Thursday, July 29, 2010

2010 Q2 Movie Grades, G-J

Ghostbusters—BD. I had never seen Ghostbusters. I know; it’s “impossible”. But I never really had an urge to. So I watched it, and, like many of the early SNL-actor movies of the ‘80s, I wasn’t terribly impressed. It was fun, there were some good bits, but I just don’t get into those movies like my contemporaries do (especially this one, which has gained a cult-like status).


I think a lot of these Dan Ackroyd/Bill Murray/et al flicks are best when watched at the time they come out at that “magic age” kids are (10-15 yrs old), and they are remembered more fondly. I haven’t been at that magic age in quite some time, so the best I can give it is a B-.



Hachi-- I’m not sure how a Richard Gere and Joan Allen film got sent direct-to-DVD, but I’m kind of glad it did. This wouldn’t have played well in a theatre because it is a very small, personal, movie. Had it gone to theatres, it would have “bombed”, and it would have looked like a failure. This way, it got some (well deserved) great reviews and word of mouth has made it a success (in terms of direct-to-DVD films at least).

The story (based on real events) is about a puppy who gets lost at a train station and is found by a kind man who takes him home for the night before looking for the puppy’s owner. No one seems to want to claim him, so the man ends up bringing him home the next day and so on until it becomes clear the dog, who he named “Hachi”, is now his.

Hachi is so much the man’s that he sees him off every morning at the train station and then returns at night to meet the man when the train brings him back. This goes on for a few years until the man dies, suddenly. Hachi doesn’t understand what happened, so he continues to wait at the train station, day after day, hoping the man gets off one of the trains.

It’s a story about loyalty and the love between a dog and his owner that is told very simply (without any cute voiceovers or “beating you over the head” morals-to-the-story). Just a very small, but very powerful film that is nearly perfect in most every way. A-



The Informant-- I had no idea Matt Damon could play a dimbulb quite as well as he showed he could in this film. I think this film confused a lot of people because it was filmed to look like a drama—but it is pretty hilarious. Damon’s informant character was about as self-serving and borderline dumb as any I’ve seen in a while. Props, too, to his FBI handlers, played by Scott Bakula and Joel McHale. Their reactions as Damon screwed something up—or went “off script”—were always great. B+



The Invention of Lying— A movie that can work on two levels. Usually, I just pay attention to the “main level” of the story; in this case, the humorous world that exists that looks just like ours except for the fact that everyone tells the truth. But they can’t even “Mr. Spock” their reality and leave things out; no, they are compelled to tell their innermost thoughts to each other, even when they are not prompted to.

And then, a schluby, pathetic man (who’s not all that bad, just portrayed that way because everyone is honest with him) decides to get out of a jam by telling an untruth. Because no one knows about lying, everyone he talks to takes what he says as the absolute truth—even if it directly conflicts to what their own eyes and ears are telling them.

So, on this level, the movie is pretty funny in that Ricky Gervais uncomfortable humor (such as a woman telling her date she’s upset because he’s early to pick her up on their date and she wasn’t finished masturbating yet)—and it’s an eye-opener that reminds us of all the little lies we tell others as well as ourselves every day (again—with the “reality” that holding back our thoughts is also lying; something I’m not in agreement about).

On a second level, this can also be seen as a comment on religion. In the movie, the man tries to make someone else feel better by saying “The man in the sky will take care of you,” which opens a whole can of worms for our protagonist. I don’t try to express my beliefs too much here, but I will say I’m with the movie on this about religion: it was created to provide answers to the unanswerable and comfort people who need comforting.

Now, you can keep looking at this film on the surface level and know that the film needed him to create religion as an impetus for the conflict and resulting climax that ensued. But on another level, it just may be a comment about religion. If it was really a means to criticize it, then I think they were a bit harsh. I think the filmmakers were more trying to tell a story that may have put the notion out there, but were more interested in telling a funny story (I don’t know; I didn’t listen to the director commentary).

But anyway, if you have issues with comedy and religion, stay away. If you don’t—or are looking for something to discuss with your peers, check it out. B



Iron Man 2—film. There has been talk that this film didn’t live up to the first one, and I can’t completely disagree. There was a certain magic and lightness to the first film, and I think that came with the plotline. Tony was just beginning his IM career, and there was lots of room for humor as he perfected his suit of armor.

This movie was different as Tony was in a different place. The radiation his power source (for his heart as well as his armor) is giving off is killing him. Tony being Tony didn’t want to worry his friends Pepper and Rhodey, so they think he’s losing touch with his humanity and fun-loving nature.

Iron Man 2 had a lot to live up to, and it wasn’t always just to live up to the first film. The Iron Man franchise is the anchor for Marvel’s Avengers film push, so there are a lot of hints dropped in that’s mainly to set up future Marvel films—and certainly to give the biggest push to the upcoming Avengers flick. I think director Jon Favreau had a lot on his plate, and he worked it the best he could.

I guess I was most impressed by the things I was looking forward to least. The Whiplash in the comics has a look that wouldn’t translate well on screen, but I wasn’t sure the movie’s chest-baring look was the right call, either. And the film Whiplash “suffers” from one of my biggest comic book movie pet peeves: the villain always has to have some sort of connection to the hero. But Mickey Rourke brought the goods and sold me on what the film was doing. Kudos. And then War Machine, one of my least-favorite armors introduced in the ten years or so I read the comic was highlighted in this film. I could never understand why ballistics was needed for an armor based on repulsor technology, which seemed more powerful—and didn’t have to explain where all the bullets are stored. But I gotta say: seeing (and hearing) Rhodey pumping lead into the bad guys was pretty cool. B+



Justice League: Crisis on Two Earths— Another adaptation of a comic book graphic novel. But this one had more heart to it than most as well as more “that was cool” moments. If you’re a comic book fan or superhero fan, this is a good one to watch (but still not mandatory). B

No comments: