Showing posts with label DVD. Show all posts
Showing posts with label DVD. Show all posts
Saturday, February 13, 2010
The TV Set
I really wanted to like this movie. The director/writer (Jake Kasdan) and cast (David Duchovny, Sigourney Weaver, Ioan Gruffud, and Fran Kranz) have all done work that I've enjoyed in the past, and the premise of showing the absurdity of the Hollywood television production process should have been incredibly fertile comedic territory. Unfortunately the film's tonal inconsistency end up killing any comic momentum it generates and, at times, make the already lean running time drag considerably. The story veers back and forth from trying to show how the entertainment industry can destroy your creativity and personal life, and just being a straight up parody of the hollywood. As is so often the case when a film can't decide what it is, the two tones end up cancelling each other out and, in the case of The TV Set, the film ends up being just as broad as the target of its satire. The other big problem is that the TV show being produced isn't that good, even before network interference 'ruins' the writer's creative vision, and as a result its tough to get too indignant when things start going off the rail. I realize that the film may be doing some kind of meta-commentary, and I'm just too dumb to appreciate it, but whatever. I don't have time to think about it anymore, and there's still allot of stack to work through.
Friday, February 5, 2010
The Rocker
The stack has gotten ridiculous. I've written about the stack before. It was staying at manageable levels but then the Blockbuster in Santa Monica went out of business, had a $1.99 DVD sale, and I wasn't able to completely help myself. I limited myself to 10 (though I'm still kicking myself to not picking up poison Ivy's 4-6), which doesn't sound bad but add in a few TV series I've picked up, as well as the existing stack (which wasn't insubstantial), and the underside of my coffee could program TBS for the weekend. Anyway The Rocker is my first foray into reducing the stack (I've also promised to refrain from buying cheap used DVD's for awhile-sure. It could happen). Why did I buy it? Well it starred Rainn Wilson as a drummer, and did I mention $1.99 DVD's?
Anyway the The Rocker starts with Fish (Wilson) being get kicked out of a Metallica/Motley Crue/Poison-esque band called Vesuvius in 1986 so the record label head's kid could play for them instead. He spends the next twenty years working dead end jobs until he gets asked to play the prom with his nephew's band, which is fronted by a suitably brooding high school senior with daddy issues. Fish ends of becoming an internet sensation when footage of him playng drums naked (don't ask) gets posted to youtube, the band gets signed to a label and becomes a big sensation in about three months (if only it were that easy). Their success leads to their being asked to open for Vesuvius at the rock and roll hall of fame and of course Fish has to confront all his demons, but they all learn a lesson, and whatever. The plot is pretty much what you would expect, and while I would hesitate calling The Rocker good, I did laugh a fair amount of times and even though it was about ten minutes too long the whole thing moved along in a fairly satisfactory manner. It's probably worth checking out when it inevitably ends up in heavy rotation on Comedy Central.
A Few more thoughts:
-The film has some tonal consistency issues as it veers between being an outright parody and a more conventional comedic film. Since Spinal Tap is already the definitive satire of hair metal specifically, and the music industry in general, any other film that tries to do it will fall short. (Though Will Arnett was pretty funny as the David Lee Roth-esque lead singer of Vesuvius)
-Speaking of Arnett the supporting cast in this film is loaded. Besides Arnett it has Bradley Cooper, Fred Arminsen, Arniz Anzari, Jeff Garlin, Jane Lynch and even an appearance by Lester from Chuck. Most of them are pretty heavily underutilized, but still, they're always nice to see.
-The films biggest flaw is that it leans a bit heavily on 'hit in the crotch' jokes. These don't just include ball shots, but can include variations like getting hit in the head, having bugs fly in your mouth, etc. Look I like a good cup check as much as the next guy, but any time you go to the well more than twice it just shows a lack of imagination (especially since Idiocracy made the definitive crotch joke with 'Ouch My Balls'). Hell they could have gotten rid of ten minutes easy if they just cut the number of times Fish falls or gets hit in half.
-The drumming in it actually doesn't look too bad except that Wilson's grip looks more like someone clubbing a seal than actual drumming (of course given the genre that may be right). On a related note the songs written for the movie are also decent (again still not as good as Spinal Tap), though writing stuff that sounds vaguely like third eye blind isn't the most difficult task in the world. (I do have to give them some extra points for turning 'In Your Eyes' into an extended drum solo)
-The other thing I want to give the film credit for is that even though there were a lot of cliches they avoided the two biggest ones: i) the lead singer's dad didn't see him perform and come back and ii) Wilson didn't end up hooking up with Christina Applegate. That was nice.
Anyway the The Rocker starts with Fish (Wilson) being get kicked out of a Metallica/Motley Crue/Poison-esque band called Vesuvius in 1986 so the record label head's kid could play for them instead. He spends the next twenty years working dead end jobs until he gets asked to play the prom with his nephew's band, which is fronted by a suitably brooding high school senior with daddy issues. Fish ends of becoming an internet sensation when footage of him playng drums naked (don't ask) gets posted to youtube, the band gets signed to a label and becomes a big sensation in about three months (if only it were that easy). Their success leads to their being asked to open for Vesuvius at the rock and roll hall of fame and of course Fish has to confront all his demons, but they all learn a lesson, and whatever. The plot is pretty much what you would expect, and while I would hesitate calling The Rocker good, I did laugh a fair amount of times and even though it was about ten minutes too long the whole thing moved along in a fairly satisfactory manner. It's probably worth checking out when it inevitably ends up in heavy rotation on Comedy Central.
A Few more thoughts:
-The film has some tonal consistency issues as it veers between being an outright parody and a more conventional comedic film. Since Spinal Tap is already the definitive satire of hair metal specifically, and the music industry in general, any other film that tries to do it will fall short. (Though Will Arnett was pretty funny as the David Lee Roth-esque lead singer of Vesuvius)
-Speaking of Arnett the supporting cast in this film is loaded. Besides Arnett it has Bradley Cooper, Fred Arminsen, Arniz Anzari, Jeff Garlin, Jane Lynch and even an appearance by Lester from Chuck. Most of them are pretty heavily underutilized, but still, they're always nice to see.
-The films biggest flaw is that it leans a bit heavily on 'hit in the crotch' jokes. These don't just include ball shots, but can include variations like getting hit in the head, having bugs fly in your mouth, etc. Look I like a good cup check as much as the next guy, but any time you go to the well more than twice it just shows a lack of imagination (especially since Idiocracy made the definitive crotch joke with 'Ouch My Balls'). Hell they could have gotten rid of ten minutes easy if they just cut the number of times Fish falls or gets hit in half.
-The drumming in it actually doesn't look too bad except that Wilson's grip looks more like someone clubbing a seal than actual drumming (of course given the genre that may be right). On a related note the songs written for the movie are also decent (again still not as good as Spinal Tap), though writing stuff that sounds vaguely like third eye blind isn't the most difficult task in the world. (I do have to give them some extra points for turning 'In Your Eyes' into an extended drum solo)
-The other thing I want to give the film credit for is that even though there were a lot of cliches they avoided the two biggest ones: i) the lead singer's dad didn't see him perform and come back and ii) Wilson didn't end up hooking up with Christina Applegate. That was nice.
Sunday, October 25, 2009
Celebrity
I can conservatively be called a huge Woody Allen fan. I think Crimes & Misdemeanors, Manhattan, and Sweet & Lowdown are three of my favorite films. Even his lessor works (Scoop, Mighty Aphrodite, Hollywood Ending) have enough intriguing elements to keep me involved. The man can flat out write, and just listening to his dialogue is, usually, enough to keep me engaged for hours. Never before have I ever watched one of his films without feeling like I got something out of it - that changed with Celebrity. Really this was a complete and utter misfire in every way. Nothing worked. The satire felt flat and completely devoid of any reality, there were subplots that didn't seem to have any point, and none of the characters engaged me on any level. Really the entire thing felt like a satire of Woody Allen films made by someone who hates him.
Look the man averages a film every other year, so the quality is bound to fluctuate. =In a way I glad he got everything that didn't work into this one film rather than making a string of duds. That said until last night I could confidently say that even bad Woody Allen is better than 90% of all the other stuff that comes out and I'll miss being able to be that pretentious.
