Sunday, May 22, 2011
Saturday, May 14, 2011
By Odin's Beard!
From big old question mark to the best of the "Marvel Movie Universe" movies (so far...) in one fell swoop! Kenneth Branaugh pulled off a Herculean feat by turning what is essentially a Marvel "bridge movie" and prequel to The Avengers into something that stands gloriously on its own. I couldn't be happier.
Thor: Wow, this movie should have been ludicrous. I mean, normally if I hear a narration like (and I'm paraphrasing here), "The Asgardians and the Frost Giants waged a war centuries ago..." my Silly Meter buries itself in the red. But, as my friend Josh and I decided, if Anthony Fucking Hopkins says it then, well... GENIUS. And I think that's one of the many things this movie has going for it- talent. Not a bad performance in the whole thing. Chris "I played Kirk's dad for, like, 3 minutes" Hemsworth is a relatively unknown and (until now) certainly unproven actor, but he knocks it out of the park. His Thor starts out appropriately arrogant, rash, and egotistical, but is given a wholly satisfying character arc and becomes so damned likable by the end. I don't know what the God of Thunder is like in the comic book, but as far as Hemsworth's job of driving this celluloid vehicle goes, he's Mario Andretti. Natalie Portman is (as usual) solid as Jane Foster, but not obtrusive, which could easily have been the case after all the Black Swan hoopla. Tom Hiddleston (another relative unknown) plays Thor's sneaky brother Loki with a cold, calculating jealousy right out of a Shakespeare tragedy. Stellan Skarsgård always rocks, no exception here. Anthony Fucking Hopkins ('nuff said). The comic-relief role of Darcy (Kat Dennings), which would normally make me want to claw my eyes out, was, thankfully, underplayed and acttually kind of charming. Hell, even the tertiary roles were pretty well fleshed-out. I suppose it helps when you've got the likes of Ray Stevenson and Idris Elba stacking the cards in your favor (favour?)... but I digress...
A big, red question mark/exclamation point in my head since I first saw the still shots and trailers months ago was the design, specifically the Asgard stuff. I was afraid it would come across as chincy and garish. Instead, it's all so glorious, gold, and warm- a place I'd love to visit, if it were real (I challenge you to see Thor and not wish you could walk down the glass rainbowy bridge for a chat with Stringer Bell). A complete contrast to the Frost Giant realm (did it have a name? I forget. I was too busy shushhing the loud family behind me during that stuff), which was cold (duh), dark, and blue. Actually, I'd say a little too dark... but that probably had to do with the 3-D. Don't even get me started. Fuck it, I started already. The 3-D sucks... did I ever tell you that? I saw Thor at The Ziegfeld where it was, unfortunately, only showing in the 3-D. Now, what was good about Thor's 3-D is that it was basically non-existant. The glasses served as a way to make the movie non-blurry, and that is all. Which is fine, except, you know... I PAID AN EXTRA 5 BUCKS TO WEAR AN UNCOMFORTABLE PAIR OF RISKY BUSINESS SUNGLASSES OVER MY ACTUAL GLASSES FOR NO REASON OTHER THAN TO SEE A DARKENED VERSION OF THE MOVIE PLAYING RIGHT IN FRONT OF ME. Need... Prozac... now... oh... wait.. I... don't... take... Prozac...
Um, so, the story. Thor defies his dad (Fucking Hopkins as Odin) by attacking the Frost Giants (should I be capitalizing that?), thereby threatening to end the truce between their two worlds. He's banished to Earth and stripped of all his power. His almighty hammer, Mjolnir (yes, it feels nerdy to even type that) is also sent down there, but, like King Arthur's Excalibur, it can only be wielded by one who's worthy. Secret government agency S.H.I.E.L.D. steps in to study the hammer, but no one can lift it, including our Hero. 'Cuz he's not worthy yet. Brother Loki slinks around, revealing his true intentions to rule Asgard to make his dad proud of him for a change (like I said, Shakespearian), sends a giant armored being to destroy Thor, and all hell breaks loose. Oh, and Thor falls in love with an astro-physicist.
Trust me. You want to see it. Even after reading that last paragraph.
I want to talk for a second about the whole S.H.I.E.L.D. thing. Branagh was given the undesirable job of having to essentially shoehorn in the presence of this government agency for no other reason than to set up next summer's Avengers movie. And not only did he handle it with grace, he managed to weave it into the story SO well that only in retrospect do I realize how much it shouldn't have worked. Then again, without the S.H.I.E.L.D (god, it's a pain in the ass to type that. Oh. Right. Caps Lock. Duh) stuff Thor might have been stretched a little thin. I mean, there's only so far you can go with Norse gods and fROST gIANTS (OK. Now I'm just fucking with you, keyboard-wise). I'm crediting Branagh with it, but I'm sure he shared the duty with his screenwriters. Oh, man- there's like 5 of them. OK, I'm giving the victory back to Branagh for making sense of it all. It's not every day that a movie bridging the gap between what has come before and what is yet to come can stand on its own. Also, my man Kenny B actually showed some restraint in his style here. His Shakespeare films are actually a bit more comic-book-y than his first comic book movie. I think maybe he learned a lesson after Mary Shelley's Frankenstein (has anyone revisited that one recently? Is it still as bad as I remember?). Anyway, S.H.I.E.L.D (cut-and-pasted!)- out of the shadows and into the light for the first time. And I actually care to see what happens next with them. Also, I dig that Clark Gregg guy.
What didn't work? Not much, in my humble O. The action is a little front-loaded. The most exciting, grandiose stuff happens in the first 45 minutes. There's plenty of action later on, but it never quite lives up to those big battles in the first half. They were certainly going for a more personal, coming-of-age thing with Thor, which is appreciated, but since the movie cuts between Earth and Asgard throughout it felt slightly... calm (?) in the second half. Another thing- I felt the relationship between Thor and Jane (me Thor, you Jane!) wasn't really earned. The movie takes place over only a couple of days, and by the end it sort of feels like Jane falls in love with Thor because he's all foreign and kinda hot. Well, maybe not that extreme, but... sort of. Anyway, those are the only things that come to mind. I've heard some negativity about Jeremy Renner's small cameo/character introduction (he's in The Avengers), but I thought it was cool. Some people are just not happy unless they're complaining.
If you care about the continuity they're setting up with these Marvel movies (Iron Man, The Incredible Hulk (no, not that one), Iron Man 2, Thor, Captain America, and The Avengers), stay through the credits for the tease. Probably don't have to tell you that, but I'd feel remiss if I didn't.
8 out of 10 Anthony Fucking Hopkinses
FUNNY!: Click Here!
Friday, April 29, 2011
Loud, Sharp, Piercing Cry 4
Another Scream movie? Just what we were all asking for!
I actually decided to revisit the first three, one per night, on the three nights preceding seeing the fourth. Let's recap:
Scream: A really good flick that both makes fun of and pays homage to the slasher horror films of the past few decades. A little dated, and a little diminished by the inevitable parodies it spawned (like the Scary Movie series), as well as the more intense horror flicks that have pushed the envelope even further (Hostel, anyone?). But it's still pretty damned fun. And pretty violent and bloody, by 1996 standards. Also, at the risk of being branded a pariah, I kinda love Matthew Lillard in this movie. He turns high-strung lunacy into an art form (these days he's mostly off-the-radar, which is just fine).
Scream 2: Again, pretty good flick that both makes fun of and pays homage to sequels. It's in-movie parody of the first Scream adds to the dated-ness of that flick, but it's a fun wink-wink at itself (Luke Wilson as Skeet Ulrich = Epic Win). Everything in 2 is more grandiose, intense, and over-the-top. The scene where Neve Campbell is on stage with a masked Greek chorus swinging knives at her was almost too much, but actually ended up being relatively artistic (and what an insensitive DICK her acting prof was. I mean, didn't he see Scream?).
Scream 3: Um... yeah... not so much. A not so good movie that both makes weak fun of and fails at paying homage to trilogies. Wes Craven & company phoned this one in, big time. Full of awful, heavy-handed red herrings. Populated by useless secondary characters that show up literally once for an introduction, then once more to die. An out-of-left-field villain with an out-of-left-field weak backstory to justify a non-plot. A head-scratching cameo by Jay & Silent Bob (seriously, WTFuck?). But Patrick Warburton was in it, so not a total loss.
Scream 4: I heard a lot of negativity surrounding this movie when it came out. People were just not digging it. And let's face it... there was really no reason for it to be made. Which is why I was sort of surprised by how much I didn't hate it. No, I didn't love it by any means, but this was so much more the movie that Scream 3 should have been.
The plot? Sidney Prescott returns to her hometown of Woodsboro to promote her new book. But uh-oh! It's exactly the 15th Anniversary of the original "Woodsboro Murders" (convenient!), and two girls have been murdered while watching the 6th (or was it 7th?) sequel to "Stab"- the movie based on the book based on the murders by Gale Weathers-Riley (Courtney "Puffy" Cox-not-for-much-longer-Arquette). Suspects include "seasoned" Sheriff Dewey Riley (David "I smelled a fart" Arquette), creepy Deputy Judy Hicks (Marley "googly-eyes" Shelton), Sidney's Aunt Kate (Mary "walking corpse" McDonnell) & cousin Jill (Emma "Eric & Julia mashup" Roberts), film nerd Charlie Walker (Rory "the littlest Culkin" Culkin), and, um... aww, fuck it. It's a Scream movie. You know the drill. Everybody's a suspect, even if they've been offed already. Hell, after 4 movies I wouldn't be surprised if I was the fucking killer.
So, yeah. There's lot's of stalking, stabbing, and screaming. But by now we're so used to it that it passes us by without much ado (except for the girl further down in my row- she jumped and uttered, "oh my GAWD" literally every time a new person suddenly appeared on screen, whether it was a suspenseful scene or not. Her boyfriend just snored). And the opening sequence(s) didn't help. It was a movie within a movie within a movie thing where people keep getting killed, then are revealed as characters in a Stab film being watched by other characters in a subsequent Stab film, until finally it's the "real" world of the Scream movie, but by then we're already too numb to give a hoot about our first "real" victims. And this was only the first 5 minutes. So, yeah- the cutesy, gimmicky, Matryoshka doll opening worked until we reached the final one. By then it was just a lump of hollow, painted wood with other lumps of hollow, painted wood inside.
Too esoteric? Sorry. Here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matryoshka_doll. Still too esoteric? Sorry. I'm not changing it. Deal.
Anyway, right then and there I was ready for the rest of Scream 4 to blow. And then it didn't. What we got was a laid-back slasher film that didn't take itself too seriously, which I can get behind. I think they learned from their mistakes with Scream 3. The problem is they scaled it back a little too much. Nothing really matters at this point in the series. And yeah, this one was supposed to be the movie that makes fun of and pays homage to reboots, but we only know that because they say so (or, specifically, because lame, useless character "Randy's sister" tells us), not because it at all resembled a reboot. If it was a reboot, there wouldn't be any returning actors, and we wouldn't be told their backstory- we'd experience it for the first time. Again. What they should have done was played it like a return-to-the-well sequel, à la Indiana Jones And The Kingdom Of The Crystal Skull or Live Free Or Die Hard or Lethal Weapon 4, all of which most people loathed*, and talked about how returning to the well is always a bad idea. Let your tongue-in-cheek start there and then give us something new to see in order to prove the concept wrong, you know? But instead we got another Scream movie that followed the same basic outline (murder, character intros, more murder, "who's doing it?", even more murder, "it was me, and this is why"). Actually, they did something interesting in one of the "Stab" movie meta-scenes at the beginning: one character, not wearing a mask, kills the other on screen, letting us all know right off the bat who the killer is. But then it turned out to be another fake movie-in-movie thing. Too bad- that would have been a cool way to mix it up.
So what did I like about it? Well, that's hard to say. I wasn't too bored. Well...maybe a little, at times... certainly not when Alison Brie was, uh, bouncing around... er... did it just get hot in here? Uh... the movie flowed pretty well, I guess- no dead spots. The three returning characters are still charming enough, I suppose (but Courtney Cox needs to lay off the Botox, man). I enjoyed that it was a modest movie. A weird word to use in this context, but considering Scream 3 was so ridiculously, boringly self-aggrandizing ("look, this story is SO GREAT that we're going to set the second sequel on the movie set of the second fake sequel and make broad-stroke comments on what shallow airheaded douchebags Hollywood-types are, even though we're all Hollywood-types ourselves. See what we did there? Pass the Moët!"), Scream 4's return to the small town that started it all simply felt fresh. Also, the villain reveal felt right this time. In the original Scream the reveal made sense, and when you go back and watch it you can see the clues. 2's reveal was OK, but relied a little too much on its exposition. When you re-watch that one you can sort of see why they chose who they did, but it's thin. 3's reveal was a fucking joke. 4's not only made sense in the context of the movie, it made sense in the context of the Reality-TV/YouTube obsessed year 2011. The final shot sequence of the movie deals with that, and might have been the best part. It actually had social commentary! Crazy, right? It would have been better if that commentary had pervaded the whole movie, but you can't win 'em all, I guess.
So, a valiant effort by Mr. Craven & the gang. I'm probably being far too kind, but I'm giving Scream 4 a
6 out of 10 Red Right Hands
* Die Hard 4, Indiana Jones 4, Lethal Weapon 4: For the record, I liked all three of these movies. Suck it.
I actually decided to revisit the first three, one per night, on the three nights preceding seeing the fourth. Let's recap:
Scream: A really good flick that both makes fun of and pays homage to the slasher horror films of the past few decades. A little dated, and a little diminished by the inevitable parodies it spawned (like the Scary Movie series), as well as the more intense horror flicks that have pushed the envelope even further (Hostel, anyone?). But it's still pretty damned fun. And pretty violent and bloody, by 1996 standards. Also, at the risk of being branded a pariah, I kinda love Matthew Lillard in this movie. He turns high-strung lunacy into an art form (these days he's mostly off-the-radar, which is just fine).
Scream 2: Again, pretty good flick that both makes fun of and pays homage to sequels. It's in-movie parody of the first Scream adds to the dated-ness of that flick, but it's a fun wink-wink at itself (Luke Wilson as Skeet Ulrich = Epic Win). Everything in 2 is more grandiose, intense, and over-the-top. The scene where Neve Campbell is on stage with a masked Greek chorus swinging knives at her was almost too much, but actually ended up being relatively artistic (and what an insensitive DICK her acting prof was. I mean, didn't he see Scream?).
Scream 3: Um... yeah... not so much. A not so good movie that both makes weak fun of and fails at paying homage to trilogies. Wes Craven & company phoned this one in, big time. Full of awful, heavy-handed red herrings. Populated by useless secondary characters that show up literally once for an introduction, then once more to die. An out-of-left-field villain with an out-of-left-field weak backstory to justify a non-plot. A head-scratching cameo by Jay & Silent Bob (seriously, WTFuck?). But Patrick Warburton was in it, so not a total loss.
Scream 4: I heard a lot of negativity surrounding this movie when it came out. People were just not digging it. And let's face it... there was really no reason for it to be made. Which is why I was sort of surprised by how much I didn't hate it. No, I didn't love it by any means, but this was so much more the movie that Scream 3 should have been.
