Titles inform. While 127 Hours refers to the amount of time Aron Ralston spent trapped by a boulder, a more informative title would've been the book's Between a Rock and a Hard Place or, better yet, Call Me Lefty: The Story of How I Cut My Own F*cking Arm Off. Top That, Bitches!
James Franco stars as Ralston and as he's really come on as an actor in recent years, it's hard to believe this is the same guy who was so stiff and terrible as Harry Osbourne in the Spiderman movies. He anchors this story of a man anchored by a rock and how he eventually choose to survive at all costs.
Director Danny Boyle is also improving - I've pretty much thought he was overrated and incapable of not letting his films go off the rails in the third act (e.g. 28 Days Later, Sunshine) - but his follow-up to the Oscar-winning (and pretty much forgotten) Slumdog Millionaire is solid, though occasionally hallucinogenic. He's now two for two in not botching the endings of his movies.
The big problem is that we know where this is going - Ralston cuts his own arm off with a dull knife - so the trick is in making the time spent before the punchline interesting. However, even at a brief 93 minutes, it feels padded and a little self-indulgent as Boyle indulges in crazy dream sequences involving Scooby Doo and a flood. Whether Ralston imagined these things and wrote about them is unknown (didn't read the book), but it feels like padding for a story which is little more than, "Man goes hiking. Gets stuck. Cuts arm off."
Score: 6/10. Rent the DVD.
One thing I learned from news stories I looked up after watching was that a few months earlier, Rolston survived being nearly buried in an avalanche while skiing; why couldn't this have been mentioned as a sign perhaps he needed to start staying home and playing videogames? Also, 10 years earlier, a fisherman cut his leg off below the knee when trapped. I wonder if he wishes he'd written a book?
"Joan Rivers: A Piece of Work" Review
Tuesday, January 18, 2011
Watch this trailer:
While Joan Rivers: A Piece of Work was released last year, it was shot over a year starting in 2008, the year she turned 75 and her career was in a lull. Winning The Celebrity Apprentice and Fashion Police were still over the horizon and this documentary shows the legendary comedienne (whom we learn believes herself an actress more than a comic) struggling to stay relevant as she hustles for work and tries to mount a one-woman play she's written.
As an unvarnished look at how even the rich and famous still have to slug it out, the documentary is quite effective, but as a retrospective of her life's previous 74 years, it's annoyingly thin at times. While there are plenty of vintage TV appearances shown and some testimonials, there isn't enough context for What It All Means and if someone thought that her inspiring Kathy Griffith is something to brag about, well... More This Is Your Life type content wouldn't have hurt.
Still, it's hard to deny the old broad isn't working for her living. We get to see the crappy conditions she occasionally has to work in and how she handles a heckler(!) who is offended by a Helen Keller joke. (Is it still too soon for those?) The disappearance of her long-time manager happens, but we don't get his side of the story.
Ribald and raunchy - do we really want to hear a grandmother discuss anal sex and how her daughter should've done Playboy and held out for more money and "show her [kitty]" - Joan Rivers: A Piece of Work works best at showing the soft person under the hard, mouthy exterior.
Score: 7/10. Catch it on cable.
While Joan Rivers: A Piece of Work was released last year, it was shot over a year starting in 2008, the year she turned 75 and her career was in a lull. Winning The Celebrity Apprentice and Fashion Police were still over the horizon and this documentary shows the legendary comedienne (whom we learn believes herself an actress more than a comic) struggling to stay relevant as she hustles for work and tries to mount a one-woman play she's written.
As an unvarnished look at how even the rich and famous still have to slug it out, the documentary is quite effective, but as a retrospective of her life's previous 74 years, it's annoyingly thin at times. While there are plenty of vintage TV appearances shown and some testimonials, there isn't enough context for What It All Means and if someone thought that her inspiring Kathy Griffith is something to brag about, well... More This Is Your Life type content wouldn't have hurt.
Still, it's hard to deny the old broad isn't working for her living. We get to see the crappy conditions she occasionally has to work in and how she handles a heckler(!) who is offended by a Helen Keller joke. (Is it still too soon for those?) The disappearance of her long-time manager happens, but we don't get his side of the story.
Ribald and raunchy - do we really want to hear a grandmother discuss anal sex and how her daughter should've done Playboy and held out for more money and "show her [kitty]" - Joan Rivers: A Piece of Work works best at showing the soft person under the hard, mouthy exterior.
Score: 7/10. Catch it on cable.
"The Fighter" Review
Christian Bale is probably going to win an Oscar for his role here. In looking at the trailer, I was surprised to see that while co-stars Mark Wahlberg, Amy Adams, and Melissa Leo are all past nominees, Bale has never been recognized. That's right: Marky Mark was nominated for an Oscar while the latest and greatest Batman (as well as Patrick Bateman!) has never gotten recognized. Well, The Fighter is going to fix that oversight right up.
The titular fighter is actually Wahlberg's Mickey Ward, a journeyman slugger from Lowell, MA whose older brother Dicky (Bale) was a boxer whose claim to fame was knocking down Sugar Ray Leonard in a bout, but then went on to being a crack addict. Represented by his mother (Leo), Mikey is set up with lousy matches that have sapped his will to go on. Then he meets a brassy barmaid (Adams) who inspires him to try and move beyond his co-dependent family, a development they resent even though it works best for Mickey's interests.
Director David O'Russell has gone 11 years since his last good movie (Three Kings) with only 2004's unbelievably craptastic I Heart Huckabee's in between. Fortunately, he's back on his game here with a film that makes a good back half for a double-feature with Darren Aronofsky's The Wrestler. (Fun Irony: Aronofsky is an executive producer here.) What is really commendable is that he manages to now succumb to the typical Hollywood temptation to overtly sneer at the lower-class blue-collar people of the town. Coastal elites hate the poor, but O'Russell manages to capture the local color without coloring them as white trash caricatures.
Bale lost over 60 pounds to play the hollowed-out (physically and spiritually) Dicky and while has the splashier role, it never devolves into ticks and nonsense. He's a screwup and eventually realizes it, but we see the charm that many addicts have that sustains their existences. Wahlberg underplays his part again and frankly I'm really bored with his schtick. When he first started in bigger movies like The Big Hit and Boogie Nights, the sight of him not being Marky Mark was enough to impress, but after over a decade of this act, it's no longer an interesting trick. Oh, he's fine in the performance and provides a quiet contrast to Bale's bigness; it's just we've seen it over and over before.
Adams is also a revelation as she kicks her sweet princess acting past to the curb as the tramp-stamped sorta floozy who tossed her athletic past away, but won't let Mickey give up. The scene where she tussles with Mickey's sisters delivers the one punch that made us go, "Ohhhh!" Leo is also fine. I've seen some criticism for the boxing scenes being lackluster, but I think it doesn't matter because O'Russell wisely doesn't attempt to ape the operatic style of Raging Bull or the visceral popcorn thrills of the Rocky flicks.
Score: 9/10. Catch a matinee.
The titular fighter is actually Wahlberg's Mickey Ward, a journeyman slugger from Lowell, MA whose older brother Dicky (Bale) was a boxer whose claim to fame was knocking down Sugar Ray Leonard in a bout, but then went on to being a crack addict. Represented by his mother (Leo), Mikey is set up with lousy matches that have sapped his will to go on. Then he meets a brassy barmaid (Adams) who inspires him to try and move beyond his co-dependent family, a development they resent even though it works best for Mickey's interests.
Director David O'Russell has gone 11 years since his last good movie (Three Kings) with only 2004's unbelievably craptastic I Heart Huckabee's in between. Fortunately, he's back on his game here with a film that makes a good back half for a double-feature with Darren Aronofsky's The Wrestler. (Fun Irony: Aronofsky is an executive producer here.) What is really commendable is that he manages to now succumb to the typical Hollywood temptation to overtly sneer at the lower-class blue-collar people of the town. Coastal elites hate the poor, but O'Russell manages to capture the local color without coloring them as white trash caricatures.
Bale lost over 60 pounds to play the hollowed-out (physically and spiritually) Dicky and while has the splashier role, it never devolves into ticks and nonsense. He's a screwup and eventually realizes it, but we see the charm that many addicts have that sustains their existences. Wahlberg underplays his part again and frankly I'm really bored with his schtick. When he first started in bigger movies like The Big Hit and Boogie Nights, the sight of him not being Marky Mark was enough to impress, but after over a decade of this act, it's no longer an interesting trick. Oh, he's fine in the performance and provides a quiet contrast to Bale's bigness; it's just we've seen it over and over before.
