Written by Drew Bolduc
Directed by Drew Bolduc & Dan G. Nelson
Pretty much everything by Drew Bolduc & Dan G. Nelson
As mentioned in tons of reviews before, the only way to describe The Taint is Gonzo. Everything about it is to the fullest extreme, comedy lurks in every shot, and every level of ridiculousness is amped to the highest possible point.
The black and white opening shots of tits, the shot from the inside of a vagina, welcome you to the experience that is The Taint. As the main character Phil O'Ginny (Drew Bolduc) wakes from his Oedipal nightmare, he is next to a girl, and suddenly, he's being chased by a woodland maniac, holding a severed penis, a scythe, shitting his pants as he runs. If you can continue to watch this film, you know you just stumbled into a very wild movie.
Bolduc handled the awesome synth soundtrack, Nelson did the insane, kinetic cinematography, they both edited the picture and sound, and Nelson did both the practical and digital f/x for the film, making it a true independent film, because when no one will listen to your insane idea, sometimes you just have to do it yourself, and trust that people will get the joke. In the case of The Taint it works. It all works. What should be boring and unfunny is quickly paced and full of sick laughs.
The cover of the film and the scattered synopsis' may scare some people off, same with the Troma-esque look, but this is the best, most exciting Troma film that Troma didn't have the drive to make, but the spirit remains the same.
Some films simply entertain, and no matter how good they are, they simply can only entertain. Other films transcend that ability, and make you feel as though you've seen the face of something new, giving them an almost religious feel; The Taint is one of these films, in line with Jodoworski's El Topo as a balls out cinematic experience.
To comment on the plot is to ruin the joy of going into the film thinking it's only about exploding penises, so I'll leave the threadbare description that everyone else has been passing around: Once he discovers the water in his town has been tainted, Phil bumps into the guy that created the taint, and he tells Phil the ridiculous story of how it happened, which features Drew Bolduc in another role as Drew, who helped create the taint, which culminates in one of the most hilarious on-screen attacks of all time.
There's no way to properly explain the brilliance and mischief that is The Taint, it needs to be seen to be not only believed but processed, but if you're into independent film, extreme comedy (Trey Parker, anyone?) or just plain ludicrous fun, head over and check out The Taint today: http://www.taintmovie.com/store/ You won't be sad.
9.6/10 (A)
Friday, June 3, 2011
The Maiden Heist (2009)
Written by Michael LeSieur
Directed by Peter Hewitt
This is a movie we always had a bunch of copies of at Blockbuster, that no one ever wanted. Based on the cast alone (Walken, Freeman, Harden, Macy) I always wanted to check it out, so I finally got the chance. The film centers on Roger (Christopher Walken), a museum security guard, who is utterly captivated by the beauty of the painting "The Lonely Maiden" and enjoys every day of his 30 year employment staring at it. Until a co-worker informs him that a museum in Denmark made a better offer, the entire installation would soon be replaced with something else. Terrified, Roger begins to hatch a scheme to steal the painting, when he notices Charles (Morgan Freeman) weeping in front of "Girl With Cats", his favorite piece. As they meet, they devise a plan together, needing only a night security guard to complete their plan, when they notice that George (William H. Macy), the night security guard, is obsessed with the Bronze Warrior statue.
With their plan complete, of course the only thing that can happen is things can go horribly wrong at every turn, and since this is a comedy, you know they will. The script is a classic heist caper spoof, but with a certain sensibility more suited to older audiences, but it doesn't stop the cast from being a delight. In the hands of younger actors, it would lose it's coy charm and instead be another bland thriller, but with the comedic sincerity of Freeman, Walken, and Macy the film manages to be warm and frequently hilarious.
Roger's wife Rose (Marcia Gay Harden) manages to complicate every situation with her explosive personality, which Roger constantly exacerbates with calm ignorance to the fact that she will constantly do this. Charles is the worrier, always about to shatter at every turn, but he doesn't, because George, with his misguided chutzpah, is the leader because "Are they communists today in Grenada, Roger?" Great characterizations turn a clever script into a hilarious script, and it's done often here.
Some of the cheesier sequences involve Roger's daydreams about busting up bad guys, and while it shows a bit into his character, they feel out of place in the scheme of the movie. The biggest problem here is inconsistency, in all aspects. The laughs are reserved for the funny scenes, the suspenseful scenes are suspenseful, etc. Marcia Gay Harden has some great bits at the opening, and she seals the ending, but throughout the film she's just a side character, part of Roger's conflict, when she could have easily been a conflict all along.
Still, it's a funny enough film that it will keep you smiling for most of the 90 minutes it runs, and too often that's something you can't say about comedy films, unfortunately. If you're a fan of anyone in the cast, check it out, just know it's a lighthearted film, but it has enough moments that will make you chuckle that you'll be glad you checked it out.
7.9/10 (C+)
Directed by Peter Hewitt
This is a movie we always had a bunch of copies of at Blockbuster, that no one ever wanted. Based on the cast alone (Walken, Freeman, Harden, Macy) I always wanted to check it out, so I finally got the chance. The film centers on Roger (Christopher Walken), a museum security guard, who is utterly captivated by the beauty of the painting "The Lonely Maiden" and enjoys every day of his 30 year employment staring at it. Until a co-worker informs him that a museum in Denmark made a better offer, the entire installation would soon be replaced with something else. Terrified, Roger begins to hatch a scheme to steal the painting, when he notices Charles (Morgan Freeman) weeping in front of "Girl With Cats", his favorite piece. As they meet, they devise a plan together, needing only a night security guard to complete their plan, when they notice that George (William H. Macy), the night security guard, is obsessed with the Bronze Warrior statue.
With their plan complete, of course the only thing that can happen is things can go horribly wrong at every turn, and since this is a comedy, you know they will. The script is a classic heist caper spoof, but with a certain sensibility more suited to older audiences, but it doesn't stop the cast from being a delight. In the hands of younger actors, it would lose it's coy charm and instead be another bland thriller, but with the comedic sincerity of Freeman, Walken, and Macy the film manages to be warm and frequently hilarious.
Roger's wife Rose (Marcia Gay Harden) manages to complicate every situation with her explosive personality, which Roger constantly exacerbates with calm ignorance to the fact that she will constantly do this. Charles is the worrier, always about to shatter at every turn, but he doesn't, because George, with his misguided chutzpah, is the leader because "Are they communists today in Grenada, Roger?" Great characterizations turn a clever script into a hilarious script, and it's done often here.
Some of the cheesier sequences involve Roger's daydreams about busting up bad guys, and while it shows a bit into his character, they feel out of place in the scheme of the movie. The biggest problem here is inconsistency, in all aspects. The laughs are reserved for the funny scenes, the suspenseful scenes are suspenseful, etc. Marcia Gay Harden has some great bits at the opening, and she seals the ending, but throughout the film she's just a side character, part of Roger's conflict, when she could have easily been a conflict all along.
Still, it's a funny enough film that it will keep you smiling for most of the 90 minutes it runs, and too often that's something you can't say about comedy films, unfortunately. If you're a fan of anyone in the cast, check it out, just know it's a lighthearted film, but it has enough moments that will make you chuckle that you'll be glad you checked it out.
7.9/10 (C+)
The Tunnel Movie (2011)
Written by Enzo Tedeschi & Julian Harvey
Directed by Carlo Ledesma
I grabbed this movie through VoDo.net's promotion, where they are giving it away via legal torrent. They ask that if you like the movie, you make a donation, buy the DVD, or at the very least, tell someone about the movie. This is the second part of a funding scheme that I help will continue to change how movies are released. From the outset, the producers of The Tunnel (the Movie part is added to differentiate from another title) started funding by selling individual frames of the movie for $1 each. Not a bad investment, to own a few frames of a feature film, especially if you can spend $30 and own a second of the film. I'm not sure exactly how many frames they shot, but theoretically, for less than $30 you could own a second of the 90 minute film. Not bad.
Reports are that this wasn't quite as successful as the producers hoped, netting only $36,000 (not a number to be scoffed at, however) of their $135,000 total budget. Instead of paying to go through a big company like Netflix, iTunes, or Amazon, they have chosen to give the film away themselves, trusting that the film will find an audience, and the audience will gladly pay to find the movie if they like it. What too many filmmakers believe is that EVERYONE wants to see their movie, but some will steal it because they don't want to pay. These filmmakers are hoping everyone is wrong. I hope so too.
With all that said about the production of it, I suppose it might spoil it for some to learn this is a found footage film. The genre is take it or leave it, either you're intrigued, or you think they all look the same. There is no middle ground, and in the evolution of current cinema, found footage is just the first major mini-genre in what is already known as meta filmmaking. If you don't like found footage as a concept, well, you probably shouldn't bother with any films in the genre.
So from the underground of Australia, comes a found footage film that ultimately suffers because it's so ingrained in the genre of found footage, and does not apologize for doing so. The tapes are presented as having happened the year before, captured by a team of journalists that went off on their own to find the answers to Sidney's water shortages, and why a plan to build pumps underneath the city has seemingly been abandoned.
The film intercuts between security cam footage, the clean, lit camera of the team's camera man, and later, a handheld digital video camera in nightvision mode. Amongst all of this, there are interviews with the "survivors". It's a slightly different take on the found footage "something is chasing us" film, but upfront, learning who survives kind of takes some of the fun out of it. While it's still fun to watch everyone slowly disappear, it's like they're admitting it's a movie, which of course it is, but the point of found footage is supposed to be the coy mystery that it could have been real.
Otherwise, all the found footage conventions are here, a group of journalists decides to take a story into their own hands, they go underground, get lost, and pretty soon they learn they aren't alone. What they did the best was to put the confrontations between "them out there" and the main characters, people sometimes just disappear from a corner, but more often than not, it's worked out to where they are holding the camera during their confrontation, which is another cool aspect that happens too rarely in found footage films.
Despite my belief in the method of distribution and funding, I can't lie and say I love this movie. For fans of found footage, it's a good time, a bit slower paced than a lot of the films in the genre, and maybe even a little overlong. Those are the only two major complaints I have, however, so if you're looking for a creepy film, some interesting camera work, lots of jump scares, then you'll find The Tunnel to be an entertaining fright flick. If found footage bothers you, that's what this is, they make no bones about it.
If you would like to support The Tunnel, check out their page on Vodo.net right here: http://vodo.net/thetunnel ]
8.1/10 (B-)
Directed by Carlo Ledesma
I grabbed this movie through VoDo.net's promotion, where they are giving it away via legal torrent. They ask that if you like the movie, you make a donation, buy the DVD, or at the very least, tell someone about the movie. This is the second part of a funding scheme that I help will continue to change how movies are released. From the outset, the producers of The Tunnel (the Movie part is added to differentiate from another title) started funding by selling individual frames of the movie for $1 each. Not a bad investment, to own a few frames of a feature film, especially if you can spend $30 and own a second of the film. I'm not sure exactly how many frames they shot, but theoretically, for less than $30 you could own a second of the 90 minute film. Not bad.
Reports are that this wasn't quite as successful as the producers hoped, netting only $36,000 (not a number to be scoffed at, however) of their $135,000 total budget. Instead of paying to go through a big company like Netflix, iTunes, or Amazon, they have chosen to give the film away themselves, trusting that the film will find an audience, and the audience will gladly pay to find the movie if they like it. What too many filmmakers believe is that EVERYONE wants to see their movie, but some will steal it because they don't want to pay. These filmmakers are hoping everyone is wrong. I hope so too.
With all that said about the production of it, I suppose it might spoil it for some to learn this is a found footage film. The genre is take it or leave it, either you're intrigued, or you think they all look the same. There is no middle ground, and in the evolution of current cinema, found footage is just the first major mini-genre in what is already known as meta filmmaking. If you don't like found footage as a concept, well, you probably shouldn't bother with any films in the genre.
So from the underground of Australia, comes a found footage film that ultimately suffers because it's so ingrained in the genre of found footage, and does not apologize for doing so. The tapes are presented as having happened the year before, captured by a team of journalists that went off on their own to find the answers to Sidney's water shortages, and why a plan to build pumps underneath the city has seemingly been abandoned.
The film intercuts between security cam footage, the clean, lit camera of the team's camera man, and later, a handheld digital video camera in nightvision mode. Amongst all of this, there are interviews with the "survivors". It's a slightly different take on the found footage "something is chasing us" film, but upfront, learning who survives kind of takes some of the fun out of it. While it's still fun to watch everyone slowly disappear, it's like they're admitting it's a movie, which of course it is, but the point of found footage is supposed to be the coy mystery that it could have been real.
Otherwise, all the found footage conventions are here, a group of journalists decides to take a story into their own hands, they go underground, get lost, and pretty soon they learn they aren't alone. What they did the best was to put the confrontations between "them out there" and the main characters, people sometimes just disappear from a corner, but more often than not, it's worked out to where they are holding the camera during their confrontation, which is another cool aspect that happens too rarely in found footage films.
Despite my belief in the method of distribution and funding, I can't lie and say I love this movie. For fans of found footage, it's a good time, a bit slower paced than a lot of the films in the genre, and maybe even a little overlong. Those are the only two major complaints I have, however, so if you're looking for a creepy film, some interesting camera work, lots of jump scares, then you'll find The Tunnel to be an entertaining fright flick. If found footage bothers you, that's what this is, they make no bones about it.
If you would like to support The Tunnel, check out their page on Vodo.net right here: http://vodo.net/thetunnel ]
8.1/10 (B-)
Thursday, June 2, 2011
Knockout (2011)
Written by Evan Jacobs & Joseph Nasser
Directed by Anne Wheeler
The biggest flaw this movie had going was the cinematography, I don't know what it is about Canada, but you can spot their productions by the look of the movie before you hear your first "aboot". Otherwise, this is what it is: A "G" rated family film starring Stone Cold Steve Austin in a loose boxing remake of "The Karate Kid". The script is even so clever, the main character notices his parallels to that movie! It's not a bad film, it's the type of thing I would have loved at 6-10 years old. Watching it now, as an adult, I find it has a lot of the "nice" elements that family movies typically gloss over in favor of "this only sounds gross, it's not actually gross" laughs family films seem to shoot for today.
With that said, most people would find this to be an overtly hammy movie about a kid named Matthew Miller (Daniel Madger) who has to move to a new town and doesn't like it one bit, for all the usual reasons. He wears a suit to school at his mother's insistence, and of course he cares more about knowledge than socializing, so immediately he's spotted as a victim. Luckily, only the class clown Nick (Samuel Patrick Chu) spots him, and despite some jokes at Matt's expense, they end up becoming friends, where Nick introduces Matt to Ruby (Emma Grabinsky), this movie's idea of an "alternative" girl (which oddly reminds me of what Nickelodeon thought was "alternative" circa 1992) who of course Matt has an immediate crush on.
Quickly, Matt learns the ropes of the school, which includes the idiom that the toughest kid in school is the state champion boxer, who of course boxes to release some of his unfettered rage he seemingly has, never able to not pick on Matt. The obviousness of the stereotypes aside, most of these kids aren't very good actors to begin with, so their attempts at unique characters get lost in the awful dialogue, broad overacting, and G-rated insults.
Steve Austin steps up as the lead actor here, using his charisma to keep the film from being a boring mess. Which, amazingly, it's really not. Although, whomever had Steve shave his mustache should be slapped. I suspect that's what this film really was, a chance for Steve Austin to step outside the Condemned/Expendables tough guy role and show he has a little bit of range, and can still make family friendly entertainment. To me, that shows the greatest improvement in Austin's abilities, rarely before has he been tasked with making people laugh without cursing or violence, and very rarely was he intended to be heartfelt. Here he does both with aplomb, showing he's ready for bigger and better things.
I noticed the budget for this film was $9 million, my main question is where that money went. It didn't go into design, actors, or fancy camera rigs. Besides that fact (more suited to the worries of the producers, I suppose) I can honestly say I enjoyed most of this film, despite the fact that it's a very blatant Karate Kid rip-off, it has enough heart and family friendliness to not be an awful boring mess as so many of these films are. For the crowd it was made for, probably not many people outside of that 6-15 male age range will find anything of value though.
7.0/10 (C-)
Directed by Anne Wheeler
The biggest flaw this movie had going was the cinematography, I don't know what it is about Canada, but you can spot their productions by the look of the movie before you hear your first "aboot". Otherwise, this is what it is: A "G" rated family film starring Stone Cold Steve Austin in a loose boxing remake of "The Karate Kid". The script is even so clever, the main character notices his parallels to that movie! It's not a bad film, it's the type of thing I would have loved at 6-10 years old. Watching it now, as an adult, I find it has a lot of the "nice" elements that family movies typically gloss over in favor of "this only sounds gross, it's not actually gross" laughs family films seem to shoot for today.
With that said, most people would find this to be an overtly hammy movie about a kid named Matthew Miller (Daniel Madger) who has to move to a new town and doesn't like it one bit, for all the usual reasons. He wears a suit to school at his mother's insistence, and of course he cares more about knowledge than socializing, so immediately he's spotted as a victim. Luckily, only the class clown Nick (Samuel Patrick Chu) spots him, and despite some jokes at Matt's expense, they end up becoming friends, where Nick introduces Matt to Ruby (Emma Grabinsky), this movie's idea of an "alternative" girl (which oddly reminds me of what Nickelodeon thought was "alternative" circa 1992) who of course Matt has an immediate crush on.
Quickly, Matt learns the ropes of the school, which includes the idiom that the toughest kid in school is the state champion boxer, who of course boxes to release some of his unfettered rage he seemingly has, never able to not pick on Matt. The obviousness of the stereotypes aside, most of these kids aren't very good actors to begin with, so their attempts at unique characters get lost in the awful dialogue, broad overacting, and G-rated insults.
Steve Austin steps up as the lead actor here, using his charisma to keep the film from being a boring mess. Which, amazingly, it's really not. Although, whomever had Steve shave his mustache should be slapped. I suspect that's what this film really was, a chance for Steve Austin to step outside the Condemned/Expendables tough guy role and show he has a little bit of range, and can still make family friendly entertainment. To me, that shows the greatest improvement in Austin's abilities, rarely before has he been tasked with making people laugh without cursing or violence, and very rarely was he intended to be heartfelt. Here he does both with aplomb, showing he's ready for bigger and better things.
I noticed the budget for this film was $9 million, my main question is where that money went. It didn't go into design, actors, or fancy camera rigs. Besides that fact (more suited to the worries of the producers, I suppose) I can honestly say I enjoyed most of this film, despite the fact that it's a very blatant Karate Kid rip-off, it has enough heart and family friendliness to not be an awful boring mess as so many of these films are. For the crowd it was made for, probably not many people outside of that 6-15 male age range will find anything of value though.
