Welcome to the new profile
We're still working on updating some profile features. To see the badges, ratings breakdowns, and polls for this profile, please go to the previous version.
Reviews86
TheHrunting's rating
Since two motion pictures, A & E, PBS and National Geographic have jumped in after the newspapers and best selling books, The History Channel gives it their turn surprisingly with a formative take even after all of the documentation before it. This time around the main perspective comes from Fernando "Nando" Parrado who played a key role in the Andes plane crash of 1972. The Uruguayan Air Force Flight 571 involved 45 passengers, including a team of rugby players called The Old Christians and other family and crew, who were on their way to Chile with no danger in sight until the pilot makes a grave error that caused everyone involved to make impossible decisions to hang on for survival in a weather stricken region with no wildlife or vegetation in sight.
A share of the tone of this documentary is somewhat calm and relaxed and more text book at first than other mediums that have concentrated on putting the audience in the now from a dramatic side. Towards the latter half with Nando and Roberto going through the mountains, they can't help but tell the story with straight feelings, as that's all they had to back them, apart from their skin and bones which nearly gave out. Both of the segments from A & E's "Minute by Minute" from 2002 and National Geographic's "Trapped" from 2007 tried to do the subject in under an hour by concentrating on the main portions of action, but still didn't give a completely thorough approach or show exactly how they got to each one of their motivations apart from jumping dot to dot. Those served more as introduction pieces to further the ambitions of upstarting TV shows and point to another medium. Though "I Am Alive" stands on its own by being thoroughly researched, even if you've seen the other documentaries on the subject. It doesn't seem forced with distracting poetic license or snazzy filmmaking. While they still give some brief reenactments, this focuses on getting a clear perspective from facts and fine details with passionate interviews from the survivors and related experts who still find the experience endearing and engrossing this many years later. This includes mostly spoken English with some overdubbed Spanish.
"I Am Alive" unfolds like a picture book with a share of information and visual representations of the accident and the 72 days that followed. While moving "Stranded" documentary from 2007 focused on the spiritual bonding of friends and how they viewed their situation from an emotional context, this is by far out of the documentaries that I've seen the one that gives the most clear and concise technical understanding. For instance, precisely how and why the plane crashed. There are even diagrams with historians telling their track record. "Of the 78 Fairchild FH-227s built, 23 crashed, and there were a total of 393 fatalities." There are real life pictures of where they hit the mountains, and then CGI graphics to show how lucky they were to land just so to have not made a sudden impact and disintegrated. The surrounding area is shown of exactly where they ended up on the side of Argentina, not in Chile like the pilots anticipated.
As the events come up, the experts give facts about head injuries, starvation, avalanches, inventing devices from supplies, traveling through the Andes and mountaineering. A climber and a team went back to cover some of the same distances Nando and Roberto did, which took them 10 days and 37 long and hard miles till they seen green. Photos were taken of the road that Roberto saw from the top of the first summit that they argued about at the time if they should head that way, but at that point being lost, unsure and hungry and then making the wrong move could have been life or death. I found it interesting that they discussed if they went east towards Argentina instead of west towards Chile if their chances would have improved. In the after author Piers Paul Read talks about his book "Alive" and the fear from the survivors of how it would be written after all of the sensationalist press around the globe.
