This is the week I was dreading. The first week in this self-avowed 'challenge' where I was already biased against enjoying the movie. Fortunately for me, I later learned that most of the people who saw it, biased or not, did not enjoy it!
Did you know that this film was based on a very popular novel?
Yeah, neither did I.
Water For Elephants has a very basic premise: A young man who tragically loses his family finds love in all the wrong places. Namely, a traveling circus during the Great Depression AND Prohibition. This movie has it all. A violent, powerful man who has anger issues and may or may not have people killed on a regular basis. A married woman who does not always enjoy her lot in life. A bright young man full of passion and empathy. Throw in a crippled old drunk who hasn't seen his boy in years, and you've got a real Oscar movie here....oh crap! There IS a drunk old man who gets paralyzed! So how is it that this movie still stinks?
Now look, I'm not against dramas. I really like the great ones. The Godfather, Shawshank Redemption, Almost Famous, The Royal Tenenbaums. These are all arguably fantastic, dramatic movies with amazing characterization. It's the characterization part that Water For Elephants lacks.
Let me give you this handy-dandy ranking chart, showing this film's actors from best to worst:
1.) Hal Holbrook, the really old man who plays the modern-day protagonist.
2.) Christoph Waltz, our awesome anger-issues antagonist, August.
3.) The freaking elephant.
4.) Everyone who isn't the hero or the love interest.
5.) Reese Witherspoon.
6.) Robert 'I have three facial expressions' Pattinson.
When you're making a movie that hinges on audiences believing that your main characters are falling in love with each other despite all odds, and your love interests show more passion when dealing with the circus animals...well, you've got a recipe for making me shift restlessly. Plus, despite the fact that the whole thing takes place in a circus, you hardly get to enjoy any of the possible fun that a circus usually provides. Other than the love triangle, a dwarf and a drunk old man, there might as well be nobody else in this film.
Actually, I think a love triangle between the dwarf, the old man and the bearded lady would've been a hell of a lot more entertaining.
Unfortunately for Robert Pattinson, whom I will now refer to as Mr. Sparkles, we now have definitive proof that he is not the second coming of James Dean. This man's idea of looking lovesick is most people's idea of showing everyone in the room that you're about to pass gas. The only believable emotion I saw on his face was confusion, which I imagine came from when the director was tried to convince him that his character was somehow better than Christoph Waltz's awesomely played ringleader. Seriously, even before they started filming this movie, everyone on set and in the audience should have known better.
At one point, Mr. Sparkles was washing off some clown make-up that had been put on him the night before. (Never get drunk with circus folk, kids!) Suddenly, I noticed that he had really, really red lips. I laughed to myself, thinking that he was doing the rest of the scene with lipstick still on. Then I saw them, bright and cherry-red, in the next scene, and the next, and the next. What the hell?
Out of a sense of morbid curiosity, I Googled Robert Pattinson before writing this article. Sure enough, the man has disturbingly red lips. Combine this with his strange, pale complexion, and it's no wonder that the poor kid was chosen to play the man who would single-handedly ensure vampires are never seen as awesome and cool and violently fun ever again. In this film it's just distracting, as it looks like he's been into his would-be girlfriend's purse constantly.
On that note, I would like to admit to the three things I have done in my life that I really, truly regret.
1. Never having a chance to date Christina Ricci.
2. Preventing an International Peace Treaty from being signed.
3. Google-ing Robert Pattinson.
In conclusion, feel free to see this movie if you actually liked Dumbo Drop. Somehow this movie isn't quite THAT bad. But if you want to see a fun and yet less-disturbing circus movie, check out the old black and white Freaks.
Saturday, April 23, 2011
Thursday, April 21, 2011
Coming Up Next!
Water For Elephants is the 'lucky' movie for this weekend. Since no obvious HUGE BLOCKBUSTER comes out tomorrow, Google was the go-to guy. There is no way to be pleased, since it basically came down to Madea's Huge Ginormous Fifteenth Sequel vs. Isn't That Dude A Sparkly Vampire? The latter won by about 7 million hits.
Now don't let this fool you, as Madea only brought in 1.2 million hits. Excitement is not high this weekend, and I'm willing to bet Rio will keep the top spot at the box office.
Anyways, I'll be catching Water and Depressing Circus's tomorrow, and while I try to bring as little bias into a movie as possible.....well, seriously. Look at it.
