Alex was happily married to Margot. But eight years prior she was brutally murdered while they were at a lake celebrating their anniversary. Alex was not without suspicion as the possible murderer. As Alex tries to carry on his life, never truly over the death of his wife, he receives a bizarre anonymous email. The email contains a link to a real time video feed showing his wife very much alive (or so he thinks). New evidence is uncovered at the crime scene which increases interest in the murder and especially the police interest in Alex as the suspect. Alex must discover as fast as he can what is going on.
The film directed by Guillaume Canet is a French language thriller. As Alex investigates the circumstances of his wife's death and continues to receive emails from this anonymous person he discovers a complex series of events that begin to complicate his life. Is his wife alive? Why has someone murdered a close friend and planted evidence on Alex? The film is a solid entertaining thriller. Its story is good and its acting is as well. It may get a bit convoluted and confusing as the film nears its end but that tends to be the nature of such thrillers.
What is blissfully good about it is that it eschews what we might consider the typical Hollywood thriller format. There are no explosions or an action sequence ever eleven point two minutes. In fact there is really only one action set piece. It is well performed, authentically motivated and tense. Canet no doubt could have put other sequences in and handled them with skill. But he doesn't need to conceal a thin premise with flashy action. The mystery carries itself just fine.
It is a movie like Tell No One that makes me happy. It is not without its flaws but it is by no means a terrible film. It is just a good story that was fun to watch and doesn't make pretensions to being overly artistic or reach for the lowest common denominator.
Monday, August 11, 2008
Friday, August 08, 2008
Gonzo
In terms of cinema, it hasn't been a great year for me. Although I was want to argue and play devil's advocate with friends, last year was truly a magical time for great films. A good deal of my viewings from early this year was actually catch up for that which I missed due to time constraints or my abyssmal location when it comes to indie films (the good stuff comes late or not at all to North Carolina). Granted I am prone to gripe, be over critical and have been generally tagged by friends and foes alike as a curmudgeon. So although I've seen a few films I enjoyed (Reprise, The Dark Knight even they could not escape my criticism. Thankfully I am not going to do that with this review.
Gonzo is a documentary of the life of Hunter S. Thompson. An iconic cultural figure who has influenced a lot of people and has written several very acclaimed literary works. He was a refreshing voice in America who told you how he saw it. Now I've never actually read any of his work. I can't be entirely sure I would enjoy it. In fact most of what I know of the man relates to the Terry Gilliam film Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas based on Thompson's book. But my ignorance actually made the film enjoyable. I learned things, got insight and in some way was comforted (or perhaps horrified) that the problems of the past are still around.
The film is narrated largely by Johnny Depp and is filled with interviews of those who were his friends, as well as political figures such as Pat Buchanan, Jimmy Carter and George McGovern. All this is interspersed with selected passages from Thompson's work that show his fluidity and grace with words as well as his outrage. Obviously I'm a fan of history and have studied it enough to know the notion of unbiased history is a joke as old as written historical narrative. So to experience the history of the 1960s (the Vietnam War, loss of the American Dream, Civil Rights) and the 1970s (still the war, political disillusionment) through the lens of an admitted "freak" and malcontent who would even lampoon his heroes if he felt betrayed, is quite refreshing.
His personal takes on sub culture, politics and America is refreshing. I don't always agree with his conclusions but I have respect for them. I admittedly am more sympathetic to his outrage than perhaps conservative America would be but I still naively believe that Hegelian dialectic and its focus on synthesis is in desperate need in all aspects of life and calls for extreme radical views on both sides to be tempered by moderate moderators.
So I applaud the director in giving us a fresh, largely positive look at a radical figure of our past. It is blatantly provocative about our current political and cultural crises but not overly so and is mainly contemplative. The sad confession that Thompson's first wife utters at film's end that the problems of today need an on top of his game Thompson to help us through is as tragic as it is true.
Gonzo is a documentary of the life of Hunter S. Thompson. An iconic cultural figure who has influenced a lot of people and has written several very acclaimed literary works. He was a refreshing voice in America who told you how he saw it. Now I've never actually read any of his work. I can't be entirely sure I would enjoy it. In fact most of what I know of the man relates to the Terry Gilliam film Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas based on Thompson's book. But my ignorance actually made the film enjoyable. I learned things, got insight and in some way was comforted (or perhaps horrified) that the problems of the past are still around.
The film is narrated largely by Johnny Depp and is filled with interviews of those who were his friends, as well as political figures such as Pat Buchanan, Jimmy Carter and George McGovern. All this is interspersed with selected passages from Thompson's work that show his fluidity and grace with words as well as his outrage. Obviously I'm a fan of history and have studied it enough to know the notion of unbiased history is a joke as old as written historical narrative. So to experience the history of the 1960s (the Vietnam War, loss of the American Dream, Civil Rights) and the 1970s (still the war, political disillusionment) through the lens of an admitted "freak" and malcontent who would even lampoon his heroes if he felt betrayed, is quite refreshing.
His personal takes on sub culture, politics and America is refreshing. I don't always agree with his conclusions but I have respect for them. I admittedly am more sympathetic to his outrage than perhaps conservative America would be but I still naively believe that Hegelian dialectic and its focus on synthesis is in desperate need in all aspects of life and calls for extreme radical views on both sides to be tempered by moderate moderators.
So I applaud the director in giving us a fresh, largely positive look at a radical figure of our past. It is blatantly provocative about our current political and cultural crises but not overly so and is mainly contemplative. The sad confession that Thompson's first wife utters at film's end that the problems of today need an on top of his game Thompson to help us through is as tragic as it is true.
Pineapple Express
The good news: I can actually find things funny. I laughed several times and genuinely so during this movie.
The bad news: third act what the fu...
Meet alliteratively named Dale Denton (Seth Rogan), a process server, who spends his days serving subpoenas, calling talk radio shows and smoking a seemingly excessive amount of pot (seemingly because really I don't have any clue what an excessive amount is - one? five? its not really my thing). Dale gets his pot from equally alliteratively named Saul Silver (James Franco). Saul a lovable loser likes Dale and offers him up some new extremely good marijuana called Pineapple Express. Fast friendship has been made. Dale continues with his job duties and winds up at the house of a drug lord at the inopportune time when he happens to be killing a rival.
Dale runs and brings Saul along, the dealer discovers who Dale and Saul are and chases them. Dale and Saul bond over pot and their fear as they run. Granted they don't run very effectively since they are constantly making stops to smoke up, feast on munchies and be distracted by anything. The movie really gets into its grove about midway through the film. Yes its buddy/stoner comedy but it eschews the typical format of an epic quest for burgers or whatever and goes more surreal. It is certainly kindred with The Big Lebowski though not near as good and while in that film the the smoking was a character trait, here it is front and center and the driving force.
Above it all is that the two characters are likable. Rogen is as always the chubby, lovable loser espousing dreams he will not likely ever accomplish but he thinks he will. Franco is splendid as the absentminded Saul. Just listen to him mention his "second favorite civil engineer" (That line might be genuinely funnier than anything else he says). The two together have great chemistry and you drive whole hearted into the surreal plot because they are leading you with their charm. Danny McBride is the other bright spot of the film. He plays Saul's supplier Red. He's just about the funniest thing in the whole movie. Whether he's beating up someone with household appliances or ruing the fact that he's been shot repeatedly.
Not that all the casting is great. Gary Cole plays the drug lord and well he doesn't ever really rise above my recollection of him as Mr. Brady in the feature films of the 1990s. He doesn't even act like that much of an effective drug lord. Rosie Perez plays a dirty cop on his payroll and she acts pretty much batshit insane (again without any coherent reason). The film was directed by David Gordon Green the man behind the very interesting George Washington and the nice All the Real Girls and the unseen by me Snow Angels. Manhola Dargis of the New York Times recently wrote of him "a regional filmmaker who’s been making a beeline for the mainstream." I don't read this as a compliment.
Green is decent with the comedic stoner motif narrative and you can see his artistic flare (heavily influenced by Terrence Malick) at small moments (the doped up twits leap frogging through a forest for example). There are some profoundly nice shots that sort of leap out because they don't really mix with the frentic stoner driven plot. The plot unfortunately ends up calling for numerous action sequences which frankly seem to baffle Mr. Green. They aren't exciting or tense and I was at times turning to my watch in impatience.
This is of course really tragic given the third act. Abandoning its tone and humor for largely a conventional action set piece. The heroes new found prowess with guns is far too much. The action continues to boor and the narrative devolves into a more and more ridiculous uninteresting mess. Asian ninjas, guns, bombs and elaborate fight sequences carry us to the end with occasional jokes thrown in that do very little. It took me some time to get into the film but once I did I was fully enjoying it until the disaster of the final act. Still overall its better than most comedies out there and undoubtedly is another win in the Judd Apatow column.
The bad news: third act what the fu...
Meet alliteratively named Dale Denton (Seth Rogan), a process server, who spends his days serving subpoenas, calling talk radio shows and smoking a seemingly excessive amount of pot (seemingly because really I don't have any clue what an excessive amount is - one? five? its not really my thing). Dale gets his pot from equally alliteratively named Saul Silver (James Franco). Saul a lovable loser likes Dale and offers him up some new extremely good marijuana called Pineapple Express. Fast friendship has been made. Dale continues with his job duties and winds up at the house of a drug lord at the inopportune time when he happens to be killing a rival.