Look the man averages a film every other year, so the quality is bound to fluctuate. =In a way I glad he got everything that didn't work into this one film rather than making a string of duds. That said until last night I could confidently say that even bad Woody Allen is better than 90% of all the other stuff that comes out and I'll miss being able to be that pretentious.
Saturday, September 19, 2009
Crank
After my much professed love for Crank 2 I realized there was no possible way that I could go without seeing its forebearer. I even ended up making a spur of the moment four for twenty purchase after seeing it in the Blockbuster used rack (this unfortunately also resulted in me picking up the putrid Aeon Flux to fill out the four). Anyway for Crank's sake I wish I would have watched it before seeing the sequel. Don't get me wrong Crank is entertaining but it just doesn't compare to the inspired insanity of its successor. It would be akin to seeing Godfather II before the Godfather, Toy Story II before Toy Story, Army of Darkness before Evil Dead, or Leprechaun 5: Leprechaun in the Hood before Leprechaun - the earlier films all have there charms, and may be in themselves fine works, but if you've first seen the genius of their successors there's no way that they can't feel but a little disappointing. They were all necessary to let the filmmakers start developing ideas, but the sequels are where the true genius inherent in the stories is manifested.
In the case of Crank too much time is spent developing plot and character motivation. This is a film about a guy trying to stay alive by stimulating adrenaline production in his body through increasingly crazy acts. I think we can all safely say that no more motivation is needed. Crank 2 wisely ignores this and just concentrates on ratcheting up the insanity until it approaches a surrealistic masterpiece. I am glad I saw Crank as it increased my appreciation of the inspired sociopathic nature in Crank 2 as well my admiration of its creators' maturation.
Note: I am very jealous of Jason Statham's ability to grow a heroic five o'clock shadow. The best I can do is grow in some scraggly looking hippy beard (and you better believe that I do), but I feel like if I could such impressive looking facial hair my street cred would go up exponentially, and I might quite possibly approach competence as a dresser and a lover.
In the case of Crank too much time is spent developing plot and character motivation. This is a film about a guy trying to stay alive by stimulating adrenaline production in his body through increasingly crazy acts. I think we can all safely say that no more motivation is needed. Crank 2 wisely ignores this and just concentrates on ratcheting up the insanity until it approaches a surrealistic masterpiece. I am glad I saw Crank as it increased my appreciation of the inspired sociopathic nature in Crank 2 as well my admiration of its creators' maturation.
Note: I am very jealous of Jason Statham's ability to grow a heroic five o'clock shadow. The best I can do is grow in some scraggly looking hippy beard (and you better believe that I do), but I feel like if I could such impressive looking facial hair my street cred would go up exponentially, and I might quite possibly approach competence as a dresser and a lover.
Saturday, July 25, 2009
In The Valley of Elah
In the Valley of Elah desperately wants to be a weighty and important film. You can see the effort being expended as it tries to show how war changes soldiers, and that it can lead them commit horrible acts when they return unable to adjust to everyday life after everything they've seen. The problem is the harder it worked bang this point home the less I cared. Oh the film is reasonably well done, Tommy Lee Jones would be entertaining reading a phone book, and Charlize Theron (in full on uglied up mode to really ram home that this is a 'serious' movie) is usually competent. The problem is that the film isn't content with letting the story speak for itself, no it wants to bludgeon you to death with its themes to make sure everything sinks in. Want to show that Tommy Lee Jones' character still has all his former military training internalized? Why not showing making the hotel bed just like a military bunk three different times. Want to show that crazy things happen to soldiers' minds when they go back to war? Don't just have Jones' character's son be possibly murdered and chopped up in a fit of blind rage by his unit buddies, throw in another unrelated soldier who drowns his doberman then murders his wife and leaves her in the bathtub so Theron can cry while holding her hand. You get the idea. Throw in a huge dose of Jones' character going Encyclopedia Brown on the local police force while they investigate his son's death (seriously the entire film involves him walking up to a scene and in five minutes saying exactly what happened) and the whole thing just became overwhelmingly pedantic and tiresome. Its too bad because I think there's a good idea for film buried in there, unfortunately the filmmakers were too concerned with making sure that everyone watching understand what important points they were making about the human condition that they killed any real human emotion that the story could have possessed.
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
Surfer, Dude
Before getting into why this is a deceptively good film, let's go through a brief run down of the plot. Surfer comes home to Malibu after having been abroad for a few years. He find sout that his contract has been sold to a corporation that wants him to star in a reality show about surfing. Surfer just wants to surf and smoke pot, but all the waves disappear and he goes months without surfing. Finally he stands up to the big corporation, the waves come back, and all is right in the world.
Sounds unbearable and derivative right? Normally I would agree but the film largely succeeds as a low key affable comedy mainly due to the strength of its star Matthew McConaughy. Now I know big Mac gets a lot of crap for playing the same character in every film, and making a lot of sub par films, but you know what? I don't care. He's one of the few actors that always brings a smile to my face whenever I see him on screen (though I've made a concerted effort to avoid his romantic comedies), and he always seems like he's enjoying himself which I can appreciate. He spends the entire runtime of this film wearing the same pair of boardshorts (with the exception of the one scene where he is naked and playing a didgeridoo on his porch) and not once did I become annoyed. I think if anybody else was playing the role I would have given up halfway through but McConaughy can play the laid-back likeable stoner like nobody else. Who cares if its just the Wooderson character from Dazed and Confused, that was a great character. Adam Sandler essentially plays the same role in all his films too and he's way more annoying.
The film also has fun supporting turns by Woody Harrelson (stoned manager - granted not much of a stretch), Willie Nelson (stoned sheep farmer - ditto) and Scott Glenn (stoned former surfer now living in Mexico), which contribute to Surfer, Dude's (the comma is important) deceptively endearing vibe. Of course its not great cinema in the classical sense but I can definitely say I enjoyed watching it more than almost anything else I've seen recently (Angels and Demons I'm looking at you).
Sounds unbearable and derivative right? Normally I would agree but the film largely succeeds as a low key affable comedy mainly due to the strength of its star Matthew McConaughy. Now I know big Mac gets a lot of crap for playing the same character in every film, and making a lot of sub par films, but you know what? I don't care. He's one of the few actors that always brings a smile to my face whenever I see him on screen (though I've made a concerted effort to avoid his romantic comedies), and he always seems like he's enjoying himself which I can appreciate. He spends the entire runtime of this film wearing the same pair of boardshorts (with the exception of the one scene where he is naked and playing a didgeridoo on his porch) and not once did I become annoyed. I think if anybody else was playing the role I would have given up halfway through but McConaughy can play the laid-back likeable stoner like nobody else. Who cares if its just the Wooderson character from Dazed and Confused, that was a great character. Adam Sandler essentially plays the same role in all his films too and he's way more annoying.
The film also has fun supporting turns by Woody Harrelson (stoned manager - granted not much of a stretch), Willie Nelson (stoned sheep farmer - ditto) and Scott Glenn (stoned former surfer now living in Mexico), which contribute to Surfer, Dude's (the comma is important) deceptively endearing vibe. Of course its not great cinema in the classical sense but I can definitely say I enjoyed watching it more than almost anything else I've seen recently (Angels and Demons I'm looking at you).
Sunday, June 7, 2009
Twilight
There's a Blockbuster a block away from my apartment and about once a month they do a four for $20 DVD sale. I am unable to pass this up even though the inevitable time crunch happens and I have stacks of unwatched DVD's sitting around (a good portion of which are some random titles that I picked up to fill up my four). This is one step in a continual effort to get through the monstrosity.
Okay just bear with me. I figured I should at least give this a chance and see if all the hype was warranted for two reasons. One, I don't mind vampire stories. Blade II was bad-ass, and Buffy and Angel were two incredibly entertaining TV shows, and heck I even enjoyed Van Helsing (on the other hand just about every other Dracula movie has sucked) so the fact that Twilight mixed vampires with a teen angst drama meant that at the very least the potential for blood and/or unintentional comedy was high. The second reason is something I refer to as the Harry Potter corollary. The last media property that I remember seeing this much hype surrounding was the Potter books, and like Twilight I had absolutely zero interest in having anything to do with them based on the story description (I mean come on a teenage wizard in high school, really?) still after much cajoling by some people whose opinion that I actually respected I gave the books a shot and actually found them to be solidly entertaining. So anyway I figured I'd give Twilight a shot to see if the same phenomenon held (spoiler alert, it didn't).
