I saw AVP-R (yes, this is how the title appears in the opening credits of the movie [yes, we are that stupid as a society]). And I saw it on Christmas day. After giving the movie a few days to rattle around in the ol' noggin, I am ready to make this statement:
While I love my new GPS unit and Nintendo Wii games (and whether it was meant as a joke or not, my Dane Cook Collector's Hat is quite warm and comfortable), AVP-R was my favorite Christmas present this year.
Don't get confused by that statement. The movie is bad. Really bad. It's the kind of movie that gets rejected by Paul W.S. Anderson. So bad, that as I describe some of the film's details, I am probably going to have to make notes indicating that I am not making jokes. But oh man, it is a movie that knows exactly, with surgical precision, who its audience is. It is a fanboy film in the best and worse sense.
The entire film plays like the directors were holding a checklist of all the cool shit they ever wanted to see an Alien or a Predator do, and just started checking things off the list.
Acid-blood dissolving someone's face? Check.
Bad-ass, Rambo-style Predator? Check.
Bad-ass Predator/Alien hybrid? Check
Predator blowing 2 peoples' heads off at once? Check.
Predator punching an Alien in the face? Check.
Aliens killing babies? Check. (not a joke)
I was giddy for every last second of the film. I also laughed every time an effort was made to develop one of the human characters. Futility can just be so funny sometimes. In the end, I felt most connected to the hot blond girl, because she was hot and had a scene in her underwear. Also because she had the coolest-looking death. If you read that last sentence and wondered why I didn't preface it with a spoiler warning, you are clearly not the intended audience for this movie.
The "story" picks up right at the end of the first AVP "film." The Predalien (not a joke) kills the Predator spaceship crew, and the spaceship crashes in a small Colorado town. After a few encounters with humans, the town is now overrun by newly-birthed Aliens, led by the Predalien. Back on the Predator homeworld, a bounty hunter named Wolf (not a joke) is dispatched to kill the Aliens. Between the Aliens and Wolf, the town is pretty much leveled. It all climaxes with what is essentially a fistfight between Wolf and the Predalien. It's as deep as it sounds. (not a joke)
Thursday, December 27, 2007
Tuesday, December 11, 2007
Top 5 Movies I'm Embarrassed to Admit Enjoying
I won't make any excuses for liking these films, because I know in my heart that I have no excuse.
5. Message in a Bottle
4. Sphere
3. A Night at the Roxbury
2. Jason X (yes, the one in space)
1. The Rock*
*Were I to stop a man walking on the street and tell him that I enjoyed The Rock, there is a good chance that he would awkwardly say "So did I, now please let go of my arm." So why am I embarrassed? Because I consort with people whose cinematic palate is more refined. And in this circle, enjoying The Rock is like having cinematic herpes. And they would be right.
5. Message in a Bottle
4. Sphere
3. A Night at the Roxbury
2. Jason X (yes, the one in space)
1. The Rock*
*Were I to stop a man walking on the street and tell him that I enjoyed The Rock, there is a good chance that he would awkwardly say "So did I, now please let go of my arm." So why am I embarrassed? Because I consort with people whose cinematic palate is more refined. And in this circle, enjoying The Rock is like having cinematic herpes. And they would be right.
Monday, December 10, 2007
Rescue Dawn
I finally got around to watching this one, and I didn't care for it at all. The whole thing felt sloppy. Dieter is not well drawn as a character, and Bale is acting so eccentrically during the entire performance that it becomes hard to tell if the weird little quirks are being caused by his time in captivity or if Dieter is always like that. Steve Zahn does a great job, and I felt a better connection to his character. Too bad he's only around during the second act. Jeremy Davies continues to play Jeremy Davies in every film he's in, and I'm not a fan. Many of the reviews stated that the movie made the jungle seem so oppressive and horrible. I just didn't feel it. Platoon still ranks at the top of my list for making a jungle seem like Hell.
I hope Zahn gets some recognition in the upcoming awards season, but nothing else about this film made an impression on me.
I hope Zahn gets some recognition in the upcoming awards season, but nothing else about this film made an impression on me.
Friday, November 30, 2007
Top 5 Great Performances in Bad Movies
5. Michael Gough, Batman (1989); Batman Returns; Batman Forever; Batman & Robin
Throughout Burton and Schumacher's terrible franchise run, Michael Gough as Alfred was always a quiet presence illuminating every scene in which he appeared. He was soft-spoken and driven by his love of the Wayne family and its legacy. He always had dignity, even when the movie around him clearly had none of its own. It is a miracle of acting that Gough was able to keep a straight face as the movies continued to get louder and more ridiculous.
4. Charlize Theron, The Devil's Advocate
In a movie filled by Keanu Reeves' "acting," Connie Nielson at her most seductive, and ultimately climaxing with Al Pacino essentially screaming an entire conversation, Theron's great portrayal of a housewife that grows slowly insane gets lost in the shuffle. Feeling abandoned by her busy husband, Theron's character becomes increasingly bored and lonely. She wants a child, but can't seem to conceive (when she can even get the usually-absent Reeves to have sex with her, that is). She paints and re-paints the rooms of her apartment. She goes shopping with the shallow wives of Reeves' partners, and begins to have hallucinations. The visions get worse, as does her health. Her story does not end well, and is the highpoint of a movie that continues to run for another 45 minutes. Theron handles the character's breakdown fluidly, without any unbelievable jumps in behavior. She slowly gets worse and worse, until she's gone. Theron is an actress who has had many great roles, and in that context it is easy to see why no one ever notices this one (unless they are noticing the copious amount of nudity she has in this movie, including a full-frontal shot that is not what you expect it to be). But she is just as good in this film as she is in those others.
3. Christopher Walken, Suicide Kings
Let's face it, the only reason to watch this movie is to see Walken tied to a chair for 90 minutes. That he manages to still be a cunning and menacing presence despite having no mobility is a tribute to his skill. People tend to stigmatize Walken as always acting like Walken (Ebert uses the verb "Walkenizing"). This is growing increasingly true, though we should always remember what depths this man is capable of.
2. Johnny Depp, The Ninth Gate
In a Roman Polanski movie, you expect the star to give it their all. And that's exactly what Depp does. And he does this despite the fact the movie sucks. A lot. And goes nowhere. He plays an antique book collector who has a habit of falsely appraising peoples' collections, buying them at a low price, and selling them off for their real value. He is hired to track down a book which may hold the key to summoning the devil. In fact, the book may have been written by Satan himself. It doesn't end up mattering, 'cause the whole thing builds to an anti-climatic love scene (I'm just as surprised as you are to see that I'm referring to an Emmanuelle Seigner sex scene as 'anti-climactic'). But Depp brings his A-game, turning from low-key con man to the inadvertent savior of mankind in a seamless fashion.
