Gasp! Nemo is lost!
Time to go adventuring!
LUUUUUUCCKKYYYYY IIIIIIII SPEEEEAAAAAKKK WHAAAAAAALEEE
Monday, June 30, 2008
Point by Point: Semi-Pro 4/10
Will Ferrell plays Jackie Moon, player/coach/owner of a bad pro basketball team. In order to get into the NBA, they must finish in the top 4, as well as bring average attendence up. Basically, it's Slap Shot for basketball.
The Good: It's watchable. There's the occasional funny bit. Woody Harrellson, basically playing a dramatic role in the middle of a Will Ferrell farce, does reasonably well given the circumstances.
The Bad: Two movies got smashed into one at the expense of both. It's a tame comedy that doesn't reach the over-the-top stupid-funny of Talledega Nights or Blades of Glory and a played-out sports drama with misfits being brought together by a veteran player to Overcome All Odds. Really, if it had just picked one and went for it, things would have been better.
The Ugly: How many times are we going to have to watch Will Ferrell play an out of shape athelete that occasionally strips? The joke is getting very, very stale.
Points Pondered
The Good: It's watchable. There's the occasional funny bit. Woody Harrellson, basically playing a dramatic role in the middle of a Will Ferrell farce, does reasonably well given the circumstances.
The Bad: Two movies got smashed into one at the expense of both. It's a tame comedy that doesn't reach the over-the-top stupid-funny of Talledega Nights or Blades of Glory and a played-out sports drama with misfits being brought together by a veteran player to Overcome All Odds. Really, if it had just picked one and went for it, things would have been better.
The Ugly: How many times are we going to have to watch Will Ferrell play an out of shape athelete that occasionally strips? The joke is getting very, very stale.
Points Pondered
- The one standout in the film is the announcer that's not Will Arnett - the straight delivery is constantly hiliarous.
- There's was really no need for this movie to be rated R. Cut out some of the swearing and you'd have a just as funny PG-13. Or just throw in some naked people to make it worth it. NOT Will Ferrell.
- There are at least 5 scenes completely stealing from Slap Shot. It's basically shameless.
- Random funny people cameo and then proceed to not be funny. It's very strange.
Sunday, June 29, 2008
Full review: Wanted, 7/10
Make no mistake, Wanted is not a good movie. It’s loud, it’s dumb as all hell, and its ultimate message is somewhere between nihilism and just good old-fashioned misanthropism, and yet it’s damn fun. It has style and panache to spare and it celebrates a balls-to-the-wall enthusiasm for blood, guns, and ultra-violence that will appease any fan of Equilibrium, The Matrix, or Fight Club. All of these are infinitely better films, but they are at least well-honored as the templates on which Timur Bekmambetov bases his film. The style, though, is the director’s -- he’s already honed his visually audacious approach to film-making with Nightwatch, another jet-black adaptation of a graphic novel, about Russian vampires.
James MacAvoy, as Wesley, our dweeby American-accented hero, makes a rather impressive and Fight Club-Narrator-esque transformation from passive desk-jockey to active killer, but really, who wouldn’t put up with extended hazing for the chance to scamper along moving trains with a scorching-hot Angelina Jolie? Jolie, for her part, does little except slink and pout, but her quicksilver cool is captivating. It’s not really “acting”, but I guarantee that a summer of boys (and girls -- I’m not discriminating here) will have found their eye-candy of choice for at least a few months. Between the icy-hot Jolie and the stylized gunfights, with slow-motion firing and arcing-trajectories of sculpted silver bullets, what’s not to love? Or, rather, what’s not to get your testosterone racing?
This hormonal excitement is clearly intentional, as on a meta level the whole movie plays like one long emotional Viagra infusion (again, hearkening back to Palahniuk/Fincher’s anti-domestication screed) for every emasculated office-worker in the audience. It was striking that in a movie filled with bullets, graphic acts of weaponized violence and torture, the only cheers from the audience (and I do mean actual cheers) came from a scene in which Wesley takes out his aggression on his corporate co-workers. Clearly, women are hot and guns are fun, but giving your manager what-for is where it’s at.
On this theme of non-cooperation, Wanted is interesting because it actively argues against the possibility for real human connections and emotions. Wesley goes from having a girlfriend, a so-called best-friend, co-workers, and the ability to relate to other people to being the ultimate lone wolf. The girlfriend was boinking the best friend, the best friend was a douche, the co-workers were stooges, and generally the lesson becomes that other people suck. Even the talented, hardened, capable people suck.
As multiple characters say, in variation, throughout the movie, “don’t send sheep to do a wolf’s job”, but the ultimate moral is that everyone, even self-professed wolves, are sheep. And sheep always get eaten. The only truth is the one you keep to yourself. There’re not a lot of messages touting peace, love, or teamwork here. Take that for what you will. For good or for ill, it’s nice to see a movie that sticks to its guns regarding the alienation that a “lone wolf” must endure if he wishes to keep himself out of the flock.
Wanted is not going to win any awards, and if you think about it too long you’re going to end up annoyed with yourself for liking it, but for what it is -- an amped-up charge of adrenalin, fueled by hyperviolence and super-stylized action -- it’s great. It's not life-changing, but definitely the spectacle of the summer. And dear lord, does Angelina bring a new level to pure physical perfection -- that, in itself, is awe-inspiring.
James MacAvoy, as Wesley, our dweeby American-accented hero, makes a rather impressive and Fight Club-Narrator-esque transformation from passive desk-jockey to active killer, but really, who wouldn’t put up with extended hazing for the chance to scamper along moving trains with a scorching-hot Angelina Jolie? Jolie, for her part, does little except slink and pout, but her quicksilver cool is captivating. It’s not really “acting”, but I guarantee that a summer of boys (and girls -- I’m not discriminating here) will have found their eye-candy of choice for at least a few months. Between the icy-hot Jolie and the stylized gunfights, with slow-motion firing and arcing-trajectories of sculpted silver bullets, what’s not to love? Or, rather, what’s not to get your testosterone racing?
This hormonal excitement is clearly intentional, as on a meta level the whole movie plays like one long emotional Viagra infusion (again, hearkening back to Palahniuk/Fincher’s anti-domestication screed) for every emasculated office-worker in the audience. It was striking that in a movie filled with bullets, graphic acts of weaponized violence and torture, the only cheers from the audience (and I do mean actual cheers) came from a scene in which Wesley takes out his aggression on his corporate co-workers. Clearly, women are hot and guns are fun, but giving your manager what-for is where it’s at.
On this theme of non-cooperation, Wanted is interesting because it actively argues against the possibility for real human connections and emotions. Wesley goes from having a girlfriend, a so-called best-friend, co-workers, and the ability to relate to other people to being the ultimate lone wolf. The girlfriend was boinking the best friend, the best friend was a douche, the co-workers were stooges, and generally the lesson becomes that other people suck. Even the talented, hardened, capable people suck.
As multiple characters say, in variation, throughout the movie, “don’t send sheep to do a wolf’s job”, but the ultimate moral is that everyone, even self-professed wolves, are sheep. And sheep always get eaten. The only truth is the one you keep to yourself. There’re not a lot of messages touting peace, love, or teamwork here. Take that for what you will. For good or for ill, it’s nice to see a movie that sticks to its guns regarding the alienation that a “lone wolf” must endure if he wishes to keep himself out of the flock.
Wanted is not going to win any awards, and if you think about it too long you’re going to end up annoyed with yourself for liking it, but for what it is -- an amped-up charge of adrenalin, fueled by hyperviolence and super-stylized action -- it’s great. It's not life-changing, but definitely the spectacle of the summer. And dear lord, does Angelina bring a new level to pure physical perfection -- that, in itself, is awe-inspiring.
Saturday, June 28, 2008
Point by Point: Premonition 3/10
Sandra Bullock wakes up one day and finds that her husand has died in a car crash. She then wakes up the next day and finds that he's alive. Repeat for 90 minutes.
The Good: I'm a sucker for time-travel in movies, and half the fun is laughing at the paradoxes they invariably run in to (I'm looking at you, infinitely-looping watch in Somewhere in Time). Impressively, this movie avoids almost all time travel pitfalls. Of course, it does this by making the main character exceedingly dumb.
The Bad: Make no mistake - this is a very boring movie. The general puzzle is enough to keep you from turning it off, but you won't enjoy yourself. Everyone involved is surprisingly bland, and the final payoff just isn't worth it. Plus, it suddenly veers off to religious nut-job land for no apparent reason.
The Ugly: There are a few laughable attempts at "horror" that just turn comical. Dropping the casket and having the husband's head roll out? Come on.
Points Pondered
The Good: I'm a sucker for time-travel in movies, and half the fun is laughing at the paradoxes they invariably run in to (I'm looking at you, infinitely-looping watch in Somewhere in Time). Impressively, this movie avoids almost all time travel pitfalls. Of course, it does this by making the main character exceedingly dumb.
The Bad: Make no mistake - this is a very boring movie. The general puzzle is enough to keep you from turning it off, but you won't enjoy yourself. Everyone involved is surprisingly bland, and the final payoff just isn't worth it. Plus, it suddenly veers off to religious nut-job land for no apparent reason.
The Ugly: There are a few laughable attempts at "horror" that just turn comical. Dropping the casket and having the husband's head roll out? Come on.
Points Pondered
- While I can see where it would be super-confusing for a person to be experiencing a week out of order, it really shouldn't take you 5 days to figure out what the hell is happening. And once you DO figure it out, just doing the things you've apparently already done seems like a rather bad plan if you want to change the future. For instance, why the heck would you go see the pscyhatrist that you know locks you up for coming into his office ranting and raving?
- It seems like the director used a "Thrillers for Dummies" book - music swells, people that turn out to be other people, creepy crazy person - all check.
- If your wife can see the future, you probably shouldn't cheat on her.
- I, too, ran into a sliding glass door as a child. I'm glad there a movie that speaks to this plight. Parents, put stickers on your doors. Or at least don't clean them.
Point-by-Point: Untraceable 5/10
A serial killer is televising his murders live online. The more people that watch, the faster the person dies. Our computer expert FBI hero (Diane Lane) tries to stop him, but he's seemingly . . . UNTRACEABLE!
The Good: The general premise is interesting (would people visit a site if they knew that by doing so, they're killing the person they're watching?) and the murders are appropriately creative. Diane Lane does a good job, and is really better than this movie deserves.
The Bad: The killer is ultra-boring and completely unconvincing. This being a fairly lazy script, he has all the usual movie serial killer super powers - ninja speed / stealth, amazing IQ, seemingly unlimited and untraceable funds, etc. Also, you walk a fine line when your message seems to be "Look at how bloodthirsty these people are, turning torture and murder into entertainment" while your movie is basically doing the same thing.
The Ugly: Dude gets slowly cooked alive by heat lamps, with new ones turning on as more and more people watch online. Gooey then crispy.
Points Pondered
The Good: The general premise is interesting (would people visit a site if they knew that by doing so, they're killing the person they're watching?) and the murders are appropriately creative. Diane Lane does a good job, and is really better than this movie deserves.
The Bad: The killer is ultra-boring and completely unconvincing. This being a fairly lazy script, he has all the usual movie serial killer super powers - ninja speed / stealth, amazing IQ, seemingly unlimited and untraceable funds, etc. Also, you walk a fine line when your message seems to be "Look at how bloodthirsty these people are, turning torture and murder into entertainment" while your movie is basically doing the same thing.
The Ugly: Dude gets slowly cooked alive by heat lamps, with new ones turning on as more and more people watch online. Gooey then crispy.
Points Pondered
- From the second Colin Hanks opened his mouth, there was no doubt in my mind that he was not going to make it through the movie alive.
- This movie hopes its viewers don't know too much about computers. The ridiculousness of explanations for why they can't find this guy combined with the standard amazing movie-computer UI that can zoom in on video without degradation of quality grates a bit.
- If I was on the FBI cybercrimes task force, I would think about having my monitor with all sorts of sordid images NOT facing my door where my impressionable child can just walk by and see.
- The movie hits the one hour mark before the cops have made anything resembling progress on the case. They just stand around talking about how horrible it is as they watch him kill 3 people and a house pet. And when they DO finally get a break, it's never really explained how they figured out this bit of info. Oh well, cool murders!
Thursday, June 26, 2008
Point-by-Point: The Last Kiss 5/10
A bunch of nearly-30-somethings prove they suck at relationships. No one lives happily ever after - the best they can hope for is a slightly less miserable existence than they deserve. A romantic comedy that's light on the romance and doesn't exactly slather on the comedy either.
The Good: Zach Braff's innate charm managed to keep me from hating his character, which is basically the saving grace of this movie. I mean, everyone turns in a fine performance (with Casey Affleck and Tom Wilkinson being my favorites behind Braff), but the people they're playing are so unsavory that it really doesn't matter. I guess it's at least a different take on the usual rom-com, but that is far from an endorsement.
The Bad: Some would probably describe these characters as "humanly flawed," but it goes beyond that - the story stereotypes the worse qualities of both genders, then throws them at each other in a movie that seems designed to make the audience depressed. And depressing movies CAN be good (see Leaving Las Vegas), but the movie treats it's characters with what can best be described as disdain.
The Ugly: I'm yet again reminded why I have no intent to breed any time soon.
Points Pondered:
The Good: Zach Braff's innate charm managed to keep me from hating his character, which is basically the saving grace of this movie. I mean, everyone turns in a fine performance (with Casey Affleck and Tom Wilkinson being my favorites behind Braff), but the people they're playing are so unsavory that it really doesn't matter. I guess it's at least a different take on the usual rom-com, but that is far from an endorsement.
The Bad: Some would probably describe these characters as "humanly flawed," but it goes beyond that - the story stereotypes the worse qualities of both genders, then throws them at each other in a movie that seems designed to make the audience depressed. And depressing movies CAN be good (see Leaving Las Vegas), but the movie treats it's characters with what can best be described as disdain.
The Ugly: I'm yet again reminded why I have no intent to breed any time soon.
Points Pondered:
- Why are all of these characters going through mid-life crises at 30? Is the human race screwed?
- Zach Braff will always be J.D. to me. He could be playing a serial killer with a passion for ear-rape, and I'd just sit there and laugh, waiting for him to go off on his next humorous day dream.
- If you are telling a huge lie that relies on other people making excuses for you, I'd recommend checking your voicemail before meeting the person you're lying to. You know, just in case.
- It seems like the folks with the best relationship in the movie are the gay black couple next door. No one else seems remotely happy.
Wednesday, June 25, 2008
Full Review: Get Smart, 7/10
Remember push-ups? Those little cardboard tubes of ice-cream with the plunger on one end with which you worked the technicolor treat up to the top? Get Smart is pretty much the cinematic version of a push-up. It’s colorful, it’s yummy, it won’t fill you up in the slightest and half an hour after you’ve had it you’ll probably forget that you ate anything at all, but still, while it lasts, it’s glorious.
As seemed to be a trend in my film-going choices this past week, the story here is far from original. In fact, it’s tromping on very formulaic ground, but in contrast to The Incredible Hulk (see review below), somehow the whole thing works. You may hate yourself afterwards for getting sucked into the giddiness, but somehow the enthusiasm of the actors and the sheer number of jokes flying about make it worth it. Steve Carell plays, well, Steve Carell; The Rock plays, erm, The Rock; Anne Hathaway is hot; Alan Arkin is a total old-guy bad-ass; and yet, somehow, this combination of artificial ingredients is just what is needed to make a scrumptiously fluffy confection. Everyone here plays to their strengths which are, in large part, the personae already established in other movies, TV shows, and the media, but it works. If you’re snobbish about only liking “worthwhile” or “meaningful” comedies, you might hate yourself afterwards, but Get Smart is decidedly infectious in its good-natured humor.
None of this is to say that all of the jokes hit the mark -- there are indeed a fair number that thud -- but the overall saturation of gags is high enough that one may forgive a clunker or two. This is by no means high comedy, but neither is it cruel. I have a huge amount of respect for comedy that respects its characters. At some point, I shall rant about the cruelty of comedy and why Ben Stiller/Vince Vaughn/Jack Black movies tend to be painful rather than funny, but for now it shall suffice to say that humane comedy is wonderfully heartening. As Paul writes in his review, one of the big changes from the original TV show to the film adaptation is that the scriptwriters here have turned Maxwell Smart from an incompetent bungler into a guy who’s qualified (in some instances over-qualified) but still an inveterate doofus. This alteration works in the movie’s favor in multiple ways, but the one thing it never allows us to do is laugh AT Smart. We may laugh with him and laugh for him, but it’s never derogatory or derisive.
Another thing that struck me about the comedy in Get Smart is that there were surprisingly few bathroom or blue-humor jokes. There are a few painful moments (a miniature bow and arrows should not be used in enclosed spaces, FYI), but there are, I am pretty sure, no crotch shots or poo jokes. This should not be a striking factor in a movie, but given America’s fetish for the juvenile and the gross as being the standard in “funny”, it is. Steve Carell’s bum, however, is still fair game. I said the bar was higher than some: I didn’t say by how much.
Overall, this movie is a perfect example of what happens when funny people seem to be having fun making a movie. The script itself is not that good; the movie itself is not that good; the chemistry of the actors and the joy they seem to take in playing through the (mostly trite) situations in which they are placed is very, very good.
Yea, it’s full of artificial ingredients, it’s probably not very good for you, but man, some hot summer days just call for a sweet and fluffy guilty pleasure. Nostalgic ice-cream treats or Get Smart... they both hit the spot.
As seemed to be a trend in my film-going choices this past week, the story here is far from original. In fact, it’s tromping on very formulaic ground, but in contrast to The Incredible Hulk (see review below), somehow the whole thing works. You may hate yourself afterwards for getting sucked into the giddiness, but somehow the enthusiasm of the actors and the sheer number of jokes flying about make it worth it. Steve Carell plays, well, Steve Carell; The Rock plays, erm, The Rock; Anne Hathaway is hot; Alan Arkin is a total old-guy bad-ass; and yet, somehow, this combination of artificial ingredients is just what is needed to make a scrumptiously fluffy confection. Everyone here plays to their strengths which are, in large part, the personae already established in other movies, TV shows, and the media, but it works. If you’re snobbish about only liking “worthwhile” or “meaningful” comedies, you might hate yourself afterwards, but Get Smart is decidedly infectious in its good-natured humor.
None of this is to say that all of the jokes hit the mark -- there are indeed a fair number that thud -- but the overall saturation of gags is high enough that one may forgive a clunker or two. This is by no means high comedy, but neither is it cruel. I have a huge amount of respect for comedy that respects its characters. At some point, I shall rant about the cruelty of comedy and why Ben Stiller/Vince Vaughn/Jack Black movies tend to be painful rather than funny, but for now it shall suffice to say that humane comedy is wonderfully heartening. As Paul writes in his review, one of the big changes from the original TV show to the film adaptation is that the scriptwriters here have turned Maxwell Smart from an incompetent bungler into a guy who’s qualified (in some instances over-qualified) but still an inveterate doofus. This alteration works in the movie’s favor in multiple ways, but the one thing it never allows us to do is laugh AT Smart. We may laugh with him and laugh for him, but it’s never derogatory or derisive.