What I will say for the film is that it was no where near as bad as I though it would be. Given the basic plot description (girl moves to new town, meets handsome brooding boy, he turns out to be a vampire, there's lots of angst) the whole thing sounded like a massive bore at best. Therefore the fact that I found it to be watchable and bordering on mildly entertaining qualifies as an upset. Still the story has one massive flaw (and several smaller ones) that keep it from being a truly engaging film.
Before I get into the criticism (and while I'm not going to turn off the no Mocking sign completely I will try to keep it relatively sane) let me go through a few things I like about the film:
i) Kristen Stewart - She's just one of those actors/actresses that I always find entertaining no matter what they do (like Amy Adams and Matthew McConaughy) which is a good thing here because I think if they had thrown the typical actress du jour (Kate Hudson I'm looking at you) to play what is actually a pretty thinly written part my interest level would have plummeted below its already low levels. Seriously though ever since Into the Wild I think I could watch her do a mentos commercial and be intrigued. This makes her inevitable appearance in whatever the 2013 equivalent of Bride Wars is going to be that much more depressing.
ii) The lack of angst. For a film whose premise could generously be described as Dawson's Crypt (I stole that line but its still funny) it actually restrains from having the typical amount of whining and equivocating you would typically expect from a teen themed film. If anything the characters were too locked into to what they were doing (everybody is ve-ry se-ri-ous), but at least they didn't sit around complaining for the entire two hours (probably just a good twenty minutes)
iii) Some of the vampire's at home stuff was amusing. And while I"m still not sure how I feel about the baseball game, it was at least a different approach to show the undead playing sports.
Anyway now onto the problems. I'm going to try to avoid making the easy jokes about the sub par special effects, and plot holes (this is a film about vampires for gods sake, I can't really spend much too much time complaining about flawed plot logic). The biggest problem is that I don't buy at all the heroine's obsession with her vampire lover boy. Their relationship basically unfolds like this: She sees an overly pale guy with what looks to be five hundred gallons of hair spray on his head. He goes out of his way to avoid her (because he's afraid he won't be able to contain himself), yet at the same time stalks her, plays with her head, and ends up saving her from getting hit by a car. She begins to suspect that there may be something different about this pigmentally challenged aqua-net model (other than the fact that he's apparently a sociopath who can stop cars with his bare hands) and with the help of google (ahh google how would any high school student be able to do any research without you) and a native American bookstore she realizes he's a vampire. My favorite part of this research exercise is when she's on a vampire website with different tabs for information about vampires in the usual places, Egypt, Peru, Europe - and the Pacific Northwest (who knew). Even though she's in Washington she avoids clicking on that tab. You think that might have saved her a few minutes of searching.
Anyway so far so good (or so far so mediocre), she goes to confront Edward (vampire boy) and even after he says that he really really wants to eat her and throws her around a bit, she's like 'I don't care I have an epic love for you so lets rock and roll.' She does this with no thought or equivocation, and the rest of the film involves them trying to find ways to satisfy their love, and it even goes so far as to have Bella ask Edward to bite her so she can stay with him forever (oh spoiler alert). I don't mind the fact that she's willing to go all the way to stay with her vampire boy toy, what I do mind is that the background I just gave is all the justification the film really gives for her obsession. Apparently wearing lots of hair gel, staring broodingly at a chick, threatening to rip out her throat, and generally acting creepy is enough to get a woman to want to join the undead for you. I really need to change my dating strategies.
Normally I wouldn't care that much about the romantic aspects of a vampire film, but since the entire story hinges on the idea that the main characters are so inevitably intertwined that being apart would literally kill them (I guess metaphorically in Edward's case), the fact that the whole relationship seems to be entered into as a plot convenience kept me from having any real involvement with characters, and as a result I didn't really have more than a passing interest in the story. Maybe the book does more to flesh this out, but the film left me with no desire to find out (a damning critique for any film based on a work of literature).
So anyway, Twilight - not as a bad as I thought, but still not that great. I must be getting old.
Okay just bear with me. I figured I should at least give this a chance and see if all the hype was warranted for two reasons. One, I don't mind vampire stories. Blade II was bad-ass, and Buffy and Angel were two incredibly entertaining TV shows, and heck I even enjoyed Van Helsing (on the other hand just about every other Dracula movie has sucked) so the fact that Twilight mixed vampires with a teen angst drama meant that at the very least the potential for blood and/or unintentional comedy was high. The second reason is something I refer to as the Harry Potter corollary. The last media property that I remember seeing this much hype surrounding was the Potter books, and like Twilight I had absolutely zero interest in having anything to do with them based on the story description (I mean come on a teenage wizard in high school, really?) still after much cajoling by some people whose opinion that I actually respected I gave the books a shot and actually found them to be solidly entertaining. So anyway I figured I'd give Twilight a shot to see if the same phenomenon held (spoiler alert, it didn't).
What I will say for the film is that it was no where near as bad as I though it would be. Given the basic plot description (girl moves to new town, meets handsome brooding boy, he turns out to be a vampire, there's lots of angst) the whole thing sounded like a massive bore at best. Therefore the fact that I found it to be watchable and bordering on mildly entertaining qualifies as an upset. Still the story has one massive flaw (and several smaller ones) that keep it from being a truly engaging film.
Before I get into the criticism (and while I'm not going to turn off the no Mocking sign completely I will try to keep it relatively sane) let me go through a few things I like about the film:
i) Kristen Stewart - She's just one of those actors/actresses that I always find entertaining no matter what they do (like Amy Adams and Matthew McConaughy) which is a good thing here because I think if they had thrown the typical actress du jour (Kate Hudson I'm looking at you) to play what is actually a pretty thinly written part my interest level would have plummeted below its already low levels. Seriously though ever since Into the Wild I think I could watch her do a mentos commercial and be intrigued. This makes her inevitable appearance in whatever the 2013 equivalent of Bride Wars is going to be that much more depressing.
ii) The lack of angst. For a film whose premise could generously be described as Dawson's Crypt (I stole that line but its still funny) it actually restrains from having the typical amount of whining and equivocating you would typically expect from a teen themed film. If anything the characters were too locked into to what they were doing (everybody is ve-ry se-ri-ous), but at least they didn't sit around complaining for the entire two hours (probably just a good twenty minutes)
iii) Some of the vampire's at home stuff was amusing. And while I"m still not sure how I feel about the baseball game, it was at least a different approach to show the undead playing sports.
Anyway now onto the problems. I'm going to try to avoid making the easy jokes about the sub par special effects, and plot holes (this is a film about vampires for gods sake, I can't really spend much too much time complaining about flawed plot logic). The biggest problem is that I don't buy at all the heroine's obsession with her vampire lover boy. Their relationship basically unfolds like this: She sees an overly pale guy with what looks to be five hundred gallons of hair spray on his head. He goes out of his way to avoid her (because he's afraid he won't be able to contain himself), yet at the same time stalks her, plays with her head, and ends up saving her from getting hit by a car. She begins to suspect that there may be something different about this pigmentally challenged aqua-net model (other than the fact that he's apparently a sociopath who can stop cars with his bare hands) and with the help of google (ahh google how would any high school student be able to do any research without you) and a native American bookstore she realizes he's a vampire. My favorite part of this research exercise is when she's on a vampire website with different tabs for information about vampires in the usual places, Egypt, Peru, Europe - and the Pacific Northwest (who knew). Even though she's in Washington she avoids clicking on that tab. You think that might have saved her a few minutes of searching.
Anyway so far so good (or so far so mediocre), she goes to confront Edward (vampire boy) and even after he says that he really really wants to eat her and throws her around a bit, she's like 'I don't care I have an epic love for you so lets rock and roll.' She does this with no thought or equivocation, and the rest of the film involves them trying to find ways to satisfy their love, and it even goes so far as to have Bella ask Edward to bite her so she can stay with him forever (oh spoiler alert). I don't mind the fact that she's willing to go all the way to stay with her vampire boy toy, what I do mind is that the background I just gave is all the justification the film really gives for her obsession. Apparently wearing lots of hair gel, staring broodingly at a chick, threatening to rip out her throat, and generally acting creepy is enough to get a woman to want to join the undead for you. I really need to change my dating strategies.
