I like zombies. I know people like Richard Roeper and Roger Ebert think they are the most boring villain of all time but I couldn't disagree more. I own every Romero zombie film, I own Zombie 2, Shaun of the Dead and even a few zombie films I have never actually watched but wanted to own in any case. I have a growing collection of zombie comic books. I own both Max Brooks books on zombies (if you are a fan of zombies I encourage you to pick up "World War Z". So you can imagine what kind of bliss I was in when I had a full night of zombie goodness coming my way.
A local theater was showing Day of the Dead (1985). Unrated old school zombie goodness with a dash of overacting and 80s synth. Does it get any better than that? Day of the Dead is definitely an acquired taste but I think its awesome and it stars the most loveable of all zombies ever: Bub. You watch it and see Bub and not want to...well hugging him would seem stupid (he is a zombie) but you would certainly smile and if he did bite someone you'd probably think: oh that crazy Bub, he did it again. But this wasn't the end of my night of zombies.
After Day, I went to see 28 Weeks Later. Now yes I know technically, they aren't zombies just rage infected humans but for the most part they are zombies. Now I don't really like the fast zombie as a rule but 28 Days Later was a fun little film. Is 28 Weeks Later a good follow up? Well no not really. I heard plenty of analogies like 28 Days Later is to Alien as 28 Weeks Later is to Aliens. In as much as both Aliens and 28 Weeks Later are sequels this is true. In all other aspects, this is a horrible comparison.
The film has its moments. The opening sequence is pretty good with a nice twist (that every damn review spoils). The drastic measures to contain the new outbreak are crazy and sort of fun to watch. A helicopter and zombies, nuff said. And the fact that to some degree the real villains are the American troops (although the Iraq parallel is a bit heavy handed).
Sadly the film had its crappy moments too. The camera never pauses it seems like and neither does the director. And then there is one amazingly tenacious zombie who shows up all the time. I felt like I was watching a music video where the same guy is hiding in every scene. The poor story line, bad pacing and camera work tie this one down into a forgettable mess. Still it was zombie paradise while it lasted.
Thursday, May 17, 2007
Thursday, May 10, 2007
Spiderman 3
As I sit here and type this I am currently the owner of over 100 Spider-Man comics. They are all neatly bagged and sitting on a shelf in plain view. I like Spider-Man and I like comic books, clearly. So I would be really insulted if someone criticized me for just not getting comics or not getting what Spider-Man is about. As if making a film just like the comic is a positive criticism. A movie is a different artistic genre than a comic book. It should be different. If all you are going to do is bring it exactly as it was on the page to the screen, what is the point? Why not just go read the page. A movie should stay true to its material but do its own thing.
I felt Spider-Man did this. It wasn't the exact story of Spider-Man's origin but it got it right in the right places. It had a great villain in Willem Dafoe and I bought into what I was shown on the screen. Spider-Man 2 was less successful. I felt Doctor Octopus was a bit one dimensional which is a shame because he was played by the brilliant Alfred Molina. He was just a crazy guy obsessed with as my friend put it "fuuuushhhionnn". James Franco was almost as whiny as Harry Potter and the film in general just pushed the limits of its own universe a bit too much.
I'm tempted to believe Sam Raimi and the entire cast and crew actually conspired to make a horrible film in hopes that no new film would be asked of them for a few years. This would allow Tobey Maguire and Kirsten Dunst from having to reprise their roles. I'm tempted to think Raimi was actually trying to make Batman and Robin (19xx). Then years from now some new director could come along and make a return film which would blow up like Batman Begins (20xx). Although judging by the box office, if that was Raimi's goal, he failed miserably, no movie that makes 150 million in one weekend isn't going to get another sequel.
I'm not going to bother with a synopsis, I rarely do so why should this stinker be any different. I just want to say that when Peter Parker becomes a bad boy for a brief stint in the film, all I could do was think that it was very reminiscent of Superman's bad boy turn in Superman 3 after he was exposed to the pseudo-kryptonite. The bright point of that film was Richard Pryor, this film had no Richard Pryor or even a Richard Pryor-like actor.
The dramatic moments of this film were painful to sit through. The action was more so than usual cartoony and unimpressive. The love triangle is trite, the villains lack real motivation. Needless to say I hated this film.
I felt Spider-Man did this. It wasn't the exact story of Spider-Man's origin but it got it right in the right places. It had a great villain in Willem Dafoe and I bought into what I was shown on the screen. Spider-Man 2 was less successful. I felt Doctor Octopus was a bit one dimensional which is a shame because he was played by the brilliant Alfred Molina. He was just a crazy guy obsessed with as my friend put it "fuuuushhhionnn". James Franco was almost as whiny as Harry Potter and the film in general just pushed the limits of its own universe a bit too much.
I'm tempted to believe Sam Raimi and the entire cast and crew actually conspired to make a horrible film in hopes that no new film would be asked of them for a few years. This would allow Tobey Maguire and Kirsten Dunst from having to reprise their roles. I'm tempted to think Raimi was actually trying to make Batman and Robin (19xx). Then years from now some new director could come along and make a return film which would blow up like Batman Begins (20xx). Although judging by the box office, if that was Raimi's goal, he failed miserably, no movie that makes 150 million in one weekend isn't going to get another sequel.
I'm not going to bother with a synopsis, I rarely do so why should this stinker be any different. I just want to say that when Peter Parker becomes a bad boy for a brief stint in the film, all I could do was think that it was very reminiscent of Superman's bad boy turn in Superman 3 after he was exposed to the pseudo-kryptonite. The bright point of that film was Richard Pryor, this film had no Richard Pryor or even a Richard Pryor-like actor.
The dramatic moments of this film were painful to sit through. The action was more so than usual cartoony and unimpressive. The love triangle is trite, the villains lack real motivation. Needless to say I hated this film.
Lucky You
I can't truly hate a film that opens with a Springsteen song, even if it is "Lucky Town". I hear Bruce belting out his tune and it puts a smile on my face. I also can't truly hate a film that stars Eric Bana and Drew Barrymore. Both are just so damn likable and cute. And finally I can't truly hate a film whose backdrop is poker playing in Las Vegas. That being said I don't have to like a film with such elements either.
Lucky You is a romantic comedy set in Vegas a few years ago and follows Huck (Eric Bana) who is a poker player who occasionally pushes to far and ends up broke especially when playing against his estranged father (Robert Duvall). He meets cute with Drew's Billie and surely enough they have a swift relationship one expects in a romantic comedy. Of course Huck screws up and Billie is hurt and blah, blah, blah.
The romance was kind of forced in this movie, and the real story is about the relationship between Huck and his father. His father has learned how to play poker and have a life; Huck has yet to learn that lesson. His father is trying hard to help him learn it. Which is what I think is ultimately wrong with the film. It just isn't interesting. Despite all the excellent actors in this film, no one wows with the material they have. They don't focus too much on the poker which is good because unless you're a fan, it would drive you insane.
I didn't hate this film, I just felt unaffected by it. Still it did have those Springsteen songs.
Lucky You is a romantic comedy set in Vegas a few years ago and follows Huck (Eric Bana) who is a poker player who occasionally pushes to far and ends up broke especially when playing against his estranged father (Robert Duvall). He meets cute with Drew's Billie and surely enough they have a swift relationship one expects in a romantic comedy. Of course Huck screws up and Billie is hurt and blah, blah, blah.
The romance was kind of forced in this movie, and the real story is about the relationship between Huck and his father. His father has learned how to play poker and have a life; Huck has yet to learn that lesson. His father is trying hard to help him learn it. Which is what I think is ultimately wrong with the film. It just isn't interesting. Despite all the excellent actors in this film, no one wows with the material they have. They don't focus too much on the poker which is good because unless you're a fan, it would drive you insane.
I didn't hate this film, I just felt unaffected by it. Still it did have those Springsteen songs.
Thursday, April 19, 2007
Disturbia
David Morse screams serial killer and so having a movie in which he plays one (or a potential one) is about as thrilling as taking out the trash. If you watched the trailer for Disturbia then it basically gave away the major plot point which is unfortunate but it didn't give away how it gets to that plot point. It is that which makes this movie enjoyable to see. It spends a lot of time following Shia LaBeouf's Kale.
Kale is a teenager with angst but the movie gives a fairly unexpected reason for said angst. A quick set up has us following Kale around his house as he is under house arrest for three months. His fed up mom (Carrie-Anne Moss) cuts off his X-Box and his Itunes and Kale starts to go a little stir crazy. That is until he starts watching the neighbors, especially his new attractive female neighbor. To be fair his voyeurism is a big creepy and I'm not sure the watched girl would respond the way she does but in this universe she decides she likes Kale.
It is only after this rather lengthy set-up that we finally move into the thriller part of the movie. Its fairly traditional and follows the guidelines Hollywood set down long ago. Its passable in all this, nothing spectacular happens but it doesn't totally foul it up. For me the movie worked because it spent time in the build up. In the end I enjoyed watching this film. I certainly won't buy it, or likely ever watch it again but for an hour and a half it kept me entertained.
Kale is a teenager with angst but the movie gives a fairly unexpected reason for said angst. A quick set up has us following Kale around his house as he is under house arrest for three months. His fed up mom (Carrie-Anne Moss) cuts off his X-Box and his Itunes and Kale starts to go a little stir crazy. That is until he starts watching the neighbors, especially his new attractive female neighbor. To be fair his voyeurism is a big creepy and I'm not sure the watched girl would respond the way she does but in this universe she decides she likes Kale.
It is only after this rather lengthy set-up that we finally move into the thriller part of the movie. Its fairly traditional and follows the guidelines Hollywood set down long ago. Its passable in all this, nothing spectacular happens but it doesn't totally foul it up. For me the movie worked because it spent time in the build up. In the end I enjoyed watching this film. I certainly won't buy it, or likely ever watch it again but for an hour and a half it kept me entertained.
Tuesday, April 17, 2007
Pathfinder
Pathfinder had two things going for it. The theater I saw it in was empty save for me and my friend and it starred Clancy Brown. Unfortunately I didn't know it was Clancy Brown and he was speaking in Viking(?) the whole time. But the fact that the theater was empty is still a plus. One, it gives me hope that all considerations of quality are not gone from this world. Two, it meant I could make all the jokes at the screen that I wanted.
This film was simply horrible. Caricatured noble savages, tough but apparently incredibly stupid enemies and a ridiculous amount of conveniences and telegraphed set ups abound in this film. Its like watch a poor man's Conan. At least Conan had a plot that made mild sense. Karl Urban is trying desperately to eek out a living as an action star but sadly he lacks one key factor. My vague recollection of the Lord of the Rings trilogy makes me think he was an okay Eomer but since then he has underwhelmed me in everything I've seen.
And back to Clancy Brown. Seriously how can any film hide Clancy Brown behind bulky armor and a helmet. He's Clancy f---ing Brown, don't they understand that? You don't hide Drill Instructor Zim behind a mask, you put him out front chewing up scenery and emoting like you never saw no b-list actor emote before. This is a film travesty of significant importance, just like in Final Destination 3 when there was no Tony Todd. What were they thinking?
This film was simply horrible. Caricatured noble savages, tough but apparently incredibly stupid enemies and a ridiculous amount of conveniences and telegraphed set ups abound in this film. Its like watch a poor man's Conan. At least Conan had a plot that made mild sense. Karl Urban is trying desperately to eek out a living as an action star but sadly he lacks one key factor. My vague recollection of the Lord of the Rings trilogy makes me think he was an okay Eomer but since then he has underwhelmed me in everything I've seen.
And back to Clancy Brown. Seriously how can any film hide Clancy Brown behind bulky armor and a helmet. He's Clancy f---ing Brown, don't they understand that? You don't hide Drill Instructor Zim behind a mask, you put him out front chewing up scenery and emoting like you never saw no b-list actor emote before. This is a film travesty of significant importance, just like in Final Destination 3 when there was no Tony Todd. What were they thinking?
Monday, April 16, 2007
I put two and two together and decided you're pissing me off
Back in the days when I had free access to cable (either my parents' or one of my friends') I could watch Adult Swim on tv. One of the odd ball comedies was Aqua Teen Hunger Force. Roughly twelve minutes of comedic insanity that would have dialogue that would just resonate in me and have me repeating it over and over again even though it wasn't all that funny out of context. "Yeah, it is a good morning, it's three in the morning!" That still makes me laugh.
So when I heard that Aqua Teen Hunger Force was going to be a movie, I...well to be honest I thought it sounded like a pretty bad idea. How can a show that is funny in bits of 10 going to sustain itself over 80 minutes? Well sadly this is a question that will remain unanswered because this movie could in fact not hold up for that long. Sure the movie is crammed full of many of the favorites of the show, the Moonanites, the Plutonians, Carl but it just isn't that funny. I would have been better served by just watching a marathon of episodes.
So when I heard that Aqua Teen Hunger Force was going to be a movie, I...well to be honest I thought it sounded like a pretty bad idea. How can a show that is funny in bits of 10 going to sustain itself over 80 minutes? Well sadly this is a question that will remain unanswered because this movie could in fact not hold up for that long. Sure the movie is crammed full of many of the favorites of the show, the Moonanites, the Plutonians, Carl but it just isn't that funny. I would have been better served by just watching a marathon of episodes.
Wednesday, April 11, 2007
The Namesake
The Namesake is a film directed by Mira Nair following the Ganguli family over a period of about twenty five years. The film starts with Ashoke Ganguli (Irfan Kahn) who is a bookish young man who prefers to read over travel. A train accident makes him change his mind and the book he was reading when it occurred the works of Nikolai Gogol remain in his memory. We meet up with him several years later as his parents are arranging a marriage for him with Ashima (Tabu).
After their marriage the coupe goes to the United States where Ashoke is in school. The film follows the couple as they adjust to each other and Ashima adjusts to living outside of India. They have a family and name their first child Gogol. As Gogol grows up he is resistant to his parents and wants to change his name. At this point the film follows Gogol (Kal Penn) while also returning to Ashoke and Ashima. Tragedy strikes the family and Gogol must struggle between the American life he knows and has established with his Indian culture.
This film was quite good. It's quite pleasing with all the fancy footwork films made in Hollywood pull off, that there are still people making films that are just about people. This is just a character study that follows some very interesting people. Kal Penn is pleasant enough as Gogol but the meat of this film lies in Tabu's and Irfan Kahn's performances. As the couple of an arranged marriage they show amazing range. From the early scenes of disorientation of Ashima being with a man she hardly knows in a country so different from her own to the confident way she announces her plans now that her children are settled, I was fascinated with Tabu's performance. Irfan Kahn was no different. The two of them together had amazing chemistry.
I actually found myself irritated when the film moved away to deal with Gogol's life. It isn't as though he is less interesting (or maybe it is that he is less interesting) but Ashoke and Ashima just leap off the screen. This film is funny and sad (even heartbreaking) all while showing a culture that I know very little about. If you like a strong character driven plot then I recommend this film.
After their marriage the coupe goes to the United States where Ashoke is in school. The film follows the couple as they adjust to each other and Ashima adjusts to living outside of India. They have a family and name their first child Gogol. As Gogol grows up he is resistant to his parents and wants to change his name. At this point the film follows Gogol (Kal Penn) while also returning to Ashoke and Ashima. Tragedy strikes the family and Gogol must struggle between the American life he knows and has established with his Indian culture.
