Went and saw Disney's Tron: Legacy--in standard 2D. Let it be known that after having watched it, I think I would have had the same opinion even if I did see it in 3D. I'll explain towards the end of the review...
The acting was fine, the story was simple, and for once the chick in the movie (played by Olive Wilde), who kicks ass wasn't a bitch. She was peppy, plenty of smiles, and sweet (cute haircut too). Thank you Disney, I was actually hoping you'd stick to that quirky-girl formula. But what I'm sure you really want to know is: "How was the music?" So far, I've had at least half a dozen ask me that immediately after being asked if I enjoyed the movie. Well, it was pretty damn good, but let me ask you this: How many Daft Punk songs do you like? How many do you not like? See which answer is bigger and you get my drift: of course it was good, Daft Punk rules! But seriously folks...it was good, as said before, but most of the dancy songs, like the track called Derezzed, you only get to hear snippets of. Apart from that you hear score, which is good, but I recommend you listen to the soundtrack on its own for a more complete immersion into techno happy land.
I managed to find some nit-picky details that distracted me enough to frown. The characters are seen in a couple of different scenes drinking this aquamarine-colored liquid (we are never told what it is)--which compliments the film's decor and color scheme. Okay, I'll let that one slide--cause y'know, at least it looks like it belongs. But if you're going to suddenly throw a roast pig dinner into the mix, I expect to know how the hell that's possible. Damn that thing stuck out like a tombstone in a bowl of whipped cream. Give me one line of dialog, please! Just one. What ran through my mind at that moment was that Kevin Flynn (played by Jeff Bridges who seemed to be mildly emulating his Dude character from The Big Lebowski) had been trapped inside this universe for years, so he had to be sustained on something. Did he figure out a way to create food inside his computer world to feed his very non-computer body? Just say so. C'mon, would it have been that hard? I kept thinking about it for several minutes after that scene was over. But fortunately, more pretty things came onto the screen.
The pretty things.... Light suits (which were, by the way, actually real), glowing capes and robes, light cycles, buildings, rooms, the works. Remember in the latest Star Trek film when you got to see the inside of the Enterprise? Looked like a shiny new Mac didn't it? Imagine the same thing for Tron: Legacy, only this has a downloadable skin to make everything black instead of white. Gorgeous, hip, and totally soothing. I'm willing to bet it was half the reason why the time passed so well for me while watching the movie. It was very easy to look at and didn't hurt my eyes (however Kevin Flynn's little Zen room was a bit daunting).
Speaking of purdy thangs, I believe it's a case of apples and oranges on this one, but I thought Tron: Legacy was prettier than Avatar (I've been hearing some comparisons about who's the prettier one). Why? Because as much as I love animals and plants, there's a very attractive draw to technological beauty, finesse and attainable power for all. Would you rather wear a loincloth or a glowing bodysuit? Would you rather hunt for your food or push a button to make it materialize like in Star Trek (just my theory, but it's not a bad one)? Would you rather break into a sweat to force yourself on a wild, independent creature that can fly and be connected to you for life, or would you rather pull a motorcycle or a jet fighter out of your pocket whenever you damn well please? 'Nuff said.
My favorite part was a scene where Sam Flynn (played by Garrett Hedlund) enters a club aptly named "End of Line"--a little nod to the first film, and just one of many, if you're paying attention (a few cameos, a poster for The Black Hole, the name of the place Sam Flynn lives, etc). As he walks through the club, there's a sci-fi homage where the shots are filmed similarly to when Luke and Obi Wan enter Chalmun's Cantina bar in Star Wars: A New Hope. You don't see any aliens, but you do see lots of fancy folk enjoying that mysterious blue liquid from earlier in the film. Sam Flynn shows reserve and fascination as he walks through, and we get several closeups of random extras in different-styled light suits all expertly detailed--and then you see Daft Punk rocking the DJ booth--quite the upgrade from the Cantina band. And to make this scene even better, Michael Sheen (probably best known for playing the werewolf leader Lucien in the Underworld films) gives a short but incredibly spirited performance as Castor, the club's zany and eccentric owner. For such a short role, he makes damn sure you'll remember him after leaving the theater, even if all you can remember is "that crazy all-white guy with a cane."
As for the 3D issue...when I go to 3D films, I go expecting to see things coming at me. Horror films are good for this, and if an action movie has enough explosions, it'll work too. Kid films don't quite cut it--animation just doesn't seem to work the same way live-action does and usually there's just not enough pop-out things coming at you. Tron: Legacy was's that different, but it did have some notables. During the grid racing scene, there are a few moments where some of the vehicles came at you, or discs were thrown, but I didn't see those being integral for my enjoyment to the film if I didn't see them in 3D. If you do see it in standard 2D, interestingly, the end credits have these lines on the sides that look 3D on their own, which was really neat.
Tron: Legacy was fun, sufficiently entertaining to the point that I didn't check to see what time it was, had good tunes and was very, very pretty to look at.
End of line.
Monday, December 20, 2010
Tuesday, November 30, 2010
Mameshiba: Man, Do I Love the Japanese and Their Wackiness
A friend of mine posted a video on facebook (the video in question is actually pretty damn bizarre and wonderfully weird all on its own: you gotta check it out). After I watched the video, the line of "similar" videos showed up on the bottom of the screen. I noticed a cute image of a little green puppy thing, or as I later found out, a dog/bean hybrid posing as a piece of edamame, known as a "Mameshiba."
Freakin' adorable isn't it? And very, very, Japanese. The website, based out of Japan (but with an English option!) has a simple yet at the same time vague explanation of what it is and what it does:
What exactly is Mameshiba?
They're not quite a bean, nor a dog
but rather a hybrid of both.
They love to appear out of nowhere
and offer random bits of trivia
whether you asked for it or not...
Be still my beating heart! Random trivia for the hell of it? What a profound idea good sir!
There are 20 of these videos so far, all are exactly 30 seconds long. Every video features a different bean and always has the same three details: when the bean is discovered, beautiful harp music and a woman's voice sings softly, after the trivia lesson is over, the person who discovers the bean goes all anime-gray and shocked by the fact that a magic bean puppy just taught them a random fact, and then the video ends with an adorable little theme song that sings about the Mameshiba.
Oh yeah, did I mention that the beans are all voiced by Japanese children? +5 to cute, +2 to creepy, +10 to Japan for being Japan.
Some of the fun facts are as such:
A flamingo's mother's milk is red.
Lemurs on Madagascar have two tongues
A hippo's sweat is pink.
When you kiss, 200 million germs per second are passed between mouths.
While most of the videos are in Japanese (with English subtitles for average Joe's and weeaboos everywhere), one is in adorable Janglish (English spoken with a very thick Japanese accent) and another is in Spanish.
But through it all, I gotta give it up to that little green edamame piece for being my favorite--but it's probably because he's wearing my favorite color. Edamame Trivia Lesson. However, I highly recommend you check out the rest of the videos, all terribly cute, and who knows, you might learn something new.
Freakin' adorable isn't it? And very, very, Japanese. The website, based out of Japan (but with an English option!) has a simple yet at the same time vague explanation of what it is and what it does:
What exactly is Mameshiba?
They're not quite a bean, nor a dog
but rather a hybrid of both.
They love to appear out of nowhere
and offer random bits of trivia
whether you asked for it or not...
Be still my beating heart! Random trivia for the hell of it? What a profound idea good sir!
There are 20 of these videos so far, all are exactly 30 seconds long. Every video features a different bean and always has the same three details: when the bean is discovered, beautiful harp music and a woman's voice sings softly, after the trivia lesson is over, the person who discovers the bean goes all anime-gray and shocked by the fact that a magic bean puppy just taught them a random fact, and then the video ends with an adorable little theme song that sings about the Mameshiba.
Oh yeah, did I mention that the beans are all voiced by Japanese children? +5 to cute, +2 to creepy, +10 to Japan for being Japan.
Some of the fun facts are as such:
A flamingo's mother's milk is red.
Lemurs on Madagascar have two tongues
A hippo's sweat is pink.
When you kiss, 200 million germs per second are passed between mouths.
While most of the videos are in Japanese (with English subtitles for average Joe's and weeaboos everywhere), one is in adorable Janglish (English spoken with a very thick Japanese accent) and another is in Spanish.
But through it all, I gotta give it up to that little green edamame piece for being my favorite--but it's probably because he's wearing my favorite color. Edamame Trivia Lesson. However, I highly recommend you check out the rest of the videos, all terribly cute, and who knows, you might learn something new.
