The Taking of Pelham 123

VIEW TRAILER

I decided to check out The Taking of Pelham 123 because I was in the mood to be entertained, and of course, because the almighty Netflix suggested it to me. I had heard good things about the film from some of my friends, so I had hope for it. In the end, the film turned out to be pretty much what I expected: a cheap thrill ride that entertained me but didn't amaze me.

As the movie poster so beautifully depicts, the film is essentially a stand-off between a simple New York man, Walter Garber (Denzel Washington), trying to redeem himself, and a complex New York man, Ryder (John Travolta) trying to get rich quick, taking no prisoners. The film essentially boils down to quite a few radio conversations between these men, with a few high speed car chases and gun fire mixed in. Luckily, Denzel and John both do a good job with their roles, preventing this film from dragging. I enjoyed the film and thought it was pretty suspenseful, but it didn't surprise me.

Maybe it was my fault for somehow believing this film was going to be different. Perhaps I shouldn't have naively assumed this suspense thriller wouldn't turn out the exact same way. In the end, it pretty much had all the cliches I should have suspected. Allow me to elaborate.

1. While his performance was good, Travolta's character pretty much fit the bill for the classic criminal mastermind. He was smart, witty, and of course had the notion that he was right, while the rest of society was actually the criminals. You know, the kind of guy where you are watching the film and suddenly think "Oh shit, maybe he's right! Maybe we are the bad guys!"... and then he kills an army veteran and you think "nah...."
2. The unlikely hero. Enter Denzel. This was about as standard as they come. Hard-working blue-collar guy, just trying to get through the day, when suddenly he is thrust into an extreme situation. And of course, by the end of the film he is chasing down the bad guy in a car with a gun.
3. The less-than-saintly politician who pretends to care about the hostages, when really all he cares about is his apporval rating.
4. Extreme overuse of the word "motherf***er".

The film did have one notable turn from normality, but it actually was one that I felt hurt the film. There were actually two climaxes. The first one occurs when all the hostages are saved, and at this point I exhailed a sigh of relief. However, upon checking the ticker at the bottom of the screen, I found out there were still 15 minutes left in the film. At this point I groaned, as I watched Denzel take off through the streets of New York to stop Travolta. This was upsetting because (1) I didn't really care if Travolta got away with the money and (2) It seemed very unnecessary and ill-advised for a train conductor to try and chase down a criminal mastermind.

Overall, the film didn't stick out to me, and therefore I would only recommend it to someone who is just looking to be entertained for 2 hours. IT isn't going to make you think much after, and it won't leave any real lasting impressions.

Will like if you enjoyed... - Phone Booth, John Q, Con Air, Enemy of the State, US Marshalls

Stay Away if... - You are looking for deeper meaning in your action films

Best Performance - Denzel Washington as Walter Garber. There were no amazing stand out performances in this film, but like always, Denzel shined. His character was the flawed hero, and Denzel did a great job of connecting with the audience on an emotional level.

Worst Performance - The NYPD extras. Pretty much every line they muttered was some stupid one-liner that you would predict was coming in a cheap action film. It was painful to watch. Blame the writers on this one.

Quote of the Film - "I talked to God... he said I should trust in him. All others pay cash. How soon can you get it down here?" Ryder (John Travolta)

Image I will Remember - To be honest, no scene or image really sticks out...

RATING - 5/10. Cheap thrills, decent entertainment. Didn't like it, didn't hate it. This film kinda just boils down to your taste in movies.

The King of Kong (Documentary)

VIEW TRAILER

I randomly stumbled upon this film in the Documentary section of my "Movies you will Heart" feature on Netflix. To put it quite simply, I was blown away by this film. Never in my wildest dreams would I have expected to be as entertained, emotionally involved, and on edge as I was for a documentary that was completely about Donkey Kong. I must applaud director Seth Gordon for this surprisingly heartwarming film that provided pretty much everything I could have hoped for in a documentary.

I didn't know exactly what to expect when I started watching this film, but the first 20 minutes or so complied with what my closest guess of what a Donkey Kong documentary might be about. The film started with some background into the world of classic gaming (Pac Man, Galaga, DK) and introduced some of the big players in the world of gaming. These studs included Walter Day, who is basically the head referee of all the gaming, Billy Mitchell, the longtime record holder in Donkey Kong and poster boy for gaming, and Steve Wiebe, the obscure gamer from Washington who never seemed to be able to catch a break. While the descriptions of these three men might lead most people to believe they were nothing less than a middle aged nerd-heard, these "actors" were each amazing in their own right. I couldn't imagine better characters being thought up for a fictional film.