Another thing that struck me about the comedy in Get Smart is that there were surprisingly few bathroom or blue-humor jokes. There are a few painful moments (a miniature bow and arrows should not be used in enclosed spaces, FYI), but there are, I am pretty sure, no crotch shots or poo jokes. This should not be a striking factor in a movie, but given America’s fetish for the juvenile and the gross as being the standard in “funny”, it is. Steve Carell’s bum, however, is still fair game. I said the bar was higher than some: I didn’t say by how much.
Overall, this movie is a perfect example of what happens when funny people seem to be having fun making a movie. The script itself is not that good; the movie itself is not that good; the chemistry of the actors and the joy they seem to take in playing through the (mostly trite) situations in which they are placed is very, very good.
Yea, it’s full of artificial ingredients, it’s probably not very good for you, but man, some hot summer days just call for a sweet and fluffy guilty pleasure. Nostalgic ice-cream treats or Get Smart... they both hit the spot.
Full Review: The Incredible Hulk, 3/10
It must be hard to make a movie with no style and no originality whatsoever. You have 2+ hours to fill -- to cut out every bit of creativity has got to either take work or a seriously brainwashed crew. Or else it’s one big postmodern meta-joke on summer blockbuster audiences. For my own sanity and in order to keep my respect for a lot of the people involved, I’m going with the latter. The Incredible Hulk wasn’t a thuddingly dull color-by-number! It’s a hilarious exercise in the psychoanalytic of the archetypal Action Film!
Oh wait. It was just a bad movie. There’s a reason Edward Norton (who is by no means a dumb guy) is disowning it -- it is a flagrant misuse of a talented cast and a waste of a rather interesting set-up. In fact, it’s almost impressive how precisely every point of progression does nothing but advance the plot -- the only reason we learn anything at all about these characters is so that it can become significant in the next scene. The majority, if not the entirety of the script relies on the fact that we already know the story. Backstory? Psh -- need-to-know basis only. Character development? Unless you count one god-awful aborted sex scene: nonexistent. Reasons why we should care at all? Well, I’m a sucker for Edward Norton, well, being Edward Norton, and it’s fun to see Tim Roth play bad (his sneer is amazing)... but other than that, it’s a draw.
But perhaps I am biased, due to the fact that really, I’d already seen The Incredible Hulk at least five times. Dear readers, I’ll give you a little hint: if you’ve seen the ad, you’ve seen the movie. Seriously. The entire 2 hour story is (with the exception of one minor plot point) summed up in a few minutes of trailer. Yea, the fight scenes are longer; yea, there’s more talking/yelling/whining in between said battles; but, really, there’s not a lot more to the movie. Any attempt at suspense, at surprise, at being sinister is entirely ruined by the fact that *gasp* this looks dang familiar. One fight scene in a factory is especially ludicrous, considering the fact that we already know what the Hulk looks like. The final show-down between the Abomination and the Hulk, as well, is... well, you’ve seen it. The feature-length version is just longer, louder, and a lot more boring.
Don’t get me wrong -- I like action movies. I like big ba-da-boom spectacles when they’re well done. I love Marvel comics. I am smitten with Edward Norton. This should have been a diverting and fun 2 hours of my life, and yet the high point of the entire movie was a surprise cameo by everyone’s favorite smug Marvel millionaire Tony Stark -- Robert Downey Jr., slumming over from his own infinitely better comic adaptation. Maybe that’s what bothered me, actually! Iron Man and The Incredible Hulk both have good pedigrees and should have made a damn fun tag-team at the box-office. One succeeded in grand style, with intelligence and panache; one drowned in lugubriousness. Guess which one is which. The Ang Lee version of Hulk actually does not make a bad companion to Iron Man -- cerebral and stylish (although much darker) -- but this new by-the-numbers exercise in bombast is just a hulking mess.
Save yourself 2 hours and $10 -- watch the trailer for The Incredible Hulk. Skip the movie.
Oh wait. It was just a bad movie. There’s a reason Edward Norton (who is by no means a dumb guy) is disowning it -- it is a flagrant misuse of a talented cast and a waste of a rather interesting set-up. In fact, it’s almost impressive how precisely every point of progression does nothing but advance the plot -- the only reason we learn anything at all about these characters is so that it can become significant in the next scene. The majority, if not the entirety of the script relies on the fact that we already know the story. Backstory? Psh -- need-to-know basis only. Character development? Unless you count one god-awful aborted sex scene: nonexistent. Reasons why we should care at all? Well, I’m a sucker for Edward Norton, well, being Edward Norton, and it’s fun to see Tim Roth play bad (his sneer is amazing)... but other than that, it’s a draw.
But perhaps I am biased, due to the fact that really, I’d already seen The Incredible Hulk at least five times. Dear readers, I’ll give you a little hint: if you’ve seen the ad, you’ve seen the movie. Seriously. The entire 2 hour story is (with the exception of one minor plot point) summed up in a few minutes of trailer. Yea, the fight scenes are longer; yea, there’s more talking/yelling/whining in between said battles; but, really, there’s not a lot more to the movie. Any attempt at suspense, at surprise, at being sinister is entirely ruined by the fact that *gasp* this looks dang familiar. One fight scene in a factory is especially ludicrous, considering the fact that we already know what the Hulk looks like. The final show-down between the Abomination and the Hulk, as well, is... well, you’ve seen it. The feature-length version is just longer, louder, and a lot more boring.
Don’t get me wrong -- I like action movies. I like big ba-da-boom spectacles when they’re well done. I love Marvel comics. I am smitten with Edward Norton. This should have been a diverting and fun 2 hours of my life, and yet the high point of the entire movie was a surprise cameo by everyone’s favorite smug Marvel millionaire Tony Stark -- Robert Downey Jr., slumming over from his own infinitely better comic adaptation. Maybe that’s what bothered me, actually! Iron Man and The Incredible Hulk both have good pedigrees and should have made a damn fun tag-team at the box-office. One succeeded in grand style, with intelligence and panache; one drowned in lugubriousness. Guess which one is which. The Ang Lee version of Hulk actually does not make a bad companion to Iron Man -- cerebral and stylish (although much darker) -- but this new by-the-numbers exercise in bombast is just a hulking mess.
Save yourself 2 hours and $10 -- watch the trailer for The Incredible Hulk. Skip the movie.
Tuesday, June 24, 2008
Point-by-Point: Speed Racer 6/10
Speed Racer takes on the corrupt racing world to avenge the memory of his dead brother. Go Speed Racer. Go Speed Racer. Go Speed Racer, go.
The Good: Man this movie looks good. And while the story devolves into super-long (but again, very pretty) car races, the opening sequence, with Speed going against his brother's record, is truly a masterful bit of storytelling. Efficiently giving us a back story through super-imposed flashbacks and dialog while the present is going on behind everything, the first 15 minutes convey a lot of information and emotions in a visually interesting way. Watching young Speed imagine himself racing around in a cartoony hand-drawn car making engine noises change to him flying around the track in a just-as-cartoony-yet-far-more-polished car show that the Wachoskis can add substance to their style.
The Bad: The rest of the movie. Ok, maybe not quite, but it sure gets boring about halfway through. It was a huge let down from the promise the beginning showed. And while I admire their resolve to stick to the source material, the little boy and his chimp are amazingly annoying. Anytime they appeared on screen, my brain just started going "End. End. End. End endendendendENDENDENDEND!!!!!" Seriously. Really bad.
The Ugly: As I mentioned, I hate the chimp and kid. I also hate the fact that they forced me to watch the chimp throw his poop at a bad guy. Because that's what chimps do.
Points Pondered
The Good: Man this movie looks good. And while the story devolves into super-long (but again, very pretty) car races, the opening sequence, with Speed going against his brother's record, is truly a masterful bit of storytelling. Efficiently giving us a back story through super-imposed flashbacks and dialog while the present is going on behind everything, the first 15 minutes convey a lot of information and emotions in a visually interesting way. Watching young Speed imagine himself racing around in a cartoony hand-drawn car making engine noises change to him flying around the track in a just-as-cartoony-yet-far-more-polished car show that the Wachoskis can add substance to their style.
The Bad: The rest of the movie. Ok, maybe not quite, but it sure gets boring about halfway through. It was a huge let down from the promise the beginning showed. And while I admire their resolve to stick to the source material, the little boy and his chimp are amazingly annoying. Anytime they appeared on screen, my brain just started going "End. End. End. End endendendendENDENDENDEND!!!!!" Seriously. Really bad.
The Ugly: As I mentioned, I hate the chimp and kid. I also hate the fact that they forced me to watch the chimp throw his poop at a bad guy. Because that's what chimps do.
Points Pondered
- I was going to say that Matthew Fox did a great job as Racer X, but then I realized that he was playing the same character as he does in Lost, We Are Marshall and probably anything else he's ever done.
- Really, the racing here is the kind of spectacle NASCAR aspires to be. And in fairness, if NASCAR started adding loops, cliffs, spikes and other awesome track features, I'd start watching.
- Roger Allam is the new Tim Curry. Of course, his evilness here is probably just residual from V for Vendetta where he played Lewis Prothero.
- There's something to be said for a self-made hero. Characters like Spider-Man just kind of stumble into their powers. Speed Racer (and Iron Man) are both talented individuals who work hard at being the best. I'm sure an essay delving into this would be highly interesting. Hint hint, Ann.
