Final Destination 3 (2006)

1/5

Almost an exact replica of the first one, except with a roller coaster instead of an airplane, Final Destination 3 manages to break no new ground and sap out the humor that was infused into the series with the second one. Absolutely nothing kept my attention or interest. The boring, uninspired deaths were few and far between. The acting was absolutely atrocious, as was the characterization, writing, cinematography, editing, and anything else you can think of that might describe a movie. I'm not even gonna wait until the movie ends to post this review, because I am 100% certain that not even Scorsese, Tarantino, and the Coen brothers working together could come up with something that had the potential to undo the damage this film has already done in the first hour. My suggestion? If TNT ever shows all three in a row as it did tonight, avoid my mistake and just watch the first two.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0414982/

Final Destination 2 (2003)

2/5

Final Destination 2 was about as good/awful as the first one, but I wouldn't expect anything less from the director of Snakes on a Plane. As the first movie started with a premonition where everybody dies, so did this one. That was easily one of the best parts of the movie, as you got to see a ton of people die in the most preposterous fashions imaginable. The stakes are upped this time, with about twice as many unrelated victims succumbing to Death's whims. And Death is especially creative and persevering for this movie. It's nonstop action coupled with nonstop laughs. The director is well aware of how absurd the premise is, and manages to poke fun at the film (the ending is particularly hilarious). Another thing I liked about the movie was the explanation for why it was happening again (others' lives were affected inadvertently and they too must pay). All in all, a relatively light horror-comedy that isn't the worst thing I've seen Hollywood produce.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0309593/

Final Destination (2000)

2/5

Final Destination is about a boy (Sawa) who can see the future. He gets off a flight to France because of a premonition, along with about five other people, and as soon as the plane takes off, it explodes. When his best friend (who had also gotten off the plane) dies in a freak accident soon after, he realizes that Death is "tying up loose ends." The boy and the few others he saved try to fend off all the possible ways that Death might reclaim them, but Death has a few unexpected surprises for them. If that doesn't sound exciting to you, I don't know what will!

This movie is a thrill rush--a poorly-acted, poorly-written, poorly-filmed thrill rush. Still, I have to admit, I don't really regret watching it. I loved seeing the build-up to the freak accidents. But even better than that was how the filmmakers tricked you into thinking someone would die in one way only to have them die in a completely unexpected alternate manner. The ludicrous nature of the deaths was also often hilarious. If you're anything like me, I'm sure you'd enjoy this movie, so don't turn it off if it comes on TV.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0195714/

Stuck on You (2003)

3/5

The Farrelly brothers' Stuck on You is a surprisingly tender comedy about two conjoined twins who own the Quikee Burger fast food joint. Walt (Kinnear) wants to be an actor, while Bob (Damon) enjoys running their restaurant. They each find their true loves in Eva Mendes and Wen Yann Shih respectively, although not immediately and not without obstacles on the way. Through random events, they end up meeting both Cher and Meryl Streep, who unintentionally and unexpectedly skyrocket Walt's career. His fame causes a rift between the two brothers, but the movie ends with a happy ever after.

There were far more hilarious, clever, and subtle moments and far fewer gimmicky, simple jokes than I would've thought. The plot was remarkably unpredictable, although that was partially because most of the movie seemed to happen by chance. The characters were surprisingly nuanced and sympathetic, although they often acted in a very slapstick and over-the-top manner. All in all, I had a great time watching this movie and would definitely recommend you not change the channel if and when it comes on TV.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0338466/

Raging Bull (1980)

5/5

Martin Scorsese's Raging Bull is a true masterpiece, one that asks hard questions and gives no easy answers. Shot in gritty black and white, it tells the true story of boxer Jake La Motta's rise to stardom and eventual disappearance from the limelight. Watching it a second time, I found the film surprisingly noir. Here we have a man fated for self-destruction, unable to control his excessive temper and inhuman jealousy. We have a tragic antihero, a flawed man whose rage grants him success in the ring and ensures his downfall outside of it. We witness a filthy, vulgar underground; we are awash in blood and sweat and raw anger. It is an experience we will never forget.

What everyone remembers when they first see this movie is De Niro's undeniably skilled portrayal of La Motta. And for good reason--it is a powerful, gripping performance. Some have zeroed in on Pesci's equally talented acting job, and one equally worthy of praise. But what I cannot get out of my mind after this viewing is Thelma Schoonmaker's brilliant editing and Scorsese's unerring cinematic eye. Together, they are simply on a level all their own. The overarching structure reveals just as much as the content therein. The camera movements, the decision to film in long takes or quick cuts, are crucial to our experience of it. We remember snapshots in time, we remember the shift of conversations, of moments in time, and of changes in emotions because the techniques employed are subtle and subconscious. The sheer technical bravado on display is jaw-dropping. It is through the editing and cinematography that we truly live this movie, that it takes on realism that few other movies have been able to replicate. As I said before, it is an experience we will never forget.