Adams is also a revelation as she kicks her sweet princess acting past to the curb as the tramp-stamped sorta floozy who tossed her athletic past away, but won't let Mickey give up. The scene where she tussles with Mickey's sisters delivers the one punch that made us go, "Ohhhh!" Leo is also fine. I've seen some criticism for the boxing scenes being lackluster, but I think it doesn't matter because O'Russell wisely doesn't attempt to ape the operatic style of Raging Bull or the visceral popcorn thrills of the Rocky flicks.
Score: 9/10. Catch a matinee.
"Dinner For Schmucks" Review
Sunday, January 16, 2011
In Dinner For Schmucks (a remake of a French film with a French title). go-getting but under-appreciated investment analyst Paul Rudd wants a promotion at his firm. He gets an opportunity when invited to a dinner the boss holds where everyone brings as their guest the craziest people they can find to be made fun of with the "winner" getting a trophy and their sponsor receiving career advancement.
While Rudd is repulsed by the idea, he needs a promotion to make more money to entice his girlfriend, an art agent, to marry him; she's rebuffed previous proposals. When he accidentally hits Steve Carrell while texting and driving, he's apologetic until he learns that Carrell makes taxidermy dioramas with mice in elaborate costumes and sets. Could this sad, goofy man be his ticket to moving upstairs or lead him down the road of moral compromise and disaster?
Directed by Jay Roach - who started off well with the Austin Power series before sliding with Meet The Parents/Fockers movies - forgets Shakespeare's admonition that brevity is the soul of wit and as the film drags out to nearly two hours in length (any comedy running longer than 100 minutes is pushing its luck; hear me Judd Apatow?) it's a slow-moving muddle as it clearly doesn't have the guts to commit to being as nasty as it wants to be.
Carrell does things that make a shambles of Rudd's life, but is he really an idiot or a clumsy but decent fellow? A subplot about Rudd's girlfriend and the sex-crazed egomaniacal artist she works with doesn't work because if he thinks so easily that she's cheating with him, why is he gung-ho to marry her? The backstory about Carrell and his boss, the usually funnier Zach Galifianakis is a tonal mess, too.
The ending dinner scene is where they clearly saved all their energies for and it has the biggest laughs, albeit in a mean-spirited manner. The best is a blind swordsman who mentions, "I also paint." "Really? Are you any good?" "I have no idea." Of course a lot of wild slapstick ensues and everyone learns a valuable lesson about being themselves and blah-blah-woof-woof. It's a long walk to a not particularly interesting destination.
Score: 4/10. Catch it on cable.
While Rudd is repulsed by the idea, he needs a promotion to make more money to entice his girlfriend, an art agent, to marry him; she's rebuffed previous proposals. When he accidentally hits Steve Carrell while texting and driving, he's apologetic until he learns that Carrell makes taxidermy dioramas with mice in elaborate costumes and sets. Could this sad, goofy man be his ticket to moving upstairs or lead him down the road of moral compromise and disaster?
Directed by Jay Roach - who started off well with the Austin Power series before sliding with Meet The Parents/Fockers movies - forgets Shakespeare's admonition that brevity is the soul of wit and as the film drags out to nearly two hours in length (any comedy running longer than 100 minutes is pushing its luck; hear me Judd Apatow?) it's a slow-moving muddle as it clearly doesn't have the guts to commit to being as nasty as it wants to be.
Carrell does things that make a shambles of Rudd's life, but is he really an idiot or a clumsy but decent fellow? A subplot about Rudd's girlfriend and the sex-crazed egomaniacal artist she works with doesn't work because if he thinks so easily that she's cheating with him, why is he gung-ho to marry her? The backstory about Carrell and his boss, the usually funnier Zach Galifianakis is a tonal mess, too.
The ending dinner scene is where they clearly saved all their energies for and it has the biggest laughs, albeit in a mean-spirited manner. The best is a blind swordsman who mentions, "I also paint." "Really? Are you any good?" "I have no idea." Of course a lot of wild slapstick ensues and everyone learns a valuable lesson about being themselves and blah-blah-woof-woof. It's a long walk to a not particularly interesting destination.
Score: 4/10. Catch it on cable.
"The Tourist" Review
Sunday, January 9, 2011
Angelina Jolie and Johnny Depp together in Venice for a caper movie? Sounds awesome! What could go wrong? Well, plenty judging from the flat result that is The Tourist which manages to make two beautiful people in a beautiful city little more than an ad for why you should visit the City of Canals.
The plot, as it is, is slight despite attempts to make it convoluted: AJ is a beautiful woman (No! YES!!!) in Paris (Non! OUI!!!) being followed by agents of Scotland Yard in a surveillance van that can zoom in on her butt while the coppers speculate whether she's wearing underwear. They're following her in hopes she'll lead them to a fugitive, Alexander Pearce, who stole over £2 billion from a gangster and owes nearly £800 million in taxes to the UK. (Socialist Utopias don't pay for themselves.) She receives a note by messenger from the guy directing her to take a train to Venice and find someone on board with a similar height and build and make the cops believe it's Greene. She meets Depp, an American widower, and inserts herself into his life. Hijinks ensue.
Part of the problem people are having with The Tourist is that it's not Lara Croft and Jack Sparrow's Venetian Action Adventure. She doesn't get naked or shoot guns and he looks puffy and dour with a scraggly beard and hair that makes him look like an unemployed poet (is there any other kind?) than the math teacher he is. While they aren't doing much exciting, the quiet moments aren't very interesting either. It's nice to see a couple of good actors expressing themselves with looks and glances, but it's all soft details in the absence of a compelling narrative.
The biggest problem is that I had a sneaking suspicion as to how it was going to end up about 10 minutes in and was correct. There's a revelation about two-thirds of the way in that was a surprise, but the ultimate punchline was anti-climatic and a single point of failure which could've derailed the entire movie if one choice had gone differently. (I'll reveal it at the bottom of this review for those who've already seen this or just want to be spoiled.)
While the scenery is gorgeous and the still-too-thin Jolie looks elegant, The Tourist is sadly a trip not particularly worth going along for the ride with.
Score: 4.5/10. Rent the Blu-ray or catch at a dollar show.
*** SPOILER ALERT!!!! ***
The big twist is that Frank ends up being Pearce. Since there are only so many ways this story can play out with these stars - Frank is either a lucky stranger or the guy she loves all along - I was looking for this ending from the beginning. However, the single point of failure is this: What if she chose another guy on the train? It's not as if there aren't many 5'10" guys of average build, so it's quite possible for Pearce's scheme to reunite with his lover to go down in flames. It's a not-small detail because all the people chasing him would only have him because he was picked at random. I'm not even sure how the movie could've played if she'd chosen another; it requires an exact sequence of events to occur.
The plot, as it is, is slight despite attempts to make it convoluted: AJ is a beautiful woman (No! YES!!!) in Paris (Non! OUI!!!) being followed by agents of Scotland Yard in a surveillance van that can zoom in on her butt while the coppers speculate whether she's wearing underwear. They're following her in hopes she'll lead them to a fugitive, Alexander Pearce, who stole over £2 billion from a gangster and owes nearly £800 million in taxes to the UK. (Socialist Utopias don't pay for themselves.) She receives a note by messenger from the guy directing her to take a train to Venice and find someone on board with a similar height and build and make the cops believe it's Greene. She meets Depp, an American widower, and inserts herself into his life. Hijinks ensue.
Part of the problem people are having with The Tourist is that it's not Lara Croft and Jack Sparrow's Venetian Action Adventure. She doesn't get naked or shoot guns and he looks puffy and dour with a scraggly beard and hair that makes him look like an unemployed poet (is there any other kind?) than the math teacher he is. While they aren't doing much exciting, the quiet moments aren't very interesting either. It's nice to see a couple of good actors expressing themselves with looks and glances, but it's all soft details in the absence of a compelling narrative.
The biggest problem is that I had a sneaking suspicion as to how it was going to end up about 10 minutes in and was correct. There's a revelation about two-thirds of the way in that was a surprise, but the ultimate punchline was anti-climatic and a single point of failure which could've derailed the entire movie if one choice had gone differently. (I'll reveal it at the bottom of this review for those who've already seen this or just want to be spoiled.)
While the scenery is gorgeous and the still-too-thin Jolie looks elegant, The Tourist is sadly a trip not particularly worth going along for the ride with.
Score: 4.5/10. Rent the Blu-ray or catch at a dollar show.
*** SPOILER ALERT!!!! ***
The big twist is that Frank ends up being Pearce. Since there are only so many ways this story can play out with these stars - Frank is either a lucky stranger or the guy she loves all along - I was looking for this ending from the beginning. However, the single point of failure is this: What if she chose another guy on the train? It's not as if there aren't many 5'10" guys of average build, so it's quite possible for Pearce's scheme to reunite with his lover to go down in flames. It's a not-small detail because all the people chasing him would only have him because he was picked at random. I'm not even sure how the movie could've played if she'd chosen another; it requires an exact sequence of events to occur.