Now don't let this fool you, as Madea only brought in 1.2 million hits. Excitement is not high this weekend, and I'm willing to bet Rio will keep the top spot at the box office.
Anyways, I'll be catching Water and Depressing Circus's tomorrow, and while I try to bring as little bias into a movie as possible.....well, seriously. Look at it.
Sunday, April 17, 2011
Scream 4
They've finally done it! Just like all famous horror franchises before it, Scream 4 has successfully become a fantastic comedy.
Alternative tagline: Can a movie be too meta for its own good?
I went into Scream 4 with high expectations. That is, I actually had expectations. I loved the crap out of the original Scream, and Scream 2 was one of those rare horror sequels that managed to be almost as good as the original. Scream 3 never happened.
Here is the problem: When the original movie in your franchise is best remembered as being a groundbreaking film that not only managed to be scary and suspenseful in its own right, but also cleverly commented on the predictability and laughable plots of your own genre, how do you up the ante?
Scream 4's answer? Comment on the genre even more! This could even have been called Scream: The Next Generation, because all the original character types were brought back in the form of a younger generation. The horror nerd, the douchebag (ex)boyfriend, the rookie cop(s), the hot chick....all new victims for the Scream grinder.
I will give Wes Craven credit. He managed to keep the dialog sharp and witty, if not overly ridiculous. The characters were at least interesting, in the 'yeah I hope that one doesn't die too soon because I don't hate them as much as this other character' kind of way. It's just the amount of effort that he went to in order to try and stay relevant. Case in point: The Scream movie does not actually start until 15 minutes in. Yeah, I'm not going to ruin it except to say that they spend so much time- both verbally and visually- discussing the state of horror movies, that the main plot will often grind to a halt for five minutes at a pop.
Also, the damn thing pulls an AI and has too many endings.
Check it out if you like laughter with your slasher flicks. I especially liked how they snuck in Robert Rodriguez's name, and a comment about Bruce Willis got the whole theater laughing. However, if you want tension, go climb your roof and then stare at the ground. It will probably be more frightening.
Scream 4 is better than Scream 3, but nowhere near as fun or original as Scream 1. Yeah, using the other movies in a franchise is cheap, but so was half the dialog.
Alternative tagline: Can a movie be too meta for its own good?
I went into Scream 4 with high expectations. That is, I actually had expectations. I loved the crap out of the original Scream, and Scream 2 was one of those rare horror sequels that managed to be almost as good as the original. Scream 3 never happened.
Here is the problem: When the original movie in your franchise is best remembered as being a groundbreaking film that not only managed to be scary and suspenseful in its own right, but also cleverly commented on the predictability and laughable plots of your own genre, how do you up the ante?
Scream 4's answer? Comment on the genre even more! This could even have been called Scream: The Next Generation, because all the original character types were brought back in the form of a younger generation. The horror nerd, the douchebag (ex)boyfriend, the rookie cop(s), the hot chick....all new victims for the Scream grinder.
I will give Wes Craven credit. He managed to keep the dialog sharp and witty, if not overly ridiculous. The characters were at least interesting, in the 'yeah I hope that one doesn't die too soon because I don't hate them as much as this other character' kind of way. It's just the amount of effort that he went to in order to try and stay relevant. Case in point: The Scream movie does not actually start until 15 minutes in. Yeah, I'm not going to ruin it except to say that they spend so much time- both verbally and visually- discussing the state of horror movies, that the main plot will often grind to a halt for five minutes at a pop.
Also, the damn thing pulls an AI and has too many endings.
Check it out if you like laughter with your slasher flicks. I especially liked how they snuck in Robert Rodriguez's name, and a comment about Bruce Willis got the whole theater laughing. However, if you want tension, go climb your roof and then stare at the ground. It will probably be more frightening.
Scream 4 is better than Scream 3, but nowhere near as fun or original as Scream 1. Yeah, using the other movies in a franchise is cheap, but so was half the dialog.
Saturday, April 16, 2011
The Rules/The Conspirator
The Conspirator was not my movie of the week. Scream 4 was. However, one of my (three....five?) readers told me to watch it, so I did. They may wish I hadn't....
