It was 7:00 in the morning on the 8th birthday of young Jimmy. He was quite excited about it. His father however was less excited, because he just realized that he had forgotten to get Jimmy a present. Instead he had been out drinking the night before with no regard as to the time and had, in fact, only gotten back three hours ago. You see, Jimmy’s father was a battle scarred cop with years of experience and only 3 days left until retirement. He said to young Jimmy, “I am terribly sorry, but I forgot about your birthday. Let me make it up to you, Today, I swear on the river Styx that I will grant you any request you have of me.”(You see, ever since Jimmy’s mother died his father had become very superstitious and started to believe all the Greek legends that he had read when he was younger.) Jimmy promptly replied, “I wanna drive the car!” Even through the father’s alcohol-impaired judgment, he saw what a foolish idea it had been to grant the passing whim of a young boy. But because of the father’s superstitions, he could not conceive of breaking a promise that had been made on the river Styx. He tried to reason with the boy, “Son, you are simply not old enough to drive. There are many dangers inherent to driving the car.” But his plea fell on decidedly deaf ears as young Jimmy imagined the splendor of driving his father’s shiny red Lexus. Because of the massive amount of alcohol in the father’s system, and a rather potent mix of superstition and stupidity, the father decided he had no choice but to grant young Jimmy his foolish request. With glee, young Jimmy leaped into the driver’s seat and started the car. The first of casualties of Jimmy’s rampage were two small chipmunks that attempted to flee the scene by means of the same lawn that Jimmy had decided to use for his exit of the driveway. Young Jimmy soon realized his folly in the request he had made, as he realized the vehicle was not as easy to command as he thought. Unfortunately by this point it was going at quite dangerous speeds and he had no choice, but to attempt to maneuver it through the oncoming traffic. As his father lay curled up into a ball in the passenger’s seat begging Zeus to deliver them, the roar of an oncoming semi frighten the passengers of the doomed Lexus even more. The resulting explosion made the 6:00 news that day as police were baffled by the fact that the wreckage seemed to imply that young Jimmy was driving.
Thursday, January 20, 2011
A modern day Greek Tragedy
Keep in mind while you are reading this, that I actually turned this in for a school assignment.
New Year, New Blog
As you may have noticed by now, I gave up the movie reviews. Why? Several reasons, first, I have a complete inability to keep any sort of deadline whatsoever. Second, nobody was actually reading the blog, therefore, nobody complained when i stopped doing it. And finally, It's tough work constantly writing new reviews, espicially when nobody knows they exist. Apparently I suck at self promotion. Anyway, I have now decided to start a new blog filled with nothing but randomness, here you will find opinions, thoughts, cookies, shameless self-promotion, poems, songs, and some older essays for school I find buried deep inside my computer hard drive. It won't always make sense, but at least now I don't care that no one is reading this,and I no longer have to deal with deadlines, because the only way there will be any deadlines is if people actually read this and want more. So actually it's a good thing you are not reading this right now, or I might actually have to do some sort of weekly update. Anyway, If by some odd coincidence, someone is actually reading this right now, you can expect more randomness when you least expect it.
Tuesday, November 23, 2010
The Shining
Stephen King is a very prolific author. He has written over 45 novels and numerous collections of short stories, many of which have been made into films and even television shows. One of his more popular books is The Shining which was made into a 1980 film starring Jack Nicholson. The film has had mixed reactions. For example, Stephen King himself has said that he hated this adaption of his novel; whereas other horror movie fans love the movie calling it a classic. But why do some people passionately love the movie, while others simply hate it? What was so bad about the film that Stephen King actually spoke out against it? For that matter what was so good about the movie that anyone would want to see it more than once? I hope to answer these questions and more in this following review.
First of all, who is the target audience of The Shining? The target audience is not necessarily the fans of the book. In fact one might argue that not reading the book leads to a better enjoyment of the movie, but that is another issue altogether. The target audience is most likely those who enjoy psychological thrillers with a supernatural twist. A positive note about the film is that it certainly does not pander to a particular group of people, nor does it change the story to try to appeal to a broader audience. Because of this, it is well loved by people looking for a more original storyline than a bland Hollywood horror movie.
