Unfortunately, this isn't a feature length picture of Troy and Abed enjoying Michael Haggins' smooth-jazz classic(#sixseasonsandamovie)
Instead, Daybreakers is a cleverly conceived yet poorly executed future sc i-fi vampire action/drama. Set in 2019 (10 years in the future, three years ago), vampires are the dominant species after a viral outbreak. With humanity on the verge of extinction, so too is the vampire's "food" supply. Ethan Hawke plays a scientist looking for a synthetic blood substitute, only to get entangled with the human resistance and learn that there is, in fact, a procedure for curing people of their vampirism. Of course, it's not as simple as it sounds as Hawke must contend against the might of the corporation that controls the blood supplies and his own brother, who's charged with corralling any remaining humans.
There's great ideas in the film, including the societal breakdown as the blood supplies start running low as well as the mutation of the virus when the vampires begin to starve, and yet it's all so clunkily executed, on the level of a low-budget, syndicated genre TV show. The German Spierig Brothers, acting as both writers and directors, don't seem to know what they want out of their own film, as early on they seem to strive for a Gatta-like seriousness, yet constantly undermining it with cheesy dialogue or overly transparent foreshadowing. By the third act of the film the Brothers abandon any sense of drama in favour of an exceptionally awkward and poorly constructed action finale/bloodbath which is either painful or funny, depending on how high or drunk you are. I don't think that either reaction is what the brothers were after.
I seem to recall discussion that writer David Goyer had originally planned a similar plot for the third Blade movie, a world in which the vampires won, human were cattle, and Blade was to lead the resistance. Somehow, between Blade 2 and getting the directorial gig for Blade Trinity the concept changed completely and became a Blade and the Scooby Gang vs. Dracula instead. I was hoping Daybreakers would capitalize upon Blade's loss and that this great idea would finally be executed on screen. Alas. Exceptionally skippable.
The Raid: Redeption - 2011, Gareth Evans Lockout - James Mather, Stephen St. Leger
I don't remember the last time I've watched two movies in the theatre back to back. I'm going to guess it was a festival, probably four years ago or more. It's actually something I used to do more frequently when I was single and childless, with no real constraints or demands upon my time and having long ago gotten comfortable attending the cinema by my lonesome. The opportunity presented itself to cram in two films in one evening, with David no less, although such an endeavor required, well, not so much strategic planning as a willingness to watch whatever it was that fit the scheduled block of time.
There's not a a whole lot of connective tissue between The Raid: Redemption and Lockout, although both are international productions, with The Raid shot in Indonesia with an Indonesian cast by a Welsh director, and Lockout starring a bevvy of international talent, and a product of French producer Luc Besson's steadily churning action movie brain. As well, both seem to owe a tremendous debt to John Carpenter, not that he's the sole source for either story or structure for these films, but he's certainly the most prominent namecheck.
The Raid: Redemption is a throwback to the 70's in-over-their-heads, rock-and-a-hardplace action movies, ala Assault on Precinct 13 or The Warriors. It's a completely stripped down plot and script, practically threadbare, with just enough of a story, and a pinch of characterization to hang its relentless martial-arts extravaganza hat on.
The premise of the film finds a compact police SWAT team attacking a notoriously impenetrable apartment complex in Jakarta which is the headquarters of the city's most prominent drug kingpin. Very quickly the team finds that they are outnumbered, outgunned, and, worst of all trapped in the middle floors, unable to retreat or advance. One of their numbers has a personal stake in the raid, which seems to fuel him further and provide him the resilience to survive despite the odds.
Director Gareth Evans, as the story goes, after getting married to a woman of Indonesian descent, was pushed by her to direct a documentary on the country's martial art, Pencak Silat. Somewhat entranced by the fighting style, he went on to make the cult film Merantau after discovering Raid star Iko Uwais. The Raid is a stylized film, heavy on the blue, yellow and brown tones, creating a grimy atmosphere suitable for a poorly maintained drug fortress fronting as an apartment building.
Evans' spotlight on Silat differs from traditional martial arts films, which tend to glorify its practitioners as superheroes in a certain light. Here, instead, the combatants are quite readily seen as mortal, blood and bone, prone to fatigue and flaws. Evans pulls the camera back and gives the expertly orchestrated fights their due, keeping the edits to a minimum and the action in focus. This isn't a Greengrass Bourne film, where the fighting is masked by quick cuts to exaggerate momentum and intensity, instead the technique is quite on display, left raw, in the open, brutal but impressive.
The film is not without its directorial flourish, in which Evans would jostle the camera slightly during the fight sequences, particularly during the copious firearms exchanges. The particularly motion-sensitive may feel the effect, others might not even not even notice.
Lockout, unlike The Raid, is a clean-cut, far more traditional b-movie action movie with sci-fi trappings, again owing a generous debt to John Carpenter and his Snake Plissken vehicles, although instead of reaching for the dirty, tawdry, darker look and feel of the early '80's Escape From New York, the film cops quite liberally from the early 90's, glossy, cgi and technology-enabled Escape From L.A., that it's more like Plissken fan-fiction than anything approaching an original concept.
Guy Pierce's Snow subs in for Kurt Russell's Snake as the sarcastic, tough-as-nails mercenary who has connections high and low as eager to help him as to kill him. When the president's daughter is amongst the civilians trapped aboard an orbital supermax prison, Snow is the only man for the job of infiltrating the escapees and getting the girl... to safety, and without any options to do so.
The sequence of events that follows is rote b-movie material carried forth with pithy, if not entirely clever dialogue. The film frequently borrows from other genre pics, including a horrendous lifting of the Death Star trench assault sequence which seems not only entirely extraneous but a waste of effects budget that could have been put to better use refining those throughout the rest of the film.
Despite his quite lengthy resume, Pierce hasn't really played the tough guy or conventional action star too often, if at all, yet somehow beat Jason Statham to the part. While he doesn't exactly wear it comfortably, he seems to have fun with it. Maggie Grace, Besson's new go-to girl-in-distress, isn't really given a concrete character to work with, changing face and temperament as the script demands. The leads don't entirely radiate chemistry, and there's little investment from the actors all around, but the end result is passably entertaining, if unmemorable.
