Directed by Paul Verhoeven
1997
RT score: 62%
My rating 9 out of 10
A few months back someone tried to suggest that Starship Troopers is one of the all time great guilty pleasure movies of all time to which I respond 'why would anyone feel guilty about enjoying this phenomenal film.'
Is it that Verhoeven has a reputation for being over the top with his action and violence? Is it because the acting (lead by Casper Van Dien and Denise Richards) is dry and totally lacks a sense of authenticity?
Well, if those things cause you to believe that this is a guilty pleasure movie that's fine, but let me encourage you to recognize that this is anything but a guilty pleasure. The first reason I love this film is it's treatment of the alien attackers. To of the top performing films of our lifetime that involve aliens attempting to exterminate humans our Independence Day and Transformers. What drives me nuts about both is that they first 90 minutes of each the alien attackers appear to be unstoppable. In particular with ID4 we even drop a nuclear bomb on one and nothing happens. This puts the filmmakers in the position of trying to come up with a satisfying ending over the films final 45 minutes and Jeff Goldblum deciding to give the aliens a virus was anything but a satisfying ending.
Verhoevn in contrast doesn't make the aliens unstoppable, he just makes sure their big, that there is a lot of them and that they are bad ass. Even if you have a problem with the design (and I don't) you still have to admit that they kick some serious butt.
Another thing here that is an improvement in terms of story is the fact that the aliens aren't just indiscriminately attacking us. The film tells us that there was an attempt to set up a Mormon colony on the alien planet and that's one of the events that set in motion the events of the film. ID4 offers no explanation for why the aliens wanted to attack us and Transformers explanation is so forgettable that all I remember is that it some how involved Shia Lebouf, a pair of glasses and an audience being stupid enough to buy anything Michael Bay is selling.
Throw in a distopian future where democracy has long fallen by the wayside and you had to serve in the military to be a citizen and the film is easily packed with often hilarious satire especially in the 'would you like to learn more' news casts. The film moves at a nice pace and the action sequences are tremendous. It's so much better than other films that share this genre that I stand by my assertion that this is not a guilty pleasure movie.
Tuesday, December 4, 2012
Moon
Director: Duncan Jones
2009
RT score: 90%
My rating: 10/10
About 10 years ago I remember a stir being created around a film named Memento and a director named Christopher Nolan. The film felt new and fresh and everyone I talked to asked 'have you seen Memento yet?' And from that moment on every Christopher Nolan film has felt like a must see.
That brings me to Duncan Jones. For reason I can't fully comprehend, Moon did not have that same effect and even after Source Code was a mild hit, I am still not sure Duncan Jones has the name recognition he deserves.
The two driving forces behind Moon are Jones and Sam Rockwell. Jones delivers the vision and Rockwell drives it home. When we first meet Rockwell he is seen as a contracted employee of a fictional company who has revolutionized energy consumption by harvesting energy from the moon. He is nearing the end of a three year contract and the emotional and psychological damage caused by only having a robot Kevin Spacey to interact with is apparent, but not over done. While attempting to perform work on one of the harvesters Rockwell has an accident and we suddenly we meet a new Rockwell. This one is fresher, uninjured and does not have the emotional baggage of the previous Rockwell.
The two eventually cross paths and one of the brilliant things Jones does is he wastes no time having the two discuss the possibility of one of them being a clone. The two share many combative scenes as they try and understand whats happening to them. How this performance didn't net Rockwell an oscar nomination is a testament to how out of touch the academy still is.
Perhaps the films greatest achievement is that you still feel a huge emotional gulp when we reach the final reveal despite the fact that Jones has allowed the characters to discuss the fact that they may be clones. It is a testament to Jones as a story teller that we still care in this moment and watching it again I even forget how prevalent the clone talk was since the reveal was powerful enough to stay with me since first seeing this in theaters. I recently watched both Jones films with my wife, the final test for just how good a director is, and like Memento many years ago, it didn't matter that this isn't the type of film she goes for. All the mattered is the fact that the story is told with incredible conviction, it is wonderfully acted and when you finally get to the end you feel like it actually meant something. Which is precisely why Duncan Jones is on the must watch list for me now, much like Nolan was after Memento.
2009
RT score: 90%
My rating: 10/10
About 10 years ago I remember a stir being created around a film named Memento and a director named Christopher Nolan. The film felt new and fresh and everyone I talked to asked 'have you seen Memento yet?' And from that moment on every Christopher Nolan film has felt like a must see.
That brings me to Duncan Jones. For reason I can't fully comprehend, Moon did not have that same effect and even after Source Code was a mild hit, I am still not sure Duncan Jones has the name recognition he deserves.
The two driving forces behind Moon are Jones and Sam Rockwell. Jones delivers the vision and Rockwell drives it home. When we first meet Rockwell he is seen as a contracted employee of a fictional company who has revolutionized energy consumption by harvesting energy from the moon. He is nearing the end of a three year contract and the emotional and psychological damage caused by only having a robot Kevin Spacey to interact with is apparent, but not over done. While attempting to perform work on one of the harvesters Rockwell has an accident and we suddenly we meet a new Rockwell. This one is fresher, uninjured and does not have the emotional baggage of the previous Rockwell.
The two eventually cross paths and one of the brilliant things Jones does is he wastes no time having the two discuss the possibility of one of them being a clone. The two share many combative scenes as they try and understand whats happening to them. How this performance didn't net Rockwell an oscar nomination is a testament to how out of touch the academy still is.
Perhaps the films greatest achievement is that you still feel a huge emotional gulp when we reach the final reveal despite the fact that Jones has allowed the characters to discuss the fact that they may be clones. It is a testament to Jones as a story teller that we still care in this moment and watching it again I even forget how prevalent the clone talk was since the reveal was powerful enough to stay with me since first seeing this in theaters. I recently watched both Jones films with my wife, the final test for just how good a director is, and like Memento many years ago, it didn't matter that this isn't the type of film she goes for. All the mattered is the fact that the story is told with incredible conviction, it is wonderfully acted and when you finally get to the end you feel like it actually meant something. Which is precisely why Duncan Jones is on the must watch list for me now, much like Nolan was after Memento.
Source Code
Director: Duncan Jones
2011
RT score: 91%
My rating 8/10
With a run time of one hour and twenty-seven minutes, Source Code is a testament to the idea that in film making all you need to do is get in, tell your story and get out. No fluff, no wasted scenes and nothing superfluous.
And that's exactly what Source Code is, a complicated sci-fi thriller that is explained as it's experienced. At the films center is Jake Gyllenhaal, a wounded soldier who has been placed in a machine that allows him to continually relive the same 7 minutes before a bomb blows up a commuter train in Chicago.
One of the things I appreciate most about Source Code is that there isn't an overly complicated explanation of how source code works. It's sci-fi and director Duncan Jones recognizes that if you bought the ticket to see this film than your probably willing to suspend reality for 90 minutes and just accept that this story exists in a world were source code is possible.
Aside form Gyllenhaal, the film also features Vera Farmiga in a sort of pilot role, guiding Gyllenhaal through source code and pressing him to find an answer. And, like all great sci-fi that involved military intelligence and experiments, she is also the films moral compass. She pushes Gyllenhaal initially knowing that it's necessary to save lives and eventually makes the human decision to allow Gyllenhaal to die instead of being the subject of future experiments.
Rounding out the cast is Jeffrey Wright as the doctor who founded source code and Michelle Monaghan as the girl who once dated Tom Brady. Both serve their roles well and in particular Wright is great at not making his character overtly evil, but a character we can empathizes with even when he takes it too far.
Of course as the Gyllenhaal progresses the mystery behind the bombings is solved and then their is the question of what happens if the seven minutes don't end in a bombing? I understand the reason Jones made the decision he did and perhaps one could say it was probably studio pressure to give the film a mega happy ending, but there is a moment where the film clearly could have had a more meaningful ending and the only thing keeping this thriller from being a 10 out of 10 is the fact that they went for the mega happy ending instead. Still, lots of great things going on here and well worth the 90 minutes.
2011
RT score: 91%
My rating 8/10
With a run time of one hour and twenty-seven minutes, Source Code is a testament to the idea that in film making all you need to do is get in, tell your story and get out. No fluff, no wasted scenes and nothing superfluous.
And that's exactly what Source Code is, a complicated sci-fi thriller that is explained as it's experienced. At the films center is Jake Gyllenhaal, a wounded soldier who has been placed in a machine that allows him to continually relive the same 7 minutes before a bomb blows up a commuter train in Chicago.
One of the things I appreciate most about Source Code is that there isn't an overly complicated explanation of how source code works. It's sci-fi and director Duncan Jones recognizes that if you bought the ticket to see this film than your probably willing to suspend reality for 90 minutes and just accept that this story exists in a world were source code is possible.
Aside form Gyllenhaal, the film also features Vera Farmiga in a sort of pilot role, guiding Gyllenhaal through source code and pressing him to find an answer. And, like all great sci-fi that involved military intelligence and experiments, she is also the films moral compass. She pushes Gyllenhaal initially knowing that it's necessary to save lives and eventually makes the human decision to allow Gyllenhaal to die instead of being the subject of future experiments.
Rounding out the cast is Jeffrey Wright as the doctor who founded source code and Michelle Monaghan as the girl who once dated Tom Brady. Both serve their roles well and in particular Wright is great at not making his character overtly evil, but a character we can empathizes with even when he takes it too far.
Of course as the Gyllenhaal progresses the mystery behind the bombings is solved and then their is the question of what happens if the seven minutes don't end in a bombing? I understand the reason Jones made the decision he did and perhaps one could say it was probably studio pressure to give the film a mega happy ending, but there is a moment where the film clearly could have had a more meaningful ending and the only thing keeping this thriller from being a 10 out of 10 is the fact that they went for the mega happy ending instead. Still, lots of great things going on here and well worth the 90 minutes.
Monday, December 3, 2012
Unforgiven
Director: Clint Eastwood
1992
RT score: 97%
My score: 6/10
By now it should be obvious that one of my weaknesses in life is movies. As a teen movies were my one escape for the reality of how uncool I was and as an adult I have continued watching movies even as I learn to understand how unnecessary being cool is.