"Cliffhanger" DVD & "Vertical Limit" Blu-ray Reviews
Saturday, January 1, 2011
We decided to kick off the New Year with a mountain-climbing double-feature (ooh-ooh-ohh) of Sly Stallone's 1993 Rocky Mountains-based Cliffhanger and Chris O'Donnell's 2000 Himalayan adventure Vertical Limit. I thought it'd be interesting to compare and contrast the two because I knew the former was better than the latter and shared similarities.
Both open with thrilling and elaborate climbing accident scenes that scar our hero's psyches, making them swear off climbing until adversity strikes and the reluctant men have to get back on the rocks. Cliffhanger's McGuffin is bad guy John Lithgow's gang trying to recover three cases with $100 million that fell from the sky when their crazy mid-air great plane robbery goes awry. Vertical Limit has O'Donnell racing against time to save his sister who was trapped on K2 while accompanying billionaire weasel Bill Paxton on his Richard Bransonesque ego trip. Lots of snowy hijinks ensue.
Cliffhanger is clearly the better of the two movies because director Renny Harlin never lets the chase let up once the plot ball starts rolling. While there are respites after the major set pieces, there's no rest and while some of the feats of weather-resistance are credulity-straining, it works on its own terms. It's Harlin's best film, the only one I revisit consistently.
Martin Campbell, who directed GoldenEye and The Mask of Zorro before his trip to the mountains doesn't fare as well because his script makes frequent stops for lengthy "character development" breaks which slow the tempo. One wonders why they're lollygagging around when there's a rapidly closing window to rescue the trapped climbers before they succumb to pulmonary edema from the high altitude. Also, when the final rescue is made in a nick of time, they cut back to the base camp where she's recovering - oh, did I spoil the ending because you were in doubt whether she'd be saved? - leaving out the part where this on the edge of death woman was carried back down the mountain for at least 24 hours.
The largest difference is in the leading men - or perhaps I should say the difference between the man and boy. Stallone was 46 and in prison-ripped physical shape here, yet he takes a beating and delivers a good dramatic performance. It's very much in line with Bruce Willis' more Everyman approach in Die Hard, if John McClain had worn out a couple of BowFlexes, that is. On the other hand, O'Donnell is a bland vanilla area on the screen and fresh off assisting in the murder of the Batman franchise with Batman and His Lame Vanilla Buddy vs. Ahnuld, why someone thought he'd be a compelling action hero questions the intelligence of studio suits everywhere. Only Keanu Reeves would be more inert; at least O'Donnell can modulate his voice. I always remembered that I didn't care for Vertical Limit, referring to it as "Vertical Suckage," and the tag team of dodgy and predictable pacing and a vacant lead must've been it.
As for the discs themselves, Cliffhanger on DVD is a so-so effort from the early days of the format with a lot of edge-enhancement artifacts and a so-so flatness to the contrast. I've read the Blu-ray isn't a shining example of the format's potential, but it's much better. When I see a good sale, I'll be upgrading. Vertical Limit is a pretty good transfer which makes the cinematography of New Zealand's Mt. Cook (doubling for K2) even more spectacular while showing the callow affectless mien of O'Donnell accurately. Both have a OK batch of extras, but it's the features that count and Sly trumps Robin easily.
Cliffhanger Score: 9/10. Buy it on Blu-ray.
Vertical Limit Score: 6/10. Catch on cable.
Both open with thrilling and elaborate climbing accident scenes that scar our hero's psyches, making them swear off climbing until adversity strikes and the reluctant men have to get back on the rocks. Cliffhanger's McGuffin is bad guy John Lithgow's gang trying to recover three cases with $100 million that fell from the sky when their crazy mid-air great plane robbery goes awry. Vertical Limit has O'Donnell racing against time to save his sister who was trapped on K2 while accompanying billionaire weasel Bill Paxton on his Richard Bransonesque ego trip. Lots of snowy hijinks ensue.
Cliffhanger is clearly the better of the two movies because director Renny Harlin never lets the chase let up once the plot ball starts rolling. While there are respites after the major set pieces, there's no rest and while some of the feats of weather-resistance are credulity-straining, it works on its own terms. It's Harlin's best film, the only one I revisit consistently.
Martin Campbell, who directed GoldenEye and The Mask of Zorro before his trip to the mountains doesn't fare as well because his script makes frequent stops for lengthy "character development" breaks which slow the tempo. One wonders why they're lollygagging around when there's a rapidly closing window to rescue the trapped climbers before they succumb to pulmonary edema from the high altitude. Also, when the final rescue is made in a nick of time, they cut back to the base camp where she's recovering - oh, did I spoil the ending because you were in doubt whether she'd be saved? - leaving out the part where this on the edge of death woman was carried back down the mountain for at least 24 hours.
The largest difference is in the leading men - or perhaps I should say the difference between the man and boy. Stallone was 46 and in prison-ripped physical shape here, yet he takes a beating and delivers a good dramatic performance. It's very much in line with Bruce Willis' more Everyman approach in Die Hard, if John McClain had worn out a couple of BowFlexes, that is. On the other hand, O'Donnell is a bland vanilla area on the screen and fresh off assisting in the murder of the Batman franchise with Batman and His Lame Vanilla Buddy vs. Ahnuld, why someone thought he'd be a compelling action hero questions the intelligence of studio suits everywhere. Only Keanu Reeves would be more inert; at least O'Donnell can modulate his voice. I always remembered that I didn't care for Vertical Limit, referring to it as "Vertical Suckage," and the tag team of dodgy and predictable pacing and a vacant lead must've been it.
As for the discs themselves, Cliffhanger on DVD is a so-so effort from the early days of the format with a lot of edge-enhancement artifacts and a so-so flatness to the contrast. I've read the Blu-ray isn't a shining example of the format's potential, but it's much better. When I see a good sale, I'll be upgrading. Vertical Limit is a pretty good transfer which makes the cinematography of New Zealand's Mt. Cook (doubling for K2) even more spectacular while showing the callow affectless mien of O'Donnell accurately. Both have a OK batch of extras, but it's the features that count and Sly trumps Robin easily.
Cliffhanger Score: 9/10. Buy it on Blu-ray.
Vertical Limit Score: 6/10. Catch on cable.
2010 Review Roundup Roundup
Friday, December 31, 2010
For ease of access, here are the monthly review roundups for every month of 2010. (You can also find these by clicking the Roundup tag.)
January 2010
February 2010
March 2010
April 2010
May 2010
June 2010
July 2010
August 2010
September 2010
October 2010
November 2010
December 2010
They were 81 reviews out of the 103 movies I watched, with a span from Sept. thru Nov. where I really slacked off.
January 2010
February 2010
March 2010
April 2010
May 2010
June 2010
July 2010
August 2010
September 2010
October 2010
November 2010
December 2010
They were 81 reviews out of the 103 movies I watched, with a span from Sept. thru Nov. where I really slacked off.
December 2010 Review Roundup
Things picked up on both the watching and reviewing front.
Dec. 6 - Showgirls Blu-ray Bitchy Commentary
Dec. 13 - Altitude (4/10)
Dec. 14 - Cats and Dogs: The Revenge of Kitty Galore (4/10)
Dec. 13 - Altitude (4/10)
Dec. 14 - Cats and Dogs: The Revenge of Kitty Galore (4/10)
Dec. 15 - The Town (7/10); Rammbock (4/10)
Dec. 20 - Black Swan (5/10)
Dec. 21 - Devil (4/10)
Dec. 22 - TRON: Legacy (5/10)
Dec. 26 - Despicable Me (6/10); 30 Days of Night: Dark Days (2/10); 2010: The Year We Make Contact Blu-ray (6/10)
Dec. 27 - Smokin' Aces 2: Assassins' Ball (4/10); Push Blu-ray
Dec. 28 - The Runaways Blu-ray Commentary
Month's Movies Watched: 14
Previously Unseen: 10
Theatrical: 2
Home: 12
=====
Year-To-Date: 103
YTD First-Timers: 88
YTD Theatrical: 26
YTD Home: 77
Month's Movies Watched: 14
Previously Unseen: 10
Theatrical: 2
Home: 12
=====
Year-To-Date: 103
YTD First-Timers: 88
YTD Theatrical: 26
YTD Home: 77
"The Runaways" Blu-ray/Commentary Review
Tuesday, December 28, 2010
I've already covered The Runaways when it limped onto screens last April, so I'm just going to talk about the transfer and extras here.
