Arrested Development's first 3 seasons are three of the most magical and hilarious seasons in television history. The show has made many top 10 lists for best show ever created, despite the fact that it only had less than 60 total episodes. I will never forget first witnessing Tobias' as a never nude, Buster's hook hand meltdowns, or Gob alienating his employees with "COME ON!!!" Only Seinfeld, The Simpsons, and the first 4 or 5 seasons of The Office have provided me with equal amounts of laugh out loud moments. But where AD really shone was in its rewatchability. Even watching an episode for the 4th or 5th time would peel back more comedic layers. This might account for the fact that the show never took off in the ratings, and it was abruptly cancelled after a short third season. After more viewers got a chance to watch the show on streaming sites and DVD, the clamor for a movie or the show's return ramped up substantially. For years a movie was rumored, until the bombshell finally came that the show was returning with new episodes, to be premeired on Netflix. I was naturally ecstatic for the beloved Bluth's to return. But history has taught us that just because our favorite characters are returning, it doesn't mean that the show we love is coming back in full force.
There have been more examples of a cancelled show being revived, but the two I have experience with are Futurama and Family Guy. I discovered these two shows like most people did, as a part of the nightly Adult Swim block on Cartoon Network. It basically became a ritual for me to watch these two every night in high school. Both were incredibly hilarious shows that seemed to have been cruelly cut down in their prime. Fox decided to revive Family Guy at some point during my senior year, and Comedy Central brought back Futurama a few years later, both to shouts for joy from fanboys. But while both had successful runs, I just felt like the magic was gone. Family Guy decided that it was going for in your face shock value, and Futurama just felt... off.
With this background, I was excited but wary for the return of AD. And after reading about the convoluted scheduling problems that forced creator Mitchell Hurwitz to get creative and focus on one character per episode, I was even more nervous. What results is a mixed bag that has some laughs, way too much convoluted story, and character changes that don't really make much sense.
(Some Season 4 spoilers ahead)
Michael was always the straight man in the original run. And while he was just as often doing stupid things and being just as narcissitic as the rest of his family, he generally kept his head above water. Season 4 plays Michael as a clueless loser, something that I just didn't buy. George Sr. is equally bone-headed, going totally against his character. While George wasn't exactly a genius, he was always a smart businessman that was ruthless and selfish. In Season 4, he makes one idiotic move after another, a role that I didn't like him in. However, Gob, Maeby, and George Michael were all back to their former selves, and their episodes especially worked. Tony Wonder's voice mail message that Gob listens to might be my favorite bit of the entire season.
The nature of the episodes focusing mainly on one character per episode really worked against the new season. With such a big ensemble, AD's greatest strength was having all of these characters play off of each other. In Season 4, characters like Tobais and Lucille get tons of screen time all to themselves. I absolutely love those two characters, but 10 straight minutes of Tobias alone just can't sustain my attention. And with the show returning on Netflix commercial free, the producers lengthened each episode by almost a full 10 minutes, which hurt its flow. 22 minutes is almost a perfect run time for a sit com like AD, and most Season 4 episodes are 30-35 minutes long.
The last few episodes were much stronger than those in the middle, with Lindsay and George Sr.'s installments being particularly boring. Hurwitz's insistence on making the story arc being as clever as possible made me feel like there was less room to be funny. There were certainly many funny moments in this season, don't get me wrong. The "To Catch a Predator" gag with Tobais was hysterical, as was the Simon and Garfunkel cutaways that would always close in on Gob. And hearing Tobias exclaim "Ninja please!!" is probably a line that could become as quotable as "I've made a huge mistake." The episode structure most certainly lends itself to the "binge watching" model that Netflix teases by releasing all 15 at the same time. It took me about a month to watch them, and I wonder if I would have been more impressed by watching them in a shorter time span.
Season 4 ends abruptly and awkwardly, and leaves many loose ends for future episodes. I would love to see the Bluth's come back for season 5, with only one request: return to the original format. Focusing on one character at a time draws away from the shows strengths, and a true ensemble performance is what would return the show back to its glory days. A phrase I've heard tossed around is that a bad season of Arrested Development is better than anything else on TV. I don't think that is entirely true, but Arrested Development is still a good show, and definitely still worth a watch. I'm just not sure it's worth endless re-watches like the first three seasons were.
Tuesday, July 2, 2013
World War Z
AMC's The Walking Dead, for whatever reason, has been an extremely successful show. Actually it's been enormous, putting up network television type ratings and dominating the cable landscape. Such a depressing, violent, and gory show doesn't really seem like it would become such a hit, but the show's high quality and intriguing story of human survival has caught on with America. So predictably, just as Twilight spawned countless vampire/werewolf properties, zombies are back in vogue. World War Z is a zombie apocalypse film starring Brad Pitt, that takes a newer and slightly less depressing view on the genre.
Gerry Lane (Pitt), has retired from his job abroad with the U.N. in order to spend more time with his wife (Mireille Enos) and two daughters. While stuck in traffic on the way to school, the Lane family is swept up in a panic, as an outbreak of zombies is terrorizing the city. Now Gerry has been tasked by his old colleague Thierry (Fana Mokoene) to help pin down the source of the virus, and stop the outbreak.
WWZ starts out at breakneck speed with an impressive "main characters find out the zombie apocalypse is happening" scene that starts every zombie movie. After the first 30 minutes the Lane family gets to relative safety, and the movie somewhat halts. Many of the dialogue scenes feel like they were rushed, or that there was more exposition there that got left on the cutting room floor. It all leads up to a tense and scary, albeit underwhelming, finale that sets up WWZ2. Props to WWZ for actually saying the world "zombie", as most zombie movies don't acknowledge that there has been fiction portarying them for the last 60 years. The most impressive scenes involve giant hordes of zombies going crazy and creating a panic, even if the CGI'd undead are somewhat suspect looking.
Besides focusing on the survival of those left unaffected by the virus, which most zombie movies/shows/books do, WWZ gives viewers more hope that there is actually a cure out there. Pitt's quest doesn't seem like a wild goose chase, offering a less depressing landscape that felt refreshing. Frankly, I don't want every single zombie movie to end with the obligatory "there's no cure but we will still keep fighting" ending. The fact that Gerry might be able to stop things, a la Will Smith's character in I Am Legend, makes the action much more interesting.
This is somewhat of a puzzling role for Pitt. Besides the Ocean's films (of which he was part of a large ensemble), Pitt usually stays away from the action blockbuster pic. His most noteworthy roles (Tyler Durden in Fight Club, Benjamin Button, 12 Monkeys), haven't exactly been action hero money maker roles, and Gerry in WWZ is not exactly an action hero, but the movie certainly has the feel of a large scale action film. Maybe Pitt is doing what Depp did with Pirates of the Caribbean, and getting a giant pay day for a crowd pleasing role. He's good as Gerry, but his character has a lot of missed opportunities, and we don't really get to see that eclectic and charismatic Pitt performance we're used to.
Lastly I will note that the movie was very clearly trying to garner a PG-13 rating. The intense gore that is present in most zombie movies is non-existent. It was a nice break from the in your face gore that the genre normally brings, but the lack of it is somewhat jarring for the events that are depicted.
WWZ ends up telling a different story than most zombie movies, which is a good thing. The bad thing is that it feels a bit rushed, and there is little investment in anyone besides Gerry. I'd like to see more WWZ films, hopefully realized to its full potential.
3/5
Gerry Lane (Pitt), has retired from his job abroad with the U.N. in order to spend more time with his wife (Mireille Enos) and two daughters. While stuck in traffic on the way to school, the Lane family is swept up in a panic, as an outbreak of zombies is terrorizing the city. Now Gerry has been tasked by his old colleague Thierry (Fana Mokoene) to help pin down the source of the virus, and stop the outbreak.
WWZ starts out at breakneck speed with an impressive "main characters find out the zombie apocalypse is happening" scene that starts every zombie movie. After the first 30 minutes the Lane family gets to relative safety, and the movie somewhat halts. Many of the dialogue scenes feel like they were rushed, or that there was more exposition there that got left on the cutting room floor. It all leads up to a tense and scary, albeit underwhelming, finale that sets up WWZ2. Props to WWZ for actually saying the world "zombie", as most zombie movies don't acknowledge that there has been fiction portarying them for the last 60 years. The most impressive scenes involve giant hordes of zombies going crazy and creating a panic, even if the CGI'd undead are somewhat suspect looking.
Besides focusing on the survival of those left unaffected by the virus, which most zombie movies/shows/books do, WWZ gives viewers more hope that there is actually a cure out there. Pitt's quest doesn't seem like a wild goose chase, offering a less depressing landscape that felt refreshing. Frankly, I don't want every single zombie movie to end with the obligatory "there's no cure but we will still keep fighting" ending. The fact that Gerry might be able to stop things, a la Will Smith's character in I Am Legend, makes the action much more interesting.
This is somewhat of a puzzling role for Pitt. Besides the Ocean's films (of which he was part of a large ensemble), Pitt usually stays away from the action blockbuster pic. His most noteworthy roles (Tyler Durden in Fight Club, Benjamin Button, 12 Monkeys), haven't exactly been action hero money maker roles, and Gerry in WWZ is not exactly an action hero, but the movie certainly has the feel of a large scale action film. Maybe Pitt is doing what Depp did with Pirates of the Caribbean, and getting a giant pay day for a crowd pleasing role. He's good as Gerry, but his character has a lot of missed opportunities, and we don't really get to see that eclectic and charismatic Pitt performance we're used to.
Lastly I will note that the movie was very clearly trying to garner a PG-13 rating. The intense gore that is present in most zombie movies is non-existent. It was a nice break from the in your face gore that the genre normally brings, but the lack of it is somewhat jarring for the events that are depicted.
WWZ ends up telling a different story than most zombie movies, which is a good thing. The bad thing is that it feels a bit rushed, and there is little investment in anyone besides Gerry. I'd like to see more WWZ films, hopefully realized to its full potential.
3/5
Monday, June 24, 2013
Man of Steel
Superman has always seemed boring to me. What kind of character has every super power and one weakness? Batman was always my favorite because he is a normal human that becomes super because of what he believes in. Other super heroes can be great because of limitations in their powers that create interesting confrontations. But Superman seems like this bland guy with no personality and a lack of real competition. Man of Steel gives as much life to the character as it can, but his inert boring-ness is too much to overcome.
The film opens with Superman's father (Russell Crowe) trying to save his son from being destroyed by the impending doom of his planet, Krypton. Supposed freedom fighter Zod (Michael Shannon) desperately wants to capture Kal-El (or Clark Kent as he's known on earth, played by Henry Cavill), as his DNA contains the genetic information to rebuild the entire race of Krypton. Zod swears that he will catch up to Kal-El and restore Krypton. After landing in Kansas, Kal-El is raised by two Kansas farmers (Kevin Costner and Diane Lane), knowing that he will one day be destined for greatness. Going by the name Clark Kent, he eventually is confronted by Zod, all the while being pursued by intrigued journalist Lois Lane (Amy Adams).
I wasn't planning on seeing Man of Steel, but my brothers wanted to go and I decided to go with them while on vacation at the beach. About a month ago I expressed that I was tired of the super hero film, but I honestly tried to go into Man of Steel with as much of an open mind as possible. After all, it does have some good pedigree, being directed by Zack Snyder (300, Watchmen), and produced by Batman guru Christopher Nolan. There are some impressive special effects and the acting is good for the most part, but true to Superman form, it's just kind of a boring affair. Henry Cavill is merely a muscled out good looking warm body, not offering much more than physical prowess to the character of Superman. The flashback scenes of Clark's childhood are nice, but once we move into the middle part of the film, it begins to drag. The final battle (spoilers ahead!) does an insane amount of damage to Metropolis, and it all seems very by the numbers. Shannon is a decent villain, and Adams is a big bright spot as the ambitious and strangely everywhere Lois Lane.
I tried my best to like Man of Steel, and to an extent I did, but there really isn't much more to it than some good action. My bias towards the character of Superman probably didn't help, but I wasn't really too keen on an Iron Man movie either, and the first one of that series is a classic. Man of Steel raked it in at the box office, so this is not the last of Clark Kent, but hopefully the sequels will have a little more life than this re-re-boot of the franchise.
2.5/5
The film opens with Superman's father (Russell Crowe) trying to save his son from being destroyed by the impending doom of his planet, Krypton. Supposed freedom fighter Zod (Michael Shannon) desperately wants to capture Kal-El (or Clark Kent as he's known on earth, played by Henry Cavill), as his DNA contains the genetic information to rebuild the entire race of Krypton. Zod swears that he will catch up to Kal-El and restore Krypton. After landing in Kansas, Kal-El is raised by two Kansas farmers (Kevin Costner and Diane Lane), knowing that he will one day be destined for greatness. Going by the name Clark Kent, he eventually is confronted by Zod, all the while being pursued by intrigued journalist Lois Lane (Amy Adams).
I wasn't planning on seeing Man of Steel, but my brothers wanted to go and I decided to go with them while on vacation at the beach. About a month ago I expressed that I was tired of the super hero film, but I honestly tried to go into Man of Steel with as much of an open mind as possible. After all, it does have some good pedigree, being directed by Zack Snyder (300, Watchmen), and produced by Batman guru Christopher Nolan. There are some impressive special effects and the acting is good for the most part, but true to Superman form, it's just kind of a boring affair. Henry Cavill is merely a muscled out good looking warm body, not offering much more than physical prowess to the character of Superman. The flashback scenes of Clark's childhood are nice, but once we move into the middle part of the film, it begins to drag. The final battle (spoilers ahead!) does an insane amount of damage to Metropolis, and it all seems very by the numbers. Shannon is a decent villain, and Adams is a big bright spot as the ambitious and strangely everywhere Lois Lane.
I tried my best to like Man of Steel, and to an extent I did, but there really isn't much more to it than some good action. My bias towards the character of Superman probably didn't help, but I wasn't really too keen on an Iron Man movie either, and the first one of that series is a classic. Man of Steel raked it in at the box office, so this is not the last of Clark Kent, but hopefully the sequels will have a little more life than this re-re-boot of the franchise.
