Saturday, May 01, 2010
Friday, April 30, 2010
Thursday, April 29, 2010
Wednesday, April 28, 2010
2010 Q1 Movie Grades: R-Z
Special— Michael Rapaport plays Les, a man who agrees to a clinical trial of a new pill. The pills give him super-powers, so he decides to become a super-hero/vigilante. The only thing is: no one believes he has powers, and he routinely gets his ass kicked.
This is an odd movie, but one that keeps the suspense very high. Is Les crazy-- or is there a conspiracy to make him think he’s crazy?
I’ve quite liked Rapaport’s work (mainly his television work), but this may be one of his career highpoints. He played Les as a man truly gleeful to have powers, who then becomes very focused as he plans out his work; and then he also has to show that Les is suffering from a great deal of emotional turbulence. B
Terminator: Salvation-- A mostly-lambasted film, but I really didn’t see much wrong with it. The Terminator movies aren’t known for much other than stringing cool action scenes together (although the first two films had enough story—realistic or not-- to hold it together). I thought the plotline of Sam Worthington’s character was interesting; a good use for an actor who seems to be growing with each film. I groaned a bit whenever the super-huge terminator as tall as a building was on screen, but I accepted most of the rest of the machines and plot. B-
The Goods: Live Hard. Sell Hard.— Jeremy Piven as a cocky, mercenary car salesman. Not really stretching from his role on Entourage—but that’s okay because he excels in those types of roles. He does here as well, but he doesn’t always have great material. He and his team come in like the cavalry and sell cars to keep dealerships from going under. In the case with the plot of this movie (per a bet made, ‘80s-era movie style), he needs to sell EVERY car on the lot to make this happen. Tough enough to accomplish, but there’s also the added struggle with a girl Piven’s character likes (and the two make a VERY unlikely/unbelievable pair, in my eyes). Plus a silly past disaster which haunts him (thankfully, Will Farrell is involved in those scenes, so they’re not a complete loss). It just all seems like a bunch of filler in order to stretch this film beyond the 30 minute mark.
All in all, this is a collection of skits and jokes, and that’s okay. It’s funny, though, that the actual plot is what detracted from my enjoyment of the film. C+
Zombieland— A film that, on paper, probably could have been any of a dozen other zombie movies. But director Ruben Fleischer brought a little more of a humorous style to some of the scenes (visually showing Columbus’ rules of survival) as well as directing it as a buddy comedy as opposed to a normal zombie flick. Props also to Woody Harrelson and Abigail Breslin for their performances. Not trying to diminish the work of the others, but Harrelson’s work as Tallahassee was perfect for him; I honestly can’t think of any other actor who could have played the role like he did. And Breslin really showed a maturity for her role that belies her actual age.
Other than a poorly-plotted part for Bill Murray (sorry—I have no inkling that the real Murray is as stupid as the “Bill Murray” of the film; not that he wasn’t great playing “himself”, but he needed to do one thing to move the plot along—and become the payoff for a joke—that was just unbelievably moronic), this is a pretty good movie. B+
This is an odd movie, but one that keeps the suspense very high. Is Les crazy-- or is there a conspiracy to make him think he’s crazy?
I’ve quite liked Rapaport’s work (mainly his television work), but this may be one of his career highpoints. He played Les as a man truly gleeful to have powers, who then becomes very focused as he plans out his work; and then he also has to show that Les is suffering from a great deal of emotional turbulence. B
Terminator: Salvation-- A mostly-lambasted film, but I really didn’t see much wrong with it. The Terminator movies aren’t known for much other than stringing cool action scenes together (although the first two films had enough story—realistic or not-- to hold it together). I thought the plotline of Sam Worthington’s character was interesting; a good use for an actor who seems to be growing with each film. I groaned a bit whenever the super-huge terminator as tall as a building was on screen, but I accepted most of the rest of the machines and plot. B-
The Goods: Live Hard. Sell Hard.— Jeremy Piven as a cocky, mercenary car salesman. Not really stretching from his role on Entourage—but that’s okay because he excels in those types of roles. He does here as well, but he doesn’t always have great material. He and his team come in like the cavalry and sell cars to keep dealerships from going under. In the case with the plot of this movie (per a bet made, ‘80s-era movie style), he needs to sell EVERY car on the lot to make this happen. Tough enough to accomplish, but there’s also the added struggle with a girl Piven’s character likes (and the two make a VERY unlikely/unbelievable pair, in my eyes). Plus a silly past disaster which haunts him (thankfully, Will Farrell is involved in those scenes, so they’re not a complete loss). It just all seems like a bunch of filler in order to stretch this film beyond the 30 minute mark.
All in all, this is a collection of skits and jokes, and that’s okay. It’s funny, though, that the actual plot is what detracted from my enjoyment of the film. C+
Zombieland— A film that, on paper, probably could have been any of a dozen other zombie movies. But director Ruben Fleischer brought a little more of a humorous style to some of the scenes (visually showing Columbus’ rules of survival) as well as directing it as a buddy comedy as opposed to a normal zombie flick. Props also to Woody Harrelson and Abigail Breslin for their performances. Not trying to diminish the work of the others, but Harrelson’s work as Tallahassee was perfect for him; I honestly can’t think of any other actor who could have played the role like he did. And Breslin really showed a maturity for her role that belies her actual age.
