Harry and the Hendersons (1987)

Okay, so this is the second movie I borrowed from Blaine before I recently went to his place last Friday before he showed me a couple of other movies and gave me a couple more to borrow and watch, which is where most of my next couple of reviews will revolve around. So let's take a look at Harry and the Hendersons.

Plot: The Henderson family accidentally hit a big furry creature that they begin to think is Bigfoot. So they take it home, trying to think about what to do with it, while the being starts to wreck their house. They eventually begin to grow fond of the creature and being to name it Harry, but things get more complicated when a hunter is trying to hunt the creature down.

Now this was not an easy movie to get to finally watching. Most of it was because of work and school and other things, but also because I was nervous on what I was going to think of it once I did watch it. When Blaine gave this movie to me, he really wanted me to give this movie a genuine try because he really likes it because of the makeup and how he found the movie to be very heart feeling, and he figured that just by looking at the DVD case that I would quickly think that the movie was not going to be anything special for me. And true to his expectations, I thought this movie was going to come out as very cliche, but I was willing to give it my best shot. Eventually I watched the movie and ultimately, I did in fact find moments when it was being heart feeling, as well as being cute and having nice makeup considering it's time...but I also found the cliches that I was expecting. But let's start with the things that's good about the movie. Firstly, the majority of the family are likable enough. The boy had a couple of cute moments, and the parents had some well acted moments. In fact, as heart feeling as the moments were with Harry, I honestly liked the moments with the father much more. I just can't help but like how he was having such a hard time with the whole deal about helping Harry while also trying to please his dad and having his wife be proud of how he was growing as a person during the events of the film. And I'll add that while nothing made me laugh, there are some moments that I did find to be a little funny. Also again, while I am no expert in make up, I can see how what they did for Harry in that department was worthy of an Oscar considering it's time. Now what is the bad stuff with this movie? Well...pretty much everything else from where I'm standing. Granted, the movie still is not without its charm, but it really does have very cliche beats to the story and just as cliche characters that did distract me. In fact, I said the majority of the family are likable, because the daughter was pretty much the least interesting character in the film. She pretty much was the snotty girl that was worried about her social status. And while she does get better as the film went on, I honestly didn't really care. Really, if you've seen this kind of story a lot of times before, you're probably not going to enjoy this movie a whole lot.

And that's my review for Harry and the Hendersons. It's a little hard to think of what to say about it. On one hand, it really is a cliched movie that has characters that are not very interesting. But on the other hand, Blaine was right in saying that there really is a charm to the movie with its decent jokes, good makeup considering its time, and gives heart feeling moments that did work for the most part. So I guess ultimately it's give and take with whether you would like the film or not. I for one liked that I did find some of the nice moments Blaine was talking about. And while I don't praise it as much as he does, I will give it a roughly okay rating for the little things that I liked.

Rating: 60%

American Hustle (2013)

Alright, So I've borrowed a couple other movies from Blaine that I had not had a chance to watch until recently, so here is my review for one of those movies, American Hustle.

Plot: In 1978, con artists Irving Rosenfeld and Sydney Prosser have start a relationship and develop a partnership in conning people. But eventually they are busted by an FBI agent named Richard "Richie" DiMaso, but he also offers to let them go in exchange for using their conning skills for other arrests that eventually include taking down some political people. This causes drama to Irvin and Sydney's relationship with them having trouble trusting each other, on top of Irving dealing with his wife, Roslyn and caring for his son, Danny.