Normally I wouldn't care that much about the romantic aspects of a vampire film, but since the entire story hinges on the idea that the main characters are so inevitably intertwined that being apart would literally kill them (I guess metaphorically in Edward's case), the fact that the whole relationship seems to be entered into as a plot convenience kept me from having any real involvement with characters, and as a result I didn't really have more than a passing interest in the story. Maybe the book does more to flesh this out, but the film left me with no desire to find out (a damning critique for any film based on a work of literature).
So anyway, Twilight - not as a bad as I thought, but still not that great. I must be getting old.
Sunday, May 24, 2009
Doomsday
There's a Blockbuster a block away from my apartment and about once a month they do a four for $20 DVD sale. I am unable to pass this up even though the inevitable time crunch happens and I have stacks of unwatched DVD's sitting around (a good portion of which are some random titles that I picked up to fill up my four). This is one step in a continual effort to get through the monstrosity.
Doomsday combines two genres (post-apocalyptic thriller and man on a mission) that I have an soft spot for. As a result I'm probably predisposed to give it more of a pass than I would, say, a Romantic Comedy or something starring Adam Sandler. Bias aside, its a solid B-Movie (and I mean that in the best sense of the word) that in general delivers what it sets out to do.
The film begins with the aptly named Reaper Virus ripping its way through Scotland. Of course there is no cure so in a drastic measure the government of Great Britain walls of the Scottish border, mines the oceans, and institutes a no fly zone so no one can get in or out, leaving everyone in Scotland to die. However just before all this happens we see a little girl get flown on the last helicopter out of dodge, and then a smash cut to thirty years in the future. It turns out the rest of Britain hasn't been doing so well in the intervening years and is near the breaking point (note to self between this film, Children of Men, and V for Vendetta, I think settling in England may not be the best choice to settle in for the long term). The government has just found out that the reaper virus has reappeared in London, and unless a cure can be found in the next two days they intend flood the infected area to get rid of all traces of the disease. The potential for a cure lies in Scotland where the government has discovered traces of life and, but they need to send a team in to find it. The person chosen to lead said team? Why of course its the little girl from the beginning for the film now embodied in her ass-kicking goodness by an eye patch sporting Rhona Mitra.
And we're off. The team sets out to find the mysterious Doctor Kane (the scientist who was working on the cure when Scotland was walled off) and note that not only are there signs of life but the survivors have separated into two distinct tribes. One, in the cities, is populated by heavily tattooed, mad-max esque, feather haired wild men who have the tendency to eat whoever invades their sanctum. Really its like the crowd from a mid-eighties Flock of Seagulls concert that has been jacked up on crystal meth.
The other tribe, led by the enigmatic Kane, is based out of a castle in the country and have completely modeled themselves on the middle ages (right down to writing on parchment and saying 'thou' all the time). They even have public executions.
This me to a digression. If I've learned anything from movies it's that once society collapses the survivors will break into groups similar to the two above. Therefore assuming that I survive the Apocalypse (which given my raw animal strength, reptilian cunning, and rapier wit is a given) the question becomes which group would I join? The hedonists definitely seem like a lot more fun and not as hung up on things like laws and good behavior. Plus I think I could rock a Mohawk and face tattoos like nobody's business. On the downside I'm not sure I could completely get on board with random acts of cannibalism, and all the chains I'd have to wear around would probably chafe.
The medievalists on the other hand have the advantage of stability, and probably a better health plan (in that I would probably live longer), but given my staggering intellect I would probably be seen as a threat and either be consigned to a kitchen, exiled, or stoned. But on the plus side I would get to wear armor, swing cleavers, and generally act like a character from the castlevania video game.
So the final verdict? Its a tough call, I would probably be able to have a better chance imposing my will on the thunderdome, but live longer with King Arthur. Still the Apocalypse has happened so how long do I really want to live anyway? Mohawk and body ink here I come.
Oh yeah, the film. The rest of the plot is fairly straightforward, and predictable, but so what. I don't watch these films for the intricate plotting. The film delivers several well choreographed action sequences, and one of the more entertaining car chases this side of Blues Brothers. Also while it generally plays everything straight, there are some nice humorous touches (ie. the gift shop sign still being up at the castle) sprinkled throughout that show that the film's makers aren't taking themselves too seriously. Mitra does a nice job playing an Eastwood-esque loner who is badder than anyone else, and her number two is played by the main character from Primary Colors (Adrian Lester) who I'm always happy to see getting work. Basically if you're looking for a high-end B-Movie, with plenty of gore and action you could do worse than this.
Doomsday combines two genres (post-apocalyptic thriller and man on a mission) that I have an soft spot for. As a result I'm probably predisposed to give it more of a pass than I would, say, a Romantic Comedy or something starring Adam Sandler. Bias aside, its a solid B-Movie (and I mean that in the best sense of the word) that in general delivers what it sets out to do.
The film begins with the aptly named Reaper Virus ripping its way through Scotland. Of course there is no cure so in a drastic measure the government of Great Britain walls of the Scottish border, mines the oceans, and institutes a no fly zone so no one can get in or out, leaving everyone in Scotland to die. However just before all this happens we see a little girl get flown on the last helicopter out of dodge, and then a smash cut to thirty years in the future. It turns out the rest of Britain hasn't been doing so well in the intervening years and is near the breaking point (note to self between this film, Children of Men, and V for Vendetta, I think settling in England may not be the best choice to settle in for the long term). The government has just found out that the reaper virus has reappeared in London, and unless a cure can be found in the next two days they intend flood the infected area to get rid of all traces of the disease. The potential for a cure lies in Scotland where the government has discovered traces of life and, but they need to send a team in to find it. The person chosen to lead said team? Why of course its the little girl from the beginning for the film now embodied in her ass-kicking goodness by an eye patch sporting Rhona Mitra.
And we're off. The team sets out to find the mysterious Doctor Kane (the scientist who was working on the cure when Scotland was walled off) and note that not only are there signs of life but the survivors have separated into two distinct tribes. One, in the cities, is populated by heavily tattooed, mad-max esque, feather haired wild men who have the tendency to eat whoever invades their sanctum. Really its like the crowd from a mid-eighties Flock of Seagulls concert that has been jacked up on crystal meth.
The other tribe, led by the enigmatic Kane, is based out of a castle in the country and have completely modeled themselves on the middle ages (right down to writing on parchment and saying 'thou' all the time). They even have public executions.
This me to a digression. If I've learned anything from movies it's that once society collapses the survivors will break into groups similar to the two above. Therefore assuming that I survive the Apocalypse (which given my raw animal strength, reptilian cunning, and rapier wit is a given) the question becomes which group would I join? The hedonists definitely seem like a lot more fun and not as hung up on things like laws and good behavior. Plus I think I could rock a Mohawk and face tattoos like nobody's business. On the downside I'm not sure I could completely get on board with random acts of cannibalism, and all the chains I'd have to wear around would probably chafe.
The medievalists on the other hand have the advantage of stability, and probably a better health plan (in that I would probably live longer), but given my staggering intellect I would probably be seen as a threat and either be consigned to a kitchen, exiled, or stoned. But on the plus side I would get to wear armor, swing cleavers, and generally act like a character from the castlevania video game.
So the final verdict? Its a tough call, I would probably be able to have a better chance imposing my will on the thunderdome, but live longer with King Arthur. Still the Apocalypse has happened so how long do I really want to live anyway? Mohawk and body ink here I come.
Oh yeah, the film. The rest of the plot is fairly straightforward, and predictable, but so what. I don't watch these films for the intricate plotting. The film delivers several well choreographed action sequences, and one of the more entertaining car chases this side of Blues Brothers. Also while it generally plays everything straight, there are some nice humorous touches (ie. the gift shop sign still being up at the castle) sprinkled throughout that show that the film's makers aren't taking themselves too seriously. Mitra does a nice job playing an Eastwood-esque loner who is badder than anyone else, and her number two is played by the main character from Primary Colors (Adrian Lester) who I'm always happy to see getting work. Basically if you're looking for a high-end B-Movie, with plenty of gore and action you could do worse than this.