2.5/5
Monsters University
Pixar Animation Studios is one of the most talented and consistent production companies in Hollywood. Commerically and critically almost all of their films are extremely successful. They practically changed face of animation in film with Toy Story in 1995, using a computerized style that was drastically different from the hand drawn Disney films of old. Cars 2, a sequel that no one wanted, was a major drop off in quality and box office gross. Brave, while successful at the box office, didn't really get the rave reviews that most of their films have received. Personally these two didn't really seem interesting to me, so I skipped them both. As a fan of basically everything else Pixar does, I was excited for Monsters University. Monsters Inc., released in 2001, is one of Pixar's most beloved films. University is a prequel to Inc., and is a worth follow up, and another fantastic Pixar entry. Once again, Pixar provides a perfect mix of social commentary, heart, and comedy to attract children and adults.
Mike Wazowski (Billy Crystal) has always dreamed of attending the famed Monsters University. This is where "scarers" are trained to hone their craft and eventually land a job at Monsters Inc. scaring children and providing energy. Mike is the hardest working and most ambitious student there, with only one problem: he's not scary. James "Sully" Sullivan (John Goodman) is the antithesis of Mike; naturally talented, without an ounce of hard work and drive. But after a run in with the dean of the school (Helen Mirren), these two have no choice but to team up in order to fulfill their dreams as scarers.
First and foremost, University is funny. Kids and adults will be pleased with the mix of jokes and physical comedy. Pixar has created an alternate monster universe that is charming despite the fact that it is filled with horrible monsters. Mike and Sully have real personalities that are identifiable, especially the ambitious Mike. The film opens with Mike as a small child, depicting where his scaring dreams come from, and it is about as cute as it gets. Sully is still likable despite the fact that he is brash and arrogant, a difficult feat. Monsters Inc. has shown us that these two are best friends, and it is great to see how it came to be.
Leave it to Pixar to produce a children's film that is layered with subtext. This is nothing new, as their prior films contain certain messages as well. Wall-E might be the biggest example, with its anti-consumerist and environmentalist messages practically spelled out. Toy Story 3 is all about growing up and letting go. The Incredibles might be the most interesting commentary; the message essentially comes down to the fact that some people are more gifted than others, contrary to the "everyone is special" message that most movies offer. University somewhat follows The Incredibles. Mike is the hardest working monster in school, yet he can't seem to fully succeed. He is just not talented enough to be a scarer, although he eventually realizes what he is good at. This is a realistic and important message for children. Just because it is your dream to be an NBA basketball player doesn't mean you should sell out to attain it if you are 5'4" and can't jump. Finding what you are good at and the gifts that God gave you, whether glamorous or not, is an important step in growth and maturity. Monsters praises hard work on realistic goals, something I appreciated.
Towards the end of the film (spoilers ahead!), another important and culturally counter message is offered. Eventually Mike and Sully get kicked out of school. And after their biggest efforts, they don't get back in. Instead of trying to keep going to college, the pair are shown via photos working their way up at Monsters Inc., and realizing their dream job by starting in the mail room. Our culture today basically screams to kids that in order to be successful, you MUST attend a four year college. Anyone who just goes straight to work after high school is seen as less bright, and on a path to a crummy life. I think that college education is important (I received a bachelor's degree from a 4 year university, and am a year away from a law degree), but college is not the necessary path for everyone. Mike and Sully turn out just fine working their way up in the company. Some people just aren't wired for more education, and I don't think we as a society should force it upon anyone. Not being "college material" doesn't have to be a detriment, it just means that your talents lie elsewhere. I am impressed that Pixar chose to take this culturally opposite view, one that frankly needs to be voice more often.
Pixar has returned to form with Monsters University, which is delightful for the young and old. The voice acting and animation are as top notch as ever, and the new characters introduced in this second entry are as vibrant as the first. Monsters has been my favorite movie of the summer, and I will be shocked if Pixar doesn't rack up another Oscar for their work on it!
4/5
Mike Wazowski (Billy Crystal) has always dreamed of attending the famed Monsters University. This is where "scarers" are trained to hone their craft and eventually land a job at Monsters Inc. scaring children and providing energy. Mike is the hardest working and most ambitious student there, with only one problem: he's not scary. James "Sully" Sullivan (John Goodman) is the antithesis of Mike; naturally talented, without an ounce of hard work and drive. But after a run in with the dean of the school (Helen Mirren), these two have no choice but to team up in order to fulfill their dreams as scarers.
First and foremost, University is funny. Kids and adults will be pleased with the mix of jokes and physical comedy. Pixar has created an alternate monster universe that is charming despite the fact that it is filled with horrible monsters. Mike and Sully have real personalities that are identifiable, especially the ambitious Mike. The film opens with Mike as a small child, depicting where his scaring dreams come from, and it is about as cute as it gets. Sully is still likable despite the fact that he is brash and arrogant, a difficult feat. Monsters Inc. has shown us that these two are best friends, and it is great to see how it came to be.
Leave it to Pixar to produce a children's film that is layered with subtext. This is nothing new, as their prior films contain certain messages as well. Wall-E might be the biggest example, with its anti-consumerist and environmentalist messages practically spelled out. Toy Story 3 is all about growing up and letting go. The Incredibles might be the most interesting commentary; the message essentially comes down to the fact that some people are more gifted than others, contrary to the "everyone is special" message that most movies offer. University somewhat follows The Incredibles. Mike is the hardest working monster in school, yet he can't seem to fully succeed. He is just not talented enough to be a scarer, although he eventually realizes what he is good at. This is a realistic and important message for children. Just because it is your dream to be an NBA basketball player doesn't mean you should sell out to attain it if you are 5'4" and can't jump. Finding what you are good at and the gifts that God gave you, whether glamorous or not, is an important step in growth and maturity. Monsters praises hard work on realistic goals, something I appreciated.
Towards the end of the film (spoilers ahead!), another important and culturally counter message is offered. Eventually Mike and Sully get kicked out of school. And after their biggest efforts, they don't get back in. Instead of trying to keep going to college, the pair are shown via photos working their way up at Monsters Inc., and realizing their dream job by starting in the mail room. Our culture today basically screams to kids that in order to be successful, you MUST attend a four year college. Anyone who just goes straight to work after high school is seen as less bright, and on a path to a crummy life. I think that college education is important (I received a bachelor's degree from a 4 year university, and am a year away from a law degree), but college is not the necessary path for everyone. Mike and Sully turn out just fine working their way up in the company. Some people just aren't wired for more education, and I don't think we as a society should force it upon anyone. Not being "college material" doesn't have to be a detriment, it just means that your talents lie elsewhere. I am impressed that Pixar chose to take this culturally opposite view, one that frankly needs to be voice more often.
Pixar has returned to form with Monsters University, which is delightful for the young and old. The voice acting and animation are as top notch as ever, and the new characters introduced in this second entry are as vibrant as the first. Monsters has been my favorite movie of the summer, and I will be shocked if Pixar doesn't rack up another Oscar for their work on it!
4/5
Thursday, May 30, 2013
Star Trek Into Darkness
2009's Star Trek signaled a great divide for the science fiction franchise. J.J. Abrams rebooted the property and brought a film that had much more action, and much less philosophical themes that defined the previous films and shows. Into Darkness continues with this new hyper-Star Trek and delivers another well acted, tightly edited and directed sci-fi action movie. Those who pine for the morality plays that defined the originals will be disappointed, but if you liked the reboot, Into Darkness comes through. All of the original cast is back, and so is Abrams' frenetic style, making this new Trek a worthy summer film.
James Kirk (Chris Pine), now captain of the U.S.S. Enterprise, is relieved of his command for violating the prime directive of Star Fleet (holla Star Trek fans) in order to save his first officer and friend, Spock (Zachary Quinto). When Star Fleet is attacked by a mysterious defector named John Harrison (Benedict Cumberbatch), Kirk goes on a personal vendetta to bring the assailant to justice. But the mission is not as simple as it seems, and Kirk's loyalties to his crew and his command will be tested in order to bring justice.
Growing up I watched a lot of the shows and films of the Star Trek: The Next Generation crew. In fact, Star Trek: Generations played a part in me coming to know Jesus, so these movies and shows hold a special place in my heart. I don't have much experience with the shows or films of the original crew, but TNG was all about exploring difficult questions and themes. One of, if not my favorite, episode of TNG was about Captain Picard regretting a stupid decision he made during his youth, but coming to realize that it shaped who he became when he is shown what his life would be like had he not made it. The android character Data was always in the middle of questioning what actually made someone human. The production values of the show were pretty low, and looking back now they seem incredibly cheesy, but they weren't about the action or special effects. And from what I've gathered, the old series with William Shatner and Leonard Nimoy is the same way.
Die hard fans of the old series were disappointed by Star Trek (2009), and they once again will be disappointed by Into Darkness. James Berardinelli, one of my favorite movie reviewers, does a great job explaining the generational differences between Trek fans. The new films have brought many new fans to the franchise, and I like them for what they are, not what they should or could be. Into Darkness is strongest when it is exploring the friendship between Kirk and Spock. The first one made a big deal about these two becoming unlikely friends, and Into Darkness gets to develop this relationship. Even though Spock is dating Uhura (Zoe Saldana), she mostly takes a back seat to Kirk and Spock. I cared much more about that relationship than the one between Spock and Uhura. There are several emotionally satisfying scenes, and the play between these to characters is what elevates the action.
True to Abrams' style, the action is fast, intense, and prolonged. Star Trek is not historically an action franchise, but these two new movies are chock full of it. The action is best when it involves the villain, Harrison. Cumberbatch does a great job of creating a compelling bad guy. I really liked the twists with his character, and he was way better than the generic side villain that comes in about halfway through the film. His "twist" is seeing coming from miles away, and I thought this story was the weakest part of the movie (I don't want to be specific so as to not give anything away, but as soon as this guy comes on screen you'll pretty much know how his story plays out).
Kirk is given somewhat of a love interest played by Alice Eve, but she's mostly just there as eye candy (including a ridiculously unnecessary and gratuitous scene with her in her underwear). The rest of the cast plays their part well, and Simon Pegg's Scotty is just as funny as he was in the first. I love Karl Urban as 'Bones' McCoy, and I'd like to see him given more screen time in possible future installments.
While there are definite attempts by Abrams' to throwback to the original Trek, Into Darkness, as well as its predecessor, should not be compared to the older films. As it stands on its own, Into Darkness is a worthy sci-fi action movie, that is elevated by the relationship between its two leads.
3.5/5
James Kirk (Chris Pine), now captain of the U.S.S. Enterprise, is relieved of his command for violating the prime directive of Star Fleet (holla Star Trek fans) in order to save his first officer and friend, Spock (Zachary Quinto). When Star Fleet is attacked by a mysterious defector named John Harrison (Benedict Cumberbatch), Kirk goes on a personal vendetta to bring the assailant to justice. But the mission is not as simple as it seems, and Kirk's loyalties to his crew and his command will be tested in order to bring justice.
Growing up I watched a lot of the shows and films of the Star Trek: The Next Generation crew. In fact, Star Trek: Generations played a part in me coming to know Jesus, so these movies and shows hold a special place in my heart. I don't have much experience with the shows or films of the original crew, but TNG was all about exploring difficult questions and themes. One of, if not my favorite, episode of TNG was about Captain Picard regretting a stupid decision he made during his youth, but coming to realize that it shaped who he became when he is shown what his life would be like had he not made it. The android character Data was always in the middle of questioning what actually made someone human. The production values of the show were pretty low, and looking back now they seem incredibly cheesy, but they weren't about the action or special effects. And from what I've gathered, the old series with William Shatner and Leonard Nimoy is the same way.
Die hard fans of the old series were disappointed by Star Trek (2009), and they once again will be disappointed by Into Darkness. James Berardinelli, one of my favorite movie reviewers, does a great job explaining the generational differences between Trek fans. The new films have brought many new fans to the franchise, and I like them for what they are, not what they should or could be. Into Darkness is strongest when it is exploring the friendship between Kirk and Spock. The first one made a big deal about these two becoming unlikely friends, and Into Darkness gets to develop this relationship. Even though Spock is dating Uhura (Zoe Saldana), she mostly takes a back seat to Kirk and Spock. I cared much more about that relationship than the one between Spock and Uhura. There are several emotionally satisfying scenes, and the play between these to characters is what elevates the action.
True to Abrams' style, the action is fast, intense, and prolonged. Star Trek is not historically an action franchise, but these two new movies are chock full of it. The action is best when it involves the villain, Harrison. Cumberbatch does a great job of creating a compelling bad guy. I really liked the twists with his character, and he was way better than the generic side villain that comes in about halfway through the film. His "twist" is seeing coming from miles away, and I thought this story was the weakest part of the movie (I don't want to be specific so as to not give anything away, but as soon as this guy comes on screen you'll pretty much know how his story plays out).
Kirk is given somewhat of a love interest played by Alice Eve, but she's mostly just there as eye candy (including a ridiculously unnecessary and gratuitous scene with her in her underwear). The rest of the cast plays their part well, and Simon Pegg's Scotty is just as funny as he was in the first. I love Karl Urban as 'Bones' McCoy, and I'd like to see him given more screen time in possible future installments.
While there are definite attempts by Abrams' to throwback to the original Trek, Into Darkness, as well as its predecessor, should not be compared to the older films. As it stands on its own, Into Darkness is a worthy sci-fi action movie, that is elevated by the relationship between its two leads.
3.5/5
Monday, May 13, 2013
Iron Man 3 and The Super-Hero Saturation Point
I saw Iron Man 3 last week, and just like you've heard, it's great. The action scenes are amazing, Robert Downey Jr. plays Tony Stark with his trademark snark, and there are even a few surprises that make this film worth your while. Yet at about the halfway point in the film, I had a somewhat surprising and discouraging revelation: I'm over this. I'm over the super hero film. A few days after seeing Iron Man 3, I was thinking about just how many super hero movies have come out in the last 10 years. With the help of a few friends, we named thirty movies, just off the top of our heads. Previous to 2002, the super hero genre pretty much looked like this: the Superman movies starring Christopher Reeve, some Batman movies ranging from decent to awful, Blade, and one X-Men movie. That was it. Each of these enjoyed some success, until one film changed all that: Spider-Man. It made an absolute boatload of money, lured casual fans to reading comic books, and the race to pump out as many super hero films as possible was on.