What's mostly effective about "I Am Alive" is they weren't frequently making justifications for their actions after the fact. Nando carries the bulk and speaks somewhat unscripted as if he knows the story like the back of his hand. At times they still speak their piece, such as Nando calling what they did "anthropophagy" rather than cannibalism, since it didn't follow murder. At other times he speaks rather candidly, such as explaining that the avalanche saved the remaining people's lives due to it covering them from further storms, and then incidentally taking 8 more bodies that they used for food for the remaining days till they could trek out when weather conditions improved. It says a lot for him and the 15 others, but not so much for those that didn't make it out. It does state some facts a little directly and somewhat coldly as a result, though, on the other hand, it leaves room for the viewer to decide their stance. What makes this work is it's capable of uncovering more answers from stepping back somewhat and not making this completely a heavy hitter that "Stranded" already did so well. (Also submitted on http://fromblacktoredfilmreviews.blogspot.com/ along with reviews for "Supervivientes de los Andes," "Alive," "Alive: 20 Years Later," "The 1972 Andes Survivors," "Alive in the Andes" and "Stranded")
A share of the tone of this documentary is somewhat calm and relaxed and more text book at first than other mediums that have concentrated on putting the audience in the now from a dramatic side. Towards the latter half with Nando and Roberto going through the mountains, they can't help but tell the story with straight feelings, as that's all they had to back them, apart from their skin and bones which nearly gave out. Both of the segments from A & E's "Minute by Minute" from 2002 and National Geographic's "Trapped" from 2007 tried to do the subject in under an hour by concentrating on the main portions of action, but still didn't give a completely thorough approach or show exactly how they got to each one of their motivations apart from jumping dot to dot. Those served more as introduction pieces to further the ambitions of upstarting TV shows and point to another medium. Though "I Am Alive" stands on its own by being thoroughly researched, even if you've seen the other documentaries on the subject. It doesn't seem forced with distracting poetic license or snazzy filmmaking. While they still give some brief reenactments, this focuses on getting a clear perspective from facts and fine details with passionate interviews from the survivors and related experts who still find the experience endearing and engrossing this many years later. This includes mostly spoken English with some overdubbed Spanish.
"I Am Alive" unfolds like a picture book with a share of information and visual representations of the accident and the 72 days that followed. While moving "Stranded" documentary from 2007 focused on the spiritual bonding of friends and how they viewed their situation from an emotional context, this is by far out of the documentaries that I've seen the one that gives the most clear and concise technical understanding. For instance, precisely how and why the plane crashed. There are even diagrams with historians telling their track record. "Of the 78 Fairchild FH-227s built, 23 crashed, and there were a total of 393 fatalities." There are real life pictures of where they hit the mountains, and then CGI graphics to show how lucky they were to land just so to have not made a sudden impact and disintegrated. The surrounding area is shown of exactly where they ended up on the side of Argentina, not in Chile like the pilots anticipated.
As the events come up, the experts give facts about head injuries, starvation, avalanches, inventing devices from supplies, traveling through the Andes and mountaineering. A climber and a team went back to cover some of the same distances Nando and Roberto did, which took them 10 days and 37 long and hard miles till they seen green. Photos were taken of the road that Roberto saw from the top of the first summit that they argued about at the time if they should head that way, but at that point being lost, unsure and hungry and then making the wrong move could have been life or death. I found it interesting that they discussed if they went east towards Argentina instead of west towards Chile if their chances would have improved. In the after author Piers Paul Read talks about his book "Alive" and the fear from the survivors of how it would be written after all of the sensationalist press around the globe.
What's mostly effective about "I Am Alive" is they weren't frequently making justifications for their actions after the fact. Nando carries the bulk and speaks somewhat unscripted as if he knows the story like the back of his hand. At times they still speak their piece, such as Nando calling what they did "anthropophagy" rather than cannibalism, since it didn't follow murder. At other times he speaks rather candidly, such as explaining that the avalanche saved the remaining people's lives due to it covering them from further storms, and then incidentally taking 8 more bodies that they used for food for the remaining days till they could trek out when weather conditions improved. It says a lot for him and the 15 others, but not so much for those that didn't make it out. It does state some facts a little directly and somewhat coldly as a result, though, on the other hand, it leaves room for the viewer to decide their stance. What makes this work is it's capable of uncovering more answers from stepping back somewhat and not making this completely a heavy hitter that "Stranded" already did so well. (Also submitted on http://fromblacktoredfilmreviews.blogspot.com/ along with reviews for "Supervivientes de los Andes," "Alive," "Alive: 20 Years Later," "The 1972 Andes Survivors," "Alive in the Andes" and "Stranded")
As much as I enjoy the 1982 film, I'm going to review this as its own separate experience. The story element for the "Conan the Barbarian" 2011 felt pretty straightforward, as potential for more weighty subject matter was there but wasn't always emphasized, rather than jumping into one showy scene after the next. The quick pacing doesn't always give breathing room to think instead of a share of it just passing through. Since it doesn't always take advantage of one place for long, it often does itself a disservice for replay value when there aren't many layers to peel back.
