The great Pere Ubu on David Sanborn's Night Music; I think this was probably as close to a hit as they ever came. Sad, too, since they were fantastic.
Friday, February 05, 2010
Thursday, February 04, 2010
Intentionally hilarious?
The Bad Lieutenant: Port of Call - New Orleans
Sure, that's a long title - but if you want to not confuse folks and make sure they know this is a new version of the 1992 Bad Lieutenant film by Abel Ferrara then you gotta go big.
And that's exactly what this version's director Werner Herzog does: Goes big here. And with Nicolas Cage in his best role in literally years, it all actually works.
Cage is the eponymous tragic hero, a Sgt. Terrance McDonagh, who's promoted in rank in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. Quickly, six months later, he's a lead detective that throws himself at his work. That "work" might be a 5-homicide case, shaking down club-goers for drugs and sex, extorting college football players to make good with his bookie (Brad Dourif), or shaking down the clients of his prostitute girlfriend (Eva Mendes). Mainly drug-fueled but with a penchant for heavy-leaning tactics (an unholstered .44 magnum constantly shoved down the front of his pants - symbolism, much?) Terrance somehow holds everything together in some kind of chaotic, sensical flow.
The original script/film took a more somber but still gritty, noir-ish approach to heavily-Catholic notions of guilt, purgatory, redemption, and sacrifice. Harvey Keitel's lead performance has much more desperation, his depravity feeding into that but then, ultimately, informing his actions that prove to be his undoing. In the first film, it's the story of someone circling the drain with some kind of Bacchinalian embrace of demise, only to find cause and path for redemption.
Herzog, however, takes another approach here. Keeping with his emphasis on Nature versus man he pointedly sets the film in the aftermath of one of the biggest natural disasters in US history. Reptiles are featured prominently in the film as well (snakes, alligators, iguanas) at key moments, describing Terrance's character and interaction/place in this world: An unblinking, cold-blooded spot in nature. He also suffers from near-debilitating back pain caused by a gesture of good will at the beginning of the film. He then, though, uses that excuse to down more drugs and walk more and more hunched over as his character turns more inward, becomes darker, and more "crazy."
But the film is clearly sympathetic to Terrance, even as he does horrible things he's still obviously someone who's not lost touch with all reality, who ultimately does try to do the right thing, and, in a hysterical laugh in the face of movie logic, gets far more than his due reward by the end. Cage's crazy-eyed, bi-polar, raving antics actually serve the film well here, kind of like an even further demented Willy Wonka, leading the audience through the insanity of his inner workings. Solid, small performances from Dourif, Val Kilmer, Jennifer Coolidge, and Fairuza Balk (who looks hotter now, I think, than she ever has) help give credibility to the actions that play out and help Cage's character evolve along that track.
Now, granted, I saw this at a beer theater with a bunch of other folks who seemed to see the film in the same light, but it's a pretty entertaining, amusing, oddly sincere ride of a film. A nice return to form for Cage and a bit of a departure for Herzog - tho' he does get back, in a way, to handling a crazy lead actor/performance a'la Kinski here. Think more Fitzcarraldo than Aguirre: Wrath of God and you're on the right Herzog track.
Rating: B
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
Movie review - Drag Me To Hell
Now that director Sam Raimi's been booted from the Spider-man franchise, I can hope a bit better that he'll return to the good form on display in Drag Me To Hell.
From its stark, bold Exorcist/Shining style titles to its true-horror-film ending DMTH never loses its focus nor its sense of dark humor. When loan officer Christine (Alison Lohman) puts her career goals ahead of an old gypsy woman's life, she's then put under a gypsy curse that intends to do what the title says it will. She has 3 days before she's dragged off, so she spends that time trying to convince her arrogant boyfriend (Justin Long), trying to put things to right, trying to find more information, and constantly terrorized with malevolent forces intent on shoving/pouring/puking any number of things into her mouth. Seriously, this has to be a record for a film where the titular heroine gets her oral fixation so often and in so many creative ways.
The gore's to a minimum here (like it typically is in Raimi films) but the violence and mood of violence pervade, giving the film a much more effective horror-film punch. The short timeline of events helps the action clip along and, as the evil forces move in on her, it allows Christine to grow more self-actualized, to fight back fiercely for herself. It's a nice surprising take, to have some actual character development in the midst of all this and it works really quite well.
Naturally, there are several good Raimi bits in the movie - the mid-air dancing possessed body, a talking goat, and that darn car - but he holds it all together much better here, his narrative abilities now much sharper. Sure, it's a simple tale to tell but he packs alot into it all, relying on his visuals but smartly so, using them to tell the story rather than just be vignette-ish. He's clearly grown as a director and as a storyteller after his big studio time on the Spider-man flicks so it can only serve him better on this scale now, if he indeed (and hopefully) continues on this trend.
Rating: B
From its stark, bold Exorcist/Shining style titles to its true-horror-film ending DMTH never loses its focus nor its sense of dark humor. When loan officer Christine (Alison Lohman) puts her career goals ahead of an old gypsy woman's life, she's then put under a gypsy curse that intends to do what the title says it will. She has 3 days before she's dragged off, so she spends that time trying to convince her arrogant boyfriend (Justin Long), trying to put things to right, trying to find more information, and constantly terrorized with malevolent forces intent on shoving/pouring/puking any number of things into her mouth. Seriously, this has to be a record for a film where the titular heroine gets her oral fixation so often and in so many creative ways.
The gore's to a minimum here (like it typically is in Raimi films) but the violence and mood of violence pervade, giving the film a much more effective horror-film punch. The short timeline of events helps the action clip along and, as the evil forces move in on her, it allows Christine to grow more self-actualized, to fight back fiercely for herself. It's a nice surprising take, to have some actual character development in the midst of all this and it works really quite well.
Naturally, there are several good Raimi bits in the movie - the mid-air dancing possessed body, a talking goat, and that darn car - but he holds it all together much better here, his narrative abilities now much sharper. Sure, it's a simple tale to tell but he packs alot into it all, relying on his visuals but smartly so, using them to tell the story rather than just be vignette-ish. He's clearly grown as a director and as a storyteller after his big studio time on the Spider-man flicks so it can only serve him better on this scale now, if he indeed (and hopefully) continues on this trend.
