"Every jackass thinks he knows what war is, especially those who haven't been in one."
I can't say I was all that interested in Flags of Our Fathers, but I keep hearing that Letters from Iwo Jima is great, and I figured since they're "companion pieces" I might as well watch them in order. And since the latter comes out on DVD in a couple weeks, it seemed like a good time to check this one out.
They way Flags was promoted, it seemed like a fairly run-of-the-mill war movie. And it certainly has its share of brutal battle sequences. But it's really about survivor's guilt, and the contrast between the public face of heroism and the reality of war. The main characters were in the famous photograph raising the flag at Iwo Jima, and are given a hero's welcome. They are used for a promotional campaign for war bonds and treated like celebrities, but the men who died get no fanfare at all.
I really like Clint Eastwood as a director. He's not Martin Scorsese, but he gets good performances out of actors and doesn't let anything get in the way of the story. A few parts were derivative of Saving Private Ryan, but I guess if you're going to borrow from someone for a war movie, that's a good choice, and occasionally he makes his points forcefully when subtlety might do better (a shot of blood-red sauce poured on an ice cream mold of soldiers lingered a tad too long, for example).
Another odd thing about the promotion for this movie was that I don't think I ever knew who was in it. Not that it has an all-star cast, but Ryan Phillipe certainly has some fans. I'm not one of them, but this is easily the best I've ever seen him. Adam Beach, who played a similar role in Windtalkers, which I hated, was actually good here.
The only major problem I had was that the structure of the movie was a little too complex. The timeline bounced between the battle, the PR effort after the fact, and the recent past with a man assembling the stories. I don't see what the more recent timeline brought to the table that couldn't have been accomplished as a sort of epilogue, which would've simplified the rest of the story.
Otherwise, it was a pretty enjoyable film, and I'm looking forward to Letters from Iwo Jima.
Tuesday, May 8, 2007
Flags of Our Fathers
Friday, May 4, 2007
Spider-man 3
I have an easier time with a movie that's just no good than I do with a movie that could be great, does a lot of things well, but shoots itself in the foot with its own stupidity. Before I continue, I should say that I was lukewarm on the first two installments in the Spider-man series, so fans of those should ignore me and go see this, because a lot of my frustration extends from the first two.
Several things bothered me. First, I've never liked Tobey Maguire as Peter Parker. Most of the time, he has a goofy grin on his face that I find irritating, but when he plays a scene where he has to cry, rather than looking emotional he has an "ouch, stop it" look like someone's got a tight grip on his nads. Second, I've been reading WWTDD (which is sometimes work-unsafe) for about a year, and now I can't stop staring at Kirsten Dunst's teeth. Third, and most importantly, this one went for a lot of easy jokes. There's an extended sequence in the middle where I thought the tone of the entire movie was derailed for cheap laughs. It seemed to work, as most of the theater was laughing the whole way through, but I felt like it was one of the dumbest sequences I've seen in a big budget movie.
And the flaws don't end there... some more specific, slightly spoilerish gripes, and a few positive things after the jump:
The Sandman makes for cool special effects, but the Flint Marko character was an extrageneric villain with a heart. The movie clocked in at 140 minutes which is a bit too long, and since they had three major villains, they really could've cut the Sandman entirely. The Stan Lee cameo was dreadful, and Sam Raimi threw in a cameo of his kids in one of the climactic moments which was distracting (I'm sure they're great kids, but they're not actors). Harry's butler gets a lot more screen time and his dialogue is cringeworthy and his performance not much better. There's an action sequence involving a damsel in distress and a giant disaster waiting to happen, but after Spider-man shows up and saves the girl, he never does anything to stop the disaster and they just ignore it. Plus, during that sequence, there's a shot of Gwen Stacy running towards the camera as the floor starts to collapse, and the effects are terrible. It's only one shot for about a second and a half, but you'd think that for $250 million, they could make it look a little better. Also, Kirsten Dunst apparently did her own singing, but they pre-recorded it and had her poorly lip sync to herself early on, which was weird.
As for the good, the action sequences, as usual, were mostly well done, and they have a lot of fun with the web slinging. The venom suit looked just how I'd imagine it, the sandman scenes were pretty cool, Bryce Dallas Howard and Topher Grace were both nice additions to the cast, and Bruce Campbell got a bigger part than the past two movies and did an excellent job with it.
As I said, fans of the first two should just go see this (not that they needed me to tell them to). I suspect they won't like it as much, but if you liked Tobey Maguire as Peter, it's not a bad movie at all, and if you also dig the more ridiculous comedy elements they go for in the middle, you might even love it. But for me, it was a few fun action scenes surrounded by stuff that I generally found boring.