Oh, one final connection... the posters, both of the drab, generic variety implying the man-alone-against-great-odds scenario. Uninspired and not at all embracing their retro leanings.
2010, Mikael Salomon (hard working TV director including Band of Brothers, The Andromeda Strain and Camelot) -- download
This is one of those situations where I find out about a movie on some blog that I have already forgotten about. This was post-apocalypse (PA) fiction starring Sean Bean. OK, not exactly starring Sean Bean but he has a strong role, and guess what, he is not killed horribly. I am rather fond of PA fiction, especially the less-than-stellar stuff like ... weird, I cannot think of anything that is anything other than less than stellar. So, stuff like Max Max 2: The Road Warrior, The Postman, Steel Dawn and The Book of Eli. They take place long after an apocalypse but not so long after that the remnants of the old world are forgotten about. Also, some element of the plot focuses on how things were, such as finding old tech or exploring lost cities or living off the detritus. Geez, if I was to make this genre one of my '31 Days of...', I would again spend a lot of time saying why some movies are on my list and some would not be.
Anywayz, a plague basically wiped out mankind and many of those left are mutated into horrible beastly killing machines. The group of survivors we meet have been primitive for enough generations they don't have knowledge of the old world; basically they are pretty cave people. They hide inside an area they deem safe from the plague and the mutants and know little of the outside world. I think there must have been some climate shifts as well because they all sound British but its the warmest, prettiest PA Britain I have ever seen. One hunting group strays too far and brings back the mutants and the plot establishes as the young & brave have to go on a quest to bring back a cure for their village before all become monsters in sub-par makeup.
It is a very basic plot, as my favourites of this genre often are, about travelling to the unknown land, surviving its dangers, locating the object of the quest and bringing it back to save the day. Very fantasy-based, very Hero's Journey. Sean Bean is here as a source of knowledge, a once-member of a group of skilled explorers and plague detectors, aware of the cure as well as a collector of the old world. He directs the young ones, a mentor of sort, and draws out the needed heroism in them. While very very TV low budget, as many of this genre are, it was still not as bad as most of the 80s & 90s examples.
2011, Glen Ficarra, John Requa (I Love you Philip Morris) -- download
OK, the idea of two directors isn't usually a good idea but these guys are a long time writing duo (Two Angry Beavers) and their first movie, which I haven't seen yet, got some pretty good acclaim. We will let them try this out for a while. And yes, I do like romcoms. I remember hearing that it was a cut above other expected Steve Carell romcoms and that usually defines whether I will like it, that being a cut above the average dribble. Yes, dribble not drivel. I like something just above what a comedy actor normally does. And that is pretty much what I got.
Its a midlife crisis comedy, but what else could it be starring Steve? He does hurt & befuddled so well. He loves his life, his middleclass suburban family and father life but when his wife has sex with her coworker, a breakup is hatched. Steve goes and gets drunk in a local nightclub in his schlumpy clothes and his schlumpy Steve attitude, to only catch the attention of Ryan. We have already seen this nightclub as the basis for Emma Stone, smart educated and in love with her boyfriend, to reject Ryan Gosling (playing Leisure Suit Larry in this movie) who is astounded a woman spurned his advances. Meanwhile a highschool girl is in love with Steve because he is the perfect, nice guy. Meanwhile Steve's son is in love with the highschool girl. There are lots of meanwhiles in this movie.
This is a connected to the connected movie that wants to be a smart comedy. And it succeeds for the most part. The intertwined plot has some surprises and a lot of cute paths cross. The dialogue is charming and for the most part, the movie focuses on Jacob (Gosling) taking broken bird Cal (Carell) under his wing and teaches him how to respect himself enough to get any girl he wants. Jacob is just sleazy enough to be effective (law of averages kinda guy) and disarming enough that we root for him when he falls for Hannah (Stone) who originally rejected him. The plot weaves around a bit but comes back to a final backyard party where a number of things are revealed and.... which totally surprised me, Cal does not immediately get back together with his wife (Julianne Moore).
In the year of the faerie tale re-imagined including TV shows Once Upon a Time and Grimm and the other terrible Snow White movie, Mirror Mirror, but lacking any property made from the comic Fables, I was disappointed that nothing lent itself to the D&D player in me. Until I saw the trailers for this movie. Dual axe-wielding, leather armored Chris Hemsworth (who, in all honesty, will always be Kirk's day to me) cried out to be made into an NPC in my game. Kristen Stewart was not whatsoever an image of Snow White to me, but in a re-imagining where she wields a sword and fights along side an army, I am cool with that. And Charlize Theron as the Evil Queen.... be still my heart and command me, my Queen. Snicker. And double yay when Kent gave me an early pass to see the movie!
So, basically what I got was exactly what I wanted -- a light fantasy fare, light on the faerie tale connection and strong on the generic fantasy. Queen Ravenna is a wandering beauty who bewitches Kings and steals their kingdoms and the life of the kingdom & its women. She is hundreds if not thousands of years old and sucks the life from maidens for her youth & beauty and magical power. But when she takes Snow White's kingdom, she kind of takes a liking to young Snow and rather than killing her, locks her in a tower until her early 20s. When Snow escapes and a prophecy proves to the Queen that the girl should have been dead long ago, she sends the drunken, mead-swilling Huntsman after the girl. Prophecy becomes destiny and it is up to Snow White and the rebel heroes of the kingdom to defeat Ravenna and take back her father's throne.
This is brilliant generic fantasy, and by generic I mean that it is not all that tied to a specific world. Faerie tales may be set on our earth and often in Germany or France, but this does not tie there at all. There are hints that more connection may have been dropped on the cutting room floor as there were a few disconcerting and completely unneeded references to Christianity in the movie. The rest is dark fantasy with haunted forests, faerie glades and magnificent gothic castles !! Kristen Stewart may not be the best Snow White in history (yes to pale skin but no red lips and limp, brown hair) but she does look rather fetching in armor wielding a sword. And the 8 no 7 dwarves were brilliant grumpy ex-miners who had recognizable CGIed faces (think Captain America) and voices on real dwarf bodies. This movie looked great, sounded great and I could watch Charlize have psychotic rages all day long. Heh.
