Con movies almost always follow the same formula. Sometimes there is revenge that alters the formula, but typically we meet a lovable bunch of con persons who use lots of terms referring to different types of cons, which we believe because they are the same terms as in all of the other movies, they come up with an incredibly intricate plan that has at least one really weak point and then they proceed to show us conning the marks and doing it so well that everything will surely turn out wonderful for everyone, only to have things go horribly wrong. Of course at the end of the movie we find out the that bit about things going wrong was always part of the plan and that things actually went better than planned. The marks are always of either one of two types, horrible people who we want to see ruined by the con, or lovable people who are naive and thus have our sympathy who invariably are let in on the con after it's over and because our con person is so charming they forgive them and join their little gang. There is one variation on this formula where the con persons are not nice, lovable people and in those films the marks are always of the first type - horrible people who are much worse than the con persons and deserve everything that happens to them. In both the regular and irregular formula con films, the heroes ride off into the sunset, generally much richer than when we met them at the start of the movie.
This is paragraph where I am supposed to tell you that this film is different and brilliant and takes the con film to a whole new level. But, that's too predictable, and wouldn't be entirely true. This film is layered. It breaks the formula at a crucial step. Does this make it better than other con films? I think the answer is both yes and no. By breaking the formula, there are certain expectations that are not met and in that sense it's not better than other con films. Note, this is not a film about a con person or persons, so as the long con is being played us audience members expect certain things to happen and if they don't we expect to know why they didn't. But, I will also contend that this is better than the vast majority of con films for the very same reason. The cons that are portrayed are elaborate and entertaining. But, when they break out of the formula, it completely fits with the movie, so while straying from the genre, it remains completely faithful to itself. To be honest, I'm a little surprised. My other experience with this film maker is Looper, which while entertaining didn't seem to be completely thought out in certain areas. The Brothers Bloom precedes Looper by four years but in my opinion is a far stronger movie.
I only allowed myself to get into the con because of the charisma of the characters, which i think is true for all the con films that I like. You can't tell me that George Clooney as Frank Ocean isn't charismatic and I will watch each and every sequel to the Oceans 11 movies that they ever make based off of the charisma of the main character. Adrien Brodey in the role of Bloom is the same kind of character. He's smooth when he needs to be, but he's vulnerable and a little bit susceptible to the con he and his brother are running. There is something about that combination that is enchanting, not to mention that in my opinion Adriend Brodey is one of the finest actors of my generation. He may not be the most handsome leading man his age, but he makes that work for him and not against him. Supporting Brodey are Rachel Weisz and Mark Ruffalo. Weisz plays the very eccentric Penelope who is the lovable and naive mark. The onscreen chemistry between Brodey and Weisz is palpable (I know that sounds cheesy, but watch the film and tell me you don't feel it). The third leg then if Mark Ruffalo as Bloom's brother, Stephen. I've said it before and I'm sure it will come up again, but I'm not a big Ruffalo fan. With that being said, he didn't muck up the Avengers and he didn't ruin this film. I am willing to concede that he is more than competent in the acting department, so while not ruining any scenes, he was certainly the weakest actor on screen in every scene, not just with Brodey and Weisz. The silent partner in the con, and I do mean silent, is Rinko Kikuchi's character, Bang Bang. While I thoroughly enjoyed the Brothers Bloom, I really wanted to watch the movie about Bang Bang. Her character serves the role of the quirky, genius sidekick, but writer, director Rian Johnson went so over-the-top with her she was almost always the most interesting thing happening in every group scene. There are two minor characters played by the seasoned stars Max Schell and Robbie Coltrane. Schell's character of Diamond Dog is hard to pin down. I can't tell you if he's a good guy or bad guy because he's so deep into the con I was never sure what was part of the con or what was supposed to have really transpired between he and Bloom and Stephen. It's difficulat because this film uses a lot of the real histories of characters to build their con. Robbie Coltrane on the other hand plays the Curator who is part of the con and does a very excellent job with a Belgian accent as well as adding little comedic touches in all of his scenes.
I don't often watch movies a second time, not counting my limited collection of favorites, which to mollify your curiosity, does not contain any con films. But, I have made a note to watch this again at a later date, say six or twelve months from now because I know I missed some of what was going on. I mentioned at the beginning that this film is layered. Con films can often be tricky, but this one is seemingly simple until you are deep into it where you suddenly realize that what you think is a big reveal only reveals another layer of the con. I will not have a hard time at all rewatching Brodey and Weisz's performances when I try to get to the bottom of this film.
The Brothers Bloom at IMDb
Wednesday, July 31, 2013
Tuesday, July 30, 2013
Redbelt (2007)
Where the fuck did this movie come from? Six years ago, before joining the cast of Criminal Minds, Joe Montegna and, after doing Galaxy Quest but before doing Toy Story 2, in the midst of those vapid comedies, Tim Allen decide to do a little David Mamet film in which they play...I don't know if they're the bad guys or if they're just a couple of schleps who will do anything for a buck. But, they make this fight movie that's not a fight movie.
David Mamet it to be commended. I think. This was either a very different look at the way of the warrior, one which does it some justice, or he has found a way to make 90 minutes seem like 120+ without the viewer turning off the film. I guess either way he is probably to be commended. So yeah, I'm going to go with let's commend Mamet.
This film is all about honor and doing the right thing when everyone around you lacks honor and does the wrong thing, even when those who you trusted most turn out to be dishonorable. The movie kind of gets twisty and turny in a couple of places and I'm not exactly sure who was deceiving who or at what level of the scam certain key players were aware, but the main dude was always about honor and rightness even when he got suckered into the scheme.
There were lots of famous fighters in this film, either playing characters or themselves. This movie also starred the f-bomb. There was no nudity, there was no real violence because the fighting was being portrayed in the context of training in a gym or in competition and no one was trying to kill anyone else nor was there much blood. The movie did get an 'R' rating and the blurb at the top said it was for "Very Strong Language". I wondered what that meant, and pictured a montage of Tarantino films. But it wasn't anything like that. Perhaps other swear words were said once or twice, but it seemed like it was very nearly completely, "fuck this" and "fuck that". You go Mamet! Right? I mean, that's edgy and real at the same time. Isn't it? I personally like to spice it up with some other vulgarities at least occasionally, not to mention use fuck in a more colorful way like, "up your nose, you slimy-faced fuck-drippage." Or something like that. I probably would use a more risque word than nose if this were a real name-calling. Perhaps Mamet's base use of fuck was to show me that these people either didn't have the time for such elaborations or perhaps not the intellectual capability to come up with something a little fresher.
Redbelt on IMDb
David Mamet it to be commended. I think. This was either a very different look at the way of the warrior, one which does it some justice, or he has found a way to make 90 minutes seem like 120+ without the viewer turning off the film. I guess either way he is probably to be commended. So yeah, I'm going to go with let's commend Mamet.
This film is all about honor and doing the right thing when everyone around you lacks honor and does the wrong thing, even when those who you trusted most turn out to be dishonorable. The movie kind of gets twisty and turny in a couple of places and I'm not exactly sure who was deceiving who or at what level of the scam certain key players were aware, but the main dude was always about honor and rightness even when he got suckered into the scheme.
There were lots of famous fighters in this film, either playing characters or themselves. This movie also starred the f-bomb. There was no nudity, there was no real violence because the fighting was being portrayed in the context of training in a gym or in competition and no one was trying to kill anyone else nor was there much blood. The movie did get an 'R' rating and the blurb at the top said it was for "Very Strong Language". I wondered what that meant, and pictured a montage of Tarantino films. But it wasn't anything like that. Perhaps other swear words were said once or twice, but it seemed like it was very nearly completely, "fuck this" and "fuck that". You go Mamet! Right? I mean, that's edgy and real at the same time. Isn't it? I personally like to spice it up with some other vulgarities at least occasionally, not to mention use fuck in a more colorful way like, "up your nose, you slimy-faced fuck-drippage." Or something like that. I probably would use a more risque word than nose if this were a real name-calling. Perhaps Mamet's base use of fuck was to show me that these people either didn't have the time for such elaborations or perhaps not the intellectual capability to come up with something a little fresher.
Redbelt on IMDb
Monday, July 29, 2013
Wild Target (2009)
It's kind of surprising how many movies there are about hitmen. There are a couple of John Cusack films, the Jean Renot/Natalie Portman film, at leat half a dozen Jason Statham films, a pair of Tom Berenger films and these are just the ones that I can think of off the top of my head. A subset of these are comedies and ones that I find quite funny. Perhaps it's the juxtaposition of the absurdity with the fatality. There are certain spy films that utilize a comedic aspect - the super spy who is living the secret life and goes to extremes to keep those around him or her thinking that they are just an average person, usually going about it in a comedic manner. The comedic hitman films mirror this style of spy film. This film follows along similar lines, though Victor (Bill Nighy) is trying terribly hard to hide what he does, yet he doesn't just tell Rose (Emily Blunt) or Tony (Rupert Grint) what it is that he really does, letting them think he's a private detective which he tells Rose in one of the worst lies ever made funnier than you would think when she just buys it lock, stock and barrel.
I really like Bill Nighy's work, so would have tracked this film down just for that, but was intrigued by Rupert Grint. I recently saw The Perks of Being a Wallflower with Emma Watson and was delighted to see that she could be someone else other than Hermione Grainger. I am happy to report that Rupert Grint did a marvelous job and was quite funny. I am glad he has been able to find something other than Ron Weasely. Though I didn't know how old this was until I watched it, so I guess this was filmed when Grint was on break from the Harry Potter films. I guess I'll have to find something with Daniel Radcliffe now and complete the trifecta.
Not that I need another reason to recommend this film to anyone, past the good acting and madcap antics (that's right, I said antics), but the music is great. If I had watched this film even a year ago, I would have been unfamiliar with about half the songs, but somehow I stumbled upon an Irish Rock-a-billy performer named Imelda May that has three songs featured in the film including one over the closing credits. The lyrics and the feel of the songs are oddly suited for the scenes they're used with, which is I guess the sign of a good musical director, since I know the songs were not written for the film but for an earlier album she had released.
I would be remiss if I didn't mention Martin Freeman in his brilliant (there's a joke there in the film) portrayal of Dixon the bad guy who is pursuing our little mismatched gang. It reminds me that he is capable of far more than serious adventure or sleuthing and takes me back to his days on the Office and in Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, which I do believe also had Bill Nighy. His character is reminiscent of Dan Akroyd's in Grosse Point Blanke. He was very funny to watch.
Wild Target on IMDb
I really like Bill Nighy's work, so would have tracked this film down just for that, but was intrigued by Rupert Grint. I recently saw The Perks of Being a Wallflower with Emma Watson and was delighted to see that she could be someone else other than Hermione Grainger. I am happy to report that Rupert Grint did a marvelous job and was quite funny. I am glad he has been able to find something other than Ron Weasely. Though I didn't know how old this was until I watched it, so I guess this was filmed when Grint was on break from the Harry Potter films. I guess I'll have to find something with Daniel Radcliffe now and complete the trifecta.
Not that I need another reason to recommend this film to anyone, past the good acting and madcap antics (that's right, I said antics), but the music is great. If I had watched this film even a year ago, I would have been unfamiliar with about half the songs, but somehow I stumbled upon an Irish Rock-a-billy performer named Imelda May that has three songs featured in the film including one over the closing credits. The lyrics and the feel of the songs are oddly suited for the scenes they're used with, which is I guess the sign of a good musical director, since I know the songs were not written for the film but for an earlier album she had released.
I would be remiss if I didn't mention Martin Freeman in his brilliant (there's a joke there in the film) portrayal of Dixon the bad guy who is pursuing our little mismatched gang. It reminds me that he is capable of far more than serious adventure or sleuthing and takes me back to his days on the Office and in Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, which I do believe also had Bill Nighy. His character is reminiscent of Dan Akroyd's in Grosse Point Blanke. He was very funny to watch.
Wild Target on IMDb
Saturday, July 27, 2013
Cloud Atlas (2012)
Not that I've talked to a lot of people about this movie, but all of those that I have mentioned needing to watch it more than once so that they could understand just exactly what was going on. It's kind of like before I saw Fight Club and everyone was saying things like, "I didn't figure it out until the end" or "I knew during the breast exam" (trust me that makes sense in the context of Fight Club). So, I went into it knowing that there was a puzzle to be aware of, and since I knew this, it revealed itself nearly immediately - it has to for the flashback, "ah-ha!" scenes toward the end of the film. The same thing had happened with my viewing of The Sixth Sense. No one actually spoiled it for me in the sense that they told me the twist was, but they (you know, 'them') kept telling me it was going to be such a surprise and that I never would guess what the twist was, and then I watched it and thought it was obvious from the very beginning - but because I was hyper-aware of some twist. I went into this screening the same way, mind like a steel trap, ready to tuck away any clue. But, um, it's just a movie with it's story being told through glimpses of stories that reflect each other.
