Sarge 2.0 goes to the movies!

[Star]

I am kind of sick of Paper Planes haha. So overplayed . Besides, $20 > Paper Planes

 

[Sarge 2.0]

Haha I don't listen to M.I.A. that much. Paper Planes is pretty overplayed, I agree.

 

[The Original Bamfer]

I agree with a few other folks that a bit too much of the plot was revealed in the review. I would have preferred a more vague description of the ending; a few words that described the nature and tone of it. I was thinking that the detail about the two lying naked in bed together was unnecessary, but then I realized how it was important to the characters' relationship, and that's one thing I really enjoyed about the review - the details you provided describing the main characters and their relationship with each other. When a film's a good film to me, it's because the characters have a lot of development. And you really gave me a lot of insight on the level of depth they have. All-in-all, it was very well-written and resulted in me wanting to see a film I originally had no interest in.

 

[Sarge 2.0]

Thanks, Bam****.

 

[Sarge 2.0]

On a related note, I was disappointed to learn that LTROI was ineligible for the Best Foreign Language Film award due to some ****ed up regulations regarding release dates and whatnot. It wasn't because Sweden didn't choose it to be nominated like that dickwad Harry Knowles said, though. God I hate him. I don't care if we agree that LTROI was a great movie, he still sucks.

 

[Sarge 2.0]

I think my next write up will be one for Ingmar Bergman's "Cries and Whispers" which I'll watch tomorrow and then do a quick write up for. Then I need to watch the Wrestler for a second time so I can review it for the paper.

 

[Sarge 2.0]

Just bumping it because I probably won't get around to Cries and Whispers tonight.

Anyone have an suggestions for the future?

 

[The Sage]

Curious Case of Benjamin Button
The Wrestler

 

[Sarge 2.0]

Haven't seen Benjamin Button, but a review of the Wrestler will most likely be up within a few days.

 

[Hunter Rider]

Just bumping it because I probably won't get around to Cries and Whispers tonight.

Anyone have an suggestions for the future?

Something "low brow" It's easy to take the latest Statham actioner or Bullock rom com and write an amusing barb laden review, but I like to see a critic that reviews a movie in the context of what it is aiming to achieve.

 

[Sarge 2.0]

I've been thinking about that. I've got Evil Dead 2 in my collection, but I love the movie so damn much the whole review might be gushing praise. I'll have to watch it again, very closely and try to refrain from letting my geeky love for the movie get in the way.

 

[Sarge 2.0]

"WALL-E" is a rather brilliant animated film. It's one we can learn from, because it speaks to problems plaguing the world today. As the most intelligent and developed species populating this planet, it is our duty to take good care of it. It's also our duty to take good care of ourselves. "WALL-E" is brilliant in that it addresses both issues with frankness, while also functioning as wonderful little love story between two robots.

The earth has become barren due to over pollution, and the planet can no longer sustain life. So, the humans leave on what was supposed to be a "five year cruise" through space until all the little trash compacter robots clean up the planet and make it habitable once more. But remember how Gilligan and friends were only supposed to go on a three hour tour? The same thing happens to the entire human race.

WALL-E spends all day roving the decayed, trash covered earth with a little cockroach as his companion. WALL-E decorates his "home" with bric-a-brac that he acquires on his day to day activities. One day his routine is shaken by the arrival of a probe droid named EVE, whose primary function is to discover plant life on earth, to prove that the planet is capable of sustaining life.

To our little hero - and to us -EVE is curiously beautiful looking. She's sleek, intelligent, and driven. WALL-E is instantly smitten. Soon, WALL-E finds himself following EVE back to the Axiom, the "cruise ship" housing the entire human race. After centuries of living on a corporately run space ship in low gravity, humans "evolve" in to fat, lazy people who move around on hover chairs and interact through telecom-esque things instead of talking face to face. No one walks around, no one eats anything other than the fattening food the corporation feeds them. The robots that populate this universe are more vibrant and exciting than the humans.

The robots express themselves through clicks and whirs, occasionally vocalizing names; "WALL-E" and "EVE" are heard most often. I was reminded of the seven dwarves from Disney's seminal "Snow White" feature. The dwarves' broad facial expressions served as their characterization. So it is with the robots in "WALL-E". WALL-E's binocular eyes move around, sometimes the little flaps above them act as eyebrows, and the lenses within squint and widen. EVE's expressions are the broadest of all, since her "face" only has "eyes". These eyes take only a few basic shapes that communicate her feelings to the audience. But we always know what the little robots are feeling, because as is often the case a "realistic" and "detailed" human face obscures or complicates emotions. Perhaps that was why Bergman found the face so fascinating?