Now, if you haven't read the book, you might be wondering what The Shining is about. The basic plot is fairly simple. Jack Nicholson plays a seemingly sane man called Jack Torrance who, at the beginning of the movie accepts a job as the caretaker of the Overlook Hotel. A secluded, yet scenic, hotel up in the mountains. Rumors abound of the hotel being haunted, especially considering the actions of the previous caretaker, who brutally murdered his wife and two daughters. None of this deters Jack, however, as he is simply looking for some peace and quiet in which he can finally settle down and have some time for his writing. Jack brings along his wife Wendy and his son Danny. Danny is a young boy who has telepathic powers. Both of his parents are vaguely aware of this ability, but choose to ignore it. As time progresses in the Overlook Hotel, Jack's behavior grows increasingly more erratic and occasionally even violent. It is unclear whether this is due to ghosts of previous residents that have evil intentions, or if it is simply delusional schizophrenia brought upon by claustrophobic sense of isolation. Either way it becomes clear that the Torrance's stay at the Overlook Hotel will not be quite as peaceful as anticipated.
So why is this film hated so much that even the author of the original novel spoke poorly of it? One major issue with the film, as with most film adaptions of popular novels, it fails to capture the spirit of the original story. In the book there was a lot more done with the psychic powers of Danny, which admittedly is hard to do in a movie. Even so, the film sort of adds the telepathy as an afterthought, serving no real purpose other than exposition. There are many scenes in the book that are truly creepy, like the hedges coming alive and attacking Jack, that are completely left out of the movie. Also in the book Danny has much more of a personality than the flat two-dimensional character in the movie.
However, a great deal of these criticisms are comparing the movie to the book. Some might argue this to be unfair, as some have never read the book nor have any intention of reading the book. Even standing by itself, the movie has some faults. In my opinion the casting of Jack Nicholson in the lead role was a mistake. He does an excellent job of portraying a frightening madman, and perhaps that is his fault. In my opinion, Jack Nicholson does a poor job of playing a loving family man and the mental breakdown that follows is easy to spot from a mile away. I appreciate the idea of showing that the Overlook does not create mental instability, but only feeds and encourages that which is already there; but Jack Nicholson lacks any subtlety in his performance, playing his character as a man of questionable sanity to begin with, who only gets worse. However, this may be partially due to Jack's natural face. Anyone who has seen Jack Nicholson in a film, is aware of the rather creepy smile that he is able to produce no matter which film he is in, and the very distinct way that he raises his eyebrows. Also, the film moves agonizingly slow with a great deal of meaningless shots and wasted footage. Some may argue that this feeds into the movie's creepy vibe and actually improved the movie altogether. It is nice to have a movie that doesn't pander to the 5 second attention span of modern audiences and actually takes time to build suspense rather than relying on cheap jump scares. However, a great deal of the movie doesn't build suspense so much as leave the viewer with an overwhelming feeling of boredom.
So if the movie has all these faults, then why is it so popular that some people view this movie as a classic? Despite all its shortcomings, the film is actually quite creepy overall. The film does tone down the supernatural element of the book, leaving a wider possibility open for the entire film being nothing but a mental breakdown. It is a well known fact that a mentally unstable character is a lot scarier than a character controlled by vague unexplained supernatural forces. It is scarier because it is closer to reality and more likely to happen. Sure he does see 'ghosts', but he also talks to them with a sort of familiarity that seems somewhat odd for never having met any of them. My favorite character of the entire film is Brady, the former caretaker of the Overlook. He starts out as a seemingly innocent butler, but soon turns into the most devious character of the entire film, as he is slowly persuading Jack to kill his wife and child. Overall the film sets itself apart from other generic horror films of the 80's by actually being interesting and truly eerie at points.
Thanks to the vague meaning of an R rating, the R rating of this movie is not quite the warning that is necessary for a movie like this. There is one scene in particular where Jack goes to investigate room 237 and runs into a woman who appears to be a playboy model, judging by the amount skin she decides to reveal. Now even if this sounds entertaining to you, I feel it only fair to warn you that this is the single most disturbing scene in the entire movie, due to the horrifying visual of this ghost's true form. There is some very strong profanity in this film and it is infrequent enough that it is very noticeable when it does show up. Surprisingly, enough there is very little actual violence in this movie, there are a few dead bodies here and there; but compared to modern horror films that seek only shock with gore, this movie is actually quite tame. In fact, I have seen PG-13 rated movies with greater amounts of violence and gore. The movie is actually more scary without resorting to cheap tricks and violence simply for the sake of violence. Although it may sound strange, a violent nature is actually more frightening than continuous violent actions.