I didn't find the film confusing in the least. There. I said it. All of the six stories are structured the same way so that all six climax at the same time. Try some Magic Realism if you want to get confused, or follow any popular comic book hero, as their story gets told across multiple titles each by a different author, usually more than one, and then they get rebooted at times. Or hell, just try reading a George R. R. Martin book or perhaps some Robert Jordan. Perhaps my previous media choices have prepared me for a story told like this better than theirs had?
While I enjoyed all of the stories, I particularly like the Ordeal of Cavendish storyline and the Neo Seoul storyline. The Ordeal of Cavendish starts of hilariously with Tom Hanks playing an in your face author, Dermot Hoggins who while being a total animal lives' out many a writer's fantasy by throwing his main critic over the balcony of an apartment that is a couple of dozen stories up. Hugo Weaving in drag as Nurse Noakes later in this one is priceless and looks like he must have had a fun time playing her. The Neo Seoul story is the most straight sf of the lot and is the most noble of the six. IN all of them, people do things for the people they love, but in this one, the main character Son Me sacrifices herself so that others might love, which is a pretty romantic ideal.
My only complaint about this movie is that not all of the prosthetics were created equally. I don't mind seeing this actor or that looking nothing like themselves, I just should see the seams between the real them and the rubberized them. It's not all of the many heavily made-up characters, just a couple of really obvious ones. I won't tell you which actor or which character, I've just set you up to be a super sleuth like I was. It's a vicious cycle apparently.
Cloud Atlas at IMDb
I didn't find the film confusing in the least. There. I said it. All of the six stories are structured the same way so that all six climax at the same time. Try some Magic Realism if you want to get confused, or follow any popular comic book hero, as their story gets told across multiple titles each by a different author, usually more than one, and then they get rebooted at times. Or hell, just try reading a George R. R. Martin book or perhaps some Robert Jordan. Perhaps my previous media choices have prepared me for a story told like this better than theirs had?
While I enjoyed all of the stories, I particularly like the Ordeal of Cavendish storyline and the Neo Seoul storyline. The Ordeal of Cavendish starts of hilariously with Tom Hanks playing an in your face author, Dermot Hoggins who while being a total animal lives' out many a writer's fantasy by throwing his main critic over the balcony of an apartment that is a couple of dozen stories up. Hugo Weaving in drag as Nurse Noakes later in this one is priceless and looks like he must have had a fun time playing her. The Neo Seoul story is the most straight sf of the lot and is the most noble of the six. IN all of them, people do things for the people they love, but in this one, the main character Son Me sacrifices herself so that others might love, which is a pretty romantic ideal.
My only complaint about this movie is that not all of the prosthetics were created equally. I don't mind seeing this actor or that looking nothing like themselves, I just should see the seams between the real them and the rubberized them. It's not all of the many heavily made-up characters, just a couple of really obvious ones. I won't tell you which actor or which character, I've just set you up to be a super sleuth like I was. It's a vicious cycle apparently.
Cloud Atlas at IMDb
Friday, July 26, 2013
The Covenant (2006)
I really wanted this movie to be good. Well, let me be completely honest and say, "good for this kind of movie". This kind of movie is as the box said from the producers of Underworld which stars the delicious Kate Beckinsale and is all about the war between vampires and werewolves. This movie is about witchcraft. Okay, sounds good to me. Witches keep their power secret...passed along blood lines...yadda, yadda, yadda. Okay, I'm still with you. The bad warlock wants the good warlock's power, which even seems like a plausible story line to me.
I am set for a somewhat straight-forward super natural action film with cool special effects. But, instead I get a group of the most mature looking 17 year olds I've ever seen who spend the first hour of the film stuck between a teen romance and a horror suspense film, neither of which it's doing well. By the time the reveal happens letting the good guys know who the bad guy really is, I've known for at least 45 minutes. When the action finally starts happening, it's not a bad film.
I didn't buy a single one of the actors as being 17 or 18. Why didn't they just set the story at college and make them 21 or 22? I might have gone for that. The school they all attend is an upscale boarding school, which at least to me translates well to small private university.
There are some rather big things left unanswered in this film that I presume they planned on answering over the course of several sequels, like what the hell is a darkling? Or, where are all the other witches? Maybe even, where does the power come from and why does using it ravage the body if used too often?
The Covenant on IMDb
I am set for a somewhat straight-forward super natural action film with cool special effects. But, instead I get a group of the most mature looking 17 year olds I've ever seen who spend the first hour of the film stuck between a teen romance and a horror suspense film, neither of which it's doing well. By the time the reveal happens letting the good guys know who the bad guy really is, I've known for at least 45 minutes. When the action finally starts happening, it's not a bad film.
I didn't buy a single one of the actors as being 17 or 18. Why didn't they just set the story at college and make them 21 or 22? I might have gone for that. The school they all attend is an upscale boarding school, which at least to me translates well to small private university.
There are some rather big things left unanswered in this film that I presume they planned on answering over the course of several sequels, like what the hell is a darkling? Or, where are all the other witches? Maybe even, where does the power come from and why does using it ravage the body if used too often?
The Covenant on IMDb
Thursday, July 25, 2013
The Perks of Being a Wallflower (2012)
This movie is not like my high school experience. I did not have a bad high school experience. I did not have a hard time making friends. I was not the brightest kid in my class. I was not a wallflower. But, I wasn't the opposite of these things either. I was awfully angsty as I recall. I also was sad a lot for no reason, and it would be a few more years before I realized that I was suffering from depression. I was a writer then, but not as I am now. I didnt' have my own voice then, and I like to at least pretend that I do now.
Reading and writing have always been my friend even when I didn't know that I needed them to be my friend. Music was always there, too. Music was in some ways less personal than reading and writing because when performing in a band, you are necessarily with other people, but you can perform your own music by yourself, and sing along with the music that you knew mattered even if no one else understood it.
I wasn't one of the popular kids growing up, but neither was I unpopular or one of the loners. It's easy to flashback now all of these decades later and think how I felt in third grade was how I felt in seventh grade was how I felt in eleventh grade. Except, I still remember, the only difference is that now I have a context to put my life into and a vocabulary better suited to explain how it really was.
I made friends easy enough and even when I ddin't feel comfortable in my own skin I still had a voice and a brain just barely nimble enough so that I would always have something to say, no matter to whom I was talking. I thought all friendships were equal because all friends were equal because all people were equal. I don't mean in a political or philosophical sense, I mean in a naive way. I was 17 before I figured out that some people really were stupid, I remember the class I was sitting in and the person I thought it about. I remember that I felt guilty that night for thinking she was stupid. It was that situation that made me realize that to someone else I was likely stupid and wondered for the first time what it would be like to be more than myself.
Revelations about others cruelty both intentional and unintentional had already occurred but they did not spark the personal epiphany. I had already learned that physical appearance could determine your social standing as much as how well-off financially your family was and that the two were often tied together, but I was still naive enough to think that a wit could compensate for looks or money. I thought little thoughts about little things and tried to jam my head as full of the other that wasn't my life in my town as I could so that one day down the road I would think slightly less little thoughts about slightly less little things.
I was so naive about what friends really were and was a horrible judge of character. I thought that once you became a friend to someone, you were true blue and would have their back to the very end and I don't think I was wrong about that, I was just wrong that other people would value our friendship the same way. This is by no means a declaration that all or even most of my friends did not feel the same way. I was not sophisticated enough in high school to realize that some people would sell you down the river and others would just stop talking to you all together and never give you a reason why. And then I look and try to see if I did this to anyone. Through high school I didn't, it wouldn't be until college that I started to unravel some of my friendships, but not frivolously and not without a great amount of fore-thought.
I never slept much. Not as a child or as an adolescent. Even now it's the rare night that I sleep more than six hours. But when I was younger it was much worse. From first through twelfth grade I slept about five hours a night on average and there was at least one day every month for those twelve years where I didn't sleep at all. It seems somewhat ironic to me now that with all of this extra time for reflecting that I didn't do very much of it. If you want to know what I thought about, just imagine something banal from your childhood and I was likely thinking about something similar. I did spend most of sixth grade worrying about nuclear annihilation. You know how it goes, go to school, come home and maybe hang out with friends for a little while, eat dinner, watch television or read a book and when everyone else goes to bed and to sleep you lie in your bed thinking that the President might have just given the order to launch a peremptory nuclear strike at the Soviet Union of China and that I wouldn't know until I actually hear the explosion of the first missile hitting in retaliation, which would come approximately 15 minutes after the initial launch. I lamented that I lived far enough away from a primary target (15 miles from the state capital) that I wouldn't die in the blast but would likely succumb to radiation poisoning or starvation or frostbite which would inevitably come after a couple of days of the nuclear night. I would play this game, and game is such a cruel mockery of a real game, that if the launch just happened, I would have to stay awake another 15 minutes to verify if it had or not. It didn't? Okay, what if it started now? Repeat until time to get up and get ready for school. At least by the time I was in eighth grade I had stopped obsessing about nuclear war and had switched my focus to the 8 minute gap between the time the sun would be extinguished and that we would know about it.
A side effect of these sleepless nights was listening to am radio to try and find confirmations of my worst fears. As you might have guessed, I never got those confirmations, but I did get exposed to a lot of interesting music. The part of me that wants to come off as a musical hipster thinks I should start dropping the names of cool bands that you've never heard of. Some of that actually did occur, but mostly I heard pop hits and classic pop hits and classic rock hits. And the part that really disavows my hipsterosity is that I loved all of it. The kids in this movie really are musical hipsters. I was so there with them when they first hear the David Bowie song, "Heroes" and don't know what it's called or who it's by and then go looking for it. Other songs in the film that I'm rather fond of - "No New Tale to Tell" by Love and Rockets (a band which I was so in love with in high school), "Dear God" by XTC whom I really got into my senior year of high school, and "Low" by Cracker which I got into in college right towards the end.
The Perks of Being a Wallflower on IMDb
Reading and writing have always been my friend even when I didn't know that I needed them to be my friend. Music was always there, too. Music was in some ways less personal than reading and writing because when performing in a band, you are necessarily with other people, but you can perform your own music by yourself, and sing along with the music that you knew mattered even if no one else understood it.
I wasn't one of the popular kids growing up, but neither was I unpopular or one of the loners. It's easy to flashback now all of these decades later and think how I felt in third grade was how I felt in seventh grade was how I felt in eleventh grade. Except, I still remember, the only difference is that now I have a context to put my life into and a vocabulary better suited to explain how it really was.
I made friends easy enough and even when I ddin't feel comfortable in my own skin I still had a voice and a brain just barely nimble enough so that I would always have something to say, no matter to whom I was talking. I thought all friendships were equal because all friends were equal because all people were equal. I don't mean in a political or philosophical sense, I mean in a naive way. I was 17 before I figured out that some people really were stupid, I remember the class I was sitting in and the person I thought it about. I remember that I felt guilty that night for thinking she was stupid. It was that situation that made me realize that to someone else I was likely stupid and wondered for the first time what it would be like to be more than myself.
Revelations about others cruelty both intentional and unintentional had already occurred but they did not spark the personal epiphany. I had already learned that physical appearance could determine your social standing as much as how well-off financially your family was and that the two were often tied together, but I was still naive enough to think that a wit could compensate for looks or money. I thought little thoughts about little things and tried to jam my head as full of the other that wasn't my life in my town as I could so that one day down the road I would think slightly less little thoughts about slightly less little things.
I was so naive about what friends really were and was a horrible judge of character. I thought that once you became a friend to someone, you were true blue and would have their back to the very end and I don't think I was wrong about that, I was just wrong that other people would value our friendship the same way. This is by no means a declaration that all or even most of my friends did not feel the same way. I was not sophisticated enough in high school to realize that some people would sell you down the river and others would just stop talking to you all together and never give you a reason why. And then I look and try to see if I did this to anyone. Through high school I didn't, it wouldn't be until college that I started to unravel some of my friendships, but not frivolously and not without a great amount of fore-thought.
