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.
Monday, July 14, 2008
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.
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
"I love you too, but I'm going to mace you in the face!"
This weekend, The Boyfriend and I ordered up some Indian food and settled in to watch The Darjeeling Limited. As a fan of Wes Anderson, but also a person who can admit that I find some of his work very uneven, I wasn't sure to expect.
The film follows the meandering story of the Whitman brothers (played by Owen Wilson [my favorite Wilson!], Adrien Brody, and Jason Schwartzman) who travel across India in a train on a reluctant spiritual journey. I was pleased with the casting--obviously Wilson and Schwartzman are Anderson favorites, but Brody fit in rather nicely to the Anderson asthetic and was perfect as neurotic, kleptomaniacal middle brother Peter. Owen Wilson, usually known for his wacky stoner-type characters pulled back a little to play the bossy but fragile oldest brother Francis. Schwartzman was also good as youngest brother and peace-maker Jack. The brotherly dynamic was great, and it was interesting to watch the three of them play off one another. It was also sort of fascinating to try and figure out what had led their relationships to the current point and to wonder where they where headed.
The movie is definitely a character study, since really almost nothing actually "happens." It's basically 90 minutes of watching the Whitman brothers haul around their monogrammed baggage while trying to connect with each other and themselves. Anderson has let up on the precociously whimsical aspect that I felt sort of dragged down The Life Aquatic and this time allows his characters to interact a little more naturally.
Another thing that was particularly interesting to me was the way he almost made India a character in the movie. Having all three main characters in a place where they were uncomfortable and out-of-place created a situation that led to more conflict. I know that feeling of being the only white person in a place, wondering what people are thinking yet unable to find out because no one is speaking your language. It definitely makes you both extremely self-conscious and at the same time sort of uninhibited--self-conscious because you're completely different from everyone around you and you don't know what they're saying, yet uninhibited because none of these people know anything about you and most probably don't know know what you're saying about them, either. It's a set of circumstances that allow the Whitman brothers to put down a certain number of their defenses under the guise of trying to have a spiritual experience.
I definitely liked the movie, although I think I'd probably have to watch it again to even start to get everything. Like Anderson's other films, it's got a lot of visual depth and an astounding number of details that will require multiple viewings. I found it both funny and moving, closer probably to Tennenbaums and Bottle Rocket than to Rushmore or Life Aquatic. I recommend it to anyone who is willing to sit down and really WATCH it (it's not a movie you can put on as background--it will need you to devote your full attention).
Sidenote: Wes Anderson really has a thing about absentee parents. There is at least one in every one of his movies, except maybe Bottle Rocket. In Tennenbaums, Royal has been absent for most of his children's lives, and Chaz's wife is dead, leaving his two sons to deal with missing a parent. In Rushmore, Max's mother is dead. In Life Aquatic, Steve Zissou IS the absent parent, and Ned is the child learning to deal with that absence. And in Darjeeling, the Whitman brothers lost their father a year previous, and their mother has disappeared on them too. I don't know what it means, except that maybe ol' Wes has some parental issues.
Wednesday, March 26, 2008
Accidental Double Feature: True Romance and The Langoliers
This weekend I ended up with an accidental double feature--didn't even realize that the two movies had anything in common until we started watching the second one. Can you guess what the common thread is between True Romance and The Langoliers?
Give up?
Bronson Pinchot!
Yeah, okay, so that's not actually exciting. As a matter of fact, I have often said I find Mr. Pinchot (or as The Boyfriend calls him, "Hey-it's-Balky!") brain-splinteringly annoying. The mere sound of his voice is kind of obnoxious and gives me headaches. However, what we have here is one good solid performance from him wherein he did NOT annoy me.
