Directed by Alex Schill
The life and work of John A. Alonzo is chronicled in this documentary, which explores his failed family life, his revolutionary camera work and lighting techniques. There are various interviews with Roger Ebert, Richard Dreyfuss, Sally Field, and William Friedkin, amongst others.
The documentary talks about how he broke into the industry, what problems he faced as a Mexican American in a primarily white 1950's Hollywood, and how he became more well known than many of his peers through his creative touches on the art and mechanics of cinematography.
True, the techniques and methods of shooting a film that John A. Alonzo implemented into the film world did indeed revolutionize the art of filmmaking in many ways. This is the man that shot Chinatown, Scarface, Harold and Maude, Norma Rae, many famous National Geographic specials from the late 1960's, Vanishing Point, Sounder, The Bad News Bears, Blue Thunder, and Deuces Wild, just to name a few of his films where the visual aesthetic is really the first step forward for the film, the one thing that is really noticeable.
His camerawork would set the tone for wide aspect ratio shooting, where the action was allowed to happen, where the camera became not a point in the story, but rather your eyes for viewing the action, leaning where you wanted it to and going around people you wanted to see past. However, this is not the main point of the documentary, instead it is for the most part a recollection of his life, with a slight touch on the personal, but mostly just a list of the movies he worked on, and a few words about each movie.
There is a lot said about the man, but when we learn that he did not talk to 2 of his daughters for the last 30 years or so of his life, it is never really explained why. The documentary suffers as it is one small part personal piece, another small part professional piece, and mostly just a random collection of snippets of kind words from people who knew and loved him. It's an interesting movie if you are into cinematography, but from any angle you look at it, it is ultimately unfulfilling. I just wish there was more here, from either the personal side, or the professional side. From somewhere. This leaves me wanting more.
6.2/10
Thursday, March 31, 2011
No End In Sight (2007)
Written, Produced & Directed by Charles Ferguson
Look no further, if there is such thing as a sure bet, it's that No End In Sight will win the Academy Award for Best Documentary. It may very well be the best documentary created this year, but I feel it will receive the award for all the wrong reasons. So let me begin this by saying, see this movie, if you care at all about the world around you, you are adverse to the government's actions in Iraq, or you are interested in the documentary form at all. If you are a Michael Moore fan, view this film, as it shows how a documentary should be created. Not to speak unfavorably of Michael Moore, his Bowling for Columbine is still easily one of my favorite films ever, if only for its defiance of documentary typicality that resulted in such an entertaining and heart wrenching film.
This film centers on the United States Government's handling of the War on Iraq, and since it no longer has a central government, a real military, or a police force of any kind, has become a war on civilians, a war of religion and a war to control the oil industry. The documentarian at hand, Charles Ferguson, is not a documentarian at all, he is a scholar that felt the only way to explore the subject and present it to a mainstream audience was to make a documentary. Sadly, he was right, but the pre-determination of most Americans to shut out political and more specifically, new age war themed movies has limited his target audience. I suspect with an Oscar nomination, and most likely an eventual win, its popularity will grow on video, even the video release alone will expand its audience greatly, but the problem is, anyone that wants to know this information already knows most of it, anyone that doesn't will continue to ignore it, as they have for the past 5 years.
Ferguson interviews many important people from within the Post-War Reconstruction industry, most of whom either held government positions in Washington, or who have been in Iraq, rebuilding the country from the ground up. Each of them has become disenchanted with the way this war has been handled from the beginning, in the planning stages, into the mess it has become to this very day. He interviews ORHA reconstruction workers, Marines, wounded veterans, advisors and insiders that have been on the inside of the strategic and combat sides of this war.
Many of these people speak about how the simple and probable solutions sat right in front of them, and when they presented these ideas to their higher ups, they were either simply ignored, or told firmly to keep quiet. The politics of this film aren't liberal or conservative, although I can already hear the neo-cons crying "Foul!". This will be merely because they can't spin the facts presented in any logical way, and you can see the anguish and despair on Walter Slocombe's face as he solemnly answers "No." and "I don't believe that" to hard hitting questions, ones that raise the point of whether many positions taken by the US Government were intelligent or ethical. You can see that he feels he is being picked on, but that is because the position he has been in is so wrong and has for so long been controlled by other people, that he is merely sadly defeated.
This, like King of Kong, is an example of great subjective filmmaking. There are no supported or proposed politics to the film itself. The people being interviewed have theirs, but those are rarely explored in favor of facts, and event by event recollections from important moments in this war. Donald Rumsfeld is painted to be an ass, not because of editing manipulation (as will be accused, I'm sure), but because what he says is so offensive and ridiculous. He whole heartedly laughs and mocks reports of looting and chaos after the fall of Baghdad, saying "These people act like 'Ahh! Ahh! The sky is falling.' Riots are typical in this situation, it's something to be expected. But it is not that bad, these are nay sayers to our cause." These words are played against the actual images, from the same days, of looting and rioting in Iraq. Afterwards, the images are taken of many of the most important cultural and economic structures in Iraq, all of them devastated, burned, looted. How is this something to be mocked, like it wasn't actually happening?
These moments punctuate the ideas and concerns expressed within the film, from the mishandling of the Iraqi military, to the collapse of the economy and job markets, and the events that caused them, the failures in communication, and the pure ignorance that formed the events that ended with these catastrophic results.
The film itself is a technical marvel, it makes a compelling and intelligent argument for its case, and much like King of Kong, it refuses to take either side, it remains steadfastly center, but at the same time brings the opinion heavily out of you. If you are a viewer that agrees with the tactics or decisions of the Bush Administration, you will agree that these obviously wrong decisions were the best ones to be made at the time (In addition you will prove your stupidity).
While the film has an obvious off camera voice (Ferguson, I suppose), it has no central persuasive figure, as a Michael Moore movie does. He has subverted and changed the non-fiction format to include himself, and his ideas. I tend to enjoy that, but I'm one of few people that can see the merit and drawbacks of this approach, and still rate his films as non-fictions pieces. Of course the argument is made that he subverts and changes the events captured through editing and voice over, which I don't deny, I merely realize what is opinion, and what is fact. Here, due to the absence of such a plot device (which is all Moore really is) the viewer merely absorbs the information, and makes their own decision. As I said before, this is the purest form of documentary, and although that point will be argued by many, it is the truth. Editing is a tool of filmmaking, and to create a truly objective film, one would have to view every moment of existence of their subject, which would not be enjoyable, or even possible, since you cannot film and present every single moment of anything, let alone a war. So, in fact, Ferguson has created the truest documentary.
For all of these reasons, he will most certainly win the Academy Award for Best Documentary. I don't disagree that it's not the best documentary, it may very well be, that's a subjective point. The problem is, due to the liberal bias in the Academy of Motion Pictures and Science's (AMPAS) membership, this film will be awarded the Oscar merely for its subject matter, and that the people viewing it agree with the subject being taken on. King of Kong is just as objective and pure documentary as this film is, but I feel it has no chance at all of even being seriously considered for the award because of its subject matter. Sure, video games have no bearing on the lives of humans, but does that make it any less of a great documentary? I don't think so, but as you will see in March, the Academy certainly does.
With that said, Ferguson has created a fine piece of work, a true thinking man's thesis on the lingering war on Iraq, and the consequences of the actions that have been taken. There really is no other film like it in the genre, outside of Errol Morris' film "The Fog of War", but even then the two aren't relatable, since Morris' film is about a single man, and his role in many various wars. Watch this film if it at all interests you, I'm not of the belief that if you have no interest in it, you are doing yourself a disservice. If you have no interest in PS I Love You, you certainly shouldn't see that, because both of these films wear their plots on their sleeves. However, if you are a concerned American, or a documentary enthusiast, this is definitely the film that you should be watching.
9.4/10
Look no further, if there is such thing as a sure bet, it's that No End In Sight will win the Academy Award for Best Documentary. It may very well be the best documentary created this year, but I feel it will receive the award for all the wrong reasons. So let me begin this by saying, see this movie, if you care at all about the world around you, you are adverse to the government's actions in Iraq, or you are interested in the documentary form at all. If you are a Michael Moore fan, view this film, as it shows how a documentary should be created. Not to speak unfavorably of Michael Moore, his Bowling for Columbine is still easily one of my favorite films ever, if only for its defiance of documentary typicality that resulted in such an entertaining and heart wrenching film.
This film centers on the United States Government's handling of the War on Iraq, and since it no longer has a central government, a real military, or a police force of any kind, has become a war on civilians, a war of religion and a war to control the oil industry. The documentarian at hand, Charles Ferguson, is not a documentarian at all, he is a scholar that felt the only way to explore the subject and present it to a mainstream audience was to make a documentary. Sadly, he was right, but the pre-determination of most Americans to shut out political and more specifically, new age war themed movies has limited his target audience. I suspect with an Oscar nomination, and most likely an eventual win, its popularity will grow on video, even the video release alone will expand its audience greatly, but the problem is, anyone that wants to know this information already knows most of it, anyone that doesn't will continue to ignore it, as they have for the past 5 years.
Ferguson interviews many important people from within the Post-War Reconstruction industry, most of whom either held government positions in Washington, or who have been in Iraq, rebuilding the country from the ground up. Each of them has become disenchanted with the way this war has been handled from the beginning, in the planning stages, into the mess it has become to this very day. He interviews ORHA reconstruction workers, Marines, wounded veterans, advisors and insiders that have been on the inside of the strategic and combat sides of this war.
Many of these people speak about how the simple and probable solutions sat right in front of them, and when they presented these ideas to their higher ups, they were either simply ignored, or told firmly to keep quiet. The politics of this film aren't liberal or conservative, although I can already hear the neo-cons crying "Foul!". This will be merely because they can't spin the facts presented in any logical way, and you can see the anguish and despair on Walter Slocombe's face as he solemnly answers "No." and "I don't believe that" to hard hitting questions, ones that raise the point of whether many positions taken by the US Government were intelligent or ethical. You can see that he feels he is being picked on, but that is because the position he has been in is so wrong and has for so long been controlled by other people, that he is merely sadly defeated.
This, like King of Kong, is an example of great subjective filmmaking. There are no supported or proposed politics to the film itself. The people being interviewed have theirs, but those are rarely explored in favor of facts, and event by event recollections from important moments in this war. Donald Rumsfeld is painted to be an ass, not because of editing manipulation (as will be accused, I'm sure), but because what he says is so offensive and ridiculous. He whole heartedly laughs and mocks reports of looting and chaos after the fall of Baghdad, saying "These people act like 'Ahh! Ahh! The sky is falling.' Riots are typical in this situation, it's something to be expected. But it is not that bad, these are nay sayers to our cause." These words are played against the actual images, from the same days, of looting and rioting in Iraq. Afterwards, the images are taken of many of the most important cultural and economic structures in Iraq, all of them devastated, burned, looted. How is this something to be mocked, like it wasn't actually happening?
These moments punctuate the ideas and concerns expressed within the film, from the mishandling of the Iraqi military, to the collapse of the economy and job markets, and the events that caused them, the failures in communication, and the pure ignorance that formed the events that ended with these catastrophic results.
The film itself is a technical marvel, it makes a compelling and intelligent argument for its case, and much like King of Kong, it refuses to take either side, it remains steadfastly center, but at the same time brings the opinion heavily out of you. If you are a viewer that agrees with the tactics or decisions of the Bush Administration, you will agree that these obviously wrong decisions were the best ones to be made at the time (In addition you will prove your stupidity).
While the film has an obvious off camera voice (Ferguson, I suppose), it has no central persuasive figure, as a Michael Moore movie does. He has subverted and changed the non-fiction format to include himself, and his ideas. I tend to enjoy that, but I'm one of few people that can see the merit and drawbacks of this approach, and still rate his films as non-fictions pieces. Of course the argument is made that he subverts and changes the events captured through editing and voice over, which I don't deny, I merely realize what is opinion, and what is fact. Here, due to the absence of such a plot device (which is all Moore really is) the viewer merely absorbs the information, and makes their own decision. As I said before, this is the purest form of documentary, and although that point will be argued by many, it is the truth. Editing is a tool of filmmaking, and to create a truly objective film, one would have to view every moment of existence of their subject, which would not be enjoyable, or even possible, since you cannot film and present every single moment of anything, let alone a war. So, in fact, Ferguson has created the truest documentary.
For all of these reasons, he will most certainly win the Academy Award for Best Documentary. I don't disagree that it's not the best documentary, it may very well be, that's a subjective point. The problem is, due to the liberal bias in the Academy of Motion Pictures and Science's (AMPAS) membership, this film will be awarded the Oscar merely for its subject matter, and that the people viewing it agree with the subject being taken on. King of Kong is just as objective and pure documentary as this film is, but I feel it has no chance at all of even being seriously considered for the award because of its subject matter. Sure, video games have no bearing on the lives of humans, but does that make it any less of a great documentary? I don't think so, but as you will see in March, the Academy certainly does.
With that said, Ferguson has created a fine piece of work, a true thinking man's thesis on the lingering war on Iraq, and the consequences of the actions that have been taken. There really is no other film like it in the genre, outside of Errol Morris' film "The Fog of War", but even then the two aren't relatable, since Morris' film is about a single man, and his role in many various wars. Watch this film if it at all interests you, I'm not of the belief that if you have no interest in it, you are doing yourself a disservice. If you have no interest in PS I Love You, you certainly shouldn't see that, because both of these films wear their plots on their sleeves. However, if you are a concerned American, or a documentary enthusiast, this is definitely the film that you should be watching.
9.4/10
There's Something About Mary (1998)
Written and Directed by the Farrelly Brothers
There most definitely is something about Mary (Cameron Diaz) and throughout the course of this film, an attempt is made to provide an explanation as to the obsessions men create over her. Arguably the Farrelly Brothers' biggest hit, this film is a sweet love story about Ted (Ben Stiller) and how he lost the love of his life, through a series of extremely gross sexual jokes that punctuate the failures of Ted's life.
After zipping parts of his penis and testicles into his fly on the day of his high school prom, Ted goes on to live a fairly uneventful life which he feels might have more meaning if he were able to find his high school love Mary and get reacquainted with her. Through the help of his friend Dom (Chris Elliot) Ted is recommended a private eye named Pat Healy (Matt Dillon) whom he hires to track Mary down. Once he does so though, Healy decides to try for her affection himself, and quits the PI business and moves to Miami, where Mary now resides. In place of an answer, Healy tells Ted that Mary is a disgusting slob with bastard children living in squalor on welfare.
Through another friend, Ted finds out Mary is still as hot as she ever was, and working as a chiropractic surgeon in Miami. He and Dom decide to drive down from Rhode Island to find out for themselves, where Ted "accidentally" runs into Mary, and their relationship resparks. What Ted quickly discovers is that Healy is also in competition for her affection, and it quickly becomes a battle for her love. Also in the mix is a crippled man named Tucker(Lee Evans) that has befriended Mary after she did surgery on his severely broken back. Tucker is the link that gets Mary to shun Healy, who discovers that Tucker's life is a ruse as well, he delivered a pizza to her as a long haired, bearded loser, and instantly fell in love. The three way battle for her attention is on, and Ted learns that the only reason she is single is because of men's tendency to become obsessed with her, but she mentions that one man came close to marrying her, a guy named Brett, whom we later find out was foiled by Tucker. Add in to the mix the fact that one of Mary's bad experiences in love was caused by Dom, and the circle of obsessions is complete.
All the men fight for her love, even though Ted is really the only one that has a chance with her. The battle gets furious, and Ted, being the only sane one, is the first to back off and leave her alone, even trying to reunite her with her past love, Brett Favre (as himself). Like Judd Apatow's comedies, what makes this movie hilarious is the use of clearly atrocious humor, mixed in with a real romantic center. Ted isn't obsessed with her as everyone else is, he truly loves her, and just wants her to be happy.
The films hilarity is created through the examination of the nature of obsession, and it is discovered that all of these men love Mary because she is a natural person, pure of heart, and she has the knack of making people feel great about themselves. The tasteless humor is intertwined throughout this theme, and the two elements create laugh out loud humor to the highest degree. One of my favorite scenes is Harland Williams' cameo as a murderous hitchhiker, whose scenes makes absolutely no sense, but creates some of the films most memorable lines. "Step into my office.....because you're fucking fired!" will forever be a classic in my mind.
As with most of the Farrelly Brothers' movies, the humor lies within the actions of the dimwitted male characters, and their pursuits for love. It is this volatile element mixed with outrageous sexual and gross out humor that made them staples of comedy, until of course they took a few odd routes with movies that didn't really play to their strengths. They assembled a great cast for this film, Lee Evans and Chris Elliot turn in career best comedic performances, with Matt Dillon cementing himself as a comedic force as well. This is the single film that made Ben Stiller a huge star, convinced everyone to fall in love with Cameron Diaz, and showed everyone the grossest set of tits they never wanted to see. To pack all of that into a single movie and still manage to create a film with a heart is a hard thing to do, and it is one of the reasons the Farrelly Brothers are so highly regarded, despite their recent failures. If only they could balance the aspects that made this film a success, maybe the biggest comedy hits of each year wouldn't be solely produced by Judd Apatow.
8.6/10
There most definitely is something about Mary (Cameron Diaz) and throughout the course of this film, an attempt is made to provide an explanation as to the obsessions men create over her. Arguably the Farrelly Brothers' biggest hit, this film is a sweet love story about Ted (Ben Stiller) and how he lost the love of his life, through a series of extremely gross sexual jokes that punctuate the failures of Ted's life.