2011, Drew Goddard (mostly TV writing including Buffy, Angel and Lost) -- cinema
Full disclosure -- I am a Whedon fan. Goddard is one of those of the stable of Joss Whedon's collaborators, friends and like minded brilliant people. Yeah, no bias on my part. Whedon and Goddard wrote this movie. Recognizable Whedon faces are in the movie. And considering all of you have already seen Avengers, also done by Joss, you should go check the listings and see this one too. OK? Good kids. You don't have to be sacrificed to the Old Ones.
As hinted at in the last movie "reviewed", I am rather fun of people playing with the tropes of the conventional horror movie. Strangely enough, back then, I was never that fond of the sources that developed those tropes. I definitely have seen most of them having grown up in the emergence and decline of the neighbourhood video store and the ritual of renting 4-5 movies for a weekend. But the older I get, I look back on these "kids getting picked off one by one" movies with affection and a lot more lenience for the stupidity, the sexploitation and badly done gore. For me, it's now about movie making than it is seeing the great plot revealed. Cabin comes from that same affection. Whedon and Goddard obviously loved these movies and decided to do somewhat of an explanation of just why so many people get killed in obviously ritualistic ways when all they wanted to do was go skinny dipping in the lake where several murders took place years past.
I won't hint at the true reveals in this movie but by now you have seen the trailers. You have seen the references to the "behind the curtain" elements to this movie. In Cabin we are given a bevy of college kids going to a cabin to spend a weekend winding down. But we quickly realize these aren't the stupid kids of the usual ilk, they are actually well educated college kids -- even the stoner seems a bit brilliant. They start their weekend meeting The Harbinger at the "last gas stop" and then are walled into the last weekend of their lives. We get to see why all the kids act the way they do, why these kids always die in ones and twos, why they have to die in the first place. And just after we settle into the reveal, we have the curtains pulled aside and we see even MORE. To say this is a monster movie, a slasher movie, a scifi movie and a fantasy is not saying enough. This time we should be actually rooting for the kids but... really, the guilty pleasure has always been waiting to see who dies next, and how.
This weekend I was re-watching Dollhouse on Netflix (yes it will get its own treatment) and I again sat and pondered how much I loved watching Alan Tudyk play a not-so-nice character. He plays the nice-guy soooo well, it was a joy to see him present such a nasty, complex character in Alpha. But, really, why I like Alan Tudyk so much is how much he comes across as a likeable guy. And in Tucker and Dale vs Evil he is the patient, thoughtful Tucker, friend to insecure Dale. Even after he accidentally gets involved in the death of quite a few deaths of clumsy college students, he remains the nice guy.
Tucker and Dale are hillbillies, in the classic sense. They wear overalls and plaid, they talk with funny accents and have a truck full of power tools and sharp objects. In most movies they would be the scary guys at the rest stop freaking out the college kids are on their way to the cabin in the woods (yes, later, its own treatment as well) for a weekend of debauchery. But of course, the college kids just don't get that Tucker and Dale are also headed to the cabin in the woods, having just purchased it as their new summer home. Dale establishes himself in the kids' minds, as a scary psycho, when he tries to talk to a pretty girl. Dale is a bit socially clumsy so it doesn't go well. Meanwhile the kids are showing that they have their own psycho.
This is a great comedic send up on the classic tropes of a horror movie, in the way The Cabin in the Woods is a serious twist on the same tale. This time we see most of the story from the point of view of the "scary" hillbillies at the "last gas station before hell" not quite harbingers of doom. They are just nice, well-meaning guys who get mixed up in the terrified delusions of the college kids. It doesn't help that there are a few clumsy run-ins with wood chippers and long pokey sticks. In heavy swipes of slapstick mixed with great dialogue, Alan Tudyk and Tyler Labine (another of my favourite comedy actors), use the cliche chainsaw and tool shed for of sharp objects and even have time to toss in a saw mill before they vanquish the actual evil of the title.
Actually, I am not sure of the exposure my memory has to the classic Borrowers or even why I think classic. Was it the 1997 Jim Broadbent movie? I know I have seen at least bits of it but I have no clear memories of seeing the whole movie. Was it the original 1952 book? One of the earlier TV adaptations? I don't recall but I know I was attracted to this world building idea of little people living beneath our floor boards "borrowing" things they need to survive. I have always had a decidedly un-boy-like fascination with doll houses, miniature environments so delicately detailed. The idea that there might be little people making use of them makes me grin. Unfortunately lil guy, that tiny toaster I have is of no use to you.
So, we knew the Studio Ghibli movie was coming out / was released in Japan so it was no surprise BBC would do their own re-do. They attached Christopher Eccleston to it and Robert Sheehan shows up as the rebellious Spiller but beyond that, it was standard BBC fare. Stephen Fry as the Bad Guy is the light in this as he is just maliciously amoral and completely unaware that what he wants to do to these little people might be considered cruel. They are not real humans after all. I have no clue why they had to add a punky hacker type, ala Lisbeth Salander, as his sidekick.
Just like all my memories, the best part of the movie, which felt like the first episode of a typical british mini-series, was the beginning focused on the house and their initial forays into the world of human beans. The climbing and crawling, over sized props and amusing uses for cast off junk tickled my grin. There is a hint of the danger of being 4" high imparted but I felt the dark past that Eccleston carried was a little too much. Once we were into the adventure story involving too many humans, I was not as enthralled. And I have pretty much blocked out the plot element of the child human sidekick to Arriety, the curious and isolated heroine. I know it's the original plot but, really, I think I ignored it then as well. All in all, this felt like exactly what it was, christmas fare built by the BBC to entertain idle kids. And it made me all the more eager to see the animated one.
Fuck you cancer. As they say, we have all been touched by cancer. As I say, it is not whether I will get cancer but when I will get cancer. It is just a characteristic of the geography I grew up in. But the last few years have given me some direct contact with it, luckily most ending (does it ever really end?) well. 50/50 approaches the cancer, i-might-be-dying, story from the point of view of someone with, as they say, his entire life ahead of him. Cancer stories from characters in their 40s or 50s are common place enough to be subplots on TV shows when ratings get low. But a character in his mid-twenties having to deal with a 50/50 shot at surviving is something new.