I'm sure this will come as a huge shock to most people (and I can even hear some of you scoffing loudly at me through your computer), but not since James Braddock (Russell Crowe) in Cinderella Man have I actually rooted for a character like I did for Steve Wiebe. And similarly, not since Colonel Hans Landa (Cristoph Waltz) have I despised a character as much as Billy Mitchell. It was amazing how quickly and strongly the documentary was able to make me feel such polarized emotions to the two competitors. The most accurate analogy for Wiebe's attempt to become accepted and respected in the gaming world would probably be like an African American woman trying to get a membership at Augusta National....at the peak of the Civil War. Wiebe truly encapsulated every aspect of the term 'Underdog.' In this film, he did everything on the straight and narrow, while Mitchell did everything in a questionable and scheming way. These two men were opposites of each other in every possible way, including their appearance, backgrounds, demeanor, personality, and yes, even wives. I defy anyone who watches this movie to walk past these two men on the street and not give Steve Wiebe a hug while simultaneously mule-kicking Billy Mitchell in the groin. The man in the middle is Walter Day, the founder of Twin Galaxies, which is basically the equivalent to the IOC for the Olympics. He starts out as a member of the Billy Mitchell fan club, but eventually comes to respect and admire Wiebe for everything he goes through. All the other people in the film are pretty fun to watch as well, because most of them are nothing but Mitchell's Yes-Men, scrambling to report scores and updates to their master.

The characters themselves were without a doubt the thing that jumped out at me most about this film. As many documentaries do, the focus was on the people involved and their journeys. But aside from that, the actual plot of the film was surprisingly captivating and had a very nice flow to it. For those of you who are worried about it, watching this film will not make pocket protector spontaneously grow in your chest pocket, or your glasses to spawn protective tape around them. Director Seth Gordon did a good job of not drowning the audience with video gaming, although some of the comments these gamers make on camera is pretty hilarious. I'm gonna have to say my favorite was the young bachelor (still looking, I'm sure) who liked to wear a workout glove on his hand so he could, and I quote "game all day without getting callouses." This documentary also featured quite a bit more drama than I anticipated. I won't give away the ending because I really hope all of you watch it, but the film keeps you hanging on until the end.

Overall, this film is quirky, emotional, funny, heartbreaking, and ultimately real. This next statement may turn the aforementioned scoffers into monocle-droppers, but it pretty much had everything I look for not only in a documentary, but a movie in general...Alright, I guess it didn't have a dynamite Howard Shore soundtrack, but other than that the movie delivered on all cylinders. I am definitely fast-passing this documentary to one of my Top 3 all time.

Will like if you enjoy... - Video Games, documentaries, underdog stories
Stay Away if... - You are a girl, if you don't like documentaries, or if you need your documentaries to be politically provocative or about the ever-increasing dilemma of fat kids in America.

Best Performance - Steve Wiebe as himself. I said it before, but I will say it again, it is impossible to not like this guy. There is just something about him, with his sheepish smile and polite yet humble personality that makes you wanna give this guy a million bucks.

Worst Performance - Roy Shildt as himself, aka Mr. Awesome. This guy seems to want nothing more than some face time with the cameras, and gives Wiebe a bad name among the gaming world because they come to believe that Wiebe cheated with the help of Shildt, whose main goal in the film (and life, it appears) is to knock Billy Mitchell off his high-horse. Which I suppose is an admirable cause after all, but Roy goes about it the wrong way.

Quote of the Film - "Out of the entire global classic gaming hobby, there is one significant rivalry that is equivalent to the biggest sports rivalries... Yankees-Red Sox, Maris-Mantle, Heckle and Jeckle...This is up there on that level." -Walter Day on the Donkey Kong rivalry between Wiebe and Mitchell.

Image I will Remember - Steve Wiebe breaking down on camera with the rows of arcade games behind him, following Billy Mitchell submitting a tape that allegedly beat Wiebe's high score that he had just earned live. My heart literally broke in this moment.

RATING - 8/10. No this film doesn't have the actors of Shawshank Redemption, or the budget of Avatar, or the plot of Mystic River. But this movie will grab your attention and keep you interested until literally the final credits. (You will see what I mean). I really can't say enough about this film.

Blade Runner

WARNING --- Contains some spoilers.

VIEW TRAILER

Blade Runner is a 1982 film starring Harrison Ford as a Bounty Hunter in search of human clones known as Replicants. The futuristic film is set in the year 2019, which looks ridiculously futuristic from today's perspective. Director Ridley Scott must have been suffering some pretty severe depression while filming this movie, seeing as nearly 90% of the film involves dark city streets during torrential downpours. This stormy and gloomy setting only helped reinforce the confusing and uncomfortable plot.

This film falls under an umbrella of films which many older folks or movie purists view as "classics", but in reality the film just wasn't that enjoyable (see: Cool Hand Luke). I understand that this film was probably pretty innovative and technologically impressive in its own time, but for me it just didn't work.

One of the main issues right off the bat was that the main issue in the film, the conflict of the replicants and the humans, was not fully explained. Or rather, not in a way that made me care. From there, as the battle between Harrison Ford and the various replicants intensified, I found it hard to decide who to root for. Scott seemed like he couldn't decide himself, and throughout the film portrayed the replicants as both vicious and innocent. It was as if a hunter was pursuing an animal that kept changing from a menacing lion to an innocent kitten and then back again.

