tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6655632716705081382024-03-14T05:53:29.799-04:00Joshua the AnarchistReviews and opinion pieces on movies an other entertainment media.Joshua the Anarchisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14935756109060751464noreply@blogger.comBlogger223125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-665563271670508138.post-88275776171959080312013-11-04T16:19:00.001-05:002013-11-04T22:57:37.687-05:00Movie Review: Krrish 3Forgive me for indulging in what has become one of the more tiresome cliche's of 2013, but I will now complain about how <i>Krrish 3</i> is more of a Superman movie than <i>Man of Steel</i> was.<br />
<br />
And yet it's true all the same. 2013 may come to be know as the year when the old icons of heroism in fiction were brought down and corrupted for mass market consumption, while newer heroes stepped up to stand for the ideals that they no longer would, or could. One by one this summer, Superman, Captain Kirk, and the Lone Ranger, beloved role models of a previous generation, found themselves stripped of their idealism, reduced to violent, thoughtless, decidedly unheroic versions of themselves. Meanwhile brand new, or at least more recent, franchises emerged as their surprise successors. <i>Pacific Rim</i>, <i>The Fast & the Furious</i>, even Iron Man (not a new character, by any means, but one who was relatively niche until his film debut in 2008), all came forth full of the youthful idealism and sense of fun that we used to get from the aforementioned old guard.<br />
<br />
But as much as all that can be said for the aforementioned summer films, it is ever more true of this late entry, the Indian superhero blockbuster <i>Krrish 3</i>. And who better to infuse a modern superhero film with a sense of childlike naivete than Bollywood, an industry with what seems like an almost universally childlike feel to their films? <i>Krrish 3</i> is the third entry in the oddly named franchise (there is no <i>Krrish 2</i>) that started with <i>Koi... Mil Gaya</i>, a film most easily described as "Indian E.T.", except in their version Elliot is a mentally handicapped adult named Rohit. The second film, <i>Krrish</i>, completely switched genres, omitting the cute little alien and revolving around Rohit's son, Krishna, who inherited superpowers from his father that were given to him by said alien. Donning a black coat and broken mask, he becomes basically Indian Superman (Golden Age Superman at first, but leveling up to Silver Age Superman by the end of this film) right down to marrying a smokin' hot journalist.<br />
<br />
The film is Bollywood to the core, which should tell you up front whether or not it's for you. For myself, I love Bollywood in all its over-the-top glory, and not in that condescending "oh, you wacky foreigners" way people love "Gangnam Style". I simply enjoy bombast in my entertainment. I'm a "go big or go home" kinda guy. What can I say, I guess I just have this weird need for my entertainment to be, you know, <u>entertaining</u>. And Bollywood knows how to entertain, with their 3-hour musical comedy drama action horror sci-fi fantasy extravaganzas. It's amazing how well the average Bollywood movie seems to hold together in light of their "everything but the kitchen sink" approach, but somehow they usually manage to keep anything from feeling incongruous, and even when they don't, you're usually having too much fun to care.<br />
<br />
It's amazing in retrospect that Bollywood superhero movies aren't more common, because the genre suits their style perfectly. The outrageous "fuck physics" gusto perfectly fits the camp grandiosity of comic books, and their tendency towards "gosh gee" moralizing and innocence (which comes off as surprisingly genuine for something likely censorship driven) is almost identical to the tone of Silver Age Superman stories.<br />
<br />
And a Silver Age Superman story this is, right down to the core. At less than the quarter of the budget, <i>Krrish 3</i> satisfies in ways <i>Man of Steel</i> utterly failed to do, by capturing that idealistic "Superman" feel that the actual Superman movie completely missed or glossed over. It zigs at every point <i>Man of Steel</i> zagged. The final battle between Krrish and his nemesis is so similar is staging to Superman vs. Zod, you'd be forgiven for thinking they must've somehow ripped it off (even though they would've been making this before <i>Man of Steel</i> came out). The only real difference? Krrish actually shows concern for the civilians imperiled by the wayside, stopping to smash falling debris about to crush them, and at one point letting the villain wail on him while he focuses on holding up a falling building to save an abandoned baby below.<br />
<br />
Call it cheesy if you want, but that old fashioned spirit is what gives the film the charm that <i>Man of Steel</i> tried and failed to capture. An early scene in which Krrish is inspired almost to tears by the courage of a little boy who almost died trying to help a stuck pigeon kicks off the movie's running theme of "anyone who does good for others is Krrish (i.e. a hero)" and pretty much sums up everything this movie does right. It's wide-eyed optimism may be too sugary sweet for some, but for me, this is everything I want out of a good superhero story. Add to that the fact that the effects and action sequences are genuinely exciting and well staged, and you have basically a perfect superhero movie. If it plays anywhere near you, don't miss it. At the very least it'll give you something to do until <i>Thor: The Dark World</i> comes out in a few days.Joshua the Anarchisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14935756109060751464noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-665563271670508138.post-65185312078885584722013-10-03T01:52:00.002-04:002013-10-03T01:52:55.744-04:00The Geek Chorus: "...Not Just for Kids Anymore!"I love Power Rangers. I realize this is the most ordinary think a child of the 90's can possible say, but it's true. I love how it's all at once batshit insane and yet charmingly simplistic. I love how it keeps reinventing itself season after season. I love the way it's brought cultures together, introducing an entire generation of American youth to Japanese tokusatsu. But most of all, I love the childlike sense of fun and optimism it inspires in me every time I see it.<br />
<br />
The feeling I'm describing is called "nostalgia", a concept I'm sure you're all familiar with. It's become something of a buzzword in recent years, and has been a frequent influence on our culture since any of us can remember. It's such a natural human instinct, the desire to capture that feeling of simplicity and ignorant bliss that characterized our childhoods. So we latch onto anything, any memory that might trigger some semblance of that feeling: a favorite toy or game, a familiar song, an old friend, etc. But more broadly recognized and shared are cultural moments that touched and inspired entire generations: famous historical events certainly, but also media like films and tv shows. These things can not only make us feel like kids again, but bring us together in a mutual wistful remembrance of times gone by. Nostalgia is a wonderful thing.<br />
<br />
So why are we so damned ashamed of it?<br />
<br />
Actor and MMA fighter Jason David Frank, known to Power Rangers fans the world over as the Green Ranger and a breakout favorite of the show, said in a <a href="http://www.complex.com/pop-culture/2013/08/mighty-morphin-power-rangers-interviews-behind-the-scenes/now" target="_blank">recent interview</a> that he is "talking to Saban*" about the possibility of making a spinoff film focusing on his character. It would supposedly be PG-13, implying a somewhat darker tone than Power Rangers generally has, and he spoke of making the Green Ranger "the Wolverine of Power Rangers."<br />
<br />
With all respect to my childhood hero, none of this sounds anywhere close to a good idea. Put aside for a moment the fact that the entire point of Power Rangers is teamwork; complimentary skills, powers, and equipment always succeeding where the efforts of one always fail, so a solo Power Ranger anything is about as un-Power Rangers a concept as you can get. Spinoffs and/or stronger focuses on characters who become unexpectedly popular almost never end well and lead to overexposure. The aforementioned Wolverine is a prime example of this. But beyond that, the idea that such a film would need to be PG-13 just depresses me, because it's demonstrative of a prevailing attitude with regard to reviving nostalgic properties: the idea that they need to be darker.<br />
<br />
For some reason, while nostalgia is something we all share, often openly, it's also something we have this bizarre need to distance ourselves from. Going back and watching your favorite episodes of <i>Transformers </i>is okay, but only if you do so "ironically". After all, <i>Transformers</i> was a kid's show, and you're not a kid anymore. So to maintain your vacuous misunderstanding of "maturity", you can only experience nostalgia in a sarcastic, detached fashion. "Harr dee harr! Look at how silly these cartoons are! Can you believe I used to love this shit!? Stupid childlike awe! Harr dee harr!"<br />
<br />
So as a result, when said shows get modern updates, fans, having long since grown up, like to think that their beloved childhood classics have somehow grown up with them. They want something that they can appreciate with the same sincere wonder that they had when they were younger. But since they now feel accessing their inner child is somehow beneath them, the answer is to dress those old "kiddie" shows in the hollow trappings of what current you thinks of as "maturity": darker colors, gritty realism, grayer moralities, and brooding self-importance. "Superman's not just for kids anymore! He just snapped a guy's neck! So it's totally okay for me to still be into him!"<br />
<br />
Look, I understand the mindset. I've been there. The inception of the name "Joshua the Anarchist" was entirely due to my being a miserably mopey teen way too obsessed with Heath Ledger's Joker for all the wrong reasons when I came up with it. Not five years ago I too was craving something exactly like what JDF is proposing, a dark, gritty vision of Power Rangers. I know about taking yourself too seriously, about mistaking pessimism for realism**. So I say this with the greatest sympathy: Get the fuck over yourself.<br />
<br />
Have you forgotten what attracted you to these things in the first place? It wasn't that they were "edgey" or "dark" or "mature", it was they were were fun and light-hearted. Is not the whole point of nostalgia to remind yourself of happier times, when the world was less complicated and you were less cynical? Are you really going to continue to let your obsession with the trappings of maturity to the exclusion of its substance continue to pollute and distort your childhood memories? Growing up isn't about leaving the things you love behind. It's about expanding your mind and taking responsibility for your actions.<br />
<br />
Do not misunderstand me to mean that stories and franchises should never change or evolve. Batman has been swinging back and forth between comedy and seriousness for the better part of a century now. Stagnation is the enemy of any franchise, and adaptability its cure. So by all means, rethink and reevaluate your favorite childhood stories. But don't ever lose sight of what made that story worth telling a second time to begin with.<br />
<br />
*And let's be very clear here: "talking" could me anything from "we are actually having official meetings about this as a serious potential movie" to "I mentioned the idea to one guy and he said 'yeah, we'll talk later'". At this point the whole prospect of this project ever getting off the ground doesn't seem terribly likely. I'm not upset about this news because I'm afraid I'll ever actually have to see the damn thing. I'm upset because the idea is so symptomatic of a larger, prevalent attitude.<br />
<br />
**to once again borrow the phrase from <i>Flex Mentallo</i> that just never stops being relevant.Joshua the Anarchisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14935756109060751464noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-665563271670508138.post-88362918088465612652013-09-04T22:36:00.000-04:002013-09-04T22:36:26.234-04:00The Geek Chorus: What We Can Learn from "The World's End"<i>The World's End</i> is by far the most unexpectedly brilliant movie of the year. I expected it to be good. After all, it is an Edgar Wright film, and Edgar Wright can always counted on for great comedy combined with amazingly complex scripting and editing and a strong emotional core. So I was ready for <i>The World's End</i> to be the best comedy of the year, and it was. What I wasn't expecting was that it would also turn out to be the best <u>science fiction</u> movie of the year. More than just a heartfelt character comedy, <i>The World's End</i> somehow also turned out to be the most thought provoking sci-fi film I've seen since Christopher Nolan's <i>Inception</i>. It's hard, intellectual stuff, and like <i>Inception</i> it takes an old, well-explored concept and looks at it through an uncompromising lens no one has ever dared look through before. It absolutely blew my mind to the point that I've been able to focus on little else since it came out. It'll likely end up being my favorite movie of 2013, and I just have to share with you all <u>why</u>. Obviously spoilers follow, so if you haven't see it yet, what is wrong with you? Go see it <u>now</u>! Then see it a few more times, <u>then</u> come back.<br />
<br />
<i>The World's End</i> starts off as such a simple concept: one man's struggle with his addition. But then it ingeniously expands on that concept to such extremes that it encompasses the whole of humanity. Gary King, who we first see as an adult attending a AA meeting, defies any and all outside efforts to fix his problems. This isn't because he's happy being a lonely alcoholic, but rather because he simply can't stand not being in charge of his own life. "They told me when to go to bed," he wails miserably. Regardless of what you think of Gary's decisions, it's hard not to sympathize with the humiliation and infantilization that comes from being a grown man who can't even choose his own bed time.<br />