A boy born in battle is destined to be a warrior, he grows up at first somewhat small and unappreciated, has another family member taken away from him and then seeks revenge at a much later time in his life when the villain so happens to be close to his master plan. It felt like too many flashy scenes surrounded by little substance of narrative to fully clench its epic proportions. It did give off certain sensations the first time around, I'll give it that, though there wasn't much to ponder on below the surface about the characters or the journey after it ended.
Jason Momoa held a presence of his own with a bulky and commanding physique, even if not ridiculously cut to the point of striation. He has a distinctive look on screen and a booming, almost professional wrestler voice. He appeared tough with some added scars and a deadpan stare, but ultimately well balanced when he was naturally wielding a sword like he owned it. Now, that's just his presence, because as for his aura there's not much else in the way of creating mystery about him, a relating ideology beyond the sword or fully capturing someone who's torn up with emotions about his lost relatives and village. He pretty much just moves from one place to the other with a loose strategy plan and it doesn't make this as gripping as the filmmakers intended with the fast flow.
The movie is very bombastic. There are various macho guy vs macho guy action scenes that include a share of candid blood shed and cruel wounds to show for it without pulling away. A particular creature scene with sand spirits was an inventive addition as they can appear from all around. There's a tad of humor, T and A nudity, a short lived love connection which leads to rescuing the damsel in distress, and then various sets of the real and CGI type that give presence of being splendid to dismal. Some of the dialogue and character setups give a sense of grand scope, though others can go over the mark to the point of hokiness. Especially some of the lines from both the villains Khalar Zym (Stephen Lang) and his odd, finger-bladed daughter Marique (Rose McGowan). I've liked both performers in other films, and they look their part here, just some of the lines delivered aren't always shown in the best light.
I've seen a share of 3D films by now and this one was somewhat distracting out of the bunch. The tight action sequences were jarring to the point of frequently throwing out my focus like no other 3D movie I've seen to date to the point of having to sit farther back than usual. For the regular, every-other-time cinema goer, I'd say "Conan the Barbarian" 2011 isn't worth the pricey ticket as it's not pressing to see beyond a fan of the genre or the prior source material. As for an action-fantasy movie it included a large amount of action to whiz by one's head, though for fantasy it had a fairly to the point unfolding of the story for the genre, which can make the experience more titillating than impacting. (Also submitted on http://fromblacktoredfilmreviews.blogspot.com/)
A boy born in battle is destined to be a warrior, he grows up at first somewhat small and unappreciated, has another family member taken away from him and then seeks revenge at a much later time in his life when the villain so happens to be close to his master plan. It felt like too many flashy scenes surrounded by little substance of narrative to fully clench its epic proportions. It did give off certain sensations the first time around, I'll give it that, though there wasn't much to ponder on below the surface about the characters or the journey after it ended.
Jason Momoa held a presence of his own with a bulky and commanding physique, even if not ridiculously cut to the point of striation. He has a distinctive look on screen and a booming, almost professional wrestler voice. He appeared tough with some added scars and a deadpan stare, but ultimately well balanced when he was naturally wielding a sword like he owned it. Now, that's just his presence, because as for his aura there's not much else in the way of creating mystery about him, a relating ideology beyond the sword or fully capturing someone who's torn up with emotions about his lost relatives and village. He pretty much just moves from one place to the other with a loose strategy plan and it doesn't make this as gripping as the filmmakers intended with the fast flow.