This film was quite good. It's quite pleasing with all the fancy footwork films made in Hollywood pull off, that there are still people making films that are just about people. This is just a character study that follows some very interesting people. Kal Penn is pleasant enough as Gogol but the meat of this film lies in Tabu's and Irfan Kahn's performances. As the couple of an arranged marriage they show amazing range. From the early scenes of disorientation of Ashima being with a man she hardly knows in a country so different from her own to the confident way she announces her plans now that her children are settled, I was fascinated with Tabu's performance. Irfan Kahn was no different. The two of them together had amazing chemistry.
I actually found myself irritated when the film moved away to deal with Gogol's life. It isn't as though he is less interesting (or maybe it is that he is less interesting) but Ashoke and Ashima just leap off the screen. This film is funny and sad (even heartbreaking) all while showing a culture that I know very little about. If you like a strong character driven plot then I recommend this film.
Sunday, April 08, 2007
Grindhouse
Grindhouse is what I can only describe as a cinephiletic orgasm. If you watched the trailer you either had no interest in it or you thought it was going to be the event in your life that you needed to see. Quentin Tarantino and Robert Rodriguez directing 70s style exploitative violent films. This film delivers although at a 191 minutes long it doesn't give you everything you wanted in a reasonable time.
Rodriguez' Planet Terror is a send up and take on zombie films. It's high intensity and has a lot of humor and beautiful women to fill the screen. As a fan of the zombie film, I was watching eagerly watching the creative ways of killing zombies and the over the top acting from such classic B movie actors as Michael Biehn and Tom Savini!!.
Tarantino's Death Proof is the second film and it has the classic dialogue you expect from his films. It however goes a bit too long and after the no stopping intensity of Planet Terror, this film starts to drag a bit. The action scenes are well done and the film has a largely satisfying ending but it felt a little too self indulgent from Tarantino.
The film also has several fake trailers which are fun to watch from various directors. If you like Tarantino, Rodriguez or film in general (and can stomach a lot of gore) then this is definitely a movie to see, in a large audience if you can manage it.
Rodriguez' Planet Terror is a send up and take on zombie films. It's high intensity and has a lot of humor and beautiful women to fill the screen. As a fan of the zombie film, I was watching eagerly watching the creative ways of killing zombies and the over the top acting from such classic B movie actors as Michael Biehn and Tom Savini!!.
Tarantino's Death Proof is the second film and it has the classic dialogue you expect from his films. It however goes a bit too long and after the no stopping intensity of Planet Terror, this film starts to drag a bit. The action scenes are well done and the film has a largely satisfying ending but it felt a little too self indulgent from Tarantino.
The film also has several fake trailers which are fun to watch from various directors. If you like Tarantino, Rodriguez or film in general (and can stomach a lot of gore) then this is definitely a movie to see, in a large audience if you can manage it.
Monday, April 02, 2007
Reign Over Me
I saw this movie because I like Don Cheadle and I'm trying to give Adam Sandler a chance in serious movies. But P.T. Anderson's Punch Drunk Love this is not. The movie follows Cheadle's character as he sees and re-befriends his old college roommate who lost his whole family in the 9/11 terror attacks. Sandler's Charlie is suffering from PTSD and refuses to even think about his life before. Unfortunately this film has been handled with all the subtelty of a tack hammer to the head.
Director Mike Binder attempts to pull every emotional string he can in the course of this movie and he loads it down with what he considers moving rock songs from his past. Now I like listening to Bruce Springsteen as much as the next guy (actually probably more than the next guy) but the symbolic scene when Sandler and Cheadle 'jam' to a song from the river had one thing going for it, the song. This is a sappy sad story with no real emotional depth but decent performances. You can see Sandler wanting to break out but he holds it in check.
There are two subplots to this film neither of which works in any satisfying way. One involves a bizarrely crazy woman (played by the beautiful Saffron Burrows) who makes a sexual advance on Cheadle, threatens to sue him and then apologizes before falling for Sandler's character. This also helps resolve a weak plotline where Cheadle stands up to his firm partners. The other plot is the struggle in Cheadle's own marriage which gets only the briefest attention and is resolved hurridly at the end.
This bizarre mix of overly bittersweet melodrama and confused side plots makes for quite a mess of a movie.
Director Mike Binder attempts to pull every emotional string he can in the course of this movie and he loads it down with what he considers moving rock songs from his past. Now I like listening to Bruce Springsteen as much as the next guy (actually probably more than the next guy) but the symbolic scene when Sandler and Cheadle 'jam' to a song from the river had one thing going for it, the song. This is a sappy sad story with no real emotional depth but decent performances. You can see Sandler wanting to break out but he holds it in check.
There are two subplots to this film neither of which works in any satisfying way. One involves a bizarrely crazy woman (played by the beautiful Saffron Burrows) who makes a sexual advance on Cheadle, threatens to sue him and then apologizes before falling for Sandler's character. This also helps resolve a weak plotline where Cheadle stands up to his firm partners. The other plot is the struggle in Cheadle's own marriage which gets only the briefest attention and is resolved hurridly at the end.
This bizarre mix of overly bittersweet melodrama and confused side plots makes for quite a mess of a movie.
Sunday, April 01, 2007
The Lookout
The Lookout follows the life of Chris Pratt (Joseph Gordon-Levitt , who four years prior had been in a car accident that left him suffering from memory loss. Chris goes through the motions of his day remembering the glory he had as a student athlete in high school and the comparably miserable existence he has now. His roommate and good friend is Lew (Jeff Daniels) who is blind and smart and hoping for the best for Chris. Chris is approached one night by Gary Spargo (Matthew Goode) under the auspices of friendship and ends up hooking up Chris with a pretty ex-stripper Luvlee (Isla Fisher). Soon, it is revealed that its less about friendship and more about bank robbing as Chris is pulled into a plan to rob the bank he works at.
This was a pretty good film. It had strong performances from all the key people and some excellent character work by Bruce McGill as Chris' father. The memory loss plot device is handled well as is the greater character arc for Chris. Some of the characters come and go without satisfactory closure and the ending was a bit weak but the acting and mostly good story telling made it worth seeing.
This was a pretty good film. It had strong performances from all the key people and some excellent character work by Bruce McGill as Chris' father. The memory loss plot device is handled well as is the greater character arc for Chris. Some of the characters come and go without satisfactory closure and the ending was a bit weak but the acting and mostly good story telling made it worth seeing.
Monday, March 26, 2007
The PRIDEful SHOOTER killed the HOST
I'm pretty sure no one is reading at this point anyway so dropping my two cents worth on three films seems like an exercise in futility but my whole life is an exercise in futility so ha!
Pride is your typical inspirational sports story. Terence Howard stars as a young man who experienced prejudice in his college years when trying to compete as a swimmer, years later in 70s Philadelphia, he gets a job clearing out a soon to be shut down rec center where he discovers, cleans up and begins using the abandoned pool. A group of local kids who use the lot to play basketball are deprived of the hoops and wander inside the rec center and are soon inspired to become swimmers.
Its typical because it has all the plot points you would expect to see. Early failure, racial prejudice against the black kids trying to break into a "white" sport, training montages, and eventual success. The story is based on true events and you can see real documentary footage of the actual coach if you sit through the credits. Howard's performance was strong and the movie accomplishes everything it sets out to do. I suppose there isn't anything wrong with telling an inspiration tale about keeping kids off the streets and out of gang life through recreational activity but I wonder if there is a way to tell such a story in a less stale cliched way. Swim fans and fans of sports underdog stories may enjoy this film more than I did. I am glad to see Howard still putting everything into his performances, I hope he has lots of success.
Shooter is about as mindless as Hollywood gets sans Michael Bay at the helm. We follow trained sniper Swaggert (Mark Wahlberg) who after being betrayed by the military living in seclusion. He is hired to help find a presidential assassin but is instead imbroiled in a conspiracy on a high level. Wahlberg (phoning in his performance, guess he needed a break from his intensity in The Departed (2006)) plays the sort of Matt Damon action hero well enough. The movie delivers the fight scenes and gun fighting that one wants from a movie like this all wrapped up in a ludicrous plot that is instantly forgettable. But I give a shout out to Ned Beatty who I can't remember seeing in a film since the Superman franchise. He was so great as Otis. Final verdict: Popcorn fluff that I enjoyed well enough.
The Host is a much critically praised horror film (91% fresh rating on RottenTomatoes.com) from Korea. It is apparently the highest grossing Korean film to date. Neither of these is exactly high praise in my view. Night Watch was the highest grossing Russian film to date and that move was seriously lacking in all that is good. This film is trying desperately hard to evoke at least three different genres: 50s horror, comedy, and social commentary. I think it fails at all three. It has all the subtlety of a Jerry Bruckheimer film, forced humor and blunt force anti-American sentiment. I was in pain after watching for a half hour and was praying for the end after that.
Poor acting (apparently intentional), poor character development (again intentional?), and overall pointless meandering story drove me insane. The filmmaker seemed more interested in making the monster move in a neat fashion than anything else. It could have been at least twenty minutes shorter and in general just left me angry.
Pride is your typical inspirational sports story. Terence Howard stars as a young man who experienced prejudice in his college years when trying to compete as a swimmer, years later in 70s Philadelphia, he gets a job clearing out a soon to be shut down rec center where he discovers, cleans up and begins using the abandoned pool. A group of local kids who use the lot to play basketball are deprived of the hoops and wander inside the rec center and are soon inspired to become swimmers.
Its typical because it has all the plot points you would expect to see. Early failure, racial prejudice against the black kids trying to break into a "white" sport, training montages, and eventual success. The story is based on true events and you can see real documentary footage of the actual coach if you sit through the credits. Howard's performance was strong and the movie accomplishes everything it sets out to do. I suppose there isn't anything wrong with telling an inspiration tale about keeping kids off the streets and out of gang life through recreational activity but I wonder if there is a way to tell such a story in a less stale cliched way. Swim fans and fans of sports underdog stories may enjoy this film more than I did. I am glad to see Howard still putting everything into his performances, I hope he has lots of success.
Shooter is about as mindless as Hollywood gets sans Michael Bay at the helm. We follow trained sniper Swaggert (Mark Wahlberg) who after being betrayed by the military living in seclusion. He is hired to help find a presidential assassin but is instead imbroiled in a conspiracy on a high level. Wahlberg (phoning in his performance, guess he needed a break from his intensity in The Departed (2006)) plays the sort of Matt Damon action hero well enough. The movie delivers the fight scenes and gun fighting that one wants from a movie like this all wrapped up in a ludicrous plot that is instantly forgettable. But I give a shout out to Ned Beatty who I can't remember seeing in a film since the Superman franchise. He was so great as Otis. Final verdict: Popcorn fluff that I enjoyed well enough.
The Host is a much critically praised horror film (91% fresh rating on RottenTomatoes.com) from Korea. It is apparently the highest grossing Korean film to date. Neither of these is exactly high praise in my view. Night Watch was the highest grossing Russian film to date and that move was seriously lacking in all that is good. This film is trying desperately hard to evoke at least three different genres: 50s horror, comedy, and social commentary. I think it fails at all three. It has all the subtlety of a Jerry Bruckheimer film, forced humor and blunt force anti-American sentiment. I was in pain after watching for a half hour and was praying for the end after that.
Poor acting (apparently intentional), poor character development (again intentional?), and overall pointless meandering story drove me insane. The filmmaker seemed more interested in making the monster move in a neat fashion than anything else. It could have been at least twenty minutes shorter and in general just left me angry.
Tuesday, February 20, 2007
Smokin Ghost Rider
I have no qualms about writing one very short post about two movies. Smokin' Aces had the potential to be a really fun popcorn flick. Instead it was tied down in stylistic pretentiousness. Ghost Rider by contrast had no redeemable potential at all. I lost two hours of my life and all I got was some gratuitous cleavage of Eva Mendes. And I should note this is a movie that starred Nick Cage, Sam Eliot hell even Donal Logue and Wes Bentley deserve better than this. I'd be shocked that Peter Fonda was in this but he was also in Escape from LA so his credibility is seriously lacking.
Tuesday, January 30, 2007
Pan's Labyrinth
Pan's Labyrinth follows a young girl named Ofelia who accompanies her pregnant mother to a military outpost in 1944 Spain where her step father is the commander. He is a sadistic commander for the fascist regime that was in power at that time. Ofelia escapes into her fantasies where she believes she is the long lost daughter of the king of another world.
The film follows Ofelia as she negotiates both the violent and dangerous real world and the idyllic fantasy adventure in her head. The fantasy scenes are amazing to view with textured and even very creepy creatures who aid or hinder her quest to be reunited with her lost world. The fantasy world is off set by the quite brutal things that happen in the real world including torture and summary execution.
This film has a nice balance of both worlds and even has an amazingly good resolve. I left the theater liking the movie and two days later I'm writing this and really liking this movie. The acting was well done, the directing was good. The human stories told were touching and the ending was...without giving anything away...very well done.
The film follows Ofelia as she negotiates both the violent and dangerous real world and the idyllic fantasy adventure in her head. The fantasy scenes are amazing to view with textured and even very creepy creatures who aid or hinder her quest to be reunited with her lost world. The fantasy world is off set by the quite brutal things that happen in the real world including torture and summary execution.
This film has a nice balance of both worlds and even has an amazingly good resolve. I left the theater liking the movie and two days later I'm writing this and really liking this movie. The acting was well done, the directing was good. The human stories told were touching and the ending was...without giving anything away...very well done.
Letters From Iwo Jima
Letters From Iwo Jima is an good war film. It isn't fantastic. I'm not sure what all the critical praise is about. I think Thin Red Line (1998) is far superior. It tales the story of the Battle of Iwo Jima from a side as Americans we don't often think of. I've heard a lot of critics say that perhaps as a student of history I've always been interested in the other narrative so I always thought war movies that were all patriotic were missing something. Recall that Thin Red Line does in fact have a few words from a Japanese soldier and I would suspect more were disposed on the editing room floor.
Letters does have one very vivid and memorable and also shocking scene involving honorable suicide. The acting is strong, especially Ken Watanabe and the direction solid but I was underwhelmed by this film. I would have enjoyed a deeper delving into the war culture of Japan that caused the men to fight as they did.
Letters does have one very vivid and memorable and also shocking scene involving honorable suicide. The acting is strong, especially Ken Watanabe and the direction solid but I was underwhelmed by this film. I would have enjoyed a deeper delving into the war culture of Japan that caused the men to fight as they did.
The Painted Veil
I think I liked The Painted Veil when I saw it two weeks ago but I can't recall much about it now. It was a bit long and not a very coherent plot but it was more about the characters than anything else. Naomi Watts and Edward Norton play some extraordinarily complex characters who run the gamet of emotions. This is definitely one of those roles an actor loves to get. The cinematography in this film was also breathtaking to look at. This is a rare US movie filmed in china and the country side is amazing to see. I'm glad I saw it so I can comment on any nominations but not memorable for me as a film.
Aliens
A personal favorite movie of mine for years has been James Cameron's Aliens (1986). When I learned that the local indie theater was going to be showing this film on the big screen, I was thrilled. Well the print of the movie I'm pretty sure was from twenty years ago, it was scratched and blurry and actually pretty poor image quality but you know what? I didn't care one damn bit.
As much as Ridley Scott's Alien (1979) was a scary thriller, Cameron's film is an excellent action film. But that isn't to say there isn't suspense in this movie because believe me there is. What exactly happened on the colony? How are the aliens moving around? Who is going to live? Will Ripley save Newt? I know the answer to every one of these questions and I still was glued to the screen.
