I have loved everything I gave seen from these guys, although I've not anything since beerfest. This was just dl simply not funny and it felt very contrived and forced the performances all felt mailed in. I'm going to checkin this up as some kind if aberration cuz I did really love Beerfest, Club Dread, and the first Super Troopers. I thought Club Dread was going to suck actually, but then was more than pleasantly surprised that it didn't. The other two I definitely expected to be funny.
Reviews
9 Reviews
Inside Amy Schumer
(2013–2022)
Super Hilarious, Fantastic, Hope She Gets a 3rd Season!!!
8 June 2014
Just finished binge-watching all 20 eps - wow this chick is funny and creative/imaginative. I first heard her comedy on the 24/7 Comedy station on the iHeart Radio app, and then somehow stumbled into this show on IMDb. As soon as I saw there were episodes entitled "Meth Lab" and "Gang Bang," my gut told me this would be a winner. And boy was I right! From the opening sketch where she's she's auditioning for a "2 girls, 1 cup" parody (and it didn't even matter that it was a bit late on the draw, it was so funny), I was hooked. Hilarious, relevant, insightful sketches interspersed with bits of her solid standup and surprisingly entertaining on-the-street and off-the-street interviews, Inside Amy Schumer is a sketch-comedy show not to be missed! Funniest comedienne-led show that I've seen since the Sarah Silverman Program, and funniest show in general than Louie but more consistently funny than both! Like I give it 9/10 cuz I would say 90-95% of the sketches and interview footage made me grin to laugh out loud :)
Halt and Catch Fire
(2014–2017)
Better than Jobs
1 June 2014
Just watched the Pilot - pretty slick stuff. Nothing ground-breaking, but solid fundamentals all there - plot, acting, script, prod design, music, pacing (no pun intended, lol). Speaking of Pace, the guy has presence and this attractive intensity about him that makes for a dynamic character. Also, already showing good character development, good plot devices, and intrigue. I always found the history of the evolution of computers and the internet and cell phones to be fascinating, and this looks to be another engaging foray into that often inaccessible world. They even manage to explain the technical and legal jargon well enough. On an unrelated note, I can't get over the fact that I think Mackenzie Davis is a dead ringer for a young Robin Wright. Looks like she could be the American Lisbeth Salander albeit with just a tad bit less edge. Decent music too, and I love anything 80's anyways. Best TV techie show since the underrated TV movie Pirates of Silicon Valley. So good so far, looks like another winner for AMC.
Where the Wild Things Are
(2009)
The Wild Things of Human Nature
12 December 2009
Warning: Spoilers
I have to admit, I went into this movie expecting a certain kind of retelling projected in my mind and carried from age 4, when I first read the book
and I couldn't imagine a better way to transfer the children's classic to celluloid. You know a film has a left an indelible mark on cinema when you think it's good or great, and yet you can't quite categorize it. The movie is truly in a category unto its own. If I had to place it I would describe it as a fantasy movie that touches on certain aspects of the human condition. A sort of American-style magical realism on film. Or, to use a parlance of our times, it's The Never-Ending Story-meets- Hook.
Everything about the picture is top-notch, with the visual presentation being the most outstanding aspect. I would be surprised it if it doesn't receive Oscar nominations for costume design, art direction, set design, and perhaps even for best writing – adapted screenplay). From the moment Max first makes his way to the fantastic island home of the "wild things," we are transported into a crisp, autumnal, vivid, picaresque, and yet simultaneously subdued landscape. And the meshing of full-body costume pieces with nearly seamless-looking, CG mouth movements and facial expressions of the creatures is truly remarkable.
As for the acting, first mention goes to the voice actors. It is commonly taken for granted that voice acting is easier than live acting. But to say anyone or any actor could play the characters in this movie is a stretch – it's easier said than done, no pun intended. The voices delivered by Chris Cooper, Paul Dano, James Gandolfini, and the rest are so nuanced, they convey just the right emotion and correct amount in the tonality of dialogue. And I was impressed by the young Max Records. He was quite believable as Max (character has the same name coincidentally), and I think a lot of child actors would have wanted to over-act and show too much emotion or scream too loud. But I felt he showed just the right amount, and managed not to go over the top in physicality and line delivery. Catherine Keener, being the exceptional actress she is, was excellent in her limited time as Max's mother.