Saturday, June 21, 2008
Point by Point: The Mist 8/10
A strange fog rolls into town, trapping a group of eclectic characters that are sure to have all sorts of interesting conflicts. Luckily for them, The Punisher is trapped with them so there's at least SOMEONE that knows how to handle the tentacly monsters lurking in . . . The Mist!!!
The Good: A good story told well. The intensity never dies, with the last 30 minutes turning it up to 11. The story brings up some interesting ideas about what makes a true monster.
The Bad: Marcia Gay Harden as a crazy über-Christian rubbed me the wrong way. This is of course the point, but she's still grating. The story can get a bit dialog-heavy and is admittedly a cookie-cutter horror movie in many ways. Nothing ever drops below the "competent" line, however.
The Ugly: The feeling you get in your stomach as you watch the credits roll. Wishing to unsee things never really works.
Points Pondered
The Good: A good story told well. The intensity never dies, with the last 30 minutes turning it up to 11. The story brings up some interesting ideas about what makes a true monster.
The Bad: Marcia Gay Harden as a crazy über-Christian rubbed me the wrong way. This is of course the point, but she's still grating. The story can get a bit dialog-heavy and is admittedly a cookie-cutter horror movie in many ways. Nothing ever drops below the "competent" line, however.
The Ugly: The feeling you get in your stomach as you watch the credits roll. Wishing to unsee things never really works.
Points Pondered
- If you have all your monsters shrouded in mist, you can have fairly cheap special effects while still being highly creepy.
- Cheap movie trick #2: Shoot all your action in one main set that you have complete control of in re: lights and sound. Location shooting equals time and money spent.
- NEVER trust secret Army projects. Although the idea that they could keep any of it a secret for very long while employing local soldiers as guards seems unlikely.
- [AMF: after adopting the moniker "heartstricken.moose", from a line in Moby Dick, I realized that I had no real idea what a heartstricken moose would sound like. I think Thomas Jane has given me my answer. He nails it.]
Thursday, June 19, 2008
Point-by-Point: Indiana Jones 4 7/10
Indiana Jones searches for a crystal skull, and kills Russians to do so. There's more to it than that, but who cares? It's an Indiana Jones movie! Just sit and enjoy! Do do doo doooo do do doo . . .
The Good: This movie is basically pure entertainment. Harrison Ford is more fun than he has been in years, and Shia LaBeouf proves yet again he can play a charming-if-annoying teenager with ease. Between the trademark comedy/action combo and an appropriately far-fetched story, Indy 4 is exactly what you'd expect.
The Bad: That being said, it doesn't really bring anything new to the table. While I wouldn't call it stale, it just doesn't have the impact that Raiders or The Last Crusade do.
The Ugly: The CG groundhogs really suck.
Points Pondered
The Good: This movie is basically pure entertainment. Harrison Ford is more fun than he has been in years, and Shia LaBeouf proves yet again he can play a charming-if-annoying teenager with ease. Between the trademark comedy/action combo and an appropriately far-fetched story, Indy 4 is exactly what you'd expect.
The Bad: That being said, it doesn't really bring anything new to the table. While I wouldn't call it stale, it just doesn't have the impact that Raiders or The Last Crusade do.
The Ugly: The CG groundhogs really suck.
Points Pondered
- I think a crystal skeleton would make an awesome addition to any living room. This would TOTALLY fit in with my mannequin in front of the window idea!!
- Now Indy has survived ridiculous things in the past, but in this movie he goes over three large waterfalls and gets blown up by an atom bomb with nary a scratch. My suspension of disbelief can only stretch so far.
- Is this movie implying that Shia LaBeouf will be the next Brando? I really can't wait to see him all fat and bald in his remake of The Island of Dr. Moreau.
- For the Record: Raiders > Last Crusade > Crystal Skull > Temple of Doom
Wednesday, June 18, 2008
Point-by-Point: Hostel 6/10
3 backpackers are lured to a hostel in Slovakia by promises of lots of pretty girls to have sex with. This being a horror movie, that's pretty much a death sentence. They end up in the middle of The Most Dangerous Game territory, and must figure out how to survive.
The Good: Not a bad premise for a horror movie, and the European locale just gives it the proper this-is-ludicrous-but-maybe-it-could-happen vibe. Plus, it IS fun, if you like this sort of thing.
The Bad: The pacing / storytelling is off. Nothing really happens until we've made it halfway through the movie, and when it DOES pick up, I couldn't bring myself to care much. I know Eli Roth has said all sorts of deep things are going on with the plot (watch as the heroes become victims of the exploitation they so blatantly ignore!) but it just comes off as an uneven horror movie.
The Ugly: Lots to choose from. I'm voting the snipping off of a hanging eyeball, followed by green pus oozing out. Icky.
Points Pondered
The Good: Not a bad premise for a horror movie, and the European locale just gives it the proper this-is-ludicrous-but-maybe-it-could-happen vibe. Plus, it IS fun, if you like this sort of thing.
The Bad: The pacing / storytelling is off. Nothing really happens until we've made it halfway through the movie, and when it DOES pick up, I couldn't bring myself to care much. I know Eli Roth has said all sorts of deep things are going on with the plot (watch as the heroes become victims of the exploitation they so blatantly ignore!) but it just comes off as an uneven horror movie.
The Ugly: Lots to choose from. I'm voting the snipping off of a hanging eyeball, followed by green pus oozing out. Icky.
Points Pondered
- Getting to see the other side of the torturee / torturer relation is kind of interesting, although does make everything THAT much more sadistic.
- I was digging the outfit the hero stole out of the locker room. Sure, the torturers may be sick creeps, but they dress well.
- I can see not liking gore, but anyone who gets offended at horror movies just can't see the inherent ridiculousness in them. I mean, you have a scene where someone gets hit by a train, and we cut to two tourists just getting DOUSED in blood. Yes, gross, but done in a completely comic manner.
- It's somewhat interesting to note that a torturer never kills anyone on screen, while we see our hero kill LOTS of people. Commentary on society, or just a realization that audiences won't throw up as much if they feel a killing is justified?
Tuesday, June 17, 2008
Haiku: Underworld 8/10
Vampires v. Werewolves
Cool, but it doesn't stop there -
One word: Were-Vampire.
Cool, but it doesn't stop there -
One word: Were-Vampire.
Point-by-Point: Mimic 3 3/10
Probable pitch: Hey, Rear Window was an awesome movie, but do you know what would make it better? Giant man-eating cockroaches.
The Good: It's about 10 times better than Mimic 2. And really, it's a Rear Window rip-off, so they're starting with a fairly solid story.
The Bad: Of course, by BEING a Rear Window rip-off, you're inviting comparisons. This sucks compared to Rear Window. Nothing really happens in the first 40 minutes, we just go through the "hmm, odd things are happening at the building across the street" stuff, when we all KNOW giant cockroaches are eating people. Come on movie, you gotta keep up!
The Ugly: Giant cockroaches eat people. Duh.
Points Pondered
The Good: It's about 10 times better than Mimic 2. And really, it's a Rear Window rip-off, so they're starting with a fairly solid story.
The Bad: Of course, by BEING a Rear Window rip-off, you're inviting comparisons. This sucks compared to Rear Window. Nothing really happens in the first 40 minutes, we just go through the "hmm, odd things are happening at the building across the street" stuff, when we all KNOW giant cockroaches are eating people. Come on movie, you gotta keep up!
The Ugly: Giant cockroaches eat people. Duh.
Points Pondered
- The disease the main character has (he's allergic to EVERYTHING) seems to come and go as needed by the plot - if the writer couldn't figure out how to end a scene, he'd have the guy be allergic to what the other character was wearing, and she'd have to leave.
- Of all the movies to turn into a trilogy, why Mimic? Sure it was cool, but it didn't exactly scream for more exploration.
- If I was to blow up an apartment with a bunch of oxygen tanks in it, I would avoid hiding in the fridge that has a bunch of holes in the front door.
- If I had a person spying on me from across the street, he would be very bored. Of course, it's seriously tempting to stage dramatic scenes in front of my windows. Or just stand there, day and night, staring. Ooh, get a mannequin and occasionally change its pose - throw off the peeping toms! I'm full of good ideas.
All's Well That Ends Well: Ann natters about redemption and violence
Feel free to argue with me on this point, but I would like to postulate that the characteristic of a film’s violence-content that determines whether people will accept it or scream about it is how redemptive it is. As a rule, I don’t think most people enjoy watching good (or even morally neutral) men and women in pain, but we will -- we will pay a lot of money -- to see it. But only if something positive comes from the experience. There has to be a point, and the point has to be redemptive.
I (yes, I am going to be pompous and use the universal I here) want to see Maximus triumph over pain and impending death to avenge his family. I will cry for Jack dying in Titanic, but I know that Rose will redeem his sacrifice. I know that Christ suffered for our sins and so sitting through the torture-porn that is Passion of the Christ is, itself, a redemptive experience.
Braveheart is a fantastic example of this phenomenon. The end of this movie is brutal -- the torture is relatively explicit and the pain endured by Wallace is palpable -- maybe it’s not Audition-explicit, but it’s definitely hard to watch. And yet, at the same time, packaged in those same minutes, is the catch-phrase of the year: “FREEDOM!” This is what it seems is most memorable about the film: not that the audience was squinching up in their seats while our staunch hero was being eviscerated, but the defiant battlecry that redeemed the pain. The message is that “this is worth it”. As audiences, we are able to watch a much higher caliber of violence when there is, for lack of a better term, a redemptive point to it.