I will first point out that I LOVE True Romance. It's the only movie of Quentin Tarantino's that I actually like, probably because he neither acted in nor directed it. When I first saw it several years ago, I didn't even KNOW it was a Tarantino movie (although seeing it now I can definitely point out a few spots where the Tarantino comes through: namely the conversation early on with Samuel L. Jackson talking about eating pussy, Dennis Hopper's monologue about the Sicilians and the Moors [which is an iconic scene, really--Hopper and Christopher Walken elevate that above its true content], Patricia Arquette's knock-down-drag-out with James Gandolfini, the Mexican stand-off, and the repeated use of the phrase "Bad Motherfucker.") The plot centers around Clarence and Alabama, who through a series of circumstances end up with a suitcase full of cocaine and the mob on their tails. Contrary to how it may sound, though, the movie is a romance through and through. The reasons I like it so much are as follows:
1. Christian Slater. Seriously, I will watch just about anything the guy does, even if most of it IS crap. Not only do I find him exceedingly hot, but I feel this is my way of repaying him for Heathers, Pump Up the Volume, and this.
2. Patricia Arquette's portrayal of Alabama is as both sweet and naive AND gutsy and tough is pretty great. She manages to play both vulnerable and hard as nails, sometimes within the same moment. It's an excellent performance from her, and as one of very few compelling females within the Tarantino canon (the only one who measures up in my estimation is Beatrix Kiddo, and she has the benefit of being a trained assassin--Alabama has to make do with being a former call-girl) I find her interesting. I think that is due more to Arquette's acting skills than to the script--Alabama could have come off cloying and stupid if played wrong. Which reminds me, the opening and closing monologues from her are just bad. I advise you to skip over them if possible.
3. The plot is serviceable, but doesn't necessarily dominate the movie. It just keeps things moving along in a more or less coherant way. There is never a point during the film where I find myself saying "What? What is going on? Why is this happening?" The things the characters do make sense within the context of the film, which is rarer than you'd think.
4. The acting in the movie--from Slater and Arquette all the way down to the minor roles--is top notch. There are a suprising number of recognizable faces in the film--watch for Brad Pitt's turn as a stoner, Bronson Pinchot (yes, there he is) as a nervous syncophant, and James Gandolfini (with hair!) as a mafia fixer. Also Val Kilmer (who is billed fourth in the credits, yet is only in the movie for about 5 minutes and you never actually see his face) is another bonus for me, since he's another actor I love.
5. The soundtrack--particularly Clarence and Alabama's theme, which I believe is a marimba solo--is fantastic. It adds to the movie without distracting, which should be the goal of every movie's score.
5. (SPOILER!) I am a sucker for happy endings.
I recommend True Romance for everyone--there's romance, violence, adventure, humor...everything you can ask for from a movie is here.
The Langoliers, unfortunately, did not inspire within me the same sort of devotion. There were several problems, some of which made it nearly opposite True Romance. The film is based on a Stephen King novella, the premise being that a group of ten passengers--including a pilot (David Morse), a mystery writer (Dean Stockwell), a blind--and somewhat psychic--girl, two teenagers, a school teacher, a British man of mystery, a glutton, a blue-collar gentleman, and a mad man (Bronson Pinchot! Again!)--on a cross-country flight wake up to discover they are the only people left on board the plane...or, it turns out, on earth. After landing at a rural Maine airport, they are left to try and figure out what's happened while dealing with threats they can see (the mad man) and those they can't (a mysterious munching sound from beyond the mountains).
1. The film was made as a TV mini-series in the early 90s, and it really shows. (In the words of Nina Garcia, "It looks cheap.") There are no big-name actors, and the special effects are downright TERRIBLE. Laughably terrible, in fact. Even the plane was poorly done and looked like bad CGI. Also, it's totally obvious exactly where the commercials were.
2. None of the characters were particularly memorable, except for Pinchot and his horrible HORRIBLE over-acting, which mostly consisted of a lot of eye-rolling and shrieking. The writers tried to shoehorn in subplots for everyone, but didn't bother to follow them out properly. There was no real character development at all. Characters were generally either "bravely heroic" or "gripped by hysteria and panic."
