fonz's comments - page 8

Comments 176 - 200 of 235

fonz's avatar

fonz

If you think James Bond is too damn serious and too much like Jason Bourne and Jack Bauer, then this is the movie for you.
6 years 8 months ago
fonz's avatar

fonz

150 minutes of dudes punching and kicking other dudes in the face. Although my cinematic tastes have matured, I found myself thoroughly impressed by just about everything in this delicious romp through the underbelly of Jakarta. It knows exactly what it is, doesn't take itself seriously enough but is satisfying enough to leave you wondering "how are they going to top this one for 3?"
6 years 8 months ago
fonz's avatar

fonz

Depending on the cut, it's either a comedy or one of the best science fiction films you will see. Regardless, it is a fantastic adaptation of a meh work from a brilliant author.
6 years 9 months ago
fonz's avatar

fonz

So the sound is quite bad and that detracts from an otherwise enjoyable student film that is marketed as the largest student production ever made. How fortunate are the students at CU-Boulder to work with a filmmaker such as Alex Cox.

This is a feature that takes a little to warm up to but once you realize how much fun those working on the production had, you as an audience member will relax even more. The Q&A by Alex Cox and the cast and crew only increased my appreciation of the feature and reminded me why I enjoy films and miss working on them.

You can probably say that you made a better movie when you were in fifth grade but can you say that the guy who directed Mr. Mighty Ducks himself, Estevez Estevez, helped you along the way? It's enjoyable for what it is.
6 years 9 months ago
fonz's avatar

fonz

If more people said "fuck it, let's go bowling," there would be less conflict in this world.
6 years 9 months ago
fonz's avatar

fonz

Let's begin by saying that this was my first Alamo Drafthouse experience and I got to see the very first Thomas Pynchon adaptation by one of the best American filmmakers in stunning 35mm film! My only disappointment was not being able to score tickets to the premier screening last week attended by PTA himself.

The Big Lebowski on acid is the way I can describe this journey to those uninitiated to the source material. Yet it is completely different and stands on it's own merit. One of the best literary adaptations I have ever seen. Joaquin Phoenix is absolutely perfect in the lead role of the hazed out detective without coming across as pandering or a parody. His foil, Josh Brolin, is similarly stunning as the twisted lawman with a fondness for chocolate-covered bananas. The rest of the cast add to the very colorful world of Anderson/Pynchon's 70s LA and while none really standout, they played their parts well without stealing the show from Phoenix and Brolin.

The cinematography was excellent and the choice to shoot on actual physical film gave the picture the perfect look of the times. If I didn't see these actors in other modern works, I would swear that this was made in the 70s. It's nice to see a film with visual gags that genuinely are funny and not have to rely on the actor's delivery of canned lines. I suspect if I watch this on silent (maybe keep the soundtrack running), I can rely on the actors physicalities to keep me laughing.

In this reviewer's insignificant opinion, Paul Thomas Anderson has yet to make a failure and this is keeping his perfect win streak alive. And for those keeping score at home, that gives him an edge over his contemporaries (especially over one specific oeuvre obsessed colleague that is preparing his eighth feature). He just has a way of making films that make me want to actually pay to see them again on the big screen. And in the days of at home streaming, that's a statement of respect. But then again, I'm a cinephile, so I'd pay to see it anyway.
6 years 9 months ago
fonz's avatar

fonz

Flawless. That was the only thing that came to my mind as the credits rolled.
6 years 9 months ago
fonz's avatar

fonz

A tough recommendation. Outside of the acting, there is little I can say about it. Steve Carell is nearly unrecognizable in a role that might not get the proper recognition because it borders too closely to parody. Yet he is so effectively creepy, that you can't help but cringe every time he is on screen. Channing Tatum demonstrates some acting chops but lives in the shadow of his on-screen big brother played by Mark Ruffalo. Everyone in the cast was fantastic; however, Ruffalo really shines in a film where the actors don't save their best for the close-ups. The dialogue is minimal with stretches of uncomfortable silence that effect the pacing. The tension builds and builds to a climax that should be obvious even if you weren't familiar with the story. The buildup and the pacing make the film drag on long after the initial giggles at Carell's nose turn into recoils.
6 years 9 months ago
fonz's avatar

fonz

Funniest movie I've seen this year
6 years 9 months ago
fonz's avatar

fonz

Did I see any of the other Hobbit or LotR movies? No. Did I read the books? No. Do I like fantasy movies/books (particularly medieval)? No. Did I like the High Frame Rate 3D? Absolutely! I was enthralled within the first 5 seconds of what was to me one of the most nonsensical stories I have ever seen. I spent the next two plus hours just thinking of the future implications of the technology. The movie played both like a satisfactory finish for fans as well as an exhibition of technological proficiency. There were parts were the CGI was hokey but on the whole it was a fantastic third outing for a developing format.