Dale runs and brings Saul along, the dealer discovers who Dale and Saul are and chases them. Dale and Saul bond over pot and their fear as they run. Granted they don't run very effectively since they are constantly making stops to smoke up, feast on munchies and be distracted by anything. The movie really gets into its grove about midway through the film. Yes its buddy/stoner comedy but it eschews the typical format of an epic quest for burgers or whatever and goes more surreal. It is certainly kindred with The Big Lebowski though not near as good and while in that film the the smoking was a character trait, here it is front and center and the driving force.
Above it all is that the two characters are likable. Rogen is as always the chubby, lovable loser espousing dreams he will not likely ever accomplish but he thinks he will. Franco is splendid as the absentminded Saul. Just listen to him mention his "second favorite civil engineer" (That line might be genuinely funnier than anything else he says). The two together have great chemistry and you drive whole hearted into the surreal plot because they are leading you with their charm. Danny McBride is the other bright spot of the film. He plays Saul's supplier Red. He's just about the funniest thing in the whole movie. Whether he's beating up someone with household appliances or ruing the fact that he's been shot repeatedly.
Not that all the casting is great. Gary Cole plays the drug lord and well he doesn't ever really rise above my recollection of him as Mr. Brady in the feature films of the 1990s. He doesn't even act like that much of an effective drug lord. Rosie Perez plays a dirty cop on his payroll and she acts pretty much batshit insane (again without any coherent reason). The film was directed by David Gordon Green the man behind the very interesting George Washington and the nice All the Real Girls and the unseen by me Snow Angels. Manhola Dargis of the New York Times recently wrote of him "a regional filmmaker who’s been making a beeline for the mainstream." I don't read this as a compliment.
Green is decent with the comedic stoner motif narrative and you can see his artistic flare (heavily influenced by Terrence Malick) at small moments (the doped up twits leap frogging through a forest for example). There are some profoundly nice shots that sort of leap out because they don't really mix with the frentic stoner driven plot. The plot unfortunately ends up calling for numerous action sequences which frankly seem to baffle Mr. Green. They aren't exciting or tense and I was at times turning to my watch in impatience.
This is of course really tragic given the third act. Abandoning its tone and humor for largely a conventional action set piece. The heroes new found prowess with guns is far too much. The action continues to boor and the narrative devolves into a more and more ridiculous uninteresting mess. Asian ninjas, guns, bombs and elaborate fight sequences carry us to the end with occasional jokes thrown in that do very little. It took me some time to get into the film but once I did I was fully enjoying it until the disaster of the final act. Still overall its better than most comedies out there and undoubtedly is another win in the Judd Apatow column.
Wednesday, August 06, 2008
Swing Vote
Bud (Kevin Costner) is a drunk, not a very good father and is too self absorbed to even think about civic responsibility. His daughter Molly (newcomer Madeline Carroll) is young, was forced by circumstance to grow up faster than she should have and inspired by the civic lessons of her teacher. Molly wants Bud to vote, Bud wants to drink. An act of voter fraud that is barely acknowledged and in fact swept quickly under the rug sets up the premise. Bud's vote for president didn't count and the closeness of the presidential race means his vote will put one candidate over the top and become the next president. Along the way Bud will be courted and enjoy celebrity and ultimate do the right thing.
Swing Vote is supposed to be political satire. But like much recent satire it pulls its punches when it should be cutting deep. It wants to be universal rather than partisan and so never digs deep into political issues. Its presidential candidates are both basically variations on a George W Bush theme of likable guys without a whole lot of ideas. They are both sort of boringly charismatic. The whole narrative seems to exist in a world parallel to our own in which the most significant factor in American politics in the last ten years doesn't exist. There is no war on terror in this film. There is only a passing mention of North Korea.
It treats with kid gloves poverty in America but this is not a reflection so much of current economic realities but rather general poverty. There was only the barest reference to health care. Abortion and immigration get token appearances as does gay marriage. The film doesn't have the guts to tackle any issue head on and make it interesting. It has a bit of a too little too late moment mid film in which traditional cliched political views are flip flopped like never before. A pro environment Republican and a pro-life/anti-immigration Democrat are attempts at mocking the votes at any cost ideology that seems to at times dominate political debate.
In addition to never digging deep into any issue I have serious objection to the hero of the narrative. Bud is a selfish, drunken asshole. Why is it that the everyman in this film has to be such a worthless part of society? Voter apathy is not strictly the domain of redneck alcoholic pricks. Costner is a charismatic enough actor that his big moment speech at the film's finale is well done and emotionally convincing but the ten day turn around of such a jerk is less believable. In our current state of politics a truly damning satire of the political system would be refreshing whether it was pro conservative or pro liberal. Sadly this film takes a strange path through attempting to be a feel good movie. It fails.
Swing Vote is supposed to be political satire. But like much recent satire it pulls its punches when it should be cutting deep. It wants to be universal rather than partisan and so never digs deep into political issues. Its presidential candidates are both basically variations on a George W Bush theme of likable guys without a whole lot of ideas. They are both sort of boringly charismatic. The whole narrative seems to exist in a world parallel to our own in which the most significant factor in American politics in the last ten years doesn't exist. There is no war on terror in this film. There is only a passing mention of North Korea.
It treats with kid gloves poverty in America but this is not a reflection so much of current economic realities but rather general poverty. There was only the barest reference to health care. Abortion and immigration get token appearances as does gay marriage. The film doesn't have the guts to tackle any issue head on and make it interesting. It has a bit of a too little too late moment mid film in which traditional cliched political views are flip flopped like never before. A pro environment Republican and a pro-life/anti-immigration Democrat are attempts at mocking the votes at any cost ideology that seems to at times dominate political debate.
In addition to never digging deep into any issue I have serious objection to the hero of the narrative. Bud is a selfish, drunken asshole. Why is it that the everyman in this film has to be such a worthless part of society? Voter apathy is not strictly the domain of redneck alcoholic pricks. Costner is a charismatic enough actor that his big moment speech at the film's finale is well done and emotionally convincing but the ten day turn around of such a jerk is less believable. In our current state of politics a truly damning satire of the political system would be refreshing whether it was pro conservative or pro liberal. Sadly this film takes a strange path through attempting to be a feel good movie. It fails.
Sunday, August 03, 2008
Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor
Nothing quite like perspective to make you realize just how terrible something is. I'm a bit of a fan of Superman and strangely teen melodrama and so really the show Smallville is just win win as a guilty pleasure for me. Which isn't to say that I can't recognize its a pretty awful show but I still enjoy it. If this seems like a bit of a digression well it does have a point. Alfred Gough and Miles Millar were the creative show producers behind the tv show and are the writers of this film.
I honestly thought the Mummy had a chance way back in 1999 to be the heir to Indiana Jones. There were enough nice moments in the first half of that film to make one recall fondly those journeys of Dr. Jones. Then just a bit after half way point the film degenerated into a full blown Bruckenheimer inspired summer spectacle and lost any charm value it had built up. The Mummy 2 just sort of upped the ante on absurdness including if I recall correctly a character out running the sun. Now with such a stellar recommendation one might wonder why on Earth I would see a third mummy film. Well at my weakest I'm a completionist. I can't tell you how sad my life will be when I have no doubt I will travel to the cinema to see Saw V simply for the fact that I saw the first four films.
The film picks up with our key characters Rick (Brendan Frasier) and Evelyn (formerly Rachel Weisz, now Maria Bello doing the most appalling English accent) just after world war 2. Their son Alex (Luke Ford) is all grown up and a tomb hunter (at least he isn't calling himself an archaeologist). Alex uncovers the tomb of a cursed Chinese emperor. A particularly preposterous line of events leads to the awakening of said emperor. This leads to another series of fairly ridiculous events all concluding with a big elaborate action set piece, including two cgi undead armies and everyman Frasier beating up Jet Li.
Now, granted a film about supernatural mummies doesn't need to be grounded in reality but then again it doesn't need to have yeti who seem far to familiar with American football. There are so many tongue in cheek, wink at the camera moments in the film that one actually just sighs in defeat after a while. They never acknowledge Rick's age which I may be great full for after the repetition of said joke in the newest Indiana Jones film. There were just enough things in the movie making me hate it with a barely constrained rage that I couldn't even enjoy some of the better done action sequences.
I honestly thought the Mummy had a chance way back in 1999 to be the heir to Indiana Jones. There were enough nice moments in the first half of that film to make one recall fondly those journeys of Dr. Jones. Then just a bit after half way point the film degenerated into a full blown Bruckenheimer inspired summer spectacle and lost any charm value it had built up. The Mummy 2 just sort of upped the ante on absurdness including if I recall correctly a character out running the sun. Now with such a stellar recommendation one might wonder why on Earth I would see a third mummy film. Well at my weakest I'm a completionist. I can't tell you how sad my life will be when I have no doubt I will travel to the cinema to see Saw V simply for the fact that I saw the first four films.
The film picks up with our key characters Rick (Brendan Frasier) and Evelyn (formerly Rachel Weisz, now Maria Bello doing the most appalling English accent) just after world war 2. Their son Alex (Luke Ford) is all grown up and a tomb hunter (at least he isn't calling himself an archaeologist). Alex uncovers the tomb of a cursed Chinese emperor. A particularly preposterous line of events leads to the awakening of said emperor. This leads to another series of fairly ridiculous events all concluding with a big elaborate action set piece, including two cgi undead armies and everyman Frasier beating up Jet Li.
