Lincoln (PG-13) - Review
"Honest Abe"
It opens on a battlefield, black Union soldiers tussling hand to hand with Southern Rebels, their bayonets stabbing and their boot heels mashing each others faces into the mud. This is the terrible war that contrived a lasting peace and continued freedom for all citizens of the United States of America.
Spielberg's long awaited biopic about Honest Abe comes to us amid a 2012 political climate rife with dogma and unbending ideals. To see what Abraham Lincoln (handsomely portrayed by the master Daniel Day Lewis) had to go through to get the 13th amendment, which barred all slavery in these United States, passed and ratified it gives one renewed hope in the democratic process. How he did it is half the story. Who Lincoln was, or at least an attempt at showing who the true man might have been beyond all the legends and mythos, is the other half.
The Civil war is winding down but losses are still heavy. The President, newly elected to his second term, has made it his first and most solemn duty to outlaw slavery before the Southern states have a chance to dangle the carrot of a misguided peace (one with slavery intact). Meanwhile the dastardly Democrats are trying to defeat the motion, the Left Wing Republicans want the bill to be more radical and the centrists want peace at any price and consider it a hindrance. Lincoln uses any means at his disposal to get the country on the right path; iffy morality, the use of sharp tongued lobbyists, political back scratching, gentle persuasion and powerful compassion for his fellow man.
Tommy Lee Jones is perfectly cast as a powerful Abolitionist caught between his morals and the political machinations of the day, his face and voice and acting are as American as apple pie. The rest of the ensemble cast are in minor roles in a major piece of American history and play their parts admirably. Daniel Lewis is Lincoln with a surprising gait, his voice soft and with a touch of backwoods accent. The obvious charm and Americana that Lincoln must be imbued with is present here, the centerpiece of a broad array of ideas.
The events are procedurally fascinating and it is a open handed attempt at portraying them and the man with truth and vigor. It cannot be escaped that this film is essentially about the process of debate and governance over one of the most important moments in Constitutional law since, well, the Constitution itself was ratified. This lack of action or lasers may be a determent to some viewers. The lighting gets a bit overhanded in places, bringing out that old Spielberg shmaltz that long has stained his films. Luckily that sentimentality also flows through Abe's vein's, and Lewis wields it beautifully as a man with unflinching vision of the ideals of America, past and present and future. That the movie holds together and remains entertaining is a testament to the script and actors and a remarkable achievement for Mr. Spielberg.
Lincoln is a warm hearth, the logs tended and shifted with expert care. The fatherly man tells us a story, his wavering voice comforting as he leads us towards the inevitable conclusion, teaching us his sons wise old lessons as the wood crackles and pops, the cold wind blustering against the windows, seen but not felt.
8 Stovepipe Hats out of 10 (GREAT)
Showing posts with label 2012. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 2012. Show all posts
Zero Dark Thirty (2012)
Zero Dark Thirty (R) - Review
"Be Careful what you wish for"
ZD30 is an interesting flick, in conception and execution. The torture scenes are disturbing and the characters doing them (and those utilizing them) are morally bankrupt which makes it easy to see why they have caused some yells of protest. However, in the context of the entire film it is absolutely necessary and important to describe everything about this story. It does show that information gained in this way is mostly worthless, and as years and years pass soon torture is politically outlawed by the new incoming Executive branch. This simple mechanic speaks volumes of the mindsets and values of these agents whose job it is to track down Osama, lead by lead. They are passionate about their jobs, the goal is to find an kill a madman, whatever tools they are allowed they will use to its fullest effect, there is no judgement in the film just the ring of truth. The war and its loss of innocent life, the dehumanization and abject despair of terrorist prisoners, the clinical expertise and mechanical slaying of a radical sect's leaders, it all serves as one big American 9-11 catharsis. It is an intellectual revenge movie on a national level, blood thirsty and more impassioned than 3 Djangos but with a savage thirst for the throat of realism.
Much of the movie is the main character's clash of personalities with her bosses in the pursuit of Bin Laden, journalistic CIA leg and paper work. The final act is the culmination of almost a decade of spy work, and the raid on the compound is as tense and excruciating as any modern thriller. It's meticulous attention to details, the sights sounds and motivations and double taps are a testament to its directors intent..
Zero Dark is directed by Kathryn Bigelow, director of The Hurt Locker and exwife of James Cameron. She's learned a lot since Locker and has crafted a narrative that cannot be over rated (unlike HL). From the plain black opening over lain with September 11th 911 phone calls to the final C-47 ride with it's sadly triumphant heroine, ZD30 is a complete picture of a terribly untenable situation that we can all hope we'll never be in again. Revenge is a dish best served cold but be careful of what you wish for. Some wounds will never heal.
8 Hanoi Hiltons out of 10 (GREAT)
"Be Careful what you wish for"
ZD30 is an interesting flick, in conception and execution. The torture scenes are disturbing and the characters doing them (and those utilizing them) are morally bankrupt which makes it easy to see why they have caused some yells of protest. However, in the context of the entire film it is absolutely necessary and important to describe everything about this story. It does show that information gained in this way is mostly worthless, and as years and years pass soon torture is politically outlawed by the new incoming Executive branch. This simple mechanic speaks volumes of the mindsets and values of these agents whose job it is to track down Osama, lead by lead. They are passionate about their jobs, the goal is to find an kill a madman, whatever tools they are allowed they will use to its fullest effect, there is no judgement in the film just the ring of truth. The war and its loss of innocent life, the dehumanization and abject despair of terrorist prisoners, the clinical expertise and mechanical slaying of a radical sect's leaders, it all serves as one big American 9-11 catharsis. It is an intellectual revenge movie on a national level, blood thirsty and more impassioned than 3 Djangos but with a savage thirst for the throat of realism.
Much of the movie is the main character's clash of personalities with her bosses in the pursuit of Bin Laden, journalistic CIA leg and paper work. The final act is the culmination of almost a decade of spy work, and the raid on the compound is as tense and excruciating as any modern thriller. It's meticulous attention to details, the sights sounds and motivations and double taps are a testament to its directors intent..
Zero Dark is directed by Kathryn Bigelow, director of The Hurt Locker and exwife of James Cameron. She's learned a lot since Locker and has crafted a narrative that cannot be over rated (unlike HL). From the plain black opening over lain with September 11th 911 phone calls to the final C-47 ride with it's sadly triumphant heroine, ZD30 is a complete picture of a terribly untenable situation that we can all hope we'll never be in again. Revenge is a dish best served cold but be careful of what you wish for. Some wounds will never heal.
8 Hanoi Hiltons out of 10 (GREAT)
Django Unchained (2012)
Django Unchained (R) - Review
"Uncle Quentin's Cabin"
Quentin Tarantino (Pulp Fiction) has been cruising lately, making vague clones of film geek genre pictures that were popular popculture fodder from the 70s. He did it in 2003 and 04 with the Kill Bill films (Hong Kong kung fu action films brought back to life). He did it in 2007 with Grindhouse's Death Proof (a quasi HorrorSlasher flick using a car). He did it again in 2009 to critical acclaim with Inglorious Basterds (a WWII exploited squad adventure flick soaked in revenge and intrigue). And now he brings us Django, a throwback to the blaxploitation and the spaghetti westerns of our father's VCR days. Jamie Foxx stars as the former slave hell bent on getting his wife back from villainous plantation owner Leonardo DiCaprio. Django is aided and trained by a sage German Dentist played by Christoph Waltz who's acting antics again tries to both steal the show and head it dangerously towards buffoonery. Racism is unavoidable in Django but that noose is mostly slipped with the movie's only truly great (and highly comedic) scene when the Klux Klan (lead by Don Johnson and Jonah Hill) is arguing about the comfort level and practicality of riding around wearing hoods. Slipped but not forgotten since near the end of the film Sam Jackson shows up as DiCaprio's sinister head house slave and resident Uncle Tom in an interesting but slightly out of place role. Jackson's substandard "MF bombs" are each blows to the balancing act of realism and truth Django's world had been trying to achieve. The final act's stretch and breaking of said worlds rules further frustrated me; better to have the final shoot out be the final shoot out than to try and have me believe a slaver would trustingly hand a former slave a gun which then just lead us back to that same conclusion. These are writing problems, editorial problems, thematic problems and all three just throw Django off from greatness.
In fact, the entire movie as a whole has an off kilter out of placeness to it. For a Tarantino film it has shockingly few dialogue pieces, murky and unexpressed motivations, the soundtrack just didn't sizzle with that funky hipness that usually drives his movies along. And then there are the standard QT film cliches. It is wordy and overlong (2 hours 45 minutes for a silly shootemup western?), it is too flippant about serious race issues and that is always a distraction, the exploitation film conventions of swish pans and zooms feel throw away and tacked on and disingenuous, Quentin's acting (Australian accent, really??!?!) was atrocious as always but that's not to mention the eccentric affectations and scenery chewing performed by his a-list cast. Somewhere in there is supposed to be a romantic tale of a husband saving his wife but honestly Django often seems to forget that fact and when it happens it felt hallow and without power, Quentin was more interested in the blood and bullets than love and racism it impeded.
This still is a master story teller at work and these are some of his strongest visuals yet. His eye for minutia is unmatched, the way a german pours a beer, the welts on a slaves back, the costumes and period locations all are top notch and speak to a high level of preproduction. The single slow motion shot of blood spraying onto a cotton bloom ingeniously summarizes the entire film's narrative and morality, it is unfortunate the rest of the movie is not so quick witted. If it is overlong perhaps it is due to the loss of his beloved editor Sally Menke who had cut all of QTs movies up until her tragic death in 2010. The pace isn't as electric, the seams show a bit more and it wore on me just slightly (15-20 minutes or so less would have elevated it above just pop entertainment). The expected funky groove just didn't bloom.
Django is not a failure, it has enough squibs and brutality and humor to please any audience. I think there are some like me who might be a little let down that he hasn't progressed beyond (nay, he has even sunk further into) his exploitation film roots. QT's Pulp Fiction founded a genre, not followed one. This is the kind of lazy rehash I know Tarantino can bang out on a whim and a weekend, it lacked the obvious signs of deep artistic forethought and the stunning level of writing he at times can produce. This is old hat for Tarantino, and I for one would like to see him try on something new (the 10 gallon variety was a good choice though).
