Sunday, December 30, 2012

Winter Movie Breakdown

THE TWILIGHT SAGA: BREAKING DAWN - PART 2


I don’t have much to say about this that wasn’t covered by the corresponding episode of ‘How Did This Get Made?’ I did have a favorite moment, however, and it came before the film even started. An ad for THE HUNGER GAMES: CATCHING FIRE came on, and it was nothing more than the title. There was a mother and young daughter sitting behind me. The mother said, “That didn’t show anything.” The daughter, unfazed in her enthusiasm, replied “I know. It’s just a teaser.” This is why I love the internet. It has not only taught a child what to expect from a teaser trailer, it has taught her the proper term, while her mother sits beside her, stymied and frustrated by the very same thing.

THE HOBBIT: AN UNEXPECTED JOURNEY


There is nothing really wrong with this movie, but to be perfectly honest, it ultimately felt like watching outtakes from THE LORD OF THE RINGS trilogy. I ended up falling asleep a couple of times, mostly during the layover at the Elvish village. The problem at the root of all of this is obviously hacking one book into three films. I have not read The Hobbit, but having seen this film, I can attest to the fact that there is not enough content to spread over three three-hour films, and when that happens, you end up with a flat installment in the name of more money (see also: THE TWILIGHT SAGA: BREAKING DAWN - PART 1). Obviously they are saving things like the dragon as a big bad for a future film, but that only feels like a rub after three hours of buildup and a bunch of troll fights. I liked the movie okay, but by the end I was excited for what was coming, which isn’t coming anytime soon. Three hours is more than enough time to tell the story of a single book.

JACK REACHER


Garbage in, garbage out. Movies made from disposable novels can seldom rise above their source material, and JACK REACHER is no exception. It strikes me as the kind of book people buy in an airport because they’re going to be trapped in a metal tube in the sky for six hours and throw away immediately after deboarding. The fact that it was written and directed by Christopher McQuarrie is even more depressing, seeing as how he has written a few crackerjack scripts, and wrote and directed THE WAY OF THE GUN, which is a minor masterpiece. This, however, is mostly a lifeless mush with a few highpoints and some inspired casting, offset by totally forgettable actors (or worse, memorably bad ones). The lead actress is total garbage, and I have no idea how she was deemed appropriate to carry a $60 million picture. I had tried to diagnose her with Sondra Locke Syndrome, assuming that she may either be Mrs. McQuarrie, or the new Mrs. Cruise, but even that proved false. Clint Eastwood may have shoved his wife into a lot of lead characters that she didn’t have the skill to play (and whose roles often required her to be beaten and raped, which is an essay unto itself) but he also made a ton of potboilers that moved quickly and entertainingly. Not that this movie is poorly constructed or devoid of fun (there is a chase scene in the middle that is well done, and the introduction of Sandy is the only real bright spot of dialogue), it’s just without any authorial stamp whatsoever. Scenes that could be interesting, such as the attempted kidnapping of Reacher at Jeb’s house, try for a sort of RAISING ARIZONA fight-in-a-cramped-space humor, but fall totally flat because of the poor staging. Michael Raymond-James is always a welcome sight, even eating his hand, and I love Werner Herzog, but I have to say that he seems wasted in all aspects aside from screen presence, and is saddled with more affectations than Dragon in THE EIGER SANCTION. Even the surprise appearance (to anyone who didn’t read the opening credits) of Robert Duvall as Cash (!) is underwhelming. He has an actorly tic of chuckling during line readings that has grown into a crutch. I would kill to see a movie with Robert Duvall and Al Pacino where the former is not allowed to chuckle and the latter is not allowed to shout. Anyhow, I guess what I’m saying is that I would have enjoyed this movie if it had been made a quarter of a century ago, starring and directed by Clint Eastwood. I would say that I hope for better from Christopher McQuarrie’s next script, but I have seen a trailer for JACK THE GIANT SLAYER, and I must say, it was one of the best Funny or Die trailers I’ve seen in years.