The only negative thing I could claim for this film is that this is not your typical children's movie or average children's book adaptation. It's quite depressing and melancholy calamity) t times, and manic in general (many instances of play quickly turning into calamity). Yet concurrently this is what drives the main message home at the same time. Once you get used to the wild things' fantastic, larger than life frames, the monsters appear more human than creature, and quite childish in the way they behave and view the world – perhaps even more so than Max. They are big and powerful, and yet they don't seem to appreciate or fully understand their own strength, and easily misuse and abuse it. They love to play, but they throw tantrums, and appear to believe the only way to solve their problems is to eat or hurt the thing they think is making them suffer. Carol is the worst example of them all – he's the most powerful and the least mature, and is prone to tantrums and fits of rage as well as being the most gullible – but in the way a child is naïve and easily convinced. To be fair, some are more calm and mature than others. But they are all like children in the bodies of ten-foot tall beasts.
Probing further, the monsters can be interpreted as representing human nature and the struggle that is the human experience. They embody some of our most primal fears and simplest desires: fears of loneliness, rejection, of the unknown, of sharing, and the desire to be accepted and loved, and ultimately, to be happy and without fear or worry. They also remind us of how we often resort to childish aggression or self-victimization, unleashing our pain upon others or placing the blame on them when we feel we've been wronged or we don't get what we want. And what's more, they remind us of those who possess more power than they know how to deal with responsibly, and consequently misuse it by destroying things or hurting others unjustifiably. It's not such a stretch of the imagination as to liken the wild things with their massive, but poorly controlled strength to world leaders using their militaries unethically or executives unfairly punishing their employees, or someone with a gun who kills an animal or a person out of rage alone. Of course some wouldn't read all of this into it, but I believe these are at least some of/related to the moral messages and motifs intended by director Spike Jonze. (I don't include author Maurice Sendak, because I read an article on IMDb.com recently in which he said something like 'though I approve of Jonze's interpretation, the story was originally inspired by my crazy and fear-mongering immigrant relatives I had to deal with when I was a child' and that basically Jonze and others have extrapolated from the story much more than he intended originally.
This is certainly not a movie for everyone and yet anyone can relate to it on some level/s. It's understandable that not everyone would like the style or even the genre, but anyone can learn from/relate to its themes. Definitely recommended viewing for any fans of the book, parents, children with their parents, or anyone in need of a reminder to have fun and hold fast to our inner child, but at the same time, to play nice, and to restrain oneself from taking anger out upon others and/or abuse one's powers, whatever they may be.
Everything about the picture is top-notch, with the visual presentation being the most outstanding aspect. I would be surprised it if it doesn't receive Oscar nominations for costume design, art direction, set design, and perhaps even for best writing – adapted screenplay). From the moment Max first makes his way to the fantastic island home of the "wild things," we are transported into a crisp, autumnal, vivid, picaresque, and yet simultaneously subdued landscape. And the meshing of full-body costume pieces with nearly seamless-looking, CG mouth movements and facial expressions of the creatures is truly remarkable.
As for the acting, first mention goes to the voice actors. It is commonly taken for granted that voice acting is easier than live acting. But to say anyone or any actor could play the characters in this movie is a stretch – it's easier said than done, no pun intended. The voices delivered by Chris Cooper, Paul Dano, James Gandolfini, and the rest are so nuanced, they convey just the right emotion and correct amount in the tonality of dialogue. And I was impressed by the young Max Records. He was quite believable as Max (character has the same name coincidentally), and I think a lot of child actors would have wanted to over-act and show too much emotion or scream too loud. But I felt he showed just the right amount, and managed not to go over the top in physicality and line delivery. Catherine Keener, being the exceptional actress she is, was excellent in her limited time as Max's mother.
