Sorry Astroboy I don't agree with this system. In fact I hate it. : ) I also hate Netflix’s 5 stars system and I’ve considered contacting them to tell me how obtuse they are being.
Here are some reasons why I don't like it.
When you rate a movie on a scale that uses less numbers like three out of four or four out of five you can't be held accountable for which movies are better or worse. Let me try to explain that statement. Take ‘Star Trek: II Wrath of Khan’ and the newest Star Trek Movie ‘Star Trek’ both are great movies but on your scale they both would receive a 4 out 4’s (at least according to me). So which movie is the better movie? You would never know according to your scale but on my 10 point scale you would know the slight advantage goes to ‘Star Trek: II Wrath of Khan’ at a 9.5 (Oh yeah, I give half points now). It also works in reverse for bad or horrible movies. Take the latest Indiana Jones movie and ‘Bulletproof Monk’. On your scale, both movies would receive a one but on my scale you would know ‘Indiana Jones and the kingdom of the Crystal Skull’ is a two and the lousier movie ‘Bulletproof Monk’ begets a true one score. See how this works?
There’s a show that I watch called X-Play and they rate video games. They use a 1 to 5 star system. They say that the viewer or player shouldn’t worry about the rating of a game and to read or listen to the full review to get a complete understanding. I think it’s a cop out and maybe a political thing. Possibly X-Play doesn’t want to offend the game manufacturers and not get future interviews or future information about upcoming games. So they have this pointless 5 scale system that means nothing to me except they don’t have to compare games and actually say which game is the better game Halo III or Call of Duty II (both received five stars). Is a three star a good game or an average game? Who the frak knows!
For me it’s the comparisons between the games or in our case movies to be able to tell. I know that my top twenty movies all have a score of nines and that my dream movie or perfect movie has a ten. Of course giving a movie a rating is always an opinion of the reviewer and my opinion may be different but at least I can see what he rated Forrest Gump and Aliens maybe an 8 and an 7 and find out according to him which is the better movie But again on your scale they are both probably fours.
Maybe the only true scale (yet impossible) would be your favorite movie at the top #1 (Matrix) and your least favorite movie of all time all the way at the bottom #6427 (A Passage to India). One can dream.
P.S. Here’s a key to my 1 to 10 scale.
10. Your all time favorite movie or dream movie (maybe you don’t have a ten)
9. Top twenty movies.
8. Excellent movie that I would recommend to all of my friends.
7. You really liked the movie but maybe it’s wasn’t your favorite style (i.e. Sci-Fi or Gore)
6. Above average
5. Average
4. Below Average
3. Horrible film
2. Excruciating painful movie you want to leave but it might be fun to stay and make fun of the film
1. Never talk about the movie again. (Leave early or turn off)
0. Something Kevin puts on Youtube
Ask yourself this question. Would you rate women, foods, cars, music or anything else using this 4 point scale? I know I wouldn’t.
Friday, March 5, 2010
Wednesday, March 3, 2010
The Road - 4 Stars
Are you an introspective person? Do you like to analyze things? Do you enjoy crazy 'what if' scenarios? Well try this one on for size: you and your child are being descended upon by a mob; instantaneously threatened with torture, rape, and other horrific acts; you have a gun, but only 1 bullet. What do you do?
Well, this is the fate that befalls the main character of The Road, superbly played by Viggo Mortenson, and his son, credibly played by some child actor. They're struggling to survive in a world that has been burnt to a crisp, the sky permanently darkened with rain and ash, and almost all traces of life (and humanity, as you'll find out) wiped clean. This is all sans the mother (Charlize Theron), who's fate is played out through a series of flashbacks.
As you may know, this is an almost straight adaptation of Cormac McCarthy's novel of the same name. So while it may seem like a post apocalyptic sci-fi adventure, 'The Day After Tomorrow' this is not. If you're familiar with McCarthy's other work ( Blood Meridian and No Country For Old Men, also a movie, for example ), then you'll know that this premise he lays out is all just backdrop for a passion play of humanity, morality, and love. All these things are on trial as you witness the pure bond between parent and child play out, and the hardships they endure to ensure that bond is not broken. It makes me wonder, would viewers without children be affected as deep as those who know the joy and responsibility of raising a child?