With that in mind, I have found that I am prone to picking up movies at $5 (or less) all the time. Unforgiven, being my brother in laws favorite movie and one I remember being pretty good when I saw it nearly 20 years ago was one such movie I picked up under these circumstances.
What I had forgotten though is that the film has long stretches that are painfully dull. How I managed to forget that is beyond me considering it's directed by Clint Eastwood whose movies I often feel like are over-rated, poorly paced and frequently feature long stretches that add nothing to the overall story.
All of that is true in this western tale of old guys hired to exact revenge on behalf of a towns brothel which believes it was done wrong by the towns sheriff.
The best part of the film is the towns sheriff who is played by Gene Hackman. His character is not your typical villain but is more Machiavellian in his desire to sacrifice justice in order to maintain peace in the wild west. His unwillingness to provide harsh punishment to a man who beats a prostitute leads to the brothel putting out a bounty on against their attacker.
An aged Eastwood and Morgan Freeman come to answer their call. There's plenty of soul searching on their journey as they also serve as mentors to a young kid who has no business being there. We eventually see a confrontation after 90+ minutes and then the films final 5 minutes feature the Dirty Harry Clint Eastwood pulling off victory in an impossible to believe final shoot out.
I suppose the lesson here for me is to pass on movies I may honestly be adding just to improve my position as a movie snob. The film is a best picture winner with an impressive RT score and I'm not going to pretend that it's a complete loss. But if I am ever in the mood for a western I think I would be far more likely to go with the Coens True Grit or The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford which are far superior films to this.
1992
RT score: 97%
My score: 6/10
By now it should be obvious that one of my weaknesses in life is movies. As a teen movies were my one escape for the reality of how uncool I was and as an adult I have continued watching movies even as I learn to understand how unnecessary being cool is.
With that in mind, I have found that I am prone to picking up movies at $5 (or less) all the time. Unforgiven, being my brother in laws favorite movie and one I remember being pretty good when I saw it nearly 20 years ago was one such movie I picked up under these circumstances.
What I had forgotten though is that the film has long stretches that are painfully dull. How I managed to forget that is beyond me considering it's directed by Clint Eastwood whose movies I often feel like are over-rated, poorly paced and frequently feature long stretches that add nothing to the overall story.
All of that is true in this western tale of old guys hired to exact revenge on behalf of a towns brothel which believes it was done wrong by the towns sheriff.
The best part of the film is the towns sheriff who is played by Gene Hackman. His character is not your typical villain but is more Machiavellian in his desire to sacrifice justice in order to maintain peace in the wild west. His unwillingness to provide harsh punishment to a man who beats a prostitute leads to the brothel putting out a bounty on against their attacker.
An aged Eastwood and Morgan Freeman come to answer their call. There's plenty of soul searching on their journey as they also serve as mentors to a young kid who has no business being there. We eventually see a confrontation after 90+ minutes and then the films final 5 minutes feature the Dirty Harry Clint Eastwood pulling off victory in an impossible to believe final shoot out.
I suppose the lesson here for me is to pass on movies I may honestly be adding just to improve my position as a movie snob. The film is a best picture winner with an impressive RT score and I'm not going to pretend that it's a complete loss. But if I am ever in the mood for a western I think I would be far more likely to go with the Coens True Grit or The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford which are far superior films to this.
Moonrise Kingdom
Director Wes Anderson
2012
RT score: 94%
My score 10/10
The following is a list of films I have never seen (and likely never will) because they won the Academy Award for best picture and I will never be able to watch them without spending the entire time believing another film should have won;
Dances with Wolves (Goodfellas should have won)
The English Patient (Fargo should have won)
Shakespeare in Love (Truman Show should have won)
I saw Gladiator but can't watch it because it had no business beating Almost Famous
The Artist (I would have liked for Hugo to win, but lets face it, 2011 was a terrible year for movies)
With that in mind we come to Moonrise Kingdom. I suppose if Django wins this will be a non-issue as I wouldn't miss a QT film, but lets say for a second Argo, which is already being pushed as an early favorite wins best picture. The odds are I'll never see it then. My wife saw it and loved it and I would really like to see but there is no way I will ever be able to sit down and be convinced Argo or any other movie released in 2012 will be better than Moonrise Kingdom.
I would probably be asking for too much to suggest that everybody, everywhere should love and appreciate Wes Anderson as much as I do. I believe Royal Tenenbaums was the 2nd best movie of the past decade, but even with the brilliance that is Tenenbaums I can recognize a certain level of inaccessibility that exists with a film that centers a character like Royal that is so perfectly flawed and a family that is delightfully dysfunctional. And as you work your way through Anderson's other works it's easy to recognize the quirks that may turn an average audience off.
But with Moonrise Kingdom I refuse to accept that any of these quirks should be enough of a reason for even your average Meet the Fockers/Transformers mouth breathing movie audience to be turned off. The film is simply too good.
Of course, the beauty of it all for a Wes Anderson fan is that none of his trademark quirks are sacrificed in the name of reaching a broader audience. From is color schemes and clothing designs to his dialogue that is frequently direct in a way that you don't see in daily life, Moonrise Kingdom should challenge every fan to reconsider what their favorite Wes Anderson film is.
Perhaps the defining difference in the film is it's heart. Not to say that Anderson's other films didn't have heart, but where those films featured a more hardened heart this one wears it's heart on it's sleeve. The film follows the budding romance of two adolescents, each of whom has their own social and family issues. The two kids in these roles are fantastic as they simultaneously appear to be very distant towards those around them but have a vulnerability that makes it impossible to not fall in love with them.
Supporting and also occasionally standing in the way of these two kids is another outstanding Wes Anderson supporting cast. Edward Norton, Bruce Willis, Frances McDormand, Tilda Swinton and the king himself, Bill Murray all provide great performances. Norton and Willis in particular stand out as they rise above the one-dimensional 'grown up who comically screws everything up' character to be much more than just comic relief. They are integral to the heart of this story because we see them change as we learn more about Sam and Suzy.
In checking off my Wes Anderson trademarks, perhaps the most important one is the fact that this film only gets better on repeat viewings. So many of Wes Anderson's best lines are missed upon initially viewing and watching this film again only added to the depth and brilliance of the humor in the film. In an era where the Academy can nominate up 10 films for best picture I fully expect to see Wes Anderson get his first best picture nomination and if by some chance this film doesn't win, I'll like be in the position of skipping another film that's probably pretty good but will never over some the stigma of 'how is this film better than Moonrise Kingdom.'
2012
RT score: 94%
My score 10/10
The following is a list of films I have never seen (and likely never will) because they won the Academy Award for best picture and I will never be able to watch them without spending the entire time believing another film should have won;
Dances with Wolves (Goodfellas should have won)
The English Patient (Fargo should have won)
Shakespeare in Love (Truman Show should have won)
I saw Gladiator but can't watch it because it had no business beating Almost Famous
The Artist (I would have liked for Hugo to win, but lets face it, 2011 was a terrible year for movies)
With that in mind we come to Moonrise Kingdom. I suppose if Django wins this will be a non-issue as I wouldn't miss a QT film, but lets say for a second Argo, which is already being pushed as an early favorite wins best picture. The odds are I'll never see it then. My wife saw it and loved it and I would really like to see but there is no way I will ever be able to sit down and be convinced Argo or any other movie released in 2012 will be better than Moonrise Kingdom.
I would probably be asking for too much to suggest that everybody, everywhere should love and appreciate Wes Anderson as much as I do. I believe Royal Tenenbaums was the 2nd best movie of the past decade, but even with the brilliance that is Tenenbaums I can recognize a certain level of inaccessibility that exists with a film that centers a character like Royal that is so perfectly flawed and a family that is delightfully dysfunctional. And as you work your way through Anderson's other works it's easy to recognize the quirks that may turn an average audience off.
But with Moonrise Kingdom I refuse to accept that any of these quirks should be enough of a reason for even your average Meet the Fockers/Transformers mouth breathing movie audience to be turned off. The film is simply too good.
Of course, the beauty of it all for a Wes Anderson fan is that none of his trademark quirks are sacrificed in the name of reaching a broader audience. From is color schemes and clothing designs to his dialogue that is frequently direct in a way that you don't see in daily life, Moonrise Kingdom should challenge every fan to reconsider what their favorite Wes Anderson film is.
Perhaps the defining difference in the film is it's heart. Not to say that Anderson's other films didn't have heart, but where those films featured a more hardened heart this one wears it's heart on it's sleeve. The film follows the budding romance of two adolescents, each of whom has their own social and family issues. The two kids in these roles are fantastic as they simultaneously appear to be very distant towards those around them but have a vulnerability that makes it impossible to not fall in love with them.
Supporting and also occasionally standing in the way of these two kids is another outstanding Wes Anderson supporting cast. Edward Norton, Bruce Willis, Frances McDormand, Tilda Swinton and the king himself, Bill Murray all provide great performances. Norton and Willis in particular stand out as they rise above the one-dimensional 'grown up who comically screws everything up' character to be much more than just comic relief. They are integral to the heart of this story because we see them change as we learn more about Sam and Suzy.
In checking off my Wes Anderson trademarks, perhaps the most important one is the fact that this film only gets better on repeat viewings. So many of Wes Anderson's best lines are missed upon initially viewing and watching this film again only added to the depth and brilliance of the humor in the film. In an era where the Academy can nominate up 10 films for best picture I fully expect to see Wes Anderson get his first best picture nomination and if by some chance this film doesn't win, I'll like be in the position of skipping another film that's probably pretty good but will never over some the stigma of 'how is this film better than Moonrise Kingdom.'
Prometheus
Director: Ridley Scott
2012
RT score: 74%
My rating 8.5/10
When I first walked out of the theater after seeing Prometheus this summer I had one word running through my head; perfect. I remember entering the film with guarded expectations. I was excited when I first heard Ridley Scott was planning a prequel to Alien and as a fan of Lost I was excited when Damon Lindelof joined the project. Then I began hearing that it's not a prequel, but a stand alone existing in a shared universe with the Alien films and I began to have my doubts about the project.
