This is definitely one of the more inconsequential Woody Allen films. And really, its successfully entertaining only about 1/2 the time. It basically follows four unrelated sets of characters (Alec Baldwin/Jesse Eisenberg, Roberto Benigni, Woody himself, and Penelope Cruz/some italian actors I can't bother to look up) around Rome engaging in vaguely whimsical behavior. Only two sets of stories (Baldwin & Woody) work, and the Benigni story line is particularly tiresome (yes we get it, people are famous now just for being famous). Had Woody chopped the two extraneous plots, and just focused on the first two this would have been a nice tight little comedy. As it is the whole thing ends up feeling bloated. That said, the guy still throws off interesting dialogue like nobody else, and there's enough going on in the good 1/2 to keep me interested. No doubt its inconsequential, and not something I'll be revisiting any time soon, but hey I'd rather have a minor Woody Allen film than another generic romantic comedy.
Tuesday, July 24, 2012
Friday, July 20, 2012
Ted/The Dark Knight Rises
Ted
I had more thoughts about this when I say it a few weeks ago, but now I really don't care. It's not great, but I laughed more than a few times, and its better than I thought it would be given how lazy family guy became after the third season. There's no real reason to seek it out, but you could do worse if it shows up on a plane (one with individual players, not the edited common screen. Taking the profanity out of this film sort of kills half the jokes. Seeing a teddy bear say frak isn't as funny).
The Dark Knight Rises
Its pretty much impossible to evaluate this in a vacuum. Its a follow up to arguably the greatest super hero film of all time, and has to tie up this Batman trilogy in a satisfactory manner. Not falling on their face would have been an achievement, and in general they didn't. The best decision was not trying to replicate the Joker. They weren't going to recapture that live-wire energy, and sense of anarchic danger, so it was the smart call not to even try. The new main villain, Bane, isn't as memorable but he's sufficiently threatening and destructive to represent a real threat. His plan is a little too similar to the second film, and there are a few logical holes, but overall his story line works.
Other than that, the performances are good, and the new characters don't feel too forced (though the way the Batman/Catwoman relationship resolved did feel a little arbitrary). Also I think they did as good as job as the ending as could be expected, given the requirements of the genre (the 'twist' for Joseph Gordon Levitt's character was kind of cheesy though).
In short its good. Probably not as good as the second film, but a solid ending to the trilogy. I don't really want to compare it to the Marvel universe, since those are essentially lighter and goofier. The batman films definitely have weightier themes they try to use the stories to comment on (even if they often are a little too heavy handed and on the nose with the speechifying), which means they're probably 'better' than the Marvel stuff. However this also means I'm probably less likely to re-watch them if they pop up randomly on basic cable (because I'm shallow you see) if that makes any sense. Whatever, see The Dark Knight Rises, its worth supporting the conclusion to one of the more ambitious studio-franchise efforts in recent memory.
I had more thoughts about this when I say it a few weeks ago, but now I really don't care. It's not great, but I laughed more than a few times, and its better than I thought it would be given how lazy family guy became after the third season. There's no real reason to seek it out, but you could do worse if it shows up on a plane (one with individual players, not the edited common screen. Taking the profanity out of this film sort of kills half the jokes. Seeing a teddy bear say frak isn't as funny).
The Dark Knight Rises
Its pretty much impossible to evaluate this in a vacuum. Its a follow up to arguably the greatest super hero film of all time, and has to tie up this Batman trilogy in a satisfactory manner. Not falling on their face would have been an achievement, and in general they didn't. The best decision was not trying to replicate the Joker. They weren't going to recapture that live-wire energy, and sense of anarchic danger, so it was the smart call not to even try. The new main villain, Bane, isn't as memorable but he's sufficiently threatening and destructive to represent a real threat. His plan is a little too similar to the second film, and there are a few logical holes, but overall his story line works.
Other than that, the performances are good, and the new characters don't feel too forced (though the way the Batman/Catwoman relationship resolved did feel a little arbitrary). Also I think they did as good as job as the ending as could be expected, given the requirements of the genre (the 'twist' for Joseph Gordon Levitt's character was kind of cheesy though).
In short its good. Probably not as good as the second film, but a solid ending to the trilogy. I don't really want to compare it to the Marvel universe, since those are essentially lighter and goofier. The batman films definitely have weightier themes they try to use the stories to comment on (even if they often are a little too heavy handed and on the nose with the speechifying), which means they're probably 'better' than the Marvel stuff. However this also means I'm probably less likely to re-watch them if they pop up randomly on basic cable (because I'm shallow you see) if that makes any sense. Whatever, see The Dark Knight Rises, its worth supporting the conclusion to one of the more ambitious studio-franchise efforts in recent memory.
Wednesday, July 4, 2012
Magic Mike
I think I said something similiar in my review of Haywire, but I'm utterly convinced Steven Soderbergh is just screwing with us now. Basically it feels like he wakes up in the morning and thinks 'What concept can I base a film around that will on the surface sound ridiculous, but because I'm so awesome it'll work.'
Lets look at his filmography since his last 'conventional' hollywood film Oceans 13:
Che - a five plus hour two part epic about a latin american revolutionary, which from all accounts has very little action
The Girlfriend Experience - A film about a high class escort, starring a porn star, that features no sex and is really an allegory for post financial crisis economy.
The Informant - take a pretty dry story about price-fixing in the corn syrup market and turn it into a madcap farce
The last time i saw michael gregg - haven't seen it, haven't heard of it
Contagion - A pandemic film treated as almost a documentary, whose main bit of marketing was hyping the fact that Gwenyth Paltrow dies in first reel.