1. Gabriel Byrne, End of Days
I've always had a problem with the way Satan gets portrayed on film. He's always a fiery demon or an intimidating man dressed in all black (sometimes with a black cane that has a skull on it) with a huge black beard and broadcasts his evil intentions with every word he speaks. So who in their right mind would ever sell their soul to someone like that, no matter what he promised? Which brings me to Gabriel Byrne in End of Days. The movie is terrible, save for Byrne. He plays Satan with seductive charm and charisma. Yes, you know he's Satan and that he is pure evil. But when he talks casually with Arnold Schwarzenegger (and how sad is it that my spellchecker actually knew the correct way to spell his name) about the hypocrisy of God, he makes some really good points (I still smile every time I hear him refer to the Bible as a press-kit). You find yourself wanting to believe him. And when Byrne does unleash the evil, he commands as much fear as he did charm. Few actors are capable of coming off convincingly as both warm and cold. Have you ever been able to take Morgan Freeman seriously as a villain? Byrne was a perfect choice, and he nails the role. Now if only everyone else involved in the movie had done the same...
Throughout Burton and Schumacher's terrible franchise run, Michael Gough as Alfred was always a quiet presence illuminating every scene in which he appeared. He was soft-spoken and driven by his love of the Wayne family and its legacy. He always had dignity, even when the movie around him clearly had none of its own. It is a miracle of acting that Gough was able to keep a straight face as the movies continued to get louder and more ridiculous.
4. Charlize Theron, The Devil's Advocate
In a movie filled by Keanu Reeves' "acting," Connie Nielson at her most seductive, and ultimately climaxing with Al Pacino essentially screaming an entire conversation, Theron's great portrayal of a housewife that grows slowly insane gets lost in the shuffle. Feeling abandoned by her busy husband, Theron's character becomes increasingly bored and lonely. She wants a child, but can't seem to conceive (when she can even get the usually-absent Reeves to have sex with her, that is). She paints and re-paints the rooms of her apartment. She goes shopping with the shallow wives of Reeves' partners, and begins to have hallucinations. The visions get worse, as does her health. Her story does not end well, and is the highpoint of a movie that continues to run for another 45 minutes. Theron handles the character's breakdown fluidly, without any unbelievable jumps in behavior. She slowly gets worse and worse, until she's gone. Theron is an actress who has had many great roles, and in that context it is easy to see why no one ever notices this one (unless they are noticing the copious amount of nudity she has in this movie, including a full-frontal shot that is not what you expect it to be). But she is just as good in this film as she is in those others.
3. Christopher Walken, Suicide Kings
Let's face it, the only reason to watch this movie is to see Walken tied to a chair for 90 minutes. That he manages to still be a cunning and menacing presence despite having no mobility is a tribute to his skill. People tend to stigmatize Walken as always acting like Walken (Ebert uses the verb "Walkenizing"). This is growing increasingly true, though we should always remember what depths this man is capable of.
2. Johnny Depp, The Ninth Gate
In a Roman Polanski movie, you expect the star to give it their all. And that's exactly what Depp does. And he does this despite the fact the movie sucks. A lot. And goes nowhere. He plays an antique book collector who has a habit of falsely appraising peoples' collections, buying them at a low price, and selling them off for their real value. He is hired to track down a book which may hold the key to summoning the devil. In fact, the book may have been written by Satan himself. It doesn't end up mattering, 'cause the whole thing builds to an anti-climatic love scene (I'm just as surprised as you are to see that I'm referring to an Emmanuelle Seigner sex scene as 'anti-climactic'). But Depp brings his A-game, turning from low-key con man to the inadvertent savior of mankind in a seamless fashion.
1. Gabriel Byrne, End of Days
I've always had a problem with the way Satan gets portrayed on film. He's always a fiery demon or an intimidating man dressed in all black (sometimes with a black cane that has a skull on it) with a huge black beard and broadcasts his evil intentions with every word he speaks. So who in their right mind would ever sell their soul to someone like that, no matter what he promised? Which brings me to Gabriel Byrne in End of Days. The movie is terrible, save for Byrne. He plays Satan with seductive charm and charisma. Yes, you know he's Satan and that he is pure evil. But when he talks casually with Arnold Schwarzenegger (and how sad is it that my spellchecker actually knew the correct way to spell his name) about the hypocrisy of God, he makes some really good points (I still smile every time I hear him refer to the Bible as a press-kit). You find yourself wanting to believe him. And when Byrne does unleash the evil, he commands as much fear as he did charm. Few actors are capable of coming off convincingly as both warm and cold. Have you ever been able to take Morgan Freeman seriously as a villain? Byrne was a perfect choice, and he nails the role. Now if only everyone else involved in the movie had done the same...
Lists are always fun
My fellow bloggist (sounds way better than "blogger," doesn't it?) Cinema Romantico has a near-consistent tradition of posting Top 5 lists every Friday in the weeks leading up to Christmas. I highly suggest you check out his lists, as he is a far more eloquent and passionate writer than I am. But if you prefer childish, sarcastic and mean-spirited writing, I will be blatantly stealing his idea and posting some of my own lists (though I may not adhere to his same schedule, because in addition to being a lesser writer, I am also far lazier and less motivated). I am now off to compose my first list, which will be posted later (laziness permitting).
Wednesday, November 21, 2007
Bender's Big Score
Like Family Guy and Jesus Christ before it, Futurama has been resurrected from the dead. After being canceled a few years ago, the series comes roaring back in the form of 4 straight-to-DVD feature-length releases (which will later be divided into 12 half-hour episodes for Comedy Central and Cartoon Network). Also like Family Guy, Futurama sadly makes its return at only about 80% strength. Luckily, while not on par with the Futurama of old, it's still better than anything else on TV at the moment.
The first feature to be released is titled Bender's Big Score, and should hit store shelves next Tuesday. It opens with a nice dig at the Fox network, though it's hard not to think that Family Guy has already made this joke, and made it better. From there is develops into a labyrinthine plot involving internet scams, time travel, and the usual shenanigans of the Planet Express crew.......as well as seemingly every character who even had a guest spot during the show's initial run. The Globetrotters are back to help with the time travel plot, Sarah Silverman makes an appearance as Fry's ex-girlfriend, Fry's poor old dog has a scene, and even Al Gore himself returns. I very much enjoyed this movie, but it felt like the creators were trying to fit too much into one feature. They have 3 more movies to work with, surely they could have saved some of the cameos for those releases instead of trying to jam-pack this one. By the end, it was really wearing out its welcome (which is hard to do, given how much I was welcoming this movie). And despite the title, Fry is the main focus, and Bender doesn't really do much until the 3rd act. Now I know that Fry is the series' main character and thus is always the focus, but the movie shouldn't be titled Bender's Big Score if Bender is going to just be in the background for an hour.
Those are my constructive criticisms. Now for my fanboy review:
It's back!!!!! It's back!!!!! It's back!!!!! It's back!!!!! It's back!!!!! It's back!!!!! It's back!!!!! It's back!!!!! It's back!!!!! It's back!!!!! It's back!!!!! It's back!!!!! It's back!!!!! It's back!!!!! It's back!!!!! It's back!!!!! It's back!!!!! It's back!!!!! It's back!!!!! It's back!!!!! It's back!!!!! It's back!!!!! It's back!!!!! IT'S BACK!!!!!!!!!!!! IT'S BACK!!!!!!!!!!!! IT'S BACK!!!!!!!!!!!! IT'S BACK!!!!!!!!!!!! IT'S BACK!!!!!!!!!!!!
