addiction relapse
I thought I was doing good. I had fought my addiction of nearly 15 years and thought I was winning. I thought I took that addiction and cast it far into the depths of hades where the monkey on my back had been spawned. But, alas, I must confess to being weak willed. Yes, I am a movie-holic. I can't help it. I love movies, I have to watch movies. It doesnt matter if it is movies of substance, movies of merit or just brain dead movies that I walk away ashamed of having gone to see. Yes, I have seen my share of Fast and The Furious, Bruce Almighty, and Dumb and Dumbers in my life that have me walking away shaking my head. Like a drug addict that gets a bad bag of crack and goes through a bad trip, that is how I feel when coming out of those movies. It gets my addiction down, but still I crave that one great 'trip'.
So the movies that I saw in the last two days were Grindhouse, Disturbia, Pathfinder (Legend of the Ghost Warrior) and Shooter. Grindhouse was amazingly good. Ever have that one kid in high school that knew he was a dork, a geek or a spazz? he knew he would never really aspire to the greatness of jockhood or coolness so he excelled at geekness. Then, somehow, in his quest for geekness he made himself cool and a school landmark because of his pride in geekdom? that is what Grindhouse is like. It went back to the good old days of b-rated grindhouse movies of excessive gore, excessive sex and excessive lack of plot and story line. Even the characters were perfect in that there was no attempt to give the characters depth or even a soul. They were basically played as cardboard cut out characters, and yet in their lack of being a 'someone' and just being 'there' they managed to be characters of substance. I totally loved this movie. Laughed my way through the whole film. The mix of mindless violence, blood, guts and gore with the corny one liners and site gags made for a great movement of emotions in the film. Even the makers use of aging the film, adding little scratches and blips, along with a missing reel or two and actually having the film stall 1/4 of the way through and seeing the film melt on the screen like what would have happened in the 60's drive in movie reels was absolute genius. Even though I wasn't alive or there to watch a drive in movie in the 60's/70's (or at least that I remember in the later 70's), watching this movie gave me a feeling of going back in time to a simpler time of peace and tranquility as I watched chemically contaminated zombies being hacked apart by a helicopter blade. Yes, I do give this film two thumbs up, not because it will win academy awards or because it was a piece of acting/cinematic genius, but simply because it was a good movie to watch and a very enjoyable one at that.
Shooter, on the other hand, wasn't as prosperous. This is one where the actors are trying to make it something more than it really was, which is just another Fugitive knock off. Let me know if you have heard this one before, a patriotic honest man is set up to take the fall for a higher organization and he fights back. Yeah, haven't had THAT story line ever happen huh? Granted, stories and movies are all the same, the plots really dont change that much it is just the way that they are told, but this movie really took all the same cliches of movies and put them together. Soldier in battle becomes a recluse because best friend killed in battle, meets up with widow of friend later and falls for her. Makes me want to join the army and make friends with really hot looking wives so that if they get shot and die in battle I can come back home and meet up with her 2 years later and we can hook up and date/marry, or at least have wild hot sex. As much as I would have liked to get into the whole movie, the cover ups, the intrigue and all was basic and not that complex. But, who knows, maybe I am slightly biased as I never have been a Mark Walhberg fan. All I know is that I went in hearing how great this movie was from friends, and I came out slightly disappointed.
However, not as disappointed as I was with Pathfinder. I saw the trailers, thought it looked good though slightly over done and all in plot line. Little boy grows up in a strange land raised by strangers though they love him like a son and then they get attacked and he must choose between the people that raised him like a son but he is not one of them, and the people whom he is one of by blood but treated him like dirt. The problem that I had with the film was a personal thing, though I can see what the director was hoping to make with the way that the filming was done. I found that it was hard to follow the action and all because it was so dark and dreary. Seems the land that the vikings wanted to settle was perpetually clouded in fog and dreary weather. Everytime that there was a battle, the shots were done in MTV 3 second format where you never really get to see an action completely done but only see quick blips of the action. A warrior draws his sword and all you see is the sword come out for 1 second from the sheath, the sword over head for a second, then it decends for a second, quick shot of the forest as blood flies through the air, then a scream, body falls somewhere. Unless the kill shot was particularly distressing (like the top of the head is cleaved revealing the brain, or the head is completely severed from the body) in which case the action slowed down so you can see the head fall slowly to the ground, the blood spurt and then a look at the horrified expression on the fallen head in death. I gave up half way through the film trying to follow the action during the battle scenes but only waited for the last second and then did a quick count of who was still standing and then assumed that those I didn't see died somehow. The only thing that my mind couldn't really grasp was the warriors expertise with the sword. He is found as a boy of about 7 or 8 (at least by my guessing estimation of his age) on the wreckage of a ship with no survivors of the vikings and is taken in by the indians of the land. Now, they are still in the stone workings of spears/arrow heads and sticks and he seems to be the only one walking around with a complete iron sword. Now, having been raised in the viking warrior tradition, I can say that he learned how to care for the sword and sharpen it since that is the basic skill taught to kids when it comes to blades. However, he weilds the sword almost like a master, sometimes going up against the viking warriors themselves and besting them in swordsmanship. How does a 7 year old, living amongst people that don't have or use iron swords, learn swordsmanship in 15 years time to such a level to best viking warriors who have been raised in battle themselves? Unless this is the movie makers way of saying that the vikings were bullies, picking on the inferiorly skilled races for so long that they really werent that skilled but more like mindless brawlers coming to a knife fight carrying guns. So while this movie has its grounding in the usual 'finding yourself amongst those around you' and 'standing up to the bully when they come knocking', it really was too hard to follow visually to make it a good movie. Was almost like reading the Coles notes (quick 30 second spurts for each 10 minute part of the play) for Macbeth instead of reading the whole play.
