There is a reason this movie was nominated for so many Oscars. There is a reason Daniel Day-Lewis won the Oscar for best actor. This is a freaking amazing movie and, whether you like it or you hate it, it's the pure definition of a movie you must see before you die.
Answer: Daniel Day-Lewis's performance. Question: Why is this movie so amazing? Time and time again, Daniel Day-Lewis has awed audiences with his performances. His performance in There Will Be Blood does not disappoint. He's known to be a very methodical actor and very picky about the movies he is in. This man shows us a perfect progression of a person whose greed an insanity basically destroys him. Daniel Plainview gets his wish: wealth beyond measure. But at the same time, he loses his sanity and his family because of that greed and competitiveness. I rarely find myself smiling during a movie, not because of a humorous moment, but because of the elation that I am feeling watching this person act on the screen. If Daniel Day-Lewis was not cast in this movie, it may very well have been forgettable. Not to leave the supporting cast out, the boy who played Eli/Paul Sunday was also excellent. He was able to be annoying and sympathetic at the same time which was very critical to the movie. The little boy(H.W. Plainview) also did a pretty good job.
The plot is fairly streamlined. Daniel Plainview is good at a certain thing and he has a specific goal in life. We follow his realization of that goal throughout the movie. Along the way, things hinder him from completing the goal. The main reason for this movie is to show the genius(and insanity) of Daniel Plainview. Plainview is a genius oil man. He's at the top of his game. But when it comes to connecting with other people, he's never been able to do that very well. We as the audience, learn exactly what's most important to him: wealth and winning. So, although the plot is minimal, what we experience along the way is amazing. Lastly, the last line of dialogue in the movie I thought was so perfect. It summed up the movie in numerous ways and was perfect.
The music was interesting. The music really consisted of clanks and clacking noises to simulate suspenseful moments and smooth swaying sounds when things were calm. I almost think this was a detriment to the film. When watching No Country For Old Men, there was hardly any music. And I think that made me more engrossed in the film. I wasn't taken out of the film with the music in There Will Be Blood, but I think it wasn't really necessary in some places. The visuals on the other hand were stunning. More than once, we are treated to these shots that pan out and give us a birds-eye view of the land. That combined with the authenticity of the sets made me truly get sucked into the world of 1900s oil drilling America.
There Will Be Blood is a movie that probably won't appeal to everyone. It takes a willingness to get sucked into the world of oil drilling and the insanity that Daniel Day-Lewis provides. But if you get sucked in, get ready for one heck of a good movie. I'll give it a 9.7 out of 10.
- John Murphy
Friday, February 5, 2010
Thursday, February 4, 2010
There Will Be Blood
Origin: U.S. (Ghoulardi Film Company, Paramount Vantage, Mirimax Films) 2007Length: 158 minutes
Format: Color
Director: Paul Thomas Anderson
Producer: Paul Thomas Anderson, JoAnne Sellar, Daniel Lupi
Screenplay: Paul Thomas Anderson
Photography: Robert Elswit
Music: Jonny Greenwood
Cast: Daniel Day-Lewis, Paul Dano, Kevin J. O'Connor, Kevin Breznahan
Oscars: Daniel Day-Lewis(best actor), Robert Elswit(best cinematography)
Oscar nominations: Daniel Lupi, JoAnne Sellar, Paul Thomas Anderson(best picture), Paul Thomas Anderson(best director), Paul Thomas Anderson(best adapted screenplay), Jack Fisk, Jim Erickson(best art direction), Dylan Tichenor(best film editing), Matthew Wood, Christopher Scarabosio(best sound editing).
Links: There Will Be Blood Trailer, There Will Be Blood Wiki, Oil! Wiki
Paul Thomas Anderson's excoriating study of greed and the both constructive and destructive powers of competitiveness and ambition is a stunning achievement by the still young writer-director. Using Upton Sinclair's muckraking 1927 novel Oil! as a jumping-off point, Anderson creates a vastly cinematic, darkly personal tale of one man seemingly without a single redemptive characteristic. The nuance of the storytelling, concentrating on long, almost silent passages and huge, open panoramas, There Will Be Blood delves to the most painful depths of a man who, by many measures, would have been considered both a success and a genius, but in Anderson's hands is painted as a charismatic sociopath.