Of course, that's the risk you take when attempting to add anything to a movie universe as revered as Alien. From a creature/horror/action perspective the first two Alien films are virtually unparalleled in the annals of sci-fi and yet any subsequent use of the characters and or creatures has been meet with either disappointment in the case of Alien 3 (which I did like) or outright rejection in the case of any of the Alien vs. Predator films. As a fan, I think the most frustrating thing is feeling like the potential for genuine suspense and sci-fi entertainment involving the creatures Mr. Scott first created has never been fully tapped.
Which brings us back to Prometheus. I wanted this to be that opportunity to tap into the potential that still existed and for the most part it is not. It does however achieve a goal that walking in I feared was unachievable. It creates it's own unique universe while setting up a back story for the events that occur in Alien and a plausible (by sci-fi standards) explanation for the visualize we see in the first 40 minutes of Alien.
In achieving this objective, writer Lindelof brings to the table his unique ability to ask open ended questions about existence that were the mark of the TV series Lost. The story centers around the idea that man is a by product of an alien species who left their calling card in caves around the world during prehistoric times. Set in the relatively near future, a group of scientists have found these markings and put them together to create a map that they believe will take them to their creators.
The lead scientist is Dr. Shaw, played superbly by Noomi Rapace. She is the moral compass for the film as she balances her faith with a thirst for discovery. The rest of the team follows Scott's (and later James Camerons) blue print for putting together a team of differing and often one-dimensional characters all capable of offering a different response to the events going on around them. The best in the bunch is Michael Fassbender is the cyborg David. The cyborg is a staple of the Alien franchise, but has never been done better than here. Fassbender is able to play the role with a combination of control and cunning that is becoming his trademark. David plays both sides throughout the film as he is willing to help or hinder Shaw's pursuits depending on what is in his own best interest.
Like all good sci-fi films, Prometheus follows the formula of discovery and excitement before eventually turning to terror and fear. As a horror film, Prometheus however doesn't stack up with it's predecessors. The action/thrills come in bursts and often they feel disjointed or added on so the movie isn't too 'talky.' In particular, the zombie sequence feels completely out of place and the creator Alien we do meet, while being sufficiently bad-ass is thoroughly under used.
Still, the strength of the film is the Lindelof trademark of asking more questions than he is willing to answer. We discover with Shaw that our creators wanted to destroy us but their is no apparent reason why. The film ends with Shaw preparing to go in search of an answer to why and like an episode of Lost it might has well have ended with a 'to be continued ...' message. But, in accomplishing a goal of being a prequel and a stand alone both Scott and Lindelof have seemingly pulled off a magic trick of sorts. They leave everything in place for the folks aboard Nostromo to find and have me hooked to follow Dr. Shaw and David in their pursuit of answers regarding why the creators made us and subsequently sought our destruction. It's an adventure I look forward to taking in the very near future.
2012
RT score: 74%
My rating 8.5/10
When I first walked out of the theater after seeing Prometheus this summer I had one word running through my head; perfect. I remember entering the film with guarded expectations. I was excited when I first heard Ridley Scott was planning a prequel to Alien and as a fan of Lost I was excited when Damon Lindelof joined the project. Then I began hearing that it's not a prequel, but a stand alone existing in a shared universe with the Alien films and I began to have my doubts about the project.
Of course, that's the risk you take when attempting to add anything to a movie universe as revered as Alien. From a creature/horror/action perspective the first two Alien films are virtually unparalleled in the annals of sci-fi and yet any subsequent use of the characters and or creatures has been meet with either disappointment in the case of Alien 3 (which I did like) or outright rejection in the case of any of the Alien vs. Predator films. As a fan, I think the most frustrating thing is feeling like the potential for genuine suspense and sci-fi entertainment involving the creatures Mr. Scott first created has never been fully tapped.
Which brings us back to Prometheus. I wanted this to be that opportunity to tap into the potential that still existed and for the most part it is not. It does however achieve a goal that walking in I feared was unachievable. It creates it's own unique universe while setting up a back story for the events that occur in Alien and a plausible (by sci-fi standards) explanation for the visualize we see in the first 40 minutes of Alien.
In achieving this objective, writer Lindelof brings to the table his unique ability to ask open ended questions about existence that were the mark of the TV series Lost. The story centers around the idea that man is a by product of an alien species who left their calling card in caves around the world during prehistoric times. Set in the relatively near future, a group of scientists have found these markings and put them together to create a map that they believe will take them to their creators.
The lead scientist is Dr. Shaw, played superbly by Noomi Rapace. She is the moral compass for the film as she balances her faith with a thirst for discovery. The rest of the team follows Scott's (and later James Camerons) blue print for putting together a team of differing and often one-dimensional characters all capable of offering a different response to the events going on around them. The best in the bunch is Michael Fassbender is the cyborg David. The cyborg is a staple of the Alien franchise, but has never been done better than here. Fassbender is able to play the role with a combination of control and cunning that is becoming his trademark. David plays both sides throughout the film as he is willing to help or hinder Shaw's pursuits depending on what is in his own best interest.
Like all good sci-fi films, Prometheus follows the formula of discovery and excitement before eventually turning to terror and fear. As a horror film, Prometheus however doesn't stack up with it's predecessors. The action/thrills come in bursts and often they feel disjointed or added on so the movie isn't too 'talky.' In particular, the zombie sequence feels completely out of place and the creator Alien we do meet, while being sufficiently bad-ass is thoroughly under used.
Still, the strength of the film is the Lindelof trademark of asking more questions than he is willing to answer. We discover with Shaw that our creators wanted to destroy us but their is no apparent reason why. The film ends with Shaw preparing to go in search of an answer to why and like an episode of Lost it might has well have ended with a 'to be continued ...' message. But, in accomplishing a goal of being a prequel and a stand alone both Scott and Lindelof have seemingly pulled off a magic trick of sorts. They leave everything in place for the folks aboard Nostromo to find and have me hooked to follow Dr. Shaw and David in their pursuit of answers regarding why the creators made us and subsequently sought our destruction. It's an adventure I look forward to taking in the very near future.
Saturday, December 1, 2012
Under Siege 2: Dark Territory
Director: Geoff Murphy
1995
RT score: 34%
My rating: 4/10
I'm not wasting a lot of time here. The setting changes from a boat to a train. The bad guys carry the film but are not even close to as much fun as Tommy Lee Jones and Gary Busey. And Steven Segal is still painful to watch as an actor. This came in a blu-ray two pack for $8 and it isn't completely without it's moments, but if I'm looking for shut your brain off mindless fun I'm going with the first Under Siege 9 times out of 10. Also, Katherine Heigl is in it.
1995
RT score: 34%
My rating: 4/10
I'm not wasting a lot of time here. The setting changes from a boat to a train. The bad guys carry the film but are not even close to as much fun as Tommy Lee Jones and Gary Busey. And Steven Segal is still painful to watch as an actor. This came in a blu-ray two pack for $8 and it isn't completely without it's moments, but if I'm looking for shut your brain off mindless fun I'm going with the first Under Siege 9 times out of 10. Also, Katherine Heigl is in it.
Friday, November 30, 2012
Under Siege
Directed by Andrew Davis and Andy Romano
1992
RT score: 75%
My rating 6/10
The year was 1992 or 1993. I was staying over at my friend Todd Emmons house and his dad had rented us an R-rated movie named Under Siege. My world was never the same.
Now 20 years later after discussing this as one of the great cheesy action films of all time I found a two pack on Blu-Ray of Under Siege and Under Siege 2 for $8. How could I resist?
Now legend has it that it was Andrew Davis's work on Under Siege that lead to him being named director of The Fugitive. I can actually see that. The film moves at nice pace and is not overly anxious to reveal characters true natures. What still works overwhelming to this day is the performance of Tommy Lee Jones, who initially appears as an aging rocker hired to play a party on the USS Missouri and eventually reveals himself to be an ex-CIA who is longing for revenge.
The films other star is Steven Segal. Twenty plus years and hundreds of films watched since that night at the Emmons has revealed the comical lack of acting ability that Steven Segal had or to be more accurate did not have. Segal is almost robotic throughout the entire film. Even while we are supposed to believe he is merely a wise cracking cook it's almost painful watching him try to pull it off. Equally terrible is Erika Eleniak but she wasn't cast for her acting skill either.
Ultimately the driving force in the film is Jones and his second in command bad guy Gary Busey. Both are fun too watch and keep you looked in throughout. The other note worthy part of the film is the violence, while entertaining is also frequently over the top. As a good guy, Segal is a cold blood killer. It's incredible the number of different ways he finds to kill some one including ripping one guys throat out with his bare hand.
Truly there isn't much to say about this film. It is the definition of a guilty pleasure movie in every way possible. Jones performance occasionally lifts the film above that but then there is always Segal bringing you back to reality with his painful lack of depth that may have gone unnoticed at 12 years old but his comical at 32.
1992
RT score: 75%
My rating 6/10
The year was 1992 or 1993. I was staying over at my friend Todd Emmons house and his dad had rented us an R-rated movie named Under Siege. My world was never the same.
Now 20 years later after discussing this as one of the great cheesy action films of all time I found a two pack on Blu-Ray of Under Siege and Under Siege 2 for $8. How could I resist?
Now legend has it that it was Andrew Davis's work on Under Siege that lead to him being named director of The Fugitive. I can actually see that. The film moves at nice pace and is not overly anxious to reveal characters true natures. What still works overwhelming to this day is the performance of Tommy Lee Jones, who initially appears as an aging rocker hired to play a party on the USS Missouri and eventually reveals himself to be an ex-CIA who is longing for revenge.
The films other star is Steven Segal. Twenty plus years and hundreds of films watched since that night at the Emmons has revealed the comical lack of acting ability that Steven Segal had or to be more accurate did not have. Segal is almost robotic throughout the entire film. Even while we are supposed to believe he is merely a wise cracking cook it's almost painful watching him try to pull it off. Equally terrible is Erika Eleniak but she wasn't cast for her acting skill either.
