Donnie Darko follows Donnie, a troubled teenager, who might be schizophrenic, who doesn't get along with just about anybody. He befriends a man dressed in a bunny costume, who may or not be real. He's involved with some type of mischief after narrowly escaping death. It's also about time travel, coincidences, and probably the meaning of life.
Story writing: Donnie Darko gets awakened by Frank the Bunny who allows him to escape what would be his certain death. After following Frank, he has conversations with Frank who makes him do a series of mischeivous actions. Donnie tries to figure what the meaning of all this is before Frank's apocalyptic message comes true. Or you know, none of that happened. Score: 9.5/10.
Dialogue writing: Beyond the awesome phrases of "fuck ass" and "suck a fuck", there were some periods of dead dialogue or at least dialogue that was supposed to be deep but ultimately failed. Well, there was the very thorough Smurfs discussion that some of my friends have labeled as Tarantinoesque. Some of the examples of dead or forced dialogue, could be found mainly in Drew Barrymore's scene where she forces Gretchen to choose what boy she thinks is the cutest will be the one she sits by. Score: 8.5/10
Characters: Donnie was a certainly well-developed character, there was some mystery surrounding Donne but it contributed heavily to the movie. Drew Barrymore's character, while a minor character, wasn't very good. The minor characters were for the most pretty interesting, including the pedophilic Jim Cunningham but could have been described better or at least better acted for more development. Score: 7.5/10
Directing: The movie really portrayed Donnie's sickness and allowed us to get inside Donnie's sick mind. It also allowed us to have questions at the end of the movie. While we've been taught that movies are supposed to wrap up nicely at the end of them, it's somewhat more satisfying to figure out what really happened after the movie was over and overanalyze it.
Score: 10/10.
Suspension of disbelief: It kind of depends what you think happened in the film. If you believe that Donnie was shizophrenic and that the majority of the movie is him coping with his impending death, you are able to believe a lot of the movie could actually happen. If you believe that the movie is literal and that he is explaining how to travel through time, that requires for a lot of suspension of disbelief
Score: 9/10.
Timing: I never felt like the movie was dragging and for the most part almost every scene contributed in some way to the film. This applies even moreso if the movie is a set of coincidences all needing to happen in this particular order. Score: 10/10.
Genre specific: I'm not sure where to classify this movie in a specific drama. I guess that that the genre would be a dramatic sci-fi, since I can't list many movies in the genre, it's a high score. Score: 10/10.
Theme/Pseudo-philosophical questions: Of course this is going to be a high score. Ask any 20 something year old stone and they'll tell you of the relative importance of this movie. Score: 10/10.
Acting: Like I said before, some of the characters could have benefitted from better acting. This applies mainly to Drew Barrymore. I didn't really buy her acting in this movie. It seemed like she was intentionally acting like she had never acted before. I didn't think that the mother or father were particularly well acted. Jake and Maggie Gyllenhaal, I thought did, fantastic. Especially Maggie. (Weird crush alert). Score: 10/10.
Re-watchability: This movie actually gets better the more times you watch it. You start to notice the little details that you missed the last time. Score: 10/10
Total Score: 91/100.
Showing posts with label movie review. Show all posts
Showing posts with label movie review. Show all posts
Saturday, December 10, 2011
Wednesday, November 16, 2011
Pumping out Movie Reviews: Slackers
Slackers (2002) focuses on a group of three friends Dave (Devon Sawa), Sam (Jason Segel), and Jeff (Michael Maronna) who are caught cheating on a physics test by Ethan (Jason Schwartzman). He then blackmails them into helping getting the girl that he so desperately stalks Angela (Jamie King). While the movie is similar to other teen movies in the same genre such as American Pie; it's actually pretty funny.
Story/writing: The story wasn't too bad. But it wasn't entirely complicated or complex, either. I'm kind of torn on how much of it, I should credit the story as opposed to the acting and the characters. The blackmail angle was sort of contrived, I thought, but what do I know? Grade: 6/10.