Other than a poorly-plotted part for Bill Murray (sorry—I have no inkling that the real Murray is as stupid as the “Bill Murray” of the film; not that he wasn’t great playing “himself”, but he needed to do one thing to move the plot along—and become the payoff for a joke—that was just unbelievably moronic), this is a pretty good movie. B+
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
2010 Q1 Film Grades: H-Q
Heckler—TV— Jamie Kennedy hosts a documentary that is a bit schizophrenic. At first, it looked at heckling in stand-up comedy; an interesting phenomenon that seems to have multiple reasons—as well as multiple reactions. Many comics were interviewed, and most had some good stories to tell.
Then the movie started bashing critics. That’s where the film started to lose me. Mainly, it was lumping the po-dunk newspaper/TV station and bloggers together with real critics who have earned their remarks. Call ‘em dicks, but don’t call ‘em critics. Critics normally critique the work, not the performer or director personally. Of course, everyone interviewed had nasty things to say about critics; namely, “It’s easy to make jokes at someone else’s expense. But we’re real people with real feelings.”
And, finally, the mood shifted again to Kennedy admitting most of his movies have been bad, but certain people like them, so he’s okay taking his lumps while that part of the population is satisfied.
I think this film could have been structured a little better—and maybe if the comics who complained about getting bashed explained their side with a little more logic than, “Those dicks write whatever they want, but they can’t do what we do,” the “thesis” of the movie may have been a better argument.
But it did have some good moments worth exploring in a better film (sorry, Jamie; just speaking the truth)—or at least a film that really focuses on one topic. And as for the performers who get their feelings hurt: take it with a grain of salt, for the most part. But also understand who is critiquing the movie—and who is just being a dick. Another helpful hint: if you’re constantly being told your movies suck, there might be something to that. I am fully aware that very rarely does one single person contribute to the success or failure of a movie, but some of the crap I've watched had to be crap at the script stage. Either suck it up and take the check (every actor has had to “take the check” at some point in their career)—or decline the role before shooting begins and hope the next script is better. B-
Hot Tub Time Machine—(in the theatre). I’m not sure how I feel about this one. It wasn’t as inventive or hilarious as I was hoping, but it did have some good moments. As can be expected, Craig Robinson and Rob Corddry are the life of the party and had the best moments and lines. Otherwise, I didn’t care for the characters much (sorry Clark Duke and John Cusack). And Chevy Chase’s character was pointless. Chase played him well; he was just nonsense. And the ending was a bit much to swallow—but I have to admit: it was funny. B-
I Love You, Beth Cooper— I read the book a year ago, and I thought, “This reads just like a classic “last night in high school” movie (like Superbad or Dazed & Confused). Of course, a book can get away with a little more ridiculousness (and this one sure had some) than a live-action movie can. But the film tried to keep the plot intact, sometimes to its detriment, and that has to be commended.
The story unfolds as the class valedictorian gives his commencement speech and talks about regrets, and how he and his classmates weren’t always true to themselves or their feelings, and he blurts out that he was in love with cheerleading captain Beth Cooper. Beth is not happy with the public revelation—nor is her steroidal, military-trained, boyfriend. Hi-jinks ensue.
This isn’t a great movie, but it was pretty fun for the most part. B-
Inglorious Basterds— My first Quentin Tarantino movie since Jackie Brown, and I was not disappointed. Other than Christoph Waltz’s incredible performance, this was a story/director-driven film (although no offense to Brad Pitt and the others, who played their roles wonderfully). Tarantino had his hands all over this film—but his style also didn’t overpower it (something I think “troubles” some of his other films). I was happy to not have f-bomb after f-bomb uttered; I don’t mind vulgarity, but after a certain point (like in Jackie Brown), it just gets to be too much. I also enjoyed the fact that Tarantino didn’t revel in blood and guts (the other thing I worried about). This is a great movie from start (where I sat through one of the most tension-filled scenes I’ve ever sat through) to almost the finish. I would have liked to see the main characters with a little more to do, but that's not how the story played out.
My other quibble with the film was the over-the-top ending at the cinema. History was rewritten, and I wasn’t a fan of it. I think the film could have been just as (if not more) powerful had it not gone to the extreme lengths it did. B+
The Man With the Screaming Brain— A B-movie that looks and feels exactly like a B-movie. Bruce Campbell got a chance to have to some fun playing a man at odds with himself (two brains in one head), but everything about this movie was on the cheap. If you like this sort of thing, it’s probably perfect. I only watched because I like Campbell. C-
Michael Jackson: This Is It—BluRay. A brilliantly-made look at Michael Jackson’s preparations on his “This Is It” show (what was touted as his last “tour; tough to call it a “tour” when it was only being held in one location for multiple dates, though). It’s hard to separate Jackson the performer from Jackson the freak show (of the last 20 years), but this film decided to do just that. This is about Jackson the performer. And when he was “on”, it was magic. There is no way I would have flown to England to see this show (even if I could afford the tickets), so I got at least a glimpse of what it would have been, and it looks like it would have been well worth it.
