tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-134410032024-03-06T22:05:13.063-08:00Joel Schumacher SucksTrimbohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18299227365580334067noreply@blogger.comBlogger78125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13441003.post-58180276305898336712019-11-10T23:07:00.006-08:002019-11-10T23:27:56.281-08:00Terminator: Dark Fate (2019)<br />
<div style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;">
</div>
<div style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;">
I've been a fan of the Terminator franchise since watching the first movie on VHS at my friend John's house. Since then, I've watched every movie as well as Sarah Connor Chronicles. <br />
<br />
As a fan of the franchise, I'm not going to spend this blog post revisiting just how totally off the rails it's become except to say.... "it has". [The first 5 minutes of <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hugsy-pQ61U">Half In the Bag</a> details it well, if you care.] And it's kind of hard to pinpoint exactly where it went off the rails. Most people think it's T3, though I enjoyed that one (especially the end). And it made sense to try to make a movie in the future like Salvation (though <a href="https://joelschumachersucks.blogspot.com/2009/05/terminator-salvation-2009.html">that didn't work out</a>).</div>
<div style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;">
<br />
Either way, the people who own the rights to Terminator really have had nowhere to take it for at least a decade. Dark Fate now makes the <b>second</b> attempt at a complete reboot in that timeframe. Their fatal mistake in the last reboot was putting the franchise in the hands of Jai Courtney. ("Stop trying to make Jai Courtney happen... it's not going to happen!")<br />
<br />
This time though, they didn't try any time travel trickery. They simply disregarded everything Terminator that you may have paid good money for and spent precious waking hours watching since 1991. They said "screw you, loyal fans who have watched all of these other things we made! We're doing it <i>right</i><b> </b>this time." Fair enough.<br />
<br />
<h3>
So how was the movie?</h3>
<a href="https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EHiOMUAUcAAJqkf?format=jpg&name=medium" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img alt="Image" border="0" height="400" src="https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EHiOMUAUcAAJqkf?format=jpg&name=medium" width="248" /></a><span style="font-weight: normal;">Let's get to the meat: the result was pretty entertaining... for a while. It features a truck chase, which takes a page from (*checks notes*) Terminator 1, Terminator 2, Terminator 3.... but they totally did it differently because the truck chase was at the <i>beginning</i> of the movie. The chase was entertaining! And Grace, the "augmented human" played by Mackenzie Davis, was pretty badass in that scene.</span><br />
<br />
No spoilers in this section but you know Linda Hamilton and Arnold are in this by now, right? That's because they're featured on every poster, and a ridiculous amount of money was spent marketing this movie. If you didn't know, there's a picture nearby of aforementioned marketing.<br />
<br />
Where the movie started losing it was the second act, and it<i> really </i>started to suck in the third act. The second act is almost 100% nostalgia and "<a href="https://stevenpressfield.com/2015/07/blake-snyders-fun-and-games/">Fun & Games</a>" around Arnold's terminator character, as well as Sarah's story. I mean, as a die hard fan of the first two Terminator movies, I enjoyed it. It had some interesting and (in the case of Arnold's character) funny things about it.<br />
<br />
But the third act was just filled with impossible, stupid action and VFX insanity. There was no story and I was ready for it to end for the last 20-30 minutes.<br />
<br />
I would generally recommend this movie to fans of the franchise but no one beyond that. See below for more thoughts on that.<br />
<br />
<b>JSS Rating: It's a Good, Bad Movie. The filmmakers know they weren't making Citizen Kane, but it was enjoyable nevertheless.</b><br />
<br />
<br />
<div style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; color: black; font-family: Times; font-size: medium; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; margin: 0px; orphans: 2; text-align: start; text-decoration-color: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;">
</div>
<br />
<h3 style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; color: black; font-family: Times; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: start; text-decoration-color: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;">
What was the point?</h3>
<h3 style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; color: black; font-family: Times; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: start; text-decoration-color: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;">
--- Spoilers --- </h3>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
The thing I'm left wondering about Dark Fate is... what were the producers trying to do with the movie? It makes no sense.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
They brought back Sarah, Arnold, and John. Then killed John [even though Skynet was already doomed and the whole point of a Terminator changing the future was that if you killed someone, they won't be in the future, so if Skynet never existed, why was there a terminator to kill John? Fine, <b>whatever</b>. This movie does not have the rigor of Primer]. Then they introduce us to Dani, tell us that she's the new John, and Grace, the "augmented human" badass who Dani recruited.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
It's some sort of Force Awakens handoff movie? Is that what they wanted to do? The old generation to the new generation. Except, at the end, they kill <strike>Han Solo</strike> Arnold... but they also kill Grace?! Leaving us with only Sarah and Dani. Sarah is now going to teach Dani to be a Prepper, but stops by a playground first, as Sarah is wont to do.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
But, um, there's one catch to this: we're really only left with Dani to carry a future movie of the Terminator franchise. And who wants to watch another of these movies with Dani.... the person who barely <i>does anything</i> in this movie? What are they going to do for T7, start off with Dani in a mental institution? C'mon.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Except I'm not sure we have to worry about any of this sequel talk because Dark Fate did very poorly at the box office. The theater we saw it in had replaced the sign with Joker before we walked out... and we saw it on the first week!! Like Blade Runner 2049 (which was a far better movie and proper sequel), the built-in audience for this franchise is apparently small. Especially internationally, nobody cared about this movie. And the <a href="https://deadline.com/2019/11/terminator-dark-fate-linda-hamilton-harriet-motherless-brooklyn-weekend-box-office-1202774477/">break-even for Dark Fate is almost <b>half a bil</b></a>.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
So I really, really, reeeeaaally hope they end this franchise here now and forever. It's played out, there's nowhere to take it, and no one cares to see it anyway. At this point, I'm just happy no one has digitally altered T1 and T2 and I can still share those with my kids when they're old enough. </div>
</div>
Trimbohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18299227365580334067noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13441003.post-58045849509986329542019-05-04T09:54:00.001-07:002019-05-04T10:42:47.346-07:00Under The Silver Lake (2019)<br />
Under the Silver Lake is the latest movie by <a href="https://g.co/kgs/kRjers">It Follows</a> (which is also excellent) writer/director David Robert Mitchell. It's a weird, meta, superficially entertaining, deliberately derivative work of a mad genius trying to pull together a message about Hollywood, culture and art. Everyone who enjoys movies or music should watch it.<br />
<br />
I loved the movie, it's my favorite of 2019 and one of my favorites in years. The movie pretty much defines my movie-viewing wheelhouse.<br />
<br />
So while I think it's really a shame it was dumped onto streaming without a lot of fanfare, it's best enjoyed on streaming. I found myself rewinding again and again, jumping around and trying to make sense of it. Though, it probably would have been fun to watch with a good audience.<br />
<br />
I'm not going to go over the plot of the movie, you can read that in <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/17/movies/under-the-silver-lake-review.html">the many reviews that panned the movie</a>. AO Scott is a really good reviewer, but he can't seem to look past the references to see what the movie's about.<br />
<br />
So, I'm going to try to explain what the movie is <i>about, </i><b>but there are a few spoilers</b>. <b>But if you want to go in completely cold, then don't read the rest of this review yet. </b>(And it goes without saying that you should never read reviews until after you watch a movie)<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
The premise gets set up in the very first shot:<br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjFr9Tamw6MlajnCqPD-rmP4XpbW3AIebxA9gPNvECSuA-aLFBYyCppVMtxn0tqufahGZ79Af2vc9pGjli136AAmpu-MqvukWb-qO6Gsu98EAVegoJAFgy0pY-SISriwglWhiU_/s1600/Screen+Shot+2019-05-04+at+8.31.50+AM.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="671" data-original-width="1600" height="166" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjFr9Tamw6MlajnCqPD-rmP4XpbW3AIebxA9gPNvECSuA-aLFBYyCppVMtxn0tqufahGZ79Af2vc9pGjli136AAmpu-MqvukWb-qO6Gsu98EAVegoJAFgy0pY-SISriwglWhiU_/s400/Screen+Shot+2019-05-04+at+8.31.50+AM.png" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
Why is there a dog killer in Silver Lake? Why should we be afraid of him?<br />
<br />
Well, a <i>classic </i>moviemaking truism is that you should never kill a dog in a movie unless you want the audience to hate you. Spielberg was one of the first mainstream directors to break the rule in Lost World, and it was so memorable at the time that I easily found <a href="https://www.deseretnews.com/article/575979/Only-Spielberg-has-guts-to-kill-The-Dog-in-films.html">this article about it</a> 22 years later.<br />
<br />
Mitchell is telling the audience up front that he's going to kill the dog, literally and figuratively, in this film. You're going to hate him for ruining not just this movie, but all movies, and all culture, after he's through.<br />
<br />
As AO Scott points out, the film is full of references. Many, many, <b>many </b>are Hitchcockian. Rear Window, North by Northwest, <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQVMUmx9syc">Vertigo</a> are all there (and probably more I missed). Hitchcock is arguably the most influential director of all time. All mystery movies -- maybe all movies at this point -- are influenced by Hitchcock. Mitchell goes so far as to show Hitchcock's actual grave in this movie. Mitchell isn't just paying homage here. He wants you to know he's ripping off Hitchcock so badly because it's meta.<br />
<br />
Several times in the movie, Mitchell refers to Hollywood tropes and then puts those into the movie and right up in your face. Many have to do with sexualization in pop culture: the <a href="https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MaleGaze">male gaze</a>, <a href="https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/BlondeBrunetteRedhead">blonde/brunette/redhead</a>.<br />
<br />
So what's the meaning of all this? The good news is the point of the movie is delivered to you, the viewer. The character looks into the camera to tell you exactly what the movie is about. The character is The Songwriter (<a href="https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/HermitGuru">also another trope</a>), an old recluse who has created all of the world's most loved music for generations.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhg5C27cj23Zl8CgLy0ioZoju6dYXUj-MRRBNeFrVoYRFORfSSHsUJGLPqPk5oGaSyl3KrIzxYbigtVnrPDaqD093WYY6_b5N9fiLaa-8msBXBgd6QKAjoAw_thzQ8uAxvzGDUC/s1600/Screen+Shot+2019-05-04+at+10.25.47+AM.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="673" data-original-width="1600" height="167" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhg5C27cj23Zl8CgLy0ioZoju6dYXUj-MRRBNeFrVoYRFORfSSHsUJGLPqPk5oGaSyl3KrIzxYbigtVnrPDaqD093WYY6_b5N9fiLaa-8msBXBgd6QKAjoAw_thzQ8uAxvzGDUC/s400/Screen+Shot+2019-05-04+at+10.25.47+AM.png" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
And this is, like, a real thing. Consider <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Martin">Max Martin</a>. But The Songwriter has a bigger point though. He tells you -- yes, you -- "Your art, your writing, your culture, is the shell of other men's ambitions". The Songwriter is both talking to the audience and the director. Mitchell wants you to know his success is built upon the shoulders of Hitchcock, and the many other things he referenced in this movie.<br />
<br />
The concept is not unlike <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MaCZN2N6Q_I">this fantastic music video by Hot Chip</a>. I'm always left wondering, are any of my ideas actually my ideas, or a fraud based on hidden figures like the Songwriter, which culture consumers have no idea actually exist? My reaction is always like this girl in the music video, when she sees the actual singer of the song:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEigKK-viCIkENMngPjdn-JUKgGEfYAhsz7S61ZFlY6z6J8l6Gkg87RjIoU9dBd2zqinfIA-maxKQ_TiiVpkFnOP8Y0I93Mw0yKc-oVOHa82eGyE2-YWy7cLvZudT9KOz99dct3H/s1600/Screen+Shot+2019-05-04+at+9.39.18+AM.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="704" data-original-width="898" height="250" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEigKK-viCIkENMngPjdn-JUKgGEfYAhsz7S61ZFlY6z6J8l6Gkg87RjIoU9dBd2zqinfIA-maxKQ_TiiVpkFnOP8Y0I93Mw0yKc-oVOHa82eGyE2-YWy7cLvZudT9KOz99dct3H/s320/Screen+Shot+2019-05-04+at+9.39.18+AM.png" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
Anyway, Mitchell made this movie with so many pop culture and ripped-off tropes to drive home this point. Mitchell also spends a lot of time in the movie dwelling on <a href="https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/PublicSecretMessage">hidden clues</a>. The Songwriter mentions this a few times ("the song was not <b>for you</b>")<b>. </b>And, of course, the main character follows his own hidden clue trail to the big reveal.<br />
<br />
But in a final <a href="https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/italian-chef-kiss">chef's-kiss</a> of meta, random things happen in the movie, like someone announcing a code aloud, or a squirrel falling out of a tree dead. I'm left wondering if these clues are the final dog killed. Mitchell wants you to waste your time trying to find hidden meaning for everything in this movie, when actually, there is none.<br />
