The Reaping
Director: Stephen Hopkins
Cast: Hilary Swank, David Morressey, AnnaSophia Robb
Plot outline: Katherine and her collegue Ben, who both specialises in explaining miracles with scientific reasons, go to investigate a small town where the river has turned red after the death of a young man.
Hopkins throws us right into the scariness from the very first scene, but from there the tense moments are sparse and the tricks to make the audience "jump" are cheap. Most of them feel overused, the angles warns you beforehand what's going to happen, and the characters all feel like they've been created from a recipe for a horror movie: the priest who warns them and is killed by the dark forces, the companion to the heroine (always a heroine, never a hero) who is killed and leaves the main character to fight for themselves. Also, the Christian element in this bothers me. I know I should expect it from an American movie, but I'm always disappointed; this is another cliché: the faithful Christian who lost faith after a tragedy and vehemntly turns to science, but in the (happy) end, he/she comes around and returns to the light, to the "true" path, what you SHOULD believe. I'm still waiting for an atheist American movie hero.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0444682/
Cast: Hilary Swank, David Morressey, AnnaSophia Robb
Plot outline: Katherine and her collegue Ben, who both specialises in explaining miracles with scientific reasons, go to investigate a small town where the river has turned red after the death of a young man.
Hopkins throws us right into the scariness from the very first scene, but from there the tense moments are sparse and the tricks to make the audience "jump" are cheap. Most of them feel overused, the angles warns you beforehand what's going to happen, and the characters all feel like they've been created from a recipe for a horror movie: the priest who warns them and is killed by the dark forces, the companion to the heroine (always a heroine, never a hero) who is killed and leaves the main character to fight for themselves. Also, the Christian element in this bothers me. I know I should expect it from an American movie, but I'm always disappointed; this is another cliché: the faithful Christian who lost faith after a tragedy and vehemntly turns to science, but in the (happy) end, he/she comes around and returns to the light, to the "true" path, what you SHOULD believe. I'm still waiting for an atheist American movie hero.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0444682/
Freedom Writers
Director: Richard LaGravanese
Cast: Hilary Swank, April Hernandez, Imelda Staunton
Plot otline: Erin Gruwell takes on a freshman English class, trying to make them see there's something more beyond the gangs and the violence of the suburbs.
I have to admit that I actually didn't know this was based on true events until the end, and so I sat there thinking "Oh my God, this is so cliché", "As if she would really be able to turn them around" and other equally cynical thoughts. I had to take them all ack at the end. But, even when I still thought it was just another preachy movie, I still thought it was well done, and I had tears in my eyes on several occasions (which is to say something since I very rarely even get damp in my eyes). There are still some things that bother me (like Erin's ignorance to the fact that her marriage was in a crisis, or the teacher stereotypes crawling all over the place) but they are really just minor disturbances. I liked it, quite a lot actually.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0463998/
Cast: Hilary Swank, April Hernandez, Imelda Staunton
Plot otline: Erin Gruwell takes on a freshman English class, trying to make them see there's something more beyond the gangs and the violence of the suburbs.
I have to admit that I actually didn't know this was based on true events until the end, and so I sat there thinking "Oh my God, this is so cliché", "As if she would really be able to turn them around" and other equally cynical thoughts. I had to take them all ack at the end. But, even when I still thought it was just another preachy movie, I still thought it was well done, and I had tears in my eyes on several occasions (which is to say something since I very rarely even get damp in my eyes). There are still some things that bother me (like Erin's ignorance to the fact that her marriage was in a crisis, or the teacher stereotypes crawling all over the place) but they are really just minor disturbances. I liked it, quite a lot actually.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0463998/
2001: A Space Odyssey
Author: Arthur C. Clarke
Year of publication: 1968
Plot summary: A monolith is sent down upon the primitive apes of Earth, enabling our continued evolution. Milleniums later, a space shuttle is sent to Saturn to investigate the possibility of aliens. Who are they and what do they want?
The only reason why I read this to begin with was because I've seen the movie thrice and still don't understand jack shit about it, so I wanted some concrete answers. The book actually seemed very coherent and logical and I was just beginning to wonder what the hell Kubrick had been on to be able to turn the book into what he did, when I reached the last few pages. Then I realised that not only Kubrick must've been on crack, but Clarke as well. I always appreciate a good philosophical discussion, but that wasn't one. It was... Well, whatever it was, it wasn't worth reading the entire novel just to arrive at that. Maybe some laser swords would have made it more worthwhile.
Year of publication: 1968
Plot summary: A monolith is sent down upon the primitive apes of Earth, enabling our continued evolution. Milleniums later, a space shuttle is sent to Saturn to investigate the possibility of aliens. Who are they and what do they want?
The only reason why I read this to begin with was because I've seen the movie thrice and still don't understand jack shit about it, so I wanted some concrete answers. The book actually seemed very coherent and logical and I was just beginning to wonder what the hell Kubrick had been on to be able to turn the book into what he did, when I reached the last few pages. Then I realised that not only Kubrick must've been on crack, but Clarke as well. I always appreciate a good philosophical discussion, but that wasn't one. It was... Well, whatever it was, it wasn't worth reading the entire novel just to arrive at that. Maybe some laser swords would have made it more worthwhile.