If you are a fan of the Stephen King novel and are hoping for a faithful recreation, you will be greatly disappointed. However, if you are fan of the film-making style of Stanley Kubrick, then this movie might be enjoyable to you. The Shining is a movie that is revered as a classic by many who see it, but I am not one of those people. In my opinion, the departures from Stephen King's novel actually make the movie less enjoyable as does the incredibly slow pacing of the movie. The overacting of Jack Nicholson and the underacting of Danny Loyd (Danny) make the movie less realistic and almost silly. On the other hand, the movie actually does have some legitimately scary moments at times. While not the best movie based on a Stephen King story, it is certainly not the worst. If you enjoy deep psychological thrillers, and horror movies that refuse to stay within the bounds of generic horror movies, then this might be a film worth checking out. But if you don't like scary movies, movies that move amazingly slow, or young sensuous playboy models that turn into old wrinkled ghosts and attack Jack Nicholson, then perhaps this movie isn't for you. In the end some may call The Shining a classic, but in my opinion, there are much better films out there than this.
First of all, who is the target audience of The Shining? The target audience is not necessarily the fans of the book. In fact one might argue that not reading the book leads to a better enjoyment of the movie, but that is another issue altogether. The target audience is most likely those who enjoy psychological thrillers with a supernatural twist. A positive note about the film is that it certainly does not pander to a particular group of people, nor does it change the story to try to appeal to a broader audience. Because of this, it is well loved by people looking for a more original storyline than a bland Hollywood horror movie.
Now, if you haven't read the book, you might be wondering what The Shining is about. The basic plot is fairly simple. Jack Nicholson plays a seemingly sane man called Jack Torrance who, at the beginning of the movie accepts a job as the caretaker of the Overlook Hotel. A secluded, yet scenic, hotel up in the mountains. Rumors abound of the hotel being haunted, especially considering the actions of the previous caretaker, who brutally murdered his wife and two daughters. None of this deters Jack, however, as he is simply looking for some peace and quiet in which he can finally settle down and have some time for his writing. Jack brings along his wife Wendy and his son Danny. Danny is a young boy who has telepathic powers. Both of his parents are vaguely aware of this ability, but choose to ignore it. As time progresses in the Overlook Hotel, Jack's behavior grows increasingly more erratic and occasionally even violent. It is unclear whether this is due to ghosts of previous residents that have evil intentions, or if it is simply delusional schizophrenia brought upon by claustrophobic sense of isolation. Either way it becomes clear that the Torrance's stay at the Overlook Hotel will not be quite as peaceful as anticipated.
So why is this film hated so much that even the author of the original novel spoke poorly of it? One major issue with the film, as with most film adaptions of popular novels, it fails to capture the spirit of the original story. In the book there was a lot more done with the psychic powers of Danny, which admittedly is hard to do in a movie. Even so, the film sort of adds the telepathy as an afterthought, serving no real purpose other than exposition. There are many scenes in the book that are truly creepy, like the hedges coming alive and attacking Jack, that are completely left out of the movie. Also in the book Danny has much more of a personality than the flat two-dimensional character in the movie.
However, a great deal of these criticisms are comparing the movie to the book. Some might argue this to be unfair, as some have never read the book nor have any intention of reading the book. Even standing by itself, the movie has some faults. In my opinion the casting of Jack Nicholson in the lead role was a mistake. He does an excellent job of portraying a frightening madman, and perhaps that is his fault. In my opinion, Jack Nicholson does a poor job of playing a loving family man and the mental breakdown that follows is easy to spot from a mile away. I appreciate the idea of showing that the Overlook does not create mental instability, but only feeds and encourages that which is already there; but Jack Nicholson lacks any subtlety in his performance, playing his character as a man of questionable sanity to begin with, who only gets worse. However, this may be partially due to Jack's natural face. Anyone who has seen Jack Nicholson in a film, is aware of the rather creepy smile that he is able to produce no matter which film he is in, and the very distinct way that he raises his eyebrows. Also, the film moves agonizingly slow with a great deal of meaningless shots and wasted footage. Some may argue that this feeds into the movie's creepy vibe and actually improved the movie altogether. It is nice to have a movie that doesn't pander to the 5 second attention span of modern audiences and actually takes time to build suspense rather than relying on cheap jump scares. However, a great deal of the movie doesn't build suspense so much as leave the viewer with an overwhelming feeling of boredom.