So now back to my original scenario. With that one bullet you have but a few options: futilely try to defend yourself and your child against the mob with it; put it through your own brain and put yourself out of misery; or.... if you think about it there is really only one true answer. If even considering that makes you squirm, then this probably isn't the movie for you. It's probably the single reason a movie with this kind of pedigree (bestselling author, blockbuster talent, excellent directing) didn't do well at the box or with critics. If you're not queasy, then you might just enjoy The Road.
Now, one last scenario: imagine the same as before, except you're not there. Just your child and the gun. What would you have him/her do?
Queasy yet?
Well, this is the fate that befalls the main character of The Road, superbly played by Viggo Mortenson, and his son, credibly played by some child actor. They're struggling to survive in a world that has been burnt to a crisp, the sky permanently darkened with rain and ash, and almost all traces of life (and humanity, as you'll find out) wiped clean. This is all sans the mother (Charlize Theron), who's fate is played out through a series of flashbacks.
As you may know, this is an almost straight adaptation of Cormac McCarthy's novel of the same name. So while it may seem like a post apocalyptic sci-fi adventure, 'The Day After Tomorrow' this is not. If you're familiar with McCarthy's other work ( Blood Meridian and No Country For Old Men, also a movie, for example ), then you'll know that this premise he lays out is all just backdrop for a passion play of humanity, morality, and love. All these things are on trial as you witness the pure bond between parent and child play out, and the hardships they endure to ensure that bond is not broken. It makes me wonder, would viewers without children be affected as deep as those who know the joy and responsibility of raising a child?
So now back to my original scenario. With that one bullet you have but a few options: futilely try to defend yourself and your child against the mob with it; put it through your own brain and put yourself out of misery; or.... if you think about it there is really only one true answer. If even considering that makes you squirm, then this probably isn't the movie for you. It's probably the single reason a movie with this kind of pedigree (bestselling author, blockbuster talent, excellent directing) didn't do well at the box or with critics. If you're not queasy, then you might just enjoy The Road.
Now, one last scenario: imagine the same as before, except you're not there. Just your child and the gun. What would you have him/her do?
Queasy yet?
Monday, March 1, 2010
The Book Of Eli - 3 Stars
Denzel Washington is back, at least in my mind. I have to admit I've missed quite a few of his recent flicks, at least back to 2001. But I didn't mind missing them because he either seemed typecast for the role ( American Gangster ) or the role was beneath him ( all the others ).
With The Book Of Eli, you see him give the same wondrous performance that earned him and Oscar for Training Day. He so embodies his characters, especially here as Eli, that I don't think of it as Denzel playing Eli, but rather Eli's character being like Denzel. It's that inversion that makes him such a compelling actor, something that few others have been able to capture (*cough Will Smith*).
The story itself lives in its simplicity. The backdrop is humanity reduced to its lowest common denominator. A simple battle of good vs. evil, all with a healthy dose of religion. The ease at which the story unfolds allows you to really absorb the strife of Eli's religious quest, the struggles of Solara and her blind mother as they attempt to latch on and aid Eli, and of course the wry wickedness of Gary Oldman as Carnegie. There is plenty of action along the way, numerous religious questions asked, and a very satisfying end to this well crafted flick.
Special mention to the direction of the film, which is masterfully done by the Hughes Brothers, whom haven't done a notable movie since their 'gangsta' days of the late 90's ( Menace II Society, Dead Presidents, American Pimp ). You wouldn't know that they've been off the grid for over 9 years by the way the Book Of Eli shows. They step in with stunning visuals, great cinematography and special effects, and direct all the actors to excellent performances.
But Denzel really carries the film. He's so good it's making me reconsider viewing some of his recent work, as I'm sure there are some other fine acting gems in there. This should also serve notice to the other action stars out there, that there is a better way to play it and this old man's got it.
With The Book Of Eli, you see him give the same wondrous performance that earned him and Oscar for Training Day. He so embodies his characters, especially here as Eli, that I don't think of it as Denzel playing Eli, but rather Eli's character being like Denzel. It's that inversion that makes him such a compelling actor, something that few others have been able to capture (*cough Will Smith*).
