Welcome to the Two Geeks Go To The Movies! This is a project of two college friends who watch way too many movies and have decided to tell the world. Enjoy the ramblings.
Saturday, October 29, 2011
Anonymous Review
Whilst braving Narnia conditions, I managed to see Anonymous with Dad and Justin on October 29, 2011. I thought this movie was excellent. I love when people take theories such as Shakespeare being a fraud and running with it to create an interesting and compelling story. There are some that actually side with the fact that he didn't write his plays, sonnets, etc as manucsripts haven't been found in his handwriting. What's interesting is the movie starts in modern times with a man giving a performance to an audience about the theory that Shakespeare didn't write the plays. It appears they are acting out this story on stage, but then it goes into the real world and how this is what actually happened. I personally found that very interesting. The movie gives the theory that the plays were written by Edward De Vere The 17th Earl of Oxford, a nobleman, who would be educated about the perils of society and the history of the world. Basically: We've All Been Played!!! It also ties in some English history with the Essex rebellion against Elizabeth I (who is one of my favorite rulers from history along with Louis XIV). Rhys Ifans was absolutely amazing in the role as Edward De Vere. It explores his relationship with Elizabeth, how his marriage was arranged, and how he believed that words can give hope to a nation better than swords can. Edward wants his plays to be seen for this reason, but as a noble he needs someone to pen their name to the work. The man he had originally selected, Ben Jonson (played by Sebastian Armesto-who I thought was very good in his role as well) , a playwright himself attends Henry V which has a man that we all may know by the name of Will Shakespeare (played brilliantly by Rafe Spall) in one of the roles. In the movie, Shakespeare is painted as an actor who isn't literate, basically saying he doesn't know how to write certain letters. When the audience demands to see the writer in person, Shakespeare takes the reins and at first Edward is confused as is Ben. Over time, we see a nice montage of the plays we all may know tied in with altered history such as Elizabeth having affairs with Edward, giving birth to bastard sons, and the inspiration for several of the plays such as Romeo and Juliet. What's VERY interesting is they found a way to work in the plots of plays like Richard III, Macbeth, Hamlet, and King Lear into certain aspects of the movie through the political aspects with Elizabeth who was portrayed by both Joely Richardson and Vanessa Redgrave (as mother and daughter in real life this was very cool to see). The Cecil family had been very adamant of getting rid of plays as they felt it was a cesspool of nonsense that wasn't necessary. Both David Thewlis (who some may know as Professor Lupin in Harry Potter) and especially Edward Hogg were phenomenal. Robert took his father William's views to heart and wanted to put James I (who before his succession was the rules of Scotland. The I didn't come until he sat on the English throne) on the throne through the Act of Succession and also in a way to erase the cultural influences of Elizabeth I. They portrayed Elizabeth in a very similar light to her father Henry VIII, especially through Joely Richardson's portrayal with love of theater and festivities, as well as taking several lovers. I just liked how they did it (like father, like daughter). Ben of course eventually gets incensed at all the attention William Shakespeare is getting with building the Globe Theater as well as taking credit for everything. Ben goes to great lengths to expose Edward and this in turn brings forth a conclave of consequences and also makes Robert Cecil very happy as he can bring down those closest to Edward, and even Edward himself. All in all, I loved this movie and really can't wait to get this on DVD as it was one of the most well made movies I've ever seen. I liked how the topic was approached and how the cultural aspects were balanced with the political aspects and then connected to the present. For me, this movie is a 5/5!!!
Wednesday, October 19, 2011
Jacqui's Countdown begins!
So Mr. Verterano, as requested.. My favorite movie countdown had began. Though there are some movies that are absent from this list... Star Wars, Musicals and Jane Austen Adaptations do not make an appearance in this countdown. Star Trek is limited. All around I tried to keep sci-fi movies and chick flicks to a minimum. I also kept this down to 50 instead of 100.
Why you may ask? going through my personal movie collection, I realized I focused on certain types of movies. While I would call them "favorites", some I wouldn't say are "great" or even ones I would recommend to friends. So I thought: "I am going to an island and I have only 50 movies to bring..." And behold, below is the list..