Now, granted a film about supernatural mummies doesn't need to be grounded in reality but then again it doesn't need to have yeti who seem far to familiar with American football. There are so many tongue in cheek, wink at the camera moments in the film that one actually just sighs in defeat after a while. They never acknowledge Rick's age which I may be great full for after the repetition of said joke in the newest Indiana Jones film. There were just enough things in the movie making me hate it with a barely constrained rage that I couldn't even enjoy some of the better done action sequences.
The Wackness
Ahh there is nothing quite like a coming of age story dealing with love, drugs, rap music and a bizarre friendship all in the year...hmm...now what year was it again? Oh that's right I remember since its jammed into your head incessantly again and again. This is that ancient past that was 1994. Kurt Cobain is dead, Notorious B.I.G. is getting hip. Blah, blah, blah. I was 13 in 1994 and in 8th grade I think nor did I live in New York and so all the nostalgia that this film elicits is all one big who gives a crap.
Josh Peck plays Luke, a recently graduated drug dealer who is going to his safety school in the fall. He's always been a bit of a loser and has developed a codependent relationship with a psychiatrist named Squires (Ben Kingsley) in which he exchanges drugs for therapy sessions. Luke falls for Squires' daughter Stephanie (Olivia Thirlby) and we follow Luke through his trials of his last summer before college. Everyone in this film has family troubles of some sort and Luke's magically lie just off screen save for a few character building moments of his home life.
I suppose we are supposed to see in Luke a lovable loser. Someone who once he's away from the singular clique mind of high school will flourish. The problem is that somewhere along the line the lovable part seems to have been missed. I'm not sure its because of Josh Peck's banal performance or poor writing. The fact that he has a closer relationship with his crush's step father than the crush should bode well for him. There isn't any point in the film where I care what happens to Luke or any of these people.
Kingsley is playing a bit of a bizarre character which I'm sure he relishes but he's far better than this film and its unfortunate that he has to be in it. Olivia Thirlby who was Juno's best friend in hit from last year does pretty well but again like all the characters here they don't feel that interesting. If you have some strange nostalgia for a very specific vision of 1994 well then I encourage you to go listen to an old album and take a gander at some photos and not bother with this film.
Josh Peck plays Luke, a recently graduated drug dealer who is going to his safety school in the fall. He's always been a bit of a loser and has developed a codependent relationship with a psychiatrist named Squires (Ben Kingsley) in which he exchanges drugs for therapy sessions. Luke falls for Squires' daughter Stephanie (Olivia Thirlby) and we follow Luke through his trials of his last summer before college. Everyone in this film has family troubles of some sort and Luke's magically lie just off screen save for a few character building moments of his home life.
I suppose we are supposed to see in Luke a lovable loser. Someone who once he's away from the singular clique mind of high school will flourish. The problem is that somewhere along the line the lovable part seems to have been missed. I'm not sure its because of Josh Peck's banal performance or poor writing. The fact that he has a closer relationship with his crush's step father than the crush should bode well for him. There isn't any point in the film where I care what happens to Luke or any of these people.
Kingsley is playing a bit of a bizarre character which I'm sure he relishes but he's far better than this film and its unfortunate that he has to be in it. Olivia Thirlby who was Juno's best friend in hit from last year does pretty well but again like all the characters here they don't feel that interesting. If you have some strange nostalgia for a very specific vision of 1994 well then I encourage you to go listen to an old album and take a gander at some photos and not bother with this film.
Friday, August 01, 2008
Running Tally - Part 7
With just five months to go, July really slowed down. Despite seeing a few of the blockbusters there just wasn't a whole lot being offered out there. Shockingly I resisted the morbid curiosity that was telling me to see Mama Mia!. I also veered off at the last minute several times from Journey to the Center of the Earth. Best to leave that story to Verne which I read as a kid. And despite the blockbuster season, I actually managed to see a film or two that wasn't a blockbuster at all. Seven was my total which has me a bit wary since if this keeps up I'll fall 8 short of my goal by year's end. But I suspect when the juicy cinematic goodness of fall comes there will be plenty to choose from.
Hancock - Its premise is great, its follow through was very disappointing.
Bigger, Stronger, Faster - Took a bit to get used to but at its most sincere moments this is a very well done documentary.
Reprise - Its trying a lot of things, some work, some don't but at its heart is characterization of its two main characters. Ultimately I enjoyed it a lot.
Hell Boy 2 - Visually great, story a little incoherent and uninteresting.
Dark Knight - It had problems but nothing that take away too much from the fact that it is a really well done action film and worth seeing.
X-Files:I Want To Believe - Like a two part mediocre arc from the show.
The Last Mistress - French films usually aren't my cup of tea, especially period dramas. Truthfully this one wasn't very interesting either save for the bizarre presence of Asia Argento that made me guiltily enjoy it.
And now time for another installment of meaningless statistics.
Films Remaining: 43
Days Remaining (As of August 1): 153
Average Number of Films per Day to achieve goal: 0.28
Average Number of Films per Week to Achieve Goal: 1.95
Hancock - Its premise is great, its follow through was very disappointing.
Bigger, Stronger, Faster - Took a bit to get used to but at its most sincere moments this is a very well done documentary.
Reprise - Its trying a lot of things, some work, some don't but at its heart is characterization of its two main characters. Ultimately I enjoyed it a lot.
Hell Boy 2 - Visually great, story a little incoherent and uninteresting.
Dark Knight - It had problems but nothing that take away too much from the fact that it is a really well done action film and worth seeing.
X-Files:I Want To Believe - Like a two part mediocre arc from the show.
The Last Mistress - French films usually aren't my cup of tea, especially period dramas. Truthfully this one wasn't very interesting either save for the bizarre presence of Asia Argento that made me guiltily enjoy it.
And now time for another installment of meaningless statistics.
Films Remaining: 43
Days Remaining (As of August 1): 153
Average Number of Films per Day to achieve goal: 0.28
Average Number of Films per Week to Achieve Goal: 1.95
Wednesday, July 30, 2008
The Last Mistress
The Last Mistress is a French period piece revolving around the lives of the aristocracy. Specifically it deals with a young nobleman who is about to marry a very desirable woman with considerable wealth all because of his friendship with the lady's grandmother. There is objection to the parring by some due to the man's lack of wealth and the fact that he has been carrying on a liaison with a mistress for ten years. The young man explains his life to the grandmother and his relationship with the mistress. Attempting to free himself from his past, he moves away with his new bride and attempts to live and love.
A great deal of the narrative is devoted to the relationship of the young man and his mistress. Less time but equally interesting is his relationship with his proposed bride's grandmother. Little to no time is devoted to the relationship of husband and wife. As you could expect a lot of what one stereotypically thinks of a French film is evident here. Lots of talk, little action and plenty of beautiful period sets and period clothing. We get our share of stuffy aristocrats, the opera and parties. And to be honest it doesn't do any of those things spectacularly well.
What sets it apart and made me enjoy it with a sort of simply glee was of all things an actress. And not an actress I would normally think was any good. Asia Argento plays the mistress, a half Italian, half Spanish resident of Paris who has the complicated relationship with the man. Beyond a rather impressive bust and a pleasant face, she doesn't offer a whole lot of cinematic merit. So her being cast as a bedazzling mistress of the past seems a bit out of place. Then again maybe the point is the unconventional nature of her. She lets her anger control her and she is absolutely the opposite of the proper society of the upper class.
But even if that was the intent, Argento still seems slightly out of place. She slumps on her elbows frequently. She looks as if she dressed hurriedly. She scowls more often than she smiles. And she has a certain sadist attribute to her. And all of this makes her so out of place that I couldn't help but be a bit bemused by it and by her. Like as if the original premise was that a goth chick was transported to the past and expected to make it on her own.
Of course there are themes of love. The man no longer loves the mistress and despite deep and abiding love for his wife occasionally falls to sins of the flesh. The grandmother loves or admires the man. The naive bride loves blindly. All are manipulated in some way to little or no real effect. And then more or less the film just sort of ends. It doesn't end in any compelling way, it just has a dramatic swell and then credits.
And in the end I can honestly only recommend the film if you have a perverse desire to see a casting choice that is ultimately so bizarre that it actually works...sort of.
A great deal of the narrative is devoted to the relationship of the young man and his mistress. Less time but equally interesting is his relationship with his proposed bride's grandmother. Little to no time is devoted to the relationship of husband and wife. As you could expect a lot of what one stereotypically thinks of a French film is evident here. Lots of talk, little action and plenty of beautiful period sets and period clothing. We get our share of stuffy aristocrats, the opera and parties. And to be honest it doesn't do any of those things spectacularly well.
What sets it apart and made me enjoy it with a sort of simply glee was of all things an actress. And not an actress I would normally think was any good. Asia Argento plays the mistress, a half Italian, half Spanish resident of Paris who has the complicated relationship with the man. Beyond a rather impressive bust and a pleasant face, she doesn't offer a whole lot of cinematic merit. So her being cast as a bedazzling mistress of the past seems a bit out of place. Then again maybe the point is the unconventional nature of her. She lets her anger control her and she is absolutely the opposite of the proper society of the upper class.
But even if that was the intent, Argento still seems slightly out of place. She slumps on her elbows frequently. She looks as if she dressed hurriedly. She scowls more often than she smiles. And she has a certain sadist attribute to her. And all of this makes her so out of place that I couldn't help but be a bit bemused by it and by her. Like as if the original premise was that a goth chick was transported to the past and expected to make it on her own.
