Spidey weekend Part 2
Alrighty, so in installment numero uno, we have Peter Parker struggle with his new found powers from a genetically engineered spider bite, his uncle's death at the hands of a thief that he let loose, and the descent into madness of his best friend's father while his best friend thinks his alter ego, spidey, killed his father. But not was all bleak, wait, yes it was. Since he gave up his true love Mary Jane at the end. Oh well, the first installment stayed true to the origins and story of Spider-Man. Also Stan Lee and Bruce Campbell had great cameos. Now, for part II.
Well, to start, Spiderman is now delivering pizzas which of course is great for a couple of chuckles while introducing us to the squalid and unhappy life of Peter Parker after High School. Almost two years since his uncle's death. Harry now runs Oscorp and is backing a brilliant scientist named Dr. Octavius who is trying to create a sustainable renewable energy source, aka, a small sun. Lots of family and relationship issues. Dr. Octavius has some fusion issues with a cool four armed toy and bang, we have Doc Ock and a steaming young Harry pent on revenge against Spider-Man. All superhero vs evil villain story aside, their really isn't much in this story regarding lasting changes to Peter Parker's life. But oh well. The story is still fun and it has some great stuff regarding Doc Ock's character.
Directing wise, Sam Raimi abandons his usual low-tech style in favor of more of a CG/wire approach to film making. This lends the film a more polished look, although the CG is still too rough to ever mistake Tobey Maguire as actually flying about the city as Spiderman. The choices made by Raimi regarding how to shoot Doc Ock are well done as his CG effects never actually get in the way of showing Alfred Molina, and thus making the character more believable. Also, he does the usual NY hearts spidey thing. My favorite bit though of his directing is the sometimes blatant ripping he does from other movies. It seems to me that the more I watch, the more I realize that Raimi is using the Spider-Man movies as a way to pay homage to his old favorite films. There's a great sequence that is made to be in reference to King Kong and another where Spider-Man rips his shirt in a similar fashion to the old Christopher Reeves Superman films. I'm not going to lie, but I think Raimi was probably slightly jealous when Bryan Singer got to direct the recent incarnation of Superman over him. I especially liked seeing Maguire dealing with the loss of powers and his struggle to give up completely and to have a normal life. Damned if you do and damned if you don't. Raimi does the story and all of teh characters justice, although I think perhaps some more fleshing out Doc Ock's background and maybe a better reason for his "craziness". I'm sorry, it's not Molina's fault, its the writing. If someone's mind has been taken over by 4 apparently crazy killing metallic arms, then there really is no point in time where you can reason with them...ever.
Acting wise, Tobey does his nerdy Peter Parker impression with less fire this time out and his whispy voice is sooo annoying he almost makes me hate Peter Parker. Almost. Kirsten Dunst does a great amount of flirting and changing boyfriends...figures. J.K. Simmons is Hi-larious! Dear God! If someone thinks they could play J. Jonah Jameson better, give them five dollars and make em disappear. This guy is great! Aunt May is still strong and sweet. Alfred Molina and James Franco are the ones who really tear up the screen. Maybe its the second movie curse to be the one that prominently features the villains and their stories, Empire Strikes Back anyone? But Molina brings a believability that surpasses the excellent acting of Willem Dafoe in the first movie. Franco begins to have more fun with his character by getting into the dark side and ordering a hit on him. Harry's such a troubled and yet ennabled character that he borders on tragic. Very nice gentlemen. It's just too bad that Molina was killed in this film since he is definately a great villain. Sadly, Stan Lee's cameo was much smaller in this film. But thankfully, oh sooo, thankfully, Bruce Campbell's was bigger and hilarious. I maintain that the best actors in the series so far are Campbell, J.K.Simmons, and Molina. He's just too good with the little bits offered him.
Conclusion:
A very good tale and a worthy sequel to Spiderman, the newer more polished look of the Spiderman series is not as much fun to me and the story when trimmed down leads to very little actual character development for those still standing at the end. Although, what does change, changes in a necessary way that arranges for the third film to occur. Because of this, I think it is barely not as good as the first if only for the wider character arc in the first and the better acting of Tobey Maguire in that one. Unfortunately, Alfred Molina turns in an incredibly well polished and distinguished Doc Ock and James Franco shows he's more than just a troubled face. So next time you see this film, remember to eat your spidey popcorn, with your spidey coke, oh and don't forget your spidey glasses to keep you from being blinded by the Spidey sun, and...
4.2 out of 5
Wannabe
P.S. I LOVE the opening artwork obviously painted by the very taleneted Alex Ross. Maybe a Kubert or two in there, but it looked mostly to be Ross' work. And if you don't know who he is, go buy the coffeebook from DC featuring all of his cover artwork and be amazed! This guy is soo good, he does comic book covers for a living...just the covers!
Monday, May 14, 2007
Saturday, May 12, 2007
Spider-man
Part I of Spidey Weekend
Many of you have probably heard of it, and if you haven't, you probably heard about one of its two sequels at this point. If you still haven't, then you are probably in a casket and unable to read this blog...sad. Anyhow, even though part 3 came out last weekend, I still have yet to see it. so to prepare my wife who has never seen any of them and to refresh my spidey movie lore, we've set out on a 3 day spidey trek where each day we watch one of the spidey movies. Now, as a general caveat, all three films are directed by Sam Raimi and star Kirsten Dunst as Mary Jane, Tobey Maguire as Spider-Man/Peter Parker, James Franco as Harry, and Bruce Campbell and Stan Lee in some small part at random points in each film. Whats great, is I definately think Bruce does a better job than most of the actor in the series, but with that said, lets delve into numero uno.
When I first saw Spiderman, I was big fan of the comics but I never read nor got into the scary Green Goblin saga. I was always involved in Kraven the Hunter tales or Hobgoblin who I know most fans feel is a cheap ripoff of green goblin...but man he was cool! So I was glad that when I saw the first film to finally see and get what all the buzz was about Green Goblin. The best part is after seeing the film realizing how well the film stands on its own while easily setting up for the next two sequels. It's incredibly hard for a film to set up two more films well. Pirates and The Matrix come to mind, mostly because they were one good to decent film followed by two contrived sequels...even though the second Pirates sequel hasn't come out yet. It's also amazinghow well this film was made and how it was able to satisfy Spidey fans and the general public alike during a time in which comics were considered mostly untappable by Hollywood for any sort of box office performance. The two exceptions were the Tim Burton's Batman series and the old Superman series. What makes it even more surprising is how well Sam Raimi, a cult/genre director was able to translate Spiderman to screen while upholding his own stylistic traits. Other Raimi movies include the great Evil Dead series featuring Bruce Campbell as Ash and the terrible Quick and the Dead starring Russell Crowe and Sharon Stone. The transaltion of Spider-Man and all of his trouble is well done in this first film and I will try to hold off on old judgements of the second film until my review. Raimi has always had a penchant for lots of silly corny moments to allow the audience to laugh some and connect with the main character. The best example is when Spiderman is just learning his powers and he is trying to figure out how to shoot a web out of his hand. The different hand movements are great! Also, Raimi allows us to see Peter Parker at his dorkiest in High School and allows us all to understand his plight and obvious issues in tempering his powers. As a fan, I did have some gripes including having Peter Parker be able to shoot his own webs, but it makes sense to have him be an ACTUAL Spider man instead of a super kid whose smart and makes his own stuff to imitate a spider man. The feel of Sam Raimi is present throughout all of the shots and the great mix of low-tech shots mixed with the great CG shots makes the fillm fit nicely into Raimi's style and grounds the film firmly in the corny feeling that Spiderman always infuses into his jokes. It's just corny enough to offset the grim and gritty background origin story letting everyone love Peter Parker despite his loser background. Good job this go round Raimi...this round...
