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?
Saturday, August 25, 2012
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)