6.5 N words out of 10 (GOOD)
"Uncle Quentin's Cabin"
Quentin Tarantino (Pulp Fiction) has been cruising lately, making vague clones of film geek genre pictures that were popular popculture fodder from the 70s. He did it in 2003 and 04 with the Kill Bill films (Hong Kong kung fu action films brought back to life). He did it in 2007 with Grindhouse's Death Proof (a quasi HorrorSlasher flick using a car). He did it again in 2009 to critical acclaim with Inglorious Basterds (a WWII exploited squad adventure flick soaked in revenge and intrigue). And now he brings us Django, a throwback to the blaxploitation and the spaghetti westerns of our father's VCR days. Jamie Foxx stars as the former slave hell bent on getting his wife back from villainous plantation owner Leonardo DiCaprio. Django is aided and trained by a sage German Dentist played by Christoph Waltz who's acting antics again tries to both steal the show and head it dangerously towards buffoonery. Racism is unavoidable in Django but that noose is mostly slipped with the movie's only truly great (and highly comedic) scene when the Klux Klan (lead by Don Johnson and Jonah Hill) is arguing about the comfort level and practicality of riding around wearing hoods. Slipped but not forgotten since near the end of the film Sam Jackson shows up as DiCaprio's sinister head house slave and resident Uncle Tom in an interesting but slightly out of place role. Jackson's substandard "MF bombs" are each blows to the balancing act of realism and truth Django's world had been trying to achieve. The final act's stretch and breaking of said worlds rules further frustrated me; better to have the final shoot out be the final shoot out than to try and have me believe a slaver would trustingly hand a former slave a gun which then just lead us back to that same conclusion. These are writing problems, editorial problems, thematic problems and all three just throw Django off from greatness.
In fact, the entire movie as a whole has an off kilter out of placeness to it. For a Tarantino film it has shockingly few dialogue pieces, murky and unexpressed motivations, the soundtrack just didn't sizzle with that funky hipness that usually drives his movies along. And then there are the standard QT film cliches. It is wordy and overlong (2 hours 45 minutes for a silly shootemup western?), it is too flippant about serious race issues and that is always a distraction, the exploitation film conventions of swish pans and zooms feel throw away and tacked on and disingenuous, Quentin's acting (Australian accent, really??!?!) was atrocious as always but that's not to mention the eccentric affectations and scenery chewing performed by his a-list cast. Somewhere in there is supposed to be a romantic tale of a husband saving his wife but honestly Django often seems to forget that fact and when it happens it felt hallow and without power, Quentin was more interested in the blood and bullets than love and racism it impeded.
This still is a master story teller at work and these are some of his strongest visuals yet. His eye for minutia is unmatched, the way a german pours a beer, the welts on a slaves back, the costumes and period locations all are top notch and speak to a high level of preproduction. The single slow motion shot of blood spraying onto a cotton bloom ingeniously summarizes the entire film's narrative and morality, it is unfortunate the rest of the movie is not so quick witted. If it is overlong perhaps it is due to the loss of his beloved editor Sally Menke who had cut all of QTs movies up until her tragic death in 2010. The pace isn't as electric, the seams show a bit more and it wore on me just slightly (15-20 minutes or so less would have elevated it above just pop entertainment). The expected funky groove just didn't bloom.
Django is not a failure, it has enough squibs and brutality and humor to please any audience. I think there are some like me who might be a little let down that he hasn't progressed beyond (nay, he has even sunk further into) his exploitation film roots. QT's Pulp Fiction founded a genre, not followed one. This is the kind of lazy rehash I know Tarantino can bang out on a whim and a weekend, it lacked the obvious signs of deep artistic forethought and the stunning level of writing he at times can produce. This is old hat for Tarantino, and I for one would like to see him try on something new (the 10 gallon variety was a good choice though).
6.5 N words out of 10 (GOOD)
The Hobbit - An Unexpected Journey (2012)
The Hobbit - An Unexpected Journey Review (PG-13) Review
"He's not the halfling he used to be"
Peter Jackson's revered Lord of The Rings Trilogy reset the standard for fantasy films. The slow melodious narrative spread over 3 films won over few critical naysayers when it first opened but culminated in a glut of Academy awards upon its final entry. Now, Jackson and New Line has gone back to Tolkien's well with The Hobbit, a shorter novel written by J.R.R. for his children and a worthy preamble to the greatest fantasy fiction trilogy of our time.
The tale of Bilbo Baggins' and his adventures with a company of homeless dwarves and one grouchy old wizard is a light piece of fluff when compared to the majesty of the LotR. Jacksons' natural tendencies to lean towards the cartoony and outlandish serve the material well here, The Hobbit is a gay and lively affair but without all the gloom and doom his nephew Frodo and Sam had to slog through. Whole passages of the text are translated over, with songs and lyrics intact much to my delight. Things merely hinted at are now shown and Jackson's embellishments never jumped the orc (if you'll allow me to coin the phrase...). Long? Plodding? Pointless? As a movie yes, but as an avid reader of the source material since early childhood I revel in the idea of the actual whole book being filmed instead of the barebones to keep the narrative intact.
Now the movie is not all handkerchiefs and warm hearths. The movie was filmed in 3D and seeing it flattened into normal vision lends a harsh flatness and unreality to the picture, especially with all the compositing and green screen being in heavy effect. The CGI ranges from good-as-Lord of the Rings to bad bad student project and is way overused, most of the creatures are computer generated and the men in suits are far and few in between. The incidental music is bland and unmoving (except for snatches of the LOTR score that mince by every now and then), a discernible musical theme wasn't present. A tighter movie, say a half hour shorter, would be advisable I suppose. Some may stick their noses up at the bawdy cartoony silliness of it all (belching Trolls, oh my). After the high fantasy heights achieved by Fellowship, Two Towers and Return of the King, The Hobbit is a measly little tale without all the grandeur and pomp and circumstance. In context however, nothing could be more important and its inherent earthiness and the filmmakers love of the source if very apparent.
And there lies the power of Tolkien, his creative fire to create this world and all the little details and whatsits and whys. The Hobbit was an important first step into publishing his great works, and how odd it must be to now step backwards and setup what has already finished. Admirably Jackson does just that and with fewer winks at the camera than I thought him capable. They fill in the narrative spaces with things from the appendices and lost novels, Azog's resurrection being the most unsatisfactory but the White Council and Radaghast are welcome on screen anytime and are well known to fantasy fans. The biggest surprise is not its additions, it is the films lack of exclusion. The benefit of splitting a shorter novel into 3 movies is that the movie is not want of content, every scene every situation has survived intact. The Gollum riddling is almost word for word, the ransacking of Bilbo's larder is exact in its tone and humor and pleasantries. This is The Hobbit through and through and if it doesn't make the most exciting movie it is a rather pleasant tale about a small little man who lives in a hole in the ground who decides to break out of his rut and go on an adventure warts and all.
Unrealistic, goofy and colorful, the Hobbit is not the action movie of the year, but it does have a lot of heart buried under all that commercialism. Its the equivalent of having the book read to you while you drowse off to sleep, safe under your covers. The reader makes silly voices, over-embellishes certain characters and takes liberties by explaining things that aren't actually in the book. It's time well spent with beloved well known friends even if it is just a frothy children's story, but it feeds the tributaries and underground rivers that become the ocean that is the Lord of the Rings. And as for The Hobbit, the silly voices end and the well worn book closes on the bookmark mid chapter, saving your place for when you can go back to Middle Earth.
7 Saved by Eagles out of 10 (GOOD)
"He's not the halfling he used to be"
Peter Jackson's revered Lord of The Rings Trilogy reset the standard for fantasy films. The slow melodious narrative spread over 3 films won over few critical naysayers when it first opened but culminated in a glut of Academy awards upon its final entry. Now, Jackson and New Line has gone back to Tolkien's well with The Hobbit, a shorter novel written by J.R.R. for his children and a worthy preamble to the greatest fantasy fiction trilogy of our time.
The tale of Bilbo Baggins' and his adventures with a company of homeless dwarves and one grouchy old wizard is a light piece of fluff when compared to the majesty of the LotR. Jacksons' natural tendencies to lean towards the cartoony and outlandish serve the material well here, The Hobbit is a gay and lively affair but without all the gloom and doom his nephew Frodo and Sam had to slog through. Whole passages of the text are translated over, with songs and lyrics intact much to my delight. Things merely hinted at are now shown and Jackson's embellishments never jumped the orc (if you'll allow me to coin the phrase...). Long? Plodding? Pointless? As a movie yes, but as an avid reader of the source material since early childhood I revel in the idea of the actual whole book being filmed instead of the barebones to keep the narrative intact.
Now the movie is not all handkerchiefs and warm hearths. The movie was filmed in 3D and seeing it flattened into normal vision lends a harsh flatness and unreality to the picture, especially with all the compositing and green screen being in heavy effect. The CGI ranges from good-as-Lord of the Rings to bad bad student project and is way overused, most of the creatures are computer generated and the men in suits are far and few in between. The incidental music is bland and unmoving (except for snatches of the LOTR score that mince by every now and then), a discernible musical theme wasn't present. A tighter movie, say a half hour shorter, would be advisable I suppose. Some may stick their noses up at the bawdy cartoony silliness of it all (belching Trolls, oh my). After the high fantasy heights achieved by Fellowship, Two Towers and Return of the King, The Hobbit is a measly little tale without all the grandeur and pomp and circumstance. In context however, nothing could be more important and its inherent earthiness and the filmmakers love of the source if very apparent.
And there lies the power of Tolkien, his creative fire to create this world and all the little details and whatsits and whys. The Hobbit was an important first step into publishing his great works, and how odd it must be to now step backwards and setup what has already finished. Admirably Jackson does just that and with fewer winks at the camera than I thought him capable. They fill in the narrative spaces with things from the appendices and lost novels, Azog's resurrection being the most unsatisfactory but the White Council and Radaghast are welcome on screen anytime and are well known to fantasy fans. The biggest surprise is not its additions, it is the films lack of exclusion. The benefit of splitting a shorter novel into 3 movies is that the movie is not want of content, every scene every situation has survived intact. The Gollum riddling is almost word for word, the ransacking of Bilbo's larder is exact in its tone and humor and pleasantries. This is The Hobbit through and through and if it doesn't make the most exciting movie it is a rather pleasant tale about a small little man who lives in a hole in the ground who decides to break out of his rut and go on an adventure warts and all.
Unrealistic, goofy and colorful, the Hobbit is not the action movie of the year, but it does have a lot of heart buried under all that commercialism. Its the equivalent of having the book read to you while you drowse off to sleep, safe under your covers. The reader makes silly voices, over-embellishes certain characters and takes liberties by explaining things that aren't actually in the book. It's time well spent with beloved well known friends even if it is just a frothy children's story, but it feeds the tributaries and underground rivers that become the ocean that is the Lord of the Rings. And as for The Hobbit, the silly voices end and the well worn book closes on the bookmark mid chapter, saving your place for when you can go back to Middle Earth.