As for the actors, well the Kirsten Dunst does a pretty good job of playing Mary Jane, although her flirtatious nature and constantly changing list of boyfriends, (Flash Thompson, Harry, etc.) makes me wonder just how faithful she could be in a relationship. I bet she never told Harry that she kissed Spiderman. I also found her dysfunctional home background to be an extremely interesting story for her and I would be interested in seeing that play back into the series later. Tobey Maguire does look like a weasley Peter Parker and he gets the nerdy high school stuff down well. James Franco plays an interesting dynamic of being Harry and having a hard relationship with his father where he tries to make his dad proud while at the same time trying to just fit in and downplay his money. He's a little too sulky, but he is quite the sympathetic character. Perhaps the best job of casting ever is J.K. Simmons as J. Jonah Jameson, the fast talking jerk-a-holic that runs the newspaper. He's perfect...absolutely perfect and if they do make more anymore Spider movies without the original cast, I implore Sony to continue to hire him. Also quite nice is Willem Dafoe as Harry's Father/Green Goblin. His turn as the slowly going insane father is quite nice considering the entire sequence into the mirror was shot in one take or so and wasn't filmed as two different sequences and then put together in editing, thus showing off his acting chops. Unfortuanately, at times he comes across as a little too...much. But usually Dafoe is right on the spot when portraying the dual nature of the good doctor. But man, those performance enhancers must've been god stuff to let him be able to hold an entire trolley full of kids in one hand and a struggling woman in the other. It's also amazing just seeing how well each of these actors nail their character's relationships between each other. The relationships and the dialogue is so vibrant and well done, even if at times it seems a little obvious someone wanted to convey a message. Ben Parker and Aunt May are perfect and lovable and old and remind me and probably everyone with great grandparents of their own. Kudos to the casting director.
Conclusion:
Sam Raimi's style fits quite well into this great introduction of the tales of Spider-Man and the cast for their first go around do the characters justice and earn their paychecks. The plot is laughable at times, but then again it's not exactly great social commentary either. It is however a fun mindless blockbuster flick. The CG is at times very bad, but you have to remember that when the film was made it was very good CG. Also, it is hard to make CG stylistically fit with someone whose technique requires low-tech shots that ground the film in the corny fun natre of Spider-man's humor. It's sad that Ben Parker won't ever come back, nor will Randy "Macho Man" Savage be able to return. But this film is great as a standalone and the kiss at the end is great and even better when Raimi stays true to the origin and keeps Peter away from her. It's sad and frustrating, but it's supposed to be. Great film and an excellent comic-book film. A definate must for anyone who likes blockbusters. Also interesting, is the obvious grounding of the film in New York, making the recent announcement of the New York annual Spiderman week much more understanding. Thumbs up!
4.45 out of 5
Wannabe
Many of you have probably heard of it, and if you haven't, you probably heard about one of its two sequels at this point. If you still haven't, then you are probably in a casket and unable to read this blog...sad. Anyhow, even though part 3 came out last weekend, I still have yet to see it. so to prepare my wife who has never seen any of them and to refresh my spidey movie lore, we've set out on a 3 day spidey trek where each day we watch one of the spidey movies. Now, as a general caveat, all three films are directed by Sam Raimi and star Kirsten Dunst as Mary Jane, Tobey Maguire as Spider-Man/Peter Parker, James Franco as Harry, and Bruce Campbell and Stan Lee in some small part at random points in each film. Whats great, is I definately think Bruce does a better job than most of the actor in the series, but with that said, lets delve into numero uno.
When I first saw Spiderman, I was big fan of the comics but I never read nor got into the scary Green Goblin saga. I was always involved in Kraven the Hunter tales or Hobgoblin who I know most fans feel is a cheap ripoff of green goblin...but man he was cool! So I was glad that when I saw the first film to finally see and get what all the buzz was about Green Goblin. The best part is after seeing the film realizing how well the film stands on its own while easily setting up for the next two sequels. It's incredibly hard for a film to set up two more films well. Pirates and The Matrix come to mind, mostly because they were one good to decent film followed by two contrived sequels...even though the second Pirates sequel hasn't come out yet. It's also amazinghow well this film was made and how it was able to satisfy Spidey fans and the general public alike during a time in which comics were considered mostly untappable by Hollywood for any sort of box office performance. The two exceptions were the Tim Burton's Batman series and the old Superman series. What makes it even more surprising is how well Sam Raimi, a cult/genre director was able to translate Spiderman to screen while upholding his own stylistic traits. Other Raimi movies include the great Evil Dead series featuring Bruce Campbell as Ash and the terrible Quick and the Dead starring Russell Crowe and Sharon Stone. The transaltion of Spider-Man and all of his trouble is well done in this first film and I will try to hold off on old judgements of the second film until my review. Raimi has always had a penchant for lots of silly corny moments to allow the audience to laugh some and connect with the main character. The best example is when Spiderman is just learning his powers and he is trying to figure out how to shoot a web out of his hand. The different hand movements are great! Also, Raimi allows us to see Peter Parker at his dorkiest in High School and allows us all to understand his plight and obvious issues in tempering his powers. As a fan, I did have some gripes including having Peter Parker be able to shoot his own webs, but it makes sense to have him be an ACTUAL Spider man instead of a super kid whose smart and makes his own stuff to imitate a spider man. The feel of Sam Raimi is present throughout all of the shots and the great mix of low-tech shots mixed with the great CG shots makes the fillm fit nicely into Raimi's style and grounds the film firmly in the corny feeling that Spiderman always infuses into his jokes. It's just corny enough to offset the grim and gritty background origin story letting everyone love Peter Parker despite his loser background. Good job this go round Raimi...this round...