I forgot how funny this film is too. There are genuinely funny moments with fun dialogue and plenty of action. And I couldn't help but cheer aloud and neither could the rest of the audience when Ripley yells out at the end "Get Away from her, you b*tch!" This is an experience I wish I could have had years ago in its original release but to be fair to me, I was five. Watching this old print with a crowd of hard core fans was almost as good. So go rewatch or watch for the first time an excellent suspense action film from one of the great directors of our time.
As much as Ridley Scott's Alien (1979) was a scary thriller, Cameron's film is an excellent action film. But that isn't to say there isn't suspense in this movie because believe me there is. What exactly happened on the colony? How are the aliens moving around? Who is going to live? Will Ripley save Newt? I know the answer to every one of these questions and I still was glued to the screen.
I forgot how funny this film is too. There are genuinely funny moments with fun dialogue and plenty of action. And I couldn't help but cheer aloud and neither could the rest of the audience when Ripley yells out at the end "Get Away from her, you b*tch!" This is an experience I wish I could have had years ago in its original release but to be fair to me, I was five. Watching this old print with a crowd of hard core fans was almost as good. So go rewatch or watch for the first time an excellent suspense action film from one of the great directors of our time.
The Queen
I went to the theater to see a special viewing of Aliens (1986) and ended up seeing The Queen (2006). I blame the internet for lying to me about when Aliens was showing. Ironically I went initially to see a movie that had a queen (albiet a hideous alien one) in it and after a small snafu I ended up at a movie that had a queen in it (debatably the English royal family could be aliens).
The Queen stands as a historical drama in which I can actually vividly remember the public events it is dealing with. I remember when Diana died and the royal family wasn't talking. This film gives us the inside or at least an interpretation of what was going on inside the royal family at the time. It is really well done and has strong performances from many members of the cast.
Helen Mirren of course stands out. She has been nominated for multiple awards and rightly so. I have not seen every movie on the noms but someone would have to be pretty amazing to upstage her. Sometimes I have personal favorites whom I root for despite the fact that I know they aren't the best performance but be wary to all, she was phenomenal and will be hard to beat.
The Queen stands as a historical drama in which I can actually vividly remember the public events it is dealing with. I remember when Diana died and the royal family wasn't talking. This film gives us the inside or at least an interpretation of what was going on inside the royal family at the time. It is really well done and has strong performances from many members of the cast.
Helen Mirren of course stands out. She has been nominated for multiple awards and rightly so. I have not seen every movie on the noms but someone would have to be pretty amazing to upstage her. Sometimes I have personal favorites whom I root for despite the fact that I know they aren't the best performance but be wary to all, she was phenomenal and will be hard to beat.
Thursday, January 11, 2007
Happily N'Ever After
Fairly tales are apparently so timeless that even Hollywood has gotten sick of them. It has gotten to the point that classic tales like Cinderella and Little Red Riding Hood are being reimagined. This, in my opinion, has been done successfully in films like Ever After (199x) and Hoodwinked (2006) and done horribly in films like The Brothers Grimm (2005). Happily N'Ever After is definitely in the latter category.
The film starts as the traditional Cinderella Story but we are introduced to a lowly servant, Rick (Freddie Prince, Jr) who is in love with Cinderella (Sarah Michelle Gellar). The wicked stepmother gets her hands on a magic staff and upsets the balance of all the fairy tales, letting the bad guys win. The prince turns out to be a chump and it is Rick with Cinderella's help who saves the day.
This film is not clever. The story drags on too long at the beginning and then hurries to find an ending. If this is the quality of children's movies these days, I am truly sorry for the children. This film completely misuses George Carlin and a star filled voice cast including Sigourney Weaver and Wallace Shawn!! (Okay so he isn't exactly a star). I would suggest renting Hoodwinked or Ever After instead. Or my personal favorite reimagining of a fairy tale, Ella Enchanted.
The film starts as the traditional Cinderella Story but we are introduced to a lowly servant, Rick (Freddie Prince, Jr) who is in love with Cinderella (Sarah Michelle Gellar). The wicked stepmother gets her hands on a magic staff and upsets the balance of all the fairy tales, letting the bad guys win. The prince turns out to be a chump and it is Rick with Cinderella's help who saves the day.
This film is not clever. The story drags on too long at the beginning and then hurries to find an ending. If this is the quality of children's movies these days, I am truly sorry for the children. This film completely misuses George Carlin and a star filled voice cast including Sigourney Weaver and Wallace Shawn!! (Okay so he isn't exactly a star). I would suggest renting Hoodwinked or Ever After instead. Or my personal favorite reimagining of a fairy tale, Ella Enchanted.
Tuesday, January 09, 2007
Children of Men
This is by far the best movie I have seen all year. Okay so that is a little cheap. I've technically seen only three movies in this year (2007). This one definitely makes my top ten of movies released in 2006. Alfonso Cuaron does an amazing job behind the camera creating a tight well done action thriller. And the main character never picks up a gun once.
The film picks up in the year 2027, 18 years after humans stopped being able to reproduce. The youngest person on the planet has just died and things all over the world have gone to hell pretty much. A fascist government in Britain is doing its best to curb the violence and is going about it in a very typical fear mongering way.
Theo (Clive Owen) is our main character a stolid, perhaps alcoholic man who has essentially given up on humanity. He is enlisted by his ex wife to help get an unexpectedly pregnant girl to something called the Human Project. The film follows his adventures to get the girl to her destination. There is plenty of action and intrigue for the film and it never gets tedious or boring.
There are some excellent performances from quality actors. Michael Caine's performance is of particular skill and craft. Owen is excellent as always as well. This movie has a brutal use of violence but it never seems gratuitous. It always makes sense and never pulled me out of the movie.
It amazes me that in essence this movie has a similar dystopic not so distant future that the movie V for Vendetta (2005) had and yet that movie was horrible and this movie works. The atmosphere of this movie was amazing. Some of the throw away stuff like propaganda messages on the trains or graffiti on walls was so well placed. You believe that this all could actually happen.
The film picks up in the year 2027, 18 years after humans stopped being able to reproduce. The youngest person on the planet has just died and things all over the world have gone to hell pretty much. A fascist government in Britain is doing its best to curb the violence and is going about it in a very typical fear mongering way.
Theo (Clive Owen) is our main character a stolid, perhaps alcoholic man who has essentially given up on humanity. He is enlisted by his ex wife to help get an unexpectedly pregnant girl to something called the Human Project. The film follows his adventures to get the girl to her destination. There is plenty of action and intrigue for the film and it never gets tedious or boring.
There are some excellent performances from quality actors. Michael Caine's performance is of particular skill and craft. Owen is excellent as always as well. This movie has a brutal use of violence but it never seems gratuitous. It always makes sense and never pulled me out of the movie.
It amazes me that in essence this movie has a similar dystopic not so distant future that the movie V for Vendetta (2005) had and yet that movie was horrible and this movie works. The atmosphere of this movie was amazing. Some of the throw away stuff like propaganda messages on the trains or graffiti on walls was so well placed. You believe that this all could actually happen.
Philip J Fry had it right
I have an addiction to Lucy Liu. Much like the lovable dope of the short lived Fox series I think she is really attractive. Seeing a Lucy Liu movie is the closest I can imagine to what an actually drug addiction would be like. You see I have to see Lucy Liu movies, no matter how terrible they appear to be. Earlier last year I was delighted to find out Lucky Number Slevin was actually better than it sounded and appeared from the previews. I've also seen, sadly, both Charlie's Angels movies. And Ms. Liu is also why I recently watched Codename: Cleaner.
Oh dear gods, what a horrible, horrible movie. Cedric the Entertainer is like anti-comedy. The plot is bad. Very bad. Familiar faces are used to the weakest effect. Why oh why does Will Patton get into so many bad movies? I'm trying desperately to cleanse this movie from my memory. But it was still worth it for the Lucy Liu fix.
Oh dear gods, what a horrible, horrible movie. Cedric the Entertainer is like anti-comedy. The plot is bad. Very bad. Familiar faces are used to the weakest effect. Why oh why does Will Patton get into so many bad movies? I'm trying desperately to cleanse this movie from my memory. But it was still worth it for the Lucy Liu fix.
Freedom Writers
Freedom Writers plays like Dangerous Minds 2: Dangerouser. It's your typical Hollywood, inexperienced teacher with a view towards fixing a broken education system film. Everything you expect to see in this film you will see. It doesn't matter if it was based on a true story. Hilary Swank plays the idealist, naive teacher coming into an inner city school with gang problems who inspires her students to believe in themselves.
The film is made well enough, the performances are standard, nothing exciting and it has all the tear inducing moments one would expect for this type of film. I'm not entirely sure what one is supposed to get out of a film like this? Am I supposed to realize how messed up the education system is? Am I supposed to believe that if there were more teachers like Swank's character, that all the education problems would be resolved?
I suspect reforming education can't be simplified that easily. This film doesn't do anything amazing and by turning it into a pop culture event may in fact weaken whatever the real people actually accomplished. A little text blurb at the end even informs the audience that she didn't stay in high school education. A much better film about teaching was Half Nelson. I recommend that instead.
The film is made well enough, the performances are standard, nothing exciting and it has all the tear inducing moments one would expect for this type of film. I'm not entirely sure what one is supposed to get out of a film like this? Am I supposed to realize how messed up the education system is? Am I supposed to believe that if there were more teachers like Swank's character, that all the education problems would be resolved?
I suspect reforming education can't be simplified that easily. This film doesn't do anything amazing and by turning it into a pop culture event may in fact weaken whatever the real people actually accomplished. A little text blurb at the end even informs the audience that she didn't stay in high school education. A much better film about teaching was Half Nelson. I recommend that instead.
Failure and The Goal Renewed
Despite some marthon movie going near the end of the semester which had me seeing several movies, I did not make the 100 movies in the theater that I had hoped for. I saw Apocalypto, long and bloody but the foot chase sequence in the final act was amazingly fun to watch and so I give a favorable opinion of the movie overall. Eragon played and felt like a ripoff of Lord of the Rings, but if you like sword and sorcery flicks this one will work as a fix. Rocky Balboa, I'm pretty sure a new Rocky movie was not necessary but this movie played fine until the end when I got very angry for some reason. Either the second or third best of the Rocky movies. The Good Shepherd, Matt Damon was really good and really reserved. Not a perfect movie but well done in my opinion. So that wrapped up my movie going experience of 2006. I managed 85 different films (saw Superman Returns twice), fifteen shy of the goal. So I just have to aim for it again. Here we go, I've seen three movies so far, 97 to go!!
Monday, December 18, 2006
Blood Diamonds
Many people I know hate Leonardo DiCaprio and I for the life of me can't figure out why. He is easily one of the top five actors working in Hollywood today. Every performance he gives is top quality. Blood Diamond is no different. The movie follows Danny Archer, a diamond smuggler in Sierra Leone. In the course of the movie, Danny meets Maddy Bowen (Jennifer Connelly), an American journalist and Solomon Vandy (Djimon Honsou), a local man who is caught up in his country's civil war and horrific conflict diamond trade.
Note to the screenwriter: Try to be a bit more subtle when naming your characters. I mean Solomon? A movie about diamonds and you name one of your characters Solomon? I find that a bit much.
Aside from that, Blood Diamond is a great action filled drama. Sure it has a bit of a preachy side but when you set a film outside the US, it is bound to happen. DiCaprio is what makes this film work. He isn't the most original character to ever grace the screen but he sells his character so well. From the ruthless moments when he is threatening Vandy to the raw emotional moments when he is revealing what happened to his parents, DiCaprio shines on screen.
Is his character arc predictable? Well, yes. Although I couldn't help think how great (and by great I mean extremely depressing but cinematically satisfying) to see a film like this where the bad guys win. But as my uncle pointed out to me once, the bad guys win every day in real life, who wants to go to a fantasy and see them win there too. Well, I kind of do. Just once or twice. But even if arc is predictable, DiCaprio sells it. And that is all that matters. There are those subtle changes throughout the movie when we slowly start to see him be more of a decent human being.
And in the end I'm not even sure how pure his motives would have been if his circumstances were different. I won't reveal what happens exactly but DiCaprio has a look near the end where I actually believed for a second he might actually not do what I expected. But I knew Hollywood wouldn't let that happen. Despite the heavy handed moral of the story, I still enjoyed this film.
Note to the screenwriter: Try to be a bit more subtle when naming your characters. I mean Solomon? A movie about diamonds and you name one of your characters Solomon? I find that a bit much.
Aside from that, Blood Diamond is a great action filled drama. Sure it has a bit of a preachy side but when you set a film outside the US, it is bound to happen. DiCaprio is what makes this film work. He isn't the most original character to ever grace the screen but he sells his character so well. From the ruthless moments when he is threatening Vandy to the raw emotional moments when he is revealing what happened to his parents, DiCaprio shines on screen.
Is his character arc predictable? Well, yes. Although I couldn't help think how great (and by great I mean extremely depressing but cinematically satisfying) to see a film like this where the bad guys win. But as my uncle pointed out to me once, the bad guys win every day in real life, who wants to go to a fantasy and see them win there too. Well, I kind of do. Just once or twice. But even if arc is predictable, DiCaprio sells it. And that is all that matters. There are those subtle changes throughout the movie when we slowly start to see him be more of a decent human being.
And in the end I'm not even sure how pure his motives would have been if his circumstances were different. I won't reveal what happens exactly but DiCaprio has a look near the end where I actually believed for a second he might actually not do what I expected. But I knew Hollywood wouldn't let that happen. Despite the heavy handed moral of the story, I still enjoyed this film.
Sunday, November 26, 2006
Delays are inevitable
No one was more disappointed than I when I stopped posting reviews. I apologize for the long delay but things were out of my hands. School just got in the way and school has to come first. I apologize for the shortness and lameness of the reviews as well but I can barely remember some of the films and I can only comment on the remaining impression in my brain. I make no promises for the next month. I might not even reach my goal of 100 films in 2006. Which makes me want to cry. We shall see though.
Bobby
I'm not really sure what the point of Bobby was other than a venue to make people sit through some RFK speeches. The plot follows the lives of way too many people through the course of the day leading up to RFK's assassination by Sirhan Sirhan. There are former employees, current employees, campaign members and even a Czech reporter. It was sickeningly a big poster board for liberal idealism. I get that Bobby Kennedy was considered a great hope. I get that he had a lot of good ideas. I don't need to be beaten over the head with it. But that is all Emilio Estevez seems able to do. This felt like a big Hollywood love letter to RFK. It served no other dramatic purpose.
Tenacious D
I'm not the biggest fan of Jack Black. I tend to find him a bit annoying. Which was why I was more than surprised to find myself laughing in Tenacious D and the Pick of Destiny. I also hate musicals, which for all intents and purposes this was, but I enjoyed this film. I can't explain why because part of me knows it was really bad. Fun rock and a ridiculous plot somehow worked. Plus Meatloaf makes a humorous cameo.
The Fountain
Darren Aronofsky impressed me with Pi. It wasn't a perfect movie but it was an interesting. Then came Requiem for a Dream which left an indelible image of Jennifer Connolly in my head that always floods to the surface when I see her in any film. It was a depressing film but I didn't feel much sympathy for any of the characters. Now comes The Fountain. Usually the second film from an upcoming director is the pretentious, self-indulgent metaphysical movie. How he managed to hold off til his third film I do not know. I can imagine how this film could have been worse but it stretches the capabilities of my mind to do so. I don't even know how the three story lines really connect. I'll give him another chance to impress me before I decide Aronofsky is a pretentious jackass.