IT'S BAAAAAAAAAACCCCCCCCCCCCCKKKKK!!!!!!!!!!!!
This concludes the review.
The first feature to be released is titled Bender's Big Score, and should hit store shelves next Tuesday. It opens with a nice dig at the Fox network, though it's hard not to think that Family Guy has already made this joke, and made it better. From there is develops into a labyrinthine plot involving internet scams, time travel, and the usual shenanigans of the Planet Express crew.......as well as seemingly every character who even had a guest spot during the show's initial run. The Globetrotters are back to help with the time travel plot, Sarah Silverman makes an appearance as Fry's ex-girlfriend, Fry's poor old dog has a scene, and even Al Gore himself returns. I very much enjoyed this movie, but it felt like the creators were trying to fit too much into one feature. They have 3 more movies to work with, surely they could have saved some of the cameos for those releases instead of trying to jam-pack this one. By the end, it was really wearing out its welcome (which is hard to do, given how much I was welcoming this movie). And despite the title, Fry is the main focus, and Bender doesn't really do much until the 3rd act. Now I know that Fry is the series' main character and thus is always the focus, but the movie shouldn't be titled Bender's Big Score if Bender is going to just be in the background for an hour.
Those are my constructive criticisms. Now for my fanboy review:
It's back!!!!! It's back!!!!! It's back!!!!! It's back!!!!! It's back!!!!! It's back!!!!! It's back!!!!! It's back!!!!! It's back!!!!! It's back!!!!! It's back!!!!! It's back!!!!! It's back!!!!! It's back!!!!! It's back!!!!! It's back!!!!! It's back!!!!! It's back!!!!! It's back!!!!! It's back!!!!! It's back!!!!! It's back!!!!! It's back!!!!! IT'S BACK!!!!!!!!!!!! IT'S BACK!!!!!!!!!!!! IT'S BACK!!!!!!!!!!!! IT'S BACK!!!!!!!!!!!! IT'S BACK!!!!!!!!!!!!
IT'S BAAAAAAAAAACCCCCCCCCCCCCKKKKK!!!!!!!!!!!!
This concludes the review.
Tuesday, November 20, 2007
Thank You, Thieves
Thank God for the Interweb and its glorious information tubes. Not only did I get to peep the new Battlestar Galactica movie 3 weeks before its release, I now also get to watch the first full-length Futurama movie a week early, as well. Naturally, expect my review tomorrow.
The Game - Forgotten Fincher
David Fincher is a visual master. Every movie he's made has been gorgeous. He was one of the first wave of MTV crossover directors, starting with music videos and moving over into feature films. And unlike most of his MTV peers, Fincher is adept at composing and actually holding a shot. Sure, he uses fast cutting when he needs to, but he does not overly stylize his shots just for the sake of flash. There's depth to his compositions, and he has an eye for unique and effective shots. He has a reputation for being a perfectionist, spending long periods of time in post-production tweaking the lighting, adjusting color depth, and making sure that every last frame of film looks spectacular. (For a wonderfully informative example of this process, rent the Bonus Materials disc for the collector's edition of Seven from Netflix and watch the featurettes, where Fincher reworks a scene for the viewer, making all the adjustments in real time).
As of this writing, David Fincher has directed 6 theatrically-released films. His first, Alien 3, was a failure both critically and commercially. Fincher's direction, however, was universally praised. In fact, critic Roger Ebert has stated on numerous occasions that Alien 3 is "the best-looking bad movie I've ever seen." His sophomore effort, Seven, was a huge success all around. Currently Seven can always be found in the top 50 on IMDB's user-generated, ever-adjusting Top 250 Movies list. So, too, can Fincher's 4th effort, Fight Club (as of this writing, Seven is ranked #38, and Fight Club is at #28). His 5th film, Panic Room, received good reviews and had a successful (though not smashing) box office run. The best reviews Fincher has ever received came from his most recent outing, Zodiac, and may have put him into consideration for an Oscar nomination.
Missing from that resume is Fincher's 3rd film, which was largely overlooked at the time of release and continues to be largely overlooked on DVD. In fact, it remains Fincher's only film not to have a multi-disc DVD edition available.
The Game was plagued by problems. Jodie Foster was set to star, but was then dropped by the production company, Polygram (which Foster later sued for breach of contract). The lead character was changed to a man, and much of the story had to be rewritten (Fincher brought in his friend, and Seven-scribe, Andrew Kevin Walker to assist). Michael Douglas was brought in as the lead, and the film was shot with a reduced budget (a result of the legal troubles Polygram was having). The Game was released in 1997 to general indifference. Critics enjoyed it, but did not praise it, and audiences didn't bother. After 3 months of release, the film barely broke even. The Game currently spends its life occupying DVD bargain bins, and still not being purchased or viewed. And it's a damn shame, since The Game is a well-made, well-acted, and tense thriller that deserves better.
In The Game, Michael Douglas plays Nicholas Van Orton, who is a cold, enormously wealthy and absolutely humorless businessman. On Nicholas' 48th birthday (the age at which his father committed suicide), he is payed a visit by his younger brother Conrad (Sean Penn). Conrad gives him a gift card for company called CRS (Consumer Recreation Services), and tells Nicholas to call the company ("They make your life fun. You know what that is, fun? You've seen other people have it."). Nicholas does contact the company, and they subject him to various physical and psychological tests, telling him that they are using the data to better create his "game." In fact, no one will tell Nicholas exactly what the "game" is. When he asks for details, he is only given cryptic responses and vague deflections ("We provide whatever's lacking," & "Think of it as a great vacation, except instead of going to it, it comes to you"). While it seems unlikely that a powerful man like Nicholas would ever get involved in something without knowing every last detail, he is intrigued. His life has fallen into monotony, he has pushed away everyone he loves, and he often wonders if he is destined to his father's fate. While he can't let his excitement show on the surface, he is enjoying the possibility of some new experiences.
What happens next is impractical, if not impossible, to describe, save to say that his entire life falls into chaos. While both Van Orton and the audience know that this may all just be part of the game, the film maintains a constant state of paranoia and fear. After all, if neither Nicholas or the audience know exactly what the game is, how can one tell if the game has started to spiral out of control? That is, of course, if the game ever existed in the first place. That is the key to this film's success, and that is how it is able to hold the audience in its grip until the credits roll. The stakes just get higher and more dangerous as things progress, and there is an increasing possibility that the game has gone off the rails, or that there were no rails to begin with. All of this would make for a good thrill ride regardless of director, but with Fincher at the helm it becomes exhaustingly tense. If you should watch (or re-watch) this movie, pay close attention to the wooden clown scene. Notice how the clown is lit, how it occupies the frame. It seems that at any moment, the clown will comes alive in one of those "BOO!!!!" moments. Yet is never does. It just sits there, looking creepy as hell, and adding an extra level of tension to the entire scene that plays around it.