As for the actors, well the Kirsten Dunst does a pretty good job of playing Mary Jane, although her flirtatious nature and constantly changing list of boyfriends, (Flash Thompson, Harry, etc.) makes me wonder just how faithful she could be in a relationship. I bet she never told Harry that she kissed Spiderman. I also found her dysfunctional home background to be an extremely interesting story for her and I would be interested in seeing that play back into the series later. Tobey Maguire does look like a weasley Peter Parker and he gets the nerdy high school stuff down well. James Franco plays an interesting dynamic of being Harry and having a hard relationship with his father where he tries to make his dad proud while at the same time trying to just fit in and downplay his money. He's a little too sulky, but he is quite the sympathetic character. Perhaps the best job of casting ever is J.K. Simmons as J. Jonah Jameson, the fast talking jerk-a-holic that runs the newspaper. He's perfect...absolutely perfect and if they do make more anymore Spider movies without the original cast, I implore Sony to continue to hire him. Also quite nice is Willem Dafoe as Harry's Father/Green Goblin. His turn as the slowly going insane father is quite nice considering the entire sequence into the mirror was shot in one take or so and wasn't filmed as two different sequences and then put together in editing, thus showing off his acting chops. Unfortuanately, at times he comes across as a little too...much. But usually Dafoe is right on the spot when portraying the dual nature of the good doctor. But man, those performance enhancers must've been god stuff to let him be able to hold an entire trolley full of kids in one hand and a struggling woman in the other. It's also amazing just seeing how well each of these actors nail their character's relationships between each other. The relationships and the dialogue is so vibrant and well done, even if at times it seems a little obvious someone wanted to convey a message. Ben Parker and Aunt May are perfect and lovable and old and remind me and probably everyone with great grandparents of their own. Kudos to the casting director.
Conclusion:
Sam Raimi's style fits quite well into this great introduction of the tales of Spider-Man and the cast for their first go around do the characters justice and earn their paychecks. The plot is laughable at times, but then again it's not exactly great social commentary either. It is however a fun mindless blockbuster flick. The CG is at times very bad, but you have to remember that when the film was made it was very good CG. Also, it is hard to make CG stylistically fit with someone whose technique requires low-tech shots that ground the film in the corny fun natre of Spider-man's humor. It's sad that Ben Parker won't ever come back, nor will Randy "Macho Man" Savage be able to return. But this film is great as a standalone and the kiss at the end is great and even better when Raimi stays true to the origin and keeps Peter away from her. It's sad and frustrating, but it's supposed to be. Great film and an excellent comic-book film. A definate must for anyone who likes blockbusters. Also interesting, is the obvious grounding of the film in New York, making the recent announcement of the New York annual Spiderman week much more understanding. Thumbs up!
4.45 out of 5
Wannabe
Wednesday, May 9, 2007
Fun Factoid May 2007
Alright, so in an attempt to add variety and interest to this blog, I figure I would share some fun, mostly useless knowledge when I came across it each month. This month's fun factoid is all about Warwick Davis whom some of you might recognize as...drumroll...WILLOW! Yes, the man is everywhere and if you are like me, you probably wondered what ever happened to him after that movie? Well...apparently everything. He seems to be the most overworked actor short person in Hollywood followed by Peter Dinklage. Let's see, did you realize that he is an essential fantasy movie actor? All the Harry Potter films, Willow, the upcoming Chronicles of Narnia film, Star Wars episodes I and VI and two of the made-for-tv Star Wars films. The guy runs his own agency for the vertically challenged, which I have to admit is really cool. Now if only writers and directors would write more parts for short people so that they could recieve the kudos they deserve. Now, for the fun part.
For those that didn't know, Warwick Davis plays the role of a popular well-known horror creature. Have you guessed it yet? Yep, that's right. Leprechaun. Now, with that being said, I am all about the Leprechaun films and apparently so is he judging from the list of titles in the series that are obviously terrible just from reading the title. So, with that said, enjoy the list and marvel at Warwick Davis in all of his good humor.
1. Leprechaun
2. Leprechaun 2
3. Leprechaun 3
4. Leprechaun 4: In Space
5. Leprechaun in the Hood
6. Leprechaun: Back 2 Tha Hood
Now having been someone who has seen Leprechaun in the Hood, I completely appreciate the more farcical approach of the franchise. I am now dying to see Leprechaun 4: In Space and the new Back 2 Tha Hood. After all, if in the first hood movie Ice T can pull a bat out of his friends afro to beat on the Leprechaun, then I'm friggin hooked. There you go, a fun list of a decent franchise turned spooftastic. I know Warwick loves these movies, and so should you.
For those that didn't know, Warwick Davis plays the role of a popular well-known horror creature. Have you guessed it yet? Yep, that's right. Leprechaun. Now, with that being said, I am all about the Leprechaun films and apparently so is he judging from the list of titles in the series that are obviously terrible just from reading the title. So, with that said, enjoy the list and marvel at Warwick Davis in all of his good humor.
1. Leprechaun
2. Leprechaun 2
3. Leprechaun 3
4. Leprechaun 4: In Space
5. Leprechaun in the Hood
6. Leprechaun: Back 2 Tha Hood
Now having been someone who has seen Leprechaun in the Hood, I completely appreciate the more farcical approach of the franchise. I am now dying to see Leprechaun 4: In Space and the new Back 2 Tha Hood. After all, if in the first hood movie Ice T can pull a bat out of his friends afro to beat on the Leprechaun, then I'm friggin hooked. There you go, a fun list of a decent franchise turned spooftastic. I know Warwick loves these movies, and so should you.
Thursday, May 3, 2007
2006-2007 school year in TV
I don't normally talk much about the other medium known as television on this site, so I figured I would breifly cover the shows that enthralled and disgusted me this year as best I could and some of the things I loved that networks did.
First and foremost in my mind is the AMAZING show Heroes. This show has so many arcs and has started off clunky but has found its footing and a devoted fanbase due to the twisting and mesmerizing story arcs. I hated having to wait for new installments...twice! but, the awesome amount of detail and interaction NBC and Tim Kring developed for the show online plus the ability to watch any episode with commentary or not online helped a Lot in case I missed and episode. Definately the best show of the year.
My next favorite show is now sadly canceled after getting some bad press and no confidence by Fox, a little show called Drive of which only four of the six episodes were ever shown. The idea is fascinating and its great to see how the writers weave the story to have this overseeing evil corporation manipulating the people who are all in an illegal cross country race. Some people thought the story was silly, oters hated the cars and the fact that there weren't crazy car chases. Its an ensemble show which took away a lot of the money for crazy car scenes, and the show uses its setup as a way to enter its characters which is what a show should do people. I would hate to see a cross country race full of nice cars. I'd call it Fast and the Furious, too lame for theaters or something else if it was just about the race. Anyhow, I'll stop bitching. It's gone. Tear.
Another good show includes the currently running Raines. I find it be very similar to all of the other detective that sees dead people shows except it does a great job of going in depth as to how the detective perceives these people and how his perceptions are affected by evidence. Plus, Goldblum is highly entertaining with his dry laconic humor.
Sadly, Raines partner show Andy Barker P.I. is also canceled. This was a show created by Conan O'Brien which gave me no reason to see it. But after seeing an episode it was nice to see such a fun show making a smart spoof on all the old detective noir films and plots. The cast was great and the dialogue fun. Also, it has Tony Hale as a sarcastic movie clerk...perfect! If you want to see all the episodes, I highly recommend watching them online and then when you're done transferring over to Raines and watching those.