The centerpiece is the feature commentary with Joan Jett, Kristen Stewart (who played Jett), and Dakota Fanning (who played Cherie Currie) and it's a disappointment as none of them are very talkative, mostly limiting their comments to how hot it was during the summer shoot and factual errors. Since Jett was an Executive Producer who was on the set at all times, why didn't she step in to straighten things out, like the fact that she says she NEVER wore leather pants like Stewart sports throughout the movie. (Might as well give her a boyfriend if you're going to take such liberties. Just goes to show that based-on-true-story biopics are less reliable than Wikipedia, such as The Social Network showing Mark Zuckerburg drinking appletinis, something he says he never had.) Fanning doesn't offer much and seems uncomfortable discussing her racier scenes.
Seriously missing from the commentary is Currie, whose book Neon Angel was the basis for the script, and toured doing Q&As. Heck a solo track with just her would've probably been nice. She does show in a 15-minute long making-of PR piece while Jett goes missing other than a couple of stills of her with Stewart. Odd.
The transfer looks good, but it's not a great showcase for Blu-ray due to the period-accurate Seventies look which goes for a darker, flatter contrast range and there is light grain owing to the Super 16mm film format. (Though it looked like digital cameras in the making-of. Had to look it up.) You could probably get a good enough look from the DVD if you aren't particular.
The one sorta neat thing exclusive to the Blu-ray is a feature called MovieIQ which Sony has reportedly been threatening to roll out for four years. Using BD-Live, it streams in trivia info and filmography info for most of the actors in the scenes and lists the soundtrack, offering to send you a playlist of the songs via email. (I didn't test this.)
One nifty gimmick is the ability to move this menu to your smartphone by browsing to a website and entering a five-digit code which then puts your phone in sync with the film's playback. I paused a few times for breaks and was watching at 1.5X playback speed and it kept up for the most part. It's superfluous, but a neat trick. The site's system requirements imply that this is iPhone/iPad only, but it worked on my Android EVO with Miren browser just fine.
The Bottom Line: Overall, while it's nice to have a bit better picture with Blu-ray and the added bell and whistle of MovieIQ, casual fans of the film would probably be satisfied picking up a used copy of the DVD.
One knock against Sony, though I've seen others starting to pull this crap as well: STOP PUTTING FORCED TRAILERS THAT WE HAVE TO MANUALLY SKIP PAST TO GET TO THE MENU!!! There are a half-dozen or so you are potentially looking at 15 MINUTES of ads before you're allowed to watch the movie. STOP IT!!!!
The centerpiece is the feature commentary with Joan Jett, Kristen Stewart (who played Jett), and Dakota Fanning (who played Cherie Currie) and it's a disappointment as none of them are very talkative, mostly limiting their comments to how hot it was during the summer shoot and factual errors. Since Jett was an Executive Producer who was on the set at all times, why didn't she step in to straighten things out, like the fact that she says she NEVER wore leather pants like Stewart sports throughout the movie. (Might as well give her a boyfriend if you're going to take such liberties. Just goes to show that based-on-true-story biopics are less reliable than Wikipedia, such as The Social Network showing Mark Zuckerburg drinking appletinis, something he says he never had.) Fanning doesn't offer much and seems uncomfortable discussing her racier scenes.
Seriously missing from the commentary is Currie, whose book Neon Angel was the basis for the script, and toured doing Q&As. Heck a solo track with just her would've probably been nice. She does show in a 15-minute long making-of PR piece while Jett goes missing other than a couple of stills of her with Stewart. Odd.
The transfer looks good, but it's not a great showcase for Blu-ray due to the period-accurate Seventies look which goes for a darker, flatter contrast range and there is light grain owing to the Super 16mm film format. (Though it looked like digital cameras in the making-of. Had to look it up.) You could probably get a good enough look from the DVD if you aren't particular.
The one sorta neat thing exclusive to the Blu-ray is a feature called MovieIQ which Sony has reportedly been threatening to roll out for four years. Using BD-Live, it streams in trivia info and filmography info for most of the actors in the scenes and lists the soundtrack, offering to send you a playlist of the songs via email. (I didn't test this.)
One nifty gimmick is the ability to move this menu to your smartphone by browsing to a website and entering a five-digit code which then puts your phone in sync with the film's playback. I paused a few times for breaks and was watching at 1.5X playback speed and it kept up for the most part. It's superfluous, but a neat trick. The site's system requirements imply that this is iPhone/iPad only, but it worked on my Android EVO with Miren browser just fine.
The Bottom Line: Overall, while it's nice to have a bit better picture with Blu-ray and the added bell and whistle of MovieIQ, casual fans of the film would probably be satisfied picking up a used copy of the DVD.
One knock against Sony, though I've seen others starting to pull this crap as well: STOP PUTTING FORCED TRAILERS THAT WE HAVE TO MANUALLY SKIP PAST TO GET TO THE MENU!!! There are a half-dozen or so you are potentially looking at 15 MINUTES of ads before you're allowed to watch the movie. STOP IT!!!!
"Smokin' Aces 2: Assassins' Ball" Review
Monday, December 27, 2010
If the trailer and Wikipedia page didn't say so, there is no reason to think that Smokin' Aces 2: Assassins' Ball was in any way connected to the original 2007 film and other than that film's director being a producer and given "characters by" credit, I still don't see the connection other than a bunch of assassins are trying to kill the same guy and a lot of shooty-shooty-bang-bang occurs.
Tom Berenger stars as Walter Weed, a mid-level FBI agent in a wheelchair who is informed that he has been targeted with a contract that requires him to be dead by 3 a.m. April 19th. Who and why he's wanted dead is unknown, so the FBI mounts an elaborate protection operation to keep him alive until he's worthless to kill. They take him to a hidden bunker under a FBI front Chicago jazz bar and figure he's safe there. Of course, they're wrong as four assassins - Vinnie Jones, some hot Mexican babe, a creepy guy who makes death masks of his victims while they're alive, and a family of Southern redneck idiots and one hot crazy chick (Autumn Reeser) - all manage to show up at the club. Mayhem ensues.
The first film was an so-so wacky actioner with some surprising casting, but this one is mostly stylized mayhem over substance. All the killers are giving splashy intros and there is some witty bantering while they're killing time until it's killing time, but I was able to guess how it was going to play out about two minutes in, so it was just a countdown to the inevitable, Knew it," moment. The mayhem is unrealistic, but that's not the problem; it just seems so...needless. Sure, it's fun to see dynamite-loaded circus clowns used as munitions, but the fake explosions undersell the potential.
More problematic is the ending which appears to show people we saw killed sneaking away from the scene. Very weird. Oh, wait a second...I get it now, one of the killers goes on to be in Smokin' Aces. (I looked it up; I never would've made the connection because it's such an obscure player. Fail.)* Also, since when have prequels had a higher number than the original? Shouldn't it have been Smokin' Aces 0: This Isn't Necessary?
Score: 4/10. Catch it on cable.
* UPDATE: After posting this review, I watched the extras and discovered that several of the characters were in the original movie, including one of the Tremor Brothers, the crazed trio of Road Warrior-looking guys who were one of the few memorable things about that movie. That I didn't realize this was the same gang really shows how this prequel/sequel/NyQuil is really for hardcore fans of the original only.
Tom Berenger stars as Walter Weed, a mid-level FBI agent in a wheelchair who is informed that he has been targeted with a contract that requires him to be dead by 3 a.m. April 19th. Who and why he's wanted dead is unknown, so the FBI mounts an elaborate protection operation to keep him alive until he's worthless to kill. They take him to a hidden bunker under a FBI front Chicago jazz bar and figure he's safe there. Of course, they're wrong as four assassins - Vinnie Jones, some hot Mexican babe, a creepy guy who makes death masks of his victims while they're alive, and a family of Southern redneck idiots and one hot crazy chick (Autumn Reeser) - all manage to show up at the club. Mayhem ensues.
The first film was an so-so wacky actioner with some surprising casting, but this one is mostly stylized mayhem over substance. All the killers are giving splashy intros and there is some witty bantering while they're killing time until it's killing time, but I was able to guess how it was going to play out about two minutes in, so it was just a countdown to the inevitable, Knew it," moment. The mayhem is unrealistic, but that's not the problem; it just seems so...needless. Sure, it's fun to see dynamite-loaded circus clowns used as munitions, but the fake explosions undersell the potential.
More problematic is the ending which appears to show people we saw killed sneaking away from the scene. Very weird. Oh, wait a second...I get it now, one of the killers goes on to be in Smokin' Aces. (I looked it up; I never would've made the connection because it's such an obscure player. Fail.)* Also, since when have prequels had a higher number than the original? Shouldn't it have been Smokin' Aces 0: This Isn't Necessary?
Score: 4/10. Catch it on cable.