Rating: B
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
Movie reviews yet again
Sympathy for Mr Vengeance
The 2nd film in Korean director Chan-wook Park's revenge trilogy - right after Old Boy - comes Sympathy for Mr Vengeance (2002). Park proves yet again his mastery of what I like to call the "slow burn," where plot points and character development are pushed to the fore only to eventually serve the overall story and better inform the action. It's nice to see a revenge flick where it's a premeditated activity rather than a knee-jerk reaction. Typically, a US-based story/film has the protagonist set out quickly on their path of revenge and then the film follows one confrontation after another until the finale is reached. Consequences are ignored and potentially highlighted along the way, usually in terms of the cost of such actions. Rare is the viewpoint taken of what it takes someone to get to the point of committing themselves to getting back at those that have wronged them. But the point resonates so much more strongly in a relatable, epiphany-based way, where the audience really does have the titular sympathy, even when the character has crossed all morally-recognizable borders.
The story focuses on deaf/mute Ryu who's sister is dying and in need of a kidney transplant. As he only works a base industrial job he's desperate to fund such an operation. His desperation leads him down a questionable path where each turn seems to only worsen the situation. After a botched kidnapping-handover pushes him over the edge into vengeance mode he's joined by the wronged father, Park, a well-off industrialist whose loss drives him into insanity and an unrelenting lust for revenge. Both Ryu and Park do a better job at getting to the source of their troubles than the police, moving them outside the rule of law and into another, different operating set of rules. Ryu has nothing left to lose and Park is seemingly unable to stop himself as their connected-quests for justice unfold and, ultimately, force them to confront themselves and each other simultaneously.
Played out near-silently for the majority of the movie director Park lets the imagery and tension build and play out through his use of bleak shots of the isolated characters, often panning up from their location to see Seoul in the background, as far away as the characters are from society. Park's use of overhead shots serves well, too, in that he puts the characters and their actions up for near-clinical examination, without any judgement. The pangs of sympathy are echoed solely by the sweaty, bloody, furtive looks of the protagonists as they turn to antagonists, showing the cost and what they've given up on in order to find some sense of peace, some notion of restored order. Its pace and some lack of exposition make it a bit confusing at the beginning to make sense of what's going on; but, then again, that's also part of the chaos Park is showing us that breeds this type of morality, where we could find such characters and actions sympathetic.
Rating: B+
Dead and Buried
More an "undead" film than a zombie film this Dan O'Bannon-doctored story about a doomed coastal town seems straight out of Lovecraft. Great f/x by Stan Winston and an early career performance from Robert Englund give this some decent note for fans of the genre but not much else. James Farentino hams it up as the local sheriff trying to figure out a recent rash of accidental deaths and murders in the sleepy burg of Potters Bluff. What he gets is a strange townsfolk, a creepy Shadow Over Innsmouth feel, some decent gore, and a great performance from Jack Albertson as the town mortician/coroner. It's all told pretty disjointedly and at a real surface kind of level so it's nothing too new or too great.
The best thing about this release - on blu-ray so it's pretty clean and easy to view - is actually the :14 min. interview w/ Dan O'Bannon on the extras menu. He lays out that the story really isn't his and he felt really bad about having his name plastered all over the place for it. But the producer and the writers thought his touch-ups on it were worth it, plus it didn't hurt that he was riding the success of his script for Alien to boot. But he talks much about the nature of horror and how fear is generated properly on-screen. He uses Lovecraft as his basis for this and it's obvious in the resulting film of that particular influence. As O'Bannon just passed away this last year it's a very fitting bit to see what he brought to the genre as well.
Rating: C-
Monty Python's The Life of Brian: The Immaculate Edition
To me, this is the one film where they got everything right, where it all really came together in terms of story, direction, acting, and comedy. More subtle and nuanced than The Holy Grail it's also a bit introspective in terms of defining faith and the often misunderstood nature of belief.
I won't go into the film too much itself but, rather, this 2-disc set from 2007. The scrubbed, higher-definition transfer of the film is absolutely incredible. The film has suffered on previous releases (VHS, even laser and DVD) from being washed out in daylight scenes or muddled in any dark scenes. This release fixes all those problems nicely and it looks outstanding, very crisp even on the DVD. It's really the way it should be viewed.
The extras on the DVD are outstanding as well, though: Two separate commentary tracks, one w/ Jones, Gilliam and Idle (the main creative voices on the film), the other w/ Cleese and Palin (providing their own unique insights); an animated read-through; radio spots featuring the Pythons' mothers; and a great 1-hour docu about the making of the film and the resistance it found from fundamentalist groups. Great film history stuff here, not just for Python fans but also for discussions of religious discussions of film and from film.
And, yes, the movie's still hysterical. The corrective Latin scene for "Romans go home!" still rules (that's the Latin-nerd in me; I saw this first during my 3rd year of Latin class).
Rating (this release, not necessarily the film): A
The 2nd film in Korean director Chan-wook Park's revenge trilogy - right after Old Boy - comes Sympathy for Mr Vengeance (2002). Park proves yet again his mastery of what I like to call the "slow burn," where plot points and character development are pushed to the fore only to eventually serve the overall story and better inform the action. It's nice to see a revenge flick where it's a premeditated activity rather than a knee-jerk reaction. Typically, a US-based story/film has the protagonist set out quickly on their path of revenge and then the film follows one confrontation after another until the finale is reached. Consequences are ignored and potentially highlighted along the way, usually in terms of the cost of such actions. Rare is the viewpoint taken of what it takes someone to get to the point of committing themselves to getting back at those that have wronged them. But the point resonates so much more strongly in a relatable, epiphany-based way, where the audience really does have the titular sympathy, even when the character has crossed all morally-recognizable borders.
The story focuses on deaf/mute Ryu who's sister is dying and in need of a kidney transplant. As he only works a base industrial job he's desperate to fund such an operation. His desperation leads him down a questionable path where each turn seems to only worsen the situation. After a botched kidnapping-handover pushes him over the edge into vengeance mode he's joined by the wronged father, Park, a well-off industrialist whose loss drives him into insanity and an unrelenting lust for revenge. Both Ryu and Park do a better job at getting to the source of their troubles than the police, moving them outside the rule of law and into another, different operating set of rules. Ryu has nothing left to lose and Park is seemingly unable to stop himself as their connected-quests for justice unfold and, ultimately, force them to confront themselves and each other simultaneously.
