As we've previously established, I like old movies, and old action movies are probably my favorite. Yesterday, I watched Breakheart Pass, which is from 1975, but set out west sometime in the late 1800s. The basic plot is that Charles Bronson is a wanted man who gets picked up by a US Marshal in a small western town. The marshal decides to take him by train to the nearest fort to face justice. The two of them board a train headed to the fort, along with a bunch of other passengers and a group of soldiers.
Then, of course, havoc ensues.
1. Charles Bronson was kind of weird looking. I don't know if it's the haircut or the mustache or what, and it's not helped by the giant, weird fur coat he's rocking here. I mean, the man's a decent actor and a good action star, but man...not attractive.
2. This has some strong Murder on the Orient Express vibes, as well as a little bit of Agatha Christie's Ten Little Indians, in that you've got a group of people trapped on a moving train, almost none of whom are who they claim to be, and they're dropping dead at an alarming rate.
3. It took me quite a while to figure out what was going on, and who was responsible. I was frankly sort of impressed since I'm usually pretty good at ferreting out plot twists.
4. I was glad the romantic subplot remained very very sub. I kind of thought it was downright yikes due to the age difference, but the main actress (aka one of only two women in the entire movie) turned out to be 39 and not 22 so it wouldn't have been SO off. (Bronson was 54 at the time.) Um, further research tells me that she and Bronson were married when this was made. FURTHER sidenote--she was also married to Ducky from NCIS, and he introduced her to Bronson while they were making The Great Escape. Oops. She once famously said that the reason she was in so many Charles Bronson movies is because no other actress would work with him. I hope she was joking.
5. There's a pretty good fight on top of a moving train car. There's also some decent explosions.
6. Because this is a western, there are some Indigenous people. They are on the side of the villains, but they're not particularly terrible. Also, the actor playing the chief was actually Lakota, and not some Greek guy they painted brown, so kudos there, casting department.
7. On the whole, I liked this one. Not enough to watch it again, but enough to say if you enjoy 70s action movies, this one is worth your time.
Showing posts with label action. Show all posts
Showing posts with label action. Show all posts
Wednesday, July 15, 2020
Sunday, July 12, 2020
"I'm looking at a tin star with a drunk pinned on it." El Dorado (and also Dust Up)
Twice in one weekend -- I know, I'm surprised too. Yet here we are.
After my adventure with The Three Musketeers, I figured I'd try something else new. At some point, for a reason lost even to myself, I added a movie called Dust Up to my Amazon watchlist. I can't figure out why, since it was a small indie from 2013 without a single recognizable star in it, aside from the woman who played Tara on Buffy (whom I liked, but I'm not exactly following her career). The basic premise is that a one-eyed veteran, who has moved out to the high desert to escape his traumatic past, ends up crossing the path of a deranged meth dealer, and ends up having to fight off a hoard of methed up crazy people, with the help of a young mom (the aforementioned Tara), her dopey addict husband, and the vet's indigenous (?) friend. It was...weird. If I had to make comparisons, I'd say it reminded me quite a bit of From Dusk Til Dawn, what with the B movie cast, over-the-top violence, and tacky effects. There were quite a few very funny moments, and I liked the leads quite a bit. The Native friend was...troubling. I wasn't sure if he was supposed to actually be indigenous, or just one of those people who fakes it, but it did give me some moments of eeegh. I'm not sure I'd strongly recommend it, but if you're a person who enjoys bargain basement Tarantino, it's not a total waste of time.
The other movie I watched was El Dorado. And before you ask, no, not the cartoon. This is the 1967 film with John Wayne, Robert Mitchum, and James Caan. It's one of those classic sixties westerns that involves groups of heavily armed men shooting at each other for convoluted reasons. As usual, I found it utterly delightful. Some thoughts I had:
1. The relationship between Wayne and Mitchum is...well, someone is probably writing slash about it somewhere, and for good reason. It's like the male version of "gals being pals." The two of them were trading some rather heated looks. Perhaps I just read too much slash fic, but the undertones there felt scorching to me. Maybe more so from Mitchum's side, but for a guy who is a legend for being a "man's man," John Wayne was delivering some smolder himself. I kept waiting for them to kiss. (Spoiler: they did not.) The whole bit about how Mitchum fell apart because some woman left him...um, we all know it's because John Wayne left. You're not fooling anybody here. I did not buy his relationship with the local madam for a second. Or maybe yes, but there were definitely some bi vibes happening.
4. Caan's character clearly does not understand the relationship going on here, either. Him and the old guy with the bugle seem determined to just stay out of the way and let the other two trade meaningful looks uninterrupted.
4. Holy hell, do I love the men of the Caan family. My deep lust for Scott is well-documented, but his father was no slouch when he was young, either. Just so tiny and feisty! I knew there was a reason my favorite Corleone was always Sonny. He doesn't disappoint in this, and he brings in the sexy, sexy comic relief.
5. I haven't watched nearly enough Robert Mitchum movies, but I need to add more to my list. The man can break your heart with just a single facial expression. There's a part where he comes back after being laughed out of a saloon that just about broke me. And then watching John Wayne try to soothe him through it...
6. Special effects in the 60s were very rudimentary. Don't think I didn't notice you throwing that dummy down during that horse trampling scene. It wasn't exactly "just fling the plastic skeleton and hope for the best in Army Of Darkness" level obvious, but it was not subtle.
7. Hey, Ed Asner! I almost always like Ed Asner.
8. There were only three women in this, and it most assuredly does NOT pass the Bechdel test. However, the sister with the shotgun is pretty badass. She is going to give James Caan and his bitty ass a run for his money.
9. There is a racist bit. It is "Mickey Rooney in Breakfast at Tiffanys" bad, but at least it's mercifully short. But ouch. Bad.
10. The poem: I always forget about Edgar Allan Poe, and it's always a mistake. Yeah, he was a massive drunken creep, but there's a reason his poems are still famous.
11. That was just a delight.
After my adventure with The Three Musketeers, I figured I'd try something else new. At some point, for a reason lost even to myself, I added a movie called Dust Up to my Amazon watchlist. I can't figure out why, since it was a small indie from 2013 without a single recognizable star in it, aside from the woman who played Tara on Buffy (whom I liked, but I'm not exactly following her career). The basic premise is that a one-eyed veteran, who has moved out to the high desert to escape his traumatic past, ends up crossing the path of a deranged meth dealer, and ends up having to fight off a hoard of methed up crazy people, with the help of a young mom (the aforementioned Tara), her dopey addict husband, and the vet's indigenous (?) friend. It was...weird. If I had to make comparisons, I'd say it reminded me quite a bit of From Dusk Til Dawn, what with the B movie cast, over-the-top violence, and tacky effects. There were quite a few very funny moments, and I liked the leads quite a bit. The Native friend was...troubling. I wasn't sure if he was supposed to actually be indigenous, or just one of those people who fakes it, but it did give me some moments of eeegh. I'm not sure I'd strongly recommend it, but if you're a person who enjoys bargain basement Tarantino, it's not a total waste of time.
The other movie I watched was El Dorado. And before you ask, no, not the cartoon. This is the 1967 film with John Wayne, Robert Mitchum, and James Caan. It's one of those classic sixties westerns that involves groups of heavily armed men shooting at each other for convoluted reasons. As usual, I found it utterly delightful. Some thoughts I had:
1. The relationship between Wayne and Mitchum is...well, someone is probably writing slash about it somewhere, and for good reason. It's like the male version of "gals being pals." The two of them were trading some rather heated looks. Perhaps I just read too much slash fic, but the undertones there felt scorching to me. Maybe more so from Mitchum's side, but for a guy who is a legend for being a "man's man," John Wayne was delivering some smolder himself. I kept waiting for them to kiss. (Spoiler: they did not.) The whole bit about how Mitchum fell apart because some woman left him...um, we all know it's because John Wayne left. You're not fooling anybody here. I did not buy his relationship with the local madam for a second. Or maybe yes, but there were definitely some bi vibes happening.
2. I'm pretty sure she was a madam. No one exactly said, but it was strongly implied. Particularly the bit where she suggests she could manage to be both Wayne and Mitchum's girl at the same time. Wayne looked intrigued. Mitchum looked concerned. (See point 1.)
4. Caan's character clearly does not understand the relationship going on here, either. Him and the old guy with the bugle seem determined to just stay out of the way and let the other two trade meaningful looks uninterrupted.
4. Holy hell, do I love the men of the Caan family. My deep lust for Scott is well-documented, but his father was no slouch when he was young, either. Just so tiny and feisty! I knew there was a reason my favorite Corleone was always Sonny. He doesn't disappoint in this, and he brings in the sexy, sexy comic relief.
5. I haven't watched nearly enough Robert Mitchum movies, but I need to add more to my list. The man can break your heart with just a single facial expression. There's a part where he comes back after being laughed out of a saloon that just about broke me. And then watching John Wayne try to soothe him through it...
6. Special effects in the 60s were very rudimentary. Don't think I didn't notice you throwing that dummy down during that horse trampling scene. It wasn't exactly "just fling the plastic skeleton and hope for the best in Army Of Darkness" level obvious, but it was not subtle.
7. Hey, Ed Asner! I almost always like Ed Asner.
8. There were only three women in this, and it most assuredly does NOT pass the Bechdel test. However, the sister with the shotgun is pretty badass. She is going to give James Caan and his bitty ass a run for his money.
9. There is a racist bit. It is "Mickey Rooney in Breakfast at Tiffanys" bad, but at least it's mercifully short. But ouch. Bad.
10. The poem: I always forget about Edgar Allan Poe, and it's always a mistake. Yeah, he was a massive drunken creep, but there's a reason his poems are still famous.
11. That was just a delight.
Thoughts on the 2011 Steampunk Three Musketeers
(Cross-posted from FB. I miss movie reviews. So here I am.)
Watching the 2011 steampunk Three Musketeers.
1. I like so many of the people in this cast. This should be better.
2. Remember back when Orlando Bloom was a thing? Weird, right? He’s kind of...fun as a villain, though. I think he might be one of those “character actor in a lead’s body” types. Also, he should never do anything but costume dramas, because the look suits him.
3. No matter the adaptation, Porthos is always the best Musketeer. I am not willing to debate this.
4. Is D’Atagnan SUPPOSED to be a complete void of charisma? Because that’s almost as universal as the Porthos thing. Is it because he is a literal child? Also, who was responsible for choosing that hairstyle for him? I demand a personal apology.
5. I wish Milla Jovovich’s husband would make better movies for her to be in.
6. It’s like they watched Guy Richie’s ‘Sherlock Holmes’ and said “Let’s do that!” but somehow got it just slightly wrong. Like they were trying for the same cheeky, winking, gritty tone, but it’s too well-lit and the sentiment is just shy of Hallmark level.
7. Fights are good, though.
8. So are the costumes.
9. This cast is WAY prettier than the 1993 version. Sorry Kiefer (and Kiefer’s mullet).
10. I like that the women have more to do in this one than just look scared. (Or, in Rebecca De Mornay’s case, vaguely constipated.)
11. I did not sign up to watch “Villains Special Effect Spectacular” here. Why are the Musketeers barely in this film?!
12. Speaking of, Christophe Waltz is doing his best, but when it comes to creepily smiling sex predator cardinal, no one will ever be able to take the crown from Tim Curry.
13. This film had many flaws, but James Corden is the absolute worst thing about it. By comparison, the war blimp impaling itself on the spire of Notre Dame is downright charming. I wish they’d impaled James Corden instead. Preferably right at the beginning of the movie.
2. Remember back when Orlando Bloom was a thing? Weird, right? He’s kind of...fun as a villain, though. I think he might be one of those “character actor in a lead’s body” types. Also, he should never do anything but costume dramas, because the look suits him.
3. No matter the adaptation, Porthos is always the best Musketeer. I am not willing to debate this.
4. Is D’Atagnan SUPPOSED to be a complete void of charisma? Because that’s almost as universal as the Porthos thing. Is it because he is a literal child? Also, who was responsible for choosing that hairstyle for him? I demand a personal apology.
5. I wish Milla Jovovich’s husband would make better movies for her to be in.
6. It’s like they watched Guy Richie’s ‘Sherlock Holmes’ and said “Let’s do that!” but somehow got it just slightly wrong. Like they were trying for the same cheeky, winking, gritty tone, but it’s too well-lit and the sentiment is just shy of Hallmark level.
