Change Your Image
![](https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/M/MV5BMjQ4MTY5NzU2M15BMl5BanBnXkFtZTgwNDc5NTgwMTI@._V1_SY100_SX100_.jpg)
bilcal7-1
Bewertungen
Jarhead (2005)
hu-rah
I had personally been looking forward to this one years ago. As soon as I heard Mendes (director) and Newman (composer) were teaming up again to make a movie, you can bet I got giddy "ricky tick". Boy, those two son's of b's didn't disappoint. This was only Sam Mendes' third piece of direction in his career. Simply an astounding young record for this guy. First, American Beauty, where he won an Oscar for Best Director and Best Picture. Then, Road to Perdition which we all know and love. And now Jarhead. Thomas Newman pumped out kick-ass Oscar nominated scores for both of those movies, and much to my ecstasy, a bitching composition for Jarhead. A bold and bad-ass concoction of rock, middle eastern and farther eastern music. For all you soundtrack geeks out there, this movie is worth a look simply for its score.
But enough about the behind the scenes action. Nobody cares about that. What we all care about is seeing Jake Gyllenhaal naked, and yes, that scratch will be itched my friend. Just picture Santa, drunk, chiseled and with an M-16 rifle and there you have it folks.
Among some more interesting scenes, were, in typical Mendes trippy form, an odd, but mildly intense bathroom scene, where Swoff (Jake) has visions and starts puking sand. Another of my favorites is a very poignant scene in the burning oil fields, where Swoff (Jake) finds a lone horse. The meaning and density of that scene is still rattling around in my head.
The politics of the film are very interesting, and i'm sure the z-man will touch upon this, but for me, the psychology of it sent my sparks flying. Watching intense group norms emerge quicker than you can say "hu-rah" and seeing a soldier reach a psychotic break down after being denied the opportunity to aid a fellow soldier snipe an enemy were among the most strong and prevalent psychological gears at work.
Overall, this character driven film turned out to be a modern Full Metal Jacket, with a little Mendes Madness factored in. But that is put very simply.
The Shawshank Redemption (1994)
Something about this film caught me
This movie became my favorite movie of all time, before i had even seen the whole thing. Has this happened to anyone else? I had seen parts on TV and that was it. The day i finally rented it, i was practically jittery with excitement. This just tells you about my unique subjective experience with it. After it was over, I wasn't dissatisfied in the least. It is truly a great film all around. It is one of those things where part of me wants everyone in the world to see it, but another part of me feels like my personal experience with it makes it my own. I don't want to write an extensive review and put it under some kind of lens and analyze it. I'll just say that from that day forward, The Shawshank Redemption had profoundly affected the way I view movies and it his been the gateway into my current passion for films.
Alexander (2004)
Typical Good and Bad.
First off, I just have to say, I am still undecided whether I really liked this movie or not, so making judgments from this review would be futile...anyhoo.
This was Oliver Stone's 21st work as a director and 22nd as a writer. Some parallels can be made to his previous work, in particular, Scarface. Tony Montana was not unlike Alexander. Both came from rough backgrounds, and both grew to hold dominating, yet dangerous power. But that is another discussion. As for Alexander...
I enjoyed the movie, overall, but it is not a flick I would take my friends out to for a good guy movie....The battle scenes were few and far apart, and Angelina Jolie kept her clothes on. Oh yeah, and that whole homosexuality thing...but we'll get to that later.
I would probably want to take a female to see this movie (Colin Farrel and Jared Leto stole the show). A female that enjoyed movies for their character development and artistry. The film oozed of the former, and had an adequate, but improvable dosage of the latter. There is probably a 50/50 chance I'd see this movie again....here is a breakdown:
It's Strengths: The best (and most numerous) scenes consisted of a two person dialogue, usually involving Alexander. These dialogues were well done and brought a lot of depth to the characters involved. I thought Colin Farrel was fantastic and that he really gave this movie a monkey's chance on a water slide to be any good at all. All eyes were on him and he really performed. As Alexander, he was inspiring and captivating, but not too much so that he seemed super human. Despite supposedly being the son of Zeus, he was still all too human. Flawed, emotional and mortal. As you mythology nerds may know, this is a reoccurring theme in Greek legend.