Monday, April 30, 2007
Blogs & Feeds
Reading this blog for a few minutes should make it obvious that I spend too much time watching TV and movies, but I also spend too much time on the internet. And sometimes those two hobbies combine in wonderful ways. In addition to the general interest blogs and sites I've put on the blogroll to the right, some of my favorite writers, actors, and comedians have been kind enough to keep blogs, and you can find a few I enjoy after the jump. And I'm sure there are hundreds more, so if your favorite entertainer or behind-the-scenes person keeps an interesting blog, let me know in the comments!
First, a little primer on the whole feed thing. The basic idea is that rather than having to go to every website you read one at a time to find new articles, you just look in one place (called an aggregator), and when new content is added to your favorite websites, it all appears there. Check out bloglines.com for a free, easy-to-use, web-based aggregator if you're interested. If not, then just ignore the feed links, since they won't realy do anything.
Silent Bob Speaks (site, feed): Kevin Smith does his usual Kevin Smith thing, but on the web.
Jane Espenson (site, feed): A cool blog if you fancy yourself a writer, or even if you don't. I'm just going to quote straight from her site to explain it all, "I'm a former writer for Buffy the Vampire Slayer and have written episodes for shows including: Angel, Firefly, Gilmore Girls, Ellen, The O.C., Star Trek: Deep Space Nine, Dinosaurs, Andy Barker PI and others. I am currently under a development deal with NBC/Universal television while working as Co-Executive Producer on Battlestar Galactica. My blog is intended to help new writers tackle the job of writing those all-important spec scripts -- from picking the right show to spec, to developing an idea, to getting that dialogue exactly right, to giving the script that professional look. And then there's lunch."
Publick Nuisance (site, feed): Jackson Publick, the former The Tick writer who created The Venture Bros., directs every episode, and writes half of them, blogs with production news and occasional cool tidbits like links to special Christmas audio.
Soulbot (site, feed): The blog of Doc Hammer, the other half of the Venture Bros. writing team.
Patton Oswalt (site, feed): Stand up comedian (Comedians of Comedy), King of Queens co-star, lead voice in the upcoming Ratatouille, and all-around funny guy.
Brian Posehn (site, feed): Former Mr. Show player, Just Shoot Me regular, also a Comedian of Comedy, and one of the gay neighbors from The Sarah Silverman Program.
Sunday, April 29, 2007
The Good Shepherd
The Good Shepherd tells the story of the early days of the CIA through the eyes of a young man who enters the intelligence game and rises to a position of power at the agency's inception. But interesting subject matter, an all-star cast, and Robert De Niro behind the camera can't quite rescue it from mediocrity.
There are some good moments as far as the agency goes. My favorite, from Robert De Niro's character as they created the CIA, "I see this as America's eyes and ears. I don't want it to become its heart and soul." But all the efforts to bring in those nice little scenes about the CIA seem tacked on, never really fitting with the narrative.
Matt Damon gives a good performance in a difficult role. By his nature, Edward Wilson is serious, closely guarded, secretive, which doesn't give an actor much to work with. That's not completely unfamiliar territory for Damon, who previously played it close to the vest in Rounders, but The Good Shepherd definitely takes it to another level. The supporting players, Angelina Jolie, Alec Baldwin De Niro, William Hurt, Joe Pesci, and others, all perform admirably as well.
But what really drags the movie down is its length. Three hours is a long time to hold your interest in a Lord of the Rings type epic, but to spend almost as much time for a film with considerably less action and considerably more moments of moody silence is asking a lot for an audience. Trimming it down to a little over two hours, and eliminating some of the tangential elements could've resulted in a pretty good movie, but instead we're left with some nice moments and nice performances, but as a whole, nothing of note.
Wednesday, April 25, 2007
The Science of Sleep
Michel Gondry makes a hell of a music video, and Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind was great. Human Nature, not so much, but even though The Science of Sleep didn't necessarily look like my cup of tea, I thought I'd give it a shot.
Gael Garcia Bernal (Y Tu Mama Tambien) stars as Stephane, a man with a has a vivid imagination and the line between his dreams and reality is blurred more than a little. This provides plenty of opportunity for Gondry to exercise his skill with trippy visuals, with lots of cool stop-motion animation. Plot-wise, it's the usual story... boy meets girl, boy learns how to suspend clouds made of cotton in the air by playing the piano, boy gives girl a one second time machine, girl goes with him on imaginary ski vacation. This would be where they lost me.
It's well-acted, visually interesting, but it was a little too weird and didn't really have a plot in the traditional sense. I'm sure someone a little more comfortable with art house film would scoff at me, but my initial impression from the trailers that I wouldn't care for it was right on.
Monday, April 23, 2007
Hot Fuzz
I learned two things when sitting down to write this post. 1. It is probably not a good idea to try find images while at work by doing a Google image search for "Hot Fuzz." 2. After catching up with the news, in the context of last week's events in Blacksburg, most of the Hot Fuzz promotional images seem kind of inappropriate. It seems like Hot Fuzz had a really unfortunate release date. Like Boondock Saints, a fun but violent movie that went completely unnoticed in theaters since it was released just after the Columbine incident, Hot Fuzz will probably suffer greatly as a movie filled with guns released just four days after the worst gun murders in American history.