So if the movie has all these faults, then why is it so popular that some people view this movie as a classic? Despite all its shortcomings, the film is actually quite creepy overall. The film does tone down the supernatural element of the book, leaving a wider possibility open for the entire film being nothing but a mental breakdown. It is a well known fact that a mentally unstable character is a lot scarier than a character controlled by vague unexplained supernatural forces. It is scarier because it is closer to reality and more likely to happen. Sure he does see 'ghosts', but he also talks to them with a sort of familiarity that seems somewhat odd for never having met any of them. My favorite character of the entire film is Brady, the former caretaker of the Overlook. He starts out as a seemingly innocent butler, but soon turns into the most devious character of the entire film, as he is slowly persuading Jack to kill his wife and child. Overall the film sets itself apart from other generic horror films of the 80's by actually being interesting and truly eerie at points.
Thanks to the vague meaning of an R rating, the R rating of this movie is not quite the warning that is necessary for a movie like this. There is one scene in particular where Jack goes to investigate room 237 and runs into a woman who appears to be a playboy model, judging by the amount skin she decides to reveal. Now even if this sounds entertaining to you, I feel it only fair to warn you that this is the single most disturbing scene in the entire movie, due to the horrifying visual of this ghost's true form. There is some very strong profanity in this film and it is infrequent enough that it is very noticeable when it does show up. Surprisingly, enough there is very little actual violence in this movie, there are a few dead bodies here and there; but compared to modern horror films that seek only shock with gore, this movie is actually quite tame. In fact, I have seen PG-13 rated movies with greater amounts of violence and gore. The movie is actually more scary without resorting to cheap tricks and violence simply for the sake of violence. Although it may sound strange, a violent nature is actually more frightening than continuous violent actions.
If you are a fan of the Stephen King novel and are hoping for a faithful recreation, you will be greatly disappointed. However, if you are fan of the film-making style of Stanley Kubrick, then this movie might be enjoyable to you. The Shining is a movie that is revered as a classic by many who see it, but I am not one of those people. In my opinion, the departures from Stephen King's novel actually make the movie less enjoyable as does the incredibly slow pacing of the movie. The overacting of Jack Nicholson and the underacting of Danny Loyd (Danny) make the movie less realistic and almost silly. On the other hand, the movie actually does have some legitimately scary moments at times. While not the best movie based on a Stephen King story, it is certainly not the worst. If you enjoy deep psychological thrillers, and horror movies that refuse to stay within the bounds of generic horror movies, then this might be a film worth checking out. But if you don't like scary movies, movies that move amazingly slow, or young sensuous playboy models that turn into old wrinkled ghosts and attack Jack Nicholson, then perhaps this movie isn't for you. In the end some may call The Shining a classic, but in my opinion, there are much better films out there than this.
Saturday, November 13, 2010
Monty Python and the Holy Grail
What can you say about Monty Python? Well, quite a few things actually. Monty Python began as a British sketch show known as Monty Python's Flying Circus. The show was quite popular with sketches like "the dead parrot sketch" and "the lumberjack sketch" still well known and loved today. But the most popular production (and possibly their best) was Monty Python and the Holy Grail. This movie really is the Holy Grail of comedy lovers. At this point, I am talking to only three groups of people here. Those who have seen The Holy Grail and loved it. Those who have seen The Holy Grail and hated it, and those who have never seen The Holy Grail, but have heard of it. I am part of the first group and am addressing the second and third. This film is in no way a perfect film, but on the other hand if a perfect film does exist I have not seen it yet. Now before people start bashing this movie I would like to remind everyone that Monty Python has inspired a great deal of American comedy including the popular Saturday Night Live show. They have influenced, for better or for worse, a great deal of American and British humor. In fact when most people think of British humor they think of Monty Python.
