Per the request of CinemaRomantico
1.) What was your first movie-going experience? I couldn't possibly tell you, but I can vividly remember seeing The Dead Pool in theaters. My parents even let me sit in the front row and an usher asked where my parents were, and when I pointed at them several rows back, he shrugged and walked away (makes me remember my theater days). Why my parents would take me to a movie like Dirty Harry at age 7 is not entirely clear but I don't think it hurt me too much. Best/worst line: "He's hanging around back there" - Dirty Harry having killed the villain with a harpoon gun.
2.) How many DVDs do you own? A little over two hundred but I am in the process of downsizing to about half that. I own 3 Blu-Ray Discs.
3.) What is your guilty pleasure movie? Bring It On, The scene with Sparky Pulaski is cinematic genius.
4.) You have compiled a list of your top 100 movies. Which movies didn’t make the cut? I could never make a top 100 list because I could never decide on movies 2-100. Movies which are often listed in such lists because they represent innovation (but in my opinion are not very interesting movies e.g. Voyage to the Moon or Birth of a Nation) would probably get left off.
5.) Which movie(s) do you compulsively watch over and over again? Thin Red Line, its my favorite movie and each new viewing is rewarded with something new.
6.) Classic(s) you’re embarrassed to admit you haven’t seen yet? Quite a bit of the foreign classics.
7.) What movie posters hang on your wall? Well none currently but usually Thin Red Line, the first poster which still listed John Travolta on it before his name was removed for fear that people would go to it instead of Civil Action which was released at the same time.
Tuesday, May 11, 2010
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
Summer Movies I Want to See
Or rather perhaps I should say, summmer movies I will see whether I truly desire to or not. Without adieu.
Iron Man 2 - Well because Iron Man was really fun. And although as is inevitable with superhero sequels, it will be bad. It will take everything that was great in the first and up the ante by 1000. But it will have great effects and at least one or two good action sequences. Everyone needs a little popcorn action in their summer.
Robin Hood - when this movie was title Nottingham and was to be the story of Robin Hood from the Sheriff's perspective, it was the movie I wanted to see this summer. Now, frankly, its still Ridley Scott and Russell Crowe but I suspect that is going to make it Gladiator 2: The Middle Ages. Which will have some really excited and me really sad.
A-Team - like a bad car crash I can't look away from the destruction of my youth.
Inception - Nolan, DiCaprio and even Mr. Gordon-Levitt. and it seems like Nolan is getting back to the material that made him, weird stuff. and away from highly overrated Batman films.
Predators - Its predators, i have to.
Scott Pilgrim Versus the World - Michael Cera plays a role, one role, perfectly, and as long as you use it right, it works. This seems like its going to work. Also Mary Elizabeth Winstead whom my friend thinks should be the star of the next Die Hard film. And that on its face is close to genius.
Sadly none of these films has me terribly excited.
Iron Man 2 - Well because Iron Man was really fun. And although as is inevitable with superhero sequels, it will be bad. It will take everything that was great in the first and up the ante by 1000. But it will have great effects and at least one or two good action sequences. Everyone needs a little popcorn action in their summer.
Robin Hood - when this movie was title Nottingham and was to be the story of Robin Hood from the Sheriff's perspective, it was the movie I wanted to see this summer. Now, frankly, its still Ridley Scott and Russell Crowe but I suspect that is going to make it Gladiator 2: The Middle Ages. Which will have some really excited and me really sad.
A-Team - like a bad car crash I can't look away from the destruction of my youth.
Inception - Nolan, DiCaprio and even Mr. Gordon-Levitt. and it seems like Nolan is getting back to the material that made him, weird stuff. and away from highly overrated Batman films.
Predators - Its predators, i have to.
Scott Pilgrim Versus the World - Michael Cera plays a role, one role, perfectly, and as long as you use it right, it works. This seems like its going to work. Also Mary Elizabeth Winstead whom my friend thinks should be the star of the next Die Hard film. And that on its face is close to genius.
Sadly none of these films has me terribly excited.
Thursday, March 04, 2010
Academy Awards...I haven't a clue
Wow, talk about a change. In 2008 I saw 100 films in the theater over the course of one year. In 2009, I'd be surprised if it topped thirty. Its now four days into March and mere days away from the Academy Awards. I have seen four of the Best Picture nominees, and only two of the nominated acting performances. Oh and I've seen exactly zero movies in the theater this year. Now this is in part because I've been pretty poor, in part because well have you seen the films being released? Now my lack of blogging and lack of writing reviews I am sure was a thrill to everyone out there. But I figured I should say something before the Academy Awards.
I'm not sure what I should say. I can't exactly pick my horses as I have seen almost none of the movies. But the only thing I find about as fascinating as movies is predictive markets. Which have all but chosen every major award.
Best Director? Overwhelmingly the market thinks this is Bigelow's. Sure, why not. It was a decent enough film and it is a pretty glaring oversight that no woman has ever won a best director award.
Supporting Actor/Actress: These have Christoph Waltz and Mo'Nique. I saw Mr. Waltz's performance and its one of the great things in Inglorious Basterds, hell one of the only good things in that movie which I didn't care for so much. Mo'Nique won the Golden Globe so sure sounds reasonable. I didn't see any of the supporting actress roles.
Best Actor/Actress: Bridges blows the market competition out of the water. The movie idiot abides. Sandra Bullock is leading by a healthy margin but not with the close to 90% margin that the previously mentioned nominees are. Meryl Streep by virtue of the fact that she is Meryl Streep has about the remaining third of the market. Upset? Wait is it an upset when Meryl Streep wins?
Best Picture: Again a strong lead for Hurt Locker but not total. Avatar has about a third of the market. Now this is the one category wherein since its basically a horse race between Avatar and Hurt Locker, I can actually have an opinion. And unfortunately I'm torn. See I saw Hurt Locker after all the hype and frankly was underwhelmed. Not because it wasn't a decent movie but because well compared to some of the great movies I have seen in my life, well it seriously falls short. Avatar has its flaws sure but I enjoyed it quite a bit and there does seem to be a fair amount of hatred out there for it (which frankly I don't understand).
But then again the thought of James Cameron getting on stage and douching it up in an acceptance speech makes me shudder. Go Hurt Locker!
I'm not sure what I should say. I can't exactly pick my horses as I have seen almost none of the movies. But the only thing I find about as fascinating as movies is predictive markets. Which have all but chosen every major award.
Best Director? Overwhelmingly the market thinks this is Bigelow's. Sure, why not. It was a decent enough film and it is a pretty glaring oversight that no woman has ever won a best director award.
Supporting Actor/Actress: These have Christoph Waltz and Mo'Nique. I saw Mr. Waltz's performance and its one of the great things in Inglorious Basterds, hell one of the only good things in that movie which I didn't care for so much. Mo'Nique won the Golden Globe so sure sounds reasonable. I didn't see any of the supporting actress roles.
Best Actor/Actress: Bridges blows the market competition out of the water. The movie idiot abides. Sandra Bullock is leading by a healthy margin but not with the close to 90% margin that the previously mentioned nominees are. Meryl Streep by virtue of the fact that she is Meryl Streep has about the remaining third of the market. Upset? Wait is it an upset when Meryl Streep wins?
Best Picture: Again a strong lead for Hurt Locker but not total. Avatar has about a third of the market. Now this is the one category wherein since its basically a horse race between Avatar and Hurt Locker, I can actually have an opinion. And unfortunately I'm torn. See I saw Hurt Locker after all the hype and frankly was underwhelmed. Not because it wasn't a decent movie but because well compared to some of the great movies I have seen in my life, well it seriously falls short. Avatar has its flaws sure but I enjoyed it quite a bit and there does seem to be a fair amount of hatred out there for it (which frankly I don't understand).
But then again the thought of James Cameron getting on stage and douching it up in an acceptance speech makes me shudder. Go Hurt Locker!
Saturday, October 03, 2009
Zombieland
Following a time honored strategy of insuring that no one is actually reading your reviews before continuing, I feel sufficiently confident that no one is still reading. And with that in mind I finally get around to writing another review. Here we go!
1) I own and love the first three Romero films about zombies.
2) I have on multiple occasions discussed strategies for surviving a zombocalypse with friends.
Thus I feel well qualified to tell you if Zombieland is any good. And I assure you non-existent reader that it is...kind of. In medias res, we meet Columbus (Jesse Eisenberg) a young man who having survived the initial outbreak has devised a series of rules to live by. These include cardio, the double tap and wearing seat belts. These rules appear on screen more than once in an attempt to enhance a joke. Columbus quickly meets up with Tallahassee (Woody Harrelson) a man who might be a bit crazy and truly enjoys killing zombies.
The two travel together and soon run into a sister duo Wichita (Emma Stone) and Little Rock (Abigail Breslin). After some initial hesitation on both sides all four end up traveling to LA, where Wichita has promised to take Little Rock to an amusement park. The plot is of course a bit gimmicky, the land is a bit scarce on zombies it seems and there are more than a few failed attempts at humor. But there are basically two types of zombie films: those with a message (which seem to be mainly restricted to Romero's attempts) and those that intend to show lots of zombies getting killed in many different ways.
This film is obviously in the latter category. Whatever message it might have about enjoying the little things is mainly for laughs as Tallahassee seeks out a much desired Twinkie. So the question then becomes does the film at least deliver in a satisfying way? Well enough I suppose. There aren't any particularly exciting and new ways of killing zombies but there are certainly some highly entertaining moments with Woody Harrelson.