Thursday, January 28, 2010
A Night at the Opera (Matt)
I'm going to go ahead and say it right now. This is one of the funniest movies ever made. I say that entirely free of impressions of Kanye. It's a simple fact. This movie was made in 1935, that means it is 75 years old, and I laughed harder watching it than I do watching the vast majority of modern comedies. It holds up that well. I think that is a huge compliment to give a comedy as humor seems in many cases to be tied to periods of time. A great example of this is the early episodes of Saturday Night Live. They have some funny skits occasionally sure, but most of the material when viewed today is just not funny at all. This movie completely transcends that restriction and remains as funny now as it was when it was created.
Lets start with this movie being black and white. This, as I have stated previously, tends to be a block to me enjoying movies. I get bored without the color. I hate admitting that but that is how it is. If a black and white movie is not exceptionally entertaining, I have a terrible time connecting with it. This movie I didn't even notice was in black and white. Never once was I even close to bored. I never had a chance to be, I was constantly assaulted by comic gags that kept me laughing.
The acting was pretty stereotypical Marx brothers, which is to say VERY animated and overacted. This wasn't a problem however as it is what the audience expects when watching these older comedies. The characters were as believable as they needed to be, which is to say, the characters didn't really matter that much. The acting as well as the story takes second place to the comedy, which really is why anyone would watch this movie in the first place. You don't watch this looking for a beautifully crafted, emotional story. You don't want to see deep characters responding to hardship or bonding. You want comedy. You want to have a good time. That is exactly what this movie provides. I did want to mention in particular the acting of Sig Ruman as the movies antagonist Gottleib. He was quite outstanding. His animated acting and facial expressions place him perfectly into this movie and I like his scenes in particular. He really played a great villain.
I've already mentioned the comedy but I'll say it again. The funniness of this film is absolutely timeless. I laughed for the entire film. I was cheering for the good guys and booing for the bad guys, and every time the Marx brothers pranked one of the villains I was thinking to myself "take that!" and laughing more. Some of the scenes in this film are quite honestly the funniest scenes I've ever seen in a movie. You should see this movie, every one of you.
I don't have anything bad to say. I loved this movie. Every single minute of it.
10 bearded officers out of 10.
~Matt
Lets start with this movie being black and white. This, as I have stated previously, tends to be a block to me enjoying movies. I get bored without the color. I hate admitting that but that is how it is. If a black and white movie is not exceptionally entertaining, I have a terrible time connecting with it. This movie I didn't even notice was in black and white. Never once was I even close to bored. I never had a chance to be, I was constantly assaulted by comic gags that kept me laughing.
The acting was pretty stereotypical Marx brothers, which is to say VERY animated and overacted. This wasn't a problem however as it is what the audience expects when watching these older comedies. The characters were as believable as they needed to be, which is to say, the characters didn't really matter that much. The acting as well as the story takes second place to the comedy, which really is why anyone would watch this movie in the first place. You don't watch this looking for a beautifully crafted, emotional story. You don't want to see deep characters responding to hardship or bonding. You want comedy. You want to have a good time. That is exactly what this movie provides. I did want to mention in particular the acting of Sig Ruman as the movies antagonist Gottleib. He was quite outstanding. His animated acting and facial expressions place him perfectly into this movie and I like his scenes in particular. He really played a great villain.
I've already mentioned the comedy but I'll say it again. The funniness of this film is absolutely timeless. I laughed for the entire film. I was cheering for the good guys and booing for the bad guys, and every time the Marx brothers pranked one of the villains I was thinking to myself "take that!" and laughing more. Some of the scenes in this film are quite honestly the funniest scenes I've ever seen in a movie. You should see this movie, every one of you.