The plot? Sidney Prescott returns to her hometown of Woodsboro to promote her new book. But uh-oh! It's exactly the 15th Anniversary of the original "Woodsboro Murders" (convenient!), and two girls have been murdered while watching the 6th (or was it 7th?) sequel to "Stab"- the movie based on the book based on the murders by Gale Weathers-Riley (Courtney "Puffy" Cox-not-for-much-longer-Arquette). Suspects include "seasoned" Sheriff Dewey Riley (David "I smelled a fart" Arquette), creepy Deputy Judy Hicks (Marley "googly-eyes" Shelton), Sidney's Aunt Kate (Mary "walking corpse" McDonnell) & cousin Jill (Emma "Eric & Julia mashup" Roberts), film nerd Charlie Walker (Rory "the littlest Culkin" Culkin), and, um... aww, fuck it. It's a Scream movie. You know the drill. Everybody's a suspect, even if they've been offed already. Hell, after 4 movies I wouldn't be surprised if I was the fucking killer.
So, yeah. There's lot's of stalking, stabbing, and screaming. But by now we're so used to it that it passes us by without much ado (except for the girl further down in my row- she jumped and uttered, "oh my GAWD" literally every time a new person suddenly appeared on screen, whether it was a suspenseful scene or not. Her boyfriend just snored). And the opening sequence(s) didn't help. It was a movie within a movie within a movie thing where people keep getting killed, then are revealed as characters in a Stab film being watched by other characters in a subsequent Stab film, until finally it's the "real" world of the Scream movie, but by then we're already too numb to give a hoot about our first "real" victims. And this was only the first 5 minutes. So, yeah- the cutesy, gimmicky, Matryoshka doll opening worked until we reached the final one. By then it was just a lump of hollow, painted wood with other lumps of hollow, painted wood inside.
Too esoteric? Sorry. Here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matryoshka_doll. Still too esoteric? Sorry. I'm not changing it. Deal.
Anyway, right then and there I was ready for the rest of Scream 4 to blow. And then it didn't. What we got was a laid-back slasher film that didn't take itself too seriously, which I can get behind. I think they learned from their mistakes with Scream 3. The problem is they scaled it back a little too much. Nothing really matters at this point in the series. And yeah, this one was supposed to be the movie that makes fun of and pays homage to reboots, but we only know that because they say so (or, specifically, because lame, useless character "Randy's sister" tells us), not because it at all resembled a reboot. If it was a reboot, there wouldn't be any returning actors, and we wouldn't be told their backstory- we'd experience it for the first time. Again. What they should have done was played it like a return-to-the-well sequel, à la Indiana Jones And The Kingdom Of The Crystal Skull or Live Free Or Die Hard or Lethal Weapon 4, all of which most people loathed*, and talked about how returning to the well is always a bad idea. Let your tongue-in-cheek start there and then give us something new to see in order to prove the concept wrong, you know? But instead we got another Scream movie that followed the same basic outline (murder, character intros, more murder, "who's doing it?", even more murder, "it was me, and this is why"). Actually, they did something interesting in one of the "Stab" movie meta-scenes at the beginning: one character, not wearing a mask, kills the other on screen, letting us all know right off the bat who the killer is. But then it turned out to be another fake movie-in-movie thing. Too bad- that would have been a cool way to mix it up.
So what did I like about it? Well, that's hard to say. I wasn't too bored. Well...maybe a little, at times... certainly not when Alison Brie was, uh, bouncing around... er... did it just get hot in here? Uh... the movie flowed pretty well, I guess- no dead spots. The three returning characters are still charming enough, I suppose (but Courtney Cox needs to lay off the Botox, man). I enjoyed that it was a modest movie. A weird word to use in this context, but considering Scream 3 was so ridiculously, boringly self-aggrandizing ("look, this story is SO GREAT that we're going to set the second sequel on the movie set of the second fake sequel and make broad-stroke comments on what shallow airheaded douchebags Hollywood-types are, even though we're all Hollywood-types ourselves. See what we did there? Pass the Moët!"), Scream 4's return to the small town that started it all simply felt fresh. Also, the villain reveal felt right this time. In the original Scream the reveal made sense, and when you go back and watch it you can see the clues. 2's reveal was OK, but relied a little too much on its exposition. When you re-watch that one you can sort of see why they chose who they did, but it's thin. 3's reveal was a fucking joke. 4's not only made sense in the context of the movie, it made sense in the context of the Reality-TV/YouTube obsessed year 2011. The final shot sequence of the movie deals with that, and might have been the best part. It actually had social commentary! Crazy, right? It would have been better if that commentary had pervaded the whole movie, but you can't win 'em all, I guess.
So, a valiant effort by Mr. Craven & the gang. I'm probably being far too kind, but I'm giving Scream 4 a
6 out of 10 Red Right Hands
* Die Hard 4, Indiana Jones 4, Lethal Weapon 4: For the record, I liked all three of these movies. Suck it.
Thursday, April 28, 2011
...And Her Sisters?
Yeah... saw this one, like, a month ago. SLACKER! Gotta write it up all quick-like so I can move on to my Scream 4 review. Eventually. So...
Hanna: Whoa. What a cool movie this was. I saw the trailers and figured it would be alright, but I was pleasantly surprised when it was much better than just "OK".
Hanna (Saoirse Ronan) is a girl born of a secret government project intent on creating the perfect assassin. She is raised by her father, Erik Heller (Eric Bana) in the snowy wilderness (Finland, I think) to be a completely self-sufficient survivor. Basically, he raises her as the assassin she was meant to be. When she turns 16 he gives her the choice to be "found" by the government in order to kill Marissa Wiegler (Cate Blanchett), the corrupt agent responsible for her mother's death. Hanna agrees, turns on the locator device her father has left out for her, is found, murders a "fake" Marissa Wiegler, escapes custody, and is chased through Morocco, then Germany by a hired mercenary named Isaacs (Tom Hollander) on her trek to reunite with her father.
What makes this movie great is the its take on the fish-out-of-water aspects of Hanna's journey. Having grown up in utter seclusion with her father being the only human she's seen since she was an infant, and having seemingly completed her mission right away, we basically get to follow Hanna on the lam, experiencing the world for the first time. She befriends a travelling family who decide to help her get to her dad in Germany, and for the first time learns what "normal" family life can be like, and what it means to have friends. It's fun, cute, exciting, but all the while dangerous, as we know she's being hunted by a ruthless, whistling mercenary and his cronies. What's great, though, is as "gee-whiz" as Hanna's experiences are, we never forget the calm, calculated killer she is if pushed to defend herself. And, of course, the people she meets have no idea what this fair, blonde, wisp of a girl is capable of.
The action is pretty great. Hanna's escape from the CIA compound is pretty exciting, the fight scenes are both brutal and elegant, and the general pacing of the movie is a nonstop mashup of chase flick and road movie. And they don't skimp on the latter, either- it's a movie that loves its location shoots. Everything's so outdoorsy. Makes me wish I was still out west doing the hiking thing. But I digress...
The acting is top notch. Saoirse Ronan knocks her role out of the park, Eric Bana is always great- no exception here, Cate Blanchett is great... with one exception. I won't get too into it here, but I have a real problem with that "give the non-American English-speaker a southern USA accent because it's the easiest to fake" thing. Ms. Blanchett is a goddess, but seriously, that shit rarely flies. Just picking nits here, though. You can decide for yourself how much it bugs you. Oh, and that Tom Hollander guy was great. So creepy and awkward. What's the term the kids are using these days? "Douche-chills"? Yeah- he gave me those.
Anyway, great movie. A little over-the-top at times, but that can be seen as part of the dark fairy-tale world (almost literally and for sure a little heavy-handed in the third act) that this socially underdeveloped teenaged murder machine has been thrust into. Go see it if you haven't already. I think you'll dig it.
8 out of 10 Tracksuit-Wearing Psychos
Hanna: Whoa. What a cool movie this was. I saw the trailers and figured it would be alright, but I was pleasantly surprised when it was much better than just "OK".
Hanna (Saoirse Ronan) is a girl born of a secret government project intent on creating the perfect assassin. She is raised by her father, Erik Heller (Eric Bana) in the snowy wilderness (Finland, I think) to be a completely self-sufficient survivor. Basically, he raises her as the assassin she was meant to be. When she turns 16 he gives her the choice to be "found" by the government in order to kill Marissa Wiegler (Cate Blanchett), the corrupt agent responsible for her mother's death. Hanna agrees, turns on the locator device her father has left out for her, is found, murders a "fake" Marissa Wiegler, escapes custody, and is chased through Morocco, then Germany by a hired mercenary named Isaacs (Tom Hollander) on her trek to reunite with her father.
What makes this movie great is the its take on the fish-out-of-water aspects of Hanna's journey. Having grown up in utter seclusion with her father being the only human she's seen since she was an infant, and having seemingly completed her mission right away, we basically get to follow Hanna on the lam, experiencing the world for the first time. She befriends a travelling family who decide to help her get to her dad in Germany, and for the first time learns what "normal" family life can be like, and what it means to have friends. It's fun, cute, exciting, but all the while dangerous, as we know she's being hunted by a ruthless, whistling mercenary and his cronies. What's great, though, is as "gee-whiz" as Hanna's experiences are, we never forget the calm, calculated killer she is if pushed to defend herself. And, of course, the people she meets have no idea what this fair, blonde, wisp of a girl is capable of.
The action is pretty great. Hanna's escape from the CIA compound is pretty exciting, the fight scenes are both brutal and elegant, and the general pacing of the movie is a nonstop mashup of chase flick and road movie. And they don't skimp on the latter, either- it's a movie that loves its location shoots. Everything's so outdoorsy. Makes me wish I was still out west doing the hiking thing. But I digress...
The acting is top notch. Saoirse Ronan knocks her role out of the park, Eric Bana is always great- no exception here, Cate Blanchett is great... with one exception. I won't get too into it here, but I have a real problem with that "give the non-American English-speaker a southern USA accent because it's the easiest to fake" thing. Ms. Blanchett is a goddess, but seriously, that shit rarely flies. Just picking nits here, though. You can decide for yourself how much it bugs you. Oh, and that Tom Hollander guy was great. So creepy and awkward. What's the term the kids are using these days? "Douche-chills"? Yeah- he gave me those.
Anyway, great movie. A little over-the-top at times, but that can be seen as part of the dark fairy-tale world (almost literally and for sure a little heavy-handed in the third act) that this socially underdeveloped teenaged murder machine has been thrust into. Go see it if you haven't already. I think you'll dig it.
8 out of 10 Tracksuit-Wearing Psychos
Saturday, April 16, 2011
Here's Tom With The Weather
American: The Bill Hicks Story: OK. First off, I'm really not a documentary guy. I just don't dig them that much. When I go to the movies I generally want to see fiction. Like a wiser man than I, who at one time practiced some pretty weird science, said, "we know about the reality. Don't mess with the fantasy, OK?" I'm not trying to say I'm above seeing them... I mean, I saw Bowling For Columbine and Fahrenheit 911, and thought they were great, but let's face it- they were more flashy op-ed pieces than documentaries. And I think maybe they were the only two "documentaries" I've actually seen in a theater, so I guess I'm woefully undereducated in the ways of the documentary and therefore don't really know how to go about reviewing one. But I'm going to, anyway.
Secondly, Bill Hicks is someone who I've always been just outside of "the know" about. I've seen some clips of him on stage, heard good chunks of his standup, been told stories of his early years from a friend who went to school with him, know the very basics of his life and career... but I admit- I've never actually seen or heard any of his available acts in their entirety. I completely dig his anti-establishment aesthetic, his contempt for those who shun individuality, his views on the bullshit "war on drugs"... Basically, if you know me, you'd probably be pretty amazed that I'm not more of a Bill Hicks enthusiast. But let me be clear- it's not for lack of interest, it's simply because I haven't had the time.
So I saw American: The Bill Hicks Story at Cinema Village in Manhattan, which, as I understand it, is the only place in the country where it's playing right now. And I liked it... a bit. It was somewhat informative and well put together... for the amount of information it had. Which seemed a little light. That is to say, it had plenty of anecdotal information from friends, family, and colleagues from Hicks's teen years, but when the "story" branched out into his time in Los Angeles, England, and around the US during his touring periods it relied on those same 6 or 7 people. I mean, shouldn't a documentary that spans 15 years of someone's life include 15 years worth of people? And what about the hundreds of comedians that he inspired? Even if they never met the guy, I'm sure they'd have plenty of useful insight about him.
The people who were interviewed were all pretty good- there's no doubt his friends, family, and colleagues absolutely adored the man. This really set quite a somber tone over the movie, for sure, which I assume was what they were going for, but again, it raises the same complaint: only the same handful of people discussing Bill Hicks for 90 minutes completely diminishes the impact of this legendary performer. We should have heard from more comics that opened for him, comics he opened for, people he pissed off, modern-day funny people who owe their sense of humor to him, fans... etc., etc., etc. Bill Hicks was certainly a much more incendiary force of nature and product of counter-culture than a handful of people who loved him could ever get across on their own.
Most of the movie used photos of Hicks, his friends and family, that were computer re-generated with movement and added to images both realistic and psychedelic to enhance the storytelling (the bit where they talk about eating mushrooms was fun, visually). It was pretty cool... at first... but after an hour in it just came across as repetitive and uninventive. Like someone who took an Adobe Flash course and decided to show off a little. It sort of gave the whole thing a Made-For-TV feel, like something you'd see on the History or Biography channel. I like watching stuff there at times, but that's because those features only last 30-60 minutes. In fact, I wonder if American was supposed to be a TV doc that got expanded for some reason. Whatever. As it exists it comes across as stretched, a little afterthought-ish, and somewhat unfinished.
I don't want you to think it's a total loss. Like I said, I knew a bit less than a fair amount about Hicks before I saw it, and it's not like it didn't add to my knowledge. I just wish it added SO MUCH MORE to what I knew. I suppose it works best as an introduction to the man- if you know nothing about him, and you're interested, check it out when and if it hits a theater near you. If anything it has inspired me to check out his material for real and stop being "on the fringe" about him. The best parts of the movie were certainly the live clips of him performing. And from what I've been told, some of the earlier clips were never-before-seen, which I imagine is pretty cool to Hicks fans. I know it was cool for me.
So, basically, American is... OK. I'm calling it "average"- there are definitely worse ways to spend an hour and a half, but (and I don't usually endorse this) if you wait for DVD no one would think any less of you. Or if you wait longer you might actually catch this one on Biography where it belongs.
5 out of 10 Magic Mushrooms By The Lake
Secondly, Bill Hicks is someone who I've always been just outside of "the know" about. I've seen some clips of him on stage, heard good chunks of his standup, been told stories of his early years from a friend who went to school with him, know the very basics of his life and career... but I admit- I've never actually seen or heard any of his available acts in their entirety. I completely dig his anti-establishment aesthetic, his contempt for those who shun individuality, his views on the bullshit "war on drugs"... Basically, if you know me, you'd probably be pretty amazed that I'm not more of a Bill Hicks enthusiast. But let me be clear- it's not for lack of interest, it's simply because I haven't had the time.
So I saw American: The Bill Hicks Story at Cinema Village in Manhattan, which, as I understand it, is the only place in the country where it's playing right now. And I liked it... a bit. It was somewhat informative and well put together... for the amount of information it had. Which seemed a little light. That is to say, it had plenty of anecdotal information from friends, family, and colleagues from Hicks's teen years, but when the "story" branched out into his time in Los Angeles, England, and around the US during his touring periods it relied on those same 6 or 7 people. I mean, shouldn't a documentary that spans 15 years of someone's life include 15 years worth of people? And what about the hundreds of comedians that he inspired? Even if they never met the guy, I'm sure they'd have plenty of useful insight about him.
