Very well then. I will decide the movie theme for the weekend after next. I already have some very good ideas, and to boot, I found not one but two movies for Bad Movie Night in April. They promise to be of comparable quality to last year's entries.
Confession time: I didn't watch all of The Golden Globes last night. In fact, I didn't watch much of the show. Admittedly, I had better things to do, including watching Wings of Desire, but that's not really why I sat most of the event out. Strange as it may be for a film buff to take little interest in the first big award show, I have a perfectly reasonable explanation.
People usually take two positions on the Golden Globes: 1) it's a fun precursor to the Academy Awards where Hollywood types are encouraged to cut loose a little more, or 2) it's a sham, because the Hollywood Foreign Press Association have no actual credentials and their selections for winners are somehow linked to the amount of time they can spend with the stars. To a lesser degree, there are those who watch the show for fashion, like The Emmys, Grammys, or Academy Awards.
I am none of those. I've read the history of the Hollywood Foreign Press, but let's be honest here and not pretend that any awards show, including The Academy Awards, doesn't also appear dubious at times. So that's not really a factor in whether I tune in or not. Over the last few years, I've become increasingly burned out on "award season" and trying to guess who will win and who won't. For that, I turn to Neil because he loves it so. I find predicting the winner and justifying it for yourself is about as good as a coin flip, and in the past few years of Oscar Nights, most people go about 50/50 in predictions.
Strangely, it's not a matter of "Hollywood patting itself on the back", which some also decry. To be fair, awards season is a little self serving, and what I did see last night certainly reinforced that assertion, but Tinsel Town is far from the only club of millionaires giving each other props. Seriously, go check out the awards given at the end of the Football season, to draw a comparison to Big Fan.
I think maybe the reason I don't find The Golden Globes interesting is the same reason I find the new Oscar rules so underwhelming: everything gets in. The Globes maximize star power by having separate dramatic and comedy/musical categories, in addition to including television. The Academy Awards recently expanded the "Best Picture" category from five to ten films. This is great, with regard to getting the word out on fine films from the past year, but does it honestly change the fact that one movie is always going to be crowned "the Winner", and in all likelihood something released VERY recently?
To wit: Avatar took Best Picture (Drama) and Best Director. It's been out for what, a month? Nothing against Jeff Bridges in Crazy Heart (I love me some Jeff Bridges) and Robert Downey Jr. in Sherlock Holmes (I am well documented in my support of RDJ), but Sherlock Holmes opened on Christmas and Crazy Heart isn't even playing wide yet. I'm genuinely torn about Up in the Air edging out Inglourious Basterds for best screenplay, not only because both are excellent films, but I can't help but think that Up in the Air being a little more recent than August had something to do with the win. Still, love the movie.
The Hangover was a surprise to me, until I saw the competition. Not to slight The Hangover in any way, and I'd love to see the Academy actually nominate something so wantonly dirty for their Best Picture, but it's the one win that really broke the trend. There were a lot of movies not nominated at all that should have been, and that brings me to the other source of ennui for "awards season".
Sony Pictures is making no effort whatsoever to push Moon back into the eyes of awards voters. This is bad for Moon, because I think it's a fantastic film, but also speaks to the nature of what films tend to show up in January and February: ones with big pushes by the studio. If a movie can't afford to have the Weinsteins behind it (or comparable studio support), it disappears from consideration in what should be a celebration of the finest films of the prior year.
If you look at many online "top ten" lists - including the blogorium's - you won't see many of those movies introduced by an A-Lister come March. And I just don't like that, because the best thing Hollywood can do for itself is champion quality films for audiences hungry for them. That's not to speak ill of The Hurt Locker, Up in the Air, Inglourious Basterds, Julie & Julia, The Informant!, or Avatar. I'm just surprised that A Serious Man, Bad Lieutenant: Port of Call New Orleans, District 9, and Thirst didn't get more love. Or even Big Fan, which features a fantastic performance from Patton Oswalt. Half of them had one nomination or less.
So yeah, I didn't watch much of The Golden Globes. What I did watch irritated me, and if all the best films of the year come out in December, why is it the rest of us see so many great ones between January and November?
Although, I have to say, Christoph Waltz: Best Supporting Actor. Called that. He owns that category in the Oscars to boot, as far as I'm concerned. Even if you liked nothing else about Inglourious Basterds (and I'd be bummed that you didn't), it's hard to say he didn't rock Landa.
Monday, January 18, 2010
Saturday, January 16, 2010
USA Up All Night Marathon Also a Consideration!
The Cap'n needs your assistance, dear readers. You see, I'd really like to have one more movie marathon before school devours every moment of my free time and the Blogorium becomes a weekly referendum on the films of Joel and Ethan Coen (which is so much more likely than you'd even imagine). The problem is, I don't know what kind of movie night to have.
Normal marathons around here are themed, and for anyone who's arrived here for the first time, they go thusly:
April - Bad Movie Night(s), which occurs in the vicinity of the Cap'n's birthday. The so-bad-they're-good movies are hand selected by the Cap'n, and gifts are made of comparable quality to you, the attendee.
July - Summer Fest, which is a celebration of Horror Comedies. The atmosphere is based on a more participatory relationship to the horror films, and the quality bar is set much lower.
October - Horror Fest, the grandaddy of them all. Horror Fest is a showcase of the good, the bad, and the obscure of horror films which run from dusk til dawn.
More ambiguous about timing - Doctor Who Night, MST3K Night, Exploitation-o-Rama Double Features.
The catch is that I don't really want to do any of those in January. I'd like to try something different, like a "Best of 2009" weekend or something of that nature. On the other hand, I don't want to sacrifice the atmosphere of fun associated with other "theme" nights, and the phrase "best" is often subjective and connotes lofty expectations. So not quite what I'm looking for, you dig?
Therefore, I'd like to turn it over to you folks. What would bring you over to the Apartment That Dripped Blood for an evening that you wouldn't already show up for? What films would you like to see the Cap'n show for an audience unprepared for the experience. Okay, other than Teenage Mother (again).
Would VHS night be up your alley? A collection of films not available on DVD or fancy schmancy Blu-Ray? Believe it or not, they're out there. I have a few, and not just Terrorvision. Hankering for Italian Revenge Films, or Japanese Film Noir? Famous Oscar losers? Unnecessary Sequels? What about Bollywood versions of American films? I'm game, because I'd like to do something that would be fun for you folks and is outside of the normal realm of the Cap'n.
So give me some options in the comments section, and I'll put together a poll to vote on. The best suggestion will become a new "theme" night on the last weekend of January. For sure.
* one caveat: I'd really rather not do "Porn Parodies of Famous Films". Porn marathons NEVER end well.
Normal marathons around here are themed, and for anyone who's arrived here for the first time, they go thusly:
April - Bad Movie Night(s), which occurs in the vicinity of the Cap'n's birthday. The so-bad-they're-good movies are hand selected by the Cap'n, and gifts are made of comparable quality to you, the attendee.
July - Summer Fest, which is a celebration of Horror Comedies. The atmosphere is based on a more participatory relationship to the horror films, and the quality bar is set much lower.
October - Horror Fest, the grandaddy of them all. Horror Fest is a showcase of the good, the bad, and the obscure of horror films which run from dusk til dawn.
More ambiguous about timing - Doctor Who Night, MST3K Night, Exploitation-o-Rama Double Features.
The catch is that I don't really want to do any of those in January. I'd like to try something different, like a "Best of 2009" weekend or something of that nature. On the other hand, I don't want to sacrifice the atmosphere of fun associated with other "theme" nights, and the phrase "best" is often subjective and connotes lofty expectations. So not quite what I'm looking for, you dig?
Therefore, I'd like to turn it over to you folks. What would bring you over to the Apartment That Dripped Blood for an evening that you wouldn't already show up for? What films would you like to see the Cap'n show for an audience unprepared for the experience. Okay, other than Teenage Mother (again).
Would VHS night be up your alley? A collection of films not available on DVD or fancy schmancy Blu-Ray? Believe it or not, they're out there. I have a few, and not just Terrorvision. Hankering for Italian Revenge Films, or Japanese Film Noir? Famous Oscar losers? Unnecessary Sequels? What about Bollywood versions of American films? I'm game, because I'd like to do something that would be fun for you folks and is outside of the normal realm of the Cap'n.
So give me some options in the comments section, and I'll put together a poll to vote on. The best suggestion will become a new "theme" night on the last weekend of January. For sure.
* one caveat: I'd really rather not do "Porn Parodies of Famous Films". Porn marathons NEVER end well.
Friday, January 15, 2010
Land of Confusion
The Cap'n has been trying all day to decide if there's enough I want to say about Monsters vs. Aliens to merit a full review, and to be honest with you folks I'm not sure that I have much to add. It's a fun enough movie; a considerably better version of what Igor was trying to do. Igor tried very hard to be a kid-friendly movie set in the world of Universal Classic Monsters and ended up being a mostly stillborn affair. Monsters vs. Aliens is operating on the Classic Science Fiction template, and to be sure it succeeds in putting together variations of The Fly, the Creature from the Black Lagoon, Godzilla/Mothra, the Blob, and the 50 foot Woman together to fight alien invaders and giant robots. Throw in a riff on Dr. Strangelove and you have some idea of what to expect, which they reasonably succeed at.
As computer animated films go, Monsters vs. Aliens looks very good, and it has a nice cast. The theme is a tried and true kiddie-trope: an "ugly duckling" variation about learning to accept that you're okay the way you are, and on top of that what you wanted to be may not be so great after all. The movie is amusing and is hampered only with a few truly groan-inducing pop culture references (the ones that spring to mind involve "Axel F" and Dance Dance Revolution), and I guess I had fun watching it.
That being said, I didn't really want to proclaim from the mountain tops that everyone should see Monsters vs. Aliens. It's a perfectly agreeable film from Dreamworks Animation, sitting comfortably between the instantly dated Shrek films and the considerably better Kung Fu Panda. And that's about what I have to say.
---
Speaking of "having nothing to say", I keep thinking that I want to weigh in on the NBC Jay Leno / Conan O'Brien situation, or the Spider-man 4 debacle, or even the wildly varying reactions to The Lovely Bones or The Book of Eli, but when it comes to putting pen to paper (or the digital equivalent thereof), I really don't. All of these situations are fascinating to watch and read about as they develop, but there's not much to bring to the table that every other blogger hasn't with greater aplomb. Since those aren't hard to find, I suggest you seek them out, especially if you haven't heard that Sony is re-booting the Spider-Man series after three films (without Sam Raimi), or for some reason don't watch any late night television.
---
A final update, one with as much bearing on your lives as anything else today: Moon still hasn't arrived, and according to the UPS tracking code that's because the Blu-Ray was either stolen or irreparably damaged the day they tried to deliver it. I've heard nothing from Amazon (or UPS, for that matter), but since I paid for the movie, it would be nice if there was some indication that another copy would be shipped in the near future.
Okay, I'm off to finish a "personal narrative" for Boston University which is, appropriately, a narrative of my life with film. While I think there are some very good pieces, it's not the kind of thing that makes for Blogorium reading, so if you'd like to be one of proof/quality testers, please provide me with an email address and I'll happily send you the finished draft tomorrow.
Cheers.
As computer animated films go, Monsters vs. Aliens looks very good, and it has a nice cast. The theme is a tried and true kiddie-trope: an "ugly duckling" variation about learning to accept that you're okay the way you are, and on top of that what you wanted to be may not be so great after all. The movie is amusing and is hampered only with a few truly groan-inducing pop culture references (the ones that spring to mind involve "Axel F" and Dance Dance Revolution), and I guess I had fun watching it.
That being said, I didn't really want to proclaim from the mountain tops that everyone should see Monsters vs. Aliens. It's a perfectly agreeable film from Dreamworks Animation, sitting comfortably between the instantly dated Shrek films and the considerably better Kung Fu Panda. And that's about what I have to say.