I don't have anything bad to say. I loved this movie. Every single minute of it.
10 bearded officers out of 10.
~Matt
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
A Night At The Opera(John)
I believe this is the first straight up comedy that we've reviewed here on the blog. A Night At The Opera is one of those classic comedies that influenced so many other films in the genre. And the best part is, it's still freaking funny.
I'm going to break my usual review structure and try something different. This movie has some pretty bad acting, the plot is extremely minimal. The music is pretty good and the cinematography is fairly dated and crappy(lots of obvious cuts).
Now that all of that is out of the way, we can focus on the real reason you should watch this movie. This movie is freaking hilarious. The film was made in 1935 and stars three of the Marx brothers: Groucho, Harpo and Chico. I had seen bits and pieces of some other Marx brothers movies but I'd never known exactly how funny they were. Until now.
I was seriously laughing throughout the whole film. So much comedy comes your way that you will probably have to watch the movie again because you more than likely laughed through some funny parts and didn't hear them. The delivery by the three brothers is unique and yet melds together perfectly. Groucho delivers his comedy in the form of funny body motions and quick, lightning fast jokes. Harpo doesn't speak through the whole film, but is able to be funny by making weird faces and honking his horn and cutting things up with his scissors. Chico was the least funny in my opinion, but he still had his moments.
There were three particular bits that made my sides split. Watching these scenes, I couldn't help but think how before their time the Marx brothers were. I love the Three Stooges, Laurel and Hardy and Abbott and Costello. While these guys were very funny, their stuff is your standard fare slapstick comedy. The scenes I watched in A Night At The Opera were amazing and so innovative.
If you are a fan of comedy, there is no reason you should not see this film. It has everything you could want. This will make you want to watch the entire Marx brothers collection of movies. I know it makes me want to. I'm giving it a well deserved 9.5 out of 10.
- John Murphy
I'm going to break my usual review structure and try something different. This movie has some pretty bad acting, the plot is extremely minimal. The music is pretty good and the cinematography is fairly dated and crappy(lots of obvious cuts).
Now that all of that is out of the way, we can focus on the real reason you should watch this movie. This movie is freaking hilarious. The film was made in 1935 and stars three of the Marx brothers: Groucho, Harpo and Chico. I had seen bits and pieces of some other Marx brothers movies but I'd never known exactly how funny they were. Until now.
I was seriously laughing throughout the whole film. So much comedy comes your way that you will probably have to watch the movie again because you more than likely laughed through some funny parts and didn't hear them. The delivery by the three brothers is unique and yet melds together perfectly. Groucho delivers his comedy in the form of funny body motions and quick, lightning fast jokes. Harpo doesn't speak through the whole film, but is able to be funny by making weird faces and honking his horn and cutting things up with his scissors. Chico was the least funny in my opinion, but he still had his moments.
There were three particular bits that made my sides split. Watching these scenes, I couldn't help but think how before their time the Marx brothers were. I love the Three Stooges, Laurel and Hardy and Abbott and Costello. While these guys were very funny, their stuff is your standard fare slapstick comedy. The scenes I watched in A Night At The Opera were amazing and so innovative.
If you are a fan of comedy, there is no reason you should not see this film. It has everything you could want. This will make you want to watch the entire Marx brothers collection of movies. I know it makes me want to. I'm giving it a well deserved 9.5 out of 10.