I watch this movie at least once a year to remind myself what a thriller is capable of when in the right hands.
As of this writing, David Fincher has directed 6 theatrically-released films. His first, Alien 3, was a failure both critically and commercially. Fincher's direction, however, was universally praised. In fact, critic Roger Ebert has stated on numerous occasions that Alien 3 is "the best-looking bad movie I've ever seen." His sophomore effort, Seven, was a huge success all around. Currently Seven can always be found in the top 50 on IMDB's user-generated, ever-adjusting Top 250 Movies list. So, too, can Fincher's 4th effort, Fight Club (as of this writing, Seven is ranked #38, and Fight Club is at #28). His 5th film, Panic Room, received good reviews and had a successful (though not smashing) box office run. The best reviews Fincher has ever received came from his most recent outing, Zodiac, and may have put him into consideration for an Oscar nomination.
Missing from that resume is Fincher's 3rd film, which was largely overlooked at the time of release and continues to be largely overlooked on DVD. In fact, it remains Fincher's only film not to have a multi-disc DVD edition available.
The Game was plagued by problems. Jodie Foster was set to star, but was then dropped by the production company, Polygram (which Foster later sued for breach of contract). The lead character was changed to a man, and much of the story had to be rewritten (Fincher brought in his friend, and Seven-scribe, Andrew Kevin Walker to assist). Michael Douglas was brought in as the lead, and the film was shot with a reduced budget (a result of the legal troubles Polygram was having). The Game was released in 1997 to general indifference. Critics enjoyed it, but did not praise it, and audiences didn't bother. After 3 months of release, the film barely broke even. The Game currently spends its life occupying DVD bargain bins, and still not being purchased or viewed. And it's a damn shame, since The Game is a well-made, well-acted, and tense thriller that deserves better.
In The Game, Michael Douglas plays Nicholas Van Orton, who is a cold, enormously wealthy and absolutely humorless businessman. On Nicholas' 48th birthday (the age at which his father committed suicide), he is payed a visit by his younger brother Conrad (Sean Penn). Conrad gives him a gift card for company called CRS (Consumer Recreation Services), and tells Nicholas to call the company ("They make your life fun. You know what that is, fun? You've seen other people have it."). Nicholas does contact the company, and they subject him to various physical and psychological tests, telling him that they are using the data to better create his "game." In fact, no one will tell Nicholas exactly what the "game" is. When he asks for details, he is only given cryptic responses and vague deflections ("We provide whatever's lacking," & "Think of it as a great vacation, except instead of going to it, it comes to you"). While it seems unlikely that a powerful man like Nicholas would ever get involved in something without knowing every last detail, he is intrigued. His life has fallen into monotony, he has pushed away everyone he loves, and he often wonders if he is destined to his father's fate. While he can't let his excitement show on the surface, he is enjoying the possibility of some new experiences.
What happens next is impractical, if not impossible, to describe, save to say that his entire life falls into chaos. While both Van Orton and the audience know that this may all just be part of the game, the film maintains a constant state of paranoia and fear. After all, if neither Nicholas or the audience know exactly what the game is, how can one tell if the game has started to spiral out of control? That is, of course, if the game ever existed in the first place. That is the key to this film's success, and that is how it is able to hold the audience in its grip until the credits roll. The stakes just get higher and more dangerous as things progress, and there is an increasing possibility that the game has gone off the rails, or that there were no rails to begin with. All of this would make for a good thrill ride regardless of director, but with Fincher at the helm it becomes exhaustingly tense. If you should watch (or re-watch) this movie, pay close attention to the wooden clown scene. Notice how the clown is lit, how it occupies the frame. It seems that at any moment, the clown will comes alive in one of those "BOO!!!!" moments. Yet is never does. It just sits there, looking creepy as hell, and adding an extra level of tension to the entire scene that plays around it.
I watch this movie at least once a year to remind myself what a thriller is capable of when in the right hands.
Wednesday, November 07, 2007
Battlestar Galactica: Razor
The first feature-length Battlestar Galactica movie based on the Sci-Fi Channel series is, unfortunately, a letdown. Unlike many, I loved every last second of the 3rd season. I think that the episodes set on New Caprica at the beginning of the season were the most compelling that the series has ever done. Sure, the season sagged a little bit in the middle (largely due to the creators spending a huge chunk of their production budget on those first episodes), but it picked up the pace again with the last 3 episodes (though the cliffhanger was a very cheap Lost-ish "What a twist!!!"-type moment).
Razor is not meant to bridge the gap between season 3 and the upcoming 4th, but instead takes us back to around the last few episodes of the second season. Lee Adama has just been given command of the Battlestar Pegasus after a string of failed commanders. He hires a no-nonsense, stern young Lieutenant Kendra Shaw as his second-in-command. They are sent on a rescue mission to find some missing scientists, and discover a strange Cylon command ship, along with a squad of the old, 70's-style Cylons. Through the course of the film Lt. Shaw has flashbacks to her first days on the Pegasus, where she was taken under the wing of the strict, borderline-psychotic Admiral Kane. These flashbacks are supposed to have some kind of relevance to the present-day storyline, but mostly just distract from it. Most of the events shown in the flashbacks have already been revealed previously in the series via dialog, so the audience (I'm assuming, probably correctly, that the people who watch this movie are the same people who watch the series, and will know what I'm taking about) already knows what's going to happen. Hey look, Admiral Kane is shooting her XO......just like that guy said she did 25 episodes ago. And there's the Pegasus stealing valuable parts from civilian ships........just like that guy said they did. It all adds up to a giant pile of "yeah, we know."
The present-day story, on the other hand, is interesting. A little more background in the politics of the Cylons gets revealed (including the existence of the early-model Cylons, who apparently don't get along with the newer ones), and we get a glimpse into the early development stages of the human-looking Cylons. But the story demands more breathing room than it's given, and the end result feels incredibly rushed. The film is also hindered by a weak lead in the form of Kendra Shaw. She is a leaden, impenetrable character. The audience never has a clue what she's thinking or why. Surrounded by lively characters like Lee Adama, Admiral Kane and Starbuck, Shaw is grossly outmatched and is a bore on screen.
The DVD version will contain extra footage, which may help with the uneven pacing and awkward intercutting of the two storylines, but the version that will air on the Sci-Fi Channel in two weeks may be worth skipping for the time being.
Razor is not meant to bridge the gap between season 3 and the upcoming 4th, but instead takes us back to around the last few episodes of the second season. Lee Adama has just been given command of the Battlestar Pegasus after a string of failed commanders. He hires a no-nonsense, stern young Lieutenant Kendra Shaw as his second-in-command. They are sent on a rescue mission to find some missing scientists, and discover a strange Cylon command ship, along with a squad of the old, 70's-style Cylons. Through the course of the film Lt. Shaw has flashbacks to her first days on the Pegasus, where she was taken under the wing of the strict, borderline-psychotic Admiral Kane. These flashbacks are supposed to have some kind of relevance to the present-day storyline, but mostly just distract from it. Most of the events shown in the flashbacks have already been revealed previously in the series via dialog, so the audience (I'm assuming, probably correctly, that the people who watch this movie are the same people who watch the series, and will know what I'm taking about) already knows what's going to happen. Hey look, Admiral Kane is shooting her XO......just like that guy said she did 25 episodes ago. And there's the Pegasus stealing valuable parts from civilian ships........just like that guy said they did. It all adds up to a giant pile of "yeah, we know."