The movie is very bombastic. There are various macho guy vs macho guy action scenes that include a share of candid blood shed and cruel wounds to show for it without pulling away. A particular creature scene with sand spirits was an inventive addition as they can appear from all around. There's a tad of humor, T and A nudity, a short lived love connection which leads to rescuing the damsel in distress, and then various sets of the real and CGI type that give presence of being splendid to dismal. Some of the dialogue and character setups give a sense of grand scope, though others can go over the mark to the point of hokiness. Especially some of the lines from both the villains Khalar Zym (Stephen Lang) and his odd, finger-bladed daughter Marique (Rose McGowan). I've liked both performers in other films, and they look their part here, just some of the lines delivered aren't always shown in the best light.
I've seen a share of 3D films by now and this one was somewhat distracting out of the bunch. The tight action sequences were jarring to the point of frequently throwing out my focus like no other 3D movie I've seen to date to the point of having to sit farther back than usual. For the regular, every-other-time cinema goer, I'd say "Conan the Barbarian" 2011 isn't worth the pricey ticket as it's not pressing to see beyond a fan of the genre or the prior source material. As for an action-fantasy movie it included a large amount of action to whiz by one's head, though for fantasy it had a fairly to the point unfolding of the story for the genre, which can make the experience more titillating than impacting. (Also submitted on http://fromblacktoredfilmreviews.blogspot.com/)
This is a film where the ludicrous story is in the background with the players throwing out banter, odd little quirks and working on friendship through the thick and thin in the foreground. There's the two buddies who've got each other's back, or at least they initially thought when secrets come out about Chet (Aziz Ansari) confessing to being the culprit for Nick's (Jesse Eisenberg) parent's divorce and Nick sleeping with Chet's twin sister one time way back. On the opposite corner, Dwayne (Danny McBride) lives at home with his lottery-winning, Marine-spouting dad who belittles him. So he turns right back around and acts all dominating and self-centered to the tag-along Travis (Nick Swardson) who wants to make an impression, so he'll do just about anything for his respect.
As the title suggests Nick is a "30 Minutes or Less" pizza guy who hates his job. Meanwhile Dwayne despises his dad and from the advice of a stripper decides to hire a hit-man to take care of his father and collect his remaining lottery bankroll. He'll need $100 grand of his own for the hire and decides to get some pizza dude to rob a bank for him with some convincing of a bomb vest. Yep, the story is pretty ridiculous to say the least--despite supposedly mirroring real life events in Pennsylvania--as point A doesn't always smoothly line up to point B in the film. Dwayne and Travis have an idea--wham!--they have a solution fall into their lap, literally. Nick is presented with a dilemma--wham!--he jumps right into it like it was his calling card. Director Ruben Fleischer along with Eisenberg did a great turn around for "Zombieland" and you might except them to have done so here. Except this is either a make it or break it movie, since the scenarios are over-the-top and the dialogue is going for broke with the goofy, juvenile and throwing a parade with low self-esteem--sex, gay, racist jokes that might be funnier on substances but a share of them throwaway otherwise--instead of possibly the witty or setting up punchlines, which makes this more a single shot film than a repeater.
It felt like they tried too hard at times for that laugh by saying whatever to get a reaction rather than working through a scene. Other films have gotten away and proved to be thoroughly funny gems with a similar setup, but that's pretty much all this has going for it with not too many tricks up its sleeves otherwise. It's an attempt at a simple laugh riot by taking a trip to the loony land of the thought to be implausible. Though it doesn't always fully sculpt that world they take you to. It feels like you got invited to a gathering, yet don't always get a full feel for the people around you to truly let loose and have a grand time yourself because they're nothing but loafers, idiotic and get themselves in entanglements for all the wrong reasons--not exactly charismatic to say the least, even when laughing at them. Not to mention the character development went in and out whenever they felt like it: from knowing better to not knowing better, to doing it because they're forced but then enjoying getting caught up in it.