- John Murphy
A Night At The Opera
Origin: U.S. (MGM) 1935Length: 96 minutes
Format: Black & White
Director: Sam Wood
Producer: Irving Thalberg
Screenplay: James Kevin McGuinness, George S. Kaufman
Photography: Merritt B. Gerstad
Music: Nacio Herb Brown, Walter Jurmann, Bronislau Kaper, Herbert Stothart
Cast: Groucho Marx, Chico Marx, Harpo Marx, Kitty Carlisle, Allan Jones, Walter Woolf King, Sig Ruman, Margaret Dumont, Edward Keane, Robert Emmett O'Connor
Links: A Night At The Opera Trailer, A Night At The Opera Wiki
More than the central scenes, like the crowd gathering in the ship cabin, A Night at the Opera remains such a strong and dazzling comedy thanks to its most elementary moments - a single word or gesture performed with an incredible sense of rhythm. There is much to say about the way the transgressive weapons of the three brothers initiate a crisis in the spectacle of an opera. Groucho's overflow of words and distortion of his body, Harpo's unnatural silence and childlike power of destruction, Chico's virtuosity and "foreign ethos" - all serve to disturb an opera based on a loathing of art, greed, and corruption.
Monday, January 4, 2010
No Country For Old Men (Matt)
Ok, lets start this off right now with a warning. I am going to have spoilers in this review. Below this paragraph you will find spoilers. I am going to talk about the ending, you will find out how the movie ends and what happens to major characters.
I liked this movie very much for the first two thirds. The characters are intriguing, the acting is immersive, the story is great. I have nary a complaint. I was riveted to the screen.
Let me start off the list of positives with three words. Tommy Lee Jones. He is amazing in this movie, and I feel that his part gets a bit overshadowed by Javier Bardem. He plays his character of Texas Sheriff Ed Tom Bell with a near perfection. I couldn't take my eyes off of him if he was in the scene. I can say with no qualms at all that he was my favorite character and actor in this movie. I can't imagine anybody else in this role, and yes I actually tried. Every actor I thought of fell short of this performance.
I also really liked the interactions between Llewelyn and Aton. The sort of cat and mouse game that rose up between them really was great to watch, and it kept me very interested. I enjoyed seeing Llewelyn especially, as he was cautious. I enjoyed seeing all the precautions he took, all of which were clever and well thought out. I liked watching two people who seemed to know what they were doing go after each other.
This movie felt very real to me, and that is another reason I liked it. I could very easily see this actually happening in a manner similar to how it happened in this movie. The characters behaved rationally and cleverly, and that really brought them to life. They seemed more like real people and less like fictional characters.
That said, the last third of the movie was just silly. I didn't like it.
Lets start with Woody Harrelson's character, Carson Wells. I don't see what the point of this guy was. He hired to track down the money and Anton, I get that. However after he is hired he somehow magically tracks down Llewelyn in a hospital in Mexico, and then he himself is magically tracked down by Anton and shot. WHY!?! He didn't really have any point. It felt like he was just added to the film in order to showcase how big of a badass that Anton was. It didn't make sense to me and I think the movie would have been better off without that character.
Next off is probably my biggest complaint of the film. Llewelyn is killed at his hotel by the Mexicans. This isn't so bad in itself. I can easily accept the fact that he dies in the plot. What I don't like or understand about it is that we don't see the death at all! We are in Sheriff Ed's car and we hear gunfire and see a truck driving away. We pull into the motel and see Llewelyn's body floating in the pool. Seriously, that's it. The entire movie up to this point has been about him trying to stay alive and keep the money, and then when he is finally killed we don't see it at all. We don't know for sure why he was in the pool, which is uncharacteristic of him from what we know via the movie, and we don't know how he was ambushed. Nothing. This drives me crazy. Why would you kill off the main character (arguably) of a film after getting the audience emotionally invested in him and NOT SHOW US HOW HE DIED? I really just can't get over that, I'm sure the directors have their reasons, but I don't like it and I don't get it.
Lastly is the end. We have the good sheriff talking to his wife at breakfast. He is retired now and he is telling her about a dream he had about his father. He talks about his father waiting on him in what is presumably the afterlife, although I don't think they actually say that specifically. He tells his wife the dream, and the movie ends. It didn't feel like it was over. We previously see Anton get nearly killed in a car wreck and walk away with a very broken arm, then we see the sheriff talk about a dream, then the movie ends. There is no real conclusion to the story. I can sort of understand this as the movie seems to be pointing towards a theme of crime always exists no matter where you are (past, present, future, US, Mexico). If Anton represents crime then his escape makes sense in that regard, but I don't get the dream description at all. I don't understand it's purpose. This might be due to my own ignorance but I just don't get it.
