Perhaps you have heard of this author J. R. R. Tolkien. He wrote this children's book titled The Hobbit. Quite a lovely story about a hobbit who reluctantly joins a group of dwarfs and a wizard on an adventure. I highly recommend it.
You have no doubt heard of the movie The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey. A movie about a hobbit who joins a group of dwarfs and a wizard on an adventure. "Surely," you must think, "This movie is an adaptation of the J. R. R. Tolkien book, The Hobbit." However you would be wrong.
Well, that is to say, the movie may hold many similarities to the book but alters so many more elements and adds a whole unnecessary bunch of stuff (which may possibly be from some other J. R. R. Tolkien book, The Silmarillion). I could go through and list all the different elements, but that seems a little petty, so I'll just talk about the stuff that irked me.
Thorin, the leader and a most important dwarf, is portrayed in the movie as a bitter, angry, unforgiving dwarf. He curses the other dwarfs for not joining his cause; he curses the elves for never helping the dwarfs; he curses Gandalf for bringing Bilbo and Bilbo for being incompetent. In the movie Thorin is at the Misty Mountains when Smaug arrives and at the Mines of Moria when his grandfather Thror was killed by Azog.
Not true! Not, if we use J. R. R. Tolkien's book The Hobbit as the source, accurate. Thorin is wise and humble in the book. He observes an indecisiveness in Bilbo and presses him gently for a decision. He is not angry that Bilbo joins the party, but simply concerned for his safety and usefulness. Since all the dwarves were killed in the Misty Mountain when Smaug arrived, except for Thror and Thrain, it was a good thing Thorin was ADVENTURING. Thror battled Azog at the Mines of Moria without Thrain, his son, or Thorin, his grandson.
In the movie the say that Thrain went mad from watching his father Thror killed by Azog. A tough weathered dwarf who has seen many dwarfs die, killed many goblins,lived many years is driven mad by watching his father slain? According to the movie Thrain is an embarrassment to dwarfs. No wonder Thorin is mad all the time, with a dad like that...pathetic.
Of course in the book Thrain is driven mad when he is a prisoner of the Necromancer. Which also happens to be the place where Gandalf acquires the map and key to the Misty Mountain. Since Thrain can not remember his own name let alone his son's name, it takes Gandalf quite some time to find Thorin and return the map and key to it's rightful owner.
In the book there is a scene in which Thorin blows smoke rings and directs them: to the ceiling, up the chimney, under a table. Gandalf in turn blows smoke rings that catch and pass through Thorin's rings, then turn green and return to the wizards hat, where the float around it in a circle. Guess they didn't have time for such an awesome scene in the movie.
In the movie Blibo, the hobbit, makes decisions, stands up to trolls, fights a goblin, outwits a monster, battles an orc, and kills a warg. All of which earns him Thorin's trust and acceptance.
Bilbo is actually very unused to adventuring, according to the book. He is peer-pressured into joining the adventure, botches pilfering trolls, gets the dwarfs caught by trolls, wastes everyone's time, gets lost, worries everyone, puts Dori at risk, and then finally nearly breaks poor Dori's legs. He does have his moments of usefulness, as well, when he finds a key, saves the parties life, and survives on his lonesome. But he's not a warrior.
Gandalf lights some pine cones on fire and throws them at some wargs. In the movie he lights the pine cones on fire; in the book he lights the pine cones with blue fire, red fire, and green fire. A lost opportunity for the filmmakers.
Bilbo's blade burns bright blue when in close proximity to goblins. This is because it is an elvish blade. Both Orcrist, the Goblin-Cleaver, and Glamdring, Foe-Hammer, are elvish blades. In the movie, why don't they burn a bright blue in the presence of goblins?
Many other details were altered. The additional scenes are rather boring and expositional in nature. The movie does not tell the story that J. R. R. Tolkien wrote. Too bad, the books pretty awesome.
Sunday, December 23, 2012
Wednesday, September 5, 2012
The Raid: Redemption - AMAZING!AMAZING!AMAZING!
YO! I just watched this for the 2nd time, and it is still the best action film to come out since...The Protector? Ong Bak 2? Whatever film you want to classify as the best Tony Jaa film. Although there are things about The Raid: Redemption that put it above Tony Jaa films (or perhaps I should say Prachya Pinkaew films, er Panna Rittikrai films...shucks! I thought they were done by the same guy?).
The best element of The Raid: Redemption is its non-stop action. This phrase is used a lot to describe films, but in this case it is accurate. The basic plot is a S.W.A.T. team is infiltrating an apartment building, full of known criminals, to extract a "crime boss," who happens to also run the building. In roughly 5 min. we are in the van racing to the apartment building. From that point to the end of the film, the story consists of suspenseful sneaking, huge assault rifle "gun-fights," focused fight-for-your-life martial arts, betrayal, and redemption. There isn't a long set-up, telling you everything about everyone. There aren't middle of the film scenes of dramatic intensity. There aren't even long dramatic death sequences.
Another fantastic element is the brutalness of the film. Many imaginative and emotionally powerful moments have been created by keeping the visual of a brutal killing off-screen. This film demonstrates that these visuals can have an important impact. This film shows that sometimes reality has to be seen to be appreciated. The fragility of life is enhanced by visuals of these killings. How easy it is to kill someone with gun. How when given the choice between life and death we (humans) will do whatever we need to in order to live. This film does not shy away from the truth of death.
If you like action films, especially martial arts films, you would be doing yourself a dishonor in NOT watching this film. Easily 5 stars. And if you are one of those fools who can't watch a film with subtitles...kill yourself.
The best element of The Raid: Redemption is its non-stop action. This phrase is used a lot to describe films, but in this case it is accurate. The basic plot is a S.W.A.T. team is infiltrating an apartment building, full of known criminals, to extract a "crime boss," who happens to also run the building. In roughly 5 min. we are in the van racing to the apartment building. From that point to the end of the film, the story consists of suspenseful sneaking, huge assault rifle "gun-fights," focused fight-for-your-life martial arts, betrayal, and redemption. There isn't a long set-up, telling you everything about everyone. There aren't middle of the film scenes of dramatic intensity. There aren't even long dramatic death sequences.
Another fantastic element is the brutalness of the film. Many imaginative and emotionally powerful moments have been created by keeping the visual of a brutal killing off-screen. This film demonstrates that these visuals can have an important impact. This film shows that sometimes reality has to be seen to be appreciated. The fragility of life is enhanced by visuals of these killings. How easy it is to kill someone with gun. How when given the choice between life and death we (humans) will do whatever we need to in order to live. This film does not shy away from the truth of death.
If you like action films, especially martial arts films, you would be doing yourself a dishonor in NOT watching this film. Easily 5 stars. And if you are one of those fools who can't watch a film with subtitles...kill yourself.
Real Steel - Real Pigslop
Real Steel is a movie about robot jocks piloted by humans...oh wait isn't that Robot Jox? Right. This is a movie about Robot Boxers controlled by humans. I can't believe this movie was made. Not only is the plot pointless and ridiculous (a dead-beat dad who doesn't care about his son, starts caring about his son when he has a successful robot boxer), but it's also poorly constructed.
I suppose it would be more accurate to say the script is a waste of time, energy and space. The actors, the sets, the special effects and so on aren't really grating or obnoxious; it's just the screenplay. Besides the absurd overall plot, there are also tons of unclear concepts. These concepts are not fleshed out; they are not logical; and mostly they are confusing and annoying (or perhaps...simply unnecessary).
I can't really recommend this movie to anyone. Even if you like robots...well, maybe if you are obsessed with robots (although then you would have already seen it, I presume)...this movie is a waste of 2 hours and 7 minutes.
I suppose it would be more accurate to say the script is a waste of time, energy and space. The actors, the sets, the special effects and so on aren't really grating or obnoxious; it's just the screenplay. Besides the absurd overall plot, there are also tons of unclear concepts. These concepts are not fleshed out; they are not logical; and mostly they are confusing and annoying (or perhaps...simply unnecessary).
I can't really recommend this movie to anyone. Even if you like robots...well, maybe if you are obsessed with robots (although then you would have already seen it, I presume)...this movie is a waste of 2 hours and 7 minutes.
Saturday, August 25, 2012
Tropic Thunder - Acting Analysis
Tropic Thunder is a brilliant film for two major reasons. 1. It's an incredibly entertaining film. 2. It analyzes acting from many different perspectives (arguably, all perspectives).
1. This film is chock full of excellent actors. Whether they're comedians or "playful" actors, all of the cast do a fantastic job of keeping the energy and entertainment high, despite the desperate situations they end up in. Ben Stiller, a way-too-comedic actor for the goofi-ness he presents, keeps a serious but ridiculous character from becoming trite and irrelevant. Robert Downey, Jr. masterfully plays a generic African-American 'Nam Sergeant, despite his white heritage. He, also, easily slips into his Australian character, on demand. [One of my favorite lines is: "I know who I am! I'm a dude, playing a dude, pretendin' to be another dude!"] Jack Black, perhaps a comic genius...perhaps...., plays a low-brow "comedian," where he creates gold through drug-hazed desperation.
This is perhaps one of the best Jay Baruchel performances ever. His role is perfect: just nerdy enough, he can't be taken seriously; just nerdy enough, he know exactly what's going on; but strong and confident enough to be there in a fight, when it's needed.
2. While my favorite moments in this film are when the characters are deconstructing acting, I still get a rush out of the action. I have always loved SPOILER the scene that ends with Robert Downey, Jr. saying, "I'm a lead farmer, motherf****er!!!" Simply because of the irony. Here he is, terrifying a whole group of blood-thirsty criminals with a crazy violent attack of two assault rifles; and yet his assault rifles are not real, ergo he poses no threat. These criminals are terrified, even though they can't actually be hurt. It's a testament to Robert Downey, Jr.'s character's strategy....We gotta do what we know best...Acting! It shouldn't work. It absolutely shouldn't work. No matter how much I blame it on Hollywood story-contrivance, I can't back around the fact that it WOULD work. In these scenarios, it would work.
I heard that Tom Cruise CHOSE to use fake hands in this film. His "fake" hands are chubby...it's brilliant...why wouldn't you watch this film?
1. This film is chock full of excellent actors. Whether they're comedians or "playful" actors, all of the cast do a fantastic job of keeping the energy and entertainment high, despite the desperate situations they end up in. Ben Stiller, a way-too-comedic actor for the goofi-ness he presents, keeps a serious but ridiculous character from becoming trite and irrelevant. Robert Downey, Jr. masterfully plays a generic African-American 'Nam Sergeant, despite his white heritage. He, also, easily slips into his Australian character, on demand. [One of my favorite lines is: "I know who I am! I'm a dude, playing a dude, pretendin' to be another dude!"] Jack Black, perhaps a comic genius...perhaps...., plays a low-brow "comedian," where he creates gold through drug-hazed desperation.