Now I've heard kind of positive but generally mixed things about this movie. My dad and two of my siblings went to see it in theaters and thought it went way too long to the point where they eventually left the theater, and I saw Nostalgia Chick show a parody picture of the poster where the headline more or less says "It's a good movie...we think." Now is it actually a good movie? Yes. But do I also see where people seem to be coming from in terms of not entirely praising it at the same time? Uh...more or less, yes. But let's talk about what's good first. What really makes this a good movie is the performances. This film right off the bat gives us a great cast; Christian Bale, Amy Adams, Jennifer Lawrence, Bradley Cooper, Jeremy Renner, even an uncredited appearance from Robert De Niro, and all of them give out terrific, energetic performances. They establish who these people are, what their goals are, what they're experiencing through this whole series of events, and they all do a fantastic job. Christian Bale does a great job with giving us a new character that you may notice at the beginning of the film, that he once again changes his body to get into the role. Amy Adams and Bradely Cooper do a great job in showing how their characters are having a deep conflict about their selves through the events of the film, and Jenifer Lawrence seem to get the most hype with her energetic performance as Roslyn. (By the way, am I the only one who finds it a little weird that this movie has Christian Bale and Jenifer Lawrence as a married couple? Especially considering how Bale is 40 and Lawrence is basically my age?) But even with the performances on top of the story itself being interesting, the movie does have some flaws. As I said, my dad and two of my siblings eventually left the movie being much to long. And while I personally never quite got that when I saw the movie, I will say that looking back, I will agree with them, as well as Jeremy Jahns that the film had too many things happening. In fact, it's possible that more stuff happened than I remembered happening (though I could be wrong). Granted, none of those moments for me felt like they were really dragging, because they still were giving us this great cast that was giving us all of these great performances the entire time. But I will say that some scenes where probably not needed because they seemed to have distracted me from what is happening to the main characters. Now the second problem, at least from my perspective is from a point Jeremy Jahns makes about this movie as a comedy. He says in his review for the film " If I didn't know that it was a comedy because it was nominated for a Golden Globe for a comedy, I would just think it was a hustle movie that has really awkward moments in it." And I pretty much agree with him because I had no idea that this was a comedy until I heard him say that in his review. Just from seeing trailers, pictures and the poster for the movie, it did not strike me as a comedy at all. So when I watched those moments where it was suppose to be funny, I may not have found them awkward per say, but as far as I was concerned, the movie was giving me moments like Bradely Cooper beating up his boss with a telephone that was just there to roughly move a part of the story along.

And that's my review for American Hustle. It somewhat has too many things going on in it, and the comedy doesn't work at all unless you watch it knowing it is a comedy, but aside from that, it still is an entertaining film with an interesting story, and great performances from a terrific cast. I can see why this movie did not really stand a chance against 12 Years A Slave for best picture, but it still is a nice energetic film that is entertaining enough film to see.

Rating: 80%     

Capote (2005)

Okay, I know I didn't really do anything in honor of Philip Seymour Hoffman after his death earlier this year (my apologies to all Philip Seymour Hoffman fans everywhere), so I hope I more or less make up for that by reviewing the one movie where he won Best Actor in a Leading Role that I just watched recently, Capote.

Plot: At a farm in Kansas, a family friend discovers the Clutter family to have been murdered in their homes. This interests writer, Truman Capote to write a document about what happened, ao he travels to Kansas, taking his childhood friend Nelle Harper Lee with him and interviewing the people who were involved with the victims. But eventually, the murder suspects, Perry Smith and Richard "Dick" Hickock, are caught, and once Capote begins to interview Smith in particular, be begins to grow an attachment to him and starts to turn his document into a book and tries to use it to try to defend the suspects.

If I can sum up how this movie turned out in one word, I would more or less go with saying that it was riveting. Because while the matter of what Capote is apparently trying to do from the beginning is interesting enough, it's Hoffman's central performance that, over time, makes the journey in the film very compelling. The real heart and focus of the film is of coarse on Capote and how this entire thing is a very significant period in the writer's life. Which is not to say that there is no significance to everything else in the film, because there is. Clifton Collins Jr. also gives us a great performance as Phillip Smith. And just having someone like Catherine Keener give us Nelle Harper Lee, the writer of To Kill A Mockingbird mine you, on top of bringing up both her book and the film was a nice little addition of the movie. But at the end of the day, what leaves the biggest impact is Hoffman's performance. Because what debatably makes this film the most compelling is how Hoffman gives us all these different layers to Capote. We see him be the center of attention at a fancy party, we see him hanging out with his partner or Nelle Harper Lee, we see him try to write, we see him try to be a friend for Smith, we see all these different elements of him, and it's basically left unclear as to whether or not any of it is real. Hoffman created this character to become so complex, that it's really left to interpretation as to whether Capote is wearing a make while he's in public while showing his real self when talking to Smith, or vice versa. Heck, one can make the argument that not even Capote himself knows. And I think that especially is what made this performance debatably Hoffman's best to the point where he definitely deserved to win Best Actor, as well as being what really made this film really special.