Anyways, there has been some confusion as to how I am going to narrow down what a mainstream movie is, especially as the summer season starts throwing movies left and right, like angry chimpanzees with a pile of poo. The answer? Mothalovin' Google. What better way to judge the popularity of an upcoming film than checking out the Google hits? This week, The Conspirator had 3.2 million hits, and Scream 4 had 8 million. Kids movies don't count for two reasons: First off, the Google rule is completely 'effed by kids movies. Type in 'Rio movie' and you get 136 million hits. Secondly, I dig cartoons. Always have, always will. I own damn near everything Pixar has ever put out. Cloudy With A Chance of Meatballs was awesome. Don Bluth is my hero. The only exception? CGI-live action hybrids. Gah, I hate those things. Which means I will eventually have to suffer through The Smurfs movie. Craaaaaaaaaap.
Now on to the review!
This one will be short and sweet. The Conspirator is a historical drama about the trial of one Mary Surratt, the sole female charged with aiding President Lincoln's killers. It primarily focuses on her lawyer, Frederick Aiken (played by James McAvoy) as he slowly slides from despising her for what she's done to defending her with all his might...while still despising what she 'may' have done. As a history piece, it is fantastic. It does a great job of capturing the look and feel of that time in American history. The clothes, textures and set-pieces all look as if they were teleported from the past. Even Justin Long's ridiculous mustache looks as if it was secretly groomed 150 years ago.
Unfortunately, as a drama it fails miserably. Not a single character is fleshed out enough to cause the viewer to give a shit. Everything the judges do in the film is detestable. The prosecution resorts to dirty tricks. The Secretary of War, played by a nigh-unrecognizable Kevin Kline, is a dastardly villain who reminds one of Dick Cheney. The things that happen to James McAvoy's character are unfair and bigoted. What they do to Mary Surratt is terrible and unconscionable. The list of atrocities is endless. Unfortunately, director Robert Redford forgot to make the audience actually care. He was so wrapped up in the facts that he forgot to give his actors meaningful dialog, or facial expressions, or...y'know....direction.
The lines that can be drawn between The Conspirator and what is going on in the Obama administration, things that were started in the Bush administration, are clear and obvious. This film could have been a fantastic example of government gone wrong, of what happens when selfishness and fearmongering replaces common sense, law and duty. Alas, all it manages to be is a dry, dusty piece of history. One day it will be played commercial free on The History Channel, and on that day, The Conspirator will have found its one true home.
Watch this movie if you love history for history's sake, because it has a better budget than most other History Channel shows. I, for one, still prefer Drunken History.
Anyways, there has been some confusion as to how I am going to narrow down what a mainstream movie is, especially as the summer season starts throwing movies left and right, like angry chimpanzees with a pile of poo. The answer? Mothalovin' Google. What better way to judge the popularity of an upcoming film than checking out the Google hits? This week, The Conspirator had 3.2 million hits, and Scream 4 had 8 million. Kids movies don't count for two reasons: First off, the Google rule is completely 'effed by kids movies. Type in 'Rio movie' and you get 136 million hits. Secondly, I dig cartoons. Always have, always will. I own damn near everything Pixar has ever put out. Cloudy With A Chance of Meatballs was awesome. Don Bluth is my hero. The only exception? CGI-live action hybrids. Gah, I hate those things. Which means I will eventually have to suffer through The Smurfs movie. Craaaaaaaaaap.
Now on to the review!
This one will be short and sweet. The Conspirator is a historical drama about the trial of one Mary Surratt, the sole female charged with aiding President Lincoln's killers. It primarily focuses on her lawyer, Frederick Aiken (played by James McAvoy) as he slowly slides from despising her for what she's done to defending her with all his might...while still despising what she 'may' have done. As a history piece, it is fantastic. It does a great job of capturing the look and feel of that time in American history. The clothes, textures and set-pieces all look as if they were teleported from the past. Even Justin Long's ridiculous mustache looks as if it was secretly groomed 150 years ago.
Unfortunately, as a drama it fails miserably. Not a single character is fleshed out enough to cause the viewer to give a shit. Everything the judges do in the film is detestable. The prosecution resorts to dirty tricks. The Secretary of War, played by a nigh-unrecognizable Kevin Kline, is a dastardly villain who reminds one of Dick Cheney. The things that happen to James McAvoy's character are unfair and bigoted. What they do to Mary Surratt is terrible and unconscionable. The list of atrocities is endless. Unfortunately, director Robert Redford forgot to make the audience actually care. He was so wrapped up in the facts that he forgot to give his actors meaningful dialog, or facial expressions, or...y'know....direction.
