Many people I know hate Leonardo DiCaprio and I for the life of me can't figure out why. He is easily one of the top five actors working in Hollywood today. Every performance he gives is top quality. Blood Diamond is no different. The movie follows Danny Archer, a diamond smuggler in Sierra Leone. In the course of the movie, Danny meets Maddy Bowen (Jennifer Connelly), an American journalist and Solomon Vandy (Djimon Honsou), a local man who is caught up in his country's civil war and horrific conflict diamond trade.
Note to the screenwriter: Try to be a bit more subtle when naming your characters. I mean Solomon? A movie about diamonds and you name one of your characters Solomon? I find that a bit much.
Aside from that, Blood Diamond is a great action filled drama. Sure it has a bit of a preachy side but when you set a film outside the US, it is bound to happen. DiCaprio is what makes this film work. He isn't the most original character to ever grace the screen but he sells his character so well. From the ruthless moments when he is threatening Vandy to the raw emotional moments when he is revealing what happened to his parents, DiCaprio shines on screen.
Is his character arc predictable? Well, yes. Although I couldn't help think how great (and by great I mean extremely depressing but cinematically satisfying) to see a film like this where the bad guys win. But as my uncle pointed out to me once, the bad guys win every day in real life, who wants to go to a fantasy and see them win there too. Well, I kind of do. Just once or twice. But even if arc is predictable, DiCaprio sells it. And that is all that matters. There are those subtle changes throughout the movie when we slowly start to see him be more of a decent human being.
And in the end I'm not even sure how pure his motives would have been if his circumstances were different. I won't reveal what happens exactly but DiCaprio has a look near the end where I actually believed for a second he might actually not do what I expected. But I knew Hollywood wouldn't let that happen. Despite the heavy handed moral of the story, I still enjoyed this film.
Monday, December 18, 2006
Sunday, November 26, 2006
Delays are inevitable
No one was more disappointed than I when I stopped posting reviews. I apologize for the long delay but things were out of my hands. School just got in the way and school has to come first. I apologize for the shortness and lameness of the reviews as well but I can barely remember some of the films and I can only comment on the remaining impression in my brain. I make no promises for the next month. I might not even reach my goal of 100 films in 2006. Which makes me want to cry. We shall see though.
Bobby
I'm not really sure what the point of Bobby was other than a venue to make people sit through some RFK speeches. The plot follows the lives of way too many people through the course of the day leading up to RFK's assassination by Sirhan Sirhan. There are former employees, current employees, campaign members and even a Czech reporter. It was sickeningly a big poster board for liberal idealism. I get that Bobby Kennedy was considered a great hope. I get that he had a lot of good ideas. I don't need to be beaten over the head with it. But that is all Emilio Estevez seems able to do. This felt like a big Hollywood love letter to RFK. It served no other dramatic purpose.
Tenacious D
I'm not the biggest fan of Jack Black. I tend to find him a bit annoying. Which was why I was more than surprised to find myself laughing in Tenacious D and the Pick of Destiny. I also hate musicals, which for all intents and purposes this was, but I enjoyed this film. I can't explain why because part of me knows it was really bad. Fun rock and a ridiculous plot somehow worked. Plus Meatloaf makes a humorous cameo.
The Fountain
Darren Aronofsky impressed me with Pi. It wasn't a perfect movie but it was an interesting. Then came Requiem for a Dream which left an indelible image of Jennifer Connolly in my head that always floods to the surface when I see her in any film. It was a depressing film but I didn't feel much sympathy for any of the characters. Now comes The Fountain. Usually the second film from an upcoming director is the pretentious, self-indulgent metaphysical movie. How he managed to hold off til his third film I do not know. I can imagine how this film could have been worse but it stretches the capabilities of my mind to do so. I don't even know how the three story lines really connect. I'll give him another chance to impress me before I decide Aronofsky is a pretentious jackass.
That's how Bond should be done
Casino Royale is one of the best Bond films I have ever seen. Daniel Craig plays Bond as a suave but ruthless secret agent. Many a fan might be upset by the disappearance of a beloved icon, but I was refreshed by the change of tone. To me a suave Bond that everyone knows would hardly make a good secret agent now would he? Was I skeptical that Craig could pull it off? Yes. Was I happy they chose Craig instead of Clive Owen? Hell yes. Owen is too good to be bogged down by such a trite roll. Craig showed he had Bond chops in Layer Cake.
There is a nice playfulness with the old Bond in this film. This film does not star either Q or Moneypenny. But early in the film when Eva Green shows up she says "I'm the money" and Bond responds "Every penny". I laughed alot at that line. Was I a bit skeptical that the European casino was offering a game of No Limit Texas Hold'em? Okay, I admit that was the one bit I thought a bit ridiculous. Still the film was paced well, with one notable section near the end. I look forward to future darker Bond films. Especially since spy movies finally have a big baddy again. The 90s were a rough time for Bond, with no more Eastern Bloc, but with the War on Terror, Bond can go back to fighting a phantom enemy. Here is hoping the new Bond is here to stay.
There is a nice playfulness with the old Bond in this film. This film does not star either Q or Moneypenny. But early in the film when Eva Green shows up she says "I'm the money" and Bond responds "Every penny". I laughed alot at that line. Was I a bit skeptical that the European casino was offering a game of No Limit Texas Hold'em? Okay, I admit that was the one bit I thought a bit ridiculous. Still the film was paced well, with one notable section near the end. I look forward to future darker Bond films. Especially since spy movies finally have a big baddy again. The 90s were a rough time for Bond, with no more Eastern Bloc, but with the War on Terror, Bond can go back to fighting a phantom enemy. Here is hoping the new Bond is here to stay.
Fiction
Stranger Than Fiction was a delightful film. The first film in quite some time that starred Will Ferrell where I actually thought he was pretty good. The plot concerns Harold Crick (Will Ferrell) who it turns out is the main character in the latest book by Kay Eiffel (Emma Thompson). Crick becomes aware that his story is being narrated and attempts to figure out what is happening to him. In the course of his adventures he will fall in love with a baker who is being audited and seek the aid of a literature expert played by Dustin Hoffman.
Everyone seems like they are having fun in this film. Hoffman seems like he is having the most fun. The way in which his character tackles the whole ridiculous situation was priceless. There is an exchange at one point that ends with Ferrell uttering the line "Yes, I'm very glad to know I'm not a golem." This line alone sealed the movie as being good. All the performances were strong and I was really rooting for Harold by the final act of the film. Which is a good sign. Kay Eiffel's explanation of why she is changing the story from its intended course is poignant and makes perfect sense and I was quite content when I left the theater.
Everyone seems like they are having fun in this film. Hoffman seems like he is having the most fun. The way in which his character tackles the whole ridiculous situation was priceless. There is an exchange at one point that ends with Ferrell uttering the line "Yes, I'm very glad to know I'm not a golem." This line alone sealed the movie as being good. All the performances were strong and I was really rooting for Harold by the final act of the film. Which is a good sign. Kay Eiffel's explanation of why she is changing the story from its intended course is poignant and makes perfect sense and I was quite content when I left the theater.
Borat
The goal of Borat, I assume, was to show people in the US how ridiculous some aspects of its culture truly are. Let all America laugh at the racist southerner and the sexist frat boy. But watching this film I felt like the joke was truly on the US. Because sadly the racist guy and the sexist college student aren't the exception, I think they are the rule. Tie that in with some unfunny stuff involving naked wrestling and you have a movie that the general masses will eat up like candy. But for me this film just wasn't funny. It was more sad than funny.
Saw 3
Yes, I have seen Saw 3. Yes, I have often expressed how horrible the first two films were and how much I hated them while I was viewing them and I hated them more for having to sit through them. They are so ridiculously predictable. People act without the slightest bit of sense. Yet somehow, these films keep making money and so they keep making movies. Yes, I acknowledge that my ticket in some way contributes to this fact, but I'm trying to see a crap load of movies in one year here people. Inevitably I have to see the crappy ones. It isn't possible to see 100 good movies in the theater, not in this state at least.
Being Jigsaw must be a tiring experience. No wonder he is dying. So much set up, elaborate bend over backwards set up for so little gain. I suspect even real psychopaths would opt for a far simpler way of killing people. This movie really tried to be deep. Or at least the screenwriter thought he was being deep. Unfortunately, the writer's idea of depth is woefully misplaced. I've seen wading pools with more depth. The saddest thing is that although I hate these "Saw" movies with a passion that I generally reserve for things like Michael Bay's Pearl Harbor, I will undoubtedly go and see any and all sequels that are made and I'll be as bitter then as I am now about it.
Being Jigsaw must be a tiring experience. No wonder he is dying. So much set up, elaborate bend over backwards set up for so little gain. I suspect even real psychopaths would opt for a far simpler way of killing people. This movie really tried to be deep. Or at least the screenwriter thought he was being deep. Unfortunately, the writer's idea of depth is woefully misplaced. I've seen wading pools with more depth. The saddest thing is that although I hate these "Saw" movies with a passion that I generally reserve for things like Michael Bay's Pearl Harbor, I will undoubtedly go and see any and all sequels that are made and I'll be as bitter then as I am now about it.
Man Of The Year
What to say about Robin Williams? What to say about Man of the Year? If Hollywood had never acknowledged either I suspect the world would be a better place. I don't buy for one second of this film, the idea that Robin Williams is a successful "Daily Show"-esque comedian news reporter. Part of the plot revolves around some crazy fouled up voting machine and the whole reason Williams gets elected is because of the error. And no one suspects fraud, even though he had only 10% of the vote going into the election. This movie exists in a fantasy world where apparently the Gore/Bush race never happened. Oh yeah and its horribly not funny. When, o when will Hollywood learn to use Christopher Walken to his full comic potential? He was the only bright spot in this horrible movie.
The Departed
Martin Scorsese is one of the greatest directors in American Cinema. Even when his movies miss their mark, they are still cinematic feats. The Departed is a refreshing film in a rather dismal year at the movies. Sure its a remake, and Hollywood should really get off the remake band wagon, but if every remake were done as well as Scorsese does this one, I might not complain as much.
The story revolves around Billy Costigan (Leonardo DiCaprio) and Colin Sullivan (Matt Damon). The former is a police officer placed undercover in a gang run by Frank Costello (Jack Nicholson), the latter is a police officer, who secretly works for Costello. What more need you know except that is an intense thriller with twists and turns that kept the entertainment value high for the whole movie.
DiCaprio was excellent as always. There are a lot of people out there who hate him as an actor but I've never seen him give a bad performance. Nicholson is a blast to watch as he plays over the top. I enjoyed everything about this movie and the ending was refreshing. Easily one of the best movies I have seen this year.
The story revolves around Billy Costigan (Leonardo DiCaprio) and Colin Sullivan (Matt Damon). The former is a police officer placed undercover in a gang run by Frank Costello (Jack Nicholson), the latter is a police officer, who secretly works for Costello. What more need you know except that is an intense thriller with twists and turns that kept the entertainment value high for the whole movie.
DiCaprio was excellent as always. There are a lot of people out there who hate him as an actor but I've never seen him give a bad performance. Nicholson is a blast to watch as he plays over the top. I enjoyed everything about this movie and the ending was refreshing. Easily one of the best movies I have seen this year.
Monday, September 04, 2006
Why, Mr. Statham, why?
Jason Statham has played memorable favorites in Lock Stock and Two Smoking barrels and in Snatch. Which is why it pains me to see him in films like The Transporter (either one) or this film Crank.
Crank follows Chev (Statham) who wakes up having been injected with a poison that will kill him. All he can do is put off death by keeping his adrenaline pumping. A reviewer called it a crude combination of Speed and D.O.A. which would seem to imply that either of those movies was good.
Crank is painstakingly bad. It is so painfully overstylized as they director uses split screen shots, bizarre use of flashback and scene cuts that I was boiling with rage and wanted to shout at the director to just keep the camera still and let the images tell the story but then I realized that there probably wasn't enough good footage to complete an entire film and all this ornament is simply to confuse.
This movie can't even fall onto the time tested defense of at least the action was entertaining. The action was boring. There is no sense of pacing at all. The movie wants to be serious, it isn't. It wants to be funny, it isn't. Whatever the director was attempting, he has failed on every level. He like the director of Pulse should be taken to the woods and put away quietly.
Crank follows Chev (Statham) who wakes up having been injected with a poison that will kill him. All he can do is put off death by keeping his adrenaline pumping. A reviewer called it a crude combination of Speed and D.O.A. which would seem to imply that either of those movies was good.
Crank is painstakingly bad. It is so painfully overstylized as they director uses split screen shots, bizarre use of flashback and scene cuts that I was boiling with rage and wanted to shout at the director to just keep the camera still and let the images tell the story but then I realized that there probably wasn't enough good footage to complete an entire film and all this ornament is simply to confuse.
This movie can't even fall onto the time tested defense of at least the action was entertaining. The action was boring. There is no sense of pacing at all. The movie wants to be serious, it isn't. It wants to be funny, it isn't. Whatever the director was attempting, he has failed on every level. He like the director of Pulse should be taken to the woods and put away quietly.
In Heaven There Is No Beer
It is hard in good conscience to talk about Beerfest as anything but an intentionally offensive, desperate pandering spectacle but the reality is that despite being dumb, and I mean really dumb, I laughed a whole lot. The film follows two brothers who journey to Germany to place their Grandfather's ashes in the ancestral burial place and stumble upon a secret international beer Olympics.
They suffer humiliation and return to the States to train and return triumphant. They gather together a team together and train and eventually return to Germany. A fairly straightforward underdog story placed into a fairly conventional drinking movie. But there are moments in this film when I was literally in tears. I should probably be ashamed to admit that but if I stop laughing because I need time to breath then I must admit what I have just witnessed is in some way funny.
I've heard reviewers speak unfavorably about this film and suggest going to see funnier films such as Animal House. I assure you I never laughed at anything in Animal House that was as funny as when one of the characters wakes up from a night of drinking. I won't ruin the manner in which he wakes up but it was priceless. Perhaps the appeal to this movie is the exaggeration of events that anyone who has ever done serious drinking recognizes as being plausible.
I won't try to intellectualize why I found it funny more than that. I just did. I have no qualms about saying this was the funniest thing I've watched all year.
They suffer humiliation and return to the States to train and return triumphant. They gather together a team together and train and eventually return to Germany. A fairly straightforward underdog story placed into a fairly conventional drinking movie. But there are moments in this film when I was literally in tears. I should probably be ashamed to admit that but if I stop laughing because I need time to breath then I must admit what I have just witnessed is in some way funny.
I've heard reviewers speak unfavorably about this film and suggest going to see funnier films such as Animal House. I assure you I never laughed at anything in Animal House that was as funny as when one of the characters wakes up from a night of drinking. I won't ruin the manner in which he wakes up but it was priceless. Perhaps the appeal to this movie is the exaggeration of events that anyone who has ever done serious drinking recognizes as being plausible.
I won't try to intellectualize why I found it funny more than that. I just did. I have no qualms about saying this was the funniest thing I've watched all year.
Pulse
Sometimes you go to a movie because you are a fan of one of the actors or actresses who happens to be starring in said movie. I can give you no better reason for why I willingly went to see Pulse. I don't particularly like Horror films or Americanized knockoffs of Japanese originals. But I do like Kristen Bell. So I happily turned my wallet over and shook it until the seven dollars that I needed fell out and marched into the theater.
The problem with liking actors/actresses who aren't making top dollar is that they make movies that earn them a paycheck but aren't skillfully demanding. Pulse feels like a paycheck movie for young Ms. Bell. I hope it was a paycheck movie for everyone involved because if this is a director's artistic achievement said director needs to be taken out into the woods and disposed of in a quiet manner. I haven't even seen the original film and have the sense that it is being done an injustice.
The worst conceit being, what kind of computer illiterate retard clicks on a pop up!! And ultimately that is all the strange ghost virus is. Why can't the people just go in and erase all the harddrives with giant magnets? I'm not going to bother with summarizing the plot of this film, suffice to say I got my Kristen Bell big screen time and I paid for it, monetarily and otherwise.