Why you may ask? going through my personal movie collection, I realized I focused on certain types of movies. While I would call them "favorites", some I wouldn't say are "great" or even ones I would recommend to friends. So I thought: "I am going to an island and I have only 50 movies to bring..." And behold, below is the list..
Honorable mentions:
- Big Fish
- Finding Forrester
- Mona Lisa Smiles
- Finding Neverland
- Children of Men
- Black Swan
Footloose Review
I just saw the new Footloose on October 19, 2011. I was actually really impressed with it. It basically follows the same formula as the first movie with Kevin Bacon (who is busy playing villains and doing a great job at it recently in Super with Ellen Page and Rainn Wilson and in X-Men First Class. I remember how fun he was in Wild Things as well). The city boy from Boston, Massachusetts Ren MacCormack comes to Bomont and shakes things up. There was an accident that claimed the lives of four teenagers including the reverend's son. Due to the dancing and partying that led to the accident, there is a ban on public dancing and anything not deemed moralistic such as drinking alcohol. Kenny Wormald actually did a good job in the role and had great chemistry with Ariel Moore, the preacher's daughter played by Julianne Hough. I am not a fan of Julianne Hough, but I have to say I was impressed overall with her performance. My favorite character was Willard played by Miles Teller. He did a great job being Ren's friend and showing him the ropes of the South, while Ren helps him learn how to dance. There was alot of good music in this movie particularly by Quiet Riot which can also be heard in The Wrestler and some decent country music. I loved the scene where they go to the country line dancing bar. They were having fun on the dance floor and I almost thought they should have had 5,6,7,8 by Steps playing or Cotton Eyed Joe. They both would have worked. The race with the buses was pretty cool and that guy Chuck just deserved to get his butt whooped. Willard dancing along with the Barbie sing-along that Ren's cousins are dancing to is priceless. He does this in order to learn the dance steps that Ren knows. The kids get a petition together to ban the ban on no public dancing, which is successful after Reverend Shaw witnesses that Ren is a class act. I felt for Ren in a way as he talks about his mother who died of leukemia and how he never got to properly say goodbye to her. It was pretty emotional as I technically never really got to properly say goodbye to mine the right way either. He is a likeable character and his buddy Willard just reminds me of how me and my buddies from Elmira just hung out talking about the little things in life that we like. Ren actually had a similar suit to the one Kevin Bacon wears in the original for the prom scene at the end. I am not a fan of Blake Shelton, but he actually did a great job of recording the Footloose theme making it sound pretty close to the original one. I'll give the movie a 4/5 as the performances were pretty good, the dancing was fun, the music was loud and good and you could feel the energy coming off the screen.
The Thing Review
Sorry I'm late on this review, but I have been busy with research papers and lesson plans for my classes, but this deserves a review. I saw The Thing with Justin on October 15, 2011. I really liked it!! I thought it was a great homage to John Carpenter's The Thing from 1982, with some differences. Basically, the plot is a group of scientists arrive in Antarctica and discover an alien life form. Things get chaotic and its a whole bunch of great old fashioned horror/sci-fi fun. The gorgeous and talented Mary Elizabeth Winstead plays Kate Lloyd, a graduate student at Columbia University (her field is paleontology). She is recruited because they need her to help them dig up this discovery in Antarctica. Even in a winter coat and ski hat Mary looks unbelievable. Haha!! I can't help it. Any chance I get to put over Mary, I'll do it. I've loved her ever since I saw Final Destination 3 with Tom Hubbard. Other notable cast members were Joel Edgerton (who was recently in the phenomenal movie Warrior) and Addewale Akinnuyoe-Agbaje (who was one of the guards hired to protect Imhotep in The Mummy/The Mummy Returns). The alien takes the carbon life form and copies its organic matter and is able to hide as a member of the crew and when you least expect it that alien sheds its skin and feeds off of you, fusing itself to you and basically doing many things resembling a scene straight from Alien (one of the greatest horror/sci-fi franchises ever) and actually a little bit of Predator thrown in (because of the way this creature can clone itself into another human-similar to a Predator's invisibility/radar feature)-not awesome dreadlock hair or serpent like heads unfortunately but it's still a pretty interesting looking creature nonetheless. I like how Kate discovers that the creature cannot copy inorganic matter such as teeth fillings (which was a very nice subplot) and led to each member of the crew being paranoid about what was going on. I love the final battle between Kate and The Thing as they did a great job of giving Mary several character traits similar to Ripley played by Sigourney Weaver in the aforementioned Aliens franchise. Kate goes nuts on the creature with flamethrowers and kicking its ass literally. All in all an entertaining movie that did a great job of paying homage to the original without changing too much. I give the movie a 3/5, but a very enjoyable 3/5. Mary Elizabeth Winstead hopefully gets some Oscar worthy roles down the line. She's phenomenal and a personal favorite actress of mine.