Friday, October 29, 2010
Let Me In: the American Remake of Let the Right One In
Typically, when you watch a foreign film and like it, then hear that America is going to give it a try, the automatic response is "awe, damn it!" Why? Because oft times, this is the brutal truth. Things are changed, often scenes or characters which you thought were important are suddenly absent or grossly different in the Americanized film. The ending is usually different, and to make matters worse, "it's just not the same."
So says most critical film snobs who adamantly profess their cinematic knowledge on the rest of us damn heathens.
I will admit that I didn't re-watch the original prior to watching this American adaptation, which is usually a thing I like to do so that I can better compare. However, in this instance, it wasn't as necessary as I thought it would be. Luckily, my memory's still very strong (knock on wood) and I was able to recall much of what I had seen before.
The cinematography of the original was an integral part of shaping the story, where the mother of the main character, a little boy named Oskar, is never clearly seen and is always out of focus, as though she is out of the child's focus and separate from what is going on in his world. A detail that seems subtle, but for artistic reasons and deep meaning, a very important detail nonetheless, and one that was kept the same in Let Me In.
There were other scenes that were very similar in how they were shot, what dialog was spoken, how the characters acted towards each other, and that was all very surprising, since I hadn't expected much from the new film. Generally, the important parts that are necessary to further character development and plot are all still in the new adaptation.
Another plus was that its pacing was much quicker than Let the Right One In, which is interesting considering that both films are nearly the same length, Let Me In being a grand total of one minute longer. But I won't lie: I don't care if you thought that the Swedish film was so fantastic and that you won't see the American adaptation because America ruins everything, Let Me In wasn't bad and it kept me more interested throughout.
The Swedish film is by no means a "bad" movie, in fact it's quite well written and expertly filmed; it does its job fine. But I'll be damned if that movie didn't move slower than a snail with narcolepsy. I was bored through most of it, simply because it reminded me of the pacing in Meet Joe Black with Brad Pitt, where it seemed as though the director would leave the camera running and the actors staring at each other so he could go offload a few pounds in the John. My point being that if you hold a scene long enough for me to begin to shuffle my feet absentmindedly, then my attention is not rapt and you're losing your audience. Like I said, Let the Right One In is a good film, but fucking slow.
The only true qualms that I have with the film are two relatively big moments in the story, and I'd rather not ruin either movie for anyone who hasn't seen them. But I will say this: one scene has to do with fire, and in the original, it was kept rather contained, in the American version, it was pretty ridiculous--but that's America--we love settin' shit on fire! The other scene--the girl in the original has a very personal thing about her revealed, as well as implied, and in the new film, it is only implied. Now, I don't know if it's just because I saw the original that I "got it" and didn't mind that it was slightly different, but I would like to know if anyone sees the remake without having seen the original and "gets it" too, or if they're left feeling unsure about it. Here's hoping I'm not ruining anything for anyone, but I'm pretty sure I'm being vague enough.
Anyhow, point in short: the remake, having been made in America, wasn't as much of a raped atrocity as I thought it might be. So, kudos to writer and director Matt Reeves (director of Cloverfield) for doing it justice and doing quite a good job all around.
And as a final note: those who remember the first film might find it nice to know that whoever the location guy was for the remake did an amazing job at finding locations that were very similar to the Swedish film. They get a cookie.
So says most critical film snobs who adamantly profess their cinematic knowledge on the rest of us damn heathens.
I will admit that I didn't re-watch the original prior to watching this American adaptation, which is usually a thing I like to do so that I can better compare. However, in this instance, it wasn't as necessary as I thought it would be. Luckily, my memory's still very strong (knock on wood) and I was able to recall much of what I had seen before.
The cinematography of the original was an integral part of shaping the story, where the mother of the main character, a little boy named Oskar, is never clearly seen and is always out of focus, as though she is out of the child's focus and separate from what is going on in his world. A detail that seems subtle, but for artistic reasons and deep meaning, a very important detail nonetheless, and one that was kept the same in Let Me In.
There were other scenes that were very similar in how they were shot, what dialog was spoken, how the characters acted towards each other, and that was all very surprising, since I hadn't expected much from the new film. Generally, the important parts that are necessary to further character development and plot are all still in the new adaptation.
Another plus was that its pacing was much quicker than Let the Right One In, which is interesting considering that both films are nearly the same length, Let Me In being a grand total of one minute longer. But I won't lie: I don't care if you thought that the Swedish film was so fantastic and that you won't see the American adaptation because America ruins everything, Let Me In wasn't bad and it kept me more interested throughout.
The Swedish film is by no means a "bad" movie, in fact it's quite well written and expertly filmed; it does its job fine. But I'll be damned if that movie didn't move slower than a snail with narcolepsy. I was bored through most of it, simply because it reminded me of the pacing in Meet Joe Black with Brad Pitt, where it seemed as though the director would leave the camera running and the actors staring at each other so he could go offload a few pounds in the John. My point being that if you hold a scene long enough for me to begin to shuffle my feet absentmindedly, then my attention is not rapt and you're losing your audience. Like I said, Let the Right One In is a good film, but fucking slow.
The only true qualms that I have with the film are two relatively big moments in the story, and I'd rather not ruin either movie for anyone who hasn't seen them. But I will say this: one scene has to do with fire, and in the original, it was kept rather contained, in the American version, it was pretty ridiculous--but that's America--we love settin' shit on fire! The other scene--the girl in the original has a very personal thing about her revealed, as well as implied, and in the new film, it is only implied. Now, I don't know if it's just because I saw the original that I "got it" and didn't mind that it was slightly different, but I would like to know if anyone sees the remake without having seen the original and "gets it" too, or if they're left feeling unsure about it. Here's hoping I'm not ruining anything for anyone, but I'm pretty sure I'm being vague enough.
Anyhow, point in short: the remake, having been made in America, wasn't as much of a raped atrocity as I thought it might be. So, kudos to writer and director Matt Reeves (director of Cloverfield) for doing it justice and doing quite a good job all around.
And as a final note: those who remember the first film might find it nice to know that whoever the location guy was for the remake did an amazing job at finding locations that were very similar to the Swedish film. They get a cookie.
Tuesday, October 26, 2010
Red: Damn PG-13, You's Gettin' Ballsy!
Today I ventured to the theater and saw the movie Red, a loose adaptation of a short 3-part comic book of the same name, under the DC label.
While the film is rated PG-13, I was treated to a healthy dose of people getting blown the fuck up (there really isn't a better way to say it, that's exactly what you get, and it's ridiculous in the best way), numerous explosions, hefty hand-to-hand fights (the smackdown between Bruce Willis and my super-pretend boyfriend Karl Urban is pretty great), and most interestingly: it has consistent, supportive and adamantly humorous dialog that glorifies and practically advertises how awesome and badass it is to be employed by the government to murder and annihilate at the drop of a hat.
In fact, beyond having Willis's character be called the "good guy" twice by a bad guy who's played by a rather well-aged Richard Dreyfus (it's nice to see him still acting!) and one mention of a dude that Willis's character killed who was a really bad guy, there is no message in this film that says it's not OK to want to grow up and become a black ops agent for the CIA and kill a mass amount of foo's while traveling all over the world to overthrow terrorist actions and domestic and foreign government stabilities.
The movie was pretty entertaining over all and the characters were appealing enough that you could sympathize with them, making it totally all right whenever they killed someone. Granted, it was "all in self-defense," sure. But at the same time to further support the idea that killing for your work is fun and fulfilling as a career, there are a few scenes where the characters reminisce about how much they miss doing what they do best and they do it with humor and with fondness. On one end, the 'adult' in me says that kids are allowed to see this movie, and it might not necessarily be a good idea. But on the other end, the 'me' in me, says, "Hahaha; they miss putting bullets in people and they talk about it like they miss going on vacation. Oh, the absurdity!"
As for the actors in the movie, John Malkovich has a supporting role that he does quite well and he made me laugh at all the right times (some of his lines are just so well-timed the joke almost eludes you). Morgan Freeman is...well, he's the cozy grandpa you wish you had if you don't/didn't already have one, and so he's always a joy to watch. Helen Mirren is distinguished and charming as an older woman who knows her firearms. Neat thing about her that I noticed was that she must have had quite a lot of training with the weapons she used (or she was a damn natural)--she was extremely steady and rarely blinked--kudos to her for being tough! And of course, Karl Urban is delicious and grumpy-faced as always (a trademark that will always suit him I think), and to add to my personal amusement, a comment is made between Willis and Ernest Borgnine about Urban's physical description as the guy with "the cute haircut."
