I hate Dane Cook. I don't think he is funny. Jessica Alba has no talent save her beauty (well maybe that isn't true but she certainly doesn't have acting talent). Romantic comedies are frequently cliched paint by number scripts with forced notions of love and romance followed by an obligatory and forced temporary break up. Given all this, you might be wondering what in the world would have compelled me to go see Good Luck Chuck.
And sadly I don't have a very satisfying answer to that question. Maybe its my near drug like dependency on movies such that even being at a bad movie still means I'm in a movie. Maybe my natural pessimistic disposition is offset by a deep rooted idealist theory that every movie no matter how bad it may look should at least be given the opportunity to prove that it is more. Maybe its just on a Sunday night when I'm too lazy to do anything else and my choices on television are a plethora of crap, I think maybe spending ten dollars on a bad movie isn't any worse.
For whatever perverse reason I did go see Good Luck Chuck and I know feel the need to let you all know just how bad it was. Chuck is a dentist (that's right I have trouble being convinced that Dane Cook could practice a medical profession as well). Chuck has intimacy issues and apparently a curse on him such that women who date him find their true love the next time they date. Egged on by his best friend played by Dan Fogler, who plays a creepy plastic surgeon obsessed with women's breasts and seems fairly misogynistic, Chuck begins to use his curse to his advantage by sleeping with numerous women.
But Chuck meets Jessica Alba and decides he likes her so much he could commit to her. Now of course he is worried about the curse and does what he can to remove it. And in a bizarre turn he becomes a creepy stalker type who somehow despite all that manages to win the girl back by the credits. For a movie that wants to be a sweet romantic comedy there seems to be a lot of very strong misogyny involved especially against women who are overweight. The fairly dreadful actors fumble through their fairly dreadful script and I was out of the theater and trying to think warm happy thoughts about good movies just after the credits started.
Saturday, September 29, 2007
Eastern Promises
After a teenage girl is brought to the hospital and dies giving birth to a child, the hospital midwife Anna (Naomi Watts) taking into her possession the girl's diary attempts to track down some family for the new child. She gets her uncle (I've heard several make reference to it being her father, but it is not) to start translating the diary from Russian and follows a lead of a business card to a local restaurant. The restaurant is owned by Semyon (Armin Mueller-Stahl) who also happens to be a fairly powerful and ruthless Russian mob boss. As Naomi begins to understand what is going on she realizes she is in a very dangerous situation. She has also caught the eye for inexplicable reasons of Nikolai (Viggo Mortensen), a driver for Semyon and his son Kirill (Vincent Cassel). The film plays out as Nikolai aids Anna in small ways as she looks to uncover what happened to the girl who died.
Beyond anything else it seems this film is about Nikolai played brilliantly by Mortensen. He is understated and a layer of mystery surrounds him. How did he end up as a driver/body guard for Kirill? Why does he take so much interest in Anna? It is stated that a Russian mobster's story is written in tatoos, so what story do Nikolai's tatoos tell? We get some answers to these questions but not all the answers and maybe not even satisfactory answer and I love that aspect of this film. Yes he has a past but does any of that bear relevance on the moment at hand? Not really and so it isn't discussed.
The second amazing thing about the film is a fight sequence late in the film. Graphic and brutal and desperate and all done with Nikolai in the nude. And the point in all the graphicness and brutality is that it is shot in a specific way. It is not choreographed to hide bits of the male anatomy, in fact Nikolai is quite naked and at his most vulnerable and its all visible on screen.
And yet in the end I'm not sure how I feel about this film. Because there is a plot twist late in the film that I didn't much care for. It just made Nikolai slightly less interesting in my eyes and for me this film was made or broke on how interesting he is. Watts is so uninteresting in this film. Vincent Cassel is a bit over the top and Mueller-Stahl seems to be trying to evoke a monster under the guise of a charming restaurant owner but he just always comes off as vaguely creepy to me in every scene.
So in the end I like Viggo and what he does with this role. Some of the story telling elements aren't that interesting but in the end that doesn't detract to much from what works and so its worth seeing for that.
Beyond anything else it seems this film is about Nikolai played brilliantly by Mortensen. He is understated and a layer of mystery surrounds him. How did he end up as a driver/body guard for Kirill? Why does he take so much interest in Anna? It is stated that a Russian mobster's story is written in tatoos, so what story do Nikolai's tatoos tell? We get some answers to these questions but not all the answers and maybe not even satisfactory answer and I love that aspect of this film. Yes he has a past but does any of that bear relevance on the moment at hand? Not really and so it isn't discussed.
The second amazing thing about the film is a fight sequence late in the film. Graphic and brutal and desperate and all done with Nikolai in the nude. And the point in all the graphicness and brutality is that it is shot in a specific way. It is not choreographed to hide bits of the male anatomy, in fact Nikolai is quite naked and at his most vulnerable and its all visible on screen.
And yet in the end I'm not sure how I feel about this film. Because there is a plot twist late in the film that I didn't much care for. It just made Nikolai slightly less interesting in my eyes and for me this film was made or broke on how interesting he is. Watts is so uninteresting in this film. Vincent Cassel is a bit over the top and Mueller-Stahl seems to be trying to evoke a monster under the guise of a charming restaurant owner but he just always comes off as vaguely creepy to me in every scene.
So in the end I like Viggo and what he does with this role. Some of the story telling elements aren't that interesting but in the end that doesn't detract to much from what works and so its worth seeing for that.
The Kingdom
Peter Berg is an odd duck to say the least. Just take a glance at his films and you will see that he directs films all over the map. Very Bad Things which I can't honestly remember very well except that I was not that happy with it when it was over (maybe it deserves a second viewing), came first. Then there was The Rundown, a movie so absurd that its opening sequence involved Arnold Schwarzenagger literally saying good luck as he symbolically passed the action movie star persona to Dwayne "the Rock" Johnson. Then there was Friday Night Lights a pretty standard cut from the mold underdog sports story. And now we have The Kingdom. What motivates a man to direct a black comedy followed by a by the numbers action film, then a sports underdog story and finally a police procedural set in the oddest of locales?
After a series of bombings in Saudi Arabia at an American living compound, a team of FBI agents led by Ronald Fleury (Jamie Foxx) heads to Saudi Arabia to investigate the crime. There the team must deal with the bureaucratic rules that forbid them to touch evidence and the loop holes they must jump through to get to their job. They are accompanied by a protective guard led by Faris Al Ghazi (Ashraf Barhom) who is sympathetic to their search for evidence but is restricted by his own duties. Eventually Fleury is able to get access to the evidence and Al Ghazi is made head of the investigation. The procedural part of the film shows the team finding evidence and tracking down leads until they find some involved parties. This then leads into the final act of the film, an intense firefight between Fleury's team and the terrorists.
Was it a perfect film? Not exactly. The film started with a slightly unnecessary prologue on the history of Saudi Arabia and its relationship to the United States and I didn't think much of Danny Huston's evil Attorney General. A large part of the film is devoted to the slowly building relationship between Fleury and Al Ghazi which was quite well done but when it got into the procedural aspect it was pretty dull and largely superficial. The film really gets going when the team's convoy is attacked and it leads to an intense firefight. Of course it may bend reality a bit at times as five people attack and overcome an entire building full of the terrorists and at times I wondered where they kept getting ammo for their weapons from. Still the violence is graphic but effective and you can't help but think the whole act was well done.
The film ends with some obligatory scenes, in my opinion a little heavy handed. There is some forced antagonism between Fleury and his team for Al Ghazi which I don't think was necessary. Overall though this was an entertaining enough film on a topic that is by no means an easy one to tackle.
After a series of bombings in Saudi Arabia at an American living compound, a team of FBI agents led by Ronald Fleury (Jamie Foxx) heads to Saudi Arabia to investigate the crime. There the team must deal with the bureaucratic rules that forbid them to touch evidence and the loop holes they must jump through to get to their job. They are accompanied by a protective guard led by Faris Al Ghazi (Ashraf Barhom) who is sympathetic to their search for evidence but is restricted by his own duties. Eventually Fleury is able to get access to the evidence and Al Ghazi is made head of the investigation. The procedural part of the film shows the team finding evidence and tracking down leads until they find some involved parties. This then leads into the final act of the film, an intense firefight between Fleury's team and the terrorists.
Was it a perfect film? Not exactly. The film started with a slightly unnecessary prologue on the history of Saudi Arabia and its relationship to the United States and I didn't think much of Danny Huston's evil Attorney General. A large part of the film is devoted to the slowly building relationship between Fleury and Al Ghazi which was quite well done but when it got into the procedural aspect it was pretty dull and largely superficial. The film really gets going when the team's convoy is attacked and it leads to an intense firefight. Of course it may bend reality a bit at times as five people attack and overcome an entire building full of the terrorists and at times I wondered where they kept getting ammo for their weapons from. Still the violence is graphic but effective and you can't help but think the whole act was well done.
The film ends with some obligatory scenes, in my opinion a little heavy handed. There is some forced antagonism between Fleury and his team for Al Ghazi which I don't think was necessary. Overall though this was an entertaining enough film on a topic that is by no means an easy one to tackle.
Thursday, September 20, 2007
Movie Idiot walks through a guide to the movies.
Usually every year I grab a copy of the Fall movie preview published by Entertainment Weekly. Sadly this year I missed my opportunity. But never fear faithful reader because I’ve seen a lot of trailers and I picked up a movie facts pamphlet at the theater, so let us see what is being offered (presumably by those willing to pay to have their movie pimped out in a movie facts pamphlet.
Across the Universe – I basically despise all musicals and truth be told I’m not exactly an ecstatic Beatles fan. So I honestly can’t tell you why I want to see this movie but I’ve watched the trailer several times and I’m filled with a desire to go see it.
American Gangster – Yes Denzel, Yes Russell Crowe in a stylized crime/police drama that I will no doubt see and likely enjoy but I’m not exactly waiting on pins and needles for this one.
Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford – A western (one of the two film genre’s my dad raised me on – the other being Tough As Nails Lone Cop gets the bad guy films i.e. Death Wish and Dirty Harry) and it stars Casey Affleck who is probably a better actor than his famous brother. Yeah, Brad Pitt is in it too but who cares. Mentioning the Afflecks remind me that Gone Baby Gone is coming out soon too, which intrigues me.
August Rush – Freddie Highmore, Robin Williams, Keri Russell, Jonathan Rhys Meyers and a preview that makes me nauseas from the melodrama. Pass.
Dan In Real Life – Steve Carrell is big right now. So are family style dramas along the lines of Little Miss Sunshine. Maybe I’ll rent it…maybe.
Feast of Love – This film preview actually made me gag more than August Rush.
Rendition – Topical? Yes. Can films be interesting introductions to dialogues of current events? Sure. Does this preview feel like a heavy handed leftist take on current politics? Yes. I think it has something to do with the way Meryl Streep plays the unforgiving politician.
The Brave One
Get to know me even a little and you will figure out pretty quickly that I’ll pretty much see any movie. I’ll go see a movie I don’t expect to like (Nacho Libre). I’ll go see a movie I know I’ll hate (All three Saw films, and yes I’ll probably see the fourth film). I swore after seeing Hostel that if Hostel 2 was made that I would stay far away from it, but yeah I saw Hostel 2. But there are movies that I have never seen for a reason as simple as the fact that the preview did nothing more than made me shrug and say eh.
The Brave One was a preview that didn’t inspire anything. For one thing I saw the preview at the same time I saw a preview for the new Kevin Bacon film and suddenly I figured revenge films were this year’s Disaster flick (think Deep Impact/Armageddon). Plus Jodie Foster pretty much under whelmed me in her last outing. So in truth I had no plans to see it. Until someone let me know that student affairs office had arranged for any student to see a free movie at a local theater and this movie idiot can’t pass up free.
Jodie Foster is Erica Bain, a radio personality who tells anecdotal stories about
At first the film felt a bit hard to get into. The characterization a bit weak especially the relationship but it grew on me. It isn’t unproblematic. There is a bizarre choice to contrast brutal violence with extreme intimacy early in the film which seemed to serve no purpose in my opinion. There is also an extreme leap between nearly agoraphobic traumatic shock to the stolid determination that a gun will keep her safe. But that being said once that is out of the way, the film settles into a bizarre mix of thriller, police procedural and analysis of bruised psyches.
Now the theater was filled with a few obnoxious patrons who were cheering the action sequences, which is an odd reaction to a film that seems to want to inspire discussion about the issues it raises. And yet will only resonate with these viewers as really fun action sequences. The debate might be superficial and bit forced but it definitely feels a bit heavy handed on that front and despite all that they still missed it. But that isn’t what really makes the movie, what makes the film is the relationship of its two main characters.
At its core are two superb performances by Foster and Terrence Howard as the cop who is investigating the vigilante murders. They form a bizarrely wounded friendship, discussing loss, crime and justice. There is one particularly powerful scene late in the movie at a diner. It involves revelations, call backs to earlier conversations and a very fantastic sense of finality. This leads into a fast paced finale that promises to make this go down as a fantastic film. And then.
I really, really wish there wasn’t an and then. But there is. Does a character do something one would never expect him/her to do? Unfortunately. Does the climax of the film seem to contradict the power of the aforementioned diner scene? Sadly, yes. If not for the ending to this movie, this very well might have been one of my top five favorites of the year, it may still make top ten but it is just so disappointing of an ending that I can almost not forgive it.
Still it’s a film definitely worth seeing, especially for that diner scene (can you tell I really liked the diner scene?). But maybe with my warning you don’t put much faith in a fantastic ending. Or maybe you walk out of the theater at just the right moment. You’ll know it when it happens and that is the time to run. Or maybe you stay and disagree with me but I wish it could have delivered a better ending.
Thursday, August 30, 2007
War
Of all the movies I thought that I would be seeing when I went to see War, the one I got was a bit of a surprise. If you've seen the trailer you probably immediately decided this was a film to skip. Unless you are like me who watches films sometimes merely to be in the theater. Admittedly I on occasion like a mindless martial arts film. This one could have standed to be a bit more mindless. When I go see a movie starring Jet Li and Jason Statham I expect to see something like all those old Jean Claude Van Damme movies not the worst adaptation of Yojimbo I have ever seen.
I actually started to pay attention about half an hour into the film and realized I was just watching yet another rehash of a Kurosowa film. You know Hollywood has gotten lazy when it resorts to not just remaking films already made but remaking films that were remakes of films that were remakes of films already made. Yojimbo was a good movie. Sergio Leone's reimagining into A Fistful of Dollars was a good film. In all honesty I like it better because the old west has more appeal as a subject matter perhaps because I grew up on John Wayne and Clint Eastwood.
