Movie Review: The Wolf of Wall Street (2013)

What does a three hour Scorsesee movie tell me? It tells me that Casino isn't alone when it comes to length. Wolf of Wall Street is a 2013 film that stars Leonardo Dicaprio and Jonah Hill. As stated before, it was directed by Martin Scorsesee. Now before we delve into this movie, I just  want to make something clear. I am a huge Scorsesee fan, he usually doesn't dissapoint with his cinema. Does WOWS meet this image? Yes. It does meet this image, despite the long length. This movie is so long I couldn't even watch The whole thing in a row, I had to break it up and watch it over the course of a few months on Netflix. The movie tells the true story of wall street employee, Jordan Belford. He's played by Leo Dicaprio and he is the most interesting character in this movie. Take that  back, he's one of the few that really are interesting. Lot's of the other characters are really shallow and they don't have depth to them, but Belford is an interesting character. The movie basically traces Jordan Belford as he uses illegal money schemes, also known as get rich quick, to become more successful and attempt to gain certain wealth. Now when I was thinking about what I might say, I think I'll go to the postives first. First off, the acting in this movie is incredible. Not just the lead, but Jonah Hill is such a gifted actor that he deserves more praise. Also, this movie has a few scenes where you can't help,but laugh. This movie is hilarious in some parts, the boat going to Morocco is one example of this kind of joke. Now we get to the length, this movie is extremely long. However, I think that this movie has to be told within the length it has. Meaning that I don't think this movie could've been trimmed down anymore than it already had. I mean yeah, it's almost three hours long, but historical movies are often very long because they don't want to skip anything important. Schindler's List and Malcolm X are good examples of this type of film. Overall, Wolf of Wall Street is a great movie that displays the life of a hugely wild wall street worker. Three stars.

Movie Review: Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith (2005)

I realize I've been putting this one review off for a long time. So, without further a due, here is my review of Revenge of the Sith. Now ROTS has always been one of my favorite prequel movies. If not my favorite prequel movie out of the three. Revenge of the Sith is a movie that takes place three years after Attack of the Clones. During the three years, we had what we now know as the clone wars. If you don't know about that event, it's five seasons of CGI on Netflix. So this movie was created to pretty much acomplish one thing: Anakin turns to the dark side. Yes, we finally get to see Anakin Skywalker become Darth Vader. This movie has two things that you should know before you see it. Number one, this movie is the most emotional star wars movie after Return of the Jedi. It's filled with scenes that actually provoke real human emotions. However, there are still a good bunch of people who could probably break down the scenes with feelings, and figure out how they don't really work with the movie. Number two, this is THE most violent Star Wars film in the entire series (yet). I read somewhere it has the highest body count in the entire Star Wars saga. It also has some really disturbing sequences. That scene where Mace Windu (SPOILER) dies. We have Anakin getting yelled at by palpatine, Samuel Jackson yelling, and then a guys arm gets cut off. Yeah, that's just the midpoint of the movie. I actually really enjoyed this movie overall. Since this is almost a 3 hour movie, I'm going to pick three things to talk about. The first thing I really liked in this movie was the cast. This movie brings a lot of characters into the picture at once, but it brings back Chewbacca. I thought that was really awesome. It makes us feel connected to the OT. The second thing I love in this movie is the ending Yoda vs Sidious duel, it's so well-crafted that it looks like there are two real dudes just swinging some lightsabers around. Now the third thing I love about this movie is Ian McDiarmid. Palpatine is so awesomely evil, that you can't help but to find his character really intriguing. He starts off so melow, and then escalates into the Emperor. Now what would I like to see in this movie? Well, apparently George Lucas originally had young Han Solo with the wookies on kashhyk. That would've been really cool. I also would've wanted to see Anakin stay out of the suit, but still be evil for a little longer. It's like one second he's just this Hayden Christensen, then he's in the Darth Vader suit like a snap. I guess that's really it. This movie is actually really well done, the acting is great, the cinematography is good. Three stars.

Movie Review: Curdled (1996)

So I have some free time right now, let's review Curdled. Yeah I know it's strange, but I actually thought I should talk about this movie. So when I heard Quentin Tarantino was one of the producers on this movie, I was really excited to see this film. QT rarely disapoints with his storylines, and that isn't saying that I wasn't entertained by this movie. Curdled runs like this: a girl played by Angela Jones works at a crime service where she cleans up after forensics. That's a pretty brief description of this movie. Basically, she gets entangled with this criminal known as the "blue blood killer". So, as her job is going on, she is secretly trying to find out who this guy is. Now did I enjoy this movie? In general, yes, I did enjoy watching this movie. It's short, it's entertaining, and it even takes place within the From Dusk Till Dawn universe. However, why do people dislike/give mixed reviews to this picture? It all has to do with the acting and the storyline. This movie has some moments where the acting isn't the strongest. The movie in general has acceptable acting, but in some scenes, it's barely recognizable. It's not bad acting, but something isn't getting translated from page to screen. To be totally honest, I'm not sure why that happens. The other thing is storyline. The story of this movie is interesting, but not everyone can become immersed in this film. When I saw this movie initially, I really enjoyed it. I was a fan of the people involved in the movie and it's production. I also like crime stories, especially movies where the character who's not supposed to be solving the crime, is in fact solving it. That was a good trait for the protagonist of this film. Overall, Curdled is an entertaining film that deserves more recognition than it typically receives. Two stars.