Excuse me for a moment while I express my sheer youthful girlish behavior: EEEEEEEEE!!!!!! :D
Point in short, this film was fun, steady-paced, full of action, full of good humor, and inspires you to want to join the CIA just so you too can fulfill that suddenly-invented lifelong dream of wanting to shoot a .50cal machine gun into a line of GMC trucks while wearing your evening best. Fuck yeah, FTW!
While the film is rated PG-13, I was treated to a healthy dose of people getting blown the fuck up (there really isn't a better way to say it, that's exactly what you get, and it's ridiculous in the best way), numerous explosions, hefty hand-to-hand fights (the smackdown between Bruce Willis and my super-pretend boyfriend Karl Urban is pretty great), and most interestingly: it has consistent, supportive and adamantly humorous dialog that glorifies and practically advertises how awesome and badass it is to be employed by the government to murder and annihilate at the drop of a hat.
In fact, beyond having Willis's character be called the "good guy" twice by a bad guy who's played by a rather well-aged Richard Dreyfus (it's nice to see him still acting!) and one mention of a dude that Willis's character killed who was a really bad guy, there is no message in this film that says it's not OK to want to grow up and become a black ops agent for the CIA and kill a mass amount of foo's while traveling all over the world to overthrow terrorist actions and domestic and foreign government stabilities.
The movie was pretty entertaining over all and the characters were appealing enough that you could sympathize with them, making it totally all right whenever they killed someone. Granted, it was "all in self-defense," sure. But at the same time to further support the idea that killing for your work is fun and fulfilling as a career, there are a few scenes where the characters reminisce about how much they miss doing what they do best and they do it with humor and with fondness. On one end, the 'adult' in me says that kids are allowed to see this movie, and it might not necessarily be a good idea. But on the other end, the 'me' in me, says, "Hahaha; they miss putting bullets in people and they talk about it like they miss going on vacation. Oh, the absurdity!"
As for the actors in the movie, John Malkovich has a supporting role that he does quite well and he made me laugh at all the right times (some of his lines are just so well-timed the joke almost eludes you). Morgan Freeman is...well, he's the cozy grandpa you wish you had if you don't/didn't already have one, and so he's always a joy to watch. Helen Mirren is distinguished and charming as an older woman who knows her firearms. Neat thing about her that I noticed was that she must have had quite a lot of training with the weapons she used (or she was a damn natural)--she was extremely steady and rarely blinked--kudos to her for being tough! And of course, Karl Urban is delicious and grumpy-faced as always (a trademark that will always suit him I think), and to add to my personal amusement, a comment is made between Willis and Ernest Borgnine about Urban's physical description as the guy with "the cute haircut."
Excuse me for a moment while I express my sheer youthful girlish behavior: EEEEEEEEE!!!!!! :D
Point in short, this film was fun, steady-paced, full of action, full of good humor, and inspires you to want to join the CIA just so you too can fulfill that suddenly-invented lifelong dream of wanting to shoot a .50cal machine gun into a line of GMC trucks while wearing your evening best. Fuck yeah, FTW!
Saturday, October 9, 2010
Cinema of Yesterday: Why is THAT Movie a Classic?
There are millions of films in existence today. What makes this one or that one a classic? Something that is referenced in younger film, something that is timeless, or simply won't die no matter how many times you've beaten the dead horse of its popularity into the ground.
Today I'm going to look at a handful of famous oldies, and explain as best I can, why they are forever embedded in history as being worth two hours of your life you won't ever get back. Frankly, I have a theory that what largely sets the average film viewer of today against any interest in old films is that old movies are in black and white, which on the surface appears overtly boring and very obviously 2-D, and that the majority of people who understand them are from older generations, snooty film critics, and new wave Indie kids who know that loving the classics is "cool."
We begin with Casablanca (1942), or more aptly put: Trench Coat Man During the War: A Love Story
About a nightclub owner who is torn between his love for an old flame and helping said old flame and her hubby escape the Nazis to further progress their refugee work in the U.S. What makes this boring to audiences today: There are no ludicrous explosions, the absence of sexual excitement is drowned out by the use of black and white, and the fact that the film was made in 1942 is like putting a red flag all over the cover at the video store to today's average viewer: No one cares.
BUT--what makes this film recognizable? What makes it worth your time? What makes it worth my time? The phrase "you had to be there" comes to mind, pointing out that, like many horror films of the past that are now considered cheesy as all get out, made an impression when they were first released. Casablanca fits the bill entirely. For the older generations, who remember the war times, this film rings in about the trials and fears that surround war and all its ugly goodies. It was a relevant film at its time. The actors were big, and it was Bogart's first romantic lead role--which got all the ladies of the 40's squirming in their sensible undergarments. But what, you ask, is the freakin' appeal to younger audiences? Frankly, there isn't much. However, most people are aware the film exists, simply for that famous end scene in the airport, where Bogart has that line, "Here's lookin' at you kid." If the younger generations of today are able to give it a chance, it's assumed that after watching the film, they'd understand why it was cool for its time, and appreciate why it is considered a classic today.
Remaining in the bleak spotlight of black and white cinema, we have It's a Wonderful Life (1946), i.e.: One Bad Day Can Make a Man Want to Kill Himself
As both titles above explain succinctly, a man who's whole life seems devoted to helping others takes a bad turn and things get harry, so he gets angry and drunk and decides that he'd be worth more dead than alive, due to an insurance policy that says pretty much just that. But lo! and behold! An angel comes to show him that his life is meaningful and just how important he is to the community.
Yeah, I thought it was boring too. But that was because when I saw it, like most others of my generation, I was a kid, and unless it's the Three Stooges or Abbot & Costello (physical comedy), black and white just wasn't entertaining. But, the 'rents always push It's a Wonderful Life as though they're trying to sell you on the idea that it's a family classic that is timeless and heartfelt. I was a child, all I was thinking about was how soon I would get to open my presents.
Years down the line, if you can bring yourself to watch the film as an adult, you understand what it's doing, and the director, Frank Capra, knew how to make something that would appeal to most people. The main character is a relatively normal man with a normal family, something generally most adults of the 40's could relate to, especially when the film deals with the issues of financial hardship. This being set in the 40's, adults at the time knew exactly how that felt, especially during the holiday season. Honestly though, however it is billed as a family classic, personally, I've always largely seen it as something directly made for adults, and the appreciation a child can get from it is just plain...not there.
But if there is one thing that both children and their parents can agree that is a timeless fact about the movie, it's how annoying that damn little girl with the horrible high-pitch voice is who gratingly says, "Every time a bell rings, an angel gets its wings." A fact alone that brings families together in agreement, and oft times gives everyone a good eye-roll at how corny the line is delivered.
Moving onto the biggest, baddest cinematic beast in history (according to several critically acclaimed critics [is it an oxymoron to critique a critic?], seriously recognized film websites, and of course, the American Film Institute [AFI]), we have Orson Welles' Citizen Kane (1941), i.e.: Party Like a Rock, Party Like a Rock Star, Part Like a Rock, Party Like a ...Newspaper Mogul?
So Charles Foster Kane, played by Orson Welles and based off of his own life and William Randolph Hearst (who was in fact a real life newspaper mogul (or, as Wikipedia keeps saying, a "magnate"), is this super rich guy who has his childhood ripped away in turn for a life of soulless luxury in which he takes advantage until he gains control of a newspaper company.
The film details his whirlwind life, mostly through flashbacks (which, unlike Phantasm 4, this is an appropriately used filming tactic for the progression of the story) and accounts his loves, his work, his scandals, the whole kit n' caboodle until finally, when all is said and done, his death (seen at the beginning of the film where he says the famous line "Rosebud...") is put to a close with a connection to his past.
The reason I gave the alternate title of the film is that, much like watching Val Kilmer play Jim Morrison in The Doors or Joaquin Phoenix play Johnny Cash in Walk the Line, Citizen Kane pretty much does the same thing for the character Charles Foster Kane, except the character himself is not a real person, only based off of one, and he's not a rock star, he's a newspaper tycoon. But the setup is generally the same; he spends a hell of a lot of money, has trouble in relationships, has scandalous accusations against him, I mean hell, he lives in Xanadu, what is referred to in the film as "the world's largest private estate," which just begs to be labeled with a giant sign slapped over it that reads "EXCESSIVE" which is what the rock star life is all about.
Now here's the kicker: while this film is renowned for its cinematography, writing, acting, etc, it will bypass most of today's younger viewers without a second glance. Perchance, it is fair to assume that the title of the film has been heard by many, it's virtually inescapable from being mentioned in any documentary or DVD commentary or critic's review on successful films in history. But, beyond that, this film is in black and white, it's about a newspaper mogul, not a rock star, so his tastes for spending money aren't embellished with drugs and hookers (that we see, anyways), it's LONG, and primarily quiet on the 'action' side of things.