Then there was Last Man Standing a travesty of a film starring Bruce Willis and Christopher Walken and really you have to try to make a film starring Bruce Willis and Christopher Walken a travesty. And now we have War. The worst adaptation to date.
I actually started to pay attention about half an hour into the film and realized I was just watching yet another rehash of a Kurosowa film. You know Hollywood has gotten lazy when it resorts to not just remaking films already made but remaking films that were remakes of films that were remakes of films already made. Yojimbo was a good movie. Sergio Leone's reimagining into A Fistful of Dollars was a good film. In all honesty I like it better because the old west has more appeal as a subject matter perhaps because I grew up on John Wayne and Clint Eastwood.
Then there was Last Man Standing a travesty of a film starring Bruce Willis and Christopher Walken and really you have to try to make a film starring Bruce Willis and Christopher Walken a travesty. And now we have War. The worst adaptation to date.
Wednesday, August 29, 2007
Nannies, teen comedies and buddy cop movies
I'm always disappointed when I see a movie and it doesn't inspire me to write something. Bad movies make me want to rant, good movies make me want to rant. Movies such as The Nanny Diaries, Superbad and Rush Hour 3 inspired nothing. Superbad had its moments but wasn't terribly funny. Rush Hour 3 was well bad, but I accepted that going in and only saw it out of some bizarre completionist notion. If you are wondering why I saw Nanny Diaries well all I can say is I once set a goal to see every Scarlett Johansson film. May I suggest never setting such a goal as she just isn't that impressive of an actress. Here's hoping the next film I see inspires me.
Monday, August 27, 2007
Happy, Happy, Joy, Joy
All summer long the fantastic independent theater here in Durham was closed for renovations. This is the theater that permitted me to see Aliens and Day of the Dead. Now it is back open and I have gotten an email informing me of some upcoming films and events.
- STAR TREK II: THE WRATH OF KHAN
- TRON
- THE MONSTER SQUAD Cast Reunion
Monday, August 13, 2007
Stardust
In any given year I see a great deal of movies. I have averaged about 75 movies in the theater for several years now. In addition I rent many movies, watch dvds I own and even when cable is made available to me watch movies on tv. Now as you can imagine that means I see a lot of crap. Nothing can explain why in good conscience I paid to see Hot Rod as a recent example. And once there was the horrendous night I watched Mission to Mars and Reindeer Games, one after the other. Gary Sinise, if you are reading I expect compensation for that slow torture.
Oh, I've had my fair share of rewards as well. Children of Men and Brick were both fantastic to watch. Bourne Ultimatum recently had me smiling from ear to ear. But rarer than that is a movie that I am truly and genuinely floored by. Now these movies don't come every year (sad to say). These are also movies that are not necessarily the most proficient films out there. At times they are even disappointing to me on a second viewing. I can't explain it, maybe its something about the atmosphere of a darkened auditorium and the general joy I get from movies that combine for a truly heart pleasing experience.
Now the reason I am ranting in such a way is because I had such an experience last night, made all the more memorable by the fact that I watched Becoming Jane afterwards. But the second movie actually didn't have any influence on what I thought of the first because I was already thinking about what I wanted to say about Stardust as I drove to the next theater which was on the other side of town (I even got stuck in construction traffic which gave me lots of time to think). Stardust is a movie that caused a rare reaction in me. Where I walk out of the theater and seriously consider purchasing another ticket to watch it again. I'm even considering going back to the theater tonight.
Critics have called Stardust genre defying which I think is just daft. Its a fairy tale. That is its genre. As such the things you would expect, it has. Wicked witch? Check. Evil nemesis? Check. Dashing pirate? Check (sort of, we will get back to that). Beautiful damsel in distress? Check. Dashing hero? Check. What to me makes fairytale subjects such great movies is that you can endlessly tell variations on the same theme. Kind of like jazz (or at least as I understand jazz, apologies to jazz lovers who think I have horribly misrepresented that genre of music).
Synopsis, short and sweet. Tristran (Charlie Cox) is a boy who works in a shop and who pines for the shallow Victoria (Sienna Miller) who thinks he is a shop boy (yes there is a difference between a shop boy and a boy who works in a shop). Tristran promises her he will bring her a fallen star for her love and off he sets to a magical kingdom. There he meets Yvaine (Claire Danes), the star and they journey back to his village. But an evil witch, Lamia (Michelle Pfeiffer) and nefarious prince Septimus (Mark Strong) each want Yvaine for their own purposes. Along the way Tristran and Yvaine run across Shakespeare (DeNiro) as a gruff and tough pirate who happens to be secretly a gay cross dresser.
Now there isn't any question as to how this film will turn out and in truth if you have slightly more than a passing knowledge of fairy tales you can pretty much plot out the major things that have to be accomplished in this film. But all that is irrelevant because what makes a fairy tale good is not its unique storyline but rather how it plays on those age old themes. Maybe another reason fairy tales are so good is because they are black and white and good always triumphs (and especially love). Of course we live in world where very little is black and white (despite what the president says). I could list off tens of reasons why fairy tales are great almost all no doubt would sound like sappy half answers to some. So lets get back to Stardust.
The performances are all proficient if not spectacular. DeNiro seems to be having a field day with his character and you can't help but have a good time when he is on screen. Danes is beautiful and quick witted (having that beauty with a bite that I love so well in my screen actresses (the very reason no one will ever be able to tell me Julia Stiles in 10 Things I Hate About You wasn't brilliant)). Ricky Gervais' role is hysterical as a slimy salesman. Pfeiffer revels in her wicked witch as you would expect. Of course none of that would matter if the leads didn't shine (no pun intended there since at times Danes does actually shine in the film). Cox and Danes have great chemistry.
Even knowing deep down how it would end, the film pulled me in. Thus I was anxious when the leads were in danger and happy when the pair are reunited. To sum up this film in a word, I would say 'charming'. It turned what was an average day into a truly pleasant day. Which is why Stardust may not be the best movie of the year, but it is my favorite movie of the year.
Oh, I've had my fair share of rewards as well. Children of Men and Brick were both fantastic to watch. Bourne Ultimatum recently had me smiling from ear to ear. But rarer than that is a movie that I am truly and genuinely floored by. Now these movies don't come every year (sad to say). These are also movies that are not necessarily the most proficient films out there. At times they are even disappointing to me on a second viewing. I can't explain it, maybe its something about the atmosphere of a darkened auditorium and the general joy I get from movies that combine for a truly heart pleasing experience.
Now the reason I am ranting in such a way is because I had such an experience last night, made all the more memorable by the fact that I watched Becoming Jane afterwards. But the second movie actually didn't have any influence on what I thought of the first because I was already thinking about what I wanted to say about Stardust as I drove to the next theater which was on the other side of town (I even got stuck in construction traffic which gave me lots of time to think). Stardust is a movie that caused a rare reaction in me. Where I walk out of the theater and seriously consider purchasing another ticket to watch it again. I'm even considering going back to the theater tonight.
Critics have called Stardust genre defying which I think is just daft. Its a fairy tale. That is its genre. As such the things you would expect, it has. Wicked witch? Check. Evil nemesis? Check. Dashing pirate? Check (sort of, we will get back to that). Beautiful damsel in distress? Check. Dashing hero? Check. What to me makes fairytale subjects such great movies is that you can endlessly tell variations on the same theme. Kind of like jazz (or at least as I understand jazz, apologies to jazz lovers who think I have horribly misrepresented that genre of music).
Synopsis, short and sweet. Tristran (Charlie Cox) is a boy who works in a shop and who pines for the shallow Victoria (Sienna Miller) who thinks he is a shop boy (yes there is a difference between a shop boy and a boy who works in a shop). Tristran promises her he will bring her a fallen star for her love and off he sets to a magical kingdom. There he meets Yvaine (Claire Danes), the star and they journey back to his village. But an evil witch, Lamia (Michelle Pfeiffer) and nefarious prince Septimus (Mark Strong) each want Yvaine for their own purposes. Along the way Tristran and Yvaine run across Shakespeare (DeNiro) as a gruff and tough pirate who happens to be secretly a gay cross dresser.
Now there isn't any question as to how this film will turn out and in truth if you have slightly more than a passing knowledge of fairy tales you can pretty much plot out the major things that have to be accomplished in this film. But all that is irrelevant because what makes a fairy tale good is not its unique storyline but rather how it plays on those age old themes. Maybe another reason fairy tales are so good is because they are black and white and good always triumphs (and especially love). Of course we live in world where very little is black and white (despite what the president says). I could list off tens of reasons why fairy tales are great almost all no doubt would sound like sappy half answers to some. So lets get back to Stardust.
The performances are all proficient if not spectacular. DeNiro seems to be having a field day with his character and you can't help but have a good time when he is on screen. Danes is beautiful and quick witted (having that beauty with a bite that I love so well in my screen actresses (the very reason no one will ever be able to tell me Julia Stiles in 10 Things I Hate About You wasn't brilliant)). Ricky Gervais' role is hysterical as a slimy salesman. Pfeiffer revels in her wicked witch as you would expect. Of course none of that would matter if the leads didn't shine (no pun intended there since at times Danes does actually shine in the film). Cox and Danes have great chemistry.
Even knowing deep down how it would end, the film pulled me in. Thus I was anxious when the leads were in danger and happy when the pair are reunited. To sum up this film in a word, I would say 'charming'. It turned what was an average day into a truly pleasant day. Which is why Stardust may not be the best movie of the year, but it is my favorite movie of the year.
Becoming Jane
As a fan of Jane Austen's Pride and Prejudice (both the book and the most recent adaptation into a movie), I held low key hopes for the fictionalized accounting of her life. Not that the preview was particularly astounding. But it did star the beautiful Anne Hathaway and up and coming James McAvoy who was quite accomplished in The Last King of Scotland. As I said the movie is a fictionalized accounting of Austen's life of which we know very little (or so I am told). The film follows the Shakespeare In Love formula by depicting events as being the real life motivation for characters and actions in her novels.
The problem is that this film doesn't make Jane Austen or her characters more interesting. If in fact her plots were just taken from her life and the characters she met then that takes away from Austen's talent and it makes a character like Elizabeth Bennet...well not creative at all. The script seems to adhere to the adage "write what you know" which I think should get the reaction from writers that "if you can't do, teach" gets from teachers. Outrage, pure and unadulterated outrage that what they do could be dismissed as merely something they can do because they have experienced it which if were true would mean anyone in the world could be a writer.
But beyond what the movie is saying about the real Jane Austen, the character in the movie is about as poorly developed as the information we have on the real Austen's life. We have no sense of why she writes, her relationship with her family is barely fleshed out and her motivation for falling for LeFroy (McAvoy) is a downright mystery. The film stumbles over itself trying to get to an end which can satisfy the requirement that of course Austen remained single for her short life. It may satisfy that requirement but it doesn't satisfy as an ending or a film.
The problem is that this film doesn't make Jane Austen or her characters more interesting. If in fact her plots were just taken from her life and the characters she met then that takes away from Austen's talent and it makes a character like Elizabeth Bennet...well not creative at all. The script seems to adhere to the adage "write what you know" which I think should get the reaction from writers that "if you can't do, teach" gets from teachers. Outrage, pure and unadulterated outrage that what they do could be dismissed as merely something they can do because they have experienced it which if were true would mean anyone in the world could be a writer.
But beyond what the movie is saying about the real Jane Austen, the character in the movie is about as poorly developed as the information we have on the real Austen's life. We have no sense of why she writes, her relationship with her family is barely fleshed out and her motivation for falling for LeFroy (McAvoy) is a downright mystery. The film stumbles over itself trying to get to an end which can satisfy the requirement that of course Austen remained single for her short life. It may satisfy that requirement but it doesn't satisfy as an ending or a film.
Friday, August 10, 2007
A War You Won't Believe
No this is not a rant about Iraq. This is a review of 1982 classic Sly vehicle First Blood. Some might question how in good conscience I could watch in the same night Butch Cassidy and First Blood. Well it was late, and I wanted something short and mindless with lots of action. Some might question how I can in good conscience be so critical of a film like Live Free or Die Hard and yet openly praise a film like First Blood.
But First Blood doesn't get complex. Its setup is barely longer than the opening credits. Stallone plays John Rambo, Vietnam vet passing through a small town in the Pacific Northwest. Brian Dennehy plays Will Teasle, local sheriff who doesn't like Rambo's look and helps him pass quickly through town. Rambo doesn't like being pushed or told what he can't do, he's quickly arrested and abused by one of the deputies. Rambo cracks, escapes the police and a manhunt begins. That's it. There isn't much more to it than that. You can empathize with Rambo but you understand the police response. It isn't complicated, it might not be believable but it isn't complicated.
Once they action starts it keeps a good pace throughout the film. And amazingly its an action film that only has one death which is only partly Rambo's fault. It falters a bit in the end and is really strained by Stallone's monologue but overall I find it is a sound action film. Overshadowed by the more ostentatious and less satisfying sequels (and another one on the way), First Blood is admirable. Anytime I want a short fun action film, I'm glad this one is in my collection.
But First Blood doesn't get complex. Its setup is barely longer than the opening credits. Stallone plays John Rambo, Vietnam vet passing through a small town in the Pacific Northwest. Brian Dennehy plays Will Teasle, local sheriff who doesn't like Rambo's look and helps him pass quickly through town. Rambo doesn't like being pushed or told what he can't do, he's quickly arrested and abused by one of the deputies. Rambo cracks, escapes the police and a manhunt begins. That's it. There isn't much more to it than that. You can empathize with Rambo but you understand the police response. It isn't complicated, it might not be believable but it isn't complicated.
Once they action starts it keeps a good pace throughout the film. And amazingly its an action film that only has one death which is only partly Rambo's fault. It falters a bit in the end and is really strained by Stallone's monologue but overall I find it is a sound action film. Overshadowed by the more ostentatious and less satisfying sequels (and another one on the way), First Blood is admirable. Anytime I want a short fun action film, I'm glad this one is in my collection.
An Academy Runner-Up
In 1970 at the Academy Awards Midnight Cowboy took home the award for best picture. It has been a while since I've seen that film but my recollection of it makes me think the Academy did a fine job in their choice. I re-watched fellow nominee Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid. It is bizarre to watch a movie that was rewarded and loved and realize that it was almost universally panned by critics when it was released. It kind of makes you wonder about being a critic.