7.0/10 (C-)
The Hangover Part II (2011)
Written by Craig Mazin & Scot Armstrong & Todd Phillips
Directed by Todd Phillips
We all knew it was coming. People were begging for it by the amount of money they spent on the first film. So what exactly did everyone who hated The Hangover 2 expect? A wildly different movie that wasn't about them getting a hangover and waking up in a strange place, unaware of what they did the night before? A sequel if there ever was one, The Hangover 2 is exactly what it should be, a remake of the first film in spirit, with new locations, characters, situations, and laughs.
Apparently, critics are not aware that comedy is critic-proof, that pointing out loose plot threads in a movie about guys getting so wasted they destroy entire towns is like screaming at a turkey that's it's stupid. It knows. It still doesn't care. And apparently neither do fans, pushing The Hangover 2 to the number one movie of the weekend, and outgrossing the first film at this point. With that said, does it matter if nobody liked it? The third film is already in the works, to be much hated by critics I assume, long before it even comes out.
Awake, and hung over, this time in Bangkok, Stu (Ed Helms), Alan (Zack Galifianakis), and Phil (Bradley Cooper) think they may have avoided any serious damage the night before, despite their lack of recollection. Until they find the finger. Which leads them to explore the who, what, and where of the night before. This time, Stu is supposed to be getting married to the gorgeous and ridiculously understanding Lauren (Jamie Chung, who was underutilized here) in a quiet corner of Thailand.
However, before leaving, Doug (Justin Bartha) and Phil manage to guilt Stu into going to talk to Alan, who considers them all his best friends, and has been desperately waiting for an invitation to Stu's wedding, which he won't ever get, until he manages to pout his way into a last minute invitation and is quickly along for the ride.
Insisting he doesn't want any repeats, Stu settles for a bachelor party in the form of brunch at IHOP, terrified of being roofied yet again. Once they arrive in Thailand though, it's on Lauren's insistence that he joins his friends for a beer around the camp fire on the beach that sets in motion the near-destruction of Bangkok.
The next day, Mr. Chow (Ken Jeong) is back in one of the best movie entrances of all time. The big difference in this movie from the last one is the way Mr. Chow is played and viewed by the characters. In the first film, the joke is he's no criminal at all. Here, he's actually carved some type of niche out for himself, and it's odd to see Mr. Chow have so much influence on the characters. However, for the sake of the plot, it's a fun direction, and everything the guys get into this time around seems to be darker and weirder, which I found appropriate given the Bangkok setting.
I felt it all kept pace with The Hangover, in terms of how many laughs are in the film, and at the end of the day, that's my only real requirement for a comedy film. Toss in likeable characters that we already love, and give them some different angles to spin into, and you have a very fun film. As always, some of the biggest laughs come at the very end of the film, where we finally get to see everything the guys took a picture of all night, the grand payoff for the mysterious night.
8.6 (B+)
Directed by Todd Phillips
We all knew it was coming. People were begging for it by the amount of money they spent on the first film. So what exactly did everyone who hated The Hangover 2 expect? A wildly different movie that wasn't about them getting a hangover and waking up in a strange place, unaware of what they did the night before? A sequel if there ever was one, The Hangover 2 is exactly what it should be, a remake of the first film in spirit, with new locations, characters, situations, and laughs.
Apparently, critics are not aware that comedy is critic-proof, that pointing out loose plot threads in a movie about guys getting so wasted they destroy entire towns is like screaming at a turkey that's it's stupid. It knows. It still doesn't care. And apparently neither do fans, pushing The Hangover 2 to the number one movie of the weekend, and outgrossing the first film at this point. With that said, does it matter if nobody liked it? The third film is already in the works, to be much hated by critics I assume, long before it even comes out.
Awake, and hung over, this time in Bangkok, Stu (Ed Helms), Alan (Zack Galifianakis), and Phil (Bradley Cooper) think they may have avoided any serious damage the night before, despite their lack of recollection. Until they find the finger. Which leads them to explore the who, what, and where of the night before. This time, Stu is supposed to be getting married to the gorgeous and ridiculously understanding Lauren (Jamie Chung, who was underutilized here) in a quiet corner of Thailand.
However, before leaving, Doug (Justin Bartha) and Phil manage to guilt Stu into going to talk to Alan, who considers them all his best friends, and has been desperately waiting for an invitation to Stu's wedding, which he won't ever get, until he manages to pout his way into a last minute invitation and is quickly along for the ride.
Insisting he doesn't want any repeats, Stu settles for a bachelor party in the form of brunch at IHOP, terrified of being roofied yet again. Once they arrive in Thailand though, it's on Lauren's insistence that he joins his friends for a beer around the camp fire on the beach that sets in motion the near-destruction of Bangkok.
The next day, Mr. Chow (Ken Jeong) is back in one of the best movie entrances of all time. The big difference in this movie from the last one is the way Mr. Chow is played and viewed by the characters. In the first film, the joke is he's no criminal at all. Here, he's actually carved some type of niche out for himself, and it's odd to see Mr. Chow have so much influence on the characters. However, for the sake of the plot, it's a fun direction, and everything the guys get into this time around seems to be darker and weirder, which I found appropriate given the Bangkok setting.
I felt it all kept pace with The Hangover, in terms of how many laughs are in the film, and at the end of the day, that's my only real requirement for a comedy film. Toss in likeable characters that we already love, and give them some different angles to spin into, and you have a very fun film. As always, some of the biggest laughs come at the very end of the film, where we finally get to see everything the guys took a picture of all night, the grand payoff for the mysterious night.
8.6 (B+)
Dream Home (2010)
Written by Kwok Cheung Tsang & Chi-Man Wan & Ho-Cheung Pang
Directed by Ho-Cheung Pang
From the outset, Dream Home sets the bar high for the film to continue as a balls out slasher. A dementedly gory opening has a security guard to a high rise building in Hong Kong doing things no person should ever do with a razorblade. The perpetrator escapes quietly in the background.
First and foremost, the cinematography is exquisite. Full of rich colors and vibrant tones, color is used often to set an unsettling tone for each scene. We begin to follow Cheng Lai-Sheung (Josie Ho), as she toils at her job as a telemarketer for a bank, continually getting hung up on.
A series of fragmented flashbacks reveal that her ultimate dream was to save her father, to get him close to the view of the ocean he longs for, before his ailing body ultimately fails him. We follow the trials and tribulations of a home buyer, stepped on by large companies with no compassion for the individual, only the hard numbers, a new style of business since the crumbling of the world housing markets.
The audience is treated to the daily frustrations of life as Cheng Lai-Sheung faces roadblocks along her way to what she imagines is success. Her sometimes fling (Eason Chan) is a drunken fratboy type that only calls when he needs a quick release, or just doesn't want to go home to his wife. Cheng uses this to her advantage, adding his brutish sympathy to her cache of weapons.
Some audiences may find the juxtaposition of Chinese melodrama and extreme gory horror off putting, but for those experienced with CAT III films, it's a splattery fun ride, with some of the best practical F/X work in the past few years. Reminiscent of old school KNB, the practical work is messy and detailed, they managed to capture a lot of the shine that just N and B seem to be missing these days.
As for the slasher conventions, it's nothing new. The whole approach, of a stepped on homeowner trying to hold fast what has become theirs, is an interesting one, but once it gets down to it, all the slashing takes place in a few measured sequences, and while the kills and gore are fresh and unique, the whole episode turns into a murky mess of plot.
Which is not to say it's not enjoyable. It is, very much so. Some of the most squirm inducing moments I've seen in a recent horror film. However, the marriage of the two concepts just don't quite gel in the end, while I respect the filmmakers for the unique approach to a slasher, it's not a coy play on the conventions of a slasher like the very good All the Boys Love Mandy Lane. As far as Chinese slashers go, however, it's one of the better films you'll see.
8.7/10 (B+)
Directed by Ho-Cheung Pang
From the outset, Dream Home sets the bar high for the film to continue as a balls out slasher. A dementedly gory opening has a security guard to a high rise building in Hong Kong doing things no person should ever do with a razorblade. The perpetrator escapes quietly in the background.
First and foremost, the cinematography is exquisite. Full of rich colors and vibrant tones, color is used often to set an unsettling tone for each scene. We begin to follow Cheng Lai-Sheung (Josie Ho), as she toils at her job as a telemarketer for a bank, continually getting hung up on.
A series of fragmented flashbacks reveal that her ultimate dream was to save her father, to get him close to the view of the ocean he longs for, before his ailing body ultimately fails him. We follow the trials and tribulations of a home buyer, stepped on by large companies with no compassion for the individual, only the hard numbers, a new style of business since the crumbling of the world housing markets.
The audience is treated to the daily frustrations of life as Cheng Lai-Sheung faces roadblocks along her way to what she imagines is success. Her sometimes fling (Eason Chan) is a drunken fratboy type that only calls when he needs a quick release, or just doesn't want to go home to his wife. Cheng uses this to her advantage, adding his brutish sympathy to her cache of weapons.
Some audiences may find the juxtaposition of Chinese melodrama and extreme gory horror off putting, but for those experienced with CAT III films, it's a splattery fun ride, with some of the best practical F/X work in the past few years. Reminiscent of old school KNB, the practical work is messy and detailed, they managed to capture a lot of the shine that just N and B seem to be missing these days.
As for the slasher conventions, it's nothing new. The whole approach, of a stepped on homeowner trying to hold fast what has become theirs, is an interesting one, but once it gets down to it, all the slashing takes place in a few measured sequences, and while the kills and gore are fresh and unique, the whole episode turns into a murky mess of plot.
Which is not to say it's not enjoyable. It is, very much so. Some of the most squirm inducing moments I've seen in a recent horror film. However, the marriage of the two concepts just don't quite gel in the end, while I respect the filmmakers for the unique approach to a slasher, it's not a coy play on the conventions of a slasher like the very good All the Boys Love Mandy Lane. As far as Chinese slashers go, however, it's one of the better films you'll see.
8.7/10 (B+)
Monday, May 9, 2011
Thor (2011)
Based on the Comic Character "Thor" by Stan Lee and Jack Kirby
Story by Mark Protosevich and J. Michael Straczynski
Screenplay by Ashley Miller & Zack Stentz and Don Payne
Directed by Kenneth Branagh
I've always said I though Thor was a terrible property to adapt to the big screen, and that the only reason to do it would be to get him into the Avengers movie. Well, it seems both happened, and only the second one will seemingly make any sense in the long run. That, and the fact that this film grossed its budget overseas before it even opened in a US theater.
The only real problem with this film is the fundamental problem I mentioned. Thor exists in such a fantastical, brightly colored world, that it's tough to relate that to present day America. It's even harder when you have to deal with rainbow bridges, armor that would make Lady Gaga feel stupid, and unexplainable teleportation.
The problem with a film like Thor is it's usually most effective in its natural setting, and here that would be Asgard. If they stuck with the fantasy elements, the film would've worked on every level. The problem is, the whole mythology of Marvel's Thor is that he ends up coming to our present day Earth. So not only is this an epic story of deities, it's a fish-out-of-water comedy. Somehow, those two concepts just never seem to jibe.
Don't be mistaken, this is still a well made, and entertaining film. It just never had the opportunity to even come close to Iron Man or Spider-Man, not only because the character is secondary in popularity, but it's just an odd duck. Thor, in the comics, fits nicely into the brightly colored panels of a comic book, to adapt that style to film is seemingly impossible, as Branagh has made two distinctly separate films. One concerns the mythical Asgard, where Thor has to deal with his own arrogance, family strife, and the competition with his brother Loki (Tom Hiddleston) for their father Odin's (Anthony Hopkins) throne.
Once Thor is banished to Earth though, it basically becomes an episode of the sitcom Perfect Strangers where the character is so far from this culture, he doesn't understand even the simplest of modern concepts. I understand that's the nature of the character, but did we really need to watch half a movie of "fish out of water" moments?
There are many redeeming qualities, for one, the spectacular cast. Stellan Skarsgard, Natalie Portman, Anthony Hopkins, Idris Elba, Clark Gregg, Colm Feore, Ray Stevenson...and introducing Chris Hemsworth. From what I've heard in interviews, most of the actors were psyched based on the fact that Branagh was directing, being an actor beloved by other actors does indeed have its advantages.
Amazingly, Chris Hemsworth was able to overcome all doubts and come through as a solid Thor. In many ways he reminded me of Heath Ledger, full of charisma, energy, and physicality. In one intense scene with Anthony Hopkins, he manages to hold his own. Good pick, Marvel, you've made a star.
The technical aspects are what we've come to expect from these films, big action set pieces, highly detailed sound, and huge f/x spectacles. However, here, I don't feel it jibes well with the rest of the story, as most of the big action takes place in Asgard, and since Thor doesn't have his powers on Earth, it only helps to divide the two settings within the film.
Agent Coulson (Clark Gregg) is supposed to be the connecting factor, and he is great in his scenes. All the stuff that is hinting towards The Avengers Initiative is well played and fun to spot, but in the end, it's not enough to put this film on the level with other big Marvel films.
In the end, it feels like what it is: A movie that simply had to be made to sell The Avengers movie, because unlike Hawkeye, he's a much more well known character. I don't think I'm alone when I say I would've rather seen a Hawkeye movie, but I suppose Thor does its job. It sets up The Avengers, and made its money back.
The actors, action and Avengers set ups save Thor from mediocrity, but not by a lot. With that said, it doesn't seem to matter, as seemingly any Marvel character can make money at the box office, so I doubt that any lessons will be learned from this film, let's just hope they aren't learned on The Avengers.
8.4/10 (B)
Story by Mark Protosevich and J. Michael Straczynski
Screenplay by Ashley Miller & Zack Stentz and Don Payne
Directed by Kenneth Branagh
I've always said I though Thor was a terrible property to adapt to the big screen, and that the only reason to do it would be to get him into the Avengers movie. Well, it seems both happened, and only the second one will seemingly make any sense in the long run. That, and the fact that this film grossed its budget overseas before it even opened in a US theater.
The only real problem with this film is the fundamental problem I mentioned. Thor exists in such a fantastical, brightly colored world, that it's tough to relate that to present day America. It's even harder when you have to deal with rainbow bridges, armor that would make Lady Gaga feel stupid, and unexplainable teleportation.
The problem with a film like Thor is it's usually most effective in its natural setting, and here that would be Asgard. If they stuck with the fantasy elements, the film would've worked on every level. The problem is, the whole mythology of Marvel's Thor is that he ends up coming to our present day Earth. So not only is this an epic story of deities, it's a fish-out-of-water comedy. Somehow, those two concepts just never seem to jibe.
Don't be mistaken, this is still a well made, and entertaining film. It just never had the opportunity to even come close to Iron Man or Spider-Man, not only because the character is secondary in popularity, but it's just an odd duck. Thor, in the comics, fits nicely into the brightly colored panels of a comic book, to adapt that style to film is seemingly impossible, as Branagh has made two distinctly separate films. One concerns the mythical Asgard, where Thor has to deal with his own arrogance, family strife, and the competition with his brother Loki (Tom Hiddleston) for their father Odin's (Anthony Hopkins) throne.
Once Thor is banished to Earth though, it basically becomes an episode of the sitcom Perfect Strangers where the character is so far from this culture, he doesn't understand even the simplest of modern concepts. I understand that's the nature of the character, but did we really need to watch half a movie of "fish out of water" moments?
There are many redeeming qualities, for one, the spectacular cast. Stellan Skarsgard, Natalie Portman, Anthony Hopkins, Idris Elba, Clark Gregg, Colm Feore, Ray Stevenson...and introducing Chris Hemsworth. From what I've heard in interviews, most of the actors were psyched based on the fact that Branagh was directing, being an actor beloved by other actors does indeed have its advantages.
Amazingly, Chris Hemsworth was able to overcome all doubts and come through as a solid Thor. In many ways he reminded me of Heath Ledger, full of charisma, energy, and physicality. In one intense scene with Anthony Hopkins, he manages to hold his own. Good pick, Marvel, you've made a star.
The technical aspects are what we've come to expect from these films, big action set pieces, highly detailed sound, and huge f/x spectacles. However, here, I don't feel it jibes well with the rest of the story, as most of the big action takes place in Asgard, and since Thor doesn't have his powers on Earth, it only helps to divide the two settings within the film.
Agent Coulson (Clark Gregg) is supposed to be the connecting factor, and he is great in his scenes. All the stuff that is hinting towards The Avengers Initiative is well played and fun to spot, but in the end, it's not enough to put this film on the level with other big Marvel films.
In the end, it feels like what it is: A movie that simply had to be made to sell The Avengers movie, because unlike Hawkeye, he's a much more well known character. I don't think I'm alone when I say I would've rather seen a Hawkeye movie, but I suppose Thor does its job. It sets up The Avengers, and made its money back.
The actors, action and Avengers set ups save Thor from mediocrity, but not by a lot. With that said, it doesn't seem to matter, as seemingly any Marvel character can make money at the box office, so I doubt that any lessons will be learned from this film, let's just hope they aren't learned on The Avengers.
8.4/10 (B)
Sunday, May 8, 2011
Drive Angry (2011)
Written by Todd Farmer and Patrick Lussier
Directed by Patrick Lussier
Right from the opening, Drive Angry sets the bar high. Joining a car chase midway through, it all comes to a quick end as Milton (Nic Cage) questions the men he just chased down before blowing them away. It feels like it will be a fun ride, unfortunately, the rest of the film never lives up to its opening.
The film has all the right elements to be a bloody romp through the American southwest, instead it becomes a fantasy horror film in plot and tone, but in the end the whole thing feels like you've watched 5 different movies. And that's the problem, you only watched one.
The Accountant (William Fichtner) is hunting Milton, for reasons that are explained in the end of the film (which, really, if you couldn't figure out from the beginning who he is and what he's doing, you're watching the wrong movie) when there was no explanation required. Instead, they wasted about 4 scenes going over this.
Who cares exactly who he is? The coy reveal at the end is like taking a shit on a Jack in the Box restaurant table. People might be stupid, but they're surely notice the even worse stupidity going on around it. Far too often, I'm sure that's exactly how it felt.
The only really effective characters are Jonah King (Billy Burke) and The Accountant, and hey, surprise, both of them are the best actors in the film. Nic Cage is stuck in his usual rut, playing a shitty-haired, tough guy with no respect for the rules, blah blah blah. Cage has played this same character over and over now, but at least with stuff like Bad Lieutenant he was going batshit insane going for it all (hence the multiple failures) but here he doesn't even try. He just looks tough and shoots stuff.
I've seen it all before, and what's troubling is I've seen all of Drive Angry in about 40 different films. The chases are the same, the f/x are arguably worse, the shootouts are mindless (and ultimately pointless), and Amber Heard is given literally nothing to do. "Look pretty and make faces during the chase scenes" is probably about the extent of the direction she received.