After zipping parts of his penis and testicles into his fly on the day of his high school prom, Ted goes on to live a fairly uneventful life which he feels might have more meaning if he were able to find his high school love Mary and get reacquainted with her. Through the help of his friend Dom (Chris Elliot) Ted is recommended a private eye named Pat Healy (Matt Dillon) whom he hires to track Mary down. Once he does so though, Healy decides to try for her affection himself, and quits the PI business and moves to Miami, where Mary now resides. In place of an answer, Healy tells Ted that Mary is a disgusting slob with bastard children living in squalor on welfare.
Through another friend, Ted finds out Mary is still as hot as she ever was, and working as a chiropractic surgeon in Miami. He and Dom decide to drive down from Rhode Island to find out for themselves, where Ted "accidentally" runs into Mary, and their relationship resparks. What Ted quickly discovers is that Healy is also in competition for her affection, and it quickly becomes a battle for her love. Also in the mix is a crippled man named Tucker(Lee Evans) that has befriended Mary after she did surgery on his severely broken back. Tucker is the link that gets Mary to shun Healy, who discovers that Tucker's life is a ruse as well, he delivered a pizza to her as a long haired, bearded loser, and instantly fell in love. The three way battle for her attention is on, and Ted learns that the only reason she is single is because of men's tendency to become obsessed with her, but she mentions that one man came close to marrying her, a guy named Brett, whom we later find out was foiled by Tucker. Add in to the mix the fact that one of Mary's bad experiences in love was caused by Dom, and the circle of obsessions is complete.
All the men fight for her love, even though Ted is really the only one that has a chance with her. The battle gets furious, and Ted, being the only sane one, is the first to back off and leave her alone, even trying to reunite her with her past love, Brett Favre (as himself). Like Judd Apatow's comedies, what makes this movie hilarious is the use of clearly atrocious humor, mixed in with a real romantic center. Ted isn't obsessed with her as everyone else is, he truly loves her, and just wants her to be happy.
The films hilarity is created through the examination of the nature of obsession, and it is discovered that all of these men love Mary because she is a natural person, pure of heart, and she has the knack of making people feel great about themselves. The tasteless humor is intertwined throughout this theme, and the two elements create laugh out loud humor to the highest degree. One of my favorite scenes is Harland Williams' cameo as a murderous hitchhiker, whose scenes makes absolutely no sense, but creates some of the films most memorable lines. "Step into my office.....because you're fucking fired!" will forever be a classic in my mind.
As with most of the Farrelly Brothers' movies, the humor lies within the actions of the dimwitted male characters, and their pursuits for love. It is this volatile element mixed with outrageous sexual and gross out humor that made them staples of comedy, until of course they took a few odd routes with movies that didn't really play to their strengths. They assembled a great cast for this film, Lee Evans and Chris Elliot turn in career best comedic performances, with Matt Dillon cementing himself as a comedic force as well. This is the single film that made Ben Stiller a huge star, convinced everyone to fall in love with Cameron Diaz, and showed everyone the grossest set of tits they never wanted to see. To pack all of that into a single movie and still manage to create a film with a heart is a hard thing to do, and it is one of the reasons the Farrelly Brothers are so highly regarded, despite their recent failures. If only they could balance the aspects that made this film a success, maybe the biggest comedy hits of each year wouldn't be solely produced by Judd Apatow.
8.6/10
National Treasure (2004)
Written by Cormac Wibberley & Marianne Wibberley and Jim Kouf
Directed by Jon Turtletaub
For years I have avoided this movie, initially equating it as nothing more than a poor man's Indiana Jones, and I'm of the belief that if you aren't going to do an adventure serial correctly, then don't do one at all. I feel the genre is a tricky one, the right mixture of adventure, real history, faked history, lavish action sequences, great set pieces, and engaging and entertaining characters with good dialogue. Sensing none of this from the trailers, I opted to skip National Treasure, and I did so for quite a few years now. Well, with the second one coming out, and ready access to the DVD at no cost to myself, I decided maybe it was time to take a quick glance at it while my entire house was packed to be moved.
Well, not a terrible decision, but if you want an adventure movie, you're better off sticking with Indiana Jones or one of the Pirates of the Caribbean movies. Still, sitting down to watch National Treasure is not a complete waste of time, but not being stuck, I'd opt to watch something better, and I don't see myself bothering to see the sequel.
The story that sets off this grand adventure begins with John Adams Gates (Christopher Plummer) telling his grandson Benjamin Franklin Gates (when grown, Nicholas Cage) about the Gates family's great responsibility of guarding a secret clue that could possibly lead a follower to the greatest treasure ever hidden. Young Ben grows up to be obsessed with the story of the treasure, and against the wishes of his father, Patrick Henry Gates (Jon Voight), ends up in the Artic Circle a-treasure hunting as he goes. Ben and his bankroller, Ian Howe (Sean Bean) have come upon a ship frozen under the vast ice where they believe the next clue towards the treasure lies.
It is here where the villain is revealed, where Howe vows to steal the Declaration of Independence if Gates won't, for on the back of that document lays their next clue to the treasure. From here, it becomes Gates vs Howe, with Gates setting out to steal the Declaration before his evil nemisis can do the same thing. Armed with technology provided by his sidekick Riley (Justin Bartha), Gates concocts a plan and puts it into action, just minutes before the sinister Howe does the exact same. Gates manages to escape having made a daring heist of the Declaration, and from here action sequences ensue in Jerry Bruckheimer-fashion as the two foes go clue to clue trying to make it to the treasure first.
This is a paint-by-numbers plot that exists merely to set up each action set piece, but most of the fans of the movie didn't seem to mind the continuous cliffhanger clues, each one setting up a new impossible task, to be knocked down by Gates, just before Howe can do it. Personally, I was always drawn to the Indiana Jones films by not only the great action and tense scenes of suspense, but by Indy's wry humor, which is the one thing Gates completely lacks. His nerdy demeanor propels him to care only for the tasks at hand, and with the help of National Archivist Dr. Chase (Diane Kruger), he makes incredible supposition after supposition, with very vague clues, which lead you to believe Ben Gates is some type of psychic super genius. Even after dedicating your life to this single quest, he still jumps from idea to idea with very little to go on. This is basically the layout of the entire movie though, with one incredible thing happening after another, until you reach the hilt where you either don't care (which to enjoy this movie, you really can't in the first place), or you are simply amused by the stupidity involved. However, this is a family film, so anyone going into it has to know what they are getting.
Still, this is no excuse for a lame brained plot, and with a bit more thought, this could have been a much better movie, along the lines of Indiana Jones. From what I've heard and read, the plot is almost exactly the same as The Da Vinci Code, with only a few minor elements changed, such as the settings and the object sought after. Yet another reason I won't ever be seeing The Da Vinci Code. If anything, National Treasure is a mindless adventure flick that is good for the whole family, but to a smart moviegoer, it's nothing I would highly recommend. Good for some brainless escapism, but really nothing more.
5.5/10
Directed by Jon Turtletaub
For years I have avoided this movie, initially equating it as nothing more than a poor man's Indiana Jones, and I'm of the belief that if you aren't going to do an adventure serial correctly, then don't do one at all. I feel the genre is a tricky one, the right mixture of adventure, real history, faked history, lavish action sequences, great set pieces, and engaging and entertaining characters with good dialogue. Sensing none of this from the trailers, I opted to skip National Treasure, and I did so for quite a few years now. Well, with the second one coming out, and ready access to the DVD at no cost to myself, I decided maybe it was time to take a quick glance at it while my entire house was packed to be moved.
Well, not a terrible decision, but if you want an adventure movie, you're better off sticking with Indiana Jones or one of the Pirates of the Caribbean movies. Still, sitting down to watch National Treasure is not a complete waste of time, but not being stuck, I'd opt to watch something better, and I don't see myself bothering to see the sequel.
The story that sets off this grand adventure begins with John Adams Gates (Christopher Plummer) telling his grandson Benjamin Franklin Gates (when grown, Nicholas Cage) about the Gates family's great responsibility of guarding a secret clue that could possibly lead a follower to the greatest treasure ever hidden. Young Ben grows up to be obsessed with the story of the treasure, and against the wishes of his father, Patrick Henry Gates (Jon Voight), ends up in the Artic Circle a-treasure hunting as he goes. Ben and his bankroller, Ian Howe (Sean Bean) have come upon a ship frozen under the vast ice where they believe the next clue towards the treasure lies.
It is here where the villain is revealed, where Howe vows to steal the Declaration of Independence if Gates won't, for on the back of that document lays their next clue to the treasure. From here, it becomes Gates vs Howe, with Gates setting out to steal the Declaration before his evil nemisis can do the same thing. Armed with technology provided by his sidekick Riley (Justin Bartha), Gates concocts a plan and puts it into action, just minutes before the sinister Howe does the exact same. Gates manages to escape having made a daring heist of the Declaration, and from here action sequences ensue in Jerry Bruckheimer-fashion as the two foes go clue to clue trying to make it to the treasure first.
This is a paint-by-numbers plot that exists merely to set up each action set piece, but most of the fans of the movie didn't seem to mind the continuous cliffhanger clues, each one setting up a new impossible task, to be knocked down by Gates, just before Howe can do it. Personally, I was always drawn to the Indiana Jones films by not only the great action and tense scenes of suspense, but by Indy's wry humor, which is the one thing Gates completely lacks. His nerdy demeanor propels him to care only for the tasks at hand, and with the help of National Archivist Dr. Chase (Diane Kruger), he makes incredible supposition after supposition, with very vague clues, which lead you to believe Ben Gates is some type of psychic super genius. Even after dedicating your life to this single quest, he still jumps from idea to idea with very little to go on. This is basically the layout of the entire movie though, with one incredible thing happening after another, until you reach the hilt where you either don't care (which to enjoy this movie, you really can't in the first place), or you are simply amused by the stupidity involved. However, this is a family film, so anyone going into it has to know what they are getting.
Still, this is no excuse for a lame brained plot, and with a bit more thought, this could have been a much better movie, along the lines of Indiana Jones. From what I've heard and read, the plot is almost exactly the same as The Da Vinci Code, with only a few minor elements changed, such as the settings and the object sought after. Yet another reason I won't ever be seeing The Da Vinci Code. If anything, National Treasure is a mindless adventure flick that is good for the whole family, but to a smart moviegoer, it's nothing I would highly recommend. Good for some brainless escapism, but really nothing more.
5.5/10
Beowulf (2007)
Based on the Anglo-Saxon Epic Poem "Beowulf"
Written by Roger Avary and Neil Gaiman
Directed by Robert Zemeckis
I liked this movie a lot, and it's not for the reasons you may suspect. Yes, it's a sprawling epic that teeters more toward the notion that history is only as good as it's remembered, much like 300 earlier this year, but at the same time it uses its showy and action-based to stand as a comment on the changing of times and evolution of technology and entertainment.
As an action movie, criticizing purely the narrative, it's a trite mess. Then again, what can be expected of the oldest story in Anglo-Saxon culture? Sure, it's something we've all seen before, but you must consider this is because every story that has been made up since it has in fact remembered Beowulf and drawn inspiration from it.
I'm not going to bother with the plot, or to examine the source material, because if you haven't actively sought it out, or didn't read it in high school English class, there's not much chance that you care to at this point in life. It's a story of greed, ego, honor, and that always elusive human lust for fame and fortune, which obviously go hand in hand.
Again, I'm not here to discuss these elements as pertaining to the actual plot, because as I said before, if you're not familiar with them, then you don't care to be in the first place. On that note, who is to blame you? You've invariably seen or heard the story before, even if you aren't actively aware of that fact.
What I found most interesting in this version is how Neil Gaiman and Roger Avary obviously thought over this fact, accepted it, and moved on. Their version of Beowulf is not the one you read in 11th grade English class, and that's exactly why they changed it so. What interests me more than the fact that they changed is this reason why. In changing Beowulf, they are not commenting on society at large, they are merely participating in it, which to me is a more profound way to approach the subject. Anyone could have adapted Beowulf as it stands to a movie, but few could have subverted it to relate to current audiences, and in turn, be part of that modern audience at the same time.
This story about a monster slayer, Beowulf, is nearly as old as paper itself, only being committed to writing when it was actually realized that this is a better way to keep the story going, and much less of a hassle than teaching it to yet another generation. With this film, this is exactly what Avary, Gaiman, and Robert Zemeckis have done.
They've taken that story that people are either sick of hearing or never wanting to hear in the first place, and making it into exactly what they want to see. Again, this fact, this subversion is what makes it unique and more of a statement than anything they could have written. As I see it, both of the writers had a bit of fun just crossing out lines from the poem, and supposing what should have been written all those years ago in order to make it relevant today. This is a foresight and a talent that few others would have been brave, or humorous, enough to make.
On the other end, what brings this film full circle is Robert Zemeckis and his obsession with the evolution of technology. While the story itself centers around a main character that uses the evolution of thought to his advantage, the director uses technology in the same way to grab audience attention by supporting the words that were written by Avary and Gaiman fully.
This evolution of evolution is an interesting thing to watch. Consider, the oldest story in Anglo-Saxon recorded history is retold, in a changed manner, with the latest and brightest technology available. To think about the film in that way eclipses anything the story could have even possibly been about. As I said before, the story itself is so old that it's been remixed and rewound more times than anyone could possibly imagine, in more formats and mediums than most could keep track of.
Still, Zemeckis is able to subvert this fact by reinventing the story into the newest medium available. So while he is subverting one of history's oldest stories, he's inventing a brand new history at the same time. Again, the foresight of such thought amazes me in ways that send my head spinning.
With all that said, I suppose I shall critique the movie itself, on most basic terms. The motion capture animation is spectacular, I didn't particularly like The Polar Express, neither the story or the animation really intrigued me. However, in this film Grendel (Crispin Glover) is truly a sight to behold. His grotesque mangled form is the accomplishment and hard work of many wonderful artists, and although it is used to tell a rather rudiementary part of a quite simple story, it's still amazing to think of how this came about. Yes, Angelina Jolie is nude, although obscured, as Grendel's vengeful mother, who later turns into a dragon, which I might say puts to shame anything in the recent films like Eragon or even the Lord of the Rings trilogy. Is it because they are better crafted, or more well rendered? No, I believe I feel this way merely because her dragon meshes with the rest of the environment in such a way that there is no distraction from the story at hand. As great as the special effects in the Lord of the Rings were, you still always knew they were different from the human characters. In this, they aren't.
The action is probably the least impressive part of the entire film. Sure, there are bodily mutilations, giant scenes of monster inflicted disaster, and some good skull munching from Grendel, but that's not what excited me about this film. Sure, it interested me in ways that other action films did, but that's just the problem. These scenes merely reminded me of other action films. Which, when the rest of the picture did the exact opposite, the balls-to-the-wall action is somehow less impressive.
This use of animation is sure to be the next big wave, while animated features will continue to be done in the style of Shrek and Finding Nemo, this evolution of the animation genre is what I've often spoken about before, especially in expressing my disappointment in Pixar being bought permanently by Disney. I can only imagine the brilliant minds at Pixar would have eventually come to a similar style, if not by means of technology, in style of story content, going for more secular, adult audiences. As I mentioned, I thought I would always wonder what Quentin Tarantino or Martin Scorsese would do with truly limitless technology, meaning there would be no budgetary concerns because whatever can be thought up can be animated. I believe this style of animation will win over straight animation for these ideas I've had in the past, and I must say it's a promising style indeed.
For the purposes of this review, I will post my entire rating system, and where each of the points came from, because I personally think it's more relevant than the final rating itself in the case of this film in particular.
8.7/10
Written by Roger Avary and Neil Gaiman
Directed by Robert Zemeckis
I liked this movie a lot, and it's not for the reasons you may suspect. Yes, it's a sprawling epic that teeters more toward the notion that history is only as good as it's remembered, much like 300 earlier this year, but at the same time it uses its showy and action-based to stand as a comment on the changing of times and evolution of technology and entertainment.
As an action movie, criticizing purely the narrative, it's a trite mess. Then again, what can be expected of the oldest story in Anglo-Saxon culture? Sure, it's something we've all seen before, but you must consider this is because every story that has been made up since it has in fact remembered Beowulf and drawn inspiration from it.
I'm not going to bother with the plot, or to examine the source material, because if you haven't actively sought it out, or didn't read it in high school English class, there's not much chance that you care to at this point in life. It's a story of greed, ego, honor, and that always elusive human lust for fame and fortune, which obviously go hand in hand.
Again, I'm not here to discuss these elements as pertaining to the actual plot, because as I said before, if you're not familiar with them, then you don't care to be in the first place. On that note, who is to blame you? You've invariably seen or heard the story before, even if you aren't actively aware of that fact.
What I found most interesting in this version is how Neil Gaiman and Roger Avary obviously thought over this fact, accepted it, and moved on. Their version of Beowulf is not the one you read in 11th grade English class, and that's exactly why they changed it so. What interests me more than the fact that they changed is this reason why. In changing Beowulf, they are not commenting on society at large, they are merely participating in it, which to me is a more profound way to approach the subject. Anyone could have adapted Beowulf as it stands to a movie, but few could have subverted it to relate to current audiences, and in turn, be part of that modern audience at the same time.
This story about a monster slayer, Beowulf, is nearly as old as paper itself, only being committed to writing when it was actually realized that this is a better way to keep the story going, and much less of a hassle than teaching it to yet another generation. With this film, this is exactly what Avary, Gaiman, and Robert Zemeckis have done.
They've taken that story that people are either sick of hearing or never wanting to hear in the first place, and making it into exactly what they want to see. Again, this fact, this subversion is what makes it unique and more of a statement than anything they could have written. As I see it, both of the writers had a bit of fun just crossing out lines from the poem, and supposing what should have been written all those years ago in order to make it relevant today. This is a foresight and a talent that few others would have been brave, or humorous, enough to make.