THIS IS 40


A very funny movie, but nearly everything I’ve seen this season has well over two hours. This could easily have been a very good 90 minute movie, instead of a good 134 minute one. Even odder, there are good bits that I have seen in ads that do not appear in the finished film. A hardnosed editor could have really made this shine. I have no idea why this needed to be a sequel to KNOCKED UP, outside of the fact that it then seems like Judd Apatow has no choice but to cast his wife and children as the stars of a major motion picture. Why this is a good thing, I have no idea, as it would seem to put your children in a tough spot. I would imagine that as a powerful writer-director, you would want to somehow make your children as ‘normal’ as possible, not to cast them into the public eye and under the scrutiny of bitter internet scolds like myself. It seems sort of like setting them up for failure, as normally they may or may not have decided to act, and then be forced to live or die by that decision. Now they have acted, and while they aren’t bad at it, I can’t imagine them being cast by anyone they weren’t spawned by. I understand putting your children in a film, but in the Oliver Stone fashion. His son is in most all of his films, and if you watch them in succession, you can sort of watch his boy grow up, but he doesn’t give him the co-lead -- he puts him (mostly) in the background. Learn from Coppola’s mistakes. He cast Sophia in THE GODFATHER as the baby being christened and everything was fine. He then cast Sophia as a co-lead in THE GODFATHER: PART III, and the rest is history. Also, I have never understood directors who have their wives appear nude on film, but I guess I’m just a jealous prude. Outside of the women in the family, Paul Rudd is great as always and in many ways is the glue that holds the film together, but he is sort of miscast in that the film is written for a Judd Apatow-type, and many of the complaints Leslie Mann has about him seem out of place, namely that he is fat and needs to stop eating cupcakes. This is even central to her forced shrill manic breakdown at the climax of the film, but since Paul Rudd is a handsome fit actor, it doesn’t play. Add to this the presence of the great Robert Smigel, who seems like a perfect doppelgänger for Judd Apatow, and you further wonder why this had to be a sequel. Write a film about your life. No one is saying you can’t, especially if it is very funny, as this film often is. But if you are a schlubby Jewish guy, don’t cast Paul Rudd in your stead. There are a ton of fantastic supporting players, and sadly many of them are underserved. Michael Ian Black, Lena Dunham and Chris O’Dowd all have fantastic bits (especially O’Dowd, who had me wishing the whole film had been set at Rudd’s failing record company) but get less screen time combined than Megan Fox, who is nice to look at but not funny in the least. In truth, a film starring Paul Rudd, Chris O’Dowd, Lena Dunham, Robert Smigel, Albert Brooks (who is always great to see on the big screen, and overdue to write and direct another jewel soon) and John Lithgow (who gets to play it 99% straight) should be the best thing I’ve seen all year. This is also apparently the year of Melissa McCarthy, who is funny in this, but was the star of nearly every preview preceding this picture.

LES MISÉRABLES


This is an odd one. It seems like common sense to say that familiarity will change how you look at a film -- i.e. if you’ve read the book, you’ll look at the film differently. But with a property that has had so many iterations over the years, and indeed is still a staple of the theater and an ever-changing entity, it seems to hit everyone differently. As someone who has not read the book, not seen any prior film adaptations, nor heard any of the musical, I will say that I liked it. I have heard people say that the staging was off; I did not have a problem with it. I have heard people say that Russell Crowe’s voice isn’t formidable enough to play Javert; I found him to be, after Anne Hathaway, the best of the bunch. Anne Hathaway is fantastic, but, again, having no experience with the material, I didn’t know how small her part would be. And knowing that the singing was done live makes her single take ability that much more moving. Having never heard this renowned musical before (and being a fan of musicals in general) I have to say -- this one has a lot of flat, lifeless songs padding it out. There are a handful of fantastic, moving, catchy tunes that are no doubt what people talk about and remember, but a great deal of it was memorable only for its plodding nature. In the second half of the film, we get Eddie Redmayne, the first real singer out of his depth. It’s not that he’s bad, in fact he’s often quite good, but occasionally his voice dips into a weird Dudley Do-Right glottal-fake-deepness that is distracting to the point of humorousness, especially when he is paired with Amanda Seyfried, whose voice is unreal in its heights, sounding at times like a little bird. Any appearance of Sacha Baron Cohen and Helena Bonham Carter serves as a breath of fresh air, injecting humor and a criminal lightness to an overlong film (although the joke about not knowing Cosette’s name could have been retired after two iterations). Length has been a factor to nearly every film I’ve seen this season, and it is a disturbing trend. Outside of a true epic that demands a vast canvas and a sprawling cast, 90 minutes is the number to live and die by. It is said to be the length of dreams, and I really think there’s something to that. I don’t know that anyone has ever said that a movie was too short, and there were damn sure a number of lifeless songs that could have been easily scrapped. As an aside, I have only ever had a few experiences go bad with a movie on film (when seeing BEAN, the film literally melted during the trailer for THE MAN WHO KNEW TOO LITTLE and they had to abort the screening, and there were technical issues that delayed my viewing of THE LION KING during which I encouraged the theater full of children to scream their displeasure toward the projectionist booth) but both films I saw this Christmas (LES MISÉRABLES and DJANGO UNCHAINED) had technical difficulties. There were two flubs during the opening number alone, which is downright inexcusable when all they have to do is press play. Digital revolution my balls.

DJANGO UNCHAINED


A ton of fun, but a little uneven. DiCaprio is the standout, but really I have to praise anyone who was brave enough to get behind this literal paint-the-walls-red revenge epic. I am going to see it a couple more times before writing an extended review. I will say that it seems like it would pair well with THE MAN WITH THE IRON FISTS, as they share thematic concerns, a flair for genre blending, and unusual casting that works.