The lines that can be drawn between The Conspirator and what is going on in the Obama administration, things that were started in the Bush administration, are clear and obvious. This film could have been a fantastic example of government gone wrong, of what happens when selfishness and fearmongering replaces common sense, law and duty. Alas, all it manages to be is a dry, dusty piece of history. One day it will be played commercial free on The History Channel, and on that day, The Conspirator will have found its one true home.
Watch this movie if you love history for history's sake, because it has a better budget than most other History Channel shows. I, for one, still prefer Drunken History.
Monday, April 11, 2011
Your Highness
When the funniest moments in a movie involve the recurrence of a severed appendage, you have a dire comedy indeed.
Unfortunately, I have a very hit-and-miss record with stoner movies. I love Pineapple Express, Half Baked and Grandma's Boy, but I hate the crap out of Dazed and Confused, Dude Where's My Car, and most every movie that's played after 11 p.m. on USA. (They still do that, right? Or is it nothing but reruns of Psych and Burn Notice?)
Maybe it's true. Maybe you really have to be Your 'High'ness to truly love a movie like this. Since I am active duty and intend to stay that way, I will not be running that little experiment. I can only say that when you have a comedy that relies almost completely on swearing, gay panic and dick jokes to get a laugh, then you obviously never got past the planning stage of your film.
I really can't get too deep into the plot without ruining the entire film, since the plot is only two or three sentences long. Suffice it to say that I was hoping for a lot more of Zooey Deschanel and Natalie Portman, and a lot less of sexless naked men, penises, rapists and drawings of penises.
The biggest shame is the wasted cast. Zooey Deschanel is perfectly cast as a sweet, adorable ditz, but she ends up having nothing to do for most of the film. Miss Portman gets to show off a bit of her toning and acts the closest to a straight man as this film ha,s but comes in far too late to be much more than a sword-wielding love interest. I've been a fan of James Franco for awhile, and while I have not seen Eastbound and Down, I like what little of Danny McBride I have encountered.
That makes it even worse when I ask this: How the hell were you guys not funny? Were you TOO high during filming?
Like I said earlier, I'm not a big fan of stoner flicks, but I won't risk the outcry that would arise if I placed this above Dazed and Confused, which I have always taken a lot of flak for not liking. So, Your Highness is STILL better than the Dungeons and Dragons movie where a Wayans brother played a thief, but worse (both in humor and pacing) than the SNL digital short of Natalie Portman being crazy.
Unfortunately, I have a very hit-and-miss record with stoner movies. I love Pineapple Express, Half Baked and Grandma's Boy, but I hate the crap out of Dazed and Confused, Dude Where's My Car, and most every movie that's played after 11 p.m. on USA. (They still do that, right? Or is it nothing but reruns of Psych and Burn Notice?)
Maybe it's true. Maybe you really have to be Your 'High'ness to truly love a movie like this. Since I am active duty and intend to stay that way, I will not be running that little experiment. I can only say that when you have a comedy that relies almost completely on swearing, gay panic and dick jokes to get a laugh, then you obviously never got past the planning stage of your film.
I really can't get too deep into the plot without ruining the entire film, since the plot is only two or three sentences long. Suffice it to say that I was hoping for a lot more of Zooey Deschanel and Natalie Portman, and a lot less of sexless naked men, penises, rapists and drawings of penises.
The biggest shame is the wasted cast. Zooey Deschanel is perfectly cast as a sweet, adorable ditz, but she ends up having nothing to do for most of the film. Miss Portman gets to show off a bit of her toning and acts the closest to a straight man as this film ha,s but comes in far too late to be much more than a sword-wielding love interest. I've been a fan of James Franco for awhile, and while I have not seen Eastbound and Down, I like what little of Danny McBride I have encountered.
That makes it even worse when I ask this: How the hell were you guys not funny? Were you TOO high during filming?
Like I said earlier, I'm not a big fan of stoner flicks, but I won't risk the outcry that would arise if I placed this above Dazed and Confused, which I have always taken a lot of flak for not liking. So, Your Highness is STILL better than the Dungeons and Dragons movie where a Wayans brother played a thief, but worse (both in humor and pacing) than the SNL digital short of Natalie Portman being crazy.
Sunday, April 10, 2011
Hanna
Yesterday I did a double feature. I hit the movies by myself to check out Hanna, then I met some friends for dinner and a viewing of Your Highness.
It did not go as expected, either in-theater or out.