Point in short, it'd be considered boring, because obviously, who cares about the life of some dude who runs a newspaper as opposed to an influential musician who drowned themselves in debauchery and depression? Much like the last two films I wrote about, this one no less deserves to have the label "You had to be there," because today, William Randolph Hearst is not a name well known to the modern audience, it was the 40's, so obviously, times are different, and what was relevant then is not relevant now.
And to top it all off, the film's lack of ta-tas is disappointing.
About a nightclub owner who is torn between his love for an old flame and helping said old flame and her hubby escape the Nazis to further progress their refugee work in the U.S. What makes this boring to audiences today: There are no ludicrous explosions, the absence of sexual excitement is drowned out by the use of black and white, and the fact that the film was made in 1942 is like putting a red flag all over the cover at the video store to today's average viewer: No one cares.
BUT--what makes this film recognizable? What makes it worth your time? What makes it worth my time? The phrase "you had to be there" comes to mind, pointing out that, like many horror films of the past that are now considered cheesy as all get out, made an impression when they were first released. Casablanca fits the bill entirely. For the older generations, who remember the war times, this film rings in about the trials and fears that surround war and all its ugly goodies. It was a relevant film at its time. The actors were big, and it was Bogart's first romantic lead role--which got all the ladies of the 40's squirming in their sensible undergarments. But what, you ask, is the freakin' appeal to younger audiences? Frankly, there isn't much. However, most people are aware the film exists, simply for that famous end scene in the airport, where Bogart has that line, "Here's lookin' at you kid." If the younger generations of today are able to give it a chance, it's assumed that after watching the film, they'd understand why it was cool for its time, and appreciate why it is considered a classic today.
Remaining in the bleak spotlight of black and white cinema, we have It's a Wonderful Life (1946), i.e.: One Bad Day Can Make a Man Want to Kill Himself
As both titles above explain succinctly, a man who's whole life seems devoted to helping others takes a bad turn and things get harry, so he gets angry and drunk and decides that he'd be worth more dead than alive, due to an insurance policy that says pretty much just that. But lo! and behold! An angel comes to show him that his life is meaningful and just how important he is to the community.
Yeah, I thought it was boring too. But that was because when I saw it, like most others of my generation, I was a kid, and unless it's the Three Stooges or Abbot & Costello (physical comedy), black and white just wasn't entertaining. But, the 'rents always push It's a Wonderful Life as though they're trying to sell you on the idea that it's a family classic that is timeless and heartfelt. I was a child, all I was thinking about was how soon I would get to open my presents.
Years down the line, if you can bring yourself to watch the film as an adult, you understand what it's doing, and the director, Frank Capra, knew how to make something that would appeal to most people. The main character is a relatively normal man with a normal family, something generally most adults of the 40's could relate to, especially when the film deals with the issues of financial hardship. This being set in the 40's, adults at the time knew exactly how that felt, especially during the holiday season. Honestly though, however it is billed as a family classic, personally, I've always largely seen it as something directly made for adults, and the appreciation a child can get from it is just plain...not there.
But if there is one thing that both children and their parents can agree that is a timeless fact about the movie, it's how annoying that damn little girl with the horrible high-pitch voice is who gratingly says, "Every time a bell rings, an angel gets its wings." A fact alone that brings families together in agreement, and oft times gives everyone a good eye-roll at how corny the line is delivered.
Moving onto the biggest, baddest cinematic beast in history (according to several critically acclaimed critics [is it an oxymoron to critique a critic?], seriously recognized film websites, and of course, the American Film Institute [AFI]), we have Orson Welles' Citizen Kane (1941), i.e.: Party Like a Rock, Party Like a Rock Star, Part Like a Rock, Party Like a ...Newspaper Mogul?
So Charles Foster Kane, played by Orson Welles and based off of his own life and William Randolph Hearst (who was in fact a real life newspaper mogul (or, as Wikipedia keeps saying, a "magnate"), is this super rich guy who has his childhood ripped away in turn for a life of soulless luxury in which he takes advantage until he gains control of a newspaper company.
The film details his whirlwind life, mostly through flashbacks (which, unlike Phantasm 4, this is an appropriately used filming tactic for the progression of the story) and accounts his loves, his work, his scandals, the whole kit n' caboodle until finally, when all is said and done, his death (seen at the beginning of the film where he says the famous line "Rosebud...") is put to a close with a connection to his past.
The reason I gave the alternate title of the film is that, much like watching Val Kilmer play Jim Morrison in The Doors or Joaquin Phoenix play Johnny Cash in Walk the Line, Citizen Kane pretty much does the same thing for the character Charles Foster Kane, except the character himself is not a real person, only based off of one, and he's not a rock star, he's a newspaper tycoon. But the setup is generally the same; he spends a hell of a lot of money, has trouble in relationships, has scandalous accusations against him, I mean hell, he lives in Xanadu, what is referred to in the film as "the world's largest private estate," which just begs to be labeled with a giant sign slapped over it that reads "EXCESSIVE" which is what the rock star life is all about.
Now here's the kicker: while this film is renowned for its cinematography, writing, acting, etc, it will bypass most of today's younger viewers without a second glance. Perchance, it is fair to assume that the title of the film has been heard by many, it's virtually inescapable from being mentioned in any documentary or DVD commentary or critic's review on successful films in history. But, beyond that, this film is in black and white, it's about a newspaper mogul, not a rock star, so his tastes for spending money aren't embellished with drugs and hookers (that we see, anyways), it's LONG, and primarily quiet on the 'action' side of things.
Point in short, it'd be considered boring, because obviously, who cares about the life of some dude who runs a newspaper as opposed to an influential musician who drowned themselves in debauchery and depression? Much like the last two films I wrote about, this one no less deserves to have the label "You had to be there," because today, William Randolph Hearst is not a name well known to the modern audience, it was the 40's, so obviously, times are different, and what was relevant then is not relevant now.
And to top it all off, the film's lack of ta-tas is disappointing.
Tuesday, October 5, 2010
The Underground Comedy Movie (An Honest Review)
It's been a late night.
In fact, it's been such a late night, that here it is nearly nine-thirty in the A.M. and I haven't gone to bed yet. I blame a good friend of mine, who happens to be snoozing on my bed in a comfortable booze-filled slumber. Awe, ain't that sweet? Anyhow, she and I were gabbing and drinking late into the night (that's 1.75 liters, btw), always a fun thing to do, and somehow got onto a conversation where she was talking about this guy she'd gotten to know online. This guy was none other than Vince Offer.
Never heard of him? Sound vaguely familiar? Don't give a damn?
All fair responses, and perhaps most sound. Vince Offer, notable for his key star roles as the "Slap Chop" and "ShamWow" guy, made a movie a little over a decade ago. I know, what? It was called, "The Underground Comedy Movie."
The film cites crass comedic (awesome alliteration!) stabs at the worst of the worst: necrophilia, masturbation, defecation, attractive girls doing very unattractive things, boob watch...the list could go on. But having been labeled by several sources as being "one of the worst films ever made" is oddly in itself a sort of award for notoriety. The film was direct to video, sold somewhere around 100,000 copies from sales by infomercials, and is generally considered distasteful by reputable critics of today--to put it politely.
Personally, I kinda liked it. It got disgusting at times, but that was part of the point. It was horribly low budget at times, but that also appeared to be part of the point. It tried too hard in all the wrong places, which...I'm not sure was the point, but it definitely made me give a physical expression of response, however mild that was. What I saw was what my friend explained to me about the film before I watched it: "It's watching a young man's ideas and dreams come to light, not work out, but make it into the light nonetheless. It's a horrible film. I wish I would have bought a copy when I had the chance! You need to watch it!" Oh, tequila...
I see what she meant. Apparently, Offer had hosted some public access variety show which the film is based on, and went from there. It's crude, and at times just flat out boring or tacky. But it got me to chuckle a few times because of how awkward and absurd it allowed itself to get. For films to "let go" like that, takes guts, and usually you don't triumph, but coming out triumphant is not the point so much as making a notable stab in people's memories.
Point in example: "Hey, it's that dude who sold those awesome rags and choppers. Damn, he had a really horrible movie, did you see it?" "No, man, didn't see it. What made it horrible?" "Oh man, no, dude, you just gotta see it, it's...seriously, dude, it's fuckin' horrible. You gotta see it!"
