"My name is Django."
"How do you spell that?"
"D-J-A-N-G-O. The 'D' is silent."
Django Unchained is Quentin Tarantino's latest film, an homage to old school Westerns about a slave who becomes a bounty hunter. Tarantino, if you didn't already know, is one of the most distinctive filmmakers out there. Whenever a Tarantino movie comes on, you just know that it's him. The dialogue, the humor, the over-the-top violence are present in all of his movies. Wes Anderson (Royal Tenenbaums, Fantastic Mr. Fox) and Guy Ritchie (Snatch., Sherlock Holmes) are two more in this rare company. Take any scene from any of his movies, and it wreaks of Tarantino. In his 8th film, Tarantino takes on subject matter that is once again extremely dark. Inglorious Basterds explored WWII-era racism towards Jews; Django deals with pre-Civil War era racism and slavery towards blacks in the American south. Django is much more focused than Basterds. I felt like Basterds would leave its most interesting characters (namely, Brad Pitt), and focus on boring ones for large chunks of time. Django, from start to finish, is a Tarantino fan's dream. The humor, the violence, and the dialogue are all there in top form.
Django Unchained opens with Dr. King Schultz (Christoph Waltz) freeing Django (Jamie Foxx) from the bondage of slavery. Schultz needs Django to identify three bandits in order to collect a bounty on their head. The two become quick friends and a deadly team, with Django eventually joining Schultz in the bounty business. Django divulges to Schultz that he was separated from his wife at a plantation, and plans to go look for her. Schultz agrees to help, and their search leads them to "Candieland", the largest plantation in the south. It is run by Calvin Candie (Leonardo DiCaprio), along with his loyal slave Stephen (Samuel L. Jackson), and is the home of Django's wife Broomhilda (Kerry Washington). The two plan to stage a daring rescue, and escape with Broomhilda.
Tarantino might be the only filmmaker that can effectively make a movie so dark in subject matter so hilarious. Django does not pull punches. There are several scenes of brutal master-on-slave violence that is horrifying. The "n-word" is used flippantly, probably more so than any movie I've ever seen. It's awful to see it used towards black people in such a normal way. The gore level is very high. Yet despite all of this, the movie has laughs almost entirely throughout. In fact, a scene involving some KKK inspired masks might be one of the funniest I've seen in a long time. The line of "dark" to "distasteful" is danced on but never crossed (at least in my mind; apparently Spike Lee doesn't agree with me).
Jamie Foxx shines as the hero. The movie plays as an homage to Sergio Leone spaghetti Westerns such as A Fistful of Dollars and The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly. Foxx is in the Clint Eastwood role, the mysterious and cool good guy. I had heard that the role of Django was originally offered to Will Smith, but he decided to turn it down. It would be interesting to watch Smith tackle something more challenging (just look at his IMDb page, he only acts in sure fire blockbuster smash hits), but ultimately I'm happy it went to Foxx. He just looks and acts like a cowboy. His line, "hey there little trouble maker" gave me goosebumps it was so good. Smith could have been great, but Foxx was exceptional. Having seen it, I'm glad the role went to Foxx. He kills it.
Leonardo DiCaprio is magnificent as the villain, Calvin Candie. His southern charm and undercurrent of evil play out perfectly. DiCaprio is in a league with probably only Brad Pitt and Tom Cruise as far as "everything they are in being really good." Waltz is great once again. He stole the show in Basterds, and while he takes a back seat to Foxx, he's still very good. Kudos to Tarantino for getting this guy out of Germany and into Hollywood. He and Foxx form a strange but great team, and the first hour plays almost like a buddy flick.
At over 2 hours and 40 minutes, Django is long but never drags. It was the total opposite of Lincoln, which made you feel every second of its run time. Tarantino fans will be enthralled by Django. I felt like his previous two efforts, Death Proof and Inglorious Basterds were a step back from the man that brought the absolute classics Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction, but Django totally redeems him. It's right up there with his best. In a stellar 2012, a top 10 list is going to be very difficult, and Django will be right up there with The Hobbit, Skyfall, and The Dark Knight Rises.
4.5/5
Wednesday, December 26, 2012
Monday, December 24, 2012
Lincoln
Steven Spielberg's Lincoln starring Daniel Day-Lewis as our 16th president is a decent at best historical bio-pic, never fully engaging the audience past the interest of its source material. A movie I reviewed earlier this week, Argo, was a great example of how to make a film about historical events where the audience already knows the outcome. Even Spielberg's own Munich does a fine job of this. But Lincoln never feels like more than watching a documentary about the passing of the thirteenth amendment; and if it were going to pass at that, I feel like PBS or the History Channel could do a much better job. There are still some great acting performances, most notably from Tommy Lee Jones, as well as the patented over-acting of Day-Lewis, but Lincoln mainly disappoints.
During the American Civil War, much of the debate between the Union and the Confederacy was over the provision of slavery. The South's economy was based upon slavery, and felt it should not be abolished, while leaders from the north, for one reason or another, were for a ban on slavery. Before his second term, President Lincoln did everything he could to pass the Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, and outlaw slavery. He needed to do this before the southern states were re-admitted to the union in order to avoid their votes being counted. The story of Lincoln is of our President's attempt to pass this amendment, and what it took to do this. Along the way we get glimpses of Lincoln's family life, from his wife Mary Todd (Sally Field) to his sons Tad and Robert (Joseph Gordon-Levitt, in what seems like his 10th blockbuster role of the year). Lincoln needs to get this amendment passed before there is peace, and he will not stop until he passes it.
The first 30 minutes of Lincoln seemed to drag on, much like I was tuning in to C-SPAN. Politicians, including Lincoln, would give in depth political reasoning for and against the Thirteenth Amendment. This is fascinating at first, but after a while it begins to tire. The most interesting character in the movie is Tommy Lee Jones' Thaddeus Stevens, a member of the House of Representatives who is for the amendment. He entertains just as much as any, and I loved every moment of his on screen. Further entertaining were the three "lobbyists", or party men who tried to sway votes, as played by James Spader, Tim Blake Nelson, and John Hawkes. These three offer some funny moments, and Spader shines. He definitely needed to make up for his dreadful role on "The Office" last year, playing the worst TV character ever, Robert California.
After these characters, everyone else chugs along at a snails pace. Day-Lewis immerses himself as Lincoln and it shows, but I still get the feeling that he is overacting like he always does. Ditto for Sally Field as Mary Todd. One of my biggest complaints was the sheer VOLUME of Abraham Lincoln monologues. Understandably a movie about one of our nation's most fabled speech makers would have some monologues, but it seems like Abe has one every 15 minutes. After a while I stopped looking for meaning in all of them. Unlike Argo, Spielberg fails to capture the tension of portraying a scene where the outcome is already decided. The vote to enact the Thirteenth Amendment should be an intense scene, but it fails to capture anything magical.
Lincoln is extremely well made, just a tad on the boring side. If you want to learn about the passage of the thirteenth amendment, scour Netflix for a documentary about it, it will be much more informative than Lincoln.
2.5/5
During the American Civil War, much of the debate between the Union and the Confederacy was over the provision of slavery. The South's economy was based upon slavery, and felt it should not be abolished, while leaders from the north, for one reason or another, were for a ban on slavery. Before his second term, President Lincoln did everything he could to pass the Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, and outlaw slavery. He needed to do this before the southern states were re-admitted to the union in order to avoid their votes being counted. The story of Lincoln is of our President's attempt to pass this amendment, and what it took to do this. Along the way we get glimpses of Lincoln's family life, from his wife Mary Todd (Sally Field) to his sons Tad and Robert (Joseph Gordon-Levitt, in what seems like his 10th blockbuster role of the year). Lincoln needs to get this amendment passed before there is peace, and he will not stop until he passes it.
The first 30 minutes of Lincoln seemed to drag on, much like I was tuning in to C-SPAN. Politicians, including Lincoln, would give in depth political reasoning for and against the Thirteenth Amendment. This is fascinating at first, but after a while it begins to tire. The most interesting character in the movie is Tommy Lee Jones' Thaddeus Stevens, a member of the House of Representatives who is for the amendment. He entertains just as much as any, and I loved every moment of his on screen. Further entertaining were the three "lobbyists", or party men who tried to sway votes, as played by James Spader, Tim Blake Nelson, and John Hawkes. These three offer some funny moments, and Spader shines. He definitely needed to make up for his dreadful role on "The Office" last year, playing the worst TV character ever, Robert California.
After these characters, everyone else chugs along at a snails pace. Day-Lewis immerses himself as Lincoln and it shows, but I still get the feeling that he is overacting like he always does. Ditto for Sally Field as Mary Todd. One of my biggest complaints was the sheer VOLUME of Abraham Lincoln monologues. Understandably a movie about one of our nation's most fabled speech makers would have some monologues, but it seems like Abe has one every 15 minutes. After a while I stopped looking for meaning in all of them. Unlike Argo, Spielberg fails to capture the tension of portraying a scene where the outcome is already decided. The vote to enact the Thirteenth Amendment should be an intense scene, but it fails to capture anything magical.
Lincoln is extremely well made, just a tad on the boring side. If you want to learn about the passage of the thirteenth amendment, scour Netflix for a documentary about it, it will be much more informative than Lincoln.
2.5/5
Wednesday, December 19, 2012
Argo
Ben Affleck has solidified himself as an impressive Hollywood director. Gone are the days when he was acting in trash like Gigli (I have never seen it, but a quick Google search should tell you that the civilized world considers Gigli to be one of the worst films ever made), cavorting around town with Jennifer Lopez and on the cover of every entertainment magazine. Affleck's career has had somewhat of a strange arc. He and Matt Damon burst on to the scene in a huge way with Good Will Hunting, a film in which they co-starred and co-wrote the screenplay. At some point in the mid-2000's he decided to become Hollywood's most obnoxious face. He and Lopez generally made everyone sick with the attention they got, and along with Gigli, he made crappers like Daredevil, Pearl Harbor, and Jersey Girl (a movie that originally had Jennifer Lopez in a bigger role, but after the public was so outwardly nauseous towards the couple, her part was scaled back and she was removed from all promotional material). Then in 2008, Affleck made is directorial debut with Gone Baby Gone, a thriller starring his brother Casey, and it was critically very well received. 2010's The Town, starring himself and Jeremy Renner, was an even bigger hit. Argo, Affleck's third directorial effort, continues his comeback, and his total reinvention.
Argo is based on the true story of the Iranian Hostage Crisis in late 1979 and early 1980. Iranian revolutionists, furious over the United States government's decision to allow asylum to the deposed Iranian dictator, storm the American Embassy in Tehran and take everyone inside hostage. A group of 6 working at the Embassy manage to escape, and find refuge in the Canadian embassy. As the weeks go on and the Americans still stay in captivity, the CIA learns of the 6 escapees, and devise a plan to bring them home. Tony Mendez (Affleck) teams with two from the movie industry, John Chambers (John Goodman) and Lester Siegel (Alan Arkin), to create a fake movie called "Argo". "Argo" would serve as the cover for the 6 Americans, that they are there scouting locations in Iran for the film. Mendez would go to Iran, get the Americans on a commercial flight, and bring them to the United States.
Argo's pacing and editing is impressive. Affleck had the difficult task of bringing tension to a plot that the audience already knows. It is well known that the 6 Americans returned safely. President Clinton declassified the information surrounding their escape in 1997, and Mendez was recognized as a hero. But the film does a great job of making you feel like they could get caught. The last 45 minutes had me on the edge of my seat, even though I knew full well what the outcome was. This is owed very much in part to the way the film was edited. It's extremely intense. A lot of movies have a hard time keeping the audience to feel like the heroes are in any sort of danger at the end of a movie. 98% of movies end with the good guys triumphant and having learned a lesson, so moviegoers are generally expecting the norm to happen. Argo keeps you guessing, the intensity high, and it doesn't detract from the experience to know the outcome in advance.
For such a serious subject matter, there was still some very light moments that fit very well. Arkin and Goodman have some hilarious lines when they are producing the fake movie. The motto that they adopt using the films title is a classic line, and I laughed every time. Goodman could be in the most serious movie possible and I would still find him funny; the Coen brothers made sure of that in Raising Arizona, The Big Lebowski, and O Brother Where Art Thou. His comedic talents are not wasted here.
The six American hostages are integral parts to the story, but their characters are mostly uninteresting. You care about their survival because of Mendez and America, not because of them. Likewise, Mendez's relationship with his wife and son is extremely rushed. Granted that is not the purpose of the film, but it seemed a little thrown together to help endear you towards Mendez more, and I felt like the subplot added nothing to his character.
Minor side note to those who live in Northwest Arkansas. I saw this movie at AMC Fiesta Square, my first visit there in quite a long while. Fiesta Square used to be the place to see movies in Fayetteville, but after the Malco Razorback opened my freshman year of college, it now looks like a dump in comparison. Case in point: the theater I was in had scratches all over the film that was present the entire movie. It didn't annoy that much, but come on Fiesta. It was nice to pay $4, but that price is only available to one showing a day in the afternoon, Monday-Thursday. When I was in college, the $4 deal was available at all times during the weekdays. I went all the time when this was the deal, watching everything I possibly could. To me, it seems like this is the only way for Fiesta to get customers from Razorback. There's no way I'm going to pay $8 there when I could go to Razorback for the same price, which is far superior. Fiesta needs to bring back the $4 weekday deal!
Argo will most certainly be a contender in the Oscar hunt, and will be a heavy favorite to make my personal top 10.
4/5
Argo is based on the true story of the Iranian Hostage Crisis in late 1979 and early 1980. Iranian revolutionists, furious over the United States government's decision to allow asylum to the deposed Iranian dictator, storm the American Embassy in Tehran and take everyone inside hostage. A group of 6 working at the Embassy manage to escape, and find refuge in the Canadian embassy. As the weeks go on and the Americans still stay in captivity, the CIA learns of the 6 escapees, and devise a plan to bring them home. Tony Mendez (Affleck) teams with two from the movie industry, John Chambers (John Goodman) and Lester Siegel (Alan Arkin), to create a fake movie called "Argo". "Argo" would serve as the cover for the 6 Americans, that they are there scouting locations in Iran for the film. Mendez would go to Iran, get the Americans on a commercial flight, and bring them to the United States.
Argo's pacing and editing is impressive. Affleck had the difficult task of bringing tension to a plot that the audience already knows. It is well known that the 6 Americans returned safely. President Clinton declassified the information surrounding their escape in 1997, and Mendez was recognized as a hero. But the film does a great job of making you feel like they could get caught. The last 45 minutes had me on the edge of my seat, even though I knew full well what the outcome was. This is owed very much in part to the way the film was edited. It's extremely intense. A lot of movies have a hard time keeping the audience to feel like the heroes are in any sort of danger at the end of a movie. 98% of movies end with the good guys triumphant and having learned a lesson, so moviegoers are generally expecting the norm to happen. Argo keeps you guessing, the intensity high, and it doesn't detract from the experience to know the outcome in advance.
For such a serious subject matter, there was still some very light moments that fit very well. Arkin and Goodman have some hilarious lines when they are producing the fake movie. The motto that they adopt using the films title is a classic line, and I laughed every time. Goodman could be in the most serious movie possible and I would still find him funny; the Coen brothers made sure of that in Raising Arizona, The Big Lebowski, and O Brother Where Art Thou. His comedic talents are not wasted here.
The six American hostages are integral parts to the story, but their characters are mostly uninteresting. You care about their survival because of Mendez and America, not because of them. Likewise, Mendez's relationship with his wife and son is extremely rushed. Granted that is not the purpose of the film, but it seemed a little thrown together to help endear you towards Mendez more, and I felt like the subplot added nothing to his character.
Minor side note to those who live in Northwest Arkansas. I saw this movie at AMC Fiesta Square, my first visit there in quite a long while. Fiesta Square used to be the place to see movies in Fayetteville, but after the Malco Razorback opened my freshman year of college, it now looks like a dump in comparison. Case in point: the theater I was in had scratches all over the film that was present the entire movie. It didn't annoy that much, but come on Fiesta. It was nice to pay $4, but that price is only available to one showing a day in the afternoon, Monday-Thursday. When I was in college, the $4 deal was available at all times during the weekdays. I went all the time when this was the deal, watching everything I possibly could. To me, it seems like this is the only way for Fiesta to get customers from Razorback. There's no way I'm going to pay $8 there when I could go to Razorback for the same price, which is far superior. Fiesta needs to bring back the $4 weekday deal!
Argo will most certainly be a contender in the Oscar hunt, and will be a heavy favorite to make my personal top 10.
4/5
Monday, November 12, 2012
Skyfall
Skyfall is one of the most ambitious and risky Bond films ever made. It is also one of the best of the series, and one of the best films this year. Director Sam Mendes (American Beauty, Revolutionary Road) is an extremely unlikely candidate for a Bond film, having mostly done serious dramas rather than action. But what results is a more personal and vulnerable Bond, something audiences have never seen before from 007.