I’m still a bit torn on Jackson, the man, but Jackson, the performer, was in a class of his own. B+
Post Grad— Geez; it hasn’t been all that long since I saw this movie, but there’s very little that stuck with me. I don’t remember it being bad; just not memorable. Well, I did only watch it because Michael Keaton had a role; his usual of late: father of a teenage girl. But he was allowed to be a bit more eccentric than he usually is in recent films, and that’s always fun to see that bit of mischievousness to his work. C+
The Proposal— I’ve mentioned before that I’m a Ryan Reynolds fan (even in work that he can’t be all that proud of; yes, I've taken note of him since Two Guys, a Girl, and a Pizza Place), and this film actually utilized his talents (lines uttered with sharp sarcasm), so that was cool. I can’t say this was a great movie (even though the media latched onto it because America’s [current] Sweetheart, Sandra Bullock stars in it), but it was entertaining enough. B-
Public Enemies—I was a bit late to the Johnny Depp party, but I have seen the light. Is there anything he can’t do? The role of John Dillinger couldn’t have been played but just anyone. The actor has to be an Everyman-looking fellow with a magnetism that not many have. And he has to be able to make the audience love him more than the “good guys”.
This was an interesting movie. I know there’s a love affair with Dillinger and other criminals of the time (the general populace thought the robbers weren’t hurting them—and they enjoyed seeing banks suffer a little), but it was odd to watch how this film played out. The film was pretty impartial on who was right and who was wrong (at least Depp could be likable and not creepy while the Feds were pretty much just played to be antagonists without any fleshing out), but we have to remember that the dude killed people, escaped from prison a number of times, and robbed banks.
This film has a bit of an extra appeal for me as parts of this movie were shot in downtown Oshkosh,WI; 35 minutes from where I live—and the city I work in. It was cool to see a few buildings I’ve driven/walked past a dozen times as background in the movie. There was even a brief glimpse of the library I frequent (it had the two lion statues in front of it).
Overall the film was enjoyable and well done. I did feel it was a bit long in places, but I also think that was a positive as it wasn’t just action scene after action scene. I’m not sure why the “Enemies” of the title is pluralized. We didn’t get to know any of the other members of Dillinger’s gang—and Purvis and the Feds were pretty much suits without much background or motive (other than duty/justice). This was Dillinger/Depp’s film. B
Then the movie started bashing critics. That’s where the film started to lose me. Mainly, it was lumping the po-dunk newspaper/TV station and bloggers together with real critics who have earned their remarks. Call ‘em dicks, but don’t call ‘em critics. Critics normally critique the work, not the performer or director personally. Of course, everyone interviewed had nasty things to say about critics; namely, “It’s easy to make jokes at someone else’s expense. But we’re real people with real feelings.”
And, finally, the mood shifted again to Kennedy admitting most of his movies have been bad, but certain people like them, so he’s okay taking his lumps while that part of the population is satisfied.
I think this film could have been structured a little better—and maybe if the comics who complained about getting bashed explained their side with a little more logic than, “Those dicks write whatever they want, but they can’t do what we do,” the “thesis” of the movie may have been a better argument.
But it did have some good moments worth exploring in a better film (sorry, Jamie; just speaking the truth)—or at least a film that really focuses on one topic. And as for the performers who get their feelings hurt: take it with a grain of salt, for the most part. But also understand who is critiquing the movie—and who is just being a dick. Another helpful hint: if you’re constantly being told your movies suck, there might be something to that. I am fully aware that very rarely does one single person contribute to the success or failure of a movie, but some of the crap I've watched had to be crap at the script stage. Either suck it up and take the check (every actor has had to “take the check” at some point in their career)—or decline the role before shooting begins and hope the next script is better. B-
Hot Tub Time Machine—(in the theatre). I’m not sure how I feel about this one. It wasn’t as inventive or hilarious as I was hoping, but it did have some good moments. As can be expected, Craig Robinson and Rob Corddry are the life of the party and had the best moments and lines. Otherwise, I didn’t care for the characters much (sorry Clark Duke and John Cusack). And Chevy Chase’s character was pointless. Chase played him well; he was just nonsense. And the ending was a bit much to swallow—but I have to admit: it was funny. B-
I Love You, Beth Cooper— I read the book a year ago, and I thought, “This reads just like a classic “last night in high school” movie (like Superbad or Dazed & Confused). Of course, a book can get away with a little more ridiculousness (and this one sure had some) than a live-action movie can. But the film tried to keep the plot intact, sometimes to its detriment, and that has to be commended.
The story unfolds as the class valedictorian gives his commencement speech and talks about regrets, and how he and his classmates weren’t always true to themselves or their feelings, and he blurts out that he was in love with cheerleading captain Beth Cooper. Beth is not happy with the public revelation—nor is her steroidal, military-trained, boyfriend. Hi-jinks ensue.
This isn’t a great movie, but it was pretty fun for the most part. B-
Inglorious Basterds— My first Quentin Tarantino movie since Jackie Brown, and I was not disappointed. Other than Christoph Waltz’s incredible performance, this was a story/director-driven film (although no offense to Brad Pitt and the others, who played their roles wonderfully). Tarantino had his hands all over this film—but his style also didn’t overpower it (something I think “troubles” some of his other films). I was happy to not have f-bomb after f-bomb uttered; I don’t mind vulgarity, but after a certain point (like in Jackie Brown), it just gets to be too much. I also enjoyed the fact that Tarantino didn’t revel in blood and guts (the other thing I worried about). This is a great movie from start (where I sat through one of the most tension-filled scenes I’ve ever sat through) to almost the finish. I would have liked to see the main characters with a little more to do, but that's not how the story played out.
