"Southland heads too far West"
Richard Kelly, by some, is considered a genius for his debut work on Donnie Darko. A film that hit it big on video in rental stores and developed a cult following. By others, he is a one-hit wonder and many point to his sophomore effort Southland Tales as proof. So, is it really that bad? Mmmmm, yes and no.
The Good: Southland Tales is an epic reimagining of the apocalypse set in the future in LA. It shares some similarities with our world and time feels out of joint. Parallels between the drugs and the new energy sources are strong. At times, the parallels between the future in the movie and now is so similar that it feels like brow-beating. However, the world is definitly unique if you can understand it. The dialogue is intriguing at points with some interesting scenes holding everything together. Most importantly, with it being Richard Kelly, the visuals are fantastic. Even when the plot or the acting feels like someone just stuck a suck bomb on set and walked off, the visuals are vitalizing and energetic. Since the subject matter is so trippy, then the visuals need to match it. also, the actors are pretty fun to watch. Jon Lovitz is a creep and Sean William Scott shows he can act. The Rock isn't bad but pretty much everyone else besides these people and Cheri Oteri suck. So why is this good? Because it is so funny to see so many random actors and actresses in this film. My God, it has Raiden!
The Bad: The plot is so epic and Kelly tries to squeeze in so much, that it is quite easy to get lost. Also, at times the CGI used seems very crappy for such an ornate future. Also, the plot itself. When everything comes to a head at the end, there are several plot lines and threads that feel useless and simply added in for the ability to hire more actors/actresses. Another terrible thing about the film, is the dialogue and the acting. Many of the actors have very little to work with and it relies too much on style and not enough on substance. And what is the style? Pseudo christian mythology turned urban future style...complete garbage.
What should have happened with this film, is Kelly should have spent more time developing the script and the paring it down. It is six parts long with the first three parts being graphic novels that pre set the movie, which is the last three parts. Honestly, the movie does seem like a crazy graphic novel come to life and I have thoroughly enjoyed the first graphic novel. The problem is, that in graphic novels, especially the old ones, the dialogue makes little to no sense and comes across ridiculous when read aloud. Kelly has written a great six part graphic novel set. Here's hoping that one day they make graphic novels out of the last three movie parts.
Suggestion: Watch it once on DVD, don't buy it. It is interesting, but needs work.
2.0 out of 5
Wannabe
Tuesday, June 24, 2008
Saturday, June 21, 2008
The Incredible Hulk
'Hulk hulks out'
Okay, so who seriously thought this movie would be good? The first film by Ang Lee, a master of cinema, blew American rejection juice all over everyone's face! So why does anyone want to see this film and why did a movie studio make it? Answer: It stars Edward Norton and Marvel handled it themselves as a new origin movie. Why? because they knew the last one sucketh.
When the trailer for this movie first appeared, I was shocked by the appearance of Edward Norton as the titular hero. "Isn't Norton a good actor?" I kept asking myself. HE usually has a great eye for films, although Down in the Valley is proof that he can slip up at times. Then when I heard that Louis Leterrier, a man known for directing the plot holed Transporter films, was directing this film for a fledgling company owned by Marvel, it translated to little cash and Norton messed up in my head. Well, dammit, Marvel bested me again by making its second movie out almost as amazing as Iron Man.
Seriously, the lighting, plot, acting, and even the smashing is ten times better in this movie. Here's why...they tried to stick to what worked with the old TV show. I have never met a person who has seen that show and not liked it on some level. Which is pretty impressive considering the Hulk is essentially a green Jekyll/Hyde wannabe character. Thankfully, the Hulk in this movie, while a beast, is at least intelligent enough to communicate at times and his humanity is apparent. The idea of Banner being on the run works well and even the creation of the villain is handled superbly. In fact, the biggest issue to this film, is the acting.
