Sin City: A Dame To Kill For (2014)

2/5

Sin City: A Dame To Kill For is the most recent in a seemingly endless spate of uninspired summer sequels that do little more than attempt to rehash a winning franchise/formula and only end up disappointing everybody. It brings back some actors but not others (I was really hoping for a Clive Owen cameo, but it never came) and jumbles up the timeline in the most unnecessarily labyrinthine way. A lot of it just didn't make sense if you spent more than a few seconds thinking about the plot. The one saving grace is the pure villainy of the film's title character; she is a femme fatale for the ages.

A Dame To Kill For looks exactly the same as the original without feeling as inventive or awe-inspiring. While the first one was fresh and gritty, this one is tired and gruesome. The special effects and the writing both go way overboard in an attempt to one-up itself and raise the bar on violent deaths even more extravagantly. It's all a little too much--honestly even a little sickening--and we've seen it before. I loved the first one and saw it three times the first week it came out in theaters, but I have no desire to watch this one ever again.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0458481/

Unstoppable (2010)

3/5

Tony Scott's Unstoppable is a simple movie with a simple premise. An unmanned train is careening across Pennsylvania at 70 miles per hour with 8 cars of hazardous cargo. A veteran locomotive engineer (Washington) and a young train operator (Pine) attempt to stop it by latching their own train onto the renegade train's back and gunning it in the opposite direction. And that's about all you need to know plot-wise. The movie is a fairly generic popcorn flick, but it does what it intends to do well. It keeps you excited for its entire length, with excellent pacing and editing. The acting turned out to be much better than I expected (only because I never expect very much from these types of movies), but the script as a whole was quite lacking. The cinematography and directing were also bland, which comes as a welcome departure from what I'm used to from Tony Scott. To sum up, if you're looking for a way to kick back and watch an hour and a half of thrills without having to think, then this is the movie to do it.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0477080/

Rent (2005)

4/5

For those who don't know, Rent is about a group of friends in their late 20's as they fall in and out of love over the course of a year while dealing with a multitude of life's problems, including evictions, suicides, and AIDS. For those who haven't seen the play, watching the movie first isn't the way you should be introduced to this wonderful musical, despite what certain people may say. The director made a number of relatively minor changes that add up to a surprisingly different experience. To keep the runtime manageable, they cut out some really cool songs. They merged events, changed scenes, and took a lot of the realism and uniqueness out of the original theatrical production. After each song, there was an awkward, lingering pause, as if nobody knew what to do next. Rosario Dawson's singing sounded flat and dull, a striking contrast to the richness of the other actors' voices. And the final shot still makes me gag (at least they have the alternate ending as a special feature on the DVD).

Perhaps the reason I dislike the small, minor changes the director made so much is because I feel so connected to the play. I didn't like it at first, but I started to love it the more I thought about it. And what made it so endearing to me were all the little things. At the same time, there were a number of changes in the movie that I really did like (Maureen's performance, for example, completely changed my view of her character). The dream sequence in Tango Maureen brought back some of the creativity in the stage version (although I do wish they didn't reveal who Maureen was that early in the play). The story is fantastic. Give it a chance. By watching the play. And if you can't afford seeing the musical on stage as much as you want to, then watch this movie.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0294870/

Seven Pounds (2008)

2/5

Seven Pounds follows a remorseful Ben Thomas (Will Smith) who is aching to sacrifice himself to donate certain life-altering gifts to good, kind-hearted people like Rosario Dawson. But why is he doing this and what kind of gifts is he giving away? All that will be explained in the final five minutes of the film, but I'm sure you'll realize what's going on in the first five minutes. While the movie advertises itself as a mystery, it was obvious from the beginning what his backstory and motivations were. And every pseudo-revelation from that point on just insults your intelligence that much more. While the movie prides itself on its emotional impact (remember all that running in the rain and yelling on phones from the trailer?), the situations, conversations, and interactions were all so contrived and forced that any emotions the actors infused into their characters felt flat and fake. It wasn't real; it was overwrought melodrama.