Truth be told I'd have rated this a mediocre just slight failure of a zombie film except for one saving grace. Bill Murray. I'll say no more save that I was laughing quite a bit when Bill Murray was in the film. So in the end it had its moments but not nearly enough to rescue it from a pan except for the saving light of Mr. Murray. I'd also give praise for Woody Harrelson who is the only character who seems to be actually having fun of the four main characters.
1) I own and love the first three Romero films about zombies.
2) I have on multiple occasions discussed strategies for surviving a zombocalypse with friends.
Thus I feel well qualified to tell you if Zombieland is any good. And I assure you non-existent reader that it is...kind of. In medias res, we meet Columbus (Jesse Eisenberg) a young man who having survived the initial outbreak has devised a series of rules to live by. These include cardio, the double tap and wearing seat belts. These rules appear on screen more than once in an attempt to enhance a joke. Columbus quickly meets up with Tallahassee (Woody Harrelson) a man who might be a bit crazy and truly enjoys killing zombies.
The two travel together and soon run into a sister duo Wichita (Emma Stone) and Little Rock (Abigail Breslin). After some initial hesitation on both sides all four end up traveling to LA, where Wichita has promised to take Little Rock to an amusement park. The plot is of course a bit gimmicky, the land is a bit scarce on zombies it seems and there are more than a few failed attempts at humor. But there are basically two types of zombie films: those with a message (which seem to be mainly restricted to Romero's attempts) and those that intend to show lots of zombies getting killed in many different ways.
This film is obviously in the latter category. Whatever message it might have about enjoying the little things is mainly for laughs as Tallahassee seeks out a much desired Twinkie. So the question then becomes does the film at least deliver in a satisfying way? Well enough I suppose. There aren't any particularly exciting and new ways of killing zombies but there are certainly some highly entertaining moments with Woody Harrelson.
Truth be told I'd have rated this a mediocre just slight failure of a zombie film except for one saving grace. Bill Murray. I'll say no more save that I was laughing quite a bit when Bill Murray was in the film. So in the end it had its moments but not nearly enough to rescue it from a pan except for the saving light of Mr. Murray. I'd also give praise for Woody Harrelson who is the only character who seems to be actually having fun of the four main characters.
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen
Mistake 1: going to see Transformers 2
Mistake 2: going to the the midnight show
Mistake 3: thinking that I have the energy or patience to sit through 2 and half hours of drivel at midnight.
Do you know that old cliche that when it comes to action movies, the sequel just ramps up whatever made the first film successful by 10 and hopes the profits will multiply by 100? Was there a big action sequence in the first film that was really popular? Okay, then let us add 43.2 big action sequences. Was there a mildly humorous (or annoying or both) character, well if people occasionally laughed at the antics of that character, imagine the hilarity that will ensue if we add 5 more such characters. And was their an aesthetically pleasing bombshell damsel? Okay lets add another one.
Michael Bay has pretty much give us every single one of those cliches in the sequel. The man who once almost gave me an aneurysm when he criticized a would be film maker for making a film that felt like retread has provided exactly what you would expect him to provide. There are an uncountable number of over the top action sequences, there are four or five "humorous" characters adding comic relief and a fair amount of backhanded racism. And of course we get more of lithe Megan Fox but also another scantily clad young woman.
The fan boy in me and the one, who grew up playing with plastic transformers and watching the 30 minute commercial that was the cartoon series, admittedly had one moment of pure glee when Optimus Prime took on three Decepticons at once. I couldn't resist smiling. But the rest of the time was painful, long and exhausting. You can be pretty much of two types when it comes to this movie, you want to see it and nothing I say will change your mind or you have no desire to see it and nothing I can say can change your mind.
The plot isn't worth repeating even if I pretended I was paying attention or that I understood it. But what struck me as odd and I don't care whether this was intentional or not, is the blatant conservative rhetoric of the film. Much like 300 was so easy to read as a neo-conservative statement of freedom and democracy, the new Transformers movie smacks you in the face with the Dick Cheney rhetoric that America is less safe thanks to Barack Obama.
Since the first film, the transformers have been allied with humans fighting terrorist acts by the decepticons. Then enter a new president (specifically referenced twice as being Barack Obama). This new president as represented by his sniveling, bureaucratic liaison to the military suggests that it is the tools of fighting the terrorists that may be causing more terrorism. Suggesting that Obama's foreign policy is simply if we stop antagonizing the enemy and get rid of our best way of defending against them then the whole thing will work out peacefully.
It was insulting to say nothing else. And I'm sure more than one person will say I'm reading to much into it but what reason does the film have to make reference to the president as being Barack Obama? Its a fantasy world where giant sentient robots exist, can't it have a fantasy president? The fact that the asshole suit who wants to get rid of the Autobots represents the president seems to me pretty clear. Why does a mindless action film have to not so subtly suggest a real president is ineffectual? I don't care for it.
Mistake 2: going to the the midnight show
Mistake 3: thinking that I have the energy or patience to sit through 2 and half hours of drivel at midnight.
Do you know that old cliche that when it comes to action movies, the sequel just ramps up whatever made the first film successful by 10 and hopes the profits will multiply by 100? Was there a big action sequence in the first film that was really popular? Okay, then let us add 43.2 big action sequences. Was there a mildly humorous (or annoying or both) character, well if people occasionally laughed at the antics of that character, imagine the hilarity that will ensue if we add 5 more such characters. And was their an aesthetically pleasing bombshell damsel? Okay lets add another one.
Michael Bay has pretty much give us every single one of those cliches in the sequel. The man who once almost gave me an aneurysm when he criticized a would be film maker for making a film that felt like retread has provided exactly what you would expect him to provide. There are an uncountable number of over the top action sequences, there are four or five "humorous" characters adding comic relief and a fair amount of backhanded racism. And of course we get more of lithe Megan Fox but also another scantily clad young woman.
The fan boy in me and the one, who grew up playing with plastic transformers and watching the 30 minute commercial that was the cartoon series, admittedly had one moment of pure glee when Optimus Prime took on three Decepticons at once. I couldn't resist smiling. But the rest of the time was painful, long and exhausting. You can be pretty much of two types when it comes to this movie, you want to see it and nothing I say will change your mind or you have no desire to see it and nothing I can say can change your mind.
The plot isn't worth repeating even if I pretended I was paying attention or that I understood it. But what struck me as odd and I don't care whether this was intentional or not, is the blatant conservative rhetoric of the film. Much like 300 was so easy to read as a neo-conservative statement of freedom and democracy, the new Transformers movie smacks you in the face with the Dick Cheney rhetoric that America is less safe thanks to Barack Obama.
Since the first film, the transformers have been allied with humans fighting terrorist acts by the decepticons. Then enter a new president (specifically referenced twice as being Barack Obama). This new president as represented by his sniveling, bureaucratic liaison to the military suggests that it is the tools of fighting the terrorists that may be causing more terrorism. Suggesting that Obama's foreign policy is simply if we stop antagonizing the enemy and get rid of our best way of defending against them then the whole thing will work out peacefully.
It was insulting to say nothing else. And I'm sure more than one person will say I'm reading to much into it but what reason does the film have to make reference to the president as being Barack Obama? Its a fantasy world where giant sentient robots exist, can't it have a fantasy president? The fact that the asshole suit who wants to get rid of the Autobots represents the president seems to me pretty clear. Why does a mindless action film have to not so subtly suggest a real president is ineffectual? I don't care for it.
Goodbye, Solo
Have you ever noticed that although I probably come off as a crabby old man who hates everything he sees, that I actually have more positive reviews than negative ones? Something to think about...or not. Its a bit of a falsified statistic since it includes reviews of movies that I watched at home or own which in general lends towards movies I actually want to see. I can't say for sure why when I go to the cinema I see so many movies I don't want to see. In the end morbid curiosity gets the better of me and I ascribe to a theory that any movie even one that boils my blood in anger is still worth seeing.
But I also suspect that because I endure so many terrible movies that when I hit on one that really makes me smile, I enjoy it that much more because of all the crap that came before it. Ramin Bahrani's film Man Push Cart was more or less an attempt by a modern filmmaker to make a Neo-realist picture. My review was largely positive but I balked at a couple of the contrived subplots.
Bahrani's new film Goodbye, Solo shows me an evolving filmmaker who is cutting out some of his bad habits (some are still there) and yet maintains his deep compassion for characters who are liminal to the larger society. Man Push Cart's Ahmad was a weary, hard working Pakistani, who provided breakfast each day for big movers and shakers of the New York business world trying hard to reach his own American Dream.
Solo(Souleymane Sy Savane), Bahrani's new protagonist is a likable, chatty taxi cab driver originally from Senegal who now resides in Winston-Salem, North Carolina. Solo like Ahmad has dreams of a better life this time as a Flight Attendant but it isn't so much the story of greater ambition that moves the story but the simple day to day of a well developed character performing a largely thankless task as so many in the United States today. When an elderly man, William (Red West) makes a request to be driven in several weeks to a semi obscure mountain destination and agrees to pay handsomely for it, Solo is intrigued.
Solo becomes increasingly intrigued by William and befriends him and tries to discover the mystery of the bitter old man. It is in these scenes (the heart and soul of the film) which won me over early on and kept me happy for the entire film. William isn't entirely heartless and opens up partially but nothing turns him from his mysterious goal. West has one of those fantastic faces that reveals and yet conceals a thousand interesting stories. He manages those looks and intonations of certain phrases that suggest a life more profound and sad than you can imagine, much the way Hal Holbrook managed to convey so much in one line of dialogue in Into the Wild.