For all those that don't think it looks cinematic enough or too much like a soap opera, I'll agree slightly but that's because I felt like the screen I watched it on was too small. There were brief moments were I lost myself on the screen and were it felt like I was watching it live or on a theatrical stage with super realistic special effects. And from my understanding, beyond being a treat for fans these movies were technical marvels showcasing a certain potential for cinema. Should every film be presented in HFR? No, but I can't wait to actually see something I am actually interested in in the format (and on a much bigger screen). And that's something I didn't feel after Avatar.
6 years 10 months ago
fonz's avatar

fonz

AJ: Hey Terry?
Terry: How many times do I have to tell you that you can just call me dad?
AJ: Ok...dad. I want to make a movie of my own.
Terry: What about?
AJ: Umm...Abe Lincoln?
Terry: I think Steve is doing one right now with the guy who was Daniel Plainview.
AJ: Well what if I focus on the formative years of his youth?
Terry: Perfect. You have a script?
AJ: Uhhh...no...
Terry: Here, just change the names.

Terrance Malick hands AJ Edwards a VHS copy of The Tree of Life.

AJ: Thanks dad!
6 years 10 months ago
fonz's avatar

fonz

After watching only the last twenty minutes of this latest masterpiece from our forgotten wunderkind, M. Night, I decided if Will Smith wants to direct his talentless son in a movie he should do it from behind a camera not while sitting in chair in front of one.
6 years 10 months ago
fonz's avatar

fonz

Someone needs to tell Shane Black that there are more events during the year that don't rhyme with '-istmas.' On the whole, the entire second half is far more entertaining than 2 and the big team-up movie that preceded this. I'm more DC than Marvel, so this might just be the last superhero flick I watch for a long time.
6 years 10 months ago
fonz's avatar

fonz

Brilliant!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qXW9b9O9S6A
6 years 11 months ago
fonz's avatar

fonz

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=op4byt-DtsI
6 years 11 months ago
fonz's avatar

fonz

Is it worth seeing in 70mm IMAX? Sure, if only because Christopher Nolan is one of the few consistently entertaining filmmakers to still use that dirt--I mean film. If asked to sum up my thoughts on his latest in one word, I would use "underwhelming." This feeling is mostly a consequence of seeing nearly every film that this movie references. I can't speak for the rest of the near-capacity audience I shared my time and space with but I get a sense that they felt much the same. The usual clapping following a particularly riveting new release was not present and most left questioning whether the extra ticket cost was justified. Right around this time last year, I paid a similar price for another space set movie in IMAX 3D and there was no doubt in my mind that it was well worth the price of admission.

This movie doesn't feel as groundbreaking as it should be. Hans Zimmer has delivered a fantastic score and it definitely ranks among the best in his career but it all sounds far too familiar (yet I cannot, at this time, think of the names of the other scores). Christopher Nolan's favorite theme of time is ever so present but the first half it feels he is making a Spielberg flick before having his strings pulled by Kubrick's ghost (which makes complete sense since A.I. Artificial Intelligence was developed by Kubrick before eventually being made by Spielberg and this picture was initially being developed for Spielberg). But what happened to the guy who forced us to rethink our reality or the person we have to blame for making nearly all superhero movies "gritty"? There is little for the audience to chew on here that they haven't heard before. Is it really necessary to hear the same Dylan Thomas poem four times, three times coming from Michael Caine's mouth (it could be more, but I can only count to four)? I loved it the first time Rodney Dangerfield spoke those lines but every time after that has been meh. The divorce of Nolan and cinematographer, Wally Pfister, is noticeable as the photography was not as epic as Nolan's last three pictures. Hopefully they reconcile, otherwise we have more out-dated pseudo-science coming our way. As for the acting, well it's certainly not the worst according to what they are capable of and ranks about par for their potential but I feel that the robots out-did the humans here. I go from hating TARS to wanting to know who voiced him, that's a testament to good voice acting and good writing.

