After watching, The Act of Killing (2012), I thought I should go back and watching this film, which covers historical events in Indonesia. This film has a certainly noteworthy cast, featuring Mel Gibson and Sigourney Weaver.
It is a decent film but lacks a great deal of depth of the historical events which unfold around the characters, at the same time without giving any real feeling for the character's or their feeling for each other. This film has been labeled a love story, but there if very little love nor emotions in the main characters on again, off again, relationship.
One other point is there is a lack of films about Indonesia, so this film should be lauded for giving exposure to a country and historical events that are often overlooked. Made by an Australian film company, it is a subject that no Hollywood has shown no interest in.
This film seemed to barely make back the cost it took to produces the film. I thought the film had an impressive reputation, but I feel that it may be almost unknown.
One reviewer back in 1983 said "If this film doesn't make an international star of Mr. Gibson, then nothing will.", but I don't know how widely known this film is, and it doesn't seem a lot of Mel Gibson fans even acknowledge this film.
Thursday, May 1, 2014
The Killing Fields (1984)
I had heard of this film, and had a general idea what it was about, but began watching it after mistaking it for "The Year of Living Dangerously". This was a spectacular film, especially with it's review of the slaughter/genocide/holocaust that took place in Cambodia.
First, as a film, it was a great story, that kept you glued to the screen. The film can stand on it's own as a oveview of the horrific events that took place during as well.
The only question that arises is if most viewers would feel confused if they lacked the basic background of the Khmer Rouge, perhaps making it difficult to understand underlying circustances that lead to these events.
Accolades must be given to Haing S. Ngor, who not only stared in this film (for which he received academy award) but himself was a Cambodian genocide survivor. While he was slain decades later, while living in the US after becoming a US citizen, he indicated that this film was a important enough achievement that he felt fulfilled the most important role in his life. This film should not be forgotten, nor overlooked.
First, as a film, it was a great story, that kept you glued to the screen. The film can stand on it's own as a oveview of the horrific events that took place during as well.
The only question that arises is if most viewers would feel confused if they lacked the basic background of the Khmer Rouge, perhaps making it difficult to understand underlying circustances that lead to these events.
Accolades must be given to Haing S. Ngor, who not only stared in this film (for which he received academy award) but himself was a Cambodian genocide survivor. While he was slain decades later, while living in the US after becoming a US citizen, he indicated that this film was a important enough achievement that he felt fulfilled the most important role in his life. This film should not be forgotten, nor overlooked.
The Act of Killing (2102)
I am not quite sure what brought me to watch this film, but most likely it was the fact that it is about Indonesia, whose history that I knew much less about than I thought. The film opened my eyes to what the tragic slaughter/ holocaust that took place in Indonesia (and how the killers are revered there) and explained to me the level seriousness regarding of why you don't call yourself an atheist in Indonesian (as being as communists are atheists).
The film covers several men who lead the slaughter and follows them with there efforts to represent their acts on film, it is surreal at times, but in the end give better understanding of the Indonesian view of the slaughter of suspected communists and even the butcher's point of view. Basically, what this film wants to say can be said in a sentence or two, but requires being watched to have more than a superficial understanding of the historical events.
This movie is going on my list of required watching for "social studies" classes in high school, to fill in the gaps in knowledge.
The film covers several men who lead the slaughter and follows them with there efforts to represent their acts on film, it is surreal at times, but in the end give better understanding of the Indonesian view of the slaughter of suspected communists and even the butcher's point of view. Basically, what this film wants to say can be said in a sentence or two, but requires being watched to have more than a superficial understanding of the historical events.
This movie is going on my list of required watching for "social studies" classes in high school, to fill in the gaps in knowledge.
Monday, April 14, 2014
The Outlaw (1943)
After watching The Aviator, I became more aware of Howard Hughes career as a producer and director of films and wished to watch more of his films. The Outlaw is one of his more notable films, and at the time was a source of great controversy, due to the "prominence" of Jane Russell's breasts, which now a days is not enough to even cause anyone to raise an eyebrow.
The film is good, and apparently is very well regarded, especially for a western, and while it was a decent film to watch is not overwhelmingly noteworthy to me.