And that's my review for Capote. It has an interesting story and some other great performances besides Hoffman, but it was Hoffman himself that made the film work by giving us a character that has so many different elements to him that makes the entire story compelling and so gives us the real heart of the film. If you have not seen this movie and maybe don't even know that much about Philip Seymour Hoffman, I think this is a great movie for you to take a look at.
Rating: 100%

Looper (2012)

Okay so I've been busy with work and school recently, and Blaine just recently showed me a few films, so I'm trying to catch up before I get even busier in October. With that said, let's take a look at a movie that has been getting a lot of praise but I had yet to actually see until recently, Looper.

Plot: Set in 2044, Joe is working for crime syndicate as a Looper. Basically, time travel is made in 2074, and a man from that time named Abe hires Loopers to kill victims from the future that are set back in time. But when the next victim Joe is hired to kill turns out to be older him from the future and escapes, it's up to him to hunt him down and finish his job and find out what future him is after.

This was a much smarter film than what I expected. Looper is a very clever film with the futuristic world they created, it's story, and especially with it's characters . They didn't make it so that every single thing has been made to look futuristic, and even with the stuff that is made futuristic, they don't go full CGI with it. They make the futuristic world look like it's still our world, but with just a couple more features, and a lot of it is relevant to the story, which makes it even better. And a lot of the stuff they explain about time travel makes sense. I do say only a lot, because there is one scene that has something to do with time travel that even my brother Johnathan, who has this movie tied as his fifth favorite film of all time, has no idea how that particular moment makes sense, especially since they don't explain that moment at all. But then again, it's possible that they might've wanted to leave that moment for interpretation for the audience, so I'll let that part slide. The story is also far more layered that I made it appear to be on the plot paragraph. If I said anything else, I probably would be giving too much away for those of you who have not seen this movie. Finally, there's the acting. Joseph Gordon-Lovett and Bruce Willis both give fantastic performances. The film does a great job in making them visually look more or less like they are the same person while also making it clear how these are also characteristically living different points of Joe's life. But by far the most memorable performance in the entire film is from the kid actor, Pierce Gagnon as Cid. Good golly was this kid a remarkable actor in this movie. And at roughly 7 years old to boot. I would argue that he's almost a little too good because, while not giving anything away for those who haven't seen this movie, this kid more or less does a fantastic job...of creeping me out. Yeah, laugh all you'd like, but really, there are moments where this kid really comes out as honest-to-my-autism scary. You can keep the kid from The Omen (original, not the remake), this is the kid that gives the creepiest kid performance I've ever seen.

And that's my review for Looper. It was very smart with its futuristic world, it gave us a much more layered movie than you probably would've expected, and it gives us great performances from Joseph Gordon-Lovett, Bruce Willis, and, most notably for me, Pierce Gagnon. If you have not seen this movie, I definitely recommend that you take a look at it.
Rating: 95%

The Expendables 3 (2014)

I just got back from seeing this movie, so let's take a look at the last anticipated movie of summer 2014: The Expendables 3.

Plot: After Ross and some of the more constant Expendables rescued an old member named Doctor Death, they head out to take out a deadly arms dealer, only to find out that the dealer named Stonebanks, is a co-creator of the Expendables who betrayed them years ago and was thought to be dead. Things go sour in trying to take him down when a fellow Expendable named Caesar is severely wounded while Stonebanks escapes. Back in the U.S., Ross decides to fire the rest of the Expendables so that they can live their lives, and so hire new, younger people to take their places to try to take down Stonebanks.