After being declared dead, Bond makes his return to England after an attack on MI6. The good guys have lost control of a list containing the identities of all MI6's undercover agents. M (Judi Dench) sends Bond, perhaps unwisely, to pursue the list and the man who obtained it.With a little help from Q (Ben Whishaw), Bond finds Silva (Javier Bardem), a jilted ex MI6 agent out to seek revenge against M. Now Bond has to protect his country and his boss against an extremely capable adversary.
After Bond's supposed death and return, James has lost a step. His aim is off, his body is no longer in top physical condition, and he is mired in alcohol abuse. Bond is no longer the invincible machine he's been. Previous films have somewhat explored Bond's vulnerability; whether it be for a woman, his quest for revenge, or serious physical injury. But we've never seen Bond so slowed by the natural process of age and worn down by his hard life. Bond being so cool and so invincible has been something that has made the character. One of the many reasons I love watching Bond was his ability to always outsmart, always outplay his enemies. Skyfall makes you believe that James has lost it a bit. It makes you genuinely feel like Bond can be beaten, a feat that no other Bond film has come close to. We also get a look into Bond's past, something that has rarely been tackled in a Bond movie. Much of Bond's character comes from his mystique, but Skyfall's exploration into Bond's background give the film more weight, rather than detract from who 007 has always been.
Another unique feature of Skyfall is its "Bond girl". Most Bond girls are either the love interest for 007, or a femme fatale that either helps or hurts James. But Skyfall's Bond girl does not fit into either of those categories, because essentially, M is the Bond girl. M is very much the central female character, and her relationship with Bond and role in the British government is very much at the center of the film. Hats off to Mendes for taking such a risk, especially with 22 other films proving that the previous formula works. Don't worry though, James still has time for a love interest or two.
With 2012 being the 50th anniversary of the premiere of Dr. No, the first Bond film, there was bound to be many ties to the series from the past. There are loads of references to older movies; GoldenEye, Goldfinger, and License to Kill are just a few of the films alluded to off the top of my head. Thomas Newman, who produced the score, uses the original Bond theme more than any other Daniel Craig Bond film, and it definitely works. Plus the final scene will make every Bond fan smile; I'm not sure they could have ended it in a better way. Skyfall plays out to set up many Bond films to come, something that makes me very happy.
The set pieces in Skyfall are dazzling, especially in Shanghai. A battle with a secret agent in a skyscraper is a visually impressive scene towards the beginning of the movie. Another staple of the Bond series, an artistic opening credit sequence, fully lives up to its predecessors. Choosing Adele to sing the theme song was a logical choice. Adele is a Brit, and her album "21" was a massive hit, critically and commercially. Her song resonates throughout the rest of the score, and Newman does a fine job in his first hack at Bond.
The villain in Skyfall is one of the best in the series. This is almost exclusively due to the fact that it is being played by one of the most talented actors out there, Javier Bardem. Bardem turned in one of the most chilling and haunting villain performances of all time as Anton Chigurh in No Country for Old Men. In No Country, Bardem was stoic and terrifying. As Silva, Bardem is just as terrifying, but in a different way. Silva is focused on revenge against MI6, but he's not just a simple bad guy. You can almost sympathize with his plight. Silva's monologue as he first takes the screen is one of the more memorable moments of the film, and you will know it when it happens.
I highly recommend Skyfall to any Bond fan (not that you needed a recommendation to go see it), and even for non-Bond fans, Skyfall is a great action-drama. Director Sam Mendes takes the movie in a different direction for the good, and it excites me that James Bond is back.
4.5/5
After being declared dead, Bond makes his return to England after an attack on MI6. The good guys have lost control of a list containing the identities of all MI6's undercover agents. M (Judi Dench) sends Bond, perhaps unwisely, to pursue the list and the man who obtained it.With a little help from Q (Ben Whishaw), Bond finds Silva (Javier Bardem), a jilted ex MI6 agent out to seek revenge against M. Now Bond has to protect his country and his boss against an extremely capable adversary.
After Bond's supposed death and return, James has lost a step. His aim is off, his body is no longer in top physical condition, and he is mired in alcohol abuse. Bond is no longer the invincible machine he's been. Previous films have somewhat explored Bond's vulnerability; whether it be for a woman, his quest for revenge, or serious physical injury. But we've never seen Bond so slowed by the natural process of age and worn down by his hard life. Bond being so cool and so invincible has been something that has made the character. One of the many reasons I love watching Bond was his ability to always outsmart, always outplay his enemies. Skyfall makes you believe that James has lost it a bit. It makes you genuinely feel like Bond can be beaten, a feat that no other Bond film has come close to. We also get a look into Bond's past, something that has rarely been tackled in a Bond movie. Much of Bond's character comes from his mystique, but Skyfall's exploration into Bond's background give the film more weight, rather than detract from who 007 has always been.
Another unique feature of Skyfall is its "Bond girl". Most Bond girls are either the love interest for 007, or a femme fatale that either helps or hurts James. But Skyfall's Bond girl does not fit into either of those categories, because essentially, M is the Bond girl. M is very much the central female character, and her relationship with Bond and role in the British government is very much at the center of the film. Hats off to Mendes for taking such a risk, especially with 22 other films proving that the previous formula works. Don't worry though, James still has time for a love interest or two.
With 2012 being the 50th anniversary of the premiere of Dr. No, the first Bond film, there was bound to be many ties to the series from the past. There are loads of references to older movies; GoldenEye, Goldfinger, and License to Kill are just a few of the films alluded to off the top of my head. Thomas Newman, who produced the score, uses the original Bond theme more than any other Daniel Craig Bond film, and it definitely works. Plus the final scene will make every Bond fan smile; I'm not sure they could have ended it in a better way. Skyfall plays out to set up many Bond films to come, something that makes me very happy.
The set pieces in Skyfall are dazzling, especially in Shanghai. A battle with a secret agent in a skyscraper is a visually impressive scene towards the beginning of the movie. Another staple of the Bond series, an artistic opening credit sequence, fully lives up to its predecessors. Choosing Adele to sing the theme song was a logical choice. Adele is a Brit, and her album "21" was a massive hit, critically and commercially. Her song resonates throughout the rest of the score, and Newman does a fine job in his first hack at Bond.
The villain in Skyfall is one of the best in the series. This is almost exclusively due to the fact that it is being played by one of the most talented actors out there, Javier Bardem. Bardem turned in one of the most chilling and haunting villain performances of all time as Anton Chigurh in No Country for Old Men. In No Country, Bardem was stoic and terrifying. As Silva, Bardem is just as terrifying, but in a different way. Silva is focused on revenge against MI6, but he's not just a simple bad guy. You can almost sympathize with his plight. Silva's monologue as he first takes the screen is one of the more memorable moments of the film, and you will know it when it happens.
I highly recommend Skyfall to any Bond fan (not that you needed a recommendation to go see it), and even for non-Bond fans, Skyfall is a great action-drama. Director Sam Mendes takes the movie in a different direction for the good, and it excites me that James Bond is back.
4.5/5
Sunday, November 11, 2012
Bond... James Bond
It's been a long time since my last post. School, work, and life have made sure of that. I am going to see the new James Bond film Skyfall tonight, my first trip to the theater in over a month. Skyfall is the 23rd entry into the Bond series, by far the longest running franchise in movie history. Before Skyfall, I thought I'd take a look back at the other 22 Bond films.
Christmas break 2010-2011, I was a senior in college with a LOT of time on my hands. I chose to spend that Christmas break watching every single Bond film, in chronological order. I love the Bond franchise, and it's definitely seen its share of highs and lows. From the great early Connery films (considered by most to be the best actor to play Bond), to the absurdly silly Roger Moore films, and to the gritty new Bond's played by Daniel Craig. I believe that there are a few simple things to make a great Bond film:
1. Exciting Locales- A staple in the James Bond series is Bond's ability to travel to anywhere in the world. The character has spanned the globe many times in his rich history. A great Bond film sets 007 in the most intriguing and beautiful locales. Casino Royale had Montenegro, Dr. No had the gorgeous beaches of Jamaica, and On Her Majesty's Secret Service had the Swiss Alps.
2. A Good Villain- Bond has encountered many villains over his career, and a memorable villain is key to a great Bond film.
3. A Strong Female Character- Bond has a different love interest in every movie (sometimes several), but the best movies have strong, interesting female characters.
4. Serious But Fun- Bond films sometimes have trouble with the fine line between silly and fun. A great Bond movie still keeps the fun of the over the top nature of the character (the gadgets, the action, and the girls), but does not delve into silliness.
Given these elements, the formula generally works. For me, of the actors who have played Bond, I would have to rank them like this:
1. Sean Connery
2. Daniel Craig
3. Pierce Brosnan
4. Timothy Dalton
5. Roger Moore
6. George Lazenby
And now, every single official James Bond movie, from best to worst (excluding Skyfall):
1. Casino Royale
Casino Royale was thought to be a wild card before it came out. MGM had cast a blue eyed, blonde haired Bond that promised more realism. The Bourne series had stepped up the spy genre, and many people were thought to be tired of the character of Bond. Casino Royale totally reinvented the character for the 21st century, made him believable, and kept all of the cool. I think that this one is an easy pick as the best Bond film.
2. GoldenEye
GoldenEye 007 on the Nintendo 64 is one of the best video games ever made, and when I got it Christmas of 1999, I poured my life into it. One of the things that made it great was it's source material. GoldenEye is a top tier Bond. Pierce Brosnan's first foray as the character proved to be a major success. He is a very suave Bond, and GoldenEye is easily his best material. The villian, played by Sean Bean, is one of the best in the series, launching it to greatness.
3. Thunderball
My favorite starring Sean Connery. Intriguing story, an incredible performance by Connery, Bond at his best. The only detraction is the jarringly outdated special effects sequence towards the end. Bond is piloting a boat at what seems like 500MPH and can turn the boat on an absolute dime. The underwater actions sequences are good however.
4. Goldfinger
Considered to be one of the best in the series, Goldfinger is another Connery great. Auric Goldfinger is one of the best Bond villains, along with his henchman Oddjob. Lots of iconic moments, and one of the most egregiously suggestive names for a Bond love interest (look it up). The assault on Fort Knox, while somewhat dated, is still a great action scene.
5. Quantum of Solace
Riding high on Casino Royale's success, Quantum picks up right where the last one left off. Most Bond films are singular stories, but this one continues the story started in Casino. Many hated this one for its frenetic action, but I am in the minority that loved it. The female character, played by Olga Kurylenko, is fun to watch, and the locations are some of the best in the series.
6. On Her Majesty's Secret Service
The only George Lazenby entry, OHMSS is an oft-overlooked Bond classic. Lazenby is pretty wooden, but the story is good and the action in the snow is great. As I've mentioned before on this blog, actions scenes in the snow are almost AUTOMATICALLY better, just because the snow is that cool. OHMSS takes some risks, helping it to attain new heights for Bond. Most people hated this when it came out because it was the first non-Connery film.
7. From Russia With Love
I felt like this was the most "spy" Bond film. Lots of gadgets and an intricate plot, plus some really great scenes on a train. Connery is at the top of his game.
8. Dr. No
The first ever Bond film. Ursula Andress set the standard for Bond girls, and Connery's cool endears you to the character immediately. When I watched it felt a little bit dated, but Dr. No is still great.
9. The Spy Who Loved Me
One of Roger Moore's greats, mostly because there was a great love story and a great villain. Jaws is a menacing and scary force, never saying a word.
10. Tomorrow Never Dies
Brosnan is still great, the action is good, and Teri Hatcher turns in a memorable Bond girl performance. This one sort of gets lost in the shuffle, but it is a good time.
11. The Living Daylights
12. License to Kill
The two Timothy Dalton Bond's were a huge leap forward from the previous Roger Moore predecessors. Bond was more serious, and less of the cartoon that Moore had turned him into. Both of these are good films, and Dalton is a capable Bond, I just don't remember much sticking out to me from these. A re-watch might bring them higher.
13. Live and Let Die
Not a bad film, but there are definitely early signs of Roger Moore silliness. There's definitely a great boat chase, a staple of James Bond, and several larger than life characters. Jane Seymour is one of the absolute best Bond girls.
14. The World is Not Enough
TWINE holds a special place in my heart. I received it from Santa as a Christmas gift in 1999, and I wore the VHS tape out. I loved Bond, the Bond girls, and the mysterious Renard (a man who could feel no pain). Further re-watches have made me like this one less, but it will always have great nostalgic value for me. Denise Richards as a nuclear physicist was a less than inspired casting choice.
15. You Only Live Twice
I don't remember much about this one, and that's a problem. Very average.
16. The Man With the Golden Gun
Christopher Lee is great as the titular villain, but he's definitely the best part.
17. Diamonds are Forever
Connery came back after the commercial failure of OHMSS and is WAY too old to play Bond. This one is extremely boring, and has some bizarre action scenes. Bond's fight with two girl gymnasts is definitely unintentionally hilarious.
18. Die Another Day
The movie that caused Bond to be rebooted. DAD is too much action, and too over the top. I remember seeing this as an 8th grader and almost walking out of the theater. I pretty much liked any movie with a car chase at 13, so if I considered walking out on a movie it must have been really bad. For goodness sakes, the villain is using a giant "laser", as if it was taken straight out of Austin Powers!
19. For Your Eyes Only
Moore is old, the formula is old, and nothing much happens. Oh, except for a weird fight between Bond and hockey players.
20. Octopussy
Ditto minus the hockey fight. Plus, how in the world did they get away with that title!?
21. A View to a Kill
This movie is saved for from the last spot only by one thing: Christopher Walken's absurdly over the top performance as the villain (MORE POWER!!). Moore is ridiculously old in this movie, and it really detracts from the film. This one is pure cheese.
22. Moonraker
In the wake of the massive success of Star Wars, MGM felt like they had to bring Bond to space. The results were an absolute disaster. The movie is incredibly silly and cheesy, especially the last 20 minutes. Jaws has a love interest, if that tells you just how silly it is. The only good thing coming from Moonraker is the cool extra level in GoldenEye on Nintendo 64.
I am guessing Skyfall will enter at the top of this list. James Bond movies are great fun, and if you like one you will at least be somewhat interested in any of them. Go ahead and make a vodka martini (shaken, not stirred), and enjoy some old Bond classics! Every year a cable channel will run a marathon around Christmas, so watch out and set your DVR!
UPDATE: I think that Skyfall would enter at number 2 or 3 on this list. Yeah, it's that good.
Christmas break 2010-2011, I was a senior in college with a LOT of time on my hands. I chose to spend that Christmas break watching every single Bond film, in chronological order. I love the Bond franchise, and it's definitely seen its share of highs and lows. From the great early Connery films (considered by most to be the best actor to play Bond), to the absurdly silly Roger Moore films, and to the gritty new Bond's played by Daniel Craig. I believe that there are a few simple things to make a great Bond film:
1. Exciting Locales- A staple in the James Bond series is Bond's ability to travel to anywhere in the world. The character has spanned the globe many times in his rich history. A great Bond film sets 007 in the most intriguing and beautiful locales. Casino Royale had Montenegro, Dr. No had the gorgeous beaches of Jamaica, and On Her Majesty's Secret Service had the Swiss Alps.
2. A Good Villain- Bond has encountered many villains over his career, and a memorable villain is key to a great Bond film.
3. A Strong Female Character- Bond has a different love interest in every movie (sometimes several), but the best movies have strong, interesting female characters.
4. Serious But Fun- Bond films sometimes have trouble with the fine line between silly and fun. A great Bond movie still keeps the fun of the over the top nature of the character (the gadgets, the action, and the girls), but does not delve into silliness.
Given these elements, the formula generally works. For me, of the actors who have played Bond, I would have to rank them like this:
1. Sean Connery
2. Daniel Craig
3. Pierce Brosnan
4. Timothy Dalton
5. Roger Moore
6. George Lazenby
And now, every single official James Bond movie, from best to worst (excluding Skyfall):
1. Casino Royale
Casino Royale was thought to be a wild card before it came out. MGM had cast a blue eyed, blonde haired Bond that promised more realism. The Bourne series had stepped up the spy genre, and many people were thought to be tired of the character of Bond. Casino Royale totally reinvented the character for the 21st century, made him believable, and kept all of the cool. I think that this one is an easy pick as the best Bond film.
2. GoldenEye
GoldenEye 007 on the Nintendo 64 is one of the best video games ever made, and when I got it Christmas of 1999, I poured my life into it. One of the things that made it great was it's source material. GoldenEye is a top tier Bond. Pierce Brosnan's first foray as the character proved to be a major success. He is a very suave Bond, and GoldenEye is easily his best material. The villian, played by Sean Bean, is one of the best in the series, launching it to greatness.