There is nothing that really connects the audience to the unfortunate victims who fall prey to horrific fates in, say Hostel or Turistas. Perhaps they do not deserve their bloody ends, but there’s nothing really there to make the audience believe that this suffering is for any purpose besides that of entertainment -- in essence, we don’t care if they live, so they might as well die. There is no redemption, but given that these are merely stock figures, there really is no need for any emotional response whatsoever toward them. Thus, with the human element taken out of the equation, the violence itself becomes the focal point, and this, as anyone who has read entertainment news in the past few years knows, causes problems. I could natter on about this, but it’s been a bit dead-horsed in the popular media and while I love taking my own flog to it, I shall refrain for the moment.
A more interesting case, however, is what happens when there is no redemption. When we want there to be, but there isn’t? When the wrong person is redeemed? When life sucks and you really do just die? What kind of entertainment is that?
Leaving Las Vegas is a train-wreck and yet we watch. Seven lets the bad guy get the last horrific laugh. The Mist (2007) ends on a horrific mis-calculation. Gallipoli whumps you with the tragic weakness of man.
This violence is perhaps not the goriest, but it’s damn hard to watch. More importantly, the aftershocks aren’t uplifting (i.e. “FREEDOM!” or “SPARTA!” or “I’ll never let go, Jack”), but are instead sickening.
We don’t like to see people we like, or at least people we’ve gotten to know over the course of the 2 hour film, NOT be redeemed. And yet, the experience of being thus frustrated is ever so much more resonant and shocking than any amount of good-wins-out-in-the-end violence.
Thus, It’s not so much, I would argue, that it’s a happy ending that we desire, but a redemptive one. One that reminds us that people are worthwhile, that even if circumstances suck we can still rise (or inspire others to do that for which you blazed a trail), that making something good of your life, of your situation is possible, even if it pains, tortures, or kills you in the pursuit.
When these expectations are flouted, it hurts. I give props to directors who have the balls to bring down that lash, but still: OW! I won’t forget that one.
I (yes, I am going to be pompous and use the universal I here) want to see Maximus triumph over pain and impending death to avenge his family. I will cry for Jack dying in Titanic, but I know that Rose will redeem his sacrifice. I know that Christ suffered for our sins and so sitting through the torture-porn that is Passion of the Christ is, itself, a redemptive experience.
Braveheart is a fantastic example of this phenomenon. The end of this movie is brutal -- the torture is relatively explicit and the pain endured by Wallace is palpable -- maybe it’s not Audition-explicit, but it’s definitely hard to watch. And yet, at the same time, packaged in those same minutes, is the catch-phrase of the year: “FREEDOM!” This is what it seems is most memorable about the film: not that the audience was squinching up in their seats while our staunch hero was being eviscerated, but the defiant battlecry that redeemed the pain. The message is that “this is worth it”. As audiences, we are able to watch a much higher caliber of violence when there is, for lack of a better term, a redemptive point to it.
There is nothing that really connects the audience to the unfortunate victims who fall prey to horrific fates in, say Hostel or Turistas. Perhaps they do not deserve their bloody ends, but there’s nothing really there to make the audience believe that this suffering is for any purpose besides that of entertainment -- in essence, we don’t care if they live, so they might as well die. There is no redemption, but given that these are merely stock figures, there really is no need for any emotional response whatsoever toward them. Thus, with the human element taken out of the equation, the violence itself becomes the focal point, and this, as anyone who has read entertainment news in the past few years knows, causes problems. I could natter on about this, but it’s been a bit dead-horsed in the popular media and while I love taking my own flog to it, I shall refrain for the moment.
A more interesting case, however, is what happens when there is no redemption. When we want there to be, but there isn’t? When the wrong person is redeemed? When life sucks and you really do just die? What kind of entertainment is that?
Leaving Las Vegas is a train-wreck and yet we watch. Seven lets the bad guy get the last horrific laugh. The Mist (2007) ends on a horrific mis-calculation. Gallipoli whumps you with the tragic weakness of man.
This violence is perhaps not the goriest, but it’s damn hard to watch. More importantly, the aftershocks aren’t uplifting (i.e. “FREEDOM!” or “SPARTA!” or “I’ll never let go, Jack”), but are instead sickening.
We don’t like to see people we like, or at least people we’ve gotten to know over the course of the 2 hour film, NOT be redeemed. And yet, the experience of being thus frustrated is ever so much more resonant and shocking than any amount of good-wins-out-in-the-end violence.
Thus, It’s not so much, I would argue, that it’s a happy ending that we desire, but a redemptive one. One that reminds us that people are worthwhile, that even if circumstances suck we can still rise (or inspire others to do that for which you blazed a trail), that making something good of your life, of your situation is possible, even if it pains, tortures, or kills you in the pursuit.
When these expectations are flouted, it hurts. I give props to directors who have the balls to bring down that lash, but still: OW! I won’t forget that one.
Sunday, June 15, 2008
Haiku: George of the Jungle 8/10
A perfect combo
of slapstick, smarts and cuteness
So many great lines
of slapstick, smarts and cuteness
So many great lines
Point-by-Point: The Golden Compass 5/10
A girl goes on an adventure that would probably take a book to describe. Of course, there's a reason for that.
The Good: Talking warrior polar bears!! The acting was fairly good (I was very impressed with the main girl, Dakota Blue Richards) and they nailed the look of the book's world.
The Bad: The story is ultra-condensed. Strong bonds of trust and friendship are instantly formed while major plot points just keep coming. By the end, you really aren't sure what you just saw, but you get the feeling that it wasn't really worth it.
The Ugly: Um, definitely not Eva Green. She's amazingly pretty.
Points Pondered
The Good: Talking warrior polar bears!! The acting was fairly good (I was very impressed with the main girl, Dakota Blue Richards) and they nailed the look of the book's world.
The Bad: The story is ultra-condensed. Strong bonds of trust and friendship are instantly formed while major plot points just keep coming. By the end, you really aren't sure what you just saw, but you get the feeling that it wasn't really worth it.
The Ugly: Um, definitely not Eva Green. She's amazingly pretty.
Points Pondered
- Has Sam Elliott ever played a non-cowboy?
- For a moment at the beginning, I thought they were going to pull a Dune and spend 10 minutes explaining the back story. Probably wouldn't have hurt too much, though.
- I doubt the usefulness of the majority of the symbols on the compass. Either way, anytime they were used to answer/asked a question, it seemed like a serious stretch.
- Having a constant animal companion acting as your soul would be pretty sweet, but would you get made fun of for having a stupid one? Like a duckbilled platypus? Wait, I take that back - that would be AWESOME. Still, what if you were super-evil and ended up with a koala?
Thursday, June 12, 2008
Point-by-Point: Stay 4/10
Ryan Gosling plays a suicidal art student threatening to kill himself in 3 days and Ewan McGregor is his therapist. Things happen. Or do they??
The Good: I want to like this movie. It's ultra-stylish, has an amazing cast and tries hard to be hip. Sometimes it even succeeds.
The Bad: You will never understand what's going on. Even at the very end (you know, the point in the movie where loose ends meet?) the explanation we're handed for the goings-on just covers the utter basics of what we've just seen, completely destroying the "depth" and "intricacies" I thought the movie was trying to build.
The Ugly: The creeping sensation you get at about the hour mark that all of this "intriguing" bending of reality really has no point, and then being proven absolutely right.
Points Pondered
The Good: I want to like this movie. It's ultra-stylish, has an amazing cast and tries hard to be hip. Sometimes it even succeeds.
The Bad: You will never understand what's going on. Even at the very end (you know, the point in the movie where loose ends meet?) the explanation we're handed for the goings-on just covers the utter basics of what we've just seen, completely destroying the "depth" and "intricacies" I thought the movie was trying to build.
The Ugly: The creeping sensation you get at about the hour mark that all of this "intriguing" bending of reality really has no point, and then being proven absolutely right.
Points Pondered
- Does the director ever bolt upright in bed, drenched in sweat, having come up with yet ANOTHER movie idea that would be a better use of Ewan McGregor, Naomi Watts, Ryan Gosling, Bob Hoskins, Janeane Garofolo and B.D. Wong?
- Transitioning from scene to scene through doorways is actually a fairly cool effect.
- I guess it could be said that this movie is trying to depict an experience, not a story, and therefore only has to make as much sense as the fractured mind behind it. If that's the case, why not just leave the audience out of it?
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
Point-by-Point: Revolver 4/10
Gambler Generic Jason Statham Character wins a lot of money from his arch-nemesis, Dorothy (Ray Liotta. Yes.). Upon doing so, bad things happen and Generic Statham is forced to put his life in the hands of two nobodies who seem to have the ability to see the future.
The Good: It's better than Swept Away. Statham does his shtick well, and Andre Benjamin (of Outkast fame) actually holds his own. Really, if you stopped paying attention to what people were saying or doing, you might mistake it for a worthwhile movie.
The Bad: I went in hoping for a crime thriller, and what I got instead was a series of improbable events masquerading as an "important" film.
The Ugly: Ray Liotta with George Hamilton skin. He tans. A lot. In not a lot of clothing.
Points Pondered
The Good: It's better than Swept Away. Statham does his shtick well, and Andre Benjamin (of Outkast fame) actually holds his own. Really, if you stopped paying attention to what people were saying or doing, you might mistake it for a worthwhile movie.
The Bad: I went in hoping for a crime thriller, and what I got instead was a series of improbable events masquerading as an "important" film.
The Ugly: Ray Liotta with George Hamilton skin. He tans. A lot. In not a lot of clothing.
Points Pondered
- Having a confusing plot does not equal art.
- Why do we suddenly cut to an anime version of what's happening?? WHY?!?
- If you have to show interviews with philosophers during your movie's credits in order to justify your story, you probably made a wrong turn somewhere.