7 Saved by Eagles out of 10 (GOOD)
Killing Them Softly (2012)
Killing Them Softly (R) Review
"Red collar workers"
Australian writer/director Andrew Dominik (Assassination of Jesse James) has made some interesting choices here Adapting the 1970's gritty crime novel Cogan's Trade and applying it to the 2008 Economic Crisis and US Presidential election is interesting but very-very heavy handed, like a .45 slug to the back of the head, over and over again. Hiring Brad Pitt, Ray Liota and James Gandolfini to play second and third string hoodlums all struggling along with the American economy works well, these guys bleed and have family lives and have to deal with the boss. Bureaucracy and red tape is even on the streets thanks to Richard Jenkins' Lawyer character, who haggles expenses and screws up the chain of command. The small-time roles are all filled with interesting performances and characters. A movie can't just be actors though, story and visuals are key, and this is where the adaption misses the mark. It feels like a short story brought right to the screen line for line with none of the extraneous dialogue removed just to keep the mandatory hour and a half run time. The criminal jargon definitely takes some getting used to, but its inherit humor and humanity makes it enjoyable. All characters obliquely discuss murders and holdups and acquaintances with a shrug and its up to you to decipher and decode. The cinematography is simple, the colors browned with grease, the camera tricks are both "nothing new" and "can't look awayable". The car shooting scene in the rain was mesmerizing but also sticks out as the only visually stunning pop in the film. On top of that, Killing is about smalltime crooks doing smalltime jobs with smalltime problems, this isn't Die Hard and some may be bored. Its about management versus the workers, profits and losses, image versus bailouts And thanks to Dominik who pushes the analogy way too hard, the movie is obviously about the desperation and hope of America, the dream for sale and how hard it is to purchase..
There's not much energy here. There is a lethargy, a depression, a nervousness that crackles and has a very sharp edge. Tension is as thick as the rhetoric that comes from every radio, every TV. There is nothing artistically flashy or celebratory in Killing them Softly, its all just business and everyone gets paid.
Eventually.
6 Bud Bottles out of 10 (GOOD)
"Red collar workers"
Australian writer/director Andrew Dominik (Assassination of Jesse James) has made some interesting choices here Adapting the 1970's gritty crime novel Cogan's Trade and applying it to the 2008 Economic Crisis and US Presidential election is interesting but very-very heavy handed, like a .45 slug to the back of the head, over and over again. Hiring Brad Pitt, Ray Liota and James Gandolfini to play second and third string hoodlums all struggling along with the American economy works well, these guys bleed and have family lives and have to deal with the boss. Bureaucracy and red tape is even on the streets thanks to Richard Jenkins' Lawyer character, who haggles expenses and screws up the chain of command. The small-time roles are all filled with interesting performances and characters. A movie can't just be actors though, story and visuals are key, and this is where the adaption misses the mark. It feels like a short story brought right to the screen line for line with none of the extraneous dialogue removed just to keep the mandatory hour and a half run time. The criminal jargon definitely takes some getting used to, but its inherit humor and humanity makes it enjoyable. All characters obliquely discuss murders and holdups and acquaintances with a shrug and its up to you to decipher and decode. The cinematography is simple, the colors browned with grease, the camera tricks are both "nothing new" and "can't look awayable". The car shooting scene in the rain was mesmerizing but also sticks out as the only visually stunning pop in the film. On top of that, Killing is about smalltime crooks doing smalltime jobs with smalltime problems, this isn't Die Hard and some may be bored. Its about management versus the workers, profits and losses, image versus bailouts And thanks to Dominik who pushes the analogy way too hard, the movie is obviously about the desperation and hope of America, the dream for sale and how hard it is to purchase..
There's not much energy here. There is a lethargy, a depression, a nervousness that crackles and has a very sharp edge. Tension is as thick as the rhetoric that comes from every radio, every TV. There is nothing artistically flashy or celebratory in Killing them Softly, its all just business and everyone gets paid.
Eventually.
6 Bud Bottles out of 10 (GOOD)
The Master (2012)
The Master (R) Review
"...The Fool or the Fool who follows him?" (Revised 3/20/2013)
PT Anderson's follow up to his last opus, Best Picture contender "There Will Be Blood" stars Juaquin Phoenix as Freddie Quell, an unbalanced ex-WWII sailor drifting through the world as a hopeless violent drunk. Phoenix is astonishing, playing Freddie as a stooping maniac with a twisted evil grin, a slave to sex and homemade alcohol, a barely restrained psychotic who is let loose on an unsuspecting public by a no-longer desperate US Navy. Freddie feels real, his foibles and mannerisms adroitly make him uncomfortable to be around and yet sympathetic to the audience, Quell is a manly man and does not dwell on his pathos, he shrugs his shoulders and laughs about them. That is until he chances to meet Lancaster Dodd, played by Phillip Seymour Hoffman, an enigmatic man who's electric personality and wit have gathered a flock around him, the sproutings of a cult. Dodd proceeds to delve into Quell's mind, to try and cure him through his "proven" methods that he has discovered, of his alcoholism and depravities; most of all he welcomes him unabashedly into his family (his first day among them Freddie attends a Dodd family wedding) and gives him a home. Hoffman plays Dodd with enough panache to really let us understand why people would fawn over him, read his book, believe his abstract teachings, but Phoenix is the star here and has the most screen time, and rightfully so. This story is not about Scientology, does not bash or berate, instead it simply tries to show what it believes, what humans did to each other in the blossoming of the Atomic Age, one side of the coin that was the dawning of the New Age cultism. Humans looking for answers, and finding someone claiming to have them (Dodd). Much to everyone's chagrin, Freddie Quell is more interested in his next drink even as he becomes a sycophant and violent enforcer of Dodd's teachings (which he may or may not even believe in, but they do seem to assist in his quality of life). The film was shot on 65mm, the last film since Branagh's Hamlet in 1996, and the clarity and light are wonderful.
The score, once again by Radiohead's Greenwood who also did There Will Be Blood, is periodic and well done, but surprisingly not a strong character in the movie except at the very beginning. I was shocked to find myself being worn out by the slow pace of it all, of watching a film with such great performances in a story that went nowhere and seemingly had nothing to say. There were shockingly few (unlike PTA's other, I'd say more Masterful, films) moments of poignancy, of energy and life and death. The violence happens behind doors, is discussed in past tense or feels impotent (perhaps PTA is trying to break his own mold but I would say detrimentally). The nervous twitter of Punch Drunk Love or the angry machinations of There Will Be Blood are not present, the cold clarity of Hard Eigth or the youthful zest of Boogie Nights, the random calamity that is Magnolia, all missing. The movie felt very Kubrikian to me, long shots of actors characterizing for the camera, sexual tension and obsession, the framing and the construction of the scenes. Don't get me wrong, this is definately a Anderson film (it greatly resembles There Will Be Blood in beauty and texture), but one without teeth. There is no great story to tell, there is no dynamic way to tell it, no greater subtext or purpose other than "this happened", and at a long 2 hours 15 minutes it feels like a slow tedious happening. I was happy when it ended, and that is no jab at PT, this is a movie about Quell and his post-WW2 PTSD and the film's final frames satisfied me with the character's story arc. The rest of the film may not be enough to get us to that ending, in fact I believe the story is as pointless and drifting as Quell himself, Masterless.
There are many things about The Master that are unforgettable, mesmerizing (literally), and should open a few doors for some typecasted actors (Amy Adams as Dodd's wife is a pleasantly chilling performance), and when the large beauty of the open sea smacks the camera lens it is wonderful. However, I believe the best of this film is probably in the making, the dallies and extra angles and alternate and deleted scenes. Unfortunately I don't think most of that made it onto the screen, that it held itself up enough and as entertainment The Master comes across as an unfortunately dull movie about a fortunately interesting subject, a film that doesn't point fingers where we need it to and is ultimately talking about a subject that no one understands. The whys of existence and the insanity of trying to define it, so what does that say about those who attempt to? In that, The Master succeeds wonderfully, and I won't soon forget it, but will have a hard time recommending it.
*ADDENDUM*
Having rewatched the film and gotten over the shock of PT Anderson teasing his own conventions and then throwing them overboard, there can be no doubt that The Master was the best film made in 2012. PT's vision and the way he thinks around corners is flush on the screen is fascinating, infuriating ways, and while I stand by my review and everything it says, in perspective to the rest of the years choices in film it is the clear stand out. Seeing it at home also has allowed me to absorb the amazing beauty in every single frame of film, the beauty is as hypnotising as Juaquins performance, and as Paul Thomas Anderson's refusal to do what I expect. Braco, and must be watched again to appreciated fully.
8.5 Bread Filtered Cocktails out of 10 (GREAT)
Formerly 6.5 "I'm as Shocked as you are" out of 10 (GOOD)
"...The Fool or the Fool who follows him?" (Revised 3/20/2013)
PT Anderson's follow up to his last opus, Best Picture contender "There Will Be Blood" stars Juaquin Phoenix as Freddie Quell, an unbalanced ex-WWII sailor drifting through the world as a hopeless violent drunk. Phoenix is astonishing, playing Freddie as a stooping maniac with a twisted evil grin, a slave to sex and homemade alcohol, a barely restrained psychotic who is let loose on an unsuspecting public by a no-longer desperate US Navy. Freddie feels real, his foibles and mannerisms adroitly make him uncomfortable to be around and yet sympathetic to the audience, Quell is a manly man and does not dwell on his pathos, he shrugs his shoulders and laughs about them. That is until he chances to meet Lancaster Dodd, played by Phillip Seymour Hoffman, an enigmatic man who's electric personality and wit have gathered a flock around him, the sproutings of a cult. Dodd proceeds to delve into Quell's mind, to try and cure him through his "proven" methods that he has discovered, of his alcoholism and depravities; most of all he welcomes him unabashedly into his family (his first day among them Freddie attends a Dodd family wedding) and gives him a home. Hoffman plays Dodd with enough panache to really let us understand why people would fawn over him, read his book, believe his abstract teachings, but Phoenix is the star here and has the most screen time, and rightfully so. This story is not about Scientology, does not bash or berate, instead it simply tries to show what it believes, what humans did to each other in the blossoming of the Atomic Age, one side of the coin that was the dawning of the New Age cultism. Humans looking for answers, and finding someone claiming to have them (Dodd). Much to everyone's chagrin, Freddie Quell is more interested in his next drink even as he becomes a sycophant and violent enforcer of Dodd's teachings (which he may or may not even believe in, but they do seem to assist in his quality of life). The film was shot on 65mm, the last film since Branagh's Hamlet in 1996, and the clarity and light are wonderful.
