Klak's Reviews

Good [insert time of day here] LADIES AND GENTLEMEN!
One thing about me is that I have always been a movie love-

Oh, wait. Wrong User.


GOOOOOOOOOOOD DAY LADIES AND GENTLEBOTS! Ynot may love movies, but as my old film teacher said, I BLEED cellulite!

So, Ynot inspired me to make this topic with an idea he gave me: Make a parody of my film reviews. I decided to take it one step further. I'll throw in my own review style and discuss the films even Ynot wouldn't dare to watch!

Today's review: "THE DICTATOR"

No, not the Charlie Chaplin film. The one made by Sacha Bara Cohen, known for his portrayals of Borat and Brüno.

Summary: In this cinematic adventure, Sacha plays Admiral General Aladeen, a North African/Middle Eastern dictator of the Republic of Wadiya. Oppressive, cruel, racist, and friends with every dictator you know, Aladeen rules Wadiya with an iron fist.

He is later invited to speak at a UN meeting after facing possible sanctions from the rest of the world. Suddenly, he is kidnapped and is no longer in power. How will Admiral General Aladeen get back on the throne, and can he survive the insanity of New York City life?

Commentary:

Positives:

This film is hilarious at many points. There are also a great deal of racial, political, and sexual jokes thrown in there as well, so it's your standard comedy with sprinkles of raunch and dark humor too. However, the film does have a degree of wit to it.

The political humor is something this film revels in. You will not fully understand how funny certain scenes and/or jokes are if you do not familiarize yourself with the current political climate.

As for the performances, I must say, Ben Kingsley and Anna Faris play their parts very well, but Sacha Baron Cohen steals the show with his portrayal of Aladeen and another character (won't say who he is because it involves spoilers). His exaggerated accent, his attire, mannerisms, all fit the character perfectly. Fans of Cohen will not be disappointed, even if it's not a mockumentary like his previous two films.

Negatives:

Like I said, there are SEVERAL racial stereotypes thrown in. What's interesting is that the Aladeen character is very racist to others, so most of it is portrayed in a negative light. However, there remain a few Middle Eastern stereotypes that are exaggerated to comedic effect. Of course, not every Middle Eastern person is portrayed as a savage, but most of the significant characters in this film of this region are displayed as such. They don't even spend time trying to relate it to Islamism. I know someone who was offended because of these stereotypes. Many people would have moral qualms about that, and I do not blame them at all.

Political humor isn't as offensive at times, unless you support Middle Eastern dictatorships or Islamism. Some may take issue with Aladeen's constant insults thrown towards leftist activist Zoey. Or with his completely non-factual and out-of-nowhere comments in favor of Occupy Wall Street, and slight mockery of the Bush years, which last I checked ended in 2008. Why aren't we making jokes about the incumbent?
In other words, it's political satire at all people's, even oil businessmen's, expense.

Those of you who are looking for a moral message in movies, skip this one. Seriously. No joke. There is absolutely nothing morally satisfying about this, unless you consider laughing to be cathartic.

Oh, and like I said, there are raunchy scenes in it. Some moments involving certain private body parts will cause you to feel a bit grossed out. You were warned.

Final Score:

3.9/5 Points. If you plan on watching it, do it with friends (not alone, because it probably won't be that funny).

Nice. I probably wont see this film, simply because it's not in my taste, but the review is nice.
And, yeah, don't expect a review of this in Ynot's Movie Reviews...

o7 *tips hat to Ynot*

Alrighty then, time for another film review. Ynot hasn't seen it, so I might as well talk about it.

Today's review: "Crazy, Stupid, Love."

Summary: Last year's summer romantic comedy hit starring Steve Carell, Ryan Gosling, Julianne Moore, Marissa Tomei, Emma Stone, Kevin Bacon, and a few other recognizable faces is about a man (Carell) whose wife (Moore) has asked to divorce him after she cheats on him with her co-worker (Bacon). He decides to discover the manhood he never had by be-friending Jacob Palmer (Gosling), your typical ladies man, and asking him for help. Meanwhile, the man's children have their own exploits with love.

Commentary:

Positives:
First off, let me say that the performances in this movie are superb. All of the actors shine and perfectly fill their roles, but the one who truly beats everyone else and connects with the audience is Steve Carell. If you ever want to see a movie where he balances a serious, dramatic role with a comedic role, this is the film to watch. Brilliant and charming acting.

The script is very good, balancing witty humor with slight cynicism, all while retaining the romance of this genre. It is quite funny, and I'm sure many people will enjoy it.

One noticeable thing about this film is how it is a more mature take on the rom-com scenario, but doesn't take you far down the skeptical road that (500) Days of Summer decided to embark on (FTR: it was also a great movie), all while keeping a level of originality.

Another positive is the cinematography, which fits well with the scenes and almost tells its own story.

Negatives:

The movie has some issues with sexual content spread around. Nothing THAT hardcore, but enough to keep younger children away from.

Also, I found Moore's character to be too demanding of Carell's, but I assume that its part of the role she plays.

