|
About
Resume Voice Video Blogs Contact Calendar Feeds |
I'm Seeing (Subscribe)
Films, television, videos, or other visual media that's currently caught my eye ...
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.
Labels: comic books, film, reviews
Share: 
| 
| 
| TinyUrl | Twitter
posted by Adam @ 8:01 PM
Sunday, November 18, 2007
Beowulf
On one hand, I'm at a loss as to what to write about Beowulf, the recent all-CGI film from Robert Zemeckis. But that's not going to stop me from figuring out what to say on the fly.But before I over think it (and take you with me), I genuinely enjoyed it. Overall.
And I think it's important for the film to do well.
The film is based on the Old English epic poem (author unknown) created sometime between the 8th and the 11th century.
Based.
At least it follows the framework of titular hero Beowulf fighting Grendel, Grendel's mommy, and a dragon. And it's well-extended by writers Neil Gaiman and Roger Avary, the former of whom I'm a big fan.
Why's the film important to me?
Because it's pushing technology in a big way to further narrative.
Beowulf is the next foray in "performance capture", the evoluton of "motion capture", technology used to capture realistic movement and translate it to animation. Unlike the coarse-grain capture of MoCap technology, performance capture aims to catch the nuanced movement of film acting. And it aims to put quality acting back into animated films -- not replace the actors (an active agenda of some film makers).
Zemeckis, James Cameron, and Steven Spielberg are all working on their versions of performance capture technology. A film like Beowulf is gutsy, because it pushes technology when it may not be received well commercially. Think about how Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within tanked at the box office, caused the shut down of that studio, and set back CGI-only development for arguably 5 years. (By the way, I actually like The Spirits Within.)
Beowulf is probably a more accessible mass market offering (no Japanese animist philosophy), and it is pretty well done, though there are some miss-steps (let's just say, "Naked fighting is laughable", and go from there).
And the production qualtiy is a bit uneven. I saw the film opening night on IMAX 3D. And while it's probably true the film was "designed with IMAX in mind", it wasn't designed exclusively for IMAX; so it does a bad job of violating some of the IMAX rules (no quick pans), and some of the 3D implementation is gimmicky ("Throw the coins at the audience!"), rather than servicing the film, and ends up getting in the way of the film.
You can also see (as in a lot of animated films or video games), more time was spent in some places than others (Angelina Jolie is lovingly crafted; but I thought some of the king's tarts look a little Shrekish). That said, there is some amazing detail (Beowulf as Geatly appropriate nose hair), and some of the fine grain movements -- emotions in and around eyes, the layers of fluid in the eyes, etc. -- are incredibly well done.
All told, I found this to be an enjoyable film, with some good narrative devices and some deeper themes (with some possibly unfortunate agendas).
I plan on seeing Beowulf again, but on the traditional screen, to see if it translates even better. And to see if the naked fighting is any less distracting.
Labels: film
Share: | | | TinyUrl | Twitter
posted by Adam @ 7:57 PM
Monday, October 22, 2007
30 Days of Night
I caught the first showing of 30 Days of Night last week, the vampire flick based on the Steve Niles comic books from IDW Publishing.Like the comic, this is solidly mature fare -- and really well-executed.
Great tone, scenes, and characters make the translation from the source material.
Writers Niles, Stuart Beattie (Collateral), and Brian Nelson ("Earth: Final Conflict") turned out a solid script, and music video director David Slade turns out a tightly shot horror flick that feels more substantial than Underworld (a horror flick that feels like a music video; and I like that film).
Josh Hartnett surprised me in this role -- the guy is connected and authentically emotive, and fun to watch. Ben Foster is an actor's actor in this film, having gone from chisel-buffed, clean-shaven, squeaky clean Angel in X-Men: The Last Stand to the dirty, creepy, Cajun-infused and Renfield-like "The Stranger" in 30 Days of Night. Very impressive.
I also liked Mark Boone Junior, one of those constantly hard-working actors you see and go, "Oh, I know that face."
The vampires in the film are less fleshed out than the series, but Danny Huston and newcomer Megan Franich are stellar as the iconic vampires from the print run.