I never slept much. Not as a child or as an adolescent. Even now it's the rare night that I sleep more than six hours. But when I was younger it was much worse. From first through twelfth grade I slept about five hours a night on average and there was at least one day every month for those twelve years where I didn't sleep at all. It seems somewhat ironic to me now that with all of this extra time for reflecting that I didn't do very much of it. If you want to know what I thought about, just imagine something banal from your childhood and I was likely thinking about something similar. I did spend most of sixth grade worrying about nuclear annihilation. You know how it goes, go to school, come home and maybe hang out with friends for a little while, eat dinner, watch television or read a book and when everyone else goes to bed and to sleep you lie in your bed thinking that the President might have just given the order to launch a peremptory nuclear strike at the Soviet Union of China and that I wouldn't know until I actually hear the explosion of the first missile hitting in retaliation, which would come approximately 15 minutes after the initial launch. I lamented that I lived far enough away from a primary target (15 miles from the state capital) that I wouldn't die in the blast but would likely succumb to radiation poisoning or starvation or frostbite which would inevitably come after a couple of days of the nuclear night. I would play this game, and game is such a cruel mockery of a real game, that if the launch just happened, I would have to stay awake another 15 minutes to verify if it had or not. It didn't? Okay, what if it started now? Repeat until time to get up and get ready for school. At least by the time I was in eighth grade I had stopped obsessing about nuclear war and had switched my focus to the 8 minute gap between the time the sun would be extinguished and that we would know about it.
A side effect of these sleepless nights was listening to am radio to try and find confirmations of my worst fears. As you might have guessed, I never got those confirmations, but I did get exposed to a lot of interesting music. The part of me that wants to come off as a musical hipster thinks I should start dropping the names of cool bands that you've never heard of. Some of that actually did occur, but mostly I heard pop hits and classic pop hits and classic rock hits. And the part that really disavows my hipsterosity is that I loved all of it. The kids in this movie really are musical hipsters. I was so there with them when they first hear the David Bowie song, "Heroes" and don't know what it's called or who it's by and then go looking for it. Other songs in the film that I'm rather fond of - "No New Tale to Tell" by Love and Rockets (a band which I was so in love with in high school), "Dear God" by XTC whom I really got into my senior year of high school, and "Low" by Cracker which I got into in college right towards the end.
The Perks of Being a Wallflower on IMDb
Wednesday, July 24, 2013
Rush Hour 3 (2007)
I know that nobody but me really cares to draw a comparison with the Jackie Chan and Chris Tucker movies and the Jackie Chan and Owen Wilson movies, but hey it's my blog and if you don't like, write a comment. Sheesh. What was I saying? Oh yeah so this came out after the Shanghai Noon/Knights movies, actually several years after them. I'm not sure if it's because the movies with Chan and Wilson were Westerns of if it's just that Chan and Tucker play off each other better, at least as far as the box office dollar is concerned, but people seemed to want a third Rush Hour film more than they wanted a third Shanghai film. I've got to say that if I were going to pick which series to continue to build on after the second movie, I would have chosen the Rush Hour franchise as well. Oh sure, I would watch more of either, but I'm glad it's this one.
Remember that formula for the Rush Hour movies that I revealed? Well, they only used part of it this time. As soon as you see the elderly, rich, white man, you know he's the bad dude. They completely dropped the other half, of having a third partner who was female and Latina (or any other non-caucasian ethnicity). The third leg, who is comic relief this time around and only saves the two stars almost accidentally at the very end. That didn't work very well for me, and did I mention that he's a white guy? The part of the story he is in takes place in Paris, but Paris is a culturally diverse city.
The movie fell short in other areas as well, but not in the action even though there was noticeably less of it than last time around. Chan and Tucker are on their game as always, but the rest of the story is seriously wanting. And I must admit that I am glad that I only have 3 of these to watch - I couldn't handle doing a Rush Hour 4 based on the trajectory that this installment sends the franchise along.
Rush Hour 3 on IMDb
Remember that formula for the Rush Hour movies that I revealed? Well, they only used part of it this time. As soon as you see the elderly, rich, white man, you know he's the bad dude. They completely dropped the other half, of having a third partner who was female and Latina (or any other non-caucasian ethnicity). The third leg, who is comic relief this time around and only saves the two stars almost accidentally at the very end. That didn't work very well for me, and did I mention that he's a white guy? The part of the story he is in takes place in Paris, but Paris is a culturally diverse city.
The movie fell short in other areas as well, but not in the action even though there was noticeably less of it than last time around. Chan and Tucker are on their game as always, but the rest of the story is seriously wanting. And I must admit that I am glad that I only have 3 of these to watch - I couldn't handle doing a Rush Hour 4 based on the trajectory that this installment sends the franchise along.
Rush Hour 3 on IMDb
Rush Hour 2 (2001)
If you have a good formula, why mess with it? The sequel to Rush Hour sees Tucker and Chan reprising their roles as an LAPD police detective and Hong Kong Chief Inspector, respectively. They reused a lot of jokes from the first movie, but this time instead of Tucker saying them to Chan, Chan said them to Tucker. There was considerably more action in this film than the first one which was pretty action-packed. This time out they dispensed with long dialogues and any scenes with Tucker or Chan at their respective police stations that weren't also action scenes.
While they didn't have Pena back to reprise her role, they did have the third part of their time played by a Latina actor, Rosalyn Sanchez. She played an undercover Secret Service agent who got quite a bit more screen time than her counterpart in the first film. That was due in no small part to her being an attractive woman that both male leads are interested in, and in no less of a small part due to the main villain's lieutenant being a woman, played by Zhang Ziyi hot off her role in Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon. Both women got to do multiple action scenes, including, of course, a fight with each other during the climax of the film.
At one point in the film, Carter (Tucker) says to Lee (Chan), "The key to solving a crime is to follow the rich guy. There is always a rich white guy waiting for his piece of the action." And that right there seems to be the formula for these movies laid out in a nutshell. Minority heroes must thwart a rich white villain. I suppose minority is only applicable watching these films in the U.S. and then only in the socio-historical context of the term. Jackie Chan is certainly not a minority in Hong Kong or China. I've got not problem with this formula. I think it's probably true more often than not, and if you say just that's it a rich man behind the plot, I think you'll be very assured of being correct, at least as it applies to these large kinds of crimes.
Rush Hour 2 on IMDb
While they didn't have Pena back to reprise her role, they did have the third part of their time played by a Latina actor, Rosalyn Sanchez. She played an undercover Secret Service agent who got quite a bit more screen time than her counterpart in the first film. That was due in no small part to her being an attractive woman that both male leads are interested in, and in no less of a small part due to the main villain's lieutenant being a woman, played by Zhang Ziyi hot off her role in Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon. Both women got to do multiple action scenes, including, of course, a fight with each other during the climax of the film.
At one point in the film, Carter (Tucker) says to Lee (Chan), "The key to solving a crime is to follow the rich guy. There is always a rich white guy waiting for his piece of the action." And that right there seems to be the formula for these movies laid out in a nutshell. Minority heroes must thwart a rich white villain. I suppose minority is only applicable watching these films in the U.S. and then only in the socio-historical context of the term. Jackie Chan is certainly not a minority in Hong Kong or China. I've got not problem with this formula. I think it's probably true more often than not, and if you say just that's it a rich man behind the plot, I think you'll be very assured of being correct, at least as it applies to these large kinds of crimes.
Rush Hour 2 on IMDb
Rush Hour (1998)
I guess I was off in my Jackie Chan timeline thinking that these movies, the Rush Hour franchise, came after Shanghai Noon and maybe after Shanghai Knights. Based on the release date of this one, at least the first two came before Shanghai Noon, and maybe all 3. Sigh. I guess Owen Wilson must have seemed more bankable. In some ways, Christ Tucker is a lot like Owen Wilson - they each play very similar characters in most of their movies. But at least Chris Tucker hasn't been foolish enough yet to start doing Woody Allen movies. I guess those are probably a better fit for Owen Wilson.
For an action-comedy-buddy-cop-kung-fu movie, Rush Hour is alright. It is virtually interchangeable with any other Jackie Chan movie where he is co-starring with an American actor, with the possible exception of The Tuxedo which he did with Jennifer Love-Hewitt. Let me straight up with y'all and tell you, I love these movies, not just Jackie Chan, but the whole Hong Kong and American genre of both serious and comedic kung-fu films. They very greatly in quality, but they are all entertaining and have a base production value that is better than the base for other genres, and the top of the genre is on par with the top of other genres.
What is really significant about this movie is it's use non-caucasian actors in all of the key roles. We have Chinese and African-American actors in the lead roles and the only back-up role that actually helps them out (there are more than a few that do not hinder) is a Latina actor. Not only does Elizabeth Pena play a female police detective, she is training to work in the bomb squad - not a traditional female role. All of the bumbling cops and FBI agents are middle-aged and older caucasian actors. I've decided to use 'caucasian' because that is the term the movie uses in the credits, with for example "first caucasian guest", etc. I don't have exact numbers, but this movie did very well at the box office and on VHS and DVD and I'm guessing more than a few of those fans where caucasian. See Hollywood, you can entertain us and get our dollars and still show us a story that looks more like our lives.
Oh, and sorry about all the hyphens, sometimes you just can't help it.
Rush Hour at IMDb
For an action-comedy-buddy-cop-kung-fu movie, Rush Hour is alright. It is virtually interchangeable with any other Jackie Chan movie where he is co-starring with an American actor, with the possible exception of The Tuxedo which he did with Jennifer Love-Hewitt. Let me straight up with y'all and tell you, I love these movies, not just Jackie Chan, but the whole Hong Kong and American genre of both serious and comedic kung-fu films. They very greatly in quality, but they are all entertaining and have a base production value that is better than the base for other genres, and the top of the genre is on par with the top of other genres.
What is really significant about this movie is it's use non-caucasian actors in all of the key roles. We have Chinese and African-American actors in the lead roles and the only back-up role that actually helps them out (there are more than a few that do not hinder) is a Latina actor. Not only does Elizabeth Pena play a female police detective, she is training to work in the bomb squad - not a traditional female role. All of the bumbling cops and FBI agents are middle-aged and older caucasian actors. I've decided to use 'caucasian' because that is the term the movie uses in the credits, with for example "first caucasian guest", etc. I don't have exact numbers, but this movie did very well at the box office and on VHS and DVD and I'm guessing more than a few of those fans where caucasian. See Hollywood, you can entertain us and get our dollars and still show us a story that looks more like our lives.
Oh, and sorry about all the hyphens, sometimes you just can't help it.
Rush Hour at IMDb
Tuesday, July 23, 2013
The Boondock Saints (1999)
I didn't know anything about this movie, other than it starred Billy Connolly and that based on the trailer for the sequel, it had a lot of shooting. Well, actually I only knew that Billy Connolly was in the sequel. I knew that Willem Dafoe, Sean Patrick Flannery and Norman Reedus were in the movie, but as it turns out, Connolly is in the last part.
I'm not sure what to think about this film. I have no way of verifying at this time, but it feels like this is based on something, perhaps a graphic novel or comic book. It just has that feel to it. Part of this je ne sais quoi is the aesthetic of the movie - very solid color kind of stuff, both in the look of the film and in the thinking of the main characters. The other thing that makes me think there is a richer base for the film is that it is sparse on explanation. Why do the two brothers speak at least seven languages? Because their mother thought it was a good idea. Why do they recite a prayer after each kill that has been passed down for generations and to what end? What's with the coins on the eyes of the victims? Why does one brother have 'veritas' tattooed on his gun hand while the other brother has 'aequitus' tattooed on his?
Willem Dafoe really is the driving force behind this movie. A lesser actor wouldn't have been able to pull it off without going overboard. Dafoe's role, while that of an FBI agent, is very reminiscent of the character Norman Osborn from the first Spiderman movie. Towards the end when his character goes too far, Dafoe goes part of the way their with him, but holds back just enough so that we can see the character's mental struggle without being distracted by the actor.
This movie reminds me of the Blade and Punisher movie franchises, both of which are based on Marvel comic characters, which I guess would be another reason to suspect this might be based on a comic. Boondock Saints came out a lot grittier and less sucky than Blade., pun fully intended. The morals and reasoning is pretty darn similar to the Punisher, but the reason for starting is a lot less clear. Actually the reason the brothers start their killing spree or vigilanteism as some call it, is because of their family's particular take on Catholicism, but we don't know at all how it is that they are in such great shape - both physically fit and well-trained using guns with silencers.
I wouldn't be surprised to find out that there are a lot more than two of these movies, as it's the kind of story that can unroll over many films, doling out bits and pieces of why these men do what they do. I will certainly see if I can track down the sequel. It certainly beats looking for the pilot of the Blade television series, which in it's defense I hear is a lot better than the movies. I guess any time you have to place a condition on your approval it means there is something wrong with the film, but I've said enough that you have some idea what those drawbacks are.