3. Thunderball
My favorite starring Sean Connery. Intriguing story, an incredible performance by Connery, Bond at his best. The only detraction is the jarringly outdated special effects sequence towards the end. Bond is piloting a boat at what seems like 500MPH and can turn the boat on an absolute dime. The underwater actions sequences are good however.
4. Goldfinger
Considered to be one of the best in the series, Goldfinger is another Connery great. Auric Goldfinger is one of the best Bond villains, along with his henchman Oddjob. Lots of iconic moments, and one of the most egregiously suggestive names for a Bond love interest (look it up). The assault on Fort Knox, while somewhat dated, is still a great action scene.
5. Quantum of Solace
Riding high on Casino Royale's success, Quantum picks up right where the last one left off. Most Bond films are singular stories, but this one continues the story started in Casino. Many hated this one for its frenetic action, but I am in the minority that loved it. The female character, played by Olga Kurylenko, is fun to watch, and the locations are some of the best in the series.
6. On Her Majesty's Secret Service
The only George Lazenby entry, OHMSS is an oft-overlooked Bond classic. Lazenby is pretty wooden, but the story is good and the action in the snow is great. As I've mentioned before on this blog, actions scenes in the snow are almost AUTOMATICALLY better, just because the snow is that cool. OHMSS takes some risks, helping it to attain new heights for Bond. Most people hated this when it came out because it was the first non-Connery film.
7. From Russia With Love
I felt like this was the most "spy" Bond film. Lots of gadgets and an intricate plot, plus some really great scenes on a train. Connery is at the top of his game.
8. Dr. No
The first ever Bond film. Ursula Andress set the standard for Bond girls, and Connery's cool endears you to the character immediately. When I watched it felt a little bit dated, but Dr. No is still great.
9. The Spy Who Loved Me
One of Roger Moore's greats, mostly because there was a great love story and a great villain. Jaws is a menacing and scary force, never saying a word.
10. Tomorrow Never Dies
Brosnan is still great, the action is good, and Teri Hatcher turns in a memorable Bond girl performance. This one sort of gets lost in the shuffle, but it is a good time.
11. The Living Daylights
12. License to Kill
The two Timothy Dalton Bond's were a huge leap forward from the previous Roger Moore predecessors. Bond was more serious, and less of the cartoon that Moore had turned him into. Both of these are good films, and Dalton is a capable Bond, I just don't remember much sticking out to me from these. A re-watch might bring them higher.
13. Live and Let Die
Not a bad film, but there are definitely early signs of Roger Moore silliness. There's definitely a great boat chase, a staple of James Bond, and several larger than life characters. Jane Seymour is one of the absolute best Bond girls.
14. The World is Not Enough
TWINE holds a special place in my heart. I received it from Santa as a Christmas gift in 1999, and I wore the VHS tape out. I loved Bond, the Bond girls, and the mysterious Renard (a man who could feel no pain). Further re-watches have made me like this one less, but it will always have great nostalgic value for me. Denise Richards as a nuclear physicist was a less than inspired casting choice.
15. You Only Live Twice
I don't remember much about this one, and that's a problem. Very average.
16. The Man With the Golden Gun
Christopher Lee is great as the titular villain, but he's definitely the best part.
17. Diamonds are Forever
Connery came back after the commercial failure of OHMSS and is WAY too old to play Bond. This one is extremely boring, and has some bizarre action scenes. Bond's fight with two girl gymnasts is definitely unintentionally hilarious.
18. Die Another Day
The movie that caused Bond to be rebooted. DAD is too much action, and too over the top. I remember seeing this as an 8th grader and almost walking out of the theater. I pretty much liked any movie with a car chase at 13, so if I considered walking out on a movie it must have been really bad. For goodness sakes, the villain is using a giant "laser", as if it was taken straight out of Austin Powers!
19. For Your Eyes Only
Moore is old, the formula is old, and nothing much happens. Oh, except for a weird fight between Bond and hockey players.
20. Octopussy
Ditto minus the hockey fight. Plus, how in the world did they get away with that title!?
21. A View to a Kill
This movie is saved for from the last spot only by one thing: Christopher Walken's absurdly over the top performance as the villain (MORE POWER!!). Moore is ridiculously old in this movie, and it really detracts from the film. This one is pure cheese.
22. Moonraker
In the wake of the massive success of Star Wars, MGM felt like they had to bring Bond to space. The results were an absolute disaster. The movie is incredibly silly and cheesy, especially the last 20 minutes. Jaws has a love interest, if that tells you just how silly it is. The only good thing coming from Moonraker is the cool extra level in GoldenEye on Nintendo 64.
I am guessing Skyfall will enter at the top of this list. James Bond movies are great fun, and if you like one you will at least be somewhat interested in any of them. Go ahead and make a vodka martini (shaken, not stirred), and enjoy some old Bond classics! Every year a cable channel will run a marathon around Christmas, so watch out and set your DVR!
UPDATE: I think that Skyfall would enter at number 2 or 3 on this list. Yeah, it's that good.
Tuesday, October 16, 2012
Almost Famous (2000)
*Spoiler warning*
"The only true currency in this bankrupt world is what we share with someone else when we're uncool." - Lester Bangs
Almost Famous is a true masterpiece about fame, love, growing up, being cool; but most of all it's about the music. Music is such a powerful force. Almost everyone is inspired or touched by music in some way. The soundtrack of Almost Famous is a roll call of the greatest musicians of the 1970's; Elton John, Led Zeppelin (who rarely lets their music be used in films), Jimi Hendrix, Steely Dan, etc. The film is a look into the world of one of the truly great eras of music, the early 1970's. Almost Famous is beautiful, with great performances, poignant dialogue and genuine emotion and characters that bring reality to the lives of rock stars.
William Miller (Patrick Fugit) is a fan. He loves music and he loves to write about it. At 15, he is somewhat geeky and awkward, doomed in school by being the youngest in his grade after his invasive mom (Frances McDormand) skipped him ahead a few grades. But William has some talent for writing, and after some tutelage from legendary rock journalist Lester Bangs (Philip Seymour Hoffman), he is offered a chance to write a story for the pantheon of rock n' roll journalism, Rolling Stone magazine. His assignment is to go on tour to study Stillwater, an up and coming band. Stillwater is led by its front man guitarist/songwriter Russell Hammond (Billy Crudup) and volatile lead singer Jeff Bebe (Jason Lee). Along the way William fits in with the band and the crowd that runs with them, including "band aid" Penny Lane (Kate Hudson).
Stillwater is a fictional band based on writer/director Cameron Crowe's experiences as a Rolling Stone journalist touring with rock acts such as The Allman Brothers Band, The Who, and The Eagles. They fit into the mold of what you would expect rock bands to be. Hammond is the guitarist with mystique, the backbone of the band that writes all the music and gets all the credit, and is always subtly putting himself above the rest of the band. Bebe is the lead singer that wants to be the recognizable face and the big star, the Mick Jagger type. The bass player and drummer are totally nondescript, they recede into the background and do what they are told. The relationship between Hammond and Bebe is tumultuous and hilarious. They are constantly struggling for power, with Bebe mostly wanting to get out of Hammond's shadow. "Your looks have become a problem," Bebe says to Hammond. Their Lennon/McCartney type relationship is one of the most fun in the film. A great scene is when the first Stillwater t-shirt shows up, only to enrage Bebe when Hammond's face is the only one that is actually depicted clearly.
Russell Hammond: Can we just skip the vibe, and go straight to us laughing about this?
Jeff Bebe: Yeah, okay.
Russell Hammond: Because I can see by your face you want to get into it.
Jeff Bebe: How can you tell? I'm just one of the out-of-focus guys!
But the most intriguing character in the film is Penny Lane, played exceptionally by Kate Hudson. Penny is mysterious and accessible at the same time. Her and Russell have had an on-again-off-again fling for the past year, and William gets caught right in the middle. Penny cares for William while they are on the road with the band. She is almost motherly towards him. They care about each other, an especially rare thing in the world of fame and rock n' roll, where nothing matters but the pursuit of self-gratification. Russell slowly starts to realize that he cares for Penny as well, and seeing how William treats her inspires him.
Almost Famous is a great study on the shallow nature of fame. People are used and thrown away. Nothing matters to the rock starts and those in their inner circle except for their own pleasure. Except for William. The band gets to see a regular kid who just loves their band. He brings some innocence to it all. William feels patronized when they point this out to him, and their pretension is hilarious. It's ridiculous that famous people feel like they aren't "real". That somehow they are in this dream world of fame and being on a stage, and that somehow makes them better. I guess this is society's fault for putting them up there and worshiping the position. William and Penny help Russell realize that he is no different than everyone else. William's mom is one person that will speak to Russell without some hushed awe, and it humbles Russell. The film ends with Russell visiting William at his home, where he starts to realizes what it's all about.
The early 1970's were a huge time for music. Rock n' roll, with a little help from The Beatles and other early pioneers, was being explored in brand new ways. Almost Famous has one of the best soundtracks ever assembled, a vital element to creating the feel for the film. The characters all talk with such reverence about music, how it inspires them and moves them. I can relate. The other day I was driving down Maple Street in Fayetteville, Arkansas in my truck. The leaves were just starting to turn colors. The sun was shining. I was listening to Fleet Foxes self-titled album, and I was just stunned at how beautiful the moment was. The next thing I realized was that this glimpse of pure beauty was a tiny glimpse of Jesus. He created all of it; the trees, the sun, and the music. Even though there is a lot of great music that is not "Christian", I can still see Jesus through it. His beauty is magnified in all things that he creates, including music. For some, it's a way to see His face. There's a reason why worship through songs is such an important part of our worship towards Him. Music is a God-given way to express our feelings towards him. In a strange way, this film reminded me of all of that, which thrust me into prayer and worship. It's funny, a movie filled with drugs and profanity caused me to worship Jesus. I think that's just his power though, he can redeem all things!
"I will praise you with the harp for your faithfulness, my God; I will sing praise to you with the lyre, Holy One of Israel."
Psalm 71:22
"Sing to Him, sing psalms to Him; talk of all His wondrous works!"
1 Chronicles 16:9
I've seen this movie many times, and something I picked up on that I hadn't before was about William and his mother. William's mother Elaine is a single mom, as her husband died when her children were very young. She does her very best to keep her children close to her through the form of over-protection, which naturally drives them away. She talks of how she had to play mother and father to her son and daughter (William's sister Anita, played by Zooey Deschanel). While she does the best she absolutely can, it seems clear to me that her kids need a father figure. William tries to get this in Russell, but he is too caught up in himself to play the role. God created man and woman to each have a role in a child's life, and a father's role is so important.
I absolutely love Almost Famous. As I am writing this, listening to "Led Zeppelin II", I still feel like I am on the road with Stillwater in 1973. There's a magic to this film, and I think that even if you aren't a fan of the musical genre, you can still appreciate it. Just watch the "Tiny Dancer" scene, and you'll see what I mean. Russell Hammond is one of the coolest characters to ever hit a movie screen, and Billy Crudup does an outstanding job making him mysterious, cool, and still likable. Hoffman only has a few scenes, but he is fantastic in all of them. Kate Hudson has not since matched her performance here. Now if only I could listen to Stillwater's "Fever Dog" on iTunes...
5/5
"The only true currency in this bankrupt world is what we share with someone else when we're uncool." - Lester Bangs
Almost Famous is a true masterpiece about fame, love, growing up, being cool; but most of all it's about the music. Music is such a powerful force. Almost everyone is inspired or touched by music in some way. The soundtrack of Almost Famous is a roll call of the greatest musicians of the 1970's; Elton John, Led Zeppelin (who rarely lets their music be used in films), Jimi Hendrix, Steely Dan, etc. The film is a look into the world of one of the truly great eras of music, the early 1970's. Almost Famous is beautiful, with great performances, poignant dialogue and genuine emotion and characters that bring reality to the lives of rock stars.
William Miller (Patrick Fugit) is a fan. He loves music and he loves to write about it. At 15, he is somewhat geeky and awkward, doomed in school by being the youngest in his grade after his invasive mom (Frances McDormand) skipped him ahead a few grades. But William has some talent for writing, and after some tutelage from legendary rock journalist Lester Bangs (Philip Seymour Hoffman), he is offered a chance to write a story for the pantheon of rock n' roll journalism, Rolling Stone magazine. His assignment is to go on tour to study Stillwater, an up and coming band. Stillwater is led by its front man guitarist/songwriter Russell Hammond (Billy Crudup) and volatile lead singer Jeff Bebe (Jason Lee). Along the way William fits in with the band and the crowd that runs with them, including "band aid" Penny Lane (Kate Hudson).
Stillwater is a fictional band based on writer/director Cameron Crowe's experiences as a Rolling Stone journalist touring with rock acts such as The Allman Brothers Band, The Who, and The Eagles. They fit into the mold of what you would expect rock bands to be. Hammond is the guitarist with mystique, the backbone of the band that writes all the music and gets all the credit, and is always subtly putting himself above the rest of the band. Bebe is the lead singer that wants to be the recognizable face and the big star, the Mick Jagger type. The bass player and drummer are totally nondescript, they recede into the background and do what they are told. The relationship between Hammond and Bebe is tumultuous and hilarious. They are constantly struggling for power, with Bebe mostly wanting to get out of Hammond's shadow. "Your looks have become a problem," Bebe says to Hammond. Their Lennon/McCartney type relationship is one of the most fun in the film. A great scene is when the first Stillwater t-shirt shows up, only to enrage Bebe when Hammond's face is the only one that is actually depicted clearly.
Russell Hammond: Can we just skip the vibe, and go straight to us laughing about this?
Jeff Bebe: Yeah, okay.
Russell Hammond: Because I can see by your face you want to get into it.
Jeff Bebe: How can you tell? I'm just one of the out-of-focus guys!
But the most intriguing character in the film is Penny Lane, played exceptionally by Kate Hudson. Penny is mysterious and accessible at the same time. Her and Russell have had an on-again-off-again fling for the past year, and William gets caught right in the middle. Penny cares for William while they are on the road with the band. She is almost motherly towards him. They care about each other, an especially rare thing in the world of fame and rock n' roll, where nothing matters but the pursuit of self-gratification. Russell slowly starts to realize that he cares for Penny as well, and seeing how William treats her inspires him.
Almost Famous is a great study on the shallow nature of fame. People are used and thrown away. Nothing matters to the rock starts and those in their inner circle except for their own pleasure. Except for William. The band gets to see a regular kid who just loves their band. He brings some innocence to it all. William feels patronized when they point this out to him, and their pretension is hilarious. It's ridiculous that famous people feel like they aren't "real". That somehow they are in this dream world of fame and being on a stage, and that somehow makes them better. I guess this is society's fault for putting them up there and worshiping the position. William and Penny help Russell realize that he is no different than everyone else. William's mom is one person that will speak to Russell without some hushed awe, and it humbles Russell. The film ends with Russell visiting William at his home, where he starts to realizes what it's all about.
The early 1970's were a huge time for music. Rock n' roll, with a little help from The Beatles and other early pioneers, was being explored in brand new ways. Almost Famous has one of the best soundtracks ever assembled, a vital element to creating the feel for the film. The characters all talk with such reverence about music, how it inspires them and moves them. I can relate. The other day I was driving down Maple Street in Fayetteville, Arkansas in my truck. The leaves were just starting to turn colors. The sun was shining. I was listening to Fleet Foxes self-titled album, and I was just stunned at how beautiful the moment was. The next thing I realized was that this glimpse of pure beauty was a tiny glimpse of Jesus. He created all of it; the trees, the sun, and the music. Even though there is a lot of great music that is not "Christian", I can still see Jesus through it. His beauty is magnified in all things that he creates, including music. For some, it's a way to see His face. There's a reason why worship through songs is such an important part of our worship towards Him. Music is a God-given way to express our feelings towards him. In a strange way, this film reminded me of all of that, which thrust me into prayer and worship. It's funny, a movie filled with drugs and profanity caused me to worship Jesus. I think that's just his power though, he can redeem all things!
"I will praise you with the harp for your faithfulness, my God; I will sing praise to you with the lyre, Holy One of Israel."
Psalm 71:22
"Sing to Him, sing psalms to Him; talk of all His wondrous works!"
1 Chronicles 16:9
I've seen this movie many times, and something I picked up on that I hadn't before was about William and his mother. William's mother Elaine is a single mom, as her husband died when her children were very young. She does her very best to keep her children close to her through the form of over-protection, which naturally drives them away. She talks of how she had to play mother and father to her son and daughter (William's sister Anita, played by Zooey Deschanel). While she does the best she absolutely can, it seems clear to me that her kids need a father figure. William tries to get this in Russell, but he is too caught up in himself to play the role. God created man and woman to each have a role in a child's life, and a father's role is so important.