The story itself lives in its simplicity. The backdrop is humanity reduced to its lowest common denominator. A simple battle of good vs. evil, all with a healthy dose of religion. The ease at which the story unfolds allows you to really absorb the strife of Eli's religious quest, the struggles of Solara and her blind mother as they attempt to latch on and aid Eli, and of course the wry wickedness of Gary Oldman as Carnegie. There is plenty of action along the way, numerous religious questions asked, and a very satisfying end to this well crafted flick.
Special mention to the direction of the film, which is masterfully done by the Hughes Brothers, whom haven't done a notable movie since their 'gangsta' days of the late 90's ( Menace II Society, Dead Presidents, American Pimp ). You wouldn't know that they've been off the grid for over 9 years by the way the Book Of Eli shows. They step in with stunning visuals, great cinematography and special effects, and direct all the actors to excellent performances.
But Denzel really carries the film. He's so good it's making me reconsider viewing some of his recent work, as I'm sure there are some other fine acting gems in there. This should also serve notice to the other action stars out there, that there is a better way to play it and this old man's got it.
Thursday, February 25, 2010
There's a new sheriff in town...
.. and it's name is the 4 star rating system. Before where there was chaos, order has been restored.
Let me make the simple argument for 4 star ratings instead of a 10 scale:
First, its an industry standard. Go over to our hated rival site rotten tomatoes and you'll see that the vast majority use the 4 star scale. Simple, classic, and has withstood the test of time.
Second, everyone's favorite dvd renting site netflix uses the similar 5 star scale. But in my opinion it has a fatal flaw. That flaw is the dreaded 'middle rating', or that 3rd star. It gives the reviewer an out, basically not calling the flick good or bad, just average.
I think a stand needs to be taken. Movies should be good or bad. With 4 stars, you're forced to make a decision. For me that line in the sand represents the question 'would I want to see this movie again?' or 'if I came across this movie on TV, would I change the channel?'. From there you have 2 buckets on either side of the fence to further categorize the flick. Anything more nuanced than that can be explained in the body of the review.
So to summarize, here is a brief description of each star:
4 star: excellent movie, very few flaws, and one that you'd love to own, see again, and would actively recommend to others.
3 star: above average movie, not quite up to snuff relative to the 4 star movies, and one that you wouldn't mind seeing again, and would recommend to others if asked.
2 star: below average movie, flawed, not one you'd want to see again and would not recommend to others.
1 star: bad movie, horribly flawed, one you're mad you even wasted your time and money on and one that you would wish on your worst enemies.
From here forth, you'll see all my flicks rated in this manner.
Let me make the simple argument for 4 star ratings instead of a 10 scale:
First, its an industry standard. Go over to our hated rival site rotten tomatoes and you'll see that the vast majority use the 4 star scale. Simple, classic, and has withstood the test of time.
Second, everyone's favorite dvd renting site netflix uses the similar 5 star scale. But in my opinion it has a fatal flaw. That flaw is the dreaded 'middle rating', or that 3rd star. It gives the reviewer an out, basically not calling the flick good or bad, just average.
I think a stand needs to be taken. Movies should be good or bad. With 4 stars, you're forced to make a decision. For me that line in the sand represents the question 'would I want to see this movie again?' or 'if I came across this movie on TV, would I change the channel?'. From there you have 2 buckets on either side of the fence to further categorize the flick. Anything more nuanced than that can be explained in the body of the review.
So to summarize, here is a brief description of each star:
4 star: excellent movie, very few flaws, and one that you'd love to own, see again, and would actively recommend to others.
3 star: above average movie, not quite up to snuff relative to the 4 star movies, and one that you wouldn't mind seeing again, and would recommend to others if asked.
2 star: below average movie, flawed, not one you'd want to see again and would not recommend to others.
1 star: bad movie, horribly flawed, one you're mad you even wasted your time and money on and one that you would wish on your worst enemies.
From here forth, you'll see all my flicks rated in this manner.