But I digress. WALL-E is beautifully animated, with many visual references to Kubrick's "2001", the colors are not loud, but still eye catching, the entire universe is awe inspiring. Now I know how WALL-E felt when he saw space for the first time. We could learn something from WALL-E and his little "girlfriend" EVE. I hope.

 

[Sarge 2.0]

Seeing "Frost/Nixon" tonight. A review will be up when I get back.

 

[Sarge 2.0]

“You won’t have Nixon to kick around anymore…” – Richard M. Nixon

When “Frost/Nixon” ended and the credits began to roll, my first impression was that what I saw was a “good movie”. But after mulling it over I realized that yes, “Frost/Nixon” is “good” in the sense that it is well acted, well shot, and overall a technically sound picture, but it there was something fundamentally wrong at its core; something was missing. I left feeling only a mild sense of pity for Richard Milhous Nixon, but nothing more. Perhaps all the hype and nominations will trick you in to believing that “Frost/Nixon” is something more than what it actually is: a rather lightweight piece of entertainment. “Frost/Nixon” is interesting because of Ron Howard’s slick direction and because the actors are all top notch, but don’t go looking for any emotional heft behind the bluster.

The film – based the play of the same name – is a semi-fictionalized portrayal of the infamous series of interviews between David Frost (Michael Sheen) and disgraced President Richard Nixon (Frank Langella). Frost was a television host who specialized in entertainment talk shows and celebrity interviews. Prior to his interview with Nixon, his idea of a tough question probably would have been to ask Farrah Fawcett about her hair. When the film opens, he’s languishing in Australia as the host of his own show after his show in America was canceled.

Frost sees Nixon’s resignation speech pull in record numbers in the ratings, and is inspired to use Nixon’s infamy as his ticket back to the top. The film establishes Frost as a womanizer and a party boy, seducing a woman on a plane, attending movie premieres and the like. He’s charming, well dressed, and an incredibly gifted performer; Frost’s social nature is contrasted by the famously stiff, awkward, and uncomfortable President Nixon, who is residing in his own personal hell on the West Coast. Nixon is living in exile in San Clemente, California. Jack Brennan (Kevin Bacon) acts as his loyal companion who is half King Charles Cavalier and half Doberman Pinscher. Brennan – who is possibly analogous to Pat Buchanan – has a love for Nixon that is almost childlike and unconditional, and he fiercely comes to Nixon’s defense whenever he feels the former President is being disrespected or attacked.

David Frost is a man so eager to regain fame in America (“Success in America isn’t like success anywhere else&#8221 that he pays Nixon $600,000, most of which came from his own pocket. Frost puts together a team that includes a TV journalist named Bob Zelnick (Oliver Platt), and a passionately anti-Nixon researcher named James Reston Jr. (Sam Rockwell) who wants “to give Richard Nixon the trial he never had” through the Frost interview. Frost is essentially apolitical at first, and he seems ambivalent to Richard Nixon and his reputation. This nonchalance clashes with the serious political journalism of Zelnick and the righteous anger of Reston; both of them view Frost as a softy and fear that his interview tactics might even portray Nixon in a positive light.

When it comes time to interview Nixon, Frost whizzes the first few sessions. Badly. Nixon turns in to a warrior who knows how to play mind games with David – for example, with mere seconds before cameras begin to roll Nixon casually asks Frost if he “did any fornicating” the night before – and hijacks the interview with long winded, circular answers and pointless 23 minute anecdotes. The interviews play out like a boxing match, with Frost eventually taking the offensive when he realizes that he doesn’t have to be polite to one of the most reviled men in the country. He can interrupt Nixon when he’s getting off point, talk over him when he tries to change the subject, and lean forward to play some mind games of his own by using body language.

The film unwound during a fictionalized phone conversation between Frost and Nixon the night before their last, and most important interview. Nixon gives Frost a soliloquy about how they are kindred spirits, clawing their way back to the top and proving themselves to elitists who “looked down on them”. The problem here is that this scene robs the film of any real emotional impact. The curtain pulls back to reveal the contrivances and machinations that prevents the audience from being absorbed by the film, and instead it reminds us – firmly – that we are watching a film. And while the interview scenes were interesting to an extent, they were too glossy, too polished, and too – dare I say it? – Movie-like to create any sort of power. The real Frost/Nixon interviews are far more engaging because they are real, and Ron Howard’s greatest misstep was treating Michael Sheen and Frank Langella like they were two actors delivering lines. When one becomes keenly aware of the fact that two actors are acting, the movie has failed in that respect.