7. Fights are good, though.
8. So are the costumes.
9. This cast is WAY prettier than the 1993 version. Sorry Kiefer (and Kiefer’s mullet).
10. I like that the women have more to do in this one than just look scared. (Or, in Rebecca De Mornay’s case, vaguely constipated.)
11. I did not sign up to watch “Villains Special Effect Spectacular” here. Why are the Musketeers barely in this film?!
12. Speaking of, Christophe Waltz is doing his best, but when it comes to creepily smiling sex predator cardinal, no one will ever be able to take the crown from Tim Curry.
13. This film had many flaws, but James Corden is the absolute worst thing about it. By comparison, the war blimp impaling itself on the spire of Notre Dame is downright charming. I wish they’d impaled James Corden instead. Preferably right at the beginning of the movie.
Monday, July 11, 2011
Sequels: Clerks II and Road House 2: Last Call
Sequels.
Sometimes they work and sometimes they do not. Recently, I ran across examples of both in the same evening. In the course of ONE EVENING, I watched both Clerks II and Road House 2: Last Call.
Actually, let's say I "watched" Clerks II and "subjected myself to" Road House 2.
Perhaps I should define for you what I think makes a good sequel, and explain why these two films do/do not qualify.
1. A good sequel is a rational extension of the original film. In this case, CII is a continuation of the lives of the characters from the first film. RH2 takes place in an entirely different place, with different people, and an almost entirely unrelated plot. There IS a bar, and there ARE some bad guys, but that's about as far as the resemblance goes. With the exception of a few mentions of Dalton and how he's the father of the main character in RH2 (as well as a few admittedly funny "I thought you'd be taller" jokes) this movie had absolutely nothing to do with Road House. In fact, it feels like it was written as a separate film and then adjusted to satisfy some studio suit. According to IMDB, this was originally meant to star Patrick Swayze reprising the role of Dalton, but he backed out (likely because the damn thing was so obviously bad) and it lingered in development hell until 2006, when it was changed to accommodate a new actor.
2. A good sequel will generally include the majority of the original actors/actresses. Unless the first film was an ungodly trauma to film, or unless the stars have have become SO HUGE that doing a sequel is beneath them, they should want to come back and do a sequel, even if a lot of time has gone by. Obviously, you don't want exactly the same cast--new cast members keep things fresh, as Rosario Dawson and Trevor Fehrman do in Clerks II--but the audience wants to see familiar faces. The Ocean's 11 franchise is an example of a group that did well with consistently adding new blood while still managing to bring back the original cast. A sequel without a single member of the original cast spells very serious trouble. That means they either waited too long or it was soooo bad that no one wanted to get near it.
3. A good sequel will acknowledge he time that has passed between the original film and the sequel. In CII, the whole idea is that time has passed and Dante and Randal have reached a point in their lives where things have to change. The gap between the events of the first and second film are explained as the natural passing of people's lives. The crux of the characters' problems have to do with that time passage. RH2 definitely takes place after Road House--theoretically about three decades later, since Dalton did not have a son (he barely had a girlfriend) in the first film and now his son is about thirty and working for the DEA. There are references to Dalton and his death, but the events of the first film are not even mentioned--they just took the name and referenced it once or twice. Not very creative, frankly.
4. A good sequel brings something new to the table without losing sight of what made the original so likeable in the first place. Kevin Smith has done a good job with this in CII. The things that made Clerks so great were the relationship between Dante and Randal, the conversations they had both with each other and with the people who surrounded them, the pop culture references, and the pure grade A raunch. He's done all that in Clerks II, and has also added some new elements. The familiar has been effectively combined with the new in a way that--IMO--is both comforting and intriguing. RH2 feels as though they've used all the same pieces that were combined to create Road House, but somehow they don't fit together quite the same. The older mentor, the girl in distress who is secretly connected to the villain, the crazy villain who likes to smash things, the final showdown (right down to the car that hurtles up to the bad guys minus driver)--they're all there, but somehow they feel forced. It wouldn't have been a particularly bad movie on its own, but it suffered from comparisons to the original.
Basically, what I am trying to say here is simple:
A. Road House 2: Last Call was an abomination that never should have been made, or at least should not have pretended it had anything at all to do with Road House. They could have called it Bar Brawl: Guns, Drugs, and Pelicans or DEA on Airboats or Punching and Explosions in the Bayou and it would have been the same film without all the undue expectations. Plus, as much as I enjoyed Jake Busey's performance as the villain (and God knows I do enjoy Jake Busey and his giant, terrifying Busey teeth), the acting was nothing special, leaving the whole thing just on this side of blaaaaah.
B. Clerks II was everything I wanted it to be. If you liked Clerks, and if you like Kevin Smith's films in general, you will probably enjoy Clerks II. However, if you DON'T like Kevin Smith's movies, don't bother seeing this one. To try and convince an anti-Smith person to like it would be a tremendous waste of time because it is so very him. The subject matter is raunchy, the language is appalling, and it consists of a LOT of time spent watching people stand around a fast food restaurant and talk to one another. Dante is still a whiny baby, but I loved Randal just as much or more than I ever did. There were some great conversations and quoteable moments, and I also really really liked the scene in the prison, because I think it illustrated well the relationship between the two main characters. Rosario did well as the love interest, and the dance scene was a pleasant surprise. It was also wonderful to see Jay and Silent Bob one more time. (I will say that although I find Jason Mewes a sexy beast, the 'Goodbye Horses' bit was a little disturbing. I suppose it's more funny if you realize going into it that this is something he does to Kevin Smith randomly on a regular basis.) I guess I just loved the movie, but I'm kind of a fan girl. Take that as you will.
Maybe someday I will favor you all with my opinions on the second Boondock Saints film and why it sucks and I think Ghostbusters 2 is my favorite. Do any of you have thoughts on sequels?
Sometimes they work and sometimes they do not. Recently, I ran across examples of both in the same evening. In the course of ONE EVENING, I watched both Clerks II and Road House 2: Last Call.
Actually, let's say I "watched" Clerks II and "subjected myself to" Road House 2.
Perhaps I should define for you what I think makes a good sequel, and explain why these two films do/do not qualify.
1. A good sequel is a rational extension of the original film. In this case, CII is a continuation of the lives of the characters from the first film. RH2 takes place in an entirely different place, with different people, and an almost entirely unrelated plot. There IS a bar, and there ARE some bad guys, but that's about as far as the resemblance goes. With the exception of a few mentions of Dalton and how he's the father of the main character in RH2 (as well as a few admittedly funny "I thought you'd be taller" jokes) this movie had absolutely nothing to do with Road House. In fact, it feels like it was written as a separate film and then adjusted to satisfy some studio suit. According to IMDB, this was originally meant to star Patrick Swayze reprising the role of Dalton, but he backed out (likely because the damn thing was so obviously bad) and it lingered in development hell until 2006, when it was changed to accommodate a new actor.
2. A good sequel will generally include the majority of the original actors/actresses. Unless the first film was an ungodly trauma to film, or unless the stars have have become SO HUGE that doing a sequel is beneath them, they should want to come back and do a sequel, even if a lot of time has gone by. Obviously, you don't want exactly the same cast--new cast members keep things fresh, as Rosario Dawson and Trevor Fehrman do in Clerks II--but the audience wants to see familiar faces. The Ocean's 11 franchise is an example of a group that did well with consistently adding new blood while still managing to bring back the original cast. A sequel without a single member of the original cast spells very serious trouble. That means they either waited too long or it was soooo bad that no one wanted to get near it.
3. A good sequel will acknowledge he time that has passed between the original film and the sequel. In CII, the whole idea is that time has passed and Dante and Randal have reached a point in their lives where things have to change. The gap between the events of the first and second film are explained as the natural passing of people's lives. The crux of the characters' problems have to do with that time passage. RH2 definitely takes place after Road House--theoretically about three decades later, since Dalton did not have a son (he barely had a girlfriend) in the first film and now his son is about thirty and working for the DEA. There are references to Dalton and his death, but the events of the first film are not even mentioned--they just took the name and referenced it once or twice. Not very creative, frankly.
4. A good sequel brings something new to the table without losing sight of what made the original so likeable in the first place. Kevin Smith has done a good job with this in CII. The things that made Clerks so great were the relationship between Dante and Randal, the conversations they had both with each other and with the people who surrounded them, the pop culture references, and the pure grade A raunch. He's done all that in Clerks II, and has also added some new elements. The familiar has been effectively combined with the new in a way that--IMO--is both comforting and intriguing. RH2 feels as though they've used all the same pieces that were combined to create Road House, but somehow they don't fit together quite the same. The older mentor, the girl in distress who is secretly connected to the villain, the crazy villain who likes to smash things, the final showdown (right down to the car that hurtles up to the bad guys minus driver)--they're all there, but somehow they feel forced. It wouldn't have been a particularly bad movie on its own, but it suffered from comparisons to the original.
Basically, what I am trying to say here is simple:
A. Road House 2: Last Call was an abomination that never should have been made, or at least should not have pretended it had anything at all to do with Road House. They could have called it Bar Brawl: Guns, Drugs, and Pelicans or DEA on Airboats or Punching and Explosions in the Bayou and it would have been the same film without all the undue expectations. Plus, as much as I enjoyed Jake Busey's performance as the villain (and God knows I do enjoy Jake Busey and his giant, terrifying Busey teeth), the acting was nothing special, leaving the whole thing just on this side of blaaaaah.
B. Clerks II was everything I wanted it to be. If you liked Clerks, and if you like Kevin Smith's films in general, you will probably enjoy Clerks II. However, if you DON'T like Kevin Smith's movies, don't bother seeing this one. To try and convince an anti-Smith person to like it would be a tremendous waste of time because it is so very him. The subject matter is raunchy, the language is appalling, and it consists of a LOT of time spent watching people stand around a fast food restaurant and talk to one another. Dante is still a whiny baby, but I loved Randal just as much or more than I ever did. There were some great conversations and quoteable moments, and I also really really liked the scene in the prison, because I think it illustrated well the relationship between the two main characters. Rosario did well as the love interest, and the dance scene was a pleasant surprise. It was also wonderful to see Jay and Silent Bob one more time. (I will say that although I find Jason Mewes a sexy beast, the 'Goodbye Horses' bit was a little disturbing. I suppose it's more funny if you realize going into it that this is something he does to Kevin Smith randomly on a regular basis.) I guess I just loved the movie, but I'm kind of a fan girl. Take that as you will.
Maybe someday I will favor you all with my opinions on the second Boondock Saints film and why it sucks and I think Ghostbusters 2 is my favorite. Do any of you have thoughts on sequels?
Friday, July 1, 2011
CR3 #56: The Deep Blue Good-by by John D. MacDonald
This is the first of John D. MacDonald's novels about Travis McGee, a sometime private eye who lives on a boat and takes jobs when money runs low. Basically, Trav hunts down things that have been taken (or lost or stolen) and returns them, keeping half the proceeds for himself. In this particular case, he gets a little more than he bargained for when he agrees to help a woman get back her late father's nest egg.
The story takes place in Florida during the sixties, and I very much appreciated MadDonald's sixties vibe--it felt very natural. The character of Trav is quite likable--tough but funny, and sensitive when the situation demands. I pictured him as sort of similar to Jim Longworth of The Glades (if you haven't been watching this show on A&E, you should. It's a fun summer procedural), very laid-back but capable of violence if sufficiently provoked. The other characters in the story were also interesting and fairly well-written. MacDonald's style of writing is really what sells the book, though. He has a way with descriptions that actually reminds me a little bit of Stephen King. He's one of few authors that can write a multi-page description of something and manage to keep me interested enough not to skim.
I'd recommend this to anyone who likes traditional mysteries (i.e. girl in distress seeks help from tough detective, hijinks and gun play ensue), particularly those that are well-written, funny, and clever.
The story takes place in Florida during the sixties, and I very much appreciated MadDonald's sixties vibe--it felt very natural. The character of Trav is quite likable--tough but funny, and sensitive when the situation demands. I pictured him as sort of similar to Jim Longworth of The Glades (if you haven't been watching this show on A&E, you should. It's a fun summer procedural), very laid-back but capable of violence if sufficiently provoked. The other characters in the story were also interesting and fairly well-written. MacDonald's style of writing is really what sells the book, though. He has a way with descriptions that actually reminds me a little bit of Stephen King. He's one of few authors that can write a multi-page description of something and manage to keep me interested enough not to skim.