But is this movie really worth all the praise and admiration given to it by it's adoring fans? Or is it just another one of those cult classics that no one really understands? Allow me to share my observations on the film and determine for yourself. First of all, who is the target audience for this movie? This is just a guess here, but I would say the movie is mainly aimed towards young men ages 15-35. I have reached this conclusion based on the fact, that although the film is one of those films that actually managed to be popular with several generations, It did have a very specific impact point. In my observation the film is more successful with younger men. More often than not, women who view The Holy Grail tend to walk out missing the point of the movie and have a difficult time discerning the point. It is not meant for younger children, despite it's PG rating, but I'll get to that later. The Holy Grail strikes an odd balance between ridiculously juvenile and surprisingly intellectual. For example, in one scene Arthur attempts to find knights to join him at the round table, but instead is criticized by one of the peasants for hanging on to dated imperialist dogma which perpetuates the economic and social differences in their society. When Arthur tries to explain that he is king, due to the Lady of the Lake bestowing to him Excalibur, he is criticized again for attempting to wield supreme executive authority based on nothing more than a 'farcical aquatic ceremony'. The unique brand of humor that Monty Python brings is evident in the opening credits which start off normal enough, but becomes increasingly more obvious that fake credits and subtitles have been slipped in there, so much so that at several points the credits actually shut down and a message appears apologizing for the errors. Eventually, the credits are finished with a completely random set of credits completely unrelated to the movie. As with most Monty Python productions, periodically throughout the movie random animations will appear that are also completely unrelated to the film, but somewhat amusing. Of the four Monty Python films The Holy Grail is the only one with a coherent and somewhat connected plot line with the possible exception of Life of Brian. The movie often employs techniques such as breaking the fourth wall and the above mentioned non sequiturs which might be annoying to people who dislike these methods of comedy.
But does it sit well with it's intended audience? I would say yes, for what they have set out to accomplish they have certainly succeeded. To be well versed in Monty Python and the Holy Grail is considered geeky and in my experience it has been a huge success with a lot of young men that have seen it. As I said before, it does not do nearly as well with women as it does with men, although that may have something to do with the fact that women do not play a huge role in Monty Python altogether. The Holy Grail is the only Arthur film where Queen Guinevere is not even mentioned let alone seen. The show as well as the film often has men dressing up as women for comedic effect, whereas the actual female actors have very little to do. That combined with a great deal of unfettered silliness and juvenile humor tends to leave a bad impression of Monty Python with it's female viewers. Not to say that there are not any female Monty Python fans, on the contrary, there are quite a few, it just wasn't really catered to them. Considering that this is a film version of a British sketch show it does surprisingly well for itself. Some scenes from this movie (Such as Arthur vs. The Black Knight) are just as famous if not more so then their best sketches.
Monty Python and the Holy Grail was made in 1975 before the invention of the PG-13 rating, so it is not quite as family friendly as its PG rating implies. There is one scene in paticular where a group of women attempt to seduce Sir Gallhad and almost succeed before Sir Lancelot arrives and rescues him. The scene starts off innocent enough, but the dialogue gets increasingly more suggestive until the very end where it is outright explicit. Now let me just say, do not let this be a deciding factor in whether or not to see this film. If this type of material offends you than there is really only one good way to enjoy any film and that is with a remote control. The above mentioned scene could easily be skipped without any loss of important information as it is a one joke scene that even the filmmakers themselves agree is somewhat pointless. A few mild expletives may tarnish the experience of some, but they are so infrequent that I believe it is not a major issue. Now interestingly enough, the film is actually quite violent with many bloody decapitations, severed limbs, and other gruesome deaths. Before you get too excited though, let me remind you that this is brutal bloody violence in a 1975 low budget British film. So it's not quite as gory as it sounds. Also most of the violence is in a comical manner. As with most comedic adventures it is sure to offend some, however, unlike a lot of modern comedies, it does not set out to be offensive, it just doesn't go out of it's way to not be offensive.
