Over the weekend, the Critics Awards began popping up, with the unified and regional branches checking in on their favorite films. Generally speaking, this would be the beginning of "award season", a period the Cap'n must profess he gets more and more distant from each year.
Looking at the top choices, it's pretty clear that my favorite movies of the year (so far) aren't going to be jockeying for position come Golden Globes and Academy Awards time.
Rather than list them all (hint, click on each word for the released lists), I'd like to look at some of the data and extract my own thoughts.
To start, it's disheartening that Moon and Thirst only made into the mix once apiece. Alternately, it's kind of cool to see Coraline, Drag Me to Hell, and Anvil: The Story of Anvil make appearances, even if it's just once. Despite the fact that I can't bring myself to believe it's true, Bad Lieutenant: Port of Call New Orleans is on at least one "Top" List for the year, as is the hotly debated (and currently unseen by me) Inglorious Basterds.
I'm totally lost as to why The Men Who Stare at Goats is nowhere to be found, along with Tyson and Crank: High Voltage*.
Star Trek and Avatar each made the list once, so I guess razzle dazzle and impressive effects do get you somewhere after all. That the latter didn't make more lists is not indicative yet, considering I'm not seeing the Chicago Film Critics, The New York Film Critics Circle, or a handful of other major groups who might be waiting for the embargo to lift. Honestly, I don't know, and not being all that interested in Avatar, I don't really care too much.
For what it's worth, Star Trek was an entertaining movie, but then again so was The Incredible Hulk, or, if you think that's an unfair comparison, Iron Man. All three are films I enjoyed, will revisit periodically, but Star Trek isn't going to be in my "Best Of 2009" list. But I digress.
Let's talk about the movies popping up the most:
The Hurt Locker (9)
Up (7)
An Education (5)
Up In the Air (5)
A Serious Man (4)
Precious (4)
Invictus (3)
(500) Days of Summer (3)
I have seen none of these films, and it is likely that watching Up could happen as early as tonight and that I'll be able to catch (500) Days of Summer before the year is out, but I have a few general thoughts.
- Although my outspoken support of Near Dark may not accurately convey it, I am also a supporter of Kathryn Bigelow. The Hurt Locker certainly seems to be the film to beat this year, and I may have to overcome my dislike of topical war movies** and watch this film. Plus, we're talking about the director of cult faves Point Break and Strange Days as a contender for Best Picture and Best Director. Not since Peter Jackson, I say!
- Up in the Air sounds like something I'd want to see. I really liked Jason Reitman's Thank You For Smoking, hated Juno, but I like the cast and thought the novel it's based on (by Thumbsucker's Walter Kirn) was pretty good. This might be a good movie to see on Christmas night.
- To be fair, I didn't know what An Education was, I wasn't planning on seeing Precious, and Invictus has been getting fair to middling reviews. They're more of the "oh, what's that again? Ah, based on a memoir, based on a best-selling novel, and based on Nelson Mandela and... Rugby? Okay...", and I can't honestly say I would've rushed to see any of them, but what matters the Cap'n in Critics Picks?
- Okay, so now can the new Coen Brothers movie open in Greensboro? Please?
- I'm really, honestly surprised by the showing for (500) Days of Summer. I've only talked to one person who saw it, and he enjoyed it with reservations. Ultimately he ended up recommending it to me, but I guess I thought it was more of a "better than average indie rom-com" and not critically acclaimed. Shows what the Cap'n knows.
- Finally, I'd just like to reiterate how bummed I am about Moon and Thirst not making much of a dent with the critics. I can understand why Thirst isn't, because tonally it can be a little weird and I'm sure it's not in vogue to be okay with vampires right now. But Moon is a GREAT MOVIE, and one of the most assured debuts since Hedwig and the Angry Inch.
* Okay, you got me. I know why Crank: High Voltage isn't, but it made you look twice, now didn't it?
** To this point, I will argue that while The Men Who Stare at Goats is partially set in post-invasion Iraq, the thematic elements and actual plot have nothing to do with Operation Iraqi Freedom, and I'll stand by that contention.
Monday, December 14, 2009
Saturday, December 12, 2009
Looking Forward So That I May Better Look Back
The semester is winding down to a close, and over the next few days I'm actually going to be very busy getting things together for graduate school applications (for long, and honestly stupid, reasons on my part, I won't be going to Chicago for my masters. While I'm about as happy with this as I am with the GRE scores, it is what it is.). However, once all of that business is done, I reckon I'll have the better part of this week to devote to movies before the holidays hit, so I'd like to ask you folks for some input.
It doesn't matter who you are, if you read this blog and there's something you think I should see before the year is out, I want you to leave me a comment. It could be from 2009 or it could be any other movie. I always do a year-end recap, so if there's something I haven't covered that you think I'd like, please let me know.
Right now, I still have the following to catch before the end of the year: Public Enemies, Up, Inglorious Basterds, District 9, The Hangover, World's Greatest Dad, Duplicity, Adventureland, Sunshine Cleaning, (500) Days of Summer, The Taking of Pelham 123, Monsters vs Aliens, and The Brothers Bloom.
That's what I can think of that I'd like to see before 2009 ends. Surely I'm missing something and this is where you come in. The Cap'n doesn't pretend to be a complete cinephile, and I simply can't keep up with everything. Should I look into New York, I Love You? Is a trip in order to catch A Serious Man or Antichrist? You tell me. I want to know.
---
As it is, allow me to present a brief list of movies I saw not from 2009 that would make their respective year's "Best of" List:
My Own Private Idaho - I have no idea why I never got around to watching Gus Van Sant's early defining film (long before Good Will Hunting, Psycho, or Milk), but I'm glad I finally did this year. From beginning to end, top to bottom, an excellent film, with an inspired visual style and clever use of William Shakespeare's Henry IV. My only regret is that I hadn't seen this during prior arguments where I'd periodically defend Keanu Reeves, and the death of River Phoenix was a serious loss for film.
The Hit - This film by Stephen Frears (The Grifters, High Fidelity, The Queen) actually made me rescind all the awful things I said about Terence Stamp in The Haunted Mansion - for a little while. It's a crime movie where much of the film is the anticipation of an actual "hit": in this case, of Mobster turned informant Willie Parker (Stamp). After going into hiding in Spain, Willie is found and captured by a hitman (John Hurt) and his driver (a very young Tim Roth), along with an unfortunate visitor (Laura del Sol). Frears plays these characters off of each other in ways you wouldn't expect, but Stamp anchors the film with the steely resolve of a man at peace with his mortality. I'd never heard of The Hit before this spring, but I'm glad I've seen it now.
The Foot Fist Way - Honestly, without The Foot Fist Way, I don't think I would have been ready for Observe and Report. As it is, Jody Hill's first film is a slice of awkwardness that kept me laughing from beginning to end, and it helped me appreciated Danny McBride's other work even more.
Martyrs - Since Martyrs technically came out in 2008, I can't really cover it in the year-end recap. While I still have quibbles about the mid-twist-torture sequence, I cannot begin to shake the final fifteen minutes from the film. The last image remains with me to this day, and to that end, however minor my issues with the movie are, it certainly belongs on this list.
Dog Soldiers - I'd seen The Descent. I'd seen Doomsday. But until this summer, I'd never watched Dog Soldiers, Neil Marshal's low budget debut film. While it's not perfect, I certainly had fun with this twist on werewolf films, and its sense of humor helped keep the budgetary limitations at bay. I don't know what Marshal is working on now, but I wouldn't be shocked to hear it started with "D".
Synechdoche, NY - The critical backlash against this film still puzzles me. I understand that it's not always fun to watch, and at times can be maddeningly esoteric (especially during the more confusing opening scenes), but once Charlie Kaufman's epic about a man realizing his life as performance really gets going, the convoluted eccentricities of the script step aside and you're left with some wonderful character work from everyone in the cast. I was very pleased to finally watch Synechdoche, NY this year, and I regret not watching it when it played in theatres, as its kind will not likely be seen again.
JCVD - A film that was not at all what I expected, but nevertheless a pleasant journey to take into self parody for Jean-Claude Van Damme. The trailers would lead you to believe that JCVD is more of a comedy, designed to embarrass Van Damme, but the truth is that it's a little more like Dog Day Afternoon meets Adaptation with the structure of Memento. While Van Damme is playing himself (or a version of himself), this is a deconstruction of the way audiences see him as an action star / has-been packed into a potboiler heist movie and punctuated with comedy. I wasn't as taken with the monologue as some seem to be (when Van Damme literally rises above the set and directly addresses the camera), but I certainly enjoyed JCVD and hoped it would mean more of its ilk for Van Damme and less Universal Soldier sequels.... sigh.
and finally:
Teenage Mother - What can I say? I can't un-watch Teenage Mother, and I saw it twice in the span of three weeks. It's an average movie with silly moments punctuated by a truly out-of-left-field five minute burst of childbirth, and then things are over. The wildly misleading trailer points you in the opposite direction of the actual story, down to including footage that's nowhere to be found in the film. Clinical footage and attempted rape aside, Teenage Mother is a pretty humdrum movie, made goofy by inexplicable story elements. It's 69 minutes I guarantee you won't forget, so it makes the list.
Boss, on the other hand, does not, for reasons apparent to anyone who saw it with the Cap'n.
It doesn't matter who you are, if you read this blog and there's something you think I should see before the year is out, I want you to leave me a comment. It could be from 2009 or it could be any other movie. I always do a year-end recap, so if there's something I haven't covered that you think I'd like, please let me know.
Right now, I still have the following to catch before the end of the year: Public Enemies, Up, Inglorious Basterds, District 9, The Hangover, World's Greatest Dad, Duplicity, Adventureland, Sunshine Cleaning, (500) Days of Summer, The Taking of Pelham 123, Monsters vs Aliens, and The Brothers Bloom.
That's what I can think of that I'd like to see before 2009 ends. Surely I'm missing something and this is where you come in. The Cap'n doesn't pretend to be a complete cinephile, and I simply can't keep up with everything. Should I look into New York, I Love You? Is a trip in order to catch A Serious Man or Antichrist? You tell me. I want to know.
---
As it is, allow me to present a brief list of movies I saw not from 2009 that would make their respective year's "Best of" List:
My Own Private Idaho - I have no idea why I never got around to watching Gus Van Sant's early defining film (long before Good Will Hunting, Psycho, or Milk), but I'm glad I finally did this year. From beginning to end, top to bottom, an excellent film, with an inspired visual style and clever use of William Shakespeare's Henry IV. My only regret is that I hadn't seen this during prior arguments where I'd periodically defend Keanu Reeves, and the death of River Phoenix was a serious loss for film.
The Hit - This film by Stephen Frears (The Grifters, High Fidelity, The Queen) actually made me rescind all the awful things I said about Terence Stamp in The Haunted Mansion - for a little while. It's a crime movie where much of the film is the anticipation of an actual "hit": in this case, of Mobster turned informant Willie Parker (Stamp). After going into hiding in Spain, Willie is found and captured by a hitman (John Hurt) and his driver (a very young Tim Roth), along with an unfortunate visitor (Laura del Sol). Frears plays these characters off of each other in ways you wouldn't expect, but Stamp anchors the film with the steely resolve of a man at peace with his mortality. I'd never heard of The Hit before this spring, but I'm glad I've seen it now.
The Foot Fist Way - Honestly, without The Foot Fist Way, I don't think I would have been ready for Observe and Report. As it is, Jody Hill's first film is a slice of awkwardness that kept me laughing from beginning to end, and it helped me appreciated Danny McBride's other work even more.
Martyrs - Since Martyrs technically came out in 2008, I can't really cover it in the year-end recap. While I still have quibbles about the mid-twist-torture sequence, I cannot begin to shake the final fifteen minutes from the film. The last image remains with me to this day, and to that end, however minor my issues with the movie are, it certainly belongs on this list.
Dog Soldiers - I'd seen The Descent. I'd seen Doomsday. But until this summer, I'd never watched Dog Soldiers, Neil Marshal's low budget debut film. While it's not perfect, I certainly had fun with this twist on werewolf films, and its sense of humor helped keep the budgetary limitations at bay. I don't know what Marshal is working on now, but I wouldn't be shocked to hear it started with "D".
Synechdoche, NY - The critical backlash against this film still puzzles me. I understand that it's not always fun to watch, and at times can be maddeningly esoteric (especially during the more confusing opening scenes), but once Charlie Kaufman's epic about a man realizing his life as performance really gets going, the convoluted eccentricities of the script step aside and you're left with some wonderful character work from everyone in the cast. I was very pleased to finally watch Synechdoche, NY this year, and I regret not watching it when it played in theatres, as its kind will not likely be seen again.