<br />
So good luck with that. You've been warned... though I'm not sure I'll be able to obey my own warning.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg3ubNrU0OmQSmyz8WV0DSYom2OL_BY5e-HpJD-wFZI_HUgDw-LHSWWXcLNoBy0iSkE6lFIvGGam0MTRoSt3HdnIUmH0Nov_g7ZYb-AK7D9qtxyN41Vku-SOVxXfjrzLZg9_csw/s1600/tumblr_o16n2kBlpX1ta3qyvo1_1280.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="768" data-original-width="1024" height="240" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg3ubNrU0OmQSmyz8WV0DSYom2OL_BY5e-HpJD-wFZI_HUgDw-LHSWWXcLNoBy0iSkE6lFIvGGam0MTRoSt3HdnIUmH0Nov_g7ZYb-AK7D9qtxyN41Vku-SOVxXfjrzLZg9_csw/s320/tumblr_o16n2kBlpX1ta3qyvo1_1280.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
<b>JSS Rating: Good / Good</b>. If you are a cultural robot like me, this movie should be both entertaining and have meaning for you.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />Trimbohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18299227365580334067noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13441003.post-28210011665284463352018-03-18T00:35:00.001-07:002018-03-18T00:35:34.707-07:00I, Tonya (2017)"I, Tonya" is an examination into the real people behind the TV villains created by the mass media. This now surrounds us, but was relatively new in the early 90s, when the film took place. That era was when the 24-hour-cable-news heroes/villains thing started (Harding, OJ[1], William Kennedy Smith, Rodney King).<br />
<br />
The criticism I've heard about this film is that it takes a too-jovial look into Tonya Harding's life and "The Incident" (Nancy Kerrigan getting hit on the knee). This criticism is absolutely not true. The film depicts a tragic life, and is consistent with this tone overall. It has some comedic moments, but mostly around characters other than Tonya, Jeff, and LaVona.<br />
<br />
The main feeling I walked away with is always lurking under the surface of every Twitter frenzy of public-shaming: the masses piling onto some person don't know all of the facts about this person. The mob doesn't know what they've been dealing with, or anything about them really. In the film, Tonya (i.e. Margot Robbie, the Tonya character), addresses the audience directly to this point, and that the public abused her. She's right.<br />
<br />
I also think the film is on-point about the classism around the story, and I was interested in the called-out classism within skating itself. In the film, Tonya got low scores due to this, until they had no choice but to give her high scores (when she landed the triple axel in 1991 [2]). I have no idea if this is true about her story of skating overall, <a href="https://www.thecut.com/2018/02/figure-skating-drama-scandals.html">but it fits</a>. Tonya was made out to be the trashy villain in every news story at the time. And ultimately the film implies that Tonya got to go to the 1994 Olympics due to the ratings that she would garner skating against Nancy Kerrigan.<br />
<br />
The acting in the movie is great. I have no idea if any of these people are true to the people they are playing, but Margot Robbie, Paul Walter Hauser, and, of course, Allison Janney are remarkable.<br />
<br />
Whether or not the film is completely factual is of course up for debate, and something the actors themselves point out in the film. Even so, I think most people will walk away from this film feeling that Tonya Harding was herself a victim, and her life (or at least skating career) tragic.<br />
<br />
JSS Rating: Good/Good. I highly recommend this film.<br />
<br />
[1] - "The People vs. OJ Simpson" was also very good.<br />
[2] - Here's the real-life video of Tonya landing the first US women's triple axel, which they end the film with.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe width="320" height="266" class="YOUTUBE-iframe-video" data-thumbnail-src="https://i.ytimg.com/vi/tIGoWGjetog/0.jpg" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/tIGoWGjetog?feature=player_embedded" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe></div>
<br />
<br />Trimbohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18299227365580334067noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13441003.post-41115582823827202192016-08-21T18:51:00.003-07:002016-08-21T18:58:15.354-07:00How Green Was My Valley (1941) vs. Citizen Kane (1941)I've often remarked how the Oscars are a sham simply because <i>Citizen Kane </i>did not win Best Picture for 1941. Instead, <i>How Green Was My Valley </i>was the winner that year, and a few people have told me over the years that it won deservedly.... that <i>How Green </i>is actually the better movie. I had never seen <i>How Green is My Valley</i> so could never respond to this. Now I have.<br />
<br />
<b>I know it's been 75 years but as a public service, I'm here to tell you that opinion is crap. <i>Citizen Kane </i>should have totally won.</b><br />
<br />
Let's first talk about <i>How Green</i><i> Was My Valley. </i>It is not a bad movie. It's an okay movie. Not great, just okay. It's a fairly good movie with a lot of holes.<br />
<br />
What best holds it up are the themes. Industrialization, unionization, forbidden love, the dream of a child having a better, more educated life than the parents. Many, many strong themes within this movie. And, in fact, I think it would have had more impact had it been in color. As a black-and-white movie, they had to overplay the smoke coming out of the coal mine to get the point across. Being told the valley was green and then it was not doesn't have the same impact as actually seeing it. Apparently that was in the cards -- filming in color in Wales itself -- but couldn't be done due to the war. It was filmed in B&W in LA.<br />
<br />
<b>I'm going to let loose on some spoilers now but I imagine 99.999% of you will never see this movie. I know this because <i>Batman vs. Superman </i>was a complete piece of garbage and still made $872 million at the box office. </b><br />
<br />
Where the movie isn't great is in the script and the acting.<br />
<br />
First, as good as the themes are, there are too many themes being pushed into the movie. It's trying really hard to be an epic, and the time for character development suffers for it. Only Mr. Morgan is complex enough and really given enough screen-time to develop in the movie, but it falls short of doing so. He is never actually challenged in a way that forces him to change. Ultimately, he remains exactly as he is: working at the coal mine until he dies in an accident. And that's literally the end of the movie. Related and similar: Huw could be an interesting character. And the story is being told from Huw's perspective as an old man. But somehow we missed out on the other <i><b>fifty years</b> </i>of his life, and the movie ends when his father dies. Though maybe that's the point, the other 50 years were nothing to him.<br />
<br />
The other script aspect that's downright disturbing, but a norm for the time, is the need to put in <i>whimsy. </i>I feel like this was fairly common in the 30s, and it happens a few times in this movie. If you've watched any of that era's movies, you can probably picture it. In this movie, it's done at completely inappropriate times. Men were <i>just killed </i>in a coal mining accident -- including one of the main characters of the movie -- and as a rescue crew is being formed -- including the son of the main character -- one of the other characters whimsically says how he's a coward and will hold the jacket of another headed into the mine. Srsly, WTF?<br />
<br />
As far as the acting goes, really only Walter Pidgeon shines as Mr. Gruffydd. He neither won nor was nominated for an Oscar -- Donald Crisp did for Mr. Morgan.<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Citizen Kane.</b><br />
<br />
Both of these movies are similar in that they share a life as told through flashback. Kane dies at the beginning mumbling something about Rosebud and a reporter tries to get to the bottom of it. Huw kicks us off reminiscing about the green valley he lived in and his life as a boy.<br />
<br />
Except only one of these movies pays off and has meaningful character development along the way. Kane rises, falls, destroys lives, isolates himself. The real pay-off for Kane is that he dies embracing a moment that he alone has any knowledge of, and is lost forever when the sled is burned, the reporter not having discovered the meaning of "Rosebud". Kane would be remembered by the world for everything he had done in the decades after sledding, but the thing he cherished about his identity was that memory.<br />
<br />
That's powerful. Now compare that to everything I just told you about <i>How Green is my Valley</i>. There is no payoff -- nothing for us to learn. Just lives and goings-on. It's <i>okay</i>, as I said... but not better.<br />
<br />
Everything else is better with Kane as well. The acting is better, cinematography. Music is a toss-up, both were good.<br />
<br />
The most stark difference: one of these movies was revolutionary. <i>Kane </i>is what movies ended up aspiring to be. <i>How Green was my Valley</i> was what movies once were.<br />
<br />
<b>Why?</b><br />
<b><br /></b>
I'm still left puzzled by why Kane only won one Oscar. Was it because John Ford? Some other politics? Or just because Welles was a newcomer, as was similar when Pulp Fiction should have won Best Picture in 1994 [another post for another time]?<br />
<br />
But I'm not alone in this. Many articles have been written. Kane is not my favorite movie of all time, but I do think it's possibly the best film ever made, especially when you put it in the era in which it was made. (Although "why citizen kane" autocompletes on Google to "is so great" and "is so overrated")<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>JSS Rating:</b><br />
<b> Citizen Kane: Best/Good movie (they tried to make a good movie and it was one of the best)</b><br />
<b><br /></b>
<b> How Green was My Valley: Good/Good movie (but not even remotely close to Kane)</b><br />
<br />
<br />
ps - This is the second time on this blog I've reviewed a John Ford movie (the first was <a href="http://joelschumachersucks.blogspot.com/2009/09/searchers-1956.html">The Searchers</a>), and I have to say, I must not be seeing the general appeal. I realize he was one of the most prolific and highly regarded directors of all time, but the movies of his I've watched just haven't been that great. I'll have to do "Grapes of Wrath" next.Trimbohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18299227365580334067noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13441003.post-38971835469957880932016-05-29T19:36:00.000-07:002016-05-29T19:39:15.160-07:00Motel Hell (1980)There are a few notable delineations worth making in our humanity's timeline. The birth of Christ, for example. The Magna Carta in 1215. Or 1980, not because it was the year John Lennon was shot, or Ronald Reagan won the presidency. But because it's the year <i>Motel Hell </i>was released.<br />
<br />
<i>Motel Hell</i> predates <i>Cabin in the Woods (2012)</i> or <i>Scary Movie (2000)</i>, but the premise is the same: making fun of the horror genre. Unlike the others, Motel Hell's intentions aren't made obvious for much of the movie. Cabin in the Woods keeps you guessing about outcome, but the comedic tone of the movie is established in the first scene. <i>Scary Movie</i>'s intentions are known from the poster, or trailer. <i>Motel Hell </i>is a deadpan Steven Wright to <i>Scary Movie</i>'s frenetic Robin Williams.<br />
<br />
If one didn't catch on from its over-the-topness, then only one of the last lines of the movie truly tips its hand -- this whole thing was a send-up. Anyone watching it as a serious movie probably would have turned it off much, much earlier. The movie is grotesque and bizarre if a viewer doesn't attribute it to parody early on (and is still grotesque and bizarre, even as a parody!)<br />
<br />
Highly recommended if you enjoy the horror genre and parodies of it. Other than attire, it's not at all obvious this movie was made 36 years ago. Horror movie tropes remain the same throughout all of these years. No wonder the genre is so tired.<br />
<br />
JSS rating: Good/Bad movie. It's an exceptional B-movie. Why didn't I watch this years ago?!<br />
<br />
<br />Trimbohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18299227365580334067noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13441003.post-17375202002965629482016-04-08T08:12:00.003-07:002016-04-08T08:12:56.837-07:00Hacker Movies<div style="background-color: white; color: #141823; font-family: helvetica, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 19.32px; margin-bottom: 6px;">
Hacker movies.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #141823; font-family: helvetica, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 19.32px; margin-bottom: 6px; margin-top: 6px;">
There really haven't been a ton that were focused on the hacking. Sneakers, WarGames, Swordfish, The Net. We don't count The Matrix as a hacker movie, right?</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #141823; font-family: helvetica, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 19.32px; margin-bottom: 6px; margin-top: 6px;">
And of course, Hackers.</div>
<div class="text_exposed_show" style="background-color: white; color: #141823; display: inline; font-family: helvetica, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 19.32px;">
<div style="margin-bottom: 6px;">
It's kind of odd that few of these movies try to understand the details of the core premise--that is, using a computer. It's like making Bull Durham without understanding the rules of baseball.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 6px; margin-top: 6px;">
Which brings me to the point of this post: Mr. Robot is the best computing-centric entertainment there's ever been. And yet it's on some rando cable network that I haven't watched since USA Cartoon Express went off the air. Why is this?</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 6px; margin-top: 6px;">
Hacking is a niche topic. I mean, yes, here in 2016, everyone uses computers and VirtualBoys and Zunes every day but the idea of watching people in movies create drama with ssh commands is... well, pretty niche. So hacker movies don't end up caring about that stuff because, let's face it, no one casts Hugh Jackman and Halle Berry to see if they use curl commands correctly. The production budget of that movie was $102 million dollars. It won't make its money back if the plot isn't entertaining to a wide audience, and technical topics like trying to crack WEP don't matter.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 6px; margin-top: 6px;">