That's how Bond should be done
Casino Royale is one of the best Bond films I have ever seen. Daniel Craig plays Bond as a suave but ruthless secret agent. Many a fan might be upset by the disappearance of a beloved icon, but I was refreshed by the change of tone. To me a suave Bond that everyone knows would hardly make a good secret agent now would he? Was I skeptical that Craig could pull it off? Yes. Was I happy they chose Craig instead of Clive Owen? Hell yes. Owen is too good to be bogged down by such a trite roll. Craig showed he had Bond chops in Layer Cake.
There is a nice playfulness with the old Bond in this film. This film does not star either Q or Moneypenny. But early in the film when Eva Green shows up she says "I'm the money" and Bond responds "Every penny". I laughed alot at that line. Was I a bit skeptical that the European casino was offering a game of No Limit Texas Hold'em? Okay, I admit that was the one bit I thought a bit ridiculous. Still the film was paced well, with one notable section near the end. I look forward to future darker Bond films. Especially since spy movies finally have a big baddy again. The 90s were a rough time for Bond, with no more Eastern Bloc, but with the War on Terror, Bond can go back to fighting a phantom enemy. Here is hoping the new Bond is here to stay.
There is a nice playfulness with the old Bond in this film. This film does not star either Q or Moneypenny. But early in the film when Eva Green shows up she says "I'm the money" and Bond responds "Every penny". I laughed alot at that line. Was I a bit skeptical that the European casino was offering a game of No Limit Texas Hold'em? Okay, I admit that was the one bit I thought a bit ridiculous. Still the film was paced well, with one notable section near the end. I look forward to future darker Bond films. Especially since spy movies finally have a big baddy again. The 90s were a rough time for Bond, with no more Eastern Bloc, but with the War on Terror, Bond can go back to fighting a phantom enemy. Here is hoping the new Bond is here to stay.
Fiction
Stranger Than Fiction was a delightful film. The first film in quite some time that starred Will Ferrell where I actually thought he was pretty good. The plot concerns Harold Crick (Will Ferrell) who it turns out is the main character in the latest book by Kay Eiffel (Emma Thompson). Crick becomes aware that his story is being narrated and attempts to figure out what is happening to him. In the course of his adventures he will fall in love with a baker who is being audited and seek the aid of a literature expert played by Dustin Hoffman.
Everyone seems like they are having fun in this film. Hoffman seems like he is having the most fun. The way in which his character tackles the whole ridiculous situation was priceless. There is an exchange at one point that ends with Ferrell uttering the line "Yes, I'm very glad to know I'm not a golem." This line alone sealed the movie as being good. All the performances were strong and I was really rooting for Harold by the final act of the film. Which is a good sign. Kay Eiffel's explanation of why she is changing the story from its intended course is poignant and makes perfect sense and I was quite content when I left the theater.
Everyone seems like they are having fun in this film. Hoffman seems like he is having the most fun. The way in which his character tackles the whole ridiculous situation was priceless. There is an exchange at one point that ends with Ferrell uttering the line "Yes, I'm very glad to know I'm not a golem." This line alone sealed the movie as being good. All the performances were strong and I was really rooting for Harold by the final act of the film. Which is a good sign. Kay Eiffel's explanation of why she is changing the story from its intended course is poignant and makes perfect sense and I was quite content when I left the theater.
Borat
The goal of Borat, I assume, was to show people in the US how ridiculous some aspects of its culture truly are. Let all America laugh at the racist southerner and the sexist frat boy. But watching this film I felt like the joke was truly on the US. Because sadly the racist guy and the sexist college student aren't the exception, I think they are the rule. Tie that in with some unfunny stuff involving naked wrestling and you have a movie that the general masses will eat up like candy. But for me this film just wasn't funny. It was more sad than funny.
Saw 3
Yes, I have seen Saw 3. Yes, I have often expressed how horrible the first two films were and how much I hated them while I was viewing them and I hated them more for having to sit through them. They are so ridiculously predictable. People act without the slightest bit of sense. Yet somehow, these films keep making money and so they keep making movies. Yes, I acknowledge that my ticket in some way contributes to this fact, but I'm trying to see a crap load of movies in one year here people. Inevitably I have to see the crappy ones. It isn't possible to see 100 good movies in the theater, not in this state at least.
Being Jigsaw must be a tiring experience. No wonder he is dying. So much set up, elaborate bend over backwards set up for so little gain. I suspect even real psychopaths would opt for a far simpler way of killing people. This movie really tried to be deep. Or at least the screenwriter thought he was being deep. Unfortunately, the writer's idea of depth is woefully misplaced. I've seen wading pools with more depth. The saddest thing is that although I hate these "Saw" movies with a passion that I generally reserve for things like Michael Bay's Pearl Harbor, I will undoubtedly go and see any and all sequels that are made and I'll be as bitter then as I am now about it.
Being Jigsaw must be a tiring experience. No wonder he is dying. So much set up, elaborate bend over backwards set up for so little gain. I suspect even real psychopaths would opt for a far simpler way of killing people. This movie really tried to be deep. Or at least the screenwriter thought he was being deep. Unfortunately, the writer's idea of depth is woefully misplaced. I've seen wading pools with more depth. The saddest thing is that although I hate these "Saw" movies with a passion that I generally reserve for things like Michael Bay's Pearl Harbor, I will undoubtedly go and see any and all sequels that are made and I'll be as bitter then as I am now about it.
Man Of The Year
What to say about Robin Williams? What to say about Man of the Year? If Hollywood had never acknowledged either I suspect the world would be a better place. I don't buy for one second of this film, the idea that Robin Williams is a successful "Daily Show"-esque comedian news reporter. Part of the plot revolves around some crazy fouled up voting machine and the whole reason Williams gets elected is because of the error. And no one suspects fraud, even though he had only 10% of the vote going into the election. This movie exists in a fantasy world where apparently the Gore/Bush race never happened. Oh yeah and its horribly not funny. When, o when will Hollywood learn to use Christopher Walken to his full comic potential? He was the only bright spot in this horrible movie.
The Departed
Martin Scorsese is one of the greatest directors in American Cinema. Even when his movies miss their mark, they are still cinematic feats. The Departed is a refreshing film in a rather dismal year at the movies. Sure its a remake, and Hollywood should really get off the remake band wagon, but if every remake were done as well as Scorsese does this one, I might not complain as much.
The story revolves around Billy Costigan (Leonardo DiCaprio) and Colin Sullivan (Matt Damon). The former is a police officer placed undercover in a gang run by Frank Costello (Jack Nicholson), the latter is a police officer, who secretly works for Costello. What more need you know except that is an intense thriller with twists and turns that kept the entertainment value high for the whole movie.
DiCaprio was excellent as always. There are a lot of people out there who hate him as an actor but I've never seen him give a bad performance. Nicholson is a blast to watch as he plays over the top. I enjoyed everything about this movie and the ending was refreshing. Easily one of the best movies I have seen this year.
The story revolves around Billy Costigan (Leonardo DiCaprio) and Colin Sullivan (Matt Damon). The former is a police officer placed undercover in a gang run by Frank Costello (Jack Nicholson), the latter is a police officer, who secretly works for Costello. What more need you know except that is an intense thriller with twists and turns that kept the entertainment value high for the whole movie.
DiCaprio was excellent as always. There are a lot of people out there who hate him as an actor but I've never seen him give a bad performance. Nicholson is a blast to watch as he plays over the top. I enjoyed everything about this movie and the ending was refreshing. Easily one of the best movies I have seen this year.
Monday, September 04, 2006
Why, Mr. Statham, why?
Jason Statham has played memorable favorites in Lock Stock and Two Smoking barrels and in Snatch. Which is why it pains me to see him in films like The Transporter (either one) or this film Crank.
Crank follows Chev (Statham) who wakes up having been injected with a poison that will kill him. All he can do is put off death by keeping his adrenaline pumping. A reviewer called it a crude combination of Speed and D.O.A. which would seem to imply that either of those movies was good.
Crank is painstakingly bad. It is so painfully overstylized as they director uses split screen shots, bizarre use of flashback and scene cuts that I was boiling with rage and wanted to shout at the director to just keep the camera still and let the images tell the story but then I realized that there probably wasn't enough good footage to complete an entire film and all this ornament is simply to confuse.
This movie can't even fall onto the time tested defense of at least the action was entertaining. The action was boring. There is no sense of pacing at all. The movie wants to be serious, it isn't. It wants to be funny, it isn't. Whatever the director was attempting, he has failed on every level. He like the director of Pulse should be taken to the woods and put away quietly.
Crank follows Chev (Statham) who wakes up having been injected with a poison that will kill him. All he can do is put off death by keeping his adrenaline pumping. A reviewer called it a crude combination of Speed and D.O.A. which would seem to imply that either of those movies was good.
Crank is painstakingly bad. It is so painfully overstylized as they director uses split screen shots, bizarre use of flashback and scene cuts that I was boiling with rage and wanted to shout at the director to just keep the camera still and let the images tell the story but then I realized that there probably wasn't enough good footage to complete an entire film and all this ornament is simply to confuse.
This movie can't even fall onto the time tested defense of at least the action was entertaining. The action was boring. There is no sense of pacing at all. The movie wants to be serious, it isn't. It wants to be funny, it isn't. Whatever the director was attempting, he has failed on every level. He like the director of Pulse should be taken to the woods and put away quietly.
In Heaven There Is No Beer
It is hard in good conscience to talk about Beerfest as anything but an intentionally offensive, desperate pandering spectacle but the reality is that despite being dumb, and I mean really dumb, I laughed a whole lot. The film follows two brothers who journey to Germany to place their Grandfather's ashes in the ancestral burial place and stumble upon a secret international beer Olympics.
They suffer humiliation and return to the States to train and return triumphant. They gather together a team together and train and eventually return to Germany. A fairly straightforward underdog story placed into a fairly conventional drinking movie. But there are moments in this film when I was literally in tears. I should probably be ashamed to admit that but if I stop laughing because I need time to breath then I must admit what I have just witnessed is in some way funny.
I've heard reviewers speak unfavorably about this film and suggest going to see funnier films such as Animal House. I assure you I never laughed at anything in Animal House that was as funny as when one of the characters wakes up from a night of drinking. I won't ruin the manner in which he wakes up but it was priceless. Perhaps the appeal to this movie is the exaggeration of events that anyone who has ever done serious drinking recognizes as being plausible.
I won't try to intellectualize why I found it funny more than that. I just did. I have no qualms about saying this was the funniest thing I've watched all year.
They suffer humiliation and return to the States to train and return triumphant. They gather together a team together and train and eventually return to Germany. A fairly straightforward underdog story placed into a fairly conventional drinking movie. But there are moments in this film when I was literally in tears. I should probably be ashamed to admit that but if I stop laughing because I need time to breath then I must admit what I have just witnessed is in some way funny.
I've heard reviewers speak unfavorably about this film and suggest going to see funnier films such as Animal House. I assure you I never laughed at anything in Animal House that was as funny as when one of the characters wakes up from a night of drinking. I won't ruin the manner in which he wakes up but it was priceless. Perhaps the appeal to this movie is the exaggeration of events that anyone who has ever done serious drinking recognizes as being plausible.
I won't try to intellectualize why I found it funny more than that. I just did. I have no qualms about saying this was the funniest thing I've watched all year.
Pulse
Sometimes you go to a movie because you are a fan of one of the actors or actresses who happens to be starring in said movie. I can give you no better reason for why I willingly went to see Pulse. I don't particularly like Horror films or Americanized knockoffs of Japanese originals. But I do like Kristen Bell. So I happily turned my wallet over and shook it until the seven dollars that I needed fell out and marched into the theater.
The problem with liking actors/actresses who aren't making top dollar is that they make movies that earn them a paycheck but aren't skillfully demanding. Pulse feels like a paycheck movie for young Ms. Bell. I hope it was a paycheck movie for everyone involved because if this is a director's artistic achievement said director needs to be taken out into the woods and disposed of in a quiet manner. I haven't even seen the original film and have the sense that it is being done an injustice.
The worst conceit being, what kind of computer illiterate retard clicks on a pop up!! And ultimately that is all the strange ghost virus is. Why can't the people just go in and erase all the harddrives with giant magnets? I'm not going to bother with summarizing the plot of this film, suffice to say I got my Kristen Bell big screen time and I paid for it, monetarily and otherwise.
The problem with liking actors/actresses who aren't making top dollar is that they make movies that earn them a paycheck but aren't skillfully demanding. Pulse feels like a paycheck movie for young Ms. Bell. I hope it was a paycheck movie for everyone involved because if this is a director's artistic achievement said director needs to be taken out into the woods and disposed of in a quiet manner. I haven't even seen the original film and have the sense that it is being done an injustice.
The worst conceit being, what kind of computer illiterate retard clicks on a pop up!! And ultimately that is all the strange ghost virus is. Why can't the people just go in and erase all the harddrives with giant magnets? I'm not going to bother with summarizing the plot of this film, suffice to say I got my Kristen Bell big screen time and I paid for it, monetarily and otherwise.
Friday, August 11, 2006
The Descent
The Descent is a pretty decent horror film. It doesn't do anything new or exciting, but the cast is good and the premise holds up over the film. If anything the arrival of creatures in the film actually hurts the movie. It provides several "jump" moments and has a generally dark atmosphere that makes it work despite being a fairly generic creature feature.
After an obligatory, quite unnecessary and surprisingly brutal prologue we come to meet our six characters. All women who are about to go on a cave exploration. Once in the cave an unfortunate accident traps them there. They have two choices. Stay put and die or keep moving and try to find another way out. The choose the second one and soon run across some Morlock-esque monsters who start in a traditional movie way killing off our heroines.
The movie moves into a more generic creature gore fest at this point but still manages to keep the plot moving and interesting. There was one completely unnecessary subplot and the American ending is a lot more upbeat than the British version but neither takes much away from the film. If you are looking for a decent horror film, this one works well enough.
After an obligatory, quite unnecessary and surprisingly brutal prologue we come to meet our six characters. All women who are about to go on a cave exploration. Once in the cave an unfortunate accident traps them there. They have two choices. Stay put and die or keep moving and try to find another way out. The choose the second one and soon run across some Morlock-esque monsters who start in a traditional movie way killing off our heroines.
The movie moves into a more generic creature gore fest at this point but still manages to keep the plot moving and interesting. There was one completely unnecessary subplot and the American ending is a lot more upbeat than the British version but neither takes much away from the film. If you are looking for a decent horror film, this one works well enough.
Road To Gitmo
You could imagine my shock when I discovered that Road To Guantanamo was not a long lost Bing Crosby/Bob Hope movie. Actually it is a documentary account of three British Muslims who were captured in Afghanistan and held as suspected Al Qaida terrorists for several years in Guantanamo. This documentary is of course barely that given that there is very little documentation that the filmmakers could no doubt get their hands on.
They make up for this with dramatizations of what happened. This includes a very long, drawn out detailed accounting of their time in Pakistan and Afghanistan leading up to the US invasion. The dramatization is intercut with interview scenes of the real men involved. The film is naturally one sided since the US military would clearly refuse to cooperate but that isn't what makes it problematic as a film.
It feels like retread of all the things we already know to be true. There could have been a powerful story told here. They could have interviewed the family of the three. They could have shown efforts by their lawyers or advocates in trying to free them. All of this is absent. In the end it feels like a 45 minute special than a feature length documentary.
They make up for this with dramatizations of what happened. This includes a very long, drawn out detailed accounting of their time in Pakistan and Afghanistan leading up to the US invasion. The dramatization is intercut with interview scenes of the real men involved. The film is naturally one sided since the US military would clearly refuse to cooperate but that isn't what makes it problematic as a film.