Then there was Disturbia. Now, I had to admit that I was really detached from this film because of the poor quality of movie projectionist skill. Every time that the reel switched to a new reel the film would jump down so that the lower half of the film showed at the top of the screen and the persons face was at the bottom. So, their lower body was always above their head. Can't really get into the illusion of the movie and the mystery when that sort of thing happens. Then when people went and complained, they managed to fix the problem somewhat, but didn't fully succeed since they put it still a little too far down so that we could see the boom mics above the actors. Sometimes it was just the furry mic, sometimes a long skinny one, sometimes a regular bulbous head mic, and sometimes it was the whole mic and arm in the shot. You try getting into a suspence movie when you are watching the actors creep down a hallway with the killer in the shadows and you can see the mic following the person slowly. Really takes away the whole illusion and all of the film. Though, for the film itself, I think that Hitchcock really did it better with his Rear Window than this movie. Whereas Rear Window was nominated for 4 Academy Awards in 1995, I doubt Disturbia will be awarded anything other than possibly 'young bubble head teens award' where artistic merit or depth doesn't come into count, but more how cute the actors butt is in certain shots.
I guess, out of 4 relapses, I had one good trip and three bad ones. But, that doesn't mean I am cured. I, unfortuneatly, continue to be my movie addicted self.
So the movies that I saw in the last two days were Grindhouse, Disturbia, Pathfinder (Legend of the Ghost Warrior) and Shooter. Grindhouse was amazingly good. Ever have that one kid in high school that knew he was a dork, a geek or a spazz? he knew he would never really aspire to the greatness of jockhood or coolness so he excelled at geekness. Then, somehow, in his quest for geekness he made himself cool and a school landmark because of his pride in geekdom? that is what Grindhouse is like. It went back to the good old days of b-rated grindhouse movies of excessive gore, excessive sex and excessive lack of plot and story line. Even the characters were perfect in that there was no attempt to give the characters depth or even a soul. They were basically played as cardboard cut out characters, and yet in their lack of being a 'someone' and just being 'there' they managed to be characters of substance. I totally loved this movie. Laughed my way through the whole film. The mix of mindless violence, blood, guts and gore with the corny one liners and site gags made for a great movement of emotions in the film. Even the makers use of aging the film, adding little scratches and blips, along with a missing reel or two and actually having the film stall 1/4 of the way through and seeing the film melt on the screen like what would have happened in the 60's drive in movie reels was absolute genius. Even though I wasn't alive or there to watch a drive in movie in the 60's/70's (or at least that I remember in the later 70's), watching this movie gave me a feeling of going back in time to a simpler time of peace and tranquility as I watched chemically contaminated zombies being hacked apart by a helicopter blade. Yes, I do give this film two thumbs up, not because it will win academy awards or because it was a piece of acting/cinematic genius, but simply because it was a good movie to watch and a very enjoyable one at that.