I'm not a historian of film. I can't tell you if this movie represented a milestone in film making. I'm not terribly attuned to style. I can't tell you if they way it was edited and shot was revolutionary. I'm just an idiot who likes to see movies good and bad. And I think this is one of the good ones. Butch Cassidy (Paul Newman) leads the Hole in the Wall Gang. He robs banks and trains and is followed by his friend The Sundance Kid (Robert Redford). Times are getting tough. Butch is getting older, his gang isn't as obedient any more. Banks are getting harder to rob and he is bringing more attention to himself. Butch is thinking about getting out accompanied by his faithful friend.
When a super posse is hired to track Butch and Sundance down, the two decide wisely to get out of town and wind up in Bolivia. In Bolivia, the adage old habits die hard is proven when Butch and Sundance take up their old trade of bank robbing, now assisted by Sundance's girl Etta Place (Katharine Ross). The ending is pretty iconic and probably known to any reader but I still feel guilty about spoilers.
What to say about this film? There are some unusual choices in the film, such as a music montage of black and white pictures showing Butch, Sundance and Etta traveling to Bolivia. In fact music montages abound in this film. It grew on me by the end it felt like an homage to silent film. Of course the film is about Butch and Sundance. They are two friends we don't have much back story on. In fact both readily admit they don't know much about each other at all. Butch is shocked to learn Sundance is from New Jersey and an early scene in the movie shows that they didn't know each others' real names.
But you don't really need to know anything about their back story and they don't need to really know anything about their back stories. You see they are friends and you just inherently understand, you say "yeah that makes sense" even if you can't say why it makes sense. The chemistry between Newman and Redford just works. Katharine Ross as Etta stands as a bizarre third in the relationship, romantically involved with Sundance but connected to Butch as well. If you think its easy to balance a relationship in a movie between three people without a hint of jealousy on anyone's part, then go watch some hack film like Pearl Harbor and explain why it couldn't happen there?
Suffice to say that the duo of Newman and Redford occasionally joined by Ross is stellar. Hell, its worth the price of admission...or netflix queue or DVD purchase or illegal download or however you get to view the movies you watch. But in addition to that there is also a great chase. Early in the film the super posse pursues Butch and Sundance after a job. The chase lasts some twenty five minutes of screen time. And what's amazing about the whole thing is that the pursuers are never more than blurry indistinct riders on the horizon. Yet it creates an relentless urgency. And never once do these two anti heros say enough is enough. They never choose a place to stand. They keep running.
The scene climaxes in one of the most famous lines in movie history. As the two stand cornered at the edge of a canyon, Butch turns and says "Kid, the next time I say, 'let's go someplace like Bolivia,' let's go someplace like Bolivia." The duo eventually makes it to Bolivia and some humor is brought out of the language barrier. And these are the reasons this movie is so memorable. It has antiheros you like who are funny and serious. It has tender moments and tense ones and characters who aren't afraid to admit they are afraid.
I won't say its the greatest film ever made, I won't say its the best Newman or Redford performance. But I'm glad I own the DVD and I'm glad I re-watched it.
I'm not a historian of film. I can't tell you if this movie represented a milestone in film making. I'm not terribly attuned to style. I can't tell you if they way it was edited and shot was revolutionary. I'm just an idiot who likes to see movies good and bad. And I think this is one of the good ones. Butch Cassidy (Paul Newman) leads the Hole in the Wall Gang. He robs banks and trains and is followed by his friend The Sundance Kid (Robert Redford). Times are getting tough. Butch is getting older, his gang isn't as obedient any more. Banks are getting harder to rob and he is bringing more attention to himself. Butch is thinking about getting out accompanied by his faithful friend.
When a super posse is hired to track Butch and Sundance down, the two decide wisely to get out of town and wind up in Bolivia. In Bolivia, the adage old habits die hard is proven when Butch and Sundance take up their old trade of bank robbing, now assisted by Sundance's girl Etta Place (Katharine Ross). The ending is pretty iconic and probably known to any reader but I still feel guilty about spoilers.
What to say about this film? There are some unusual choices in the film, such as a music montage of black and white pictures showing Butch, Sundance and Etta traveling to Bolivia. In fact music montages abound in this film. It grew on me by the end it felt like an homage to silent film. Of course the film is about Butch and Sundance. They are two friends we don't have much back story on. In fact both readily admit they don't know much about each other at all. Butch is shocked to learn Sundance is from New Jersey and an early scene in the movie shows that they didn't know each others' real names.
But you don't really need to know anything about their back story and they don't need to really know anything about their back stories. You see they are friends and you just inherently understand, you say "yeah that makes sense" even if you can't say why it makes sense. The chemistry between Newman and Redford just works. Katharine Ross as Etta stands as a bizarre third in the relationship, romantically involved with Sundance but connected to Butch as well. If you think its easy to balance a relationship in a movie between three people without a hint of jealousy on anyone's part, then go watch some hack film like Pearl Harbor and explain why it couldn't happen there?
Suffice to say that the duo of Newman and Redford occasionally joined by Ross is stellar. Hell, its worth the price of admission...or netflix queue or DVD purchase or illegal download or however you get to view the movies you watch. But in addition to that there is also a great chase. Early in the film the super posse pursues Butch and Sundance after a job. The chase lasts some twenty five minutes of screen time. And what's amazing about the whole thing is that the pursuers are never more than blurry indistinct riders on the horizon. Yet it creates an relentless urgency. And never once do these two anti heros say enough is enough. They never choose a place to stand. They keep running.
The scene climaxes in one of the most famous lines in movie history. As the two stand cornered at the edge of a canyon, Butch turns and says "Kid, the next time I say, 'let's go someplace like Bolivia,' let's go someplace like Bolivia." The duo eventually makes it to Bolivia and some humor is brought out of the language barrier. And these are the reasons this movie is so memorable. It has antiheros you like who are funny and serious. It has tender moments and tense ones and characters who aren't afraid to admit they are afraid.
I won't say its the greatest film ever made, I won't say its the best Newman or Redford performance. But I'm glad I own the DVD and I'm glad I re-watched it.
Thursday, August 09, 2007
Coming Soon
I was starring at my tv watching some mindless show last night and as I glanced to either side of my tv at my beloved dvd collection I realized something. I spent a good deal of money on this over the years and it has literally been years since I watched some of these movies. In fact I'm pretty sure that a few of these I have never watched on dvd but I bought it knowing I wanted to own it. So over the next few months I'll be rewatching my collection and then making comments on this blog. Do I still like the movie? Do I regret purchasing the dvd? Did I have to remove the packaging before putting it in the dvd player? Did the dust on the cover cause me to sneeze? Stay tuned for the answer.
Sunshine
Sometimes it can be hard to remember that Science Fiction as a genre can be well done or at least not terribly done. You get caught up in the horrible crap that was say the most recent Star Wars films and you think well this genre really isn't worth staying around. Its sad to say that after my recent viewing of all six films I have firmly decided that Star Wars in all its forms has been ruined. I can still get through the original films but as a friend of mine said all I can see is the flaws. But it isn't just Lucas who is ruining science fiction. Effects laden creature features such as Alien vs. Predator are doing their fare share.
Now I'm sure someone could counter that there is plenty of good science fiction out there and then proceed to list off many an indy movie or foreign film but if it isn't at my local multiplex chances are I am not seeing it. Which is why Sunshine is such a pleasant surprise. It isn't a perfect film by any means but it gets the job done. Its entertaining and generally smart about itself.
In Sunshine, the Sun is dying and therefore Earth is dying. A team was sent on a mission to restart the sun but was lost and now a second team is being sent as the last hope of all mankind. The team consisting of various scientists and pilots must make a crucial decision upon nearing the sun when they discover the previous mission's ship floating in space. How they go about deciding to investigate is rational and smart. The results of that decision play out for the rest of the movie.
Although the film turns down a path I think is a tad on the cheap side, it still manages to jog into the finish line on its strong start. I've heard plenty of criticism about it being cliched or copying from other movies which I find to be lacking in any real criticism what so ever. This film has decent effects, decent actors and a decent story line. Not a perfect film but miles ahead of the competition if its competing against say Revenge of the Sith.
Now I'm sure someone could counter that there is plenty of good science fiction out there and then proceed to list off many an indy movie or foreign film but if it isn't at my local multiplex chances are I am not seeing it. Which is why Sunshine is such a pleasant surprise. It isn't a perfect film by any means but it gets the job done. Its entertaining and generally smart about itself.
In Sunshine, the Sun is dying and therefore Earth is dying. A team was sent on a mission to restart the sun but was lost and now a second team is being sent as the last hope of all mankind. The team consisting of various scientists and pilots must make a crucial decision upon nearing the sun when they discover the previous mission's ship floating in space. How they go about deciding to investigate is rational and smart. The results of that decision play out for the rest of the movie.
Although the film turns down a path I think is a tad on the cheap side, it still manages to jog into the finish line on its strong start. I've heard plenty of criticism about it being cliched or copying from other movies which I find to be lacking in any real criticism what so ever. This film has decent effects, decent actors and a decent story line. Not a perfect film but miles ahead of the competition if its competing against say Revenge of the Sith.
Hot Rod
If you ever wondered why does the movie idiot go to see movies he knows he will hate? You are not alone. I've wondered this for years. Take Hot Rod for example. This is the new comedy (if one is generous) by Adam Samberg. He, if you are unaware, was brought on to SNL apparently on the popularity of some internet comedy bits he did with friends. I've seen a few of these style bits on SNL of late. Highly surreal, bizarre humor such as guys having a conversation while eating heads of lettuce or a bizarre shootout. Seriously lacking in the funny department if you ask me. I always feel like they were aiming for the Steve Buscemi short a few years back where he played a food pawn shop owner.
I'm getting off topic here. I don't find Adam Samberg funny, yet did it stop me from plopping down six bucks to see him lead in a comedy? No? I think I'm a glutton for punishment. Although Isla Fisher was cute but not cute enough to suffer through this film. Ian McShane was and always is the highlight but I didn't go to see him either. I think I go to films this bad because I hope secretly that somehow my preconceived notions will be wrong and I will actually enjoy the film. Believe it or not this has happened on occasion. But whatever my reasons for going, I can only hope my suffering serves as a warning to others.
I'm getting off topic here. I don't find Adam Samberg funny, yet did it stop me from plopping down six bucks to see him lead in a comedy? No? I think I'm a glutton for punishment. Although Isla Fisher was cute but not cute enough to suffer through this film. Ian McShane was and always is the highlight but I didn't go to see him either. I think I go to films this bad because I hope secretly that somehow my preconceived notions will be wrong and I will actually enjoy the film. Believe it or not this has happened on occasion. But whatever my reasons for going, I can only hope my suffering serves as a warning to others.
Tuesday, July 03, 2007
Transformers
I'm not going to sit here and try to come up with some elaborate justification of why Transformers is a good movie. In fact, I'll do just the opposite. It is a terrible movie. It's overly long, has a poor sense of pacing, the acting is well not really acting. The human element? Oh it made me want to gouge out my eyes with my own fingernails. I've seen Michael Bay talk, he is genuinely convinced he is a decent film maker. This astounds me. But despite how truly bad this film was there is the little kid in me. The little kid who owned and played with transformers. The little kid who watched hours of the old cartoon show. The little kid who delighted in the Transformers animated movie. That little kid was gleeful every single time he heard Peter Cullen utter a line in this movie (they got the original Optimus Prime!). Evey time a machine transformed and fought, pure joy in my eyes. This is the only reason I could stand this movie and the only thing I can recommend about it. If you loved transformers as a kid, there is a good chance you can stomach this film just for the joy of seeing those robots in disguise in cgi rendered realism.
Wednesday, June 27, 2007
1408
1408 is the latest victim of the tete-a-tete that is Cinematic Arena for your reading pleasure.
Monday, June 25, 2007
Evan Almighty
Remember that movie a while back starring that no talent hack, Jim Carrey who gets the power of god and then realizes how tough it is to be god and learns a sappy religious lesson? It had a small role for Steve Carrell as a jack ass who gets his just desserts from Jim. Well now the jackass is a likable guy who has just been elected to congress, so God asks him to build an ark and now we are subjected to an even sappier religious lesson. This was a nauseating unfunny film. It barely even makes sense. Run from Evan Almighty as if it were one of the fabled ten plagues from the bible (I suspect it actually is).
Friday, June 15, 2007
Fantastically terrible
I want to write as few words as possible to express how much I disliked the new Fantastic Four movie. It has a poorly plotted story with terrible pacing, uninteresting villains, lackluster action sequences, an unsubtle lesson to learn and horrible acting. I had the most fun watching Johnny Storm (Chris Evans) and he was a wooden one dimensional cocky guy who learns the importance of teamwork and family. Which should tell you he wasn't that interesting. Here's hoping this was the first and last sequel.
Tuesday, June 12, 2007
Teil Zwei
Did anyone see the trailer for Hostel 2. The voice over was all in German. It was bizarre and inexplicable and made me think "what in the name of all is wrong with Eli Roth?" Well, if you are curious as to what Hostel 2 the movie is like, it's bizarre, inexplicable and made me think "what in the name of all is wrong with Eli Roth?" I can probably safely assume the only one who might see this movie is Brad so I won't feel bad about spoilers.
Does anyone even remember Hostel? It followed backpacking male friends who travel to eastern Europe and stay at a hostel where they are essentially provided with free hot prostitutes. Unfortunately for them, it is also a hostel that kidnaps its visitors and allows rich people to torture and kill them. There was gruesome scenes of torture and death and one of the three backpackers manages to escape and kill several of his nemeses. It was exploitive and gruesome and I told myself I would not watch the sequel when they announced it was in production.
So, of course, here I am having seen the sequel. The film picks up with the previous film's hero who now is haunted by his experience and paranoid for his life. In good fashion, he is quickly iced and we move back to Europe to a new cadre of young people. This time we get three women who are convinced to go to a spa in Slovakia. The film attempts to delve deeper into things by showing more of the business end. We see the process of selection and bidding which people from all over the world participate in with the hope of getting to kill and torture. Two American men win two of the girls and head out to participate. They are first timers. One is gung-ho and the other reluctant. Stay with me now, I'm sure this will be important. We also learn that one of the girls (clearly the lead role) is uber rich. (hmm, I wonder if that will be significant?) The girls are taken and the torture begins.