Played out near-silently for the majority of the movie director Park lets the imagery and tension build and play out through his use of bleak shots of the isolated characters, often panning up from their location to see Seoul in the background, as far away as the characters are from society. Park's use of overhead shots serves well, too, in that he puts the characters and their actions up for near-clinical examination, without any judgement. The pangs of sympathy are echoed solely by the sweaty, bloody, furtive looks of the protagonists as they turn to antagonists, showing the cost and what they've given up on in order to find some sense of peace, some notion of restored order. Its pace and some lack of exposition make it a bit confusing at the beginning to make sense of what's going on; but, then again, that's also part of the chaos Park is showing us that breeds this type of morality, where we could find such characters and actions sympathetic.
Rating: B+
Dead and Buried
More an "undead" film than a zombie film this Dan O'Bannon-doctored story about a doomed coastal town seems straight out of Lovecraft. Great f/x by Stan Winston and an early career performance from Robert Englund give this some decent note for fans of the genre but not much else. James Farentino hams it up as the local sheriff trying to figure out a recent rash of accidental deaths and murders in the sleepy burg of Potters Bluff. What he gets is a strange townsfolk, a creepy Shadow Over Innsmouth feel, some decent gore, and a great performance from Jack Albertson as the town mortician/coroner. It's all told pretty disjointedly and at a real surface kind of level so it's nothing too new or too great.
The best thing about this release - on blu-ray so it's pretty clean and easy to view - is actually the :14 min. interview w/ Dan O'Bannon on the extras menu. He lays out that the story really isn't his and he felt really bad about having his name plastered all over the place for it. But the producer and the writers thought his touch-ups on it were worth it, plus it didn't hurt that he was riding the success of his script for Alien to boot. But he talks much about the nature of horror and how fear is generated properly on-screen. He uses Lovecraft as his basis for this and it's obvious in the resulting film of that particular influence. As O'Bannon just passed away this last year it's a very fitting bit to see what he brought to the genre as well.
Rating: C-
Monty Python's The Life of Brian: The Immaculate Edition
To me, this is the one film where they got everything right, where it all really came together in terms of story, direction, acting, and comedy. More subtle and nuanced than The Holy Grail it's also a bit introspective in terms of defining faith and the often misunderstood nature of belief.
I won't go into the film too much itself but, rather, this 2-disc set from 2007. The scrubbed, higher-definition transfer of the film is absolutely incredible. The film has suffered on previous releases (VHS, even laser and DVD) from being washed out in daylight scenes or muddled in any dark scenes. This release fixes all those problems nicely and it looks outstanding, very crisp even on the DVD. It's really the way it should be viewed.
The extras on the DVD are outstanding as well, though: Two separate commentary tracks, one w/ Jones, Gilliam and Idle (the main creative voices on the film), the other w/ Cleese and Palin (providing their own unique insights); an animated read-through; radio spots featuring the Pythons' mothers; and a great 1-hour docu about the making of the film and the resistance it found from fundamentalist groups. Great film history stuff here, not just for Python fans but also for discussions of religious discussions of film and from film.
And, yes, the movie's still hysterical. The corrective Latin scene for "Romans go home!" still rules (that's the Latin-nerd in me; I saw this first during my 3rd year of Latin class).
Rating (this release, not necessarily the film): A
Wednesday, January 06, 2010
Movies with black guys
That's what these reviews came up with - not to describe them totally but I found it interesting how each dealt with their African-American protagonists. One in jest, one not so much but failing miserably, a telling commentary on the state of such actors even now.
First up, Rush Hour 3. I actually enjoyed the first 2 in that completely brain-turnoff way. I thought the pairing of Chris Tucker and Jackie Chan actually worked on some goofy level. But, by the time they got 'round to finishing the series with this mess of a movie, it's obvious they just happened to be both on the set at the same time and no real camaraderie or sharing existed.
The bare-bones story tries to prop up situations that the cast & crew think are funny, like Tucker's strange racism directed at Asian males who aren't named Jackie Chan, their penchant for uncalled for violent confrontation, and a lurid, predatory sexual stance. Really, it's discomforting in a way that just wasn't there previously. It's clear here that no one was trying hard at all - they were all just looking to milk another payday out of the franchise.
That said, there are a whole 2 payoffs. Apart from a waste of a good performance from Japanese long-timer Hiroyuki Sanada you get two good jokes: One, when Tucker's about to bed a woman, she says she needs to go to the bathroom to "get more comfortable." His natural response is, "Oh, do you need some matches?" Freakin' killed me. The second comes at the very end when the pair are approached by a brutish snob French police detective played by Roman Polanski. They both punch him in the face at the same time. If the movie had just been that - especially Jackie Chan just beating the crap outta that child-molesting piece of garbage - this would easily be one of the best movies of all time.
Rating: F
Next up, though, is Black Dynamite. This is easily one of the best films of the past year, a spot-on homage to blaxploitation of the 70s that doesn't try to rely on a nod and a wink humor.
Taking its cues from that unique subgenre Black Dynamite features its fair share of male posturing, shootouts, bad backgrounds, sloppy camera zooms, bad sets, pimps, hoes, and kung fu. (I appreciated the "changing the actor in the same scene" bit taken from a Dolemite film here, too.) The performances are done with the same earnestness and schlockiness that were the hallmarks of the genre, too. But rather than mocking these attributes this film treats this as an homage, a happy, loving gesture, knowing that despite all their flaws the films from that time still have an appeal, still work on some level.
The biggest difference, though, is that the story here is hilariously more credible and over-the-line than any blaxploitation film of the time ever managed. And the action scenes are actually good, given that writer-star Michael Jai White actually knows his stuff. Knowing nods to Rudy Ray Moore's rhyming song abilities get played for good laughs by the character Bullhorn as he gets stuck a few times, not finding a rhyme he's happy with. The film's that self-aware to know it has to keep it all in the territory of reverence and it does so quite deftly. Guest spots from Arsenio Hall, Tommy Davidson, and Bokeem Woodbine all serve to give the film additional heft and a sincerity to the overall effort as well.
It's nearly all-black cast, story and setting echo a genre of films now 30 years old and play them here for laughs - unlike Rush Hour 3 where the black man is a mockery of himself, a new tired stereotype that comes across as pathetic rather than matured or wisened. Black Dynamite is one of the reasons I like movies anyway and why I especially have seen so many films it's referring to. It's honest enough not to belabor any point but to just be absolutely entertaining, from beginning to end.