Of course there are themes of love. The man no longer loves the mistress and despite deep and abiding love for his wife occasionally falls to sins of the flesh. The grandmother loves or admires the man. The naive bride loves blindly. All are manipulated in some way to little or no real effect. And then more or less the film just sort of ends. It doesn't end in any compelling way, it just has a dramatic swell and then credits.
And in the end I can honestly only recommend the film if you have a perverse desire to see a casting choice that is ultimately so bizarre that it actually works...sort of.
Monday, July 28, 2008
X-Files: I Want To Believe
I'm only passingly familiar with the X-Files. I was never really a weekly watching fan and mostly have only seen a handful of episodes and these usually the stellar ones because they were recommended by my friend who is big in to horror and the early seasons of the show. I did see the first feature film and vaguely remember a plot with aliens, black ooze and bees. Its worse that its been some time since even my passing interest in the show has been activated. So I can't really remember the characters that well or the major plot lines and there are definitely insider moments in the film that go way over my head.
The upside? The movie has no aliens. The shows convoluted alien storyline is abandoned for other paranormal activity. And honestly what few episodes of the show I watched and enjoyed revolved around singular phenomena anyway so this is really a big plus. The story picks up sometime after Mulder and Scully left the FBI. Scully (Gillian Anderson) works as a doctor in a church run hospital. Mulder (David Duchovny) skulks around his house all day with a full beard cutting out newspaper articles. An FBI agent (Amanda Peet) taps Mulder because of his familiarity with cases that deal with paranormal activity to help her rescue a kidnapped agent with the aid of a psychic.
When you boil it down it ends up being a mediocre if slightly over long episode of the show. Not terrible by any means but not exactly stellar either. Billy Connolly shines as the psychic formal priest pedophile who has a few discussions about faith and religion with science minded Scully. More sad in their performances is that of Peet who doesn't do much and Xzibit, who does even less. Duchovny and Anderson largely seem to phone it in having moved on to other roles and seem almost to not care that much about the characters but they do occasionally have nice on screen moments that remind you of the chemistry they had on the show.
Maybe a more hardened fan would get more joy out of it than I did, I'd advise everyone else to not bother.
The upside? The movie has no aliens. The shows convoluted alien storyline is abandoned for other paranormal activity. And honestly what few episodes of the show I watched and enjoyed revolved around singular phenomena anyway so this is really a big plus. The story picks up sometime after Mulder and Scully left the FBI. Scully (Gillian Anderson) works as a doctor in a church run hospital. Mulder (David Duchovny) skulks around his house all day with a full beard cutting out newspaper articles. An FBI agent (Amanda Peet) taps Mulder because of his familiarity with cases that deal with paranormal activity to help her rescue a kidnapped agent with the aid of a psychic.
When you boil it down it ends up being a mediocre if slightly over long episode of the show. Not terrible by any means but not exactly stellar either. Billy Connolly shines as the psychic formal priest pedophile who has a few discussions about faith and religion with science minded Scully. More sad in their performances is that of Peet who doesn't do much and Xzibit, who does even less. Duchovny and Anderson largely seem to phone it in having moved on to other roles and seem almost to not care that much about the characters but they do occasionally have nice on screen moments that remind you of the chemistry they had on the show.
Maybe a more hardened fan would get more joy out of it than I did, I'd advise everyone else to not bother.
Dark Knight
What exactly more could I say about a movie that has grossed over 300 million dollars in ten days and had the largest single opening day of any movie ever. At this point there probably isn't anyone who hasn't seen it and if you haven't you probably don't intend to do so. Its got a statistically meaningless rotten tomatoes record of 94% and is generally being hailed as one of the best super hero films of all time. So what can I saw of this movie a full week after being truly relevant? Its not nearly as great as you, the critics or itself thinks it is.
Now don't get me wrong, I enjoyed the movie. I had a lot of fun watching Batman kick ass, take names and struggle with his choice. And the Joker well, yeah no question that is one of the great performances of super hero villainy. And I was able to let go all the things that were bothering me and just enjoy the film. Still before I nitpick a little and open myself up to a lot of criticism from friends and haters alike I do want to acknowledge some things about the film.
First and foremost. Heath Ledger. His portrayal of the sociopath Joker is really extraordinary. Everything from his movement to the little facial tick is just really effective. Part of the praise has to go to the writing to be sure. But Ledger just brings it out and makes you really uneasy. The uttering of the line "you complete me" by the Joker works on so many levels not the least of which is that the line is heavily associated with another well turned out performance by Ledger in Brokeback Mountain.
The action sequences were spectacular and many of them old school stunts. No cgi in excess here. Trucks really flip over, cars crash etc. CGI is getting better but there is still quite a bit that still reeks of being cgi when it is seen. But it isn't just that they are real stunts, its that they are really well played sequences. A sequence at the end that included hostages, swat teams and henchmen was just masterful and I was grinning eagerly as it unfolded.
The film gets props for being dark. Lots of good stuff about how far the good guys can go before they are essentially the bad guys. There are nice themes about the need for everyday heroes to stand up and fight instead of letting the evil in the world takeover. Of course this is also a flaw. Dying a good guy or becoming a villain is so foreshadowed and heavy handed that at times it was painful. The humanity of criminals at times just obnoxious. The entire Harvey Dent/Two Face story line was pretty much just like being hit over the head with a tack hammer. I didn't buy it and it was too much.
Rachel Dawes is awful. And I that fully aware that Maggie Gyllenhaal is an extraordinary actress. I like her quite a bit in many of the films she has done. But Rachel Dawes is such a poorly written character and is so unbelievably boring that no actress can save her. She is such a mishmash of different character traits that make absolutely no sense. She's part damsel in distress, part take no prisoners Lois Lane and there is no rhyme or reason as to why she is one at one time and another at a second time.
I saw Thank You For Smoking and thought Aaron Eckhart was pretty good. Then I saw some other films with Eckhart and realized wow, he's really just the same guy in every movie. A fast talking salesman. At times it works and you think, he's really good and at times it doesn't and you think wow this is pretty bad. In truth in this movie casting has done more than Eckhart's talent. Although his Dent is a bit too squeaky clean at first. They should have really played up his Internal Affairs roots. As Two Face, Eckhart is just boring (to be fair this may be unjust given that he is matching up against a brilliant Joker performance by Ledger.
In the end its a serviceable action flick that will get you through the lean summer months of cinematic quality. It gets a sizeable bonus from Ledger's performance but on its own merits it doesn't stand head and shoulders above any other decently done super hero film.
Now don't get me wrong, I enjoyed the movie. I had a lot of fun watching Batman kick ass, take names and struggle with his choice. And the Joker well, yeah no question that is one of the great performances of super hero villainy. And I was able to let go all the things that were bothering me and just enjoy the film. Still before I nitpick a little and open myself up to a lot of criticism from friends and haters alike I do want to acknowledge some things about the film.
First and foremost. Heath Ledger. His portrayal of the sociopath Joker is really extraordinary. Everything from his movement to the little facial tick is just really effective. Part of the praise has to go to the writing to be sure. But Ledger just brings it out and makes you really uneasy. The uttering of the line "you complete me" by the Joker works on so many levels not the least of which is that the line is heavily associated with another well turned out performance by Ledger in Brokeback Mountain.
The action sequences were spectacular and many of them old school stunts. No cgi in excess here. Trucks really flip over, cars crash etc. CGI is getting better but there is still quite a bit that still reeks of being cgi when it is seen. But it isn't just that they are real stunts, its that they are really well played sequences. A sequence at the end that included hostages, swat teams and henchmen was just masterful and I was grinning eagerly as it unfolded.
The film gets props for being dark. Lots of good stuff about how far the good guys can go before they are essentially the bad guys. There are nice themes about the need for everyday heroes to stand up and fight instead of letting the evil in the world takeover. Of course this is also a flaw. Dying a good guy or becoming a villain is so foreshadowed and heavy handed that at times it was painful. The humanity of criminals at times just obnoxious. The entire Harvey Dent/Two Face story line was pretty much just like being hit over the head with a tack hammer. I didn't buy it and it was too much.
Rachel Dawes is awful. And I that fully aware that Maggie Gyllenhaal is an extraordinary actress. I like her quite a bit in many of the films she has done. But Rachel Dawes is such a poorly written character and is so unbelievably boring that no actress can save her. She is such a mishmash of different character traits that make absolutely no sense. She's part damsel in distress, part take no prisoners Lois Lane and there is no rhyme or reason as to why she is one at one time and another at a second time.
I saw Thank You For Smoking and thought Aaron Eckhart was pretty good. Then I saw some other films with Eckhart and realized wow, he's really just the same guy in every movie. A fast talking salesman. At times it works and you think, he's really good and at times it doesn't and you think wow this is pretty bad. In truth in this movie casting has done more than Eckhart's talent. Although his Dent is a bit too squeaky clean at first. They should have really played up his Internal Affairs roots. As Two Face, Eckhart is just boring (to be fair this may be unjust given that he is matching up against a brilliant Joker performance by Ledger.
In the end its a serviceable action flick that will get you through the lean summer months of cinematic quality. It gets a sizeable bonus from Ledger's performance but on its own merits it doesn't stand head and shoulders above any other decently done super hero film.
Monday, July 14, 2008
Hell Boy 2
Hell Boy meets Pan's Labyrinth would probably at first cause you to turn your head in puzzlement but actually has a strange sort of logic to it. Beyond the fact that both are directed by Guillermo del Toro, Hell Boy is a world in which a demon who was brought into the world fights paranormal evils and so in fact is a perfect location for the wondrous fantasy images of Pan's Labyrinth. Hell Boy had a fairly straight forward and generally enjoyable story. Hell Boy 2 seeks to expand this world into a full fledged underverse of trolls, elves and other mythical figures. This results in some truly amazing looking creatures such as the angel of death or a endangered tree spirit that make up important scenes in the film.