Perhaps one of the disappointments for me is House. Ever since the second season, I have not been that big of a fan. Oh yea, sure Hugh Laurie is still great. It just has to do with the decision to make every episode very gory, or gross, or somethng that will make you cringe and lose a little respect for House and then gain it back later because he is an arrogant smug always right specialist...not good enough and I don't apprecate the turn to gore. I liked it better when the stories focused on more interesting diseases or combinations of that didn't require things like balls exploding. With that said, I will admit that I only saw one or two episodes this season, so I might have caught the wrong ones.
Prisonbreak is trash. I have to watch this show because of the people I stay with love it and we eat dinner, after its over thogh, I'm off to Heroes. The actors just can't act, except for that one crazy cajun guy who is creepy as hell. Also, the entire story arc is ridiculous and highly annoying. It's obvious at this point that the series shoudl have been over long ago. It was made to be a great 1 season story arc and never knew what to do with itself after it got renewed. Bleh.
Although I haven't seen much of it, I do appreciate Psyche. I find it to be a fun show with an interesting premise and not terrible acting. I just wish the dialogue included more fun partner banter than it does, but besides that its a good detective show that feigns at the I see dead people approach. Amusing!
Used to watch Family Guy and Amercian Dad, but last year was enough. I'll watch them eventually when they hit Adult Swim maybe. Speaking of which on Adult Swim I found several new series highly amusing and a welcome break from their nonsequitor humor. Frisky Dingo was a Great new addition. Of course Aaron McGruder's The Boondocks is awesome and I anxiously await the new season. Metalocalypse was sort of mish mash. I enjoyed the humor and how each epidoe tied together and still found great ways to create humor based on rock and roll and other topics, but the episodes never feel that they were meant to be tied together. Take out te scenes with the satan or whoever monitoring them in each one and each episode could stand on its own. It was still enjoyable though. Saul of the Mole Men was a great idea to bring back that crazy style I remember growing up on cheap kids shows with an adult theme. The premise is classic. The execution though is a textbook example of how to screw up big-time. While the visceral feel of the show is done right, the plot and the ridiculous characters make the show feel like it was meant to be a replacement for all the Ren & Stimpy fans out there, just add live-action and crack. Oh yea, Morel Orel is awesome. Ihave come to love this little show as a great satire on American life and religion especially. It takes on some big issues and sometimes it becomes a bit too heavy handed and or disgusting, but usually it gets the feel just right. Robot Chicken is, well, robot chicken and it is either on or off. Ghost in the Shell is interesting to me as was Paranoia Agent by the great Satoshi Kon, who happens to have a movie coming out soon in the US called Paprika (Go find the trailer, it looks awesome!), But the best Japanime yet is Shin Chan. This little show reminds me Family Guy back when it was funny and full of commentary on society. The show isn't for anyone and makes a lot of jokes about bare butts and adolescence, but it is a funny reminder to me at least of how simple the world seemed as a kid and how easy it was to screw up with that assumption. Tim and Eric's Awesome Show, Tom the Mayor, and Aqua Teen have gotta go. The first two were never good and the last one has dropped off significantly since season 1. I really wish they had made a season of Korgoth the barbarian since that would have been a great addition in a back to back hour with The Venture Brothers, which I admit is on my to own list at some point. It's just a great show.
Other than that, there hasn't been a whole lot of any interest on for me. I am a well known despiser of reality television, except for Iron Chef. Smith was good while it lasted but it was quickly canceled which was sad. Now I have to buy the episodes on iTunes. The Nine was also a great show but it too was canceled due to lack of watcher so I will never know the ending. 30 Rock was great but I never knew when it came on so I usually watched it online. Apparently Alec Baldwin has some comedian in him, go Alec! Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip never captured my interest but it had several of my families as they were all in love with Aaron Sorkin's West Wing. Sorry, but the show just didn't have as many likeable characters and the dialogue was a bit much. I liked West Wing, but it took a whole season on DVD to get me into it. Numb3rs is a good show if it was showing during the middle of the day with soaps. But for Primetime, it's lacking and doesn't offer a whole lot of anything new. I refuse to watch the Law & Order : enter subtitle here series or NCIS or CSI or any other of these generic detective cop precinct shows as much as I refuse to watch Ghost Whisperer or Medium or any generic cop talks to ghost show.
Oh yea, and on Discovery Planet Earth rocked HARD! Man that show was amazing! If you haven't seen it, go buy it and find out why everyone was talking about it. The great white shark and the seals was a great bit. Also, big fan of their show Mythbusters. I also like their show they have during the day where they will take 15 minutes and do a quick narrated montage showing you how something is made like a speedboat. Very informative and very fascinating. Future Weapons scares me as much as it awes me. The Dealiest Catch and Dirty Jobs are just not my shows.
Although I'm forced to watch TLC and shows like What Not to Wear by she who will not be named, I will admit that for such regurgitated ideas and build a ____ shows, the quality and the designing aspect to all of the shows on the channel keep them intriguing and sufferable to people who could usually care less. Although you know what, all those wedding shows like Bam's wedding on MTV and a wedding story and Real wedding Crashers...just stop. Stop those shows right now and help me keep some sense of sanity and faith in television.
My biggest recommendation to the networks and some are beginning to do this, make the episodes available on your website for free so that people can catch up if they miss it. NBC has a great system going. Also, create extra content in depth for fans. The amount of interactive content you can wade through for Heroes is ASTOUNDING. Hell, they create viral interactive experiences for the viewers online that will then later affect the show and it doesn't hurt if you don't know what they are talking about but it adds a bit of umh to your step to know you helped or to know what is going on (Wireless, you die in the future!). I also have to give props for great openings to shows. I can't get the images of the intro to Raines out of my head. Unfortunately, it's set to the intro music from Drive which I also can't relinquish my grip on. Lastly, I do appreciate the amount of riskier and interesting shows that channels took a chance on this year so far. I just hope they continue to do so instead of churning out the same old same old due to a lack of viewer interest in the more different intellectual properties. Anyhow, that's my assesment of T.V. land. Why don't you write in and tell me about yours? I'm listening...I can hear you...Because I'm SPECIAL....
Wannabe(Sylar)
First and foremost in my mind is the AMAZING show Heroes. This show has so many arcs and has started off clunky but has found its footing and a devoted fanbase due to the twisting and mesmerizing story arcs. I hated having to wait for new installments...twice! but, the awesome amount of detail and interaction NBC and Tim Kring developed for the show online plus the ability to watch any episode with commentary or not online helped a Lot in case I missed and episode. Definately the best show of the year.
My next favorite show is now sadly canceled after getting some bad press and no confidence by Fox, a little show called Drive of which only four of the six episodes were ever shown. The idea is fascinating and its great to see how the writers weave the story to have this overseeing evil corporation manipulating the people who are all in an illegal cross country race. Some people thought the story was silly, oters hated the cars and the fact that there weren't crazy car chases. Its an ensemble show which took away a lot of the money for crazy car scenes, and the show uses its setup as a way to enter its characters which is what a show should do people. I would hate to see a cross country race full of nice cars. I'd call it Fast and the Furious, too lame for theaters or something else if it was just about the race. Anyhow, I'll stop bitching. It's gone. Tear.