So how do I rate this movie? I love the first 2/3's of it and don't really like the last third at all. I think I'll give it 6.5 coin tosses out of 10.
~Matt
No Country For Old Men(John)
This was a very interesting movie to watch. The first time I watched it, I wasn't sure it was going to do it for me. I have liked every other Coen Brother's movie I've seen but this one seemed different. Long story short, I was pleasantly surprised.
The performances in this film are phenomenal. Almost every actor in this film makes you think that the stuff that happens is really happening. Tommy Lee Jones is extraordinary. He truly made me believe that he was an aging Texas lawman. And I can now not see Javier Bardem as anyone other than Anton Sugar, a psychopathic killer. Even Woody Harrelson's small role was excellent.
This movie could have been made in the 80s. From the hairstyles to the clothing, from the buildings to the newspapers, this movie is steeped in 80s culture. Making a film with the myriad of details this one had in it can only be a good thing. I didn't notice the music much. I'm not sure if there was much, if any. I think not having music during dramatic scenes increases the realism of the film. Music tends to take me out of a movie, especially if it is bad or not warranted.
There isn't much to the story really. A man finds some money and gets hunted down by people. But, the way the story is told kept me engrossed in the film the entire two hours and thirty minutes. There is so much tension between the characters throughout the whole film that, even though there isn't that much action, I felt like I had just watched a movie with a whole lot of action. I seriously felt exhausted after watching it. The story does come with a message, albeit a very subtle one. I interpreted the message to be this: Times are changing, but not as much as we would like to think. People are not good or evil. There is always a gray area. And even the toughest hombre can be taken out in a split second.
This is one of the best Coen Brother's films I've seen. I would have to say it's probably 3rd behind Fargo and Raising Arizona. This movie makes me want to read the book and see how much was taken from it. If you like Coen Brother's movies, go see this one. If you like tension throughout the movie and then a very very weird ending, go see this one.
I'll give it an 8.8 out of 10.
- John Murphy
The performances in this film are phenomenal. Almost every actor in this film makes you think that the stuff that happens is really happening. Tommy Lee Jones is extraordinary. He truly made me believe that he was an aging Texas lawman. And I can now not see Javier Bardem as anyone other than Anton Sugar, a psychopathic killer. Even Woody Harrelson's small role was excellent.
This movie could have been made in the 80s. From the hairstyles to the clothing, from the buildings to the newspapers, this movie is steeped in 80s culture. Making a film with the myriad of details this one had in it can only be a good thing. I didn't notice the music much. I'm not sure if there was much, if any. I think not having music during dramatic scenes increases the realism of the film. Music tends to take me out of a movie, especially if it is bad or not warranted.
There isn't much to the story really. A man finds some money and gets hunted down by people. But, the way the story is told kept me engrossed in the film the entire two hours and thirty minutes. There is so much tension between the characters throughout the whole film that, even though there isn't that much action, I felt like I had just watched a movie with a whole lot of action. I seriously felt exhausted after watching it. The story does come with a message, albeit a very subtle one. I interpreted the message to be this: Times are changing, but not as much as we would like to think. People are not good or evil. There is always a gray area. And even the toughest hombre can be taken out in a split second.
This is one of the best Coen Brother's films I've seen. I would have to say it's probably 3rd behind Fargo and Raising Arizona. This movie makes me want to read the book and see how much was taken from it. If you like Coen Brother's movies, go see this one. If you like tension throughout the movie and then a very very weird ending, go see this one.
I'll give it an 8.8 out of 10.