Characters: Now here comes the fun part. Every teen movie has the lovable slacker who doesn't try but is incredibly intelligent but is not focused on the normal success (Dave, in this movie).
You have the girl who will undoubtedly make him question his whole life and maybe make him change, Angela in this movie.
The main girl's best friend, played by Laura Prepon, in this movie.
You have the strange kid who's intelligent but crazy, Jeff.
You have the main character's true best friend who helps with the antics and shenanigans, Sam.
Then there's the bad guy. Typically, this is a jock frat boy nerd. Usually it's one of those three things, sometimes all three. This time, it's the nerd, Ethan.
Grade: 3/10. It hurts to be stereotypical.
Directing: The strange flashbacks or daydreams are great. While they don't contribute much to the storyline other than to re-enforce the idea that Ethan is a true creeper. I don't know how the director could have improved but the pacing wasn't terrible. Grade: 8/10.
Suspension of disbelief: For four years of college, I have never experienced anything close to what the teen movies about colleges have tried to show me would happen. Also, I never really bought into the whole blackmail cheating premise. But that's just me. Grade: 2/10.
Acting: This is the strength of the movie. Jason Schwartzman is perfect as Ethan. I don't know of another actor who could've pulled that off, outside of maybe Zack Braff. Jason Segel is always phenomenal. Devon Sawa pulls off the cockiness of the character, perfectly. Michael Maronna was good, as well. All of the main charactes were great. Angela was merely good. Grade: 9.5/10.
Dialogue: I didn't get the seed of doubt angle that Dave kept saying. Ethan's lines were delivered and written perfectly. Most of the characters' lines were funny and delivered well. Grade: 8/10.
Genre specific: If we compare it to teen comedies, I thought it was funnier than most. I also thought the acting was better than most. It wasn't funny enough to dominate the comedy genre but if we place it in with the other teen comedies, then the score is higher. Grade: 8/10.
Timing: The movie kind of dragged at parts, especially the I saw the sign part. The comedic timing was there for the most part and it wasn't a long movie. Grade: 8/10.
Pseudo-philosophical questions/theme: I'm not 100% sure of what the theme was. What I took from the movie was, it's better to be skillful at things that don't matter because ultimately those things that don't matter will be what gets you out of trouble.
In all seriousness, I'm not sure what the theme was.
Grade: 0/10.
Re-watchability: I've seen the movie twice, now. I saw it once on Comedy Central and began searching for a way to watch it again, much later. I finally found it on Crackle, years later. It was still funny.
Grade: 5/10.
Score: 57.5/100
See, I don't give great grades all the time.
Story/writing: The story wasn't too bad. But it wasn't entirely complicated or complex, either. I'm kind of torn on how much of it, I should credit the story as opposed to the acting and the characters. The blackmail angle was sort of contrived, I thought, but what do I know? Grade: 6/10.
Characters: Now here comes the fun part. Every teen movie has the lovable slacker who doesn't try but is incredibly intelligent but is not focused on the normal success (Dave, in this movie).
You have the girl who will undoubtedly make him question his whole life and maybe make him change, Angela in this movie.
The main girl's best friend, played by Laura Prepon, in this movie.
You have the strange kid who's intelligent but crazy, Jeff.
You have the main character's true best friend who helps with the antics and shenanigans, Sam.
Then there's the bad guy. Typically, this is a jock frat boy nerd. Usually it's one of those three things, sometimes all three. This time, it's the nerd, Ethan.
Grade: 3/10. It hurts to be stereotypical.
Directing: The strange flashbacks or daydreams are great. While they don't contribute much to the storyline other than to re-enforce the idea that Ethan is a true creeper. I don't know how the director could have improved but the pacing wasn't terrible. Grade: 8/10.
Suspension of disbelief: For four years of college, I have never experienced anything close to what the teen movies about colleges have tried to show me would happen. Also, I never really bought into the whole blackmail cheating premise. But that's just me. Grade: 2/10.