The story goes along its course and never fully reveals the mysteries of William's life, merely hinting at some of the points and only alluding to why William wants to go to the mountain vista (albeit alludes strongly). And then the film ends. Solo might have a bit of renewed desire to accomplish his dreams but we certainly don't see success and the profound experience of someone who may have changed your life but then disappeared from it its fairly moving. There is a humanity to Solo and a humane treatment of his character by Bahrani that alone makes the film worth watching. Savane pulls off a fully formed likable character whom you believe would befriend a perfect stranger quickly and would genuinely care about what happens to him.
This is the first movie released in 2009 that I truly enjoyed through and through and has me hopeful for the upcoming fall releases and hopes that more gems of this sort are in the wings.
But I also suspect that because I endure so many terrible movies that when I hit on one that really makes me smile, I enjoy it that much more because of all the crap that came before it. Ramin Bahrani's film Man Push Cart was more or less an attempt by a modern filmmaker to make a Neo-realist picture. My review was largely positive but I balked at a couple of the contrived subplots.
Bahrani's new film Goodbye, Solo shows me an evolving filmmaker who is cutting out some of his bad habits (some are still there) and yet maintains his deep compassion for characters who are liminal to the larger society. Man Push Cart's Ahmad was a weary, hard working Pakistani, who provided breakfast each day for big movers and shakers of the New York business world trying hard to reach his own American Dream.
Solo(Souleymane Sy Savane), Bahrani's new protagonist is a likable, chatty taxi cab driver originally from Senegal who now resides in Winston-Salem, North Carolina. Solo like Ahmad has dreams of a better life this time as a Flight Attendant but it isn't so much the story of greater ambition that moves the story but the simple day to day of a well developed character performing a largely thankless task as so many in the United States today. When an elderly man, William (Red West) makes a request to be driven in several weeks to a semi obscure mountain destination and agrees to pay handsomely for it, Solo is intrigued.
Solo becomes increasingly intrigued by William and befriends him and tries to discover the mystery of the bitter old man. It is in these scenes (the heart and soul of the film) which won me over early on and kept me happy for the entire film. William isn't entirely heartless and opens up partially but nothing turns him from his mysterious goal. West has one of those fantastic faces that reveals and yet conceals a thousand interesting stories. He manages those looks and intonations of certain phrases that suggest a life more profound and sad than you can imagine, much the way Hal Holbrook managed to convey so much in one line of dialogue in Into the Wild.
The story goes along its course and never fully reveals the mysteries of William's life, merely hinting at some of the points and only alluding to why William wants to go to the mountain vista (albeit alludes strongly). And then the film ends. Solo might have a bit of renewed desire to accomplish his dreams but we certainly don't see success and the profound experience of someone who may have changed your life but then disappeared from it its fairly moving. There is a humanity to Solo and a humane treatment of his character by Bahrani that alone makes the film worth watching. Savane pulls off a fully formed likable character whom you believe would befriend a perfect stranger quickly and would genuinely care about what happens to him.
This is the first movie released in 2009 that I truly enjoyed through and through and has me hopeful for the upcoming fall releases and hopes that more gems of this sort are in the wings.
Year One
Obviously there is something wrong with me. Because the only comedic (and I use the term broadly) actor I hate more than Will Farrell is Jack Black. He's basically anti-comedy most of the time. Basically just loud and offensive. But as foolishly amazed as I was that I went to Land of the Lost I was a bit more perplexed as to why I had gone to see Year One. I'd like to say I was tricked by esteemed critic Manhola Darghis of the New York Times. But that would just be lying to myself. Although she did indeed give the film a critic's pick recommendation, I still knew in my heart that any Jack Black movie was not for me.
The film taking place in a fantasy reality where biblical stories mix with cavemen and Romans is an absurd road trip for the film's leads Jack Black and Michael Cera. Black as his usual load, boisterous, obnoxious self. Cera as his usual quiet, snarky, wimpy self. At times Cera's charm is put to good use and works well but here it is an annoying and ineffectual foil to Black. Cameos by David Cross and Hank Azaria are not nearly as humorous as advertised. Its general theme of poking fun of religious dogma is tame and the topic has been eviscerated by better comedic genius than this group. Notably, Monty Python's Life of Brian, which in retrospect I wish I had just stayed home and watched, is a far better satire of religion and the ancient world.
The film taking place in a fantasy reality where biblical stories mix with cavemen and Romans is an absurd road trip for the film's leads Jack Black and Michael Cera. Black as his usual load, boisterous, obnoxious self. Cera as his usual quiet, snarky, wimpy self. At times Cera's charm is put to good use and works well but here it is an annoying and ineffectual foil to Black. Cameos by David Cross and Hank Azaria are not nearly as humorous as advertised. Its general theme of poking fun of religious dogma is tame and the topic has been eviscerated by better comedic genius than this group. Notably, Monty Python's Life of Brian, which in retrospect I wish I had just stayed home and watched, is a far better satire of religion and the ancient world.
Land of the Lost
Well I really have no one to blame but myself. (Note to Reader: this will pretty much be the theme for several of upcoming reviews) Give a man nothing to do and he is likely to do something really stupid. In my case, ennui made me go see Land of the Lost. I can't really explain why since I find Will Ferrell unfunny and that he has overstayed his welcome as a comedic actor. Perhaps it was the presence of Danny McBride, who stole the show in the recent Pineapple Express. Or perhaps it was memories of his better films such as Anchor Man or Talladega Nights. Whatever the reason, it was a bad decision.
Ferrell plays a discredited scientist who believes that portals to parallel Earths exist. Soon enough a contrived plot allows for our hero, his plucky grad student helper, Anna Friel and the aforementioned Danny McBride as a redneck survival nut are transported to a world of dinosaurs and strange lizard creatures. Friel quickly alters her wardrobe to show off her legs and a series of rather unfunny encounters occur. These include but are not limited to a T-Rex that takes offense to being called stupid and a hallucinatory binge by McBride and Ferrell. When it isn't simply being unfunny, its usually being downright painful.
Ferrell plays a discredited scientist who believes that portals to parallel Earths exist. Soon enough a contrived plot allows for our hero, his plucky grad student helper, Anna Friel and the aforementioned Danny McBride as a redneck survival nut are transported to a world of dinosaurs and strange lizard creatures. Friel quickly alters her wardrobe to show off her legs and a series of rather unfunny encounters occur. These include but are not limited to a T-Rex that takes offense to being called stupid and a hallucinatory binge by McBride and Ferrell. When it isn't simply being unfunny, its usually being downright painful.
Monday, June 15, 2009
Taking of Pelham 123
Dear Mr. Tony Scott,
You are actually a pretty decent film maker. I've pretty much enjoyed every movie you have made in some fashion. Hell I think I like more of your movies than I do of your brother Ridley's but he, sir, made Alien while you made Days of Thunder so unfortunately for you, he's still ahead. But that is neither here nor there. What pray gods, is your obsession with time stamps? Seriously I'm fairly sure this is the third or fourth movie I have seen where you stamp up on the screen some numbers to let us know how much time is left until a specific situation.
Guess what? It is completely unnecessary. Especially when your main villain is so crazy that he frequently SAYS how long the good guys have. We don't need a time stamp just like we don't need an establishing shot of say the Eiffel Tower and a text on screen confirming Paris. You see how the establishing shot already gives us that kind of information? Its superfluous. And it really annoys me personally. Oh, really? There are 42 minutes left before the deadline? Right because John Travolta just said there were 42 minutes left before the deadline. Thanks for confirming what a character already said. Has it gotten to the point that you the film maker think that we are all so ADD that we don't even listen to the characters? And if it has, does flashing the time stamp do anything? We are probably so ADD we aren't reading it.
Point 2 (sorry dear reader, this will only take a moment): Mr. Scott, I'd like to propose a little quiz. Not hard, I assure you. What makes a thriller interesting? a) compelling well developed characters verbally sparring while the secrets of the film are slowly revealed or b) lots of fast moving cars, car crashes and explosions? or c) some strange unfathomable combination of the two? If I had to guess on this film, I'd say you think its c). And when one of your characters acknowledges that the scene in question is silly only makes the scene more absurd, it doesn't justify it.
Sincerely,
Movie Idiot.
Dear Reader,
I apologize for the above, its just I had to get those things off my chest. And at this point you are probably thinking that I hated Taking of Pelham 123 and truthfully, you would be wrong. I actually enjoyed it. Aside from the annoying time stamping and the completely gratuitous action sequence, I actually really enjoyed it. Let me attempt to give a satisfactory explanation as to why.
On an afternoon in New York, a group of men hijack a subway train and get in contact with a central rail control operator. They tell him they want ten million dollars in one hour or they start killing hostages. They gang is led by Ryder (John Travolta). He's tattooed and a little crazy. Its over the top but it works. The rail control operator is Denzel Washington. Preternaturally cool even in a hostage negotiation, I'm thinking if I were a hostage taker I would never want Denzel on the other side of the line. It just wouldn't be fair.
When the film is focused on these two and their conversations, I must say its quite engrossing. And was unfortunately occasionally mucked up by inter-cut unnecessary action sequences involving the money payout and a police escort. Ahhh, sorry, it still bugs me. Both are interestingly developed, Ryder maybe a bit less so but Travolta's unrestrained performance make up for it.