If I had to compliment Eli Roth, I would say he has a lot of style. He also knows how to make an exploitation film. Oh and he is one sick individual. He seems to make these films to discover the creepiest way to kill someone. Is it cathartic? I hope he exercises demons by doing this because otherwise he's just one step from being a weird serial killer. This film gives us a woman who likes to bathe in a shower of blood, a man who eats raw flesh like a steak and plenty of other disgusting scenes.
The gung-ho guy of course chickens out before the actually killing and the reluctant guy becomes psychotic in his lust to suddenly kill. He's also an idiot. When the inevitable turn comes and our heroine one ups the guy, a viewer who wasn't paying attention might think she would escape in similar fashion to the first film's hero. But you would be forgetting her massive bank account. These are business men. She BUYS her freedom and essentially becomes a new member.
If I ever suggest I might see Hostel 3 (I'm sure it will be made), someone please restrain me. Tell me I will regret wasting two hours. Tell me it will be cheap with a cheap end.
As a side note, Bijou Philips was in this film and didn't get naked. I actually was shocked. I thought she had it in her contract that she always got naked. Even if it wasn't supposed to be in the film. Maybe it was on the cutting room floor.
Does anyone even remember Hostel? It followed backpacking male friends who travel to eastern Europe and stay at a hostel where they are essentially provided with free hot prostitutes. Unfortunately for them, it is also a hostel that kidnaps its visitors and allows rich people to torture and kill them. There was gruesome scenes of torture and death and one of the three backpackers manages to escape and kill several of his nemeses. It was exploitive and gruesome and I told myself I would not watch the sequel when they announced it was in production.
So, of course, here I am having seen the sequel. The film picks up with the previous film's hero who now is haunted by his experience and paranoid for his life. In good fashion, he is quickly iced and we move back to Europe to a new cadre of young people. This time we get three women who are convinced to go to a spa in Slovakia. The film attempts to delve deeper into things by showing more of the business end. We see the process of selection and bidding which people from all over the world participate in with the hope of getting to kill and torture. Two American men win two of the girls and head out to participate. They are first timers. One is gung-ho and the other reluctant. Stay with me now, I'm sure this will be important. We also learn that one of the girls (clearly the lead role) is uber rich. (hmm, I wonder if that will be significant?) The girls are taken and the torture begins.
If I had to compliment Eli Roth, I would say he has a lot of style. He also knows how to make an exploitation film. Oh and he is one sick individual. He seems to make these films to discover the creepiest way to kill someone. Is it cathartic? I hope he exercises demons by doing this because otherwise he's just one step from being a weird serial killer. This film gives us a woman who likes to bathe in a shower of blood, a man who eats raw flesh like a steak and plenty of other disgusting scenes.
The gung-ho guy of course chickens out before the actually killing and the reluctant guy becomes psychotic in his lust to suddenly kill. He's also an idiot. When the inevitable turn comes and our heroine one ups the guy, a viewer who wasn't paying attention might think she would escape in similar fashion to the first film's hero. But you would be forgetting her massive bank account. These are business men. She BUYS her freedom and essentially becomes a new member.
If I ever suggest I might see Hostel 3 (I'm sure it will be made), someone please restrain me. Tell me I will regret wasting two hours. Tell me it will be cheap with a cheap end.
As a side note, Bijou Philips was in this film and didn't get naked. I actually was shocked. I thought she had it in her contract that she always got naked. Even if it wasn't supposed to be in the film. Maybe it was on the cutting room floor.
Wednesday, June 06, 2007
Michael Bay is trying to kill me
This has always been a movie blog. Movie reviews, strictly. I've tried to keep it that way. I probably shouldn't be writing this post. It is a slippery slope from movie reviews to obnoxious, here's how my day went fodder. But I justify myself in that it will still be about film, albeit short film. Summer is here, all my shows (whether you think they are good or not) are no longer airing new episodes. I'm left with a void I must fill with summer programming. One program that intrigued me from the start was On the Lot. A Fox reality show where they selected 50 aspiring directors and put them in a competition for a contract with Dreamworks. They whittled that fifty down to eighteen and then started having America (not the best judge of character, Spider-Man 3 made 150 million in one weekend) vote on who they liked best. Since they winner could one day have a movie reviewed on this very site, I've taken an interest (or so I keep telling myself).
Initially, the format was to show the filmmakers making their films and the struggles they had. Apparently that didn't test well, so the show went to an American Idol model of performance and results. They show the films of the directors, the judges make comments and then America gets to vote. The show has three judges who make comments for the directors after each film. There are two standard judges and a guest judge every week. The first standard is Carrie Fisher (yeah Princess Leia) who is billed as an actress and screenwriter (check IMDb for a rather sad writer's c.v.). Was she the only screenwriter they could get? Spielberg produces this show, he couldn't demand someone else? Scott Frank or Shane Black, I think would both be really good.
The second standard is Gary Marshall. Gary "Pretty Woman" Marshall. Okay, fair enough. Respected Hollywood icon, pretty successful, sure not the best director ever but is competent in the director's chair and makes Hollywood money. Guest judge for the first week was Brett Ratner (the man who took what Brian Singer brilliantly created (X-Men franchise) and toppled it in a single film (hell toppled it within the first half hour of that film). Things improved in the next week when the had D.J. Caruso, director of Disturbia on. His advice was actually useful and he seemed to know what he was talking about. Now lets take one step back.
Last night? Michael Bay. Michael "if movies were a religion, I would be the antichrist" Bay. Director of such disasters as Bad Boys, Armageddon, The Rock and Pearl Harbor. The host actually said the contestants hope to be a Michael Bay one day. I think any contestant who hopes that should immediately be dismissed from the competition. The three judges watched five 3 minute films last night. Carrie commented and Marshal commented, but I really don't care. Bay's comments are what are causing me to feel like I'm having an embolism.
Bay said to the first filmmaker, you need to make your movie tighter, work on editing. Let's just pause for a moment. Seriously. Just stop reading and think about that for like thirty seconds. I'll wait. .... Okay, ready? Michael Bay the man who had the interminably long Pearl Harbor which could have been cut down to five minutes and still would have been a bad film actually told another person he needs to work on editing?
Bay told another filmmaker that they needed to work on their dialogue. Again sit back read that last sentence again, think of a Michael Bay film and just realize how absurd that advice truly is. He directed a film in which the line "I take pleasure in guttin' you, boy" was uttered. He didn't stop and say wow is this dialogue bad. He just kept filming. Michael Bay telling people to write better dialogue, has the world gone crazy?
Bay told a third contestant his film felt like retread.
...
...
...
I just don't know what to say anymore. Enough of Mr. Bay.
Okay, the films:
Sam Friedlander directed Broken Pipe Dreams. Despite my rant above I had to agree with Mr. Bay (and you have no idea how physically ill that makes me). This film could have been shorter. It had a few too many drawn out shots. Other than that, it was a fantastic send up of the very films Bay loves to direct. I wonder if he knew Bay would be the guest judge because it was just too perfect. When the protagonist falls onto his knees at the end (I was reminded of Nick Cage in The Rock falling on the ground at the end). The red wire, blue wire gag was classic as well.
Trevor James directed Teri about a guy's irrational fears about what his blind date would look like. I found this film boring. The sappy end with the pretty girl (who could still be crazy, didn't anyone ever tell this guy not to judge a book by its cover?) was a poor end to a mediocre film.
Adam Stein directed Dough: The Musical. This is a musical about a bakery owner looking for love. I as a rule hate musicals but this was short, to the point and funny. The lyrics (with exception of a few awkward lyrics to make a rhyme) were fun and the story was good.
Hilary Graham directed The First Time I Met The Finkelsteins. This was a film in the My Big Fat Greek Wedding genre. Maybe it would be funny to someone who knows people like this or families like this. I just found it tedious and over the top and retread (note this was not the film that was called retread by Bay (that would be Trevor James' film).
Shalini Kantayya directed Laughing Out Loud: A Comic Journey. This was a documentary about a gay Indian (from India, not native American) comedian. I actually didn't know if this was a mockumentary or a real short documentary. I was under the impression that they were all to direct a comedy but maybe I was wrong. It was interesting but not funny.
Surprisingly for me I would have to say I enjoyed the musical by Stein the most. If for no other reason, this show has some decent short films every week, so I'll be watching despite the likes of Mr. Bay.
Initially, the format was to show the filmmakers making their films and the struggles they had. Apparently that didn't test well, so the show went to an American Idol model of performance and results. They show the films of the directors, the judges make comments and then America gets to vote. The show has three judges who make comments for the directors after each film. There are two standard judges and a guest judge every week. The first standard is Carrie Fisher (yeah Princess Leia) who is billed as an actress and screenwriter (check IMDb for a rather sad writer's c.v.). Was she the only screenwriter they could get? Spielberg produces this show, he couldn't demand someone else? Scott Frank or Shane Black, I think would both be really good.
The second standard is Gary Marshall. Gary "Pretty Woman" Marshall. Okay, fair enough. Respected Hollywood icon, pretty successful, sure not the best director ever but is competent in the director's chair and makes Hollywood money. Guest judge for the first week was Brett Ratner (the man who took what Brian Singer brilliantly created (X-Men franchise) and toppled it in a single film (hell toppled it within the first half hour of that film). Things improved in the next week when the had D.J. Caruso, director of Disturbia on. His advice was actually useful and he seemed to know what he was talking about. Now lets take one step back.
Last night? Michael Bay. Michael "if movies were a religion, I would be the antichrist" Bay. Director of such disasters as Bad Boys, Armageddon, The Rock and Pearl Harbor. The host actually said the contestants hope to be a Michael Bay one day. I think any contestant who hopes that should immediately be dismissed from the competition. The three judges watched five 3 minute films last night. Carrie commented and Marshal commented, but I really don't care. Bay's comments are what are causing me to feel like I'm having an embolism.
Bay said to the first filmmaker, you need to make your movie tighter, work on editing. Let's just pause for a moment. Seriously. Just stop reading and think about that for like thirty seconds. I'll wait. .... Okay, ready? Michael Bay the man who had the interminably long Pearl Harbor which could have been cut down to five minutes and still would have been a bad film actually told another person he needs to work on editing?
Bay told another filmmaker that they needed to work on their dialogue. Again sit back read that last sentence again, think of a Michael Bay film and just realize how absurd that advice truly is. He directed a film in which the line "I take pleasure in guttin' you, boy" was uttered. He didn't stop and say wow is this dialogue bad. He just kept filming. Michael Bay telling people to write better dialogue, has the world gone crazy?
Bay told a third contestant his film felt like retread.
...
...
...
I just don't know what to say anymore. Enough of Mr. Bay.
Okay, the films:
Sam Friedlander directed Broken Pipe Dreams. Despite my rant above I had to agree with Mr. Bay (and you have no idea how physically ill that makes me). This film could have been shorter. It had a few too many drawn out shots. Other than that, it was a fantastic send up of the very films Bay loves to direct. I wonder if he knew Bay would be the guest judge because it was just too perfect. When the protagonist falls onto his knees at the end (I was reminded of Nick Cage in The Rock falling on the ground at the end). The red wire, blue wire gag was classic as well.
Trevor James directed Teri about a guy's irrational fears about what his blind date would look like. I found this film boring. The sappy end with the pretty girl (who could still be crazy, didn't anyone ever tell this guy not to judge a book by its cover?) was a poor end to a mediocre film.
Adam Stein directed Dough: The Musical. This is a musical about a bakery owner looking for love. I as a rule hate musicals but this was short, to the point and funny. The lyrics (with exception of a few awkward lyrics to make a rhyme) were fun and the story was good.
Hilary Graham directed The First Time I Met The Finkelsteins. This was a film in the My Big Fat Greek Wedding genre. Maybe it would be funny to someone who knows people like this or families like this. I just found it tedious and over the top and retread (note this was not the film that was called retread by Bay (that would be Trevor James' film).
Shalini Kantayya directed Laughing Out Loud: A Comic Journey. This was a documentary about a gay Indian (from India, not native American) comedian. I actually didn't know if this was a mockumentary or a real short documentary. I was under the impression that they were all to direct a comedy but maybe I was wrong. It was interesting but not funny.
Surprisingly for me I would have to say I enjoyed the musical by Stein the most. If for no other reason, this show has some decent short films every week, so I'll be watching despite the likes of Mr. Bay.
Tuesday, June 05, 2007
Knocked Up
If you are really interested in reading my Knocked Up review, you will have to travel over to Cinematic Arena to view it there, as it was the inaugural film of that blog.
Monday, June 04, 2007
Arguments, I live and breath
I've convinced fellow cinephile Cinema Romantico (Nick) to join me in occasionally reviewing films in a more combative multiple opinion format. Nick and I have disagreed on movies almost since the day we met. Even the movies we both liked, we liked for different reasons. Things turned violent, or pseudo-violent. We contemplated a tv show where every review would degenerate into a drawn out fist fight. Sadly who has the time, money or inclination to do a tv show? Especially when the internet is so much less effective an outlet? Introducing Cinematic Arena. (see link in links section) A place where Nick and I can express our cinematic differences in a hostile environment. Come one, come all, feel free to drop your own two cents (or dollar 37) any time. Join sides, defect, enjoy or despise as you see fit.
The Apartment - Winner 1961
Billy Wilder is one of those writer/directors that is praised and praised and praised and I just cannot for the life of me understand why. I saw Sunset Boulevard (1950) which many consider his magnum opus and I thought it was okay. I didn't think it was as great as I was led to believe. But surely The Apartment (1960) would be different. It did win four academy awards. It does star Jack Lemmon and Shirley MacLaine. Once again I've somehow missed why exactly he is considered such a genius.
The film introduces us to our hero, C.C. Baxter (Lemmon), who is stranded outside while one of his superiors at work uses his apartment for an extra marital affair. Baxter appears to do this alot, so much that his neighbors (who conveniently never see the cheating husbands) think he is quite the player. Baxter gets very little sleep and works a boring 9-5 job. But helping out these men is done on the promise that they will recommend him for a promotion in the company. On the way, Baxter shows his interest in the elevator operator girl Fran Kubelik (MacLaine). But it turns out she is having an affair with one of his bosses.
After a falling out with the man, she takes several sleeping pills and Baxter is the one who saves her and helps her recuperate. The film peters out with a fairly unconvincing love story between the two and ending with Baxter quitting due to his unwillingness to continue to have his apartment used. It has a pretty standard happy ending with nothing really surprising.