I absolutely love Almost Famous. As I am writing this, listening to "Led Zeppelin II", I still feel like I am on the road with Stillwater in 1973. There's a magic to this film, and I think that even if you aren't a fan of the musical genre, you can still appreciate it. Just watch the "Tiny Dancer" scene, and you'll see what I mean. Russell Hammond is one of the coolest characters to ever hit a movie screen, and Billy Crudup does an outstanding job making him mysterious, cool, and still likable. Hoffman only has a few scenes, but he is fantastic in all of them. Kate Hudson has not since matched her performance here. Now if only I could listen to Stillwater's "Fever Dog" on iTunes...
5/5
Tuesday, October 2, 2012
Looper
As I sit and stare at my computer screen, I am only certain of one thing: Looper is the most difficult movie to review this year. My head is still swimming with thoughts, theories, and wonders from this absolutely unique science fiction movie. Two of the best sci-fi films of the past five years have come out in 2012, and Looper stands alongside Prometheus as one of them. Part Terminator, part Blade Runner, and part Minority Report, Looper is a heady time traveling science fiction film that doesn't get bogged down in the details. Bruce Willis is his John McClane/ Butch Coolidge self, and Joseph Gordon-Levitt continues to make his case for the title of "new Leonardo DiCaprio", starring in what seems like his 5th or 6th great role in a row (The Dark Knight Rises, Inception, (500) Days of Summer). Simply put, Looper is great science fiction, and in a year without The Dark Knight Rises it would be a heavy contender for best movie of the year.
In the future, time travel exists. In 2044, time travel does not yet exist, but it is known that it will exist in thirty years. Future organized crime syndicates use a very unique form of taking out their enemies, by sending them back in time and having the bodies disposed of by a "looper". A "looper" quickly disposes of their target, dumps the body, and gets paid. When the mob is done using you as a looper, they "close your loop", sending back your future self to be disposed of... by you. When Joe (Gordon-Levitt) sees his future self (Willis) come back in time to have the loop closed, he hesitates, and now his older self is on the run. This is bad news for Joe, who will have to answer to his boss Abe (played wonderfully by Jeff Daniels), and try to find old Joe before things get too complicated.
As with any time travel movie, your head is going to hurt with inconsistencies. Looper does a good job of staying away from the details and focuses on the greater story. Any time travel movie is going to break down the harder you look at it, no matter how hard you try to close up plot holes. The Terminator, Back to the Future, and Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban are just a few examples of great movies dealing with time travel that have troublesome plot points. There is a reason why time travel doesn't exist, and why it never can exist (at least I think it won't). It's a concept that is outside of our understanding of humans, paradoxical at every turn. For a movie that deals so heavily with time travel elements, Looper does a good job of not letting the little inconsistencies get in the way. In fact, the time travel works quite well. A particularly impressive scene is in the first 20 minutes, when one of Joe's friends has to "close the loop", and his future self gets away. I won't spoil anything, but it is one of the most visually unique scenes I have seen in a long time.
Looper makes you guess at its protagonist the whole way. Several characters seem to be the "hero", but constantly do things to the contrary. Once it seems like you've figured out who to root for, the script is flipped. Movies without a central protagonist can run into some major problems (I'm looking directly at you Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace), but as Looper unfolds, it does so almost like a mystery, and the changes in character drive are what keeps it engaging.
Joe eventually runs into Sara (Emily Blunt) and her son Cid (Pierce Gagnon), and this is where the movie starts to pick up. Joe's character is given some depth, and the story is further exposed. But the most impressive thing is the acting by Gagnon, the child playing Cid. I was blown away by how well this small child, no older than 8 by my estimation, could convey subtleties and emotion as well as any kid actor since Haley Joel Osment. Child actors can be very dangerous because, with rare exceptions, they are mostly terrible. A movie can be brought down by an annoying kid (you better believe that had the rest of Terminator 2: Judgment Day not been so awesome, there would be waaaay more complaining than there already is about Edward Furlong's John Connor), but here Gagnon is so great as Cid, nothing is taken away from the experience.
Looper has lots of cool futuristic action scenes, and the ones that are the most fun involve Bruce Willis. This guy is an all time great action hero for a reason, and he shows no signs of slowing down. His cool look, the snide comments, they all find their place in Looper. JGL certainly holds his own in his scenes with Willis, and one scene early in the film in a diner is particularly impressive. Since they are playing the same character, just at different times, it's an intriguing dynamic. JGL wears some almost unnoticeable makeup to make him look more Willis-ish, making their scenes together even more believable. It's a funny concept to even think about, having a conversation with your younger self. Old Joe chastises his younger self for being such a selfish idiot, and I think that every person would want that chance. I know that I would most certainly tell a thing or two to 16 year old Drew.
Looper went in a totally opposite direction than I thought it would, in a very good way. Instead of playing out like a run of the mill "revolt against the system" action movie, Looper has many genuine surprises in store. Get to a theater, pay the outrageous ticket price, pull out your smuggled in Skittles, and enjoy one of the year's best!
4.5/5
In the future, time travel exists. In 2044, time travel does not yet exist, but it is known that it will exist in thirty years. Future organized crime syndicates use a very unique form of taking out their enemies, by sending them back in time and having the bodies disposed of by a "looper". A "looper" quickly disposes of their target, dumps the body, and gets paid. When the mob is done using you as a looper, they "close your loop", sending back your future self to be disposed of... by you. When Joe (Gordon-Levitt) sees his future self (Willis) come back in time to have the loop closed, he hesitates, and now his older self is on the run. This is bad news for Joe, who will have to answer to his boss Abe (played wonderfully by Jeff Daniels), and try to find old Joe before things get too complicated.
As with any time travel movie, your head is going to hurt with inconsistencies. Looper does a good job of staying away from the details and focuses on the greater story. Any time travel movie is going to break down the harder you look at it, no matter how hard you try to close up plot holes. The Terminator, Back to the Future, and Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban are just a few examples of great movies dealing with time travel that have troublesome plot points. There is a reason why time travel doesn't exist, and why it never can exist (at least I think it won't). It's a concept that is outside of our understanding of humans, paradoxical at every turn. For a movie that deals so heavily with time travel elements, Looper does a good job of not letting the little inconsistencies get in the way. In fact, the time travel works quite well. A particularly impressive scene is in the first 20 minutes, when one of Joe's friends has to "close the loop", and his future self gets away. I won't spoil anything, but it is one of the most visually unique scenes I have seen in a long time.
Looper makes you guess at its protagonist the whole way. Several characters seem to be the "hero", but constantly do things to the contrary. Once it seems like you've figured out who to root for, the script is flipped. Movies without a central protagonist can run into some major problems (I'm looking directly at you Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace), but as Looper unfolds, it does so almost like a mystery, and the changes in character drive are what keeps it engaging.
Joe eventually runs into Sara (Emily Blunt) and her son Cid (Pierce Gagnon), and this is where the movie starts to pick up. Joe's character is given some depth, and the story is further exposed. But the most impressive thing is the acting by Gagnon, the child playing Cid. I was blown away by how well this small child, no older than 8 by my estimation, could convey subtleties and emotion as well as any kid actor since Haley Joel Osment. Child actors can be very dangerous because, with rare exceptions, they are mostly terrible. A movie can be brought down by an annoying kid (you better believe that had the rest of Terminator 2: Judgment Day not been so awesome, there would be waaaay more complaining than there already is about Edward Furlong's John Connor), but here Gagnon is so great as Cid, nothing is taken away from the experience.
Looper has lots of cool futuristic action scenes, and the ones that are the most fun involve Bruce Willis. This guy is an all time great action hero for a reason, and he shows no signs of slowing down. His cool look, the snide comments, they all find their place in Looper. JGL certainly holds his own in his scenes with Willis, and one scene early in the film in a diner is particularly impressive. Since they are playing the same character, just at different times, it's an intriguing dynamic. JGL wears some almost unnoticeable makeup to make him look more Willis-ish, making their scenes together even more believable. It's a funny concept to even think about, having a conversation with your younger self. Old Joe chastises his younger self for being such a selfish idiot, and I think that every person would want that chance. I know that I would most certainly tell a thing or two to 16 year old Drew.
Looper went in a totally opposite direction than I thought it would, in a very good way. Instead of playing out like a run of the mill "revolt against the system" action movie, Looper has many genuine surprises in store. Get to a theater, pay the outrageous ticket price, pull out your smuggled in Skittles, and enjoy one of the year's best!
4.5/5
Saturday, September 29, 2012
Eight Men Out (1988)
The 1919 World Series. "Black Sox" scandal. "Shoeless" Joe Jackson banned from baseball. Any hardcore baseball fan knows this story well, and Eight Men Out is a fascinating retelling of this dark moment in baseball history. Myself being a ridiculously huge baseball fan, the odds that I would love this movie were pretty high, and any baseball fan will love it. I think that even if you aren't a big baseball fan, you can still appreciate the impressive snapshot of early 20th century American history, and an interesting portrayal of culture during the time period. Also impressive is how well Eight Men Out has aged, a period piece with impressive costume and set design that holds up 24 years later. As far as sports movies go, Eight Men Out is up there with the best.
1919 was a different era. There was no NFL, no fantasy sports, no round the clock ESPN coverage of every piece of sports minutiae painfully scrutinized ad nauseum. In 1919, there was big league baseball. This film starts as the Chicago White Sox are finishing up their American League Pennant victory, preparing to meet the Cincinnati Reds in the World Series. The White Sox are one of the greatest teams ever assembled, led by Buck Weaver (John Cusack), 'Shoeless' Joe Jackson (D.B. Sweeney), Hap Felsch (Charlie Sheen), ace hurler Eddie Cicotte (David Strathairn) and managed by the great 'Kid' Gleason (John Mahoney). But Sox players become increasingly frustrated with their cheapskate owner, Commie Comiskey (Clifton James), who pays them well below what they are worth and doesn't live up to his promises. He promises Cicotte a $10,000 bonus for winning 30 games, and benches him for 3 weeks in August. As frustrations begin to boil over, the gambling community finds a way to exploit this, paying the players their due wage in exchange for throwing the Series. The men are conflicted, but several give in, and as the Series starts, the White Sox are ready to lose to get rich.
Not all players approached give in to the scheme. Buck Weaver and Joe Jackson just want to play. They love the game, and even though they feel cheated by their owner, they can't stand to lose. Weaver is played as the hero in the film, the guy that despite the temptation of money, just wants to win a World Series. He develops a relationship with a couple of Chicago neighborhood kids who adore him. These scenes are very cute, and a great dichotomy of how things get complicated from childhood to adulthood. When you're a kid, there's just fun and baseball. When you're an adult, it gets a little bit more muddled. Joe Jackson is one of the tragic players in baseball history. A great ball player but not the brightest bulb in the box, Jackson is walked upon by others who are smarter than him. He just wants to play the game, but the harsh reality of the world won't let him.
If I had a time machine, one of the first places I would visit would be a Major League Baseball ball park in the early 20th century. The era fascinates me. The game was so much different back then. Fans packed the stadiums in suits and hats, scrutinizing every detail of the game. Every child wanted to grow up to be a baseball player. The players were of the rough and tumble type, the kind that fought when it was (un)necessary and threw back the whiskey after games. Spitballs and all other types of illegal pitches of today were legal and prevalently used. One interesting quirk that is highlighted in the film is that the players of opposing sides would actually share their gloves. At the end of an inning, the fielders would leave their glove at their position for the other team to use. The game that is played today, while at it's purest is still the same, is so dissimilar to the early days.
I loved how the movie showed the internal conflict of the players trying to throw the game. Losing on purpose is a harder thing than it would seem. One of the beauties of baseball is that once you're on the field, nothing else but the game matters. The guys who are on the take know what they must do, but most of them don't want to. By the end most are ready to quit the rouse, but once you've made a deal with the devil, you can't go back. The team is so tense, as most of the guys know who is on the take and who isn't. Manager Kid Gleason doesn't want to believe his boys would throw the game. Could you imagine looking a teammate in the eye after you purposefully make an error in the field in the World Series?
The movie follows the events of the 9-game World Series, and the aftermath that led to the eight men involved being banned for life from the game. The set pieces, the costumes, and especially the ragtime musical score wonderfully immerse you in the era. Like I said, it's hard for me to be unbiased because I love this era and subject matter so much. But the story is a great portrayal of the struggle between getting rich and the love of the game. Could you imagine if something like this happened in 2012? What if it was discovered that Nelson Cruz was on the take and his woeful attempt at David Freese's game tying triple in the 9th in Game 6 of last years World Series was purposeful? It would be national scandal that would bring baseball to its knees. This is similar to the "Black Sox" scandal, except imagine that today's MLB was by FAR the country's most popular sport. What a big deal it was to the country is an interesting facet to this story to me.
Even though the NFL might be the most popular sports league of today, our nation was founded on baseball. Eight Men Out is a great film about one of the low points in American sports history. Great sports movies are hard to come by, and any fan of the genre should give this movie a look. Baseball nerds like me will especially adore it.
4/5
1919 was a different era. There was no NFL, no fantasy sports, no round the clock ESPN coverage of every piece of sports minutiae painfully scrutinized ad nauseum. In 1919, there was big league baseball. This film starts as the Chicago White Sox are finishing up their American League Pennant victory, preparing to meet the Cincinnati Reds in the World Series. The White Sox are one of the greatest teams ever assembled, led by Buck Weaver (John Cusack), 'Shoeless' Joe Jackson (D.B. Sweeney), Hap Felsch (Charlie Sheen), ace hurler Eddie Cicotte (David Strathairn) and managed by the great 'Kid' Gleason (John Mahoney). But Sox players become increasingly frustrated with their cheapskate owner, Commie Comiskey (Clifton James), who pays them well below what they are worth and doesn't live up to his promises. He promises Cicotte a $10,000 bonus for winning 30 games, and benches him for 3 weeks in August. As frustrations begin to boil over, the gambling community finds a way to exploit this, paying the players their due wage in exchange for throwing the Series. The men are conflicted, but several give in, and as the Series starts, the White Sox are ready to lose to get rich.
Not all players approached give in to the scheme. Buck Weaver and Joe Jackson just want to play. They love the game, and even though they feel cheated by their owner, they can't stand to lose. Weaver is played as the hero in the film, the guy that despite the temptation of money, just wants to win a World Series. He develops a relationship with a couple of Chicago neighborhood kids who adore him. These scenes are very cute, and a great dichotomy of how things get complicated from childhood to adulthood. When you're a kid, there's just fun and baseball. When you're an adult, it gets a little bit more muddled. Joe Jackson is one of the tragic players in baseball history. A great ball player but not the brightest bulb in the box, Jackson is walked upon by others who are smarter than him. He just wants to play the game, but the harsh reality of the world won't let him.
If I had a time machine, one of the first places I would visit would be a Major League Baseball ball park in the early 20th century. The era fascinates me. The game was so much different back then. Fans packed the stadiums in suits and hats, scrutinizing every detail of the game. Every child wanted to grow up to be a baseball player. The players were of the rough and tumble type, the kind that fought when it was (un)necessary and threw back the whiskey after games. Spitballs and all other types of illegal pitches of today were legal and prevalently used. One interesting quirk that is highlighted in the film is that the players of opposing sides would actually share their gloves. At the end of an inning, the fielders would leave their glove at their position for the other team to use. The game that is played today, while at it's purest is still the same, is so dissimilar to the early days.
I loved how the movie showed the internal conflict of the players trying to throw the game. Losing on purpose is a harder thing than it would seem. One of the beauties of baseball is that once you're on the field, nothing else but the game matters. The guys who are on the take know what they must do, but most of them don't want to. By the end most are ready to quit the rouse, but once you've made a deal with the devil, you can't go back. The team is so tense, as most of the guys know who is on the take and who isn't. Manager Kid Gleason doesn't want to believe his boys would throw the game. Could you imagine looking a teammate in the eye after you purposefully make an error in the field in the World Series?
The movie follows the events of the 9-game World Series, and the aftermath that led to the eight men involved being banned for life from the game. The set pieces, the costumes, and especially the ragtime musical score wonderfully immerse you in the era. Like I said, it's hard for me to be unbiased because I love this era and subject matter so much. But the story is a great portrayal of the struggle between getting rich and the love of the game. Could you imagine if something like this happened in 2012? What if it was discovered that Nelson Cruz was on the take and his woeful attempt at David Freese's game tying triple in the 9th in Game 6 of last years World Series was purposeful? It would be national scandal that would bring baseball to its knees. This is similar to the "Black Sox" scandal, except imagine that today's MLB was by FAR the country's most popular sport. What a big deal it was to the country is an interesting facet to this story to me.
Even though the NFL might be the most popular sports league of today, our nation was founded on baseball. Eight Men Out is a great film about one of the low points in American sports history. Great sports movies are hard to come by, and any fan of the genre should give this movie a look. Baseball nerds like me will especially adore it.