---
Speaking of "having nothing to say", I keep thinking that I want to weigh in on the NBC Jay Leno / Conan O'Brien situation, or the Spider-man 4 debacle, or even the wildly varying reactions to The Lovely Bones or The Book of Eli, but when it comes to putting pen to paper (or the digital equivalent thereof), I really don't. All of these situations are fascinating to watch and read about as they develop, but there's not much to bring to the table that every other blogger hasn't with greater aplomb. Since those aren't hard to find, I suggest you seek them out, especially if you haven't heard that Sony is re-booting the Spider-Man series after three films (without Sam Raimi), or for some reason don't watch any late night television.
---
A final update, one with as much bearing on your lives as anything else today: Moon still hasn't arrived, and according to the UPS tracking code that's because the Blu-Ray was either stolen or irreparably damaged the day they tried to deliver it. I've heard nothing from Amazon (or UPS, for that matter), but since I paid for the movie, it would be nice if there was some indication that another copy would be shipped in the near future.
Okay, I'm off to finish a "personal narrative" for Boston University which is, appropriately, a narrative of my life with film. While I think there are some very good pieces, it's not the kind of thing that makes for Blogorium reading, so if you'd like to be one of proof/quality testers, please provide me with an email address and I'll happily send you the finished draft tomorrow.
Cheers.
Thursday, January 14, 2010
Blogorium Review: Big Fan
People don't tend to think of sports fanatics to be the same, in any way, to comic book fans or science fiction fanatics or hardcore gamers. In fact, anything grouped together under the umbrella term "geek" is meant to suggest an unhealthy obsession with something. While there is one critical difference between the average "geek" and the average "sports nut", people who come to Big Fan based on Patton Oswalt will nevertheless see a lot of themselves in the film.
The biggest difference between a fanatic of sports and the "typical" geek is that the objects of their obsession are flesh and blood. Teams are comprised of real players who perform every week during the season, and don't have the luxury of saying "well, I'm not really Batman. That's just a character in a film." More importantly, this plants the sports fanatic's heroes and villains in the same world they occupy, particularly if you live in a city with a football, baseball, basketball, or hockey team. Despite the rarefied air they breath, the sports fanatic always has a better chance of running into the cornerback for their favorite football team than the geek will of meeting Green Lantern.
And that's exactly what happens to Paul Aufiero (Patton Oswalt) one night. Paul is a huge NY Giants fan; he spends his days composing carefully worded diatribes to call into radio sports shows with that night. Paul and Sal (Kevin Corrigan) tailgate every home game, talk the scores, the schedule, and what needs to happen to make the playoffs. He idolizes Quantrell Bishop (Johnathan Hamm), a defensive... well, I'm not sure. He sounds like a pass rusher, but I missed Bishop's actual position. When Paul from Staten Island is on the air, his love for the Giants reigns supreme, even against the disembodied voice of Phil from Philadelphia (Michael Rapaport).
But Paul is also a loser: he's somewhere between late thirties and mid forties, lives at home with his mother in a tiny room crammed with memorabilia. He works in a parking garage, has one friend, and as best as one can tell, no prospects whatsoever. His brother is a lawyer and his sister a dental assistant, and he chides them (and his mother) for bothering him about his arrested development. For Paul, the Giants are everything. There is no life worth living beyond that. I can imagine some of you can replace the word "Giants" for something "geekier" and see the parallel.
Everything changes when Paul and Sal see Bishop and his entourage at a gas station. Starstruck, they follow him to Manhattan and into a strip club. So disconnected with reality, they have no idea how to approach Quantrell, and when a chance bathroom encounter and a drink offer amount to nothing, the twosome decide to take the direct approach. Bishop and his boys are amused, to say the least, that two disheveled losers would walk up to their VIP booth, but things go well until Paul lets slip that they followed him. For that, Bishop savagely beats Paul, leaving him in the hospital for three days.
Big Fan is a character study of a man so devoted to his team that he, despite lingering head trauma, refuses to cooperate with the police investigation. Aufiero feels guilty for making Bishop angry, and blames himself for the Giants subsequent losses as their star defensive player is suspended. This would be akin, I suppose, to having a favorite actor or artist attack you, and as you recover the show or comic goes downhill, much to fandom's chagrin. I cannot quite find the accurate corollary, which is why Big Fan had to be about athletes.
I won't say too much more, because the mental breakdown Paul suffers as a result of his guilt mixed with family pressure to sue Bishop and talk radio antagonizing from Phil in Philadelphia is where the movie gets most interesting. The third act of the film moves forward in a logical, albeit disturbing fashion, but then makes a sudden turn which is both uplifting and pathetic. It all depends on where you're sitting on the matter.
Patton Oswalt is fantastic as Paul Aufiero. He embodies the "man child" in a way that's never cheap or condescending; Paul doesn't believe that he's the sad man of the story, even when he lashes out in cruel ways at his mother and siblings. His desperation for the incident to just go away is the portrait of a fan in denial, and Oswalt sells every beat with conviction. People will be rightfully surprised to see him play it straight, and it's a pity more people won't see this film due to limited availability.
Writer / Director Robert Siegel takes a very naturalistic approach to the film, in a manner akin to Aronofsky's The Wrestler (which Siegel wrote). Using RED, a new digital camera that approximates the human eye's ability to pick up low light, Siegel makes the most of the film's low budget to achieve versimilitude. Take a shot, for example, where Paul and Sal are driving through Manhattan, neon lights reflecting off of the windshield, but both men are perfectly visible reacting to the display.
Despite the "no frills" independent film aesthetic, Big Fan looks great in HD. For some reason, the film is only being released on DVD, but I still recommend you check it out. I could continue hurling superlatives as Oswalt, but it's better if you just see the film yourselves. Even if you don't know the first thing about football, I promise that many readers of this blog will recognizes themselves - and a lot of themselves they don't want to be - in Paul Aufiero, the Big Fan.
The biggest difference between a fanatic of sports and the "typical" geek is that the objects of their obsession are flesh and blood. Teams are comprised of real players who perform every week during the season, and don't have the luxury of saying "well, I'm not really Batman. That's just a character in a film." More importantly, this plants the sports fanatic's heroes and villains in the same world they occupy, particularly if you live in a city with a football, baseball, basketball, or hockey team. Despite the rarefied air they breath, the sports fanatic always has a better chance of running into the cornerback for their favorite football team than the geek will of meeting Green Lantern.
And that's exactly what happens to Paul Aufiero (Patton Oswalt) one night. Paul is a huge NY Giants fan; he spends his days composing carefully worded diatribes to call into radio sports shows with that night. Paul and Sal (Kevin Corrigan) tailgate every home game, talk the scores, the schedule, and what needs to happen to make the playoffs. He idolizes Quantrell Bishop (Johnathan Hamm), a defensive... well, I'm not sure. He sounds like a pass rusher, but I missed Bishop's actual position. When Paul from Staten Island is on the air, his love for the Giants reigns supreme, even against the disembodied voice of Phil from Philadelphia (Michael Rapaport).
But Paul is also a loser: he's somewhere between late thirties and mid forties, lives at home with his mother in a tiny room crammed with memorabilia. He works in a parking garage, has one friend, and as best as one can tell, no prospects whatsoever. His brother is a lawyer and his sister a dental assistant, and he chides them (and his mother) for bothering him about his arrested development. For Paul, the Giants are everything. There is no life worth living beyond that. I can imagine some of you can replace the word "Giants" for something "geekier" and see the parallel.
Everything changes when Paul and Sal see Bishop and his entourage at a gas station. Starstruck, they follow him to Manhattan and into a strip club. So disconnected with reality, they have no idea how to approach Quantrell, and when a chance bathroom encounter and a drink offer amount to nothing, the twosome decide to take the direct approach. Bishop and his boys are amused, to say the least, that two disheveled losers would walk up to their VIP booth, but things go well until Paul lets slip that they followed him. For that, Bishop savagely beats Paul, leaving him in the hospital for three days.
Big Fan is a character study of a man so devoted to his team that he, despite lingering head trauma, refuses to cooperate with the police investigation. Aufiero feels guilty for making Bishop angry, and blames himself for the Giants subsequent losses as their star defensive player is suspended. This would be akin, I suppose, to having a favorite actor or artist attack you, and as you recover the show or comic goes downhill, much to fandom's chagrin. I cannot quite find the accurate corollary, which is why Big Fan had to be about athletes.
I won't say too much more, because the mental breakdown Paul suffers as a result of his guilt mixed with family pressure to sue Bishop and talk radio antagonizing from Phil in Philadelphia is where the movie gets most interesting. The third act of the film moves forward in a logical, albeit disturbing fashion, but then makes a sudden turn which is both uplifting and pathetic. It all depends on where you're sitting on the matter.
Patton Oswalt is fantastic as Paul Aufiero. He embodies the "man child" in a way that's never cheap or condescending; Paul doesn't believe that he's the sad man of the story, even when he lashes out in cruel ways at his mother and siblings. His desperation for the incident to just go away is the portrait of a fan in denial, and Oswalt sells every beat with conviction. People will be rightfully surprised to see him play it straight, and it's a pity more people won't see this film due to limited availability.
Writer / Director Robert Siegel takes a very naturalistic approach to the film, in a manner akin to Aronofsky's The Wrestler (which Siegel wrote). Using RED, a new digital camera that approximates the human eye's ability to pick up low light, Siegel makes the most of the film's low budget to achieve versimilitude. Take a shot, for example, where Paul and Sal are driving through Manhattan, neon lights reflecting off of the windshield, but both men are perfectly visible reacting to the display.
Despite the "no frills" independent film aesthetic, Big Fan looks great in HD. For some reason, the film is only being released on DVD, but I still recommend you check it out. I could continue hurling superlatives as Oswalt, but it's better if you just see the film yourselves. Even if you don't know the first thing about football, I promise that many readers of this blog will recognizes themselves - and a lot of themselves they don't want to be - in Paul Aufiero, the Big Fan.
Wednesday, January 13, 2010
Things You Should and Shouldn't Look Into
I thought I'd start with an amendment to Monday's piece about The Simpsons Season Twenty. While the episodes are, in fact, in high definition, so far there's nary a widescreen presentation to be found. Based on the opening credits, I may have mistaken the jump from 4X3 to 16X9 by a season. The current run (season 21) has different opening sequences, many of which poke fun at the wider image. Still, I'm a little confused why Fox pushed so hard to rush season twenty out, since it technically misses the 20th anniversary and it's Blu-Ray release doesn't take advantage of the screen in the way fans are going to expect.
Additionally, there is literally one extra on the disc: a three minute teaser with Morgan Spurlock for a forthcoming Anniversary Special. Unfortunately, there's no indication of when the special is airing, or if it's going to be available. None of the commentaries from other seasons are present, or deleted scenes, commercials, making of's, or anything else. It screams of a quick cash-in, and I'm really not going to be shocked if you see this season released AGAIN sometime before season twenty-one.
---
For anybody with Netflix's "watch it now", while you can't see any new Warner Brothers releases, what you can do is catch two movies that are a little trickier to see: Big Fan and Che. Now Che comes out from Criterion next week, but Steven Soderbergh's four-and-a-half hour Benicio del Toro as Che Guevara epic is going to be a little steep on DVD or Blu-Ray. Luckily, you can watch Part One and Part Two in HD streaming right now. I might just do that in a bit.
While Big Fan technically came out yesterday, no store in the area was carrying the DVD and Amazon has it on a two week back order, so I wouldn't be seeing it that way until the end of the month. Netflix, sensing this problem, not only has Big Fan to watch Instantly, but they one-upped the DVD version by offering the film in HD. Since there's no Blu-Ray release listed, you're getting a bonus here.
I did watch Big Fan, but I'm going to save that review for tomorrow. In the meantime, if you have access to the movie (instantly or on disc) I highly recommend it. Patton Oswalt is excellent, the character study is engrossing, and the ending was a bit surprising. I'll say more tomorrow, but go seek Big Fan out now.
---
The Cap'n promised I wouldn't make you sit through another pan of Terminator: Salvation, and so you won't have to. I won't tell you about the reasonably interesting action sequences hampered by an idiotic story punctuated with massive plot holes. I won't tell you about the squandered opportunities or the myriad references to other films that were bungled. I won't mention the stupid ending, a weaker version of the "John Connor is a terminator!" twist that leaked prior to filming. I won't mention how toothless the film feels with a PG-13. I won't tell you all about how fake the digital Arnold face looked or the REALLY STUPID plan by Skynet that JUST DOESN'T MAKE SENSE, or how Sam Worthington's accent goes from "Southern" to his native Australian while he's hanging by a car frame. Above all, I certainly won't mention how the film feels exactly like the exercise in futility that I thought it would, but somehow manages to be even less interesting than I expected.