Another thing, there were a couple good motifs and camera techniques. One was the eagle. The eagle symbolized Alexander's soaring dreams of flying eastward and uniting the people under Greece. During a battle scene, the camera view was from high up above, as if we were the eagle. It then swooped down, getting right in with the action. I thought that was well done, but I think the eagle was a little over-used in the film. Another great shot *spoiler* was when Alexander was facing off with the elephant, the spear going through him, and then the view of him looking up at the sky and blood filtering through the field of vision. This was analogous to the opening of james bond movies and the scene in Hero. You may or may not know what I'm talking about, but anyways, like the eagle, I thought it was well done, but over-used. They continued the battle scene using the red filter. I thought this was good because it showed that, at that moment, everyone else had the same view and vision as Alexander, and would fight to the death to avenge him, but none-the-less, I would have liked it better if they kept the filter exclusive to that one shot of Alexander looking up at the sky and not over-use it. This theme of "over-using" segues nicely into..
It's Weaknesses: A series of scenes that, in my opinion, were over-used and only added unnecessary length to the movie, were, what I call, the "round-table" scenes. After every area Alexander and his men conquered, they would sit around, drink, and talk about the present situation and what they should do next. Some may argue that this reoccuring scene type showed a great progression of the characters from ambitious, to weary and nostalgic. In case you are confused what i mean by "reoccuring scenes to show a progression in a character" a great analogy is in The Shawshank Redemption and the reoccuring event of Red in the parole room. If you are still confused, we can talk later. ANYWAYS, i thought there were enough reoccuring scenes (like the one-on-one dialogues) which provided the character progression aspect I think Stone was going for.
Speaking of beating to death a certain aspect of the film, I have to admit, the homosexuality undertones were laid on a bit too thick. It was slightly distracting and had me thinking, "What exactly does this mean?" I thought for a second, maybe Ollie was trying to make some kinda statement against the Bush administration and their policy with same-sex marriage.
Another weakness, is that I thought the score could have been better. I also would have liked to see more Anthony Hopkins, though his role was unique. He played a feeble, and seemingly unimportant man, narrating the story. But it turns out, in his younger days, he was right there next to Alexander.
overall i give it around a 6/10, but like i said, i'm still pretty undecided..
Napoleon Dynamite (2004)
Cultural Phenomenon
It is difficult to shove this masterpiece into the "ordinarily off-beat, campy yet quirky MTV new-age teen comedy-drama" genre, where far too many movies have fallen. It would be of the highest crimes, and it just wouldn't be right. ... just would NOT be right. Not for a film so unique and innovative as this. Not for a film which has spawned such beautiful things, like "Vote for Pedro" ring t's, Rex-kwan do and ligers. Not for a film which features a bling-ridden, cybergeek cage fighter wannabe. Not for a film where food is the medium for the opening credits. Where the words sweet and flippin' are commonplace. Not at all I say, not at alllll.
Not only does this film contain unique elements, it also contains a unique story. It takes an all too realistic look at rural Idaho and a day in the life of the coolest yet most eccentric geek in the history of the world as we know it. Thouest name is Napoleon Dynamite. A name that will not be forgotten. It is up there with prominent, long standing names like, Benedict Arnold, William Shakespeare, and God. To me though, it is not necessarily Napoleon who is the only one to idolize. His supporting cast of superheroes, specifically Pedro, take the world by storm. In my opinion, it is Pedro, with his flat affect and pitiful voice who silently steals the show. But that debate is for another day. For now, I can only provide a simple synopsis...
This movie would be best described as a "glorious string of random moments, carefully composed into a symphony written for royalty" There is little fluidity and transition from scene to scene, yet the cuts are perfectly timed and not-at-all awkward. The shots are all creative, yet don't ungracefully stand out from the concerto.
But an extraordinary picture would not be complete without an extraordinary score. John Swihart put together the original and humor some music, which harmoniously melded with the on-screen oddness. Swihart is really just starting his career, and I am more than excited to check out his future work.
These things, mixed with stunning and unprecedented performances by Jon Heder and Efren Ramirez, made this movie simply unforgettable and brilliantly re-watchable. I can talk because I've seen it 4 times, thrice in theaters. And every time, I find a new treasure to nurse. Whether it is a new dance move or a delicious bass, they are all so precious in their own way.
In fear of spoiling this epic, I will now end this review..... with the underlying theme.....