Haywire - An action film completely carried by a MMA star.
All of these films were at least compelling, and some even were elevated by his self-imposed constraints. So now we come to Magic Mike. A film about male strippers based star Channing Tatum's real life experiences. Sounds nuts right? Of course I had to see it.
Anyway its actually pretty good. Soderbergh makes the smart choice of playing everything straight, and treating the male stripping game like any other job. The sort of ridiculousness of the situation is acknowledged, but not dwelt upon, and everything is dealt with in a very matter of fact manner. The film is a little long, and the drug detour at then end could have been expunged, but I'd say the film definitely deserves most of the praise and success its been getting.
But that's all secondary. There is one giant reason to see this - the McConaughey. He plays the strip club owner Dallas, and never before has there been a more perfect union of actor and character. He's amazing. There's some bongos, call backs to Dazed and Confused, and the sort of smarmy charm that he's known for. The character has a bust of himself in his house, and spends most of the movie shirtless and smirking. I'm really not doing it justice.
There's this:
And this:
And oh yeah, this:
Seriously, every time he's on screen I was just smiling like an idiot. This man deserves a Best Supporting Actor nod. You think I'm kidding.
One other thing. I saw the film in a 90% full theater, most of which was composed of groups of 3 and 4 women. Who were not there for the economic subtext in the film. The row behind me was half in the bag before it even started. Definitely an interesting viewing experience.
Update: Forgot to mention this in the original post, but there is one element of the film I need to discuss. This is going to be me going into accounting nerd out mode just to warn you. So Channing Tatum's Magic Mike is stripping and working a bunch of other jobs to get enough funding to start a custom furniture business (this actually plays less ridiculous than it sounds). He's actually saved up a nice chuck of change (about 13 grand), which he wants to use as collateral to get a small business loan from a bank. Only the bank won't give him a loan since he doesn't have any credit history. While the film wants you to feel like he's getting screwed, I can't help but figure this is a little self-inflicted. Basically rather than keeping all the cash in, I don't know, a bank account, he has it all in a wall safe in his house. Now I get that maybe he wants to avoid the taxes, but by not establishing his net worth in a verifiable account, and filing accurate tax returns, he's obviously going to reduce the chances of getting a loan. He should have been depositing everything, generating financial statements, making business purchases with credit cards, and filing accurate tax returns. This would increase his odds of getting a loan since it would not only increase his credit score, but establish his ability to pay in a manner more substantial than "Hey I got a bunch of singles in house, give me a loan." I'm just saying.
Lets look at his filmography since his last 'conventional' hollywood film Oceans 13:
Che - a five plus hour two part epic about a latin american revolutionary, which from all accounts has very little action
The Girlfriend Experience - A film about a high class escort, starring a porn star, that features no sex and is really an allegory for post financial crisis economy.
The Informant - take a pretty dry story about price-fixing in the corn syrup market and turn it into a madcap farce
The last time i saw michael gregg - haven't seen it, haven't heard of it
Contagion - A pandemic film treated as almost a documentary, whose main bit of marketing was hyping the fact that Gwenyth Paltrow dies in first reel.
Haywire - An action film completely carried by a MMA star.
All of these films were at least compelling, and some even were elevated by his self-imposed constraints. So now we come to Magic Mike. A film about male strippers based star Channing Tatum's real life experiences. Sounds nuts right? Of course I had to see it.
Anyway its actually pretty good. Soderbergh makes the smart choice of playing everything straight, and treating the male stripping game like any other job. The sort of ridiculousness of the situation is acknowledged, but not dwelt upon, and everything is dealt with in a very matter of fact manner. The film is a little long, and the drug detour at then end could have been expunged, but I'd say the film definitely deserves most of the praise and success its been getting.
But that's all secondary. There is one giant reason to see this - the McConaughey. He plays the strip club owner Dallas, and never before has there been a more perfect union of actor and character. He's amazing. There's some bongos, call backs to Dazed and Confused, and the sort of smarmy charm that he's known for. The character has a bust of himself in his house, and spends most of the movie shirtless and smirking. I'm really not doing it justice.
There's this:
And this:
And oh yeah, this:
One other thing. I saw the film in a 90% full theater, most of which was composed of groups of 3 and 4 women. Who were not there for the economic subtext in the film. The row behind me was half in the bag before it even started. Definitely an interesting viewing experience.
Update: Forgot to mention this in the original post, but there is one element of the film I need to discuss. This is going to be me going into accounting nerd out mode just to warn you. So Channing Tatum's Magic Mike is stripping and working a bunch of other jobs to get enough funding to start a custom furniture business (this actually plays less ridiculous than it sounds). He's actually saved up a nice chuck of change (about 13 grand), which he wants to use as collateral to get a small business loan from a bank. Only the bank won't give him a loan since he doesn't have any credit history. While the film wants you to feel like he's getting screwed, I can't help but figure this is a little self-inflicted. Basically rather than keeping all the cash in, I don't know, a bank account, he has it all in a wall safe in his house. Now I get that maybe he wants to avoid the taxes, but by not establishing his net worth in a verifiable account, and filing accurate tax returns, he's obviously going to reduce the chances of getting a loan. He should have been depositing everything, generating financial statements, making business purchases with credit cards, and filing accurate tax returns. This would increase his odds of getting a loan since it would not only increase his credit score, but establish his ability to pay in a manner more substantial than "Hey I got a bunch of singles in house, give me a loan." I'm just saying.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)