4/5
Tuesday, September 25, 2012
Rounders (1998)
Did you know that this movie existed? Granted I'm only 23 years old, but a movie starring Matt Damon, Edward Norton (one of my favorites) and John Malkovich shouldn't just slip by me. Needless to say when Rounders popped up on the "recommended for you" section of Netflix, I was excited to give it a shot. The movie gets bogged down a little towards the end, but the performances are great, and it is an overall great ride.
Mike McDermott (Matt Damon) is a law student by day, and a "rounder" by night. "Rounders" make their way around New York City playing underground poker games, Texas Hold 'Em being the game of choice. Mike is an especially good player, knowing exactly how to play the man across the table and not his cards. In an effort to make it big, Mike bets it all on a game against Teddy KGB (John Malkovich), only to wind up being reduced to nothing. After swearing off cards forever, Mike's best pal from high school Worm (Edward Norton), fresh out of prison, convinces Mike to get back in the game. Mike loves poker, but he has things he can't lose: a steady girlfriend, a job, and law school. But the allure of playing the game he loves coupled with Worm's serious gambling debts bring Mike back into the fray.
When Rounders is great, it's for the same reason that makes Ocean's Eleven great. When executed properly, it's a blast to watch the main characters outsmart everyone in the room. You're never quite sure the intricacies of what is going on, but you are sure that the hero is more cunning, more sly, and knows way more than anyone else in the movie. Damon and Norton hustling card games is a treat to watch. Part of all of us just wishes that we were that skilled at one thing that we could walk into any room and feel unbeatable. In my lifetime, I have only come close to that skilled in one thing, playing R.B.I. Baseball on the original Nintendo, but even then my Dad was always better than me. The "rounders" make it look easy, pulling stunts that have names you've never heard of with such style. The problem is that this gimmick is relied on a little too much. A lot of time in the film is spent playing cards, and it starts to bore.
Matt Damon is the king of boyish charm, at least in the 90's. Just like in his other early films like Good Will Hunting and The Rainmaker, Damon has the wit and charm that make you cheer for him without him really doing anything. Damon plays the hero with such ease, oozing charisma from every pore. Edward Norton is exceptional as well, playing Damon's loser best friend. Worm is smooth and desperate, a combination that Norton pulls off. He and Mike bond over poker; it drives them, they love every part of it. Worm aspires for nothing more than to pay his debts and get a rush, while Mike has goals of true poker immortality: playing in Las Vegas at the World Series of Poker.
Replace Norton and Damon and this movie is extremely run of the mill. The poker scenes get bogged down and the ending can be seen coming from a mile away. As a law student, I smiled more than a few times when there was any mention of law school. Clerkships, moot court, caveat emptor, all things mentioned in the film that I felt like I was "in" on because I am in law school. Malkovich does his usual loud performance as the villain, a Russian with a hilarious accent. I could have used a little more insight into Mike and especially Worm, who seems to be strictly one note.
Rounders is saved from being run of the mill by its extremely talented cast. Fans of Damon or Norton should at least give it a shot.
3/5
Mike McDermott (Matt Damon) is a law student by day, and a "rounder" by night. "Rounders" make their way around New York City playing underground poker games, Texas Hold 'Em being the game of choice. Mike is an especially good player, knowing exactly how to play the man across the table and not his cards. In an effort to make it big, Mike bets it all on a game against Teddy KGB (John Malkovich), only to wind up being reduced to nothing. After swearing off cards forever, Mike's best pal from high school Worm (Edward Norton), fresh out of prison, convinces Mike to get back in the game. Mike loves poker, but he has things he can't lose: a steady girlfriend, a job, and law school. But the allure of playing the game he loves coupled with Worm's serious gambling debts bring Mike back into the fray.
When Rounders is great, it's for the same reason that makes Ocean's Eleven great. When executed properly, it's a blast to watch the main characters outsmart everyone in the room. You're never quite sure the intricacies of what is going on, but you are sure that the hero is more cunning, more sly, and knows way more than anyone else in the movie. Damon and Norton hustling card games is a treat to watch. Part of all of us just wishes that we were that skilled at one thing that we could walk into any room and feel unbeatable. In my lifetime, I have only come close to that skilled in one thing, playing R.B.I. Baseball on the original Nintendo, but even then my Dad was always better than me. The "rounders" make it look easy, pulling stunts that have names you've never heard of with such style. The problem is that this gimmick is relied on a little too much. A lot of time in the film is spent playing cards, and it starts to bore.
Matt Damon is the king of boyish charm, at least in the 90's. Just like in his other early films like Good Will Hunting and The Rainmaker, Damon has the wit and charm that make you cheer for him without him really doing anything. Damon plays the hero with such ease, oozing charisma from every pore. Edward Norton is exceptional as well, playing Damon's loser best friend. Worm is smooth and desperate, a combination that Norton pulls off. He and Mike bond over poker; it drives them, they love every part of it. Worm aspires for nothing more than to pay his debts and get a rush, while Mike has goals of true poker immortality: playing in Las Vegas at the World Series of Poker.
Replace Norton and Damon and this movie is extremely run of the mill. The poker scenes get bogged down and the ending can be seen coming from a mile away. As a law student, I smiled more than a few times when there was any mention of law school. Clerkships, moot court, caveat emptor, all things mentioned in the film that I felt like I was "in" on because I am in law school. Malkovich does his usual loud performance as the villain, a Russian with a hilarious accent. I could have used a little more insight into Mike and especially Worm, who seems to be strictly one note.
Rounders is saved from being run of the mill by its extremely talented cast. Fans of Damon or Norton should at least give it a shot.
3/5
Monday, September 17, 2012
Why I am not going to see Paul Thomas Anderson's "The Master"
The Master, released in limited theaters last weekend, is being hailed as a heavy Oscar contender. Early reviews are glowing, and it sits at 88% fresh on Rotten Tomatoes. Its director Paul Thomas Anderson has been lauded for his unique style of directing and writing, and has been nominated for 5 Academy Awards. It stars Philip Seymour Hoffman and Joaquin Phoenix, two powerhouse leading men that have 5 Academy Award nominations and one win between them. Joaquin's performance as Commodus in Gladiator is one of my favorite performances of all time. So with all of that on the table, why in the world would I not go see The Master? Because it is directed by Paul Thomas Anderson- master of movie boredom.
Before I go any further I must confess that I am not fully versed in the ways of Anderson. I've only seen two of his films; There Will Be Blood and Punch Drunk Love. I've managed to steer clear of Boogie Nights, Magnolia, and Hard Eight. But the two I have seen have been so painfully boring and weird, I couldn't imagine having to suffer through any more.
There Will Be Blood, released in 2007, had all the hype in the world. A critically acclaimed director, Hollywood acting great Daniel Day-Lewis as the lead, and the promise of an engrossing tale of oil prospecting at the turn of the century. Needless to say I was very excited to see this movie in the theater. The opening scene was extremely promising. Daniel Day-Lewis, struggling in an oil well, in an amazing one man scene with no dialogue. After that is when things started to turn south. For what seemed like the next 9 hours (in reality it was only two and a half), absolutely NOTHING happened. Seriously, there is nothing that happens. I understand that not all movies are moved along by a traditional plot, and that there are other types of films. The Curious Case of Benjamin Button is a good example of a film that is a character study. We see Benjamin from his birth to his death. But in between there is growth, action, and love. In There Will Be Blood, there is none of that. Day-Lewis' character is an evil curmudgeon in the last scene, the exact same as he is in the first. There's no plot to speak of, just some events, and then it ends. Was I supposed to be invested in any of the characters? Was I supposed to care when anything happened?
About halfway through the movie I started to realize that my expectations had gone horribly wrong. After the movie my friends and I all had sheepish looks, none of us daring to be the first to say they hated it. Someone finally piped up with a "that was kind of boring" comment, finally giving the rest of us the ability to tell of how bored we all were during the movie. A group behind me in the theater loudly exclaimed, "this is boring crap!" and actually left the theater with an hour left. True story. I wish I had been as bold as them. It most certainly was boring crap. It was almost as if I could hear Anderson behind me in the theater screaming, "THIS IS ART! YOU ARE SUPPOSED TO LIKE THIS!" I understand that I'm supposed to, the problem is that I don't, not even in the slightest. Maybe I was confusing that with Day-Lewis horribly overacted performance. It was as if Anderson told him,"OK, if you yell and strain your face, it conveys emotion! Do this EVERY time!" Yelling is not great acting, and that is the gist of Day-Lewis' performance. He overacts like Calculon from Futurama.
Round 2 with P.T. Anderson came completely by accident. Had I known that he was the director of Punch Drunk Love I would have never rented it. But I gave it a try, after reading some good things about it on the internet, and several great things about the performance of Adam Sandler. After watching it, it was clear to me that everything I had heard had been wrong. Again, I kept patiently waiting for ANYTHING to happen. Except that it doesn't. Nothing happens, there's some weirdness thrown in for the sake of being weird, and that's it. It's the slowest 95 minute movie you'll ever watch. I was so angry at myself after finding out who the director was, and that I didn't do my research first. I guess if anything, it was a good lesson in the dangers of renting a movie. It could end up being directed by Paul Thomas Anderson. There might be other movies out there as brutally dull as There Will Be Blood and Punch Drunk Love, but I seriously doubt it.
I've had many friends tell me that they love one or both of these. This blows my mind, but hey, maybe I just didn't "get it". But wait a minute. These are MOVIES we are talking about. They are about entertainment. There's only one way to "get" that. Either you enjoy your time watching it or you don't. Understandably, there are films out there that the content and subject matter you may not fully understand, yet you can still be entertained by them. I am a huge fan of Ridley Scott's Blade Runner, but I don't really understand much of it's themes and undertones if I'm being honest. I just know that the world Scott created and the story presented are engrossing, and my time seems well spent. I couldn't care less about the "art" of the film if it bores me to tears. What was the point of me watching it if I felt like I was sitting through a reading of a Chemistry textbook, as read by Ben Stein? Obviously craft and technique matter, but all for the purpose of making the movie more engaging to watch, not less.
I'm probably being close minded about The Master, but after two nightmarish experiences with this director, can you blame me? I almost got suckered in by it too- the reviews, the actors, the hype. Ultimately I think I've finally learned one of the most valuable lessons any movie-goer can learn: unless you are suffering from crippling insomnia, stay away from Paul Thomas Anderson.
Before I go any further I must confess that I am not fully versed in the ways of Anderson. I've only seen two of his films; There Will Be Blood and Punch Drunk Love. I've managed to steer clear of Boogie Nights, Magnolia, and Hard Eight. But the two I have seen have been so painfully boring and weird, I couldn't imagine having to suffer through any more.
There Will Be Blood, released in 2007, had all the hype in the world. A critically acclaimed director, Hollywood acting great Daniel Day-Lewis as the lead, and the promise of an engrossing tale of oil prospecting at the turn of the century. Needless to say I was very excited to see this movie in the theater. The opening scene was extremely promising. Daniel Day-Lewis, struggling in an oil well, in an amazing one man scene with no dialogue. After that is when things started to turn south. For what seemed like the next 9 hours (in reality it was only two and a half), absolutely NOTHING happened. Seriously, there is nothing that happens. I understand that not all movies are moved along by a traditional plot, and that there are other types of films. The Curious Case of Benjamin Button is a good example of a film that is a character study. We see Benjamin from his birth to his death. But in between there is growth, action, and love. In There Will Be Blood, there is none of that. Day-Lewis' character is an evil curmudgeon in the last scene, the exact same as he is in the first. There's no plot to speak of, just some events, and then it ends. Was I supposed to be invested in any of the characters? Was I supposed to care when anything happened?
About halfway through the movie I started to realize that my expectations had gone horribly wrong. After the movie my friends and I all had sheepish looks, none of us daring to be the first to say they hated it. Someone finally piped up with a "that was kind of boring" comment, finally giving the rest of us the ability to tell of how bored we all were during the movie. A group behind me in the theater loudly exclaimed, "this is boring crap!" and actually left the theater with an hour left. True story. I wish I had been as bold as them. It most certainly was boring crap. It was almost as if I could hear Anderson behind me in the theater screaming, "THIS IS ART! YOU ARE SUPPOSED TO LIKE THIS!" I understand that I'm supposed to, the problem is that I don't, not even in the slightest. Maybe I was confusing that with Day-Lewis horribly overacted performance. It was as if Anderson told him,"OK, if you yell and strain your face, it conveys emotion! Do this EVERY time!" Yelling is not great acting, and that is the gist of Day-Lewis' performance. He overacts like Calculon from Futurama.
Round 2 with P.T. Anderson came completely by accident. Had I known that he was the director of Punch Drunk Love I would have never rented it. But I gave it a try, after reading some good things about it on the internet, and several great things about the performance of Adam Sandler. After watching it, it was clear to me that everything I had heard had been wrong. Again, I kept patiently waiting for ANYTHING to happen. Except that it doesn't. Nothing happens, there's some weirdness thrown in for the sake of being weird, and that's it. It's the slowest 95 minute movie you'll ever watch. I was so angry at myself after finding out who the director was, and that I didn't do my research first. I guess if anything, it was a good lesson in the dangers of renting a movie. It could end up being directed by Paul Thomas Anderson. There might be other movies out there as brutally dull as There Will Be Blood and Punch Drunk Love, but I seriously doubt it.
I've had many friends tell me that they love one or both of these. This blows my mind, but hey, maybe I just didn't "get it". But wait a minute. These are MOVIES we are talking about. They are about entertainment. There's only one way to "get" that. Either you enjoy your time watching it or you don't. Understandably, there are films out there that the content and subject matter you may not fully understand, yet you can still be entertained by them. I am a huge fan of Ridley Scott's Blade Runner, but I don't really understand much of it's themes and undertones if I'm being honest. I just know that the world Scott created and the story presented are engrossing, and my time seems well spent. I couldn't care less about the "art" of the film if it bores me to tears. What was the point of me watching it if I felt like I was sitting through a reading of a Chemistry textbook, as read by Ben Stein? Obviously craft and technique matter, but all for the purpose of making the movie more engaging to watch, not less.
I'm probably being close minded about The Master, but after two nightmarish experiences with this director, can you blame me? I almost got suckered in by it too- the reviews, the actors, the hype. Ultimately I think I've finally learned one of the most valuable lessons any movie-goer can learn: unless you are suffering from crippling insomnia, stay away from Paul Thomas Anderson.
Friday, September 14, 2012
Best Movie Each Year of Your Life
I've done this before, and it's kind of a fun thing to do. The point is to name the best movie from each year of your life, starting with the year of your birth. It definitely creates some close calls, and some of my top 10 movies won't make this list because of a solid year in film. 1999 brings the tough choice between Fight Club and The Matrix. 2002 has Minority Report and The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers. 1994 has Pulp Fiction and Dumb and Dumber. 2006 gave me the agonizing decision of Casino Royale and The Departed. Also, looking back, there are several very thin years for movies. 2005 is a super weak year, and 2004 is not much better. 2011 is a year with a bunch of good movies, and very few great ones. I challenge you to do this as well, it's a fun list to make!
1989: Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade
1990: Goodfellas
1991: Terminator 2: Judgment Day
1992: Reservoir Dogs
1993: Rudy
1994: Dumb and Dumber
1995: Se7en
1996: Sling Blade
1997: L.A. Confidential
1998: The Truman Show
1999: The Matrix
2000:Gladiator
2001: The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring
2002: The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers
2003: The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King
2004: Collateral
2005: Batman Begins
2006: The Departed
2007: No Country for Old Men
2008: The Dark Knight
2009: District 9
2010: Inception
2011: The Muppets
2012: The Dark Knight Rises
1989: Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade
1990: Goodfellas
1991: Terminator 2: Judgment Day
1992: Reservoir Dogs
1993: Rudy
1994: Dumb and Dumber
1995: Se7en
1996: Sling Blade
1997: L.A. Confidential
1998: The Truman Show
1999: The Matrix
2000:Gladiator
2001: The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring
2002: The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers
2003: The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King
2004: Collateral
2005: Batman Begins
2006: The Departed
2007: No Country for Old Men
2008: The Dark Knight
2009: District 9
2010: Inception
2011: The Muppets
2012: The Dark Knight Rises
Saturday, September 8, 2012
Midnight in Paris
Midnight in Paris is a wonderfully acted, wonderfully written film. I'm not very familiar with Woody Allen's work, but from what I have heard, this movie is extremely "Woody-esque". Owen Wilson plays a guy who feels like he is stuck in the wrong era- that he was born 90 years too late. Nostalgia and remembering the past is a wonderful thing, but is the past really as great as we imagine?
