “A.D.D.-friendly” as Tony Scott’s version, it’s still a really good movie that stands out as one of the more intense and entertaining heist movies from back in the ’70s.
The Taking of Pelham One Two Three is about a transit cop who has one hour to negotiate a million dollar ransom with four guys who up and hijack a New York City subway car before they start killing passengers a minute at a time. Like I said, it’s an intense movie.
But aside from being a good action movie with a great premise, the best part about this movie is actually the script. I was going into this expecting a cheesy, retro, “’70s disaster movie”-type thing, but I was pleasantly shocked to find that it had better writing in it than an overwhelming amount of action movies, or just movies in general, in recent memory.
The movie doesn’t get over its head with in regards to what’s plausible and the plot moves along at a really solid pace without going overboard. It continuously keeps the audience in check, always reminding them that the clock is ticking and lives are on the line, but it doesn’t take itself too seriously, like it’s end of the freakin’ world and there is no time for jokes…EVER. The dialogue is really sharp and really funny and it makes all the characters seem legitimately real, which is rare in movies.
At the same time, the tone can be a little too light at times when it shouldn’t be. I found it a little strange that I was more outwardly concerned for the lives of the innocent people onboard the train than they were themselves.
The cast is also great. Walter Matthau plays the lead transit cop and Robert Shaw plays the lead train-jacker. As a general rule of thumb, anything that Walter Matthau is in is something you should watch. Why? Because Walter Matthau’s in it, and he’s great no matter what role he’s playing. And if you’re like me and only really know Robert Shaw as Quint from Jaws (for God’s sake, please see Jaws if you haven’t already), then that’s even more reason to see it. He was the man in this movie. A man’s man if you will.
And as a bonus of sorts, if you like Reservoir Dogs, you’ll dig this movie even more; it’s got Tarantino written all over it. Not only are the four bad guys are all named by colors, but you can really see how their interactions and character types translate pretty seamlessly over to the main characters in Reservoir Dogs. The dialogue has a real Tarantino-esque feel to it and it’s really just easy to see that a lot of his inspiration for that movie came from this one.
I’m sure I’ll get around to seeing 1 2 3 one of these days, even though I’m thinking it’s going to be another epic diaper rash by Tony Scott, but the point is, you should be watching One Two Three regardless.
True Romance (1993)
VERDICT:
8/10 Angry Sicilians
One freakin’ wild movie and the high point of Tony Scott’s directing career.
True Romance is about a lonely, endearing comic book nerd played by Christian Slater who falls in love and runs away with the world’s sweetest call girl played by Patricia Arquette. In the process, they kill her pimp (the great Gary Oldman in underwear and dreadlocks), accidentally steal a bag full of his cocaine, then drive across California to avoid getting killed by mob boss Christopher Walken so they can sell the coke and run away together. A movie for the whole family to enjoy.
The cast in this movie is crazy. People must have really loved this script because absolutely everyone who was anyone in the early 1990s has a role in it. Aside from the ones I’ve already mentioned, it’s got Samuel L. Jackson for five minutes, Dennis Hopper in a surprisingly non-psychotic role, James Gandolfini before he started winning Emmys, and a young Brad Pitt in one of the best roles of his career, among others.
And not surprisingly, everyone’s great. They’ve all established themselves as accomplished actors at this point, but it’s not often you see an all-star cast like this actually make it all work. Makes you long for the days when Christian Slater was known for more than groping women in public. But alas…
The directing is good, it’s got a great score, and there are some great action scenes, but the real selling point to True Romance is the script by Quentin Tarantino. Anyone who’s seen a movie by Tarantino knows that aside from taking his movies from normal to insane at the flip of switch (this story is no exception), he’s all about cool, snappy, and atypically well-written dialogue that’s always delivered in a monologue/intense dialogue by the most badass people on the planet. Considering the cast at hand, there’s a lot of that going on, and it’s awesome.
There’s also something very familiar about the story of True Romance. Even with everything that goes on, it manages to come out surprisingly simple and fresh. At the core of everything, this is a love story between two good characters, and, more importantly, it’s a relationship that you actually want to succeed. Might sound sappy, but it’s not. This movie is about as far from sappy as you can probably get.