My other quibble with the film was the over-the-top ending at the cinema. History was rewritten, and I wasn’t a fan of it. I think the film could have been just as (if not more) powerful had it not gone to the extreme lengths it did. B+
The Man With the Screaming Brain— A B-movie that looks and feels exactly like a B-movie. Bruce Campbell got a chance to have to some fun playing a man at odds with himself (two brains in one head), but everything about this movie was on the cheap. If you like this sort of thing, it’s probably perfect. I only watched because I like Campbell. C-
Michael Jackson: This Is It—BluRay. A brilliantly-made look at Michael Jackson’s preparations on his “This Is It” show (what was touted as his last “tour; tough to call it a “tour” when it was only being held in one location for multiple dates, though). It’s hard to separate Jackson the performer from Jackson the freak show (of the last 20 years), but this film decided to do just that. This is about Jackson the performer. And when he was “on”, it was magic. There is no way I would have flown to England to see this show (even if I could afford the tickets), so I got at least a glimpse of what it would have been, and it looks like it would have been well worth it.
I’m still a bit torn on Jackson, the man, but Jackson, the performer, was in a class of his own. B+
Post Grad— Geez; it hasn’t been all that long since I saw this movie, but there’s very little that stuck with me. I don’t remember it being bad; just not memorable. Well, I did only watch it because Michael Keaton had a role; his usual of late: father of a teenage girl. But he was allowed to be a bit more eccentric than he usually is in recent films, and that’s always fun to see that bit of mischievousness to his work. C+
The Proposal— I’ve mentioned before that I’m a Ryan Reynolds fan (even in work that he can’t be all that proud of; yes, I've taken note of him since Two Guys, a Girl, and a Pizza Place), and this film actually utilized his talents (lines uttered with sharp sarcasm), so that was cool. I can’t say this was a great movie (even though the media latched onto it because America’s [current] Sweetheart, Sandra Bullock stars in it), but it was entertaining enough. B-
Public Enemies—I was a bit late to the Johnny Depp party, but I have seen the light. Is there anything he can’t do? The role of John Dillinger couldn’t have been played but just anyone. The actor has to be an Everyman-looking fellow with a magnetism that not many have. And he has to be able to make the audience love him more than the “good guys”.
This was an interesting movie. I know there’s a love affair with Dillinger and other criminals of the time (the general populace thought the robbers weren’t hurting them—and they enjoyed seeing banks suffer a little), but it was odd to watch how this film played out. The film was pretty impartial on who was right and who was wrong (at least Depp could be likable and not creepy while the Feds were pretty much just played to be antagonists without any fleshing out), but we have to remember that the dude killed people, escaped from prison a number of times, and robbed banks.
This film has a bit of an extra appeal for me as parts of this movie were shot in downtown Oshkosh,WI; 35 minutes from where I live—and the city I work in. It was cool to see a few buildings I’ve driven/walked past a dozen times as background in the movie. There was even a brief glimpse of the library I frequent (it had the two lion statues in front of it).
Overall the film was enjoyable and well done. I did feel it was a bit long in places, but I also think that was a positive as it wasn’t just action scene after action scene. I’m not sure why the “Enemies” of the title is pluralized. We didn’t get to know any of the other members of Dillinger’s gang—and Purvis and the Feds were pretty much suits without much background or motive (other than duty/justice). This was Dillinger/Depp’s film. B
Monday, April 26, 2010
Just in case it was too subtle for you
So... Did you have a weird feeling during this scene in Return of the Jedi?
Maybe you weren't sure why you had it?
Here's a little something to help put it into focus for you.
Maybe you weren't sure why you had it?
Here's a little something to help put it into focus for you.
2010 Q1 Film Grades: A-G
Alice In Wonderland—3D (in the theatre). I was looking forward to Tim Burton’s version of the Lewis Carroll world gone mad. It is right up Burton’s alley. And he’d also get to play with the world in 3D. I’m not a gigantic Burton fan, but I thought this was going to be wildly inventive.
Well, I’ve seen it, and I have to say “Meh”. I was expecting a visual representation of an LSD trip, but this movie isn’t about Wonderland; it’s about Underland. Underland is dark and dreary, much like late-Fall in the Midwest. Where are the wicked-cool colors I knew Burton would use? Not here. And the 3D just wasn’t utilized as it could have been. I know 3D is going to eventually be the standard way to watch a movie; as a way to add a dimension to what is on screen. But we’re talking Tim freakin’ Burton here. The 3D should have melted my eyes. There is not a single director I can think of that could make 3D the tool it can be like I know Burton can. This isn’t just any movie or just any world, this is Alice in Wonderland. I should have been amazed.
I wasn’t. Even Alice isn’t really Alice. She’s a whiny young woman (wonderfully played by Mia Wasikowska) who’s not all that happy with life. [You’re 19—get over it.] The Mad Hatter (played by Johnny Depp) doesn’t seem all that mad (“crazy”), just sad. The Red Queen (Helena Bonham Carter) had some funny moments, but “Off with his/her/their head!” got tiring after a while. The only character I really enjoyed watching was the Chesire Cat. I loved the effects of him slipping in and out of the scenes.
There really wasn’t anything all that wonderful going on, and that is a shame. I mean, Burton isn’t known for his upbeat films, but he really had an opportunity to go wild here, and he just didn’t. The acting can’t be considered bad (Wasikowska, Depp, and Bonham Carter were very good), there just wasn’t much for them to do. I have to square the blame on Burton and the writers. I just didn’t care about the characters or their world, no matter how much I was supposed to.