Gil (Wilson) and his fiancee Inez (Rachel McAdams) come to Paris with Inez's family on vacation. Gil is a Hollywood screenwriter, but longs to write a novel in the vein of his idol's: Hemmingway, Elliot, and Fitzgerald. Inez is caught up in the material lifestyle; fame, wealth, and a perfect life with Gil in Malibu. Gil is overtaken by Paris and wants to move there and live the simple life, much to the dismay of Inez. He wants to take walks in the rain and experience the beauty of Paris; she wants to eat at the fancy restaurants, go dancing, and do it all while wearing the best clothes and jewelry. To get away from it all, Gil takes a midnight walk through the streets, where he encounters something very strange. A 1920's type vehicle transports him to a place in the past where he meets his favorite artists, authors, and musicians, giving him a chance to experience the era he believes to be the "golden age". His midnight walks take him further into the culture he loves, and further away from Inez.
Nostalgia is a funny thing. I think back on simple memories from my past and they seem so great: walking home from school in 7th grade, playing in high school football games on Friday nights, traveling to play in competitive baseball tournaments, staying out at my cousin's house in the country, and so many more. All of these memories are so vivid and give me a feeling of warmth and comfort; as if only I could just relive these moments again, it would be better than anything I am experiencing today. Gil certainly feels this way in the1920's. When he gets to experience this era he feels like it is a dream come true. His writing becomes inspired, he fits in, and sacrifices his time in the present to engross himself in the past.
But is the past really better than the present? Our memories cloud our judgments. We have emotions tied to them and they play tricks on us. Was playing in high school football games an amazing experience? Absolutely. Would I want to go back and be in high school again? That answer is a definite no. It's so important to appreciate your memories but it's also important to appreciate them for what they are. I see this all the time with my friends and how they view children's cartoons. "Our cartoons were so much better! Cartoons today are terrible!" These statements might be true, but it is way more likely that these cartoons are associated with youth, and a time of simplicity, which gives off a warm and fuzzy feeling. My seven year old brother in 15 years will be saying the exact same things; that the shows that were on when HE was a kid were way better than the new ones. The point being is that Midnight in Paris does a wonderful job of addressing the theme of memories and feelings from the past.
Gil and Inez are so different, and it makes you wonder how they even got together in the first place. This seems to happen a lot in romance stories; the main character is in a relationship that seems so opposite of their personality, and are miserable until they meet a fiery new man or woman. At first I thought that this was just a movie cliche, but as I get older I realize that there are people who are in relationships where they are nothing like their partner, making you wonder what attracted them to each other in the first place. Instantly I was against Gil and Inez staying together.
The dialogue is very witty and enjoyable, especially between Gil and the people he meets in the past. One of my few complaints is that Inez's character comes off as too simple. She seems to have a one track mind of wealth and status, and as I previously stated, it's hard to believe that her and Gil ever fit together. Some hilarious scenes are with Inez's pseudo-intellectual friend Paul (Michael Sheen), a know-it-all that you'd like to give a nice punch in the face.
Midnight in Paris is a relatively clean, fun and romantic film. Paris provides beautiful scenery, and Allen accentuates it with pretty shots and a lovely musical score. Owen Wilson is fantastic as Gil, and Allen's writing really shines. His Academy Award for Best Original Screenplay is well deserved, and I highly recommend seeing this film.
4/5
Gil (Wilson) and his fiancee Inez (Rachel McAdams) come to Paris with Inez's family on vacation. Gil is a Hollywood screenwriter, but longs to write a novel in the vein of his idol's: Hemmingway, Elliot, and Fitzgerald. Inez is caught up in the material lifestyle; fame, wealth, and a perfect life with Gil in Malibu. Gil is overtaken by Paris and wants to move there and live the simple life, much to the dismay of Inez. He wants to take walks in the rain and experience the beauty of Paris; she wants to eat at the fancy restaurants, go dancing, and do it all while wearing the best clothes and jewelry. To get away from it all, Gil takes a midnight walk through the streets, where he encounters something very strange. A 1920's type vehicle transports him to a place in the past where he meets his favorite artists, authors, and musicians, giving him a chance to experience the era he believes to be the "golden age". His midnight walks take him further into the culture he loves, and further away from Inez.
Nostalgia is a funny thing. I think back on simple memories from my past and they seem so great: walking home from school in 7th grade, playing in high school football games on Friday nights, traveling to play in competitive baseball tournaments, staying out at my cousin's house in the country, and so many more. All of these memories are so vivid and give me a feeling of warmth and comfort; as if only I could just relive these moments again, it would be better than anything I am experiencing today. Gil certainly feels this way in the1920's. When he gets to experience this era he feels like it is a dream come true. His writing becomes inspired, he fits in, and sacrifices his time in the present to engross himself in the past.
But is the past really better than the present? Our memories cloud our judgments. We have emotions tied to them and they play tricks on us. Was playing in high school football games an amazing experience? Absolutely. Would I want to go back and be in high school again? That answer is a definite no. It's so important to appreciate your memories but it's also important to appreciate them for what they are. I see this all the time with my friends and how they view children's cartoons. "Our cartoons were so much better! Cartoons today are terrible!" These statements might be true, but it is way more likely that these cartoons are associated with youth, and a time of simplicity, which gives off a warm and fuzzy feeling. My seven year old brother in 15 years will be saying the exact same things; that the shows that were on when HE was a kid were way better than the new ones. The point being is that Midnight in Paris does a wonderful job of addressing the theme of memories and feelings from the past.
Gil and Inez are so different, and it makes you wonder how they even got together in the first place. This seems to happen a lot in romance stories; the main character is in a relationship that seems so opposite of their personality, and are miserable until they meet a fiery new man or woman. At first I thought that this was just a movie cliche, but as I get older I realize that there are people who are in relationships where they are nothing like their partner, making you wonder what attracted them to each other in the first place. Instantly I was against Gil and Inez staying together.
The dialogue is very witty and enjoyable, especially between Gil and the people he meets in the past. One of my few complaints is that Inez's character comes off as too simple. She seems to have a one track mind of wealth and status, and as I previously stated, it's hard to believe that her and Gil ever fit together. Some hilarious scenes are with Inez's pseudo-intellectual friend Paul (Michael Sheen), a know-it-all that you'd like to give a nice punch in the face.
Midnight in Paris is a relatively clean, fun and romantic film. Paris provides beautiful scenery, and Allen accentuates it with pretty shots and a lovely musical score. Owen Wilson is fantastic as Gil, and Allen's writing really shines. His Academy Award for Best Original Screenplay is well deserved, and I highly recommend seeing this film.
4/5
Sunday, September 2, 2012
Gone Baby Gone
Gone Baby Gone is director Ben Affleck's big screen directorial debut, and it is an impressive one. This film is somewhat of a spiritual predecessor to Affleck's better known The Town. Both are set in the dirty neighborhoods of Boston, and both do an excellent job portraying the culture. My guess is that Affleck has some experience with these neighborhoods, as he has either directed or acted in several films set there (Good Will Hunting being another example). Gone Baby Gone is essentially about a phrase we hear all the time: how do you choose between the "lesser of two evils"?
Ben's brother Casey plays private investigator Patrick, who along with his partner/girlfriend Angie (Michelle Monaghan) are hired to find a missing little girl, Amanda McCready. The girl's mother is a strung out, coked up piece of work named Helene (Amy Ryan), who makes it clear that she is much more interested in herself than her daughter. Helene's brother Lionel (Titus Welliver) and his wife Bea (Amy Madigan) are the ones that hire Patrick and Angie, and seem to be the ones who actually care about Amanda. Patrick and Angie are helped by two Boston cops, Remy (Ed Harris) and Nick (John Ashton), as well as their superior, Jack Doyle (Morgan Freeman). Patrick and Angie become set on finding Amanda at all costs.
To give away much more of the plot would give too much away. The film plays as a mystery, guiding the viewer along its twists and turns. It is very much comparable to L.A. Confidential and Mystic River (the author of Gone Baby Gone having also written the latter). Several of the twists I saw coming from a mile away, but there were several others that were genuinely surprising. Affleck gives the viewer just enough to go on to make guesses about what is to happen next, and I was impressed with how this film moved so well from scene to scene. A great mystery leaves you with pieces of the puzzle and leaves you to put them together, and for the most part, this movie does just that.
Not only is there a genuinely engrossing thriller, but the movie presents a bevy of moral questions that very few of us want to answer. At what point does doing the right thing become the wrong thing? How do you choose when you are faced with picking the "lesser of two evils"? What do you do when both options faced before you have morally reprehensible consequences? Example: Do you give money to the homeless man on the street as a stopgap fix? Or will that money only be a crutch and leave him back where he started? Surely he will be better off with the money in hand, if only for a little while. The impoverished need to be helped from those that have it better off. But what if that money is abused and serves no real higher purpose for the man? Would it have been better if you had not given it at all? Gone Baby Gone slaps you in the face with this type of dilemma, and trust me, you won't like your options. After viewing it, I still don't know which side I land on for some of these questions. The film will really make you question your moral leanings, and it serves as a huge emotional punch.
The acting is very good from most every character. Everyone speaks with heavy Boston accents, most of which I bought. The best performance of the film comes from Amanda's mother Helene, played by Amy Ryan (probably better known for her TV roles such as "The Wire" and "The Office"). Ryan has the task of playing a selfish woman that you want to hate. She does drugs, she leaves her daughter alone, and is just downright filthy. You would never want a child you care about to be cared for by her. Ryan is very believable in her role, making it tough on the viewer to root for Patrick and Angie to even find Amanda. If she's found, she goes back to the hellhole that is Helene's life. Ryan plays the character with just enough humanity to show that even the most degenerate humans still care for their child at their very core. I found myself hating her and feeling sorry for her at the same time.
I found Gone Baby Gone at a video resale store for $3.95 on Blu ray. After taking a chance on it, I am very pleased with my meager investment. Ben Affleck proves that he has real talent to direct, and gets some great performances out of his cast. Gone Baby Gone is an engaging thriller that will leave you thinking well past its ending.
4/5
Ben's brother Casey plays private investigator Patrick, who along with his partner/girlfriend Angie (Michelle Monaghan) are hired to find a missing little girl, Amanda McCready. The girl's mother is a strung out, coked up piece of work named Helene (Amy Ryan), who makes it clear that she is much more interested in herself than her daughter. Helene's brother Lionel (Titus Welliver) and his wife Bea (Amy Madigan) are the ones that hire Patrick and Angie, and seem to be the ones who actually care about Amanda. Patrick and Angie are helped by two Boston cops, Remy (Ed Harris) and Nick (John Ashton), as well as their superior, Jack Doyle (Morgan Freeman). Patrick and Angie become set on finding Amanda at all costs.
To give away much more of the plot would give too much away. The film plays as a mystery, guiding the viewer along its twists and turns. It is very much comparable to L.A. Confidential and Mystic River (the author of Gone Baby Gone having also written the latter). Several of the twists I saw coming from a mile away, but there were several others that were genuinely surprising. Affleck gives the viewer just enough to go on to make guesses about what is to happen next, and I was impressed with how this film moved so well from scene to scene. A great mystery leaves you with pieces of the puzzle and leaves you to put them together, and for the most part, this movie does just that.
Not only is there a genuinely engrossing thriller, but the movie presents a bevy of moral questions that very few of us want to answer. At what point does doing the right thing become the wrong thing? How do you choose when you are faced with picking the "lesser of two evils"? What do you do when both options faced before you have morally reprehensible consequences? Example: Do you give money to the homeless man on the street as a stopgap fix? Or will that money only be a crutch and leave him back where he started? Surely he will be better off with the money in hand, if only for a little while. The impoverished need to be helped from those that have it better off. But what if that money is abused and serves no real higher purpose for the man? Would it have been better if you had not given it at all? Gone Baby Gone slaps you in the face with this type of dilemma, and trust me, you won't like your options. After viewing it, I still don't know which side I land on for some of these questions. The film will really make you question your moral leanings, and it serves as a huge emotional punch.
The acting is very good from most every character. Everyone speaks with heavy Boston accents, most of which I bought. The best performance of the film comes from Amanda's mother Helene, played by Amy Ryan (probably better known for her TV roles such as "The Wire" and "The Office"). Ryan has the task of playing a selfish woman that you want to hate. She does drugs, she leaves her daughter alone, and is just downright filthy. You would never want a child you care about to be cared for by her. Ryan is very believable in her role, making it tough on the viewer to root for Patrick and Angie to even find Amanda. If she's found, she goes back to the hellhole that is Helene's life. Ryan plays the character with just enough humanity to show that even the most degenerate humans still care for their child at their very core. I found myself hating her and feeling sorry for her at the same time.
I found Gone Baby Gone at a video resale store for $3.95 on Blu ray. After taking a chance on it, I am very pleased with my meager investment. Ben Affleck proves that he has real talent to direct, and gets some great performances out of his cast. Gone Baby Gone is an engaging thriller that will leave you thinking well past its ending.
4/5
Monday, August 27, 2012
Ballistic: Ecks vs. Sever
I started looking through my blog the other day and realized I had not given a rating of less than 2.5/5 to any movie I have reviewed. That's when I decided to watch and review Ballistic: Ecks vs. Sever, generally considered to be one of the worst movies of the past 15 years. How bad could it be? Well, let's just say that I can now officially say that I have given a movie less than 2.5/5.
This movie is bad. And it's not even funny bad, just plain bad. I'll just get that out there. Antonio Banderas and Lucy Liu play spies (or something) that are fighting against each other, but then they team up. That sounds extremely vague but that is because the entire movie is extremely vague. A kid gets kidnapped early on, and a few people are trying to rescue him, and there is a mention of some device to create super spies, but it is all just so jumbled. Even if I did piece all of the plot together, it would still be a paper thin excuse for a story. But hey, it's an action movie right? Story isn't everything in this genre so some great fight sequences could really make up for it!
The fighting is ludicrously bad. Seriously, you would have an easier time believing that they were dancing with each other rather than fighting. Bad guys just wait on Lucy Liu to kick them in the face. The fights are so disjointed it's somewhat hilarious. Lucy Liu will kick someone, wait a few seconds while the guy just STANDS there, and then finish him off. They at least could have sped the film up to make it look better, do something.
Instead, the filmmakers opted to go with the opposite approach: the ULTRA SLOW MOTION approach. The movie has a run time of 91 minutes. If there were no slow motion, it might last 45. EVERYTHING is in slow motion. Just about every time a person runs, it's in slow motion. Any explosion, yeah that's most definitely in slow motion. Some guy walks into a room? Yep, slow motion there too. Antonio Banderas turning around to talk to someone? Why of course that requires slow motion! It's more epic that way. You can tell that the movie is trying so desperately hard to copy The Matrix, yet it fails utterly, time and time again.
The editing in this movie is just obscene. If you can competently follow any of the action on screen, I give you major props. Things just come out of no where and happen for no reason! Cars and people just appear during fight scenes. There's a motorcycle chase scene that will leave you baffled as to what you just witnessed. At one point Lucy Liu is driving a car, and Antonio Banderas shoots out her tire, causing her to immediately crash into a car that was one inch in front of her. Why did he need to shoot out the tire if the car was going to crash anyway? There's one scene where Lucy Liu inexplicably wastes dozens of police officers, one of which is killed by a tire flying into his face. Where the tire comes from? No one can be certain, in fact I don't think that even director KAOS knows. Yeah, that's right, the movie is directed by a guy who calls himself KAOS. As soon as this came on screen, I knew that I was going to have to struggle through it. I'll give him credit, the man has a distinct style. I've never seen more fade in/fade out transitions in any other movie, ever.
The production value is just generally awful, especially for a film that came out in 2002. FBI badges look like they were created on Microsoft Word and thrown into a wallet. A guy uses a tape recorder that looks suspiciously like a Yak Bak. The score sounds like it was mixed for a Nintendo 64 game. Actually, that would be a disservice to most Nintendo 64 games. Every piece of music that comes on is laughable, and does not go with anything on screen.
This movie tries so desperately hard to be cool. I think that watching your grandmother play bridge for 90 minutes would be way more cool than this waste of time. Every character has a distinct SERIOUS ACTING FACE during the entire movie. The characters take themselves so seriously, which makes you wonder if anyone even watched the dailies on this movie. If you're Banderas, generally considered to be a competent actor, and you're watching yourself in this crap fest, how do you not say anything? Then again he looks like he isn't even trying for most the movie, so maybe he just didn't care. With that being said, he was by far the best acting performance in the movie. Lucy Liu is beyond wooden, and every other character is worse than her.
Please do yourself a favor and don't see Ballistic: Ecks vs. Sever. If you go forever without seeing it, your life will be enriched. Every single person involved with this film should be ashamed. I'm ashamed for having seen it.