No sir, you won't have to sit through that, and I won't have ripped off a Harlan Ellison article to not tell you.
---
In the wake of having written my defense of Rob Zombie's Halloween II - which is the best way to prepare someone for that film, because it really is Rob Zombie's singular take on the series - I'd like to hear from Cranpire and find out what others thought. Don't get me wrong; I've seen a lot of bad reviews, but none from people I know. So if there are some guest bloggers out there, I'm asking for your input.
Additionally, there is literally one extra on the disc: a three minute teaser with Morgan Spurlock for a forthcoming Anniversary Special. Unfortunately, there's no indication of when the special is airing, or if it's going to be available. None of the commentaries from other seasons are present, or deleted scenes, commercials, making of's, or anything else. It screams of a quick cash-in, and I'm really not going to be shocked if you see this season released AGAIN sometime before season twenty-one.
---
For anybody with Netflix's "watch it now", while you can't see any new Warner Brothers releases, what you can do is catch two movies that are a little trickier to see: Big Fan and Che. Now Che comes out from Criterion next week, but Steven Soderbergh's four-and-a-half hour Benicio del Toro as Che Guevara epic is going to be a little steep on DVD or Blu-Ray. Luckily, you can watch Part One and Part Two in HD streaming right now. I might just do that in a bit.
While Big Fan technically came out yesterday, no store in the area was carrying the DVD and Amazon has it on a two week back order, so I wouldn't be seeing it that way until the end of the month. Netflix, sensing this problem, not only has Big Fan to watch Instantly, but they one-upped the DVD version by offering the film in HD. Since there's no Blu-Ray release listed, you're getting a bonus here.
I did watch Big Fan, but I'm going to save that review for tomorrow. In the meantime, if you have access to the movie (instantly or on disc) I highly recommend it. Patton Oswalt is excellent, the character study is engrossing, and the ending was a bit surprising. I'll say more tomorrow, but go seek Big Fan out now.
---
The Cap'n promised I wouldn't make you sit through another pan of Terminator: Salvation, and so you won't have to. I won't tell you about the reasonably interesting action sequences hampered by an idiotic story punctuated with massive plot holes. I won't tell you about the squandered opportunities or the myriad references to other films that were bungled. I won't mention the stupid ending, a weaker version of the "John Connor is a terminator!" twist that leaked prior to filming. I won't mention how toothless the film feels with a PG-13. I won't tell you all about how fake the digital Arnold face looked or the REALLY STUPID plan by Skynet that JUST DOESN'T MAKE SENSE, or how Sam Worthington's accent goes from "Southern" to his native Australian while he's hanging by a car frame. Above all, I certainly won't mention how the film feels exactly like the exercise in futility that I thought it would, but somehow manages to be even less interesting than I expected.
No sir, you won't have to sit through that, and I won't have ripped off a Harlan Ellison article to not tell you.
---
In the wake of having written my defense of Rob Zombie's Halloween II - which is the best way to prepare someone for that film, because it really is Rob Zombie's singular take on the series - I'd like to hear from Cranpire and find out what others thought. Don't get me wrong; I've seen a lot of bad reviews, but none from people I know. So if there are some guest bloggers out there, I'm asking for your input.
Tuesday, January 12, 2010
Blogorium Review: Halloween II
Allow me to point out that this is not a So You Won't Have To review, although I suspect many of you won't be checking out Rob Zombie's Halloween II. It's not a perfect film, to be sure, but I found the experience to be far more enjoyable than Halloween.
Many of you know that I was not, am not, and don't expect to be on board in the future with Zombie's remake. I just didn't like it. The familiar faces in supporting roles got to be absurd, the excessive profanity and sleaziness bordered on parodic, and I felt there were fundamental problems in the retelling that robbed Michael Myers and Laurie Strode's story. However, I had hoped that like The Devil's Rejects was to House of 1000 Corpses, so to would Halloween II be to Halloween. Rob Zombie did not disappoint.
From the get-go, Halloween II moves away from the limitations of a remake and forges onward in its own direction. Zombie, not feeling beholden to specific iconic imagery, moves at a different pace than the "slasher" portion of Halloween. In fact, Michael spends roughly half the film without a mask on. When Zombie does pay homage to the other Halloween 2 - a clever nod to the hospital siege - the end result is better than anything in the original sequel. I was more interested in the carnage Michael unleashed and Laurie's desperate attempts to get away than at any point during the original H2.
After the homage-turned-dream-sequence, we're reintroduced to Laurie Strode (Scout Taylor-Compton), Annie Brackett (Danielle Harris) and Sheriff Lee Brackett (Brad Dourif), living together in relative isolation. Laurie and Annie have severe psychological scarring (and Annie has some pretty serious physical scarring too), and Laurie's constantly teetering on the edge of a nervous breakdown. She's been having strange dreams with young Michael (Chase Wright Vanek, filling in for Daeg Faerch) and Deborah Myers (Sherri Moon Zombie) in spectral form. Some are bizarre, and at least one involving a pumpkin feast, is outright disturbing.
Speaking of disturbing, the violence in Halloween II is pretty rough. Like, rougher than even the last film rough. Michael (Tyler Mane) carves a path of carnage on his quest to reunite the Myers family - he too has the visions of a spectral mother and white horse - and though I consider myself to have a pretty tough horror constitution, some of the kills early in the film are pretty nasty. Sawing through a guy's throat with broken glass is one thing, but the repeated stabbings, each with increased force, until the sound design resembles someone punching a bag of rotten meat, was more than I expected.
Back to the plot for a second: Halloween II picks up two years after Halloween, and two years after the supposedly dead Michael disappeared. When we see him again, Mane often appears without the mask and instead has a long beard and scraggly hair. You've probably heard folks refer to these sections as "Hobo Michael", but I didn't feel like much of his wandering was aimless. The explanation - that he's following his visions - creates an internally coherent reason for why Michael ends up where he ends up during the film. Dr. Loomis (Malcolm McDowell) is exploiting the tragedy once more with a new book, one that threatens to expose Laurie to the truth about her history.
The "guest star" casting (as Tarantino has come to put it in his films) actually works in Halloween II where it did not in Halloween. Perhaps the reason is that while the faces are recognizable from time to time, everybody looks different enough that you don't say "hey! Mickey Dolenz!" or "Look, it's Sid Haig or Clint Howard or Udo Kier!" Instead, Zombie calls on Daniel Roebuck (Lost, Bubba Ho-Tep), Margot Kidder, Mary Birdsong (Reno 911), Caroline Williams (The Texas Chainsaw Massacre Part 2), Richard Brake (Batman Begins), Richard Riehle (Office Space, Casino), Howard Hesseman (Shampoo, Silent Movie), Duane Whitaker (Pulp Fiction, Feast), and Mark Boone Junior (Memento, The Quick and the Dead).
Where Halloween II succeeds in the way Halloween didn't is that with most of the bit parts, you'd have to really know these actors to spot them immediately. I really didn't recognize Mary Birdsong or Margot Kidder at first, and Daniel Roebuck is almost unrecognizable. Instead of saying "hey look, another person I recognize in a tiny role!", the impression is more like "that person looks familiar, but I couldn't tell you why", which should be the intended effect. Even "Weird" Al Yankovic fits within the scene he's in, which is a talk show sequence designed to undermine Loomis' credibility (the host is Chris Hardwick, of House of 1000 Corpses).
To be fair, not everything about Halloween II works. While Annie's dialogue is a lot better (reflecting a certain maturity in her post-traumatic experience), Laurie can periodically be shrill and annoying. I'm not saddling it all on Taylor-Compton, because the rest of the dialogue for her new friends (Brea Grant and Angela Trimbur) is occasionally cringe inducing. McDowell's Loomis is so glib and shitty that I do wonder if he'd really bother showing up at the very end of the film.
I also have questions about why Laurie, who seems to be frequently terrorized by dreams of being murdered by Michael, would so idolize Charles Manson. She has not only a huge poster of Manson above her bed, but also some hand painted slogan about what would Charley (sic) do or something to that effect. That was the only moment in set design that really did ring false. Also, the "when Michael puts his mask on vs when he doesn't" motif doesn't really have any rhyme or reason. He kills just as brutally without it outside of the strip club.
What most people are objecting to, however, is the kinda-far-out-there choice by Zombie to bring back Sheri Moon Zombie as ghost mom. Now, I will say that it can get kinda goofy, especially when she lapses into a Vampira-esque staredown with the camera, but I didn't find it to be as horrible as the audiences who vocally assaulted the film in theatres. It's an out there choice, but this is no longer the Halloween we expect; this is Rob Zombie's take on the story, going off in its own direction.
Speaking of which, I have to say that while I did see the Unrated Director's Cut, I have seen the theatrical ending (it was *ahem* online somewhere...) and I much prefer Zombie's cut. For one thing (potential spoilers here) killing Laurie earns the "white horse" coda in a better way than having her put on Michael's mask and go catatonic. I'm also of the mind that Laurie doesn't necessarily need to kill Michael for the story to work, so Michael killing Loomis and dying in a hail of gunfire was plenty appropriate. It's similar to the way that they don't show what Michael does to Annie, just its aftermath. True, it would be a cool kill, but the story doesn't need you to see it happen, just like the ending.
Ultimately, while people seem to really hate Halloween II, the Cap'n liked it. I thought that, even with its flaws, this is a sequel that bests its predecessor and works on its own merits. If you can accept that this is a very different kind of movie than any of the original Halloween films, but one with its own internal logic, you might indeed find it worth checking out.
Total Side Note: The Blu-Ray for Halloween II looks nice, but the picture is awash with grain. This was no doubt an aesthetic decision by Rob Zombie, so I'm not bagging the image quality, but I'm betting that if you find the DVD instead the picture won't be radically different.
Many of you know that I was not, am not, and don't expect to be on board in the future with Zombie's remake. I just didn't like it. The familiar faces in supporting roles got to be absurd, the excessive profanity and sleaziness bordered on parodic, and I felt there were fundamental problems in the retelling that robbed Michael Myers and Laurie Strode's story. However, I had hoped that like The Devil's Rejects was to House of 1000 Corpses, so to would Halloween II be to Halloween. Rob Zombie did not disappoint.
After the homage-turned-dream-sequence, we're reintroduced to Laurie Strode (Scout Taylor-Compton), Annie Brackett (Danielle Harris) and Sheriff Lee Brackett (Brad Dourif), living together in relative isolation. Laurie and Annie have severe psychological scarring (and Annie has some pretty serious physical scarring too), and Laurie's constantly teetering on the edge of a nervous breakdown. She's been having strange dreams with young Michael (Chase Wright Vanek, filling in for Daeg Faerch) and Deborah Myers (Sherri Moon Zombie) in spectral form. Some are bizarre, and at least one involving a pumpkin feast, is outright disturbing.
Speaking of disturbing, the violence in Halloween II is pretty rough. Like, rougher than even the last film rough. Michael (Tyler Mane) carves a path of carnage on his quest to reunite the Myers family - he too has the visions of a spectral mother and white horse - and though I consider myself to have a pretty tough horror constitution, some of the kills early in the film are pretty nasty. Sawing through a guy's throat with broken glass is one thing, but the repeated stabbings, each with increased force, until the sound design resembles someone punching a bag of rotten meat, was more than I expected.
Back to the plot for a second: Halloween II picks up two years after Halloween, and two years after the supposedly dead Michael disappeared. When we see him again, Mane often appears without the mask and instead has a long beard and scraggly hair. You've probably heard folks refer to these sections as "Hobo Michael", but I didn't feel like much of his wandering was aimless. The explanation - that he's following his visions - creates an internally coherent reason for why Michael ends up where he ends up during the film. Dr. Loomis (Malcolm McDowell) is exploiting the tragedy once more with a new book, one that threatens to expose Laurie to the truth about her history.