“Alice in Bummerland”, more like. C+
Alvin and the Chipmunks: the Squeakquel— (in the theatre). I was pretty sure this was going to be bad. I was wrong. It was terrible. When I’m sitting in the theatre (I have kids—I had to see it), feeling immense pity for two actors I really like (Jason Lee and Zachary Levi), it’s bad. I’m sure I’m overdoing it (another parent told me she liked it), but there’s no doubt, this movie could have been better (or even good).
But if you or your kids like poop humor and really, really obvious jokes and puns, this movie is for them. F
An American Carol— I knew this was not going to be my type of movie, but I thought I’d give it a shot. I can handle political things I don’t agree with as long as it’s done well. This film was not done well. Humor is humor. Even if I don’t agree with the politics, if it’s funny, I’ll laugh. I did not laugh at all at this movie. Dumb. D
Anvil! The Story of Anvil— This was a very odd movie for me. I was under the impression that this was a true story, but as I watched it, I had a lot of reservations about the authenticity of it. Unfortunately, that took me out of the movie. I did some research later, and came to the conclusion that this was, indeed, real (or the people who made the film did an amazing job keeping any scripted info off of the internet).
But I just found it really hard to believe that the rock stars interviewed in this film never gave a helping hand to this band. You can’t tell me that Lars Ulrich, who claimed to love this band, couldn’t strong-arm his label to book them to open for part of a Metallica tour.
But, if anything, it showed what a bitch the music industry can be. I don’t know the half of it, I’m sure, but I do know it’s one of the most corrupt entertainment industries out there. Musicians are slabs of meat to be chewed up, swallowed, and crapped out—then flushed out of sight.
And it also told a great story of a relentless pursuit of a dream. I wonder how many American Idol wannabes give up after the first few years of disappointment. Anvil has lived through decades of it. B
Batman Beyond: The Return of the Joker—TV— A good reminder of how great the Batman animated series of the 1990s was. Sure, this was a spin-off set in the future, but it was still good. The animation for the scenes in the dance club was silly and repetitive, but it can be forgiven because the rest of the film was better than average. Nice use of many of the characters, but it was tough to follow at times—and the reveal of the villain of the film was a bit lackluster. Nice try, though. Worth watching if you’re a Bat-fan. B-
Being Bucky—A documentary following the seven men who dressed and acted as the University of Wisconsin mascot throughout the course of a year (running from spring to spring). I found it fun to watch (and other than a few “a-holes” and the “s-word” a half-dozen times, it was pretty safe for kids), but it didn’t really seem to have a purpose beyond just a cursory look at the men behind the mask. It could have gone into the tryouts to be Bucky a little bit more, it certainly could have had more in-game/performance scenes where we could see why it’s tough to be Bucky—or at least why Bucky is so important and beloved in his home state.
But I can’t say it was a bad or boring film. It was put together pretty well; it just didn’t seem to really tell a story. The beginning and end wrapped up nicely because the film followed the men through one “tour” as Bucky, from tryouts to tryouts; it didn't really have anything to do with directing or editing to make an ending.
If you’re a Badger fan or a Bucky fan-- or even a fan of any mascot-- you’ll probably see enough worthwhile here for a night with a rented copy. B-
Blue Hawaii—TV— I don’t really have much to say about this one other than it was a complete blast to see a movie that very much is a product of its time. The color palette was unbelievable. James Cameron or George Lucas wished their CGI could melt your eyes like that. The storyline was silly—and not original at all—but I can see why Elvis is so beloved. He had a certain magnetism about him. I think many of the musical numbers were forced into the plot, but, again, I think that was just how movies like that were made back then. And if you’re going to have one of the most popular musicians of all time star in your movie; you’re probably gonna have him sing. C+
Dumb and Dumberer—TV— The title pretty much says it all. I watched it simply because it was on TV and I didn’t feel like changing the channel—and because it starred Eric Christian Olsen, who I really enjoy watching. The plot was bad, the writing was bad, the acting was bad… But it was fun watching Olsen channeling Jim Carrey; he did a pretty good job at that. D+
For All Mankind— I should have liked this film much more than I did, but I think I got spoiled by the wonderful In the Shadow of the Moon a few years ago. This one just didn’t seem as exciting—even with all the NASA footage. I think I may have to go back and rewatch this at some point; I have been really getting into the Apollo space program the past few months (books and DVDs). C+
Four Christmases— About what I expected. No offense to Reese Witherspoon, who did what the role demanded, but this was a Vince Vaughn movie from start to finish. Smart-aleck man who has to visit his (and his girlfriend/wife’s(?)) families for Christmas. I don’t even really remember the plot so much as I do the really fun supporting actor casting. You’ve got the wonderful Mary Steenbergen, Dwight Yoakam, Kristin Chenowith, and Jon Voight with the odd family relations. And you’ve got the outrageous Robert Duvall, Jon Favreau, and Tim McGraw who chewed up every scene they were in (hilariously). Not a great movie, but it should give you a few laughs. B-
The Freshman—TV. I have read about this Harold Lloyd silent film a number of times over the years, so I was happy that TCM aired it this winter. Like most movies of the era, it didn’t always translate well to modern times, but it was incredible to see how the story progressed just through actions and words on the screen. There is definitely an art to telling a story this way. Lloyd’s college freshman made for a fun character, and his work in a few scenes (of particular note is the scene where his clothes keep falling apart) is classic slapstick comedy. Worth watching on a quiet afternoon. B
Well, I’ve seen it, and I have to say “Meh”. I was expecting a visual representation of an LSD trip, but this movie isn’t about Wonderland; it’s about Underland. Underland is dark and dreary, much like late-Fall in the Midwest. Where are the wicked-cool colors I knew Burton would use? Not here. And the 3D just wasn’t utilized as it could have been. I know 3D is going to eventually be the standard way to watch a movie; as a way to add a dimension to what is on screen. But we’re talking Tim freakin’ Burton here. The 3D should have melted my eyes. There is not a single director I can think of that could make 3D the tool it can be like I know Burton can. This isn’t just any movie or just any world, this is Alice in Wonderland. I should have been amazed.