Monday, May 11, 2009
American Gangster
There's a Blockbuster a block away from my apartment and about once a month they do a four for $20 DVD sale. I am unable to pass this up even though the inevitable time crunch happens and I have stacks of unwatched DVD's sitting around (a good portion of which are some random titles that I picked up to fill up my four). This is one step in a continual effort to get through the monstrosity.
There is a fundamental flaw with this film, but I'm not even sure you can blame the film for it. Before getting into that I want to waste five hundred words talking about other stuff. This story about the rise and fall of drug kingpin Frank Lucas in 1970's New York is an interesting one, and generally makes for a watchable film. However given the talent involved it would have been shocking if the film hadn't been at least marginally entertaining (Russel Crowe, Denzel Washington, Ridley Scott, that chick who plays the hard edged doctor from Private Practice - and don't start with me I know its a horrible show but they shoot it rightwhere I used to live in Santa Monica so I occasionally like to watch ten or fifteen minutes to see my old hood. Don't judge me). However the film is kind of schizophrenic trying to all at once be a traditional police procedural, an in depth character study of two' singularly driven' men, a glitzy goodfellas-esque look at gangster life, and, for the last twenty minutes in particular, a clumsy attempt to make a statement about race. The film never really settles on a consistent tone and as a result left me feeling disjointed, and a little unsure of the ultimate point.
None of this is really the major drawback though, that can be summed up in two words - The Wire. After having seen police work and the drug war dealt with in the most detailed and powerful level imaginable over the course of that show's five seasons, its impossible to watch a film dealing with similiar themes, but in a more superficial manner, without realizing what's lacking (it doesn't help that one of the first scenes of American Gangster features one of the key actors from The Wire which immediately got me making comparisons). I think American Gangster is the first film I'd watched since I finished my Wire binge last summer that tried to 'seriously' deal with the drug trade, and I wonder if the show will have ruined any other films of this genre for me as well. If anything I think that these types of films would be better off not focusing on the trade, or its effects on people, because there's no way they can ever approach the depths or pathos of the show. Rather, like the aforementioned Goodfellas, they need to find something else for me to grab onto (chracters, plot, explosions, power ballads) so I don't spend the whole time comparing it to arguable the most important show in television history (On the road with Huel Howser being excepted of course).
Anyway I didn't mean to turn this post into another slobberfest for The Wire (yes I did, go rent it already if you haven't seen it), American Gangster isn't a bad film, its watchable, but it definitely isn't a great one and I'm not sure you need to go out of your way to burn the two and a half plus hours necessary to watch it.
There is a fundamental flaw with this film, but I'm not even sure you can blame the film for it. Before getting into that I want to waste five hundred words talking about other stuff. This story about the rise and fall of drug kingpin Frank Lucas in 1970's New York is an interesting one, and generally makes for a watchable film. However given the talent involved it would have been shocking if the film hadn't been at least marginally entertaining (Russel Crowe, Denzel Washington, Ridley Scott, that chick who plays the hard edged doctor from Private Practice - and don't start with me I know its a horrible show but they shoot it rightwhere I used to live in Santa Monica so I occasionally like to watch ten or fifteen minutes to see my old hood. Don't judge me). However the film is kind of schizophrenic trying to all at once be a traditional police procedural, an in depth character study of two' singularly driven' men, a glitzy goodfellas-esque look at gangster life, and, for the last twenty minutes in particular, a clumsy attempt to make a statement about race. The film never really settles on a consistent tone and as a result left me feeling disjointed, and a little unsure of the ultimate point.
None of this is really the major drawback though, that can be summed up in two words - The Wire. After having seen police work and the drug war dealt with in the most detailed and powerful level imaginable over the course of that show's five seasons, its impossible to watch a film dealing with similiar themes, but in a more superficial manner, without realizing what's lacking (it doesn't help that one of the first scenes of American Gangster features one of the key actors from The Wire which immediately got me making comparisons). I think American Gangster is the first film I'd watched since I finished my Wire binge last summer that tried to 'seriously' deal with the drug trade, and I wonder if the show will have ruined any other films of this genre for me as well. If anything I think that these types of films would be better off not focusing on the trade, or its effects on people, because there's no way they can ever approach the depths or pathos of the show. Rather, like the aforementioned Goodfellas, they need to find something else for me to grab onto (chracters, plot, explosions, power ballads) so I don't spend the whole time comparing it to arguable the most important show in television history (On the road with Huel Howser being excepted of course).
Anyway I didn't mean to turn this post into another slobberfest for The Wire (yes I did, go rent it already if you haven't seen it), American Gangster isn't a bad film, its watchable, but it definitely isn't a great one and I'm not sure you need to go out of your way to burn the two and a half plus hours necessary to watch it.
Saturday, April 18, 2009
Charlie Bartlett
There's a Blockbuster a block away from my apartment and about once a month they do a four for $20 DVD sale. I am unable to pass this up even though the inevitable time crunch happens and I have stacks of unwatched DVD's sitting around (a good portion of which are some random titles that I picked up to fill up my four). This is one step in a continual effort to get through the monstrosity.
Yaaaaaaaaaaaawwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwnnnnnnnnnnnn!!!!!!!! I really don't know how much energy I feel like devoting to this film. Right from the beginning I felt as if I was watching a pale imitation of a thousand other films. It bends over backwards trying to be quirky (ooh look at me I"m Robert Downey Jr., I compulsively drive model boats around my pool, aren't I crazy), and its not that I dislike quirky per se (I mean I'm a huge fan of the works of Wes Anderson) but when its quirkiness for its own sake I just get annoyed. The plot centers around a bored high school student who really wants to be liked who's just transferred to a public school. Of course he's initially an outcast but he's able to be become beloved by acting as the school psychologist and getting prescription medication to help them. Halfway through we have an attempted suicide that makes him try make a more prodigious use of his talents, and blah blah blah. There's lesson's learned, grand speeches, kids acting more mature than adults, and really every other indie film cliche that would theoreticaly make every Shins loving hipster pass out from joy. Oh and of course the climax revolves around a student produced play where everybody sees what's really important and learns an important life lesson. Yeah.
Look, this is definitely not the worst film ever, its just fallen into the trap of trying to be hip and quirky that it ends up becomming tiresome and boring. Still better than Pearl Harbor.
Yaaaaaaaaaaaawwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwnnnnnnnnnnnn!!!!!!!! I really don't know how much energy I feel like devoting to this film. Right from the beginning I felt as if I was watching a pale imitation of a thousand other films. It bends over backwards trying to be quirky (ooh look at me I"m Robert Downey Jr., I compulsively drive model boats around my pool, aren't I crazy), and its not that I dislike quirky per se (I mean I'm a huge fan of the works of Wes Anderson) but when its quirkiness for its own sake I just get annoyed. The plot centers around a bored high school student who really wants to be liked who's just transferred to a public school. Of course he's initially an outcast but he's able to be become beloved by acting as the school psychologist and getting prescription medication to help them. Halfway through we have an attempted suicide that makes him try make a more prodigious use of his talents, and blah blah blah. There's lesson's learned, grand speeches, kids acting more mature than adults, and really every other indie film cliche that would theoreticaly make every Shins loving hipster pass out from joy. Oh and of course the climax revolves around a student produced play where everybody sees what's really important and learns an important life lesson. Yeah.
Look, this is definitely not the worst film ever, its just fallen into the trap of trying to be hip and quirky that it ends up becomming tiresome and boring. Still better than Pearl Harbor.
Sunday, March 29, 2009
Speed Racer
There's a Blockbuster a block away from my apartment and about once a month they do a four for $20 DVD sale. I am unable to pass this up even though the inevitable time crunch happens and I have stacks of unwatched DVD's sitting around (a good portion of which are some random titles that I picked up to fill up my four). This is one step in a continual effort to get through the monstrosity.