Hell Boy 2 finds the titular hero in romantic troubles with his gal Liz wishing that he could have media exposure and receive thanks for all the good he does the world. Meanwhile a disgruntled Elf prince tired of humans plans to reactivate an indestructible legion of warriors to wipe humanity out. Hell Boy and his team must stop him and the film spends much of its alloted time dealing with fighting, emotional melodrama and comedy.
Quite honestly, Hell Boy was a tighter film and seemingly not as concerned with its status as a franchise. Hell Boy 2 seems quite aware it is a sequel and frequently meanders away from the story for cute moments or humor for humor's sake side bars. This includes a mildly amusing but completely unnecessary karaoke version of a Barry Manilow song by two of the leads. There are in fact quite a few wink at the camera type jokes that really test the patience at times. There are of course plenty of rather shallow questions about humanity and destiny thrown in to make it seem more mythical and epic than it actually is.
And despite these criticisms I still mildly enjoyed the film. The action sequences were fun enough and the imagery of the fantasy world was quite well done. The menagerie of the troll market was visually wonderful. And further more despite my criticism of the shallow philosophy, the Angel of Death scene as kind of creepy and visually delightful. When you boil it down the film could have benefited from a bit more coherent and better story but I was glad I got to see the visions of del Toro applied to the super hero genre.
Hell Boy 2 finds the titular hero in romantic troubles with his gal Liz wishing that he could have media exposure and receive thanks for all the good he does the world. Meanwhile a disgruntled Elf prince tired of humans plans to reactivate an indestructible legion of warriors to wipe humanity out. Hell Boy and his team must stop him and the film spends much of its alloted time dealing with fighting, emotional melodrama and comedy.
Quite honestly, Hell Boy was a tighter film and seemingly not as concerned with its status as a franchise. Hell Boy 2 seems quite aware it is a sequel and frequently meanders away from the story for cute moments or humor for humor's sake side bars. This includes a mildly amusing but completely unnecessary karaoke version of a Barry Manilow song by two of the leads. There are in fact quite a few wink at the camera type jokes that really test the patience at times. There are of course plenty of rather shallow questions about humanity and destiny thrown in to make it seem more mythical and epic than it actually is.
And despite these criticisms I still mildly enjoyed the film. The action sequences were fun enough and the imagery of the fantasy world was quite well done. The menagerie of the troll market was visually wonderful. And further more despite my criticism of the shallow philosophy, the Angel of Death scene as kind of creepy and visually delightful. When you boil it down the film could have benefited from a bit more coherent and better story but I was glad I got to see the visions of del Toro applied to the super hero genre.
Mongol
Western society has a particular fascination with Genghis Khan. There have been numerous Hollywood movies about him including one starring John Wayne of all people as the famous general/leader. In addition to utter the term "mongol horde" is to evoke a quite vivid image of monstrous barbarians who destroy great culturals. And so Sergei Bodrov's new film which attempts to tell a more true to history narrative of Genghis Khan's rise apparently as part of a planned trilogy is an interesting mix of the legend and attempts to personalize and humanize mongol culture.
The film starts a a young Temudjin (the future Khan) accompanying his father to choose a bride that will insure peace between two clans. The young Temudjin instead chooses a young willful girl from another weaker tribe and Temudjin's father is shortly after poisoned. Temudjin grows up shunned by his clan, without a father and constantly on the run from the new leader of his clan. In this time he comes to befriend a man who becomes his blood brother, Jamukha and reunites with his chosen bride Borte.
With a mix of spiritual mysticism and a fair bit that will remind you of Conan (the latter was developed out of Genghis Khan's mythology by the way) the film follows Temudjin through his trials to adulthood including an extended stay in a prison. There are two well done set piece battles that are well plotted and full of stylized blood. The film ends with the epic battle that united all the clans under his rule and promises much more in the intended sequels of his conquest of the largest empire the world ever knew.
Tadanobu Asano plays the adult Temudjin quite well. The story occasionally steers into the mystic nature of his persona but it is not too overdone and generally works quite well. The key to the story is the relationship Temudjin has with his wife Borte. It makes for a fairly compelling romance and even has a seemingly Iliadic inspired war to regain her after she has been kidnapped. The other relationship is that with his blood brother which eventually turns to hostility.
The film's goal is epic but also rehabilitative. Focusing more on the personal to show that Temudjin was human and not perhaps the monster he is at times conceived as. It is also able to mix a nice amount of epic with personal story telling that introduces a new and interesting take on the Genghis Khan mythos that has me ernestly interested in seeing the sequels.
The film starts a a young Temudjin (the future Khan) accompanying his father to choose a bride that will insure peace between two clans. The young Temudjin instead chooses a young willful girl from another weaker tribe and Temudjin's father is shortly after poisoned. Temudjin grows up shunned by his clan, without a father and constantly on the run from the new leader of his clan. In this time he comes to befriend a man who becomes his blood brother, Jamukha and reunites with his chosen bride Borte.
With a mix of spiritual mysticism and a fair bit that will remind you of Conan (the latter was developed out of Genghis Khan's mythology by the way) the film follows Temudjin through his trials to adulthood including an extended stay in a prison. There are two well done set piece battles that are well plotted and full of stylized blood. The film ends with the epic battle that united all the clans under his rule and promises much more in the intended sequels of his conquest of the largest empire the world ever knew.
Tadanobu Asano plays the adult Temudjin quite well. The story occasionally steers into the mystic nature of his persona but it is not too overdone and generally works quite well. The key to the story is the relationship Temudjin has with his wife Borte. It makes for a fairly compelling romance and even has a seemingly Iliadic inspired war to regain her after she has been kidnapped. The other relationship is that with his blood brother which eventually turns to hostility.
The film's goal is epic but also rehabilitative. Focusing more on the personal to show that Temudjin was human and not perhaps the monster he is at times conceived as. It is also able to mix a nice amount of epic with personal story telling that introduces a new and interesting take on the Genghis Khan mythos that has me ernestly interested in seeing the sequels.
Reprise
The Norwegian film Reprise directed by Danish director Joachim Trier is a rather unique film for me. Granted I don't see a whole lot of foreign films since they most compete with all the other indy releases for the limited screen space of the three or four cinemas that show anything but the latest blockbuster. The film can be a bit stilted as it tries various narrative techniques. These include developing back stories through dialog free scenes with a narrator explaining the happenings or a flash forward of the way things might happen if certain events occur.
The film focuses on two friends Erik (Espen Klouman-Høiner) and Phillip (Anders Danielsen Lie). Both are aspiring writers who mail in their first manuscripts at the exact same time. The idea is that both will be seen as brilliant and they will become successful artists like their literary inspiration and hero Sten Egil Dahl (Sigmund Sæverud). Reality has other plans. One has his book accepted and despite new found celebrity soon has a nervous breakdown. The other's is rejected and he continues on with the opinion that he is nothing next to his friend's talent.
The film picks up six months after the fated mailbox drop and follows Erik and Phillip. Both have girlfriends who seem only secondary to their lives and they hang out with a cabal of literary minded individuals who spend their time discussing or dismissing various aspects of the literary world. At times I found myself distracted by all the flashy attempts at direction such as the flash backs and flash forwards to a possible future but every time I was thankfully able to be drawn back in by the relationship between Erik and Phillip.
Anders Danielsen Lie and Espen Klouman-Høiner do very well in their roles. They are convincing as friends. Erik slightly jealous of his friend's ability to write and yet at the same time genuinely proud of his genius. This is perhaps best conveyed by the look on his face when an editor interested in Erik's book suggests that Erik may be influenced by Philip's work. Erik's look is at once proud and sad. The story is held together by the force of its characterization which worked quite well.
I confess I don't know what to make of its end which is a series of sequences of what might happen all down with voice over in the perfect subjunctive (would have, etc). Still the characterization and the relationship between Erik and Phillip hold the film together.
The film focuses on two friends Erik (Espen Klouman-Høiner) and Phillip (Anders Danielsen Lie). Both are aspiring writers who mail in their first manuscripts at the exact same time. The idea is that both will be seen as brilliant and they will become successful artists like their literary inspiration and hero Sten Egil Dahl (Sigmund Sæverud). Reality has other plans. One has his book accepted and despite new found celebrity soon has a nervous breakdown. The other's is rejected and he continues on with the opinion that he is nothing next to his friend's talent.
The film picks up six months after the fated mailbox drop and follows Erik and Phillip. Both have girlfriends who seem only secondary to their lives and they hang out with a cabal of literary minded individuals who spend their time discussing or dismissing various aspects of the literary world. At times I found myself distracted by all the flashy attempts at direction such as the flash backs and flash forwards to a possible future but every time I was thankfully able to be drawn back in by the relationship between Erik and Phillip.
Anders Danielsen Lie and Espen Klouman-Høiner do very well in their roles. They are convincing as friends. Erik slightly jealous of his friend's ability to write and yet at the same time genuinely proud of his genius. This is perhaps best conveyed by the look on his face when an editor interested in Erik's book suggests that Erik may be influenced by Philip's work. Erik's look is at once proud and sad. The story is held together by the force of its characterization which worked quite well.
I confess I don't know what to make of its end which is a series of sequences of what might happen all down with voice over in the perfect subjunctive (would have, etc). Still the characterization and the relationship between Erik and Phillip hold the film together.