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
Star Trek
Star Trek has a heart beat again! The series was on life support and nearly gone forever but this re-boot has breathed new life into the series. This eleventh iteration directed by J.J Abrams has the original crew back but this time we're starting at the beginning and with new actors. HOO-RAY
Before I review the movie I want to give you a little background to the story. There were four comics released before the movie came out and luckily for you I read them all. The comics start off twenty eight years after the events of the last movie Nemesis. Spock is the ambassador to Romulus and for the past few years he has been trying to convince the Romulan senate that their sun is going to supernova. Spock believes he has the solution to repair the sun by using a substance called red matter but the Romulans don’t completely trust Spock.
Meanwhile off-planet, Nero, the commander of the mining ship Narada has been experiencing the sun's unusual effects first hand. He returns to the planet to warn the senate but sadly the information he provides falls on deaf ears. This is where Spock and Nero first meet. Spock informs Nero that they must return to Vulcan and convince the Vulcan high command to part with their red matter therefore taking matters into their own hands. Nero agrees to help Spock but by doing so he becomes a traitor and an outcast.
When they arrive at Vulcan they have to deal with more bad news; the Vulcans will not part with their red matter. After months of negotiations, time has expired and the Romulan sun has gone supernova. Its explosion has destroyed Romulas, Remas, and is now threatening the entire quadrant. This has Nero pissed off beyond belief. He has lost his family (wife and unborn child) and his home planet Romulus. Revenge is the only thing on his mind and he wants it served up cold!
Nero leaves Vulcan and connects with a secret Romulan facility to enhance his ship. Once the Borg upgrades have been applied to his ship he begins his search for Spock. Once he finds Spock a colossal battle begins which causes a temporal rift in space sucking both ships in and ending the comic book series.
The movie starts off with Nero traveling back in time on accident and causing an alternate time line. This is something I appreciate very much; they can change the cannon of Star Trek with out upsetting a lot of Star Trek Fan boys. The Battle that occurs when Nero arrives will take your breath away and bring tears to your eyes. Fifteen minutes into the movie and there’s already a lot of character development.
The remainder of the movie shows Kirk teaming up with the original enterprise crew and regaining his position as captain of the USS Enterprise (not even a alternate time line can prevent him from becoming Captain). There were a ton of enjoyable moments and several Easter eggs (I noticed about 10 in the three times I watched the movie). The special effects are among the best I have seen in any movie. Something that this movie was missing was the chemistry that the original Star Trek actors had (William Shatner, Leonard Nimoy, and DeForest Kelley) and I am not sure it could ever be duplicated or perfected but we’ll see what the next movie brings.
Rating: 9/10
Before I review the movie I want to give you a little background to the story. There were four comics released before the movie came out and luckily for you I read them all. The comics start off twenty eight years after the events of the last movie Nemesis. Spock is the ambassador to Romulus and for the past few years he has been trying to convince the Romulan senate that their sun is going to supernova. Spock believes he has the solution to repair the sun by using a substance called red matter but the Romulans don’t completely trust Spock.
Meanwhile off-planet, Nero, the commander of the mining ship Narada has been experiencing the sun's unusual effects first hand. He returns to the planet to warn the senate but sadly the information he provides falls on deaf ears. This is where Spock and Nero first meet. Spock informs Nero that they must return to Vulcan and convince the Vulcan high command to part with their red matter therefore taking matters into their own hands. Nero agrees to help Spock but by doing so he becomes a traitor and an outcast.
When they arrive at Vulcan they have to deal with more bad news; the Vulcans will not part with their red matter. After months of negotiations, time has expired and the Romulan sun has gone supernova. Its explosion has destroyed Romulas, Remas, and is now threatening the entire quadrant. This has Nero pissed off beyond belief. He has lost his family (wife and unborn child) and his home planet Romulus. Revenge is the only thing on his mind and he wants it served up cold!
Nero leaves Vulcan and connects with a secret Romulan facility to enhance his ship. Once the Borg upgrades have been applied to his ship he begins his search for Spock. Once he finds Spock a colossal battle begins which causes a temporal rift in space sucking both ships in and ending the comic book series.