After Spider-Man in 2002, there have been at least 35 identifiable super hero films released, which doesn't even include movies like Underdog or The Incredibles, which are not based off of a comic book. Pre-2002, as far as I can tell, there were less than 15. Spider-Man was such a crowd pleasing blockbuster, that Marvel, DC Comics, and others realized that with advances in special effects, these characters stories could be faithfully portrayed on film. And even more than that, for whatever reason, America was ready to eat up these movies like they never had before. Spider-Man is not a very good film, but it did a great job capturing what is interesting about super heroes. Peter Parker is just an ordinary kid that becomes super human, and seeing the potential of his powers that now could be faithfully rendered through modern effects was pretty astounding the first time seeing it. I remember seeing Spider-Man in theaters and thinking, "I've never seen anything like this." Watch it again today and you will see how badly it has aged (and yes, that IS early 2000's one hit wonder Macy Gray making a cameo), especially considering all the others like it that came out later. But Spider-Man was the tipping point, the film that proved to the studios that the genre had serious box office potential. And as with any craze, there comes a point of saturation, where no matter how great the next iteration is, it gets old. I have reached that point with the super hero movie.
Save for the recent Batman movies (Batman Begins, The Dark Knight, The Dark Knight Rises), almost every single super hero movie avoids risks like the plague. Almost all have a single-minded villain, incredible special effects, a love interest, and the origin of the hero is explored (obviously omitted in sequels, but not reboots, as The Amazing Spider-Man proved). Some are different than others; 2012's The Amazing Spider-Man was largely a romantic comedy, and X-Men: First Class is a period film set in the 1960's. But on the whole, the producers stick to this mold. And why not? Most of them end up being good, and more importantly for movie studios, make giant amounts of money at the box office. Iron Man was probably a cut above, and The Avengers was too, but other than that they're all about the same. Pretty good. And until last week, I was content to pay 9$ and lap all of them up. Yet as with anything, formulas and conventions become stale. These things can't go on forever. Even if Robert Downey Jr. were willing, I can't fathom that the Iron Man franchise would go on to 7 or 8 installments. It's inevitable that a fad will decline and fade away. As far as my interest goes, I'm over the super hero fad; we will have to wait and see as to when everyone else agrees.
I make an exception for the Christopher Nolan helmed Batman trilogy because of how different they truly are. These films play out more like intriguing crime dramas that happen to have a super hero in them. Almost all of the others are totally dependent upon the super hero itself. I realize this is a difficult "what if", but if the movies were not about Batman, and just about a detective who fights crime or something, they wouldn't lose any of their punch. When The Dark Knight premiered in 2008, many were comparing it to Michael Mann's Heat, widely considered to be a modern crime drama classic. In fact, it's these Batman films that are the only super hero movies to ever be compared to any other movie besides another super hero film. I've gushed over these films before, and I think that most would agree they stand out. They have subtext, layered villains, and emotional stakes that no other super hero film even comes close to equaling.
Another possible explanation for my revelation was the existence of The Avengers. I surely didn't think about this when it came out, but The Avengers might have ruined every other super hero movie that comes after it, especially ones in the Marvel universe. Marvel has done a careful job of making sure that the audience understands that all of these movie super heroes exist in the same universe; while Tony Stark is throwing parties in California, at the same time Thor is somewhere up in the heavens ruling the galaxy or something. Spider-Man and X-Men don't explicitly portray that they exist alongside the other heroes, but it's not a stretch to think that they do. So in The Avengers, when the most powerful super-humans in the universe, along their puny human friends Black Widow and Hawkeye, team up to fight alien beings, it seems kind of silly to think that there would ever be any danger again. If earth is in trouble, just call The Avengers. Case closed, right? Iron Man 3 makes a half-hearted attempt to explain why The Avengers don't team up again (that their problems with the bad guy are specifically American and that it should be kept "in house"), but I wasn't really buying that. The Avengers blew it out so big that a single super hero story seems tame; that is, ones that stick to the formula. And as good as Iron Man 3 is, it most certainly sticks to the formula.
Further watering down the super hero films impact is how desensitized American movie goers are becoming towards spectacle (or maybe it's just me when looking at box office receipts). In the days of Star Wars, Jurassic Park, Terminator 2, and the like, there were only a few movies that had truly great special effects. Innovators like George Lucas and James Cameron were able to harness technology in new ways to make movies seem much more real on the big screen. These movies were so spectacular because you might get one like that per summer. Great special effects were not near as common as they are today. Now, just about every single movie that is released has spectacular special effects. Movies with a halfway decent budget have grandiose set pieces and gigantic battle effects sequences that are as eye popping as the next. Iron Man 3 certainly has its fair share of great battle sequences, but after seeing so many over the past 10 years, I didn't seem to care. There can still be movies that make strides in special effects in a time where CGI is so prevalent. Lord of the Rings: Return of the King set the new standard for battle sequences with it's sheer scope, something that hasn't really been equaled. Despite its pedestrian and semi-offensive story, Avatar was a magnificent achievement in 3-D film making and special effects. The Matrix, released the same year as the incredibly effects laden Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace, was able to create new concepts and ideas in the world of effects, and has been ripped off ever since. The point behind these examples is that special effects can still have that "wow" factor, it's just rare. The standard "really good" effects and action sequences that are in all of these super hero films are starting to tire.
In 2013, there will still be another Thor, a new X-Men story, and a reboot of the reboot of Superman. 2014 will bring a sequel to the Spider-Man reboot, another Captain America, and yet another X-Men movie. Clearly the studios are not ready to stop giving us healthy doses of the super hero. And if Iron Man 3's box office returns are any indication, movie goers will gladly indulge. As for me, I've hit my saturation point. Not one of those I listed excites me. I'll probably end up seeing them at some point, but with the expectation of seeing the same ol' mindless and entertaining movies once again. Maybe I'm being too harsh on a genre that is mostly fun escapism. But at some point, I will choose to go elsewhere for my escape. And I think that America will too. It just isn't today.
After Spider-Man in 2002, there have been at least 35 identifiable super hero films released, which doesn't even include movies like Underdog or The Incredibles, which are not based off of a comic book. Pre-2002, as far as I can tell, there were less than 15. Spider-Man was such a crowd pleasing blockbuster, that Marvel, DC Comics, and others realized that with advances in special effects, these characters stories could be faithfully portrayed on film. And even more than that, for whatever reason, America was ready to eat up these movies like they never had before. Spider-Man is not a very good film, but it did a great job capturing what is interesting about super heroes. Peter Parker is just an ordinary kid that becomes super human, and seeing the potential of his powers that now could be faithfully rendered through modern effects was pretty astounding the first time seeing it. I remember seeing Spider-Man in theaters and thinking, "I've never seen anything like this." Watch it again today and you will see how badly it has aged (and yes, that IS early 2000's one hit wonder Macy Gray making a cameo), especially considering all the others like it that came out later. But Spider-Man was the tipping point, the film that proved to the studios that the genre had serious box office potential. And as with any craze, there comes a point of saturation, where no matter how great the next iteration is, it gets old. I have reached that point with the super hero movie.
Save for the recent Batman movies (Batman Begins, The Dark Knight, The Dark Knight Rises), almost every single super hero movie avoids risks like the plague. Almost all have a single-minded villain, incredible special effects, a love interest, and the origin of the hero is explored (obviously omitted in sequels, but not reboots, as The Amazing Spider-Man proved). Some are different than others; 2012's The Amazing Spider-Man was largely a romantic comedy, and X-Men: First Class is a period film set in the 1960's. But on the whole, the producers stick to this mold. And why not? Most of them end up being good, and more importantly for movie studios, make giant amounts of money at the box office. Iron Man was probably a cut above, and The Avengers was too, but other than that they're all about the same. Pretty good. And until last week, I was content to pay 9$ and lap all of them up. Yet as with anything, formulas and conventions become stale. These things can't go on forever. Even if Robert Downey Jr. were willing, I can't fathom that the Iron Man franchise would go on to 7 or 8 installments. It's inevitable that a fad will decline and fade away. As far as my interest goes, I'm over the super hero fad; we will have to wait and see as to when everyone else agrees.
I make an exception for the Christopher Nolan helmed Batman trilogy because of how different they truly are. These films play out more like intriguing crime dramas that happen to have a super hero in them. Almost all of the others are totally dependent upon the super hero itself. I realize this is a difficult "what if", but if the movies were not about Batman, and just about a detective who fights crime or something, they wouldn't lose any of their punch. When The Dark Knight premiered in 2008, many were comparing it to Michael Mann's Heat, widely considered to be a modern crime drama classic. In fact, it's these Batman films that are the only super hero movies to ever be compared to any other movie besides another super hero film. I've gushed over these films before, and I think that most would agree they stand out. They have subtext, layered villains, and emotional stakes that no other super hero film even comes close to equaling.
Another possible explanation for my revelation was the existence of The Avengers. I surely didn't think about this when it came out, but The Avengers might have ruined every other super hero movie that comes after it, especially ones in the Marvel universe. Marvel has done a careful job of making sure that the audience understands that all of these movie super heroes exist in the same universe; while Tony Stark is throwing parties in California, at the same time Thor is somewhere up in the heavens ruling the galaxy or something. Spider-Man and X-Men don't explicitly portray that they exist alongside the other heroes, but it's not a stretch to think that they do. So in The Avengers, when the most powerful super-humans in the universe, along their puny human friends Black Widow and Hawkeye, team up to fight alien beings, it seems kind of silly to think that there would ever be any danger again. If earth is in trouble, just call The Avengers. Case closed, right? Iron Man 3 makes a half-hearted attempt to explain why The Avengers don't team up again (that their problems with the bad guy are specifically American and that it should be kept "in house"), but I wasn't really buying that. The Avengers blew it out so big that a single super hero story seems tame; that is, ones that stick to the formula. And as good as Iron Man 3 is, it most certainly sticks to the formula.
Further watering down the super hero films impact is how desensitized American movie goers are becoming towards spectacle (or maybe it's just me when looking at box office receipts). In the days of Star Wars, Jurassic Park, Terminator 2, and the like, there were only a few movies that had truly great special effects. Innovators like George Lucas and James Cameron were able to harness technology in new ways to make movies seem much more real on the big screen. These movies were so spectacular because you might get one like that per summer. Great special effects were not near as common as they are today. Now, just about every single movie that is released has spectacular special effects. Movies with a halfway decent budget have grandiose set pieces and gigantic battle effects sequences that are as eye popping as the next. Iron Man 3 certainly has its fair share of great battle sequences, but after seeing so many over the past 10 years, I didn't seem to care. There can still be movies that make strides in special effects in a time where CGI is so prevalent. Lord of the Rings: Return of the King set the new standard for battle sequences with it's sheer scope, something that hasn't really been equaled. Despite its pedestrian and semi-offensive story, Avatar was a magnificent achievement in 3-D film making and special effects. The Matrix, released the same year as the incredibly effects laden Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace, was able to create new concepts and ideas in the world of effects, and has been ripped off ever since. The point behind these examples is that special effects can still have that "wow" factor, it's just rare. The standard "really good" effects and action sequences that are in all of these super hero films are starting to tire.
In 2013, there will still be another Thor, a new X-Men story, and a reboot of the reboot of Superman. 2014 will bring a sequel to the Spider-Man reboot, another Captain America, and yet another X-Men movie. Clearly the studios are not ready to stop giving us healthy doses of the super hero. And if Iron Man 3's box office returns are any indication, movie goers will gladly indulge. As for me, I've hit my saturation point. Not one of those I listed excites me. I'll probably end up seeing them at some point, but with the expectation of seeing the same ol' mindless and entertaining movies once again. Maybe I'm being too harsh on a genre that is mostly fun escapism. But at some point, I will choose to go elsewhere for my escape. And I think that America will too. It just isn't today.
Saturday, May 11, 2013
Oblivion
Oblivion is kind of like the Los Angeles Angels right now. All the talent and tools are in place, there is just a lack of execution. A team with Mike Trout, Josh Hamilton, Albert Pujols, Jered Weaver, C.J. Wilson, and Mike Scioscia managing should be dominating baseball. But despite the talent, the Angels are struggling. Same can be said for Oblivion. There are great actors involved; Tom Cruise, Morgan Freeman, and Olga Kurylenko. The premise is intriguing, set in a futuristic earth that is beautifully rendered by impressive special effects. Yet Oblivion stumbles over itself one too many times, has a sloppy ending, and misses some great opportunities to be something more than just a middling science fiction film.
Jack (Tom Cruise, in his third role playing a guy named "Jack", and the second in a row) and Victoria (Andrea Riseborough) have been assigned to an outpost in 2077 earth to protect its final resources. Aliens attacked and the humans won the war, but earth was destroyed. The survivors now live in an off planet space station, and Jack and Victoria have to protect earth from its enemies that remain in combat. But Jack continues to dream of a mysterious woman (Olga Kurylenko), and doesn't quite accept the supposed truths of the world around him.
As I've written about before, Tom Cruise is one of my favorite actors that is in a ridiculous amount of good movies. He has a charisma and presence on screen that is matched by only a few. And Cruise is definitely on his game in Oblivion. Yet the script does not do him many favors, save for a monologue about a past Super Bowl that he's only read about, and he's not given much to do. Same for Morgan Freeman, who barely makes a cameo and doesn't say one thing of interest. The producers probably saw a free weekend in his schedule and decided to cast him so the poster would have more star power. Which I guess works, because the trailers and promotional material heavily promoted his involvement in the film.
The setting was visually captivating, especially the outpost where Victoria and Jack live. The futuristic motif is rendered in a way that consistently draws the viewer into a world of technology that everyone has imagined at some point. I'm always a sucker for sleek science fiction technology in movies, and Oblivion comes through in spades. It kind of reminds me of a live action version of Wall-E, another end of the world animated film. But where Wall-E used the theme to back an emotional story between Wall-E and Eve, the characters in Oblivion come off as flat. Cruise's character has some places to go that would have been intriguing, yet the writing is muddled and rushed so that his back story is not fleshed out properly. He and Kurylenko could have had a relationship that had some weight, but again the opportunity was missed.