Ultimately the driving force in the film is Jones and his second in command bad guy Gary Busey. Both are fun too watch and keep you looked in throughout. The other note worthy part of the film is the violence, while entertaining is also frequently over the top. As a good guy, Segal is a cold blood killer. It's incredible the number of different ways he finds to kill some one including ripping one guys throat out with his bare hand.
Truly there isn't much to say about this film. It is the definition of a guilty pleasure movie in every way possible. Jones performance occasionally lifts the film above that but then there is always Segal bringing you back to reality with his painful lack of depth that may have gone unnoticed at 12 years old but his comical at 32.
The Usual Suspects
Director Bryan Singer
1995
RT score: 89%
My rating: 10/10
Believe it or not I was not terribly popular in high school. This is not a regret so much as a statement of fact and as an unpopular freshman/sophomore I filled my time with watching movies. On an average Friday I would ride my bike to CJ Video, rent 3 movies and return Saturday for 2 or 3 movies. Life was fantastic.
I bring this up because one of my stronger memories of this time spending close to an hour wondering the store looking for any excuse to rent something other than The Usual Suspects. I'm not entirely sure what my prejudice was against the film, I just know that I was extremely reluctant to rent it.
Since that night I have probably watched and re watched The Usual Suspects 50+ times. Initially I was drawn in by the ferocity and grittiness of story. We have a lone survivor, a cripple named Verbal Kint, recounting the details that lead to a shot out on the Harbor. He describes in great detail the six weeks worth of events that lead up to that night. The action he describes is brash, the language is unflinching and the acting is so good across the board that I actually saw 'Fled' because Stephen Baldwin was in it.
As I watched again and again, the film began to evolve. No longer was I watching a great crime drama, but instead, I was watching psychological war fair. The films final sequence which first feels like a reveal of the identity of one Keyser Soze in actuality is a reveal to something more significant than that.
The magnificence of this film isn't the mystery of Keyser Soze, but instead the way the film is able to demonstrate how we can become a victim of our own assumptions and predesigned conclusions. One of the great achievements and subsequent frustrations of the film is the realization that there isn't a single piece of Verbal's story we can trust. While that may detract from the films standing among other films in the crime/gangster genre, it also means the film is able take us into a place few films are willing to go. Kint's interrogator is Dean Keaton and Keaton represents all of us when we allow our assumptions to determine our actions. Kint is able to manipulate Keaton it such a way that not only does Keaton believe every word he says, but he also believes it's his own genius that is pulling the truth out of Kint.
Of course, the only truth that comes out of the film is perhaps it's greatest line, 'the greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist.' The idea our prejudice can allow us to see through evil even while staring it right in the face is what drives this film. Kint know's the conclusions Keaton wants to draw and is a whiling participant in the matter. Only when it's too late does Keaton realize the mistake he has made and the bewildered look on Keaton's face that closes the film is one of my favorite shots in movie history. Thankfully I gave up my assumption that this film wouldn't be worth my time after an hour of searching for anything else and I have been able to enjoy this film countless times ever since.
1995
RT score: 89%
My rating: 10/10
Believe it or not I was not terribly popular in high school. This is not a regret so much as a statement of fact and as an unpopular freshman/sophomore I filled my time with watching movies. On an average Friday I would ride my bike to CJ Video, rent 3 movies and return Saturday for 2 or 3 movies. Life was fantastic.
I bring this up because one of my stronger memories of this time spending close to an hour wondering the store looking for any excuse to rent something other than The Usual Suspects. I'm not entirely sure what my prejudice was against the film, I just know that I was extremely reluctant to rent it.
Since that night I have probably watched and re watched The Usual Suspects 50+ times. Initially I was drawn in by the ferocity and grittiness of story. We have a lone survivor, a cripple named Verbal Kint, recounting the details that lead to a shot out on the Harbor. He describes in great detail the six weeks worth of events that lead up to that night. The action he describes is brash, the language is unflinching and the acting is so good across the board that I actually saw 'Fled' because Stephen Baldwin was in it.
As I watched again and again, the film began to evolve. No longer was I watching a great crime drama, but instead, I was watching psychological war fair. The films final sequence which first feels like a reveal of the identity of one Keyser Soze in actuality is a reveal to something more significant than that.
The magnificence of this film isn't the mystery of Keyser Soze, but instead the way the film is able to demonstrate how we can become a victim of our own assumptions and predesigned conclusions. One of the great achievements and subsequent frustrations of the film is the realization that there isn't a single piece of Verbal's story we can trust. While that may detract from the films standing among other films in the crime/gangster genre, it also means the film is able take us into a place few films are willing to go. Kint's interrogator is Dean Keaton and Keaton represents all of us when we allow our assumptions to determine our actions. Kint is able to manipulate Keaton it such a way that not only does Keaton believe every word he says, but he also believes it's his own genius that is pulling the truth out of Kint.
Of course, the only truth that comes out of the film is perhaps it's greatest line, 'the greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist.' The idea our prejudice can allow us to see through evil even while staring it right in the face is what drives this film. Kint know's the conclusions Keaton wants to draw and is a whiling participant in the matter. Only when it's too late does Keaton realize the mistake he has made and the bewildered look on Keaton's face that closes the film is one of my favorite shots in movie history. Thankfully I gave up my assumption that this film wouldn't be worth my time after an hour of searching for anything else and I have been able to enjoy this film countless times ever since.
Wednesday, November 21, 2012
Where the Wild Things Are
Director: Spike Jonze
2009
RT Score: 73%
My rating: 10/10
For a 10 outof 10 rating I have surprisingly little to say about this wonderful film. I really like the Sandlot, but I will tell you without any sense of overstating this that there is no film that does a better job of encompassing what it means to be a 10 year old boy than this film. This is not opinion, this is a statement of fact.
Spike Jonze of course has a flair for creating emotional reactions from an audience in the most unusual of settings. Here is no different. We see Max as a boy yearning to feel included but unable to handle it when he is not. We see his relationship with his mom as being one of love and frustration that goes both ways. And honestly, at ten years old that's exactly how your relationship with a parent should be as you strive to be more than a boy while still being trapped in a boys body.
Now, for those familiar with the story, and if your not that you should probably take 45 seconds and read it for your own benefit, you know that Max runs out and joins the wild things as their new king. This is where the magic of the film is truly found as each of the monsters provides their own unique perspective and emotional needs that mirror those of any 10 year old. Max finds friendship in the group and in particular with Carol and KW. However, Carol and KW have their own issues and both handle them in very child like ways.
As the whole thing plays out you get lost in the wild rumpus, building a mammoth fort and dirt fights (which is one of my fondest memories of childhood) and yet Jonze is also able to bring the audience back to the emotional struggles these characters are having and he connects with the audience every time.
By the end Max knows his rightful place is home with his mother and that return draws tears from me every time as I deal with my own emotions related to being a parent and having once been a 10 year old boy. I know my wife struggles with understanding why I love this movie and I simply say that's because she never was a 10 year old boy. However, if you were once a 10 year old boy and a piece of that boy still exists inside you, than this is a must see, own and repeat watch.
2009
RT Score: 73%
My rating: 10/10
For a 10 outof 10 rating I have surprisingly little to say about this wonderful film. I really like the Sandlot, but I will tell you without any sense of overstating this that there is no film that does a better job of encompassing what it means to be a 10 year old boy than this film. This is not opinion, this is a statement of fact.
Spike Jonze of course has a flair for creating emotional reactions from an audience in the most unusual of settings. Here is no different. We see Max as a boy yearning to feel included but unable to handle it when he is not. We see his relationship with his mom as being one of love and frustration that goes both ways. And honestly, at ten years old that's exactly how your relationship with a parent should be as you strive to be more than a boy while still being trapped in a boys body.
Now, for those familiar with the story, and if your not that you should probably take 45 seconds and read it for your own benefit, you know that Max runs out and joins the wild things as their new king. This is where the magic of the film is truly found as each of the monsters provides their own unique perspective and emotional needs that mirror those of any 10 year old. Max finds friendship in the group and in particular with Carol and KW. However, Carol and KW have their own issues and both handle them in very child like ways.
As the whole thing plays out you get lost in the wild rumpus, building a mammoth fort and dirt fights (which is one of my fondest memories of childhood) and yet Jonze is also able to bring the audience back to the emotional struggles these characters are having and he connects with the audience every time.
By the end Max knows his rightful place is home with his mother and that return draws tears from me every time as I deal with my own emotions related to being a parent and having once been a 10 year old boy. I know my wife struggles with understanding why I love this movie and I simply say that's because she never was a 10 year old boy. However, if you were once a 10 year old boy and a piece of that boy still exists inside you, than this is a must see, own and repeat watch.
X-Men: First Class
Director: Matthew Vaughn
2011
RT score: 87%
My rating: 8/10
Let's face it. If your like me and your in your early thirties you are facing a reality that the next 50+ years of movies are going to be packed full of remakes, reboots and reimaginings of past classics. Even non-classics like Red Dawn are being remade for reasons only known to themselves.
While we all tear our hair out over why would they already reboot Spiderman let's not completely write off this trend as being a total zero-sum approach to film making. With X-Men First Class, Matthew Vaughn delivers a reason to believe that this trend can also provide highly entertaining and quality work.
The film opens the same way X-Men opened with Magneto being separated from his mother at a Nazi concentration camp and continues the sequence to show Magneto being forced to use his powers to save his mother. He fails and in his rage we see the enormity of Magneto's power even as a boy.
Now, let me just say that I think Ian Mckellan is great as Magneto, GREAT! However, Michael Fassenbender over the past few years has begun building a track record that may lead him to being one of the best actors of a generation and his portrayal of Magneto is what makes this movie. As with all comic book movies, I believe the villain is what makes the difference between the movie being good and the film being worth watching again and again and I could watch Fassenbender play Magneto over and over. Sure, Magneto isn't the films true villain, that honor falls to Kevin Bacon as Sebastien Shaw in a strong performance, but Magneto is the one that scare and thrill you all at the same time. Whether it's the way he is able to persuade people to his side or his calculated ruthlessness when exacting his revenge on the Nazi's that destroyed his life as a child he is the most watchable part of this film.