Friday, December 21, 2012

KILLING THEM SOFTLY

Set in the near past (specifically the precipice of the 2008 elections) and often hammering a little too hard on the financial hole the nation found itself in, KILLING THEM SOFTLY presents us with a handful of petty criminals as stand-ins for the nation as a whole. If you paired it with SEVEN PSYCHOPATHS, another of my favorites from this past year, you would get a pretty accurate snapshot of where America’s headspace is at these days. Violent and desperate, funny and sad, openly greedy while still compassionate to a known sociopath. America. The perfect dog-napping double feature, both films are also follow-ups to past years favorites, namely the pitch perfect IN BRUGES from Martin McDonagh and the hauntingly beautiful THE ASSASSINATION OF JESSE JAMES BY THE COWARD ROBERT FORD by Andrew Dominik. KILLING THEM SOFTLY is equally beautiful, albeit in a much more grubby, 1970s-tinted-sunglasses fashion, often lavishing gorgeous attention on horrific segments.


I’ll be spoiling it softly after the jump.

Saturday, November 17, 2012

LINCOLN

The first two names that I ever associated with the making of films were George Lucas and Steven Spielberg. They were involved, in one capacity or another, in many of the entertainments that I viewed time and again as a small child. It took quite a while for the Lucas love to fade (I imagine that I was the only twelve-year-old in existence excited for the release of RADIOLAND MURDERS), but I still hold that soft spot for Spielberg. He has had his share of let downs, and beginning in the early 80s, he seems to hit a creative spurt every ten years that lasts for a handful of films. By that theory, this or next year should be that creative streak, though I have yet to see  THE ADVENTURES OF TINTIN, WARHORSE or MUNICH (which I am watching once this essay is finished, and would disprove this unfounded theory should I like it).
 
 
There is nothing in LINCOLN that signified a Steven Spielberg picture. This is not to say that it is poorly constructed or without authorship, just that the material is so staid and well worn, and little is done to shake it up or make it fresh. It was presented as sturdy awards bait, and it is. Daniel Day-Lewis, great as always, does have an unconventional take on Lincoln. His voice is high and reedy, and he is denied many of the landmark biopic moments that one would assume you would see in a Lincoln film.
 
Historical spoilers after the jump.
 

Wednesday, November 14, 2012

Sometimes Things Need To Be Reset

Anyone who has ever worked in the service industry knows the dread associated with the entrance of a group of teenage boys. No other animal has the same mixture of cocksure ignorance - the arrogance of one who has it all figured out. Why doesn’t the rest of the world just live off of mommy and daddy, drink cheap beer and mock anything that threatens to hold value or meaning? In THE COMEDY, we are confronted with a particularly scathing portrait of this generation. Coming of age, once relegated to those teenage years, can now be pushed further and further into the future, until fully grown men elicit only disgust and exasperation from those who were forced long ago to actually abandon childish things. Clothed exclusively in cutoffs, button-ups, plastic sunglasses and irony, they are unable and afraid to drop their guard and be caught in anything resembling an actual moment of connection or emotion. They speak with a detached cadence and much of what they say has the rhythm of humor, but to laugh would be to convey a feeling, to betray the indifferent façade they struggle so hard to maintain.


Spoilers and my every tenth thought after the jump.
 

Sunday, November 11, 2012

SKYFALL

Bond. There have been twenty five James Bond films in fifty years. They have had peaks and valleys, but overall the franchise is possibly the most consistent series of movies this side of Zatoichi. SKYFALL is not only the latest, but the third success in a row, putting Daniel Craig up with Sean Connery in the pantheon of best Bonds.
 
 
Let the sky fall after the jump.
 

Thursday, November 8, 2012

I Have Seen The Future

I live in a bull shit ritzy part of town at the moment. Well, more of a ritzy bull shit town. Offshoot really. It’s a suburb separated by a bridge. It’s a township that shouldn’t be allowed to exist. There are many of those around here. Tacoma should be a large, sprawling mess, but every single neighborhood thinks of itself as its own sovereign unit. Parkland, Fircrest, Lakewood - we all know what you really are. Because it is separated by a bridge, Gig Harbor has a bit more of a legitimate claim to being a different town, but fuck that. Gig Harbor is only here to give assholes in Fircrest something to aspire to, and for even bigger assholes on Anderson Island to look down upon. It’s all part of the same sewage system; if you were really as high brow as you think you are, you wouldn’t live here at all. (Nothing tickles me more than someone who thinks they’re king shit in a tiny town. My former boss was a Tacoma City Councilman. He acted as though he had been elected Emperor, never realizing that most viewed his position as less than or equal to President of the Hair Club for Men.) Not that I hate this area -- far from it, but I do realize that at best Tacoma has sort of a scruffy, bathtub speed sort of charm. You can either accept that and move on, or you can bag it up and call it cocaine, but the latter is only going to get you jumped in a transit center bathroom for putting on airs.