JCVD - A film that was not at all what I expected, but nevertheless a pleasant journey to take into self parody for Jean-Claude Van Damme. The trailers would lead you to believe that JCVD is more of a comedy, designed to embarrass Van Damme, but the truth is that it's a little more like Dog Day Afternoon meets Adaptation with the structure of Memento. While Van Damme is playing himself (or a version of himself), this is a deconstruction of the way audiences see him as an action star / has-been packed into a potboiler heist movie and punctuated with comedy. I wasn't as taken with the monologue as some seem to be (when Van Damme literally rises above the set and directly addresses the camera), but I certainly enjoyed JCVD and hoped it would mean more of its ilk for Van Damme and less Universal Soldier sequels.... sigh.
and finally:
Teenage Mother - What can I say? I can't un-watch Teenage Mother, and I saw it twice in the span of three weeks. It's an average movie with silly moments punctuated by a truly out-of-left-field five minute burst of childbirth, and then things are over. The wildly misleading trailer points you in the opposite direction of the actual story, down to including footage that's nowhere to be found in the film. Clinical footage and attempted rape aside, Teenage Mother is a pretty humdrum movie, made goofy by inexplicable story elements. It's 69 minutes I guarantee you won't forget, so it makes the list.
Boss, on the other hand, does not, for reasons apparent to anyone who saw it with the Cap'n.
Friday, December 11, 2009
Blogorium Review: Thirst
It's nice to know that just because American vampires are becoming garbage and the domain of teenage girls, that somewhere overseas people are getting it right. First came Let the Right One In, an especially potent blend of vampirism and adolescence from Sweden, and now Thirst (Bakjwi), the newest film from Chan-Wook Park (Oldboy, Sympathy for Mr. Vengeance).
When I was describing Thirst a few weeks back, I mentioned that the film was about Catholic Father Sang-hyeon (Kang-Ho Song) who becomes a vampire through a blood transfusion. The transfusion occurs because he willingly contracts the (fictional) EV virus in a laboratory as an act of martyrdom. At the time, I imagined that in some way shape or form that Park was using this hook to set up a serious moral quandry about being a man of faith and a vampire. Not quite.
Thirst does deal, in minor ways, with Sang-hyeon's morality after turning, but that's hardly the only concern of the film. Sang-hyeon becomes something of a messianic figure after his "miraculous" cure, which remains a faint thread through the film, although not quite to the degree I expected. In Thirst, vampirism is still a source of super strength, leaping, and healing, but any disease you turn with will begin manifesting again without persistent feeding. I was happy that Park adheres to most of the vampire "rules" (the exception being reflections, but because he breaks it for shot composition purposes, I'll let it slide). And yet, the strange ways Sang-hyeon rationalizes finding blood is also not the primary objective.
Much of Thirst is a black comedy, with traces of film noir and ghost stories. Sang-hyeon falls in love with Tae-ju (Ok-bin Kim), the wife of a childhood friend, and at her suggestion, he helps murder the husband and eventually turns her. And Tae-ju is the last femme fatale you want to give super strength and bloodlust to.
Despite how dark much of this sounds, Thirst is actually very funny. IMDB lists the film as a Horror / Drama, but to ignore the comedy robs Thirst of its greatest weapon. Park treats the vampires with a disturbingly comic edge, in addition to a number of twisted developments in the second half of the film. At times I was reminded faintly of Double Indemnity crossed with the last scene in Very Bad Things, which is a marriage that could only work in Thirst. The tone of the film never gets bogged down in moral wrestling, even when Sang-hyeon's ethics clash with Tae-ju's. Lady Ra (Hae-sook Kim), the mother of deceased Kang-woo (Ha-kyun Shin), does a lot of work with very little, since she spends the second half of the film paralyzed.
Oh, and there are Tae-ju's hallucinations, or nightmares. That's when the movie gets verrrrry weird for a spell. That, and what I cannot prove but would suggest is a nod to Let the Right One In - while Sang-hyeon is receiving absolution, he begins pouring blood from his skull, eye sockets, and ears, not unlike what happens when Eli enters uninvited.
The ending (which I will not spoil here), is horrifying, hilarious, and sadly sweet. For a vampire movie that blends black comedy with film noir, there's really only one way Thirst could end, and despite the reminiscence to Blade II and 30 Days of Night, I found the closing of the film to be utterly appropriate.
For fans of Park's other films, expect to see something a little different. The drowning scene, at times, reminded me tonally of early Peter Jackson, and that is perhaps the best thing to keep in mind when watching Thirst. If you aren't laughing during sections of this film, Thirst may not be for you. For anyone who enjoyed Let the Right One In, or other non-conventional vampire films, I highly recommend Thirst. Now you'll have two recent movies to counter the masses with.
When I was describing Thirst a few weeks back, I mentioned that the film was about Catholic Father Sang-hyeon (Kang-Ho Song) who becomes a vampire through a blood transfusion. The transfusion occurs because he willingly contracts the (fictional) EV virus in a laboratory as an act of martyrdom. At the time, I imagined that in some way shape or form that Park was using this hook to set up a serious moral quandry about being a man of faith and a vampire. Not quite.
Thirst does deal, in minor ways, with Sang-hyeon's morality after turning, but that's hardly the only concern of the film. Sang-hyeon becomes something of a messianic figure after his "miraculous" cure, which remains a faint thread through the film, although not quite to the degree I expected. In Thirst, vampirism is still a source of super strength, leaping, and healing, but any disease you turn with will begin manifesting again without persistent feeding. I was happy that Park adheres to most of the vampire "rules" (the exception being reflections, but because he breaks it for shot composition purposes, I'll let it slide). And yet, the strange ways Sang-hyeon rationalizes finding blood is also not the primary objective.
Much of Thirst is a black comedy, with traces of film noir and ghost stories. Sang-hyeon falls in love with Tae-ju (Ok-bin Kim), the wife of a childhood friend, and at her suggestion, he helps murder the husband and eventually turns her. And Tae-ju is the last femme fatale you want to give super strength and bloodlust to.
Despite how dark much of this sounds, Thirst is actually very funny. IMDB lists the film as a Horror / Drama, but to ignore the comedy robs Thirst of its greatest weapon. Park treats the vampires with a disturbingly comic edge, in addition to a number of twisted developments in the second half of the film. At times I was reminded faintly of Double Indemnity crossed with the last scene in Very Bad Things, which is a marriage that could only work in Thirst. The tone of the film never gets bogged down in moral wrestling, even when Sang-hyeon's ethics clash with Tae-ju's. Lady Ra (Hae-sook Kim), the mother of deceased Kang-woo (Ha-kyun Shin), does a lot of work with very little, since she spends the second half of the film paralyzed.
Oh, and there are Tae-ju's hallucinations, or nightmares. That's when the movie gets verrrrry weird for a spell. That, and what I cannot prove but would suggest is a nod to Let the Right One In - while Sang-hyeon is receiving absolution, he begins pouring blood from his skull, eye sockets, and ears, not unlike what happens when Eli enters uninvited.
The ending (which I will not spoil here), is horrifying, hilarious, and sadly sweet. For a vampire movie that blends black comedy with film noir, there's really only one way Thirst could end, and despite the reminiscence to Blade II and 30 Days of Night, I found the closing of the film to be utterly appropriate.
For fans of Park's other films, expect to see something a little different. The drowning scene, at times, reminded me tonally of early Peter Jackson, and that is perhaps the best thing to keep in mind when watching Thirst. If you aren't laughing during sections of this film, Thirst may not be for you. For anyone who enjoyed Let the Right One In, or other non-conventional vampire films, I highly recommend Thirst. Now you'll have two recent movies to counter the masses with.
Thursday, December 10, 2009
A Day of Rest from Reviews
Thankfully, I lucked into a video daily double and a few other odds and ends in the land of film.
---
At this point, I imagine many of you heave seen or heard the David Lynch anecdote about being offered Revenge of the Jedi and turning it down. If not, here it is:
Why exactly this is suddenly making the rounds today is a curio to me, but since I couldn't remember whether I'd heard this story before. The easiest path to go (since the internet can by wildly unreliable) was to pull out my dog-eaten copy of Lynch on Lynch, flip to the chapter on Dune, and check.
Sure enough, page 113:
"And then a weird thing started happening. I went to meet George Lucas who had offered me the third Star Wars to direct, but I've never even really liked science fiction. I like the elements of it, but it needs to be combined with other genres. And, obviously, Star Wars was totally George's thing."
So there you go. It's been in print for a while, and the Cap'n just forgot about it. I only know that because I read Lynch on Lynch cover to cover during the same period of time I worked for UPS.
Lynch also goes on to mention that prior to Dune, he was attached to make Red Dragon. To me, that's even more interesting than Revenge of the Jedi. Manhunter is an interesting film, to be sure, but if there's anyone I'd be more interested in seeing adapt Thomas Harris than Michael Mann, it would be David Lynch.
---
The Cap'n is on the record not being a fan of Death at a Funeral. I understand that there are those of you who do really love the movie, but it struck me as the most obvious jokes in the most obvious situation comedy you could possibly cram into ninety minutes.
Of course, then Chris Rock* put up the money to remake the film. Directed by "what the hell happened to" Neil LaBute (once of In the Company of Men, more recently of The Wicker Man), the two years later remake takes the exact same scenes, the exact same jokes, and finds some new gags that are comparably awful. See for yourself:
Okay, to be fair, watching them back to back, it's almost the same trailer. The remake just put in the grumpy old man character so you knew Danny Glover was in the movie. I don't find either of them funny, whether it be "urban" or "british", which I use with the same derisive inflection. Both are attempting to pass off as products of their environment, and yet both movies were directed by white Americans. Anyway, before I dig myself into some kind of hole, I wanted to head off the "this remake is automatically crap because the original was so good etc" argument. Because the original is not that good, especially if you've ever seen a comedy in the last 80 years.
---
Oh, right. How could I forget Recent Movie's Foreign Exchange Student Cousin: Spanish Movie?
---
Finally, for fans of American celebrities in Japanese commercials, here is proof that even a talking dog can out-act Quentin Tarantino. I remain a Tarantino fan in writer/director capacity, but if I ever have to sit through Destiny Turns on the Radio again, I'll stab someone.
---
Back tomorrow with a review of Thirst, plus apparently Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince and Public Enemies are on their way via Netflix.
* I honestly intend no disrespect to Chris Rock for wanting to adapt a movie next to no one saw, but I just really hate Death at a Funeral, and no amount of redressing the story is going to convince me it's not hackneyed and obvious.
---
At this point, I imagine many of you heave seen or heard the David Lynch anecdote about being offered Revenge of the Jedi and turning it down. If not, here it is:
Why exactly this is suddenly making the rounds today is a curio to me, but since I couldn't remember whether I'd heard this story before. The easiest path to go (since the internet can by wildly unreliable) was to pull out my dog-eaten copy of Lynch on Lynch, flip to the chapter on Dune, and check.
Sure enough, page 113:
"And then a weird thing started happening. I went to meet George Lucas who had offered me the third Star Wars to direct, but I've never even really liked science fiction. I like the elements of it, but it needs to be combined with other genres. And, obviously, Star Wars was totally George's thing."
So there you go. It's been in print for a while, and the Cap'n just forgot about it. I only know that because I read Lynch on Lynch cover to cover during the same period of time I worked for UPS.
Lynch also goes on to mention that prior to Dune, he was attached to make Red Dragon. To me, that's even more interesting than Revenge of the Jedi. Manhunter is an interesting film, to be sure, but if there's anyone I'd be more interested in seeing adapt Thomas Harris than Michael Mann, it would be David Lynch.
---
The Cap'n is on the record not being a fan of Death at a Funeral. I understand that there are those of you who do really love the movie, but it struck me as the most obvious jokes in the most obvious situation comedy you could possibly cram into ninety minutes.
Of course, then Chris Rock* put up the money to remake the film. Directed by "what the hell happened to" Neil LaBute (once of In the Company of Men, more recently of The Wicker Man), the two years later remake takes the exact same scenes, the exact same jokes, and finds some new gags that are comparably awful. See for yourself:
Okay, to be fair, watching them back to back, it's almost the same trailer. The remake just put in the grumpy old man character so you knew Danny Glover was in the movie. I don't find either of them funny, whether it be "urban" or "british", which I use with the same derisive inflection. Both are attempting to pass off as products of their environment, and yet both movies were directed by white Americans. Anyway, before I dig myself into some kind of hole, I wanted to head off the "this remake is automatically crap because the original was so good etc" argument. Because the original is not that good, especially if you've ever seen a comedy in the last 80 years.
---
Oh, right. How could I forget Recent Movie's Foreign Exchange Student Cousin: Spanish Movie?