* UPDATE: After posting this review, I watched the extras and discovered that several of the characters were in the original movie, including one of the Tremor Brothers, the crazed trio of Road Warrior-looking guys who were one of the few memorable things about that movie. That I didn't realize this was the same gang really shows how this prequel/sequel/NyQuil is really for hardcore fans of the original only.
"30 Days of Night: Dark Days" Review
Sunday, December 26, 2010
The original 2007 30 Days of Night was a good adaptation of the graphic novel, making the most of its premise of vampires attacking a Northern Alaska town during the month in winter the sun never rises. This direct-to-video cash-in is probably totally unrelated to any of the subsequent novels and has the distinct feel of a generic vampire flick with enough tweaks to tenuously tie it to the original, according to a reader who wrote, closely related to the second book in the series, which makes its poor execution even less excusable.
Stella, the wife of the the Josh Hartnett character played originally by Melissa George, now Kiele Sanchez (me neither), has been touring the country telling her story of what happened to disbelieving audiences. In L.A., she is met by a group of vampire hunters who, like her, have lost loved ones and are hunting the queen responsible for the Barrow events, Lilith (Mia Kirshner), in town. Stupidity ensues.
Whether it's dumping her shotgun when she's out of ammo - you can reload those, you know? - leaving her bra on during the requisite desperate situation sex scene, or being a general twit, Stella's certainly no stellar student in vampire hunting and just about every beat, twist and both endings are foreseeable from the opening credits. I'm sure the filmmakers were thinking they were clever. They weren't.
Score: 2/10. Skip it and go buy the original 30 Days of Night.
Stella, the wife of the the Josh Hartnett character played originally by Melissa George, now Kiele Sanchez (me neither), has been touring the country telling her story of what happened to disbelieving audiences. In L.A., she is met by a group of vampire hunters who, like her, have lost loved ones and are hunting the queen responsible for the Barrow events, Lilith (Mia Kirshner), in town. Stupidity ensues.
Whether it's dumping her shotgun when she's out of ammo - you can reload those, you know? - leaving her bra on during the requisite desperate situation sex scene, or being a general twit, Stella's certainly no stellar student in vampire hunting and just about every beat, twist and both endings are foreseeable from the opening credits. I'm sure the filmmakers were thinking they were clever. They weren't.
Score: 2/10. Skip it and go buy the original 30 Days of Night.
"2010: The Year We Make Contact" Blu-ray Review
It's been ages since I've seen 1984's 2010; I wouldn't be surprised if it's been nearly that long since I've seen it, but I've always remembered it for the dated Cold War aspects. Upon rewatching it Blu-ray, it's even worse than I remember, bogging down an adequate follow-up to the grossly overrated Stanley Kubrick "classic" 2001: A Space Odyssey, a film that I revisit every five years or so to see if it still sucks, which invariably it does.
Starting several years after 2001 (heh), Dr. Haywood Floyd (played this time by Roy Scheider) is approached by the Russians with a proposal: They know the USA is planning on sending a mission to find out what happened to the Discovery, but have a ship ready to leave now and would get to Jupiter a year sooner and are offering to take Floyd, the chief designer of the Discovery (John Lithgow), and Dr. Chandra (Bob Balaban), who programmed the psychotic computer HAL-9000, who killed everyone by Dave Bowman (Kier Dulea). Complicating matters are simmering tensions between the Soviet Union and America over Central America. When they get to Jupiter, they discover the giant monolith shown at the end of 2001 and then things get a little crazy.
When you strip out the preachy "We've got to trust each other; damn the politicians" claptrap that firmly roots this futuristic story in the Reagan years of 26 years ago and the somewhat slow pacing - though meth-fueled compared to Kubrick's glacial snoozer - you have a fairly straightforward space exploration tale with above-average special effects and production values. The sets and style are very reminiscent of Alien and it's a hoot to see Helen Mirren as the Soviet commander.
The best aspect of the film - which I actually forgot - concerns the reactivated HAL (again voiced by Douglas Rain) and whether he's truly in control now, what drove him to murder before, and whether he can be relied on when the mission has to escape from Jupiter space four weeks earlier than planned. Even though I knew how it was going to turn out, having read the source 2010: Odyssey Two novel and seen the movie, it was still effective.
As for the Blu-ray, the transfer is OK, with good, but not impressive detail due to the grainy source. Black levels are weak, causing a washed-out look to the live-action while the FX (which we shot in 65mm) look good, though you can spot some matte glow like the first time you saw Star Wars on tape before Lucas cleaned everything up. The only extra is a 9-minute long promo piece from when it came out. It's as informative as you could hope in such a brief time, but it's clear this minor movie didn't merit a major package to the studio.
Score: 6/10. Rent it.
Starting several years after 2001 (heh), Dr. Haywood Floyd (played this time by Roy Scheider) is approached by the Russians with a proposal: They know the USA is planning on sending a mission to find out what happened to the Discovery, but have a ship ready to leave now and would get to Jupiter a year sooner and are offering to take Floyd, the chief designer of the Discovery (John Lithgow), and Dr. Chandra (Bob Balaban), who programmed the psychotic computer HAL-9000, who killed everyone by Dave Bowman (Kier Dulea). Complicating matters are simmering tensions between the Soviet Union and America over Central America. When they get to Jupiter, they discover the giant monolith shown at the end of 2001 and then things get a little crazy.
When you strip out the preachy "We've got to trust each other; damn the politicians" claptrap that firmly roots this futuristic story in the Reagan years of 26 years ago and the somewhat slow pacing - though meth-fueled compared to Kubrick's glacial snoozer - you have a fairly straightforward space exploration tale with above-average special effects and production values. The sets and style are very reminiscent of Alien and it's a hoot to see Helen Mirren as the Soviet commander.
The best aspect of the film - which I actually forgot - concerns the reactivated HAL (again voiced by Douglas Rain) and whether he's truly in control now, what drove him to murder before, and whether he can be relied on when the mission has to escape from Jupiter space four weeks earlier than planned. Even though I knew how it was going to turn out, having read the source 2010: Odyssey Two novel and seen the movie, it was still effective.
As for the Blu-ray, the transfer is OK, with good, but not impressive detail due to the grainy source. Black levels are weak, causing a washed-out look to the live-action while the FX (which we shot in 65mm) look good, though you can spot some matte glow like the first time you saw Star Wars on tape before Lucas cleaned everything up. The only extra is a 9-minute long promo piece from when it came out. It's as informative as you could hope in such a brief time, but it's clear this minor movie didn't merit a major package to the studio.
Score: 6/10. Rent it.
"Despicable Me" Review
Steve Carrell voices Gru, a super-villain whose scheme to steal the Moon is complicated by his adoption of three little girls, in this cute, albeit predictable animated movie. It's got some cute gags and details and I liked it; it's just not as awesome as some of the reviews gushed.
Score: 6/10. Rent it.
Yeesh, they give away half the gags here.
Score: 6/10. Rent it.
Yeesh, they give away half the gags here.
"TRON: Legacy" Review
Wednesday, December 22, 2010
Most of the reviews I've seen for TRON: Legacy have been BRUTAL - like, "It sodomized my goldfish and parakeet!" levels of upset. The amount of nerd rage seemed to ratify my negative impressions from the sneak preview Disney put on a couple of months ago. Take a moment to go read that before continuing this review. I'll wait...
Back? Good. The short of it all is that TRON: Legacy isn't as bad as the haters have said; it's a better movie than its predecessor; however, it's not that good a movie for most of the reasons I laid out in the preview. While everything we were shown in that sneak happens in the first 40 minutes or so, the rest of the movie doesn't really hold much more in the way of surprises or thrills.
What's Hot:
• Two words: Olivia Wilde. As I noted, she was the most interesting thing in the preview and she's the best thing about the movie and I don't mean just because she looks like this:
No, she's the most ALIVE thing in the movie despite being a program. Wide-eyed, inquisitive, compassionate and fierce, she's the closest thing to a real PERSON in a movie full of archetypes and cardboard cutouts. That she's as hot as an overclocked CPU and one of only two women in this sausagefest doesn't hurt either.
What's Warm:
• The look of the movie, all dark and cloudy and electro-luminescent. I saw it in digital 2D (the sneak was LieMAX 3D) and frankly I don't see how it can benefit from wearing sunglasses that will make things darker. (A friend saw it in full bore IMAX 3D and tried to convince me it was worth the $9 upcharge from the twilight show I saw and to him I say, "pfffft.") The upgraded Recognizer and Solar Sailer (now some sort of freight train) are cool, but again are only meaningful to those who saw the original.
• Jeff Bridges is cool, but he's waaaaaaaaaaay too much like the Dude from The Big Lebowski for my tastes. The digitally youngified version for flashbacks and as the evil Clu program are OK, but no match for the flawless work in Benjamin Button and Avatar. It never looks natural, but like a really good special effect. Now, this lifeless version on Clu makes some sense - he's a program and only can simulate emotions - but when the other programs aren't similarly stilted, well, then it's just poor FX work.