I wasn’t. Even Alice isn’t really Alice. She’s a whiny young woman (wonderfully played by Mia Wasikowska) who’s not all that happy with life. [You’re 19—get over it.] The Mad Hatter (played by Johnny Depp) doesn’t seem all that mad (“crazy”), just sad. The Red Queen (Helena Bonham Carter) had some funny moments, but “Off with his/her/their head!” got tiring after a while. The only character I really enjoyed watching was the Chesire Cat. I loved the effects of him slipping in and out of the scenes.
There really wasn’t anything all that wonderful going on, and that is a shame. I mean, Burton isn’t known for his upbeat films, but he really had an opportunity to go wild here, and he just didn’t. The acting can’t be considered bad (Wasikowska, Depp, and Bonham Carter were very good), there just wasn’t much for them to do. I have to square the blame on Burton and the writers. I just didn’t care about the characters or their world, no matter how much I was supposed to.
“Alice in Bummerland”, more like. C+
Alvin and the Chipmunks: the Squeakquel— (in the theatre). I was pretty sure this was going to be bad. I was wrong. It was terrible. When I’m sitting in the theatre (I have kids—I had to see it), feeling immense pity for two actors I really like (Jason Lee and Zachary Levi), it’s bad. I’m sure I’m overdoing it (another parent told me she liked it), but there’s no doubt, this movie could have been better (or even good).
But if you or your kids like poop humor and really, really obvious jokes and puns, this movie is for them. F
An American Carol— I knew this was not going to be my type of movie, but I thought I’d give it a shot. I can handle political things I don’t agree with as long as it’s done well. This film was not done well. Humor is humor. Even if I don’t agree with the politics, if it’s funny, I’ll laugh. I did not laugh at all at this movie. Dumb. D
Anvil! The Story of Anvil— This was a very odd movie for me. I was under the impression that this was a true story, but as I watched it, I had a lot of reservations about the authenticity of it. Unfortunately, that took me out of the movie. I did some research later, and came to the conclusion that this was, indeed, real (or the people who made the film did an amazing job keeping any scripted info off of the internet).
But I just found it really hard to believe that the rock stars interviewed in this film never gave a helping hand to this band. You can’t tell me that Lars Ulrich, who claimed to love this band, couldn’t strong-arm his label to book them to open for part of a Metallica tour.
But, if anything, it showed what a bitch the music industry can be. I don’t know the half of it, I’m sure, but I do know it’s one of the most corrupt entertainment industries out there. Musicians are slabs of meat to be chewed up, swallowed, and crapped out—then flushed out of sight.
And it also told a great story of a relentless pursuit of a dream. I wonder how many American Idol wannabes give up after the first few years of disappointment. Anvil has lived through decades of it. B
Batman Beyond: The Return of the Joker—TV— A good reminder of how great the Batman animated series of the 1990s was. Sure, this was a spin-off set in the future, but it was still good. The animation for the scenes in the dance club was silly and repetitive, but it can be forgiven because the rest of the film was better than average. Nice use of many of the characters, but it was tough to follow at times—and the reveal of the villain of the film was a bit lackluster. Nice try, though. Worth watching if you’re a Bat-fan. B-
Being Bucky—A documentary following the seven men who dressed and acted as the University of Wisconsin mascot throughout the course of a year (running from spring to spring). I found it fun to watch (and other than a few “a-holes” and the “s-word” a half-dozen times, it was pretty safe for kids), but it didn’t really seem to have a purpose beyond just a cursory look at the men behind the mask. It could have gone into the tryouts to be Bucky a little bit more, it certainly could have had more in-game/performance scenes where we could see why it’s tough to be Bucky—or at least why Bucky is so important and beloved in his home state.
But I can’t say it was a bad or boring film. It was put together pretty well; it just didn’t seem to really tell a story. The beginning and end wrapped up nicely because the film followed the men through one “tour” as Bucky, from tryouts to tryouts; it didn't really have anything to do with directing or editing to make an ending.