Swardson probably has the most range as he's nearly capable--he was the one who built a complex bomb after all--but doesn't want to let down a friend, so he goes along to get along. The others arrive in one state and leave in a similar state: little growth, little to learn. The credits rolled down somewhat abruptly without showing the after party where their adventurous story is told or their reward is enjoyed. Yeah, it's a silly comedy but there doesn't feel like that much in the way of a challenge rather than a contrivance for life's struggles, as a share of the setups are there to a point, just not always capitalized on or transitioned to its own advantage. The twin sister literally feels like the twin sister without a name, as she's dropped off in the story somewhere as a mirage to work towards for the slacker Nick, as everybody else around him is becoming more successful. Chet so happens to like his full time teaching job, and Nick's lost love so happens to be moving to Atlanta during all this mayhem. There were some lines here that are funny from the jittery Aziz Ansari and some here nor there from the others, but overall hit and miss. To its credit the movie goes by very quickly, as in they move from one place to the next in a rapid succession, even if what they're doing doesn't always feel that gravitating or memorable past a cursory viewing, if that even. If you're a die hard fan of a performer here, I recommend a rental. A free rental. A free rental when you're all taxed out and there's nothing else to watch.
As the title suggests Nick is a "30 Minutes or Less" pizza guy who hates his job. Meanwhile Dwayne despises his dad and from the advice of a stripper decides to hire a hit-man to take care of his father and collect his remaining lottery bankroll. He'll need $100 grand of his own for the hire and decides to get some pizza dude to rob a bank for him with some convincing of a bomb vest. Yep, the story is pretty ridiculous to say the least--despite supposedly mirroring real life events in Pennsylvania--as point A doesn't always smoothly line up to point B in the film. Dwayne and Travis have an idea--wham!--they have a solution fall into their lap, literally. Nick is presented with a dilemma--wham!--he jumps right into it like it was his calling card. Director Ruben Fleischer along with Eisenberg did a great turn around for "Zombieland" and you might except them to have done so here. Except this is either a make it or break it movie, since the scenarios are over-the-top and the dialogue is going for broke with the goofy, juvenile and throwing a parade with low self-esteem--sex, gay, racist jokes that might be funnier on substances but a share of them throwaway otherwise--instead of possibly the witty or setting up punchlines, which makes this more a single shot film than a repeater.
It felt like they tried too hard at times for that laugh by saying whatever to get a reaction rather than working through a scene. Other films have gotten away and proved to be thoroughly funny gems with a similar setup, but that's pretty much all this has going for it with not too many tricks up its sleeves otherwise. It's an attempt at a simple laugh riot by taking a trip to the loony land of the thought to be implausible. Though it doesn't always fully sculpt that world they take you to. It feels like you got invited to a gathering, yet don't always get a full feel for the people around you to truly let loose and have a grand time yourself because they're nothing but loafers, idiotic and get themselves in entanglements for all the wrong reasons--not exactly charismatic to say the least, even when laughing at them. Not to mention the character development went in and out whenever they felt like it: from knowing better to not knowing better, to doing it because they're forced but then enjoying getting caught up in it.
Swardson probably has the most range as he's nearly capable--he was the one who built a complex bomb after all--but doesn't want to let down a friend, so he goes along to get along. The others arrive in one state and leave in a similar state: little growth, little to learn. The credits rolled down somewhat abruptly without showing the after party where their adventurous story is told or their reward is enjoyed. Yeah, it's a silly comedy but there doesn't feel like that much in the way of a challenge rather than a contrivance for life's struggles, as a share of the setups are there to a point, just not always capitalized on or transitioned to its own advantage. The twin sister literally feels like the twin sister without a name, as she's dropped off in the story somewhere as a mirage to work towards for the slacker Nick, as everybody else around him is becoming more successful. Chet so happens to like his full time teaching job, and Nick's lost love so happens to be moving to Atlanta during all this mayhem. There were some lines here that are funny from the jittery Aziz Ansari and some here nor there from the others, but overall hit and miss. To its credit the movie goes by very quickly, as in they move from one place to the next in a rapid succession, even if what they're doing doesn't always feel that gravitating or memorable past a cursory viewing, if that even. If you're a die hard fan of a performer here, I recommend a rental. A free rental. A free rental when you're all taxed out and there's nothing else to watch.