I took my game studio to see World War Z this week, and we found it it be a solid flick. The pacing is pretty spot on, the tension doesn't let up, there are multiple instances of clever early set-up of mechanics that will matter later in the film, and for the most part, they avoid overly telegraphing events in the film.
I really enjoyed the fleshed-out family relationship Brad Pitt has with his wife and two daughters (Mireille Enos, Sterling Jerins, and Abigail Hargrove). There is some great stuff there creating a broader avenue for acting, higher stakes and tension in the film, and makes the film matter more at a cost and consequence level.
On the one hand, I'm hopeful this adds to the appeal of the film for those of us that have matured on genre and non-genre films, and now have kids of our own. On the other hand, I worry the familial stuff won't resonate with the stereotypical "unmarried male with no kids" demographic -- "I liked the film, but that family stuff really got in the way of the action."
The other reason the film resonated so well with me is I think expectations for the film were justifiably low.
Let's face it -- the project had a troubled history. Some of that was rights issues, and some of that is due to re-writes and re-shoots to an already-finished, supposed-to-be-holiday 2012 tentpole movie, that was so bad it needed to be moved into summer of the following year. That creates justifiable concern around the quality of a movie -- last-minute re-shoots and moving to another distribution window (or direct-to-DVD) rarely bodes well for a project.
Thankfully, World War Z survives all of that, and is a better film because of it.
Another challenge for a film like this is zombies certainly aren't passé, and since they're part of the cultural conscious, it can be tough to do something interesting with them. Without giving things away, there's a good advancement of the 28 Days / Later "fast zombie" contributions to the mythos that are well-executed, and really add to the tension and terror in the movie. And it holds onto the "shambling zombie" memes in a clever way.
Now, to be frank, in some ways, expectations for the film were unjustifiably low. A lot of that is due to a weird societal "Brad Pitt hate" -- which is stupid. Hate him because he looks amazing? Go deal with your insecurities and sense of entitlement ("he looks handsome and I don't so I hate him") elsewhere.
I was talking to a guy who "hates" Brad Pitt, and I asked him if he liked him in any of his films. He told me that while he hates him, he found him "amazing" in Inglourious Basterds, Snatch, Fight Club, Twelve Monkeys, and Se7en. That's a long list of likes for an actor this guy hates. (Personally, I find him a pretty inspiring actor for me to emulate.)
It's important to understand the movie is far different from the Max Brooks's World War Z book -- And that's fine.
I'm one of those "I want different expressions of property in different mediums" -- So as long as a treatment doesn't do things that violate core pillars of the franchise -- so what?
Sure, I have minor quibbles with the film. I'm a bit familiar with CDC and WHO practices, and even if you're not, there are some obvious efficiencies taken in the story, with some obvious artificial conveniences. The pacing is compelling enough, though, that many of these inefficiencies are only noticeable in hindsight -- a pretty good sign for a story.
Overall, World War Z (the movie) holds onto core tenets of the book, gives viewers a good (and accessible) genre-treatment, tremendously balances the expected and additional tropes around zombies, and wraps it all in a well-acted, well-executed package.
Showing posts with label reviews. Show all posts
Showing posts with label reviews. Show all posts
Monday, June 24, 2013
Sunday, June 23, 2013
Man of Steel
I find Man of Steel to be a great, true-to-the-franchise revamp of the caped blue boy scout's movie persona.
Superman is a tough character to pull off. How do you make a god-like super being "believably unbelievably powerful" and not boring?
One piece of it is getting an actor that can pull it off.
Henry Cavill? Check. And for so many reasons.
Whether he does "as good as" or "a better job than" Christopher Reeve is academic. For many of us, "Christopher Reeve is Superman" is a reality, but that doesn't box out other people in the role. Superman and Superman II will always hold a special, carved-out and long-held place in my heart. That doesn't mean people like Cavill, Tim Daly, or even Brandon Routh don't get some space, too.
There's a visual aesthetic to Superman. There's a tapered look in everything from the "S" symbol on the chest of the hero to ... the hero's chest itself. Physically, Henry Cavill looks like Supes.
Fortunately, he acts like it, too. Cavill pulls off the conflicted, gradually informed Last Son of Krypton, pragmatically informed Only Son of Pa and Ma Kent, and adopted son to the People of Earth. That's a lot of layering for any role.
And having producer Christopher Nolan, director Zack Snyder, and writer David S. Goyer certainly pulls the package together nicely.
I actually like the gradual ties back to Clark Kent's childhood upbringing. With very true-to-real-life elementary, middle and high school, and young adult life happenings under the tutelage of Kevin Costner's Jonathan Kent and Diane Lane's Martha Kent (both are stellar portrayals). The asynchronous flashbacks -- which differ from the Richard Donner, serial childhood -- have the dual purpose of breaking up the narrative into non-boring chunks, and makes the childhood recaps more relevant to the matter at hand. I think they also resonate with people raising kids as best they can, not trying to do everything for them, and knowing we can't protect them from or prepare them for everything.
"Superman as a badass" is pulled off really well. The sheer power and destruction of some the fight scenes show the untapped power of the hero -- but also highlight one of my criticisms of the film.
"Realistically", there is no way there could be the level of destruction shown in the film without massive, massive loss of human life. Given how counter this would be to the core of the character (and that core exemplified in this treatment of him), it definitely breaks the fourth wall a bit. The recent DC Animated film, Superman vs. The Elite, actually does a good job of showing what a disregard for casualties would look like.
To be honest, I was geek-terrified for this film. Not because I was worried it would suck -- Despite a recent, decently long track record of good comic book films, I live in a place where I expect them to suck (and films like Green Lantern don't help my genre PTSD).
No, what I worried about was jacking with the core of the character. I heard complaints that Donner's 1978 Superman "was for a time", and "too patriotic and 'America and apple pie'." I was worried we'd get a darker-for-the-sake-of-darker, "we are the world", being-patriotic-is-being-insular garbage layer on top of the film.
Fortunately, not so much. And definitely not enough to pollute the film.
Other criticisms include a bit of disjointedness in the flow. This may be a casualty of wanting to get slot certain moments in, or a lack of fluidity in editing (which, to my mind, is one of the hardest parts of movie making).
The other criticisms I have are inconsistencies that I shouldn't mention, because they create spoilers. Let's just say they revolve around Superman having spent a lifetime soaking up our yellow sun's radiation, so he should have a lifetime of difference in strength and attributes, based on that.
There's also a bit much of "Cavill cacophony". He yells. Emotionally. A lot. Christopher Reeve yells once in 1978's Superman, and it is powerful, bone-chilling, and believable. I unintentionally chortled at the third Man of Steel yop.
But these are all minor quibbles. The movie is great fun as a summer action flick, a comic-book genre film, and for this comic book afficianado. It pushes the franchise forward on new legs (better, I'd argue, than DC's "New 52" reboot), and I'm looking forward to the announced Man of Steel 2.
(And a quick aside in support of the last reboot, Superman Returns. While that film had its issues, it was intentionally -- In Bryan Singer's own words -- a kind of "love letter" to the Richard Donner films, and what they meant to Singer in his life at that time. Looked through that lens, the film holds up a lot better, and in a lot of way excuses "Routh's portrayal of Christopher Reeve playing Clark Kent playing Superman".)
(And an aside aside: Patriotism is not passé. Pride and accountability in values is not insular. Both of those attitudes from faux global elitists is a prime contributor to the decline of our society. Face.)
Monday, November 12, 2012
Wreck-It Ralph
Wreck-It Ralph is Disney's highest-grossing (non-Pixar) animated opening in history -- and it deserves it.
Besides being a solid all-ages animated film, it is a great, great nod to all things video game history (and other than not laughing when other folks in the audience might be laughing, that's not a barrier to entry for the film).
I'm a big, big John C. Reilly fan (since meeting him during his Criminal project), and I love to see him consistently moving up in the entertainment world -- The guy is genuinely talented, and is working his tail off in the Biz.