I'd recommend this to anyone who likes traditional mysteries (i.e. girl in distress seeks help from tough detective, hijinks and gun play ensue), particularly those that are well-written, funny, and clever.
Wednesday, June 1, 2011
CR3 #45: Pronto by Elmore Leonard
Elmore Leonard's work (so far as I can tell) is populated by a rich and eccentric group of characters. Each one has a distinct personality, and each seems to act for reasons that make sense with his personality--I never got the feeling a character was doing something just to suit the author's plan.
The main character of Pronto is Harry Arno. He's an aging bookie who has been forced into retirement earlier than planned by local crime lord Jimmy Cap. In fact, he hasn't just been forced into retirement, he's been chased right out of Miami. Harry's insistence that he's been set up by the local feds in order to get him to testify against Jimmy falls on deaf ears, and soon men with shotguns are turning up outside Harry's apartment. The US Marshall service sends Marshall Raylan Givens (yay!) to keep an eye on Harry, but Harry is just a little too slippery for his own good. Soon, Raylan is chasing Harry through Italy, with Jimmy Cap's men close on his tail.
It's a good story with solid characters. I was--as always--happy to see Raylan Givens, though his character in the book is a little less charming than Timothy Olyphant plays him on Justified (the beginning of the show actually picks up right where this book ends). The side characters were also entertaining, and I was invested in what happened to them (even though Harry is not particularly likable, the people around him were). Even the bad guys were written to be interesting and at times sympathetic. The plot moved along briskly, and I never found myself feeling either bored or rushed. The way the story ended left some openings, but was not unsatisfying. On the whole, I'd recommend this to anyone who likes a well-written crime caper.
The main character of Pronto is Harry Arno. He's an aging bookie who has been forced into retirement earlier than planned by local crime lord Jimmy Cap. In fact, he hasn't just been forced into retirement, he's been chased right out of Miami. Harry's insistence that he's been set up by the local feds in order to get him to testify against Jimmy falls on deaf ears, and soon men with shotguns are turning up outside Harry's apartment. The US Marshall service sends Marshall Raylan Givens (yay!) to keep an eye on Harry, but Harry is just a little too slippery for his own good. Soon, Raylan is chasing Harry through Italy, with Jimmy Cap's men close on his tail.
It's a good story with solid characters. I was--as always--happy to see Raylan Givens, though his character in the book is a little less charming than Timothy Olyphant plays him on Justified (the beginning of the show actually picks up right where this book ends). The side characters were also entertaining, and I was invested in what happened to them (even though Harry is not particularly likable, the people around him were). Even the bad guys were written to be interesting and at times sympathetic. The plot moved along briskly, and I never found myself feeling either bored or rushed. The way the story ended left some openings, but was not unsatisfying. On the whole, I'd recommend this to anyone who likes a well-written crime caper.
Tuesday, May 24, 2011
CR3 #43: Velocity by Dean Koontz
I wish I enjoyed Dean Koontz's books as much as I want to. They've got most of the elements that I usually enjoy in books: murder mysteries, characters making tough choices, sometimes some supernatural stuff is involved. His writing is tidy and the plots are tied together relatively coherently. I guess my issue is that his work is...workmanlike. Stephen King's books might be over-wordy and the endings are almost universally stupid, but his writing seems to have more passion--his characters seem to have more life. You could say that--in my opinion, anyway--Dean Koontz's books follow the letter of the law, but not the spirit.
In Velocity, we find (seemingly) average bartender Billy Wiles faced with a choice: Someone has left a note on his car, saying that if he contacts the police, an elderly woman heavily involved with charity will die, and if he does nothing, a young red-headed school teacher will die. Billy is a person who normally keeps to himself and tries to get through life as quietly as possible. He is forced to get involved when the killer continues to press him for choices, and begins to make threats toward those Billy cares about, including his girlfriend, who is in a coma (I know, I know, it's serious) and those who work at the bar with him.
This book was competent, and I developed an interest in Billy and his misadventures, but I was never on the edge of my seat about the whole thing. I enjoyed reading it, but it's not like I couldn't put it down. Plus, the ending was one of those dopey endings the reader can't see coming because there is no logical evidence anywhere else that would lead to that particular conclusion.
On the whole, this wasn't a bad book, exactly, but I wouldn't necessarily recommend anyone seek it out.
In Velocity, we find (seemingly) average bartender Billy Wiles faced with a choice: Someone has left a note on his car, saying that if he contacts the police, an elderly woman heavily involved with charity will die, and if he does nothing, a young red-headed school teacher will die. Billy is a person who normally keeps to himself and tries to get through life as quietly as possible. He is forced to get involved when the killer continues to press him for choices, and begins to make threats toward those Billy cares about, including his girlfriend, who is in a coma (I know, I know, it's serious) and those who work at the bar with him.
This book was competent, and I developed an interest in Billy and his misadventures, but I was never on the edge of my seat about the whole thing. I enjoyed reading it, but it's not like I couldn't put it down. Plus, the ending was one of those dopey endings the reader can't see coming because there is no logical evidence anywhere else that would lead to that particular conclusion.
On the whole, this wasn't a bad book, exactly, but I wouldn't necessarily recommend anyone seek it out.
Thursday, April 21, 2011
CR3 # 32: The Three Musketeers by Alexandre Dumas
I have an embarrassing confession to make: I LOVE the Disney version of The Three Musketeers. I love it, even though fully 1/2 of the leads are potentially violent children of Hollywood with multiple arrests and a history of substance abuse. I love it even though the actor playing the main character has all the charm and personality of a mung bean. I love it even though there are endless sword fights and yet no one ever loses a single drop of blood, even after being run through. The whole thing is an adorable fairy tale. I always assumed that it is totally historically inaccurate, and figured that it probably deviated from the plot of the book somewhat, because that is how Disney does things. Little did I know...
The main characters--who are named D'Artagnan, Athos, Porthos, and Aramis--meet when D'Artagnan arrives in town and accidentally agrees to a duel with each of the other on the same day. There are international plots and a dark lady involved. The Cardinal Richelieu is very shady.
Here is where the similarities end.
The novel is a complex story full of intrigue, plotting, and murder. It is also a humorous tale of friendship, struggle, and doing almost anything for money. The characters are distinct, though sometimes leaning toward caricature. The plot for the most part moves along, though there are several sections that drag--it's a tough transition to go from murder plots and kidnappings into three chapters about how the musketeers scammed money to pay for more horses. However, the characters were entertaining enough to keep me reading until the main plot picked up again.
This book was more challenging--on a purely literary note--that most of what I've been reading for the past several years. Dumas's language and sentence structure is decidedly early 19th century, which meant there were passages I had to read more than once to understand--a true rarity for me. It was nice to be reading some "classic literature" though, and as far as that goes, the plot and characters were a lot more fun and relateable than, say, Melville or Hawthorne (IMHO).
I'd recommend this to anyone who wants to read something classic, but has a hard time with some of the more preachy or stately works. This is definitely a rollicking adventure story.
The main characters--who are named D'Artagnan, Athos, Porthos, and Aramis--meet when D'Artagnan arrives in town and accidentally agrees to a duel with each of the other on the same day. There are international plots and a dark lady involved. The Cardinal Richelieu is very shady.
Here is where the similarities end.
The novel is a complex story full of intrigue, plotting, and murder. It is also a humorous tale of friendship, struggle, and doing almost anything for money. The characters are distinct, though sometimes leaning toward caricature. The plot for the most part moves along, though there are several sections that drag--it's a tough transition to go from murder plots and kidnappings into three chapters about how the musketeers scammed money to pay for more horses. However, the characters were entertaining enough to keep me reading until the main plot picked up again.
This book was more challenging--on a purely literary note--that most of what I've been reading for the past several years. Dumas's language and sentence structure is decidedly early 19th century, which meant there were passages I had to read more than once to understand--a true rarity for me. It was nice to be reading some "classic literature" though, and as far as that goes, the plot and characters were a lot more fun and relateable than, say, Melville or Hawthorne (IMHO).
I'd recommend this to anyone who wants to read something classic, but has a hard time with some of the more preachy or stately works. This is definitely a rollicking adventure story.
Friday, February 11, 2011
CR3 #13: The Bachman Books by Stephen King
The Bachman Books consists of four novellas that were published by Stephen King under the assumed name "Richard Bachman." Bachman was King's escape hatch--he could write non-supernatural thrillers without "tarnishing" his brand. Three of the four pieces in this collection are stories that I consider some of King's best work.
"Rage": This is actually out of print now, I believe, since one of the Columbine shooters allegedly quoted it as an inspiration and King asked that it not be printed again. It's the story of Charlie Decker, a high school senior who--on a bright spring day--shoots his algebra teacher and takes his class hostage. The story is told from Decker's point of view, as he tries to explain what drove him to this point. However, the truly surprising part is the reaction of his classmates to the situation, and the way that the tables unexpectedly turn on Charlie and on Ted, the BMOC. I like this one because the reactions of Charlie's classmates are truly surprising. Although it is at sometimes uneven, and is obviously the work of a young writer (Stephen King wrote this when he was 17 himself, and it shows...nowadays, he'd probably be expelled for writing something like this!) it certainly has its moments.
"The Long Walk": Ray Garraty is a sixteen year old from Maine who is participating in his society's big yearly event: the Long Walk. One hundred boys from around the country gather to walk as far as they can without stopping, starting in Northern Maine and maintaining a pace of at least 4 miles per hour. Ray starts out excited, but soon realizes that the walk is no laughing matter: walkers who drop below 4mph more than three times are summarily executed. It's a battle for survival and sanity. This is a great story as far as character development. The plot is fairly static (boys are walking, talking, and dying), so we'll probably never have to worry about this being made into a movie, thank God. However, the interplay between the characters and their gradual realization of what they've gotten themselves into is gripping.
"Roadwork": This is my least favorite of the four. It's basically the same original premise as Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, except instead of being zipped off the face of the earth when it turns out a new freeway is going to be going directly through his house and business, the main character of this story tries to fight the man and eventually loses his mind. It's trying very hard to be "deep" and "serious" but instead it is just deeply and seriously "no fun."
"The Running Man": The movie of the same name starring the Governator is VERY VERY loosely based on this story, but the novella is 180% better. In this story, a healthy but extremely poor man living in a dystopian future needs money to provide for his sick child. He applies and is accepted for a part on the television show "The Running Man." The idea is that he has to survive for thirty days while being hunted by both trained assassins and the viewing public. As he runs, he discovers that there is more going on in the world than he could have imagined, and the giant TV conglomerate has its own dirty secrets. This is another really great story, with both a lot of action and a certain amount of character development. This would actually make a great movie, if it were done properly instead of becoming a campy cartoon.
On the whole, I'd definitely recommend getting copy of this collection -- make sure you get an old version, though, so you get all four stories.
"Rage": This is actually out of print now, I believe, since one of the Columbine shooters allegedly quoted it as an inspiration and King asked that it not be printed again. It's the story of Charlie Decker, a high school senior who--on a bright spring day--shoots his algebra teacher and takes his class hostage. The story is told from Decker's point of view, as he tries to explain what drove him to this point. However, the truly surprising part is the reaction of his classmates to the situation, and the way that the tables unexpectedly turn on Charlie and on Ted, the BMOC. I like this one because the reactions of Charlie's classmates are truly surprising. Although it is at sometimes uneven, and is obviously the work of a young writer (Stephen King wrote this when he was 17 himself, and it shows...nowadays, he'd probably be expelled for writing something like this!) it certainly has its moments.
"The Long Walk": Ray Garraty is a sixteen year old from Maine who is participating in his society's big yearly event: the Long Walk. One hundred boys from around the country gather to walk as far as they can without stopping, starting in Northern Maine and maintaining a pace of at least 4 miles per hour. Ray starts out excited, but soon realizes that the walk is no laughing matter: walkers who drop below 4mph more than three times are summarily executed. It's a battle for survival and sanity. This is a great story as far as character development. The plot is fairly static (boys are walking, talking, and dying), so we'll probably never have to worry about this being made into a movie, thank God. However, the interplay between the characters and their gradual realization of what they've gotten themselves into is gripping.