Here's my recommendation for Oblivion: just see Moon instead. They're basically the same movie, but Moon was executed much better, and Sam Rockwell's one man show is much more lively than any of the characters in Oblivion. I had high hopes for this film, they just never were achieved. The special effects are striking, but what film doesn't have good special effects these days? That alone can't save Oblivion from crippling mediocrity.
2.5/5
Jack (Tom Cruise, in his third role playing a guy named "Jack", and the second in a row) and Victoria (Andrea Riseborough) have been assigned to an outpost in 2077 earth to protect its final resources. Aliens attacked and the humans won the war, but earth was destroyed. The survivors now live in an off planet space station, and Jack and Victoria have to protect earth from its enemies that remain in combat. But Jack continues to dream of a mysterious woman (Olga Kurylenko), and doesn't quite accept the supposed truths of the world around him.
As I've written about before, Tom Cruise is one of my favorite actors that is in a ridiculous amount of good movies. He has a charisma and presence on screen that is matched by only a few. And Cruise is definitely on his game in Oblivion. Yet the script does not do him many favors, save for a monologue about a past Super Bowl that he's only read about, and he's not given much to do. Same for Morgan Freeman, who barely makes a cameo and doesn't say one thing of interest. The producers probably saw a free weekend in his schedule and decided to cast him so the poster would have more star power. Which I guess works, because the trailers and promotional material heavily promoted his involvement in the film.
The setting was visually captivating, especially the outpost where Victoria and Jack live. The futuristic motif is rendered in a way that consistently draws the viewer into a world of technology that everyone has imagined at some point. I'm always a sucker for sleek science fiction technology in movies, and Oblivion comes through in spades. It kind of reminds me of a live action version of Wall-E, another end of the world animated film. But where Wall-E used the theme to back an emotional story between Wall-E and Eve, the characters in Oblivion come off as flat. Cruise's character has some places to go that would have been intriguing, yet the writing is muddled and rushed so that his back story is not fleshed out properly. He and Kurylenko could have had a relationship that had some weight, but again the opportunity was missed.
Here's my recommendation for Oblivion: just see Moon instead. They're basically the same movie, but Moon was executed much better, and Sam Rockwell's one man show is much more lively than any of the characters in Oblivion. I had high hopes for this film, they just never were achieved. The special effects are striking, but what film doesn't have good special effects these days? That alone can't save Oblivion from crippling mediocrity.
2.5/5
Tuesday, April 23, 2013
The Place Beyond the Pines
I'm not sure that I've ever seen a film so drastically change in style from one act to the other as much as The Place Beyond the Pines. The movie is three separate parts that are interconnected, and each part focuses on a different man and how the choices he makes affect him and his family. The first act is raw and visceral, with Ryan Gosling at the forefront. The second focuses on Bradley Cooper in a more cut and dry Law and Order type story, and the third depicts the sons of each dealing with the pasts their fathers have left behind. Gosling's part was easily my favorite, and I can't help but wonder what the film would have been had it kept him in the main role throughout the film. At a running time of 140 minutes it's long, but moves at a brisk pace despite a lull in the middle. Pines is rich with themes of fatherhood, generational sin, and abandonment; I found it to be a very thought provoking film.
Luke (Ryan Gosling), a motorcycle stunt driver, is traveling with the circus when he is reunited with an old fling, Romina (Eva Mendes). Luke discovers that he has an infant son with Romina, and quits his job in an effort to be a father. When he realizes that his skills are sorely limited, he turns to robbing banks to get the cash to provide for his family. This intersects him with Avery (Bradley Cooper), a young policeman whose story is focused on in the second act. His plot deals with the corruption in the police system and his quest to expose it. Lastly we meet the sons of both men, Avery's son AJ (Emory Cohen), and Luke's son Jason (Dane DeHaan, soon to step into James Franco's shoes as Harry Osbourn in the sequel of the Spider-Man reboot). The lives of these 4 men are intertwined, and the past haunts each of them.
Gosling plays Luke in a similar fashion to his character in Drive. A dangerous man that is also principled, just the kind of bad boy every woman will swoon over when he looks like Ryan Gosling. The cinematography in this first act is incredible. There were many shots that were Goodfellas restaurant scene-like, with the steadicam following Gosling from behind. These shots were especially effective in the bank robberies, which were extremely intense. The music was eerie throughout, an efficient device that made me constantly feel uneasy, even when things were going well for the character on screen. I loved how Gosling's character was so intent on providing and being there for his son. As soon as he finds out about him, he drops everything to be with him. Luke states that he wants to be there for his son because his dad wasn't there for him, and that he didn't turn out well because of it. Kids need a dad, and as a man who wants children in the future, this film reminded me over and over the importance of being an engaged dad that is there in every way for my kids.
Ryan Gosling, at least in my mind, is on the path to becoming the next Brad Pitt. Pitt was initially an actor cast solely for his looks, and has since developed into one of Hollywood's best leading men, and has starred in some truly amazing films (Se7en, Fight Club, The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, just to name a few). Gosling was the same way in the early parts of his career (see: The Notebook and Remember the Titans), but has since chosen more interesting characters and scripts (Drive). He still does some crowd pleasers (Crazy, Stupid, Love) like Pitt also does (Mr. and Mrs. Smith, the Ocean's movies), and that is a really good thing. Gosling has the charm, looks, and range to do whatever he wants, and I'm excited to see his career play out.
Cooper's act is not near as thought provoking or exciting. I like Cooper as an actor a lot, and there are some good plot turns in his part, it just was not near as unique as the first act. When the shift is taken away from Gosling, the film lost a lot of steam. When we get to see their sons grown up, it's interesting to see how they deal with the sins of their fathers. Again, as a man who hopes to have kids in the future, there was a lot for me to think about.
First, the concept of generational sin is a real thing. Children have predisposition to repeat the sins of their parents. Luke knows this, and doesn't want the cycle to continue with Jason. The cycle of sin doesn't have to continue for any of us. Jesus paid our debt of sins, and as long as we confess and repent our sins to Him, they are removed from us and we are free to walk alongside Him. Second, being a parent is just a scary thing. I've seen many kids from great families turn out rotten, and vice versa. Luke and Jason come from very different backgrounds but still end up somewhat the same. Jason grows up in a home with two parents who stayed together (Romina and his stepfather who was basically there from birth), while AJ has to deal with his parents divorce. As a father, it terrifies me that I might do the best I can and still raise a child who will make bad choices. I guess the best anyone can do is trust in the Lord and do your best, and let the chips fall where they may.
I really liked The Place Beyond the Pines, and would definitely see it again. There's a lot to unpack, and none of it comes off as melodramatic. The style of the film is gritty and unique, and the motif works well with the story. Gosling and Cooper are two fantastic actors that shine in their very different roles. The Place Beyond the Pines will make you think, and that's something I appreciate in a movie.
3.5/5
Luke (Ryan Gosling), a motorcycle stunt driver, is traveling with the circus when he is reunited with an old fling, Romina (Eva Mendes). Luke discovers that he has an infant son with Romina, and quits his job in an effort to be a father. When he realizes that his skills are sorely limited, he turns to robbing banks to get the cash to provide for his family. This intersects him with Avery (Bradley Cooper), a young policeman whose story is focused on in the second act. His plot deals with the corruption in the police system and his quest to expose it. Lastly we meet the sons of both men, Avery's son AJ (Emory Cohen), and Luke's son Jason (Dane DeHaan, soon to step into James Franco's shoes as Harry Osbourn in the sequel of the Spider-Man reboot). The lives of these 4 men are intertwined, and the past haunts each of them.
Gosling plays Luke in a similar fashion to his character in Drive. A dangerous man that is also principled, just the kind of bad boy every woman will swoon over when he looks like Ryan Gosling. The cinematography in this first act is incredible. There were many shots that were Goodfellas restaurant scene-like, with the steadicam following Gosling from behind. These shots were especially effective in the bank robberies, which were extremely intense. The music was eerie throughout, an efficient device that made me constantly feel uneasy, even when things were going well for the character on screen. I loved how Gosling's character was so intent on providing and being there for his son. As soon as he finds out about him, he drops everything to be with him. Luke states that he wants to be there for his son because his dad wasn't there for him, and that he didn't turn out well because of it. Kids need a dad, and as a man who wants children in the future, this film reminded me over and over the importance of being an engaged dad that is there in every way for my kids.
Ryan Gosling, at least in my mind, is on the path to becoming the next Brad Pitt. Pitt was initially an actor cast solely for his looks, and has since developed into one of Hollywood's best leading men, and has starred in some truly amazing films (Se7en, Fight Club, The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, just to name a few). Gosling was the same way in the early parts of his career (see: The Notebook and Remember the Titans), but has since chosen more interesting characters and scripts (Drive). He still does some crowd pleasers (Crazy, Stupid, Love) like Pitt also does (Mr. and Mrs. Smith, the Ocean's movies), and that is a really good thing. Gosling has the charm, looks, and range to do whatever he wants, and I'm excited to see his career play out.
Cooper's act is not near as thought provoking or exciting. I like Cooper as an actor a lot, and there are some good plot turns in his part, it just was not near as unique as the first act. When the shift is taken away from Gosling, the film lost a lot of steam. When we get to see their sons grown up, it's interesting to see how they deal with the sins of their fathers. Again, as a man who hopes to have kids in the future, there was a lot for me to think about.
First, the concept of generational sin is a real thing. Children have predisposition to repeat the sins of their parents. Luke knows this, and doesn't want the cycle to continue with Jason. The cycle of sin doesn't have to continue for any of us. Jesus paid our debt of sins, and as long as we confess and repent our sins to Him, they are removed from us and we are free to walk alongside Him. Second, being a parent is just a scary thing. I've seen many kids from great families turn out rotten, and vice versa. Luke and Jason come from very different backgrounds but still end up somewhat the same. Jason grows up in a home with two parents who stayed together (Romina and his stepfather who was basically there from birth), while AJ has to deal with his parents divorce. As a father, it terrifies me that I might do the best I can and still raise a child who will make bad choices. I guess the best anyone can do is trust in the Lord and do your best, and let the chips fall where they may.
I really liked The Place Beyond the Pines, and would definitely see it again. There's a lot to unpack, and none of it comes off as melodramatic. The style of the film is gritty and unique, and the motif works well with the story. Gosling and Cooper are two fantastic actors that shine in their very different roles. The Place Beyond the Pines will make you think, and that's something I appreciate in a movie.
3.5/5
Monday, April 15, 2013
42
42 really had no chance. I was going to love it, whether it stunk or not. Jackie Robinson is one of my favorite characters from baseball history, a game I truly love. Going into 42, I already knew Robinson's story, whether it be from Ken Burns' Baseball documentary, books, newspaper articles, or countless TV specials. Robinson is an iconic figure, who holds a special place in American history. He became the first black baseball player in a game that was deeply segregated, and helped start to integrate a nation. Major League Baseball annually has "Jackie Robinson Day", a day in which all players wear his number, 42. I used to think that this tribute was overblown, that integration of the game was inevitable, and that it was all too much. 42, and the true story it is based upon, prove just how wrong my prior thinking was.
The film opens with Branch Rickey (Harrison Ford) musing about the possibility of a black man playing for his team, the Brooklyn Dodgers. He decides on Robinson (Chadwick Boseman), a young, talented player from the Negro Leagues to be the first black baseball player in Major League Baseball. Rickey explains to Jackie that he wants a man with the courage "not to fight back". He warns Robinson that he will face extreme prejudice, and tries to prepare him for the challenges he will face. As soon as Robinson reports to spring training, he is confronted with difficulties he did not see coming.
Sports movies are an entirely mixed bag. Some choose to go the route to make the movie not really about the sport, but the character (Raging Bull, Rocky), and generally these make the best films. Others choose to show a player's triumph over incredible odds (Rudy, The Rookie), and some merely focus on showing a team's unlikely path to victory (Miracle, Remember the Titans, Major League, Hoosiers). Most sports movies that are based upon true stories take very few risks, as there is a compelling tale built in. I've seen great sports movies, and I've seen ones that are cheesy and terrible. Going into 42, I was very worried they would mess it up. But the story of Jackie Robinson is so heroic and compelling, that outcome was almost an impossibility. As long as the filmmakers and actors were capable, 42 couldn't miss.
Boseman does a fine job of making Jackie seem real. Despite the icon he has become, Robinson was just a guy, and he seems real on screen. Ford was kind of a surprising choice to play Rickey, an unsung hero in the story of baseball's integration, but the legendary actor does a fine job. I was happy that Rickey's strong belief in Jesus was at least mentioned in the film, and is shown to be a part of what drives him to try and integrate the game. Both he and Robinson want to model Jesus in their actions, with Rickey instructing Robinson to turn the other cheek like our Savior did. The father-son type relationship that burgeons between Rickey and Robinson is sweet. Rickey not only cares about what their actions mean for history, but also for Jackie himself.
The bit parts are all cast relatively well. However I wasn't crazy about Lucas Black, complete with his signature southern drawl, as Pee Wee Reese. Reese was an important player in Robinson's story, becoming an unlikely friend of Jackie's, despite his southern roots. For some reason I didn't fully buy in to Black's performance, which might have something to do with the fact that he's just not that great of an actor (his performance as a young child in Sling Blade being the exception). Alan Tudyk (Dodgeball, Serenity) goes completely against his nice-guy type as the despicable manager of the Philadelphia Phillies who famously heckled Jackie more than anyone. Jackie's wife Rachel (Nicole Beharie) is beautiful and supportive. The rest of his teammates all do a pretty good job in their small roles (and yes, that is the guy who was in a host of Disney Channel movies including Luck of the Irish and Smart House playing one of Robinson's more racist teammates).
There are some subtle and not so subtle moments about racism during this film, but it is definitely not as in-your-face as, say, Remember the Titans is. From all the history I've read, the things that Robinson faced in the film are pretty much like what he faced in real life. It would have been easy to sensationalize this story even more, but director Brian Helgeland does a pretty decent job of sticking to history.
