A few years ago, upon watching the slightly-underrated Hollywoodland, I came to a seemingly random and unlikely conclusion. The film, based on the real life suicide of George Reeves (TV's original Superman), stars Adrien Brody as a private investigator who gets caught up in the investigation via a series of seemingly unrelated twists and turns. It is not, admittedly, the best-made movie (or even particularly well-made, though there is certainly talent behind it), but it does showcase a rebounding Ben Affleck as George Reeves. A small role, to be sure, but one lucky enough to be the centerpiece of the film's plot.
I don't know why (no, really, I have no clue), but as I finished watching Hollywoodland I thought to myself, "Ben Affleck would make a good director." At the time there was absolutely nothing to base this conclusion on. One might be able to point to the screenplay for Good Will Hunting (which he co-wrote with Matt Damon), but given the controversies surrounding who actually wrote (or helped mentor, at the very least) that script, it's not wise to for the sake of an argument. Affleck had yet to direct anything that I'm aware of. And, let's face it, his acting resume had turned into a bit of a laughing stock (Gigli, anyone?).
The year after Hollywoodland, however, Gone Baby Gone (2007, by the way) was released. It blew me away. The director? Ben Affleck.
Sure, it was only one film, but I suddenly felt vindicated for having that seemingly random and unlikely conclusion.
Fast-forward three years to 2010. The Town gets a release. It doesn't blow me away like Gone Baby Gone did, but I'm thoroughly entertained and deeply admire its director for actually filming a car chase in which we're not getting dizzy trying to follow the action (in fact, I claim that it's the best-directed Hollywood car chase since Frankeheimer's Ronin way back in 1998). The Town, simply put, is an expertly-made film. The director? Ben Affleck (who, like Eastwood in Gran Torino, fit himself into a leading role perfectly).
A few months ago I wrote about who I felt were the greatest living American film directors. To me, Clint Eastwood currently sits on that throne. But, given the advanced age of the directors on that list, I openly admitted to eagerly awaiting the next batch of great American directors.
I realize I'm going out on a limb here, but I'm putting Ben Affleck on that list. And I'm calling him the heir apparent to Eastwood (for several reasons, some of which are painfully obvious).
No, I'm not joking. I have a feeling his next film will prove me right. If it doesn't, then, well, his film after that one will.
Showing posts with label movies. Show all posts
Showing posts with label movies. Show all posts
Monday, November 15, 2010
Wednesday, November 10, 2010
Only in the Film Industry...
True story. So, I'm working on Michael Mann's new HBO television series, Luck, and I'm blown away by the talent. Dustin Hoffman, Dennis Farina, Richard Kind. Crazy stuff. It's a show about the seedy side of horse racing, and it's gonna rock. Is it the next The Sopranos? I dunno, but it's gonna rock.
But, all of that is irrelevant to the story I'm going to share.
A lot of the series is shot at the famous Santa Anita racetrack in Arcadia, California, just a couple dozen miles outside of Los Angeles. And it's shot at the racetrack during hours of operation. Which means there are a lot of people running around trying to prevent racing patrons (read: gamblers) from walking into shots. Luck is not unique in this... every location shoot has to deal with locals. When the cameras are rolling, such dealings are called lock-downs. And they're not always friendly.
As it happens, I was asked to block a rather large staircase AND a rather large hallway. Dustin Hoffman and Dennis Farina were filming a scene (over and over again, I must add) in which they rode up an escalator while discussing betting on a certain horse (that's all I'll reveal about the show... just watch it when it premieres). This staircase and hallway were under said escalator, and the exit the patrons were (or would) attempt to use to leave the track was beside said escalator.
In other words, before I ramble too much, it was rather important to block the exit. So much so, there were three or four "layers" of lock-down. Of which I was the first.
Anyway, most (I'd say 95%) of the patrons simply nodded when informed of the filming, turned and left via another exit. That stated, that 95% was still rather difficult to deal since they either A) were elderly and didn't seem fit enough to take the alternate stairway, B) spoke little or no English (a surprisingly large amount of them didn't), or C) initially pretended that I wasn't standing there talking to them.
But that other 5%... hah! Oh, boy. Two instances stand out. No, wait, three.
1. An old man and an old woman, upon being approached to take another exit, started screaming about how the elderly are mistreated. Right, dude... you've got enough strength to walk the paddock to the betting booths, then up the stairs to the viewing room or bleachers, but not enough to walk around a set. Okay, whatever.
2. A woman, upon being approached to take another exit, said: "I ain't coming here no more. I get disrespected all the time by all these damn Asians" (yes, there are a lot of Asians working at the track, and even more gambling at the track, but I was only one of a handful on the film crew).
3. My personal favorite. A man, who at first seemed polite and attentive, suddenly turned hostile, throwing down his racing program and yelling, "Why don't you go shoot your movie in China?" I responded, calmly, "Because I was born in Florida." Never mind that I'm not even Chinese. And that it wasn't my movie.
I actually found it all a bit hilarious and couldn't stop myself from laughing. Even if I'd been upset by it, watching two great actors (Hoffman and Farina) and standing next to one of my directing heroes (Michael Mann... you can read what I've written about him here) more than made up for any negative experiences from set.
Still, given the pervasive attitudes in America, it's no wonder why I'm moving to Australia.
I love the movies.
But, all of that is irrelevant to the story I'm going to share.
A lot of the series is shot at the famous Santa Anita racetrack in Arcadia, California, just a couple dozen miles outside of Los Angeles. And it's shot at the racetrack during hours of operation. Which means there are a lot of people running around trying to prevent racing patrons (read: gamblers) from walking into shots. Luck is not unique in this... every location shoot has to deal with locals. When the cameras are rolling, such dealings are called lock-downs. And they're not always friendly.
As it happens, I was asked to block a rather large staircase AND a rather large hallway. Dustin Hoffman and Dennis Farina were filming a scene (over and over again, I must add) in which they rode up an escalator while discussing betting on a certain horse (that's all I'll reveal about the show... just watch it when it premieres). This staircase and hallway were under said escalator, and the exit the patrons were (or would) attempt to use to leave the track was beside said escalator.
In other words, before I ramble too much, it was rather important to block the exit. So much so, there were three or four "layers" of lock-down. Of which I was the first.
Anyway, most (I'd say 95%) of the patrons simply nodded when informed of the filming, turned and left via another exit. That stated, that 95% was still rather difficult to deal since they either A) were elderly and didn't seem fit enough to take the alternate stairway, B) spoke little or no English (a surprisingly large amount of them didn't), or C) initially pretended that I wasn't standing there talking to them.
But that other 5%... hah! Oh, boy. Two instances stand out. No, wait, three.
1. An old man and an old woman, upon being approached to take another exit, started screaming about how the elderly are mistreated. Right, dude... you've got enough strength to walk the paddock to the betting booths, then up the stairs to the viewing room or bleachers, but not enough to walk around a set. Okay, whatever.
2. A woman, upon being approached to take another exit, said: "I ain't coming here no more. I get disrespected all the time by all these damn Asians" (yes, there are a lot of Asians working at the track, and even more gambling at the track, but I was only one of a handful on the film crew).
3. My personal favorite. A man, who at first seemed polite and attentive, suddenly turned hostile, throwing down his racing program and yelling, "Why don't you go shoot your movie in China?" I responded, calmly, "Because I was born in Florida." Never mind that I'm not even Chinese. And that it wasn't my movie.
I actually found it all a bit hilarious and couldn't stop myself from laughing. Even if I'd been upset by it, watching two great actors (Hoffman and Farina) and standing next to one of my directing heroes (Michael Mann... you can read what I've written about him here) more than made up for any negative experiences from set.
Still, given the pervasive attitudes in America, it's no wonder why I'm moving to Australia.
I love the movies.
Monday, September 27, 2010
The Best of Each 007
As some may have noticed, I've been watching all of the Bond films (in order, mind you). Initially my intent was to introduce my niece and nephew to the grandeur of the world of James Bond, but it quickly became a preferred activity for myself. Though they're both clearly Pierce Brosnan fans (their first introduction to Bond was watching me play the excellent Everything or Nothing video game on Xbox), it's a hilarious thing to see two under-ten-year-olds running around quoting the earlier films. It's also a bit disconcerting to learn that my niece now intends on marrying Bond, but that's another story.
It's a long-running exercise in the media to try to determine who the best Bond is, and while I admit I even gave it a whirl (albeit a half-assed whirl), I'm not convinced that anyone can even honestly try. I mean, Sean Connery has the advantage of originating the role, so even if he had stunk, he'd still be the bar by which all other comers are measured (Michael Keaton as Batman ring a bell?). George Lazenby (admittedly my least favorite Bond) only had one film, so judging him isn't altogether fair (he's certainly not helped by the lack of significant non-Bond projects). Roger Moore gave us the light-hearted and campy Bond, which doesn't really allow for direct comparison to any of the others. Timothy Dalton tried to channel the literary Bond (and generally succeeded, for better or worse). Pierce Brosnan, in my humble opinion, was the ultimate Bond, but suffered from scripts that were too grandiose, even for Bond films. And now, Daniel Craig is hitting the screen as arguably the least-traditional Bond, albeit one who is an amalgamation of Connery and Dalton.
What does this all mean? Well, everyone's going to have a different opinion of who the best Bond is, and those opinions are likely heavily influenced by who the actor was in the first Bond film seen (with notable exceptions, since Moore was the first Bond I remember, though I didn't become a Bond fanatic until Dalton had the role).
In light of all of this, instead of trying to judge who the best 007 is, I'm going to list what I think are the best films played by each of the Bond actors.
Sean Connery - From Russia With Love
I've stated this elsewhere, but From Russia With Love must be heralded for being the first Bond film in which the so-called Bond formula is utilized. Not only that, it stays remarkably close to the book and is an excellent movie. Sure, Dr. No is held closely to Bond film aficionados' hearts, but only because it is the first big screen depiction of 007. Thunderball is damned good, too, and can easily be argued as the best, but the rest are too chaotic, too over the top (Goldfinger and You Only Live Twice included, both of which aren't bad... but don't get me started on Diamonds Are Forever).
George Lazenby - On Her Majesty's Secret Service
This one's obvious, since it's Lazenby's only Bond film. But, I must admit, even in light of Lazenby's slightly disappointing "Connery-emulation," On Her Majesty's Secret Service is one of the series' best overall entries.
Roger Moore - For Your Eyes Only
Moore started out fairly seriously (Live and Let Die), but quickly delved into camp (although The Man With the Golden Gun is a sentimental favorite... blame it on a lonely night in South Korea). The Spy Who Loved Me is a good one, but Moonraker is an embarrassment. And, let's face it, by Octopussy and A View to a Kill, Moore was too old for the role. But in between Moonraker and Octopussy, we got a return to the kick-ass version of Bond we all know and love with For Your Eyes Only. With one of the most sentimental scenes in Bond film history (visiting his dead wife's grave) and the best ski sequences since On Her Majesty's Secret Service, this film stands out as far and away Moore's overall best.
Timothy Dalton - The Living Daylights
This one is also fairly obvious, even in spite of the misguided love towards License to Kill (the only Bond film to earn an R rating upon release... since re-rated, by the way). Dalton's intro is perfect, with a slam-bang pre-title sequence that shows us three 00 agents on screen at the same time, and an opening post-title sequence that is almost verbatim an adaptation of the short story the film is based on. Dalton could have went a long way as Bond, but thanks to some legal issues that delayed the Bond franchise for six years between License to Kill and Goldeneye (the longest break between Bond films so far), we'll never know.
Pierce Brosnan - Goldeneye
Though all of Brosnan's films successfully brought Agent 007 back into the limelight of world cinema, it is his first effort that is the best. Goldeneye has one of the best Bond villains ever (Sean Bean as a traitorous 006), the best Bond girls out of any Brosnan entry, and a script that is remarkably subdued (though still outlandish). Tomorrow Never Dies is a good one, as well, replete with an excellent villain, but its attempt at sentimentality (in the guise of an old flame of Bond's) falls a bit flat. The World Is Not Enough has a horrible script and, though populated by two excellent Bond girls (portrayed by Maria Grazia Cucinotta and Sophie Marceau), has the worst Bond girl ever (Christmas Jones, portrayed by Denise Richards). Die Another Day serves as a good wrap to the film franchise's first 40 years, but the heavy reliance on computer imagery and the appearance of Halle Berry (thank goodness they didn't greenlight her planned spinoff franchise) just doesn't work for me.
Daniel Craig - Casino Royale
The jury's still out on Craig, seeing as how he's only done two and is contractually obligated for more (and we might be waiting awhile, since another extracurricular issue is threatening to derail the franchise again), but given that Quantum of Solace seems more like a direct response to the Jason Bourne franchise rather than an honest attempt at a Bond film, it's pretty easy to claim that Casino Royale is Craig's (so far) best. A franchise reboot, the film also does a good job of sticking to Fleming's novel, and the decision to show Bond's development from rough around the edges to smooth and refined is a great one. It's also relatively easy to claim that Casino Royale (this version, not either of the two that preceded it) is one of the high points of the overall series.
And there you have it.
But, just for the sake of inciting argument: Pierce Brosnan is the best Bond and Casino Royale is the best Bond film. So there. Bring on the double entendre!
It's a long-running exercise in the media to try to determine who the best Bond is, and while I admit I even gave it a whirl (albeit a half-assed whirl), I'm not convinced that anyone can even honestly try. I mean, Sean Connery has the advantage of originating the role, so even if he had stunk, he'd still be the bar by which all other comers are measured (Michael Keaton as Batman ring a bell?). George Lazenby (admittedly my least favorite Bond) only had one film, so judging him isn't altogether fair (he's certainly not helped by the lack of significant non-Bond projects). Roger Moore gave us the light-hearted and campy Bond, which doesn't really allow for direct comparison to any of the others. Timothy Dalton tried to channel the literary Bond (and generally succeeded, for better or worse). Pierce Brosnan, in my humble opinion, was the ultimate Bond, but suffered from scripts that were too grandiose, even for Bond films. And now, Daniel Craig is hitting the screen as arguably the least-traditional Bond, albeit one who is an amalgamation of Connery and Dalton.
What does this all mean? Well, everyone's going to have a different opinion of who the best Bond is, and those opinions are likely heavily influenced by who the actor was in the first Bond film seen (with notable exceptions, since Moore was the first Bond I remember, though I didn't become a Bond fanatic until Dalton had the role).
In light of all of this, instead of trying to judge who the best 007 is, I'm going to list what I think are the best films played by each of the Bond actors.
Sean Connery - From Russia With Love
I've stated this elsewhere, but From Russia With Love must be heralded for being the first Bond film in which the so-called Bond formula is utilized. Not only that, it stays remarkably close to the book and is an excellent movie. Sure, Dr. No is held closely to Bond film aficionados' hearts, but only because it is the first big screen depiction of 007. Thunderball is damned good, too, and can easily be argued as the best, but the rest are too chaotic, too over the top (Goldfinger and You Only Live Twice included, both of which aren't bad... but don't get me started on Diamonds Are Forever).
George Lazenby - On Her Majesty's Secret Service
This one's obvious, since it's Lazenby's only Bond film. But, I must admit, even in light of Lazenby's slightly disappointing "Connery-emulation," On Her Majesty's Secret Service is one of the series' best overall entries.
Roger Moore - For Your Eyes Only
Moore started out fairly seriously (Live and Let Die), but quickly delved into camp (although The Man With the Golden Gun is a sentimental favorite... blame it on a lonely night in South Korea). The Spy Who Loved Me is a good one, but Moonraker is an embarrassment. And, let's face it, by Octopussy and A View to a Kill, Moore was too old for the role. But in between Moonraker and Octopussy, we got a return to the kick-ass version of Bond we all know and love with For Your Eyes Only. With one of the most sentimental scenes in Bond film history (visiting his dead wife's grave) and the best ski sequences since On Her Majesty's Secret Service, this film stands out as far and away Moore's overall best.
Timothy Dalton - The Living Daylights
This one is also fairly obvious, even in spite of the misguided love towards License to Kill (the only Bond film to earn an R rating upon release... since re-rated, by the way). Dalton's intro is perfect, with a slam-bang pre-title sequence that shows us three 00 agents on screen at the same time, and an opening post-title sequence that is almost verbatim an adaptation of the short story the film is based on. Dalton could have went a long way as Bond, but thanks to some legal issues that delayed the Bond franchise for six years between License to Kill and Goldeneye (the longest break between Bond films so far), we'll never know.