Monty Python and the Holy Grail is an enjoyable movie that has entertained its fans for decades. However, not all people who have seen the movie, like it. The humor is difficult to understand for some people and there is no real point or message to it. The plot is very loosely connected making the movie look closer to a series of connected skits than an actual film, but considering some of their previous works, at least the plot actually is connected for this film. All in all, Monty Python and the Holy Grail may be the closest thing we will ever get to a perfect comedy. It certainly has it's issues, but none of them make the film any less enjoyable for me. It is a movie that warrants multiple viewings due to its rapid fire pacing of jokes and sheer comedic value. The six men that make up Monty Python are all funny individually, together they are even more funny, and this movie is the funniest they have ever been together. But that might not be saying a whole lot, if you don't appreciate their style of comedy. So if you enjoy absurdist humor, political satire, spontaneous musical numbers mixed in with a great deal of non sequiturs, then this is the movie for you. However, if you don't like weakly connected plot lines, a great deal of non sequiturs, making fun of British history, or Films That Have No Real Point Or Message; I suggest you avoid this one. In the end, Monty Python and the Holy Grail may not have been enjoyable to everyone who saw it, but in my opinion it certainly deserves all the praise it has been given.
But is this movie really worth all the praise and admiration given to it by it's adoring fans? Or is it just another one of those cult classics that no one really understands? Allow me to share my observations on the film and determine for yourself. First of all, who is the target audience for this movie? This is just a guess here, but I would say the movie is mainly aimed towards young men ages 15-35. I have reached this conclusion based on the fact, that although the film is one of those films that actually managed to be popular with several generations, It did have a very specific impact point. In my observation the film is more successful with younger men. More often than not, women who view The Holy Grail tend to walk out missing the point of the movie and have a difficult time discerning the point. It is not meant for younger children, despite it's PG rating, but I'll get to that later. The Holy Grail strikes an odd balance between ridiculously juvenile and surprisingly intellectual. For example, in one scene Arthur attempts to find knights to join him at the round table, but instead is criticized by one of the peasants for hanging on to dated imperialist dogma which perpetuates the economic and social differences in their society. When Arthur tries to explain that he is king, due to the Lady of the Lake bestowing to him Excalibur, he is criticized again for attempting to wield supreme executive authority based on nothing more than a 'farcical aquatic ceremony'. The unique brand of humor that Monty Python brings is evident in the opening credits which start off normal enough, but becomes increasingly more obvious that fake credits and subtitles have been slipped in there, so much so that at several points the credits actually shut down and a message appears apologizing for the errors. Eventually, the credits are finished with a completely random set of credits completely unrelated to the movie. As with most Monty Python productions, periodically throughout the movie random animations will appear that are also completely unrelated to the film, but somewhat amusing. Of the four Monty Python films The Holy Grail is the only one with a coherent and somewhat connected plot line with the possible exception of Life of Brian. The movie often employs techniques such as breaking the fourth wall and the above mentioned non sequiturs which might be annoying to people who dislike these methods of comedy.
But does it sit well with it's intended audience? I would say yes, for what they have set out to accomplish they have certainly succeeded. To be well versed in Monty Python and the Holy Grail is considered geeky and in my experience it has been a huge success with a lot of young men that have seen it. As I said before, it does not do nearly as well with women as it does with men, although that may have something to do with the fact that women do not play a huge role in Monty Python altogether. The Holy Grail is the only Arthur film where Queen Guinevere is not even mentioned let alone seen. The show as well as the film often has men dressing up as women for comedic effect, whereas the actual female actors have very little to do. That combined with a great deal of unfettered silliness and juvenile humor tends to leave a bad impression of Monty Python with it's female viewers. Not to say that there are not any female Monty Python fans, on the contrary, there are quite a few, it just wasn't really catered to them. Considering that this is a film version of a British sketch show it does surprisingly well for itself. Some scenes from this movie (Such as Arthur vs. The Black Knight) are just as famous if not more so then their best sketches.
Monty Python and the Holy Grail was made in 1975 before the invention of the PG-13 rating, so it is not quite as family friendly as its PG rating implies. There is one scene in paticular where a group of women attempt to seduce Sir Gallhad and almost succeed before Sir Lancelot arrives and rescues him. The scene starts off innocent enough, but the dialogue gets increasingly more suggestive until the very end where it is outright explicit. Now let me just say, do not let this be a deciding factor in whether or not to see this film. If this type of material offends you than there is really only one good way to enjoy any film and that is with a remote control. The above mentioned scene could easily be skipped without any loss of important information as it is a one joke scene that even the filmmakers themselves agree is somewhat pointless. A few mild expletives may tarnish the experience of some, but they are so infrequent that I believe it is not a major issue. Now interestingly enough, the film is actually quite violent with many bloody decapitations, severed limbs, and other gruesome deaths. Before you get too excited though, let me remind you that this is brutal bloody violence in a 1975 low budget British film. So it's not quite as gory as it sounds. Also most of the violence is in a comical manner. As with most comedic adventures it is sure to offend some, however, unlike a lot of modern comedies, it does not set out to be offensive, it just doesn't go out of it's way to not be offensive.