It feels like retread of all the things we already know to be true. There could have been a powerful story told here. They could have interviewed the family of the three. They could have shown efforts by their lawyers or advocates in trying to free them. All of this is absent. In the end it feels like a 45 minute special than a feature length documentary.
Lady In The Water
M. Night Shyamalan has been trying to perfect self indulgent tripe for some time now. He has finally succeeded in the agonizingly bad Lady In The Water. When I wasn't pinching myself to keep from falling asleep during this movie, I was contemplating slitting my wrists and ending the agony. Everything about this film was annoying.
The film begins with our introduction to "The Cove" an apartment complex whose superintendent is Cleveland Heap (Paul Giamatti). Cleveland is a stuttering nice guy who is seen interacting with all the major players of the film. These include a bizarre guy who only works out one side of his body, a room full of drug using hippies and an incredibly offensive stereotype Asian mother and daughter.
Story (Bryce Dallas Howard) is introduced as a mystical water creature who has come to view an important man who's work will one day change the world. Of course it is a writer of and *spoiler warning* although not really the writer is played by the director of the film. *end spoiler*
There is also an arrogant movie critic who gets a violent death. Why? Because clearly movie critics can't possibly be right that a film is bad. This movie is so generic and pounds home its sentimental moral. Apparently the whole story originated as a bedtime story for his kids. Which makes me wonder what kind of kid would find a story this self indulgent and blatantly symbolic interesting.
I understand that by their nature fairy tales are formulaic. But you could take any one of the Grimm fairy tales and make it into a better movie than this. Was the acting okay? It was decent except for the terrible director. I feel like Shyamalan has figured himself a new Kubrick who can make crazy out of left field movies against the Hollywood model. The difference being that Kubrick had talent.
The film begins with our introduction to "The Cove" an apartment complex whose superintendent is Cleveland Heap (Paul Giamatti). Cleveland is a stuttering nice guy who is seen interacting with all the major players of the film. These include a bizarre guy who only works out one side of his body, a room full of drug using hippies and an incredibly offensive stereotype Asian mother and daughter.
Story (Bryce Dallas Howard) is introduced as a mystical water creature who has come to view an important man who's work will one day change the world. Of course it is a writer of and *spoiler warning* although not really the writer is played by the director of the film. *end spoiler*
There is also an arrogant movie critic who gets a violent death. Why? Because clearly movie critics can't possibly be right that a film is bad. This movie is so generic and pounds home its sentimental moral. Apparently the whole story originated as a bedtime story for his kids. Which makes me wonder what kind of kid would find a story this self indulgent and blatantly symbolic interesting.
I understand that by their nature fairy tales are formulaic. But you could take any one of the Grimm fairy tales and make it into a better movie than this. Was the acting okay? It was decent except for the terrible director. I feel like Shyamalan has figured himself a new Kubrick who can make crazy out of left field movies against the Hollywood model. The difference being that Kubrick had talent.
Wednesday, August 02, 2006
District B13
District B13 is a French action film. Its characters are wooden and poorly developed beyond their archetype. The plot has been recycled from Hollywood. And since it has been recycled it is fairly ridiculous and non-sensical. Oh and just one more thing. It is the most entertaining film I have seen all summer.
The ghettos of Paris have gotten so bad that the government constructed walls around them to contain crime. This essentially makes them large lawless prisons. The film starts following Leito, a man who grew up in District B13 and despite the crime considers it home. He attempts to put an end to a local drug lord but the cops balk and he ends up going to prison instead of the bad guys.
Enter Damien, a by the book, tough as nails, 'I work alone' cop. Damien busts a crime lord and is called in by his higher ups for a special mission. A clean A-Bomb has been stolen and is now residing somewhere in District B13. They need him to recruit Leito and get to and disarm the bomb.
Now with some variation I realized quickly that this was a rehash of John Carpenter's Escape from New York. But that movie worked as an escapist fantasy with a badass hero played by Kurt Russell. And this movie works too. In fact thanks to amazing stunts and martial arts, it might work better.
The movie starts strong with an action sequence of Leito escaping from the bad guys. The fighting is fun and fast, but the best part of it is that the camera stays still! Hollywood directors have gotten into the habit of whipping the camera around so fast you don't know what is going on. It might make it feel more like a fight but it makes it boring to watch.
Because the actors are stunt men and martial artists, everything they do looks and is real. No highly stylized tree running like you see in Ang Lee inspired features. The dragging exposition doesn't last too long and you forget it when the action picks up again.
In the realm of watching films everyonce in a while it is nice to watch a guy kick ass and take names. This was the appeal of Jean Claude Van Damme movies and Steven Segal. I laughed and cringed and oohed and aahed at the things I saw in this movie. It was fantastic.
Yes this movie is light on the development of characters and plot but it makes up for it in action sequences. The scene with Damien in a casino at the beginning of the movie along is worth the price of admission.
The ghettos of Paris have gotten so bad that the government constructed walls around them to contain crime. This essentially makes them large lawless prisons. The film starts following Leito, a man who grew up in District B13 and despite the crime considers it home. He attempts to put an end to a local drug lord but the cops balk and he ends up going to prison instead of the bad guys.
Enter Damien, a by the book, tough as nails, 'I work alone' cop. Damien busts a crime lord and is called in by his higher ups for a special mission. A clean A-Bomb has been stolen and is now residing somewhere in District B13. They need him to recruit Leito and get to and disarm the bomb.
Now with some variation I realized quickly that this was a rehash of John Carpenter's Escape from New York. But that movie worked as an escapist fantasy with a badass hero played by Kurt Russell. And this movie works too. In fact thanks to amazing stunts and martial arts, it might work better.
The movie starts strong with an action sequence of Leito escaping from the bad guys. The fighting is fun and fast, but the best part of it is that the camera stays still! Hollywood directors have gotten into the habit of whipping the camera around so fast you don't know what is going on. It might make it feel more like a fight but it makes it boring to watch.
Because the actors are stunt men and martial artists, everything they do looks and is real. No highly stylized tree running like you see in Ang Lee inspired features. The dragging exposition doesn't last too long and you forget it when the action picks up again.
In the realm of watching films everyonce in a while it is nice to watch a guy kick ass and take names. This was the appeal of Jean Claude Van Damme movies and Steven Segal. I laughed and cringed and oohed and aahed at the things I saw in this movie. It was fantastic.
Yes this movie is light on the development of characters and plot but it makes up for it in action sequences. The scene with Damien in a casino at the beginning of the movie along is worth the price of admission.
So Much Potential, So Little Good
My Super Ex-Girlfriend had a premise I really liked. A man dates secret identity of a superhero. He grows tired of her and breaks it off. She uses her alter ego to harass him. A revenge comedy that could be truly darkly comic. The movie they made was not that, I knew it wouldn't be that but I still held out hope. Luke Wilson has some comedic chops (I'm starting to think more than his hacky brother Owen). This movie wastes every actor it has in it. It isn't worth seeing.
Clerks 2
Clerks 2 represents a sad moment. In some ways I was interested to see the return of Dante and Randal but in other ways it shows the true talent of Kevin Smith. Unfortunately his true talent is dialogue and his weakness is directing. While making Jersey Girl, Smith apparently promised never to return to his View Askew universe that his previous films existed in. When his attempt to move beyond his one trick pony failed utterly, he quickly ran back to the warm embrace of the familiar.
The film returns us ten years after Clerks (1994) but gives us two characters who haven't changed. In fact they are still working in the same dead end jobs. What seemed like witty playful philosophizing in their twenties has been reduced to sad, exhausted dribble. I sat and watched some of Randal's rants and became bored with them and didn't even feel like he was saying them with conviction anymore. Now this could have been intentional but the actor doesn't play it that way, it just comes off that way.
Even Smith's typically clever analogies with Star Wars fall flat. He can't even muster a convincing argument for why the Star Wars trilogy is better than the Lord of the Rings trilogy. Its reduced to focusing on one flaw and hitting it on the head again and again. Dante's dilemma is centered around a bizarre love triangle that doesn't work on any level. And when the high note of your film is a very disturbing donkey show, then you definately have lost perspective.
The more I think about Clerks 2 the more I dislike it.
The film returns us ten years after Clerks (1994) but gives us two characters who haven't changed. In fact they are still working in the same dead end jobs. What seemed like witty playful philosophizing in their twenties has been reduced to sad, exhausted dribble. I sat and watched some of Randal's rants and became bored with them and didn't even feel like he was saying them with conviction anymore. Now this could have been intentional but the actor doesn't play it that way, it just comes off that way.
Even Smith's typically clever analogies with Star Wars fall flat. He can't even muster a convincing argument for why the Star Wars trilogy is better than the Lord of the Rings trilogy. Its reduced to focusing on one flaw and hitting it on the head again and again. Dante's dilemma is centered around a bizarre love triangle that doesn't work on any level. And when the high note of your film is a very disturbing donkey show, then you definately have lost perspective.
The more I think about Clerks 2 the more I dislike it.
Bizarre Experiment that somehow works...sort of
When I try to contemplate a movie that combines Philip K. Dick with Richard Linklater my mind starts to crack under the pressure. The cynical writer of dystopic science fiction combined with a throwback to hippies with lighthearted fair such as Dazed and Confused? Its like crossing Spielberg and Kubrick and I think A.I. stands as testament of how that went badly.
But the world of A Scanner Darkly is one in which America has lost the drug war and Linklater is definitely familiar with drugs in his movies. So perhaps the odd pairing can actually work. This is all thrown in with a bizarre form of animation that seems to just animate actual actors.
I guess in some ways the animation lends itself to drug hallucination and the very bizarre suits that the undercover cops where, not while undercover but while at the office discussing how to put a stop to drug dealers. The movie bounces all over the place left and right. It was at best an interesting experiment in film making and at worst incomprehensible mess of images and dystopic cynicism.
But the world of A Scanner Darkly is one in which America has lost the drug war and Linklater is definitely familiar with drugs in his movies. So perhaps the odd pairing can actually work. This is all thrown in with a bizarre form of animation that seems to just animate actual actors.
I guess in some ways the animation lends itself to drug hallucination and the very bizarre suits that the undercover cops where, not while undercover but while at the office discussing how to put a stop to drug dealers. The movie bounces all over the place left and right. It was at best an interesting experiment in film making and at worst incomprehensible mess of images and dystopic cynicism.
Monday, July 31, 2006
Word Play
Word Play is a movie which I have trouble attaching an easy modifier to. It isn't so much interesting as it is "interesting" if that kind of emphasis can be conveyed through print. I'm almost entirely sure it can not. The documentary follows the lives of people who enjoy Crossword puzzles.
If you are like me, which is almost assuredly not the case you enjoy the crossword puzzle. I have fond memories of working on a crossword puzzle while sitting at the loading dock desk at the Museum of Art that I used to work at, killing the hours. I've even tried my hand killing time between class working on a crossword. So I'd like to think I am a fan of crosswords. Then I saw this film.
The film focuses on Will Shortz, editor of the New York Times Crossword and his yearly competition. Its form is similar to Spellbound that recent documentary about spelling bees. The key difference being that the latter was about kids and the former is about adults. If the characters in Spellbound were obsessive and a bit odd, you could pass it off as a phase or the result of overbearing parents.
But full grown adults obsessed with crosswords? We've crossed over into a bizarre sub culture that in truth I could have happily lived knowing never existed. The saddest thing about the movie is that it tries to make you relate to these bizarro people. I didn't. I laughed. And this was a clear case of me laughing at them not with them. They are so desperately sad. And when the credits role and a new champion is crowned you just kind of shake your head and pray you never become so obsessed with something so trivial.
But I don't think that was the moral the filmmakers were going for.
If you are like me, which is almost assuredly not the case you enjoy the crossword puzzle. I have fond memories of working on a crossword puzzle while sitting at the loading dock desk at the Museum of Art that I used to work at, killing the hours. I've even tried my hand killing time between class working on a crossword. So I'd like to think I am a fan of crosswords. Then I saw this film.
The film focuses on Will Shortz, editor of the New York Times Crossword and his yearly competition. Its form is similar to Spellbound that recent documentary about spelling bees. The key difference being that the latter was about kids and the former is about adults. If the characters in Spellbound were obsessive and a bit odd, you could pass it off as a phase or the result of overbearing parents.
But full grown adults obsessed with crosswords? We've crossed over into a bizarre sub culture that in truth I could have happily lived knowing never existed. The saddest thing about the movie is that it tries to make you relate to these bizarro people. I didn't. I laughed. And this was a clear case of me laughing at them not with them. They are so desperately sad. And when the credits role and a new champion is crowned you just kind of shake your head and pray you never become so obsessed with something so trivial.
But I don't think that was the moral the filmmakers were going for.
You, Me, And Dupree
Apparently Owen Wilson feels that after the success of Wedding Crashers that he can make any film he wants. And I'm inclined to agree with him. So what he did was go out and make You, Me, And Dupree. What I take issue with is that Mr. Wilson has the gall to go on tv and in print and say that this film is funny. This film is not funny. This film was agonizing. Its been weeks since I saw it and I'm desperately trying to keep from recalling anything about it. Wilson is unfunny. Kate Hudson is still a bad actress. I'm fairly sure Michael Douglas must have felt that he had to get a paycheck to pay the nanny or something. I'm officially tired of Owen Wilson. Yes, Wedding Crashers was funny but mainly because of Mr. Vaughn not Mr. Wilson. Avoid this movie.
Miami Vice
Michael Mann has a way of taking a genre we are familiar with and making it work in such a way that we don't care that it has been done before. He made a bank robber story into something amazing to watch, if for no other reason than it brought Robert DeNiro and Al Pacino into the same frame of a movie and had them interact. People more fondly remember Jonathon Demme's Silence of the Lambs (1991) but for effect I am quite fond of Manhunter (1981). To this day I feel that Brian Cox is a better Hannibal Lector than Anthony Hopkins.
But I digress. Mann also impressed me with Collateral (2004). Miami Vice works. It isn't anything like the 80s TV show that truly defines what I think of when I think of that decade. But then again, it is. No, Crocket and Tubbs aren't wearing white jackets over pastel shirts. No Don Johnson is nowhere to be found. But the film does exist in its own fantasy world. The dialogue isn't the most effective I have ever heard. Half the theater laughed when one character said 'let's take it to the limit one more time' and in any other movie I probably would have laughed as well.
Except this film exists in its own world. The key is that the world is established and it almost never violates that world. The romance is still the shallow romance you might expect from an action flick. It didn't impress me and it didn't make sense and it set up a silly sideplot but it didn't detract so much that I got annoyed.
The plot revolves around Sonny and Rico as they go deep undercover. They penetrate a drug operation at the behest of a generic and very underused Ciaran Hinds. Hinds was masterful in Munich (2005) and in HBO's "Rome". Here he is nothing but a generic authority figure. As they get deep into the operation they raise the suspicion of one key figure who is apparently prescient with his ability to uncover undercover ops.
He's also borderline crazy which made me wonder why a crime kingpin would keep him around. Crazy people are the cracks in the foundation. Still he works as a more immediate villain. At one point the movie actually forgets its very premise which I thought funny but let pass because in the end it is just so damn entertaining. The film is gritty and dark. The main characters are well developed. Ancillary characters suffer in that attention to detail but I got over it.
Is Michael Mann untouchable? No, but I trust him to get me a good film. He has earned that trust. This film easily holds the top spot for films released for the summer but not the top spot for a film I saw this summer. I only saw Brick (2005) in June and it still stands out as the best film. But Mann has shown again that smart action films are possible.