This is one of those "money" films, where everyone knows it's not great, but they do it for the money. Sadly, in this case, this movie petered out horribly, arguably the worst money loser of 2011 so far. This was a movie that just couldn't win from the script. I suppose when you make a few hundred million for a studio though, they don't mind if your little $25 million indulgence doesn't work out.
Because you'll be back to make Halloween 3-D, and that will make $25 million opening weekend, guaranteed. Done and done. I've seen many of Lussier's movies, and sadly this is still one of the best.
With all that said, despite the silliness, the bad acting, the shitty script, the boring direction, it's still somehow a decent action film. Nothing more, nothing less. This is one of the many scripts that was made specifically because it was written in such a way that 3D could easily be applied (or was the goal from the outset), and these days, that alone is often a greenlight.
I recommend this to fans of 80's action films, Nicholas Cage, and occult horror (even though the scenes depicting occultism are so laughably stereotypical and bad), because there's some scenes to be enjoyed here. Tom Atkins arrives for 5 minutes to steal the show from everyone except Bill Fichtner. If you like violence, action, and John Carpenter's Vampires, you might like this. I don't know why, but Vampires seems like a good comparison, although it's overall a better film (for those that have seen it....exactly) they both feel like it's stuff we've all seen before, because we have.
I realize my overall review seems negative, but ultimately, I'll watch this again. It's just not one of those films that blew me away, or even utilized its genre status to go as far as it could. The whole thing just feels half-assed from everyone involved, it seemed like they did it against their will. Who knows, maybe they did.
8.2/10 (B-)
Directed by Patrick Lussier
Right from the opening, Drive Angry sets the bar high. Joining a car chase midway through, it all comes to a quick end as Milton (Nic Cage) questions the men he just chased down before blowing them away. It feels like it will be a fun ride, unfortunately, the rest of the film never lives up to its opening.
The film has all the right elements to be a bloody romp through the American southwest, instead it becomes a fantasy horror film in plot and tone, but in the end the whole thing feels like you've watched 5 different movies. And that's the problem, you only watched one.
The Accountant (William Fichtner) is hunting Milton, for reasons that are explained in the end of the film (which, really, if you couldn't figure out from the beginning who he is and what he's doing, you're watching the wrong movie) when there was no explanation required. Instead, they wasted about 4 scenes going over this.
Who cares exactly who he is? The coy reveal at the end is like taking a shit on a Jack in the Box restaurant table. People might be stupid, but they're surely notice the even worse stupidity going on around it. Far too often, I'm sure that's exactly how it felt.
The only really effective characters are Jonah King (Billy Burke) and The Accountant, and hey, surprise, both of them are the best actors in the film. Nic Cage is stuck in his usual rut, playing a shitty-haired, tough guy with no respect for the rules, blah blah blah. Cage has played this same character over and over now, but at least with stuff like Bad Lieutenant he was going batshit insane going for it all (hence the multiple failures) but here he doesn't even try. He just looks tough and shoots stuff.
I've seen it all before, and what's troubling is I've seen all of Drive Angry in about 40 different films. The chases are the same, the f/x are arguably worse, the shootouts are mindless (and ultimately pointless), and Amber Heard is given literally nothing to do. "Look pretty and make faces during the chase scenes" is probably about the extent of the direction she received.
This is one of those "money" films, where everyone knows it's not great, but they do it for the money. Sadly, in this case, this movie petered out horribly, arguably the worst money loser of 2011 so far. This was a movie that just couldn't win from the script. I suppose when you make a few hundred million for a studio though, they don't mind if your little $25 million indulgence doesn't work out.
Because you'll be back to make Halloween 3-D, and that will make $25 million opening weekend, guaranteed. Done and done. I've seen many of Lussier's movies, and sadly this is still one of the best.
With all that said, despite the silliness, the bad acting, the shitty script, the boring direction, it's still somehow a decent action film. Nothing more, nothing less. This is one of the many scripts that was made specifically because it was written in such a way that 3D could easily be applied (or was the goal from the outset), and these days, that alone is often a greenlight.
I recommend this to fans of 80's action films, Nicholas Cage, and occult horror (even though the scenes depicting occultism are so laughably stereotypical and bad), because there's some scenes to be enjoyed here. Tom Atkins arrives for 5 minutes to steal the show from everyone except Bill Fichtner. If you like violence, action, and John Carpenter's Vampires, you might like this. I don't know why, but Vampires seems like a good comparison, although it's overall a better film (for those that have seen it....exactly) they both feel like it's stuff we've all seen before, because we have.
I realize my overall review seems negative, but ultimately, I'll watch this again. It's just not one of those films that blew me away, or even utilized its genre status to go as far as it could. The whole thing just feels half-assed from everyone involved, it seemed like they did it against their will. Who knows, maybe they did.
8.2/10 (B-)
Norwegian Ninja (2010)
Written and Directed by Thomas Cappelen Malling
Just when I thought I'd seen the wackiest films Norway has to offer, I finally get Norwegian Ninja. Arne Treholt was a Norwegian intelligence officer, and in 1984 he was arrested for High Treason, because he supposedly sold secrets to Russia and Iraq. Upon his arrest, it was found there was little evidence against him, but he was quickly sentenced to 20 years (maximum sentence in Norway) and locked away. It gets weirder. Eight years into his sentence, Treholt was pardoned by the new governmental regime. People to this day claim Treholt was set up, and it was a vast conspiracy against him and his intelligence team.
This wacky comedy purports to be the real story of Arne Treholt, Norwegian Ninja. From here, I will ignore any real world facts, and examine the plot of the film. Treholt (Mads Ousdal) lives on a quiet island off the coast of Norway, where he trains and feeds his crew of Ninja, who live like hippie farmers on the island. Every once in a while, they have to spring into action, to protect the national security of Norway, with ninja fighting styles, secret flying machines, and Batman-style hidden passages.
When Treholt and his company respond to a threat, they realize they've been set up by a rival government agent, Otto Meyer (Jon Øigarden), they set a massive plan into motion. The trouble is, Otto is the leader of a ring of terrorists, who commit terror acts to justify the government operations he runs. Treholt singles out a ninja from his crew, and gives him a special assignment, to save all of Norway.
Filled with zany action, miniatures on strings, and tons of wacky greenscreen shots, this is a fun movie. The concept is novel, and for all the speculation involved in the Treholt case, it could very well be true just as easily as it could be fake. That's not the fun here though, the real fun is Mads Ousdal as Treholt, and the many genre conventions explored in this film.
The technical execution is weird, because some shots are really well done and serious, and then the next shot is a dogfight involving two toy airplanes. The exploitation of genre seems to be the first priority for this film, the actual story falls to second priority. With a movie this goofy though, it's not unexpected, and it lightens the whole nature of the film. After all, this could have been made as a serious spy thriller, and would be no less a movie for doing so. But the choice to turn it into a balls-out comedy is an interesting one, and for the most part, I think they did a damn fine job telling "the true story".
A definite recommendation to EuroSpy fans, as that's where most of the ribbing comes from. A fun film, and surely a future cult classic.
8.7/10 (B+)
Just when I thought I'd seen the wackiest films Norway has to offer, I finally get Norwegian Ninja. Arne Treholt was a Norwegian intelligence officer, and in 1984 he was arrested for High Treason, because he supposedly sold secrets to Russia and Iraq. Upon his arrest, it was found there was little evidence against him, but he was quickly sentenced to 20 years (maximum sentence in Norway) and locked away. It gets weirder. Eight years into his sentence, Treholt was pardoned by the new governmental regime. People to this day claim Treholt was set up, and it was a vast conspiracy against him and his intelligence team.
This wacky comedy purports to be the real story of Arne Treholt, Norwegian Ninja. From here, I will ignore any real world facts, and examine the plot of the film. Treholt (Mads Ousdal) lives on a quiet island off the coast of Norway, where he trains and feeds his crew of Ninja, who live like hippie farmers on the island. Every once in a while, they have to spring into action, to protect the national security of Norway, with ninja fighting styles, secret flying machines, and Batman-style hidden passages.
When Treholt and his company respond to a threat, they realize they've been set up by a rival government agent, Otto Meyer (Jon Øigarden), they set a massive plan into motion. The trouble is, Otto is the leader of a ring of terrorists, who commit terror acts to justify the government operations he runs. Treholt singles out a ninja from his crew, and gives him a special assignment, to save all of Norway.
Filled with zany action, miniatures on strings, and tons of wacky greenscreen shots, this is a fun movie. The concept is novel, and for all the speculation involved in the Treholt case, it could very well be true just as easily as it could be fake. That's not the fun here though, the real fun is Mads Ousdal as Treholt, and the many genre conventions explored in this film.
The technical execution is weird, because some shots are really well done and serious, and then the next shot is a dogfight involving two toy airplanes. The exploitation of genre seems to be the first priority for this film, the actual story falls to second priority. With a movie this goofy though, it's not unexpected, and it lightens the whole nature of the film. After all, this could have been made as a serious spy thriller, and would be no less a movie for doing so. But the choice to turn it into a balls-out comedy is an interesting one, and for the most part, I think they did a damn fine job telling "the true story".
A definite recommendation to EuroSpy fans, as that's where most of the ribbing comes from. A fun film, and surely a future cult classic.
8.7/10 (B+)
Tuesday, April 26, 2011
Just Go With It (2011)
Screenplay by I.A.L. Diamond and Allen Loeb and Timothy Dowling
Directed by Dennis Dugan
An apt title since Sandler and company seemingly looked at the script and said "Let's just go with it". Thus, it was retitled, from the ultimately more sophisticated Cactus Flower. Even Pretend Wife would have been better (a real working title, by the way). However, as seems the norm with Sandler lately, he doesn't even try, doesn't even bother with any creative aspects, he merely furthers the wannabe playboy quasi-Sandler. I don't know if he sees himself this way, or wants to see himself this way, which is why he continually does these types of movies, but it's really trite at this point. At least I Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry had Kevin James as a new device for Sandler.
Lighter than light, this is a film for the modern family to watch together, it has enough crude humor for the 10-28 year old boy crowd, eye candy for the 10-103 male crowd, and enough syrupy corniness to drown anyone. Somehow, despite all odds, Sandler comes off likeable (which the character has no right to) and Jennifer Aniston actually shines comedically, as his tomboyish sidekick to his playboy plastic surgeon.
Of course if you've seen the trailer you can plot the course of the entire film, which might have always been the case with most of Sandler's films, but many of them were at least enjoyable. Here, too often, I was wondering aloud where the jokes were, if this was not a comedy film. Sadly, it seems they don't even need jokes anymore, people will pay to see Sandler do anything, which was the joke of a depreciating character in Funny People apparently when you're as rich as Sandler, it doesn't even matter if you're laughing at yourself.
Dennis Dougan is still one of the finest comedy directors today, proving this by making consistently funny (or at least tolerable) comedies from ridiculously corny scripts the past few years. Despite this fact, he's never lost his timing, or the ability to make a joke work no matter how telegraphed, he really does know comedy. Which begs the question, why would he continue making all of these sub-par scripts? I guess it's one of those Hollywood mysteries, which isn't really a mystery because it's all about money.
Jennifer Aniston finally proves her appeal to me, she can be a funny, candid personality when her character isn't a cold, paranoid lunatic, which is what she seems to play most often. Who knew it was just acting? Of course it's Dougan so you'll see plenty of funny cameos, and Nick Swardson just goes completely into left field with his character (as his personality seemingly pushes him to) but he often has the best laugh out loud moments of the film.
Don't get me wrong, Just Go With It is a funny film. It has some decent laughs, and depending how well you can turn your brain off, some people may even enjoy the brain-dead story that's been told a thousand times before. However, no one will be tricked. Anyone walking into the theater after seeing the poster knows exactly what to expect, and I suppose that's why they keep making so much money. Dougan and Sandler know exactly what audiences want to see, and they deliver exactly that. Nothing more, nothing less. Never dissatisfied, their fans remain loyal. It just leaves those of us that are fans of Saving Silverman and Happy Gilmore reminisce on the potential that once was.
Everyone else is busy getting ready for the next Adam Sandler film.
7.0/10
Grade: (C-) - For having a few laughs (a requisite to call it a comedy), but with very little effort expended. Passable, but just barely.
Directed by Dennis Dugan
An apt title since Sandler and company seemingly looked at the script and said "Let's just go with it". Thus, it was retitled, from the ultimately more sophisticated Cactus Flower. Even Pretend Wife would have been better (a real working title, by the way). However, as seems the norm with Sandler lately, he doesn't even try, doesn't even bother with any creative aspects, he merely furthers the wannabe playboy quasi-Sandler. I don't know if he sees himself this way, or wants to see himself this way, which is why he continually does these types of movies, but it's really trite at this point. At least I Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry had Kevin James as a new device for Sandler.
Lighter than light, this is a film for the modern family to watch together, it has enough crude humor for the 10-28 year old boy crowd, eye candy for the 10-103 male crowd, and enough syrupy corniness to drown anyone. Somehow, despite all odds, Sandler comes off likeable (which the character has no right to) and Jennifer Aniston actually shines comedically, as his tomboyish sidekick to his playboy plastic surgeon.
Of course if you've seen the trailer you can plot the course of the entire film, which might have always been the case with most of Sandler's films, but many of them were at least enjoyable. Here, too often, I was wondering aloud where the jokes were, if this was not a comedy film. Sadly, it seems they don't even need jokes anymore, people will pay to see Sandler do anything, which was the joke of a depreciating character in Funny People apparently when you're as rich as Sandler, it doesn't even matter if you're laughing at yourself.
Dennis Dougan is still one of the finest comedy directors today, proving this by making consistently funny (or at least tolerable) comedies from ridiculously corny scripts the past few years. Despite this fact, he's never lost his timing, or the ability to make a joke work no matter how telegraphed, he really does know comedy. Which begs the question, why would he continue making all of these sub-par scripts? I guess it's one of those Hollywood mysteries, which isn't really a mystery because it's all about money.
Jennifer Aniston finally proves her appeal to me, she can be a funny, candid personality when her character isn't a cold, paranoid lunatic, which is what she seems to play most often. Who knew it was just acting? Of course it's Dougan so you'll see plenty of funny cameos, and Nick Swardson just goes completely into left field with his character (as his personality seemingly pushes him to) but he often has the best laugh out loud moments of the film.
Don't get me wrong, Just Go With It is a funny film. It has some decent laughs, and depending how well you can turn your brain off, some people may even enjoy the brain-dead story that's been told a thousand times before. However, no one will be tricked. Anyone walking into the theater after seeing the poster knows exactly what to expect, and I suppose that's why they keep making so much money. Dougan and Sandler know exactly what audiences want to see, and they deliver exactly that. Nothing more, nothing less. Never dissatisfied, their fans remain loyal. It just leaves those of us that are fans of Saving Silverman and Happy Gilmore reminisce on the potential that once was.
Everyone else is busy getting ready for the next Adam Sandler film.
7.0/10
Grade: (C-) - For having a few laughs (a requisite to call it a comedy), but with very little effort expended. Passable, but just barely.
Saturday, April 23, 2011
Super (2010)
Written and Directed by James Gunn
It's been too long, James Gunn. I know he had a tough time getting a movie made, and when faced with the possibility of the loss of creative control, he probably walked away. So I don't mind waiting a few years for his follow up to the splattery fun that was Slither (sadly, a mismarketed commercial failure), and he's back with a knockout punch rife with turmoil from his own life.
Super, is, in essence, a break-up revenge fantasy. When Frank D'Arbo's (Rainn Wilson) wife Sarah (Liv Tyler) leaves him for the crooked Jacque (Kevin Bacon), he literally snaps. The weight of his failures destroy him, to the point where he has an epiphany: He's only failed because he didn't make the choice to try. Inspired by an insipid Christian-themed superhero, he befriends Libby (Ellen Page) a comic shop employee with strange fascinations and enough personality flaws to fill her own movie.
Invigorated by his message from God, Frank sets out as the Crimson Bolt, who tells crime to shut up, and eventually shuts them up with a hefty pipe wrench. As Frank's path of vengeance burns through the city, Libby catches on, and by virtue of her pushiness, quickly becomes the Crimson Bolt's sidekick Boltie.
The superhero genre has pretty much been covered, and the existential superhero has always been defined by the Watchmen, and Gunn seemingly knows this, so he takes his hero in a completely different direction. This isn't a huge superhero film about huge issues and vast conspiracies. It's about the small issues, things that only a few people might care about, but Frank D'Arbo proves those people can be the most passionate. With his tirades against child molesters, drug dealers, and even people who cut in line, Gunn is venting every frustration he ever felt in a failed relationship.
Super is more in spirit with the Coen Brothers A Serious Man in that it's about a man who continually does the right thing, but finds failure at every door. Where the Coen Brothers film is about a man taking it all inward, this is the tale of a man who explodes everything that's ever bothered him off his chest, with increasing frequency, until he's ruthlessly gunning down Jacque's henchmen.
Many will see this as a film about the question of morality. I don't agree. I don't think it takes even a second to muse on morality, rather, it makes its decisions quickly, and lets history look as it may. For instance, when Frank attacks people with his pipe wrench, he does it on instinct, flared by the anger of his own past failures. Upon reflection, he decides the morality, and examines it, in an attempt to possibly shape some form of morality from what he's done.
I also don't think it's really about any relationship with God. Rather, I think the scenes of Frank's religion are further extensions of the scenes where he is shamed. God is merely his outlet for guidance, and even then, he always made his own decisions, even if he was always questioning God if they were the right decisions. It seems less about faith, and more about Frank's relationship to that faith once everything is said and done.
Beyond the film, and this is very much a film that's really about the events outside the ones depicted in the film, what happens to Frank next is just as important as what happened in the scenes we saw, a rare feat it seems. The tone is what makes it all work, and every actor knows exactly what world they're in. Kevin Bacon is hilarious as the not-so-bad bad guy, Lloyd Kaufman, Michael Rooker, Sean Gunn, and Nathan Fillion all have cameos (another joy of James Gunn movies), but it's Rainn Wilson who really shines as the hurt, broken, and lonely Frank.
Wilson takes the material quite seriously, and that's what makes all the dark humor work so well. His earnestness is what prevents the violence from feeling too mean and cruel, which some of it is. And that's the point. The violence and gore may be shocking for some expecting the full on comedy treatment, but I think it brings a realism to the world, that there are indeed consequences to the things Frank does, and it defies the flashy superhero style to have blood flying everywhere.
I also loved the little touches, the music, the way the camera moved, to give it that "small comedy" feel, and then in the action scenes it went 60's pop Batman for the violence. Watching some of the scenes, it almost seems that the BLAM! and POW! were to cover up that fickle blood particle problem so many greenscreen scenes tend to have, but if it is, bravo. I love the concept and at the same time it defies the realistic violence, bringing the stark realism to the viewer, but softening the emotional impact.