<br />
But just when you think this movie, which seems to be about little but the self destruction of one stubborn alcoholic with some sci-fi on the side, has reached it's climax...everything changes. The movie shows its hand, and reveals itself to be about so much more than you imagined. It takes the idea of one person's stubborn refuses to be dictated too, even if it is for his own good, and applies it to the entire human race. I admit, the first time around this threw me a bit. It seemed an almost random and disconnected turn of events. But on a second viewing, it all clicked for me when I noticed the use of the words "enable" & "intervention" during Gary's confrontation with the Network. The movie ends as it began: with, as Gary describes is "a bunch of people in a circle talking about how awful things have got." The first time it was a circle of recovering alcoholics, the second a circle of alien androids. Both groups genuinely want to help Gary and make him a better person, both are mostly uninterested in whether Gary actually wants their help or not, and both find their efforts rejected.<br />
<br />
Now on the one hand, the idea being raises here, that it's is our flaws that make us human and to try and perfect us would be to rob us of our humanity, is a very old idea that has been put forth by many films before. Gary himself reminds us of the old expression "to err is human." The film's genius comes in how it answers this question. When Gary, and by extension the human race, reject the Network's offer of galactic citizenship, their decision comes at a price. They don't just get to go back the status quo. The film realizes that to reject any and all control is to reject the very concept of civilization. And thus, civilization ends.<br />
<br />
This uncompromising honesty is what I find so unique and striking about <i>The World's End</i>. Gary's defiant declaration of "We are the human race, and we don't like being told what to do!" is one I've heard many different versions of before. Freedom is an enticing notion. It's one we're very fond of, as it's been romanticized many times in fiction. So often, in fact, that we often forget that freedom has a downside to it. Because freedom, while nice to have, benefits only the individual at cost of the greater whole. The more free we are as individuals, the less cooperation is possible as group. As a race we humans are capable of amazing things. We have cured disease, built machines that can traverse the globe in hours, and connect us to each other in seconds. As a race, we set foot on the fucking moon. As a lone individual, we are capable of substantially less.<br />
<br />
We have gotten very good over the years at demonizing ideas like collectivism, globalism, or anything that deemphasizes the individual in service of a larger group. This is largely due to said ideas having been repeatedly misused to horrifying effects by various dictators and regimes. Control scares us. We don't like giving up our freedoms, any of our freedoms, for fear on what those we give them too might do with them. It's a scary world, and sometimes we feel like we can't trust anyone but ourselves. We like to think of ourselves and individuals first and part of something bigger than ourselves second if at all. But in doing so, we severely limit our potential as a species. Everyone bemoans the slow erosion of our privacy and freedoms as we venture further into the Information Age, without stopping to consider that maybe such things are just the natural consequences of coming together as a species.<br />
<br />
When Gary declares (with a quote for <i>Animal House</i>, appropriately enough) independence from the Network's control on behalf of mankind, at first it is met with the usual triumphant celebration. But suddenly as the entire world starts imploding around them, Gary and his friends are confronted with the horrific realization of what they've done. They've saved the world from invaders, but at the cost of our way of life.You don't get to live completely free of control and still have governments to run things, public services to help & protect you, free unlimited access to information, or even running water pumped to your house. Those things only come with mutual cooperation, which would mean submitting to the will of something larger than yourself.<br />
<br />
The question is then posed by <i>The World's End</i>: what do you value? Freedom or progress? Are you really willing to live with the consequences that freedom, real & total freedom, would bring? Are perhaps the rewards of scientific and social progress worth the price of some of your liberties? On the other hand, are you willing to risk losing your individual self for the greater good of the species?<br />
<br />
These are hard questions that the film pulls no punches with and I honestly don't know how to answer them. 5 or so years ago, I would've answered right away. Back then I was still an angry, self important teenager, a hardcore libertarian who thought he knew everything. But I was much less thoughtful then, and my thinking now couldn't be more different. Now I honestly don't know if, had I been there, I would've sided with Gary and chosen freedom, or if I'd have been like the "Shifty Twins" and chosen progress. Is humanity, in the context of the film, to be commended for sacrificing everything for their independence, or is the fact the the Network had to mulch so many of us more indicative of something wrong with us than something wrong with them? The film remains indifferent in its final judgement, leaving it up to us to decide whether or not Gary made the right call. It's not an easy question for me to answer, but in trying it brings up so many questions about the nature of humanity and our relationship with each other. "To err is human," Gary King says to us, "so, err..."Joshua the Anarchisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14935756109060751464noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-665563271670508138.post-16112479058067594812013-08-20T20:40:00.001-04:002013-08-20T20:40:48.945-04:00Movie Review: Kick-Ass 2<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/d1/KA2-International-Poster.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/d1/KA2-International-Poster.jpg" width="220" /></a></div>
<br />
The most endearing thing about the <i>Kick-Ass</i> films to me is that despite all the the appearance of cynical subversion and deconstruction, it's deep down one of the most honest and optimistically childlike superhero series out there. It's in many ways the bipolar opposite of its bitter, unpleasant source material. For all the violence, debauchery, and juvenile humor, ultimately the films are about an earnest if completely-out-of-his-league kid who put on a costume for the same reason Superman or Spider-man did: to help people. And unlike the comic, the movie does not mock or punish him for that simple desire. It recognizes Kick-Ass as a loser, but a loser with his heart in the right place (more or less). It transforms a story that mean-spiritedly mocked the superheroic ideal into one that celebrates it. The films truly understand the appeal of comic books, that fantasy of having the courage to get out there and do good simply because it is good, to be the guy that finally says "enough" and gets off the sidelines. <i>Kick-Ass</i> the movie was a Silver Age 60's comic story in the guise of a Dark Age 90's comic story.<br />
<br />
The bad news is <i>Kick-Ass 2</i> isn't as good as <i>Kick-Ass</i>. By design, it couldn't have possibly been as good as <i>Kick-Ass</i>. There were certain key elements of awesome the first <i>Kick-Ass</i> had that are absent this time around, and without them there's just no way to completely recapture the magic. Those elements went by the name of Big Daddy and Hit-Girl, the undisputed show-stealers of the last film. The good news is that those voids have been filled by not-quite-as-awesome-but-still-pretty-awesome new stuff.<br />
<br />
In the place of Big Daddy we now have Colonel Stars 'n Stripes, who tragically doesn't have quite as much screen time as his predecessor, but makes it count. Jim Carrey gives possibly the most uniquely un-Carrey-eque performance of his career here. Generally as an actor, Carrey only has two modes: Manic rubber-faced Ace Ventura Carrey and dower, I'm-a-serious-dramatic-actor-now Eternal Sunshine Carrey, and every role he plays is generally some slight variation of one of those two personas. But as the Colonel, Carrey reminds us all what a serious talent he can be when he puts his mind to it. Just as Nicolas Cage's Big Daddy called to mind Adam West's Batman if he decided the become the Punisher, Carrey's Colonel Stars 'n Stripes comes across as Robert de Niro trying to be Captain America. It's a startlingly chameleonic performance, and like Big Daddy it leaves you wishing he had been in more of the movie.<br />
<br />
Now you might be confused by my earlier reference to Hit-Girl being "absent". "But Hit-Girl <u>is</u> in <i>Kick-Ass 2</i>," you might be saying, "In fact she's in it even more than she was in the first one". Well yes, a <u>version</u> of Hit-Girl is in <i>Kick-Ass 2</i>, but it's not quite the same thing. Hit-Girl was lightning in a bottle, and even with Chloe Moretz back, there's just no bringing back Hit-Girl as we knew here by simple virtue of the fact that she's too old now. The whole appeal of Hit-Girl was the transgressive, subversive image of a prepubescent girl swearing & killing people. But Moretz was 15 by the filming of <i>Kick-Ass 2</i>, and a 15-year-old girl swearing & killing people just doesn't have the same satirical bite as an 11-year-old girl swearing and killing people.<br />
<br />
But like Big Daddy, a valiant effort has been made to fill the void. Instead of recasting the role to keep her 11 (and let's face it, what're the odds that your going to find another 11-year-old with the same combination of fearlessness & talent as Chloe Moretz?) or, God forbid, trying to pretend that she hasn't gone through puberty since the last movie, they instead embrace the change and do as many new and interesting things with it as possible. Fully aware of the character's immense popularity, the writers have moved her up from supporting player to secondary protagonist, with nearly half the running time devoted to her own storyline independent of Kick-Ass's. Hit-Girl, rapidly growing into a Hit-Woman, decides to honor her guardian's wishes and at least make an attempt at social assimilation at school. What could've been a show-stopping bore is made interesting by Moretz's performance and clever writing. Watching a high school girl who is both much more and much less mature than her fellow students makes for an interesting dynamic, especially when we witness the mighty super-assassin utterly terrified at the obstacles of basic social interaction and her own long-denied sexual development. The whole thing plays out as a <i>Heathers</i>-esque high school dark comedy, and while it's not quite as fun to watch as the rest of the movie, it holds you're attention and doesn't feel out of place.<br />
<br />
But the real unexpected surprise is Christopher Mintz-Plasse as "The Mother Fucker". Not since Loki in <i>The Avengers</i> have I seen a villain who is such a perfect combination of pathetic and truly menacing. Choosing his blunt moniker after donning his dead mother's BDSM garb in the most understated joke of the movie, the former "Red Mist" from the first film goes on a chaotic revenge rampage in retaliation for Kick-Ass killing his mobster dad. The film derives endless humor from what an inept bastard the character is, especially a brilliant inversion of the most infamously misogynist scene of the book. But the character remains threatening as well for precisely the same reason: he's a bitter, out-of-control idiot with unlimited resources and an army of trained killers at his command. He's a loose cannon that can be alternately comical or terrifying, whatever the situation calls for.<br />
<br />
The main flaw the film has is occasional confusion of tones, especially at the end when it tries to sum up the movies themes only to immediately contradict itself. The writers sometimes try to make these movies "about" something other than a teenage power fantasy with a healthy dose of superheroic optimism, which rarely works out. But despite that, the movie is consistently entertaining, and more or less captures the same spirit as the original, making up for its shortcomings with unique strengths of its own. In a summer that has seemingly been a war between light-hearted fun (<i>Iron Man 3</i>, <i>Pacific Rim</i>, <i>The Fast & the Furious 6</i>) and cynical, convoluted downers (<i>Star Trek Into Darkness</i>, <i>Man of Steel</i>, <i>The Lone Ranger</i>), <i>Kick-Ass 2</i> is definitely on the side of the former.Joshua the Anarchisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14935756109060751464noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-665563271670508138.post-28724570008993679962013-08-08T19:13:00.000-04:002013-08-08T19:13:25.458-04:00Movie Review: Percy Jackson: Sea of Monsters<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/a9/Percy-Jackson-Sea-poster.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/a9/Percy-Jackson-Sea-poster.jpg" width="209" /></a></div>
<br />
<i>Percy Jackson & the Olympians: The Lightning Thief</i> was one of those movies I disliked for reasons I could never quite put my finger on. Oh, there were plenty of obvious things to dislike it for. It was uninspired and had no identity of its own outside of mimicking a trend, it was dull and unmemorable, the characters were flat and unengaging, etc. But in the sequel <i>Percy Jackson: Sea of Monsters</i>, which is basically everything bad about the first one cranked up to 11, it finally became obvious: Percy Jackson is basically racist Harry Potter.<br />