The movie starts off with Nero traveling back in time on accident and causing an alternate time line. This is something I appreciate very much; they can change the cannon of Star Trek with out upsetting a lot of Star Trek Fan boys. The Battle that occurs when Nero arrives will take your breath away and bring tears to your eyes. Fifteen minutes into the movie and there’s already a lot of character development.
The remainder of the movie shows Kirk teaming up with the original enterprise crew and regaining his position as captain of the USS Enterprise (not even a alternate time line can prevent him from becoming Captain). There were a ton of enjoyable moments and several Easter eggs (I noticed about 10 in the three times I watched the movie). The special effects are among the best I have seen in any movie. Something that this movie was missing was the chemistry that the original Star Trek actors had (William Shatner, Leonard Nimoy, and DeForest Kelley) and I am not sure it could ever be duplicated or perfected but we’ll see what the next movie brings.
Rating: 9/10
Monday, August 17, 2009
District 9
Wow where do you start on a movie like this. Does a movie like this
even exist? Kudos to director Neill Blomkamp, and producer Peter
Jackson for their uniqueness. This movie takes place in Johannesburg
South Africa, a refreshing change from the New York, or San Francisco
invasions we're all accustomed to. This sci-fi film starts as a
documentary and later turns into an action/thriller. Aliens (called pawns
because they look like insect versions of.. well prawns) arrive at
earth and no one knows why, apparently not even the aliens. They are
segregated for logical reasons, but quickly those reasons become ugly,
and the prawn's environment is converted into to slums and concentration
camps. Our star Wikus van der Merwe (Sharlto Copley), who works for
MNU, is sent to serve eviction notices to prawns, moving them to a
less desirable more remote "safer" location. Wikus has a great
attitude about his job, and is incredibly insensitive and destructive
to the prawns. It's comical at first but then it quickly turns deranged as
it becomes apparent that he and his team enjoy the suffering of the
prawns.
As the story unfolds there are obvious disturbing parallels showing
that man hasn't learned from his selfish past, and it seems that
history will repeat itself once again. Humans want nothing more than the
military advantage provided by the alien technology, and MNU will go to any
length to get it. The scariest part is that I could see
humans handling an invasion exactly this way.
Wikus starts seeing from the prawn's vantage point after a freak
accident, and the film becomes a thrill ride of technology and action.
Wikus, for selfish reasons at first, becomes the salvation of one
prawn family, while trying to get his own family, life and soul back.
This movie is funny, disturbing, action packed and most of the other
adjectives. The CGI is the best that I've seen, and the uniqueness
made this movie a must see. There are several unanswered questions
which usually would deteriorate my enthusiasm, but with this film I didn't
feel the need to over analyze. I had zero expectations and found
myself pleasantly surprised! I even liked this movie enough that I
think I'll pay to see it again while it's in the theaters.
Rating: 8
even exist? Kudos to director Neill Blomkamp, and producer Peter
Jackson for their uniqueness. This movie takes place in Johannesburg
South Africa, a refreshing change from the New York, or San Francisco
invasions we're all accustomed to. This sci-fi film starts as a
documentary and later turns into an action/thriller. Aliens (called pawns
because they look like insect versions of.. well prawns) arrive at
earth and no one knows why, apparently not even the aliens. They are
segregated for logical reasons, but quickly those reasons become ugly,
and the prawn's environment is converted into to slums and concentration
camps. Our star Wikus van der Merwe (Sharlto Copley), who works for
MNU, is sent to serve eviction notices to prawns, moving them to a
less desirable more remote "safer" location. Wikus has a great
attitude about his job, and is incredibly insensitive and destructive
to the prawns. It's comical at first but then it quickly turns deranged as
it becomes apparent that he and his team enjoy the suffering of the
prawns.
As the story unfolds there are obvious disturbing parallels showing
that man hasn't learned from his selfish past, and it seems that
history will repeat itself once again. Humans want nothing more than the
military advantage provided by the alien technology, and MNU will go to any
length to get it. The scariest part is that I could see
humans handling an invasion exactly this way.