I wouldn't recommend this movie by any means to anyone still feeling emotional about the whole Virginia Tech thing, and it's also on occasion extremely bloody (but fortunately it's very fake looking and obviously for laughs) but with that out of the way, Hot Fuzz is a whole lot of fun. Director/writer Edgar Wright, writer/star Simon Pegg, and star/goofball Nick Frost reunite from previous efforts Shaun of the Dead and TV series Spaced (which aired at some point on BBC America, but I've never seen it, though I hear good things). I'm not a fan of zombie movies in general, so many of the parody aspects were lost on me, but I still liked Shaun of the Dead quite a bit.
When I heard they would be taking on an action film next, I was pretty excited, and I was not at all disappointed with the result. The movie lovingly ridicules the action movie genre, with far less snark than most parody movies, making dozens of references to classic and not-so-classic action movies (and probably dozens more I didn't pick up on), finding plenty of room for crude humor (but in a way that breaks neither character nor the narrative) and cool actors (Timothy Dalton, Bill Nighy (Shaun of the Dead, Pirates of the Caribbean), Martin Freeman (the original The Office, Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy), and almost impossible to notice cameos from Peter Jackson and Cate Blanchett). It's just a ton of fun from start to finish, and when it comes out on DVD, enough time will have passed that anyone who might like a somewhat crude, dark, action/comedy should check it out.
Sunday, April 8, 2007
Hollywoodland
This really could've been a great movie with a fascinating subject. Superman, the Man of Steel, dead from a gunshot to the head. An actor, the hero of children everywhere, apparently kills himself. A once strong and handsome struggling actor becomes an aging, out of shape, typecast has-been. But because his death was mysterious, Hollywoodland ditches what could've been a fascinating biography and makes it mostly a sub-par detective story.
Adrien Brody plays a private detective hired by George Reeves' mother to prove that her son didn't commit suicide. All the normal detective stuff happens, but I found myself far more interested in Reeves' life than his death. Brody's character spends a lot of time looking into Reeves, but also has issues with his son, and a second case involving a strange client who is convinced his wife is cheating on him. Neither served more than to make a fairly insignificant point about Brody's character and we could have done without both.
Most of the attention for this film was put on Ben Affleck and his performance. He does an able job, but those that heaped praise (and a Golden Globe nomination) on him missed an important element of his performance. He was mostly playing himself. He does have personal similarities to George Reeves (reported troubles with alcohol, and he certainly seemed uncomfortable in that Daredevil costume), but I mean more in a general sense. Affleck has been pretty good in some roles in the past, and they're all pretty similar. He does that sort of charismatic, funny, but kind of a jerk role perfectly. Not to say that he's a charismatic funny jerk, but his voice and his face and his mannerisms lend themselves to him playing those parts naturally. Any time he tries to do something different (Gigli, Daredevil), it tends not to work out too well.
I guess that's a roundabout way of saying I think he doesn't have any range as an actor, and that he should stick to what he's good at. But here, he was doing some of his best work. The movie's split between the investigation Reeves' death and flashbacks to Reeves' life, and virtually every good scene is in t he past. Probably the best scene in the film is some footage of Affleck right near the end. Diane Lane and Bob Hoskins also deliver good performances in the flashback sequences.
I don't know why the same seedy underbelly of 40's and 50's Hollywood is always so interesting, but I really did like the setting. Is it just combining 50's nostalgia with classic movies and television and giving it a film noir veneer? Or is it more of a dramatized version of the tabloids, how people love to see the rich and famous fall? In any case, all the elements you're used to seeing are there: the gold diggers, the paparazzi, the wannabe actors looking for a break, and of course the evil studio boss.
The one highlight for me in the Adrien Brody section of the movie was the bit part of his girlfriend/assistant, played by Caroline Dhavernas from Wonderfalls. I really loved that show, and it's always nice to see her. I don't like the blonde hair but she's still adorable, and was pretty good despite a fairly bland part.
I'd recommend Hollywoodland to a fan of Superman or to a Ben Affleck fan (if there are any), but that's about it. I liked quite a few parts, but the film as a whole was disappointing.
Saturday, April 7, 2007
Grindhouse
When my brother asks me about a movie I've seen, he asks two questions. Is it good? And can I take my wife to see it? She's a little sensitive to the violence, profanity, and nudity, and doesn't really want to see a movie with too much of any of that. My answers to those questions for Grindhouse would be a definite "yes" and and even more definite "no." Grindhouse is awesome, but your kids should not see it, and if you've ever thought about not seeing a movie because it seemed too violent or bloody or anything, you should skip it too. But I'm not one of those people, so I loved it. And since the movie's split in two, I might as well discuss them seperately. But in the spirit of Quentin Tarantino movies, I'll put them out of order.