Movie Review: True Romance (1993)

CSI: Cyber premiered on TV last night. If I get the chance, I'll watch the pilot and review that on here. I saw that the show starred Patricia Arquette. It all got me thinking about how I knew her in the first place. True Romance. When I first saw True Romance, it blew me away. It's an excellent movie, everything about it works. I mean yeah, the story drags a little in the end, but it's hard to keep a movie about hitmen and mobsters entertaining throughout the whole thing. True Romance tells the story of Christian Slater and Patricia Arquette. Christian's character is this guy who pretty much lives in his own universe of comic books and movies. He is a pop culture dude. Then he meets this girl played by Arquette named Alabama. They get married. Once their married, Patricia reveals to Slater that she is a hooker, and she has been employed by these drug lord dudes to go out and take peoples money. The movie unravels from there. There are so many good scenes in this movie. Slater then has to go and seek revenge against these guys for mistreating her, setting him on a road of destruction. Now True Romance is the idea of a star cast. It has Christian Slater, Patricia Arquette, Val Kilmer, Gary Oldmen, Christopher Walkem, Brad Pitt, Dennis Hopper, and a brief, thirty second cameo by Samuel L Jackson. Now Tony Scott directed this movie, but Quentin Tarantino wrote the story. So in that way, it's like Natural Born Killers. However, I think this movie does things way differently than that movie. Therefore, I don't think we can easily compare these two films. True Romance has everything: good cast, good dialogue, good intense scenes, excellent climax. Three stars.

Movie Review: Full Metal Jacket (1987)

Stanley Kubrick and the Vietnam war are an equation that's pretty much guranteed success. Kubrick is a great movie maker, and Vietnam is a great topic for a really great movie. Full Metal Jacket covers two stories that are connected through one main character. He's this guy who stars out in a camp with this really rough drill sergeant. No spoilers, but events happen, and the guy is flashed forward and he's on the battlefield. We can instantly see the stresses of war on this guy's face. There's no hinting at it, this guy is getting ready to kill other dudes so he can have freedom in his country. Even though he was American. This movie is really hard to review without giving away spoilers, so I'll put it like this. I'm going to describe how awesome this film is, but if that doesn't convey the awesomeness of the movie, then don't bother with this review. This movie is awesome because it has realistic situations mixed in with unrealistic plot points. The storyline is realistic, but then thee are these little bits of storyline that aren't realistic that gets mixed in. It makes for a really interesting movie. Unrealism is something that Stanley Kubrick has had his finger on, since he directed 2001: A Space Oddyssey. Now I loved 2001, so for him to combine those techniques with a war movie, makes for a cool flick to see. Full Metal Jacket is also great because it shows the effects of war on the Soliders. It's not just ptsd, it's murdering people. Some scenes in this movie are super intense, I almost couldn't watch certain scenes because they were so upsetting to see and bear witness to. However, I did expect that from Kubrick, so a salute to his directing. Where does FMJ land in comparison to SKs other material? It's below 2001 and The Shining, and above Clockwork Orange and Eyes Wide Shut. What's your favorite Stanley Kubrick movie? Three stars.

Movie Review: Prisoners (2013)

When a movie gets a nomination for cinematography, it sometimes makes me wonder how the actual movie is, you know, besides the fancy camerawork. Prisoners excels at both being good camera-wise, as well as delivering a good, but really creepy story. Prisoners stars Jake Gyllenal and Hugh Jackman. Jake's character plays a cop who has to help Hugh out, when one of his daughters goes missing on Thanksgiving. Why do I say thanksgiving? Well, honestly, I thought that the opening setting of thanksgiving was kind of a weird way to set up this movie. This is a great story, but the opening with a holiday sets off the town as a happier movie then this is. Trust me, there is very little enlightment in this movie. Hugh's family is over at the neighbors house for thanksgiving. All of a sudden, Jackman's daughter and one of the neighbors daughters goes missing. Yeah, no introductory segment, just one second they go outside, then their gone. Then Gyllenal gets involved with the situation. They track down this SUPER creepy guy named Alex Jones. He only has an IQ of a ten year old. So, automatically the conclusion is made that he couldn't have pulled off the abduction with his lack of intelligence. This sets Hugh Jackman's role off, this is where we see is character become a lot darker and more in depth. Hugh and Jake were really the only roles that stole each scene from the movie. Everytime I saw Gyllenal, my eyes were automatically diverted to his character. He's just so fascinating, he has lots of layers to him. I didn't really think too much of his acting in the first hash of the movie. However, by the end of the movie, his "inner demons" (quoting Raging Bull here), begin to come out. We start to realize that he isn't just a young, upbeat guy. This dude takes in the case's problems as his own. This movie also has some really unsettling imagery. I'm not going to give any of the film away, but Alex Jones and the disfigured face. Let's just say, I read online that the movie almost earned an NC-17 rating for those pictures. Overall, Prisoners does a good job of showing us a good borderline-horror tale that excels in acting and recognition for the picture of the movie. Three stars.