This is perhaps one of the best Jay Baruchel performances ever. His role is perfect: just nerdy enough, he can't be taken seriously; just nerdy enough, he know exactly what's going on; but strong and confident enough to be there in a fight, when it's needed.
2. While my favorite moments in this film are when the characters are deconstructing acting, I still get a rush out of the action. I have always loved SPOILER the scene that ends with Robert Downey, Jr. saying, "I'm a lead farmer, motherf****er!!!" Simply because of the irony. Here he is, terrifying a whole group of blood-thirsty criminals with a crazy violent attack of two assault rifles; and yet his assault rifles are not real, ergo he poses no threat. These criminals are terrified, even though they can't actually be hurt. It's a testament to Robert Downey, Jr.'s character's strategy....We gotta do what we know best...Acting! It shouldn't work. It absolutely shouldn't work. No matter how much I blame it on Hollywood story-contrivance, I can't back around the fact that it WOULD work. In these scenarios, it would work.
I heard that Tom Cruise CHOSE to use fake hands in this film. His "fake" hands are chubby...it's brilliant...why wouldn't you watch this film?
Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance - Spirit of Craziness!
The firs thing you need to know about Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance is that it is directed by Mark Neveldine and Brian Taylor (or Neveldine/Taylor). These two crazy people directed Crank and Crank: High Voltage. If you have seen these films (and enjoyed them), then you know what to expect.
While this film has moments of story and plot (not really relevant in Crank or Crank: High Voltage), the action still has the pulse-pounding adrenaline-rushing one would expect from Crank.
The problem with this film is that the first half is great. When Nicholas Cage is trying to repress the Ghost Rider persona, he acts twittery and crazy, akin to his performance in Bad Lieutenant: Port of Call - New Orleans. This also causes the Ghost Rider entity to act erratically and unpredictably.
Once Nicholas Cage accepts the Ghost Rider entity, it's less compelling, but still entertaining.
Unlike the first one, this one knows that the proper length for a film like this is an hour and a half.
Want crazy fun hero action? Want weirdo, difficult to empathize with heroes? Like Crank and Crank: High Voltage? This film is for you...and me.
While this film has moments of story and plot (not really relevant in Crank or Crank: High Voltage), the action still has the pulse-pounding adrenaline-rushing one would expect from Crank.
The problem with this film is that the first half is great. When Nicholas Cage is trying to repress the Ghost Rider persona, he acts twittery and crazy, akin to his performance in Bad Lieutenant: Port of Call - New Orleans. This also causes the Ghost Rider entity to act erratically and unpredictably.
Once Nicholas Cage accepts the Ghost Rider entity, it's less compelling, but still entertaining.
Unlike the first one, this one knows that the proper length for a film like this is an hour and a half.
Want crazy fun hero action? Want weirdo, difficult to empathize with heroes? Like Crank and Crank: High Voltage? This film is for you...and me.
From Beyond - From the 80's!!
Stuart Gordon's 1986 classic From Beyond is one of the few truly Lovecraftian Lovecraft adaptations. Most Lovecraft adaptions fail to capture his sense of dread and inevitability. But a select few do, including From Beyond.
While the film expands on a short story by Lovecraft, it does so in an unique way. It adds a sexual element that is not present in the short story. This added with the slimy special effects creates a bizarre and terrifying parallel existence.
This is perhaps the finest performance by Jeffrey Combs, a brilliant actor and voice-actor. His roles encompass Star Trek: Deep Space Nine, The Avengers: Earth's Mightiest Heroes, The Frighteners, Justice League, and many other Lovecraft adaptions. His wavering petrified voice is used to great effect in this unnerving film.
Ken Foree, from Dawn of the Dead, also stars in this film. He does a fantastic job, though his role is too generic and bland.
Lovecraftian fans will love this film. Horror fans (especially of the 1980's) will love this film. This is a solid film.
While the film expands on a short story by Lovecraft, it does so in an unique way. It adds a sexual element that is not present in the short story. This added with the slimy special effects creates a bizarre and terrifying parallel existence.
This is perhaps the finest performance by Jeffrey Combs, a brilliant actor and voice-actor. His roles encompass Star Trek: Deep Space Nine, The Avengers: Earth's Mightiest Heroes, The Frighteners, Justice League, and many other Lovecraft adaptions. His wavering petrified voice is used to great effect in this unnerving film.
Ken Foree, from Dawn of the Dead, also stars in this film. He does a fantastic job, though his role is too generic and bland.
Lovecraftian fans will love this film. Horror fans (especially of the 1980's) will love this film. This is a solid film.
Haywire - Wonder Woman Vengeance!!!
I don't normally approve of Steven Soderbergh, and frankly I don't here either. While it is true, Steven Soderbergh directed this movie, I feel compelled to suggest that the true brilliance of this film is from writer Lem Dobbs and from lead actress Gina Carano. Sure the movie is directed competently, but both the story and the film are about character:Mallory Kane's vengeance.
Mallory Kane is played by Gina Carano, a Mixed-Martial-Artist. Before acting, she fought against others...like really fought. Yes, she is attractive; yes, she is sexy; is she butch? only a little in pertinent places. For the most part here fighting style and her opponents are very believable. Could she take down Ewan McGregor in a fight? Absolutely!
Her story of vengeance is justified and sound. She's not out for revenge. She's not out to satisfy her blood-lust. She's out to give what's coming to those lying double-crossers. It's easy to empathize with her: she was wronged, and now she's correcting it.
While one of the naive officers refers to her as Wonder Woman, I have to admit, I believe she would make the perfect Wonder Woman, provided she can pull off the acting portion of the character. It's hard to tell from this one performance and would depend on the character variation that is written.
Like action? Like women kicking ass (especially guy ass)? Like fun?!? This film is great...just don't think of it as a Soderbergh movie...
Mallory Kane is played by Gina Carano, a Mixed-Martial-Artist. Before acting, she fought against others...like really fought. Yes, she is attractive; yes, she is sexy; is she butch? only a little in pertinent places. For the most part here fighting style and her opponents are very believable. Could she take down Ewan McGregor in a fight? Absolutely!
Her story of vengeance is justified and sound. She's not out for revenge. She's not out to satisfy her blood-lust. She's out to give what's coming to those lying double-crossers. It's easy to empathize with her: she was wronged, and now she's correcting it.
While one of the naive officers refers to her as Wonder Woman, I have to admit, I believe she would make the perfect Wonder Woman, provided she can pull off the acting portion of the character. It's hard to tell from this one performance and would depend on the character variation that is written.
Like action? Like women kicking ass (especially guy ass)? Like fun?!? This film is great...just don't think of it as a Soderbergh movie...
Ghost Rider - STOP Mark Steven Johnson!!! Please!!!
Ghost Rider, another tragedy by the writer/director Mark Steven Johnson. I don't know what fool thought it would be a good idea to PAY Mark Steven Johnson...anything!!! for his services...but damn! And I try not to curse here.
Let's start with the obvious; Ghost Rider is 2 hours and 8 minutes long.It is an epic length, even for a 2007 movie. But longer isn't better, and this movie is proof of this.This movie would have been 10x stronger if it were only an hour and a half...and it could have been!! SPOILER! (although do you really care?) The movie opens with a backstory of an earlier Ghost Rider; later in the movie, Sam Elliott tells Nick Cage the same story; if these two scenes were combined into one, it would have cut off 8 minutes or so, to the movie. There are at least two (or rather 4) more scenes this could have been done to. This movie could have easily been 1.5 hours.
Even though this movie is an origin story it still feels heavily, and I mean HEAVILY, weighted int emotions. I don't mean character building/developing emotions, I mean unnecessary, sappy emotions. There's some cool action scenes, but they represent 15% of the movie...so much is emotions here, emotions there...
Eh? perhaps I'm a cynic.
The basic plot isn't strong. It's very faustian, but drags that out, as opposed to enriching it (like Phantom of the Paradise).
You better like Ghost Rider, if you think you'll enjoy this movie.
Let's start with the obvious; Ghost Rider is 2 hours and 8 minutes long.It is an epic length, even for a 2007 movie. But longer isn't better, and this movie is proof of this.This movie would have been 10x stronger if it were only an hour and a half...and it could have been!! SPOILER! (although do you really care?) The movie opens with a backstory of an earlier Ghost Rider; later in the movie, Sam Elliott tells Nick Cage the same story; if these two scenes were combined into one, it would have cut off 8 minutes or so, to the movie. There are at least two (or rather 4) more scenes this could have been done to. This movie could have easily been 1.5 hours.
Even though this movie is an origin story it still feels heavily, and I mean HEAVILY, weighted int emotions. I don't mean character building/developing emotions, I mean unnecessary, sappy emotions. There's some cool action scenes, but they represent 15% of the movie...so much is emotions here, emotions there...
Eh? perhaps I'm a cynic.
The basic plot isn't strong. It's very faustian, but drags that out, as opposed to enriching it (like Phantom of the Paradise).
You better like Ghost Rider, if you think you'll enjoy this movie.
Ghostwriter - gHosT mOvIe
Ghostwriter is directed by Roman Polanski and has his trademarks. The movie follows an ex-prime minister's attempt at publishing his memoirs. However there seems to be something mysterious with his autobiography.
Roman Polanski is capable of making simple scenes appear engaging. Whether it's the ghost-writer sleeping at an airport or him talking to an old man, Roman Polanski is able to create tension an interest through his framing and pacing. In these respects the movie is iconically Polanski.
But that's as far as it goes. If you are interested in the subject matter, then the movie will be very entertaining, but it does not rise above its purpose.
Roman Polanski is capable of making simple scenes appear engaging. Whether it's the ghost-writer sleeping at an airport or him talking to an old man, Roman Polanski is able to create tension an interest through his framing and pacing. In these respects the movie is iconically Polanski.
But that's as far as it goes. If you are interested in the subject matter, then the movie will be very entertaining, but it does not rise above its purpose.
Friday, August 17, 2012
Phantom of the Paradise - A Rockin' AAAAAHHHH!!!
Phantom of the Paradise (1974) is a departure for director Brian de Palma. Brian de Palma is most known for his mobster films and his suspenseful scary films. But this musical is all that and so much, so much more. Although it is arguable that Paul Williams' original music sets the mood and ties all the...the craziness together, it would be unfair to discount Brian de Palma's script that melds both Faust and Phantom of the Opera into one coherent ( and superior, at least to the novel Phantom of the Opera) story.
Much of the musical numbers in this film are tied directly to events in the story. Because the film is about a music producer and various bands, the musical performances are easily inserted as auditions, rehearsals, and performances. While all the music is written by Paul Williams, the musical numbers vary from 50's rock to 70's metal. If I'm not mistaken, Paul Williams also composed the film score, which plays a significant role in progressing the story by matching the moods and pacing of various scenes.