The present-day story, on the other hand, is interesting. A little more background in the politics of the Cylons gets revealed (including the existence of the early-model Cylons, who apparently don't get along with the newer ones), and we get a glimpse into the early development stages of the human-looking Cylons. But the story demands more breathing room than it's given, and the end result feels incredibly rushed. The film is also hindered by a weak lead in the form of Kendra Shaw. She is a leaden, impenetrable character. The audience never has a clue what she's thinking or why. Surrounded by lively characters like Lee Adama, Admiral Kane and Starbuck, Shaw is grossly outmatched and is a bore on screen.
The DVD version will contain extra footage, which may help with the uneven pacing and awkward intercutting of the two storylines, but the version that will air on the Sci-Fi Channel in two weeks may be worth skipping for the time being.
Wednesday, October 31, 2007
Almost, vol. 1
Films that should have been great, but were not.
Dreamcatcher
Why it should have been great:
It starred Morgan Freeman, Thomas Jane, Tom Sizemore, Damian Lewis, Jason Lee, Timothy Olyphant and Donnie Wahlberg. It was based on a bestselling Stephen King novel, and was adapted by none other than William Goldman. It also had the benefit of being directed by Lawrence Kasdan.
Why it wasn't:
There was a lot of source material to work through, and rather than trying to condense the story into a more manageable form, Goldman instead basically wrote a bare-bones outline. Sure, it covered the key points, but it sacrificed all the depth. Lewis and Wahlberg (both fresh from the amazing Band of Brothers miniseries) are the only actors who appear to be trying. Sizemore somehow manages to put no energy into his role (did he not realize that he's Tom Sizemore?), Jane is flat, Lee and Olyphant just play themselves, and most shockingly, Freeman is atrocious. Morgan Freeman has been in a lot of bad movies, but he is always on top of his game. This is the single instance where I will say Freeman gives a poor performance. He's just bad. Kasdan doesn't do anything obviously wrong, but the film's look is unimaginative and rather bland.
Hannibal
Why it should have been great:
No halfway intelligent person ever thought this was going to be better than its predecessor. But with the talent this project attracted, there was a great chance that the movie would be successful in its own right. The novel was weak source material, but the screenplay was being adapted by the David Mamet. Anthony Hopkins was returning to his Oscar-winning role, and while Jonathan Demme and Jodie Foster were not returning, one could certainly find much worse replacements than Ridley Scott (coming off his Oscar for Gladiator) and Julianne Moore. Add in supporting performances from Gary Oldman, Ray Liotta and Giancarlo Gianni, and there was certainly a lot of hope for this film.
Why it wasn't:
Of all the things that could have possibly gone wrong, who in their right mind would ever guess that the film's biggest problems would come from Hopkins? He flies straight past scene-chewing and jumps headlong into self-parody. Sure, Mamet's lazy adaptation in no way improves upon the dreadful novel (which also made Hannibal Lector into an evil cartoon), but you can hardly blame the writer for what was clearly a conscious acting choice. And it's such a pity, because Scott and the rest of the actors are bringing their A-game. Scott's direction is probably more haunting than Demme's. Moore proves up to the challenge of filling Foster's shoes, Oldman is always good, and Liotta plays an arrogant asshole in the way that only Liotta can. Even taking into account Mamet's quick-paycheck script, the film would have been decent if Hopkins wasn't running around like a demented clown, dragging the whole project down.
Dreamcatcher
Why it should have been great:
It starred Morgan Freeman, Thomas Jane, Tom Sizemore, Damian Lewis, Jason Lee, Timothy Olyphant and Donnie Wahlberg. It was based on a bestselling Stephen King novel, and was adapted by none other than William Goldman. It also had the benefit of being directed by Lawrence Kasdan.
Why it wasn't:
There was a lot of source material to work through, and rather than trying to condense the story into a more manageable form, Goldman instead basically wrote a bare-bones outline. Sure, it covered the key points, but it sacrificed all the depth. Lewis and Wahlberg (both fresh from the amazing Band of Brothers miniseries) are the only actors who appear to be trying. Sizemore somehow manages to put no energy into his role (did he not realize that he's Tom Sizemore?), Jane is flat, Lee and Olyphant just play themselves, and most shockingly, Freeman is atrocious. Morgan Freeman has been in a lot of bad movies, but he is always on top of his game. This is the single instance where I will say Freeman gives a poor performance. He's just bad. Kasdan doesn't do anything obviously wrong, but the film's look is unimaginative and rather bland.
Hannibal
Why it should have been great:
No halfway intelligent person ever thought this was going to be better than its predecessor. But with the talent this project attracted, there was a great chance that the movie would be successful in its own right. The novel was weak source material, but the screenplay was being adapted by the David Mamet. Anthony Hopkins was returning to his Oscar-winning role, and while Jonathan Demme and Jodie Foster were not returning, one could certainly find much worse replacements than Ridley Scott (coming off his Oscar for Gladiator) and Julianne Moore. Add in supporting performances from Gary Oldman, Ray Liotta and Giancarlo Gianni, and there was certainly a lot of hope for this film.
Why it wasn't:
Of all the things that could have possibly gone wrong, who in their right mind would ever guess that the film's biggest problems would come from Hopkins? He flies straight past scene-chewing and jumps headlong into self-parody. Sure, Mamet's lazy adaptation in no way improves upon the dreadful novel (which also made Hannibal Lector into an evil cartoon), but you can hardly blame the writer for what was clearly a conscious acting choice. And it's such a pity, because Scott and the rest of the actors are bringing their A-game. Scott's direction is probably more haunting than Demme's. Moore proves up to the challenge of filling Foster's shoes, Oldman is always good, and Liotta plays an arrogant asshole in the way that only Liotta can. Even taking into account Mamet's quick-paycheck script, the film would have been decent if Hopkins wasn't running around like a demented clown, dragging the whole project down.
Tuesday, October 30, 2007
Quick rundown
I've watched quite a few terrible direct-to-DVD movies lately. None of these deserve more than a few words of contempt, and a couple don't even deserve that much (though that is what I will give them, because I am a generous person).
Rise: Blood Hunter
Yes, Lucy Lieu is topless. As are a couple of not-famous people. Also, Lieu makes out with Carla Gugino (though it's not nearly as good as it could have been). Everything else looks like a bad copy of Underworld, only without the werewolves and featuring just the pseudo-Goth vampires. Let me write that again: Rise: Blood Hunter is like a bad copy of Underworld. Anyone with any kind of half-respectable cinematic taste should realize exactly what's implied by that summation. And why is Michael Chiklis' agent so incompetent?