Having gotten a chance to look around the net since writing the above, I see that this film and its sequel are not based on a comic or graphic novel. The writer/director said taht he based the film on incidents from his own life. Crazy life.
The Boondock Saints on IMDb
I'm not sure what to think about this film. I have no way of verifying at this time, but it feels like this is based on something, perhaps a graphic novel or comic book. It just has that feel to it. Part of this je ne sais quoi is the aesthetic of the movie - very solid color kind of stuff, both in the look of the film and in the thinking of the main characters. The other thing that makes me think there is a richer base for the film is that it is sparse on explanation. Why do the two brothers speak at least seven languages? Because their mother thought it was a good idea. Why do they recite a prayer after each kill that has been passed down for generations and to what end? What's with the coins on the eyes of the victims? Why does one brother have 'veritas' tattooed on his gun hand while the other brother has 'aequitus' tattooed on his?
Willem Dafoe really is the driving force behind this movie. A lesser actor wouldn't have been able to pull it off without going overboard. Dafoe's role, while that of an FBI agent, is very reminiscent of the character Norman Osborn from the first Spiderman movie. Towards the end when his character goes too far, Dafoe goes part of the way their with him, but holds back just enough so that we can see the character's mental struggle without being distracted by the actor.
This movie reminds me of the Blade and Punisher movie franchises, both of which are based on Marvel comic characters, which I guess would be another reason to suspect this might be based on a comic. Boondock Saints came out a lot grittier and less sucky than Blade., pun fully intended. The morals and reasoning is pretty darn similar to the Punisher, but the reason for starting is a lot less clear. Actually the reason the brothers start their killing spree or vigilanteism as some call it, is because of their family's particular take on Catholicism, but we don't know at all how it is that they are in such great shape - both physically fit and well-trained using guns with silencers.
I wouldn't be surprised to find out that there are a lot more than two of these movies, as it's the kind of story that can unroll over many films, doling out bits and pieces of why these men do what they do. I will certainly see if I can track down the sequel. It certainly beats looking for the pilot of the Blade television series, which in it's defense I hear is a lot better than the movies. I guess any time you have to place a condition on your approval it means there is something wrong with the film, but I've said enough that you have some idea what those drawbacks are.
Having gotten a chance to look around the net since writing the above, I see that this film and its sequel are not based on a comic or graphic novel. The writer/director said taht he based the film on incidents from his own life. Crazy life.
Monday, July 22, 2013
Moon (2009)
It has been so long since I've seen or read a really good hard science, science fiction story and then I get two in two days. You can't really beat that. HSF can run the gamut from epic to personal. I think it does this better than other forms of sf or fantasy because the focus is on the point of the story and science is necessary to the story , not in some McGuffin kind of way, but in an environmental kind of way. In many cases the science provides the setting as well as the mechanism for telling the story.
This film is all about Sam Rockwell. Much of the film is spent talking to a robotic arm that has Kevin Spacey's voice coming out of it, and the rest of the film is pent talking to himself (he plays multiple roles in the film). He inhabits the Sam Bell character in all of it's facets. The way he reacts to the earthshattering revelations, well earthshattering to him at least, seems very believable. I'm not sure how I would react to things if I had been living completely alone for three years, I think I might be a bit more, um, crazy than he is.
I loved the relationship between Sam and his robot companion Gerty. It was extremely reminiscent of the human-robot interaction in Robot & Frank. But, since this movie came first by three years, it's really the other film borrowing from this. I think this particular question, of can humans form friendships with machines is very germaine to modern life and calls into question what constitutes friendship and how it is different from companionship. I guess these films both presume that friendship is necessary for a human's well being, I'm not sure that it is, but I'm not sure that it isn't.
I think the great thing about HSF is that it always leaves you thinking. Maybe I've just been lucky and only read the good books and watched the good movies, but there seems to always be a question raised, often a societal ideal, for the audience to be left pondering long after the book or film is done. Sure, other genres do this too, but not as consistently. Or maybe because I am such a fan of this subgenre I dig deeper into the stories than I do in other types. Either way, I get a lot of stories like this one and I for one appreciate ruminating being part of my entertainment.
Moon on IMDb
This film is all about Sam Rockwell. Much of the film is spent talking to a robotic arm that has Kevin Spacey's voice coming out of it, and the rest of the film is pent talking to himself (he plays multiple roles in the film). He inhabits the Sam Bell character in all of it's facets. The way he reacts to the earthshattering revelations, well earthshattering to him at least, seems very believable. I'm not sure how I would react to things if I had been living completely alone for three years, I think I might be a bit more, um, crazy than he is.
I loved the relationship between Sam and his robot companion Gerty. It was extremely reminiscent of the human-robot interaction in Robot & Frank. But, since this movie came first by three years, it's really the other film borrowing from this. I think this particular question, of can humans form friendships with machines is very germaine to modern life and calls into question what constitutes friendship and how it is different from companionship. I guess these films both presume that friendship is necessary for a human's well being, I'm not sure that it is, but I'm not sure that it isn't.
I think the great thing about HSF is that it always leaves you thinking. Maybe I've just been lucky and only read the good books and watched the good movies, but there seems to always be a question raised, often a societal ideal, for the audience to be left pondering long after the book or film is done. Sure, other genres do this too, but not as consistently. Or maybe because I am such a fan of this subgenre I dig deeper into the stories than I do in other types. Either way, I get a lot of stories like this one and I for one appreciate ruminating being part of my entertainment.
Moon on IMDb
Friday, July 19, 2013
Sunshine (2007)
"You haven't seen Sunshine?" she said. "Oh, you'll like it. It's good."
I nodded and considered how nice it would be to watch a film I knew would be good.
The days passed, and finally the movie arrived. I took it along with some other films whose name I barely even registered because I was looking forward to Sunshine with such eager anticipation that you would never know that I had only read about this film the week before.
I entered the still house, quiet for a change, but stuffy from being closed up all day. I was alone except for the cat who had exactly the same thing on her mind as I had on mine, to get food and get it fast. I did the best I could to satisfy both of us without resorting to giving her the canned cat food that I so disliked the smell of that I thought being faced with it might be enough to turn my hunger away.
Food and beverage ready, I sat down and fired up the ancient desktop that a lifetime ago had been a top of the line machine, or so I had told the girlfriend who would become the wife who would become the ex-wife. For what it is worth, it turns out I was right, buy the best machine you can afford even if it does more than what you need and you should be able to add minor hardware upgrades and make it last for four or five years instead of one or one and a half. Spending twice the money, but only as third as often works out great for long term personal economics. But the four or five years had doubled to over eight.
The monitor came to life as flashed with light, the familiar logo prevalent on nearly all American computers at one point and still on most. The monitor, new to me with a sleek wide screen almost made the whole system seem new. This felt perfect for a science fiction adventure.
The first trailer to play was for a slick looking horror thriller that implied the earth had succumbed to a zombie apocalypse. The second trailer was less subtle and outright flaunted being the unrated version of a horror movie, and the third openly bragged about being a zombie thriller - with the director's name flashed up and took me but a second to realize that it was the same director as for the film I was about to watch. I had the sudden feeling that I had made a horrible mistake. What if all of my excited anticipation had been for something that didn't exist?
I took a deep breath and a nice long drink of a cooling beverage specifically chosen by me to help forget about the day's heat and stresses. I could handle a sf thriller, after all hadn't Alien, one of the all-time great sf movies been a thriller? I pushed the hummus around in the bowl as I mused on this and then scooped it up with the broken off piece of flat bread and popped it in my mouth and hit play.
As Sunshine unfolded, it became first clear that this was hard science fiction. Characters were astronauts and scientists, not smugglers or space marines. It also became clear that the movie was taking itself seriously and not only was the acting of as high of quality as the setting, but so was the story. By thirty minutes in, as my meal was gone and beverages waning, I knew that no matter how this film wrapped up that it was fortunately nothing like the three trailers they had played before it as I had feared it would be.
The movie did wind itself up to a level of tension that had me eagerly awaiting each scene, tension due to both drama and action, both of which stayed true to the hard science core of the movie. The characters behaved like they would in this situation, which is for the most part with honor but we also some characters buckle under the stress and implode. There was nothing gratuitous or inappropriate about this film. The actions that were taken were the ones that needed to be taken in the context of both the film's setting and the character's psyche.
As the film climaxed and resolved, I realized that I had been needlessly concerned about the portents of the trailers. There had been an attempt to go after the same audience demographically speaking but not based upon genre. The silliness brought a smile to my face as I recalled the zombie I had watched over the weekend. I had not been dreading watching a film about zombies then. And of course she was right, I did like this film, thinking as I turned it off about the similarities it bore in both name and story the sf classic film, Solaris.
Sunshine on IMDb
I nodded and considered how nice it would be to watch a film I knew would be good.
The days passed, and finally the movie arrived. I took it along with some other films whose name I barely even registered because I was looking forward to Sunshine with such eager anticipation that you would never know that I had only read about this film the week before.
I entered the still house, quiet for a change, but stuffy from being closed up all day. I was alone except for the cat who had exactly the same thing on her mind as I had on mine, to get food and get it fast. I did the best I could to satisfy both of us without resorting to giving her the canned cat food that I so disliked the smell of that I thought being faced with it might be enough to turn my hunger away.
Food and beverage ready, I sat down and fired up the ancient desktop that a lifetime ago had been a top of the line machine, or so I had told the girlfriend who would become the wife who would become the ex-wife. For what it is worth, it turns out I was right, buy the best machine you can afford even if it does more than what you need and you should be able to add minor hardware upgrades and make it last for four or five years instead of one or one and a half. Spending twice the money, but only as third as often works out great for long term personal economics. But the four or five years had doubled to over eight.
The monitor came to life as flashed with light, the familiar logo prevalent on nearly all American computers at one point and still on most. The monitor, new to me with a sleek wide screen almost made the whole system seem new. This felt perfect for a science fiction adventure.
The first trailer to play was for a slick looking horror thriller that implied the earth had succumbed to a zombie apocalypse. The second trailer was less subtle and outright flaunted being the unrated version of a horror movie, and the third openly bragged about being a zombie thriller - with the director's name flashed up and took me but a second to realize that it was the same director as for the film I was about to watch. I had the sudden feeling that I had made a horrible mistake. What if all of my excited anticipation had been for something that didn't exist?
I took a deep breath and a nice long drink of a cooling beverage specifically chosen by me to help forget about the day's heat and stresses. I could handle a sf thriller, after all hadn't Alien, one of the all-time great sf movies been a thriller? I pushed the hummus around in the bowl as I mused on this and then scooped it up with the broken off piece of flat bread and popped it in my mouth and hit play.
As Sunshine unfolded, it became first clear that this was hard science fiction. Characters were astronauts and scientists, not smugglers or space marines. It also became clear that the movie was taking itself seriously and not only was the acting of as high of quality as the setting, but so was the story. By thirty minutes in, as my meal was gone and beverages waning, I knew that no matter how this film wrapped up that it was fortunately nothing like the three trailers they had played before it as I had feared it would be.
The movie did wind itself up to a level of tension that had me eagerly awaiting each scene, tension due to both drama and action, both of which stayed true to the hard science core of the movie. The characters behaved like they would in this situation, which is for the most part with honor but we also some characters buckle under the stress and implode. There was nothing gratuitous or inappropriate about this film. The actions that were taken were the ones that needed to be taken in the context of both the film's setting and the character's psyche.
As the film climaxed and resolved, I realized that I had been needlessly concerned about the portents of the trailers. There had been an attempt to go after the same audience demographically speaking but not based upon genre. The silliness brought a smile to my face as I recalled the zombie I had watched over the weekend. I had not been dreading watching a film about zombies then. And of course she was right, I did like this film, thinking as I turned it off about the similarities it bore in both name and story the sf classic film, Solaris.
Sunshine on IMDb
Thursday, July 18, 2013
Shanghai Knights (2003)
Okay, first things first. Last night I watched a movie (Savages) starring Aaron Johnson acting opposite a character named Chon. Tonight I watch with Aaron Johnson where he gets third billing (also what he got in Savages) where he plays opposite another character named Chon, this one played by Jackie Chan. The statistical improbability of my doing this seems pretty staggering. I'm guessing in all of the movies that feature Aaron Johnson and a character named Chon (not to mention Aaron Johnson in third billing) these have to be the only two. And then to randomly check them out and watch them back to back? There is some kind of cosmic message here. If only I can figure it out, I think I might be unable to unlock my superpowers. Wait, did I actually write that last bit? I can hear a particular friend calling me a dork already.