Ancillary characters make for interesting completion of the cast. John Turturro as a police negotiator adds a nice element to the conversations as he tries to aid Denzel on the radio. And James Gandolfini as a Michael Bloomberg-esque mayor of New York is a pleasant part of the mix.
Even the inevitable showdown between Travolta and Washington is for the most part decently done. No silly fight scene or overdrawn chase sequence. Quite a bit of the film plays out exactly as the characters predict and both sides of the affair clearly come off as smart. Not a perfect movie even if you subtracted the irritating things I mentioned above but an enjoyable one through and through thanks to a decent story and well acted interaction between Travolta and Washington.
You are actually a pretty decent film maker. I've pretty much enjoyed every movie you have made in some fashion. Hell I think I like more of your movies than I do of your brother Ridley's but he, sir, made Alien while you made Days of Thunder so unfortunately for you, he's still ahead. But that is neither here nor there. What pray gods, is your obsession with time stamps? Seriously I'm fairly sure this is the third or fourth movie I have seen where you stamp up on the screen some numbers to let us know how much time is left until a specific situation.
Guess what? It is completely unnecessary. Especially when your main villain is so crazy that he frequently SAYS how long the good guys have. We don't need a time stamp just like we don't need an establishing shot of say the Eiffel Tower and a text on screen confirming Paris. You see how the establishing shot already gives us that kind of information? Its superfluous. And it really annoys me personally. Oh, really? There are 42 minutes left before the deadline? Right because John Travolta just said there were 42 minutes left before the deadline. Thanks for confirming what a character already said. Has it gotten to the point that you the film maker think that we are all so ADD that we don't even listen to the characters? And if it has, does flashing the time stamp do anything? We are probably so ADD we aren't reading it.
Point 2 (sorry dear reader, this will only take a moment): Mr. Scott, I'd like to propose a little quiz. Not hard, I assure you. What makes a thriller interesting? a) compelling well developed characters verbally sparring while the secrets of the film are slowly revealed or b) lots of fast moving cars, car crashes and explosions? or c) some strange unfathomable combination of the two? If I had to guess on this film, I'd say you think its c). And when one of your characters acknowledges that the scene in question is silly only makes the scene more absurd, it doesn't justify it.
Sincerely,
Movie Idiot.
Dear Reader,
I apologize for the above, its just I had to get those things off my chest. And at this point you are probably thinking that I hated Taking of Pelham 123 and truthfully, you would be wrong. I actually enjoyed it. Aside from the annoying time stamping and the completely gratuitous action sequence, I actually really enjoyed it. Let me attempt to give a satisfactory explanation as to why.
On an afternoon in New York, a group of men hijack a subway train and get in contact with a central rail control operator. They tell him they want ten million dollars in one hour or they start killing hostages. They gang is led by Ryder (John Travolta). He's tattooed and a little crazy. Its over the top but it works. The rail control operator is Denzel Washington. Preternaturally cool even in a hostage negotiation, I'm thinking if I were a hostage taker I would never want Denzel on the other side of the line. It just wouldn't be fair.
When the film is focused on these two and their conversations, I must say its quite engrossing. And was unfortunately occasionally mucked up by inter-cut unnecessary action sequences involving the money payout and a police escort. Ahhh, sorry, it still bugs me. Both are interestingly developed, Ryder maybe a bit less so but Travolta's unrestrained performance make up for it.
Ancillary characters make for interesting completion of the cast. John Turturro as a police negotiator adds a nice element to the conversations as he tries to aid Denzel on the radio. And James Gandolfini as a Michael Bloomberg-esque mayor of New York is a pleasant part of the mix.
Even the inevitable showdown between Travolta and Washington is for the most part decently done. No silly fight scene or overdrawn chase sequence. Quite a bit of the film plays out exactly as the characters predict and both sides of the affair clearly come off as smart. Not a perfect movie even if you subtracted the irritating things I mentioned above but an enjoyable one through and through thanks to a decent story and well acted interaction between Travolta and Washington.
The Hangover
Four guys go to Las Vegas for a bachelor party, a few days before said Bachelor's wedding. Three guys wake up the next day hungover, clueless as to how the night went and unable to locate their friend. Queue the insane antics as the three strangely different guys trying to discover what happened to their friend and what happened on their night.
I know I laughed several times during the movie. I know as I left the cinema I overheard a guy on his phone tell a friend he had seen the film three times now because it was so damn funny. I know that even though its only been three days, I've forgotten everything but the broad outline of the film. I know that like a hangover in a few more days I won't remember it at all.
I know for some reason I have the song "Tom Sawyer" from Rush stuck in my head and I'm positive it never played in the movie. I don't know what that is about but its probably not a good sign for the movie. I feel confident you could point to any single person on Earth and I could immediately tell you if they would like, love, dislike or hate this movie. If you pointed at me I think I'd say has no opinion one way or the other.
I know I laughed several times during the movie. I know as I left the cinema I overheard a guy on his phone tell a friend he had seen the film three times now because it was so damn funny. I know that even though its only been three days, I've forgotten everything but the broad outline of the film. I know that like a hangover in a few more days I won't remember it at all.
I know for some reason I have the song "Tom Sawyer" from Rush stuck in my head and I'm positive it never played in the movie. I don't know what that is about but its probably not a good sign for the movie. I feel confident you could point to any single person on Earth and I could immediately tell you if they would like, love, dislike or hate this movie. If you pointed at me I think I'd say has no opinion one way or the other.
Monday, May 25, 2009
Terminator: Salvation
So the year is 2018 and humanity has been routed by SkyNet and its plethora of machines. A resistance exists led by a group of secretive guys in a submarine. John Conner (Christian Bale) is commander of one of the resistance cells. Kyle Reese (Anton Yelchin) is a young man enduring a tough existence hiding from terminators in LA. And then there is Marcus Wright (Sam Worthington). Marcus was on death row back in 2003 and wakes up in 2018 not knowing what is going on.
So what happens? About the silliest things you can imagine. A giant Transformer reminiscent robot, numerous action sequences, a tough yet tender woman resistance fighter (Moon Bloodgood). As a fan of the Terminator series in the past, for many a year I have wondered and yearned for a tale of the future war wherein humans fight an unending flow of machines. I'm not exactly sure what the mess that single monikered McG gave us but it doesn't suffice.
I was going along for the ride for the most part, trying to keep repressed the parts of my mind that wanted to shout at the inconsistency of the plot or the fact that it didn't even try to match up with the existing films. And then came your standard expository scene where the bad guys explain there plan. And I said, "seriously? doesn't that require them to rely on a whole lot of coincidence?"
I implore you don't be like me and make the mistake of seeing this movie. As a general rule, if the words McG are attached, run away. run away. You'll thank me.
So what happens? About the silliest things you can imagine. A giant Transformer reminiscent robot, numerous action sequences, a tough yet tender woman resistance fighter (Moon Bloodgood). As a fan of the Terminator series in the past, for many a year I have wondered and yearned for a tale of the future war wherein humans fight an unending flow of machines. I'm not exactly sure what the mess that single monikered McG gave us but it doesn't suffice.
I was going along for the ride for the most part, trying to keep repressed the parts of my mind that wanted to shout at the inconsistency of the plot or the fact that it didn't even try to match up with the existing films. And then came your standard expository scene where the bad guys explain there plan. And I said, "seriously? doesn't that require them to rely on a whole lot of coincidence?"
I implore you don't be like me and make the mistake of seeing this movie. As a general rule, if the words McG are attached, run away. run away. You'll thank me.
Sunday, May 17, 2009
The Soloist
The Soloist is the latest film from director Joe Wright (Pride and Prejudice and Atonement). It is based on the true story of a homeless mentally-ill man in LA who once studied at Julliard and is an accomplished musician. He is discovered by an LA Times columnist who tells his story and befriends him. The musician is played by Jamie Foxx while Robert Downey,Jr. portrays the columnist.
The plot revolves around Downey, Jr attempting to help Foxx and coming to terms with the fact that he does not necessarily know what is best for the homeless man. Its a highly sentimental film and attempts to manipulate its audience over deeply problematic issues of mental health, poverty and so forth. I'm afraid Mr. Wright's movement to telling more and more highly moralized tales has left a certain amount of distaste in my mouth and I sadly state that although his skill at establishing shots and directing is still well done, he gets lost in his overbearing message.
I was genuinely pleased with his first venture, the adaptation of Pride and Prejudice (note: not the BBC one). I thought it was well cast and acted and I even went out and purchased Jane Austen's novel because I enjoyed the story so much. And I have to say that it a pretty good recommendation in my book. Atonement didn't enthrall me so much although it maintained its high quality of direction and story telling. The second half was far less entertaining than the first and the "spectacular" one take camera shot mid film felt like the amazing technical feat that it was, not like something that worked for the film.
I'm not entirely sure that the story is a cinematic one and his attempts to set the backdrop as occurring during the Katrina hurricane made it even more unfortunate. It isn't clear to me what the intent there was but it seems like the story of one homeless man finding a friend and charity in the wake of millions being displaced from their homes and thousands being trapped in the Super Dome do to massive government incompetence is rather trite. Mr. Wright please get back to telling stories and save the preachiness for others.
The plot revolves around Downey, Jr attempting to help Foxx and coming to terms with the fact that he does not necessarily know what is best for the homeless man. Its a highly sentimental film and attempts to manipulate its audience over deeply problematic issues of mental health, poverty and so forth. I'm afraid Mr. Wright's movement to telling more and more highly moralized tales has left a certain amount of distaste in my mouth and I sadly state that although his skill at establishing shots and directing is still well done, he gets lost in his overbearing message.