The problem with liking actors/actresses who aren't making top dollar is that they make movies that earn them a paycheck but aren't skillfully demanding. Pulse feels like a paycheck movie for young Ms. Bell. I hope it was a paycheck movie for everyone involved because if this is a director's artistic achievement said director needs to be taken out into the woods and disposed of in a quiet manner. I haven't even seen the original film and have the sense that it is being done an injustice.
The worst conceit being, what kind of computer illiterate retard clicks on a pop up!! And ultimately that is all the strange ghost virus is. Why can't the people just go in and erase all the harddrives with giant magnets? I'm not going to bother with summarizing the plot of this film, suffice to say I got my Kristen Bell big screen time and I paid for it, monetarily and otherwise.
Friday, August 11, 2006
The Descent
The Descent is a pretty decent horror film. It doesn't do anything new or exciting, but the cast is good and the premise holds up over the film. If anything the arrival of creatures in the film actually hurts the movie. It provides several "jump" moments and has a generally dark atmosphere that makes it work despite being a fairly generic creature feature.
After an obligatory, quite unnecessary and surprisingly brutal prologue we come to meet our six characters. All women who are about to go on a cave exploration. Once in the cave an unfortunate accident traps them there. They have two choices. Stay put and die or keep moving and try to find another way out. The choose the second one and soon run across some Morlock-esque monsters who start in a traditional movie way killing off our heroines.
The movie moves into a more generic creature gore fest at this point but still manages to keep the plot moving and interesting. There was one completely unnecessary subplot and the American ending is a lot more upbeat than the British version but neither takes much away from the film. If you are looking for a decent horror film, this one works well enough.
After an obligatory, quite unnecessary and surprisingly brutal prologue we come to meet our six characters. All women who are about to go on a cave exploration. Once in the cave an unfortunate accident traps them there. They have two choices. Stay put and die or keep moving and try to find another way out. The choose the second one and soon run across some Morlock-esque monsters who start in a traditional movie way killing off our heroines.
The movie moves into a more generic creature gore fest at this point but still manages to keep the plot moving and interesting. There was one completely unnecessary subplot and the American ending is a lot more upbeat than the British version but neither takes much away from the film. If you are looking for a decent horror film, this one works well enough.
Road To Gitmo
You could imagine my shock when I discovered that Road To Guantanamo was not a long lost Bing Crosby/Bob Hope movie. Actually it is a documentary account of three British Muslims who were captured in Afghanistan and held as suspected Al Qaida terrorists for several years in Guantanamo. This documentary is of course barely that given that there is very little documentation that the filmmakers could no doubt get their hands on.
They make up for this with dramatizations of what happened. This includes a very long, drawn out detailed accounting of their time in Pakistan and Afghanistan leading up to the US invasion. The dramatization is intercut with interview scenes of the real men involved. The film is naturally one sided since the US military would clearly refuse to cooperate but that isn't what makes it problematic as a film.
It feels like retread of all the things we already know to be true. There could have been a powerful story told here. They could have interviewed the family of the three. They could have shown efforts by their lawyers or advocates in trying to free them. All of this is absent. In the end it feels like a 45 minute special than a feature length documentary.
They make up for this with dramatizations of what happened. This includes a very long, drawn out detailed accounting of their time in Pakistan and Afghanistan leading up to the US invasion. The dramatization is intercut with interview scenes of the real men involved. The film is naturally one sided since the US military would clearly refuse to cooperate but that isn't what makes it problematic as a film.
It feels like retread of all the things we already know to be true. There could have been a powerful story told here. They could have interviewed the family of the three. They could have shown efforts by their lawyers or advocates in trying to free them. All of this is absent. In the end it feels like a 45 minute special than a feature length documentary.
Lady In The Water
M. Night Shyamalan has been trying to perfect self indulgent tripe for some time now. He has finally succeeded in the agonizingly bad Lady In The Water. When I wasn't pinching myself to keep from falling asleep during this movie, I was contemplating slitting my wrists and ending the agony. Everything about this film was annoying.
The film begins with our introduction to "The Cove" an apartment complex whose superintendent is Cleveland Heap (Paul Giamatti). Cleveland is a stuttering nice guy who is seen interacting with all the major players of the film. These include a bizarre guy who only works out one side of his body, a room full of drug using hippies and an incredibly offensive stereotype Asian mother and daughter.
Story (Bryce Dallas Howard) is introduced as a mystical water creature who has come to view an important man who's work will one day change the world. Of course it is a writer of and *spoiler warning* although not really the writer is played by the director of the film. *end spoiler*
There is also an arrogant movie critic who gets a violent death. Why? Because clearly movie critics can't possibly be right that a film is bad. This movie is so generic and pounds home its sentimental moral. Apparently the whole story originated as a bedtime story for his kids. Which makes me wonder what kind of kid would find a story this self indulgent and blatantly symbolic interesting.
I understand that by their nature fairy tales are formulaic. But you could take any one of the Grimm fairy tales and make it into a better movie than this. Was the acting okay? It was decent except for the terrible director. I feel like Shyamalan has figured himself a new Kubrick who can make crazy out of left field movies against the Hollywood model. The difference being that Kubrick had talent.
The film begins with our introduction to "The Cove" an apartment complex whose superintendent is Cleveland Heap (Paul Giamatti). Cleveland is a stuttering nice guy who is seen interacting with all the major players of the film. These include a bizarre guy who only works out one side of his body, a room full of drug using hippies and an incredibly offensive stereotype Asian mother and daughter.
Story (Bryce Dallas Howard) is introduced as a mystical water creature who has come to view an important man who's work will one day change the world. Of course it is a writer of and *spoiler warning* although not really the writer is played by the director of the film. *end spoiler*
There is also an arrogant movie critic who gets a violent death. Why? Because clearly movie critics can't possibly be right that a film is bad. This movie is so generic and pounds home its sentimental moral. Apparently the whole story originated as a bedtime story for his kids. Which makes me wonder what kind of kid would find a story this self indulgent and blatantly symbolic interesting.
I understand that by their nature fairy tales are formulaic. But you could take any one of the Grimm fairy tales and make it into a better movie than this. Was the acting okay? It was decent except for the terrible director. I feel like Shyamalan has figured himself a new Kubrick who can make crazy out of left field movies against the Hollywood model. The difference being that Kubrick had talent.
Wednesday, August 02, 2006
District B13
District B13 is a French action film. Its characters are wooden and poorly developed beyond their archetype. The plot has been recycled from Hollywood. And since it has been recycled it is fairly ridiculous and non-sensical. Oh and just one more thing. It is the most entertaining film I have seen all summer.
The ghettos of Paris have gotten so bad that the government constructed walls around them to contain crime. This essentially makes them large lawless prisons. The film starts following Leito, a man who grew up in District B13 and despite the crime considers it home. He attempts to put an end to a local drug lord but the cops balk and he ends up going to prison instead of the bad guys.
Enter Damien, a by the book, tough as nails, 'I work alone' cop. Damien busts a crime lord and is called in by his higher ups for a special mission. A clean A-Bomb has been stolen and is now residing somewhere in District B13. They need him to recruit Leito and get to and disarm the bomb.
Now with some variation I realized quickly that this was a rehash of John Carpenter's Escape from New York. But that movie worked as an escapist fantasy with a badass hero played by Kurt Russell. And this movie works too. In fact thanks to amazing stunts and martial arts, it might work better.
The movie starts strong with an action sequence of Leito escaping from the bad guys. The fighting is fun and fast, but the best part of it is that the camera stays still! Hollywood directors have gotten into the habit of whipping the camera around so fast you don't know what is going on. It might make it feel more like a fight but it makes it boring to watch.
Because the actors are stunt men and martial artists, everything they do looks and is real. No highly stylized tree running like you see in Ang Lee inspired features. The dragging exposition doesn't last too long and you forget it when the action picks up again.
In the realm of watching films everyonce in a while it is nice to watch a guy kick ass and take names. This was the appeal of Jean Claude Van Damme movies and Steven Segal. I laughed and cringed and oohed and aahed at the things I saw in this movie. It was fantastic.
Yes this movie is light on the development of characters and plot but it makes up for it in action sequences. The scene with Damien in a casino at the beginning of the movie along is worth the price of admission.
The ghettos of Paris have gotten so bad that the government constructed walls around them to contain crime. This essentially makes them large lawless prisons. The film starts following Leito, a man who grew up in District B13 and despite the crime considers it home. He attempts to put an end to a local drug lord but the cops balk and he ends up going to prison instead of the bad guys.
Enter Damien, a by the book, tough as nails, 'I work alone' cop. Damien busts a crime lord and is called in by his higher ups for a special mission. A clean A-Bomb has been stolen and is now residing somewhere in District B13. They need him to recruit Leito and get to and disarm the bomb.
Now with some variation I realized quickly that this was a rehash of John Carpenter's Escape from New York. But that movie worked as an escapist fantasy with a badass hero played by Kurt Russell. And this movie works too. In fact thanks to amazing stunts and martial arts, it might work better.
The movie starts strong with an action sequence of Leito escaping from the bad guys. The fighting is fun and fast, but the best part of it is that the camera stays still! Hollywood directors have gotten into the habit of whipping the camera around so fast you don't know what is going on. It might make it feel more like a fight but it makes it boring to watch.
Because the actors are stunt men and martial artists, everything they do looks and is real. No highly stylized tree running like you see in Ang Lee inspired features. The dragging exposition doesn't last too long and you forget it when the action picks up again.
In the realm of watching films everyonce in a while it is nice to watch a guy kick ass and take names. This was the appeal of Jean Claude Van Damme movies and Steven Segal. I laughed and cringed and oohed and aahed at the things I saw in this movie. It was fantastic.
Yes this movie is light on the development of characters and plot but it makes up for it in action sequences. The scene with Damien in a casino at the beginning of the movie along is worth the price of admission.
So Much Potential, So Little Good
My Super Ex-Girlfriend had a premise I really liked. A man dates secret identity of a superhero. He grows tired of her and breaks it off. She uses her alter ego to harass him. A revenge comedy that could be truly darkly comic. The movie they made was not that, I knew it wouldn't be that but I still held out hope. Luke Wilson has some comedic chops (I'm starting to think more than his hacky brother Owen). This movie wastes every actor it has in it. It isn't worth seeing.
Clerks 2
Clerks 2 represents a sad moment. In some ways I was interested to see the return of Dante and Randal but in other ways it shows the true talent of Kevin Smith. Unfortunately his true talent is dialogue and his weakness is directing. While making Jersey Girl, Smith apparently promised never to return to his View Askew universe that his previous films existed in. When his attempt to move beyond his one trick pony failed utterly, he quickly ran back to the warm embrace of the familiar.
The film returns us ten years after Clerks (1994) but gives us two characters who haven't changed. In fact they are still working in the same dead end jobs. What seemed like witty playful philosophizing in their twenties has been reduced to sad, exhausted dribble. I sat and watched some of Randal's rants and became bored with them and didn't even feel like he was saying them with conviction anymore. Now this could have been intentional but the actor doesn't play it that way, it just comes off that way.
Even Smith's typically clever analogies with Star Wars fall flat. He can't even muster a convincing argument for why the Star Wars trilogy is better than the Lord of the Rings trilogy. Its reduced to focusing on one flaw and hitting it on the head again and again. Dante's dilemma is centered around a bizarre love triangle that doesn't work on any level. And when the high note of your film is a very disturbing donkey show, then you definately have lost perspective.
The more I think about Clerks 2 the more I dislike it.
The film returns us ten years after Clerks (1994) but gives us two characters who haven't changed. In fact they are still working in the same dead end jobs. What seemed like witty playful philosophizing in their twenties has been reduced to sad, exhausted dribble. I sat and watched some of Randal's rants and became bored with them and didn't even feel like he was saying them with conviction anymore. Now this could have been intentional but the actor doesn't play it that way, it just comes off that way.
Even Smith's typically clever analogies with Star Wars fall flat. He can't even muster a convincing argument for why the Star Wars trilogy is better than the Lord of the Rings trilogy. Its reduced to focusing on one flaw and hitting it on the head again and again. Dante's dilemma is centered around a bizarre love triangle that doesn't work on any level. And when the high note of your film is a very disturbing donkey show, then you definately have lost perspective.
The more I think about Clerks 2 the more I dislike it.
Bizarre Experiment that somehow works...sort of
When I try to contemplate a movie that combines Philip K. Dick with Richard Linklater my mind starts to crack under the pressure. The cynical writer of dystopic science fiction combined with a throwback to hippies with lighthearted fair such as Dazed and Confused? Its like crossing Spielberg and Kubrick and I think A.I. stands as testament of how that went badly.
But the world of A Scanner Darkly is one in which America has lost the drug war and Linklater is definitely familiar with drugs in his movies. So perhaps the odd pairing can actually work. This is all thrown in with a bizarre form of animation that seems to just animate actual actors.
I guess in some ways the animation lends itself to drug hallucination and the very bizarre suits that the undercover cops where, not while undercover but while at the office discussing how to put a stop to drug dealers. The movie bounces all over the place left and right. It was at best an interesting experiment in film making and at worst incomprehensible mess of images and dystopic cynicism.
But the world of A Scanner Darkly is one in which America has lost the drug war and Linklater is definitely familiar with drugs in his movies. So perhaps the odd pairing can actually work. This is all thrown in with a bizarre form of animation that seems to just animate actual actors.
I guess in some ways the animation lends itself to drug hallucination and the very bizarre suits that the undercover cops where, not while undercover but while at the office discussing how to put a stop to drug dealers. The movie bounces all over the place left and right. It was at best an interesting experiment in film making and at worst incomprehensible mess of images and dystopic cynicism.
Monday, July 31, 2006
Word Play
Word Play is a movie which I have trouble attaching an easy modifier to. It isn't so much interesting as it is "interesting" if that kind of emphasis can be conveyed through print. I'm almost entirely sure it can not. The documentary follows the lives of people who enjoy Crossword puzzles.
If you are like me, which is almost assuredly not the case you enjoy the crossword puzzle. I have fond memories of working on a crossword puzzle while sitting at the loading dock desk at the Museum of Art that I used to work at, killing the hours. I've even tried my hand killing time between class working on a crossword. So I'd like to think I am a fan of crosswords. Then I saw this film.
The film focuses on Will Shortz, editor of the New York Times Crossword and his yearly competition. Its form is similar to Spellbound that recent documentary about spelling bees. The key difference being that the latter was about kids and the former is about adults. If the characters in Spellbound were obsessive and a bit odd, you could pass it off as a phase or the result of overbearing parents.
But full grown adults obsessed with crosswords? We've crossed over into a bizarre sub culture that in truth I could have happily lived knowing never existed. The saddest thing about the movie is that it tries to make you relate to these bizarro people. I didn't. I laughed. And this was a clear case of me laughing at them not with them. They are so desperately sad. And when the credits role and a new champion is crowned you just kind of shake your head and pray you never become so obsessed with something so trivial.
But I don't think that was the moral the filmmakers were going for.
If you are like me, which is almost assuredly not the case you enjoy the crossword puzzle. I have fond memories of working on a crossword puzzle while sitting at the loading dock desk at the Museum of Art that I used to work at, killing the hours. I've even tried my hand killing time between class working on a crossword. So I'd like to think I am a fan of crosswords. Then I saw this film.
The film focuses on Will Shortz, editor of the New York Times Crossword and his yearly competition. Its form is similar to Spellbound that recent documentary about spelling bees. The key difference being that the latter was about kids and the former is about adults. If the characters in Spellbound were obsessive and a bit odd, you could pass it off as a phase or the result of overbearing parents.
But full grown adults obsessed with crosswords? We've crossed over into a bizarre sub culture that in truth I could have happily lived knowing never existed. The saddest thing about the movie is that it tries to make you relate to these bizarro people. I didn't. I laughed. And this was a clear case of me laughing at them not with them. They are so desperately sad. And when the credits role and a new champion is crowned you just kind of shake your head and pray you never become so obsessed with something so trivial.
