Being John Malkovich (1999) Review

BEING JOHN MALKOVICH (1999)
Director: Spike Jonze

Writer: Charlie Kaufman

Producers: Charlie Kaufman, Michael Kuhn, Steve Golin, Vincent Landay, Sandy Stern, and Michael Stipe

Editor: Eric Zumbrunnen

Cinematography: Lance Acord

Music: Carter Burwell

Starring: John Cusack, Cameron Diaz, Catherine Keener, John Malkovich, and Orson Bean

Best Credit: Mariah O'Brien as "Girl Creeped Out by Malkovich"

Runtime: 1 hour 52 minutes

Rating: R (Language and Sexuality)

Genre: Drama, Fantasy, Romance, Comedy

Release Date: November 19, 1999

Before Watching the Movie: It might be a good idea to go into the movie blind or somewhat blind.

Intro: This is a movie I've been wanting to see for a little while. I remember hearing good things about it on IMDb and a friend recommended it to me. I heard it's very different and unique, so one night when I felt like seeing something that fit that description, I decided to give this one a shot. Being John Malkovich is unlike anything I've ever seen before. Yes it's extremely weird and completely mind-bending, but it has an original, interesting and well-told story along with good directing and acting.

Plot: A struggling but brilliant puppeteer named Craig Schwartz (Cusack) is encouraged by his wife, Lottie (Diaz), to get a real job. At his job, he meets a woman named Maxine (Keener), who he falls in love with. Later, he stumbles across a small door in his building that he crawls in and realizes it's a portal into the head of actor John Malkovich. Enchanted with the experience, Craig shows his wife, who becomes obsessed with being Malkovich and starts tearing apart her and Craig and Craig and Maxine.

Things People May Find Objectionable: There's some swearing, including some f-bombs, but there isn't much of it. Otherwise, there's sexual content including one brief sex scene, but nothing is explicitly shown.

What was Good:

     -Story: Extremely unique. Because the story is unique, you really don't know and original. The fact that the story is so original and you really don't know where it's going really makes the movie work. It's also really interesting and well-told.
     -Script: Well-written script. I was impressed with the writing in the movie. All of it seemed very good and it worked. I can see why the screenplay was nominated for an Oscar.

     -Originality: As I mentioned earlier, the movie is extremely unique. I don't know of any movie that's remotely similar. To me, this makes the movie extra good. I like an original movie because I have no idea where it's going, and to me, unpredictability creates the ultimate suspense.

     -Acting: Good acting. While everyone gives a decent performance, Catherine Keener gives the best one. I've never seen her on anything else, but she does a really good job. She deserved the Oscar nomination she got for the role. I was also surprised to see Cameron Diaz was in this. She looks really different in the movie compared to now.

     -Directing/Cinematography: Good directing, but subtle. Not much stood out as, "Wow, what an amazing shot!" but the movie definitely had a look to it and the shots were set up well. Good directing. I'll have to check out more of Spike Jonze's work.

     -Characters/Emotional Involvement: The characters seem very subtly developed. I didn't really realize this until after watching the movie. I really didn't realize I cared about a characters until a bombshell of sorts is dropped, leaving the character in a difficult situation.

Just take another moment to admire the poster

Worth Noting:

     -Music/Score: The music was really interesting, as I think they use only classical music for the score. I thought it was a good choice, as it fits the theme of puppetry well and it helps draw you into the film's world a little better.

     -Humor: Though it's billed as a comedy, the movie is more of a drama or fantasy in my opinion There are some funny moments, usually created around the movie's weirdness, but I think the focus is on other aspects. In other words, I wouldn't go into the movie expecting to laugh all the way through l. It's less light-hearted than you'd expect.

     -Intelligence: This isn't a brainless movie by any standard. The concepts, though they're relatively easy to comprehend, are mind-bending and will twist your brain in many directions. You won't finish this movie with out having to think at least somewhat.
     -Weirdness: Just a fair warning that this movie is seriously weird and extremely quirky. I tend to like this sort of thing, but it may be off-putting to some. I'd give it a shot though, as it's worth it if you can stand its quirkiness. 

The Verdict: One word comes to mind when thinking about Being John Malkovich: unique. It's not like anything else I've ever seen, and for me that's a very good thing. If you buy into the film's crazy world (and the hell of beans there [brownie points if you get the reference there]), the movie will give you a one-of-a-kind experience. If you can stand a lot of weirdness, I would definitely give this movie a shot.