How often can you truly say that the movie was exactly what you expected? This is one of those movies. Jackie Chan and Owen Wilson reprise their roles from Shanghai Noon and this time go to London to fight bad guys. It had plenty of martial arts action, much of it with a comic edge as has become Chan's trademark. There is lots of witty banter between the two leads, well banter anyways and much of that entertaining if predictable. There is a pretty girl for Wilson's character to pine over. They mess around a little bit with history doing silly things like having Arthur Conan Doyle working as a detective at Scotland Yard while they are in London, and a street urchin by the name of Charlie Chaplin. Not to mention the best little play on time, when Jack the Ripper mistakenly targets the beautiful Fann Wong playing the character Chan's character's sister. She easily dispatches with him sending him to a watery grave in the Thames. Who knew?
While I thoroughly enjoyed this film, I can see why they didn't make a third. After this, Chan went on to make the Rush Hour movies with Christ Tucker and Wilson tried his hand at a couple of serious films and then teamed up with Eddie Murphy for a comedic spy thriller, before moving on to team-up with Vince Vaughn for a bunch of shitty comedies. ('I left out all of Wilson's wonderful work with Wes Anderson which was going on before he teamed up with Chan and continued after it as well.)
Shanghai Knights on IMDb
How often can you truly say that the movie was exactly what you expected? This is one of those movies. Jackie Chan and Owen Wilson reprise their roles from Shanghai Noon and this time go to London to fight bad guys. It had plenty of martial arts action, much of it with a comic edge as has become Chan's trademark. There is lots of witty banter between the two leads, well banter anyways and much of that entertaining if predictable. There is a pretty girl for Wilson's character to pine over. They mess around a little bit with history doing silly things like having Arthur Conan Doyle working as a detective at Scotland Yard while they are in London, and a street urchin by the name of Charlie Chaplin. Not to mention the best little play on time, when Jack the Ripper mistakenly targets the beautiful Fann Wong playing the character Chan's character's sister. She easily dispatches with him sending him to a watery grave in the Thames. Who knew?
While I thoroughly enjoyed this film, I can see why they didn't make a third. After this, Chan went on to make the Rush Hour movies with Christ Tucker and Wilson tried his hand at a couple of serious films and then teamed up with Eddie Murphy for a comedic spy thriller, before moving on to team-up with Vince Vaughn for a bunch of shitty comedies. ('I left out all of Wilson's wonderful work with Wes Anderson which was going on before he teamed up with Chan and continued after it as well.)
Shanghai Knights on IMDb
Wednesday, July 17, 2013
Savages (2012)
This was less of an action film than the trailers made it out to be. That's neither good nor bad, it just wasn't the film that I was expecting. In some ways, that is for the best since it turned out to be a more compelling story than I was expecting. In other ways it was worse than I respected as there are several long, slow scenes where you want to them to move along. I also had a hard tiem with some of the characters, but not the actors. Del Toro's character, while well-played was more of a caricature than a character. In fact this caricature would have fit better into a Quentin Tarrentino or Richard Rodriquez film playing opposite Antonio Banderas, well a character played by him at any rate.
The standout performance is by John Travolta as a crooked DEA agent, or as he would have us believe one of many. He showed off his receding hairline and made it work. He brought a bit of a beer gut to the action scenes which he mostly stayed out of. Travolta wasn't the only actor to land a complex character, but he is the only one that sells it. The rest of the actors do from fair to very good but none of them standout. If Salma Hayek's drug Cartel leader had been written better she would have wowed us too. Instead, I just kept thinking in every one of her scenes that this was the scene that we were going to see the other side fo the character. By the time she does get the opportunity, it's her last scene of the movie and by the nature of the scene we don't get to see very much. That was a waste.
I would be remiss if I did not mention the graphic violence including scenes of torture and executions. I'm not sure if Stone was trying to keep what he thinks of as real or if he was trying to make some kind of point. With Stone it might even be both or neither. Hard to tell. The word that instantly pops to mind is, "gratuitous". Sure, by the nature of this film there is going to be some violence and by the nature of the topic of this film, some of that violence is going to be extremely graphic. But, you couldn't spent the rest of the time showing us some more complex characters.
Actually one other thing worth mentioning, and that is the character of O, played by Blake Lively. Good for her for being in scenes where the boys are nude but she keeps covered up, but on the other hand, her character, whom is also the narrator is so boring - which is completely not related to the whole clothes versus naked thing. Even undressed, her character would have been boring. My only thought on this is that in the novel this film is based on that she must a have a lot more going on, like actually analyzing things instead of just reporting them. There is nothing wrong with reporting, but in the case where the narrator is trying to get stuff across, especially the inobvious and internal dialogues, she can't be boring.
Savages on IMDb
The standout performance is by John Travolta as a crooked DEA agent, or as he would have us believe one of many. He showed off his receding hairline and made it work. He brought a bit of a beer gut to the action scenes which he mostly stayed out of. Travolta wasn't the only actor to land a complex character, but he is the only one that sells it. The rest of the actors do from fair to very good but none of them standout. If Salma Hayek's drug Cartel leader had been written better she would have wowed us too. Instead, I just kept thinking in every one of her scenes that this was the scene that we were going to see the other side fo the character. By the time she does get the opportunity, it's her last scene of the movie and by the nature of the scene we don't get to see very much. That was a waste.
I would be remiss if I did not mention the graphic violence including scenes of torture and executions. I'm not sure if Stone was trying to keep what he thinks of as real or if he was trying to make some kind of point. With Stone it might even be both or neither. Hard to tell. The word that instantly pops to mind is, "gratuitous". Sure, by the nature of this film there is going to be some violence and by the nature of the topic of this film, some of that violence is going to be extremely graphic. But, you couldn't spent the rest of the time showing us some more complex characters.
Actually one other thing worth mentioning, and that is the character of O, played by Blake Lively. Good for her for being in scenes where the boys are nude but she keeps covered up, but on the other hand, her character, whom is also the narrator is so boring - which is completely not related to the whole clothes versus naked thing. Even undressed, her character would have been boring. My only thought on this is that in the novel this film is based on that she must a have a lot more going on, like actually analyzing things instead of just reporting them. There is nothing wrong with reporting, but in the case where the narrator is trying to get stuff across, especially the inobvious and internal dialogues, she can't be boring.
Savages on IMDb
Tuesday, July 16, 2013
Shanghai Noon (2000)
I figured that after a string of bad comedies, I would go for an action/comedy film that I knew was funnyish and had a happy ending, this latter more for compensating for the last film than the comedies. You can't go wrong with Jackie Chan when it comes to fast-paced martial arts action with some jokes thrown in. This is at least my second time watching this film, maybe my third. Somehow, I've never seen the sequel, so now I will have to go looking for that.
I like Jackie Chan and Owen Wilson together. Wilson's kind of humor and the character's penchant for avoiding actual physical combat make for a nice counterpost to Chan's kung-fu action. Actually, I tend to like Wilson's work with the exception of Midnight in Paris, where I just thought the whole script was bad and all the actors were flat and close to yelling their lines at each other for significant portions of the film. Maybe I just don't understand Woody Allen because I'm not intellectually endowed enough to understand the fine nuances of his work. What I do know is that every time Wilson teams up for a flick with Vince Vaughn, it makes long to see Wilson in another Allen flick. Not that I want to see Wilson typecast, but I like him best in comedies and Wes Anderson films. I realize that these two subsets of the movie world are not mutually exclusive, but I'm not exactly sure how to classify the Anderson films. Parts of them are hilarious and parts are damned depressing and parts are just different, but the total is always a good film.
The real treat in this movie are the women. I was just listening to a news item earlier today about how women are under-represented in film, the magic number being 17% in regards to starring roles and 28% in regards to speaking roles. That doesn't even take into account all of the women that are there as sexual objects only. There certainly are a lot of women running around in skimpy outfits, and far fewer women than men have speaking parts in this fiilm. At least the two female leads (who are in significantly less of the movie than the two male leads) are not simply there as window dressing. Lucy Liu plays Princess Pei Pei, who is strong-willed and after discovering the plight of the Chinese in America stands up to fight for them and protect them. We also have Brandon Merrill as the "Indian Wife" (I kid you not, that is what the credits call her), who literally saves the main male leads bacon every time they are just about to killed. Both women are capable of taking care of business and doing it with grace. Actually, in the mandatory-for-westerns bar brawl, one of the "ladies of the house" is easily the best fighter in the room, with the exception of Chan.
WAtching this has made me nostalgic for other Jackie Chan movies - I think I will have to track down the series he did with Chris Tucker. I'm not sure they made only three of those or if they made a fourth one, but I've only seen two of them, and the second one, I missed a chunk in the middle of it as something came up when I was trying to watch it. I haven't seen a new Jackie Chan movie in a while, but I'm sure that he must still be making them, so nothing is stopping except lack of slots in my holds queue at the library.
Shanghai Noon at IMDb
I like Jackie Chan and Owen Wilson together. Wilson's kind of humor and the character's penchant for avoiding actual physical combat make for a nice counterpost to Chan's kung-fu action. Actually, I tend to like Wilson's work with the exception of Midnight in Paris, where I just thought the whole script was bad and all the actors were flat and close to yelling their lines at each other for significant portions of the film. Maybe I just don't understand Woody Allen because I'm not intellectually endowed enough to understand the fine nuances of his work. What I do know is that every time Wilson teams up for a flick with Vince Vaughn, it makes long to see Wilson in another Allen flick. Not that I want to see Wilson typecast, but I like him best in comedies and Wes Anderson films. I realize that these two subsets of the movie world are not mutually exclusive, but I'm not exactly sure how to classify the Anderson films. Parts of them are hilarious and parts are damned depressing and parts are just different, but the total is always a good film.
The real treat in this movie are the women. I was just listening to a news item earlier today about how women are under-represented in film, the magic number being 17% in regards to starring roles and 28% in regards to speaking roles. That doesn't even take into account all of the women that are there as sexual objects only. There certainly are a lot of women running around in skimpy outfits, and far fewer women than men have speaking parts in this fiilm. At least the two female leads (who are in significantly less of the movie than the two male leads) are not simply there as window dressing. Lucy Liu plays Princess Pei Pei, who is strong-willed and after discovering the plight of the Chinese in America stands up to fight for them and protect them. We also have Brandon Merrill as the "Indian Wife" (I kid you not, that is what the credits call her), who literally saves the main male leads bacon every time they are just about to killed. Both women are capable of taking care of business and doing it with grace. Actually, in the mandatory-for-westerns bar brawl, one of the "ladies of the house" is easily the best fighter in the room, with the exception of Chan.
WAtching this has made me nostalgic for other Jackie Chan movies - I think I will have to track down the series he did with Chris Tucker. I'm not sure they made only three of those or if they made a fourth one, but I've only seen two of them, and the second one, I missed a chunk in the middle of it as something came up when I was trying to watch it. I haven't seen a new Jackie Chan movie in a while, but I'm sure that he must still be making them, so nothing is stopping except lack of slots in my holds queue at the library.
Shanghai Noon at IMDb
Monday, July 15, 2013
Seeking a Friend for the End of the World (2012)
I can't figure out if I'm supposed to be happy or sad right now. I do know that I liked this film and that I did get all emotional at the end. This movie certainly has its funny bits, but it has an equal number of touching, sentimental moments as well, which I guess is the best way to handle a movie about the end of life on earth.
Steve Carell does an excellent job as Dodge. He really plays it down, letting the absurdity of the various situations and the other actors deal with the comedic aspect. This isn't like his role in the 40 year old virgin where he is playing a straight man to the rest of the cast, he plays Dodge as this low-key nice guy who is willing to admit that he has wasted his life but still maintains enough personal integrity to do right by people and dogs.
Keira Knightley plays Penny, the opposite to Dodge. Her character is fr ought with absurdities, but not ones that were brought on by the end of days, but rather ones that she has always had. While more chaotic, Penny turns out to be a good soul, too. Knightley handles the role with the panache you would expect from her. She does a job that I put on par with Natalie Portman in Garden State - quirky but adorable, and completely believable.
I found this film really interesting for the way it showed how different people would react to the news that the world was coming to an end. Some people go wild, some handle it with grace. Most seem to not know what to do with themselves. I think this is a pretty good representation. I do think that there would be more lawlessness. There wouldn't just be rioting in the major cities with some people getting killed by the angry mobs, I think there would be a lot of people that were just, "fuck it" and would grab their guns and set out to see how many they could kill before someone got them. You kind of get a hint of this with Grissom's character, I mean, William Peterson's character. He found out that he had inoperable cancer and six months to live right before the world found out that it only had three weeks left to go, so he hires an assassin to take himself out. Actually, I'm not sure if hiring is the right term as much as just asking someone to provide a service. It does make you think about how you would handle the situation.
Of course the setting and premise of this movie is an allegory for how unpredictable and short our lives can be and often are. The message is that if you want something, you should try now, else you might die unfulfilled, unhappy and very alone. In the case of this film, that was going to quite literally going to happen.
One thing about this movie that really amuses me - at the very beginning of the movie when Dodge and his wife, Linda, hear about the impending doom, she just gets out of the car and runs away and Dodge never sees her again. That is not what's funny, that's actually kind of heart-breaking. What is funny is that Linda is played by Steve Carell's real-life wife, Nancy. That is funny stuff, and I guess being a producer of the film as well as a star does have it's moments.
Seeking a Friend for the End of the World on IMDb
Steve Carell does an excellent job as Dodge. He really plays it down, letting the absurdity of the various situations and the other actors deal with the comedic aspect. This isn't like his role in the 40 year old virgin where he is playing a straight man to the rest of the cast, he plays Dodge as this low-key nice guy who is willing to admit that he has wasted his life but still maintains enough personal integrity to do right by people and dogs.
Keira Knightley plays Penny, the opposite to Dodge. Her character is fr ought with absurdities, but not ones that were brought on by the end of days, but rather ones that she has always had. While more chaotic, Penny turns out to be a good soul, too. Knightley handles the role with the panache you would expect from her. She does a job that I put on par with Natalie Portman in Garden State - quirky but adorable, and completely believable.
I found this film really interesting for the way it showed how different people would react to the news that the world was coming to an end. Some people go wild, some handle it with grace. Most seem to not know what to do with themselves. I think this is a pretty good representation. I do think that there would be more lawlessness. There wouldn't just be rioting in the major cities with some people getting killed by the angry mobs, I think there would be a lot of people that were just, "fuck it" and would grab their guns and set out to see how many they could kill before someone got them. You kind of get a hint of this with Grissom's character, I mean, William Peterson's character. He found out that he had inoperable cancer and six months to live right before the world found out that it only had three weeks left to go, so he hires an assassin to take himself out. Actually, I'm not sure if hiring is the right term as much as just asking someone to provide a service. It does make you think about how you would handle the situation.
Of course the setting and premise of this movie is an allegory for how unpredictable and short our lives can be and often are. The message is that if you want something, you should try now, else you might die unfulfilled, unhappy and very alone. In the case of this film, that was going to quite literally going to happen.
One thing about this movie that really amuses me - at the very beginning of the movie when Dodge and his wife, Linda, hear about the impending doom, she just gets out of the car and runs away and Dodge never sees her again. That is not what's funny, that's actually kind of heart-breaking. What is funny is that Linda is played by Steve Carell's real-life wife, Nancy. That is funny stuff, and I guess being a producer of the film as well as a star does have it's moments.
Seeking a Friend for the End of the World on IMDb
Saturday, July 13, 2013
Resident Evil: Retribution (2012)
Ah hells ya! I've been waiting for this film to show up in the library system. This is the fifth movie in an ongoing series (I see that they are already at work on episode 6). I suppose that they will keep going until Jovovich gets too old to play Alice. And that is fine with me. The first one was great, and then the second one came out, and it wasn't as good. I was worried that I had seen a trend starting, but the third one took the movies in a whole different direction and introduced new characters and the fourth took it in a different direction yet still. I thought 3 and 4 were great so I was really looking forward to this one and seeing how they were going to change it this time. I wasn't disappointed. We get to see further exploration of the use of cloning in the world of Resident Evil. We also literally get to see more of the world. This time around we are shown a really grim view of the world, one in which very few humans left. I continue to be impressed with the quality of the fight scenes and special effects.
The one disappoint that I have with this film is that they did not get the same actress back to play Jill Valentine. The person they did was fine, just different. They got everyone else back from all of the other films. Having the same actor is kind of key since they deal so much with clones. I'm sure had Valentine had clones in this film they would have used the new actor for them, but my point is that because the focus on characters who look exactly like other characters that we viewers have paid close attention to the actors in their various roles. I am happy in particular to see Michelle Rodrequez and Oded Fehr continuing to be involved with the films as I really dig both of them.
Resident Evil: Retribution on IMDb
The one disappoint that I have with this film is that they did not get the same actress back to play Jill Valentine. The person they did was fine, just different. They got everyone else back from all of the other films. Having the same actor is kind of key since they deal so much with clones. I'm sure had Valentine had clones in this film they would have used the new actor for them, but my point is that because the focus on characters who look exactly like other characters that we viewers have paid close attention to the actors in their various roles. I am happy in particular to see Michelle Rodrequez and Oded Fehr continuing to be involved with the films as I really dig both of them.
Resident Evil: Retribution on IMDb
Friday, July 12, 2013
Iron Sky (2012)
This is a tour de farce that I have been waiting to see for years. Back when this film was still looking for funding, someone sent me a link and pretty soon I and all of the librarians were trying to find out what the heck it was. Now through the wonder of streaming video, I've finally gotten to see it, and it was pretty much what I thought it was going to be, which is to say it's an over the top sci-fi/comedy.
The premise is that at the end of WWII, Hitler sent some Nazis to the moon to work on a some kind of super weapon that would win them the war. But, generations pass before they're ready, and their return to Earth is jump-started by a U.S. moon mission meant to popularize a President getting ready to run for her second term. A President I might add who is never named but looks an awful lot like Sarah Palin.
This whole film is over the top, and it's designed to be that way. There are also some not-so-subtle thematic comparisons between the Nazi party and modern-day American Conservative political movements. At one point, the spokeswoman for the Moon Nazis (I know, right?) lists off their credo and goals and the President hears this and adopts the whole thing for her reelection campaign. Also, we see the oval office at one point and it has a stuffed polar bear, stuffed mountain lion and various pieces of exercise equipment in it - not exactly Presidential looking, which I am sure is the point.
It's nice to see a well-made sci-fi/political/action film that doesn't take itself too seriously. Plus, who doesn't love watching the good guys fighting and killing Nazis?
Iron Sky on IMDb
The premise is that at the end of WWII, Hitler sent some Nazis to the moon to work on a some kind of super weapon that would win them the war. But, generations pass before they're ready, and their return to Earth is jump-started by a U.S. moon mission meant to popularize a President getting ready to run for her second term. A President I might add who is never named but looks an awful lot like Sarah Palin.
This whole film is over the top, and it's designed to be that way. There are also some not-so-subtle thematic comparisons between the Nazi party and modern-day American Conservative political movements. At one point, the spokeswoman for the Moon Nazis (I know, right?) lists off their credo and goals and the President hears this and adopts the whole thing for her reelection campaign. Also, we see the oval office at one point and it has a stuffed polar bear, stuffed mountain lion and various pieces of exercise equipment in it - not exactly Presidential looking, which I am sure is the point.
It's nice to see a well-made sci-fi/political/action film that doesn't take itself too seriously. Plus, who doesn't love watching the good guys fighting and killing Nazis?
Iron Sky on IMDb
Thursday, July 11, 2013
Identity Thief (2013)
I have just had the worst luck with comedies lately. I mean Ted last night, and Bernie and Casa de mi Padre last month, were all shite. Clerks 2 had it's moments and it had Rosario Dawson whom I would watch reading the phone book, but not really a good movie. I have to go all the way back to last year with Men In Black 3 to find a comedy, and that's more of an action/comedy, that I liked. Do I just have no sense of humor? Today I was in a discussion about being forced to watch Adam Sandler movies, and the people were telling me I was whack for not thinking they were hilarious. Okay, not all of the people took that position. And no one actually said 'whack', I was just trying to make them sound hipper than they are. But they really did say that his movies were good and that perhaps I just didn't get them. What the fuck is there to get in an Adam Sandler movie, particularly the older ones which we were talking about? It's just like all of those Judd Apatow/Seth Rogan movies - what is there to get? They're not deep - fart jokes, and having some euphamism be the punchline for all the other jokes - not exactly rocket science.
I just need to be more selective, or just give up on the genre. I have seen plenty of funny movies, but I guess I just don't go for the mainstream comedies. Don't get me wrong, there are plenty that I like, just none lately. Of course by mainstream I mean American. There are plenty of British shows that I still find hilarious, and most that I don't are just too weird or too referential for me to get. Alright, I, Sandy Bigelow Patterson, do hereby resolve to do better research before watching movies purporting to be comedies, and to try and watch more British movies and television shows. Of course my name is not SBP, but I had to actually mention something from the movie in here.
Identity Thief on IMDb
I just need to be more selective, or just give up on the genre. I have seen plenty of funny movies, but I guess I just don't go for the mainstream comedies. Don't get me wrong, there are plenty that I like, just none lately. Of course by mainstream I mean American. There are plenty of British shows that I still find hilarious, and most that I don't are just too weird or too referential for me to get. Alright, I, Sandy Bigelow Patterson, do hereby resolve to do better research before watching movies purporting to be comedies, and to try and watch more British movies and television shows. Of course my name is not SBP, but I had to actually mention something from the movie in here.
Identity Thief on IMDb
Wednesday, July 10, 2013
Ted (2012)
I knew nothing about this movie going in except the actors in it. I love Mark Wahlberg and Mila Kunis and I think that Joel McHale can be hilarious not to mention I've been a fan of Patrick Warburton since he was the Tick and then there's Giovanni Ribisi who is always worth watching. What I didn't know was that Patrick Stewart was going to be narrating, so as this movie starts I was excited for a dumb romp. I'm familiar with Seth MacFarlann, and while not a big fan, or really one at all, I thought that with the cast mentioned above that the movie might be pretty decent. About five minutes in, I realized that the DVD box should have had a big warning sticker on it that said, "If you are over the age of 18 you need to be really high to enjoy this movie. Seriously." But, by the time I was about 30 minutes in, I realize that there would also need to be an additional sticker on the DVD case that said, "We strongly encourage all adults to be thoroughly high before beginning to watch this move, and to do the drugs you see being done on screen every time someone on screen does them." And then maybe to have a huge jug of wine for good measure.
I don't feel as soiled as I do after watching one of those Judd Apatow/Seth Rogan flicks, but I feel dirty. I felt like I was watching the Jerry Springer show - it was so awful that I couldn't look away. I don't mean the MST3K kind of awful that you can make fun of and end up enjoying. I mean the kind of crap where you're apologizing to yourself as you go along for subjecting yourself to this crap.
Sam Jones as Flash Gordon should have been ironic and hilarious. Ted Danson doing a fake interview about his years on Cheers could have been brilliant instead of homophobic. I will admit there were a couple of lines that Patrick Stewart uttered that were quite funny in the context of being said by Patrick Stewart. This movie should not have been so damned predictable. Especially since all of us adults were going to be so high from following the stickers on the case that we could have followed any plot twist and loved it. Oh, that's right. They didn't put the warning labels on, so we were completely sober while watching. Bastards.
On the plus side, Mila Kunis is easy on the eyes, and I think Norah Jones is super-duper hot. Yeah. So, those parts were good.
Ted on IMDb
I don't feel as soiled as I do after watching one of those Judd Apatow/Seth Rogan flicks, but I feel dirty. I felt like I was watching the Jerry Springer show - it was so awful that I couldn't look away. I don't mean the MST3K kind of awful that you can make fun of and end up enjoying. I mean the kind of crap where you're apologizing to yourself as you go along for subjecting yourself to this crap.
Sam Jones as Flash Gordon should have been ironic and hilarious. Ted Danson doing a fake interview about his years on Cheers could have been brilliant instead of homophobic. I will admit there were a couple of lines that Patrick Stewart uttered that were quite funny in the context of being said by Patrick Stewart. This movie should not have been so damned predictable. Especially since all of us adults were going to be so high from following the stickers on the case that we could have followed any plot twist and loved it. Oh, that's right. They didn't put the warning labels on, so we were completely sober while watching. Bastards.
On the plus side, Mila Kunis is easy on the eyes, and I think Norah Jones is super-duper hot. Yeah. So, those parts were good.