The score, once again by Radiohead's Greenwood who also did There Will Be Blood, is periodic and well done, but surprisingly not a strong character in the movie except at the very beginning. I was shocked to find myself being worn out by the slow pace of it all, of watching a film with such great performances in a story that went nowhere and seemingly had nothing to say. There were shockingly few (unlike PTA's other, I'd say more Masterful, films) moments of poignancy, of energy and life and death. The violence happens behind doors, is discussed in past tense or feels impotent (perhaps PTA is trying to break his own mold but I would say detrimentally). The nervous twitter of Punch Drunk Love or the angry machinations of There Will Be Blood are not present, the cold clarity of Hard Eigth or the youthful zest of Boogie Nights, the random calamity that is Magnolia, all missing. The movie felt very Kubrikian to me, long shots of actors characterizing for the camera, sexual tension and obsession, the framing and the construction of the scenes. Don't get me wrong, this is definately a Anderson film (it greatly resembles There Will Be Blood in beauty and texture), but one without teeth. There is no great story to tell, there is no dynamic way to tell it, no greater subtext or purpose other than "this happened", and at a long 2 hours 15 minutes it feels like a slow tedious happening. I was happy when it ended, and that is no jab at PT, this is a movie about Quell and his post-WW2 PTSD and the film's final frames satisfied me with the character's story arc. The rest of the film may not be enough to get us to that ending, in fact I believe the story is as pointless and drifting as Quell himself, Masterless.
There are many things about The Master that are unforgettable, mesmerizing (literally), and should open a few doors for some typecasted actors (Amy Adams as Dodd's wife is a pleasantly chilling performance), and when the large beauty of the open sea smacks the camera lens it is wonderful. However, I believe the best of this film is probably in the making, the dallies and extra angles and alternate and deleted scenes. Unfortunately I don't think most of that made it onto the screen, that it held itself up enough and as entertainment The Master comes across as an unfortunately dull movie about a fortunately interesting subject, a film that doesn't point fingers where we need it to and is ultimately talking about a subject that no one understands. The whys of existence and the insanity of trying to define it, so what does that say about those who attempt to? In that, The Master succeeds wonderfully, and I won't soon forget it, but will have a hard time recommending it.
*ADDENDUM*
Having rewatched the film and gotten over the shock of PT Anderson teasing his own conventions and then throwing them overboard, there can be no doubt that The Master was the best film made in 2012. PT's vision and the way he thinks around corners is flush on the screen is fascinating, infuriating ways, and while I stand by my review and everything it says, in perspective to the rest of the years choices in film it is the clear stand out. Seeing it at home also has allowed me to absorb the amazing beauty in every single frame of film, the beauty is as hypnotising as Juaquins performance, and as Paul Thomas Anderson's refusal to do what I expect. Braco, and must be watched again to appreciated fully.
8.5 Bread Filtered Cocktails out of 10 (GREAT)
Formerly 6.5 "I'm as Shocked as you are" out of 10 (GOOD)
7 Pyschopaths (2012)
7 PSYCHOPATHS (R)
"A return to the 90s"
Written & directed by the Irish playwright Martin McDonagh (previously of the excellent Boschian film "In Burges"), 7 Psychopaths is an violently entertaining, if disjointed, look at the creative writing process in modern Hollywood. It defies easy description, but perhaps “Barton Fink” put through a 1990s Quentin Tarantino blender is close. It’s the story o f a script writer (Collin Ferrell) trying to hash out his next script with only a title to start, the titular “7 Psychopaths,” Gradually we are introduced to all of them, each played with flaring eccentricity by one great American Character actor after another: Woody Harrelson, Tom Waits, Sam Rockwell and his fellow dognapper Christopher Walken. Much of the movie has the typical McDonagh wit and sharp pacing, realistic to the ear and yet wry and very humorous. Much like Barton, Ferrell’s Marty is having a hard time fleshing out his next screenplay, and being using his friends as reference, who feed him stories and scenarios which slowly but surely begin to bleed into real life. The movie is both disjointed and repetitious in ceratin parts, but the absolute joy of Walken’s screen time does make up for it. Add to that Rockwell and Harrellson’s manic antagonism, a twisted Vietnam war subplot and Waits’ bizarre rabbit fueled gravitas and you end up with a cinematic blended smoothie all its own. Perhaps not the most nutritious meal, and not to everyone’s tastes, but satisfying and filling none the less.
7 cravats out of 10 (GOOD)
"A return to the 90s"
Written & directed by the Irish playwright Martin McDonagh (previously of the excellent Boschian film "In Burges"), 7 Psychopaths is an violently entertaining, if disjointed, look at the creative writing process in modern Hollywood. It defies easy description, but perhaps “Barton Fink” put through a 1990s Quentin Tarantino blender is close. It’s the story o f a script writer (Collin Ferrell) trying to hash out his next script with only a title to start, the titular “7 Psychopaths,” Gradually we are introduced to all of them, each played with flaring eccentricity by one great American Character actor after another: Woody Harrelson, Tom Waits, Sam Rockwell and his fellow dognapper Christopher Walken. Much of the movie has the typical McDonagh wit and sharp pacing, realistic to the ear and yet wry and very humorous. Much like Barton, Ferrell’s Marty is having a hard time fleshing out his next screenplay, and being using his friends as reference, who feed him stories and scenarios which slowly but surely begin to bleed into real life. The movie is both disjointed and repetitious in ceratin parts, but the absolute joy of Walken’s screen time does make up for it. Add to that Rockwell and Harrellson’s manic antagonism, a twisted Vietnam war subplot and Waits’ bizarre rabbit fueled gravitas and you end up with a cinematic blended smoothie all its own. Perhaps not the most nutritious meal, and not to everyone’s tastes, but satisfying and filling none the less.
7 cravats out of 10 (GOOD)
Cloud Atlas (2012)
Cloud Atlas (R)
"Like Something I Heard In A Dream"
The Wachowski siblings return to the silver screen with another sci-fi mashup, this time starring Tom Hanks and Haley Berry in a sprawling nearly 3 hour yarn that is in fact 6 stories taking place in 6 v astly different time periods, from the 1840’s through now to the far flung future and then beyond. Each story shares the same actor pool just as it shares certain common elements… the titular Cloud Atlas sextet, a shiny decorative button, a book or a feeling between actors. The races, the names the motivations for all characters in all time periods are non-static and are quietly understated (which may lead to some confusion in the beginning but once the story coalesces it is worth the brainpower). One of the stories is broadly comical, ironically with Jim Broadbent as an accident prone editor in financial hot water who must weasel his way out from the danger. Surprisingly this bit of comic relief is much needed and a welcome surprise due to much of the overdramatic angst that drives the other five narratives. The Wachowski’s don’t have “sole” directing credit, they are joined by Tom Tykwer (Run Lola Run). They all produce the different story paths seamlessly and it looks like a much bigger film than its budget belies ($140M). However, its beauty isn’t completely unmarked, after all you can’t make an omlete without something being broken. The 70s Nuclear power mystery is a big bore (most likely due to Berry’s inability to carry a film). The choice of Hugo Weaving’s permanent scowl to appear in another Wachoski is far too easy, especially when he plays almost every antagonist in every timeline. His makeup is especially atrocious, which leads me to the strangest/strongest criticism. While I agree with the creators that it is completely within the motif of Cloud Atlas to have human lives intertwining & to have actors portray the other races (Halle and Bae in white face, Hanks as a olive skinned limey, Hugo with Asian eye prosthetics, Hugh Grant in shoddy old man makeup), I also agree that some of their choices were ill conceived and uncomfortable socially. Doona Bae plays a subclass human slave conscripted to work in a fast-food chain in a Korea a hundred plus years from now. She is rescued and captured and rescued and captured all by whites with silly looking eye makeup that make them look no more Asian than an alligator. Absurdly Bae's eyes resembles the fake ones not in the least. Alarmingly the make up looks dangerously close to a racist caricature from a Charlie Chan serial from the 30s. For such a large part of the film taking place in Asia to have only one major Asian in these roles is just appalling. Creative casting or perhaps inventive storytelling would have done wonders to avoid the scandal and the filmmakers obviously had that creative ability, a black mark for sure. This is unfortunate because there is so much to really enjoy here. It is truly a sprawling epic, watching Hanks move from role to role and chew the scenery is fun (especially the jive talking, nerve addled, PostApocalyptic, Evil Tophat Jiminy Cricket listening to Hanks), Broadbent’s catastrophic misadventures spice up the slow parts, the superb editing and crosscutting between these massive and disparate pieces of cinema must have been daunting and it was a delight to see it so well done. It is not action packed, it is not at a snails pace, the stories synchronize at just the right moments then detangle, so then a confused and vocal minority have asked “why does this exist, no overarching truth of good vs evil, no Aesop’s tale waiting between the lines, no sappy tagline that shouts LOVE CONQUERS ALL.” If you were to ask me, I’d say this is a movie about how we destroy ourselves and how we make ourselves better, about trying to be human in an inhuman society, the lower class learning to overthrow the power of its overlords or risk its own destruction, about human industry and greed corrupting its own morality, the damnation of the status quo, about evolution being king. It is Darwinism applied not to just the physical realm but to the spiritual. Or as the movie puts it: “The weak are meat, and the strong do eat”. Amen. Or its just a grand story, people write those too you know.