Rating: A
First up, Rush Hour 3. I actually enjoyed the first 2 in that completely brain-turnoff way. I thought the pairing of Chris Tucker and Jackie Chan actually worked on some goofy level. But, by the time they got 'round to finishing the series with this mess of a movie, it's obvious they just happened to be both on the set at the same time and no real camaraderie or sharing existed.
The bare-bones story tries to prop up situations that the cast & crew think are funny, like Tucker's strange racism directed at Asian males who aren't named Jackie Chan, their penchant for uncalled for violent confrontation, and a lurid, predatory sexual stance. Really, it's discomforting in a way that just wasn't there previously. It's clear here that no one was trying hard at all - they were all just looking to milk another payday out of the franchise.
That said, there are a whole 2 payoffs. Apart from a waste of a good performance from Japanese long-timer Hiroyuki Sanada you get two good jokes: One, when Tucker's about to bed a woman, she says she needs to go to the bathroom to "get more comfortable." His natural response is, "Oh, do you need some matches?" Freakin' killed me. The second comes at the very end when the pair are approached by a brutish snob French police detective played by Roman Polanski. They both punch him in the face at the same time. If the movie had just been that - especially Jackie Chan just beating the crap outta that child-molesting piece of garbage - this would easily be one of the best movies of all time.
Rating: F
Next up, though, is Black Dynamite. This is easily one of the best films of the past year, a spot-on homage to blaxploitation of the 70s that doesn't try to rely on a nod and a wink humor.
Taking its cues from that unique subgenre Black Dynamite features its fair share of male posturing, shootouts, bad backgrounds, sloppy camera zooms, bad sets, pimps, hoes, and kung fu. (I appreciated the "changing the actor in the same scene" bit taken from a Dolemite film here, too.) The performances are done with the same earnestness and schlockiness that were the hallmarks of the genre, too. But rather than mocking these attributes this film treats this as an homage, a happy, loving gesture, knowing that despite all their flaws the films from that time still have an appeal, still work on some level.
The biggest difference, though, is that the story here is hilariously more credible and over-the-line than any blaxploitation film of the time ever managed. And the action scenes are actually good, given that writer-star Michael Jai White actually knows his stuff. Knowing nods to Rudy Ray Moore's rhyming song abilities get played for good laughs by the character Bullhorn as he gets stuck a few times, not finding a rhyme he's happy with. The film's that self-aware to know it has to keep it all in the territory of reverence and it does so quite deftly. Guest spots from Arsenio Hall, Tommy Davidson, and Bokeem Woodbine all serve to give the film additional heft and a sincerity to the overall effort as well.
It's nearly all-black cast, story and setting echo a genre of films now 30 years old and play them here for laughs - unlike Rush Hour 3 where the black man is a mockery of himself, a new tired stereotype that comes across as pathetic rather than matured or wisened. Black Dynamite is one of the reasons I like movies anyway and why I especially have seen so many films it's referring to. It's honest enough not to belabor any point but to just be absolutely entertaining, from beginning to end.
Rating: A
Tuesday, December 29, 2009
Reviews - 3D cockfight!
Had the opportunity over the long break to watch 2 films in 3D. One cost about $400 million to create, the other cost about $15 million.
Guess which one's more enjoyable?
First up is Avatar in 3D, the latest mega-effort from James Cameron. I think it's necessary to add the "in 3D" there as it does make a difference, I'd suspect, to the overall experience. Without that gimmick, the story is straight-ahead, the acting uninspired, the action nothing you haven't seen before. But w/ that it does take the visual storytelling to another level and that's important. And, surprisingly, it doesn't overwhelm the story or characters but, rather, serves its purpose and enhances those.
Stealing the storyline of Dances With Wolves - which stole it as well, from the far superior 1957 Samuel Fuller film Run of the Arrow - here the setting is on an alien world that happens to be a repository for a very precious metal. Ex-military types (including paraplegic ex-Marine lead character Jake, very ably played by Sam Worthington) jostle with egghead scientists (nice to see Sigourney Weaver working again) and cutthroat businessmen (the over-talented and always under-used Giovanni Ribisi - seriously, why doesn't this guy get the roles he deserves?) as they try some way to move the indigenious people out of the way of their operation. It's pretty obvious that this'll turn into a blood diamond operation despite the scientists' best efforts.
So Jake gets thrown into a big blue native body and his fish-outta-water experience is well-served by the 3D as he's thrown into the hostile world, trying to make connection to the natives. He never really has any moral quandry as he pretty quickly abandons his mission of gaining their trust in order to find out how to get those folks out of the way. The story is so telegraphed and straight ahead that, oddly, fortunately, you're left to stare in wonder at the world being rendered on the screen. That story sure as heck isn't gonna compete for your attention...
And, here, that's actually okay, I think. Cameron is such a lousy "epic" director because he loses focus easily and gets overwhelmed by the technical aspects of his movies (ever since Aliens, anyway - hasn't made a good movie since then). He'll try and cover that by cramming in a political message that only $400 million can buy - it's big, unwieldy, lacking any subtlety, preferring to beat the audience over the head with its message yet again (cf. The Abyss and T2) with all the eloquence of a 12-year-old. So having the beautiful imagery here helps soften that dull blow, transcending that ignorance with a genuine sense of wonder and imagination. It's surprisingly simple and consistent and, again, it works, oddly enough.
Is this film going to change the way movies are made and viewed and experienced? For some, sure - any blockbuster that has some fancy new tech is gonna do that. But it ain't doing jack for storytelling, leaving all the engagement solely to the visuals. Yes, that's an unique strongpoint for the film medium but it doesn't have to be the only strongpoint, ya' know? Film, unlike any other medium, has the ability to engage more senses and have a depth and complexity in an immediacy that can be both visceral and thought-provoking all at once.
Now, compare that to a film that came out earlier in 2009 and took advantage of theaters converting to 3D, the remake of My Bloody Valentine. Cheap, with horrible acting but an appreciable level of gore, the film uses 3D in more the old school way, with items coming out of the screen at the audience, intent to shock and scare and entertain. On that last point, it's just like Avatar in that it's seeking to engage the audience on another level, albeit a more schlocky one.