On the flip side we also have a pre-wheel chair Professor X. Portrayed as a recent college grad using his knowledge of mutation to flirt with co-eds, James McAvoy deserves credit for doing well in the Professor X role although his effectiveness does not surpass Patrick Stewart. He gets recruited to join the CIA in their fight against Shaw and with the help of the kid from About a Boy and Oliver Platt (who I always enjoy) he uses cerebro to create his first class of X-Men. This leads to some of the films weaker moments as we see the mutants introducing themselves, giving each other names and other such non-sense.
Thankfully, Vaughn doesn't linger in these moments to long and the story movies at a good pace. We get a final showdown created within the historical events surrounding the Cuban missile crisis that delivers and sets up future conflicts between Professor X and Magneto. Of course, the ultimate goal of a film like this is to hook you into subsequent sequels and with Fassenbender as Magneto I can say I will be their on opening day for any future installments of this version of the X-Men. And as we prepare to see reboots of Superman, Batman and others in the near future, I say there is hope that they can be done right.
2011
RT score: 87%
My rating: 8/10
Let's face it. If your like me and your in your early thirties you are facing a reality that the next 50+ years of movies are going to be packed full of remakes, reboots and reimaginings of past classics. Even non-classics like Red Dawn are being remade for reasons only known to themselves.
While we all tear our hair out over why would they already reboot Spiderman let's not completely write off this trend as being a total zero-sum approach to film making. With X-Men First Class, Matthew Vaughn delivers a reason to believe that this trend can also provide highly entertaining and quality work.
The film opens the same way X-Men opened with Magneto being separated from his mother at a Nazi concentration camp and continues the sequence to show Magneto being forced to use his powers to save his mother. He fails and in his rage we see the enormity of Magneto's power even as a boy.
Now, let me just say that I think Ian Mckellan is great as Magneto, GREAT! However, Michael Fassenbender over the past few years has begun building a track record that may lead him to being one of the best actors of a generation and his portrayal of Magneto is what makes this movie. As with all comic book movies, I believe the villain is what makes the difference between the movie being good and the film being worth watching again and again and I could watch Fassenbender play Magneto over and over. Sure, Magneto isn't the films true villain, that honor falls to Kevin Bacon as Sebastien Shaw in a strong performance, but Magneto is the one that scare and thrill you all at the same time. Whether it's the way he is able to persuade people to his side or his calculated ruthlessness when exacting his revenge on the Nazi's that destroyed his life as a child he is the most watchable part of this film.
On the flip side we also have a pre-wheel chair Professor X. Portrayed as a recent college grad using his knowledge of mutation to flirt with co-eds, James McAvoy deserves credit for doing well in the Professor X role although his effectiveness does not surpass Patrick Stewart. He gets recruited to join the CIA in their fight against Shaw and with the help of the kid from About a Boy and Oliver Platt (who I always enjoy) he uses cerebro to create his first class of X-Men. This leads to some of the films weaker moments as we see the mutants introducing themselves, giving each other names and other such non-sense.
Thankfully, Vaughn doesn't linger in these moments to long and the story movies at a good pace. We get a final showdown created within the historical events surrounding the Cuban missile crisis that delivers and sets up future conflicts between Professor X and Magneto. Of course, the ultimate goal of a film like this is to hook you into subsequent sequels and with Fassenbender as Magneto I can say I will be their on opening day for any future installments of this version of the X-Men. And as we prepare to see reboots of Superman, Batman and others in the near future, I say there is hope that they can be done right.
Tuesday, November 20, 2012
The Insider
Director Michael Mann
1999
RT Score: 96%
My rating: 7/10
I want you to close your eyes. Are they closed? ... Wait, you can't do this in a blog! Anyway, just take a moment and think back to a time before movies like Jack and Jill, Righteous Kill and 88 Minutes to a time when a new Al Pacino movie actually felt like a most see occasion.
Such is the setting when I went to see The Insider on opening night back in 1999. And I must say I was not disappointed that night. Being almost 19 years old and having been an editor on my high school newspaper I was totally sucked into this story of a whistle blower and a 60 Minutes producer willing to sacrifice everything and fight big business to get their story told. It is idealistic in a way that makes every 19 year old feel like every fight is a good fight.
Over a decade later I am sitting on my coach watching this again with my wife and I'm still enjoying the film, but not on the same level. The film tells the story of a fired tobacco company scientist named Jeffery Wigand who wants people to know that the tobacco companies are lieing when they say they know nothing of addiction or the effects of nicotine and that they in fact are manipulating their product to increase it's addictive quality. It's a story that by now evokes a response along the lines of 'D'Uh' but at the time you could still find cigarette vending machines at restaurants.
As the story develops we see Wigand and Pacino put together a plan to get his interview on air without violating his confidentiality agreement. When I was 19 I found this compelling, at 32 I find myself seriously questioning how someone could fight this kind of a fight while sacrificing their family's well being. It's something I am much more sensitive to now as a father of 4 and while I don't think Wigand should be vilified for what happens to his family I would like to see him balance that more than simply moving forward the way he did.
As Pacino prepares to get his interview on air we see another swerve as CBS balks at the idea of going head to head in a legal battle with big tobacco just in the name of journalistic integrity. Again, 32 year old me has a different reaction to this than 19 year old me. At the time I saw this I thought there was still hope for media so long as people like Pacino's character are out there fighting the good fight and while I still think CBS was wrong, it is stuff like this that has left me with no faith in journalism/media. There is a term used several times towards the end of the film called infotainment and what this film chronicles in one of the major steps media took in that direction and why I believe journalism (at least on a national level) is dead.
I should mention that the film remains an actors film. Pacino and Russel Crowe are brilliant and all the supporting elements are equally brilliant. There are many tense moments that are provided by the acting talent in this film and some of the best scenes leave you with the same out breathe feeling a great car chase is supposed to provide you with.
My final thoughts here are on the director. I always put Clint Eastwood and Ron Howard on my Mount Rushmore of overrated directors. Third on that list would probably by Michael Mann. Heat and Collateral are overrated, Ali and Public Enemies never should have been as bad as they were and I never saw Miami Vice. That being said, in order to be over rated there is an implication that you have to be capable of doing quality work and for me, this is Mann's best work. There is some great handcam work through out the film and especially in the Wigand's home. It definitely adds to the tension that is increasing within the Wigand home. There are also some seemingly endless solo shots with operatic music playing in the background that make the film feel over long and keeps this from being the great film it deserves to be.
1999
RT Score: 96%
My rating: 7/10
I want you to close your eyes. Are they closed? ... Wait, you can't do this in a blog! Anyway, just take a moment and think back to a time before movies like Jack and Jill, Righteous Kill and 88 Minutes to a time when a new Al Pacino movie actually felt like a most see occasion.
Such is the setting when I went to see The Insider on opening night back in 1999. And I must say I was not disappointed that night. Being almost 19 years old and having been an editor on my high school newspaper I was totally sucked into this story of a whistle blower and a 60 Minutes producer willing to sacrifice everything and fight big business to get their story told. It is idealistic in a way that makes every 19 year old feel like every fight is a good fight.
Over a decade later I am sitting on my coach watching this again with my wife and I'm still enjoying the film, but not on the same level. The film tells the story of a fired tobacco company scientist named Jeffery Wigand who wants people to know that the tobacco companies are lieing when they say they know nothing of addiction or the effects of nicotine and that they in fact are manipulating their product to increase it's addictive quality. It's a story that by now evokes a response along the lines of 'D'Uh' but at the time you could still find cigarette vending machines at restaurants.
As the story develops we see Wigand and Pacino put together a plan to get his interview on air without violating his confidentiality agreement. When I was 19 I found this compelling, at 32 I find myself seriously questioning how someone could fight this kind of a fight while sacrificing their family's well being. It's something I am much more sensitive to now as a father of 4 and while I don't think Wigand should be vilified for what happens to his family I would like to see him balance that more than simply moving forward the way he did.
As Pacino prepares to get his interview on air we see another swerve as CBS balks at the idea of going head to head in a legal battle with big tobacco just in the name of journalistic integrity. Again, 32 year old me has a different reaction to this than 19 year old me. At the time I saw this I thought there was still hope for media so long as people like Pacino's character are out there fighting the good fight and while I still think CBS was wrong, it is stuff like this that has left me with no faith in journalism/media. There is a term used several times towards the end of the film called infotainment and what this film chronicles in one of the major steps media took in that direction and why I believe journalism (at least on a national level) is dead.
I should mention that the film remains an actors film. Pacino and Russel Crowe are brilliant and all the supporting elements are equally brilliant. There are many tense moments that are provided by the acting talent in this film and some of the best scenes leave you with the same out breathe feeling a great car chase is supposed to provide you with.
My final thoughts here are on the director. I always put Clint Eastwood and Ron Howard on my Mount Rushmore of overrated directors. Third on that list would probably by Michael Mann. Heat and Collateral are overrated, Ali and Public Enemies never should have been as bad as they were and I never saw Miami Vice. That being said, in order to be over rated there is an implication that you have to be capable of doing quality work and for me, this is Mann's best work. There is some great handcam work through out the film and especially in the Wigand's home. It definitely adds to the tension that is increasing within the Wigand home. There are also some seemingly endless solo shots with operatic music playing in the background that make the film feel over long and keeps this from being the great film it deserves to be.
X-Men: The Last Stand
Director: Brett Ratner
2006
RT Score: 57%
My rating 5/10
If you are not a fan of the show Community than I suggest you log on to Netflix and start watching season 1-3 and you can thank me later. I fully admit I tried watching it when it originally debuted and after 3 or 4 episodes I gave up. Thankfully that is a mistake I would later correct and now the show ranks up there with Arrested Development among my all time favorites.