Whether it is cage fighting, numb chucking, building cakes, or throwing pigskins a quarter-mile.....girls like guys with skills, and it is the skill of dance that wins in the end.
god bless the dance.
This movie truly cannot be rated. Any attempts to do so are futile. For a much kinkier and less kosher review, take a gander at the site de CorcovadoSong. There you will find a more complex rating system, from an alternate universe. As of now, it is the only way known to man to attempt to rate this slice of bliss which society categorizes as a "film" or "movie"
god bless and goodnight.
Dawn of the Dead (2004)
Death and destruction!!
This is a hardcore and fun remake. I believe I remember Jonas writing a review on this. within it he mentioned the use of Richard Cheese's "Down with the Sickness" in the movie soundtrack. Absolutely brilliant and innovative composition, in my opinion. Ving Rhames was absolutely bad ass and enough s**t sploded to make it a solid action movie.
Underlying theme:
Mall = Hell
debatable. I politely argue on the hell side.
Rates a 73/100 on the "bilcalscale" ...I don't really know what that's all about..
Manhunter (1986)
grissom!
Manhunter is the original 1986 old school ghetto adaptation of Harris' novel "Red Dragon". This was before Silence of the Lambs and long before the Edward Norton/Anthony Hopkins remake. The screenplay was done by an underrated Michael Mann and the cast was surprisingly star studded. Will Graham was played by Will Peterson, who we all know and love as GRISSOM! from CSI! This role as a Forensic Psychologist gave him excellent credentials and paved the way for his more prominent role as Grissom. In the film, Grissom was backed up by the always comical, yet cynical Dennis Farina. Better yet, much to my surprise, the role of Dr. Hannibal Lector was played by, none other than, Brian Cox, who we all know as the crazy Cpt. O'Hagen from Super Troopers and the eerie Mr. Morgan from the Ring. He was a great combination of silly and insane, but obviously no where near Hopkins' status. Phillip Seymour Hoffman was greatly missed as the hilariously apathetic photographer, but I have to admit, the new insane killer guy was waaaay more insane and killerish than when Fiennes played the part in 2002.
The editing on the gun fight scenes were shotty at best (huuuuge pun intended), and the soundtrack was like a drugged up Scarface score (that's extremely redundant if you've seen the movie). Other than that, it did give me chills, and i was impressed in the end. but i must say, it was no Village ;)... but that is a whole other post.
Anyways, the underlying theme of the movie was clearly:
If you are clinically blind, for the love of god, do not have wild sex with a criminally insane mastermind, then cheat on him
In the end, I am pleased to award it a 6/10 on the calorimeter
Paper Moon (1973)
Addie is my hero
Tatum O'Neal definitely deserved her Oscar for this performance at age 10. She was absolutely adorable and innocent, yet defiantly righteous at the same time. It is also easy to tell that the script was very meticulously and cleverly written, particularly regarding the bantering between Ryan and Tatum. This movie will stay with me for a while.
Underlying theme of the movie:
Money buys and drives everything. .... (even though we try to deny it, it is all too true.)
Gets ****/***** stars in the BilkyWay Galaxy meter ...translation..a good movie in my book.
Open Water (2003)
Many ways to look at it...
Going into this movie, I really wasn't very excited about it. I was kinda just going along for the ride and I was only really seeing it because it was with my friend and his brother. I figured the premise was going to be pretty limited (I mean, two people and a s***load of H2O molecules
.hmmm
.), but, much to my surprise, I was swept up on a captivating wave of psychological interest, where I surfed through the unique 'direction' of the 'current' and where I playfully splashed into the depth of the characters.
.did I say something about making this short??? Well, anyways, From the very start of the movie, the way it was film engaged me immediately. The cinematography was very very plain and simple. The dialogue was almost oversimplistic. It had a big 'home video' feel to it. Chris Kentis used that type of old film for the first part of the movie. For me, it really worked. I felt like what was happening, really happened. That these people were real, ordinary people, on an ordinary vacation. No out of the ordinary or particularly interesting dialogue. (The only thing out of the ordinary was that Blanchard Ryan's character was particularly gorgeous). I thought the use of white noise and the lack of a soundtrack was intelligent. It really made me feel like I was there and that it wasn't just some fancy movie set I was watching. When the couple was stranded, that's when the movie really kicked off. The interactions between Susan and Daniel showed a lot about their characters and human beings in general. Before I go off on my psychobabble, I will stop myself, and promise to keep it short (too late, right?)