The story's kinda confused as it tells an old story of a mining massacre, then flash-forwards to some point in the future where a bunch of teens get chopped up in the same (now abandoned) mine, and then, suddenly, it's 10 years later even tho' no one from the previous scene looks any older. The mine owner's troubled son returns to town to sell the mine, there's an old-flame twist, a jealous/angry sheriff (really? the guy who can't control his temper is elected sheriff in this 'burg?), cover-ups and conspiracies that barely serve to just move the story along. But the crazy pickaxe-wielding maniacal miner scenes are all good fun as the creators of this story seek new ways to dispense of characters (and how best to show that, exploiting 3D to its fullest advantage). Plus, you get the best midget-murder scene in the history of film AND the return of the great 80's stalwart Tom Atkins!
Is it good? Nope. Is it fun? Absolutely. The filmmakers here know that all they have is the 3D gimmick and so they just plain go for it, w/ complete and total abandon. They know that's all they've got so they don't attempt to mess things up w/ any sort of real acting (apart from Tom Atkins!) or story or such. Sure, it's bread-and-circuses but it's a fun way to do it, changing it up a little. Compare that to Avatar, with its heavy-handedness and being oh-so self-aware. But, in the end, both films successful employ the new version of the technology in a way as to both serve their stories and to entertain their audiences. Go figure.
Avatar, rating: C-
My Bloody Valentine 3D, rating: D
Guess which one's more enjoyable?
First up is Avatar in 3D, the latest mega-effort from James Cameron. I think it's necessary to add the "in 3D" there as it does make a difference, I'd suspect, to the overall experience. Without that gimmick, the story is straight-ahead, the acting uninspired, the action nothing you haven't seen before. But w/ that it does take the visual storytelling to another level and that's important. And, surprisingly, it doesn't overwhelm the story or characters but, rather, serves its purpose and enhances those.
Stealing the storyline of Dances With Wolves - which stole it as well, from the far superior 1957 Samuel Fuller film Run of the Arrow - here the setting is on an alien world that happens to be a repository for a very precious metal. Ex-military types (including paraplegic ex-Marine lead character Jake, very ably played by Sam Worthington) jostle with egghead scientists (nice to see Sigourney Weaver working again) and cutthroat businessmen (the over-talented and always under-used Giovanni Ribisi - seriously, why doesn't this guy get the roles he deserves?) as they try some way to move the indigenious people out of the way of their operation. It's pretty obvious that this'll turn into a blood diamond operation despite the scientists' best efforts.
So Jake gets thrown into a big blue native body and his fish-outta-water experience is well-served by the 3D as he's thrown into the hostile world, trying to make connection to the natives. He never really has any moral quandry as he pretty quickly abandons his mission of gaining their trust in order to find out how to get those folks out of the way. The story is so telegraphed and straight ahead that, oddly, fortunately, you're left to stare in wonder at the world being rendered on the screen. That story sure as heck isn't gonna compete for your attention...
And, here, that's actually okay, I think. Cameron is such a lousy "epic" director because he loses focus easily and gets overwhelmed by the technical aspects of his movies (ever since Aliens, anyway - hasn't made a good movie since then). He'll try and cover that by cramming in a political message that only $400 million can buy - it's big, unwieldy, lacking any subtlety, preferring to beat the audience over the head with its message yet again (cf. The Abyss and T2) with all the eloquence of a 12-year-old. So having the beautiful imagery here helps soften that dull blow, transcending that ignorance with a genuine sense of wonder and imagination. It's surprisingly simple and consistent and, again, it works, oddly enough.
Is this film going to change the way movies are made and viewed and experienced? For some, sure - any blockbuster that has some fancy new tech is gonna do that. But it ain't doing jack for storytelling, leaving all the engagement solely to the visuals. Yes, that's an unique strongpoint for the film medium but it doesn't have to be the only strongpoint, ya' know? Film, unlike any other medium, has the ability to engage more senses and have a depth and complexity in an immediacy that can be both visceral and thought-provoking all at once.
Now, compare that to a film that came out earlier in 2009 and took advantage of theaters converting to 3D, the remake of My Bloody Valentine. Cheap, with horrible acting but an appreciable level of gore, the film uses 3D in more the old school way, with items coming out of the screen at the audience, intent to shock and scare and entertain. On that last point, it's just like Avatar in that it's seeking to engage the audience on another level, albeit a more schlocky one.
The story's kinda confused as it tells an old story of a mining massacre, then flash-forwards to some point in the future where a bunch of teens get chopped up in the same (now abandoned) mine, and then, suddenly, it's 10 years later even tho' no one from the previous scene looks any older. The mine owner's troubled son returns to town to sell the mine, there's an old-flame twist, a jealous/angry sheriff (really? the guy who can't control his temper is elected sheriff in this 'burg?), cover-ups and conspiracies that barely serve to just move the story along. But the crazy pickaxe-wielding maniacal miner scenes are all good fun as the creators of this story seek new ways to dispense of characters (and how best to show that, exploiting 3D to its fullest advantage). Plus, you get the best midget-murder scene in the history of film AND the return of the great 80's stalwart Tom Atkins!
Is it good? Nope. Is it fun? Absolutely. The filmmakers here know that all they have is the 3D gimmick and so they just plain go for it, w/ complete and total abandon. They know that's all they've got so they don't attempt to mess things up w/ any sort of real acting (apart from Tom Atkins!) or story or such. Sure, it's bread-and-circuses but it's a fun way to do it, changing it up a little. Compare that to Avatar, with its heavy-handedness and being oh-so self-aware. But, in the end, both films successful employ the new version of the technology in a way as to both serve their stories and to entertain their audiences. Go figure.
Avatar, rating: C-
My Bloody Valentine 3D, rating: D
The more you know...
Like the upcoming hands-free-only-while-driving cell phone law there's also the "MOVE OUTTA THE WAY!" law that's being expanded to cover those good folks in the roadside assistance pickups and the not-so-good folks known as tow-truck drivers.
They kick in this Friday, folks, and carry some big fines just for fun because that's a genius idea in the current economic clime for the state po-lice to generate some revenue...
Okay? Okay. Let's...be careful out there.
They kick in this Friday, folks, and carry some big fines just for fun because that's a genius idea in the current economic clime for the state po-lice to generate some revenue...
Okay? Okay. Let's...be careful out there.