But I digress. Mann also impressed me with Collateral (2004). Miami Vice works. It isn't anything like the 80s TV show that truly defines what I think of when I think of that decade. But then again, it is. No, Crocket and Tubbs aren't wearing white jackets over pastel shirts. No Don Johnson is nowhere to be found. But the film does exist in its own fantasy world. The dialogue isn't the most effective I have ever heard. Half the theater laughed when one character said 'let's take it to the limit one more time' and in any other movie I probably would have laughed as well.
Except this film exists in its own world. The key is that the world is established and it almost never violates that world. The romance is still the shallow romance you might expect from an action flick. It didn't impress me and it didn't make sense and it set up a silly sideplot but it didn't detract so much that I got annoyed.
The plot revolves around Sonny and Rico as they go deep undercover. They penetrate a drug operation at the behest of a generic and very underused Ciaran Hinds. Hinds was masterful in Munich (2005) and in HBO's "Rome". Here he is nothing but a generic authority figure. As they get deep into the operation they raise the suspicion of one key figure who is apparently prescient with his ability to uncover undercover ops.
He's also borderline crazy which made me wonder why a crime kingpin would keep him around. Crazy people are the cracks in the foundation. Still he works as a more immediate villain. At one point the movie actually forgets its very premise which I thought funny but let pass because in the end it is just so damn entertaining. The film is gritty and dark. The main characters are well developed. Ancillary characters suffer in that attention to detail but I got over it.
Is Michael Mann untouchable? No, but I trust him to get me a good film. He has earned that trust. This film easily holds the top spot for films released for the summer but not the top spot for a film I saw this summer. I only saw Brick (2005) in June and it still stands out as the best film. But Mann has shown again that smart action films are possible.
Sunday, July 09, 2006
Half Way There!
On June 30th I saw The Devil Wears Prada and thus hit the half way point for my movie watching goal. I, for those who don't know made a New Year's Resolution to see 100 movies in the theater in the year 2006. Yes I know in terms of a resolution it could have been a lot better. But last year I hit 85 and it irked me that I was so close to 100. So on June 30th I had officially seen 50 movies or half my goal at the half way point. Since then I have seen two more so only 48 to go. Here for no reason other than to procrastinate is every movie I've seen with a one line (or as close to one line as I can manage) review of those movies in chronological order.
01. January 05: The Producers - An uninspiring remake with songs (I hate musicals).
02. January 07: Bloodrayne - Uwe Boll badly adapts yet another video game into a movie.
03. January 08: Rumor Has It - An ultimately disappointing comedy playing off the Graduate plot.
04. January 15: Hostel - Gruesome and mindless slasheresque film that exploits and didn't need to be made.
05. January 20: Underworld:Evolution - A pointless sequel to a pointless original movie, Kate Beckinsale in leather does not a good movie make.
06. January 21: The New World - Terrence Malick takes his love of the noble savage to nauseating new heights in a long but visually wonderful retelling of the Pocahontas tale.
07. January 22: Hoodwinked - A surprisingly clever animated film (and I generally don't like animated films).
08. January 25: Brokeback Mountain - A decent character driven drama that doesn't live up to the hype but still is worth watching.
09. January 27: Match Point - Woody Allen pulls off an amazing thriller with excellent performances.
10. February 02: Looking For Comedy In The Muslim World - Mildly amusing Albert Brooks film, he's done better.
11. February 05: The Matador - Pleasant dark comedy with Pierce Brosnan breaking free from his James Bond image.
12. February 11: Mrs. Henderson Presents - Charming comedy about a nude review in WW2 England with delightful performances by Bob Hoskins and Judi Dench.
13. February 12: Transamerica - Felicity Huffman is amazing as a pre-op transgender person struggling with the fact that she has a son she just found out about.
14. February 13: Final Destination 3 - Even by the Final Destination series standard this isn't a good movie.
15. February 17: Date Movie - Desperately unfunny, would someone let the parody film die.
16. February 23: Capote - Interesting character study of Truman Capote brilliantly played by Philip Seymour Hoffman.
17. February 24: The Three Burials Of Melquiades Estrada - A well done Western themed tale with cheers for Tommy Lee Jones for directing and acting in it.
18. March 04: Night Watch - disappointing muddled genre movie from Russia.
19. March 04: Ultraviolet - Ridiculously bad futuristic vampire film.
20. March 05: 16 Blocks - Standard buddy flick material but with decent performances from Mos Def and Bruce Willis.
21. March 10: Failure To Launch - Nauseating romantic comedy that wasn't funny or terribly romantic.
22. March 11: The Libertine - Johnny Depp being eccentric in an eccentric film but one that doesn't entertain.
23. March 20: V For Vendetta - Stupid and boring comic book adaptation that attempts to play on the current fears of the public.
24. March 25: Inside Man - A Spike Lee film that falls short by being a bit too predictable and unoriginal.
25. April 01: Slither - A Comedic Horror film that tries very hard but doesn't succeed at either genre.
26. April 05: Stay Alive - A stupid movie.
27. April 07: Lucky Number Slevin - A film that reveals it's hand in the first scene but is still surprisingly enjoyable to watch unfold with great over the top performances by Ben Kingsley and Morgan Freeman.
28. April 09: Thank You For Smoking - A clever satire of Big Tobacco and Washington DC politics held together by the delightful Aaron Eckhart.
29. April 22: American Dreamz - A satire that fails miserably.
30. April 23: Silent Hill - Yet another video game turned movie and this one fails even without Uwe Boll at the helm.
31. April 24: The Sentinel - Fairly predictable but decently put together thriller that entertains enough.
32. April 28: Stick It - God awful gymnastics movie trying to be "Bring It On" and failing.
33. May 05: Mission Impossible III - The summer movie season began with this boring third in the franchise with uninspiring performances by Tom Cruise et al.
34. May 07: Don't Come Knocking - Charming character driven film about a tired old actor trying to figure out his life.
35. May 15: Poseidon - Uninspiring remake with a plot so predictable that I knew who would be dead by movie's end after the characters were introduced.
36. May 21: The Da Vinci Code - A boring thriller that is paced horribly.
37. May 26: X-Men: The Last Stand - A travesty of a film that doesn't even have the guts to follow through with its own sequence of events.
38. May 28: See No Evil - Sometimes nothing else is out and you need a movie to keep you moving towards your goal, this happens more often than I wish it would.
39. June 01: Brick - A movie like this makes suffering through a movie like "See No Evil" worth it.
40. June 02: The Break Up - Not dark enough for the subject matter and certainly not funny.
41. June 07: The Omen - I think this movie was remade solely because its release date (6/6/06) made such good marketing sense and it shows.
42. June 11: A Prairie Home Companion - Typical Altman style with a plot that isn't interesting.
43. June 12: Down In The Valley - I like that indy films tend to go away from the standard Hollywood conventions but that doesn't mean they are automatically good as this film demonstrates.
44. June 15: On A Clear Day - A film that attempt to be the charming tale of a man in mid life crisis, but it just felt uninspiring.
45. June 16: The Fast And The Furious: Tokyo Drift - Fast cars and fancy driving don't rescue the idiotic plot.
46. June 21: Nacho Libre - Sometimes you are so close to your goal and even though you wouldn't normally let yourself be dragged to crap like this you go just to get you closer to your goal.
47. June 24: Click - "It's A Wonderful Life" this is not but it still had its moments.
48. June 25: The Proposition - Falls flat for me but does make me want to see a better Western set in Australia.
49. June 27: Superman Returns - Nice summer popcorn flick and a nice homage to the original Superman films.
50. June 30: The Devil Wears Prada - Okay if a bit after school special-esque comedic drama.
01. January 05: The Producers - An uninspiring remake with songs (I hate musicals).
02. January 07: Bloodrayne - Uwe Boll badly adapts yet another video game into a movie.
03. January 08: Rumor Has It - An ultimately disappointing comedy playing off the Graduate plot.
04. January 15: Hostel - Gruesome and mindless slasheresque film that exploits and didn't need to be made.
05. January 20: Underworld:Evolution - A pointless sequel to a pointless original movie, Kate Beckinsale in leather does not a good movie make.
06. January 21: The New World - Terrence Malick takes his love of the noble savage to nauseating new heights in a long but visually wonderful retelling of the Pocahontas tale.
07. January 22: Hoodwinked - A surprisingly clever animated film (and I generally don't like animated films).
08. January 25: Brokeback Mountain - A decent character driven drama that doesn't live up to the hype but still is worth watching.
09. January 27: Match Point - Woody Allen pulls off an amazing thriller with excellent performances.
10. February 02: Looking For Comedy In The Muslim World - Mildly amusing Albert Brooks film, he's done better.
11. February 05: The Matador - Pleasant dark comedy with Pierce Brosnan breaking free from his James Bond image.
12. February 11: Mrs. Henderson Presents - Charming comedy about a nude review in WW2 England with delightful performances by Bob Hoskins and Judi Dench.
13. February 12: Transamerica - Felicity Huffman is amazing as a pre-op transgender person struggling with the fact that she has a son she just found out about.
14. February 13: Final Destination 3 - Even by the Final Destination series standard this isn't a good movie.
15. February 17: Date Movie - Desperately unfunny, would someone let the parody film die.
16. February 23: Capote - Interesting character study of Truman Capote brilliantly played by Philip Seymour Hoffman.
17. February 24: The Three Burials Of Melquiades Estrada - A well done Western themed tale with cheers for Tommy Lee Jones for directing and acting in it.
18. March 04: Night Watch - disappointing muddled genre movie from Russia.
19. March 04: Ultraviolet - Ridiculously bad futuristic vampire film.
20. March 05: 16 Blocks - Standard buddy flick material but with decent performances from Mos Def and Bruce Willis.
21. March 10: Failure To Launch - Nauseating romantic comedy that wasn't funny or terribly romantic.
22. March 11: The Libertine - Johnny Depp being eccentric in an eccentric film but one that doesn't entertain.
23. March 20: V For Vendetta - Stupid and boring comic book adaptation that attempts to play on the current fears of the public.
24. March 25: Inside Man - A Spike Lee film that falls short by being a bit too predictable and unoriginal.
25. April 01: Slither - A Comedic Horror film that tries very hard but doesn't succeed at either genre.
26. April 05: Stay Alive - A stupid movie.
27. April 07: Lucky Number Slevin - A film that reveals it's hand in the first scene but is still surprisingly enjoyable to watch unfold with great over the top performances by Ben Kingsley and Morgan Freeman.
28. April 09: Thank You For Smoking - A clever satire of Big Tobacco and Washington DC politics held together by the delightful Aaron Eckhart.
29. April 22: American Dreamz - A satire that fails miserably.
30. April 23: Silent Hill - Yet another video game turned movie and this one fails even without Uwe Boll at the helm.
31. April 24: The Sentinel - Fairly predictable but decently put together thriller that entertains enough.
32. April 28: Stick It - God awful gymnastics movie trying to be "Bring It On" and failing.
33. May 05: Mission Impossible III - The summer movie season began with this boring third in the franchise with uninspiring performances by Tom Cruise et al.
34. May 07: Don't Come Knocking - Charming character driven film about a tired old actor trying to figure out his life.
35. May 15: Poseidon - Uninspiring remake with a plot so predictable that I knew who would be dead by movie's end after the characters were introduced.
36. May 21: The Da Vinci Code - A boring thriller that is paced horribly.
37. May 26: X-Men: The Last Stand - A travesty of a film that doesn't even have the guts to follow through with its own sequence of events.
38. May 28: See No Evil - Sometimes nothing else is out and you need a movie to keep you moving towards your goal, this happens more often than I wish it would.
39. June 01: Brick - A movie like this makes suffering through a movie like "See No Evil" worth it.
40. June 02: The Break Up - Not dark enough for the subject matter and certainly not funny.
41. June 07: The Omen - I think this movie was remade solely because its release date (6/6/06) made such good marketing sense and it shows.
42. June 11: A Prairie Home Companion - Typical Altman style with a plot that isn't interesting.
43. June 12: Down In The Valley - I like that indy films tend to go away from the standard Hollywood conventions but that doesn't mean they are automatically good as this film demonstrates.
44. June 15: On A Clear Day - A film that attempt to be the charming tale of a man in mid life crisis, but it just felt uninspiring.
45. June 16: The Fast And The Furious: Tokyo Drift - Fast cars and fancy driving don't rescue the idiotic plot.
46. June 21: Nacho Libre - Sometimes you are so close to your goal and even though you wouldn't normally let yourself be dragged to crap like this you go just to get you closer to your goal.
47. June 24: Click - "It's A Wonderful Life" this is not but it still had its moments.
48. June 25: The Proposition - Falls flat for me but does make me want to see a better Western set in Australia.
49. June 27: Superman Returns - Nice summer popcorn flick and a nice homage to the original Superman films.
50. June 30: The Devil Wears Prada - Okay if a bit after school special-esque comedic drama.
Superman Redux
For about a week after watching Superman Returns I kept fixating on the movie. I felt what I have said about the film was right but still it kept coming into my head. So I went back and rewatched it. This time I focused on the details. Some of the background decoration or the way Supes' cape always moves. I also looked more closely at the decisions the actors made for each of the scenes. I looked for the criticisms I had read in other reviews as well. I liked the movie a lot more on the second viewing. My expectations that were so high going into the film were no longer slanting my perceptions. I still don't agree with many of the criticisms and I fully acknowledge that it is not the best film or the year or the best superhero film ever. But it is enjoyable and worth seeing.
Pirates 2: Dead Plot
I like many was a fan of the first Pirates of the Caribbean (2003). I had few expectations when I saw it. In that opening scene when Johnny Depp rides the sinking boat into the harbor by standing on the crow's nest and then he steps perfectly on to the dock, I grinned so hard my face hurt and I laughed and smiled through much of the film. So of course I was willing to go to a sequel. How could I not want to have another adventure with Jack Sparrow, Elizabeth Swann and Will Turner.
I'll tell you how, when it turns out to be the movie I had to suffer through. I can think of no better example of Hollywood corruption of a movie than this film. It is as if a movie analyst figured out all the things people liked about the first film, brought them back and multiplied them by ten. There is too much of everything in this movie. Yes even too much of Johnny Depp. There are at least five plot lines in this film which forced the movie into a long and tedious two and a half hours.
The actors can't even hold up here. Depp's Sparrow is getting old fast due to so much screen time. Keira Knightley's Elizabeth has been turned from a spirited woman into a frustrated complaining damsel. Poor Bill Nighy is underused and covered in prosthetics to make him a monstrosity. Even Stellan Skarsgård is woefully underused as Bootstrap Bill, Will Turner's long thought dead father.
The action sequences run long and there is a unconvincing romantic subplot of sorts, as they try to play up the attarction of Elizabeth and Jack. Logic loop holes abound, such as why the undead monkey from the first film is still dead. And the film has the nerve to end in a set up for the third film. No doubt that one will multiply everything by fifty instead of ten and be even more horrible. Even the news that Keith Richards will cameo doesn't raise my spirits.
I'll tell you how, when it turns out to be the movie I had to suffer through. I can think of no better example of Hollywood corruption of a movie than this film. It is as if a movie analyst figured out all the things people liked about the first film, brought them back and multiplied them by ten. There is too much of everything in this movie. Yes even too much of Johnny Depp. There are at least five plot lines in this film which forced the movie into a long and tedious two and a half hours.