3. Contrary to True Romance, the plot in The Langoliers dominated the movie but did it very badly. Let's say that you are flexible enough to buy into the idea of the time rip, etc (after all, if you're not you should probably stay away from movies in this genre.) The problems are with the characters and their behavior. They all seem to completely ignore a man who is obviously dangerously insane. Later, the British secret agent ties up the mad man with a rope that is obviously incapble of holding him, then leaves the blind child and the school teacher (both unarmed) to keep an eye on crazy Pinchot while Mr. British Secret Service and the other good-sized men of the party go off to wander through the deserted airport. There was entirely more exposition at some points than was necessary--the audience is not stupid, you know. My ability to suspend disbelief was heartily abused.
4. Much of the acting was BAD. Morse and Stockwell did as well as they could with the material provided (they're both veterans, after all) but the rest of the cast were either over-acting or under-acting the whole way through. Half the time they were screaming, the other half mumbling miserably to themselves. As I mentioned, Pinchot was quite awful, but the woman playing the schoolteacher/love interest was quite blah, and the British apparently confused smirking with acting. In all, a rather unimpressive turnout.
It was just not very good at all, and although I'd been trying to track it down for ages (Netflix didn't have it and I was so excited to find it available OnDemand) it was a big disappointment (as many Stephen King movies tend to be...but I've posted on that subject already.) I definitely don't recommend this except to the most devoted King fan.
Give up?
Bronson Pinchot!
Yeah, okay, so that's not actually exciting. As a matter of fact, I have often said I find Mr. Pinchot (or as The Boyfriend calls him, "Hey-it's-Balky!") brain-splinteringly annoying. The mere sound of his voice is kind of obnoxious and gives me headaches. However, what we have here is one good solid performance from him wherein he did NOT annoy me.
I will first point out that I LOVE True Romance. It's the only movie of Quentin Tarantino's that I actually like, probably because he neither acted in nor directed it. When I first saw it several years ago, I didn't even KNOW it was a Tarantino movie (although seeing it now I can definitely point out a few spots where the Tarantino comes through: namely the conversation early on with Samuel L. Jackson talking about eating pussy, Dennis Hopper's monologue about the Sicilians and the Moors [which is an iconic scene, really--Hopper and Christopher Walken elevate that above its true content], Patricia Arquette's knock-down-drag-out with James Gandolfini, the Mexican stand-off, and the repeated use of the phrase "Bad Motherfucker.") The plot centers around Clarence and Alabama, who through a series of circumstances end up with a suitcase full of cocaine and the mob on their tails. Contrary to how it may sound, though, the movie is a romance through and through. The reasons I like it so much are as follows:
1. Christian Slater. Seriously, I will watch just about anything the guy does, even if most of it IS crap. Not only do I find him exceedingly hot, but I feel this is my way of repaying him for Heathers, Pump Up the Volume, and this.
2. Patricia Arquette's portrayal of Alabama is as both sweet and naive AND gutsy and tough is pretty great. She manages to play both vulnerable and hard as nails, sometimes within the same moment. It's an excellent performance from her, and as one of very few compelling females within the Tarantino canon (the only one who measures up in my estimation is Beatrix Kiddo, and she has the benefit of being a trained assassin--Alabama has to make do with being a former call-girl) I find her interesting. I think that is due more to Arquette's acting skills than to the script--Alabama could have come off cloying and stupid if played wrong. Which reminds me, the opening and closing monologues from her are just bad. I advise you to skip over them if possible.
3. The plot is serviceable, but doesn't necessarily dominate the movie. It just keeps things moving along in a more or less coherant way. There is never a point during the film where I find myself saying "What? What is going on? Why is this happening?" The things the characters do make sense within the context of the film, which is rarer than you'd think.