1/5
This movie is bad. And it's not even funny bad, just plain bad. I'll just get that out there. Antonio Banderas and Lucy Liu play spies (or something) that are fighting against each other, but then they team up. That sounds extremely vague but that is because the entire movie is extremely vague. A kid gets kidnapped early on, and a few people are trying to rescue him, and there is a mention of some device to create super spies, but it is all just so jumbled. Even if I did piece all of the plot together, it would still be a paper thin excuse for a story. But hey, it's an action movie right? Story isn't everything in this genre so some great fight sequences could really make up for it!
The fighting is ludicrously bad. Seriously, you would have an easier time believing that they were dancing with each other rather than fighting. Bad guys just wait on Lucy Liu to kick them in the face. The fights are so disjointed it's somewhat hilarious. Lucy Liu will kick someone, wait a few seconds while the guy just STANDS there, and then finish him off. They at least could have sped the film up to make it look better, do something.
Instead, the filmmakers opted to go with the opposite approach: the ULTRA SLOW MOTION approach. The movie has a run time of 91 minutes. If there were no slow motion, it might last 45. EVERYTHING is in slow motion. Just about every time a person runs, it's in slow motion. Any explosion, yeah that's most definitely in slow motion. Some guy walks into a room? Yep, slow motion there too. Antonio Banderas turning around to talk to someone? Why of course that requires slow motion! It's more epic that way. You can tell that the movie is trying so desperately hard to copy The Matrix, yet it fails utterly, time and time again.
The editing in this movie is just obscene. If you can competently follow any of the action on screen, I give you major props. Things just come out of no where and happen for no reason! Cars and people just appear during fight scenes. There's a motorcycle chase scene that will leave you baffled as to what you just witnessed. At one point Lucy Liu is driving a car, and Antonio Banderas shoots out her tire, causing her to immediately crash into a car that was one inch in front of her. Why did he need to shoot out the tire if the car was going to crash anyway? There's one scene where Lucy Liu inexplicably wastes dozens of police officers, one of which is killed by a tire flying into his face. Where the tire comes from? No one can be certain, in fact I don't think that even director KAOS knows. Yeah, that's right, the movie is directed by a guy who calls himself KAOS. As soon as this came on screen, I knew that I was going to have to struggle through it. I'll give him credit, the man has a distinct style. I've never seen more fade in/fade out transitions in any other movie, ever.
The production value is just generally awful, especially for a film that came out in 2002. FBI badges look like they were created on Microsoft Word and thrown into a wallet. A guy uses a tape recorder that looks suspiciously like a Yak Bak. The score sounds like it was mixed for a Nintendo 64 game. Actually, that would be a disservice to most Nintendo 64 games. Every piece of music that comes on is laughable, and does not go with anything on screen.
This movie tries so desperately hard to be cool. I think that watching your grandmother play bridge for 90 minutes would be way more cool than this waste of time. Every character has a distinct SERIOUS ACTING FACE during the entire movie. The characters take themselves so seriously, which makes you wonder if anyone even watched the dailies on this movie. If you're Banderas, generally considered to be a competent actor, and you're watching yourself in this crap fest, how do you not say anything? Then again he looks like he isn't even trying for most the movie, so maybe he just didn't care. With that being said, he was by far the best acting performance in the movie. Lucy Liu is beyond wooden, and every other character is worse than her.
Please do yourself a favor and don't see Ballistic: Ecks vs. Sever. If you go forever without seeing it, your life will be enriched. Every single person involved with this film should be ashamed. I'm ashamed for having seen it.
1/5
Friday, August 24, 2012
The Top 5 films of Arnold Schwarzenegger
Arnold Schwarzenegger is the greatest action hero of all time. He blends a perfect mix of intimidating presence and charisma, all the while not taking himself too seriously. Stallone, Willis, Gibson, Cruise, and many others have some great action movies, yet Arnold has always stuck out to me as the best. Seriously, does any other actor have even close to the amount of classic one liners as Ah-nuld? One of his more famous is the title of this blog, and the movie it comes from has at least a few more great lines that might be better. While there are certainly MUCH better actors out there, Arnold is king of action films. Here are his top 5:
NOTE: All clips may contain NSFW violence or language
1. The Terminator/Terminator 2: Judgment Day/ Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines
Arnold is perfect for the role of The Terminator. His strong suit has never been subtleties, so why not have him play an emotionless killing machine (literally)? Each of these three films are sci-fi action classics. The first two, both directed by James Cameron, were groundbreaking for their special effects. T2 still looks great to this day, 20 years later. The action is non-stop, and Schwarzenegger is in the middle of all of it. Many are put off by T3, but I strongly disagree. It is a tight action film, with a frantic pace that never quits. Yes the entire series is riddled with plot holes, but who cares? It's best to enjoy it for what it is. The series tried to go on with Arnold (minus his digital cameo) in Terminator: Salvation, but despite a competent director, a huge budget, and a bankable star (Christian Bale), this film was only so-so, and served to prove that Arnie makes the series. Even at his age, I would love to see him reprise his role in a 5th film. I understand it is a cheat to lump these three together, but they would be 1, 2 and 3 on this list, so this at least affords me the opportunity to mention some of his other greats.
Best lines:
"I'll be back."
"Hasta la vista, baby."
"Talk to the hand."
"He'll live."
"I know now why you cry. But it's something I can never do"
2. Predator
You know that you are in for a great movie when within the first ten minutes you get an extreme close up of Arnold Schwarzenegger and Carl Weathers flexing their biceps. Predator is the original action sci-fi masterpiece that has spawned many sequels, spin-offs and video games. Arnold leads a band of soldiers in the Central American jungle as they are picked off one by one by an alien who has come to earth to hunt man. This film has a great cast of characters that includes two future governors (Arnold Schwarzenegger and Jesse "The Body" Ventura"), and Apollo Creed. Schwarzenegger's Dutch is a super-ripped super-soldier, and the only match for the Predator. The final showdown between Arnie and the Predator is an extremely satisfying pay-off for the rest of the film building to it. It's not often that Arnold faces an adversary more physically daunting than himself, but Predator does so, and the result is one of the greatest action films ever made.
Best lines:
"If it bleeds, we can kill it."
"You are one... ugly... m***********!"
And without further adieu... "GET TO DA CHOPPAA!!!!"
3. True Lies
Director James Cameron knows how to utilize Arnold's comedic and physical talents, and they really shine in True Lies. This film is about a bored housewife (Jamie Lee Curtis) who finds out that her seemingly mundane husband (Arnie) is actually a highly trained spy. Bill Paxton plays a sleazy car salesman who tries to seduce Curtis, and Arnold's revenge against him is absolutely hilarious. This movie never takes itself too seriously, and is full of one liners and action cliches. Arnold really has fun with this one, with some completely over the top action scenes that only he could pull off as believable. Well, maybe only believable for me. Schwarzenegger could definitely wreak havoc with a harrier jet, right?
Best lines:
"Helen Tasker: Have you ever killed anyone?
Harry: Yeah, but they were all bad."
"Cool off."
4. Total Recall
This is the original film to 2012's remake starring Colin Farrell, and while I have not seen that film, I can only guess that it suffers from some major lack of Arnold. Yet another sci-fi action flick, Total Recall is a mind bender that has Arnold searching for his true identity on a futuristic Mars. There are some great science fiction elements in the story, and the film was based off of a story by Philip K. Dick (who is also credited with providing the stories for Blade Runner and Minority Report, among others). The action is ultra-violent, narrowly escaping the dreaded NC-17 rating from the MPAA. Arnie does his thing in this one, creating another worthy Schwarzenegger action ride.
Best lines:
"Consider that a divorce"
"Relax. You'll live longer."
5. Commando
Before watching Commando, you have to ask yourself the following question: Do I take my action movies too seriously? If the answer is yes, don't watch Commando. But if the answer is a no, enjoy Commando with absolutely no shame. Here's how the IMDb plot summary reads:
A retired elite Black Ops Commando launches a one man war against a group of South American criminals who have kidnapped his daughter to blackmail him into starting a revolution and getting an exiled dictator back into power.
That sounds great, but honestly it could be condensed into one sentence: ARNOLD KILLS BAD GUYS. His character's name is John Matrix, how could he not be awesome? One of Arnold's earlier films, Commando is light on competent acting and story, and heavy on Arnold being a one man army. The scene below will perfectly describe what I mean. Arnold's total body count is 81, according to moviebodycounts.com, 74 of which are in the last scene.
Best lines:
"Let off some steam, Bennett"
"I eat Green Berets for breakfast. And right now, I'm very hungry!"
"Don't disturb my friend, he's dead tired"
NOTE: All clips may contain NSFW violence or language
1. The Terminator/Terminator 2: Judgment Day/ Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines
Arnold is perfect for the role of The Terminator. His strong suit has never been subtleties, so why not have him play an emotionless killing machine (literally)? Each of these three films are sci-fi action classics. The first two, both directed by James Cameron, were groundbreaking for their special effects. T2 still looks great to this day, 20 years later. The action is non-stop, and Schwarzenegger is in the middle of all of it. Many are put off by T3, but I strongly disagree. It is a tight action film, with a frantic pace that never quits. Yes the entire series is riddled with plot holes, but who cares? It's best to enjoy it for what it is. The series tried to go on with Arnold (minus his digital cameo) in Terminator: Salvation, but despite a competent director, a huge budget, and a bankable star (Christian Bale), this film was only so-so, and served to prove that Arnie makes the series. Even at his age, I would love to see him reprise his role in a 5th film. I understand it is a cheat to lump these three together, but they would be 1, 2 and 3 on this list, so this at least affords me the opportunity to mention some of his other greats.
Best lines:
"I'll be back."
"Hasta la vista, baby."
"Talk to the hand."
"He'll live."
"I know now why you cry. But it's something I can never do"
2. Predator
You know that you are in for a great movie when within the first ten minutes you get an extreme close up of Arnold Schwarzenegger and Carl Weathers flexing their biceps. Predator is the original action sci-fi masterpiece that has spawned many sequels, spin-offs and video games. Arnold leads a band of soldiers in the Central American jungle as they are picked off one by one by an alien who has come to earth to hunt man. This film has a great cast of characters that includes two future governors (Arnold Schwarzenegger and Jesse "The Body" Ventura"), and Apollo Creed. Schwarzenegger's Dutch is a super-ripped super-soldier, and the only match for the Predator. The final showdown between Arnie and the Predator is an extremely satisfying pay-off for the rest of the film building to it. It's not often that Arnold faces an adversary more physically daunting than himself, but Predator does so, and the result is one of the greatest action films ever made.
Best lines:
"If it bleeds, we can kill it."
"You are one... ugly... m***********!"
And without further adieu... "GET TO DA CHOPPAA!!!!"
3. True Lies
Director James Cameron knows how to utilize Arnold's comedic and physical talents, and they really shine in True Lies. This film is about a bored housewife (Jamie Lee Curtis) who finds out that her seemingly mundane husband (Arnie) is actually a highly trained spy. Bill Paxton plays a sleazy car salesman who tries to seduce Curtis, and Arnold's revenge against him is absolutely hilarious. This movie never takes itself too seriously, and is full of one liners and action cliches. Arnold really has fun with this one, with some completely over the top action scenes that only he could pull off as believable. Well, maybe only believable for me. Schwarzenegger could definitely wreak havoc with a harrier jet, right?
Best lines:
"Helen Tasker: Have you ever killed anyone?
Harry: Yeah, but they were all bad."
"Cool off."
4. Total Recall
This is the original film to 2012's remake starring Colin Farrell, and while I have not seen that film, I can only guess that it suffers from some major lack of Arnold. Yet another sci-fi action flick, Total Recall is a mind bender that has Arnold searching for his true identity on a futuristic Mars. There are some great science fiction elements in the story, and the film was based off of a story by Philip K. Dick (who is also credited with providing the stories for Blade Runner and Minority Report, among others). The action is ultra-violent, narrowly escaping the dreaded NC-17 rating from the MPAA. Arnie does his thing in this one, creating another worthy Schwarzenegger action ride.
Best lines:
"Consider that a divorce"
"Relax. You'll live longer."
5. Commando
Before watching Commando, you have to ask yourself the following question: Do I take my action movies too seriously? If the answer is yes, don't watch Commando. But if the answer is a no, enjoy Commando with absolutely no shame. Here's how the IMDb plot summary reads:
A retired elite Black Ops Commando launches a one man war against a group of South American criminals who have kidnapped his daughter to blackmail him into starting a revolution and getting an exiled dictator back into power.
That sounds great, but honestly it could be condensed into one sentence: ARNOLD KILLS BAD GUYS. His character's name is John Matrix, how could he not be awesome? One of Arnold's earlier films, Commando is light on competent acting and story, and heavy on Arnold being a one man army. The scene below will perfectly describe what I mean. Arnold's total body count is 81, according to moviebodycounts.com, 74 of which are in the last scene.
Best lines:
"Let off some steam, Bennett"
"I eat Green Berets for breakfast. And right now, I'm very hungry!"
"Don't disturb my friend, he's dead tired"
Saturday, August 18, 2012
The King's Speech
The King's Speech won the Academy Award for Best Picture in 2010, and after finally having seen it, I will say that it was a worthy winner. I think that I like Inception as the year's best, but that being said, The King's Speech was very good. The performances are top notch, the cinematography has a distinct style, and the essence of the era is captured wonderfully. I thoroughly enjoyed this film, from start to finish.
Colin Firth plays unassuming King George VI, who has a great heart but is crippled by a speech impediment. Bertie (as he is known to his friends), tries to fix his problem by going to speech therapists, but none have been working. His wife (Helena Bonham Carter, NOT in a Tim Burton movie!) enlists the help of Lionel Logue (an exemplary performance by Geoffrey Rush) as a desperate measure to help the future King. After being thrust into the throne, it becomes more pressing that Bertie be able to speak well, or lose the trust of a nation on the brink of world war.
Rush and Firth shine in their scenes together. You wouldn't expect this film to be a buddy movie, but it sure plays that way. It's an interesting dynamic to watch Rush, the common man, treat royalty just like he would anyone else in order to treat him. Royalty are seen as these larger than life beings, and Firth does a fantastic job of playing one who tries to keep that persona, yet can't help but develop a great friendship with Rush's character. Lionel slowly wears Bertie down and builds him back up into a man that can lead. Lionel knows that underneath Bertie there is greatness, yet it just cannot be expressed properly.
The advent of radio and television has made public speaking such an important job for politicians and leaders. Our culture values those who are personable, easy to talk to, and can be related to, even if they are not much substance. It's a shame that introverts might be overlooked because they simply do not interact well. This is exactly what Bertie is faced with. He is a great man with honor, loves his family well, and wants to represent his country well, yet he is seen as a joke because he stammers. His determination to be a capable public speaker is inspiring, making the King's journey one to be invested in.
I was shocked to find out that this movie was rated R. The MPAA is so random with the rating system. Austin Powers in Goldmember, a PG-13 movie, is about a million times more offensive than The King's Speech. There are two scenes where Bertie swears quite a few times in a short time span, and that is the only remotely offensive conduct in the film. Only because a handful of the swears are the "f-word" does it garner the R rating. Somewhere along the line someone made up the standard that if a PG-13 film could get away with one "f-word", and any more than that would bump it up to an R, no matter how the rest of the movie is. If choosing to let someone under the age of 17 (the supposed age you must be to watch this film) watch The King's Speech or Goldmember, I would choose The King's Speech a hundred times out of a hundred. The rating system honestly is a joke.
The English royal family has always been a mystery to me. It's purpose in today's world eludes me. Yet The King's Speech is a film that portrays the importance of the Royal family to the country, and what an honor it is to represent the United Kingdom in that manner. The film does this by humanizing King George, and I genuinely cared about he and Lionel's friendship. The fact that this film is based off of true events is just icing on the cake to what will be remembered as a classic.
4/5
(Side note: I'm glad that the filmmakers decided to treat a speech impediment as something that needs to be treated with more than just a harsh word and a couple of slaps in the face, the good ol' John Wayne way)
Colin Firth plays unassuming King George VI, who has a great heart but is crippled by a speech impediment. Bertie (as he is known to his friends), tries to fix his problem by going to speech therapists, but none have been working. His wife (Helena Bonham Carter, NOT in a Tim Burton movie!) enlists the help of Lionel Logue (an exemplary performance by Geoffrey Rush) as a desperate measure to help the future King. After being thrust into the throne, it becomes more pressing that Bertie be able to speak well, or lose the trust of a nation on the brink of world war.
Rush and Firth shine in their scenes together. You wouldn't expect this film to be a buddy movie, but it sure plays that way. It's an interesting dynamic to watch Rush, the common man, treat royalty just like he would anyone else in order to treat him. Royalty are seen as these larger than life beings, and Firth does a fantastic job of playing one who tries to keep that persona, yet can't help but develop a great friendship with Rush's character. Lionel slowly wears Bertie down and builds him back up into a man that can lead. Lionel knows that underneath Bertie there is greatness, yet it just cannot be expressed properly.