On the other end, what brings this film full circle is Robert Zemeckis and his obsession with the evolution of technology. While the story itself centers around a main character that uses the evolution of thought to his advantage, the director uses technology in the same way to grab audience attention by supporting the words that were written by Avary and Gaiman fully.
This evolution of evolution is an interesting thing to watch. Consider, the oldest story in Anglo-Saxon recorded history is retold, in a changed manner, with the latest and brightest technology available. To think about the film in that way eclipses anything the story could have even possibly been about. As I said before, the story itself is so old that it's been remixed and rewound more times than anyone could possibly imagine, in more formats and mediums than most could keep track of.
Still, Zemeckis is able to subvert this fact by reinventing the story into the newest medium available. So while he is subverting one of history's oldest stories, he's inventing a brand new history at the same time. Again, the foresight of such thought amazes me in ways that send my head spinning.
With all that said, I suppose I shall critique the movie itself, on most basic terms. The motion capture animation is spectacular, I didn't particularly like The Polar Express, neither the story or the animation really intrigued me. However, in this film Grendel (Crispin Glover) is truly a sight to behold. His grotesque mangled form is the accomplishment and hard work of many wonderful artists, and although it is used to tell a rather rudiementary part of a quite simple story, it's still amazing to think of how this came about. Yes, Angelina Jolie is nude, although obscured, as Grendel's vengeful mother, who later turns into a dragon, which I might say puts to shame anything in the recent films like Eragon or even the Lord of the Rings trilogy. Is it because they are better crafted, or more well rendered? No, I believe I feel this way merely because her dragon meshes with the rest of the environment in such a way that there is no distraction from the story at hand. As great as the special effects in the Lord of the Rings were, you still always knew they were different from the human characters. In this, they aren't.
The action is probably the least impressive part of the entire film. Sure, there are bodily mutilations, giant scenes of monster inflicted disaster, and some good skull munching from Grendel, but that's not what excited me about this film. Sure, it interested me in ways that other action films did, but that's just the problem. These scenes merely reminded me of other action films. Which, when the rest of the picture did the exact opposite, the balls-to-the-wall action is somehow less impressive.
This use of animation is sure to be the next big wave, while animated features will continue to be done in the style of Shrek and Finding Nemo, this evolution of the animation genre is what I've often spoken about before, especially in expressing my disappointment in Pixar being bought permanently by Disney. I can only imagine the brilliant minds at Pixar would have eventually come to a similar style, if not by means of technology, in style of story content, going for more secular, adult audiences. As I mentioned, I thought I would always wonder what Quentin Tarantino or Martin Scorsese would do with truly limitless technology, meaning there would be no budgetary concerns because whatever can be thought up can be animated. I believe this style of animation will win over straight animation for these ideas I've had in the past, and I must say it's a promising style indeed.
For the purposes of this review, I will post my entire rating system, and where each of the points came from, because I personally think it's more relevant than the final rating itself in the case of this film in particular.
8.7/10
Almost Famous (2000)
Written and Directed by Cameron Crowe
Based on Crowe's teenage experience of writing for Rolling Stone, and touring with the Allman Brothers, Almost Famous tells the story of William Miller (Patrick Fugit), who is a high school prodigy and writer for the rock magazine Cream. On an assignment for his column, William tries to get into a show to interview Black Sabbath, but can't get past the security at the back door. He meets band aid (not to be confused with a groupie) named Penny Lane (Kate Hudson) and her friends, who promises she will get him in to the venue when she can. Instead, he notices up and coming band Stillwater entering the show late, and is able to get into the venue with them by giving them positive feedback on their latest album. The band, not being quite yet famous, welcomes his fandom and takes a personal liking to him, telling him to show up for the rest of their tour.
Still being a high school teenager, William is floored, and decides to follow the band. At the same time he is escaping his smothering mother, who has already driven William's sister (Zooey Daschanel) away from home to become a stewardess. As a present, she leaves William all of her rock albums, and William feels an instant connection to the music. After convincing his begrudging mother to let him go, he starts to write an article on Stillwater, and after reading William's past articles in Cream magazine, the editor of Rolling Stone calls him and he suggests doing a piece on Stillwater.
Through the coaching of his mentor, Lester Bangs (Phillip Seymour Hoffman), young William learns the ins and outs of major rock journalism, and how to stay alert when the band might be trying to use him to further their own image. Becoming friends with the band, Williams adolescent fan worship sometimes interferes with this, but in the meantime he tries to interview the main up and coming star in the band, Russell (Billy Crudup). He follows the band on their ups and downs, their infighting and animosity towards each other, and their experience of struggling with gaining fame. As his deadline approaches, William is too polite to try to enforce his interview with Russell, and instead opts to sit back and enjoy the ride, along the way learning a lot about the pressures of stardom, and growing up in his own way.
This film is about friendship and corrupted innocence from two different points of view: William growing up and becoming his own person while touring with a rock band, and Stillwater being seduced by the fame provided by their growing success. They go through every phase that has now become rock cliche from booze and drugs to women and infighting, and along the way they try to salvage a career out of the whole mess, while trying to maintain their loyalty to their pre-fame friends, while at the same time trying to please the people that will make them famous. The honestly befriend William, but at the same time Lester Bangs warns him about how Stillwater's unwitting seduction of innocent William will eventually lead to them wanting William's story to conform to their standards.
Every cliche that is explored in this film is now only a cliche because it has been done in numerous films before (such as The Doors) but Crowe writes from the vantage point of someone that was actually there. Through the good and the bad, he has an original and insightful look into the 1970's rock scene, how it became what it was, and how the people involved either failed or succeeded. It is a coming of age story told through a rock biopic, of course with a fake band. Along the way William also discovers love when he falls for Penny Lane, who is intertwined with the band's star, Russell. He also documents the deteriorating relationship between lead singer Jeff (Jason Lee) and Russell, and the strains that the band has to live through while living their lives on the road.
There are original twists on the rock journalism field, such as William writing for Rolling Stone at 15, and the editors of Rolling Stone thinking he is an established journalist. Much to their surprise, he is merely a teenager, but the pressure is on for him to perform even though he is having trouble obtaining that interview from Russell, due to the band's turbulent times. This is as honest a depiction of the lives as you are likely to get, which is hilarious, since it is all Crowe's fictionalization of the real events. Still, it feels more real than most of the movies in this field, and because of his talent for storytelling, and true filmmaking chops, he comes through with a coming of age love story set against a fictionalized rock biopic. This is no easy task to handle.
To help him out are the fantastic actors Jason Lee and Billy Crudup. At the time, Lee was still gaining his fame and breaking out of his Kevin Smith shell. Of course he is now a big star with his own television show, but Crudup has yet to really break the walls of stardom down, which I think he will accomplish with 2009's Watchmen. At the same time Patrick Fugit and Kate Hudson both turn in great breakthrough performances, and Crowe has a supporting cast of other pretty well known up and coming actors (at the time) from Phillip Seymour Hoffman and Jimmy Fallon, to Fairuza Balk and Anna Paquin, his cast definitely makes his great words and storytelling shine. All in all this is the definitive, if fictionalized, rock biopic, told from every angle, one of the few movies that actually puts you into the mindset of the characters involved in a special and historical time and place.
8.3/10
Based on Crowe's teenage experience of writing for Rolling Stone, and touring with the Allman Brothers, Almost Famous tells the story of William Miller (Patrick Fugit), who is a high school prodigy and writer for the rock magazine Cream. On an assignment for his column, William tries to get into a show to interview Black Sabbath, but can't get past the security at the back door. He meets band aid (not to be confused with a groupie) named Penny Lane (Kate Hudson) and her friends, who promises she will get him in to the venue when she can. Instead, he notices up and coming band Stillwater entering the show late, and is able to get into the venue with them by giving them positive feedback on their latest album. The band, not being quite yet famous, welcomes his fandom and takes a personal liking to him, telling him to show up for the rest of their tour.
Still being a high school teenager, William is floored, and decides to follow the band. At the same time he is escaping his smothering mother, who has already driven William's sister (Zooey Daschanel) away from home to become a stewardess. As a present, she leaves William all of her rock albums, and William feels an instant connection to the music. After convincing his begrudging mother to let him go, he starts to write an article on Stillwater, and after reading William's past articles in Cream magazine, the editor of Rolling Stone calls him and he suggests doing a piece on Stillwater.
Through the coaching of his mentor, Lester Bangs (Phillip Seymour Hoffman), young William learns the ins and outs of major rock journalism, and how to stay alert when the band might be trying to use him to further their own image. Becoming friends with the band, Williams adolescent fan worship sometimes interferes with this, but in the meantime he tries to interview the main up and coming star in the band, Russell (Billy Crudup). He follows the band on their ups and downs, their infighting and animosity towards each other, and their experience of struggling with gaining fame. As his deadline approaches, William is too polite to try to enforce his interview with Russell, and instead opts to sit back and enjoy the ride, along the way learning a lot about the pressures of stardom, and growing up in his own way.
This film is about friendship and corrupted innocence from two different points of view: William growing up and becoming his own person while touring with a rock band, and Stillwater being seduced by the fame provided by their growing success. They go through every phase that has now become rock cliche from booze and drugs to women and infighting, and along the way they try to salvage a career out of the whole mess, while trying to maintain their loyalty to their pre-fame friends, while at the same time trying to please the people that will make them famous. The honestly befriend William, but at the same time Lester Bangs warns him about how Stillwater's unwitting seduction of innocent William will eventually lead to them wanting William's story to conform to their standards.
Every cliche that is explored in this film is now only a cliche because it has been done in numerous films before (such as The Doors) but Crowe writes from the vantage point of someone that was actually there. Through the good and the bad, he has an original and insightful look into the 1970's rock scene, how it became what it was, and how the people involved either failed or succeeded. It is a coming of age story told through a rock biopic, of course with a fake band. Along the way William also discovers love when he falls for Penny Lane, who is intertwined with the band's star, Russell. He also documents the deteriorating relationship between lead singer Jeff (Jason Lee) and Russell, and the strains that the band has to live through while living their lives on the road.
There are original twists on the rock journalism field, such as William writing for Rolling Stone at 15, and the editors of Rolling Stone thinking he is an established journalist. Much to their surprise, he is merely a teenager, but the pressure is on for him to perform even though he is having trouble obtaining that interview from Russell, due to the band's turbulent times. This is as honest a depiction of the lives as you are likely to get, which is hilarious, since it is all Crowe's fictionalization of the real events. Still, it feels more real than most of the movies in this field, and because of his talent for storytelling, and true filmmaking chops, he comes through with a coming of age love story set against a fictionalized rock biopic. This is no easy task to handle.
To help him out are the fantastic actors Jason Lee and Billy Crudup. At the time, Lee was still gaining his fame and breaking out of his Kevin Smith shell. Of course he is now a big star with his own television show, but Crudup has yet to really break the walls of stardom down, which I think he will accomplish with 2009's Watchmen. At the same time Patrick Fugit and Kate Hudson both turn in great breakthrough performances, and Crowe has a supporting cast of other pretty well known up and coming actors (at the time) from Phillip Seymour Hoffman and Jimmy Fallon, to Fairuza Balk and Anna Paquin, his cast definitely makes his great words and storytelling shine. All in all this is the definitive, if fictionalized, rock biopic, told from every angle, one of the few movies that actually puts you into the mindset of the characters involved in a special and historical time and place.
8.3/10
Buy the Ticket, Take the Ride (2006)
Written by Tom Marksbury
Directed by Tom Thurman
It is no accident or coincidence that the title of this documentary is also one of Hunter S. Thompson's favorite and most oft-quoted sayings. It is also the code or credo by which he lived his tumultuous and rabble-rousing life, and one which was lived on his own terms and conditions, reckless as they might have been all the way up to his self-inflicted death.
This film is different from Breakfast with Hunter in the sense that it doesn't so much explore Hunter's life, instead it memorializes it. Instead of examining, it merely remembers, although with a very sympathetic heart as evidenced through the interviews with such a vast array of characters such as journalists Ed Bradley, William F. Buckley, writers Nick Tosches and Tom Wolfe, and actors Gary Busey, Johnny Depp, Bill Murray, John Cusack, Sean Penn, Benicio Del Toro, Harry Dean Stanton, to artist Ralph Steadman, the local country Sheriff Bob Braudis, and even Governor (and former Presidential candidate) George McGovern. With such an interesting array of friends, you'll be sure that there was a very interesting and diverse man behind this collection of memories.
Most of the film spends time with the people who knew him telling stories from his life, Johnny Depp telling about his months of living in Hunter's basement in preparation of Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas, the same for Bill Murray, but also discussions of their political history together, along with such noted authors as Tom Wolfe explaining why he was in fact the most important comedic American writer probably of the entire 20th century.
The knowledge gained from watching this documentary may not be as enlightening as other Hunter S. Thompson documentaries, but that is not the intent of this film. It's merely a memorial, a tribute to the man, myth, and legend that is Hunter Thompson.
Some of the stories will have you cracking up, such as George McGovern recalling the 1972 presidential campaign and Thompson's passionate hate for Richard Nixon, to the creation of his Gonzo Fisted Memorial Cannon, for which Johnny Depp paid $3 million or so. Such is the man in question though, whose presence is so sorely missed, yet at the same time understood by his friends and colleagues.
Football Season Is Over
"No More Games. No More Bombs. No More Walking. No More Fun. No More Swimming. 67. That is 17 years past 50. 17 more than I needed or wanted. Boring. I am always bitchy. No Fun — for anybody. 67. You are getting Greedy. Act your old age. Relax — This won't hurt".
And so goes Thompson's final journal entry in life, left on his typewriter for all to see. A fitting and ultimately expected end, as he used to tell his friend Ralph Steadman "I'd feel trapped in this life if I didn't know that at any moment I could commit suicide."
8.6/10
Directed by Tom Thurman
It is no accident or coincidence that the title of this documentary is also one of Hunter S. Thompson's favorite and most oft-quoted sayings. It is also the code or credo by which he lived his tumultuous and rabble-rousing life, and one which was lived on his own terms and conditions, reckless as they might have been all the way up to his self-inflicted death.
This film is different from Breakfast with Hunter in the sense that it doesn't so much explore Hunter's life, instead it memorializes it. Instead of examining, it merely remembers, although with a very sympathetic heart as evidenced through the interviews with such a vast array of characters such as journalists Ed Bradley, William F. Buckley, writers Nick Tosches and Tom Wolfe, and actors Gary Busey, Johnny Depp, Bill Murray, John Cusack, Sean Penn, Benicio Del Toro, Harry Dean Stanton, to artist Ralph Steadman, the local country Sheriff Bob Braudis, and even Governor (and former Presidential candidate) George McGovern. With such an interesting array of friends, you'll be sure that there was a very interesting and diverse man behind this collection of memories.
Most of the film spends time with the people who knew him telling stories from his life, Johnny Depp telling about his months of living in Hunter's basement in preparation of Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas, the same for Bill Murray, but also discussions of their political history together, along with such noted authors as Tom Wolfe explaining why he was in fact the most important comedic American writer probably of the entire 20th century.
The knowledge gained from watching this documentary may not be as enlightening as other Hunter S. Thompson documentaries, but that is not the intent of this film. It's merely a memorial, a tribute to the man, myth, and legend that is Hunter Thompson.
Some of the stories will have you cracking up, such as George McGovern recalling the 1972 presidential campaign and Thompson's passionate hate for Richard Nixon, to the creation of his Gonzo Fisted Memorial Cannon, for which Johnny Depp paid $3 million or so. Such is the man in question though, whose presence is so sorely missed, yet at the same time understood by his friends and colleagues.
Football Season Is Over
"No More Games. No More Bombs. No More Walking. No More Fun. No More Swimming. 67. That is 17 years past 50. 17 more than I needed or wanted. Boring. I am always bitchy. No Fun — for anybody. 67. You are getting Greedy. Act your old age. Relax — This won't hurt".
And so goes Thompson's final journal entry in life, left on his typewriter for all to see. A fitting and ultimately expected end, as he used to tell his friend Ralph Steadman "I'd feel trapped in this life if I didn't know that at any moment I could commit suicide."
8.6/10
Breakfast With Hunter (2003)
Directed by Wayne Ewing
This is the first of two documentaries I watched about Hunter S. Thompson, and it turns out I had already seen both previously. No matter, as the antics of Hunter S. Thompson are timelessly entertaining. This film covered the years of roughly 1997-2002, and one of the main focuses is on the production of the film Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas.
To watch this film in contrast to earlier documentaries such as Hunter Goes to Hollywood and Fear and Loathing in Gonzovision is interesting since he is such a character. During the time frame of this documentary, Hunter was at least 60, and you would expect even a wild character such as him to be slowing down, but not Hunter, as his fans should know better than that. He is as outrageous and as outspoken as ever, the film even chronicles his DUI arrest from 1995 on election day, which Hunter fought furiously as he felt he was at the center of a political witch hunt, as evidenced by the fact that he blew a Breathalyzer test well below the Colorado state limit and was convinced the arresting officers acted without merit which he was later able to prove. Of course, the judge ruled that the officer's lies did not matter and he would have to proceed with a trial anyway.
Alongside this story the production of the film Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas is chronicled, which is interesting in and of itself, because as anyone that has watched the Criterion DVD knows, the film became a mess itself. The original writing team of husband Alex Cox (who was set to direct) and wife Tod Davies, were later fired from the film due to "creative differences" with Hunter, who constantly stood up for the film because he believed it to be his best work.
This incident itself is documented in the film when Alex Cox and Tod Davies show up to discuss their script (which of course Hunter didn't read) and other ideas for the film. A polite disagreement ends in Hunter shouting at them and calling the producer Laila Nabulsi to shout at her as well.