7 Epicanthic folds out of 10 (GOOD)
"Like Something I Heard In A Dream"
The Wachowski siblings return to the silver screen with another sci-fi mashup, this time starring Tom Hanks and Haley Berry in a sprawling nearly 3 hour yarn that is in fact 6 stories taking place in 6 v astly different time periods, from the 1840’s through now to the far flung future and then beyond. Each story shares the same actor pool just as it shares certain common elements… the titular Cloud Atlas sextet, a shiny decorative button, a book or a feeling between actors. The races, the names the motivations for all characters in all time periods are non-static and are quietly understated (which may lead to some confusion in the beginning but once the story coalesces it is worth the brainpower). One of the stories is broadly comical, ironically with Jim Broadbent as an accident prone editor in financial hot water who must weasel his way out from the danger. Surprisingly this bit of comic relief is much needed and a welcome surprise due to much of the overdramatic angst that drives the other five narratives. The Wachowski’s don’t have “sole” directing credit, they are joined by Tom Tykwer (Run Lola Run). They all produce the different story paths seamlessly and it looks like a much bigger film than its budget belies ($140M). However, its beauty isn’t completely unmarked, after all you can’t make an omlete without something being broken. The 70s Nuclear power mystery is a big bore (most likely due to Berry’s inability to carry a film). The choice of Hugo Weaving’s permanent scowl to appear in another Wachoski is far too easy, especially when he plays almost every antagonist in every timeline. His makeup is especially atrocious, which leads me to the strangest/strongest criticism. While I agree with the creators that it is completely within the motif of Cloud Atlas to have human lives intertwining & to have actors portray the other races (Halle and Bae in white face, Hanks as a olive skinned limey, Hugo with Asian eye prosthetics, Hugh Grant in shoddy old man makeup), I also agree that some of their choices were ill conceived and uncomfortable socially. Doona Bae plays a subclass human slave conscripted to work in a fast-food chain in a Korea a hundred plus years from now. She is rescued and captured and rescued and captured all by whites with silly looking eye makeup that make them look no more Asian than an alligator. Absurdly Bae's eyes resembles the fake ones not in the least. Alarmingly the make up looks dangerously close to a racist caricature from a Charlie Chan serial from the 30s. For such a large part of the film taking place in Asia to have only one major Asian in these roles is just appalling. Creative casting or perhaps inventive storytelling would have done wonders to avoid the scandal and the filmmakers obviously had that creative ability, a black mark for sure. This is unfortunate because there is so much to really enjoy here. It is truly a sprawling epic, watching Hanks move from role to role and chew the scenery is fun (especially the jive talking, nerve addled, PostApocalyptic, Evil Tophat Jiminy Cricket listening to Hanks), Broadbent’s catastrophic misadventures spice up the slow parts, the superb editing and crosscutting between these massive and disparate pieces of cinema must have been daunting and it was a delight to see it so well done. It is not action packed, it is not at a snails pace, the stories synchronize at just the right moments then detangle, so then a confused and vocal minority have asked “why does this exist, no overarching truth of good vs evil, no Aesop’s tale waiting between the lines, no sappy tagline that shouts LOVE CONQUERS ALL.” If you were to ask me, I’d say this is a movie about how we destroy ourselves and how we make ourselves better, about trying to be human in an inhuman society, the lower class learning to overthrow the power of its overlords or risk its own destruction, about human industry and greed corrupting its own morality, the damnation of the status quo, about evolution being king. It is Darwinism applied not to just the physical realm but to the spiritual. Or as the movie puts it: “The weak are meat, and the strong do eat”. Amen. Or its just a grand story, people write those too you know.
7 Epicanthic folds out of 10 (GOOD)
Wreck-it Ralph (2012)
Wreck-it Ralph (PG)
"ACT I They Meet"
Pixar’s latest foray into digital entertainment had all the makings of a classic. Starring John C. Riley in the title role as a major villain of a 1980’s era arcade game whose repetitive job day after
Rich Moore (of Futurama fame) directed Ralph and the minute attention to wise-cracking details and the lack of focus on what the actual story is (a man’s long suffering job and the lack of respect he feels in his rut) is definitely Rich’s style but is better suited for the small screen than the silver. Ralph and his pixelated ilk deserve a better representation from Hollywood, who still hasn’t crafted a “good” video game movie let alone a great one.
Wreck-it Ralph is strictly a humorous kids movie without much for adults (hello, untapped nostalgia demographic calling). Most kids these days have never spent $10 in tokens at the local Chuck E Cheese playing Ghosts n Goblins or Ms Pac Man. They would get more bang for their parent’s bucks if they did.
5.5 Bits out of 10 (MEDIOCRE)
"ACT I They Meet"
Pixar’s latest foray into digital entertainment had all the makings of a classic. Starring John C. Riley in the title role as a major villain of a 1980’s era arcade game whose repetitive job day after
day, quarter after quarter causes him a midlife crisis. He tries to
sort his feelings out in a villain support group meeting but eventually
on the 20th anniversary of his games release he ends up leaving his game
for others, looking for the recognition and praise he feels he
deserves for all his hard work over the years. Ralph wrecks everything
he comes in contact with, its how he was programmed, so eventually he
smashes and klutzes his way through various games to end up in Sugar
Rush, finding little orphan Sarah Silverman in a typical arcade style
racer with a well imagined saccharine candyland theme.
And here the rest of the movie spins it’s wheels with various secondary characters trying to bring Ralph home (notably Jack McBayer and Jane Lynch of current network TV fame) or kick him out. Therein lies the problem with Wreck it Ralph, very little of the film is actually about Video Games or has video game references (perhaps as little as a third). Most of the film is mired in the sticky bubblegum pink world of Sugar Rush, with its candy fueled characters and their pipsqueak voices. The Sugar game itself is very well imagined, so much so it feels like two different movies gummed into one with Ralph’s game getting the short end. The candy jokes outweigh the game jokes 2-1 but are quite funny (the local police are indifferent Chicago-land mustachioed donuts, dangers include diet cola volcanoes mixing with Mentos). Throw in a throw away love story a dire threat and a haywire maniac and you’ve got your typical CG movie for kids right?
Well this was supposed to be a Pixar not a Dreamworks flick. Their
films are typically known as more arty and something both kids and
adults can adore equally. However the cartoony art here is
“same-as-always”, why couldn’t the visuals be pushed more towards the
retro 8bit look (like the poster did)? The music is quite simply the
worst in any Pixar with no-brainer hip-hop pop tracks straight from
Disney Teen Radio (the trailer used Talking Heads to great effect,
another bait and switch). John C. Riley does wonders with the material;
Ralph himself is funny and endearing and has a great look. Most of the
other characters just feel forced or stiff with voice acting that
whimpers along (the Candy King being an exception). Instead of the “Toy
Story of video Games” we get just another Shrek clone – “outsider can’t
fit in, breaks a character’s heart, saves the kingdom and gains
respect, roll credits over last year’s music”.And here the rest of the movie spins it’s wheels with various secondary characters trying to bring Ralph home (notably Jack McBayer and Jane Lynch of current network TV fame) or kick him out. Therein lies the problem with Wreck it Ralph, very little of the film is actually about Video Games or has video game references (perhaps as little as a third). Most of the film is mired in the sticky bubblegum pink world of Sugar Rush, with its candy fueled characters and their pipsqueak voices. The Sugar game itself is very well imagined, so much so it feels like two different movies gummed into one with Ralph’s game getting the short end. The candy jokes outweigh the game jokes 2-1 but are quite funny (the local police are indifferent Chicago-land mustachioed donuts, dangers include diet cola volcanoes mixing with Mentos). Throw in a throw away love story a dire threat and a haywire maniac and you’ve got your typical CG movie for kids right?
Rich Moore (of Futurama fame) directed Ralph and the minute attention to wise-cracking details and the lack of focus on what the actual story is (a man’s long suffering job and the lack of respect he feels in his rut) is definitely Rich’s style but is better suited for the small screen than the silver. Ralph and his pixelated ilk deserve a better representation from Hollywood, who still hasn’t crafted a “good” video game movie let alone a great one.
Wreck-it Ralph is strictly a humorous kids movie without much for adults (hello, untapped nostalgia demographic calling). Most kids these days have never spent $10 in tokens at the local Chuck E Cheese playing Ghosts n Goblins or Ms Pac Man. They would get more bang for their parent’s bucks if they did.
5.5 Bits out of 10 (MEDIOCRE)
Skyfall (2012)
Skyfall (PG-13) - Review.
"Bore. James Bore."
For a retro-themed 007 caper, Bond himself sure is a joyless wreck. Injured, aging and being edged towards retirement, good ole James must protect good ole England and her representative good ole M (who is also aging, joyless and edging towards retirement) from one of the best villains in franchise history, the charming and deadly-homoerotic Raoul (played by the in effable Javier Bardem). The cinematography is extremely dark and sludgy, the morals and loyalties are only a bit brighter and the fun has been all but drained from the series. Even Dalton had a couple drinks and a shag or two before icing the bad guy with a quip on his lips. Craig's Bond stiff-upper-lips his implied tragic childhood and reaches for a shotgun instead of a leggy blonde; the angst and self pity for the downfall of the British Empire and her subjects drips off the screen. It's all way too smug about how much better (read realistic) it thinks it is than previous franchise entries... for instance Q (now a young hostile nerd instead of a lovable eccentric engineer) sums up the attitudes of Skyfall and what turned me off of it. He mocks previous Qs in 007 films ("What did you expect, an exploding pen?"), makes a big deal about himself, then his character proceeds to flub stupidly and allow the brilliant hacker Raoul access to his network.
Confusingly the film sometimes wants to bury the past; Skyfall itself is James Bond's childhood home and the symbolic root of the character (his orphaning and subsequent recruitment into Mi6) that was created 50 years ago by Fleming. Not only does the old family homestead get taken apart but the classic Connery 1960s Aston Martin gets riddled with bullets and explodes (all by Javier, who really steals the entire show. Without Bardem's cackling manic presence this film would have sunk into the moors of boredom). Those, like me, who have been waiting for this Bond reboot to finally relax a little and sink into a luxury car/hotel/female with a obnoxious name and enjoy his life need not apply. Much like Quantum of Solace Bond simply fires when fired upon like a good soldier and turns in his travel expense reports on time. Bardem comes across as the only genuinely likeable and relatable character (I honestly rooted for him to win).
"Bore. James Bore."
For a retro-themed 007 caper, Bond himself sure is a joyless wreck. Injured, aging and being edged towards retirement, good ole James must protect good ole England and her representative good ole M (who is also aging, joyless and edging towards retirement) from one of the best villains in franchise history, the charming and deadly-homoerotic Raoul (played by the in effable Javier Bardem). The cinematography is extremely dark and sludgy, the morals and loyalties are only a bit brighter and the fun has been all but drained from the series. Even Dalton had a couple drinks and a shag or two before icing the bad guy with a quip on his lips. Craig's Bond stiff-upper-lips his implied tragic childhood and reaches for a shotgun instead of a leggy blonde; the angst and self pity for the downfall of the British Empire and her subjects drips off the screen. It's all way too smug about how much better (read realistic) it thinks it is than previous franchise entries... for instance Q (now a young hostile nerd instead of a lovable eccentric engineer) sums up the attitudes of Skyfall and what turned me off of it. He mocks previous Qs in 007 films ("What did you expect, an exploding pen?"), makes a big deal about himself, then his character proceeds to flub stupidly and allow the brilliant hacker Raoul access to his network.