I'm not just the President -- I'm also a member
 

Sunday, November 4, 2012

WRECK-IT RALPH

WRECK-IT RALPH is the best Disney animated feature of the last twenty years. Personally, I would double that, as the last one I loved this much was 1973’s ROBIN HOOD. It is very clever and full of little jokes and references, but doesn’t depend fully on gimmicks and in-jokes to carry it along. It is warm and funny and clever in equal measure and has a stellar voice cast.


Spoilers after the jump.

THE MAN WITH THE IRON FISTS

I was fortunate enough to see RZA’s directorial debut on the big screen this weekend, and though I never thought I’d type those words, I did enjoy myself quite a bit.
 
 
I can’t really spoil a kung-fu movie, but a quick review after the jump.

Saturday, November 3, 2012

FLIGHT


I was concerned after the opening of FLIGHT. It seems almost impossible to follow the harrowing, realistically rendered crash landing of a commercial jet. I can imagine a lesser filmmaker beginning in medias res, making us wait until the final deposition for a depiction of the titular flight, but Robert Zemeckis knows what he has in the central performance from Denzel Washington, and isn’t afraid of losing us in the following two hours. And, to be fair, there is a scene toward the end that I would argue is as electric as the opening, but I’m getting ahead of things.

Some FLIGHT spoilers after the jump.

Small Mercies

I have been depressed lately. There really aren’t any two ways about it. It does not surprise me at all that my last post is from five months ago. It is dated nine days after I had moved into my new place. It’s not really a place, though, and it is definitely not mine. I am renting a room. I have become sort of a de facto maid here, cleaning up after people whose general tidiness level falls well below my own. Let it be known that I am not some kind of neat freak, far from it, in fact. But things do gross me out. I like to be able to walk across a floor bare-foot without anything sticking to the soles of my feet. I enjoy a clean kitchen before and after I cook and eat. And I believe whole-heartedly that one should never, ever clip their toenails anywhere but in the bathroom, and that anyone with half a conscience would clean up any stray shrapnel that may have shot off.

Springtime fresh...
 

Saturday, June 9, 2012

Saturday, May 19, 2012

October, 2011

BATTLESHIP


Good lord, that boy looks like a Golden Retriever.

I’m going to be keeping up with new releases this summer. This week I saw BATTLESHIP so you don’t have to. Spoilers after the jump.

Wednesday, August 17, 2011

Only If It's Neat

I’m not going to lie. It’s been a really shitty couple of months. Year, actually. Decade? It’s been a long road. It’s not important to get into here. And just when it looks like something good might happen, I manage to snatch defeat from the jaws of certain victory. I guess I should focus on the positive. At least I’m getting better at destroying the things I love. Expedient. Anyway, I’ve lost much of my appetite for watching movies at home lately. If you know me (which you don’t, because this is the internet) you know that’s not right. I have made it to the theater four times in the last week, which is also out of the ordinary. TABLOID, THE TRIP, and PAGE ONE are all very good. 30 MINUTES OR LESS was a very enjoyable midnight movie, which I laughed at quite a bit. Nothing revolutionary. Your mileage may vary. In keeping with my tradition of not writing about new movies, I will not be saying more on these films (yet…never say never, although I never posted my pages of thoughts on THE TREE OF LIFE, and don’t plan to until I’ve seen it more than twice).
Isn't this great? It's like The Weekly Reader did a serialized version of FANDANGO.
Instead, I’m going to focus on 1985’s FANDANGO. Minor spoilers after the jump, along with my apologies for the quality of the screencaps. I do not possess the proper technology for capturing from a VHS.

Saturday, February 12, 2011

Come On & Buy a Bottle of Twister Wine

[I should mention that this is for the Michael Mann Blogathon going on at Seeti Maar- Diary of a Movie Lover]
 
Spoilers for THE JERICHO MILE (1979) after the jump.

Tuesday, February 8, 2011

Shell Game

There is a convenience store across the street from my apartment. Behind the register is a photograph of the manager. I wish I could somehow convince the midnight-to-six clerk to sell me the photo, or if someday my life hits the skids I can just hold the place up and take the picture, too. Neither of these things have happened yet. But anytime I see the photo, or the woman herself, I cannot help but think of this.
 

Monday, February 7, 2011

It would be because I would like you to

“God’s terrific. He dropped a church roof on 34 of his worshippers last Wednesday night in Texas as they were groveling through a hymn to his majesty. Don’t you think that felt good?”
 
Spoilers for MANHUNTER (1986) after the jump.