William Hurt and Tim Roth have no trouble with their acting, it is actually the two other lead roles by Liv Tyler and Edward Norton that need the help. I know, I said it, Norton needs help. Norton as Banner is able to capture his intelligence and his desire to remain human, but the Norton intensity that brings his characters to life, the same intensity that Crowe had back in Gladiator in his eyes that made us believe, is gone. Where? No idea. Norton is okay as Banner, but I honestly felt that Steve Buscemi with his crazy body type and eyes would have been a better choice, although I wouldn't have been able to believe his ability to get such a hot girlfriend then. (What is up with hot girls in movies? I have always known but now I am just getting sick of it. Each job, factory, hero, there is always an incredibly hot girl that works somewhere waiting to say something to a main character. Even in the more realistic romantic comedies like Knocked Up! Seriously, Hollywood, look, I get tired of waking up each day and thinking a hot girl is around some corner somewhere waiting to say something to me that I will then have to deny. It's not true. And if it is true for you...I hate you.) Speaking of hot girlfriends, Liv Tyler is definitly attractive, but her whispery, teary-eyed acting style does nothing except come across as a pouty daughter. I don't blame Hurt for completely disregarding her feelings and she does not seem like a scientist. More like the cheerleader that grew up. Thankfully Tim Roth and William Hurt can hold this film together as the crazy and mean spirited villains. Them and the Hulk. Man, Tim Roth hasn't been quite this good in years. Speaking of good, I owe an apology to Leterrier. The shots and the composition in this film harkens back to King Kong at times and he keeps the action tight and gritty in a manner that keeps me riveted and longing for adventure. If and when they bring the Hulk back, Leterrier needs to make sure that whatever villain they use is slightly better than Roth which should be a hard order to fill.
4 out of 5
Wannabe
Okay, so who seriously thought this movie would be good? The first film by Ang Lee, a master of cinema, blew American rejection juice all over everyone's face! So why does anyone want to see this film and why did a movie studio make it? Answer: It stars Edward Norton and Marvel handled it themselves as a new origin movie. Why? because they knew the last one sucketh.
When the trailer for this movie first appeared, I was shocked by the appearance of Edward Norton as the titular hero. "Isn't Norton a good actor?" I kept asking myself. HE usually has a great eye for films, although Down in the Valley is proof that he can slip up at times. Then when I heard that Louis Leterrier, a man known for directing the plot holed Transporter films, was directing this film for a fledgling company owned by Marvel, it translated to little cash and Norton messed up in my head. Well, dammit, Marvel bested me again by making its second movie out almost as amazing as Iron Man.
Seriously, the lighting, plot, acting, and even the smashing is ten times better in this movie. Here's why...they tried to stick to what worked with the old TV show. I have never met a person who has seen that show and not liked it on some level. Which is pretty impressive considering the Hulk is essentially a green Jekyll/Hyde wannabe character. Thankfully, the Hulk in this movie, while a beast, is at least intelligent enough to communicate at times and his humanity is apparent. The idea of Banner being on the run works well and even the creation of the villain is handled superbly. In fact, the biggest issue to this film, is the acting.
William Hurt and Tim Roth have no trouble with their acting, it is actually the two other lead roles by Liv Tyler and Edward Norton that need the help. I know, I said it, Norton needs help. Norton as Banner is able to capture his intelligence and his desire to remain human, but the Norton intensity that brings his characters to life, the same intensity that Crowe had back in Gladiator in his eyes that made us believe, is gone. Where? No idea. Norton is okay as Banner, but I honestly felt that Steve Buscemi with his crazy body type and eyes would have been a better choice, although I wouldn't have been able to believe his ability to get such a hot girlfriend then. (What is up with hot girls in movies? I have always known but now I am just getting sick of it. Each job, factory, hero, there is always an incredibly hot girl that works somewhere waiting to say something to a main character. Even in the more realistic romantic comedies like Knocked Up! Seriously, Hollywood, look, I get tired of waking up each day and thinking a hot girl is around some corner somewhere waiting to say something to me that I will then have to deny. It's not true. And if it is true for you...I hate you.) Speaking of hot girlfriends, Liv Tyler is definitly attractive, but her whispery, teary-eyed acting style does nothing except come across as a pouty daughter. I don't blame Hurt for completely disregarding her feelings and she does not seem like a scientist. More like the cheerleader that grew up. Thankfully Tim Roth and William Hurt can hold this film together as the crazy and mean spirited villains. Them and the Hulk. Man, Tim Roth hasn't been quite this good in years. Speaking of good, I owe an apology to Leterrier. The shots and the composition in this film harkens back to King Kong at times and he keeps the action tight and gritty in a manner that keeps me riveted and longing for adventure. If and when they bring the Hulk back, Leterrier needs to make sure that whatever villain they use is slightly better than Roth which should be a hard order to fill.
4 out of 5
Wannabe
Saturday, June 14, 2008
The Happening
'The Happening did not happen'
Shyamalan tends to fall into one of two categories: love him or hate him. His early commercial work is undoubtedly his best with Signs and The Sixth Sense leading the way. Whereas his later work became too preachy with things like The Village and Lady in the Water. The truth of the matter is this, Shyamalan comes up with good ideas that involve a twist and then plays them out. Unfortunately, his dialogue and sometimes the twists and conclusions are not able to live up to the great premise he sets. The thing about Signs and The Sixth Sense that works is that they are able to make the viewers care about the characters more than the great premise, so that when the surprise twist comes, it really is a surprise. That and Shyamalan used to be more subtle when giving hints. He likes to have everything in the film tie together in some Hitchcockian manner. No loose ends. So, where does this film fit in his canon?