This brings me to the point of the post: we're really living in a new golden age because niche themes like this have an outlet. They can have solid entertainment made for them. It's cheaper and more viable than ever for a show like Mr. Robot to be made and distributed effectively. Quality horror is another genre. Mainstream is all Paranormal Activity 5 ... the indie stuff you find on Netflix is quality like The Babadook.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 6px; margin-top: 6px;">
Anyway, I'll leave you with this clip, which includes a nice little dig at Mr. Robot itself. This show, and so many other shows on "tv" these days, are rocking it.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 6px; margin-top: 6px;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe width="320" height="266" class="YOUTUBE-iframe-video" data-thumbnail-src="https://i.ytimg.com/vi/vz9YFZP0OsE/0.jpg" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/vz9YFZP0OsE?feature=player_embedded" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 6px; margin-top: 6px;">
<br /></div>
</div>
Trimbohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18299227365580334067noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13441003.post-43745146051754780272015-11-10T23:05:00.002-08:002015-11-10T23:15:35.778-08:00Trainwreck (2015) vs. Unforgiven (1992)One of the things that's bothered me about Judd Apatow's comedies is how bitter they seem. I've felt this way about everything he's done since "The 40-Year-Old Virgin". None of the movies ends up being funny or enjoyable. But why, what makes them so bitter-seeming? And what is Apatow trying to achieve?<br />
<br />
I finally put it all together it in this scene where Amy (the prota-gon-ist, I guess) is watching cheerleaders with her doctor boyfriend. He explains that they work hard, and he treats them for injuries. Her response was this:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhlfEnS98H6kgQN55xiCFp85cS_JQX4QAKlxX7IjuIsPc3dwXv0AgbXTE0Rl0MdCavHJ9S66Kj8J5istmoIpMPtTIN-z99mFBNp6FqamdCC1ICSwMow-K86l-4nE_3ISwSVLaDR/s1600/Trainwreck_2015_UNRATED_HDRip_XViD-ETRG_avi.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="315" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhlfEnS98H6kgQN55xiCFp85cS_JQX4QAKlxX7IjuIsPc3dwXv0AgbXTE0Rl0MdCavHJ9S66Kj8J5istmoIpMPtTIN-z99mFBNp6FqamdCC1ICSwMow-K86l-4nE_3ISwSVLaDR/s400/Trainwreck_2015_UNRATED_HDRip_XViD-ETRG_avi.png" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
The snarky commentary throughout the movie -- and really, all of Judd Apatow's movies -- makes comedy at the expense of characters who are not deserving. Compare this to classic comedies such as Real Genius or Ghostbusters. The person being made fun of in those movies (<b>and actually yes, it's the same actor -- William Atherton)</b>, had established themselves as a real jerk! So it's completely enjoyable when one of our proto-...prota-gon-ists makes fun of him.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg9LxmtkkxUhO_eMq0g-nj_1JvnFv8hE0lymid5OArotA0qx-GyAvsI5Xkd9_lGtXFmNSGXgNGni9eN1MbbmY9C4nKWT3iuBJZ-EC9jQu1i1MBf7YAuj5VEzVHqFYTEyvnrn3BH/s1600/classic-comedy-movie-quotes-that-youll-never-forget-2.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="240" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg9LxmtkkxUhO_eMq0g-nj_1JvnFv8hE0lymid5OArotA0qx-GyAvsI5Xkd9_lGtXFmNSGXgNGni9eN1MbbmY9C4nKWT3iuBJZ-EC9jQu1i1MBf7YAuj5VEzVHqFYTEyvnrn3BH/s400/classic-comedy-movie-quotes-that-youll-never-forget-2.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<i>"Well... you could believe Mr. Pecker."</i></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<br />
<div>
So let's dig deeper. What is Apatow trying to achieve?</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<h3>
The Anti-Hero</h3>
<div>
You, Flock-Of-Seagulls. Remember Jules?</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhWiHpcXPBo4We65sL2c9dXDXUhMhfqIceSfnY8TG0TubwzRHI4fFxwY4HxijH7xHKYEwZXvgyREkKdiMvNOpHfL5I3R7utxWQJbypzko73auTuFOa21vdvVmCoX8bHk3BS372U/s1600/di-ntzh.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="251" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhWiHpcXPBo4We65sL2c9dXDXUhMhfqIceSfnY8TG0TubwzRHI4fFxwY4HxijH7xHKYEwZXvgyREkKdiMvNOpHfL5I3R7utxWQJbypzko73auTuFOa21vdvVmCoX8bHk3BS372U/s400/di-ntzh.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
Jules is a bad man. He kills people and works for a crime boss. And yet we root for him in the movie. Why? He is the Good.. at least within the confines of the film. And Pulp Fiction defines the boundaries of Good and Bad within the film very well. Bad seems to take the form of unsophistication in Pulp Fiction. Lesser thieves. Jules is established as a protagonist when he and Vincent are sent by the boss to collect from unsophisticated thieves. And it's just their job, the other guys are lazily eating Big Kahuna Burger at 8am, having stolen from Marsellus Wallace.<br />
<br />
Given Quentin Tarantino's love of dialogue, Jules even clarifies his position in the movie when he meets up with Pumpkin and Honey Bunny in the coffee shop.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<br />
<i>"See, now I'm thinking: maybe it means you're the evil man. And I'm the righteous man. And Mr. 9mm here... he's the shepherd protecting my righteous ass in the valley of darkness. Or it could mean you're the righteous man and I'm the shepherd and it's the world that's evil and selfish. And I'd like that. But that shit ain't the truth. The truth is you're the weak. And I'm the tyranny of evil men. But I'm tryin', Ringo. I'm tryin' real hard to be the shepherd"</i></blockquote>
Pumpkin and Honey Bunny had already established themselves as low-life stick-up artists at the beginning of the movie. Jules is the higher authority. Well-dressed, well-spoken and well-employed (by a crime boss -- the tyranny of evil men). He is trying to reform the lesser criminals. Importantly, by the time he says this to Pumpkin, Jules has already explained that because of the miracle at the apartment (the bullets did not touch him and Vincent), he wants to quit the business and roam the earth like Caine from Kung Fu. And so we root for him.<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Anti-heroes as powerful as Jules make people uneasy by design. My dad, for example, hated Pulp Fiction because "it made you root for the bad guys." So let's talk about a <i>really </i>bad guy and why we root for him.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<h3>
William Munny</h3>
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjAE4cpEqkGPSmhwOiEIhk_0hq3S8-9NRRUTS1s7IHif0hj3nOPQj2VdvuoE15YC7RI_YTGiLaM4MoOmYUqno56JwyXNku4t9kl5XbL94Js3NsxRXGWkm1Xnop9eq5bPoHISzSZ/s1600/unforgiven-clint-eastwood-morgan-freeman.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="132" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjAE4cpEqkGPSmhwOiEIhk_0hq3S8-9NRRUTS1s7IHif0hj3nOPQj2VdvuoE15YC7RI_YTGiLaM4MoOmYUqno56JwyXNku4t9kl5XbL94Js3NsxRXGWkm1Xnop9eq5bPoHISzSZ/s400/unforgiven-clint-eastwood-morgan-freeman.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
William Munny has killed dozens or hundreds in the West, including women and children. Throughout the movie, he explains how he's now sober, and he did all that when he was drunk and barely remembers it.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
But really none of that matters. Once Ned is put out in front of the saloon with a sign on him, Munny grabs the booze and reverts to exactly the same way he always was. Here, have a drink, Will:</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgVZRtOnI37VrAwLBYJm7EfKZM6VIaEHkDFhmxUt3Y6-hY5okEofkYqt1z5-xuSGFZ02w0lmYTfTizDGwZ-KpmCPVtKJpDfY845wHi5SYhifMVDS4_Or-LFdn-2D1tCfpQySFCI/s1600/1a9485f4efe140230e11ddfcc30979fc.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="167" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgVZRtOnI37VrAwLBYJm7EfKZM6VIaEHkDFhmxUt3Y6-hY5okEofkYqt1z5-xuSGFZ02w0lmYTfTizDGwZ-KpmCPVtKJpDfY845wHi5SYhifMVDS4_Or-LFdn-2D1tCfpQySFCI/s400/1a9485f4efe140230e11ddfcc30979fc.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
So basically he's not the reformed person we heard about all movie, he's right back to the cold blooded killer.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Some important things still allow the audience to root for him even when this happens.</div>
<b><br /></b>
<b>#1) Ned was innocent (at least relatively so, within the context of the movie)</b><br />
<br />
<div>
Although Ned was in on the plot to kill the cowboys, he couldn't pull the trigger on his Spencer when it came time to do so. Even though Ned was originally part of it, he was trying to leave because he didn't want to be a part of it. So revenge makes some sense here.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<b>
#2) Little Bill</b><br />
<div>
<br />
Little Bill is presented as Bad in the movie pretty clearly. Everyone hates Bill. He beats Ned to death with a whip. Bill reinforces that Munny is actually Good, within this movie at least.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
But interestingly, his evilness is tempered by another character. The Duck of Death:</div>
<div>
<div>
<br /></div>
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjwYm8QsZYQo2lzH3bufAl7DmnTXAi07-ZChAonXROk_SWbb-DXsZy2eDupSCQidGpJ4Rx1PHjqzHtg1n65HULZ7NbFHQmSwvz3NEfM1hR5NUyWPkpWa2u0U53JbmN1JyGTARYY/s1600/Unforgiven1.jpeg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="170" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjwYm8QsZYQo2lzH3bufAl7DmnTXAi07-ZChAonXROk_SWbb-DXsZy2eDupSCQidGpJ4Rx1PHjqzHtg1n65HULZ7NbFHQmSwvz3NEfM1hR5NUyWPkpWa2u0U53JbmN1JyGTARYY/s400/Unforgiven1.jpeg" width="400" /></a></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
In his original review of Unforgiven -- in which he gave the movie 2.5 stars (!) -- Roger Ebert commented that <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unforgiven#Reception">English Bob was a superfluous character</a> because he never met Munny in the movie.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
English Bob actually has an important role in the movie which is to make Little Bill not seem as bad. The Duck of Death is not only a braggart but someone who murders for minor reasons, as discussed in the jail with the writer.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
This, and Bill's wanting to build a house and settle in Big Whiskey give us just a little bit of sadness when Munny gets revenge on Bill.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<h3>
Trainwreck</h3>
<div>
So now we've talked about some successful anti-heroes in the history of film (if not <i>the two most successful</i>), let's bring this blog post home and talk about why Trainwreck fails to make Amy a good anti-hero.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Many of the themes parallel with Unforgiven, for example:</div>
<div>
<ul>
<li>Munny <b>was </b>a drunk killer.</li>
<li>Amy <b>is </b>a drunk <strike>killer</strike>.</li>
</ul>
<div>
Or:</div>
<div>
<ul>
<li>The death of Munny's wife changed him (before the movie), and Ned's death reverted him (during the movie)</li>
<li>The death of Amy's father ... really seemed to have no direct effect on her.</li>
</ul>
</div>
<div>
But where Trainwreck fails is very simple. In Unforgiven, Munny is quickly established as Good compared to the cowboys, and then that image is furthered against Little Bill. We have to wait 117 minutes into Trainwreck to see Amy become a decent person <i>relative to anyone else in the film</i>. And it's just not enjoyable as a result. There's nothing, and no one, to root for. Most of the movie, I was hoping that Bill Hader's character would just ditch her. </div>
</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Judd Apatow's made a lot more money than I have making movies, so maybe I don't know what the hell I'm talking about. But it would be interesting if he could ever make a movie where the main characters are someone to root for. Start by putting an antagonist in the movie that's both relevant to the plot and worse than the main character. Trainwreck fails at all of this.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b>JSS Rating: Bad/Bad. It's supposed to be a bad movie and guess what... it is!</b></div>
<div>
<b><br /></b></div>
Trimbohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18299227365580334067noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13441003.post-48264706691389447812015-08-13T22:21:00.002-07:002015-08-13T22:26:53.315-07:00John Wick (2014)John Wick is one of Keanu's best movies (Matrix, Point Break being the others), and one of the best of 2014. On the surface, this movie has plenty of red flags for being a terrible, by-the-numbers action flick. It's the first-time directorial debut of a stuntman! Keanu's best is behind him! It's not based on a comic book!<br />
<br />
Instead, it harkens back to the heady days of 80s action movies like Commando, Predator, Robocop, Demolition Man, Die Hard.<br />
<br />
Why, why is John Wick so good? I think I can explain a couple of key points.<b><span style="color: red;"> </span></b><br />
<b><span style="color: red;"><br /></span></b>
<b><span style="color: red;">(Minor/early-film spoilers)</span></b><br />
<br />
<b>#3: Rated-R.</b><br />
<div>
<b><br /></b></div>
<div>
I can't say this enough: PG-13 spoiled the action and sci-fi genres. All of the movies I mentioned above are rated-R. Most rated-R movies these days are <b>not </b>popcorn action. They are horror or adult themed drama. The popcorn action flicks are all PG-13, and the action and content is aimed at teens, not adults.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
John Wick is the antithesis of this trend. Kingsman and Escape Plan are others.</div>
<b><br /></b>
<b>#2: The normal life of a hitman</b><br />
<b><br /></b>
One thing that's very entertaining about the movie is that the life of a hitman has rules, and casualness. The Continental hotel he stays at (in the Flatiron Building), designed for hitmen and with rules for hitmen. The casual calls for body pickups and such. It adds a level of unexpected introspection into his life, and the life of a hitman.<br />
<br />
<b>#1 The dog.</b><br />
<b><br /></b>
The most important character in the film is the dog, Daisy.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjDUOveLcDu-f-h4xVAXmZKg82TalrOcDR1GbbU42lyr6v4bshNXAE0b3JcqFENUxT7ciZLyUXhzt-d7aWtYm_QRTbYQub5eIl0w_rkCTma_dbZ7cbz78IykDoHjh8B0iNEY5OA/s1600/_1416165890.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="168" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjDUOveLcDu-f-h4xVAXmZKg82TalrOcDR1GbbU42lyr6v4bshNXAE0b3JcqFENUxT7ciZLyUXhzt-d7aWtYm_QRTbYQub5eIl0w_rkCTma_dbZ7cbz78IykDoHjh8B0iNEY5OA/s320/_1416165890.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
First rule of filmmaking: never kill a dog. In this movie they do, in the first 10 minutes.<br />
<br />