Tuesday, December 22, 2009
Movie review - Kinky Boots
I've really no idea why it took me - me! - so long to watch a film about shoe-making that's really about life-making but I did.
Kinky Boots (2005) is set in Northampton, in the English Midlands, in a dying old shoe factory. Joel Edgerton is Charlie Price, son of the late owner and reluctant last in a line of family men running Price & Sons shoe factory. After he's pulled away from London, back to working-class Northampton and much to his fiance's chagrin, he soon realizes that the factory will soon be out of business completely. He frustratedly asks those workers he's having to fire, "What can I do?" focusing on the "I" there rather than the "can." Passionate worker Lauren (Sarah-Jane Potts) accuses him of that much, anyway, and tells him to change the product, to figure it out. He's left quite depressed and despondent by this, not really having much inspiration.
That changes after a drunken night out in London when he (thinks he) comes to the rescue of a damsel in distress. After getting knocked out he comes to in the dressing room of Lola, a black drag queen thoroughly well-played by Chiwetel Ejiofor (Serenity, Dirty Pretty Things, Redbelt). A quick conversation and after recruiting Lauren to return with him, he realizes he might have a new market so-far untapped: Durable, comfortable women's shoes for men who dress like women. His prototype fails comically so Lola comes to north to design and provide insights. The fish-out-of-water jokes get actually well played here, mostly in the back-n-forth between Lola and arm-wrestling regular bloke Don (another great performance out of Nick Frost). But these get thankfully kept to a minimum, reservedly punctuating the humor for the film.
What's at the core of the film is the parallel characters of Charlie and Lola/Simon. Both are looked to as leaders, whether by inheritance or by sheer force of personality. Both have no quit in them and, ultimately, can both admit when they're wrong. That's used in context for Charlie's phrasing of what it means to "be a man." They both realize it's a matter of having the strength and courage of conviction, of seeing vision through rather than relying or blaming on the trappings of dominating father figures. The new generation takes up the mantle at first because they have to, then, by working together and "crossing the aisle," they all realize that they can do it and do it for themselves. It's a surprisingly empowering sentiment, shinily-packaged (the drag numbers really are fantastic - and include drag backup dancers!), very well-acted and exceptionally shot (the ancient factory and run-down town never feel like that, more like "the comforts of home").
Rating: B
Kinky Boots (2005) is set in Northampton, in the English Midlands, in a dying old shoe factory. Joel Edgerton is Charlie Price, son of the late owner and reluctant last in a line of family men running Price & Sons shoe factory. After he's pulled away from London, back to working-class Northampton and much to his fiance's chagrin, he soon realizes that the factory will soon be out of business completely. He frustratedly asks those workers he's having to fire, "What can I do?" focusing on the "I" there rather than the "can." Passionate worker Lauren (Sarah-Jane Potts) accuses him of that much, anyway, and tells him to change the product, to figure it out. He's left quite depressed and despondent by this, not really having much inspiration.
That changes after a drunken night out in London when he (thinks he) comes to the rescue of a damsel in distress. After getting knocked out he comes to in the dressing room of Lola, a black drag queen thoroughly well-played by Chiwetel Ejiofor (Serenity, Dirty Pretty Things, Redbelt). A quick conversation and after recruiting Lauren to return with him, he realizes he might have a new market so-far untapped: Durable, comfortable women's shoes for men who dress like women. His prototype fails comically so Lola comes to north to design and provide insights. The fish-out-of-water jokes get actually well played here, mostly in the back-n-forth between Lola and arm-wrestling regular bloke Don (another great performance out of Nick Frost). But these get thankfully kept to a minimum, reservedly punctuating the humor for the film.
What's at the core of the film is the parallel characters of Charlie and Lola/Simon. Both are looked to as leaders, whether by inheritance or by sheer force of personality. Both have no quit in them and, ultimately, can both admit when they're wrong. That's used in context for Charlie's phrasing of what it means to "be a man." They both realize it's a matter of having the strength and courage of conviction, of seeing vision through rather than relying or blaming on the trappings of dominating father figures. The new generation takes up the mantle at first because they have to, then, by working together and "crossing the aisle," they all realize that they can do it and do it for themselves. It's a surprisingly empowering sentiment, shinily-packaged (the drag numbers really are fantastic - and include drag backup dancers!), very well-acted and exceptionally shot (the ancient factory and run-down town never feel like that, more like "the comforts of home").
Rating: B
Hitch
No, not something from that talent-less, inexplicably-cast will smith; rather, Hitchcock, Alfred, the director.
After a recent Simpsons' episode where Bart & Lisa sort of agree to switch pranks I snagged its basis for the Netflix instant-watch queue, Hitchcock's 1951 Raymond Chandler-penned Strangers On a Train.
I geeked out on a fair amount of it, providing some context to Jen about the film's importance to Hitchcock's career and reputation, what he did visually, how he told a story like no one else, his method of building not only suspense but believable-character actions. It's an interesting bridge for Hitch, combining more of the pulp/film noir than straight ahead mystery or horror he'd perfect later. The romantic angle even gets played down as the villian's insidious evil begins to worm its way through everyone, where no one is safe and he's defiant to the end.
Speaking of the end, here it is, in all its glory. You can watch the movie in its entirety (and several others) on YouTube, apparently, too. I don't think it's really spoiling anything if you watch this - it's just so insane, so crammed with actions and characters major and minor, building to a ridiculous deadly ending. It's just a blast but I realized it also has one of my all-time fave movie characters ever, too. Right around the 4:00 minute mark in the video below you get The Old Repair Man. Without question, one of best and most inept and entertaining characters ever used to build action and end a movie. His resolve, his turtle-like pace (and appearance) in the midst of catastrophe, and his totally unsafe "fix" for an out-of-control situation are just played note-perfect here. I just love the guy...
After a recent Simpsons' episode where Bart & Lisa sort of agree to switch pranks I snagged its basis for the Netflix instant-watch queue, Hitchcock's 1951 Raymond Chandler-penned Strangers On a Train.
I geeked out on a fair amount of it, providing some context to Jen about the film's importance to Hitchcock's career and reputation, what he did visually, how he told a story like no one else, his method of building not only suspense but believable-character actions. It's an interesting bridge for Hitch, combining more of the pulp/film noir than straight ahead mystery or horror he'd perfect later. The romantic angle even gets played down as the villian's insidious evil begins to worm its way through everyone, where no one is safe and he's defiant to the end.