The Happening is no where near as bad as The Village and it is better than Lady, but it isn't able to capture the old genius of his original work. The premise is interesting and Shyamalan proves that he knows how to make a creepy film. Most directors love to show gore, why? Because they think it scares people. Not true, it grosses people out. A person being shot doesn't scare me, it just makes me want to vomit. It is not being able to see the consequences of forces beyond our understanding which scares mankind. Sixth Sense it was the dead. Signs had aliens. Village had a fictitious monster and Lady had some bizarre fairy tale come to life. The Happening also has an unknown force that is attacking the population. They explain it and how it makes sense and to be honest, after the movie, walking the dog on my street with no other humans present and only the hum of bees...it was creepy. Shyamalan for all of his faults knows how to scare people and how to get inside the human psyche for images and scenarios that will last a long time. His weakness, is his writing and working with actors.
The writing in this movie borders on ridiculous. Some scenes dialogue is so obvious in what it is supposed to do to the audience that it sounds like it was simply lifted from other movies. Of course, one or two moments might be okay and I'm sure people could blame this on Marky Mark. However, the truth is that Shyamalan hasn't taken the time since becoming famous to hone his dialogue as much as necessary to produce what is needed. The ties to the environmental crisis is blatantly clear and now my head hurts thanks to his clubbing.
As for the actors, here is where this movie succeeds and dies. EVERYONE ELSE EXCEPT for the two leads do a great job. I know some have said that John Leguizamo is bleh, but honestly, his character and the self-sacrificing choices he makes are great to watch and are believable. Whoever plays Ms. Jones is psychotic and lovely to watch. Even the two kids are great. However, Mark Wahlberg and Zooey Deschanel have NO CHEMISTRY. None. I know the dialogue is supposed to help and every once in a while we see that Mark Wahlberg can be upset and or charming. That's it. Zooey can look wide-eyed and crazy. So why does this matter? What is this film about? It's about The Happening and the environmental crisis. What does it need to be about to be a good film? The relationship and healing of the two main character's love and relationship with each other. THIS IS THE BIGGEST FLAW IN THE FILM. Shyamalan has done a decent job of almost recapturing the glory of his first few films, but he put too much focus in the wrong place and a good film is a more subtle film. He needs to remember that his films require subtlety and that he can't just throw in the towel when presented with a problem he can't think of to fix right away. The good news is that this film shows he is making improvements and steps to recapture his former days, the bad news is that it is not there yet and a lot of great visuals and a good premise is now wasted on only an okay movie. I wonder how many premises he has left? Lets hope we see him figure things out before it is too late.
3.4 out of 5
Wannabe
Shyamalan tends to fall into one of two categories: love him or hate him. His early commercial work is undoubtedly his best with Signs and The Sixth Sense leading the way. Whereas his later work became too preachy with things like The Village and Lady in the Water. The truth of the matter is this, Shyamalan comes up with good ideas that involve a twist and then plays them out. Unfortunately, his dialogue and sometimes the twists and conclusions are not able to live up to the great premise he sets. The thing about Signs and The Sixth Sense that works is that they are able to make the viewers care about the characters more than the great premise, so that when the surprise twist comes, it really is a surprise. That and Shyamalan used to be more subtle when giving hints. He likes to have everything in the film tie together in some Hitchcockian manner. No loose ends. So, where does this film fit in his canon?
The Happening is no where near as bad as The Village and it is better than Lady, but it isn't able to capture the old genius of his original work. The premise is interesting and Shyamalan proves that he knows how to make a creepy film. Most directors love to show gore, why? Because they think it scares people. Not true, it grosses people out. A person being shot doesn't scare me, it just makes me want to vomit. It is not being able to see the consequences of forces beyond our understanding which scares mankind. Sixth Sense it was the dead. Signs had aliens. Village had a fictitious monster and Lady had some bizarre fairy tale come to life. The Happening also has an unknown force that is attacking the population. They explain it and how it makes sense and to be honest, after the movie, walking the dog on my street with no other humans present and only the hum of bees...it was creepy. Shyamalan for all of his faults knows how to scare people and how to get inside the human psyche for images and scenarios that will last a long time. His weakness, is his writing and working with actors.
The writing in this movie borders on ridiculous. Some scenes dialogue is so obvious in what it is supposed to do to the audience that it sounds like it was simply lifted from other movies. Of course, one or two moments might be okay and I'm sure people could blame this on Marky Mark. However, the truth is that Shyamalan hasn't taken the time since becoming famous to hone his dialogue as much as necessary to produce what is needed. The ties to the environmental crisis is blatantly clear and now my head hurts thanks to his clubbing.