Most every movie geek worships at the altar of Tarantino, but I'm not one of them. I felt like Reservoir Dogs was his best film, and each one since has been progressively worse. They're not bad (I really loved Reservoir Dogs, so he's got a long way to fall), but they've been increasingly self-indulgent. Kill Bill could've been one really good movie, but instead it was two pointlessly long ones, because Tarantino had to prove how cool he was by cramming in as many references as he possibly could. He's a big enough name that he can get final cut on his own movies, and apparently removing scenes that don't work or derail the flow of the action is too much for an auteur such as himself.
Death Proof suffers from a similar problem, but it's an improvement in my book over Kill Bill. It's still too long and could have huge chunks of it removed easily which would improve the movie dramatically. But there's still a lot to like. The action scenes were great, the soundtrack (as always) was top notch, and Tarantino's dialogue is never boring, which is important. Had a lesser writer made an action movie which spends the vast majority of the film showing groups of girls just chatting with each other, I would've gotten so bored I'd have left the theater. But with QT at the helm, there was enough clever back-and-forth to keep me from wondering "what is the point of this?" all that much.
Despite my complaints, I did enjoy the Death Proof section. It's just that to me, it suffers in comparison to Planet Terror.
On the other hand, I am a Robert Rodriguez fanboy. I skipped the Spy Kids series, but otherwise I think each one of his films has been better than the last. El Mariachi was impressive for how cheap it was, Desperado was kinda cool but silly, Once Upon a Time in Mexico was awesomely silly, and Sin City was just brilliant.
Planet Terror is a gory, bloody, violent, hilarious movie. Rose McGowan having a peg leg made out of a machine gun does a remarkably good job of describing the movie. Full of violence, sex, and ridiculousness, but in the best possible way.
The cast mostly combines sexy young women and cool older guys who I haven't seen in a while, which by itself makes for a pretty cool cast. But throw in Lost's Naveen Andrews, ditching his fake Iraqi accent for what I assume is his natural British accent, and it's just plain great.
One thing that stuck out to me was the much publicized "aging" process that both films were put through. Planet Terror is full of specks and lines and junk all over the screen and legitimately looks like it's a reel of film being shown for the thousandth time, while Death Proof has some intentionally clunky cuts but otherwise looks almost pristine. I can only assume this is because Rodriguez shoots everything digitally, making post production effects like this easy and cheap, while Tarantino shoots on film.
A lot has been made of the fake trailers, and they're hilarious. But discussing them at all would probably count as spoilers, so my thoughts about them (and some general spoilers as well) after the jump:
Probably my favorite scene in the whole film was in the Werewolf Women of the SS trailer where Nicolas Cage showed up. I would definitely go see that one and Machete if they were real movies.
Death Proof was pretty misogynistic though... as far as I could tell, Stuntman Mike had no motive other than that he just liked killing women, and it sure seemed like the girls in the second half of Death Proof left their really cute friend in the cheerleader outfit behind to get raped by that guy. Maybe that was a reference to the sexist element of the genre they were parodying, but I thought it was kinda disturbing. I'm all for the aesthetically pleasing display of the female form, but not for that kind of degradation.
Wednesday, April 4, 2007
Shooter
Free movie passes are both great and awful. I have a weird compulsion to see movies within the first day or two of their release. This helps me avoid spoilers, but mostly I'm just impatient about waiting to see a movie I'm excited about. But free passes aren't valid for the first week or so of a release, so when I get one I often don't use it until it's about to expire. Then I'm at the mercy of the least crappy option among movies that accept passes that I haven't seen. This is how I ended up seeing Shooter. Some spoilers follow, but not much more than appear in the trailers.
I really enjoyed some of the sniper sequences in Enemy at the Gates and Jarhead, so I wasn't entirely down on the concept, but the trailers made it look pretty goofy. And I wasn't disappointed. They hit a lot of cliches for these types of movies. Mark Wahlberg's best friend is killed when the government sends them on an off-the-books mission and leaves them for dead. There are some evil guys who use their political and military power to screw over the little guy and get rich in the process. Ned Beatty and Danny Glover do alright in these roles, but I kept expecting Glover to just say "I'm too old for this shit." The FBI plays the role of the non-evil government organization that's only pursuing our hero because he looks guilty. Michael Pena isn't bad as the sidekick/comic relief agent with the ridiculous action movie name (Nick Memphis). Just to make sure everyone knows we're watching a mindless action movie, they throw in excessive slow motion sequences (Marky Mark puts on a pair of sunglasses and walks in slow motion at one point for what seemed like 2 minutes), random explosions, and not much dialogue. And what dialogue Wahlberg's character had, he kind of mumbled, making a lot of it difficult to understand.