I was interested in seeing Seth Rogen challenged to do a role where he needed some concern & seriousness along with his usual levity. His character Kyle is the jerk friend, the friend we all have that annoys the fuck out of us but time forces us to retain. Also, we usually see some element of charm in them. But when forced to confront the impending possible death of his friend, and the very real bad months coming with chemo and its side effects, Kyle straightens out... just enough. It was very touching to see a friend be a real friend by retaining the jerk attitude when needed but also being very very affected behind the scenes. Not surprising as the script was loosely based on the experiences of Seth Rogen's real life friend Will Reiser.
Small movies, and can you really call them indie anymore (??), shine through in the focused dialogue and the well chosen cast. Bryce Dallas Howard is the girlfriend who just cannot quite support her boyfriend. We hate her, through Kyle, for doing it but see ourselves in her. Could we support someone through all the pain, lethargy and visible illness? Anjelica Huston is the overbearing mother whom he can no longer avoid or put off -- this time her desire to just take care of her son, as if he still a little boy, is warranted, if still typically heavy handed. And the small supporting roles of Phillip Baker Hall and Matt Frewer were just perfectly noted. Everything was handled nice and low key. And nice movies are nice to watch.
2011, Shawn Levy (Night at the Museum, Cheaper by the Dozen) -- download
No, I didn't intend on seeing this movie. C'mon, it's rock'em sock'em robots without the actual tagline "brought to you by the same people who made Transformers and Battleship". It's also a plucky kid movie along the lines of Stallone's Over the Top, yes the arm-wrestling movie. What in what way makes this movie sound appealing other than watching robots smash each other to bits? And you can see that in real life in universities and geek clubs across the country. I am not sure why I downloaded it but for that tenuous connection to the future that I like to see portrayed. I wanted to see how they could fit the idea of fighting robots into a society that looked pretty much like now.
Surprisingly, it's not such a bad movie. Jackman plays a down on his luck fighter, who is also an ex human fighter, from the days when humans still thought it was cool to watch other humans smash each other to bits. But he sucks and he is unlucky. Add to the mix an ex-lover who had a child who he ends up with purely to make a buck. He is not a nice guy, ok he's nice, as he is played by Hugh Jackman and he cannot help but be personable, but he's a downright bastard. Even after he begins to take a shine to the kid, you get the sense he would turn him in for a few bucks. But the connection between the two is played very well and there is no cloying relationship and the kid is not all that whiny. He definitely is plucky because it is his idea that turns Jackman's luck around.
But I was disappointed with the lack of world building. C'mon, you have steel behemoths socking each other other but people don't have personal service robots? If robotics had evolved to flashy delicate machines that could move exactly like 12' humans, then they should have been present everywhere in life. I think it was mentioned but it shouldn't have had to be, it should have been visible in all walks of life. But this was a sports and family values movie so the other stuff was just left on the writing room floor. It is probably better they focused on the stuff the audience actually wanted to see.
Shaky cam movies lend themselves to my lesser attention span of late. In my transition from "see every movie in the cinemas" over the past 10 years to "rent many DVDs" to "download just about every movie I watch", I have noticed a lessening of the thorough immersion I once enjoyed. Gone are the days where the lights were turned out, the phone was muted and we just ... watched. Now, laptops are in laps, kittens are bounding and ... well, usually chores are being performed. I rarely watch a movie completely through without a half dozen pauses. That extracts me enough from the experience that these "reviews" can be sometimes difficult as I am not as invested. It takes a lot for me to become so. And then there are movies where it just doesn't matter. Shaky, faux documentary flicks, like Chronicle, have an element of mundanity attached to them, in order to impart a sense of "this is real cam work" normally by an amateur. No editing, no cutting room floor. So little things are left in that do not contribute so much to the world and the story, as much as they do add to the technique. Thus, last night, pauses and kittens.
Chronicle is just that, a chronicle of a damaged kid's life through the eyes of a couple of different video cameras. It's not "found footage" as there were a number of different cams used, including what could have only come from cell cams, dashboard cams and a few news choppers. And then there were a few scenes where he must of just said, fuck it, pretend there would be a camera there for whatever reason. But for the most part we get a story told via the floating eye of a digital camera. P.S. This also lends itself to being pirated from the Interwebs, as you cannot really tell if you got a crappy copy or this was intended. The technique is effective as it leaves gaps where you would expect and provides a sense of reality in a story that is very superhero or anime in its plot. Other than the magic cams, cameras where none would have been, I was OK with the indulgence.
The story is pretty much an origin story of kids getting super powers. No investigation of background, no research as to why it focuses entirely on how it affects the highschoolers. And the newfound power doesn't really do right by them, which is not helped at all by the fact they are all dicks -- perhaps better to say they do not do right by it? These kids are the epitome of today's internet generation, the self-absorbed arrogant commenters on YouTube, the kind that don't consider the consequences of their actions and, as previously mentioned, the kids just plain damaged by their lives. And as Spiderman says, "with great power comes great responsibility", responsibility they all toss to the wind, the wind rushing by their faces as they fly, fly like Superman. But I would hazard that is the point that Landis (screenwriter/story) had -- not everyone given superpowers would go one way or the other, super hero or villain. Most would just play with them irresponsibility. And if one happened to be weaker than most, one might just go all Akira on the world. Even the kid who begins to see where they are being led only has a tenuous connection to the responsibility, more interested in the image of being responsible, sort of like the whole Kony / Invisible Children thingy.
2011, Chris Gorak (Right At Your Door) -- download
Is this going to be a new trend in alien invasion movies? Instead of the massive floating ships of the 80s (V), 90s (Independence Day) and the 00s (District 9) we get pretty floating lights falling from the sky (Skyline) that disguise the deadly intent of the invaders? In the typical invasion movie, the beachfront is obvious with the massive ships dropping troop carriers and enemy aliens (Battle Los Angeles) reminding us of our own wars and setting our sights on a very obvious enemy. In this movie, we have a gentle beginning full of beauty which is transformed immediately to terror when the pretty lights disintegrate a police man in a burst of dust and minimal flame. It is strange but this movie establishes almost a monster-movie mentality as the invaders cannot be seen and are very hard to detect let alone hide from.