On the technical side, I need to watch the film again, but there were some weird interactions that felt like they were cheated way too much toward the camera than to the onscreen conversant. I noticed this in at least two Hartnett scenes, and maybe more.
On the content side, this is rough stuff. And while I like the trueness of the translation of the books to film, I am concerned that more and more of the rules of horror films (no harm to children and animals) are being violated. Not sure what that means on the slippery slope front.
Be that as it may, if you're not the queasy side and you like good vampire flicks (it's been dry for a while), I highly recommend 30 Days of Night.
And if you're not familiar with the book series, I envy the newness of the franchise for you.
Labels: comic books, film
Share: | | | TinyUrl | Twitter
posted by Adam @ 3:22 PM
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.
Share: | | | TinyUrl | Twitter
posted by Adam @ 3:34 PM
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).
Share: | | | TinyUrl | Twitter
posted by Adam @ 8:56 PM
Wednesday, July 25, 2007
Sunshine
I saw Sunshine Monday, and I can't recommend it enough.It's a Danny Boyle film, and it's almost two films -- or two genres (maybe sub-genres) in one.
Can't clarify that without giving stuff away, because it's one of those great films to go into not knowing anything about.
Acting is solid and not overdone, with good stuff in particular from Cillian Murphy (Capa), Hiroyuki Sanada (Kaneda), way too little dramatic Michelle Yeoh (Corazon), and Chris Evans (Mace). For Evans in particular, I'm glad he's got this movie in the same year as the Fantastic Four sequel, Rise of the Silver Surfer. Sunshine stretches him more, and he gets to do some gutsy, important stuff. Good for him.
Labels: film, independent
Share: | | | TinyUrl | Twitter
posted by Adam @ 11:12 AM
Monday, July 23, 2007
Spider-man 3
Just saw Spider-Man 3.I have lot to say on the pro and con side, but they're pretty specific spoilers, so I'll hold off.
I enjoyed it, though I like it least out of the trilogy. But I liked it better than Superman Returns.
And I understand now why no has tried to do a musical dance number in the middle of a comic book summer blockbuster film. Everyone else please take note.
Labels: comic books, film
Share: | | | TinyUrl | Twitter
posted by Adam @ 1:20 AM
Tuesday, July 10, 2007
Transformers
It's no secret I'm a Transformers fan. Mainly old school Generation 1 (especially Season 1, and the first half of Season 2), but Beast Wars was a bit o' the shizzle, too, from a quality perspective.So, what about the new Transformers movie? I went to see it. On July 3rd. I'm that much of a fan.
Actually, it's pretty amazing.
I'm such a fan, and grateful to have a quality live-action movie, that my quibbles are just that -- quibbles.
Hey, it's a Michael Bay film, so don't expect great emotional depth. But expect great action, some humor, and some heart -- which the movie delivers in spades.
The Autobots and Decepticons themselves are pretty slick, and very believable. And the shot framing does a fantastic job of making them feel more "real". There aren't many gratuitous "he, look at our awesome giant robots!" moments. It's more tightly clipped, which makes the action frenetic, gives a sense of scale, and creates some "mini movies" throughout the film ("war movie"; "teen movie"; etc.).
And there's some good fan service moments throughout -- subtle, and not overdone. Let's just say "Witwicky", "cannons", and "energy sword", so as not to give too much away.
There's an anti-fan service moment or two, which (from previous public comments from Michael Bay) makes me wonder if he is thumbing his nose a bit at fans. Kind of a "Hey, this is Michael Bay Transformers, Be-otch!" (That's probably not fair; he probably doesn't say, "Hey".)
Another form of fan service comes from Megan Fox, who, while doing a good job in the film, to felt seriously out of place. Hey, I like movie high school much more than real high school, but this almost felt like "adult high school". And she needs new headshots.
For more on the acting front, Shia LaBeouf rocks it, and delivers lines that could easily come off as unbelievable. I enjoy watching him in general, and from watching him on Jay Leno interviews, I'd say he's well-cast in this film.
I also really like supporting actors Josh Duhamel (who totally sold me as Captain Lennox), and Kevin Dunn and Julie White (LaBeouf's mom and dad; stay to watch the credits).