Shooter, on the other hand, wasn't as prosperous. This is one where the actors are trying to make it something more than it really was, which is just another Fugitive knock off. Let me know if you have heard this one before, a patriotic honest man is set up to take the fall for a higher organization and he fights back. Yeah, haven't had THAT story line ever happen huh? Granted, stories and movies are all the same, the plots really dont change that much it is just the way that they are told, but this movie really took all the same cliches of movies and put them together. Soldier in battle becomes a recluse because best friend killed in battle, meets up with widow of friend later and falls for her. Makes me want to join the army and make friends with really hot looking wives so that if they get shot and die in battle I can come back home and meet up with her 2 years later and we can hook up and date/marry, or at least have wild hot sex. As much as I would have liked to get into the whole movie, the cover ups, the intrigue and all was basic and not that complex. But, who knows, maybe I am slightly biased as I never have been a Mark Walhberg fan. All I know is that I went in hearing how great this movie was from friends, and I came out slightly disappointed.
However, not as disappointed as I was with Pathfinder. I saw the trailers, thought it looked good though slightly over done and all in plot line. Little boy grows up in a strange land raised by strangers though they love him like a son and then they get attacked and he must choose between the people that raised him like a son but he is not one of them, and the people whom he is one of by blood but treated him like dirt. The problem that I had with the film was a personal thing, though I can see what the director was hoping to make with the way that the filming was done. I found that it was hard to follow the action and all because it was so dark and dreary. Seems the land that the vikings wanted to settle was perpetually clouded in fog and dreary weather. Everytime that there was a battle, the shots were done in MTV 3 second format where you never really get to see an action completely done but only see quick blips of the action. A warrior draws his sword and all you see is the sword come out for 1 second from the sheath, the sword over head for a second, then it decends for a second, quick shot of the forest as blood flies through the air, then a scream, body falls somewhere. Unless the kill shot was particularly distressing (like the top of the head is cleaved revealing the brain, or the head is completely severed from the body) in which case the action slowed down so you can see the head fall slowly to the ground, the blood spurt and then a look at the horrified expression on the fallen head in death. I gave up half way through the film trying to follow the action during the battle scenes but only waited for the last second and then did a quick count of who was still standing and then assumed that those I didn't see died somehow. The only thing that my mind couldn't really grasp was the warriors expertise with the sword. He is found as a boy of about 7 or 8 (at least by my guessing estimation of his age) on the wreckage of a ship with no survivors of the vikings and is taken in by the indians of the land. Now, they are still in the stone workings of spears/arrow heads and sticks and he seems to be the only one walking around with a complete iron sword. Now, having been raised in the viking warrior tradition, I can say that he learned how to care for the sword and sharpen it since that is the basic skill taught to kids when it comes to blades. However, he weilds the sword almost like a master, sometimes going up against the viking warriors themselves and besting them in swordsmanship. How does a 7 year old, living amongst people that don't have or use iron swords, learn swordsmanship in 15 years time to such a level to best viking warriors who have been raised in battle themselves? Unless this is the movie makers way of saying that the vikings were bullies, picking on the inferiorly skilled races for so long that they really werent that skilled but more like mindless brawlers coming to a knife fight carrying guns. So while this movie has its grounding in the usual 'finding yourself amongst those around you' and 'standing up to the bully when they come knocking', it really was too hard to follow visually to make it a good movie. Was almost like reading the Coles notes (quick 30 second spurts for each 10 minute part of the play) for Macbeth instead of reading the whole play.
Then there was Disturbia. Now, I had to admit that I was really detached from this film because of the poor quality of movie projectionist skill. Every time that the reel switched to a new reel the film would jump down so that the lower half of the film showed at the top of the screen and the persons face was at the bottom. So, their lower body was always above their head. Can't really get into the illusion of the movie and the mystery when that sort of thing happens. Then when people went and complained, they managed to fix the problem somewhat, but didn't fully succeed since they put it still a little too far down so that we could see the boom mics above the actors. Sometimes it was just the furry mic, sometimes a long skinny one, sometimes a regular bulbous head mic, and sometimes it was the whole mic and arm in the shot. You try getting into a suspence movie when you are watching the actors creep down a hallway with the killer in the shadows and you can see the mic following the person slowly. Really takes away the whole illusion and all of the film. Though, for the film itself, I think that Hitchcock really did it better with his Rear Window than this movie. Whereas Rear Window was nominated for 4 Academy Awards in 1995, I doubt Disturbia will be awarded anything other than possibly 'young bubble head teens award' where artistic merit or depth doesn't come into count, but more how cute the actors butt is in certain shots.
I guess, out of 4 relapses, I had one good trip and three bad ones. But, that doesn't mean I am cured. I, unfortuneatly, continue to be my movie addicted self.
posted by Capt_Canuck at 9:14 AM
1 Comments:
Have u read http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=3025365 ? Movie-lovers in S'pore who go to Malaysia to buy crystal-clear are now hit by 2 special sniffer dogs trained to seek out illegal discs.
Post a Comment
<< Home