"Roadwork": This is my least favorite of the four. It's basically the same original premise as Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, except instead of being zipped off the face of the earth when it turns out a new freeway is going to be going directly through his house and business, the main character of this story tries to fight the man and eventually loses his mind. It's trying very hard to be "deep" and "serious" but instead it is just deeply and seriously "no fun."
"The Running Man": The movie of the same name starring the Governator is VERY VERY loosely based on this story, but the novella is 180% better. In this story, a healthy but extremely poor man living in a dystopian future needs money to provide for his sick child. He applies and is accepted for a part on the television show "The Running Man." The idea is that he has to survive for thirty days while being hunted by both trained assassins and the viewing public. As he runs, he discovers that there is more going on in the world than he could have imagined, and the giant TV conglomerate has its own dirty secrets. This is another really great story, with both a lot of action and a certain amount of character development. This would actually make a great movie, if it were done properly instead of becoming a campy cartoon.
On the whole, I'd definitely recommend getting copy of this collection -- make sure you get an old version, though, so you get all four stories.
Monday, July 12, 2010
Cannonball Read 2 #43: Generation Kill by Evan Wright
Evan Wright was a reporter embedded with the First Recon Platoon, the first Marines to enter Iraq during Gulf War II. Wright travels with them, getting to know the twenty-six men and their commanders, and experiencing modern warfare from the enlisted man's point of view.
The platoon is the first to enter Iraq, and it doesn't seem that the plan of attack is very well organized or explained. The men basically drive around Iraq, drawing fire and eliminating enemy targets. They spend a great deal of time lost, confused, exhausted, and hungry. Their equipment doesn't function properly, they don't have enough food, and their vehicles are uniquely unsuited for the task at hand--in fact, the specialized training they received as a recon platoon is uniquely unsuited for this assignment. They are engaging in a mission that doesn't make sense to them and that they were not really trained for. It's a constant barrage of stress, never knowing if the people they see by the side of the road are villagers waving to welcome them or operatives waiting to trigger an ambush or detonate a bomb. They have commanders that are terrific and leaders like "Captain America" who lead poorly and cause more problems than they solve.
The men in the platoon are all distinct, and it doesn't take too many pages to recognize each one. The author clearly connected with the men and worked hard to bring out their personalities quickly. He makes it clear that these are average young men, all between 18 and 30 years old (most in the 19 - 25 range) who have been trained thoroughly and specifically, only to be thrown into a circumstance they don't understand, in a culture they can't fathom, where no one even speaks their language. They are both funny and human and chilling and destructive, sometimes both within the same paragraph. Wright doesn't seem to have any particular political leaning -- he is just reporting on the circumstances as he sees them. He is as objective as he can be, but doesn't try to take himself out of the story entirely. He compares his experiences and his reactions to those of the men around him, almost using himself as a foil.
Although Wright never brings this up, the book definitely made me better understand why some of the horrible civilian tragedies have happened in Iraq and Afghanistan; these young men have been moulded by the US military into effective killing machines. Then they've been taken into circumstances where they get almost no sleep (many are hopped up on No-Doz-type substances), are living on crappy food (when they have any at all -- many days the men had one K-rations meal per day), have equipment that isn't up to speed (the universally disliked supply officer didn't bring the oil needed to keep the roof-mounted machine guns working), can't speak the language and don't have enough interpreters available, have the rules of engagement changed on them nearly every day, and--most importantly--the enemy looks (intentionally) exactly like the civilians. If that isn't the recipe for bloody disaster, I don't know what is. It's not that I condone some of the things that have happened, but I definitely understand how some of those things COULD happen.
This is a great book, though not for those who have delicate constitutions. This is the story of a group of men who are bonded together by the Marines, and who who live and die for one another. I definitely recommend it, and am looking forward to getting the HBO miniseries based on the book from Netflix.
The platoon is the first to enter Iraq, and it doesn't seem that the plan of attack is very well organized or explained. The men basically drive around Iraq, drawing fire and eliminating enemy targets. They spend a great deal of time lost, confused, exhausted, and hungry. Their equipment doesn't function properly, they don't have enough food, and their vehicles are uniquely unsuited for the task at hand--in fact, the specialized training they received as a recon platoon is uniquely unsuited for this assignment. They are engaging in a mission that doesn't make sense to them and that they were not really trained for. It's a constant barrage of stress, never knowing if the people they see by the side of the road are villagers waving to welcome them or operatives waiting to trigger an ambush or detonate a bomb. They have commanders that are terrific and leaders like "Captain America" who lead poorly and cause more problems than they solve.
The men in the platoon are all distinct, and it doesn't take too many pages to recognize each one. The author clearly connected with the men and worked hard to bring out their personalities quickly. He makes it clear that these are average young men, all between 18 and 30 years old (most in the 19 - 25 range) who have been trained thoroughly and specifically, only to be thrown into a circumstance they don't understand, in a culture they can't fathom, where no one even speaks their language. They are both funny and human and chilling and destructive, sometimes both within the same paragraph. Wright doesn't seem to have any particular political leaning -- he is just reporting on the circumstances as he sees them. He is as objective as he can be, but doesn't try to take himself out of the story entirely. He compares his experiences and his reactions to those of the men around him, almost using himself as a foil.
Although Wright never brings this up, the book definitely made me better understand why some of the horrible civilian tragedies have happened in Iraq and Afghanistan; these young men have been moulded by the US military into effective killing machines. Then they've been taken into circumstances where they get almost no sleep (many are hopped up on No-Doz-type substances), are living on crappy food (when they have any at all -- many days the men had one K-rations meal per day), have equipment that isn't up to speed (the universally disliked supply officer didn't bring the oil needed to keep the roof-mounted machine guns working), can't speak the language and don't have enough interpreters available, have the rules of engagement changed on them nearly every day, and--most importantly--the enemy looks (intentionally) exactly like the civilians. If that isn't the recipe for bloody disaster, I don't know what is. It's not that I condone some of the things that have happened, but I definitely understand how some of those things COULD happen.
This is a great book, though not for those who have delicate constitutions. This is the story of a group of men who are bonded together by the Marines, and who who live and die for one another. I definitely recommend it, and am looking forward to getting the HBO miniseries based on the book from Netflix.
Monday, April 26, 2010
"Fuckin' iguana." : The Bad Lieutenant: Port of Call - New Orleans
Yesterday afternoon, just as I started watching this movie, my roommate--Starbucks Queen--arrived home from work and joined me in the living room. "What are you watching?" she asked. "Nicolas Cage movie," I said, "You know I can't resist Nic." "Who can?" she replied.
The Bad Lieutenant: Port of Call - New Orleans is the story of Lieutenant Terence McDonagh, an officer with the New Orleans police department. We find out in the first two minutes that he's not a very nice guy to start with, and a debilitating injury does not improve him any. He is completely immoral--shaking down teenagers for drugs, threatening people, and generally behaving like a out-of-control crazy person (lots of that good old fashioned "bug-eyed and screaming" Cage here, of course. Then again, when you're playing a crackhead, maybe that's finally justified?) As he investigates the murder of five Senegalese immigrants, his world begins to unravel at frightening speed. He is juggling as fast as he can, but it's beginning to look like Terence isn't going to be able to keep all the balls in the air.
The film was an "A-List of the B-List" with appearances by Eva Mendes as Terence's girlfriend, Val Kilmer and Shawn Hatosy as his coworkers, Xzibit as a feared drug dealer, Brad Dourif as a bookie, Jennifer Coolidge as Terence's drunken step-mother, Fairuza Balk as a highway officer, and Michael Shannon as a nervous property clerk. All the performances were reasonably decent, though I thought Jennifer Coolidge's was particularly good, since she was playing fiercely against type. Nicolas Cage over-acted as usual, but at the same time his manic shrieking and morose sulking were in character of a man spiraling out-of-control. Also, his hair didn't make me want to cry, which with him is always a victory.
The thing I guess I found most odd were the strange "reptile POV" shots for no reason, or some of the strange choices the director made. I realize that if your main character is whacked out on drugs you can get away with some things (the break dancing dead guy, for one) but the loooooong shot from the POV of a hallucinated iguana? I just don't know.
After the movie was over, SQ looked at me and said "What was the point of that? Was it supposed to be funny? Or dramatic? Or what?" and I said, "It's a Herzog movie. I think it's supposed to be weird." "Well, they succeeded admirably with that, then," she said as she left the room.
I can't say I exactly liked the movie, but it was significantly less terrible than I expected before I watched it.
The Bad Lieutenant: Port of Call - New Orleans is the story of Lieutenant Terence McDonagh, an officer with the New Orleans police department. We find out in the first two minutes that he's not a very nice guy to start with, and a debilitating injury does not improve him any. He is completely immoral--shaking down teenagers for drugs, threatening people, and generally behaving like a out-of-control crazy person (lots of that good old fashioned "bug-eyed and screaming" Cage here, of course. Then again, when you're playing a crackhead, maybe that's finally justified?) As he investigates the murder of five Senegalese immigrants, his world begins to unravel at frightening speed. He is juggling as fast as he can, but it's beginning to look like Terence isn't going to be able to keep all the balls in the air.
The film was an "A-List of the B-List" with appearances by Eva Mendes as Terence's girlfriend, Val Kilmer and Shawn Hatosy as his coworkers, Xzibit as a feared drug dealer, Brad Dourif as a bookie, Jennifer Coolidge as Terence's drunken step-mother, Fairuza Balk as a highway officer, and Michael Shannon as a nervous property clerk. All the performances were reasonably decent, though I thought Jennifer Coolidge's was particularly good, since she was playing fiercely against type. Nicolas Cage over-acted as usual, but at the same time his manic shrieking and morose sulking were in character of a man spiraling out-of-control. Also, his hair didn't make me want to cry, which with him is always a victory.
The thing I guess I found most odd were the strange "reptile POV" shots for no reason, or some of the strange choices the director made. I realize that if your main character is whacked out on drugs you can get away with some things (the break dancing dead guy, for one) but the loooooong shot from the POV of a hallucinated iguana? I just don't know.
After the movie was over, SQ looked at me and said "What was the point of that? Was it supposed to be funny? Or dramatic? Or what?" and I said, "It's a Herzog movie. I think it's supposed to be weird." "Well, they succeeded admirably with that, then," she said as she left the room.
I can't say I exactly liked the movie, but it was significantly less terrible than I expected before I watched it.
Monday, November 2, 2009
Movies Movies Movies!
It was kind of a big movie weekend, because after the party Friday night, I was sort of blah for the whole weekend. I watched a couple movies, and figured I'd talk about them here for my post of the day.
Kung Fu Panda: I'm a sucker for movies like this, but the darn thing really WAS hilarious. The Boyfriend and I laughed until the tears ran down our faces, then laughed more. The animation was amazing, and Jack Black was really perfect for the role of hapless panda Po. Sometimes Black can overshadow the character he's playing, but here he was just awesome. I was also happy to spot the ever-delicioso Ian McShane as the voice of the villain. (I kind of wish I could get Ian McShane's voice as hold music--I am on hold a lot, and I'd happily sit patiently if I could listen to him talk about whatever. He could read the phonebook and I'd be delighted.) The story of a fat panda becoming a mighty warrior worked well, and the humor was good for kids, but adults will have no problem enjoying it either. Two thumbs up.
This Filthy World: John Waters's one-man show was also hilarious. He talks a lot about the making of his movies, his opinions on the state of the world, and general observations on life. It's probably not for the right-wing crowd (discussions of gay life, drugs, and rampant, deliberate moral corruption would probably give those people immediate aneurysms) but I thought it was funny all the way through.
An Evening With Kevin Smith 2: Evening Harder: I have not seen the first Evening With Kevin Smith, though I have heard a lot of good things. I think he probably used his best material there, but this was still very funny if you're a fan. (If you're not a fan, you might as well just skip it.) This nearly two-hour show in Toronto gives Smith a chance to answer more audience questions and generally digress into various funny tangents. Although there were moments where it dragged a bit, or got a little uncomfortable, I mostly enjoyed it. His rambling explanation of watching Dora the Explorer made me laugh until I snorted. Jay Mewes also makes a cameo appearance, which made me squee. I wouldn't pay to watch it, but if it's free OnDemand or Netflix InstantWatch it's a good way to waste some time and have a few laughs.