I was genuinely pleased with his first venture, the adaptation of Pride and Prejudice (note: not the BBC one). I thought it was well cast and acted and I even went out and purchased Jane Austen's novel because I enjoyed the story so much. And I have to say that it a pretty good recommendation in my book. Atonement didn't enthrall me so much although it maintained its high quality of direction and story telling. The second half was far less entertaining than the first and the "spectacular" one take camera shot mid film felt like the amazing technical feat that it was, not like something that worked for the film.
I'm not entirely sure that the story is a cinematic one and his attempts to set the backdrop as occurring during the Katrina hurricane made it even more unfortunate. It isn't clear to me what the intent there was but it seems like the story of one homeless man finding a friend and charity in the wake of millions being displaced from their homes and thousands being trapped in the Super Dome do to massive government incompetence is rather trite. Mr. Wright please get back to telling stories and save the preachiness for others.
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
Star Trek
The blockbuster movie summer season is upon us and requests (I assume insincere) have been made that my annoying voice be heard. I haven't seen a whole lot of movies so far this year (a mere 20 or so) and most of them have been lacking in what I would call quality. But there is nothing like a summer packed with GI Joe and Transformers 2. Both of these will be released this summer and both, based on the viewing of their trailers, which were appended to my recent trip to Star Trek, seem to sufficiently rape any fond memory of my childhood. Not that either of these shows was in reality any good but I was willing to leave them in the past as a pleasant memory.
Actually, this is a surprisingly good opening for a review of the new film by J.J. Abrhams. Star Trek, if for some odd reason you the reader didn't know, was originally a television show. Basically the one nugget of shiny silver (gold goes to far) that Gene Roddenberry ever hit upon. Seriously go watch an episode of Andromeda (also a Roddenberry idea) and then ask yourself: Nietschians? really? The show, that is, Star Trek, spawned a series of movies and four reincarnations on television.
The original show of course stared the lovably laughable esteemed Mr. William Shatner. Overacting to a fault and sleeping with aliens left and right. The original set of movies were entertaining most of the time and occasionally absolutely absurd (read: Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home). Fellow blogger CinemaRomantico even gave weekly quotes from Star Trek IV one summer to celebrate the blockbuster season. Frankly, I miss that.
But I've ranted for three paragraphs now and said nothing about the new film. Perhaps that is because ultimately I wish Star Trek too had remained in my past. Sure there isn't anything technically wrong with the new film. Its competently directed, the action sequences on the whole work. Eric Bana is no Ricardo Montalban but then again who is? It is mostly well acted by Chris Pine (Kirk), Zachary Quinto (Spock), Karl Urban (Bones) and so on. There is of course the very unfortunate John Cho as Sulu and living up to my fears, Simon Pegg doesn't work as Scotty.
It has a successful explanation for rebooting the franchise that doesn't require them to forget the old stories (well I guess in a way they do). There is time travel (which I despise as a movie concept) and one exceptionally noticeable failure to acknowledge the laws of physics which I can't get past. But other than quibbles I can't say I hated the film and in some moments enjoyed it. So why, other than being another year of blockbuster blase am I so lukewarm to the film as a whole?
Kirk is born, some time travel occurs, Kirk grows up, Spock grows up, both are troubled, both end up at Star Fleet. Crisis, Enterprise, yawn, explosions, logic, yawn, film concludes. I'm having trouble recalling the film and I saw it 6 days ago. Yes it accomplishes what it sets out to do and does it entertainingly and for most of you that will be enough, but frankly I was hoping for more (or maybe less, if you follow).
I should probably count my blessings because this may be the one brief respite of decent summer fluff in an avalanche of the likes of Wolverine, GI Joe and Transformers. And in conclusion: the greatest Transformer review of them all.
Actually, this is a surprisingly good opening for a review of the new film by J.J. Abrhams. Star Trek, if for some odd reason you the reader didn't know, was originally a television show. Basically the one nugget of shiny silver (gold goes to far) that Gene Roddenberry ever hit upon. Seriously go watch an episode of Andromeda (also a Roddenberry idea) and then ask yourself: Nietschians? really? The show, that is, Star Trek, spawned a series of movies and four reincarnations on television.
The original show of course stared the lovably laughable esteemed Mr. William Shatner. Overacting to a fault and sleeping with aliens left and right. The original set of movies were entertaining most of the time and occasionally absolutely absurd (read: Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home). Fellow blogger CinemaRomantico even gave weekly quotes from Star Trek IV one summer to celebrate the blockbuster season. Frankly, I miss that.
But I've ranted for three paragraphs now and said nothing about the new film. Perhaps that is because ultimately I wish Star Trek too had remained in my past. Sure there isn't anything technically wrong with the new film. Its competently directed, the action sequences on the whole work. Eric Bana is no Ricardo Montalban but then again who is? It is mostly well acted by Chris Pine (Kirk), Zachary Quinto (Spock), Karl Urban (Bones) and so on. There is of course the very unfortunate John Cho as Sulu and living up to my fears, Simon Pegg doesn't work as Scotty.
It has a successful explanation for rebooting the franchise that doesn't require them to forget the old stories (well I guess in a way they do). There is time travel (which I despise as a movie concept) and one exceptionally noticeable failure to acknowledge the laws of physics which I can't get past. But other than quibbles I can't say I hated the film and in some moments enjoyed it. So why, other than being another year of blockbuster blase am I so lukewarm to the film as a whole?
Kirk is born, some time travel occurs, Kirk grows up, Spock grows up, both are troubled, both end up at Star Fleet. Crisis, Enterprise, yawn, explosions, logic, yawn, film concludes. I'm having trouble recalling the film and I saw it 6 days ago. Yes it accomplishes what it sets out to do and does it entertainingly and for most of you that will be enough, but frankly I was hoping for more (or maybe less, if you follow).
I should probably count my blessings because this may be the one brief respite of decent summer fluff in an avalanche of the likes of Wolverine, GI Joe and Transformers. And in conclusion: the greatest Transformer review of them all.
Saturday, April 25, 2009
Crank: High Voltage
I've serious addiction problems when it comes to movies. If I go to long without seeing one in the theater, I'll see just about anything. And a weekend ago, I was jonesing pretty bad. Equally relevant is the fact that the first Crank film was a very odd film. I don't remember liking it but I don't remember hating it either. I vaguely recall getting exactly what I expected. I can't say the sequel is a bad film because well quite frankly it doesn't seem apparent that anyone involved in its making was trying to make anything other than a over the top, nonsensical, exploitative mess. It isn't good but the director was never under in delusions that he was making Citizen Kane.
The saddest testament of this film is that I've thought about it several times since seeing it. Mainly asking myself, what in the name of all did I just watch? It took the already ludicrous plot of the first film and magnified it times ten. It offers violence, discrimination, gratuitous borderline pornographic sex and basically attempts to offend every sense and every person with sense. If I had to label it I might say its the closest thing to a grindhouse film the cinema has seen in many years.
The style is basically that of a music video, flashing around so often you don't know what is going on which at times is to the film's credit since you really don't care or want to know what is going on. Let's face it, you aren't seeing this movie, you have no desire to see this movie and no amount at me floundering around trying to express that this movie mystified me in a way I can't quite place is going to convince you to go to this movie. It isn't so bad it's good, but it may be so bad it's genius.
O Jason Statham. How good I thought and think you were in Guy Ritchie's first two outings. You've decided to be an action star and sometimes it works but seriously maybe call up Mr. Ritchie and ask if you can play another part in his films. You really need the help sir.
The saddest testament of this film is that I've thought about it several times since seeing it. Mainly asking myself, what in the name of all did I just watch? It took the already ludicrous plot of the first film and magnified it times ten. It offers violence, discrimination, gratuitous borderline pornographic sex and basically attempts to offend every sense and every person with sense. If I had to label it I might say its the closest thing to a grindhouse film the cinema has seen in many years.
The style is basically that of a music video, flashing around so often you don't know what is going on which at times is to the film's credit since you really don't care or want to know what is going on. Let's face it, you aren't seeing this movie, you have no desire to see this movie and no amount at me floundering around trying to express that this movie mystified me in a way I can't quite place is going to convince you to go to this movie. It isn't so bad it's good, but it may be so bad it's genius.
O Jason Statham. How good I thought and think you were in Guy Ritchie's first two outings. You've decided to be an action star and sometimes it works but seriously maybe call up Mr. Ritchie and ask if you can play another part in his films. You really need the help sir.
Sunday, March 29, 2009
Watchmen
I have never read the graphic novel Watchmen. I've read some stuff about it and a number of reviews of the film which criticized either the work, the film based on the work or both. I also don't think its in any way necessary to read the graphic novel in order to have any opinion on the film. I read a great number of reviews before I saw the film, almost all of them negative. I decided I had no desire to see it. Then a friend recommended I see it. Admittedly the reviews I usually read are written by elitist film viewers. Their analyses are usually well written and filled with reference and allusion to other film, literature and psychological insight. These are the reason I like to read them. They are almost scholarly. The problem can be is that sometimes they are unwilling to acknowledge that a film is either 1)enjoyable despite its flaws or 2) isn't actually bad.
Watchmen isn't actually bad. I admit I had problems with the pacing. The source material is long and clearly Snyder felt to even do it justice the film would have to be long. But at times I was in agony for the film to move forward and accomplish something. There is also at least one comically misplaced song and scene in the film. Its laughable and perhaps intentionally so but its also painful. I bring this up because the use of Nat King Cole's "Unforgettable" at the opening (as well as Bob Dylan's Times They Are A Changing") are so perfect for the scenes they are tied with.