Let's not forget the brilliant directing by Brian de Palma. While his directing is mostly unnoticeable (one of the signs of a good director), he always inserts at least one if not more inventive, engaging, and enhancing scene. For instance in Phantom of the Paradise, there is a split-screen scene in which one half follows an aptly placed bomb and the other follows the targets, a surfer band who are rehearsing. While the concept of the two parallel scenes is enough to enhance the tension and suspense, Brian de Palma takes it one step further by making each scene one continuous shot.
While all these elements are important to the overall enjoyment of this film, the plot, the acting, the costumes, and set designs are what make meat of the film; and the meat is fantastic. The film is able to take an epic story of love-betrayal-love-betrayal-revenge-love in 92 minutes, which is totally unheard of in this day-and-age (2012) of 2 and 1/2 hour epics (or even 3 film epics). The acting is very strong, even by new-comer Jessica Harper, and by musician/composer Paul Williams. The costumes and sets are outrageous adding that extra camp to this well-crafted musical.
I loved this film. If you like musicals, Paul Williams, 50's rock, Brian de Palma or just fun campy times, check this film out.
Much of the musical numbers in this film are tied directly to events in the story. Because the film is about a music producer and various bands, the musical performances are easily inserted as auditions, rehearsals, and performances. While all the music is written by Paul Williams, the musical numbers vary from 50's rock to 70's metal. If I'm not mistaken, Paul Williams also composed the film score, which plays a significant role in progressing the story by matching the moods and pacing of various scenes.
Let's not forget the brilliant directing by Brian de Palma. While his directing is mostly unnoticeable (one of the signs of a good director), he always inserts at least one if not more inventive, engaging, and enhancing scene. For instance in Phantom of the Paradise, there is a split-screen scene in which one half follows an aptly placed bomb and the other follows the targets, a surfer band who are rehearsing. While the concept of the two parallel scenes is enough to enhance the tension and suspense, Brian de Palma takes it one step further by making each scene one continuous shot.
While all these elements are important to the overall enjoyment of this film, the plot, the acting, the costumes, and set designs are what make meat of the film; and the meat is fantastic. The film is able to take an epic story of love-betrayal-love-betrayal-revenge-love in 92 minutes, which is totally unheard of in this day-and-age (2012) of 2 and 1/2 hour epics (or even 3 film epics). The acting is very strong, even by new-comer Jessica Harper, and by musician/composer Paul Williams. The costumes and sets are outrageous adding that extra camp to this well-crafted musical.
I loved this film. If you like musicals, Paul Williams, 50's rock, Brian de Palma or just fun campy times, check this film out.
Scoop - It's a Woody Allen Flick!
Scoop follows in the tradition of playful Woody Allen films. But as such, does not set it apart or make it specifically "must-watch."
Woody Allen tends to have two types of movies. The first are personal movies; these are marked by the exploratory nature of inter-personal relationships (Woody Allen typically plays one of the characters). The second are playful movies; these attempt to turn normal occurances on their side. Whether it's Sleeper (a regular guy wakes up in a topsy-turvy future), Bullets Over Broadway (a regular playwright forced to use a talentless actress for funding, by the mob), or Curse of the Jade Scorpion (two regular guys are hypnotized into stealing jewels by a crooked hypnotist), they have a typical structure but are entertaining through their quirky character interactions.
Scoop follows these same rules in an almost predictable fashion. This does not make the film un-entertaining, but a little too typical to stand out amongst the others. The best way for these playful movies to stand out is with fantastic performances by the various actors. Well, Scarlett Johansson does a fantastic job and Hugh Jackman plays an arrogant wealthy individual very convincingly (good performance). Ian McShane's character is not very interesting, so that, despite his great performance, it does not add much charm to the movie. And then there's Woody Allen. He plays himself in nearly every role he's cast (particularly the ones he casts himself in); he plays the charming, awkward, self-conscious, loquacious short guy. His stumbling babbling charm makes him a loveable affable character. However he's gotten so old by the time he made Scoop (2006; he's 71 years old), that his babbling charm now appears like old man babbling. Have you ever talked to an old man, and quickly found that it is impossible to leave the conversation? That no matter how nice, how interesting (although for some reason it rarely is..?), how affable the old man is, you just can't find a polite way to leave the conversation. That's how Woody Allen comes off in Scoop. Since he is a primary character, there are a lot of scenes with him, and because he is directing whenever he is talking the other people look very interested in what he's saying, which is actually a little unrealistic.
This is certainly a good movie to watch if you like Woody Allen...or Scarlett Johansson or Hugh Jackman. But if you are looking for a stand out, phenomenal movie/Woody Allen movie...eh.
Woody Allen tends to have two types of movies. The first are personal movies; these are marked by the exploratory nature of inter-personal relationships (Woody Allen typically plays one of the characters). The second are playful movies; these attempt to turn normal occurances on their side. Whether it's Sleeper (a regular guy wakes up in a topsy-turvy future), Bullets Over Broadway (a regular playwright forced to use a talentless actress for funding, by the mob), or Curse of the Jade Scorpion (two regular guys are hypnotized into stealing jewels by a crooked hypnotist), they have a typical structure but are entertaining through their quirky character interactions.
Scoop follows these same rules in an almost predictable fashion. This does not make the film un-entertaining, but a little too typical to stand out amongst the others. The best way for these playful movies to stand out is with fantastic performances by the various actors. Well, Scarlett Johansson does a fantastic job and Hugh Jackman plays an arrogant wealthy individual very convincingly (good performance). Ian McShane's character is not very interesting, so that, despite his great performance, it does not add much charm to the movie. And then there's Woody Allen. He plays himself in nearly every role he's cast (particularly the ones he casts himself in); he plays the charming, awkward, self-conscious, loquacious short guy. His stumbling babbling charm makes him a loveable affable character. However he's gotten so old by the time he made Scoop (2006; he's 71 years old), that his babbling charm now appears like old man babbling. Have you ever talked to an old man, and quickly found that it is impossible to leave the conversation? That no matter how nice, how interesting (although for some reason it rarely is..?), how affable the old man is, you just can't find a polite way to leave the conversation. That's how Woody Allen comes off in Scoop. Since he is a primary character, there are a lot of scenes with him, and because he is directing whenever he is talking the other people look very interested in what he's saying, which is actually a little unrealistic.
This is certainly a good movie to watch if you like Woody Allen...or Scarlett Johansson or Hugh Jackman. But if you are looking for a stand out, phenomenal movie/Woody Allen movie...eh.
Wednesday, August 8, 2012
The Brothers Bloom - Fun Times in Con Times
The Brothers Bloom is a con film. It makes no pretense about it. And the biggest problem with a con movie? The audience knows it's a con.
Since the audience knows the movie is a con movie, they (we) look for the con. Con are suprising to the mark, because they think everything is real; but if you know it's not real, then the interest is lost. It's like knowing the ending to a M. Night Shyamalan movie. Eh, who cares.
The most common way a con movie curbs this issue is to explain the con as it is happening, not before. Still as an avid movie-watcher, one still looks for the con ("Is this part of the con? or is this real?"). The more con movies you watch the more familiar one becomes with the different kinds of cons.
As such it is difficult to surprise the audience with a con movie. The Brothers Bloom did it for me. Sure I spent the entire film questioning various elements, but there were still twists I did not anticipate, and I was pleasantly surprised. The Brothers Bloom is a good con film...
...but not perfect. Ironically it is not the con element that cripples the film, it's Adrien Brody's performance. It's true I do not like the man, and that may be why I see through his acting, all the time. He is unbelievable in a bad way. He is not believable as the characters he plays, and this movie is no exception. In fact, regardless of whether the plot/story could have been tighter (which I think it could have been. I still had plenty of questions afterwards.), Adrien Brody's character was confusing and irrational. It is unclear what his motivation is, and I can't decide whether that is because Adrien Brody couldn't convey the feelings and emotions he was supposed to or that the character's purpose was to push the other various elements of the story along.
Either way the overrall experience is actually a good one. Mark Ruffalo, Rachel Weisz, Rinko Kikuchi, Robbie Coltrane and others give fantastic performances. Although this is only Rian Johnson's second feature film, he gives the film character. This is a fun, cool con film.
Since the audience knows the movie is a con movie, they (we) look for the con. Con are suprising to the mark, because they think everything is real; but if you know it's not real, then the interest is lost. It's like knowing the ending to a M. Night Shyamalan movie. Eh, who cares.
The most common way a con movie curbs this issue is to explain the con as it is happening, not before. Still as an avid movie-watcher, one still looks for the con ("Is this part of the con? or is this real?"). The more con movies you watch the more familiar one becomes with the different kinds of cons.
As such it is difficult to surprise the audience with a con movie. The Brothers Bloom did it for me. Sure I spent the entire film questioning various elements, but there were still twists I did not anticipate, and I was pleasantly surprised. The Brothers Bloom is a good con film...
...but not perfect. Ironically it is not the con element that cripples the film, it's Adrien Brody's performance. It's true I do not like the man, and that may be why I see through his acting, all the time. He is unbelievable in a bad way. He is not believable as the characters he plays, and this movie is no exception. In fact, regardless of whether the plot/story could have been tighter (which I think it could have been. I still had plenty of questions afterwards.), Adrien Brody's character was confusing and irrational. It is unclear what his motivation is, and I can't decide whether that is because Adrien Brody couldn't convey the feelings and emotions he was supposed to or that the character's purpose was to push the other various elements of the story along.
Either way the overrall experience is actually a good one. Mark Ruffalo, Rachel Weisz, Rinko Kikuchi, Robbie Coltrane and others give fantastic performances. Although this is only Rian Johnson's second feature film, he gives the film character. This is a fun, cool con film.
Saturday, August 4, 2012
Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol - a filler film
Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol - a Mission Impossible. This movie is actually pretty strange, not in its content.
I have watched many (many, many, many....) tv shows. More and more, these days, tv show seasons are created with an over-whelming plot/story with filler episodes.
When you make a 24 episode tv series, it is difficult to have every episode related directly to the over-arching danger. Often such tv series have filler episodes. These episodes not only create an insignificant danger (or temporally short danger), but they also allow the writers to explore fun ideas without rocking "the boat" ("the boat" being the over-arching plot). When done well, these filler episodes still offer quick moments of character development that are not necessary to the structure of the story.
This is what Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol is all about. It is a 'filler' episode in the movie franchise. As far as the plot goes, the danger is straight foward. Get A done, which leads to B; get B done, but then there is C; so let's make sure C isn't an issue...etc. etc.
This movie, despite my reservations, turned out to be a roller-coaster ride of action. From the trailers I had seen, I assumed this film was very generic for Hollywood. Even the reviews I had heard about made this film sounded so obvious and pointless, that I didn't give thought to it. But the action really propels you along. In fact the biggest problem I had was that the actual plot/story is based on Mission Impossible 3, which is a torture-filled smorgasboard of personal ridiculousness. Every second that they spend on this plot is not only boring, not only a waste of time, but also irrelevant in terms of the progression of this movie.