Pierce Brosnan - Goldeneye
Though all of Brosnan's films successfully brought Agent 007 back into the limelight of world cinema, it is his first effort that is the best. Goldeneye has one of the best Bond villains ever (Sean Bean as a traitorous 006), the best Bond girls out of any Brosnan entry, and a script that is remarkably subdued (though still outlandish). Tomorrow Never Dies is a good one, as well, replete with an excellent villain, but its attempt at sentimentality (in the guise of an old flame of Bond's) falls a bit flat. The World Is Not Enough has a horrible script and, though populated by two excellent Bond girls (portrayed by Maria Grazia Cucinotta and Sophie Marceau), has the worst Bond girl ever (Christmas Jones, portrayed by Denise Richards). Die Another Day serves as a good wrap to the film franchise's first 40 years, but the heavy reliance on computer imagery and the appearance of Halle Berry (thank goodness they didn't greenlight her planned spinoff franchise) just doesn't work for me.
Daniel Craig - Casino Royale
The jury's still out on Craig, seeing as how he's only done two and is contractually obligated for more (and we might be waiting awhile, since another extracurricular issue is threatening to derail the franchise again), but given that Quantum of Solace seems more like a direct response to the Jason Bourne franchise rather than an honest attempt at a Bond film, it's pretty easy to claim that Casino Royale is Craig's (so far) best. A franchise reboot, the film also does a good job of sticking to Fleming's novel, and the decision to show Bond's development from rough around the edges to smooth and refined is a great one. It's also relatively easy to claim that Casino Royale (this version, not either of the two that preceded it) is one of the high points of the overall series.
And there you have it.
But, just for the sake of inciting argument: Pierce Brosnan is the best Bond and Casino Royale is the best Bond film. So there. Bring on the double entendre!
Wednesday, August 18, 2010
Screwed-Up Movies: Irréversible
Irréversible (2002)
Director: Gaspar Noé
Writer(s): Gaspar Noé
Starring: Vincent Cassel, Monica Bellucci, Albert Dupontel
-----
First and foremost - and despite its subject matter - Irréversible is a beautiful, beautiful film. It has to be, of course, in order for its disturbing premise to actually work. In ultimately disguising one of the most wretched of human actions in a beautiful film, French director Gaspar Noé tricks us, again and again, in order to get his point across. The fact that he infuses his film with a certain sensuality and beauty makes it all the more disturbing.
Before anyone gets the wrong idea, let's make it clear: the centerpiece of Irréversible is a rape scene. And one unlike any other rape scene ever depicted in motion picture history. The camera does not move. The rape lasts for several minutes and never cuts away. The audience is forced to watch it as if a fly glued to a wall. It is harrowing, depressing, and disturbing. There is even a moment when a passerby walks in, sees the rape, and walks away in attempt to "not get involved." Humanity at its worst. And presented in full-color 16mm. That the scene is not so unbelievable can make one want to jump off a bridge.
But Noé tricks us. Again and again.
Irréversible begins with the rape victim's (Alex) husband and good friend exacting revenge on the man whom they believe conducted the rape. It is a chaotically shot scene, refusing to let the audience focus on anything save for snippets of sodomy and hedonism. The tone is set. And there is no question the audience is in for a bumpy ride. The audience will not learn that Alex's husband (Marcus) and friend (Pierre) killed the wrong man until the rape scene. It is a revelation that no one wants to acknowledge. Humanity at its worst, yet again.
Roger Ebert famously stated that Irréversible is "a movie so violent and cruel that most people will find it unwatchable." And this is true. But Noé tricks us. Repeatedly. For the film ends beautifully, with an examination of two lovers believing that a child is on the way. As a capsule, it is a touching ending... as the ending to Irréversible, it only makes what we've seen seem worse. But we can't help but admire the beauty. In this manner, Noé reveals a bit of glee in pointing out how disgusting we can be.
There is a scene in which we see Monica Bellucci, sensually dressed, moving through a party. Her nipples are evident, and her body's curves overwhelm any possibility of subtlety in her dress. In any other film, the men in the audience would be aroused beyond belief. But, Irréversible is presented in reverse chronological order, and we experience this otherwise delicious scene after we've seen Alex raped... and the effect is horrifying.
Bellucci is known for accepting roles that push the boundaries of acceptability. The role of Alex is no different. The irony is that, because it's so brutal and honest a film, it's unacceptable. And, perhaps, unwatchable.
But it is beautiful. Because Noé tricked us. And we all hate to admit it.
Don't say you weren't warned.
Director: Gaspar Noé
Writer(s): Gaspar Noé
Starring: Vincent Cassel, Monica Bellucci, Albert Dupontel
-----
First and foremost - and despite its subject matter - Irréversible is a beautiful, beautiful film. It has to be, of course, in order for its disturbing premise to actually work. In ultimately disguising one of the most wretched of human actions in a beautiful film, French director Gaspar Noé tricks us, again and again, in order to get his point across. The fact that he infuses his film with a certain sensuality and beauty makes it all the more disturbing.
Before anyone gets the wrong idea, let's make it clear: the centerpiece of Irréversible is a rape scene. And one unlike any other rape scene ever depicted in motion picture history. The camera does not move. The rape lasts for several minutes and never cuts away. The audience is forced to watch it as if a fly glued to a wall. It is harrowing, depressing, and disturbing. There is even a moment when a passerby walks in, sees the rape, and walks away in attempt to "not get involved." Humanity at its worst. And presented in full-color 16mm. That the scene is not so unbelievable can make one want to jump off a bridge.
But Noé tricks us. Again and again.
Irréversible begins with the rape victim's (Alex) husband and good friend exacting revenge on the man whom they believe conducted the rape. It is a chaotically shot scene, refusing to let the audience focus on anything save for snippets of sodomy and hedonism. The tone is set. And there is no question the audience is in for a bumpy ride. The audience will not learn that Alex's husband (Marcus) and friend (Pierre) killed the wrong man until the rape scene. It is a revelation that no one wants to acknowledge. Humanity at its worst, yet again.
Roger Ebert famously stated that Irréversible is "a movie so violent and cruel that most people will find it unwatchable." And this is true. But Noé tricks us. Repeatedly. For the film ends beautifully, with an examination of two lovers believing that a child is on the way. As a capsule, it is a touching ending... as the ending to Irréversible, it only makes what we've seen seem worse. But we can't help but admire the beauty. In this manner, Noé reveals a bit of glee in pointing out how disgusting we can be.
There is a scene in which we see Monica Bellucci, sensually dressed, moving through a party. Her nipples are evident, and her body's curves overwhelm any possibility of subtlety in her dress. In any other film, the men in the audience would be aroused beyond belief. But, Irréversible is presented in reverse chronological order, and we experience this otherwise delicious scene after we've seen Alex raped... and the effect is horrifying.
Bellucci is known for accepting roles that push the boundaries of acceptability. The role of Alex is no different. The irony is that, because it's so brutal and honest a film, it's unacceptable. And, perhaps, unwatchable.
But it is beautiful. Because Noé tricked us. And we all hate to admit it.
Don't say you weren't warned.
Monday, August 16, 2010
Irreviews, 2010: Issue XIII
Brooklyn's Finest (2010)
Director: Antoine Fuqua
Writer(s): Michael C. Martin
Starring: Richard Gere, Don Cheadle, Ethan Hawke
-----
Fans have been waiting a long time for Antoine Fuqua to do a follow-up to Training Day. Though he's directed a bunch of "just okay" films since (including King Arthur and Shooter), the lack of anything truly awesome has had people clamoring for a return to the cop drama. Well, that clamoring has been answered, and the result is... just okay. Brookyln's Finest follows three separate stories, connected only by their physical proximity and a loose gathering of characters in the film's climax. Granted, each of the characters' individual stories are interesting, but the extra-slow pacing of the film (a side-effect of telling three separate stories, no doubt) only increases the anticipation of an all-out action-packed finale... which we're not given. Not a bad movie, but my standards high enough to refuse to settle for "just okay."
Verdict: Fans of cop drama, SEE it. Everyone else (including those expecting a "normal" Antoine Fuqua film), SKIP it.
Dawn of the Dead (2004)
Director: Zack Snyder
Writer(s): James Gunn, George A. Romero (1978 screenplay)
Starring: Sarah Polley, Ving Rhames, Jake Weber, Mekhi Phifer
-----
Though I originally saw this film in theaters, given that I reviewed another Romero remake (The Crazies) in the previous issue of Irreviews, I figured I'd hit this one up, as well.
-----
Thanks to the subtly brilliant 28 Days Later, zombies in pop culture are now really, really fast. Like, sprinters. And in this remake of master-of-the-slow-and-plodding-zombie George Romero's 1978 Dawn of the Dead, director Zack Snyder sticks with the new establishment and gives us... sprinters. I hate sprinter zombies. They're far more terrifying than slow-and-plodding zombies. While ditching most of the social commentary found in Romero's original film, the protagonists are once-again trapped in a mall (a leftover from that commentary). Replacing thoughtfulness with clever disturbances (zombie baby, anyone?), the result is an entirely different Dawn of the Dead that is still a wonderful tribute to the original.
Verdict: SEE it.
Goldfinger (1964)
Director: Guy Hamilton
Writer(s): Richard Maibaum, Paul Dehn, Ian Fleming (novel)
Starring: Sean Connery, Honor Blackman, Gert Fröbe
-----
A decent entry in the Bond franchise, I'm willing to bet its phenomenal theme song is more responsible for its popularity than the film itself is. Still, we do get a great villain (the titular Goldfinger) and one of the most quotable dialog exchanges ever ("Do you expect me to talk?" "No, Mr. Bond, I expect you to die."). There's also the small matter of the first appearance of Bond's Aston Martin - a DB5 in this film - and arguably the most outrageous name for a Bond girl (Pussy Galore), but outside of those memorable details, Goldfinger is really just a run-of-the-mill Bond movie.
Verdict: SEE it. I should probably just start writing "BOND it" for these.
Salt (2010)
Director: Phillip Noyce
Writer(s): Kurt Wimmer
Starring: Angelina Jolie, Liev Schreiber, Chiwetel Ejiofor
-----
A CIA agent is fingered as a Russian plant. That CIA agent goes on the run... but for what? To prove her innocence? Or to play into the Russian plot to destroy the United States? Even she doesn't seem to know. That pretty much sums up the conundrum that is the plot of Salt. Sounds a bit silly, sure, but... the film rocks. In the end, this is a spy thriller that truly is more about its character than it is about its story. There are moments that you almost want to stand up and cheer (a scene in which she goes nuts on a terrorist-occupied ship is particularly awesome). Love her or hate her, Angelina Jolie has a hit film franchise on her hands if she wants one.
Verdict: SEE it.
Thunderball (1965)
Director: Terence Young
Writer(s): Richard Maibaum, John Hopkins, Jack Whittingham (original screenplay), Kevin McClory (story), Ian Fleming (story)
Starring: Sean Connery, Claudine Auger, Adolfo Celi
-----
While From Russia With Love established the lion's share of the Bond formula, it is Thunderball that first took that formula to its spectacular heights. Everything is, quite simply, bigger and better here. Domino (Claudine Auger) remains one of the best Bond girls to date, and the underwater sequences are beyond awesome (establishing a precedent for many movies, including Jaws, to follow). The second great Bond film, it even fostered a remake in the 80s (Never Say Never Again).
Verdict: BOND it.
Director: Antoine Fuqua
Writer(s): Michael C. Martin
Starring: Richard Gere, Don Cheadle, Ethan Hawke
-----
Fans have been waiting a long time for Antoine Fuqua to do a follow-up to Training Day. Though he's directed a bunch of "just okay" films since (including King Arthur and Shooter), the lack of anything truly awesome has had people clamoring for a return to the cop drama. Well, that clamoring has been answered, and the result is... just okay. Brookyln's Finest follows three separate stories, connected only by their physical proximity and a loose gathering of characters in the film's climax. Granted, each of the characters' individual stories are interesting, but the extra-slow pacing of the film (a side-effect of telling three separate stories, no doubt) only increases the anticipation of an all-out action-packed finale... which we're not given. Not a bad movie, but my standards high enough to refuse to settle for "just okay."
Verdict: Fans of cop drama, SEE it. Everyone else (including those expecting a "normal" Antoine Fuqua film), SKIP it.
Dawn of the Dead (2004)
Director: Zack Snyder
Writer(s): James Gunn, George A. Romero (1978 screenplay)
Starring: Sarah Polley, Ving Rhames, Jake Weber, Mekhi Phifer
-----
Though I originally saw this film in theaters, given that I reviewed another Romero remake (The Crazies) in the previous issue of Irreviews, I figured I'd hit this one up, as well.
-----
Thanks to the subtly brilliant 28 Days Later, zombies in pop culture are now really, really fast. Like, sprinters. And in this remake of master-of-the-slow-and-plodding-zombie George Romero's 1978 Dawn of the Dead, director Zack Snyder sticks with the new establishment and gives us... sprinters. I hate sprinter zombies. They're far more terrifying than slow-and-plodding zombies. While ditching most of the social commentary found in Romero's original film, the protagonists are once-again trapped in a mall (a leftover from that commentary). Replacing thoughtfulness with clever disturbances (zombie baby, anyone?), the result is an entirely different Dawn of the Dead that is still a wonderful tribute to the original.
Verdict: SEE it.
Goldfinger (1964)
Director: Guy Hamilton
Writer(s): Richard Maibaum, Paul Dehn, Ian Fleming (novel)
Starring: Sean Connery, Honor Blackman, Gert Fröbe
-----
A decent entry in the Bond franchise, I'm willing to bet its phenomenal theme song is more responsible for its popularity than the film itself is. Still, we do get a great villain (the titular Goldfinger) and one of the most quotable dialog exchanges ever ("Do you expect me to talk?" "No, Mr. Bond, I expect you to die."). There's also the small matter of the first appearance of Bond's Aston Martin - a DB5 in this film - and arguably the most outrageous name for a Bond girl (Pussy Galore), but outside of those memorable details, Goldfinger is really just a run-of-the-mill Bond movie.
Verdict: SEE it. I should probably just start writing "BOND it" for these.
Salt (2010)
Director: Phillip Noyce
Writer(s): Kurt Wimmer
Starring: Angelina Jolie, Liev Schreiber, Chiwetel Ejiofor
-----
A CIA agent is fingered as a Russian plant. That CIA agent goes on the run... but for what? To prove her innocence? Or to play into the Russian plot to destroy the United States? Even she doesn't seem to know. That pretty much sums up the conundrum that is the plot of Salt. Sounds a bit silly, sure, but... the film rocks. In the end, this is a spy thriller that truly is more about its character than it is about its story. There are moments that you almost want to stand up and cheer (a scene in which she goes nuts on a terrorist-occupied ship is particularly awesome). Love her or hate her, Angelina Jolie has a hit film franchise on her hands if she wants one.
Verdict: SEE it.
Thunderball (1965)
Director: Terence Young
Writer(s): Richard Maibaum, John Hopkins, Jack Whittingham (original screenplay), Kevin McClory (story), Ian Fleming (story)
Starring: Sean Connery, Claudine Auger, Adolfo Celi
-----
While From Russia With Love established the lion's share of the Bond formula, it is Thunderball that first took that formula to its spectacular heights. Everything is, quite simply, bigger and better here. Domino (Claudine Auger) remains one of the best Bond girls to date, and the underwater sequences are beyond awesome (establishing a precedent for many movies, including Jaws, to follow). The second great Bond film, it even fostered a remake in the 80s (Never Say Never Again).
Verdict: BOND it.
Wednesday, August 4, 2010
Irreviews, 2010: Issue XII
While I've been known to include repeat-viewings on occasion, I usually only "Irreview" films that are new to me. But, since I'm an avid James Bond fanatic, I can't help it...
The Crazies (2010)
Director: Breck Eisner
Writer(s): Scott Kosar, Ray Wright, George A. Romero (1973 screenplay)
Starring: Timothy Olyphant, Radha Mitchell, Joe Anderson
-----
A remake of zombie-maestro George Romero's 70s cult-classic, this version is actually... not too bad. Though Romero is well-known for his social commentary, the commentary in remake seems a bit forced and, on more than one occasion, a bit cliché. But, as it's more subtle than in the original, the movie still works. Timothy Olyphant is great to watch, as usual, and Joe Anderson is a pleasant surprise (despite his character's cheesy resolution). Not altogether scary, it has its moments.
Verdict: Fans of the horror, zombie, and apocalyptic genres should SEE it. Nothing really noteworthy for anyone else.
Dr. No (1962)
Director: Terence Young
Writer(s): Richard Maibaum, Johanna Harwood, Berkely Mather, Ian Fleming (novel)
Starring: Sean Connery, Ursula Andress, Joseph Wiseman
-----
The film that started it all. Ian Fleming's British super-spy flies onto the screen and an instant hit franchise is born (although Dr. No is, in fact, the second appearance of Bond on-screen). A bit rough around the edges, the stage is nevertheless set for over-the-top villains and the rebirth of the double entendre in pop culture. Harry Potter and Star Wars be damned, there is no film franchise like the Bond franchise. And I must credit Ursula Andress for setting the Bond-girl standard rather high. Many pubescent boys are quite thankful for that.