Wreck-It Ralph is fun, visually impressive, and has neat messaging about being yourself, using your gifts, and "the core of being" is more about who you are, and less about what you do -- But what you do (and your attitude while doing it) says a lot about that.
My minor quibbles with the film include a lot of time spent in one single environment -- which is totally organic to the film, but the "I make this stuff and it kind of breaks the fourth wall" side of me wonders if this was done to constrain costs.
The other thing to be aware of is while this is a good family film, near the end, one bad guy gets very (and very unexpectedly) dark and a bit scary, so if you have younger, more impressionable kids, it's good to know that going in (kind of like taking kids of the same age into Cars 2 is not as "safe" as the original Cars).
And, yes, this has some neat moments of heroism and sacrifice that are the telltale elements of what makes a film resonate longer with me that bubblegum fare.
Besides being a solid all-ages animated film, it is a great, great nod to all things video game history (and other than not laughing when other folks in the audience might be laughing, that's not a barrier to entry for the film).
I'm a big, big John C. Reilly fan (since meeting him during his Criminal project), and I love to see him consistently moving up in the entertainment world -- The guy is genuinely talented, and is working his tail off in the Biz.
Wreck-It Ralph is fun, visually impressive, and has neat messaging about being yourself, using your gifts, and "the core of being" is more about who you are, and less about what you do -- But what you do (and your attitude while doing it) says a lot about that.
My minor quibbles with the film include a lot of time spent in one single environment -- which is totally organic to the film, but the "I make this stuff and it kind of breaks the fourth wall" side of me wonders if this was done to constrain costs.
The other thing to be aware of is while this is a good family film, near the end, one bad guy gets very (and very unexpectedly) dark and a bit scary, so if you have younger, more impressionable kids, it's good to know that going in (kind of like taking kids of the same age into Cars 2 is not as "safe" as the original Cars).
And, yes, this has some neat moments of heroism and sacrifice that are the telltale elements of what makes a film resonate longer with me that bubblegum fare.
Sunday, November 11, 2012
Secret of the Wings
My girls and I are fans of the Tinker Bell franchise.
For me, beyond just the IP level, I have a more than passing curiosity for how Disney is using franchises like this to answer a few specific questions:
The second film, Tinker Bell and the Lost Treasure, is a far stronger film, and arguably the strongest in the franchise. Technically more complex and visually impressive, it expanded the franchise with fleshed-out male characters and animal companions, and very solid, explicit positive messaging about the lie of independence, our need for help from the community around us, and asking forgiveness for treating friends badly. Good stuff for growing girls.
The third film, Tinker Bell and the Great Fairy Rescue, took a dramatic step backwards, with violation of the IP (people outside of the Peter Pan crew having knowledge of the Fairy world), sub-par fiction elements, noticeable decline in visual and technical quality, and superficial content. Perhaps not coincidentally, it seems to have the largest outsourcing effort of the assets and animation of the first three films.
(Editorial: "Quality" and "Commercial Return" aren't exclusive -- I have a bias that says if you make a quality offering, you'll make more money --but a lot of good, large companies try to reduce cost to the point of impacting quality, and then the commercial return is less.)
Fortunately, Secret of the Wings is an improved fourth entry for the franchise. Overall, stronger visually and technically (with two noticeable aberrations in the form of a bobcat and breaking tree boughs), and positive messaging that can be taken to be the importance of siblings, and a race relations (seriously).
There's also a decent bit of heroism (something in particular that resonates with me in media). I'm also a fan of films showing "sacrifice with cost", and Disney dances on the edge of that in the climax of the film -- though I feel they missed a big opportunity when they mulligan it (but maybe that would have been too Dark Knight for them).
Overall, a solid family film, engaging and enjoyable, with high art attributes and less "parental disrespect" moments than similar offerings. Totally recommended.
For me, beyond just the IP level, I have a more than passing curiosity for how Disney is using franchises like this to answer a few specific questions:
- What is Disney doing to articulate "important" messages to young audiences?
- How does Disney change the expression of the franchise in different ways with each film, but stay true to the franchise?
- Where does Disney place its focus -- "Quality"? "Commercial return"?
The second film, Tinker Bell and the Lost Treasure, is a far stronger film, and arguably the strongest in the franchise. Technically more complex and visually impressive, it expanded the franchise with fleshed-out male characters and animal companions, and very solid, explicit positive messaging about the lie of independence, our need for help from the community around us, and asking forgiveness for treating friends badly. Good stuff for growing girls.
The third film, Tinker Bell and the Great Fairy Rescue, took a dramatic step backwards, with violation of the IP (people outside of the Peter Pan crew having knowledge of the Fairy world), sub-par fiction elements, noticeable decline in visual and technical quality, and superficial content. Perhaps not coincidentally, it seems to have the largest outsourcing effort of the assets and animation of the first three films.
(Editorial: "Quality" and "Commercial Return" aren't exclusive -- I have a bias that says if you make a quality offering, you'll make more money --but a lot of good, large companies try to reduce cost to the point of impacting quality, and then the commercial return is less.)
Fortunately, Secret of the Wings is an improved fourth entry for the franchise. Overall, stronger visually and technically (with two noticeable aberrations in the form of a bobcat and breaking tree boughs), and positive messaging that can be taken to be the importance of siblings, and a race relations (seriously).
There's also a decent bit of heroism (something in particular that resonates with me in media). I'm also a fan of films showing "sacrifice with cost", and Disney dances on the edge of that in the climax of the film -- though I feel they missed a big opportunity when they mulligan it (but maybe that would have been too Dark Knight for them).
Overall, a solid family film, engaging and enjoyable, with high art attributes and less "parental disrespect" moments than similar offerings. Totally recommended.
Friday, December 24, 2010
TRON: Legacy
I caught an IMAX 3D showing of TRON: Legacy at the Bob Bullock theater in Austin, TX, and really enjoyed it.
Some reviewers have griped about the "lack of story" (which is pretty subjective) but the film definitely has something that's been missed from a bunch of the bandwagon pseudo-journalist hater reviews.
Mythos.
In some surprisingly subtle strokes, Kevin Flynn (Jeff Bridges) is granted a corporate and entrepreneurial legacy, Alan Bradley (Bruce Boxleitner) is given historical and surrogate weight, and the world of TRON is given a shape -- a texture -- the first movie didn't have.
For me, vehicles largely set the tone for (or at least the believability of) a film's universe. Genndy Tartakovsky's Star Wars: Clone Wars animated series arguably created a richer universe by believably bridging the technology from Episode II, Episode III, and even to the original trilogy, than the new trilogy itself did.
Probably largely due to Lead Vehicle Designer Daniel Simon and Production Designer Darren Gilford, Legacy's vehicles possess a form and function they didn't before. Most people understandably tune into the lightcycles on this front, with the updated look and functionality that technology limited before. But in the opening scenes featuring the contemporary Recognizer (updated by Visual Effects Supervisor Ben Procter), the vehicle shows a form and function that was not only lacking, but broke the fourth wall for me when I saw the original film as a kid ("how do they get in and out of there without dying?").
Thematically, the film does some interesting stuff. There's a lightish poke at the pseudo-digirati, the requisite fear of technology overtaking humanity, and so on.
But what I was surprised by was the exploration of fatherhood from three angles: biological child, adopted child, and orphan -- father as "daddy", "buddy", and "sensei". I'd heard complaints about "the father angle" being "worked" as an emotional hook, and maybe there is some of that. Or maybe it's a topic explored broadly across three viewpoints, and there is only so much time and space to do that in the bounds of a movie, let a long a film who's "hook" is its visual panache.
As far as performances go, I'm a biased Bridges fan, and enjoyed his reprisal of Kevin Flynn. Some of his statements and actions are wonderfully anachronistic -- which they should be, given his "man out of time" predicament.
Garrett Hedlund and Olivia Wilde are solid in their respective roles of Sam Flynn and Quorra (I think Hedlund has the potential to be like Daniel Craig as he matures (and should play his son in the interim), and Wilde is really coming into her own), and Bruce Boxleitner? Wicked cool" (I wanted to be you, Scarecrow.)