One major problem with this film is that it isn't funny. I'm not sure I laughed once in the entire film. It was actually quite agonizing as it plodded on. The death blow of this film is that I utterly did not care about the people in this film. I didn't like Baxter and I didn't care that he triumphed. In fact I rather disliked him. I didn't like Fran either. I thought her character was a fair idiot. Since I didn't care about the character I took no satisfaction in the outcome of the film. I just wanted the "the end" credit to come up.
The film introduces us to our hero, C.C. Baxter (Lemmon), who is stranded outside while one of his superiors at work uses his apartment for an extra marital affair. Baxter appears to do this alot, so much that his neighbors (who conveniently never see the cheating husbands) think he is quite the player. Baxter gets very little sleep and works a boring 9-5 job. But helping out these men is done on the promise that they will recommend him for a promotion in the company. On the way, Baxter shows his interest in the elevator operator girl Fran Kubelik (MacLaine). But it turns out she is having an affair with one of his bosses.
After a falling out with the man, she takes several sleeping pills and Baxter is the one who saves her and helps her recuperate. The film peters out with a fairly unconvincing love story between the two and ending with Baxter quitting due to his unwillingness to continue to have his apartment used. It has a pretty standard happy ending with nothing really surprising.
One major problem with this film is that it isn't funny. I'm not sure I laughed once in the entire film. It was actually quite agonizing as it plodded on. The death blow of this film is that I utterly did not care about the people in this film. I didn't like Baxter and I didn't care that he triumphed. In fact I rather disliked him. I didn't like Fran either. I thought her character was a fair idiot. Since I didn't care about the character I took no satisfaction in the outcome of the film. I just wanted the "the end" credit to come up.
All The King's Men - Winner 1950
In 1950, All The King's Men (1949) won the best picture category at the Academy Awards. The movie details the rise of a man from country nobody to the governor. Quickly he seems to be corrupted and although he gets things done, the ways in which he goes about it are in no way laudable. Eventually the indecent things he has done to maintain power begin to snowball and he does more and more virtue-less things. Countless reviews comment on how its a film about how politics can corrupt even the noblest person.
These reviewers couldn't be more wrong. From the start, one can see the true nature of Willie Stark (Broderick Crawford). He speaks truth about corruption in politics, but in the first interview he has with Jack Burden (John Ireland), when Stark's adopted son comes in beaten up, the manner in which Stark addresses the boy and treats the situation is a little to callous. While his wife is concerned, for Stark it is only fuel to the fire. He loses his first campaign in politics but tragedy forges another chance for him.
A poorly built fire escape breaks off a building killing several children, which inspires people to get behind what Stark has been saying. It is at the funeral that we get our second look into what is in reality a very dark soul. A mourner grabs his hand and invoking God (an inauspicious start if ever there was one) claims he should have voted for Stark. The look on Stark's face says it all. He likes being idolized, he likes power. Thus a demagogue is born. Demagogues rarely a good thing. A bumbling aristocracy fuels the power of the demagogue and Stark becomes governor.
Campaign promises are kept but at what cost? The corruption is worse than before. The politics dirty. Stark becomes more of a monster than he was before. And Jack helps him along the way. Jack, who has been established as a lost character but with principles, gets dragged deeper and deeper into the world of dirty politics and although he has qualms about what he is doing at times, it never stops him from continuing to do the dirty work.
It is only after the suicide of his childhood idol, that he finally breaks from Stark completely. Forced to live with a monster he helped not create (for Stark was already a corrupt man waiting for his chance) but he did help him attain the office. So it is Jack's penance to live with what he had done, not a very promising life for someone who believes he has principles.
Apparently this movie has been remade and will come out this year. Sean Penn in the Willie Stark role. In our political climate, I'm not surprised that a movie about political corruption would be made, but that this movie would be does make me wonder. Since it seems to me that the message is not that politics corrupt, but that politics draws in the corrupt, it is a cautionary tale we can't actually heed. It could warn about demagoguery, but again they don't call it mob mentality for no reason. I wonder what angle the new film will take and if the true character of Willie Stark will be lost.
These reviewers couldn't be more wrong. From the start, one can see the true nature of Willie Stark (Broderick Crawford). He speaks truth about corruption in politics, but in the first interview he has with Jack Burden (John Ireland), when Stark's adopted son comes in beaten up, the manner in which Stark addresses the boy and treats the situation is a little to callous. While his wife is concerned, for Stark it is only fuel to the fire. He loses his first campaign in politics but tragedy forges another chance for him.
A poorly built fire escape breaks off a building killing several children, which inspires people to get behind what Stark has been saying. It is at the funeral that we get our second look into what is in reality a very dark soul. A mourner grabs his hand and invoking God (an inauspicious start if ever there was one) claims he should have voted for Stark. The look on Stark's face says it all. He likes being idolized, he likes power. Thus a demagogue is born. Demagogues rarely a good thing. A bumbling aristocracy fuels the power of the demagogue and Stark becomes governor.
Campaign promises are kept but at what cost? The corruption is worse than before. The politics dirty. Stark becomes more of a monster than he was before. And Jack helps him along the way. Jack, who has been established as a lost character but with principles, gets dragged deeper and deeper into the world of dirty politics and although he has qualms about what he is doing at times, it never stops him from continuing to do the dirty work.
It is only after the suicide of his childhood idol, that he finally breaks from Stark completely. Forced to live with a monster he helped not create (for Stark was already a corrupt man waiting for his chance) but he did help him attain the office. So it is Jack's penance to live with what he had done, not a very promising life for someone who believes he has principles.
Apparently this movie has been remade and will come out this year. Sean Penn in the Willie Stark role. In our political climate, I'm not surprised that a movie about political corruption would be made, but that this movie would be does make me wonder. Since it seems to me that the message is not that politics corrupt, but that politics draws in the corrupt, it is a cautionary tale we can't actually heed. It could warn about demagoguery, but again they don't call it mob mentality for no reason. I wonder what angle the new film will take and if the true character of Willie Stark will be lost.
An American In Paris - Winner 1952
An American In Paris (1951) is a mediocre film. It has the disadvantage of being a musical, which I dislike, since I find it next to impossible for the advent of song and dance to come out of everyday situation. However, this film does manage to integrate the two better than most. Typically singing and dancing is used when the characters are happy and expressing joy. Beyond the musical aspect, however, the film is so average.
The film follows Jerry Mulligan (Gene Kelly) as an ex-GI who stayed in Paris after World War 2. He is an artist trying to make his fame, like the greats that inspired him. This already is such a cliched character type that I found myself being bored within the first three minutes. Jerry is discovered by a rich woman who wants to be his patroness and perhaps a bit more, while Jerry becomes enamored for a young French woman Lise (Leslie Caron). Caron smiles and looks pretty and puts out one of the most laughably bad performances I've seen in a movie that got this many awards.
The two have there little affair all the while, she is apparently engaged to another man, whom Jerry knows. Her reason for being engaged to him is ridiculous and makes little to no sense. Inevitably she chooses her fiance because of her obligation and gives up true love. Jerry attempts to forget his misfortune by finally taking up with the patroness although he feels nothing for her. There is a confrontation scene between Jerry and Lise at a party, where Lise reaffirms her decision woefully as her fiance watches from a dark corner unnoticed.
There was about twenty minutes left when this scene took place and I expected an interesting resolve. Well I can't say I didn't get that. The movie proceeds into a seventeen minute, no dialogue, music and dance sequence. I'm not sure if it was just extravagant dance or if there was a story being told that I wasn't picking up on. Regardless, if I wanted to see a dance performance I'd go to a dance performance not watch a film. After this elaborate sequence, the film comes back to its reality and forces a conclusion down our throat in a minute flat.
Beyond its musical leanings this film was uninteresting and poorly performed. It feels like a better story could have been told here, even in musical format. For one who enjoys musicals I'm sure its perfectly delightful, but it was not deserving of its best picture award.
The film follows Jerry Mulligan (Gene Kelly) as an ex-GI who stayed in Paris after World War 2. He is an artist trying to make his fame, like the greats that inspired him. This already is such a cliched character type that I found myself being bored within the first three minutes. Jerry is discovered by a rich woman who wants to be his patroness and perhaps a bit more, while Jerry becomes enamored for a young French woman Lise (Leslie Caron). Caron smiles and looks pretty and puts out one of the most laughably bad performances I've seen in a movie that got this many awards.
The two have there little affair all the while, she is apparently engaged to another man, whom Jerry knows. Her reason for being engaged to him is ridiculous and makes little to no sense. Inevitably she chooses her fiance because of her obligation and gives up true love. Jerry attempts to forget his misfortune by finally taking up with the patroness although he feels nothing for her. There is a confrontation scene between Jerry and Lise at a party, where Lise reaffirms her decision woefully as her fiance watches from a dark corner unnoticed.
There was about twenty minutes left when this scene took place and I expected an interesting resolve. Well I can't say I didn't get that. The movie proceeds into a seventeen minute, no dialogue, music and dance sequence. I'm not sure if it was just extravagant dance or if there was a story being told that I wasn't picking up on. Regardless, if I wanted to see a dance performance I'd go to a dance performance not watch a film. After this elaborate sequence, the film comes back to its reality and forces a conclusion down our throat in a minute flat.
Beyond its musical leanings this film was uninteresting and poorly performed. It feels like a better story could have been told here, even in musical format. For one who enjoys musicals I'm sure its perfectly delightful, but it was not deserving of its best picture award.
Death Notice
Remember when I set up that other blog to write reviews of Academy Award Best Picture Winners? What was I thinking? I'll just post them here in future and repost for no one's benefit what I wrote previously.
Wednesday, May 30, 2007
Waitress
Nathan Fillion is so much fun to watch on screen. Anyone who saw and liked Firefly knew this. You could see the gentle character in there, the one who was destined for the romantic comedy. He had his moments in an otherwise lifeless film Slither but really shines in Waitress. Keri Russell also seemed destined for romantic comedy, despite a misguided turn in Mission: Impossible 3. And to see both Fillion and Russell in this film is a delight. It is also a delight that this film isn't your standard cookie cutter romantic comedy.
The film follows Jenna (Russell), a waitress at a diner with a knack for making pies and recently pregnant although she isn't happy about that. She is married to a jerk of a husband and has solace only in her pie making and her two eccentric friends and fellow workers (Cheryl Hines and late director Adrienne Shelly). She soon connects with her new doctor (Fillion) and also in there is Andy Griffith as the diner owner who is often cantankerous. This was a really enjoyable movie with a heartwarming resolution. It is well acted and just generally put a smile on my face.
The film follows Jenna (Russell), a waitress at a diner with a knack for making pies and recently pregnant although she isn't happy about that. She is married to a jerk of a husband and has solace only in her pie making and her two eccentric friends and fellow workers (Cheryl Hines and late director Adrienne Shelly). She soon connects with her new doctor (Fillion) and also in there is Andy Griffith as the diner owner who is often cantankerous. This was a really enjoyable movie with a heartwarming resolution. It is well acted and just generally put a smile on my face.
Sunday, May 27, 2007
Pirates 3
Even as I write this I can't decide if I liked Pirates 3 because it was good or because the second installment was so horrible that by comparison this one didn't bother me much. Although I suspect, the latter is the case. The third Pirates movie is now out and although I hated virulently the second film we can't forget I'm an idiot and a glutton for punishment. These are the reasons I see ever crappy Jack Black film and force myself into the theater when Michael Bay puts out his most recent schlock. So of course I bellied up to the box office and purchased my ticket just like everyone else.
The movie picks up where the second left off. Captain Jack (Johnny Depp) is dead, Barbossa (Geoffrey Rush) has been brought back to life and with Elisabeth (Keira Knightly) and Will (Orlando Bloom) has set out to bring him back. They head to Singapore to meet a pirate there played by Chow Yun-Fat and get some special maps. And of course still to be dealt with are Davy Jones (Bill Nighy) and Lord Becket (Tom Hollander) the resident villains.
When it comes to Jack Sparrow, I've come to believe less is more. I'm sure at least one person I know would disagree with that but the more you see him the more his camp becomes tiresome. Now this movie had long been rumored to have a cameo by Keith Richards, the professed model for Depp's performance. Is the scene good? Well its mildly amusing, I laughed out loud when he came on screen (the only one in the theater who laughed)
The movie actually had a surprise I was not really expecting but was glad the director had the guts to do however tempered it ended up being in the end. Of course the film leaves open the possibility for a sequel, so expect one if the film does well. But in the end I think I liked this film, sort of. If you are curious, stay til the end of the credits for a sappy concluding note.
The movie picks up where the second left off. Captain Jack (Johnny Depp) is dead, Barbossa (Geoffrey Rush) has been brought back to life and with Elisabeth (Keira Knightly) and Will (Orlando Bloom) has set out to bring him back. They head to Singapore to meet a pirate there played by Chow Yun-Fat and get some special maps. And of course still to be dealt with are Davy Jones (Bill Nighy) and Lord Becket (Tom Hollander) the resident villains.
When it comes to Jack Sparrow, I've come to believe less is more. I'm sure at least one person I know would disagree with that but the more you see him the more his camp becomes tiresome. Now this movie had long been rumored to have a cameo by Keith Richards, the professed model for Depp's performance. Is the scene good? Well its mildly amusing, I laughed out loud when he came on screen (the only one in the theater who laughed)
The movie actually had a surprise I was not really expecting but was glad the director had the guts to do however tempered it ended up being in the end. Of course the film leaves open the possibility for a sequel, so expect one if the film does well. But in the end I think I liked this film, sort of. If you are curious, stay til the end of the credits for a sappy concluding note.
Shrek The Third
I find most animated films tedious. They play for the children and if one is lucky you might get a shout out to the adults in the crowd. This was why the original Shrek was a bit better than the average. It had numerous adult centered jokes going. It wasn't fantastic but it had some truly funny moments. Shrek 2 was a painful reminder of why Hollywood really will exploit and destroy anything it gets its grubby hands on. Shrek The Third was mind numbingly boring.
In the third installment, Shrek (Mike Meyers) is set to become king of Far Far Away. He doesn't want to be king so he seeks out the only remaining heir, Artie (Justin Timberlake). Meanwhile Prince Charming plots revenge with all the other villains and Shrek must save the day. Aside from being virtually the same plot as equally bad Happily N'Ever After it is still a bad plot. The jokes thrown at the adults this time are very strained and it falls into a more traditionally bad children's animated feature.