Monty Python and the Holy Grail is an enjoyable movie that has entertained its fans for decades. However, not all people who have seen the movie, like it. The humor is difficult to understand for some people and there is no real point or message to it. The plot is very loosely connected making the movie look closer to a series of connected skits than an actual film, but considering some of their previous works, at least the plot actually is connected for this film. All in all, Monty Python and the Holy Grail may be the closest thing we will ever get to a perfect comedy. It certainly has it's issues, but none of them make the film any less enjoyable for me. It is a movie that warrants multiple viewings due to its rapid fire pacing of jokes and sheer comedic value. The six men that make up Monty Python are all funny individually, together they are even more funny, and this movie is the funniest they have ever been together. But that might not be saying a whole lot, if you don't appreciate their style of comedy. So if you enjoy absurdist humor, political satire, spontaneous musical numbers mixed in with a great deal of non sequiturs, then this is the movie for you. However, if you don't like weakly connected plot lines, a great deal of non sequiturs, making fun of British history, or Films That Have No Real Point Or Message; I suggest you avoid this one. In the end, Monty Python and the Holy Grail may not have been enjoyable to everyone who saw it, but in my opinion it certainly deserves all the praise it has been given.
Thursday, November 11, 2010
Introduction (I highly reccomend you read this one first)
Hi, I'm Mike. Some of you probably know that already. I hope to someday have a career reviewing movies and I thought I would start here. I know that in today's world you are constantly bombarded with opinions and biases and agendas, and I am making an oath to you right now to try not to allow any of those things into my reviews. I will not give these movies ratings of any kind, but simply give you the following facts about the movies I review:
1. Who the target audience of the movie is.
2. How much the target audience will enjoy the movie
3. What some people might enjoy about the movie.
4. What some people might not like about the movie (I.E. negative reactions that are not necessarily mine)
I suppose you are wondering what makes me different from all the other babbling fools on the internet who want to tell you what movies you should watch. The difference between me and them is I will never command you to see or not see a movie. I will only tell you why you may or may not like it. You see I believe that many critics today do not do their job. Their job is to tell you what is good about a movie and what is bad about it, not just to get their own private rants out there. For example I once read a review of the film Spider-Man 2, where the critic spent the majority of the review talking about Tobey Maguire's eyes. A lot of times the movies critics like are not the movies people actually want to see. I for one, can certainly understand how seeing so many movies can make someone less likely to like a movie that has a generic and predictable formula, however, that doesn't excuse the fact that we as critics have a duty to moviegoers to tell them only the facts about movies and not let our personal opinions get in the way of that. Obviously as with all media personal opinions do show through, and I will usually let you know my opinion of the movie. The main difference between me and everyone else is that I do not expect, nor do I particularly want my opinion to become yours. One thing I learned a long time ago is that there is only one person who can tell you what movies you should see and that person person is Ebert Roper. Okay, Okay, I'm kidding (Although he is more of a real movie reviewer than just another guy who rants) That person is you, you have to take the information I give you about a particular movie, combine it with what you know about your likes and dislikes of movies and decide for yourself if you want to see it. I cannot tell you how many movies I've seen and then regretted wasting my time watching them, I can only hope I provide enough accurate information so that you don't make a horrible mistake in picking a movie to watch. So if you are tired of hearing "critics" yell at you about why you shouldn't go see that new blockbuster movie that just opened, I'll be right here to tell you why you might actually enjoy it. Of course I will mention stale plot formulas, underdeveloped characters and poorly written scripts, but these things don't necessarily mean that you won't enjoy the movie. For example, you will find that I am a huge sucker for slow-motion. I know it's a gimmick, but it works every time for me.
