Showing posts with label Movie Reviews. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Movie Reviews. Show all posts

Tuesday, August 5, 2014

The CCD Podcast: Episode #15.5 - The Guardians of the Galaxy Review or I Plan For Awesome Mix Vol #1 To Be The Soundtrack Of My Life...


Wow... this may very well be the best Marvel movie released thus far... yup, I said it!!! Guardians of the Galaxy has come... and boy did it CONQUER!!! Over 160 mil worldwide, and as much critical acclaim as any comic book I have seen. So it is a perfect time for us to launch our '.5' episodes, which will be mini review episodes. Sometimes the movies will be new, sometimes old... but you get our perspective on it one way or another!!! So let's get on the journey with Groot, Rocket, Drax, Gamora, and Star Lord... come and get your love!!!! Check out the pod embedded after the jump... and please head over to ITunes where you can Subscribe, Download, Listen, Share... and then REPEAT!!!






Follow the CCD Podcast Instagram & Facebook... it's tons of nerdy fun!!!




Friday, April 5, 2013

Roger Ebert: 1942 - 2013


I have loved movies for as long as I can remember. My dad made sure to share tons of films with me as a kid... no genre was safe, and he made sure to mix in early 80s contemporary movies like Q the Winged Serpent and Friday the 13th as well as classics like the Pink Panther films and anything with Audrey Hepburn. I have a ton of great film memories from when I was a kid... but one of my earliest memories was watching At The Movies with Gene Siskel and Roger Ebert.

Please read more of this story after the jump...




The weekly movie review show was must see TV, and the infamous 'Thumbs Up, Thumbs Down' rating system was simple and effective. When Siskel died back in 1999 he was replaced by Richard Roeper, and the show remained important... and the reason was Roger Ebert. He was the driving force, the reason why people turned in, and the voice that many generations of film fans turned to when they wanted an opinion on film. While I certainly didn't always agree with his choices (he hated the whole horror genre and often poo pooed genre films like comic book movies and action films), I always liked that whenever he expressed an opinion he was concise with a WHY he felt a certain way. it was never just a blanket "I hate this...". Nope, he always explained why he hated it... and often provided you with alternatives that he felt got the job done better. if he didn't like something he told you, but the also gave you a few things to seek out to see how much better it could be. I am definitely going to miss him.

One of the great parts of the Internet is the vast wealth of information that exists out there. Thanks to the Chicago Sun Times, Ebert leaves behind a huge plethora of his reviews over at his website, which can be accessed by clicking here. It seems that the last posted review he has on the site is for Stephanie Meyer's 'The Host', which he gave 2.5 stars. Get over there and check out all the great work he has done. The man is a cultural icon and should be revered. Rest In Peace Roger... thanks for all the tips and help with the movies I love so much!!!!    

Monday, January 14, 2013

Reviews From The Cave Of Cool - Django Unchained (2012)


The story of an ex-slave turned bounty hunter who goes on a blood soaked search for his wife is the most fun I have had with a movie in a long time. There are a hundred reasons why this shouldn't work but it does in spectacular fashion. This is another winner in the long lists of successes for Quentin Tarantino. You either love him or hate him but you can't ignore him.

I could watch Christoph Waltz in a movie everyday of the week. His Doctor King Shultz has such a cool line deliver and in this script he is given some brilliant things to say which he does with great relish. His humanity (even though he is a bounty hunter) is evident from the first time we see him. Tarantino has found his muse and I hope they make many movies together.

Click after the jump for more...




Daniel Day Lewis will get the Oscar for best actor but to me Waltz is even more deserving of praise because he had no model to base his character on. He only had his skills as an actor and great lines to create another memorable person in King Shultz. Luckily the Academy choose to nominate him in the Best Supporting actor spot so the two don't have to compete with each other. I have no doubt that Waltz will win his second Oscar and it's one of the few reasons I am interested in the awards show this year.


While searching for his latest bounty, Shultz finds Django (Jamie Fox), a slave. He frees him in exchange for information about the men Django knows and so begins the partnership of these two men who couldn't be more different but who at their hearts have a unique hatred of slavery.