Super is funny, tragic, violent, but ultimately, cathartic. It's a testament to Gunn's writing ability to say how much I really enjoy and care about these characters. Too many films seem to know that not much is expected of their genre, so they don't bother trying to reinvent the wheel. The great part is, Gunn hasn't reinvented anything. He's just made a new type of superhero film, and I guess you can say it's in the same genre as Kick Ass just for being a comedic send up of classic comic characters, but really it's none of those things, just an angry break up letter to an ex-girlfriend that happens to be tragically hilarious and gorily passionate.
For now, Super is playing in limited cities, and on VOD in even fewer cities it seems. IFC would be wise to take a note from new genre juggernaut Magnet Releasing, who have the benefit of Mark Cuban and his money, but releases genre films across every platform in a timely manner, with increasing success. Any which way you can, see this film, especially if you think you've seen everything the superhero genre can offer.
9.5/10 (A)
It's been too long, James Gunn. I know he had a tough time getting a movie made, and when faced with the possibility of the loss of creative control, he probably walked away. So I don't mind waiting a few years for his follow up to the splattery fun that was Slither (sadly, a mismarketed commercial failure), and he's back with a knockout punch rife with turmoil from his own life.
Super, is, in essence, a break-up revenge fantasy. When Frank D'Arbo's (Rainn Wilson) wife Sarah (Liv Tyler) leaves him for the crooked Jacque (Kevin Bacon), he literally snaps. The weight of his failures destroy him, to the point where he has an epiphany: He's only failed because he didn't make the choice to try. Inspired by an insipid Christian-themed superhero, he befriends Libby (Ellen Page) a comic shop employee with strange fascinations and enough personality flaws to fill her own movie.
Invigorated by his message from God, Frank sets out as the Crimson Bolt, who tells crime to shut up, and eventually shuts them up with a hefty pipe wrench. As Frank's path of vengeance burns through the city, Libby catches on, and by virtue of her pushiness, quickly becomes the Crimson Bolt's sidekick Boltie.
The superhero genre has pretty much been covered, and the existential superhero has always been defined by the Watchmen, and Gunn seemingly knows this, so he takes his hero in a completely different direction. This isn't a huge superhero film about huge issues and vast conspiracies. It's about the small issues, things that only a few people might care about, but Frank D'Arbo proves those people can be the most passionate. With his tirades against child molesters, drug dealers, and even people who cut in line, Gunn is venting every frustration he ever felt in a failed relationship.
Super is more in spirit with the Coen Brothers A Serious Man in that it's about a man who continually does the right thing, but finds failure at every door. Where the Coen Brothers film is about a man taking it all inward, this is the tale of a man who explodes everything that's ever bothered him off his chest, with increasing frequency, until he's ruthlessly gunning down Jacque's henchmen.
Many will see this as a film about the question of morality. I don't agree. I don't think it takes even a second to muse on morality, rather, it makes its decisions quickly, and lets history look as it may. For instance, when Frank attacks people with his pipe wrench, he does it on instinct, flared by the anger of his own past failures. Upon reflection, he decides the morality, and examines it, in an attempt to possibly shape some form of morality from what he's done.
I also don't think it's really about any relationship with God. Rather, I think the scenes of Frank's religion are further extensions of the scenes where he is shamed. God is merely his outlet for guidance, and even then, he always made his own decisions, even if he was always questioning God if they were the right decisions. It seems less about faith, and more about Frank's relationship to that faith once everything is said and done.
Beyond the film, and this is very much a film that's really about the events outside the ones depicted in the film, what happens to Frank next is just as important as what happened in the scenes we saw, a rare feat it seems. The tone is what makes it all work, and every actor knows exactly what world they're in. Kevin Bacon is hilarious as the not-so-bad bad guy, Lloyd Kaufman, Michael Rooker, Sean Gunn, and Nathan Fillion all have cameos (another joy of James Gunn movies), but it's Rainn Wilson who really shines as the hurt, broken, and lonely Frank.
Wilson takes the material quite seriously, and that's what makes all the dark humor work so well. His earnestness is what prevents the violence from feeling too mean and cruel, which some of it is. And that's the point. The violence and gore may be shocking for some expecting the full on comedy treatment, but I think it brings a realism to the world, that there are indeed consequences to the things Frank does, and it defies the flashy superhero style to have blood flying everywhere.
I also loved the little touches, the music, the way the camera moved, to give it that "small comedy" feel, and then in the action scenes it went 60's pop Batman for the violence. Watching some of the scenes, it almost seems that the BLAM! and POW! were to cover up that fickle blood particle problem so many greenscreen scenes tend to have, but if it is, bravo. I love the concept and at the same time it defies the realistic violence, bringing the stark realism to the viewer, but softening the emotional impact.
Super is funny, tragic, violent, but ultimately, cathartic. It's a testament to Gunn's writing ability to say how much I really enjoy and care about these characters. Too many films seem to know that not much is expected of their genre, so they don't bother trying to reinvent the wheel. The great part is, Gunn hasn't reinvented anything. He's just made a new type of superhero film, and I guess you can say it's in the same genre as Kick Ass just for being a comedic send up of classic comic characters, but really it's none of those things, just an angry break up letter to an ex-girlfriend that happens to be tragically hilarious and gorily passionate.
For now, Super is playing in limited cities, and on VOD in even fewer cities it seems. IFC would be wise to take a note from new genre juggernaut Magnet Releasing, who have the benefit of Mark Cuban and his money, but releases genre films across every platform in a timely manner, with increasing success. Any which way you can, see this film, especially if you think you've seen everything the superhero genre can offer.
9.5/10 (A)
Thursday, April 21, 2011
Your Highness (2011)
Written by Danny McBride and Ben Best
Directed by David Gordon Green
If you aren't down with Danny McBride's brand of humor, you'll want to stay far away from this one. Combining the vast and vehement ignorance of Kenny Powers and Fred Simmons, Thaddeus (Danny McBride) is the biggest dolt yet. Apparently conceived while playing a game of "what's it about?", a game Danny McBride and David Green play in between shots.
So while the script might not be the most insightful, it's definitely funny in parts, but I think the main problem most audiences will have with it is the genre of fantasy isn't that big to begin with, to do a movie referencing and making fun of them pares down the amount of people that could get the joke to a small portion. Everyone else seemingly feels left out of the joke.
The story follows Thaddeus, a lazy prince who doesn't do anything very princely, he leaves that to his older brother Fabious (James Franco). Instead, Thaddeus prefers to smoke wizard's weed and wrestle around with his servant Courtney (Rasmus Hardiker), flaunting any responsibility.
When Fabious comes home from one of his quests, he only wants his brother Thaddeus by his side, but Thaddeus is jealous of Fabious and his new bride, Belladonna (Zooey Deschanel), who has been held captive by the evil warlock Leezar (Just Theroux). It's all campy goodness, with Fabious and Thaddeus going on their first quest together, to save Belladonna.
They gain a fellow traveler in the beautiful and tough Isabel (Natalie Portman), who is part of a long order of Golden Knights sworn to protect the world against Leezar's evil plan. After explaining all of that, I know it sound silly, but it all kind of works. It's not bowl you over hilarious, but the sly nods and hints to films like Excalibur are enough to keep people smiling.
Franco and McBride have a great report together, and they use it to maximum effect. Again though, if you aren't 100% into Danny McBride's style of comedy, this movie is sure to turn you off, as it's as petulant and ignorant as any of the characters he's ever played. The major difference here is there is an innocence to the character, which characters like Fred or Kenny don't have. They're just out-and-out dicks. And so is Thaddeus, to a point.
The stylish direction and fancy special f/x make this more than just a comedy, it's a fantasy film in its own right, with detailed design, meticulously crafted creatures, and a lot of humor at the expense of 80's fantasy films. Not a total laugh riot, but if you are a McBride fan, it's right up your alley, and this will be a must buy Blu Ray for many stoners in years to come.
8.6/10 (B+)
Directed by David Gordon Green
If you aren't down with Danny McBride's brand of humor, you'll want to stay far away from this one. Combining the vast and vehement ignorance of Kenny Powers and Fred Simmons, Thaddeus (Danny McBride) is the biggest dolt yet. Apparently conceived while playing a game of "what's it about?", a game Danny McBride and David Green play in between shots.
So while the script might not be the most insightful, it's definitely funny in parts, but I think the main problem most audiences will have with it is the genre of fantasy isn't that big to begin with, to do a movie referencing and making fun of them pares down the amount of people that could get the joke to a small portion. Everyone else seemingly feels left out of the joke.
The story follows Thaddeus, a lazy prince who doesn't do anything very princely, he leaves that to his older brother Fabious (James Franco). Instead, Thaddeus prefers to smoke wizard's weed and wrestle around with his servant Courtney (Rasmus Hardiker), flaunting any responsibility.
When Fabious comes home from one of his quests, he only wants his brother Thaddeus by his side, but Thaddeus is jealous of Fabious and his new bride, Belladonna (Zooey Deschanel), who has been held captive by the evil warlock Leezar (Just Theroux). It's all campy goodness, with Fabious and Thaddeus going on their first quest together, to save Belladonna.
They gain a fellow traveler in the beautiful and tough Isabel (Natalie Portman), who is part of a long order of Golden Knights sworn to protect the world against Leezar's evil plan. After explaining all of that, I know it sound silly, but it all kind of works. It's not bowl you over hilarious, but the sly nods and hints to films like Excalibur are enough to keep people smiling.
Franco and McBride have a great report together, and they use it to maximum effect. Again though, if you aren't 100% into Danny McBride's style of comedy, this movie is sure to turn you off, as it's as petulant and ignorant as any of the characters he's ever played. The major difference here is there is an innocence to the character, which characters like Fred or Kenny don't have. They're just out-and-out dicks. And so is Thaddeus, to a point.
The stylish direction and fancy special f/x make this more than just a comedy, it's a fantasy film in its own right, with detailed design, meticulously crafted creatures, and a lot of humor at the expense of 80's fantasy films. Not a total laugh riot, but if you are a McBride fan, it's right up your alley, and this will be a must buy Blu Ray for many stoners in years to come.
8.6/10 (B+)
The Loved Ones (2009)
Written and Directed by Sean Byrne
Sometimes a horror movie is so off the radar but you keep hearing things and vow to check it out. I've been saying that for a year and a half, and I'm glad I finally watched it. A very personal horror film The Loved Ones centers on Brent (Xavier Samuel), school heartthrob and all around cool guy. For example, on the night of prom, instead of going with his girlfriend, he chooses to sit around and listen to music. When a girl named Lola asks him to prom anyway, he sticks to his plan of doing nothing. Spurned, Lola leaves.
While sitting alone in the outback, Brent is suddenly grabbed by a mysterious person, and kidnapped. He ends up tied to a chair in a basement, where the worst horror of his life unfolds before him. Make no mistake, The Loved Ones is a torture film, but it's a torture film with something to say. Here, the torture physically inflicted is to match the perceived mental torture of unrequited love.
You see, Lola (Robin McLeavy) is the girl Brent turned down at school, now her Daddy (John Brumpton) has grabbed Brent, and will make him pay for not noticing how beautiful his daughter is. Such is the set up for the borderline incestuous relationship between Lola and her Daddy, who helps Lola extract revenge on those that aren't nice to her.
If this seem somewhat familiar, it is. It's not the first time a psycho family member has helped find a young sexual partner for his close family, but in the third act the film takes a series of left turns that can't be seen, but they work to maximum effect. There are more than a few "HOLY SHIT!" scenes, where I couldn't believe what I was seeing.
The strength of the acting carries this above and beyond mere genre fodder, it's a star making vehicle, I expect to see Robin McLeavy in a lot of upcoming films, and from what I understand, Xavier Samuel is already a teen icon. John Brumpton is great as the twisted Daddy, and Sean Byrne is sure to get any deal he wants for his next film with the assured nature in which he directed this film.
All the perfect notes are hit, and while the first act takes a while to get where it's going, the second and third acts pump along until the violent conclusion. An intense horror film, with some darkly humorous and equally nasty things to say about humans and what they'll do to satisfy their need to be loved. Definitely a memorable film, I'm curious if it will ever find a wide audience.
9.3/10 (A)
Sometimes a horror movie is so off the radar but you keep hearing things and vow to check it out. I've been saying that for a year and a half, and I'm glad I finally watched it. A very personal horror film The Loved Ones centers on Brent (Xavier Samuel), school heartthrob and all around cool guy. For example, on the night of prom, instead of going with his girlfriend, he chooses to sit around and listen to music. When a girl named Lola asks him to prom anyway, he sticks to his plan of doing nothing. Spurned, Lola leaves.
While sitting alone in the outback, Brent is suddenly grabbed by a mysterious person, and kidnapped. He ends up tied to a chair in a basement, where the worst horror of his life unfolds before him. Make no mistake, The Loved Ones is a torture film, but it's a torture film with something to say. Here, the torture physically inflicted is to match the perceived mental torture of unrequited love.
You see, Lola (Robin McLeavy) is the girl Brent turned down at school, now her Daddy (John Brumpton) has grabbed Brent, and will make him pay for not noticing how beautiful his daughter is. Such is the set up for the borderline incestuous relationship between Lola and her Daddy, who helps Lola extract revenge on those that aren't nice to her.
If this seem somewhat familiar, it is. It's not the first time a psycho family member has helped find a young sexual partner for his close family, but in the third act the film takes a series of left turns that can't be seen, but they work to maximum effect. There are more than a few "HOLY SHIT!" scenes, where I couldn't believe what I was seeing.
The strength of the acting carries this above and beyond mere genre fodder, it's a star making vehicle, I expect to see Robin McLeavy in a lot of upcoming films, and from what I understand, Xavier Samuel is already a teen icon. John Brumpton is great as the twisted Daddy, and Sean Byrne is sure to get any deal he wants for his next film with the assured nature in which he directed this film.
All the perfect notes are hit, and while the first act takes a while to get where it's going, the second and third acts pump along until the violent conclusion. An intense horror film, with some darkly humorous and equally nasty things to say about humans and what they'll do to satisfy their need to be loved. Definitely a memorable film, I'm curious if it will ever find a wide audience.
9.3/10 (A)
13 Assassins (2010)
Based on the screenplay by Kaneo Ikegami
Screenplay by Daisuke Tengan
Directed by Takashi Miike
For those that are familiar with Takashi Miike, he is a prolific and expedient director. With his latest film, 13 Assassins he has shifted gears, and essentially remade a classic Japanese tale. Much like Seven Samurai, the story involves a rogue group of samurai who must band together for a cause of honor, and so they can get paid, of course.
Shinzaemon Shimada (Koji Yakusho) is tasked with the heavy burden of putting a stop to Lord Naritsugu (Goro Inagaki), a feudal lord who has become obsessed with killing, maiming, and raping, and won't stop his campaign, even at the urging of the Shogun council. The problem is, if he were invalidated as Lord, it would be a serious detriment to the political rankings of those who let him get to where he was. So Shinzaemon Shimada is told to hire a group of samurai, and do whatever he can to stop Naritsugu.
After grumbling that there aren't any good samurai anymore, he manages to recruit 9 men outside of himself, his closest trainee, and his friend's closest trainee. The pack of ronin quickly take to the task, hunting Naritsugu down, planning their eventual showdown with him.
This journey, which takes them on a series of strategic moves against Naritsugu, brings them all closer together, all bonded by the samurai code, which says a samurai only dies happily in service to another.
While this isn't instantly Miike's best film, it is his biggest, and by far his most serious. It still has his trademark brand of humor in tiny moments, but for the most part it's a classic Hollywood western, right down to the music. This is Miike in mainstream mode, and it seems as though he's slowed down, only doing 2 films a year instead of 5-10 like he has in the past. If that marks a period where he makes bigger, more serious films, I welcome it openly.
13 Assassins is by far Miike's crowning achievement as a filmmaker, even if it isn't his best film. It has everything a big, epic movie should have: heart, humor, good, evil, characters you can like and relate to, all while telling an interesting, sweeping period story. Of course since it's Miike so there's no shortage of bloodshed, but the uninitiated might be turned off by the stark use of brutal violence. In the long run, though, this is a soul crushing film, although it's played lightly, no one could have ever had a positive outcome in this story, and that's ultimately the point.
Miike's strained sense of morality is again on display, asking the tough questions, such as "If you see nothing wrong with killing, would you be able to stifle your anger if someone killed you?" Interesting questions not usually asked, but as always, death is the great equalizer for Miike, he loves to tell stories of killers and evil men, but even more he likes to kill them, to see how they die. Here more than any of his previous films, it's not pretty.
Like many of his previous films though, this one is pretty much all about honor and how they relate to the characters at hand, through a series of flashbacks, and the guilt Shimada feels for not stopping Naritsugu earlier. Not to mention I can't remember the last film I saw that had more than one Harikari in it. I'm sure that will be outdone in his next film, Death of a Samurai.
9.6/10 (A)
Screenplay by Daisuke Tengan
Directed by Takashi Miike
For those that are familiar with Takashi Miike, he is a prolific and expedient director. With his latest film, 13 Assassins he has shifted gears, and essentially remade a classic Japanese tale. Much like Seven Samurai, the story involves a rogue group of samurai who must band together for a cause of honor, and so they can get paid, of course.
Shinzaemon Shimada (Koji Yakusho) is tasked with the heavy burden of putting a stop to Lord Naritsugu (Goro Inagaki), a feudal lord who has become obsessed with killing, maiming, and raping, and won't stop his campaign, even at the urging of the Shogun council. The problem is, if he were invalidated as Lord, it would be a serious detriment to the political rankings of those who let him get to where he was. So Shinzaemon Shimada is told to hire a group of samurai, and do whatever he can to stop Naritsugu.
After grumbling that there aren't any good samurai anymore, he manages to recruit 9 men outside of himself, his closest trainee, and his friend's closest trainee. The pack of ronin quickly take to the task, hunting Naritsugu down, planning their eventual showdown with him.
This journey, which takes them on a series of strategic moves against Naritsugu, brings them all closer together, all bonded by the samurai code, which says a samurai only dies happily in service to another.
While this isn't instantly Miike's best film, it is his biggest, and by far his most serious. It still has his trademark brand of humor in tiny moments, but for the most part it's a classic Hollywood western, right down to the music. This is Miike in mainstream mode, and it seems as though he's slowed down, only doing 2 films a year instead of 5-10 like he has in the past. If that marks a period where he makes bigger, more serious films, I welcome it openly.