The other notable actors in the film -- the digital ones -- are a mixed bag, but trend more on the positive. Virtual young Jeff Bridges treads into the uncanny valley at times, but that's because more often, it's frankly just uncanny. Due to composition and more subtle emotions, the virtual Bridges works quite well, and is an impressive entry into the virtual acting space. It's largely only with the bigger emotions that the acting breaks down a little, but kudos to Disney and director Joseph Kosinski for pushing the envelope, and not waiting for someone else to crack the perfect virtual actor for them. The first TRON was about pushing film technology; it's nice to see the new one do its equivalent.
So, overall, TRON: Legacy is an enjoyable film -- the expected "visual tour-de-force", but with more mythos, acting highlights, and technology showcases than I fear people will give it credit for.
(Footnote -- the DAFT PUNK score for the movie? Wicked tight.)
Some reviewers have griped about the "lack of story" (which is pretty subjective) but the film definitely has something that's been missed from a bunch of the bandwagon pseudo-journalist hater reviews.
Mythos.
In some surprisingly subtle strokes, Kevin Flynn (Jeff Bridges) is granted a corporate and entrepreneurial legacy, Alan Bradley (Bruce Boxleitner) is given historical and surrogate weight, and the world of TRON is given a shape -- a texture -- the first movie didn't have.
For me, vehicles largely set the tone for (or at least the believability of) a film's universe. Genndy Tartakovsky's Star Wars: Clone Wars animated series arguably created a richer universe by believably bridging the technology from Episode II, Episode III, and even to the original trilogy, than the new trilogy itself did.
Probably largely due to Lead Vehicle Designer Daniel Simon and Production Designer Darren Gilford, Legacy's vehicles possess a form and function they didn't before. Most people understandably tune into the lightcycles on this front, with the updated look and functionality that technology limited before. But in the opening scenes featuring the contemporary Recognizer (updated by Visual Effects Supervisor Ben Procter), the vehicle shows a form and function that was not only lacking, but broke the fourth wall for me when I saw the original film as a kid ("how do they get in and out of there without dying?").
Thematically, the film does some interesting stuff. There's a lightish poke at the pseudo-digirati, the requisite fear of technology overtaking humanity, and so on.
But what I was surprised by was the exploration of fatherhood from three angles: biological child, adopted child, and orphan -- father as "daddy", "buddy", and "sensei". I'd heard complaints about "the father angle" being "worked" as an emotional hook, and maybe there is some of that. Or maybe it's a topic explored broadly across three viewpoints, and there is only so much time and space to do that in the bounds of a movie, let a long a film who's "hook" is its visual panache.
As far as performances go, I'm a biased Bridges fan, and enjoyed his reprisal of Kevin Flynn. Some of his statements and actions are wonderfully anachronistic -- which they should be, given his "man out of time" predicament.
Garrett Hedlund and Olivia Wilde are solid in their respective roles of Sam Flynn and Quorra (I think Hedlund has the potential to be like Daniel Craig as he matures (and should play his son in the interim), and Wilde is really coming into her own), and Bruce Boxleitner? Wicked cool" (I wanted to be you, Scarecrow.)
The other notable actors in the film -- the digital ones -- are a mixed bag, but trend more on the positive. Virtual young Jeff Bridges treads into the uncanny valley at times, but that's because more often, it's frankly just uncanny. Due to composition and more subtle emotions, the virtual Bridges works quite well, and is an impressive entry into the virtual acting space. It's largely only with the bigger emotions that the acting breaks down a little, but kudos to Disney and director Joseph Kosinski for pushing the envelope, and not waiting for someone else to crack the perfect virtual actor for them. The first TRON was about pushing film technology; it's nice to see the new one do its equivalent.
So, overall, TRON: Legacy is an enjoyable film -- the expected "visual tour-de-force", but with more mythos, acting highlights, and technology showcases than I fear people will give it credit for.
(Footnote -- the DAFT PUNK score for the movie? Wicked tight.)
Sunday, January 24, 2010
The Book of Eli
(I'm going to be as vague as I can with any details on this film, but it's hard not to say anything without treading into *spoiler* territory. You have been warned.)
I had no expectations for The Book of Eli, other than I wanted to see it because it starred Denzel Washington, had Gary Oldman, looked to have striking visuals, and was from the guys behind Dead Presidents and Menace II Society.
In essence, the film is an different take on a missionary journey in a post-apocalyptic world. Washington portrays Eli, a drifter (a "walker") with a holy purpose, who is at cross purposes with a barren world; a struggling, devolved society; and the intent of his own mission.
The movie is tough. While not particularly gory, it is at times brutal, and briefly visually (and less briefly, thematically) unsettling.
Eli is front and center in the film, but shares time with the town baron he battles (portrayed by Oldman), a tag-a-long foil (Mila Kunis), the underrated Ray Stevenson (Oldman's lieutenant), and even a pleasant surprise performance from Tom Waits.
The cast is solid, with my only criticism being a meta one for Kunis (would someone that attractive really exist in a post-apocalyptic brothel?).
I'm surprised the film hasn't spun up more controversy on both sides (but maybe I'm just not paying attention). It has the potential to make Judeo-Christians uncomfortable with its portrayal of their faith, and the anti-religious expecting the non-religious post-apocalyptic film it's being marketed as irritated at the content (one couple did walk out muttering during my viewing of the film).
It's a worthwhile film I strongly recommend, if for no other reason than the discussions it could possibly engender (the top-notch acting and cinematography are extra perks).
I had no expectations for The Book of Eli, other than I wanted to see it because it starred Denzel Washington, had Gary Oldman, looked to have striking visuals, and was from the guys behind Dead Presidents and Menace II Society.
In essence, the film is an different take on a missionary journey in a post-apocalyptic world. Washington portrays Eli, a drifter (a "walker") with a holy purpose, who is at cross purposes with a barren world; a struggling, devolved society; and the intent of his own mission.
The movie is tough. While not particularly gory, it is at times brutal, and briefly visually (and less briefly, thematically) unsettling.
Eli is front and center in the film, but shares time with the town baron he battles (portrayed by Oldman), a tag-a-long foil (Mila Kunis), the underrated Ray Stevenson (Oldman's lieutenant), and even a pleasant surprise performance from Tom Waits.
The cast is solid, with my only criticism being a meta one for Kunis (would someone that attractive really exist in a post-apocalyptic brothel?).
I'm surprised the film hasn't spun up more controversy on both sides (but maybe I'm just not paying attention). It has the potential to make Judeo-Christians uncomfortable with its portrayal of their faith, and the anti-religious expecting the non-religious post-apocalyptic film it's being marketed as irritated at the content (one couple did walk out muttering during my viewing of the film).
It's a worthwhile film I strongly recommend, if for no other reason than the discussions it could possibly engender (the top-notch acting and cinematography are extra perks).
Sunday, January 10, 2010
Daybreakers
I caught a matinee of Daybreakers yesterday at the Alamo Drafthouse Village (avoid the brunch scones), and find it a good, worthwhile film.
It's a newish take on vampire lore (not unique to the film, but not as tired as a lot of genre conceits), stylish and at times gritty, and it did a good job of sucking me in (ahem).
The basic premise is that it's the future, vampires are the dominant population, and humans are facing extinction as they're farmed or hunted for blood. But blood's running out, and unless a substitute is found, vampires face their own extinction as they devolve into brainless animals.
Vampire fandom aside, I'd watch Ethan Hawke or Willem Dafoe just sit and drink coffee, so I was likely to enjoy this movie just because of them. The hard-working Claudia Karvan makes a great muted romantic foil, and I appreciate that she's strong and sexy without being overbearing or slutty (both in-character and in the film).
Despite my enjoying the film, I do have to say it is amazingly uneven -- on pretty much every front (other than the acting, with the possible exception of Sam Neill, who plays up the whole "evil corporate entity"" role way too stereotypically).
By "uneven", I mean from the pacing to the focus on the mythos to the cinematography to the dialog.