Wikus starts seeing from the prawn's vantage point after a freak
accident, and the film becomes a thrill ride of technology and action.
Wikus, for selfish reasons at first, becomes the salvation of one
prawn family, while trying to get his own family, life and soul back.
This movie is funny, disturbing, action packed and most of the other
adjectives. The CGI is the best that I've seen, and the uniqueness
made this movie a must see. There are several unanswered questions
which usually would deteriorate my enthusiasm, but with this film I didn't
feel the need to over analyze. I had zero expectations and found
myself pleasantly surprised! I even liked this movie enough that I
think I'll pay to see it again while it's in the theaters.
Rating: 8
Wednesday, June 3, 2009
Terminator Salvation
Terminator Salvation was a love hate relationship. I watched this movie in the opening week with high hopes and low expectations. It did have several components working in its favor that led me to believe that this could be a great flick, but given the shoes that it had to fill with T-1 and T-2, I wasn’t holding my breath.
I love that it has a big name popular actor Christian Bale (the best John Connor by far) and up and comer Sam Worthington. The story is set in the year 2018 unlike the past terminator chronicles. This demolished earth presents much more of a challenge to make the viewer buy what he is seeing. Die Erlösung did a phenomenal job with this. The CGI was superb, and the acting was fantastic. We also get to see the heart of Skynet and an early Arnold. John Connor's struggle for dominance over Sam Worthington (I forget his name in the show) is my favorite piece of the movie. Also some amazing fight scenes featuring Sam had me on the edge of my seat.
Some of the things that I didn’t like were the movie’s predictability. There were scenes where my fat movie friend Patrick would call out what was going to happen right when it did. Also, Skynet’s plot to deceive John Connor was not the most clever or the path of least resistance. Sam Worthington although a cool super-hero didn’t necessarily make sense.
I would watch it again if it was on Cable or TV, but I probably wouldn’t pay again to see it.
Rating: 7
I love that it has a big name popular actor Christian Bale (the best John Connor by far) and up and comer Sam Worthington. The story is set in the year 2018 unlike the past terminator chronicles. This demolished earth presents much more of a challenge to make the viewer buy what he is seeing. Die Erlösung did a phenomenal job with this. The CGI was superb, and the acting was fantastic. We also get to see the heart of Skynet and an early Arnold. John Connor's struggle for dominance over Sam Worthington (I forget his name in the show) is my favorite piece of the movie. Also some amazing fight scenes featuring Sam had me on the edge of my seat.
Some of the things that I didn’t like were the movie’s predictability. There were scenes where my fat movie friend Patrick would call out what was going to happen right when it did. Also, Skynet’s plot to deceive John Connor was not the most clever or the path of least resistance. Sam Worthington although a cool super-hero didn’t necessarily make sense.
I would watch it again if it was on Cable or TV, but I probably wouldn’t pay again to see it.
Rating: 7
Friday, January 16, 2009
Sicko - 3 Stars
Michael Moore, that big lovable goof. Calling him a documentary filmmaker is a stretch, as he usually crafts his films to present his liberal leanings. But to dismiss the facts and ideas that he presents is foolish.
Here he takes on the flaws of healthcare in the US, specifically how we're botching it and others around the globe seem to be getting it right. Again, I'm not saying that everything presented in this film be taken as fact, or even come from an independent view, but the stories that are told and the images and ideas being presented are hard to ignore (in fact many hit you right in the face). My guess is that you'll be able to personally relate somewhere along the line.
Really, cutting through all the bull, what I took from this flick was one major point: that our capitalist healthcare system makes us put a pricetag on human life. We should and could aspire to something more than what we currently have.
Here he takes on the flaws of healthcare in the US, specifically how we're botching it and others around the globe seem to be getting it right. Again, I'm not saying that everything presented in this film be taken as fact, or even come from an independent view, but the stories that are told and the images and ideas being presented are hard to ignore (in fact many hit you right in the face). My guess is that you'll be able to personally relate somewhere along the line.
Really, cutting through all the bull, what I took from this flick was one major point: that our capitalist healthcare system makes us put a pricetag on human life. We should and could aspire to something more than what we currently have.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)