13 Assassins is by far Miike's crowning achievement as a filmmaker, even if it isn't his best film. It has everything a big, epic movie should have: heart, humor, good, evil, characters you can like and relate to, all while telling an interesting, sweeping period story. Of course since it's Miike so there's no shortage of bloodshed, but the uninitiated might be turned off by the stark use of brutal violence. In the long run, though, this is a soul crushing film, although it's played lightly, no one could have ever had a positive outcome in this story, and that's ultimately the point.
Miike's strained sense of morality is again on display, asking the tough questions, such as "If you see nothing wrong with killing, would you be able to stifle your anger if someone killed you?" Interesting questions not usually asked, but as always, death is the great equalizer for Miike, he loves to tell stories of killers and evil men, but even more he likes to kill them, to see how they die. Here more than any of his previous films, it's not pretty.
Like many of his previous films though, this one is pretty much all about honor and how they relate to the characters at hand, through a series of flashbacks, and the guilt Shimada feels for not stopping Naritsugu earlier. Not to mention I can't remember the last film I saw that had more than one Harikari in it. I'm sure that will be outdone in his next film, Death of a Samurai.
9.6/10 (A)
Source Code (2011)
Written by Ben Ripley
Directed by Duncan Jones
Duncan Jones made the sleeper hit Moon a few years back which I'm quite fond of, so I got excited when his new film came out in wider release. Source Code is quite different from his first film, more mainstream in a modern action thriller kind of way. I'm sure the writer pitched it as Speed with a brain.
Colter Stevens (Jake Gyllenhaal) wakes up in the body of someone else, in the middle of a conversation with someone he doesn't know. When the train he's on blows up, Colter wakes up in his own body, confused, only remember his last mission with his military convoy, fearing for their safety.
The labyrinth plot unfolds from here, and although it never gets too smart on us, at the same time it's clever, and keeps the viewer thinking throughout the runtime, making a detective of anyone watching it. Movies like this seems to be farther and fewer between, movies that know which genre its in, and bask freely in the light. Source Code is unabashedly science fiction, with enough roots in reality to win over the casual fan, as will the A-list talent.
Jones is an assured storyteller, he only gives the viewer tiny pieces, but he knows exactly when to give them and that they'll all tie up in the end. Too many sci-fi stories can't do this and either end up being a meandering mess (The Matrix series), or an F/X laden CGI-fest that doesn't make any damn sense (2012, or any Roland Emmerich film really). His talent for revealing only what needs to be revealed next is what allows him to keep a tight grip on his plot as it begins to wind out of control toward the end.
All the actors may be known, but none of them give a particularly great performance. Most of the more well known actors actually seemed to sleepwalk a bit through their roles. I don't know if this is because of a lack of direction, or a defiance of direction, but the acting isn't on the same level as it was in Moon. Most seemed like they knew they were in an action movie, and that's as far as they wanted to go with that.
However the clever screenplay keeps things entertaining, the story is well paced and moves along nicely. It's refreshing to see an entertaining, intelligent, original sci-fi screenplay get produced, and the fact that it was made pretty cheap helps its cause. Duncan Jones remains a director to be watched, the question is will he do another sci-fi film (his previously announced Mute, which is having funding issues?) or will he be forced by the economic tide to change things up a bit?
9.0/10 (A-)
Directed by Duncan Jones
Duncan Jones made the sleeper hit Moon a few years back which I'm quite fond of, so I got excited when his new film came out in wider release. Source Code is quite different from his first film, more mainstream in a modern action thriller kind of way. I'm sure the writer pitched it as Speed with a brain.
Colter Stevens (Jake Gyllenhaal) wakes up in the body of someone else, in the middle of a conversation with someone he doesn't know. When the train he's on blows up, Colter wakes up in his own body, confused, only remember his last mission with his military convoy, fearing for their safety.
The labyrinth plot unfolds from here, and although it never gets too smart on us, at the same time it's clever, and keeps the viewer thinking throughout the runtime, making a detective of anyone watching it. Movies like this seems to be farther and fewer between, movies that know which genre its in, and bask freely in the light. Source Code is unabashedly science fiction, with enough roots in reality to win over the casual fan, as will the A-list talent.
Jones is an assured storyteller, he only gives the viewer tiny pieces, but he knows exactly when to give them and that they'll all tie up in the end. Too many sci-fi stories can't do this and either end up being a meandering mess (The Matrix series), or an F/X laden CGI-fest that doesn't make any damn sense (2012, or any Roland Emmerich film really). His talent for revealing only what needs to be revealed next is what allows him to keep a tight grip on his plot as it begins to wind out of control toward the end.
All the actors may be known, but none of them give a particularly great performance. Most of the more well known actors actually seemed to sleepwalk a bit through their roles. I don't know if this is because of a lack of direction, or a defiance of direction, but the acting isn't on the same level as it was in Moon. Most seemed like they knew they were in an action movie, and that's as far as they wanted to go with that.
However the clever screenplay keeps things entertaining, the story is well paced and moves along nicely. It's refreshing to see an entertaining, intelligent, original sci-fi screenplay get produced, and the fact that it was made pretty cheap helps its cause. Duncan Jones remains a director to be watched, the question is will he do another sci-fi film (his previously announced Mute, which is having funding issues?) or will he be forced by the economic tide to change things up a bit?
9.0/10 (A-)
Hobo With a Shotgun (2011)
Written by Rob Cotterill & Jason Eisner and John Davies
Directed by Jason Eisner
There are some movies that are well worth the wait. Hobo With a Shotgun is one of those movies. Ever since Jason Eisner burst onto the internet's consciousness with his original, no budget trailer for Hobo With a Shotgun, everyone has been waiting to see what he would do next. When he made the monstrously funny Treevenge we all waited to see what was next, surely a feature. With the announcement of the feature film of Hobo with a Shotgun, my hopes grew. When I heard Rutger Hauer was set to play the Hobo, my hopes grew even more. When I saw the initial sizzle reel, that Jason posted well over a year ago, the anticipation was killing me.
To finally see Hobo With a Shotgun in all its HD glory could have been disappointing. For a movie that most people haven't heard of, I had the highest expectations, and I'm glad to say Jason Eisner manager to shatter all of my expectations with this film, a balls to the wall gorefest full of gallows humor, superviolence, visual homages, and the zaniest characters this side of Switchblade Sisters. The fact that Eisner embraced the technicolor dreamworld of exploitation cinema as a bright beacon to his lonely Hobo is the sure sign that he is prepared to destroy this world no matter how he makes it look.
An extreme wasteland run by The Drake (Brian Downey), and his two psychopathic sons, the obnoxious Ivan (Nick Bateman) and the gleefully over the top Slick (former child star Gregory Smith). Like a sick version of The Running Man, Robocop, Death Row Game Show, and Battle Royale, Drake instills fear into the civilian population.
Overcome with guilt, and fed up with the disgusting state of the city, the Hobo finally snaps, grabbing a shotgun (and presumably some shells, while he was offscreen) and using it to wipe out the city's scum, which is appropriate, as they call it Scum City.
When they learn of his rampage, the deranged Drake and his sons hunt for the Hobo, and come across the only person he cares about in the world, the young and abused Abby (Molly Dunsworth), who he likens to his own child, and must protect at any cost. When the Hobo manages to wipe out a good number of Drake's men, he must call in The Plague.
The duo are rumored to get their own prequel film, but for now they smash all hell as they methodically hunt down the Hobo and bring him to the Drake. Every scene is an epic battle of wills, with the world on the line in every scene.
What Jason Eisner has managed to capture here is everything. Not just the look, the music, the sound, the actors, the dialogue, everything. Every detail. Everything is an homage to something, with references to Hauer's career (I saw at least one Blind Fury reference) and every underground action film made in the 70's and 80's.
Shot with RED's amazing EPIC 5K camera in 4.5 k (2.5 times the resolution of film) it can look awful if you don't know what you are doing. The production team, camera men, and cinematographer all obviously had long talks with Eisner because every frame of the entire movie has a very specific look, with a lot of homage shots, and a wonderful extremely wide frame. I know they shot near Jason's home town in Dartmouth and other areas around Nova Scotia, but they make it look like an evil sister city to The Warrior's dirty, run-down New York.
For what was surely a very low budget film, everyone was doing their job and firing on all cylinders. This movie looks, sounds, and has more action and gore than it has any right to. But somehow, they pulled it off. The story is engaging without being too tongue-in-cheek, but still balancing a good level of humor, inherent to the nature of such an homage film. Everything is balanced perfectly, and despite its low budget, it's packed with almost constant action, set pieces, and special effects, never losing its pace. I dare say Jason Eisner has crafted the best "throwback" grindhouse film out of the current crop (Tarantino and RR's Grindhouse included) and based on the VOD success alone it seems he won't have much trouble finding future work for his zany ideas. That's something I like to see.
9.8/10 (A+)
Directed by Jason Eisner
There are some movies that are well worth the wait. Hobo With a Shotgun is one of those movies. Ever since Jason Eisner burst onto the internet's consciousness with his original, no budget trailer for Hobo With a Shotgun, everyone has been waiting to see what he would do next. When he made the monstrously funny Treevenge we all waited to see what was next, surely a feature. With the announcement of the feature film of Hobo with a Shotgun, my hopes grew. When I heard Rutger Hauer was set to play the Hobo, my hopes grew even more. When I saw the initial sizzle reel, that Jason posted well over a year ago, the anticipation was killing me.
To finally see Hobo With a Shotgun in all its HD glory could have been disappointing. For a movie that most people haven't heard of, I had the highest expectations, and I'm glad to say Jason Eisner manager to shatter all of my expectations with this film, a balls to the wall gorefest full of gallows humor, superviolence, visual homages, and the zaniest characters this side of Switchblade Sisters. The fact that Eisner embraced the technicolor dreamworld of exploitation cinema as a bright beacon to his lonely Hobo is the sure sign that he is prepared to destroy this world no matter how he makes it look.
An extreme wasteland run by The Drake (Brian Downey), and his two psychopathic sons, the obnoxious Ivan (Nick Bateman) and the gleefully over the top Slick (former child star Gregory Smith). Like a sick version of The Running Man, Robocop, Death Row Game Show, and Battle Royale, Drake instills fear into the civilian population.
Overcome with guilt, and fed up with the disgusting state of the city, the Hobo finally snaps, grabbing a shotgun (and presumably some shells, while he was offscreen) and using it to wipe out the city's scum, which is appropriate, as they call it Scum City.
When they learn of his rampage, the deranged Drake and his sons hunt for the Hobo, and come across the only person he cares about in the world, the young and abused Abby (Molly Dunsworth), who he likens to his own child, and must protect at any cost. When the Hobo manages to wipe out a good number of Drake's men, he must call in The Plague.
The duo are rumored to get their own prequel film, but for now they smash all hell as they methodically hunt down the Hobo and bring him to the Drake. Every scene is an epic battle of wills, with the world on the line in every scene.
What Jason Eisner has managed to capture here is everything. Not just the look, the music, the sound, the actors, the dialogue, everything. Every detail. Everything is an homage to something, with references to Hauer's career (I saw at least one Blind Fury reference) and every underground action film made in the 70's and 80's.
Shot with RED's amazing EPIC 5K camera in 4.5 k (2.5 times the resolution of film) it can look awful if you don't know what you are doing. The production team, camera men, and cinematographer all obviously had long talks with Eisner because every frame of the entire movie has a very specific look, with a lot of homage shots, and a wonderful extremely wide frame. I know they shot near Jason's home town in Dartmouth and other areas around Nova Scotia, but they make it look like an evil sister city to The Warrior's dirty, run-down New York.
For what was surely a very low budget film, everyone was doing their job and firing on all cylinders. This movie looks, sounds, and has more action and gore than it has any right to. But somehow, they pulled it off. The story is engaging without being too tongue-in-cheek, but still balancing a good level of humor, inherent to the nature of such an homage film. Everything is balanced perfectly, and despite its low budget, it's packed with almost constant action, set pieces, and special effects, never losing its pace. I dare say Jason Eisner has crafted the best "throwback" grindhouse film out of the current crop (Tarantino and RR's Grindhouse included) and based on the VOD success alone it seems he won't have much trouble finding future work for his zany ideas. That's something I like to see.
9.8/10 (A+)
Sucker Punch (2011)
Story by Zack Snyder
Screenplay by Zack Snyder & Steve Shibuya
Directed by Zack Snyder
I really believe Zack Snyder has cursed himself. He's become easily one of the best visual directors working today, and with the material he's worked with in the past, he's never had any trouble making interesting films that deliver beyond the amazing visuals.
Now that he's starting to branch out and try to do his own original ideas, it doesn't seem to be working as well. Sucker Punch is the first real evidence of that, as Legend of the Guardians did fine financially, but Sucker Punch was a box office letdown for WB. Snyder didn't mind, I'm sure, he already has The Man of Steel, but it doesn't speak well for his next original idea.
While interesting in concept, Sucker Punch just doesn't work as a whole on the execution level. It's very obvious that Snyder had 5 major action scenes that he developed, fully fleshed out, and realized with his eye for immaculate action detail and incredible slo-mo shots. However, the story connecting these events is thin at best, and it will leave a lot of viewers unsatisfied as a whole.
Baby Doll (Emily Browning) is put into an institution for the mental ill when she attempts to fight off her step-father's sexual demands. Inside, she is met with other broken girls just like her, Sweet Pea (Abbie Cornish), Rocket (Jena Malone), Blondie (Vanessa Hudgins), and Amber (Jamie Chung) who are up against an abusive staff, led by the nefarious Blue Jones (Oscar Issac) who is deliciously evil in every scene he's in.
Again though, the main thread of the film is barely evident in some of these scenes, and the film as a whole resembles a music video in narrative structure and use of visuals in place of actual storytelling. Now, for some, this might suffice, but for those expecting another Watchmen or 300, there really is no fully developed story, you can tell Snyder was flying by the seat of his pants to make all these epic battle scenes interconnect through the thread of this young girl.
After a while, I didn't mind not knowing why exactly she had to fight giant robot samurai, or what relation they had to her direct plight, but this isn't that type of film. It's expressed concern is making cool action scenes full of everything you'd want to see in an action scene, dragons, giant robot samurai, dogfights, and hot chicks with machine guns and swords. In the end, I think the fact that none of it really means anything in the grand scheme of the story hurts it being taken with anything but a grain of salt. For the select few, this is not a problem, that was the expectation, I'm afraid the masses will be disappointed at the lack of cohesion, and I must admit in the end I hope Zack sticks to established properties (which he's shown very adept at adapting to the screen) or someone else's screenplays.
With all that said, the final word is it's an entertaining movie, it will be a showcase Blu Ray, and it really is everything a fanboy could want to see in one film. I still think it will let down mainstream audiences, but will find a cult following later on. What most people don't realize is I'm sure Zack Snyder feels lucky to make such an indulgent film, he doesn't care how well it does at the box office. Especially with is next job firmly in place.
8.8/10 (B+)
Screenplay by Zack Snyder & Steve Shibuya
Directed by Zack Snyder
I really believe Zack Snyder has cursed himself. He's become easily one of the best visual directors working today, and with the material he's worked with in the past, he's never had any trouble making interesting films that deliver beyond the amazing visuals.
Now that he's starting to branch out and try to do his own original ideas, it doesn't seem to be working as well. Sucker Punch is the first real evidence of that, as Legend of the Guardians did fine financially, but Sucker Punch was a box office letdown for WB. Snyder didn't mind, I'm sure, he already has The Man of Steel, but it doesn't speak well for his next original idea.
While interesting in concept, Sucker Punch just doesn't work as a whole on the execution level. It's very obvious that Snyder had 5 major action scenes that he developed, fully fleshed out, and realized with his eye for immaculate action detail and incredible slo-mo shots. However, the story connecting these events is thin at best, and it will leave a lot of viewers unsatisfied as a whole.
Baby Doll (Emily Browning) is put into an institution for the mental ill when she attempts to fight off her step-father's sexual demands. Inside, she is met with other broken girls just like her, Sweet Pea (Abbie Cornish), Rocket (Jena Malone), Blondie (Vanessa Hudgins), and Amber (Jamie Chung) who are up against an abusive staff, led by the nefarious Blue Jones (Oscar Issac) who is deliciously evil in every scene he's in.
Again though, the main thread of the film is barely evident in some of these scenes, and the film as a whole resembles a music video in narrative structure and use of visuals in place of actual storytelling. Now, for some, this might suffice, but for those expecting another Watchmen or 300, there really is no fully developed story, you can tell Snyder was flying by the seat of his pants to make all these epic battle scenes interconnect through the thread of this young girl.
After a while, I didn't mind not knowing why exactly she had to fight giant robot samurai, or what relation they had to her direct plight, but this isn't that type of film. It's expressed concern is making cool action scenes full of everything you'd want to see in an action scene, dragons, giant robot samurai, dogfights, and hot chicks with machine guns and swords. In the end, I think the fact that none of it really means anything in the grand scheme of the story hurts it being taken with anything but a grain of salt. For the select few, this is not a problem, that was the expectation, I'm afraid the masses will be disappointed at the lack of cohesion, and I must admit in the end I hope Zack sticks to established properties (which he's shown very adept at adapting to the screen) or someone else's screenplays.
With all that said, the final word is it's an entertaining movie, it will be a showcase Blu Ray, and it really is everything a fanboy could want to see in one film. I still think it will let down mainstream audiences, but will find a cult following later on. What most people don't realize is I'm sure Zack Snyder feels lucky to make such an indulgent film, he doesn't care how well it does at the box office. Especially with is next job firmly in place.
8.8/10 (B+)
The Hills Run Red (2009)
Story by Johhn Carchietta
Written by John Dombrow & David J. Schow
Directed by Dave Parker
Tyler (Tad Hilgenbreck) is a horror obsessed film student who has his sights set on finding the lost slasher "The Hills Run Red", rumored to be the most violent horror movie ever made. The Director, William Concannon (William Sadler) disappeared around the same time the film was rumored to disappear.
Armed with camping equipment and a few friends, Tyler heads out to find Concannon and the missing film. He starts with Concannon's daughter, the beautiful Alexa (Sophia Myles) who tells him she wants nothing to do with anything involving her father.
Once Tyler manages to get her clean for a few days, she agrees to help him find the spot where he father filmed the movie in the 1980's. Once they get to the area though, people start disappearing, and the kids think they're in a world of trouble when they get rounded up by a group of hillbillies, but everything changes when the killer Babyface, from the lost film, slashes onto the scene and destroys everyone he can.
They find out that Concannon is alive, and still making The Hills Run Red, and that he's been filming the movie in the woods for the past 20+ years. From here, it shares key elements with other self-referential slashers like Hatchet and Behind the Mask, where the characters go through the tropes of a typical horror movie victim.