The people who were interviewed were all pretty good- there's no doubt his friends, family, and colleagues absolutely adored the man. This really set quite a somber tone over the movie, for sure, which I assume was what they were going for, but again, it raises the same complaint: only the same handful of people discussing Bill Hicks for 90 minutes completely diminishes the impact of this legendary performer. We should have heard from more comics that opened for him, comics he opened for, people he pissed off, modern-day funny people who owe their sense of humor to him, fans... etc., etc., etc. Bill Hicks was certainly a much more incendiary force of nature and product of counter-culture than a handful of people who loved him could ever get across on their own.
Most of the movie used photos of Hicks, his friends and family, that were computer re-generated with movement and added to images both realistic and psychedelic to enhance the storytelling (the bit where they talk about eating mushrooms was fun, visually). It was pretty cool... at first... but after an hour in it just came across as repetitive and uninventive. Like someone who took an Adobe Flash course and decided to show off a little. It sort of gave the whole thing a Made-For-TV feel, like something you'd see on the History or Biography channel. I like watching stuff there at times, but that's because those features only last 30-60 minutes. In fact, I wonder if American was supposed to be a TV doc that got expanded for some reason. Whatever. As it exists it comes across as stretched, a little afterthought-ish, and somewhat unfinished.
I don't want you to think it's a total loss. Like I said, I knew a bit less than a fair amount about Hicks before I saw it, and it's not like it didn't add to my knowledge. I just wish it added SO MUCH MORE to what I knew. I suppose it works best as an introduction to the man- if you know nothing about him, and you're interested, check it out when and if it hits a theater near you. If anything it has inspired me to check out his material for real and stop being "on the fringe" about him. The best parts of the movie were certainly the live clips of him performing. And from what I've been told, some of the earlier clips were never-before-seen, which I imagine is pretty cool to Hicks fans. I know it was cool for me.
So, basically, American is... OK. I'm calling it "average"- there are definitely worse ways to spend an hour and a half, but (and I don't usually endorse this) if you wait for DVD no one would think any less of you. Or if you wait longer you might actually catch this one on Biography where it belongs.
5 out of 10 Magic Mushrooms By The Lake
Tuesday, April 5, 2011
Rouge Floyd: (One Flew Over) The Wall
Finally.
Sucker Punch: I like all kinds of movies. Funny stuff, sad stuff, fantasy, thrillers, sci-fi, Oscar bait, animation, documentaries, drama (pronounced like 'AlabAma', of course), and, yes, check-your-brain-at-the-door movies. I don't believe everything has to be Citizen Kane. Or On The Waterfront. Or Dog Day Afternoon. The only caveat here is that a movie simply has to be good. You're probably thinking, "Well, duh..." and I guess you'd be right, but what I'm trying to convey here is it's only OK to check your brain at the door if what you're being fed stands out as something worth your time. The two (so far) Transformers movies are check-your-brain-at-the-door (CYBATD) flicks, but they're fucking awful and therefore give a bad name to the, er, genre (yes, I'm calling it a genre. What.). Besides, even CYBATD movies should at least make you think after the credits roll and you're home on your couch with your kitties and beer.
Sucker Punch is a CYBATD movie. And it's worth your time. The plot: a girl ("Baby Doll" played by Emily Browning) pisses off her evil stepdad who wants her family money, tries to kill him, accidentally kills her sister, and gets sent to an asylum and scheduled for a lobotomy to keep her quiet. She copes by imagining the world as an alternate reality in which the inmates are all oppressed dancers and hatches an escape plan with the help of some of the other girls. To distract anyone in her way she "dances" for them, and in order to convey the emotions she requires she lets her mind escape that world into a hyper-realized, genre-spanning realm of orcs and zeppelins and guns, oh my.
Trust me- it plays out much better than I could possibly put in writing.
So, the movie lets you know right off the bat that you're not seeing a straightforward drama about a maverick mental patient that inspires her fellow inmates. The first five minutes are quite literally a music video for Browning's rendition of 'Sweet Dreams (Are Made Of This)'. Much like Moulin Rouge meets the video for 'Janie's Got A Gun'. Actually, I wouldn't be at all surprised if Zach Snyder was inspired by Moulin Rouge when he wrote and directed Punch. Well, that and Pink Floyd: The Wall. And One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest. Throw all those in a blender, press the 300 button, and viola!
Where was I? Right. Not a straightforward drama... blah, blah, blah. OK. Here's the deal- it's a kick-ass movie with really, really awesome action sequences, set to the music of Queen, Björk, and some remakes of Jefferson Airplane, The Pixies, The Stooges, etc., by some musicians I've never heard of. And, really, it's these sequences that are worth your hard-earned dollars. Yes, they play out like a nerdy fantasy/sci-fi/war nut ate some mushrooms and started rambling into a dictaphone... but with style, man. I mean, giant demon samurai, steampunk WWI soldiers, dragon vs. airplane dogfights... Scott Glenn...
It's like a big, crazy genre mashup extravaganza. This pleases me. If a good portion of your movie takes place in a character's id, it certainly shouldn't be shackled by any one idiom. And somehow Sucker Punch manages to throw in all but the kitchen sink without feeling like Zach Snyder blindly fired a shotgun and called the carnage "art." And as crazy as each of the worlds he creates are, they have boundaries and the action never steps outside of them. Yes, you can try and outrun a dragon over a medieval castle overrun by orcs in a vintage 1914 airplane, but she's probably going to catch up to you and beat your ass. Or chew off your ass, as it were. There's definitely some order in all the chaos. Which is good because ordered chaos is, like, a director's job, and stuff.
This is not really a "performance" movie, but it should be noted that there are some good ones. Carla Gugino (Dr. Gorski/dance instructor), Oscar Isaac ("warden" Blue Jones/club owner), and Jena Malone ("Rocket"- inmate/dancer) are all solid. Isaac, especially. That guy is fantastically creepy. Emily Browning was really good, too... even if her role is more about unspoken emotion than dramatic speaking. And she's cute as a button, yo.
The cinematography is, yes, like 300 was... but I'm a fan. I like the "paintings come to life" aspect of it all. The "real world" is a cold, drab, florescent-lighted purgatory. The dancer-world gets some color added to the mix, but the walls are still faded, pea-green, peeling... The fantasy world is a warm, orange-and-brown post-apocalyptic extravaganza of stone and steel. They really did a fine job of giving these worlds their own specific feel, visually. Pretty great stuff.
The sound design was appropriately bombastic. I mean, this movie is an extravaganza for the senses, so when a bomb goes off behind our heroes, you're going to hear it behind you. Airplanes whoosh over your head and bullets fly by your ears while White Rabbit is pumped straight out of the screen and at your face. Subtlety be damned, jack. And I saw it in a very LOUD theater. I hope you can, too.
Something needs to be said about the portrayal of women in this movie. If you check out the posters, or the trailer, or really any of the advertisement art of Sucker Punch you may say to yourself, "Oh. So this is a movie where women dress up in fetish outfits and wiggle their stuff for the slow-motion cameras, eh?" In fact, no. I can tell you fo' sho' that ain't the case. I think Snyder did a pretty good job in keeping it grounded in "girl power." That is to say, the movie isn't about feminism, and I don't think it's trying to say it is, but "gratuitous" and "misogynistic" are certainly not words I would use to describe the filming of our band of sista heroes. In fact, the use of the fantasy sequences in place of the actual "dancing" that Baby Doll does for her oppressors is, I think, Snyder's comment on the inner strength of women. But I'm just a dumbass male, so I really couldn't tell you. Fo' sho'.
So, I really want to give this movie a better rating than I'm going to. I certainly wasn't disappointed, and I'm psyched to watch it on the Blu-Ray in a few months, but there were a few times that I found myself slightly underwhelmed. Never during the crazy fantasy stuff... in fact, if the movie had been all that I would have no complaints... but during the, uh... "second tier" world (the one where they're all dancers and the warden wears a zoot suit) I started to feel the repetition of the story. Go get next item to aid in escape, dance for oppressor/enter fantasy world, lather, rinse, repeat. It's obvious that this was a serious passion project for Z-Snydes. I mean, he wrote the story, co-wrote the screenplay, directed it, and produced it (with his wife)... and sometimes having that much control is a bit too much. I used to say the same thing about Batman Returns- Tim Burton directed and co-produced that one, and it was a little too Burton. There's only so many clowns on motorcycles crashing through snow-covered cobblestone streets that I can watch before I'm overwhelmed by style-over-substance. Sucker Punch definitely fares better than that one... maybe (and I'm gonna contradict myself a bit here) because Snyder also wrote SP and was therefore, unlike Burton, not trying to force his aesthetic onto someone else's story. Anyway, I can sort of see the same issues brought to the table- no one was reigning Snyder in. Just because you can do anything you want doesn't necessarily mean you should.
And please don't get me wrong here- Sucker Punch is friggin' cool. The issues I mention only get in the way because the fantasy world is so very fully realized while the dancer-world is a little nebulous and the "real world" is almost non-existent. That said, I've heard some talk about how the movie was cut down a bit for its PG-13 rating. Makes me wonder if we'll get some kind of director's cut for its home release, and if a DC will help the odd pacing and maybe flesh out the confusing bits. I don't know much about these things, but in my mind I imagine Snyder got everything done his way during filming and the initial editing, but then had to make some cuts for the Brothers Warner that hurt the flow of the movie. Anyway, the DC of his Watchmen (not the "Ultimate Cut") certainly improved that film, so I have hope. Or maybe I should just shut up, sit back, relax, and check my brain at the door again.
(I want to give it an 8 but for now it's a) 7 out of 10 Steampunk German Zombie Soldiers (with the sincere hope that a Director's Cut really ties the room together)
Sucker Punch: I like all kinds of movies. Funny stuff, sad stuff, fantasy, thrillers, sci-fi, Oscar bait, animation, documentaries, drama (pronounced like 'AlabAma', of course), and, yes, check-your-brain-at-the-door movies. I don't believe everything has to be Citizen Kane. Or On The Waterfront. Or Dog Day Afternoon. The only caveat here is that a movie simply has to be good. You're probably thinking, "Well, duh..." and I guess you'd be right, but what I'm trying to convey here is it's only OK to check your brain at the door if what you're being fed stands out as something worth your time. The two (so far) Transformers movies are check-your-brain-at-the-door (CYBATD) flicks, but they're fucking awful and therefore give a bad name to the, er, genre (yes, I'm calling it a genre. What.). Besides, even CYBATD movies should at least make you think after the credits roll and you're home on your couch with your kitties and beer.
Sucker Punch is a CYBATD movie. And it's worth your time. The plot: a girl ("Baby Doll" played by Emily Browning) pisses off her evil stepdad who wants her family money, tries to kill him, accidentally kills her sister, and gets sent to an asylum and scheduled for a lobotomy to keep her quiet. She copes by imagining the world as an alternate reality in which the inmates are all oppressed dancers and hatches an escape plan with the help of some of the other girls. To distract anyone in her way she "dances" for them, and in order to convey the emotions she requires she lets her mind escape that world into a hyper-realized, genre-spanning realm of orcs and zeppelins and guns, oh my.
Trust me- it plays out much better than I could possibly put in writing.
So, the movie lets you know right off the bat that you're not seeing a straightforward drama about a maverick mental patient that inspires her fellow inmates. The first five minutes are quite literally a music video for Browning's rendition of 'Sweet Dreams (Are Made Of This)'. Much like Moulin Rouge meets the video for 'Janie's Got A Gun'. Actually, I wouldn't be at all surprised if Zach Snyder was inspired by Moulin Rouge when he wrote and directed Punch. Well, that and Pink Floyd: The Wall. And One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest. Throw all those in a blender, press the 300 button, and viola!
Where was I? Right. Not a straightforward drama... blah, blah, blah. OK. Here's the deal- it's a kick-ass movie with really, really awesome action sequences, set to the music of Queen, Björk, and some remakes of Jefferson Airplane, The Pixies, The Stooges, etc., by some musicians I've never heard of. And, really, it's these sequences that are worth your hard-earned dollars. Yes, they play out like a nerdy fantasy/sci-fi/war nut ate some mushrooms and started rambling into a dictaphone... but with style, man. I mean, giant demon samurai, steampunk WWI soldiers, dragon vs. airplane dogfights... Scott Glenn...
It's like a big, crazy genre mashup extravaganza. This pleases me. If a good portion of your movie takes place in a character's id, it certainly shouldn't be shackled by any one idiom. And somehow Sucker Punch manages to throw in all but the kitchen sink without feeling like Zach Snyder blindly fired a shotgun and called the carnage "art." And as crazy as each of the worlds he creates are, they have boundaries and the action never steps outside of them. Yes, you can try and outrun a dragon over a medieval castle overrun by orcs in a vintage 1914 airplane, but she's probably going to catch up to you and beat your ass. Or chew off your ass, as it were. There's definitely some order in all the chaos. Which is good because ordered chaos is, like, a director's job, and stuff.
This is not really a "performance" movie, but it should be noted that there are some good ones. Carla Gugino (Dr. Gorski/dance instructor), Oscar Isaac ("warden" Blue Jones/club owner), and Jena Malone ("Rocket"- inmate/dancer) are all solid. Isaac, especially. That guy is fantastically creepy. Emily Browning was really good, too... even if her role is more about unspoken emotion than dramatic speaking. And she's cute as a button, yo.
The cinematography is, yes, like 300 was... but I'm a fan. I like the "paintings come to life" aspect of it all. The "real world" is a cold, drab, florescent-lighted purgatory. The dancer-world gets some color added to the mix, but the walls are still faded, pea-green, peeling... The fantasy world is a warm, orange-and-brown post-apocalyptic extravaganza of stone and steel. They really did a fine job of giving these worlds their own specific feel, visually. Pretty great stuff.
The sound design was appropriately bombastic. I mean, this movie is an extravaganza for the senses, so when a bomb goes off behind our heroes, you're going to hear it behind you. Airplanes whoosh over your head and bullets fly by your ears while White Rabbit is pumped straight out of the screen and at your face. Subtlety be damned, jack. And I saw it in a very LOUD theater. I hope you can, too.
Something needs to be said about the portrayal of women in this movie. If you check out the posters, or the trailer, or really any of the advertisement art of Sucker Punch you may say to yourself, "Oh. So this is a movie where women dress up in fetish outfits and wiggle their stuff for the slow-motion cameras, eh?" In fact, no. I can tell you fo' sho' that ain't the case. I think Snyder did a pretty good job in keeping it grounded in "girl power." That is to say, the movie isn't about feminism, and I don't think it's trying to say it is, but "gratuitous" and "misogynistic" are certainly not words I would use to describe the filming of our band of sista heroes. In fact, the use of the fantasy sequences in place of the actual "dancing" that Baby Doll does for her oppressors is, I think, Snyder's comment on the inner strength of women. But I'm just a dumbass male, so I really couldn't tell you. Fo' sho'.
So, I really want to give this movie a better rating than I'm going to. I certainly wasn't disappointed, and I'm psyched to watch it on the Blu-Ray in a few months, but there were a few times that I found myself slightly underwhelmed. Never during the crazy fantasy stuff... in fact, if the movie had been all that I would have no complaints... but during the, uh... "second tier" world (the one where they're all dancers and the warden wears a zoot suit) I started to feel the repetition of the story. Go get next item to aid in escape, dance for oppressor/enter fantasy world, lather, rinse, repeat. It's obvious that this was a serious passion project for Z-Snydes. I mean, he wrote the story, co-wrote the screenplay, directed it, and produced it (with his wife)... and sometimes having that much control is a bit too much. I used to say the same thing about Batman Returns- Tim Burton directed and co-produced that one, and it was a little too Burton. There's only so many clowns on motorcycles crashing through snow-covered cobblestone streets that I can watch before I'm overwhelmed by style-over-substance. Sucker Punch definitely fares better than that one... maybe (and I'm gonna contradict myself a bit here) because Snyder also wrote SP and was therefore, unlike Burton, not trying to force his aesthetic onto someone else's story. Anyway, I can sort of see the same issues brought to the table- no one was reigning Snyder in. Just because you can do anything you want doesn't necessarily mean you should.