And while True Romance is easily the best movie that Scott has ever made, it isn’t the best thing that Tarantino’s ever written. It’s not as deep or edgy as you’d hope for and it doesn’t really stick with you in the way that his other movies do. But nonetheless, this is a good that hits the mark in a lot of places and it still has that Tarantino flair.
Not exactly the best date movie, but it’s probably got more feminine appeal to it than guys getting their ears cut off in Reservoir Dogs. If anything, it’s a fun and exciting way to spend two hours.
Man on Fire (2004)
VERDICT:
1/10 Little Piggies Snipped All The Way Home
Hey now! It’s another shit-heap of a movie by Tony Scott! No way!
Man on Fire is about a cold-blooded former assassin/current mean drunk whose heart grows to the size of a honeydew, thus sending him on a killing rampage, when the girl he has been hired to protect (Dakota Fanning) is kidnapped by a Mexican gang because her dad (Marc Anthony – come again?) is a crooked jerk. It’s like How The Grinch Stole Christmas, just a little bit more violent and not quite as festive…and less animated.
I had to see this movie for a film class I took in college. Why this movie was assigned is still a mystery to me, but I laughed my way through it all the same. The bad kind of laughing.
The assassin with a heart of gold is played by Denzel Washington, a pretty damn good actor who for some reason keeps signing on to work with director Tony Scott. I recently got into a conversation about Denzel with someone who was talking about movies on the subway and they pointed out that all he does in his movies now is just run around with his shirt undone and yell into cell phones. And you know what, they’re absolutely right.
I blame Tony Scott more for that one, but at the same time, no one is wrenching Denzel’s arm to do these movies either. Man on Fire is no exception to Scott’s formula of “Denzel + running = awesome”, but even though this isn’t Denzel’s strongest role by a long shot, it sure doesn’t help that he’s got a really freakin’ shitty script to work with either.
I don’t know, maybe Man on Fire is your kind of thing. Why don’t we take a poll. Do you like…
– Extreme sadism? Check.
– Watching people get their fingers cut off with hedgeclippers only to get killed five minutes later? Double check.
– Lengthy speeches about how life is a lot like a bullet? Very deep, indeed.
– Guys getting tortured and killed by having an inhuman amount of C4 explosives jammed up their ass and detonated while tied down to the hood of a car? Someone pinch me.
If these all sound great, then give Man on Fire a shot. Different strokes for different folks, you know?
Christopher Walken also has a bit part in the movie, and while it’s nothing special, he’s the only reason this movie got a 1 out of 10 instead of a zero. So way to go, Chris.
Ugh, I always shake my head when I hear people say they like this movie. I really don’t get it. The story sucks, it’s been done before and it’s been done better, and it’s a shining example of everything that’s wrong with movie violence today. I recently heard a film critic say that movie violence is so easy, that any film maker can manipulate the audience through pain in a movie because anyone call pull it off. Man on Fire is an exercise in cheap torture disguised as genuine emotion and I’m not falling for it.
There’s a million better movies out there featuring everyone that was involved in Man on Fire. So please, don’t see this movie. You can do so much better.
Awesome job of photoshopping Dakota Fanning into the poster, by the way. It’s like she’s actually in the explosion. Whoa.
Top Gun (1986)
VERDICT:
3/10 Bi-curious Wingmen
This movie, in a nutshell, is why the 1980s is a decade best forgotten.
Top Gun is about a hot shot jet fighter pilot named Maverick who’s fighting for the title of “Top Gun” in his fleet over his rival, the aptly named Iceman, another cocky pilot with frosted hair tips who may or may not be trying to seduce him while the superior officer is breathing down Maverick’s neck for being such a hot shot jerk (why can’t you all just leave Maverick alone, dammit!). The Mav’s also trying to juggle a relationship with a woman he met by singing “You’ve Lost That Lovin’ Feeling” to her in a bar; that one’s for the ladies.
This is a generous summary for a movie that’s hardly more than jets flying around for two hours to a soundtrack comprised almost entirely of synthesizers and ’80s hair metal electric guitar.
Look, Tom Cruise is a hit or miss actor. I was tempted to say that he’s nothing special, but since he does have some good movies under his belt to counter his pretty boy looks and his real-life insanity (it’s not his best effort, but his wildly unusual and funny role in Tropic Thunder is a more recent example of what I’m saying), I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt and not completely trounce his acting abilities. He’s usually best when he’s not the only thing trying to carry a weak script (I’m looking at you, Valkyrie), so unfortunately, things don’t work out so well for Tommy boy in Top Gun as a result.