But I don't think that was the moral the filmmakers were going for.
You, Me, And Dupree
Apparently Owen Wilson feels that after the success of Wedding Crashers that he can make any film he wants. And I'm inclined to agree with him. So what he did was go out and make You, Me, And Dupree. What I take issue with is that Mr. Wilson has the gall to go on tv and in print and say that this film is funny. This film is not funny. This film was agonizing. Its been weeks since I saw it and I'm desperately trying to keep from recalling anything about it. Wilson is unfunny. Kate Hudson is still a bad actress. I'm fairly sure Michael Douglas must have felt that he had to get a paycheck to pay the nanny or something. I'm officially tired of Owen Wilson. Yes, Wedding Crashers was funny but mainly because of Mr. Vaughn not Mr. Wilson. Avoid this movie.
Miami Vice
Michael Mann has a way of taking a genre we are familiar with and making it work in such a way that we don't care that it has been done before. He made a bank robber story into something amazing to watch, if for no other reason than it brought Robert DeNiro and Al Pacino into the same frame of a movie and had them interact. People more fondly remember Jonathon Demme's Silence of the Lambs (1991) but for effect I am quite fond of Manhunter (1981). To this day I feel that Brian Cox is a better Hannibal Lector than Anthony Hopkins.
But I digress. Mann also impressed me with Collateral (2004). Miami Vice works. It isn't anything like the 80s TV show that truly defines what I think of when I think of that decade. But then again, it is. No, Crocket and Tubbs aren't wearing white jackets over pastel shirts. No Don Johnson is nowhere to be found. But the film does exist in its own fantasy world. The dialogue isn't the most effective I have ever heard. Half the theater laughed when one character said 'let's take it to the limit one more time' and in any other movie I probably would have laughed as well.
Except this film exists in its own world. The key is that the world is established and it almost never violates that world. The romance is still the shallow romance you might expect from an action flick. It didn't impress me and it didn't make sense and it set up a silly sideplot but it didn't detract so much that I got annoyed.
The plot revolves around Sonny and Rico as they go deep undercover. They penetrate a drug operation at the behest of a generic and very underused Ciaran Hinds. Hinds was masterful in Munich (2005) and in HBO's "Rome". Here he is nothing but a generic authority figure. As they get deep into the operation they raise the suspicion of one key figure who is apparently prescient with his ability to uncover undercover ops.
He's also borderline crazy which made me wonder why a crime kingpin would keep him around. Crazy people are the cracks in the foundation. Still he works as a more immediate villain. At one point the movie actually forgets its very premise which I thought funny but let pass because in the end it is just so damn entertaining. The film is gritty and dark. The main characters are well developed. Ancillary characters suffer in that attention to detail but I got over it.
Is Michael Mann untouchable? No, but I trust him to get me a good film. He has earned that trust. This film easily holds the top spot for films released for the summer but not the top spot for a film I saw this summer. I only saw Brick (2005) in June and it still stands out as the best film. But Mann has shown again that smart action films are possible.
But I digress. Mann also impressed me with Collateral (2004). Miami Vice works. It isn't anything like the 80s TV show that truly defines what I think of when I think of that decade. But then again, it is. No, Crocket and Tubbs aren't wearing white jackets over pastel shirts. No Don Johnson is nowhere to be found. But the film does exist in its own fantasy world. The dialogue isn't the most effective I have ever heard. Half the theater laughed when one character said 'let's take it to the limit one more time' and in any other movie I probably would have laughed as well.
Except this film exists in its own world. The key is that the world is established and it almost never violates that world. The romance is still the shallow romance you might expect from an action flick. It didn't impress me and it didn't make sense and it set up a silly sideplot but it didn't detract so much that I got annoyed.
The plot revolves around Sonny and Rico as they go deep undercover. They penetrate a drug operation at the behest of a generic and very underused Ciaran Hinds. Hinds was masterful in Munich (2005) and in HBO's "Rome". Here he is nothing but a generic authority figure. As they get deep into the operation they raise the suspicion of one key figure who is apparently prescient with his ability to uncover undercover ops.
He's also borderline crazy which made me wonder why a crime kingpin would keep him around. Crazy people are the cracks in the foundation. Still he works as a more immediate villain. At one point the movie actually forgets its very premise which I thought funny but let pass because in the end it is just so damn entertaining. The film is gritty and dark. The main characters are well developed. Ancillary characters suffer in that attention to detail but I got over it.
Is Michael Mann untouchable? No, but I trust him to get me a good film. He has earned that trust. This film easily holds the top spot for films released for the summer but not the top spot for a film I saw this summer. I only saw Brick (2005) in June and it still stands out as the best film. But Mann has shown again that smart action films are possible.
Sunday, July 09, 2006
Half Way There!
On June 30th I saw The Devil Wears Prada and thus hit the half way point for my movie watching goal. I, for those who don't know made a New Year's Resolution to see 100 movies in the theater in the year 2006. Yes I know in terms of a resolution it could have been a lot better. But last year I hit 85 and it irked me that I was so close to 100. So on June 30th I had officially seen 50 movies or half my goal at the half way point. Since then I have seen two more so only 48 to go. Here for no reason other than to procrastinate is every movie I've seen with a one line (or as close to one line as I can manage) review of those movies in chronological order.
01. January 05: The Producers - An uninspiring remake with songs (I hate musicals).
02. January 07: Bloodrayne - Uwe Boll badly adapts yet another video game into a movie.
03. January 08: Rumor Has It - An ultimately disappointing comedy playing off the Graduate plot.
04. January 15: Hostel - Gruesome and mindless slasheresque film that exploits and didn't need to be made.
05. January 20: Underworld:Evolution - A pointless sequel to a pointless original movie, Kate Beckinsale in leather does not a good movie make.
06. January 21: The New World - Terrence Malick takes his love of the noble savage to nauseating new heights in a long but visually wonderful retelling of the Pocahontas tale.
07. January 22: Hoodwinked - A surprisingly clever animated film (and I generally don't like animated films).
08. January 25: Brokeback Mountain - A decent character driven drama that doesn't live up to the hype but still is worth watching.
09. January 27: Match Point - Woody Allen pulls off an amazing thriller with excellent performances.
10. February 02: Looking For Comedy In The Muslim World - Mildly amusing Albert Brooks film, he's done better.
11. February 05: The Matador - Pleasant dark comedy with Pierce Brosnan breaking free from his James Bond image.
12. February 11: Mrs. Henderson Presents - Charming comedy about a nude review in WW2 England with delightful performances by Bob Hoskins and Judi Dench.
13. February 12: Transamerica - Felicity Huffman is amazing as a pre-op transgender person struggling with the fact that she has a son she just found out about.
14. February 13: Final Destination 3 - Even by the Final Destination series standard this isn't a good movie.
15. February 17: Date Movie - Desperately unfunny, would someone let the parody film die.
16. February 23: Capote - Interesting character study of Truman Capote brilliantly played by Philip Seymour Hoffman.
17. February 24: The Three Burials Of Melquiades Estrada - A well done Western themed tale with cheers for Tommy Lee Jones for directing and acting in it.
18. March 04: Night Watch - disappointing muddled genre movie from Russia.
19. March 04: Ultraviolet - Ridiculously bad futuristic vampire film.
20. March 05: 16 Blocks - Standard buddy flick material but with decent performances from Mos Def and Bruce Willis.
21. March 10: Failure To Launch - Nauseating romantic comedy that wasn't funny or terribly romantic.
22. March 11: The Libertine - Johnny Depp being eccentric in an eccentric film but one that doesn't entertain.
23. March 20: V For Vendetta - Stupid and boring comic book adaptation that attempts to play on the current fears of the public.
24. March 25: Inside Man - A Spike Lee film that falls short by being a bit too predictable and unoriginal.
25. April 01: Slither - A Comedic Horror film that tries very hard but doesn't succeed at either genre.
26. April 05: Stay Alive - A stupid movie.
27. April 07: Lucky Number Slevin - A film that reveals it's hand in the first scene but is still surprisingly enjoyable to watch unfold with great over the top performances by Ben Kingsley and Morgan Freeman.
28. April 09: Thank You For Smoking - A clever satire of Big Tobacco and Washington DC politics held together by the delightful Aaron Eckhart.
29. April 22: American Dreamz - A satire that fails miserably.
30. April 23: Silent Hill - Yet another video game turned movie and this one fails even without Uwe Boll at the helm.
31. April 24: The Sentinel - Fairly predictable but decently put together thriller that entertains enough.
32. April 28: Stick It - God awful gymnastics movie trying to be "Bring It On" and failing.
33. May 05: Mission Impossible III - The summer movie season began with this boring third in the franchise with uninspiring performances by Tom Cruise et al.
34. May 07: Don't Come Knocking - Charming character driven film about a tired old actor trying to figure out his life.
35. May 15: Poseidon - Uninspiring remake with a plot so predictable that I knew who would be dead by movie's end after the characters were introduced.
36. May 21: The Da Vinci Code - A boring thriller that is paced horribly.
37. May 26: X-Men: The Last Stand - A travesty of a film that doesn't even have the guts to follow through with its own sequence of events.
38. May 28: See No Evil - Sometimes nothing else is out and you need a movie to keep you moving towards your goal, this happens more often than I wish it would.
39. June 01: Brick - A movie like this makes suffering through a movie like "See No Evil" worth it.
40. June 02: The Break Up - Not dark enough for the subject matter and certainly not funny.
41. June 07: The Omen - I think this movie was remade solely because its release date (6/6/06) made such good marketing sense and it shows.
42. June 11: A Prairie Home Companion - Typical Altman style with a plot that isn't interesting.
43. June 12: Down In The Valley - I like that indy films tend to go away from the standard Hollywood conventions but that doesn't mean they are automatically good as this film demonstrates.
44. June 15: On A Clear Day - A film that attempt to be the charming tale of a man in mid life crisis, but it just felt uninspiring.
45. June 16: The Fast And The Furious: Tokyo Drift - Fast cars and fancy driving don't rescue the idiotic plot.
46. June 21: Nacho Libre - Sometimes you are so close to your goal and even though you wouldn't normally let yourself be dragged to crap like this you go just to get you closer to your goal.
47. June 24: Click - "It's A Wonderful Life" this is not but it still had its moments.
48. June 25: The Proposition - Falls flat for me but does make me want to see a better Western set in Australia.
49. June 27: Superman Returns - Nice summer popcorn flick and a nice homage to the original Superman films.
50. June 30: The Devil Wears Prada - Okay if a bit after school special-esque comedic drama.
01. January 05: The Producers - An uninspiring remake with songs (I hate musicals).
02. January 07: Bloodrayne - Uwe Boll badly adapts yet another video game into a movie.
03. January 08: Rumor Has It - An ultimately disappointing comedy playing off the Graduate plot.
04. January 15: Hostel - Gruesome and mindless slasheresque film that exploits and didn't need to be made.
05. January 20: Underworld:Evolution - A pointless sequel to a pointless original movie, Kate Beckinsale in leather does not a good movie make.
06. January 21: The New World - Terrence Malick takes his love of the noble savage to nauseating new heights in a long but visually wonderful retelling of the Pocahontas tale.
07. January 22: Hoodwinked - A surprisingly clever animated film (and I generally don't like animated films).
08. January 25: Brokeback Mountain - A decent character driven drama that doesn't live up to the hype but still is worth watching.
09. January 27: Match Point - Woody Allen pulls off an amazing thriller with excellent performances.
10. February 02: Looking For Comedy In The Muslim World - Mildly amusing Albert Brooks film, he's done better.
11. February 05: The Matador - Pleasant dark comedy with Pierce Brosnan breaking free from his James Bond image.
12. February 11: Mrs. Henderson Presents - Charming comedy about a nude review in WW2 England with delightful performances by Bob Hoskins and Judi Dench.
13. February 12: Transamerica - Felicity Huffman is amazing as a pre-op transgender person struggling with the fact that she has a son she just found out about.
14. February 13: Final Destination 3 - Even by the Final Destination series standard this isn't a good movie.
15. February 17: Date Movie - Desperately unfunny, would someone let the parody film die.
16. February 23: Capote - Interesting character study of Truman Capote brilliantly played by Philip Seymour Hoffman.
17. February 24: The Three Burials Of Melquiades Estrada - A well done Western themed tale with cheers for Tommy Lee Jones for directing and acting in it.
18. March 04: Night Watch - disappointing muddled genre movie from Russia.
19. March 04: Ultraviolet - Ridiculously bad futuristic vampire film.
20. March 05: 16 Blocks - Standard buddy flick material but with decent performances from Mos Def and Bruce Willis.
21. March 10: Failure To Launch - Nauseating romantic comedy that wasn't funny or terribly romantic.
22. March 11: The Libertine - Johnny Depp being eccentric in an eccentric film but one that doesn't entertain.
23. March 20: V For Vendetta - Stupid and boring comic book adaptation that attempts to play on the current fears of the public.
24. March 25: Inside Man - A Spike Lee film that falls short by being a bit too predictable and unoriginal.
25. April 01: Slither - A Comedic Horror film that tries very hard but doesn't succeed at either genre.
26. April 05: Stay Alive - A stupid movie.
27. April 07: Lucky Number Slevin - A film that reveals it's hand in the first scene but is still surprisingly enjoyable to watch unfold with great over the top performances by Ben Kingsley and Morgan Freeman.
28. April 09: Thank You For Smoking - A clever satire of Big Tobacco and Washington DC politics held together by the delightful Aaron Eckhart.
29. April 22: American Dreamz - A satire that fails miserably.
30. April 23: Silent Hill - Yet another video game turned movie and this one fails even without Uwe Boll at the helm.
31. April 24: The Sentinel - Fairly predictable but decently put together thriller that entertains enough.
32. April 28: Stick It - God awful gymnastics movie trying to be "Bring It On" and failing.
33. May 05: Mission Impossible III - The summer movie season began with this boring third in the franchise with uninspiring performances by Tom Cruise et al.
34. May 07: Don't Come Knocking - Charming character driven film about a tired old actor trying to figure out his life.
35. May 15: Poseidon - Uninspiring remake with a plot so predictable that I knew who would be dead by movie's end after the characters were introduced.
36. May 21: The Da Vinci Code - A boring thriller that is paced horribly.
37. May 26: X-Men: The Last Stand - A travesty of a film that doesn't even have the guts to follow through with its own sequence of events.
38. May 28: See No Evil - Sometimes nothing else is out and you need a movie to keep you moving towards your goal, this happens more often than I wish it would.
39. June 01: Brick - A movie like this makes suffering through a movie like "See No Evil" worth it.
40. June 02: The Break Up - Not dark enough for the subject matter and certainly not funny.
41. June 07: The Omen - I think this movie was remade solely because its release date (6/6/06) made such good marketing sense and it shows.
42. June 11: A Prairie Home Companion - Typical Altman style with a plot that isn't interesting.
43. June 12: Down In The Valley - I like that indy films tend to go away from the standard Hollywood conventions but that doesn't mean they are automatically good as this film demonstrates.
44. June 15: On A Clear Day - A film that attempt to be the charming tale of a man in mid life crisis, but it just felt uninspiring.
45. June 16: The Fast And The Furious: Tokyo Drift - Fast cars and fancy driving don't rescue the idiotic plot.
46. June 21: Nacho Libre - Sometimes you are so close to your goal and even though you wouldn't normally let yourself be dragged to crap like this you go just to get you closer to your goal.
47. June 24: Click - "It's A Wonderful Life" this is not but it still had its moments.
48. June 25: The Proposition - Falls flat for me but does make me want to see a better Western set in Australia.
49. June 27: Superman Returns - Nice summer popcorn flick and a nice homage to the original Superman films.
50. June 30: The Devil Wears Prada - Okay if a bit after school special-esque comedic drama.
Superman Redux
For about a week after watching Superman Returns I kept fixating on the movie. I felt what I have said about the film was right but still it kept coming into my head. So I went back and rewatched it. This time I focused on the details. Some of the background decoration or the way Supes' cape always moves. I also looked more closely at the decisions the actors made for each of the scenes. I looked for the criticisms I had read in other reviews as well. I liked the movie a lot more on the second viewing. My expectations that were so high going into the film were no longer slanting my perceptions. I still don't agree with many of the criticisms and I fully acknowledge that it is not the best film or the year or the best superhero film ever. But it is enjoyable and worth seeing.