As for the actors, here is where this movie succeeds and dies. EVERYONE ELSE EXCEPT for the two leads do a great job. I know some have said that John Leguizamo is bleh, but honestly, his character and the self-sacrificing choices he makes are great to watch and are believable. Whoever plays Ms. Jones is psychotic and lovely to watch. Even the two kids are great. However, Mark Wahlberg and Zooey Deschanel have NO CHEMISTRY. None. I know the dialogue is supposed to help and every once in a while we see that Mark Wahlberg can be upset and or charming. That's it. Zooey can look wide-eyed and crazy. So why does this matter? What is this film about? It's about The Happening and the environmental crisis. What does it need to be about to be a good film? The relationship and healing of the two main character's love and relationship with each other. THIS IS THE BIGGEST FLAW IN THE FILM. Shyamalan has done a decent job of almost recapturing the glory of his first few films, but he put too much focus in the wrong place and a good film is a more subtle film. He needs to remember that his films require subtlety and that he can't just throw in the towel when presented with a problem he can't think of to fix right away. The good news is that this film shows he is making improvements and steps to recapture his former days, the bad news is that it is not there yet and a lot of great visuals and a good premise is now wasted on only an okay movie. I wonder how many premises he has left? Lets hope we see him figure things out before it is too late.
3.4 out of 5
Wannabe
Summer List
Man, it has been forever since I have had a chance to post anything. Thankfully, my teaching year is winding down and I am finally getting a chance to come back and spend some time on my loves instead of just trying to survive the first year. And for anyone who thinks first-year teachers don't deserve praise and money...you deserve to be flogged. Anyhow, I have been keeping up with movies this entire long while, I just have not been able to write reviews about them. So here is how I am going to kickoff this summer. Below will be a list of movies I rate as the top best 5 summer movies SO FAR. I'll also include some reasons why. After this list will a new review for Shyamalan's recent debacle, The Happening. And if I can get to it after that, the announcement and postings of a new season of Indie Fanatix League!! Woot Woot! Happy day I'm a loser. :( Oh well.
Anyhow, the top best 5 movies so far this summer(May - Now) are:
5. Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull
"#5? Really?" Yes. Why? Because it blew. However, it is still Indiana Jones and everyone in their right mind will see it and you might want to know what they are talking about. I'm sorry, I'm not sure whose choice it was, Lucas or Spielberg, but the entire premise of the movie is too much science fiction. I know that the old-school adventures are similar and related to the early sci-fi days and they do a decent job of combining them. But Indiana Jones has traditionally focused more on the exotic locations and ideals. As over-the-top as he has been in the past, the world of Indiana Jones is based in a universe we could potentially believe. However, the strain of the collaborating monkeys, the mystical powers of the crystal skull, and the ridiculous ants and random attack scenes for no reason break the ability to believe and follow along with the movie. Especially the damn atomic bomb scene. The decision to rely on CGI and special effects at all instead of just doing everything without it really helps to destroy this movie. Besides the water cooler conversation you will get out of this movie, you should also come out enjoying and knowing about Shia's take on Indy's son if the rumors are to be true that he will continue the franchise. You might want to know a little about his intro to the series and his origins. I will say this, he is the most refreshing part of the movie to me...but the chip on his shoulder is a bit too large.
4. Speed Racer
Yes, Speed Racer is ahead of Indiana Jones. Unlike Indy, which tries to promise a certain experience and fails, Speed Racer seems very bleh to begin with for the older generation and manages to deliver an okay and thrilling experience. The CGI alone in this film is a great reason to watch it as the Wachowskis have advanced technology for films into the future once again. It is the first and only time a movie has been made in which I feel it is a true live action cartoon. Somehow, all the people are animated...I swear. I doubt anyone will love it, but the car scenes are pretty sweet and you will probably leave thinking, eh. Which is better than what you would thought you would leave with.
3. Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian
I read this series a long time ago and I was impressed with the dedication to the story and theology shown in the first film. But man, I don't remember Narnia being this dark. This is certainly a movie that rests on its human actors to uphold the movie...human actors that are not that old. So they uphold it only so so, but better than they did in the first film. Also, the fight scenes and the decisions made in the battle are pretty cool. I must say that the bad guy and the dwarf are AMAZING. Peter Dinklage has finally earned my approval. However, the conclusion to the film is slightly...friggin Deus Ex Machina. I hate that device. But other than that, it is a good dark ride that brings up a lot of questions about the presence of God and how it could work in our world.