- John Murphy
Saturday, December 12, 2009
No Country For Old Men
Origin: U.S. (Paramount Vantage, Mirimax Films, Scott Rudin Productions, Mike Zoss Productions) 2007Length: 122 minutes
Format: Color
Director: Ethan Coen, Joel Coen
Producer: Ethan Coen, Joel Coen, Scott Rudin
Screenplay: Ethan Coen, Joel Coen
Photography: Roger Deakins
Music: Carter Burwell
Cast: Tommy Lee Jones, Josh Brolin, Javier Bardem, Kelly MacDonald, Woody Harrelson.
Oscars: Ethan Coen, Joel Coen, Scott Rudin(best picture), Ethan Coen, Joel Coen(best director), Javier Bardem(best supporting actor), Ethan Coen, Joel Coen(best adapted screenplay)
Oscar Nominations: Ethan and Joel Coen as "Roderick Jaynes"(best film editing), Roger Deakins(best cinematography), Skip Lievsay, Craig Berkey, Greg Orloff, Peter F. Kurland(best sound mixing), Skip Lievsay(best sound editing).
BAFTA: Ethan Coen, Joel Coen(best director), Javier Bardem(best supporting actor), Roger Deakins(best cinematography)
Links: No Country For Old Men Trailer, No Country For Old Men Wiki, No Country For Old Men Novel Wiki, BAFTA Wiki
Cormac McCarthy's novel No Country For Old Men begins with a reminiscence about the hazard of confronting incomprehensible evil. So, too, begins Joel and Ethan Coen's movie adaptation of the book, which is a western set in Southwestern Texas in 1980.
Opening to careful shots of daybreak, orchestrated to magnificent effect by cinematographer Roger Deakins, a voice-over by Tommy Lee Jones sets the scene: "The crime you see now, it's hard to even take its measure. It's not that I'm afraid of it. I always knew you had to be willing to die to even do this job. Not to be glorious. But I don't want to push my chips forward and go out and meet something I don't understand".
Thursday, December 10, 2009
Easy Rider(John)
This movie is definitely of its time. Watching this movie today, you really have to get into the mindset of the culture of the "hippie" in order to enjoy this film. But, I believe I succeeded in doing just that, and I think this movie has a lot of positives.
First and foremost, the acting in this film is top notch. We are treated to the acting chops of three powerhouse actors: Peter Fonda, Dennis Hopper and Jack Nicholson. Peter Fonda plays the silent, brooding character. Dennis Hopper is the drug addicted wise cracker. And Jack Nicholson plays the alcoholic lawyer who tags along for part of the movie. This was literally Nicholson's first role and he did not disappoint. Honestly, I was not enjoying the movie until he shows up.
The story is just so-so. Two hippies trying to get to Mardi-Gras. That's the basic premise. Where the movie gets interesting are the events that happen during their travels and the people they meet. I will remember portions of this movie probably for the rest of my life. The reason for this film was to make people aware of some of the hate-crimes that took place against people that wanted total freedom. Jack Nicholson put it perfectly in the film: "Those people like to think about freedom. But, you guys really have it. And that's what scares them".
The music was awesome. Being made in the 70s, this film has a lot of classic rock songs that get you into the spirit of the cross country, freedom fighting hippie. I don't think there was any other music other than the rock songs during the biking scenes. But, there really was no need for anything else.
I would have to say this movie is a must watch. I would advise everyone to try and think about being a hippie while watching this movie. Otherwise, it may actually be a disappointing movie. The plot is minimal, there are no huge special effects and other than the rock music insertions, there is no score. But I think everyone who watches will remember two specific scenes that will solidify the reason for the entire film.
I have to give the film a 8 out of 10. Probably if it wasn't so influential, the score would be lower.
- John Murphy
First and foremost, the acting in this film is top notch. We are treated to the acting chops of three powerhouse actors: Peter Fonda, Dennis Hopper and Jack Nicholson. Peter Fonda plays the silent, brooding character. Dennis Hopper is the drug addicted wise cracker. And Jack Nicholson plays the alcoholic lawyer who tags along for part of the movie. This was literally Nicholson's first role and he did not disappoint. Honestly, I was not enjoying the movie until he shows up.