And voice work? Peter Cullen, the original Optimus Prime? I shivered when I first heard his voice. Shivered.
I wasn't overly keen on Rachael Taylor (and am at a bit of a loss at her billing over actor's / roles like Jon Voight, Dunn, and White, which sounds like a law firm), and while I like John Torturro, his scenes in the film are overlong, and don't add to it; they could have been clipped a bit.
Other quibbles?
The film was about a half an hour too long, and would have been better serviced with a little tightening. Let's say "Torturro", "police station", and "Anthony Anderson" (no hate; just from the perspective of the film).
And much as I love (love) Peter Cullen's voice (and my upcoming voice demo has a couple of tributes to him), there was a bit too much "telling", violating film's "Show, don't Tell" rule. Ironic, for a Michael Bay film. And I don't think Optimus would be big on making sure he was all covered in a multicolored flames paint job. What was that about?
And the product placements are (for the most part) pretty unobtrusive, but there's one SD card placement that made me laugh out loud at its blatant obtrusiveness.
Finally (probably), they're little mini Decepticon, which I think is a bastardized version of Frenzy. Less robot bird and too Gremlins. And his vernacular expletives took me out of the moment.
But my quibbles are quibbles. The show rocked, I'll see it again, and probably get the 4-hour extended cut on DVD.
Labels: film
Share: | | | TinyUrl | Twitter
posted by Adam @ 11:29 AM
Saturday, June 16, 2007
DOA: Dead or Alive
I'm disappointed.I went to out of my way to catch opening night of the limited release DOA: Dead or Alive last night, planning to see the worst video game movie ever made. My buddy and I actually rushed to the theater because we were running late -- and ended up being 2 of 5 people to see the film.
I had appropriately low expectations, because while I watched Jaime Pressly talk up the action and fun of the film on The Tonight Show last year, she months later backpedaled about the film having "lost its way", "not being all it could have been", etc. -- also on the Tonight Show. When one of stars distances from a film, that's rarely a good thing. And video game movies don't have a great track record. And really, the Dead or Alive game franchise has kind of a gossamer-thin film premise.
Thing is, the film doesn't suck that bad. Sure, there's no plot of which to speak, and the whole thing is contrived to get more and more shots of the titular DOA girls (wow, I can't believe I stooped so low).
And Pressly, despite her balkings (and fans' rantings; that's got to be a frightful demographic), I think is well-cast as Tina, the pro-wrestling fight tournament contender.
Less well-cast (surprisingly to me), is Devon Aoki (Kasumi), who not only doesn't look the part, but where her deadpan demeanor worked so well in Sin City, it came across as wooden in this film.
Strong actors in the film are actually lesser known folks. Steve Howey (Weatherby) does a great, mostly non-overacted job, and I'm encouraged to see a talented actor (who I think does so well on Reba) taking off (and I hope TV comedy The Beast does well for him).
The other surprise in DOA is Sarah Carter (Helena Douglas). She's got a smile I'd call "infectious", and if you're into the acting process, watch her closely as she reacts -- not acts -- in her onscreen moments. A lot of those good moments are with Howey, which might or might not be coincidental. Of course, if I were to watch Skinwalkers, I might change my mind.
It's a shame Robin Shou (Pirate Leader) has such a minor role. He rocked as Liu Kang in the first Mortal Kombat, is a solid martial arts actor, and does a great job in his minor role.
I think Eric Roberts (Donovan) does a good job, but is miss-cast (does he watch the film and say, "That hair! What was I thinking?"). But, he's great in other stuff (like Heroes; and I am looking forward to him in The Dark Night).
The choreography in the movie is pretty good (for the main actors; the extras, waving their weapons needlessly in the air to purposely miss their targets, are laughable). And there are some good cinematic moments (the cutting back and forth between the fight scene between Holly Valance (Christie Allen) and Carter is surprisingly well done, and feels like it comes from another film.
Of course, there are way too many "I-don't-think-that-was-intended" laughable moments in the film. The "extreme ass cam" (during the above fight) made me laugh out loud.
More frustrating, is there are some basic film making things to which they could have paid attention to make the movie tighter. Like not insulting the audience. Example: When revealing a critical character, flashing back to the scene where he was introduced, having another character shout, "[name]! My [relationship]!", all while cutting back and forth between the present and the flashback. Insulting.