Why should you never kill a dog (as a moviemaker)? Dogs aren't actors playing a character. They're innocent, cute dogs. When they die, it destroys the emotions of humans watching the movie. Daisy the dog is innocent, and dies at the hands of horrible men. Furthermore, the filmmakers rub it in your face doubly so by showing that Daisy's dying move was to crawl over to be near John while he was knocked out. The tragedy depicted is unbelievably harsh.. in less than 10 minutes! How does it recover?<br />
<br />
And yet the movie not only recovers, but excels. The rest of the movie is revenge. For Daisy The Dog (well, and the wife who gave John the dog). So not only do you want John to live and get the bad guys, but you want him to get total revenge.<br />
<br />
One additional note on this. Every character in the movie except for the dog-killer is sympathetic to John and in disbelief that someone would kill John Wick's dog -- even if they themselves are trying to kill him in order to get money. It's pretty twisted, and yet very human, and just makes the movie that much more interesting and entertaining.<br />
<br />
<b>JSS RATING: Good, Bad movie. They were making a B-movie, not Citizen Kane, and it was a good movie.</b>Trimbohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18299227365580334067noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13441003.post-50106836189527343822013-12-10T22:45:00.002-08:002013-12-10T22:56:49.840-08:00Analysis of Teenage Movies from the 80s<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjjHJxbisyu_uvYSyqrMjf2oeuRx-cOi23NUI7Pa5VA8J3Y2vRWR8nPbYdatVFrkwsOmfCfsCGwJveESIN-JM1C0rfJ9vhyphenhyphen96AalonTfLs_g7S1umwQrzKS4oqBr-hQ_UO1df87/s1600/spicoli7.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjjHJxbisyu_uvYSyqrMjf2oeuRx-cOi23NUI7Pa5VA8J3Y2vRWR8nPbYdatVFrkwsOmfCfsCGwJveESIN-JM1C0rfJ9vhyphenhyphen96AalonTfLs_g7S1umwQrzKS4oqBr-hQ_UO1df87/s320/spicoli7.jpg" width="279" /></a>If you ask someone on the street for the best Teen movie of all time is -- especially if they're, say, over 35 -- chances are they're going to pick one of many movies from the 80s that could fit in that category.<br />
<ul>
<li>Say Anything... </li>
<li>Better Off Dead</li>
<li>Footloose</li>
<li>The Outsiders</li>
<li>Fast Times at Ridgemont High</li>
<li>Heathers </li>
</ul>
And of course the John Hughes classics: <br />
<ul>
<li>The Breakfast Club</li>
<li>Pretty in Pink</li>
<li>Sixteen Candles</li>
<li>Ferris Bueller's Day Off</li>
<li>Weird Science</li>
</ul>
Being ancient now, when I rewatch these movies, I see them in a whole new light. For the most part, most of these movies have a common thread: <b>adults are </b><b><b>caricatures of</b> idiots and assholes.</b><br />
<br />
Consider <i><b>Breakfast Club</b></i>. The parents all make a very quick appearance at the beginning. You've got BMW dad, nerd kid mom and Wrestler dad. All do their out-of-touch caricature thing within the span of about 15 seconds. Wrestler dad tells his son not to screw up his scholarship.<br />
<br />
And then it's time for the kids to do their coming-into-adulthood thing, amongst each other, in the face of the jerk principal.<br />
<br />
If you run down the list, most Hughes movies in the list fall into this mold. The parents are out of touch caricatures, and the other adults are jerks and idiots that are getting in the way of the kids' road to maturity. The only major exceptions are Pretty in Pink and, potentially, Weird Science. Though Chet, the grandparents, and the biker gang all sort of negate any good-will that Lisa brings into the picture for the sake of adults.<br />
<br />
This mold is used for other examples as well. Better Off Dead and Heathers, for sure.<br />
<br />
But now I want to bring to your attention the counterpoints: the <b>Cameron Crowe</b> films in the list.<br />
<br />
Say Anything and Fast Times are very unique in that there is one prominent adult in either movie. In Say Anything, it's Mr. Court. In Fast Times, it's Mr. Hand. And they are <i>multi-dimensional.</i> Both of them. They're not caricatures, they change their opinions of people and develop over the course of the movie. There are a few extra adults but they're mostly normal (exception: Mr. Vargas).<br />
<br />
And very importantly... the only <i>parent </i>we see in either movie is Mr. Court. His relationship with Diane is the most important between any two characters in either movie. And the scene where Diane confronts Court with his lying is <a href="http://www.metacafe.com/watch/mv-9jt42/say_anything_liar_and_a_thief/">beautiful, fantastic acting</a> by Mahoney. A dimensional character.<br />
<br />
[BTW, I've racked my brain trying to think of a parent that shows up in Fast Times without rewatching it right now. I am almost positive the only case is Stacy's mom as she says good night.]<br />
<br />
So this is one of the reasons that Say Anything and Fast Times end up being at or near the top of my list among these. They create a microcosm of being a teen, and focus on the important relationships with <b>an </b>adult, and don't make those characters a joke.Trimbohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18299227365580334067noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13441003.post-22813481874411792922013-09-13T12:10:00.003-07:002013-09-13T12:10:35.879-07:00Netflix history quick hitsI watch movies of all kinds -- mostly crappy ones -- but my favorite kind of movie is <b>FREE</b>*. So I watch many of the craptacular movies Netflix and Amazon have to offer streaming. Here's a quick recap.<br />
<br />
* - Free, with subscription.<br />
<br />
<b>Reverb (2008) -</b> "Don't Answer the Phone" meets "White Noise" -- combine those movies, give it to an editor who is addicted to quick cuts and you have a seriously mediocre movie. Also would help to have people who could sing if you're making a movie about music. Anyone ever heard of Autotune? <b>JSS Rating: Bad/Bad.</b><br />
<b><br /></b>
<b>The Bay (2012) - </b>Barry Levinson, you've fallen so far since "<a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0083833/">Diner</a>" (one of my favorites). The Bay is a better done version of most "found footage" movies out there... at least it has a bit more story. Rewatch Cloverfield if you want a found footage movie. <b>JSS Rating: Bad/Bad.</b><br />
<b><br /></b>
<b>The Tall Man (2012) - </b>Kind of interesting. I would say that other than the annoying chase scenes, it has some merit. Jessica Biel is almost seems like a passable actress in this movie. <b>JSS Rating: Good / Bad.</b><br />
<b><br /></b>
<b>Rubberneck (2012) - </b>Bring an iPad or a laptop while you watch this one. Snoozer. I actually think they thought they were making a good movie here. Fail. <b>JSS Rating: Bad / Good.</b><br />
<br />
<b>Saturday Night Fever (1977) - </b>If you haven't seen this already, you really must. I kind of hate the Verrazano Bridge scene though. Most coming of age movies seem to require death. <b>JSS Rating: Good / Good.</b><br />
<br />
<b>Dredd (2012) - </b>Violent and thankfully short. I enjoyed it. <b>JSS Rating: Good / Bad.</b><br />
<b><br /></b>
<b>Erased (2012) - </b>I only watched this three weeks ago and could barely remember it. Bad sign, right? I do remember it being entertaining as something to put on while on the computer. <b>JSS Rating: Good / Bad.</b><br />
<b><br /></b>
<b>Monsters (2010) - </b>Buddy travel movie where they run into several plot devices that keep them together. That said, really not bad given the no-budgetness. <b>JSS Rating: Good / Bad.</b><br />
<b><br /></b>
<b>Branded (2012) - </b>Unwatchable. <b>JSS Rating: Unwatchable.</b><br />
<b><br /></b>
<b>Leviathan (1989) - </b>Ah, one of my old stable movies that I'll pull out when I'm bored and need something in the background. I really enjoy this movie. Horror, but still fun. <b>JSS Rating: Good / Bad.</b><br />
<b><br /></b>
<b>Impostor (2001) - </b>Not bad. I am chase-scened out for this life and this movie has a bit much of it, but the overall idea is solid and interesting. <b>JSS Rating: Good / Bad.</b><br />
<b><br /></b>
<b>Stormhouse (2012) - </b>More like BOREhouse.<b> </b>It's a watchable no-budget scare flick with a couple good moments. <b>JSS Rating: Bad / Bad.</b><br />
<b><br /></b>
<b>Captain America: The First Avenger (2011) - </b>I enjoyed it, but all of these comic book movies are from the exact same script these days. The overall beats of the movie are indistinguishable from any other Marvel movie of late. I'm also totally over Hugo Weaving. Why do people still cast him? <b>JSS Rating: Good / Good.</b><br />
<br />
<b>The Faculty (1998) - </b>I love this movie. Robert Rodriguez FTW. Do they still make "the teachers are all monsters/aliens/killer-robots" movies? If not, rewatch this. <b>JSS Rating: Good / Bad.</b><br />
<b><br /></b>
<b>Superman III (1983) - </b>Gee, now I remember why I haven't rewatched this in about 20 years. Dreadful. <b>JSS Rating: Bad / Bad.</b><br />
<br />
<b>Fire in the Sky (1993) - </b>If alien abductions are real, maybe they can take some filmmakers. <b>JSS Rating: Bad / Bad.</b><br />
<b><br /></b>
<b><br /></b>
<b><br /></b>
<b><br /></b>
For those who don't know, my rating guide: a movie is rated by what it really was, and what the filmmaker intended. A "Good/Bad" movie would be Evil Dead 2. They didn't think they were making Citizen Kane, but it was still great. Forrest Gump is an example of the opposite (a "Bad/Good"): they thought they were making a good movie, but it was actually dreadful.<br />
<br />Trimbohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18299227365580334067noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13441003.post-83965196150077844022013-09-13T11:00:00.001-07:002013-09-13T11:02:44.953-07:00Guess Who's Coming to Dinner? (1967)In my <a href="http://joelschumachersucks.blogspot.com/2013/09/the-outsiders-1983.html">review of The Outsiders</a>, I complained about the lack of character development in the movie. If you'd like to see <i>the exact opposite</i>, go watch this movie.<br />
<br />
<i>Guess Who's Coming to Dinner</i> is heralded as a lot of things. It's a Tracy-Hepburn movie. It's Spencer Tracy's last movie. He was posthumously nominated for an Oscar, since he died only a couple weeks after the film wrapped. It's a movie that concerns interracial marriage in the midst of the civil rights movement. It's also a great comedy, with some great laughs along the way.<br />
<br />
My favorite thing about the the movie, and really the whole point, is the character development over the course of only a day. Like another Stanley Kramer-William Rose collaboration that I love--<i>It's a Mad Mad Mad Mad World</i>--the movie is actually forced into a timeline by a plot device. In this case, Dr. Prentice (Sidney Poitier) is going to Switzerland for his job with the WHO, that night, and wants the approval of Joey's parents (aka Spencer Tracy and Katherine Hepburn) to marry Joey.<br />
<br />
Tracy's "son of a bitch" realization and subsequent monologue to the whole group are great, but the lasting memory for me will be Dr. Prentice's conversation with his dad. Poitier delivers it beautifully. Most of the interesting parts of this movie take place through one-on-one conversations, and this one is the most important of the bunch. This is the actual climax of the movie. Prentice's requirement of having Joey's father's approval, but denying his own father the chance and earlier saying he would "write to him" come to a head here. It's brilliant.<br />
<br />
There are some downsides to the movie. It is far from being a timeless film. It needs the historical context, for sure. One of the more distracting things in the movie is Katherine Hepburn's sadness throughout the film. In Tracy's monologue, he says that Christina Drayton has been the "romantic" one of the pair regarding Joey's pending marriage to Prentice. I thought "she's been crying the whole time, I didn't really get the idea she was being the hopeless romantic between the two." The real-life illness of Tracy might have a had just too much impact on Hepburn for the film, and makes it sad where it might not have been otherwise.<br />
<br />
<b>JSS Rating - Good/Good.</b><br />
<b><br /></b>
Trimbohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18299227365580334067noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13441003.post-64598078849570205972013-09-11T14:23:00.000-07:002013-09-11T14:26:23.346-07:00The Outsiders (1983)I last saw this movie when I was about 10 or 11. All I remember is not liking as much as some of my friends, who worshiped this movie. Anyway, for all intents and purposes, this is a completely fresh review.<br />
<br />
Guess what? I don't like it now. It's completely empty and ridiculous. The story is really thin and there is almost <i>zero</i> character development. The good guys are always good, the bad guys are always bad. There's no progression. Everything we see in the movie proves what we were told in the first 10 minutes. Cherry likes Pony Boy after about 20 seconds on-screen. This isn't development, it's just a plot device. Pony Boy is always a good guy, as is Johnny.<br />
<br />
Ralph Macchio provides the only bright spot of acting in the movie. His story is the only character development in the movie. Besides that, Matt Dillon must be the most clean-cut, least-menacing bad egg in the history of movies. It's kind of laughable to watch him in this movie playing the "bad boy".<br />
<br />
Watching this movie, one wonders what the hell happened to Francis Coppola after Apocalypse Now. Did he shut it all down since the 70s were over? Said "well, I guess I just ruled an <b>entire decade of film</b>. I better shut it down and give someone else a chance"? Because this movie is executed so poorly it's kind of sad. Really strange edits, and the final rumble has about the same level of drama as a boxer and a punching bag. Then the cheesy overlays of Johnny while Pony Boy reads his letter? Had the production value of a Lifetime movie.<br />
<br />
<b>JSS - Bad, Good movie. Supposed to be good, but sucked. At least I like to hope FFC was trying to make a good movie here.</b><br />
<b><br /></b>
If you want to see a much, much better movie about the division between the "haves" and the "have nots" also starring Ralph Macchio, re-watch Karate Kid. He's from Reseda, she's from The Hills. They swept his leg and he still won. A great movie. Reminds me that you're gold when you're a kid.Trimbohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18299227365580334067noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13441003.post-91844434330874643282013-09-09T16:57:00.002-07:002013-09-09T16:57:25.259-07:00The Last Picture Show (1971)Generally, when I go back and watch some of the "classics" for the first time, I'm fairly disappointed. Take, for example, "The Searchers". I found the movie to be <a href="http://joelschumachersucks.blogspot.com/2009/09/searchers-1956.html">terribly executed</a>.<br />
<br />