While I generally found the movie to be stupid, there were some highlights. Some of the action scenes were really well done. The opening sniper sequence was very cool. But for me the real highlight was Kate Mara. In addition to being the best part, Ms. Mara's appearance also falls under the category of goofy. Though the movie didn't have any nudity, probably 90% of her screen time was in some state of undress or another (the image to the left is typical, click for a larger version). Some of it pretty inexplicable. In one scene, she has to disguise herself, so naturally she dresses like some kind of prostitute. And I think we get the impression that she spent several days without putting a shirt on. While there's no good reason in the plot for any of these things to happen, I didn't mind one bit.
Looking at her imdb page, Kate Mara's actually been in a lot of stuff (24, We Are Marshall, Jack & Bobby), but I only remember her from a brief (but memorable) recurring role in the first season of Nip/Tuck. I thought she was pretty attractive then, but she's blossomed into a full-blown hottie since. I still have fond memories of the Nip/Tuck role with the equally lovely Sophia Bush, though, so I've included a clip (note: despite playing high schoolers, both actresses were in their 20s for this scene, so I'm not that big of a perv). I would suggest not viewing it at your workplace or anywhere else two cheerleaders making out and undressing would be considered inappropriate:
To not come off as completely superficial, I should comment on her acting. Um... her southern accent in Shooter wasn't the worst I've ever heard.
Since I spent half this review drooling over Kate Mara, it should be obvious that I don't have too much to say about the actual content of Shooter. I would recommend it to anyone who is a big a Kate Mara fan, or a big Mark Wahlberg fan (he has a few scenes of little clothing, too... you know, for the ladies), or someone who's distraught that they stopped making sequels to those Tom Berenger Sniper movies and will settle for this. Anyone else should skip it unless they're really bored.
Monday, April 2, 2007
For Your Consideration
Christopher Guest, probably still best known to most as Count Rugen, the six fingered man from The Princess Bride, seems to be able to reunite the same cast for an improv comedy every couple of years. And it always seems to focus on people in a very particular world, whose passions tend to come off as a little bit sad. Nothing against any of these pursuits, but to put so much energy into community theatre (Waiting For Guffman) or dog shows (Best in Show) always struck me as somewhat pitiful. Now, with For Your Consideration, we move into genuinely pathetic territory. And the results are mixed.
Home for Purim (fake official website) is a low budget film about a Jewish family celebrating what I gather is a relatively minor holiday. It stars Victor Allen Miller (Harry Shearer), an actor mostly memorable for his role in a hot dog suit for a series of commercials, and Marilyn Hack (Catherine O'Hara), one of those "whatever happened to..." actors with one memorable role in the 80s. Things get out of hand, though, when the film starts to generate Oscar buzz. Actors become desperate to relaunch their careers, the studio wants to rework the story to better capitalize on the early good word, and the press apparently has nothing better to do than to pick up on the hype and magnify it.
Catherine O'Hara gives a great performance as Hack, doing a great job portraying her downward spiral. I always enjoy Parker Posey's work, and I thought she looked fantastic in it (particularly in a couple scenes where she's wearing glasses... she's working the sexy librarian look). John Michael Higgins (link provided because nobody seems to know this guy by name) is relegated to a bit part here, but it's one of the funniest in the movie ("I am one-eighth mighty Chocktaw"). And Fred Willard is always hilarious in these movies.
However, I felt like there were about 45 minutes of good material in the main story, but so many plot elements and characters that were just filler. Jennifer Coolidge's ditzy producer who's only job is to write checks, the two writers, Ricky Gervais' studio executive character, whatever Ed Begley Jr. was supposed to be (makeup artist, maybe?)... they all just seemed to fill in time. Each had a funny moment or two, but not a big enough laugh that they managed to actually feel worthwhile.
It's not a bad movie, it just suffers compared to previous outings Best in Show and even A Mighty Wind, so I know they can do better.
Thursday, March 29, 2007
The Patriot
When I first checked out Turner Classic's 31 Days of Oscar lineup, I was surprised to see The Patriot listed. I'd never seen it because it looked pretty generic, but the fact that it'd been nominated for three oscars made me think I might've missed something.
But what I should've noticed was that the nominations were for sound, cinematography, and score, which were all quite good here. The plot? The only thing unexpected about it was how eerily close it was to what I was expecting. I assumed we'd get the old warrior who's seen too much blood in his day and wants to settle down with his family, but doesn't quite fit in as a farmer. I figured the British would make the tragic mistake of making the conflict personal for him, which forces him into the fight. I guessed that we'd get a series of scenes as they assemble their rag tag group of warriors ready to take on a better trained, better equipped opponent, and only their plucky spirit and unconventional tactics lead them to victory. It felt like a dozen different epic/action movies thrown into a blender and set during the revolution.
That's not to say it doesn't have some good qualities. There were some well-choreographed fight scenes, Chris Cooper and Rene Auberjonois are pretty much good in everything they do, and it was certainly a nice looking movie. Plus, it's always funny when actors have to look serious when they're wearing those goofy triangular hats (pictured).
My initial reaction to the trailers a few years back was that it didn't look especially good or bad, and I felt no motivation to see or avoid it. And after seeing it, I remain apathetic towards it.