The best part about the movie was the music, something everyone agreed on. The rest, to put it plainly, sucked. It was all so weird and uncomfortable, as if everything was a manipulation instead of something genuine or honest. I found myself unable to trust the movie and any message it was trying to get across. It's a shame, because I really wanted to like Seven Pounds. I wanted it to be at least as good as The Pursuit of Happyness, if not better. But it was far worse. And the title takes a Shakespearean reference and bastardizes it beyond recognition by the writer's obvious fetish for the number seven. How awful.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0814314/

A Guide to Recognizing Your Saints (2006)

3/5

A Guide to Recognizing Your Saints is the strangest film adaptation of a book I've ever seen, because it's also about what happens after the book was published. The movie centers around Dito as he comes back home to his sick father and remembers his past life experiences in the tough Astoria, Queens neighborhood of New York. As a gritty, realist coming-of-age drama, the movie works. The excess, about him coming back home after twenty years, felt worthless to me. The directing as a whole actually felt really creative, especially considering Montiel is not really a director. The editing style evoked a nostalgic mood, and most of the movie really felt like his memories, not his stories. An important sound would be remembered first, then the rest of the story. Black outs and sounds fading out at emotionally trying moments. Fuzzy audio or blurry video. All of these artistic decisions worked extremely well and made the movie much more personal to the viewer. The acting was very well done and I enjoyed it the entire time. The music also fit snugly with the mood.

Like I said, the second story about Dito coming back home felt worthless, and was especially disappointing since Robert Downey Jr. and Rosario Dawson were billed so high. Nothing physically happened at his return, nor did any emotion or sentiment that wasn't already previously expressed get uncovered. Luckily, it did not take up much of the movie. Sometimes the editing style irked me, even though I understand that that's probably how he remembered it. The shots were pretty mediocre and uninspired. I hated the font choice and usage. Some scenes felt really pointless (in the past too, not just the present). What I really hated was when he tried to copy Spike Lee and have the characters talk to the camera about "who they are." What pissed me off about it most was not that it was straight-up copying, but that it wasn't even necessary. It added nothing to the movie and only cheapened it. Overall though, I really enjoyed watching this movie and recommend it if this sounded interesting to you.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0473488/

Grindhouse (2007)

4/5

Grindhouse is pure entertainment of the most guilty form. And two movies for the price of one! With the most hilarious trailers in between them! I don't remember the last time I had this much unadulterated fun in a movie theater. I've seen "better" movies in theaters recently, but never enjoyed myself this much.

The first movie, Planet Terror, is from Robert Rodriguez, who has always loved the exaggerated. This is why the El Mariachi trilogy was so successful--it is excessive. But in Grindhouse, Rodriguez really lets loose. And being a grind house film, he has an excuse to. Planet Terror is everything I expected: gory, gross, and cheesy. Heads explode, penises melt, guns attached to amputated stubs shoot rockets. This is the kind of movie you'll watch in a theater and come out cheering, "THAT WAS AWESOME!" But it doesn't just copy other movies without a life and mind of its own. There is a "missing reel" in the movie, which Rodriguez cleverly uses to advance the plot without wasting our time. Rodriguez also uses stock footage effects to enhance our moviegoing experience, rather than detract from it. This is loads of fun, but be warned: it is disgusting and definitely not for everyone's palate.

The second movie, Death Proof, is from Quentin Tarantino. Every single one of Tarantino's movies has been a spin on a typical genre, and Death Proof is no exception. Like most of his movies, there is a ton of dialogue, and it is all luscious. It is like silk in your ear. But coming after Rodriguez's movie, I felt a bit disappointed. Wasn't this supposed to be a grind house film? Well, it is, in a way, and it isn't, in Tarantino's way. It has the same elements: sexploitation, blaxploitation, psychotic murderers, and old muscle cars. But there is something undeniably fresh about the way Tarantino puts it all together. And despite what I said coming out of the theater, upon reflection I see it as a movie that can and should stand on its own as an excellent example of Tarantino's style. It is actually good filmmaking. I don't know how well it works as the second half of Grindhouse, because Planet Terror is raw, old-school, brainless fun and Death Proof is polished, new, inventive art. It's an interesting dichotomy. Regardless, I would recommend you check Grindhouse out in theaters if you still can, because this is not to be missed on the big screen.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0462322/

The Rundown (2003)

3/5

I was always kind of interested in this movie because I like The Rock, Seann William Scott, and Christopher Walken. The movie succeeded as an entertaining action movie with clever recurring comic interludes and surprisingly fleshed-out characters. The action throughout most of the movie was really really cool, although the first fight sequence was a bit too hard to comprehend due to the strobe lights. The fighting was never overedited, with long, medium takes so you can always tell what's going on. It wasn't extremely funny, but it was funny enough for an action movie.

The acting from all parties was nothing to write home about; even Christopher Walken was pretty stale. Every so often it looked as if he forgot his lines and was trying to remember them. The plot was predictable and some characters' motivations were unconvincing. The special effects were cheesy when present, although thankfully it only happened twice. Overall, though, it achieved what it set out to achieve. I recommend it for anyone who is looking for a funny movie with developed characters and excellent action.

Disclaimer: I saw this on network TV, so it was edited for content and length.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0327850/