Verdict: SEE it. Of course, you know I'm going to list all of the Bond films as "SEE it," even the bad ones.
Edge of Darkness (2010)
Director: Martin Campbell
Writer(s): William Monahan, Andrew Bovell, Troy Kennedy-Martin (TV series)
Starring: Mel Gibson, Ray Winstone, Danny Huston
-----
I've never seen the BBC TV series this film is based on, but now I want to. Headlines surrounding Mel Gibson aside, this is a very, very good movie and he does an excellent job as a father trying to solve the mystery of who killed his daughter and why. With Ray Winstone and Danny Huston, the cast is about as good as anybody can ask for (Winstone, in particular, steals every second he's on the screen). It is high coincidence that this film is directed by one of the better Bond-film directors (cough, cough), but Martin Campbell continues to prove that he rocks at the action-thriller.
Verdict: SEE it.
From Russia With Love (1963)
Director: Terence Young
Writer(s): Richard Maibaum, Johanna Harwood (adaptation), Ian Fleming (novel)
Starring: Sean Connery, Daniela Bianchi, Pedro Armendáriz, Lotte Lenya, Robert Shaw
-----
Though Dr. No kicked off the franchise, From Russia With Love is the Bond film that established the formula that every Bond film since has followed. Here we get the pre-title sequence, our first gadget (along with Desmond Llewelyn as Q), and our first theme song (not counting the actual Bond theme, of course). Even in light of the establishment of the uber-successful Bond-film formula, From Russia With Love manages to accomplish this while sticking close to its source material, which is something that few Bond films even bother attempting. The first great Bond movie, it remains one of the series' best.
Verdict: SEE it. Bond film. Must see all Bond films.
Inception (2010)
Director: Christopher Nolan
Writer(s): Christopher Nolan
Starring: Leonard DiCaprio, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Ellen Page, Tom Hardy, Ken Watanabe
-----
The Matrix meets James Bond, they're calling it. And, well, that's a close enough description as any. The plot is imaginative: corporate thieves are hired to steal secrets, but enter their target's dreams in order to do so. The cast is outstanding. The climax of the film is likely one of the best climaxes you'll ever see. Though the year's not over, Inception is 2010's best. I refuse to give anything away, because it simply must be seen to be believed. Wow.
Verdict: SEE it, SEE it, SEE it, SEE it. And if you find it hard to comprehend, SEE it until you get it!
The Crazies (2010)
Director: Breck Eisner
Writer(s): Scott Kosar, Ray Wright, George A. Romero (1973 screenplay)
Starring: Timothy Olyphant, Radha Mitchell, Joe Anderson
-----
A remake of zombie-maestro George Romero's 70s cult-classic, this version is actually... not too bad. Though Romero is well-known for his social commentary, the commentary in remake seems a bit forced and, on more than one occasion, a bit cliché. But, as it's more subtle than in the original, the movie still works. Timothy Olyphant is great to watch, as usual, and Joe Anderson is a pleasant surprise (despite his character's cheesy resolution). Not altogether scary, it has its moments.
Verdict: Fans of the horror, zombie, and apocalyptic genres should SEE it. Nothing really noteworthy for anyone else.
Dr. No (1962)
Director: Terence Young
Writer(s): Richard Maibaum, Johanna Harwood, Berkely Mather, Ian Fleming (novel)
Starring: Sean Connery, Ursula Andress, Joseph Wiseman
-----
The film that started it all. Ian Fleming's British super-spy flies onto the screen and an instant hit franchise is born (although Dr. No is, in fact, the second appearance of Bond on-screen). A bit rough around the edges, the stage is nevertheless set for over-the-top villains and the rebirth of the double entendre in pop culture. Harry Potter and Star Wars be damned, there is no film franchise like the Bond franchise. And I must credit Ursula Andress for setting the Bond-girl standard rather high. Many pubescent boys are quite thankful for that.
Verdict: SEE it. Of course, you know I'm going to list all of the Bond films as "SEE it," even the bad ones.
Edge of Darkness (2010)
Director: Martin Campbell
Writer(s): William Monahan, Andrew Bovell, Troy Kennedy-Martin (TV series)
Starring: Mel Gibson, Ray Winstone, Danny Huston
-----
I've never seen the BBC TV series this film is based on, but now I want to. Headlines surrounding Mel Gibson aside, this is a very, very good movie and he does an excellent job as a father trying to solve the mystery of who killed his daughter and why. With Ray Winstone and Danny Huston, the cast is about as good as anybody can ask for (Winstone, in particular, steals every second he's on the screen). It is high coincidence that this film is directed by one of the better Bond-film directors (cough, cough), but Martin Campbell continues to prove that he rocks at the action-thriller.
Verdict: SEE it.
From Russia With Love (1963)
Director: Terence Young
Writer(s): Richard Maibaum, Johanna Harwood (adaptation), Ian Fleming (novel)
Starring: Sean Connery, Daniela Bianchi, Pedro Armendáriz, Lotte Lenya, Robert Shaw
-----
Though Dr. No kicked off the franchise, From Russia With Love is the Bond film that established the formula that every Bond film since has followed. Here we get the pre-title sequence, our first gadget (along with Desmond Llewelyn as Q), and our first theme song (not counting the actual Bond theme, of course). Even in light of the establishment of the uber-successful Bond-film formula, From Russia With Love manages to accomplish this while sticking close to its source material, which is something that few Bond films even bother attempting. The first great Bond movie, it remains one of the series' best.
Verdict: SEE it. Bond film. Must see all Bond films.
Inception (2010)
Director: Christopher Nolan
Writer(s): Christopher Nolan
Starring: Leonard DiCaprio, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Ellen Page, Tom Hardy, Ken Watanabe
-----
The Matrix meets James Bond, they're calling it. And, well, that's a close enough description as any. The plot is imaginative: corporate thieves are hired to steal secrets, but enter their target's dreams in order to do so. The cast is outstanding. The climax of the film is likely one of the best climaxes you'll ever see. Though the year's not over, Inception is 2010's best. I refuse to give anything away, because it simply must be seen to be believed. Wow.
Verdict: SEE it, SEE it, SEE it, SEE it. And if you find it hard to comprehend, SEE it until you get it!
Wednesday, July 28, 2010
Inception: A Perception
Few movies elicit a wow from my mouth, whether for technical or narrative spectacle. And even if one does, that doesn't necessarily mean I consider that film great. My wholeheartedly subjective list of great films is rather small, currently only at seven films. Avatar, which wowed me technically, was the last film I'd seen that threatened its way onto that list, but upon further viewings, in light of its fairly pedestrian story (though one, I maintain, holds up under scrutiny), it failed to do so.
Enter Christopher Nolan.
I have long been a fan of Nolan's, going way back to 2001, when I first saw Memento in a barracks room in South Korea. Though not quite a "wow" movie, that one certainly garnered a "holy shit." He followed it up with the "just okay" American remake of Insomnia, then stormed into the public consciousness as the guiding hand of the relaunched Batman franchise (of which both films are awesome). I enjoyed The Prestige, but while it was far superior to its competing magician film (The Illusionist), there was certainly nothing in it that screamed "great."
Enter Inception.
The plot, at its core, is relatively simple: there are secrets men hold that other men want to know. Really, that's it in a nutshell. But the "spies" hired to discover these secrets steal them by entering the dreams of their targets. And that's where everything goes haywire. I won't even try to explain it in detail, because I don't think I can. But Nolan... well, he proves his mastery in directing and - as the film's sole credited screenwriter - creating a seemingly convoluted story that is, in fact, so tightly woven there's not only no room for error, there's no noticeable error at all. Though he came close, he didn't do this with Memento. He certainly didn't do this with the Batman films (lots of comic book fans continuously poke holes in those plots). But he certainly has done it with Inception.
Initially, the story seems rushed. We're getting to the point so fast, we don't really know who the characters are by the time we get into the second act. In a normal film, I'd be highly irritated by this, but given Inception's extended run-time and the fact that Nolan does an extremely adept job at filling in the characters throughout Act 2, I quickly forgave its rapid-fire opening and jumped into the film.
Enter Act 3.
Hands down, the best third act of a film I've ever seen. Ever. Everything we've learned in the first two acts comes into play and we're given a spectacle of imagination, action, and resolution that one must describe as beautiful. Nolan also provided each of the protagonists with entirely separate (screen-wise) climaxes, and there is no doubt that upon reading the script, none of the actors had to think twice about accepting their roles. And if there is a poor sap out there that did, well, he or she is an idiot. Some of the promotional material for Inception labeled the film as "The Matrix meets James Bond," and while I'm hesitant to make such a direct comparison, it's definitely an apt one (although "The Matrix meets Mission: Impossible" is probably more accurate).
In the hands of lesser filmmakers, we could have been shown a tattered mess, with dangling plot-threads and continuity errors galore. In Nolan's hands, though, the dots are connected and the threads are tied. If any weren't, I didn't notice, and I'm a bit anal about plot-holes.
The casting is near-perfect, with every role played to perfection save for that of Ariadne's (portrayed by Ellen Page). Not sure why, but she stuck out like a sore thumb to me. Of course, there is a strong possibility that this was Nolan's intent, so my criticism of Page ends there. As far as the rest, Leonardo DiCaprio, Tom Hardy, Ken Watanabe, and Cillian Murphy seemed destined for their roles. Even Joseph Gordon-Levitt, who at first seems a little odd, completely owns his character by the end of the film and one would be hard-pressed to imagine anyone else playing The Pointman. Cameos by Michael Caine, Lukas Haas, Tom Berenger, and Pete Postlethwaite aren't distracting in the least, and I'd be remiss by not mentioning the underutilized talent of Dileep Rao (used to great extent in Inception).
If I have one issue with the film, it's the attempt at an ambiguous ending. Nolan did such an excellent job setting and wrapping things up, audiences were already wondering what was real and what wasn't. He didn't have to hammer that point home. Granted, the final moments of the film are, no doubt, what will have everyone talking, but they were unnecessary. Everyone would've been talking anyway. Still, it wasn't as forcefully ambiguous as a lot of these so-called clever films tend to be, and it will take no enjoyment or wonder away from what you just saw.
Inception, my friends, is that good. Great, even. Wow.
Enter Christopher Nolan.
I have long been a fan of Nolan's, going way back to 2001, when I first saw Memento in a barracks room in South Korea. Though not quite a "wow" movie, that one certainly garnered a "holy shit." He followed it up with the "just okay" American remake of Insomnia, then stormed into the public consciousness as the guiding hand of the relaunched Batman franchise (of which both films are awesome). I enjoyed The Prestige, but while it was far superior to its competing magician film (The Illusionist), there was certainly nothing in it that screamed "great."
Enter Inception.
The plot, at its core, is relatively simple: there are secrets men hold that other men want to know. Really, that's it in a nutshell. But the "spies" hired to discover these secrets steal them by entering the dreams of their targets. And that's where everything goes haywire. I won't even try to explain it in detail, because I don't think I can. But Nolan... well, he proves his mastery in directing and - as the film's sole credited screenwriter - creating a seemingly convoluted story that is, in fact, so tightly woven there's not only no room for error, there's no noticeable error at all. Though he came close, he didn't do this with Memento. He certainly didn't do this with the Batman films (lots of comic book fans continuously poke holes in those plots). But he certainly has done it with Inception.
Initially, the story seems rushed. We're getting to the point so fast, we don't really know who the characters are by the time we get into the second act. In a normal film, I'd be highly irritated by this, but given Inception's extended run-time and the fact that Nolan does an extremely adept job at filling in the characters throughout Act 2, I quickly forgave its rapid-fire opening and jumped into the film.
Enter Act 3.
Hands down, the best third act of a film I've ever seen. Ever. Everything we've learned in the first two acts comes into play and we're given a spectacle of imagination, action, and resolution that one must describe as beautiful. Nolan also provided each of the protagonists with entirely separate (screen-wise) climaxes, and there is no doubt that upon reading the script, none of the actors had to think twice about accepting their roles. And if there is a poor sap out there that did, well, he or she is an idiot. Some of the promotional material for Inception labeled the film as "The Matrix meets James Bond," and while I'm hesitant to make such a direct comparison, it's definitely an apt one (although "The Matrix meets Mission: Impossible" is probably more accurate).
In the hands of lesser filmmakers, we could have been shown a tattered mess, with dangling plot-threads and continuity errors galore. In Nolan's hands, though, the dots are connected and the threads are tied. If any weren't, I didn't notice, and I'm a bit anal about plot-holes.
The casting is near-perfect, with every role played to perfection save for that of Ariadne's (portrayed by Ellen Page). Not sure why, but she stuck out like a sore thumb to me. Of course, there is a strong possibility that this was Nolan's intent, so my criticism of Page ends there. As far as the rest, Leonardo DiCaprio, Tom Hardy, Ken Watanabe, and Cillian Murphy seemed destined for their roles. Even Joseph Gordon-Levitt, who at first seems a little odd, completely owns his character by the end of the film and one would be hard-pressed to imagine anyone else playing The Pointman. Cameos by Michael Caine, Lukas Haas, Tom Berenger, and Pete Postlethwaite aren't distracting in the least, and I'd be remiss by not mentioning the underutilized talent of Dileep Rao (used to great extent in Inception).
If I have one issue with the film, it's the attempt at an ambiguous ending. Nolan did such an excellent job setting and wrapping things up, audiences were already wondering what was real and what wasn't. He didn't have to hammer that point home. Granted, the final moments of the film are, no doubt, what will have everyone talking, but they were unnecessary. Everyone would've been talking anyway. Still, it wasn't as forcefully ambiguous as a lot of these so-called clever films tend to be, and it will take no enjoyment or wonder away from what you just saw.
Inception, my friends, is that good. Great, even. Wow.
Wednesday, July 21, 2010
Things Hollywood Should Quit Computer-Animating
I get it. You get it. Everyone gets it. We are well into the digital age and computers are taking over most of our art forms (or have taken over already). Still, as creatures of the natural world we can (most of the time) identify what is real and what is computer generated. The likelihood is that we won't be able to in a few years, but right now we can. So I'd like to ask our beloved film industry to quit, until computers can truly fool us, computer-animating the following things:
1. Aircraft - I first noticed the folly of computer-animated aircraft way back in 1996 when I saw The Rock at a theater in Columbus, Georgia. The F-18 Hornets (yes, I know it's supposed to be "F/A") looked like shit flying away from their aborted sortie on Alcatraz. Granted, at the time I just chalked it up to Hollywood trying new things, but in subsequent movie after movie, I could still tell a computer-animated plane from a real one. The biggest crime came in that crap-tacular comic book film, Ghost Rider. I mean... they didn't even TRY to make those helicopters look real.
2. Breath - Is there not a single computer animator in Hollywood who has spent time in cold climates? Vapor does not jet out and dissipate like that. There's an easy fix for this, of course, but it involves shoving prima donna actors into refrigerated sets, which would involve prima donna actors experiencing a certain level of discomfort. Geez...
3. Bullets (and related effects) - zip, zip, bang, etc. Were Hollywood to be believed, nearly every bullet ever fired in history has been a tracer round. Or traveling slow enough to notice between blinks. Ugh. And, in a related note, please quit showing the beams from laser sights. Unless they're pointing right at a target's eye (or in a ridiculously dusty place), nobody's going to see anything other than the little light on the sight itself and the end of the beam.
4. Fire - Is there not a single computer animator in Hollywood who has seen a real fire? All that technology spent developing computer-controlled propane fires and Hollywood is too lazy to use it. Bleh.
5. People - typically, people are computer animated for stunt sequences or large battle scenes. I don't really mind the large battle scenes (although a few badly-animated ones have bothered me... Troy, for example), but the replacement of stuntmen and stuntwomen is not only A) insulting to the stunt trade, but B) retarded-looking. Yes, Die Another Day, I'm talking about you and your para-surfing off of a collapsing glacier.
6. Race Cars - and cars in general. The Fast and the Furious franchise (or is it Fast and Furious?) is a big culprit of this one. But, concerning NASCAR and Indy races, how fucking hard is it to, I dunno, just go film B-roll at a real race? Stallone's Driven (or is it Drivel) also comes to mind. What happened to stunt drivers? Somebody resurrect Steve McQueen!
1. Aircraft - I first noticed the folly of computer-animated aircraft way back in 1996 when I saw The Rock at a theater in Columbus, Georgia. The F-18 Hornets (yes, I know it's supposed to be "F/A") looked like shit flying away from their aborted sortie on Alcatraz. Granted, at the time I just chalked it up to Hollywood trying new things, but in subsequent movie after movie, I could still tell a computer-animated plane from a real one. The biggest crime came in that crap-tacular comic book film, Ghost Rider. I mean... they didn't even TRY to make those helicopters look real.