This film got a lot of crap when it first came out but after having watched all two hours and fifteen minutes I'm going to go out on a limb and say that I actually liked it (don't call me a hero, even though you want to). Really its is the closest thing to a live action cartoon that I've ever seen. Now I don't mean a really good and deep cartoon like a Pixar production, but more like one of the old Looney Toones numbers we used to watch on saturday mornings. Much like Bugs and the Gang, the Speed Racer's plot is simplistic, its characters are two dimensional, and somebody can get hit by an anvil and be no worse for wear. In some ways its like the third Matrix film that the Wachowski's did right before it except, you know, entertaining. The plot, such that it is, follows the titular Speed Racer as he attempts to succeed in the World Racing League in the face of corporate powers who apparently run the world, but none of that really matters. What matters is the races (I mean it is called Speed Racer) and the film really delivers. Its like watching a the hybrid child of NASCAR and Mario-Kart with a little, make that a whole lot, of LSD thrown in. That is an excellent segue into the film's look, and while I hate going back to the cartoon comparison, its apt. Every frame is exploding in color, and I can only imagine the sensory overload that would have occurred had I seen this in IMAX. If you watch this thing high I can only imagine you will come out of it clutching your knees to your chest and rocking back and forth, if you're into that sort of thing.
Really once I accepted that I was watching a souped up episode of Tiny Toones the only part of the film that really annoyed me was the youngest child and his monkey sidekick. Maybe its just because I saw what competent youth actors looked like in the fourth season of the wire, but I really have no patience for really annoying kids onscreen anymore. Every time he and the simian were on screen I wanted some tremendously bad to happen to them (like having to watch the View, hey-O!). And considering that this film isn't really written like a Mamet production that's tells you how annoying he is.
Still that's a minor quibble and to compensate the film features Shaft (Richard Roundtree) and Jack from Lost (Matthew Fox) in key roles. Really as long as you go into this with the proper frame of mind (which may or may not involve controlled substances) its an enjoyable couple of hours.
This film got a lot of crap when it first came out but after having watched all two hours and fifteen minutes I'm going to go out on a limb and say that I actually liked it (don't call me a hero, even though you want to). Really its is the closest thing to a live action cartoon that I've ever seen. Now I don't mean a really good and deep cartoon like a Pixar production, but more like one of the old Looney Toones numbers we used to watch on saturday mornings. Much like Bugs and the Gang, the Speed Racer's plot is simplistic, its characters are two dimensional, and somebody can get hit by an anvil and be no worse for wear. In some ways its like the third Matrix film that the Wachowski's did right before it except, you know, entertaining. The plot, such that it is, follows the titular Speed Racer as he attempts to succeed in the World Racing League in the face of corporate powers who apparently run the world, but none of that really matters. What matters is the races (I mean it is called Speed Racer) and the film really delivers. Its like watching a the hybrid child of NASCAR and Mario-Kart with a little, make that a whole lot, of LSD thrown in. That is an excellent segue into the film's look, and while I hate going back to the cartoon comparison, its apt. Every frame is exploding in color, and I can only imagine the sensory overload that would have occurred had I seen this in IMAX. If you watch this thing high I can only imagine you will come out of it clutching your knees to your chest and rocking back and forth, if you're into that sort of thing.
Really once I accepted that I was watching a souped up episode of Tiny Toones the only part of the film that really annoyed me was the youngest child and his monkey sidekick. Maybe its just because I saw what competent youth actors looked like in the fourth season of the wire, but I really have no patience for really annoying kids onscreen anymore. Every time he and the simian were on screen I wanted some tremendously bad to happen to them (like having to watch the View, hey-O!). And considering that this film isn't really written like a Mamet production that's tells you how annoying he is.
Still that's a minor quibble and to compensate the film features Shaft (Richard Roundtree) and Jack from Lost (Matthew Fox) in key roles. Really as long as you go into this with the proper frame of mind (which may or may not involve controlled substances) its an enjoyable couple of hours.
Sunday, March 22, 2009
Snow Angels
There's a Blockbuster a block away from my apartment and about once a month they do a four for $20 DVD sale. I am unable to pass this up even though the inevitable time crunch happens and I have stacks of unwatched DVD's sitting around (a good portion of which are some random titles that I picked up to fill up my four). This is one step in a continual effort to get through the monstrosity.
This is an interesting film that, while engaging, ends up feeling sterile. The story follows two couples (one adult, on high school) in an unnamed town as they struggle to deal with changes in their lives and hold on to as much of their sanity as possible. For the first hour or so the film feels like any number of other independent films about 'ordinary' peoples' struggle with everyday life but at the half way point a tragedy befalls the characters that causes (at least two of them) to lose their grip on their lives. Its this part of the film that doesn't quite work for me. From the tragedy to what is meant to be a devastating ending I never became more than intellectually interested in the two main characters (played by Sam Rockwell and Kate Beckinsdale) which meant that when the climatic moment occurs I don't feel a sense of tragedy but more like an interested, yet uninvolved, third party. This is not to say that I wasn't engaged by the story's machinations, but rather the whole thing struck me more as a intellectual exercise in which I didn't feel any real emotional involvement. Since the ultimate success of these type of films is driven by how invested you are in the characters, Snow Angels inability to completely draw me in meant that it was ultimately unsuccessful in imparting the power of its story.
I don't want to make it sound like there is nothing to recommend the film, there's plenty. Its beautifully shot, and the way many of the scenes are composed reminded me of paintings and showed more artistry than a typical film. Also the film manages to catch the absurdty of high school marching bands in just a few scenes. Now while it may shock readers of this blog to know that such a charismatic, well rounded, and snappy dressing individual such as myself has any experience with marching bands, I must admit that I am intimitely aware of all their machinations (I even played in the Rose Parade one year). The film manages to capture the annoyance of the director, and ambivalence of the members, yet still give some sense of why the kids might actually participate even though on the surface they appear to mock it. Not an easy task. Additionally the film is generally well acted and put together and I was never bored which is more than I can say for other films of this ilk (I'm looking at you Rachel Getting Married).
So anyway if you're not as emotionally stunted as myself you may actually find the film to be a devastating portrait of lives being torn apart by tragedy, or at the least you'll see a beautiful looking piece of work with some nice scenes that unfortunately do not add up to the substantive whole to which it aspires.
This is an interesting film that, while engaging, ends up feeling sterile. The story follows two couples (one adult, on high school) in an unnamed town as they struggle to deal with changes in their lives and hold on to as much of their sanity as possible. For the first hour or so the film feels like any number of other independent films about 'ordinary' peoples' struggle with everyday life but at the half way point a tragedy befalls the characters that causes (at least two of them) to lose their grip on their lives. Its this part of the film that doesn't quite work for me. From the tragedy to what is meant to be a devastating ending I never became more than intellectually interested in the two main characters (played by Sam Rockwell and Kate Beckinsdale) which meant that when the climatic moment occurs I don't feel a sense of tragedy but more like an interested, yet uninvolved, third party. This is not to say that I wasn't engaged by the story's machinations, but rather the whole thing struck me more as a intellectual exercise in which I didn't feel any real emotional involvement. Since the ultimate success of these type of films is driven by how invested you are in the characters, Snow Angels inability to completely draw me in meant that it was ultimately unsuccessful in imparting the power of its story.
I don't want to make it sound like there is nothing to recommend the film, there's plenty. Its beautifully shot, and the way many of the scenes are composed reminded me of paintings and showed more artistry than a typical film. Also the film manages to catch the absurdty of high school marching bands in just a few scenes. Now while it may shock readers of this blog to know that such a charismatic, well rounded, and snappy dressing individual such as myself has any experience with marching bands, I must admit that I am intimitely aware of all their machinations (I even played in the Rose Parade one year). The film manages to capture the annoyance of the director, and ambivalence of the members, yet still give some sense of why the kids might actually participate even though on the surface they appear to mock it. Not an easy task. Additionally the film is generally well acted and put together and I was never bored which is more than I can say for other films of this ilk (I'm looking at you Rachel Getting Married).
So anyway if you're not as emotionally stunted as myself you may actually find the film to be a devastating portrait of lives being torn apart by tragedy, or at the least you'll see a beautiful looking piece of work with some nice scenes that unfortunately do not add up to the substantive whole to which it aspires.