Saturday, March 24, 2007
TMNT
Oh sure, TMNT is marketed to kids, but I was a kid once, and back then I loved these damn turtles. When watching a kid-friendly action movie though, you have to be prepared for a few things that will seriously detract from the experience: situations that call for brutal bloody violence never result in anything more than standard cartoon violence, most of the dialogue is really lame, and there's always a scene about two thirds of the way through that recaps the plot in case slow children can't figure out what's going on.
Those elements were all present, and the plot was kind of stupid. But I still enjoyed it, because the animation was fantastic. It was nicely stylized without losing the feel of the characters, the action scenes were extremely well choreographed, and the camera movements were active and complimented the action without being disorienting. And one scene featured some of the best looking CGI rain I think I've ever seen. The one problem, I think, is that unless you're a Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtle fan (or a kid), the cool animation isn't going to be enough.
Quite a few celebrities lent their voices to the film. Sarah Michelle Gellar as April O'Neil (more on her later), Patrick Stewart as Winters, Zhang Ziyi as the leader of the Foot Clan, the great Mako voiced Splinter before he died last year, and Lawrence Fishburne and Kevin Smith make brief appearances as well. I had also thought Michael Clark Duncan was involved, but it turned out to be Kevin Michael Richardson from Knights of Prosperity.
Two things struck me as odd, though, both about the April character. Slightly more plot discussion here, so I'll hide it. Highlight the text to reveal spoilers:
First, no mention of April as either a reporter (as she had been in the cartoon and in the live action movies) or a computer tech (as she had been in the comics). She appeared to be some kind of archaeologist in the Lara Croft mold, but there was really no explanation of how any of that happened.
The other odd thing was that she was kicked some serious ass. I'm cool with the idea that female characters shouldn't have to be damsels in distress, but it was a little out of hand. They had a few scenes early on to indicate that she'd been training to fight, which I guess I appreciated because it wasn't totally out of left field, but in one of the action scenes late in the film, she was mowing down Foot Soldiers as fast as any of the turtles. I realize that the Foot Soldiers are like Stormtroopers from Star Wars, and that they're supposed to look badass but only serve to get beaten down by everyone, but in theory these are highly skilled ninjas who only look bad because the turtles are that much more skilled, plus they have the whole "mutant turtle" thing going that gives them an extra edge. But April seems to have only picked up the martial arts stuff recently, and is also a tiny girl. They draw her like she weighs about 90 lbs. I wasn't expecting realism or perfect consistency or anything, and maybe they were just under pressure to add a little "grrrl power" to a mostly male cast, but it seemed weird.
But as I said, anyone who isn't already a fan will almost certainly not like TMNT. And any fanboy type who would spend the whole movie nitpicking about the fact that it's not 100% true to the original comics will probably also not like it. But fans who just want to see their beloved Turtles on screen again (looking considerably cooler than they've ever looked) should definitely check it out.
Friday, March 23, 2007
Sabrina
I'm still working my way through all the stuff I recorded during TCM's 31 Days of Oscar. I've watched them roughly in order of how interested I've been in seeing them, which means I'm iffy on the ones that remain, and I don't feel as urgent a need to get to these last ones. So it's pretty slow going, but there are only a few left. Today, Sabrina. Not the Greg Kinnear/Harrison Ford/Julia Ormond one from the 90s, but the Humphrey Bogart/William Holden/Audrey Hepburn one from the 50's.
Sabrina has always had a crush on William Holden's David Larrabee, but as the daughter of the family chauffeur, she's the super rich Larrabee family, and David, quite the playboy, seems to notice every woman but her. Sabrina's father gets her into a fancy French cooking school which she's reluctant to do, but hoping to escape her troubles with David, finally agrees. She's not much of a cook, but she returns from Paris with flashy new clothes and suddenly, David takes notice. This is a problem for Bogart's Linus Larrabee. As the one who actually runs the Larrabee businesses, he's hoping to execute a big merger, and has convinced David to get engaged to the daughter of the head of the other company. David going after Sabrina puts the deal in jeopardy, so Linus starts spending time with Sabrina to keep her away from David, and eventually will offer her a cash payment to leave town so David can marry for the company. Standard romantic comedy stuff happens, Bogart falls in love with Sabrina, and wins her over in the end.
This marks the second collaboration between Holden and director Billy Wilder that I've checked out from this TCM Oscar-fest (Sunset Boulevard being the first), and considering my general disinterest in the romantic comedy, it's not surprising that I didn't like Sabrina as much. But there are some things to like here. Bogart and Holden are quite good. I'm not used to seeing Bogart in a lighthearted role, but he pulled it off really well. He was still playing a somewhat uptight character, playing off his image a little, but we do get to see him in a Yale sweater and a goofy hat, which is definitely not something you'd expect to see in To Have and Have Not.