Acting: This is the strength of the movie. Jason Schwartzman is perfect as Ethan. I don't know of another actor who could've pulled that off, outside of maybe Zack Braff. Jason Segel is always phenomenal. Devon Sawa pulls off the cockiness of the character, perfectly. Michael Maronna was good, as well. All of the main charactes were great. Angela was merely good. Grade: 9.5/10.
Dialogue: I didn't get the seed of doubt angle that Dave kept saying. Ethan's lines were delivered and written perfectly. Most of the characters' lines were funny and delivered well. Grade: 8/10.
Genre specific: If we compare it to teen comedies, I thought it was funnier than most. I also thought the acting was better than most. It wasn't funny enough to dominate the comedy genre but if we place it in with the other teen comedies, then the score is higher. Grade: 8/10.
Timing: The movie kind of dragged at parts, especially the I saw the sign part. The comedic timing was there for the most part and it wasn't a long movie. Grade: 8/10.
Pseudo-philosophical questions/theme: I'm not 100% sure of what the theme was. What I took from the movie was, it's better to be skillful at things that don't matter because ultimately those things that don't matter will be what gets you out of trouble.
In all seriousness, I'm not sure what the theme was.
Grade: 0/10.
Re-watchability: I've seen the movie twice, now. I saw it once on Comedy Central and began searching for a way to watch it again, much later. I finally found it on Crackle, years later. It was still funny.
Grade: 5/10.
Score: 57.5/100
See, I don't give great grades all the time.
Monday, November 14, 2011
A stab at a movie review: Go
Reader's discretion advised: This post will contain some bad language. Just a heads up.
The movie Go came out in 1999 and it attempts to tell what happens after a drug deal from three different characters' points of view. It follows Ronna Martin (played by Sarah Polley) who is a down on her luck cashier at a grocery store, who needs money to avoid eviction. She attempts to buy and re-sell drugs from the drug dealer Todd Gaines (Timothy Olyphant). It also follows Simon (Desmond Askew) andhis escapades with his friends in Las Vegas. Finally, the story focuses on Adam (Scott Wolf) and Zack (Jay Mohr) two gay actors who are atttempting to avoid getting in trouble with the law by helping to participate in a drug sting with Burke (William Fichtner).
"Wow, I didn't know we'd become such good friends, because if we had, you'd know that I give head before I give favors and I don't even give my best friends head so your chances of getting a favor are pretty fucking slim. " -Todd Gaines
I have 10 categories for how I rank movies and the total score is equal to the final score I give the movie. Feel free to disagree with me, if you want. I'm not exactly an expert on films but I certainly know what I like.
Story: It's at the very least a creative way to tell the story of the aftermath of a drug deal. It was interesting that it followed three different stories to figure out what was actually happening in the movie. Each of the three stories were entertaining and infromative to the rest of the movie. The best one, at least in my opinion, was the story focusing on Simon and his friends. Grade: 9/10.
Characters: Most of the characters were fully developed, I would hope so with the three different stories focusing on the main characters. The characters that I didn't particularly enjoy were Simon's friend Singh (who wasn't integral to the rest of the story), Victor Jr., Victor Sr., and Claire Montgomery (played by Katie Holmes). The reason for my distaste for Claire was simply because she morphs from one type of person at the near beginning of the movie (afraid and distrustful of Todd) to the exact opposite at the end. It seems likely that if you are going to be distrustful of a drug dealer at one point, you will remain distrustful until the drug dealer does something to gain your trust, which to be honest, we don't see. Grade: 7.5/10
Directing: Like I said at the beginning of this, I'm not an expert at film or filmmaking. So, I might not be the best person at judging for this particular category. However, I think that you should be able to tell a difference between good directing and bad directing. It's the in-between that'll probably cause me the most grief. However, the director in this movie does a great job in telling the three different stories. There's not that much discontinuity between the different stories so it actually feels like they are telling the same basic story. My favorite part for choice of directing was the music in the chase scene between Simon and his friends and the two Victors. Grade: 8/10.