Constantine: First of all, I have to point out that while The Boyfriend has a VIOLENT dislike of Keanu Reeves and all of his performances, I don't mind the guy. I think Keanu is very pretty, and while he isn't the best actor out there, it's not like he's casting himself in these movies, a la Kevin Costner. If he's miscast, it is NOT his fault. Also, the guy has had a kind of tough life (best friend ODs right in front of him, baby dies, fiance is killed shortly after in a car wreck) and I figure the fact that he mostly keeps to himself and behaves instead of being a giant Hollywood douchebag says a lot for him. That said, while this performance was not the best ever committed to film, and while there are probably several actors who could have done a better job, it was not awful. I liked the premise, and the climactic ending was pretty awesome. Peter Stormare is fantastic as the devil, and any time THE SWINTON appears I am always intrigued. Rachel Weisz was all right (though I am biased because I LOVED her in the Mummy movies) though when I saw Gavin Rossdale I was like "Really? There were no REAL actors available that day? Not a single lowly SAG member could be found to play the part?" On the whole, it's kind of a stupid movie, but no stupider than Max Payne, and at least Keanu Reeves doesn't come off as a tremendous asshole.
Smoke Signals: This is a movie about two young Native American men in the Pacific Northwest who go on a journey together when the father of one of them dies. It's a quiet little story. The acting isn't perfect, although the guy who plays Thomas Builds-the-Fire--the oddball of the pairing-- was excellent. Adam Beach, who played the more socially normal of the two, displayed considerably more range and talent than he did during his brief stint on SVU...which isn't a whole lot, to be honest. (At least he's pretty...) The story and dialogue are interesting, funny, and touching in places. It's the first film I've seen about modern day Native Americans, teenagers in particular. It's apparently based on a story by famed Native American author Sherman Alexie called "The Lone Ranger and Tonto Fistfight in Heaven." Although it's not entertaining as much as thought provoking, and the indie-ness of the movie is more obvious than I'd prefer, I'd definitely recommend this one.
Also, the new show on USA--White Collar--is pretty good. I don't know who is running USA, but they seem to have figured out the perfect formula for light, fun, entertaining television. I mean, I love crime shows, but lately SVU seems to be gunning for some kind of "most miserable and depression show on television" award (along with giving Richard Belzer and Ice-T a criminally teensy amount of screen time), CSI is kind of a scattered mess, Bones is constantly being bumped for stupid baseball (it is ridiculous to me that ALL FOUR major sports are in season at the same time), and NCIS (which is a GOOD SHOW, PAJIBA OVERLORDS! HOW MANY TIMES DO I HAVE TO DEFEND IT! Well, not the new one with LL Cool J--that one sucks sweaty monkey balls) can't do it all alone. In the same vein as Psych and Burn Notice, USA has managed to make White Collar a pleasant, serviceable, and entertaining hour of TV.
For anyone who was wondering, I ended up going with Miss Piggy for Halloween. Although I wasn't entirely sure when I put it on, the photos are fantastic, and judging from the reactions of others at the party, I think it was a very good choice. :)
Kung Fu Panda: I'm a sucker for movies like this, but the darn thing really WAS hilarious. The Boyfriend and I laughed until the tears ran down our faces, then laughed more. The animation was amazing, and Jack Black was really perfect for the role of hapless panda Po. Sometimes Black can overshadow the character he's playing, but here he was just awesome. I was also happy to spot the ever-delicioso Ian McShane as the voice of the villain. (I kind of wish I could get Ian McShane's voice as hold music--I am on hold a lot, and I'd happily sit patiently if I could listen to him talk about whatever. He could read the phonebook and I'd be delighted.) The story of a fat panda becoming a mighty warrior worked well, and the humor was good for kids, but adults will have no problem enjoying it either. Two thumbs up.
This Filthy World: John Waters's one-man show was also hilarious. He talks a lot about the making of his movies, his opinions on the state of the world, and general observations on life. It's probably not for the right-wing crowd (discussions of gay life, drugs, and rampant, deliberate moral corruption would probably give those people immediate aneurysms) but I thought it was funny all the way through.
An Evening With Kevin Smith 2: Evening Harder: I have not seen the first Evening With Kevin Smith, though I have heard a lot of good things. I think he probably used his best material there, but this was still very funny if you're a fan. (If you're not a fan, you might as well just skip it.) This nearly two-hour show in Toronto gives Smith a chance to answer more audience questions and generally digress into various funny tangents. Although there were moments where it dragged a bit, or got a little uncomfortable, I mostly enjoyed it. His rambling explanation of watching Dora the Explorer made me laugh until I snorted. Jay Mewes also makes a cameo appearance, which made me squee. I wouldn't pay to watch it, but if it's free OnDemand or Netflix InstantWatch it's a good way to waste some time and have a few laughs.
Constantine: First of all, I have to point out that while The Boyfriend has a VIOLENT dislike of Keanu Reeves and all of his performances, I don't mind the guy. I think Keanu is very pretty, and while he isn't the best actor out there, it's not like he's casting himself in these movies, a la Kevin Costner. If he's miscast, it is NOT his fault. Also, the guy has had a kind of tough life (best friend ODs right in front of him, baby dies, fiance is killed shortly after in a car wreck) and I figure the fact that he mostly keeps to himself and behaves instead of being a giant Hollywood douchebag says a lot for him. That said, while this performance was not the best ever committed to film, and while there are probably several actors who could have done a better job, it was not awful. I liked the premise, and the climactic ending was pretty awesome. Peter Stormare is fantastic as the devil, and any time THE SWINTON appears I am always intrigued. Rachel Weisz was all right (though I am biased because I LOVED her in the Mummy movies) though when I saw Gavin Rossdale I was like "Really? There were no REAL actors available that day? Not a single lowly SAG member could be found to play the part?" On the whole, it's kind of a stupid movie, but no stupider than Max Payne, and at least Keanu Reeves doesn't come off as a tremendous asshole.
Smoke Signals: This is a movie about two young Native American men in the Pacific Northwest who go on a journey together when the father of one of them dies. It's a quiet little story. The acting isn't perfect, although the guy who plays Thomas Builds-the-Fire--the oddball of the pairing-- was excellent. Adam Beach, who played the more socially normal of the two, displayed considerably more range and talent than he did during his brief stint on SVU...which isn't a whole lot, to be honest. (At least he's pretty...) The story and dialogue are interesting, funny, and touching in places. It's the first film I've seen about modern day Native Americans, teenagers in particular. It's apparently based on a story by famed Native American author Sherman Alexie called "The Lone Ranger and Tonto Fistfight in Heaven." Although it's not entertaining as much as thought provoking, and the indie-ness of the movie is more obvious than I'd prefer, I'd definitely recommend this one.
Also, the new show on USA--White Collar--is pretty good. I don't know who is running USA, but they seem to have figured out the perfect formula for light, fun, entertaining television. I mean, I love crime shows, but lately SVU seems to be gunning for some kind of "most miserable and depression show on television" award (along with giving Richard Belzer and Ice-T a criminally teensy amount of screen time), CSI is kind of a scattered mess, Bones is constantly being bumped for stupid baseball (it is ridiculous to me that ALL FOUR major sports are in season at the same time), and NCIS (which is a GOOD SHOW, PAJIBA OVERLORDS! HOW MANY TIMES DO I HAVE TO DEFEND IT! Well, not the new one with LL Cool J--that one sucks sweaty monkey balls) can't do it all alone. In the same vein as Psych and Burn Notice, USA has managed to make White Collar a pleasant, serviceable, and entertaining hour of TV.
For anyone who was wondering, I ended up going with Miss Piggy for Halloween. Although I wasn't entirely sure when I put it on, the photos are fantastic, and judging from the reactions of others at the party, I think it was a very good choice. :)
Wednesday, September 9, 2009
"You wanted a monster? Well, you've got one.": Death Race
Warning: Death Race is NOT a good movie.
If you are looking for quality cinema rife with complex cinematography, a gripping plot, extensive character development, or any sort of "overall message," just pick up your copy of Citizen Kane or something and get the hell out of here.
Then again, if you are looking for a balls-to-the-wall, totally nonsensical, loud, flashy, explody, poorly scripted way to entertain yourself on a long, dull, afternoon while stuffing yourself with cheezy poofs...you may want to check this out.
Jason Statham plays Jensen Ames, a former race car driver who finds himself at Terminal Island penitentiary. In the film, Terminal Island is famous for the "Death Race," a web-broadcast competition where prisoners compete in a vehicular battle to the death in order to win the chance for freedom. Jensen has to navigate life in the prison, preparing for the race with his new friends (including Coach, his mentor, played by Ian McShane) while avoiding both his dangerous competition and the prison warden (Joan Allen) who has plans of her own.
As I said, the plot is fairly stupid, and often sacrifices character and plot for explosions and gun battles. However, Jason Statham takes off his shirt quite a bit and snarls pithy witticisms in his sexy sexy accent, Ian McShane growls his own pithy witticisms in his own sexy accent, and there is a hot chick who doesn't really say much. Some of the car scenes are cool, though the film could probably have easily been stretched out for another half an hour in order to provide a little more context. On the whole, while I probably wouldn't watch this again, I sure as hell enjoyed it.
(I can't say how this compares to the original film, Death Race 2000 with Sylvester Stallone because Netflix has been unable to send it to me yet.)
If you are looking for quality cinema rife with complex cinematography, a gripping plot, extensive character development, or any sort of "overall message," just pick up your copy of Citizen Kane or something and get the hell out of here.
Then again, if you are looking for a balls-to-the-wall, totally nonsensical, loud, flashy, explody, poorly scripted way to entertain yourself on a long, dull, afternoon while stuffing yourself with cheezy poofs...you may want to check this out.
Jason Statham plays Jensen Ames, a former race car driver who finds himself at Terminal Island penitentiary. In the film, Terminal Island is famous for the "Death Race," a web-broadcast competition where prisoners compete in a vehicular battle to the death in order to win the chance for freedom. Jensen has to navigate life in the prison, preparing for the race with his new friends (including Coach, his mentor, played by Ian McShane) while avoiding both his dangerous competition and the prison warden (Joan Allen) who has plans of her own.
As I said, the plot is fairly stupid, and often sacrifices character and plot for explosions and gun battles. However, Jason Statham takes off his shirt quite a bit and snarls pithy witticisms in his sexy sexy accent, Ian McShane growls his own pithy witticisms in his own sexy accent, and there is a hot chick who doesn't really say much. Some of the car scenes are cool, though the film could probably have easily been stretched out for another half an hour in order to provide a little more context. On the whole, while I probably wouldn't watch this again, I sure as hell enjoyed it.
(I can't say how this compares to the original film, Death Race 2000 with Sylvester Stallone because Netflix has been unable to send it to me yet.)
Monday, March 23, 2009
Cannonball Read #16 & #17: The Poseidon Adventure & Beyond the Poseidon Adventure by Paul Gallico
I've combined these two books since they are for all intents and purposes a single story, albeit one that takes a very swift turn in the middle.
I have seen the original Poseidon Adventure, Poseidon--the version with Kurt Russell, as well as a few terrible rip-offs. The main idea is the same in each, though there are a variety of causes and specifics. Basically, a giant cruise ship is rolled over into an upside-down nightmare, and a small group of surviving passengers have to journey through the topsy-turvy world in an attempt to make it to the bottom (now top) of the ship where their best chance at rescue lies. The first book is really pretty excellent--there is a decent amount of action, as well as the exploration of human dynamics, and the various ways people respond to crisis. Some, like the Reverend Scott, take charge and lead as though it were something they had been born to do. Others--like Dick Shelby, his family, Mrs. Kinsale the spinster, and the Rosens, an elderly Jewish couple--prefer to be followers. Some, like small haberdasher James Martin, only show their heroic nature when there's no other option. And then there's detective Mike Rogo and his low-class wife Linda, who seem determined to resist authority at every turn. It's a varied group who need to work together in order to survive. They have a number of challenges to face and they lose some of the group along the way. However, they always manage to keep hope alive. There are some big differences from the movie--I imagine they wanted to keep things a little lighter and more optimistic for the viewing public--but on the whole it's close to the film and is a good, engaging read.