Bigger Stronger Faster
Bigger, Stronger, Faster is a documentary that takes a bit of time to get into. It starts with a personal voice over of the filmmaker discussing his youth and his obsession with professional wrestling. The story then follows Chris Bell and his brothers and their aspirations as weight lifters and would be professional wrestlers. This of course brings up the issue of steroids. Both of Bell's brothers use steroids while Chris does not. Chris sets up to discover exactly what is the deal with steroids. He attempts to cut through the hype and the public battle against steroid use.
Bell has a unique viewpoint of steroid use. Both his brothers take the drug and they seem to be fine. He systematically goes through the various arguments against steroids and attempts to show that they are not nearly as extreme as certain activists would have you believe. The narrative of the film is largely pro steroid and yet something holds back Chris Bell from using steroids. He attempts to be sensitive to the irrational opposition at times (unfortunately there irrationality points to their foolishness). He even asks some fairly pointed questions to Carl Lewis about steroid use.
Still although it has its moments of very fascinating revelation, the real interest of the documentary is the personal. Specifically the very candid conversations that Chris has with his brothers and his parents about steroids and life in general. Some of the best moments include a scene in which Chris' father discusses how one brother puts off solving his problems by playing up his dreams of becoming a professional wrestler and moving to California. This is undercut on occasion by a return to the wacky humor of the opening. Almost as if Chris Bell is uncomfortable with candid introspection.
Although it only briefly touches on the issue of image ideals in our society and the pressure to succeed, the very personal nature of the Bell family carries the film through and it is worth watching.
Bell has a unique viewpoint of steroid use. Both his brothers take the drug and they seem to be fine. He systematically goes through the various arguments against steroids and attempts to show that they are not nearly as extreme as certain activists would have you believe. The narrative of the film is largely pro steroid and yet something holds back Chris Bell from using steroids. He attempts to be sensitive to the irrational opposition at times (unfortunately there irrationality points to their foolishness). He even asks some fairly pointed questions to Carl Lewis about steroid use.
Still although it has its moments of very fascinating revelation, the real interest of the documentary is the personal. Specifically the very candid conversations that Chris has with his brothers and his parents about steroids and life in general. Some of the best moments include a scene in which Chris' father discusses how one brother puts off solving his problems by playing up his dreams of becoming a professional wrestler and moving to California. This is undercut on occasion by a return to the wacky humor of the opening. Almost as if Chris Bell is uncomfortable with candid introspection.
Although it only briefly touches on the issue of image ideals in our society and the pressure to succeed, the very personal nature of the Bell family carries the film through and it is worth watching.
Thursday, July 03, 2008
Hancock
The thing that might be the most telling of the movie Hancock was my reaction when the first end movie credit popped up. I hadn't done a whole lot of researching of the movie before hand and so was not aware of the director as I watched it. Then when the credit for Peter Berg appeared I immediately thought to myself, "yeah, that makes a lot of sense." The camera tends to move a bit too fast, there are far too many close ups of people and the comic timing is disastrously off when he attempts to more vulgar humor.
Hancock (Will Smith) is a drunken, depressed hero with powers virtually identical to Superman but with none of the Midwest instilled ideals. He spends his days drinking too much and when he can be motivated to stop the bad guys the damage he causes is often in the millions and all this frequently for a stolen car or some other smaller crime. Hated by the public with prosecutors wanting to put him in jail but being unable to do so, Ray Embrey (Jason Bateman) who was recently saved by Hancock decides to help re-build Hancock's image. This involves him voluntarily going to jail and seeking anger counseling. There is more to the story which includes more proper super hero saves and a villain and the hero being put in grave danger by his one weakness but I'm not going to mention them because I knew one of the secrets of the movie due to a poorly edited trailer that gave it all away and one of the big reveals was just kind of boring as a result.
I'll try to avoid ranting about the state of movie previews these days and how they usually spoil everything about the movie or show all of the scenes that are good but you see them a thousand times before the movie opens and thus they lose their impact. The idea of Hancock was really good. A super hero who is truly fighting inner demons of loneliness and not knowing who he is and who succumbs to real world problems like alcohol is a pretty damn good idea in theory. The fact that the collateral damage caused by the hero saving the day is addressed is also pretty interesting.
Sadly much like My Super Ex-Girlfriend from a while back, this movie just loses itself in the familiar cliches of a super hero film. Apparently trying to fool us with an incomprehensible back story and inane character development, the film pretty much falls into the rut of all super hero films by the middle of the movie. Because we all know anger issues and alcoholism can be wrapped up neatly in a few weeks. Smith does what he can with the role but without his trademark jokes and smile that make him the popular blockbuster draw that he is. Instead we get a more morose character which is certainly different but I'm not sure I buy into. Bateman plays the same character he always plays which some people like but frankly I'm tired of it. His quirky funny man routine works in some things such as "Arrested Development" or as an adult who hasn't grown up yet in Juno but here it just comes off as goofy and unconvincing.
When the movie isn't being mediocre its being down right terrible. The sequence when Hancock goes to prison includes a tasteless variation on prison rape that just made me sigh in sadness that it had to go down that road. Not to mention that the song that plays when Hancock enters the prison is the absolute wrong song to be playing. It doesn't fit the tone of the movie or the scene and is just pointless. This was worse than most regular super hero movies and they frequently don't make any sense at all.
Hancock (Will Smith) is a drunken, depressed hero with powers virtually identical to Superman but with none of the Midwest instilled ideals. He spends his days drinking too much and when he can be motivated to stop the bad guys the damage he causes is often in the millions and all this frequently for a stolen car or some other smaller crime. Hated by the public with prosecutors wanting to put him in jail but being unable to do so, Ray Embrey (Jason Bateman) who was recently saved by Hancock decides to help re-build Hancock's image. This involves him voluntarily going to jail and seeking anger counseling. There is more to the story which includes more proper super hero saves and a villain and the hero being put in grave danger by his one weakness but I'm not going to mention them because I knew one of the secrets of the movie due to a poorly edited trailer that gave it all away and one of the big reveals was just kind of boring as a result.
I'll try to avoid ranting about the state of movie previews these days and how they usually spoil everything about the movie or show all of the scenes that are good but you see them a thousand times before the movie opens and thus they lose their impact. The idea of Hancock was really good. A super hero who is truly fighting inner demons of loneliness and not knowing who he is and who succumbs to real world problems like alcohol is a pretty damn good idea in theory. The fact that the collateral damage caused by the hero saving the day is addressed is also pretty interesting.
Sadly much like My Super Ex-Girlfriend from a while back, this movie just loses itself in the familiar cliches of a super hero film. Apparently trying to fool us with an incomprehensible back story and inane character development, the film pretty much falls into the rut of all super hero films by the middle of the movie. Because we all know anger issues and alcoholism can be wrapped up neatly in a few weeks. Smith does what he can with the role but without his trademark jokes and smile that make him the popular blockbuster draw that he is. Instead we get a more morose character which is certainly different but I'm not sure I buy into. Bateman plays the same character he always plays which some people like but frankly I'm tired of it. His quirky funny man routine works in some things such as "Arrested Development" or as an adult who hasn't grown up yet in Juno but here it just comes off as goofy and unconvincing.
When the movie isn't being mediocre its being down right terrible. The sequence when Hancock goes to prison includes a tasteless variation on prison rape that just made me sigh in sadness that it had to go down that road. Not to mention that the song that plays when Hancock enters the prison is the absolute wrong song to be playing. It doesn't fit the tone of the movie or the scene and is just pointless. This was worse than most regular super hero movies and they frequently don't make any sense at all.
Tuesday, July 01, 2008
Wall-E
Looking eerily like Johnny 5 of Short Circuit fame, WALL-E is an industrious robot still working at a task he was assigned over 700 years ago to clean up the Earth which had been abandoned to the huge piles of trash the consuming society had left on it. He spends his days crushing small cubes of trash and then constructed elaborate buildings of trash. Occasionally he finds some piece of discarded rubbish that he sees value in and he has gathered these items in his domicile where he spends his nights and rides out dust storms. His only companion is a cockroach that follows him about.
One day WALL-E is present at the arrival of a space craft that launches an egg shaped robot called EVE. EVE is searching for something and as the fascinated WALL-E follows her, slowly the form a bond. When EVE accomplishes her mission she returns to space and a love struck WALL-E follows her. This opens us to a world of humans who live their entire lives on ships being fed nutrients and having their lives catered to. The movie follows WALL-E as he attempts to find EVE again and eventually in a plot to save humanity.
That is the hopefully spoiler free summary which doesn't quite manage to get across the charm of the film. WALL-E is more human than robot in most ways but there is a quaintness in the notion of a robot in love and the ability of the animators to articulate this is quite impressive. The story isn't all that complicated and is filled with plenty of homages such as an evil HALesque looking red eye that is the ship's auto pilot. I wasn't really laughing that much but I tend to be a bitter old man type when it comes to comedy and the audience around me seemed to be enjoying themselves. I enjoyed the narrative (just didn't laugh that much). The inevitable messages about pollution and consumer society are there and biting but not so heavy handed that you become irritated.
I did from time to time fall out of the story to think about robots that think for themselves and wondered if that were really a good thing. Occasionally I wondered why a robot would do A or B. But those were brief and usually I preferred to tell my mind to shut up and enjoy the film. And that I did.