Pirates 2: Dead Plot
I like many was a fan of the first Pirates of the Caribbean (2003). I had few expectations when I saw it. In that opening scene when Johnny Depp rides the sinking boat into the harbor by standing on the crow's nest and then he steps perfectly on to the dock, I grinned so hard my face hurt and I laughed and smiled through much of the film. So of course I was willing to go to a sequel. How could I not want to have another adventure with Jack Sparrow, Elizabeth Swann and Will Turner.
I'll tell you how, when it turns out to be the movie I had to suffer through. I can think of no better example of Hollywood corruption of a movie than this film. It is as if a movie analyst figured out all the things people liked about the first film, brought them back and multiplied them by ten. There is too much of everything in this movie. Yes even too much of Johnny Depp. There are at least five plot lines in this film which forced the movie into a long and tedious two and a half hours.
The actors can't even hold up here. Depp's Sparrow is getting old fast due to so much screen time. Keira Knightley's Elizabeth has been turned from a spirited woman into a frustrated complaining damsel. Poor Bill Nighy is underused and covered in prosthetics to make him a monstrosity. Even Stellan Skarsgård is woefully underused as Bootstrap Bill, Will Turner's long thought dead father.
The action sequences run long and there is a unconvincing romantic subplot of sorts, as they try to play up the attarction of Elizabeth and Jack. Logic loop holes abound, such as why the undead monkey from the first film is still dead. And the film has the nerve to end in a set up for the third film. No doubt that one will multiply everything by fifty instead of ten and be even more horrible. Even the news that Keith Richards will cameo doesn't raise my spirits.
I'll tell you how, when it turns out to be the movie I had to suffer through. I can think of no better example of Hollywood corruption of a movie than this film. It is as if a movie analyst figured out all the things people liked about the first film, brought them back and multiplied them by ten. There is too much of everything in this movie. Yes even too much of Johnny Depp. There are at least five plot lines in this film which forced the movie into a long and tedious two and a half hours.
The actors can't even hold up here. Depp's Sparrow is getting old fast due to so much screen time. Keira Knightley's Elizabeth has been turned from a spirited woman into a frustrated complaining damsel. Poor Bill Nighy is underused and covered in prosthetics to make him a monstrosity. Even Stellan Skarsgård is woefully underused as Bootstrap Bill, Will Turner's long thought dead father.
The action sequences run long and there is a unconvincing romantic subplot of sorts, as they try to play up the attarction of Elizabeth and Jack. Logic loop holes abound, such as why the undead monkey from the first film is still dead. And the film has the nerve to end in a set up for the third film. No doubt that one will multiply everything by fifty instead of ten and be even more horrible. Even the news that Keith Richards will cameo doesn't raise my spirits.
Devil and Fashion
Despite the title, The Devil Wears Prada isn't actually about the devil. Which is really unfortunate because the end of this movie could have used a gripping scene that decided the fate of a young woman's soul. Actually in a way it kind of did. Roger Ebert described this movie as an after school special. In that analysis he isn't far from the mark but it doesn't mean there aren't moments of amusement in the film.
The film jumps right into the story by showing the lead Andy (Anne Hathaway) arriving at the offices of "Runway", a fashion magazine, to interview for an assistant job. In mid interview in comes the titular devil. She is Miranda (Meryl Streep) the very difficult editor and chief of "Runway". She like the rest of the workers scoff at how drab Andy looks but Miranda sees a certain inner strength in her and hires her.
Andy suffers through a montage of abuse from her boss but perseveres promising herself that if she can survive a year in this place she can work anywhere she wants. She slowly starts to pick up on fashion with the help of one of the clothes designers and soon becomes the star assistant. Meanwhile her relationship with her boyfriend and friends start to deteriorate as she becomes more superficial in her actions.
Andy desperately tries to keep her core values or at least convince herself that she has kept them. By movie's end she realizes that she has indeed forgotten what made her who she was and rejects this new lifestyle. She walks away from the job and she is whole again.
Yes, it is that silly of a plot. I liked the first half just enough to suffer through the second half of the movie. This all despite the fact that Andy's values are clearly supposed to be good wholesome mid-western values corrupted by the Big City. The way it jumped into the world and introduced characters quickly and efficiently was so well done that in the first few minutes I had a smile on my face. The early torment and the first time Andy appears in fashionable outfits are nice touches as you root for her. That it inevitably falls into such a standardized plot is partially saved by decent acting.
The film jumps right into the story by showing the lead Andy (Anne Hathaway) arriving at the offices of "Runway", a fashion magazine, to interview for an assistant job. In mid interview in comes the titular devil. She is Miranda (Meryl Streep) the very difficult editor and chief of "Runway". She like the rest of the workers scoff at how drab Andy looks but Miranda sees a certain inner strength in her and hires her.
Andy suffers through a montage of abuse from her boss but perseveres promising herself that if she can survive a year in this place she can work anywhere she wants. She slowly starts to pick up on fashion with the help of one of the clothes designers and soon becomes the star assistant. Meanwhile her relationship with her boyfriend and friends start to deteriorate as she becomes more superficial in her actions.
Andy desperately tries to keep her core values or at least convince herself that she has kept them. By movie's end she realizes that she has indeed forgotten what made her who she was and rejects this new lifestyle. She walks away from the job and she is whole again.
Yes, it is that silly of a plot. I liked the first half just enough to suffer through the second half of the movie. This all despite the fact that Andy's values are clearly supposed to be good wholesome mid-western values corrupted by the Big City. The way it jumped into the world and introduced characters quickly and efficiently was so well done that in the first few minutes I had a smile on my face. The early torment and the first time Andy appears in fashionable outfits are nice touches as you root for her. That it inevitably falls into such a standardized plot is partially saved by decent acting.
Wednesday, June 28, 2006
Superman
Superman Returns is exactly what I was looking for in a summer blockbuster. It is well acted. It has a decent plot for a super hero movie and once it gets going its down right entertaining. I read a lot of reviews about this film before I saw it, sometimes a bad thing but all I can say is that I don't know what movie most of these people saw but I disagree with many of them. I do not think Brandon Routh was imitating Christopher Reeve, I think he was playing Clark Kent. I think Spacey's Lex Luthor is closer to the maniac he is than Gene Hackman's Luthor. I still like Hackman's role from the previous Superman films but I think Spacey's Luthor is done better. I'll save special mention for Kate Bosworth later.
Admittedly the film starts a little slow. The hero has been absent for five years and the world has moved on. Lois Lane has a kid and a steady live in boyfriend and has won a Pulitzer prize for an editorial on why the world doesn't need Superman. Superman returns and has a few unnecessary flashbacks to his early discovery of his power as well as a poignant scene with his mother played by Eva Marie Saint. I like Eva Marie Saint. She is underused here. If you want to be reminded of how good she is go back and watch On The Waterfront (1954) or more recently as the ever forgiving mother in the very pleasant Don't Come Knocking (2005). Having returned Superman dons his familiar glasses and also returns as Clark Kent.
Some people bitch and make mockery of the fact that Superman's disguise is so obvious but I think such complaints are trivial. It is part of the fantasy that should be accepted. Superman's return is advantageous as he rescues a plane full of people in a really well done action sequence. His return brings conflict to Lois' life as she struggles with her feelings for Superman. Meanwhile tried and true Superman villain Lex Luthor is hatching an evil plot. It is reminiscent of his plans in the original movie. It's devilishly wicked and yes non-sensical but delightful in the way only a comic book villain can be. The movie kicks into high gear and ends well (no turning the Earth backwards on its axis to reverse time, thank god).
Okay, Kate Bosworth as Lois Lane. Kate Bosworth is a better Lois Lane than Margot Kidder. I keep hearing about how Margot Kidder was better and I stare blankly at these statements and try to ponder on what earth that is true. Bosworth's Lois looks at Superman with pain and love in a way I never saw Kidder. Kidder's Lois looked at Superman like a piece of meat, it never felt like love almost always lust. Bosworth seems truly torn for her undeniable attraction and love of Superman with her feelings for Richard White (James Marsden). I thought the scene on the roof of the Daily Planet between Superman and Lois was one of the best moments of the film.
Could Bryan Singer work on the pacing a bit more? Yes. Still Superman is back and I hope there are more films because he is a great character. He isn't conflicted by balancing his life with superheroism like Spider-Man nor by a darkness inside him like Batman but he is instilled with the same sense of duty that those characters are, the duty to help those who need it. He's also almost entirely selfless which is sort of refreshing in today's age.
Admittedly the film starts a little slow. The hero has been absent for five years and the world has moved on. Lois Lane has a kid and a steady live in boyfriend and has won a Pulitzer prize for an editorial on why the world doesn't need Superman. Superman returns and has a few unnecessary flashbacks to his early discovery of his power as well as a poignant scene with his mother played by Eva Marie Saint. I like Eva Marie Saint. She is underused here. If you want to be reminded of how good she is go back and watch On The Waterfront (1954) or more recently as the ever forgiving mother in the very pleasant Don't Come Knocking (2005). Having returned Superman dons his familiar glasses and also returns as Clark Kent.
Some people bitch and make mockery of the fact that Superman's disguise is so obvious but I think such complaints are trivial. It is part of the fantasy that should be accepted. Superman's return is advantageous as he rescues a plane full of people in a really well done action sequence. His return brings conflict to Lois' life as she struggles with her feelings for Superman. Meanwhile tried and true Superman villain Lex Luthor is hatching an evil plot. It is reminiscent of his plans in the original movie. It's devilishly wicked and yes non-sensical but delightful in the way only a comic book villain can be. The movie kicks into high gear and ends well (no turning the Earth backwards on its axis to reverse time, thank god).
Okay, Kate Bosworth as Lois Lane. Kate Bosworth is a better Lois Lane than Margot Kidder. I keep hearing about how Margot Kidder was better and I stare blankly at these statements and try to ponder on what earth that is true. Bosworth's Lois looks at Superman with pain and love in a way I never saw Kidder. Kidder's Lois looked at Superman like a piece of meat, it never felt like love almost always lust. Bosworth seems truly torn for her undeniable attraction and love of Superman with her feelings for Richard White (James Marsden). I thought the scene on the roof of the Daily Planet between Superman and Lois was one of the best moments of the film.
Could Bryan Singer work on the pacing a bit more? Yes. Still Superman is back and I hope there are more films because he is a great character. He isn't conflicted by balancing his life with superheroism like Spider-Man nor by a darkness inside him like Batman but he is instilled with the same sense of duty that those characters are, the duty to help those who need it. He's also almost entirely selfless which is sort of refreshing in today's age.
Monday, June 26, 2006
Shrimp on the Barbie Western?
In 1964 a film directed by the Italian Sergio Leone was released that reinvisioned the Hollywood genre of the Western. A Fistful Of Dollars was more violent and bloody than had previously been seen. I'm not going to say that The Proposition (2005) is going to revolutionize westerns, in fact it doesn't do anything groundbreaking. But it does fall into the Sergio Leone tradition of violence and it does offer a unique look at a frontier that I would like to see more of.
The film starts with the capture of two brothers, Charlie and Mike. Captain Stanley, the local peace officer offers Charlie a proposition. If he will kill his older brother, Arthur, a practically insane more dangerous man then Charlie and his younger brother will be pardoned for their crimes. From there the film moves on and actually pretty much loses sight of its premise rather quickly. Of course there are some wonderful performances by the likes of John Hurt and Danny Huston, but the film falls flat as it meanders back and forth between following Stanley and Charlie.
At first as Charlie set out I couldn't help but think of Captain Willard (Martin Sheen) in Apocalypse Now (1979). I thought that this would turn into a similar soul searching journey as he struggled with the idea of killing one truly wicked brother to save one innocent brother. But that isn't what happened, instead the film came to a climax in an orgy of violence and death.
In the end this movie failed to put forth something that is worth a trip to the theater, it might be worth renting though. But it did offer up potential for someone else to exploit. Australia and its history, in particular for Americans, could be fascinating areas to explore for the western.
The film starts with the capture of two brothers, Charlie and Mike. Captain Stanley, the local peace officer offers Charlie a proposition. If he will kill his older brother, Arthur, a practically insane more dangerous man then Charlie and his younger brother will be pardoned for their crimes. From there the film moves on and actually pretty much loses sight of its premise rather quickly. Of course there are some wonderful performances by the likes of John Hurt and Danny Huston, but the film falls flat as it meanders back and forth between following Stanley and Charlie.
At first as Charlie set out I couldn't help but think of Captain Willard (Martin Sheen) in Apocalypse Now (1979). I thought that this would turn into a similar soul searching journey as he struggled with the idea of killing one truly wicked brother to save one innocent brother. But that isn't what happened, instead the film came to a climax in an orgy of violence and death.
In the end this movie failed to put forth something that is worth a trip to the theater, it might be worth renting though. But it did offer up potential for someone else to exploit. Australia and its history, in particular for Americans, could be fascinating areas to explore for the western.
Click
I've never been a fan of Adam Sandler and I've never seen him in a movie that I liked. I mean that. At best I have tolerated Adam Sandler in movies such as The Wedding Singer (1998) or Punch Drunk Love (2002). So as I do from time to time, I went to Click fully expecting a movie I was not going to like. My expectations were met dead on...for the first act.
Click starts as a fairly predictable and rather unfunny little film. When he first gets the remote Sandler's character does use it for typically juvenile Sandler antics. But slowly he starts to use it to get ahead and to 'in his own view' stop hurting his family. In the process he starts missing things and eventually wakes up having missed most of his life.
Suddenly he has learned his lesson. His fastlane life has caused him to miss out on some of the most important things. Yes the message is a bit corny and yes at times Sandler can't help but drop in a crude joke but the film has evolved into something else. It is by no means perfect and had there been another choice of movie out this weekend I might not have seen Click but in the end the film grew on me.
Even if the message is corny the saddest truth is, that this is the way a lot of the world runs its life. I mean this is the same world where a person can't go to a movie for two hours without someone having to answer the phone in the middle of it. So as much as I'd like to think a sappy movie like this didn't need to be made, the truth is it probably did. It could have been made better, no doubt, but it wasn't. In the end this isn't a movie I recommend but I must admit it grew on me by the time the credits rolled.
p.s. - Christopher Walken is fantastic in this film, as always.
Click starts as a fairly predictable and rather unfunny little film. When he first gets the remote Sandler's character does use it for typically juvenile Sandler antics. But slowly he starts to use it to get ahead and to 'in his own view' stop hurting his family. In the process he starts missing things and eventually wakes up having missed most of his life.
Suddenly he has learned his lesson. His fastlane life has caused him to miss out on some of the most important things. Yes the message is a bit corny and yes at times Sandler can't help but drop in a crude joke but the film has evolved into something else. It is by no means perfect and had there been another choice of movie out this weekend I might not have seen Click but in the end the film grew on me.
Even if the message is corny the saddest truth is, that this is the way a lot of the world runs its life. I mean this is the same world where a person can't go to a movie for two hours without someone having to answer the phone in the middle of it. So as much as I'd like to think a sappy movie like this didn't need to be made, the truth is it probably did. It could have been made better, no doubt, but it wasn't. In the end this isn't a movie I recommend but I must admit it grew on me by the time the credits rolled.
p.s. - Christopher Walken is fantastic in this film, as always.
Thursday, June 22, 2006
Now I have a headache
There are comedies in the world that make one laugh in genuine humor. There are comedies that make you chuckle but not laugh. There are unintentional comedies that are other genre movies that are so bad they make you laugh. Then there are movies so painfully unfunny that no only do you not laugh but they in addition cause you physical pain. Nacho Libre falls into that last category. I had actually developed a headache by film end. I cannot stress how unfunny Jack Black truly is. I should have been tipped off that this film would be trailer (both its own trailer and the trailers attached to the film itself) and the fact that the producers were Nickelodeon. The film was directed by Jared Hess who had recent success with Napolean Dynamite (2004) a film I haven't seen and now have no interest in seeing.
