Monday, April 8, 2013

RIP Roger Ebert

As most of you probably know, Roger Ebert passed away on April 4th from his long battle with cancer. I'm already missing his tweets. He was always posting on Twitter and I always thought it was funny how he'd always try to win the New Yorker caption contest. I also loved reading his movie posts, even if I didn't agree with some, but I did agree with him most of the time. Even if you weren't a fan of his reviews, you can't deny that the man knew how to write. Rest in Peace, Roger, see you at the movies.

Sunday, April 7, 2013

Bond: My New Found Love for Agent 007

Ok, apparently I had been introduced to Bond movies by the wrong person because after Skyfall (2012), I decided I needed to rethink my stance on James Bond films. This past week, I was able to checkout some of the originals with Sean Connery. Why the person who showed me my first Bond film didn't start with Dr. No (1962) is beyond me.

Sean Connery is so sexy as Bond, it's ridiculous. The movie is enjoyable because the storyline is fun because it's so goofy. I do think that seeing all the Austin Powers movies prior to Bond movies is what made the movie so humorous, but I think that's why I was so entertained by it. I'm in the middle of watching Goldfinger (1964) right now and I'm loving it. His wardrobe is great and the inappropriate names for the characters are fantastic. I can definitely tell that the premise of Bond was influenced by the dashing Cary Grant. He would have been a wonderful Bond, which I think is obvious if you've ever seen Notorious (1946), North by Northwest (1959), or Charade (1963).

I've been a big fan of Daniel Craig for a while now. He's a brilliant Bond. I like how manly he is, with his chiseled abs and rugged facial features. He's in fabulous shape, so all those action scenes were fun to watch. The casting of Javier Bardem as the villain Silva was a wise choice. That guy is so good at playing creeps, that'd I'd probably be afraid of him if I met him in real life.

James Bond is a lot of fun. I'm looking forward to watching more of the movies that have already been made and those that are coming in the future.

Saturday, April 6, 2013

EVIL DEAD: The Evil and the Not So Evil

I went to see the remake of Evil Dead tonight. I found it to be disgusting with loads of unintentional humor. There was some believable acting, mainly by Jane Levy, but she didn't have much to go off. The remake takes the film into a different direction than the original, focusing more on a gross overuse of blood and guts. Overuse of gore does not scare me, it just grosses me out. I actually gagged a few times and I wasn't the only one. People were not screaming often watching this movie, only gagging and laughing. Due to this, I prefer the 80's version.

I love the original from the 80s, it's disturbing, yet oddly hilarious at the same time. Fantastic horror movie on a small budget. Yes, it does get a bit gross as well, but not to an extent of what the new version has. I did not gag watching the original because the blood and guts didn't seem as nasty. I'm sure when that movie first came out, it was gag worthy, but not if you see the gore they come up with today. However, it was rated NC-17 for a reason...

I like horror movies that have humor in them, so both versions have that working for them. Who knew duct tape was so damn useful? I liked the way the woods and the set looked in the new film because it looked crisp and dark. The old one has a nice creepy look to it, as well, but with a drastically different budget. If you are a fan of the original, don't go to the new Evil Dead expecting something similar. The demons in the original were a lot more fun than the ones in the new version. The old demons were big time tricksters, whereas the new demons were just extremely gross. I did not hate the new version, but I do think it's a big downgrade from the original.