Suspension of disbelief: I should be able to suspend my disbelief for the entire movie without running into a situation where I say, "there's no damn way this could happen in real life." There's not that many times where I think that throughout the movie, except at the very end. Once you see the movie, you'll know what I'm talking about. Although the commitment to have Jay Mohr throw the tape recorder so girlish was just fantastic. Grade: 9.5/10
Acting: Sarah Polley was pretty good as Ronna (some people think she's better than that). William Fichtner was fantastic as the police officer who is obsessed with an Amway-esque products. Timothy Olyphant was great as a drug dealer. Katie Holmes was good despite the character's complete change. Nathan Bexton was great as strung out on drugs Mannie. Jay Mohr was the same as he is in every movie. Grade: 8/10. Only because I thought Polley could have been better, as well as Jay Mohr. When two of your could be played by better actors, then there is a slight problem.
Dialogue: The dialogue was occasionally funny and witty. Some of the dialogue was integral to the rest of the story and some of it was just there to be there. My favorite scene for dialogue was with Mannie and the cat. There wasn't anything that was glaringly awful. The scene about Confederated Products is fantastic, as well. Grade: 9/10.
Genre specific attributes: The movie was supposed to be a comedic crime movie in the same vein of Lock, Stock, and Two Smoking Barrels or Snatch. Both of which succeed at a level Go cannot approach. Grade: 7/10.
Timing: A movie should have a certain pace to it so that you never feel like the movie is dragging. That is one of Go's best features. There's not a point in the movie where you really think that the movie is draggging except near the very end. Just when you get tired of one character, they move to a different one. Grade: 9/10.
Pseudo-philosophical question and answer: What exactly is the theme of Go? If pressed, I would say that the theme of Go is what Claire states at the beginning of the movie about the best part of Christmas is the fact that there is a giant surprise even if you are pretty sure what's going to happen or know what's inside, when you finally open it, it's always a surprise. An even bigger answer to the theme question is what Jay Mohr states near the end. It's an attempt to find out what the right thing is to do, even if it's just an approximation or if it is the half-assed thrown together kind of way. It also addresses the justification people might have to try and convince themselves that the wrong things that people do aren't really that bad. Interesting theme, I guess. The movie also attempts to answer the question of what exactly is justice? Grade: 8/10.
Re-watchability: This is where I decide if I can watch the movie again. Since, I have watched this movie a couple of times, now, I would say that yes I would be able to watch it again. There's not that many glaring holes in the movie that bother me, no (overly)annoying characters, and bad dialogue. There is enough funny lines, a certain sense of unpredictiability, as well an overall sense that you might need to watch it again to get everything out of the movie. But it's not a movie I would immediately want to watch again or that I would feel like I would definitely need to. Grade: 8/10.
The movie ends with a pretty high score of 83/100. This is pretty in-line with what IMDB has it ranked as (7.3). Mine's higher probably because I like this specific genre of movies.
The movie Go came out in 1999 and it attempts to tell what happens after a drug deal from three different characters' points of view. It follows Ronna Martin (played by Sarah Polley) who is a down on her luck cashier at a grocery store, who needs money to avoid eviction. She attempts to buy and re-sell drugs from the drug dealer Todd Gaines (Timothy Olyphant). It also follows Simon (Desmond Askew) andhis escapades with his friends in Las Vegas. Finally, the story focuses on Adam (Scott Wolf) and Zack (Jay Mohr) two gay actors who are atttempting to avoid getting in trouble with the law by helping to participate in a drug sting with Burke (William Fichtner).
"Wow, I didn't know we'd become such good friends, because if we had, you'd know that I give head before I give favors and I don't even give my best friends head so your chances of getting a favor are pretty fucking slim. " -Todd Gaines
I have 10 categories for how I rank movies and the total score is equal to the final score I give the movie. Feel free to disagree with me, if you want. I'm not exactly an expert on films but I certainly know what I like.
Story: It's at the very least a creative way to tell the story of the aftermath of a drug deal. It was interesting that it followed three different stories to figure out what was actually happening in the movie. Each of the three stories were entertaining and infromative to the rest of the movie. The best one, at least in my opinion, was the story focusing on Simon and his friends. Grade: 9/10.