One thing that did is perplexing is that the two main characters are Doc Holiday and Billie the Kid. It's odd that these two historical characters were used in a completely fictional story. Why not use new characters? The use of established characters in a unrelated story seems uncommon for the era this film was made in, but now is too common. Too many films take establish characters, stories and even TV shows and makes a completely unrelated film. This has worked well in rare instances, most commonly in Disney's animated films such as The Little Mermaid, and strangely enough Brian De Plama's remake of Howard Hughes own Scarface film.
The film is good, and apparently is very well regarded, especially for a western, and while it was a decent film to watch is not overwhelmingly noteworthy to me.
One thing that did is perplexing is that the two main characters are Doc Holiday and Billie the Kid. It's odd that these two historical characters were used in a completely fictional story. Why not use new characters? The use of established characters in a unrelated story seems uncommon for the era this film was made in, but now is too common. Too many films take establish characters, stories and even TV shows and makes a completely unrelated film. This has worked well in rare instances, most commonly in Disney's animated films such as The Little Mermaid, and strangely enough Brian De Plama's remake of Howard Hughes own Scarface film.
The Aviator (2004)
I have been torn about watching this film for years. This internal conflict was due to my great interest in Howard Hughes and my distaste for Leonardo Dicaprio, so it took me until now to watch the film.
As I said, I have a great interest in Howard Hughes, but too many times films focus on the insanity at the end of his life, which is irrelevant in comparison to all his accomplishments. I have the same problem with films about Kennedy that feel his assassination is the only note worthy moments of his life, when it is the least irrelevant. There is NOTHING for us to learn from either of these events.
When the film starts out, Dicaprio seems to be none other than himself, which is one of the problems I have with him, but as the film progresses you get more of a feel for who Howard Hughes was. Having read Howard Hughes biography, I was rather surprised by some of the extremely notable events that took place in his life that I didn't recall.
Overall, this is an excellent overview of Howard Hughes life and accomplishments. It does give glimpses of the insanity that eventually consumed Howard Hughes, without making it the focus of the film or neglecting his numerous accomplishments.
P.S. Is there any DiCaprio film in which he doesn't show his ass? It was in this film. I also caught a few minutes of The Wolf of Wall Street ( which seems like a pretty good film, but I have avoided due to lack of interest on my part and Dicaprio's involvement), which also prominently shows his ass.
As I said, I have a great interest in Howard Hughes, but too many times films focus on the insanity at the end of his life, which is irrelevant in comparison to all his accomplishments. I have the same problem with films about Kennedy that feel his assassination is the only note worthy moments of his life, when it is the least irrelevant. There is NOTHING for us to learn from either of these events.
When the film starts out, Dicaprio seems to be none other than himself, which is one of the problems I have with him, but as the film progresses you get more of a feel for who Howard Hughes was. Having read Howard Hughes biography, I was rather surprised by some of the extremely notable events that took place in his life that I didn't recall.
Overall, this is an excellent overview of Howard Hughes life and accomplishments. It does give glimpses of the insanity that eventually consumed Howard Hughes, without making it the focus of the film or neglecting his numerous accomplishments.
P.S. Is there any DiCaprio film in which he doesn't show his ass? It was in this film. I also caught a few minutes of The Wolf of Wall Street ( which seems like a pretty good film, but I have avoided due to lack of interest on my part and Dicaprio's involvement), which also prominently shows his ass.
Thursday, March 20, 2014
Dinner for Schmucks (2010)
I reviewed Jeff Dunham's filmography, and it listed that he made a movie, Dinner with Schmucks. It also listed that he had a dummy called Diane, which I had never seen, but that dummy was said to appear in this film. As I began to watch the film, I recall seeing Jeff Dunham's name in the opening credits, leading me to believe he played a significant role in this film. I was mislead.
Jeff (himself) doesn't even speak in this film, and his dummy Dianne only has about 2 lines. Not only that, but Jeff and much more prominently his dummy only have a few seconds of screen time, mostly as background characters, making their appearance in this film completely insignificant.
The role Steve Carell plays is vastly different than anything else I have ever seen him do, though I am not a big fan of Steve Carell (though I have nothing against him either).