Liking my reviews? Like my Facebook page.

The World's End (2013) Review

THE WORLD'S END (2013)
Director: Edgar Wright

Writers: Simon Pegg and Edgar Wright

Producers: James Biddle, Liza Chasin, Eric Fellner, Nira Park, and Tim Bevan

Editor: Paul Machliss

Cinematography: Bill Pope

Music: Steven Price

Starring: Simon Pegg, Nick Frost, Paddy Considine, Eddie Marsan, and Martin Freeman

Best Credit: Mark Donovan and Ricky Champ as "Big Ugly Bastards"

Runtime: 1 hour 49 minutes

Rating: R (pervasive language and sexual references)

Genre: Comedy, Action, Sci-Fi

Release Date: August 23, 2013

Intro: I've been disappointed a lot with movies this summer. Maybe I'm just getting tired of the same old summer blockbuster formulas and overdone CGI, but it has seemed like a lot of this summer's movies are kind of the same. So when I saw a British comedy getting 90% fresh on Rotten Tomatoes, I knew this is one I wanted to see, especially since I've heard good things about Simon Pegg and Nick Frost's stuff. I wasn't disappointed. The World's End kind of has it all. First and foremost, it's funny, but it is also very well-written, acted, and directed and makes for a really good and entertaining movie.

Plot: Back in 1990, a group of high school friends led by Gary King (Pegg) attempted the "golden mile" in their hometown of Newton-Haven, in which they would drink at 12 different bars, the last of which is the World's End. They didn't quite make it, so 23 years later, Gary wants to try again. He approaches his reluctant companions from that night and gets them to come back to Newton-Haven. However, they soon realize that a lot of things aren't quite right with the town.

Things People May Find Objectionable: The biggest thing here is swearing. There is quite a bit of language. Otherwise, there's some violence and gore, but I've seen worse in PG-13 movies. If you take out the language, this one would've easily been rated PG-13 instead of R.

What was Good:

     -Humor: Definitely a strong point of the movie. It isn't hilarious right off the bat, but once it gets going, it's really funny. In a day and age where not many quality comedies are produced, The World's End is really refreshing with its smart humor. I think it's fairly safe to say that it's the summer's funniest movie. The nice thing is that for the most part, the movie doesn't rely on cheap pop culture references for laughs, so it will probably be able to retain its humor longer than your average comedy.

     -Story: I thought the story was very well-written and pretty well-thought-out. What impressed me the most is how seamlessly they were able to blend genres. Also, the attention to detail is very nice, as a lot of stuff comes back later in the movie or makes more sense after seeing the plot unfold. I thought the ending probably could've been a little better, but overall the story was very interesting and well-told. 

     -Directing/Cinematography: I really liked the directing in this one. The shots were interesting and the movie was very visual. It's cool to see a well-directed comedy. That doesn't seem to happen all that often, as it seems a lot of the best directors opt to work on dramas or action movies instead. 

     -Script: Wow! An actually well-written summer movie! Who'da thought? Sadly, it seems like a rarity nowadays, so it makes me even more impressed when I see good writing in a movie. The attention to detail is great and the script and story are both very smart.

Simon Pegg's stuck-in-the-90's character, Gary King, holding
a map of the "Golden Mile" the characters attempt

     -Acting: The acting is one of the main reasons the movie worked as well as it did. Simon Pegg and Nick Frost are both great, and their supporting cast of Martin Freeman, Paddy Considine, and Eddie Marsan are really good at backing them up. As one of my friends mentioned, the line delivery is part of the reason some of the lines were so funny, which says a lot about the actors.

     -Special Effects: This isn't a movie you'd expect to have first rate special effects, but they are actually pretty good. They are used relatively sparingly, they look pretty convincing, and above all they work.

Worth Noting:
     -Characters/Emotional Involvement: This was good for both Simon Pegg and Nick Frost's characters, as the characters are refreshingly well-developed. However, the other characters seem a little thin and somewhat forgotten by the screenwriters at times. It works, but sometimes you wonder what happened to a certain character and start wondering if anyone cares about them anymore.

     -Action/Suspense: The movie actually has a nice action side to it, even though it's not as wall-to-wall with its action as something like Iron Man 3. It's exciting, but the focus is the humor.

     -Originality: The movie was very original in that it essentially blended 3 genres. It took a typical sci-fi plot, a typical action plot, and a typical buddy comedy plot and mashed them together. This kind of blending is hard to pull off, but the filmmakers do it very, very well.