Confusingly the film sometimes wants to bury the past; Skyfall itself is James Bond's childhood home and the symbolic root of the character (his orphaning and subsequent recruitment into Mi6) that was created 50 years ago by Fleming. Not only does the old family homestead get taken apart but the classic Connery 1960s Aston Martin gets riddled with bullets and explodes (all by Javier, who really steals the entire show. Without Bardem's cackling manic presence this film would have sunk into the moors of boredom). Those, like me, who have been waiting for this Bond reboot to finally relax a little and sink into a luxury car/hotel/female with a obnoxious name and enjoy his life need not apply. Much like Quantum of Solace Bond simply fires when fired upon like a good soldier and turns in his travel expense reports on time. Bardem comes across as the only genuinely likeable and relatable character (I honestly rooted for him to win).
All ties to the previous 80's, 90's and 00's
Bonds are now viciously now severed. However, if the final scene is any
indication they are not forging a new 2010s Bond. They are just
killing all the dead weight to try to return to the retrocool that Sean
Connery and Ian Fleming created all those years ago. Hopefully
somewhere along the way they can dredge his sense of fun back.
6 MoneyPennys out of 10 (GOOD)
6 MoneyPennys out of 10 (GOOD)
The ABCs of Death (2012)
The ABCs of Death (R) - Review
"W is for Wildly Uneven"
The movie starts with text proclaiming that 26 different directors from around the world created a short 5-6 minute film for each letter of the alphabet for a budget of $5,000 each. They were free to write, produce and edit their shorts as they pleased, resulting in a film sold by its Producers and trailers as an Horror anthology that mostly disappoints (and sometimes embarrasses). Only a few attempted something resembling horror, most were scatological, sexually deviant or had an absurdist humor slant. Those that excelled are few and far between: a man bare knuckle boxing a dog with great music and editing in mostly slo motion, a school janitor haunted by the children he's abused and the deer he's hunted, a claymation about a boy scared of the toilet, a sick sex-torture contest to the death, a man committing seppuku, a woman's blunt attack on her bed ridden husband. For every 1 hit there are 2 absolute misses, ranging from ignorantly shallow to pretentious (or dangerously lazy to overambitious). The rest are mediocre eye rollers (or in the case of the Japanese submissions, head scratchers), it feels as if most directors took the $5k and just made whatever pet project they wanted to and completely disregarded the Death theme or the horror genre. However if you've ever seen a Sick and Twisted film festival (Spike and Mike we miss you), you'll know better what to expect and perhaps enjoy the post-movie conversations about which ones you liked or not and why. The rest of you, expect a cycle of Snore, snore, shock, snore, gasp, repeat. YMMV.
4.5 Dog Fight Club Could be an Feature Length Film out of 10 (MEDIOCRE)
"W is for Wildly Uneven"
The movie starts with text proclaiming that 26 different directors from around the world created a short 5-6 minute film for each letter of the alphabet for a budget of $5,000 each. They were free to write, produce and edit their shorts as they pleased, resulting in a film sold by its Producers and trailers as an Horror anthology that mostly disappoints (and sometimes embarrasses). Only a few attempted something resembling horror, most were scatological, sexually deviant or had an absurdist humor slant. Those that excelled are few and far between: a man bare knuckle boxing a dog with great music and editing in mostly slo motion, a school janitor haunted by the children he's abused and the deer he's hunted, a claymation about a boy scared of the toilet, a sick sex-torture contest to the death, a man committing seppuku, a woman's blunt attack on her bed ridden husband. For every 1 hit there are 2 absolute misses, ranging from ignorantly shallow to pretentious (or dangerously lazy to overambitious). The rest are mediocre eye rollers (or in the case of the Japanese submissions, head scratchers), it feels as if most directors took the $5k and just made whatever pet project they wanted to and completely disregarded the Death theme or the horror genre. However if you've ever seen a Sick and Twisted film festival (Spike and Mike we miss you), you'll know better what to expect and perhaps enjoy the post-movie conversations about which ones you liked or not and why. The rest of you, expect a cycle of Snore, snore, shock, snore, gasp, repeat. YMMV.
4.5 Dog Fight Club Could be an Feature Length Film out of 10 (MEDIOCRE)
Resident Evil: Retribution (2012)
Resident Evil: Retribution (R)
"Insane in the Membrane"
Basically rip off every sci-fi franchise ever ala Cabin in the Woods (except without the nod and wink to take the stink off of it), do it every 5 minutes for an hour and a half, have the entire cast be bad acting Eurotrash (sorry fellow RE2&4 lovers, but Leon Kennedy is played by a total douche), bring back half the dead characters from the previous 4 movies, SL O MO EVERYTHING, throw 3D crap at the screen like its going out of business, catsuits! catsuits! catsuits!, have some crazy video game like dubstep song play throughout, go bug-nuts insane with level design and out of control with the energy and plot and enemies, and you have a so-bad its-good-to-laugh-at kind of movie. With this much action, its a long hour and a half, but you sure do get your moneys worth, this movie has more stuff in it than a two bit Mexican flea market. STUFFed with stuff. Too much stuff honestly, but hell if it doesn't work... watching it is so disjointed yet slick, it's like a nightmare a French surrealist had back in the 1890's but upon waking he thought better of trying to write it down due to lack of comprehension. Or perhaps one of those bargain bin games at Gamestop where the scope of the title outgrew the programmers skill to frame but they released it as is, swollen and bloated and yet playable, a spoiled brat of a game that cheats and does everything with reckless abandon but with the ignorant smirking bravado that you just can't help but admire and wonder "How does he get away with that?".
5 Moscow Spinner Hubcaps out of 10 (MEDIOCRE)
"Insane in the Membrane"
Basically rip off every sci-fi franchise ever ala Cabin in the Woods (except without the nod and wink to take the stink off of it), do it every 5 minutes for an hour and a half, have the entire cast be bad acting Eurotrash (sorry fellow RE2&4 lovers, but Leon Kennedy is played by a total douche), bring back half the dead characters from the previous 4 movies, SL O MO EVERYTHING, throw 3D crap at the screen like its going out of business, catsuits! catsuits! catsuits!, have some crazy video game like dubstep song play throughout, go bug-nuts insane with level design and out of control with the energy and plot and enemies, and you have a so-bad its-good-to-laugh-at kind of movie. With this much action, its a long hour and a half, but you sure do get your moneys worth, this movie has more stuff in it than a two bit Mexican flea market. STUFFed with stuff. Too much stuff honestly, but hell if it doesn't work... watching it is so disjointed yet slick, it's like a nightmare a French surrealist had back in the 1890's but upon waking he thought better of trying to write it down due to lack of comprehension. Or perhaps one of those bargain bin games at Gamestop where the scope of the title outgrew the programmers skill to frame but they released it as is, swollen and bloated and yet playable, a spoiled brat of a game that cheats and does everything with reckless abandon but with the ignorant smirking bravado that you just can't help but admire and wonder "How does he get away with that?".
5 Moscow Spinner Hubcaps out of 10 (MEDIOCRE)
The Sessions (2012)
The Sessions (R) - Review
"Hot and Heavy (My Iron Lung)"
A crippled man begins to regret the lack of a love life, and with the advice of his church and his colleagues and armored with a sly wit, embarks upon the thorny paths of love and sex and mortality.
The true life story of Mark O'Brien, a polio stricken poet who cannot be far from his iron lung for too long. He is a challenging role played with absolute brilliance by John Hawkes (Winter's Bone). Equally courageous is his sex surrogate he begins to see Cheryl Coen-Green (Helen Hunt, beautifully cast), a middle aged mother and wife. How anything this awkward and embarrassing, the disabled and their oft disregarded human needs, can come across so light and funny is a tribute to Hawkes and Hunts chemistry and unselfishness (and in no small part to the poet O'Briens prose, which offers stellar insight into an artistic man trapped in an uncooperative body). Rounding out the cast is a fave, William H. Macy, as O'Brien's priest who must take confession and live vicariously in equal measures.
The Sessions is touching without being touchy feely, has pure real emotions without all the focus group mumbojumbo and achieves a frank openness about sexuality that might have caused picket lines among the semi-prudish if it's charm wasn't so endearing with a quick disarming wit. The Sessions elicit high marks.
8 Gurney Gropes out of 10 (GREAT)
"Hot and Heavy (My Iron Lung)"
A crippled man begins to regret the lack of a love life, and with the advice of his church and his colleagues and armored with a sly wit, embarks upon the thorny paths of love and sex and mortality.
The true life story of Mark O'Brien, a polio stricken poet who cannot be far from his iron lung for too long. He is a challenging role played with absolute brilliance by John Hawkes (Winter's Bone). Equally courageous is his sex surrogate he begins to see Cheryl Coen-Green (Helen Hunt, beautifully cast), a middle aged mother and wife. How anything this awkward and embarrassing, the disabled and their oft disregarded human needs, can come across so light and funny is a tribute to Hawkes and Hunts chemistry and unselfishness (and in no small part to the poet O'Briens prose, which offers stellar insight into an artistic man trapped in an uncooperative body). Rounding out the cast is a fave, William H. Macy, as O'Brien's priest who must take confession and live vicariously in equal measures.
The Sessions is touching without being touchy feely, has pure real emotions without all the focus group mumbojumbo and achieves a frank openness about sexuality that might have caused picket lines among the semi-prudish if it's charm wasn't so endearing with a quick disarming wit. The Sessions elicit high marks.
8 Gurney Gropes out of 10 (GREAT)
Battleship (2012)
Battleship (PG-13) - Review
"You Sunk My Outlook on Life!"
The extremely unwise translation of blind guessing boardgame to Summer movie shlockbuster somehow cleared all natural impediments of rational thought and given a budget of over 200 million boggles the mind. Battleship tries to incorporate too much disingenuous military authenticity, explode too much large CG Alien machinery, dirtied too many Liam Neesons, ripoff too many Scifi-action robot flicks and appease too many international audiences to not be self aware of it's own stupidity. The wasted level of human brainpower that went into forcing this square peg into this round hole, the act of transforming Battleship from plastic pieces to plastic acting makes one weep for future generations. This is the kind of movie that should have caused riots upon release, and the slippery slope of acceptance will perhaps lead to one day of "Sorry: The Movie", complete with pop-o-matic fueled explosions.
2 They Actually Used The Pegs? out of 10 (AWFUL)
"You Sunk My Outlook on Life!"