Fast And The Furious 3?
Oh that is right, there was not one but two sequels to a mediocre action vehicle for one Vin Diesel. Of course Vin didn't show up for the sequels, a wise move on his part. Fast And The Furious: Tokyo Drift is simply put ludicrous. In the opening one sees the hero racing a rich kid played by Zachary Bryan (of Home Improvement fame, he's lost the Ty I guess) and causing lots of damage. So the hero's mom sends him to his dad, who conveniently lives in Japan. I'm not kidding, that is the setup of the movie.
There is little else to concern yourself with other than the hero gets involved in racing again called 'drifting', apparently a real style but no doubt made more impressive by special effects. This movie was so unintentionally funny that I was laughing most of the movie. Then having glimpsed a trailer for the film a few days before I could have sworn I saw Vin Diesel in the film. And with seconds to spare who should make a cameo? I'll admit I cheered loudly and to the annoyance of those around me. It was so ridiculously absurd at that point I couldn't help myself.
There is little else to concern yourself with other than the hero gets involved in racing again called 'drifting', apparently a real style but no doubt made more impressive by special effects. This movie was so unintentionally funny that I was laughing most of the movie. Then having glimpsed a trailer for the film a few days before I could have sworn I saw Vin Diesel in the film. And with seconds to spare who should make a cameo? I'll admit I cheered loudly and to the annoyance of those around me. It was so ridiculously absurd at that point I couldn't help myself.
Monday, June 12, 2006
R.S.V.P./Tart
R.S.V.P.
If you want to see a plodding uninteresting serial killer film loosely inspired by Alfred Hitchcock and proudly boasting a cast that includes Jason Mewes then R.S.V.P. (2002) is the movie for you. If the film I just described makes you physically sick or makes you laugh outloud in embarassment that it was ever made, then I recommend staying far, far away from this film. I watched it due to a new found delight in the actress Nora Zehetner, she is in the movie for about fifteen minutes and does what she can with what she is given. Jason Mewes plays his character Jay which is basically just Jason Mewes being himself.
Tart
Tart (2001) boasts a cast of the would be Hollywood future. Brad Renfro, Dominique Swain and Bijou Philips lead the cast. Unfortunatley the film is about self entitled rich kids, who act reckless. The problem being that who cares if self entitled rich kids act reckless. This is already the stereotype.
If you want to see a plodding uninteresting serial killer film loosely inspired by Alfred Hitchcock and proudly boasting a cast that includes Jason Mewes then R.S.V.P. (2002) is the movie for you. If the film I just described makes you physically sick or makes you laugh outloud in embarassment that it was ever made, then I recommend staying far, far away from this film. I watched it due to a new found delight in the actress Nora Zehetner, she is in the movie for about fifteen minutes and does what she can with what she is given. Jason Mewes plays his character Jay which is basically just Jason Mewes being himself.
Tart
Tart (2001) boasts a cast of the would be Hollywood future. Brad Renfro, Dominique Swain and Bijou Philips lead the cast. Unfortunatley the film is about self entitled rich kids, who act reckless. The problem being that who cares if self entitled rich kids act reckless. This is already the stereotype.
Prairie Home Companion
I find watching Robert Altman films to be tedious. They stereotypically focus on intimate moments between several characters all held together by a loosely constructed plot. A Prairie Home Companion is no different. There are lots of neat well done individual scenes, specifically Lily Tomlin and Meryl Streep who are amazing as emotional singing sisters.
The film follows the last broadcast of the radio show A Prairie Home Companion with intercut "behind the scenes" scenes. It is pretty close to actually listening to a broadcast of the show on public radio some Saturday. Well that with intercut spirituality and character driven scenes that add little to the plot.
I laughed at times but overall this movie didn't really go anywhere that was interesting. It just kind of soldiered along for close on two hours and then just ends. I'm sure many will enjoy this film and in the end I am forced to conclude that this movie will be like the joke that made me laugh hardest in this film. The movie even acknowledges the joke isn't really that funny.
"Two penguins come together on the ice. One says to the other, 'you look like you're wearing a tuxedo.' The second says 'what makes you think I'm not?'"
I knew it wasn't funny but I laughed. Still the movie didn't strike me in the same way. It just felt tedious.
The film follows the last broadcast of the radio show A Prairie Home Companion with intercut "behind the scenes" scenes. It is pretty close to actually listening to a broadcast of the show on public radio some Saturday. Well that with intercut spirituality and character driven scenes that add little to the plot.
I laughed at times but overall this movie didn't really go anywhere that was interesting. It just kind of soldiered along for close on two hours and then just ends. I'm sure many will enjoy this film and in the end I am forced to conclude that this movie will be like the joke that made me laugh hardest in this film. The movie even acknowledges the joke isn't really that funny.
"Two penguins come together on the ice. One says to the other, 'you look like you're wearing a tuxedo.' The second says 'what makes you think I'm not?'"
I knew it wasn't funny but I laughed. Still the movie didn't strike me in the same way. It just felt tedious.
The Omen
When watching a film like The Omen (2006), I can't help but wonder why anyone in their right mind would name their kid Damien. To me no name screams more "I am the antichrist" than the name Damien. If I were going to bring the child of the devil into the world I'd give him a name that nobody would ever think to doubt. I'd name the kid Jesus Satankiller. Who would ever think that Jesus Satankiller was a bad guy? His last name is Satankiller. His first name is Jesus. Now that would be a name to fool mankind.
This is probably the case because I know of and have seen the original The Omen (1976). Still beyond having seen it years ago, I don't recall much of the film. The film doesn't try very hard you know that Damien is the devil's son pretty much from the start and the film pretty much follows a silly formula. There are some truly ludicrous moments such as when a paparrazzi played by David Thewlis interprets a poem to mean Damien's rise from the sea means politics. I couldn't help myself from laughing at how absurd the interpretation was.
The acting in this film is entirely wooden, which is really a shame because there is some amazing talent in this film. Pete Postlehtwaite, David Thewlis and Liev Schreiber in their own right are all excellent actors here reduced to mere shells of characters. And then there is Michael Gambon, alas, never was there a more blatant waste of talent than him in this film.
For most of the film I thought how much better it would have been if someone had made the Terry Pratchett and Neil Gaimon book "Good Omens" into a movie. That was a very funny book about the son of the devil being misplaced in a mix up and the search for him by the demon responsible and the angel sent to prevent him. In the end that was what I was left with. The film would have been better if it had not been a remake but an adaptation of a recent book. Of course that would be totally opposite of Hollywood logic.
This is probably the case because I know of and have seen the original The Omen (1976). Still beyond having seen it years ago, I don't recall much of the film. The film doesn't try very hard you know that Damien is the devil's son pretty much from the start and the film pretty much follows a silly formula. There are some truly ludicrous moments such as when a paparrazzi played by David Thewlis interprets a poem to mean Damien's rise from the sea means politics. I couldn't help myself from laughing at how absurd the interpretation was.
The acting in this film is entirely wooden, which is really a shame because there is some amazing talent in this film. Pete Postlehtwaite, David Thewlis and Liev Schreiber in their own right are all excellent actors here reduced to mere shells of characters. And then there is Michael Gambon, alas, never was there a more blatant waste of talent than him in this film.
For most of the film I thought how much better it would have been if someone had made the Terry Pratchett and Neil Gaimon book "Good Omens" into a movie. That was a very funny book about the son of the devil being misplaced in a mix up and the search for him by the demon responsible and the angel sent to prevent him. In the end that was what I was left with. The film would have been better if it had not been a remake but an adaptation of a recent book. Of course that would be totally opposite of Hollywood logic.
Break-Up
I'm not entirely sure what kind of movie The Break Up was trying to be. If it is a romantic comedy it doesn't make me laugh or yearn for the couple to get back together. If it is a dark comedy about break ups, it just isn't vicious enough. Both the main characters still seem to care about one another, well as much as two can when the actors playing them have no on screen chemistry that I could discern.
Most of the movie had me thinking that Love Stinks (1999) was a better movie than this. At the very minimum it at least made me laugh. Actually even the fact that both movies star Jason Bateman in a supporting role made me wonder. Love Stinks wasn't really vicious either, the things the exes do to each other are ludicrous but you can feel the visceral hatred between the two as they act and that is why it works. This film could have been really good, if it had truly been about a break up and all the ugliness that can entail. It might not have been fun to watch, but it would have been honest.
Most of the movie had me thinking that Love Stinks (1999) was a better movie than this. At the very minimum it at least made me laugh. Actually even the fact that both movies star Jason Bateman in a supporting role made me wonder. Love Stinks wasn't really vicious either, the things the exes do to each other are ludicrous but you can feel the visceral hatred between the two as they act and that is why it works. This film could have been really good, if it had truly been about a break up and all the ugliness that can entail. It might not have been fun to watch, but it would have been honest.
Friday, June 02, 2006
Brick
When one sets a goal to see one hundred films in one calendar year, it is inevitable that a lot of horribly bad films are going to be seen. There will also be a fair share of mediocre or decent films. Overall, there will be very few great films. And since Hollywood follows a release date pattern most of the year can start to look pretty grim. The dumping grounds of the opening of the year are only spared by the limited release films that finally show up in the nowhereville that is my location (I mean that in the movie release sense, this is not New York or LA or even Chicago). The dumping grounds are followed by the summer blockbuster season.
Luckily for me a smaller independent film finally made it to my area and I was fortunate enough to view it. Brick was a bright shining beacon of hope among a myriad of big budget schlock. The film follows Brendan (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) as he tries to discover what brought about the death of his ex Emily. He slugs down into a world of drugs and intrigue that is back-dropped against high school, which pretty much makes the movie pretty surreal. Soon he is surrounded by some very interesting characters with equally interesting names and professions, such as the Pin (Lukas Haas) a local drug kingpin and the Brain (Matt O'Leary).
In all of this there are fights and trickery and conversations that are truly well conceived. The dialogue is filled with some slang. I cannot be sure that it is real slang, since I confess I lost track of how teens talk basically the minute I graduated high school but it doesn't really matter if it is real slang. The characters say it with out a touch of irony. In fact everything in this film is said straight faced. This makes what is at times probably ludicrous dialogue work. As long as no one breaks the fantasy the film works. Only one particularly violent scene broke the fantasy and even that I could overlook.
The brightest part of the film for me was Nora Zehetner who plays Laura. Laura is the equivalent of the film noir femme fatale. She exudes allure with a hint of danger that lies somewhere in her skinny frame. When she was on screen I couldn't take my eyes off her and when she wasn't on screen I was secretly hoping she would return. I am eager to see her in more films in the future. But she is not the only great performance in this film. Joseph Gordon-Levitt is amazing. I had to remind myself that this is no longer the little kid from the TV show "Third Rock From The Sun".
The tone and the atmosphere of this film are fantastic. The humor off beat but definitely there. It almost never breaks the bounds of its own fantasy. I was really starting to lose hope and this film reminded me nicely that films could be more than just a handsome actor acting petulant and shooting guns. I cannot recommend it and Nora Zehetner (a new actress crush) enough.
Luckily for me a smaller independent film finally made it to my area and I was fortunate enough to view it. Brick was a bright shining beacon of hope among a myriad of big budget schlock. The film follows Brendan (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) as he tries to discover what brought about the death of his ex Emily. He slugs down into a world of drugs and intrigue that is back-dropped against high school, which pretty much makes the movie pretty surreal. Soon he is surrounded by some very interesting characters with equally interesting names and professions, such as the Pin (Lukas Haas) a local drug kingpin and the Brain (Matt O'Leary).
In all of this there are fights and trickery and conversations that are truly well conceived. The dialogue is filled with some slang. I cannot be sure that it is real slang, since I confess I lost track of how teens talk basically the minute I graduated high school but it doesn't really matter if it is real slang. The characters say it with out a touch of irony. In fact everything in this film is said straight faced. This makes what is at times probably ludicrous dialogue work. As long as no one breaks the fantasy the film works. Only one particularly violent scene broke the fantasy and even that I could overlook.
The brightest part of the film for me was Nora Zehetner who plays Laura. Laura is the equivalent of the film noir femme fatale. She exudes allure with a hint of danger that lies somewhere in her skinny frame. When she was on screen I couldn't take my eyes off her and when she wasn't on screen I was secretly hoping she would return. I am eager to see her in more films in the future. But she is not the only great performance in this film. Joseph Gordon-Levitt is amazing. I had to remind myself that this is no longer the little kid from the TV show "Third Rock From The Sun".
The tone and the atmosphere of this film are fantastic. The humor off beat but definitely there. It almost never breaks the bounds of its own fantasy. I was really starting to lose hope and this film reminded me nicely that films could be more than just a handsome actor acting petulant and shooting guns. I cannot recommend it and Nora Zehetner (a new actress crush) enough.
Thursday, June 01, 2006
B For Boring
V For Vendetta based on the popular graphic novel can't ever get beyond the ludicrous. I can only presume that the graphic novel is not as bad as this film. The film starts in the "not to distant future" as all good dystopic films do. England has become quite totalitarian thanks to terrorism and things like the avian flu. One man wearing a Guy Fawkes mask stands up to the oppression using oddly enough terrorist tactics.
He saves a woman named Evey (Natalie Portman) and a game of cat and mouse starts as the government attempts to find the masked man. Eventually all the plans of this one man fall into place and by movie's end he has pretty much triumphed including succeeding in the plan that Guy Fawkes centuries ago failed to pull off. There are choreographed fight scenes that are certainly watchable, but overall this movie lacked anything interesting.
In fact, it had quite a bit of uninteresting, not to mention ludicrous. I pretty much checked out of this movie near its beginning when the hero expounds on a diatribe of pseudo alliterative gibberish. I won't bother sitting here and typing out all the truly asinine moments of this film. Suffice to say someone thought it appropriate that Ms. Portman "stand at a attention" if you follow me for most of the movie. Beyond that it is a movie that represents every single left wing conspiracy fantasy you can think of which I can stomach about as much as I can stomach the right wing conspiracy fantasies, which is to say not at all.
He saves a woman named Evey (Natalie Portman) and a game of cat and mouse starts as the government attempts to find the masked man. Eventually all the plans of this one man fall into place and by movie's end he has pretty much triumphed including succeeding in the plan that Guy Fawkes centuries ago failed to pull off. There are choreographed fight scenes that are certainly watchable, but overall this movie lacked anything interesting.
In fact, it had quite a bit of uninteresting, not to mention ludicrous. I pretty much checked out of this movie near its beginning when the hero expounds on a diatribe of pseudo alliterative gibberish. I won't bother sitting here and typing out all the truly asinine moments of this film. Suffice to say someone thought it appropriate that Ms. Portman "stand at a attention" if you follow me for most of the movie. Beyond that it is a movie that represents every single left wing conspiracy fantasy you can think of which I can stomach about as much as I can stomach the right wing conspiracy fantasies, which is to say not at all.
Making More Money For The WWE
See No Evil is a laughably bad vehicle for WWE wrestler Kane. The film starts with two cops going into a house and confronting a psychopath, who kills on of the two and maims the other. Fast forward and our one armed man is now a guard at a juvenile prison. He has gathered a motley crew of delinquents, whose crime we get to learn by a freeze frame and a scroll of text that identifies the name and crime. I assure you this has absolutely no purpose in the film. Then we get a similar roll call of women delinquents, who will be joining the men on this field trip.
The group arrives at an old abandoned hotel, which they will be cleaning up for three days as part of a deal to get reduced sentences. The doors of the hotel will be conveniently locked at night. How is that for a ridiculously idiotic set up? Don't worry we've got drug users and oversexed teenagers to boot. Once night falls, the teens go off and do some stupid stuff and the psychopath from the opening of the film (if you really thought he was dead, you really don't watch these kind of movies often or even once really) starts killing them one by one. Even for a slasher flick this film is uninspiring. The deaths are unoriginal and its little more than a slow plod to the inevitable conclusion.