The story is just so-so. Two hippies trying to get to Mardi-Gras. That's the basic premise. Where the movie gets interesting are the events that happen during their travels and the people they meet. I will remember portions of this movie probably for the rest of my life. The reason for this film was to make people aware of some of the hate-crimes that took place against people that wanted total freedom. Jack Nicholson put it perfectly in the film: "Those people like to think about freedom. But, you guys really have it. And that's what scares them".
The music was awesome. Being made in the 70s, this film has a lot of classic rock songs that get you into the spirit of the cross country, freedom fighting hippie. I don't think there was any other music other than the rock songs during the biking scenes. But, there really was no need for anything else.
I would have to say this movie is a must watch. I would advise everyone to try and think about being a hippie while watching this movie. Otherwise, it may actually be a disappointing movie. The plot is minimal, there are no huge special effects and other than the rock music insertions, there is no score. But I think everyone who watches will remember two specific scenes that will solidify the reason for the entire film.
I have to give the film a 8 out of 10. Probably if it wasn't so influential, the score would be lower.
- John Murphy
Easy Rider (Matt)
This movie I went into more or less blind. I knew it was about a trip on motorcycles, and I knew it had Dennis Hopper, Peter Fonda, and Jack Nicholson in it. That's about it. I was surprised by what I found in the film, both in positive and negative ways. There were aspects of the film that I really liked, and likewise, aspects that I did not.
Let's start with what I didn't like. First and probably the largest issue that I have with this movie is the plot, or lack thereof. I have thought about this film for a while now, and I'm still not completely sure what the story was. Two nomad friends make a cocaine deal, get a lot of cash, then go on a trip to New Orleans. That is the entire plot. They have various encounters with different groups of people along the way, but really, that's it. This annoyed me as I wanted more of an explanation as to why the characters are doing what they are doing. There are also some scenes that seem to be missing that I would consider important. A prime example of this is the two men obtaining their motorcycles. In the opening scene they are riding what appear to be cheap, off-road, motocross type motorcycles. Soon after they are riding the choppers that are considered iconic to the film. We never see them buy the bikes, I never even noticed them mentioning buying the bikes. I read that almost an hour and a half was cut from the film, but I feel that maybe some of the cut scenes should have remained.
Another part of the movie that bothered me is the extremes of the characters moods. All of the characters seem to be in the same mood for the entire movie. Peter Fonda is always sort of staring into space and thinking. Dennis Hopper is always loud and animated. Jack Nicholson is always being friendly and naive. Even when faced with serious events such as the death of their friends they retain these moods. They change once or twice, but usually they just all stay the same. I had a hard time connecting to the characters because of this.
Lastly, the directing of the move was a little... strange. There were several transitions between scenes that involved flashing back and forth between the current scene and the next one. These flashes back and forth were disorienting, and I would often be confused about what was going on for a little bit until I was able to get my bearings. Also along these same lines there were several other scene transitions that were abrupt and blunt and in some cases downright startling. We might be taken from a quiet dark scene instantly to a bright loud scene with no warning. I suppose I could understand these transitions if they were trying to simulate the experience of being drugged like the main characters were, but I just found it off-putting.
Alright, so like I mentioned earlier, I like the movie too. So now here are some things I liked about it.
I first want to mention here the music. It was great. Apparently when this film was made it was unusual to use songs that are already created/popular for the soundtrack. At the time it was a fairly groundbreaking move and I have to say for this movie it was brilliant. My favorite parts of the movie usually contained a great song that I recognized from that time period.
Next up would be the way they portrayed the spirit of freedom that the characters were representing. The scenes featuring the characters riding through beautiful landscapes on their motorcycles were wonderful. I enjoyed seeing the characters interact at night when they were usually camping out. I've been on several camping trips and the feeling of the nights when the work is done and the fires are lit was spot on. I felt like I was right there, sitting on the ground and talking with these characters under the open sky.