The second book, Beyond the Poseidon Adventure was written as a sequel not to the first book, but to the film. The premise is that three of the survivors (Mr. Rosen, Mike Rogo, and James Martin) go back onto the Poseidon to protect the cargo Rogo was guarding on the trip, only to find themselves having to deal with leftover survivors, a noble tug captain and his daughter, a seductive thief, a mysterious American mercenary, and a danger Greek assassin. The action roams through the ship, and involves trickery, love, and even a tiger! The story is a little over the top, and the characters seem a little less natural in this one. It seemed clear to me that this sequel was a bit forced, and lacks the complicated personal dynamics of the first book, leaning more on the action to do the heavy lifting. Still, it was an entertaining way to spend a few hours on a chilly afternoon.
As a note, aside from the tug boat and the Greek assassin, the movie of the same name (starring Sir Michael Caine and Sally Field) bears only the slightest resemblance to the book. It's a very entertaining movie--better, perhaps, than the book--but I didn't want you to be fooled.
I have seen the original Poseidon Adventure, Poseidon--the version with Kurt Russell, as well as a few terrible rip-offs. The main idea is the same in each, though there are a variety of causes and specifics. Basically, a giant cruise ship is rolled over into an upside-down nightmare, and a small group of surviving passengers have to journey through the topsy-turvy world in an attempt to make it to the bottom (now top) of the ship where their best chance at rescue lies. The first book is really pretty excellent--there is a decent amount of action, as well as the exploration of human dynamics, and the various ways people respond to crisis. Some, like the Reverend Scott, take charge and lead as though it were something they had been born to do. Others--like Dick Shelby, his family, Mrs. Kinsale the spinster, and the Rosens, an elderly Jewish couple--prefer to be followers. Some, like small haberdasher James Martin, only show their heroic nature when there's no other option. And then there's detective Mike Rogo and his low-class wife Linda, who seem determined to resist authority at every turn. It's a varied group who need to work together in order to survive. They have a number of challenges to face and they lose some of the group along the way. However, they always manage to keep hope alive. There are some big differences from the movie--I imagine they wanted to keep things a little lighter and more optimistic for the viewing public--but on the whole it's close to the film and is a good, engaging read.
The second book, Beyond the Poseidon Adventure was written as a sequel not to the first book, but to the film. The premise is that three of the survivors (Mr. Rosen, Mike Rogo, and James Martin) go back onto the Poseidon to protect the cargo Rogo was guarding on the trip, only to find themselves having to deal with leftover survivors, a noble tug captain and his daughter, a seductive thief, a mysterious American mercenary, and a danger Greek assassin. The action roams through the ship, and involves trickery, love, and even a tiger! The story is a little over the top, and the characters seem a little less natural in this one. It seemed clear to me that this sequel was a bit forced, and lacks the complicated personal dynamics of the first book, leaning more on the action to do the heavy lifting. Still, it was an entertaining way to spend a few hours on a chilly afternoon.
As a note, aside from the tug boat and the Greek assassin, the movie of the same name (starring Sir Michael Caine and Sally Field) bears only the slightest resemblance to the book. It's a very entertaining movie--better, perhaps, than the book--but I didn't want you to be fooled.
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Sink-a-Palooza: Maritime Disaster Films Part 1
1. Beyond the Poseidon Adventure: This is actually a 1979 sequel to the original Hackman version of The Poseidon Adventure. The story centers on a team of salvage divers (headed by the always excellent Sir Michael Caine and supported Sally Field) who head out to overturned Poseidon the day after the events of the first film. They meet up with a crew of rescue personnel (led by Telly Savalas...who unsurprisingly turns out NOT to be who he says he is. Which--duh! It's Telly Savalas!) and head into the wreck in search of left-behind riches, only to find themselves trapped inside with a bunch of survivors. From there on out, it's pretty much exactly the same as the original film--"Oh noes! We're trapped! We must climb up! Come on everyone, climb! But it's flooded! And on fire! Climb damn you, climb!" The main characters do well (come on, it's Michael Caine, how bad can it be?) and there are some fun performances from the survivors, particularly Slim Pickens as a boisterous Texas oilman and Peter Boyle as the loudmouth. There also appearance from other familiar faces, included Shirley Jones (Mrs. Partridge), Shirley Knight (the woman has 158 IMDB credits, I'm sure you'll recognize her from something), and a very young Mark Harmon (Gibbs from NCIS). Although not a stellar film, it's decent rainy-day entertainment.
2. A Night to Remember: This is the original 1958 adaptation of Walter Lord's book of the same name. This the last Titanic film to be made in black and white, and is still regarded as one of the best. (It was referenced heavily by James Cameron in his Titanic.) It's a pretty good film, though in my opinion not quite long enough--there were many characters, and sometimes the film felt like it was bouncing around between them almost randomly. Also, although they touched on some of the less-than-wholesome sides of the tragedy, there was a lot of whitewashing going on, especially with regard to the treatment of the steerage passengers. Not a bad film, and certainly one that's relatively historically important in the disaster film oeuvre. Trivia: look out for a very young David McCullum (Ducky on NCIS) as well as an allegedly uncredited 20-something Sean Connery as a nameless sailor. In addition, this was made before it was known that the Titanic broke in half before sinking, so it's interesting to see the sinking of the entire ship using the special effects of the times.
3. The Poseidon Adventure (Hallmark Channel mini-series): No, okay, just no. I gave it a chance because I like Adam Baldwin, but just no. I will give you three very clear reasons:
A. Terrorists. Yes, not a tidal wave, terrorists.
B. Special effects I am pretty sure I could have done myself with MS Paint.
C. They LEFT THE CREDITS IN BETWEEN SECTIONS! All the credits, beginning and ending! Even though both halves of the mini-series were playing concurrently on the same side of the disk!
*Bonus*: Stars Steve Guttenberg. Also Rutger Hauer and C. Thomas Howell. Is basically where B-movie stars have apparently gone to die. Poor Adam Baldwin.
2. A Night to Remember: This is the original 1958 adaptation of Walter Lord's book of the same name. This the last Titanic film to be made in black and white, and is still regarded as one of the best. (It was referenced heavily by James Cameron in his Titanic.) It's a pretty good film, though in my opinion not quite long enough--there were many characters, and sometimes the film felt like it was bouncing around between them almost randomly. Also, although they touched on some of the less-than-wholesome sides of the tragedy, there was a lot of whitewashing going on, especially with regard to the treatment of the steerage passengers. Not a bad film, and certainly one that's relatively historically important in the disaster film oeuvre. Trivia: look out for a very young David McCullum (Ducky on NCIS) as well as an allegedly uncredited 20-something Sean Connery as a nameless sailor. In addition, this was made before it was known that the Titanic broke in half before sinking, so it's interesting to see the sinking of the entire ship using the special effects of the times.
3. The Poseidon Adventure (Hallmark Channel mini-series): No, okay, just no. I gave it a chance because I like Adam Baldwin, but just no. I will give you three very clear reasons:
A. Terrorists. Yes, not a tidal wave, terrorists.
B. Special effects I am pretty sure I could have done myself with MS Paint.
C. They LEFT THE CREDITS IN BETWEEN SECTIONS! All the credits, beginning and ending! Even though both halves of the mini-series were playing concurrently on the same side of the disk!
*Bonus*: Stars Steve Guttenberg. Also Rutger Hauer and C. Thomas Howell. Is basically where B-movie stars have apparently gone to die. Poor Adam Baldwin.
Thursday, February 19, 2009
"What d'you think we are? Gangsters?": RocknRolla
I like Guy Richie's movies. I loved Lock, Stock, and Two Smoking Barrels and Snatch. Therefore, it's not surprising that I enjoyed RocknRolla. Aside from the admittedly rather stupid title, it's not a bad little film...as long as you liked Richie's first two movies. Because to be honest, it's more or less the same thing. Not quite as good, but definitely a monstrous improvement over Swept Away.
The plot is familiar to any Richie aficionados--there are schmucks. There are unpleasant members of the London underworld. There are twists and turns and coincidences and chance meetings and some cars that smash together and some ass-kicking and a little bit of sex and some very funny lines and quite a few casualties. On the downside, there is no Jason Statham (I was surprised--I assumed there was some contractual agreement that he had to star in all of Richie's films) but Gerard Butler is a big yummy hunk of man-candy, which was enough to make me happy. The acting is pretty good, and all the performers manage to deliver Richie's sometimes unwieldy dialogue with the proper amount of snap. The plot moves along pretty well, and there is always something going on. There are also some moments of surprisingly interesting cinematography--particularly during the chase-scene with the winded Russian.
I guess I'd have to say this this sort of like a Kevin Smith movie, in that if you like Kevin Smith, you will like his movies, and if you don't, nothing he does is probably going to change your mind. Guy Richie is the same way--his movies are what they are, and if that's something you dig, then you'll probably want to pick this one up.
(I am also hoping that the notable rise in quality from this over his previous few films bodes well for his much-anticipated [at least by me] adaptation of Sherlock Holmes starring RDJ.)
The plot is familiar to any Richie aficionados--there are schmucks. There are unpleasant members of the London underworld. There are twists and turns and coincidences and chance meetings and some cars that smash together and some ass-kicking and a little bit of sex and some very funny lines and quite a few casualties. On the downside, there is no Jason Statham (I was surprised--I assumed there was some contractual agreement that he had to star in all of Richie's films) but Gerard Butler is a big yummy hunk of man-candy, which was enough to make me happy. The acting is pretty good, and all the performers manage to deliver Richie's sometimes unwieldy dialogue with the proper amount of snap. The plot moves along pretty well, and there is always something going on. There are also some moments of surprisingly interesting cinematography--particularly during the chase-scene with the winded Russian.
I guess I'd have to say this this sort of like a Kevin Smith movie, in that if you like Kevin Smith, you will like his movies, and if you don't, nothing he does is probably going to change your mind. Guy Richie is the same way--his movies are what they are, and if that's something you dig, then you'll probably want to pick this one up.
(I am also hoping that the notable rise in quality from this over his previous few films bodes well for his much-anticipated [at least by me] adaptation of Sherlock Holmes starring RDJ.)
Monday, July 14, 2008
A Rant: Hellboy II
Hellboy II: I didn't think this movie was nearly as terrible as some of those I saw it with did. It is not even in the same building, let alone on the same level, as Iron Man or Batman Begins or even The Incredible Hulk. Ron Perlman was good again as Hellboy--despite the pounds of effects make-up and the character's surface wise-assery, Perlman is able to get it across that really, Hellboy is a big old softie. The rest of the returning cast were competent; Jeffrey Tambor was funny, the main villain was sufficiently creepy, and Selma Blair was not terribly annoying, though I did miss David Hyde Pierce as Abe the fish guy. Overall, it was entertaining. The fight scenes were pretty cool, the visuals were impressive to look at, and I got some laughs--that's all I really ask from a movie like this.
I guess this is one of the beefs I sometimes have with people who complain about action, sci-fi, horror, or comic movies. I mean, I am not a "fanboy" who gets riled about the difference between the movie and the original comic. I am not expecting Oscar-caliber dialogue. The acting doesn't have to be fantastic (although if it's VERY bad I do find it annoying--the woman who played the underworld princess in HBII was TERRIBLE, and I did find that somewhat distracting) and my suspension of disbelief can ignore a lot that others can't. Frankly, when I watch a movie like this, I want to laugh, maybe gasp a few times, shovel popcorn in my mouth and be fucking entertained. Not every movie has to have historical significance or a social message or be cinamatically stunning. Sometimes I just want to watch Bruce Willis blow stuff up or Nicolas Cage punch some dude in the face or John Wayne shoot some guys. I think movies should be FUN. I dislike the idea that movies should be like cod liver oil--that some you should just shut up and swallow because they're "good" for you. Not me! You know, I have seen Citizen Kane, okay? And you know what? It's totally fucking dull. I realize that cinamatically it's very impressive for its time, and that in a historical context it's very very important. I know all that because it's not like it's a secret. Talk to any first-year film student and he or she will probably fill you in. However--and this is of course only my opinion--it's no fun at all to watch. The characters are all horrible and I couldn't connect with any of them. It was not funny. It was not exciting. It had no suspense. It merely plodded on for what seemed to me like an eternity, and that right there is NO FUN. I spend enough of my life having NO FUN at work--I have no interest in torturing myself with films that are a chore to watch when I'm on my own time.