When it becomes obvious that Alex Cox and Tod Davies are not the right artists to adapt the book into a film, it is left up to Hunter to ask his good friend Johnny Depp to wait another month without work while a new director is found for the movie. Due to their kinship (which is also explored throughout the film), Johnny agrees to wait, for which we are all glad, because as we now know, Fear and Loathing turned out to be one of Johnny's defining roles.
Peppered throughout these escapades are interviews with some of Hunter's best friends, from the actors John Cusack, Sean Penn, Johnny Depp, and Benicio Del Toro, to the forever Thompson-linked artist Ralph Steadman, and even Hunter's son Juan. Through these interviews we learn how Hunter has impacted and influenced most of the current generation of entertainers. He broke the mold of expectations of the role model and celebrity, both of which he was most certainly not, at least in his own mind.
However, the film also recognizes his strong moral values and how vehemently he implemented them in his own life and to the others around him. This is the portrait of a strong and outspoken man, and how his wild and often erratic behavior so well served the statement his life made.
9.1/10
This is the first of two documentaries I watched about Hunter S. Thompson, and it turns out I had already seen both previously. No matter, as the antics of Hunter S. Thompson are timelessly entertaining. This film covered the years of roughly 1997-2002, and one of the main focuses is on the production of the film Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas.
To watch this film in contrast to earlier documentaries such as Hunter Goes to Hollywood and Fear and Loathing in Gonzovision is interesting since he is such a character. During the time frame of this documentary, Hunter was at least 60, and you would expect even a wild character such as him to be slowing down, but not Hunter, as his fans should know better than that. He is as outrageous and as outspoken as ever, the film even chronicles his DUI arrest from 1995 on election day, which Hunter fought furiously as he felt he was at the center of a political witch hunt, as evidenced by the fact that he blew a Breathalyzer test well below the Colorado state limit and was convinced the arresting officers acted without merit which he was later able to prove. Of course, the judge ruled that the officer's lies did not matter and he would have to proceed with a trial anyway.
Alongside this story the production of the film Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas is chronicled, which is interesting in and of itself, because as anyone that has watched the Criterion DVD knows, the film became a mess itself. The original writing team of husband Alex Cox (who was set to direct) and wife Tod Davies, were later fired from the film due to "creative differences" with Hunter, who constantly stood up for the film because he believed it to be his best work.
This incident itself is documented in the film when Alex Cox and Tod Davies show up to discuss their script (which of course Hunter didn't read) and other ideas for the film. A polite disagreement ends in Hunter shouting at them and calling the producer Laila Nabulsi to shout at her as well.
When it becomes obvious that Alex Cox and Tod Davies are not the right artists to adapt the book into a film, it is left up to Hunter to ask his good friend Johnny Depp to wait another month without work while a new director is found for the movie. Due to their kinship (which is also explored throughout the film), Johnny agrees to wait, for which we are all glad, because as we now know, Fear and Loathing turned out to be one of Johnny's defining roles.
Peppered throughout these escapades are interviews with some of Hunter's best friends, from the actors John Cusack, Sean Penn, Johnny Depp, and Benicio Del Toro, to the forever Thompson-linked artist Ralph Steadman, and even Hunter's son Juan. Through these interviews we learn how Hunter has impacted and influenced most of the current generation of entertainers. He broke the mold of expectations of the role model and celebrity, both of which he was most certainly not, at least in his own mind.
However, the film also recognizes his strong moral values and how vehemently he implemented them in his own life and to the others around him. This is the portrait of a strong and outspoken man, and how his wild and often erratic behavior so well served the statement his life made.
9.1/10
Ocean's Thirteen (2007)
| Written by Brian Koppelman & David Levien Directed by Steven Soderbergh In the second sequel to Ocean's 11, Danny Ocean are back in business, and this time it's personal. Casino magnate Willie Bank (Al Pacino) went into business 50/50 with Reuben (Elliot Gould), only to screw Reuben over at the 11th hour, leaving him literally shocked with a heart attack to boot. Once Danny Ocean and his crew hear about this, they decide to hit Bank where it'll hurt him the most, his precious new casino. If you're this far into the series, you had better be familiar with all the characters, so there is no need for me to give you the rundown here. The plot, much like the second one, is the most fun part of the movie to watch, to see how it unfolds, to see how each small grift is all a small part in a larger scheme of a thievery, and here, fittingly so, is the grift of all grifts, the grandaddy robbery of them all, how to steal from a casino, right out in plain sight. As in the second film, to reveal much about the plot would take away half the fun, which is trying to keep up with the characters as they concoct the scheme that will bring Bank's casino to its knees. The plot involves a super computer that runs the security on the casino, and Bank has himself guarded against cheaters and con men, through the super computer and his right hand woman, Miss Sponder (Ellin Barkin). So the plan begins, as the crew figures out how to outsmart the super computer, get Bank out of the way, all while they pull off the ultimate heist. This film is as stylish as the others, with the same elements of coy in-jokes, an overly complicated heist scheme, and a ridiculously gigantic set that becomes an integral part of the plot. There is some good comedy set into the plot, such as Terry Benedict (Andy Garcia) showing up to actually help Danny Ocean and his crew, and some creative ways to cheat at gambling. However, as in the previous films, the main point of the movie is to set the viewer up with a certain viewpoint, believing they know exactly what is going to happen, only to have their eyes truly opened in the final scenes of the movie. There are also clever cameos by The Night Fox (Vincent Cassel) and even Oprah Winfrey, adding to the winking nature of the film, without being overly corny like some of the scenes in Ocean's Twelve. Like the others before it, the film is ultimately entertaining, stylish, and it sets out to accomplish those very specific goals. I also like that there is a certain finality in not only the plot and the heist itself, but the characters come to a certain point of resolution. Not to say this is definitely the last Oceans movie, I could definitely see another one coming along, especially with the popularity and money making possibilities, but at the same time, if this is where they stop, it's definitely a good place. 7.9/10 | ||||
Ocean's Twelve (2004)
Written by George Nolfi
Directed by Steven Soderberg
First, let me say, if you haven't seen the first movie, you shouldn't be watching this one. After that, just for reference, the original eleven are: Danny Ocean (Clooney), Rusty Ryan (Pitt), Virgil Malloy (Casey Affleck), Turk Malloy (Scott Caan), Yen (Shaobo Qin), Frank (Bernie Mac), Basher (Don Cheadle), Livingston (Eddie Jemison), Reuben (Elliot Gould), Saul (Carl Reiner), and Linus (Matt Damon). In the first film, a remake, they stole an incredible amount of money, some $150 million from Ocean's rival, Terry Benedict's (Andy Garcia) casino, The Bellagio. In the beginning of the film, we are introduced first to Rusty's ex-girlfriend Isabel (Catherine Zeta-Jones) and then to Benedict finding each of the original 11, and giving them an ultimatum, give him his money back, plus interest, or die. Did I mention Isabel is an international police agent that is determined to track down Rusty and his buds, half out of spite for his leaving her, and half out of professional interest?
So Ocean and crew go back to work, attempting to do a bunch of different jobs in order to gain the money they need to pay Benedict back, only to be thwarted by a voracious new thief, who goes by the name The Night Fox (Vincent Cassel).
From here the thieves meet up with the Night Fox, and since he is born into wealth, he steals merely for the fun of it. Ocean proposes they make a game of stealing a prized item, a fabrege egg, which Rusty supposes will be literally impossible to steal. The deal is if the Ocean crew wins, they get the egg and The Night Fox pays their debt to Benedict. If not...well, they're dead anyway. So the second half of the movie becomes the intricate, confusing plot to steal the egg, which includes a large distraction and a hologram devised by their buddy Roman (Eddie Izzard), to aid them in stealing the egg from a heavily guarded museum, during business hours no less.
The twists and turns of the actual heist are the meat of the plot, and giving it away would ruin the fun of watching an Ocean's movie. I loved the first half of this film, it contains cinematography and stylish filmmaking that belongs to the cinema verite movement of the 70's, and the technical gloss of today. The set ups for the characters being found by Benedict serve only to show what the characters have been up to, and what they are currently up against in the form of the Night Fox. It is fun to watch them operate, especially when they are thwarted, because you know in the end there is going to be some wool pulled over certain eyes, that will result in the final reveal of the heist.
The fun of the movie however, is thrown off slightly in the second half I believe, mainly due to a few too many in-jokes and winking asides. Yes, these coy references to the careers and mega-stardom of many of the actors involved can be hilarious at times, but in the last part of this film, the sequence with Bruce Willis and Tess (Julia Roberts), where Tess is dressed up to look like Julia Roberts (....) muddle the existential nature of the characters involved. The winking asides become ham fisted attempts to play on the names of the actors involved. I feel this detracts from the great first half, which neatly wraps up a lot of these loose ends. Of course, there is the nature of the relationship between Rusty and Isabel to be wrapped up, which inevitably comes to involve her professional thief father.
Is this a great film? Hardly. Like the movie before it though, the high calibur actors and the convoluted nature of the plot, and its improbable conclusion are all part of the charm. This is a movie that is merely an exercise in skill and style, made purely to entertain, and to lengthen the limits of what a heist movie can include. It succeeds on that level, although I feel it has more negatives in the second half than the first Ocean's movie. Not great, but it's passable entertainment, a fun way to kill 2 hours and see a heightened heist experience.
7.7/10
Directed by Steven Soderberg
First, let me say, if you haven't seen the first movie, you shouldn't be watching this one. After that, just for reference, the original eleven are: Danny Ocean (Clooney), Rusty Ryan (Pitt), Virgil Malloy (Casey Affleck), Turk Malloy (Scott Caan), Yen (Shaobo Qin), Frank (Bernie Mac), Basher (Don Cheadle), Livingston (Eddie Jemison), Reuben (Elliot Gould), Saul (Carl Reiner), and Linus (Matt Damon). In the first film, a remake, they stole an incredible amount of money, some $150 million from Ocean's rival, Terry Benedict's (Andy Garcia) casino, The Bellagio. In the beginning of the film, we are introduced first to Rusty's ex-girlfriend Isabel (Catherine Zeta-Jones) and then to Benedict finding each of the original 11, and giving them an ultimatum, give him his money back, plus interest, or die. Did I mention Isabel is an international police agent that is determined to track down Rusty and his buds, half out of spite for his leaving her, and half out of professional interest?
So Ocean and crew go back to work, attempting to do a bunch of different jobs in order to gain the money they need to pay Benedict back, only to be thwarted by a voracious new thief, who goes by the name The Night Fox (Vincent Cassel).
From here the thieves meet up with the Night Fox, and since he is born into wealth, he steals merely for the fun of it. Ocean proposes they make a game of stealing a prized item, a fabrege egg, which Rusty supposes will be literally impossible to steal. The deal is if the Ocean crew wins, they get the egg and The Night Fox pays their debt to Benedict. If not...well, they're dead anyway. So the second half of the movie becomes the intricate, confusing plot to steal the egg, which includes a large distraction and a hologram devised by their buddy Roman (Eddie Izzard), to aid them in stealing the egg from a heavily guarded museum, during business hours no less.
The twists and turns of the actual heist are the meat of the plot, and giving it away would ruin the fun of watching an Ocean's movie. I loved the first half of this film, it contains cinematography and stylish filmmaking that belongs to the cinema verite movement of the 70's, and the technical gloss of today. The set ups for the characters being found by Benedict serve only to show what the characters have been up to, and what they are currently up against in the form of the Night Fox. It is fun to watch them operate, especially when they are thwarted, because you know in the end there is going to be some wool pulled over certain eyes, that will result in the final reveal of the heist.
The fun of the movie however, is thrown off slightly in the second half I believe, mainly due to a few too many in-jokes and winking asides. Yes, these coy references to the careers and mega-stardom of many of the actors involved can be hilarious at times, but in the last part of this film, the sequence with Bruce Willis and Tess (Julia Roberts), where Tess is dressed up to look like Julia Roberts (....) muddle the existential nature of the characters involved. The winking asides become ham fisted attempts to play on the names of the actors involved. I feel this detracts from the great first half, which neatly wraps up a lot of these loose ends. Of course, there is the nature of the relationship between Rusty and Isabel to be wrapped up, which inevitably comes to involve her professional thief father.
Is this a great film? Hardly. Like the movie before it though, the high calibur actors and the convoluted nature of the plot, and its improbable conclusion are all part of the charm. This is a movie that is merely an exercise in skill and style, made purely to entertain, and to lengthen the limits of what a heist movie can include. It succeeds on that level, although I feel it has more negatives in the second half than the first Ocean's movie. Not great, but it's passable entertainment, a fun way to kill 2 hours and see a heightened heist experience.
7.7/10
Hairspray (2007)
Written by Leslie Dixon
Directed by Adam Shankman
What else is there to think when a John Waters movie is remade by a studio with a big budget, starring an unknown, Amanda Bynes, Queen Latifah, Zack Efron, and John Travolta (in drag and a fat suit), directed by Adam Shankman (he of Bringing Down the House fame), other than "Well this is going to be watered down crap."? Many other things I guess, but from that description and the trailer, I didn't really have many other thoughts than the one previously mentioned. As always when I think like this, I'm glad I ended up being extremely long. Hairspray ended up being an entertaining movie.
I was on a 4 hour flight from San Jose to Houston, and when the in flight movie was changed from Daddy Day Camp (which I wanted to watch for some odd reason, long flights are known to brew insanity) to Hairspray due to tape malfunctions, I was actually kind of disappointed. Honestly, I guess I couldn't really give a shit now, it just means I'll never see Daddy Day Camp, but in the end I'm actually glad I saw Hairspray, because it ended up being an entertaining movie. I went in with the feeling that there was nothing better to do, so I might as well just smile and stare straight into the abyss, but the movie actually kept me occupied for 2 hours of the 4 hour flight, and tailed by an episode of Still Standing, I can't say the flight was awful, all things considered.
It changed my viewpoint on the notion of remaking a film for no reason, sure, this remake is still pretty much without any real merit (other than to make money in a different audience group with minimal retooling of an already existing property), but it turns out I actually gained a few positive bits of knowledge from watching this. I can now see why Zack Efron is going to be a huge star, I learned that Travolta can still dance (even in a fat suit), Christopher Walken's best dancing is behind him (the Fatboy Slim video), and I finally understand why people say Amanda Bynes is hot. Well, that last one was because of the hairdo I think, but I digress.
This is an entertaining movie, about a chubby Baltimore girl named Tracy Turnblad(Nikki Blonsky) that loves the after school dance show, The Corny Collins (James Marsters) Show, where the self-proclaimed "coolest kids in town" hang out. When one of them takes an unlikely absence ("She's taking a 9 month vacation!" proclaims Corny) the show is open for auditions, to which Tracy skipping school against her mother's wishes to try out for the show. The mother is Edna (John Travolta) who thinks the other kids won't understand that she's merely different and she'll be made fun of. Certainly the station manager (Michelle Pfieffer) and her daughter (Brittany Snow) are of the same mind, seeing her as unfit for the show due to her weight. Well, ole Corny doesn't think so, he sees her dancing skills as something needed on a show that once a week has Negro Day.
Well, it turns out Tracy's different looks and attitude make her a big star in 1962 Baltimore, so she enjoys becoming the latest local pop culture icon, while fawning over the show's heartthrob, Link (Zack Efron). Tracy ends up convincing her mom to change her lifestyle, and gearing up for the impending social changes, Tracy starts to fight for the right to have black people on the show every day, instead of just the designated Negro Day. This is a step over the line for the station manager, who kicks her off the show, and calls the police on her after Tracy slaps the Chief of Police with a protest sign. In the meantime, Tracy is able to convince Link to fight for what is right, and they invade the show and prove they have just as much right to appear on the Corny Collins Show as anyone else. Link also learns what a shallow, selfish bitch his girlfriend is, and what depth Tracy has and a romance blossoms.
I liked how they subverted the original film into a musical, and then turned that hit musical into a film of its own. I still feel the original film was made as a statement toward being proud of being an outcast, so to change that into a big budget, mainstream musical kind of defeats the message of the original movie in a way. Still, Waters' coy humor and wry social commentary is for the most part maintained throughout this movie, which is something I thought they would push to the side in favor of the campy elements of the musical version. So I was impressed in that respect, and I have to say the song and dance numbers were well done, even if a lot of that credit goes to the broadway show. As I said before, I can finally see why people make such a fuss over Zack Efron, he's got charisma and good looks out the wazoo, newcomer Nikki Blonsky shows she has both acting and singing and dancing chops, Amanda Bynes is hot (that hairstyle gets me, along with the lollipop), John Travolta busts moves in a fat suit, Jerry Stiller comes back after playing the father in the previous film, and Christopher Walken takes up Stiller's role from the original film. All in all, not a bad way to eat up half of my flight time, I'm glad I watched it there, because I probably wouldn't watch it any other time, even though the DVD is sitting at my mom's house.
7.1/10
Directed by Adam Shankman
What else is there to think when a John Waters movie is remade by a studio with a big budget, starring an unknown, Amanda Bynes, Queen Latifah, Zack Efron, and John Travolta (in drag and a fat suit), directed by Adam Shankman (he of Bringing Down the House fame), other than "Well this is going to be watered down crap."? Many other things I guess, but from that description and the trailer, I didn't really have many other thoughts than the one previously mentioned. As always when I think like this, I'm glad I ended up being extremely long. Hairspray ended up being an entertaining movie.