If you like action, this movie is for you.....just don't expect eny significant plot/story...
I have watched many (many, many, many....) tv shows. More and more, these days, tv show seasons are created with an over-whelming plot/story with filler episodes.
When you make a 24 episode tv series, it is difficult to have every episode related directly to the over-arching danger. Often such tv series have filler episodes. These episodes not only create an insignificant danger (or temporally short danger), but they also allow the writers to explore fun ideas without rocking "the boat" ("the boat" being the over-arching plot). When done well, these filler episodes still offer quick moments of character development that are not necessary to the structure of the story.
This is what Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol is all about. It is a 'filler' episode in the movie franchise. As far as the plot goes, the danger is straight foward. Get A done, which leads to B; get B done, but then there is C; so let's make sure C isn't an issue...etc. etc.
This movie, despite my reservations, turned out to be a roller-coaster ride of action. From the trailers I had seen, I assumed this film was very generic for Hollywood. Even the reviews I had heard about made this film sounded so obvious and pointless, that I didn't give thought to it. But the action really propels you along. In fact the biggest problem I had was that the actual plot/story is based on Mission Impossible 3, which is a torture-filled smorgasboard of personal ridiculousness. Every second that they spend on this plot is not only boring, not only a waste of time, but also irrelevant in terms of the progression of this movie.
If you like action, this movie is for you.....just don't expect eny significant plot/story...
Strange Circus (2005) - Er...Strange and interesting
Strange Circus (2005), I thought would be more strange than it was. I did not understand to what extent this movie would be strange, but the opening sequence suggests that it is a serious of bizarre stories - a "Twilight Zone"-of twists and peculiarities. BUT it is only one story...
The story is interesting and filled with unexpected twists. This makes it fun and enjoyable, but it is not a strong film. It will capture your attention if you are interested in its topic.
If you are interested in mind-boggles and other tentative twist stories, you'll probably enjoy this film.......just dont expect brilliance.
The story is interesting and filled with unexpected twists. This makes it fun and enjoyable, but it is not a strong film. It will capture your attention if you are interested in its topic.
If you are interested in mind-boggles and other tentative twist stories, you'll probably enjoy this film.......just dont expect brilliance.
Tuesday, July 24, 2012
American Reunion - Reunions Suck.
For those of you who do not know, American Reunion is the 4th official American Pie movie (yes there have been some "spinoffs" about Stiffler's brother, or something?).
This movie nailed home, for me, my true opinions of this franchise. Suuuuucks. I do not like these characters. Not only are they totally unlikeable, but they also stay the same throughout the movie.
I never say this but SPOILER....it should just be understood with these posts....
Here's an example of something completely bizarre to me. Stiffler (who no one should ever like, and is frankly an antagonist more than a protagonist) and others get screwed over by some young douche-bags. So to get revenge, he sneaks into their little outdoor party, takes a dump in their cooler, and then destroys their jetski-boat thingies. I suspect this was supposed to be a cathartic we, protagonists, got "even" moment, but all I could think about was how what those douche-bags kids did, is exactly the type of thing that Stiffler would have done. What's the lesson here? Jerks will screw over jerks? Why don't we all stop being self-involved arrogant jerks instead!! So screw Stiffler.
"Main" guy, boring and mentally cheated on his wife...multiple times.
"Awkward" guy, bombarded by underage babysittie girl and does the exact opposite of what any rational human being would do.
"Jock" guy, boring and mentally cheats and attempts to physically cheat on his girlfriend (also with a girl who has a boyfriend...jerk).
"weirdo" guy (the only one who has ever been interesting), lies about having an interesting life.
Who cares about these people? I feel like there must be tons of people out there who associate themselves with each of these guys...I'm just glad they're not my friends (well, he he, not any more. Jerks.).
If you liked the other three, I'm sure you should see this one. Turns out I didn't...not much of a surprise there.
This movie nailed home, for me, my true opinions of this franchise. Suuuuucks. I do not like these characters. Not only are they totally unlikeable, but they also stay the same throughout the movie.
I never say this but SPOILER....it should just be understood with these posts....
Here's an example of something completely bizarre to me. Stiffler (who no one should ever like, and is frankly an antagonist more than a protagonist) and others get screwed over by some young douche-bags. So to get revenge, he sneaks into their little outdoor party, takes a dump in their cooler, and then destroys their jetski-boat thingies. I suspect this was supposed to be a cathartic we, protagonists, got "even" moment, but all I could think about was how what those douche-bags kids did, is exactly the type of thing that Stiffler would have done. What's the lesson here? Jerks will screw over jerks? Why don't we all stop being self-involved arrogant jerks instead!! So screw Stiffler.
"Main" guy, boring and mentally cheated on his wife...multiple times.
"Awkward" guy, bombarded by underage babysittie girl and does the exact opposite of what any rational human being would do.
"Jock" guy, boring and mentally cheats and attempts to physically cheat on his girlfriend (also with a girl who has a boyfriend...jerk).
"weirdo" guy (the only one who has ever been interesting), lies about having an interesting life.
Who cares about these people? I feel like there must be tons of people out there who associate themselves with each of these guys...I'm just glad they're not my friends (well, he he, not any more. Jerks.).
If you liked the other three, I'm sure you should see this one. Turns out I didn't...not much of a surprise there.
Monday, July 16, 2012
Hostel III - Don't Stay, Don't Watch, Don't Care
Hostel III was an unpleasant, no painful, movie to watch. It seems most people's complaints are that it is not like Hostel or Hostel II; my complaint is that it is just a poorly made film.
The characters are one dimensional, stereotypical, and completely unlikeable. There is the good guy protaganist, the rich playboy, the partier, and the oddball. Going back as far as the Friday 13th movies, this is a standard four guy set-up, except each so-called-protaganist is more annoying then the previous. My biggest angst is that they didn't get to killing these fools for a good thirty minutes. I couldn't wait to see these guys get torture.
Then there's the torture. This film has less torture and gore then either of the previous movies. Half of it is off screen, and the half they do show is mired in "gambling." Which sadly just makes the whole thing more like a carnival than a horror house (although some might argue that carnivals are more terrifying than horror houses).
Then there's the ridiculous plot twists. Each one less believeable than the previous. Forced and absurd these twists quickly become a bore and eventually predictable.
Watching this movie has given me a standard on which to base good horror movies...anything NOT LIKE THIS. Watch at your own peril...er, or is that boredom?
The characters are one dimensional, stereotypical, and completely unlikeable. There is the good guy protaganist, the rich playboy, the partier, and the oddball. Going back as far as the Friday 13th movies, this is a standard four guy set-up, except each so-called-protaganist is more annoying then the previous. My biggest angst is that they didn't get to killing these fools for a good thirty minutes. I couldn't wait to see these guys get torture.
Then there's the torture. This film has less torture and gore then either of the previous movies. Half of it is off screen, and the half they do show is mired in "gambling." Which sadly just makes the whole thing more like a carnival than a horror house (although some might argue that carnivals are more terrifying than horror houses).
Then there's the ridiculous plot twists. Each one less believeable than the previous. Forced and absurd these twists quickly become a bore and eventually predictable.
Watching this movie has given me a standard on which to base good horror movies...anything NOT LIKE THIS. Watch at your own peril...er, or is that boredom?
Monday, July 2, 2012
The Darkest Hour - in the Light of Day
The Darkest Hour is a movie about American tourists in Moscow when aliens successfully attack Earth. As might be suggested here, the plot is rather simple and straight-foward. However the movie is rather entertaining.
Often sci-fi movies with small-ish budgets and simplistic plots are predictable. Certian tropes, often made famous by bid-budget films, become a norm. Typically they are also poorly executed. In these cases the most entertaining aspect is the science-fiction concept that motivates the plot. And one often has to make it throught the 90 minutes of tropes, to fully understand it.
The movie doesn't really have much of an in depth sci-fi idea. We don't really learn a lot about the aliens or their purpose. Surprisingly it was still enjoyable to watch to the end.
However it is by no means a good movie; it's a watchable movie, but not a good one.
Often sci-fi movies with small-ish budgets and simplistic plots are predictable. Certian tropes, often made famous by bid-budget films, become a norm. Typically they are also poorly executed. In these cases the most entertaining aspect is the science-fiction concept that motivates the plot. And one often has to make it throught the 90 minutes of tropes, to fully understand it.
The movie doesn't really have much of an in depth sci-fi idea. We don't really learn a lot about the aliens or their purpose. Surprisingly it was still enjoyable to watch to the end.
However it is by no means a good movie; it's a watchable movie, but not a good one.
Tuesday, June 19, 2012
Apollo 18 - There's a Reason the Moon is Boring....
Apollo 18 is a movie about a space mission that was hidden from public record. The movie is supposively composed of only lost footage. It's one of a long list of "lost footage"-genre films (The Blair Witch Project, Troll Hunter, Cloverfield, Chronicle, ~ Paranormal Activity, etc.).
This is important since it seems to be an integral element to the movie. Two-thirds of the movie follows basic space flight exercises and [real-time] procedures. When the "monsters" do show up, they are caught on primarily quick, shaky cameras...reducing the necessity to "flesh" them out. And lastly there are (at least one) camera shots that are impossible by the equipment designated by the movie.
This could easily be overlooked with a solid story, but here the movie fails again. SPOILER: The rocks are alive on the moon. There is no examination, no explanation, no meaningful emotional experience, and no moral. It's all a gimmick.
Life on the Moon is a very interesting concept, but this movie fails to offer any suspense, intrigue, fear, or emotion. Unfortunately poorly made.
This is important since it seems to be an integral element to the movie. Two-thirds of the movie follows basic space flight exercises and [real-time] procedures. When the "monsters" do show up, they are caught on primarily quick, shaky cameras...reducing the necessity to "flesh" them out. And lastly there are (at least one) camera shots that are impossible by the equipment designated by the movie.
This could easily be overlooked with a solid story, but here the movie fails again. SPOILER: The rocks are alive on the moon. There is no examination, no explanation, no meaningful emotional experience, and no moral. It's all a gimmick.
Life on the Moon is a very interesting concept, but this movie fails to offer any suspense, intrigue, fear, or emotion. Unfortunately poorly made.
Monday, June 4, 2012
Jingo by Terry Pratchett - East Meets West on a Disc!
Jingo is the 21st novel of the Discworld series written by Terry Pratchett.
Those of you who are familiar with the Discworld series know to expect action, intrigue, intricate stories, a magical presence, satire, humor and much more.
Jingo, centering around the City Watch of Ankh-Morpork, is no exception. The satire focuses on the differences between the "Middle East" and the "West". Knowing that this is written by an Englishman only leads one to suspect that the parallels are more precisely British vs. Indian/Pakistani. Either way the nuances of the story do not detract from the pleasure the reader experiences through the events.
