I can't stress how utterly cool this film is. Denzel Washington gives such a good performance, his character is just enthralling. I can't help but hang onto every word he says. I could imagine reading the script where it says:
"Alonzo aka Denzel Washington - 'King Kong ain't got shit on me!'"
and just laughing at how absurd it seems; Denzel does it with finesse. His entire look is just so badass, from his double guns he clinks together so often to his style of dress shirt buttoned to the neck. This may not be for the faint of heart, and it sure isn't going to lull you to sleep. It's phenomenal, a must see.
8.5/10
Film#136 - 27 Dresses, 2008, dir. Anne Fletcher
When I think of the word 'montage' I think of a few things: The Odessa Steps, Team America: World Police and this. I knew there had to be a montage of all 27 dresses, and yes, there is. I can't believe I watched this. I was predicting things left and right, and surprisingly not everything was correct. But most was. As a romantic comedy, this fell flat. There was literally no chemistry between anyone, the plot was silly, it wasn't funny. Just a terrible movie. As it was pointed out to me, it's strange how in films like this Katherine Heigl isn't considered attractive. What does this say about beauty, or love or literally anything positive? It seems to be pessimistic, that women become desperate for men to love them, men play mind games. It stereotypes gender, it plays on negative associations, it's horrendous.
3/10
Film#137 - The Men Who Stare At Goats, 2009, dir. Grant Heslov
The trailers for this looked like a Coen brothers film; it's definitely not. This film lacks the charm needed to pull off this whacky plot line and strange bunch of characters. I don't know where it went wrong. The cast is stellar; Jeff Bridges, George Clooney, Ewan McGregor, Kevin Spacey. Yet somehow I just didn't like it very much. It had a few good chuckles, it was interesting to watch, but I just felt it lacked any serious value. It needed more style, more attention to detail. There is definitely nothing special about the aesthetic of the film, or the camera movement. A little disappointing.
6.5/10
Film#138 - Dawn Of The Dead, 2004, dir. Zach Synder
Wow. This was one of the most exciting films I've seen in a long time. From the first shot to the beginning of the opening credits, which is maybe 5 minutes apart, the film just dives head first into this brutal nightmare. As a result, it lacks a bit of the emotional appeal it might have had if we knew the characters beforehand. But I don't think that hurt it much. We still see these diverse people dealing with the situation (zombies) and how it affects them. What I liked the most was probably the way they still sought out enjoyment and happiness in the midst of this crisis, which takes place over a month trapped inside a mall. While it may seem to be this generic rag-tag team of survivors fighting off waves of mindless bloodthirsty zombies, you have to remember this is a remake of one of the originals in the zombie apocalypse genre. And I think it did a great job.
8.5/10
Film#139 - Last Days, 2005, dir. Gus Van Sant
Paced like an absolute snail. One of the slowest films I've ever seen. Maybe I just wasn't in the mood for this. It's more or less based on Kurt Cobain and his, guess what, last days alive. Michael Pitt is a fantastic actor, and I guess he did a good job here; I couldn't really tell because most of the shots are to far away or too close, or just straight up too boring for me to really care. This presents real life, but doesn't improve on it. To some that's fine. I on the other hand, going along with what Pedro Alomodovar said, (look at how pretentious I am) film should not only document real life, it should improve on it. What I gathered from that is that a movie can tell you a story of everyday people and make it interesting, make you realize the beauty of it. I didn't feel this did that. I found myself asking why I need a 20 minute opening sequence of a half dozen shots of a man alone in the woods doing arbitrary things. In comparison, the opening of There Will Be Blood is similar; a man by himself just surviving out in the wilderness without any dialogue or interruption. Where Paul Thomas Anderson succeeded, I think Gus Van Sant failed. It's just too arty for my taste; the entertainment value is minimal. I also cringed when the drummer and bassist for the band go to bed together, not because I have any problem with it but rather I have a problem with Gus Van Sant having the inability to write a single film without a token homosexual scene that has no relevance to the story whatsoever. Does it make him an auteur or just hung up on expressing his own homosexuality? I don't know, and this film doesn't make me care.
3.5/10