I was on a 4 hour flight from San Jose to Houston, and when the in flight movie was changed from Daddy Day Camp (which I wanted to watch for some odd reason, long flights are known to brew insanity) to Hairspray due to tape malfunctions, I was actually kind of disappointed. Honestly, I guess I couldn't really give a shit now, it just means I'll never see Daddy Day Camp, but in the end I'm actually glad I saw Hairspray, because it ended up being an entertaining movie. I went in with the feeling that there was nothing better to do, so I might as well just smile and stare straight into the abyss, but the movie actually kept me occupied for 2 hours of the 4 hour flight, and tailed by an episode of Still Standing, I can't say the flight was awful, all things considered.
It changed my viewpoint on the notion of remaking a film for no reason, sure, this remake is still pretty much without any real merit (other than to make money in a different audience group with minimal retooling of an already existing property), but it turns out I actually gained a few positive bits of knowledge from watching this. I can now see why Zack Efron is going to be a huge star, I learned that Travolta can still dance (even in a fat suit), Christopher Walken's best dancing is behind him (the Fatboy Slim video), and I finally understand why people say Amanda Bynes is hot. Well, that last one was because of the hairdo I think, but I digress.
This is an entertaining movie, about a chubby Baltimore girl named Tracy Turnblad(Nikki Blonsky) that loves the after school dance show, The Corny Collins (James Marsters) Show, where the self-proclaimed "coolest kids in town" hang out. When one of them takes an unlikely absence ("She's taking a 9 month vacation!" proclaims Corny) the show is open for auditions, to which Tracy skipping school against her mother's wishes to try out for the show. The mother is Edna (John Travolta) who thinks the other kids won't understand that she's merely different and she'll be made fun of. Certainly the station manager (Michelle Pfieffer) and her daughter (Brittany Snow) are of the same mind, seeing her as unfit for the show due to her weight. Well, ole Corny doesn't think so, he sees her dancing skills as something needed on a show that once a week has Negro Day.
Well, it turns out Tracy's different looks and attitude make her a big star in 1962 Baltimore, so she enjoys becoming the latest local pop culture icon, while fawning over the show's heartthrob, Link (Zack Efron). Tracy ends up convincing her mom to change her lifestyle, and gearing up for the impending social changes, Tracy starts to fight for the right to have black people on the show every day, instead of just the designated Negro Day. This is a step over the line for the station manager, who kicks her off the show, and calls the police on her after Tracy slaps the Chief of Police with a protest sign. In the meantime, Tracy is able to convince Link to fight for what is right, and they invade the show and prove they have just as much right to appear on the Corny Collins Show as anyone else. Link also learns what a shallow, selfish bitch his girlfriend is, and what depth Tracy has and a romance blossoms.
I liked how they subverted the original film into a musical, and then turned that hit musical into a film of its own. I still feel the original film was made as a statement toward being proud of being an outcast, so to change that into a big budget, mainstream musical kind of defeats the message of the original movie in a way. Still, Waters' coy humor and wry social commentary is for the most part maintained throughout this movie, which is something I thought they would push to the side in favor of the campy elements of the musical version. So I was impressed in that respect, and I have to say the song and dance numbers were well done, even if a lot of that credit goes to the broadway show. As I said before, I can finally see why people make such a fuss over Zack Efron, he's got charisma and good looks out the wazoo, newcomer Nikki Blonsky shows she has both acting and singing and dancing chops, Amanda Bynes is hot (that hairstyle gets me, along with the lollipop), John Travolta busts moves in a fat suit, Jerry Stiller comes back after playing the father in the previous film, and Christopher Walken takes up Stiller's role from the original film. All in all, not a bad way to eat up half of my flight time, I'm glad I watched it there, because I probably wouldn't watch it any other time, even though the DVD is sitting at my mom's house.
7.1/10
Deck the Halls (2006)
Written by Matt Corman & Chris Ord and Don Rhymer
Directed by John Whitesell
Well, what can you really expect from the man that directed such classic films as See Spot Run, Big Momma's House 2, and Malibu's Most Wanted? I'll tell you. Mediocrity and humor so broad you can show it to your grandmother and a dog and they'll both give the same reaction. Scratch that, your dog would most likely be bored.
Now, normally I would avoid a pratfall such as Deck the Halls, which seems to be designed to derail people from seeing good films, or at least, to provide a holiday movie you can bring your dog and grandmother to. (Great Grandmother, even)
Basically, this is a tame version of Christmas Vacation, about a man snapping during the holiday season to perform in unexpected ways to make up for his own lack of actual holiday spirit, which he does with great aplomb. Of course to avoid lawsuits, something has to differentiate this from these other Christmas movies, so this is where Danny Devito is brought in. It seems over the past few years lil' Danny has become the go-to guy for tasteless (It's Always Sunny In Philadelphia) or just plain abject (Screwed) characters. Now, the difference between the projects mentioned and this film is Devito actually seems to care about those, and his type of utterly disgusting and shameless humor works perfectly in those situations. Here, he is the tamed down fun bad guy, in a film where there really is no villain. Anyone who knows anything about story knows that every film must revolve around a conflict, and therefore two different things must interact to create said conflict. Here, the conflict angle is played down to the point where after a certain moment in the film, it is lost completely. Had Devito pulled out one of his sick and twisted characters, this might have actually worked a lot better than it ended up. However, I also realize this is not his choosing, he merely shows up to mug and collect a paycheck from the Production Manager every week or so.
Steve Finch (Matthew Broderick, another example of a good, but at this point in his career, merely paycheck collecting actor) is, as he puts it "the Christmas guy". He explains this to Buddy Hall (Devito) as he names off the Thanksgiving guy, and the 4th of July guy in his small town in Massachusetts. However, Buddy understands, he merely doesn't care, he makes it his perverse goal to steal Finch's thunder, and at the same time achieve his own goal of having his house seen from space on MyEarth (google earth, to put it plainly, which is odd since the satellite images are the same detail within a 100 foot radius, thus making it impossible for Finch's house to be seen, and Hall's to remain unseen, although this is one of many plot points I will gladly ignore for the purpose of this review). So the game is on, each man trying to outdo the other, which is utterly impossible, since Finch is the type of guy that would never even think to sink as low as Buddy does.
Again, this thin plot is beside the point. The sole purpose in creating this movie (and did it really take 3 guys to think of jokes such as Broderick landing in camel shit? If so, my career as a screenwriter is minted in gold) is to make money from the vast expanse of holiday film fans.
Now understand, completely beside my lack of any religious faith, I have a strange affinity for Christmas films. Maybe it's the fact that I grew up watching them (my father was of the same strange ilk) and over the years my disenchantment with the season turned to supplementation of fake excitement through the medium of Christmas movies. Still, my love of any movie Christmas didn't save me from being mostly bored with this movie, and ultimately disappointed in the state of cinema knowing that Christmas movies are no longer allowed to have any edge whatsoever.
Still, considering all of this, this movie is just boring where it doesn't have to be. Most of the jokes fall flat, the warm-hearted ending is easier to spot than an island that you're already on, and the air of predictability in general is so thick you can choke on it. Consider Finch's daughter, Madison (Alia Shawkat) when she meets Buddy Hall's gorgeous, racy blonde daughters. Madison is a mostly sheltered 16 year old at Finch's behest, so what's going to happen to her?
If you can't tell me this next sentence, you are the movie studios' bread and butter, the unassuming moron. Of course the twin blondes are going to influence her to wear make up, dress racily, and gallivant around with boys. Who wouldn't be so influenced? Oh, that's right, anyone that's not a stereotype, which seems to be so few Americans in this day and age. If you can sit through the broad jokes, stolen gags (Finch's uncontrolled ride in a sleigh across town reeks eerily of Clark Griswold's tin sled right through the woods, with only the props and the setting changed), and warm hearted wholesomeness, then I suppose you'd get a kick out of this film. I was still mildly entertained by this film, sad and explanatory as that may be, but in the end, it was wholly unsatisfying, even as a fluffy studio movie shotgunned at the broadest audience possible. The only question left to ask is, who lobotomized John Hughes all those years ago?
4.6/10
Directed by John Whitesell
Well, what can you really expect from the man that directed such classic films as See Spot Run, Big Momma's House 2, and Malibu's Most Wanted? I'll tell you. Mediocrity and humor so broad you can show it to your grandmother and a dog and they'll both give the same reaction. Scratch that, your dog would most likely be bored.
Now, normally I would avoid a pratfall such as Deck the Halls, which seems to be designed to derail people from seeing good films, or at least, to provide a holiday movie you can bring your dog and grandmother to. (Great Grandmother, even)
Basically, this is a tame version of Christmas Vacation, about a man snapping during the holiday season to perform in unexpected ways to make up for his own lack of actual holiday spirit, which he does with great aplomb. Of course to avoid lawsuits, something has to differentiate this from these other Christmas movies, so this is where Danny Devito is brought in. It seems over the past few years lil' Danny has become the go-to guy for tasteless (It's Always Sunny In Philadelphia) or just plain abject (Screwed) characters. Now, the difference between the projects mentioned and this film is Devito actually seems to care about those, and his type of utterly disgusting and shameless humor works perfectly in those situations. Here, he is the tamed down fun bad guy, in a film where there really is no villain. Anyone who knows anything about story knows that every film must revolve around a conflict, and therefore two different things must interact to create said conflict. Here, the conflict angle is played down to the point where after a certain moment in the film, it is lost completely. Had Devito pulled out one of his sick and twisted characters, this might have actually worked a lot better than it ended up. However, I also realize this is not his choosing, he merely shows up to mug and collect a paycheck from the Production Manager every week or so.
Steve Finch (Matthew Broderick, another example of a good, but at this point in his career, merely paycheck collecting actor) is, as he puts it "the Christmas guy". He explains this to Buddy Hall (Devito) as he names off the Thanksgiving guy, and the 4th of July guy in his small town in Massachusetts. However, Buddy understands, he merely doesn't care, he makes it his perverse goal to steal Finch's thunder, and at the same time achieve his own goal of having his house seen from space on MyEarth (google earth, to put it plainly, which is odd since the satellite images are the same detail within a 100 foot radius, thus making it impossible for Finch's house to be seen, and Hall's to remain unseen, although this is one of many plot points I will gladly ignore for the purpose of this review). So the game is on, each man trying to outdo the other, which is utterly impossible, since Finch is the type of guy that would never even think to sink as low as Buddy does.
Again, this thin plot is beside the point. The sole purpose in creating this movie (and did it really take 3 guys to think of jokes such as Broderick landing in camel shit? If so, my career as a screenwriter is minted in gold) is to make money from the vast expanse of holiday film fans.
Now understand, completely beside my lack of any religious faith, I have a strange affinity for Christmas films. Maybe it's the fact that I grew up watching them (my father was of the same strange ilk) and over the years my disenchantment with the season turned to supplementation of fake excitement through the medium of Christmas movies. Still, my love of any movie Christmas didn't save me from being mostly bored with this movie, and ultimately disappointed in the state of cinema knowing that Christmas movies are no longer allowed to have any edge whatsoever.
Still, considering all of this, this movie is just boring where it doesn't have to be. Most of the jokes fall flat, the warm-hearted ending is easier to spot than an island that you're already on, and the air of predictability in general is so thick you can choke on it. Consider Finch's daughter, Madison (Alia Shawkat) when she meets Buddy Hall's gorgeous, racy blonde daughters. Madison is a mostly sheltered 16 year old at Finch's behest, so what's going to happen to her?
If you can't tell me this next sentence, you are the movie studios' bread and butter, the unassuming moron. Of course the twin blondes are going to influence her to wear make up, dress racily, and gallivant around with boys. Who wouldn't be so influenced? Oh, that's right, anyone that's not a stereotype, which seems to be so few Americans in this day and age. If you can sit through the broad jokes, stolen gags (Finch's uncontrolled ride in a sleigh across town reeks eerily of Clark Griswold's tin sled right through the woods, with only the props and the setting changed), and warm hearted wholesomeness, then I suppose you'd get a kick out of this film. I was still mildly entertained by this film, sad and explanatory as that may be, but in the end, it was wholly unsatisfying, even as a fluffy studio movie shotgunned at the broadest audience possible. The only question left to ask is, who lobotomized John Hughes all those years ago?
4.6/10
The Brothers Solomon (2007)
Written by Will Forte
Directed by Bob Odenkirk
I remember seeing the ads for this movie a really long time ago, like January, and then it didn't end up coming out until like September, I think because the studio pushed it back for no real reason. Usually this is a sign of a bad movie, or at least a failure in the studio's eyes, which isn't always a bad thing. I mean, hell, they tried to bury Southland Tales and I really liked that movie. When this came online I decided to check it out, I'm always down to watch a stupid comedy movie, so one night when I was trying to go to sleep I put this on, and before I knew it, it was 7am, I was still up, and I had finished the movie.
I was impressed with the story and the style of comedy, because I expected a really dumb everything, while I like Will Arnett to an extent, I don't think he's utterly hilarious, and while I think Will Forte was the most promising SNL cast member, that's like calling him the smartest of the retards. What did hold promise for me though was the fact that Bob Odenkirk directed it, and I have a tendency to like his sense of humor, not to mention I found Let's Go To Prison to be hilarious, despite its strange narrative and lack of any semblance of morality. In fact, that's what I liked most.
Right from the start you can tell what kind of movie this is going to be, Dean (Will Forte) and John (Will Arnett) are basically this century's Harry and Lloyd, two dimwits that don't understand that they aren't very smart, or that there is a difference between smart and otherwise. While they are well educated, they know nothing of person to person interaction, nor do they seem to understand any viewpoint outside their own. The narrative focuses on Dean and John and their dating follies, until their father, Ed Solomon (Lee Majors) falls ill and ends up in a coma. The two moron brothers are not able to talk to him while he is still conscious, they were busy renting a movie, a detour they gladly took even when they knew it was an emergency.
The brothers learn that their father's only wish yet to be fulfilled is to have a grandchild, so the boys make this their only mission, to have a child for their father because they believe that may keep him alive, having something to live for and survive his coma. Quickly, they spring into action and hit the dating scene with a motive, but they quickly realize they just aren't cut out for dating, mainly due to their enormous social ineptness.
Eventually they decide to find a surrogate mother, and they find one named Janine (Kristen Wiig), who does it because she needs the money. Upon meeting Janine they learn that she has a large, jealous boyfriend named James (Chi McBride) whom Janine has whipped to the point of hilarity. Once she points out that they need to actually learn to be good fathers, she quickly becomes impressed with their drive and determination, accepting their interpersonal incompetency, and understanding that at the core, they are both just very nice guys.
All the while John is desperately trying to pick up their hot next door neighbor Tara (Malin Ackerman), who takes a certain form of pity on the brothers, but really she uses them by taking care of their father so she can log the hours for her nursing school.
As I mentioned before, this is basically Harry and Lloyd Have a Baby, but it's not so unoriginal that it doesn't warrant praise, as it most certainly does. There takes a certain genius to make a movie about characters so stupid, and at the same time retain a heart and make the characters involved interesting.
Bob Odenkirk's direction is highly noticeable, you'll see many moments that are reminiscent of his work on Mr. Show, as far as the ridiculously unrealistic moments go. Heap on top of that a cast that seems to be very natural in their relationships and comedy, along with enough laughs to keep you awake and involved, and you have what is becoming rarer and rarer in today's cinema, a comedy movie that isn't your typical formula love story, that is character based and not just simple slapstick.
The characters drive the story because each of the people in the film is a definite key to the story, and by the end of the film they have learned to work together and put their personal differences aside in order to achieve a higher goal. High art? Of course not, but it contains enough laughs than it has any right to, which ends up being a more impressive film than most would expect.
7.5/10
Directed by Bob Odenkirk
I remember seeing the ads for this movie a really long time ago, like January, and then it didn't end up coming out until like September, I think because the studio pushed it back for no real reason. Usually this is a sign of a bad movie, or at least a failure in the studio's eyes, which isn't always a bad thing. I mean, hell, they tried to bury Southland Tales and I really liked that movie. When this came online I decided to check it out, I'm always down to watch a stupid comedy movie, so one night when I was trying to go to sleep I put this on, and before I knew it, it was 7am, I was still up, and I had finished the movie.
I was impressed with the story and the style of comedy, because I expected a really dumb everything, while I like Will Arnett to an extent, I don't think he's utterly hilarious, and while I think Will Forte was the most promising SNL cast member, that's like calling him the smartest of the retards. What did hold promise for me though was the fact that Bob Odenkirk directed it, and I have a tendency to like his sense of humor, not to mention I found Let's Go To Prison to be hilarious, despite its strange narrative and lack of any semblance of morality. In fact, that's what I liked most.
Right from the start you can tell what kind of movie this is going to be, Dean (Will Forte) and John (Will Arnett) are basically this century's Harry and Lloyd, two dimwits that don't understand that they aren't very smart, or that there is a difference between smart and otherwise. While they are well educated, they know nothing of person to person interaction, nor do they seem to understand any viewpoint outside their own. The narrative focuses on Dean and John and their dating follies, until their father, Ed Solomon (Lee Majors) falls ill and ends up in a coma. The two moron brothers are not able to talk to him while he is still conscious, they were busy renting a movie, a detour they gladly took even when they knew it was an emergency.
The brothers learn that their father's only wish yet to be fulfilled is to have a grandchild, so the boys make this their only mission, to have a child for their father because they believe that may keep him alive, having something to live for and survive his coma. Quickly, they spring into action and hit the dating scene with a motive, but they quickly realize they just aren't cut out for dating, mainly due to their enormous social ineptness.
Eventually they decide to find a surrogate mother, and they find one named Janine (Kristen Wiig), who does it because she needs the money. Upon meeting Janine they learn that she has a large, jealous boyfriend named James (Chi McBride) whom Janine has whipped to the point of hilarity. Once she points out that they need to actually learn to be good fathers, she quickly becomes impressed with their drive and determination, accepting their interpersonal incompetency, and understanding that at the core, they are both just very nice guys.