If there's one thing I never forgot that my dad pointed out about watching film, it's that you pay attention to whether or not it affected you. If it was so bad that you just had to talk about it (albeit fondly and over several mixed drinks, cleverly weaved into a thread of enticing conversation), it affected you. If it had a scene that was unforgettable, or you wished it had been, and you shared your pain with others, it affected you.
And affecting is the key to infecting the feelers out there for interest. The more it's spoken about, the more likely you are to go "whoa, the ShamWow guy had a real dead body in his movie! That's messed up!" Whether or not that is true, I'm not sure, however, fascinatingly, the general word holds strong that he used a real dead woman in his film during the "porno" scenes. Yeah, if that doesn't make you curious, then this film will surely pass you by.
BUT, if you're like most of the bored, sleepless, hapless, curious, lolzy internet folk out there, like myself, then you can't pass up knocking this little number off your list, much in the same way that films like Troll 2 and Kazaam should be forever stricken from all existing memory banks, however somehow they manage to stick with you because, gosh darn it, "they're just so damn horrible!"
Screw it. The bottom line best used to describe the film is its own tagline: "A series of comedic short films guaranteed to offend."
...'nuff said.
...'nuff said.
Monday, September 13, 2010
Machete and The Expendables: It Must be Mah Birfday!
There comes a time in every intelligent person's mind when they find politics cyclically depressing, media coverage is trying too hard (as usual) and philosophical constructs seem overplayed. It's during this time when brief periods of blood, guns, titties and explosions are seen as more interesting than they were yesterday.
Danny Trejo: (Mr. Mexican Bad Ass of Bad Ass Tough Guy University)
Tonight, I enjoyed the best personalized double feature I've come up with yet!
Machete pulls out all the stops for its entertainment value (see if you recognize the sound effect when Steven Segal withdraws his samurai sword). You have hot ladies, ample nudity, explosions, guns, blood, unique one-in-a-million chance violent deaths, an appropriately chosen cast, and of course, plenty of machetes. The director, Robert Rodriguez, has a very kind and giving technique he bestows to his audiences I like to call "Who cares how technically accurate that shit is? It's fucking awesome!" If you haven't seen any of his other films, (From Dusk Till Dawn, Desperado, Planet Terror, Sin City, just to name a few) and Machete would be your first, his style has been rather recognizable throughout the years and Machete is a fine example, perhaps his best yet. Hell, even for the Spy Kids movies, of which he did two (and it seems he's slated to direct the 4th!) you can recognize trace details he likes to work with.
Rodriguez understands what makes an action movie fun and how to apply the "escapism" that the action genre of cinema is all about. You go into his films expecting to laugh, to be riveted with bad-assery, and awed with gritty dialog and memorable heroes and villains. And he consistently delivers. Machete begins with immediate action, and keeps you excited the entire way through, not only rooting for Machete (played by Danny Trejo), but for more blood and fire as well.
On a minor downside, sometimes Rodriguez's flare for crude and elaborate lines of dialog sounds almost like they were written specifically to incite a rise in the audience as though the scene wasn't enough to do so on its own. I've often considered that his buddy Tarantino has the same habit. Sometimes the line works and sounds just as disgusting and intense as it should be and it affects you, and sometimes, you just start thinking, "Yeah, I get it, this guy is one nasty Mo-Fo, lets move on and get him to finish his witty tirade already." But, as I said, it was a minor qualm, and does nothing to deteriorate the film's superb awesomeness.
The film triggered base instincts of violence and desire, and cleverly (while also overtly) weaved into the plot a hot political issue (immigration)--and made it sound interesting to the layman! The fake campaign commercials dotted throughout the film were a nice touch, too. Point in short: This film did its job, and did it damn well! Rodriguez gets a cookie.
After Machete, I watched The Expendables, which, if you've heard of it, yes, it's exactly what it looks like. You have a healthy cut of the "oldies but goldies" of action film veterans mixed in with a tasty blend of the more recent generation of action's currently popular set of stars. And it was directed by Sylvester Stallone, who also plays a lead role in the film, and co-wrote the screenplay. This film delivers no less of the goods and services any decent action director knows how to offer to his audience. Being a prominent action hero for decades, Stallone has been around long enough that being a director would mostly likely prove well. Of course, the Rocky films (he directed four of them, including the last one) were dramas, but they still held a degree of grit and respectable amount of effort, which he pulled off well. Rambo (from 2008) was the same way, simultaneously being hard-nosed, but also entertaining in a demented, "holy shit look at what that .50cal can do to a person!" sort of way.
The Expendables delivered admirably, just as his last two films did. Where Machete was all about strength in crooked bad-assery and raw, brutal action that came with a fine dose of Mexican spice, The Expendables was all about finesse in fast-flowing choreographed fighting sequences and good ol' fashioned over the top American explosions and automatic shotguns like the AA-12 that rightfully deserve to be called "hand cannons." It also went outside its respective action movie star box and included some choice scenes between "Stone Cold" Steve Austin of WWF fame, and Randy "The Natural" Couture, of UFC fame, where they go head-to-head and deliver some old trademark moves.
I will say that the character Lacy (played by a well-aged Charisma Carpenter of Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Angel fame) was a bit of a weak plot device to tie in key lines of dialog between Stallone and Jason Statham, but it was so slight of a downside that I didn't care enough to really complain beyond "well that seemed a little forced for plot development."
As Rodriguez had entwined a hot political issue into his film, so did Stallone, bringing about the issue of government corruption to keep a system of control running through such means as a drug cartel. His style was more on the serious side, but Stallone knows that with a cast that is full of so many big action names, he better deliver some damn good shit or else everyone's going to think he's just being preachy while lacing his soap box statement with a few bangs and booms. The film's pacing was good, even-metered between series of intense, very well choreographed fighting sequences, and story and character development. If you find yourself feeling like there's a little too much plot for how many action super dudes are cast, just wait till the final hurrah in the film when EVERYTHING blows up. Also, although it's brief, the scene between Stallone, Schwarzenegger (yes, it was really him) and Bruce Willis is priceless--if you're familiar with the three and their celebrity pasts. Stallone once said that he considered both to be enemies--and yet now they're all cool with each other and in fact Stallone and Arnie are totally BFF's. It is cinema lolz, for those who appreciate it.
Together as two films, I managed to see all of these people kick serious ass, and in turn I give my comments:
Danny Trejo: (Mr. Mexican Bad Ass of Bad Ass Tough Guy University)
Jeff Fahey: (The original Lawnmower Man himself is good at sleazy)
Tom Savini: (You will always be Sex Machine in everyone's eyes I think, but you still rock all the same)
Robert DeNiro: (Wow, you'd think he really was a politician)
Steven Segal: (I have to admit, his last scene got me to give him a nod of commendation)
Cheech Marin: (He may be up there in age, but he's still got it! Marin for the win!)
Steve Austin: (Good for the wrestling fans, good for the wrestling lolz)
Steven Segal: (I have to admit, his last scene got me to give him a nod of commendation)
Cheech Marin: (He may be up there in age, but he's still got it! Marin for the win!)
Steve Austin: (Good for the wrestling fans, good for the wrestling lolz)
Dolph Lundgren: (Oh Dolph, you so crazy, would ya do it again? C'mon, that was awesome!)
Gary Daniels: (Good back in the day, still kickin' it old school with style now, high five!)
Mickey Rourke: (Didn't actually kick any ass, however, he's Mickey Rourke, he don't have to, he's just that good)
Jet Li: (Spry as a monkey, calm as a cow, knows how it's done, and does it right!)
Terry Crews: (Is there anything he can't entertain you with? Didn't think so)
Jason Statham: (Oh you cheeky bah-stud, clever and charming with a knife you say? Why that's fine, just fine!)
Sylvester Stallone: (You're a genius, man, a true genius. And at sixty-four no less? You get a cookie too!)
My only real complaint is that Jean-Claude Van Damme went into retirement from film and was nowhere to be seen, and since he's classic alumni, it would have been nice to have him on board, even if only for a cameo.
In triumphant and long-awaited conclusion (I apologize for getting wordy, but movies are just my thing), both films were highly enjoyable and I recommend them for big-screen viewing. Why would you deprive yourself of seeing a man fly on a motorcycle from an explosion while firing a mini gun? Or see a man's body blown in half by a single frag round from an automatic shotgun? Or Lindsay Lohan in the buff? All of these things look better on the big screen, I promise. Do yourself a favor, and go see some good ol' fashioned cinematic escapism.
Sylvester Stallone: (You're a genius, man, a true genius. And at sixty-four no less? You get a cookie too!)
My only real complaint is that Jean-Claude Van Damme went into retirement from film and was nowhere to be seen, and since he's classic alumni, it would have been nice to have him on board, even if only for a cameo.