The thing is, we live in an age where no-budget movies can be executed extremely well. With a fairly low cost camera and a computer, you can make a feature film. The techniques of filmmaking are well known, and <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/search?index=books&linkCode=qs&keywords=0060391685">many</a> <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Save-Last-Book-Screenwriting-Youll/dp/1932907009/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1378768580&sr=1-1&keywords=save+the+cat">books</a> are available on how to structure your story. There are tons of well-done, no-budget movies on Netflix.<br />
<br />
So it's hard to compare old movies -- especially shot on location with no instant feedback -- to the capabilities of a modern filmmaker armed with a digital camera, instantaneous feedback and editing (maybe even basic VFX) <i>while the shot is still set up in front of them. Y</i>ou have to forgive older films a little bit in terms of execution.<br />
<br />
The Last Picture Show needs no excuses. It is <i>awesome.</i> A fantastic character piece with a lot of big name actors. I count 4 Oscar winners among them... two winning for this movie, Cloris Leachman and Ben Johnson. Shot entirely on location <a href="https://www.google.com/maps?q=acher+city,+texas&hl=en&ll=33.591743,-98.620491&spn=0.043756,0.098619&sll=37.7577,-122.4376&sspn=0.166117,0.394478&t=h&hnear=Archer+City,+Archer,+Texas&z=14&layer=c&cbll=33.595635,-98.625679&panoid=zv95_9Hz4nDI1EFni39z_Q&cbp=12,47.38,,0,0.55">here</a>.<br />
<br />
This is a coming-of-age movie that's 40 years old. You'd think I would be so burnt on coming-of-age at this point that I'd never enjoy this movie. The decisions to leave town, the people left behind, going to war, hooking up with older women and men. These themes have occurred so many, many times in film -- Dead Poets Society, Say Anything, Breakfast Club, Dazed & Confused, even American Pie (Stiffler's Mom) -- they're ridiculously tired now.<br />
<br />
And yet, the movie pulls them all together with a great story, great acting and execution in a way that stands the test of time. Bogdonovich plays to the audience a bit by putting a lot of scenes in POV. I think he's saying "This is you. You KNOW this stuff. These themes are universal."<br />
<br />
As far as the acting goes, Ben Johnson's monologue at the lake is remarkable -- really the shining moment of the film that leaves you going, "crap, have I become that decrepit old bag of bones?"<br />
<br />
<b>JSS Rating: Good/Good.</b>Trimbohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18299227365580334067noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13441003.post-43081195127055493262012-12-05T23:51:00.005-08:002012-12-06T09:59:30.090-08:00End of Days (1999)Last week was Arnie week. I kicked it off with The Sixth Day, Running Man, then moved onto Total Recall. All are enjoyable Arnold movies. I was starting to embark on Swayze week, but I turned my attention to End of Days, which was on my Cinemax.<br />
<br />
I actually love those Religious Horror movies. Exorcist, Prince of Darkness, stuff like that. This movie got me wondering though... what's up with Satanists? They make no sense. I mean, in movie after movie these guys are trying to bring about Satan. For what?<br />
<br />
In this movie, every thousand years, Satan gets his chance by finding a chosen woman and impregnating her the hour before the millenium begins. To what end? So he can rule the earth in a shroud of darkness and evil! Duh.<br />
<br />
Okay... let's assume for a minute that this outcome is <b>highly desirable</b> to Satanists. I mean, God always seems to let us down and never listen to our prayers, so who wouldn't want to live on Evil-Earth? All of our pets would be replaced by Cerberusian canines that would eat our faces off when we didn't bring out the laser pointer to entertain them. Murder would not only be no longer banned, but would be a requirement. Everyone would have a monthly murder quota. Facebook would be replaced by Gorebook. I get it, these things should be desirable to almost any true Satanist... I think! I haven't been in the company of Satanists, well, like, ever, but at least Hollywood scriptwriters see it this way time and time again. Satanists want Satan because evil is just that much more awesome than good.<br />
<br />
Assuming all of that sounds like a trip to Disneyland, there's a lot of WTF in terms of getting there. Twenty years before Satan inhabits the body of Gabriel Byrne, Satanic-follower-dude somehow knows that the prophesied child to get it on with Satan 20 years later will be born in a particular hospital. Not only does he know which child, when and where, but he brings a snake with him to sanctify...<br />
<br />
<i>Wait a second, I guess it can't be santification when we're talking about Satan</i><br />
<br />
...<b>evilify the child</b> by putting blood of the snake in the child's mouth. Bringing a giant snake in a jar to the hospital -- <i>nothing out of the ordinary about that.</i><br />
<i><br /></i>
Ok fine, so let's suspend disbelief on all of this and just accept the story for what it is. With that, it really isn't a bad movie. It's at least half an hour too long, but other than that it is pretty entertaining. Peter Hyams is a director who can make an entertaining movie.<br />
<br />
The glaring problem -- and there aren't a lot of his movies I would say this about -- is <b>Arnold</b>. He is <i>way way way way </i>miscast for this movie. This movie needed a thoughtful younger actor with biceps that aren't as large as my thighs. This is one of the parts that Arnold can't pull off with of any kind of endearing or comedic factor -- Kindergarden Cop comes to mind. According to IMDB, Arnold's role in this movie was originally written for Tom Cruise. That makes a <i>lot </i>more sense. Mark Ruffalo was pretty young and barely established in 1999[*], but even he would have been better in this.<br />
<br />
[*] - Go see "You Can Count on Me" with Laura Linney and Mark Ruffalo <b>right now</b>. It's one of the best movies you haven't seen and haven't heard of.<br />
<br />
<b>JSS Rating</b> - <b>Good / Bad.</b> The producers and director didn't think they were making an A-list movie, but it's still entertaining. Really, only barely though. I think Gabriel Byrne makes this watchable along the way, and it's okay for what it is. This was a movie that could have been a lot. It's apparent throughout that it was one of those movies where the people involved resigned themselves to making this film no matter how many things fell through (like casting Tom Cruise).Trimbohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18299227365580334067noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13441003.post-82209447019605321312012-11-13T22:53:00.003-08:002012-11-13T23:00:58.590-08:00Skyfall (2012)Bond, in some ways, has become a never-ending cycle of disappointment. Can Bond ever achieve the level of greatness from whatever Bond movie you happened to see first when you were ten or so? With the exceptions of the classics--assuming you have not seen them before--every new Bond movie has some tinge of "this can never live up to the greatness of my mind."<br />
<br />
So MGM, a company that actually <i>would not exist without Bond, </i>really does have to keep the dream alive as best they can. Bond has to be just good enough to get people to come back. That formula worked for a long time, but when they rebooted the series with Daniel Craig, they seemed to finally take the moviemaking aspect seriously again.<br />
<br />
Skyfall triply pulls out the stops on the "serious moviemaking" idea. They got Sam Mendes to direct. Mendes is the first Oscar winner to ever direct a Bond movie. They got Roger Deakins to shoot the movie -- he has a scant 9 nominations for best cinematography, including highway robbery where he did not win for Fargo (screw "The English Patient" in so many ways!). Oh and they got John Logan to help write. Yeah he was nominated for Oscars too. The two hacks who had been writing the last several movies got writing credits as well but one has to wonder how much they wrote the <i>good </i>parts of the movie.<br />
<br />
And do they deliver? Yes, they deliver, this is the most incredibly crafted Bond movie ever put on a screen.<br />
<br />
Yet, lately, when watching movies, I think "My god, the technicals are so amazing in this movie. The composition, the lighting, the effects, the sound. Everything is so perfectly executed. It's amazing. And yet so hollow. And this story is ludicrous."<br />
<br />
Skyfall is a bit like that. Sometimes the technical achievement of this film is so glorious and enjoyable. Other times, it feels like a veneer over ludicrousness.<br />
<br />
Skyfall has some of the best action ever put into a Bond movie. And while it lacks the epic scope of action scenes like the <i>For Your Eyes Only </i>ski chase, it delivers on (somewhat) more realistic but exciting action than recent films. The opener is just awesome. I will admit that the effects took me out of it at times. The compositing and head replacements seemed obvious to me. Granted, I was sitting 10 feet away from an IMAX screen. More on that later.<br />
<br />
I think one of the best qualities of the movie is that the important parts take place in the UK. How novel for a Bond movie! Finally, they're not in Russia or Greece or Spain or on top of the Eiffel Tower. I would guess 50% of the movie takes place in the UK, and the end is in the moors of Scotland. That's genius. Skyfall is about Bond's humanity, and the moors, with no gadgets, are the best place to wrap this up. So much in these movies, he seems like an inhuman, invincible character. The conclusion of Skyfall is all about representing that humanity in locale. The finale is beautiful.<br />
<br />
In a lot of ways, Skyfall represents the same kind of reboot that For Your Eyes Only tried to do before. The movie before FYEO was Moonraker, which was so over the top that the producers thought they needed to get Bond back to basics. Skyfall takes a similar tack and it's great.<br />
<br />
And yet, the most significant flaw with this movie is the plot and character that gets us there. Javier Bardem has been called the best Bond villain from his character in this film.<br />
<br />
Not only is Bardem not the best Bond villain ever, he's one of the most overrated villains from multiple films. As you may recall, I hated "No Country For Old Men" (I refused to review that movie, so I referenced that fact in my <a href="http://joelschumachersucks.blogspot.com/2008_06_01_archive.html">Cloverfield review</a>). I thought Chigurh was silly and ridiculous. Same thing here. Bardem's villain is such a mastermind that he seems to be omniscient, able to plan every move that everyone will ever make far in advance. It's ludicrous.<br />
<br />
I also think they did lower themselves to Bond campiness just a little bit too much in this film. It could have been a much more serious film than it was. I'm not sure it would have been the megahit it is without these elements, of course.<br />
<br />
Yet, if you can put that all aside, Skyfall is an enjoyable movie. I personally think that Daniel Craig is the best Bond. He has the perfect blend of rough-and-tumble and cleans-up-well that Bond should be for a real tough spy guy. In retrospect, the Bond persona from the past is kind of laughable compared to the one that Craig puts out there. And because of this, and since Skyfall is <i>about </i>Bond's humanity, it is a really good movie with the perfect casting of Bond to do it.<br />
<br />
<b>JSS Rating: Good/Good. </b>MGM aimed to make a Good movie, and they achieved a Good movie. The plot is insanely unbelievable at times and Javier Bardem is ridiculous as a villain. That said, it is one of the top Bond films they've ever made. The execution is fantastic. Kudos to Sam Mendes.<br />
<br />
Now, onto my main gripe: IMAX! I'm never seeing a movie this way again. First of all, I always somehow end up in a terrible seat where the screen looks distorted. Maybe all seats in IMAX are this way? I was dying to see Deakins' composition and lighting but felt i could never get a good view. Much of the time, Daniel Craig looked like he had an anvil for a head because of the screen distortion. I can't wait to see this on my perfectly calibrated "small" screen at home.Trimbohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18299227365580334067noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13441003.post-90581310274526313162012-07-24T11:08:00.000-07:002012-07-24T11:19:46.954-07:00The Dark Knight Rises (2012)This is a movie of epic proportions. Epic, disastrous, proportions.<br />
<br />
Chris Nolan is the genius who brought us Inception, The Prestige, Memento and Insomnia. Oh, and not to mention The Dark Knight, which is arguably one of the better superhero movies of all time (I personally would say the best is the first Superman). <span style="background-color: white;">Nolan recently took a bunch of directors to view portions of this film on film, to convince them to keep shooting film over digital. He also does not do 3D, which I commend. He's championed as a</span><span style="background-color: white;"> </span><a href="http://www.dga.org/Craft/DGAQ/All-Articles/1202-Spring-2012/DGA-Interview-Christopher-Nolan.aspx/">traditionalist</a><span style="background-color: white;">. </span><span style="background-color: white;">And today, he has brought us one of the messiest films I have ever seen. </span><br />
<br />
<i>The Dark Knight Rises</i> is a 2 hour, 45 minute trailer. There's no actual movie. Just past the Bond-like action vignette that introduces you to the film, the film moves onto a mess of short clips with little to no natural transition, pause or tension. The entire story is told this way. Only the fight sequences are allowed to hold a shot. Everything else can't hold a shot, much less a scene. Too much is going on. Lines are being stepped on by edits.<br />
<br />
To give Nolan credit, I contemplated this while watching the movie. Was he trying to cut the movie like that of comic book panels? Was he trying to give us the rapid-fire dialogue of older films, which the Coens emulated so well in <i>The Hudsucker Proxy</i>? Here's an example of that kind of dialogue from <i>Rebecca</i>. Probably not the best example since Joan Fontaine can't act worth a damn.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.youtube.com/embed/Y8nrkMFNvQ4?feature=player_embedded' frameborder='0'></iframe></div>
<br />
But no. Nolan is not trying to do this with the dialogue. I have to assume he was not because, if he was, he failed. In fact, I could never figure out what he was trying to achieve with the editing in this film. It was so sloppy, so overdone, that it was intolerable to watch. <br />
<br />