2. Breath - Is there not a single computer animator in Hollywood who has spent time in cold climates? Vapor does not jet out and dissipate like that. There's an easy fix for this, of course, but it involves shoving prima donna actors into refrigerated sets, which would involve prima donna actors experiencing a certain level of discomfort. Geez...
3. Bullets (and related effects) - zip, zip, bang, etc. Were Hollywood to be believed, nearly every bullet ever fired in history has been a tracer round. Or traveling slow enough to notice between blinks. Ugh. And, in a related note, please quit showing the beams from laser sights. Unless they're pointing right at a target's eye (or in a ridiculously dusty place), nobody's going to see anything other than the little light on the sight itself and the end of the beam.
4. Fire - Is there not a single computer animator in Hollywood who has seen a real fire? All that technology spent developing computer-controlled propane fires and Hollywood is too lazy to use it. Bleh.
5. People - typically, people are computer animated for stunt sequences or large battle scenes. I don't really mind the large battle scenes (although a few badly-animated ones have bothered me... Troy, for example), but the replacement of stuntmen and stuntwomen is not only A) insulting to the stunt trade, but B) retarded-looking. Yes, Die Another Day, I'm talking about you and your para-surfing off of a collapsing glacier.
6. Race Cars - and cars in general. The Fast and the Furious franchise (or is it Fast and Furious?) is a big culprit of this one. But, concerning NASCAR and Indy races, how fucking hard is it to, I dunno, just go film B-roll at a real race? Stallone's Driven (or is it Drivel) also comes to mind. What happened to stunt drivers? Somebody resurrect Steve McQueen!
Monday, July 19, 2010
Screwed-Up Movies: Sympathy for Mr. Vengeance
And away we go...
Sympathy for Mr. Vengeance (2002)
Director: Chan-wook Park
Writer(s): Jae-sun Lee, Jong-yong Lee, Mu-yeong Lee, Chan-wook Park
Starring: Kang-ho Song, Ha-kyun Shin, Doona Bae
-----
South Korean films have, for whatever reason, a noticeable sensibility of being apologetic. What, exactly, South Koreans are apologizing for I've never been able to determine, even after having lived on the peninsula for a year. This sense of apology is prevalent in every genre: horror, drama, fantasy, action. The guilty are guilty (whether objectively or subjectively so) and are always punished. It is not, however, a punishment befitting of "justice prevails." Rather, it is quite simply... punishment. It is a sad aspect of their art, but also the aspect that reveals their art to be decidedly South Korean. I wish I could explain it better, but my experience in sociology and cultural anthropology is far from qualified to do so.
Sympathy for Mr. Vengeance is not the most disturbing film I've ever seen, but it is far and away the most depressing film I've ever seen. Following the misadventures of a young man struggling to take care of his invalid sister (suffering from a debilitating kidney ailment), this is - at its core - a tale of morality gone wrong. The young man, Ryu, will do anything it takes to save his sister. Unfortunately for him, life does not reveal itself to be Machiavellian, and when Ryu delves into the morally ambiguous (and, indeed, morally wrong) everything backfires. And I do mean everything.
Though the plot is complicated, convoluted, and often nonsensical, director Chan-wook Park is clearly not a filmmaker satisfied with hanging plot threads. Quite literally adept at the concept of Chekhov's gun, everything introduced in the film - be it via main or sub-plot - enjoys a resolution by the end of the film. That every single resolution is painfully depressing is both the point and beside the point. Even the protagonist is a fitting example of Chekhov's gun (Ryu is both deaf and dumb). In a harrowing arc that involves Ryu kidnapping the daughter of his former boss in order to collect a ransom intended to pay for his sister's kidney transplant, the following occurs:
Sympathy for Mr. Vengeance is a brilliant film, though I do not recommend it for everyone (few, in fact). That it is so well-made is its curse. The South Korean "apology" in this film is overwhelming, stretching far beyond the fringes of the society that created it and into the realm of the world-at-large. Its presentation is both vulnerable and matter-of-fact and, in this aspect, it makes no apology.
A cautionary tale of revenge, it will make you feel horrible to be human. But it will also remind you that things could be much, much worse. Though its effectiveness lies in the fact that you will never forget how bad it made you feel, its efficiency in storytelling can make you appreciate where you are. Even if that place is the top of a bridge, staring down into inviting waters.
Make of that (and the film) what you will.
Sympathy for Mr. Vengeance (2002)
Director: Chan-wook Park
Writer(s): Jae-sun Lee, Jong-yong Lee, Mu-yeong Lee, Chan-wook Park
Starring: Kang-ho Song, Ha-kyun Shin, Doona Bae
-----
South Korean films have, for whatever reason, a noticeable sensibility of being apologetic. What, exactly, South Koreans are apologizing for I've never been able to determine, even after having lived on the peninsula for a year. This sense of apology is prevalent in every genre: horror, drama, fantasy, action. The guilty are guilty (whether objectively or subjectively so) and are always punished. It is not, however, a punishment befitting of "justice prevails." Rather, it is quite simply... punishment. It is a sad aspect of their art, but also the aspect that reveals their art to be decidedly South Korean. I wish I could explain it better, but my experience in sociology and cultural anthropology is far from qualified to do so.
Sympathy for Mr. Vengeance is not the most disturbing film I've ever seen, but it is far and away the most depressing film I've ever seen. Following the misadventures of a young man struggling to take care of his invalid sister (suffering from a debilitating kidney ailment), this is - at its core - a tale of morality gone wrong. The young man, Ryu, will do anything it takes to save his sister. Unfortunately for him, life does not reveal itself to be Machiavellian, and when Ryu delves into the morally ambiguous (and, indeed, morally wrong) everything backfires. And I do mean everything.
Though the plot is complicated, convoluted, and often nonsensical, director Chan-wook Park is clearly not a filmmaker satisfied with hanging plot threads. Quite literally adept at the concept of Chekhov's gun, everything introduced in the film - be it via main or sub-plot - enjoys a resolution by the end of the film. That every single resolution is painfully depressing is both the point and beside the point. Even the protagonist is a fitting example of Chekhov's gun (Ryu is both deaf and dumb). In a harrowing arc that involves Ryu kidnapping the daughter of his former boss in order to collect a ransom intended to pay for his sister's kidney transplant, the following occurs:
- Ryu is unaware that he was laid off, not out of corporate greed to increase the bottom line, but because the company has entered bankruptcy (taking his former boss' assets with it).
- Ryu's sister - who is introduced to the kidnapped girl - discovers what her brother has done and commits suicide from the shame incurred.
- When burying his sister at their favorite place (a river they played at when children), the little girl drowns. Ryu's deafness does not allow him to hear the girl's cries for help.
Sympathy for Mr. Vengeance is a brilliant film, though I do not recommend it for everyone (few, in fact). That it is so well-made is its curse. The South Korean "apology" in this film is overwhelming, stretching far beyond the fringes of the society that created it and into the realm of the world-at-large. Its presentation is both vulnerable and matter-of-fact and, in this aspect, it makes no apology.
A cautionary tale of revenge, it will make you feel horrible to be human. But it will also remind you that things could be much, much worse. Though its effectiveness lies in the fact that you will never forget how bad it made you feel, its efficiency in storytelling can make you appreciate where you are. Even if that place is the top of a bridge, staring down into inviting waters.
Make of that (and the film) what you will.
Wednesday, July 14, 2010
An Exploration of Screwed-Up Movies
You ever seen a film that just left you feeling... depressed to be alive? Yes, of course you have, but I'm not talking about movies that are simply crap, but well-crafted movies designed to make you feel bad about being alive. Movies so disturbing in their subject matter that you can't help but want to take a shower immediately after the end credits start to roll.
Keep in mind that I'm somewhat of a film masochist and I'll watch practically anything once, so I am, by no means, recommending that you see the films presented in "Screwed Up Movies." But, if you're game, go ahead and consider me a film sadist, as well (take that, Lars von Trier!).
*Note: I wrote that previous line prior to having seen von Trier's Antichrist... which is THE most disturbing movie ever made.
Though some might claim Quentin Tarantino is a progenitor of "Screwed-Up Movies" (and they would be right), he cautiously straddles the line of what is acceptable cinema while hiding much of his potential commentary as homage to long-forgotten exploitation genres (this is not a criticism, merely an observation... I love Tarantino films). The films that will appear in "Screwed-Up Movies" are truly that... screwed-up. Honest and blunt depictions of everything society likes to pretend doesn't exist. They are films that I (and most critics) consider outstanding motion pictures, but they are not for everybody.
In the near-future I will attempt to break down Sympathy for Mr. Vengeance, Irreversible, and Antichrist. These break downs are most certainly not recommendations, but I would encourage the brave and the bold to give them a viewing. Consider this your warning.
I believe it to be no accident that the movies are not English-language films (well, Antichrist is, but is a Danish production). American cinema (and, to a large extent, that of the English-speaking Commonwealth) is loathe to present such situations and subject matter so plainly. While the independent segments of those industries have made great strides in promoting and provoking a wider-range of humanity, their general cinemas much prefer the escapist aspect of their art form. There are opposing philosophies and theories behind this - maturity versus immaturity, morality versus immorality, etc. - and I believe them all to be wrong.
Art does not imitate life, and life does not imitate art. They are one and the same, and have been since we developed the ability of sentient thought. It's time we accept that.
*Come back next Monday for Screwed-Up Movies: Sympathy for Mr. Vengeance
Keep in mind that I'm somewhat of a film masochist and I'll watch practically anything once, so I am, by no means, recommending that you see the films presented in "Screwed Up Movies." But, if you're game, go ahead and consider me a film sadist, as well (take that, Lars von Trier!).
*Note: I wrote that previous line prior to having seen von Trier's Antichrist... which is THE most disturbing movie ever made.
Though some might claim Quentin Tarantino is a progenitor of "Screwed-Up Movies" (and they would be right), he cautiously straddles the line of what is acceptable cinema while hiding much of his potential commentary as homage to long-forgotten exploitation genres (this is not a criticism, merely an observation... I love Tarantino films). The films that will appear in "Screwed-Up Movies" are truly that... screwed-up. Honest and blunt depictions of everything society likes to pretend doesn't exist. They are films that I (and most critics) consider outstanding motion pictures, but they are not for everybody.
In the near-future I will attempt to break down Sympathy for Mr. Vengeance, Irreversible, and Antichrist. These break downs are most certainly not recommendations, but I would encourage the brave and the bold to give them a viewing. Consider this your warning.
I believe it to be no accident that the movies are not English-language films (well, Antichrist is, but is a Danish production). American cinema (and, to a large extent, that of the English-speaking Commonwealth) is loathe to present such situations and subject matter so plainly. While the independent segments of those industries have made great strides in promoting and provoking a wider-range of humanity, their general cinemas much prefer the escapist aspect of their art form. There are opposing philosophies and theories behind this - maturity versus immaturity, morality versus immorality, etc. - and I believe them all to be wrong.
Art does not imitate life, and life does not imitate art. They are one and the same, and have been since we developed the ability of sentient thought. It's time we accept that.
*Come back next Monday for Screwed-Up Movies: Sympathy for Mr. Vengeance
Monday, July 5, 2010
Irreviews, 2010: Issue XI
A Fish Called Wanda (1988)
Director: Charles Crichton
Writer(s): John Cleese, Charles Crichton (story)
Starring: John Cleese, Jamie Lee Curtis, Kevin Kline
-----
I thought I've seen this movie. I could've sworn I've seen this movie. Turns out, I've never seen this movie. I love this movie. Probably John Cleese's best film role ever and easily Jamie Lee Curtis' sexiest film ever, the performances take this farcical crime story and make it an excellent comedy (though Kevin Kline's a bit flat, although that could've been the point). Some tout it as a post-Monty Python Monty Python film, but it isn't really. Sure, Cleese and Michael Palin often seem to homage the famous British comedy troupe, but when do they not? Regardless, this is a fabulous and fabulously funny movie.
Verdict: SEE it.
The A-Team (2010)
Director: Joe Carnahan
Writer(s): Joe Carnahan, Brian Bloom, Skip Woods, Frank Lupo (TV series), Stephen J. Cannell (TV series)
Starring: Liam Neeson, Bradley Cooper, Jessica Biel
-----
Over-the-top. Ridiculous. Loud. And worth the ticket. This uber-violent film is not to be taken seriously and it does the gracious thing and admits that to the audience in the opening scene. The result is an over-the-top, ridiculous, loud, and extremely fun movie to watch. While the television series was "family-friendly camp," the film is just action camp, with actors who both play their roles straight and allow their characters to fade into the banter-between-friends that made the television series so popular. I admit, the trailer had me worried and I was expecting something despicable along the lines of G.I. Joe, but I had a great time.
Verdict: SEE it.
The Duchess (2008)
Director: Saul Dibb
Writer(s): Jeffrey Hatcher, Anders Thomas Jensen, Saul Dibb, Amanda Foreman (book)
Starring: Keira Knightley, Ralph Fiennes, Charlotte Rampling
-----
The true story of the Duchess of Devonshire, Georgiana Cavendish, is harrowing in and of itself. Maybe even more so than Queen Elizabeth, it's built for the movies (okay, forget I said that). And so, with fairly low expectations (mainly due to a misguided disdain for Keira Knightley... who is one Hell of an actor), I gave the film a view. First, let me state that I love the story. I really do. But... the pacing of the film was rather quick, almost break-neck at points, and a film such as this deserves time to develop, envelop, and engulf its audience in its drama. I've no idea exactly how historically accurate the film is (a cursory investigation reveals that it's not bad), but there are hints of the world at large in many of the subplots, which is a nice touch. I did like the movie and do recommend it. Still, it wasn't as good as it should've been.
Verdict: SEE it. Neither a groundbreaking nor profound film, the subject matter is still interesting enough to be worth a view.
Sanbiki No Samurai (Three Outlaw Samurai) - 1964
Director: Hideo Gosha
Writer(s): Keiichi Abe, Hideo Gosha, Eizaburo Shiba
Starring: Tetsuro Tamba, Isamu Nagato, Mikijiro Hira
-----
Imagine Akira Kurosawa's Seven Samurai as a shorter, faster, more-traditional action film, and that's essentially what Three Outlaw Samurai is. The two films share similar plots and resolutions, but their setups and progressions are vastly different. Even with a runtime that's over 100 minutes shorter than Seven Samurai, Three Outlaw Samurai presents story and characters (the three protagonists are perfect fits for both the plot and for each other) that are as engaging, entertaining, and memorable. That it is not "epic" is, no doubt, the major reason for its lack of popularity.
Verdict: SEE it.
Toy Story 3 (2010)
Director: Lee Unkrich
Writer(s): Michael Arndt, John Lasseter (story), Andrew Stanton (story), Lee Unkrich (story)
Starring: Tom Hanks, Tim Allen, Joan Cusack
-----
Leave it to Pixar to break the curse of "Part 3s" (Spider-Man 3, Shrek 3, Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End, The Matrix Revolutions, the list goes on...). Toy Story 3 is quite simply the best way to send off the Toy Story film franchise. Funny, heartwarming, sad, scary, hilarious, and depressing all rolled into one Hell of a computer-animated feature. No, the 3D is unnecessary, but it doesn't hurt the movie one bit. Yes, Pixar knocks another one out of the park. Nothing really much more to say here. Side Note: Outside of some forced moralizing, the pre-feature short film ("Day & Night") is outstanding all by itself. Those Pixar people really are clever.
Verdict: SEE it. Absolutely SEE it.
Director: Charles Crichton
Writer(s): John Cleese, Charles Crichton (story)
Starring: John Cleese, Jamie Lee Curtis, Kevin Kline
-----
I thought I've seen this movie. I could've sworn I've seen this movie. Turns out, I've never seen this movie. I love this movie. Probably John Cleese's best film role ever and easily Jamie Lee Curtis' sexiest film ever, the performances take this farcical crime story and make it an excellent comedy (though Kevin Kline's a bit flat, although that could've been the point). Some tout it as a post-Monty Python Monty Python film, but it isn't really. Sure, Cleese and Michael Palin often seem to homage the famous British comedy troupe, but when do they not? Regardless, this is a fabulous and fabulously funny movie.
Verdict: SEE it.