Ted on IMDb
Tuesday, July 09, 2013
A Discovery of Witches
A Discovery of Witches
by
Deborah Harkness
read by
Jennifer Ikeda
This was my second attempt at listening to this audiobook. The first time I checked it out I heard from a trusted source that I may like the premise and the world, but that the characters were quite annoying, so much so that they book was not finished by said trusted source. So, I let it sit at home for a week or so debating whether or not I should try, and then had enough other media options that I sent it back unheard. Much More recently, another trusted source was telling me about the impending third book of the trilogy and told me that she had quite liked the first book - this book. I checked it out again and decided I'd give it another try, because if I don't like what I'm listening to, I don't have to finish it. I know this seems obvious, but I tend to finish a lot of crappy things out of some false sense of duty or perhaps a literary contract or some misplaced need for closure.
I made it through the first disk on my second attempt. I fell asleep about halfway through my first time. I almost didn't put the second disk in. I wasn't necessarily bothered by the characters, though I certainly did not feel any attachment to them either, but I was annoyed at several things done by Harkness that in my opinion should have never made it past her editor, and I did vow that if the second disk did not get a whole lot more interesting, that I would be done with the All Souls trilogy. What did she do? Most of the first part of the book takes place at Oxford in the Bodleian Library, and you would get a line like, "Diana, in the library, took the library book and sat down at the library table where she sat up her laptop on the library table next to the library book before she seated herself in the library chair in the library." She just added other adjectives to disguise it, like "musty", "ancient", "wooden", etc. almost in a madlib format. And at one point, she had the main character walk over a foot bridge that "spanned the expanse". Really? You couldn't come up with another term for 'expanse'? I guess at least she didn't say, "she walked over a foot bridge the bridged the bridgeable." or something similar.
I waited until the next day to try with the second disk. And then the third. And then the fourth. I got to the end of my second day of listening thinking exactly what I had been told in the first place - interesting premise and setting, but not too fond of the characters, the two mains who were in fact quite annoying. As our main character Diana has to deal with whom she thinks is her nemesis, Matthew, some interesting things start to happen, even while they are annoying me. At the end of the fourth disk when Matthew convinces Diana to come with him to yoga...and oh by the way Diana who is a witch, is surprised to see that the yoga class is made up solely of other witches and vampires - which by the way Matthew happens to be - and by demons. This is a huge deal because the three races hate each other or fear each other or something, and they never mix. I'm not sure why exactly demons are called demons, but they are as separate from humans as witches and vampires are, but like them look human. I think perhaps it's from them acting like a person who is as if they are possessed by a demon. I understand why witches and demons do yoga, because they are physiologically enough like humans to benefit from it, but I failed to get why vampires would need or want to do yoga. But obviously in this version of Oxford, no one else thinks this is an odd thing.
I was faced with a big decision at this point. I was through the first four of twenty disks and found myself not really caring that much about the characters, but intrigued by the mystery being set up. I also initially hated the way Harkness was handling vampires as they seemed a bit like Twilight vampires - uber-pretty, can walk around in the sunlight, and seem to be easily able to avoid killing humans if that is there predilection. But, we're already getting some explanations of why this is so, and I found her reasons believable. I decided I would give it one more disk and if things didn't get a lot better, then I was done.
Things got better.
Harkness gets better as the book goes along in concerns to the extraneous and repetitive adjectives. She still tends to over do it when the point of view character goes to a new place. What really got me to stay listening was that characters developed. Yes, some of them still are kind of annoying, but you come to find out it's because of character flaws and the way they act and talk is representative of how those particular characters think of themselves - once you get into it and you start finding out what the other characters think of that individual and realize that the opinions can be quite different I was able to see that a certain amount of the initial annoying behavior was setting up for what was going to come later. Plus as the book goes on, you meet some rather likable characters and the last quarter of it adds in some touches of appropriate humor.
This is just one of those books where if you can soldier through the first quarter to third, you will be rewarded in the end. What concerns me is that the person who liked this audiobook didn't like the second book near as much and described it as something I would need to listen to so that I can see how we get form book one to book three. That is not exactly a ringing endorsement. Considering that she liked this book better than I did, I hope I can make it through to the end. I guess I'll know in a couple of days.
The reader for this book does an good job. Sometimes it's not completely clear just based upon her accent which character she is doing. She does try and give each of her characters a unique voice, which works better for some than others. But you can always tell when Diana is speaking, and accept for one conversation you can also always tell when Matthew is speaking. For the others, it is more a case of two French female characters, for example, sounding too similar to just get who they are by the voice.
At the end of the book, I would definitely recommend it, but with all of the caveats mentioned above. I really liked all of the different language bits used, especially the old tongues. And I liked all of the obscure historical references, to both places and books. I'm keeping my fingers crossed that the second book is better than just tolerable.
A Discovery of Witches at Powells.com
A Discovery of Witches Audiobook at Amazon.com
by
Deborah Harkness
read by
Jennifer Ikeda
This was my second attempt at listening to this audiobook. The first time I checked it out I heard from a trusted source that I may like the premise and the world, but that the characters were quite annoying, so much so that they book was not finished by said trusted source. So, I let it sit at home for a week or so debating whether or not I should try, and then had enough other media options that I sent it back unheard. Much More recently, another trusted source was telling me about the impending third book of the trilogy and told me that she had quite liked the first book - this book. I checked it out again and decided I'd give it another try, because if I don't like what I'm listening to, I don't have to finish it. I know this seems obvious, but I tend to finish a lot of crappy things out of some false sense of duty or perhaps a literary contract or some misplaced need for closure.
I made it through the first disk on my second attempt. I fell asleep about halfway through my first time. I almost didn't put the second disk in. I wasn't necessarily bothered by the characters, though I certainly did not feel any attachment to them either, but I was annoyed at several things done by Harkness that in my opinion should have never made it past her editor, and I did vow that if the second disk did not get a whole lot more interesting, that I would be done with the All Souls trilogy. What did she do? Most of the first part of the book takes place at Oxford in the Bodleian Library, and you would get a line like, "Diana, in the library, took the library book and sat down at the library table where she sat up her laptop on the library table next to the library book before she seated herself in the library chair in the library." She just added other adjectives to disguise it, like "musty", "ancient", "wooden", etc. almost in a madlib format. And at one point, she had the main character walk over a foot bridge that "spanned the expanse". Really? You couldn't come up with another term for 'expanse'? I guess at least she didn't say, "she walked over a foot bridge the bridged the bridgeable." or something similar.
I waited until the next day to try with the second disk. And then the third. And then the fourth. I got to the end of my second day of listening thinking exactly what I had been told in the first place - interesting premise and setting, but not too fond of the characters, the two mains who were in fact quite annoying. As our main character Diana has to deal with whom she thinks is her nemesis, Matthew, some interesting things start to happen, even while they are annoying me. At the end of the fourth disk when Matthew convinces Diana to come with him to yoga...and oh by the way Diana who is a witch, is surprised to see that the yoga class is made up solely of other witches and vampires - which by the way Matthew happens to be - and by demons. This is a huge deal because the three races hate each other or fear each other or something, and they never mix. I'm not sure why exactly demons are called demons, but they are as separate from humans as witches and vampires are, but like them look human. I think perhaps it's from them acting like a person who is as if they are possessed by a demon. I understand why witches and demons do yoga, because they are physiologically enough like humans to benefit from it, but I failed to get why vampires would need or want to do yoga. But obviously in this version of Oxford, no one else thinks this is an odd thing.
I was faced with a big decision at this point. I was through the first four of twenty disks and found myself not really caring that much about the characters, but intrigued by the mystery being set up. I also initially hated the way Harkness was handling vampires as they seemed a bit like Twilight vampires - uber-pretty, can walk around in the sunlight, and seem to be easily able to avoid killing humans if that is there predilection. But, we're already getting some explanations of why this is so, and I found her reasons believable. I decided I would give it one more disk and if things didn't get a lot better, then I was done.
Things got better.
Harkness gets better as the book goes along in concerns to the extraneous and repetitive adjectives. She still tends to over do it when the point of view character goes to a new place. What really got me to stay listening was that characters developed. Yes, some of them still are kind of annoying, but you come to find out it's because of character flaws and the way they act and talk is representative of how those particular characters think of themselves - once you get into it and you start finding out what the other characters think of that individual and realize that the opinions can be quite different I was able to see that a certain amount of the initial annoying behavior was setting up for what was going to come later. Plus as the book goes on, you meet some rather likable characters and the last quarter of it adds in some touches of appropriate humor.
This is just one of those books where if you can soldier through the first quarter to third, you will be rewarded in the end. What concerns me is that the person who liked this audiobook didn't like the second book near as much and described it as something I would need to listen to so that I can see how we get form book one to book three. That is not exactly a ringing endorsement. Considering that she liked this book better than I did, I hope I can make it through to the end. I guess I'll know in a couple of days.
The reader for this book does an good job. Sometimes it's not completely clear just based upon her accent which character she is doing. She does try and give each of her characters a unique voice, which works better for some than others. But you can always tell when Diana is speaking, and accept for one conversation you can also always tell when Matthew is speaking. For the others, it is more a case of two French female characters, for example, sounding too similar to just get who they are by the voice.
At the end of the book, I would definitely recommend it, but with all of the caveats mentioned above. I really liked all of the different language bits used, especially the old tongues. And I liked all of the obscure historical references, to both places and books. I'm keeping my fingers crossed that the second book is better than just tolerable.
A Discovery of Witches at Powells.com
A Discovery of Witches Audiobook at Amazon.com
Monday, July 08, 2013
Warm Bodies (2013)
I think that I can safely say that this is the sweetest zombie movie that I've ever seen. It is certainly a different take on the whole zombie sub-genre of films. This may be the first film in the new sub-sub-genre, to be known henceforth as rom-zoms. There was action and suspense as is typical in zombie films, and yes even the eating of brains, but that's just about where the zombie part ends and the romance part begins. I know that zombies are often used as a metaphor in films, sometimes subtle, sometimes blatant, but in this film they're not even really necessary to the real story arc. It could have been citizens from two different sity-states or neighborhoods or countries or planets. This is really a story about a boy falling for a girl, losing the girl and then winning her back. You know, boy-meets-girl, boy-loses-girl, boy-wins-girl-back. The walking undead are really just a mechanism to show difference and to get butts in seats.
I tend to like stories that get a bit into world building, or let's be honest, a lot into world building. That doesn't really happen at all in this story. But it's okay, because this is a "light" movie which I enjoyed as it was. The two young stars - Nicholas Hoult and Teresa Palmer - are the main reason for that. First off, they both pull off the American accent quite well. They also turn out to be good actors. I know that you are thinking to yourself how hard could it be to pplay a zombie, but Hoult isn't a typical zombie and does a very good job, in fact in the context of this film I don't know how it could have possibly been better. The supporting actors, inclusind some guy name John Malkovich, do a pretty good job, too. If I hadn't already known that Dave Franco was in this movie, I would have recognized the family resemblance the first time I saw that brow of his. Also, I think this is the first film, or maybe even any appearance, where Rob Corddry hasn't gotten on my nerves, with a nod to Hot Tub Time Machine where he did get on my nerves but was supposed to get on them.
Warm Bodies on IMDb
I tend to like stories that get a bit into world building, or let's be honest, a lot into world building. That doesn't really happen at all in this story. But it's okay, because this is a "light" movie which I enjoyed as it was. The two young stars - Nicholas Hoult and Teresa Palmer - are the main reason for that. First off, they both pull off the American accent quite well. They also turn out to be good actors. I know that you are thinking to yourself how hard could it be to pplay a zombie, but Hoult isn't a typical zombie and does a very good job, in fact in the context of this film I don't know how it could have possibly been better. The supporting actors, inclusind some guy name John Malkovich, do a pretty good job, too. If I hadn't already known that Dave Franco was in this movie, I would have recognized the family resemblance the first time I saw that brow of his. Also, I think this is the first film, or maybe even any appearance, where Rob Corddry hasn't gotten on my nerves, with a nod to Hot Tub Time Machine where he did get on my nerves but was supposed to get on them.
Warm Bodies on IMDb
Saturday, July 06, 2013
Grosse Point Blank (1997)
One of the things I love about this movie is that Martin Blank (John Cusack) always tells everyone who asks that he is a professional killer. Everyone asks him where he has been since high school, and he just tells them. They all assume that he's making a joke.
Another thing I love about this movie is the character of Marcella (Joan Cusack). She has so got her shit together. When she has the munitions dealer on one line and her sister on the other and just goes back and forth betwen cussing out the former and explaining a soup base to the latter, it's comic genius.