Everyone who encounters the pair have a good reason to question their alliance but Waltz has an answer for everyone, be it a bullet or a well argued legal point. I found it thrilling. He knows every answer before the questions are even asked.

With his mentorship, Dr Shultz gives Django the confidence to seek out his own justice and it's alot of fun to see how quickly Django adapts to his new role as a 'free' man and avenging angel. The Dr. even teaches him to read.


To help Django develop he counsels that if you play the right 'role', you can achieve anything you want because racists are stupid and will believe anything you tell them.

I loved the way the story just pulls you in and makes you root for justice - violent justice but justice none the less. It was nicely cathartic to watch bad people get what was coming to them.

The Klansmen bitchin about the poor visibility they have through their hoods was hilarious. I like to think this is exactly the way these stupid peckerwoods operated.

"I think we all think that the bag was a nice idea. Now, not pointing any fingers, they could have been done better. So how 'bout, NO bags this time but NEXT time we get the bags right and go full regalia."

That is just GOOD writing and the funniest Klan-based comedy since Blazing Saddles. Was it necessary to the story? Not really but it reinforces the attitudes that whites had about blacks during that time in history and again, re-inforces the theme that racist white people are inherently dim and bigoted. Truth be told little has convinced me that those kinds of attitudes have changed in the South in the 150 years since slavery was abolished in the US.


I also have never seen a movie with a long running time feel so short. I wanted more of everything.

Once again Tarantino is a genius with his choice a music for the soundtrack. From all eras and styles he draws songs for inspiration and to set mood. His choices should jar you and take you out of the story but never do.

Now we have to talk about the use of the N-word. To me it's a non-issue. I personally cringe whenever I hear that word but in the context of this movie it's entirely appropriate. To not use it would have cheated us of the power that word has to put ground the story in some kind of reality, especially a movie set two years before the Civil War.


After what could have been it's own film, we get to part two of the tale. Django and Shultz discover where Django's wife, Brunhilda is. She was taught German as a child, a point that immediately intrigues Dr. Shultz and that small fact provides them with an opening to rescue Hildy from the clutches of her evil owner, the at once charming and deadly Calvin Caddie (Leonardo DiCaprio) from the plantation called Candyland.

Everything is working fine until a wise old house slave called Stephen (Samuel L. Jackson) trusts his instincts (and his immediate hatred for strutting Django) and throws the whole plan into the crapper.


It would cheat you to reveal what happens next but suffice it to say I left the theatre satisfied with everything I had seen and I think you will to.

Tarntino was criminally robbed of a best Director nomination but should win for best original screenplay - or at least I hope he does (N-word not withstanding). Nothing would please me more than seeing this excellent spaghetti western win Best Picture but nothing will stem the momentum that is Lincoln.

Thursday, December 6, 2012

A CCD Rant - Cloud Atlas: What Did Mike D Think?


Last night Jeff Bond and I decided that we needed to make a trip to the local cinema and catch Cloud Atlas on the big screen before it leaves theaters. The film has been in theaters since October 26th and is much debated on the merit of its three hour runtime. This is a full on fucking movie, one that does not take any shorts from what the filmmakers (the Wachowski Brothers & Tom Tykwer) wanted to get up on the screen. It is adapted from a very famous British book of the same name by David Mitchell and has been pretty much a nightmare to get an actual release. It features a star studded cast with the likes of Tom Hanks, Halle Berry, Hugh Grant, Jim Broadbent, Susan Sarandon, Keith David, Hugo Weaving and Jim Sturgess... all who appear in various roles throughout the films six segments. The film has been praised by some critics like Roger Ebert as visionary and extremely fun, and panned by reputable publications like Time Magazine as one of the worst movies of the year. It can't possibly be both, right? So here is my little rant on what I think of Cloud Atlas. Here is a bit of a hint: I tend to think Ebert is right in this one...

Click after the jump for more...