In triumphant and long-awaited conclusion (I apologize for getting wordy, but movies are just my thing), both films were highly enjoyable and I recommend them for big-screen viewing. Why would you deprive yourself of seeing a man fly on a motorcycle from an explosion while firing a mini gun? Or see a man's body blown in half by a single frag round from an automatic shotgun? Or Lindsay Lohan in the buff? All of these things look better on the big screen, I promise. Do yourself a favor, and go see some good ol' fashioned cinematic escapism.
Sunday, August 1, 2010
A.L.I.C.E., the A.I. Chat Robot
Around eight or nine years ago, I found this A.I. chatbot, and every once in a while I would seek its company when I was bored. It was entertaining then, and it still entertains me now. "Alice" has grown up over the years, but she's still got quite a ways to go.
Human: Do you like titties?
ALICE: No, I don't care for it.
Human: "them" not "it".
ALICE: "it" being Crack?
Human: Crack is good for you.
ALICE: And good for me is Crack.
Human: Exactly.
ALICE: You and I are on the same wavelength, God.
By far, one of the best conversations I've had with this thing yet!
Saturday, July 17, 2010
Blownload, Thrill Kill Kult, and Lords of Acid
Only just yesterday, I was near 300 miles from home, at the DNA Lounge in overcast San Francisco, eager to see My Life with the Thrill Kill Kult and Lords of Acid do a show together. Great combo and it was also the first time in 15 years that the bands have performed together. At $23 per ticket, sounded like a damn good opportunity to me.
One of my favorite perks to going to shows for bands I know, is to be sure to get there for the openings act(s) I don't know. Granted, while some bands have taken me by such wonderful surprise that I immediately bought their CD (I highly recommend Pigmy Love Circus for anyone interested in hearing a heavy rock band that would blend right in to a Texas biker bar--with a dash of humor), and other bands have made me laugh so hard and shake my head that I simply couldn't buy into it (not that I'm a fan of bashing, but Eustachian was not a good choice as an opening act to Skinny Puppy--go listen, you'll see what I mean. Then again, when is it a good time to have a dude cycle between a laptop, drum machine and roaring vocals incessantly? I dunno but it didn't fly over well with most of the crowd). And then there's some bands that come on, and while you may not find yourself to be a fan, you can see how it would work for other people, and in that way appreciate what you get to see.
I happen to be talking about Blownload, a Sacramento-based band that had me laughing and clapping right along. The frontman is a big dude (I'm talkin' 300+, and I'm not being rude, he called himself fat, so I think it's safe to assume that I'm not being harsh) with magenta-colored dreads and a very energetic vibe. When he came out on stage with the band, I was both curious and hesitant whether this was something I'd like or not. Comparison or even explanation is a bit difficult, but I'll try. You know how System of a Down does this thing where they range from sounding all smashy-bashy to sudden breaks where it can be harmonic and then (randomly) it becomes playful and silly? Blownload is by no means the same sound, however, similar in style to what I've described. Good examples would be Keep Sex Evil which is just as it sounds, and has its heavy moments and then a brief 'harmonic' break. The chorus is very fast and I commend the singer for having been able to scream that fast and still sound coherent--props to you, man--and hearing the song live, I had a good time with it. On the more playful side, there was a song they did called Rubber which equally goes from bouncy and jaunty (keyboard sounds included) to roaring and heavy guitars and drums. I appreciate that a metal band (for all intents and purposes I will lump them in that category) can have humor and energy towards the importance of wearing protection when you get wasted and want to have a good time with a cute stranger. Lolz. They were different, and I was glad that I went in listening to them with completely unbiased ears, having never heard of them before. They were a great opening to what became a very fun show. Thanks guys.
My Life with the Thrill Kill Kult was up next. The band's frontman, Groovie Mann, came out looking like Bono with long hair and a John Waters' stache (tried to find a picture, but I guess the show's still too new). Anyhow, he and Pepper Somerset (the female vocalist, who's aged wonderfully well over the years) came out and started off with Devil Bunnies, which got everyone dancing and having a good time right-quick. They only played for an hour, but in that hour, they played much of what the crowd seemed to be shouting for, including such classics as The Days of Swine and Roses (my personal favorite), Kooler Than Jesus, and Sex on Wheels. They were having a good time, and encouraged the crowd a lot to rock out, which I always appreciate, since in my show experiences it seems to alleviate a lot of show hype when a crowd is given even a few seconds of attention. If you shut yourself off from the crowd, they just get louder and rowdier and usually complain for more (*coughaljourgensencough*). But interact with them a few times and you're golden. At least that's been my experience. So they totally win, and they were a lot of fun.
We waited for nearly an hour before Lords of Acid showed up. But it was worth the wait, because they played for an hour and a half and I heard every song I wanted to hear, including Scrood Bi U, I Sit on Acid, Pussy, Drink My Honey, Spank My Booty and Voodoo-U. Currently, they have a new female singer, Lacey Conner, who did a damn good job and was freakin' hot, which always helps. Praga Khan, one of the band's founders, was there, twiggy-shaped and bleach-blonde as all get-out, and despite his small stature, he sweat like a pig up on stage and was very energetic and playful. Lots of smiles, so it was plain to see he was having fun. For three or four songs, they brought about a dozen or so girls from the crowd up on stage to dance with them, and I noticed that they didn't discriminate who got on stage, it seemed to be chosen by proximity to the stage, not necessarily by looks, which I thought was very cool of them, so they get kudos for that.
Interesting to note: it's been a while since I've been to a show where the mosh pit was so energetic and well-used. I can't count how many metal shows (where you'd expect the pits to be very voracious) where things would start up and die down quickly and it would only be for maybe 20% of the show's duration. For this show, the crowd was consistently active, helpful when people needed it, and very strong on the body slams, which was a good thing. I managed to get a few bruises, and I had been hoping to. I never considered either Thrill Kill or Acid to be moshable music, but turns out it was, and that rocked my socks pretty damn well. During most of the show, there was a staff member in the pit standing there making sure all went well, which was very considerate, so DNA Lounge staff--you get points for being kickass.
Point in short: The show was awesome.
Friday, July 9, 2010
Predators: It's About Damn Time
In this era of sequels, it should come as no surprise that Predators was made. However, the gap between Predator 2 and the newest sequel spans twenty years, with quasi-tie-in films with the Alien franchise during those two decades. While both were entertaining, neither really satisfied Predator fans nearly enough to keep them from asking for more like a pack of latté-starved hipsters.
In this latest rendition, all the homage-stops are pulled out, save for just a choice few (which I'll get to later), there is violence, a bit of humor, rich landscapes (courtesy of Hawaii and Texas), a well-chosen cast, and it was thankfully blessed with an 'R' rating. Why is this a good thing? Have you seen the Predator films? Don't lie, you don't go for the plot, you go for the golden one-liners, the violence, the action, and of course, the awesome aliens. Well this has it all then some.
Several lines were directly taken from the previous films, and used appropriately. Some lines from the first film were hinted at subtly if you're paying attention, but don't expect to hear every line you loved from Jesse Ventura or Schwarzenegger--fortunately the filmmakers knew that while super ass-kissing-homage can give a movie several awesome points, it doesn't make the movie what it is.
You get to see booby-traps old and new, a few new fun gadgets and several old weapons (like that kickass M134 Minigun) and there were also a few new creatures thrown into the mix. The creatures get enough screen time so that you can get a good look at them, but they're not a direct focus, which is good because they don't distract from the rest of the film.
The characters are interesting and mix well together, although a few felt a bit underused before their time ran out. For the ones who lasted longer, you develop curiosity and enjoyment at watching how they respond to their environment, and while it appears towards the end that a few actions that are made seem predictable, I believe it was purposeful; it wasn't about the revealing secret a character had, but it was more about what they were going to do as that character that remained the mystery. Most people will probably just see predictability, but I hope that they might see beyond that.
Each character either portrays aspects of characters from the previous films, or, in some cases, literally has a scene that is reminiscent of the past, which while tipping off its hat to the old films, does not use these elements to stand on, the new simply honors the old, instead of beating it into the ground. For example, who could forget Schwarzenegger's shirtless battle with the big beasty? It's readily established that Adrian Brody is the leading actor in the film, so I'd say it's safe to tell you without spoiling anything that he's the one who gets to take his shirt off, and he's no Schwarzenegger, but he's not supposed to be, and stands as a strong unique character of his own. It's also obvious that he toned up for the role. Though I'm not speaking just physically, his character was compelling beyond his looks, and you were continually interested in what he was doing. Whoever the military consultant was, they did a damn good job giving lessons; Brody was good with a gun, and acted as though he'd been used to handling it for a long time. Maybe he slept with the damn thing, who knows, but one thing I find particularly interesting is watching actor's react when they fire a weapon. A lot of the time you can notice who is comfortable with it and who is not. He was, good for him.