However compared to the previous City Watch Discworld novels, this one pales. While it is a good Patrician, Sergeant Colon, Corporeal Knobbs story, it lacks the spice of the previous City Watch novels. One of the strongest aspects of the previous City Watch novels was their introduction of new recruits: a king, a werewolf, a troll, a femal dwarf, an undead, a gargoyle, a golem, the list goes on. They are also spiked with fantastic Captain Vimes vs. Patrician scenes, which this has few of...but still some nice ones.
If you haven't read Guards! Guards! or Men At Arms....start there. Then you will truly appreciate the beautiful novel that is Jingo.
Those of you who are familiar with the Discworld series know to expect action, intrigue, intricate stories, a magical presence, satire, humor and much more.
Jingo, centering around the City Watch of Ankh-Morpork, is no exception. The satire focuses on the differences between the "Middle East" and the "West". Knowing that this is written by an Englishman only leads one to suspect that the parallels are more precisely British vs. Indian/Pakistani. Either way the nuances of the story do not detract from the pleasure the reader experiences through the events.
However compared to the previous City Watch Discworld novels, this one pales. While it is a good Patrician, Sergeant Colon, Corporeal Knobbs story, it lacks the spice of the previous City Watch novels. One of the strongest aspects of the previous City Watch novels was their introduction of new recruits: a king, a werewolf, a troll, a femal dwarf, an undead, a gargoyle, a golem, the list goes on. They are also spiked with fantastic Captain Vimes vs. Patrician scenes, which this has few of...but still some nice ones.
If you haven't read Guards! Guards! or Men At Arms....start there. Then you will truly appreciate the beautiful novel that is Jingo.
Sunday, June 3, 2012
Detective Dee and the Mystery of the Phantom Flame - Episode Phantom Mystery!
Detective Dee and the Mystery of the Phantom Flame is a standard example of the action-intense films to come out of Hong Kong.
Hong Kong films refined action to beauty. Without glorifying violence, they turned martial arts, gun fights, chase scenes, and many other standard action tropes into a deadly ballet. Martial arts inherently lends itself to beauty with all its graceful movements and counter-action interplay. Plus it has a practical use, unlike real ballet. These martial arts concepts were then integrated into other forms of action like the chase scene and gun fighting.
The first half of this film has intrigue and fast-paced fun martial arts action. The viewer is gripped.
But the second half of the film seems too preoccupied with tying up loose ends. The plot is interesting enough that the viewer is still engaged, but despite its grandeur the story is more a "generic" Sherlock-Holmes-story, rather than a "Moriarty" Sherlock-Holmes-Story.
If you enjoy Hong Kong action or would like to try one, I highly recommend Detective Dee and the Mystery of the Phantom Flame.
Hong Kong films refined action to beauty. Without glorifying violence, they turned martial arts, gun fights, chase scenes, and many other standard action tropes into a deadly ballet. Martial arts inherently lends itself to beauty with all its graceful movements and counter-action interplay. Plus it has a practical use, unlike real ballet. These martial arts concepts were then integrated into other forms of action like the chase scene and gun fighting.
The first half of this film has intrigue and fast-paced fun martial arts action. The viewer is gripped.
But the second half of the film seems too preoccupied with tying up loose ends. The plot is interesting enough that the viewer is still engaged, but despite its grandeur the story is more a "generic" Sherlock-Holmes-story, rather than a "Moriarty" Sherlock-Holmes-Story.
If you enjoy Hong Kong action or would like to try one, I highly recommend Detective Dee and the Mystery of the Phantom Flame.
The Rules of the Game -The Rules of French Society
Jean Renoir's The Rules of The Game is a film about French society at the onset of World War II, or so I'm told. This is not my type of film.
Perhaps I would find this film more engaging if I knew something, anything, about the French bourgeoisie of the 30-40's.
I shall have to rewatch this film to better analyze it.
Perhaps I would find this film more engaging if I knew something, anything, about the French bourgeoisie of the 30-40's.
I shall have to rewatch this film to better analyze it.
Thursday, May 31, 2012
Das Deutsche Kettensagen Massaker (The German Chainsaw Massacre) - AAAAAHHHHHHH!!!!
Das Deutsche Kettensagen Massaker (The German Chainsaw Massacre) or in some places Blackest Heart (not really an appropriate title). The film takes place in the first week of Germany's reunification.
I highly recommend this film to anyone who experienced, studied or has an interest in Germany's reunification. While it can be enjoyed without having involved information on the reunification, there is a secondary level to the characters and their actions that is enhanced by intimate knowledge of German society on both East and West at the time of reunification.
But mostly the film is about normal people versus crazy-chainsaw-knife-weilding people. You know, the crazy people always win in that situation. There are parrallels to The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, which is obviously a major influence to this director, but it does not get bogged down in an attempt to reproduce said film. It easily takes the idea and creates something new and different.
Well you might find it hard to get your hands on a copy; I watched a PAL version...definitely worth it.
I highly recommend this film to anyone who experienced, studied or has an interest in Germany's reunification. While it can be enjoyed without having involved information on the reunification, there is a secondary level to the characters and their actions that is enhanced by intimate knowledge of German society on both East and West at the time of reunification.
But mostly the film is about normal people versus crazy-chainsaw-knife-weilding people. You know, the crazy people always win in that situation. There are parrallels to The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, which is obviously a major influence to this director, but it does not get bogged down in an attempt to reproduce said film. It easily takes the idea and creates something new and different.
Well you might find it hard to get your hands on a copy; I watched a PAL version...definitely worth it.
Hugo or Film History Re-Envisioned
This was a pleasant surprise. I knew very little about this film and every time I read a summary, I became more confused. I had inaccurately thought it was a fantastical epic, similar to Goldam Compass or Harry Porter.
Hugo tells the tale of an orphan who brings Georges Melies back to fame (more or less). The story well executed and heart-warming. Most families should enjoy it.
One aspect, I like, of this film is its historical significance. Much of the information regarding Georges Melies is accurate. As such this film smoothly informs the audience of an important film creator and one of the first.
Unfortuately they take liberties with the truth to simplify the story. For instance, his wife in the film (who he is supposed to have been married to forever) is in reality his second wife.
And just like Hollywood, they couldn't come up with an original story. This one is based off a book (which is based on real life! (why has everyone given up originality?!?)).
The Station Inspector is a horrible horrible person, and yet....they "reward" him after one, JUST ONE, instance of humanity. Apparently you only need to do one good thing to erase all the terrible things you have done in the past. I held no sympathy for this monster.
Despite these valid complaints, I would still recommend this to others, particularly if they nothing of Georges Melies.
Hugo tells the tale of an orphan who brings Georges Melies back to fame (more or less). The story well executed and heart-warming. Most families should enjoy it.
One aspect, I like, of this film is its historical significance. Much of the information regarding Georges Melies is accurate. As such this film smoothly informs the audience of an important film creator and one of the first.
Unfortuately they take liberties with the truth to simplify the story. For instance, his wife in the film (who he is supposed to have been married to forever) is in reality his second wife.
And just like Hollywood, they couldn't come up with an original story. This one is based off a book (which is based on real life! (why has everyone given up originality?!?)).
The Station Inspector is a horrible horrible person, and yet....they "reward" him after one, JUST ONE, instance of humanity. Apparently you only need to do one good thing to erase all the terrible things you have done in the past. I held no sympathy for this monster.
Despite these valid complaints, I would still recommend this to others, particularly if they nothing of Georges Melies.
Saturday, May 26, 2012
Das Komabrutale Duell - The Ultimate Duel...well, sorta
Das Komabrutale Duell is a fascinating movie, but loses me. It is quite fascinating not only for its extreme exploration of gore, but also in its inventive world of "physics"/"medicine". I'm not sure what the plot is, but if I had to guess it would be two guys hate each other and try to kill each other with weapons, brothers, science, henchmen, and so forth.
I find it difficult to appreciate this film because of its disregard for "threat." The human body is quite fragile in many situations, and yet this movie has a scene in which a brain is transplanted with fingers and hot-glue. And it is successful!! Many of the main characters are stabbed, shot, and mutilated beyond recovery, but they seem to survive. If one can recover from a gun-shot to the head, then why would one fear a gun?
This movie would make more sense with an undead vibe, an immortal theme, or a super-healing atmosphere. Yet it leaves few options, but realism, as its crux.
A fascinating movie, but enjoyable to few...those few who can suspend disbelief for gore-ish pleasure.
I find it difficult to appreciate this film because of its disregard for "threat." The human body is quite fragile in many situations, and yet this movie has a scene in which a brain is transplanted with fingers and hot-glue. And it is successful!! Many of the main characters are stabbed, shot, and mutilated beyond recovery, but they seem to survive. If one can recover from a gun-shot to the head, then why would one fear a gun?
This movie would make more sense with an undead vibe, an immortal theme, or a super-healing atmosphere. Yet it leaves few options, but realism, as its crux.
A fascinating movie, but enjoyable to few...those few who can suspend disbelief for gore-ish pleasure.
Friday, May 25, 2012
A Dangerous Mathod - A Promising Result
Ther are two ways for me to analyze this film: 1. as a film compared to other films and 2. as a Cronenberg film compared to other Cronenberg films. Unfortunately it is extremely difficult for me to "judge" this film without taking into account its director, David Cronenberg.
This is a good film. It is about two famous psychologists who interacted and dealt with a patient, who later dealt in psychology. It's a strong film with careful and intelligent analysis of people's minds and psychology. While seeming a little slow, it is a film that is primarily concerned with characters interactions. Ergo their conversations are where the action happens.
It is a compentent Cronenberg film. His weakest is still Spider, the beginning of his "adaptation" phase. Since Existenz (a fantastic "What-Is-Reality?" film), David Cronenberg has made films based on books and/or other sources. As a result we, as an audience, have not gotten as much "bio-technology," one of his staple themes. This film continues his lack of "bio-technology," but still shows elements of his fetishness.
This film will be appreciated and thoroughly enjoyed by Cronenberg fans. Others, especially those not enamoured with his love for "bio-technology," will enjoy this film as long as they approach it with the right mind-set.
This is a good film. It is about two famous psychologists who interacted and dealt with a patient, who later dealt in psychology. It's a strong film with careful and intelligent analysis of people's minds and psychology. While seeming a little slow, it is a film that is primarily concerned with characters interactions. Ergo their conversations are where the action happens.
It is a compentent Cronenberg film. His weakest is still Spider, the beginning of his "adaptation" phase. Since Existenz (a fantastic "What-Is-Reality?" film), David Cronenberg has made films based on books and/or other sources. As a result we, as an audience, have not gotten as much "bio-technology," one of his staple themes. This film continues his lack of "bio-technology," but still shows elements of his fetishness.
This film will be appreciated and thoroughly enjoyed by Cronenberg fans. Others, especially those not enamoured with his love for "bio-technology," will enjoy this film as long as they approach it with the right mind-set.
Wednesday, May 9, 2012
The Raid: Redemption - Action-Awesomeness
The Raid: Redemption is an Indonesian action film. I really don't have much to say about this film, except it is AWESOME.