I mention this because one of my favorite bits from season 3 is a montage of signs that Abed may need some psychological help. Included in the montage is Abed getting up from the table and yelling at Shirley for suggesting Brett Ratner may be the new 'Spielberg.'
And, if your one of the 7 people reading this than you already know why that is so laughable. Ratner, who is best known probably for his Rush Hour movies, is not the total insult to the directing craft that Michael Bay is, but when hand a Cadillac he gives you Camry.
That's the best thing I can say about Ratner's turn with X-Men. There are elements of this film I do like including just about every line Magneto has in recruiting mutants to his brotherhood and rallying his army. I think Magneto moving the Golden Gate bridge is great and the sequence at Jean's house is also great.
Of course, we could just chalk this one up to the myth that the third installment of every trilogy is a disappointment, but I tend to think that is over rated. What I look at here though is that the things I praised with Singer are things Ratner dropped the ball on. We see a huge increase in mutants that are directly involved in the story and by the films end most of them can't even be named. There's an Angel, a guy from Lost, a telepath, Juno, and kid that is supposedly the cure.
The cure is another angle that I feel Ratner fumbles completely. In previous films Singer was able to do a seamless job of integrating human politics with mutant politics. Here it feels like an after thought. We see what I think are hundreds of mutants protesting outside 'clinics' in which we also see dozens of mutants lined up to receive said cure. They are all made to look ordinary and to that end the Ratner may have been too successful as none of this story line feels like it resonates in the same way the Striker story line did.
Another failure for me here is the Jean Grey/Phoenix character. After sacrificing herself to save the X-Men at the end of X2, Jean Grey returns and a story line implying that Professor X had 'tamed' her in the past is opened up. When allowed to, Jean Grey is possibly the most menacing character introduced into the X-Men movie universe so far and yet most of the time she is seen standing around looking like a deer in the headlights and being held back by Magneto as his last resort weapon. The entire angle seems to fall on it's face too as it continues the love story between Grey and Wolverine that Singer teased but stayed away from. Some of the closing lines between the two are cringe worthy (as is Magneto's line 'what have I done') and the whole thing is just a mess.
When it was in theaters I will say the film was good enough to see twice in theaters, although the fact that my wife was 8 months pregnant and desperately wanted to sit in an air conditioned theater probably played a bigger role in that decision. Ultimately, this will be my only Brett Ratner entry and I would have to say that based on this experience I think Abed's reaction to Shirley referring to Ratner as the new Spielberg is totally justified.
2006
RT Score: 57%
My rating 5/10
If you are not a fan of the show Community than I suggest you log on to Netflix and start watching season 1-3 and you can thank me later. I fully admit I tried watching it when it originally debuted and after 3 or 4 episodes I gave up. Thankfully that is a mistake I would later correct and now the show ranks up there with Arrested Development among my all time favorites.
I mention this because one of my favorite bits from season 3 is a montage of signs that Abed may need some psychological help. Included in the montage is Abed getting up from the table and yelling at Shirley for suggesting Brett Ratner may be the new 'Spielberg.'
And, if your one of the 7 people reading this than you already know why that is so laughable. Ratner, who is best known probably for his Rush Hour movies, is not the total insult to the directing craft that Michael Bay is, but when hand a Cadillac he gives you Camry.
That's the best thing I can say about Ratner's turn with X-Men. There are elements of this film I do like including just about every line Magneto has in recruiting mutants to his brotherhood and rallying his army. I think Magneto moving the Golden Gate bridge is great and the sequence at Jean's house is also great.
Of course, we could just chalk this one up to the myth that the third installment of every trilogy is a disappointment, but I tend to think that is over rated. What I look at here though is that the things I praised with Singer are things Ratner dropped the ball on. We see a huge increase in mutants that are directly involved in the story and by the films end most of them can't even be named. There's an Angel, a guy from Lost, a telepath, Juno, and kid that is supposedly the cure.
The cure is another angle that I feel Ratner fumbles completely. In previous films Singer was able to do a seamless job of integrating human politics with mutant politics. Here it feels like an after thought. We see what I think are hundreds of mutants protesting outside 'clinics' in which we also see dozens of mutants lined up to receive said cure. They are all made to look ordinary and to that end the Ratner may have been too successful as none of this story line feels like it resonates in the same way the Striker story line did.
Another failure for me here is the Jean Grey/Phoenix character. After sacrificing herself to save the X-Men at the end of X2, Jean Grey returns and a story line implying that Professor X had 'tamed' her in the past is opened up. When allowed to, Jean Grey is possibly the most menacing character introduced into the X-Men movie universe so far and yet most of the time she is seen standing around looking like a deer in the headlights and being held back by Magneto as his last resort weapon. The entire angle seems to fall on it's face too as it continues the love story between Grey and Wolverine that Singer teased but stayed away from. Some of the closing lines between the two are cringe worthy (as is Magneto's line 'what have I done') and the whole thing is just a mess.
When it was in theaters I will say the film was good enough to see twice in theaters, although the fact that my wife was 8 months pregnant and desperately wanted to sit in an air conditioned theater probably played a bigger role in that decision. Ultimately, this will be my only Brett Ratner entry and I would have to say that based on this experience I think Abed's reaction to Shirley referring to Ratner as the new Spielberg is totally justified.
X2: X-Men United
Director Bryan Singer
2003
RT rating: 88%
My Rating 9/10 (I'm adding my ratings to these too)
As I referenced in the X-Men post, Bryan Singer was able to usher in era were comic book heroes not named Batman or Superman could be successful at the box office too. With X2, Singer set the stage for comic book movies being able to move beyond the basic good versus evil format.
The film features 3 opposing forces. Like the original you have Professor X and his X-Men and Magneto and his brotherhood, but the film adds William Striker as the leading forces for homo-sapiens in their presumed fight for survival against mutants. Playing Striker with a calculated brilliance is Bryan Cox who is unmerciful in his approach to mutant extinction without ever being over the top. Striker's plan is to build his own cerebro from information he got out of an imprisoned Magneto and use his sons powers to eliminate mutants once and for all.
Of course, this creates a mutual enemy for all mutants and as the film begins to move into motion we see both sides put into an uncomfortable alliance. This alliance allows for some great secondary debate between the two sides about their ability to co-exist with regular humans.
This type of debate and the fact that there is as much effort put into the story and characters as there is into the special effects and fight scenes is what I love about X2. Films like Fantastic Four or Mission Impossible 2 fail because they are more concerned with the flash and don't put the same effort into the story they are telling. Singer also deserves credit for his very calculated approach to adding characters into the story. He could easily have over saturated the film with new characters (including characters fans may truly have wanted) but he is very careful about who he brings in because he does not want to stunt the growth of the characters he has already introduced. In particular, two characters introduced/developed that I love are Pyro and Ice Man, whose stories are great as we see a new generation falling on opposite sides of the mutant debate.
In later years films like Spider Man 2 and The Dark Knight would pass X2 in terms of relevance and box office results, but watching this one again I am reminded how good this was and I feel strongly again that Singer deserves a great deal of credit in terms of establishing a successful formula for starting a super-hero franchise.
2003
RT rating: 88%
My Rating 9/10 (I'm adding my ratings to these too)
As I referenced in the X-Men post, Bryan Singer was able to usher in era were comic book heroes not named Batman or Superman could be successful at the box office too. With X2, Singer set the stage for comic book movies being able to move beyond the basic good versus evil format.
The film features 3 opposing forces. Like the original you have Professor X and his X-Men and Magneto and his brotherhood, but the film adds William Striker as the leading forces for homo-sapiens in their presumed fight for survival against mutants. Playing Striker with a calculated brilliance is Bryan Cox who is unmerciful in his approach to mutant extinction without ever being over the top. Striker's plan is to build his own cerebro from information he got out of an imprisoned Magneto and use his sons powers to eliminate mutants once and for all.
Of course, this creates a mutual enemy for all mutants and as the film begins to move into motion we see both sides put into an uncomfortable alliance. This alliance allows for some great secondary debate between the two sides about their ability to co-exist with regular humans.
This type of debate and the fact that there is as much effort put into the story and characters as there is into the special effects and fight scenes is what I love about X2. Films like Fantastic Four or Mission Impossible 2 fail because they are more concerned with the flash and don't put the same effort into the story they are telling. Singer also deserves credit for his very calculated approach to adding characters into the story. He could easily have over saturated the film with new characters (including characters fans may truly have wanted) but he is very careful about who he brings in because he does not want to stunt the growth of the characters he has already introduced. In particular, two characters introduced/developed that I love are Pyro and Ice Man, whose stories are great as we see a new generation falling on opposite sides of the mutant debate.
In later years films like Spider Man 2 and The Dark Knight would pass X2 in terms of relevance and box office results, but watching this one again I am reminded how good this was and I feel strongly again that Singer deserves a great deal of credit in terms of establishing a successful formula for starting a super-hero franchise.
Thursday, November 8, 2012
X-Men
Director Bryan Singer
RT score 82%
2000
Full disclosure, the next film going in reverse alphabetical order should have been You've Got Mail so let my just say this; I don't hate the movie, in fact I consider it a good compromise film for me and my wife. But it is over long and since I was watching alone while home with the baby I thought it was justified skipping what is an overlong film featuring characters that are so likable it's almost inhuman.
Now, in the wake of The Avengers, The Dark Knight trilogy and Sam Raimi's Spiderman movies it may be hard to believe there was a time when superhero movies were considered a bad bet at the box office. Prior to 2000 though you had Batman which fizzled out with Batman and Robin, Superman which fizzled out with Superman IV and then you had one and done films like The Phantom, The Shadow and Spawn.
Then along comes Bryan Singer with X-Men and all of a sudden super hero movies have become bankable franchises.
What I believe Singer brought to X-Men (and Nolan for that matter brought to Batman) was a willingness to establish and stay true to his characters. There is nobody here who is serving the role of comic relief, instead everyone serves a purpose. And with the characters in place Singer is able to tell his story efficiently without relying on special effects (which are great here) alone to engage his audience.