And there are missed opportunities. There could have been some clever stuff done with the DOA fighters not using weapons (and triumphing over those who do), that would have been a nod to the video game's Itagaki.
All that said, it's not the worst video game movie. It's not as good as the first Mortal Kombat (but better than the second); it's better than Super Mario Bros. and Street Fighter; and (I'm told), it's better than every Uwe Boll film. Heck, comparing it another film from this summer, it's better than Ghost Rider (though, admittedly, I had expectations for that film, and none for this).
Oh, and for those looking for fan service, realize that while all of the fighters are in the film, most of the non-busty have brief roles or cameos. And if you're looking for more titillating fan service, you're better off with the Dead or Alive 4 video game cutscenes, or the over-the-top Dead or Alive Extreme 2 game.
Labels: film, video game
Share: | | | TinyUrl | Twitter
posted by Adam @ 11:54 AM
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 / -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.
Share: | | | TinyUrl | Twitter
posted by Adam @ 11:25 AM
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.
Labels: comic books, film, reviews
Share: | | | TinyUrl | Twitter
posted by Adam @ 7:52 AM
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.
Labels: film, independent, reviews
Share: | | | TinyUrl | Twitter
posted by Adam @ 4:13 PM
Tuesday, November 07, 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 ...
Share: | | | TinyUrl | Twitter
posted by Adam @ 12:40 AM
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.
Share: | | | TinyUrl | Twitter
posted by Adam @ 12:19 PM
Monday, August 07, 2006
Miami Vice
I caught a matinee of Miami Vice the day it opened, and I really liked it.I like Michael Mann. Quite a bit (Heat is still one of my most-like films, and Collateral positiively surprised me). The guy does it all -- Writes, adapts to screenplays, produces, directs -- and does it all well.
The film has Mann's fingerprints all over it -- in a good way. The pacing is slow, but good slow, yet not "deliberate" slow. Maybe "focused" or "determined" slow. I don't know how to describe it, but it worked for me.
There's also some cool gritty shaky cam work that slides into steady cam in slick, fluid ways.
The film does a good job building the characters, which keeps them from being boring, and really raised the stakes for me and my investment in the film. Which also made me care more when something happened to them.
Though billed in trailers as a "sexy summer action film", Mann's use of sex is interesting and well-done -- intimate, but not gratuitous, and build believable character intimacy (again, raising the importance of the relationships).
I wonder how cool it was for Mann to do this film, given he Executive Produced the original series.
And Jamie Foxx? What has he done right? Not one, not two, not three, but freakin' four Michael Mann films -- The Kingdom (written by Mann) in 2007 and Damage Control (directed by Mann) in 2008.
Good thing Foxx had Jarhead at the same time he had Stealth, otherwise all he'd have is stuff like Collateral, Ray, Any Given Sunday ... Oh. That's right. He's talented.
Miami Vice is a good film. I recommend it.
Share: | | | TinyUrl | Twitter
posted by Adam @ 11:47 AM
Friday, July 07, 2006
Superman Returns
I'm a comic book geek. And an Actor. And I like watching movies.I was not going to miss seeing Superman Returns.
But I was surprised by just how geeked out I got when 70s-esque movie credits spun onto the screen, and the first time the update of his own John Williams Superman theme played during the film.
Overall, a very good film. With caveats.
Director/Producer/"Story By" guy Bryan Singer does an amazing job of fitting the film into the original films' canon, deftly sticking it between Superman II and Superman III, almost seemlessly. Almost.
Singer's good at putting heart into the super heroics, which is arguably what sets X-Men and X2 apart from X-Men: The Last Stand.
Parker Posey gave perhaps my favorite overall performance of the movie. She is so engaged with her character. As an actor, it was a lot of fun to watch.
Kate Bosworth suprised me as Lois Lane. I could not see her in the role until I saw her in the role, and she plays it well. My quibble would be she goes through some heavy physical punishment in the film with little effect, which made it unfortunately a bit laughable.