- Remember when Guy Ritchie made cool movies like Snatch and Lock Stock? I miss that Guy Ritchie.
Point-by-Point: Stir of Echos 2 3/10
A national guardsman accidentally kills an innocent family at a check point in Iraq. He returns home and starts seeing dead people. And the future. And people who aren't dead, but might be. So, let's just say he sees spooky things.
The Good: Well, it was based on a good movie – does that count? Rob Lowe isn't terrible, and I guess its moral is ok, if a bit heavy-handed.
The Bad: I actually like plot twists that make you reevaluate what you've just seen, but ones that make the first 70 minutes of the movie absolutely meaningless just tick me off. Plus, it also relies on you believing that humans are basically evil.
The Ugly: Dude uses a lighter to burn "KILLER" into his arm. It gets bubbly.
Points Pondered
The Good: Well, it was based on a good movie – does that count? Rob Lowe isn't terrible, and I guess its moral is ok, if a bit heavy-handed.
The Bad: I actually like plot twists that make you reevaluate what you've just seen, but ones that make the first 70 minutes of the movie absolutely meaningless just tick me off. Plus, it also relies on you believing that humans are basically evil.
The Ugly: Dude uses a lighter to burn "KILLER" into his arm. It gets bubbly.
Points Pondered
- There have been a chain of in-name-only sequels that probably should have just called themselves something else. I guess it's a question of how much money can you milk from a known name versus keeping any sort of artistic integrity. Hmm, I wonder which the studios will choose . . .
- Movies have taught me that all ghosts are pretty much jerks. Except Patrick Swayze. Of course, he wasn't exactly a NICE ghost.
- If your husband starts talking about seeing ghosts, burning himself and generally becoming a ticking time bomb, you should probably think about locking up the guns.
- Finishing a horror movie at 2 am (even a bad one) makes me turn on a lot of lights before I go to sleep.
Review: Speed Racer 6/10
Speed Racer, the newest spectacle from the Wachowski brothers is, for all intensive purposes, only that: an entirely visual experience. It’s one of the most inventively realized and altogether psychedelic action movies I’ve seen in a long time, but take away all the glitz and cinemagic, and I’m not sure what’s left. Not much, I think. Of course, when you have 2 hours of continuous fluorescent colors, streaming psychedelia, and spinning (sometimes to the point of being almost nonsensical) images, why do you need things like “three-dimensional characters” or “a story”?
The characters here aren’t so much people as paper-thin excuses for yet another over-long car-race. This state of affairs is a shame, given that the film is a veritable parade of recognizable actors hamming it up as potentially-interesting characters. John Goodman, Benno Furmann, Richard Roundtree, Matthew Fox, Susan Sarandon, Christina Ricci, and even Emile Hirsch as the eponymous character, all get buried under the avalanche of special effects.
Only John Goodman as the patriarch of the Racer family, though, really succeeds in digging himself out of the mess and distinguishing himself as a person, rather than as a mouthpiece. This is mainly, if not solely, because of his lack of on-the-track time. He has to play the spectator and thus becomes the anchor for all the spinning action around him, holding his family together and calling the audience to care about something more resonant than the next semi-animated orgy of flash.
The story is a simple, anti-corporate screed with a “do what you love, not what fills your pockets” message. It’s a serviceable outline upon which to hang a nice string of action sequences, all of which allow the audience to root for the underdog-hero as he competes against the big-business stooges who threaten the Racer family’s idyllic, candy-colored life. But really, the point of this cute little message is just an excuse to set up a series of increasingly grandiose set-pieces that are used in lieu of character development or, say, dialogue, in order to prove points and to advance the story. One race just becomes the impetus for the next one.
It’s funny that Iron Man and Speed Racer opened in theatres within a few weeks of each other. Macroscopically, they are surprisingly similar -- they’re both comic-book adaptations heavy on the special effects, glitzy and big-budget, with pseudo-traumatized heroes in the title-roles. However, this is where the similarities cease. These two films could be used as an example of how a modicum of character-development can pay off large dividends in the emotional heft of the film as a whole. Iron Man is admittedly a very flashy film, but in focusing on the human element, it engages the audience in a way that Speed Racer does not. You care about Tony Stark in a way that you do not for Speed Racer, and that makes all the difference in the world.
The movie, in its defense, is designed very well to avoid most of the sticky problems caused by such things as “character arcs” and “meaningful story”. It works. The problem is that without such mundane and non-special effects-driven underpinnings, the cumulative impact is lessened. On the whole, Speed Racer is beautiful to look at, but it’s empty.
6/10
The characters here aren’t so much people as paper-thin excuses for yet another over-long car-race. This state of affairs is a shame, given that the film is a veritable parade of recognizable actors hamming it up as potentially-interesting characters. John Goodman, Benno Furmann, Richard Roundtree, Matthew Fox, Susan Sarandon, Christina Ricci, and even Emile Hirsch as the eponymous character, all get buried under the avalanche of special effects.
Only John Goodman as the patriarch of the Racer family, though, really succeeds in digging himself out of the mess and distinguishing himself as a person, rather than as a mouthpiece. This is mainly, if not solely, because of his lack of on-the-track time. He has to play the spectator and thus becomes the anchor for all the spinning action around him, holding his family together and calling the audience to care about something more resonant than the next semi-animated orgy of flash.
The story is a simple, anti-corporate screed with a “do what you love, not what fills your pockets” message. It’s a serviceable outline upon which to hang a nice string of action sequences, all of which allow the audience to root for the underdog-hero as he competes against the big-business stooges who threaten the Racer family’s idyllic, candy-colored life. But really, the point of this cute little message is just an excuse to set up a series of increasingly grandiose set-pieces that are used in lieu of character development or, say, dialogue, in order to prove points and to advance the story. One race just becomes the impetus for the next one.
It’s funny that Iron Man and Speed Racer opened in theatres within a few weeks of each other. Macroscopically, they are surprisingly similar -- they’re both comic-book adaptations heavy on the special effects, glitzy and big-budget, with pseudo-traumatized heroes in the title-roles. However, this is where the similarities cease. These two films could be used as an example of how a modicum of character-development can pay off large dividends in the emotional heft of the film as a whole. Iron Man is admittedly a very flashy film, but in focusing on the human element, it engages the audience in a way that Speed Racer does not. You care about Tony Stark in a way that you do not for Speed Racer, and that makes all the difference in the world.
The movie, in its defense, is designed very well to avoid most of the sticky problems caused by such things as “character arcs” and “meaningful story”. It works. The problem is that without such mundane and non-special effects-driven underpinnings, the cumulative impact is lessened. On the whole, Speed Racer is beautiful to look at, but it’s empty.
6/10
Monday, June 9, 2008
Point-by-Point: Evan Almighty 4/10
Evan Baxter turns into Noah (who isn't all that "almighty", but I guess they have to make the sequel connection SOMEWHERE) and must build an ark before Morgan Freeman floods the world, as Morgan Freeman is apt to do.
The Good: Um, animals are cool sometimes. And Morgan Freeman plays a kindly old black man well, even one that happens to be God.
The Bad: It's not funny. At all, really. Which is an impressive feat of writing, given that it stars Steve Carrell, who happens to be innately funny.
The Ugly: Did you know that animals poop? The writers do, and they think it's HILARIOUS.
Points Pondered
-This was written by Steve Oedekerk of Kung Pow: Enter the Fist fame. I thought that movie was awesome, and I STILL wasn't entertained by this.
-When you're relying on face-making, thumb-hammering and bad haircuts to make your movie funny, you're wandering dangerously close to Three Stooges territory.
-The fact that NO ONE believes that a flood is coming even when warned by someone whom pairs of animals are obviously flocking to / he has amazing control of AND magically has all the stuff to build an ark seems like a stretch. Sure, I'd probably be somewhat skeptical (although there'd be an awful lot of stuff to try and explain away), but there would probably be tons of end-of-days folk flocking to him.
-Wanda Sykes is useless. Something happens in the movie, cut to her saying something "urbanly." Genius!
The Good: Um, animals are cool sometimes. And Morgan Freeman plays a kindly old black man well, even one that happens to be God.
The Bad: It's not funny. At all, really. Which is an impressive feat of writing, given that it stars Steve Carrell, who happens to be innately funny.
The Ugly: Did you know that animals poop? The writers do, and they think it's HILARIOUS.
Points Pondered
-This was written by Steve Oedekerk of Kung Pow: Enter the Fist fame. I thought that movie was awesome, and I STILL wasn't entertained by this.
-When you're relying on face-making, thumb-hammering and bad haircuts to make your movie funny, you're wandering dangerously close to Three Stooges territory.
-The fact that NO ONE believes that a flood is coming even when warned by someone whom pairs of animals are obviously flocking to / he has amazing control of AND magically has all the stuff to build an ark seems like a stretch. Sure, I'd probably be somewhat skeptical (although there'd be an awful lot of stuff to try and explain away), but there would probably be tons of end-of-days folk flocking to him.
-Wanda Sykes is useless. Something happens in the movie, cut to her saying something "urbanly." Genius!
Review: Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull 7/10
Usually, I like to wait a day or three between seeing a movie and actually hammering out my complete thoughts on it -- this technique gives me a chance to mull it over, figure out exactly why I liked it or why I didn’t, and generally get a bit of distance on the experience that was the specified movie. Unfortunately, my super-scientific incubation period has failed. I swear I was paying attention to Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull when I saw it, but in the intervening week it has in large part evanesced from my memory. And so, dear readers, you are stuck with my dawdling upon the memorable bits, as unconnected as they may be.