The film also boasts one of my all-time favorite villians in Magneto played with cool, calculated brilliance by Ian McKellen. While Christopher Nolan's Joker may be the most celebrated villain in movie history, Magneto deserves to shine as he plays devils advocate to Professor Xaviers pursuit of peace between mutants and humans. Sir Ian is able to simultaneously portray Magneto as uncompromisingly ruthless while creating sympathy through the moral ambiguity created in a world were humans are equally aggressive toward their mutant counterparts. Magneto is at his absolute best at the train station as his tremendous power is displayed while he maintains his intellectual cool in what I believe is the films best sequence.
Of course their are hero's and Wolverine leads the way in terms of being able to kick serious butt. The rest of the X-Men are suitable and I'll refrain from picking on Halle Berry here. Ultimately X-Mens true legacy may be providing the framework for giving movie audiences an origin story for a large number of characters the audience may previously did not know or were not ready for a re-imagined version. I believe Spiderman, Iron Man, Batman Begins and Avengers all have successfully followed the lead established by Singer's X-Men. Introduce your characters, tell a good story and set up your audience to be blown away by the sequel.
RT score 82%
2000
Full disclosure, the next film going in reverse alphabetical order should have been You've Got Mail so let my just say this; I don't hate the movie, in fact I consider it a good compromise film for me and my wife. But it is over long and since I was watching alone while home with the baby I thought it was justified skipping what is an overlong film featuring characters that are so likable it's almost inhuman.
Now, in the wake of The Avengers, The Dark Knight trilogy and Sam Raimi's Spiderman movies it may be hard to believe there was a time when superhero movies were considered a bad bet at the box office. Prior to 2000 though you had Batman which fizzled out with Batman and Robin, Superman which fizzled out with Superman IV and then you had one and done films like The Phantom, The Shadow and Spawn.
Then along comes Bryan Singer with X-Men and all of a sudden super hero movies have become bankable franchises.
What I believe Singer brought to X-Men (and Nolan for that matter brought to Batman) was a willingness to establish and stay true to his characters. There is nobody here who is serving the role of comic relief, instead everyone serves a purpose. And with the characters in place Singer is able to tell his story efficiently without relying on special effects (which are great here) alone to engage his audience.
The film also boasts one of my all-time favorite villians in Magneto played with cool, calculated brilliance by Ian McKellen. While Christopher Nolan's Joker may be the most celebrated villain in movie history, Magneto deserves to shine as he plays devils advocate to Professor Xaviers pursuit of peace between mutants and humans. Sir Ian is able to simultaneously portray Magneto as uncompromisingly ruthless while creating sympathy through the moral ambiguity created in a world were humans are equally aggressive toward their mutant counterparts. Magneto is at his absolute best at the train station as his tremendous power is displayed while he maintains his intellectual cool in what I believe is the films best sequence.
Of course their are hero's and Wolverine leads the way in terms of being able to kick serious butt. The rest of the X-Men are suitable and I'll refrain from picking on Halle Berry here. Ultimately X-Mens true legacy may be providing the framework for giving movie audiences an origin story for a large number of characters the audience may previously did not know or were not ready for a re-imagined version. I believe Spiderman, Iron Man, Batman Begins and Avengers all have successfully followed the lead established by Singer's X-Men. Introduce your characters, tell a good story and set up your audience to be blown away by the sequel.
Zodiac
Director:David Fincher
RT Score: 90%
2007
While looking up the score for Zodiac I decided to check out some of the reviews and found a negative one that stated 'without a persuasive ending, Zodiac is an exercise in frustration.' I singled on this one statement because that is exactly what makes this film so brilliant.
Starting in the 1970's, Zodiac chronicles the real life investigation and media coverage of the Zodiac murders in the San Francisco area. They start out with the Zodiac stalking young couples, murdering them and reporting the murder himself. He then begins playing games with the local media by coercing them into printing codes in the newspaper or risk having him go on a killing spree.
The first hour or so of the film follows this pattern and Fincher is able to craft this serial killer with film with just as much tension as Se7en but far less shock and gore. Instead the tension is created by the moral questions that come from having to decide whether or not to play along with a mad man's mind games in public forum such as the newspaper or on television. By the end of the first hour you can feel the same grip of terror that anyone living in San Francisco at this time would have felt.
But then reality sets in. You see, in reality the Zodiac was never caught and to his never ending credit Fincher never even toys with idea of changing that fact. And that is how the film moves from routine serial killer thriller to brilliant nerve shattering drama. We follow 3 characters all of whom approach the Zodiac from a different perspective.
First up is Paul Avery played by Robert Downey Jr. You can insert your own jokes about what a stretch it is to see Downey play a talented person who is eventually brought down by substance abuse, but the reality is that Downey owns the screen any time he is on it and is able to provide his characteristic dry sense of humor to the role as the brash journalist looking to make his mark while reporting on these killings.
Then there is inspector David Toschi played by Mark Ruffalo who is assigned to the Zodiac killings with his partner Dr. Green/Anthony Edwards. The two have great chemistry together while sparring us any buddy cop angst. Ruffalo plays the role straight and even offers the juxtaposition that he is not Dirty Harry. We see Ruffalo think he gets his man and then watch his frustration when they refuse to charge him. After that the case weighs on him and seemingly takes away his passion for the job. Watching this again I find myself wondering why Ruffalo isn't ranked as highly among actors today as his Avengers counterpart Downey. Ruffalo is great in this, was great in Shutter Island, Eternal Sunshine, Avengers, etc.
Finally, the films central character is Robert Graysmith played Jake Gyllenhaal. Graysmith is a cartoonist at the newspaper who gets caught up in the Zodiac case. The character is essentially charged with giving us an every man perspective on the case. He longs to help in anyway we can and we can see the impact the Zodiac has on the city through Graysmith. But his desire to help turns into his obsession as Graysmith seemingly becomes Zodiac's final victim when his desire for the truth leads him on his own investigation which he intends to use to write a book on the subject. Graysmith digs deeper than anyone else and eventually alienates his family in his pursuit of the truth. In this pursuit Gyllenhaal is phenomenal as he plays Graysmith as a simple, uncomplicated newspaper artist. He is funny without being comical and serious without seeming strong. It's his performance that carries the movie and keeps us interested in Graysmiths discoveries even as we know there can not be any true climax.
The cast is tremendous, but with this being a Fincher film I have to acknowledge that it is Fincher's commitment to his craft that truly makes everything work. Telling a two and a half hour story that is incapable of providing a satisfactory ending is no small task and yet Fincher accomplishes this feat almost effortlessly. If that's not impressive enough, Fincher even avoids the typical serial killer cliches of gruesome murders and blood stained corpses as even the violence in the film is subdued (at least by Fincher standards). As it stands I would probably place Fincher among my top 5 favorite directors of all time and watching this again I am reminded of why he belongs in that classification. I will resist calling this his best film only because I know I feel that way at the end of Se7en or Fight Club or Social Network. Still, the film stands along side films like The Assassination of Jesse James as a purely director driven piece of story telling. It is uncompromising, unwilling to throw the audience a bone or a cheap thrill. Instead, Fincher knows exactly what he wants out of the film and delivers it brilliant fashion reminding us of what can happen when genius is left unobstructed.
RT Score: 90%
2007
While looking up the score for Zodiac I decided to check out some of the reviews and found a negative one that stated 'without a persuasive ending, Zodiac is an exercise in frustration.' I singled on this one statement because that is exactly what makes this film so brilliant.
Starting in the 1970's, Zodiac chronicles the real life investigation and media coverage of the Zodiac murders in the San Francisco area. They start out with the Zodiac stalking young couples, murdering them and reporting the murder himself. He then begins playing games with the local media by coercing them into printing codes in the newspaper or risk having him go on a killing spree.
The first hour or so of the film follows this pattern and Fincher is able to craft this serial killer with film with just as much tension as Se7en but far less shock and gore. Instead the tension is created by the moral questions that come from having to decide whether or not to play along with a mad man's mind games in public forum such as the newspaper or on television. By the end of the first hour you can feel the same grip of terror that anyone living in San Francisco at this time would have felt.
But then reality sets in. You see, in reality the Zodiac was never caught and to his never ending credit Fincher never even toys with idea of changing that fact. And that is how the film moves from routine serial killer thriller to brilliant nerve shattering drama. We follow 3 characters all of whom approach the Zodiac from a different perspective.
First up is Paul Avery played by Robert Downey Jr. You can insert your own jokes about what a stretch it is to see Downey play a talented person who is eventually brought down by substance abuse, but the reality is that Downey owns the screen any time he is on it and is able to provide his characteristic dry sense of humor to the role as the brash journalist looking to make his mark while reporting on these killings.
Then there is inspector David Toschi played by Mark Ruffalo who is assigned to the Zodiac killings with his partner Dr. Green/Anthony Edwards. The two have great chemistry together while sparring us any buddy cop angst. Ruffalo plays the role straight and even offers the juxtaposition that he is not Dirty Harry. We see Ruffalo think he gets his man and then watch his frustration when they refuse to charge him. After that the case weighs on him and seemingly takes away his passion for the job. Watching this again I find myself wondering why Ruffalo isn't ranked as highly among actors today as his Avengers counterpart Downey. Ruffalo is great in this, was great in Shutter Island, Eternal Sunshine, Avengers, etc.
Finally, the films central character is Robert Graysmith played Jake Gyllenhaal. Graysmith is a cartoonist at the newspaper who gets caught up in the Zodiac case. The character is essentially charged with giving us an every man perspective on the case. He longs to help in anyway we can and we can see the impact the Zodiac has on the city through Graysmith. But his desire to help turns into his obsession as Graysmith seemingly becomes Zodiac's final victim when his desire for the truth leads him on his own investigation which he intends to use to write a book on the subject. Graysmith digs deeper than anyone else and eventually alienates his family in his pursuit of the truth. In this pursuit Gyllenhaal is phenomenal as he plays Graysmith as a simple, uncomplicated newspaper artist. He is funny without being comical and serious without seeming strong. It's his performance that carries the movie and keeps us interested in Graysmiths discoveries even as we know there can not be any true climax.