For those that were disappointed by Nolan's third Batman entry, this is his second dud in a row. But even Nolan's worst is still galaxies beyond many modern filmmaker's best. Worth a view on big screen but nothing to take home other than "love conquers all" and we need a balance between farmers and scientists.
6 years 11 months ago
fonz's avatar

fonz

This is EXACTLY what today's porn needs: dildo unicorns
6 years 11 months ago
fonz's avatar

fonz

"Or Fail: Man in the First Five Decades of the Twentieth Century"
6 years 11 months ago
fonz's avatar

fonz

You don't always need a good story to follow a compelling character. Jake Gyllenhaal channels Bobby D. to put on an splendid acting performance that might be second only to Michael Keaton in Birdman. But despite the strong performances, most of the characters are paper thin with no real development. We know nothing about Lou Bloom's past and has no real motivation other than he wants some work. To achieve what? Keep his single bedroom apartment in what didn't seem like a shitty part of LA? Once you get over the shock value and the morals (or lack thereof), you feel guilty for having watched and laughed at what flickered past your eyes for two hours. That guilty feeling is what makes you a real human being and not a cartoon like those in this interesting character study.
6 years 11 months ago
fonz's avatar

fonz

I don't even know what to say other than...
6 years 11 months ago
fonz's avatar

fonz

Yes the acting. That acting! Perfect? Acting! Certainly from Michael Keaton who gives absolutely everything he has into what is an excellent meta-commentary performance akin to that of Mickey Rourke in The Wrestler. Everyone else shines as much as they can in his shadow. Even Edward Norton's self-aware performance can barely match the former-Batman. Two former big screen superheroes go head-to-head, and the one who played an iconic DC hero beats out Marvel. Certainly a complete reversal of current reality.

But that camerawork. Holy camerawork! Immediately I had to check Emmanuel Lubezki's CV to determine his current streak of absolute beauties and despite my not seeing all of his work going to the start of his career, I shall just say that including the weakness of some of the material that passes through his lens, his work is definitely the highlight of any film dud in his filmography. Does he ever take a break? Three released Terry Malick films, two to be seen, a Coen Bros. picture, and a couple of Alfonso Cuarón beauties. And that's just in the past ten years. He is literal fire right now, and coming off tons of praise for Gravity he looks to be in the absolute tops of his game.

Some of the disguised cuts are a bit obvious, especially in the second half but that's not really the point here. You have to give props to Alejandro González Iñárritu for his audacity to make such a compelling film and let it come off well. As it's been said elsewhere, ever since his brilliant debut, Amores Perros, his movies have had a steady decline in quality. But here, even with a long "tracking shot" that lasts nearly the length of the film, time just slipped by.

These are my initial impressions which came with an immediate desire to see it again. However, honeymoons do end and so with time, I might reevaluate my stance. But for now, this is the only film that I wanted to see this year that has actually exceeded my expectations.
6 years 11 months ago
fonz's avatar

fonz

I really wanted to turn it off after 10 minutes but I kept watching to see what the hype is all about. "Best Original Screenplay"? Once you overlook the cliches, the trite dialogue, the non-existent character development, the inexplicable plot, yeah I can see how it could win an Oscar.
6 years 12 months ago
fonz's avatar

fonz

I'm making time!
7 years ago
fonz's avatar

fonz

I'm unsure as to whether this was a serious movie or a satire of the failure-to-launch archetype. Either way I think it was great and Greta Gerwig was perfect as the dramatized female version of myself. The Criterion Collection extra on the look of the film really increased my appreciation of it.
7 years ago
fonz's avatar

fonz

Two minutes after stepping out of the theater, I completely forgot everything related to the movie including the title. I had to drive by the theater just to get a glimpse at the marque and reading the description for 20,000 Days on Earth made me certain that I saw this rather dull-yet-not-entirely-horrid directorial debut from the guy who didn't have to work hard to adapt Drive.

This movie, based on a 50 year-old Patricia Highsmith novel, could easily have stared any combination of actors below A-list and above D-list and still be exactly as it is now. Of course that's entirely speculation based on how lifeless the script and direction is (I would say the cinematography is stunning if I haven't seen better recently, so I will concede and say that it is competent). Perhaps another combination of actors would have more chemistry and more fun that would make it an easy recommendation. There really is no reason to see this unless you are a fan of Viggo, Dunst or Oscar Isaac. And even then only if you are a die-hard or completionist, as none of the trio deliver memorable performances.
7 years ago

Showing items 176 – 200 of 235

View comments