     -Intelligence: Unlike a lot of summer movies, especially comedies, the movie is very smart. The writers know what they're doing and have obviously thought a lot of the plot and the jokes through. It's really nice to see this for once. 

The Verdict: The World's End is either the best or tied for the best (with Star Trek: Into Darkness) movie I've seen this summer. It has just about everything. It's funny and it also has good acting, directing, writing, and a healthy dose of action and character development. I would definitely recommend seeing this one. Though it takes a little bit to get going, once it does, it's a really fun, funny, and enjoyable movie.

Liking my reviews? Like my Facebook page.

Kick-Ass 2 (2013) Review

KICK-ASS 2
Director: Jeff Wadlow

Writer: Jeff Wadlow

Producers: Trevor Duke-Moretz, Pierre Lagrange, Mark Millar, Stephen Marks, John Romita, Claudia Schiffer, Brad Pitt, and Matthew Vaughn

Editor: Eddie Hamilton

Cinematography: Tim Maurice-Jones

Music: Henry Jackman and Matthew Margeson

Starring: Aaron Taylor-Johnson, Chloe Grace Moretz, Christopher Mintz-Plasse, Lindy Booth, Olga Kurkulina and Jim Carrey

Best Credit: Cinna as "Eisenhower." Cinna is a dog.

Runtime: 1 hour 43 minutes

Rating: R (strong violence, pervasive language, sex content, brief nudity)

Genre: Action, Crime, Superhero, Comedy

Release Date: August 16, 2013

Before Watching the Movie: You should probably see the first Kick-Ass movie before watching this one, as a lot of references are made to things that happen in it. If you don't have time, it would be a good idea to read a spoiler-filled synopsis of the first one.

Intro: So I start college in about a month. While I have a long summer, I have to contend with having a lot of friends leave and fewer people to hang out. So I got excited when the people who are actually still here want to hang out. So we decided to see a movie. I was kind of hoping to see either Elysium or The World's End, but since we'd seen Kick-Ass 1 at a recent movie night, my friends chose to see this. I enjoyed the first one, so I went in went in with an open mind. Kick-Ass 2 proves that lightning can't strike twice, as it fails to deliver in the same areas its predecessor is able to pull off, as it has excessive violence and backstories and character development that seem unnecessary.

Plot: After the events of the first Kick-Ass movie, Kick-Ass/Dave (Taylor-Johnson) has started a movement for everyday citizens to become masked vigilantes. His counterpart, Hit-Girl/Mindy (Moretz) has begun high school and is having problems fitting in. Meanwhile, grieving millionaire and former sidekick of Kick-Ass, Red Mist (Mintz-Plasse), has decided to avenge his father and become the world's first supervillain.

Things People May Find Objectionable: Oh God, where to begin. There's really a bit of everything in this one: craptons of swearing, craptons of violence and gore, and one scene with brief nudity. This is definitely not one to take kids to. If you're uncomfortable with violence and swearing, don't see this one.

What was Good:

     -Humor: The movie was at least good in this department. The first part of the movie is pretty funny and there are some really funny moments. However, as the movie becomes more dark and serious, it begins to fail and becomes a lot less fun to watch. The movie probably would've functioned best as purely a comedy. I felt this way when watching Kick-Ass 1 as well, but it was actually able to pull it off.

     -Acting: I gotta say, the acting was pretty good. I usually have a bias against child actors in their performances, but Chloe Grace Moretz is really pretty good as Hit-Girl/Mindy. The other actors do a good job as well. I mean, no Oscar performances here, but the acting is solid.

     -Directing/Cinematography: It was alright, I guess. I really liked the choices of color for all the characters and sets. It kept it very interesting. Also, the action sequences weren't all that bad, as you can tell what's going on for the most part. It wasn't Kubrick or Hitchcock-level directing by any measure, but it wasn't bad.

What Could Have Been Better:

     -Pacing: The movie gets off to a good start, but from the middle to the end, it drags quite a bit. It felt much longer than it actually was while watching it. I was surprised looking on IMDb and seeing how short it actually was. I could've sworn this thing was 2 and a half hours even though it was just under 2. 

Something the filmmakers should really learn

     -Violence: Any movie with this amount of violence walks the line between something insanely fun and watchable like the stuff Quentin Tarantino is famous for and something that just seems like it has excessive and unnecessary amounts of it and becomes old. While it's predecessor managed to walk the line fairly well, Kick-Ass 2 falls on the other side. While some violence was fine, it seemed like the movie just had an excessive and gratuitous amount. After a while, it got to the point where it got old and I got tired of watching it.