The A-Team (2010)
Director: Joe Carnahan
Writer(s): Joe Carnahan, Brian Bloom, Skip Woods, Frank Lupo (TV series), Stephen J. Cannell (TV series)
Starring: Liam Neeson, Bradley Cooper, Jessica Biel
-----
Over-the-top. Ridiculous. Loud. And worth the ticket. This uber-violent film is not to be taken seriously and it does the gracious thing and admits that to the audience in the opening scene. The result is an over-the-top, ridiculous, loud, and extremely fun movie to watch. While the television series was "family-friendly camp," the film is just action camp, with actors who both play their roles straight and allow their characters to fade into the banter-between-friends that made the television series so popular. I admit, the trailer had me worried and I was expecting something despicable along the lines of G.I. Joe, but I had a great time.
Verdict: SEE it.
The Duchess (2008)
Director: Saul Dibb
Writer(s): Jeffrey Hatcher, Anders Thomas Jensen, Saul Dibb, Amanda Foreman (book)
Starring: Keira Knightley, Ralph Fiennes, Charlotte Rampling
-----
The true story of the Duchess of Devonshire, Georgiana Cavendish, is harrowing in and of itself. Maybe even more so than Queen Elizabeth, it's built for the movies (okay, forget I said that). And so, with fairly low expectations (mainly due to a misguided disdain for Keira Knightley... who is one Hell of an actor), I gave the film a view. First, let me state that I love the story. I really do. But... the pacing of the film was rather quick, almost break-neck at points, and a film such as this deserves time to develop, envelop, and engulf its audience in its drama. I've no idea exactly how historically accurate the film is (a cursory investigation reveals that it's not bad), but there are hints of the world at large in many of the subplots, which is a nice touch. I did like the movie and do recommend it. Still, it wasn't as good as it should've been.
Verdict: SEE it. Neither a groundbreaking nor profound film, the subject matter is still interesting enough to be worth a view.
Sanbiki No Samurai (Three Outlaw Samurai) - 1964
Director: Hideo Gosha
Writer(s): Keiichi Abe, Hideo Gosha, Eizaburo Shiba
Starring: Tetsuro Tamba, Isamu Nagato, Mikijiro Hira
-----
Imagine Akira Kurosawa's Seven Samurai as a shorter, faster, more-traditional action film, and that's essentially what Three Outlaw Samurai is. The two films share similar plots and resolutions, but their setups and progressions are vastly different. Even with a runtime that's over 100 minutes shorter than Seven Samurai, Three Outlaw Samurai presents story and characters (the three protagonists are perfect fits for both the plot and for each other) that are as engaging, entertaining, and memorable. That it is not "epic" is, no doubt, the major reason for its lack of popularity.
Verdict: SEE it.
Toy Story 3 (2010)
Director: Lee Unkrich
Writer(s): Michael Arndt, John Lasseter (story), Andrew Stanton (story), Lee Unkrich (story)
Starring: Tom Hanks, Tim Allen, Joan Cusack
-----
Leave it to Pixar to break the curse of "Part 3s" (Spider-Man 3, Shrek 3, Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End, The Matrix Revolutions, the list goes on...). Toy Story 3 is quite simply the best way to send off the Toy Story film franchise. Funny, heartwarming, sad, scary, hilarious, and depressing all rolled into one Hell of a computer-animated feature. No, the 3D is unnecessary, but it doesn't hurt the movie one bit. Yes, Pixar knocks another one out of the park. Nothing really much more to say here. Side Note: Outside of some forced moralizing, the pre-feature short film ("Day & Night") is outstanding all by itself. Those Pixar people really are clever.
Verdict: SEE it. Absolutely SEE it.
Saturday, July 3, 2010
Irrewind, 20100703: Movie Reviews
Back when I first started sharing my thoughts on the Internet, I used to write cursory reviews (though not as cursory as my Irreviews) of films here and there. I still do, obviously, but it was far more prevalent an act before I figured out a way to take yet another short-cut and abbreviate yet another topic (another allusion to my Irreviews).
Anyhoo... here are some of the older ones (take note of my annoying use of the phrase, "first up"):
"Translation & Terminal: Two Reviews"
First up, Lost in Translation. I don't say this often, but this a movie that had me smiling from beginning to end. Yeah, opening a film with a shot of Scarlett Johansson's butt is always a good idea, but that's really not why I liked it. Actually, I don't really know why I liked it. It was just a beautiful, beautiful movie. There were some... Read More
"A Clearing, A Garden, Some Flowers: Three Reviews"
First up is, let's work backwards through the title, Broken Flowers, Jim Jarmusch's more-normal-than-usual entry (watch his Dead Man and Ghost Dog: The Way of the Samurai and you'll see what I mean) into what I'm going to start calling the "human insight" genre. It stars Bill Murray and, like Lost in Translation, is a great peek into the... Read More
"D & Diamond: Two Reviews"
First up is Jack Black's highly anticipated (I think) Tenacious D: the Pick of Destiny. I'm not really going to go into much detail, as I'm pretty sure people got what they expected from the film... but I thought it was lame. Yeah, it was kinda cool how Black and Gass served themselves up and rehashed much of their CD into a movie of sorts, but... Read More
"Movie Night: 3 Reviews"
First up is Michael Mann's Miami Vice. Given the sporadic reviews of the theatrical cut, I watched the director's cut instead and, I must say, really enjoyed it. Admittedly, the plot was convoluted enough to make Brian de Palma proud, but it tied together well. The film was nowhere near as good as Mann's two previous crime dramas (the... Read More
"Letters, Labyrinth: Two Reviews"
First up is the Japanese-language, Clint Eastwood-directed World War II film, Letters from Iwo Jima. Earlier, I implied how good Eastwood's other World War II film was, and now, I must say, Letters from Iwo Jima blows that one out of the water in every conceivable aspect. The acting is better, the pacing is better, and despite the fact that... Read More
Anyhoo... here are some of the older ones (take note of my annoying use of the phrase, "first up"):
"Translation & Terminal: Two Reviews"
First up, Lost in Translation. I don't say this often, but this a movie that had me smiling from beginning to end. Yeah, opening a film with a shot of Scarlett Johansson's butt is always a good idea, but that's really not why I liked it. Actually, I don't really know why I liked it. It was just a beautiful, beautiful movie. There were some... Read More
"A Clearing, A Garden, Some Flowers: Three Reviews"
First up is, let's work backwards through the title, Broken Flowers, Jim Jarmusch's more-normal-than-usual entry (watch his Dead Man and Ghost Dog: The Way of the Samurai and you'll see what I mean) into what I'm going to start calling the "human insight" genre. It stars Bill Murray and, like Lost in Translation, is a great peek into the... Read More
"D & Diamond: Two Reviews"
First up is Jack Black's highly anticipated (I think) Tenacious D: the Pick of Destiny. I'm not really going to go into much detail, as I'm pretty sure people got what they expected from the film... but I thought it was lame. Yeah, it was kinda cool how Black and Gass served themselves up and rehashed much of their CD into a movie of sorts, but... Read More
"Movie Night: 3 Reviews"
First up is Michael Mann's Miami Vice. Given the sporadic reviews of the theatrical cut, I watched the director's cut instead and, I must say, really enjoyed it. Admittedly, the plot was convoluted enough to make Brian de Palma proud, but it tied together well. The film was nowhere near as good as Mann's two previous crime dramas (the... Read More
"Letters, Labyrinth: Two Reviews"
First up is the Japanese-language, Clint Eastwood-directed World War II film, Letters from Iwo Jima. Earlier, I implied how good Eastwood's other World War II film was, and now, I must say, Letters from Iwo Jima blows that one out of the water in every conceivable aspect. The acting is better, the pacing is better, and despite the fact that... Read More
Wednesday, June 23, 2010
Hollywood Science Fiction Tentpoles
As relatively-ignored by the Oscars as science fiction films are, it's hard to argue that there is a more influential genre in Hollywood. Ever since Star Wars nominalized the blockbuster, technology has usurped story as the force behind filmmaking. Yes, a good story remains the most important factor in regards to a good movie, but a good story is often not what makes a box office success. You can argue that if you'd like, but all evidence will point against you.
Every time an "event" science fiction film makes its way into theaters, other films (science fiction or not) scramble to take advantage of the technology presented in that event picture. The end result is that motion picture eras can be defined almost as easily by the science fiction film they follow as by the decade they're a part of.
2001: A Space Odyssey (1968)
Stanley Kubrick was infamous for his bucking of Hollywood trends and the irony that he likely kicked off one of its biggest is not lost on anyone (or shouldn't be). There were influential science fiction films before Kubrick and Clarke's 2001: A Space Odyssey, but this was the first film to not only truly emphasize scientific realism in Hollywood science fiction at large, but to also present it as what many might refer to as an art film.
Admittedly, I find 2001: A Space Odyssey a highly overrated narrative mess (the novel, on the other hand, is brilliant), but its influence is obvious. Without it, there would be no Solyaris (1972) or The Man Who Fell to Earth (1976). Indeed, given its own sequel (2010: The Year We Make Contact - 1984) and the underrated American remake of Solyaris (Solaris - 2002), it's easy to argue that 2001: A Space Odyssey remains more influential than the more recent films appearing on this list. 1996's The Arrival and 1997's Contact also directly owe their thematic execution to Kubrick's influence.
Star Wars (1977)
Undoubtedly the most obvious film on the list, this is the one that changed Hollywood from top to bottom. Upon its release and the seemingly miles-long lines of eagerly-awaiting audiences that accompanied it, the film industry started churning out science fiction films (many horribly awful) in droves. Overtly less science fiction and more fairy tale (what many call space opera), Star Wars spanned all of the fantasy genres and its fingerprints can be found on everything from its own sequels to 2006's Eragon.
Specifically regarding science fiction, however, the success of Star Wars convinced Paramount to take a silver screen chance on its beloved franchise, Star Trek, and 20th Century Fox to give Ridley Scott the go-ahead to make a horror film set in space (Star Trek: The Motion Picture and Alien, respectively... both 1979). That the brilliance of The Empire Strikes Back (1980) and the fun of Return of the Jedi (1983) were nearly erased with the despicable Star Wars prequels of the the late 1990s and early 2000s does not lessen the impact of the original movie (and, in fact, proves its resilience).
Aliens (1986)
James Cameron's sequel to Ridley Scott's Alien is, as implied, part of the Star Wars "family tree of influence." And while perhaps not as groundbreaking as Cameron's previous film, The Terminator (1984), Aliens propelled science fiction into the stratosphere (a fact not lost on the Academy Awards, which honored the film with a nomination for Best Actress... a feat unheard of for a science fiction film). Part action, part horror, part commentary, Cameron finally proved with Aliens what stalwarts such as David Cronenberg and Scott were trying to prove with their own (brilliant) films: science fiction could be dark, gritty, and commercially successful.
While some might disagree, Aliens is the true cinematic progenitor of 1991's Terminator 2: Judgment Day (corporate intrigue, strong female protagonist, etc.) and not, as one would imagine, The Terminator. 2000's Pitch Black is even interpreted by some as a quasi-remake of Aliens. 1997's Starship Troopers, too, owes a great deal to Cameron's film (ironically, the novel Starship Troopers heavily influenced Aliens). And lets not forget the plethora of franchise-launching or franchise-renewing projects that appeared because of it: 1987's Predator (which also unfortunately led to2004's Alien vs. Predator), Alien Nation (1988), a War of the Worlds television series (1988), and even direct and pervasive homage in countless Japanese animated films.
The Matrix (1999)
Strangely, there were rather low expectations for this film to do well at the box office, must less spawn two sequels and a host of animation and graphic novel projects. That it became so influential to Hollywood in general could not have been predicted by anyone. Filmed for a relatively low budget (less than $65 million, where most films of this type are priced well over $100 million), the in-house effects team created some mind-boggling visuals that are still considered top-notch over a decade later. These effects, combined with a comic book-inspired script loaded with (unintentional) relevant philosophy, captured the minds of its audiences while blowing them away with ridiculous (yet appropriate, given the story) action sequences and subdued questions of reality.
Though not entirely relevant to itself, this examination of existence returned the genre to the realm of philosophy. While the tone of such later films as Sunshine (2007) and Moon (2009) doesn't lend to comparison, it would be hard-pressed for one to imagine either of those films being produced without The Matrix. And despite the two Matrix sequels attempting to force the philosophical issue (resulting in far-inferior films), many subsequent films were highly successful at it (2006's The Fountain - despite being a tad too overwrought - and even 2002's 28 Days Later). Essentially, it took an action spectacle to allow the quiet, introspective science fiction film to enjoy a resurgence.
Avatar (2009)
Avatar's place on this list could have very easily been taken by 2007's Transformers (yes, Transformers), but given that film's rush-to-sequel and the enormous amount of press preceding Avatar's release, Transformers had no chance to settle into the subconscious of audiences and filmmakers. There's not a lot to say about Avatar's influence just yet (save for the proliferation of 3D films), but I don't think I'm taking too much of a risk by claiming that, yes, it is the new Star Wars in that filmmaking has been distinctly altered forever.
The story of Avatar is admittedly pedestrian, but out of all of the films on this list, it is the most socially relevant. An intellectual might claim 2001: A Space Odyssey holds that distinction, but Kubrick's film hid its moral behind far too much artistic interpretation that its message went unnoticed by most of its viewers. Avatar, on the other hand, presented its commentary (environmentalism, racism, anti-private military, corporate greed) rather plainly.
It is obvious that Avatar has affected the technical nature of filmmaking for all time to come. It remains to be seen how it affects the presentation of social context within the genre. One can only hope.
Every time an "event" science fiction film makes its way into theaters, other films (science fiction or not) scramble to take advantage of the technology presented in that event picture. The end result is that motion picture eras can be defined almost as easily by the science fiction film they follow as by the decade they're a part of.
2001: A Space Odyssey (1968)
Stanley Kubrick was infamous for his bucking of Hollywood trends and the irony that he likely kicked off one of its biggest is not lost on anyone (or shouldn't be). There were influential science fiction films before Kubrick and Clarke's 2001: A Space Odyssey, but this was the first film to not only truly emphasize scientific realism in Hollywood science fiction at large, but to also present it as what many might refer to as an art film.
Admittedly, I find 2001: A Space Odyssey a highly overrated narrative mess (the novel, on the other hand, is brilliant), but its influence is obvious. Without it, there would be no Solyaris (1972) or The Man Who Fell to Earth (1976). Indeed, given its own sequel (2010: The Year We Make Contact - 1984) and the underrated American remake of Solyaris (Solaris - 2002), it's easy to argue that 2001: A Space Odyssey remains more influential than the more recent films appearing on this list. 1996's The Arrival and 1997's Contact also directly owe their thematic execution to Kubrick's influence.
Star Wars (1977)
Undoubtedly the most obvious film on the list, this is the one that changed Hollywood from top to bottom. Upon its release and the seemingly miles-long lines of eagerly-awaiting audiences that accompanied it, the film industry started churning out science fiction films (many horribly awful) in droves. Overtly less science fiction and more fairy tale (what many call space opera), Star Wars spanned all of the fantasy genres and its fingerprints can be found on everything from its own sequels to 2006's Eragon.
Specifically regarding science fiction, however, the success of Star Wars convinced Paramount to take a silver screen chance on its beloved franchise, Star Trek, and 20th Century Fox to give Ridley Scott the go-ahead to make a horror film set in space (Star Trek: The Motion Picture and Alien, respectively... both 1979). That the brilliance of The Empire Strikes Back (1980) and the fun of Return of the Jedi (1983) were nearly erased with the despicable Star Wars prequels of the the late 1990s and early 2000s does not lessen the impact of the original movie (and, in fact, proves its resilience).
Aliens (1986)
James Cameron's sequel to Ridley Scott's Alien is, as implied, part of the Star Wars "family tree of influence." And while perhaps not as groundbreaking as Cameron's previous film, The Terminator (1984), Aliens propelled science fiction into the stratosphere (a fact not lost on the Academy Awards, which honored the film with a nomination for Best Actress... a feat unheard of for a science fiction film). Part action, part horror, part commentary, Cameron finally proved with Aliens what stalwarts such as David Cronenberg and Scott were trying to prove with their own (brilliant) films: science fiction could be dark, gritty, and commercially successful.
While some might disagree, Aliens is the true cinematic progenitor of 1991's Terminator 2: Judgment Day (corporate intrigue, strong female protagonist, etc.) and not, as one would imagine, The Terminator. 2000's Pitch Black is even interpreted by some as a quasi-remake of Aliens. 1997's Starship Troopers, too, owes a great deal to Cameron's film (ironically, the novel Starship Troopers heavily influenced Aliens). And lets not forget the plethora of franchise-launching or franchise-renewing projects that appeared because of it: 1987's Predator (which also unfortunately led to2004's Alien vs. Predator), Alien Nation (1988), a War of the Worlds television series (1988), and even direct and pervasive homage in countless Japanese animated films.