---
Finally, for fans of American celebrities in Japanese commercials, here is proof that even a talking dog can out-act Quentin Tarantino. I remain a Tarantino fan in writer/director capacity, but if I ever have to sit through Destiny Turns on the Radio again, I'll stab someone.
---
Back tomorrow with a review of Thirst, plus apparently Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince and Public Enemies are on their way via Netflix.
* I honestly intend no disrespect to Chris Rock for wanting to adapt a movie next to no one saw, but I just really hate Death at a Funeral, and no amount of redressing the story is going to convince me it's not hackneyed and obvious.
Wednesday, December 9, 2009
So You Won't Have To: The Limits of Control
"Bad movies happen to good directors. You'd think I would have learned that by now."
I took a bullet for all of you last night. It pains me to say it, as much of a supporter of Jim Jarmusch as I am, but I cannot in good conscience give a movie this a pass. The Limits of Control is a challenge to any cinephile to try and finish a film that builds and repeats for no reason, that peppers the already limited dialogue with pointless one-sided conversations about the derivation of the term "Bohemian", movies that show you what life was really like, and molecules floating together in space.
Since I hope none of you ever watch this film, I'm going to spoil everything. Believe me, that's not saying as much as you think it would.
To be kind, I'll call it a waste of time. The plot is so simple, I can describe it in one sentence:
A hitman is hired to kill an American businessman in Spain, but mostly he sits in cafes or doesn't sleep.
That's it. I guess if you need more specifics, the Lone Man (Isaach De Bankolé) exercises, drinks two cups of expresso, walks around, and periodically looks at art. We see every single contact he makes in every town, all of which begin with the code phrase "You don't speak Spanish, do you?" delivered in Spanish, no matter what the nation of origin of the contact.
Occasionally, Nude (Paz de la Huerta) tries to sleep with him. When she's not totally nude, she sometimes wears a clear raincoat. I could pretend this is an important plot development, but if you had to sit through this film, you'd realize that it means about as much as anything else that happens.
The Limits of Control is about repetition. Lone Man enters a town, goes to his apartment. The camera move is the same when he first arrives as when he leaves, every single time. He always orders two espressos in separate cups, both of which are for him. His contacts sit down, have some water, and talk for five minutes or so about art, philosophy, music, film, or science. The movie wants you to think this has something to do with Bill Murray's speech right before Lone Man kills him with a guitar string, but it doesn't.
From here on out, I'm going to include some notes I took during the film, embellished with my further thoughts:
"It's like he decided to remake Point Blank, but only the stylistic flourishes and without the story. Or A story. Just repetition for the sake of repetition."
Okay, so when The Limits of Control starts with Focus Features Presents a POINTBLANK Production, it's hard to ignore that kind of subtle reference. It's like having Lone Man fly on Lumiere Airlines. Sometimes I can let a reference-heavy movie slide, but The Limits of Control seems to think its the first film to do this, so instead of being maybe clever, it's obnoxious.
But back to Point Blank. I've seen Point Blank. Many times. I've even seen its remake, Payback. In both forms. I've seen Godard's Made in USA, which to be perfectly honest is more what The Limits of Control has in common with the Walker novels Point Blank and Made in USA are based on. Even Made in USA has more of a story than The Limits of Control.
Jarmusch borrows a number of visual cues from Point Blank, but for no reason. They're there just to say "see? it's like the scene in Point Blank where he comes in and she's in bed. Then he takes the gun away!" which is actually only reminiscent of what happens. Late in the film I realized that in some ways Isaach De Bankolé resembles Lee Marvin, particularly in the eyes and jawline. But The Limits of Control isn't actually like Point Blank in any way other than copying specific shots. One of them has a story and the other does not.
"There's something oddly amusing about the film existing for its own sake. Self serving, yes, but in a 'really? this is the movie?' way."
For the first hour (or what I thought was the first hour), I was kind of enjoying how shamelessly about itself The Limits of Control was. It's really all you can do, because there's not much else to invest in. But then it takes a turn, around the 45 minute mark (not even close to the halfway point, it turned out) or so, when Lone Man goes into a Spanish restaurant / club and listens to a song that is, verbatim, what the French guy with the French translator said at the beginning of the movie. Then you realize that Jarmusch is actually going to try shoehorning meaning into this masturbatory exercise in cinema.
"Jarmusch just cut from the Lone Man looking at a city skyline to the same shot of him looking at a painting of the same thing."
Up to that point, I'd put up with "You don't speak Spanish, do you" followed more often than not by someone continuing to speak in Spanish while Lone Man just sat there. I put up with the pointless casing of cities that had nothing to do with the end of the movie, with the inane conversations from recognizeable actors. I even let the deliberately misleading music cues pass, because, well, that's what I was watching. That was the movie.
But then Jarmusch tries to have his cake and eat it too. Now we have repetition of phrases in addition to images. Phrases which mean nothing, just like they meant nothing the first time, only now they're introduced to trick you into thinking there's a philosophy behind the facade; that there's nothing worth looking at behind the curtain. Pay attention to the Wizard, you schmuck.
"Tilda Swinton is now describing the film while she pretends to talk about other movies. 'I like films where people just sit there and don't talk' followed by silence. Get it???"
She then goes on to talk about The Lady from Shanghai and how it was the only movie Rita Hayworth ever wore a blonde wig in. Then she talks about how Rita Hayworth dies at the end of the movie. Tilda Swinton is wearing a blonde wig and later in the film, Lone Man sees a movie poster of her in the same outfit she's wearing, followed by a shot of Swinton being forced into a car and driven away. Gee, I wonder what happened to her character?
Oh, and she has a clear umbrella. Let's see if you can figure out what that has to do with Nude.
"I really think Jim Jarmusch is fucking with me. He wants me to not go off on the pretentious film student who claims this is brilliant in a year's time. And he will. And hack professors. And people who mistake 'confusing' for 'deep' and defer to movies they think are smarter than they are will believe them, even if the film lacks every other necessary component of competency."
Somewhere down the line, I guarantee you someone tells you this is brilliant. They'll compare it to Dead Man and claim that "nothing happened in Dead Man, either", and then explain the story about going to the cemetery to find out what life is really about, or what "La vida non vale nada"has to do with the "meaning" of the film. Or the last title card: No Limits No Control. Or how clever it is that Bill Murray puts his wig on a skull. Get it? Foreshadowing!
I can think of a dozen different ways that first year film students are going to mistake this film for something deep and profound. How the references to Tarkovsky and Kaurismäki are awfully clever, and they'll share the movie like it's some great secret. And I'll make them watch Point Blank. I'll make them watch Made in USA. I'll even make them watch The Limey, which is a much better stylistic riff on Boorman's film, and then we'll talk about The Limits of Control.
This really pains me, because like I said, I've defended Jarmusch before with other films for many of the reasons I'm tearing The Limits of Control apart. The difference is that the other movies, while periodically indulgent, were interesting to watch. They didn't make a two hour movie feel like four hours of wanking into a camera. The characters were actually interesting and the story compelling. If you hate Dead Man (and I know a few of you who do) or Stranger Than Paradise, The Limits of Control would be torturous to sit through. Even if you know what's coming (which is nothing), it's an ultimately worthless exercise in pretentiousness.
So be glad that I watched it So You Won't Have To. Because I really hope you don't subject yourself to this film. Do yourself a favor and find a copy of Permanent Vacation, an early Jarmusch film that The Limits of Control has far more in common with than you'd think. The difference is that his first film, for all its rough patches, is still more interesting than his latest.
Tuesday, December 8, 2009
Blogorium Review: Observe and Report
One of the reasons I retroactively dropped the Joe preview into Trailer Sunday is that Observe and Report is continually being compared to films that like and Taxi Driver. There's a genre in the mid-seventies about the psychotic/suicidal anti-hero that was a byproduct of increasingly violent Late Film Noir (D.O.A., Ace in the Hole, and Kiss Me Deadly). Observe and Report is clearly borrowing from this tradition, down to a well placed joke based on Travis Bickle's Taxi Driver montage, but I think there's something else going on here.
For starters, Observe and Report is the logical "next step" for Jody Hill. After The Foot Fist Way and Eastbound and Down, he's developed a knack for sociopaths with delusions of grandeur. While all three are comedies, they get increasingly darker. The final three episodes of Eastbound and Down turned out to be a nice bridge to Observe and Report, and it's probably for the best that the show aired before Report came out, because this may be the most uncomfortable laughter you can squeeze out of an audience.
Here's where the difference is between Observe and Report, Hill's other projects, and the "anti-hero" genre: I like Kenny Powers. I liked Fred Simmons. Yes, they were assholes and they treated people like shit, but underneath all of that, they were insecure dorks who had one thing they were good at. I even like Travis Bickle, despite all of the awkwardness and delusions. Travis Bickle is adrift, looking for a purpose to direct himself towards. Instead he lets his seething disgust and anger simmer, and when he can't successfully eliminate a politician, he settles for a pimp.
Ronnie Barnhardt (Seth Rogen), on the other hand, I could not find myself rooting for. Ronnie is an appallingly dangerous sociopath, one who has access to power and a knack for violence that does no one in the film good. Even when he uses his brutality for good and abuses Nell (Collette Wolfe)'s boss to make him stop treating her like shit (a rare use of Patton Oswalt as the bad guy), it's in a bullying and clearly unethical way. He even has to ask Nell to pretend "I was never here". And that's the nice thing he does. Otherwise, he's relentlessly unlikeable, racist, and homophobic. Not unlike Joe Curran or Travis Bickle.
Ronnie is the head of Mall Security, and wields that position as though he was God's gift to the mall. This is par the course for a Jody Hill film, but the difference is that there's no real comeuppance for Ronnie at any point. Every time the universe proves him wrong, he bludgeons his way into winning again, including a shockingly violent finale involving a mall flasher. I really wasn't sure what to make of Ronnie graphically breaking someone's arm halfway into an 86 minute movie, but Observe and Report packs a lot of psychotic into a short span.
I'm not troubled that Ronnie wins (by his standards, and to be honest by the standards of just about every other character), although it is a break from the "anti-hero" label the film so frequently is likened to. For example, Travis Bickle somehow doesn't die in his charge of violence, and is regarded in small ways as a "folk hero", but you can tell at the end of Taxi Driver that the madness is still lurking behind those eyes. It's the last shot, for crying out loud.
Ronnie Barnhardt is rewarded for being an unlikeable, dangerous thug in a way that probably makes him more like Jack Bauer than Travis Bickle. Without spoiling too much, unlike Kenny Powers or Fred Simmons, Ronnie gets exactly what he wants with none of the consequences of his actions because his way solves all of the problems that matter.
Despite not really knowing how I feel about Ronnie, I think that Seth Rogen was very good in a totally different kind of role than we're used to. Anna Faris is good, if a bit one dimensional, as the object of Ronnie's affections. She's not interested, but he does manage to get her drunk and drugged up enough that there's a debatable rape scene in the film. Ray Liotta is great playing a variation on the "perplexed actual hero" role, and does it in a way that you really feel bad he has to suffer Ronnie's presence.
The other mall cops (Michael Peña, Jesse Plemons, and John and Matt Yuan) each have their moment to shine, particularly Peña, who gets the best of the film's montages and gets some surprising character development. Because of the way Observe and Report is designed, it actually caught me off guard that Hill was developing Wolfe's Nell as a legitimate love interest for Ronnie and not simply another subject in his kingdom, but the pay off is sweet. Aziz Ansari and Danny McBride both get good cameos, as does Patton Oswalt, all ending in the wrath of Ronnie Barnhardt.
Technically speaking, Hill stepped up his game for Observe and Report. There's some great camerawork, use of editing, and slow motion in the film. His use of music is clever and unexpected, and I think Observe and Report is a very well made film. The story moves out of the constraints you're expecting almost immediately, and goes in directions I did not see coming, which is a sign of good film-making. For a movie that's as short as Observe and Report is, I never felt like I was being short changed as an audience member.
So should you watch Observe and Report? If you like Eastbound and Down, and particularly if you really liked The Foot Fist Way, then yes. I skew it in that direction because for all its depravities, Eastbound and Down is actually friendlier for most audiences than The Foot Fist Way is. There's something to the comparisons to psychotic "antihero" films, so if you're a fan of that sub-genre, it's also worth looking into. Most people just aren't going to understand why they should watch Observe and Report, and to be honest, the movie is not at all for them. If you read this review and said "who would watch a movie about this guy?", then steer clear. You will not enjoy the film. The comedy comes in strange places and will no doubt only push you further away.
For those of you who fall in the former category, I highly recommend Observe and Report. It's a step forward for Jody Hill, and I look forward to whatever he has planned next.