For the most part, though, what more do you need in an Indiana Jones movie other than “blah blah mythology blah blah awesome history professor with a whip blah blah action blah blah Cold War villains blah blah wisecracks blah blah finis”? I’m going play devil’s advocate on this one and vote for a cohesive story. All of the important pieces are there, in fine form -- myths and legends (this time taking our hero to the jungles of South America), the Soviets, lots of snark, and of course, the inimitable Indy -- there are just a lot of extraneous bits. Spielberg doesn’t just toss in the proverbial kitchen sink for kicks: he launches a veritable armada of them at the audience, for no discernible reason except that he can. Unfortunately, what this means is that for every important or interesting plot point or bit of character development, we get 20 minutes of “exciting”, glitzy, or just completely nonsensical fluff.
One fight scene, in particular, would have been better suited for a Saturday morning cartoon than to an action movie ostensibly aimed at adults, or at least the over-8 set. It goes from “cool idea” to “bye-bye anything approaching realism” to “gosh, what are they going to do next? CG in some rubbery legs to really heighten the stretchy effect?” to “bored now” pretty quickly, but the fight continues for about 5 minutes past that. Luckily, after this over-done wallow in juvenile action, Indiana bounces back and returns to a much more palatable form.
Really, for all the snazzy special effects and well-choreographed action, it’s not the reason we’re paying to see this specific action movie. It’s Indiana Jones, and dammit, I want Indiana! Luckily, the movie delivers -- hat and whip intact. Harrison Ford is older, the character himself is older, and it’s nice to see that the script ages both appropriately, both on the timeline (it’s now the 1950s and we’ve traded Russians for Nazis) and in the way the character reacts to the world around him. Make no mistake -- he’s still bad-ass. He’s just a little arthritic, which, interestingly, is not a bad thing.
The rest of the cast, as well, lives up to the campiness of their surroundings, with Cate Blanchett especialloy sinking her teeth into her “wubble-Us” as a Soviet commander interested in psychic warfare and totally rocking a pseudo-dominatrix look, supremely bad haircut excepted. Also, much to my dear fellow reviewer’s delight, Shia LeBoeuf really is in this movie and almost out-Brandos Brando, circa The Wild One (perhaps this is more for my enjoyment than Paul’s -- his is a more intellectual satisfaction at once again having The Truth proven) [PCW: He's in EVERYTHING. I swear I saw him wandering around in the background of The Constant Gardener]. And Karen Allen pops up again, aging gracefully and oh, so sassily as the love of Indiana’s life. I’m glad they brought her back. She definitely adds spice to the movie. They make a good pair, and I’m endlessly glad they didn’t throw in some hot young number for Indy to lust after -- Marion, middle-aged as she may be, is infinitely better than any nymphet.
I’m still a little bit thrown by the denouement, involving aliens with crystal skeletons (their rib cages are gorgeous! I’m serious.) and what I think was a quadruple-backstabbing, but this is an Indiana Jones movie. It all made some kind of mushy sense in the end.
Is it realistic? Hell no. Is it fun? Oh, yea. Will you remember 85% of the plot twists a day after you walk out of the theatre? Probably not. Will you go home and end up watching the original trilogy and hearken back to the glory days? I hope so.
For the most part, though, what more do you need in an Indiana Jones movie other than “blah blah mythology blah blah awesome history professor with a whip blah blah action blah blah Cold War villains blah blah wisecracks blah blah finis”? I’m going play devil’s advocate on this one and vote for a cohesive story. All of the important pieces are there, in fine form -- myths and legends (this time taking our hero to the jungles of South America), the Soviets, lots of snark, and of course, the inimitable Indy -- there are just a lot of extraneous bits. Spielberg doesn’t just toss in the proverbial kitchen sink for kicks: he launches a veritable armada of them at the audience, for no discernible reason except that he can. Unfortunately, what this means is that for every important or interesting plot point or bit of character development, we get 20 minutes of “exciting”, glitzy, or just completely nonsensical fluff.
One fight scene, in particular, would have been better suited for a Saturday morning cartoon than to an action movie ostensibly aimed at adults, or at least the over-8 set. It goes from “cool idea” to “bye-bye anything approaching realism” to “gosh, what are they going to do next? CG in some rubbery legs to really heighten the stretchy effect?” to “bored now” pretty quickly, but the fight continues for about 5 minutes past that. Luckily, after this over-done wallow in juvenile action, Indiana bounces back and returns to a much more palatable form.
Really, for all the snazzy special effects and well-choreographed action, it’s not the reason we’re paying to see this specific action movie. It’s Indiana Jones, and dammit, I want Indiana! Luckily, the movie delivers -- hat and whip intact. Harrison Ford is older, the character himself is older, and it’s nice to see that the script ages both appropriately, both on the timeline (it’s now the 1950s and we’ve traded Russians for Nazis) and in the way the character reacts to the world around him. Make no mistake -- he’s still bad-ass. He’s just a little arthritic, which, interestingly, is not a bad thing.
The rest of the cast, as well, lives up to the campiness of their surroundings, with Cate Blanchett especialloy sinking her teeth into her “wubble-Us” as a Soviet commander interested in psychic warfare and totally rocking a pseudo-dominatrix look, supremely bad haircut excepted. Also, much to my dear fellow reviewer’s delight, Shia LeBoeuf really is in this movie and almost out-Brandos Brando, circa The Wild One (perhaps this is more for my enjoyment than Paul’s -- his is a more intellectual satisfaction at once again having The Truth proven) [PCW: He's in EVERYTHING. I swear I saw him wandering around in the background of The Constant Gardener]. And Karen Allen pops up again, aging gracefully and oh, so sassily as the love of Indiana’s life. I’m glad they brought her back. She definitely adds spice to the movie. They make a good pair, and I’m endlessly glad they didn’t throw in some hot young number for Indy to lust after -- Marion, middle-aged as she may be, is infinitely better than any nymphet.
I’m still a little bit thrown by the denouement, involving aliens with crystal skeletons (their rib cages are gorgeous! I’m serious.) and what I think was a quadruple-backstabbing, but this is an Indiana Jones movie. It all made some kind of mushy sense in the end.
Is it realistic? Hell no. Is it fun? Oh, yea. Will you remember 85% of the plot twists a day after you walk out of the theatre? Probably not. Will you go home and end up watching the original trilogy and hearken back to the glory days? I hope so.
Review: Prince Caspian 7/10
The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian documents the four Pevensie childrens’ second journey into Narnia, and what has been one year on earth has, for the world through the wardrobe, been over a thousand. The quartet of adolescents have been called back to aid a prince restore his throne and ultimately to restore Narnia to the Narnians from the clutches of a usurper.
Due to its epic-yet-family-friendly scope, this film is an odd combination of empowering children’s fairytale and adult action movie. Unfortunately it accomplishes neither aim and the resulting stew is violent yet bloodless. It’s the Saturday Morning Special version of 300, right down to the warriors’ helmets and their fighting style, but with a troupe of children leading the Spartan -- I mean Narnian -- charge.
All of the actors are serviceable, but they really don’t need to be much more, given that they are mainly used as facilitators for the set-piece battles and as mouthpieces for plot devices. Prince Caspian, played by Ben Barnes, is very fluffily pretty and honorable but with the exception of his distractingly strange accent, he is entirely milquetoast. The four Pevensies, as well, are strikingly non-striking. Generally, they are defined by their most prevalent trait: Lucy is pious and hopeful, Edmund is snarky, Susan is pragmatic, and Peter tries to be brave. The villain, as all villains should, is defined mainly by his perfectly pointy facial hair. The most memorable characters are, ironically, those most heavily buried under make-up or entirely working through an animatronic creation. Peter Dinklage, as a crusty dwarf, especially establishes a human connection where most of the other characters fail.
But enough chat about the people! For as much as the original Narnia novels are about the human effects of faith, greed, and other big-ticket issues, the movies are about monsters, battles, and other big-ticket effects. Luckily, these effects are much improved from The Lion, The Witch, and the Wardrobe, so the film is a visual feast, although moreso in the more personal scenes than in the epic battles. When the focus is tighter -- dancing naiads made of flower-petals, impressively creepy old hawk-women, etc. -- the effects are smoother and are actually more awe-inspiring than grand-scale charges and death en masse.
Where the movie as a whole, and the actors individually, succeed, however, is in the depiction of a quintet of very unlikely heroes. These are not powerful warriors -- and in fact, they don’t even turn into them -- they are, all in all, scared little kids. Even though the Pevensies have previously become renowned as Narnian leaders (on their last excursion through the wardrobe) they are still unsure of themselves and act as any group of children would act. They argue, they get scared, and when things go right, it seems to do so almost in spite of their (often fear-driven) bad choices. In the Lewis book on which this movie is based, the distinction is between Lucy (who has faith in Aslan) and the older children (who rely on themselves and on secular reason), but in this adaptation, it is the childrens’ immaturity that really comes through. Even Lucy, for all of her faith, is, for most of the film, impotent against the forces allied against the Narnians.
The most striking scene in this movie is a duel between the villainous king and Peter, the oldest of the Pevensie children. This is not a heroic, wise-cracks-and-blaring-trumpets duel, but is instead sweaty and wearying, soundtracked by the heavy slithering of chainmail. As is to be expected Good wins out, but it is more a respite than a triumph. This scene works superficially to prove Peter’s prowess, but also stands as an elegant depiction of strength mustered despite fear. For once, it is pure human resolution that triumphs, and that resonates more strongly than any amount of computer-generated effects.
Overall, Prince Caspian would be a worthwhile rental for middle-school children and those charmed by the prospect of centaurs, fauns, gryphons, and other beautifully-constructed creatures.