I suppose that you are also wondering what makes me qualified to be your voice of reason when it comes to film. I assure you that I have seen many films myself and I know what makes a film enjoyable to people. I know a lot about cliches and predictable story lines, but I also know that some of them still work no matter how many times you see it. A film is never simply good or bad. Instead there are a lot of variables that go into a film such as the acting, the dialogue, the special effects, the soundtrack, the costumes, even down to the lighting and make-up, so that if even one is done poorly, or lazily, it detracts from the film as a whole. I also recognize that when it comes to movies there is a very large variety of what people like. Some people love generic horror movies that follow rote formula to fault. Other people like mind bending thrillers that keep them guessing.
I know that a lot of movies today contain material that might be offensive to some people (Like Lindsey Lohan) and so I will let you know about what kind of objectionable material will be in these movies and whether or not it subtracts from the experience as a whole. I am not going to go as far as some people and count the profanities and describe every violent deed or impure thought of the movie, because that is just ridiculous. However, I will simply let you know the general nature and spirit of the movie.
I want to state this again. I cannot tell you what movies you should watch, I can only tell you what movies you might like, and what movies you might not like. So check out some of my reviews. You just might like them.
1. Who the target audience of the movie is.
2. How much the target audience will enjoy the movie
3. What some people might enjoy about the movie.
4. What some people might not like about the movie (I.E. negative reactions that are not necessarily mine)
I suppose you are wondering what makes me different from all the other babbling fools on the internet who want to tell you what movies you should watch. The difference between me and them is I will never command you to see or not see a movie. I will only tell you why you may or may not like it. You see I believe that many critics today do not do their job. Their job is to tell you what is good about a movie and what is bad about it, not just to get their own private rants out there. For example I once read a review of the film Spider-Man 2, where the critic spent the majority of the review talking about Tobey Maguire's eyes. A lot of times the movies critics like are not the movies people actually want to see. I for one, can certainly understand how seeing so many movies can make someone less likely to like a movie that has a generic and predictable formula, however, that doesn't excuse the fact that we as critics have a duty to moviegoers to tell them only the facts about movies and not let our personal opinions get in the way of that. Obviously as with all media personal opinions do show through, and I will usually let you know my opinion of the movie. The main difference between me and everyone else is that I do not expect, nor do I particularly want my opinion to become yours. One thing I learned a long time ago is that there is only one person who can tell you what movies you should see and that person person is Ebert Roper. Okay, Okay, I'm kidding (Although he is more of a real movie reviewer than just another guy who rants) That person is you, you have to take the information I give you about a particular movie, combine it with what you know about your likes and dislikes of movies and decide for yourself if you want to see it. I cannot tell you how many movies I've seen and then regretted wasting my time watching them, I can only hope I provide enough accurate information so that you don't make a horrible mistake in picking a movie to watch. So if you are tired of hearing "critics" yell at you about why you shouldn't go see that new blockbuster movie that just opened, I'll be right here to tell you why you might actually enjoy it. Of course I will mention stale plot formulas, underdeveloped characters and poorly written scripts, but these things don't necessarily mean that you won't enjoy the movie. For example, you will find that I am a huge sucker for slow-motion. I know it's a gimmick, but it works every time for me.
I suppose that you are also wondering what makes me qualified to be your voice of reason when it comes to film. I assure you that I have seen many films myself and I know what makes a film enjoyable to people. I know a lot about cliches and predictable story lines, but I also know that some of them still work no matter how many times you see it. A film is never simply good or bad. Instead there are a lot of variables that go into a film such as the acting, the dialogue, the special effects, the soundtrack, the costumes, even down to the lighting and make-up, so that if even one is done poorly, or lazily, it detracts from the film as a whole. I also recognize that when it comes to movies there is a very large variety of what people like. Some people love generic horror movies that follow rote formula to fault. Other people like mind bending thrillers that keep them guessing.
I know that a lot of movies today contain material that might be offensive to some people (Like Lindsey Lohan) and so I will let you know about what kind of objectionable material will be in these movies and whether or not it subtracts from the experience as a whole. I am not going to go as far as some people and count the profanities and describe every violent deed or impure thought of the movie, because that is just ridiculous. However, I will simply let you know the general nature and spirit of the movie.
I want to state this again. I cannot tell you what movies you should watch, I can only tell you what movies you might like, and what movies you might not like. So check out some of my reviews. You just might like them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)