The Wachowski Brothers (well brother & sister now... snip snip) and Tykwer
Let me start off by saying that I absolutely love the Wachowski Brothers as film makers. But I am not a Wachowski fanboy who will automatically defend everything they do, even if it sucks. The reason why I hold them in such high regard is because they have taken the success & credibility they had with the first Matrix film and then used that cred to make the films THEY wanted to make. Their way. the wachowski vision. You may not like the two Matrix sequels or think that Speed Racer was anything more then CGI drivel. You may agree with Alan Moore when he calls V for Vendetta a travesty. And you may think Time has Cloud Atlas pegged spot on. But their is one thing you have to agree, and that is the fact that the Wachowski's don't give a flying fuck about what you think when it comes to their creative process. And they will make the films they want to make, when they want to make them, how they want to make them. You gotta love them for that.


Great, now that we got that out of the way, lets talk about Cloud Atlas. This fucking movie is huge... and I mean huge. 3 hours long? Check. 6 alternating story lines that span hundreds of years? Check. An epic assemble cast that would make the producers of New Years Eve cry in shame for not being able to secure such a talented cast? Yup... it's all here. Not to mention the fact that we get a little bit of every genre of film mixed into this flick  from period seafaring adventure movies to Matrix styled science fiction. Huge is the only way to describe it. And it is epic. And I kinda loved every second of it. All 2 hours and 52 minutes of those seconds. My number one reason for this has to be because, for every moment of the film's running time you can see that whether you like the film or not, the Wachowski's made the film they wanted to make. It is an uncompromising vision... and that makes it fantastic. Fucking fantastic... and that originality and clarity in seeking out their vision is what makes this film so important. Cause that type of film does not get made very often in Hollywood... not now, not ever for that matter.

Tom Hanks as British Ex Con Critic Killer... so funny!
As far as the story lines themselves, I have to admit that I liked them all for various reasons. My favorite was probably 'The Ghastly Ordeal of Timothy Cavendish' and 'Half Lives: The First Luisa Rey Mystery'. I think I like these two segments the best because they contrast each other so well.  The first one is the funniest of the bunch and is set in modern times. Jim Broadbent is fantastic as a hapless publisher with no luck and Tom Hanks as a ex con writer who tests out the theory of gravity on one of his harshest critics. I loved this segment across the board, and that is what makes the Luisa Rey segment so cool as well.

Bill Smoke, assassin!
 Halle Berry takes the lead role in this segment which is set in 1973 and uses the nuclear power craze as a backdrop for the mystery. It plays like a hard boiled 70s exploitation detective story (like the French connection or Cleopatra Jones) with some of the best characters of the movie. Hugo Weaving stands out as assassin Bill Smoke, and Keith David proves once again that he is the motherfucking man. These two story lines play so opposite each other that they make for great favorite segments and provide me with enough reasons to like the movie themselves.

The bridge... best scene in the future, by far!
My least favorite segment had to be the Neo Seoul segment, which was the one set in the future and had the most sci fi elements to it. You would think that this would be the Wachowski's strong suit since they seem to love the sci fi genre so much, but it is pretty much a rip off of all the classic sci fi movies I saw from the 70s and the 80s. Replicant humans like Blade Runner, government control like 1984, blind consumerism like Soylent Green, an innocent hero/heroine on the run like The Running Man, and an impromtu hero/heroine that needs a little push to see the realities thate xist in their world and become the leader for change like in Star Wars... it's all there, right by the numbers. some of the tech was cool and some of the visuals were fantastic, but it mostly lacked originality and left me pretty board. But other than this segment I really didn't have too much to complain about.

Broadbent is awesome... I Know, I know!!!!
In the interest of not ruining the movie by talking about key points of the film I will say that the reason I liked the film so much is because of how original it is and what that takes for a filmmaker to undertake. It is so rare to get a film maker to take chances on material they love and make the film adaption that they envision, and the Wachoswski's & Tykwer do just that. They make an uncompromising version of what they want to make... and like it or not, in this day and age of paint by numbers movies you just do not see that much anymore. It reminds me of Kubrick changing around The Shining and basically telling a young Stephen King to go fuck himself when the writer question some of these changes on the set of the film. The writer may know the vision of the novel best, but translating that to the big screen is totally different. That is up to a director, and when anybody takes on something as large and dense as a book like Cloud Atlas then you need a true visionary to get the job done. Or maybe three visionaries.