The movie isn't as hilarious as say, Date Night, but it gives several laughs (unless you find certain things funnier than I do) and will definitely make you smile and think throughout the film.

Conclusion: I myself was entertained, and I recommend this film to older people who don't mind such content in films (I for one kind of do, but I was able to sit it out since it was not heavy at all) and are willing to give a more intelligent romantic comedy a shot. Otherwise, this film is not for you.

Score: 4/5.

Hmmm.

I liked the quality of both of these reviews, and I'm intrigued by both movies.

I'll have to see if I can watch Crazy Stupid Love.

:3

Since many of you are interested in watching it, and I'm apparently the first site member to actually watch it, I am now making a review of "The Amazing Spiderman." Since the title pretty much says all, I'm not going to waste time summarizing it.

Wow. This is definitely something people have had mixed feelings over. Some have said that it was going to suck, and that it was an unneeded reboot. Some have said that it was going to be excellent. Well, I myself agree with the latter. Yes, it came 5 years after the previous franchise ended, but it is a great reboot nonetheless.

The acting is top notch. Andrew Garfield plays a Peter Parker that retains the geekey-ness of previous incarnations, all while having his own interpretation. While Maguire was more of a cheery yet conflicted type of Parker, the Peter of 2012 is someone who is witty, yet clearly traumatized by the death of his loved ones. In his first few months as Spiderman, Garfield's Parker grows and matures. Maguire's Parker seemed to rocket to hero-dom in a few scenes (nothing wrong with that). The new Parker really empathizes with the teens of today who struggle for their identity in a dark and sinful world. And if you're worried that he is not "Spidey" enough, bear in mind, he plays the character well, keeping accurate to the comic books (even in humor) while providing his own twists to it. The audience clapped when he finally named himself Spiderman.

I'll summarize the above like this: The performances and character development is one of the reasons why this film deserves to be called "Amazing". While the characters of the previous trilogy are like family to many (big fan of the trilogy myself), seeing them fleshed out over a few hours and getting to know them like new people (some, like Dr. Conners and Gwen Stacy, were almost completely new) was definitely rewarding and interesting. All of the actors give convincing and compelling performances, especially Martin Sheen, Andrew Garfield, and Sally Field.

When it comes to action and special effects, this film delivers. The first Spiderman movie, released about 10 years ago, was revolutionary for its time, but this film beats it. Breathtaking visuals and effects, and awesome action scenes.

The story brings in Dr. Curt Conners, aka The Lizard, a villain many Spiderman fans were waiting to finally be immortalized on the silver screen. I must say, he was quite evil in this film, yet was able to retain the sense of confusion and self-conflict that Dr. Conners SHOULD have.

There are moments where it gets kind of hammy, but this movie really does deliver on story. It's much darker and grittier than its predecessors, bringing in a slightly bleaker take on a familiar tale. Some may think that this is too similar to the first of Sam Raimi's Spiderman trilogy, a movie most of us enjoyed in our childhoods, or that it cannot take away the sense of innovation and wonder that those movies brought to us. I will admit, "The Amazing Spiderman" does not pack all of that sense of wonder, but delivers enough to satisfy. Then again, I'm someone who watched those films at a much younger age. Perhaps the children of today were filled with wonder upon seeing this film (and perhaps I empathized more with the modern Peter Parker because I am finally at HIS age), but it was not exactly the same experience. Of course, it was a different one. While there are some elements that are similar to the previous films, the director, writers, and actors make sure to take a familiar story in an entirely different direction, and that's not just because they decided to explore more about Peter's parents.
At some moments you feel as though it should have been Spiderman 4 instead, but in others, you realize that this was a slightly necessary reboot, and not just because of the development hell Spiderman 4 went through.

A new way of telling an old story. A different way with different twists. That's the best way of describing this film. Comparing the old ones to this one, in my opinion, is justifiable, but far too similar to comparing Batman The Animated Series to Batman The Brave and The Bold. Both were made in different decades, so different people were watching them. Both also differ in the sense that they offer different premises on similar stories. Sure, BTAS sometimes went in a cheesier lighthearted direction while the Brave and the Bold was sometimes dark (the episode with Joe Chill comes to mind), but both shows never lost direction of what they were. And neither show deserves to be put down for being what they were. I would say it's the same with both Spiderman films, but in reverse. The newer is darker and edgier with some funny and cheesy moments sprinkled throughout, while the older films are much more light-hearted with certain serious and darker moments packed inside.

Is this the greatest superhero film of all time? No. But it's great. A slightly different Spiderman than we've seen before, but still Spiderman, and a slightly familiar one while being a completely new one. If you weren't thinking of giving this film a chance, I hope this review changed your mind. If not, I respect your decision, but I recommend giving it a chance.

Only time will tell if this branches off into a trilogy. It was definitely a good intro into what might be a great series. I think it can stand with the other Spiderman films, and not against them.

My score? 4.5/5.

PS: Stay after the credits. It's a Marvel tradition, after all.