And please don't get me wrong here- Sucker Punch is friggin' cool. The issues I mention only get in the way because the fantasy world is so very fully realized while the dancer-world is a little nebulous and the "real world" is almost non-existent. That said, I've heard some talk about how the movie was cut down a bit for its PG-13 rating. Makes me wonder if we'll get some kind of director's cut for its home release, and if a DC will help the odd pacing and maybe flesh out the confusing bits. I don't know much about these things, but in my mind I imagine Snyder got everything done his way during filming and the initial editing, but then had to make some cuts for the Brothers Warner that hurt the flow of the movie. Anyway, the DC of his Watchmen (not the "Ultimate Cut") certainly improved that film, so I have hope. Or maybe I should just shut up, sit back, relax, and check my brain at the door again.
(I want to give it an 8 but for now it's a) 7 out of 10 Steampunk German Zombie Soldiers (with the sincere hope that a Director's Cut really ties the room together)
Thursday, March 24, 2011
Little Green Man
Saw this one last weekend. Took awhile to get this out, probably because while not forgettable, it's also not a grab-your-face-and-yank kind of movie. Solid, though.
Paul: Simon Pegg & Nick Frost are a great comedic team. I entered their world with Shaun Of The Dead, then Hot Fuzz, and only recently, because I'm on no discernible natural human schedule, Spaced. All of which were created with, and directed by, Edgar Wright. Shaun Of The Dead might be my favorite movie of "the aughts" (it's surely in the top 5, in any event)- a film about getting your life together, leaving childish things behind, and surviving a zombie apocalypse. Hot Fuzz is an underrated small town homage to big city, loud, buddy cop action movies that manages to remain markedly human (and realistically violent) in spite of its references. Spaced was one of those rare TV shows where the funny is the icing on an already satisfying human drama cake. Mmmm... human drama cake...
Last summer Edgar Wright made his first non-Pegg/Frost movie, Scott Pilgrim vs. The World. I liked it. A little. I keep meaning to revisit it to see if I'll actually like it a lot (mostly because there's some serious love for the movie from various people whose opinions I trust), but the fact that I'm never psyched to do that, even when I have a couple of hours to kill, is a bit telling, I fear. When I think about the movie I keep coming back to the same feeling- that Wright got done what he set out to do- make the perfect movie version of an 8-bit video game. Problem is, most 8-bit video games get really repetitive somewhere in the middle, stay that way for a while, and then you're fighting the big boss at the end... which is really more of the same, just a little more involved. And since it's not 1987, Mega Man just doesn't sound like a fun way to spend an afternoon anymore.
Anyway, enough about Scott Pilgrim.
This past weekend Nick Frost and Simon Pegg teamed up for the first time without Edgar Wright in Paul. Not the most dynamic of movies, to be sure, but it turned out slightly better than Scott Pilgrim. In my humble opinion, anyway.
Graeme Willy (Pegg) and Clive Gollings (Frost) are two British nerds that skipped over the pond on a pilgrimage to Nerd Mecca: Comic-Con San Diego. From there they go on an RV road trip through the southwest to sightsee famous UFO landing places. On their trek they run into Paul- an escaped alien from Area 51 who's just trying to get home. (Laid-back) wackiness ensues.
What works best here is that chemistry that Frost and Pegg have cultivated over the past 10 years, or so. These guys are just so damned likeable. Individually, yes, but especially as a team. That said, they're not Cheech and Chong or Abbott and Costello. What I mean by that is that they're not just playing the same characters in every movie they do (absolutely no offense meant to Marin, Tommy, Bud, & Lou). The dynamic survives, but the characterization is always fresh and different. Here they're both pretty mild-mannered, good-hearted, child-like, uh... well, nerds. They love comic books and sci-fi. And when they come across an alien in the desert it doesn't take much convincing for them to give the guy a ride. Pretty basic. In fact, the whole movie has this matter-of-fact quality about it that's quite charming... if not just a little spiritless at times. Seth Rogen provides the voice & mo-cap of Paul, and it's his higher-than-thou approach that keeps the movie grounded. I mean, picking up a stranded alien is wacky enough. We don't need the character to be off-the-wall bonkers. And Rogen makes Paul one likeable, laid-back alien dude. Kristen Wiig shows up as a socially-repressed, religious RV park owner (co-owned with her dad- Norm from Fargo!), and for a second there I thought, "oh no, now we're going to have a wacky religious nut as an obvious contrast to our 'heroes'." But minutes later, Paul zaps the realities of evolution into her brain with some crazy ESP power and does away with that contrivance.* There's a great little scene where she (extremely awkwardly) comes on to Pegg and escalates from innocent to naughty in 10 seconds flat. Again, though, she doesn't take it too far (imagine a less manic Amy Poehler). This is still a very real, human movie.
No worries, though- there is a little Looney Tunes in this one. Joe Lo Truglio & Bill Hader play a pair of dumbass G-Men that are assisting Jason Bateman in his quest to track down Paul. Bateman brings the cool, and Lo Truglio & Hader bring the slapstick and cluelessness. It works well, mostly because they don't overwhelm us with screen time.
Oh, yeah, the references. Yes, this one's chock full of geekified sci-fi movie references. But they never come from out of left field and always seem to fit the plot. In fact, a couple of times one whizzed right by me and only later did I realize it was a reference. They do come at you fairly regularly in the final act, though. Speaking of that, it's the last half-hour that finally sold me on Paul. That's not to say the first 2/3 of the movie are bad. It plods along at times, but I still wouldn't call it slow. I never lost interest. I think the deal here is that they kept it so deliberately chill that it lacked the peaks and valleys that can sometimes make or break a movie. In the long run, though, I'd rather get a movie that stays steadily good than one that fails horribly by trying too hard to pander to the dummies out there with obvious false gusto. Paul was directed by Greg Mottola, who also directed Superbad, and I kinda felt the same way about that one- it could very easily have copped out and gone all American Pie on us, but Mottola went for the comedy naturally instead of going for cheap laughs by having his characters stick their cocks in pastry or somehow unknowingly fuck old people in closets. WAKKA WAKKA WAKKA!!!
So, yeah- good flick, all around. You'll see more dynamic stuff this year, but Paul is a light-hearted, feel-good, chill time at the 'plex.
* I was actually a little surprised (and definitely delighted) at how much eye-rolling the concept of religion got in this movie. The Hollywood machine usually tries to shy away from god-bashing, doesn't it? I guess it's more proof that Mottola was making this movie for people who think with their brains, not their bibles. Which is why it will probably be gone by this time next week. Catch it while you can!
Paul: Simon Pegg & Nick Frost are a great comedic team. I entered their world with Shaun Of The Dead, then Hot Fuzz, and only recently, because I'm on no discernible natural human schedule, Spaced. All of which were created with, and directed by, Edgar Wright. Shaun Of The Dead might be my favorite movie of "the aughts" (it's surely in the top 5, in any event)- a film about getting your life together, leaving childish things behind, and surviving a zombie apocalypse. Hot Fuzz is an underrated small town homage to big city, loud, buddy cop action movies that manages to remain markedly human (and realistically violent) in spite of its references. Spaced was one of those rare TV shows where the funny is the icing on an already satisfying human drama cake. Mmmm... human drama cake...
Last summer Edgar Wright made his first non-Pegg/Frost movie, Scott Pilgrim vs. The World. I liked it. A little. I keep meaning to revisit it to see if I'll actually like it a lot (mostly because there's some serious love for the movie from various people whose opinions I trust), but the fact that I'm never psyched to do that, even when I have a couple of hours to kill, is a bit telling, I fear. When I think about the movie I keep coming back to the same feeling- that Wright got done what he set out to do- make the perfect movie version of an 8-bit video game. Problem is, most 8-bit video games get really repetitive somewhere in the middle, stay that way for a while, and then you're fighting the big boss at the end... which is really more of the same, just a little more involved. And since it's not 1987, Mega Man just doesn't sound like a fun way to spend an afternoon anymore.
Anyway, enough about Scott Pilgrim.
This past weekend Nick Frost and Simon Pegg teamed up for the first time without Edgar Wright in Paul. Not the most dynamic of movies, to be sure, but it turned out slightly better than Scott Pilgrim. In my humble opinion, anyway.
Graeme Willy (Pegg) and Clive Gollings (Frost) are two British nerds that skipped over the pond on a pilgrimage to Nerd Mecca: Comic-Con San Diego. From there they go on an RV road trip through the southwest to sightsee famous UFO landing places. On their trek they run into Paul- an escaped alien from Area 51 who's just trying to get home. (Laid-back) wackiness ensues.
What works best here is that chemistry that Frost and Pegg have cultivated over the past 10 years, or so. These guys are just so damned likeable. Individually, yes, but especially as a team. That said, they're not Cheech and Chong or Abbott and Costello. What I mean by that is that they're not just playing the same characters in every movie they do (absolutely no offense meant to Marin, Tommy, Bud, & Lou). The dynamic survives, but the characterization is always fresh and different. Here they're both pretty mild-mannered, good-hearted, child-like, uh... well, nerds. They love comic books and sci-fi. And when they come across an alien in the desert it doesn't take much convincing for them to give the guy a ride. Pretty basic. In fact, the whole movie has this matter-of-fact quality about it that's quite charming... if not just a little spiritless at times. Seth Rogen provides the voice & mo-cap of Paul, and it's his higher-than-thou approach that keeps the movie grounded. I mean, picking up a stranded alien is wacky enough. We don't need the character to be off-the-wall bonkers. And Rogen makes Paul one likeable, laid-back alien dude. Kristen Wiig shows up as a socially-repressed, religious RV park owner (co-owned with her dad- Norm from Fargo!), and for a second there I thought, "oh no, now we're going to have a wacky religious nut as an obvious contrast to our 'heroes'." But minutes later, Paul zaps the realities of evolution into her brain with some crazy ESP power and does away with that contrivance.* There's a great little scene where she (extremely awkwardly) comes on to Pegg and escalates from innocent to naughty in 10 seconds flat. Again, though, she doesn't take it too far (imagine a less manic Amy Poehler). This is still a very real, human movie.
No worries, though- there is a little Looney Tunes in this one. Joe Lo Truglio & Bill Hader play a pair of dumbass G-Men that are assisting Jason Bateman in his quest to track down Paul. Bateman brings the cool, and Lo Truglio & Hader bring the slapstick and cluelessness. It works well, mostly because they don't overwhelm us with screen time.
Oh, yeah, the references. Yes, this one's chock full of geekified sci-fi movie references. But they never come from out of left field and always seem to fit the plot. In fact, a couple of times one whizzed right by me and only later did I realize it was a reference. They do come at you fairly regularly in the final act, though. Speaking of that, it's the last half-hour that finally sold me on Paul. That's not to say the first 2/3 of the movie are bad. It plods along at times, but I still wouldn't call it slow. I never lost interest. I think the deal here is that they kept it so deliberately chill that it lacked the peaks and valleys that can sometimes make or break a movie. In the long run, though, I'd rather get a movie that stays steadily good than one that fails horribly by trying too hard to pander to the dummies out there with obvious false gusto. Paul was directed by Greg Mottola, who also directed Superbad, and I kinda felt the same way about that one- it could very easily have copped out and gone all American Pie on us, but Mottola went for the comedy naturally instead of going for cheap laughs by having his characters stick their cocks in pastry or somehow unknowingly fuck old people in closets. WAKKA WAKKA WAKKA!!!
So, yeah- good flick, all around. You'll see more dynamic stuff this year, but Paul is a light-hearted, feel-good, chill time at the 'plex.
7 out of 10 Nerdy Sci-Fi References
* I was actually a little surprised (and definitely delighted) at how much eye-rolling the concept of religion got in this movie. The Hollywood machine usually tries to shy away from god-bashing, doesn't it? I guess it's more proof that Mottola was making this movie for people who think with their brains, not their bibles. Which is why it will probably be gone by this time next week. Catch it while you can!
Tuesday, March 15, 2011
Aliens & Other Assorted Critters
Surprise, surprise, surprise, Gomer Pyle! Two great movies in one day! And we're only at the Ides of March!
Battle: Los Angeles: You got your military movie in my Sci-fi flick! No, you got your sci-fi flick on my military movie! Mmmm... two great tastes that taste great together!
HUZZAH! The year's first truly exciting movie (that I saw, anyway)! Certainly not the most original flick, and far from perfect, but it kept me on the edge of my seat and never dragged once in it's nearly 2-hour running time.
So, if you were wondering, yes. It's very much like Independence Day. Or as the guy behind me in the ticket line told someone on the phone, "it's that movie where they fight aliens. You know, like that Will Smiff movie." A perceived meteor shower turns out to be a fleet of alien spacecraft that park themselves along the world's biggest coastal cities and before we know why they're blowing us straight to hell so they can mine our natural resources. We fight back.
Now, I love Independence Day. It's big, it's loud, it's dumb as a bag of hammers, but I love it. And while B:LA's story (and some scenes) might be very similar, the execution of that story is so very not. In fact, I'd compare its storytelling to Black Hawk Down before I'd compare it to ID4 (yes, I just used that weird ID4 marketing tool thing that pissed so many people off. Deal). This movie is about the Marine Corps band-of-brothers unit that we follow through the movie and not about aliens blowing up iconic man-made structures and anti-heroes Slim-Pickensing the bad guys. I hesitate to call it a more "intimate" movie, but it's certainly not the far-reaching, grandiose, converging-plotlines extravaganza that was Emmerich's explosion-fest. Also, it's mostly in real-time. Once our Marines get dropped into LA I'm pretty sure it doesn't take a break and jump ahead for another hour, hour-fifteen. The tension this adds is pretty amazing, especially since our heroes are almost constantly being hammered by alien forces.
Speaking of the boys-in-camo, what a great bunch of likable characters we've got here. Again, maybe not the most original, and there may be a few too many, but they're fleshed out so well that it's actually sad when one or two or ten of them die (and no one is safe here, btw). B:LA does a pretty good job of introducing each and every one of them in the pre-game show- we see the day and night leading up to the invasion, and each time this sequence focuses on one or two individuals we get their name and rank subtitled on screen. Front-and-center is Staff Sergeant Michael Nantz (Aaron Eckhart), quiet, pensive, almost-retired, and still dealing with a tragic past that sows the seeds of mistrust in the other guys. There's 2nd Lieutenant William Martinez, still a little wet behind the ears, but obviously competent (the non-moron version of Lt. Gorman from Aliens), who looks to the far more seasoned Nantz for advice...