Characters: Most of the characters were fully developed, I would hope so with the three different stories focusing on the main characters. The characters that I didn't particularly enjoy were Simon's friend Singh (who wasn't integral to the rest of the story), Victor Jr., Victor Sr., and Claire Montgomery (played by Katie Holmes). The reason for my distaste for Claire was simply because she morphs from one type of person at the near beginning of the movie (afraid and distrustful of Todd) to the exact opposite at the end. It seems likely that if you are going to be distrustful of a drug dealer at one point, you will remain distrustful until the drug dealer does something to gain your trust, which to be honest, we don't see. Grade: 7.5/10
Directing: Like I said at the beginning of this, I'm not an expert at film or filmmaking. So, I might not be the best person at judging for this particular category. However, I think that you should be able to tell a difference between good directing and bad directing. It's the in-between that'll probably cause me the most grief. However, the director in this movie does a great job in telling the three different stories. There's not that much discontinuity between the different stories so it actually feels like they are telling the same basic story. My favorite part for choice of directing was the music in the chase scene between Simon and his friends and the two Victors. Grade: 8/10.
Suspension of disbelief: I should be able to suspend my disbelief for the entire movie without running into a situation where I say, "there's no damn way this could happen in real life." There's not that many times where I think that throughout the movie, except at the very end. Once you see the movie, you'll know what I'm talking about. Although the commitment to have Jay Mohr throw the tape recorder so girlish was just fantastic. Grade: 9.5/10
Acting: Sarah Polley was pretty good as Ronna (some people think she's better than that). William Fichtner was fantastic as the police officer who is obsessed with an Amway-esque products. Timothy Olyphant was great as a drug dealer. Katie Holmes was good despite the character's complete change. Nathan Bexton was great as strung out on drugs Mannie. Jay Mohr was the same as he is in every movie. Grade: 8/10. Only because I thought Polley could have been better, as well as Jay Mohr. When two of your could be played by better actors, then there is a slight problem.
Dialogue: The dialogue was occasionally funny and witty. Some of the dialogue was integral to the rest of the story and some of it was just there to be there. My favorite scene for dialogue was with Mannie and the cat. There wasn't anything that was glaringly awful. The scene about Confederated Products is fantastic, as well. Grade: 9/10.
Genre specific attributes: The movie was supposed to be a comedic crime movie in the same vein of Lock, Stock, and Two Smoking Barrels or Snatch. Both of which succeed at a level Go cannot approach. Grade: 7/10.
Timing: A movie should have a certain pace to it so that you never feel like the movie is dragging. That is one of Go's best features. There's not a point in the movie where you really think that the movie is draggging except near the very end. Just when you get tired of one character, they move to a different one. Grade: 9/10.
Pseudo-philosophical question and answer: What exactly is the theme of Go? If pressed, I would say that the theme of Go is what Claire states at the beginning of the movie about the best part of Christmas is the fact that there is a giant surprise even if you are pretty sure what's going to happen or know what's inside, when you finally open it, it's always a surprise. An even bigger answer to the theme question is what Jay Mohr states near the end. It's an attempt to find out what the right thing is to do, even if it's just an approximation or if it is the half-assed thrown together kind of way. It also addresses the justification people might have to try and convince themselves that the wrong things that people do aren't really that bad. Interesting theme, I guess. The movie also attempts to answer the question of what exactly is justice? Grade: 8/10.
Re-watchability: This is where I decide if I can watch the movie again. Since, I have watched this movie a couple of times, now, I would say that yes I would be able to watch it again. There's not that many glaring holes in the movie that bother me, no (overly)annoying characters, and bad dialogue. There is enough funny lines, a certain sense of unpredictiability, as well an overall sense that you might need to watch it again to get everything out of the movie. But it's not a movie I would immediately want to watch again or that I would feel like I would definitely need to. Grade: 8/10.
The movie ends with a pretty high score of 83/100. This is pretty in-line with what IMDB has it ranked as (7.3). Mine's higher probably because I like this specific genre of movies.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)