First off, let me say that Hanna is a very well-edited film. The visuals are alternately striking and simple, and all the close-ups and zoom-outs are perfect for the scene. Additionally, the actors do a fine job, especially Cate Blanchett as a huge bitch of a government agent.
Now with the niceties out of the way, let's get down to business, shall we?
My biggest complaint is the overuse of foreshadowing. Hinting at things to come is always a fantastic idea, and in the thriller genre it is a common occurrence used to get the audience to interact with the film. If I zoom in on a lamp during an important plot scene, you will probably start wondering what I am going to use the lamp for later. Not IF I am going to use the lamp. HOW I am going to use the lamp.
Hanna of course obeys this unspoken thriller rule, and then does it too often, and too blatantly. That, my friends, is called 'telegraphing.' Not only was I able to correctly predict every single damn thing that was going to be important later in the movie, but I was also able to guess how, when, and for what purpose. Not only that, but I correctly guessed the ending of the film within 10 minutes of the beginning.
That makes for a really boring thriller.
Speaking of thrillers, how is it that I was genuinely bored about 90 minutes into the movie? I did not have any specific reason. In fact, the plot was solid, if a bit twisty-in-a-dumb-way towards the end, and like I said before, the actors were fine. Saorise Ronan, the girl playing Hanna, was convincing in her role as a bright young lady who had no practical experience in the real world, and Eric Bana has successfully convinced me that his version of The Hulk is all Ang Lee's fault.
Why was I so bored then? Maybe it's because even with the looming final battle, I had guessed so much of the movie correctly that I was afraid to even think any more, for fear of correctly guessing every single line for the rest of the film.
Now to rate the movie....I really don't think movie rankings work very well, because people are different. What I love you may hate. So giving this film a 5/10 or a 60% or a B- or some such does not mean much. Instead, I am going to rank my movies by comparing them to other films in the genre, as based on my opinion of what is good and what is bad.
So, if I were going to rank Hanna against her peers, I would put her just above Paycheck but I would recommend any movie starring Bruce Willis in its place, even Die Hard 4: Die Hardiester.
It did not go as expected, either in-theater or out.
First off, let me say that Hanna is a very well-edited film. The visuals are alternately striking and simple, and all the close-ups and zoom-outs are perfect for the scene. Additionally, the actors do a fine job, especially Cate Blanchett as a huge bitch of a government agent.
Now with the niceties out of the way, let's get down to business, shall we?
My biggest complaint is the overuse of foreshadowing. Hinting at things to come is always a fantastic idea, and in the thriller genre it is a common occurrence used to get the audience to interact with the film. If I zoom in on a lamp during an important plot scene, you will probably start wondering what I am going to use the lamp for later. Not IF I am going to use the lamp. HOW I am going to use the lamp.
Hanna of course obeys this unspoken thriller rule, and then does it too often, and too blatantly. That, my friends, is called 'telegraphing.' Not only was I able to correctly predict every single damn thing that was going to be important later in the movie, but I was also able to guess how, when, and for what purpose. Not only that, but I correctly guessed the ending of the film within 10 minutes of the beginning.
That makes for a really boring thriller.
Speaking of thrillers, how is it that I was genuinely bored about 90 minutes into the movie? I did not have any specific reason. In fact, the plot was solid, if a bit twisty-in-a-dumb-way towards the end, and like I said before, the actors were fine. Saorise Ronan, the girl playing Hanna, was convincing in her role as a bright young lady who had no practical experience in the real world, and Eric Bana has successfully convinced me that his version of The Hulk is all Ang Lee's fault.
Why was I so bored then? Maybe it's because even with the looming final battle, I had guessed so much of the movie correctly that I was afraid to even think any more, for fear of correctly guessing every single line for the rest of the film.
Now to rate the movie....I really don't think movie rankings work very well, because people are different. What I love you may hate. So giving this film a 5/10 or a 60% or a B- or some such does not mean much. Instead, I am going to rank my movies by comparing them to other films in the genre, as based on my opinion of what is good and what is bad.
So, if I were going to rank Hanna against her peers, I would put her just above Paycheck but I would recommend any movie starring Bruce Willis in its place, even Die Hard 4: Die Hardiester.
Tuesday, April 5, 2011
No Review Until The Weekend
Due to completely forseen circumstances, I failed to see any releases over the first weekend of April.
To atone for what I have done, I will be watching two potentially terrible movies this upcoming weekend.
To atone for what I have done, I will be watching two potentially terrible movies this upcoming weekend.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)