The premise is rather straight-foward. A swat team storms an apartment building to snatch/arrest a powerful crime "boss". This crime boss has rented most of the apartments to other criminals and low-lifes. Once the swat team is in, he tells everyone over the PA system that they will get free rent for life if they kill the swat team. ACTION!
With such a ridiculous scenario, you don't want to wait 20 minutes for it to be set up. And you don't have to! 5 minutes, 10 tops, and then all inferno breaks loose.
The action is fast-paced, creative, and fun. The plot reveals more depth as the film progresses. The few main characters have strong varied personalities.
If you want to watch a well-made action film, this has it all.
The premise is rather straight-foward. A swat team storms an apartment building to snatch/arrest a powerful crime "boss". This crime boss has rented most of the apartments to other criminals and low-lifes. Once the swat team is in, he tells everyone over the PA system that they will get free rent for life if they kill the swat team. ACTION!
With such a ridiculous scenario, you don't want to wait 20 minutes for it to be set up. And you don't have to! 5 minutes, 10 tops, and then all inferno breaks loose.
The action is fast-paced, creative, and fun. The plot reveals more depth as the film progresses. The few main characters have strong varied personalities.
If you want to watch a well-made action film, this has it all.
Human Centipede II (Full Sequence) - Human Meta-pede
In order to appreciate Human Centipede II (Full Sequence), one ought to watch Human Centipede (First Sequence). It is not necessary, as much of the first film is in the second film, but the horror intensity is increased with detailed knowledge of the events in the first one.
Briefly, the first film is about a mad scientist/doctor who kidnaps three people and then sews them mouth to anus to create a human centipede, with the goal of ultimately sewing 12 people, mouth to anus, together. Human Centipede II is about a semi-mentally challenged man who is so obssessed with the movie Human Centipede, that he kidnaps twelve people and attempts to connect them mouth to anus, following the mad scientist's/doctor's "medically accurate" method.
Now I will stick to only the second film.
What makes Human Centipede so powerful, isn't just the brutal gore and disturbing images, but the psychological horror that the characters experience. Despite Martin's mental handicap, he is still able to put twelve people in positions of physical impotence. Even before he begins attaching these people together, the people know and live in the horror that they will "grafted" mouth to anus.
As an audience member our psychological horror is increased by the knowledge that Martin is not humanely conscious. Whether it is his mental handicap or whether it is his need for a human centipede, is unclear. However his actions make it clear that he only cares about his goal. In one scene he kills a man, kidnaps his pregnant wife (for the centipede), and then leaves their 3 year-old son in their car in a parking garage. No one is above and beyond his obssession.
Part of the strength of this film is the empathy that is creates for Martin. His goal, his desire, his obssession, his need is grotesque, monstrous, in-human, and yet we learn enough of his life to realize it is not an inherent aspect of him, but a consequence of the monstrous, in-human experiences he has been subject to. When his mother pisses over everything, figuratively, that is dear to him, mocking him as if he was an idiot, tears welled up in my eyes. Often the villains of horror films are condemned as evil, given little is any humanity. We, audience members, yearn for their punishment, applaud their demise. Such films make "life" black and white, construct obvious lines of good and evil. Reality is less clear. People, who have committed acts that can be described as evil, still have loved ones, still have desires, still have passions, just like us. And just like us they can be emotionally traumatized by ridicule, abuse, and disgust.
Because the film is directly linked with first film, the writer/director Tom Six was able to add a whole new level of disturbing (although this is more terrifying for actors, than anyone else). Martin is so obssessed with the film Human Centipede, that he attempts to trick the cast into coming for an "audition" for a film by a famous director...um I didn't recognize his name (ha ha). He gets one of them to come and adds her to the centipede. One might think acting in a horror film is innocent enough, but this film demonstrates a potential danger. The danger being that an avid fan of the horror film attempts to make you, the actor, live it out for real. An actor must have plenty of time to think about how it might feel to be in any of these dangerous situations, particularly grotesque ones, like having your mouth sewn to an anus (so that there is one digestive tract). To then be placed in said situation must flood the actor with unspeakable terror.
Ha ha ha. I didn't mean for that to be funny, but it is. "unspeakable terror"
While many criticize this film as being about shock value, I would argue that there is factual evidence to demonstrate that this is wildly inaccurate. This film (much like the first) shows what true horror is.
Because it's not being chased by a supernatural entity that can't be killed and who apparently likes to creatively kill his prey (Jason, Freddy, Michael, you get the point...).
Briefly, the first film is about a mad scientist/doctor who kidnaps three people and then sews them mouth to anus to create a human centipede, with the goal of ultimately sewing 12 people, mouth to anus, together. Human Centipede II is about a semi-mentally challenged man who is so obssessed with the movie Human Centipede, that he kidnaps twelve people and attempts to connect them mouth to anus, following the mad scientist's/doctor's "medically accurate" method.
Now I will stick to only the second film.
What makes Human Centipede so powerful, isn't just the brutal gore and disturbing images, but the psychological horror that the characters experience. Despite Martin's mental handicap, he is still able to put twelve people in positions of physical impotence. Even before he begins attaching these people together, the people know and live in the horror that they will "grafted" mouth to anus.
As an audience member our psychological horror is increased by the knowledge that Martin is not humanely conscious. Whether it is his mental handicap or whether it is his need for a human centipede, is unclear. However his actions make it clear that he only cares about his goal. In one scene he kills a man, kidnaps his pregnant wife (for the centipede), and then leaves their 3 year-old son in their car in a parking garage. No one is above and beyond his obssession.
Part of the strength of this film is the empathy that is creates for Martin. His goal, his desire, his obssession, his need is grotesque, monstrous, in-human, and yet we learn enough of his life to realize it is not an inherent aspect of him, but a consequence of the monstrous, in-human experiences he has been subject to. When his mother pisses over everything, figuratively, that is dear to him, mocking him as if he was an idiot, tears welled up in my eyes. Often the villains of horror films are condemned as evil, given little is any humanity. We, audience members, yearn for their punishment, applaud their demise. Such films make "life" black and white, construct obvious lines of good and evil. Reality is less clear. People, who have committed acts that can be described as evil, still have loved ones, still have desires, still have passions, just like us. And just like us they can be emotionally traumatized by ridicule, abuse, and disgust.
Because the film is directly linked with first film, the writer/director Tom Six was able to add a whole new level of disturbing (although this is more terrifying for actors, than anyone else). Martin is so obssessed with the film Human Centipede, that he attempts to trick the cast into coming for an "audition" for a film by a famous director...um I didn't recognize his name (ha ha). He gets one of them to come and adds her to the centipede. One might think acting in a horror film is innocent enough, but this film demonstrates a potential danger. The danger being that an avid fan of the horror film attempts to make you, the actor, live it out for real. An actor must have plenty of time to think about how it might feel to be in any of these dangerous situations, particularly grotesque ones, like having your mouth sewn to an anus (so that there is one digestive tract). To then be placed in said situation must flood the actor with unspeakable terror.
Ha ha ha. I didn't mean for that to be funny, but it is. "unspeakable terror"
While many criticize this film as being about shock value, I would argue that there is factual evidence to demonstrate that this is wildly inaccurate. This film (much like the first) shows what true horror is.
Because it's not being chased by a supernatural entity that can't be killed and who apparently likes to creatively kill his prey (Jason, Freddy, Michael, you get the point...).
Monday, May 7, 2012
Avengers (2012) - Who doesn't want to Avenge injustice?
The Avengers (2012):
This is actually difficult for me to analyze. Sure when a movie is poorly made, it is easy to criticize but when a movie is good, it's not.
This is still an origin film. BUT it's a team origin not an individual origin. Because Marvel has made competent origin films for each character, there is no need to elaborate or specify the roads that brought these characters to this moment.
If you have a biased towards origin films, it is pretty easy to use that as an excuse for this film. However I, on a personal note, would like to point out that there are few (in comparison) "team origin" films vs. "individual origin" films. That makes this film stand out from other "origin" films.
So besides THAT aspect, what is wrong with this film?
I don't have an answer for that.
What is good about this film?
Besides the crazy-fun action scenes, the awesome hero portrayals, the intensely cool super powers, and the excellent acting from each star (Samuel Jackson, Chris Evans, Robert Downey Jr., Scarlett Johansson, Mark Ruffalo, etc.), there is a strong story that makes this film engaging and desirable to watch.
I highly (if not intensely) recommend this film to anyone...ANYONE who likes or appreciates super-heroes.
I think this film is amazing!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
This is actually difficult for me to analyze. Sure when a movie is poorly made, it is easy to criticize but when a movie is good, it's not.
This is still an origin film. BUT it's a team origin not an individual origin. Because Marvel has made competent origin films for each character, there is no need to elaborate or specify the roads that brought these characters to this moment.
If you have a biased towards origin films, it is pretty easy to use that as an excuse for this film. However I, on a personal note, would like to point out that there are few (in comparison) "team origin" films vs. "individual origin" films. That makes this film stand out from other "origin" films.
So besides THAT aspect, what is wrong with this film?
I don't have an answer for that.
What is good about this film?
Besides the crazy-fun action scenes, the awesome hero portrayals, the intensely cool super powers, and the excellent acting from each star (Samuel Jackson, Chris Evans, Robert Downey Jr., Scarlett Johansson, Mark Ruffalo, etc.), there is a strong story that makes this film engaging and desirable to watch.
I highly (if not intensely) recommend this film to anyone...ANYONE who likes or appreciates super-heroes.
I think this film is amazing!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Thursday, May 3, 2012
Moon Knight (2011-2012) - Who Says Crazy People Can't Be Super-Heroes!
Moon Knight (2011-2012) is a 12 issue comic book series written by Brian Michael Bendis, drawn by Alex Maleev, and colors by Matt Wilson or Matthew Hollingsworth.
The series follows Moon Knight attempting to retrieve an Ultron (the most diabolical a.i. in the Marvel universe) head and stop a new west coast crime boss. Many (if not most) Marvel super-heroes operate on the east coast (Spider-Man, Daredevil, Fantastic Four and even the Avengers' Mansion are all located in NYC). It was refreshing to see that crime doesn't limit itself to the north-east, and that heroes stop crime wherever it is.
What also makes the series interesting and fun to read is the character Moon Knight. He is haunted and supported by visions of other super-heroes. The best of the best "aid" him in his mission to keep the streets safe(r). While it at first seems like an affliction, Moon Knight later intimates that he sees these delusions (which he is consciously aware of) as an asset. With no true super powers (except possibly his delusions), he is able to turn their strengthes into his own. He find physical and inner strength from these symbolic heroes.
The writing rounds the characters with believable personalities, while the art creates a dynamic that complements the chaotic events.
I love this series, and if you love Moon Knight, Bendis/Maleev, or crazy super-heroes, you will too.