The extremely unwise translation of blind guessing boardgame to Summer movie shlockbuster somehow cleared all natural impediments of rational thought and given a budget of over 200 million boggles the mind. Battleship tries to incorporate too much disingenuous military authenticity, explode too much large CG Alien machinery, dirtied too many Liam Neesons, ripoff too many Scifi-action robot flicks and appease too many international audiences to not be self aware of it's own stupidity. The wasted level of human brainpower that went into forcing this square peg into this round hole, the act of transforming Battleship from plastic pieces to plastic acting makes one weep for future generations. This is the kind of movie that should have caused riots upon release, and the slippery slope of acceptance will perhaps lead to one day of "Sorry: The Movie", complete with pop-o-matic fueled explosions.
2 They Actually Used The Pegs? out of 10 (AWFUL)
Expendables 2 (2012)
Expendables 2 (R)
"An Elderly Action Star Too Far"
It’s only been two years since Sylvester Stallone and his new self-plagiarizing franchise arrived, and they have both aged rather poorly. Someone was obviously listening to the criticisms of the original Expends and stuffed even more out-of-work action stars onto the playbill, shoved massive guns in their hands with terrible words in their mouths and let them happily destroy the last vestiges of natural beauty in any third world country who charges the least for the privilege. The zealousness to recapture that 1980s action film has left them blind to the fact that the vast majority of those films were utter vapid trash. The few remarkable and entertaining action flicks from that era were treasured by us the viewers because they were unique and usually had just that little extra undefinable something. It wasn’t just “more stars” and “higher body counts” and “more one liners”. Unfortunately that is what the producers took away from EX1, making its sequel a movie so devoid of plot and so full of flopping bodies and head pops and ridiculous blood gushers that it’s almost a self-fulfilling parody. Luckily this time the success to failure ratio is a tad higher, with Lundgren again outshining his fellow teammates, its cameos are more than just obvious winks at the camera, the action is sustained throughout the film, and Jean Claude Van Dam basically steals the show as the villainously greasy antagonist named "Villain" (...really?). Throw in a good old fashioned “end the movie with a one on one fistfight between good and evil” and you are in blockbuster town, right? Well not so fast sport. The cinematography looks like something you’d scrape off the bottom of your shoe (the razor thin plot will work nicely for that). The old jokes and one liners were funny when they were just middle aged, but now its borderline depressing. Chuck Norris is obviously uncomfortable and overmatched, but Jet Li gets the role of "one scene and I'm out" this time around. The chemically induced alien anatomy of Stallone just keeps getting harder to look in the face without cringing, and just what is Liam Hemsworth doing in this film besides being more likeable/killable/believable as an actor? Overall, delivers more on the promise of “80s Action Star Mega Film” than the original even as it disgraces itself with its incoherent-ignorant film making and severe lack of decent plastic surgery.
5 Actual Dead Stuntmen out of 10 (MEDIOCRE)
Beasts of the Southern Wild (2012)
Beasts of the Southern Wild (PG-13)
"To Kill An Auroch"
Hushpuppy and her Daddy "Wink" live on
the fictitious Louisiana island of Bathtub, precariously placed behind
all those levees that keep the dryfolk dry. The modern folk tale
centers on the life of it's smallest and bravest girl, played like
dynamite by tiny Quvenzhane Wallis. She's a smart, precocious 6 year
old scamp with a vivid imagination living in a small
land of drunks, weirdos and societal dropouts. Her Daddy raised her by
himself to be strong and in tune with the world around her, and the
outside world is a dark and scary place filled with the monsters of
destruction and change. When Wink gets sick and the water rises she
doesn't have a Momma to fend for her, so Hushpuppy goes to out find her
herself while in her mind the monstrous Aurochs slowly trample and kill
everything shes knows. This movie made me think about a lot of things.
About people who live on the fringe, happy and free and poor and without
safety nets. About the environment and life and it's inherent dangers,
man made or not. About childhood and parents, husbands wives and
orphans. Heavy old subjects yet crisp and new when told from a 6 year
old's perspective.
I don't think the allegory of the CGI
aurochs were as effective as the filmmakers needed it to be, but neither
did it bother me. The star and story here is Hushpuppy, and as her
voice propels us through the film, through things big and small, it
allows you time to think for yourself and reflect. The girl is right.
If thousands of years from now those future archeologists dig up our
bones and houses and see how we lived, we'd be lucky to have the mythos
of Hushpuppy mixed in with us. She lives Wild and Free like her daddy
taught her, just a human animal in an inhuman universe.
8 Crawdaddies out of 10 (GREAT)
I don't think the allegory of the CGI aurochs were as effective as the filmmakers needed it to be, but neither did it bother me. The star and story here is Hushpuppy, and as her voice propels us through the film, through things big and small, it allows you time to think for yourself and reflect. The girl is right. If thousands of years from now those future archeologists dig up our bones and houses and see how we lived, we'd be lucky to have the mythos of Hushpuppy mixed in with us. She lives Wild and Free like her daddy taught her, just a human animal in an inhuman universe.
8 Crawdaddies out of 10 (GREAT)
To The Wonder (2012)
To The Wonder (R)
"Wonder WTF were they thinking?"
Serial genius and cinema introvert Terrance Malick (Outlands, Tree of Life) crafts another incomprehensible, inner monologue burdened film, this time without all the metaphysical musings or dinosaur cameos or tour-de-force minimalist acting. No, this time its a romance drama, a film about a strained relationship, and it stars Ben Affleck as an environmentalist with a woman problem for 2 hours. Sigh.
Not that you'll be seeing much of Ben's face, if that is a deterrent. The camera lens is always the main star of modern Malick films, and brooding Affleck or any of the characters are rarely seen talking on screen. The film is as beautiful as the rest of Terry's oeuvre, though perhaps hampered by being centered in suburban Oklahoma. The main female lead is constantly twirling twirling twirling, never can she stop spinning and you can almost forgive Affleck's indifference to a woman who is constantly flittering around like a broken humming bird who he has to chase her to show his love. Actress Olga Kurylenko (Quantum of Solace) fills her dizzying role and speaks her tipsy french memoir laden monologue but don't ask if the acting is any good because that is not the point of this movie. It is not story driven, it is image and emotion driven, the few scant pieces of dialogue barely give enough of an impression as to what the heck is actually going on, let alone form an opinion. It is structured like an ambiguous novel where its up to you to fill in the numerous blanks. It is interesting to see a film told through almost visuals alone, especially ones crafted so well (but begs to have a half hour edited out). However Malick already did that to better effect in Tree of Life, with a more significant story and moving emotions and a REASON to exist (and somewhat less twirling and chasing).
To The Wonder feels exactly like an Alzheimer patient musing on a long past relationship, and you are struggling to understand the stream of thought that is unaware of your need for information: "Wait, slow down how did they meet? No I don't need to hear about how she spun or how you chased after her, what was he mad about? Yes, sunsets are very nice but, oh, no don't skip ahead, wait, huh? How much later, with who? Who are you talking about now???" Just memories of the beauty and the ugly and the spinning, the god damned twirling is all that remains in the minds eye.
4 No Script No Shoes No Service out of 10 (BAD)
"Wonder WTF were they thinking?"
Serial genius and cinema introvert Terrance Malick (Outlands, Tree of Life) crafts another incomprehensible, inner monologue burdened film, this time without all the metaphysical musings or dinosaur cameos or tour-de-force minimalist acting. No, this time its a romance drama, a film about a strained relationship, and it stars Ben Affleck as an environmentalist with a woman problem for 2 hours. Sigh.
Not that you'll be seeing much of Ben's face, if that is a deterrent. The camera lens is always the main star of modern Malick films, and brooding Affleck or any of the characters are rarely seen talking on screen. The film is as beautiful as the rest of Terry's oeuvre, though perhaps hampered by being centered in suburban Oklahoma. The main female lead is constantly twirling twirling twirling, never can she stop spinning and you can almost forgive Affleck's indifference to a woman who is constantly flittering around like a broken humming bird who he has to chase her to show his love. Actress Olga Kurylenko (Quantum of Solace) fills her dizzying role and speaks her tipsy french memoir laden monologue but don't ask if the acting is any good because that is not the point of this movie. It is not story driven, it is image and emotion driven, the few scant pieces of dialogue barely give enough of an impression as to what the heck is actually going on, let alone form an opinion. It is structured like an ambiguous novel where its up to you to fill in the numerous blanks. It is interesting to see a film told through almost visuals alone, especially ones crafted so well (but begs to have a half hour edited out). However Malick already did that to better effect in Tree of Life, with a more significant story and moving emotions and a REASON to exist (and somewhat less twirling and chasing).
To The Wonder feels exactly like an Alzheimer patient musing on a long past relationship, and you are struggling to understand the stream of thought that is unaware of your need for information: "Wait, slow down how did they meet? No I don't need to hear about how she spun or how you chased after her, what was he mad about? Yes, sunsets are very nice but, oh, no don't skip ahead, wait, huh? How much later, with who? Who are you talking about now???" Just memories of the beauty and the ugly and the spinning, the god damned twirling is all that remains in the minds eye.
4 No Script No Shoes No Service out of 10 (BAD)
That's My Boy (2012)
THAT'S MY BOY (R)
"Who hasn't outgrown this?"
Reviled by most critics, Adam Sandlers newest character can at least talk straight and has the middle aged pathos to prove it. The plastic fake veneer has been stripped away from his FUNNY PEOPLE (2009) portrayal and what is left is our Sandler from his SNL days, all grown up and filthy and scuzzy and uniquely endearing. In dire need of some editing to be sure (an hour and 50?), this is the raunchiest comedy that also kept the actual laughs coming to be released in quite awhile. Certainly you have to be a certain type of fan to enjoy this, and some of the running jokes fall flat and the formula that his company uses over and over once again is the entire menu... Rough raunchy male relationships for the entree, treacly sweet 70s rock sentimentality desert. Shakespeare this ain't, this is Sandler (and Samberg, but he just comes across as whiny and toothy) and its about Adam's actual view of fatherhood. The morals of this film are strictly grey area to illegal and perhaps that's why it got such a harsh drubbing. Family friendly Happy Gilmore style slapstick this ain't, and its nowhere near as well put together as that film but it's a much better effort. That's My Boy is one very long drunken dirty joke with multiple climaxes, but luckily it's pretty skilled in the sack. You just may have a deep desire for a shower afterwards.
5 Natty Ices out of 10 (MEDIOCRE)
"Who hasn't outgrown this?"