The Matrix (1999)
Strangely, there were rather low expectations for this film to do well at the box office, must less spawn two sequels and a host of animation and graphic novel projects. That it became so influential to Hollywood in general could not have been predicted by anyone. Filmed for a relatively low budget (less than $65 million, where most films of this type are priced well over $100 million), the in-house effects team created some mind-boggling visuals that are still considered top-notch over a decade later. These effects, combined with a comic book-inspired script loaded with (unintentional) relevant philosophy, captured the minds of its audiences while blowing them away with ridiculous (yet appropriate, given the story) action sequences and subdued questions of reality.
Though not entirely relevant to itself, this examination of existence returned the genre to the realm of philosophy. While the tone of such later films as Sunshine (2007) and Moon (2009) doesn't lend to comparison, it would be hard-pressed for one to imagine either of those films being produced without The Matrix. And despite the two Matrix sequels attempting to force the philosophical issue (resulting in far-inferior films), many subsequent films were highly successful at it (2006's The Fountain - despite being a tad too overwrought - and even 2002's 28 Days Later). Essentially, it took an action spectacle to allow the quiet, introspective science fiction film to enjoy a resurgence.
Avatar (2009)
Avatar's place on this list could have very easily been taken by 2007's Transformers (yes, Transformers), but given that film's rush-to-sequel and the enormous amount of press preceding Avatar's release, Transformers had no chance to settle into the subconscious of audiences and filmmakers. There's not a lot to say about Avatar's influence just yet (save for the proliferation of 3D films), but I don't think I'm taking too much of a risk by claiming that, yes, it is the new Star Wars in that filmmaking has been distinctly altered forever.
The story of Avatar is admittedly pedestrian, but out of all of the films on this list, it is the most socially relevant. An intellectual might claim 2001: A Space Odyssey holds that distinction, but Kubrick's film hid its moral behind far too much artistic interpretation that its message went unnoticed by most of its viewers. Avatar, on the other hand, presented its commentary (environmentalism, racism, anti-private military, corporate greed) rather plainly.
It is obvious that Avatar has affected the technical nature of filmmaking for all time to come. It remains to be seen how it affects the presentation of social context within the genre. One can only hope.
Monday, June 21, 2010
Great American Directors
There seems to be a propensity in Hollywood to seek out foreign talent. And, in point of fact, there is. Of course, this is not due to some overbearing conspiracy to "de-Americanize" the American film industry, it's merely the result of reaching out to aesthetically-different filmmakers and actors to cast in appropriate ethnicities. Sure, Hollywood's got a ways to go as far as being "equal," but it's closer than most industries. Regardless, this is not a rant about the film world's inequities... this is a celebration of my favorite (living) American directors.
Let's face it, though devoid of an international reputation for art (pop-culturally speaking... the reality is quite different), America is the home to its fair share of capable artists. And I'd like to share my thoughts on two American film directors who absolutely rule their preferred genres, and a third who I think is in honest contention to being labeled the Best Director of All-Time (American or otherwise).
Arguably the least well-known of the three, but easily the best war-film director, is Edward Zwick. Known for critical darlings Glory and Courage Under Fire, he's also been responsible for the underrated The Last Samurai and Defiance. Drama in storytelling is inherently conflict, and while Zwick fills his films with ample amounts of emotional drama (the rivalry between Denzel Washington's Private Trip and, well, everyone else in Glory), he excels at presenting physical conflict.
For many filmmakers, such a tactic would be considered a cheap trick (think the finale of The Matrix trilogy or the third act of Danny Boyle's otherwise brilliant Sunshine). For Zwick, however, whose love of history and geopolitics permeates nearly every frame of his motion pictures, such a tactic is built into the story from inception. And, very nearly to perfection, the payoff works every time.
Still, he has endured his fair share of hiccups (1998's The Siege), but his war film resume, along with the good but often derided (usually by men) Legends of the Fall, more than ensures Zwick's place in the highest pantheon of film direction.
More famous than Zwick is Michael Mann, whom many remember as the progenitor of the campy 80s television series, Miami Vice. Actually, given that he also directed the misguided film version, he'll probably only be remembered for Miami Vice. Such a remembrance would be a little sad, however, as Mann has long been bringing powerful and ostensibly realistic crime films to the screen (then again, perhaps he wouldn't mind).
Little known for the fact that he was the first director to bring Hannibal Lecter to Hollywood (in Manhunter, later remade as Red Dragon), Mann initially burst into the crime scene with the brilliant and brilliantly subdued Thief. Starring James Caan as an extremely professional and increasingly reluctant safecracker, Thief laid the groundwork for many of Mann's crime films to come.
Along with Thief, Mann's greats are Heat (a remake of his own L.A. Takedown) and Collateral, the first film to star Tom Cruise as a villain. There was also the aforementioned film version of Miami Vice (again, misguided, but entertaining) and the under-appreciated Public Enemies, a charismatic film criticized for its historical inaccuracies. Mann's resume also includes the most recent The Last of the Mohicans and Ali.
By far the greatest living American director (in my opinion, anyway), Clint Eastwood began his career as an actor. Upon undertaking his directing career in the early 1970s, Eastwood helmed film after film (usually casting himself) in a professional, competent, and somewhat unspectacular manner. Though many of his earlier efforts remain guilty pleasures (High Plains Drifter, The Outlaw Josey Wales, Firefox), it wasn't until the phenomenal Unforgiven in 1992 that he truly hit his stride. Though his follow-up schedule would be peppered "old Eastwood" directing efforts such as Absolute Power and Space Cowboys, more and more of his films entered the realm of true greatness.
Shifting away from his action-oriented past and into contemporary relevance, Eastwood delighted and disturbed us with cautionary tales of revenge (Mystic River), controversial and loving depictions of euthanasia (Million Dollar Baby), and the perspective of enemies at war (Letters from Iwo Jima). One of his latest efforts not only sealed his place on any list of great film directors, but marked his return to on-screen star-power with quite possibly the greatest character he's ever portrayed (Gran Torino).
Effectively, Eastwood has become what other great and once-great American directors have failed to become... one who gets better with age. Many argue that such lions of film such as Steven Spielberg and Francis Ford Coppola have lost their touch (confirmed for the latter), but few lay claim to such a thing happening to Eastwood. Eastwood, effectively, is the anti-Spielberg (think The Terminal, War of the Worlds, Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull). And even with Martin Scorsese's resurgence, Eastwood seems to stand alone when considering quantity, quality, and consistency of work.
I can't wait to see who comes along next.
Let's face it, though devoid of an international reputation for art (pop-culturally speaking... the reality is quite different), America is the home to its fair share of capable artists. And I'd like to share my thoughts on two American film directors who absolutely rule their preferred genres, and a third who I think is in honest contention to being labeled the Best Director of All-Time (American or otherwise).
Arguably the least well-known of the three, but easily the best war-film director, is Edward Zwick. Known for critical darlings Glory and Courage Under Fire, he's also been responsible for the underrated The Last Samurai and Defiance. Drama in storytelling is inherently conflict, and while Zwick fills his films with ample amounts of emotional drama (the rivalry between Denzel Washington's Private Trip and, well, everyone else in Glory), he excels at presenting physical conflict.
For many filmmakers, such a tactic would be considered a cheap trick (think the finale of The Matrix trilogy or the third act of Danny Boyle's otherwise brilliant Sunshine). For Zwick, however, whose love of history and geopolitics permeates nearly every frame of his motion pictures, such a tactic is built into the story from inception. And, very nearly to perfection, the payoff works every time.
Still, he has endured his fair share of hiccups (1998's The Siege), but his war film resume, along with the good but often derided (usually by men) Legends of the Fall, more than ensures Zwick's place in the highest pantheon of film direction.
More famous than Zwick is Michael Mann, whom many remember as the progenitor of the campy 80s television series, Miami Vice. Actually, given that he also directed the misguided film version, he'll probably only be remembered for Miami Vice. Such a remembrance would be a little sad, however, as Mann has long been bringing powerful and ostensibly realistic crime films to the screen (then again, perhaps he wouldn't mind).
Little known for the fact that he was the first director to bring Hannibal Lecter to Hollywood (in Manhunter, later remade as Red Dragon), Mann initially burst into the crime scene with the brilliant and brilliantly subdued Thief. Starring James Caan as an extremely professional and increasingly reluctant safecracker, Thief laid the groundwork for many of Mann's crime films to come.
Along with Thief, Mann's greats are Heat (a remake of his own L.A. Takedown) and Collateral, the first film to star Tom Cruise as a villain. There was also the aforementioned film version of Miami Vice (again, misguided, but entertaining) and the under-appreciated Public Enemies, a charismatic film criticized for its historical inaccuracies. Mann's resume also includes the most recent The Last of the Mohicans and Ali.
By far the greatest living American director (in my opinion, anyway), Clint Eastwood began his career as an actor. Upon undertaking his directing career in the early 1970s, Eastwood helmed film after film (usually casting himself) in a professional, competent, and somewhat unspectacular manner. Though many of his earlier efforts remain guilty pleasures (High Plains Drifter, The Outlaw Josey Wales, Firefox), it wasn't until the phenomenal Unforgiven in 1992 that he truly hit his stride. Though his follow-up schedule would be peppered "old Eastwood" directing efforts such as Absolute Power and Space Cowboys, more and more of his films entered the realm of true greatness.
Shifting away from his action-oriented past and into contemporary relevance, Eastwood delighted and disturbed us with cautionary tales of revenge (Mystic River), controversial and loving depictions of euthanasia (Million Dollar Baby), and the perspective of enemies at war (Letters from Iwo Jima). One of his latest efforts not only sealed his place on any list of great film directors, but marked his return to on-screen star-power with quite possibly the greatest character he's ever portrayed (Gran Torino).
Effectively, Eastwood has become what other great and once-great American directors have failed to become... one who gets better with age. Many argue that such lions of film such as Steven Spielberg and Francis Ford Coppola have lost their touch (confirmed for the latter), but few lay claim to such a thing happening to Eastwood. Eastwood, effectively, is the anti-Spielberg (think The Terminal, War of the Worlds, Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull). And even with Martin Scorsese's resurgence, Eastwood seems to stand alone when considering quantity, quality, and consistency of work.
I can't wait to see who comes along next.
Wednesday, June 16, 2010
Irreviews, 2010: Issue X
Blow Out (1981)
Director: Brian De Palma
Writer(s): Brian De Palma
Starring: John Travolta, Nancy Allen, John Lithgow
-----
Made as homage to Michelangelo Antonioni's Blow-Up, Blow Out instead comes across as a cheap knock-off of Francis Ford Coppola's The Conversation. Changing the plot device from photography (as in Blow-Up) to sound recording, De Palma "homages" and rehashes Antonioni's and Coppola's films in what winds up a depressing mess. The first two acts of the film play well, with John Travolta giving the audience an attractive and charismatic protagonist (Jack Terry). Unfortunately, the ending only provides a perverse (and open-ended) resolution that, while clearly included for its shock value, lets the film down. Despite the tragic background given to Jack Terry, no explanation is given for his inexplicable decision to use his lover's dying scream as a sound effect. Yes, it plays at stupid as it reads.
Verdict: Eh... SEE it. I'd say SKIP it, but most of the movie is actually pretty good.
The Cat Returns (2002)
Director: Hiroyuki Morita
Writer(s): Reiko Yoshida, Aoi Hîragi (comic)
Starring: Japanese voice talent
-----
Probably the most "traditionally Disney" Japanese animated film I've ever seen, The Cat Returns convinced me that the Japanese need to stick to what they do best, because emulating Disney is not their strong suit. Yes, the story is occasionally hilarious and touching, but the narrative direction remains unclear even upon the film's conclusion. An overt moral tale ("believe in yourself"), the subversive nuances present in most Studio Ghibli films are noticeably absent. Not altogether bad, but slightly disappointing. And shame on you Disney (the film's US distributor) for using dubtitles (find a real translation if you can)!
Verdict: If you're really into Studio Ghibli or Japanese animation, SEE it.
City of Ember (2008)
Director: Gil Kenan
Writer(s): Caroline Thompson, Jeanne Duprau (book)
Starring: Harry Treadaway, Saoirse Ronan, Tim Robbins, Bill Murray
-----
The remnants of humanity have been forced underground to live in a self-sustaining city. Only, the city is falling apart. Two teenagers discover clues that will help humanity return to the surface and a harrowing mystery unfolds. There are no strong antagonists in the film, merely a handful of slightly lazy conspirators, and the film often glosses over its own world (the large insects are underused, the city itself is more plot-device than "character"). All that aside, the supporting cast is a treat and help carry the film quite well.
Verdict: SEE it. A decent family film.
Dressed to Kill (1980)
Director: Brian De Palma
Writer(s): Brian De Palma
Starring: Michael Caine, Angie Dickinson, Nancy Allen
-----
Brian De Palma seems to have always had a problem ending his movies. His "shocks" rarely work, and his "epilogues" (as in the case of Dressed to Kill) are worse. Known as a thriller director, his best work is clearly in the action genre. Dressed to Kill, however, is one of his thrillers. Although an early pioneer of plot twists of the type that are far too prevalent in modern films, Dressed to Kill suffers from being predictable a bit too quickly. Michael Caine, however, plays his role expertly (and creepily) and Angie Dickinson exudes a helluva lot of sex appeal. Still, in addition to its built-in shortcomings, Dressed to Kill is not a film that has aged well. It's not bad, but it's not great, either.
Verdict: SEE it if you're a De Palma or a genre fan.
Porco Rosso (1992)
Director: Hayao Miyazaki
Writer(s): Hayao Miyazaki
Starring: Japanese voice talent
-----
There is no other word for Hayao Miyazaki than brilliant. How else can you describe a man who creates an alternate inter-war reality in which the Mediterranean is overrun by air pirates in flying boats and whose hero is a World War I ace magically transformed into a pig? And makes it work! Though the third act is a bit chaotic, the entire film is a wonder. Though all the characters are fully developed, the love interest, Gina, has a subtext that is realistic, engrossing, depressing, and inspiring. A brilliant film from a brilliant mind. Odd trivia: Japan Air Lines is credited as a producer.
Verdict: SEE it. Fabulous film.
Director: Brian De Palma
Writer(s): Brian De Palma
Starring: John Travolta, Nancy Allen, John Lithgow
-----
Made as homage to Michelangelo Antonioni's Blow-Up, Blow Out instead comes across as a cheap knock-off of Francis Ford Coppola's The Conversation. Changing the plot device from photography (as in Blow-Up) to sound recording, De Palma "homages" and rehashes Antonioni's and Coppola's films in what winds up a depressing mess. The first two acts of the film play well, with John Travolta giving the audience an attractive and charismatic protagonist (Jack Terry). Unfortunately, the ending only provides a perverse (and open-ended) resolution that, while clearly included for its shock value, lets the film down. Despite the tragic background given to Jack Terry, no explanation is given for his inexplicable decision to use his lover's dying scream as a sound effect. Yes, it plays at stupid as it reads.
Verdict: Eh... SEE it. I'd say SKIP it, but most of the movie is actually pretty good.
The Cat Returns (2002)
Director: Hiroyuki Morita
Writer(s): Reiko Yoshida, Aoi Hîragi (comic)
Starring: Japanese voice talent
-----
Probably the most "traditionally Disney" Japanese animated film I've ever seen, The Cat Returns convinced me that the Japanese need to stick to what they do best, because emulating Disney is not their strong suit. Yes, the story is occasionally hilarious and touching, but the narrative direction remains unclear even upon the film's conclusion. An overt moral tale ("believe in yourself"), the subversive nuances present in most Studio Ghibli films are noticeably absent. Not altogether bad, but slightly disappointing. And shame on you Disney (the film's US distributor) for using dubtitles (find a real translation if you can)!
Verdict: If you're really into Studio Ghibli or Japanese animation, SEE it.
City of Ember (2008)
Director: Gil Kenan
Writer(s): Caroline Thompson, Jeanne Duprau (book)
Starring: Harry Treadaway, Saoirse Ronan, Tim Robbins, Bill Murray
-----
The remnants of humanity have been forced underground to live in a self-sustaining city. Only, the city is falling apart. Two teenagers discover clues that will help humanity return to the surface and a harrowing mystery unfolds. There are no strong antagonists in the film, merely a handful of slightly lazy conspirators, and the film often glosses over its own world (the large insects are underused, the city itself is more plot-device than "character"). All that aside, the supporting cast is a treat and help carry the film quite well.
Verdict: SEE it. A decent family film.