Perhaps I just better than most at lowering my expectations?
I guess this is one of the beefs I sometimes have with people who complain about action, sci-fi, horror, or comic movies. I mean, I am not a "fanboy" who gets riled about the difference between the movie and the original comic. I am not expecting Oscar-caliber dialogue. The acting doesn't have to be fantastic (although if it's VERY bad I do find it annoying--the woman who played the underworld princess in HBII was TERRIBLE, and I did find that somewhat distracting) and my suspension of disbelief can ignore a lot that others can't. Frankly, when I watch a movie like this, I want to laugh, maybe gasp a few times, shovel popcorn in my mouth and be fucking entertained. Not every movie has to have historical significance or a social message or be cinamatically stunning. Sometimes I just want to watch Bruce Willis blow stuff up or Nicolas Cage punch some dude in the face or John Wayne shoot some guys. I think movies should be FUN. I dislike the idea that movies should be like cod liver oil--that some you should just shut up and swallow because they're "good" for you. Not me! You know, I have seen Citizen Kane, okay? And you know what? It's totally fucking dull. I realize that cinamatically it's very impressive for its time, and that in a historical context it's very very important. I know all that because it's not like it's a secret. Talk to any first-year film student and he or she will probably fill you in. However--and this is of course only my opinion--it's no fun at all to watch. The characters are all horrible and I couldn't connect with any of them. It was not funny. It was not exciting. It had no suspense. It merely plodded on for what seemed to me like an eternity, and that right there is NO FUN. I spend enough of my life having NO FUN at work--I have no interest in torturing myself with films that are a chore to watch when I'm on my own time.
Perhaps I just better than most at lowering my expectations?
Movie Bonanza!
It has been a very long time since I've posted, but that doesn't mean that I haven't been watching movies...oh no, it just means I haven't been WRITING about watching movies. Therefore, I am going to wallop you in the face with several mini-reviews. Lucky you, right?
1. Indiana Jones and the Crystal Skull: Personally, I liked this movie. It's certainly no Raiders of the Lost Ark or Last Crusade but it's a fun movie. Admittedly, it had its flaws. For one thing, the plot was kind of weak. I think this may have something to do with the fact that while the Ark of the Covenant and the Holy Grail are commonly known artifacts, no one (or at least no one who doesn't read Weekly World News) has heard of the Crystal Skulls, and also that there was no cool "I have to put this stick in the exact right spot at the right time and then follow the sunbeam on the map to find the location of the door..." kind of thing. Basically it was like "Here's where we're going. Let's go there, everyone!" Also, Cate Blanchett's Russian accent was rather terrible. On the upside, there were some fun fight scenes, Shia LaBouf was significantly less annoying than I had suspected he would be (in fact, I found his character to be a pleasant surprise) and it was GREAT to see Karen Allen back again as Marion Ravenwood (my very favorite of the Indy heroines.) On the fence was the issue of "over-the-topness." For me, it wasn't a problem--I expected the movie to be cartoony or comic-bookish. In my opinion, that's fun. However some of those I saw the movie with, including The Boyfriend, were put off by the ridiculousness. I said "Oh, and his running away from that giant stone ball in the previous movie wasn't ridiculous?" but apparently they are not the same. *Shrug*
2. The Incredible Hulk: I don't know who is running the Marvel Comics production studio, but whomever it is, I hope he or she is being paid well. While this movie pales in the face of Iron Man, it is still a good solid superhero movie. The special effects were pretty good, the plot was reasonable, and the fight scenes were cool. Thumbs down, though, to casting Liv Tyler (who is not only a poor actress but also distractingly cross-eyed), and also to Edward Norton, who kind of looked for most of the movie like he didn't want to be there. On the whole, though, an entertaining way to kill few hours on a hot summer day.
3. The Golden Compass: This was okay, but so very VERY obvious that there were going to be sequels. Way to not finish A SINGLE STORYLINE, stupid director. Also, I would really have liked to see more armed polar bear warrior fights.
4. Mongol: This is a subtitled Chinese movie we went to see at the local second-run movie house. It's about the early life of Genghis Khan, and it was all right. I thought some of the cinematography was breathtaking, and on the whole it was very interesting, since I know NOTHING about Genghis Khan and almost nothing about current Chinese culture, let alone ancient Chinese culture. The performances from the two leads were powerful, but not overbearing--it's difficult to express so much power with a characters who almost never raise their voices. Unfortunately, the first half of the movie draaaaags for quite a while before things start getting exciting. It's a bit repetitive, and there are times when very confusing time-jumps occur. It's like, one minute the main character is escaping from being locked in a cage for more than a decade, and the next moment it's ten years later and he has an army thousands of men strong, with no real explanation of how things arrived at that point. It's like, "I'm sure whatever happened during that ten years that took him from prisoner to leading thousands of men into battle was probably interesting too...", and it's particularly annoying when the film then spends 10 or 15 minutes on something seemingly minor. I imagine there may be a sequel to this at some point, since it was critically acclaimed (nominated for best foreign film in the 2008 Oscars) and ends right at the point when Khan actually comes into control of the mongol hordes.
Rio Bravo: I like old westerns, and even I found this a little bit stupid. That feeling was not helped any by the part in the middle when Dean Martin and Ricky Nelson randomly stop defending the town from outlaws to sing a lovely ditty about someone named Cindy.
The Grand: This mockumentary about a poker tournament is only recommended for people who are into poker. If you watch poker on TV and follow it as closely as The Boyfriend and our friends (and by osmosis, I) do, then this movie will probably be hilarious because you will recognize all the references, player cameos, and cliches. It's in the Christopher Guest style (and his old friend Michael McKean actually shows up in a small part) which means most of the dialogue was improv, and in fact the final table of the tournament was really played by the actors...so no one knew how the movie was going to end, including the director. There are some great performances, including Woody Harrelson as a lovable loser, Dennis Farina as the old pro, Cheryl Hines as the female pro, and David Cross as the loony attention whore. Seriously though, if you don't know who Doyle Brunson is or are unaware what Phil Helmuth's famous for, don't even bother with this one.
Glory: This is a really good movie. However it makes me miss the days when Denzel Washington acted instead of just chewing scenery and baring his teeth a lot for no reason.
Whew! And now I'm spent.
1. Indiana Jones and the Crystal Skull: Personally, I liked this movie. It's certainly no Raiders of the Lost Ark or Last Crusade but it's a fun movie. Admittedly, it had its flaws. For one thing, the plot was kind of weak. I think this may have something to do with the fact that while the Ark of the Covenant and the Holy Grail are commonly known artifacts, no one (or at least no one who doesn't read Weekly World News) has heard of the Crystal Skulls, and also that there was no cool "I have to put this stick in the exact right spot at the right time and then follow the sunbeam on the map to find the location of the door..." kind of thing. Basically it was like "Here's where we're going. Let's go there, everyone!" Also, Cate Blanchett's Russian accent was rather terrible. On the upside, there were some fun fight scenes, Shia LaBouf was significantly less annoying than I had suspected he would be (in fact, I found his character to be a pleasant surprise) and it was GREAT to see Karen Allen back again as Marion Ravenwood (my very favorite of the Indy heroines.) On the fence was the issue of "over-the-topness." For me, it wasn't a problem--I expected the movie to be cartoony or comic-bookish. In my opinion, that's fun. However some of those I saw the movie with, including The Boyfriend, were put off by the ridiculousness. I said "Oh, and his running away from that giant stone ball in the previous movie wasn't ridiculous?" but apparently they are not the same. *Shrug*
2. The Incredible Hulk: I don't know who is running the Marvel Comics production studio, but whomever it is, I hope he or she is being paid well. While this movie pales in the face of Iron Man, it is still a good solid superhero movie. The special effects were pretty good, the plot was reasonable, and the fight scenes were cool. Thumbs down, though, to casting Liv Tyler (who is not only a poor actress but also distractingly cross-eyed), and also to Edward Norton, who kind of looked for most of the movie like he didn't want to be there. On the whole, though, an entertaining way to kill few hours on a hot summer day.
3. The Golden Compass: This was okay, but so very VERY obvious that there were going to be sequels. Way to not finish A SINGLE STORYLINE, stupid director. Also, I would really have liked to see more armed polar bear warrior fights.
4. Mongol: This is a subtitled Chinese movie we went to see at the local second-run movie house. It's about the early life of Genghis Khan, and it was all right. I thought some of the cinematography was breathtaking, and on the whole it was very interesting, since I know NOTHING about Genghis Khan and almost nothing about current Chinese culture, let alone ancient Chinese culture. The performances from the two leads were powerful, but not overbearing--it's difficult to express so much power with a characters who almost never raise their voices. Unfortunately, the first half of the movie draaaaags for quite a while before things start getting exciting. It's a bit repetitive, and there are times when very confusing time-jumps occur. It's like, one minute the main character is escaping from being locked in a cage for more than a decade, and the next moment it's ten years later and he has an army thousands of men strong, with no real explanation of how things arrived at that point. It's like, "I'm sure whatever happened during that ten years that took him from prisoner to leading thousands of men into battle was probably interesting too...", and it's particularly annoying when the film then spends 10 or 15 minutes on something seemingly minor. I imagine there may be a sequel to this at some point, since it was critically acclaimed (nominated for best foreign film in the 2008 Oscars) and ends right at the point when Khan actually comes into control of the mongol hordes.
Rio Bravo: I like old westerns, and even I found this a little bit stupid. That feeling was not helped any by the part in the middle when Dean Martin and Ricky Nelson randomly stop defending the town from outlaws to sing a lovely ditty about someone named Cindy.
The Grand: This mockumentary about a poker tournament is only recommended for people who are into poker. If you watch poker on TV and follow it as closely as The Boyfriend and our friends (and by osmosis, I) do, then this movie will probably be hilarious because you will recognize all the references, player cameos, and cliches. It's in the Christopher Guest style (and his old friend Michael McKean actually shows up in a small part) which means most of the dialogue was improv, and in fact the final table of the tournament was really played by the actors...so no one knew how the movie was going to end, including the director. There are some great performances, including Woody Harrelson as a lovable loser, Dennis Farina as the old pro, Cheryl Hines as the female pro, and David Cross as the loony attention whore. Seriously though, if you don't know who Doyle Brunson is or are unaware what Phil Helmuth's famous for, don't even bother with this one.
Glory: This is a really good movie. However it makes me miss the days when Denzel Washington acted instead of just chewing scenery and baring his teeth a lot for no reason.
Whew! And now I'm spent.
Thursday, May 22, 2008
A Letter to Nicolas Cage
Dear Mr. Cage,
I know you can act. I have seen you do it. You have put out some performances that have been extraordinary--for example, The Weatherman, Lord of War, Guarding Tess, Adaptation, and apparently Leaving Las Vegas (though that one I have never seen.) And I have certainly enjoyed some of your movies that were...well, let's say they are not going to be contenders in the "Top 10 Films of the Century" contest. I mean, I enjoyed The Rock and Trapped in Paradise a lot , but they are not winning you any Oscars. However, I think you could do even better if you'd take a few pieces of advice from me.
1. YOU CANNOT DO ACCENTS. PLEASE STOP TRYING. I don't care what accent it is, don't do it. You are not fooling anybody. New York, deep South--no. Just no no no. You suck at them and it's time you admitted that and stopped trying. I think Moonstruck, Ghostrider, and Con Air would all have benefited from this advice. Weak or stupid dialogue is easier to camouflage if it's not delivered in a shitty fake accent.
2. YOU NEED TO HIRE A GOOD STYLIST. You are balding, okay? You know it, we all know it. Putting a long, scraggly wig on is NOT going to fool anyone (see Con Air and Next). Showing off your muscles is not going to distract anyone. You need to get in touch with someone who get you a really good hairpiece, or you need to take the Bruce Willis route and just stop trying.
3. YOU NEED TO BE A LITTLE PICKIER ABOUT YOUR MOVIE CHOICES. Do you really expect me to believe that you thought The Wicker Man was going to be good? That you read the script of The Family Man and were like "Hey, this is really great!" If that does happen to be the case, you need to get a much MUCH better agent. Even Ghostrider (which I enjoyed despite myself) should have set off some alarms with its occasionally horrible dialogue. I mean, yes, it IS cool to play a bad-ass flame-headed guy, but perhaps you should look for more than that in your search for scripts. I sometimes think you just throw darts at script to choose what you do, because some of your movies are spectacular and some are pig vomit. There doesn't seem to be any rhyme or reason to it, either.