Flight of the Dead
Remember what a rousing success Snakes On a Plane was? Well, now they made it with zombies. It's even worse than it sounds.
Night of the Living Dead 3D
Thank the gods that I only had to watch it in 2D. If there had been an extra dimension to contend with, I might not be alive today to warn others of this film. Even the topless "hot chick" was not enjoyable. Not even Sid Haig, who typically brings joy to every movie frame he graces, could be anything but boring and pointless.
Return to House on Haunted Hill
There should be a "the" between "to" and "House" in the film's title. Apparently the abundantly talented filmmakers overlooked that little detail while they were busy destroying all that was good in the world. It takes a lot, and I do mean a LOT, to make me miss the presence of Chris Kattan. Congratulations Warner Bros. and Dark Castle, you've allowed me to hit a new milestone.
White Noise 2: The Light
Because of course when an educated accountant looks at the runaway success that was White Noise (the film that launched Michael Keaton back into the stratosphere of Hollywood's A-list elite, resulting in the long list of starring roles in high-profile films that you've certainly been aware of over the last 2 years), the first financially-responsible thought is: sequel. And like the dimwitted sucker I am, I was stupid enough to hold out hope for this movie. Nathan Fillion and Katee Sackoff in the same film? Capt. Malcolm Reynolds (which I have a cat named after ::sigh::) AND Starbuck?! My fanboy heart was aflutter. Not so much now that I've seen the movie. I'll give the movie this much: it was better than White Noise. But that's not exactly a compliment, is it?
Rise: Blood Hunter
Yes, Lucy Lieu is topless. As are a couple of not-famous people. Also, Lieu makes out with Carla Gugino (though it's not nearly as good as it could have been). Everything else looks like a bad copy of Underworld, only without the werewolves and featuring just the pseudo-Goth vampires. Let me write that again: Rise: Blood Hunter is like a bad copy of Underworld. Anyone with any kind of half-respectable cinematic taste should realize exactly what's implied by that summation. And why is Michael Chiklis' agent so incompetent?
Flight of the Dead
Remember what a rousing success Snakes On a Plane was? Well, now they made it with zombies. It's even worse than it sounds.
Night of the Living Dead 3D
Thank the gods that I only had to watch it in 2D. If there had been an extra dimension to contend with, I might not be alive today to warn others of this film. Even the topless "hot chick" was not enjoyable. Not even Sid Haig, who typically brings joy to every movie frame he graces, could be anything but boring and pointless.
Return to House on Haunted Hill
There should be a "the" between "to" and "House" in the film's title. Apparently the abundantly talented filmmakers overlooked that little detail while they were busy destroying all that was good in the world. It takes a lot, and I do mean a LOT, to make me miss the presence of Chris Kattan. Congratulations Warner Bros. and Dark Castle, you've allowed me to hit a new milestone.
White Noise 2: The Light
Because of course when an educated accountant looks at the runaway success that was White Noise (the film that launched Michael Keaton back into the stratosphere of Hollywood's A-list elite, resulting in the long list of starring roles in high-profile films that you've certainly been aware of over the last 2 years), the first financially-responsible thought is: sequel. And like the dimwitted sucker I am, I was stupid enough to hold out hope for this movie. Nathan Fillion and Katee Sackoff in the same film? Capt. Malcolm Reynolds (which I have a cat named after ::sigh::) AND Starbuck?! My fanboy heart was aflutter. Not so much now that I've seen the movie. I'll give the movie this much: it was better than White Noise. But that's not exactly a compliment, is it?
Monday, October 22, 2007
Altered
I have to write about this movie. It received no publicity, and every synopsis I've ever read of this film makes it seem like low-rent, b-grade horror movie. Nothing could be further from the truth. "Altered" is a brilliant chamber piece about being caught in a frightening situation from which there are no safe exits. And I fear the film will always be discredited and dismissed because the main conflict revolved around the presence of....well, a killer alien. And to be upfront, one of the film's few flaws is that the alien does look like it came straight from a Roger Corman movie. But in fairness to the film, it had a limited budget and creature effects can only look so good when you're trying to create them on the cheap.
The film focuses mainly on the characters of Wyatt, Duke, Otis and Cody. Years ago, Duke, Otis, Wyatt, and Cody's brother Tommy were abducted by aliens. Duke and Otis were released after short while, but Wyatt and Tommy were held much longer. Eventually, Wyatt is returned, and informs the others that Tommy has died. The nature of Tommy's death is known only to Wyatt, who refuses to elaborate. This is all told through present-day dialog with no cheesy scenes aboard a spaceship.
About 10 years have passed since the abduction. Naturally, no one has ever believed their story about abduction. Wyatt lives in seclusion, militia-style. He keeps a cache of weapons, all his doors have multiple locks, and he even has locks on all his kitchen cabinets and his refrigerator. Duke and Otis have been setting traps in the woods where they were abducted, trying to catch an alien to prove that they are not lying. The hunt is not taken very seriously, and is mostly an excuse to hang out in the woods and drink beer. Cody is now part of the hunt, and wants vengeance for his brother. Cody is a class-A fuck-up, and when Tommy went missing it was assumed by everyone (including their parents) that Cody had murdered his brother. Behind his anger and brashness (and sweet jesus, he is an unlikeable character), he actually has the most sympathetic motivation: he just wants his dad to stop looking at him like a murderer. When the film opens, the unthinkable has happened: an alien has stepped into a bear trap. The impulsive Cody immediately wants to kill it, but Duke (as the unofficial leader of this group), realizes that they are in over their heads, so they tie up the alien and bring it to Wyatt's house. Wyatt, the smartest of the group, reluctantly allows them inside. The rest of the movie takes place within 2 rooms of Wyatt's house.
The central dilemma is a doozy. The captured alien is constantly trying to break free, with increasingly deadly consequences. Keeping the creature subdued is putting them in great risk, but it will kill them all if released. On the other hand, if they kill the alien, the rest of the alien's race will see humans as a threat, the consequences of which are unfathomable (but likely involve a lot of dead humans). And while this may still sound like typical b-movie fare, the bulk of the movie is dialog-based rather than action or gore (not that it lacks either of those). Wyatt is the smartest, and knows the alien must stay alive. But Wyatt is still secretive about what happened aboard the spaceship after the others were released, so the others wonder if they can trust him. Cody is a violent idiot, Otis is a coward, and though Duke is well-intentioned, he is barely smarter than Cody (but at least Duke realizes it). There is also the presence of Hope, Wyatt's live-in girlfriend. Naturally, she is completely in the dark about Wyatt's past, making it difficult for her to accept the current situation.
The situation gets more and more tense. Hope calls the police, dim lights and shadowy objects seem to be moving around in the sky, Cody becomes increasingly psychotic, and the captured alien keeps finding ways to inflict harm on all of them. And when there are plot twists, they come from the directions that you least expect.
I've re-watched this movie several times, and I enjoy it more with each viewing. Don't get me wrong, it's far from the perfect film. But it's so rare to find a horror film where the characters are trying to rationalize their way out of a situation instead of fighting their way out of it (or run screaming away from it). And it's also rare to see a horror film with this much ambition, even if it ultimately gets limited by budget constraints (the acting is much better than your typical indie-horror fare, and serves the movie well, but is still not A-level).