In the third installment, Shrek (Mike Meyers) is set to become king of Far Far Away. He doesn't want to be king so he seeks out the only remaining heir, Artie (Justin Timberlake). Meanwhile Prince Charming plots revenge with all the other villains and Shrek must save the day. Aside from being virtually the same plot as equally bad Happily N'Ever After it is still a bad plot. The jokes thrown at the adults this time are very strained and it falls into a more traditionally bad children's animated feature.
Thursday, May 17, 2007
Zombacoplypse!
I like zombies. I know people like Richard Roeper and Roger Ebert think they are the most boring villain of all time but I couldn't disagree more. I own every Romero zombie film, I own Zombie 2, Shaun of the Dead and even a few zombie films I have never actually watched but wanted to own in any case. I have a growing collection of zombie comic books. I own both Max Brooks books on zombies (if you are a fan of zombies I encourage you to pick up "World War Z". So you can imagine what kind of bliss I was in when I had a full night of zombie goodness coming my way.
A local theater was showing Day of the Dead (1985). Unrated old school zombie goodness with a dash of overacting and 80s synth. Does it get any better than that? Day of the Dead is definitely an acquired taste but I think its awesome and it stars the most loveable of all zombies ever: Bub. You watch it and see Bub and not want to...well hugging him would seem stupid (he is a zombie) but you would certainly smile and if he did bite someone you'd probably think: oh that crazy Bub, he did it again. But this wasn't the end of my night of zombies.
After Day, I went to see 28 Weeks Later. Now yes I know technically, they aren't zombies just rage infected humans but for the most part they are zombies. Now I don't really like the fast zombie as a rule but 28 Days Later was a fun little film. Is 28 Weeks Later a good follow up? Well no not really. I heard plenty of analogies like 28 Days Later is to Alien as 28 Weeks Later is to Aliens. In as much as both Aliens and 28 Weeks Later are sequels this is true. In all other aspects, this is a horrible comparison.
The film has its moments. The opening sequence is pretty good with a nice twist (that every damn review spoils). The drastic measures to contain the new outbreak are crazy and sort of fun to watch. A helicopter and zombies, nuff said. And the fact that to some degree the real villains are the American troops (although the Iraq parallel is a bit heavy handed).
Sadly the film had its crappy moments too. The camera never pauses it seems like and neither does the director. And then there is one amazingly tenacious zombie who shows up all the time. I felt like I was watching a music video where the same guy is hiding in every scene. The poor story line, bad pacing and camera work tie this one down into a forgettable mess. Still it was zombie paradise while it lasted.
A local theater was showing Day of the Dead (1985). Unrated old school zombie goodness with a dash of overacting and 80s synth. Does it get any better than that? Day of the Dead is definitely an acquired taste but I think its awesome and it stars the most loveable of all zombies ever: Bub. You watch it and see Bub and not want to...well hugging him would seem stupid (he is a zombie) but you would certainly smile and if he did bite someone you'd probably think: oh that crazy Bub, he did it again. But this wasn't the end of my night of zombies.
After Day, I went to see 28 Weeks Later. Now yes I know technically, they aren't zombies just rage infected humans but for the most part they are zombies. Now I don't really like the fast zombie as a rule but 28 Days Later was a fun little film. Is 28 Weeks Later a good follow up? Well no not really. I heard plenty of analogies like 28 Days Later is to Alien as 28 Weeks Later is to Aliens. In as much as both Aliens and 28 Weeks Later are sequels this is true. In all other aspects, this is a horrible comparison.
The film has its moments. The opening sequence is pretty good with a nice twist (that every damn review spoils). The drastic measures to contain the new outbreak are crazy and sort of fun to watch. A helicopter and zombies, nuff said. And the fact that to some degree the real villains are the American troops (although the Iraq parallel is a bit heavy handed).
Sadly the film had its crappy moments too. The camera never pauses it seems like and neither does the director. And then there is one amazingly tenacious zombie who shows up all the time. I felt like I was watching a music video where the same guy is hiding in every scene. The poor story line, bad pacing and camera work tie this one down into a forgettable mess. Still it was zombie paradise while it lasted.
Thursday, May 10, 2007
Spiderman 3
As I sit here and type this I am currently the owner of over 100 Spider-Man comics. They are all neatly bagged and sitting on a shelf in plain view. I like Spider-Man and I like comic books, clearly. So I would be really insulted if someone criticized me for just not getting comics or not getting what Spider-Man is about. As if making a film just like the comic is a positive criticism. A movie is a different artistic genre than a comic book. It should be different. If all you are going to do is bring it exactly as it was on the page to the screen, what is the point? Why not just go read the page. A movie should stay true to its material but do its own thing.
I felt Spider-Man did this. It wasn't the exact story of Spider-Man's origin but it got it right in the right places. It had a great villain in Willem Dafoe and I bought into what I was shown on the screen. Spider-Man 2 was less successful. I felt Doctor Octopus was a bit one dimensional which is a shame because he was played by the brilliant Alfred Molina. He was just a crazy guy obsessed with as my friend put it "fuuuushhhionnn". James Franco was almost as whiny as Harry Potter and the film in general just pushed the limits of its own universe a bit too much.
I'm tempted to believe Sam Raimi and the entire cast and crew actually conspired to make a horrible film in hopes that no new film would be asked of them for a few years. This would allow Tobey Maguire and Kirsten Dunst from having to reprise their roles. I'm tempted to think Raimi was actually trying to make Batman and Robin (19xx). Then years from now some new director could come along and make a return film which would blow up like Batman Begins (20xx). Although judging by the box office, if that was Raimi's goal, he failed miserably, no movie that makes 150 million in one weekend isn't going to get another sequel.
I'm not going to bother with a synopsis, I rarely do so why should this stinker be any different. I just want to say that when Peter Parker becomes a bad boy for a brief stint in the film, all I could do was think that it was very reminiscent of Superman's bad boy turn in Superman 3 after he was exposed to the pseudo-kryptonite. The bright point of that film was Richard Pryor, this film had no Richard Pryor or even a Richard Pryor-like actor.
The dramatic moments of this film were painful to sit through. The action was more so than usual cartoony and unimpressive. The love triangle is trite, the villains lack real motivation. Needless to say I hated this film.
I felt Spider-Man did this. It wasn't the exact story of Spider-Man's origin but it got it right in the right places. It had a great villain in Willem Dafoe and I bought into what I was shown on the screen. Spider-Man 2 was less successful. I felt Doctor Octopus was a bit one dimensional which is a shame because he was played by the brilliant Alfred Molina. He was just a crazy guy obsessed with as my friend put it "fuuuushhhionnn". James Franco was almost as whiny as Harry Potter and the film in general just pushed the limits of its own universe a bit too much.
I'm tempted to believe Sam Raimi and the entire cast and crew actually conspired to make a horrible film in hopes that no new film would be asked of them for a few years. This would allow Tobey Maguire and Kirsten Dunst from having to reprise their roles. I'm tempted to think Raimi was actually trying to make Batman and Robin (19xx). Then years from now some new director could come along and make a return film which would blow up like Batman Begins (20xx). Although judging by the box office, if that was Raimi's goal, he failed miserably, no movie that makes 150 million in one weekend isn't going to get another sequel.
I'm not going to bother with a synopsis, I rarely do so why should this stinker be any different. I just want to say that when Peter Parker becomes a bad boy for a brief stint in the film, all I could do was think that it was very reminiscent of Superman's bad boy turn in Superman 3 after he was exposed to the pseudo-kryptonite. The bright point of that film was Richard Pryor, this film had no Richard Pryor or even a Richard Pryor-like actor.
The dramatic moments of this film were painful to sit through. The action was more so than usual cartoony and unimpressive. The love triangle is trite, the villains lack real motivation. Needless to say I hated this film.
Lucky You
I can't truly hate a film that opens with a Springsteen song, even if it is "Lucky Town". I hear Bruce belting out his tune and it puts a smile on my face. I also can't truly hate a film that stars Eric Bana and Drew Barrymore. Both are just so damn likable and cute. And finally I can't truly hate a film whose backdrop is poker playing in Las Vegas. That being said I don't have to like a film with such elements either.
Lucky You is a romantic comedy set in Vegas a few years ago and follows Huck (Eric Bana) who is a poker player who occasionally pushes to far and ends up broke especially when playing against his estranged father (Robert Duvall). He meets cute with Drew's Billie and surely enough they have a swift relationship one expects in a romantic comedy. Of course Huck screws up and Billie is hurt and blah, blah, blah.
The romance was kind of forced in this movie, and the real story is about the relationship between Huck and his father. His father has learned how to play poker and have a life; Huck has yet to learn that lesson. His father is trying hard to help him learn it. Which is what I think is ultimately wrong with the film. It just isn't interesting. Despite all the excellent actors in this film, no one wows with the material they have. They don't focus too much on the poker which is good because unless you're a fan, it would drive you insane.
I didn't hate this film, I just felt unaffected by it. Still it did have those Springsteen songs.
Lucky You is a romantic comedy set in Vegas a few years ago and follows Huck (Eric Bana) who is a poker player who occasionally pushes to far and ends up broke especially when playing against his estranged father (Robert Duvall). He meets cute with Drew's Billie and surely enough they have a swift relationship one expects in a romantic comedy. Of course Huck screws up and Billie is hurt and blah, blah, blah.
The romance was kind of forced in this movie, and the real story is about the relationship between Huck and his father. His father has learned how to play poker and have a life; Huck has yet to learn that lesson. His father is trying hard to help him learn it. Which is what I think is ultimately wrong with the film. It just isn't interesting. Despite all the excellent actors in this film, no one wows with the material they have. They don't focus too much on the poker which is good because unless you're a fan, it would drive you insane.
I didn't hate this film, I just felt unaffected by it. Still it did have those Springsteen songs.
Thursday, April 19, 2007
Disturbia
David Morse screams serial killer and so having a movie in which he plays one (or a potential one) is about as thrilling as taking out the trash. If you watched the trailer for Disturbia then it basically gave away the major plot point which is unfortunate but it didn't give away how it gets to that plot point. It is that which makes this movie enjoyable to see. It spends a lot of time following Shia LaBeouf's Kale.
Kale is a teenager with angst but the movie gives a fairly unexpected reason for said angst. A quick set up has us following Kale around his house as he is under house arrest for three months. His fed up mom (Carrie-Anne Moss) cuts off his X-Box and his Itunes and Kale starts to go a little stir crazy. That is until he starts watching the neighbors, especially his new attractive female neighbor. To be fair his voyeurism is a big creepy and I'm not sure the watched girl would respond the way she does but in this universe she decides she likes Kale.
It is only after this rather lengthy set-up that we finally move into the thriller part of the movie. Its fairly traditional and follows the guidelines Hollywood set down long ago. Its passable in all this, nothing spectacular happens but it doesn't totally foul it up. For me the movie worked because it spent time in the build up. In the end I enjoyed watching this film. I certainly won't buy it, or likely ever watch it again but for an hour and a half it kept me entertained.
Kale is a teenager with angst but the movie gives a fairly unexpected reason for said angst. A quick set up has us following Kale around his house as he is under house arrest for three months. His fed up mom (Carrie-Anne Moss) cuts off his X-Box and his Itunes and Kale starts to go a little stir crazy. That is until he starts watching the neighbors, especially his new attractive female neighbor. To be fair his voyeurism is a big creepy and I'm not sure the watched girl would respond the way she does but in this universe she decides she likes Kale.
It is only after this rather lengthy set-up that we finally move into the thriller part of the movie. Its fairly traditional and follows the guidelines Hollywood set down long ago. Its passable in all this, nothing spectacular happens but it doesn't totally foul it up. For me the movie worked because it spent time in the build up. In the end I enjoyed watching this film. I certainly won't buy it, or likely ever watch it again but for an hour and a half it kept me entertained.
Tuesday, April 17, 2007
Pathfinder
Pathfinder had two things going for it. The theater I saw it in was empty save for me and my friend and it starred Clancy Brown. Unfortunately I didn't know it was Clancy Brown and he was speaking in Viking(?) the whole time. But the fact that the theater was empty is still a plus. One, it gives me hope that all considerations of quality are not gone from this world. Two, it meant I could make all the jokes at the screen that I wanted.
This film was simply horrible. Caricatured noble savages, tough but apparently incredibly stupid enemies and a ridiculous amount of conveniences and telegraphed set ups abound in this film. Its like watch a poor man's Conan. At least Conan had a plot that made mild sense. Karl Urban is trying desperately to eek out a living as an action star but sadly he lacks one key factor. My vague recollection of the Lord of the Rings trilogy makes me think he was an okay Eomer but since then he has underwhelmed me in everything I've seen.
And back to Clancy Brown. Seriously how can any film hide Clancy Brown behind bulky armor and a helmet. He's Clancy f---ing Brown, don't they understand that? You don't hide Drill Instructor Zim behind a mask, you put him out front chewing up scenery and emoting like you never saw no b-list actor emote before. This is a film travesty of significant importance, just like in Final Destination 3 when there was no Tony Todd. What were they thinking?
This film was simply horrible. Caricatured noble savages, tough but apparently incredibly stupid enemies and a ridiculous amount of conveniences and telegraphed set ups abound in this film. Its like watch a poor man's Conan. At least Conan had a plot that made mild sense. Karl Urban is trying desperately to eek out a living as an action star but sadly he lacks one key factor. My vague recollection of the Lord of the Rings trilogy makes me think he was an okay Eomer but since then he has underwhelmed me in everything I've seen.
And back to Clancy Brown. Seriously how can any film hide Clancy Brown behind bulky armor and a helmet. He's Clancy f---ing Brown, don't they understand that? You don't hide Drill Instructor Zim behind a mask, you put him out front chewing up scenery and emoting like you never saw no b-list actor emote before. This is a film travesty of significant importance, just like in Final Destination 3 when there was no Tony Todd. What were they thinking?
Monday, April 16, 2007
I put two and two together and decided you're pissing me off
Back in the days when I had free access to cable (either my parents' or one of my friends') I could watch Adult Swim on tv. One of the odd ball comedies was Aqua Teen Hunger Force. Roughly twelve minutes of comedic insanity that would have dialogue that would just resonate in me and have me repeating it over and over again even though it wasn't all that funny out of context. "Yeah, it is a good morning, it's three in the morning!" That still makes me laugh.
So when I heard that Aqua Teen Hunger Force was going to be a movie, I...well to be honest I thought it sounded like a pretty bad idea. How can a show that is funny in bits of 10 going to sustain itself over 80 minutes? Well sadly this is a question that will remain unanswered because this movie could in fact not hold up for that long. Sure the movie is crammed full of many of the favorites of the show, the Moonanites, the Plutonians, Carl but it just isn't that funny. I would have been better served by just watching a marathon of episodes.