The novel setting of the movie gives us two American visitors to Russia having a very The Social Network like experience, seeing their "great website idea" stolen out from under them by a co-investor. That is also made stranger given Max Minghella was IN that movie. Anywayz, this is just an excuse to get the movie to Russia, a very unfamiliar (but lovely) Russia of crowded streets of young & beautiful, pretty vistas and big shopping malls. I am not sure why the movie was set in Russia, for it contributes little to the plot. What it does contribute is the obvious heavy handed nature of the backers as certain characters and certain situations must have been directly written by the Russian producers. "Russians are tough, Russians are resourceful, Russians are very loyal !!"
It was a very very B-movie of stilted dialogue, dispensable characters and scenes lifted from the cliche box of all monster & alien movies. The inserts of the Russian supporting cast actually made it more fun as they looked like they walked out of the FPS adaptation of the movie to assist the usual weak-willed panicking characters of such movies as this. Nothing is really, truly bad but nothing ever reaches out and establishes itself as a fresh take on the genre. So they learn to fight back -- they always learn to fight back -- but I would have liked to something more to the typical get invaded, get devastated, learn alien motivation, learn to fight back sequence. Still the latest version of people-go-poof attack was very well CGIed and horrifying to see, especially when we realize they will indeed kill the puppy.
2011, Joe Carnahan (Smokin' Aces, The A-Team) --- download
Once again I bring up that I like small focused movies and present this as an example. The premise is just that -- small and focused, where we have a small group of survivors deciding to walk out of their air crash predicament and are hounded by hungry wolves the entire way. That is it, just the walking and surviving. And of course, the weather, the grey bleak northern clime that gives the movie its name.
Liam Neeson does these movies so well, wrapping himself up in a character whose emotional landscape is also the reason for the movie's title. He is a man at the end of his life, at the end of the world, in a drilling camp somewhere we assume must be northern Alaska but would have been better suited if set in remote Nunavut. He has lost someone, someone he loved and cannot live without. But his suicide is interrupted by his job in the camp, the defense of the men, against wolves. These are not the fuzzy, wuzzy wolves we have been raised with, those that are more afraid of men than they are a danger. These are the Big Bad Wolves of German forests who eat people and carry an evil, cunning with them. The interruption gives him a reprieve and sits him on a plane flying south, taking the hard, dangerous and angry men who work the camp. But then the plane crashes and these men find out exactly how not hard they are.
The ensuing walking battle between the survivors of the plane crash and the huge dark, mostly CGI wolves is not remotely realistic. These are monsters, not pack running mammals of the Canadian wood. Their growls echo loudly in the hills, even more haunting than their howls. Their attacks are timed with deadly precision, more cunning than the men can conceive. But Neeson's Ottway knows these wolves, fearing and respecting them where the others walking with him are just set dressing, showing just how little mankind controls this wilderness. They are loud, violent and despairing fools given only the role to die under teeth and claws. Only Ottway is destined to survive, a man who defies his own desire to die not so much that he wants to live but for the simple fact he has been given a choice of how he will die, repeatedly quoting his father's poem, "Once
more into the fray. Into the last good fight I'll ever know. Live
and die on this day. Live and die on this day."
Yes, I am that guy who is fond of those light-weight scifi movies. I enjoyed I, Robot and Minority Report purely because I enjoy being presented with The Future. And that italicize is a phrase, not another movie reference. I like the glossy technology and the postulated extravagances. Too bad but the only futuristic element of this movie is the premise -- that in the future, nobody ages past 25 (and apparently are engineered as beautiful) but then they have one year left. This one year is counted down on a sub-dermal clock and the seconds, minutes, hours and days are traded like rare commodities. Yes, the cliche of how previous time is.
Niccol's previous movies are about the moral implications that technology sticks us with, whether it gene manipulation, artificial life or even just the age old ease of access to firearms. There is a hint of a morality play in this movie but it's really hard to find in all the pretty people running around jumping off things and waving guns around. The story would have been better if it had been an adaptation of a PK Dick story for the conspiracy would have been deeper and the cynicism so much more dark. Alas the simple story is that it is wrong to steal time from people in order to just stay relativistically young and beautiful.
I could have forgiven the story if it was just a little more ... futuristic. So, we have an established lower class where they live in fear of their 26th year. They have to trade time for food, for amenities and for the basic necessities of life. Oh yeah, and booze. And gambling. They are all completely tied down by their need for more time. Add in a few more puns or cliches cuz the movie sure does. Meanwhile a few concrete blocks away the rich and beautiful lives for hundreds of years just because they are rich. But if they have this much time, why is technology and lifestyle so stunted and ... familiar? Beyond the tech that establishes their world, there is not much else to enjoy. So, all we end up with is a Bonnie & Clyde story of freeing time for everyone. Pun. Cliche. Pun. Beautiful body. Cliche. I don't have time for this.
2012, Anthony Hemingway (a bunch of TV including CSI and Treme) -- cinema
I admit, when I saw the ads for this movie, I was sucked into the cheese. I like heroic movies, I like war movies and it is a nice change of pace to see one that was less gritty-and-realistic and more rah-rah, like they were in the 40s. I ignored the whole George Lucas connection on this because, as all us geeks know, he really isn't worth any cred these days. The Tuskegee Airmen is one of those spots in war history that I have bumped into a few times but never absorbed much about, only really knowing they were an all black fighter pilot group who continued to fight racism ever after being deployed to Europe during the war. Accurate historical depiction or not, I hoped for a movie about heroics and dog fights.
I say I was sucked in, but really, I was more suckered. That speech in the trailers where the commander says they are going to provide bomber support and for every plane they save, that is another father going home to his family, another brother, another husband. They might not be sent out to be true fighter pilots but the support of the bomber divisions was important work and it was the hot shots who were causing the losses as much as the german pilots. I get that, I like the idea of highlighting the underdog support group. I am all about the little guys who get the job done so the big guys can perform their tasks. And the whole "to the last bullet... last minute... last man" is stirring. Too bad the rest of the movie, in it's entirety, fell completely on its face.