Tuesday, October 4, 2011
Dream House Review
I saw Dream House on October 4, 2011. I actually really enjoyed this movie. I had been interested by the previews for some time and I thought the concept would be interesting. The movie follows a man named Will Atenton played by Daniel Craig, who was excellent in the role. We see him leave an office at the beginning seemingly retiring from his job to spend more time with his family: his wife Libby played by the beautiful Rachel Weisz, who was phenomenal in her role as well and his two daughters, Trish and Dee Dee. Over the course of the film, he learns about a man named Peter Ward who allegedly had murdered his wife and daughters in cold blood. I don't want to spoil too much of the plot, because you basically have to watch it unfold yourself. You have to pay attention to little details throughout the movie in terms of characters and especially in that opening scene I mentioned earlier. Keep your eyes open for Elias Koteas who seems to be in more movies lately and I am liking that. Daniel Craig develops a friendship with Ann Patterson (played by Naomi Watts) that knows the truth about what happened with Peter Ward. I think I liked this movie because I got a bit of a Shutter Island vibe from it. If you've seen it and then you watch this you might be able to pick up on what I mean from that. I recommend this movie as it was actually a decent cinematic journey and it kept me interested the whole way through. I'll give it a 3/5, but I definitely liked it.
Saturday, October 1, 2011
50/50 Review
Justin and I just got back from seeing 50/50 on October 1, 2011. This was a very good movie!! Joseph Gordon-Levitt's character Adam is diagnosed with MS, a severe form of spinal cancer. The movie follows his relationships with his parents (The mother was played marvelously by Angelica Huston) and his friend Kyle (which was an excellent performance by Seth Rogen). His character is 27 years old and he is struggling to deal with the fact he has cancer. Add on top of that his bitch of a girlfriend cheats on him with a random hippie guy as soon as he is diagnosed and he basically feels lonely as if he doesn't have a support system. Kyle is always by his side to help try and cheer him up and I really liked that aspect as he tried to keep his mind positive and that is really what a support system is supposed to do. Anna Kendrick played his therapist who was working on her doctorate and she was great in the role getting to know Adam's character and they grow a bond through the therapy sessions. During his chemotherapy, he befriends two older men who both have severe cancer. One scene that was extremely powerful is when one of the older men dies from his cancer the night before and Adam witnesses the funeral. After that he starts getting angry and he basically has a melt-down. He needs to get a very serious surgical procedure done in order to try and quell this tumor. I was getting emotional at times during this movie. However, the ending is positive and this was apparently based on a factual story (I think from Seth Rogen's life as he and Evan Goldberg wrote it). I firmly believe that Joseph Gordon-Levitt deserves an Oscar nomination for his performance. I can see them giving a best supporting actress to Angelica Huston as well. I know how tough this must have been as I have learned from personal experience with my family. I will give this movie a 4/5. I recommend this and Rogen definitely helps to lift the audience's spirits throughout which I liked.
Moneyball Review
Tonight I went to go to see Moneyball. This movie landed on my must see theatre list for one reason.. Aaron Sorkin. As friends and readers know, Jacqui has a slight Sorkin problem. I may or may not own every single TV show and movie he has written. But I digress...
