Pacific Rim has ended up being more divisive than I would have expected. As an example check out Will Leitch (positive), and Vince Mancini's (negative) reviews. While I think all the criticism is completely fair (the characters are generously described as thin, the dialogue is marginal, and story derivative), I still ended up generally enjoying myself. This movie is all surface, but that surface is Monsters vs. Robots as done by the guy who made Pan's Labyrinth, and starring Idris Elba (Stringer lives!), so the surface goes a long way. Del Toro does a real nice job with fights scenes (you can follow what's going on, and they actually involve some deliberate pacing) which counts for quite a bit. Sure I would have preferred to have there be actual acting outside of Elba (and to a lesser extent Charlie Day and Ron Pearlman), but I'll take what I can get. And in this case what you get involves a scene of a Robot hitting Godzilla with a tanker ship. That's not nothing.
Sunday, July 21, 2013
Thursday, July 11, 2013
Much Ado About Nothing
Joss Whedon is one of those guys I'm completely in the bag for, so of course I was going to see his adaptation of Shakespeare, shot at his house in 12 days while taking a break from editing the Avengers.
Overall he does a nice job capturing the playfullness of the original play, and adds some wordless flashback scenes between Benedick and Beatrice which actually gives some context to why there's so much beef between them. He also makes the smart choice of having most of the characters spend the entire proceedings hammered. This makes all of the mistaken identities (or at least perceived mistaken identities) more tolerable since its difficult to believe anyone sober could actually believe any of the plot machinations. Unfortunately he's not able to get rid of the most problematic part of the play. The fact that the central conflict revolves around an idiot plot point that could have been solved with any number of people just asking one relevant question. But whatever, the film is still a lot of fun (even though like every Shakespeare play I see it takes about five minutes to get used to the language) and Nathon Fillion is still the man.
Overall he does a nice job capturing the playfullness of the original play, and adds some wordless flashback scenes between Benedick and Beatrice which actually gives some context to why there's so much beef between them. He also makes the smart choice of having most of the characters spend the entire proceedings hammered. This makes all of the mistaken identities (or at least perceived mistaken identities) more tolerable since its difficult to believe anyone sober could actually believe any of the plot machinations. Unfortunately he's not able to get rid of the most problematic part of the play. The fact that the central conflict revolves around an idiot plot point that could have been solved with any number of people just asking one relevant question. But whatever, the film is still a lot of fun (even though like every Shakespeare play I see it takes about five minutes to get used to the language) and Nathon Fillion is still the man.
Sunday, June 30, 2013
Man of Steel/World War Z
Going in my interest in seeing both of these could be described as moderate at best. I just don't find Superman to be that interesting of a character, and as for World War Z, do we really need more zombies (given the box office success probably yes)? But, I found myself out of town for the weekend with some time to kill in a city that was 100 degrees, so here we are.
As for Man of Steel, Vince over a Filmdrunk had a pretty good review of this most recent entry to the Superman series, and I think he hits most of the big issues with it. I agree with people who say the first half has some interesting ideas but the second half just degenerates into a pretty generic action thriller with some glaring, to say the least, plot holes. I even like Zach Snyder (an opinion that seems to be in the minority, at least among 'serious' film fans). I thought 300 had a manic energy to it that was a lot of fun, and had be able to infuse some of that energy into Man of Steel then the film could have avoided turning into slog most of the last hour plus ends up being. But whatever, its a solid C film. Not horrible,but nothing I feel any desire to watch again.
A couple of other random thoughts:
-This is probably a spoiler but the way Pa Kent dies is just idiotic. Basically he goes back to save the dog and waves off Clark so he can keep his abilities secret. I like dogs as much as the next guy (editors note: That is a lie, Eric's interest in dogs could be described as ambivalent at best), but when a tornado is bearing down I think its time to let little Sparky try to make it out himself. He had a good run.
-Its an old comment that these superhero films (or action films in general) just ignore the collateral damage that our ostensible protagonist unleashes in the name of 'justice' but Man of Steel turns it up to 11. Easily millions of people die while superman is doing his thing, and nobody really seems to notice. If the film exhibited any sense of humor I would almost think they were making a commentary about action films, but it shows no indication of self-awareness at all.
-Michael shannon just isn't that good as General Zod, but since he's usually excellent I'm going to assume a lot of that has to do with how dumb the plot surrounding him is.
Now the one big advantage World War Z has over Superman is that its a half an hour shorter. I mean that as a compliment. Besides the relative brevity Z is a compentently paced action film with a few interesting ideas interspersed with a lot of A-B-C action. Its not boring,but its also not all that compelling. Really the best way to describe it is that I entered indifferent, and left indifferent. Not bored, just kind of 'meh.' Basically its not worth seeking out, but if you run across it on cable one day you could do worse.