I get the ensemble cast for a war movie, different guys from different backgrounds of different temperaments and personalities. It makes a war movie, especially when they gel together for the big goal. But for gawds sake, get some actors who can carry it off. Let's ignore the guys who cannot separate themselves from being from 2012 but even the guys who were able to live in the history, carried their character's personalities like cardboard standups. Lines were stilted, unbelievable and left me constantly rolling my eyes. I could forgive Cuba Gooding's constant pipe chomping if I could believe him as an experienced Major. Don't get me started on Terrence Howard looking like he was about to cry. To be honest, the only characters I actually got wrapped up in were Method Man and Andre Royo as the two crewmen/mechanics. I guess small characters supporting small guys came across well? If they only just saturated the movie with exciting dog fights so we could just ignore our boredom with the actual acting, then maybe, I would have had a more favorable memory of this movie. Alas, no.
The Clash of the Titans remake from 2010 left what could be called an absence of impression upon me. Fact of the matter was I couldn't remember the film at all, so I had convinced myself that my lack of memory of the film meant it must've been an utter failure, and a complete piece of shit.
Imagine my surprise upon digging through my old blog archives to find that I kind of liked it. Okay, perhaps "kinda liked" is too strong... more appreciated the technical side of it (having watched in 2D rather than the universally panned 3-D conversion) but was all to aware of its failure in storytelling.
Having absolutely no fondness for the first installment, expectations for the second installment weren't even low, they were nil. I flat out ignored any set reports, any buzz, any reviews, and kept myself detached entirely from trailers and commercials. I just didn't care, and didn't have any desire to see it. But the power of free passes beckoned, and with a willing -- nay, eager -- compatriot in David to go with, off I went.
And I'll be damned if I didn't like it.
While I'd like to tell you what's different between Wrath and Clash, obviously, given my lack of memory of Clash (there was precious little recall happening whilst watching the latest), it's a dicey proposition. What I appreciated most about this latest production was how streamlined and focused the story was. It's a bare bones adventure plot that starts at point A, points at point B and moves unwavering towards it. Most films of this sort get sidelined by all sorts of diversions, and for some the diversions make the story, and for others it kills it. Wrath goes virtually diversion free. It does so by sacrificing a lot of in depth character and relationship building, but it's also not entirely necessary. In this case the minimal amount it provides is about all it needs. Anything more would more than likely be hokey or painfully weak but left as primarily glances or the briefest of exchanges, it actually has more meaning.
There's a "troubled relationships between fathers and sons" aspect to the film, as Zeus (Liam Neeson) is captured by his brother, Hades (Ralph Feinnes) and offered up as a sacrifice to their father, the Titan Chronos (yes, there's an actual Titan in this one) as he shows signs of breaking free of his prison. Hades is joined by Zeus' estranged son, Ares (Edgar Ramirez), while his other, beloved son Perseus (Sam Worthington) is his only hope. Perseus reluctantly accepts the quest to abandon his own son rescue his father. Joined by the son of the recently slain Poseidon, seeking to honor his own father, and Andromeda (Rosamond Pike), whom Perseus should fall in love with any minute now, they set off for the Underworld, encountering obstacles such as the Cyclopes giants, the Minotaur and, of course, Ares before the big final battle against an unleashed Chronos.
Unlike the last film, there's more right than wrong here, even though the story itself isn't remotely connected to the myths. Set at a time when belief in the Gods are dwindling there's a lack of power available, which makes the displays of them all the more impressive. Chronos particularly was a visual wonder, an oozing molten mess, standing tall as a skyscraper, absolutely monstrous and seemingly unstoppable. The display of abilities by Zeus and Hades, equally, was impressive, with a nice distinction in the effects of their powers.
After the fact I learned that the film was the product of Jonathan Liebsman, director of the equally focused and direct Battle: Los Angeles (which astute G&DSD readers will recall being the inspiring film for this blog). Suddenly my enjoyment of this film made a lot more sense. Liebsman is proving that an idea doesn't need to be complicated to work as a film and that with good direction, relentless action can create a momentum all its own that doesn't need to be overwhelmed with forced drama or cliched character distractions to be appealing. Sometimes simpler is better. In this case, it's certainly better than what came before.
We're not talking anything groundbreaking, anything challenging here, just enjoyable, escapist, at times pleasing and awe inspiring entertainment. Sometimes that's just good enough.
2010, Kaare Andrews (comic book artist & writer) -- download
Ever heard of sky squids? No, either had I. But apparently they are one of those cryptozoological creatures covered by the Fortean Times that stretch the limits of believability. They are supposed to be a flying version of those giant white squids that few believed Newfoundlanders were finding for decades. Ancient gods of the flying sphagetti monster religion? Cthulhu's illegitimate children? Whatever they are supposed to be, they do make for a rather novel creature that goes bump in the night, especially when the night surrounds your small, light aircraft and you are not the only thing in the sky.
Like the Campbellian archetypes of horror movies, we are given a small group of college students on their way somewhere for the weekend, destined for dark events. We have the usual group: the jock, the skank, the dweeb, the average guy and the good girl. A short flight later Sara, the pilot and the good girl of this story, loses control of the plane to an errant nut (as in screw) and the control of the cabin to the other errant nut, her boyfriend the dweeb. His fear of flying and the storm they have just flown uncontrollably into ignites a panic attack. It doesn't help that he is being teased by the jock and the average guy over his fondness for classic comic books. Then, in flashes of lightning we are given glimses of ... something. OK, not something, but a very obvious giant kracken of a sky squid.
This is your usual closed room horror given a spin by containing it to the cockpit of the personal aircraft. Our characters shout at each other, cry, fight and blame each other as the fear mounts. Not only are they at odds with the monster but the environment and each other. There is no slasher to take the kids out one by one, but tentacled nastiness definitely does begin to take the kids out... of the plane. But the fun of the story is not in the cliches of the genre but the flip it does. In the end, we are given more a Twilight Zone style story of mental abilities and effecting the timestream. Oh, we get that this squid is not flying in the same world as we are, that the plane has flown into some place ... else... but even though, as the ending's proximity alert sounded, I expected what was to come, it was enjoyably not what I expected when I clicked play.