...you know, I could spend many paragraphs going through all the characters. I'm not going to. All you need to know is what I said before- they're all very well fleshed-out. Director Jonathan Liebesman does such a fine job of stressing the importance of military brotherhood without hitting you over the head with it and making it a needlessly OO-RAH!-heavy movie. If you want uncomfortable ass-kissing like that, re-watch Transformers. Actually, don't. That will only make you dumber. Go see this instead. Anyway, Liebesman. Yeah, great job, bro. A near-perfect mix of action, drama, and, oh yeah- sci-fi. Damn! I keep forgetting that bit. It's the right kind of sci-fi- the movie never spends too much time on the aliens, why they're here, or their technology. I mean, it does deal with that stuff, but only so much as is needed to logically further the plot. We learn as the Marines learn, which really makes it easy to feel like a part of the action. It reminds me a little of the War Of The Worlds remake in that way, but if we followed the military instead of civilians.
Something needs to be said for the sound design here, too. I saw it at Union Square in NYC and besides that fact that it was very awesomely loud, the sound design/mixing/editing was amazing. Weapon rounds buzzing past your face, alien craft hovering over your head, the crumbling of newly-abandoned buildings... it all added to the atmosphere like nobody's business. Again, puts you right in the action. Like the characters onscreen, you can never really relax while watching this.
So, while it's likely stuff you've seen before, it's amazingly fresh. And it never reeks of ripping off its source material. Battle: LA is undoubtedly an homage to both classic and neo-sci-fi flicks, as well as the best modern military dramas. What's great is that it never actually relies on, nor is hobbled by the existence of such films. See it. It's a great way to spend a Saturday afternoon.
8 out of 10 Ass-Kicking Marines
Rango: Holy Jesus-jumped-up-Christ, what a frakking CRAZY movie this was.
First, the basics: Rango is a pet chameleon that accidentally winds up out of his aquarium and roadside in the Mojave desert. He walks until he finds a town, comes up with a new persona, fools the locals with it, and becomes Sheriff. Right away he is tasked with solving the mystery behind the desert town's water deficiency problem, and quickly becomes the (apparently false) embodiment of the hope that the town needs.
OK. So. First off, don't let the posters fool you- this is absolutely not a kids' film. The little buggers can enjoy it, I think, but it's got death, sexual innuendo, existential crisis, drinking, smoking, talking roadkill, and guns, guns, guns. And, for the first time ever, we've got an animated movie that rivals Pixar in its visuals. I'll even go so far as to say it's on par with the last 3 or 4 films from Lasseter's behemoth. Visually, anyway.
Secondly, don't let me fool you- this is not some kind of exploitation film. All of those non-kid-friendly things I mentioned above are not the focus of the movie. They exist to further the story, not to give the movie empty shock value. An example- to assert himself as a force to be reckoned with, Rango drinks a shot of booze, then takes the cigar from the mouth of a big bad guy in the town's Saloon. Of course, he then eats it and burps it up, setting the bad guy's face on fire, so it's not like this is a serious movie. In fact, it's very old-school Looney Tunes in its execution, which suits me fine. Those weren't for kids, either.
I'm having a really hard time writing about this one. I know for sure it's great, but it's a little convoluted, to be honest. And I think it's because...
Rango was directed by Gore Verbinski- the man behind the Pirates Of The Caribbean flicks. And if anything is a detriment here it's the same issues that Dead Man's Chest and At World's End have- there's far too much going on for the frenetic pace to handle. And while I love those two movies (and, I think, Rango, too... but it's too soon to tell) I freely admit that even having seeing them a few times each, I still check out for 5 minutes here and there so my brain can catch its breath*. Same happened with Rango once or twice. It's like the old "too much of a good thing" thing. Just because you can pack all that originality, wackiness, and technical prowess into a film doesn't mean you necessarily should.
Of course, now it's sounding like I was disappointed in Rango. The reality is quite the opposite. I was expecting something on par with How To Train Your Dragon, or if I was less lucky, Despicable Me. What I got was... well, Toy Story 3 meets High Plains Drifter cut with a little Fear And Loathing In Las Vegas (to keep your mind limber). And that suits me just fine. Add to that some fantastic voice acting (Johnny Depp, Ned Beatty, Alfred Molina, Bill Nighy, Stephen Root, Harry Dean Stanton, Ray Winstone, to name a few) and some seriously trippy visuals, and I'm sold. Makes sense that Rango comes from, in part, "Nickelodeon Movies." Those guys tend to take chances, right? I mean, I dug Nacho Libre. Oh. Right. The Last Airbender was theirs, too. Forget I mentioned it.
So, yeah, this review kinda sucked. But Rango most assuredly didn't. Go see it- you owe it to yourself to have your mind blown, even if you walk away a little confused, like me.
8 out of 10 Mariachi Greek Chorus Owls
*I think DMC & AWE are best watched either as one (very) long movie, or split into 3 parts. It's been awhile, so I can't remember exactly where, but if you stop around 2/3 into Chest (somewhere before the island wheel swordfight, for sure), take a break, start it back up and continue to somewhere around 1/3 of the way into Worlds (just after they find Sparrow... I think...), take another break, then come back and finish it out, it's easier on the noggin.
Battle: Los Angeles: You got your military movie in my Sci-fi flick! No, you got your sci-fi flick on my military movie! Mmmm... two great tastes that taste great together!
HUZZAH! The year's first truly exciting movie (that I saw, anyway)! Certainly not the most original flick, and far from perfect, but it kept me on the edge of my seat and never dragged once in it's nearly 2-hour running time.
So, if you were wondering, yes. It's very much like Independence Day. Or as the guy behind me in the ticket line told someone on the phone, "it's that movie where they fight aliens. You know, like that Will Smiff movie." A perceived meteor shower turns out to be a fleet of alien spacecraft that park themselves along the world's biggest coastal cities and before we know why they're blowing us straight to hell so they can mine our natural resources. We fight back.
Now, I love Independence Day. It's big, it's loud, it's dumb as a bag of hammers, but I love it. And while B:LA's story (and some scenes) might be very similar, the execution of that story is so very not. In fact, I'd compare its storytelling to Black Hawk Down before I'd compare it to ID4 (yes, I just used that weird ID4 marketing tool thing that pissed so many people off. Deal). This movie is about the Marine Corps band-of-brothers unit that we follow through the movie and not about aliens blowing up iconic man-made structures and anti-heroes Slim-Pickensing the bad guys. I hesitate to call it a more "intimate" movie, but it's certainly not the far-reaching, grandiose, converging-plotlines extravaganza that was Emmerich's explosion-fest. Also, it's mostly in real-time. Once our Marines get dropped into LA I'm pretty sure it doesn't take a break and jump ahead for another hour, hour-fifteen. The tension this adds is pretty amazing, especially since our heroes are almost constantly being hammered by alien forces.
Speaking of the boys-in-camo, what a great bunch of likable characters we've got here. Again, maybe not the most original, and there may be a few too many, but they're fleshed out so well that it's actually sad when one or two or ten of them die (and no one is safe here, btw). B:LA does a pretty good job of introducing each and every one of them in the pre-game show- we see the day and night leading up to the invasion, and each time this sequence focuses on one or two individuals we get their name and rank subtitled on screen. Front-and-center is Staff Sergeant Michael Nantz (Aaron Eckhart), quiet, pensive, almost-retired, and still dealing with a tragic past that sows the seeds of mistrust in the other guys. There's 2nd Lieutenant William Martinez, still a little wet behind the ears, but obviously competent (the non-moron version of Lt. Gorman from Aliens), who looks to the far more seasoned Nantz for advice...
...you know, I could spend many paragraphs going through all the characters. I'm not going to. All you need to know is what I said before- they're all very well fleshed-out. Director Jonathan Liebesman does such a fine job of stressing the importance of military brotherhood without hitting you over the head with it and making it a needlessly OO-RAH!-heavy movie. If you want uncomfortable ass-kissing like that, re-watch Transformers. Actually, don't. That will only make you dumber. Go see this instead. Anyway, Liebesman. Yeah, great job, bro. A near-perfect mix of action, drama, and, oh yeah- sci-fi. Damn! I keep forgetting that bit. It's the right kind of sci-fi- the movie never spends too much time on the aliens, why they're here, or their technology. I mean, it does deal with that stuff, but only so much as is needed to logically further the plot. We learn as the Marines learn, which really makes it easy to feel like a part of the action. It reminds me a little of the War Of The Worlds remake in that way, but if we followed the military instead of civilians.
Something needs to be said for the sound design here, too. I saw it at Union Square in NYC and besides that fact that it was very awesomely loud, the sound design/mixing/editing was amazing. Weapon rounds buzzing past your face, alien craft hovering over your head, the crumbling of newly-abandoned buildings... it all added to the atmosphere like nobody's business. Again, puts you right in the action. Like the characters onscreen, you can never really relax while watching this.
So, while it's likely stuff you've seen before, it's amazingly fresh. And it never reeks of ripping off its source material. Battle: LA is undoubtedly an homage to both classic and neo-sci-fi flicks, as well as the best modern military dramas. What's great is that it never actually relies on, nor is hobbled by the existence of such films. See it. It's a great way to spend a Saturday afternoon.
8 out of 10 Ass-Kicking Marines
Rango: Holy Jesus-jumped-up-Christ, what a frakking CRAZY movie this was.
First, the basics: Rango is a pet chameleon that accidentally winds up out of his aquarium and roadside in the Mojave desert. He walks until he finds a town, comes up with a new persona, fools the locals with it, and becomes Sheriff. Right away he is tasked with solving the mystery behind the desert town's water deficiency problem, and quickly becomes the (apparently false) embodiment of the hope that the town needs.
OK. So. First off, don't let the posters fool you- this is absolutely not a kids' film. The little buggers can enjoy it, I think, but it's got death, sexual innuendo, existential crisis, drinking, smoking, talking roadkill, and guns, guns, guns. And, for the first time ever, we've got an animated movie that rivals Pixar in its visuals. I'll even go so far as to say it's on par with the last 3 or 4 films from Lasseter's behemoth. Visually, anyway.
Secondly, don't let me fool you- this is not some kind of exploitation film. All of those non-kid-friendly things I mentioned above are not the focus of the movie. They exist to further the story, not to give the movie empty shock value. An example- to assert himself as a force to be reckoned with, Rango drinks a shot of booze, then takes the cigar from the mouth of a big bad guy in the town's Saloon. Of course, he then eats it and burps it up, setting the bad guy's face on fire, so it's not like this is a serious movie. In fact, it's very old-school Looney Tunes in its execution, which suits me fine. Those weren't for kids, either.
I'm having a really hard time writing about this one. I know for sure it's great, but it's a little convoluted, to be honest. And I think it's because...
Rango was directed by Gore Verbinski- the man behind the Pirates Of The Caribbean flicks. And if anything is a detriment here it's the same issues that Dead Man's Chest and At World's End have- there's far too much going on for the frenetic pace to handle. And while I love those two movies (and, I think, Rango, too... but it's too soon to tell) I freely admit that even having seeing them a few times each, I still check out for 5 minutes here and there so my brain can catch its breath*. Same happened with Rango once or twice. It's like the old "too much of a good thing" thing. Just because you can pack all that originality, wackiness, and technical prowess into a film doesn't mean you necessarily should.
Of course, now it's sounding like I was disappointed in Rango. The reality is quite the opposite. I was expecting something on par with How To Train Your Dragon, or if I was less lucky, Despicable Me. What I got was... well, Toy Story 3 meets High Plains Drifter cut with a little Fear And Loathing In Las Vegas (to keep your mind limber). And that suits me just fine. Add to that some fantastic voice acting (Johnny Depp, Ned Beatty, Alfred Molina, Bill Nighy, Stephen Root, Harry Dean Stanton, Ray Winstone, to name a few) and some seriously trippy visuals, and I'm sold. Makes sense that Rango comes from, in part, "Nickelodeon Movies." Those guys tend to take chances, right? I mean, I dug Nacho Libre. Oh. Right. The Last Airbender was theirs, too. Forget I mentioned it.
So, yeah, this review kinda sucked. But Rango most assuredly didn't. Go see it- you owe it to yourself to have your mind blown, even if you walk away a little confused, like me.
8 out of 10 Mariachi Greek Chorus Owls
*I think DMC & AWE are best watched either as one (very) long movie, or split into 3 parts. It's been awhile, so I can't remember exactly where, but if you stop around 2/3 into Chest (somewhere before the island wheel swordfight, for sure), take a break, start it back up and continue to somewhere around 1/3 of the way into Worlds (just after they find Sparrow... I think...), take another break, then come back and finish it out, it's easier on the noggin.
Friday, March 11, 2011
Adjust THIS!
Do you hear that? I think it's a foghorn...
BOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiinnnnnng.
So, I saw The Adjustment Bureau yesterday. Um, it didn't blow me away. Or excite me. Or keep me interested. At all.
If you watch Fringe (and you should) you've seen this already. There's a group of "beings" that control our lives by making sure certain things happen or do not happen to us, depending on which will bring about the desired future. The motivation behind it is mostly a mystery.
And yes, I realize that the movie was based on a short story by Philip K. Dick (haven't read it) that predates Fringe by like 50 years. But the show probably used that as inspiration for their "observers" storyline, and they do it so much better than The Adjustment Bureau did. So much better.
Anyway, Matt Damon plays a guy named David Norris who runs for office in the NY State Senate, but loses. While rehearsing his concession speech he runs into Elise Sellas (Emily Blunt) and it's love at first sight. But she leaves the building, he loses track of her, and that's it. Life goes on. Then we're in a park in NYC and two of the "Bureau" guys are discussing Damon. Apparently the one guy needs to bump into Matt Damon, or something, and have him spill his coffee on himself so he misses his bus, keeping him from running into Elise again. Bureau dude falls asleep and misses his chance to spill said coffee. Norris shows up at his office earlier than he's supposed to and sees what he's not supposed to: these bureau guys tweaking reality by...
...oh, forget it. Basically, Matt Damon isn't supposed to be with Emily Blunt for some reason, and these Bureau guys are tasked with keeping it from happening. They threaten him with a complete memory wipe if he tries to find her again, but he flips them the proverbial bird and spends the next hour and a half reconnecting with her. Over and over again. The movie trudges along, slowly... slowly... and then there's a lame chase scene that ends on a rooftop. The End.
So, yeah. The mythology of the Bureau guys is so thin in this flick that the movie is still literally making up shit about how their powers (or technology, or whatever) work in the last scene of the movie. They can go through doors and suddenly be on the other side of town instead of in a storeroom, or office, or closet, or whatever (Matrix: Reloaded!), but only because they wear special hats and turn the doorknobs a certain way (seriously). They can freeze an entire office (Dark City!) and plant suggestions in your brain (Inception!) with a colorful flashlight machine. They can move objects with the flicker of a finger and make you trip and sprain your ankle. Why they don't use all of these things from the start with Norris & Emily is a mystery. Oh, well, actually, it's because the movie would only be 5 minutes long.
And that's the real issue here. This was one of those movies that would have been better suited as an hour long episode of a TV show, like The X-Files, or, you know... FRINGE. But since it's a movie, it had to be at least 80 minutes long. And since it's a Matt Damon movie, it had to be longer. Um, that's actually not a dig against the former Mr. Hunting- the absolute best scenes in this movie are the ones with him and Emily Blunt. Those two have a fantastic chemistry on screen. Too bad the movie they got to showcase it in was this pseudo-sci-fi mess. Michael Kelly (my favorite character in the Dawn Of The Dead remake) was great, in the limited screen time he was given. That Anthony Mackie guy was really good, too. He was the only Bureau guy that I cared about, and not just because he was the only one we're supposed to care about. Good actor. Horrible guest on Conan last week, but good actor. Also, Terence Stamp shows up late in the movie and sleepwalks through his role. Sleepshambles, actually. General Zod is starting to look like he got the Fortress Of Solitude Power-Reversal in real life (Nerd!). The rest of those bureau guys were really not good. I mean, how can you screw up a role where it's your job to deliver deadpan, emotionless dialogue?