     -Story: I really liked the basic premise of the movie and its predecessor. It's a great, refreshing take on the superhero genre. If they had stuck with just the whole average guy becoming a superhero part of the story, I think the story would've been better. At times, I kept thinking, "Did you guys really have to go there?" or "Did we really have to see that?" or "Is this really necessary?" A lot of the plot, especially the emotional, character moments seemed unnecessary. I mean, they fit the plot ok, it just seems like they could've told the same story without them.

     -Characters/Emotional Involvement: I got really tired of the movie's attempts at this, really fast. The character development and emotional parts of the movie really dragged on, and a lot of it I felt was unnecessary to the story. I'm not sure if I cared about the characters or not, but I got tired of the attempts to develop them.

     -Script: Like pretty much the whole movie, the script started out ok and then went downhill when things begin to get serious. The only bits of good writing were in the opening like 20 minutes when the movie was still trying to do comedy.

The Verdict: Though it is entertaining at times, especially with its humor, Kick-Ass 2 fails to pull off what Kick-Ass 1 was able to. A movie should be fun to watch unless it's trying to make a statement by being hard to watch. The movie really isn't that fun to watch, nor does it make any profound statements. This movie doesn't have enough redeeming qualities to make me recommend it. If you're interested in movies like Kick-Ass 2, I recommend watching Kick-Ass 1 or something by Tarantino instead.

Liking my reviews? Like my Facebook page.

2012 (2009) Review in Light of the Events (or lack thereof) of December 21, 2012

2012 (2009)
Director: Roland Emmerich

Writers: Roland Emmerich and Harald Kloser

Producers: Michael Wimer, Roland and Ute Emmerich, Larry Franco, Mark Gordon, and Harald Kloser

Editors: David Brenner and Peter S. Elliot

Cinematography: Dean Seamer

Music: Harald Kloser and Thomas Wanker

Starring: John Cusack, Amanda Peet, Chiwetel Ejiofor, Thomas McCarthy, Oliver Platt, Liam Hames, and Zlatko Buric

Runtime: 2 hours 37 minutes

Rating: PG-13 (intense disaster, language)

Genre: Action/Adventure, Drama, Comedy (after yesterday)

Release Date: November 13, 2009

Before Watching the Movie: Keep in mind that all the Mayan prophecy crap you've been hearing and everything the movie is based off never happened. December 21, 2012 passed as any other day would, and if you keep this in mind, the movie will get funnier due to its absurdity.

Things people may find “objectionable”: There are some intense destruction and death scenes and a few minor swear words, but otherwise there isn't anything.

Intro: "It's the end of the world as we know it. And I feel fine." -R.E.M. For a couple years, mainly the last few, people, as you probably know, have been kinda freaking out because supposedly the Mayan calendar ended on December 21, 2012. Well, folks, it's December 22, 2012, and I think it's safe to say we all survived. But when people were actually making a kind of big deal about the whole apocalypse thing, ironically back in 2008 and 2009, 2012 was released. Being a fan of the cheesy over-the-topness of director Roland Emmerich's other films such as Independence Day, The Day After Tomorrow, and 10,000 BC, I decided to see it in theaters when it came out (so technically, I'm breaking my personal rule of only reviewing movies I've seen for the first time). It was kind of like Emmerich's other movies in that it was over the top and unrealistic, but had good effects. Then, yesterday, on December 21s. t, I decided to rent the movie from the library and watch it with some friends, keeping in mind that everything occurring in the movie was supposed to be happening as we watched it. It was about as I remembered. The effects were great, but the writing was stupid, the scientific concepts were absurd, and the movie was way too serious and overlong.

Plot: It turns out the Mayans were right (at least in the movie's world). The world is ending in 2012. Scientists predicted it 3 years before the catastrophe and now everything's going to hell. A writer named Jackson (Cusack) on vacation stumbles across a conspiracy that the world is going to end. As mysterious events happen across the globe, baffling scientists like the U.S. science advisor, Adrian Hemsley (Ejiofor). Jackson must go and save his ex-wife (Peet), her husband (McCarthy), and his untrusting kids from certain death on doomsday.