Watchmen is set in 1985, but a different 1985 than we know. There have been two generations of super heroes, the Vietnam War was ended by such a super hero and eventually there was a ban on masked heroes. All of this brings up very interesting and salient points on the nature of vigilantism. There is also the very eminent threat of nuclear annihilation. All these themes and more are running through the story that follows the lives of several of these masked heroes. The story is either familiar to you or easily accessible via a synopsis so I'll refrain from summary.
Zack Snyder is skilled. Like 300 before this, there are many shots that are recreated from the graphic novel. It shows an amazing attention to detail and patience to get a shot exactly right. The fact that he can turn a complex work into a convincing and entertaining film (even with flaws) as well as balance a myriad of distinct characters is nothing short of praiseworthy. Perhaps a more innovative director would have strayed from the source material more and created a film that strove to be its own contribution but what we have received is not crap.
The opening fight sequence followed the the credit sequence are, as I already mentioned, wonderful combinations of imagery and music. In fact the first fight sequence in my opinion is the best one in the film. This is not to say that several other fight sequences weren't wonderfully choreographed. When these guys and gals are fighting I was riveted and at other times when they weren't fighting and the characters were being explored I was intrigued too. In particular, Dr. Manahattan (voiced and a few times actually acted (i.e. not CGI) by Billy Crudup.) who as an immortal superman has an intriguing story arc.
In the end its not only entertaining but I think an interesting film in the choices it makes. It may not be an excellent film but it definitely strives to be. It is by far and away a better film than 300 and takes more risks and shows more development than Dawn of the Dead, his debut and remake of the Romero classic. I'm curious and eager to see him work on something that isn't steeped in a pop culture tradition and virtual frame by frame story boards to see what he can do with it.
Watchmen isn't actually bad. I admit I had problems with the pacing. The source material is long and clearly Snyder felt to even do it justice the film would have to be long. But at times I was in agony for the film to move forward and accomplish something. There is also at least one comically misplaced song and scene in the film. Its laughable and perhaps intentionally so but its also painful. I bring this up because the use of Nat King Cole's "Unforgettable" at the opening (as well as Bob Dylan's Times They Are A Changing") are so perfect for the scenes they are tied with.
Watchmen is set in 1985, but a different 1985 than we know. There have been two generations of super heroes, the Vietnam War was ended by such a super hero and eventually there was a ban on masked heroes. All of this brings up very interesting and salient points on the nature of vigilantism. There is also the very eminent threat of nuclear annihilation. All these themes and more are running through the story that follows the lives of several of these masked heroes. The story is either familiar to you or easily accessible via a synopsis so I'll refrain from summary.
Zack Snyder is skilled. Like 300 before this, there are many shots that are recreated from the graphic novel. It shows an amazing attention to detail and patience to get a shot exactly right. The fact that he can turn a complex work into a convincing and entertaining film (even with flaws) as well as balance a myriad of distinct characters is nothing short of praiseworthy. Perhaps a more innovative director would have strayed from the source material more and created a film that strove to be its own contribution but what we have received is not crap.
The opening fight sequence followed the the credit sequence are, as I already mentioned, wonderful combinations of imagery and music. In fact the first fight sequence in my opinion is the best one in the film. This is not to say that several other fight sequences weren't wonderfully choreographed. When these guys and gals are fighting I was riveted and at other times when they weren't fighting and the characters were being explored I was intrigued too. In particular, Dr. Manahattan (voiced and a few times actually acted (i.e. not CGI) by Billy Crudup.) who as an immortal superman has an intriguing story arc.
In the end its not only entertaining but I think an interesting film in the choices it makes. It may not be an excellent film but it definitely strives to be. It is by far and away a better film than 300 and takes more risks and shows more development than Dawn of the Dead, his debut and remake of the Romero classic. I'm curious and eager to see him work on something that isn't steeped in a pop culture tradition and virtual frame by frame story boards to see what he can do with it.
Monday, March 23, 2009
Wendy and Lucy
Editor's note: To all my fans (ahh who am I kidding) to all my friends who feel semi-obligated to check and my family who feels fully obligated to check and to all those random people who came upon this site by chance and quickly hit the back button as they searched for something of real value, I apologize for not updating this site more frequently. I have not never fear ceased to view movies (although I have watched far fewer this year as I am no longer trying to achieve an inane goal).
Kelly Reichardt's film Wendy and Lucy is a small affair following for a brief time Wendy, a 20 something adrift from the world. She is heading to Alaska so she says. She is accompanied by her beautiful dog Lucy. Wendy has traveled from somewhere in the Midwest (Indiana? I can't recall). She has about $500 dollars left to make it and then tragedy strikes.
Wendy wakes up one day to find her car will not start. A kindly security guard guides her to a repair shop that never seems to be open and a grocery store where she can get some food. Wendy shoplifts a can of dog food for Lucy and is arrested. By the time she is released, Lucy has disappeared. The rest of the film has Wendy trying to find Lucy and get her car repaired.
Michelle Williams is well cast here as Wendy. She's quiet and withdrawn and has her best connection with Lucy. She's decent in this role and the character doesn't call for big outrages. She takes it all quietly in stride more defeated by the world than outraged by it. Despite Williams doing what she can with the character, the film is a bit flat.
My own personal problem with the film which I admit might be unfair, is how stupid Wendy is. She has $500 and a dog she tied up out front of a grocery store. Why the hell is she shoplifting a can of dog food? What do you think will happen to a dog, if its left for 5 hours while you get arrested? Is the character really that stupid or is this really that pathetic of a plot device?
The two ancillary characters of note are the security guard who offers his knowledge and phone to Wendy to help her out and the repair shop owner played by Will Patton. And might I add a complete waste of Will Patton's character actor talent. Why did they even bother casting Patton? Anyone would have done just as well. Was there some bigger scene with him that got cut out? He's literally little more than an extra.
The big problem is that you never get any real sense of what Wendy is running from. Why does she think the solution is Alaska? These things don't necessarily need to be stated outright but at the very least the character needs to convey something of these things. Else why the hell do we care what happens to her?
Frankly I was more concerned with the dog than Wendy. Probably not a good sign for your movie.
Kelly Reichardt's film Wendy and Lucy is a small affair following for a brief time Wendy, a 20 something adrift from the world. She is heading to Alaska so she says. She is accompanied by her beautiful dog Lucy. Wendy has traveled from somewhere in the Midwest (Indiana? I can't recall). She has about $500 dollars left to make it and then tragedy strikes.
Wendy wakes up one day to find her car will not start. A kindly security guard guides her to a repair shop that never seems to be open and a grocery store where she can get some food. Wendy shoplifts a can of dog food for Lucy and is arrested. By the time she is released, Lucy has disappeared. The rest of the film has Wendy trying to find Lucy and get her car repaired.
Michelle Williams is well cast here as Wendy. She's quiet and withdrawn and has her best connection with Lucy. She's decent in this role and the character doesn't call for big outrages. She takes it all quietly in stride more defeated by the world than outraged by it. Despite Williams doing what she can with the character, the film is a bit flat.
My own personal problem with the film which I admit might be unfair, is how stupid Wendy is. She has $500 and a dog she tied up out front of a grocery store. Why the hell is she shoplifting a can of dog food? What do you think will happen to a dog, if its left for 5 hours while you get arrested? Is the character really that stupid or is this really that pathetic of a plot device?
The two ancillary characters of note are the security guard who offers his knowledge and phone to Wendy to help her out and the repair shop owner played by Will Patton. And might I add a complete waste of Will Patton's character actor talent. Why did they even bother casting Patton? Anyone would have done just as well. Was there some bigger scene with him that got cut out? He's literally little more than an extra.
The big problem is that you never get any real sense of what Wendy is running from. Why does she think the solution is Alaska? These things don't necessarily need to be stated outright but at the very least the character needs to convey something of these things. Else why the hell do we care what happens to her?
Frankly I was more concerned with the dog than Wendy. Probably not a good sign for your movie.
Sunday, March 01, 2009
A Christmas Tale
Family drama is a tried and true formula for a movie. It goes as far back as ancient tragedy if not further. Sometimes its done terribly, sometimes its managed in a mediocre way and sometimes its done well. Rarely it goes done very well. If you wanted a recent example of terribly done I'd point to The Family Stone. Wretched in almost every respect and down right confusing and manipulative at many points. Last year's Rachel Getting Married I would lump in the mediocre category. It was loved by some but between the nausea inducing camera work and the heavy handed push of ideal liberal world, it really cuts its potential bite.
When it comes down to a dysfunctional family, from last year, its not Rachel's wedding and sister Kim who take the lead but the family of A Christmas Tale. Here we are introduced to a large family that ends up coming together at Christmas (including the estranged son) in part because the matriarch is dying. Thrown basically in medias res into the whole situation, it never becomes entirely clear what happened to cause the exile of Henri (Mathieu Amalric).
Its been too long since I saw the film to recall all the individual story lines and I'm not sure I could have recalled them all two months ago when I saw the film. Suffice to say that the story carries you on, as you watch a family of love and dysfunction. Key in my view is the performance Jean-Paul Roussillon as head of family Abel. A loving father and grandfather, even when faced with the sadness of his ailing wife, the disappointment that his family can't all get along or the sadness of a lost child that still hangs over the family, he commands the scenes he is in as an ever patient, pleasant man who wishes every Christmas and perhaps every day could be spent with his family.