Pacing ranged from staid and thoughtful to frantic and music video-like. The film didn't feel like it knew what to do with the mythos -- here was this great take on a modern vampire utopia, complete with the mundane versions of non-vampire living (commuting, getting coffee, etc.), that was at first set up and explored, and then thrown out to focus on serial happenings.
Ironically, this caused the film to lose a bit of its humanity, as it bulleted through plot points, at the expense of the relationships and exploring the societal impacts of this whole system.
The shooting is great, though there are some marquee moments in the film I found jarring, because you can almost see someone working hard to pose the actors and setup the shot, for the sake of it looking "bad-ass", at the expense of authenticity (and frankly, I almost laughed out load when I saw them).
At the same time, there are some great nods to traditional vampire tropes (staking, etc.) that are put in in surprising, fun, and non-obtrusive ways.
Overall, a worthwhile flick, at times unnecessarily gratuitous, but, overall, a good movie to add to your queue.
Tropic Thunder
I had not scene Tropic Thunder. Last night, I fixed that.
It's easy to dismiss films of this genre as low-brow tripe -- and that's partially the fault of how it was marketed -- but it's a good film with solid (and at points amazing) acting.
The cast includes Jack Black, Ben Stiller, Steve Coogan, Bill Hader (SNL), Nick Nolte, Christine Taylor, Robert Downey Jr., and Tom Cruise -- the latter two of which put forth amazing, unexpected character roles. I recognized these two in the role, but a surprising number of people don't.
And for those folks that are in the biz, I think you'll enjoy all of the in-jokes and industry self-effacement.
Lotta fun, lotta great real-world (limited CGI) war effects, and fun DVD "special features".
Sunday, August 10, 2008
The Dark Knight
It's been too long since I've posted a micro review of anything on the visual front, but Christopher Nolan's revisited take on Batman has been rattling around my head since opening night, and I need to jot down a few thoughts.
My opinion? Not to overstate it, but The Dark Knight is arguably not only the best comic book movie to date, but one of the best movie movies to date.
Nolan takes -- and deconstructs -- the comic book genre more than he did with Batman Begins, showcasing an appropriately gritty, costly version of the genre's tropes.
The Dark Knight is alternately a heist movie, a mass serial killer film, a psychologically thriller, a morality play, and -- while it might even be a comic book flick -- it's thankfully not a tights flick.
What makes it good?
Well, there's story; the brilliant, wave-upon-wave story from the Nolans (Chris and Jonathan) and David S. Goyer, making the nearly 3 hours fly by in an exhausting rush. "Wave-upon-wave", because there are at least three instances where it feels the film could be escalating to its climax, only to build on that moment and ratchet the intensity up, yet again. There are sub-plots that don't get lost amidst the movie's spine. And, unlike Spider-Man 3, all of the baddies showing up in this film don't get lost amidst each other. And there's the whole genre diversity thing I mentioned earlier.
More important to me, I'm a fan of those too-few films showing "The Clean Win is a Lie."
The short version is this: Big stuff, important stuff, comes at a cost.
There's a truism that says if I say "yes" to something, I'm saying "no" to something else. It follows that the bigger the yes, the bigger the no. The bigger the stuff, the bigger the cost.
There are people who are heroes, and they make sacrifices. So, it likewise follows that if there were a world with super heroes, they make would super-sacrifices.
The Dark Knight showcases this better than most films (independent of genre).
And, of course, there's the acting.
Christian Bale, the already beyond ridiculously inspirational actor who woke the world up in American Psycho, delivered an emotionally brutal performance in El Maquinista, has had five films released between Begins and The Dark Knight.
Then there's Gary Oldman, who's bringing depth and cost to Batman's Gordon, and Michael Caine, who makes Alfred more than just a comedic button.
Morgan Freeman, who could read a phone book and keep me rapt, far from faxes in his performance as the additive cast member Lucius Fox, Wayne's confidant and tech supplier.
Aaron Eckhart, D.A. and more, with a storied career of his own, has perhaps his defining moments within this film. Gripping and tragic.
And that brings us to the greatest and most tragic part of film.
Heath Ledger redefines the Joker, bringing the insane, Alan Moore / The Killing Joke brutality of the Crown Prince of Anarchy to the big screen (Cesar Romero this is not). Ledger also pulls off the not-insignificant feat of bringing character acting to a marquee role. The mannerisms and idiosyncrasies are distinctly what he brings to his portrayal of the Joker. With all due respect to Jack Nicholson, this is the Joker, and Ledger's performance will either keep everyone away from ever touching the role, or elevate it as the role to beat, and provides a tragic exclamation point to the senselessness of Ledger's death.
So, yeah, I like the film, and not just because of the genre -- but because it's a a great film, and a fantastic vehicle for a bunch of talent in front of and behind the camera.
My opinion? Not to overstate it, but The Dark Knight is arguably not only the best comic book movie to date, but one of the best movie movies to date.
Nolan takes -- and deconstructs -- the comic book genre more than he did with Batman Begins, showcasing an appropriately gritty, costly version of the genre's tropes.
The Dark Knight is alternately a heist movie, a mass serial killer film, a psychologically thriller, a morality play, and -- while it might even be a comic book flick -- it's thankfully not a tights flick.
What makes it good?
Well, there's story; the brilliant, wave-upon-wave story from the Nolans (Chris and Jonathan) and David S. Goyer, making the nearly 3 hours fly by in an exhausting rush. "Wave-upon-wave", because there are at least three instances where it feels the film could be escalating to its climax, only to build on that moment and ratchet the intensity up, yet again. There are sub-plots that don't get lost amidst the movie's spine. And, unlike Spider-Man 3, all of the baddies showing up in this film don't get lost amidst each other. And there's the whole genre diversity thing I mentioned earlier.
More important to me, I'm a fan of those too-few films showing "The Clean Win is a Lie."
The short version is this: Big stuff, important stuff, comes at a cost.
There's a truism that says if I say "yes" to something, I'm saying "no" to something else. It follows that the bigger the yes, the bigger the no. The bigger the stuff, the bigger the cost.
There are people who are heroes, and they make sacrifices. So, it likewise follows that if there were a world with super heroes, they make would super-sacrifices.
The Dark Knight showcases this better than most films (independent of genre).
And, of course, there's the acting.
Christian Bale, the already beyond ridiculously inspirational actor who woke the world up in American Psycho, delivered an emotionally brutal performance in El Maquinista, has had five films released between Begins and The Dark Knight.
Then there's Gary Oldman, who's bringing depth and cost to Batman's Gordon, and Michael Caine, who makes Alfred more than just a comedic button.
Morgan Freeman, who could read a phone book and keep me rapt, far from faxes in his performance as the additive cast member Lucius Fox, Wayne's confidant and tech supplier.
Aaron Eckhart, D.A. and more, with a storied career of his own, has perhaps his defining moments within this film. Gripping and tragic.
And that brings us to the greatest and most tragic part of film.
Heath Ledger redefines the Joker, bringing the insane, Alan Moore / The Killing Joke brutality of the Crown Prince of Anarchy to the big screen (Cesar Romero this is not). Ledger also pulls off the not-insignificant feat of bringing character acting to a marquee role. The mannerisms and idiosyncrasies are distinctly what he brings to his portrayal of the Joker. With all due respect to Jack Nicholson, this is the Joker, and Ledger's performance will either keep everyone away from ever touching the role, or elevate it as the role to beat, and provides a tragic exclamation point to the senselessness of Ledger's death.
So, yeah, I like the film, and not just because of the genre -- but because it's a a great film, and a fantastic vehicle for a bunch of talent in front of and behind the camera.
Saturday, September 08, 2007
Shoot 'Em Up
I caught the local matinee premiere of Shoot 'Em Up yesterday, New Line's latest vehicle for Clive Owen.
The good is it's actually a great vehicle for Paul Giamatti, who does a phenomenal job as the hitman linchpin who's the foil (and provides the manpower fodder), for Owen's constant bang bang shenanigans. Giamatti is one of my character actor heroes, and I put him up there with John C. Reilly, and William H. Macy, Pepe Serna, and Joan Cusack -- hard- (and constantly) working, amazingly talented character actors.