<br />
But not in the sense that Percy sits around talking about how Asians can't drive. I'm merely noticing that there is a recurring theme, however unintentional, of genetic privilege in the Percy Jackson movies. In Camp Half-Blood, the secret summer camp for the half human offspring of the Greek Pantheon around which the series revolves, who your parents are is all that defines you. Annabeth* is the smart one because she's Athena's daughter. Clarice is the tough one because she's Ares' daughter. And Percy is the hero because he's the one living son on one of the original three gods**, and there's a prophecy that says he's the hero. Because every screenwriter knows that if you can't give your protagonist a personality, you can always give them a destiny. I could not tell you the first thing about Percy as a person. I only even remember his name because it's in the title. The movie relies entirely on the prophecy and his genetic lineage for his identity and motivation. It's the worst possible use of Joseph Campbell's Hero's Journey. The movie begins with Percy afraid that he has no identity outside of being Poseidon's son and that all his victories have just been handed to him by fate, and by the end of the movie it seems the answer is "yes".<br />
<br />
And in the context of this movie, that leads to some unfortunate implications. Camp Half-blood isn't just home to demigods, there's also satyrs, centaurs, and other races from Greek mythology running around, all of whom are essentially second-class campers. Them receiving less attention or being considered less important would be at least a little understandable if all the demigods were possessed of superpowers, just to complete the X-men scorecard every Harry Potter wannabe needs. But thus far the only one we've seen demonstrate any special abilities is Percy. Satyrs and other lesser races seems to exist only to serve the demigods, as caretakers, protectors, etc. And this isn't there to set anything up, like Harry Potter did with the plight of house elves or the Death Eaters' crusade against mudbloods. The racial privilege of demigods over other magical races is just the plain old status quo that nobody ever questions***. In fact, more than anything it's played for laughs. Grover, the Ron Weasley of the series, pretty much exists to be humiliated at every turn to comic effect, and when combined with his rather stereotypical "black sidekick" persona, one can't help but raise an eyebrow. The only time any of this comes to a head is in the introduction of the camp's first half-cyclops camper. Annabeth has an immediate prejudice against him due to his heritage, that makes her incredibly unlikable and petty even after it's explained away. Sorry, but if a Klansmen told me a black guy killed a friend of his once, I wouldn't say "oh, well that's perfectly understandable, then."<br />
<br />
Of course, the fact that the movie has some troubling, presumably unintended undertones has nothing to do with whether or not it's a good movie in the end. Fortunately, Percy Jackson at least has the decency to be shit as well as super-elitist. Beyond the aforementioned vacuous protagonist and predestination-driven plot, the film is a complete mess. Characters come and go with no rhyme or reason. Several campers who join the main villain from the last movie are never given any introduction or even screen time before their betrayal, so when the characters ask "So-&-So? You betrayed us?" the audience can only ask "Who?". It's a lot of poorly set-up import for a bunch of characters who are never used as anything but mute henchmen. Another character, a macho satyr set up early on as Grover's rival in the same way Clarice is to Percy, disappears before Act 2 begins, and is later handwaved away as having died offscreen, making his entire existence pointless to the plot.<br />
<br />
What little strength the film has lies in its world building. The basic conceit of "Greek mythology reimagined in a modern setting" has some clever moments. Hermes (played by Nathan Fillion in the best performance of the movie) running a magic UPS store for the gods, the Gray Sisters as cab drivers for the damned (though the Fates might've been more appropriate), Circe deciding to create an amusement park (though we're never shown that part, unfortunately), Clarice getting a Civil War battleship crewed by zombies as transportation from Ares, that might've gone towards giving a better movie its own unique flavor. And though it's no Guillermo del Toro, there is a decent menageries of creatures on display, including a manticore, a steampunk mechanical bull with an impressive arsenal of weapons, and a hippocamp. It is marred, however, by the fact that despite the title, about 20 minutes of the movie actually take place at sea, during which there is precisely <u>one</u> monster.<br />
<br />
It truly is a tragic waste of potential that these films keep turning out so poorly, because there is fertile creative ground here. So much could've been done with the present themes of parental abandonment, search for identity, destiny vs. free will, etc. Why not have Percy's arc be all about distancing himself from his imposed destiny and absentee father, and inspiring his fellow demigods to do the same? That kind've thing was certainly hinted at earlier in the film, but tragically nobody cared enough to give it any real payoff. A young man discovering who he is beyond his father's son is a timeless story that could've been great if well-told, but unfortunately <i>Percy Jackson: Sea of Monsters</i> itself has no identity outside of its own father: Harry Potter.<br />
<br />
*I had to look up most of these names, BTW. Such was the impression the movie left on me. There's one character that accidentally calls Annabeth "Annabelle" and I was like "oh, I thought that WAS her name."<br />
<br />
**Which is bullshit, because Zeus and Poseidon were two of the biggest mansluts in Greek mythology, so the idea that they have no other living bastard children is ludicrous.<br />
<br />
***Except for Luke, the villain who it's becoming increasingly hard not to root for. Not only is he really the only well-rounded character in the entire cast, but his more-than-a-little legitimate grievances against the gods are never really considered or taken seriously by our heroes.Joshua the Anarchisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14935756109060751464noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-665563271670508138.post-87957509254094364422013-08-04T02:40:00.000-04:002013-08-04T14:59:20.117-04:00The Geek Chorus: 10 Things We Want to See in Pacific Rim 2So <i>Pacific Rim</i> is officially a hit. What's that? You didn't think <i>Pacific Rim</i> was a hit? You thought it had been mostly ignored, coming in third after a week old Dreamworks movie and a lazy Adam Sandler vehicle? Well, you're right, that sadly is the case...in America. The rest of a world is loving it though, so much that it became the number one box office earner in the world. After opening in China just this weekend, it broke box office records. And in an increasingly less America-centric economy where the question of "Will anyone in the US come to see this?" is becoming less and less important, being a hit everywhere <u>except</u> America may be enough for WB to go through with a sequel. Guillermo del Toro certainly seems optimistic, having already dropped hints on several plot details he has in mind. And being a massive nerd, I have a few of my own. So in no particular order, here are 10 things I'd like to see happen in <i>Pacific Rim 2</i>. Obviously, spoilers follow.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://24.media.tumblr.com/ffbc72cbf07eec5c965d71a5ad965bf5/tumblr_mpzsr081NO1rsnip8o1_1280.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="157" src="http://24.media.tumblr.com/ffbc72cbf07eec5c965d71a5ad965bf5/tumblr_mpzsr081NO1rsnip8o1_1280.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
<b>1. The consequences of Newt drifting with the Kaiju Hivemind</b><br />
The subplot of Newt and Herman drifting with a Kaiju is the best kind've sequel tease, in that it serves an actual function in the plot and leaves no gaping loose ends, but still has enormous potential to be expanded upon. These are now two characters who have a unique connection to the Kaiju. Was Otachi really after Newt specifically, or was that just speculation on Hannibal's part? Do they want him dead, or do they want to take him alive, & if so for what purpose? Assuming the Kaiju Masters are still around, is Herman now also a target? How have they been changed either mentally or physically by the experience? I could imagine this leading Newt particularly down a rather dark path. Seeing as he already has a vaguely disturbing fanboy obsession with the Kaiju, having one inside his brain could seriously mess with his head. I'd wouldn't be surprised to see both Newt & Herman figure in more centrally to future sequels because of this.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://www.empireonline.com/images/uploaded/pacific-rim-trailer-Stacker.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="177" src="http://www.empireonline.com/images/uploaded/pacific-rim-trailer-Stacker.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
<b>2. The consequences of the Jaeger program going rogue</b><br />
One minor quibble I did have with <i>Pacific Rim</i> upon repeated viewings was that the Jaeger program being decommissioned had little to no effect on the actual plot. We never get the feeling that they're running particularly low on resources, and apparently the world governments do not mind that they are acting without authorization, using equipment built with their money*. I'd like to see the fallout of the PPDC going rogue dealt with. Now that the Breach is sealed, will the Jaeger program still exist in any form? What about the failed Wall of Life? Surely people are still upset that their leaders were prepared to abandon them and leave them with an obviously useless defense. I'd like to see the early hints at social stratification given a little payoff. Are people still rioting? Are the rich and powerful still cowering in their safe zones? I was hoping to see an attacking Kaiju deliver a little poetic justice against those assholes, bypassing the pacific cities to go further inland and show them just how "safe" those safe zones are. After all, the Kaiju are taking orders from intelligent beings, it'd make sense for them to go straight for the leadership.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://img.gawkerassets.com/img/18uof2d4rrd91jpg/original.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="180" src="http://img.gawkerassets.com/img/18uof2d4rrd91jpg/original.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
<b>3. New Jaegers & Kaijus</b><br />
Guillermo has already said that we'll see "Gypsy 2.0" which is fine. Gypsy Danger is more or less the face of this budding franchise, so it makes sense to bring her back for Raleigh & Mako to pilot. But I don't want to see rebuilding old Jaegers to become a trend. I don't want Crimson Typhoon 2.0, Cherno Alpha 2.0, or Striker Eureka 2.0. Especially in Cherno's case, since being so old and outdated was part of the charm of that particular Jaeger. Those were all awesome robots, but a sequel should give us new things, not recycle old ones. I want to see new Jaeger designs with personalities all there own. I want new and interesting characters to pilot them. I want to see other pacific countries get Jaegers of their own. Given who's directing, I'm surprised we didn't get a Mexican Jaeger or even a Peruvian Jaeger (I know I saw a representative from Peru among those chewing out Stacker). Central or South American representation was surprisingly lacking this first time around, considering they'd be on the front lines of an invasion from the pacific.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20130709041925/pacificrim/images/5/5d/Naomi_Sokolov_Profile.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20130709041925/pacificrim/images/5/5d/Naomi_Sokolov_Profile.jpg" width="302" /></a></div>
<br />
<b>4. More variety in the characters</b><br />
A small nitpick, since comparatively <i>Pacific Rim</i> had a much more diverse cast than an average American blockbuster, but it could be better. Mako Mori was a great and rather unconventional female character, but she was also the <u>only</u> female character (excluding Sasha Kaidonovsky, who I'd really have like to see more of). The prequel comic <i>Tales from Year Zero</i> had a few lady characters to offer that I could see showing up in future sequels, such as Caitlin Lightcap or Naomi Sokolov. And with the exception of the half-Peruvian Tendo Choi, there is (once again surprising given who's directing) a noticeable lack of Hispanic people among the mostly Asian and European cast of characters.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://moonfirecharms.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/mako-mori-pacific-rim.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="http://moonfirecharms.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/mako-mori-pacific-rim.jpg" width="277" /></a></div>
<br />
<b>5. Mako getting a new hairdo</b><br />
I'll allow you to look puzzled by that odd-sounding request before explaining.<br />
<br />