Audrey Hepburn, however, I didn't really like. I mean, she was a beautiful woman, obviously, but I didn't for a second buy her as the working class daughter of the chauffeur who the rich brothers didn't notice. She's got a very aristocratic air about her, especially the way she talks, so even in the plain-ish clothes she's wearing early on, she just seems like a rich girl slumming it in normal people's clothes. I've never seen My Fair Lady, but I wonder if she got any better at feigning working-class-ness by the time she did that.
For a genre I'm not expecting to like anyway, it was pretty good. A few genuinely funny moments, a few good performances, and it wasn't entirely sappy or anything. So it's not the worst way to kill a couple hours, but I wouldn't rush out to put it on the Netflix queue.
Thursday, March 22, 2007
Comedians of Comedy: Live at the El Rey
In 2005, Comedy Central had a little documentary series about some alternative comedians on tour. They aired it around 2am on Friday nights with more or less no promotion. The series was called The Comedians of Comedy, and featured Patton Oswalt (King of Queens), Brian Posehn (Just Shoot Me, Mr. Show), Zach Galifianakis (Late World with Zach, Tru Calling), and Maria Bamford (who I know from nothing but stand-up). But don't judge these guys based on their work on some TV shows that are kinda weak. A few people pointed the show out to me and said I might enjoy it, and I'm glad they did. It was an interesting look at life on the road, mixed with funny and often innovative comedy, and I became an instant fan of all four performers.
As I looked around for what else they've done, I discovered that the whole Comedians of Comedy thing was a movie first, at the time only available on Netflix. So I checked it out, and it was also very cool. And more recently, I saw that Netflix had a concert film, Live at the El Rey, which arrived over the weekend.
Zach Galifianakis was absent for this one, no behind the scenes stuff, a mildly amusing Bob Odenkirk cameo at the beginning, and some un-funny guy named Blaine Capatch served as the host. And I've hunted down enough performances of Bamford, Oswalt, and Posehn that I'd heard some of the material before. But it was still very very funny, which is the entire point of comedy, so for me it was a winner.
Just now poking around, while the Comedy Central show doesn't seem to be available, the original Comedians of Comedy film plus Live at the El Rey are available in one DVD set, which I'll probably be picking up at some point.
Wednesday, March 14, 2007
From Netflix: Tenacious D in The Pick of Destiny
Tenacious D in The Pick of Destiny was released in late 2006 to a resounding yawn from just about everyone, including me. To put this in perspective, I own the DVD of their hilarious HBO series, I bought their debut album, and even saw them in concert. But somewhere along the line, I lost interest in what they were doing next. Maybe it's that the joke that they're a couple of wannabes playing to empty crowds doesn't really work when Jack Black's starring in King Kong and Nacho Libre, or maybe there's only so much mileage you can squeeze out of the Tenacious D concept, I don't know. But after letting it come and go in theatres, I thought it was at least worth a viewing.
In the end, though, it was about what I expected. Nearly all the songs were new, and not as good as their old stuff. I thought they might recycle more of the songs from the show that didn't make it on the first album (Sasquatch, Jesus Ranch), but the only classic D song that made it in was The History of Tenacious D (which was nice to hear, but I didn't especially like their performance this time). They had some funny moments and Jack Black and Kyle Gass are comfortable in the roles and do all they can, but there just isn't much to work with.
The one thing this really had going for it (besides that poster... pretty cool, huh?) was star power. John C. Reilly reprises his role from the TV series as the Sasquatch, Tim Robbins has probably the best part in the movie as a cripple, Ben Stiller, Amy Poehler, Meat Loaf, Dave Grohl, Fred Armison, and the great Ronnie James Dio all make appearances. And on top of that, the deleted scenes include cameos from David Koechner, David Krumholtz, and Jason Segel.
But like I said, not much to work with. If you're unfamiliar with the D, which I guess is hard to do now, I'd recommend the TV series over The Pick of Destiny any day. But for everyone else, I'd only recommend this to the most hard core of Tenacious D fanatics.
Tuesday, March 13, 2007
Still more 31 Days of Oscar
Turner Classic's 31 Days of Oscar may be over, but I've still got a nice sized pile of stuff on the Tivo. Last nights television lull gave me a shot to catch up a little, so I caught The Birdman of Alcatraz.
Robert Stroud is a convicted murderer, a rebellious prisoner, a discipline problem, and is set to spend the rest of his life in solitary confinement until he develops a love of birds, which helps change his personality. His struggles reflect the inhumanity of the prison system.
I guess I had the misfortune of having seen The Shawshank Redemption first, because this might've been a fine film otherwise, but with similar themes, I couldn't help but compare the two, and Birdman of Alcatraz can't compete. I've also never been a big Burt Lancaster fan. I thought he was great in Field of Dreams, but I can't say I ever really enjoyed him in anything else. He's alright here, though I thought Telly Savalas and Karl Malden gave more memorable performances. But he was nominated for best actor for the role, so maybe I just didn't get it for whatever reason. It has the "based on a true story" thing going for it, I guess, which some people really get in to, but I only care if it's a good story, true or made up. Also, apparently the real Robert Stroud wasn't at all sympathetic, and was never the least bit remorseful about his crimes, so the "true story" aspect was a stretch.