So when I heard that Aqua Teen Hunger Force was going to be a movie, I...well to be honest I thought it sounded like a pretty bad idea. How can a show that is funny in bits of 10 going to sustain itself over 80 minutes? Well sadly this is a question that will remain unanswered because this movie could in fact not hold up for that long. Sure the movie is crammed full of many of the favorites of the show, the Moonanites, the Plutonians, Carl but it just isn't that funny. I would have been better served by just watching a marathon of episodes.
Wednesday, April 11, 2007
The Namesake
The Namesake is a film directed by Mira Nair following the Ganguli family over a period of about twenty five years. The film starts with Ashoke Ganguli (Irfan Kahn) who is a bookish young man who prefers to read over travel. A train accident makes him change his mind and the book he was reading when it occurred the works of Nikolai Gogol remain in his memory. We meet up with him several years later as his parents are arranging a marriage for him with Ashima (Tabu).
After their marriage the coupe goes to the United States where Ashoke is in school. The film follows the couple as they adjust to each other and Ashima adjusts to living outside of India. They have a family and name their first child Gogol. As Gogol grows up he is resistant to his parents and wants to change his name. At this point the film follows Gogol (Kal Penn) while also returning to Ashoke and Ashima. Tragedy strikes the family and Gogol must struggle between the American life he knows and has established with his Indian culture.
This film was quite good. It's quite pleasing with all the fancy footwork films made in Hollywood pull off, that there are still people making films that are just about people. This is just a character study that follows some very interesting people. Kal Penn is pleasant enough as Gogol but the meat of this film lies in Tabu's and Irfan Kahn's performances. As the couple of an arranged marriage they show amazing range. From the early scenes of disorientation of Ashima being with a man she hardly knows in a country so different from her own to the confident way she announces her plans now that her children are settled, I was fascinated with Tabu's performance. Irfan Kahn was no different. The two of them together had amazing chemistry.
I actually found myself irritated when the film moved away to deal with Gogol's life. It isn't as though he is less interesting (or maybe it is that he is less interesting) but Ashoke and Ashima just leap off the screen. This film is funny and sad (even heartbreaking) all while showing a culture that I know very little about. If you like a strong character driven plot then I recommend this film.
After their marriage the coupe goes to the United States where Ashoke is in school. The film follows the couple as they adjust to each other and Ashima adjusts to living outside of India. They have a family and name their first child Gogol. As Gogol grows up he is resistant to his parents and wants to change his name. At this point the film follows Gogol (Kal Penn) while also returning to Ashoke and Ashima. Tragedy strikes the family and Gogol must struggle between the American life he knows and has established with his Indian culture.
This film was quite good. It's quite pleasing with all the fancy footwork films made in Hollywood pull off, that there are still people making films that are just about people. This is just a character study that follows some very interesting people. Kal Penn is pleasant enough as Gogol but the meat of this film lies in Tabu's and Irfan Kahn's performances. As the couple of an arranged marriage they show amazing range. From the early scenes of disorientation of Ashima being with a man she hardly knows in a country so different from her own to the confident way she announces her plans now that her children are settled, I was fascinated with Tabu's performance. Irfan Kahn was no different. The two of them together had amazing chemistry.
I actually found myself irritated when the film moved away to deal with Gogol's life. It isn't as though he is less interesting (or maybe it is that he is less interesting) but Ashoke and Ashima just leap off the screen. This film is funny and sad (even heartbreaking) all while showing a culture that I know very little about. If you like a strong character driven plot then I recommend this film.
Sunday, April 08, 2007
Grindhouse
Grindhouse is what I can only describe as a cinephiletic orgasm. If you watched the trailer you either had no interest in it or you thought it was going to be the event in your life that you needed to see. Quentin Tarantino and Robert Rodriguez directing 70s style exploitative violent films. This film delivers although at a 191 minutes long it doesn't give you everything you wanted in a reasonable time.
Rodriguez' Planet Terror is a send up and take on zombie films. It's high intensity and has a lot of humor and beautiful women to fill the screen. As a fan of the zombie film, I was watching eagerly watching the creative ways of killing zombies and the over the top acting from such classic B movie actors as Michael Biehn and Tom Savini!!.
Tarantino's Death Proof is the second film and it has the classic dialogue you expect from his films. It however goes a bit too long and after the no stopping intensity of Planet Terror, this film starts to drag a bit. The action scenes are well done and the film has a largely satisfying ending but it felt a little too self indulgent from Tarantino.
The film also has several fake trailers which are fun to watch from various directors. If you like Tarantino, Rodriguez or film in general (and can stomach a lot of gore) then this is definitely a movie to see, in a large audience if you can manage it.
Rodriguez' Planet Terror is a send up and take on zombie films. It's high intensity and has a lot of humor and beautiful women to fill the screen. As a fan of the zombie film, I was watching eagerly watching the creative ways of killing zombies and the over the top acting from such classic B movie actors as Michael Biehn and Tom Savini!!.
Tarantino's Death Proof is the second film and it has the classic dialogue you expect from his films. It however goes a bit too long and after the no stopping intensity of Planet Terror, this film starts to drag a bit. The action scenes are well done and the film has a largely satisfying ending but it felt a little too self indulgent from Tarantino.
The film also has several fake trailers which are fun to watch from various directors. If you like Tarantino, Rodriguez or film in general (and can stomach a lot of gore) then this is definitely a movie to see, in a large audience if you can manage it.
Monday, April 02, 2007
Reign Over Me
I saw this movie because I like Don Cheadle and I'm trying to give Adam Sandler a chance in serious movies. But P.T. Anderson's Punch Drunk Love this is not. The movie follows Cheadle's character as he sees and re-befriends his old college roommate who lost his whole family in the 9/11 terror attacks. Sandler's Charlie is suffering from PTSD and refuses to even think about his life before. Unfortunately this film has been handled with all the subtelty of a tack hammer to the head.
Director Mike Binder attempts to pull every emotional string he can in the course of this movie and he loads it down with what he considers moving rock songs from his past. Now I like listening to Bruce Springsteen as much as the next guy (actually probably more than the next guy) but the symbolic scene when Sandler and Cheadle 'jam' to a song from the river had one thing going for it, the song. This is a sappy sad story with no real emotional depth but decent performances. You can see Sandler wanting to break out but he holds it in check.
There are two subplots to this film neither of which works in any satisfying way. One involves a bizarrely crazy woman (played by the beautiful Saffron Burrows) who makes a sexual advance on Cheadle, threatens to sue him and then apologizes before falling for Sandler's character. This also helps resolve a weak plotline where Cheadle stands up to his firm partners. The other plot is the struggle in Cheadle's own marriage which gets only the briefest attention and is resolved hurridly at the end.
This bizarre mix of overly bittersweet melodrama and confused side plots makes for quite a mess of a movie.
Director Mike Binder attempts to pull every emotional string he can in the course of this movie and he loads it down with what he considers moving rock songs from his past. Now I like listening to Bruce Springsteen as much as the next guy (actually probably more than the next guy) but the symbolic scene when Sandler and Cheadle 'jam' to a song from the river had one thing going for it, the song. This is a sappy sad story with no real emotional depth but decent performances. You can see Sandler wanting to break out but he holds it in check.
There are two subplots to this film neither of which works in any satisfying way. One involves a bizarrely crazy woman (played by the beautiful Saffron Burrows) who makes a sexual advance on Cheadle, threatens to sue him and then apologizes before falling for Sandler's character. This also helps resolve a weak plotline where Cheadle stands up to his firm partners. The other plot is the struggle in Cheadle's own marriage which gets only the briefest attention and is resolved hurridly at the end.
This bizarre mix of overly bittersweet melodrama and confused side plots makes for quite a mess of a movie.
Sunday, April 01, 2007
The Lookout
The Lookout follows the life of Chris Pratt (Joseph Gordon-Levitt , who four years prior had been in a car accident that left him suffering from memory loss. Chris goes through the motions of his day remembering the glory he had as a student athlete in high school and the comparably miserable existence he has now. His roommate and good friend is Lew (Jeff Daniels) who is blind and smart and hoping for the best for Chris. Chris is approached one night by Gary Spargo (Matthew Goode) under the auspices of friendship and ends up hooking up Chris with a pretty ex-stripper Luvlee (Isla Fisher). Soon, it is revealed that its less about friendship and more about bank robbing as Chris is pulled into a plan to rob the bank he works at.
This was a pretty good film. It had strong performances from all the key people and some excellent character work by Bruce McGill as Chris' father. The memory loss plot device is handled well as is the greater character arc for Chris. Some of the characters come and go without satisfactory closure and the ending was a bit weak but the acting and mostly good story telling made it worth seeing.
This was a pretty good film. It had strong performances from all the key people and some excellent character work by Bruce McGill as Chris' father. The memory loss plot device is handled well as is the greater character arc for Chris. Some of the characters come and go without satisfactory closure and the ending was a bit weak but the acting and mostly good story telling made it worth seeing.
Monday, March 26, 2007
The PRIDEful SHOOTER killed the HOST
I'm pretty sure no one is reading at this point anyway so dropping my two cents worth on three films seems like an exercise in futility but my whole life is an exercise in futility so ha!
Pride is your typical inspirational sports story. Terence Howard stars as a young man who experienced prejudice in his college years when trying to compete as a swimmer, years later in 70s Philadelphia, he gets a job clearing out a soon to be shut down rec center where he discovers, cleans up and begins using the abandoned pool. A group of local kids who use the lot to play basketball are deprived of the hoops and wander inside the rec center and are soon inspired to become swimmers.
Its typical because it has all the plot points you would expect to see. Early failure, racial prejudice against the black kids trying to break into a "white" sport, training montages, and eventual success. The story is based on true events and you can see real documentary footage of the actual coach if you sit through the credits. Howard's performance was strong and the movie accomplishes everything it sets out to do. I suppose there isn't anything wrong with telling an inspiration tale about keeping kids off the streets and out of gang life through recreational activity but I wonder if there is a way to tell such a story in a less stale cliched way. Swim fans and fans of sports underdog stories may enjoy this film more than I did. I am glad to see Howard still putting everything into his performances, I hope he has lots of success.
Shooter is about as mindless as Hollywood gets sans Michael Bay at the helm. We follow trained sniper Swaggert (Mark Wahlberg) who after being betrayed by the military living in seclusion. He is hired to help find a presidential assassin but is instead imbroiled in a conspiracy on a high level. Wahlberg (phoning in his performance, guess he needed a break from his intensity in The Departed (2006)) plays the sort of Matt Damon action hero well enough. The movie delivers the fight scenes and gun fighting that one wants from a movie like this all wrapped up in a ludicrous plot that is instantly forgettable. But I give a shout out to Ned Beatty who I can't remember seeing in a film since the Superman franchise. He was so great as Otis. Final verdict: Popcorn fluff that I enjoyed well enough.
The Host is a much critically praised horror film (91% fresh rating on RottenTomatoes.com) from Korea. It is apparently the highest grossing Korean film to date. Neither of these is exactly high praise in my view. Night Watch was the highest grossing Russian film to date and that move was seriously lacking in all that is good. This film is trying desperately hard to evoke at least three different genres: 50s horror, comedy, and social commentary. I think it fails at all three. It has all the subtlety of a Jerry Bruckheimer film, forced humor and blunt force anti-American sentiment. I was in pain after watching for a half hour and was praying for the end after that.
Poor acting (apparently intentional), poor character development (again intentional?), and overall pointless meandering story drove me insane. The filmmaker seemed more interested in making the monster move in a neat fashion than anything else. It could have been at least twenty minutes shorter and in general just left me angry.
Pride is your typical inspirational sports story. Terence Howard stars as a young man who experienced prejudice in his college years when trying to compete as a swimmer, years later in 70s Philadelphia, he gets a job clearing out a soon to be shut down rec center where he discovers, cleans up and begins using the abandoned pool. A group of local kids who use the lot to play basketball are deprived of the hoops and wander inside the rec center and are soon inspired to become swimmers.
Its typical because it has all the plot points you would expect to see. Early failure, racial prejudice against the black kids trying to break into a "white" sport, training montages, and eventual success. The story is based on true events and you can see real documentary footage of the actual coach if you sit through the credits. Howard's performance was strong and the movie accomplishes everything it sets out to do. I suppose there isn't anything wrong with telling an inspiration tale about keeping kids off the streets and out of gang life through recreational activity but I wonder if there is a way to tell such a story in a less stale cliched way. Swim fans and fans of sports underdog stories may enjoy this film more than I did. I am glad to see Howard still putting everything into his performances, I hope he has lots of success.
Shooter is about as mindless as Hollywood gets sans Michael Bay at the helm. We follow trained sniper Swaggert (Mark Wahlberg) who after being betrayed by the military living in seclusion. He is hired to help find a presidential assassin but is instead imbroiled in a conspiracy on a high level. Wahlberg (phoning in his performance, guess he needed a break from his intensity in The Departed (2006)) plays the sort of Matt Damon action hero well enough. The movie delivers the fight scenes and gun fighting that one wants from a movie like this all wrapped up in a ludicrous plot that is instantly forgettable. But I give a shout out to Ned Beatty who I can't remember seeing in a film since the Superman franchise. He was so great as Otis. Final verdict: Popcorn fluff that I enjoyed well enough.
The Host is a much critically praised horror film (91% fresh rating on RottenTomatoes.com) from Korea. It is apparently the highest grossing Korean film to date. Neither of these is exactly high praise in my view. Night Watch was the highest grossing Russian film to date and that move was seriously lacking in all that is good. This film is trying desperately hard to evoke at least three different genres: 50s horror, comedy, and social commentary. I think it fails at all three. It has all the subtlety of a Jerry Bruckheimer film, forced humor and blunt force anti-American sentiment. I was in pain after watching for a half hour and was praying for the end after that.
Poor acting (apparently intentional), poor character development (again intentional?), and overall pointless meandering story drove me insane. The filmmaker seemed more interested in making the monster move in a neat fashion than anything else. It could have been at least twenty minutes shorter and in general just left me angry.