As for Man of Steel, Vince over a Filmdrunk had a pretty good review of this most recent entry to the Superman series, and I think he hits most of the big issues with it. I agree with people who say the first half has some interesting ideas but the second half just degenerates into a pretty generic action thriller with some glaring, to say the least, plot holes. I even like Zach Snyder (an opinion that seems to be in the minority, at least among 'serious' film fans). I thought 300 had a manic energy to it that was a lot of fun, and had be able to infuse some of that energy into Man of Steel then the film could have avoided turning into slog most of the last hour plus ends up being. But whatever, its a solid C film. Not horrible,but nothing I feel any desire to watch again.
A couple of other random thoughts:
-This is probably a spoiler but the way Pa Kent dies is just idiotic. Basically he goes back to save the dog and waves off Clark so he can keep his abilities secret. I like dogs as much as the next guy (editors note: That is a lie, Eric's interest in dogs could be described as ambivalent at best), but when a tornado is bearing down I think its time to let little Sparky try to make it out himself. He had a good run.
-Its an old comment that these superhero films (or action films in general) just ignore the collateral damage that our ostensible protagonist unleashes in the name of 'justice' but Man of Steel turns it up to 11. Easily millions of people die while superman is doing his thing, and nobody really seems to notice. If the film exhibited any sense of humor I would almost think they were making a commentary about action films, but it shows no indication of self-awareness at all.
-Michael shannon just isn't that good as General Zod, but since he's usually excellent I'm going to assume a lot of that has to do with how dumb the plot surrounding him is.
Now the one big advantage World War Z has over Superman is that its a half an hour shorter. I mean that as a compliment. Besides the relative brevity Z is a compentently paced action film with a few interesting ideas interspersed with a lot of A-B-C action. Its not boring,but its also not all that compelling. Really the best way to describe it is that I entered indifferent, and left indifferent. Not bored, just kind of 'meh.' Basically its not worth seeking out, but if you run across it on cable one day you could do worse.
Sunday, June 23, 2013
Now you See Me
So yeah, magicians as bank robbers, but not really. Whatever, I liked the cast and after a day of reading labor migration research I didn't want to watch anything that caused me to have to think too much. And it definitely met that bar. Its watchable, mainly because of the cast (Jesse Eisenberg, Woody Harrelson, Isla Fischer, the Franco bother who was on Scrubs, Melanie Laurent, Morgan Freeman, Michael Caine, Mark Ruffalo), but also needlessly complicated (not in a you can't follow way, but in a 'if you think about what's actually happening for more than a second the plot doesn't hold up at all' way) and takes itself a little too seriously for what should have been a pretty light heist movie (it needlessly revolves around this idea of what 'true' magic is).
But whatever, the most fascinating part of the experience was this guy about three rows back. He could not have been more entertained. He was busting up at the film's couple of half-hearted attempts at a one-liners, and at the big 'twist' ending he about lost his, pardon the vernacular, shit all over the theatre. I worry if he saw a film that was actually clever and surprising, like say The Usual Suspects, he may actually have a heart attack. So I guess its good that middle of the road, immediately forgettable, films like this exist. There's a certain segment of the population who wouldn't be able to go to the cinema and come out alive otherwise.
But whatever, the most fascinating part of the experience was this guy about three rows back. He could not have been more entertained. He was busting up at the film's couple of half-hearted attempts at a one-liners, and at the big 'twist' ending he about lost his, pardon the vernacular, shit all over the theatre. I worry if he saw a film that was actually clever and surprising, like say The Usual Suspects, he may actually have a heart attack. So I guess its good that middle of the road, immediately forgettable, films like this exist. There's a certain segment of the population who wouldn't be able to go to the cinema and come out alive otherwise.
Saturday, June 22, 2013
Before Midnight
Before Midnight represents the third film in a series (after Before Sunrise and Before Sunset) that periodically (every nine years)checks in with two lovers played by Ethan Hawke and Julie Delphy. Its kind of a fictionalized version of the 7-up series, and sets out to show the progression of a relationship over time and, in particular, how messy and complicated things can become. Like the previous films, Before Midnight is ambitious, interesting, and contain a lot of truth, but I'm not sure that I really enjoy watching it that much.
The biggest problem with all three, and this one in particular, is that they're almost too literary. The entire film is almost entirely monologues, which I'm sure plays well on the page, but end up just becoming exhausting by the end of the film. Really each conversation ends up feeling like a one act play with lots of grand statements and truths being compressed into a short amount of time. I don't deny that people often have conversations like this, but all at once was a bit much for me. Also the amount of vitriol that was spilled had me wondering how Hawke and Delphy were still together. I get that point of the film was the relationship they built in the previous two entries is what pulls them through the conflict, and I like how everything is still a bit ambiguous at the end, but I still ended up feeling restless as it played out.
That said these are still bold films and I appreciate how they endeavor to portray a real relationship. There are certainly moments that capture real truth in each film, but I do feel like the execution falls short of the ambition.