All the while John is desperately trying to pick up their hot next door neighbor Tara (Malin Ackerman), who takes a certain form of pity on the brothers, but really she uses them by taking care of their father so she can log the hours for her nursing school.
As I mentioned before, this is basically Harry and Lloyd Have a Baby, but it's not so unoriginal that it doesn't warrant praise, as it most certainly does. There takes a certain genius to make a movie about characters so stupid, and at the same time retain a heart and make the characters involved interesting.
Bob Odenkirk's direction is highly noticeable, you'll see many moments that are reminiscent of his work on Mr. Show, as far as the ridiculously unrealistic moments go. Heap on top of that a cast that seems to be very natural in their relationships and comedy, along with enough laughs to keep you awake and involved, and you have what is becoming rarer and rarer in today's cinema, a comedy movie that isn't your typical formula love story, that is character based and not just simple slapstick.
The characters drive the story because each of the people in the film is a definite key to the story, and by the end of the film they have learned to work together and put their personal differences aside in order to achieve a higher goal. High art? Of course not, but it contains enough laughs than it has any right to, which ends up being a more impressive film than most would expect.
7.5/10
Superbad (2007)
Superbad (2007)
Directed by Greg Mottola
Written by Seth Rogen & Evan Goldberg
Well, this is the ultimate example of marketing making a movie work. I saw the trailer back in April when it first appeared on Apple.com and knew it was an instant hit, but I also thought it would be a smaller, geek-oriented hit. On the back of Knocked Up and Judd Apatow's recent overtaking (by the way, where the fuck were these people when Freaks and Geeks was on the air?) of Hollywood, this quickly got promoted the point of it becoming a number 1 movie with no big stars, purely on the trailer, word of mouth, and internet hype. Who says the internet has no power?
In light of all that, I think I was slightly disappointed, I guess mainly by the fact that I just don't buy Michael Cera as a main character. In anything. Yeah, he's the super-weird kid that always says the wrong thing. Hmm, I've seen this before, and done better. Oh yeah, it was John Francis Daly on Freaks and Geeks. I guess he's too old looking now, or maybe he's not interested in acting anymore (I heard he was writing and making his own films now) but still, Michael Cera is a let-down, although I love Jonah Hill, I think his over-the-top vulgar character is perfect, he's the biggest loser and although he knows it, he does everything possible not to let it show. Then there's Fogell, or in other words, Bill from Freaks and Geeks. I guess that's my main problem with this movie, it's so much like a really vulgar Freaks and Geeks episode that I lost sight of the fact that the movie is indeed really funny. But seriously, they even did an alcohol party episode of F & G.
Barring all that, this is definitely the funniest movie of the year, even in a year where Mr Bean's Vacation and Knocked Up came out. Watching Knocked Up again, I guess I really forgot how actually funny the movie is, and how the writing stands up to the likes of stuff like 40 Year Old Virgin. Superbad has that slight edge over other gross-out teen comedies in that it is well written, the characters are actually heartfelt and likeable, instead of like 9 Stiffler's running around on screen. I also guess that's what pulls the biggest draw of the mainstream audience, this is an entirely new concept to them. What's sad is, all teen comedies should have been like this already, I guess that's another part of my disappointment with it.
But still, there are so many funny moments, and everyone has been so inundated with them already I won't go spoiling the fun here, but Fogell/McLovin really lives up to the hype that was created for that character, and there are constant zingers that not only aren't in the trailer, they COULDN'T be in the trailer, which is something I completely loved about this movie.
8.8/10
Directed by Greg Mottola
Written by Seth Rogen & Evan Goldberg
Well, this is the ultimate example of marketing making a movie work. I saw the trailer back in April when it first appeared on Apple.com and knew it was an instant hit, but I also thought it would be a smaller, geek-oriented hit. On the back of Knocked Up and Judd Apatow's recent overtaking (by the way, where the fuck were these people when Freaks and Geeks was on the air?) of Hollywood, this quickly got promoted the point of it becoming a number 1 movie with no big stars, purely on the trailer, word of mouth, and internet hype. Who says the internet has no power?
In light of all that, I think I was slightly disappointed, I guess mainly by the fact that I just don't buy Michael Cera as a main character. In anything. Yeah, he's the super-weird kid that always says the wrong thing. Hmm, I've seen this before, and done better. Oh yeah, it was John Francis Daly on Freaks and Geeks. I guess he's too old looking now, or maybe he's not interested in acting anymore (I heard he was writing and making his own films now) but still, Michael Cera is a let-down, although I love Jonah Hill, I think his over-the-top vulgar character is perfect, he's the biggest loser and although he knows it, he does everything possible not to let it show. Then there's Fogell, or in other words, Bill from Freaks and Geeks. I guess that's my main problem with this movie, it's so much like a really vulgar Freaks and Geeks episode that I lost sight of the fact that the movie is indeed really funny. But seriously, they even did an alcohol party episode of F & G.
Barring all that, this is definitely the funniest movie of the year, even in a year where Mr Bean's Vacation and Knocked Up came out. Watching Knocked Up again, I guess I really forgot how actually funny the movie is, and how the writing stands up to the likes of stuff like 40 Year Old Virgin. Superbad has that slight edge over other gross-out teen comedies in that it is well written, the characters are actually heartfelt and likeable, instead of like 9 Stiffler's running around on screen. I also guess that's what pulls the biggest draw of the mainstream audience, this is an entirely new concept to them. What's sad is, all teen comedies should have been like this already, I guess that's another part of my disappointment with it.
But still, there are so many funny moments, and everyone has been so inundated with them already I won't go spoiling the fun here, but Fogell/McLovin really lives up to the hype that was created for that character, and there are constant zingers that not only aren't in the trailer, they COULDN'T be in the trailer, which is something I completely loved about this movie.
8.8/10
Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid (1969)
Written by William Goldman
Directed by George Roy Hill
This is the classic revisionist western that most would say started the movement of classic neo post-modern self-referential filmmaking that we know today. This is also one of the first recognizable buddy pictures, where the characters were meant to become the friends of the audience watching it. Everything about this movie was unconventional at the time, from the plotting of the action to the modern dialogue in a past setting, to the use of modern music in what could be called musical scenes, this is everything that the classic western is not.
If you don't know the story, you've likely been under a rock your entire life, or you're just severely behind on what is one of the best films ever created. Butch Cassidy and his Hole in the Wall gang are the late west's friendliest train and bank robbers. With his right hand man The Sundance Kid, Butch is a kindly outlaw, a Robin Hood-esque hero to the people, that while selfish in his profession, is kind in his heart. However improbable and innaccurate in the portrayal, the two are in fact heroes that are meant to be liked.
It is only upon the formation of a super posse that is paid a ridiculous sum to hunt Butch and Sundance that the two are sent running, which again is evidence of the film's resistance to classic movie standards. In most westerns, the characters are considered cowards if they ran, here, they would be stupid not to. It's this break in classic structure that changes the face of this movie as well. The first act is a typical first act, setting up the characters, their relationship, their profession, and the setting for the story.
Suddenly all of this is immediately broken the second the super posse comes flying out of a train car that approaches Butch and Sundance. Immediately, their ties with the rest of the Hole In the Wall gang are broken, not to be seen again for the rest of the film. This abruptness signifies the lifestyle of Butch and Sundance, but at the time it was very uncommon in a major motion picture.
It signified the beginning of the second act, an act which in itself was very unconventional, as Butch and Sundance spend the entire length of it running from a faceless posse that is only spoken of, and seen through a very deep lens as indecipherable specks for the length of the second act. It is in this time that Butch and Sundance decide already that they're tired of running from these lawmen, or whomever they are, they decide instead to take off permanently, and due to Butch's offhand suggestion of "Bolivia" they decide that will be a fine place to settle. This acts end is punctuated with Butch and Sundance taking a daring dive off of a cliff face into a quickly moving river, which carries them away from danger and into the third act.
It is in this final act where the two men, along with Sundance's girl Etta, take leave of the west, and go to New York first for a while, and then eventually take a boat and then a train to Bolivia. For the sequence where they are in New York, director Hill uses an ingenius tactic of placing music, again modern music, over still images of the activities of Butch, Sundance, and Etta while in New York. He uses special photography tricks to place them in old time pictures of turn of the century New York, and all of this ends as they land in Bolivia, staring at a vast expanse of nothingness.
In Bolivia, they have trouble settling, for they don't know the language well, but they quickly return to what they know best, robbing banks. They became known as Bandidos Yanquis, or Yankee Bandits, and were quickly as hunted in Bolivia as they were in America. After a while, and a few quick escapes, the two outlaws take up jobs as payroll guards, which is quickly interrupted by other bandits in the area.
In the end, this is the story of two misfits of society, doomed to their own devices, their only true connection between each other. The movie itself is a testament to the storytelling style, it is a misfit in its genre, and like its characters, a beloved one. The film went on to be recognized for its greatness and superb direction, cinematography, and acting, setting up Redford's career as a star, and cementing Newman even further as one of the best and most versatile actors around. Before this most people thought he couldn't do comedy, but as the dry sarcasm of Butch Cassidy will show anyone, he's just as funny as anyone. If it weren't for this film, it might have been an even longer time before the subversion of different genres were experimented with, so in that sense it's a real piece of history, in another, it's a classic in the library of westerns, Paul Newman, and Robert Redford.
8.4/10
Directed by George Roy Hill
This is the classic revisionist western that most would say started the movement of classic neo post-modern self-referential filmmaking that we know today. This is also one of the first recognizable buddy pictures, where the characters were meant to become the friends of the audience watching it. Everything about this movie was unconventional at the time, from the plotting of the action to the modern dialogue in a past setting, to the use of modern music in what could be called musical scenes, this is everything that the classic western is not.
If you don't know the story, you've likely been under a rock your entire life, or you're just severely behind on what is one of the best films ever created. Butch Cassidy and his Hole in the Wall gang are the late west's friendliest train and bank robbers. With his right hand man The Sundance Kid, Butch is a kindly outlaw, a Robin Hood-esque hero to the people, that while selfish in his profession, is kind in his heart. However improbable and innaccurate in the portrayal, the two are in fact heroes that are meant to be liked.
It is only upon the formation of a super posse that is paid a ridiculous sum to hunt Butch and Sundance that the two are sent running, which again is evidence of the film's resistance to classic movie standards. In most westerns, the characters are considered cowards if they ran, here, they would be stupid not to. It's this break in classic structure that changes the face of this movie as well. The first act is a typical first act, setting up the characters, their relationship, their profession, and the setting for the story.
Suddenly all of this is immediately broken the second the super posse comes flying out of a train car that approaches Butch and Sundance. Immediately, their ties with the rest of the Hole In the Wall gang are broken, not to be seen again for the rest of the film. This abruptness signifies the lifestyle of Butch and Sundance, but at the time it was very uncommon in a major motion picture.
It signified the beginning of the second act, an act which in itself was very unconventional, as Butch and Sundance spend the entire length of it running from a faceless posse that is only spoken of, and seen through a very deep lens as indecipherable specks for the length of the second act. It is in this time that Butch and Sundance decide already that they're tired of running from these lawmen, or whomever they are, they decide instead to take off permanently, and due to Butch's offhand suggestion of "Bolivia" they decide that will be a fine place to settle. This acts end is punctuated with Butch and Sundance taking a daring dive off of a cliff face into a quickly moving river, which carries them away from danger and into the third act.
It is in this final act where the two men, along with Sundance's girl Etta, take leave of the west, and go to New York first for a while, and then eventually take a boat and then a train to Bolivia. For the sequence where they are in New York, director Hill uses an ingenius tactic of placing music, again modern music, over still images of the activities of Butch, Sundance, and Etta while in New York. He uses special photography tricks to place them in old time pictures of turn of the century New York, and all of this ends as they land in Bolivia, staring at a vast expanse of nothingness.
In Bolivia, they have trouble settling, for they don't know the language well, but they quickly return to what they know best, robbing banks. They became known as Bandidos Yanquis, or Yankee Bandits, and were quickly as hunted in Bolivia as they were in America. After a while, and a few quick escapes, the two outlaws take up jobs as payroll guards, which is quickly interrupted by other bandits in the area.
In the end, this is the story of two misfits of society, doomed to their own devices, their only true connection between each other. The movie itself is a testament to the storytelling style, it is a misfit in its genre, and like its characters, a beloved one. The film went on to be recognized for its greatness and superb direction, cinematography, and acting, setting up Redford's career as a star, and cementing Newman even further as one of the best and most versatile actors around. Before this most people thought he couldn't do comedy, but as the dry sarcasm of Butch Cassidy will show anyone, he's just as funny as anyone. If it weren't for this film, it might have been an even longer time before the subversion of different genres were experimented with, so in that sense it's a real piece of history, in another, it's a classic in the library of westerns, Paul Newman, and Robert Redford.
8.4/10
American Gangster (2007)
Written by Steve Zaillian
Directed by Ridley Scott
This wasn't the film I expected, and when it comes to Ridley Scott, I find that happens more often than not. Still, he usually makes mostly good films, and this time around it was the usual story. The film is a sprawling story that slowly draws the two characters of Frank Lucas (Washington) and Robert Ritchie (Crowe) together through the things that connect the two men.
The story is intercut between the lives of the two men, from Frank's rise through crime and Ritchie's passion for the law, and how that takes shape. Over an hour into the 2 hour and 40 minute film Ritchie makes the discovery that Frank Lucas is the man behind New York City's largest heroin selling ring, and that sets in motion the actions that will end up with the two men meeting, which doesn't happen until about 2 hours and 20 minutes into the film.
Many people think something like this would be boring because of the long runtime, but about 50 minutes into the film I thought about 10 minutes had gone by, showing Scott's talent in weaving an interesting story that is a sprawling epic, a depiction of a time and place, the perfect example of a period piece because it takes place in that time for a reason, it's a comment on the times in NYC, and the people that inhabited it.
The performances are what you would expect from Denzel and Russell, but the dynamic between them is what really shines here, despite the fact that the two men have no interaction throughout most of the film. The juxtaposition between the two sides of the law is what propels this film through its long runtime, and each of their stories is equally important to the message of the film, and it is ultimately what shapes the ending of this story.
The joy in the film is seeing how each man gets to the end, how their interaction is inevitable, and how the place in which each man lives and works is such a large part of him. Good film, not what I expected, but equally as good as I hoped it would be.
9.4/10
Directed by Ridley Scott
This wasn't the film I expected, and when it comes to Ridley Scott, I find that happens more often than not. Still, he usually makes mostly good films, and this time around it was the usual story. The film is a sprawling story that slowly draws the two characters of Frank Lucas (Washington) and Robert Ritchie (Crowe) together through the things that connect the two men.
The story is intercut between the lives of the two men, from Frank's rise through crime and Ritchie's passion for the law, and how that takes shape. Over an hour into the 2 hour and 40 minute film Ritchie makes the discovery that Frank Lucas is the man behind New York City's largest heroin selling ring, and that sets in motion the actions that will end up with the two men meeting, which doesn't happen until about 2 hours and 20 minutes into the film.
Many people think something like this would be boring because of the long runtime, but about 50 minutes into the film I thought about 10 minutes had gone by, showing Scott's talent in weaving an interesting story that is a sprawling epic, a depiction of a time and place, the perfect example of a period piece because it takes place in that time for a reason, it's a comment on the times in NYC, and the people that inhabited it.
The performances are what you would expect from Denzel and Russell, but the dynamic between them is what really shines here, despite the fact that the two men have no interaction throughout most of the film. The juxtaposition between the two sides of the law is what propels this film through its long runtime, and each of their stories is equally important to the message of the film, and it is ultimately what shapes the ending of this story.
The joy in the film is seeing how each man gets to the end, how their interaction is inevitable, and how the place in which each man lives and works is such a large part of him. Good film, not what I expected, but equally as good as I hoped it would be.
9.4/10
Lions for Lambs (2007)
Written by Matthew Michael Carnahan
Directed by Robert Redford
This film is the equivalent of spoon feeding baby food to a perfectly capable 40 year old man with a snowshovel. Not only does it smash the viewer over the head with its ideas, it throws burning oil in its face to be sure it is paying attention.
The film is obstensibly about three seperate sequences of events that are interconnected. One concerns a Senator Irving (Tom Cruise) who has granted an interview with left wing journalist Janine Roth (Meryl Streep) in an attempt to right his image with her and share his latest policy in the war on terror. Another concerns two soldiers (Michael Pena and Derek Luke) who are on the ground in Afghanistan after falling from their helicopter that has been shot down, one of which's leg is severely broken. The third sequence involves a Southern California university professor of political science, Malley (Redford), and his discussion with his promising student Todd Hayes (Andrew Garfield). Throughout the discussions being had by Irving/Roth and Malley/Hayes, we learn the soldiers were on course to take a new vantage point on top of a mountain in Afghanistan. We also learn that the two soldiers were once students of Malley, who joined the service despite Malley's protests. Irving feeds the new strategem to Roth in hopes that she will publish it, and that her running the story will soften the delivery to the public. Malley tells his promising, but slacker, student Hayes about the two soldiers, and why they ended up joining the service.
This is a film about nobility and living by your principles. The problem though, is the actors portraying these subjects are so known for their politics, and the style of the film is so heavy handed that the points being made call into question the nobility and principles of the people inside the film preaching them. Redford's character ruminates his ethos to his student, although if applied to Redford himself, they cancel each other out. Therefore, his stilted politics that he eschews throughout the film are made specifically for the people that already agree with him. He says to Hayes: "You almost convinced me. Almost convinced me. That you really know what you're talking about. You're great with words son. But you know what would make them better? If they had a heartbeat. If they were rooted in any kind of experience."