The movie is directed by Tony Scott, an individual who pretty much makes the same freaking movie every time. You’d think he’d get the hang of it twenty years later, but no dice for poor Tony. He doesn’t do anything to bring this movie to a level of depth higher than “Look, Daddy! Airplanes!” and the only time he has ever gone the extra mile with one of his movies is with True Romance, even though the credit actually goes to Quentin Tarantino’s script.
The only saving grace of Top Gun is Anthony Edwards as Maverick’s best friend/trusty co-pilot, Goose. Anthony Edwards is awesome, he plays the only good, endearing character in this movie, he’s a really good actor in general, and we should never forget that he also starred in one of the great comedies of the 1980s, Revenge of the Nerds.
Aside from Edwards, Top Gun is a corny mess filled with dumbass dialogue and lots of strange homoerotic undertones that don’t do any favors for the so-called “macho” characters that the story revolves around. Nothing like sweaty, glistening guys stuck on an aircraft frieghter in the middle of the ocean playing shirtless beach volleyball with aviators on to take one’s mind off the women that are nowhere in sight. Well done, Mr. Scott.
The Hangover (2009)
VERDICT:
7/10 Missing Teeth
Just got back from seeing this with my good buddy Fred, and it was pretty damn funny.
The Hangover is about a group of guys who throw a bachelor party in Vegas for their buddy and wake up the next morning astoundingly hungover with no recollection of what they did the night before and no idea where the groom-to-be is. So begins their two-day search for the groom, the owner of a bengal tiger that’s staying in their bathroom, the parent of an infant they found in their closet, and a slew of other oddities that may or may not occur after a drunken bender in Vegas.
It’s not really consistently funny throughout, I can’t really pick out my favorite scene that stood out among the rest, and the pacing isn’t as crazy as I thought it was going to be, but overall it’s a funny movie with a new twist on a premise that’s been used a million times before.
You don’t ever really see the bachelor party itself, not until a fucking nutso slideshow at the end of the movie, but a big reason this movie is funny is finding out what the hell happened to these guys just as they’re figuring it out themselves. It’s a fun time that you don’t get tired of and it’s probably going to do wonders for Vegas tourism.
The three main characters are great and all have a unique brand of humor to bring to the table. Props to the lead actor, Bradley Cooper, who is slowly rising from obscurity to fame and doing a good job of getting there with his role in The Hangover. But the two reasons this movie is funny more than the writing or the story are Zach Galifianakis and Ed Helms.
I’m a huge fan of Galifianakis and he was the reason I was really looking forward to seeing this. He pretty much plays the groom-to-be’s unbelievably strange and possibly brain-damaged brother-in-law who tries to fit in with the rest of the gang by asking if they’re “ready to let the dogs out” and how he wishes he could breast feed. He’s great in this movie, it’s about damn time he started getting recognized, and if you’ve never heard of him before, YouTube him and you’ll quickly understand why he’s getting all the buzz from this movie.
But the big surprise for me was Ed Helms. He starts out playing a whipped and glorified version of Andy Bernard from The Office, but after the bachelor party he starts completely breaking down and gives some of the best lines in the movie. Wasn’t expecting Helms to be so funny, but he and Galifianakis have roles that seem like they were written with them in mind and they do freaking hilarious things with the material at hand.
Unfortunately, a big drawback to The Hangover is this guy, Ken Jeong; an unfunny bastard who plays an annoying Asian gangster whose jokes never land like they’re supposed to. I don’t know why he’s always getting cast in bit roles in practically every comedy that’s come out over the past four years. He’s never funny, he’s always on screen too long, and this movie is no exception. Honestly, what’s the big appeal to Ken Jeong? Am I missing something here? Stupid casting choice.
Anyway, now that I’ve got that out of my system, if The Hangover seems like your kind of thing, it will at least get you laughing. It’s not as endearing as I Love You, Man and the characters could have used some more depth, but these are small complaints and it’ll probably stand as one of the better comedies of 2009, right behind Bruno (hopefully).
The Hangover pretty much spells out what kind of movie it is in its title, and it’s a funny movie that Fred and I would be happy to revisit.