I think that 42 is the anti-Les Miserables for me. Les Miserables was well made and well acted; yet I still did not like it because of the type of movie that it is (one in which every line is painstakingly sung instead of spoken). I loved 42 because it told a great baseball story, and did a fine job of staying true to it's source. That was basically all I needed to like it. 42 is a baseball tale, yes, but also one that is important in all of American history. Baseball fans and non sports fans alike should be equally impressed.
4/5
The film opens with Branch Rickey (Harrison Ford) musing about the possibility of a black man playing for his team, the Brooklyn Dodgers. He decides on Robinson (Chadwick Boseman), a young, talented player from the Negro Leagues to be the first black baseball player in Major League Baseball. Rickey explains to Jackie that he wants a man with the courage "not to fight back". He warns Robinson that he will face extreme prejudice, and tries to prepare him for the challenges he will face. As soon as Robinson reports to spring training, he is confronted with difficulties he did not see coming.
Sports movies are an entirely mixed bag. Some choose to go the route to make the movie not really about the sport, but the character (Raging Bull, Rocky), and generally these make the best films. Others choose to show a player's triumph over incredible odds (Rudy, The Rookie), and some merely focus on showing a team's unlikely path to victory (Miracle, Remember the Titans, Major League, Hoosiers). Most sports movies that are based upon true stories take very few risks, as there is a compelling tale built in. I've seen great sports movies, and I've seen ones that are cheesy and terrible. Going into 42, I was very worried they would mess it up. But the story of Jackie Robinson is so heroic and compelling, that outcome was almost an impossibility. As long as the filmmakers and actors were capable, 42 couldn't miss.
Boseman does a fine job of making Jackie seem real. Despite the icon he has become, Robinson was just a guy, and he seems real on screen. Ford was kind of a surprising choice to play Rickey, an unsung hero in the story of baseball's integration, but the legendary actor does a fine job. I was happy that Rickey's strong belief in Jesus was at least mentioned in the film, and is shown to be a part of what drives him to try and integrate the game. Both he and Robinson want to model Jesus in their actions, with Rickey instructing Robinson to turn the other cheek like our Savior did. The father-son type relationship that burgeons between Rickey and Robinson is sweet. Rickey not only cares about what their actions mean for history, but also for Jackie himself.
The bit parts are all cast relatively well. However I wasn't crazy about Lucas Black, complete with his signature southern drawl, as Pee Wee Reese. Reese was an important player in Robinson's story, becoming an unlikely friend of Jackie's, despite his southern roots. For some reason I didn't fully buy in to Black's performance, which might have something to do with the fact that he's just not that great of an actor (his performance as a young child in Sling Blade being the exception). Alan Tudyk (Dodgeball, Serenity) goes completely against his nice-guy type as the despicable manager of the Philadelphia Phillies who famously heckled Jackie more than anyone. Jackie's wife Rachel (Nicole Beharie) is beautiful and supportive. The rest of his teammates all do a pretty good job in their small roles (and yes, that is the guy who was in a host of Disney Channel movies including Luck of the Irish and Smart House playing one of Robinson's more racist teammates).
There are some subtle and not so subtle moments about racism during this film, but it is definitely not as in-your-face as, say, Remember the Titans is. From all the history I've read, the things that Robinson faced in the film are pretty much like what he faced in real life. It would have been easy to sensationalize this story even more, but director Brian Helgeland does a pretty decent job of sticking to history.
I think that 42 is the anti-Les Miserables for me. Les Miserables was well made and well acted; yet I still did not like it because of the type of movie that it is (one in which every line is painstakingly sung instead of spoken). I loved 42 because it told a great baseball story, and did a fine job of staying true to it's source. That was basically all I needed to like it. 42 is a baseball tale, yes, but also one that is important in all of American history. Baseball fans and non sports fans alike should be equally impressed.
4/5
Wednesday, March 27, 2013
Top Ten Episodes of "The Simpsons"
(Note: lots of YouTube clips in this article, and they may not show up if you're browsing from a phone. At least I was having trouble with it)
I've written almost exclusively about movies in this blog, and while this post isn't technically about movies, I reserve the right to do whatever the heck I want on my own blog. So there. Anyway, I have undertaken the arduous task of ranking the best episodes in the history of The Simpsons. Now when I say history, I actually mean Seasons 1-11. I'm in the camp of Simpsons fans that think the show started to lose its quality somewhere in Season 9, and went into full-on tail spin mode in Season 12. I've watched every episode of Seasons 12-14 and have not seen a single one that was memorable. I quit trying to keep up with the show after that, save for a few more tries in the past couple of years. Suffice it to say, The Simpsons just isn't what it used to be, and after 500+ episodes how could it be? However, the first 9 seasons of the show are better than just about any comedy television show created (Seinfeld being its only other rival). The Simpsons first 9 seasons are witty, insightful, heartfelt, and entirely hilarious. My favorite episodes have a mix of some evidence of genuine love between the Simpsons family, something that was the heart of the show early on, and downright gut-busting laughs. I will never forget watching the "Cape Feare" episode for the first time in my room while my brother was sleeping. Trying to not audibly roar with laughter was no small feat. The Simpsons is one of my favorite shows of all time, and if you're looking to get into the show, here are my 10 favorites:
1. Homer at the Bat
This episode wonderfully mixes two of my favorite things: The Simpsons and baseball. Loaded with MLB player cameos, this episode was a landmark for the show, besting The Cosby Show for the first time ever in the ratings. When Mr. Burns makes a bet with the Shelbyville nuclear plant owner that his softball team will prevail in their upcoming game, he decides to bring in a few "ringers". The ringers are a 90's all star team featuring Ken Griffey Jr., Don Mattingly, Jose Canseco, Ozzie Smith, Roger Clemens, Darryl Strawberry, Steve Sax, Mike Scioscia, and Wade Boggs. Later in the series, The Simpsons relied too much on their guest stars as merely gimmicks, but the baseball players work so well here. The ringers all befall untimely fates and are unable to make it to the game, except for Strawberry, who is starting in right field over poor Homer.
Homer ends up saving the game in a manner that only Homer could do, but the star of this episode is really Mr. Burns. From his suggestions for the ringers all being stars from the late 19th century including someone named "Three Finger" Mordecai Brown (one of the best running gags on the show, Burns liking things that make him seem so hilariously old), to his Tony La Russa like decision to "play the percentages" by subbing Homer for Strawberry to get a righty-lefty matchup (side baseball note: as a lifelong Cardinals fan, La Russa's insistence on righty-lefty matchups would be absolutely maddening sometimes. Don't get me wrong, I love La Russa and he brought the Cards two World Series titles, but taking out a far superior hitter to play the right matchup always seemed boneheaded to me. But I digress). Homer at the Bat also signifies where the show really took off. Seasons 1 and 2 had some great episodes, but this Season 3 gem is a classic that stands up to any in the best years of the show.
2. Cape Feare
As I mentioned above, I'm not sure if I have ever laughed harder at a single half hour of television than I did the first time I watched Cape Feare. A Sideshow Bob episode, Cape Feare plays exactly like, well, Cape Fear. Bob is in the Robert De Niro/ Robert Mitchum role, stalking the Simpsons to once again try and kill Bart. The most brilliant gag of the episode came as a mistake. The episode was running a few minutes short, so the writers decided to just loop a gag where Bob is stepping on rakes over and over.
It's a joke that goes from funny, to tired, to hilarious. There are several more moments that are super funny including:
And:
Kelsey Grammer does a magnificent job voicing the annual episodes featuring Sideshow Bob, a maniacal genius who is somehow always bested by one of the Simpsons. Cape Feare is the best of those.
3. Last Exit to Springfield
Last Exit to Springfield is a great episode that I had almost forgotten about, except that I hadn't. There are several ALL TIME classic lines in this episode that I have always quoted, but forgot were in this one:
But last but not least, one of the most annoying and funny bits in the show (this clip loops it a bunch, but the actual bit in the show lasted a good minute):
This episode pits Homer as the Union president facing Mr. Burns to get back the Nuclear Plant's dental plan. Homer stumbles his way through the negotiations, but ends up coming off as a brilliant tactician to Burns. The Burns and Homer stuff is pure gold, and Carl and Lenny really have some funny moments, including this exchange after Homer is elected president of the union:
Homer: What does this job pay?
Carl: Nothin'.
Homer: D'oh!
Carl:... Unless you're crooked!
Homer: Woo-Hoo!
4. Homer Goes to College
Famously written by Conan O'Brien, Homer Goes to College crams every college cliche into one "zany" episode. In order to keep his job at the plant, Homer must pass one class at the local college.
Homer expects college to be like Animal House, and every other college romp. He immediately thinks that it will be all about pranks and fighting with the cantankerous dean, but is shocked by the reality.
Homer just ends up taking the lazy way out and cheats, but Marge insists he do it the right way to set an example for his kids. Homer is dumb, stupid, fat, and lazy, but he generally makes some strides to be a good dad. I'm not really a fan of how the show depicts gender roles within the family; Marge is the leader and the rock, cleaning up Homer's messes and setting the example for the family. This should be a role filled by Homer as the dad, but that's another argument. Homer Goes to College has tons of laughs, and that's really what it's all about!
5. The Cartridge Family
This episode shows that Homer and guns are a terrible and dangerous mix. After buying a gun, Homer generally uses it in every horrible way possible, appalling his family and even the NRA. His flippant regard for guns is funny because it's in a cartoon; in any other context it would be horrifying. Homer ends up choosing his family over the power of the gun, but only after some heavy consideration. Homer purchasing the gun at the gun store is one of my favorite bits of the series:
Also included is a great send up of soccer starting with this ridiculous commercial for an exhibition game to be hosted in Springfield:
Season 9 was hit and miss, but this one was brilliant.
6. Homer's Triple Bypass
Homer has always treated his body badly, and this episode highlights his dangerous overeating. Opening with Homer in bed gorging on a ridiculous amount of food, his heart turns from bad to worse as he needs a transplant. Lots of great Dr. Nick stuff, and some genuine emotion and love between the Simpson family. The scene where Homer is being fired by Mr. Burns is great:
7. Duffless
Another episode focusing on Homer's sinful indulgences, this one zeroes in on one of his greatest loves: beer. After Homer is arrested for DWI (NOT found DOA as Wiggum first states), his keys are taken away and he is sent to alcoholics anonymous. Marge pleads with her husband to stay away from beer for one month, in which Homer is tortured going through life without beer. The episode has a very sweet ending between Homer and his wife, where he realizes his family is much more important than beer (but then again he's back to swilling booze in the very next episode). Duffless introduces us to Homer's first experience with beer, a hilarious song in which Homer uses a fake ID:
Homer on beer is funny, and Homer without beer is equally so.
8. The City of New York vs. Homer Simpson
Another season 9 gem, this one shows Homer at his most enraged. After being forced to be the designated driver (and in the process being tortured by Duffman), Barney goes on a two month long bender that ends with Homer's car being parked between the World Trade Center towers. Homer has a deep hatred for New York, and despises having to go there. The physical comedy in this one is off the charts hilarious. When Homer decides to drive his car with the parking boot still on it, I completely lose it.
This one has no real sentimental or deeper value, it's just really really funny. This Luke Perry look-a-like in a musical about going into rehab won a Primetime Emmy.
Also, Homer really hates Mountain Dew:
9. Homer's Enemy
Homer's Enemy is one of the darker episodes of the series (along with another Season 8 episode called A Millhouse Divided, in which Millhouse's parents get divorced). Frank Grimes is a hard working man who can't really catch a break, which is the opposite of Homer. Homer is lazy and stupid, but seems to catch every break. Grimes is appalled by how much Homer has and all the things he's done. Homer tries to become friends with Grimes, but it continues to annoy Grimes to no end.
Grimes eventually goes insane at how Homer bumbles his way to a successful life, and it leads to his untimely death. It's totally dark, especially the "change the channel, Marge!" quip from Homer, at Grimes' funeral. This episode proved that The Simpsons could do dark comedy as well. Homer will drive you insane, and you will end up laughing at how oblivious he truly is.
10. Homer Badman
There might be some funnier episodes than Homer Badman, but the genius of this one forced me to put it in the top 10. After dropping off the kids babysitter, Homer reaches to grab a gummi bear that was lodged against her butt, causing her to claim sexual harassment charges against Homer. The media is absolutely roasted for the sensationalist embellishments they claim on a daily basis. Homer is treated instantly as a monster by TV and the newspaper, when his side of the story is actually true. This includes a made for TV movie released before any facts have even come out, depicting Homer as a total animal.
Don't get me wrong, the commentary is great but it's also extremely funny. Grandpa not wanting to recognize Missourah is something I often quote (especially now with Arkansas playing Missouri every year).
The list could go on and on. Generally any episode between seasons 3 and 8 is super funny. Most of these honorable mentions could easily make the top 10.