Lastly I want to mention the ending. It's a shocker, and after some thought I've decided that I liked it. They took on the issue of hate crime head on, and it was brutal and real. Just like in real life. It was pointless, as in reality hate crime often is, and I thought it fit fairly well. I will mention this however, if this movie had a more involved plot and I were better connected to the characters I might have felt differently. As it was I had a lesser attachment to these guys, and so the ending didn't effect me too much other than to cause a "man, that sucks" reaction. Regardless of the reasons though, I felt the ending was bold and a good move.
So there you go, I both like and didn't like this movie. That's a pretty horrible stance for a review I realize, but it is what it is. I give this movie 6 golden football helmets out of 10.
~Matt
Let's start with what I didn't like. First and probably the largest issue that I have with this movie is the plot, or lack thereof. I have thought about this film for a while now, and I'm still not completely sure what the story was. Two nomad friends make a cocaine deal, get a lot of cash, then go on a trip to New Orleans. That is the entire plot. They have various encounters with different groups of people along the way, but really, that's it. This annoyed me as I wanted more of an explanation as to why the characters are doing what they are doing. There are also some scenes that seem to be missing that I would consider important. A prime example of this is the two men obtaining their motorcycles. In the opening scene they are riding what appear to be cheap, off-road, motocross type motorcycles. Soon after they are riding the choppers that are considered iconic to the film. We never see them buy the bikes, I never even noticed them mentioning buying the bikes. I read that almost an hour and a half was cut from the film, but I feel that maybe some of the cut scenes should have remained.
Another part of the movie that bothered me is the extremes of the characters moods. All of the characters seem to be in the same mood for the entire movie. Peter Fonda is always sort of staring into space and thinking. Dennis Hopper is always loud and animated. Jack Nicholson is always being friendly and naive. Even when faced with serious events such as the death of their friends they retain these moods. They change once or twice, but usually they just all stay the same. I had a hard time connecting to the characters because of this.
Lastly, the directing of the move was a little... strange. There were several transitions between scenes that involved flashing back and forth between the current scene and the next one. These flashes back and forth were disorienting, and I would often be confused about what was going on for a little bit until I was able to get my bearings. Also along these same lines there were several other scene transitions that were abrupt and blunt and in some cases downright startling. We might be taken from a quiet dark scene instantly to a bright loud scene with no warning. I suppose I could understand these transitions if they were trying to simulate the experience of being drugged like the main characters were, but I just found it off-putting.
Alright, so like I mentioned earlier, I like the movie too. So now here are some things I liked about it.
I first want to mention here the music. It was great. Apparently when this film was made it was unusual to use songs that are already created/popular for the soundtrack. At the time it was a fairly groundbreaking move and I have to say for this movie it was brilliant. My favorite parts of the movie usually contained a great song that I recognized from that time period.
Next up would be the way they portrayed the spirit of freedom that the characters were representing. The scenes featuring the characters riding through beautiful landscapes on their motorcycles were wonderful. I enjoyed seeing the characters interact at night when they were usually camping out. I've been on several camping trips and the feeling of the nights when the work is done and the fires are lit was spot on. I felt like I was right there, sitting on the ground and talking with these characters under the open sky.
Lastly I want to mention the ending. It's a shocker, and after some thought I've decided that I liked it. They took on the issue of hate crime head on, and it was brutal and real. Just like in real life. It was pointless, as in reality hate crime often is, and I thought it fit fairly well. I will mention this however, if this movie had a more involved plot and I were better connected to the characters I might have felt differently. As it was I had a lesser attachment to these guys, and so the ending didn't effect me too much other than to cause a "man, that sucks" reaction. Regardless of the reasons though, I felt the ending was bold and a good move.
So there you go, I both like and didn't like this movie. That's a pretty horrible stance for a review I realize, but it is what it is. I give this movie 6 golden football helmets out of 10.
~Matt
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