Another good show includes the currently running Raines. I find it be very similar to all of the other detective that sees dead people shows except it does a great job of going in depth as to how the detective perceives these people and how his perceptions are affected by evidence. Plus, Goldblum is highly entertaining with his dry laconic humor.
Sadly, Raines partner show Andy Barker P.I. is also canceled. This was a show created by Conan O'Brien which gave me no reason to see it. But after seeing an episode it was nice to see such a fun show making a smart spoof on all the old detective noir films and plots. The cast was great and the dialogue fun. Also, it has Tony Hale as a sarcastic movie clerk...perfect! If you want to see all the episodes, I highly recommend watching them online and then when you're done transferring over to Raines and watching those.
Perhaps one of the disappointments for me is House. Ever since the second season, I have not been that big of a fan. Oh yea, sure Hugh Laurie is still great. It just has to do with the decision to make every episode very gory, or gross, or somethng that will make you cringe and lose a little respect for House and then gain it back later because he is an arrogant smug always right specialist...not good enough and I don't apprecate the turn to gore. I liked it better when the stories focused on more interesting diseases or combinations of that didn't require things like balls exploding. With that said, I will admit that I only saw one or two episodes this season, so I might have caught the wrong ones.
Prisonbreak is trash. I have to watch this show because of the people I stay with love it and we eat dinner, after its over thogh, I'm off to Heroes. The actors just can't act, except for that one crazy cajun guy who is creepy as hell. Also, the entire story arc is ridiculous and highly annoying. It's obvious at this point that the series shoudl have been over long ago. It was made to be a great 1 season story arc and never knew what to do with itself after it got renewed. Bleh.
Although I haven't seen much of it, I do appreciate Psyche. I find it to be a fun show with an interesting premise and not terrible acting. I just wish the dialogue included more fun partner banter than it does, but besides that its a good detective show that feigns at the I see dead people approach. Amusing!
Used to watch Family Guy and Amercian Dad, but last year was enough. I'll watch them eventually when they hit Adult Swim maybe. Speaking of which on Adult Swim I found several new series highly amusing and a welcome break from their nonsequitor humor. Frisky Dingo was a Great new addition. Of course Aaron McGruder's The Boondocks is awesome and I anxiously await the new season. Metalocalypse was sort of mish mash. I enjoyed the humor and how each epidoe tied together and still found great ways to create humor based on rock and roll and other topics, but the episodes never feel that they were meant to be tied together. Take out te scenes with the satan or whoever monitoring them in each one and each episode could stand on its own. It was still enjoyable though. Saul of the Mole Men was a great idea to bring back that crazy style I remember growing up on cheap kids shows with an adult theme. The premise is classic. The execution though is a textbook example of how to screw up big-time. While the visceral feel of the show is done right, the plot and the ridiculous characters make the show feel like it was meant to be a replacement for all the Ren & Stimpy fans out there, just add live-action and crack. Oh yea, Morel Orel is awesome. Ihave come to love this little show as a great satire on American life and religion especially. It takes on some big issues and sometimes it becomes a bit too heavy handed and or disgusting, but usually it gets the feel just right. Robot Chicken is, well, robot chicken and it is either on or off. Ghost in the Shell is interesting to me as was Paranoia Agent by the great Satoshi Kon, who happens to have a movie coming out soon in the US called Paprika (Go find the trailer, it looks awesome!), But the best Japanime yet is Shin Chan. This little show reminds me Family Guy back when it was funny and full of commentary on society. The show isn't for anyone and makes a lot of jokes about bare butts and adolescence, but it is a funny reminder to me at least of how simple the world seemed as a kid and how easy it was to screw up with that assumption. Tim and Eric's Awesome Show, Tom the Mayor, and Aqua Teen have gotta go. The first two were never good and the last one has dropped off significantly since season 1. I really wish they had made a season of Korgoth the barbarian since that would have been a great addition in a back to back hour with The Venture Brothers, which I admit is on my to own list at some point. It's just a great show.
Other than that, there hasn't been a whole lot of any interest on for me. I am a well known despiser of reality television, except for Iron Chef. Smith was good while it lasted but it was quickly canceled which was sad. Now I have to buy the episodes on iTunes. The Nine was also a great show but it too was canceled due to lack of watcher so I will never know the ending. 30 Rock was great but I never knew when it came on so I usually watched it online. Apparently Alec Baldwin has some comedian in him, go Alec! Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip never captured my interest but it had several of my families as they were all in love with Aaron Sorkin's West Wing. Sorry, but the show just didn't have as many likeable characters and the dialogue was a bit much. I liked West Wing, but it took a whole season on DVD to get me into it. Numb3rs is a good show if it was showing during the middle of the day with soaps. But for Primetime, it's lacking and doesn't offer a whole lot of anything new. I refuse to watch the Law & Order : enter subtitle here series or NCIS or CSI or any other of these generic detective cop precinct shows as much as I refuse to watch Ghost Whisperer or Medium or any generic cop talks to ghost show.
Oh yea, and on Discovery Planet Earth rocked HARD! Man that show was amazing! If you haven't seen it, go buy it and find out why everyone was talking about it. The great white shark and the seals was a great bit. Also, big fan of their show Mythbusters. I also like their show they have during the day where they will take 15 minutes and do a quick narrated montage showing you how something is made like a speedboat. Very informative and very fascinating. Future Weapons scares me as much as it awes me. The Dealiest Catch and Dirty Jobs are just not my shows.
Although I'm forced to watch TLC and shows like What Not to Wear by she who will not be named, I will admit that for such regurgitated ideas and build a ____ shows, the quality and the designing aspect to all of the shows on the channel keep them intriguing and sufferable to people who could usually care less. Although you know what, all those wedding shows like Bam's wedding on MTV and a wedding story and Real wedding Crashers...just stop. Stop those shows right now and help me keep some sense of sanity and faith in television.
My biggest recommendation to the networks and some are beginning to do this, make the episodes available on your website for free so that people can catch up if they miss it. NBC has a great system going. Also, create extra content in depth for fans. The amount of interactive content you can wade through for Heroes is ASTOUNDING. Hell, they create viral interactive experiences for the viewers online that will then later affect the show and it doesn't hurt if you don't know what they are talking about but it adds a bit of umh to your step to know you helped or to know what is going on (Wireless, you die in the future!). I also have to give props for great openings to shows. I can't get the images of the intro to Raines out of my head. Unfortunately, it's set to the intro music from Drive which I also can't relinquish my grip on. Lastly, I do appreciate the amount of riskier and interesting shows that channels took a chance on this year so far. I just hope they continue to do so instead of churning out the same old same old due to a lack of viewer interest in the more different intellectual properties. Anyhow, that's my assesment of T.V. land. Why don't you write in and tell me about yours? I'm listening...I can hear you...Because I'm SPECIAL....