Ratings:

     -Directing/Cinematography: 5/10. Roland Emmerich actually does know how to direct. The cinematography was good, it was just his decisions that turned the movie to crap. By decisions, I mean to make the damn thing 2 1/2 hours long, make it super serious, and use about every freaking cliché in the book. It's these directing decisions and not the cinematography and the visuals that earn him the low grade on this category.

     -Acting: 4/10. Waaaaaaaaayyyy overacted. By everyone. I think this is mostly the fault of the director, but it got so overacted and over-serious at times, it became incredibly hard to take the movie seriously. A couple of my friends and I broke out laughing during some ultra-serious scenes just because of how over-the-top and overacted it was. Also, the Russian guy, played by Zlatko Buric, had such a heavy accent that I thought he sounded a lot like Jabba the Hutt.

     -Writing: 3/10.

          -Story: 4/10. "Daddy, how do you spell unrealistic?" "T-w-e-n-t-y -T-w-e-l-v-e, dear." Yes, it was that bad. As with other Roland Emmerich films (mainly The Day After Tomorrow and 10,000 BC), it is possible to compare 2012 to the Republican Party in that neither care too much for facts (Sorry, conservative readers. Please still read my blog!). The movie was loaded with absurd scientific inaccuracies and impossibilities. The plot was also very predictable too. It was very easy to tell who was going to live or die and what chain of events was going to take place. The only reason this gets a 4 is because of the pretty good usage of the intertwining stories. While the stories that might intertwine are stupidly written, at least they connect well. There were only one or two concepts in the movie that were actually kind of cool. The rest were lame and unrealistic.

          -Script: 2/10. Oh dear God, where to start. The script was extraordinarily cheesy and included the classic disaster line of someone dramatically saying "my god." Keeping in mind I took an AP Physics final just 4 days before, there was one line in particular that stuck out in a bad way. Two characters are talking about a mine shaft and how it is becoming unbearably hot due to the Earth's climate change. One character reports, "Temperatures are rising at an incredible velocity!" Temperatures are not objects, and therefore have no velocity because they cannot move. Their rate can rise incredibly, but their velocity. Anyway, my friends, 4 of which have braved or are braving AP Physics had a lot of fun laughing at that.                                                               

                                                                                                          ^ Some good end of the world-themed music to listen to while 

                                                                                                                                                   reading this review.

     -Special Effects: 10/10. If there was a bright spot in the movie, this was definitely it. The effects and visuals as a whole were very good. The movie looked great. It was just everything else that killed it.

     -Music/Score: 8/10. Pretty good score, but not Oscar-worthy. It wasn't incredible, but it worked nicely.

     -Power/Emotion: 3/10. There wasn't a ton of emotional attachment to any of the characters in the movie. In fact, in one scene, a character dies heroically and like 2 minutes later no one in the movie or the audience really cares about him. The only emotion produced by the movie is due to seeing the world destroyed and people trying to survive. Even so, you know everything is going to be ok because of the cheesiness and predictability of the plot.

     -Adrenaline: 7/10. Despite my panning of the movie in other areas, I must admit that Roland Emmerich does know how to make an exciting movie, even if the movie's writing, acting, and historical/scientific accuracies are not great.

     -Intelligence: 1/10. The movie is really pretty stupid. Though they thrown scientific jargon at you every once in a while, it is pretty easy to understand and is most likely scientifically inaccurate anyway.

     -Stupidity: 10/10. The movie seems extremely stupid, even comedic, after the events (or lack thereof) of yesterday. Even so, the movie was stupid to begin with. I mean, the crust shrinking? Massive floods covering the whole country of India and going over Himalayan peaks? Come on, was this ever going to be remotely realistic whatsoever? It only looks more stupid now that we've all survived the supposed apocalypse.

     -Humor: Intentional: 1/10. Unintentional: 5/10. Parts of the movie, especially the lines and the science, got laughably bad. Also, it was fun laughing at it because the events of the movie were supposed to be happening while we were watching it, so the irony became funny. It really loses most of its shock value (if it had much to begin with) now that the doomsday date it was based off has now passed.

This is an accurate summary of the Humor section of the review

     -Best Credit: John Mee as "Angry billionaire."

     -Final Score: 2012 really wasn't and isn't a great movie. It's way too serious, inaccurate, formulaic, and long to be that enjoyable. You should only really watch 2012 to make fun of it (like I did yesterday). If you're looking for a better disaster movie, check out the original Godzilla or Independence Day, as both are far more enjoyable.

Enjoying my reviews? Like my Facebook page.