The climax of the film is a perfect example of this. Deckard (Ford) kills a replicant named Pris, and then is pursued by the replicant leader, Roy (Rutger Hauer). Roy toys with Deckard as if he were his prey, but at the last second saves Deckard by pulling him up from the ledge of a building. This puzzling action leaves viewers wondering whether or not the replicants were the bad guys. The problem was, it wasn't as if the replicants were truly just innocent and misunderstood. Just minutes later, Roy had killed his maker in cold blood. Overall, the actions of the replicants were confusing and inconsistent.

Other than that, the film had very few bright spots. It seems the production crew couldn't decide between '50s outfits or neo-futuristic attire for the actors. Sometimes the actors has normal enough clothes on, but at other times they wore outfits that would make Lady Gaga uncomfortable. My personal favorite was what appeared to be a gigantic Ziploc bag that was dawned by one of the replicants as she fled from Deckard. In terms of the plot itself, it seemed a bit like they jumped in to the story too quickly, and didn't go back enough to do any explaining later on. This resulted in apathy towards the characters, both real and replicant. Overall, the film had its moments, though few, but I would not recommend it.

Will like if you enjoyed... - Star Wars, Artificial Intelligence, a young Harrison Ford

Stay Away if... - You didn't like A.I., if you are not a fan of older futuristic films, or if you are creeped out by excessive amounts of makeup and creepy toys.

Best Performance - Harrison Ford (Rick Deckard). Ford was actually one of the few bright spots in this film. It was fairly enjoyable to watch him do his thing, even though this role almost seemed like a poor man's Han Solo. Overall, he keeps the film bearable.

Worst Performance - Daryl Hannah (Pris, one of the replicants). She gets the nod here simply because she sucked in the film, looked like the unholy offspring of a clown and a cheap hooker, and had one of the most disturbing spasms I've ever seen when Harrison Ford finally plugged a futuristic bullet in her chest. Pris was probably what Ridley Scott pictured a coke-whore would be in 2019.

Quote of the Film -"I've seen things you people wouldn't believe....All those moments will be lost in time... like tears in rain... Time to die." -Quick Side note: This quote alone almost saved the film. It was beautiful, powerful, symbolic, and enigmatic all at the same time. Sometimes one great quote can make a film. (again, see: Cool Hand Luke)

Image I will Remember - Pris the Replicant attempting to snap Harrison Ford's neck between her thighs. Trust me, that's not a good thing.

RATING - 4/10. I have to give this film the benefit of the doubt because it is from the 1980s, and of course everyone in the 1980s knew that by the year 2000 we would all be going to work and school by way of hovercraft. The concept of the film somehow managed to seem over used, even though it was a fairly original idea. Something about this movie just didn't do it for me.

A River Runs Through It

VIEW TRAILER

A River Runs Through It was the first film that I am reviewing for my blog. Bare with me.

This film is a sentimental drama set in the early 1990s in the backwoods of Montana. The story is a classic coming of age film, with the main character, Norman (played by Craig Sheffer), experiencing the universal joys and sorrows of adulthood. The film is one of those movies that doesn't exactly have a direct purpose in its plot, yet still manages to be enjoyable for the most part. However, I did get the sense that this film tried to grasp at something bigger than what it was.

For me, the most enjoyable aspect of the film was the way in which Norman and his younger brother Paul (played by Brad Pitt) interact. So many of us can relate to one or the other in our own lives. On the one hand you have Norman, the older, more responsible, brother who goes off to college and pursues a career in teaching. On the other hand is Paul, the younger, more adventurous, free spirited brother who is the apple of his parents' eye, yet has haunting problems that he keeps hidden from his family. This dynamic was played out very well by both characters, but I thought the father (minister, overbearing, can-do-no-evil) and mother (quiet, subservient, an afterthought in the household) were both less-than-imaginative characters.

This film did have its fair share of slow and sometimes downright awkward moments. I would not recommend it for someone who heads to the movies with the hopes of being visually assaulted by action and special effects. I would recommend it to sentimental folks, especially fathers or sons with fond fishing memories.

• Will like if you enjoyed... - A Beautiful Mind, Dances with Wolves, My Dog Skip, Simon Birch, Field of Dreams
• Stay Away if... - You don't enjoy the outdoors, if you need action in your films, if you are looking for an easily defined plot
• Best Performance - Brad Pitt (Paul Maclean), who plays the younger brother who is impossible to dislike, yet destined to fail. He lights up the screen, and displays a side of his acting arsenal that most people aren't familiar with.
• Worst Performance - Stephen Shellen (Neal Burns). His character wasn't likable in the film, or as part of the plot in general. Never really got a grasp of why he was even in the film.
• Quote of the Film - "In our family, there was no clear line between religion and fly fishing."
• Image I will Remember - Paul Maclean walking into Lolo's as Norman drives off.
• RATING - 6.5/10. This film was good, but it wasn't great. To relate it to fishing (which this film deals with greatly) it nibbled at my emotions here and there, but never took the bait hook line and sinker. If you are in the mood for a slightly uplifting, slightly depressing film, give this one a go.

Again, this is my first film, so I am hoping to make improvements and adjustments as I go.