Tuesday, February 20, 2007
Smokin Ghost Rider
I have no qualms about writing one very short post about two movies. Smokin' Aces had the potential to be a really fun popcorn flick. Instead it was tied down in stylistic pretentiousness. Ghost Rider by contrast had no redeemable potential at all. I lost two hours of my life and all I got was some gratuitous cleavage of Eva Mendes. And I should note this is a movie that starred Nick Cage, Sam Eliot hell even Donal Logue and Wes Bentley deserve better than this. I'd be shocked that Peter Fonda was in this but he was also in Escape from LA so his credibility is seriously lacking.
Tuesday, January 30, 2007
Pan's Labyrinth
Pan's Labyrinth follows a young girl named Ofelia who accompanies her pregnant mother to a military outpost in 1944 Spain where her step father is the commander. He is a sadistic commander for the fascist regime that was in power at that time. Ofelia escapes into her fantasies where she believes she is the long lost daughter of the king of another world.
The film follows Ofelia as she negotiates both the violent and dangerous real world and the idyllic fantasy adventure in her head. The fantasy scenes are amazing to view with textured and even very creepy creatures who aid or hinder her quest to be reunited with her lost world. The fantasy world is off set by the quite brutal things that happen in the real world including torture and summary execution.
This film has a nice balance of both worlds and even has an amazingly good resolve. I left the theater liking the movie and two days later I'm writing this and really liking this movie. The acting was well done, the directing was good. The human stories told were touching and the ending was...without giving anything away...very well done.
The film follows Ofelia as she negotiates both the violent and dangerous real world and the idyllic fantasy adventure in her head. The fantasy scenes are amazing to view with textured and even very creepy creatures who aid or hinder her quest to be reunited with her lost world. The fantasy world is off set by the quite brutal things that happen in the real world including torture and summary execution.
This film has a nice balance of both worlds and even has an amazingly good resolve. I left the theater liking the movie and two days later I'm writing this and really liking this movie. The acting was well done, the directing was good. The human stories told were touching and the ending was...without giving anything away...very well done.
Letters From Iwo Jima
Letters From Iwo Jima is an good war film. It isn't fantastic. I'm not sure what all the critical praise is about. I think Thin Red Line (1998) is far superior. It tales the story of the Battle of Iwo Jima from a side as Americans we don't often think of. I've heard a lot of critics say that perhaps as a student of history I've always been interested in the other narrative so I always thought war movies that were all patriotic were missing something. Recall that Thin Red Line does in fact have a few words from a Japanese soldier and I would suspect more were disposed on the editing room floor.
Letters does have one very vivid and memorable and also shocking scene involving honorable suicide. The acting is strong, especially Ken Watanabe and the direction solid but I was underwhelmed by this film. I would have enjoyed a deeper delving into the war culture of Japan that caused the men to fight as they did.
Letters does have one very vivid and memorable and also shocking scene involving honorable suicide. The acting is strong, especially Ken Watanabe and the direction solid but I was underwhelmed by this film. I would have enjoyed a deeper delving into the war culture of Japan that caused the men to fight as they did.
The Painted Veil
I think I liked The Painted Veil when I saw it two weeks ago but I can't recall much about it now. It was a bit long and not a very coherent plot but it was more about the characters than anything else. Naomi Watts and Edward Norton play some extraordinarily complex characters who run the gamet of emotions. This is definitely one of those roles an actor loves to get. The cinematography in this film was also breathtaking to look at. This is a rare US movie filmed in china and the country side is amazing to see. I'm glad I saw it so I can comment on any nominations but not memorable for me as a film.
Aliens
A personal favorite movie of mine for years has been James Cameron's Aliens (1986). When I learned that the local indie theater was going to be showing this film on the big screen, I was thrilled. Well the print of the movie I'm pretty sure was from twenty years ago, it was scratched and blurry and actually pretty poor image quality but you know what? I didn't care one damn bit.
As much as Ridley Scott's Alien (1979) was a scary thriller, Cameron's film is an excellent action film. But that isn't to say there isn't suspense in this movie because believe me there is. What exactly happened on the colony? How are the aliens moving around? Who is going to live? Will Ripley save Newt? I know the answer to every one of these questions and I still was glued to the screen.
I forgot how funny this film is too. There are genuinely funny moments with fun dialogue and plenty of action. And I couldn't help but cheer aloud and neither could the rest of the audience when Ripley yells out at the end "Get Away from her, you b*tch!" This is an experience I wish I could have had years ago in its original release but to be fair to me, I was five. Watching this old print with a crowd of hard core fans was almost as good. So go rewatch or watch for the first time an excellent suspense action film from one of the great directors of our time.
As much as Ridley Scott's Alien (1979) was a scary thriller, Cameron's film is an excellent action film. But that isn't to say there isn't suspense in this movie because believe me there is. What exactly happened on the colony? How are the aliens moving around? Who is going to live? Will Ripley save Newt? I know the answer to every one of these questions and I still was glued to the screen.
I forgot how funny this film is too. There are genuinely funny moments with fun dialogue and plenty of action. And I couldn't help but cheer aloud and neither could the rest of the audience when Ripley yells out at the end "Get Away from her, you b*tch!" This is an experience I wish I could have had years ago in its original release but to be fair to me, I was five. Watching this old print with a crowd of hard core fans was almost as good. So go rewatch or watch for the first time an excellent suspense action film from one of the great directors of our time.
The Queen
I went to the theater to see a special viewing of Aliens (1986) and ended up seeing The Queen (2006). I blame the internet for lying to me about when Aliens was showing. Ironically I went initially to see a movie that had a queen (albiet a hideous alien one) in it and after a small snafu I ended up at a movie that had a queen in it (debatably the English royal family could be aliens).
The Queen stands as a historical drama in which I can actually vividly remember the public events it is dealing with. I remember when Diana died and the royal family wasn't talking. This film gives us the inside or at least an interpretation of what was going on inside the royal family at the time. It is really well done and has strong performances from many members of the cast.
Helen Mirren of course stands out. She has been nominated for multiple awards and rightly so. I have not seen every movie on the noms but someone would have to be pretty amazing to upstage her. Sometimes I have personal favorites whom I root for despite the fact that I know they aren't the best performance but be wary to all, she was phenomenal and will be hard to beat.
The Queen stands as a historical drama in which I can actually vividly remember the public events it is dealing with. I remember when Diana died and the royal family wasn't talking. This film gives us the inside or at least an interpretation of what was going on inside the royal family at the time. It is really well done and has strong performances from many members of the cast.
Helen Mirren of course stands out. She has been nominated for multiple awards and rightly so. I have not seen every movie on the noms but someone would have to be pretty amazing to upstage her. Sometimes I have personal favorites whom I root for despite the fact that I know they aren't the best performance but be wary to all, she was phenomenal and will be hard to beat.
Thursday, January 11, 2007
Happily N'Ever After
Fairly tales are apparently so timeless that even Hollywood has gotten sick of them. It has gotten to the point that classic tales like Cinderella and Little Red Riding Hood are being reimagined. This, in my opinion, has been done successfully in films like Ever After (199x) and Hoodwinked (2006) and done horribly in films like The Brothers Grimm (2005). Happily N'Ever After is definitely in the latter category.
The film starts as the traditional Cinderella Story but we are introduced to a lowly servant, Rick (Freddie Prince, Jr) who is in love with Cinderella (Sarah Michelle Gellar). The wicked stepmother gets her hands on a magic staff and upsets the balance of all the fairy tales, letting the bad guys win. The prince turns out to be a chump and it is Rick with Cinderella's help who saves the day.
This film is not clever. The story drags on too long at the beginning and then hurries to find an ending. If this is the quality of children's movies these days, I am truly sorry for the children. This film completely misuses George Carlin and a star filled voice cast including Sigourney Weaver and Wallace Shawn!! (Okay so he isn't exactly a star). I would suggest renting Hoodwinked or Ever After instead. Or my personal favorite reimagining of a fairy tale, Ella Enchanted.
The film starts as the traditional Cinderella Story but we are introduced to a lowly servant, Rick (Freddie Prince, Jr) who is in love with Cinderella (Sarah Michelle Gellar). The wicked stepmother gets her hands on a magic staff and upsets the balance of all the fairy tales, letting the bad guys win. The prince turns out to be a chump and it is Rick with Cinderella's help who saves the day.
This film is not clever. The story drags on too long at the beginning and then hurries to find an ending. If this is the quality of children's movies these days, I am truly sorry for the children. This film completely misuses George Carlin and a star filled voice cast including Sigourney Weaver and Wallace Shawn!! (Okay so he isn't exactly a star). I would suggest renting Hoodwinked or Ever After instead. Or my personal favorite reimagining of a fairy tale, Ella Enchanted.
Tuesday, January 09, 2007
Children of Men
This is by far the best movie I have seen all year. Okay so that is a little cheap. I've technically seen only three movies in this year (2007). This one definitely makes my top ten of movies released in 2006. Alfonso Cuaron does an amazing job behind the camera creating a tight well done action thriller. And the main character never picks up a gun once.
The film picks up in the year 2027, 18 years after humans stopped being able to reproduce. The youngest person on the planet has just died and things all over the world have gone to hell pretty much. A fascist government in Britain is doing its best to curb the violence and is going about it in a very typical fear mongering way.
Theo (Clive Owen) is our main character a stolid, perhaps alcoholic man who has essentially given up on humanity. He is enlisted by his ex wife to help get an unexpectedly pregnant girl to something called the Human Project. The film follows his adventures to get the girl to her destination. There is plenty of action and intrigue for the film and it never gets tedious or boring.
There are some excellent performances from quality actors. Michael Caine's performance is of particular skill and craft. Owen is excellent as always as well. This movie has a brutal use of violence but it never seems gratuitous. It always makes sense and never pulled me out of the movie.
It amazes me that in essence this movie has a similar dystopic not so distant future that the movie V for Vendetta (2005) had and yet that movie was horrible and this movie works. The atmosphere of this movie was amazing. Some of the throw away stuff like propaganda messages on the trains or graffiti on walls was so well placed. You believe that this all could actually happen.
The film picks up in the year 2027, 18 years after humans stopped being able to reproduce. The youngest person on the planet has just died and things all over the world have gone to hell pretty much. A fascist government in Britain is doing its best to curb the violence and is going about it in a very typical fear mongering way.
Theo (Clive Owen) is our main character a stolid, perhaps alcoholic man who has essentially given up on humanity. He is enlisted by his ex wife to help get an unexpectedly pregnant girl to something called the Human Project. The film follows his adventures to get the girl to her destination. There is plenty of action and intrigue for the film and it never gets tedious or boring.
There are some excellent performances from quality actors. Michael Caine's performance is of particular skill and craft. Owen is excellent as always as well. This movie has a brutal use of violence but it never seems gratuitous. It always makes sense and never pulled me out of the movie.
It amazes me that in essence this movie has a similar dystopic not so distant future that the movie V for Vendetta (2005) had and yet that movie was horrible and this movie works. The atmosphere of this movie was amazing. Some of the throw away stuff like propaganda messages on the trains or graffiti on walls was so well placed. You believe that this all could actually happen.
Philip J Fry had it right
I have an addiction to Lucy Liu. Much like the lovable dope of the short lived Fox series I think she is really attractive. Seeing a Lucy Liu movie is the closest I can imagine to what an actually drug addiction would be like. You see I have to see Lucy Liu movies, no matter how terrible they appear to be. Earlier last year I was delighted to find out Lucky Number Slevin was actually better than it sounded and appeared from the previews. I've also seen, sadly, both Charlie's Angels movies. And Ms. Liu is also why I recently watched Codename: Cleaner.
Oh dear gods, what a horrible, horrible movie. Cedric the Entertainer is like anti-comedy. The plot is bad. Very bad. Familiar faces are used to the weakest effect. Why oh why does Will Patton get into so many bad movies? I'm trying desperately to cleanse this movie from my memory. But it was still worth it for the Lucy Liu fix.
Oh dear gods, what a horrible, horrible movie. Cedric the Entertainer is like anti-comedy. The plot is bad. Very bad. Familiar faces are used to the weakest effect. Why oh why does Will Patton get into so many bad movies? I'm trying desperately to cleanse this movie from my memory. But it was still worth it for the Lucy Liu fix.
Freedom Writers
Freedom Writers plays like Dangerous Minds 2: Dangerouser. It's your typical Hollywood, inexperienced teacher with a view towards fixing a broken education system film. Everything you expect to see in this film you will see. It doesn't matter if it was based on a true story. Hilary Swank plays the idealist, naive teacher coming into an inner city school with gang problems who inspires her students to believe in themselves.
The film is made well enough, the performances are standard, nothing exciting and it has all the tear inducing moments one would expect for this type of film. I'm not entirely sure what one is supposed to get out of a film like this? Am I supposed to realize how messed up the education system is? Am I supposed to believe that if there were more teachers like Swank's character, that all the education problems would be resolved?
I suspect reforming education can't be simplified that easily. This film doesn't do anything amazing and by turning it into a pop culture event may in fact weaken whatever the real people actually accomplished. A little text blurb at the end even informs the audience that she didn't stay in high school education. A much better film about teaching was Half Nelson. I recommend that instead.
The film is made well enough, the performances are standard, nothing exciting and it has all the tear inducing moments one would expect for this type of film. I'm not entirely sure what one is supposed to get out of a film like this? Am I supposed to realize how messed up the education system is? Am I supposed to believe that if there were more teachers like Swank's character, that all the education problems would be resolved?
I suspect reforming education can't be simplified that easily. This film doesn't do anything amazing and by turning it into a pop culture event may in fact weaken whatever the real people actually accomplished. A little text blurb at the end even informs the audience that she didn't stay in high school education. A much better film about teaching was Half Nelson. I recommend that instead.
Failure and The Goal Renewed
Despite some marthon movie going near the end of the semester which had me seeing several movies, I did not make the 100 movies in the theater that I had hoped for. I saw Apocalypto, long and bloody but the foot chase sequence in the final act was amazingly fun to watch and so I give a favorable opinion of the movie overall. Eragon played and felt like a ripoff of Lord of the Rings, but if you like sword and sorcery flicks this one will work as a fix. Rocky Balboa, I'm pretty sure a new Rocky movie was not necessary but this movie played fine until the end when I got very angry for some reason. Either the second or third best of the Rocky movies. The Good Shepherd, Matt Damon was really good and really reserved. Not a perfect movie but well done in my opinion. So that wrapped up my movie going experience of 2006. I managed 85 different films (saw Superman Returns twice), fifteen shy of the goal. So I just have to aim for it again. Here we go, I've seen three movies so far, 97 to go!!
Monday, December 18, 2006
Blood Diamonds
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)