So, see the film for Giamatti. The other stuff, notably "Owen's constant bang bang shenanigans" -- isn't there.
The film's short. So short (120 minutes), and so hyped, that it's supposed to be about non-stop action. The brakes are put on repeatedly for heavy plot exposition and (worse) heavy-handed political statements about gun control and parental correction. The ironic juxtaposition is nice, though.
The film is over the top. But not in the fun/ridiculous way I was expecting. It felt gratuitous for gratuitous sake.
Worth seeing? For me, for Giamatti, yes. But Owen and Monica Bellucci have better stuff out there.
The good is it's actually a great vehicle for Paul Giamatti, who does a phenomenal job as the hitman linchpin who's the foil (and provides the manpower fodder), for Owen's constant bang bang shenanigans. Giamatti is one of my character actor heroes, and I put him up there with John C. Reilly, and William H. Macy, Pepe Serna, and Joan Cusack -- hard- (and constantly) working, amazingly talented character actors.
So, see the film for Giamatti. The other stuff, notably "Owen's constant bang bang shenanigans" -- isn't there.
The film's short. So short (120 minutes), and so hyped, that it's supposed to be about non-stop action. The brakes are put on repeatedly for heavy plot exposition and (worse) heavy-handed political statements about gun control and parental correction. The ironic juxtaposition is nice, though.
The film is over the top. But not in the fun/ridiculous way I was expecting. It felt gratuitous for gratuitous sake.
Worth seeing? For me, for Giamatti, yes. But Owen and Monica Bellucci have better stuff out there.
Friday, August 24, 2007
War
I watched War at its local premier today, and to be honest, I liked it. It's more Hard-Boiled than The Transporter, and kudos for them trying a bunch of things in the film.
It's a plot-heavy film, and any time you try to mix Chinese Triads and Japanese Yakuza -- and genuinely try to get it right -- you're taking on a lot.
There's also a bunch of interpersonal stuff the film works pretty hard to flesh out, which gives those relationships a sense of depth -- not much, but more than I would expect for a shoot -em up, and I appreciate it.
There's a twist I didn't see coming. I'm still playing with how believable I think it is, but I'm good with it right now.
Devon Aoki makes a relatively brief appearance as Kira, and does more than she did in Dead or Alive (DOA).
And I should preface any criticism of the film with the fact that -- at least from the IMDb entry -- it appears this is an effort from a bunch of first timers (writers Lee Anthony Smith and Gregory J. Bradley, and director Philip G. Atwell, at least as far as a theatrical foray goes). This is a great "first attempt". Of course Producers, Cinematography (Pierre Morel), Production Design (Chris August), and the Editorial Department are not first-timers, so that helps immensely.
But like I said, the film is plot-heavy, and it's story- and action-light.
I'm glad I got to see Aoki do more. But I would have like to see leads Jet Li and Jason Statham do more. Jet Li gets a better chance to show his acting chops in Unleashed (Danny the Dog) , and I enjoyed Jason Statham more in Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels.
And where the plot was thick, there were way too many "tell, don't show" moments where some dialog put the brakes on forward motion so we could bridge a couple of happenings, or get some back story. Dead giveaway that something else needs fixing.All that said, it's an enjoyable couple of hours, and I recommend it.
As far as other good stuff, there are some fun cinematography techniques in the film. I particularly enjoyed the one particular pan from location to location, and from day to night. They pulled it off well.
The audio's great, too. On the music side, there's a neat little bridge from what I think is a Yangqin or Guqin (could be a Pipa) to a more modern, rocking musical rendition. It's well done, with the traditional music continuing to flow underneath in a cool way. Just way too brief.
And Saul Rubinek rocks.
As far as meta-criticism, I wish they'd stop breaking rules. Like the "don't kill kids and pets" rules. There are those that tell me those are outmoded restrictions. But I wonder what the slippery slope is.
Finishing on a positive note, I think this is the first time I've been aware of all of the trailers shown before the movie are for films for which I'm sooo excited: 3:10 to Yuma; 30 Days of Night; Hitman, Shoot 'Em Up; The Dark Knight; Good Luck, Chuck (the last just because I want to see if they can pull off stretching the gag for an entire film).
It's a plot-heavy film, and any time you try to mix Chinese Triads and Japanese Yakuza -- and genuinely try to get it right -- you're taking on a lot.
There's also a bunch of interpersonal stuff the film works pretty hard to flesh out, which gives those relationships a sense of depth -- not much, but more than I would expect for a shoot -em up, and I appreciate it.
There's a twist I didn't see coming. I'm still playing with how believable I think it is, but I'm good with it right now.
Devon Aoki makes a relatively brief appearance as Kira, and does more than she did in Dead or Alive (DOA).
And I should preface any criticism of the film with the fact that -- at least from the IMDb entry -- it appears this is an effort from a bunch of first timers (writers Lee Anthony Smith and Gregory J. Bradley, and director Philip G. Atwell, at least as far as a theatrical foray goes). This is a great "first attempt". Of course Producers, Cinematography (Pierre Morel), Production Design (Chris August), and the Editorial Department are not first-timers, so that helps immensely.
But like I said, the film is plot-heavy, and it's story- and action-light.
I'm glad I got to see Aoki do more. But I would have like to see leads Jet Li and Jason Statham do more. Jet Li gets a better chance to show his acting chops in Unleashed (Danny the Dog) , and I enjoyed Jason Statham more in Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels.
And where the plot was thick, there were way too many "tell, don't show" moments where some dialog put the brakes on forward motion so we could bridge a couple of happenings, or get some back story. Dead giveaway that something else needs fixing.All that said, it's an enjoyable couple of hours, and I recommend it.
As far as other good stuff, there are some fun cinematography techniques in the film. I particularly enjoyed the one particular pan from location to location, and from day to night. They pulled it off well.
The audio's great, too. On the music side, there's a neat little bridge from what I think is a Yangqin or Guqin (could be a Pipa) to a more modern, rocking musical rendition. It's well done, with the traditional music continuing to flow underneath in a cool way. Just way too brief.
And Saul Rubinek rocks.
As far as meta-criticism, I wish they'd stop breaking rules. Like the "don't kill kids and pets" rules. There are those that tell me those are outmoded restrictions. But I wonder what the slippery slope is.
Finishing on a positive note, I think this is the first time I've been aware of all of the trailers shown before the movie are for films for which I'm sooo excited: 3:10 to Yuma; 30 Days of Night; Hitman, Shoot 'Em Up; The Dark Knight; Good Luck, Chuck (the last just because I want to see if they can pull off stretching the gag for an entire film).
Thursday, May 03, 2007
Hot Fuzz
Heh.
It's been almost a week, and I'm still laughing about Hot Fuzz, the spiritual successor from the guys behind Shaun of the Dead.
I had low expectations for a funny, but throw-away film, based on the U.S. trailers for the film, which make look almost like a live-action Team America: World Police.
Not to take anything away from that film, but Hot Fuzz is way different, and (for me) way better.
The trailers I've seen are selling the film at a disservice, because this is one hip, hilarious, smart, and tightly acted / written / edited film.
Simon Pegg (Sergeant Nicholas Angel) is top-notch, and is a prolific writer / actor the likes of to which to aspire. He plays a believable hard-nosed / -assedcop officer, and rarely can be seen wearing "look how funny my writing is" on his sleeve (there is a moment, though; the first "By the power of ..." is gold, and the second is contrived).
Nick Frost (PC Danny Butterman), Pegg's rotund subtly faux bumbling partner in the sleepy hamlet to which Angel's been reassigned, is so amazingly committed to his character and actions, he's a real joy to watch.
And Timothy Dalton gives me probably my favorite performance of his since The Rocketeer. The way this guy can act and have fun with himself is impressive.
Perhaps the strength of the film is its ability to pull off the ludicrous, making me laugh because it's ludicrous, but it doesn't feel unreal. That and being able to pull off the humor and the grotesque side-by-side.