4. The acting in the movie--from Slater and Arquette all the way down to the minor roles--is top notch. There are a suprising number of recognizable faces in the film--watch for Brad Pitt's turn as a stoner, Bronson Pinchot (yes, there he is) as a nervous syncophant, and James Gandolfini (with hair!) as a mafia fixer. Also Val Kilmer (who is billed fourth in the credits, yet is only in the movie for about 5 minutes and you never actually see his face) is another bonus for me, since he's another actor I love.
5. The soundtrack--particularly Clarence and Alabama's theme, which I believe is a marimba solo--is fantastic. It adds to the movie without distracting, which should be the goal of every movie's score.
5. (SPOILER!) I am a sucker for happy endings.
I recommend True Romance for everyone--there's romance, violence, adventure, humor...everything you can ask for from a movie is here.
The Langoliers, unfortunately, did not inspire within me the same sort of devotion. There were several problems, some of which made it nearly opposite True Romance. The film is based on a Stephen King novella, the premise being that a group of ten passengers--including a pilot (David Morse), a mystery writer (Dean Stockwell), a blind--and somewhat psychic--girl, two teenagers, a school teacher, a British man of mystery, a glutton, a blue-collar gentleman, and a mad man (Bronson Pinchot! Again!)--on a cross-country flight wake up to discover they are the only people left on board the plane...or, it turns out, on earth. After landing at a rural Maine airport, they are left to try and figure out what's happened while dealing with threats they can see (the mad man) and those they can't (a mysterious munching sound from beyond the mountains).
1. The film was made as a TV mini-series in the early 90s, and it really shows. (In the words of Nina Garcia, "It looks cheap.") There are no big-name actors, and the special effects are downright TERRIBLE. Laughably terrible, in fact. Even the plane was poorly done and looked like bad CGI. Also, it's totally obvious exactly where the commercials were.
2. None of the characters were particularly memorable, except for Pinchot and his horrible HORRIBLE over-acting, which mostly consisted of a lot of eye-rolling and shrieking. The writers tried to shoehorn in subplots for everyone, but didn't bother to follow them out properly. There was no real character development at all. Characters were generally either "bravely heroic" or "gripped by hysteria and panic."
3. Contrary to True Romance, the plot in The Langoliers dominated the movie but did it very badly. Let's say that you are flexible enough to buy into the idea of the time rip, etc (after all, if you're not you should probably stay away from movies in this genre.) The problems are with the characters and their behavior. They all seem to completely ignore a man who is obviously dangerously insane. Later, the British secret agent ties up the mad man with a rope that is obviously incapble of holding him, then leaves the blind child and the school teacher (both unarmed) to keep an eye on crazy Pinchot while Mr. British Secret Service and the other good-sized men of the party go off to wander through the deserted airport. There was entirely more exposition at some points than was necessary--the audience is not stupid, you know. My ability to suspend disbelief was heartily abused.
4. Much of the acting was BAD. Morse and Stockwell did as well as they could with the material provided (they're both veterans, after all) but the rest of the cast were either over-acting or under-acting the whole way through. Half the time they were screaming, the other half mumbling miserably to themselves. As I mentioned, Pinchot was quite awful, but the woman playing the schoolteacher/love interest was quite blah, and the British apparently confused smirking with acting. In all, a rather unimpressive turnout.
It was just not very good at all, and although I'd been trying to track it down for ages (Netflix didn't have it and I was so excited to find it available OnDemand) it was a big disappointment (as many Stephen King movies tend to be...but I've posted on that subject already.) I definitely don't recommend this except to the most devoted King fan.
Monday, March 17, 2008
Careful Or You'll Be Bored to Death!: Scare Jessica to Death
This past weekend, The Boyfriend was out of town and I happily had the place all to myself. Obviously, what I did was hang out, eat pizza, and watch terrible movies OnDemand. One such movie that I found was Scare Jessica to Death. (In case you are thinking of watching this movie--which I don't know why you would, but some people are funny that way--there are going to be some spoilers. Be warned.)