In the end, the film is well made, with an interesting script, and a fresh take on the meta-slasher. Tad Hildgenbreck's earnestness holds him back from really chewing the scenery, but every moment with William Sadler is a campy treat. Sophia Myles handles herself well in a pretty typical role.
All the technical elements are in place, good sound, interesting photography, and a cool design, but the best parts are the film within the film. The Hills Run Red is a movie I want to see, even though I just saw The Hills Run Red. I want Concannon's version. The real star of the show is the gore, there's plenty of it and the good news is that the large majority of it is done with practical f/x, like the films that are being referenced. A treat for horror fans, others might not find a lot of value in it.
8.9/10 (B+)
Written by John Dombrow & David J. Schow
Directed by Dave Parker
Tyler (Tad Hilgenbreck) is a horror obsessed film student who has his sights set on finding the lost slasher "The Hills Run Red", rumored to be the most violent horror movie ever made. The Director, William Concannon (William Sadler) disappeared around the same time the film was rumored to disappear.
Armed with camping equipment and a few friends, Tyler heads out to find Concannon and the missing film. He starts with Concannon's daughter, the beautiful Alexa (Sophia Myles) who tells him she wants nothing to do with anything involving her father.
Once Tyler manages to get her clean for a few days, she agrees to help him find the spot where he father filmed the movie in the 1980's. Once they get to the area though, people start disappearing, and the kids think they're in a world of trouble when they get rounded up by a group of hillbillies, but everything changes when the killer Babyface, from the lost film, slashes onto the scene and destroys everyone he can.
They find out that Concannon is alive, and still making The Hills Run Red, and that he's been filming the movie in the woods for the past 20+ years. From here, it shares key elements with other self-referential slashers like Hatchet and Behind the Mask, where the characters go through the tropes of a typical horror movie victim.
In the end, the film is well made, with an interesting script, and a fresh take on the meta-slasher. Tad Hildgenbreck's earnestness holds him back from really chewing the scenery, but every moment with William Sadler is a campy treat. Sophia Myles handles herself well in a pretty typical role.
All the technical elements are in place, good sound, interesting photography, and a cool design, but the best parts are the film within the film. The Hills Run Red is a movie I want to see, even though I just saw The Hills Run Red. I want Concannon's version. The real star of the show is the gore, there's plenty of it and the good news is that the large majority of it is done with practical f/x, like the films that are being referenced. A treat for horror fans, others might not find a lot of value in it.
8.9/10 (B+)
The Good, The Bad, The Weird (2008)
Written by Jee-woon Kim & Min-suk Kim
Directed by Jee-woon Kim
This is how Jee-woon Kim operates, he takes a concept and reinvents it with his own style. Many filmmakers do this, but what makes him different is he always takes an abrupt 90 degree turn, keeping the character types, the situations, and the settings of a genre, but then turning the film and putting those genre expectations firmly on their ear with style and panache.
From the rollicking opening on the train, to the final shootout, The Good, the Bad, and The Weird is indeed his retelling of Leone's The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly with The Good (Woo-sung Jung), a straight as an arrow bounty hunter, The Bad (Byung-hun Lee) an ice cold assassin without remorse or feelings, and finally, The Weird (Kang-ho Song, another of the finest Asian actors alive at the moment) the loveable, unkillable scoundrel Tae-goo.
Like Leone's film, this one is about 3 men fighting for a map that is supposed to be the location of a large plot of treasure, but to get to it they must outwit each other, transverse 1940's Manchuria, escape the Chinese bandits, and the Japanese army.
Although the tone is akin to The Good, The Bad, and the Ugly, there are elements of goofy comedy, and enough swashbuckling adventure to rival any Indiana Jones or Pirates of the Carribean movie. Most impressive are the methods he employed to get these shots, I'm still not sure how he got one shot that comes from behind the train and follows Tae-goo as he runs away before the train explodes. Aesthetically beautifully and technically marvelous all at once, with a rocking soundtrack that glides the action along.
All of these are the trademarks of a great director, and with only a short list of films on his resume, Jee-Woon Kim is quickly become a South Korean to watch, with the whole nation a hotbed for intense, exciting films. The whole thing looks and feels like an epic American western, all on what I'm sure is a relatively low budget. A great crew crafted a fantastic looking movie with tons of great acting and exciting sequences. I'm looking forward to his next movie, which will most likely be an American debut. In the meantime, The Good, The Bad, and The Weird is great fun.
9.3/10 (A)
Directed by Jee-woon Kim
This is how Jee-woon Kim operates, he takes a concept and reinvents it with his own style. Many filmmakers do this, but what makes him different is he always takes an abrupt 90 degree turn, keeping the character types, the situations, and the settings of a genre, but then turning the film and putting those genre expectations firmly on their ear with style and panache.
From the rollicking opening on the train, to the final shootout, The Good, the Bad, and The Weird is indeed his retelling of Leone's The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly with The Good (Woo-sung Jung), a straight as an arrow bounty hunter, The Bad (Byung-hun Lee) an ice cold assassin without remorse or feelings, and finally, The Weird (Kang-ho Song, another of the finest Asian actors alive at the moment) the loveable, unkillable scoundrel Tae-goo.
Like Leone's film, this one is about 3 men fighting for a map that is supposed to be the location of a large plot of treasure, but to get to it they must outwit each other, transverse 1940's Manchuria, escape the Chinese bandits, and the Japanese army.
Although the tone is akin to The Good, The Bad, and the Ugly, there are elements of goofy comedy, and enough swashbuckling adventure to rival any Indiana Jones or Pirates of the Carribean movie. Most impressive are the methods he employed to get these shots, I'm still not sure how he got one shot that comes from behind the train and follows Tae-goo as he runs away before the train explodes. Aesthetically beautifully and technically marvelous all at once, with a rocking soundtrack that glides the action along.
All of these are the trademarks of a great director, and with only a short list of films on his resume, Jee-Woon Kim is quickly become a South Korean to watch, with the whole nation a hotbed for intense, exciting films. The whole thing looks and feels like an epic American western, all on what I'm sure is a relatively low budget. A great crew crafted a fantastic looking movie with tons of great acting and exciting sequences. I'm looking forward to his next movie, which will most likely be an American debut. In the meantime, The Good, The Bad, and The Weird is great fun.
9.3/10 (A)
The Lincoln Lawyer (2011)
Based on the novel by Michael Connelly
Screenplay by John Romano
Directed by Brad Furman
Adaptations, like sequels are tricky in that they have a built in fan base that is considered the prime audience for a potential movie. However, sometimes that prime audience is such a minor subsection of the overall cinema landscape, that it's felt certain novels need to be "gussied up" so to speak, to appeal to a broader audience. The Coens chose against this with No Country For Old Men and it turned out aces for them, they won most of the major Oscars with it. In some cases though, where the popularity of the author outweighs the popularity of the people involved with the movie, a more fine line approach is often taken.
Being a big Michael Connelly fan, like most fans, I first fretted with the news of the movie. Not over the casting of Matthew McConaughey, I agreed that he would be perfect. I was more worried about the inexperienced director, who had only an underperforming direct to video action feature under his belt, but I'd never seen it. However, they had Connelly's blessing on the script, which was the most important aspect for me, but I couldn't help but feel a sense of apprehension as I walked into the theater.
From the opening credits, any fears went right out the window as "Ain't No Love" opens on the soundtrack and stylish camerawork reveals Mickey's journey through the city of LA, edited like a classic 70's crime film. The film continues to hit all the right marks, starting with the strength of the excellent cast, the beautiful location photography establishing Los Angeles as a firm setting, and the constant flow of information flying at the viewer in a steady, even manner.
Like Connelly's novel, the film version of this story subverts the legal thriller as a genre. Mickey Haller is an anti-hero criminal defense attorney, loved by few, hated by many, but he's a man of certain principles. Furman manages to establish Haller as a whole person within the first 10 minutes, mentioning in passing his various detriments, so they are there early, only to have Mickey to rise to defy them later.
By the time Mickey takes the case with Louis Roulet (Ryan Phillippe), who is charged with assault and attempted rape, but comes from a wealthy family. Seeing dollar signs, Haller takes the case, quickly meeting Roulet and wondering what type of client he's aligned himself with, disappointed he can't read Roulet faster.
As Haller prepares for the case, he and his investigator Frank (William H. Macy) stumble onto a few things in the case that don't seem right, quickly Mickey thinks he might actually be defending an innocent man, something the jaded defense lawyer felt he never did.
Things become intense when Mickey's turbulent personal life with his ex-wife/prosecutor Maggie and his daughter Hailey clashes with the case in a way Mickey doesn't like. Before he's even aware of it, Roulet is pulling his strings, and he wonders how tangled this case really is.
Like all Connelly stories, plot is king, and characters paint the canvas in rich color. When you get a solid all around cast, with known character actors in nearly every role, all you're doing is perfectly serving a writer with a keyboard full of interesting characters. No one seems out of place, or in a different movie, all the characters fit, and the plot is kept tight while also allowing time for character relationships to actually grow.
This was the most surprising aspect for me, the overall direction. Furman's ability to balance humor and tragedy, a cast of great veteran actors playing distinct characters, an infectious soundtrack, gorgeous photography and inventive camerawork used in conjunction with creative editing theories, I dare say this film reminds me of a Scorsese film.
There's a scene where Haller is eating the witness on the stand alive, and as he speaks, the camera spins around him, taking in his power, and then Haller steps out of it, and the camera stops, it's such an interesting moment because you rarely see inventive camerawork like that to tell the story without actually saying the words. Brad Furman proves that stylistic, substantial dramas can still exist, and the box office reports show that there is an audience for it.
Michael Connelly fans can officially rejoice. While Blood Work was not a bad film, it wasn't Connelly's novel, and it didn't make a huge commercial splash. Neither did The Lincoln Lawyer, but it's done respectably, and proves the commercial viability of Connelly's stories. Maybe that will get some of the people that own options on his novels working on the films, or get them to sell to someone that wants to do an entire Harry Bosch series, which would be a truly epic undertaking. If there's anything the past few years have taught us, on a budget, this type of fiction is commercially viable.
When it's done right, as with The Lincoln Lawyer, firing on all cylinders to be a funny, poignant, exciting, and thrilling film, the mystery genre excels like no other. The trouble is, with even the slightest element done wrong, it comes off cheesy and boring, which happens all too often. Kudos to Brad Furman, the fantastic cast, the editor, the director of photography, and the camera men for creating such a good looking, solid film. Of course a good below the line crew made it all possible. Connelly fans finally have found hope.
9.5/10 (A)
Screenplay by John Romano
Directed by Brad Furman
Adaptations, like sequels are tricky in that they have a built in fan base that is considered the prime audience for a potential movie. However, sometimes that prime audience is such a minor subsection of the overall cinema landscape, that it's felt certain novels need to be "gussied up" so to speak, to appeal to a broader audience. The Coens chose against this with No Country For Old Men and it turned out aces for them, they won most of the major Oscars with it. In some cases though, where the popularity of the author outweighs the popularity of the people involved with the movie, a more fine line approach is often taken.
Being a big Michael Connelly fan, like most fans, I first fretted with the news of the movie. Not over the casting of Matthew McConaughey, I agreed that he would be perfect. I was more worried about the inexperienced director, who had only an underperforming direct to video action feature under his belt, but I'd never seen it. However, they had Connelly's blessing on the script, which was the most important aspect for me, but I couldn't help but feel a sense of apprehension as I walked into the theater.
From the opening credits, any fears went right out the window as "Ain't No Love" opens on the soundtrack and stylish camerawork reveals Mickey's journey through the city of LA, edited like a classic 70's crime film. The film continues to hit all the right marks, starting with the strength of the excellent cast, the beautiful location photography establishing Los Angeles as a firm setting, and the constant flow of information flying at the viewer in a steady, even manner.
Like Connelly's novel, the film version of this story subverts the legal thriller as a genre. Mickey Haller is an anti-hero criminal defense attorney, loved by few, hated by many, but he's a man of certain principles. Furman manages to establish Haller as a whole person within the first 10 minutes, mentioning in passing his various detriments, so they are there early, only to have Mickey to rise to defy them later.
By the time Mickey takes the case with Louis Roulet (Ryan Phillippe), who is charged with assault and attempted rape, but comes from a wealthy family. Seeing dollar signs, Haller takes the case, quickly meeting Roulet and wondering what type of client he's aligned himself with, disappointed he can't read Roulet faster.
As Haller prepares for the case, he and his investigator Frank (William H. Macy) stumble onto a few things in the case that don't seem right, quickly Mickey thinks he might actually be defending an innocent man, something the jaded defense lawyer felt he never did.
Things become intense when Mickey's turbulent personal life with his ex-wife/prosecutor Maggie and his daughter Hailey clashes with the case in a way Mickey doesn't like. Before he's even aware of it, Roulet is pulling his strings, and he wonders how tangled this case really is.
Like all Connelly stories, plot is king, and characters paint the canvas in rich color. When you get a solid all around cast, with known character actors in nearly every role, all you're doing is perfectly serving a writer with a keyboard full of interesting characters. No one seems out of place, or in a different movie, all the characters fit, and the plot is kept tight while also allowing time for character relationships to actually grow.
This was the most surprising aspect for me, the overall direction. Furman's ability to balance humor and tragedy, a cast of great veteran actors playing distinct characters, an infectious soundtrack, gorgeous photography and inventive camerawork used in conjunction with creative editing theories, I dare say this film reminds me of a Scorsese film.
There's a scene where Haller is eating the witness on the stand alive, and as he speaks, the camera spins around him, taking in his power, and then Haller steps out of it, and the camera stops, it's such an interesting moment because you rarely see inventive camerawork like that to tell the story without actually saying the words. Brad Furman proves that stylistic, substantial dramas can still exist, and the box office reports show that there is an audience for it.
Michael Connelly fans can officially rejoice. While Blood Work was not a bad film, it wasn't Connelly's novel, and it didn't make a huge commercial splash. Neither did The Lincoln Lawyer, but it's done respectably, and proves the commercial viability of Connelly's stories. Maybe that will get some of the people that own options on his novels working on the films, or get them to sell to someone that wants to do an entire Harry Bosch series, which would be a truly epic undertaking. If there's anything the past few years have taught us, on a budget, this type of fiction is commercially viable.
When it's done right, as with The Lincoln Lawyer, firing on all cylinders to be a funny, poignant, exciting, and thrilling film, the mystery genre excels like no other. The trouble is, with even the slightest element done wrong, it comes off cheesy and boring, which happens all too often. Kudos to Brad Furman, the fantastic cast, the editor, the director of photography, and the camera men for creating such a good looking, solid film. Of course a good below the line crew made it all possible. Connelly fans finally have found hope.
9.5/10 (A)
Somtum aka Muay Thai Giant (2008)
Written by ?
Directed by ?
This is the first vehicle for Nathan Jones as a star, and unfortunately it's not the boost his career needs at this time. The 6'11" storied Australian bank robber turned strongman turned wrestler turned actor is an interesting one, and I'd even venture to say Jones is likeable, but this movie doesn't help convey any of that, rather it's merely a movie full of childish jokes at the expense of his size.
After ending up in Thailand on a vacation he won, Barney (Nathan Jones) gets drugged and robbed, left with only his pants, no clue where he is, no money, and no passport. He befriends two girls named Doyka and Katen when he inadvertently helps run off some thugs that were bothering the girls. It turns out Katen can fight, she's trained in Muay Thai, but her mother doesn't like her to. The fight scene with these thugs is basically all physical comedy with Nathan Jones, but a lot of it is really cheesy and aimed at kids, with no real effort put in.
And so continues the movie, and it's simple plot. After he tries Katen's mother's Somtum, the spice makes him turn red, hallucinate, and smash everything around him, which happens to be Katen's mother's Somtum shack, their only source of income. When his rage has subsided, Barney vows to get them the money to help them rebuild the restaurant.
From here it's kids help inept wanderer find his way through life, and since Jones is a giant we're treated to all the simple jokes at that expense, being too big for clothes, too big for a scooter, too big for a doorway, etc. It would be fine if these jokes were funny, but really only children would even find them mildly humorous.
The problem is not only the meandering plot, that would be fine if there was a redeeming quality, but in the end, we're treated to very few actual fight scenes, most of them involving the little girl Katen fighting people much bigger than her. Dan Chupong has one fight, and it might be the best in the film, but even it remains unmemorable in the grand scheme of the movie.
The kids are funny and charismatic, both of them will have good acting careers if they make better script choices, but this showcases their talent just fine. For Nathan Jones, he needs to either take meatier roles that require more acting, or stick to the action heavy that comes in as a final frontier before the hero faces off with the villain. I believe he can do more than that, but if he continues to choose silly scripts with meandering plots, he's not going to get the choice of roles he's looking for, but you can see the attempt here to show a softer side.
Interesting for what it is, but in the end it's a PG-13 rated kid's film about Muay Thai, and while I know the younger generation is a large commodity in Asia, I don't see the appeal of this movie anywhere on US soil. Again, this is only really too bad for Nathan Jones, who could benefit the most from the exposure.
7.6/10 (C)
Directed by ?
This is the first vehicle for Nathan Jones as a star, and unfortunately it's not the boost his career needs at this time. The 6'11" storied Australian bank robber turned strongman turned wrestler turned actor is an interesting one, and I'd even venture to say Jones is likeable, but this movie doesn't help convey any of that, rather it's merely a movie full of childish jokes at the expense of his size.
After ending up in Thailand on a vacation he won, Barney (Nathan Jones) gets drugged and robbed, left with only his pants, no clue where he is, no money, and no passport. He befriends two girls named Doyka and Katen when he inadvertently helps run off some thugs that were bothering the girls. It turns out Katen can fight, she's trained in Muay Thai, but her mother doesn't like her to. The fight scene with these thugs is basically all physical comedy with Nathan Jones, but a lot of it is really cheesy and aimed at kids, with no real effort put in.
And so continues the movie, and it's simple plot. After he tries Katen's mother's Somtum, the spice makes him turn red, hallucinate, and smash everything around him, which happens to be Katen's mother's Somtum shack, their only source of income. When his rage has subsided, Barney vows to get them the money to help them rebuild the restaurant.
From here it's kids help inept wanderer find his way through life, and since Jones is a giant we're treated to all the simple jokes at that expense, being too big for clothes, too big for a scooter, too big for a doorway, etc. It would be fine if these jokes were funny, but really only children would even find them mildly humorous.
The problem is not only the meandering plot, that would be fine if there was a redeeming quality, but in the end, we're treated to very few actual fight scenes, most of them involving the little girl Katen fighting people much bigger than her. Dan Chupong has one fight, and it might be the best in the film, but even it remains unmemorable in the grand scheme of the movie.