.anyways, this movie portrayed gender roles (how Daniel tried to make light of things and hide from his negative emotions and how he protected and took care of Susan. How Susan was more in touch with her emotions and how it eventually got under Daniel's skin. How Daniel coped with his emotions through anger. How Susan became the instinctive caretaker when Daniel was hurt.). This movie also showed how trauma can affect people. After they went through the night, you could see Susan slowly enter a somewhat catatonic state. She was slightly responsive, but very dead to the world.
The camera shots while they were in the water were a little more creative than the first part of the movie. There were some really awesome and unique shots of the water, showing how there are an infinite number of ways to look at the water and how the light reflects off of it. Different formations and waves and patterns. Very artistic.
As for the scarinesss factor, personally, I was so engaged with the characters that I could have cared less about the sharks and the water around them. Though I was very tense for the first part of their adventure. In attempts to keep this short, I will say that I appreciated how the film is different from most others out there. I liked the change, but at the same time, I most likely will not see this film again, unless someone wants to watch it with me. There are lots of things that I can see that I would have improved in this film. I wish they showed more interaction between the characters. IT had a lot of potential, psychologically, they just needed to give us a little bit more than a few arguments and some crying. Anyhoo! It's time for
.
The Underlying Theme of the Movie!!!!!!!!! .. Which is
..:
If you ever go out to sea with an 'organized' scuba diving tour, make sure that the dude in charge of taking the head counts isn't some ignorant bastard with a really sketchy name like 'Junior' or 'Tiger' or 'Rodeo Rick'. Make sure he has a much more normal, promising name, like
..'Bob' or 'Joe' or maybe even 'Sigfried' would be good
None the less, This movie gets: a 7/10 on the subjective scale
And a 3/10 on the objective ometer
Many may say that this movie was 'bloody hell'
. But I say
.. 'bloody brilliant!!'
Unbreakable (2000)
Personal Significance
It seems this movie has taken a bit of heat, known by many as Shyamalan's "worst" film. It is often written off as slow moving, and the twist at the end as unoriginal and boring. I've heard people say the acting and camera work was awkward and stale and that the casting was poor. Ironically enough, as more people begin to dislike this movie, the more I seem to fall in love with it. This film has a lot of personal bearing with me, both as a student of psychology and a lover of movies and just plain art. I feel like I've taken this film under my wing during its times of criticism, and now I'd like to try and show everyone what exactly I love about it so much.
Shyamalan really showed a stroke of brilliance by getting Serra to be his cinematographer and to play around with the aestetics of the film. I don't know how or where Shyamalan is getting these guys for his movies, but I definitely love the style of each frame he shells out. Serra had been involved with predominately foreign films before Unbreakable. This was his first big American film, and I think you gotta give a little credit to Shyamalan for that. His unique and creative touch really added to the direction. In keeping with the "comic book" theme of the movie, you will notice that almost every shot is taken as if you are looking through or in between something. Like the squares of a comic strip. There is also a dark, slightly blue colored filter used throughout most of the film. This gives the movie a very bold, but eerie tone. Showing that the world can be a rough and scary place, but it can also be fought and overcome. It is evident that time and effort went into every shot. It may not slap many viewers in the face as brilliant, but it really strikes a chord with me.
As for the score, I am more than willing to argue that this is, hands down, James Newton Howard's best score of his very successful career. It is compelling and booming. It's very powerful, but not over-the-top and excessive. For anyone with the soundtrack, check out 'The Orange Man' and 'Visions'. These are two of the most powerful pieces of any film score around. And I stress the word "powerful". Yeah, he's no Hermann or Morricone, but the emotional weight and emotive power of his chords and his overall composition are just downright chilling.