The family feels ever so real in its actions and interactions. Even if you don't understand the rifts, you believe them. This is the film's strength. Its weakness is perhaps its frequent almost direct camera addresses and a bit too much flying back and forth between stories with the result that I at times got quite confused as to what was going on. Still the family drama is well crafted and grim dysfunction at such a festive time never seemed so fascinating.
When it comes down to a dysfunctional family, from last year, its not Rachel's wedding and sister Kim who take the lead but the family of A Christmas Tale. Here we are introduced to a large family that ends up coming together at Christmas (including the estranged son) in part because the matriarch is dying. Thrown basically in medias res into the whole situation, it never becomes entirely clear what happened to cause the exile of Henri (Mathieu Amalric).
Its been too long since I saw the film to recall all the individual story lines and I'm not sure I could have recalled them all two months ago when I saw the film. Suffice to say that the story carries you on, as you watch a family of love and dysfunction. Key in my view is the performance Jean-Paul Roussillon as head of family Abel. A loving father and grandfather, even when faced with the sadness of his ailing wife, the disappointment that his family can't all get along or the sadness of a lost child that still hangs over the family, he commands the scenes he is in as an ever patient, pleasant man who wishes every Christmas and perhaps every day could be spent with his family.
The family feels ever so real in its actions and interactions. Even if you don't understand the rifts, you believe them. This is the film's strength. Its weakness is perhaps its frequent almost direct camera addresses and a bit too much flying back and forth between stories with the result that I at times got quite confused as to what was going on. Still the family drama is well crafted and grim dysfunction at such a festive time never seemed so fascinating.
The Wrestler
Randy "The Ram" Robinson (Mickey Rourke) was once a hugely popular and successful wrestler. The Hulk Hogan or Ric Flair of his day. But time has moved on and its twenty years after the peak of Randy's success. Randy has trouble paying his bills, has a part time job, but still wrestles on the weekends. Each Friday in a community center or local gym, Randy relives the glory of twenty years ago. Randy has the fans and the roar of the crowd even a small one still keeps him going.
Randy is old and his body is starting to show it. He uses a hearing aid, has some heart trouble and lives alone. He spends his time in his trailer, working to make ends meet and going to the local strip club where he has a flirtatious stripper who is also getting on in age. Randy has a broken relationship with his daughter and not much to live by.
The story is not perhaps anything spectacular. We follow Randy about his life as he struggles to live and faces problems such as being locked out of his trailer for failure to pay rent. We see him in the glory of the wrestling ring and the not so glorious time behind a grocery store deli counter. We often see this from an established behind the back shot that reminds one of a documentary or perhaps a wrestler entering the arena. Its novel for a while and at times works really well. At others it took me out of the story.
What we ultimately are really talking about in this movie is Mr. Rourke. His body busted and bruised, he looks and plays the broken down man who still has dreams of better times bouncing around in his head. Rourke plays this with aplomb and never mind a critique that might suggest he is just playing a version of himself. There is little in the movie that can't be seen coming but as a character study it does a nice job.
Marissa Tomei and Evan Rachel Wood are supporting players as the stripper and estranged daughter respectively. Tomei shows a nice range (though she was better in Before the Devil Knows You're Dead). Wood has little to do and perhaps her talents are wasted. Some have even complained she should have been left out of the film entirely. I can't totally agree with this sentiment. My favorite single scene is one which involves Rourke and Wood as father and daughter. Having slowly begun the mending process of their relationship, the two dance around an abandoned room as if a waltz were playing.
Its a sentimental scene to be sure but since it seems quite inevitable that Randy will manage to mess up with his daughter again, it had a bittersweetness to it. All the possibilities of what might have been for this father and daughter if Randy could just get past his mistakes. Rourke sells the scene and the movie and although it wasn't a perfectly crafted film, you can bank on enjoying most of it thanks to Rourke.
Randy is old and his body is starting to show it. He uses a hearing aid, has some heart trouble and lives alone. He spends his time in his trailer, working to make ends meet and going to the local strip club where he has a flirtatious stripper who is also getting on in age. Randy has a broken relationship with his daughter and not much to live by.
The story is not perhaps anything spectacular. We follow Randy about his life as he struggles to live and faces problems such as being locked out of his trailer for failure to pay rent. We see him in the glory of the wrestling ring and the not so glorious time behind a grocery store deli counter. We often see this from an established behind the back shot that reminds one of a documentary or perhaps a wrestler entering the arena. Its novel for a while and at times works really well. At others it took me out of the story.
What we ultimately are really talking about in this movie is Mr. Rourke. His body busted and bruised, he looks and plays the broken down man who still has dreams of better times bouncing around in his head. Rourke plays this with aplomb and never mind a critique that might suggest he is just playing a version of himself. There is little in the movie that can't be seen coming but as a character study it does a nice job.
Marissa Tomei and Evan Rachel Wood are supporting players as the stripper and estranged daughter respectively. Tomei shows a nice range (though she was better in Before the Devil Knows You're Dead). Wood has little to do and perhaps her talents are wasted. Some have even complained she should have been left out of the film entirely. I can't totally agree with this sentiment. My favorite single scene is one which involves Rourke and Wood as father and daughter. Having slowly begun the mending process of their relationship, the two dance around an abandoned room as if a waltz were playing.
Its a sentimental scene to be sure but since it seems quite inevitable that Randy will manage to mess up with his daughter again, it had a bittersweetness to it. All the possibilities of what might have been for this father and daughter if Randy could just get past his mistakes. Rourke sells the scene and the movie and although it wasn't a perfectly crafted film, you can bank on enjoying most of it thanks to Rourke.
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
Friends
(Fair warning, this is a spoiler filled post and if you don't want plot points revealed go see the film before you read)
Nothing was more pleasant to read last year than the three chief New York Times critics writing about scenes that go home with you. For all the technical expertise in cinema, it doesn't matter if you have flawless dialog or perfect cuts. The most proficiently made film might very well bore me to death. Once you've styled yourself a critic, you find quickly that there is a certain amount of snobbery in you. But it wasn't technical excellence that made me love films, enjoy talking about them and let me to eventually write about them. Rather it was how films made me feel. And that ultimately directs my opinion on all the films I see. the best films I see every year make me feel great. And they follow me home and resonate. my favorite films haunt me until I see them again. The fact is a scene that goes home with me is truly great and its always how I know how much I liked a film.
So much of film is a personal experience. My favorite films always move me personally. Sometimes its a scene that strikes me. Sometimes its watching said scene with someone. I remember vividly watching Magnolia with my friend Brad and after the prologue turning to him and saying "holy crap" exactly as he said "that was awesome." Say what you want about the film, that opening was a cinematic MOMENT for me. It slants what I think about the movie. Last year the scene I wrote about was personal. It had me reflecting on my father. This year has me reflecting on another important relationship: friendship.
Again my friend Brad once noted that particularly in movies best friends always get shafted in relationships. But in reality a friend is often as important as any person you will ever date. So when a great friendship is represented on screen I usually respond very positively. Its never so slight as how they talk but what they don't say and how they act around each other. A well constructed friendship on screen has me reflecting on friendship just as a meaningful father-son dynamic causes me to think of my dad. But as with last year, its more the relationship than any one scene that went home with me so I'll cheat again and describe several scenes.
The Visitor tells a story about a professor who discovers a couple who are illegal immigrants living in his New York apartment which he rarely visits. After the initial shock, Walter (Richard Jenkins) invites the two to stay with him until they can find their own place. Walter, a fairly shy man with few real friends quickly bonds with Tarek (Haaz Sleiman) a very exuberant and easy going Syrian. Bonding over something as simple as a drum, the two get along very easily. Soon Walter is excited to steal away from a conference to talk to a friend. An unfortunate happenstance results in Tarek's arrest and detention as an illegal.
It is here that several scenes all tied together struck me. Walter's first visit to see Tarek is fairly happy. Tarek is delighted at seeing a familiar face and he is as charming and optimistic as ever. When the meeting is ended prematurely, it is no problem for Tarek. Their second meeting is similarly lively though the strain on Tarek is more defined. Yet he provides strength to Walter by insisting Walter drum out a beat on the table of the visitor's room. Its a scene filled with hope and humor but the music or rather teh beat I think gives something to Tarek as much as it gives to Walter.
The devestation on Tarek's character is pronounced in the final scene. He can no longer keep his optimism. And when Walter tries to empathize, Tarek lashes out. Its quick, immediately regretted (but not taken back) and the strain is real. Tarek's deportation gives rise to the most lively bout of anger that Walter gives and its the rage of someone who has lost a true friend. And what is truly amazing about this friendship is I believe it wholly. And yet its timeline is short. Yet I don't question it could happen. But I believe its possible to fall in love in one night so why can't you build a lasting momentous friendship in ten days?
And as I watched their friendship I reflected on my own. Me a quiet new kid in fourth grade and much livelier kid who walked up straight away and introduced himself. and it isn't always what we talked about that made us good friends but also what we didn't. Telling that friend your tragedies or successes is often more important than anything they can say. Singing along to a bad 80s pop song might be as significant as sharing tales of heartbreak.
And Walter and Tarek both have tragedy. Walter's wife has died and Tarek lost his father. But beyond acknowledgment of a mutually understood pain they don't talk about it. So sometimes its not what is said but what isn't that defines a friendship. It was little things like that which made me believe in the friendship. When Tarek smiles when he sees Walter in the detention center everyone can relate to that. Those times when you are at your most unsure, your most afraid and a familiar face does wonders.