Either way, I think you will enjoy Cloud Atlas for this reason alone. But what the fuck do I know? Films like Alvin and the Chimpmunks & Jack and Jill make hundreds of millions of dollars yet original movies like Cloud Atlas get blasted as too complicated and unique. It is the sad state of affairs in Hollywood these days, but as long as the Wachowski's keep getting projects financed then at least we will get to see some creativity and conviction in a few films. Get out there and see it before it is out of theaters, because this is the type of film you definitely want to see in the cinema. Please leave your own comments and thoughts on the movie below... I would love to hear what you guys have to say!!!!  

Tuesday, October 30, 2012

Wednesday, June 13, 2012

Red Letter Media "Takes On" Prometheus (And By "Takes On", I Mean Roasts In their Very Creative Way!!!)


The gang over at Red Letter Media have made critiquing movies on the Internet an art form, and their reviews and criticisms of major properties are known far and wide. While their rants used to be INCREDIBLY detailed and long as shit, they have improved their ability to cut the critiques down in terms of total time while not sacrificing their intelligent barbs. They also have managed to improve on their level of humor as well This is definitely apparent in their new critique of Ridley Scott's 'Prometheus', a film that is causing many polarizing opinions. You gotta check their review out, it is priceless!!! The guys at Red Letter were also smart enough to release both the full length review (24 minutes) and abridged version of the review (4 minutes), both of which you can see after the jump.... I really like the things these guys say in the long version. If you have the time and want an honest critique of the movie, give this a watch.



Shorter, More Comedy Filled Review:



Longer, Unabridged Review:

Sunday, March 27, 2011

In Defense Of Sucker Punch...

Ok... so I saw Sucker Punch, Zach Snyder's latest cinematic opus, over this past weekend. Ever since it came out on Thursday @ midnight, geek websites across the net have been running stories about it. I wanted to avoid all of them at all cost until I had seen the film myself, so I HAD to see it on Sunday because I could not continue to ignore some of my favorite sites for to long. I wanted to hear what they had to say... but wanted to experience it myself first.



Let me start off by saying I have been waiting on this one for quite a bit. Ever since I saw the first shots of Emily Browning and her gang of gorgeous misfits fighting dragons & nazi zombies. How could this be bad. Short skirts, knee highs, boobs, guns, swords, and villains galore. This seemed to be the makings of something that I not only wanted to see, I needed to see it.

***Please click Read more below to see more of my defense of Sucker Punch***

Checking in on Rotten Tomatoes, we find a interesting paradox. The critics bashed it, giving it a 20% fresh rating. Thats pretty bad. Beastly & Red Riding Hood bad. But on the same site, the audience members (people who actually PAY to see movies THEY WANT TO see) gave it a 62% rating. This gets me so fustrated. Movie critics are quick to bash a flick, especially if its in a genre that is out of their comfort zone or age bracket (ie: Horror movies almost always get shit on, comedies usually get panned despite the fact they are extremely humorous, and cartoon/comic book movies are judged against Casablanca-like movie standards of guys in their 50's/60's.) I usually don't listen to critics... I respect their opinion, but you can't ignore their long history of bias. Now, polling people coming out of the theater is a much better way to judge the flick. These people CHOSE this movie, BOUGHT tickets, and I want an opinion under these circumstances... they are not conforming or formulating a review. It comes down to facts... did they like it or not? Thats the kind of opinions I want.


This is where I come in. I personally loved Sucker Punch. But, being the realist that I am, I can see exactly why some people wouldn't. Thats something I do alot... I can easily formulate my own opinion, but I often wonder why other people feel a certain way. So here is my (spoiler free) opinion of the movie, followed by why most people probably won't/don't like it.