This does not mean that the actors were bad, because they were far from bad. It just means that Ron Howard directed them poorly. Frank Langella imbues Nixon with a pathos that I’m not sure the late President deserves. Everyone knows that Nixon was an awkward, paranoid, and lonely man, but that does not mean he deserves sympathy. The film’s Nixon is a little too “Hollywood” for my taste because the film gently skates around the fact that he was racist, homophobic, and anti-Semitic. It wasn’t “emotionally honest” – in fact I would argue that it was profoundly dishonest – it was just maudlin.

“Frost/Nixon” is a movie that lands its punches insofar as it gets its point across the audience, but it lands those punches weakly. Everything feels staged, and we’re acutely in tune with every trick and technique that’s being employed by the filmmakers. The tricks and techniques are done well, and they are done by the best of the best so the film is not unentertaining or unworthy of your time, but it’s not going to deliver any depth with your movie going experience. If you want a film that is heartbreakingly honest with an emotional punch that leaves the viewer bruised, yet strangely stirred, go see “The Wrestler”. If you want to see a well-made film that you don’t have to invest your emotions in, go see “Frost/Nixon”.

My review for "Frost/Nixon"

 

[Hunter Rider]

Some of the points you mention in your observations echo the vibes I got from the trailer, on the more major points I have to see it first before we could discuss them, however the main thing I want to say here is that you have written one of the most eloquent and intelligent reviews Ive read in some time, in it you come over as someone who understands film but has not had the misfortune of disappearing up his own ass as many other "educated" critics do, bravo!

On a side note, I think I am gonna find the Frost side of the move quite interesting, b/c when I was a kid he was the stuffy old dude that interviewed ppl I wasn't interested in, sounds like he was quite the opposite as a young man.

 

[The Original Bamfer]

Fantastic review! If I didn't have you, how would I know what movies not to see? :heart:

 

[Sarge 2.0]

Some of the points you mention in your observations echo the vibes I got from the trailer, on the more major points I have to see it first before we could discuss them, however the main thing I want to say here is that you have written one of the most eloquent and intelligent reviews Ive read in some time, in it you come over as someone who understands film but has not had the misfortune of disappearing up his own ass as many other "educated" critics do, bravo!

On a side note, I think I am gonna find the Frost side of the move quite interesting, b/c when I was a kid he was the stuffy old dude that interviewed ppl I wasn't interested in, sounds like he was quite the opposite as a young man.

Thanks a lot man, that really means a lot to me.

Haha, I grew up with no knowledge of Frost at all, but my parents said that he was a lightweight tv host/celebrity interviewer whose career was on the down slope before the Nixon interview.

 

[Sarge 2.0]

Fantastic review! If I didn't have you, how would I know what movies not to see? :heart:

Usually I find that any movie that Armond White likes is probably terrible. So he's a pretty good critic to use as long as you pretend you're in Bizarro World.

 

[Star]

For your Wall-E review you should possibly mention that it was reminiscent of silent films. He was a Chaplin style comedian, and I found that to be brilliant. (So did my Film Prof, lol)

 

[Sarge 2.0]

Haha, that was a quick write up I did, but I did notice the Chaplin/Keaton stuff going on with WALL-E's character. The film proved that broad emotional expression isn't exactly a bad thing.

 

[Star]

I loved Wall-E. Great review none the less. You have a way with words

 

[Sarge 2.0]

Aww, thanks. :heart:

 

[Episode29]

That Frost/Nixon review is the best one of yours that I've read. You really managed to walk that fine-line between synopsizing and criticism nicely. Groovy work.

 

[Sarge 2.0]

Thanks a lot, man.

 

[Eggyman]

That was an excellent review, Sarge. I've read a lot of shorter reviews that've seemed to take longer to read, more likely than not down to poor sentence structure and such. I'll have to see it before I know if I agree with you or not, but great review nonetheless.

On a side note: I just remembered reading your WALL-E review a couple of days ago and agreeing with everything you said... and of course, you make your points so eloquently it'd be hard to not enjoy your reviews even if I DID disagree.

I'll be keeping my eye on this thread