Saturday, March 21, 2009
This is Getting ridiculous
So I've mentioned before how I have a stack of DVD's that I'm showing a complete inability to work through. Damn you cheap DVD sales that I feel the compulsive need to engage in. Seriously whenever I see the 4 for $20 sign at Blockbuster, or a season of a show I want to see for under $20 on Amazon, I instictively react and before I know it I have another 20 hours of content to get through. The only positive thing about the following list is that its entire contents probably cost me under $200.
Films:
Snow Angels
Doomsday
Speed Racer
Funny Games
Charlie Bartlett
Iron Man
Before the Devil Knows You're dead
Savages
American Gangster
In the Valley of Elah
Apocalypto
The Last King of Scotland
Five Easy Pieces
The World's Fastest Indian
Secret Lives of Dentists
Fighting Tommy Riley
Television:
Wonderfalls
Band of Brothers
The Office Season 4
Carnivale Season 1
Studio Sixty on the Sunset Strip
Not to mention the last disc of Mad Men season one I still have to finish. I almost feel like breaking a limb so I have the time to actually make a dent in the stack. Or Not. At least it makes me look like a serious movie aficionado.
Films:
Snow Angels
Doomsday
Speed Racer
Funny Games
Charlie Bartlett
Iron Man
Before the Devil Knows You're dead
Savages
American Gangster
In the Valley of Elah
Apocalypto
The Last King of Scotland
Five Easy Pieces
The World's Fastest Indian
Secret Lives of Dentists
Fighting Tommy Riley
Television:
Wonderfalls
Band of Brothers
The Office Season 4
Carnivale Season 1
Studio Sixty on the Sunset Strip
Not to mention the last disc of Mad Men season one I still have to finish. I almost feel like breaking a limb so I have the time to actually make a dent in the stack. Or Not. At least it makes me look like a serious movie aficionado.
Sunday, March 15, 2009
Burn After Reading
Its been about twenty four hours and I'm still befuddled by this film. This confusion doesn't stem from lack of understanding, but rather I just can't figure why the films exists. Its truly the embodiment of a pointless artistic expression. I don't mean pointless in the Seinfield 'show about nothing' sense but truly not giving any reason for existence other than to indulge the egos of those involved in making it. But I digress. My opinions about No Country for Old Men non withstanding, I can generally be considered a Coen brothers fan. I think they have a unique voice, and typically make interesting pictures. If you had told me they were making a spy comedy with the following elements I would think I would be getting a high energy screw ball comedy along the lines of The Big Lebowski, Intolerable Cruelty, or Rasing Arizona:
-George Clooney playing a philandering US marshall who constanly goes for a run after his affaris
-John Malkovich attacking Richard Jenkins with a hatchet
-Brad Pitt playing a clueless gym employee named Chad with horrible hair, who's a little too into his job
What we actually get is a series of moderately conncected scenes that really just leave you scratching your head as to why they exist. I won't even bothering getting into the plot, one because it doesn't matter, and two the film doesn't really seem to care. They even have several scenes with JK Simons as a CIA cheif who constantly asks 'Let me Know when it all makes sense.' Its as if the Coen's are saying 'Oooh, look at us, we're so meta, we acknowledge that's the plot really doesn't make any sense and as a result you should accept it.' I'm sorry but no. If you're going to make a film with an irrelevant plot than at the very least give me interesting characters and solid execution. This film has neither. The characters are all caricatures of what I'm sure looked like quirky characters on the page, but in practice are just tiresome. I'm sure this was a really fun film to make, and its possible that it only came together so all these famous people could hang out and get high. Really had this not involved the talent it does, it may have gotten a two week run and been dismissed with a collective yawn and wanking motion by the film going public. Instead you're just dissapointed that everyone involved shot so low, and then completely forget that it ever happened.
-George Clooney playing a philandering US marshall who constanly goes for a run after his affaris
-John Malkovich attacking Richard Jenkins with a hatchet
-Brad Pitt playing a clueless gym employee named Chad with horrible hair, who's a little too into his job
What we actually get is a series of moderately conncected scenes that really just leave you scratching your head as to why they exist. I won't even bothering getting into the plot, one because it doesn't matter, and two the film doesn't really seem to care. They even have several scenes with JK Simons as a CIA cheif who constantly asks 'Let me Know when it all makes sense.' Its as if the Coen's are saying 'Oooh, look at us, we're so meta, we acknowledge that's the plot really doesn't make any sense and as a result you should accept it.' I'm sorry but no. If you're going to make a film with an irrelevant plot than at the very least give me interesting characters and solid execution. This film has neither. The characters are all caricatures of what I'm sure looked like quirky characters on the page, but in practice are just tiresome. I'm sure this was a really fun film to make, and its possible that it only came together so all these famous people could hang out and get high. Really had this not involved the talent it does, it may have gotten a two week run and been dismissed with a collective yawn and wanking motion by the film going public. Instead you're just dissapointed that everyone involved shot so low, and then completely forget that it ever happened.
Monday, February 16, 2009
Step Brothers
There's a Blockbuster a block away from my apartment and about once a month they do a four for $20 DVD sale. I am unable to pass this up even though the inevitable time crunch happens and I have stacks of unwatched DVD's sitting around (a good portion of which are some random titles that I picked up to fill up my four). This is one step in a continual effort to get through the monstrosity.
Additional preamble: Event though this film is in my stack I actually watched my buddy's blu-ray copy at his house so this may not technically count as reducing my inventory. Whatever, I'm counting it. My Blog my rules. Suck It.
Will Ferrel is the very definition of a mixed bag for me (wow two reviews in a row where I have a mixed opinion about an actor - shocking I know. You know what I don't have a mixed opinion about? Strawberry scones, nothing equivicable about the goodness of scones). I don't find him inherently funny on his own, and while he's done some films I've enjoyed (Stranger than Fiction, Zoolander), there's also plenty I couldn't stand (Old School, Melinda and Melinda), and a whole bunch I couldn't even bring myself to see (Kicking and Screaming, Bewitched). The overgrown fratboy/blowhard schtick that he seems to run out in 90% of his roles doesn't do much for me, and generally causes me to end up getting bored (I can level the same criticism at Adam Sandler's man child act). Still I think Farrel has the potential to be funny, and the fact that John C. Reilly was in this gave me some hope that the film would be a winner, and I have to say that it was.
Reilly and Ferrel play forty something men, Dale and Brenden, who've never moved out from their single father and mother's houses respectively. Neither of them have ever held any gainful employment, and generally behave like they have the brains of fifteen year old boys (really if this wasn't a comedy you would think these characters were mentally retarded and Farrel and Reilly would be gunning for Oscars) The parents, played by Richard Jenkins and Mary Steenburgen, meet fall in love, and end up moving in together. Brenden and Dale first hate each other, fight a lot, then end up becoming friends which is an even more destructive relationship to those around them. That's the set up and all you really need to know. There's lots of crudity, fighting, slapstick, kids getting beaten up, kids beating adults up, Will Ferrel's scrotum, and Mary Steenburgen cursing (which while enjoyable takes a distance second place to Betty White in Lake Placid in the pantheon of formally staid actresses swearing up a blue streak for my amusement).
One driver of the film's success is that it realizes the inherent ridiculousness of the set up and doesn't try to justify. It doesn't even try that hard to explain why the main characters would still be living at home, and just runs the scenario through more and more outrageous situations, which generally include somebody getting hit (always funny), or Brenden having a ninja sword with Randy Jackson's autograph on the blade.
The film also thankfully buck the recent trend in comedies to have the characters go through some emotional transformation at the end of a film they've spent acting like children and generally non-contributing members of society in some sort of effort to get the audience to feel sympathetic and not disgusted by the character's previous behavior (I call it the Apatow syndrome). I'm all for trying to add depth to a comedy but too often the tonal shifts just feel cheap and kill any comedic momentum the film had going for it. Step Brothers avoids this trap by keeping its meanness level high throughout (its really a pretty twisted film when you sit down and think about it) and having Dale and Brenden learn absolutely nothing and stay pretty much stay in the same state of Arrested Development in which they began the film. This allows the viewer to just enjoy the absurdity of the situation and not have to deal with any unearned dramatic shifts.