Kevin Spacey as Lex Luthor is phenomenal and devious and creepy, without being cartoony. Just like Gene Hackman (without being Gene Hackman).
Brandon Routh does a passable Man of Steel, and an even better "doing-Christopher-Reeve-doing-Clark-Kent", which does make the former role seem a little off.
And really, though the match to the actor that did the original role is pretty amazing, it took me out of the movie at moments, and reminded me that -- for me -- Christopher Reeve is Superman.
Also, though Singer does an amazing job of fitting so much into the canon, he introduces some elements that are so huge their not showing up in Superman III would be weird. But maybe he thinks like I do that Superman Returns is the direction the franchise should have gone after the second film, rather than the, uh, Richard Pryor route (absolutely nothing against Mr. Pryor).
And, though I say Routh pulls off Superman, there is some pretty heavy-handed dialog that came across stilted, and produced a "huh?" factor that probably wasn't intened. Maybe it helps if you remember Superman is "The Last Son of Krypton." Maybe.
Overall, Superman Returns is a good flick. Didn't hit me as hard as the Spider-Man treatments, but still really enjoyable, and a solid super hero film.
Share: | | | TinyUrl | Twitter
posted by Adam @ 3:16 PM
Sunday, June 18, 2006
Must Love Dogs
I finally got around to seeing Must Love Dogs, with Diane Lane, John Cusack, and Christopher Plummer.I'm a big John Cusack fan, and only slightly less so of Diane Lane (and only slightly less so, Christopher Plummer).
Must Love Dogs is a good flick. Not real deep, and it's a comedic drama (or dramatic comedy), so it's not quite the grins and giggles depicted in the previews (which is fine with me). It's more Lane's movie than Cusack's, but it's got a lot of heart, does a good job showing the pain and awkwardness of post-divorce dating, and has some good relational dialog (a particularly good scene between Lane's Sarah Holan and Plummer's father (Bill) characters was unfortunately cut from the film, but is available in the DVD extended features).
I'm also incredibly encouraged by Dermot Mulroney, who works hard, often, and solidly in every film in which I've seen him (at least since Young Guns). I could do that.
The movie has a couple of hokey sentimental moments that detract from the story, but they're brief, and at least are entertaining in their own right.
Overall, a worthwhile film, if only from the top-notch caliber of talent.
Share: | | | TinyUrl | Twitter
posted by Adam @ 2:32 PM
Monday, May 08, 2006
Yours, Mine & Ours
I'm a Dennis Quaid fan. And I'm a Rene Russo fan. I'm not a huge fan of Yours, Mine & Ours.I mean, the film was cute and all, but way too crammed, and by nature of having 16 kids involved, not a lot of character development, and not an ensemble piece. Plus, there are some kind of offensive stereotypes.
There are bright moments, and some clever scenes, but this is a bubble gum and popcorn movie. Fun, but ultimately flavorless. And my leave you gassy. Look, metaphors aren't really my thing.
I did like Sean Faris, and there's one almost Tom Cruise Taps freeze frame moment that surprised me.
Not a movie I'll ever likely watch again ...
Share: | | | TinyUrl | Twitter
posted by Adam @ 5:09 PM
Friday, May 05, 2006
Mission: Impossible III
I caught a matinee of Mission: Impossible III today.Best. M:I. Ever.
Seriously. This is an incredible film. Not just summer blockbuster incredible. It's got heart.
For me, the second (John Woo) Mission: Impossible II was lacking (and I'm a Woo fan) and it was the first (Brian De Palma) Mission: Impossible that I considered the best.
Until now.
M:i:III is amazing. We're talking new levels of intense for the franchise. Not just in action (and not over-the-top-huh? intense that M:i:II was), but in emotion and relational scenes, too.
Director J.J. Abrams is able to bring some of his Lost and Alias sensibilities to the silver screen.
Feel how you want about Tom Cruise and how gorgeous you think he is (or how gorgeous you think he's not), the Oprah thing, or Scientology -- the guy is a brilliant actor. Watch Collateral and M:i:III, then sit in the dark and muse about the brilliance that is Cruise as an actor.
And I'm glad Keri (Felicity) Russell is back -- and she's good (and believable) as an IMF agent.