• There are actually a few moments where the movie almost has some semi-deep things to say, but it gets buried in the gobbledygook and shiny stuff, so it doesn't matter much in the end.
Now a pause for more Olivia Wilde:
What's Cold:
• Also as predicted, Garrett Hedlund is a total stiff as Sam Flynn. As I remarked to my sidekick, McHatin, after the movie, "With all the pretty boy emo actors femming up Hollywood these days, why couldn't they find someone with some ability to emote on screen?" Hedlund is stiffer than armor panels in his suit with a constant look of inappropriate bemusement on his blank mug. That he looks nothing like his old man doesn't help, but he makes poor Hayden Christensen look like Ewan McGregor in the thespian department. I didn't like him, couldn't relate to him, didn't care a whit about him or his story. That's a hat trick of fail there.
• I've never understood the logic inside the TRON Universe and it doesn't get any clearer here. The programs act as individual people with personalities, but what is the real world (pardon the pun) analog to this? Does your Excel or Firefox exhibit any personality; what are the programs then? No one is walking around saying they're a ATM security protocol, you know? Users are treated as something more special - deities of a sort - as when Sam is nicked in a battle and bleeds instead of dropping crystalline pixels like a shattered disco ball and his opponent stops trying to kill him. Which leads to another problem: In the first movie we see Kevin Flynn (Bridges) scanned and disassembled by the laser and then re-assembled on the Grid. Here, the picture just blacks out and Sam's not in Kansas - or Vancouver - anymore. (Again, if you haven't seen the first movie...) Accepting that he's been converted into a digital entity in the computer, why is he still bleeding? Does this mean he can't be de-rezzed?
Time is explained as moving differently in the Grid - Flynn explains at one point that hours inside were mere minutes outside - so considering he's been trapped for 20 years and has aged like his son, how long in digital dog years has it been? The need for TRONland to be an alternate universe disconnects it from being a glimpse into what you're computer is doing. Another plot point involves programs going missing; it's revealed they're being converted into an army by Clu, but does that mean when I want to play Bejeweled one day it won't work because it's been conscripted to join an army meant to invade our world. It. Doesn't. Make. Sense. The Matrix got crazy in the sequels (e.g. If humanity is all locked up in the power plant pods, why are there massive gun emplacements to hold off attacking ships?), but the fundamentals had some sussable logic to them.
Compared to the original, benefiting-from-nostalgia-and-fading-memories TRON, TRON: Legacy is less cheesy and hella slicker, but doesn't bring anything compelling to the table. You don't need to see it in 3D; the plot is irrelevant and in the end a little confusing; it's obviously meant to be a giant set-up to a franchise but doesn't imply that there's anything interesting to explore on the Grid; it's just there and unlike the fervent nerd ragers venting on the Intartoobz, I can't get too worked up about it. It's just too meh to provoke much emotional response at all.
End of line.
Score: 5/10. Rent the Blu-ray if you've got a nice home theater, otherwise catch it at a dollar show.
One more for the road:
ADDITIONAL THOUGHTS: Another unexplained thing is how stuff gets into the Grid like the shelf full of antique books Flynn has in his 2001 bachelor pad. When you see how he got stuck in there, it begs the question, "Where did the books come from? Gridazon.com?"
Another scene has father and son discussing what's changed about the world. The usual liberal crap - war, improper distribution of wealth - gets name-checked (for social relevance, don'tchaknow?) but the very method that's bringing these complaints to your eyes - the World Wide Web - goes totally unmentioned. Dumb.
Back? Good. The short of it all is that TRON: Legacy isn't as bad as the haters have said; it's a better movie than its predecessor; however, it's not that good a movie for most of the reasons I laid out in the preview. While everything we were shown in that sneak happens in the first 40 minutes or so, the rest of the movie doesn't really hold much more in the way of surprises or thrills.
What's Hot:
• Two words: Olivia Wilde. As I noted, she was the most interesting thing in the preview and she's the best thing about the movie and I don't mean just because she looks like this:
No, she's the most ALIVE thing in the movie despite being a program. Wide-eyed, inquisitive, compassionate and fierce, she's the closest thing to a real PERSON in a movie full of archetypes and cardboard cutouts. That she's as hot as an overclocked CPU and one of only two women in this sausagefest doesn't hurt either.
What's Warm:
• The look of the movie, all dark and cloudy and electro-luminescent. I saw it in digital 2D (the sneak was LieMAX 3D) and frankly I don't see how it can benefit from wearing sunglasses that will make things darker. (A friend saw it in full bore IMAX 3D and tried to convince me it was worth the $9 upcharge from the twilight show I saw and to him I say, "pfffft.") The upgraded Recognizer and Solar Sailer (now some sort of freight train) are cool, but again are only meaningful to those who saw the original.
• Jeff Bridges is cool, but he's waaaaaaaaaaay too much like the Dude from The Big Lebowski for my tastes. The digitally youngified version for flashbacks and as the evil Clu program are OK, but no match for the flawless work in Benjamin Button and Avatar. It never looks natural, but like a really good special effect. Now, this lifeless version on Clu makes some sense - he's a program and only can simulate emotions - but when the other programs aren't similarly stilted, well, then it's just poor FX work.
• There are actually a few moments where the movie almost has some semi-deep things to say, but it gets buried in the gobbledygook and shiny stuff, so it doesn't matter much in the end.
Now a pause for more Olivia Wilde:
What's Cold:
• Also as predicted, Garrett Hedlund is a total stiff as Sam Flynn. As I remarked to my sidekick, McHatin, after the movie, "With all the pretty boy emo actors femming up Hollywood these days, why couldn't they find someone with some ability to emote on screen?" Hedlund is stiffer than armor panels in his suit with a constant look of inappropriate bemusement on his blank mug. That he looks nothing like his old man doesn't help, but he makes poor Hayden Christensen look like Ewan McGregor in the thespian department. I didn't like him, couldn't relate to him, didn't care a whit about him or his story. That's a hat trick of fail there.
• I've never understood the logic inside the TRON Universe and it doesn't get any clearer here. The programs act as individual people with personalities, but what is the real world (pardon the pun) analog to this? Does your Excel or Firefox exhibit any personality; what are the programs then? No one is walking around saying they're a ATM security protocol, you know? Users are treated as something more special - deities of a sort - as when Sam is nicked in a battle and bleeds instead of dropping crystalline pixels like a shattered disco ball and his opponent stops trying to kill him. Which leads to another problem: In the first movie we see Kevin Flynn (Bridges) scanned and disassembled by the laser and then re-assembled on the Grid. Here, the picture just blacks out and Sam's not in Kansas - or Vancouver - anymore. (Again, if you haven't seen the first movie...) Accepting that he's been converted into a digital entity in the computer, why is he still bleeding? Does this mean he can't be de-rezzed?
Time is explained as moving differently in the Grid - Flynn explains at one point that hours inside were mere minutes outside - so considering he's been trapped for 20 years and has aged like his son, how long in digital dog years has it been? The need for TRONland to be an alternate universe disconnects it from being a glimpse into what you're computer is doing. Another plot point involves programs going missing; it's revealed they're being converted into an army by Clu, but does that mean when I want to play Bejeweled one day it won't work because it's been conscripted to join an army meant to invade our world. It. Doesn't. Make. Sense. The Matrix got crazy in the sequels (e.g. If humanity is all locked up in the power plant pods, why are there massive gun emplacements to hold off attacking ships?), but the fundamentals had some sussable logic to them.
Compared to the original, benefiting-from-nostalgia-and-fading-memories TRON, TRON: Legacy is less cheesy and hella slicker, but doesn't bring anything compelling to the table. You don't need to see it in 3D; the plot is irrelevant and in the end a little confusing; it's obviously meant to be a giant set-up to a franchise but doesn't imply that there's anything interesting to explore on the Grid; it's just there and unlike the fervent nerd ragers venting on the Intartoobz, I can't get too worked up about it. It's just too meh to provoke much emotional response at all.
End of line.
Score: 5/10. Rent the Blu-ray if you've got a nice home theater, otherwise catch it at a dollar show.
One more for the road:
ADDITIONAL THOUGHTS: Another unexplained thing is how stuff gets into the Grid like the shelf full of antique books Flynn has in his 2001 bachelor pad. When you see how he got stuck in there, it begs the question, "Where did the books come from? Gridazon.com?"
Another scene has father and son discussing what's changed about the world. The usual liberal crap - war, improper distribution of wealth - gets name-checked (for social relevance, don'tchaknow?) but the very method that's bringing these complaints to your eyes - the World Wide Web - goes totally unmentioned. Dumb.