The film isn't perfect, several of the jokes fall flat (the sleepwalking gag in particular doesn't work for me), and there are a few points where you have to roll your eyes at some of the absurdity. However, it hits much more than it misses, and has lots of nice touches like a Billy Joel cover band that will only play Joel songs from the late eighties. Ferrel and Reilly play well off of each other and they even caused me to 'like' what are really pretty screwed up characters. Plus the climatic scene involves a Drum Set, Josh Groban, and, while we at "What I'm Watching" tend to avoid the use of gratuitous profanity in our reviews since we find it leads to lazy writing and dilution of the words' impact (and more importantly I'm just not very good at it, seriously some people can paint a tapestry using nothing but the F bomb, I end up sounding like a petulant thirteen year old) I just have to say it: The Fucking Catalina Wine Mixer (just trust me its great)
Additional preamble: Event though this film is in my stack I actually watched my buddy's blu-ray copy at his house so this may not technically count as reducing my inventory. Whatever, I'm counting it. My Blog my rules. Suck It.
Will Ferrel is the very definition of a mixed bag for me (wow two reviews in a row where I have a mixed opinion about an actor - shocking I know. You know what I don't have a mixed opinion about? Strawberry scones, nothing equivicable about the goodness of scones). I don't find him inherently funny on his own, and while he's done some films I've enjoyed (Stranger than Fiction, Zoolander), there's also plenty I couldn't stand (Old School, Melinda and Melinda), and a whole bunch I couldn't even bring myself to see (Kicking and Screaming, Bewitched). The overgrown fratboy/blowhard schtick that he seems to run out in 90% of his roles doesn't do much for me, and generally causes me to end up getting bored (I can level the same criticism at Adam Sandler's man child act). Still I think Farrel has the potential to be funny, and the fact that John C. Reilly was in this gave me some hope that the film would be a winner, and I have to say that it was.
Reilly and Ferrel play forty something men, Dale and Brenden, who've never moved out from their single father and mother's houses respectively. Neither of them have ever held any gainful employment, and generally behave like they have the brains of fifteen year old boys (really if this wasn't a comedy you would think these characters were mentally retarded and Farrel and Reilly would be gunning for Oscars) The parents, played by Richard Jenkins and Mary Steenburgen, meet fall in love, and end up moving in together. Brenden and Dale first hate each other, fight a lot, then end up becoming friends which is an even more destructive relationship to those around them. That's the set up and all you really need to know. There's lots of crudity, fighting, slapstick, kids getting beaten up, kids beating adults up, Will Ferrel's scrotum, and Mary Steenburgen cursing (which while enjoyable takes a distance second place to Betty White in Lake Placid in the pantheon of formally staid actresses swearing up a blue streak for my amusement).
One driver of the film's success is that it realizes the inherent ridiculousness of the set up and doesn't try to justify. It doesn't even try that hard to explain why the main characters would still be living at home, and just runs the scenario through more and more outrageous situations, which generally include somebody getting hit (always funny), or Brenden having a ninja sword with Randy Jackson's autograph on the blade.
The film also thankfully buck the recent trend in comedies to have the characters go through some emotional transformation at the end of a film they've spent acting like children and generally non-contributing members of society in some sort of effort to get the audience to feel sympathetic and not disgusted by the character's previous behavior (I call it the Apatow syndrome). I'm all for trying to add depth to a comedy but too often the tonal shifts just feel cheap and kill any comedic momentum the film had going for it. Step Brothers avoids this trap by keeping its meanness level high throughout (its really a pretty twisted film when you sit down and think about it) and having Dale and Brenden learn absolutely nothing and stay pretty much stay in the same state of Arrested Development in which they began the film. This allows the viewer to just enjoy the absurdity of the situation and not have to deal with any unearned dramatic shifts.
The film isn't perfect, several of the jokes fall flat (the sleepwalking gag in particular doesn't work for me), and there are a few points where you have to roll your eyes at some of the absurdity. However, it hits much more than it misses, and has lots of nice touches like a Billy Joel cover band that will only play Joel songs from the late eighties. Ferrel and Reilly play well off of each other and they even caused me to 'like' what are really pretty screwed up characters. Plus the climatic scene involves a Drum Set, Josh Groban, and, while we at "What I'm Watching" tend to avoid the use of gratuitous profanity in our reviews since we find it leads to lazy writing and dilution of the words' impact (and more importantly I'm just not very good at it, seriously some people can paint a tapestry using nothing but the F bomb, I end up sounding like a petulant thirteen year old) I just have to say it: The Fucking Catalina Wine Mixer (just trust me its great)
Saturday, February 7, 2009
Charlie Wilson's War
There's a Blockbuster a block away from my apartment and about once a month they do a four for $20 DVD sale. I am unable to pass this up even though the inevitable time crunch happens and I have stacks of unwatched DVD's sitting around (a good portion of which are some random titles that I picked up to fill up my four). This is one step in a continual effort to get through the monstrosity.
I actually saw Charlie Wilson's War when it came out in theaters and was curious to see how it held up on repeat viewing. I am a huge Aaron Sorkin fan evidenced by the fact that I think The West Wing is one of television's great series, and even though it had its flaws I consider the premature cancellation of Studio 60 as one of the great injustices (right after the cancellation of Firefly and Pushing Daisies) in television history. This is just a long way of saying you can say I was predisposed to enjoying the film.
One of the joys of watching a Sorkin production for me is the dialogue. Much like Woody Allen films, I don't care what the subject matter is as much as I just enjoy hearing the style in which the film written. If anything the actors are just vehicles for the writing, and as a result its sometime a mistake for too high profile an actor to be in his productions since they often have too many familiar mannerisms to let the material breathe. In this case the concern surrounded Tom Hanks and Julia Roberts (we all know Phillip Seymour Hoffman would rock), and I think Hanks pulls it off, Roberts not so much. She wasn't horrible, but it just never looked like she was quite comfortable with the role. I do think part of this impression has to with the fact that I her chracter to be the least essential to the plot and as a result the least interesting.
Otherwise the film is solid all the way through. Its a nice example of Sorkin's work, and the scene in Hank's office the first time he an Hoffman's character meet is one of the best written and acted sequences you'll see in a movie. The main drawbacks are when the film tries to deal with the story's big historical issues which, due to the film's time limitations, it it has to do in a fairly superficial manner. This is a minor quibble though that didn't significantly detract from my viewing enjoyment. The film has a compelling story, with interesting characters and excellent dialougue. Its worth your time especially if you enjoyed Sorkin's previous work.
Anyway that's one down in the stack, way too many to go.
I actually saw Charlie Wilson's War when it came out in theaters and was curious to see how it held up on repeat viewing. I am a huge Aaron Sorkin fan evidenced by the fact that I think The West Wing is one of television's great series, and even though it had its flaws I consider the premature cancellation of Studio 60 as one of the great injustices (right after the cancellation of Firefly and Pushing Daisies) in television history. This is just a long way of saying you can say I was predisposed to enjoying the film.
One of the joys of watching a Sorkin production for me is the dialogue. Much like Woody Allen films, I don't care what the subject matter is as much as I just enjoy hearing the style in which the film written. If anything the actors are just vehicles for the writing, and as a result its sometime a mistake for too high profile an actor to be in his productions since they often have too many familiar mannerisms to let the material breathe. In this case the concern surrounded Tom Hanks and Julia Roberts (we all know Phillip Seymour Hoffman would rock), and I think Hanks pulls it off, Roberts not so much. She wasn't horrible, but it just never looked like she was quite comfortable with the role. I do think part of this impression has to with the fact that I her chracter to be the least essential to the plot and as a result the least interesting.
Otherwise the film is solid all the way through. Its a nice example of Sorkin's work, and the scene in Hank's office the first time he an Hoffman's character meet is one of the best written and acted sequences you'll see in a movie. The main drawbacks are when the film tries to deal with the story's big historical issues which, due to the film's time limitations, it it has to do in a fairly superficial manner. This is a minor quibble though that didn't significantly detract from my viewing enjoyment. The film has a compelling story, with interesting characters and excellent dialougue. Its worth your time especially if you enjoyed Sorkin's previous work.
Anyway that's one down in the stack, way too many to go.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)