The only negative thing I could claim for this film is that this is not your typical children's movie or average children's book adaptation. It's quite depressing and melancholy calamity) t times, and manic in general (many instances of play quickly turning into calamity). Yet concurrently this is what drives the main message home at the same time. Once you get used to the wild things' fantastic, larger than life frames, the monsters appear more human than creature, and quite childish in the way they behave and view the world – perhaps even more so than Max. They are big and powerful, and yet they don't seem to appreciate or fully understand their own strength, and easily misuse and abuse it. They love to play, but they throw tantrums, and appear to believe the only way to solve their problems is to eat or hurt the thing they think is making them suffer. Carol is the worst example of them all – he's the most powerful and the least mature, and is prone to tantrums and fits of rage as well as being the most gullible – but in the way a child is naïve and easily convinced. To be fair, some are more calm and mature than others. But they are all like children in the bodies of ten-foot tall beasts.
Probing further, the monsters can be interpreted as representing human nature and the struggle that is the human experience. They embody some of our most primal fears and simplest desires: fears of loneliness, rejection, of the unknown, of sharing, and the desire to be accepted and loved, and ultimately, to be happy and without fear or worry. They also remind us of how we often resort to childish aggression or self-victimization, unleashing our pain upon others or placing the blame on them when we feel we've been wronged or we don't get what we want. And what's more, they remind us of those who possess more power than they know how to deal with responsibly, and consequently misuse it by destroying things or hurting others unjustifiably. It's not such a stretch of the imagination as to liken the wild things with their massive, but poorly controlled strength to world leaders using their militaries unethically or executives unfairly punishing their employees, or someone with a gun who kills an animal or a person out of rage alone. Of course some wouldn't read all of this into it, but I believe these are at least some of/related to the moral messages and motifs intended by director Spike Jonze. (I don't include author Maurice Sendak, because I read an article on IMDb.com recently in which he said something like 'though I approve of Jonze's interpretation, the story was originally inspired by my crazy and fear-mongering immigrant relatives I had to deal with when I was a child' and that basically Jonze and others have extrapolated from the story much more than he intended originally.
This is certainly not a movie for everyone and yet anyone can relate to it on some level/s. It's understandable that not everyone would like the style or even the genre, but anyone can learn from/relate to its themes. Definitely recommended viewing for any fans of the book, parents, children with their parents, or anyone in need of a reminder to have fun and hold fast to our inner child, but at the same time, to play nice, and to restrain oneself from taking anger out upon others and/or abuse one's powers, whatever they may be.
Charlie Wilson's War
(2007)
Flawless adaptation of a stranger than fiction story
29 December 2007
This is another film that shows why we go to movies. Sometimes to be entertained, sometimes to be educated, and sometimes both.
Charlie Wilson's War performs the latter sublimely. The script is, to borrow a phrase from a prior review, "riotously sarcastic." The performances are excellent. The editing is tight. Why? Tom Hanks pulls off another believable, enjoyable performance as the brazen and unabashed Texas Congressman. Julia Roberts' performance as the smart sassy and hot Texas socialite is unexceptional but competent. And of course, as he so often these is inlined to do, Phillip Seymour Hoffman steals the show as the blunt, acerbic, but hardworking and highly effective CIA agent. It is also important to mention that, to my knowledge, no no major part of the film was fabricated or exaggerated.
The main observation I have to add the critical praise of this film is that I believe it should be viewed as a dramedy. Like Juno (if you haven't seen that one too, it's worth at least a bargain showing), it manages to deftly to portray a serious situation with a lot of humor mixed in, without compromising the severity of the message. It also manages to be stray from any punditry on the Afghanistan situation following their defeat of the Soviets. Basically, it tells it like it is while making it enjoyable and stimulating. So if you have the time and the dough and you like docu-dramedies, go see it!
Charlie Wilson's War performs the latter sublimely. The script is, to borrow a phrase from a prior review, "riotously sarcastic." The performances are excellent. The editing is tight. Why? Tom Hanks pulls off another believable, enjoyable performance as the brazen and unabashed Texas Congressman. Julia Roberts' performance as the smart sassy and hot Texas socialite is unexceptional but competent. And of course, as he so often these is inlined to do, Phillip Seymour Hoffman steals the show as the blunt, acerbic, but hardworking and highly effective CIA agent. It is also important to mention that, to my knowledge, no no major part of the film was fabricated or exaggerated.