Okay, now I'll explain. As you doubtless noticed, Mako has streaks of blue in her hair. The choice of blue is a rather interesting one for the costume department, and one I have a hard time believing wasn't intentional. Blue is by far the most significant color in <i>Pacific Rim</i>. Whenever it shows up, it typically means one thing: Kaijus. Their bodies glow with it, they bleed it, wherever they go, blue follows. But more than that, it means death and decay. It's the toxin they leave behind, the way they taint everything they touch. Even after the monster is gone, it leaves its venomous stench, corrupting and killing anything left behind. So I find it hard to believe the blue highlights in Mako's hair aren't representative of that. She survived her first encounter with a Kaiju, but it left her scared, tainted, poisoned if you will, by fear and hate. To see the highlights gone or replaced with a different color would be a great visual cue for her ongoing character development. And I do want it to go on. I want to see how Mako has grown since the ending of the first film, now that she's achieved her life's goal and no longer needs her mentor. I imagine she'll be far more confident and commanding, very much her father's daughter. I'd love to see her give a Stacker-esque speech at some point. I'm quite sure cancelling the apocalypse runs in the family.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://www.slate.com/content/dam/slate/blogs/browbeat/2011/09/29/hugo_chavez_caption_contest/Pacific_Rim_Rinko_Kikuchi_Idris_Elba.jpg.CROP.rectangle3-large.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="194" src="http://www.slate.com/content/dam/slate/blogs/browbeat/2011/09/29/hugo_chavez_caption_contest/Pacific_Rim_Rinko_Kikuchi_Idris_Elba.jpg.CROP.rectangle3-large.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
<b>6. "You can always find me in the Drift!"</b><br />
Speaking of Stacker, you might remember those as his last words to Mako before he died. A heartbreaking goodbye to be sure, but I can't help but wonder how literally he meant that. Obviously I don't wanna see Stacker brought back from the dead, that would completely negate the ending of his story. Stacker Pentecost went out like a boss, and that's how it should be. But I feel a <i>Pacific Rim</i> completely devoid of the Pentecost brand of awesome would be poorer for it. I could easily see him returning Ben Kenobi's ghost style, appearing to Mako during a neural handshake to offer counsel at a moment of uncertainty. It wouldn't actually be him, of course, just Mako's memory of him, or her concept of what he might have said. But any excuse to get Idris Elba back in this mother for a scene or two, I say.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://i.imgur.com/YKbyXA7.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="http://i.imgur.com/YKbyXA7.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
<b>7. A good Kaiju</b><br />
I admit it disappointed me a little that none of the Kaiju had quite as much character to them as the Jaegers this time around. Oh, they looked great, the designs were awesome, and the names they gave them certainly helped make them memorable. But none of them had much personality of their own, they were just mindless soldiers serving an unseen power. Maybe that's the problem, that they were mass-produced drones under someone else's control as opposed to being unique agents of chaos and random destruction born from man's hubris like the classic Kaijus: Godzilla, Rodan, etc.<br />
<br />
My point is that as cool as they were, I don't feel they'll have much longevity as individuals. I doubt anyone will be clamoring for the return of "Knifehead". A good way to make one of the Kaiju a memorable character? Introduce one as a good guy. The baby Kaiju raises interesting questions about what might've happened had it lived. Were they to capture a baby Kaiju alive, could they potentially raise & tame it, perhaps even train it to fight alongside the Jaegers? Imagine Gypsy playing fetch with a lovable Kaiju with the personality of a faithful dog. I know Newt would be all over that. At the very least the guy deserves a pet skin parasite or something.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://images.wikia.com/pacificrim/images/f/f6/Romeo_Blue_vs_Hardship_Sneakers.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="175" src="http://images.wikia.com/pacificrim/images/f/f6/Romeo_Blue_vs_Hardship_Sneakers.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
<b>8. More of the Kaiju culture</b><br />
Pacific Rim did a great job with world-building, giving up tantalizing glimpses of details of this future world that could very easily be expanded upon. You could probably build an entire movie just around Hannibal Chau and the entire premise of a "Kaiku Black Market". It'd be like <i>The Godfather</i>, but with giant monsters. And it raises so many questions. Since they've figured out so many different ways to use the consumption of Kaiju body parts, they must've gone through a lot of experimentation to arrive at that point. So what kind've things resulted from that? Surely a lot of those experiments when wrong. Are there human/kaiju hybrids running around, the unfortunate result of Chau's experimentation? What about that cult of people who worship the Kaijus from inside that hollowed-out skeleton? Do you think they ever make human sacrifices to the Kaijus? I could imagine some monks sitting and praying directly in the path of a rampaging Kaiju.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20130714033902/pacificrim/images/9/94/Kaiju_Masters.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="227" src="http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20130714033902/pacificrim/images/9/94/Kaiju_Masters.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<b><br /></b>
<b>9. More about the Kaiju masters</b><br />
This one is pretty much a given if there is indeed a sequel, but it's worth mentioning. For there to be anymore to the story, the mysterious other-dimensional conquerors that created the Kaijus with almost certainly be back in some form, and it would be nice to learn a bit more about them. Will any of our main characters ever meet one face to face? Will they personally visit Earth at any point? How many other planets have they invaded, or even other dimensions? All they all evil, or are there good factions within the race that oppose their colonialist actions? Do any of their Kaiju creations ever rebel? Are they the only factions out there with giant monsters at their command?<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://fc04.deviantart.net/fs71/i/2013/197/a/3/bro_fist_by_tigerchan61-d6dsqbt.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="240" src="http://fc04.deviantart.net/fs71/i/2013/197/a/3/bro_fist_by_tigerchan61-d6dsqbt.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
<b>10. A Power Rangers crossover</b><br />
Hey, if Guillermo can talk about a Godzilla crossover that will never happen in a million years, I'm allowed a ridiculous fanboy request too. After all, the now-in-young-adulthood Power Ranger generation likely comprised most of <i>Pacific Rim</i>'s American audience. So let's see the PPDC up against Rita Repulsa. Let's see Gypsy Danger and the Megazord cross swords before teaming up to punch some monsters. Who wouldn't want to see Staker Pentecost meet Zordon, or Kimberly Ann Hart (yes, I know her character's full name, what of it?) meet Mako Mori? You know that Alpha 5 interacting with with Newt and Herman would be a riot. Sure, the PPDC would be a little out of their league with the hand-to-hand stuff (though a sparing scene between Tommy & Raleigh would be a must). But seeing the Megazord brought to life by those glorious modern special effects would be worth the price of admission alone. Plus, it could make for a great setup for that Power Rangers movie Saban keeps saying they're gonna make.<br />
<br />
*I did notice on the 3rd or 4th viewing that the UN council said they'd still be funding their operations for the next month before cutting them off, meaning Stacker hasn't gone rogue exactly. My point still stands, though.Joshua the Anarchisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14935756109060751464noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-665563271670508138.post-53877101274564872662013-08-04T01:13:00.001-04:002013-08-04T01:13:30.335-04:00Bad News<span id="docs-internal-guid-61b8b3aa-47a5-bb55-dbce-e7599e9f7900"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Some of you may have noticed that there hasn’t been a new episode of </span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: italic; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">The Lunatic Fringe</span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> in a while. Or maybe you haven’t, since long waits between episodes are kind’ve my </span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: italic; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">modus operandi</span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> at this point. There’s a reason for that, and it’s simply that my editing software is fundamentally broken to the point of non functionally. For the past few videos since I got it, I've been soldiering on making do with what I had, but at some point I hit a brick wall. I simply cannot continue with the show in this way, which I why I must regrettably announce that </span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: italic; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">The Lunatic Fringe</span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> is officially on hiatus until further notice. </span></span><br />
<span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span></span>
<span><span style="vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="font-family: Arial;"><span style="font-size: 15px; white-space: pre-wrap;">This has not been a easy decision to come to. I thought I could work through this. I thought the days of tinkering and fiddling with long ago completed editing projects just to get them to some magical, arbitrary state when they finally decide to render would always be worth it just to have the finished product to show you all. And for a while it was. But with every project the process got harder and more frustrating. Every time I made a new video it took longer. I would frequently be reduced to tears and impotent rage from the stress, losing unhealthy amounts of sleep. And this last project I'd been working on, a take-down of </span><i style="font-size: 15px; white-space: pre-wrap;">Superman II</i><span style="font-size: 15px; white-space: pre-wrap;">, was the straw that broke the camel's back. After weeks of torturous effort, the thing simply will not render. I've tried every trick I know, consulted forums and tech friends, but eventually for my own health and sanity, I was forced to admit defeat. </span></span></span></span><br />
<span><span style="vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="font-family: Arial;"><span style="font-size: 15px; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span></span></span></span>
<span><span style="vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="font-family: Arial;"><span style="font-size: 15px; white-space: pre-wrap;">So what does this mean? Well, for one thing, the <i>Superman II</i> review is officially shelved. I'll try to take another crack at it in the future, but for now there's nothing more I can do with it. Secondly, until such time as I can find an editing software I can work with without losing my mind, I can no longer produce videos. <i>The Lunatic Fringe</i> is not dead, I fully intend to revive it once I'm operational again from the tech side of things. But for now, video production is definitely on hold. </span></span></span></span><br />
<span><span style="vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="font-family: Arial;"><span style="font-size: 15px; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span></span></span></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial;"><span style="font-size: 15px; white-space: pre-wrap;">But fortunately, that doesn't mean you won't hear from me. I will continue to bring you written reviews on new releases as always. And just because there's no<i> Lunatic Fringe</i> at the moment doesn't mean my head isn't full of things I need to say. So as a new outlet for that, I'm reviving an old column of mine: <i>The Geek Chorus</i>. Basically articles about whatever media related topic I have on my mind at the moment. Depending on their continuing relevance, some of these articles will likely still become <i>Lunatic Fringe</i> episodes once the show returns, it all depends on if I feel they bare repeating. Regardless, I hope you enjoy it.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial;"><span style="font-size: 15px; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial;"><span style="font-size: 15px; white-space: pre-wrap;">In conclusion, thank you for your continued support. There would be no motivation to bring the show back without you guys. I will bring <i>The Lunatic Fringe</i> back bigger and better than ever, and in the meantime I will do my best to keep you guys entertained. Joshua the Anarchist's adventures is Arkham will continue...</span></span>Joshua the Anarchisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14935756109060751464noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-665563271670508138.post-56422919848458905932013-07-27T17:18:00.002-04:002013-07-27T17:18:53.581-04:00Movie Review: The Wolverine<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://i2.cdnds.net/13/13/618x916/movies_the-wolverine-poster.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="http://i2.cdnds.net/13/13/618x916/movies_the-wolverine-poster.jpg" width="215" /></a></div>
<i><br /></i>
<i>The Wolverine</i> is a movie incredibly fortunate to have found itself in a position where it is essentially impossible to fail. Following as it does <i>X-Men Origins: Wolverine</i>, a film that was an embarrassing train wreck even for the chronically mediocre X-men film franchise, even just "pretty bad" would be seen as an improvement at this point. You see, <i>The Wolverine</i> kinda sucks. But it's the followup/reboot to a movie that <u>really</u> sucked, therefore "kinds sucks" still counts as a win.<br />
<br />