Michelle Monaghan? Wow. I was in love. Scenes with her and Cruise felt authentic, and at times, important.
Philip Seymour Hoffman is brilliant. We're talking Bond-villain brilliant. But not cartoony. A joy to watch. Creepy joy.
I'm a Ving Rhames fan. And he doesn't disappoint in this film.
I'm looking forward to watching Mission: Impossible III again. You should go see it. Now. Go.
Share: | | | TinyUrl | Twitter
posted by Adam @ 11:19 PM
Sunday, April 09, 2006
Spies Like Us
I caught Spies Like Us on network TV today.Chevy Chase and Dan Aykroyd were and are so gifted, and this flick took me back to the pop fun and cold war stress of the 80s. I was also struck by the film's subtle us of sex, which was more fun and titillating in 80s films than many of today's films -- where it's abrubt, pervasive, and less fun.
And I'm a huge fan of Bruce Davison (Ruby), one of the most prolific "non-A-list" actors. Spies Like Us, X-Men/X2, and nearly 150 others. What an amazingly talented, hard working actor. I'll take a career like his ...
Share: | | | TinyUrl | Twitter
posted by Adam @ 4:29 PM
Friday, April 07, 2006
Lucky Number Sleven
I saw Lucky Number SLeven, which opened today.This is a good flick, with top-tier actors and acting (Josh Hartnett, Lucy Liu, Morgan Freeman, Bruce Willis, Sir Ben Kingsley, Stanley Tucci), this is a twisting film with fun characterization.
This is one of those films that's hard to talk about without giving stuff away. I don't read reviews of films I'm going to see before I see them, because I don't want my response to the film colored. I recognize the hypocrisy in my writing about stuff I see. I take responsibility for that. Besides, you choose whether or not you want to read my ramblings.
Anyway, though I'm a fan of all of the actors above (Stanley Tucci's career? I'll take it!), this is Hartnett's, and Liu's movie. Hartnett as a guy who lacks any worry (or any preocupations, really), and Liu as I've never seen her (and arguably with her own personality disorder) are a lot of fun to watch. Their chemistry and authenticity rock, and the editing makes several of the deeper connection moments really nice.
"That lip got you that nose."
It's not a happy film, but it's a good film.
Share: | | | TinyUrl | Twitter
posted by Adam @ 5:35 PM
Thursday, March 23, 2006
Curious George
I caught a matinee of Curious George the other day.Y'know, I went saw Mike Judge speak a few weeks ago, and he was bemoaning the fact that all of these big names and big stars are doing voice over work for movies. His point was he watches an animated film for escape, and hearing a recognized voice being itself -- rather than a character -- pulls him out the movie.
Now, I'm biased, because big stars doing voice over makes it harder for me to do voice over, but aside from that, Curious George is perfect example of what Judge was talking about.
I'm a Will Ferrell fan. I'm a Drew Barrymore fan. I was not a fan of this movie.
The movie wasn't about George the monkey. It wasn't even about Ted ("The Man in the Yellow Hat"). The movie was about Will Ferrell.
I didn't go to see a Will Ferrell movie -- I went to see George.
Oh, and I freaking paid through the nose to see the film, even thought it was a matinee. I feel like Regal and Carmike and Landmark and the like are summarily killing the movie going industry...
Share: | | | TinyUrl | Twitter
posted by Adam @ 1:24 PM
Friday, March 17, 2006
Jumping off Bridges
I saw jumping off bridges as part of SXSW this afternoon.Hard for a bunch of reasons, not least of which it feels a bit ... off ... to offer any critique about a film that's got tough content that's based at least partially on real events.
It's a good little film. Director/Writer Kat Candler is talented and daring. Bryan Chafin fights through a tough role. Rhett Wilkins has one of the strongest performances, and Michael Emerson has a great, understated, nuanced pathos and bravery at the same time. Glen Powell Jr. took me out of the movie a few times, but I don't know if it was his performance or that he's a ringer for my cousin.
The story is compelling and important.
For a bunch of reasons it wouldn't be appropriate for me to discuss in this forum, it was tough content for me on a bunch of fronts, and I can't say much more about the film.
But it is worth seeing.
Labels: film,