(Dir. Vsevolod Pudovkin 1928)
I don't think they actually had ratings at this point in time, but I'm going to give it a PG. Just warning you now, this entire post is a spoiler. I would hate to spoil the plot of a nearly ninety year old movie for anyone. I can't honestly say that I'm a huge fan of USSR era propaganda films. I realize that considering the times and their lack of resources what they managed to do was quite good and they innovated new film techniques, but they're just so boring. Their central idea is pretty much always the same. If you've seen one you've seen them all (just think underdog takes on capitalism), and I have now seen two so. The protagonist of this film is a simple Mongolian herdsman, who I think has sick father. It's a little hard to tell, either way there's a sick old man involved. This old man produces and amazing (I assume its amazing because of the way the characters react, I don't actually know that much about fur trade) fox pelt and tells him not to accept less than five hundred silvers for it. The herdsman heads off to sell his wares and thus begins the epic tale of people trying to cheat him out of his fur (darn capitalists, can't trust a one of 'em). Eventually he meets a British trader who once and for all cheats him out of his fur, and they get into a fight. The herdsman has to flee because the British guy gets injured and stats yelling at everyone to avenge the white man's blood. Yeah, this film is not really subtle. So the herdsman ends up joining the "partisans" who I think are Russian? The Russians have to come in at some point in this film right? Anyway about .05 seconds after joining the herdsman gets captured by the British. He is sent to be executed and is shot twice before falling off a cliff. While this dramatic as all get out execution is going on the British commanders figure out the herdsman is a direct heir of the great Genghis Khan. Uh oh, too late they rush out to stop the execution, but manage to find him alive. The herdsman is nursed back to health and they make him into a puppet ruler. At some point the British fur trader shows back up, and surprise!!! so does the herdsman's pelt. The nasty fur trader is giving it as a gift his mistress, who for some reason is there. The herdsman goes into a blind rage and attacks the fur trader who starts screaming again about avenging the white man's blood. Except this time everyone is like "bruh, get wrecked, that guy is a prince" (Actual quote). Shortly after this the herdsman summons a Mongol hoard outta nowhere and EVERYONE gets wrecked. The End I made that summary very detailed and in depth so you could begin to realize what a ride this film is for yourself. So now imagine those events, with a bunch of interruptions by random symbolic images and at least 20 minutes of nothing happening between any significant events. This film is over two hours long but the actual plot parts could be condensed into fifteen. Russians. One scene really stuck out to me, so basically they want to show how capitalism is bad and capitalist people are overindulgent and wicked. To do this they decide to spend seven minutes flashing around clips of the British commander and his wife getting ready all while playing music reminiscent of the sure-skree-skree noise in the Psycho shower scene. Very awkward to watch.
1 Comment
(Dir. Lee Unkrich 2017) PG, seriously take your entire family to go see this. It's heartwarming and everyone will love it, adults and kids. Coco tells the story of a young boy, Miguel, who wants to be a musician. This wouldn't be a problem, except his great great grandfather walked out on his family to become a famous musician, leaving behind his wife and child to fend for themselves. His great great grandmother learned how to make shoes to support her family and banned music, traditions their family still follows. This film does an amazing job illustrating the give and take relationship of a family. Fighting one's own desires with what their family wants and what is best for them. What I love about this film, and what Disney has been trying to focus on for a while, has been focusing on family love and relationships instead of romance. Though, Coco does a much better job at this than Frozen. I actually waited a day to write the review on Coco because the last time I saw a Disney movie in theaters I loved this much it was Frozen. Then after I left the theaters and spent a day thinking about it, Frozen was filled with so many plot holes that no charming snowman could save it. Then they overplayed that snowman and it slowly became the WORST part... Nevermind I shouldn't get into that now. So, basically I was being careful and making sure I wasn't just caught up in post-movie euphoria. Coco still holds up and is an amazing film that is worth having to sit through a nearly half-hour Frozen short for. All I have to say about the short is that if you need to use the bathroom or refill your popcorn, go ahead and go during it. It lasts so much longer than you think it can. The only thing I could complain about with Coco was that the plot was a little predictable. Then again I'm not sure if that's because I grew up in a family that has a game where we try to see who can guess the ending/plot twists of a movie first. Either way, I didn't even mind knowing what the twist was going to be. Honestly, at a certain point I think they want the viewer to guess what the plot twist is going to be, they drop so many hints about it. When you figure it out it builds up this beautiful dramatic irony where you want Miguel to figure it out so bad. Usually I hate being left in suspense and just want to jump into the film myself to fix the characters problems, because man I have enough stress in my daily life, but the story in Coco was so beautiful that I didn't mind. The animation in this movie was absolutely stunning. Disney has come under a lot of fire lately because a lot of their faces look the same now that they've switched to their new animation style, but this movie does not have that problem at all. There's so much variation and you know what I think I'm just going to have to add extra photos to this post. It's just so beautiful, and the colors when he enters the land of the dead are stunning. I recently listened to an interview with Lee Unkrich and you cantle this movie was very much a labor of love for him. I mean, it took about seven years to complete which is insane to me because I can't commit to anything for more than a day. I think it does justice to the traditions of Dia de Los Muertos, of course this being said by someone with no familiarity with it at all so my word probably doesn't mean much. However, Gael Garcia Bernal was in the film and helped out so I believe he was likely very helpful in keeping it true to Mexican culture and values. Also I just need to take a moment to talk about how much I love Gael Garcia Bernal. The first movie I saw him in was No (Dir. Pablo Larrain 2013), and it was absolutely fantastic. I recommend everyone see it, but keep in mind it is rated R. If you couldn't tell from my whole review, I love this film. I can't wait until it comes out on DVD so I can watch it again, or maybe I'll just go back to the theater. It's seriously that good. (Dir. Taika Waititi 2017)