Honorable mentions:
Stark Raving Dad
When Flanders Failed
Lisa's Pony
Flaming Moe's
Burns Verkaufen der Draftwerk
Mr. Plow
Marge vs. the Monorail
Homer's Barbershop Quartet
Homer and Apu
Deep Space Homer
Bart of Darkness
Lisa on Ice
Itchy and Scratchy Land
Homer the Great
Bart vs. Australia
Radioactive Man
King-Size Homer
Team Homer
Homerpalooza
You Only Move Twice
A Milhouse Divided
Mountain of Madness
The Itchy & Scratchy & Poochie Show
Homer vs. the Eighteenth Amendment
Bart Star
King of the Hill
Homer to the Max
The Mansion Family
I've written almost exclusively about movies in this blog, and while this post isn't technically about movies, I reserve the right to do whatever the heck I want on my own blog. So there. Anyway, I have undertaken the arduous task of ranking the best episodes in the history of The Simpsons. Now when I say history, I actually mean Seasons 1-11. I'm in the camp of Simpsons fans that think the show started to lose its quality somewhere in Season 9, and went into full-on tail spin mode in Season 12. I've watched every episode of Seasons 12-14 and have not seen a single one that was memorable. I quit trying to keep up with the show after that, save for a few more tries in the past couple of years. Suffice it to say, The Simpsons just isn't what it used to be, and after 500+ episodes how could it be? However, the first 9 seasons of the show are better than just about any comedy television show created (Seinfeld being its only other rival). The Simpsons first 9 seasons are witty, insightful, heartfelt, and entirely hilarious. My favorite episodes have a mix of some evidence of genuine love between the Simpsons family, something that was the heart of the show early on, and downright gut-busting laughs. I will never forget watching the "Cape Feare" episode for the first time in my room while my brother was sleeping. Trying to not audibly roar with laughter was no small feat. The Simpsons is one of my favorite shows of all time, and if you're looking to get into the show, here are my 10 favorites:
1. Homer at the Bat
This episode wonderfully mixes two of my favorite things: The Simpsons and baseball. Loaded with MLB player cameos, this episode was a landmark for the show, besting The Cosby Show for the first time ever in the ratings. When Mr. Burns makes a bet with the Shelbyville nuclear plant owner that his softball team will prevail in their upcoming game, he decides to bring in a few "ringers". The ringers are a 90's all star team featuring Ken Griffey Jr., Don Mattingly, Jose Canseco, Ozzie Smith, Roger Clemens, Darryl Strawberry, Steve Sax, Mike Scioscia, and Wade Boggs. Later in the series, The Simpsons relied too much on their guest stars as merely gimmicks, but the baseball players work so well here. The ringers all befall untimely fates and are unable to make it to the game, except for Strawberry, who is starting in right field over poor Homer.
Homer ends up saving the game in a manner that only Homer could do, but the star of this episode is really Mr. Burns. From his suggestions for the ringers all being stars from the late 19th century including someone named "Three Finger" Mordecai Brown (one of the best running gags on the show, Burns liking things that make him seem so hilariously old), to his Tony La Russa like decision to "play the percentages" by subbing Homer for Strawberry to get a righty-lefty matchup (side baseball note: as a lifelong Cardinals fan, La Russa's insistence on righty-lefty matchups would be absolutely maddening sometimes. Don't get me wrong, I love La Russa and he brought the Cards two World Series titles, but taking out a far superior hitter to play the right matchup always seemed boneheaded to me. But I digress). Homer at the Bat also signifies where the show really took off. Seasons 1 and 2 had some great episodes, but this Season 3 gem is a classic that stands up to any in the best years of the show.
2. Cape Feare
As I mentioned above, I'm not sure if I have ever laughed harder at a single half hour of television than I did the first time I watched Cape Feare. A Sideshow Bob episode, Cape Feare plays exactly like, well, Cape Fear. Bob is in the Robert De Niro/ Robert Mitchum role, stalking the Simpsons to once again try and kill Bart. The most brilliant gag of the episode came as a mistake. The episode was running a few minutes short, so the writers decided to just loop a gag where Bob is stepping on rakes over and over.
It's a joke that goes from funny, to tired, to hilarious. There are several more moments that are super funny including:
And:
Kelsey Grammer does a magnificent job voicing the annual episodes featuring Sideshow Bob, a maniacal genius who is somehow always bested by one of the Simpsons. Cape Feare is the best of those.
3. Last Exit to Springfield
Last Exit to Springfield is a great episode that I had almost forgotten about, except that I hadn't. There are several ALL TIME classic lines in this episode that I have always quoted, but forgot were in this one:
But last but not least, one of the most annoying and funny bits in the show (this clip loops it a bunch, but the actual bit in the show lasted a good minute):
This episode pits Homer as the Union president facing Mr. Burns to get back the Nuclear Plant's dental plan. Homer stumbles his way through the negotiations, but ends up coming off as a brilliant tactician to Burns. The Burns and Homer stuff is pure gold, and Carl and Lenny really have some funny moments, including this exchange after Homer is elected president of the union:
Homer: What does this job pay?
Carl: Nothin'.
Homer: D'oh!
Carl:... Unless you're crooked!
Homer: Woo-Hoo!
4. Homer Goes to College
Famously written by Conan O'Brien, Homer Goes to College crams every college cliche into one "zany" episode. In order to keep his job at the plant, Homer must pass one class at the local college.
Homer expects college to be like Animal House, and every other college romp. He immediately thinks that it will be all about pranks and fighting with the cantankerous dean, but is shocked by the reality.
Homer just ends up taking the lazy way out and cheats, but Marge insists he do it the right way to set an example for his kids. Homer is dumb, stupid, fat, and lazy, but he generally makes some strides to be a good dad. I'm not really a fan of how the show depicts gender roles within the family; Marge is the leader and the rock, cleaning up Homer's messes and setting the example for the family. This should be a role filled by Homer as the dad, but that's another argument. Homer Goes to College has tons of laughs, and that's really what it's all about!
5. The Cartridge Family
This episode shows that Homer and guns are a terrible and dangerous mix. After buying a gun, Homer generally uses it in every horrible way possible, appalling his family and even the NRA. His flippant regard for guns is funny because it's in a cartoon; in any other context it would be horrifying. Homer ends up choosing his family over the power of the gun, but only after some heavy consideration. Homer purchasing the gun at the gun store is one of my favorite bits of the series:
Also included is a great send up of soccer starting with this ridiculous commercial for an exhibition game to be hosted in Springfield:
Season 9 was hit and miss, but this one was brilliant.
6. Homer's Triple Bypass
Homer has always treated his body badly, and this episode highlights his dangerous overeating. Opening with Homer in bed gorging on a ridiculous amount of food, his heart turns from bad to worse as he needs a transplant. Lots of great Dr. Nick stuff, and some genuine emotion and love between the Simpson family. The scene where Homer is being fired by Mr. Burns is great:
7. Duffless
Another episode focusing on Homer's sinful indulgences, this one zeroes in on one of his greatest loves: beer. After Homer is arrested for DWI (NOT found DOA as Wiggum first states), his keys are taken away and he is sent to alcoholics anonymous. Marge pleads with her husband to stay away from beer for one month, in which Homer is tortured going through life without beer. The episode has a very sweet ending between Homer and his wife, where he realizes his family is much more important than beer (but then again he's back to swilling booze in the very next episode). Duffless introduces us to Homer's first experience with beer, a hilarious song in which Homer uses a fake ID:
Homer on beer is funny, and Homer without beer is equally so.
8. The City of New York vs. Homer Simpson
Another season 9 gem, this one shows Homer at his most enraged. After being forced to be the designated driver (and in the process being tortured by Duffman), Barney goes on a two month long bender that ends with Homer's car being parked between the World Trade Center towers. Homer has a deep hatred for New York, and despises having to go there. The physical comedy in this one is off the charts hilarious. When Homer decides to drive his car with the parking boot still on it, I completely lose it.
This one has no real sentimental or deeper value, it's just really really funny. This Luke Perry look-a-like in a musical about going into rehab won a Primetime Emmy.
Also, Homer really hates Mountain Dew:
9. Homer's Enemy
Homer's Enemy is one of the darker episodes of the series (along with another Season 8 episode called A Millhouse Divided, in which Millhouse's parents get divorced). Frank Grimes is a hard working man who can't really catch a break, which is the opposite of Homer. Homer is lazy and stupid, but seems to catch every break. Grimes is appalled by how much Homer has and all the things he's done. Homer tries to become friends with Grimes, but it continues to annoy Grimes to no end.
Grimes eventually goes insane at how Homer bumbles his way to a successful life, and it leads to his untimely death. It's totally dark, especially the "change the channel, Marge!" quip from Homer, at Grimes' funeral. This episode proved that The Simpsons could do dark comedy as well. Homer will drive you insane, and you will end up laughing at how oblivious he truly is.
10. Homer Badman
There might be some funnier episodes than Homer Badman, but the genius of this one forced me to put it in the top 10. After dropping off the kids babysitter, Homer reaches to grab a gummi bear that was lodged against her butt, causing her to claim sexual harassment charges against Homer. The media is absolutely roasted for the sensationalist embellishments they claim on a daily basis. Homer is treated instantly as a monster by TV and the newspaper, when his side of the story is actually true. This includes a made for TV movie released before any facts have even come out, depicting Homer as a total animal.
Don't get me wrong, the commentary is great but it's also extremely funny. Grandpa not wanting to recognize Missourah is something I often quote (especially now with Arkansas playing Missouri every year).
The list could go on and on. Generally any episode between seasons 3 and 8 is super funny. Most of these honorable mentions could easily make the top 10.
Honorable mentions:
Stark Raving Dad
When Flanders Failed
Lisa's Pony
Flaming Moe's
Burns Verkaufen der Draftwerk
Mr. Plow
Marge vs. the Monorail
Homer's Barbershop Quartet
Homer and Apu
Deep Space Homer
Bart of Darkness
Lisa on Ice
Itchy and Scratchy Land
Homer the Great
Bart vs. Australia
Radioactive Man
King-Size Homer
Team Homer
Homerpalooza
You Only Move Twice
A Milhouse Divided
Mountain of Madness
The Itchy & Scratchy & Poochie Show
Homer vs. the Eighteenth Amendment
Bart Star
King of the Hill
Homer to the Max
The Mansion Family
Wednesday, March 6, 2013
Taking off the Kid Goggles
Have you ever watched a movie or TV show many years after loving it as a kid only to realize, "Man, what was I thinking back then?" This is a phenomenon that I refer to as wearing "kid goggles". This is a term that I've been tossing around for years, which I may or may not have come up with (sometimes if you say things long enough you think that you started it). Taking off the kid goggles and realizing that one of your beloved favorites is actually horrible can be a traumatizing experience. And I'm not talking about watching a movie that's directed at kids as an adult and thinking it sucks, because there have been plenty of "kid" movies that are incredible (see: almost all Pixar movies, Disney classics, The Sandlot, Hook, etc.). I'm talking about watching a movie or show as an adult and wondering why in the world you ever liked (and in some instances absolutely adored) the piece of utter crap on the screen before you.
I think my most embarrassing examples are two Fox afternoon action TV shows, Power Rangers and Big Bad Beetle Borgs (yes, that second one is a real thing). From ages 7-11 I tried to watch these every time they came on after school (I know that age 7 was the starting point because both shows were rated TV-Y7, a recommendation that 6-year-old Drew felt was legally binding). One day after reminiscing upon my after school routine, I decided to at least look up the theme song to both of these. What I am about to show you may shock and horrify you, so proceed with caution:
OK a couple of things. First, how totally rad is that guitar riff on the Power Rangers intro? Was it recorded by Eddie van Halen or something? I'd like to also point out that Billy was always my favorite, being the "smart one", I guess I identified with him (he was also the nerdy one, which probably helped mold me into the movie blog writing nerd I am today). Big Bad Beetle Borgs is so astonishingly bad that I don't even know what to say. The line "BIG BAD BEETLE BORGS" as sung by the chorus from hell still rolls around my head every once in a while.
What's so funny about all of this is that I was in love with these two shows as a kid. After perusing some more clips of the actual show, it became abundantly clear that these two shows are the absolute lowest common denominator. Cheesy, stupid, somewhat offensive (you're telling me that it wasn't on purpose that in Power Rangers, the black ranger was black, the yellow ranger was Asian, and the red ranger had Native American heritage? Come on!), these shows had it all. Why was I so in love? Only one explanation. Kid goggles. As a kid, you really only require two things from a show or movie: slapstick humor, and the ability to identify with a character. That's pretty much it. You don't care if the dialogue is cringe inducing, or if every joke is as lame as watching Arkansas basketball road games, you just like it. In fact, I don't know that there was anything I watched that I didn't like.
In college I stumbled across Rookie of the Year, a movie I loved as a kid. It fulfilled both kid requirements to a T: abundant slapstick humor, and an identifiable character (a kid who gets to pitch in the majors? Yeah, 9-year-old me is way in). But after watching Rookie of the Year as an adult, or what I could sit through of it, I began to wonder what I was thinking back in the day. My kid goggles had been taken off, and Rookie of the Year will never be the same.
Here's another one: 3 Ninjas. Every boy around my age has seen this one, and has at one point wanted to actually become one of the 3 Ninjas. The movie has three kids being taught karate by their grandfather and using it to beat up the adult bad guys. Basically any 8-year-old boy's dream. I saw this one again in college on Netflix, and cruelly had my kid goggles ripped off. First off, if there is a record for saying "ay-ah!" in a movie, 3 Ninjasblows the competition out of the water. Every single punch, kick, or any other bodily movement is accompanied by this noise. The scene you're about to watch is what might be the most insane (not in a good way) movie scene ever, yet it didn't even stick out to me as a kid. Here it is:
The blocks, the dialogue, the dunking (dunking by a 5th grader?!) are all so insanely bad it's hard to fathom. Again, kid me loved this with all my heart. Wow.
Every once in a while you'll be pleasantly surprised with your tastes. I got The World Is Not Enough (James Bond movie with Denise Richards) for Christmas one year and probably watched it 50 times. Watched it again the other night, and despite the fact that Denise Richards is indeed the worst actress of all time, the movie is pretty good. Same goes for Batman: The Animated Series. This was appointment television as an 8-year-old, and after watching a bunch of the episodes again in college, I can say that my love was not misplaced. The writing and voice acting are really good, and any Batman fan will love them.
If you have a beloved childhood movie or TV show that you haven't seen since youth, I urge you to proceed with caution. Your childhood may come crashing down after realizing that hey, maybe the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles TV show on CBS isn't the greatest show ever. In fact, it's actually really, really bad. Dang it. There are the rare times that the nostalgia power is too strong; you might secretly know that Saved by the Bell is not exactly Seinfeld, but your emotional ties are just too strong to realize it (but let's get real, Saved by the Bell is a bad example because that show is one of the greats ever made. Mark-Paul Gosslear deserved an Emmy every year that show was on, but got totally snubbed. Bunch of hacks giving out those awards I tell ya). If you've ever had the thought, "Man I loved (insert show/movie) as a kid, maybe I should look it up on Netflix and watch it again!", I only have one piece of advice for you: just be careful when taking off your kid goggles.
Has anyone else had a movie or show ruined by taking off the kid goggles?