I get why critics hate the Transformers movies. They're loud and in your face, they feature convoluted plots but give you little reason to care about the outcome. The character focus is not on the titular Transformers, who have next to no personality or even really motivation of their own, other than Decepticons are the bad guys who want to take over the planet and the Autobots are the good guys who want to stop them. Forget that in this film the Autobots are effectively reduced to slave labor for US military special operations and essentially told to step in line. What they actually want doesn't really matter.
The character focus instead, again, lies on Sam Witwicky (Shia LeBeouf), who, after saving the universe twice, is now an unemployed college graduate lamenting ad nauseum about his status in life, despite having a "hot", well-employed girlfriend who supports him no matter what (that is until he decides to try and save the world again at which point she becomes yet another of the selfish whiny bitch girlfriend stereotypes that big Bro action films like these like to create). LeBeouf's character is still self-conscious, and still runs at the mouth a mile a minute without a censor in a razor-thin tightrope of amusing/annoying dialogue.
At the third movie of the series, there's been precious little character development in Sam Witwicky's life, and, to be frank, he contributes very little to the proceedings, other than allowing the effects department to take a break for about an hour out of it's 155-minute run-time. His Megan Fox replacement, Rosie Huntington-Whitely is even more a useless character, with only his boss (an unnecessarily padded cameo from John Malkovich) and her boss (the modern cliche of the moustache twirling villain played by Patrick Dempsey) usurping the both of them in pointlessness. About an hour of this film's plot and "character development" could easily have been expunged without really harming the story at all.
The story that would remain is that of the Autobots, who discover that the US military have been withholding information about a crash landing of a Transformers spaceship on the moon back in the 1950's, which is what spawned the space race. This is set up in a well-handled flashback sequence that opens the film and is further embellished with shameless appearances from various Apollo astronauts, including Buzz Aldren, telling of their exploration and extractions of the spacecraft. What is further revealed is that Optimus Prime's predecessor, Sentinel Prime (voice by Leonard Nemoy, in a nod to the 80's Transformers movie) has been in storage and Optimus resuscitates him. Etc. Etc.
Really, your enjoyment level of the Transformers movie will depend almost entirely on how invested you can get in the war of the Autobots versus the Decepticons (although I imagine there's a tipping point that if you're a big, big fan of Transformers, the movies might be disappointing in their lack of Transformers character development).
Dark of the Moon positively jiggles with fat, for nearly 2/3 of its running time, but in some respects, it's not all that bad. Like some sort of chubby chaser, I think the films fat was kind of enjoyable... excessive yet still entertaining in a way. There was no reason to have John Malcovich playing Sam's whackadoo boss, but it's kind of fun that he's there. A cameo from Community's Ken Jeong as a conspiracy nut was a flagrant deus ex machina, and yet, I enjoyed it. Was it necessary to have John Turturro back once more? No, but seeing him molest his friend's wife (Francis McDormand, wife of one of them Coen brothers) was kind of fun. Did we need a visit from Sam's parents? No, but I think Kevin Dunn and Julie White are fabulous. And Alan Tudyk's weird German assistant to Turturro with a black ops past? Ridiculous, but scene stealing, and wildly amusing. It's all just deep fried butter, but it would be meaningless if not for the chocolate covered bacon it accompanies.
Sweet and salty is the third act, a nearly hour-long action set piece in the heart of Chicago, with the Autobots and Decepticons running wild, blowing shit up at every turn, skyscrapers toppling over after being compromised by some weird robotic worm thing. There's paragliding suits which are fricking amazing to see in action (not a CGI effect) weaving between buildings, and Bay has finally honed his robot fighting to a degree where you can actually makes sense out of what you're watching. I may never watch this film in its entirety again, but I'd definitely watch this sequence over and over and over.
The film, and the entire series' biggest failure is in the design of the Transformers. They're unnecessarily busy, obtusely complicated, and downright ugly, making them hard to look at and even harder to appreciate. The fact that the Decepticons are rather generic and lack much if any colour makes them disposable and indistinguishable villains (whereas the Autobots at least are coloured distinctly to differentiate them).
Given the massive financial success of these films, obviously the populace, if not the critical community is enjoying them. I get it, they're not good films, but they are goddamn entertaining ... for the right crowd. I would never recommend this movie to anyone, but I also won't say I didn't enjoy it.
Okay, I'm a little embarrassed to admit this, but the first time I'd ever heard of the Lorax was on a Saturday Night Live sketch during the New York Gubernatorial election when Jimmy McMillan, founder of "The Rent Is Too Damn High" Party where he was referred to as "The Black Lorax" (because he has a big, swooping, Lorax-ian moustache). The name stuck in my brain only to find out, oh, about a year later that the Lorax was a relatively famous Dr. Seuss-ian creation that was being made into a CGI animated movie by the makers of Despicable Me. As the promotional materials, trailers, commercials and reviews started hitting I became more and more aware of Seuss' ecological-inspired character/story but still not familiar at all with it.
The marketing definitely worked on my kids, aged 10 and 2, the latter of whom became obsessed with the Lorax after staring at a poster for the film for 20 minutes on a subway ride (this is why there are laws about advertising to children on television). So I took them to the theatre and it was definitely an experience to remember, more because it was my daughter's first experience at the movies than really anything to do with the picture itself, which was passably entertaining and visually stimulating, but bloated and preachy but without really getting the message.
It's an oversimplified eco-fairy tale about consumer excess, but lacking any of the subtlety of WALL-E's rather alarmist view of mankind's ever-expanding need for stuff. There's a decent half hour of story in there, which, if extracted, would probably equal Seuss' source material. The add-ons were obvious, including a whole plot about a kid (Zac Efron) who wants to impress a girl (Taylor Swift) by finding her a tree (which have long been depleted) who is led to the hermit outside city walls. There a story is told by the Once-ler (Ed Helms) of his own part in the destruction of all that was beautiful and wonderful in nature, despite warnings from the friendly, if annoying magical protector of the forest, the Lorax (Danny DeVito). It's at first a charming, then alarming story that features a slew of cute little bears, awkward birds, and fish that walk on land, who slowly come to learn they're defenseless against the power of a resource-consuming society they're not a part of. Once the story is over, it's up to the kid to bring nature back to life by planting a seed, but the evil owner of the canned fresh air company (Rob Riggle) does everything in his city-wide power to stop nature's resurgence. In the end, it's fine, but it's not that exciting, and really only needed a third of its running time to tell. The kids liked it though, but they have no discerning tastes at all (and my 2 year old was about done by the start of the third act... but then, she is only two). It is a very striking poster though.