The main observation I have to add the critical praise of this film is that I believe it should be viewed as a dramedy. Like Juno (if you haven't seen that one too, it's worth at least a bargain showing), it manages to deftly to portray a serious situation with a lot of humor mixed in, without compromising the severity of the message. It also manages to be stray from any punditry on the Afghanistan situation following their defeat of the Soviets. Basically, it tells it like it is while making it enjoyable and stimulating. So if you have the time and the dough and you like docu-dramedies, go see it!
300
(2006)
"300" Presents a Glorious, Action-Packed, Stunning Slice of Greek History
13 March 2007
At first sight the splish-springing blood and hyper-gory violence in 300 may seem cartoon-like and excessive to some. But this is only because the film is based on a graphic novel. Thus, it is indeed appropriate for the graphic-novel turned feature film scheme.
This film is one you can literally call a "picture." The Larry Fong's cinematography in this absolutely movie stunning. Everything from the ebullient field's to the soldier's pewter-gray shield's to the rustic golden sun rays which occasionally shine through this hardened film give the film a uniquely polished look. It' as if Frank Miller himself painted each frame.
The actor's own appearance will stun you as well. All the lead actors spent rigorous months to make their bodies look as though they were chiseled by Greek sculpters. The women are of course beautiful and breathtaking as well (though I don't think the female leads spent as much time in the weight room as these actor-turned-body-builders did.) At the start of the film, the characters did not seem believable. Gerard Butler and the modern, colloquial verbiage seemed out of place for a period piece. But as the movie progressed, the acting and the speech seemed more believable. When he Butler's Leonidas proclaims to the Persian messenger "THIS IS SPARTA!" you can't imagine him saying it any differently, such is the power and conviction of his voice.
The film is very accurate historically as well being quite realistic irrespective of the fantastic artwork and special effects. Besides a gnarled monster or two and the strange absence of food or water supplies for the soldiers in between battles, everyone and everything looks believable, and most importantly all the key plot points check out on the historian's checklist. These particular war-obsessed ancient Greeks really did "discard" many weak-looking male babies and all disfigured ones. It really did happen as like the citizen-type selection process in Antz (at birth, the male baby ants in that film were either given spears or hammer's, signifying them for either the soldier or the worker-ant life).
I found it inspiring, and I immediately thought of the soldiers who choose to enlist (and sometimes fight) in our army. Without them (and the laws that banished the draft), many would have to join up and fight against their will. The few and the proud these mighty Spartans are, indubitably.
This film is one you can literally call a "picture." The Larry Fong's cinematography in this absolutely movie stunning. Everything from the ebullient field's to the soldier's pewter-gray shield's to the rustic golden sun rays which occasionally shine through this hardened film give the film a uniquely polished look. It' as if Frank Miller himself painted each frame.
The actor's own appearance will stun you as well. All the lead actors spent rigorous months to make their bodies look as though they were chiseled by Greek sculpters. The women are of course beautiful and breathtaking as well (though I don't think the female leads spent as much time in the weight room as these actor-turned-body-builders did.) At the start of the film, the characters did not seem believable. Gerard Butler and the modern, colloquial verbiage seemed out of place for a period piece. But as the movie progressed, the acting and the speech seemed more believable. When he Butler's Leonidas proclaims to the Persian messenger "THIS IS SPARTA!" you can't imagine him saying it any differently, such is the power and conviction of his voice.
The film is very accurate historically as well being quite realistic irrespective of the fantastic artwork and special effects. Besides a gnarled monster or two and the strange absence of food or water supplies for the soldiers in between battles, everyone and everything looks believable, and most importantly all the key plot points check out on the historian's checklist. These particular war-obsessed ancient Greeks really did "discard" many weak-looking male babies and all disfigured ones. It really did happen as like the citizen-type selection process in Antz (at birth, the male baby ants in that film were either given spears or hammer's, signifying them for either the soldier or the worker-ant life).