Speaking of the end, here it is, in all its glory. You can watch the movie in its entirety (and several others) on YouTube, apparently, too. I don't think it's really spoiling anything if you watch this - it's just so insane, so crammed with actions and characters major and minor, building to a ridiculous deadly ending. It's just a blast but I realized it also has one of my all-time fave movie characters ever, too. Right around the 4:00 minute mark in the video below you get The Old Repair Man. Without question, one of best and most inept and entertaining characters ever used to build action and end a movie. His resolve, his turtle-like pace (and appearance) in the midst of catastrophe, and his totally unsafe "fix" for an out-of-control situation are just played note-perfect here. I just love the guy...
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
Movie reviews - The Girlfriend Experience and The Hurt Locker
The Girlfriend Experience
Steven Soderbergh hasn't exactly glided by on his earlier merits. Whether it's the small, tight, dis/functional dynamics of interpersonal relationships (sex, lies, and videotape) or broader socio-political fare (the overhyped remake of Traffic) he seeks out the disruptive and detrimental behavior that both attracts and repels people to one another.
That's definitely on display in The Girlfriend Experience, most notably (and, apparently, controversially) in the casting of pornstar Sasha Grey as the female lead. She is known mostly as Chelsea, a high-end escort in Manhattan. The film follows her primarily as she meets clients, deals with her boyfriend (Chris Santos), and deals with her career. Soderbergh deftly intertwines scenes that shift time, intentionally jumbling the order of events to provide new weight, new focus, and to better explain decisions and reactions. As a director, he's going almost out of his way to not pass judgement on any character but, rather, to let them live it all out within the alloted time.
Soderbergh seems focused on how we trade sex or sexuality not only for money but for power, for escape, for consolation, for replacing whatever's missing in our lives. The film is set in the build-up to the 2008 election, which seems to allow/force the characters to face some level of change, whether that's economic or in personal relationships. And the decisions reached aren't necessarily the best but they have the best info, just showing how fallible we all are, even at our best or most intimate moments.
The points here are handled deftly and subtly, letting it all unfold organically on-screen. Soderbergh's at the top of his game as a director here, much more akin to sex, lies, and videotape, just now with a better visual style and sense of editing. It's a good-not-great movie but expertly told.
Rating: C+
The Hurt Locker
This one isn't so much of a movie as it is an immersive, intense experience - the closest many of us can come to such a thing.
The story focuses on US Army bomb disposal experts in Iraq, on one particular team. Staff Sgt. Will James (Jeremy Renner) is the seasoned replacement for the previous well-liked lead tech in Bravo Co. James' disregard for regular protocol and safety has led to his defusing more than 800 bombs in Afghanistan and Iraq - yet it also comes across as reckless and distances him from anyone else around him, especially those there to protect him, excellently handled by Anthony Mackie as his sergeant and Brian Gerghaty as the specialist.
What soon becomes clear is that James, while technically proficient, has become numb from feeling much at all, only getting the adrenaline fix from the ultra-high intensity of his work. The movie features several such tense scenes but those are puncuations, interrupting the seemingly interminable downtime. Those scenes find him befriending a local kid selling DVD's and hard-drinking/horseplaying with his support team. But those scenes also find him very much alone, able to call his wife and son but unable to speak or frustrated enough to seek out his own renegade version of justice. The title seems, then, to refer to a place, a mental state, where a soldier can handle all that's happening around them, no matter how unbelievably tense or screwed up. The cost, then, is that the longer one stays in that place, the less one becomes able to feel much of anything any more, only living for that adrenaline rush to let you know you're still alive. As James responds, at the most introspective point of the film, "I really don't know why I am the way I am." It's an accurate, sad reality for the combat experience, not shared by all but definitely present.
Director Kathryn Bigelow (yes, that Kathryn Bigelow) does an outstanding job of balancing this near-documentary style without over-sensationalizing or over-politicizing it all. Undertones definitely abound, with James' plight being analagous in many ways to the current war in Iraq. But by not beating the audience over the head she's able to broaden its application while still retaining its focused intent on current soldiers and what they experience. And Renner in the lead gives James just enough desperation and distance, a good ol' boy that can't keep anyone close, a "wildcat" who realizes the cost of his attitude and actions in all-too-real ways. He truly anchors this film where plenty of incredibly-good performances abound (and with some high-caliber bit roles from Guy Pearce, Ralph Fiennes, and David Morse).
Ultimately, The Hurt Locker is one of those unique films that looks into Hell and what being there does to people without judging or sacrificing its narrative. It's remarkably consistent, as honest as it is intense, and that's what makes it so effective, so engaging, so tough a watch. Bigelow places the audience in that version of "here and now," unrelenting but not letting anyone off the hook, either. You could build some very solid comparisons - both in lead characters and visual style - to Apocalypse Now; and just as that movie sought to unfold the insanity of war by embracing it (w/o exploitation), so, too, does this film achieve that same level of insight, but for a whole new generation, a whole new war.
Rating: A
(A side note, distracting completely, I know: I found it odd that they never experienced a mortar attack in the movie as it's my understanding those are far too common; also, what's with the coils of barbed wire on the hoods of their Humvees?)
Steven Soderbergh hasn't exactly glided by on his earlier merits. Whether it's the small, tight, dis/functional dynamics of interpersonal relationships (sex, lies, and videotape) or broader socio-political fare (the overhyped remake of Traffic) he seeks out the disruptive and detrimental behavior that both attracts and repels people to one another.
That's definitely on display in The Girlfriend Experience, most notably (and, apparently, controversially) in the casting of pornstar Sasha Grey as the female lead. She is known mostly as Chelsea, a high-end escort in Manhattan. The film follows her primarily as she meets clients, deals with her boyfriend (Chris Santos), and deals with her career. Soderbergh deftly intertwines scenes that shift time, intentionally jumbling the order of events to provide new weight, new focus, and to better explain decisions and reactions. As a director, he's going almost out of his way to not pass judgement on any character but, rather, to let them live it all out within the alloted time.
Soderbergh seems focused on how we trade sex or sexuality not only for money but for power, for escape, for consolation, for replacing whatever's missing in our lives. The film is set in the build-up to the 2008 election, which seems to allow/force the characters to face some level of change, whether that's economic or in personal relationships. And the decisions reached aren't necessarily the best but they have the best info, just showing how fallible we all are, even at our best or most intimate moments.