Wannabe(Sylar)
Idiocracy
Have you heard of 1984? Children of Men? The Matrix!! Well, what I have to tell you, is that Mike Judge's recent outing in live-action film has produced perhaps the most depraved, disgusting, terrifying vision of mankind's future yet. That, and it's damn amusing. Mike Judge's previous outings in film include the classic Office Space and Beavis and Butthead Do America. Just from looking at his previous work in film and then looking at the title of his recent one it becomes readily apparent that Judge seems to be interested in the varying types and stages of what could only be called...stupidity. To some it might be mind blowing that the same guy who created Beavis and Butthead and King of the Hill created the fairly intelligent and funny movie Office Space. Yet, the one thing they share is a fascination with the types of people and the culture of various places and the rise of seemingly incompetent people.
Idiocracy is an excellent continuation of the Judge tradition by being so different from everything else before it. Judge tries to do something different with the idea of stupidity and incompetence every time and after having incredibly low brow humor and then redneck humor followed by intelligent and amusing office humor, it's quite a surprise that he could find anything different from his previous incarnations. For the most part, Idiocracy is something new and fresh regarding this theme, although in all fairness I feel he was relying a bit too much on his old Beavis and Butthead days for a lot of the comedy which likes to center around sex, hookers, farting, and just straight stupidity. It has a good mix of other humor too, but it feels a little trite at times by doing something adventurous and then being scared and turning to a tried and true joke like farting. Outside of the themes of the movie, the necessary social commentary is also present and makes a pretty good point early on that as an elite son of a ***** I have a hard time arguing with. Perhaps the best way to summarize it is that mankind has degenerated to the point of using a Gatorade type product to water plants and a previous professional wrestler is now President of the United States. The plotline and the twists and turns make the movie a very fun and amusing look at our potential future even if it can be hard to swallow at times. It is non-threatening material with a message most people can get behind. The real problem is that the characters are not well defined.
Luke Wilson, the better Wilson, plays the main character in the film named Joe Bauers (Although his second name given later is a hoot!). Luke is a pretty good actor but he rarely gets parts in anything except something his brother is in or as a romantic lead because he has a so-so face. Truly though, in this case, his Everyman looks make it him perfect for the part. Judge does an excellent job of casting and it becomes more obvious with each line uttered by Wilson and his co-hort Maya Rudolph. Maya looks like and talks like a present day stereotypical hooker and she isn't glorified with some outstanding body or great hairdo. The probem is that both of these characters are one-note. She's afraid of her pimp despite being in the future. He just wants to go back in time but he still isn't smart enough to realize she doesn't paint. Of course, the people they meet make them look like geniuses but still, so much stupidity even in the main characters makes it difficult at times to process and follow. Sometimes, laughing while watching all the characters die did pop into my mind. The real breakout role in the film belongs to Terry Crews who plays President Camacho. He is stupid enough to do some crazy things, but he has enough humility, panache, and intelligence to know how to use people to get what he wants. He is scary and yet somehow comforting in an idiotic sort of way. His performance is done just right where it makes sense that he was elected president and still maintains the believability in the stupidity of everyone in America. Perhaps my least favorite performance is Frito played by Dax Shepard. I can't explain why except that his delivery of everything he has ever done in every movie he has been in has always been sub-par to unimpressive. He usually reminds me of a sub-par Dane Cook. Although he does say my favorite line in the film (I like money), On the whole, the cast does a good enough job of bringing their characters to life, but sometimes the characters are just too flat by design and should have been spruced up a little bit.
Judge's directing in this film is spot on. Like I mentioned before, the humor is a different style from his previous endeavors and it is certainly NOT for everybody and requires some adjustment. It ca easily feel like a steel bat on your head if it isn't careful. But Judge walks a fine enough line, even if the ending is fairly foreseeable. It's amazing the sort of graphics and special FX Judge pulls off with such a low budget. It's too bad that Fox decidedit had no confidence in the film and released it into theaters with little to no publicity and then put it directly to DVD hoping to make up the loss of releasing it in theaters. Is there an audience for a film like this? Probably. Do I know how to market to it? No. But did they mess up the distribution of this film? Oh hell yes. I highly recommend seeing this film if you have seen Judge's earlier endeavors as this is a fully realized messed up world. It has some high and low points in all categories, but it's great for a fun brainless evening that still has a basic message. And if you decide to buy it then you are providing the possibility of more Judge films, because studios like money too!
3.4 out of 5
Wannabe
Idiocracy is an excellent continuation of the Judge tradition by being so different from everything else before it. Judge tries to do something different with the idea of stupidity and incompetence every time and after having incredibly low brow humor and then redneck humor followed by intelligent and amusing office humor, it's quite a surprise that he could find anything different from his previous incarnations. For the most part, Idiocracy is something new and fresh regarding this theme, although in all fairness I feel he was relying a bit too much on his old Beavis and Butthead days for a lot of the comedy which likes to center around sex, hookers, farting, and just straight stupidity. It has a good mix of other humor too, but it feels a little trite at times by doing something adventurous and then being scared and turning to a tried and true joke like farting. Outside of the themes of the movie, the necessary social commentary is also present and makes a pretty good point early on that as an elite son of a ***** I have a hard time arguing with. Perhaps the best way to summarize it is that mankind has degenerated to the point of using a Gatorade type product to water plants and a previous professional wrestler is now President of the United States. The plotline and the twists and turns make the movie a very fun and amusing look at our potential future even if it can be hard to swallow at times. It is non-threatening material with a message most people can get behind. The real problem is that the characters are not well defined.
Luke Wilson, the better Wilson, plays the main character in the film named Joe Bauers (Although his second name given later is a hoot!). Luke is a pretty good actor but he rarely gets parts in anything except something his brother is in or as a romantic lead because he has a so-so face. Truly though, in this case, his Everyman looks make it him perfect for the part. Judge does an excellent job of casting and it becomes more obvious with each line uttered by Wilson and his co-hort Maya Rudolph. Maya looks like and talks like a present day stereotypical hooker and she isn't glorified with some outstanding body or great hairdo. The probem is that both of these characters are one-note. She's afraid of her pimp despite being in the future. He just wants to go back in time but he still isn't smart enough to realize she doesn't paint. Of course, the people they meet make them look like geniuses but still, so much stupidity even in the main characters makes it difficult at times to process and follow. Sometimes, laughing while watching all the characters die did pop into my mind. The real breakout role in the film belongs to Terry Crews who plays President Camacho. He is stupid enough to do some crazy things, but he has enough humility, panache, and intelligence to know how to use people to get what he wants. He is scary and yet somehow comforting in an idiotic sort of way. His performance is done just right where it makes sense that he was elected president and still maintains the believability in the stupidity of everyone in America. Perhaps my least favorite performance is Frito played by Dax Shepard. I can't explain why except that his delivery of everything he has ever done in every movie he has been in has always been sub-par to unimpressive. He usually reminds me of a sub-par Dane Cook. Although he does say my favorite line in the film (I like money), On the whole, the cast does a good enough job of bringing their characters to life, but sometimes the characters are just too flat by design and should have been spruced up a little bit.