For starters, Observe and Report is the logical "next step" for Jody Hill. After The Foot Fist Way and Eastbound and Down, he's developed a knack for sociopaths with delusions of grandeur. While all three are comedies, they get increasingly darker. The final three episodes of Eastbound and Down turned out to be a nice bridge to Observe and Report, and it's probably for the best that the show aired before Report came out, because this may be the most uncomfortable laughter you can squeeze out of an audience.
Here's where the difference is between Observe and Report, Hill's other projects, and the "anti-hero" genre: I like Kenny Powers. I liked Fred Simmons. Yes, they were assholes and they treated people like shit, but underneath all of that, they were insecure dorks who had one thing they were good at. I even like Travis Bickle, despite all of the awkwardness and delusions. Travis Bickle is adrift, looking for a purpose to direct himself towards. Instead he lets his seething disgust and anger simmer, and when he can't successfully eliminate a politician, he settles for a pimp.
Ronnie Barnhardt (Seth Rogen), on the other hand, I could not find myself rooting for. Ronnie is an appallingly dangerous sociopath, one who has access to power and a knack for violence that does no one in the film good. Even when he uses his brutality for good and abuses Nell (Collette Wolfe)'s boss to make him stop treating her like shit (a rare use of Patton Oswalt as the bad guy), it's in a bullying and clearly unethical way. He even has to ask Nell to pretend "I was never here". And that's the nice thing he does. Otherwise, he's relentlessly unlikeable, racist, and homophobic. Not unlike Joe Curran or Travis Bickle.
Ronnie is the head of Mall Security, and wields that position as though he was God's gift to the mall. This is par the course for a Jody Hill film, but the difference is that there's no real comeuppance for Ronnie at any point. Every time the universe proves him wrong, he bludgeons his way into winning again, including a shockingly violent finale involving a mall flasher. I really wasn't sure what to make of Ronnie graphically breaking someone's arm halfway into an 86 minute movie, but Observe and Report packs a lot of psychotic into a short span.
I'm not troubled that Ronnie wins (by his standards, and to be honest by the standards of just about every other character), although it is a break from the "anti-hero" label the film so frequently is likened to. For example, Travis Bickle somehow doesn't die in his charge of violence, and is regarded in small ways as a "folk hero", but you can tell at the end of Taxi Driver that the madness is still lurking behind those eyes. It's the last shot, for crying out loud.
Ronnie Barnhardt is rewarded for being an unlikeable, dangerous thug in a way that probably makes him more like Jack Bauer than Travis Bickle. Without spoiling too much, unlike Kenny Powers or Fred Simmons, Ronnie gets exactly what he wants with none of the consequences of his actions because his way solves all of the problems that matter.
Despite not really knowing how I feel about Ronnie, I think that Seth Rogen was very good in a totally different kind of role than we're used to. Anna Faris is good, if a bit one dimensional, as the object of Ronnie's affections. She's not interested, but he does manage to get her drunk and drugged up enough that there's a debatable rape scene in the film. Ray Liotta is great playing a variation on the "perplexed actual hero" role, and does it in a way that you really feel bad he has to suffer Ronnie's presence.
The other mall cops (Michael Peña, Jesse Plemons, and John and Matt Yuan) each have their moment to shine, particularly Peña, who gets the best of the film's montages and gets some surprising character development. Because of the way Observe and Report is designed, it actually caught me off guard that Hill was developing Wolfe's Nell as a legitimate love interest for Ronnie and not simply another subject in his kingdom, but the pay off is sweet. Aziz Ansari and Danny McBride both get good cameos, as does Patton Oswalt, all ending in the wrath of Ronnie Barnhardt.
Technically speaking, Hill stepped up his game for Observe and Report. There's some great camerawork, use of editing, and slow motion in the film. His use of music is clever and unexpected, and I think Observe and Report is a very well made film. The story moves out of the constraints you're expecting almost immediately, and goes in directions I did not see coming, which is a sign of good film-making. For a movie that's as short as Observe and Report is, I never felt like I was being short changed as an audience member.
So should you watch Observe and Report? If you like Eastbound and Down, and particularly if you really liked The Foot Fist Way, then yes. I skew it in that direction because for all its depravities, Eastbound and Down is actually friendlier for most audiences than The Foot Fist Way is. There's something to the comparisons to psychotic "antihero" films, so if you're a fan of that sub-genre, it's also worth looking into. Most people just aren't going to understand why they should watch Observe and Report, and to be honest, the movie is not at all for them. If you read this review and said "who would watch a movie about this guy?", then steer clear. You will not enjoy the film. The comedy comes in strange places and will no doubt only push you further away.
For those of you who fall in the former category, I highly recommend Observe and Report. It's a step forward for Jody Hill, and I look forward to whatever he has planned next.
Monday, December 7, 2009
Back in business...?
The Cap'n is back. Again. From yet another internet blackout. For those keeping count, this is the third time in a month that regular Blogorium service was interrupted by sub-par internet access. Somehow I think that the cable company is trying to send a message. Or, two possible messages:
1. Stop paying us for high speed internet.
or
2. Pay us more so this doesn't keep happening.
(yes, I did just suggest that nameless cable company with a Looney Tunes related bird for a mascot is running a protection racket. They once again refused to replace my router, instead blaming it on a "main line" problem. I'm just saying)
So it's back on. And Mystery Science Theater 3000 volume XVI is here (I picked it up after cable man left). Things are temporarily good. I'd like to be more upbeat about all this, but you should expect more from the Cap'n, and you aren't getting it. But I'm working on that.
Scroll down and you'll find Trailer Sunday where it should be, along with a review of Outlander that I wrote after spending two hours on the phone Saturday night. The movie was okay, but it has its own review, so please read it.
Tomorrow you'll have a review of Observe and Report. The day after that, The Limits of Control. Then I'll break up the reviews with something, and come back with Thirst on Friday. I've got a schedule of school related business, but if I could spend all day wrapping up a German class and still watch Observe and Report, I can fit in a movie a day until Christmas.
Speaking of watching movies, I've got an extra copy of Blood Car here. Review Terminator: Salvation, So We Won't Have To, and it's yours. Since it's just that hard to find, I should hope that brings one of you to the table with an appetite for mediocrity.
---
This is sort of embarassing to post, but I'm hoping most of you can't read German. If so, then you're Major Tom or Adam. Please don't laugh too hard at the awkward sentence structure, or the simplicity of the descriptions.
For everybody else, this is what I spent all day doing for class. It's a Wiki project on German Cinema, specifically Literary Adaptations after 1945. I'm not going to pretend it's terribly insightful, unless of course you know nothing about German cinema or Tom Ripley movies not starring Matt Damon or John Malkovich. But enjoy.
1. Stop paying us for high speed internet.
or
2. Pay us more so this doesn't keep happening.
(yes, I did just suggest that nameless cable company with a Looney Tunes related bird for a mascot is running a protection racket. They once again refused to replace my router, instead blaming it on a "main line" problem. I'm just saying)
So it's back on. And Mystery Science Theater 3000 volume XVI is here (I picked it up after cable man left). Things are temporarily good. I'd like to be more upbeat about all this, but you should expect more from the Cap'n, and you aren't getting it. But I'm working on that.
Scroll down and you'll find Trailer Sunday where it should be, along with a review of Outlander that I wrote after spending two hours on the phone Saturday night. The movie was okay, but it has its own review, so please read it.
Tomorrow you'll have a review of Observe and Report. The day after that, The Limits of Control. Then I'll break up the reviews with something, and come back with Thirst on Friday. I've got a schedule of school related business, but if I could spend all day wrapping up a German class and still watch Observe and Report, I can fit in a movie a day until Christmas.
Speaking of watching movies, I've got an extra copy of Blood Car here. Review Terminator: Salvation, So We Won't Have To, and it's yours. Since it's just that hard to find, I should hope that brings one of you to the table with an appetite for mediocrity.
---
This is sort of embarassing to post, but I'm hoping most of you can't read German. If so, then you're Major Tom or Adam. Please don't laugh too hard at the awkward sentence structure, or the simplicity of the descriptions.
For everybody else, this is what I spent all day doing for class. It's a Wiki project on German Cinema, specifically Literary Adaptations after 1945. I'm not going to pretend it's terribly insightful, unless of course you know nothing about German cinema or Tom Ripley movies not starring Matt Damon or John Malkovich. But enjoy.
Deutsche Filme: Literarische Anpassungen
Inhalt:
Bild eins. Filmplakat fĂĽr Effi Briest (1974)
Bild zwei. Filmplakat fĂĽr Der Amerikanische Freund (1977)
Bild drei. DVD Abdeckung fĂĽr Die Blechtrommel (1979)
Bild vier. Klaus Kinski und Isabelle Adjani von Nosferatu: Phantom der Nacht (1979)
Bild fĂĽnf. Filmplakat fĂĽr Mephisto (1981)
Vorwort: Mein E-Wiki zeigt fünf bilder über die Filme von Deutschland nach 1945. Diese Filme sind auf Literarischen quellen gegründet. Ich finde diese Filme interessant, weil sie deutsche und Amerikanische Literatur auf deutschem Kino beziehen. Nosferatu: Phantom der Nacht ist auch ein anpassungen von einem früheren deutschen Film. Diese Anpassungen jede Annäherung die Romane anders als und ich glauben, dass sie zu deutscher Nachkriegsgesellschaft Stellung nehmen.
Bild eins ziegt ein Filmplakat für Rainer Werner Fassbinders Effi Briest (1974). Fassbinder passte sich an der Roman Effi Briest durch Theodor Fontane, und wiederholte den Text so nah, wie möglich. Der Filmaufbau ist formal und Dialog ist sehr gestelzt, aber dieses war die Direktorenabsicht. Ich finde Fassbinders annäherung oft herausforderun, aber Effi Briest ist ein zuverlässig anpassungen.
Bild zwei ziegt ein Filmplakat für Wim Wenders Der Amerikanische Freund (1977), mit Dennis Hopper und Bruno Ganz.Der Amerkanische Freund ist nicht auf einen Deutsch roman, aber von Patricia Highsmiths Ripley's Game. Der Film is auch intressant weil es auf englisches und deutsch ist. Hopper spielt Tom Ripley, ein Buchstabe von Highsmiths serie der Romane, die einen sterbenden mensch (Ganz) in Tötung betrügt. Ich habe The Talented Mr. Ripley gesehen, und Der Amerikanische Freund war eine angenehme Überraschung.
Bild drei gibt die DVD Abdeckung (cover) fur Die Blechtrommel (The Tin Drum) (1979), ein Film von Volker Schlörndorff. Günter Grass schreibt Der Blechtrommel im 1959 und wurde einen Nobelpreis zugesprochen. Schlorndorff verwies Die Blechtrommel zwanzig jahre später und gewann einen Preis der Akademie (Academy Award) für besten ausländischen Film 1980 (Best Foreign Film 1980). Die Blechtrommel war erfolgreich, aber sexueller Inhalt hat Kontroverse verursacht. Ich finde Die Blechtrommel auf DVD bei The Criterion Collection, und sieht es bald an.
Bild vier ziegt Klaus Kinski und Isabelle Adjani in Werner Herzogs Nosferatu: Phantom der Nacht (1979). Der Film ist ein neuauflage (remake) von F.W. Murnaus Nosferatu, eines Symphonie des Grauens, und auch ein Anpassung von Bram Stokers Dracula. Ich finde diesen Film intressant weil Herzog aufzĂĽgt von beide Versionen und verursacht neues etwas. Nosferatu: Phantom der Nacht wurde in zwei Versionen gefilmt: Englisch und Deutscher. Die englische Version wird Nosferatu: The Vampyre benannt.
Bild fünf ziegt ein Filmplakat für István Szabós Mephisto (1981). Szabó ist ein ungarischer Direktor, und Mephisto ist einen Anpassung des Romans durch Klaus Mann. Mephisto war ein Koproduktion von Ungarn, von Österreich und von BDR. Der Film und der Roman sind ein wiederholen des Doktor Faustus, aber in Nazi Deutschland. Ich fand den Film interessant, weil er klassische Literatur anpaßt, um zu moderner deutscher Geschichte Stellung zu nehmen. Die verfassung fur Mephisto (Klaus Maria Brandauer) ist also ein Anpassung von F.W. Murnaus Faust (1926).
Saturday, December 5, 2009
Blogorium Review: Outlander
Outlander is a good but not great movie about Vikings fighting Aliens. Jim Caviezel plays Kainan, a humanoid alien who crash lands on Earth in the 8th century, and finds himself hunting a "dragon" with the help of Rothgar (John Hurt)'s Viking... uh, tribe? I'm sorry, but I'm not sure what you call a group of Vikings. The "dragon" is actually a Moorwen, which is an alien that uses glowing red light to capture its prey and eats pretty much anything, including a whale. Since Kainan looses his gun, he has to rely on alien smarts to kill the Moorwen, plus win over the King's daughter and broker peace between warring tribes.