I highly recommend this movie, and I wish more people would stumble upon it.
The film focuses mainly on the characters of Wyatt, Duke, Otis and Cody. Years ago, Duke, Otis, Wyatt, and Cody's brother Tommy were abducted by aliens. Duke and Otis were released after short while, but Wyatt and Tommy were held much longer. Eventually, Wyatt is returned, and informs the others that Tommy has died. The nature of Tommy's death is known only to Wyatt, who refuses to elaborate. This is all told through present-day dialog with no cheesy scenes aboard a spaceship.
About 10 years have passed since the abduction. Naturally, no one has ever believed their story about abduction. Wyatt lives in seclusion, militia-style. He keeps a cache of weapons, all his doors have multiple locks, and he even has locks on all his kitchen cabinets and his refrigerator. Duke and Otis have been setting traps in the woods where they were abducted, trying to catch an alien to prove that they are not lying. The hunt is not taken very seriously, and is mostly an excuse to hang out in the woods and drink beer. Cody is now part of the hunt, and wants vengeance for his brother. Cody is a class-A fuck-up, and when Tommy went missing it was assumed by everyone (including their parents) that Cody had murdered his brother. Behind his anger and brashness (and sweet jesus, he is an unlikeable character), he actually has the most sympathetic motivation: he just wants his dad to stop looking at him like a murderer. When the film opens, the unthinkable has happened: an alien has stepped into a bear trap. The impulsive Cody immediately wants to kill it, but Duke (as the unofficial leader of this group), realizes that they are in over their heads, so they tie up the alien and bring it to Wyatt's house. Wyatt, the smartest of the group, reluctantly allows them inside. The rest of the movie takes place within 2 rooms of Wyatt's house.
The central dilemma is a doozy. The captured alien is constantly trying to break free, with increasingly deadly consequences. Keeping the creature subdued is putting them in great risk, but it will kill them all if released. On the other hand, if they kill the alien, the rest of the alien's race will see humans as a threat, the consequences of which are unfathomable (but likely involve a lot of dead humans). And while this may still sound like typical b-movie fare, the bulk of the movie is dialog-based rather than action or gore (not that it lacks either of those). Wyatt is the smartest, and knows the alien must stay alive. But Wyatt is still secretive about what happened aboard the spaceship after the others were released, so the others wonder if they can trust him. Cody is a violent idiot, Otis is a coward, and though Duke is well-intentioned, he is barely smarter than Cody (but at least Duke realizes it). There is also the presence of Hope, Wyatt's live-in girlfriend. Naturally, she is completely in the dark about Wyatt's past, making it difficult for her to accept the current situation.
The situation gets more and more tense. Hope calls the police, dim lights and shadowy objects seem to be moving around in the sky, Cody becomes increasingly psychotic, and the captured alien keeps finding ways to inflict harm on all of them. And when there are plot twists, they come from the directions that you least expect.
I've re-watched this movie several times, and I enjoy it more with each viewing. Don't get me wrong, it's far from the perfect film. But it's so rare to find a horror film where the characters are trying to rationalize their way out of a situation instead of fighting their way out of it (or run screaming away from it). And it's also rare to see a horror film with this much ambition, even if it ultimately gets limited by budget constraints (the acting is much better than your typical indie-horror fare, and serves the movie well, but is still not A-level).
I highly recommend this movie, and I wish more people would stumble upon it.
3:10 to Yuma
Am I the only one who wasn't at all impressed by this movie?
Not that it was bad, it just wasn't good. It was all very predictable, the performances felt a little too forced, and ending rang completely false. I think people are so desperate for a return to the classic western genre that they will accept any new western as a great film.
I read a great analogy recently that I think accurately describes critics' positive reactions to this film (the analogy was originally being used to describe Star Wars fans' reaction to the new trilogy): A child has dropped his ice cream cone in the sandbox, and has picked the cone back up, and is brushing the sand off while repeating "It's still good" over and over.
Not that it was bad, it just wasn't good. It was all very predictable, the performances felt a little too forced, and ending rang completely false. I think people are so desperate for a return to the classic western genre that they will accept any new western as a great film.
I read a great analogy recently that I think accurately describes critics' positive reactions to this film (the analogy was originally being used to describe Star Wars fans' reaction to the new trilogy): A child has dropped his ice cream cone in the sandbox, and has picked the cone back up, and is brushing the sand off while repeating "It's still good" over and over.
30 Days of Night
I'll admit this upfront: I never really liked the comic. It was beautifully drawn, but the story was disorganized. The art, though pretty, actually did more to muddle the story than to clarify it. But apparently it was hugely popular, and has spawned many sequels (most superior to the original). And as these things go, what becomes popular in the comic world inevitably becomes a movie.
The movie, like the comic, is pretty. Damn pretty. In fact, I'll say that it contains what I believe to be the best overhead-tracking shot in film history (you'll know the one when you see it). It is also blisteringly intense. Things happen fast, and by the end of the film's 111 minutes, it has become an outright exhausting experience. And it's a good thing, because if the film moved any slower, I might start realizing that I don't give a shit about any of the characters. And why should I? It's not like the movie took any time to develop them into a person worth caring for.
As a lifelong fan of horror films, I've had to accept certain truths about my preferred genre. All things being equal, characterization and story will always take a backseat to gore and special effects. I expect this whenever I lay down money for a horror film. When a movie fails to give me decent characters, I am disappointed, but never surprised. The best I can hope for is that the director is competent and the gore is plentiful. By this measure, "30 Days of Night" is a rousing success. In fact, it even goes the extra mile and gives unique twist to the story (which is essentially "Night of the Living Dead," but with vampires in place of zombies), and greatly improves upon the story in the comic. And the acting is better than usual for this type of movie.
I want so badly to love this film, and I did enjoy it immensely. But I just didn't give a damn about what was happening, and so I can't say it was a good movie. If the movie wasn't good, but also isn't bad, I suppose I'll just have to say that it was entertaining.
The movie, like the comic, is pretty. Damn pretty. In fact, I'll say that it contains what I believe to be the best overhead-tracking shot in film history (you'll know the one when you see it). It is also blisteringly intense. Things happen fast, and by the end of the film's 111 minutes, it has become an outright exhausting experience. And it's a good thing, because if the film moved any slower, I might start realizing that I don't give a shit about any of the characters. And why should I? It's not like the movie took any time to develop them into a person worth caring for.
As a lifelong fan of horror films, I've had to accept certain truths about my preferred genre. All things being equal, characterization and story will always take a backseat to gore and special effects. I expect this whenever I lay down money for a horror film. When a movie fails to give me decent characters, I am disappointed, but never surprised. The best I can hope for is that the director is competent and the gore is plentiful. By this measure, "30 Days of Night" is a rousing success. In fact, it even goes the extra mile and gives unique twist to the story (which is essentially "Night of the Living Dead," but with vampires in place of zombies), and greatly improves upon the story in the comic. And the acting is better than usual for this type of movie.