Well I stated how I was bored to sleep with the first film while having a ton of fun with the second one. But on my conclusion paragraph on my review for the second one, I stated that while I hoped this movie would be good, I had my doubts, particularly with how they were going to top the climax from the second film. And the plain answer to that is...they don't...in fact they take a few steps backwards. Is it as bad as the first movie? ...well...no, it was more interesting than that movie for what it was worth, but we still were given a lot less. This one kind of sort of gives us a mixture of how much balance between action and down time. So where the first movie had way too much down time and the second movie had the right balance, this movie had a little more down time while still giving us more action than that movie. And even when the down time is there, it was still a little interesting. I mean you had introducing the new, young Expendables...even if it was really just the woman that was interesting while the rest of them were easily forgettable, you had this whole conflict between Ross and the old Expendables that is silly and predicable but kind of likable, and the moments when Ross is interacting with Kelsay Grammer as Bonaparte or Harrison Ford as Drummer weren't half bad...or at least were a crap ton more interesting than Ross just yammering with Mickey Rorke's character in the first movie. (Sorry for bringing that up again, that just really killed that movie for me.) Then there's the two biggest highlights of the film: Antonio Banderas and Mel Gibson. They were the most fun parts of the movie. For Banderas...he was admittingly annoying in a couple of scenes and on one occasion really weird, but for the most part, he was the one that actually made me chuckle during this film. And Gibson was even more fun as the villain. In fact, he is easily the most interesting villain in the entire trilogy. The character himself was as silly and stupid as generic villains come - basically to the point of a Bond villain - but Gibson seemed to have decide to have fun with it, and so he was pretty fun for me. But besides the two ups and the couple of half-ups I just gave, the film just. Wasn't. Fun. If you just want to seem to just shooting people and all that, fine. But really, that's as big as the film really got. The second film was practically imaginative with how it had all these different kinds of fights, chases, guns, tanks, and all these things that made a darn good amount of the Expendables themselves stand out in terms of how they fight or what kind of weapons they have. They knew they had to go as big as possible or go home. And in the end, it wasn't just fun, it was an epic amount of fun. Here, they didn't even really try to go any bigger. The closest thing to different from just guns and machetes in this film was mainly motorcycles, tanks and a couple of helicopters. I saw this movie with Blaine, and he personally blames this whole thing on the director, Patrick Hughes. And while I don't know if that's true for a fact, there's no denying that whoever you really have to blame, the director, Stallone, or whoever, there's no denying that the person who is to blame, really failed to think big enough.

And that's my review for The Expendables 3. While I don't hate it like the first movie, and it does have some nice elements like Banderas and Gibson, it still came out as slightly entertaining, but mostly lacking in terms of just having fun and trying (in any way) to be any bigger than the second film. Not the worst, but it's not the best. So if you still just want to see the cast kill a bunch of people, you'll still get it, but if you want that in a way that makes it a ton of fun to the point where it's epic...just stick with the second movie.   

Rating: 40%

Sleepy Hallow (1999)

Next among the films Blaine has showed me is on that I've been thinking of watching for a while but never really got around to it: Tim Burton's Sleepy Hallow

Plot: Ichabod Crane is a police officer in New York who is sent to the small town of Sleepy Hollow to attempt to solve the mystery behind the murders that have occurred in the town. The people of Sleepy Hallow believe that the murder is a undead being called the Headless Horseman because the victims are beheaded with their heads missing. Crane dismisses their claims, but as the investigation goes on, he begins to learn that there's more to what is happening to the town than they let on, and that the legend of the Headless Horseman might me real.