The laughable irony of this is they apply directly to Redford as he speaks these specific words. He plays a noble character that served unwillingly in the Vietnam war, and although proud of his service and the ethos he supposedly fought for after his tour of duty, this character is the epitome of what Redford is not. Unless he considers Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid or Quiz Show his part in some great war, he has none of this experience his character so easily drops knowledge on. This irony ruins any serious attitude the film had going for it.
In other parts of the story, Tom Cruise plays the Republic Senator Irving, who was so painfully obviously written by a liberal. When Janine Roth calls into question his integrity and dedication to the strategies he is proposing, he makes an impassioned statement about principles, and Meryl Streep's character shoots back "Says the man in the air conditioned room." What makes me want to cry about this statement is the fact that it applies directly to the screenwriter of this piece of overserious garbage. None of the actors involved have been part of this great fight on any real level, yet their characters passionately argue that is the exact fact that makes them capable of making these decisions and accusations. I understand these people are actors, but the only reason they made this picture was because of their heavy real life politics, so in the end, the entire thing stinks of complete fabrication.
This is the definition of preaching to the choir, spoonfeeding to the fat. Anyone who comes away liking this movie is lacking any personal politics of their own, and simply taking the ideas presented in this film as their own. Anyone with a brain and real thoughts on the subject at hand will be insulted by the forceful way in which this film presents its ideas. It is impossible to disagree with the politics of the film and like it. What's even crazier is I'm as liberal as anyone, but I still hate this film because of the portrait this film paints of any liberal.
In the last sequence involving Roth (Streep) she stands up against her conglomorate controlled news network, refusing to put to air the "propaganda" that is fed to her by the Senator, nobly standing up against the system she works for. Still laughably, Streep made this picture for 20th Century Fox, owned by News Corporation, the biggest conglomorate responsible for what the film is accusing Big Media of doing. Yeah, way to metaphorically stick it to the man Redford. They are just as much the proprietors of this sensationalism as the newsmen they are supposedly fighting against.
Of course, we learn that the soldiers became soldiers after experiencing Malley's class, just as Hayes did, only instead of learning they took action and joined the armed forces in show of their nobility and stance on the cause they did a report on, again, to show 'the man' whom in this case is Malley (Redford). I won't ruin the movie for those that may want to see it, but of course, as is the theme of the movie, they nobly stand up for what they believe, to the bitter end. This sentimentally absurd action falls in line with the rest of the movie, but it defies Redford's own logic in making the film. They have taken action for all the wrong reasons, and stood up for what they believed in despite Malley's resistance and became victims of the very monster they were trying to defeat.
In the end, you ask yourself, what is the point of this? No, not the war, the ruminations on that are clear, it's a bad war being run poorly by people with no personal stake in the results, who try to impose one upon everyone else. The film speaks against doing just this, but in the end, that's exactly what it does. The film itself makes its very existence pointless. Congratulations Redford, you've managed to defeat yourself at your own game. That will show them!
3.5/10 (merely for being well lit and well shot, the idea sucks so bad though that I cannot award it a single percentage more)
Directed by Robert Redford
This film is the equivalent of spoon feeding baby food to a perfectly capable 40 year old man with a snowshovel. Not only does it smash the viewer over the head with its ideas, it throws burning oil in its face to be sure it is paying attention.
The film is obstensibly about three seperate sequences of events that are interconnected. One concerns a Senator Irving (Tom Cruise) who has granted an interview with left wing journalist Janine Roth (Meryl Streep) in an attempt to right his image with her and share his latest policy in the war on terror. Another concerns two soldiers (Michael Pena and Derek Luke) who are on the ground in Afghanistan after falling from their helicopter that has been shot down, one of which's leg is severely broken. The third sequence involves a Southern California university professor of political science, Malley (Redford), and his discussion with his promising student Todd Hayes (Andrew Garfield). Throughout the discussions being had by Irving/Roth and Malley/Hayes, we learn the soldiers were on course to take a new vantage point on top of a mountain in Afghanistan. We also learn that the two soldiers were once students of Malley, who joined the service despite Malley's protests. Irving feeds the new strategem to Roth in hopes that she will publish it, and that her running the story will soften the delivery to the public. Malley tells his promising, but slacker, student Hayes about the two soldiers, and why they ended up joining the service.
This is a film about nobility and living by your principles. The problem though, is the actors portraying these subjects are so known for their politics, and the style of the film is so heavy handed that the points being made call into question the nobility and principles of the people inside the film preaching them. Redford's character ruminates his ethos to his student, although if applied to Redford himself, they cancel each other out. Therefore, his stilted politics that he eschews throughout the film are made specifically for the people that already agree with him. He says to Hayes: "You almost convinced me. Almost convinced me. That you really know what you're talking about. You're great with words son. But you know what would make them better? If they had a heartbeat. If they were rooted in any kind of experience."
The laughable irony of this is they apply directly to Redford as he speaks these specific words. He plays a noble character that served unwillingly in the Vietnam war, and although proud of his service and the ethos he supposedly fought for after his tour of duty, this character is the epitome of what Redford is not. Unless he considers Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid or Quiz Show his part in some great war, he has none of this experience his character so easily drops knowledge on. This irony ruins any serious attitude the film had going for it.
In other parts of the story, Tom Cruise plays the Republic Senator Irving, who was so painfully obviously written by a liberal. When Janine Roth calls into question his integrity and dedication to the strategies he is proposing, he makes an impassioned statement about principles, and Meryl Streep's character shoots back "Says the man in the air conditioned room." What makes me want to cry about this statement is the fact that it applies directly to the screenwriter of this piece of overserious garbage. None of the actors involved have been part of this great fight on any real level, yet their characters passionately argue that is the exact fact that makes them capable of making these decisions and accusations. I understand these people are actors, but the only reason they made this picture was because of their heavy real life politics, so in the end, the entire thing stinks of complete fabrication.
This is the definition of preaching to the choir, spoonfeeding to the fat. Anyone who comes away liking this movie is lacking any personal politics of their own, and simply taking the ideas presented in this film as their own. Anyone with a brain and real thoughts on the subject at hand will be insulted by the forceful way in which this film presents its ideas. It is impossible to disagree with the politics of the film and like it. What's even crazier is I'm as liberal as anyone, but I still hate this film because of the portrait this film paints of any liberal.
In the last sequence involving Roth (Streep) she stands up against her conglomorate controlled news network, refusing to put to air the "propaganda" that is fed to her by the Senator, nobly standing up against the system she works for. Still laughably, Streep made this picture for 20th Century Fox, owned by News Corporation, the biggest conglomorate responsible for what the film is accusing Big Media of doing. Yeah, way to metaphorically stick it to the man Redford. They are just as much the proprietors of this sensationalism as the newsmen they are supposedly fighting against.
Of course, we learn that the soldiers became soldiers after experiencing Malley's class, just as Hayes did, only instead of learning they took action and joined the armed forces in show of their nobility and stance on the cause they did a report on, again, to show 'the man' whom in this case is Malley (Redford). I won't ruin the movie for those that may want to see it, but of course, as is the theme of the movie, they nobly stand up for what they believe, to the bitter end. This sentimentally absurd action falls in line with the rest of the movie, but it defies Redford's own logic in making the film. They have taken action for all the wrong reasons, and stood up for what they believed in despite Malley's resistance and became victims of the very monster they were trying to defeat.
In the end, you ask yourself, what is the point of this? No, not the war, the ruminations on that are clear, it's a bad war being run poorly by people with no personal stake in the results, who try to impose one upon everyone else. The film speaks against doing just this, but in the end, that's exactly what it does. The film itself makes its very existence pointless. Congratulations Redford, you've managed to defeat yourself at your own game. That will show them!
3.5/10 (merely for being well lit and well shot, the idea sucks so bad though that I cannot award it a single percentage more)
Transformers (2007)
Written by Robert Orci & Alex Kurtzman
Directed by Michael Bay
I'm tired of explaning plots, and this 2 1/2 hour movie is full of it, despite what you might have heard. So, a rough outline is in order, so you can understand the events as they happen.
In the late 1800's, an explorer named Captain Witwicky discovers something in the Arctic Circle, which he calls "The Ice Man". In 2007, his great great grandson Sam Witwicky gives a report on his great great grandfather and his travels, and tries to sell the antiques that his grandfather had on his trip. At the same time, a military base in Qatar is attacked by an unknown helicopter which quickly transforms into a giant robot. A few soldiers are able to make it out alive, and go on a mission to deliver a picture of the robot to the pentagon.
After school Sam gets a good grade on his report, which means he can go pick out his first car, which he does, an old yellow corvette. Quickly Sam realizes his car isn't what it seems, especially when he sees it come to life and take the form of a giant robot. Once the Pentagon figures out the world is under attack by way of giant robots, they are able to connect the dots and figure out that Sam knows the group of good robots, the AutoBots, who are at war with the Decepticons.
What makes this movie amazing is the special effects. This is an old fashioned blockbuster, like Jaws, Star Wars, and Jurassic Park before it, this movie just feels epic in every sense; Not just because of the scale of the giant robots, but because it has every element of a big, good movie: A compelling story, vast location shoots, likeable characters, interspersed humor, and action like you can't believe. The entire film gave me a new appreciation for Michael Bay. I mean, I always respected the guy's ability to make entertaining action movies, but the complexity and intricacy of this shoot in particular shows me he is a talented guy. I've decided that the reason I didn't like the bulk of his movies before this was his stylistic choices, mostly in his quick-cut editing that often distorts what's actually happening on-screen. That issue is still a prevelant one, but for the most part, you can actually tell what's happening here, and because of the scale of the action itself, I think that's quite an impressive feat.
What makes this movie special, and like the previously mentioned blockbusters before it, is the fact that all the elements that make a good, big budget movie are here. The special effects stand out as part of this show, mainly because nothing like them has been accomplished before. Just like Jaws, Star Wars, and Jurassic Park before it. The effects are a new pinnacle in the field of CGI, and they represent an age in which CGI is used not as a way to mask sloppy filmmaking, but a way to enhance the picture, and to transport the viewer to a world that wouldn't be possible without it. Truly a marvel, and I believe a lot of this is thanks to producer Steven Speilberg and his standard of excellence. I mean, if he weren't the busiest man in showbiz, I'm sure he would have directed this himself. Kudos, Mr. Speilberg, I can't wait to see the new Indy film, because while I'm not a huge Shia Lebouf fan, I recognize his ability to be well directed, and I think in the hands of a master like Speilberg he'll churn out an interesting film, I'm already convinced Harrison Ford won't be a problem.
9.3/10
Futurama: Bender's Big Score (2007)
Written by Ken Keeler
Directed by Dwayne Carey-Hill
"I accept this Nobel Peace Prize on behalf of Crime Robots everywhere!" - Bender
The show starts off with a few zingers at the expense of the Fox Network Executives, along with an explanation as to where they've been the past few years at the behest of the Box Network (their light flickers, making it look like an F instead of a B). The crew of Planet Express, while on a delivery to the Nudist Beach Planet, unwillingly sign a petition that includes their e-mail addresses, and soon they all start getting spam e-mails, and unwittingly sign over everything they own to the Scammers that got them to sign the false petition.
Soon enough the Scammers have taken over control of Bender's programming, along with Planet Express, and they discover the Universal Time Code that allows them to travel through time. Since there is no way back to the future with the Time Code, they have Bender go into the past, steal, and then hide out in the basement of the Planet Express building and wait, sometimes up to thousands of years, for modern day where he will deliver them the valuable historical goods he has stolen.
In the midst of this mind boggling time travel storyline, Leela meets and falls in love with a guy named Lars, and they plan their wedding. Fry gets ahold of the Universal Time Code himself, and travels back in time to the year 2000 to contemplate how his life would have been different had he never travelled back in time.
The movie has parodies of Star Wars, Terminator, and a plethora of other sci-fi movies, while at the same time incorporating all the beloved Futurama characters from Santa Claus and Hannukah Zombie to Nibbler to Morbo and even the Gangster Robots like Clamps.
After President Nixon is duped into giving up Earth by the Scammers, the world is in another Great Depression, and the residents of Earth are forced to leave the planet, and the Planet Express crew ends up on Neptune, which is Santa's home base. When Santa bursts in to punish them, he can't, he says his heart just isn't in it anymore. Leela convinces Santa to help them take their planet back from the Scammers, and he and Hannukah Zombie (voiced by none other than Mark Hamill) along with everyone from the Planet Express crew to Al Gore all get together and take the fight to the Scammers and it's one of the best sequences in Futurama history. After they're defeated, the multiple time paradoxes are sovled through parallel storylines telling of Fry in 2012 and the "present" of 3007 and how the two came to have the same results and how Lars fits into the whole equation.
Overall, a really well done movie, I'd even say this was better than the Simpsons movie, not only in animation quality, but in the fact that it manages to incorporate so many characters from the Futurama 'Verse into one cohesive, entertaining story. There are even 2 magnificent musical sequences, some of the best I've ever seen that would compare to the South Park movie in hilarity and quality. I'm glad Futurama is back, and with a bang at that, and I can't wait for the next 3 movies or the new season of the show. It's bound to be kick ass if this is any indication. Yay for Comedy Central!
"Finally, I get to save the Earth with deadly lasers instead of deadly slideshows!" - Al Gore (voiced by the real Al Gore)
8.5/10
Directed by Dwayne Carey-Hill
"I accept this Nobel Peace Prize on behalf of Crime Robots everywhere!" - Bender
The show starts off with a few zingers at the expense of the Fox Network Executives, along with an explanation as to where they've been the past few years at the behest of the Box Network (their light flickers, making it look like an F instead of a B). The crew of Planet Express, while on a delivery to the Nudist Beach Planet, unwillingly sign a petition that includes their e-mail addresses, and soon they all start getting spam e-mails, and unwittingly sign over everything they own to the Scammers that got them to sign the false petition.
Soon enough the Scammers have taken over control of Bender's programming, along with Planet Express, and they discover the Universal Time Code that allows them to travel through time. Since there is no way back to the future with the Time Code, they have Bender go into the past, steal, and then hide out in the basement of the Planet Express building and wait, sometimes up to thousands of years, for modern day where he will deliver them the valuable historical goods he has stolen.
In the midst of this mind boggling time travel storyline, Leela meets and falls in love with a guy named Lars, and they plan their wedding. Fry gets ahold of the Universal Time Code himself, and travels back in time to the year 2000 to contemplate how his life would have been different had he never travelled back in time.
The movie has parodies of Star Wars, Terminator, and a plethora of other sci-fi movies, while at the same time incorporating all the beloved Futurama characters from Santa Claus and Hannukah Zombie to Nibbler to Morbo and even the Gangster Robots like Clamps.
After President Nixon is duped into giving up Earth by the Scammers, the world is in another Great Depression, and the residents of Earth are forced to leave the planet, and the Planet Express crew ends up on Neptune, which is Santa's home base. When Santa bursts in to punish them, he can't, he says his heart just isn't in it anymore. Leela convinces Santa to help them take their planet back from the Scammers, and he and Hannukah Zombie (voiced by none other than Mark Hamill) along with everyone from the Planet Express crew to Al Gore all get together and take the fight to the Scammers and it's one of the best sequences in Futurama history. After they're defeated, the multiple time paradoxes are sovled through parallel storylines telling of Fry in 2012 and the "present" of 3007 and how the two came to have the same results and how Lars fits into the whole equation.
Overall, a really well done movie, I'd even say this was better than the Simpsons movie, not only in animation quality, but in the fact that it manages to incorporate so many characters from the Futurama 'Verse into one cohesive, entertaining story. There are even 2 magnificent musical sequences, some of the best I've ever seen that would compare to the South Park movie in hilarity and quality. I'm glad Futurama is back, and with a bang at that, and I can't wait for the next 3 movies or the new season of the show. It's bound to be kick ass if this is any indication. Yay for Comedy Central!
"Finally, I get to save the Earth with deadly lasers instead of deadly slideshows!" - Al Gore (voiced by the real Al Gore)
8.5/10
Pigs (2007)
Written by Karl DiPelino & Chris Ragonetti
Directed by Karl DiPelino
Yet another movie in the long line of the "teen sex" genre, and surprisingly, this is one of the less brainless ones. It's not exactly high art, but for the most part it has a convincing storyline, and some good up and coming actors. The story centers on a college womanizer, Miles, whose friend Cleaver convinces him he's banged some of the hardest letters in the alphabet, meaning girls with last names starting with letters like Z and Q.
So Cleaver takes bets on whether or not Miles can bang the whole alphabet before he graduates in the upcoming 2 months. So he goes about his quest, and somewhat predictably ends up falling in love with 'the X', who his nerdy roommate Ben has a crush on. So it turns into Ben trying to foil their relationship, while Miles is realizing he is really in love with 'the X' whose name is Gabrielle. Ben shows her the game they're playing, and the two come to question their relationship, while he's busy convincing her that he is in love with her.
It's nothing fresh or new, it's not particularly edgy, but it wasn't a bad way to kill 85 minutes when I was bored last night.
5.5/10
Directed by Karl DiPelino
Yet another movie in the long line of the "teen sex" genre, and surprisingly, this is one of the less brainless ones. It's not exactly high art, but for the most part it has a convincing storyline, and some good up and coming actors. The story centers on a college womanizer, Miles, whose friend Cleaver convinces him he's banged some of the hardest letters in the alphabet, meaning girls with last names starting with letters like Z and Q.
So Cleaver takes bets on whether or not Miles can bang the whole alphabet before he graduates in the upcoming 2 months. So he goes about his quest, and somewhat predictably ends up falling in love with 'the X', who his nerdy roommate Ben has a crush on. So it turns into Ben trying to foil their relationship, while Miles is realizing he is really in love with 'the X' whose name is Gabrielle. Ben shows her the game they're playing, and the two come to question their relationship, while he's busy convincing her that he is in love with her.