The "guest star" casting (as Tarantino has come to put it in his films) actually works in Halloween II where it did not in Halloween. Perhaps the reason is that while the faces are recognizable from time to time, everybody looks different enough that you don't say "hey! Mickey Dolenz!" or "Look, it's Sid Haig or Clint Howard or Udo Kier!" Instead, Zombie calls on Daniel Roebuck (Lost, Bubba Ho-Tep), Margot Kidder, Mary Birdsong (Reno 911), Caroline Williams (The Texas Chainsaw Massacre Part 2), Richard Brake (Batman Begins), Richard Riehle (Office Space, Casino), Howard Hesseman (Shampoo, Silent Movie), Duane Whitaker (Pulp Fiction, Feast), and Mark Boone Junior (Memento, The Quick and the Dead).
Where Halloween II succeeds in the way Halloween didn't is that with most of the bit parts, you'd have to really know these actors to spot them immediately. I really didn't recognize Mary Birdsong or Margot Kidder at first, and Daniel Roebuck is almost unrecognizable. Instead of saying "hey look, another person I recognize in a tiny role!", the impression is more like "that person looks familiar, but I couldn't tell you why", which should be the intended effect. Even "Weird" Al Yankovic fits within the scene he's in, which is a talk show sequence designed to undermine Loomis' credibility (the host is Chris Hardwick, of House of 1000 Corpses).
To be fair, not everything about Halloween II works. While Annie's dialogue is a lot better (reflecting a certain maturity in her post-traumatic experience), Laurie can periodically be shrill and annoying. I'm not saddling it all on Taylor-Compton, because the rest of the dialogue for her new friends (Brea Grant and Angela Trimbur) is occasionally cringe inducing. McDowell's Loomis is so glib and shitty that I do wonder if he'd really bother showing up at the very end of the film.
I also have questions about why Laurie, who seems to be frequently terrorized by dreams of being murdered by Michael, would so idolize Charles Manson. She has not only a huge poster of Manson above her bed, but also some hand painted slogan about what would Charley (sic) do or something to that effect. That was the only moment in set design that really did ring false. Also, the "when Michael puts his mask on vs when he doesn't" motif doesn't really have any rhyme or reason. He kills just as brutally without it outside of the strip club.
What most people are objecting to, however, is the kinda-far-out-there choice by Zombie to bring back Sheri Moon Zombie as ghost mom. Now, I will say that it can get kinda goofy, especially when she lapses into a Vampira-esque staredown with the camera, but I didn't find it to be as horrible as the audiences who vocally assaulted the film in theatres. It's an out there choice, but this is no longer the Halloween we expect; this is Rob Zombie's take on the story, going off in its own direction.
Speaking of which, I have to say that while I did see the Unrated Director's Cut, I have seen the theatrical ending (it was *ahem* online somewhere...) and I much prefer Zombie's cut. For one thing (potential spoilers here) killing Laurie earns the "white horse" coda in a better way than having her put on Michael's mask and go catatonic. I'm also of the mind that Laurie doesn't necessarily need to kill Michael for the story to work, so Michael killing Loomis and dying in a hail of gunfire was plenty appropriate. It's similar to the way that they don't show what Michael does to Annie, just its aftermath. True, it would be a cool kill, but the story doesn't need you to see it happen, just like the ending.
Ultimately, while people seem to really hate Halloween II, the Cap'n liked it. I thought that, even with its flaws, this is a sequel that bests its predecessor and works on its own merits. If you can accept that this is a very different kind of movie than any of the original Halloween films, but one with its own internal logic, you might indeed find it worth checking out.
Total Side Note: The Blu-Ray for Halloween II looks nice, but the picture is awash with grain. This was no doubt an aesthetic decision by Rob Zombie, so I'm not bagging the image quality, but I'm betting that if you find the DVD instead the picture won't be radically different.
Monday, January 11, 2010
I Was Not Paid to Endorse Any of This Crap
Greetings and salutations! I'd like to kick off tonight's extravaganza of randomness with a response to our commenter and long time reader, El Cranpiro. He has generously offered to review Halloween 2 So I Won't Have To, even though I must admit that for all my misgivings about Rob Zombie's first go at Halloween, I do kinda want to see the sequel.
Alas, Mr. Cranpire, I have no other copies of Blood Car to give, and I'm not sure what kind of compensation I could provide for your review. However, if you want to give all the other decent readers a head's up on H2, I will happily post it under "Guest Blogger".
---
Tomorrow is a pretty spectacular day for DVD and Blu-Ray releases, even if you aren't a Halloween fan. For example, my oft-mentioned favorite Moon is coming out, along with Big Fan, The Hurt Locker, House on Sorority Row, The Brothers Bloom, and Criterion's Blu-Ray version of 8 1/2. Also, if it's your thing, The Simpsons are making a big jump forward and releasing season 20 on Blu Ray and digital versatility disc. Season 20 was the first broadcast in High Definition and in widescreen, and I've seen a handful of episodes from 20 and 21. They're better than the show's been in a while, but I'm still going to lean in the "rent" category.
In the coming weeks, you can also look forward to Steven Soderbergh's Che, Kingdom of the Spiders (with William Shatner), season five of Weeds, Magnolia on Blu-Ray, Paris Texas, The Toolbox Murders, The Complete Doctor Who 2009 Specials, and Zombieland.
---
Also, I have to bring this up, because the Cap'n has been bemoaning the absence of this film in any digital medium: on March 23rd, 2010, The African Queen is finally coming to Blu-Ray!
If you've never seen The African Queen, you're in for a treat, gang. Humphrey Bogart and Katharine Hepburn in a John Huston film from 1951. Since Paramount is so big on "anniversary" editions, I'm a little surprised they didn't wait for a proper 60th anniversary edition, but then again, having something other than my beaten up vhs copy is good enough!
---
Um, speaking of "So You Won't Have To"'s, the Cap'n wasn't paying careful attention to his Netflix queue, and *ahem* Terminator: Salvation arrived on Saturday. I'm sorely tempted to send it back sight unseen, but I have this hangup about watching what they send me, so I might swallow this crap sandwich as penance for not being more aware. Don't worry, I won't make you sit through another review if I watch T:S. Yuck.
On the upside, Monsters vs Aliens also arrived, and The Hurt Locker is arriving tomorrow. I'm not going to lie: many of the other new releases are worthy of purchase in my eyes, with full acknowledgment that I just said I prefer not to buy sight unseen. Patton Oswalt is one general exception, and I have vague memories of House on Sorority Row from Carbonated video. Halloween 2... haven't made up my mind there. It's probably a renter, but I'll let you know. Either way, look for a bunch of reviews before I head into the spring semester.
As always, Guest Blogging is welcome here at the Blogorium. If you've got something you want to review not represented by the Cap'n, write it up. Unless you're Grampa J. You can't prove that was even me in those pictures...
Alas, Mr. Cranpire, I have no other copies of Blood Car to give, and I'm not sure what kind of compensation I could provide for your review. However, if you want to give all the other decent readers a head's up on H2, I will happily post it under "Guest Blogger".
---
Tomorrow is a pretty spectacular day for DVD and Blu-Ray releases, even if you aren't a Halloween fan. For example, my oft-mentioned favorite Moon is coming out, along with Big Fan, The Hurt Locker, House on Sorority Row, The Brothers Bloom, and Criterion's Blu-Ray version of 8 1/2. Also, if it's your thing, The Simpsons are making a big jump forward and releasing season 20 on Blu Ray and digital versatility disc. Season 20 was the first broadcast in High Definition and in widescreen, and I've seen a handful of episodes from 20 and 21. They're better than the show's been in a while, but I'm still going to lean in the "rent" category.
In the coming weeks, you can also look forward to Steven Soderbergh's Che, Kingdom of the Spiders (with William Shatner), season five of Weeds, Magnolia on Blu-Ray, Paris Texas, The Toolbox Murders, The Complete Doctor Who 2009 Specials, and Zombieland.
---
Also, I have to bring this up, because the Cap'n has been bemoaning the absence of this film in any digital medium: on March 23rd, 2010, The African Queen is finally coming to Blu-Ray!
If you've never seen The African Queen, you're in for a treat, gang. Humphrey Bogart and Katharine Hepburn in a John Huston film from 1951. Since Paramount is so big on "anniversary" editions, I'm a little surprised they didn't wait for a proper 60th anniversary edition, but then again, having something other than my beaten up vhs copy is good enough!
---
Um, speaking of "So You Won't Have To"'s, the Cap'n wasn't paying careful attention to his Netflix queue, and *ahem* Terminator: Salvation arrived on Saturday. I'm sorely tempted to send it back sight unseen, but I have this hangup about watching what they send me, so I might swallow this crap sandwich as penance for not being more aware. Don't worry, I won't make you sit through another review if I watch T:S. Yuck.
On the upside, Monsters vs Aliens also arrived, and The Hurt Locker is arriving tomorrow. I'm not going to lie: many of the other new releases are worthy of purchase in my eyes, with full acknowledgment that I just said I prefer not to buy sight unseen. Patton Oswalt is one general exception, and I have vague memories of House on Sorority Row from Carbonated video. Halloween 2... haven't made up my mind there. It's probably a renter, but I'll let you know. Either way, look for a bunch of reviews before I head into the spring semester.
As always, Guest Blogging is welcome here at the Blogorium. If you've got something you want to review not represented by the Cap'n, write it up. Unless you're Grampa J. You can't prove that was even me in those pictures...
Saturday, January 9, 2010
Grumbly Growl (more about renting...)
By now, you might have heard that Netflix and Warner Brothers reached a deal this week that will prevent new releases from the studio being available for 28 days after retail availability. Warner Brothers s attempting to increase DVD and Blu-Ray sales by removing all new films from the rental market. Of course, they don't appear to be making a similar deal with Blockbuster or Hollywood video. Perhaps that's because, as I discussed two days ago, Netflix and Red Box are dominating the rental market.
Here's the rub: by not making your recent releases available for a month, I'm less likely to purchase a new Warner Brothers release, and I suspect I'm not alone. Not only will I wait a month and rent other films, but I'll seriously reconsider buying any new Warners release new. Maybe I'll just wait for it to hit the "used" market, on Amazon or at second-run retailers. If they want more money so badly, they made a bad decision by cutting off the rental market.
If you're wondering, "so what? what's another month?", imagine this: if this stunt works, then the other studios are going to follow suit, and assuming that you'd rather drive to Best Buy or Target or Wal Mart to buy a movie you haven't seen. If that somehow works, then they'll start looking at "classic" or top tier titles from the catalog and withhold those, in the hopes you'll pony up another $30-70 for "Deluxe Editions" on top of your Netflix rental price.
I have Netflix precisely because I don't want to buy everything that looks interesting. Sometimes I'd like to rent it first, but if I really like a movie, I'll probably pick it up. If the film is only available to buy, I'll put that film way down on my queue and forget about it. Yes, there are other movies to watch - which is another perfectly reasonable reaction to my grousing - and there are so many of them that maybe users will just bypass Warner Brothers altogether.
For example, there's been a LOT of complaining about New Line (a Warner Brothers subsidiary) deciding to put out The Lord of the Rings films on Blu-Ray in their theatrical cuts, when it's abundantly clear that this is a cash grab. Obviously the extended cuts will be on Blu-Ray some time before The Hobbit hits theatres, so New Line thinks they can sell us both versions when they'd easily fit on the same disc. Now I won't be able to rent them and see if it's even worth the picture upgrade for a month, unless I want to drop $70 for the boxed set. Buyer beware.
This is, in some ways, just a slight annoyance, but it says that the studios are concerned about losing money, and that they're willing to negotiate with the new rental giant to remove films in a way that they aren't elsewhere. Netflix fans are being hosed, Warner Brothers is indicating that money is more important than customer relationships, and the other studios are peeking over the wall to see if the suckers will eat it up. And maybe they will. I don't know. I'm not happy about this at all, because the upside has yet to manifest itself.
---
So as to not leave everyone on a sour note, may I present to you this French interpretation of Star Wars.... at least, I think that's what it is...