The cast is tremendous, but with this being a Fincher film I have to acknowledge that it is Fincher's commitment to his craft that truly makes everything work. Telling a two and a half hour story that is incapable of providing a satisfactory ending is no small task and yet Fincher accomplishes this feat almost effortlessly. If that's not impressive enough, Fincher even avoids the typical serial killer cliches of gruesome murders and blood stained corpses as even the violence in the film is subdued (at least by Fincher standards). As it stands I would probably place Fincher among my top 5 favorite directors of all time and watching this again I am reminded of why he belongs in that classification. I will resist calling this his best film only because I know I feel that way at the end of Se7en or Fight Club or Social Network. Still, the film stands along side films like The Assassination of Jesse James as a purely director driven piece of story telling. It is uncompromising, unwilling to throw the audience a bone or a cheap thrill. Instead, Fincher knows exactly what he wants out of the film and delivers it brilliant fashion reminding us of what can happen when genius is left unobstructed.
Wednesday, November 7, 2012
Zombieland
Directed by Ruben Fleischer and James L. Frachon
RT score: 90%
2009
I see no point in comparing Zombieland to Shaun of the Dead so I want to avoid that right off the bat. Yes, both can be considered romantic comedies set in a world infected by fleshing eating zombies but which seems to make them forever connected but really they each deserve to be viewed as separate entities.
And with that in mind, one of the things I appreciate about the making of Zombieland is the efficiency with which the film is made. Too often a film like this will under cut it's own momentum by feeling a need to explain where the virus came from or spending too much time on back stories of things like that. I love that Zombieland is an efficient comedy that happened to be a perfect remedy for me during a stretch when I was stressed out by work and school when I was able to make time to see it in theaters. In an era where almost very film clocks in at 2 hours, there is something nice about the pacing here and the fact that by the time the 85 minutes or so are complete you feel like you get everything you could have possibly wanted and nothing you didn't want.
The film is also great for the performances. Zombieland combined with The Social Network has made me a huge Jesse Eisenberg fan. Woody Harrelson is phenomenal as the no non-sense twinkie seeking Tallahasse and Emma Stone, well, Emma Stone is nearly perfect as the girl who will give you a million reasons not to trust her and you'll still go back for more.
The follows Eisenberg and his list of rules for survival in Zombieland. He is trying to find a way back to Columbus to see if his family is still there when he crossed paths with Tallahassee. The two form your classic odd couple as they agree to travel together and eventually cross paths with Emma Stone and her sister how attempt to hustle and con their way to the west coast and Pacific Playland (Disney land without the naming rights).
The stories climax takes place at Pacific Play land were we get an incredible mix of zombie killing madness while maintaining the films sense of humor. That is the stories climax, but for me the films climax is Bill Murray's cameo. I have loved Bill Murray for years and this cameo is off the charts great. Harrelson instantly turns into a blubbering superfan while Emma Stone just stands there dumbstruck. They both react exactly the same way I assume the two people reading this would and it is simply about 5 minutes that feels like a tribute to the awesomeness that is Bill Murray. I love this movie, I love the end, but honestly I could probably watch the 5 minutes with Bill Murray a million times and never get tired of it. It's a great a tribute to a man that has been brilliant for so long and while the whole movie is great it's this part alone that makes the movie so awesome.
RT score: 90%
2009
I see no point in comparing Zombieland to Shaun of the Dead so I want to avoid that right off the bat. Yes, both can be considered romantic comedies set in a world infected by fleshing eating zombies but which seems to make them forever connected but really they each deserve to be viewed as separate entities.
And with that in mind, one of the things I appreciate about the making of Zombieland is the efficiency with which the film is made. Too often a film like this will under cut it's own momentum by feeling a need to explain where the virus came from or spending too much time on back stories of things like that. I love that Zombieland is an efficient comedy that happened to be a perfect remedy for me during a stretch when I was stressed out by work and school when I was able to make time to see it in theaters. In an era where almost very film clocks in at 2 hours, there is something nice about the pacing here and the fact that by the time the 85 minutes or so are complete you feel like you get everything you could have possibly wanted and nothing you didn't want.
The film is also great for the performances. Zombieland combined with The Social Network has made me a huge Jesse Eisenberg fan. Woody Harrelson is phenomenal as the no non-sense twinkie seeking Tallahasse and Emma Stone, well, Emma Stone is nearly perfect as the girl who will give you a million reasons not to trust her and you'll still go back for more.
The follows Eisenberg and his list of rules for survival in Zombieland. He is trying to find a way back to Columbus to see if his family is still there when he crossed paths with Tallahassee. The two form your classic odd couple as they agree to travel together and eventually cross paths with Emma Stone and her sister how attempt to hustle and con their way to the west coast and Pacific Playland (Disney land without the naming rights).
The stories climax takes place at Pacific Play land were we get an incredible mix of zombie killing madness while maintaining the films sense of humor. That is the stories climax, but for me the films climax is Bill Murray's cameo. I have loved Bill Murray for years and this cameo is off the charts great. Harrelson instantly turns into a blubbering superfan while Emma Stone just stands there dumbstruck. They both react exactly the same way I assume the two people reading this would and it is simply about 5 minutes that feels like a tribute to the awesomeness that is Bill Murray. I love this movie, I love the end, but honestly I could probably watch the 5 minutes with Bill Murray a million times and never get tired of it. It's a great a tribute to a man that has been brilliant for so long and while the whole movie is great it's this part alone that makes the movie so awesome.
Zoolander
Directed by Ben Stiller
Rottentomatoes score:64%
2001
Once again I am going to give this blog thing a shot. The last attempt was destined to fail as the concept of starting with my worst or least favorites films made it hard to want to continue after getting through Ocean's 13 and knowing Napoleon Dynamite would be next. So, here we go with a third incarnation of the AtMyMovies blog. I'll be doing reverse alphabetical order and focusing in part on what I remember about seeing the film a first time as any critiques of the film. I'm also cementing my movie nerdom by including the director, RT score and year it was released at the start of each post. So, without further ado we start with Zoolander.
I tend to think of Zoolander as a poor man's Anchorman. Released 3 years prior to Anchorman I think many people forget that this was one of the first significant roles Will Ferrell had in a movie up until that point. And, like Anchorman, the funniest lines are delivered so dryly that you don't even laugh the first time you see because your first reaction is 'he just said what?'
While Will Ferrell is great, the film centers around star and director Ben Stiller as Derek Zoolander, an almost inconceivably vapid self-centered male model who is devastated when he loses the VH1 Male Model of the Year award to new comer Hansel (he's so hot right now). Derek plans on retiring after a fluke gasoline fight accident kills his male model friends but is convinced to return when Mugatu (Ferrell) recruits Derek for his new show while secretly planning to brain watch Derek and turn him into an assassin trained to kill the Prime Minister of Malaysia.
Yes, this film is as absurd (if not more) than the above paragraph gives it credit for. Owen Wilson is equal to Ben Stiller in playing a painfully self centered male model who is every bit as disconnected from reality as Derek. The two must overcome their own idiocy along with a reporter named Matilda played by Christine Taylor who is charged with the role of maintaining a straight face while Stiller and Wilson compete to see who can out stupid the other.
By the end of the movie we've seen Derek working in coal mines, competing in underground walk-offs and building a school for children who don't read so good. It's all absurd and it gets funnier every time you watch it. I still think Zoolander is comparable to Anchorman in the sense that the first time I saw it the only thing I really laughed at was the gasoline fight and, much like Anchorman, the more I watched the more I picked up on and the funnier the movie gets. Just watching it again I find myself quoting the movie for a week straight. Line's like 'he's so hot right now' and 'really ridiculously good looking' continue to work their way into my daily language and for me that's the best thing I can say about a comedy.
Rottentomatoes score:64%
2001
Once again I am going to give this blog thing a shot. The last attempt was destined to fail as the concept of starting with my worst or least favorites films made it hard to want to continue after getting through Ocean's 13 and knowing Napoleon Dynamite would be next. So, here we go with a third incarnation of the AtMyMovies blog. I'll be doing reverse alphabetical order and focusing in part on what I remember about seeing the film a first time as any critiques of the film. I'm also cementing my movie nerdom by including the director, RT score and year it was released at the start of each post. So, without further ado we start with Zoolander.
I tend to think of Zoolander as a poor man's Anchorman. Released 3 years prior to Anchorman I think many people forget that this was one of the first significant roles Will Ferrell had in a movie up until that point. And, like Anchorman, the funniest lines are delivered so dryly that you don't even laugh the first time you see because your first reaction is 'he just said what?'
While Will Ferrell is great, the film centers around star and director Ben Stiller as Derek Zoolander, an almost inconceivably vapid self-centered male model who is devastated when he loses the VH1 Male Model of the Year award to new comer Hansel (he's so hot right now). Derek plans on retiring after a fluke gasoline fight accident kills his male model friends but is convinced to return when Mugatu (Ferrell) recruits Derek for his new show while secretly planning to brain watch Derek and turn him into an assassin trained to kill the Prime Minister of Malaysia.
Yes, this film is as absurd (if not more) than the above paragraph gives it credit for. Owen Wilson is equal to Ben Stiller in playing a painfully self centered male model who is every bit as disconnected from reality as Derek. The two must overcome their own idiocy along with a reporter named Matilda played by Christine Taylor who is charged with the role of maintaining a straight face while Stiller and Wilson compete to see who can out stupid the other.
By the end of the movie we've seen Derek working in coal mines, competing in underground walk-offs and building a school for children who don't read so good. It's all absurd and it gets funnier every time you watch it. I still think Zoolander is comparable to Anchorman in the sense that the first time I saw it the only thing I really laughed at was the gasoline fight and, much like Anchorman, the more I watched the more I picked up on and the funnier the movie gets. Just watching it again I find myself quoting the movie for a week straight. Line's like 'he's so hot right now' and 'really ridiculously good looking' continue to work their way into my daily language and for me that's the best thing I can say about a comedy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