2. Kung Fu Panda
Friggin Jack Black. One of my least favorite stars and yet he managed to put out one of the best CG movies I've ever seen. This movie is fun, smart, well directed and written. The jokes are good and it is full of Kung Fu references. Although, some casting choices were really weird, this made me laugh for hours. Great quotable movie, plus everyone can see it. So go do it!
1. Iron Man
Yea, if you haven't heard, this is good. Damn good. I never liked Iron Man, but with Robert Downey in the part, this movie came together and now I do. Possibly the best comic book movie ever made. Definitely entertaining. I don't know a single person who dislikes this film. See it and you won't regret it. Now to see if Marvel can uphold the quality with Hulk.
Unfortunately, some films I would like to recommend but that came out before May began are Forgetting Sarah Marshall and The Forbidden Kingdom. Sarah Marshall is HILARIOUS! Whereas Forbidden Kingdom has the epic battle between Jet Li and Jackie Chan and feels slightly like a modern day Karate Kid. Whoever the bad kid is though has a future ahead of him. That was some crazy intensity.
Wannabe
Anyhow, the top best 5 movies so far this summer(May - Now) are:
5. Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull
"#5? Really?" Yes. Why? Because it blew. However, it is still Indiana Jones and everyone in their right mind will see it and you might want to know what they are talking about. I'm sorry, I'm not sure whose choice it was, Lucas or Spielberg, but the entire premise of the movie is too much science fiction. I know that the old-school adventures are similar and related to the early sci-fi days and they do a decent job of combining them. But Indiana Jones has traditionally focused more on the exotic locations and ideals. As over-the-top as he has been in the past, the world of Indiana Jones is based in a universe we could potentially believe. However, the strain of the collaborating monkeys, the mystical powers of the crystal skull, and the ridiculous ants and random attack scenes for no reason break the ability to believe and follow along with the movie. Especially the damn atomic bomb scene. The decision to rely on CGI and special effects at all instead of just doing everything without it really helps to destroy this movie. Besides the water cooler conversation you will get out of this movie, you should also come out enjoying and knowing about Shia's take on Indy's son if the rumors are to be true that he will continue the franchise. You might want to know a little about his intro to the series and his origins. I will say this, he is the most refreshing part of the movie to me...but the chip on his shoulder is a bit too large.
4. Speed Racer
Yes, Speed Racer is ahead of Indiana Jones. Unlike Indy, which tries to promise a certain experience and fails, Speed Racer seems very bleh to begin with for the older generation and manages to deliver an okay and thrilling experience. The CGI alone in this film is a great reason to watch it as the Wachowskis have advanced technology for films into the future once again. It is the first and only time a movie has been made in which I feel it is a true live action cartoon. Somehow, all the people are animated...I swear. I doubt anyone will love it, but the car scenes are pretty sweet and you will probably leave thinking, eh. Which is better than what you would thought you would leave with.
3. Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian
I read this series a long time ago and I was impressed with the dedication to the story and theology shown in the first film. But man, I don't remember Narnia being this dark. This is certainly a movie that rests on its human actors to uphold the movie...human actors that are not that old. So they uphold it only so so, but better than they did in the first film. Also, the fight scenes and the decisions made in the battle are pretty cool. I must say that the bad guy and the dwarf are AMAZING. Peter Dinklage has finally earned my approval. However, the conclusion to the film is slightly...friggin Deus Ex Machina. I hate that device. But other than that, it is a good dark ride that brings up a lot of questions about the presence of God and how it could work in our world.
2. Kung Fu Panda
Friggin Jack Black. One of my least favorite stars and yet he managed to put out one of the best CG movies I've ever seen. This movie is fun, smart, well directed and written. The jokes are good and it is full of Kung Fu references. Although, some casting choices were really weird, this made me laugh for hours. Great quotable movie, plus everyone can see it. So go do it!
1. Iron Man
Yea, if you haven't heard, this is good. Damn good. I never liked Iron Man, but with Robert Downey in the part, this movie came together and now I do. Possibly the best comic book movie ever made. Definitely entertaining. I don't know a single person who dislikes this film. See it and you won't regret it. Now to see if Marvel can uphold the quality with Hulk.
Unfortunately, some films I would like to recommend but that came out before May began are Forgetting Sarah Marshall and The Forbidden Kingdom. Sarah Marshall is HILARIOUS! Whereas Forbidden Kingdom has the epic battle between Jet Li and Jackie Chan and feels slightly like a modern day Karate Kid. Whoever the bad kid is though has a future ahead of him. That was some crazy intensity.
Wannabe
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