It's nothing fresh or new, it's not particularly edgy, but it wasn't a bad way to kill 85 minutes when I was bored last night.
5.5/10
I Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry (2007)
Written by Alexander Payne (!?) & Jim Taylor and Barry Fanaro
Directed by Dennis Dugan
With the exception of National Security, I like all of Dennis Dugan's movies. Even the lame brained ones, like The Benchwarmers, I find something to laugh at in, and they usually end with me not regretting watching them. But to say Adam Sandler's comedy output has been stellar the past few years is to lie. I was also apprehensive about checking this out, because while Adam has a track record for making kind hearted movies, he's never been the most tolerant or sophisticated character in his movies, so I was half-expecting this to be a completely offensive movie.
Turns out I'm wrong sometimes, and that's a good thing. I'm a fan of Kevin James, and I love Sandler's supporting casts (Allen Covert, Peter Dante, Nick Swardson, Rob Schneider [sometimes] David Spade, and Buscemi) and as it turns out, he added a couple more great actors to the ensemble this time with Ving Rhames and Dan Akroyd. I'm pretty sure everyone here knows the story, two firefighters get married so one of them can be sure his kids will get his pension if he were to die in his dangerous line of work, and since their relationship isn't real people are right to be suspect. So they lie even further to convince everyone they're real gay men, all the while one of them falls in love with a woman and the other confronts his difficulties of dealing with his dead wife.
The script managed to surprise me slightly with some of the gags, but mostly with the treatment of the subject at hand, teaching tolerance to the most incongruent pair since the Odd Couple, and in turn the teenagers that paid to see this movie. It doesn't hold many surprises, but it was a worthwhile way to spend an afternoon when I had nothing better to do. While I'm convinced every good thing in this movie came from the mind of Alexander Payne (which I can't prove, but c'mon) the movie is capably directed by Dugan, who as usual has something for everyone that comes to the movie, which is exactly what big budget studio comedies are all about. So it works on those levels, and if you're sitting watching this movie you aren't expecting anything more I suppose. Basically, this movie does its job. I'm just glad I didn't pay anything to see it.
6/10
Directed by Dennis Dugan
With the exception of National Security, I like all of Dennis Dugan's movies. Even the lame brained ones, like The Benchwarmers, I find something to laugh at in, and they usually end with me not regretting watching them. But to say Adam Sandler's comedy output has been stellar the past few years is to lie. I was also apprehensive about checking this out, because while Adam has a track record for making kind hearted movies, he's never been the most tolerant or sophisticated character in his movies, so I was half-expecting this to be a completely offensive movie.
Turns out I'm wrong sometimes, and that's a good thing. I'm a fan of Kevin James, and I love Sandler's supporting casts (Allen Covert, Peter Dante, Nick Swardson, Rob Schneider [sometimes] David Spade, and Buscemi) and as it turns out, he added a couple more great actors to the ensemble this time with Ving Rhames and Dan Akroyd. I'm pretty sure everyone here knows the story, two firefighters get married so one of them can be sure his kids will get his pension if he were to die in his dangerous line of work, and since their relationship isn't real people are right to be suspect. So they lie even further to convince everyone they're real gay men, all the while one of them falls in love with a woman and the other confronts his difficulties of dealing with his dead wife.
The script managed to surprise me slightly with some of the gags, but mostly with the treatment of the subject at hand, teaching tolerance to the most incongruent pair since the Odd Couple, and in turn the teenagers that paid to see this movie. It doesn't hold many surprises, but it was a worthwhile way to spend an afternoon when I had nothing better to do. While I'm convinced every good thing in this movie came from the mind of Alexander Payne (which I can't prove, but c'mon) the movie is capably directed by Dugan, who as usual has something for everyone that comes to the movie, which is exactly what big budget studio comedies are all about. So it works on those levels, and if you're sitting watching this movie you aren't expecting anything more I suppose. Basically, this movie does its job. I'm just glad I didn't pay anything to see it.
6/10
City of Violence (2006)
Directed by Seung-wan Ryoo
Written by Jeong-min Kim & Won-jae Lee & Seung-wan Ryoo
After Oldboy, I'm always interested to see what's coming out of Korea, and when this film hit Blockbuster I rented it but never had the chance to watch it. Now that I finally did, I'm impressed. The storyline is not too different from Oldboy, by watching these two revenge movies from South Korea, you can tell that childhood friendship plays a big part in the lives of the people there, and often affects who they are when they grow up.
I won't bother with story details here, there are far too many, and the characters are far too confusing to be told quickly what's going on, not to mention you could probably watch this movie without subtitles and still enjoy it. On that level, that's where the story impressed me, because usually with action fare like this, I could care less about the storyline, I mean, Ong Bak is one of my favorite martial arts films, and the story could be a saturday morning cartoon.
Still, it's not often you get to see Tae Kwon Do done in this type of setting, shot this stylishly (almost too stylish), with a great soundtrack to boot. Due to the visual style, and the type of music played, I can tell why people are calling this director the "Korean Tarantino", although I disagree completely. He's more of an HK-style director, more like Wilson Yip, but I suppose nobody would know who that was if they said that in their little blurb. Anyway, this film has some well paced fight scenes, and when it comes down to the finale, there are two sequences that tie together to become very "House of Blue Leaves"-esque. Oh, and the suits. Can't forget the Tarantino-y suits.
Still, this movie carves itself a niche in the martial arts world as something different, something new, and something entertaining. The actors are all very good, it's hard to impress me across language barriers, but they all did a good job of that. Also, side note, they do flashbacks to when the group of friends was young, and it was the first time in an Asian movie from any country, that I was able to tell who was supposed to be who just by looking at the two actors. [/racism]
It gets points for its action, its labyrinth storyline, and more than anything else, its good acting. I was really impressed, usually martial arts films leave acting behind and go for balls out action, which this film does at a point, but in the Donnie Yen style, it still has some substance beyond the kung fu action.
7.9/10
Written by Jeong-min Kim & Won-jae Lee & Seung-wan Ryoo
After Oldboy, I'm always interested to see what's coming out of Korea, and when this film hit Blockbuster I rented it but never had the chance to watch it. Now that I finally did, I'm impressed. The storyline is not too different from Oldboy, by watching these two revenge movies from South Korea, you can tell that childhood friendship plays a big part in the lives of the people there, and often affects who they are when they grow up.
I won't bother with story details here, there are far too many, and the characters are far too confusing to be told quickly what's going on, not to mention you could probably watch this movie without subtitles and still enjoy it. On that level, that's where the story impressed me, because usually with action fare like this, I could care less about the storyline, I mean, Ong Bak is one of my favorite martial arts films, and the story could be a saturday morning cartoon.
Still, it's not often you get to see Tae Kwon Do done in this type of setting, shot this stylishly (almost too stylish), with a great soundtrack to boot. Due to the visual style, and the type of music played, I can tell why people are calling this director the "Korean Tarantino", although I disagree completely. He's more of an HK-style director, more like Wilson Yip, but I suppose nobody would know who that was if they said that in their little blurb. Anyway, this film has some well paced fight scenes, and when it comes down to the finale, there are two sequences that tie together to become very "House of Blue Leaves"-esque. Oh, and the suits. Can't forget the Tarantino-y suits.
Still, this movie carves itself a niche in the martial arts world as something different, something new, and something entertaining. The actors are all very good, it's hard to impress me across language barriers, but they all did a good job of that. Also, side note, they do flashbacks to when the group of friends was young, and it was the first time in an Asian movie from any country, that I was able to tell who was supposed to be who just by looking at the two actors. [/racism]
It gets points for its action, its labyrinth storyline, and more than anything else, its good acting. I was really impressed, usually martial arts films leave acting behind and go for balls out action, which this film does at a point, but in the Donnie Yen style, it still has some substance beyond the kung fu action.
7.9/10
Future by Design (2006)
This is an interesting film, it's a documentary on the architect/social engineer/inventor Jacques Fresco, whom until I downloaded this movie, I'd never heard of. To give you a rundown of his accomplishments, he's invented/improved nearly as many things as Da Vinci, he met Albert Einstein and was unimpressed, he flew planes in WWII, he designed one of the first mass production-style houses (aka what would later be overlooked in the use of mobile homes/trailers), and to this day, at like 90 years old, he still draws/designs ways to change the world.
The documentary itself is pretty straightforward, there's nothing spectacular in form here, in fact, this might even suffer because it's a documentary, and to truly experience Fresco's life, you'd either have to live it with him, or chronicle all his accomplishments and designs in a 12 hour miniseries.
What makes Fresco so unique as a Futurist is that he doesn't design things FOR the future. He designs the future itself. For example, he explains that there is no way to save the US they way it is now, to go back and attempt to rebuild the major cities through patchwork would be impossible. He explains you need to start anew, and build an entire city at once, and he has designs for it. Once you listen to his theories, everything he says makes sense, and it's like he's solved the problems of human suffering. You begin to wonder why more people don't listen to this guy, but the problem is his ideas are idealist, his inventions, transportation systems, and living situations would only work if people weren't conditioned to be greedy and to look at life through monetary values.
He goes on to explain that what changed his thinking was when he arrived in Tahiti in the early 40's, he was offered the Cheif of the tribe's wife and told that she gives the Chief much pleasure, maybe she could do the same for him. It changed his thinking because he discovered that these people weren't conditioned to covet and want, they merely existed, and looked to share the things they had and the good life they led. The problem with America, he discovered, is people from their birth, are taught to covet and to take and to need. If we were able to change this thinking, and from birth condition people to share such things as land, lifestyle, food, power, etc then there wouldn't be a need for money, or a monetary system.
He also talks about how absolutely ridiculous and stupid it is that there are people who have millions of dollars, houses they don't ever set foot in, and cars they never drive, yet there are people dying of hunger every day. Clearly, there is enough food to go around, but the greedy people that see value in status and wealth completely ruin this fact that everyone on the planet earth could be eating right now. But thanks to Bill Gates, Ted Turner, and other people like them, there are people dying every day. Really just a mind boggling human being, there is so much to be learned from Jacques Fresco, it's a wonder and at the same time a testament to humankind's stupidity that such a man could exist, but never be listened to.
9.1/10
The documentary itself is pretty straightforward, there's nothing spectacular in form here, in fact, this might even suffer because it's a documentary, and to truly experience Fresco's life, you'd either have to live it with him, or chronicle all his accomplishments and designs in a 12 hour miniseries.
What makes Fresco so unique as a Futurist is that he doesn't design things FOR the future. He designs the future itself. For example, he explains that there is no way to save the US they way it is now, to go back and attempt to rebuild the major cities through patchwork would be impossible. He explains you need to start anew, and build an entire city at once, and he has designs for it. Once you listen to his theories, everything he says makes sense, and it's like he's solved the problems of human suffering. You begin to wonder why more people don't listen to this guy, but the problem is his ideas are idealist, his inventions, transportation systems, and living situations would only work if people weren't conditioned to be greedy and to look at life through monetary values.
He goes on to explain that what changed his thinking was when he arrived in Tahiti in the early 40's, he was offered the Cheif of the tribe's wife and told that she gives the Chief much pleasure, maybe she could do the same for him. It changed his thinking because he discovered that these people weren't conditioned to covet and want, they merely existed, and looked to share the things they had and the good life they led. The problem with America, he discovered, is people from their birth, are taught to covet and to take and to need. If we were able to change this thinking, and from birth condition people to share such things as land, lifestyle, food, power, etc then there wouldn't be a need for money, or a monetary system.
He also talks about how absolutely ridiculous and stupid it is that there are people who have millions of dollars, houses they don't ever set foot in, and cars they never drive, yet there are people dying of hunger every day. Clearly, there is enough food to go around, but the greedy people that see value in status and wealth completely ruin this fact that everyone on the planet earth could be eating right now. But thanks to Bill Gates, Ted Turner, and other people like them, there are people dying every day. Really just a mind boggling human being, there is so much to be learned from Jacques Fresco, it's a wonder and at the same time a testament to humankind's stupidity that such a man could exist, but never be listened to.
9.1/10
The TV Set (2007)
Written & Directed by Jake Kasdan
When I sat down to watch Jake Kasdan's The TV Set, I knew I was in for a treat, I've loved all of his projects so far, I just wasn't aware this one would be so uniformly different. It works, and in spades, The TV Set, to me, is Kasdan's Adaptation., the one work of such startling originality, it took me completely off guard.
The TV Set doesn't have the same narrative or surrealist tone that Adaptation. had, and really, it's wrong to even compare the two. But what they do have in common with each other, is both are about the frustrations and setbacks of the entertainment industry, Adaptation. focuses on the feature film, and The TV Set is about a television series.
The entire movie has a very sardonic tone, and David Duchovney plays the perfect deadpan main character. Every step of the way he is contemplating his life with this series. First, it gets green lit for a pilot. When he tries to manipulate the casting, it blows back in his face, because everything he wants to do, he has personal, rational reasons for. On the other hand, the Network has completely different, impersonal, irrational reasons for changing his show. As an artist, Michael (Duchovney) uses the show to tell a personal story about characters dealing with the suicide of the main character's brother. Lenny (Sigourney Weaver who's just perfect) is the Network Exec overseeing production, and she suggests they do away with the brother's suicide. Michael explains that without the suicide, there's no show. She doesn't bother to think about that fact and keeps making suggestions "What if he's in prison instead?"
With every frustration, Michael is about to walk away from the show, if he can't have it his way, he won't have it at all. This is exactly when he realizes his wife is about to have their second child, and he needs to make the show, reguardless of its content, even though every change to his vision is a metaphorical stab to the chest. So he balances these two facts and in the meantime deals with the stress of trying to make this show, on time, and with the resources he's been given.
At the same time, the narrative also focuses on Richard (Ian Gruffudd), a British exec who has been brought over to help the Network regain its champion status. Richard is a smart, well spoken, and rational person, so his style and point of view are often trounced by the loud, thoughtless Lenny, even when Michael and Richard agree that putting a ridiculous element into the show will degrade its integrity. But Michael and Richard are fighting a losing battle, where money talks the loudest, and good intentions are only on the page.
The film is low-key, with many of its funny moments completely off the screen, in the mind of the viewer who is apparently the only person in each scene that understands its ridiculousness. It is well acted and smart, it presents new ideas about the creative process, and at the same time, comments on the processes already in use. For being a quiet, character driven movie, it is suprising light on dialogue or crazy moments, but it still succeeds in being overtly hilarious. The sad fact is, the audiences this movie depicts pandering to, is the wide audience that will never get or love this movie. But that's the type of movie it is, made for a specific audience, to be consumed by it. Very Jake Kasdan-y in its approach and execution, this is the type of film that often tries to get made as an indie first-feature, when really, only someone with the point of view and talent of someone like Larry Kasdan's son should really be making films such as this.
9.3/10
When I sat down to watch Jake Kasdan's The TV Set, I knew I was in for a treat, I've loved all of his projects so far, I just wasn't aware this one would be so uniformly different. It works, and in spades, The TV Set, to me, is Kasdan's Adaptation., the one work of such startling originality, it took me completely off guard.
The TV Set doesn't have the same narrative or surrealist tone that Adaptation. had, and really, it's wrong to even compare the two. But what they do have in common with each other, is both are about the frustrations and setbacks of the entertainment industry, Adaptation. focuses on the feature film, and The TV Set is about a television series.
The entire movie has a very sardonic tone, and David Duchovney plays the perfect deadpan main character. Every step of the way he is contemplating his life with this series. First, it gets green lit for a pilot. When he tries to manipulate the casting, it blows back in his face, because everything he wants to do, he has personal, rational reasons for. On the other hand, the Network has completely different, impersonal, irrational reasons for changing his show. As an artist, Michael (Duchovney) uses the show to tell a personal story about characters dealing with the suicide of the main character's brother. Lenny (Sigourney Weaver who's just perfect) is the Network Exec overseeing production, and she suggests they do away with the brother's suicide. Michael explains that without the suicide, there's no show. She doesn't bother to think about that fact and keeps making suggestions "What if he's in prison instead?"
With every frustration, Michael is about to walk away from the show, if he can't have it his way, he won't have it at all. This is exactly when he realizes his wife is about to have their second child, and he needs to make the show, reguardless of its content, even though every change to his vision is a metaphorical stab to the chest. So he balances these two facts and in the meantime deals with the stress of trying to make this show, on time, and with the resources he's been given.
At the same time, the narrative also focuses on Richard (Ian Gruffudd), a British exec who has been brought over to help the Network regain its champion status. Richard is a smart, well spoken, and rational person, so his style and point of view are often trounced by the loud, thoughtless Lenny, even when Michael and Richard agree that putting a ridiculous element into the show will degrade its integrity. But Michael and Richard are fighting a losing battle, where money talks the loudest, and good intentions are only on the page.
The film is low-key, with many of its funny moments completely off the screen, in the mind of the viewer who is apparently the only person in each scene that understands its ridiculousness. It is well acted and smart, it presents new ideas about the creative process, and at the same time, comments on the processes already in use. For being a quiet, character driven movie, it is suprising light on dialogue or crazy moments, but it still succeeds in being overtly hilarious. The sad fact is, the audiences this movie depicts pandering to, is the wide audience that will never get or love this movie. But that's the type of movie it is, made for a specific audience, to be consumed by it. Very Jake Kasdan-y in its approach and execution, this is the type of film that often tries to get made as an indie first-feature, when really, only someone with the point of view and talent of someone like Larry Kasdan's son should really be making films such as this.
9.3/10
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)