The basis of good filmmaking not a scene, it's a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sequence_(filmmaking)">sequence</a>. When you see amateurs try to make a film, that's what is inherently wrong with their work and what throws you off when you watch it. They are not contemplating the <i><b>sequence</b></i>, only the scenes right in front of them one by one. This is why storyboarding is so important, so you can get an idea of what it is you're putting together at a larger scale. Here's one you might recall, from a movie that was storyboarded like mad in order to make some of the best action sequences ever recorded on film.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjYp8z7VgtDyS1TdxSVA-ka51GvI-TxxkbPn-ArPPiwXjeKUhcVAq2LnGA9Hgmg64Pkq45dC_S0FT0mjrZ7DpY-X1YEoHCUdE_gyHSeMlbt-LOIpB8Z7Lw_kv3sU_WcBtQPRM4K/s1600/m2-sb4.jpeg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjYp8z7VgtDyS1TdxSVA-ka51GvI-TxxkbPn-ArPPiwXjeKUhcVAq2LnGA9Hgmg64Pkq45dC_S0FT0mjrZ7DpY-X1YEoHCUdE_gyHSeMlbt-LOIpB8Z7Lw_kv3sU_WcBtQPRM4K/s1600/m2-sb4.jpeg" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
Spielberg is famous for having his storyboard artist with him, working out everything ahead of time. He figures it all out, then throws the storyboards away and shoots the film -- he can probably do this because he's a prodigy genius, but most mortals are likely to need to refer to the boards again to pull it together.<br />
<br />
The Dark Knight Rises fails to pull together nearly any sequence, <i>ever, over the entire nearly three hours of the film. </i>It is a jumbled mess of scenes, cut together with non-stop score. We see Commissioner Gordon, lamenting something or another, interspersed with a heist by Catwoman, with a trip to an orphanage by Gordon-Levitt-kid. Nothing conclusive, nothing transitive. It, my friends, is a trailer. Not a film. Maybe a half dozen times in the movie does enough coherency pull together to really sit back and savor something happening on the screen. Mostly fight sequences. No character is actually allowed to develop. They are a technicality. They are Deus Ex Machina.<br />
<br />
Anne Hathaway is the only reasonable bright spot in the film. She plays Catwoman brilliantly. I think the only reason that Nolan allowed her to develop a strong character is because he must love her. She is fortuitous to get enough of a lingering camera on her to show some emotion, or thought, or anything, without a cutaway to Gordon-Levitt-kid or Comm. Gordon or Bale doing non-Batman things.<br />
<br />
I can't take credit for this observation... one of my friends with me ("LM") noted this. But how contrived is it that a plot that takes <i>months </i>evolve comes down to the last few seconds before disaster? That alone should illustrate what a disaster this film is.<br />
<br />
A twist comes in the last half hour, but it's too late by that point. The 2 minutes of the twist is entertaining, but there was no build-up to the twist. It's no <i>Usual Suspects. </i>It's the kind of twist where you go "Oh, OK. Well, that's interesting. Moving on."<br />
<br />
Lastly, I want to say Batman is barely in this film. He is on screen at most 30 minutes of the 165 minutes of this film. Even Joel Schumacher understood his audience better than Chris Nolan. Batman Forever had a lot of Batman. How this movie is #10 on IMDB at the moment boggles the mind. Hopefully the internet will correct this egregious oversight. If I could take my face out of my hands, I might actually try to vote it properly.<br />
<br />
<b>JSS Rating: A Bad, Good Movie. It was supposed to be good, but it was actually bad. This is Chris Nolan's first entry into the category that I can recall.</b>Trimbohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18299227365580334067noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13441003.post-26729759683392644352012-06-25T23:10:00.003-07:002012-06-25T23:14:17.341-07:00In Time (2011)Andrew Niccol, you disappoint me.<br />
<br />
In Time is a great concept: we have the power to be immortal, so because of resource concerns, money becomes an allotment of time to live. Next comes Robin Hood story, yada yada yada, the poor are saved from the rich, everyone happy ever after. The end. Simple, right? Gonna be FABULOUS. S<span style="background-color: white;">o let's make this movie. </span><br />
<span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span><br />
<span style="background-color: white;">Nooooope! The execution is just horrible. This movie has some of the problems that I thought Gattaca had -- which I </span><i style="background-color: white;">loved -- </i><span style="background-color: white;">but taken to the Nth degree</span><i style="background-color: white;">.</i><span style="background-color: white;"> For one thing, there are too many chase scenes and the story is vastly oversimplified given the other technology made available to characters in the story.</span><br />
<br />
Let's focus on the behavior of time trading for a second. People can give time to each other with a handshake, and depending on whose hand is on top, the time is taken from one person and given to another. A number of random issues arise here. Like, for example, why is someone able to take my time down to zero at some crazy-ass rate of depletion? Would anyone <i>ever </i>give anyone else so much time that they want just 10 seconds left to live? It makes no sense. You would think the minimum you could give to someone would be everything you have, but leaving an hour or two.<br />
<br />
Ohhhh, but it's a plot device... I get it. I just came up with a new rule. Anytime moviemakers put in a ridiculous plot device like this, it should be made into a drinking game. In the case of "In Time": <b>How many freakin times in this movie do characters get down to seconds left on their clock before they die.</b> Drink a shot every time you see it.<br />
<br />
Then you have other technological issues. They can all live forever with these time devices, but can be shot dead by bullets? We're running out of resources so they have to ration time? Why couldn't they just, stop eating? If we have the technology to live forever, why aren't we on spaceships travelling for eons? I don't expect all of these to be answered, of course. Futuristic movies always have holes like this. But I just don't think Niccol gives enough thought to all of these ancillary things when he devises these otherwise brilliant concepts.<br />
<br />
The casting is also laughable. Not one person could act in this film. I actually like Justin Timberlake. I thought he was great in The Social Network and think he's hilarious whenever he's on SNL. One thing he is not, however, is an action star or a dramatic actor. There's a scene in this movie where he's supposed to be mourning someone. It's... pretty bad acting. One would hope that someone would be paying attention when shooting it, in the editing room or dailies and maybe, you know, help the bad acting. Not this time. It makes me wonder if Niccol did not want Timberlake as the lead.<br />
<br />
This movie is at least an hour too long, which is frightening because it's only 109 minutes -- meaning it really only has about 49 minutes of good material. That <i>might </i>fill up an episode of CSI: Miami if you're lucky. Niccol, do you ever go back to watch your own movies? The concepts are great but they get pretty boring at times. Let me just set a scene for you that illustrates this:<br />
<br />
<ul>
<li>Timberlake and what's-her-face are on the run, shot a cop, etc.</li>
<li>They hole up in a hotel room</li>
<li>Later, they proceed to be all lovey-dovey and... wait for it... play STRIP POKER.</li>
</ul>
<div>
Now, I don't really care if characters in movies play strip poker when I'm not trying to watch a movie and they aren't running from the police. But if this is your idea of character development it's ridiculous. Yes, they fall in love. We get it... we got it 35 minutes before this scene. And who the hell is on the run from the police and takes time to mess around playing strip poker?</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
I ended up watching the final third of this movie with subtitles on and at 4x speed.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b>JSS RATING: Bad/Bad movie. I have no idea if Andrew Niccol intended this to be one of his good movies. I suspect it originally was, but then they bundled JT into the picture and it became kind of a mindless action flick (i.e. "bad"). Such a great concept, and it never paid off.</b></div>Trimbohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18299227365580334067noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13441003.post-73543377449537232332012-06-10T21:54:00.001-07:002012-06-10T22:08:36.996-07:00Prometheus (2012)I went in expecting to be let down. I was let down. I had lowered my expectations to being so low that I thought if this movie was anything better than 2 hours of black screen, I'd be happily surprised. I was still let down.<br />
<br />
First, let's talk about money. Supposedly this movie cost $130 million to make. Add on the immense marketing budget and it probably was $200 million out the door. Congratulations, it will make that money back. But you know what else $130 million gets you? A full year's worth of HIV/AIDS medication for poor people in <a href="http://www.sfaf.org/policy-center/key-issues/budget.html">California</a>.<br />
<br />
I'm not going to claim moral equivalence in those two, or say that money spent on making big budget movies is a waste. No way. I'm just saying that if <i>this </i>is the end result in 15 years of waiting for an Alien Franchise sequel (prequel), then that money would have been better spent somewhere else.<br />
<br />
And what can you cut? Visual effects. Virtually unnecessary for this plot. I'll come back to that in my spoiler section. <br />
<br />
What I really should have started this article with is pointing out the problem with prequels. Prequels require homework. The later story has already been established, so the foundation set up here has to be rock solid. Like another famous disastrous set of prequels, this movie takes major missteps with the basic mythos of the franchise. I'll get to that in the spoiler section, but here are some examples from Episode I, which if I'm spoiling for you at this point, you should be happy for never having suffered through it:<br />
<br />
<ul>
<li>For three excellent films, The Force was unexplained and magical. In Episode I, the Force is caused by midi-chlorians.</li>
<li>Anakin Skywalker--besides being an annoying child actor far younger than Natalie Portman that had no relevance to anything in Episode I except being annoying--aka the man destined to rule the universe as Darth Vader--<i>accidentally </i>saves the day at the end of the movie.</li>
<li>Anakin Skywalker was an <i>immaculate conception.</i></li>
<li><i>I could go on and on about that piece of shit.</i></li>
</ul>
<div>
When I say "prequels require homework", it means exactly what I say. You can't do hand waving. The questions left unanswered must be answered in full and be reasonable to be satisfying for the audience. Prometheus does a tremendous amount of hand-wavery and thus is not satisfying. If it was in no way connected to Alien/s, it might actually be a decent stand alone film. But it is connected, and that's what makes it an abject failure.<br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiul3Gtfv2rstXXVosA_C__KR2iW92hHKAF4MlTwPS3vK16ExPXcpk0jgVFPwcHMkAaJI_hTu550G-pRbF-tfpTAvCX6FGInHCyEs4c8ZXy2LJwsLhtNwS9YuNIhFvhD349bBJw/s1600/alien-gunner.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="240" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiul3Gtfv2rstXXVosA_C__KR2iW92hHKAF4MlTwPS3vK16ExPXcpk0jgVFPwcHMkAaJI_hTu550G-pRbF-tfpTAvCX6FGInHCyEs4c8ZXy2LJwsLhtNwS9YuNIhFvhD349bBJw/s320/alien-gunner.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">This guy makes an awesome prequel, amirite?</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
</div>
<div>
<br />
<br /></div>
<div>
A prequel that does everything right is <i>The Thing (2011)</i>. The director and/or writers were clearly huge fans of the 1982 film. The movie connects together with the original perfectly: even getting the placement of an axe correct. I, too, am a huge John Carpenter fan and have seen that movie dozens of times, so these are the things that made that prequel extremely satisfying for me.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Maybe the worst person you could have make a prequel is the original author/director/writer. They are too close to the original material, so they don't closely study it the way a protege might. In Lucas's case, any one of the dozens of crazed Star Wars fanbois I'm friends with could have called bullshit on those movies had they gotten the chance to review it. Even Shyamalan could have made a better prequel.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Same here. Ridley Scott may have been the perfectly <b>wrong </b>person to make this prequel. Right from the first shots of the movie, he's trying to connect us back to the first film. Fog machines in space ships? Really, Ridley? The film holds together to do what he intended with it. But those intentions were so misguided that instead of getting a strong story about how we got to LV-426, we mostly got a bunch of religious garbage that did not add up. That is, unless they anticipate making a sequel to this prequel, which I pray they do not. Get it... PRAY?</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b>JSS Rating: Bad, Good movie. It was supposed to be good, but was actually bad. Ridley Scott could be the top Bad, Good director if I bothered to review his other movies. But, for now, Robert Zemeckis will have to keep that crown.</b></div>
<div>
<b><br /></b></div>
<div>
<b><br /></b></div>
<div>
<b><br /></b></div>
<div>
<b>----- And now the spoilers -----</b></div>
<div>
<b><br /></b></div>
<div>
<b><br /></b></div>
<div>
People are passing around links breaking down this movie like it was really deep and thoughtful and complex. It was anything but. This is no <i>Inception</i>. Prometheus is extremely straightforward, albeit with symbolism that most people won't see (including myself, since I am no Greek mythology expert).</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Prometheus has a great premise: that the beings who created us were related to that gunner dude we saw in Alien. AWESOME. Work from that. Then they tried to get too smart. They took that and made it allegorical. Christ being the reason the Engineers wanted to kill us (ship was 2000 years ago, multiple crucifix discussions, etc). Oh and wait for it... <i>immmaculaaate conception!!!! </i>Who didn't see that one coming when Shaw was crying about being barren. This movie is proof that when you run out of <i>good</i> ideas, turn to Christ to fill in the rest. Just like the Wachowskis.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