Like I said; it's not a bad movie, but I don't necessarily agree with the positive internet consensus. The bar is pretty low on Vikings vs "_____" movies in the wake of Pathfinder, but just because Outlander doesn't totally drop the ball doesn't mean it's a "lost gem". The film is riddled with logical errors and forced character choices that happen only because the co-writer / director need the movie to end a certain way.
For example, the well in the middle of Rothgar's village somehow links up both to a nearby lake and to an underground volcano, which means one of two things:
1. Kainan and his Viking team either went so far underground that they split the difference between the crust and mantle under Norway, or
2. The water is so cold that it somehow cannot instantly vaporize despite its proximity to flowing lava.
There are a bunch of other logical gaffes, including a burning monster and someone who should be pulling a Harvey Dent (based on being covered with oil and being in an explosion / fighting a monster that's on FIRE), and how they could possibly forge Kainan's ship hull into weapons if it's more powerful than the steel they use to hammer it, but I digress. I want to talk about one other curious aspect of Outlander.
If you hadn't noticed from the fact there's a King Rothgar and a strange hero who kills a Monster, its mother, and comes from a distant land, there's a distinctly Beowulf-ian vibe to Outlander. It's never explicitly addressed, so I'll give some credit to Howard McCain and Dirk Blackman for letting it sneak in to the movie, but they never really go anywhere with it either.
The leads are pretty good, but supporting characters range from passable to downright terrible, and that's before we get to their awful wigs and fake looking beards. John Hurt is fine as Rothgar; he gets to be king-ly and doesn't really have a lot to do but worry about causing war between his tribe and Gunnar's. As Gunnar, Ron Perlman alternates between being Ron Perlman and a Will Ferrel impersonation of Ron Perlman with a goofy beard.
Honestly, Perlman is barely in the movie and *SPOILER* gets a cheap death from the Moorwen during the village siege. It's almost insulting to bring him in for that. Sophia Myles (Underworld, Doctor Who) holds her own as Freya, but to be honest her best scenes involve being stuck in a room full of corpses. Rob Zombie could learn a thing or two from Outlander, because there might actually be 1,000 corpses in the Moorwen cave.
As to the other guys, Jack Huston (Shrooms) is basically all right, as are the guys who play Boromir and Unferth. Honestly, I didn't notice there was a character named Unferth, but it really does continue the whole "Beowulf" riff, doesn't it? The main Viking guys (or the ones you see more than two times before they die) are all pretty good, if unmemorable.
Overall, I'd say that I enjoyed watching Outlander, although I'm in no hurry to see it again, and I guess I can understand why the brothers Weinstein had no idea what to do with the movie. I can't really see Outlander being a huge hit theatrically, and to be honest, it took me the better part of three months to decide to finally watch it.
I realize this review sounds like a pan, but there's some measure of fun to be had with Outlander. The premise is handled well enough, and the effects shots are sometimes good and sometimes cheesy, but the Moorwen design is cool and Kainan's back story helps flesh things out a bit. If you're looking for a pleasant diversion, of a Science Fiction / Fantasy hybrid movie, or if you just like Vikings, Outlander is probably worth checking out.
Like I said; it's not a bad movie, but I don't necessarily agree with the positive internet consensus. The bar is pretty low on Vikings vs "_____" movies in the wake of Pathfinder, but just because Outlander doesn't totally drop the ball doesn't mean it's a "lost gem". The film is riddled with logical errors and forced character choices that happen only because the co-writer / director need the movie to end a certain way.
For example, the well in the middle of Rothgar's village somehow links up both to a nearby lake and to an underground volcano, which means one of two things:
1. Kainan and his Viking team either went so far underground that they split the difference between the crust and mantle under Norway, or
2. The water is so cold that it somehow cannot instantly vaporize despite its proximity to flowing lava.
There are a bunch of other logical gaffes, including a burning monster and someone who should be pulling a Harvey Dent (based on being covered with oil and being in an explosion / fighting a monster that's on FIRE), and how they could possibly forge Kainan's ship hull into weapons if it's more powerful than the steel they use to hammer it, but I digress. I want to talk about one other curious aspect of Outlander.
If you hadn't noticed from the fact there's a King Rothgar and a strange hero who kills a Monster, its mother, and comes from a distant land, there's a distinctly Beowulf-ian vibe to Outlander. It's never explicitly addressed, so I'll give some credit to Howard McCain and Dirk Blackman for letting it sneak in to the movie, but they never really go anywhere with it either.
The leads are pretty good, but supporting characters range from passable to downright terrible, and that's before we get to their awful wigs and fake looking beards. John Hurt is fine as Rothgar; he gets to be king-ly and doesn't really have a lot to do but worry about causing war between his tribe and Gunnar's. As Gunnar, Ron Perlman alternates between being Ron Perlman and a Will Ferrel impersonation of Ron Perlman with a goofy beard.
Honestly, Perlman is barely in the movie and *SPOILER* gets a cheap death from the Moorwen during the village siege. It's almost insulting to bring him in for that. Sophia Myles (Underworld, Doctor Who) holds her own as Freya, but to be honest her best scenes involve being stuck in a room full of corpses. Rob Zombie could learn a thing or two from Outlander, because there might actually be 1,000 corpses in the Moorwen cave.
As to the other guys, Jack Huston (Shrooms) is basically all right, as are the guys who play Boromir and Unferth. Honestly, I didn't notice there was a character named Unferth, but it really does continue the whole "Beowulf" riff, doesn't it? The main Viking guys (or the ones you see more than two times before they die) are all pretty good, if unmemorable.
Overall, I'd say that I enjoyed watching Outlander, although I'm in no hurry to see it again, and I guess I can understand why the brothers Weinstein had no idea what to do with the movie. I can't really see Outlander being a huge hit theatrically, and to be honest, it took me the better part of three months to decide to finally watch it.
I realize this review sounds like a pan, but there's some measure of fun to be had with Outlander. The premise is handled well enough, and the effects shots are sometimes good and sometimes cheesy, but the Moorwen design is cool and Kainan's back story helps flesh things out a bit. If you're looking for a pleasant diversion, of a Science Fiction / Fantasy hybrid movie, or if you just like Vikings, Outlander is probably worth checking out.
Friday, December 4, 2009
Shipping Anomalies
This is a movie-related digression, one that the Cap'n is only bringing up because he knows a bit about the subject, and it's just a smidge irksome to me. Allow me to give you some brief context in order to make my point clear.
Last week, I ordered Mystery Science Theater 3000 Volume XVI from Amazon. It's pretty much a given that I'll pick up any MST3K boxed set, but this one was of particular interest. Volume XVI has two of the Five MST3K episodes I consider all-time favorites: Santa Claus and Warrior of the Lost World. I have very nearly worn out my VHS copy of Warrior (which also has Laserblast and Joel Hodgson's TV Wheel) and since the dvds started rolling out I've been waiting patiently for some Robert Ginty / Fred Williamson / Donald Pleasance /Persis Khambata action. Santa Claus, as previously mentioned, is a deliriously bizarre movie in its own right, so it's nice to add with Santa Claus Conquers the Martians.
Since I have class until 3:15 on Tuesdays, and considering the odd purchasing habits of Greensboro citizens (who tend to gobble up any release with moderate geek buzz), it seemed like a safe bet that Volume XVI would be sold out, particularly the "Limited Edition" set with a Tom Servo to compliment the Crow from the 20th Anniversary set. Ordering the set from Amazon was not only slightly cheaper, but insured I would get a copy, and this week.
Or so I thought. Without bothering to knock or ring the doorbell, my mail carrier left a 3849 (the beige slip of paper) indicating that my package could not be delivered due to a "Delivery Confirmation" signature required. Now I have to wait until Monday morning to pick up the set.
There are two problems with this, even if I put aside the fact that I was home and he made no effort to actually deliver the package. I've worked for the Postal Service, and I know the circumstances surrounding a 3849, and my package did not meet either of them:
1. The package was shipped Standard, not One Day or Two Day delivery, so signature isn't required. I've had larger packages left at my door from Amazon with no problems from the mail carrier, so it's not even a size issue. There's no reason to take the box back to the post office, but to be clear, let me illuminate the "Delivery Confirmation" conundrum.
2. Amazon frequently prints a "Delivery Confirmation Scan" barcode as part of their shipping label. This is so you can track the package, but does not require a signature. I know, because I've delivered them. Delivery Confirmation labels on packages or envelopes which require a signature come with a bright green border and their own 3849 attached to the parcel. Again, I know because I delivered to a number of businesses which frequently required Signature Confirmation for letters and packages. Because of the volume of packages from Amazon, it would be ridiculous to demand signatures from everyone who ordered dvds bundled together, as that's a huge waste of time on the part of the carrier.
The mail carrier, in this instance, made a snap judgment that it was easier to assume I wasn't home and not deliver a package, leaving the onus on my part to pick up something rather than simply deliver the parcel. How do I know this? Because I had to do the same thing earlier this week and when I arrived at the Post Office, NO SIGNATURE WAS REQUIRED for my package. Same situation. Same 3849. Same handwriting. Same mail carrier. I could pretend that they didn't know better, but I know mail carriers. They know protocol backwards and forwards, especially city carriers, so I'm not sure what to make of this.
From here on out, is everything I order going to be withheld from me until I pick it up on their schedule? Because that's not how I was taught to do the job. You delivered to the very best of your ability, even if someone's dog tore up your jeans or a wasp's nest was in the mailbox. Cutting corners meant being chewed out, and you'd better not waste a 3849 when the package didn't call for it.
This is a long, slightly grumpy way of saying I couldn't write up the new MST3K box for you folks tonight, which is what I wanted to do. It probably sounds like sour grapes, or even whining, but the fact is that I know that there's no good reason to avoid delivering the box. I know the protocol, and I know what you can and can't do when delivering packages with "Delivery Confirmation" labels. So yeah, I'm a little grouchy.
Last week, I ordered Mystery Science Theater 3000 Volume XVI from Amazon. It's pretty much a given that I'll pick up any MST3K boxed set, but this one was of particular interest. Volume XVI has two of the Five MST3K episodes I consider all-time favorites: Santa Claus and Warrior of the Lost World. I have very nearly worn out my VHS copy of Warrior (which also has Laserblast and Joel Hodgson's TV Wheel) and since the dvds started rolling out I've been waiting patiently for some Robert Ginty / Fred Williamson / Donald Pleasance /Persis Khambata action. Santa Claus, as previously mentioned, is a deliriously bizarre movie in its own right, so it's nice to add with Santa Claus Conquers the Martians.
Since I have class until 3:15 on Tuesdays, and considering the odd purchasing habits of Greensboro citizens (who tend to gobble up any release with moderate geek buzz), it seemed like a safe bet that Volume XVI would be sold out, particularly the "Limited Edition" set with a Tom Servo to compliment the Crow from the 20th Anniversary set. Ordering the set from Amazon was not only slightly cheaper, but insured I would get a copy, and this week.
Or so I thought. Without bothering to knock or ring the doorbell, my mail carrier left a 3849 (the beige slip of paper) indicating that my package could not be delivered due to a "Delivery Confirmation" signature required. Now I have to wait until Monday morning to pick up the set.
There are two problems with this, even if I put aside the fact that I was home and he made no effort to actually deliver the package. I've worked for the Postal Service, and I know the circumstances surrounding a 3849, and my package did not meet either of them:
1. The package was shipped Standard, not One Day or Two Day delivery, so signature isn't required. I've had larger packages left at my door from Amazon with no problems from the mail carrier, so it's not even a size issue. There's no reason to take the box back to the post office, but to be clear, let me illuminate the "Delivery Confirmation" conundrum.
2. Amazon frequently prints a "Delivery Confirmation Scan" barcode as part of their shipping label. This is so you can track the package, but does not require a signature. I know, because I've delivered them. Delivery Confirmation labels on packages or envelopes which require a signature come with a bright green border and their own 3849 attached to the parcel. Again, I know because I delivered to a number of businesses which frequently required Signature Confirmation for letters and packages. Because of the volume of packages from Amazon, it would be ridiculous to demand signatures from everyone who ordered dvds bundled together, as that's a huge waste of time on the part of the carrier.
The mail carrier, in this instance, made a snap judgment that it was easier to assume I wasn't home and not deliver a package, leaving the onus on my part to pick up something rather than simply deliver the parcel. How do I know this? Because I had to do the same thing earlier this week and when I arrived at the Post Office, NO SIGNATURE WAS REQUIRED for my package. Same situation. Same 3849. Same handwriting. Same mail carrier. I could pretend that they didn't know better, but I know mail carriers. They know protocol backwards and forwards, especially city carriers, so I'm not sure what to make of this.