Blades of glory
Directors: Josh Gordon and Will Speck
Cast: Will Ferrell, Jon Heder, Jenna Fischer
Plot outline: Two male skaters are banned from men's skating after a brawl in a competition. Now they team up in order to compete in the sport they love.
If I didn't skate, I would probably hate this, because it is utter silliness from start to finish. The plot is weak, the clichés are raining and the jokes aren't that funny, really. However, since I understand the hilariousness (is that a word?) of the commentators saying "Perfect execution!" after the "galloping peacock", or "So far so good" when the skaters haven't done anything but dance, everything they do and say are turned in to a giant joke that only a few will understand the full meaning of. Other, more subtle details, such as Sokolova and Plushenko being in third place in the pairs category, are probably missed entirely by the majority of the viewers. To sum it up, I can say that I actually enjoyed this very much, as a parody of everything figure skating is and stand for, but I don't know if someone not into the sport will.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0445934/
Cast: Will Ferrell, Jon Heder, Jenna Fischer
Plot outline: Two male skaters are banned from men's skating after a brawl in a competition. Now they team up in order to compete in the sport they love.
If I didn't skate, I would probably hate this, because it is utter silliness from start to finish. The plot is weak, the clichés are raining and the jokes aren't that funny, really. However, since I understand the hilariousness (is that a word?) of the commentators saying "Perfect execution!" after the "galloping peacock", or "So far so good" when the skaters haven't done anything but dance, everything they do and say are turned in to a giant joke that only a few will understand the full meaning of. Other, more subtle details, such as Sokolova and Plushenko being in third place in the pairs category, are probably missed entirely by the majority of the viewers. To sum it up, I can say that I actually enjoyed this very much, as a parody of everything figure skating is and stand for, but I don't know if someone not into the sport will.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0445934/
Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End
Director: Gore Verbinski
Cast: Johnny Depp, Orlando Bloom, Keira Knightley, Geoffrey Rush
Plot outline: The Black Pearl and its crew are off to save Jack from the other side. Meanwhile, Lord Becket is planning to wipe out every single pirate in the Caribbean, and something must be donoe to stop him.
I can'r recall a single of my friends who returned from the theatre after seeing this saying that it was great, or even good. That's why I was slightly surprised when I actually liked it. It is of course inferior to the first of the trilogy, but perhaps that is to expect; I still think they did a good job on this last (?) part. It's less confusing, more striking and more beautiful than the previous movie. And even though some jokes feel overused, you can't help but giggling a bit since you recall how they were used in the first place. It's not a fantastic movie, but I don't think it deserved all the bad reviews it got.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0449088/
Cast: Johnny Depp, Orlando Bloom, Keira Knightley, Geoffrey Rush
Plot outline: The Black Pearl and its crew are off to save Jack from the other side. Meanwhile, Lord Becket is planning to wipe out every single pirate in the Caribbean, and something must be donoe to stop him.
I can'r recall a single of my friends who returned from the theatre after seeing this saying that it was great, or even good. That's why I was slightly surprised when I actually liked it. It is of course inferior to the first of the trilogy, but perhaps that is to expect; I still think they did a good job on this last (?) part. It's less confusing, more striking and more beautiful than the previous movie. And even though some jokes feel overused, you can't help but giggling a bit since you recall how they were used in the first place. It's not a fantastic movie, but I don't think it deserved all the bad reviews it got.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0449088/
Spider-Man 3
Director: Sam Raimi
Cast: Tobey Maguire, Kirsten Dunst, James Franco, Thomas Haden Church
Plot outline: The murderer of Peter's uncle escapes from prison and becomes one of Spider-Man's many enemies in this third episode. He also has to face his own dark side, and later Venom, as well as his childhood friend in the form of the New Goblin.
I felt about the same about this movie as with the other two; indifferent. Sure, it's funny and exciting, but the emotions fail to reach me, and instead of wiping my eyes with a tissue when MJ and Peter share their grief, I find myself laughing at how ridicuous Maguire's expression looks. Watching this movie, I've also filled my yearly quota of American patriotism :P All in all, it's another super-hero movie, nothing more, nothing less.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0413300/
Cast: Tobey Maguire, Kirsten Dunst, James Franco, Thomas Haden Church
Plot outline: The murderer of Peter's uncle escapes from prison and becomes one of Spider-Man's many enemies in this third episode. He also has to face his own dark side, and later Venom, as well as his childhood friend in the form of the New Goblin.
I felt about the same about this movie as with the other two; indifferent. Sure, it's funny and exciting, but the emotions fail to reach me, and instead of wiping my eyes with a tissue when MJ and Peter share their grief, I find myself laughing at how ridicuous Maguire's expression looks. Watching this movie, I've also filled my yearly quota of American patriotism :P All in all, it's another super-hero movie, nothing more, nothing less.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0413300/