The biggest problem with all three, and this one in particular, is that they're almost too literary. The entire film is almost entirely monologues, which I'm sure plays well on the page, but end up just becoming exhausting by the end of the film. Really each conversation ends up feeling like a one act play with lots of grand statements and truths being compressed into a short amount of time. I don't deny that people often have conversations like this, but all at once was a bit much for me. Also the amount of vitriol that was spilled had me wondering how Hawke and Delphy were still together. I get that point of the film was the relationship they built in the previous two entries is what pulls them through the conflict, and I like how everything is still a bit ambiguous at the end, but I still ended up feeling restless as it played out.
That said these are still bold films and I appreciate how they endeavor to portray a real relationship. There are certainly moments that capture real truth in each film, but I do feel like the execution falls short of the ambition.
Wednesday, June 19, 2013
A whole bunch of stuff
I saw a fair amount of stuff around/during a recent international trip. I'm sure at one point I had a coherent narrative about all of them, but I'm too lazy to write more than a few disjointed notes.
Iron Man 3
Star Trek Into Darkness
I actually saw this twice. While Into Darkness is a nice continuation of its predecessor, it spends a little to much time referencing the earlier incarnations of the series. The last half an hour or so in particular gets really
goofy as they pretty much take the ending of Star trek 2: Wrath of Khan and just flip the roles
of the two main characters, culminating in a moment that had me laughing out
loud in the theater (both times). I
think the comedy in this case was completely intentional (I hope), but I think
the makers of these films have played out just re-imagining the original films
and need to start taking the characters in a new
direction. Otherwise the series runs the risk of becoming a series of in jokes and fan-service, as opposed to something bigger.
Also, the ending is essentially the same as Iron Man 3 which was interesting (or not).
6 fast 6 furious
I found the whole Fast and Furious franchise (which in my case consisted of just watching the first film) to be completely completely tedious until Fast 5. In that film the
filmmakers decided to embrace the inherent cheesiness of the premise and turned out
the closest thing to an over the top 80’s action comedy (in a good way) that
I’d seen in a while. 6 fast continues in
this tradition, but with less narrative coherence (something I never thought
I’d attribute to Fast 5). Other than The
Rock, the acting is really bad and the two leads (Vin Diesal and Paul Walker)
actually seem to think they’re participating in a real bad-ass action
film. The fact that they take it so
seriously of course adds to my enjoyment (and also explains my love for One Tree Hill).
Like any great
unintentionally comedic movie, the
intentionally comedic elements of the film (meant to be embodied by the
Minstrel Show that is Tyrese and Ludacris) are laugh free, and in this case borderline racist. All the
fun comes from the over the top action (At one point Vin knocks out three bad
guys with a flying head butt), groan inducing dialogue (too many to mention)
and the constant effort to make it look like Vin Diesel is as tall as The
Rock. The film is definitely too long, but I still laughed out loud a lot, which is more than I can say for a lot of mainstream comedies.
This is the End
I don't have a lot to say about this other than its actually pretty funny, if a bit long and maybe a little too insular. The actors have a nice chemistry, and it made me really want a sequel to the criminally underrated Your Highness. I'm not sure how broad the appeal of something like this is, but its certainly worth seeing if you enjoy the idea of James Fanco, Seth Rogen, Danny McBride and company basically just spending $20 million to sit around and talk trash to each other for a couple of hours.
Thursday, May 16, 2013
To the wonder
The people that hated Terrance Malick's previous film, The Tree of Life, are absolutely going to despise To the Wonder. Somehow its even more abstract, and has less of a plot, than the earlier film, and anybody who's not already on board with Malick's meditative, loose (to describe it generously), and visceral approach to filmmaking is not going to have their mind changed by this. The film is 90% voiceover and 90% of that is in French and Spanish (there's a box office draw if I ever heard one). And just like the Tree of Life it constantly cuts between past, present, and future, with little or no indication as to why. Its beatifully shot, as usual, and contains some indelible images but the end result is more of an impressionistic painting than a film. This works for awhile, but after an hour or so I did get restless. Say what you want about the Tree of Life, but at least that film had the chutzpah to try to portray the beginning and the end of the world. To the Wonder doesn't have anywhere neat that level of ambition, which it makes it more difficult to stay engaged in the more digressive sections (which the particularly snarky of you could argue make up the entire film, but then you just have a bad attitude). Its worth seeing if you're already all in for Malick, but probably not otherwise.
One other note: Given that the dialogue is majority voiceover we get plenty of scenes before and after, presumably, important conversations. This definitely is in line with the film's general approach, but it definitely keeps all the characters at arms length.
One other note: Given that the dialogue is majority voiceover we get plenty of scenes before and after, presumably, important conversations. This definitely is in line with the film's general approach, but it definitely keeps all the characters at arms length.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)