Wondering About The 24 Hours Before

25th hour is a curious movie. Spike Lee directed this visually beautiful but puzzling movie, and I was left to wonder, What are you saying Spike? That is not a question I would have thought to ask of a "Spike Lee joint." Usually, he is almost overly earnest in his message, and though I have questioned this over the years, I have respected his unique, direct style. "He Got Game," is one of my favorite films, and I thought "Clockers" has been underrated in filmology.

The subtitle of the film is "Can You Change Your Life In One Day?" and if that is the concept, then the answer is no. Though the dog is a symbol of the main character's goodness, he never seems to be in a crises of moral values, just a crises of how to survive prison. A morally ambiguous character of a not entirely underprivileged background, who doesn't seem to care that he chose to deal drugs in the first place, "What are you saying Spike?" The beautiful cinematography and good acting all around pull this one through, though it is not Spike's best work. It still has it's moments and it's (maybe) concern with out-of-proportion sentencing of drug related crime (maybe). What am I saying about the film? I'll leave you as Spike left me...to wonder. I give the film three out of five garlics.

Skating On Thin Ice

What do you get when you combine a ridiculous story about competing ice skaters who join to form the first male pair skating team, with two great comedic actors? Great ridiculous comedy of course. In "Blades of Glory," Will Ferrell and Jon Heder play off each other as if they've been doing it for years, and save a film which would otherwise be a lesson in stupidity. But we all know stupidity has its place in comedy, as long as it makes us laugh. And I couldn't help laughing as these two actors brought the stupid. Yes, the line between stupid and funny can be as thin as a blade, but Ferrell and Heder skate along that line expertly (all puns intended). I give the film three and a half out of five garlics.
(and a half)

The Obvious Done Well Again

Sylvester Stallone goes back to basics with "Rocky Balboa," and taps into some of what made Rocky so great. The best thing about the movie was the dialogue, and it was both funny and emotional, keeping me involved with its charming self-depreciations. It was this quality of Stallone’s writing which allowed me to accept the over-the-top moments, even with the painful memory of his movie called “Over The Top,” still in my head. The writing won out though, even if the plot was a given.

I knew, much as I did in Rocky, that the underdog was going to prevail against impossible odds, but I was okay with that because the writing reflects a self-awareness of what it is all about. And so I went along for the ride. Stallone also did some of the best acting in his career in the film, and the scene in which he explains some of life’s truths to his son is well…a knockout (okay, now I’m doing the obvious too).

Overall I thought it was a very good film, best when it focused on the characters lives outside the ring. The fight inside the ring was not the fight I was most interested in, it was Rocky’s struggle to define himself that interested me. I think the same was true for the first Rocky. The only complaint I have though, really, is the ending. I just did not like the last shot of the film. Since Stallone wrote, directed, and starred in the movie, I guess that’s not too shabby for an old underdog trying to get us to root for him again. The amazing part is that he succeeds. I give "Rocky Balboa" three (and a half) out of five garlicks.

A Good Reason For Gore?

I am moving full steam ahead and am actually writing our second review here at GCR, before Chuy has even written his first! Man, my computer is awesome for not breaking down! Again, this is a movie review, because they're the easiest to squeeze in between other stuff right now. What other stuff? Wouldn't you like to know.

A while back me and Chuy went and saw the movie “300” in the theater. As you probably know, the movie is a take on the ancient Battle of Thermopylae, and is based on the graphic novel by Frank Miller. I went because of the look of the film, though I felt I was chancing a brainless special effects show that would try to dazzle you into enjoyment from the visuals alone. I usually avoid those kinds of movies, especially the ultra-violent kind. It takes more than some blood and guts to get me interested, if you’re going to have blood and guts, there better be a good reason for it explained in a great story. Well, I thought, it is based on a historical event (I hoped), and thus would at least contain an educational element (yeah, I knew it was going to be a gore-fest).

Boy was I wrong! There was more to the title than a historical reference, the movie was 300 times ultra-violent! I knew it was going to be bloody but it was almost unnecessarily so. Heads and body parts were all over the place and close up too. The movie basically boiled down to a visual masterpiece that might have been somewhat better if it had held itself back at some points. Also, of course, “300” did not have the most compelling plot and writing, true of most we-shall-hack-and-slash-our-way-to-glory films. But this was one of those movies that you go to see just because it doesn’t look like anything else you’ve seen before. Except, when I first saw the previews of it I thought it was directed by Robert Rodriguez who directed “Sin City,” so I guess I did see something like it before. Oh well, I should have known better.

I thought “300” was a good film if you like violent, action adventures, where the visuals are the most important feature. I give it three out of five garlics, because I simply prefer a less violent and more story driven film.