To watch this movie is to submit yourself to a terrifying worldview, to violence in the ring and abuse in the home, to unwarranted jealousy in the face of true fidelity, to paranoia that can forever damage family ties, and to the fears of inadequacy. To a man who desparately wants to change and cannot. This movie is effective at bypassing your mental defenses, which makes it all the more difficult to sit through. It plays with time, color, and words, seemingly innocently but ultimately to devastating effect. The few short moments filmed in color we see happiness; these fleeting memories occur in the midst of pain and destruction. Is it to punish us or to encourage us? And at the end, is there redemption? You must watch this movie and determine the answers for yourself. For me, I cannot recommend it enough.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0081398/

Rendition (2007)

4/5

Rendition is a skillfully-crafted and provocative thriller that puts human faces on the unjust way in which our system of laws can be used and exploited. A chemical engineer (Metwally) on his way back from South Africa is taken away by cops in an airport in DC and sent to a secret prison facility where he is to be tortured by non-US officials for information on a recent suicide bombing as a CIA analyst (Gyllenhaal) watches. His wife (Witherspoon) tries her hardest to find out what's happened to her husband, even going so far as to call up an old boyfriend (Sarsgaard) who works for a senator (Arkin). It turns out that the senator has connections with the woman (Streep) who authorized his rendition. When all laid out in just a few sentences, the plot does sound a bit coincidental and unrealistic. However, when you watch the movie, you see a film that is sympathetically acted, intricately poignant, and effortlessly believable.

The movie had a strong technical base off of which to build its narrative. The shots were beautiful, the editing well-paced, and the music heart-pounding. As a result of all three factors, the build up to the climax was palpably tense. And while the acting was spot-on, the writing and dialogue could have used a little work. Half the time they went out of their way to make what was going on explicit, while the other half of the time they assumed the audience knew what had happened or the characters correctly predicted everything that was going on, despite it all being classified top secret. These small errors aside, this gripping thriller based on the government's anti-terrorism policies is well worth watching.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0804522/

Modern Times (1936)

5/5

Charlie Chaplin's Modern Times is both an uproarious comedy and a searing indictment of technological advances. The humor, while not as strong or as flawless as in City Lights, is still light years ahead of 90% of what you see in any contemporary comedy. The message and thematics, on the other hand, are where the film really excels. They are not only better than 90% of what you see in any contemporary drama, but also better than what you see in any of his other work. It is altogether fluid, consistent, and powerful without being glossed over, annoying, or blunt. This may be the most entertaining and enjoyable movie I have seen that managed to be equally thought-provoking and intelligent.

The movie follows our lovable tramp and a vagrant girl as they get tossed around by the randomness and injustice of the world. Both fight against conformity and the overwhelming pressures of a herd mentality. Of course the movie uses the factory as a representation of our loss of individuality and humanity (expressed perhaps most vividly in the now famous scene where the tramp is physically propelled through the cogs of a machine) but it is easily updated to our own modern times. How many people do you see surfing the internet on their laptops in coffeeshops? How many people do you see walking the streets with bowed heads typing out emails on their BlackBerrys? We are often forced into such a technological behemoth to live and function, but the movie urges us to escape: to sacrifice our chance at success in order to live a more fulfilling life.

Technically, Chaplin is still a master. The music is reminiscent of greater works (Rhapsody in Blue, for example), but tweaked just enough to properly set the stage. His camera movements are natural and evocative, his compositions superb. The pacing and editing are immaculate; so much is said in so little. The acting is pitch-perfect. Chaplin effortlessly walks the line between expressive and over-the-top. He brings a love and tenderness to his character that makes us empathize with him to the point where we want to jump into the picture itself and hug him. And then he makes us explode with laughter. Here we see a genius and a true auteur at his creative peak, and we are in awe at what he is able to accomplish.

The movie is not without a few minor flaws. As I said previously, it is not his funniest work. Much of the plot seems to wander between scenes with little coherence or relation to each other, although that is perhaps its point. And while I like the message for the discussion it can bring up, I don't completely agree with its implications. Maybe I am in denial and just don't want to agree. Still, this is a must-see classic that I cannot imagine will be soon forgot. Unless, of course, it doesn't get re-transfered onto the latest generation higher-definition video discs.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0027977/