The kids are funny and charismatic, both of them will have good acting careers if they make better script choices, but this showcases their talent just fine. For Nathan Jones, he needs to either take meatier roles that require more acting, or stick to the action heavy that comes in as a final frontier before the hero faces off with the villain. I believe he can do more than that, but if he continues to choose silly scripts with meandering plots, he's not going to get the choice of roles he's looking for, but you can see the attempt here to show a softer side.
Interesting for what it is, but in the end it's a PG-13 rated kid's film about Muay Thai, and while I know the younger generation is a large commodity in Asia, I don't see the appeal of this movie anywhere on US soil. Again, this is only really too bad for Nathan Jones, who could benefit the most from the exposure.
7.6/10 (C)
Rubber (2010)
Written and Directed by Quentin Dupieux
Director Dupieux is better known as French musician Mr. Ozio, whose strange beats and unique style have made him a star on the French pop scene. Rubber is his second feature film, about a tire that comes to life, for no reason mind you, and must deal with his existence, as a killer tire would.
The entire film is an experiment, a film all propelled by "no reason" philosophy. Much like other philosophic idioms, no reason states that there is no reason to the universe, everything that happens is random. Dupieux has taken this concept and applied it to a tire. It's basically a "What if?" movie. What if a killer tire came to life? What if he had telekinetic powers? What if he used those powers to kill living beings? Should a rubber tire have morality?
I understand the motive of the director, and the philosophy at hand. What I don't understand is how he took No Reason to the extreme, pushing it beyond just being no reason for no reason, to being No reason for the audience to wonder why, which is what he reflects in the film. I think the film would've been more satisfying to the audience if he used the no reason concept to explain something, or how it affects people, beyond a tire blowing them up. I get that the metaphor is there is no metaphor, but when you're trying to entice an audience there has to be something more than a random examination of a concept. There has to be a why for people to ultimately care a lot, and No Reason does away with all whys.
Interesting concept, it's just too bad that it borders on tedium more of the time than it does interesting or provocative ideas, slowly meandering through the concept, which being No Reason, gives no reason, or requires no reason at any time. This defies film as a whole, which is reason-based for the most part, examinations of the why's and how's of the world, and I understand it was Dupieux's intention to defy these conventions, but I just don't see the end result. I watched the experiment, but the end result felt kept from me. Worth seeing at least once, that much I can say.
7.9/10 (C+)
Director Dupieux is better known as French musician Mr. Ozio, whose strange beats and unique style have made him a star on the French pop scene. Rubber is his second feature film, about a tire that comes to life, for no reason mind you, and must deal with his existence, as a killer tire would.
The entire film is an experiment, a film all propelled by "no reason" philosophy. Much like other philosophic idioms, no reason states that there is no reason to the universe, everything that happens is random. Dupieux has taken this concept and applied it to a tire. It's basically a "What if?" movie. What if a killer tire came to life? What if he had telekinetic powers? What if he used those powers to kill living beings? Should a rubber tire have morality?
I understand the motive of the director, and the philosophy at hand. What I don't understand is how he took No Reason to the extreme, pushing it beyond just being no reason for no reason, to being No reason for the audience to wonder why, which is what he reflects in the film. I think the film would've been more satisfying to the audience if he used the no reason concept to explain something, or how it affects people, beyond a tire blowing them up. I get that the metaphor is there is no metaphor, but when you're trying to entice an audience there has to be something more than a random examination of a concept. There has to be a why for people to ultimately care a lot, and No Reason does away with all whys.
Interesting concept, it's just too bad that it borders on tedium more of the time than it does interesting or provocative ideas, slowly meandering through the concept, which being No Reason, gives no reason, or requires no reason at any time. This defies film as a whole, which is reason-based for the most part, examinations of the why's and how's of the world, and I understand it was Dupieux's intention to defy these conventions, but I just don't see the end result. I watched the experiment, but the end result felt kept from me. Worth seeing at least once, that much I can say.
7.9/10 (C+)
Birdemic: Shock and Terror (2008)
Written and Directed by James Nguyen
The story goes that James Nguyen was a software developer who made enough money in the Silicon Valley to afford funding his own film. Taking $10,000, he set out to make a modern retelling of The Birds, set in beautiful Half Moon Bay, California. What happened next is the worst atrocity purposely shown to people for purposes of entertainment. Now, let me preface my review by saying I knew all of this before seeing this film. I read multiple reviews calling it out and out the worst film ever. Having seen some stinkers myself, I figured I would be left to judge if it's really that bad, if it's entertainingly bad like some say, or if it's just garbage you should stay away from. Really, it's somehow all three.
A monotonous, boring, poorly acted film can sometimes be spasmodically hilarious for reasons unperceived by the human mind. I've been told Birdemic is one of those films. The first half hour is so meandering and boring, I thought I was watching the wrong movie. Not only do the scenes and conversations not make sense, they seemingly have connection whatsoever. If there was a script, it didn't make any sense either.
Now, as they happen, these first 30 minutes are hilarious and engaging in a mysterious "what the fuck is this movie about?" way, which keeps you laughing until you're just lost. It seems as though the plot was intentionally designed to keep the audience from knowing what it's actually about, because the disconnected scenes with different characters acting out melodrama feels like a boring David Lynch film, all the while wondering what aspect of this film was supposed to be like The Birds.
Just after an hour into the film, the most poorly rendered eagles and vultures start attacking people, leaving strawberry jelly all over their faces and clothes. Our "hero" who we've been following is so bewildered by all of it, we quickly lose sympathy, because even as poorly constructed as the plot is, we're figuring things out an entire act before him.
There is no question this is a bad film. A terrible film. The type of film that I think of when I think of terrible film, not Transformers 2, like some people would have you believe. What bothers me is the level of ineptness portrayed is just too high. Either the director is entirely mentally handicapped, or most of this film was made the way it was on purpose. So often the sound is so terrible, you begin to think it's a joke how badly they've put it together. But because it happens throughout the entire film, you have to wonder if it's actually a joke, or if it's really the worst sound in a movie, ever. Either one is possible, but you hate to think you really are watching the worst film ever made.
After everything, I felt the film was authentic, just far too much work went into the attempt at everything for it to be faked. Too often, faked material has that stench of fakeness, and here, everything is just so poorly done that there's no way it could be fake. Even the best sound editor in the world wouldn't do sound this bad as a joke. The joke sound would be at least slightly better than this, if only to make the joke. Here, it's not even laughable. So it's either the worst film ever made, or the best craftsmen doing the best job ever of purposely making a bad film. But I gotta say, to purposely make a film this bad, it would take too much dedication. Only an earnest person would put as much work into something that turned out this bad.
Whether you enjoy it or not is the issue. Clearly, it's bad. I got a great kick out of the first 30 minutes. By the final 20, I was ready to watch anything else, it had become unbearable. There are only so many times you can watch people poorly react to the worst CGI birds ever.
3.0/10 (F-)
Well, if it's real or not, it got the grade it deserves. Whether it's worn proudly or hidden in shame, who knows. The crowd I saw it with was mostly gone or asleep by the end. I'm sure it will find a cult audience somewhere.
The story goes that James Nguyen was a software developer who made enough money in the Silicon Valley to afford funding his own film. Taking $10,000, he set out to make a modern retelling of The Birds, set in beautiful Half Moon Bay, California. What happened next is the worst atrocity purposely shown to people for purposes of entertainment. Now, let me preface my review by saying I knew all of this before seeing this film. I read multiple reviews calling it out and out the worst film ever. Having seen some stinkers myself, I figured I would be left to judge if it's really that bad, if it's entertainingly bad like some say, or if it's just garbage you should stay away from. Really, it's somehow all three.
A monotonous, boring, poorly acted film can sometimes be spasmodically hilarious for reasons unperceived by the human mind. I've been told Birdemic is one of those films. The first half hour is so meandering and boring, I thought I was watching the wrong movie. Not only do the scenes and conversations not make sense, they seemingly have connection whatsoever. If there was a script, it didn't make any sense either.
Now, as they happen, these first 30 minutes are hilarious and engaging in a mysterious "what the fuck is this movie about?" way, which keeps you laughing until you're just lost. It seems as though the plot was intentionally designed to keep the audience from knowing what it's actually about, because the disconnected scenes with different characters acting out melodrama feels like a boring David Lynch film, all the while wondering what aspect of this film was supposed to be like The Birds.
Just after an hour into the film, the most poorly rendered eagles and vultures start attacking people, leaving strawberry jelly all over their faces and clothes. Our "hero" who we've been following is so bewildered by all of it, we quickly lose sympathy, because even as poorly constructed as the plot is, we're figuring things out an entire act before him.
There is no question this is a bad film. A terrible film. The type of film that I think of when I think of terrible film, not Transformers 2, like some people would have you believe. What bothers me is the level of ineptness portrayed is just too high. Either the director is entirely mentally handicapped, or most of this film was made the way it was on purpose. So often the sound is so terrible, you begin to think it's a joke how badly they've put it together. But because it happens throughout the entire film, you have to wonder if it's actually a joke, or if it's really the worst sound in a movie, ever. Either one is possible, but you hate to think you really are watching the worst film ever made.
After everything, I felt the film was authentic, just far too much work went into the attempt at everything for it to be faked. Too often, faked material has that stench of fakeness, and here, everything is just so poorly done that there's no way it could be fake. Even the best sound editor in the world wouldn't do sound this bad as a joke. The joke sound would be at least slightly better than this, if only to make the joke. Here, it's not even laughable. So it's either the worst film ever made, or the best craftsmen doing the best job ever of purposely making a bad film. But I gotta say, to purposely make a film this bad, it would take too much dedication. Only an earnest person would put as much work into something that turned out this bad.
Whether you enjoy it or not is the issue. Clearly, it's bad. I got a great kick out of the first 30 minutes. By the final 20, I was ready to watch anything else, it had become unbearable. There are only so many times you can watch people poorly react to the worst CGI birds ever.
3.0/10 (F-)
Well, if it's real or not, it got the grade it deserves. Whether it's worn proudly or hidden in shame, who knows. The crowd I saw it with was mostly gone or asleep by the end. I'm sure it will find a cult audience somewhere.
Street Fight (2005)
Directed by Marshall Curry
When virtually unknown city council member Cory Booker attempted to unseat longtime incumbent mayor Sharpe James, he faced a literal wall of real world politics alone, and filmmaker Marshall Curry followed him incessantly, if only for lack of access to the Sharpe James campaign.
In mostly black Newark, New Jersey, long time mayor Sharpe James is beloved by the people, if only because they've never known anything else. When Marshall follows Cory Booker into the streets of Newark, where he educates its citizens on how things could be different, how Sharpe James is part of the reason their lives are in the dump, they are at first quick to defend their mayor, until the facts come out. In a town where the media is just as ignorant as the citizens, this is a revelation to many, and Booker quickly gains support for being open, honest, and genuinely interested.
Of course in politics all that gets Booker is mud slinging, being called a light skinned racist in ads and rumors, but receiving all smiles from the Mayor and his campaign people. Every attempt by the filmmaker to even ask James a question is immediately met with security or police, who identify him as "with Booker", when he's merely "with Booker" for lack of access to Sharpe James, who when confronted by a different camera man, has very few nice things to say to anyone.
James is an obvious politician, who no doubt did indeed use underhand tactics during the campaign. But this isn't meant to be a revelation. It's merely one man's resolve to change his city, and the losing battle he must wage in doing so. Even when things don't go his way though, Booker's indomitable spirit opens the eyes of the common citizen as his honesty and concern shows through.
With that said, I felt the point of the documentary was well made, that even losing battles are sometimes worth fighting, and that many great wars were won with many lost battles. It's this theme of hope that is interesting, as Booker was using many of the same themes and concepts that Barak Obama would later win a Presidential bid with, which is an interesting parallel, they are very similar politically. Let's hope we see a Cory Booker bid for President one day soon.
A compelling and heartfelt documentary, Street Fight is the classic American underdog story, but with real life weight to it, and real life consequences. In the end it might not be emotionally satisfying, but it's morally satisfying, which I feel brings a weightier meaning to the film.
9.2/10 (A-)
When virtually unknown city council member Cory Booker attempted to unseat longtime incumbent mayor Sharpe James, he faced a literal wall of real world politics alone, and filmmaker Marshall Curry followed him incessantly, if only for lack of access to the Sharpe James campaign.
In mostly black Newark, New Jersey, long time mayor Sharpe James is beloved by the people, if only because they've never known anything else. When Marshall follows Cory Booker into the streets of Newark, where he educates its citizens on how things could be different, how Sharpe James is part of the reason their lives are in the dump, they are at first quick to defend their mayor, until the facts come out. In a town where the media is just as ignorant as the citizens, this is a revelation to many, and Booker quickly gains support for being open, honest, and genuinely interested.
Of course in politics all that gets Booker is mud slinging, being called a light skinned racist in ads and rumors, but receiving all smiles from the Mayor and his campaign people. Every attempt by the filmmaker to even ask James a question is immediately met with security or police, who identify him as "with Booker", when he's merely "with Booker" for lack of access to Sharpe James, who when confronted by a different camera man, has very few nice things to say to anyone.
James is an obvious politician, who no doubt did indeed use underhand tactics during the campaign. But this isn't meant to be a revelation. It's merely one man's resolve to change his city, and the losing battle he must wage in doing so. Even when things don't go his way though, Booker's indomitable spirit opens the eyes of the common citizen as his honesty and concern shows through.
With that said, I felt the point of the documentary was well made, that even losing battles are sometimes worth fighting, and that many great wars were won with many lost battles. It's this theme of hope that is interesting, as Booker was using many of the same themes and concepts that Barak Obama would later win a Presidential bid with, which is an interesting parallel, they are very similar politically. Let's hope we see a Cory Booker bid for President one day soon.
A compelling and heartfelt documentary, Street Fight is the classic American underdog story, but with real life weight to it, and real life consequences. In the end it might not be emotionally satisfying, but it's morally satisfying, which I feel brings a weightier meaning to the film.
9.2/10 (A-)
Mutant Girls Squad (2010)
Story by Noboru Iguchi
Screenplay by Jun Tsugita
Directed by Noboru Iguchi & Yoshihiro Nishimura & Tak Sakaguchi
Another Japanese insano-fest that spawned when the directors got drunk together, and Noboru Iguchi said they should make a film about a mutant, where they all direct part of it. Mutant Girls Squad is that exact film.
Rin is a meek schoolgirl who gets picked on, until the day of her 16th birthday, when she is bullied, but her body starts to undergo strange changes. She rushes home, where her parents reveal they are mutants, and that she is a mutant too, and her mutation will now show itself because she's 16.
The Anti-Mutant Task Force (with guns on their noses) bust in and kill Rin's parents, but she is able to escape with the use of her robotic claw hand, her mutation. And so it goes from there, as she uncovers the conspiracy to keep mutants down, even though they may be the next evolutionary step.
So it's basically The Machine Girl with a dash of X-Men thrown in, but in a movie this high concept, the actual story is the least of their worries. Unlike many films by multiple directors, this has one cohesive story, with the first 30 minutes directed by Iguchi, the second 30 by Nishimura, the f/x master, and the last 30 by Sakaguchi, the star of Versus, the film that put high concept Japanese films back on the map.
Filled with violent rampages by the main character, the film has a heart and it's not all senseless violence. The senseless violence serves a higher purpose, to at once make light of and condemn the practice of discrimination, even if it's against mutants, because as ridiculous as it may sound, they would need rights as well.
Like many other previous films from the directors, it carries all of their trademarks: completely off the wall concepts, copious amounts of practical splatter, and intense martial arts action. The biggest problem is the film does feel like it has separate, distinct pieces. In a film like this, though, if roughly shifting gears act to act is the worst thing I can say about it, then I suppose that's not too bad at all.
Most people will be drawn to this film from the title and high concept alone, the good news is once you get in the door it's not a rip-off, most people will come for the f/x and gore, and of course there is plenty of that. The film shows moments of thought too, the skewed experience of social reality is used to explain away a lot of the character's violence, but in the end, Rin is forced to face the consequences of her bloody rampage, something that doesn't happen too often in films like this.
A solid effort, for what is essentially a joke film. The low budget elements still show, but this bunch is getting better at using the high concept as a backdrop, whereas in previous films sometimes the pacing got lost in subplots and drama that didn't belong in a high concept action/gore film. They're quickly improving the production process, which will naturally allow for more attention to the story, which can't be a bad thing. The way I see it, Sushi Typhoon films have nowhere to go but up.
7.8/10 (C+)
Screenplay by Jun Tsugita
Directed by Noboru Iguchi & Yoshihiro Nishimura & Tak Sakaguchi
Another Japanese insano-fest that spawned when the directors got drunk together, and Noboru Iguchi said they should make a film about a mutant, where they all direct part of it. Mutant Girls Squad is that exact film.
Rin is a meek schoolgirl who gets picked on, until the day of her 16th birthday, when she is bullied, but her body starts to undergo strange changes. She rushes home, where her parents reveal they are mutants, and that she is a mutant too, and her mutation will now show itself because she's 16.
The Anti-Mutant Task Force (with guns on their noses) bust in and kill Rin's parents, but she is able to escape with the use of her robotic claw hand, her mutation. And so it goes from there, as she uncovers the conspiracy to keep mutants down, even though they may be the next evolutionary step.
So it's basically The Machine Girl with a dash of X-Men thrown in, but in a movie this high concept, the actual story is the least of their worries. Unlike many films by multiple directors, this has one cohesive story, with the first 30 minutes directed by Iguchi, the second 30 by Nishimura, the f/x master, and the last 30 by Sakaguchi, the star of Versus, the film that put high concept Japanese films back on the map.
Filled with violent rampages by the main character, the film has a heart and it's not all senseless violence. The senseless violence serves a higher purpose, to at once make light of and condemn the practice of discrimination, even if it's against mutants, because as ridiculous as it may sound, they would need rights as well.
Like many other previous films from the directors, it carries all of their trademarks: completely off the wall concepts, copious amounts of practical splatter, and intense martial arts action. The biggest problem is the film does feel like it has separate, distinct pieces. In a film like this, though, if roughly shifting gears act to act is the worst thing I can say about it, then I suppose that's not too bad at all.
Most people will be drawn to this film from the title and high concept alone, the good news is once you get in the door it's not a rip-off, most people will come for the f/x and gore, and of course there is plenty of that. The film shows moments of thought too, the skewed experience of social reality is used to explain away a lot of the character's violence, but in the end, Rin is forced to face the consequences of her bloody rampage, something that doesn't happen too often in films like this.
A solid effort, for what is essentially a joke film. The low budget elements still show, but this bunch is getting better at using the high concept as a backdrop, whereas in previous films sometimes the pacing got lost in subplots and drama that didn't belong in a high concept action/gore film. They're quickly improving the production process, which will naturally allow for more attention to the story, which can't be a bad thing. The way I see it, Sushi Typhoon films have nowhere to go but up.