First of all, there's the most important factor: 1971. Yes, this movie was made in 1971, and it was NOT a high budget blockbuster. In fact, when watching it you may suspect that the director simply rounded up a couple friends, his grandparents, and a video camera to put this thing together. Also, he may have written the entire script in two hours while he was stoned. You know the kind of stoned: the kind of stoned where you're like "Hey, let's order a pizza!" and everyone's really psyched and thinks it's a most excellent idea, and then an hour later you're all like "Hey, where's that pizza?" only to have the most sober member of the group point out that you never actually ordered it, instead you went to the 7-11 and bought 12 packages of Swedish fish and a Slim Jim. That is the kind of stoned that produced this movie, I think.
The second thing is that you keep thinking things are going to get more interesting, but they don't. For all the 'Music of Creepiness and Great Forboding' not a lot really happens. The story sort of drags along for most of the movie, with the occasional "ooh, that's sort of weird" moment. However, if you're paying attention, the movie's twist should slam you in the head about half an hour in. Then the last 15 or twenty minutes a bunch of stuff happens but none of it is particularly interesting or scary. You're mostly left wondering just how stupid this particular bunch of people are.
For those of you who might still be interested, the plot is as follows: Jessica has just been released from a mental institution, and her husband and their random hippy friend Woody decide the best thing for her is to pack up and move to a creepy-ass house out in the middle of Buttfuck-Nowhereville, where they plan to live off of selling any heirlooms left in the house and Woody's doubtful farming skills. When they get to the house, they find the locals distinctly unfriendly and a beautiful squatter named Emily living in the place. Things kind of go to hell from there, with Jessica struggling to understand what's going on while not giving the impression that she's still crazy. Of course the mysterious Emily is not what she first appears (although can definitely rock the lute) and the town is even less friendly than it first seemed. Throw in a cheating husband, a mute girl in white, some drowning, a vampire (one who appears to have no problems at all with sunlight), and some elderly zombies and you have...well, I don't know exactly what you you have. You have this movie, I guess. It sounds like a lot of excitement, but trust me, that explanation was probably more exciting and enjoyable than the actual film.
I don't recommend this to anyone. There are thousands of horror movies out there, and even most of the "bad" ones will be better than this.
First of all, there's the most important factor: 1971. Yes, this movie was made in 1971, and it was NOT a high budget blockbuster. In fact, when watching it you may suspect that the director simply rounded up a couple friends, his grandparents, and a video camera to put this thing together. Also, he may have written the entire script in two hours while he was stoned. You know the kind of stoned: the kind of stoned where you're like "Hey, let's order a pizza!" and everyone's really psyched and thinks it's a most excellent idea, and then an hour later you're all like "Hey, where's that pizza?" only to have the most sober member of the group point out that you never actually ordered it, instead you went to the 7-11 and bought 12 packages of Swedish fish and a Slim Jim. That is the kind of stoned that produced this movie, I think.
The second thing is that you keep thinking things are going to get more interesting, but they don't. For all the 'Music of Creepiness and Great Forboding' not a lot really happens. The story sort of drags along for most of the movie, with the occasional "ooh, that's sort of weird" moment. However, if you're paying attention, the movie's twist should slam you in the head about half an hour in. Then the last 15 or twenty minutes a bunch of stuff happens but none of it is particularly interesting or scary. You're mostly left wondering just how stupid this particular bunch of people are.
For those of you who might still be interested, the plot is as follows: Jessica has just been released from a mental institution, and her husband and their random hippy friend Woody decide the best thing for her is to pack up and move to a creepy-ass house out in the middle of Buttfuck-Nowhereville, where they plan to live off of selling any heirlooms left in the house and Woody's doubtful farming skills. When they get to the house, they find the locals distinctly unfriendly and a beautiful squatter named Emily living in the place. Things kind of go to hell from there, with Jessica struggling to understand what's going on while not giving the impression that she's still crazy. Of course the mysterious Emily is not what she first appears (although can definitely rock the lute) and the town is even less friendly than it first seemed. Throw in a cheating husband, a mute girl in white, some drowning, a vampire (one who appears to have no problems at all with sunlight), and some elderly zombies and you have...well, I don't know exactly what you you have. You have this movie, I guess. It sounds like a lot of excitement, but trust me, that explanation was probably more exciting and enjoyable than the actual film.