The film follows essentially the same curve of quality that this first X-men film did back in 2000, meaning it has a really strong first act, a decent second, and an abruptly awful third. It opens with a nearly beat for beat translation of the opening vignette from the comic miniseries from which the film is otherwise loosely adapted. It involves Wolverine avenging the death of a bear that was illegally poisoned by irresponsible hunters. Good stuff, but unfortunately after that we have to get back to the actual plot, which is far less interesting than it should've been.<br />
<br />
The script borrows the setting and characters from the original miniseries by Chris Claremont, but little else. The plot concerns an aging Japanese billionaire, Ichirō Yashida, who's life Wolverine saved from an atomic bomb back in WWII (how Wolverine remembers any of that remains unexplained, since it was very emphatically established in every previous movie that he remembers nothing before Weapon X). Nearing the end of his life, Yashida offers Wolverine a dubious "gift": transferring Wolverine's immortality granting healing abilities from him to Yashida, so Wolverine can finally die and Yashida can live forever. What makes Yashida think Wolverine is sick of living forever also remains unexplained, after all Wolverine doesn't even remember most of his 100+ years of existence. Also calling it a gift seems like a clever bit of spin-doctoring when it's pretty clear from any angle that Yashida's benefiting from this way more than Wolverine, even assuming he does want to die. Wolverine of course refuses this rather asinine "gift", but Yashida, being old and hard of hearing, apparently heard him wrong, because Wolverine wakes up the next morning to find his powers slowly slipping away. Yashida is also now mysteriously dead, leaving his vast fortune to his granddaughter Mariko, making her a target for many, including her own jealous and dangerous father. Wolverine elects to protect her, drawing him into a conspiracy involving ninjas, the Yakuza, and some snake woman we're told is the comic book villain Viper (once again having little relation to her literary source, presumably because Fox doesn't have the rights to HYDRA).<br />
<br />
The miniseries that inspired all this is notable for making a interesting character out of Wolverine, who was previously (and frequently since) a rather one-note brawler. It introduced Wolverine's fascination with the culture of Japan, and the samurai tradition that sprung from it. The samurai honor code gave Wolverine a purpose, and a way to contain his feral urges. He no longer had to be a mindless animal, her could now channel than into being a noble warrior instead. It's this struggle between his civilized and bestial natures that is the sources of just about any good Wolverine story.<br />
<br />
Tragically the film does nothing with the concept, paying only passing lip service to it. The "show, don't tell" rule is heavily abused, as we are repeatedly told that Wolverine is a "ronin", a samurai without a master, but none of his actions ever back that statement up. He shows no real interest in Japanese culture, seeming annoyed by their traditions more than anything. He doesn't even speak Japanese in this version. He never makes any attempt to act honorably or according to any Samurai ideals. The closest thing is in the beginning of the movie when he remorsefully promises Jean Grey, his lover who he killed in <i>X-Men: The Last Stand</i>, that he will never kill anyone again. That promise lasts for about 3 minutes of screen time, when he says "screw it" and tries to decapitate the first guy that pisses him off. After that, he spends the rest of the movie merrily dicing his way through dozens of combatants without even an ounce of restraint. This is for the fans, obviously, most of whom come to see Wolverine go kill crazy, ride motorcycles, and remain gruff and cigar-chomping-ly detached about everything. Because that's what badasses do, not give a crap about anything. Being emotionally engaged is for wimps.<br />
<br />
Besides failing miserably to motivate Wolverine to not kill everyone who gets within clawing range, Jean's ghost also serves as the barometer for Wolverine's "find something to live for" arc. Despite turning Yashida down, Wolverine apparently does want to die, because Jean's ghost keeps popping up to tell him he wants to die so he can be with her (once again, no regard for "show, don't tell"). By the end of the movie we know he's completed his arc because he tells Ghost Jean he's found a reason to live. What that reason is or how he found it, I couldn't tell you, but the movie insists he's found it.<br />
<br />
The plot is also needlessly convoluted and obfuscated. Sure, the original miniseries had it's share on mystery, backstabbing, and surprise twists, but at least character motivations were clearly established to give you something to latch onto. Wolverine leaves you in the dark for most of it's runtime. There are several factions at odds with each other with multiple characters connected to one another in a variety of ways. But most of it isn't revealed until after the climax, and in the meantime you're left watching a lot of meaningless action sequences that're impossible to get invested in. And by the time they start giving us answers the movie has already gone off the rails and become humiliatingly silly and stupid. I mean, it gets really, <u>really</u> dumb. It honestly starts feeling uncomfortably like a deleted scene from <i>X-Men Origins</i>: Cheap-looking CGI, nonsensical plot developments, and laughable execution. The only thing that prevents it from having the worse payoff to a mystery in a movie this year is the fact that <i>Star Trek Into Darkness</i> came out.<br />
<br />
<i>The Wolverine</i> is not without merit. Hugh Jackman continues to make for a charismatic action star. The opening scenes, as I said, are strong, with good atmosphere and pacing. And if you've shown up to see Wolverine fight ninjas, you'll definitely get that. But it's not something you can really call anywhere near "good". I'm once again left with the unshakable feeling that the only director who ever really cared about this franchise was Matthew Vaughn. I know we've been harping on this for 13 years now but: COSTUMES. What kind've madness is it that Hugh Jackman has been playing a superhero for six movies now and has yet to actually wear a costume? You want to get me excited about a Wolverine movie? Bring out the yellow spandex, then we'll talk.Joshua the Anarchisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14935756109060751464noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-665563271670508138.post-45728541000249299462013-07-13T02:33:00.002-04:002013-07-13T02:33:31.869-04:00Movie Review: Pacific Rim<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/f3/Pacific_Rim_FilmPoster.jpeg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/f3/Pacific_Rim_FilmPoster.jpeg" width="216" /></a></div>
<br />
I did not realize how badly I needed this.<br />
<br />
I have been looking forward to <i>Pacific Rim</i> ever since it was first announced. An American take on Japanese kaiju movies and mecha sci-fi directed by monster lover Guillermo del Toro? I was sold three times over before a single piece of advertising was released. So I knew I would enjoy it. I knew I <u>wanted</u> to see it. But I didn't know just how much I <u>needed</u> to see it.<br />
<br />
Summer movies have become increasingly hard to enjoy of late, for the simple reason that they've begun taking themselves far too seriously. They've developed the mindset of sulky teen whose mistaken pessimism for realism*. They've developed ambitions of something far different than mere entertainment, to the point that they seem to think entertainment beneath them somehow. Pretentiously long running times, twist-filled scripts trying to be far too clever for their own good, modern cinematography's unhealthy preoccupation with grit and realism, etc. It's as if the industry has forgotten that the whole point of the summer movie season was always to just have fun.<br />
<br />
Guillermo del Toro has not forgotten.<br />
<br />
And that is not meant to imply that <i>Pacific Rim</i> is so-called "dumb fun", like the recent surprise hit <i>Sharknado</i>. The whole problem with this era of summer moviemaking is the failure to recognize that fun and intelligence are not irreconcilable opposites. Pacific Rim is old school storytelling in the finest tradition of action/adventure film going all the way back to the genesis of the blockbuster in <i>Star Wars</i>. The story is both vital and unassuming, a solid foundation that makes the film function on an emotional level while calling very little attention to itself. There's none of that JJ Abrams nonsense of scribbling a needlessly convoluted plot that adds nothing to the experience except allowing the writer to show off.<br />
<br />
The central conceit of the film is brilliantly simple yet provides great opportunities for character interaction. The giant war machines known as Jaegers, necessary tools in the human race's war again an interdimensional invasion of colossal creatures called Kaiju, are controlled through directly interfacing with the brains of their human pilots. But the strain is to much for any one man to handle thus necessitating two people to literally join minds in order to control the Jaeger. Naturally such an intimate connection requires two people who are exceptional close and in sync with each other emotionally. Our first protagonist, Raleigh Beckett, once piloted a Jaeger with his brother, who was killed in combat with the Kaiju. Naturally he's reluctant to return to the cockpit, but changes him mind when he feels a strong connection to a rookie pilot named Mako Mori. It not hard to see where things are going, we're all familiar with the tried and true "mismatched duo must learn to work together" arc. But in a pleasant surprise they manage to do this without making both of them act like assholes. Too often with stories like this, the central conflict does not come from character differences, but from both parties simply hating each other and bickering the whole movie. By the end they're usually still bickering, but since they had that one kinda personal moment in one scene, now we're meant to understand that it's some twisted version of friendship. But Raleigh and Mako connect immediately and form a friendship that carries them through the film as feels genuine**. The only real character conflict comes from the untested Mako, one of the best female protagonists I've seen in recent sci-fi, who must prove her worthiness more to herself than anyone else.<br />
<br />
The film is well cast, and the actors really embody their characters beautifully. Charlie Hunnam manages to give Raleigh a tough edge without turning him into the stereotypically prickish image of "badass". Rinko Kikuchi's Mako is vulnerable but courageous. Charlie Day & Burn Gorman have surprisingly good chemistry as the comic relief duo. And of course Ron Perlman's small role as black marketeer Hannibal Chau is a scene-stealer. But the MVP who really runs away with the movie is Idris Elba as Raleigh & Mako's commanding officer Stacker Pentecost. Without saying a word, he conveys with every move, every expression, and every gesture the intense pressure his character is under as a leader. You can literally feel the weight of the world on his shoulders. His screen presence is potently commanding, and unlike other authority figures in fiction, he is neither a close-minded obstacle for the heroes to defy, nor an all-knowing Mary Sue/exposition machine. His actions are perfectly formed around a character that feels like a real human being, flawed but noble and the very definition of a hero.<br />
<br />
In fact, that's another rare thing this film has to offer: <u>heroes</u>. In an year so cynical that not even Superman, Captain Kirk, or the Lone Ranger can offer unambiguously admirable heroism anymore, Pacific Rim offers an infectiously childlike sense of optimism that is badly needed. This film has the simple but uplifting theme of humanity being at its best in the face of destruction, the indomitable power of the human spirit. Gone is the petty nationalism of many American action films, replaced with a tone of global cooperation and unity. The Jaeger pilots come from all over the world, a rainbow of colorful characters joining together for a common cause. Even the obligatory "jerk" character is ultimately noble and heroic.<br />
<br />
And though it should go without saying, the action set pieces are astounding. The grandiose scale of the Jaeger vs Kaiju fights is utterly rapturous. In stark contrast to the grime & grit aesthetic of the typical modern action movie, <i>Pacific Rim</i>'s imagery is full of color and clarity. The often overused shakey cam technique is used only inside the Jaeger cockpits, where it makes sense for increasing the feeling of immersion. The Jaegers themselves are shown crystal clear, and del Toro creatively maintains the immense sense of scale without becoming overly reliant on low-angle shots.<br />
<br />
I cannot emphasize enough what a breath of fresh air <i>Pacific Rim</i> was to view. The film is so entertaining on such a basic human level I cannot imagine anyone not enjoying it. Don't be fooled, this is not just some nitsch film for the Power Ranger generation, Godzilla fans and otakus. This is by far the best film of the summer and one of the greatest quintessential blockbusters of all time. If you have kids, you owe it to them to take them to see this. Tell others to do the same, and if the don't have kids, tell them to go anyway. There are only a handful of films out there than can tap into your inner child like <i>Pacific Rim</i> can. Don't pass it up.<br />
<br />
*That a line from <i>Flex Mentallo</i>. Look it up, it's awesome.<br />
<br />
**Bonus points for not turning Raleigh & Mako into a romantic couple just to have a superfluous love story.Joshua the Anarchisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14935756109060751464noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-665563271670508138.post-13693450068497338662013-06-15T15:15:00.000-04:002013-06-15T15:16:09.305-04:00Movie Review: Man of Steel<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/8/85/ManofSteelFinalPoster.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/8/85/ManofSteelFinalPoster.jpg" width="216" /></a></div>
<br />