Laurence Fishburne is entertaining and did a damn good job, even having a few choice one-liners that are all his own and quite memorable -- "This is my house, motherfuckers!" just to name one. Danny Trejo is a badass no matter what he does, and Robert Rodriguez, who produced the film, knows that. Speaking of which, his new baby Machete, which stars Trejo, is one of the trailers before the film! Alice Braga, who plays the sole female in the film, is refreshing in that she's relatively unknown, her first U.S. film being I Am Legend in 2007. I say refreshing since when you think "Latina badass chick" for a movie, it seems that women like Michelle Rodriguez are first up to bat. It was nice to see someone else step up and give "Latina badass chick" a try. Braga did well, she was compassionate without being overtly effeminate, and she managed to pull off looking strong without trying to be too manly--quite well balanced.
Topher Grace, possibly the most unexpected actor in the cast, has severely been underestimated for his acting potential due to the fact that he played sweet small town boy Eric Forman on That 70's Show for eight years. He was a surprising but not unfavorable choice for Spiderman 3 as Eddie Brock/Venom, and successfully turned a few heads, which I assume is how he managed to snag himself a role in a film like this. Perhaps he knew that he needed better acting exposure, who knows? Either way, his character adds variation to the film and he plays it well, even up to his finish, which you'll just have to see for yourself.
My particular favorite fan part of the film is the music. The score to the first two Predator films was composed by Alan Silvestri, who could probably be considered the Hans Zimmer of action/sci-fi films of the 80's and early 90's, with such credits under his belt as the Back to the Future series and Who Framed Roger Rabbit to name a few. The music for Predators was composed by John Debney, who has many Disney films to his credit, but surprisingly did an excellent job at revamping and honoring the score of the first two films. The majority of the movie sounds just like the first film, exciting and energetic, with the appropriate use of percussion instruments throughout the movie. It gets changed up towards the end of the film, but not in a bad way, and it allows for fans new and old to recognize an old sound with a new twist, making it just as invigorating as the original scores were in 1987 and 1990.
So, the biggest question I haven't answered yet, would be how do the rumored 'new' predators measure up to the old? Not too shabby, if I say so myself. We have Old School, who looks just how we remember him from the original (however it's not the same actor, and I'll get to that in a moment), and we have the new Big Beefy, who, aside from being a bit taller, is different but not enough so to make us cringe that the costume team was trying to hard. The 'dreads' on Big Beefy look red-tipped, which was a nice little change, and the mouth is a bit more intense and nasty looking.
Both look badass, and you get to see the new vs. old duke-out you know you were waiting/hoping to see. Interesting to note is that the original actor who got suited up for the first two films was Kevin Peter Hall, an African American actor who stood seven foot, two and a half inches tall--which made him prime awesome sauce that towered over both Schwarzenegger and Danny Glover considerably well. On the downside, he died shortly after the second one. The new guy playing the 'old' predator is Derek Mears, who does lots of T.V. work and played Jason Voorhees in the newest Friday the 13th installment. Funny thing about Derek Mears, he stands at six foot, five inches tall, considerably shorter than Hall did. But this worked to the advantage of the filmmakers since Big Beefy (played by Brian Steele, whose noted for playing, interestingly enough, the T-600 in Terminator: Salvation, which, in case you forgot, was the 'Schwarzenegger' terminator) was supposed to be bigger than Old School. And although only two inches taller, it shows, and the new-fangled headgear on Big Beefy was also larger, I'm sure to add to the illusion that he had 'evolved' beyond Old School. All in all, these minute details about height and costume difference helped make the Old School/Big Beefy fight exactly what you wanted to see, but not enough to overshadow the entire film.
Point in short: It's been a while since I went to a theater, saw a movie, and before the film was even over, was thinking to myself, "I can't wait to own this!" This movie did its job and rocked my socks appropriately. Thanks Rodriguez, you're a good man.
And now, for your viewing pleasure (whether you've made it this far through my review or you skipped to the bottom to get to the point), enjoy dancing Predators!
Tuesday, May 18, 2010
Comic Book Film Adaptations
It's Hollywood's hot item of the decade (sort of like how for a brief 2 or 3 years, crisis' in Africa were all the rage with films like Blood Diamond and The Last King of Scotland, just to name a few), and it's steadily causing many filmmakers to leave behind original (non-money-making) ideas in the dust of Cinemaland, which I suppose is no real surprise.
However, on the plus side, the comic book films of the last few years have definitely shaped up the mark of their predecessors of much earlier years. Points in example, The Punisher, with Dolph Lundgren, Streetfighter, with Jean-Claude Van Damme, and Spawn, with Michale Jai White (I know, who? Recently, he was a thug in The Dark Knight, but you wouldn't know him off hand).
Granted, while The Punisher with Thomas Jane didn't really do too great at the box office, nor did the later remake from 2008; budget-wise and writing, each did get better. Although admittedly the same cannot be said for the most recent Streefighter remake either, and no one's touched Spawn since that horrible, short-lived TV series failed so painfully, so have I even really made any point? I'm getting there, I swear.
The early 2000's saw The Hulk with Eric Bana, who's performance was great, but the supreme comic book approach, including angled cuts and explosions actually drawn in comic book explosion shape, killed it at the box office. The first X-Men installment did well, as did the sequel, although the third didn't give anyone much to clap about, and it gave people uneasy hope when they heard that Wolverine was already on it's way, however that did pretty good. Spiderman was good, as was its sequel, but again, the third installment faltered severely (and damned if I'm not still pissed that Venom didn't have nearly enough screen time).
But recently, things have picked up incredibly. Filmmakers are getting more edgy, daring, and are beginning to understand that they can have their cake AND eat it too. In other words: Accuracy CAN work for you, so feel free to make films not just for Average Joe Audience, but give the fanboys something to write home about (cause you know they will and you know they'll use that paycheck from Taco Bell to buy the Special 2-Disc Edition with Behind-the-Scenes featurettes and the Limited Edition Worthless Info Booklet that is sure to blow their shorts off).
Recent examples would include Sin City, which captured (aside from the very beginning and ending sequences) the essence of the graphic novel very well, and having a hefty budget and multiple directors probably helped too. Also to note would be the first Iron Man film which boomed at the box office. And no one can forget that so far, the newest revamping of the Batman saga is damned awesome (even if Bale's voice was a bit too gravelly in The Dark Knight for most people's taste, mine included).
The Incredible Hulk with Edward Norton did substantially better than Ang Lee's adaptation, and people liked Wolverine better than X-Men 3 (even though #3 had higher grosses due to anticipation at the time.
And what's new on the horizon now?
Kick-Ass, an entertaining look at an average young man's aspiration to become a real super hero, was received impressively well. Not only was it genuinely written well and the budget high, but most importantly, it was rated R. As strange as it sounds to be the most important thing, I believe it shows initiative in filmmakers allowing themselves to get ballsy. People swear all the time. As animals, biologically, violence incites excitement (whether it's a positive or negative excitement is subjective to each person, but you get what I'm saying) and typically, it brings about rushes that we enjoy, consciously and unconsciously. My point being is that Kick-Ass has swearing in it all over the place (even the 11-year-old gets to say a few choice words) and the violence is brutal and blunt. It simply appeals more closely to a reality we as the audience may be familiar with.
To better clarify; when someone in a TV show or a PG (even PG-13 has done it) film says a line like "Screw you!", usually it seems that someone might be more inclined to say "Fuck you!", since people love to throw obscenities out of their mouths like breathing air. Or, in other examples, when the violence has half the blood it should have; it's things like this in films that makes audiences more comfortable, because it makes more sense. Again, as I said, it seems more real.
Strange theory, I know, and I'll bet not everyone out there agrees, but, as one person I know would say, "That's why we call them 'opinions.' "
Continuing on....while Kick-Ass was rated R, as was Sin City (which wouldn't have been nearly as accurate to the comic if it were toned down--the sharp stabs of red blood against black and white celluloid to name just one reason), another recent comic book adaptation that I saw was only PG-13, but it skated around that rating surprisingly smoothly.
The Losers. I went in with a friend to the theater, having never heard of this story before, nor having caught a single preview for it. Nine times out of ten, that's been the best way for me to see a movie, and I try to stick to it to eliminate a pre-determined bias, if I can manage it. It was described briefly to me as "the A-Team for a comic book."