7.8/10 (C+)
Alien Vs Ninja (2010)
Written and Directed by Seiji Chiba
Concept-in-the-title Japanese films are nothing new, but guys like Seiji Chiba and Noboru Iguchi and Yoshihiro Nishimura have taken the old Toho tricks and applied them to new low budget concepts, like super heroes, mutants, aliens, monsters, and gore. And it all works very well.
Known and accepted by Americans as campy fun, I guess the foreign nature to the films as a whole is what gets middle of the road movie viewers to actually watch them, and stick with them, despite awful effects, nonsensical storylines, and utterly ridiculous concepts.
Troma movies are beloved by a very few, that know exactly what they're getting into. Sushi Typhoon (the label releasing the bulk of these types of films) are well aware their target audience is largely American, especially since these super low budget gems continue to do better money than a lot of their American counterparts.
To really explore the plot is ridiculous, a crazy looking rubber suited but still very weird band of aliens lands in the forest and comes face to face with a ninja war. So of course, they then go to war with each other. Practical effects, such as suits, appendages, and physical gore always looks great, over the top and intentionally cheesy, but great. The digital effects however, you'd think they'd try to stay away from those as much as possible. Often the backgrounds are so cheap, and the green screen blending so bad, that you just wish they had used miniatures, but that's one Toho concept they seemingly won't touch.
I suppose the extremely cheap CGI is the main thing that looks out of place, and that's a compliment to the cinematographer, f/x team, prop and set designers, and director. Somehow, the symphony of madness always works, the pace is quick, and there is a high body count, which is what keeps people coming back for more.
Not an especially great film, even within the genre, but it's extremely high concept nature will surely draw some audiences, and audiences drawn by such a blatant title can't be too bummed with the quality or entertainment factor.
8.0/10 (B-)
Concept-in-the-title Japanese films are nothing new, but guys like Seiji Chiba and Noboru Iguchi and Yoshihiro Nishimura have taken the old Toho tricks and applied them to new low budget concepts, like super heroes, mutants, aliens, monsters, and gore. And it all works very well.
Known and accepted by Americans as campy fun, I guess the foreign nature to the films as a whole is what gets middle of the road movie viewers to actually watch them, and stick with them, despite awful effects, nonsensical storylines, and utterly ridiculous concepts.
Troma movies are beloved by a very few, that know exactly what they're getting into. Sushi Typhoon (the label releasing the bulk of these types of films) are well aware their target audience is largely American, especially since these super low budget gems continue to do better money than a lot of their American counterparts.
To really explore the plot is ridiculous, a crazy looking rubber suited but still very weird band of aliens lands in the forest and comes face to face with a ninja war. So of course, they then go to war with each other. Practical effects, such as suits, appendages, and physical gore always looks great, over the top and intentionally cheesy, but great. The digital effects however, you'd think they'd try to stay away from those as much as possible. Often the backgrounds are so cheap, and the green screen blending so bad, that you just wish they had used miniatures, but that's one Toho concept they seemingly won't touch.
I suppose the extremely cheap CGI is the main thing that looks out of place, and that's a compliment to the cinematographer, f/x team, prop and set designers, and director. Somehow, the symphony of madness always works, the pace is quick, and there is a high body count, which is what keeps people coming back for more.
Not an especially great film, even within the genre, but it's extremely high concept nature will surely draw some audiences, and audiences drawn by such a blatant title can't be too bummed with the quality or entertainment factor.
8.0/10 (B-)
Client 9: The Rise and Fall of Eliot Spitzer (2010)
Written and Directed by Alex Gibney
Like many documentaries, this one seeks to educate, and it seems people outside the direct pulse of New York find it difficult to really understand the Eliot Spitzer scandal, and what it meant to New York, the economy, and ultimately, the world.
The rest of the nation sees a disgraced Governor, nothing new in America, but the full wrath of this scandal would not be felt by the American public until much later, which continues to happen now.
Eliot Spitzer was a fire-starter DA in New York, unafraid of anyone that lies before him. Bread from wealth, but not enamored of it, Spitzer was the perfect candidate to storm Wall Street, and he did so with fervor. He could see that trading practices, lending, and insider trading were beyond out of control, and he did everything in his power to curb these rising white collar crimes.
However, the media will have you remember one story, the "family man" governor who got caught cheating on his family with a well established escort service, his main escort splashing the pages of the New York tabloids with saucy tales of their Manhattan encounters, or of her travels to service him on the road.
In an age where sexual judgment still lies on the side of spoken truths, rather than practiced ones, Spitzer's obvious political relationship with his wife remains an odd target to attack the man. However, they managed to turn a man doing important national work into a sexual deviant in the media, deflating not only his direct work, but the law enforcement issue as a whole.
Convenient, then, that all of this happens right at the break of the iceberg, that very moment when banking regulations when right out the window, predatory lending was practically encouraged, all so fewer could own more. Our one hero against this cause? Rendered useless against the cause as a whole.
It's interesting, that in times of economic prosperity, a politician of even greater notoriety (the President, say) can be an even bigger horn dog, get caught with semen on the dress, and survive politically, but when a financial services watchdog does it, he is easily buried.
Is our money in the hands of so few? Will we continue to let good men be buried, their issues ignored, because of personal deviancy? These are the main question Gibney examines throughout the documentary. Spitzer is righteous, confrontational, honest...in other words, himself. He answers all questions with the fortitude of a Marine, never wavering from the truth or its effects, like so many politicians with Political Mouth tend to do. Kudos.
Like many of Gibney's documentaries, it is thought provoking to the point of exasperation. Sifting through the myriad of perceptions, it can be difficult to find the truth, and unlike so many other documentarians, Gibney is not obsessed with the truth. He's merely interested in the players in the story, how they connect, how what they do matters to them, to him the truth is simply one of the facts, and the facts are never the interesting part of Gibney's documentaries, rather, the way the facts are used, against or for certain people.
An eye opener for people that thought Spitzer was merely another philandering politician whose case got overblown, it just goes to show the whole story is more complicated than CNN reports and tabloid headlines, the effects are often felt deep, and nation wide.
9.0/10
Like many documentaries, this one seeks to educate, and it seems people outside the direct pulse of New York find it difficult to really understand the Eliot Spitzer scandal, and what it meant to New York, the economy, and ultimately, the world.
The rest of the nation sees a disgraced Governor, nothing new in America, but the full wrath of this scandal would not be felt by the American public until much later, which continues to happen now.
Eliot Spitzer was a fire-starter DA in New York, unafraid of anyone that lies before him. Bread from wealth, but not enamored of it, Spitzer was the perfect candidate to storm Wall Street, and he did so with fervor. He could see that trading practices, lending, and insider trading were beyond out of control, and he did everything in his power to curb these rising white collar crimes.
However, the media will have you remember one story, the "family man" governor who got caught cheating on his family with a well established escort service, his main escort splashing the pages of the New York tabloids with saucy tales of their Manhattan encounters, or of her travels to service him on the road.
In an age where sexual judgment still lies on the side of spoken truths, rather than practiced ones, Spitzer's obvious political relationship with his wife remains an odd target to attack the man. However, they managed to turn a man doing important national work into a sexual deviant in the media, deflating not only his direct work, but the law enforcement issue as a whole.
Convenient, then, that all of this happens right at the break of the iceberg, that very moment when banking regulations when right out the window, predatory lending was practically encouraged, all so fewer could own more. Our one hero against this cause? Rendered useless against the cause as a whole.
It's interesting, that in times of economic prosperity, a politician of even greater notoriety (the President, say) can be an even bigger horn dog, get caught with semen on the dress, and survive politically, but when a financial services watchdog does it, he is easily buried.
Is our money in the hands of so few? Will we continue to let good men be buried, their issues ignored, because of personal deviancy? These are the main question Gibney examines throughout the documentary. Spitzer is righteous, confrontational, honest...in other words, himself. He answers all questions with the fortitude of a Marine, never wavering from the truth or its effects, like so many politicians with Political Mouth tend to do. Kudos.
Like many of Gibney's documentaries, it is thought provoking to the point of exasperation. Sifting through the myriad of perceptions, it can be difficult to find the truth, and unlike so many other documentarians, Gibney is not obsessed with the truth. He's merely interested in the players in the story, how they connect, how what they do matters to them, to him the truth is simply one of the facts, and the facts are never the interesting part of Gibney's documentaries, rather, the way the facts are used, against or for certain people.
An eye opener for people that thought Spitzer was merely another philandering politician whose case got overblown, it just goes to show the whole story is more complicated than CNN reports and tabloid headlines, the effects are often felt deep, and nation wide.
9.0/10
Wednesday, April 20, 2011
Black Death (2010)
Written by Dario Poloni
Directed by Christopher Smith
Set during the outbreak of the bubonic plague in England, the story centers on Ulric (Sean Bean), a brave knight dead set on surviving the plague by being generally nastier than it. When his band of soldiers must recruit Osmund (Eddie Redmayne), a young priest, he is neither impressed with, nor deterred by his young companion's thoughts or beliefs, even when they are in line with his own.
Ulric leads this band of men and a priest into an untouched forest village where the residents have never even heard of the plague, and good Christian men would be wise to travel softly. Combining the aura of The 13th Warrior with the grim brutality of Braveheart with the moral dilemmas of The Seventh Seal, Christopher Smith manages to make an epic, spooky, and intellectually satisfying film about one of the great plagues of mankind, without turning it into a Biblical fantasy.
Mind you, there are still supernatural considerations to make, for once they find the spared village, their faith is questioned, with the plague converting Christians and Pagans alike, all looking for some explanation, some answer to the questions of life.
Christopher Smith manages to balance the supernatural elements well against the issues of faith, leaving the objective audience member to decide for themselves whether the Bubonic plague was a punishment from God, or even a sentence from the Earth itself. Often, films like this will hammer home the obvious failings of an ignorant character, as hindsight is always 20/20, but this film does a good job of presenting both arguments as valid explanations.
The stark camerawork, haunting score, and mythological undertones will lull viewers into thinking this is a horror film, and while in one regard it is, the excitement is that it's actually an adventure film built around the theme of faith, set against the backdrop of the black plague. An interesting and haunting film, see it if only for the performance by Sean Bean, who steps over the corpse Boromir to establish himself as a serious sword-swinging bad ass.
Bring on your next film, Mr. Smith.
9.2/10
Directed by Christopher Smith
Set during the outbreak of the bubonic plague in England, the story centers on Ulric (Sean Bean), a brave knight dead set on surviving the plague by being generally nastier than it. When his band of soldiers must recruit Osmund (Eddie Redmayne), a young priest, he is neither impressed with, nor deterred by his young companion's thoughts or beliefs, even when they are in line with his own.
Ulric leads this band of men and a priest into an untouched forest village where the residents have never even heard of the plague, and good Christian men would be wise to travel softly. Combining the aura of The 13th Warrior with the grim brutality of Braveheart with the moral dilemmas of The Seventh Seal, Christopher Smith manages to make an epic, spooky, and intellectually satisfying film about one of the great plagues of mankind, without turning it into a Biblical fantasy.
Mind you, there are still supernatural considerations to make, for once they find the spared village, their faith is questioned, with the plague converting Christians and Pagans alike, all looking for some explanation, some answer to the questions of life.
Christopher Smith manages to balance the supernatural elements well against the issues of faith, leaving the objective audience member to decide for themselves whether the Bubonic plague was a punishment from God, or even a sentence from the Earth itself. Often, films like this will hammer home the obvious failings of an ignorant character, as hindsight is always 20/20, but this film does a good job of presenting both arguments as valid explanations.
The stark camerawork, haunting score, and mythological undertones will lull viewers into thinking this is a horror film, and while in one regard it is, the excitement is that it's actually an adventure film built around the theme of faith, set against the backdrop of the black plague. An interesting and haunting film, see it if only for the performance by Sean Bean, who steps over the corpse Boromir to establish himself as a serious sword-swinging bad ass.
Bring on your next film, Mr. Smith.
9.2/10
Faster (2010)
Written by Tony & Joe Gayton
Directed by George Tillman Jr
I've always believed that Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson has awesome potential to be a major movie star. While he might not quite be there yet (he's made the money required more than once, just no critical success yet) movies like Faster aren't going to help him move to that next level.
However, if he's comfortable and happy playing a few kids movies a year, and then a few brainless action films, and doesn't aspire to any thing more, than Faster is the perfect action reel to have. If you want to do serious acting, it's the kind of thing you buy all the copies of and never show anyone.
From the opening, with the awesome "Goodbye My Friend" by the DeAngelis brothers (originally from Enzo Castellari's film "Street Law", one of my favorites in Italian crime) you know it's going to be a raw homage to exploitation films, and with the concept at hand, they do a damn fine job.
As Driver (Dwayne Johnson) paces in his cell, like a caged animal, he never stops moving throughout the entire film, after being released from prison, he runs to his stashed car, immediately gunning the engine on the Chevelle you get the sense that this film won't let up.
With the opening violence, Driver defies everything the audience thinks he will do, as the puzzle of the plot slowly pieces together with each person he hunts down. Of course there's a wrench in there somewhere, which comes via Billy Bob Thorton's wily cop, and a mysterious hitman from an unknown source.
It seems as though Tillman Jr set out to memorialize every 70's action film he ever saw, that much is obvious, but his trouble comes in the form of knowing when to milk the formula, and when to propel the actual plot to something more than its predecessors.
All too often this happens in exploitation homages, the directors get so tied up in making the film feel authentic, they forget to make sure it's actually good, and not incredibly boring, which the pratfall many of those old low budget films fell into. At the same time, sometimes the flashiness reminds you that this is indeed a $24 million film. This is where expectations come into play, which is the one thing small time, low budget films didn't have to combat in the 70's, because most often their audiences hadn't heard of the films being played.
Modern exploitation cinema has to balance all theses caveats by telling an interesting, self-referential story that pays proper homage to the films of the genre without being boring or blatantly ripping off famous scenes. It's a delicate balance that Tillman Jr manages in most aspects of the movie.
The action is all superbly shot, fancy car rigs, vehicles, helicopters and fancy cameras is where this production spent the bulk of their money, but it pays off with exciting car chases, entertaining explosions, and clearly understandable shoot-outs.
The biggest failure for the film was the character of The Cop (Thornton), who is close to retirement, and despite being a washed up, down on his luck loser drunk, find the will power to track down Driver and stop him from his campaign of revenge. However, nothing about the performance, the character, or the script ever led anyone to believe this character would ever have this epiphany in the way he does, and I believe the character was purposely left this way as an attempt at an homage to 70's cop films with lazy, drunk, or crooked cops.
However, it comes off as just that, a caricature, which doesn't work. Where Dwayne Johnson plays the Charles Bronson anger with serious fervor, Thornton plays it with a winking nod. Depending on the film, neither approach would be wrong, but in the same film, the two approaches clash and make the story feel generic and weak.
Overall, the entertainment factor wins out on this one, it's purely 90 minutes of action and bare bones story, with too many predictable third act happenings to make it anything more than a fun action flick. The exploitation homages that work are fun and vibrant, the ones that don't feel generic and stale. This imbalance throughout the movie will keep it from being a huge cult classic, but it further cements Dwayne Johnson as a screen bad ass that can be physical for the length of an entire film shoot. If you saw the trailer for this film and you were looking for something other than that, you might need to learn a bit more about movies.
8.8/10
Directed by George Tillman Jr
I've always believed that Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson has awesome potential to be a major movie star. While he might not quite be there yet (he's made the money required more than once, just no critical success yet) movies like Faster aren't going to help him move to that next level.
However, if he's comfortable and happy playing a few kids movies a year, and then a few brainless action films, and doesn't aspire to any thing more, than Faster is the perfect action reel to have. If you want to do serious acting, it's the kind of thing you buy all the copies of and never show anyone.
From the opening, with the awesome "Goodbye My Friend" by the DeAngelis brothers (originally from Enzo Castellari's film "Street Law", one of my favorites in Italian crime) you know it's going to be a raw homage to exploitation films, and with the concept at hand, they do a damn fine job.
As Driver (Dwayne Johnson) paces in his cell, like a caged animal, he never stops moving throughout the entire film, after being released from prison, he runs to his stashed car, immediately gunning the engine on the Chevelle you get the sense that this film won't let up.
With the opening violence, Driver defies everything the audience thinks he will do, as the puzzle of the plot slowly pieces together with each person he hunts down. Of course there's a wrench in there somewhere, which comes via Billy Bob Thorton's wily cop, and a mysterious hitman from an unknown source.
It seems as though Tillman Jr set out to memorialize every 70's action film he ever saw, that much is obvious, but his trouble comes in the form of knowing when to milk the formula, and when to propel the actual plot to something more than its predecessors.
All too often this happens in exploitation homages, the directors get so tied up in making the film feel authentic, they forget to make sure it's actually good, and not incredibly boring, which the pratfall many of those old low budget films fell into. At the same time, sometimes the flashiness reminds you that this is indeed a $24 million film. This is where expectations come into play, which is the one thing small time, low budget films didn't have to combat in the 70's, because most often their audiences hadn't heard of the films being played.
Modern exploitation cinema has to balance all theses caveats by telling an interesting, self-referential story that pays proper homage to the films of the genre without being boring or blatantly ripping off famous scenes. It's a delicate balance that Tillman Jr manages in most aspects of the movie.
The action is all superbly shot, fancy car rigs, vehicles, helicopters and fancy cameras is where this production spent the bulk of their money, but it pays off with exciting car chases, entertaining explosions, and clearly understandable shoot-outs.
The biggest failure for the film was the character of The Cop (Thornton), who is close to retirement, and despite being a washed up, down on his luck loser drunk, find the will power to track down Driver and stop him from his campaign of revenge. However, nothing about the performance, the character, or the script ever led anyone to believe this character would ever have this epiphany in the way he does, and I believe the character was purposely left this way as an attempt at an homage to 70's cop films with lazy, drunk, or crooked cops.
However, it comes off as just that, a caricature, which doesn't work. Where Dwayne Johnson plays the Charles Bronson anger with serious fervor, Thornton plays it with a winking nod. Depending on the film, neither approach would be wrong, but in the same film, the two approaches clash and make the story feel generic and weak.
Overall, the entertainment factor wins out on this one, it's purely 90 minutes of action and bare bones story, with too many predictable third act happenings to make it anything more than a fun action flick. The exploitation homages that work are fun and vibrant, the ones that don't feel generic and stale. This imbalance throughout the movie will keep it from being a huge cult classic, but it further cements Dwayne Johnson as a screen bad ass that can be physical for the length of an entire film shoot. If you saw the trailer for this film and you were looking for something other than that, you might need to learn a bit more about movies.
8.8/10
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)