The writing and the direction are just as captivating as the score. Almost every line of dialogue and every scene seems to be placed out on an island, alone so that everyone can stop and judge it. Some people might view this as cocky and/or boring direction, but I see it as daring and unique. Much of Shyamalan's writing is done that way. ('…I see dead people…' '...They call me Mr. Glass…' etc. etc.) Another aspect of the film that tickles my fancy is the underlying themes. I do believe, to a certain extent, that people do have somewhat supernatural powers at times. People have been known to make miracles and do unbelievable things. Maybe these things could be 'developed' in some way. These theories are, in a way, intertwined with some aspects of psychology, such as selective attention and self-actualization. If you care to discuss some of these ideas, let me know and I will relate them to the film through my eyes. In short, I do believe there is a superhero in everyone. It may not be through supernatural powers, but it may simply be through the act of reaching out to a person in need. Other themes of the movie, like how completely different people can always be connected in some way and how everyone has their vulnerabilities and weaknesses are intriguing, yet universal. From a psychological point of view, Shyamalan really gets inside the head of OI patients (osteogenesis imperfecta). He then brings this psyche to the next level with Jackson's character. Elijah, is very passionate but very tortured and evil. His interactions with Willis bring depth and focus to both the characters and the story. Certain scenes in the movie are really quite striking and powerful. The shots of Willis in his security poncho. The train station scene. Elijah's breathtaking fall on the stairs and many more speak so loudly to me and say so much in just a simple clip. For some reason this movie just speaks to me, like art. If anyone cares to discuss more about this film, that'd be cool. There is a lotta other cool stuff to talk about with this movie. Just thinking about it makes me want to watch it a few more times. It may not be the feel good film of the year, or the masterpiece that everyone was looking for, but it definitely sits well with me.
The Village (2004)
Intelligent and deserving of credit!
Shyamalan really found the right combination with Deakins behind the camera and James Newton Howard composing. The music and cinematography was just a perfect mix for me. The shots were simple and non-intrusive, yet still said so much. You can see that most every frame was narrow and tight, sort of capturing the constricted views of the village, in a way. Deakins' "Shawshank-ian" techniques really came through in that aspect. I loved that shot that panned out to the wide open, foggy landscape when Lucius and Ivy first kissed, almost showing how they had sort of transcended the confines of the village for a bit. As for the score, Hahn's violin parts were perfect. It reminded me of Zimmer's eerie cello composition from The Ring, only with a twist of romance.
As for the acting, I really think this could have been Adrien Brody's best performance, to date (rivaling The Pianist). To me, he was quite possibly the most horrifyingly innocent character in any movie i've seen. The only thing he was missing was an M-16 and an angry drill sargeant. Bryce Dallas Howard's character was so persistent and passionate and Joaquin Phoenix's character was such a great compliment (it is very interesting to see, in the movie, how a blind person and a practically mute person can be so perfect for each other). These three characters lended to an interesting See No Evil (Ivy), Hear No Evil (Noah), Speak No Evil (Lucius) dynamic in the movie.
The color said a lot, as well. The shunning of "red" seemed to satire the "Red Scare" days of American politics. Other colors just came alive in their own artistic way, coating the characters and painting the set. Shyamalan also made sure to insert his usual political/social commentary in there in other ways, though I can't decide if it was with more or less tact this time around. Either way, Orwell certainly provided some inspiration.
Call me a sucker for off-beat romantic thriller's, but I have to give this movie a 10. Maybe it was the dark, vintange 1920's movie theater I saw it in that did it for me. Maybe it was that damn slo-motion sequence, I don't know. Overall, it just killed.
The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (2001)
Astoundingly Awe-inspiring, but not top 5.
Luckily for me, i had just finished reading the Hobbit before seeing this movie. It made the movie THAT much better. I highly suggest reading the Hobbit (one of my all-time favorite books) before seeing this movie. You'll understand why after you read it and watch Lord of the Rings. This movie had me on the edge of my seat. The cinematography was absolutely amazing, and it should be in the top 20 for that alone! But in my opinion, i don't believe that it should be any higher than number 10. I have to say, my mouth was pretty much hanging open the whole time. Ian Mckellen was a great Gandalf. And also, this movie had that legendary trilogy feel to it, much like Star Wars. But this film was sorrily plagued with a case of hype-itis. If it had gone without so much hype, i'm sure more people would have liked this movie. I give this film a 9. I would have given it a 10, but I felt a lack of flow. i think I need to watch it again. All in all though, it is a truly captivating film!
Back to the Future (1985)
Grew up with this
When I was a little kid, i lived this movie. Marty Mcfly was my idol!! now I look back on it, and i see the cleverness of the film at that time mixed with that legendary feel. You know what feel I'm talking about. Though this film may have seemed a bit corny at times. It is a classic that should be respected for it's feel good aspect. I give it a 10 just because I grew up with this movie and it has affected my life, thought I may not even know it. hehe.