What else? Um... I dunno, uh... the movie looked OK, I guess. It was one of those blue movies where everything's blue-ish outdoors in the city. I guess that's supposed to be a cold look, or whatever. I just checked, and this was the director(George Nolfi)'s first film. Yeah.
Not a complete loss. I want to give it a 5, but it feels wrong to call it completely "Average" since I actually cared about the two leads. I sort of wish there was no sci-fi element and it was a drama about a lonely up-and-coming political figure who finally finds the love of his life, then loses her... only to find her again. And I HATE those kind of fucking movies. Damn you, Matt Damon, and your affable nature! Damn you Emily Blunt and your totally hot British accent!
6 out of 10 counter-clockwise doorknobs.
EDIT, 6:45 PM: OK. I thought about it over a glass of Grenache, an arugula salad, and a seriously bland slice of pizza at some place on 1st Ave, downtown. Matty D & Emmy B were great, but the movie wasn't, so it balances out to average. I'm adjusting my rating (BOOYAH!).
5 out of 10 silly magic teleportation yarmulkes.
BOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiinnnnnng.
So, I saw The Adjustment Bureau yesterday. Um, it didn't blow me away. Or excite me. Or keep me interested. At all.
If you watch Fringe (and you should) you've seen this already. There's a group of "beings" that control our lives by making sure certain things happen or do not happen to us, depending on which will bring about the desired future. The motivation behind it is mostly a mystery.
And yes, I realize that the movie was based on a short story by Philip K. Dick (haven't read it) that predates Fringe by like 50 years. But the show probably used that as inspiration for their "observers" storyline, and they do it so much better than The Adjustment Bureau did. So much better.
Anyway, Matt Damon plays a guy named David Norris who runs for office in the NY State Senate, but loses. While rehearsing his concession speech he runs into Elise Sellas (Emily Blunt) and it's love at first sight. But she leaves the building, he loses track of her, and that's it. Life goes on. Then we're in a park in NYC and two of the "Bureau" guys are discussing Damon. Apparently the one guy needs to bump into Matt Damon, or something, and have him spill his coffee on himself so he misses his bus, keeping him from running into Elise again. Bureau dude falls asleep and misses his chance to spill said coffee. Norris shows up at his office earlier than he's supposed to and sees what he's not supposed to: these bureau guys tweaking reality by...
...oh, forget it. Basically, Matt Damon isn't supposed to be with Emily Blunt for some reason, and these Bureau guys are tasked with keeping it from happening. They threaten him with a complete memory wipe if he tries to find her again, but he flips them the proverbial bird and spends the next hour and a half reconnecting with her. Over and over again. The movie trudges along, slowly... slowly... and then there's a lame chase scene that ends on a rooftop. The End.
So, yeah. The mythology of the Bureau guys is so thin in this flick that the movie is still literally making up shit about how their powers (or technology, or whatever) work in the last scene of the movie. They can go through doors and suddenly be on the other side of town instead of in a storeroom, or office, or closet, or whatever (Matrix: Reloaded!), but only because they wear special hats and turn the doorknobs a certain way (seriously). They can freeze an entire office (Dark City!) and plant suggestions in your brain (Inception!) with a colorful flashlight machine. They can move objects with the flicker of a finger and make you trip and sprain your ankle. Why they don't use all of these things from the start with Norris & Emily is a mystery. Oh, well, actually, it's because the movie would only be 5 minutes long.
And that's the real issue here. This was one of those movies that would have been better suited as an hour long episode of a TV show, like The X-Files, or, you know... FRINGE. But since it's a movie, it had to be at least 80 minutes long. And since it's a Matt Damon movie, it had to be longer. Um, that's actually not a dig against the former Mr. Hunting- the absolute best scenes in this movie are the ones with him and Emily Blunt. Those two have a fantastic chemistry on screen. Too bad the movie they got to showcase it in was this pseudo-sci-fi mess. Michael Kelly (my favorite character in the Dawn Of The Dead remake) was great, in the limited screen time he was given. That Anthony Mackie guy was really good, too. He was the only Bureau guy that I cared about, and not just because he was the only one we're supposed to care about. Good actor. Horrible guest on Conan last week, but good actor. Also, Terence Stamp shows up late in the movie and sleepwalks through his role. Sleepshambles, actually. General Zod is starting to look like he got the Fortress Of Solitude Power-Reversal in real life (Nerd!). The rest of those bureau guys were really not good. I mean, how can you screw up a role where it's your job to deliver deadpan, emotionless dialogue?
What else? Um... I dunno, uh... the movie looked OK, I guess. It was one of those blue movies where everything's blue-ish outdoors in the city. I guess that's supposed to be a cold look, or whatever. I just checked, and this was the director(George Nolfi)'s first film. Yeah.
Not a complete loss. I want to give it a 5, but it feels wrong to call it completely "Average" since I actually cared about the two leads. I sort of wish there was no sci-fi element and it was a drama about a lonely up-and-coming political figure who finally finds the love of his life, then loses her... only to find her again. And I HATE those kind of fucking movies. Damn you, Matt Damon, and your affable nature! Damn you Emily Blunt and your totally hot British accent!
EDIT, 6:45 PM: OK. I thought about it over a glass of Grenache, an arugula salad, and a seriously bland slice of pizza at some place on 1st Ave, downtown. Matty D & Emmy B were great, but the movie wasn't, so it balances out to average. I'm adjusting my rating (BOOYAH!).
5 out of 10 silly magic teleportation yarmulkes.
Thursday, March 10, 2011
Muscle Cars, Guns, Satan Worshippers, and Boobs.
It's been awhile. Like two fortnights. Or, you know, a month, if you're not a complete nerd. Been busy. Had work and two plays going on (the second closes on Sunday). I missed out on a lot, but was able to squeeze in Drive Angry yesterday afternoon before my call. And I'm glad I did.
When Tarantino & Rodriguez released their Grindhouse double feature in 2007 I was pleasantly surprised, and hopeful for the future. Would we be getting a new Grindhouse (™) feature a couple times a year? Even one a year? Ok, one every 2 years? EVER AGAIN? Last year we were handed Machete, which rekindled my hope in a future of occasional low-budget, laid-back-yet-crazy, B-level-yet-oddly-quality exploitation... until I saw it. Sadly, it just didn't "go there." Or, more accurately, it tried waaaaay too hard to "go there". So hard, in fact, that it ended up a convoluted mess that pandered to it's own fake low-budget BS while at the same time trying to get some kind of message across instead of delivering something even semi-coherent and, you know, fun. As far as I was concerned, the neo-grindhouse "movement" was dead.
And now Nic Cage has come along and made me a believer again. Go figure.
No, Drive Angry is not a Rodriguez/Tarantino joint. Nor does it claim to be a grindhouse movie. But grindhouse it is. Violence, T&A, muscle car chase scenes, a taste of the supernatural, all in eye-gouging 3-D! And they got it all done without the need for fake bad film stock, fake missing reels, and fake in-house editing repair jobs for melted film. I mean, I dug the use of those things in Planet Terror and Death Proof, but gimmicks are gimmicks. Drive Angry manages to pull it off without the use of such things. It's an exploitation film that, thanks to the way we both film and view movies these days, will never degrade in those ways. It's non-retro retro.
But enough about that stuff. How was the movie?
Great. Not the best thing I have seen so far this year, not the best thing I WILL see this year, and I'm probably being a little generous in my rating, but damn was this a fun little movie. It stretched pretty far in scope, story-wise, but remained relatively humble in its execution. The opening and closing shots (of Nic Cage driving out of and back into hell, respectively) were the most CGI-tastic. The rest of the movie used it sparingly, as far as I could tell. Stuff like car parts flying at the camera and enhanced explosions, and stuff. The supernatural element to the story was underplayed until the 3rd act, with only small reminders here and there, like the "Godkiller" gun Cage is toting and the fact that even a bullet to the head won't kill him (for long). It really was more about chasing down (and running down) satanic cultists in a '69 Dodge Charger and stopping occasionally for sex with roadhouse waitresses and bloodbath shootouts. At the same time. Not kidding.
The plot? Well, that last sentence pretty much sums it up, but if I had to get all official-like, it would look like this: John Milton (Cage) escapes from hell to save his infant granddaughter from the cult that murdered his daughter and intends to sacrifice the child to Satan at midnight during the next full moon. He enlists the help of a small-town waitress named Piper (Amber Heard) after saving her from her asshole fiancee and takes to the road in her badass car after said cult, all the while being chased by a being known as "The Accountant" (William Fichtner), sent from hell to bring Milton back.
Yeah. That about sums it up.
Cage has been surprising me lately. Even in over-the-top nuttiness like this he's learned to reign in that annoying crazy-eyed, faux-lunatic, fits-and-starts dialogue thing he always does. It's like he wants to be an actor again. I even liked him in the just-there The Sorcerer's Apprentice last year. Anyway, yeah, Drive Angry is no exception. He keeps it pretty quiet. Amber Heard is unrelentingly beautiful, so I can't truly tell you if she was any good. I'm pretty sure she was, though. And then there's William Fichtner. Is there anybody cooler than this guy? He even managed to turn 30 seconds of screen time as a banker during the opening sequence of The Dark Knight into a memorable character. He walks through Drive Angry with an unflappable blank expression and calmer-than-thou speech, belying the invincible, single-minded bounty hunter (for lack of a better term) that he is. Sort of like the T-1000, but, you know, from hell. The scene where he overturns a hydrogen truck aimed at a police blockade and serenely steps off of it and onto a cop car, both moving at highway speeds, is one for the ages. Très cool.
Now, as you may know, I'm no advocate of the 3-D. If it ain't computer animation, the 3-D blows, with a capital B. But here it sort of worked. More because of the grindhouse exploitation aesthetic than anything else. This movie is marketed as being "Shot In 3-D"- it's on all the posters, almost as if the actual title is Drive Angry: Shot In 3-D [check it out here], and, yeah, it's probably the best live-action use of the technology I've seen. I'll be OK, though, when it comes to home video and I can't see it that way. The 3-D in this case, is more about going to the theatre and experiencing the batshit-craziness of it all than actually enhancing the storytelling. I'm a little sad that I didn't see it closer to its release, though. Empty theatre. There was only one creepy older guy there. NO, not me- one OTHER creepy guy. Actually, two ladies walked in literally one hour after it started and stayed until the end, and they weren't shy about vocally reacting to the extravaganza, which I loved... but a theatre full of that would have been awesome. Oh well. I still "got it."
For out-grindhousing Grindhouse: 7 out of 10 Empty Skulls (to drink a cold beer out of).
When Tarantino & Rodriguez released their Grindhouse double feature in 2007 I was pleasantly surprised, and hopeful for the future. Would we be getting a new Grindhouse (™) feature a couple times a year? Even one a year? Ok, one every 2 years? EVER AGAIN? Last year we were handed Machete, which rekindled my hope in a future of occasional low-budget, laid-back-yet-crazy, B-level-yet-oddly-quality exploitation... until I saw it. Sadly, it just didn't "go there." Or, more accurately, it tried waaaaay too hard to "go there". So hard, in fact, that it ended up a convoluted mess that pandered to it's own fake low-budget BS while at the same time trying to get some kind of message across instead of delivering something even semi-coherent and, you know, fun. As far as I was concerned, the neo-grindhouse "movement" was dead.
And now Nic Cage has come along and made me a believer again. Go figure.
No, Drive Angry is not a Rodriguez/Tarantino joint. Nor does it claim to be a grindhouse movie. But grindhouse it is. Violence, T&A, muscle car chase scenes, a taste of the supernatural, all in eye-gouging 3-D! And they got it all done without the need for fake bad film stock, fake missing reels, and fake in-house editing repair jobs for melted film. I mean, I dug the use of those things in Planet Terror and Death Proof, but gimmicks are gimmicks. Drive Angry manages to pull it off without the use of such things. It's an exploitation film that, thanks to the way we both film and view movies these days, will never degrade in those ways. It's non-retro retro.
But enough about that stuff. How was the movie?
Great. Not the best thing I have seen so far this year, not the best thing I WILL see this year, and I'm probably being a little generous in my rating, but damn was this a fun little movie. It stretched pretty far in scope, story-wise, but remained relatively humble in its execution. The opening and closing shots (of Nic Cage driving out of and back into hell, respectively) were the most CGI-tastic. The rest of the movie used it sparingly, as far as I could tell. Stuff like car parts flying at the camera and enhanced explosions, and stuff. The supernatural element to the story was underplayed until the 3rd act, with only small reminders here and there, like the "Godkiller" gun Cage is toting and the fact that even a bullet to the head won't kill him (for long). It really was more about chasing down (and running down) satanic cultists in a '69 Dodge Charger and stopping occasionally for sex with roadhouse waitresses and bloodbath shootouts. At the same time. Not kidding.
The plot? Well, that last sentence pretty much sums it up, but if I had to get all official-like, it would look like this: John Milton (Cage) escapes from hell to save his infant granddaughter from the cult that murdered his daughter and intends to sacrifice the child to Satan at midnight during the next full moon. He enlists the help of a small-town waitress named Piper (Amber Heard) after saving her from her asshole fiancee and takes to the road in her badass car after said cult, all the while being chased by a being known as "The Accountant" (William Fichtner), sent from hell to bring Milton back.
Yeah. That about sums it up.
Cage has been surprising me lately. Even in over-the-top nuttiness like this he's learned to reign in that annoying crazy-eyed, faux-lunatic, fits-and-starts dialogue thing he always does. It's like he wants to be an actor again. I even liked him in the just-there The Sorcerer's Apprentice last year. Anyway, yeah, Drive Angry is no exception. He keeps it pretty quiet. Amber Heard is unrelentingly beautiful, so I can't truly tell you if she was any good. I'm pretty sure she was, though. And then there's William Fichtner. Is there anybody cooler than this guy? He even managed to turn 30 seconds of screen time as a banker during the opening sequence of The Dark Knight into a memorable character. He walks through Drive Angry with an unflappable blank expression and calmer-than-thou speech, belying the invincible, single-minded bounty hunter (for lack of a better term) that he is. Sort of like the T-1000, but, you know, from hell. The scene where he overturns a hydrogen truck aimed at a police blockade and serenely steps off of it and onto a cop car, both moving at highway speeds, is one for the ages. Très cool.
Now, as you may know, I'm no advocate of the 3-D. If it ain't computer animation, the 3-D blows, with a capital B. But here it sort of worked. More because of the grindhouse exploitation aesthetic than anything else. This movie is marketed as being "Shot In 3-D"- it's on all the posters, almost as if the actual title is Drive Angry: Shot In 3-D [check it out here], and, yeah, it's probably the best live-action use of the technology I've seen. I'll be OK, though, when it comes to home video and I can't see it that way. The 3-D in this case, is more about going to the theatre and experiencing the batshit-craziness of it all than actually enhancing the storytelling. I'm a little sad that I didn't see it closer to its release, though. Empty theatre. There was only one creepy older guy there. NO, not me- one OTHER creepy guy. Actually, two ladies walked in literally one hour after it started and stayed until the end, and they weren't shy about vocally reacting to the extravaganza, which I loved... but a theatre full of that would have been awesome. Oh well. I still "got it."
![[check it out here]](http://chud.com/articles/content_images/17/DriveAngryPoster.jpg){kind=link}
For out-grindhousing Grindhouse: 7 out of 10 Empty Skulls (to drink a cold beer out of).