Dressed to Kill (1980)
Director: Brian De Palma
Writer(s): Brian De Palma
Starring: Michael Caine, Angie Dickinson, Nancy Allen
-----
Brian De Palma seems to have always had a problem ending his movies. His "shocks" rarely work, and his "epilogues" (as in the case of Dressed to Kill) are worse. Known as a thriller director, his best work is clearly in the action genre. Dressed to Kill, however, is one of his thrillers. Although an early pioneer of plot twists of the type that are far too prevalent in modern films, Dressed to Kill suffers from being predictable a bit too quickly. Michael Caine, however, plays his role expertly (and creepily) and Angie Dickinson exudes a helluva lot of sex appeal. Still, in addition to its built-in shortcomings, Dressed to Kill is not a film that has aged well. It's not bad, but it's not great, either.
Verdict: SEE it if you're a De Palma or a genre fan.
Porco Rosso (1992)
Director: Hayao Miyazaki
Writer(s): Hayao Miyazaki
Starring: Japanese voice talent
-----
There is no other word for Hayao Miyazaki than brilliant. How else can you describe a man who creates an alternate inter-war reality in which the Mediterranean is overrun by air pirates in flying boats and whose hero is a World War I ace magically transformed into a pig? And makes it work! Though the third act is a bit chaotic, the entire film is a wonder. Though all the characters are fully developed, the love interest, Gina, has a subtext that is realistic, engrossing, depressing, and inspiring. A brilliant film from a brilliant mind. Odd trivia: Japan Air Lines is credited as a producer.
Verdict: SEE it. Fabulous film.
Monday, June 7, 2010
Irreviews, 2010: Issue IX
Alice in Wonderland (2010)
Director: Tim Burton
Writer(s): Linda Woolverton, Lewis Carroll (books)
Starring: Mia Wasikowska, Johnny Depp, Helena Bonham Carter
-----
It's been a while since Alice has graced the silver screen and it shouldn't be a surprise that it was Tim Burton who decided to return her there. Part remake of the Disney animated film and part sequel, the film is entertaining as both, though there are things lost in translation. Without the source material (Carroll's books) fresh in mind, many of the nuances and homages to the original works will come and go without so much as a blink. Still, the production design and art direction are delights, Johnny Depp is eerily eerie as the Mad Hatter (who, following a recent trend in Wonderland interpretations, is elevated to a primary protagonist), and I can't think of a better director for a live action Alice in Wonderland than Tim Burton. The 3D, while competent, seems mostly unnecessary.
Verdict: SEE it. Just make sure to re-familiarize yourself with the original stories before you do.
The Last Word (1995)
Director: Tony Spiridakis
Writer(s): Tony Spiridakis
Starring: Timothy Hutton, Joe Pantoliano, Michelle Burke
-----
Also known as Cosa Nostra because of a ridiculous subplot involving the Mafia, this film's ridiculousness only starts there. Starring a surprisingly excellent cast (including Tony Goldwyn, as well as Chazz Palmintieri, Richard Dreyfuss, and Cybill Shepherd in scene-stealing cameos - which wasn't hard to do in this film), I had high(er) hopes for this one. But a script rife with ridiculous dialog and a convoluted plot killed any chance of it being good. Overdirected, overacted, and painfully disjointed, there's quite literally nothing to see (or speak of) here.
Verdict: SKIP it.
Les Triplettes de Belleville (2003)
Director: Sylvain Chomet
Writer(s): Sylvain Chomet
Starring: Er... nobody, really... just cartoon characters and some singing voices
-----
As a fan of animation in nearly all of its forms, I was remiss in not catching this when it was released. It is truly a wonderful and weird film. I can't think of five French cartoons I've seen, but if they're typically like this, I'll be watching quite a few in the near future. Practically a silent film (many sound effects, some singing, no dialog), the script is absent logic and the style of the animation is low on realism. And what a fantastic combination that makes. I won't explain more, partially because it needs to be seen to be understood and partially because there's actually nothing to explain. Notable for the strangest and most charming chase scene in animation history.
Verdict: SEE it. Its weirdness demands a view.
Nausicaä of the Valley of the Wind (1984)
Director: Hayao Miyazaki
Writer(s): Hayao Miyazaki
Starring: Japanese voice actors you don't know
-----
One of Miyazaki's (Spirited Away, Princess Mononoke) earliest theatrical efforts, it's quite a thing to learn that the formula he uses in his storytelling hasn't changed much over the years... and still doesn't seem stale. Though his more recent films are arguably better, Nausicaä of the Valley of the Wind is an excellent film. Based upon Miyazaki's own manga, the transition from page to screen is unnoticeable to a casual observer. Always on the cutting edge of fanstastical conceptual design and full of environmentalist commentary, this one can be enjoyed on several levels.
Verdict: SEE it. Miyazaki films are practically always must-sees.
Robin Hood (2010)
Director: Ridley Scott
Writer(s): Brian Helgeland, Ethan Reiff (story), Cyrus Voris (story)
Starring: Russell Crowe, Cate Blanchett, Mark Strong
-----
As wth Alice in Wonderland, it's been a while since we've had a film version of Robin Hood. Ridley Scott, following in his own footsteps, decided to present us with a historical look at Robin Hood, much like Hollywood tried with King Arthur a few years ago. The result is a good movie (one rife with historical inaccuracies) that is decidedly not a Robin Hood movie. While Russell Crowe pulls off the outlaw better than most expected (or give him credit for), the fact that the legendary Robin Hood that everyone knows and loves is almost completely absent from the story will undoubtedly hurt it. That stated, it's an interesting interpretation. Perhaps viewing this as a continuation of Scott's Kingdom of Heaven will allow you to appreciate it more than you will appreciate it as a Robin Hood film.
Verdict: SEE it. A different enough take on the Robin Hood mythos to warrant a view.
Director: Tim Burton
Writer(s): Linda Woolverton, Lewis Carroll (books)
Starring: Mia Wasikowska, Johnny Depp, Helena Bonham Carter
-----
It's been a while since Alice has graced the silver screen and it shouldn't be a surprise that it was Tim Burton who decided to return her there. Part remake of the Disney animated film and part sequel, the film is entertaining as both, though there are things lost in translation. Without the source material (Carroll's books) fresh in mind, many of the nuances and homages to the original works will come and go without so much as a blink. Still, the production design and art direction are delights, Johnny Depp is eerily eerie as the Mad Hatter (who, following a recent trend in Wonderland interpretations, is elevated to a primary protagonist), and I can't think of a better director for a live action Alice in Wonderland than Tim Burton. The 3D, while competent, seems mostly unnecessary.
Verdict: SEE it. Just make sure to re-familiarize yourself with the original stories before you do.
The Last Word (1995)
Director: Tony Spiridakis
Writer(s): Tony Spiridakis
Starring: Timothy Hutton, Joe Pantoliano, Michelle Burke
-----
Also known as Cosa Nostra because of a ridiculous subplot involving the Mafia, this film's ridiculousness only starts there. Starring a surprisingly excellent cast (including Tony Goldwyn, as well as Chazz Palmintieri, Richard Dreyfuss, and Cybill Shepherd in scene-stealing cameos - which wasn't hard to do in this film), I had high(er) hopes for this one. But a script rife with ridiculous dialog and a convoluted plot killed any chance of it being good. Overdirected, overacted, and painfully disjointed, there's quite literally nothing to see (or speak of) here.
Verdict: SKIP it.
Les Triplettes de Belleville (2003)
Director: Sylvain Chomet
Writer(s): Sylvain Chomet
Starring: Er... nobody, really... just cartoon characters and some singing voices
-----
As a fan of animation in nearly all of its forms, I was remiss in not catching this when it was released. It is truly a wonderful and weird film. I can't think of five French cartoons I've seen, but if they're typically like this, I'll be watching quite a few in the near future. Practically a silent film (many sound effects, some singing, no dialog), the script is absent logic and the style of the animation is low on realism. And what a fantastic combination that makes. I won't explain more, partially because it needs to be seen to be understood and partially because there's actually nothing to explain. Notable for the strangest and most charming chase scene in animation history.
Verdict: SEE it. Its weirdness demands a view.
Nausicaä of the Valley of the Wind (1984)
Director: Hayao Miyazaki
Writer(s): Hayao Miyazaki
Starring: Japanese voice actors you don't know
-----
One of Miyazaki's (Spirited Away, Princess Mononoke) earliest theatrical efforts, it's quite a thing to learn that the formula he uses in his storytelling hasn't changed much over the years... and still doesn't seem stale. Though his more recent films are arguably better, Nausicaä of the Valley of the Wind is an excellent film. Based upon Miyazaki's own manga, the transition from page to screen is unnoticeable to a casual observer. Always on the cutting edge of fanstastical conceptual design and full of environmentalist commentary, this one can be enjoyed on several levels.
Verdict: SEE it. Miyazaki films are practically always must-sees.
Robin Hood (2010)
Director: Ridley Scott
Writer(s): Brian Helgeland, Ethan Reiff (story), Cyrus Voris (story)
Starring: Russell Crowe, Cate Blanchett, Mark Strong
-----
As wth Alice in Wonderland, it's been a while since we've had a film version of Robin Hood. Ridley Scott, following in his own footsteps, decided to present us with a historical look at Robin Hood, much like Hollywood tried with King Arthur a few years ago. The result is a good movie (one rife with historical inaccuracies) that is decidedly not a Robin Hood movie. While Russell Crowe pulls off the outlaw better than most expected (or give him credit for), the fact that the legendary Robin Hood that everyone knows and loves is almost completely absent from the story will undoubtedly hurt it. That stated, it's an interesting interpretation. Perhaps viewing this as a continuation of Scott's Kingdom of Heaven will allow you to appreciate it more than you will appreciate it as a Robin Hood film.
Verdict: SEE it. A different enough take on the Robin Hood mythos to warrant a view.
Wednesday, May 26, 2010
Ridley Scott's Robin Hood
Of myths and legends, there are many (hundreds... thousands, even) I love. Regarding mythologies, I can safely claim that the Greek Mythos is my favorite. Regarding legends... well, that favorite would have to be Robin Hood.
Robin Hood, to me, has them all beat. King Arthur included. Maybe it's because I favor archery to swordplay, or maybe it's because Robin Hood has more successfully blended himself with factual history than has King Arthur. I guess I don't really know why, but good ol' Sherwood is just more attractive to me than the Round Table.
From N.C. Wyeth's fabulous oil paintings to Louis Rhead's amalgamation/interpretation of the overall legend; from Errol Flynn to a Disney-animated fox; from Sean Connery to Kevin Costner; from supporting roles in Ivanhoe to cameo appearances in Defender of the Crown... I just love Robin Hood.
So, by now it should be no surprise that I eagerly awaited the latest film adaption of the tale. One directed by an outstanding filmmaker (and a personal favorite), Ridley Scott, and starring one of the better actors of the current generation, Russell Crowe. I mean, these guys did Gladiator together. There was no doubt in my mind that this Robin Hood was just going to be a kick-ass film.
And then I watched it. It was definitely kick-ass. But, somehow, it was also very disappointing.
Before I continue, let's clear this up: Ridley Scott's Robin Hood is a good movie. Not as good as Gladiator (or even Kingdom of Heaven), but it's still very, very good.
But it wasn't Robin Hood.
Oh, sure, the names were the same, the era of history was the same, etc. But it wasn't Robin Hood. It was... it was... hmm... it was simply another "historical war movie." I have to apologize, as I'm really at a loss to explain this. The film just wasn't Robin Hood.
Now, Ridley Scott did a fine job tying the legend in with history (a much better job than Antoine Fuqua did with that King Arthur movie a few years ago) and really did put together a wonderful film... but the "Robin Hood" part of Robin Hood seemed absent (I apologize again, as I'm now repeating myself).
And... and... Russell Crowe was a very good titular character. Many complained about his casting, but like Michael Keaton as Batman, it worked. Not only that, Russell Crowe looks a bit like he could be a wrestler, and anyone familiar with the literary Robin Hood knows that the outlaw is only good at two things: archery and (voila!) wrestling. So Crowe was fine for me.
And Mark Strong rocked as the villain (as he always does, it seems).
But it just wasn't Robin Hood.
All that stated, go see it, for it is a good movie. And it sets itself up for a sequel which (probably unsurprisingly) looks like it will be "Robin Hood." I won't explain more... the film deserves a view.
Robin Hood, to me, has them all beat. King Arthur included. Maybe it's because I favor archery to swordplay, or maybe it's because Robin Hood has more successfully blended himself with factual history than has King Arthur. I guess I don't really know why, but good ol' Sherwood is just more attractive to me than the Round Table.
From N.C. Wyeth's fabulous oil paintings to Louis Rhead's amalgamation/interpretation of the overall legend; from Errol Flynn to a Disney-animated fox; from Sean Connery to Kevin Costner; from supporting roles in Ivanhoe to cameo appearances in Defender of the Crown... I just love Robin Hood.
So, by now it should be no surprise that I eagerly awaited the latest film adaption of the tale. One directed by an outstanding filmmaker (and a personal favorite), Ridley Scott, and starring one of the better actors of the current generation, Russell Crowe. I mean, these guys did Gladiator together. There was no doubt in my mind that this Robin Hood was just going to be a kick-ass film.
And then I watched it. It was definitely kick-ass. But, somehow, it was also very disappointing.
Before I continue, let's clear this up: Ridley Scott's Robin Hood is a good movie. Not as good as Gladiator (or even Kingdom of Heaven), but it's still very, very good.
But it wasn't Robin Hood.
Oh, sure, the names were the same, the era of history was the same, etc. But it wasn't Robin Hood. It was... it was... hmm... it was simply another "historical war movie." I have to apologize, as I'm really at a loss to explain this. The film just wasn't Robin Hood.
Now, Ridley Scott did a fine job tying the legend in with history (a much better job than Antoine Fuqua did with that King Arthur movie a few years ago) and really did put together a wonderful film... but the "Robin Hood" part of Robin Hood seemed absent (I apologize again, as I'm now repeating myself).
And... and... Russell Crowe was a very good titular character. Many complained about his casting, but like Michael Keaton as Batman, it worked. Not only that, Russell Crowe looks a bit like he could be a wrestler, and anyone familiar with the literary Robin Hood knows that the outlaw is only good at two things: archery and (voila!) wrestling. So Crowe was fine for me.
And Mark Strong rocked as the villain (as he always does, it seems).
But it just wasn't Robin Hood.
All that stated, go see it, for it is a good movie. And it sets itself up for a sequel which (probably unsurprisingly) looks like it will be "Robin Hood." I won't explain more... the film deserves a view.
Monday, May 10, 2010
Irreviews, 2010: Issue VIII
Clash of the Titans (2010)
Director: Louis Leterrier
Writer(s): Travis Beacham, Phil Hay, Matt Manfredi, Beverley Cross (1981 screenplay)
Starring: Sam Worthington, Liam Neeson, Ralph Fiennes
-----
A remake of the campy and charming 1981 classic, this film is neither campy nor charming. It feels like it should've been campy, but it wasn't. Bad move. Break-neck pacing eliminates any chance of decent characters to emerge, and the plot is, well... somehow it manages not to be as good as the original. Not initially intended for a 3D release, the 3D scenes definitely feel tacked on and a bit rushed (the harpies or whatever they are look like crap), though the final Kraken battle does look pretty awesome. It's a pity the story didn't stay closer to the source material.
Verdict: Eh... SEE it, but wait for home video.
How to Train Your Dragon (2010)
Director: Dean DeBlois, Chris Sanders
Writer(s): William Davies, DeDeblois, Chris Sanders, Cressida Cowell (novel)
Starring: Jay Baruchel, Gerard Butler, Craig Ferguson, America Ferrara
-----
Not only one of the best animated films to come out in this young century (yes, that's acknowledging Up and Wall*E), it's one of the best films of 2010. The advertisements claim the 3D scenes give Avatar a run for its money, and it's true (although, let's be fair, it's easier to "3D" a cartoon than it is a live-action film). But, 3D or not, the story, the characters, the tone... Hell, everything about this film... is brilliant.
Verdict: SEE it! And again!
Kick-Ass (2010)
Director: Matthew Vaughn
Writer(s): Jane Goldman, Matthew Vaughn, Mark Millar (comic book), John S. Romita, Jr. (comic book)
Starring: Aaron Johnson, Mark Strong, Nicholas Cage
-----
Matthew Vaughn's follow-up to one of my favorite films (Stardust) is damn close to being another of my favorite films. Satirical and extremely violent, the creators of Kick-Ass take the Batman mythos and turn it on its head. The result? A satirical and extremely violent movie that is fun, engaging, and a reminder of what compelling entertainment should be. Yes, I understand the "controversy" behind creating a young character who is so efficient a killing machine (the character in question is about 11, and a cute girl), but it's misguided. Batman and Robin (excuse me... Big Daddy and Hit-Girl) have rarely been so bold.
Verdict: SEE it. Fantastic all-around, but definitely NOT a movie for young children.