I can keep going with reasons why I love this film, but they all boil down to character's quirky behaviors. Whether it be the neurotic psychologist who may have been just fine before meeting Martin, or Grocer taking his experimental drugs and trying to unionize the professional killers. Or how about the classmates of Martin? Paul, the pot smoking real estate agent, or Bob the coke snorting car salesman or Terry the private security officer, or how about Tanya the neck-brace-wearing-near-death-experience-having girl who wants to dance with Martin? The only one that isn't terribly quirky is Debi Newberry (Minnie Driver), but who seems to be going through some kind of self-imposed therapy as an on-air personality for the local radio station.
The one thing that I don't like about this movie is that they are attending their ten year reunion. I can buy how much the characters have changed, but I have an issue with the actors, all of whom are older than 28. When this film first came out, I remember thinking this. It still holds true 15 years later. I was 24 when this came out and most of these actors had been doing their thing professionally since I was in junior high. But, I guess having it be a 15 year reunion would be weird, and a 20 reunion would have meant that some of the classmates had gotten together earlier. Also, not a criticism of the film as much as it is of my high school, but the music my school was listening to was not near as good. Not even close. Our soundtrack would have been all AC-DC, Metallica, Billy Idol and Billy Ray Cyrus.
Grosse Point Blank on IMDb
Another thing I love about this movie is the character of Marcella (Joan Cusack). She has so got her shit together. When she has the munitions dealer on one line and her sister on the other and just goes back and forth betwen cussing out the former and explaining a soup base to the latter, it's comic genius.
I can keep going with reasons why I love this film, but they all boil down to character's quirky behaviors. Whether it be the neurotic psychologist who may have been just fine before meeting Martin, or Grocer taking his experimental drugs and trying to unionize the professional killers. Or how about the classmates of Martin? Paul, the pot smoking real estate agent, or Bob the coke snorting car salesman or Terry the private security officer, or how about Tanya the neck-brace-wearing-near-death-experience-having girl who wants to dance with Martin? The only one that isn't terribly quirky is Debi Newberry (Minnie Driver), but who seems to be going through some kind of self-imposed therapy as an on-air personality for the local radio station.
The one thing that I don't like about this movie is that they are attending their ten year reunion. I can buy how much the characters have changed, but I have an issue with the actors, all of whom are older than 28. When this film first came out, I remember thinking this. It still holds true 15 years later. I was 24 when this came out and most of these actors had been doing their thing professionally since I was in junior high. But, I guess having it be a 15 year reunion would be weird, and a 20 reunion would have meant that some of the classmates had gotten together earlier. Also, not a criticism of the film as much as it is of my high school, but the music my school was listening to was not near as good. Not even close. Our soundtrack would have been all AC-DC, Metallica, Billy Idol and Billy Ray Cyrus.
Grosse Point Blank on IMDb
Friday, July 05, 2013
Alex Cross (2012)
So, that's Tyler Perry. He doesn't really seem much like Martin Lawrence at all. Well, they did play a trailer for one of his Medea movies. But that was more like Eddie Murphy. I can handle Eddie Murphy, not so much the fan of Martin Lawrence though. Both Lawrence and Murphy are always at least a little bit comedian in their action films. Not so with Perry. I think they made a good choice.
The back of the DVD case says this is a James Patterson character, but I knew that because I have heard people talking about Alex Cross (the character, not this movie). What I didn't realize was that the pair of films starring Morgan Freeman - Kiss the Girls and Along Came a Spider - were also Alex Cross films. Because I am not a reader of the Patterson books, I don't know what order they are told in, so I don't know if he wrote a prequel book, or if this movie is a reboot of the series, which started much later in Cross's career. Perry's portrayal is certainly more action/adventure than Freeman's Cross. But, Perry is a younger man now than Freeman was then. I think I prefer the more cerebral version of Cross, I mean since his thing is that he's a hotshot psychologist as well as a detective. It would have been nice to see more of that, but as I'm not familiar with the book, maybe the point is that he's reacting to the villain. I did notice in the credits that James Patterson is a producer for this movie, so presumably it's "close enough" to the book to satisfy him.
This is not a remarkable movie. There is nothing, good or bad, that makes it stick out. But, it is a very competent movie, the whole way through. I would have liked this film to be a bit more of a police procedural, in other words I would like to see the Cross character do more profiling. It's good enough that I'll watch the sequel or number four depending on which way you count it.
Alex Cross on IMDb
The back of the DVD case says this is a James Patterson character, but I knew that because I have heard people talking about Alex Cross (the character, not this movie). What I didn't realize was that the pair of films starring Morgan Freeman - Kiss the Girls and Along Came a Spider - were also Alex Cross films. Because I am not a reader of the Patterson books, I don't know what order they are told in, so I don't know if he wrote a prequel book, or if this movie is a reboot of the series, which started much later in Cross's career. Perry's portrayal is certainly more action/adventure than Freeman's Cross. But, Perry is a younger man now than Freeman was then. I think I prefer the more cerebral version of Cross, I mean since his thing is that he's a hotshot psychologist as well as a detective. It would have been nice to see more of that, but as I'm not familiar with the book, maybe the point is that he's reacting to the villain. I did notice in the credits that James Patterson is a producer for this movie, so presumably it's "close enough" to the book to satisfy him.
This is not a remarkable movie. There is nothing, good or bad, that makes it stick out. But, it is a very competent movie, the whole way through. I would have liked this film to be a bit more of a police procedural, in other words I would like to see the Cross character do more profiling. It's good enough that I'll watch the sequel or number four depending on which way you count it.
Alex Cross on IMDb
Wednesday, July 03, 2013
The Artist (2012)
What a happy little movie. In the midst of uber-violent films I've watched the last three out of four nights, it was nice for a light movie. Sure there is that one scene where George accidentally shoots the vase...
The movie was predictable and a bit to a lot cliched. There were absolutely no surprises. Yet. Yet, I liked it. It was a nice movie. It was very well-made and obviously the people putting this together cared a lot about it and that showed. I could very easily see this being one of those movies that people buy and play all the time.
I feel like I should have some deep thoughts about the change over from silent movies to the 'talkies', or perhaps at least some insight into the actor trying to bridge that change. Perhaps I should notice how this is really a metaphor for contemporary film-making moving from analog to digital, form live-action to an ever-increasing-dependence on computer generated content. Maybe I should notice that this film is really a commentary on the industrial-economic system that our culture runs on. But, I think it's just a nice little film.
The Artist on IMDb
The movie was predictable and a bit to a lot cliched. There were absolutely no surprises. Yet. Yet, I liked it. It was a nice movie. It was very well-made and obviously the people putting this together cared a lot about it and that showed. I could very easily see this being one of those movies that people buy and play all the time.
I feel like I should have some deep thoughts about the change over from silent movies to the 'talkies', or perhaps at least some insight into the actor trying to bridge that change. Perhaps I should notice how this is really a metaphor for contemporary film-making moving from analog to digital, form live-action to an ever-increasing-dependence on computer generated content. Maybe I should notice that this film is really a commentary on the industrial-economic system that our culture runs on. But, I think it's just a nice little film.
The Artist on IMDb
Tuesday, July 02, 2013
Django Unchained (2012)
When I checked this one out, the librarian said to me that with 100 gallons less blood this would have won the Oscar for best movie. I was skeptical to say the least as I normally find Tarantino's films entertaining but a bit heavy handed. I certainly did expect there to be too much blood. But, to my pleasant surprise, this was a really good film. Too much blood, true, but maybe only 50 gallons too much.
There's a fair bit of humor offered in this film, much of it the slightly blue humor that we've come to expect from Quentin Tarantino, but I don't think that it was off-base. This film's storytelling style is really reminiscent of the Kill Bill films, but with fewer and shorter scenes of extended violence.
To be completely honest, the gore didn't bother me a bit, and while I concur with the librarian that there was too much of it to be an Oscar winner, I don't think there was too much of it to tell the story. There was only one thing that bothered me, and that is when Laura gets shot by Django - one shot from his Colt 45 and she flies back, which would not be too improbable if she didn't fly off at about a 60 degree angle to the vector that the bullet was taking. I'm guessing few people noticed this.
Jamie Foxx was great. I had never noticed how big his hands are before, but I fixated on that a little bit, as I watched him totally own the role of Django. On par with Foxx's performance, and of no surprise was Leonardo DiCaprio as Mr. Candy. He nailed that character, the rich slaver who has far too much money and time on his hands. Samuel L. Jackson and Christoph Waltz do excellently in the supporting roles. My only critique really is a costuming one - Jackson with that white donut hair-do didn't look right, but otherwise both characters were spot on.
Django Unchained on IMDb
There's a fair bit of humor offered in this film, much of it the slightly blue humor that we've come to expect from Quentin Tarantino, but I don't think that it was off-base. This film's storytelling style is really reminiscent of the Kill Bill films, but with fewer and shorter scenes of extended violence.
To be completely honest, the gore didn't bother me a bit, and while I concur with the librarian that there was too much of it to be an Oscar winner, I don't think there was too much of it to tell the story. There was only one thing that bothered me, and that is when Laura gets shot by Django - one shot from his Colt 45 and she flies back, which would not be too improbable if she didn't fly off at about a 60 degree angle to the vector that the bullet was taking. I'm guessing few people noticed this.
Jamie Foxx was great. I had never noticed how big his hands are before, but I fixated on that a little bit, as I watched him totally own the role of Django. On par with Foxx's performance, and of no surprise was Leonardo DiCaprio as Mr. Candy. He nailed that character, the rich slaver who has far too much money and time on his hands. Samuel L. Jackson and Christoph Waltz do excellently in the supporting roles. My only critique really is a costuming one - Jackson with that white donut hair-do didn't look right, but otherwise both characters were spot on.
Django Unchained on IMDb
Monday, July 01, 2013
Moonrise Kingdom (2012)
I think this is the first time I've seen Bruce Willis in a film in many, many years where he doesn't drop the f-bomb. He also had hair, so maybe this film was more of a fantasy than it seemed at first blush.
This is a quirky little film. It takes place in September 1965 but seems like it could take place a decade earlier. It is both a film about an adventure that some kids have, while also having the female lead read from her favorite books which are about kids having a fantastical adventure. I guess that makes it kind of meta. It's not only an adventure that some kids are having, but the reaction of the (few) adults in their lives. By the end we can see that two bachelors are actually the heroes and both save Sam and Suzi in their own way.
The cast for this film is amazing, with the aforementioned Willis, along with Ed Norton, Frances McDorman, Bill Murray and Harvey Keitel, not to mention all of the young actors, led by Jared Gilman and Kara Hayward. The acting often doesn't feel natural, but it does feel perfect for this little world that is set up. The kids all act like adults while the adults are busy trying to come to terms with the secrets each bears.
I definitely recommend this film, but it might be too weird for the more mainstream crowd. I don't know, I guess the Cohen brothers do well enough and this is no quirkier than one of their films, even if it is a little less antagonistic, which is good since it seems to be aimed at kids. But of course this is a Wes Anderson film as you would guess by the actors associated with this project, not to mention the quirkiness (see above). It's really more like Anderson-lite to be honest. It felt like all of the dark side was stripped away. Sure the 12 year old girl has some issues, but everyone in the film just dismisses them, and I guess so do I. It's almost like this is his (Anderson) take on the other side of the family question, an answer if you will to the Royal Tenenbaums.
Moonrise Kingdom at IMDb
This is a quirky little film. It takes place in September 1965 but seems like it could take place a decade earlier. It is both a film about an adventure that some kids have, while also having the female lead read from her favorite books which are about kids having a fantastical adventure. I guess that makes it kind of meta. It's not only an adventure that some kids are having, but the reaction of the (few) adults in their lives. By the end we can see that two bachelors are actually the heroes and both save Sam and Suzi in their own way.
The cast for this film is amazing, with the aforementioned Willis, along with Ed Norton, Frances McDorman, Bill Murray and Harvey Keitel, not to mention all of the young actors, led by Jared Gilman and Kara Hayward. The acting often doesn't feel natural, but it does feel perfect for this little world that is set up. The kids all act like adults while the adults are busy trying to come to terms with the secrets each bears.
I definitely recommend this film, but it might be too weird for the more mainstream crowd. I don't know, I guess the Cohen brothers do well enough and this is no quirkier than one of their films, even if it is a little less antagonistic, which is good since it seems to be aimed at kids. But of course this is a Wes Anderson film as you would guess by the actors associated with this project, not to mention the quirkiness (see above). It's really more like Anderson-lite to be honest. It felt like all of the dark side was stripped away. Sure the 12 year old girl has some issues, but everyone in the film just dismisses them, and I guess so do I. It's almost like this is his (Anderson) take on the other side of the family question, an answer if you will to the Royal Tenenbaums.
Moonrise Kingdom at IMDb
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)