I want so badly to love this film, and I did enjoy it immensely. But I just didn't give a damn about what was happening, and so I can't say it was a good movie. If the movie wasn't good, but also isn't bad, I suppose I'll just have to say that it was entertaining.
Friday, August 10, 2007
Top 10 of 2007 so far
These are just my thoughts on my favorite films this year. I'm not providing a plot synopsis. That's what IMDB is for.
10. 300
No film this year has been prettier than "300." It is a marvel of visual filmmaking. Now if only there was a story worth watching beneath all that sparkle.
9. Reno 911: Miami
Sure, it overstays its welcome and is obviously straining to fill the time demands of a feature, but it was still goddamn funny. The cameo from The Rock was brilliant. And every scene that took place at the hotel was hilarious. A good, if not great, comedy.
8. 28 Weeks Later
This is to "28 Days Later" as "Aliens" is to "Alien." While the first one was slow and creepy, the second is un-fucking-relenting. The movie gives us just enough story to get us caught up: London is now rage-free, and citizens are beginning to move back in (under the supervision of the US military, of course). As soon as the virus shows up again, the movie begins to sprint forward at breakneck pace, and is still sprinting when it ends. It's a pure horror adrenalin rush, and I loved it. The charcters are underdeveloped, but who cares? They're being chased by fucking zombies!
7. Sicko
I like Michael Moore. I don't agree with much of what he says, and I think his tactics are shallow and kinda prickish. But he gets people talking, and that is something to admire. For all his faults, he can usually put a temporary dent into the nation's collective apathy. And for once, he actually keeps a lot of his craziness in check. It helps that the US healthcare system, his chosen topic for this picture, is a complete clusterfuck. The audioclip of Richard Nixon should be enough to enrage anyone with even half a brain.
6. Seraphim Falls
The acting is what propels this film, and it is a joy to watch Liam Neeson and Pierce Brosnan do what they do best. The many small supporting performances are equally rich, and keep the sparse story moving.
5. The Lookout
Scott Frank’s directing debut isn’t as rich as his previous screenwriting efforts (“Out of Sight,” “Get Shorty,” “Minority Report”), but it’s still a nice caper drama. And Joseph Gordan-Levitt continues to prove he is one of the best actors currently working, and has moved far beyond the little kid fom “3rd Rock…” My biggest issue with the film is Isla Fisher, who is extremely overrated and tends to drag down whatever film she’s in, including this one.
4. Hot Fuzz
Cop comedies are having a good year. Simon Pegg, Edgar Wright and Nick Frost continue to deliver wonderful genre satire by embracing the clichés rather than parodying them. I truly hope they can keep it up. I didn’t find “Hot Fuzz” to be as engaging as “Shaun of the Dead,” but it’s by far the funniest film I’ve seen so far this year.
3. Grindhouse
I’m only going to say this: everything about this movie is brilliant. It doesn’t break new ground, but it has as much fun as possible on the old ground.
2. Sunshine
A science-fiction movie that plays like a blockbuster, but still has a brain in its head. The 3rd act sharply divides viewers’ opinions, but I didn’t find it to be hugely distracting, and it works on its own terms. Only “300” beats it for this year’s best visuals.
1. Zodiac
David Fincher controls himself for once, and delivers a tense, non-showy police procedural. A fine ensemble cast working from a fantastic script walk us through the long, obsessive hunt for the infamous Zodiac killer. The movie identifies several potential suspects, and doesn’t completely settle on one until the very end. And even then, there is doubt. My only 2 complaints are that it slows down too much at times (but so did the actual investigation, so I guess I can’t arguie my point too much), and Chloe Sevigny isn’t given a very good role. She has no impact at all on the story, and that’s a waste.
10. 300
No film this year has been prettier than "300." It is a marvel of visual filmmaking. Now if only there was a story worth watching beneath all that sparkle.
9. Reno 911: Miami
Sure, it overstays its welcome and is obviously straining to fill the time demands of a feature, but it was still goddamn funny. The cameo from The Rock was brilliant. And every scene that took place at the hotel was hilarious. A good, if not great, comedy.
8. 28 Weeks Later
This is to "28 Days Later" as "Aliens" is to "Alien." While the first one was slow and creepy, the second is un-fucking-relenting. The movie gives us just enough story to get us caught up: London is now rage-free, and citizens are beginning to move back in (under the supervision of the US military, of course). As soon as the virus shows up again, the movie begins to sprint forward at breakneck pace, and is still sprinting when it ends. It's a pure horror adrenalin rush, and I loved it. The charcters are underdeveloped, but who cares? They're being chased by fucking zombies!
7. Sicko
I like Michael Moore. I don't agree with much of what he says, and I think his tactics are shallow and kinda prickish. But he gets people talking, and that is something to admire. For all his faults, he can usually put a temporary dent into the nation's collective apathy. And for once, he actually keeps a lot of his craziness in check. It helps that the US healthcare system, his chosen topic for this picture, is a complete clusterfuck. The audioclip of Richard Nixon should be enough to enrage anyone with even half a brain.
6. Seraphim Falls
The acting is what propels this film, and it is a joy to watch Liam Neeson and Pierce Brosnan do what they do best. The many small supporting performances are equally rich, and keep the sparse story moving.
5. The Lookout
Scott Frank’s directing debut isn’t as rich as his previous screenwriting efforts (“Out of Sight,” “Get Shorty,” “Minority Report”), but it’s still a nice caper drama. And Joseph Gordan-Levitt continues to prove he is one of the best actors currently working, and has moved far beyond the little kid fom “3rd Rock…” My biggest issue with the film is Isla Fisher, who is extremely overrated and tends to drag down whatever film she’s in, including this one.
4. Hot Fuzz
Cop comedies are having a good year. Simon Pegg, Edgar Wright and Nick Frost continue to deliver wonderful genre satire by embracing the clichés rather than parodying them. I truly hope they can keep it up. I didn’t find “Hot Fuzz” to be as engaging as “Shaun of the Dead,” but it’s by far the funniest film I’ve seen so far this year.
3. Grindhouse
I’m only going to say this: everything about this movie is brilliant. It doesn’t break new ground, but it has as much fun as possible on the old ground.
2. Sunshine
A science-fiction movie that plays like a blockbuster, but still has a brain in its head. The 3rd act sharply divides viewers’ opinions, but I didn’t find it to be hugely distracting, and it works on its own terms. Only “300” beats it for this year’s best visuals.
1. Zodiac
David Fincher controls himself for once, and delivers a tense, non-showy police procedural. A fine ensemble cast working from a fantastic script walk us through the long, obsessive hunt for the infamous Zodiac killer. The movie identifies several potential suspects, and doesn’t completely settle on one until the very end. And even then, there is doubt. My only 2 complaints are that it slows down too much at times (but so did the actual investigation, so I guess I can’t arguie my point too much), and Chloe Sevigny isn’t given a very good role. She has no impact at all on the story, and that’s a waste.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