Monday, February 28, 2011
Some Brief Oscar Thoughts
I don't usually watch the Academy Awards. I usually don't give a rat's balls about a group of people kissing each others' asses. But since 2010 was the "Year I Got Back To The Movies" I figured I'd give it a go. Even though it was to be hosted by James "Overexposure" Franco and that bland chick from those movies. Besides, even though it's ultimately a waste of time, I still like to see people I like get some sort of recognition. Like when Jeff Bridges won last year. Guy's the coolest actor in Hollywood, so yeah, it was great to see his speech. The Dude's Speech. Somebody should make that parody. Not it!
Anyway, I really don't have much to say, but here's a few musings-
1. I now like James Franco. Dude turned phoning-it-in into an art form. And those faces he made every time what's-her-name ad-libbed stuff were priceless. Also, how HIGH was he?
2. Melissa Leo won Best Supporting Actress for The Fighter and then gave the worst performance of her career with her fake surprise and excitement. Seriously, how long did she rehearse that response? If she lost I think she would have pulled a Zoolander and hit the stage anyway. Oh, and it should have gone to Hailee Steinfeld.
3. Christian Bale may have a rep for being "difficult" on set, but that guy is one class act. That fact that Dicky & Micky were there was awesome.
4. Justin Timberlake should win an award for his obscure Banksy "controversy" shout-out. AND for his callback to Kirk Douglas's schtick.
5. Were those barnacles on Cate Blanchett's gown?
6. Annette Bening, repeat after me: "I'm Mr. Green Christmas, I'm Mr. Sun/ I'm Mr. Heat Blister, I'm Mr. Hundred-And-One..."
7. Aaron Sorkin is the man.
8. Was what's-her-name Annie Half-a-wit auditioning for Wicked, or something? Boo. Yes, you can sing... but it just made you come across as desperate.
9. Sad that Deakins didn't get the Cinematography award, but at the same time not sad that it went to Pfister. Actually, I would have been OK with it going to anything but The King's Speech. Speaking of which...
10. The King's Speech. Really, really great movie. Can't wait to watch it again, especially after seeing all those clips. However, Best Picture AND Best Director? First of all, Best Director- no way. Sorry. Of the choices we were given, that one should have gone to Aranofsky or Fincher. Or Nolan, if he were up for it, AND HE SHOULD HAVE BEEN. Best Picture I can almost see... but The Social Network should have won. My favorite movie of the year was Black Swan. I would have loved to have seen TSN walk away with Best Pic and Aranofsky get Best Director. Or the other way around. Whichever.
11. No remembrance love for Corey Haim? HOW DARE YOU. Also, who was the last one they showed? There was no name attached to it.
12. Trent Reznor even looks badass in a tux. Or, especially looks badass in a tux.
13. I really dug The Wolfman, but was it me, or were all the shots they showed for its "Best Makeup" nomination CGI? Great to see Rick Baker up there 30 years later for his work on another werewolf, though. Even if he looks like Bob from Twin Peaks.
14. That God Of Love dude was awesome.
15. That Denmark lady should have used some Dry Idea.
16. Hey, Jennifer Hudson- there's an "S" in the word "Lyrics." Learn English. Kirk Douglas was more eloquent.
17. Hey, Harvey Weinstein:
1. a sharp-edged instrument used especially for shaving the face or trimming the hair.
2. an electrically powered instrument used for the same purpose.
18. Hey, Oprah: WHY ARE YOU HERE? Also, I thought Moby Dick was white.
19. Once again, Jeff Bridges is the coolest guy in town. His little intros for each of the Best Actress noms proved it.
20. The show started at 8:30 and was over at 11:30-ish. Nice and short, Oscar-wise. Perfect. Let's hope this is the start of a new trend.
ADDENDUM, 3/1/11: Forgot to mention- the music during that F. F. Coppola tribute thing was from the score to Branagh's Henry V- the St. Crispin's Day speech! SHAKESPEARE NERD ALERT!
Anyway, I really don't have much to say, but here's a few musings-
1. I now like James Franco. Dude turned phoning-it-in into an art form. And those faces he made every time what's-her-name ad-libbed stuff were priceless. Also, how HIGH was he?
2. Melissa Leo won Best Supporting Actress for The Fighter and then gave the worst performance of her career with her fake surprise and excitement. Seriously, how long did she rehearse that response? If she lost I think she would have pulled a Zoolander and hit the stage anyway. Oh, and it should have gone to Hailee Steinfeld.
3. Christian Bale may have a rep for being "difficult" on set, but that guy is one class act. That fact that Dicky & Micky were there was awesome.
4. Justin Timberlake should win an award for his obscure Banksy "controversy" shout-out. AND for his callback to Kirk Douglas's schtick.
5. Were those barnacles on Cate Blanchett's gown?
6. Annette Bening, repeat after me: "I'm Mr. Green Christmas, I'm Mr. Sun/ I'm Mr. Heat Blister, I'm Mr. Hundred-And-One..."
7. Aaron Sorkin is the man.
8. Was what's-her-name Annie Half-a-wit auditioning for Wicked, or something? Boo. Yes, you can sing... but it just made you come across as desperate.
9. Sad that Deakins didn't get the Cinematography award, but at the same time not sad that it went to Pfister. Actually, I would have been OK with it going to anything but The King's Speech. Speaking of which...
10. The King's Speech. Really, really great movie. Can't wait to watch it again, especially after seeing all those clips. However, Best Picture AND Best Director? First of all, Best Director- no way. Sorry. Of the choices we were given, that one should have gone to Aranofsky or Fincher. Or Nolan, if he were up for it, AND HE SHOULD HAVE BEEN. Best Picture I can almost see... but The Social Network should have won. My favorite movie of the year was Black Swan. I would have loved to have seen TSN walk away with Best Pic and Aranofsky get Best Director. Or the other way around. Whichever.
11. No remembrance love for Corey Haim? HOW DARE YOU. Also, who was the last one they showed? There was no name attached to it.
12. Trent Reznor even looks badass in a tux. Or, especially looks badass in a tux.
13. I really dug The Wolfman, but was it me, or were all the shots they showed for its "Best Makeup" nomination CGI? Great to see Rick Baker up there 30 years later for his work on another werewolf, though. Even if he looks like Bob from Twin Peaks.
14. That God Of Love dude was awesome.
15. That Denmark lady should have used some Dry Idea.
16. Hey, Jennifer Hudson- there's an "S" in the word "Lyrics." Learn English. Kirk Douglas was more eloquent.
17. Hey, Harvey Weinstein:
ra·zor
[rey-zer] –noun1. a sharp-edged instrument used especially for shaving the face or trimming the hair.
2. an electrically powered instrument used for the same purpose.
18. Hey, Oprah: WHY ARE YOU HERE? Also, I thought Moby Dick was white.
19. Once again, Jeff Bridges is the coolest guy in town. His little intros for each of the Best Actress noms proved it.
20. The show started at 8:30 and was over at 11:30-ish. Nice and short, Oscar-wise. Perfect. Let's hope this is the start of a new trend.
ADDENDUM, 3/1/11: Forgot to mention- the music during that F. F. Coppola tribute thing was from the score to Branagh's Henry V- the St. Crispin's Day speech! SHAKESPEARE NERD ALERT!
Thursday, February 17, 2011
Spoiler Alert!
I've been thinking about Spoilers lately. I wrote up a very small snippet about the movie Devil in which I might have given away the BIG SECRET as to who the bad guy was.* My buddy Lance (gently) took me to task about that**, and I started to think- is giving away a plot point really that detrimental to a film? Can a movie still be watchable if you know the BIG TWIST that happens in it? Well, as with all things, I think it depends on the movie. Or, rather, if the movie is any good.
Let's talk Devil. Not really all that great a movie. But it was sold in such a way that hinged on the question: "which one of these people is the killer?" Or, I guess, "which one of these people is the DEVIL? Bwa-ha-haaaaa!" But even suggesting that that was what the movie was about is ridiculous. And spoiler-y, actually. That one of them was the devil in disguise (oh, yes you are) should have been a secret. Yes, I know it was the title of the movie, but the way the concept was introduced was actually quite effective. Or would have been if they didn't give it away by selling the movie on it. And why did they make it such a point to try and hook you in with the idea that you needed to figure out which annoying douche in the elevator was a murderous demon? Is it maybe because the movie was so weak that it had to be sold on a gimmick? Yes. Yes it was. That.
I saw The Crying Game back in '92. Not the first movie to feature a (penis) plot twist, but I think it's where the whole craze started. Gene Siskel famously revealed the (penis) BIG SECRET on his & Ebert's "Memo To The Academy" show. The latter was pissed. But why? I mean, the (penis) movie had been out for months already. And those guys had a show about discussing films, for chrissake. And The Crying Game is a really, really good movie that people wanted to talk about. Tiptoeing around the (penis) BIG REVEAL that late in the game would have been detrimental to discussion. If you hadn't seen The Crying Game by the time Siskel whipped it out, chances are you weren't the type of moviegoer that cared about such things. The secret that there was a secret was already out, so if you were interested you would have gotten your ass to the movies and seen it for yourself. Was is shocking? Sure. Did it enhance the visceral experience of the film when the BIG REVEAL happened? Yes... sort of.*** Does it mean that now that I've seen it I can never watch and enjoy the damned thing again? Of course not. Did finding out who Keyser Söze was make me never want to watch The Usual Suspects again? No WAY. If anything, it made me want to get right back in line to see how they cleverly weaved the plot around that character for an entire movie. Same with The Sixth Sense.
…and let's talk M. Night Schuleramaringtone: a guy who built his rep on big plot twists, then fell victim to them. By the time The Village came out everyone was so much more interested in what the BIG PLOT TWIST was going to be than the movie itself. I remember seeing the trailer for it and immediately my brain kicked into high gear trying to figure out what the BIG SECRET was. And, of course, I did. We all did. And we all still went to see it. Now, whether that movie stands up on its own once you know the secret is debatable (I say yes. I liked it… but, sadly, The Village was his last stand. And it wasn't a considerably strong last stand), but the point still remains: the story took a back seat to the BIG REVEAL, which watered down the plot simply because the twist became more important. Hell, the guy even tried to distract us with a red-herring twist ("what is the big, bad wolf?") first, to obfuscate the bigger twist at the end. It, uh… didn't work, M.
And on that same topic, remember Scream 3? I mean, if you're like me you've tried to scrub the memory from your brain, but were unsuccessful. But remember Scream 3? They were completely out of ideas at that point, so guessing who the killer was was simply a "who's still alive?" issue. I remember hearing that the actors all received different copies of the script with different endings. You know what? If it's that interchangeable, don't expect me to take the shit seriously. Hell, they even did a crappy fake reveal where McDumbass from that hospital show gives an (out of character) evil smile towards the camera as if to say, "yup. It's ME this time," and then a few seconds later he gets stabbed, or pummeled, or something by the real killer (a character that, if I remember correctly, had almost no (if any) screen time before his reveal). What a cheap-ass out-of-context way to try and throw the audience off. It was like a watered down red herring. A pink herring. A perfect example of how useless plot twists can be if you're using them to simply go through the motions. Don't waste our time with crap like that- we're too smart.
Anyway, having said all that, if you walk out of a movie and start yelling, "he was a ghost the whole time!" to the people waiting in line, you're an asshole. Don't rob people of their right to be surprised. However, if you read a review of a movie before you see it, and something is given away, that's just too damned bad, Jack. Chances are you were reading the review to decide whether or not to go see the blessed thing in the first place, which really boils down to you wanting your experience colored before you go. That's how reviewers make a living. If you see that your favorite reviewer has given a movie 1 out of 5 stars, there's a good chance you won't go****, or you will go, but with preconceived notions that will likely "enhance" your viewing experience. I don't usually read reviews before seeing a movie for this very reason. If Mr. Ebert or that dude on NY1 or the boys & girls at CHUD.com like or dislike something, all I'm going to see when I go to the theater is the stuff they pointed out. Sure, I can form my own opinions after the fact, but while I'm sitting there in the dark I'm waiting for the next point that I read about to pop up and stick out like a sore thumb instead of experiencing it organically. Reviews, for me, are so much better AFTER I see a movie. I can agree or disagree, but reading someone else's point of view is always a great way to expand your mind once you've already formed your own opinions. That way you can jump into the discussion from a place of knowledge.
So, yeah, spoilers, man. To recap:
A) if you truly don't want to know about a movie, don't read about it before you see it. People shouldn't have to write SPOILER ALERT on their articles and stuff- by now it's implied.
B) if you don't see a movie in the first few weeks it's been released, don't get mad if someone is discussing it and gives something away. If you're late to a party you can't expect everyone to stop drinking, sober up, leave, come back and start all over again. And,
C) if you find out the BIG REVEAL beforehand, consider that it's only the secret that's been spoiled, not the whole movie. If it turns out it IS the whole movie that's been spoiled, then the movie probably blows.
*I don't feel bad about spoiling Devil for two reasons: 1. It was pretty obvious from the trailer for the film that they were going to go with the most "shocking" choice and, 2. it's a movie that wants you to guess who it is but gives you absolutely ZERO clues right up until the reveal. You're not meant to be able to figure it out. Which is why, ultimately, it was a waste of time.
**Lance, if you're reading, I want to be clear- this was not intended to be a rant against you. You simply got my juices flowing on the subject.
***was it really that mind-blowing to find out it was a dude? C'mon. Like your spider-sense is THAT fucking dull.
****For the record- if you're thinking about seeing a movie and you happen to read one of my reviews that trashes it, know that I am never, never, ever telling you to skip said movie. When it comes to films I'm definitely an advocate of empiricism above authoritarianism (yeah, like I'm an authority on ANYTHING). Think about the times you've loved a movie and then read a bad review of it somewhere that made you say, "that guy doesn't know what he's talking about." I'm sure this has happened to you (like my friend Tom who HATED Black Swan and was dumbfounded by my love for it). Basically, what I'm saying here is don't be a follower, man.
P.S. Penis.
Let's talk Devil. Not really all that great a movie. But it was sold in such a way that hinged on the question: "which one of these people is the killer?" Or, I guess, "which one of these people is the DEVIL? Bwa-ha-haaaaa!" But even suggesting that that was what the movie was about is ridiculous. And spoiler-y, actually. That one of them was the devil in disguise (oh, yes you are) should have been a secret. Yes, I know it was the title of the movie, but the way the concept was introduced was actually quite effective. Or would have been if they didn't give it away by selling the movie on it. And why did they make it such a point to try and hook you in with the idea that you needed to figure out which annoying douche in the elevator was a murderous demon? Is it maybe because the movie was so weak that it had to be sold on a gimmick? Yes. Yes it was. That.
I saw The Crying Game back in '92. Not the first movie to feature a (penis) plot twist, but I think it's where the whole craze started. Gene Siskel famously revealed the (penis) BIG SECRET on his & Ebert's "Memo To The Academy" show. The latter was pissed. But why? I mean, the (penis) movie had been out for months already. And those guys had a show about discussing films, for chrissake. And The Crying Game is a really, really good movie that people wanted to talk about. Tiptoeing around the (penis) BIG REVEAL that late in the game would have been detrimental to discussion. If you hadn't seen The Crying Game by the time Siskel whipped it out, chances are you weren't the type of moviegoer that cared about such things. The secret that there was a secret was already out, so if you were interested you would have gotten your ass to the movies and seen it for yourself. Was is shocking? Sure. Did it enhance the visceral experience of the film when the BIG REVEAL happened? Yes... sort of.*** Does it mean that now that I've seen it I can never watch and enjoy the damned thing again? Of course not. Did finding out who Keyser Söze was make me never want to watch The Usual Suspects again? No WAY. If anything, it made me want to get right back in line to see how they cleverly weaved the plot around that character for an entire movie. Same with The Sixth Sense.