I usually enjoy seeing Paul Rudd (whose name I didn't know until I looked it up just now, but whose face I am very familar with, since he appeared in several episodes of Friends), as he often appears as an every man, so I see myself in his place. I used to feel this way about John Cusack, though his films in the 80's were much more outlandish. I orginally planned to watch every film John Cusak made, ran out of steam with his 90's film. I haven't seen many John Cusack films in over a decade, and while he has diversified characters, I feel less motivation to see his films.
This film is okay, but I feel like it's like an episode of Three Company, where something goes wrong, and is handled poorly and a small action on the part of one of the characters would clear up the situation, but no one does so (at least 'til the end). It's the similar kind of situation, with various situations occurring based on that concept. It gives you an embarrassed feeling though out the film, a feeling that I wish I could do something about, but the character's don't do so (to keep the plot alive).
I don't feel particularly sympathetic for Steve Carell's character and only feel like Paul Rudd should get away from him. Even at the end of the film those feeling don't change. It's like Steve Carell's character is just source of comedy, and it seem like a person such as him couldn't really exist, though they surely do, to some degree.
Jeff (himself) doesn't even speak in this film, and his dummy Dianne only has about 2 lines. Not only that, but Jeff and much more prominently his dummy only have a few seconds of screen time, mostly as background characters, making their appearance in this film completely insignificant.
The role Steve Carell plays is vastly different than anything else I have ever seen him do, though I am not a big fan of Steve Carell (though I have nothing against him either).
I usually enjoy seeing Paul Rudd (whose name I didn't know until I looked it up just now, but whose face I am very familar with, since he appeared in several episodes of Friends), as he often appears as an every man, so I see myself in his place. I used to feel this way about John Cusack, though his films in the 80's were much more outlandish. I orginally planned to watch every film John Cusak made, ran out of steam with his 90's film. I haven't seen many John Cusack films in over a decade, and while he has diversified characters, I feel less motivation to see his films.
This film is okay, but I feel like it's like an episode of Three Company, where something goes wrong, and is handled poorly and a small action on the part of one of the characters would clear up the situation, but no one does so (at least 'til the end). It's the similar kind of situation, with various situations occurring based on that concept. It gives you an embarrassed feeling though out the film, a feeling that I wish I could do something about, but the character's don't do so (to keep the plot alive).
I don't feel particularly sympathetic for Steve Carell's character and only feel like Paul Rudd should get away from him. Even at the end of the film those feeling don't change. It's like Steve Carell's character is just source of comedy, and it seem like a person such as him couldn't really exist, though they surely do, to some degree.
Rushmore (1998)
I thought I had put this movie on my list because of the death of Harold Ramis. I recall reading an article and finding out that Bill Murry didn't talk to Harold for nearly a decade. Some how the name of the film Rushmore was mentioned, and I thought that Harold Ramis had some involvement in it. It appears I was wrong.
I was surprised to see that the film was co-written by Owen Wilson. I am not a huge fan of Owen Wilson, though I have nothing against him. I have seen a few of his films, but they don't really stand out to me. I have gained some respect for him, now knowing that he has writing to his carrer.
Luke Wilson appears in this film, and while he has very little screen time, I am glad to see him in a film. I have seen so little that he has done. Only Idocracy comes to mind.
As always, Bill Murray gave a good, though some what unremarkable performance. It was more unremarkable because the character didn't call for it and it didn't appear to have any ad-libing that I noticed.
It was a decent distraction for two hours, but I didn't bring anything away from this film.
I was surprised to see that the film was co-written by Owen Wilson. I am not a huge fan of Owen Wilson, though I have nothing against him. I have seen a few of his films, but they don't really stand out to me. I have gained some respect for him, now knowing that he has writing to his carrer.
Luke Wilson appears in this film, and while he has very little screen time, I am glad to see him in a film. I have seen so little that he has done. Only Idocracy comes to mind.
As always, Bill Murray gave a good, though some what unremarkable performance. It was more unremarkable because the character didn't call for it and it didn't appear to have any ad-libing that I noticed.
It was a decent distraction for two hours, but I didn't bring anything away from this film.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)