Here's the rub: by not making your recent releases available for a month, I'm less likely to purchase a new Warner Brothers release, and I suspect I'm not alone. Not only will I wait a month and rent other films, but I'll seriously reconsider buying any new Warners release new. Maybe I'll just wait for it to hit the "used" market, on Amazon or at second-run retailers. If they want more money so badly, they made a bad decision by cutting off the rental market.
If you're wondering, "so what? what's another month?", imagine this: if this stunt works, then the other studios are going to follow suit, and assuming that you'd rather drive to Best Buy or Target or Wal Mart to buy a movie you haven't seen. If that somehow works, then they'll start looking at "classic" or top tier titles from the catalog and withhold those, in the hopes you'll pony up another $30-70 for "Deluxe Editions" on top of your Netflix rental price.
I have Netflix precisely because I don't want to buy everything that looks interesting. Sometimes I'd like to rent it first, but if I really like a movie, I'll probably pick it up. If the film is only available to buy, I'll put that film way down on my queue and forget about it. Yes, there are other movies to watch - which is another perfectly reasonable reaction to my grousing - and there are so many of them that maybe users will just bypass Warner Brothers altogether.
For example, there's been a LOT of complaining about New Line (a Warner Brothers subsidiary) deciding to put out The Lord of the Rings films on Blu-Ray in their theatrical cuts, when it's abundantly clear that this is a cash grab. Obviously the extended cuts will be on Blu-Ray some time before The Hobbit hits theatres, so New Line thinks they can sell us both versions when they'd easily fit on the same disc. Now I won't be able to rent them and see if it's even worth the picture upgrade for a month, unless I want to drop $70 for the boxed set. Buyer beware.
This is, in some ways, just a slight annoyance, but it says that the studios are concerned about losing money, and that they're willing to negotiate with the new rental giant to remove films in a way that they aren't elsewhere. Netflix fans are being hosed, Warner Brothers is indicating that money is more important than customer relationships, and the other studios are peeking over the wall to see if the suckers will eat it up. And maybe they will. I don't know. I'm not happy about this at all, because the upside has yet to manifest itself.
---
So as to not leave everyone on a sour note, may I present to you this French interpretation of Star Wars.... at least, I think that's what it is...
Friday, January 8, 2010
Blogorium Review: Up in the Air
Watching Up in the Air, much like the recently viewed Facing Ali, makes me wish I could travel back in time to last week and amend the Year End List a bit. I'd add those, as I suspect that when I do see The Road and Big Fan I'll have two more. Up in the Air isn't quite the movie I was expecting, but to be fair I wasn't quite sure what to expect.
I'd read the Walter Kirn novel a few years ago, when it passed through Edward McKay's, but I didn't remember the book very well. Despite all the movie watching and writing, I do read quite a bit, though most of it wouldn't ever end up in the blogorium. But I digress.
Back to the movie at hand: if you don't know anything about Up in the Air, it's the story of Ryan Bingham (George Clooney) who is paid to fly around the country and fire people so that their company won't have to. He's also periodically a motivational speaker, specifically with a piece called "What's in your backpack?" The movie, directed by Jason Reitman, starts comedy. This is appropriate, because Up in the Air is initially going to remind you of Reitman's first film, Thank You For Smoking. The narration is similar, the disdain for humanity is similar, and it plays the funny for quite a while.
Bingham lives in hotel rooms and in airports. It's where he's comfortable, and his nomadic lifestyle keeps him from having to form long term relationships, even with his family. His actual apartment is embarassingly spartan, down to what I believe is a jar full of Pop Tarts above the fridge and abandoned food containers littering his counter. The life works for Bingham, and he even meets a fellow traveler, Alex Goran (Vera Farmiga), who meets... shall we say, other needs. In between this, he spends his time coaxing people into accepting their status as unemployed by saying things like "Anyone who ever did anything great sat where you're sitting".
One of the first people we see Bingham fire is Zach Galifianakis, the first of several cameos or small roles in the film, which also includes J.K. Simmons, Sam Elliot, Jason Bateman, Heavenly Creature's Melanie Lynskey, and Danny McBride (the latter two play Bingham's youngest sister and brother-in-law to be). We don't see a lot of these folks, but each brings something interesting to the story, which gets a little more complicated after a breezy introduction.
See, Bingham's job is in jeopardy because the company's new whiz kid, Natalie Keener (Anna Kendrick) developed a simpler system of firing people via video conferencing. Bingham's convinced it won't actually work, and when he learns Natalie doesn't know how to fire anyone, his boss (Bateman) makes him take her out on the road. This could easily be an excuse for more comedic hijinks, and for a little while there's humor to be mined from the mismatch, particularly a non-PC explanation of which ethnic groups are best to get in line behind.
Then, perhaps predictably (or at least as I was expecting), Reitman gets a little sentimental on us. Movies like this are mean to challenge people like Ryan Bingham's beliefs, so Natalie shakes his resolve not to make a serious connection with Alex, and everyone bonds a bit. Ryan decides to go to his sister's wedding with a Plus 1, and even gets the chance to talk Jim (McBride) out of his cold feet. You can see the movie we're heading towards; life lessons are being learned, conventions are being challenged. Yikes, I thought, this is Juno territory... the other side of Reitman territory, the one I don't like so much.
But then Up in the Air does something else, something that a lot of similar movies wouldn't do, something that won me over. I'm not going to spoil anything for you, but it's nice to see a movie that presents a character with easy outs, but doesn't necessarily make them ones that can or should actually happen. Maybe that big life change takes more work than an hour and forty nine minutes allows for. Maybe it does get messy instead of "happily ever after", and while the ending may not satisfy everybody, it's certainly true for the characters. And I appreciated that.
George Clooney is again excellent, and I found his character arc to be similar to Lyn Cassidy's in The Men Who Stare at Goats, but more resonant. Both films presented themselves in a one dimensional way and then veer off in unexpected third acts. Vera Farmiga and Anna Kendrick are also great as foils for Clooney, and Danny McBride gets the rare opportunity to play it totally straight, without being a jokester or an asshole, and does so very well. I always enjoy seeing Melanie Lynskey in films, and J.K. Simmons makes a lot out of a very short scene. I don't have anything bad to say about Jason Bateman, who again is playing the straight man role - as in Extract - or Galifianakis, who's in and out so quickly that you might not realize it. I'm not going to spoil how or why Sam Elliot plays into the story.
Jason Reitman, who directed and co-wrote the screenplay with Sheldon Turner, has a knack for great shot composition and organic storytelling, even when working with something that could so easily be a "feel good" film. He makes the best out of the cities Ryan travels through, mostly middle-America, and the aerial photography is at times hypnotic. All is forgiven for Juno, Mr. Reitman. I'll chalk that up to the writer and leave it at that. Up in the Air sits comfortably with my very favorite films of 2009, and because many of you might not check it out, I advocate seeing it on the big screen.
---
Maybe tomorrow I'll give a short write up of Facing Ali, an excellent documentary about Muhammad Ali's life from the perspective of the men who fought him. Or I might take a second to talk about a new development involving Warner Brothers and Netflix that continues last night's question about the impact of "on demand" rentals, but this time relating to dvd sales. We'll see when I get there.
I'd read the Walter Kirn novel a few years ago, when it passed through Edward McKay's, but I didn't remember the book very well. Despite all the movie watching and writing, I do read quite a bit, though most of it wouldn't ever end up in the blogorium. But I digress.
Back to the movie at hand: if you don't know anything about Up in the Air, it's the story of Ryan Bingham (George Clooney) who is paid to fly around the country and fire people so that their company won't have to. He's also periodically a motivational speaker, specifically with a piece called "What's in your backpack?" The movie, directed by Jason Reitman, starts comedy. This is appropriate, because Up in the Air is initially going to remind you of Reitman's first film, Thank You For Smoking. The narration is similar, the disdain for humanity is similar, and it plays the funny for quite a while.
Bingham lives in hotel rooms and in airports. It's where he's comfortable, and his nomadic lifestyle keeps him from having to form long term relationships, even with his family. His actual apartment is embarassingly spartan, down to what I believe is a jar full of Pop Tarts above the fridge and abandoned food containers littering his counter. The life works for Bingham, and he even meets a fellow traveler, Alex Goran (Vera Farmiga), who meets... shall we say, other needs. In between this, he spends his time coaxing people into accepting their status as unemployed by saying things like "Anyone who ever did anything great sat where you're sitting".
One of the first people we see Bingham fire is Zach Galifianakis, the first of several cameos or small roles in the film, which also includes J.K. Simmons, Sam Elliot, Jason Bateman, Heavenly Creature's Melanie Lynskey, and Danny McBride (the latter two play Bingham's youngest sister and brother-in-law to be). We don't see a lot of these folks, but each brings something interesting to the story, which gets a little more complicated after a breezy introduction.
See, Bingham's job is in jeopardy because the company's new whiz kid, Natalie Keener (Anna Kendrick) developed a simpler system of firing people via video conferencing. Bingham's convinced it won't actually work, and when he learns Natalie doesn't know how to fire anyone, his boss (Bateman) makes him take her out on the road. This could easily be an excuse for more comedic hijinks, and for a little while there's humor to be mined from the mismatch, particularly a non-PC explanation of which ethnic groups are best to get in line behind.
Then, perhaps predictably (or at least as I was expecting), Reitman gets a little sentimental on us. Movies like this are mean to challenge people like Ryan Bingham's beliefs, so Natalie shakes his resolve not to make a serious connection with Alex, and everyone bonds a bit. Ryan decides to go to his sister's wedding with a Plus 1, and even gets the chance to talk Jim (McBride) out of his cold feet. You can see the movie we're heading towards; life lessons are being learned, conventions are being challenged. Yikes, I thought, this is Juno territory... the other side of Reitman territory, the one I don't like so much.
But then Up in the Air does something else, something that a lot of similar movies wouldn't do, something that won me over. I'm not going to spoil anything for you, but it's nice to see a movie that presents a character with easy outs, but doesn't necessarily make them ones that can or should actually happen. Maybe that big life change takes more work than an hour and forty nine minutes allows for. Maybe it does get messy instead of "happily ever after", and while the ending may not satisfy everybody, it's certainly true for the characters. And I appreciated that.
George Clooney is again excellent, and I found his character arc to be similar to Lyn Cassidy's in The Men Who Stare at Goats, but more resonant. Both films presented themselves in a one dimensional way and then veer off in unexpected third acts. Vera Farmiga and Anna Kendrick are also great as foils for Clooney, and Danny McBride gets the rare opportunity to play it totally straight, without being a jokester or an asshole, and does so very well. I always enjoy seeing Melanie Lynskey in films, and J.K. Simmons makes a lot out of a very short scene. I don't have anything bad to say about Jason Bateman, who again is playing the straight man role - as in Extract - or Galifianakis, who's in and out so quickly that you might not realize it. I'm not going to spoil how or why Sam Elliot plays into the story.
Jason Reitman, who directed and co-wrote the screenplay with Sheldon Turner, has a knack for great shot composition and organic storytelling, even when working with something that could so easily be a "feel good" film. He makes the best out of the cities Ryan travels through, mostly middle-America, and the aerial photography is at times hypnotic. All is forgiven for Juno, Mr. Reitman. I'll chalk that up to the writer and leave it at that. Up in the Air sits comfortably with my very favorite films of 2009, and because many of you might not check it out, I advocate seeing it on the big screen.
---
Maybe tomorrow I'll give a short write up of Facing Ali, an excellent documentary about Muhammad Ali's life from the perspective of the men who fought him. Or I might take a second to talk about a new development involving Warner Brothers and Netflix that continues last night's question about the impact of "on demand" rentals, but this time relating to dvd sales. We'll see when I get there.
Thursday, January 7, 2010
The End of One Era, the Beginning of Another...
Greetings, gang-a-rinos! How's everybody doing? New Year treating you all right so far? The Cap'n is making with the generic intros because I'm still mulling over what to chat up you good people about today. I saw Up in the Air last night, which was excellent, but I don't quite want to review it yet. I want to let the movie simmer for another day, I think. At this moment, it easily fits in my "Favorites" of 2009, just a few days removed. But we'll get to that soon, methinks.
Let's talk a bit about Blockbuster shutting down stores, shall we?