The actors can't even hold up here. Depp's Sparrow is getting old fast due to so much screen time. Keira Knightley's Elizabeth has been turned from a spirited woman into a frustrated complaining damsel. Poor Bill Nighy is underused and covered in prosthetics to make him a monstrosity. Even Stellan Skarsgård is woefully underused as Bootstrap Bill, Will Turner's long thought dead father.
The action sequences run long and there is a unconvincing romantic subplot of sorts, as they try to play up the attarction of Elizabeth and Jack. Logic loop holes abound, such as why the undead monkey from the first film is still dead. And the film has the nerve to end in a set up for the third film. No doubt that one will multiply everything by fifty instead of ten and be even more horrible. Even the news that Keith Richards will cameo doesn't raise my spirits.
Devil and Fashion
Despite the title, The Devil Wears Prada isn't actually about the devil. Which is really unfortunate because the end of this movie could have used a gripping scene that decided the fate of a young woman's soul. Actually in a way it kind of did. Roger Ebert described this movie as an after school special. In that analysis he isn't far from the mark but it doesn't mean there aren't moments of amusement in the film.
The film jumps right into the story by showing the lead Andy (Anne Hathaway) arriving at the offices of "Runway", a fashion magazine, to interview for an assistant job. In mid interview in comes the titular devil. She is Miranda (Meryl Streep) the very difficult editor and chief of "Runway". She like the rest of the workers scoff at how drab Andy looks but Miranda sees a certain inner strength in her and hires her.
Andy suffers through a montage of abuse from her boss but perseveres promising herself that if she can survive a year in this place she can work anywhere she wants. She slowly starts to pick up on fashion with the help of one of the clothes designers and soon becomes the star assistant. Meanwhile her relationship with her boyfriend and friends start to deteriorate as she becomes more superficial in her actions.
Andy desperately tries to keep her core values or at least convince herself that she has kept them. By movie's end she realizes that she has indeed forgotten what made her who she was and rejects this new lifestyle. She walks away from the job and she is whole again.
Yes, it is that silly of a plot. I liked the first half just enough to suffer through the second half of the movie. This all despite the fact that Andy's values are clearly supposed to be good wholesome mid-western values corrupted by the Big City. The way it jumped into the world and introduced characters quickly and efficiently was so well done that in the first few minutes I had a smile on my face. The early torment and the first time Andy appears in fashionable outfits are nice touches as you root for her. That it inevitably falls into such a standardized plot is partially saved by decent acting.
The film jumps right into the story by showing the lead Andy (Anne Hathaway) arriving at the offices of "Runway", a fashion magazine, to interview for an assistant job. In mid interview in comes the titular devil. She is Miranda (Meryl Streep) the very difficult editor and chief of "Runway". She like the rest of the workers scoff at how drab Andy looks but Miranda sees a certain inner strength in her and hires her.
Andy suffers through a montage of abuse from her boss but perseveres promising herself that if she can survive a year in this place she can work anywhere she wants. She slowly starts to pick up on fashion with the help of one of the clothes designers and soon becomes the star assistant. Meanwhile her relationship with her boyfriend and friends start to deteriorate as she becomes more superficial in her actions.
Andy desperately tries to keep her core values or at least convince herself that she has kept them. By movie's end she realizes that she has indeed forgotten what made her who she was and rejects this new lifestyle. She walks away from the job and she is whole again.
Yes, it is that silly of a plot. I liked the first half just enough to suffer through the second half of the movie. This all despite the fact that Andy's values are clearly supposed to be good wholesome mid-western values corrupted by the Big City. The way it jumped into the world and introduced characters quickly and efficiently was so well done that in the first few minutes I had a smile on my face. The early torment and the first time Andy appears in fashionable outfits are nice touches as you root for her. That it inevitably falls into such a standardized plot is partially saved by decent acting.
Wednesday, June 28, 2006
Superman
Superman Returns is exactly what I was looking for in a summer blockbuster. It is well acted. It has a decent plot for a super hero movie and once it gets going its down right entertaining. I read a lot of reviews about this film before I saw it, sometimes a bad thing but all I can say is that I don't know what movie most of these people saw but I disagree with many of them. I do not think Brandon Routh was imitating Christopher Reeve, I think he was playing Clark Kent. I think Spacey's Lex Luthor is closer to the maniac he is than Gene Hackman's Luthor. I still like Hackman's role from the previous Superman films but I think Spacey's Luthor is done better. I'll save special mention for Kate Bosworth later.
Admittedly the film starts a little slow. The hero has been absent for five years and the world has moved on. Lois Lane has a kid and a steady live in boyfriend and has won a Pulitzer prize for an editorial on why the world doesn't need Superman. Superman returns and has a few unnecessary flashbacks to his early discovery of his power as well as a poignant scene with his mother played by Eva Marie Saint. I like Eva Marie Saint. She is underused here. If you want to be reminded of how good she is go back and watch On The Waterfront (1954) or more recently as the ever forgiving mother in the very pleasant Don't Come Knocking (2005). Having returned Superman dons his familiar glasses and also returns as Clark Kent.
Some people bitch and make mockery of the fact that Superman's disguise is so obvious but I think such complaints are trivial. It is part of the fantasy that should be accepted. Superman's return is advantageous as he rescues a plane full of people in a really well done action sequence. His return brings conflict to Lois' life as she struggles with her feelings for Superman. Meanwhile tried and true Superman villain Lex Luthor is hatching an evil plot. It is reminiscent of his plans in the original movie. It's devilishly wicked and yes non-sensical but delightful in the way only a comic book villain can be. The movie kicks into high gear and ends well (no turning the Earth backwards on its axis to reverse time, thank god).
Okay, Kate Bosworth as Lois Lane. Kate Bosworth is a better Lois Lane than Margot Kidder. I keep hearing about how Margot Kidder was better and I stare blankly at these statements and try to ponder on what earth that is true. Bosworth's Lois looks at Superman with pain and love in a way I never saw Kidder. Kidder's Lois looked at Superman like a piece of meat, it never felt like love almost always lust. Bosworth seems truly torn for her undeniable attraction and love of Superman with her feelings for Richard White (James Marsden). I thought the scene on the roof of the Daily Planet between Superman and Lois was one of the best moments of the film.
Could Bryan Singer work on the pacing a bit more? Yes. Still Superman is back and I hope there are more films because he is a great character. He isn't conflicted by balancing his life with superheroism like Spider-Man nor by a darkness inside him like Batman but he is instilled with the same sense of duty that those characters are, the duty to help those who need it. He's also almost entirely selfless which is sort of refreshing in today's age.
Admittedly the film starts a little slow. The hero has been absent for five years and the world has moved on. Lois Lane has a kid and a steady live in boyfriend and has won a Pulitzer prize for an editorial on why the world doesn't need Superman. Superman returns and has a few unnecessary flashbacks to his early discovery of his power as well as a poignant scene with his mother played by Eva Marie Saint. I like Eva Marie Saint. She is underused here. If you want to be reminded of how good she is go back and watch On The Waterfront (1954) or more recently as the ever forgiving mother in the very pleasant Don't Come Knocking (2005). Having returned Superman dons his familiar glasses and also returns as Clark Kent.
Some people bitch and make mockery of the fact that Superman's disguise is so obvious but I think such complaints are trivial. It is part of the fantasy that should be accepted. Superman's return is advantageous as he rescues a plane full of people in a really well done action sequence. His return brings conflict to Lois' life as she struggles with her feelings for Superman. Meanwhile tried and true Superman villain Lex Luthor is hatching an evil plot. It is reminiscent of his plans in the original movie. It's devilishly wicked and yes non-sensical but delightful in the way only a comic book villain can be. The movie kicks into high gear and ends well (no turning the Earth backwards on its axis to reverse time, thank god).
Okay, Kate Bosworth as Lois Lane. Kate Bosworth is a better Lois Lane than Margot Kidder. I keep hearing about how Margot Kidder was better and I stare blankly at these statements and try to ponder on what earth that is true. Bosworth's Lois looks at Superman with pain and love in a way I never saw Kidder. Kidder's Lois looked at Superman like a piece of meat, it never felt like love almost always lust. Bosworth seems truly torn for her undeniable attraction and love of Superman with her feelings for Richard White (James Marsden). I thought the scene on the roof of the Daily Planet between Superman and Lois was one of the best moments of the film.
Could Bryan Singer work on the pacing a bit more? Yes. Still Superman is back and I hope there are more films because he is a great character. He isn't conflicted by balancing his life with superheroism like Spider-Man nor by a darkness inside him like Batman but he is instilled with the same sense of duty that those characters are, the duty to help those who need it. He's also almost entirely selfless which is sort of refreshing in today's age.
Monday, June 26, 2006
Shrimp on the Barbie Western?
In 1964 a film directed by the Italian Sergio Leone was released that reinvisioned the Hollywood genre of the Western. A Fistful Of Dollars was more violent and bloody than had previously been seen. I'm not going to say that The Proposition (2005) is going to revolutionize westerns, in fact it doesn't do anything groundbreaking. But it does fall into the Sergio Leone tradition of violence and it does offer a unique look at a frontier that I would like to see more of.
The film starts with the capture of two brothers, Charlie and Mike. Captain Stanley, the local peace officer offers Charlie a proposition. If he will kill his older brother, Arthur, a practically insane more dangerous man then Charlie and his younger brother will be pardoned for their crimes. From there the film moves on and actually pretty much loses sight of its premise rather quickly. Of course there are some wonderful performances by the likes of John Hurt and Danny Huston, but the film falls flat as it meanders back and forth between following Stanley and Charlie.
At first as Charlie set out I couldn't help but think of Captain Willard (Martin Sheen) in Apocalypse Now (1979). I thought that this would turn into a similar soul searching journey as he struggled with the idea of killing one truly wicked brother to save one innocent brother. But that isn't what happened, instead the film came to a climax in an orgy of violence and death.
In the end this movie failed to put forth something that is worth a trip to the theater, it might be worth renting though. But it did offer up potential for someone else to exploit. Australia and its history, in particular for Americans, could be fascinating areas to explore for the western.
The film starts with the capture of two brothers, Charlie and Mike. Captain Stanley, the local peace officer offers Charlie a proposition. If he will kill his older brother, Arthur, a practically insane more dangerous man then Charlie and his younger brother will be pardoned for their crimes. From there the film moves on and actually pretty much loses sight of its premise rather quickly. Of course there are some wonderful performances by the likes of John Hurt and Danny Huston, but the film falls flat as it meanders back and forth between following Stanley and Charlie.
At first as Charlie set out I couldn't help but think of Captain Willard (Martin Sheen) in Apocalypse Now (1979). I thought that this would turn into a similar soul searching journey as he struggled with the idea of killing one truly wicked brother to save one innocent brother. But that isn't what happened, instead the film came to a climax in an orgy of violence and death.
In the end this movie failed to put forth something that is worth a trip to the theater, it might be worth renting though. But it did offer up potential for someone else to exploit. Australia and its history, in particular for Americans, could be fascinating areas to explore for the western.
Click
I've never been a fan of Adam Sandler and I've never seen him in a movie that I liked. I mean that. At best I have tolerated Adam Sandler in movies such as The Wedding Singer (1998) or Punch Drunk Love (2002). So as I do from time to time, I went to Click fully expecting a movie I was not going to like. My expectations were met dead on...for the first act.
Click starts as a fairly predictable and rather unfunny little film. When he first gets the remote Sandler's character does use it for typically juvenile Sandler antics. But slowly he starts to use it to get ahead and to 'in his own view' stop hurting his family. In the process he starts missing things and eventually wakes up having missed most of his life.
Suddenly he has learned his lesson. His fastlane life has caused him to miss out on some of the most important things. Yes the message is a bit corny and yes at times Sandler can't help but drop in a crude joke but the film has evolved into something else. It is by no means perfect and had there been another choice of movie out this weekend I might not have seen Click but in the end the film grew on me.
Even if the message is corny the saddest truth is, that this is the way a lot of the world runs its life. I mean this is the same world where a person can't go to a movie for two hours without someone having to answer the phone in the middle of it. So as much as I'd like to think a sappy movie like this didn't need to be made, the truth is it probably did. It could have been made better, no doubt, but it wasn't. In the end this isn't a movie I recommend but I must admit it grew on me by the time the credits rolled.
p.s. - Christopher Walken is fantastic in this film, as always.
Click starts as a fairly predictable and rather unfunny little film. When he first gets the remote Sandler's character does use it for typically juvenile Sandler antics. But slowly he starts to use it to get ahead and to 'in his own view' stop hurting his family. In the process he starts missing things and eventually wakes up having missed most of his life.
Suddenly he has learned his lesson. His fastlane life has caused him to miss out on some of the most important things. Yes the message is a bit corny and yes at times Sandler can't help but drop in a crude joke but the film has evolved into something else. It is by no means perfect and had there been another choice of movie out this weekend I might not have seen Click but in the end the film grew on me.
Even if the message is corny the saddest truth is, that this is the way a lot of the world runs its life. I mean this is the same world where a person can't go to a movie for two hours without someone having to answer the phone in the middle of it. So as much as I'd like to think a sappy movie like this didn't need to be made, the truth is it probably did. It could have been made better, no doubt, but it wasn't. In the end this isn't a movie I recommend but I must admit it grew on me by the time the credits rolled.
p.s. - Christopher Walken is fantastic in this film, as always.
Thursday, June 22, 2006
Now I have a headache
There are comedies in the world that make one laugh in genuine humor. There are comedies that make you chuckle but not laugh. There are unintentional comedies that are other genre movies that are so bad they make you laugh. Then there are movies so painfully unfunny that no only do you not laugh but they in addition cause you physical pain. Nacho Libre falls into that last category. I had actually developed a headache by film end. I cannot stress how unfunny Jack Black truly is. I should have been tipped off that this film would be trailer (both its own trailer and the trailers attached to the film itself) and the fact that the producers were Nickelodeon. The film was directed by Jared Hess who had recent success with Napolean Dynamite (2004) a film I haven't seen and now have no interest in seeing.
Fast And The Furious 3?
Oh that is right, there was not one but two sequels to a mediocre action vehicle for one Vin Diesel. Of course Vin didn't show up for the sequels, a wise move on his part. Fast And The Furious: Tokyo Drift is simply put ludicrous. In the opening one sees the hero racing a rich kid played by Zachary Bryan (of Home Improvement fame, he's lost the Ty I guess) and causing lots of damage. So the hero's mom sends him to his dad, who conveniently lives in Japan. I'm not kidding, that is the setup of the movie.
There is little else to concern yourself with other than the hero gets involved in racing again called 'drifting', apparently a real style but no doubt made more impressive by special effects. This movie was so unintentionally funny that I was laughing most of the movie. Then having glimpsed a trailer for the film a few days before I could have sworn I saw Vin Diesel in the film. And with seconds to spare who should make a cameo? I'll admit I cheered loudly and to the annoyance of those around me. It was so ridiculously absurd at that point I couldn't help myself.
There is little else to concern yourself with other than the hero gets involved in racing again called 'drifting', apparently a real style but no doubt made more impressive by special effects. This movie was so unintentionally funny that I was laughing most of the movie. Then having glimpsed a trailer for the film a few days before I could have sworn I saw Vin Diesel in the film. And with seconds to spare who should make a cameo? I'll admit I cheered loudly and to the annoyance of those around me. It was so ridiculously absurd at that point I couldn't help myself.
Monday, June 12, 2006
R.S.V.P./Tart
R.S.V.P.