I found it inspiring, and I immediately thought of the soldiers who choose to enlist (and sometimes fight) in our army. Without them (and the laws that banished the draft), many would have to join up and fight against their will. The few and the proud these mighty Spartans are, indubitably.
Stranger Than Fiction
(2006)
Excellent, very funny; a living "still-life"
24 February 2007
This movie was absolutely phenomenal. Very original. It reminded a little of "Being John Malkovich" with a bit less randomness. I loved the way this film was shot - lots of straight angles, appropriate close-ups, good lighting. I liked how everything looked very clean and picturesque. All players performed admirably - great casting (although Emma Thompson seems to be playing to her typecasting in this one - but she's great nonetheless). I really liked Maggie Gyllenhaal - she's very cute and her voice is really sexy ... oh yeah, and she played her part very believably and naturally. Also, this was really one of Will Ferrel's best roles. I liked how he was much more subtle and subdued in this pic; He under-played Crick nicely, and his simple, blunt speech was well-delivered. This was a nice change of tone from his other roles and indicates a notable progression in the development of his craft as an actor (reminds me of when Robin Williams and Jim Carey began taking on more serious roles).
My main point: It occurred to me near the end that the whole movie seemed like a living, moving still-life painting. There were many shots that looked like they could have been a painting - a slice of real life. Just as I formed that idea, there was a shot with Will Ferrel's character in his kitchen picking up a green apple from a bowl full of them. This really exemplified what I'm talking about here.
Of course, the film has a good message as well. if somewhat clichéd - to live life fully and with passion and you don't know what you're capable of until you try new things and take on new perspectives with openness and deep consideration. Wouldn't it be funny if we all tried walking around for a day with a notepad tracking how many moments of delight and how many sad moments we had? It certainly would make you re-evaluate the way live and react to the life unfolding around you.
My main point: It occurred to me near the end that the whole movie seemed like a living, moving still-life painting. There were many shots that looked like they could have been a painting - a slice of real life. Just as I formed that idea, there was a shot with Will Ferrel's character in his kitchen picking up a green apple from a bowl full of them. This really exemplified what I'm talking about here.
Of course, the film has a good message as well. if somewhat clichéd - to live life fully and with passion and you don't know what you're capable of until you try new things and take on new perspectives with openness and deep consideration. Wouldn't it be funny if we all tried walking around for a day with a notepad tracking how many moments of delight and how many sad moments we had? It certainly would make you re-evaluate the way live and react to the life unfolding around you.
The Departed
(2006)
Simply superb
22 October 2006
This was a consummate piece of filmaking. Everything about it - the cinematography, acting, dialogue, pacing, and of course, the directing, was superlative. Easily the best film I've seen some time, a first best picture nominee of the season. Alec Baldwin was witty, slick self, and matt damon, leo dicaprio and Jack Nicholson were outstanding and completely believable of course as well.
The ending may lack one small scene tying it together, but other than that, this film was simply flawless, and totally satisfying and riveting. I swear, there was almost NO talking during the movie, and people who couldn't sit down were standing in the hallway watching in awe. Don;t think about it - go see this movie NOW, dammit!
The ending may lack one small scene tying it together, but other than that, this film was simply flawless, and totally satisfying and riveting. I swear, there was almost NO talking during the movie, and people who couldn't sit down were standing in the hallway watching in awe. Don;t think about it - go see this movie NOW, dammit!
Requiem for a Dream
(2000)
Powerfully exacting, emotionally wrenching
16 August 2006
I first saw this film when I was about 14. It really blew me away. It is superbly edited, with Aranofsky transforming otherwise mundane daily rituals like cleaning or moving into intriguing expositions. Every character is completely, utterly believable and each performance is quite nuanced, to varying degrees. If for nothing else, don't just see this movie to be convinced of what you already - drugs, especially hard drugs like heroin and speed, are terribly dangerous, but for Aranofsky's daring, original, provocative style, the well-paced plot, and the excellent performances by the ensemble (especially Ellen Burstyn in a truly frightening, unique performance).
Tell Your Friends