One day WALL-E is present at the arrival of a space craft that launches an egg shaped robot called EVE. EVE is searching for something and as the fascinated WALL-E follows her, slowly the form a bond. When EVE accomplishes her mission she returns to space and a love struck WALL-E follows her. This opens us to a world of humans who live their entire lives on ships being fed nutrients and having their lives catered to. The movie follows WALL-E as he attempts to find EVE again and eventually in a plot to save humanity.
That is the hopefully spoiler free summary which doesn't quite manage to get across the charm of the film. WALL-E is more human than robot in most ways but there is a quaintness in the notion of a robot in love and the ability of the animators to articulate this is quite impressive. The story isn't all that complicated and is filled with plenty of homages such as an evil HALesque looking red eye that is the ship's auto pilot. I wasn't really laughing that much but I tend to be a bitter old man type when it comes to comedy and the audience around me seemed to be enjoying themselves. I enjoyed the narrative (just didn't laugh that much). The inevitable messages about pollution and consumer society are there and biting but not so heavy handed that you become irritated.
I did from time to time fall out of the story to think about robots that think for themselves and wondered if that were really a good thing. Occasionally I wondered why a robot would do A or B. But those were brief and usually I preferred to tell my mind to shut up and enjoy the film. And that I did.
Monday, June 30, 2008
Running Tally - Part 6
Well despite being out of cinema viewing range for the first 15 days of June, I managed to scrap just enough movies to not damage my chances of completing the 100 movie plan. Summer was in full swing and despite playing a little blockbuster catch up I still just barely eked out 8 films. The saddest thing about the movie year so far is that I thought about doing a best so far post and realized everything I've enjoyed so far this year is technically a 2007 release.
Incredible Hulk - less heady than Ang Lee's version but ultimately more mediocre as well despite all the fan boy moments you could ever ask for.
The Happening - It would be hard to make a film worse than "Lady in the Water" but I think he was trying. Thankfully it doesn't get that bad just your general run of the mill bad.
The Duchess of Langeais - to quote Jay Sherman "I like French films, pretensious foreign french films" oh wait, no, I don't. Agonizingly pretentious.
Get Smart - Had its moments, nothing really ha ha funny. Not as bad as it could have been.
Sex and the City - Exactly as bad as it could have been.
Wanted - More coherent than Night Watch but to Night Watch's credit, it was in Russian.
Mongol - Enjoyable and decently done historical epic of Genghis Khan, had its problems but nothing that took away from it being enjoyable. (Full review forthcoming)
Wall-E - Charming tale (I personally didn't find it all that funny) but pleasant viewing (Full review forthcoming)
And what you are all really waiting for, meaningless statistics.
Films remaining: 50
Days Remaining (as of July 1): 184
Average Number of Films per Day to achieve goal:0.27
Average Number of Films per Week to Achieve Goal: 1.85
Incredible Hulk - less heady than Ang Lee's version but ultimately more mediocre as well despite all the fan boy moments you could ever ask for.
The Happening - It would be hard to make a film worse than "Lady in the Water" but I think he was trying. Thankfully it doesn't get that bad just your general run of the mill bad.
The Duchess of Langeais - to quote Jay Sherman "I like French films, pretensious foreign french films" oh wait, no, I don't. Agonizingly pretentious.
Get Smart - Had its moments, nothing really ha ha funny. Not as bad as it could have been.
Sex and the City - Exactly as bad as it could have been.
Wanted - More coherent than Night Watch but to Night Watch's credit, it was in Russian.
Mongol - Enjoyable and decently done historical epic of Genghis Khan, had its problems but nothing that took away from it being enjoyable. (Full review forthcoming)
Wall-E - Charming tale (I personally didn't find it all that funny) but pleasant viewing (Full review forthcoming)
And what you are all really waiting for, meaningless statistics.
Films remaining: 50
Days Remaining (as of July 1): 184
Average Number of Films per Day to achieve goal:0.27
Average Number of Films per Week to Achieve Goal: 1.85
Wanted
Wesley Gibson (James McAvoy) is a sniveling coward of an office worker, who shares his thoughts with us the viewer about how much he hates his office job but then cowers and does what he is told by the vile boss when push comes to shove. His home life is little better with his girlfriend cheating with his best friend. He suffers from panic attacks and generally hates his miserable life. So true to classic male fantasy form he meets the beautifully sexy and dangerous Fox (Angelina Jolie) who informs him he has the makings of an assassin. At first he balks at such but then finding new found courage in this he breaks free from his wretched life.
After a mind-numbing training montage, sniveling coward Wesley transforms into badass...well not really but certainly less sniveling...assassin Wesley. He teams up on occasion with Fox and takes orders from stately and sage (Morgan Freeman) who literally gets orders by reading binary code from a loom of fates (no, seriously). Wesley is needed because he is the only one who can face a rogue agent who is killing the league of assassins one by one. I found the plot so bizarre and confusing that I went and did a little research on the source material.
Based on a graphic novel by Mark Millar and JG Jones , Wanted was about a world in which all the super villains teamed together and through a secret cabal run the world and all the heroes now think they are everyday nobodies. In this story Wesley discovers he is the son of one of these villains and has powers. And you know what by comparison that makes a lot more sense than this movie. It explains why he could do the things he does such as leap long distances and recover from wounds faster. Its actually coherent enough that I can't figure out why they went for the thousand year old secret society of weaver assassins who get orders from a magical loom that understood binary a millennium before it came into use.
Having seen Bekmambetov's earlier Russian films Night Watch and Day Watch I knew he had a masterful talent for lots of cool looking stuff that made almost no coherent sense. Actually I think he is getting crazier with each film. This one is loaded with over-stylized action sequences with bullet time and absurd ideas like curving bullets (more believable if he was a super villain, sadly in this version he is not). But perhaps the film is saved from abysmal oblivion by its acting? Not really.
Sure Freeman and Jolie play there characters to the extreme of their crudely sketched limits but who cares. I've seen these characters a thousand times by now. Jolie is little more than the role she has played in Mr. and Mrs. Smith or the Tomb Raider franchise. Freeman plays that same sage-like character he always plays no different than any other time he has played a villain. And frankly both bored me endlessly. McAvoy does reasonably well with his part as the wimpy Wesley but has a far harder time convincing me he is an action hero bad ass.
Actually watching this film made me think back to last year's disaster of an action film Shoot 'Em Up and had me thinking that maybe that was actually more clever than I gave it credit for. In my memory it almost seems like it was mocking directly the direction that action films have gone today. Bekmambetov seems to think the flashier the sequences and the faster he moves the camera, the better the movie will be. This is not the case.
After a mind-numbing training montage, sniveling coward Wesley transforms into badass...well not really but certainly less sniveling...assassin Wesley. He teams up on occasion with Fox and takes orders from stately and sage (Morgan Freeman) who literally gets orders by reading binary code from a loom of fates (no, seriously). Wesley is needed because he is the only one who can face a rogue agent who is killing the league of assassins one by one. I found the plot so bizarre and confusing that I went and did a little research on the source material.
Based on a graphic novel by Mark Millar and JG Jones , Wanted was about a world in which all the super villains teamed together and through a secret cabal run the world and all the heroes now think they are everyday nobodies. In this story Wesley discovers he is the son of one of these villains and has powers. And you know what by comparison that makes a lot more sense than this movie. It explains why he could do the things he does such as leap long distances and recover from wounds faster. Its actually coherent enough that I can't figure out why they went for the thousand year old secret society of weaver assassins who get orders from a magical loom that understood binary a millennium before it came into use.
Having seen Bekmambetov's earlier Russian films Night Watch and Day Watch I knew he had a masterful talent for lots of cool looking stuff that made almost no coherent sense. Actually I think he is getting crazier with each film. This one is loaded with over-stylized action sequences with bullet time and absurd ideas like curving bullets (more believable if he was a super villain, sadly in this version he is not). But perhaps the film is saved from abysmal oblivion by its acting? Not really.
Sure Freeman and Jolie play there characters to the extreme of their crudely sketched limits but who cares. I've seen these characters a thousand times by now. Jolie is little more than the role she has played in Mr. and Mrs. Smith or the Tomb Raider franchise. Freeman plays that same sage-like character he always plays no different than any other time he has played a villain. And frankly both bored me endlessly. McAvoy does reasonably well with his part as the wimpy Wesley but has a far harder time convincing me he is an action hero bad ass.
Actually watching this film made me think back to last year's disaster of an action film Shoot 'Em Up and had me thinking that maybe that was actually more clever than I gave it credit for. In my memory it almost seems like it was mocking directly the direction that action films have gone today. Bekmambetov seems to think the flashier the sequences and the faster he moves the camera, the better the movie will be. This is not the case.
Sex and the City
For what it is worth the HBO comedy Sex and the City was a decent show. It was a clever twist on chick flick type subject matter. It was equal parts fashion, sex and wit. Not that I understood a single moment of the fashion part. It created a nice world of four unique friends with distinct character traits. It can inspire viewers and fans to associate themselves with the character who most resembles them in everyday life. As fellow blogger Nick, Cinema Romantico recently posted (Sex and the City). I came to viewings of the show late as in syndicated on cable late. So it was pretty remarkably tamed (not much swearing, no nudity). Yet it still held a surprising amount of charm.
And while the series finale was a bit on the weak side of narrative effort, it still had a certain amount of charm to it. It was also relatively satisfying. So truth be told what possibly could a feature length movie do but ruin said ending? Still Hollywood works on profit motivation not artistic sentiments and no one was going to pass on a movie with a guaranteed fan base. But in my opinion the choices made for this movie betray most of the things that made the show interesting. The film rejoins the four women friends three (or four, I can't quite remember) years after the series ended.
