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.

So It's Not About Wrestling!

It is time for the Garlic City Review's first review. Can you smell it? By sheer luck of timing, lack of money, and the alignment of my couch to the television, our first review will be of a movie. The film "Half Nelson," starring Ryan Gosling to be exact. Though Chuy saw the movie first, I get to post the first review as his computer is in the land of glitch and crashies. So when he has salvaged what he can from his laptop, after he has grown technologically wiser, and financially poorer, he will write his reveiw. For now, only I can share my cinematic experience with the world. Only I can...okay, to the review.

I saw the movie "Half Nelson" after Chuy recommended it. I was originally hesitant to watch it because:
a. I didn't know anyone who was in it,
b. I thought it was a movie that involved high school wrestling, and
c. Chuy said it was "just wrong," which usually is very bad.
That all goes back to his recommendation for another movie whose name I won't mention here, but let's just say that "just wrong" usually refers to historical visual trauma. Still, he kept recommending the movie, and told me that it did not involve any wrestling, so I risked the ghosts of the past.

I thought the movie was slightly odd in its resolution or non-resolution at the end, but not "just wrong," in whatever way Chuy was seeing it. Instead I thought it was a great independent film, with strong acting, and admirable for the way it avoided easy answers. I actually tend to like ambiguous endings ( a la Clint Eastwood), if done well and intelligently, and I thought this movie made a nice attempt. I always like the non-Hollywood polish of independent films, which give them a unique character lacking in most of today's movies. However, it was the strength of the acting by Ryan Gosling and the supporting actors that worked for me most of all. Gosling's portrayal of a crack? meth? smoking high school teacher was a study in the way an addict slowly loses his grip on his basic moral principles. Great job all around, I highly recommend this movie and give it four out of five garlics.