Let me explain a little something about Superman and me, so you know where I'm coming from. To me, Superman is more than just a story. It's an ideal. It's a way of life. It's a family tradition. My father, who himself grew up in Kansas where he jumped off roofs in a homemade red cape, introduced me to the character through the 1950's <i>Adventures of Superman</i> show and the Fleischer animated shorts. George Reeves is and will always be Superman to me. Grant Morrison's <i>All-Star Superman</i> is my favorite comic of all time and pretty much the definitive Superman story. The character and his universe have been a source of inspiration and comfort since I was very young. You Batman fans can have that self-absorbed little psycho-bitch, me and the Boy in Blue are busy flying.<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
So it's safe to say I hold anything Superman-related to a pretty high standard. No existing Superman movie to date has quite satisfied me yet, though the first film in 1978 version came the closest. But at the same time I don't go looking for problems. The last thing I was is to dislike something Superman-related. So while I do demand quite a lot from Superman, I also try to keep an open mind about change. It took me a while to get used too, but I actually grew to love Grant Morrison's* recent reimagining of the character in the pages of <i>Action Comics</i> (I would've actually preferred the T-shirt & jeans costume from that comic over the color-muted number he wears in this film, honestly).<br />
<br />
The point being that there is nothing I wanted more than to love this film. I desperately wanted to love it. For the last few weeks little else ha been on my mind. I've literally had nightmares, as sad as that is, about it. I've been so afraid that the film would disappoint, either by some fault of its own or by my own obsessive fanboy hangups. I went in with as open a mind as I could muster. I was ready to forgive the film for quite a bit. Whatever changes they wanted to make, however the wanted to play it, and long as it stayed true to the basic spirit of Superman, I was onboard for whatever they had in store.<br />
<br />
And what they had in store was amazing. Damn near perfect actually...for the first hour or so. The first two acts are so close to what I've always wanted out of a Superman film I was repeatedly moved to tears. A lot of this is thanks to the perfectly cast Henry Cavill, easily the best Superman since George Reeves (yeah, I said it), but most of the real tear-jerker moments were due to Kevin Costner, easily the best Jonathan Kent ever onscreen. His performance is so effortless and yet so sincere and moving. His protectiveness towards his family, his basic decency, his quiet acceptance, every scene with him is so heartfelt you can't help but feel involved.<br />
<br />
The first flying sequence is worth the price of admission all on it's own. The scope and sense of wonder it evokes is overwhelming as Superman rockets across across the globe, through the clouds, and into space, grinning all the while. Because how can you not have fun when you're Superman? I caught myself unconsciously whispering "make me believe, make me believe" in a disturbingly erotic fashion that I'm sure was very uncomfortable for those sitting next to me. Zack Snyder's always demonstrated considerable skill as a cinematic visual artist, but this trumps all of his previous work. Every scene is so grand in scale it boggles the mind. If the goal of this film was to convey the awe-inspiring majesty of Superman and his world, then mission more than accomplished.<br />
<br />
But once Zod and his crew show up, things start slowly growing less involving. Which is a shame, because Michael Shannon is great in the role, intense, menacing, and far more three-dimensional than the classic Terence Stamp version. So it's a shame his arrival has to mark a turn for the worse. It's not an immediate turn; it's very gradual and it doesn't kill the movie, it just doesn't live up to the promise of the first half.<br />
<br />
The basic problem with it comes down to emotional engagement. As I said, the first half of the film is very emotionally engaging, because the film is so focused on the characters and their personal struggles. The later half, however, demands you distance yourself from the characters. The reason for this is simple: it wants to have fun smashing stuff. And there's nothing inherently wrong with that. I often enjoy watching Superman smash stuff. This movie was sold on the promise of Superman smashing stuff. We haven't really had the opportunity to see Superman in an all-out fight in more the twenty years, and the promise of Superman-scale fighting is a titillating one.<br />
<br />
So the fact that Superman smashes stuff isn't the issue. The issue is that they got so focused on Superman smashing stuff, they neglected the larger implications of Superman smashing stuff. The film has two major battlefields in which Superman engages Zod's men: Smallville and Metropolis. Both of which are filled with people, and both of which are so thoroughly decimated than it's impossible to buy that at minimum dozens and likely thousands of people were not killed in the ensuing carnage. But the film consistently ignores the very real tragedy in favor focusing on just making Superman punching stuff look really cool. Sure, there's a handful of moments where he stops to catch someone falling, but they're few and far between, and thus feel very token. It's like they knew they had to show Superman saving people, but they were really reluctant about doing so. Superman makes no real effort to move the fight away from the city, it's a while before anyone tries evacuating the area, and even then there's always plenty of people waiting around to flee from falling debris.<br />
<br />
Even once the fighting is over no one really takes a moment to mourn. The upbeat tone of the ending pretty much confirms that we're just meant to forget the horrific implications of what we just witnessed. So because the last act demands that you not think about it too hard in order to enjoy it as intended, it lacks the personal feel of the first two acts and feels more more cold and emotionally distant.<br />
<br />
It's disappointing because the film would've been so much more amazing if they'd just had the courage to go there. I've never really held to the idea that Superman stories have to always be bright and sunny and light-hearted. I'm fine with you going dark places with the character on occasion as long as he himself remains the hopeful, inspiring figure I know and love. Imagine if throughout the battle we'd actually seen all those people dying. Imagine Superman rushing around trying to fend off Zod whilst saving people from falling debris, but repeatedly failing. Imagine him getting more and more desperate to end the fight before more people die. Imagine the weight that would carry. Imagine how perfectly that would build up to those moments during the fight where Superman is forced to do some pretty dark stuff (which I'll try not to spoil). Imagine the potential ways a sequel could capitalize on that. Superman actually did do something similar to the way he ends the fight once in the comics, and he was so distraught and guilt-ridden, he exiled himself into space over it. I appreciate that Superman seems remorseful in the moment, but it has no real impact when it's completely forgotten the next scene.<br />
<br />
Like I said, none of this ruins the movie. They never quite cross the line of how far Superman should be allowed to go. But they do walk right up to the line and teeter there teasingly for the rest of the movie. I imagine it will play better the second time around now that I know exactly how far they mean to take things. There are other things wrong with the movie of course, most of the supporting cast are given next to nothing to work with, and there's one clunky Macguffin that adds nothing and is maddeningly unclear as to its purpose. But a overall fantastic cast and Zack Snyder's direction overcome what is all in all a pretty weak script, and make this easily the best Superman film since the 1978 classic. It's a fantastic experience with just enough flaws to make me excited to see how a sequel improves on them. <br />
<br />
*Can you tell I like Grant Morrison? I really like Grant Morrison. Joshua the Anarchisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14935756109060751464noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-665563271670508138.post-13593947014609291602013-06-01T15:15:00.000-04:002013-06-01T15:15:10.773-04:00Movie Review: After Earth<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/5/5b/After_Earth_Poster.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/5/5b/After_Earth_Poster.jpg" width="216" /></a></div>
<br />
Is it too late for M. Night Shyamalan? Has he finally reached a point in his career where there is simply nothing he can do to redeem himself? The man is still a very talented filmmaker and always has been, but has his rampant unchecked ego causes irreparable damage to his reputation, so much so that even when we does good work people will still hate it simply because his name is on it?<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
I ask this question because <i>After Earth</i> is easily the first film Shyamalan has made in more than a decade that genuinely works. It's not a masterpiece, but as an old school slice of science fiction, it's a solid B- effort. Shyamalan mostly avoids the trap of trying to be needlessly clever with the narrative that he so often falls into (meaning no, there's not some big twist at the end), Jaden Smith gives a decent if a tad forced & child actor-y performance, Will Smith is refreshingly restrained for a change, the pacing is good and there's some effective tension. Overall it's a perfectly serviceable father-son drama/wilderness survival suspense-thriller. Yet the response has been overwhelmingly negative thus far.<br />
<br />
To be fair, it's easy to see why everyone was preemptively down on <i>After Earth</i> before release. Shyamalan was spent the better part of his career doing his best to alienate audiences with his vanity-driven films with embarrassingly pleased-with-themselves narratives and laughable execution. The man really has no one to blame but himself for his fall from public favor.<br />
<br />
It's also hard to ignore the other infamous ego in the room. While liked more often than not. Will Smith has also had more than his share of questionable career choices and is well known for demanding creative control on everything he appears in, and generally displaying a rather inflated opinion of himself. Not a entirely undeserved opinion, exceptionally talented people have earned the right to pat themselves on the back a little bit. But it does tend to grate of the nerves of outside observers from time to time. <br />
<br />
So when you combine these two personalities people often find annoyingly smug with the fact that the project stars the kid of one of said personalities, it's not hard to see why people were expecting another trainwreck vanity project. And with regards to the latter part they were not entirely wrong. The story is courtesy of Will Smith who hasn't exactly written himself into the humblest of roles: Space warrior and Ex-<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Youngblood_%28comics%29" target="_blank">Youngblood</a> member Cypher Raige, utterly fearless monster-slayer of the future who must train his son (played of course by Smith's real life son Jaden) to become an equally fearless monster-slayer. But outside from that nothing about the movie seems unduly pleased with itself, and if you ignore, or have somehow remained unaware of, the parties involved and their histories, it's unlikely to bother you.<br />
<br />
There have also been rumors that the film is some kind've Scientology metaphor in the vein of <i>Battlefield Earth</i>. This suspicion was reinforced by the vaguely pretentious theme of the film that doubles as its tagline "danger is real, fear is a choice." Knowing little about Scientology I couldn't possibly guess whether that actually resembles any of their church's beliefs. But given the infamous failure of <i>Battlefield Earth</i> and most people's negative gut reaction to anything involving movie stars and Scientology, it's no surprise this might elicit some sneers. But it's worth pointing out the Smith has merely studied Scientology & does not actually practice it, and besides that, whether or not you agree with whatever message or ideas a film conveys has nothing to do with that film's actual quality. Just because <i>Birth of a Nation</i> is one of the most racist things ever put to film doesn't make it bad, it just makes it a good racist movie, as hard as that is to accept. Personally the notion that <i>After Earth</i> is putting forth sounds like complete bullshit to me, I'm reasonably certain fear is an instinct which is sometimes our best tool for determining danger, especially in survival situations, but that doesn't mean the film is bad for disagreeing with me.<br />
<br />
If you've yet to see <i>After Earth</i> I urge you to approach it with an open mind. It's not quite the career redemption I keep praying we'll eventually get from Shyamalan, but it's a well-made, frequently engaging sci-fi flick that really is worth your time. Joshua the Anarchisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14935756109060751464noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-665563271670508138.post-45116420277001638222013-05-18T12:31:00.001-04:002013-05-18T12:31:15.000-04:00The Lunatic Fringe: Jurassic Park & When Kid's Movies Had Teeth<iframe src="http://blip.tv/play/g8Ekg5KWQQA.x?p=1" width="500" height="309" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe><embed type="application/x-shockwave-flash" src="http://a.blip.tv/api.swf#g8Ekg5KWQQA" style="display:none"></embed>