If you’re a Badger fan or a Bucky fan-- or even a fan of any mascot-- you’ll probably see enough worthwhile here for a night with a rented copy. B-
Blue Hawaii—TV— I don’t really have much to say about this one other than it was a complete blast to see a movie that very much is a product of its time. The color palette was unbelievable. James Cameron or George Lucas wished their CGI could melt your eyes like that. The storyline was silly—and not original at all—but I can see why Elvis is so beloved. He had a certain magnetism about him. I think many of the musical numbers were forced into the plot, but, again, I think that was just how movies like that were made back then. And if you’re going to have one of the most popular musicians of all time star in your movie; you’re probably gonna have him sing. C+
Dumb and Dumberer—TV— The title pretty much says it all. I watched it simply because it was on TV and I didn’t feel like changing the channel—and because it starred Eric Christian Olsen, who I really enjoy watching. The plot was bad, the writing was bad, the acting was bad… But it was fun watching Olsen channeling Jim Carrey; he did a pretty good job at that. D+
For All Mankind— I should have liked this film much more than I did, but I think I got spoiled by the wonderful In the Shadow of the Moon a few years ago. This one just didn’t seem as exciting—even with all the NASA footage. I think I may have to go back and rewatch this at some point; I have been really getting into the Apollo space program the past few months (books and DVDs). C+
Four Christmases— About what I expected. No offense to Reese Witherspoon, who did what the role demanded, but this was a Vince Vaughn movie from start to finish. Smart-aleck man who has to visit his (and his girlfriend/wife’s(?)) families for Christmas. I don’t even really remember the plot so much as I do the really fun supporting actor casting. You’ve got the wonderful Mary Steenbergen, Dwight Yoakam, Kristin Chenowith, and Jon Voight with the odd family relations. And you’ve got the outrageous Robert Duvall, Jon Favreau, and Tim McGraw who chewed up every scene they were in (hilariously). Not a great movie, but it should give you a few laughs. B-
The Freshman—TV. I have read about this Harold Lloyd silent film a number of times over the years, so I was happy that TCM aired it this winter. Like most movies of the era, it didn’t always translate well to modern times, but it was incredible to see how the story progressed just through actions and words on the screen. There is definitely an art to telling a story this way. Lloyd’s college freshman made for a fun character, and his work in a few scenes (of particular note is the scene where his clothes keep falling apart) is classic slapstick comedy. Worth watching on a quiet afternoon. B
Movie/DVD Reviews Intro
For the past few years, I've given reviews to the movies I've watched; usually by quarter or half-year.
I'm no professional, so I don't try to take it too seriously, but I'm one of the more "well read" (to borrow a term referring to books) I know, I I look at the effort as a way to offer up some advice. Hopefully, I can turn my loyal readers (I believe there are at least two) onto something that may have slipped under their radar.
After my last review series, I was taken to task a bit by giving a high grade to Home Alone; a grade that it probably didn't deserve as a technical piece, but it did deserve because I just, plain had fun watching it (and my kids loved it).
So let me explain a little further on the grades. I try to take into consideration a wonderfully directed or acted film-- and a usually note it in my review. But my final "grade" is really about how much I enjoyed it. I saw a lot of really fine films in 2008, but they were boring as shit. I couldn't really mark them with a high grade because it sometime felt like torture to sit through them.
So the general grades are as follows:
A: A fantastic movie. Nearly flawless. A "must see".
B: Highly enjoyable (B+) to moderately enjoyable. Definitely worth watching.
C: On the fence. Has good and bad qualities. Hopefully what I write can steer you to know if it's something you'd be interested in.
D: Bad flick. It may have one or two redeeming qualities (and I'll try to mention those as well).
F: Terrible. Nothing worth watching.
I admit, my grade may curve from year to year (although I think I've been pretty consistent), but I do my best to keep at least the Quarter Series reviews tied together. A film that got a B+ is one I enjoyed more than one that got a B.
I hope that helps.
And I kept my reviews more brief this time around (except for a few). Hopefully that makes them more readable. And, as always, films were watched on DVD unless mentioned otherwise. Why mention how I saw them? Things I saw in the theatres usually get a small bump (I have a decent home set-up, but nothing beats the theatre experience) and movies I saw on TV (hardly ever on broadcast networks; don't like cuts)may get a slight decrease just because there wasn't anything "extra" like what a DVD would have (usually noted if I especially liked an extra).
Finally, am I just lucky by seeing so grade B movies and not so many lesser ones? No, I just know what I like and read reviews when I can, so I can usually avoid movies that would get lesser grades from me. Eay as that.
I'm no professional, so I don't try to take it too seriously, but I'm one of the more "well read" (to borrow a term referring to books) I know, I I look at the effort as a way to offer up some advice. Hopefully, I can turn my loyal readers (I believe there are at least two) onto something that may have slipped under their radar.
After my last review series, I was taken to task a bit by giving a high grade to Home Alone; a grade that it probably didn't deserve as a technical piece, but it did deserve because I just, plain had fun watching it (and my kids loved it).
So let me explain a little further on the grades. I try to take into consideration a wonderfully directed or acted film-- and a usually note it in my review. But my final "grade" is really about how much I enjoyed it. I saw a lot of really fine films in 2008, but they were boring as shit. I couldn't really mark them with a high grade because it sometime felt like torture to sit through them.
So the general grades are as follows:
A: A fantastic movie. Nearly flawless. A "must see".
B: Highly enjoyable (B+) to moderately enjoyable. Definitely worth watching.
C: On the fence. Has good and bad qualities. Hopefully what I write can steer you to know if it's something you'd be interested in.
D: Bad flick. It may have one or two redeeming qualities (and I'll try to mention those as well).
F: Terrible. Nothing worth watching.
I admit, my grade may curve from year to year (although I think I've been pretty consistent), but I do my best to keep at least the Quarter Series reviews tied together. A film that got a B+ is one I enjoyed more than one that got a B.
I hope that helps.