But none of this was definite. It's all allegorical, right? Nothing was answered for us definitively. And that is why we were left severely dissatisfied as an audience going to a prequel. Why wasn't the gunner dude in his place at the end of the film? Why was anyone able to escape? Why wasn't this on LV-426? Why did the alien shot at the end -- which seemed thrown in there to connect this AT ALL to the other movies other than the name Weyland and the shape of the alien craft -- look so different? </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Most important: <b>why did no one in future movies have any knowledge of this mission?</b> They worked for Weyland. This movie took place only about <a href="http://time.absoluteavp.com/time1.html">5 years before the Nostromo was constructed</a> and 25-30 years before the Alien movie. Surely they would have known what this mission was for, right? You would think that this mission would have been an important milestone in the Weyland history and somehow it would have come up. You know... like Luke being Darth's son or something.</div>
<div>
<br />
Everything about this movie takes place in a parallel universe to the Alien franchise. As I said before, it could be an interesting movie in its own right. But there was no way to connect it to the Alien lifecycle (Queen -> Egg -> Face Hugger -> Bad Asses). There was no way to connect it to gunner dude on LV-426 unless you believe that random ships are strewn about the galaxy with aliens as well as Engineers.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
If anything, my take on this movie is that it shouldn't have had humans. It should have been entirely based on the Gunner. Screw the Engineer idea altogether. And just find a cool story that involves humanoid aliens battling badass aliens. I mentioned to someone when I walked out that I enjoyed AVP more than this movie for exactly that reason. Aliens battling aliens, not lame-ass Christ-complex crap and a prequel that doesn't even connect together to the movies we've loved for 25+ (Aliens) and 30+ (Alien) years. AVP, for all of its crappiness, at least existed in the same universe in theory.<br />
<br />
<br />
<div>
And this is why the movie doesn't need expensive visual effects at all. Just like the original, there was no alien! Nothing about this story required an alien, so it could have been done with the same level of effects as the original Alien. There was no need for the snake monsters that killed the guys in the chamber. No need for the elaborate holographic imagery and effects. The dust storm, the deaths, everything could have been done with much less elaborate effects. Compare the effects in this movie to, say, Transformers. You can't do Transformers without the effects. My AVP request above would have needed effects for the story.<br />
<br />
Speaking of holographic imagery, one has to wonder exactly how desperate the filmmakers became to tie this flimsy story together when they introduced these holographic projections of the Engineers doing stuff. Why would this exist? Why would it play back the exact moment that they were running from ... whatever.. or when the Engineers were starting up the ship? Why would the 'Droid know how to turn this stuff on? It makes no sense, and is a really bizarre way to try to pull this thing together with VFX. Yet another way I feel like this movie relied on VFX as a crutch, rather than something driving the story.<br />
<br />
And are all Weyland-built 'droids inherently evil except for Bishop?</div>
<div>
<br class="Apple-interchange-newline" /></div>
<div>
Final thought. At least when they cast Stringer Bell in this movie, they knew he'd end up kicking some ass.</div>
</div>Trimbohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18299227365580334067noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13441003.post-44537238544678929382009-12-26T07:42:00.001-08:002009-12-26T08:14:16.298-08:00Avatar (2009)<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;">I am a sucker for James Cameron. He has made a couple of my all-time favorite movies, and created my favorite franchise of all time (Terminator). </span><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><br /></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;">That said, James Cameron has been making the same movie for 15 years. The spirit of nature overcoming the oppressive technology created by man. That's it. That is his formula, for 15 freakin years. </span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><br /></span></div><div><ul><li><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><b>Terminator</b>. Sarah Connor defeats the oppressive artificially intelligent terminator.</span></li><li><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><b>Aliens. </b> The aliens take over the oppressive technology of the Weyland-Yutani corporation trying to terriform a planet.</span></li><li><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><b>Abyss.</b> Unexplained undersea aliens save humans from their own oppressive undersea mining/nuclear technology.</span></li><li><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><b>T2</b>. Terminator acquires more human traits in order to defeat oppressive T-1000.</span></li><li><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><b>True Lies.</b> Ok, doesn't really fit the mold.</span></li><li><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><b>Titanic. </b>Needs no further explanation. This could be the original "<a href="http://www.theonion.com/content/node/60695">world's largest metaphor</a>" story.</span></li><li><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><b>Avatar. </b>Backwoods natives of planet defeat oppressive technology of men trying to rape their planet.</span></li></ul><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;">Oh, did I give the plotline of <strike>Pocahantas</strike> Avatar away? Let's pretend as if this wasn't the most predictable movie of all time for the rest of this review. </span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><br /></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;">James Cameron is the <i>only </i>person who could have pulled this movie off. Technically, and in terms of production value, it's unbelievable. The digital effects are astonishingly good. This is the first movie I've seen since leaving the VFX industry that I've really wanted to know more about the techniques employed. The virtual acting is, hands down, the best ever. Their facial expressions are so subtle and meaningful. Perfectly acted. Hats off to the stereo done for the movie as well.</span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><br /></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;">And yet it's the most empty, soulless $300 MM picture you'll ever see. </span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><br /></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;">First of all, it makes no sense. The political message of the movie -- IMO, never done before by Cameron and strangely out of place -- is sort of an anti-George-Bush-Save-The-Planet message. And they nicely lay in some talk about how Earth is a brown, ruined planet. The humans have amazing technology for <b>interstellar travel <span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-weight: normal;">and yet</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-weight: normal; ">, the audience is expected to suspend disbelief when it comes to the foundation of how Avatars work. So wait, they're genetically grown but have some kind of wireless control mechanism with no interference problems, etc? </span></b></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-weight: normal; "><br /></span></b></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-weight: normal; ">This falls into the same trap as Wall-E -- suspend disbelief except when it comes to the filmmaker's politics, and poke holes in your plot doing it. They want to make a movie that displays how technology has ruined our planet and we have to move off of it. But if our technology is that advanced, and we have these unlimited power sources for spaceships or Wall-Es, why wouldn't we just save the planet with that same tech? It's just dumb. Entertainment movies are for entertainment. Don't put your politics into them. It's annoying. We don't care. Half the audience groaned when one of the characters was quoting George Bush about "terror"... in San Francisco!</span></b></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><br /></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;">BTW, there's a very 9/11esque scene in the movie that made me think that Cameron might have held off on making it. I had heard of Avatar in the 1990s, after Titanic had wrapped. </span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><br /></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;">That's about all I have to say. The movie has a couple cool ideas, the story is absolutely predictably worthless and the movie looks fantastic. It's waaaayyy too long for what it is. See it once, in the theater in 3D, and never again.</span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><br /></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><b>JSS Rating: A Bad Good movie. It wants to be Gone with the Wind, but it's more like Transformers. A fantastic looking shell of a movie.</b></span></div></div>Trimbohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18299227365580334067noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13441003.post-66799465975669855112009-09-28T22:08:00.000-07:002009-09-28T22:12:23.264-07:00The House Bunny (2008)<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_Qzd9HIsRWeA/SUmzymOoazI/AAAAAAAASAg/Z0I3dM_NDec/s400/Anna+Faris.jpg"><img style="float:right; margin:0 0 10px 10px;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 170px; height: 200px;" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_Qzd9HIsRWeA/SUmzymOoazI/AAAAAAAASAg/Z0I3dM_NDec/s400/Anna+Faris.jpg" border="0" alt="" /></a><br />I'll admit it: I'm a sucker for Anna Faris. She's pretty and will seemingly do anything to get a laugh. So I am predisposed to check out a movie that she's in, just to see what's up there.<div><br /></div><div>That said, I expected to turn this movie off in the first 5 minutes and ended up watching the whole thing. I found it to be a lighthearted, entertaining, traditionally cliche movie of the geeks overcoming the snobs. And it's not too long.</div><div><br /></div><div><b>JSS Rating: Good/Bad movie. We expect to to be bad, but it's enjoyable.</b></div><div><b><br /></b></div>Trimbohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18299227365580334067noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13441003.post-44752534683811667892009-09-28T22:04:00.000-07:002009-09-28T22:06:40.594-07:00The Fog of War (2003)This is a fascinating documentary that is essentially a conversation with Robert McNamara, the man who was Defense Secretary during the Vietnam War. Other than his interview, there is stock footage of war scenes and some recordings of him talking to Kennedy and Johnson.<div><br /></div><div>Given that, it's one of the most fascinating documentaries I've ever seen. It's an 85 year old man reflecting on his life and the lessons he's learned. Truly excellent.</div><div><br /></div><div><b>JSS Rating: Good/Good</b></div>Trimbohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18299227365580334067noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13441003.post-43916576382534061482009-09-28T21:52:00.000-07:002016-08-21T19:31:41.454-07:00The Searchers (1956)<span class="Apple-style-span" style="-webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 2px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 2px; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: "arial";"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">I find it hard to believe this movie gets so many five star reviews in this day and age. I believe many people love this movie because critics and filmmakers have told you to love it, not because of its merits. For what it's worth, I don't even mind the racial depictions in the movie that bother many. I can imagine that's how it was in the old west. Fine, whatever. They can depict that if they want.</span></span></span><br />
<div>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="-webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 2px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 2px; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: "arial";"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></span></span></div>
<div>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="-webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 2px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 2px; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: "arial";"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">The problem is that the story and character development--pretty much the two keys to, oh, I don't know, FILMMAKING--are both extremely thin. The Comanche enemies are one dimensional and so is Ethan (John Wayne's character). Ethan fought in the civil war, now he's got a chip on his shoulder about indians. How boring. I want one dimensional characters in over the top action movies like Die Hard, not a long (LONG!!!!) slow-moving western that's supposed to take place over the course of five years. </span></span></span></div>
<div>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="-webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 2px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 2px; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: "arial";"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></span></span></div>
<div>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="-webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 2px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 2px; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: "arial";"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">Overall the acting is just terrible in the whole movie. There's the whiny bitch Martin that follows Ethan around during the search. Then there are the people they keep flashing back to on the home front during the search, reading Martin's letters. All of these characters were so horrendous I was wishing they'd all die in a fire. John Wayne is the only acceptable actor in the film other than Natalie Wood and Scar (the Comanche leader), who basically have no lines at all.</span></span></span></div>
<div>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="-webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 2px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 2px; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: "arial";"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></span></span></div>
<div>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="-webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 2px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 2px; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: "arial";"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">Furthermore, does anyone laugh at the comic relief in this movie? I was just wishing for it to be over. I have seen funny movies from the 1950s and this is not one of them. </span></span></span></div>
<div>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="-webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 2px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 2px; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: "arial";"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></span></span>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="-webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 2px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 2px; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: "arial";"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">Giving credit where credit is due: it has some impressive landscapes and better than usual (for the era) day for night work. Except... wait for it... most of the movie was supposed to take place in Texas, but they shot it all quite obviously in New Mexico and Arizona at Monument Valley. Next time try to be less obvious when you shoot somewhere else, IMO. </span></span></span></div>
<div>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: "arial";"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="-webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 2px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 2px; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></span></span></div>
<div>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="-webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 2px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 2px; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: "arial";"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">It may be the case that this movie was amazing when it came out, but it certainly does not play as such in the 21st Century. Skip it.</span></span></span></div>
<div>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="-webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 2px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 2px; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: "arial";"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></span></span></div>
<div>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="-webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 2px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 2px; white-space: pre-wrap;"><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: "arial";"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">JSS RATING: This is Bad/Good movie. It might have been good at the time, but it just isn't good now.</span></span></b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: "arial";"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"> </span></span></span><br />
<div>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: monospace; font-size: 100%;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 13px; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span></span></div>
</div>
Trimbohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18299227365580334067noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13441003.post-81235120183189139372009-06-18T10:58:00.001-07:002009-06-18T10:58:45.187-07:00Valkyrie (2008)<p>One sure sign of fantastic filmmaking is the ability to create tension or suspense when the outcome is already known.  This movie achieves this – assuming you’re aware how WWII ended and Hitler’s death really occurred.  The suspense in the movie reaffirms that Bryan Singer is a top-tier filmmaker, no matter what his misgivings in the genre of comic book adaptations.</p> <p>Valkyrie is also the reuniting of Singer with Chris McQuarrie.  They had collaborated before on <em>The Usual Suspects</em>, one of my all time favorite movies.   Singer has been lost in comic book movies for 10 years, McQuarrie… who knows where.  These guys should just keep making movies together.  It’s obviously a stellar paring when they collaborate.</p> <p>Although Valkyrie features great storytelling, a good cast (yes, even Tom Cruise), and a lot of polish,it drags at parts.  The last 30-45 minutes are where the movie shines.  Some of the first half are overlong, and, as usual, the movie could easily have had 30 minutes cut out of it.  If I was in charge of film studios, I’d take every script, rip out 20-30 pages at random and tell the writer to make the plot fit.  Movies should have a major reason to be longer than 100 minutes.  This is one reason I can’t bring myself to watch <em>Benjamin Button.</em>  Seriously, 3 hours? Didn’t they already tell this story of a guy aging backwards with Jonathan Winter on <em>Mork & Mindy?</em></p> <p>Anyway, Valkyrie does have one serious downfall and that’s that it is in the category of the Docu-Drama.  I’ve railed against Docu-Dramas before on this blog.  Fortunately, this one isn’t politically charged like <em>W </em>or <em>The Reagans</em>.  It’s hard to argue against hating Hitler, right? </p> <p>The problem with Docu-Dramas is that the devil is in the details.  It’s mentioned a few times in this movie that the conspirators want to overthrow Hitler because of his evildoings in concentration camps and such.  Frankly, I think this is fiction and their motivations are probably not that noble.  The men involved with this plot were already very established in Hitler’s government.  They put their various plots into motion back in 1938, well before the concentration camps had been created (in fact, Poland, site of Auschwitz, had not even been invaded).  No, the best guess should be that they were power hungry themselves.  When the Allies successfully defeated Nazi Germany, would top men in Hitler’s government be installed into the new regime?  Hell no.  But if they had gotten their coup and declared a truce with the Allies, they would have been able to hold onto that power.   </p> <p>This is a far more likely explanation of motivation.  But, for the purposes of the Docu-Drama, it’s better to have them want to kill Hitler because of concentration camps.  It helps us root for the protagonist, whereas I’m not so sure we’d root for a power-hungry Nazi underling who just wants to take over and doesn’t give a damn about death camps.</p> <p><strong>JSS Rating:  Good/Good.  </strong>It was supposed to be a good movie, and it was a good movie.</p> Trimbohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18299227365580334067noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13441003.post-7691024220193318122009-05-24T21:47:00.001-07:002009-05-24T21:47:59.238-07:00Terminator: Salvation (2009)<p>Obviously, the draw of this movie is to see whether Christian Bale will lose it.  He does, in fact, seem on the verge of losing it the entire time.  Sadly, I have to report that this <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g4NP7-0LHws&fmt=18">Family Guy clip</a> that uses Bale’s freakout as source material is better than the movie.</p> <p>In fact, the trailers might have been the highlight of this movie.</p> <p>I was drawn to see Terminator: Salvation – the first movie I’ve seen in a theater since Dark Knight – because it’s my favorite science fiction series of all time.  The original blew my mind, the second one was just awesome and blew my mind with visual effects, and the third one had a significantly redeeming ending that I won’t give away here.  I prefer it to the Aliens franchise because I only really like Aliens of that franchise, and I prefer it to Star Wars because George Lucas ruined that franchise.</p> <p>Before seeing the movie, my fear was that <a href="http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0629334/">McG</a> was going to ruin this Terminator franchise forever.  You would think, for sure, that he’s the weakest link in making this picutre, right?</p> <p>Not so.  In fact, given the script he had to work with, McG did a <em>fantastic </em>job of making a mindless, vfx-laden summer blockbuster.  The script is so disjointed that it’s painful to watch.  You wonder if the editor lingered on a scene in an awkwardly long way because it would have been <strong>more </strong>awkward to cut at the point the material would have normally called for.  </p> <p>And you might as well call the Terminator storyline completely trashed now.  They’ve tried to save it in Terminator 3 and The Sarah Connor Chronicles by saying that the time travel paradox isn’t true (that timelines are separate, and that destinies are inevitable).  But this movie makes no sense if that’s the case!   Why would John Connor care so much about the main plot in this movie if <em>any of that was true.</em>  Consistency is long gone in this franchise and so is the magic.</p> <p>This script is so bad and so franchise-ruining it should have been on the same funeral pyre as Darth Vader when they comped stupid young Anakin into Return of the Jedi (another franchise-ruining act by G. Lucas).</p> <p>All I have to say about the acting is that when Bryce Dallas Howard seems Oscar-worthy in a movie, the other actors must <em>reeeealy suck. </em></p> <p>The VFX and action scenes are the real stars of this movie, although I have to ask “Transformers much?” about some of the content.</p> <p>Regarding the VFX, some shots are off the charts good and some are just, plain, embarrassingly bad.   I was surprised to see that ILM did the effects, though I’m sure it was offloaded to a host of shops along the way. Can no one pull a decent matte anymore or does no one take the time to shoot a good bluescreen?  Either way, you would think that McG would have been very accommodating to the VFX crew since there was no other reason to make the film.  Period.   It just puts another nail in the coffin of film’s greatest science fiction franchise.</p> <p>And finally, I’d like to say that I saw this movie on DLP and I’m never seeing another movie on film again.  I’ll detail that on my main blog later.</p> Trimbohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18299227365580334067noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13441003.post-32302653079676758062008-06-07T11:24:00.000-07:002008-06-07T11:57:20.486-07:00Cloverfield (2008)I <span style="font-weight: bold;">loved</span> this movie. <span style="font-style: italic;"><a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1060277/">Cloverfield</a> </span>has more character development in the first 10 minutes than <span style="font-style: italic;"><a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0477348/">No Country for Old Men</a> (2007)</span> did throughout the entire movie. <br /><br />Yes, I just compared a silly monster movie to last year's "best" picture and said it was better (at least one aspect).<br /><br />The motivations of the characters throughout the film are easily traced back to the initial development and make a lot of sense given what happened. Furthermore, since the entire movie is supposed to be shot on a home movie camera by the characters (like <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0185937/">Blair Witch Project</a>), they very cleverly cut in scenes from the tape that appear to be something taped over. These scenes even further enhance the moviegoers' bond with the characters and really help to conclude the movie, which seems like it could be otherwise not easily concluded.<br /><br />I never read any reviews of Cloverfield before watching it, other to hear from people at work that the amount of camera movement makes this film hard to watch in a theater. That's why I decided to wait until it was on Xbox Live in HD. I mentioned Blair Witch, and I'm sure there are lot of comparisons of Cloverfield to that movie out there which I'll read after I'm done with my own review. The difference is, Cloverfield had a $25m budget, most of which went towards effects I'm sure (none of the actors are notable). The effects are <span style="font-weight: bold;">awesome</span> in this movie.<br /><br />Since the camera is in constant motion, every effects shot needed considerable match moving. Match moving is matching a 3D camera in the computer to the movement of a real camera in real life. So when the T-Rex is running at the car in Jurassic Park, someone had to sit down and match the exact camera movement of the real shot so the T-Rex looks like he's in there. One nice thing about extreme match moves like this movie is that sometimes, the more the camera moves, the easier it can be to make that shot work as an effects shot. When the camera's moving a lot, it's harder to notice little details like a sliding effect (a 3D camera that doesn't perfectly match the camera of the shot). However when the camera is moving more slowly, it gives the viewer time to evaluate whether something is off in the shot. In Cloverfield, every shot is moving so much that it really seals the deal on the effects. You don't get time to critique it as much, and the match movers, TDs and compositors did a really nice job of getting the cameras, motion blur, lighting and levels correct for the shots. I think if this was a more traditionally shot movie, with locked off cameras I wouldn't have been as impressed.<br /><br />Oh, and the pyro, smoke and destruction effects were killer. Hats off to the FX TDs on the movie. I love the debris effects off of the 9 West 57th street building, for those who were paying attention to that shot.<br /><br />The other refreshing difference with the effects is that they feel much more natural because of the home movie nature of the film. Effects have been ruined in recent years by over-art- direction. Every shot in Transformers, every shot in Indiana Jones 4, name any huge effects movie here, is perfectly storyboarded and art directed ahead of time. Someone pastes up a bunch of reference from other stuff, like Dinotopia, that should be referenced for the look of this shot. The shot is then given a painterly amount of lighting. It's so unnatural. A turning point for effects, in my opinion, was Star Wars Episode I. Every shot in that movie was so over-art-directed it was sickening. Since then, I feel like every summer effects blockbuster is headed along those lines. <br /><br />My general complaint about movies is that they're always too long. This movie isn't at all -- it's arguably too short and doesn't explain enough. I found the length to be just perfect, and I like the mystery that's left when it ends. Since the hand-held presentation can grow pretty old, keeping the movie to around 80 minutes w/o the credits was a good plan. <br /><br />Some of the acting is sub-par, but given the low budget nature and unknown actors I don't think that should be any surprise here.<br /><br />In any case, this is the most entertaining movie I've seen in a while. JJ Abrams finally made something I liked a lot (and I haven't been shy about <a href="http://trimbo.blogspot.com/2007/03/lost-is-crap.html">critiquing his work</a>). I went back to watch Cloverfield from the beginning after I finished it the first time. Surprisingly, there are small details to be noticed when watching it a second time through that make it even more interesting and mysterious when it ends. I didn't expect that.Trimbohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18299227365580334067noreply@blogger.com1