The Losers (2010)
Director: Sylvain White
Writer(s): Peter Berg, James Vanderbilt, Andy Diggle (characters)
Starring: Jeffrey Dean Morgan, Zoe Saldana, Chris Evans
-----
Both an update to the original DC Comics "The Losers" and homage to The A-Team (which got its own movie), The Losers is a film that struggles to find its footing, but is nevertheless enjoyable. Each of the five male members of the Losers are portrayed by ridiculously charismatic actors, and the female member (portrayed by Zoe Saldana) is, well, rather hot (and equally charismatic). Jason Patric, the film's villain, is far too over-the-top and his subplot equally so. In fact, were it not for the villain, this movie would've been way better than it was. Put it this way: the whole of the film is less than the sum of its parts. But it's still better than a lot of films out there... and the characters (the protagonists, anyway) are classics.
Verdict: Hmm... not for everyone, but action and comic book fans should love it. SEE it.
Passion in the Desert (1997)
Director: Lavinia Currier
Writer(s): Lavinia Currier, Martin Edmunds, Honoré de Balzac (story)
Starring: Ben Daniels, Michel Piccoli
-----
I have wanted to see this movie ever since it came out. I almost watched it in 2009, but thanks to a DVR hiccup, the recording was corrupted. And now I've finally seen it. This is a beautifully-shot movie that is ultimately about, well, not much at all. Rife with "hasty scenes" meant to be shocking or otherwise disturbing, the overall story fails miserably at being moving or otherwise emotionally engaging. Sure, animal lovers will wax fanatic at the interaction between the protagonist and the leopard he befriends in the desert, but the silliness and too-fast pace ruin any chance of this being considered "artistic."
Verdict: SKIP it. You're not missing much, I assure you.
Director: Louis Leterrier
Writer(s): Travis Beacham, Phil Hay, Matt Manfredi, Beverley Cross (1981 screenplay)
Starring: Sam Worthington, Liam Neeson, Ralph Fiennes
-----
A remake of the campy and charming 1981 classic, this film is neither campy nor charming. It feels like it should've been campy, but it wasn't. Bad move. Break-neck pacing eliminates any chance of decent characters to emerge, and the plot is, well... somehow it manages not to be as good as the original. Not initially intended for a 3D release, the 3D scenes definitely feel tacked on and a bit rushed (the harpies or whatever they are look like crap), though the final Kraken battle does look pretty awesome. It's a pity the story didn't stay closer to the source material.
Verdict: Eh... SEE it, but wait for home video.
How to Train Your Dragon (2010)
Director: Dean DeBlois, Chris Sanders
Writer(s): William Davies, DeDeblois, Chris Sanders, Cressida Cowell (novel)
Starring: Jay Baruchel, Gerard Butler, Craig Ferguson, America Ferrara
-----
Not only one of the best animated films to come out in this young century (yes, that's acknowledging Up and Wall*E), it's one of the best films of 2010. The advertisements claim the 3D scenes give Avatar a run for its money, and it's true (although, let's be fair, it's easier to "3D" a cartoon than it is a live-action film). But, 3D or not, the story, the characters, the tone... Hell, everything about this film... is brilliant.
Verdict: SEE it! And again!
Kick-Ass (2010)
Director: Matthew Vaughn
Writer(s): Jane Goldman, Matthew Vaughn, Mark Millar (comic book), John S. Romita, Jr. (comic book)
Starring: Aaron Johnson, Mark Strong, Nicholas Cage
-----
Matthew Vaughn's follow-up to one of my favorite films (Stardust) is damn close to being another of my favorite films. Satirical and extremely violent, the creators of Kick-Ass take the Batman mythos and turn it on its head. The result? A satirical and extremely violent movie that is fun, engaging, and a reminder of what compelling entertainment should be. Yes, I understand the "controversy" behind creating a young character who is so efficient a killing machine (the character in question is about 11, and a cute girl), but it's misguided. Batman and Robin (excuse me... Big Daddy and Hit-Girl) have rarely been so bold.
Verdict: SEE it. Fantastic all-around, but definitely NOT a movie for young children.
The Losers (2010)
Director: Sylvain White
Writer(s): Peter Berg, James Vanderbilt, Andy Diggle (characters)
Starring: Jeffrey Dean Morgan, Zoe Saldana, Chris Evans
-----
Both an update to the original DC Comics "The Losers" and homage to The A-Team (which got its own movie), The Losers is a film that struggles to find its footing, but is nevertheless enjoyable. Each of the five male members of the Losers are portrayed by ridiculously charismatic actors, and the female member (portrayed by Zoe Saldana) is, well, rather hot (and equally charismatic). Jason Patric, the film's villain, is far too over-the-top and his subplot equally so. In fact, were it not for the villain, this movie would've been way better than it was. Put it this way: the whole of the film is less than the sum of its parts. But it's still better than a lot of films out there... and the characters (the protagonists, anyway) are classics.
Verdict: Hmm... not for everyone, but action and comic book fans should love it. SEE it.
Passion in the Desert (1997)
Director: Lavinia Currier
Writer(s): Lavinia Currier, Martin Edmunds, Honoré de Balzac (story)
Starring: Ben Daniels, Michel Piccoli
-----
I have wanted to see this movie ever since it came out. I almost watched it in 2009, but thanks to a DVR hiccup, the recording was corrupted. And now I've finally seen it. This is a beautifully-shot movie that is ultimately about, well, not much at all. Rife with "hasty scenes" meant to be shocking or otherwise disturbing, the overall story fails miserably at being moving or otherwise emotionally engaging. Sure, animal lovers will wax fanatic at the interaction between the protagonist and the leopard he befriends in the desert, but the silliness and too-fast pace ruin any chance of this being considered "artistic."
Verdict: SKIP it. You're not missing much, I assure you.
Monday, April 19, 2010
Avatar Revisited
When I originally reviewed Avatar (way back in Irreviews, 2010: Issue II), I mentioned that I wanted to see it again to determine if its awe-inspiration and story hold up under further scrutiny. Left unsaid (or unwritten, rather) was that I wanted to see if it could make its way onto my personal "All-Time Great Movies" list.
Well, I've seen it two more times since, and I have my answers.
First of all, yes, the awe-inspiration holds up. While many of the 3D sequences did lose some effect, the flying sequences (particularly the initial ikran/banshee scene) remains as breathtaking and wondrous as they were the first time I saw it. That it does so is even more meaningful (to me, anyway) in that I saw the film for the third time the day after I saw How to Train Your Dragon (another great 3D film, and great film in general, but I'll talk about that one in the next Irreviews). I simply can't say enough about how fantastic Avatar looks.
Moving on to the story. There are many, many films whose stories are "worse" upon subsequent viewings, and there are many, many films whose stories are "better." Whether this is from an inherent ability to notice more during a second look or the phenomenon of it "growing on you," I can't claim to know. But I do think Avatar's story offers quite a bit of depth that gets overlooked the first time one watches it. There are many subtle moments found in the protagonist's portrayal that I simply didn't see initially, and the same holds true for much of the so-called hidden commentary in the film. So, yes, the story does hold up and actually improves, in my opinion. Does this put the story in the same category as the stories from the films typically recognized as the greats? No. But it certainly speaks to Avatar's (and James Cameron's) competence in telling a story.
Still, while I do recognize Avatar as one of the most important films of all time, it does not make my "All-Time Great Movies" list (in which there are only seven films). It almost did, and I must admit that I wanted it to, but it doesn't. What it does do is change filmmaking forever. Regardless of your own personal opinion of the movie, that is an inarguable fact.
Well, I've seen it two more times since, and I have my answers.
First of all, yes, the awe-inspiration holds up. While many of the 3D sequences did lose some effect, the flying sequences (particularly the initial ikran/banshee scene) remains as breathtaking and wondrous as they were the first time I saw it. That it does so is even more meaningful (to me, anyway) in that I saw the film for the third time the day after I saw How to Train Your Dragon (another great 3D film, and great film in general, but I'll talk about that one in the next Irreviews). I simply can't say enough about how fantastic Avatar looks.
Moving on to the story. There are many, many films whose stories are "worse" upon subsequent viewings, and there are many, many films whose stories are "better." Whether this is from an inherent ability to notice more during a second look or the phenomenon of it "growing on you," I can't claim to know. But I do think Avatar's story offers quite a bit of depth that gets overlooked the first time one watches it. There are many subtle moments found in the protagonist's portrayal that I simply didn't see initially, and the same holds true for much of the so-called hidden commentary in the film. So, yes, the story does hold up and actually improves, in my opinion. Does this put the story in the same category as the stories from the films typically recognized as the greats? No. But it certainly speaks to Avatar's (and James Cameron's) competence in telling a story.
Still, while I do recognize Avatar as one of the most important films of all time, it does not make my "All-Time Great Movies" list (in which there are only seven films). It almost did, and I must admit that I wanted it to, but it doesn't. What it does do is change filmmaking forever. Regardless of your own personal opinion of the movie, that is an inarguable fact.
Monday, April 5, 2010
Irreviews, 2010: Issue VII
Corpse Bride (2005)
Director: Tim Burton, Mike Johnson
Writer(s): John August, Caroline Thompson, Pamela Pettler
Starring: Johnny Depp, Helena Bonham Carter, Emily Watson
-----
Tim Burton's follow-up to The Nightmare Before Christmas was a long-time coming (12 years or so, in fact), but it was well worth it. Thought not as groundbreaking as its predecessor, neither narrative nor conceptually, Corpse Bride is a more traditional film and is likely to appeal to a wider audience. Funny, witty, and disturbingly cute (or is that cutely disturbing), let's hope Burton knocks more of these types of film out on a more frequent basis.
Verdict: SEE it.
Frost/Nixon (2008)
Director: Ron Howard
Writer(s): Peter Morgan
Starring: Frank Langella, Michael Sheen, Sam Rockwell, Kevin Bacon
-----
Ron Howard is good at what he does. And what he does is take real (or otherwise plausible) situations and turn them into good dramatic fare. Armed with Peter Morgan's screenplay (based on Morgan's stage play of the same name), Howard gives us a peek into the admirable, controversial, and conniving mind that was Richard Nixon. Surprisingly middle of the road in terms of politics, the film is better for it. Both Frost and Nixon are portrayed as normal people, driving by extraordinary motivations (greed, in this case). Still, the film is nowhere near as good as Howard's best works and is far from great, but it's certainly a good one. Rife with typical "Howard-esque" emotional tugging, it's important to keep in the mind that the film is based on the play and not necessarily on what really happened.
Verdict: SEE it.
Precious (2009)
Director: Lee Daniels
Writer(s): Geoffrey Fletcher, Sapphire (novel)
Starring: Gabourey Sidibe, Mo'Nique, Paula Patton
-----
A hard-hitting fictional memoir into the life of Clareece Precious Johnson. And I do mean hard-hitting. Brutal, in your face, unapologetic. Every moment of hope experienced by the protagonist is taken away by a moment of despair. Though the film ends on somewhat of a high note, this is not a film with a happy ending. Gabourey Sidibe and Mo'Nique are excellent in their roles, and even Mariah Carey knocks out a very good supporting role. There are character moments that seem a little stereotypical, but perhaps that was the point. Overall, a great film. Unlike The Hurt Locker, this one earns its press.
Verdict: SEE it.
Repo Men (2010)
Director: Miguel Sapochnik
Writer(s): Eric Garcia, Garrett Lerner
Starring: Jude Law, Forrest Whitaker, Alice Braga, Liev Schreiber
-----
Yet another fantastic concept ruined by an unwillingness to diverge from standard Hollywood action formula. Repo Men is supposed to be about an industry centered on recovering artificial organs from recipients who can no longer afford their installment payments. Sounds great, right? It should've been, that's for sure. Instead we wind up with nothing more than a banal action film, replete with inexplicable love story (Hello!!! The protagonist was happily married!!!), and gratuitous plot twist (and a retarded one, at that). The film looks great for the most part, and is very well acted (Liev Schreiber's the highlight), but the whole thing just falls flat on its face. You can repo my kidney if you refund the ticket price.
Verdict: SKIP it.
Sunshine Cleaning (2008)
Director: Christine Jeffs
Writer(s): Megan Holley
Starring: Amy Adams, Emily Blunt, Alan Arkin
-----
You ever wonder who cleans up bloody crime scenes? This film answers that question. A dark-ish comedy that revolves around a woman who is having an affair with her now-married high school boyfriend. The high school boyfriend is now a cop. She is a cleaning lady struggling to survive. The cop hooks her up with crime scene cleanup. And, hey, it works as a plot. A subtly funny movie, fairly charming, and very enjoyable (thanks mostly to great performances). There is some unauthentic emotion, as if the writer just wanted to get to the punchline (there's a "CB radio to heaven" motif that is poorly setup and even more poorly executed)
and the subplot involving the sister and the daughter of a "client" sometimes overpowers the main storyline, but all in all it's worth a watch.
Verdict: SEE it.
Director: Tim Burton, Mike Johnson
Writer(s): John August, Caroline Thompson, Pamela Pettler
Starring: Johnny Depp, Helena Bonham Carter, Emily Watson
-----
Tim Burton's follow-up to The Nightmare Before Christmas was a long-time coming (12 years or so, in fact), but it was well worth it. Thought not as groundbreaking as its predecessor, neither narrative nor conceptually, Corpse Bride is a more traditional film and is likely to appeal to a wider audience. Funny, witty, and disturbingly cute (or is that cutely disturbing), let's hope Burton knocks more of these types of film out on a more frequent basis.
Verdict: SEE it.
Frost/Nixon (2008)
Director: Ron Howard
Writer(s): Peter Morgan
Starring: Frank Langella, Michael Sheen, Sam Rockwell, Kevin Bacon
-----
Ron Howard is good at what he does. And what he does is take real (or otherwise plausible) situations and turn them into good dramatic fare. Armed with Peter Morgan's screenplay (based on Morgan's stage play of the same name), Howard gives us a peek into the admirable, controversial, and conniving mind that was Richard Nixon. Surprisingly middle of the road in terms of politics, the film is better for it. Both Frost and Nixon are portrayed as normal people, driving by extraordinary motivations (greed, in this case). Still, the film is nowhere near as good as Howard's best works and is far from great, but it's certainly a good one. Rife with typical "Howard-esque" emotional tugging, it's important to keep in the mind that the film is based on the play and not necessarily on what really happened.
Verdict: SEE it.
Precious (2009)
Director: Lee Daniels
Writer(s): Geoffrey Fletcher, Sapphire (novel)
Starring: Gabourey Sidibe, Mo'Nique, Paula Patton
-----
A hard-hitting fictional memoir into the life of Clareece Precious Johnson. And I do mean hard-hitting. Brutal, in your face, unapologetic. Every moment of hope experienced by the protagonist is taken away by a moment of despair. Though the film ends on somewhat of a high note, this is not a film with a happy ending. Gabourey Sidibe and Mo'Nique are excellent in their roles, and even Mariah Carey knocks out a very good supporting role. There are character moments that seem a little stereotypical, but perhaps that was the point. Overall, a great film. Unlike The Hurt Locker, this one earns its press.
Verdict: SEE it.
Repo Men (2010)
Director: Miguel Sapochnik
Writer(s): Eric Garcia, Garrett Lerner
Starring: Jude Law, Forrest Whitaker, Alice Braga, Liev Schreiber
-----
Yet another fantastic concept ruined by an unwillingness to diverge from standard Hollywood action formula. Repo Men is supposed to be about an industry centered on recovering artificial organs from recipients who can no longer afford their installment payments. Sounds great, right? It should've been, that's for sure. Instead we wind up with nothing more than a banal action film, replete with inexplicable love story (Hello!!! The protagonist was happily married!!!), and gratuitous plot twist (and a retarded one, at that). The film looks great for the most part, and is very well acted (Liev Schreiber's the highlight), but the whole thing just falls flat on its face. You can repo my kidney if you refund the ticket price.
Verdict: SKIP it.
Sunshine Cleaning (2008)
Director: Christine Jeffs
Writer(s): Megan Holley
Starring: Amy Adams, Emily Blunt, Alan Arkin
-----
You ever wonder who cleans up bloody crime scenes? This film answers that question. A dark-ish comedy that revolves around a woman who is having an affair with her now-married high school boyfriend. The high school boyfriend is now a cop. She is a cleaning lady struggling to survive. The cop hooks her up with crime scene cleanup. And, hey, it works as a plot. A subtly funny movie, fairly charming, and very enjoyable (thanks mostly to great performances). There is some unauthentic emotion, as if the writer just wanted to get to the punchline (there's a "CB radio to heaven" motif that is poorly setup and even more poorly executed)
and the subplot involving the sister and the daughter of a "client" sometimes overpowers the main storyline, but all in all it's worth a watch.
Verdict: SEE it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