In the last month or so, I've been in two different cities where at least one Blockbuster video was shutting down, in that "we're even selling the shelves and fixtures" way that Circuit City did last year. While I don't mourn the massive liquidation of a video store behemoth, there are two points of interest that arise when considering the demise of a major chain: 1) what's to become of the "mom and pop" independent video stores, and 2) how much should one comfortably benefit from their creed that "everything must go"?
The first comes up in the wake of a series of articles I wrote over the last three years about the slow death of the independent video store and even, to some degree, the "baby" chains like North American Video. Netflix and Redbox are just hurting the Hollywood Videos and the Blockbusters; their convenience and ease of use are leaving the indie stores struggling to keep up with the demand for everything right now.
I don't necessarily weep for Blockbuster because they were directly responsible for killing Carbonated Video, my favorite local rental hub growing up. Carbonated Video had a great selection of well known and obscure titles, they stocked multiple copies, and had deals where you could rent twenty movies for twenty dollars (plus get a free copy of The Video Movie Guide). I frequented that cinematic watering hole and through years of combing through titles, saw movies I never would have experienced at the bigger stores.
They even rented Laserdiscs and Laserdisc players, which to younger readers might sound like a foreign concept, but once upon a time movies in a digital format were the size of records and had to be flipped over. Back in the old days, before dual layer DVDs or Blu-Rays, the Laserdisc was a cineaste's treat: commentary tracks, alternate versions, bonus material... a joy.
But Carbonated Video doesn't exist any more. Blockbuster opened up and killed it. North American Video (formerly Video Bar) is hanging on, but just barely. Like Video Review here, it survives due to a loyal fanbase, but that can't last forever. It's getting too easy to have movies delivered to you, without late fees, and with a selection I've yet to see any video store (even the big ones) top. And if the big boys are being choked out, the little stores don't have much hope either.
To wit: I am a Netflix user. I've had the service for almost five years now, and I use the rental and "watch it now" streaming frequently. Their selection of Blu Ray films is better, their foreign films span deeper and wider, and it saves me considerably more money than hunting down titles or driving around. In one month I pay less for any three movies than I would buying them, and I see things I wouldn't otherwise. So I realize I'm part of the problem here, but I'm not trying to bemoan the loss of our beloved "independent stores"; this is more of an acknowledgment of the passing of one era to another.
The second point is a weirder one to raise, I know. Clearly, if Blockbuster is selling their movies, and a high quantity of films that might otherwise be unavailable are suddenly for purchase, why on earth would I think twice about cleaning them out? After all, when I go to the closing stores, I tend to pick up movies their normal customers wouldn't think twice about, and movies I don't typically come across, like Timecrimes, The Five Obstructions, and Sympathy for Mr. Vengeance.
My answer goes something like this: while it is taking advantage of a great deal (we're talking $2-4 per movie here), the money is still going to Blockbuster. It's still helping them out, and might I not consider that this money could be spent just as well at a local bookstore like Edward McKay's, which also stocks a varied selection of films. For example, I just picked up Roman Polanski's Knife in the Water today, and considered buying Francis Ford Coppola's One From the Heart. I've seen The Five Obstructions at Ed McKay's, and for a few dollars more could have supported that business instead of a video store I've actively avoided for the last few years.
It's not that I have some blanket condemnation of Blockbuster on some moral high ground; it's just that I don't really feel the need to go to Blockbuster and they don't seem to want my business. It's mutually beneficial that way. Suddenly I'm jumping in like a jackal to feast on their remains because, well, I can. Did I really need a copy of Surveillance on Blu-Ray, or did I just buy it because I'd never seen it anywhere else? Why am I not just renting this stuff?
That sounds a bit ridiculous and self serving, but I do wonder what the value in piling on with the other vultures is. Sometimes I wonder if I really need any of it, or if it's just such a good deal that not picking it up would seem foolish at the moment. I passed over a copy of Thunderbolt and Lightfoot, a Clint Eastwood heist flick featuring a young Jeff Bridges that I happen to enjoy, the last time I was over there. If I go back, and it's much cheaper, will I buy it just because it's there? Because most people would walk right past? I'm not sure.
What I will say is that if I see more copies of Blood Car, I'll pick them up as a way to entice you good people to "Guest Blog" for me. Consider it a "win/win": I get to read your writing and you get a copy of Blood Car. I can't see a loser in this scenario, except the video stores.
Aw crap.
Let's talk a bit about Blockbuster shutting down stores, shall we?
In the last month or so, I've been in two different cities where at least one Blockbuster video was shutting down, in that "we're even selling the shelves and fixtures" way that Circuit City did last year. While I don't mourn the massive liquidation of a video store behemoth, there are two points of interest that arise when considering the demise of a major chain: 1) what's to become of the "mom and pop" independent video stores, and 2) how much should one comfortably benefit from their creed that "everything must go"?
The first comes up in the wake of a series of articles I wrote over the last three years about the slow death of the independent video store and even, to some degree, the "baby" chains like North American Video. Netflix and Redbox are just hurting the Hollywood Videos and the Blockbusters; their convenience and ease of use are leaving the indie stores struggling to keep up with the demand for everything right now.
I don't necessarily weep for Blockbuster because they were directly responsible for killing Carbonated Video, my favorite local rental hub growing up. Carbonated Video had a great selection of well known and obscure titles, they stocked multiple copies, and had deals where you could rent twenty movies for twenty dollars (plus get a free copy of The Video Movie Guide). I frequented that cinematic watering hole and through years of combing through titles, saw movies I never would have experienced at the bigger stores.
They even rented Laserdiscs and Laserdisc players, which to younger readers might sound like a foreign concept, but once upon a time movies in a digital format were the size of records and had to be flipped over. Back in the old days, before dual layer DVDs or Blu-Rays, the Laserdisc was a cineaste's treat: commentary tracks, alternate versions, bonus material... a joy.
But Carbonated Video doesn't exist any more. Blockbuster opened up and killed it. North American Video (formerly Video Bar) is hanging on, but just barely. Like Video Review here, it survives due to a loyal fanbase, but that can't last forever. It's getting too easy to have movies delivered to you, without late fees, and with a selection I've yet to see any video store (even the big ones) top. And if the big boys are being choked out, the little stores don't have much hope either.
To wit: I am a Netflix user. I've had the service for almost five years now, and I use the rental and "watch it now" streaming frequently. Their selection of Blu Ray films is better, their foreign films span deeper and wider, and it saves me considerably more money than hunting down titles or driving around. In one month I pay less for any three movies than I would buying them, and I see things I wouldn't otherwise. So I realize I'm part of the problem here, but I'm not trying to bemoan the loss of our beloved "independent stores"; this is more of an acknowledgment of the passing of one era to another.
The second point is a weirder one to raise, I know. Clearly, if Blockbuster is selling their movies, and a high quantity of films that might otherwise be unavailable are suddenly for purchase, why on earth would I think twice about cleaning them out? After all, when I go to the closing stores, I tend to pick up movies their normal customers wouldn't think twice about, and movies I don't typically come across, like Timecrimes, The Five Obstructions, and Sympathy for Mr. Vengeance.
My answer goes something like this: while it is taking advantage of a great deal (we're talking $2-4 per movie here), the money is still going to Blockbuster. It's still helping them out, and might I not consider that this money could be spent just as well at a local bookstore like Edward McKay's, which also stocks a varied selection of films. For example, I just picked up Roman Polanski's Knife in the Water today, and considered buying Francis Ford Coppola's One From the Heart. I've seen The Five Obstructions at Ed McKay's, and for a few dollars more could have supported that business instead of a video store I've actively avoided for the last few years.
It's not that I have some blanket condemnation of Blockbuster on some moral high ground; it's just that I don't really feel the need to go to Blockbuster and they don't seem to want my business. It's mutually beneficial that way. Suddenly I'm jumping in like a jackal to feast on their remains because, well, I can. Did I really need a copy of Surveillance on Blu-Ray, or did I just buy it because I'd never seen it anywhere else? Why am I not just renting this stuff?
That sounds a bit ridiculous and self serving, but I do wonder what the value in piling on with the other vultures is. Sometimes I wonder if I really need any of it, or if it's just such a good deal that not picking it up would seem foolish at the moment. I passed over a copy of Thunderbolt and Lightfoot, a Clint Eastwood heist flick featuring a young Jeff Bridges that I happen to enjoy, the last time I was over there. If I go back, and it's much cheaper, will I buy it just because it's there? Because most people would walk right past? I'm not sure.
What I will say is that if I see more copies of Blood Car, I'll pick them up as a way to entice you good people to "Guest Blog" for me. Consider it a "win/win": I get to read your writing and you get a copy of Blood Car. I can't see a loser in this scenario, except the video stores.
Aw crap.
Wednesday, January 6, 2010
Blogorium Review: It Might Get Loud
It Might Get Loud is, ostensibly, a documentary about guitars and guitarists. Director Davis Guggenheim approached this film in a similar manner that he approached An Inconvenient Truth, which is, ostensibly, a power point presentation on Global Warming. To say that either film is exactly that does both a great injustice though. Allow me to explain.
An Inconvenient Truth is as much about humanizing the "stiff" perception of Al Gore, and allowing the human behind the image to indulge in a conversation about his passion (in the case of the film, global warming). It Might Get Loud is about three guitarists from three different generations: Jimmy Page, The Edge, and Jack White, and does study their influences, approaches to playing, and particularly their very different styles. But in the course of It Might Get Loud, we learn more about the three musicians and their outlook on life and music, and then there's the "hook": a summit between Page, White, and The Edge where they swap stories, teach each other songs, and gradually appear to be more in common than you'd expect from the outset.
For example, at the beginning, much is made of the divergence between The Edge (who likes to endlessly tinker with music electronically to create new sounds) and Jack White (who prefers stripped down sounds and opens the film creating a guitar with a 2X4, a coke bottle, a string and amp hookups. He does so all in camera, and to be honest the effect is pretty impressive). However, as we learn more about the two, and particularly while we watch them swap stories and trade licks, the divide that seems impassable gradually disappears.
Page, the elder statesman and journeyman guitarist of the group (I honestly had no idea he was a session musician between playing skiffle and joining The Yardbirds) provides some of the greatest moments of the "summit". My personal favorite involves Page playing "Whole Lotta Love" as Edge and White stand there with huge smiles on their faces. It's a moment of musician geek out that Guggenheim happens to capture and feels absolutely serendipitous. There's another deleted scene where White teaches Page and Edge how to play "Seven Nation Army" that's similarly endearing.
I had a few weird run-ins with the film: there are two gimmicks Guggenheim employs that just don't seem to work. The first is the early introduction of a boy subtitled "Jack White: Age 9" who follows Jack White around and learns to play guitar with him. It's not in the film long, and any longer might have been a deal breaker for me, but even in the short appearance he makes, I felt it stood out.
The second are animated sequences designed to represent something from the interviews that Guggenheim has no photographic or archival reference for. I don't know why, but neither time do the segments work for me.
Otherwise, I really enjoyed It Might Get Loud. I learned more about the three of them and the guitars they love than I ever anticipated, and the moments during the summit are really something special. If anything, I wish there was more footage of Page, White, and Edge talking shop and jamming, because that's where much of the gold comes from in It Might Get Loud. Even if you aren't a fan of U2, Led Zeppelin, or The White Stripes, there's something to surprise and engage you in this documentary. Definitely worth your time, and who knows, perhaps an Oscar candidate.
---
Coming soon - a review of the excellent Up in the Air, and possibly Facing Ali - another Oscar contender.
An Inconvenient Truth is as much about humanizing the "stiff" perception of Al Gore, and allowing the human behind the image to indulge in a conversation about his passion (in the case of the film, global warming). It Might Get Loud is about three guitarists from three different generations: Jimmy Page, The Edge, and Jack White, and does study their influences, approaches to playing, and particularly their very different styles. But in the course of It Might Get Loud, we learn more about the three musicians and their outlook on life and music, and then there's the "hook": a summit between Page, White, and The Edge where they swap stories, teach each other songs, and gradually appear to be more in common than you'd expect from the outset.