From here on out, is everything I order going to be withheld from me until I pick it up on their schedule? Because that's not how I was taught to do the job. You delivered to the very best of your ability, even if someone's dog tore up your jeans or a wasp's nest was in the mailbox. Cutting corners meant being chewed out, and you'd better not waste a 3849 when the package didn't call for it.
This is a long, slightly grumpy way of saying I couldn't write up the new MST3K box for you folks tonight, which is what I wanted to do. It probably sounds like sour grapes, or even whining, but the fact is that I know that there's no good reason to avoid delivering the box. I know the protocol, and I know what you can and can't do when delivering packages with "Delivery Confirmation" labels. So yeah, I'm a little grouchy.
Thursday, December 3, 2009
Maybe I didn't...
I've been revising the paper on Movie-going as Ritual, and I could have sworn I put up the second part of the research that you'd find interesting, but for the life of me I'm not seeing it in the archives. If somebody was patiently waiting for the section on The Rocky Horror Picture Show as a subculture collective experience, I apologize for not getting that up sooner. Since no one is biting on the SYWHT (I'm not giving up on you good readers yet!), let me share that with you tonight:
So there's that. Sorry about setting up the second piece and forgetting about it, but the Cap'n gets a little scatterbrained from time to time.
The Rocky Horror Picture Show: Collective Experience through Open Participation.
For over thirty years, The Rocky Horror Picture Show invites audience member to become one in the most overtly ritual movie-going experience. After a dismal first-run in 1976, The Rocky Horror Picture Show, based on a wildly successful
Regular audience members, noticing pauses in the dialogue, began shouting one-liners back at the screen. J. Hoberman describes the “back talk” in his book Midnight Movies:
The counterpoint backtalk… had varying rationales. Some was a direct response to the erotic tease of Tim Curry’s Frank… Others were the equivalent of
Rather than engaging with the stage, ala a theatrical production of a play, the “cult” of Rocky Horror was engaging in something quite different:
the Rocky Horror reaction was the reverse of [audience engagement within story, as in Peter Pan], because it wasn’t being directly solicited, was spoken to a screen instead of a stage, and came closer to being a dialectical response – a real dialogue between screen and spectator, and not a mere consensus. (176)
If the line was popular, you could expect to hear it the following week, and so on. Before long, the Rocky Horror ritual brought about a new level of audience solidarity:
Still, it was more like cheerleading at school than reciting a prayer in church… but also a bit of teaching, too, such as when he began making announcements about matters of general interest to the cult before he even started the cheers – laying out a few ground rules for newcomers (or “virgins,” as they were identified), calling attention to new parts of the twice-weekly ritual, and helping, like any good theater director, to keep the kids in line and groom their performances. (179)
Meanwhile, another ritual began at the Waverly, “[q]uite independently of [counterpoint backtalk], members of the audience had begun turning up dressed like some of the screen characters.” (177). The “cult” of Rocky Horror also brought props to share, based on lines from the film, while a separate set of actors onstage re-created the film as it played.
As the ritual continued, it became clearer this was more than simply a film-based event; “More importantly, some people would turn up periodically at the Waverly because they made friends there… standing in front of the Waverly, they’d swap information, sing and dance on the sidewalk, compare their costumes, discuss potential line and prop ideas” (181). Rocky Horror fans became a fully fledged sub-culture movement, and “the demarcation line between insiders and outsiders was clearly drawn” (184).
Group identity within this sub-culture is based on defining oneself against “conventional” audiences, particularly the “rules” of movie-going, even if the end result is identical. The behavior grew in popularity, and so did the size of crowds, although the Rocky Horror ritual was not always welcome:
People outside the cult were beginning to take notice. Some were sympathetic, but some of the older visitors to the Waverly found the whole spectacle too nihilistic and noisy – too boisterous about opposing everything that they held sacred about sex, art, and life – to take much pleasure in the madness, which they often found dumb or foolish or just plain sick. (182)
The ritual spread across the nation, and I must admit to have been a regular attendee of the Rocky Horror Picture Show for several years. The collective experience is akin to an evangelical church – with fouler language – and the bonds between long time ritual attendees are strong. The film continues playing every Friday night in the
So there's that. Sorry about setting up the second piece and forgetting about it, but the Cap'n gets a little scatterbrained from time to time.
Wednesday, December 2, 2009
This Time I Should Call It "So I Won't Have To"
Are any of you brave readers willing to bite the bullet for the old Cap'n? My schedule is going to be a little busy for the next nine days or so before settling down to "jack and shit" for a month of movie viewing, but I've got some "So You Won't Have To"'s either coming from or already here via Netflix.
I'm willing to sit through the not-so-well* reviewed The Limits of Control because I'll watch pretty much anything Jim Jarmusch makes, even if it goes nowhere for two hours and sounds at best like an exercise in self-indulgence. Hey, the man made Ghost Dog, Dead Man, and Down by Law, to name a few. Hey, I'll name three more: Broken Flowers, Night on Earth, and Stranger Than Paradise. I even enjoyed Permanent Vacation, his first feature that's the extra disc on Criterion's Stranger Than Paradise dvd. How bad could The Limits of Control really be? Maybe it's secretly great! Or not. But it could be, right?
So I don't mind watching it So You Might Have To. I've certainly been advocating lots of movies that people disagree with me about (Whatever Works and Funny People spring to mind), and you might end up being informed that you should see it.
On the other hand, I just can't bring myself to watch Terminator: Salvation. I even jumped it up to the top of the old Netflix queue, but when it eventually arrives, I'm not sure I can do the deed, even for you guys. Gals. Whatever**.
It's not McG, per se: truthfully, I don't think I hated the first Charlie's Angels. I haven't seen it since the first time I saw it, but I seem to remember enjoying Crispin Glover and Bill Murray. I never saw the second movie, and I guess I never did watch the epic team up of McCoughnaFox in We Are Marshall, so it's not like I have any animosity towards his films.
The problem that I have with Terminator: Salvation is that it seems so unnecessary. Yes, at first the idea of John Connor tooling around in the post-apocalyptic future fighting robots sounds like it would be fun. We all know how much of a sucker I am for post-apocalyptic films. The big BUT though is that we already know how it pans out. Terminator: Salvation isn't going to shake things up like Star Trek, so there's really no tension. Kyle Reese can't die, because he has to go back and knock up Sarah Connor, or there's no John Connor to send him back, etc. If a new character is introduced, as T:S does, they either see Kyle Reese off to the past or die before it happens.
If there were more Terminator movies, I suppose they could show what happens to John after he sets the first film in motion, but unless there's some serious ret-conning going on, we still know how that ends up as well. The T-800 from Terminator 3 killed John Connor, so in an act of ironic time travel, his wife sends Arnold back to protect him long enough for Judgment Day to happen. Since Connor's wife is in Salvation, it looks like they didn't feel like ignoring Terminator 3 that much, so this whole supposed "new" series is based on plot points that we know are coming. How exciting!
Now that I've made my case for not seeing Terminator: Salvation, allow me to extend the opportunity to one of you. This is, in all likelihood, a strong candidate for SYWHT, and I'm really hoping that one of you good people has more of a morbid curiosity to see digital Arnold face beat up Christian Bale than the Cap'n does. Someone who would be willing to watch Terminator: Salvation So I Won't Have To.
Let me sweeten the pot for you. If one of the Blogorium readers is willing to step up to the plate and take one for the team, I'll return the favor. I will watch any movie without the word Twilight in the title, no matter how shitty, so that the rest of you won't have to. I'll even lift my almost universal Uwe Boll ban for this. I'll watch Alvin and the Chipmunks. I'll watch Old Dogs. Hell, I'll watch 2012 So You Won't Have To.
I just don't think I can do this Terminator thing. But I'm curious, in a very wary way. I don't want to see it, but I want to know. And I'm certain at least one of you is also a good enough writer that you can fill all of us in. In return, take your pick. Anything but the Twilight series.
Want me to watch Cruel Intentions 3? Done.
Command Performance with Dolph Lundgren? Done.
Carnivorous with DMX? Done.
Planet 51? You got it.
Alvin and the Chipmunks: The Squeakuel? ugh..... As you wish.
I will finish Vampire Men of the Lost Planet. If that's what you want.
Throw me a bone here, gang. I'll make it worth your while...
*EDIT* Let me throw in a quick caveat, just so nobody says I'm making up new rules later: the terrible, horrible, no good, very bad movie I agree to watch has to fit within the parameters of So You Won't Have To. If you're curious what that entails, click the tag and read previous reviews. The whole point is to choose movies that people have some strange curiosity about (okay, that I have curiosity about) and report back to others rather than all of us watching it. Like, say you're curious about Bad Lieutenant: Port of Call New Orleans, but you wouldn't spend your own money to see it. I'll do it, So You Won't Have To. If you can make the case your choice fits that criteria, and that you aren't just picking a movie arbitrarily to mess with the Cap'n, you got it.
* Vern's review is easily the kindest I've seen The Limits of Control get, aside from a fawning DVD Talk write up. Seriously, read those "positive" reviews on Rotten Tomatoes. Most of them are cautious recommendations with serious "but"'s.
** I really have no idea who reads this of late. The Blogorium gets weird links to websites I've never heard of, so somebody finds the Cap'n interesting. So thanks.
I'm willing to sit through the not-so-well* reviewed The Limits of Control because I'll watch pretty much anything Jim Jarmusch makes, even if it goes nowhere for two hours and sounds at best like an exercise in self-indulgence. Hey, the man made Ghost Dog, Dead Man, and Down by Law, to name a few. Hey, I'll name three more: Broken Flowers, Night on Earth, and Stranger Than Paradise. I even enjoyed Permanent Vacation, his first feature that's the extra disc on Criterion's Stranger Than Paradise dvd. How bad could The Limits of Control really be? Maybe it's secretly great! Or not. But it could be, right?
So I don't mind watching it So You Might Have To. I've certainly been advocating lots of movies that people disagree with me about (Whatever Works and Funny People spring to mind), and you might end up being informed that you should see it.
On the other hand, I just can't bring myself to watch Terminator: Salvation. I even jumped it up to the top of the old Netflix queue, but when it eventually arrives, I'm not sure I can do the deed, even for you guys. Gals. Whatever**.
It's not McG, per se: truthfully, I don't think I hated the first Charlie's Angels. I haven't seen it since the first time I saw it, but I seem to remember enjoying Crispin Glover and Bill Murray. I never saw the second movie, and I guess I never did watch the epic team up of McCoughnaFox in We Are Marshall, so it's not like I have any animosity towards his films.
The problem that I have with Terminator: Salvation is that it seems so unnecessary. Yes, at first the idea of John Connor tooling around in the post-apocalyptic future fighting robots sounds like it would be fun. We all know how much of a sucker I am for post-apocalyptic films. The big BUT though is that we already know how it pans out. Terminator: Salvation isn't going to shake things up like Star Trek, so there's really no tension. Kyle Reese can't die, because he has to go back and knock up Sarah Connor, or there's no John Connor to send him back, etc. If a new character is introduced, as T:S does, they either see Kyle Reese off to the past or die before it happens.
If there were more Terminator movies, I suppose they could show what happens to John after he sets the first film in motion, but unless there's some serious ret-conning going on, we still know how that ends up as well. The T-800 from Terminator 3 killed John Connor, so in an act of ironic time travel, his wife sends Arnold back to protect him long enough for Judgment Day to happen. Since Connor's wife is in Salvation, it looks like they didn't feel like ignoring Terminator 3 that much, so this whole supposed "new" series is based on plot points that we know are coming. How exciting!
Now that I've made my case for not seeing Terminator: Salvation, allow me to extend the opportunity to one of you. This is, in all likelihood, a strong candidate for SYWHT, and I'm really hoping that one of you good people has more of a morbid curiosity to see digital Arnold face beat up Christian Bale than the Cap'n does. Someone who would be willing to watch Terminator: Salvation So I Won't Have To.
Let me sweeten the pot for you. If one of the Blogorium readers is willing to step up to the plate and take one for the team, I'll return the favor. I will watch any movie without the word Twilight in the title, no matter how shitty, so that the rest of you won't have to. I'll even lift my almost universal Uwe Boll ban for this. I'll watch Alvin and the Chipmunks. I'll watch Old Dogs. Hell, I'll watch 2012 So You Won't Have To.
I just don't think I can do this Terminator thing. But I'm curious, in a very wary way. I don't want to see it, but I want to know. And I'm certain at least one of you is also a good enough writer that you can fill all of us in. In return, take your pick. Anything but the Twilight series.
Want me to watch Cruel Intentions 3? Done.
Command Performance with Dolph Lundgren? Done.