The points here are handled deftly and subtly, letting it all unfold organically on-screen. Soderbergh's at the top of his game as a director here, much more akin to sex, lies, and videotape, just now with a better visual style and sense of editing. It's a good-not-great movie but expertly told.
Rating: C+
The Hurt Locker
This one isn't so much of a movie as it is an immersive, intense experience - the closest many of us can come to such a thing.
The story focuses on US Army bomb disposal experts in Iraq, on one particular team. Staff Sgt. Will James (Jeremy Renner) is the seasoned replacement for the previous well-liked lead tech in Bravo Co. James' disregard for regular protocol and safety has led to his defusing more than 800 bombs in Afghanistan and Iraq - yet it also comes across as reckless and distances him from anyone else around him, especially those there to protect him, excellently handled by Anthony Mackie as his sergeant and Brian Gerghaty as the specialist.
What soon becomes clear is that James, while technically proficient, has become numb from feeling much at all, only getting the adrenaline fix from the ultra-high intensity of his work. The movie features several such tense scenes but those are puncuations, interrupting the seemingly interminable downtime. Those scenes find him befriending a local kid selling DVD's and hard-drinking/horseplaying with his support team. But those scenes also find him very much alone, able to call his wife and son but unable to speak or frustrated enough to seek out his own renegade version of justice. The title seems, then, to refer to a place, a mental state, where a soldier can handle all that's happening around them, no matter how unbelievably tense or screwed up. The cost, then, is that the longer one stays in that place, the less one becomes able to feel much of anything any more, only living for that adrenaline rush to let you know you're still alive. As James responds, at the most introspective point of the film, "I really don't know why I am the way I am." It's an accurate, sad reality for the combat experience, not shared by all but definitely present.
Director Kathryn Bigelow (yes, that Kathryn Bigelow) does an outstanding job of balancing this near-documentary style without over-sensationalizing or over-politicizing it all. Undertones definitely abound, with James' plight being analagous in many ways to the current war in Iraq. But by not beating the audience over the head she's able to broaden its application while still retaining its focused intent on current soldiers and what they experience. And Renner in the lead gives James just enough desperation and distance, a good ol' boy that can't keep anyone close, a "wildcat" who realizes the cost of his attitude and actions in all-too-real ways. He truly anchors this film where plenty of incredibly-good performances abound (and with some high-caliber bit roles from Guy Pearce, Ralph Fiennes, and David Morse).
Ultimately, The Hurt Locker is one of those unique films that looks into Hell and what being there does to people without judging or sacrificing its narrative. It's remarkably consistent, as honest as it is intense, and that's what makes it so effective, so engaging, so tough a watch. Bigelow places the audience in that version of "here and now," unrelenting but not letting anyone off the hook, either. You could build some very solid comparisons - both in lead characters and visual style - to Apocalypse Now; and just as that movie sought to unfold the insanity of war by embracing it (w/o exploitation), so, too, does this film achieve that same level of insight, but for a whole new generation, a whole new war.
Rating: A
(A side note, distracting completely, I know: I found it odd that they never experienced a mortar attack in the movie as it's my understanding those are far too common; also, what's with the coils of barbed wire on the hoods of their Humvees?)
Monday, December 14, 2009
Origins...
Dunno why but I still remember my old addy in Shelton; plugging it into Google Maps gives me this in return:
View Larger Map
Middle of nowhere, yep.
View Larger Map
Middle of nowhere, yep.
Friday, December 11, 2009
Reviews - those Crank movies
Post-Holiday Alefest last weekend, we decided to watch both Crank movies - the eponymous first feature and its sequel, Crank: High Voltage - in recuperation that night.
Combining the films Speed and D.O.A. (the original, not that lousy remake) for the MTV/ADD/hyperactive/video game set, the film's each put the central character, hitman Chelios (Jason Statham) and his gal pal (Amy Smart), through an uber-kinetic wringer of drugs, sex, violence, and general destruction of any/all properties. Basically, Chelios gets injected w/ a fast-acting poison that'll kill him if his heart rate slows. In the 2nd film, it's his heart that's been taken and so he has to keep recharging himself to stay alive.
Writer/Director duo Mark Neveldine and Brian Taylor take the ridiculous premise and just see how far they can push it. And as improbable, goofy, and insane as these films are - and they are just that, in spades - they do such a good job of maintaining context that it really does seem like anything's possible. Both film's are remarkably consistent, even in their most insane, non-sensical moments. The characters actions are all given a solid grounding in this setting, so that even the most outrageous moments still follow some kinda consistent logic. Granted, it's more like a video-game story but, still, it's an impressive feat given the pure idiocy of the storylines.
And when you have crazy and, then, even crazier public sex w/ Statham and Smart, plus a underground doctor played by Dwight Yoakam and one of David Carradine's final roles, well, you just gotta sit back and laugh along with it all. Cheers to them all for keeping a sense of humor (and for, yes, setting up for a 3rd film).
Rating: C+ (but in a really good way)
Combining the films Speed and D.O.A. (the original, not that lousy remake) for the MTV/ADD/hyperactive/video game set, the film's each put the central character, hitman Chelios (Jason Statham) and his gal pal (Amy Smart), through an uber-kinetic wringer of drugs, sex, violence, and general destruction of any/all properties. Basically, Chelios gets injected w/ a fast-acting poison that'll kill him if his heart rate slows. In the 2nd film, it's his heart that's been taken and so he has to keep recharging himself to stay alive.
Writer/Director duo Mark Neveldine and Brian Taylor take the ridiculous premise and just see how far they can push it. And as improbable, goofy, and insane as these films are - and they are just that, in spades - they do such a good job of maintaining context that it really does seem like anything's possible. Both film's are remarkably consistent, even in their most insane, non-sensical moments. The characters actions are all given a solid grounding in this setting, so that even the most outrageous moments still follow some kinda consistent logic. Granted, it's more like a video-game story but, still, it's an impressive feat given the pure idiocy of the storylines.
And when you have crazy and, then, even crazier public sex w/ Statham and Smart, plus a underground doctor played by Dwight Yoakam and one of David Carradine's final roles, well, you just gotta sit back and laugh along with it all. Cheers to them all for keeping a sense of humor (and for, yes, setting up for a 3rd film).
Rating: C+ (but in a really good way)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