For example, at the beginning, much is made of the divergence between The Edge (who likes to endlessly tinker with music electronically to create new sounds) and Jack White (who prefers stripped down sounds and opens the film creating a guitar with a 2X4, a coke bottle, a string and amp hookups. He does so all in camera, and to be honest the effect is pretty impressive). However, as we learn more about the two, and particularly while we watch them swap stories and trade licks, the divide that seems impassable gradually disappears.
Page, the elder statesman and journeyman guitarist of the group (I honestly had no idea he was a session musician between playing skiffle and joining The Yardbirds) provides some of the greatest moments of the "summit". My personal favorite involves Page playing "Whole Lotta Love" as Edge and White stand there with huge smiles on their faces. It's a moment of musician geek out that Guggenheim happens to capture and feels absolutely serendipitous. There's another deleted scene where White teaches Page and Edge how to play "Seven Nation Army" that's similarly endearing.
I had a few weird run-ins with the film: there are two gimmicks Guggenheim employs that just don't seem to work. The first is the early introduction of a boy subtitled "Jack White: Age 9" who follows Jack White around and learns to play guitar with him. It's not in the film long, and any longer might have been a deal breaker for me, but even in the short appearance he makes, I felt it stood out.
The second are animated sequences designed to represent something from the interviews that Guggenheim has no photographic or archival reference for. I don't know why, but neither time do the segments work for me.
Otherwise, I really enjoyed It Might Get Loud. I learned more about the three of them and the guitars they love than I ever anticipated, and the moments during the summit are really something special. If anything, I wish there was more footage of Page, White, and Edge talking shop and jamming, because that's where much of the gold comes from in It Might Get Loud. Even if you aren't a fan of U2, Led Zeppelin, or The White Stripes, there's something to surprise and engage you in this documentary. Definitely worth your time, and who knows, perhaps an Oscar candidate.
---
Coming soon - a review of the excellent Up in the Air, and possibly Facing Ali - another Oscar contender.
Tuesday, January 5, 2010
I Always Forget One...
Without fail, every time the Cap'n does a Year End Recap, I forget one movie that subsequently sticks out like a sore thumb. It was nearly Whatever Works, but I managed to sneak it in at the last second while working on the "Favorites". Astute readers have pointed out to me that I did completely forget about Taken, which was something we watched in lieu of a Doctor Who party earlier this year. I could use my "get out of jail free" card and point out that the rest of the world had Taken in 2008 (which prevented JCVD from making it onto the list), but since it was technically released here in January, I forgot it. Whoops.
For those curious, Taken would have fallen into the "Honorable Mentions" category. It's a breezy movie, one punctuated with some jarring violence, but not the sort of film that transcends "good action movie". It's more Lethal Weapon 2 than Leon. No offense intended.
---
I'm not going to make a big deal of this, because the guy is a) an idiot, or b) some kind of comedy mastermind looking to take me down a peg, but "Grampa J" is at it again with his 2009 Best Of. I haven't laughed that hard in a while, so I recommend you scuttle on over to his blog, whoever he is, and take a gander for yourself. Any list that includes District 9, The Ugly Truth, Avatar, and Paul Blart: Mall Cop is one worth a chuckle.
Don't tell him I sent you. I don't want this dude getting any ideas.
---
Coming tomorrow is a review for It Might Get Loud, the rock guitarist documentary from Davis Guggenheim (An Inconvenient Truth). If you haven't heard of the film, the basic idea is to get Jack White, The Edge, and Jimmy Page together in a room and let them play. I suppose they also talk about their influences, etc, but the word on It Might Get Loud is very good.
So I can include the "Damn You Hippies" tag on this post, I watched Gimme Shelter last night, and those hippies got what was coming to them. I can just imagine Eric Cartman watching the Altamont footage and seething with anger.
---
Finally, I'll briefly touch upon the Blu Ray release of Chasing Amy. I'm not really a fan of the film, so this is mostly about the supplements, which included two things I really wanted to check out: 1) a "12 years later" discussion between Kevin Smith and Joey Lauren Adams, who were an item prior to, during, and shortly after the film came to be. The conversation is interesting, but the first half is mostly dominated by Smith recounting how the couple came to be. Adams has some interesting comments towards the end about the problems she's had in Hollywood getting past the "girlfriend" role with casting directors.
2) was the SModcast commentary that replaces the Criterion laserdisc track (which famously began with Smith pronouncing "Fuck DVD!"). The new commentary track is, in fact, just another SModcast (part of Smith and Scott Mosier's long running podcasts), except that you'd have to pay roughly $30-40 to get it (the rest are free). They claim it to be a "technical" track, which is partially true, but more often than not it's like most SModcasts: they digress, laugh wildly at silly moments, and come up with crazy ideas.
The two that stand out the most involve an earlier version of the film that theoretically could have been called "Ass is Pussy", and Smith's idea to make a Chasing Amy Take Two with the entire cast twenty years later. Rather than a follow-up, he expresses an interest in simply shooting the same script with the same cast, but in the hopes his skills as a director have improved enough to do it justice.
For the record, I didn't watch the actual movie with its actual soundtrack, so I can't really give you a revisited opinion, but it did look much better than the Criterion dvd, and considerably better than the Clerks Blu-Ray. There's also a nice 80 minute documentary about the film with all the principle cast and crew, producers, Miramax execs, and critics involved, and a 10th Anniversary Q&A where Ben Affleck cuts loose again. I can't imagine Smith fans not picking this up, so it scarcely requires the Cap'n to recommend it.
For those curious, Taken would have fallen into the "Honorable Mentions" category. It's a breezy movie, one punctuated with some jarring violence, but not the sort of film that transcends "good action movie". It's more Lethal Weapon 2 than Leon. No offense intended.
---
I'm not going to make a big deal of this, because the guy is a) an idiot, or b) some kind of comedy mastermind looking to take me down a peg, but "Grampa J" is at it again with his 2009 Best Of. I haven't laughed that hard in a while, so I recommend you scuttle on over to his blog, whoever he is, and take a gander for yourself. Any list that includes District 9, The Ugly Truth, Avatar, and Paul Blart: Mall Cop is one worth a chuckle.
Don't tell him I sent you. I don't want this dude getting any ideas.
---
Coming tomorrow is a review for It Might Get Loud, the rock guitarist documentary from Davis Guggenheim (An Inconvenient Truth). If you haven't heard of the film, the basic idea is to get Jack White, The Edge, and Jimmy Page together in a room and let them play. I suppose they also talk about their influences, etc, but the word on It Might Get Loud is very good.
So I can include the "Damn You Hippies" tag on this post, I watched Gimme Shelter last night, and those hippies got what was coming to them. I can just imagine Eric Cartman watching the Altamont footage and seething with anger.
---
Finally, I'll briefly touch upon the Blu Ray release of Chasing Amy. I'm not really a fan of the film, so this is mostly about the supplements, which included two things I really wanted to check out: 1) a "12 years later" discussion between Kevin Smith and Joey Lauren Adams, who were an item prior to, during, and shortly after the film came to be. The conversation is interesting, but the first half is mostly dominated by Smith recounting how the couple came to be. Adams has some interesting comments towards the end about the problems she's had in Hollywood getting past the "girlfriend" role with casting directors.
2) was the SModcast commentary that replaces the Criterion laserdisc track (which famously began with Smith pronouncing "Fuck DVD!"). The new commentary track is, in fact, just another SModcast (part of Smith and Scott Mosier's long running podcasts), except that you'd have to pay roughly $30-40 to get it (the rest are free). They claim it to be a "technical" track, which is partially true, but more often than not it's like most SModcasts: they digress, laugh wildly at silly moments, and come up with crazy ideas.
The two that stand out the most involve an earlier version of the film that theoretically could have been called "Ass is Pussy", and Smith's idea to make a Chasing Amy Take Two with the entire cast twenty years later. Rather than a follow-up, he expresses an interest in simply shooting the same script with the same cast, but in the hopes his skills as a director have improved enough to do it justice.
For the record, I didn't watch the actual movie with its actual soundtrack, so I can't really give you a revisited opinion, but it did look much better than the Criterion dvd, and considerably better than the Clerks Blu-Ray. There's also a nice 80 minute documentary about the film with all the principle cast and crew, producers, Miramax execs, and critics involved, and a 10th Anniversary Q&A where Ben Affleck cuts loose again. I can't imagine Smith fans not picking this up, so it scarcely requires the Cap'n to recommend it.
Monday, January 4, 2010
Blogorium Review: Shane Acker's 9
(Editor's Note: Just to be sure we're clear on this, the Cap'n is reviewing the 9 that's animated, and not the 9 that's a musical remake of 8 1/2.)
In brief:
9 is a reasonably entertaining animated film for teen-to-adult audiences with a unique visual style and some good voice acting. Shane Acker's debut film, based on his thesis project of the same name, is a pleasant diversion with a story that sort-of stumbles in the third act. That said, at 79 minutes you aren't going to feel like your precious time was misappropriated, and it'd be a nice renter if you have friends into Tim Burton, Invader Zim, the neighbor's toys from Toy Story, or Little Big Planet.
The slightly embellished version:
I enjoyed 9, for the most part. For a film that barely classifies as "feature length", director Shane Acker packs a lot of punch into the images, and it has the benefit of largely side-stepping most of the tropes/traps of "animated" films. That is to say that characters die, the menace is genuine for all of the leads, and in a broader sense, the landscape is probably littered with human corpses.
9 is a post-apocalyptic tale, set shortly after a war between humans and machines goes the way you'd expect it to (they don't really need us for battery power and we don't find time machines), and in the wake of mostly-Mutually Assured Destruction, a small band of living sack dolls are trying to make sense of their plight. How the sack dolls came to be and why is something I'll leave for a paragraph or two, but each one, numbered 1-9, have a different take on how to advance and what to do about the "beast" attacking them.
Our story begins in earnest when 9 (Elijah Wood) wakes up in the home of his very dead creator, confused and initially voiceless. He meets 2 (Martin Landau), who is captured by the "Beast", but 9 escapes and meets 5 (John C. Reilly), 1 (Christopher Plummer), 6 (Crispin Glover), and 8 (Fred Tatasciore). In an attempt to rescue 2 and discover the meaning of a talisman recovered from the Scientist's home, 9 is saved by 7 (Jennifer Connelly) and accidentally awakens theMaster Control System, Cyberdine Mainframe, whatever it is that runs The Matrix, the Machine, which sucks the souls out of sack puppets. Yikes.
Okay, that sounded a little snarky, which is unfair. When the sack dolls die, they die. And since there are only 10 speaking roles in the film (and three come from newsreel footage), when I say characters die, I mean major ones. That I'll give 9 credit for; this isn't the sort of cgi film to show to children, unless you've already weaned them on The Nightmare Before Christmas. Unless your kids like the scene where Oogie Boogie dies, then you might want to wait a little while before showing them 9. While bloodless, the gravity of death is not lacking from this film.
The origin of the sack dolls is really the only point where I fell off-board for the film. The world Acker creates manages to convey the scope and the desolation of a post-apocalyptic world (a genre the Cap'n is quite fond of), and each sack doll is immediately identifiable and memorable. The explanation for the film, and what the talisman that's causing so much trouble with the machine is was a little goofy to me. Without saying too much, it reminded me of Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within in a weird way, and the resolution of the film was maybe a little too pat. That might not be the case for the rest of you, but it was for me.
The voice cast were all very good, although they're all performing as their own voices, so it's not going to be hard to pick them out or anything. Before you ever hear 6 say anything you can guess that's the "Crispin Glover" character because he's a little crazy. 1 and 2 both look older than the other dolls so it's not tricky to figure out which one is Plummer and which one is Landau. But I digress; everyone is just fine, and they use their voices to augment the personalities of each doll. It never feels like celebrity stunt casting.
Make sure to check out Acker's thesis short film 9, the basis for the theatrical version. It hits many of the same story beats, but limits the threat only to the "Beast" and is done entirely without dialogue. The rest of the extras are honestly pretty limited, unless you're dying to know why Tim Burton or Timur Bekmambetov (Night Watch, Wanted) were so keen on getting behind the film. Honestly, it's a fun movie and many of you will take to it more than I did.
side note: I was interested in the design and layout of the "Dictator" and machines that precede the main story. It's never stated anywhere directly in the film, but if you're looking carefully at the sign over the tunnel when 5 and 9 head in the first time, the language is German (note the word "Vorsicht"), which goes a long way towards explaining the curiously Third Reich-esque military garb and flags in the city. The cars tend to indicate that 9 is a steampunk variation on WWII / post-WWII history, although almost everything else written in the film is in English. Curious.