Judge's directing in this film is spot on. Like I mentioned before, the humor is a different style from his previous endeavors and it is certainly NOT for everybody and requires some adjustment. It ca easily feel like a steel bat on your head if it isn't careful. But Judge walks a fine enough line, even if the ending is fairly foreseeable. It's amazing the sort of graphics and special FX Judge pulls off with such a low budget. It's too bad that Fox decidedit had no confidence in the film and released it into theaters with little to no publicity and then put it directly to DVD hoping to make up the loss of releasing it in theaters. Is there an audience for a film like this? Probably. Do I know how to market to it? No. But did they mess up the distribution of this film? Oh hell yes. I highly recommend seeing this film if you have seen Judge's earlier endeavors as this is a fully realized messed up world. It has some high and low points in all categories, but it's great for a fun brainless evening that still has a basic message. And if you decide to buy it then you are providing the possibility of more Judge films, because studios like money too!
3.4 out of 5
Wannabe
Monday, April 30, 2007
My Defense of Critics
Not too long ago, maybe two issues back of Time Magazine there was an article by Richard Corliss regarding his thoughts and feelings on why critics exist. You see, every so often critics come under fire from Hollywood for being jaded or blah blah blah, essentially not liking their films and therefore giving bad publicity and ruining a film before it even comes out if they can. Yet, Hollywood and most people have learned that critics are often ignored by the paying public as to what films to watch. The original defense for critics created by one of Corliss' predecessors is that film critics make no claim to being able to judge box office or how well a film will do, they are their to determine what films are considered great films in the canon of films. Now, this is true and yet it is also incredibly elitist assuming that the general paying public is a bunch of morons who wouldn't know art if it bit them in the ankle and then jumped up and down a bit. We, as a society, require film critics to apparently tell us what will be the next Casablanca and what films we should study and learn from. Now, although I agree that most of the paying public is too forgiving and usually insensitive to good films and willing to settle for decent, I won't say that they are ALL morons. This excuse was originally employed by a professional well-known film critic in response to trashing James Cameron's Titanic piece of crap. Cameron then came out after the movie had broken all of the box office records whining about how critics were obviously elitist and out of touch with reality since his film had done SO well and wanted the critic fired. Instead of apologizing and saying I'm wrong, the defense was, well, the movie sucked as a movie but the public loved it, what you gonna do? This is the same defense Corliss uses when defending his and many other "professional" film critics choice to destroy the recent films 300 and Ghost Rider. While I agree to this assessment that film critics are needed to help the quality of Hollywood improve for its own sake and they are not an accurate measuring stick for box office intake, the real question then becomes what is the point of having film critics in popular writings if their goal is so elitist? Surely they are more apt to be useful in a cinema magazine or in a paper dedicated to the arts, but the New York Times? Washington Post? Newspaper subscriptions have fallen exponentially over the years as people have become less and less willing to pay for the news, leaving papers with two routes, either go high brow to capture and hold onto the intelligent hardcore, or try and dumb down and spread out to grab as many potential readers as possible. I know when I started off trying to break into journalism, I was told to cover local theater only and then told not to bother because they decided it was too highbrow to review theatrical performances. The question really is, how come the Post and the Times employ critics instead of reviewers? People whose job is to guess how much the audience will like or dislike a film? Well, they kind of do. It's true that critics are a snobby bunch, but one look at Rotten tomatoes reviews for a film will show critics thoughts which can veer wildly away from each other. I remember looking and finding a couple of really positive reviews of Ultraviolet before I saw it and laughed at the film so hard I cried. Many critics have to write so much that finding that perfect take or entrance into a piece could be really difficult. Besides, sometimes critics are fanboys as well. God knows if Arrested Development was made into a movie as had been talked about at one point, the critics would have covered it like fanboys do Spiderman 3 or Transformers. I think the real reason critics are necessary, as hard as this is for Hollywood to stomach, is that they are here to delineate the amazing movies from the rest of the so-so to pretty good schlock churned out each year. If you asked someone for a top 50 movie list, there is a good possibility that some films they have never seen but heard of as being one of the "greats" will be on there such as Gone with the Wind or The Maltese Falcon. The difference is that when you ask a critic for the top 50, you know you are getting a much more accurate and better top 50 than you would from asking some random person. Critics have to try and figure out what films are better than others without allowing taste and current appeal to factor into their decisions. I think that their real problem is that everyone wants to be a critic and not a reviewer and so many people end up sullying the title critic by writing film reviews. Myself, I'm part both. I pump movies I like and I get excited about certain characteristics of films such as Edward Norton or Christopher Nolan. Yet, I do my best to try and see the film as if I was someone in film school or down the line several years and what they would think. What some people might not know is I have an unadulterated love for cheesy 80's to early 90's flicks like 3 Ninjas, Mr. Nanny, Surf Ninjas, the Pee Wee movie, and oh so many more. Although I can easily agree that all of these films are terrible! With the exception of 3 Ninjas, the first one, you know with the pepper coffee filter trick things and the crazy forest acrobatics, which is decent. Instead, because I do not devote myself 100% to the elitist cause of film critics nor do I wish to degrade myself to simply guessing what the audience should like, I am somewhere in between the two main categories and the new third one dubbed the fanboy. The Times magazine has some interesting news based on the rise of what it called "fanboy" critics like aintitcool.com and joblo.com which hype and cover films from more of a populist standpoint and to which the success of 300 seems to have been more or less directly related. Thes sites are fanboy sites because if you notice they go out of their way to cover the most minute details of things like who will voice Optimus Prime? Does Batman's suit really outline his nipples? And who in the world thought it was a good idea to let Uwe Boll touch ANYTHING? As much as I revel in the minute detail provided by these websites regarding such seemingly insignificant material based on beloved franchises and figures, I also realize that at the end of the day, only the acting, directing, and visual presentation matter. Certain things may irk me as a fan, but films are not made for fans, they are made for everyone. Films just like to gain fans support because the fans will spread word of mouth and hype before it opens. Therefore,although I refuse to hype much before the release of a film, I will certainly go out of my way in person to hit you up with inane knowledge long lost to all but the most virulent and detailed driven loser...errr, explorer. I think by combining my love of films and my nerdiness with my criticism and trying to find a middle ground for the average theatregoer, I am providing a good medium ground that could hopefully satisfy any sane human being by explaining my reasoning in clear and concise manner. Although you know what, Little Miss Sunshine still sucked. :) Let the HATE BEGIN!!!
Wannabe
Wannabe
Saturday, April 28, 2007
Frequency
'Frequency's quality is all but'
You know, Dennis Quaid has just never been an appealing lead man for me. He's never BAD, but he just looks perfect for the perfect husband role or occassionally the good-hearted Grizzly Adams type. Has he ever played a villain?! Which is probably why it shocked me so much to see Frequency, not because he is a villain, but because he pulls off badass and the daring risk taker type so well with a decent New York accent. Then again, he is the protective loving father type...so, there.