If you want to see a plodding uninteresting serial killer film loosely inspired by Alfred Hitchcock and proudly boasting a cast that includes Jason Mewes then R.S.V.P. (2002) is the movie for you. If the film I just described makes you physically sick or makes you laugh outloud in embarassment that it was ever made, then I recommend staying far, far away from this film. I watched it due to a new found delight in the actress Nora Zehetner, she is in the movie for about fifteen minutes and does what she can with what she is given. Jason Mewes plays his character Jay which is basically just Jason Mewes being himself.
Tart
Tart (2001) boasts a cast of the would be Hollywood future. Brad Renfro, Dominique Swain and Bijou Philips lead the cast. Unfortunatley the film is about self entitled rich kids, who act reckless. The problem being that who cares if self entitled rich kids act reckless. This is already the stereotype.
If you want to see a plodding uninteresting serial killer film loosely inspired by Alfred Hitchcock and proudly boasting a cast that includes Jason Mewes then R.S.V.P. (2002) is the movie for you. If the film I just described makes you physically sick or makes you laugh outloud in embarassment that it was ever made, then I recommend staying far, far away from this film. I watched it due to a new found delight in the actress Nora Zehetner, she is in the movie for about fifteen minutes and does what she can with what she is given. Jason Mewes plays his character Jay which is basically just Jason Mewes being himself.
Tart
Tart (2001) boasts a cast of the would be Hollywood future. Brad Renfro, Dominique Swain and Bijou Philips lead the cast. Unfortunatley the film is about self entitled rich kids, who act reckless. The problem being that who cares if self entitled rich kids act reckless. This is already the stereotype.
Prairie Home Companion
I find watching Robert Altman films to be tedious. They stereotypically focus on intimate moments between several characters all held together by a loosely constructed plot. A Prairie Home Companion is no different. There are lots of neat well done individual scenes, specifically Lily Tomlin and Meryl Streep who are amazing as emotional singing sisters.
The film follows the last broadcast of the radio show A Prairie Home Companion with intercut "behind the scenes" scenes. It is pretty close to actually listening to a broadcast of the show on public radio some Saturday. Well that with intercut spirituality and character driven scenes that add little to the plot.
I laughed at times but overall this movie didn't really go anywhere that was interesting. It just kind of soldiered along for close on two hours and then just ends. I'm sure many will enjoy this film and in the end I am forced to conclude that this movie will be like the joke that made me laugh hardest in this film. The movie even acknowledges the joke isn't really that funny.
"Two penguins come together on the ice. One says to the other, 'you look like you're wearing a tuxedo.' The second says 'what makes you think I'm not?'"
I knew it wasn't funny but I laughed. Still the movie didn't strike me in the same way. It just felt tedious.
The film follows the last broadcast of the radio show A Prairie Home Companion with intercut "behind the scenes" scenes. It is pretty close to actually listening to a broadcast of the show on public radio some Saturday. Well that with intercut spirituality and character driven scenes that add little to the plot.
I laughed at times but overall this movie didn't really go anywhere that was interesting. It just kind of soldiered along for close on two hours and then just ends. I'm sure many will enjoy this film and in the end I am forced to conclude that this movie will be like the joke that made me laugh hardest in this film. The movie even acknowledges the joke isn't really that funny.
"Two penguins come together on the ice. One says to the other, 'you look like you're wearing a tuxedo.' The second says 'what makes you think I'm not?'"
I knew it wasn't funny but I laughed. Still the movie didn't strike me in the same way. It just felt tedious.
The Omen
When watching a film like The Omen (2006), I can't help but wonder why anyone in their right mind would name their kid Damien. To me no name screams more "I am the antichrist" than the name Damien. If I were going to bring the child of the devil into the world I'd give him a name that nobody would ever think to doubt. I'd name the kid Jesus Satankiller. Who would ever think that Jesus Satankiller was a bad guy? His last name is Satankiller. His first name is Jesus. Now that would be a name to fool mankind.
This is probably the case because I know of and have seen the original The Omen (1976). Still beyond having seen it years ago, I don't recall much of the film. The film doesn't try very hard you know that Damien is the devil's son pretty much from the start and the film pretty much follows a silly formula. There are some truly ludicrous moments such as when a paparrazzi played by David Thewlis interprets a poem to mean Damien's rise from the sea means politics. I couldn't help myself from laughing at how absurd the interpretation was.
The acting in this film is entirely wooden, which is really a shame because there is some amazing talent in this film. Pete Postlehtwaite, David Thewlis and Liev Schreiber in their own right are all excellent actors here reduced to mere shells of characters. And then there is Michael Gambon, alas, never was there a more blatant waste of talent than him in this film.
For most of the film I thought how much better it would have been if someone had made the Terry Pratchett and Neil Gaimon book "Good Omens" into a movie. That was a very funny book about the son of the devil being misplaced in a mix up and the search for him by the demon responsible and the angel sent to prevent him. In the end that was what I was left with. The film would have been better if it had not been a remake but an adaptation of a recent book. Of course that would be totally opposite of Hollywood logic.
This is probably the case because I know of and have seen the original The Omen (1976). Still beyond having seen it years ago, I don't recall much of the film. The film doesn't try very hard you know that Damien is the devil's son pretty much from the start and the film pretty much follows a silly formula. There are some truly ludicrous moments such as when a paparrazzi played by David Thewlis interprets a poem to mean Damien's rise from the sea means politics. I couldn't help myself from laughing at how absurd the interpretation was.
The acting in this film is entirely wooden, which is really a shame because there is some amazing talent in this film. Pete Postlehtwaite, David Thewlis and Liev Schreiber in their own right are all excellent actors here reduced to mere shells of characters. And then there is Michael Gambon, alas, never was there a more blatant waste of talent than him in this film.
For most of the film I thought how much better it would have been if someone had made the Terry Pratchett and Neil Gaimon book "Good Omens" into a movie. That was a very funny book about the son of the devil being misplaced in a mix up and the search for him by the demon responsible and the angel sent to prevent him. In the end that was what I was left with. The film would have been better if it had not been a remake but an adaptation of a recent book. Of course that would be totally opposite of Hollywood logic.
Break-Up
I'm not entirely sure what kind of movie The Break Up was trying to be. If it is a romantic comedy it doesn't make me laugh or yearn for the couple to get back together. If it is a dark comedy about break ups, it just isn't vicious enough. Both the main characters still seem to care about one another, well as much as two can when the actors playing them have no on screen chemistry that I could discern.
Most of the movie had me thinking that Love Stinks (1999) was a better movie than this. At the very minimum it at least made me laugh. Actually even the fact that both movies star Jason Bateman in a supporting role made me wonder. Love Stinks wasn't really vicious either, the things the exes do to each other are ludicrous but you can feel the visceral hatred between the two as they act and that is why it works. This film could have been really good, if it had truly been about a break up and all the ugliness that can entail. It might not have been fun to watch, but it would have been honest.
Most of the movie had me thinking that Love Stinks (1999) was a better movie than this. At the very minimum it at least made me laugh. Actually even the fact that both movies star Jason Bateman in a supporting role made me wonder. Love Stinks wasn't really vicious either, the things the exes do to each other are ludicrous but you can feel the visceral hatred between the two as they act and that is why it works. This film could have been really good, if it had truly been about a break up and all the ugliness that can entail. It might not have been fun to watch, but it would have been honest.
Friday, June 02, 2006
Brick
When one sets a goal to see one hundred films in one calendar year, it is inevitable that a lot of horribly bad films are going to be seen. There will also be a fair share of mediocre or decent films. Overall, there will be very few great films. And since Hollywood follows a release date pattern most of the year can start to look pretty grim. The dumping grounds of the opening of the year are only spared by the limited release films that finally show up in the nowhereville that is my location (I mean that in the movie release sense, this is not New York or LA or even Chicago). The dumping grounds are followed by the summer blockbuster season.
Luckily for me a smaller independent film finally made it to my area and I was fortunate enough to view it. Brick was a bright shining beacon of hope among a myriad of big budget schlock. The film follows Brendan (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) as he tries to discover what brought about the death of his ex Emily. He slugs down into a world of drugs and intrigue that is back-dropped against high school, which pretty much makes the movie pretty surreal. Soon he is surrounded by some very interesting characters with equally interesting names and professions, such as the Pin (Lukas Haas) a local drug kingpin and the Brain (Matt O'Leary).
In all of this there are fights and trickery and conversations that are truly well conceived. The dialogue is filled with some slang. I cannot be sure that it is real slang, since I confess I lost track of how teens talk basically the minute I graduated high school but it doesn't really matter if it is real slang. The characters say it with out a touch of irony. In fact everything in this film is said straight faced. This makes what is at times probably ludicrous dialogue work. As long as no one breaks the fantasy the film works. Only one particularly violent scene broke the fantasy and even that I could overlook.
The brightest part of the film for me was Nora Zehetner who plays Laura. Laura is the equivalent of the film noir femme fatale. She exudes allure with a hint of danger that lies somewhere in her skinny frame. When she was on screen I couldn't take my eyes off her and when she wasn't on screen I was secretly hoping she would return. I am eager to see her in more films in the future. But she is not the only great performance in this film. Joseph Gordon-Levitt is amazing. I had to remind myself that this is no longer the little kid from the TV show "Third Rock From The Sun".
The tone and the atmosphere of this film are fantastic. The humor off beat but definitely there. It almost never breaks the bounds of its own fantasy. I was really starting to lose hope and this film reminded me nicely that films could be more than just a handsome actor acting petulant and shooting guns. I cannot recommend it and Nora Zehetner (a new actress crush) enough.
Luckily for me a smaller independent film finally made it to my area and I was fortunate enough to view it. Brick was a bright shining beacon of hope among a myriad of big budget schlock. The film follows Brendan (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) as he tries to discover what brought about the death of his ex Emily. He slugs down into a world of drugs and intrigue that is back-dropped against high school, which pretty much makes the movie pretty surreal. Soon he is surrounded by some very interesting characters with equally interesting names and professions, such as the Pin (Lukas Haas) a local drug kingpin and the Brain (Matt O'Leary).
In all of this there are fights and trickery and conversations that are truly well conceived. The dialogue is filled with some slang. I cannot be sure that it is real slang, since I confess I lost track of how teens talk basically the minute I graduated high school but it doesn't really matter if it is real slang. The characters say it with out a touch of irony. In fact everything in this film is said straight faced. This makes what is at times probably ludicrous dialogue work. As long as no one breaks the fantasy the film works. Only one particularly violent scene broke the fantasy and even that I could overlook.
The brightest part of the film for me was Nora Zehetner who plays Laura. Laura is the equivalent of the film noir femme fatale. She exudes allure with a hint of danger that lies somewhere in her skinny frame. When she was on screen I couldn't take my eyes off her and when she wasn't on screen I was secretly hoping she would return. I am eager to see her in more films in the future. But she is not the only great performance in this film. Joseph Gordon-Levitt is amazing. I had to remind myself that this is no longer the little kid from the TV show "Third Rock From The Sun".
The tone and the atmosphere of this film are fantastic. The humor off beat but definitely there. It almost never breaks the bounds of its own fantasy. I was really starting to lose hope and this film reminded me nicely that films could be more than just a handsome actor acting petulant and shooting guns. I cannot recommend it and Nora Zehetner (a new actress crush) enough.
Thursday, June 01, 2006
B For Boring
V For Vendetta based on the popular graphic novel can't ever get beyond the ludicrous. I can only presume that the graphic novel is not as bad as this film. The film starts in the "not to distant future" as all good dystopic films do. England has become quite totalitarian thanks to terrorism and things like the avian flu. One man wearing a Guy Fawkes mask stands up to the oppression using oddly enough terrorist tactics.
He saves a woman named Evey (Natalie Portman) and a game of cat and mouse starts as the government attempts to find the masked man. Eventually all the plans of this one man fall into place and by movie's end he has pretty much triumphed including succeeding in the plan that Guy Fawkes centuries ago failed to pull off. There are choreographed fight scenes that are certainly watchable, but overall this movie lacked anything interesting.
In fact, it had quite a bit of uninteresting, not to mention ludicrous. I pretty much checked out of this movie near its beginning when the hero expounds on a diatribe of pseudo alliterative gibberish. I won't bother sitting here and typing out all the truly asinine moments of this film. Suffice to say someone thought it appropriate that Ms. Portman "stand at a attention" if you follow me for most of the movie. Beyond that it is a movie that represents every single left wing conspiracy fantasy you can think of which I can stomach about as much as I can stomach the right wing conspiracy fantasies, which is to say not at all.
He saves a woman named Evey (Natalie Portman) and a game of cat and mouse starts as the government attempts to find the masked man. Eventually all the plans of this one man fall into place and by movie's end he has pretty much triumphed including succeeding in the plan that Guy Fawkes centuries ago failed to pull off. There are choreographed fight scenes that are certainly watchable, but overall this movie lacked anything interesting.
In fact, it had quite a bit of uninteresting, not to mention ludicrous. I pretty much checked out of this movie near its beginning when the hero expounds on a diatribe of pseudo alliterative gibberish. I won't bother sitting here and typing out all the truly asinine moments of this film. Suffice to say someone thought it appropriate that Ms. Portman "stand at a attention" if you follow me for most of the movie. Beyond that it is a movie that represents every single left wing conspiracy fantasy you can think of which I can stomach about as much as I can stomach the right wing conspiracy fantasies, which is to say not at all.
Making More Money For The WWE
See No Evil is a laughably bad vehicle for WWE wrestler Kane. The film starts with two cops going into a house and confronting a psychopath, who kills on of the two and maims the other. Fast forward and our one armed man is now a guard at a juvenile prison. He has gathered a motley crew of delinquents, whose crime we get to learn by a freeze frame and a scroll of text that identifies the name and crime. I assure you this has absolutely no purpose in the film. Then we get a similar roll call of women delinquents, who will be joining the men on this field trip.
The group arrives at an old abandoned hotel, which they will be cleaning up for three days as part of a deal to get reduced sentences. The doors of the hotel will be conveniently locked at night. How is that for a ridiculously idiotic set up? Don't worry we've got drug users and oversexed teenagers to boot. Once night falls, the teens go off and do some stupid stuff and the psychopath from the opening of the film (if you really thought he was dead, you really don't watch these kind of movies often or even once really) starts killing them one by one. Even for a slasher flick this film is uninspiring. The deaths are unoriginal and its little more than a slow plod to the inevitable conclusion.
We get sporadic flashbacks showing why the psycho is the way he is but I really didn't care and his disturbing fetish for women with religious tattoos was ridiculous. After a healthy body count and surprisingly only very mild nudity (let's face it, in a film like this you expect gratuitous nudity left and right) the film ends with a typical good guy triumph. I didn't think any film would make me think Saw (2004) was a good movie, but compared to this trash it was cinematic gold.
The group arrives at an old abandoned hotel, which they will be cleaning up for three days as part of a deal to get reduced sentences. The doors of the hotel will be conveniently locked at night. How is that for a ridiculously idiotic set up? Don't worry we've got drug users and oversexed teenagers to boot. Once night falls, the teens go off and do some stupid stuff and the psychopath from the opening of the film (if you really thought he was dead, you really don't watch these kind of movies often or even once really) starts killing them one by one. Even for a slasher flick this film is uninspiring. The deaths are unoriginal and its little more than a slow plod to the inevitable conclusion.
We get sporadic flashbacks showing why the psycho is the way he is but I really didn't care and his disturbing fetish for women with religious tattoos was ridiculous. After a healthy body count and surprisingly only very mild nudity (let's face it, in a film like this you expect gratuitous nudity left and right) the film ends with a typical good guy triumph. I didn't think any film would make me think Saw (2004) was a good movie, but compared to this trash it was cinematic gold.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)