Step Brothers (2008)
VERDICT:
7/10 Sibling Rivalries
Since Will Ferrell bombed it at the box office this past weekend with Land of the Lost, why not take a quick look back at his last effort, one of the funniest and most surprisingly panned movies of 2008.
Step Brothers is about two lazy, jobless, wildly immature middle-aged men who hate each others guts but are forced to live under the same roof when their parents get married and they become stepbrothers! Wow, that’s wacky!
Doesn’t need much explaining to know that all the comedy in this movie revolves around two very funny guys acting like whiny children for two hours. It’s not exactly high-brow writing we’re talking about here, but it had me belly laughing most of the time and that’s what you want to get out of this kind of movie.
There’s a lot of swearing, a lot of physical humor, and I’m a big enthusiast of comedies where grown men act like I did when I was ten. Some of the gags don’t really land like they should and it gets kind of slow by the end, but the first half hour of this movie made my cheeks sore, and that’s enough for a recommendation.
I think Will Ferrell has always been funny, but I know some of you out there don’t share in my sentiments on this issue. But lucky for you, Step Brothers isn’t Anchorman or Talladega Nights humor, this is more like “Will Ferrell-back-when-he-was-on-
SNL” humor. Ferrell and John C. Reilly, who’s growing on me as a funny individual, play well off each other and they have a pretty amusing script to work along with. I’ve been told by people who don’t like Ferrell that they even thought this movie was hilarious, so I’m going to take that leap and tell you to put your biases aside and give this movie a shot if you’re looking to laugh.
And props to Richard Jenkins who had the freaking year of his life in 2008 with an Oscar nod for his great performance in a very good, yet unfortunately overlooked, movie, The Visitor, and his hilarious turn as John C. Reilly’s dad in this movie. He’s another one of these guys who’s face you’d recognize but could never remember his name. Well remember it from now on suckas, because he’s the man and he can act.
The Warriors (1979)
VERDICT:
8/10 Red Leather Vests
Took me a while to get around to seeing this movie, but I’m glad I can finally say that it’s as awesome as I’ve always heard it was.
The Warriors takes place in an alternate New York City that’s overrun by hundreds of gangs who strike fear into the hearts of others by painting their faces like mimes and getting dressed in overalls and roller skates. Truly terrifying, but whatever, just go with it.
So when the leader of the largest gang in the city is assassinated at a gang convention (I guess that’s what you’d call it), a gang of nine – The Warriors – are falsely accused of the murder and have to book it from the Bronx back to their home turf on Coney Island with every gang in the city hot on their asses. It’s a pretty straightforward story, but it’s a cool one all the same.
I don’t really know what genre this movie would fall into. Probably somewhere between action/adventure with a dash of drama thrown in there to add some credibility to it. But I love movies that take place over the course of one day and really keep the intensity up over a short span of time. That’s something that The Warriors does really well and does a good job of keeping you engaged.
And considering that it was made in 1979 and it would be a good while until it actually looked like people were making contact with their punches during a fistfight (think Rocky), the gang fights that take place amongst The Warriors and every other freakshow in New York are pretty legit. The fact that the fight scenes aren’t a laughable mess and are different each time is impressive even in its own right.
It’s a really original movie that borderlines on being epic in scope and I really have a thing for movies that take place in the 70s in New York City. NYC was a lot different back then (now think Taxi Driver) and being that I’m a current resident, it’s wild to see movies that serve as a kind of time capsule back a period when you wouldn’t be caught dead in Central Park after dark.
Even though I really liked this movie, it’s also one that I’d love to see get remade. It has good characters with a mixed bag of actors playing them, good dialogue, and a great setting, but creating a connection between the audience and nine other main characters over the course of an hour and a half is kind of stretching it. Cut it down a handful next time and you’re golden.
The Warriors is fun, it’s quotable, and it’s just freakin’ cool. I wish simple action movies like this still got made.
The Diving Bell and the Butterfly (2007)
VERDICT:
10/10 #1 Slots On Your Netflix Queue
The best movie of 2007 and one of my top ten favorite movies of all time.
The Diving Bell and the Butterfly is a biopic about Jean-Dominique Bauby, a former editor of Elle magazine in France who suffered a stroke and was left completely paralyzed with the exception of his left eye which he utilized to write his memoir by merely blinking to his speech therapist every time she said a letter he wanted to use. That was a mouthful.