My best friend has done that for me on more than one occasion. And so I nodded in consent when it happened on screen. Its about when Walter consents to pounding out a beat when asked because it means something to Tarek. Its the reason I consent to a drink or whatever when a friend asks. Even if I'm tired or whatever, I do it because I know it is needed. So I smiled when I saw it on screen.
And maybe most of all its the scene when Tarek having lost all hope, lashes out at Walter and immediately regrets it. But he doesn't apologize for it because both understand it. And sometimes your friends try to comfort you and what they say only angers you. And if you lash out you regret it but both ultimately understand. and frankly when that scene happened i was desperately hoping that things would work out for Tarek. And I'm the type of person who truly loves unhappy endings. But at that moment the friendship mattered and I wanted it to all work out.
and when Walter erupts upon learning of Tarek's deportation, it is anger and sadness at the loss of a friend. And I've lost friends for far less significant reasons than deportation. And the ones I truly cherished hurt the most. They made me angry and sad at once. And I've sat in my car yelling about it just to let it out. So when Walter breaks down I was teary eyed. And in the end Walter may never see Tarek again and maybe they will never talk and maybe the friendship will never be as immediate or real as it was but it leaves Walter with something.
And whether that somethings is a quiet smile as you remember to tell yourself as you look in the mirror that you are a rock star (because your friend told you to do it). Or one last walk with a friend where you talk about everything except the inevitable end. Or whatever strikes you, when you recall a great friendship whether it lasted a few months or has been going strong for many years. You can't help but appreciate it on screen. And The Visitor does it with aplomb.
Nothing was more pleasant to read last year than the three chief New York Times critics writing about scenes that go home with you. For all the technical expertise in cinema, it doesn't matter if you have flawless dialog or perfect cuts. The most proficiently made film might very well bore me to death. Once you've styled yourself a critic, you find quickly that there is a certain amount of snobbery in you. But it wasn't technical excellence that made me love films, enjoy talking about them and let me to eventually write about them. Rather it was how films made me feel. And that ultimately directs my opinion on all the films I see. the best films I see every year make me feel great. And they follow me home and resonate. my favorite films haunt me until I see them again. The fact is a scene that goes home with me is truly great and its always how I know how much I liked a film.
So much of film is a personal experience. My favorite films always move me personally. Sometimes its a scene that strikes me. Sometimes its watching said scene with someone. I remember vividly watching Magnolia with my friend Brad and after the prologue turning to him and saying "holy crap" exactly as he said "that was awesome." Say what you want about the film, that opening was a cinematic MOMENT for me. It slants what I think about the movie. Last year the scene I wrote about was personal. It had me reflecting on my father. This year has me reflecting on another important relationship: friendship.
Again my friend Brad once noted that particularly in movies best friends always get shafted in relationships. But in reality a friend is often as important as any person you will ever date. So when a great friendship is represented on screen I usually respond very positively. Its never so slight as how they talk but what they don't say and how they act around each other. A well constructed friendship on screen has me reflecting on friendship just as a meaningful father-son dynamic causes me to think of my dad. But as with last year, its more the relationship than any one scene that went home with me so I'll cheat again and describe several scenes.
The Visitor tells a story about a professor who discovers a couple who are illegal immigrants living in his New York apartment which he rarely visits. After the initial shock, Walter (Richard Jenkins) invites the two to stay with him until they can find their own place. Walter, a fairly shy man with few real friends quickly bonds with Tarek (Haaz Sleiman) a very exuberant and easy going Syrian. Bonding over something as simple as a drum, the two get along very easily. Soon Walter is excited to steal away from a conference to talk to a friend. An unfortunate happenstance results in Tarek's arrest and detention as an illegal.
It is here that several scenes all tied together struck me. Walter's first visit to see Tarek is fairly happy. Tarek is delighted at seeing a familiar face and he is as charming and optimistic as ever. When the meeting is ended prematurely, it is no problem for Tarek. Their second meeting is similarly lively though the strain on Tarek is more defined. Yet he provides strength to Walter by insisting Walter drum out a beat on the table of the visitor's room. Its a scene filled with hope and humor but the music or rather teh beat I think gives something to Tarek as much as it gives to Walter.
The devestation on Tarek's character is pronounced in the final scene. He can no longer keep his optimism. And when Walter tries to empathize, Tarek lashes out. Its quick, immediately regretted (but not taken back) and the strain is real. Tarek's deportation gives rise to the most lively bout of anger that Walter gives and its the rage of someone who has lost a true friend. And what is truly amazing about this friendship is I believe it wholly. And yet its timeline is short. Yet I don't question it could happen. But I believe its possible to fall in love in one night so why can't you build a lasting momentous friendship in ten days?
And as I watched their friendship I reflected on my own. Me a quiet new kid in fourth grade and much livelier kid who walked up straight away and introduced himself. and it isn't always what we talked about that made us good friends but also what we didn't. Telling that friend your tragedies or successes is often more important than anything they can say. Singing along to a bad 80s pop song might be as significant as sharing tales of heartbreak.
And Walter and Tarek both have tragedy. Walter's wife has died and Tarek lost his father. But beyond acknowledgment of a mutually understood pain they don't talk about it. So sometimes its not what is said but what isn't that defines a friendship. It was little things like that which made me believe in the friendship. When Tarek smiles when he sees Walter in the detention center everyone can relate to that. Those times when you are at your most unsure, your most afraid and a familiar face does wonders.
My best friend has done that for me on more than one occasion. And so I nodded in consent when it happened on screen. Its about when Walter consents to pounding out a beat when asked because it means something to Tarek. Its the reason I consent to a drink or whatever when a friend asks. Even if I'm tired or whatever, I do it because I know it is needed. So I smiled when I saw it on screen.
And maybe most of all its the scene when Tarek having lost all hope, lashes out at Walter and immediately regrets it. But he doesn't apologize for it because both understand it. And sometimes your friends try to comfort you and what they say only angers you. And if you lash out you regret it but both ultimately understand. and frankly when that scene happened i was desperately hoping that things would work out for Tarek. And I'm the type of person who truly loves unhappy endings. But at that moment the friendship mattered and I wanted it to all work out.
and when Walter erupts upon learning of Tarek's deportation, it is anger and sadness at the loss of a friend. And I've lost friends for far less significant reasons than deportation. And the ones I truly cherished hurt the most. They made me angry and sad at once. And I've sat in my car yelling about it just to let it out. So when Walter breaks down I was teary eyed. And in the end Walter may never see Tarek again and maybe they will never talk and maybe the friendship will never be as immediate or real as it was but it leaves Walter with something.
And whether that somethings is a quiet smile as you remember to tell yourself as you look in the mirror that you are a rock star (because your friend told you to do it). Or one last walk with a friend where you talk about everything except the inevitable end. Or whatever strikes you, when you recall a great friendship whether it lasted a few months or has been going strong for many years. You can't help but appreciate it on screen. And The Visitor does it with aplomb.
Doubt
Set in the early 60s, Doubt takes place at a Catholic school which has one black student. The parish priest is likable and friendly Father Flynn (Phillip Seymour Hoffman) and the school principal is strict, harsh Sister Aloysius (Meryl Streep). When a school teacher Sister James suspects something odd about Flynn's relationship with the young black boy, she goes to Aloysius with her suspicion. Convinced of his guilt Aloysius takes it upon herself to protect the boy and the school.
Directed by John Patrick Shanely based on his own play, the film never lets on whether Father Flynn is guilty of anything. It quickly becomes a tete a tete between Flynn and Aloysius over the alleged incident. Its your standard role actors love type of movie. Actors who are very good at what they do get to run the gamut of emotion sometimes all in one scene. And Streep and Hoffman are certainly two of the best at what they do.
It is a play to be sure and so feels rather stagy but that isn't always a bad thing. The film is at its best when it just relies on the performers to perform. It is at its worst whenever Shanely tries to ratchet up the mood with over the top dramatic music, ominous rain storms and general mood setting that just annoys. But overall it does what it sets out to accomplish. It leaves you questioning and impressed with the actors. It speaks volumes that four of the films actors were nominated for Academy Awards. It isn't a great movie but it certainly isn't a bad movie.
I could have done without all the tweaking of mood by the director and the final scene strikes an odd note I'm not sure I buy but the money is in the Hoffman and Streep scenes and one tense and emotional scene between Streep and Viola Davis as the mother of the black boy at the center of the controversy.
Directed by John Patrick Shanely based on his own play, the film never lets on whether Father Flynn is guilty of anything. It quickly becomes a tete a tete between Flynn and Aloysius over the alleged incident. Its your standard role actors love type of movie. Actors who are very good at what they do get to run the gamut of emotion sometimes all in one scene. And Streep and Hoffman are certainly two of the best at what they do.
It is a play to be sure and so feels rather stagy but that isn't always a bad thing. The film is at its best when it just relies on the performers to perform. It is at its worst whenever Shanely tries to ratchet up the mood with over the top dramatic music, ominous rain storms and general mood setting that just annoys. But overall it does what it sets out to accomplish. It leaves you questioning and impressed with the actors. It speaks volumes that four of the films actors were nominated for Academy Awards. It isn't a great movie but it certainly isn't a bad movie.
I could have done without all the tweaking of mood by the director and the final scene strikes an odd note I'm not sure I buy but the money is in the Hoffman and Streep scenes and one tense and emotional scene between Streep and Viola Davis as the mother of the black boy at the center of the controversy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)