Not to give anything away, but the plot twists in the film feel organic to the genre; the "genre" being an Edgar Wright & Simon Pegg film. Almost reverse Scooby-Doo, in a way. Whatever. Brass tacks: I didn't feel jerked around.
I heartily recommend the film. It's a tight, hilarious, surprisingly high-caliber offering for an early summer kick off for action and comedy fans.
It's been almost a week, and I'm still laughing about Hot Fuzz, the spiritual successor from the guys behind Shaun of the Dead.
I had low expectations for a funny, but throw-away film, based on the U.S. trailers for the film, which make look almost like a live-action Team America: World Police.
Not to take anything away from that film, but Hot Fuzz is way different, and (for me) way better.
The trailers I've seen are selling the film at a disservice, because this is one hip, hilarious, smart, and tightly acted / written / edited film.
Simon Pegg (Sergeant Nicholas Angel) is top-notch, and is a prolific writer / actor the likes of to which to aspire. He plays a believable hard-nosed / -assed
Nick Frost (PC Danny Butterman), Pegg's rotund subtly faux bumbling partner in the sleepy hamlet to which Angel's been reassigned, is so amazingly committed to his character and actions, he's a real joy to watch.
And Timothy Dalton gives me probably my favorite performance of his since The Rocketeer. The way this guy can act and have fun with himself is impressive.
Perhaps the strength of the film is its ability to pull off the ludicrous, making me laugh because it's ludicrous, but it doesn't feel unreal. That and being able to pull off the humor and the grotesque side-by-side.
Not to give anything away, but the plot twists in the film feel organic to the genre; the "genre" being an Edgar Wright & Simon Pegg film. Almost reverse Scooby-Doo, in a way. Whatever. Brass tacks: I didn't feel jerked around.
I heartily recommend the film. It's a tight, hilarious, surprisingly high-caliber offering for an early summer kick off for action and comedy fans.
Friday, March 16, 2007
300
In the interest of full disclosure, I'm a Frank Miller fan.
So, I was going to see 300 the day it opened. I didn't know I was going to see it twice.
Visually, the film is impressive. It's a pseudo period adventure / war piece, and there's a commitment on the visual feel (borne from the original graphic novel) that's cohesive and compelling.
Scenes are almost frame-perfect from the original work, which comes off well for the most part -- though there are a couple of miss-steps where something that looked "super badass" in the book comes across a bit flat in the movie (the Persian duplicity reveal and the corpse tree in particular stand out to me).
But for the most part, scenes flowed well, and didn't feel too disjoint -- which is a danger considering their self-contained "wow" moments.
The actors were strongly committed, which makes for a great performance, with Gerard Butler (Leonidas) in particular surprising me with his performance, though Lena Headey's (Gorgo) refreshingly strong character portrayal was nice, too. Dominic West (Theron) was sharp in his political portrayal, and Vincent Regan (Captain) is a shamefully underrated actor, who gave perhaps the most powerful, humanizing moments in the film.
The only real downside to the film (for me) was they included the text-heavy narration throughout, which became a little grating. Not so much because it violated the "show, don't tell axiom" (which it did), but because I'm not sure for which accent David Wenham (Dilios) was trying, but it certainly didn't work (as an aside, dialects are all over the map in this film).
Overall, 300 is a powerful, visually impressive film, and the few missteps don't detract from the overall impact of the movie.
So, I was going to see 300 the day it opened. I didn't know I was going to see it twice.
Visually, the film is impressive. It's a pseudo period adventure / war piece, and there's a commitment on the visual feel (borne from the original graphic novel) that's cohesive and compelling.
Scenes are almost frame-perfect from the original work, which comes off well for the most part -- though there are a couple of miss-steps where something that looked "super badass" in the book comes across a bit flat in the movie (the Persian duplicity reveal and the corpse tree in particular stand out to me).
But for the most part, scenes flowed well, and didn't feel too disjoint -- which is a danger considering their self-contained "wow" moments.
The actors were strongly committed, which makes for a great performance, with Gerard Butler (Leonidas) in particular surprising me with his performance, though Lena Headey's (Gorgo) refreshingly strong character portrayal was nice, too. Dominic West (Theron) was sharp in his political portrayal, and Vincent Regan (Captain) is a shamefully underrated actor, who gave perhaps the most powerful, humanizing moments in the film.
The only real downside to the film (for me) was they included the text-heavy narration throughout, which became a little grating. Not so much because it violated the "show, don't tell axiom" (which it did), but because I'm not sure for which accent David Wenham (Dilios) was trying, but it certainly didn't work (as an aside, dialects are all over the map in this film).
Overall, 300 is a powerful, visually impressive film, and the few missteps don't detract from the overall impact of the movie.
Wednesday, February 28, 2007
Pineapple
I know I said I'd do this, but I got behind.
A couple of weeks ago, I watched a film I won't name and was so bad I almost wanted to take a Brillo pad to the eyes and pipe cleaners to the ears (and not the pansy-ass craft kind; the real, metal ones that work). It was worse because I'm a fan of the franchise. I shall not name the flick, hoping it goes back to whatever circle of hell spawned it.
Fortunately for me, last week, I saw Pineapple. Because of the content, it should have had the same effect. But it didn't.
Which is a testimony to solid execution on the film's part.
What's the film about?
Wrong question.
What happens in the film is Andrew (Steven Chester Prince), struggling with a broken marriage, unwillingly estranged daughter, and clean from his past addictions, falls back into those addictions. And falls hard.
What the film is about is kind of open.
The acting is pretty good throughout. Steve Prince (full disclosure: He's my coach) is solid and genuinely engaged throughout. Most of the rest of the cast is as well, though there is some rockiness in a couple of line deliveries. I can't tell if this is from editing, but in at least two instances it felt like they started with a line without having built the precursor conversation in their head.
Scream queen Eliza Swenson ("Crystal") does a mostly fantastic job, and Skye McCole Bartusiak ("Alex") blew me away (that's one talented kid).
This is a tough film about which to talk in detail for a number of reasons.
First, it's pretty layered in its duplicity, so to say too much would create spoilers. I can say for the most part the film pulls off the redirects subtly and well, so I was surprised by most of them. One of the big ones was obvious to me shortly into the film, and another, when the first clue was dropped, I thought was the reveal (and made the right conclusion), so the "real" reveal at the end was a bit anticlimactic. Most importantly, however, I never felt like I was given a red herring to divert my attention from the truth (that's just insulting when films do that).
Secondly, this film deals with some rough stuff. Hard core addiction, addict stripper love interest (with lots of on-location scenes, and, uh, friends), domestic violence, and broken families are all portrayed honestly and brutally. This is not kiddie or family fare, but it's important stuff.
Despite the rough content, the film delivers very well. I think films have merit by nature of having been made, and when they hold up a magnifying glass to very real (even if very dark) reality, that's an incredibly important and needed side-effect.
Someone involved with the film said reviews had been all over the map, because "people who have life experience get the film, and people who don't, don't."
This is generalization that falls apart for a couple of reasons.
First, living people, by definition, have life experience.
Secondly, even if what he meant was "People with this kind of life experience get the film", there are lots of other reasons for folks to like or dislike the film.
Like I said, it's pretty tough content. For some people, that can be too much of an off-put to support the film. I also know folks who have come out of the backgrounds portrayed in Pineapple, and because of where they are in the healing process, they don't want a detailed reminder of what that was like.
And people like me, blessed with not having that background, still gets the film, and think it's important, because it reminds me of what people have gone through or are going through. A film that builds empathy is pretty big deal.
I say the film is very much worth seeing. For me, it's kind of like Se7en -- a great, tough film that (because of content) I won't see all that repeatedly. But I'm glad I saw it.
UPDATED: I'm so embarrassed I forgot to talk about the music, because it's a massively well-done part of the film. The score is from Brian Vander Ark (lead singer for The Verve Pipe, and the writer behind one of my favorite songs, "The Freshman", and new fav "Another Good Man"; uh, neither of which are in this film). There's also stuff from Smackola (dIRTy WoRMz), who's a key character in the film, and Vehicular, and Alpha Rev (including Casey McPherson).