I didn’t have any expectations going into this film since I hadn’t really heard of it beforehand, but I wasn’t paying for the ticket, so naturally I was on board. But once the movie started, it didn’t take long for my eyes to widen and my jaw to hit the floor. The Diving Bell and the Butterfly leaves you captivated from the very start and doesn’t falter throughout its running time.
It’s not a documentary, but it is a true story and it’s told entirely from Bauby’s perspective. The director, Julian Schnabel, puts the audience right in Bauby’s shoes; we see what he is seeing, we hear what he is thinking, and we can’t help but empathize with him as we too come to the realization of his circumstances at the same time he does. You’ve never seen a movie like this and you won’t believe that you’ve never heard of Bauby by the story’s end.
Bauby is played by Matthieu Amalric, an up-and-coming French actor who you might know as the main bad guy from Quantum of Solace. And even though that movie stunk and his wasn’t exactly a stand out role, he is fantastic in portraying Bauby both before and after his accident. It’s a constraining role to say the least, but even with just the use of one eye and a running inner-monologue, Amalric conveys an incredible range of emotions that had me laughing at times and brought tears to my eyes at others.
All the actors are great in this movie, but ultimately it’s all about Bauby and Amalric’s genuine portrayal of him as a man finding the will to live in a prison of his own flesh.
Watching this movie is like watching an artist paint his master work. Schnabel does absolutely astounding things with the camera, things I have never seen before which utterly floored me and continue to amaze me when I think back on them. The colors, the scenery, the point of view, the storytelling; it’s a beautiful experience and an absolutely stunning achievement on all fronts that needs to be seen to be truly appreciated.
But even if you don’t care about how movies are directed, even if you hate having to read subtitles when you watch movies (get over it, folks), and even if you’ve never heard of this movie before, everyone owes it to themselves to watch The Diving Bell and the Butterfly.
I’ve read Bauby’s memoir, and it was good, especially when you consider how it was written along with the author’s circumstances, but the movie outdoes it on every front. It is one of the most affecting and human stories I’ve ever seen conveyed through film and it will shake you to the core.
Kill Bill: Volume 2 (2004)
VERDICT:
8/10 Broken Hearts
Not as action-packed as Kill Bill: Volume 1, but it’s still the best of the series.
In Kill Bill: Volume 2, The Bride has taken out two of her former co-assassins and is now out to finish the rest of ’em off, get her daughter back, and while she’s at it, maybe even kill Bill. Sounds good to me.
Whereas Kill Bill: Volume 1 plays out as a kind of homage to Asian revenge movies, Volume 2 is a lot more like a modern-day Western with swords. It helps that the first one takes place in Japan and the second one takes place in the wild West, but the pacing and tone of both films are really what set them apart.
Volume 1 is a very in-your-face movie that has the pacing of a cheetah on speed. And while Volume 2 has the best action scene of both films (a sword fight in an RV between Uma Thurman and Daryl Hannah), it really slows down the pace from the first movie in order to really focus on the relationships amongst the characters involved and the driving forces behind them. The storytelling is very brooding in comparison and more often than not Tarantino opts for lengthy dialogue instead of a sword to the face. Most of the time it works, sometimes it doesn’t, but altogether it succeeds as a more meditative kind of departure from the insanity of Volume 1.
So if you’re going into this expecting an even crazier version of Volume 1, you might be disappointed. But if you go into Volume 2 with the mindset that it’s an altogether separate movie instead of taking it as a boring version of Volume 1, there’s a lot here to appreciate.
This movie can get long winded at times and the dialogue isn’t as sharp as past Tarantino efforts, but it has a lot more depth and credibility to it as both a drama and an action movie than Volume 1 does. The acting is better, David Carradine is great as Bill, it has a better script, and like I said, it’s just an altogether better movie.
Kill Bill: Volume 1 is the movie equivalent of a thrill ride. Kill Bill: Volume 2 doesn’t have that same kind of non-stop intensity, but it makes up for it in other ways. They’re both very different experiences, but I guess it all really depends on the kind of mood you’re in.
Whatever. Just watch ’em both.
Cut The Crap Movie Reviews 