I don't recommend this to anyone. There are thousands of horror movies out there, and even most of the "bad" ones will be better than this.
Thursday, March 6, 2008
Did They Actually PAINT Someone?: F-Troop
I was so excited when I saw that the show F-Troop had finally been released on DVD. I remember watching it on Nick @ Nite with my grandparents, and in my memory it was a hilarious show. Why, I wondered, had it taken this long to get released? Why wasn't it still being shown on TVland or late at night on the Western Channel or something?
I ordered it from Netflix and anxiously awaited my chance to reconnect with something from my childhood.
Then, the DVD arrived, and I suddenly realized why the show had all but disappeared.
The show is about a western fort sometime during the civil war era. The commanding officer is typically clueless, and his underlings get up to all sorts of shenanagins under his nose. Nothing wrong with that, right? The first indication of a problem comes during the theme song (an infectious little ditty, written in the days when shows had theme songs that actually provided information about the show.)
The end of the Civil War was near,
When quite accidentally,
A hero who sneezed, abruptly seized
Retreat and reversed it to victory.
His medal of honor pleased and thrilled
His proud little family group.
While pinning it on, some blood was spilled,
And so it was planned he'd command...F-Troop!
Where Indian fights are colorful sights
And nobody takes a lickin',
Where paleface and redskin
Both turn chicken.
I ordered it from Netflix and anxiously awaited my chance to reconnect with something from my childhood.
Then, the DVD arrived, and I suddenly realized why the show had all but disappeared.
The show is about a western fort sometime during the civil war era. The commanding officer is typically clueless, and his underlings get up to all sorts of shenanagins under his nose. Nothing wrong with that, right? The first indication of a problem comes during the theme song (an infectious little ditty, written in the days when shows had theme songs that actually provided information about the show.)
The end of the Civil War was near,
When quite accidentally,
A hero who sneezed, abruptly seized
Retreat and reversed it to victory.
His medal of honor pleased and thrilled
His proud little family group.
While pinning it on, some blood was spilled,
And so it was planned he'd command...F-Troop!
Where Indian fights are colorful sights
And nobody takes a lickin',
Where paleface and redskin
Both turn chicken.
Oops...redskin? I am pretty sure they're not referring to the football team here. And once the "redskins" arrive on screen, it's apparent why this show is rarely shown: every single Native American character is a painted white guy. The first episode on the DVD featured Don Rickles painted brown, running around and screaming about scalping people. Although the Hakawi tribe are stereotypical in some ways, they often seem to get the better of their stupid white comrades at Fort Courage. However, while it may have been okay in 1965 to paint men brown and stick feathers on their heads to play Native Americans, it's pretty uncomfortable today.
The strange thing is that except for the parts involving the Heckawis, the show is still pretty funny in that slap-sticky 60s sitcom kind of way. Ken Berry's portrayal of Captain Parmenter (who was cheerful but totally oblivious and invariably clumsy) is fantastic, and Forrest Tucker and Larry Storch nail their roles as the slick Sargeant O'Roake and his bumbling sidekick Corporal Agarn. Storch in particular is hilarious--his generation's rubber-faced version of Jim Carrey, only with less screaming. Unfortunately, I just couldn't enjoy it as I used to because the Heckawi issue made me so uncomfortable. I'm not usually a person who is much concerned with political correctness and am often the one pointing out that you have to take things in their context or remember that it's only a show, but even after telling myself that it was made in the 1960s before people knew any better, it was still just a little too gross.
Very disappointing over all--I didn't even finish out the episodes on the disk.
I am going to hope that some of the other shows I remember fondly from my days watching Nick @ Nite hold up better.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)