We get sporadic flashbacks showing why the psycho is the way he is but I really didn't care and his disturbing fetish for women with religious tattoos was ridiculous. After a healthy body count and surprisingly only very mild nudity (let's face it, in a film like this you expect gratuitous nudity left and right) the film ends with a typical good guy triumph. I didn't think any film would make me think Saw (2004) was a good movie, but compared to this trash it was cinematic gold.
The group arrives at an old abandoned hotel, which they will be cleaning up for three days as part of a deal to get reduced sentences. The doors of the hotel will be conveniently locked at night. How is that for a ridiculously idiotic set up? Don't worry we've got drug users and oversexed teenagers to boot. Once night falls, the teens go off and do some stupid stuff and the psychopath from the opening of the film (if you really thought he was dead, you really don't watch these kind of movies often or even once really) starts killing them one by one. Even for a slasher flick this film is uninspiring. The deaths are unoriginal and its little more than a slow plod to the inevitable conclusion.
We get sporadic flashbacks showing why the psycho is the way he is but I really didn't care and his disturbing fetish for women with religious tattoos was ridiculous. After a healthy body count and surprisingly only very mild nudity (let's face it, in a film like this you expect gratuitous nudity left and right) the film ends with a typical good guy triumph. I didn't think any film would make me think Saw (2004) was a good movie, but compared to this trash it was cinematic gold.
Friday, May 26, 2006
American Idol Badly Satirized
American Dreamz attempts to satirize American Idol, our current president and terrorism. I say attempts because it never quite gets there. Paul Weitz doesn't have the guts to go in for the kill in this movie. The film plays serious, but tries to get in a joke every once in a while. These jokes fall flat. None more so than Seth Meyers as a skeezy and scheming agent. It wasn't even two hours long and I found myself falling asleep in this film.
Reason Why More Care Should Be Taken When Translating Video Games To Film
Silent Hill is based on a very popular video game. I'm told the game is creepy and atmospheric. Well, at least the movie got the atmosphere right. The movie looks very interesting. Unfortunately when the characters are not running around confused, they are being forced to listen to seemingly never ending plot explanation. This movie was not scary and actually started to annoy me after about half an hour. This one might have been better had it remained a game.
Stay Away
It has been so long since I saw Stay Alive that I really cannot remember much about it. It had video game geeks battling a supernatural evil. I recall that much. Oh and it had television's Malcolm in the Middle star Frankie Muniz. Oh and it is laughably bad. An embarrasing blemish on the resumes of all involved. Even admirers of bad movies should probably stay away from this crap.
I'm not infallible
On my birthday several weeks ago I decided to see a movie. I had seen in the previews that the movie Stick It was written by the writer of Bring It On (2000). I'm not ashamed to admit that I very much enjoy Bring It On. She also directed the film and suddenly the importance of a director becomes clear. Because this movie was bad. It was painfully bad. Thank god I got to hear about how gymnasts have it way harder than Navy SEALS. I'm sure Gymnastics fans will eat it up. I very much rue that I saw this film.
Who Dies Next Game
Poseidon is of course a remake. No not of the made for tv movie that came out last year but the 1972 film starring Gene Hackman. The original also starred Ernest Borgnine which is for me pretty close to carte blanche to do whatever you want. This movie stars Kurt Russell and Richard Dreyfuss. Mr. Russell was in Escape from New York (1981) with Mr. Borgnine but that isn't enough for carte blanche. Sorry.
So it's a remake. Hollywood likes remakes, I've grown hoarse screaming that Hollywood needs to get an original idea, so I won't bore you too much with that here. Our movie begins with an overview. Literally an overview. We see a whole bunch of the boat and the different areas. We meet every key character in a single scene defining character moment and with that minimal development out of the way...bam. Rogue wave hits the boat and boat flips over. The ship's captain advises everyone stay put and wait for rescue.
Richard Dreyfuss conveniently is an architect who knows the boat cannot sustain the pressure upside down. A recluse hero emerges because that is exactly what the situation calls for. He leads a ragtag group of passengers up to the surface. There are numerous f/x laden sequences and of course there are some deaths in the works. If you have seen even a few disaster movies, then you can pretty much guess which characters will die. I knew almost from minute one, which ones were fish food.
There will be sacrifices and noble gestures not to mention ethical delimmas, although this last one is brushed over pretty quickly. It is fairly mindless so if you are just looking for something to veg out on this might be the film for you. And if you are really committed you might try to figure who will die next. It could be some fun.
So it's a remake. Hollywood likes remakes, I've grown hoarse screaming that Hollywood needs to get an original idea, so I won't bore you too much with that here. Our movie begins with an overview. Literally an overview. We see a whole bunch of the boat and the different areas. We meet every key character in a single scene defining character moment and with that minimal development out of the way...bam. Rogue wave hits the boat and boat flips over. The ship's captain advises everyone stay put and wait for rescue.
Richard Dreyfuss conveniently is an architect who knows the boat cannot sustain the pressure upside down. A recluse hero emerges because that is exactly what the situation calls for. He leads a ragtag group of passengers up to the surface. There are numerous f/x laden sequences and of course there are some deaths in the works. If you have seen even a few disaster movies, then you can pretty much guess which characters will die. I knew almost from minute one, which ones were fish food.
There will be sacrifices and noble gestures not to mention ethical delimmas, although this last one is brushed over pretty quickly. It is fairly mindless so if you are just looking for something to veg out on this might be the film for you. And if you are really committed you might try to figure who will die next. It could be some fun.
Ron Howard: Movie Innovator
Ron Howard has managed with his new movie The Da Vinci Code to do what I wasn't sure was possible. He has constructed a movie thriller with only two elements: Expository scenes and chases. Perhaps I should give the writer some credit, since we do that so rarely these days. Regardless of who is responsible, if you are looking for a film in which the whole movie is long, boring moments of excruciatingly detailed and ludicrous plot development followed by bland chase sequences, well then this is the movie for you.
Some claim it is pointless to retell the plot since everyone has read the book. I actually didn't. Nor did several people I know. Besides recaps fill up space. Tom Hanks plays Robert Langdon. Langdon is a symbologist. Some would bicker that he is actually a semiologist, but that great aid to our day the Oxford English Dictionary has both words, so potato, potato. Langdon is called to the scene of a grisly murder. The investigator thinks he is guilty, another thinks he is innocent and bam. The chase is on.
As Langdon and the sympathetic cop (a cryptologist named Sophie played by Audrey Tautou) run they learn or explain to each other tidbits of an elaborate church coverup regarding Jesus. They even go to get the help of an Englishman whose field of study is the exact thing they are caught up in. This is extraordinarily convenient for the two fugitives. Ian McKellan is the convenient character and he does play the role with the delight of a teacher showing you something he thinks is really cool but it doesn't stop it from being exposition.
There is also a parallel plot of an Albino monk named Silas (Paul Bettany) and a powerful Bishop (Alfred Molina). More chases and more exposition and we finally get the end. Whew! There we receive more exposition! This movie is long. Long and uninteresting and laughable when it deals with history. The only thrill I felt was in the previews section when I saw the new Superman Returns trailer. If Ron Howard works hard enough, I'm sure by his next movie, he can actually do away with the action all together and we can just get down to the basics. People telling other people what is going on. Or maybe he could just film someone with a great voice reading a book from cover to cover.
Some claim it is pointless to retell the plot since everyone has read the book. I actually didn't. Nor did several people I know. Besides recaps fill up space. Tom Hanks plays Robert Langdon. Langdon is a symbologist. Some would bicker that he is actually a semiologist, but that great aid to our day the Oxford English Dictionary has both words, so potato, potato. Langdon is called to the scene of a grisly murder. The investigator thinks he is guilty, another thinks he is innocent and bam. The chase is on.
As Langdon and the sympathetic cop (a cryptologist named Sophie played by Audrey Tautou) run they learn or explain to each other tidbits of an elaborate church coverup regarding Jesus. They even go to get the help of an Englishman whose field of study is the exact thing they are caught up in. This is extraordinarily convenient for the two fugitives. Ian McKellan is the convenient character and he does play the role with the delight of a teacher showing you something he thinks is really cool but it doesn't stop it from being exposition.
There is also a parallel plot of an Albino monk named Silas (Paul Bettany) and a powerful Bishop (Alfred Molina). More chases and more exposition and we finally get the end. Whew! There we receive more exposition! This movie is long. Long and uninteresting and laughable when it deals with history. The only thrill I felt was in the previews section when I saw the new Superman Returns trailer. If Ron Howard works hard enough, I'm sure by his next movie, he can actually do away with the action all together and we can just get down to the basics. People telling other people what is going on. Or maybe he could just film someone with a great voice reading a book from cover to cover.
An Open Letter of Anger
To Whom It May Concern:
Hi, let me introduce myself. I am Rory Larry, your friendly movie idiot. Some would question the wisdom of choosing a blog that names me as a movie idiot. I cannot argue with these people, since I will see any number of movies that aren't worth the celluloid they are imprinted on. I should tell you a few things about myself before I get any further. I am a comic book geek. I love reading comics, heck; I love collecting comics and then reading them again later. I have spent a lot of money over the years, sometimes when I had very little to spare all on comics. I'm not going to claim to be the biggest comic book fan; I don't even mark in the running for that title. I just enjoy them. I like Spiderman and Superman. I like the Green Lantern and the Hulk.
And oh yes, I like X-Men. I know like many that when Stan Lee was coming up with comic ideas in the early sixties that many of his creations were merely ways of expressing his thoughts on pressing social issues. X-Men clearly represented the issues of race that were pertinent at the time and still are today. I know lots of geeky things about specific characters and their powers, not better than some, or many for that matter, but I do know. I collect X-Men comics and read them and I watched the first X-Men movie with delight that it had finally made it to the screen. Some thought it a bit too expositional. I defended it saying things like "what do you expect? It's an introduction to many non fans and it has to be commercially viable to more than just us geeks."
I let you know that so that you know what one of my other favorite things in this world is. I love movies. I love watching them, reading screenplays, learning about which director or producer is involved, what actors have signed on and other tidbits of knowledge that bore other people. And I defend many genres of movies even if they aren't the best films around. Yes, in some ways I am a movie snob, but in other ways Red Dawn (1984) is one of my favorite films of all time. Yes, the movie from 1984 about Russians invading the USA and teenagers no less fighting against them. I watch it and smile at Patrick Swayze and C. Thomas Howell (remember C. Thomas Howell?). Powers Boothe as the gnarled old air force pilot who aids them. God bless Powers Boothe. So let me assure you that my love of Red Dawn should prove that I can enjoy a movie that isn't very good.
One more quick note, I don't mind adaptation. In fact I appreciate a well adapted film. I think the complaint "it wasn't like the book" is meaningless. If you want it to be like the book, just read the book. If you want to see a film, go to the movies, or rent. I don't even care if you mess with mythology. I enjoy the retelling of Superman in the show Smallville. One of my favorite current comics is Ultimate X-Men which is a re-imagining of the X-Men saga. So I don't get upset that a film is not true to the source material.
I apologize for this digression, but I felt it was necessary before I tell you how much I hated X-Men: The Last Stand. But let us not get ahead of ourselves. After the end of the second film, one got the feeling that a bigger, more flamboyant film was coming. One in which all the issues of the X-Men universe would come to ahead. So as our film begins (minus a few background moments that set up some plot points) the President has a Mutant advisor in Hank McCoy (Kelsey Grammer) and things seem to be getting better for mutants. We learn of a cure that has been developed and we see how this news is received. Hated by some, embraced by others, the plot flies back and forth between several characters at once.
The film at times requires a prosopographic lexicon for all but the most die hard fans just to identify the characters. Big ones like Wolverine or Storm are obvious, but will the common audience know that Warren Worthington III is Angel? Well he does have big white wings so maybe that was a poor example. Well in any event, Magneto (Ian McKellan) begins to stir up mutants and at a rally we meet several young and eager acolytes. I didn't catch names, if any were given. One has the power to sense mutants and their power. She says something about levels as if it is meaningful. I don't recall a name for her and she will be important so I'll name her here.
Plot Device seems like a fitting name. Since that is all she is, she shows up explains a power, where people are and general moves along a plot that is flowing like molasses. She really serves no other purpose, sure they give her a speed mutation as well so she can compete in battle, but do not be mistaken, she is a rather uninventive plot device. Plot Device helps Magneto find his lieutenant Mystique. She is in a convoy being escorted...well somewhere. This is the point of the movie were some really stupid and badly written dialogue introduces us to Red Herring and also a comic fan favorite Juggernaut. I know Red Herring was not his name, but it should have been, since that is his only purpose in this movie!!
Things get worse as Magneto declares all out war and a few X-Men stand against them in some sort of 'last stand'...hey, that's the subtitle of the movie! The only other 'last stand' I can think of is the one that Custer had...boy that didn't turn out so well. There is more to the plot; the Phoenix of course had to show up, mainly because it was alluded to in the end of the second film. But I'm already tired of describing it and I've probably already angered somebody reading this by revealing a spoiler, but it is nothing truly important really.
Mr. Ratner and his cadre of writing support staff lack subtlety. I really cannot say it more clearly than that. It rarely gets more banal and uninteresting when you have characters whose sole purposes are to work out a plot point or attempt to mislead the audience. You can pretty much calculate when a character is going to do something in this movie based on the economy of characters (relatively main ones at least). Hey, I haven't seen Red Herring do anything yet...oh here it is. Whew...I was worried you had forgotten him. Hey, Plot Device we need to advance the story what can you do for us? Excellent, let us go to that location and do stuff.
There are so many plots and subplots in this movie and all of them pretty boring. Wait...what is that? Must pause story for romantic subplot. Where would an action movie be without an unconvincing love story? There are also tons of characters. So many and some on screen for mere minutes that it felt as if Mr. Ratner had gotten a focus group of comic geeks together and told them "We only have room for 183 X-Men characters in this film, we need you to vote on which ones you want? Juggernaut? Okay can do. Moira McTaggart? Done and done." I think you get the picture.
Thank god the writers also picked up a copy of "Every Action Movie Cliche" and "Cliched Dialogue" at the bookstore. Because without those precious moments I might have been fooled into thinking Plot Device and Red Herring were actually inventive ideas. As in any good action film (or at least one that expects to make money) the film's final act is dominated by special effect laden fight scenes. It is this element that will make this film oodles and oodles of money. Enough people won't care about the fact that the film is really bad and will just enjoy seeing Iceman take his Ice form or Colossus his metal form or Wolverine slicing and dicing and doing what he does best.
But I never thought I would convince that market anyway. I don't expect to convince anyone. But even with a subtitle like Last Stand, the fight scenes lack some potency because one can be confident that Custer's fate is not in store for our heroes. In the end, it seems like some major things have happened definitive ending of the franchise type things. The kind of things that if I believed for one second they would actually follow through on, I could have actually offered them respect for. Two little moments occur in the final seconds. One you get before the credits, the other you have to wait for, so stay if you are so inclined. But I had already thought of the first after the cure was brought up and the second revelation can be seen coming miles away!!
I'm not convinced that Bryan Singer could have done better, although I eagerly await his Superman Returns. I thought X-Men 2 (2003) was a bit tedious at times, but I still enjoyed it. Mr. Ratner is no Bryan Singer. What acting there is in this movie is as well done as one could expect. The actors are some of the best in the business, Ian McKellan, Halle Berry, Anna Paquin. Still the utter lack of characterization in these shells that the actors have taken on leaves everything a bit wooden. I might be more harsh but I know who the characters are in a sense, because I've read the comics, the average viewer may be in more trouble. X-Men 4 will no doubt do away with plot, dialogue and acting all together and just be a two hour battle royale of Marvel Universe mutants. The irony is that idea would probably make it more popular and make it more money than all the previous three films combined.