I think my most embarrassing examples are two Fox afternoon action TV shows, Power Rangers and Big Bad Beetle Borgs (yes, that second one is a real thing). From ages 7-11 I tried to watch these every time they came on after school (I know that age 7 was the starting point because both shows were rated TV-Y7, a recommendation that 6-year-old Drew felt was legally binding). One day after reminiscing upon my after school routine, I decided to at least look up the theme song to both of these. What I am about to show you may shock and horrify you, so proceed with caution:
What's so funny about all of this is that I was in love with these two shows as a kid. After perusing some more clips of the actual show, it became abundantly clear that these two shows are the absolute lowest common denominator. Cheesy, stupid, somewhat offensive (you're telling me that it wasn't on purpose that in Power Rangers, the black ranger was black, the yellow ranger was Asian, and the red ranger had Native American heritage? Come on!), these shows had it all. Why was I so in love? Only one explanation. Kid goggles. As a kid, you really only require two things from a show or movie: slapstick humor, and the ability to identify with a character. That's pretty much it. You don't care if the dialogue is cringe inducing, or if every joke is as lame as watching Arkansas basketball road games, you just like it. In fact, I don't know that there was anything I watched that I didn't like.
In college I stumbled across Rookie of the Year, a movie I loved as a kid. It fulfilled both kid requirements to a T: abundant slapstick humor, and an identifiable character (a kid who gets to pitch in the majors? Yeah, 9-year-old me is way in). But after watching Rookie of the Year as an adult, or what I could sit through of it, I began to wonder what I was thinking back in the day. My kid goggles had been taken off, and Rookie of the Year will never be the same.
Here's another one: 3 Ninjas. Every boy around my age has seen this one, and has at one point wanted to actually become one of the 3 Ninjas. The movie has three kids being taught karate by their grandfather and using it to beat up the adult bad guys. Basically any 8-year-old boy's dream. I saw this one again in college on Netflix, and cruelly had my kid goggles ripped off. First off, if there is a record for saying "ay-ah!" in a movie, 3 Ninjasblows the competition out of the water. Every single punch, kick, or any other bodily movement is accompanied by this noise. The scene you're about to watch is what might be the most insane (not in a good way) movie scene ever, yet it didn't even stick out to me as a kid. Here it is:
The blocks, the dialogue, the dunking (dunking by a 5th grader?!) are all so insanely bad it's hard to fathom. Again, kid me loved this with all my heart. Wow.
Every once in a while you'll be pleasantly surprised with your tastes. I got The World Is Not Enough (James Bond movie with Denise Richards) for Christmas one year and probably watched it 50 times. Watched it again the other night, and despite the fact that Denise Richards is indeed the worst actress of all time, the movie is pretty good. Same goes for Batman: The Animated Series. This was appointment television as an 8-year-old, and after watching a bunch of the episodes again in college, I can say that my love was not misplaced. The writing and voice acting are really good, and any Batman fan will love them.
If you have a beloved childhood movie or TV show that you haven't seen since youth, I urge you to proceed with caution. Your childhood may come crashing down after realizing that hey, maybe the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles TV show on CBS isn't the greatest show ever. In fact, it's actually really, really bad. Dang it. There are the rare times that the nostalgia power is too strong; you might secretly know that Saved by the Bell is not exactly Seinfeld, but your emotional ties are just too strong to realize it (but let's get real, Saved by the Bell is a bad example because that show is one of the greats ever made. Mark-Paul Gosslear deserved an Emmy every year that show was on, but got totally snubbed. Bunch of hacks giving out those awards I tell ya). If you've ever had the thought, "Man I loved (insert show/movie) as a kid, maybe I should look it up on Netflix and watch it again!", I only have one piece of advice for you: just be careful when taking off your kid goggles.
Has anyone else had a movie or show ruined by taking off the kid goggles?
Sunday, March 3, 2013
Zero Dark Thirty
As one of 2012's most controversial and talked about films, Zero Dark Thirty is not exactly what you'd expect, but still impressive. ZD30 is VERY well made, so much so that it feels documentary like. Just like two other big movies of 2012, Lincoln and Argo, ZD30 is telling a story that the audience already knows. Osama bin Laden was killed by U.S. forces in May 2011, and everyone is familiar with what happened. But director Kathryn Bigelow does a great job keeping the intensity high, and the audience on the edge of their seats.
In the wake of the 9/11 terror attacks, U.S. intelligence was able to pin point that bin Laden and the al-Qaeda terrorist organization were behind the strike. ZD30 is the story of tracking down bin Laden and killing him. At the head of the search is Maya (Jessica Chastain) a young woman whose whole career becomes devoted to finding bin Laden. From 2003-2011 she is completely consumed by the search, at the expense of everything else in her life. The movie spans from initial intelligence in the wake of the attacks to the raid on bin Laden's compound in Pakistan.There are no spoilers to warn about because the story is out there, and happened very recently.
The first hour of the movie shows how the U.S. was able to obtain the initial leads on bin Laden, and it was largely done through the use of torture. The torture scenes are brutal. Not brutal in the way that the Saw movies depict torture, but I could feel the psychological effect it had on the men being tortured. Bigelow pulls no punches in showing water boarding, physical brutality, and psychological torture through the use of sleep and sensory deprivation. After the movie premiered, the buzz was around the use of torture in the film. Many thought that it glorified its use; the Americans use it to gain information, and the information leads to the killing of bin Laden, plain and simple. I didn't feel like the movie was taking a stand on torture either way. It felt to me like the filmmakers told the story that they had from descriptions of first hand accounts. Whether or not you agree with the use of torture to gain information, you have to accept that it was a means to an end in tracking down one of the world's most evil villains. It's hard for me not to take some sort of stand on the issue, but I felt like the people using it were doing so in a "war time" context, and I didn't find myself so appalled by their actions. But luckily I've never been faced with the choice of torturing another human being for information, or using other more humane, and possibly less effective, interrogation techniques when lives are at stake. I think that if I were faced with the issue head on, my perspective would probably change. In a perfect world, torture would never enter the conversation, but that is just not where we live.
Jessica Chastain is great as Maya, the woman who was largely responsible for finding bin Laden. She never gives up in pursuit of finding him, and her tenacity is what convinces her superiors that the search needs to continue. Chastain is great, and while I still think that I like Jennifer Lawrence in Silver Linings Playbook better, Chastain's performance is incredibly real and equally deserved of a nomination for Best Actress. The rest of the cast is made up of mostly unknowns or character actors (actors who you know you've seen but aren't big enough for you to remember their name; in ZD30 there's Harold Perrineau, Kyle Chandler, and Jason Clarke, all actors whom you will recognize when you see, but probably didn't recognize their names as I just listed them). I thought that the two biggest faces were James Gandolfini (The Sopranos) as one of Maya's superiors, and Christ Pratt (Parks and Recreation) as one of the soldiers in the team that took down bin Laden. After his portrayal of Andy Dwyer on Parks, it's really hard for me to take Pratt seriously. He is so goofy in the show that every time he said something in the movie I felt like he was about to say a classic Andy line ("Wow, sounds like you're going some tough stuff right now. Too bad there's not doctors for your mind."). The relative anonymity of the cast works in the favor of the film's documentary-like feel, in that you're never taken out of the movie by seeing recognizable faces. They all seem like the real people, and in a movie like ZD30, that's a very good thing.
At a run time of over 2 and a half hours, ZD30 is long, but is paced relatively well. It slows a little bit in the middle, but once the location of bin Laden is exposed, the movie really takes off. The last 30 minutes are as intense as you'll see, and you know the ending! Kathryn Bigelow was majorly snubbed for not getting a best director nomination, probably having to do with the controversy surrounding the torture depicted in the film. She won for The Hurt Locker in 2010, but her work is about the same in quality on ZD30. The Hurt Locker was more intimately focused on a few soldiers fighting in the Middle East, while this film is more about the story than the characters. Characters come in and out quickly throughout the entire film; I honestly think that Maya was the only person whose name I remembered. I could have used a little more connection with the people involved with the hunt, but the story is so engaging that the movie is still very good.
When this film was first announced, I was heavily expecting it to be a very politics driven film designed to help President Obama win re-election. Bigelow does an incredible job of staying almost completely clear of politics and telling a story that is incredible on its own. ZD30 is yet another fantastic 2012 film. The more I catch up on the very best of last year, the more I'm blown away at the depth and quality of films it produced across many genres. I keep giving high ratings to these films, but it's because they're all deserved! Maybe I should go see that terrible looking magician movie with Steve Carrell and Jim Carrey to get a little perspective. Oh well.
4/5
In the wake of the 9/11 terror attacks, U.S. intelligence was able to pin point that bin Laden and the al-Qaeda terrorist organization were behind the strike. ZD30 is the story of tracking down bin Laden and killing him. At the head of the search is Maya (Jessica Chastain) a young woman whose whole career becomes devoted to finding bin Laden. From 2003-2011 she is completely consumed by the search, at the expense of everything else in her life. The movie spans from initial intelligence in the wake of the attacks to the raid on bin Laden's compound in Pakistan.There are no spoilers to warn about because the story is out there, and happened very recently.
The first hour of the movie shows how the U.S. was able to obtain the initial leads on bin Laden, and it was largely done through the use of torture. The torture scenes are brutal. Not brutal in the way that the Saw movies depict torture, but I could feel the psychological effect it had on the men being tortured. Bigelow pulls no punches in showing water boarding, physical brutality, and psychological torture through the use of sleep and sensory deprivation. After the movie premiered, the buzz was around the use of torture in the film. Many thought that it glorified its use; the Americans use it to gain information, and the information leads to the killing of bin Laden, plain and simple. I didn't feel like the movie was taking a stand on torture either way. It felt to me like the filmmakers told the story that they had from descriptions of first hand accounts. Whether or not you agree with the use of torture to gain information, you have to accept that it was a means to an end in tracking down one of the world's most evil villains. It's hard for me not to take some sort of stand on the issue, but I felt like the people using it were doing so in a "war time" context, and I didn't find myself so appalled by their actions. But luckily I've never been faced with the choice of torturing another human being for information, or using other more humane, and possibly less effective, interrogation techniques when lives are at stake. I think that if I were faced with the issue head on, my perspective would probably change. In a perfect world, torture would never enter the conversation, but that is just not where we live.
Jessica Chastain is great as Maya, the woman who was largely responsible for finding bin Laden. She never gives up in pursuit of finding him, and her tenacity is what convinces her superiors that the search needs to continue. Chastain is great, and while I still think that I like Jennifer Lawrence in Silver Linings Playbook better, Chastain's performance is incredibly real and equally deserved of a nomination for Best Actress. The rest of the cast is made up of mostly unknowns or character actors (actors who you know you've seen but aren't big enough for you to remember their name; in ZD30 there's Harold Perrineau, Kyle Chandler, and Jason Clarke, all actors whom you will recognize when you see, but probably didn't recognize their names as I just listed them). I thought that the two biggest faces were James Gandolfini (The Sopranos) as one of Maya's superiors, and Christ Pratt (Parks and Recreation) as one of the soldiers in the team that took down bin Laden. After his portrayal of Andy Dwyer on Parks, it's really hard for me to take Pratt seriously. He is so goofy in the show that every time he said something in the movie I felt like he was about to say a classic Andy line ("Wow, sounds like you're going some tough stuff right now. Too bad there's not doctors for your mind."). The relative anonymity of the cast works in the favor of the film's documentary-like feel, in that you're never taken out of the movie by seeing recognizable faces. They all seem like the real people, and in a movie like ZD30, that's a very good thing.
At a run time of over 2 and a half hours, ZD30 is long, but is paced relatively well. It slows a little bit in the middle, but once the location of bin Laden is exposed, the movie really takes off. The last 30 minutes are as intense as you'll see, and you know the ending! Kathryn Bigelow was majorly snubbed for not getting a best director nomination, probably having to do with the controversy surrounding the torture depicted in the film. She won for The Hurt Locker in 2010, but her work is about the same in quality on ZD30. The Hurt Locker was more intimately focused on a few soldiers fighting in the Middle East, while this film is more about the story than the characters. Characters come in and out quickly throughout the entire film; I honestly think that Maya was the only person whose name I remembered. I could have used a little more connection with the people involved with the hunt, but the story is so engaging that the movie is still very good.
When this film was first announced, I was heavily expecting it to be a very politics driven film designed to help President Obama win re-election. Bigelow does an incredible job of staying almost completely clear of politics and telling a story that is incredible on its own. ZD30 is yet another fantastic 2012 film. The more I catch up on the very best of last year, the more I'm blown away at the depth and quality of films it produced across many genres. I keep giving high ratings to these films, but it's because they're all deserved! Maybe I should go see that terrible looking magician movie with Steve Carrell and Jim Carrey to get a little perspective. Oh well.
4/5
Wednesday, February 27, 2013
Silver Linings Playbook
Silver Linings Playbook was nominated for 8 Academy Awards, and won for Best Actress (Jennifer Lawrence). Playbook is a romantic-comedy at its core, but is so much more. Set in Philadelphia, the story centers around Pat (Bradley Cooper) and his family, mental illness, love for Philly sports teams, grief, and relationships. It is easily one of the best romantic comedies I have ever seen, and doesn't fall into the normal traps and conventions that the genre brings. The movie was nominated in all four acting categories, and it was definitely deserved.
Pat Solitano has just been released from a mental hospital; probably a bit too early, but at his mother's (Jacki Weaver) insistence. Pat was appointed there after nearly beating a man to death. Pat walked in on his wife (Brea Bee) cheating with another man, became unhinged, and nearly killed him. Pat had undiagnosed bi-polar disorder, something his stay at the hospital was helping him to control. Upon his return home he is greeted by his OCD father Pat Sr. (Robert De Niro), who believes that Pat is good luck for the Philadelphia Eagles. Pat is trying to turn his life around and get his wife back. He's trying to find a "silver lining" to his difficult situation. At a dinner party, Pat meets Tiffany (Lawrence), a young widow who seems to be a bit unhinged as well.