Maybe it's just me. Maybe I'm just not wired right to enjoy the Barsoon stories as I've tried a few times recently to read A Princess of Mars, both the original text and the recent Dynamite Comics adaptation. I made it roughly halfway through the novel and about four issues into the series before giving up. Okay, that might not be fully accurate. I actually did enjoy reading the stories, but, I gave up the comic series because I though spending $4 per issue on a story I could download for free from Project Gutenberg was a colossal waste of money, and I've just not managed to pick up reading the novel where I left off months ago. Watching John Carter was the first time I made it through the story, and yet I could tell, even with my limited exposure, it was an inauthentic experience.
I have great respect for director Andrew Stanton's Pixar work, but all the seemingly effortless charm, warmth, emotion and adventure Stanton was able to create in Finding Nemo and Up is missing from John Carter, which is a labored over, convoluted, and exhausting envisioning of Edgar Rice Burroughs' Mars. The first ten minutes alone is a dizzying whirlwind of exposition (detailing the history conflict between two of Mars' populations), an abrupt transition to turn-of-the-20th-century America where John Carter is followed by a typical Kafka-esque figure, a tedious introduction to Carter's nephew (Edgar Rice Burroughs) who is the inheritor of Carter's estate following his death, and then a narrative backtrack into Carter's past as a Confederate veteran and aspiring prospector. It's a plodding half hour before Carter winds up on Mars, and while the intentions are there to establish Carter as a reluctant soldier and selfish warrior, it really serves to keep Carter an ambiguous protagonist, and not much of an enticing hero.
As, really, the first major planet-spanning sci-fi fantasy that both establishes alien settings and cultures, Burroughs' Barsoon series can no doubt be a major influence on much of the SF that followed it. In this regard it's hard to damn John Carter as a film for feeling so derivative of works as disparate as Star Wars, Planet of the Apes and Masters of the Universe, and yet there's direly little that feels exciting or innovative throughout it's lengthy run time.
The major sticking point for purists seems to be the translation of the Therns, from a near-extinct, conniving, secretive, manipulative race to a mythical race of demi-gods with fantastical powers. They stick out like an albino at a Black Panthers rally. What I had hoped from John Carter would be more of a Sci-Fi/Western/Fantasy hybrid, and the religion and magic as introduced via the Therns perpetually feels like it was shoehorned in, continually steering the story away from what seems like its natural path.
The film seems to lack focus in general and if there's a theme to the film, I can't place it. There's a love story, but it's not very central. There's an aspect of family, but that's only touched upon tangentially. There's a religious angle, but it seems more world building than a theme. There's the old "what it means to be a hero" but John Carter never becomes the hero he seems like he should be (he's terminally self-serving, and we're supposed to like him, but being the only human of the picture he's quite hard to identify with). There seems to be an anti-war screed somewhere within, but it's not committed to. There's preaching about separate races coming together, but if it was an intended allegory in 1912, it's kind of lost today.
The world of Barsoon is well established as a desert planet in the film, with the Tharks civilization building organically outward from it. As such the metal, fabric, and super-science of Helium and Zodanga, in particular the film's Roman-influenced design, conflict with the setting. There's obviously a great deal of money spent in bringing these environments and characters to life, and I guess it's praiseworthy that they succeed in making it all feel tangible rather than look just effects, but it still doesn't seem nearly as awe-inspiring or fantastical as it should.
Stanton's direction is serviceable and unobtrusive, but there's no style there either. At times the film feels like an animated production, with characters expositing aloud frequently, which works with the separation from reality that animation provides but in a live action picture feels clunky and unnatural. It's a shame after watching Brad Bird triumph with style transitioning to live action with Mission Impossible 4 that Stanton couldn't match him with John Carter. It truly feels like the product of someone uncomfortable with the size, scope and format of the project before him.
2003, Terry Zwigoff (Ghostworld, Art School Confidential) -- download
Yes, the last of the Xmas movies from... well, just before Xmas. This was the unexpected choice as I usually shy away from movies about completely unlikeable people. Remember Billy Bob's unlikeable American president in Love, Actually ? I thought that was the perfect Billy Bob character because I generally think that is the way he is. So, escalate that personality as a nasty, criminal Santa, and I am cringing. But I was also curious as I have heard a lot of good things about the movie. I did not know that it was by the same guy as a handful of movies I really liked, in fact, I liked all of this other movies.
Billy Bob plays a criminal, a thug in a Santa suit who insinuates himself into a shopping mall with his equally criminal sidekick elf. They set their place dealing with cranky kids and demanding moms but once the season is just about done, they spend a night in the mall and rob it blind. I am not sure if malls would actually retain a massive safe full of money, as I always thought each store handles their own deposits, but that is what they do, along with a long shopping list filled. Really, if you are robbing a mall, wouldn't you also just do your own complete list of shopping?
Now, Billy Bob's Willie is completely despicable. He is a drunk, he is nasty, he swears and he is just astoundingly crass. He abuses the kids, mouths off to everyone and can barely hold it together long enough to do the job. He pisses himself. There is absolutely nothing to make you root for this character. And yet, as things progress in the current Xmas caper, you kind of do. He gets wrapped up in the life of a ... well, the most politically correct thing you can say is a mentally challenged kid. But really he is more just a very very damaged young boy. Willie might just be living in the kid's house as a place to stay and completely taking advantage of him but I think it's because he actually sees the kid is even more messed up than Willie sees himself, that he actually tries to help the kid, ever so faintly. We never should actually like Willie but compared to his homicidal partner and the crazy mall security head who tries to find the evidence of what Willie and the elf (ok, dwarf actually) are up to, we kind of do. The movie was worth the cringes I felt and it was actually as well done as I would expect from the director.