"Devil" Review
Tuesday, December 21, 2010
It's a sign of just how fed up the moviegoing public is with M. Night Shyamalan - I'm not even going to bother checking if I spelled that correctly - that when the trailer for Devil appeared last summer, the mere sight of his name being connected with the project was greeted with snickers and murmurs of, "Well, it's safe to miss this one." Even though he was only producing and providing the story to another writer and director to execute, his precipitous decline from his debut tag-team of The Sixth Sense and Unbreakable had made him a laughingstock, especially on the heels of his generally panned live-action version of The Last Airbender. Are the sins of the father to be visited on the cinematic progeny?
The premise of Devil is straightforward: Five people get into an elevator that gets stuck and then bad things happen because one of them may be...you see this coming...may be...wait for it...the DEVIL!!! (Dun-dun-DUHN!!!!) With a security camera that can see in, but the intercom not allowing for the passengers to be heard, a police detective with a lot of personal baggage that will of course be relevant to the plot twists and turns - no, he's not already dead or a super villain - races to free them and catch the killer who is (SPOILER ALERT!) whacking the occupants one by one.
For the first part of this brief (80 minutes) movie, I was having great sport yelling unheeded advice at the brain-dead doofs in the elevator (e.g. no one thinks to use their cell phones as flashlights until the cop suggests it) and until the detective gets into the game with his Sherlock hat it felt like our intelligence was going to be insulted, but it gets better though it's pretty obvious if you've seen a couple of these movies who the ultimate villain will be. There is an interesting angle of spirituality at play, but Night's puppets choose to hammer the point home in a voice-over narration to the point where whatever profundity may've been found is rendered trite.
If you don't go in expecting too much, Devil is an adequate popcorn muncher that manages to be more satisfying than anything its creator as put out in a decade, yet too slight to be really recommendable.
Score: 4/10. Catch on cable.
The premise of Devil is straightforward: Five people get into an elevator that gets stuck and then bad things happen because one of them may be...you see this coming...may be...wait for it...the DEVIL!!! (Dun-dun-DUHN!!!!) With a security camera that can see in, but the intercom not allowing for the passengers to be heard, a police detective with a lot of personal baggage that will of course be relevant to the plot twists and turns - no, he's not already dead or a super villain - races to free them and catch the killer who is (SPOILER ALERT!) whacking the occupants one by one.
For the first part of this brief (80 minutes) movie, I was having great sport yelling unheeded advice at the brain-dead doofs in the elevator (e.g. no one thinks to use their cell phones as flashlights until the cop suggests it) and until the detective gets into the game with his Sherlock hat it felt like our intelligence was going to be insulted, but it gets better though it's pretty obvious if you've seen a couple of these movies who the ultimate villain will be. There is an interesting angle of spirituality at play, but Night's puppets choose to hammer the point home in a voice-over narration to the point where whatever profundity may've been found is rendered trite.
If you don't go in expecting too much, Devil is an adequate popcorn muncher that manages to be more satisfying than anything its creator as put out in a decade, yet too slight to be really recommendable.
Score: 4/10. Catch on cable.
"Black Swan" Review
Monday, December 20, 2010
The reviews for Darren Aronofsky's Black Swan have been all over the map; topping some year-end best-of-2010 lists and making some worst-of lists as well. Going in I figured it would be a love it or hate it situation - instead I managed to land in the middle as I don't think it really works out.
Natalie Portman is painfully intense as Nina, a ballerina who is tapped to play the lead in Swan Lake. Her years of tortuous practice - the physical toll taken on ballerinas is graphically illustrated - goaded on by her stage mother from Hell (Barbara Hershey) and driven her to seek perfection and probably mad in the process. It doesn't help that the smarmy director of the ballet keeps complaining that while she is technically perfect, she lacks the soul that a newcomer, Lily (Mila Kunis), possesses which would make for a better performance as the Black Swan portion of the ballet. Lily lacks Nina's technique, but has a free spirit (read: she's sex on wheels) that the tightly-wound and crazy repressed Nina seems to lack. As the pressure and paranoia mounts, Nina's grip on reality seems to slip away.
Where Aronofsky errs in my mind is to use the flat, ugly, documentary cinematic style of his previous film The Wrestler here. Why he went gritty instead of artistic for a fantasy film like this is odd since he's done that with his prior films The Fountain (which I think is an overlooked gem with an Oscar-nom worthy performance from Hugh Jackman; check it out) and Requiem For A Dream.
The second problem is Portman's performance. Mind you, she's excellent and likely to score an Oscar out of it and wipe away all the bad memories of her stiff Star Wars prequel performances, but she gave me a headache almost every moment she's on screen. Other than a girls night out sequence with Lily - leading to the widely-reported canoodling - it's almost unremitting misery. Yes, that was the idea; it's just hard on the nerves.
Kunis, Hershey, and Winona Ryder as the former prima ballerina being pushed aside due to age are all good, but they're all trapped in Aronofsky's hermetically sealed chamber of horrors. There are small glimpses of interaction with the other dancers, but there's no sense of life outside of the dance studio. Even the most dedicated pros take a breather, which again is the point about Nina, but without context, it all seems contrived. Perhaps if Aronofsky had backed away from the trees a little to see the forest.
Score: 5/10. Rent the DVD
In counter-point, my girlfriend really liked it - she would've given it an 8 or 9 score - and compared it to Carrie, which I've never seen, so I can't relate.
Natalie Portman is painfully intense as Nina, a ballerina who is tapped to play the lead in Swan Lake. Her years of tortuous practice - the physical toll taken on ballerinas is graphically illustrated - goaded on by her stage mother from Hell (Barbara Hershey) and driven her to seek perfection and probably mad in the process. It doesn't help that the smarmy director of the ballet keeps complaining that while she is technically perfect, she lacks the soul that a newcomer, Lily (Mila Kunis), possesses which would make for a better performance as the Black Swan portion of the ballet. Lily lacks Nina's technique, but has a free spirit (read: she's sex on wheels) that the tightly-wound and crazy repressed Nina seems to lack. As the pressure and paranoia mounts, Nina's grip on reality seems to slip away.
Where Aronofsky errs in my mind is to use the flat, ugly, documentary cinematic style of his previous film The Wrestler here. Why he went gritty instead of artistic for a fantasy film like this is odd since he's done that with his prior films The Fountain (which I think is an overlooked gem with an Oscar-nom worthy performance from Hugh Jackman; check it out) and Requiem For A Dream.
The second problem is Portman's performance. Mind you, she's excellent and likely to score an Oscar out of it and wipe away all the bad memories of her stiff Star Wars prequel performances, but she gave me a headache almost every moment she's on screen. Other than a girls night out sequence with Lily - leading to the widely-reported canoodling - it's almost unremitting misery. Yes, that was the idea; it's just hard on the nerves.
Kunis, Hershey, and Winona Ryder as the former prima ballerina being pushed aside due to age are all good, but they're all trapped in Aronofsky's hermetically sealed chamber of horrors. There are small glimpses of interaction with the other dancers, but there's no sense of life outside of the dance studio. Even the most dedicated pros take a breather, which again is the point about Nina, but without context, it all seems contrived. Perhaps if Aronofsky had backed away from the trees a little to see the forest.
Score: 5/10. Rent the DVD
In counter-point, my girlfriend really liked it - she would've given it an 8 or 9 score - and compared it to Carrie, which I've never seen, so I can't relate.
"The Town" Review
Wednesday, December 15, 2010
Ben Affleck has never been taken very seriously as an actor. While he's had some good performances in films like Chasing Amy and most recently in the little-seen-but-so-so Hollywoodland (as the doomed Superman, George Reeves), he's typically come off as callow and shallow - his "Just get me into a cockpit! bits in Pearl Harbor still amuse - and it's easy to forget that he does hold an Academy Award for co-writing with Matt Damon (say it like Team America!) Good Will Hunting and suspect he was the lesser half of that partnership.
Probably sensing his leading man days were numbered, he stepped behind the camera to direct the pretty good Gone Baby Gone, which was marred by a flat (and mysteriously overpraised) performance by his brother Casey. Now he's calling the shots again as well as starring and co-writing The Town and based on what works and what doesn't, I still think Damon was the brains of the writing department, but Affleck clearly has strong directorial chops.
The titular town refers to the Charlestown neighborhood of North Boston (Affleck's hometown) where reportedly a crazy percentage of bank robbers hail, including Affleck, The Hurt Locker's Jeremy Renner, and a pair of guys who are so secondary to the gang that no-names play them and I don't recall their names. After an opening heist where they take a hostage (Vicky Christina Barcelona's Rebecca Hall) that may or may not be able to identify one of the gang, Affleck strikes up a relationship with her, first to make sure the gang's in the clear, but then because he's falling for her.