And I kept my reviews more brief this time around (except for a few). Hopefully that makes them more readable. And, as always, films were watched on DVD unless mentioned otherwise. Why mention how I saw them? Things I saw in the theatres usually get a small bump (I have a decent home set-up, but nothing beats the theatre experience) and movies I saw on TV (hardly ever on broadcast networks; don't like cuts)may get a slight decrease just because there wasn't anything "extra" like what a DVD would have (usually noted if I especially liked an extra).
Finally, am I just lucky by seeing so grade B movies and not so many lesser ones? No, I just know what I like and read reviews when I can, so I can usually avoid movies that would get lesser grades from me. Eay as that.
Sunday, April 25, 2010
Daily Show's Reaction to South Park Death Threats
For those of you who don't know, the past two weeks of South Park had a two-part story about free speech. The first part (aired 4/14) featured a censored bar whenever the character of Muhammad was on screen (remember, Muslims think it's a terrible affront to depict Muhammad). This prompted a militant Muslim group (based in New York City) to send the folks at Comedy Central a "friendly reminder" that such parodies could result in the deaths of South Park creators Trey Parker and Matt Stone.
Comedy Central decided to censor the second part (aired 4/21) by not only having the censored bar over a physical depiction of Muhammad-- but also bleeping every instance where a character said the name "Muhammad". They further censored the "moral of the story" at the end of the episode in its entirety-- even instances where "Muhammad" was never uttered. It made for a terribly confusing episode-- especially for a story about free speech. If you didn't see the first part (when Muhammad was mentioned), the second would make no sense at all.
Now, I'm on the side that Comedy Central was just protecting its creators from physical harm. I think the network has proven time and again that they feel parody is perfectly fine under free speech. I don't think there were any financial motives behind censoring Parker and Stone's work.
"Proof" of my belief is the fact that the network aired this segment of Comedy Central's The Daily Show With Jon Stewart from the next night, where Jon reacts to the death threats. I found it to be one of the most insightful and brilliant ten minutes of television I've seen in quite a while.
I couldn't embed it, but here's a link to the video.
Anyway, I applaud Stewart for that. We are in America, and the free speech that allows radical factions to spout their hatred is the same free speech that should protect our satirists from harm. South Park is not perfect, but it can be one of the smartest and most thought-provoking shows on the air when it doesn't revolve around pubic hair or gerbils in anuses.
I'd also like to second what Jon said. But I also want to take it a step further. I try not to get political or religious here because I just don't think it accomplishes much. There are too many "values" websites out there already. Besides, I don't write or research enough to back up my opinions. But when it comes to hatred and intolerance, it's easy to back it up.
Because it's wrong.
For those who can't stand having their religion criticized without going into a tizzy: go fuck yourself.
For those who preach and teach hatred against people of a different color or sexual preference: go fuck yourself.
For those who believe their youngest members don't deserve protection from its molesters in leadership positions: go fuck yourself.
For any group-- religious, political, social, whatever-- who preaches intolerance or hatred for someone because of their skin color, or sex, or ethnicity, or sexual identity. For those who rally the unthinking lemmings who blindly follow your hatred. For those who harbor criminals-- and can't even issue an apology for obvious wrongdoings. For those who hide their racial prejudice behind complaints about taxes...
Go
Fuck
Yourself!
Comedy Central decided to censor the second part (aired 4/21) by not only having the censored bar over a physical depiction of Muhammad-- but also bleeping every instance where a character said the name "Muhammad". They further censored the "moral of the story" at the end of the episode in its entirety-- even instances where "Muhammad" was never uttered. It made for a terribly confusing episode-- especially for a story about free speech. If you didn't see the first part (when Muhammad was mentioned), the second would make no sense at all.
Now, I'm on the side that Comedy Central was just protecting its creators from physical harm. I think the network has proven time and again that they feel parody is perfectly fine under free speech. I don't think there were any financial motives behind censoring Parker and Stone's work.
"Proof" of my belief is the fact that the network aired this segment of Comedy Central's The Daily Show With Jon Stewart from the next night, where Jon reacts to the death threats. I found it to be one of the most insightful and brilliant ten minutes of television I've seen in quite a while.
I couldn't embed it, but here's a link to the video.
Anyway, I applaud Stewart for that. We are in America, and the free speech that allows radical factions to spout their hatred is the same free speech that should protect our satirists from harm. South Park is not perfect, but it can be one of the smartest and most thought-provoking shows on the air when it doesn't revolve around pubic hair or gerbils in anuses.
I'd also like to second what Jon said. But I also want to take it a step further. I try not to get political or religious here because I just don't think it accomplishes much. There are too many "values" websites out there already. Besides, I don't write or research enough to back up my opinions. But when it comes to hatred and intolerance, it's easy to back it up.
Because it's wrong.
For those who can't stand having their religion criticized without going into a tizzy: go fuck yourself.
For those who preach and teach hatred against people of a different color or sexual preference: go fuck yourself.
For those who believe their youngest members don't deserve protection from its molesters in leadership positions: go fuck yourself.
For any group-- religious, political, social, whatever-- who preaches intolerance or hatred for someone because of their skin color, or sex, or ethnicity, or sexual identity. For those who rally the unthinking lemmings who blindly follow your hatred. For those who harbor criminals-- and can't even issue an apology for obvious wrongdoings. For those who hide their racial prejudice behind complaints about taxes...
Go
Fuck
Yourself!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)