My Faves:
  1. The Cast: Wow... just wow. The girls (Emily Browning, Abbie Cornish, Vanessa Hudgens, Jenna Malone, and Jaime Chung) were amazing, but its the supporting cast that gets me the most. Oscar Isaac is wonderful as the dispicable villain Blue, Carla Gugino was sexy and sophisticated as Madam Gorski, and Scott Glenn is as superb as ever as the girls guiding angel. Throw in Jon Hamm & the rest of the stunt actors, and I feel like Snyder got everybody in his cast just right.
  2. So Baby Doll (Browning) can hypnotize people when she dances. Ok... so whats wrong with that? I have heard people bash the movie for not showing her dance. But guess what... this is when she enters the dream fantasy/fighting sequences. I can figure out what kind of dancing she is doing... I don't need to see it. Plus, how else could they segue into the fighting sequences?
  3. Snyder's story is ambitious and takes chances... and original. These are qualities that are few and far between now-a-days in films. This is especially true in our beloved sub-genres. There are record number sequels, prequels, reboots & adaptions being made... and here comes a dude with an original idea, and they say its "too original". Wait... what? Just on original concept alone, people need to at least give this one a shot.
  4. It's not all about Baby Doll. The supporting characters all play an important part in the culmination of the movie. They all play a part... and some become EXTREMELY important.
  5. I like the look and feel of the flick. It has the feeling that it is set back in the day (creepy & spooky, dark) but once the girls jump into the fantasy world(s) shit gets super interesting. You get Fuedal Japan, Nazi Germany, The Middle Ages, and a futuristic Space World. With all of these locales, Snyder does them all justice... they all look visually stunning and took my breath away.
  6. I like the way it ended up... not going to discuss it yet, but I liked the way Snyder closed it out.

Now for why I think some people will hate it:
  1. Women protagonists: Say what you want, but most guys can't feel for a female lead. They my like the skimpy outfits, and love the gun and sword wielding beauties kicking ass... but they don't "feel" for their pain. The just don't get it, and that is one of the driving forces of the movie. Understanding why Baby Doll is in the asylum in the first place, why she constructs her plan for escape, and why events play out the way they do is the most important piece to LIKING this movie. If you don't make this connection, chances are you will either be indifferent to the movie or dislike it alltogether.
  2. Ok, so its far fetched... SO??? It's a fantasy film. WTF? I don't get this. Most people say Raimi's 1st Spiderman film is pure genius (I agree), but why can we believe that a radioactive spider can bite a kid and give him spider powers? We can because its familiar to us, especially us nerds. EVERYONE KNOWS SPIDERMAN. But in this case, it's all new characters... and that would require thinking. Who are these broads, and why do they have the abilities they do? Nah... give me another cookie cutter superhero movie that the screenwriters will fuck up the origin story/costumes for. Thats so much easier.
  3. Sucker Punch moves at a breakneck pace. Oh yeah... this is true. It is a mile a minute, balls to the wall action. Things you never would imagine in one scene (modern machine guns in WW I or II settings, dragons dogfighting with bi-planes, robots fistfighting with chicks) happen throughout. Whats so bad about this? Oh yeah, thats right... its new. Stuff that has never really been done before. Yeah, that probably sucks. Can we make another reboot please? WTF people. It's an ACTION movie... I want ACTION. I got that. I'm satisfied... why not you? If I wanted realistic and calm, I'd watch The King's Speech.
  4.  No boobies. Yup, I was disappointed as well. The movie is high on sexuality, the costumes are just as hot as the women wearing them, and Jon Hamm/Oscar Isaac even give the ladies some male eye candy. I expected some boobs... meh. Not in the cards. But I can see why people would go in expecting tons of boobage and not getting any... I guess this might piss me off as well.
  5. I won't discuss the ending here, but I will just say this was probably the most likely source of hatred towards the flick. I don't know why (I loved it), but can see why it would be a problem for others.

All in all, I thought it was great. Very original, high concept, well executed and shot, and overall good job. That is my opinion. I would say it is a solid 3.5/4 out of 5 stars. Don't agree? Tell me about it in the comment section below. Try to keep it spoiler free, and email me at mdevito730@gmail.com if you want the discussion to get spoilerific. I'm all ears... talk to me people!!!