From Netflix: Grizzly Man
For the first time in a while, there was no TV I wanted to watch last night. I've given up on The Black Donnellys, both because I wasn't that interested and because the ratings have been shaky at best, so even if I grew into it, I think it'll just get cancelled. And I had already seen The Riches pilot online. But that gives me a chance to catch up on some movies. Which brings us to...
Grizzly Man. A 2005 documentary from directer Warner Herzog that details the story of Timothy Treadwell, a man who abandons his life to live in the wild in Alaska among the grizzly bears to protect them from poachers.
The film is partly made of interviews of Treadwell's friends, family, and acquaintances, as well as a bear expert or two, but mostly consists of footage shot by Treadwell (or his girlfriend) of him living in the wild with all the animals he encountered.
But this is not a heartwarming story. Treadwell and his girlfriend were killed by a bear in 2003, and the film is largely an exporation of his death, the circumstances that lead to it, and the question of what drove him to this life to begin with.
The discussion of his death is obviously a little disturbing, but Treadwell the man is pretty fascinating. He's weird, feminine, not the kind of guy you'd expect to be living outdoors, but talkative, and even when he's being incredibly strange he's very interesting. Plus, he shot some pretty amazing footage of the wildlife. One of the more interesting documentaries I've seen.
Friday, March 9, 2007
More on 300
In reading some of the critical reaction to 300, I was amused to see the analysis of it as a political statement. A lot of the negative reactions to the movie were upset by the politics of it all in the context of the war in Iraq. But what as funny was that they couldn't agree on who represented who.
Some found it objectionable that Snyder portrayed George W. Bush as Xerxes, the megalomaniacal leader of overwhelming forces sent to invade someone else's homeland. Others took issue with the handsome, honorable lily-white westerners taking on the evil, deformed, dark-skinned middle easterners.
Obviously, since no one can agree on who's who, the Iraq war parallels don't hold up. Even more obvious, given that it's an almost shot-for-shot remake of a ten year old comic book, published before Bush even took office. The latter scenario with the racist overtones, though, sounds like it may have a little merit at first glance. But what they missed, and this is revealed in the first minute or two so I don't consider it a spoiler, is that the film is framed around a Spartan man at a campfire telling a story to other Greeks, trying to rally them for the continued war agains Persia. So he makes them out to be scary and awful and anything that will motivate these guys to go out and kill them. It's the same reason, I'm sure, that American forces in World War II had some pretty awful things to say about the "krauts."
300 simply isn't political. It's blood and guts, a visually stunning experience, a thrill ride. You don't criticize the politics of a roller coaster, and you shouldn't here either.
*drool*
Over at Ain't It Cool News, they posted a super cool hi-res pic of Rorschach from test footage for Watchmen, 300 director Zack Snyder's next project based on the Alan Moore comic books. Personally, I loved the color palette of the comic, so I'd like to see it... it's hard to describe, colorful but dull. Like slightly darker versions of the bright colors you'd find in an old Superman comic. But otherwise, I love the shot. NYC skyline in the background, Rorschach's barely visible ink blot mask... and it's all cool looking.
And if they can make everything in Watchmen look cool and stay reasonably faithful to the story, that's probably good enough for me. I'm not one of the people who freaks out at Hollywood messing with the stories they love. I'm happy to see good stories exposed to mass audiences, and as long as they don't go crazy messing with things (like giving a happy ending where one doesn't belong), I'm happy to just go along for the ride.
Thursday, March 8, 2007
300
Is it possible for a movie to be any more packed with testosterone and adrenaline? I doubt it. 300 is exciting, action-packed, and everything you'd hope for from an adaptation of Frank Miller's comic. It's visually stunning, bloody as hell, and the fight scenes are graceful and brutal.
Gerard Butler has a tremendous presence as Leonidas, and Lena Headey is both gorgeous and strong as the Queen. My only complaints about the film come from Xerxes, played by Lost's Rodrigo Santoro (the hated Paulo). They digitally altered Santoro's voice, which I'm cool with, I'd like Xerxes to have a booming voice that's a little intimidating even to Leonidas, who has more balls than a McDonald's playground. But they altered it so much that it sounds... well... like a digitally altered voice. Sorta like a woman speaking into one of those things that'll make her sound like a guy. I didn't like the effect at all. Also, sometimes his look (with makeup and carefully cropped eyebrows) was a little bit gay, which I thought was odd. Not, as they say, that there's anything wrong with that.
Obviously, if you don't like movies with lots of people chopping each other up on a battlefield, skip this one. Otherwise, You should absolutely see it. 300 opens Friday, March 9th.