The series follows Moon Knight attempting to retrieve an Ultron (the most diabolical a.i. in the Marvel universe) head and stop a new west coast crime boss. Many (if not most) Marvel super-heroes operate on the east coast (Spider-Man, Daredevil, Fantastic Four and even the Avengers' Mansion are all located in NYC). It was refreshing to see that crime doesn't limit itself to the north-east, and that heroes stop crime wherever it is.
What also makes the series interesting and fun to read is the character Moon Knight. He is haunted and supported by visions of other super-heroes. The best of the best "aid" him in his mission to keep the streets safe(r). While it at first seems like an affliction, Moon Knight later intimates that he sees these delusions (which he is consciously aware of) as an asset. With no true super powers (except possibly his delusions), he is able to turn their strengthes into his own. He find physical and inner strength from these symbolic heroes.
The writing rounds the characters with believable personalities, while the art creates a dynamic that complements the chaotic events.
I love this series, and if you love Moon Knight, Bendis/Maleev, or crazy super-heroes, you will too.
Niku Daruma aka Psycho the Snuff Reels - Under Par Torture Porn
This movie is one of many that fit under the genre torture porn. What is torture porn? HERE
It must be noted that I watched this movie without subtitles. And while you might think that I could not possibly be able to watch or analyze this movie without knowing what the actors are saying, well...you'd be wrong. There are two reasons why this is the case, the first is that torture porn rarely relies on a complex plot. Typically these movies set up simple premises to allow the characters to brutally torture the other characters.
The second is that the plot of this movie is (ok. seems to be) about two guys who get a girl and a guy to do a low budget sex movie. Once involved in the sex movie production, these two up the scales by turning it into a torture-fest. The specifics of what the characters say appears to be...well, irrelevant.
There are many different styles of torture porn, but this one seems to follow the simplistic: get a victim, then torture the H E double-hockey sticks out of them. The gold standard of this style is Flowers of Flesh and Blood (the movie that caused (probably drunken) Charlie Sheen to yell "Snuff! Snuff!"). As you can imagine this movie does not rank up there.
Viewers have described this movie as incredibly brutal and painful to watch. I don't quite agree with this. Not only are there few moments of extreme brutalness, but the viewer is easily taken out of the moment by the cheap special effects (if you are using a saw, the bone should be the most difficult part to cut through, not the skin).
This movie is not a hallmark of torture porn. If you like torture porn, this should be lower on you list.
It must be noted that I watched this movie without subtitles. And while you might think that I could not possibly be able to watch or analyze this movie without knowing what the actors are saying, well...you'd be wrong. There are two reasons why this is the case, the first is that torture porn rarely relies on a complex plot. Typically these movies set up simple premises to allow the characters to brutally torture the other characters.
The second is that the plot of this movie is (ok. seems to be) about two guys who get a girl and a guy to do a low budget sex movie. Once involved in the sex movie production, these two up the scales by turning it into a torture-fest. The specifics of what the characters say appears to be...well, irrelevant.
There are many different styles of torture porn, but this one seems to follow the simplistic: get a victim, then torture the H E double-hockey sticks out of them. The gold standard of this style is Flowers of Flesh and Blood (the movie that caused (probably drunken) Charlie Sheen to yell "Snuff! Snuff!"). As you can imagine this movie does not rank up there.
Viewers have described this movie as incredibly brutal and painful to watch. I don't quite agree with this. Not only are there few moments of extreme brutalness, but the viewer is easily taken out of the moment by the cheap special effects (if you are using a saw, the bone should be the most difficult part to cut through, not the skin).
This movie is not a hallmark of torture porn. If you like torture porn, this should be lower on you list.
30: Minutes or Less (2011) - 83 Minutes of Fun or not
30: Minutes or Less is a comedic movie starring Jesse Eisenberg, Danny McBride, Aziz Ansari, and Nick Swardson. This movie is about creating a comedically absurd situation in which the ridiculous is the only solution. It doesn't quite succeed.
The plot is not inherently comedic. With a similar plot, one could create an action movie or suspense movie easily.
The jokes in this comedy are also under-par. Most of them lack wit, unexpectedness or outrageousness.
"Sounds like this movie is pretty bad!"
Not exactly.
The redeeming factor of this film are the actors McBride, Ansari, and Swardson have already proved themselves as comedic actors. Whether with stand-up, tv shows, or guest appearances, they have made many (including me!) laugh hysterically. The individual character's lines may not be inherently funny, but these actors KNOW how to deliver them. And they do an excellent job, with what they have. Even Jesse Eisenberg, not independently a funny man, is able to turn these half-assed lines into humorous pleasure.
If you enjoy all these actors (if there's any you hate this does not apply), you will enjoy this movie, BUT I still wouldn't rush out to see it.
The plot is not inherently comedic. With a similar plot, one could create an action movie or suspense movie easily.
The jokes in this comedy are also under-par. Most of them lack wit, unexpectedness or outrageousness.
"Sounds like this movie is pretty bad!"
Not exactly.
The redeeming factor of this film are the actors McBride, Ansari, and Swardson have already proved themselves as comedic actors. Whether with stand-up, tv shows, or guest appearances, they have made many (including me!) laugh hysterically. The individual character's lines may not be inherently funny, but these actors KNOW how to deliver them. And they do an excellent job, with what they have. Even Jesse Eisenberg, not independently a funny man, is able to turn these half-assed lines into humorous pleasure.
If you enjoy all these actors (if there's any you hate this does not apply), you will enjoy this movie, BUT I still wouldn't rush out to see it.
Monday, April 30, 2012
The Technopriests - Techno-Accomplishments of the Paleo-Jodorowsky
The Technopriests comic, currently released as 3 volumes from Humanoids, is written by Alexandro Jodorowsky, illustrated by Zoran Janjetov, and colored by Fred Beltran. It tells the space saga of a disfunctional family and their eventual odyssey to a new universe.
What makes this comic series so enthralling is the intense creativity. Jodorowsky has imagined an universe that is rich with details and rife with strong characters. Janjetov and Beltran have visualized these detailed space adventures in vivid images. It is a gorgeous comic to read as there are a wealth of settings individualized by intricate textures and structures.
The story is quite elaborate and traverses across the universe in all directions. While none of the characters or settings have any specific connection to what we know of as reality, there are still the common emotions that we have all felt: jealousy, love, anger, pride, forgiveness, sadness, cruelty, greed, happiness. Whether one agrees with an individual character's choices or not, one can easily sympathize with the character as his/her motivations are akin to ours.
Although the story takes place in space and upon many different planets, it is perhaps more appropriately described as science-fantasy. There are few if any true scientific elements within the comic. However there is a scientific rationale that is used to solve various problems that arise. This gives the story and characters certain boundaries that are held up throughout.
I recommend this comic to fans of crazy space sagas that span entire universes. Expect the unexpected, you techno-readers!
What makes this comic series so enthralling is the intense creativity. Jodorowsky has imagined an universe that is rich with details and rife with strong characters. Janjetov and Beltran have visualized these detailed space adventures in vivid images. It is a gorgeous comic to read as there are a wealth of settings individualized by intricate textures and structures.
The story is quite elaborate and traverses across the universe in all directions. While none of the characters or settings have any specific connection to what we know of as reality, there are still the common emotions that we have all felt: jealousy, love, anger, pride, forgiveness, sadness, cruelty, greed, happiness. Whether one agrees with an individual character's choices or not, one can easily sympathize with the character as his/her motivations are akin to ours.
Although the story takes place in space and upon many different planets, it is perhaps more appropriately described as science-fantasy. There are few if any true scientific elements within the comic. However there is a scientific rationale that is used to solve various problems that arise. This gives the story and characters certain boundaries that are held up throughout.
I recommend this comic to fans of crazy space sagas that span entire universes. Expect the unexpected, you techno-readers!
The Adventures of Tintin (2011) or When Will Spielberg Come Back to Reality
The Adventures of Tintin (2011) promised to make a spectacle out of the old Belgium comics, Tintin. While it was a spectacle, it didn't evoke the same feelings as the comic did.
One of the major flaws is that Spielberg inserted a rather lengthy heavy-handed subplot about the ills of drinking. Captain Haddock, in the comics, is know for his drunkenness. It is oft represents as a character flaw. A character flaw is a personality trait that while sometimes might be helpful, is typically the cause of problems.
Spielberg treats Captain Haddock's drunkenness as a disease; something that needs to be cured to...er...progress the plot, apparently. Like Prohibition, he admonishes Captain Haddock's imbibing of any alcoholic beverages. Not only does this send the wrong message ("alcohol is evil" - because life is that simple?), not only is it rather inappropriate for a light-hearted family movie, not only does it upset the pacing of the movie, but it is also flies in the face of the spirit of the comics. As a drinker myself I found the anti-drinking propagandic attitudes highly offensive.
The CGI animation is wildly inconsistent. There is a constant fluctuation between cartoonish and realistic. You witness absurdly large noses right under highly realistic eyes. Tintin looks like a young man transformed into CGI and Snowy looks like a carpet. Is this a realistic film or a cartoon? Make up your mind!
Would I recommend this movie to anyone? No. Read the comics; they are a thousand times better.
One of the major flaws is that Spielberg inserted a rather lengthy heavy-handed subplot about the ills of drinking. Captain Haddock, in the comics, is know for his drunkenness. It is oft represents as a character flaw. A character flaw is a personality trait that while sometimes might be helpful, is typically the cause of problems.
Spielberg treats Captain Haddock's drunkenness as a disease; something that needs to be cured to...er...progress the plot, apparently. Like Prohibition, he admonishes Captain Haddock's imbibing of any alcoholic beverages. Not only does this send the wrong message ("alcohol is evil" - because life is that simple?), not only is it rather inappropriate for a light-hearted family movie, not only does it upset the pacing of the movie, but it is also flies in the face of the spirit of the comics. As a drinker myself I found the anti-drinking propagandic attitudes highly offensive.
The CGI animation is wildly inconsistent. There is a constant fluctuation between cartoonish and realistic. You witness absurdly large noses right under highly realistic eyes. Tintin looks like a young man transformed into CGI and Snowy looks like a carpet. Is this a realistic film or a cartoon? Make up your mind!
Would I recommend this movie to anyone? No. Read the comics; they are a thousand times better.
Cabin in the Woods (2012) - Meta-Scaaarrryy!!
There is a reviewer who commented that this film is difficult to analyze without revealing spoilers. I thoroughly agree with this reviewer, so this may be very short.
As a fan of horror films, this film greatly appealed to me. Its production value and quality of filmmaking are higher than most horror films. Plus the actors do a fantastic job.
While one might feel the need to know more before plopping down in front of this film, I would recommend limited knowledge, for the first view, to enhance te reveal(s).
Because this film is very clever, I believe fans of horror films will be able to take something more away from this film than your average viewer. But the film is self-contained and well-crafted; if it's a subject matter you're interested in, you will enjoy this film.