This is freaking amazing musical talent, and even more so for an indie film.
A couple of weeks ago, I watched a film I won't name and was so bad I almost wanted to take a Brillo pad to the eyes and pipe cleaners to the ears (and not the pansy-ass craft kind; the real, metal ones that work). It was worse because I'm a fan of the franchise. I shall not name the flick, hoping it goes back to whatever circle of hell spawned it.
Fortunately for me, last week, I saw Pineapple. Because of the content, it should have had the same effect. But it didn't.
Which is a testimony to solid execution on the film's part.
What's the film about?
Wrong question.
What happens in the film is Andrew (Steven Chester Prince), struggling with a broken marriage, unwillingly estranged daughter, and clean from his past addictions, falls back into those addictions. And falls hard.
What the film is about is kind of open.
The acting is pretty good throughout. Steve Prince (full disclosure: He's my coach) is solid and genuinely engaged throughout. Most of the rest of the cast is as well, though there is some rockiness in a couple of line deliveries. I can't tell if this is from editing, but in at least two instances it felt like they started with a line without having built the precursor conversation in their head.
Scream queen Eliza Swenson ("Crystal") does a mostly fantastic job, and Skye McCole Bartusiak ("Alex") blew me away (that's one talented kid).
This is a tough film about which to talk in detail for a number of reasons.
First, it's pretty layered in its duplicity, so to say too much would create spoilers. I can say for the most part the film pulls off the redirects subtly and well, so I was surprised by most of them. One of the big ones was obvious to me shortly into the film, and another, when the first clue was dropped, I thought was the reveal (and made the right conclusion), so the "real" reveal at the end was a bit anticlimactic. Most importantly, however, I never felt like I was given a red herring to divert my attention from the truth (that's just insulting when films do that).
Secondly, this film deals with some rough stuff. Hard core addiction, addict stripper love interest (with lots of on-location scenes, and, uh, friends), domestic violence, and broken families are all portrayed honestly and brutally. This is not kiddie or family fare, but it's important stuff.
Despite the rough content, the film delivers very well. I think films have merit by nature of having been made, and when they hold up a magnifying glass to very real (even if very dark) reality, that's an incredibly important and needed side-effect.
Someone involved with the film said reviews had been all over the map, because "people who have life experience get the film, and people who don't, don't."
This is generalization that falls apart for a couple of reasons.
First, living people, by definition, have life experience.
Secondly, even if what he meant was "People with this kind of life experience get the film", there are lots of other reasons for folks to like or dislike the film.
Like I said, it's pretty tough content. For some people, that can be too much of an off-put to support the film. I also know folks who have come out of the backgrounds portrayed in Pineapple, and because of where they are in the healing process, they don't want a detailed reminder of what that was like.
And people like me, blessed with not having that background, still gets the film, and think it's important, because it reminds me of what people have gone through or are going through. A film that builds empathy is pretty big deal.
I say the film is very much worth seeing. For me, it's kind of like Se7en -- a great, tough film that (because of content) I won't see all that repeatedly. But I'm glad I saw it.
UPDATED: I'm so embarrassed I forgot to talk about the music, because it's a massively well-done part of the film. The score is from Brian Vander Ark (lead singer for The Verve Pipe, and the writer behind one of my favorite songs, "The Freshman", and new fav "Another Good Man"; uh, neither of which are in this film). There's also stuff from Smackola (dIRTy WoRMz), who's a key character in the film, and Vehicular, and Alpha Rev (including Casey McPherson).
This is freaking amazing musical talent, and even more so for an indie film.
Friday, February 23, 2007
Heroes
I'm still watching this show. And, for the most part, it keeps getting better and better.
The initial roughness is tightening up, some of the uneven acting is getting less so, and it's a new way to scratch the comic book itch.
The second half of season 1 started out steeply, so folks not familiar with the first arc were probably left in the dark. Weird, since this is a known thing to avoid killing a series prematurely.
That said, NBC has probably the best network Website, and you can watch full episodes online. This'll probably go away, because as Season 1 winds down, I'm sure the DVD boxed set is on its way, and the network isn't going to cannibalize those sales.
Check out the series. There are some strong actors on board, and it's fun, (mostly) non-bubble gum fiction.
The initial roughness is tightening up, some of the uneven acting is getting less so, and it's a new way to scratch the comic book itch.
The second half of season 1 started out steeply, so folks not familiar with the first arc were probably left in the dark. Weird, since this is a known thing to avoid killing a series prematurely.
That said, NBC has probably the best network Website, and you can watch full episodes online. This'll probably go away, because as Season 1 winds down, I'm sure the DVD boxed set is on its way, and the network isn't going to cannibalize those sales.
Check out the series. There are some strong actors on board, and it's fun, (mostly) non-bubble gum fiction.
Tuesday, December 26, 2006
Christmas comic book cartoons
Last year, I made recordings and an all-in-one DVD of three different holiday-themed comic book cartoons. I'd forgotten I had this, stumbled upon it, and popped it in during Christmas Eve festivities. Glad I did.
(And, yes, there's a theme here.)
Powerpuff Girls: Twas the Fight Before Christmas
I miss this show. Tom Kenny is an amazing voice talent. The special has Princess Morebucks, who is one of my favorite baddies to hate -- and she's a Powerpuff girl? And Santa takes Christmas away from everyone? And then he's ... had ... enough!?
Good stuff.
Justice League ("Comfort and Joy")
This was a great series, and I'd argue better than its follow-on Unlimited incarnation.
This holiday one shot (most episodes were part of 2- or 3-episode arcs) is fun, has a lot of heart, and shows some (mostly) non-combatitive vignette moments of key members of the team. Superman/Clark and Martian Manhunter/J'onn visit Smallville. Green Lantern/Jon Stewart and Hawkgirl/Shayera have a superhero version of a snowball fight (then are off to an alien bar for a decidedly different holiday tradition). The Flash/Wally West and Ultra-Humanite end up in a battle that winds up well for everyone (including some orphans).
Batman: The Animated Series ("Holiday Knights")
Perhaps my favorite all-time cartoon, this holiday one-shot was one of the last episodes of the 1990s TV series. It has three great, different stories that have Bruce Timm's trademark "I get it" take on each character. The first story has Harley Quinn and Poison Ivy kidnap Bruce Wayne and put him under their control, using his money for a huge Christmas shopping spree. In the second story, Batgirl takes on Clayface in a Gotham Department Store during the holiday shopping rush. , Finally, Batman and Robin take on the Joker, who's (understandably) trying to kill all the people at Gotham City's New Year's Eve celebration. Great, solid acting and good story throughout.
I need to add the "Christmas With The Joker" episode to this collection. That episode has Mark Hamill (The Joker) in top form. And he sings a special version of "Jingle Bells".
(And, yes, there's a theme here.)
Powerpuff Girls: Twas the Fight Before Christmas
I miss this show. Tom Kenny is an amazing voice talent. The special has Princess Morebucks, who is one of my favorite baddies to hate -- and she's a Powerpuff girl? And Santa takes Christmas away from everyone? And then he's ... had ... enough!?
Good stuff.
Justice League ("Comfort and Joy")
This was a great series, and I'd argue better than its follow-on Unlimited incarnation.
This holiday one shot (most episodes were part of 2- or 3-episode arcs) is fun, has a lot of heart, and shows some (mostly) non-combatitive vignette moments of key members of the team. Superman/Clark and Martian Manhunter/J'onn visit Smallville. Green Lantern/Jon Stewart and Hawkgirl/Shayera have a superhero version of a snowball fight (then are off to an alien bar for a decidedly different holiday tradition). The Flash/Wally West and Ultra-Humanite end up in a battle that winds up well for everyone (including some orphans).