Oh yea, and Aslan shows up, either (take your pick): as a testament to the power of faith even in the darkest times, or as deus ex machina. For a film based on such a theologically-dense book, this is a surprisingly secular adaptation.
7/10
Due to its epic-yet-family-friendly scope, this film is an odd combination of empowering children’s fairytale and adult action movie. Unfortunately it accomplishes neither aim and the resulting stew is violent yet bloodless. It’s the Saturday Morning Special version of 300, right down to the warriors’ helmets and their fighting style, but with a troupe of children leading the Spartan -- I mean Narnian -- charge.
All of the actors are serviceable, but they really don’t need to be much more, given that they are mainly used as facilitators for the set-piece battles and as mouthpieces for plot devices. Prince Caspian, played by Ben Barnes, is very fluffily pretty and honorable but with the exception of his distractingly strange accent, he is entirely milquetoast. The four Pevensies, as well, are strikingly non-striking. Generally, they are defined by their most prevalent trait: Lucy is pious and hopeful, Edmund is snarky, Susan is pragmatic, and Peter tries to be brave. The villain, as all villains should, is defined mainly by his perfectly pointy facial hair. The most memorable characters are, ironically, those most heavily buried under make-up or entirely working through an animatronic creation. Peter Dinklage, as a crusty dwarf, especially establishes a human connection where most of the other characters fail.
But enough chat about the people! For as much as the original Narnia novels are about the human effects of faith, greed, and other big-ticket issues, the movies are about monsters, battles, and other big-ticket effects. Luckily, these effects are much improved from The Lion, The Witch, and the Wardrobe, so the film is a visual feast, although moreso in the more personal scenes than in the epic battles. When the focus is tighter -- dancing naiads made of flower-petals, impressively creepy old hawk-women, etc. -- the effects are smoother and are actually more awe-inspiring than grand-scale charges and death en masse.
Where the movie as a whole, and the actors individually, succeed, however, is in the depiction of a quintet of very unlikely heroes. These are not powerful warriors -- and in fact, they don’t even turn into them -- they are, all in all, scared little kids. Even though the Pevensies have previously become renowned as Narnian leaders (on their last excursion through the wardrobe) they are still unsure of themselves and act as any group of children would act. They argue, they get scared, and when things go right, it seems to do so almost in spite of their (often fear-driven) bad choices. In the Lewis book on which this movie is based, the distinction is between Lucy (who has faith in Aslan) and the older children (who rely on themselves and on secular reason), but in this adaptation, it is the childrens’ immaturity that really comes through. Even Lucy, for all of her faith, is, for most of the film, impotent against the forces allied against the Narnians.
The most striking scene in this movie is a duel between the villainous king and Peter, the oldest of the Pevensie children. This is not a heroic, wise-cracks-and-blaring-trumpets duel, but is instead sweaty and wearying, soundtracked by the heavy slithering of chainmail. As is to be expected Good wins out, but it is more a respite than a triumph. This scene works superficially to prove Peter’s prowess, but also stands as an elegant depiction of strength mustered despite fear. For once, it is pure human resolution that triumphs, and that resonates more strongly than any amount of computer-generated effects.
Overall, Prince Caspian would be a worthwhile rental for middle-school children and those charmed by the prospect of centaurs, fauns, gryphons, and other beautifully-constructed creatures.
Oh yea, and Aslan shows up, either (take your pick): as a testament to the power of faith even in the darkest times, or as deus ex machina. For a film based on such a theologically-dense book, this is a surprisingly secular adaptation.
7/10
Haiku: Virgin Suicides 8/10
Five sheltered sisters
One of them had "relations"
And then there were none
One of them had "relations"
And then there were none
Point-by-Point: Forbidden Kingdom 6/10
A teenager finds himself transported to a mystic land (which looks a lot like China) where he must restore the power of the Monkey King, the only person who can stop the Jade Warlord. Will he learn the ways of the warrior on his quest, or just be more careful about where he buys his drugs?
The Good: If you have Jackie Chan, Jet Li and Woo Ping working on your movie, you will have fun fight sequences.
The Bad: The whole frame story seemed a bit "after school special." Say no to peer pressure children. Unless those peers are armed felons.
The Ugly: I really didn't need to see Jet Li pee in Jackie Chan's face. Yes, it happened.
Points Pondered
The Good: If you have Jackie Chan, Jet Li and Woo Ping working on your movie, you will have fun fight sequences.
The Bad: The whole frame story seemed a bit "after school special." Say no to peer pressure children. Unless those peers are armed felons.
The Ugly: I really didn't need to see Jet Li pee in Jackie Chan's face. Yes, it happened.
Points Pondered
- I'm pretty sure this movie actually starred Shia LaBeouf, but the credits say it was Michael Angarano. I'm theorizing that they're the same person, while Ann theorizes I'm an idiot. [AMF: "idiot" is perhaps the wrong word. "Conspiracy theorist" is more apt. Some people see government plots, some people see dead people, Paul just sees Shia. Everywhere.]
- Lots of pretty girls and no romance equals a filmmaker who is willing to throw away the crutch of teenage love/lust and focus on actual story. Either that or he is cursed with an inability to love and refuses to write about it for fear that his secret will be apparent.
- It's great to see Jackie Chan doing drunken fist. He's just a superb comedic actor.
- If you had to learn how to kick ass in the shortest amount of time, hanging with Jackie Chan and Jet Li would probably be in the top ten of possible plans.
Cast and Credits
AMF: Welcome to Cine-ful Thoughts, a tandem project for Ann Foreyt and Paul Wildermuth, which shall be devoted to reviews, commentary, and random snarkiness related to movies (or films, as the case may be). Herein, you shall find eloquent discourse on the expanse of the cinematic landscape. From full-length reviews to haikus, Top 5s to philippics, true passion for the cinema knows no literary boundaries. This is a blog about movies and shit, yo!
PCW: As you will begin to note, we two reviewers have rather different styles. And word counts. But it adds to the overall charm and just shows there is no wrong way to watch a movie; except by facing the opposite wall. Unless there is eye-poking -- then it is acceptable.
And now for the introductions.
Ann
Ann is, for lack of a less expensive phrase, a paragon of verbosity in her writing. As Amadeus was criticized for having “too many notes” in his composition, perhaps Ann needs to take similar advice with her reviews. Just cut a few words and they’ll be perfect, right?
Generally, her tastes run toward the art-house and dramatic genres, but she will confess to having a soft spot for less refined (one might even say “cheesy”) fare. For every subtitled, exquisitely-shot tragedy on her list, there is probably a bad teen comedy to counter it. Stick It was worth watching. Seriously.
PCW: She said that about Bring it On as well. She will not fool me again.
Paul
It could be said that Paul is a movie connoisseur. Of course, that would be a blatant lie, since it requires having standards. But just because he'll watch pretty much anything doesn't mean he actually likes it all. His tastes are varied, with Casablanca, Ikiru and Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure all placing in his Top Ten. He understands that not all movies are created equal and should not be reviewed against the same monolithic scale. He brings to the party a cable box and a subscription to Netflix, along with the ability to watch whatever trash either sends his way.
While Paul does not lack in skills English or Film, he can't seem to write more than a few lines without getting sidetracked by another thought. Therefore, he has come up with an ingenious review system -- movies he has never seen before will get a short synopsis and a run-through of the good, bad and ugly, followed by random thoughts he had while watching them. Movies that he has seen before get a haiku. All reviews will be filled with an inappropriate amount of mocking, mainly because Paul dreams that one of the Rifftrax guys will see how goshdarn funny he is and offer him a job MST3King movies.
AMF: Well, until that time comes, how about I attach a kitchen appliance to your head and let you sit in front of me in the theatre? Would that suffice?
Anyway, enough with the credits. On to the content!
PCW: As you will begin to note, we two reviewers have rather different styles. And word counts. But it adds to the overall charm and just shows there is no wrong way to watch a movie; except by facing the opposite wall. Unless there is eye-poking -- then it is acceptable.
And now for the introductions.
Ann
Ann is, for lack of a less expensive phrase, a paragon of verbosity in her writing. As Amadeus was criticized for having “too many notes” in his composition, perhaps Ann needs to take similar advice with her reviews. Just cut a few words and they’ll be perfect, right?
Generally, her tastes run toward the art-house and dramatic genres, but she will confess to having a soft spot for less refined (one might even say “cheesy”) fare. For every subtitled, exquisitely-shot tragedy on her list, there is probably a bad teen comedy to counter it. Stick It was worth watching. Seriously.
PCW: She said that about Bring it On as well. She will not fool me again.
Paul
It could be said that Paul is a movie connoisseur. Of course, that would be a blatant lie, since it requires having standards. But just because he'll watch pretty much anything doesn't mean he actually likes it all. His tastes are varied, with Casablanca, Ikiru and Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure all placing in his Top Ten. He understands that not all movies are created equal and should not be reviewed against the same monolithic scale. He brings to the party a cable box and a subscription to Netflix, along with the ability to watch whatever trash either sends his way.
While Paul does not lack in skills English or Film, he can't seem to write more than a few lines without getting sidetracked by another thought. Therefore, he has come up with an ingenious review system -- movies he has never seen before will get a short synopsis and a run-through of the good, bad and ugly, followed by random thoughts he had while watching them. Movies that he has seen before get a haiku. All reviews will be filled with an inappropriate amount of mocking, mainly because Paul dreams that one of the Rifftrax guys will see how goshdarn funny he is and offer him a job MST3King movies.
AMF: Well, until that time comes, how about I attach a kitchen appliance to your head and let you sit in front of me in the theatre? Would that suffice?
Anyway, enough with the credits. On to the content!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)