The movie is directed by Gregory Hoblit from a script by Toby Emmerich. It is about a boy whose father is a daring firefighter whom grows up to find out that his old AM radio can communicate with his father from 30 years ago when the Aurora Borealis (a phenomenon!) appears overhead...yea, its a lame setup. In fact, most of the science in the movie is poorly explained, but then again Hollywood is notorious for not paying any attention to flaws in scripts when it comes to movies dealing with time. So, the son tries to convince his dad of certain things, saves his dad from a deadly fire and changes the future. Then, because the dad was safe, a murderer known as the Nightingale murderer continues to kill people, including the son's mom so the dad and older son team up to stop the killer before it happens. The one thing I will say about the writing for the script is that Toby Emmerich has a good ear for dialogue and accent, knows how to write a gripping story and obviously LOVES baseball. He is also has a good sense of family and community as the whole reconciling son with still living father thing is well done. But like I said, this guy sucks at science fiction. The story even contradicts itself in several places hoping that you won't notice by skipping on ahead to it's predicted cheesier father-son moments. With that said, as long as Emmerich stays away from sci-fi pretexts, especially time, he should be okay. At least this movie understood that if you change the future every one in the present will change too and not remember the previous timeline...although apparently the son does for some UNEXPLAINED REASON.
As for the acting, well, Quaid really surprised me and I bet he is a much better actor than people give him credit for. If only he'd take some riskier parts occassionally, although he is definately the perfect dad. Then there is his son, played by "Jesus" Jim Caviezel in one of his earlier roles. He kind of mopes through out the whole movie and his love life is screwed quickly with very little attention to it. But at least he gets the bereaved son turned cop glad to save his father bit down. The bad guy played by Shawn Doyle is just plain crazy. I can't give too much away, but man this guy is good at playing a stone cold killer when he has to. Lastly, I want to give a shout out to my main man Andre Braugher who plays Satch. I loved watching you on Homicide man, you are the coolest police officer out there and obviously a talented actor. If I make a film, I'll come find you and pull a Tarantino on your ass. The acting is pretty good for the most part and you will be so surprised by Quaid's ability to be a firefighter that you probably won't notice the lack of personality change in Caviezel. Now just think, several years down the road from this Caviezel will play the bad guy in another pseudo okay time movie called Deja Vu...hmmmm.
I have to give props to the director for what is obviously a flawed and probably exasperating script to work with and making a decent popcorn flick out of it. It's true, you might like slow motion dropping objects a bit much but all is forgiven in having a cast that can do the part well and in doing a great job of differentiating the timelines for the characters and in the process of updating memories and adding furniture after a big event happens. Although I'm still confused if time changed or if the two timelines are funning parallel to each other because it seems as if Caviezel and Quaid are running on the same time schedule. You were smart though and made the movie about the struggle of a son to save his father and put a lot of time on their interactions to make us care about the characters and their funny accents. I congratulate you on that and I hope that all future endeavors have a better thought out script for you to make magic with. Good job.
Conclusion:
The script has a lot of pros but it's cons are highly noticeable and can throw you out of the mood and the believability of the story. Thankfully Quaid does a great job and shines as does the rest of the cast and the directing is so top notch that it is quickly forgiven in order to follow the gripping turns and hope that all will end A-OKAY. Nowhere near brilliant or amazing, but definately good to be studid by all directors out there with cruddy scripts wondering how to make a GOOD movie out of it. Give it a shot some time if you are weak stomached and want a good gripping tale. Otherwise, see it for Jesus...:)
3.3 out of 5
Wannabe
You know, Dennis Quaid has just never been an appealing lead man for me. He's never BAD, but he just looks perfect for the perfect husband role or occassionally the good-hearted Grizzly Adams type. Has he ever played a villain?! Which is probably why it shocked me so much to see Frequency, not because he is a villain, but because he pulls off badass and the daring risk taker type so well with a decent New York accent. Then again, he is the protective loving father type...so, there.
The movie is directed by Gregory Hoblit from a script by Toby Emmerich. It is about a boy whose father is a daring firefighter whom grows up to find out that his old AM radio can communicate with his father from 30 years ago when the Aurora Borealis (a phenomenon!) appears overhead...yea, its a lame setup. In fact, most of the science in the movie is poorly explained, but then again Hollywood is notorious for not paying any attention to flaws in scripts when it comes to movies dealing with time. So, the son tries to convince his dad of certain things, saves his dad from a deadly fire and changes the future. Then, because the dad was safe, a murderer known as the Nightingale murderer continues to kill people, including the son's mom so the dad and older son team up to stop the killer before it happens. The one thing I will say about the writing for the script is that Toby Emmerich has a good ear for dialogue and accent, knows how to write a gripping story and obviously LOVES baseball. He is also has a good sense of family and community as the whole reconciling son with still living father thing is well done. But like I said, this guy sucks at science fiction. The story even contradicts itself in several places hoping that you won't notice by skipping on ahead to it's predicted cheesier father-son moments. With that said, as long as Emmerich stays away from sci-fi pretexts, especially time, he should be okay. At least this movie understood that if you change the future every one in the present will change too and not remember the previous timeline...although apparently the son does for some UNEXPLAINED REASON.
As for the acting, well, Quaid really surprised me and I bet he is a much better actor than people give him credit for. If only he'd take some riskier parts occassionally, although he is definately the perfect dad. Then there is his son, played by "Jesus" Jim Caviezel in one of his earlier roles. He kind of mopes through out the whole movie and his love life is screwed quickly with very little attention to it. But at least he gets the bereaved son turned cop glad to save his father bit down. The bad guy played by Shawn Doyle is just plain crazy. I can't give too much away, but man this guy is good at playing a stone cold killer when he has to. Lastly, I want to give a shout out to my main man Andre Braugher who plays Satch. I loved watching you on Homicide man, you are the coolest police officer out there and obviously a talented actor. If I make a film, I'll come find you and pull a Tarantino on your ass. The acting is pretty good for the most part and you will be so surprised by Quaid's ability to be a firefighter that you probably won't notice the lack of personality change in Caviezel. Now just think, several years down the road from this Caviezel will play the bad guy in another pseudo okay time movie called Deja Vu...hmmmm.
I have to give props to the director for what is obviously a flawed and probably exasperating script to work with and making a decent popcorn flick out of it. It's true, you might like slow motion dropping objects a bit much but all is forgiven in having a cast that can do the part well and in doing a great job of differentiating the timelines for the characters and in the process of updating memories and adding furniture after a big event happens. Although I'm still confused if time changed or if the two timelines are funning parallel to each other because it seems as if Caviezel and Quaid are running on the same time schedule. You were smart though and made the movie about the struggle of a son to save his father and put a lot of time on their interactions to make us care about the characters and their funny accents. I congratulate you on that and I hope that all future endeavors have a better thought out script for you to make magic with. Good job.
Conclusion:
The script has a lot of pros but it's cons are highly noticeable and can throw you out of the mood and the believability of the story. Thankfully Quaid does a great job and shines as does the rest of the cast and the directing is so top notch that it is quickly forgiven in order to follow the gripping turns and hope that all will end A-OKAY. Nowhere near brilliant or amazing, but definately good to be studid by all directors out there with cruddy scripts wondering how to make a GOOD movie out of it. Give it a shot some time if you are weak stomached and want a good gripping tale. Otherwise, see it for Jesus...:)
3.3 out of 5
Wannabe
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