Sincerely,
Rory Larry, The Movie Idiot
Hi, let me introduce myself. I am Rory Larry, your friendly movie idiot. Some would question the wisdom of choosing a blog that names me as a movie idiot. I cannot argue with these people, since I will see any number of movies that aren't worth the celluloid they are imprinted on. I should tell you a few things about myself before I get any further. I am a comic book geek. I love reading comics, heck; I love collecting comics and then reading them again later. I have spent a lot of money over the years, sometimes when I had very little to spare all on comics. I'm not going to claim to be the biggest comic book fan; I don't even mark in the running for that title. I just enjoy them. I like Spiderman and Superman. I like the Green Lantern and the Hulk.
And oh yes, I like X-Men. I know like many that when Stan Lee was coming up with comic ideas in the early sixties that many of his creations were merely ways of expressing his thoughts on pressing social issues. X-Men clearly represented the issues of race that were pertinent at the time and still are today. I know lots of geeky things about specific characters and their powers, not better than some, or many for that matter, but I do know. I collect X-Men comics and read them and I watched the first X-Men movie with delight that it had finally made it to the screen. Some thought it a bit too expositional. I defended it saying things like "what do you expect? It's an introduction to many non fans and it has to be commercially viable to more than just us geeks."
I let you know that so that you know what one of my other favorite things in this world is. I love movies. I love watching them, reading screenplays, learning about which director or producer is involved, what actors have signed on and other tidbits of knowledge that bore other people. And I defend many genres of movies even if they aren't the best films around. Yes, in some ways I am a movie snob, but in other ways Red Dawn (1984) is one of my favorite films of all time. Yes, the movie from 1984 about Russians invading the USA and teenagers no less fighting against them. I watch it and smile at Patrick Swayze and C. Thomas Howell (remember C. Thomas Howell?). Powers Boothe as the gnarled old air force pilot who aids them. God bless Powers Boothe. So let me assure you that my love of Red Dawn should prove that I can enjoy a movie that isn't very good.
One more quick note, I don't mind adaptation. In fact I appreciate a well adapted film. I think the complaint "it wasn't like the book" is meaningless. If you want it to be like the book, just read the book. If you want to see a film, go to the movies, or rent. I don't even care if you mess with mythology. I enjoy the retelling of Superman in the show Smallville. One of my favorite current comics is Ultimate X-Men which is a re-imagining of the X-Men saga. So I don't get upset that a film is not true to the source material.
I apologize for this digression, but I felt it was necessary before I tell you how much I hated X-Men: The Last Stand. But let us not get ahead of ourselves. After the end of the second film, one got the feeling that a bigger, more flamboyant film was coming. One in which all the issues of the X-Men universe would come to ahead. So as our film begins (minus a few background moments that set up some plot points) the President has a Mutant advisor in Hank McCoy (Kelsey Grammer) and things seem to be getting better for mutants. We learn of a cure that has been developed and we see how this news is received. Hated by some, embraced by others, the plot flies back and forth between several characters at once.
The film at times requires a prosopographic lexicon for all but the most die hard fans just to identify the characters. Big ones like Wolverine or Storm are obvious, but will the common audience know that Warren Worthington III is Angel? Well he does have big white wings so maybe that was a poor example. Well in any event, Magneto (Ian McKellan) begins to stir up mutants and at a rally we meet several young and eager acolytes. I didn't catch names, if any were given. One has the power to sense mutants and their power. She says something about levels as if it is meaningful. I don't recall a name for her and she will be important so I'll name her here.
Plot Device seems like a fitting name. Since that is all she is, she shows up explains a power, where people are and general moves along a plot that is flowing like molasses. She really serves no other purpose, sure they give her a speed mutation as well so she can compete in battle, but do not be mistaken, she is a rather uninventive plot device. Plot Device helps Magneto find his lieutenant Mystique. She is in a convoy being escorted...well somewhere. This is the point of the movie were some really stupid and badly written dialogue introduces us to Red Herring and also a comic fan favorite Juggernaut. I know Red Herring was not his name, but it should have been, since that is his only purpose in this movie!!
Things get worse as Magneto declares all out war and a few X-Men stand against them in some sort of 'last stand'...hey, that's the subtitle of the movie! The only other 'last stand' I can think of is the one that Custer had...boy that didn't turn out so well. There is more to the plot; the Phoenix of course had to show up, mainly because it was alluded to in the end of the second film. But I'm already tired of describing it and I've probably already angered somebody reading this by revealing a spoiler, but it is nothing truly important really.
Mr. Ratner and his cadre of writing support staff lack subtlety. I really cannot say it more clearly than that. It rarely gets more banal and uninteresting when you have characters whose sole purposes are to work out a plot point or attempt to mislead the audience. You can pretty much calculate when a character is going to do something in this movie based on the economy of characters (relatively main ones at least). Hey, I haven't seen Red Herring do anything yet...oh here it is. Whew...I was worried you had forgotten him. Hey, Plot Device we need to advance the story what can you do for us? Excellent, let us go to that location and do stuff.
There are so many plots and subplots in this movie and all of them pretty boring. Wait...what is that? Must pause story for romantic subplot. Where would an action movie be without an unconvincing love story? There are also tons of characters. So many and some on screen for mere minutes that it felt as if Mr. Ratner had gotten a focus group of comic geeks together and told them "We only have room for 183 X-Men characters in this film, we need you to vote on which ones you want? Juggernaut? Okay can do. Moira McTaggart? Done and done." I think you get the picture.
Thank god the writers also picked up a copy of "Every Action Movie Cliche" and "Cliched Dialogue" at the bookstore. Because without those precious moments I might have been fooled into thinking Plot Device and Red Herring were actually inventive ideas. As in any good action film (or at least one that expects to make money) the film's final act is dominated by special effect laden fight scenes. It is this element that will make this film oodles and oodles of money. Enough people won't care about the fact that the film is really bad and will just enjoy seeing Iceman take his Ice form or Colossus his metal form or Wolverine slicing and dicing and doing what he does best.
But I never thought I would convince that market anyway. I don't expect to convince anyone. But even with a subtitle like Last Stand, the fight scenes lack some potency because one can be confident that Custer's fate is not in store for our heroes. In the end, it seems like some major things have happened definitive ending of the franchise type things. The kind of things that if I believed for one second they would actually follow through on, I could have actually offered them respect for. Two little moments occur in the final seconds. One you get before the credits, the other you have to wait for, so stay if you are so inclined. But I had already thought of the first after the cure was brought up and the second revelation can be seen coming miles away!!
I'm not convinced that Bryan Singer could have done better, although I eagerly await his Superman Returns. I thought X-Men 2 (2003) was a bit tedious at times, but I still enjoyed it. Mr. Ratner is no Bryan Singer. What acting there is in this movie is as well done as one could expect. The actors are some of the best in the business, Ian McKellan, Halle Berry, Anna Paquin. Still the utter lack of characterization in these shells that the actors have taken on leaves everything a bit wooden. I might be more harsh but I know who the characters are in a sense, because I've read the comics, the average viewer may be in more trouble. X-Men 4 will no doubt do away with plot, dialogue and acting all together and just be a two hour battle royale of Marvel Universe mutants. The irony is that idea would probably make it more popular and make it more money than all the previous three films combined.
Sincerely,
Rory Larry, The Movie Idiot
Saturday, May 06, 2006
Let the Summer Action Movie Season Begin
The summer movie season is upon us, since it starts in May, although Summer doesn't technically start until June 21st. I guess there isn't a point to nit picking with Hollywood. As we all know the summer movie season is generally dedicated to mindless popcorn action flicks. This year is no different, coming right out of the gate with Mission: Impossible III. Forgive me for a bit of history and no doubt a misrepresenting of the argument but a poet of the early twentieth century named Vachel Lindsay wrote a book in 1915 called The Art Of the Moving Picture, in one chapter on action films, he argues that they are supposed to be mindless with poor character development, because its about the chase scene or the fight scene.
I find this to be flawed in our current world, because I've seen movies that do both. Michael Mann is pretty good at developed characters and chase scenes. John Frankenheimer did wonders in Ronin (1998). If we accept a crappy action filled two hour movie with no character development then we will get exactly that. Okay I'll try to stop moralizing about film now. So when I went to see Mission: Impossible III, I tried as best I could to not let the absurd at times incoherent plot get to me. This was very hard for me to do. But I think I managed okay. So I'll attempt to leave any criticism of the plot out of this review.
Tom Cruise has returned as Ethan Hunt, who is now engaged to a woman, who thinks he is a traffic pattern specialist in a DOT. I've found lies are the best way to cultivate a caring, loving relationship and apparently so does Ethan Hunt. He's asked to do one more mission, despite not doing that stuff anymore and eventually gets caught up in a bigger mission, going head to head with Owen Davian (Philip Seymour Hoffman). There are twists and turns and lots of really intense looks. And in the end we have a happy ending. Sorry if I ruined that for you, but then again if you didn't know that all would be right with the world in the end, then you really don't pay attention in these types of movies.
Okay, I've summarized the movie as much as I can without criticizing it endlessly. Did this movie have anything to speak to its being good? Philip Seymour Hoffman is the answer. He was a villain in the way you want a villain in a movie like this. Cold blooded and unfazed by anything the hero could threaten. Hoffman is delightful for most of the movie. It got a little disappointing in the end, when his character was suddenly doing things that seemed unlikely for the development they had established, but he was still fun to watch.
By contrast there was Tom Cruise. At times I think Tom Cruise is really good. He was amazing as a misogynistic help guru in Magnolia (1999). He was even great as a ruthless assassin in Collateral (2004). But most of the time Cruise is pretty boring. Here he fumes and huffs and puffs and really got on my nerves. He's supposed to be this bad-ass special agent, and his temper boils over faster than water on the surface of the sun. I'm not sure that last metaphor makes sense. Regardless, Cruise is boring and just not convincing as this super spy.
In fact most of the people in this film are unconvincing as super spies. Keri Russell has a small role as one of Hunt's trainees who was recommended for field duty. TV's Felicity for crying out loud! I'm sorry but, no, I don't buy it. What else did we get in this film? Jonathan Rhys Meyers, really well cast in Match Point (2005), really poorly cast in this. He didn't even do anything that couldn't have been done by another side character. Ving Rhames, I like Ving Rhames, but he isn't exactly a good actor. He does his cool guy routine the whole movie, its gotten tired after three movies.
Now the biggest casualties in the realm of actors. Laurence Fishburne plays John Brassel, a by the book, do your job right pain in the ass, who ironically is right most of the time in the movie. He does what he can with the role and it works, except that he is so methodical and strict that it doesn't make any sense when he is lenient on the very things he is critical about, if they succeed. Also in the position of upper management in this film is Billy Crudup. Poor, poor Billy Crudup. Poor development and a twist, a twist that makes absolutely no logical sense. Really I just found it silly.
I should note that early in the movie I saw a scene where Tom Cruise rides a motorcycle to an airfield to go on a mission. Two thoughts entered my head. One, wow that seems oddly reminiscent of Top Gun (1986), eerily so. Two, Why is he not wearing a helmet? I would guess its illegal to drive his bike without one and its common sense. What Super Agents don't have to worry about massive head trauma? This guy is an idiot.
I thought the Top Gun thing might be a fluke, but then later there was a scene when ol Tom has to get out of the country without the sophisticated gadgetry (he's gone rogue you see and can only use what is freely available). So he puts on a wig, a mustache and a skull cap. He now looks early like his character from Born On The Fourth Of July (1989). Apparently despite a warrant out for his arrest and presumably pictures of him posted at all major ports of exit from the country, trained security can be fooled by a disguise that makes him look exactly like him, except for a mustache and a wig. Oh well, que sera sera.
Back to the plot, sort of. In the first film, there was an elaborate amount of detail applied to the big set piece of the film, breaking into the CIA headquarters. There was explanations of the traps and security and it is pulled off cleverly. By this film, they can barely be bothered to explain why stuff is so hard to get into and often the skip actually showing you anything of the sort. They break into like four or five secure locations, it meant nothing by the end. They literally don't even show the last break in. It was absurd. A character actually says at one point that breaking into this one building will be harder than Langley. Its good to know that there are buildings out there in the private sector that are more difficult to break into than the headquarters of the CIA. Apparenlty the CIA is a cake walk in the world of b and e.
Well in conclusion, this movie was ridiculous. Of course the reality is, if you want to see this movie, nothing I say will change your mind, and if you had no intention of seeing it, then you didn't need my two cents worth. Still I felt the need to get it off my chest as it were. Here's hoping for no future Mission: Impossibles or would it be Missions: Impossible?
I find this to be flawed in our current world, because I've seen movies that do both. Michael Mann is pretty good at developed characters and chase scenes. John Frankenheimer did wonders in Ronin (1998). If we accept a crappy action filled two hour movie with no character development then we will get exactly that. Okay I'll try to stop moralizing about film now. So when I went to see Mission: Impossible III, I tried as best I could to not let the absurd at times incoherent plot get to me. This was very hard for me to do. But I think I managed okay. So I'll attempt to leave any criticism of the plot out of this review.
Tom Cruise has returned as Ethan Hunt, who is now engaged to a woman, who thinks he is a traffic pattern specialist in a DOT. I've found lies are the best way to cultivate a caring, loving relationship and apparently so does Ethan Hunt. He's asked to do one more mission, despite not doing that stuff anymore and eventually gets caught up in a bigger mission, going head to head with Owen Davian (Philip Seymour Hoffman). There are twists and turns and lots of really intense looks. And in the end we have a happy ending. Sorry if I ruined that for you, but then again if you didn't know that all would be right with the world in the end, then you really don't pay attention in these types of movies.
Okay, I've summarized the movie as much as I can without criticizing it endlessly. Did this movie have anything to speak to its being good? Philip Seymour Hoffman is the answer. He was a villain in the way you want a villain in a movie like this. Cold blooded and unfazed by anything the hero could threaten. Hoffman is delightful for most of the movie. It got a little disappointing in the end, when his character was suddenly doing things that seemed unlikely for the development they had established, but he was still fun to watch.
By contrast there was Tom Cruise. At times I think Tom Cruise is really good. He was amazing as a misogynistic help guru in Magnolia (1999). He was even great as a ruthless assassin in Collateral (2004). But most of the time Cruise is pretty boring. Here he fumes and huffs and puffs and really got on my nerves. He's supposed to be this bad-ass special agent, and his temper boils over faster than water on the surface of the sun. I'm not sure that last metaphor makes sense. Regardless, Cruise is boring and just not convincing as this super spy.
In fact most of the people in this film are unconvincing as super spies. Keri Russell has a small role as one of Hunt's trainees who was recommended for field duty. TV's Felicity for crying out loud! I'm sorry but, no, I don't buy it. What else did we get in this film? Jonathan Rhys Meyers, really well cast in Match Point (2005), really poorly cast in this. He didn't even do anything that couldn't have been done by another side character. Ving Rhames, I like Ving Rhames, but he isn't exactly a good actor. He does his cool guy routine the whole movie, its gotten tired after three movies.
Now the biggest casualties in the realm of actors. Laurence Fishburne plays John Brassel, a by the book, do your job right pain in the ass, who ironically is right most of the time in the movie. He does what he can with the role and it works, except that he is so methodical and strict that it doesn't make any sense when he is lenient on the very things he is critical about, if they succeed. Also in the position of upper management in this film is Billy Crudup. Poor, poor Billy Crudup. Poor development and a twist, a twist that makes absolutely no logical sense. Really I just found it silly.
I should note that early in the movie I saw a scene where Tom Cruise rides a motorcycle to an airfield to go on a mission. Two thoughts entered my head. One, wow that seems oddly reminiscent of Top Gun (1986), eerily so. Two, Why is he not wearing a helmet? I would guess its illegal to drive his bike without one and its common sense. What Super Agents don't have to worry about massive head trauma? This guy is an idiot.
I thought the Top Gun thing might be a fluke, but then later there was a scene when ol Tom has to get out of the country without the sophisticated gadgetry (he's gone rogue you see and can only use what is freely available). So he puts on a wig, a mustache and a skull cap. He now looks early like his character from Born On The Fourth Of July (1989). Apparently despite a warrant out for his arrest and presumably pictures of him posted at all major ports of exit from the country, trained security can be fooled by a disguise that makes him look exactly like him, except for a mustache and a wig. Oh well, que sera sera.