So while I would say that this is a nice movie and I am glad that I finally got to see it thanks to Blaine, there are moments that...feel a little off. But I'm getting ahead of myself, so let's once again, start talking about what's good about the movie. First off, there's the casting. Sure it is common now for Burton to have a pretty large cast nowadays, but that doesn't make this one less enjoyable. Here you have some of the people Burton commonly casts like Christopher Lee, Michael Gough, Jeffrey Jones and of coarse Johny Deep as Ichabod Crane. But then you have people that are not so common, such as Ian McDiamid, Michael Gambon, Richard Griffiths, and especially Christopher Walken as the Headless Horseman. The most notable are probably Johnny Depp and Christopher Walken. Depp gives us Ichabod as this police man who relies on science rather than this superstitious schoolteacher. He also makes Ichabod turn out a little more goofy, but at the same time Depp makes it work. I can't say for sure how similar he is to the original character, occupation aside, having never read it myself, but from what I understand from the Nostalgia Chick's review for this movie, he actually does keep a lot of the character's characteristics. His all around quirky charm is nothing new to me, but to be fair, this was made before Burton and Depp made it more common for him to give that kind of performance. Now Christopher Walken on the other hand... is probably the most interesting and unexpected thing for me to find watching this film. I watched this movie not knowing who was going to play the character, and Chistopher Walken turning out to be the guy doing it was not what I had in mind. But while he's not even in the movie for very long, he does make The Headless Horseman appear more psychotic in a way that just makes the character interesting. Another thing I like is the story. Now I know they changed it a lot from the short story with it being a mystery and, again, things like Ichabod being a police officer instead of a school teacher. But for what this film had instead, I got into well enough that it kept me interested in knowing how the mystery was going to be solved. I think the biggest compliment people have for the film that I can agree with is its art direction and it's effects. Granted, some of the effects do look pretty fake by today's standards, but there's still some parts that hold up such as the CGI for the collar of the Headless Horseman on top of making him really headless. And the art direction does look very nice, particularly on how they make it looks like a real town from the very later 18th century. So what do I not like about the movie? Well while I don't know if I would call these problems I have with the films really bad per say, there are some elements to the film where it's makes the film come out a little off. First off, there are some moments where the film just feels like it's just giving us the same stuff from almost any other Tim Burton film like eyes popping out of this witch or the obviously fake blood and stuff like that. And I get that this is his style. Blaine didn't hesitate to point of how stuff like this shown how artistic he is, and that's fine. But for me personally, what made most of this film work - in the same way that Sweeney Todd worked - was how it was being artistic, but doing so in it's own world. So it was a little hard to focus on the film sometimes when it had things such as eyes popping out of the witch or even this scarecrow that was basically the one from the beginning of Nightmare Before Christmas. But again, this is pretty much my opinion, so if you enjoy that anyway like Blaine does, that's fine. But the other problem that I had with the film was the third act when we get all the answers. I wont ruin it for anyone who hasn't seen this film, but in my opinion, it was kind of underwhelming, particularly with The Headless Horseman.

And that's my review for Sleepy Hallow. I have my own personal problems with the result of the mystery and moments that make it a little to obvious that it's a Tim Burton film. But even then, I still think it was a nice film that had an interesting cast, nice designs, some CGI effects that holds up, and a nice story that is so different from the original tale. If you're a big fan of Burton's work like Blaine is, you'll probably like this fine. If you aren't, I still thing this is movie to see at least once for all the strange but interesting and artistic stuff Burton puts into it. Take it for what it is, and see for yourself. 

Rating: 70%

Let the Right One In (2008)

Alright, back to stuff Blaine has showed me. So this next one I thought was some horror movie that had horrid reviews...and that wasn't the case, so let's talk about what it really was.

Plot: Oskar is a 12 year old boy who lives with his mother in the suburb of Blackeberg in 1981. He lives a meek life of being bullied in school and occasionally living with his father in the countryside, but then one night, he meets a pale girl named Eli who just moved next door to him along with an older man. Oskar and Eli begin to form a friendship, but things get a little complicated when several murders and disappearances occur that lead to the possibility that there's a vampire in the town.

So was this the bad horror that I thought I was going to see? *snickers* Not even close. What came out of seeing this film is actually a smart, clever story that involves vampires that is extremely well made. The characters are likable and very well acted, especially the child actors. Oskar and Eli are very well performed, and the friendship - later turned romance - between them is very likable. The romance especially is different in that it's preteens (even though it does come of as a little uncomfortable because of that aspect) and while they do almost nothing physical (which is a good thing because, again, the aspect is somewhat uncomfortable), what they have is clear and it works, and like any good romance, they comes off likable enough that you are rooting for them and that things will turn out between them. The movie is also much smarter with bringing us vampires. There's no CGI or anything to it, it's mainly effects and makeup that come off very realistic. And they only show us a reasonable amount of vampires acting like vampires where you get enough of what vampires too, but no so much that it's all showing the effects rather than giving us the story and the characters. And whenever they do give us these elements of vampires, it appears as if it's something new as if we've never seen this before event though most of us probably have. 

And that's my review for Let the Right One In. It's an intelligent movie that focuses on it's strong, well acted characters and story, while still giving us vampires in a way that reasonably placed with clever use of effects and makeup. If you haven't seen this movie, it's definitely one worth looking into.

Rating: 95%