4. DON'T OVERDO IT ON THE TEETH-BARING, CRAZY-EYED, "LOOK AT ME, I'M LOOOOOSING IT!" FACE. This is a minor peeve, but you sometimes overact quite a bit. I'm a fan of campy (What else can explain my love for some of your work?) but there's only so much a girl can take. Your best roles tend to be the more subtle ones.
Please don't think that my bluntness indicates that I dislike you; on the contrary, I think you're usually pretty entertaining. I am a sucker for Valley Girl and Moonstruck, and I totally LOVE Con Air, even though you commit every sin I've listed here (and a few I've neglected to mention.) You are not untalented, you are just misguided. You can turn it around--I believe in you :)
I hope your upcoming films are good.
Yours,
The Caustic Critic
I know you can act. I have seen you do it. You have put out some performances that have been extraordinary--for example, The Weatherman, Lord of War, Guarding Tess, Adaptation, and apparently Leaving Las Vegas (though that one I have never seen.) And I have certainly enjoyed some of your movies that were...well, let's say they are not going to be contenders in the "Top 10 Films of the Century" contest. I mean, I enjoyed The Rock and Trapped in Paradise a lot , but they are not winning you any Oscars. However, I think you could do even better if you'd take a few pieces of advice from me.
1. YOU CANNOT DO ACCENTS. PLEASE STOP TRYING. I don't care what accent it is, don't do it. You are not fooling anybody. New York, deep South--no. Just no no no. You suck at them and it's time you admitted that and stopped trying. I think Moonstruck, Ghostrider, and Con Air would all have benefited from this advice. Weak or stupid dialogue is easier to camouflage if it's not delivered in a shitty fake accent.
2. YOU NEED TO HIRE A GOOD STYLIST. You are balding, okay? You know it, we all know it. Putting a long, scraggly wig on is NOT going to fool anyone (see Con Air and Next). Showing off your muscles is not going to distract anyone. You need to get in touch with someone who get you a really good hairpiece, or you need to take the Bruce Willis route and just stop trying.
3. YOU NEED TO BE A LITTLE PICKIER ABOUT YOUR MOVIE CHOICES. Do you really expect me to believe that you thought The Wicker Man was going to be good? That you read the script of The Family Man and were like "Hey, this is really great!" If that does happen to be the case, you need to get a much MUCH better agent. Even Ghostrider (which I enjoyed despite myself) should have set off some alarms with its occasionally horrible dialogue. I mean, yes, it IS cool to play a bad-ass flame-headed guy, but perhaps you should look for more than that in your search for scripts. I sometimes think you just throw darts at script to choose what you do, because some of your movies are spectacular and some are pig vomit. There doesn't seem to be any rhyme or reason to it, either.
4. DON'T OVERDO IT ON THE TEETH-BARING, CRAZY-EYED, "LOOK AT ME, I'M LOOOOOSING IT!" FACE. This is a minor peeve, but you sometimes overact quite a bit. I'm a fan of campy (What else can explain my love for some of your work?) but there's only so much a girl can take. Your best roles tend to be the more subtle ones.
Please don't think that my bluntness indicates that I dislike you; on the contrary, I think you're usually pretty entertaining. I am a sucker for Valley Girl and Moonstruck, and I totally LOVE Con Air, even though you commit every sin I've listed here (and a few I've neglected to mention.) You are not untalented, you are just misguided. You can turn it around--I believe in you :)
I hope your upcoming films are good.
Yours,
The Caustic Critic
Monday, May 5, 2008
"Yeah, I can fly now." : Iron Man
On Friday night, The Boyfriend and I (as well as a few of the usual suspects) ventured out into the wilds of Boston proper to go see Iron Man. I will admit that I was not originally stoked about the idea, seeing as it was a chilly, drizzly, graduation weekend in Boston which leads to larger than usual movie-going crowds, and when combined with it being opening weekend of the first of the summer superhero blockbusters, I was sure there would be far too many of "the humans" to allow me any cinematic entertainment. And at first, I was right. We were herded into a little corral for the 25 minutes leading up to the theater opening (though it seems kind of extreme, I think Loews's management of the crowd was pretty reasonable) with the rest of the deranged and slavering fanboys. But as we were standing there waiting, the previous showing of the movie let out, and everyone looked...happy. I mean REALLY happy. They were all talking and gesturing and a couple people were actually leaping up in the air with joy.
Hmmm, I thought to myself.
The previews were pretty exciting in themselves: The Dark Knight and Indiana Jones VI in particular (I like to pretend that I never saw the one for Love Guru...that is like three minutes of my life I can never have back.) There was also one for the new M. Night Shaymalan picture, The Happening. I very seriously question his casting of Marky Mark (I know, I know, he's "Mark Whalberg, the very serious actor" now, but he will ALWAYS be "Marky Mark, the rapper in his underpants" to me) as the lead. I'm actually not really sure what it's about, but I'd be willing to bet there is some kind of craaaazy twist at the end.
As for Iron Man...let me make a list so I can talk about this without babbling.
Things I Liked About Iron Man:
1. Robert Downey Jr. I have always liked Robert Downey Jr., and I think he's probably one of the better actors of his generation. I particuarly enjoyed his performance in Kiss Kiss, Bang Bang and had been looking forward to seeing him again in a bigger movie. He manages to do the superhero thing without going down the "I'm Batman, oooh, I'm so brooooody" road, and he studiously avoids the "I'm Spiderman/Superman, and I'm just so gosh-darn wholesome" trap, too. I mean, the character of Tony Stark is...well, obnoxious. But he's obnoxious like that friend you have (and everybody has one...if you don't, then you ARE that guy) that is kind of a douchebag, but he's such a hilarious, charming, self-deprecating, FUN douchebag you just kind of forgive his jerky behavior in exchange for the good stuff. In all, Stark is a character I liked played by a massively talented actor. Score 1 for Iron Man!
2. Jon Favreau. I am not entirely sure how Jon Favreau lucked into this gig--up until this point, the only major movie he'd directed was Elf--but thank goodness he did. The script for this was pretty great, the casting was pretty much great, the effects choices were excellent, and best of all, the fight scenes were COOL. None of that "flashy flashy ultra close up flash flash blurry close up POV shot flash flash explosion!" thing that directors seem to be favoring in action movies. You could actually SEE the fight! It was amazing! Who knew that the guy who played Gutter in PCU would go on to do this?
3. Dialogue. Most action movies have some issues with dialogue. There is usually at least that one scene when you kind of slap yourself in the forehead like "Oh, jeez, ow, that was lame." Even Batman Begins--which I LOVED--was blighted with a few of those moments (all courtesy of the robotic Kat(i)e Holmes). Iron Man didn't seem to have any of those moments. Partly, I suppose, because the romantic subplot was kept pretty aggressively "sub," and partly because RDJ managed to keep his character from really saying any soppy out-of-character bunk.
4. Comedy. The scenes with Stark in his lab with his robots were PRICELESS. I laughed until the tears rolled down my face.
5. Villain. I wasn't sure I was going to be able to buy Jeff Bridges as a villain. As a commenter on a review site I read (Pajiba.com) mentioned, "Every time he and RDJ were arguing, I just kept waiting for him to say 'That's just, like, your opinion...man.' like the Dude." As someone who lives with a Big Lebowski addict, I'm kind of ruined on Jeff Bridges. However, he did the best he could to be menacing with a smile (which is muc more disturbing than outright menacing.) As a sidenote, though, the guy who runs the superhero's company while he is away is ALWAYS evil.
6. Special Effects. Incredible. Come on, the suit? The sexiness is overwhelming.
I was not particularly thrilled with the casting of Gwenyth Paltrow as the lead female/possible romatic interest Pepper Potts. However, she was not terrible (once again, I bring up Ms. Holmes in Batman Begins--in my opinion, that woman ruined every single scene she appeared in...not even the hot sexiness of Christian Bale could help her...it was like watching a nervous kid doing Shakespeare with Olivier) and in her favor did have really excellent shoes. I think they would have better off casting someone a little more snarky and less pretty (something along the lines of a young Janeane Garofalo, maybe?) but on the whole it could have been so so so much worse.
Overall, I give two thumbs up--it was just really really fun, and that is something I look for in my blockbuster films.
Hmmm, I thought to myself.
The previews were pretty exciting in themselves: The Dark Knight and Indiana Jones VI in particular (I like to pretend that I never saw the one for Love Guru...that is like three minutes of my life I can never have back.) There was also one for the new M. Night Shaymalan picture, The Happening. I very seriously question his casting of Marky Mark (I know, I know, he's "Mark Whalberg, the very serious actor" now, but he will ALWAYS be "Marky Mark, the rapper in his underpants" to me) as the lead. I'm actually not really sure what it's about, but I'd be willing to bet there is some kind of craaaazy twist at the end.
As for Iron Man...let me make a list so I can talk about this without babbling.
Things I Liked About Iron Man:
1. Robert Downey Jr. I have always liked Robert Downey Jr., and I think he's probably one of the better actors of his generation. I particuarly enjoyed his performance in Kiss Kiss, Bang Bang and had been looking forward to seeing him again in a bigger movie. He manages to do the superhero thing without going down the "I'm Batman, oooh, I'm so brooooody" road, and he studiously avoids the "I'm Spiderman/Superman, and I'm just so gosh-darn wholesome" trap, too. I mean, the character of Tony Stark is...well, obnoxious. But he's obnoxious like that friend you have (and everybody has one...if you don't, then you ARE that guy) that is kind of a douchebag, but he's such a hilarious, charming, self-deprecating, FUN douchebag you just kind of forgive his jerky behavior in exchange for the good stuff. In all, Stark is a character I liked played by a massively talented actor. Score 1 for Iron Man!
2. Jon Favreau. I am not entirely sure how Jon Favreau lucked into this gig--up until this point, the only major movie he'd directed was Elf--but thank goodness he did. The script for this was pretty great, the casting was pretty much great, the effects choices were excellent, and best of all, the fight scenes were COOL. None of that "flashy flashy ultra close up flash flash blurry close up POV shot flash flash explosion!" thing that directors seem to be favoring in action movies. You could actually SEE the fight! It was amazing! Who knew that the guy who played Gutter in PCU would go on to do this?
3. Dialogue. Most action movies have some issues with dialogue. There is usually at least that one scene when you kind of slap yourself in the forehead like "Oh, jeez, ow, that was lame." Even Batman Begins--which I LOVED--was blighted with a few of those moments (all courtesy of the robotic Kat(i)e Holmes). Iron Man didn't seem to have any of those moments. Partly, I suppose, because the romantic subplot was kept pretty aggressively "sub," and partly because RDJ managed to keep his character from really saying any soppy out-of-character bunk.
4. Comedy. The scenes with Stark in his lab with his robots were PRICELESS. I laughed until the tears rolled down my face.
5. Villain. I wasn't sure I was going to be able to buy Jeff Bridges as a villain. As a commenter on a review site I read (Pajiba.com) mentioned, "Every time he and RDJ were arguing, I just kept waiting for him to say 'That's just, like, your opinion...man.' like the Dude." As someone who lives with a Big Lebowski addict, I'm kind of ruined on Jeff Bridges. However, he did the best he could to be menacing with a smile (which is muc more disturbing than outright menacing.) As a sidenote, though, the guy who runs the superhero's company while he is away is ALWAYS evil.
6. Special Effects. Incredible. Come on, the suit? The sexiness is overwhelming.
I was not particularly thrilled with the casting of Gwenyth Paltrow as the lead female/possible romatic interest Pepper Potts. However, she was not terrible (once again, I bring up Ms. Holmes in Batman Begins--in my opinion, that woman ruined every single scene she appeared in...not even the hot sexiness of Christian Bale could help her...it was like watching a nervous kid doing Shakespeare with Olivier) and in her favor did have really excellent shoes. I think they would have better off casting someone a little more snarky and less pretty (something along the lines of a young Janeane Garofalo, maybe?) but on the whole it could have been so so so much worse.
Overall, I give two thumbs up--it was just really really fun, and that is something I look for in my blockbuster films.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)