The advent of radio and television has made public speaking such an important job for politicians and leaders. Our culture values those who are personable, easy to talk to, and can be related to, even if they are not much substance. It's a shame that introverts might be overlooked because they simply do not interact well. This is exactly what Bertie is faced with. He is a great man with honor, loves his family well, and wants to represent his country well, yet he is seen as a joke because he stammers. His determination to be a capable public speaker is inspiring, making the King's journey one to be invested in.
I was shocked to find out that this movie was rated R. The MPAA is so random with the rating system. Austin Powers in Goldmember, a PG-13 movie, is about a million times more offensive than The King's Speech. There are two scenes where Bertie swears quite a few times in a short time span, and that is the only remotely offensive conduct in the film. Only because a handful of the swears are the "f-word" does it garner the R rating. Somewhere along the line someone made up the standard that if a PG-13 film could get away with one "f-word", and any more than that would bump it up to an R, no matter how the rest of the movie is. If choosing to let someone under the age of 17 (the supposed age you must be to watch this film) watch The King's Speech or Goldmember, I would choose The King's Speech a hundred times out of a hundred. The rating system honestly is a joke.
The English royal family has always been a mystery to me. It's purpose in today's world eludes me. Yet The King's Speech is a film that portrays the importance of the Royal family to the country, and what an honor it is to represent the United Kingdom in that manner. The film does this by humanizing King George, and I genuinely cared about he and Lionel's friendship. The fact that this film is based off of true events is just icing on the cake to what will be remembered as a classic.
4/5
(Side note: I'm glad that the filmmakers decided to treat a speech impediment as something that needs to be treated with more than just a harsh word and a couple of slaps in the face, the good ol' John Wayne way)
Thursday, August 16, 2012
Critically Underrated Comedies
Critics are wrong... A lot. Comedy movies especially seem to be hit and miss on critical competence. Movies are very subjective with elements of objectivity, but comedies are even more so. Sometimes a comedy will just hit you the right way, and despite how dumb it is, you will love it. Here are several comedies that critics seem to hate, but I think are great:
1. Nacho Libre
Rotten Tomatoes says: 40% fresh. "At times hilarious, but other times offensive, Director Jared Hess is unable to recapture the collective charisma of his Napoleon characters, instead relying on a one-joke concept that runs out of steam. Sure to entertain the adolescents, however."
This has to be one of the greatest critical misses of all time. Nacho Libre is outstanding. It is laughs from beginning to end. The whole movie is played straight by the amazing Jack Black. There are no "jokes" per se, just Black's horrible Spanish accent and ridiculous hair. Like half the laughs come from his accent and facial expressions. An impressive comedic scene is Black's first scene with his love interest, Encarnacion. His facial expressions are so wildly varied during such a short period of time, it's amazing. This movie is so quotable, but it must be done in a mimic of Black's horrible accent. It's a shame this movie bombed, Jared Hess made Napoleon Dynamite and Nacho Libre, and then fell back into obscurity. Both of these were absolute gold, and I would love to see more Jared Hess comedies.
2. The Cable Guy
Rotten Tomatoes says: 54% fresh
The Cable Guy is an often overlooked gem in Jim Carrey's catalog. Directed by Ben Stiller and co-starring Matthew Broderick, The Cable Guy put many people off because of its darker tone, especially in comparison with Carrey's previous efforts. But if you can accept the darker tone, you will find a riot. The basketball scene is one of, if not the, funniest scenes in movie history. I will never forget watching it for the first time on HBO with my Dad. We both looked like we were having simultaneous heart attacks we were laughing so hard and so irreverently. Just take a look below, and you'll see what I mean.
3. Blue Streak
Rotten Tomatoes says: 36% fresh. "Martin Lawrence lends his comedic touch, but the movie isn't much more than standard action-comedy fare."
Martin Lawrence is one of the most hit and miss comedic actors out there. At times he can be downright hilarious, at other times he can be offensively unfunny. Blue Streak is one of those times when he is hilarious. Luke Wilson plays the straight man, and Lawrence is a jewel thief posing as a cop. The premise is utterly absurd, but Lawrence makes it great. His "tactics" that he teaches to Wilson about being a police officer are hilarious, especially his driving skills. While Blue Streak is nothing that will set the world on fire, it is definitely a funny and worthy of a viewing if you are looking to turn your brain off for some laughs.
4. Last Action Hero
Rotten Tomatoes says: 38% fresh
I've never understood the hate for Last Action Hero. Most people consider it to be one of Arnold's worst films (which is absurd, these people have obviously never seen Collateral Damage, which was a turd). The movie is basically Arnold making fun of himself and the action movies that made him a star. Yes, the kid is a bit annoying, but so was Edward Furlong in Terminator 2: Judgment Day, an unquestioned classic. There are many great jokes poking fun of the action genre. When Arnold goes into the real world and he punches out a windshield and exclaims, "Wow, that actually hurt!" is a particularly great gag. At another point he falls into a tar pit, and wipes himself clean in 10 seconds with a Kleenex. Everything is extremely over the top and played for satire. If you are a fan of Arnold (the greatest action star of all time) at all, Last Action Hero is highly recommended.
5. Malibu's Most Wanted
Rotten Tomatoes says: 30% fresh. "There are some laughs, but not enough to sustain the running time."
This one definitely surprised me. Jamie Kennedy acting "gangster" for 80 minutes definitely didn't sound like I was in for many laughs. But surprisingly, the ruse works. Taye Diggs and Anthony Anderson are especially hilarious as the actors portraying thugs. Kennedy plays the son of a politician who has lived in privilege his whole life, yet longs to roll with the gangsta's. When he is confronted with the real streets, the results are entirely absurd and often hilarious. The part where he goes crazy in an actual gangland shooting is one of the best scenes of the film.
1. Nacho Libre
Rotten Tomatoes says: 40% fresh. "At times hilarious, but other times offensive, Director Jared Hess is unable to recapture the collective charisma of his Napoleon characters, instead relying on a one-joke concept that runs out of steam. Sure to entertain the adolescents, however."
This has to be one of the greatest critical misses of all time. Nacho Libre is outstanding. It is laughs from beginning to end. The whole movie is played straight by the amazing Jack Black. There are no "jokes" per se, just Black's horrible Spanish accent and ridiculous hair. Like half the laughs come from his accent and facial expressions. An impressive comedic scene is Black's first scene with his love interest, Encarnacion. His facial expressions are so wildly varied during such a short period of time, it's amazing. This movie is so quotable, but it must be done in a mimic of Black's horrible accent. It's a shame this movie bombed, Jared Hess made Napoleon Dynamite and Nacho Libre, and then fell back into obscurity. Both of these were absolute gold, and I would love to see more Jared Hess comedies.
2. The Cable Guy
Rotten Tomatoes says: 54% fresh
The Cable Guy is an often overlooked gem in Jim Carrey's catalog. Directed by Ben Stiller and co-starring Matthew Broderick, The Cable Guy put many people off because of its darker tone, especially in comparison with Carrey's previous efforts. But if you can accept the darker tone, you will find a riot. The basketball scene is one of, if not the, funniest scenes in movie history. I will never forget watching it for the first time on HBO with my Dad. We both looked like we were having simultaneous heart attacks we were laughing so hard and so irreverently. Just take a look below, and you'll see what I mean.
3. Blue Streak
Rotten Tomatoes says: 36% fresh. "Martin Lawrence lends his comedic touch, but the movie isn't much more than standard action-comedy fare."
Martin Lawrence is one of the most hit and miss comedic actors out there. At times he can be downright hilarious, at other times he can be offensively unfunny. Blue Streak is one of those times when he is hilarious. Luke Wilson plays the straight man, and Lawrence is a jewel thief posing as a cop. The premise is utterly absurd, but Lawrence makes it great. His "tactics" that he teaches to Wilson about being a police officer are hilarious, especially his driving skills. While Blue Streak is nothing that will set the world on fire, it is definitely a funny and worthy of a viewing if you are looking to turn your brain off for some laughs.
4. Last Action Hero
Rotten Tomatoes says: 38% fresh
I've never understood the hate for Last Action Hero. Most people consider it to be one of Arnold's worst films (which is absurd, these people have obviously never seen Collateral Damage, which was a turd). The movie is basically Arnold making fun of himself and the action movies that made him a star. Yes, the kid is a bit annoying, but so was Edward Furlong in Terminator 2: Judgment Day, an unquestioned classic. There are many great jokes poking fun of the action genre. When Arnold goes into the real world and he punches out a windshield and exclaims, "Wow, that actually hurt!" is a particularly great gag. At another point he falls into a tar pit, and wipes himself clean in 10 seconds with a Kleenex. Everything is extremely over the top and played for satire. If you are a fan of Arnold (the greatest action star of all time) at all, Last Action Hero is highly recommended.
5. Malibu's Most Wanted
Rotten Tomatoes says: 30% fresh. "There are some laughs, but not enough to sustain the running time."
This one definitely surprised me. Jamie Kennedy acting "gangster" for 80 minutes definitely didn't sound like I was in for many laughs. But surprisingly, the ruse works. Taye Diggs and Anthony Anderson are especially hilarious as the actors portraying thugs. Kennedy plays the son of a politician who has lived in privilege his whole life, yet longs to roll with the gangsta's. When he is confronted with the real streets, the results are entirely absurd and often hilarious. The part where he goes crazy in an actual gangland shooting is one of the best scenes of the film.
Saturday, August 11, 2012
The Bourne Legacy
I thought that The Bourne Legacy was a great idea. Obviously great idea number one would have been to bring back the team of director Paul Greengrass and star Matt Damon from The Bourne Ultimatum. But bringing in the screenwriter from the first 3 films to direct and casting Jeremy Renner as the hero was a good plan B. Renner has slowly begun the process of becoming a bankable leading man. He broke through with an excellent Oscar nominated performance in The Hurt Locker, and has since had several great supporting turns in The Town, Mission Imposible: Ghost Protocol, and The Avengers. Now he has been given the keys to one of the most bankable action franchises as its new star, and the result of his first iteration is a worthy follow up to the Matt Damon predecessors.
The Bourne Legacy somewhat picks back up after the events of Ultimatum. Jason Bourne has exposed "the program", the government program that trains ruthless super spies, and the shadowy government leaders that run it are doing their best to cover their tracks. Legacy sets forth that Jason Bourne was merely the tip of the iceberg; that there are many other genetically enhanced superhuman spies out there. Jeremy Renner's Aaron Cross is one of these. Once Bourne exposes the government program that created these men, they quickly decide to erase every trace it existed, which includes Cross. Now Cross is on the run, getting help from a program doctor, Marta Shearing (Rachel Weisz). Legacy unfolds like a chase film, very much in the style of the previous installments.
Jason Bourne is mentioned in passing almost throughout the entire film. I understood that Matt Damon was not going to be in this movie, and it was probably a smart move to not straight up replace him, like the James Bond franchise has done so successfully. Keeping Damon as Bourne leaves the possibility that he may come back to reprise his role in future installments, something I'm sure the studio is frothing at the mouth over. But it certainly feels like a tease to have the hero we have become attached to mentioned so much and have him not even make at the very least a cameo . Here's to hoping they can convince Damon to come back for a fifth installment alongside Renner, something that has huge potential.
Renner's Cross is great as the lead. He plays the role totally different than Damon did, which was to his benefit. Cross just has more personality than Bourne did. Bourne was a tortured soul, painfully robotic from the training he had been given in the program. Cross actually seems like a real person. He jokes, he's interested in people, and oozes charisma. This definitely works when he meets up with Shearing, the doctor helping him on the run. Renner and Weisz work very well together, and their scenes together are the highlight of the film.
The thing the Bourne series is known for is its frenetic action and chases, and Legacy does not disappoint. There are some great action scenes, including an incredible chase in the last 30 minutes. The action doesn't seem all that new, but that is because every action movie made in the past 8 years or so has taken influence from the Bourne series. Bourne pretty much single handedly caused MGM to retool the James Bond franchise to what it is today. So it's not Legacy's fault that the action scenes seem familiar, simply for the fact that the series has been extremely influential. Despite the familiarity, there it still plenty to see and love, and Renner is awesome throughout.
I will say that the pacing of Legacy was a bit off. The end is very abrupt. The main "bad guy" is introduced in the last 30 minutes and has no real explanation at all. Things happen and then all the sudden the movie is over. Endings should be given weight by how they have been led up to in the previous two acts, and it just didn't seem like what was happening should have ended the film. There are definitely exceptions to this rule (Pulp Fiction is a good example where it doesn't happen this way), but it usually behooves action movies to follow this pattern.
As far as seeing the first installments before this one, I wouldn't say that it's absolutely necessary, but if you want to be up on every intricacy of the plot, you should probably watch them first. I've seen all the Damon Bourne's multiple times, but not for a while, and I have to say I was a bit lost on a few of the references the characters make. I felt like this was a problem for Legacy. In an action chase film, there's no reason to be overly confusing in plot points. I guess a recent re-watch of Ultimatum would have helped, but this essentially being a new story to the franchise, prior viewings should not be required.
The rest of the cast is good to excellent, including Edward Norton. I don't understand why Norton has been relegated to supporting cast duties after the brilliant string of amazing performances he pulled off in the 90's (Primal Fear, Fight Club, and American History X to name a few), but I still liked him. The Bourne Legacy works as a great action film and a worthy installment of the Bourne franchise, and is certainly worth a trip to the theater.
3.5/5
The Bourne Legacy somewhat picks back up after the events of Ultimatum. Jason Bourne has exposed "the program", the government program that trains ruthless super spies, and the shadowy government leaders that run it are doing their best to cover their tracks. Legacy sets forth that Jason Bourne was merely the tip of the iceberg; that there are many other genetically enhanced superhuman spies out there. Jeremy Renner's Aaron Cross is one of these. Once Bourne exposes the government program that created these men, they quickly decide to erase every trace it existed, which includes Cross. Now Cross is on the run, getting help from a program doctor, Marta Shearing (Rachel Weisz). Legacy unfolds like a chase film, very much in the style of the previous installments.
Jason Bourne is mentioned in passing almost throughout the entire film. I understood that Matt Damon was not going to be in this movie, and it was probably a smart move to not straight up replace him, like the James Bond franchise has done so successfully. Keeping Damon as Bourne leaves the possibility that he may come back to reprise his role in future installments, something I'm sure the studio is frothing at the mouth over. But it certainly feels like a tease to have the hero we have become attached to mentioned so much and have him not even make at the very least a cameo . Here's to hoping they can convince Damon to come back for a fifth installment alongside Renner, something that has huge potential.
Renner's Cross is great as the lead. He plays the role totally different than Damon did, which was to his benefit. Cross just has more personality than Bourne did. Bourne was a tortured soul, painfully robotic from the training he had been given in the program. Cross actually seems like a real person. He jokes, he's interested in people, and oozes charisma. This definitely works when he meets up with Shearing, the doctor helping him on the run. Renner and Weisz work very well together, and their scenes together are the highlight of the film.
The thing the Bourne series is known for is its frenetic action and chases, and Legacy does not disappoint. There are some great action scenes, including an incredible chase in the last 30 minutes. The action doesn't seem all that new, but that is because every action movie made in the past 8 years or so has taken influence from the Bourne series. Bourne pretty much single handedly caused MGM to retool the James Bond franchise to what it is today. So it's not Legacy's fault that the action scenes seem familiar, simply for the fact that the series has been extremely influential. Despite the familiarity, there it still plenty to see and love, and Renner is awesome throughout.
I will say that the pacing of Legacy was a bit off. The end is very abrupt. The main "bad guy" is introduced in the last 30 minutes and has no real explanation at all. Things happen and then all the sudden the movie is over. Endings should be given weight by how they have been led up to in the previous two acts, and it just didn't seem like what was happening should have ended the film. There are definitely exceptions to this rule (Pulp Fiction is a good example where it doesn't happen this way), but it usually behooves action movies to follow this pattern.
As far as seeing the first installments before this one, I wouldn't say that it's absolutely necessary, but if you want to be up on every intricacy of the plot, you should probably watch them first. I've seen all the Damon Bourne's multiple times, but not for a while, and I have to say I was a bit lost on a few of the references the characters make. I felt like this was a problem for Legacy. In an action chase film, there's no reason to be overly confusing in plot points. I guess a recent re-watch of Ultimatum would have helped, but this essentially being a new story to the franchise, prior viewings should not be required.
The rest of the cast is good to excellent, including Edward Norton. I don't understand why Norton has been relegated to supporting cast duties after the brilliant string of amazing performances he pulled off in the 90's (Primal Fear, Fight Club, and American History X to name a few), but I still liked him. The Bourne Legacy works as a great action film and a worthy installment of the Bourne franchise, and is certainly worth a trip to the theater.
3.5/5
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)