Carrie (Sarah Jessica Parker) is still happily dating Mr. Big (Chris Noth), Charlotte (Kristen Davis) is still happily married and has a beautiful adopted daughter, Miranda (Cynthia Nixon) is still married to Steve and Samantha (Kim Cattral) is still with Smith. But since the show was more about the women than anything else we really need an arbitrary plot device to get them away from their men and into a more nostalgic environment. Wedding day jitters for Mr. Big (who is now John by the way and don't worry if you forgot because they will utter, show or in some other way slam his name in your face at least 75 times in the next two hours). It really feels as if they are trying to make up for the fact that the show went for so many years without ever revealing his name.
Truth be told the movie suffers from the first fatal flaw of any show that gets brought back via movie of recent. The incessant need to cram as many vestigial characters into the movie as possible so as not to upset any fan who never could get enough of extra number 2. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that early versions of the script had an Aidan cameo. Once we get the women away from the men in a fantastic "all men are clearly assholes" motif, we can get back to the core of what made the show entertaining. Alcoholism, mindless banter and scatological humor. Oh yeah that's right nothing more classy than a "don't drink the water down Mexico way lest you soil yourself joke".
Which was basically the moment I checked out of the movie that was already doing its best to try my patience with contrived plot points and over extended fashion sequences that I can't describe in any other way than fashion porn (much like gun porn in most action films). And as I sat thinking to myself well they went for a crap joke how much lower could it possible go? Oh dear reader, how terribly wrong could I have been.
You see for a show that was ostensibly about liberating of women who don't take the crap that men subject them to there is a whole lot of whining about the perfect man and their inability to find them. And even a fair amount of "well yeah he was a complete scumbag but come on take him back" mentality. But one could forgive all that for the fairy tale if one so chose. I'm not entirely sure I can forgive the use of the "Magical Negro". Yes this is a real term used by the likes of Spike Lee and appears in plenty of films even contemporary ones (Magical Negro). Take a look at the representative list and you can see I'm not the only one who thinks a certain character in Sex in the City is in fact said stereotype.
Its pretty crappy to see and speaks to quite a bit of the racism that still exists in society today and so I honestly didn't think I'd see such a character in a film based on series that was so modern. At first I wasn't noticing it that much when Louise (Jennifer Hudson) makes her appearance but as the plot continued the filled with knowledge beyond her years and with a keen understanding of love Louise helps the broken-hearted Carrie rediscover herself and love, I was suddenly hit with extreme uncomfortableness.
Perhaps I'm reading too much into it, the grimmer reality is probably that in the desperate hopes of remaining relevant they inserted a black character to stay relevant. But I can't help but see the Louise character as exactly that. I can't remember a single important black character from the tv show (but I haven't seen every episode) nor can I remember much hip hop on the soundtrack and yet suddenly almost every song in the movie seems to be such. Truth be told the movie could have benefited from a well rounded strong black female character sadly I don't think this was it.
And in the end since the plot went full circle and put every character virtually right back where they were in scene one, I wondered why I had just wasted two hours of my life just so they could go back to the status quo.
And while the series finale was a bit on the weak side of narrative effort, it still had a certain amount of charm to it. It was also relatively satisfying. So truth be told what possibly could a feature length movie do but ruin said ending? Still Hollywood works on profit motivation not artistic sentiments and no one was going to pass on a movie with a guaranteed fan base. But in my opinion the choices made for this movie betray most of the things that made the show interesting. The film rejoins the four women friends three (or four, I can't quite remember) years after the series ended.
Carrie (Sarah Jessica Parker) is still happily dating Mr. Big (Chris Noth), Charlotte (Kristen Davis) is still happily married and has a beautiful adopted daughter, Miranda (Cynthia Nixon) is still married to Steve and Samantha (Kim Cattral) is still with Smith. But since the show was more about the women than anything else we really need an arbitrary plot device to get them away from their men and into a more nostalgic environment. Wedding day jitters for Mr. Big (who is now John by the way and don't worry if you forgot because they will utter, show or in some other way slam his name in your face at least 75 times in the next two hours). It really feels as if they are trying to make up for the fact that the show went for so many years without ever revealing his name.
Truth be told the movie suffers from the first fatal flaw of any show that gets brought back via movie of recent. The incessant need to cram as many vestigial characters into the movie as possible so as not to upset any fan who never could get enough of extra number 2. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that early versions of the script had an Aidan cameo. Once we get the women away from the men in a fantastic "all men are clearly assholes" motif, we can get back to the core of what made the show entertaining. Alcoholism, mindless banter and scatological humor. Oh yeah that's right nothing more classy than a "don't drink the water down Mexico way lest you soil yourself joke".
Which was basically the moment I checked out of the movie that was already doing its best to try my patience with contrived plot points and over extended fashion sequences that I can't describe in any other way than fashion porn (much like gun porn in most action films). And as I sat thinking to myself well they went for a crap joke how much lower could it possible go? Oh dear reader, how terribly wrong could I have been.
You see for a show that was ostensibly about liberating of women who don't take the crap that men subject them to there is a whole lot of whining about the perfect man and their inability to find them. And even a fair amount of "well yeah he was a complete scumbag but come on take him back" mentality. But one could forgive all that for the fairy tale if one so chose. I'm not entirely sure I can forgive the use of the "Magical Negro". Yes this is a real term used by the likes of Spike Lee and appears in plenty of films even contemporary ones (Magical Negro). Take a look at the representative list and you can see I'm not the only one who thinks a certain character in Sex in the City is in fact said stereotype.
Its pretty crappy to see and speaks to quite a bit of the racism that still exists in society today and so I honestly didn't think I'd see such a character in a film based on series that was so modern. At first I wasn't noticing it that much when Louise (Jennifer Hudson) makes her appearance but as the plot continued the filled with knowledge beyond her years and with a keen understanding of love Louise helps the broken-hearted Carrie rediscover herself and love, I was suddenly hit with extreme uncomfortableness.
Perhaps I'm reading too much into it, the grimmer reality is probably that in the desperate hopes of remaining relevant they inserted a black character to stay relevant. But I can't help but see the Louise character as exactly that. I can't remember a single important black character from the tv show (but I haven't seen every episode) nor can I remember much hip hop on the soundtrack and yet suddenly almost every song in the movie seems to be such. Truth be told the movie could have benefited from a well rounded strong black female character sadly I don't think this was it.
And in the end since the plot went full circle and put every character virtually right back where they were in scene one, I wondered why I had just wasted two hours of my life just so they could go back to the status quo.
Wednesday, June 25, 2008
Return to Me
There are few movies in my collection that I can watch at almost any moment and be in the mood for it. I have a decent amount of classic films that at a given moment I might deem "too heavy" for my mood or other such dismissals. Of course there are those movies that were bought on promise of quality or on ill remembered quality of the cinema. And of course there is the disturbingly growing collection of "gag" movie that my friends have given me and since they are gifts I can't in good conscience throw away (you win this round Omega Code. Still one film that I can watch pretty regularly is Return to Me.
Directed by Bonnie Hunt, the story involved Bob Rueland (David Duchovny) as the owner of a construction business who is married to Elisabeth (Joely Richardson). A tragedy leaves Bob a widower, who lives to fulfill his wife's last wish while wallowing in his own pity. Until a night when he goes out with a friend and meets lively young waitress Grace (Minnie Driver) and again starts to fall in love. The catch being that Grace is now alive because she has Elisabeth's donated heart.
Now you can be of two basic opinions on that final fact. You might think its a dopey plot device that permits the classic third act split only to see our happy couple reunited in the final frames. To this I would say that's what happens in Romantic Comedies and at least this plot device is better than most. You might think its a nice hopelessly romantic notion of the nature of love and it being eternal. And regardless you either enjoy the well done Romantic Comedy or you don't.
And as one who enjoys said genre, this is one of my favorites. It not only establishes a really good relationship between Richardson and Duchovny in the first 20 minutes but then tears your heart right out after that. That it can establish a charming new relationship without tainting the old I find to be a great achievement. Throw in a cast of lovable supporting actors played by the likes of Robert Loggia and the late great Carrol O'Conner and you have a very fun, romantic at times tragic film.
Directed by Bonnie Hunt, the story involved Bob Rueland (David Duchovny) as the owner of a construction business who is married to Elisabeth (Joely Richardson). A tragedy leaves Bob a widower, who lives to fulfill his wife's last wish while wallowing in his own pity. Until a night when he goes out with a friend and meets lively young waitress Grace (Minnie Driver) and again starts to fall in love. The catch being that Grace is now alive because she has Elisabeth's donated heart.
Now you can be of two basic opinions on that final fact. You might think its a dopey plot device that permits the classic third act split only to see our happy couple reunited in the final frames. To this I would say that's what happens in Romantic Comedies and at least this plot device is better than most. You might think its a nice hopelessly romantic notion of the nature of love and it being eternal. And regardless you either enjoy the well done Romantic Comedy or you don't.
And as one who enjoys said genre, this is one of my favorites. It not only establishes a really good relationship between Richardson and Duchovny in the first 20 minutes but then tears your heart right out after that. That it can establish a charming new relationship without tainting the old I find to be a great achievement. Throw in a cast of lovable supporting actors played by the likes of Robert Loggia and the late great Carrol O'Conner and you have a very fun, romantic at times tragic film.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)