As a fan of horror films, this film greatly appealed to me. Its production value and quality of filmmaking are higher than most horror films. Plus the actors do a fantastic job.
While one might feel the need to know more before plopping down in front of this film, I would recommend limited knowledge, for the first view, to enhance te reveal(s).
Because this film is very clever, I believe fans of horror films will be able to take something more away from this film than your average viewer. But the film is self-contained and well-crafted; if it's a subject matter you're interested in, you will enjoy this film.
Wednesday, April 25, 2012
Southland Tales - bored....still bored
While it's not uncommon nowadays for a movie to be 2 1/2 hours long, it does not mean that such a length is necessary or even good. But the length of Southland Tales isn't the biggest problem; it's simply a symptom of the real problem.
A narrator, in movies, typically adds redudnacies or elements the creator failed to include; it should be avoided if at all possible. Still the narrative in Southland Tales isn't the problem, but another symptom.
In order to have well-rounded characters, a movie needs to have multiple scenes in which the characters are confronted with a dilema(s) and find solutions. Ideally the principle characters try different solutions (in various scenes) before they arrive at a "satisfactory" solution. Since the characters only have stereo-typical personalities and no character development, one might think that this is the problem with Southland Tales: symptom.
When handling a future or near-future movie, it is ideal to fill the viewer in as quickly as possible with little exposition; the viewer should be able to lose him/herself in the story. While Southland Tales avoids exposition for the most part, the movie is confusing enough to draw the viewer out of the movie, to ask "what is going on?".
True science fiction stories have a foundation in science before "jumping the shark" into fiction. Done well, a non-scientist will suspend disbelief and accept the events that play out before him/her. Although a science fiction story, like Southland Tales, that is not founded in science will quickly become a farce, a joke. When even the non-scientist says to him/herself, "Wait. That doesn't make any sense...at all.", then the mood/the emotions/the interest is lost.
All these symptoms are not the real problem; the real problem is......um........huh, I guess they are, actually.
There's not really anything good to complement this movie on....er, the production value is good? there's music by Moby? (yea, yea, I know, that doesn't count as good) there's a lot of good actors (with terrible to no roles to perform)?
OH! I know.
Seeing Sarah Michelle Gellar as a (typical) porn star was very arousing (even with no nudity).
Pass on this movie, unless you are literally trying to kill two and a half hours.
A narrator, in movies, typically adds redudnacies or elements the creator failed to include; it should be avoided if at all possible. Still the narrative in Southland Tales isn't the problem, but another symptom.
In order to have well-rounded characters, a movie needs to have multiple scenes in which the characters are confronted with a dilema(s) and find solutions. Ideally the principle characters try different solutions (in various scenes) before they arrive at a "satisfactory" solution. Since the characters only have stereo-typical personalities and no character development, one might think that this is the problem with Southland Tales: symptom.
When handling a future or near-future movie, it is ideal to fill the viewer in as quickly as possible with little exposition; the viewer should be able to lose him/herself in the story. While Southland Tales avoids exposition for the most part, the movie is confusing enough to draw the viewer out of the movie, to ask "what is going on?".
True science fiction stories have a foundation in science before "jumping the shark" into fiction. Done well, a non-scientist will suspend disbelief and accept the events that play out before him/her. Although a science fiction story, like Southland Tales, that is not founded in science will quickly become a farce, a joke. When even the non-scientist says to him/herself, "Wait. That doesn't make any sense...at all.", then the mood/the emotions/the interest is lost.
All these symptoms are not the real problem; the real problem is......um........huh, I guess they are, actually.
There's not really anything good to complement this movie on....er, the production value is good? there's music by Moby? (yea, yea, I know, that doesn't count as good) there's a lot of good actors (with terrible to no roles to perform)?
OH! I know.
Seeing Sarah Michelle Gellar as a (typical) porn star was very arousing (even with no nudity).
Pass on this movie, unless you are literally trying to kill two and a half hours.
Sunday, April 22, 2012
The Hangover Part 2 deja vu
What can I say? The Hangover Part 2 is much like the first one. The lead characters piece together the insanity of the previous night, while searching for one of their friends. The jokes are new, but the story is only slightly different.
This movie doesn't bring a new dynamic to the story or the structure...in some ways it is an example of Hollywood's "obsession" with re-creating previous media (books, comics, video games, cartoons, tv shows...now 2 year-old films?).
Although this movie may just follow in the Hollywood tradition of not-breaking-a-formula-that-is-successful. Similarly Die Hard 2 is the same story as Die Hard, with new actions scenes and catch-phrases. However Die Hard 3 broke this mold, so it is certianly possible for the Hangover mythos to create a new original film.
In summary if you enjoyed the first one, you'll enjoy this one too.
This movie doesn't bring a new dynamic to the story or the structure...in some ways it is an example of Hollywood's "obsession" with re-creating previous media (books, comics, video games, cartoons, tv shows...now 2 year-old films?).
Although this movie may just follow in the Hollywood tradition of not-breaking-a-formula-that-is-successful. Similarly Die Hard 2 is the same story as Die Hard, with new actions scenes and catch-phrases. However Die Hard 3 broke this mold, so it is certianly possible for the Hangover mythos to create a new original film.
In summary if you enjoyed the first one, you'll enjoy this one too.
Saturday, April 21, 2012
The Thing 2011 - Eh, its a thing.
The Thing (2011) tells the tale of the Swedes ("I think they're Norwegians, Jack.") and the events that lead up to John Carpenter's The Thing (1982). While the film has many of the same tropes as the 1982 film, it goes out of its way to never do the exact same thing.
So is the film entertaining? Not so much. It's not irritating or poorly made. Unfortunately the characters are not very interesting. First there's too many, and second too many are similar. There's really no one to get behind, to empathize with. They attempt to make the female scientist the focus of the film, but most of her actions are doing her job....that's not really a personality.
If you want more Thing mythos than you will probably enjoy this film....otherwise, it's not really worth the watch.
So is the film entertaining? Not so much. It's not irritating or poorly made. Unfortunately the characters are not very interesting. First there's too many, and second too many are similar. There's really no one to get behind, to empathize with. They attempt to make the female scientist the focus of the film, but most of her actions are doing her job....that's not really a personality.
If you want more Thing mythos than you will probably enjoy this film....otherwise, it's not really worth the watch.
The Muppets (2011) = the muppets
The 2011 Muppets movie is an enjoyable film. If the Muppets hold a special place in your heart then you will enjoy this film...but it's not brilliant.
Fortunately for a "rebirth" of a story, which Hollywood loves now-a-days whether book or tv show or fart-in-the-wind, this film holds true. The feeling and the emptions are very tru to the original tv show (even more so than the movies).
But it doesn't attempt to improve on them. I believe creativity is a constantly evolving exploration of beauty...could these creators create an awesome Muppet film? Hell Yeah! But they haven't yet.
Not a bad Muppet story, only a mediocre Muppet story...
potential exists....
Fortunately for a "rebirth" of a story, which Hollywood loves now-a-days whether book or tv show or fart-in-the-wind, this film holds true. The feeling and the emptions are very tru to the original tv show (even more so than the movies).
But it doesn't attempt to improve on them. I believe creativity is a constantly evolving exploration of beauty...could these creators create an awesome Muppet film? Hell Yeah! But they haven't yet.
Not a bad Muppet story, only a mediocre Muppet story...
potential exists....
Thursday, April 19, 2012
Vampires Suck SUCKS
As you might suspect from the title Vampires Suck, this 2010 movie is a parody of this new-found teenage vampire genre. Or it ought to have been.
Instead it is Twilight with "jokes" in the various scenes. Having only watched the first two Twilight films and never read any of the books, my knowledge of the specific details in the series is spotty. However I did recognize that the first 5-10 scenes (at the beginning of the "flashback") are exactly the same as the first Twilight film...except with supposed jokes and goofiness. The rest of the film pretty much follows the same format.
This is a massive tragedy as this teenage(-girl) vampire genre has exploded in the last few years. While most of these stories lack any semblance of characterizations or rationality, they often have the exact same set-up (Twilight: teenage schoolgirl "falls in love" with a few-hundred-year-old vampire; True Blood: teenage waitress, with a korean prostitute's name, "falls in love" with a few-hundred-year-old vampire; Vampire Diaries: teenage schoolgirl "falls in love" with a few-hundred-year-old vampire [hell even the original, Buffy TVS was about a teenage schoolgirl who falls in love with a few-hundred-year-old vampire]). Vampires Suck chose to parody ONLY Twilight, by re-hashing the same plot as Twilight. This lacks imagination, creativity, and hell, humor too. This idea, teenage(-girl) vampire genre parody, has so much potential, and they just blew it.
Ultimately it was a waste of time. I do not recommend this to anyone.
Instead it is Twilight with "jokes" in the various scenes. Having only watched the first two Twilight films and never read any of the books, my knowledge of the specific details in the series is spotty. However I did recognize that the first 5-10 scenes (at the beginning of the "flashback") are exactly the same as the first Twilight film...except with supposed jokes and goofiness. The rest of the film pretty much follows the same format.
This is a massive tragedy as this teenage(-girl) vampire genre has exploded in the last few years. While most of these stories lack any semblance of characterizations or rationality, they often have the exact same set-up (Twilight: teenage schoolgirl "falls in love" with a few-hundred-year-old vampire; True Blood: teenage waitress, with a korean prostitute's name, "falls in love" with a few-hundred-year-old vampire; Vampire Diaries: teenage schoolgirl "falls in love" with a few-hundred-year-old vampire [hell even the original, Buffy TVS was about a teenage schoolgirl who falls in love with a few-hundred-year-old vampire]). Vampires Suck chose to parody ONLY Twilight, by re-hashing the same plot as Twilight. This lacks imagination, creativity, and hell, humor too. This idea, teenage(-girl) vampire genre parody, has so much potential, and they just blew it.
Ultimately it was a waste of time. I do not recommend this to anyone.
Tuesday, April 17, 2012
Hellevator: "The Bottled Fools"
Hellevator deals with a small group of people trapped in an elevator in dystopic reality. There is a "bureau" who controls everything and ensures peace/order.
Given its production values, the story is excellent. Otherwise the story is interesting with a few twists.
Fortunately the characters are strong and well developed. While some of the elements are left un-resolved in an attempt to create ambiguity (like Bladerunner), there is enough meat that the story remains interesting and surprising.
3 1/2 Stars, which would mean 3 stars Netflix-rating. Neat film with cool sci-fi aspects, but you don't need to run out and grab it immediately.
Given its production values, the story is excellent. Otherwise the story is interesting with a few twists.
Fortunately the characters are strong and well developed. While some of the elements are left un-resolved in an attempt to create ambiguity (like Bladerunner), there is enough meat that the story remains interesting and surprising.
3 1/2 Stars, which would mean 3 stars Netflix-rating. Neat film with cool sci-fi aspects, but you don't need to run out and grab it immediately.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)