In brief:
9 is a reasonably entertaining animated film for teen-to-adult audiences with a unique visual style and some good voice acting. Shane Acker's debut film, based on his thesis project of the same name, is a pleasant diversion with a story that sort-of stumbles in the third act. That said, at 79 minutes you aren't going to feel like your precious time was misappropriated, and it'd be a nice renter if you have friends into Tim Burton, Invader Zim, the neighbor's toys from Toy Story, or Little Big Planet.
The slightly embellished version:
I enjoyed 9, for the most part. For a film that barely classifies as "feature length", director Shane Acker packs a lot of punch into the images, and it has the benefit of largely side-stepping most of the tropes/traps of "animated" films. That is to say that characters die, the menace is genuine for all of the leads, and in a broader sense, the landscape is probably littered with human corpses.
9 is a post-apocalyptic tale, set shortly after a war between humans and machines goes the way you'd expect it to (they don't really need us for battery power and we don't find time machines), and in the wake of mostly-Mutually Assured Destruction, a small band of living sack dolls are trying to make sense of their plight. How the sack dolls came to be and why is something I'll leave for a paragraph or two, but each one, numbered 1-9, have a different take on how to advance and what to do about the "beast" attacking them.
Our story begins in earnest when 9 (Elijah Wood) wakes up in the home of his very dead creator, confused and initially voiceless. He meets 2 (Martin Landau), who is captured by the "Beast", but 9 escapes and meets 5 (John C. Reilly), 1 (Christopher Plummer), 6 (Crispin Glover), and 8 (Fred Tatasciore). In an attempt to rescue 2 and discover the meaning of a talisman recovered from the Scientist's home, 9 is saved by 7 (Jennifer Connelly) and accidentally awakens the
Okay, that sounded a little snarky, which is unfair. When the sack dolls die, they die. And since there are only 10 speaking roles in the film (and three come from newsreel footage), when I say characters die, I mean major ones. That I'll give 9 credit for; this isn't the sort of cgi film to show to children, unless you've already weaned them on The Nightmare Before Christmas. Unless your kids like the scene where Oogie Boogie dies, then you might want to wait a little while before showing them 9. While bloodless, the gravity of death is not lacking from this film.
The origin of the sack dolls is really the only point where I fell off-board for the film. The world Acker creates manages to convey the scope and the desolation of a post-apocalyptic world (a genre the Cap'n is quite fond of), and each sack doll is immediately identifiable and memorable. The explanation for the film, and what the talisman that's causing so much trouble with the machine is was a little goofy to me. Without saying too much, it reminded me of Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within in a weird way, and the resolution of the film was maybe a little too pat. That might not be the case for the rest of you, but it was for me.
The voice cast were all very good, although they're all performing as their own voices, so it's not going to be hard to pick them out or anything. Before you ever hear 6 say anything you can guess that's the "Crispin Glover" character because he's a little crazy. 1 and 2 both look older than the other dolls so it's not tricky to figure out which one is Plummer and which one is Landau. But I digress; everyone is just fine, and they use their voices to augment the personalities of each doll. It never feels like celebrity stunt casting.
Make sure to check out Acker's thesis short film 9, the basis for the theatrical version. It hits many of the same story beats, but limits the threat only to the "Beast" and is done entirely without dialogue. The rest of the extras are honestly pretty limited, unless you're dying to know why Tim Burton or Timur Bekmambetov (Night Watch, Wanted) were so keen on getting behind the film. Honestly, it's a fun movie and many of you will take to it more than I did.
side note: I was interested in the design and layout of the "Dictator" and machines that precede the main story. It's never stated anywhere directly in the film, but if you're looking carefully at the sign over the tunnel when 5 and 9 head in the first time, the language is German (note the word "Vorsicht"), which goes a long way towards explaining the curiously Third Reich-esque military garb and flags in the city. The cars tend to indicate that 9 is a steampunk variation on WWII / post-WWII history, although almost everything else written in the film is in English. Curious.
Saturday, January 2, 2010
Blogorium Review: Elevator to the Gallows
I try to start the year off right when it comes to movies, and to date the Cap'n isn't positive that anything I've kicked off a new calendar with is going to top Louis Malle's Elevator to the Gallows. Call it French New Wave, call it Proto-Neo-Noir, call it what you like; the film is so well put together from top to bottom that I only regret not seeing it sooner.
Elevator to the Gallows - made in Paris, 1957 - is somewhere in the middle of the "birth" of Film Criticism in France and the death of what would be called Film Noir in the United States (it falls between 1955's Kiss Me Deadly and 1958's Touch of Evil*), and while Malle's fourth film shares stylistic similarities with what Godard and Truffaut would do in the 1960s, I'd go out on a limb and put Elevator to the Gallows firmly within the realm of Film Noir.
It meets all of the essential criteria: an anti-hero who, down on his luck after a distinguished war record, agrees to kill the husband of his mistress (who also happens to be his boss). Without spoiling anything, the murder goes as perfectly as one could expect, but the aftermath is symptomatic of a chaotic world, one where chance and bad coincidences send Julien Tavernier (Maurice Ronet)'s life down a far darker path.
All while Tavernier is trapped inside of an elevator with no power.
Rather than set up the illicit affair, Malle begins the film right before the deed is to be done, before we know who Tavernier and Florence Carala (Jeanne Moreau) are. Information is cleverly doled out, as are clues that can only make Tavernier's life worse: a stolen car, mistaken identity, a spy camera, a gun not meant to be used, two German tourists running afoul of joyriders, and the angry Mrs. Carala, who assumes Tavernier left her behind, husband quite alive.
To say any more about the plot would undermine the work put into making Tavernier's existential nightmare together as carefully as it is, or the wonderful way that Elevator to the Gallows pays off each piece of information, which we know even as the characters struggle to reconcile truth from appearance. The film appears to have been shot using real locations (save, perhaps, for Carala's office and possibly the elevator). Miles Davis' improvised score sets the mood without ever being distracted, and Malle's camera captures Moreau without make up and with natural lighting, apparently for the first time. Moreau carries most of the film on her face, and while it was considered unflattering for her by some, I can't imagine a better way of Florence's world slowly unraveling.
I cannot recommend this film highly enough. Even small reservations I have about certain character beats (like Julien's refusal to push forward with escape after a brush with disaster), the ending more than makes up for the necessity of some "dumb" decisions, and Elevator to the Gallows is as essential viewing as any Film Noir being taught today.
* IMDB has Elevator to the Gallows listed as 1958, but the title screen has a copyright date of 1957. As it was released in January of 1958, either is potentially accurate.
Elevator to the Gallows - made in Paris, 1957 - is somewhere in the middle of the "birth" of Film Criticism in France and the death of what would be called Film Noir in the United States (it falls between 1955's Kiss Me Deadly and 1958's Touch of Evil*), and while Malle's fourth film shares stylistic similarities with what Godard and Truffaut would do in the 1960s, I'd go out on a limb and put Elevator to the Gallows firmly within the realm of Film Noir.
It meets all of the essential criteria: an anti-hero who, down on his luck after a distinguished war record, agrees to kill the husband of his mistress (who also happens to be his boss). Without spoiling anything, the murder goes as perfectly as one could expect, but the aftermath is symptomatic of a chaotic world, one where chance and bad coincidences send Julien Tavernier (Maurice Ronet)'s life down a far darker path.
All while Tavernier is trapped inside of an elevator with no power.
Rather than set up the illicit affair, Malle begins the film right before the deed is to be done, before we know who Tavernier and Florence Carala (Jeanne Moreau) are. Information is cleverly doled out, as are clues that can only make Tavernier's life worse: a stolen car, mistaken identity, a spy camera, a gun not meant to be used, two German tourists running afoul of joyriders, and the angry Mrs. Carala, who assumes Tavernier left her behind, husband quite alive.
To say any more about the plot would undermine the work put into making Tavernier's existential nightmare together as carefully as it is, or the wonderful way that Elevator to the Gallows pays off each piece of information, which we know even as the characters struggle to reconcile truth from appearance. The film appears to have been shot using real locations (save, perhaps, for Carala's office and possibly the elevator). Miles Davis' improvised score sets the mood without ever being distracted, and Malle's camera captures Moreau without make up and with natural lighting, apparently for the first time. Moreau carries most of the film on her face, and while it was considered unflattering for her by some, I can't imagine a better way of Florence's world slowly unraveling.
I cannot recommend this film highly enough. Even small reservations I have about certain character beats (like Julien's refusal to push forward with escape after a brush with disaster), the ending more than makes up for the necessity of some "dumb" decisions, and Elevator to the Gallows is as essential viewing as any Film Noir being taught today.
* IMDB has Elevator to the Gallows listed as 1958, but the title screen has a copyright date of 1957. As it was released in January of 1958, either is potentially accurate.
Friday, January 1, 2010
Guest Blogger Nathan Presents: So You Won't Have To - Terminator: Salvation
Greetings, readers! As promised on Wednesday, our Guest Blogger today is Nathan, who stepped up to the plate and swallowed down a steaming pile of Terminator: Salvation, So You Won't Have To, and - more importantly - So I Won't Have To. For his efforts, he receives a copy of Blood Car, one of My Favorite Movies of the Decade (Nobody Else Was Going to Mention).
Without further ado, here's Nathan:
People tend to question my taste when I tell them that I actually enjoyed Terminator 3. While I acknowledge that it has its failings, it never ceases to be fun and more importantly it feels as if it belongs in the series in both tone and mythology. Terminator: Salvation does none of these things.
Without further ado, here's Nathan:
People tend to question my taste when I tell them that I actually enjoyed Terminator 3. While I acknowledge that it has its failings, it never ceases to be fun and more importantly it feels as if it belongs in the series in both tone and mythology. Terminator: Salvation does none of these things.
What we get instead is an uneven and at times confusing movie that tries to emulate and reference the first two Terminator films without actually trying to BE a Terminator film. The writers and McG constantly throw out callbacks to the earlier films:
A chase sequence featuring a big truck and a motorcycle? Check!
“I’ll be back?” Certainly!
A factory brawl with lots of sparks and molten metal? Absolutely!
“Come with me if you want to live?” Couldn’t live without it!
Now, I’m not saying that references to the other films are inherently a bad thing. It’s just that they are handled poorly. In fact there is actually a perfect moment for John Connor to speak the iconic “Come with me…” line to Kyle Reese the first time they meet, but the line had already been wasted early in the film.
Despite this, the real problem with Terminator: Salvation lies within the handling of John Connor and the ongoing mythology. Most of Christian Bales scenes are flat and pointless. It’s not the fault of the acting, Bale does a perfectly fine job of getting all he can out of a one note role that feels shoehorned into the movie, but when it comes down to it the majority of his scenes could have easily been removed without really effecting the film overall.
The plot fares even worse upon close scrutiny. Skynet chooses an incredibly convoluted method of achieving their goal of ending the resistance movement. Basically it boils down to them tricking Connor into entering a Skynet prison camp to save Kyle Reese. The problem with this is that if the robots are aware of Reese’s importance, it would simply make better sense for them to kill Reese themselves thus negating Connor’s existence (a possible occurrence which is explicitly pointed out in the movie.)
Now, I don’t want it to come across as if there is nothing positive about this movie. The acting is very good overall, with standout performances by Sam Worthington as Marcus Wright and Anton Yelchin as Kyle Reese. The action sequences (at least some of them) are also a
The more I think about the movie though, the more I think that it would be the most improved if all of the Terminator mythology were removed. It would simply take some cosmetic changes (names and designs of the robots) and the removal of a couple of scenes for it to become a reasonably entertaining post apocalyptic robot movie. However the overall film feels so different from those previous that all the references to them and their characters simply feel forced. Unfortunately, for it to exist comfortably within its intended universe it would need an overhaul from the ground up. I can’t say that I hated it, but I also can’t fully recommend seeing it. You should probably just pop in one of the first three instead.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)