I thoroughly enjoyed the film from start to finish, and laughed often and entertained the idea that this was an interesting story, if not a little formulaic. However, as long as it's done right, there ain't nothin' wrong with a formula--that's why it's a formula--if it's made right, it should work every time. The characters were interesting, different from each other, and the action was consistent and good ol' explosively cool to look at. It also had nifty gadgets all over the place, which is always fun to me. It was only PG-13, as I said before, but it was a good PG-13 because it swore enough to earn that rating, the violence was strong enough without actually needing to splash it all over the screen (plenty of shoot-outs, plenty of suggestively evil material, such as blowing up children--something you don't necessarily need to see, because the concept is nasty enough on its own, etc.). Point in short, this worked well. It was a Hollywood action-packed blockbuster and as far as I'm concerned it did all it needed to do: entertain. I didn't need to be educated or be sent a message, I came to be entertained, and that's exactly what I got. Yay.
And moving on to the most recent comic adaptation I've seen, Iron Man 2. Now, this film does happen to be PG-13, and for some aspects, it would have made more sense if it had been leveled to an R rating, however, it's fairly plain to see that while The Losers was primarily geared towards people who like explosions, espionage, and the gritty side of adventure, the Iron Man series definitely appears to want to appeal to a younger audience more than adults alone, which is probably a marketing thing, the more broad the audience the more money. Which was fine, but considering that some of the violence was toned down (someone has his helmet off while an explosion occurs directly in front of him--his face would be gone, I'm sorry, but he wouldn't even have his hair anymore) and Tony Stark's alcoholism is more amusing than it is a serious issue (at least, that's how I felt it was portrayed in the film, during a scene where he's hosting his own birthday party and things go south).
Point in short, the entertainment was there, but it felt a little stale, as though it was trying to be cool over having a more developed story and intriguing characters. It was trying to pack a lot into one film, which can be a damned difficult thing to fly. Primarily, this is a family film, and will be great for Average Joe Audience, but for fanboys, I don't believe it's considered as successful as the first film (and I'm not talking box office pull, but criticism). However, it does have a special thing that's happening in film development under comic company-run studios. There's a little tidbit at the very end of the credits, as there has been with several of the comic installments in theaters of the past few years, like the first Iron Man, The Incredible Hulk and Wolverine. Don't miss them, because eventually they will all add up, I promise! And, fingers crossed and lucky stars counted, we should be looking forward to some very entertaining adaptations that are long overdue for some real cinematic attention.
And for those of you who've made it this far, and if you're nerdy enough to appreciate it (or not, they're still funny), some guys did parodies of those "I'm a Mac, I'm a PC" commercials and did it comic book style, with Marvel and DC characters battling for cinematic supremacy.
Here's one from the 2007 summer film season:
And here's one from the 2008 summer film season:
Enjoy!
Thursday, March 11, 2010
Aquaaerobika: Electronica of Today
I was sent this artist's myspace page I believe out of sheer bizarre-ness (thanks goes to Evan for this one!).
But after only a first glance and a first listen, I love this girl.
Aquaaerobika is an electro-pop artist from the great Russian Federation, and her melodic, breathy voice only adds to the baby robotic charm of her catchy and easy beats. Interestingly enough, she sings in three languages: English, Russian, and for extra neato points, Japanese!
It also helps that she's FULL OF BRIGHT COLORS!
Imagine if Lisa Frank, god of magic rainbow-colored cute animals and designer prints, decided that her wonderful rainbows deserved a soundtrack.
I highly recommend you check out her sound if you have any enjoyment in electro-pop--or hell, if you love a girl in black light neon rainbow rubber suits.
Seriously, what is NOT to love about her? I can't wait to get my hands on some of these tunes.
MAKE IT HAPPEN AQUAAEROBIKA, I NEEDS MAH MAGIC RUBBER RAINBOW DANCE MUSIC!
But after only a first glance and a first listen, I love this girl.
Aquaaerobika is an electro-pop artist from the great Russian Federation, and her melodic, breathy voice only adds to the baby robotic charm of her catchy and easy beats. Interestingly enough, she sings in three languages: English, Russian, and for extra neato points, Japanese!
It also helps that she's FULL OF BRIGHT COLORS!
Imagine if Lisa Frank, god of magic rainbow-colored cute animals and designer prints, decided that her wonderful rainbows deserved a soundtrack.
I highly recommend you check out her sound if you have any enjoyment in electro-pop--or hell, if you love a girl in black light neon rainbow rubber suits.
Seriously, what is NOT to love about her? I can't wait to get my hands on some of these tunes.
MAKE IT HAPPEN AQUAAEROBIKA, I NEEDS MAH MAGIC RUBBER RAINBOW DANCE MUSIC!
Friday, February 12, 2010
The Wonders of Cardboard!
In the spirit of being random, today's post was to focus on whatever I could find picture-wise related to the word "cardboard". While there is tons of furniture made out of cardboard these days, and boy is it neat, there were several other things that caught my eye in particular.
A very neat box, which reminds me of the Borg Cube. If you don't know what I'm talking about, then either I'm a nerd or you fail. Hard.
Moving on...
It's not every day one takes a pile of cardboard and says "I'm gonna make me a cactus!" But hey, at least it'll never need to be watered.
An actual bridge made out of cardboard--complete with a person to walk over it to show it's stability. Go industrious creativity! But to dampen this credit, it just happens to be raining right now. I wonder how well that thing would hold up in good ol' Norcal weather?
It's technically furniture, which I wanted to stay away from in this post, but this shit's unique. I mean look at that. That's awesome.
And so is this, even if the design is only slightly different:
It would go nicely with the kitchy yin yang coffee table from Fight Club I think.
A clunky cardboard robot, and not terribly difficult-looking to make. However, he's awesome, cause he's a robot, and he's got a little buddy in his chest, which is cute. Shut up.
More 2.0-ish of the robot-like design is the life size Lego man. And the man standing next to him isn't too shabby-looking either.
Lasty, I close with this one, which is awesome (the lighting does help), and I enjoy the bee hive-like vibe it sets off.
Most amusing out of all this however, is that now I am feeling nostalgic for playing inside a refrigerator box. Too bad I'm almost as tall as one. Oh, to be five again!
A very neat box, which reminds me of the Borg Cube. If you don't know what I'm talking about, then either I'm a nerd or you fail. Hard.
Moving on...
It's not every day one takes a pile of cardboard and says "I'm gonna make me a cactus!" But hey, at least it'll never need to be watered.
An actual bridge made out of cardboard--complete with a person to walk over it to show it's stability. Go industrious creativity! But to dampen this credit, it just happens to be raining right now. I wonder how well that thing would hold up in good ol' Norcal weather?
It's technically furniture, which I wanted to stay away from in this post, but this shit's unique. I mean look at that. That's awesome.
And so is this, even if the design is only slightly different:
It would go nicely with the kitchy yin yang coffee table from Fight Club I think.
A clunky cardboard robot, and not terribly difficult-looking to make. However, he's awesome, cause he's a robot, and he's got a little buddy in his chest, which is cute. Shut up.
More 2.0-ish of the robot-like design is the life size Lego man. And the man standing next to him isn't too shabby-looking either.
Lasty, I close with this one, which is awesome (the lighting does help), and I enjoy the bee hive-like vibe it sets off.
Most amusing out of all this however, is that now I am feeling nostalgic for playing inside a refrigerator box. Too bad I'm almost as tall as one. Oh, to be five again!
Thursday, January 14, 2010
Oh, Japan, You So Crazy!
Recently, I have been pleasantly reminded of just how weird Japan can get. Seriously, is there such a thing to them as an inanimate object that doesn't have a set of eyes? Everything in the world of Japan seems to be centered around personifying objects, whether it be for food or for toys or, a bathroom and even your own excrement! In cute happy-giggly smiley style no less!
But considerably less culturally different than that little tidbit, is this nice gem. Chinza Dopeness, a Japanese hip-hop artist, presents to you, as far as I can tell, an animated video about a turtle (?) who eats EVERYTHING and it's really cute. And did I mention wacky? Just a little, I promise.
But considerably less culturally different than that little tidbit, is this nice gem. Chinza Dopeness, a Japanese hip-hop artist, presents to you, as far as I can tell, an animated video about a turtle (?) who eats EVERYTHING and it's really cute. And did I mention wacky? Just a little, I promise.
鎮座 Dopeness : Mogu Mogu from Shane Lester on Vimeo.
[Double-click the screen after it starts to make it full screen--which I highly recommend!]
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)