Moneyball is an adaptation of the Michael Lewis' book of the same name. The movie is a dramatization of the events surrounding the 2002 Oakland Athletics. Following the 2001 season, the Oakland A's lost their three star players but did not have the money to replace them with players of a similar caliber because their owner likes to keep the payroll among the lowest in baseball. General Manager, Billy Beane (Brad Pitt) turns to Peter Brand (Jonah Hill) who argues that you can replace the players by finding diamonds in the rough who will provide similar production. Sorkin and Steven Zaillian also focus on Beane's personal background and his failure as player because the scouts misjudged his ability. This thread plants the seeds for Beane to reject the baseball status quo and use the methodology preached by Brand. The movie follows the season through its ups and downs, trades, streaks and disappointing ending in the first round of the playoffs.
The movie itself is a good piece of film. While this movie appears to be a "baseball" movie, it is far from. Since the perspective is from Billy Beane who doesn't actually watch any games, the focus is shifted to the back story. I feel this makes the movie very accessible even to those that might not otherwise be interested in a sports movie. Overall, I liked the film itself and the storytelling.
However, I had some problems with the film. Beane and Brand seem to have too much of a central role in the day-to-day management which left out Art Howe (Philip Seymour Hoffman). I almost feel like his character was just there for the television playback scenes. I found that a bit annoying. I would have liked to see that character featured more (I am also partial to PSH as an actor).
"The flashbacks" seem to me as something that was added later. I feel this effected the fluidity of the story. They would seem to come out of nowhere. I feel Beane's background was well explained during scenes in the film and these additions were distracting.
As a Sorkin snob, I feel this film is lacking the traditional markings of a Sorkin movie. Sorkin's writing has a fluidity to it. His movies are written to music and seem to have a certain beat to them. This movie lacked the beat, the speed of dialogue, heck even the "walk and talk" that traditionally mark a Sorkin film. I was disappointed in the obvious "fixes" made to the script. Yes, I am pretty sure the flashbacks I complained about were not his doing. I am in search of the Sorkin version of this script, I would love to see what was added besides slowing down the dialogue.
I am going to differ from Gerard and give this movie a 3/5.
One more edit.. The use of "the Show"? They should have found a truly original song to garner an oscar nod for this movie.. It won't be nominated for anything else.
Moneyball is an adaptation of the Michael Lewis' book of the same name. The movie is a dramatization of the events surrounding the 2002 Oakland Athletics. Following the 2001 season, the Oakland A's lost their three star players but did not have the money to replace them with players of a similar caliber because their owner likes to keep the payroll among the lowest in baseball. General Manager, Billy Beane (Brad Pitt) turns to Peter Brand (Jonah Hill) who argues that you can replace the players by finding diamonds in the rough who will provide similar production. Sorkin and Steven Zaillian also focus on Beane's personal background and his failure as player because the scouts misjudged his ability. This thread plants the seeds for Beane to reject the baseball status quo and use the methodology preached by Brand. The movie follows the season through its ups and downs, trades, streaks and disappointing ending in the first round of the playoffs.
The movie itself is a good piece of film. While this movie appears to be a "baseball" movie, it is far from. Since the perspective is from Billy Beane who doesn't actually watch any games, the focus is shifted to the back story. I feel this makes the movie very accessible even to those that might not otherwise be interested in a sports movie. Overall, I liked the film itself and the storytelling.
However, I had some problems with the film. Beane and Brand seem to have too much of a central role in the day-to-day management which left out Art Howe (Philip Seymour Hoffman). I almost feel like his character was just there for the television playback scenes. I found that a bit annoying. I would have liked to see that character featured more (I am also partial to PSH as an actor).
"The flashbacks" seem to me as something that was added later. I feel this effected the fluidity of the story. They would seem to come out of nowhere. I feel Beane's background was well explained during scenes in the film and these additions were distracting.
As a Sorkin snob, I feel this film is lacking the traditional markings of a Sorkin movie. Sorkin's writing has a fluidity to it. His movies are written to music and seem to have a certain beat to them. This movie lacked the beat, the speed of dialogue, heck even the "walk and talk" that traditionally mark a Sorkin film. I was disappointed in the obvious "fixes" made to the script. Yes, I am pretty sure the flashbacks I complained about were not his doing. I am in search of the Sorkin version of this script, I would love to see what was added besides slowing down the dialogue.
I am going to differ from Gerard and give this movie a 3/5.
One more edit.. The use of "the Show"? They should have found a truly original song to garner an oscar nod for this movie.. It won't be nominated for anything else.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)