Batman: The Animated Series ("Holiday Knights")
Perhaps my favorite all-time cartoon, this holiday one-shot was one of the last episodes of the 1990s TV series. It has three great, different stories that have Bruce Timm's trademark "I get it" take on each character. The first story has Harley Quinn and Poison Ivy kidnap Bruce Wayne and put him under their control, using his money for a huge Christmas shopping spree. In the second story, Batgirl takes on Clayface in a Gotham Department Store during the holiday shopping rush. , Finally, Batman and Robin take on the Joker, who's (understandably) trying to kill all the people at Gotham City's New Year's Eve celebration. Great, solid acting and good story throughout.
I need to add the "Christmas With The Joker" episode to this collection. That episode has Mark Hamill (The Joker) in top form. And he sings a special version of "Jingle Bells".
Monday, November 06, 2006
Borat!: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan.
I just watched Borat!: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan.
I have probably never laughed so hard at so many inappropriate things in one sitting.
And then sitting out in the parking lot reliving the highlights for 20 minutes. My cheeks hurt.
Don't see this film if you're easily offended. Don't see this film if you're moderately offended.
Oh, but I'm glad I did ...
I have probably never laughed so hard at so many inappropriate things in one sitting.
And then sitting out in the parking lot reliving the highlights for 20 minutes. My cheeks hurt.
Don't see this film if you're easily offended. Don't see this film if you're moderately offended.
Oh, but I'm glad I did ...
Tuesday, October 03, 2006
Friday Night Lights
Friday Night Lights is important to the Central Texas acting scene.
The thing is shot and produced here, and a big lift for this part of the acting world. I've got a lot of friends in it.
Watch it. It's genuinely good.
It's about competition and relationships and that passion and importance that is spotlighted in high school, but exists as part of the human condition, and we probably shouldn't be covering up so much once we graduate.
Wow, NBC has Friday Night Lights, Heroes, 30 Rock, Studio 60, Twenty Good Years ... This is becoming my network ...
The thing is shot and produced here, and a big lift for this part of the acting world. I've got a lot of friends in it.
Watch it. It's genuinely good.
It's about competition and relationships and that passion and importance that is spotlighted in high school, but exists as part of the human condition, and we probably shouldn't be covering up so much once we graduate.
Wow, NBC has Friday Night Lights, Heroes, 30 Rock, Studio 60, Twenty Good Years ... This is becoming my network ...
Friday, September 29, 2006
Heroes
I am such a comic book geek, so I so want Heroes to succeed.
The pilot was pretty good. Good rough, and setting stuff up to hit the fan.
I'm hoping the tightness improves following episodes -- there were some particularly bad editing moments in first episode, and at least two scenes that seemed so contrived (dropping the ring in the garbage disposal, etc.), that I got jarred out of the moment.
And the acting is a mixed bag. Some good, some definitely showing us acting -- which I've gotten really sensitive to.
I was thinking this series was going to be an episodic version of Unbreakable, but it looks like it's actually going to be more blatant about its comic book tie-in.
I hope they don't try to ape to many past dramas, like the X-Files Smoking Man or TNT's Witchblade (though if they must ape Witchblade, let it be season 1, not season 2).
And check out the Website --Everything from watching missed episodes (full or 2-minute summary to keep you up to date), interviews, downloads, and an ongoing, online-only comic book that expands the Heroes world.
Hey, it's better comic book fare than Who Wants to be a Super Hero?, which I'm painfully working my way through (only because of Stan Lee's brilliance and entrepreneurship).
The pilot was pretty good. Good rough, and setting stuff up to hit the fan.
I'm hoping the tightness improves following episodes -- there were some particularly bad editing moments in first episode, and at least two scenes that seemed so contrived (dropping the ring in the garbage disposal, etc.), that I got jarred out of the moment.
And the acting is a mixed bag. Some good, some definitely showing us acting -- which I've gotten really sensitive to.
I was thinking this series was going to be an episodic version of Unbreakable, but it looks like it's actually going to be more blatant about its comic book tie-in.
I hope they don't try to ape to many past dramas, like the X-Files Smoking Man or TNT's Witchblade (though if they must ape Witchblade, let it be season 1, not season 2).
And check out the Website --Everything from watching missed episodes (full or 2-minute summary to keep you up to date), interviews, downloads, and an ongoing, online-only comic book that expands the Heroes world.
Hey, it's better comic book fare than Who Wants to be a Super Hero?, which I'm painfully working my way through (only because of Stan Lee's brilliance and entrepreneurship).
Saturday, August 26, 2006
Snakes on a Plane
I caught a matinee of Snakes on a Plane yesterday, and it's a rollercoster ride.
That is to say, it's got its ups and downs, highs and lows, and some of them are pretty low.
I mean, the premise is whack. And while I knew that going in, just how whack surprised me. Like how they justify the whole premise really stretched my willing suspension of disbelief. Could have been done a little better, I think, and the believability of the climix could have been improved with only two slight tweaks.
That said, this is an engaging film. Think a bigger budget, tighter acted Lake Placid (which I really liked), but stretching the bounds of reality even more than that flick. Yeah, more.
It doesn't help that as a kid I was really into zoology, and yesterday's movie-going buddy is a veterinarian. Which meant we laughed out loud at places the film makers probably didn't intend. Big scary dramatic startling moments.
But there's good stuff in the flick -- some well-done comedy and irony, and moving, well-completed heroism -- not empty sacrifice, and it had a cost. Nice to see that, and I didn't expect it.
On a side note, I am, however, disturbed by a trend in movies and video games lately. An unspoken rule that's being broken.
That rule is, "Don't endanger or do violence to children" (another version of that rule is, "Don't endanger or do violence to furred animals"; which sucks for the snakes).
They're breaking this rule more and more lately, and I'm starting to get pissed off by it (The Hills Have Eyes, Dead Rising, etc.). It's a rule. Follow it.
Of course, at least this film follow's through on the rule's corollary: "Those who do violence to children/furred animals shall die."
Hmm ... Technically, it's writers John Heffernan, David Dalessandro, Sebastian Gutierrez, and director David R. Ellis that broke these rules. Beware the snakes, boys.
Anyway, worthwhile popcorn flick -- a good ride, with some surprising and fun nuggets, and the acting's not bad.
Oh, and another of my inspirational, in-it-for-the-long-haul actors, Lin Shaye, does a good, important job in the film. She's been doing this gig for 30 years. More power to her.
That is to say, it's got its ups and downs, highs and lows, and some of them are pretty low.
I mean, the premise is whack. And while I knew that going in, just how whack surprised me. Like how they justify the whole premise really stretched my willing suspension of disbelief. Could have been done a little better, I think, and the believability of the climix could have been improved with only two slight tweaks.
That said, this is an engaging film. Think a bigger budget, tighter acted Lake Placid (which I really liked), but stretching the bounds of reality even more than that flick. Yeah, more.
It doesn't help that as a kid I was really into zoology, and yesterday's movie-going buddy is a veterinarian. Which meant we laughed out loud at places the film makers probably didn't intend. Big scary dramatic startling moments.
But there's good stuff in the flick -- some well-done comedy and irony, and moving, well-completed heroism -- not empty sacrifice, and it had a cost. Nice to see that, and I didn't expect it.
On a side note, I am, however, disturbed by a trend in movies and video games lately. An unspoken rule that's being broken.
That rule is, "Don't endanger or do violence to children" (another version of that rule is, "Don't endanger or do violence to furred animals"; which sucks for the snakes).
They're breaking this rule more and more lately, and I'm starting to get pissed off by it (The Hills Have Eyes, Dead Rising, etc.). It's a rule. Follow it.
Of course, at least this film follow's through on the rule's corollary: "Those who do violence to children/furred animals shall die."
Hmm ... Technically, it's writers John Heffernan, David Dalessandro, Sebastian Gutierrez, and director David R. Ellis that broke these rules. Beware the snakes, boys.
Anyway, worthwhile popcorn flick -- a good ride, with some surprising and fun nuggets, and the acting's not bad.
Oh, and another of my inspirational, in-it-for-the-long-haul actors, Lin Shaye, does a good, important job in the film. She's been doing this gig for 30 years. More power to her.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)