While the gang perpetrates a couple more heists, FBI agent Jon Hamm is hot on their trail and that's where the script problems begin to sap the tension. Right off, seeing Renner's tightly-wound robber, you're on safe ground to assume he's not going to end up dying of old age and when Affleck is forced into doing the One Last BIG Job, all that is unknown is how he's going to end up - dead or alive or imprisoned or miserable or some combo of those. (If you're surprised about what happens with the run-down hockey rink, you really need to have you're diapers changed because you're about two years old and shouldn't be watching these kinds of movies.)
While the script with two other writers is meh, Affleck really shows solid directorial chops. The crimes and chases are clear and kinetic, not marred with tired shaky-cam and spastic editing. All the performances are solid, including his and Gossip Girl wet blanket Blake Lively as Renner's slutty, druggy sister, and he keeps the pace and tension taut. It's just that caper flick formula is so second nature that it's too bad that he didn't subvert any of our expectations in the storytelling. No matter how intense things may get, we're pretty sure we know how things will pan out and they do.
Score: 7/10. Rent the DVD.
Probably sensing his leading man days were numbered, he stepped behind the camera to direct the pretty good Gone Baby Gone, which was marred by a flat (and mysteriously overpraised) performance by his brother Casey. Now he's calling the shots again as well as starring and co-writing The Town and based on what works and what doesn't, I still think Damon was the brains of the writing department, but Affleck clearly has strong directorial chops.
The titular town refers to the Charlestown neighborhood of North Boston (Affleck's hometown) where reportedly a crazy percentage of bank robbers hail, including Affleck, The Hurt Locker's Jeremy Renner, and a pair of guys who are so secondary to the gang that no-names play them and I don't recall their names. After an opening heist where they take a hostage (Vicky Christina Barcelona's Rebecca Hall) that may or may not be able to identify one of the gang, Affleck strikes up a relationship with her, first to make sure the gang's in the clear, but then because he's falling for her.
While the gang perpetrates a couple more heists, FBI agent Jon Hamm is hot on their trail and that's where the script problems begin to sap the tension. Right off, seeing Renner's tightly-wound robber, you're on safe ground to assume he's not going to end up dying of old age and when Affleck is forced into doing the One Last BIG Job, all that is unknown is how he's going to end up - dead or alive or imprisoned or miserable or some combo of those. (If you're surprised about what happens with the run-down hockey rink, you really need to have you're diapers changed because you're about two years old and shouldn't be watching these kinds of movies.)
While the script with two other writers is meh, Affleck really shows solid directorial chops. The crimes and chases are clear and kinetic, not marred with tired shaky-cam and spastic editing. All the performances are solid, including his and Gossip Girl wet blanket Blake Lively as Renner's slutty, druggy sister, and he keeps the pace and tension taut. It's just that caper flick formula is so second nature that it's too bad that he didn't subvert any of our expectations in the storytelling. No matter how intense things may get, we're pretty sure we know how things will pan out and they do.
Score: 7/10. Rent the DVD.
"Cats & Dogs: The Revenge of Kitty Galore" Review
Tuesday, December 14, 2010
I've always had a fondness for the 2001 talking cat and dog spy flick Cats & Dogs which revealed the hidden war between the evil felines and humanity's canine protectors. Powered by the manic vocal of Sean Hayes as Mr. Tinkles who had such great, quotable lines such as, "Evil does not wear a bonnet!", and as he tells the mouse army his evil plan, "With the dogs out of the way, cats will overthrow the humans and you will receive your just reward: sixteen pounds of Monterey Jack and the continent of Australia." Awesome stuff, but pretty cult humor in my appreciation.
Flash-forward to 2010 and I'm standing in a theater lobby watching trailers when I'm surprised to see that a sequel was finally made, Cats & Dogs: The Revenge of Kitty Galore:
Definitely more kiddie-oriented in humor, but the actual movie does have some of the stuff that will make grown-ups smile starting with Dame Shirley Bassie's take on Pink's "Get The Party Started" over a slick James Bond-looking credits sequence and some throwaway gags, but overall it's clearly aiming low and going for today's Ritalin kidz with several frenetic action sequences - this must've sucked in 3D - and a general dumbness which makes scenes like The Silence of the Lambs cells with a crude animatronic Mr. Tinkles strapped up like Hannibal Lecter odd since the rugrats aren't going to - or sure better not - get the reference.
The voice cast top-lined by James Marsden, Nick Nolte, Christina Applegate, Bette Midler and featuring the likes of Roger Moore as Tab Lazenby (Get it? Only if you're not five.) is very good and some of the talking animal effects aren't too creepy, but the overall effect is still slapdash compared to the more original original movie. It's not particularly bad as much as not so good. (There's a quote for the DVD box!)
Score: 4/10. Catch it on cable. Better yet, rent or buy the original Cats & Dogs
Flash-forward to 2010 and I'm standing in a theater lobby watching trailers when I'm surprised to see that a sequel was finally made, Cats & Dogs: The Revenge of Kitty Galore:
Definitely more kiddie-oriented in humor, but the actual movie does have some of the stuff that will make grown-ups smile starting with Dame Shirley Bassie's take on Pink's "Get The Party Started" over a slick James Bond-looking credits sequence and some throwaway gags, but overall it's clearly aiming low and going for today's Ritalin kidz with several frenetic action sequences - this must've sucked in 3D - and a general dumbness which makes scenes like The Silence of the Lambs cells with a crude animatronic Mr. Tinkles strapped up like Hannibal Lecter odd since the rugrats aren't going to - or sure better not - get the reference.
The voice cast top-lined by James Marsden, Nick Nolte, Christina Applegate, Bette Midler and featuring the likes of Roger Moore as Tab Lazenby (Get it? Only if you're not five.) is very good and some of the talking animal effects aren't too creepy, but the overall effect is still slapdash compared to the more original original movie. It's not particularly bad as much as not so good. (There's a quote for the DVD box!)
Score: 4/10. Catch it on cable. Better yet, rent or buy the original Cats & Dogs
"Altitude" Review
Monday, December 13, 2010
For most of its run time the dumb-teens-on-a-small-plane-in-trouble flick Altitude is a constant stream of dumb contrivances, on-the-nose writing, and annoying characters consistent with a low-budget B-movie, but in the last five minutes it almost becomes something pretty neat.
After a Very Important Prologue in which we see a horrifying mid-air collision between two small planes, we meet our dead meat, er, plucky characters led by rookie pilot Sara, who looks like a cross between Neve Campbell and Amanda Peet. Her mother died in the prologue and she's secretly learned to fly and is taking her four stupid, er, best friends to a Coldplay concert. (Yes, a Coldplay concert. They all deserve to die.) There's a meathead jock (signified by his varsity jacket, constant brewski guzzling, and general stupidity); his filmmaker girlfriend (she has a video camera and tells us she's a film major); and two emo guys, one a musician (he has a guitar) and the other being Really Creepy and Probably Harboring a Secret About What Really Happened to His Parents. (Hint hint hint!)
Shortly after takeoff, a bolt comes loose, jamming the controls and forcing the plane to climb higher and higher into a storm front. They lose contact with the tower, the instruments go haywire, and are running out of fuel because Little Miss Spunky Pilot forget to check the gas gauge. Oh, did I mention the monster that may be hunting the plane, too? Yeah, that's a problem they have.
When the stupid people aren't doing stupid things and screaming at each other (stupidly), they're getting knocked off one-by-one and while it's always fun to see Coldplay fans die, anyone with a passing knowledge of how horror movies work can predict who the final survivor(s) are likely to be. (Nudge, wink.)
Where Altitude manages to do a little something different is at the very end when what's causing the situation and how it resolves itself plays out. I kind of predicted the cause, but the punchline was novel and almost redeems the dumb stuff that fills the other 95% of the movie. Almost.
Score: 4/10. Catch it on cable.
Jeez, they actually pretty much give away the twist in the trailer, so not quite.
November 2010 Review Roundup
Tuesday, November 30, 2010
Hardly saw anything; wrote even less.
Nov. 8 - The Social Network (9.5/10)
Nov. 20 - Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince (7/10)
Nov. 26 - Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps (5/10)
Month's Movies Watched: 3
Previously Unseen: 3
Theatrical: 0
Home: 3
=====
Year-To-Date: 89
YTD First-Timers: 78
YTD Theatrical: 24
YTD Home: 65
Nov. 26 - Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps (5/10)
Month's Movies Watched: 3
Previously Unseen: 3
Theatrical: 0
Home: 3
=====
Year-To-Date: 89
YTD First-Timers: 78
YTD Theatrical: 24
YTD Home: 65
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)