Carnivorous with DMX? Done.
Planet 51? You got it.
Alvin and the Chipmunks: The Squeakuel? ugh..... As you wish.
I will finish Vampire Men of the Lost Planet. If that's what you want.
Throw me a bone here, gang. I'll make it worth your while...
*EDIT* Let me throw in a quick caveat, just so nobody says I'm making up new rules later: the terrible, horrible, no good, very bad movie I agree to watch has to fit within the parameters of So You Won't Have To. If you're curious what that entails, click the tag and read previous reviews. The whole point is to choose movies that people have some strange curiosity about (okay, that I have curiosity about) and report back to others rather than all of us watching it. Like, say you're curious about Bad Lieutenant: Port of Call New Orleans, but you wouldn't spend your own money to see it. I'll do it, So You Won't Have To. If you can make the case your choice fits that criteria, and that you aren't just picking a movie arbitrarily to mess with the Cap'n, you got it.
* Vern's review is easily the kindest I've seen The Limits of Control get, aside from a fawning DVD Talk write up. Seriously, read those "positive" reviews on Rotten Tomatoes. Most of them are cautious recommendations with serious "but"'s.
** I really have no idea who reads this of late. The Blogorium gets weird links to websites I've never heard of, so somebody finds the Cap'n interesting. So thanks.
Tuesday, December 1, 2009
Four Reasons to Watch Funny People
I've tried writing a review for Funny People that covered the sprawling narrative, the various subplots, minor character flourishes, and incidental footage that makes up the world of George Simmons (Adam Sandler) and Ira Wright (Seth Rogen). None of it made any sense or read as an interesting review. So I'll keep it short. Four short reasons to consider watching Funny People, a very different kind of movie from Judd Apatow.
1. It's not really a comedy - Funny People is about comedians, but not necessarily about comedy. It's not even about comedy in the same way The King of Comedy is about comedy. Judd Apatow uses the backdrop of comedy writers and stand up comedy, mixed with autobiographical material involving his early days with Sandler, and made a film about human beings with flaws. Serious, marriage destroying, career sabotaging flaws that they use whenever the opportunity arises. Not just George Simmons, who learns nothing from a life-threatening health scare. Ira Wright knowingly cuts his roommate Leo (Jonah Hill) out of a co-writing gig for Simmons out of jealousy, and Leo petulantly strikes back by joining Mark (Jason Schwartman)'s horrible sitcom Yo Teach! for a quick buck. Ira gets mad at Daisy (Aubrey Plaza) for sleeping with Mark when he had every opportunity to woo her. Simmons' old flame Laura (Leslie Mann) impetuously decides to help George ruin her marriage to the not-that-bad Clarke (Eric Bana), only to blame Ira when things get inconvenient.
That's just part of the plot, but despite the horribly shitty things these funny people do to each other, you can't help but keep watching. They aren't despicable, even if they behave that way sometimes. They're just trying to be happy in selfish ways. There are laughs, but the heart of Funny People is in the way these very human flaws come and go over two-and-a-half hours.
2. If you thought Adam Sandler was great in Punchdrunk Love, this is the follow-up you've been waiting for - While George Simmons is in many ways a mirror for Adam Sandler's career, one can see hints of Eddie Murphy, Jerry Seinfeld, and even Robin Williams in his character. Sandler has the hardest task of keeping George distant from everybody, to the point of alienating Ira almost completely, but does it without ever losing your sympathy. Sandler doesn't necessarily push himself to emotional extremes in the ways obvious in Punchdrunk Love, but he does carry quite a bit of the acting, especially when George's story overtakes Ira's in the second half of the film.
As a nice contrast, we get glimpses of the films George Simmons made - movies he feels no pride for - that do seem like the Adam Sandler on autopilot available in most Happy Madison movies. The contrast shouldn't be lost on attentive viewers, and if you've been waiting for a glimpse of the Adam Sandler that appeared for Paul Thomas Anderson, George Simmons is your man.
3. The Stand-Up is actually very good - bringing in Patton Oswalt and Brian Posehn in to help write material for the stars was a great idea, but Apatow and company road tested much of the live material months before principal photography began. The stand-up in Funny People actually sounds like stand-up material, and not just a facsimile of comedy writing thrown up in front of a brick wall. Extra kudos go to Aziz Ansari, who plays Raaaaaaaandy!, the inexplicably popular comedian of the Myspace generation. Despite an act that involves very little comedy, Ansari manages to sneak away with every scene he's in. Sandler, Rogen, Hill, and Aubrey Plaza also register despite the fact half of them are new to stand-up and the other half haven't done it in decades.
4. The incidental material is worth the price of admission - Not only is the footage from George Simmons' Re-do and Merman pathetically silly, but Mark Taylor Jackson's retched Yo Teach!, the subject of much derision in the film, gets its time in the limelight. Funny People manages to incorporate actual footage of young Adam Sandler and Leslie Mann into the narrative, which is admittedly bizarre but adds another layer of versimilitude.
But honestly, there are tons of tiny moments that make Funny People worth seeing. The RZA as Ira's co-worker, Chuck, a deli counter employee who loves the health benefits. The German(?) doctor, seen as the butt of many jokes from George and Ira in the trailer, getting his own wisecracks in during a second visit. The clip from Merman. Yo Teach! Or, possibly my favorite moment in the film, one that occurs during a "glad you're well party" for George, when Eminem utters the following sentence:
"If I don't watch my back, then I might get popped by Ray Romano."
Which is preceded by a comparably funny moment when Ray Romano says "Hello Marshall" while being cursed out by Eminem. This is after Sarah Silverman, Norm MacDonald, and Dave Attell have their moment to get a crack in on George.
But seriously, I hope this gives you some idea of what to actually expect from Funny People. It's not some uproarious gross-out comedy, as The 40 Year Old Virgin or Knocked Up were. It's not even Forgetting Sarah Marshall or Pineapple Express or I Love You Man territory. It is absolutely not a bromantic comedy. Funny People is a serio-comic film about people who don't behave normally, so they turn to comedy. Most of them are pretty good at it, even if they're still lousy friends and lovers. And it tends to wander in different directions, so if you don't want to follow Ira's story, then follow George's, or vice versa. There's a lot of meat on Funny People's bone, and I think many of you will find something worth chewing on.
1. It's not really a comedy - Funny People is about comedians, but not necessarily about comedy. It's not even about comedy in the same way The King of Comedy is about comedy. Judd Apatow uses the backdrop of comedy writers and stand up comedy, mixed with autobiographical material involving his early days with Sandler, and made a film about human beings with flaws. Serious, marriage destroying, career sabotaging flaws that they use whenever the opportunity arises. Not just George Simmons, who learns nothing from a life-threatening health scare. Ira Wright knowingly cuts his roommate Leo (Jonah Hill) out of a co-writing gig for Simmons out of jealousy, and Leo petulantly strikes back by joining Mark (Jason Schwartman)'s horrible sitcom Yo Teach! for a quick buck. Ira gets mad at Daisy (Aubrey Plaza) for sleeping with Mark when he had every opportunity to woo her. Simmons' old flame Laura (Leslie Mann) impetuously decides to help George ruin her marriage to the not-that-bad Clarke (Eric Bana), only to blame Ira when things get inconvenient.
That's just part of the plot, but despite the horribly shitty things these funny people do to each other, you can't help but keep watching. They aren't despicable, even if they behave that way sometimes. They're just trying to be happy in selfish ways. There are laughs, but the heart of Funny People is in the way these very human flaws come and go over two-and-a-half hours.
2. If you thought Adam Sandler was great in Punchdrunk Love, this is the follow-up you've been waiting for - While George Simmons is in many ways a mirror for Adam Sandler's career, one can see hints of Eddie Murphy, Jerry Seinfeld, and even Robin Williams in his character. Sandler has the hardest task of keeping George distant from everybody, to the point of alienating Ira almost completely, but does it without ever losing your sympathy. Sandler doesn't necessarily push himself to emotional extremes in the ways obvious in Punchdrunk Love, but he does carry quite a bit of the acting, especially when George's story overtakes Ira's in the second half of the film.
As a nice contrast, we get glimpses of the films George Simmons made - movies he feels no pride for - that do seem like the Adam Sandler on autopilot available in most Happy Madison movies. The contrast shouldn't be lost on attentive viewers, and if you've been waiting for a glimpse of the Adam Sandler that appeared for Paul Thomas Anderson, George Simmons is your man.
3. The Stand-Up is actually very good - bringing in Patton Oswalt and Brian Posehn in to help write material for the stars was a great idea, but Apatow and company road tested much of the live material months before principal photography began. The stand-up in Funny People actually sounds like stand-up material, and not just a facsimile of comedy writing thrown up in front of a brick wall. Extra kudos go to Aziz Ansari, who plays Raaaaaaaandy!, the inexplicably popular comedian of the Myspace generation. Despite an act that involves very little comedy, Ansari manages to sneak away with every scene he's in. Sandler, Rogen, Hill, and Aubrey Plaza also register despite the fact half of them are new to stand-up and the other half haven't done it in decades.
4. The incidental material is worth the price of admission - Not only is the footage from George Simmons' Re-do and Merman pathetically silly, but Mark Taylor Jackson's retched Yo Teach!, the subject of much derision in the film, gets its time in the limelight. Funny People manages to incorporate actual footage of young Adam Sandler and Leslie Mann into the narrative, which is admittedly bizarre but adds another layer of versimilitude.
But honestly, there are tons of tiny moments that make Funny People worth seeing. The RZA as Ira's co-worker, Chuck, a deli counter employee who loves the health benefits. The German(?) doctor, seen as the butt of many jokes from George and Ira in the trailer, getting his own wisecracks in during a second visit. The clip from Merman. Yo Teach! Or, possibly my favorite moment in the film, one that occurs during a "glad you're well party" for George, when Eminem utters the following sentence:
"If I don't watch my back, then I might get popped by Ray Romano."
Which is preceded by a comparably funny moment when Ray Romano says "Hello Marshall" while being cursed out by Eminem. This is after Sarah Silverman, Norm MacDonald, and Dave Attell have their moment to get a crack in on George.
But seriously, I hope this gives you some idea of what to actually expect from Funny People. It's not some uproarious gross-out comedy, as The 40 Year Old Virgin or Knocked Up were. It's not even Forgetting Sarah Marshall or Pineapple Express or I Love You Man territory. It is absolutely not a bromantic comedy. Funny People is a serio-comic film about people who don't behave normally, so they turn to comedy. Most of them are pretty good at it, even if they're still lousy friends and lovers. And it tends to wander in different directions, so if you don't want to follow Ira's story, then follow George's, or vice versa. There's a lot of meat on Funny People's bone, and I think many of you will find something worth chewing on.
Monday, November 30, 2009
Not Funny People, but Maybe Funny Ha-Ha*
I'm still working on the Funny People review, so in the mean time the Cap'n would like to let you cool kids in on a special development. Unbeknownst to many of us, Dr. Uwe Boll was hard at work making a new movie based on a recent video game: Far Cry.
As is to be expected, it looks right up your alley. See for yourself:
I can't be 100% certain (okay, I can), but the music in the beginning sure sounds like it's from The Dark Knight. The music at the end sounds like every action movie I've ever seen Wesley Snipes in (but specifically Blade), but if someone would be so kind as to identify it, you'll win a special prize.
Without having seen Far Cry (or, for that matter, ever seeing Far Cry), I notice that Dr. Boll managed to snag Udo Kier and Hugo Stiglitz from Inglorious Basterds. Good for him. Enjoy, you masochists.
---
Speaking of masochism I'm very willing to partake in, there's a new Universal Soldier movie coming out. This one doesn't necessarily eschew the Burt Reynolds and Gary Busey chapters of the U.S. saga, but is a sequel to Universal Soldier: The Return.
Instead of getting Bill Goldberg to come back to fight JCVD, the producers aimed high and plucked Dolph Lundgren out of the cloud known as The Expendables. I don't actually know how they plan on explaining the "death by corn tiller" ending from Universal Soldier, but you can't really complain about getting a much older Van Damme and a less-older looking but it's still 17 years later guys Dolph Lundgren together to fight each other, and possibly UFC guy I'd never heard of Andrei "The Pit Bull" Arlovski.
Again, I'll let the evidence speak on its behalf:
My guess why this looks classier (albeit filmed in one location) than Far Cry is the director. See, he's the son of the director of 2010: The Odyssey Continues, which is a favorite film of Major Tom's.
All snarking aside, I already added this to my Netflix queue. I'm kind of sorry to see that the movie JCVD didn't open more doors for the man JCVD, but at least he's making direct to video sequels to movies I kinda liked now. Hopefully he can be retconned into TimeCop 3...