…and let's talk M. Night Schuleramaringtone: a guy who built his rep on big plot twists, then fell victim to them. By the time The Village came out everyone was so much more interested in what the BIG PLOT TWIST was going to be than the movie itself. I remember seeing the trailer for it and immediately my brain kicked into high gear trying to figure out what the BIG SECRET was. And, of course, I did. We all did. And we all still went to see it. Now, whether that movie stands up on its own once you know the secret is debatable (I say yes. I liked it… but, sadly, The Village was his last stand. And it wasn't a considerably strong last stand), but the point still remains: the story took a back seat to the BIG REVEAL, which watered down the plot simply because the twist became more important. Hell, the guy even tried to distract us with a red-herring twist ("what is the big, bad wolf?") first, to obfuscate the bigger twist at the end. It, uh… didn't work, M.
And on that same topic, remember Scream 3? I mean, if you're like me you've tried to scrub the memory from your brain, but were unsuccessful. But remember Scream 3? They were completely out of ideas at that point, so guessing who the killer was was simply a "who's still alive?" issue. I remember hearing that the actors all received different copies of the script with different endings. You know what? If it's that interchangeable, don't expect me to take the shit seriously. Hell, they even did a crappy fake reveal where McDumbass from that hospital show gives an (out of character) evil smile towards the camera as if to say, "yup. It's ME this time," and then a few seconds later he gets stabbed, or pummeled, or something by the real killer (a character that, if I remember correctly, had almost no (if any) screen time before his reveal). What a cheap-ass out-of-context way to try and throw the audience off. It was like a watered down red herring. A pink herring. A perfect example of how useless plot twists can be if you're using them to simply go through the motions. Don't waste our time with crap like that- we're too smart.
Anyway, having said all that, if you walk out of a movie and start yelling, "he was a ghost the whole time!" to the people waiting in line, you're an asshole. Don't rob people of their right to be surprised. However, if you read a review of a movie before you see it, and something is given away, that's just too damned bad, Jack. Chances are you were reading the review to decide whether or not to go see the blessed thing in the first place, which really boils down to you wanting your experience colored before you go. That's how reviewers make a living. If you see that your favorite reviewer has given a movie 1 out of 5 stars, there's a good chance you won't go****, or you will go, but with preconceived notions that will likely "enhance" your viewing experience. I don't usually read reviews before seeing a movie for this very reason. If Mr. Ebert or that dude on NY1 or the boys & girls at CHUD.com like or dislike something, all I'm going to see when I go to the theater is the stuff they pointed out. Sure, I can form my own opinions after the fact, but while I'm sitting there in the dark I'm waiting for the next point that I read about to pop up and stick out like a sore thumb instead of experiencing it organically. Reviews, for me, are so much better AFTER I see a movie. I can agree or disagree, but reading someone else's point of view is always a great way to expand your mind once you've already formed your own opinions. That way you can jump into the discussion from a place of knowledge.
So, yeah, spoilers, man. To recap:
A) if you truly don't want to know about a movie, don't read about it before you see it. People shouldn't have to write SPOILER ALERT on their articles and stuff- by now it's implied.
B) if you don't see a movie in the first few weeks it's been released, don't get mad if someone is discussing it and gives something away. If you're late to a party you can't expect everyone to stop drinking, sober up, leave, come back and start all over again. And,
C) if you find out the BIG REVEAL beforehand, consider that it's only the secret that's been spoiled, not the whole movie. If it turns out it IS the whole movie that's been spoiled, then the movie probably blows.
*I don't feel bad about spoiling Devil for two reasons: 1. It was pretty obvious from the trailer for the film that they were going to go with the most "shocking" choice and, 2. it's a movie that wants you to guess who it is but gives you absolutely ZERO clues right up until the reveal. You're not meant to be able to figure it out. Which is why, ultimately, it was a waste of time.
**Lance, if you're reading, I want to be clear- this was not intended to be a rant against you. You simply got my juices flowing on the subject.
***was it really that mind-blowing to find out it was a dude? C'mon. Like your spider-sense is THAT fucking dull.
****For the record- if you're thinking about seeing a movie and you happen to read one of my reviews that trashes it, know that I am never, never, ever telling you to skip said movie. When it comes to films I'm definitely an advocate of empiricism above authoritarianism (yeah, like I'm an authority on ANYTHING). Think about the times you've loved a movie and then read a bad review of it somewhere that made you say, "that guy doesn't know what he's talking about." I'm sure this has happened to you (like my friend Tom who HATED Black Swan and was dumbfounded by my love for it). Basically, what I'm saying here is don't be a follower, man.
P.S. Penis.
Sunday, February 13, 2011
Roman Spelunking
Two more for February. It's a bleak time of year for movies, y'all, and there's really no diamonds to be found in the rough yet. The Mechanic was good, but it was more like finding that state quarter you're still missing than a diamond. I expect Sucker Punch will be the first, but that's over a month away. Maybe we'll get lucky and Unknown will do the job. Or, at least The Adjustment Bureau, but that one's weeks away as well. For now, though, we've got a base-on-balls and a pop fly to Pedroia to pass the time...
The Eagle: I was on board with this movie. I really enjoy the rare occasion where I know absolutely ZERO about a movie, or close to it, and go in and get blown away. Die Hard was that way for me. Aliens, Se7en, and The Matrix, too. On a slightly lesser scale, Blood Of Heroes (no disrespect, yo). I'm sad to say The Eagle was not one of these. But I was on board. For awhile. Especially since it appeared I was getting something very different- a slow, brooding, atmospheric, downsized sword-and-sandles movie about regaining one's family honor that began to morph into a thought-provoking drama about questioning a government's policies about colonization and genocide by way of a complete master-slave role-reversal... and then I blinked... and suddenly some disgraced heroes were conquering the "savages" with superior arms, HUZZAH! Sigh. Look, I'm OK with a non-PC movie. In fact, for the record, fuck political-correctness. We all know when to be douchebags and when to not, so we don't need to be told what we can and can't say (and, I'm sorry, black is simply way fucking cooler than African American. "African American" sounds like something a wimpy white guy made up. So sue me). Uh... right, The Eagle (the fourth movie I've seen this year, and so far every one starts with the word "The")... I'm OK with non-PC movies, but don't give me one thing and cop out literally in the last 5 minutes. And don't ignore your own story. I mean, the guy was pale, limping, and dying of a horrible wound for the last three scenes, so don't all of a sudden put color in his cheeks and have him fight like he just got a hot meal and 8 hours of sleep. And don't have your other lead leave his sickly ass behind to scour an entire country, on foot, and make it back in only a couple of hours with twenty redemption-seeking disgraced heroes... at the exact same time the bad guys show up. And weren't you just trying to show us that they weren't actually bad guys, but people, just like us? Maybe I misread that bit. Maybe it was a "might is right" movie from the get-go. Didn't feel like it. So, yeah, anyway, very atmospheric... generic, grainy cinematography somehow works more often than not these days. Must be technological improvements... or maybe I'm getting soft. It was a stark, bleak, dry movie at the start and then once they cross Hadrian's Wall it became a dank, wet, cold film. Very effective. Billy Elliot and G. I. Joe were good. They weren't given much to do, but they did it well (?). Creepy Donald Sutherland was in this for a few minutes. The opening sequence was really good. I wonder if there's a director's cut looming for the DVD release. That might explain a lot.
6 out of 10 Golden Eagles
The (not really...) Sanctum: YOU Sanctum, you brought 'um. WAKKA WAKKA WAKKA!!! Uh... yeah. Remember that scene where they had to swim through a small passage in the rocks to try and find a new way out of the cave? Me too. 'Cause it was the ENTIRE MOVIE. But I have a question: if the cave was flooding, and you have scuba equipment, instead of venturing forward into unknown, pitch black, very likely dead-end territory, why not wait until it flooded and just SWIM THE FUCK OUT THE BIG GODDAMN HOLE THAT YOU CAME IN THROUGH. Sigh. Another question: if you're going to make a 3-D movie, where (duh) visuals are obviously the most important thing, why set the entire thing in a DARK, CLAUSTROPHOBIC FUCKING CAVE?!?!? I mean, do we really need to see how 3-D Richard Roxburgh's nose is? Sorry. Not his fault. The guy really brought his A-Game. Too bad nobody else did. I liked that Iaon... Iaan... Iooan... however the fuck he misspells the easiest name in name history, IAN Graff... Grauffoo... oh, fuck it. That guy who played Mr. Fantastic- I liked him as Lancelot in that King Arthur movie, but since then he's become the worst actor in Christendom. Why do actors from elsewhere so desperately need to throw on an (bad) American accent? Iaoaian Graffitti is from Wales, so can't his character just be from, like... WALES, for fuck's sake? What, people from Wales can't be rich, successful spelunkers, too? And that one girl couldn't die a horrible death fast enough. I kinda wanted to cheer when she did, but the movie was so boring I just couldn't muster up the strength. And there was one scene where they actually got to pan back to try and get all 3-D on us, but underwater shots can't really do 3-D because water isn't solid and has varying densities, and stuff, so all you see is the foreground stalag... rocks sticking down right in front of you, the background in, er... the background, and two assholes suspended in what looks more like mid-air than underwater. And fake! I mean, the shot was probably actually really done, but they made it look fake. I hate 3-D. I've tried, really. It only works with animation (which is why it worked so well with Avatar). Can't someone stand up and prove it causes eyeball cancer, or something? Please? Anyway, yeah, what a bunch of unlikeable caricatures these 'nozzles were. Like I said, the Duke from Moulin Rouge was good, but that was really it. There was the young guy- watching him was like watching puberty happen to a 22-year-old. An ANNOYING 22-year-old. I already spoke about what's-her-face. And Mr. Fantastic. The only other semi-likable guy (and, let's face it, he was more annoying than likable) was named Crazy George (typing that made me want to drown in a cave), but he was so obviously the red-shirt-with-a-heart you didn't need bother to invest any real sympathy. So, yes. Sanctum wasn't very good. Oddly enough, I still wanted to know if and how they'd (and who'd) get out of that blessed cave, though, so I can't call it a complete loss.
4 out of 10 3-D Glasses
The Eagle: I was on board with this movie. I really enjoy the rare occasion where I know absolutely ZERO about a movie, or close to it, and go in and get blown away. Die Hard was that way for me. Aliens, Se7en, and The Matrix, too. On a slightly lesser scale, Blood Of Heroes (no disrespect, yo). I'm sad to say The Eagle was not one of these. But I was on board. For awhile. Especially since it appeared I was getting something very different- a slow, brooding, atmospheric, downsized sword-and-sandles movie about regaining one's family honor that began to morph into a thought-provoking drama about questioning a government's policies about colonization and genocide by way of a complete master-slave role-reversal... and then I blinked... and suddenly some disgraced heroes were conquering the "savages" with superior arms, HUZZAH! Sigh. Look, I'm OK with a non-PC movie. In fact, for the record, fuck political-correctness. We all know when to be douchebags and when to not, so we don't need to be told what we can and can't say (and, I'm sorry, black is simply way fucking cooler than African American. "African American" sounds like something a wimpy white guy made up. So sue me). Uh... right, The Eagle (the fourth movie I've seen this year, and so far every one starts with the word "The")... I'm OK with non-PC movies, but don't give me one thing and cop out literally in the last 5 minutes. And don't ignore your own story. I mean, the guy was pale, limping, and dying of a horrible wound for the last three scenes, so don't all of a sudden put color in his cheeks and have him fight like he just got a hot meal and 8 hours of sleep. And don't have your other lead leave his sickly ass behind to scour an entire country, on foot, and make it back in only a couple of hours with twenty redemption-seeking disgraced heroes... at the exact same time the bad guys show up. And weren't you just trying to show us that they weren't actually bad guys, but people, just like us? Maybe I misread that bit. Maybe it was a "might is right" movie from the get-go. Didn't feel like it. So, yeah, anyway, very atmospheric... generic, grainy cinematography somehow works more often than not these days. Must be technological improvements... or maybe I'm getting soft. It was a stark, bleak, dry movie at the start and then once they cross Hadrian's Wall it became a dank, wet, cold film. Very effective. Billy Elliot and G. I. Joe were good. They weren't given much to do, but they did it well (?). Creepy Donald Sutherland was in this for a few minutes. The opening sequence was really good. I wonder if there's a director's cut looming for the DVD release. That might explain a lot.
6 out of 10 Golden Eagles
The (not really...) Sanctum: YOU Sanctum, you brought 'um. WAKKA WAKKA WAKKA!!! Uh... yeah. Remember that scene where they had to swim through a small passage in the rocks to try and find a new way out of the cave? Me too. 'Cause it was the ENTIRE MOVIE. But I have a question: if the cave was flooding, and you have scuba equipment, instead of venturing forward into unknown, pitch black, very likely dead-end territory, why not wait until it flooded and just SWIM THE FUCK OUT THE BIG GODDAMN HOLE THAT YOU CAME IN THROUGH. Sigh. Another question: if you're going to make a 3-D movie, where (duh) visuals are obviously the most important thing, why set the entire thing in a DARK, CLAUSTROPHOBIC FUCKING CAVE?!?!? I mean, do we really need to see how 3-D Richard Roxburgh's nose is? Sorry. Not his fault. The guy really brought his A-Game. Too bad nobody else did. I liked that Iaon... Iaan... Iooan... however the fuck he misspells the easiest name in name history, IAN Graff... Grauffoo... oh, fuck it. That guy who played Mr. Fantastic- I liked him as Lancelot in that King Arthur movie, but since then he's become the worst actor in Christendom. Why do actors from elsewhere so desperately need to throw on an (bad) American accent? Iaoaian Graffitti is from Wales, so can't his character just be from, like... WALES, for fuck's sake? What, people from Wales can't be rich, successful spelunkers, too? And that one girl couldn't die a horrible death fast enough. I kinda wanted to cheer when she did, but the movie was so boring I just couldn't muster up the strength. And there was one scene where they actually got to pan back to try and get all 3-D on us, but underwater shots can't really do 3-D because water isn't solid and has varying densities, and stuff, so all you see is the foreground stalag... rocks sticking down right in front of you, the background in, er... the background, and two assholes suspended in what looks more like mid-air than underwater. And fake! I mean, the shot was probably actually really done, but they made it look fake. I hate 3-D. I've tried, really. It only works with animation (which is why it worked so well with Avatar). Can't someone stand up and prove it causes eyeball cancer, or something? Please? Anyway, yeah, what a bunch of unlikeable caricatures these 'nozzles were. Like I said, the Duke from Moulin Rouge was good, but that was really it. There was the young guy- watching him was like watching puberty happen to a 22-year-old. An ANNOYING 22-year-old. I already spoke about what's-her-face. And Mr. Fantastic. The only other semi-likable guy (and, let's face it, he was more annoying than likable) was named Crazy George (typing that made me want to drown in a cave), but he was so obviously the red-shirt-with-a-heart you didn't need bother to invest any real sympathy. So, yes. Sanctum wasn't very good. Oddly enough, I still wanted to know if and how they'd (and who'd) get out of that blessed cave, though, so I can't call it a complete loss.
4 out of 10 3-D Glasses
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)