Pat struggles through his bi-polar disorder, and the audience struggles along with him. When he has an episode, the editing is such that the audience feels suffocated. You want to help Pat calm down, but the nature of his condition won't allow it. I found myself feeling uncomfortable, especially in a scene where he frantically searches for his wedding video, and inadvertently ends up striking his mother. Playbook deals with mental illness head on. His father deals with OCD, and although it seems cliche to have a father and son deal with two mental illnesses that are used all the time in movies and TV, it works. Pat Jr. suffers, and his relationship with his father is strained because of what they both have to deal with. His father knows that a part of why Pat turned out the way he did is because of him. Several scenes of attempted reconciliation between Pat and his dad are incredibly moving and sweet; in fact seeing De Niro in such a vulnerable way is an unexpected treat. Pat is almost obsessed with the idea that he and his estranged wife are going to be together, despite the fact that she was unfaithful, and the minor issue of her restraining order against Pat. Living with a mental illness is not easy, and most probably don't fully understand it. You can see Pat's mother struggle with trying to deal with her husband and son. Director David O. Russell does a great job handling these heavy subjects with humor and an unexplainable lightness, something he also did in The Fighter.
Linked with all of these family issues are the Philadelphia Eagles. In the 2000's, the Eagles were the hard luck team of the NFL, losing three NFC championship games and one Super Bowl. The film takes place in 2008, and much of it revolves around the Eagles season, including some important bets made on games. It was touching to see how much the Eagles meant to the family, especially Pat's opening monologue where he describes Sunday as his favorite day of the week. As a major Arkansas Razorback fan, I've always felt that Arkansas' sports have brought my family together time and time again, and do the same for so many other families, as evidenced in Playbook.
Tiffany and Pat are both a mess. Tiffany has dealt with her grief through meaningless sexual encounters, and is trapped by her reputation as a "whore". But when Tiffany meets Pat, she sees him as someone like her. Someone that will be honest and not try to cover up feelings or inadequacies. Tiffany embraces her shortcomings and how she is messed up, and she likes Pat because he is trying to do the same. Tiffany promises Pat that she will help him get close to Nikki in exchange for help with a dance competition. This sounds a little bit dumb but it works. The dancing scenes are fun, and you can see the cathartic value it has for both. When Pat is with Tiffany, his episodes are less. He feels freer and so does the audience. The banter between these two is funny and real, and you can feel their connection. You can see the outcome from a mile away, but it's done in a way that make the ending feel satisfying, and not cheesy.
Jennifer Lawrence won Best Actress for her performance, and I can easily see why. Her character is headstrong and stubborn, but Lawrence plays it so that you can always see her vulnerability right under the surface. Lawrence is quickly rising to super-stardom in Hollywood, now with an Oscar and an extremely bankable franchise, The Hunger Games, in tow. Lawrence is beautiful, but not in a Scarlett Johansson or Mila Kunis type way; she seems like the kind of person you could actually meet in real life an talk to. Her performance is impressive, especially since she is significantly younger than all of her co-stars. In fact, she is almost 15 years younger than Cooper, her on-screen love interest. It's not as weird as say, Jim Carrey and Zooey Deschanel in Yes Man (where Zooey clearly looks much younger than Carrey, an 18 year difference), but that is because Cooper's short haircut and scruffy beard just make him look younger. Cooper does a fine job playing totally against type. Normally he's the charming jerk (The Hangover, The A-Team), but here he's an extremely wounded, sweet guy with a crazy streak.
Playbook has a great soundtrack, wonderfully incorporating rock songs into the film, including one by Led Zeppelin. A great soundtrack and how it's integrated can be vital to a film's success. A song can totally make a good scene into a great scene. Stealer's Wheel's "Stuck in the Middle With You" is forever linked to the ear-cutting scene in Reservoir Dogs. The outro to "Layla" by Derek and The Dominoes is perfect for the scene in Goodfellas where basically everyone gets whacked. "Hero" by Regina Spektor is always a haunting reminder of the "expectations vs. reality" scene in (500) Days of Summer. These are just a few examples of how a great song choice can raise a scene's impact. Currently the Academy gives out awards for Best Original Song and Best Original Score, but I would suggest that they add a "Best Soundtrack" statue that would go to the best use of popular music in a film.
Silver Linings Playbook is a complex movie with a romantic center. It has tendencies of a serious drama and also a romantic comedy. I was very impressed by this movie, further evidencing how strong of a year 2012 was. It's a shame it took me this long to see it!
4/5
Pat Solitano has just been released from a mental hospital; probably a bit too early, but at his mother's (Jacki Weaver) insistence. Pat was appointed there after nearly beating a man to death. Pat walked in on his wife (Brea Bee) cheating with another man, became unhinged, and nearly killed him. Pat had undiagnosed bi-polar disorder, something his stay at the hospital was helping him to control. Upon his return home he is greeted by his OCD father Pat Sr. (Robert De Niro), who believes that Pat is good luck for the Philadelphia Eagles. Pat is trying to turn his life around and get his wife back. He's trying to find a "silver lining" to his difficult situation. At a dinner party, Pat meets Tiffany (Lawrence), a young widow who seems to be a bit unhinged as well.
Pat struggles through his bi-polar disorder, and the audience struggles along with him. When he has an episode, the editing is such that the audience feels suffocated. You want to help Pat calm down, but the nature of his condition won't allow it. I found myself feeling uncomfortable, especially in a scene where he frantically searches for his wedding video, and inadvertently ends up striking his mother. Playbook deals with mental illness head on. His father deals with OCD, and although it seems cliche to have a father and son deal with two mental illnesses that are used all the time in movies and TV, it works. Pat Jr. suffers, and his relationship with his father is strained because of what they both have to deal with. His father knows that a part of why Pat turned out the way he did is because of him. Several scenes of attempted reconciliation between Pat and his dad are incredibly moving and sweet; in fact seeing De Niro in such a vulnerable way is an unexpected treat. Pat is almost obsessed with the idea that he and his estranged wife are going to be together, despite the fact that she was unfaithful, and the minor issue of her restraining order against Pat. Living with a mental illness is not easy, and most probably don't fully understand it. You can see Pat's mother struggle with trying to deal with her husband and son. Director David O. Russell does a great job handling these heavy subjects with humor and an unexplainable lightness, something he also did in The Fighter.
Linked with all of these family issues are the Philadelphia Eagles. In the 2000's, the Eagles were the hard luck team of the NFL, losing three NFC championship games and one Super Bowl. The film takes place in 2008, and much of it revolves around the Eagles season, including some important bets made on games. It was touching to see how much the Eagles meant to the family, especially Pat's opening monologue where he describes Sunday as his favorite day of the week. As a major Arkansas Razorback fan, I've always felt that Arkansas' sports have brought my family together time and time again, and do the same for so many other families, as evidenced in Playbook.
Tiffany and Pat are both a mess. Tiffany has dealt with her grief through meaningless sexual encounters, and is trapped by her reputation as a "whore". But when Tiffany meets Pat, she sees him as someone like her. Someone that will be honest and not try to cover up feelings or inadequacies. Tiffany embraces her shortcomings and how she is messed up, and she likes Pat because he is trying to do the same. Tiffany promises Pat that she will help him get close to Nikki in exchange for help with a dance competition. This sounds a little bit dumb but it works. The dancing scenes are fun, and you can see the cathartic value it has for both. When Pat is with Tiffany, his episodes are less. He feels freer and so does the audience. The banter between these two is funny and real, and you can feel their connection. You can see the outcome from a mile away, but it's done in a way that make the ending feel satisfying, and not cheesy.
Jennifer Lawrence won Best Actress for her performance, and I can easily see why. Her character is headstrong and stubborn, but Lawrence plays it so that you can always see her vulnerability right under the surface. Lawrence is quickly rising to super-stardom in Hollywood, now with an Oscar and an extremely bankable franchise, The Hunger Games, in tow. Lawrence is beautiful, but not in a Scarlett Johansson or Mila Kunis type way; she seems like the kind of person you could actually meet in real life an talk to. Her performance is impressive, especially since she is significantly younger than all of her co-stars. In fact, she is almost 15 years younger than Cooper, her on-screen love interest. It's not as weird as say, Jim Carrey and Zooey Deschanel in Yes Man (where Zooey clearly looks much younger than Carrey, an 18 year difference), but that is because Cooper's short haircut and scruffy beard just make him look younger. Cooper does a fine job playing totally against type. Normally he's the charming jerk (The Hangover, The A-Team), but here he's an extremely wounded, sweet guy with a crazy streak.
Playbook has a great soundtrack, wonderfully incorporating rock songs into the film, including one by Led Zeppelin. A great soundtrack and how it's integrated can be vital to a film's success. A song can totally make a good scene into a great scene. Stealer's Wheel's "Stuck in the Middle With You" is forever linked to the ear-cutting scene in Reservoir Dogs. The outro to "Layla" by Derek and The Dominoes is perfect for the scene in Goodfellas where basically everyone gets whacked. "Hero" by Regina Spektor is always a haunting reminder of the "expectations vs. reality" scene in (500) Days of Summer. These are just a few examples of how a great song choice can raise a scene's impact. Currently the Academy gives out awards for Best Original Song and Best Original Score, but I would suggest that they add a "Best Soundtrack" statue that would go to the best use of popular music in a film.
Silver Linings Playbook is a complex movie with a romantic center. It has tendencies of a serious drama and also a romantic comedy. I was very impressed by this movie, further evidencing how strong of a year 2012 was. It's a shame it took me this long to see it!
4/5
Wednesday, February 6, 2013
Jack Reacher
Let me get this out of the way: I think that Tom Cruise is one of the best actors in Hollywood. My criteria for "best" being, "are they in good movies and do they do a good job in said movies?" Cruise absolutely fits this bill. Just take a look at his movies over the last ten years:
Jack Reacher
Rock of Ages
Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol
Knight and Day
Valkyrie
Tropic Thunder
Lions for Lambs
Mission Impossible III
War of the Worlds
Collateral
The Last Samurai
Minority Report
I haven't seen Lions for Lambs or Rock of Ages, but all the rest of those are good to great (especially Minority Report and Collateral). He's done comedy, action, and drama, and has been consistently good in all of it. I don't think anyone will refute the fact that personally he's a total nutbar, but professionally, he's one of the best in the business.
Going into Jack Reacher I expected a charismatic performance from Cruise, some good action, and a serviceable plot. That is exactly what I got. Reacher is based off of the Lee Child book series about former military policeman Jack Reacher (Tom Cruise). Reacher is called in after a mass murder suspect asks for him by name during his interrogation. From his time in the service, Reacher knows this man to be a killer who has gotten away with murder, and wants to see him brought to justice. He reluctantly agrees to help the defense attorney (Rosamund Pike) investigate the matter, and starts to uncover the pieces of what actually happened.
Reacher is kind of your basic conspiracy movie. The plot moves along almost like an episode of Law and Order. The opening set of murders is shown, Reacher comes in to investigate, and there are some good twists and turns. If you're looking for a great police investigation movie like Se7en, then this movie will do nothing for you. Some of the twists were surprising, I just found myself not caring that much about them.
Where Reacher separates itself is, you guessed it, through Tom Cruise. He's the coolest and most confident person on screen every time he shows up. He's one step ahead of pretty much everyone; he's smarter, stronger, and more capable than any adversary. If this were any other actor besides Tom Cruise, I'd be put off by his superhero like ability. Actually, he's better than a superhero because superheros at least have one weakness. Reacher basically has no blind spots except for the fact that he's a minor hot head. Otherwise he does whatever he needs to and being a drifter who is "off the grid" in the first place, he has no real consequences except for death, which you never really feel is a threat. Cruise makes Reacher interesting because he's Tom Cruise. If you're a fan of his on-screen persona, you'll love it. If not, I'm guessing you will be less impressed.
Jack Reacher is a run of the mill action movie with an extremely charismatic lead actor. Much like Knight and Day, which was similar in its overall mediocrity, you will love or hate Jack Reacher based on how you feel about Tom Cruise. Personally, I love Cruise, and thought Reacher wasn't half bad.
3/5
Jack Reacher
Rock of Ages
Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol
Knight and Day
Valkyrie
Tropic Thunder
Lions for Lambs
Mission Impossible III
War of the Worlds
Collateral
The Last Samurai
Minority Report
I haven't seen Lions for Lambs or Rock of Ages, but all the rest of those are good to great (especially Minority Report and Collateral). He's done comedy, action, and drama, and has been consistently good in all of it. I don't think anyone will refute the fact that personally he's a total nutbar, but professionally, he's one of the best in the business.
Going into Jack Reacher I expected a charismatic performance from Cruise, some good action, and a serviceable plot. That is exactly what I got. Reacher is based off of the Lee Child book series about former military policeman Jack Reacher (Tom Cruise). Reacher is called in after a mass murder suspect asks for him by name during his interrogation. From his time in the service, Reacher knows this man to be a killer who has gotten away with murder, and wants to see him brought to justice. He reluctantly agrees to help the defense attorney (Rosamund Pike) investigate the matter, and starts to uncover the pieces of what actually happened.
Reacher is kind of your basic conspiracy movie. The plot moves along almost like an episode of Law and Order. The opening set of murders is shown, Reacher comes in to investigate, and there are some good twists and turns. If you're looking for a great police investigation movie like Se7en, then this movie will do nothing for you. Some of the twists were surprising, I just found myself not caring that much about them.
Where Reacher separates itself is, you guessed it, through Tom Cruise. He's the coolest and most confident person on screen every time he shows up. He's one step ahead of pretty much everyone; he's smarter, stronger, and more capable than any adversary. If this were any other actor besides Tom Cruise, I'd be put off by his superhero like ability. Actually, he's better than a superhero because superheros at least have one weakness. Reacher basically has no blind spots except for the fact that he's a minor hot head. Otherwise he does whatever he needs to and being a drifter who is "off the grid" in the first place, he has no real consequences except for death, which you never really feel is a threat. Cruise makes Reacher interesting because he's Tom Cruise. If you're a fan of his on-screen persona, you'll love it. If not, I'm guessing you will be less impressed.
Jack Reacher is a run of the mill action movie with an extremely charismatic lead actor. Much like Knight and Day, which was similar in its overall mediocrity, you will love or hate Jack Reacher based on how you feel about Tom Cruise. Personally, I love Cruise, and thought Reacher wasn't half bad.
3/5
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)