* but not that piece of shit indie movie Funny Ha Ha. Fuck that movie.
As is to be expected, it looks right up your alley. See for yourself:
I can't be 100% certain (okay, I can), but the music in the beginning sure sounds like it's from The Dark Knight. The music at the end sounds like every action movie I've ever seen Wesley Snipes in (but specifically Blade), but if someone would be so kind as to identify it, you'll win a special prize.
Without having seen Far Cry (or, for that matter, ever seeing Far Cry), I notice that Dr. Boll managed to snag Udo Kier and Hugo Stiglitz from Inglorious Basterds. Good for him. Enjoy, you masochists.
---
Speaking of masochism I'm very willing to partake in, there's a new Universal Soldier movie coming out. This one doesn't necessarily eschew the Burt Reynolds and Gary Busey chapters of the U.S. saga, but is a sequel to Universal Soldier: The Return.
Instead of getting Bill Goldberg to come back to fight JCVD, the producers aimed high and plucked Dolph Lundgren out of the cloud known as The Expendables. I don't actually know how they plan on explaining the "death by corn tiller" ending from Universal Soldier, but you can't really complain about getting a much older Van Damme and a less-older looking but it's still 17 years later guys Dolph Lundgren together to fight each other, and possibly UFC guy I'd never heard of Andrei "The Pit Bull" Arlovski.
Again, I'll let the evidence speak on its behalf:
My guess why this looks classier (albeit filmed in one location) than Far Cry is the director. See, he's the son of the director of 2010: The Odyssey Continues, which is a favorite film of Major Tom's.
All snarking aside, I already added this to my Netflix queue. I'm kind of sorry to see that the movie JCVD didn't open more doors for the man JCVD, but at least he's making direct to video sequels to movies I kinda liked now. Hopefully he can be retconned into TimeCop 3...
* but not that piece of shit indie movie Funny Ha Ha. Fuck that movie.
Saturday, November 28, 2009
Odds and Sods
Remake update:
The following remakes have been added to the "must be made before people wise up to this" queue - Maniac, I Spit on Your Grave, The Amityville Horror (again), Maniac Cop, and Child's Play.
Unfortunately, the Cap'n used up all of his tirade for the year regarding remakes, so you're on your own to manufacture faux surprise and rage. In the wake of The Last House on the Left, can anybody say they're surprised some sleazeball producer wants to remake I Spit on Your Grave? Have they even seen the original? Would they want to?
---
Some time soon, maybe Monday, I'll put up a Blogorium review of Funny People, which I watched during a break from studying for the GRE. In short: I liked it, although it's less accessible than Judd Apatow's other directorial efforts (The 40 Year Old Virgin and Knocked Up) or most of his producing gigs. The film is largely about unlikeable people doing rotten things to each other as soon as the opportunity presents itself. Nevertheless, I thought Adam Sandler was quite good, as were Seth Rogen, Jonah Hill, Jason Schwartzman, Eric Bana, and Leslie Mann.
It still boggles my mind that the same Eric Bana was in Star Trek and Funny People. It's really like two completely different people. I guess that's a compliment to Bana as an actor, and in some weird way to Apatow and JJ Abrams.
---
Thirst is still in the "to watch" pile, along with Up.
I didn't really have anything to add to that, other than to give you the mental picture of those two movies coexisting on some plane of existence.
---
As I do from time to time, the Cap'n threw in some Blu-Ray discs late last night to check out the quality. While I can't honestly say I've seen more than the first fifteen minutes of Howards End, The Robe, or Monsoon Wedding, they all looked great and I'm honestly looking forward to finishing them over the holiday break.
Monsoon Wedding may be the antidote to Slumdog Millionaire I've been looking for. Howards End is already more engaging than I once thought it would be. The Robe, the first Cinemascope release, looks better than some of the newer films I've put on. Criterion's Gomorrah should be arriving soon on Blu-Ray, and apparently it's quite good. They have a lot of quality coming out, much of which is from last year or early this year, including Revanche, A Christmas Tale, Hunger, and Steven Soderbergh's four hour epic Che.
---
I also put on Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, and even with its improbable opening sequence, I still say the movie is pretty good until Indy and Mutt leave the United States. From there on, I can't really strongly argue against detractors, but I still don't hate the movie.
---
The year is winding down, gang, so if you have requests for movies the Cap'n should look into in preparation for the Year End Recaps, please drop me a line.
The following remakes have been added to the "must be made before people wise up to this" queue - Maniac, I Spit on Your Grave, The Amityville Horror (again), Maniac Cop, and Child's Play.
Unfortunately, the Cap'n used up all of his tirade for the year regarding remakes, so you're on your own to manufacture faux surprise and rage. In the wake of The Last House on the Left, can anybody say they're surprised some sleazeball producer wants to remake I Spit on Your Grave? Have they even seen the original? Would they want to?
---
Some time soon, maybe Monday, I'll put up a Blogorium review of Funny People, which I watched during a break from studying for the GRE. In short: I liked it, although it's less accessible than Judd Apatow's other directorial efforts (The 40 Year Old Virgin and Knocked Up) or most of his producing gigs. The film is largely about unlikeable people doing rotten things to each other as soon as the opportunity presents itself. Nevertheless, I thought Adam Sandler was quite good, as were Seth Rogen, Jonah Hill, Jason Schwartzman, Eric Bana, and Leslie Mann.
It still boggles my mind that the same Eric Bana was in Star Trek and Funny People. It's really like two completely different people. I guess that's a compliment to Bana as an actor, and in some weird way to Apatow and JJ Abrams.
---
Thirst is still in the "to watch" pile, along with Up.
I didn't really have anything to add to that, other than to give you the mental picture of those two movies coexisting on some plane of existence.
---
As I do from time to time, the Cap'n threw in some Blu-Ray discs late last night to check out the quality. While I can't honestly say I've seen more than the first fifteen minutes of Howards End, The Robe, or Monsoon Wedding, they all looked great and I'm honestly looking forward to finishing them over the holiday break.
Monsoon Wedding may be the antidote to Slumdog Millionaire I've been looking for. Howards End is already more engaging than I once thought it would be. The Robe, the first Cinemascope release, looks better than some of the newer films I've put on. Criterion's Gomorrah should be arriving soon on Blu-Ray, and apparently it's quite good. They have a lot of quality coming out, much of which is from last year or early this year, including Revanche, A Christmas Tale, Hunger, and Steven Soderbergh's four hour epic Che.
---
I also put on Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, and even with its improbable opening sequence, I still say the movie is pretty good until Indy and Mutt leave the United States. From there on, I can't really strongly argue against detractors, but I still don't hate the movie.
---
The year is winding down, gang, so if you have requests for movies the Cap'n should look into in preparation for the Year End Recaps, please drop me a line.
Friday, November 27, 2009
Blogorium Review: Whatever Works
I'm very surprised to hit two movies in one week that I enjoyed this much. It's not often the Cap'n watches two films in two days and both of them are equally enjoyable. However, I got lucky with the very funny Men Who Stare at Goats and Woody Allen's overlooked (in my eyes) Whatever Works.
Again, I blame this partially on trailer misrepresentation. I really thought, based on the ad, that Whatever Works was about making fun of Southern Religious Fundamentalists. That's the set up: Boris Yellnikoff (Larry David) - the Woody Allen surrogate for 2009 - is a misanthropic New Yorker atheist who takes in hay seed hillbilly Melodie Saint Anne Celestine (Evan Rachel Wood) and tolerates her incessant cluelessness. Eventually, Melodie's parents arrive (Patricia Clarkson and Ed Begley, Jr.), and more "North meets South" hilarity ensues. See for yourself:
But that's not Whatever Works. Sure, that's a part of it, and mostly in little cyclical moments immediately after Wood, Clarkson, and Begley individually arrive. But they adapt. In fact, Boris adapts in weird ways, and the movie is less about stereotypes bouncing against each other than people finding out they can change depending on the situation. It sounds hokey, but Woody Allen pulls it off in such a way that Whatever Works may be his most upbeat film in a long time.
And maybe that's why people had so much trouble with Whatever Works. When you hear that Larry David is going to play the Woody Allen role in a Woody Allen film, you expect only greatness. You expect the most neurotic, misanthropic, self-referential movie since Annie Hall, minus any of the off-kilter optimism that Diane Keaton offered Alvie. Sometimes you get it.
Early in the film, for example, when Allen is consciously playing with the fourth wall, and Boris addresses the audience directly, to the point of informing his friends that they're all being watched, Larry David is exactly what you'd expect in the marrying of Woody Allen and Curb Your Enthusiasm. There are a few moments in the middle of the movie that return to that, mostly built around Boris asking the camera to step aside with him, but for the bulk of the narrative, that goes away.
David is also not playing Larry David as Woody Allen as Boris Yelnikoff, even if that's what you're expecting. For a while, that's what you get, but Boris is an actual character that, in all fairness, may be parts of Allen and David, but is not reflective of our stereotypical expectations of them, so I can see how Curb Your Enthusiasm fans might feel duped.
Everyone else is quite good, including Evan Rachel Wood. She's not playing the type of character the trailer makes her out to be, and it's endearing how she tries to adapt to the fact that Boris is an actual genius (something the trailer also doesn't make clear) by developing his theories for herself. Clarkson goes through the biggest change in the shortest amount of time, but it suits her character and Allen has the good sense to play down her role as a plot mechanism in splitting up Boris and Melodie (spoiler - as if you hadn't figured out that a. they get together or b. they'd split up).
Ed Begley, Jr. gets the short end of the stick with very little time to make an impression, and his character shift is probably the hardest to buy, even if Allen again manages to keep it organic. The bar scene in the trailer is actually much better than the "God is a decorator" line would lead you to believe.
Maybe I was just caught up in the way Whatever Works refuses to let cynicism rule the day, or that Woody Allen took the film we were expecting away from us and made a better movie out of it, but it worked for me. And as Boris says, that's what really counts.
Again, I blame this partially on trailer misrepresentation. I really thought, based on the ad, that Whatever Works was about making fun of Southern Religious Fundamentalists. That's the set up: Boris Yellnikoff (Larry David) - the Woody Allen surrogate for 2009 - is a misanthropic New Yorker atheist who takes in hay seed hillbilly Melodie Saint Anne Celestine (Evan Rachel Wood) and tolerates her incessant cluelessness. Eventually, Melodie's parents arrive (Patricia Clarkson and Ed Begley, Jr.), and more "North meets South" hilarity ensues. See for yourself:
But that's not Whatever Works. Sure, that's a part of it, and mostly in little cyclical moments immediately after Wood, Clarkson, and Begley individually arrive. But they adapt. In fact, Boris adapts in weird ways, and the movie is less about stereotypes bouncing against each other than people finding out they can change depending on the situation. It sounds hokey, but Woody Allen pulls it off in such a way that Whatever Works may be his most upbeat film in a long time.
And maybe that's why people had so much trouble with Whatever Works. When you hear that Larry David is going to play the Woody Allen role in a Woody Allen film, you expect only greatness. You expect the most neurotic, misanthropic, self-referential movie since Annie Hall, minus any of the off-kilter optimism that Diane Keaton offered Alvie. Sometimes you get it.
Early in the film, for example, when Allen is consciously playing with the fourth wall, and Boris addresses the audience directly, to the point of informing his friends that they're all being watched, Larry David is exactly what you'd expect in the marrying of Woody Allen and Curb Your Enthusiasm. There are a few moments in the middle of the movie that return to that, mostly built around Boris asking the camera to step aside with him, but for the bulk of the narrative, that goes away.
David is also not playing Larry David as Woody Allen as Boris Yelnikoff, even if that's what you're expecting. For a while, that's what you get, but Boris is an actual character that, in all fairness, may be parts of Allen and David, but is not reflective of our stereotypical expectations of them, so I can see how Curb Your Enthusiasm fans might feel duped.
Everyone else is quite good, including Evan Rachel Wood. She's not playing the type of character the trailer makes her out to be, and it's endearing how she tries to adapt to the fact that Boris is an actual genius (something the trailer also doesn't make clear) by developing his theories for herself. Clarkson goes through the biggest change in the shortest amount of time, but it suits her character and Allen has the good sense to play down her role as a plot mechanism in splitting up Boris and Melodie (spoiler - as if you hadn't figured out that a. they get together or b. they'd split up).
Ed Begley, Jr. gets the short end of the stick with very little time to make an impression, and his character shift is probably the hardest to buy, even if Allen again manages to keep it organic. The bar scene in the trailer is actually much better than the "God is a decorator" line would lead you to believe.
Maybe I was just caught up in the way Whatever Works refuses to let cynicism rule the day, or that Woody Allen took the film we were expecting away from us and made a better movie out of it, but it worked for me. And as Boris says, that's what really counts.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)