<br />
<br />
Remember back when kid's movies had some of the scariest moments in film history? Whatever happened to that?Joshua the Anarchisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14935756109060751464noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-665563271670508138.post-1920253447034639582013-05-16T05:07:00.000-04:002013-05-16T05:10:58.980-04:00Spoileriffic Movie Review: Star Trek Into Darkness<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/5/50/StarTrekIntoDarkness_FinalUSPoster.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/5/50/StarTrekIntoDarkness_FinalUSPoster.jpg" width="216" /></a></div>
<br />
<b>WARNING</b>: <i>Having enjoyed the freedom offered last time by ditching all attempts to remain vague, I am again packing a review with plot spoiling material. Leave the mystery boxes to JJ Abrams. Though seeing as this is JJ Abrams, you should by now that this movie has no secrets worth keeping. I leave it to your discretion</i><br />
<a name='more'></a><i> </i><br />
I would like to begin with the customary mention of JJ Abrams' excessive use of lens flare tequniques.<br />
<br />
...that was it.<br />
<br />
At this point I am convinced that JJ Abrams is the single greatest threat to good filmmaking today. The usual reaction to a statement like that is for people to rush and defend him by pointing out how "not bad" his handful of films are. The repeated use of the phrase "not bad" is really all I need to illustrate my point. Certainly there are many who genuinely love the man's work, but the general consensus towards most of what he puts up tends to be "eh, it's okay". What's more, people tend to be surprisingly defensive about how "okay" his films are, and therein lies the hidden threat of JJ Abrams. He's just good enough to attract brand loyalty, but not good enough to upset the balance. He's every investor's dream come true: a director competent enough to consistently make slick-looking, perfunctorily entertaining hits, but with none of that pesky artistic vision to get in the way of market-tested, focus group-approved movie-making.<br />
<br />
I could go on at length about Abrams' many
shortcomings. The half-formed idea that is his beloved "mystery box" is
always a favorite. But foremost in my mind is his gift for
detail-oriented mimicry that is crippled by his surface level
comprehension of what he mimics. To contrast, Quentin Tarantino also
enjoys paying to homage to old movies he likes, but he demonstrates an
innate understanding of how & why those movies work, and mixes and
matches them to create a style all his own. Abrams, meanwhile, can only
recreate, adding nothing of substance to make the endeavor worthwhile. <i>Super 8</i> was supposed to be his big career thesis statement, and the best he could come up with was a big budget <i>E.T.</i> fan film. <br />
And his repeated success scared the everliving Christ out of me. Disney has taken some daring and bold risks in recent years: hiring a strictly cult TV producer whose one theatrical film bombed to direct <i>The Avengers</i>? HUGE risk, one that payed off big time. But what happens when one of those risks <u>don't</u> pay off? They've already handed the reigns of <i>Star Wars</i> to Abrams over far more exciting choices. What happens if they decide to minimize their risk and replace Joss Whedon, unpredictable visionary that he is? Might they instead put the future of the Marvel Universe in the hands of someone more obedient & by-the-book? I shudder to think. Abrams is a threat because he just good enough to make people "okay" with him. He encourages people to settle. Sure he'll never blow your minds, but he'll never disappoint you either. Isn't that more comforting than some strange, unfamiliar artistic type who's creative vision might be *GASP* <u>different</u> from yours?<br />
<br />
Case in point: <i>Star Trek Into Darkness</i>. Passable. Wrote. Mediocre. <u>Safe</u>. Like all of Abrams' films it neither offends nor engages, merely occupies two hours of your time. Time that might've been better spent on something you might actually remember the next day. Instead of the usual breakdown and analysis, I've decided to arrange my thoughts in list form. Why? Because Abrams films don't put me in the mood to try. <br />
<br />
<b>Things I liked</b>:<br />
1. The score.<br />
2. The warp speed effects.<br />
3. The <i>Enterprise</i> rising out of the sea.<br />
4. The fact that one of the ships is called the <i>USS Bradbury</i>.<br />
5. Sulu taking the bridge. Way better character moment than that stupid bit from the first one where fencing=ninja. Sulu was my favorite TOS supporting character & I always wanted to see him in the chair.<br />
6. Zachary Quinto.<br />
7. The fact that Uhura continues to have far more personality and agency than she had in TOS.<br />
8. Uhura speaking Klingon. Great rebuttal to that rather lame joke from <i>Star Trek VI</i>.<br />
9. Simon Pegg<br />
10. What I think was supposed to be an android on the bridge.<br />
11. Kirk getting worn out trying to beat up Khan.<br />
12. The Klingons finally getting some face time. <br />
13. Alice Eve in lingerie. I'm a pig, I admit it. <br />
<br />
<b>Things I loathed</b>:<br />
1. The lens flares, but that goes without saying.<br />
2. Chris Pine's acting.<br />
3. Chris Pine's "Dude Bro" attitude.<br />
4. Chris Pine's classless version of a ladies' man.<br />
5. Chris Pine playing Beastie Boys <u>again</u>. <br />
6. Chris Pine's dorm room catgirl threesome.<br />
7. Chris Pine's stupid hair.<br />
8. Chris Pine's stupid face.<br />
9. Fuck it, basically everything about Chris Pine.<br />
10. Karl Urban & Anton Yelchin, normally good actors, giving fake, exaggerated impressions of Bones & Chekov.<br />
11. The fact that Peter Weller, Benedict Cumberbatch, & Alice Eve are utterly wasted.<br />
12. The fact that one of the ships is called the <i>USS Vengeance</i>. <br />
13. The fact that Alice Eve in lingerie is so lazily forced in that I feel even dirtier than usual.<br />
14. The fact that Starfleet apparently has a mobile planet-to-planet transporter than they never use.<br />
15. The fact that the two highest paid writers in Hollywood
are so amateur at their jobs they actually resort to the old line "as
you know...".<br />
16. The fact that they give that line to Leonard Nimoy.<br />
17. The fact that Leonard Nimoy is in it. Once is passing the torch, twice is pointless and pandering.<br />
18. The fact that Khan is in it*. <br />
19. The fact that Spock is called upon to lose his cool and act emotional so often than it becomes the norm and loses all impact.<br />
20. The fact that the writers have a really good moment going during the death scene where Kirk asks Spock how he chooses not to feel, but then they have no idea where to go with it, the train of thought peters out and they go back to recycling lines from <i>Wrath of Khan</i>.<br />
21. KHAAAAAN!!!<br />
22. Dead tribble. <br />
23. The fact that the climax is a foot chase.<br />
24. The fact that the tension of said foot chase relies entirely on the need for Khan's blood, when they have 72 people on board with the same blood already. I usually discourage nitpicking plotholes, but <i>think</i> about your movie for five seconds!<br />
25. The fact that Kirk doesn't stay dead**.<br />
26. The fact that Kirk doesn't STAY DEAD***.<br />
27. THE FACT THAT KIRK DOESN'T STAY DEAD****.<br />
28. The fact that this supposed successor to one of the most influential and thought-provoking science fiction franchises of all time still has no interest in exploration and no ambition beyond superficial coolness.<br />
<br />
I want leave you with a quote from that great American, Lex Luthor: "I would rather fail spectacularly than succeed minimally." True art is risky, my friends. It takes commitment, it takes courage, and it doesn't always work out. But one thing is still true: it's always better than playing it safe. You may get a great movie, you may get an awful one, but one way or another, it'll be a memorable experience. More than being annoying, offensive, or painful, the greatest sin a film can commit is to leave no impression at all. JJ Abrams is inviting you to splash around in the shallow end of the pool, where it's safe and secure. But you've been there before. Dive headfirst into the deep end, and whether you sink or swim, you'll never be bored again. <br />
<br />
*And not because he's not played by Ricardo Montalbán. Khan is a rare gem among classic cinema villains in that he's mostly avoided overexposure. Other characters with his level of popularity (Darth Vader, Hannibal Lecter, the Wicked Witch) have long since been mined for all they're worth with sequels, prequels, remakes, spinoffs, etc. But Khan still felt special, felt pure because there was so much less of him. The one movie, the one TOS episode, that was it. But now that's all ruined. And for nothing, since Abrams' ill-advised insistence on secrecy removed any marketing value the character would've provided. <br />
**Because I hate him. <br />
***Because it renders his death pointless. <br />
****Because it defeats what little character arc he had.Joshua the Anarchisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14935756109060751464noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-665563271670508138.post-86609080682477590972013-05-07T03:50:00.002-04:002013-05-07T04:23:18.163-04:00Spoilerrific Movie Review: Iron Man 3<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/d5/Iron_Man_3_theatrical_poster.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/d5/Iron_Man_3_theatrical_poster.jpg" width="216" /></a></div>
<br />
<b>WARNING</b>: <i>This review is loaded with spoilers. If you have not seen </i>Iron Man 3<i> yet, <u>do not read it</u>. Seriously, you don't wanna read this. I had the movie spoiled for me and it suuuucked. Don't be like me. Stop reading this and get to the theater before some other asshole ruins it for you. Now. Go. Immediately.</i><br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
So by now most of you probably have had a chance to see <i>Iron Man 3</i>. Which is good, because I don't want to just beat around the bush for four paragraphs and end up saying little more than "it's really good, but I can't be too specific on why". For me, reviews aren't about recommending or not recommending a film. They're for film discussion, for contextualizing and hearing different viewpoints on a movie you've just seen. So with that in mind, let's talk about what we all saw this weekend (unless you're in Europe or Asia, in which case you saw it weeks ago, so lucky you).<br />
<br />
One of the things I love about Marvel studio's films is the fact that they somehow manage to deliver superhero films that are groundbreaking in their faithfulness to their source material in look and tone, while still allowing their directors the creative freedom to make the films their own. <i>The Avengers</i> is unmistakably a Joss Whedon film. <i>Captain America</i> is unmistakably a Joe Johnston film. <i>Thor</i> is unmistakably...half a Kenneth Branagh film. And in that fine tradition of creative tightrope walking, <i>Iron Man 3</i> is unmistakably a Shane Black film. Christmas setting, neo-noir elements, snappy banter, black comedy, he's completely in his element, and it's glorious to behold. <br />
<br />
<i>Iron Man 3</i> has already proved rather polarizing, and for good reason: It lied to you. Brazenly so. I'm a little surprised no one's tried suing for false advertising yet. I've certainly heard dumber reasons to sue a movie. But that is one of the film's greatest strengths. <i>Iron Man 3</i> has given us a rare of example of using the advertising campaign to deliberately set up false expectations, making this film's impact stronger as a result. The film advertised was essentially Iron Man's<i> The Dark Knight</i>, a brooding, gritty tale of a hero being brought low by a mysterious, chaotic villain. What we got was very different. Certainly our hero was indeed brought low only to rise from the ashes reborn. But the tone was far from oppressively dark, and our grand villain, a long awaited fan favorite character finally brought to the big screen, was not the Joker-esque mastermind we were promised. He was in fact a fraud, a fake, a red herring to distract us from the real enemy. <br />
<br />
Naturally this has many Iron Man fans upset. We've become used to Marvel studios bringing us astoundingly accurate translations of comic book characters and stories, far more so than most other studios dare. So such a major deviation from the source material now seems a bit out of left field. But this was absolutely the right move, and it explain why, we need to examine the roots of the character in question: The Mandarin.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://static.comicvine.com/uploads/original/11/115365/2934167-mandarin_iron_man_animated_series.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="240" src="http://static.comicvine.com/uploads/original/11/115365/2934167-mandarin_iron_man_animated_series.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
It was commonly understood that the Mandarin was always going to be a little difficult to adapt for the very simple reason that the idea of the character was hopelessly archaic. The Mandarin was a product of the communist paranoia that so plagued our culture during the Cold War, a Fu Manchu meant to represent the threat of Communist China. Obviously the Cold War is long over and the Yellow Peril stereotype is no longer considered acceptable, and rightly so, not just for the business reasons of economic reliance on China, but because it's, you know...incredibly racist. Nontheless, the Mandarin is Iron Man's most well known and enduring nemesis, so it was inevitable that he would have to turn up at some point. But how to go about it?<br />
<br />