PG-13, but don't worry there's plenty of inappropriate humor. Including a Hulk dick joke, am I allowed to say that on this? Guess I'll find out. 've never been a huge Thor fan, I've never hated any of them like some people I know though. They just kind of paled in comparison with the rest of the MCU. If Thor wasn't in the Avengers I doubt I would've ever watched them. This movie changed that for me. I really enjoyed the humor in this movie and I wish that they'd started out the Thor movies with Taika as the director. If you've kept up with my posts you would know that I recently watched and loved What We Do In the Shadows, which is co-directed by Taika and he is in it. What I really enjoyed about What We Do In the Shadows was how they made inhuman characters relatable. Instead of trying to make them seem cool and undefeatable, as people often do with supernatural entities, they focused on their flaws which helped make them relatable and humorous. Taika brought this approach over to the Thor movies and I really enjoyed its effect. Before Thor seemed a little to serious and a little to distant of a figure. This worked when he was surrounded by other characters in the Avengers, but in his own movies it got a little stale. I have heard some complaints that he seems like a totally different character, and I do think that that is a valid concern. Thor is much more of a goofball in Ragnarok than ever before, but I think it works for him. I've decided to not get upset over the sudden character change, because it just works so well and I think was desperately needed. I think that the use of color in Ragnarok really sets it apart from previous Marvel movies. A lot of people complain about the dullness of color in Marvel movies, and they're not wrong to. The way they edit the films tones down a lot of the colors and the end result isn't terrible by any means, it could just be a lot better. The editing process was still the same in this movie, as far as I know, but this Marvel color dullness was evened out by the use of a lot of vivid bright colors during raw footage shoots. Taika saw his chance to bring a lot of color in while shooting the Sikaar scenes, and he took it. One thing I really appreciated about the story line was how they worked in Planet Hulk. The most obvious reason they didn't do a stand alone movie for planet Hulk was the fact that they'd have to get the rights back, which is much more trouble than it's worth. I'm actually really happy about that though, I don't think I could handle a movie centered entirely around the Hulk. So combining it with Thor Ragnarok was a really smart choice on their part I think. It allowed them to include the story line, but not make it the center of the movie and it gave them a convenient excuse for Hulk to help out Thor. I kinda wish that it would've been more of a surprise that the Hulk was in the movie. Marvel kind of touted the fact that Hulk was going to be in it, but I think it would've been a lot cooler if they'd let it be a surprise. Still really cool though, just could've been better. *SPOILER* One BIG issue I take with this movie is that they kill off two kinda major characters and don't even mention it. Two of Thor's friends, ones that played a sizable roll in the universe before, got killed in like a thirty second scene that was never brought back up. I really liked them and if they'd been killed to serve some greater thematic purpose I would've been okay, but it was seemingly for like no reason. So that's kind of annoying. *End Spoiler* Overall I really enjoyed this movie and will totally watch it again when it comes out on DVD. I think that this movie really revamped the Thor universe and the characters in it are AMAZING. You should go watch it right now. Also, Jeff Goldblum, need I say more? (Dir. Drew Goddard 2012)
R-Rated. Super R, lots of gore, cursing, and some nudity. It's all in a fun way though, kinda. Cabin In the Woods is a twist on the classic college kid horror story. 5 friends get together to spend a weekend at a cabin in the woods. While there they encounter many suspicious objects, and accidentally summon killer zombies. The zombies begin to pick off the kids one by one, but wait, there's more! It turns out all of these horror events are being controlled by a bunch of office men running a horror simulation. Why? Gotta watch to find out. Cabin In the Woods derived a lot of its humor from switching from the classic horror scenes to the lighthearted atmosphere in the simulation control center. When in the horror scenes they used a lot of quick cuts dark/bleak surroundings to create the horror mood. While in the simulation center the cuts are more subdued and the lighting is harsh and unnatural. These contrasts starkly define the difference between the horror world and the world of the simulators. What I really likes about Cabin In the Woods was that it was not just funny, it was interesting. Right off the bat it's made clear that the terrible things happening are being controlled by the simulators, but they viewer spends much of the film trying to figure out why. In addition, I genuinely liked the characters, even the "villainous" characters. The simulators never act evil, but they are obviously intended the be the antagonist of the college students. As the plot unfolds we begin to see events more from the point of view of the simulators, and understand their reasoning much better. It's either these people die, or everyone does. My only complaint is that some of the characters were under developed, but when they're main purpose in the film is to be killed off I can't be that upset. Overall I really enjoyed this film. I don't like gore, but this film was funny enough that I pushed through it. |
Aubrey KirchhoffI'm just screaming into the void and somehow getting graded on it. Archives
April 2018
|