Reviled by most critics, Adam Sandlers newest character can at least talk straight and has the middle aged pathos to prove it. The plastic fake veneer has been stripped away from his FUNNY PEOPLE (2009) portrayal and what is left is our Sandler from his SNL days, all grown up and filthy and scuzzy and uniquely endearing. In dire need of some editing to be sure (an hour and 50?), this is the raunchiest comedy that also kept the actual laughs coming to be released in quite awhile. Certainly you have to be a certain type of fan to enjoy this, and some of the running jokes fall flat and the formula that his company uses over and over once again is the entire menu... Rough raunchy male relationships for the entree, treacly sweet 70s rock sentimentality desert. Shakespeare this ain't, this is Sandler (and Samberg, but he just comes across as whiny and toothy) and its about Adam's actual view of fatherhood. The morals of this film are strictly grey area to illegal and perhaps that's why it got such a harsh drubbing. Family friendly Happy Gilmore style slapstick this ain't, and its nowhere near as well put together as that film but it's a much better effort. That's My Boy is one very long drunken dirty joke with multiple climaxes, but luckily it's pretty skilled in the sack. You just may have a deep desire for a shower afterwards.
5 Natty Ices out of 10 (MEDIOCRE)
Moonrise Kingdom (2012)
Moonrise Kingdom (PG-13)
"The Magic Kingdom"
Wes Anderson's quirky little films haven't come a long
way, and thank goodness for that. If you haven't enjoyed his previous
entries (Rushmore, Royal Tennebaums), then perhaps this isn't for you,
but if you have then Moonrise is a joyful nostalgic about being a child
in the 1960s, told around a love story between two kids who feel
socially outcast. Call it Sid & Nancy
Jr.
or Romeo and Juliet for the younger set, except instead of all that
angsty tragedy there is a large helping of whimsy with the blood and
violence and sex all being real but fun-sized. Anderson's motifs this
time around are more focused on younger childhood pursuits; Scouting,
Preteen Fantasy Novels, Parental Divorce, playing Parcheesi and portable
record players on a rainy day. We are led through the story by a
Historical Narrator who is more likely to tell us the barometric
pressure at any given moment than the characters motives and indeed it
is the adults here who really shine. I can't remember the last time I
enjoyed Bruce Willis this much, he plays a slightly sad small town
Police chief with a quiet reserve that is remarkable. Ed Norton's
prissy woodsman Scout Master frets and whimpers orders and Tilda Swinton
nearly rides in on a broom as Social Services, here to take our hero
Sam away to an Orphanage (or worse). Suzy is Sam's new girlfriend, and
together they run off into the woods in the name of love while his
scout mates and her parents (played wonderfully by Bill Murray and the
its-so-great-to-see-her-again Frances Mcdormand) search hi and low on
the island for the wayward youths. Kids will be kids though (mercurial
and their tempers quick), Adults will be adults (depressed and trying to
keep it all under control), so a great many adventures are had in a
1960s that never actually existed, except through the rose tinted
glasses of our memories.
The melange of loving nostalgia,
outdated gadgets and eccentric childhood attitudes that Wes Anderson has
always been obsessed with are used to their greatest effect here, the
mix feels genuine and true and the visuals like some beautiful old Bob
Ross paintings come to life. It is a period piece of youthful
imagination, told as only Wes can; a campfire story lovingly embellished
by an adoring parent around a summer campfire, the embers slowly dying
and the crickets beginning to sing as you lay in your sleeping bag
wondering about what it'd be like to live on the moon.
It's simply one of his best films, and the best I've seen this year.
9.5 Campfire Hot Dogs out of 10 (OUTSTANDING)
The melange of loving nostalgia, outdated gadgets and eccentric childhood attitudes that Wes Anderson has always been obsessed with are used to their greatest effect here, the mix feels genuine and true and the visuals like some beautiful old Bob Ross paintings come to life. It is a period piece of youthful imagination, told as only Wes can; a campfire story lovingly embellished by an adoring parent around a summer campfire, the embers slowly dying and the crickets beginning to sing as you lay in your sleeping bag wondering about what it'd be like to live on the moon.
It's simply one of his best films, and the best I've seen this year.
9.5 Campfire Hot Dogs out of 10 (OUTSTANDING)
Prometheus (2012)
Prometheus (R)
"Just leave it alone"
The problem with our modern age of epic films and the media hype that surround them is that it is misinformation. Especially if you try to remain spoiler free, then you miss all the hints and bad juju that the new much-hyped blockbuster won't be exactly what you came to expect. Director Ridley Scott is back with a new entry into the genre he pretty much invented, the Serious SciFi Adventure movie, but what it really is another stale "Chariot of the Gods" retread. What it really is? Older filmmakers philosophizing about God and Death and Evolution while pretending to set it within the framework of the Aliens Alternate Universe (they've since gone on record as saying its not a prequel, thanks Fox marketing). It is also Michael Fassbender getting the creepy androids back on track (sorry Winona). It is likeable Noomi Rapace in the role of "female who survives" and Charlise Theron as the "cold corporate bitch". It is the Captain and his rag tag loveable crew making some points with some charming moments and easy repartee. It is beautiful pictures and design and use of light (though mostly uneeded 3D and inappropriate use of music). Then it is thrown away, again and again. The best example I can give is the greatest scene in the film, the pro-choice answer to the old Alien impregnation problem. Gory, ballsy and flinch inducing, this scene really works (even if it's just a twist on the same shock scene in the original Alien). Followed shortly thereafter by the same character getting into more philosophical discussions with Weyland (Guy Pearce in terrible old man makeup) and putting herself directly back in danger 5 minutes later. Some survivor, sigh. Thrown away, all the suspense buildup and terror and shock, just to gab about some space religion garbage that no one is really that interested about. Thrown away, all the love and tradition of the core Alien films, Prometheus touches that beloved universe just enough to try and poison what came before (hey Ridley, Leave my Space Jockey alone!). Luckily it is not Ridley's Episode I (it is too good to be labeled that, we can all thank him for that). But it is like the pandora's box that was Episode III, where you couldn't see that silly man in the black helmet without hearing that terrible "Nooooo" echoing through around the walls of your childhood. If Ridley just wanted to make a movie about our alien forebears and "hey guys, who really built the pyramids", then he should have left all ALIEN (1977) references out of it damnit. The scripts rewrites and rethinks can be plainly seen (there are several franchise references, lines from previous films, prequelism on mediocre par with the new The Thing, plot points that just stick out like mutated thumbs, scenes that just stink of a hollywood reboot), and yet completely disregards so much that it is NOT a prequel. It's a huge mess. So, now then, what is this movie really about if it's not just another entry into a beloved series? If its not about xenomorphs eating and popping out of us? Fear of death? Fear of change? Religion? Fear of technology evolving our lives beyond recognition and leading to our demise? Maybe, that last one is the only thing that I've really been able to settle on. I have this horrible feeling that a 40 year old Ridley Scott, being handed this exact script in 1978, without the option for CGI excess, with model makers and amazing set design and tripods and gallons of premade fake blood, without all the baggage of personal aging and previous Alien experiences, without twitter and facebook and viral marketing, that without all that this could have made another masterpiece. Instead it just feels like a beautiful mistake, a literal miscarriage of artistry. Apt, since Alien and its kin have always preyed upon our primal fears of the circle of life, sex and death.
4 Space Truckers out of 10 (BAD)
"Just leave it alone"
The problem with our modern age of epic films and the media hype that surround them is that it is misinformation. Especially if you try to remain spoiler free, then you miss all the hints and bad juju that the new much-hyped blockbuster won't be exactly what you came to expect. Director Ridley Scott is back with a new entry into the genre he pretty much invented, the Serious SciFi Adventure movie, but what it really is another stale "Chariot of the Gods" retread. What it really is? Older filmmakers philosophizing about God and Death and Evolution while pretending to set it within the framework of the Aliens Alternate Universe (they've since gone on record as saying its not a prequel, thanks Fox marketing). It is also Michael Fassbender getting the creepy androids back on track (sorry Winona). It is likeable Noomi Rapace in the role of "female who survives" and Charlise Theron as the "cold corporate bitch". It is the Captain and his rag tag loveable crew making some points with some charming moments and easy repartee. It is beautiful pictures and design and use of light (though mostly uneeded 3D and inappropriate use of music). Then it is thrown away, again and again. The best example I can give is the greatest scene in the film, the pro-choice answer to the old Alien impregnation problem. Gory, ballsy and flinch inducing, this scene really works (even if it's just a twist on the same shock scene in the original Alien). Followed shortly thereafter by the same character getting into more philosophical discussions with Weyland (Guy Pearce in terrible old man makeup) and putting herself directly back in danger 5 minutes later. Some survivor, sigh. Thrown away, all the suspense buildup and terror and shock, just to gab about some space religion garbage that no one is really that interested about. Thrown away, all the love and tradition of the core Alien films, Prometheus touches that beloved universe just enough to try and poison what came before (hey Ridley, Leave my Space Jockey alone!). Luckily it is not Ridley's Episode I (it is too good to be labeled that, we can all thank him for that). But it is like the pandora's box that was Episode III, where you couldn't see that silly man in the black helmet without hearing that terrible "Nooooo" echoing through around the walls of your childhood. If Ridley just wanted to make a movie about our alien forebears and "hey guys, who really built the pyramids", then he should have left all ALIEN (1977) references out of it damnit. The scripts rewrites and rethinks can be plainly seen (there are several franchise references, lines from previous films, prequelism on mediocre par with the new The Thing, plot points that just stick out like mutated thumbs, scenes that just stink of a hollywood reboot), and yet completely disregards so much that it is NOT a prequel. It's a huge mess. So, now then, what is this movie really about if it's not just another entry into a beloved series? If its not about xenomorphs eating and popping out of us? Fear of death? Fear of change? Religion? Fear of technology evolving our lives beyond recognition and leading to our demise? Maybe, that last one is the only thing that I've really been able to settle on. I have this horrible feeling that a 40 year old Ridley Scott, being handed this exact script in 1978, without the option for CGI excess, with model makers and amazing set design and tripods and gallons of premade fake blood, without all the baggage of personal aging and previous Alien experiences, without twitter and facebook and viral marketing, that without all that this could have made another masterpiece. Instead it just feels like a beautiful mistake, a literal miscarriage of artistry. Apt, since Alien and its kin have always preyed upon our primal fears of the circle of life, sex and death.
4 Space Truckers out of 10 (BAD)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
About Me
- Kevin Gasaway via HardDrawn
- Turlock, California, United States
- Media and Reviews by Kevin Gasaway