Back to the plot, sort of. In the first film, there was an elaborate amount of detail applied to the big set piece of the film, breaking into the CIA headquarters. There was explanations of the traps and security and it is pulled off cleverly. By this film, they can barely be bothered to explain why stuff is so hard to get into and often the skip actually showing you anything of the sort. They break into like four or five secure locations, it meant nothing by the end. They literally don't even show the last break in. It was absurd. A character actually says at one point that breaking into this one building will be harder than Langley. Its good to know that there are buildings out there in the private sector that are more difficult to break into than the headquarters of the CIA. Apparenlty the CIA is a cake walk in the world of b and e.
Well in conclusion, this movie was ridiculous. Of course the reality is, if you want to see this movie, nothing I say will change your mind, and if you had no intention of seeing it, then you didn't need my two cents worth. Still I felt the need to get it off my chest as it were. Here's hoping for no future Mission: Impossibles or would it be Missions: Impossible?
School Getting In The Way, Again
Hello, faithful reader, or more accurately, reader, who hates their job and uses anything, even my sad little reviews to waste company money. End of semester concerns have held me up from writing anything for a while. But believe me I have still been seeing movies. Unfortunately I can't recall much about them so some of these coming reviews may be a bit brief.
Friday, April 21, 2006
Kansas City Shuffle
Lucky Number Slevin starts out with Bruce Willis explaining to someone what a Kansas City Shuffle is. The movie tells you up front what it is and even if it didn't you would be able to figure it out. As long as you have an iota of intelligence and also didn't doze off in the middle, not one element of this movie is surprising. Despite all that, it is still quite entertaining.
This movie has a lot of fun in the telling. In fact it has more fun in the telling that anything else. It has good actors having fun with enjoyable dialogue and an absurd plot hazy script. Most of the charm is oozed by Josh Hartnett as the unlucky Slevin. He wise cracks even when his situation seems rather dire, which really lets one know that despite it all, he is in control. The key point of these sort of bait and switch movies is not knowing what is happening and the genuine belief that what is happening to the lead guy is serious.
Here we have neither. This film is all about that sometimes optional sixth question of enquiry that we all learned in grade school. We know who, what, where, when and even why the events are taking place. We are not sure of the how it will go down and amazingly there is surprising entertainment in watching something so elaborate and absurd go down. There isn't really anyone in this movie who isn't chewing scenery like it was breakfast but I was still smiling throughout the film. This is just the kind of film you can watch, and probably re-watch again and again because it's just fun.
This movie has a lot of fun in the telling. In fact it has more fun in the telling that anything else. It has good actors having fun with enjoyable dialogue and an absurd plot hazy script. Most of the charm is oozed by Josh Hartnett as the unlucky Slevin. He wise cracks even when his situation seems rather dire, which really lets one know that despite it all, he is in control. The key point of these sort of bait and switch movies is not knowing what is happening and the genuine belief that what is happening to the lead guy is serious.
Here we have neither. This film is all about that sometimes optional sixth question of enquiry that we all learned in grade school. We know who, what, where, when and even why the events are taking place. We are not sure of the how it will go down and amazingly there is surprising entertainment in watching something so elaborate and absurd go down. There isn't really anyone in this movie who isn't chewing scenery like it was breakfast but I was still smiling throughout the film. This is just the kind of film you can watch, and probably re-watch again and again because it's just fun.
Wednesday, March 29, 2006
Inside Man
Heist movies have been done to death. We all know the basic idea behind them. Someone gets a brilliant plan, something goes wrong and the robber and a negotiator talk for time on end until a conclusion is reached. In Inside Man Lee doesn't actually move far away from this template. There are occasional moments of alteration and decent performances all around by the cast, but even then it often returns to an embarrassing cliche. In the end I found the movie still watchable but a great disappointment of my expectations.
There are some serious questions of morality and ethics brought up, but not a whole lot in the way of satisfactorily answering them. This movie is really about Clive Owen and Denzel Washington so much so that there isn't actually any reason that Willem Dafoe, Jodie Foster, and Chiwetel Ejiofer (an amazing new face in cinema) are in the movie. In as much as the chemistry of Owen and Washington, it is fun to watch but beyond it the movie is missing something. I can't be sure what.
There are some serious questions of morality and ethics brought up, but not a whole lot in the way of satisfactorily answering them. This movie is really about Clive Owen and Denzel Washington so much so that there isn't actually any reason that Willem Dafoe, Jodie Foster, and Chiwetel Ejiofer (an amazing new face in cinema) are in the movie. In as much as the chemistry of Owen and Washington, it is fun to watch but beyond it the movie is missing something. I can't be sure what.
Libertine
Johnny Depp is easily one of the best actors in cinema today and he always does an amazing job, but sometimes he picks roles because he feels they defy convention or the present interesting challenges for him as an actor. Unfortunately, that doesn't mean that the role is any good. The Libertine is one of those roles it seems like. Depp is crude and sexually overheated and a complete son of a bitch and for me utterly boring.
The point seems to be in this movie to utterly shock you with the actions of the sexually depraved 2nd Earl of Rochester John Wilmot. He was a real life 17th century earl who wrote raucous poetry. Plus is wholly uninteresting, at least as he is represented here. He has an affair with an actress played by the always delightful Samantha Morton and there is even a nice performance by Rosamund Pike as Wilmot's wife. None of the performances are bad, in fact all of them seem very technically proficient. But the story is so uninteresting that I didn't care. Wilmot states at the beginning that you will not like him and he is write I didn't like him. But I didn't hate him either. I was utterly nothing by him. The complete disinterest that he put in me made me disinterested in his story and everything else. And when it ended, I thought a good two hours of my life were gone and I would never get it back.
The point seems to be in this movie to utterly shock you with the actions of the sexually depraved 2nd Earl of Rochester John Wilmot. He was a real life 17th century earl who wrote raucous poetry. Plus is wholly uninteresting, at least as he is represented here. He has an affair with an actress played by the always delightful Samantha Morton and there is even a nice performance by Rosamund Pike as Wilmot's wife. None of the performances are bad, in fact all of them seem very technically proficient. But the story is so uninteresting that I didn't care. Wilmot states at the beginning that you will not like him and he is write I didn't like him. But I didn't hate him either. I was utterly nothing by him. The complete disinterest that he put in me made me disinterested in his story and everything else. And when it ended, I thought a good two hours of my life were gone and I would never get it back.
Failure To Be Good
As I've stated several times, I can sit down and enjoy a romantic comedy. Ninety-nine percent of the time they are completely obvious and cliched but usually the chemistry between the stars is interesting and of course the whole business is lighthearted. Sometimes, the filmmakers manage to make awful a fairly easy template to follow. Failure To Launch is on such case. It is a terribly uninteresting and unfunny romantic comedy. It isn't even terribly romantic. There is also a rather stupid inane allusion that if you aren't at peace with yourself, nature isn't at peace with you. This results in several unfunny scenes where an animal attacks Matthew McConaughey.
The story is a disaster of bad movie ideas, so we come to the actors, the only thing that could save this film. McConaughey is still playing that petulant, I don't want to grow up adult, that I've seen him play a thousand times now, or at least it feels that way. Sarah Jessica Parker is boring just like she was in last year's The Family Stone (2005). It seems clear that she shined most and brightest as Carrie Bradshaw in Sex And The City. Zooey Deschanel again plays her standard semi misanthropic Goth type which still has a strange allure for me, but doesn't save a film.
So, bad story: strike one. Unimpressive acting: strike two. Oh and the gratuitous and disturbing scene with a naked Terry Bradshaw. Well if that isn't strike three, what is?
The story is a disaster of bad movie ideas, so we come to the actors, the only thing that could save this film. McConaughey is still playing that petulant, I don't want to grow up adult, that I've seen him play a thousand times now, or at least it feels that way. Sarah Jessica Parker is boring just like she was in last year's The Family Stone (2005). It seems clear that she shined most and brightest as Carrie Bradshaw in Sex And The City. Zooey Deschanel again plays her standard semi misanthropic Goth type which still has a strange allure for me, but doesn't save a film.
So, bad story: strike one. Unimpressive acting: strike two. Oh and the gratuitous and disturbing scene with a naked Terry Bradshaw. Well if that isn't strike three, what is?
Monday, March 06, 2006
Oscar Aftermath
I never predicted winners for the Academy Awards. I never do, because it's not really about the best performance of the year, it's a popularity contest. I picked the people I thought should win, based on that standard that the Academy claims to use: Excellence. I thought Terrence Howard by far had the best performance of the nominated men, but I'm not terribly upset that Philip Seymour Hoffman won. He is talented and was very good in Capote (2005). Clooney's win was clearly not for his performance in Syriana (2005) but for his work on Good Night, and Good Luck (2005), which they decided not to honor unfortunately. Matt Dillon or Paul Giamatti probably should have won, but my own favorite William Hurt was phenomenal for the ten minutes he was on screen.
With regard to actresses, Reese Witherspoon won and I'm happy that it happened, I on a coin flip picked Keira Knightley but after much thought think, Reese Witherspoon had the better performance. It was not, however, better than Felicity Huffman's role in Transamerica (2005). I didn't see all of the female supporting acting noms, so I'll just hope that the Academy was right to give it to Rachel Weisz, but she must have been something to beat out Amy Adams who was the one great thing about Junebug (2005). I'll conclude with the belief that Crash (2005) won more out of white liberal guilt than any actual quality.
With regard to actresses, Reese Witherspoon won and I'm happy that it happened, I on a coin flip picked Keira Knightley but after much thought think, Reese Witherspoon had the better performance. It was not, however, better than Felicity Huffman's role in Transamerica (2005). I didn't see all of the female supporting acting noms, so I'll just hope that the Academy was right to give it to Rachel Weisz, but she must have been something to beat out Amy Adams who was the one great thing about Junebug (2005). I'll conclude with the belief that Crash (2005) won more out of white liberal guilt than any actual quality.
Sunday, March 05, 2006
Vamps in the Future?!!?
I confess that when I saw the trailer for Ultraviolet I said to myself, "wow, that looks so bad I have to see it". I had no idea what it was about, in fact based on the early part of the trailer I was almost sure it was Resident Evil 3, but then I remembered that Milla Jovovich's name in Resident Evil was Alice not Violet. As it turns out Ultraviolet is about supernatural creatures, but not zombies, vampires.
As I watched the opening scene, one of the characters calls some recently killed men, "hemophages" and being the Classics dork that I am, I said to myself "blood eaters? so, they are vampires?" And sure enough not much later someone calls them vampires. Now these aren't your typical vampires, these are vampires that are caused by a virus and who can run around in daylight. What is the deal in cinema today that all the supernatural creatures have to be explained by a virus? Zombies are a virus (ala Resident Evil (2002)) and even Vampires are a virus (ala Blade (1998)).
I guess in a futuristic sci-fi film, you can't have ultimate evil. Still the film does combine two genres that I wasn't expecting, vampires and science fiction. Oh and did I mention it combines them badly. This movie is awful. It's so bad that it almost transcends it being terrible and becomes good, but it doesn't. There is technology in this world that is never explained, nor is the chronology of when this is taking place firmly set down. In some ways, mostly the bad ones, it reminded me of last year's Aeon Flux (2005).
That movie too was a ridiculous action fest centered around a disease and an oppressive dictatorial regime. To the credit of Ultraviolet it was actually more entertaining and less annoyingly pseudo-philosophic than Aeon Flux. It provided plenty of fight scenes and gun duels and neat special effects. Some of the special effects however, were horribly bad giving the impression of a mid 90s video game with block figures and all.
In the end all the bad acting, bad f/x, bad storyline and just general awfulness add up to a real winner of a film. It's like a comic book/supernatural/sci-fi geeks wet dream. Which is to say if you aren't all three of those to an extreme, you'll find this movie boring and indulgent.
As I watched the opening scene, one of the characters calls some recently killed men, "hemophages" and being the Classics dork that I am, I said to myself "blood eaters? so, they are vampires?" And sure enough not much later someone calls them vampires. Now these aren't your typical vampires, these are vampires that are caused by a virus and who can run around in daylight. What is the deal in cinema today that all the supernatural creatures have to be explained by a virus? Zombies are a virus (ala Resident Evil (2002)) and even Vampires are a virus (ala Blade (1998)).
I guess in a futuristic sci-fi film, you can't have ultimate evil. Still the film does combine two genres that I wasn't expecting, vampires and science fiction. Oh and did I mention it combines them badly. This movie is awful. It's so bad that it almost transcends it being terrible and becomes good, but it doesn't. There is technology in this world that is never explained, nor is the chronology of when this is taking place firmly set down. In some ways, mostly the bad ones, it reminded me of last year's Aeon Flux (2005).
That movie too was a ridiculous action fest centered around a disease and an oppressive dictatorial regime. To the credit of Ultraviolet it was actually more entertaining and less annoyingly pseudo-philosophic than Aeon Flux. It provided plenty of fight scenes and gun duels and neat special effects. Some of the special effects however, were horribly bad giving the impression of a mid 90s video game with block figures and all.
In the end all the bad acting, bad f/x, bad storyline and just general awfulness add up to a real winner of a film. It's like a comic book/supernatural/sci-fi geeks wet dream. Which is to say if you aren't all three of those to an extreme, you'll find this movie boring and indulgent.
Vamps in Russia
At first I was shocked that the most successful movie in Russian film history is so mediocre. But considering both Star Wars: Episode 1 - The Phantom Menace (1999) and Star Wars: Episode 3 - Revenge of the Sith (2005) are in the top ten domestic box office, I guess Americans aren't too savvy either. To its credit, Night Watch (2004) tries hard and sometimes succeeds.
It provides a fantastic dark, dirty atmosphere of a Russian city that is powerful. I felt the desperation that the Warriors of Light were facing in a world that finds it "easier to kill the light within, than it is to overcome the darkness without." However, the story is a bit erratic and the acting wooden. It is a movie that is desperately trying to be more than a big budget action flick which I applaud, but it fails. It could have done with a bit more action and less mind numbing dialogue, which didn't make sense anyway because the writer was trying to create his own cosmology.
Most peculiarly, was the head bad guy's playing some bizarre Playstation type game that was apparently predicting the future. I found it a bit odd that the lord of all evil on earth was apparently addicted to video games. There is a reveal near the end of the film which is fully telegraphed from almost the beginning of the movie. There was an interesting dynamic between the main character Anton (Konstantin Khabensky) and his neighbor Kostya (Aleksei Chadov). The antagonism between them boils over mid film and no doubt will play in the later two films.
The film is open ended due to the fact that the film was conceived in three parts and the sequel is soon on the way. It had a decently put together ending if not entirely original that made me at least curious to see what happens next. Hopefully freed from all the necessary first film expository dialogue it will flow better than this film.
It provides a fantastic dark, dirty atmosphere of a Russian city that is powerful. I felt the desperation that the Warriors of Light were facing in a world that finds it "easier to kill the light within, than it is to overcome the darkness without." However, the story is a bit erratic and the acting wooden. It is a movie that is desperately trying to be more than a big budget action flick which I applaud, but it fails. It could have done with a bit more action and less mind numbing dialogue, which didn't make sense anyway because the writer was trying to create his own cosmology.
Most peculiarly, was the head bad guy's playing some bizarre Playstation type game that was apparently predicting the future. I found it a bit odd that the lord of all evil on earth was apparently addicted to video games. There is a reveal near the end of the film which is fully telegraphed from almost the beginning of the movie. There was an interesting dynamic between the main character Anton (Konstantin Khabensky) and his neighbor Kostya (Aleksei Chadov). The antagonism between them boils over mid film and no doubt will play in the later two films.
The film is open ended due to the fact that the film was conceived in three parts and the sequel is soon on the way. It had a decently put together ending if not entirely original that made me at least curious to see what happens next. Hopefully freed from all the necessary first film expository dialogue it will flow better than this film.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)