I imagine Shane Black and his writing team approached the problem like this: What was the Mandarin? Or rather, what was the Cold War era communist villain archetype he represented? A Bogeyman. A face to hate. A contextualization to fears too big to process. Fear of the unknown, of the uncontrollable. Back when the Mandarin was first created, our Bogeyman was communists. Who is our Bogeyman today? <br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://www.biography.com/imported/images/Biography/Images/Profiles/B/Osama-bin-Laden-37172-2-raw.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="225" src="http://www.biography.com/imported/images/Biography/Images/Profiles/B/Osama-bin-Laden-37172-2-raw.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
...Yeah. So much did one man terrify the world with his one great atrocity, that ever since we react with hostility to anything that even reminds us of him. In the 50's you could be labeled a security risk by the government if they even suspected you of being communist. Now you can be labeled a security risk for being Muslim or of Middle Eastern decent. We protest the building of Mosque's. We get nervous aboard airlines if one of our fellow passengers happens to be wearing a turban.<br />
<br />
So we've established who our Bogeymen are, and were. And there's one important thing about Bogeymen: They aren't real. Not that there's no threat, simply that the great terror we've built up in our minds is the product of irrational fears, an entity unto itself wholly separate from anything in the real world. Human beings are a panicky, reactionary lot. When something scares us, we need to put a face to it. We need to simplify it in our minds, whether the actual situation is simple or not. We don't like the idea of a enemy we can't recognize, so we find it simpler to assume everyone who fits a simple set of criteria is the enemy.<br />
<br />
And that's the genius of Shane Black's Mandarin. He took this Bogeyman, this product of paranoia, and showed it for what it was. He updated the image, made it resemble a more recognizable present fear. Then he took the mask off and showed us what we were afraid of all this time doesn't really exist. "We create our own demons" as the film reminds us. <br />
<br />
I know this is small comfort to many of you. You were hoping to see a beloved character you've been following for decades brought to the big screen, and instead you got a lecture. Believe me, I know. The Mandarin was one of the first super villains I was exposed to, back when I used to watch Iron Man on <i>The Marvel Action Hour</i> when I was a kid. So I feel your pain. But understand that what you want would never have worked. Like it or not, the Mandarin is hopelessly dated, and represents some very wrongheaded ideas. It would not have been the responsible thing to do as a filmmaker to make a movie out Iron Man battling a Bin Laden-eque super villain. This is what we needed to hear. This the Mandarin we needed to see: A mask concealing the true villain. <br />
<br />
Of course, Ben Kingsley definitely helps sooth the fanboy rage with his magnificent performance. It's impossible to be mad at the reveal, with this lovably pathetic drunken fool being so entertaining to watch. And it contrasts so well with the true "Mandarin" Aldrich Killian, and I love the sinister swagger Guy Pearce plays him with. The cast overall is a major strength of the film. Robert Downey Jr. feels right at home teaming back up with Black after <i>Kiss Kiss Bang Bang</i>, Gwenyth Paltrow as Pepper Potts finally comes into her own as a character, and James Badge Dale is a fun, sleazeball of a secondary villain.<br />
<br />
There were a few things that didn't quite work for me. Rebecca Hall's character felt underwritten, almost like a half done character who they never got around to finishing, and Black's usual penchant for chaotic, tangential plot threads doesn't always quite work out in the end. But nitpicks aside, this is easily the best Iron Man movie and one of the best Marvel has ever produced. Clever, unpredictable, bold as hell, and did I mention the score? It's gotta really good score. Joshua the Anarchisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14935756109060751464noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-665563271670508138.post-27047501069320025672013-04-26T03:21:00.003-04:002013-04-26T03:59:23.895-04:00Movie Review: Pain & Gain<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/b/b1/Pain_&_Gain_Teaser_Poster.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/b/b1/Pain_&_Gain_Teaser_Poster.jpg" width="216" /></a></div>
<br />
It's amazing what Michael Bay can do when he actually likes his job.<br />
<br />
Make no mistake, <i>Pain & Gain</i> is unquestionably Michael Bay's best work. By a <u>lot</u>. Even at his best, Michael Bay has never before been what you might call an artist. Certainly he had a distinctive style, but even his good movies were nothing more than glossed-up, market-tested uniformly produced blockbusters. Even the much-lauded insanity of <i>Bad Boys II</i> was a very standard sort of insanity (one need look no farther than the <i>Crank</i> series to see what truly insane action film-making looks like). He's essentially been the lowbrow counterpart to Roland Emmerick. Until now, he never had what every filmmaker needs to make a truly great film: passion.<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
That's not to say that <i>Pain & Gain</i> is exactly great. To the contrary, it's heavily flawed and frequently insipid. All of Michael Bays juvenile humor, prepubescent sexual obsessions, and over-stylization are on display. It's devoid of subtly and nowhere near as thought-provoking as it thinks it is. But it has a spark to it, a sincerity that makes up for a lot of that. This is what happens when a director truly connects with his material and puts a part of himself into the heart of the project. An audience will forgive a lot if they sense you love what you're doing, and it's clear that, possibly for the first time, Michael Bay does*.<br />
<br />
Bay has long been a vocal fan of the Coen Brothers. This is the reason for several veterans of their films being given the dubious honor of appearing in the <i>Transformers</i> series. So it's no surprise that <i>Pain & Gain</i> comes across as essentially Bay's version of <i>Fargo</i>. The cold, snowy town of Fargo, North Dakota is replaced with bright, hot Miami. The weaselly backstabbing criminals are replaced with a more likable bunch, bodybuilders turned kidnapers. Frances McDormand is replaced with Ed Harris. And the quiet, subtle tone is replaced with, well...Michael Bay. <br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.scificool.com/images/2009/06/michael-bay-explosions-1.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="262" src="http://www.scificool.com/images/2009/06/michael-bay-explosions-1.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Explosions! Low angle shots! Hot Chicks! Did I mention explosions!</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
Despite being inspired by <i>Fargo</i> almost to the point of being a fan film, <i>Pain & Gain</i> is still very much a Michael Bay film, arguably the first true auteur project to his name.So many of Michael Bay's habits that were an annoying obstruction before are somehow given focus and actually work to his advantage. The film as I mentioned, has no regard for subtlety, delivering character motivation and theme point blank. Almost every character of any significance gets a turn narrating at some point. But because it's consistent it fits with the films bombastic tone and can be forgiven. It even becomes rather endearing at times, especially towards the end, when events get truly insane and Bay decides to stop and remind the audience a second time that the film is based on true events, like a rambling friend who keeps saying "I remind you, I'm not making this up!"<br />
<br />
But most importantly, Michael Bay has actually managed to deliver an engaging narrative for the first time in his entire career. While not a particularly layered character piece, the film has well-rounded & charismatic characters, clear guiding themes, and often clever black comedy. It's genuinely good storytelling, and as a result Bay's usual unnecessarily long running time is rarely an issue. Mark Wahlberg is a likable but flawed leading man, Tony Shaloub is a fun-to-hate sleazebag of a villain, and Dwayne Johnson's oddly childlike born-again Christian ex-con steals the show with his drop dead hilarious line delivery. And through it all the ever reliable Ed Harris plays straight man and moral anchor, even delivering the "just a little bit of money" speech at the end that solidifies the film's <i>Fargo</i> inspiration.<br />
<br />
<i>Pain & Gain</i> isn't what you'd call a great film. It's stupid as hell, and as far as black comedy crime capers go the Coen's have nothing to worry about. But it's got it where it counts. It's fun, it's genuine, and it comes straight from the heart, cheesy as that may sound. If there was an award for "Most Improved Director" Michael Bay surely deserves one. It wasn't quite worth getting 3 <i>Transformers</i> movies (with 2 more on the way) to see, but it sure helps ease the pain.<br />
<br />
*So much in fact that he reportedly went without a salary to get it made (as did Wahlberg & Johnson), settling instead for a share of the profits. You gotta feel for the guy, really. Christopher Nolan makes <i>two</i> hit movies, the second of which makes a billion internationally, and gets a $160 million dollar budget to make his pet project in exchange for a third one. Bay makes <u>three</u> hit movies, the last of which made a billion internationally, and his reward is $25 million dollar budget for his pet project, without pay, in exchange for <u>two</u> more. Paramount doesn't seem to treat Bay very well. Joshua the Anarchisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14935756109060751464noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-665563271670508138.post-37268933089050037572013-04-05T16:45:00.000-04:002013-04-05T16:45:25.661-04:00Movie Review: Evil Dead (2013)<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/9d/EvilDead2013Poster.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/9d/EvilDead2013Poster.jpg" width="215" /></a></div>
<br />
Horror remakes are not generally-liked. I realizing that's about as obvious an observation as noting that some people aren't terribly fond of puppy-killing, but it's true all the same. And if you ask most viewers what their problem with these films are, mostly likely the answer will contain the word "PG-13". People can't stand to see their favorite horror movies watered down. "It's not scary if you limit yourself, if you're not willing to go there" is the general sentiment. Fans of the originals want to see all of the blood-splattering and graphic carnage that so affected them the first time around, & are confident that horror remakes' consistent refusal to do so is the reason for their failure as films. <br />
<br />
<i>Evil Dead</i> is proof that they were wrong. The gore was never the problem.<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
In point of fact, if you point to any aesthetic issues with a film as a reason for it's awfulness, you are almost always going to to be off the mark. Surface issues like bad action, dialogue, acting, set & costume design, camerawork, etc. are just symptoms, not the disease. <i>Battlefield Earth</i> was not bad because it had too many Dutch angles or the costumes were goofy looking. It was bad because it was a sloppily put together vanity project. And in the case of remakes, the core problem is usually a lack of purpose. Tip for future filmmakers: when faced with a remake, the first thing you <u>must</u> do is ask yourself this question: Who are you making this film for? Fans of the original, or everyone else? The answer to that question should guide every decision you make on the film. If you try to cater to both audiences, you will end up catering to neither.<br />
<br />
And unfortunately, it's a question that director Fede Alvarez apparently never really answered for himself. The film has no idea whether it wants to update the film to be it's own entity or just pay homage to the original, and as a result of this lack of focus it succeeds at neither. On the one hand, the film frequently zigs where its predecessor zags, crafting a different narrative with it's own themes & ideas, as well as more modern style & pacing. On the other hand, the film is filled with moments designed as callbacks, which leave all the non-fans in the audience scratching their heads wondering what they're not in on.<br />
<br />
Probably the biggest misstep among these homage moments is the recreation of the infamous "tree rape" scene. Granted, it's one of the most memorable moments from the original, but why the hell would you want to include a moment that even Sam Raimi himself thought was a mistake the first time around? In the first <i>Evil Dead</i>, the rape scene, while arguably misogynistic, at least fit with the mindless exploitation movie tone. It was shock moment in a film that was all about shock moments, so it worked. But the problem here is that this <i>Evil Dead</i> isn't a mindless exploitation film. It has character arcs and running themes. The movie is, believe it or not, a metaphor for drug abuse. Not a very subtle or clever one, and the film tend to forget about it all together, but it's there all the same. It opens the movie, it closes the movie, it is clearly meant to drive the movie emotionally. So how exactly does tree rape tie in to that? What does sexual violence have to do, either literally or symbolically, with this character's arc? Why is this in your movie other than as a nod to the first one? Because I find it more than a little disturbing that you're playing the brutal demonic rape of a young girl as <u>fan service</u>.<br />
<br />
And that's just the worst example. The film contains, not one, but two references to the famous hand cutting scene from <i>Evil Dead II</i>, as well as a meaningful glance at a chainsaw by a character <u>who never actually uses it</u>. The crowning moment of pointlessness that pretty much sums the whole thing up is the post credits tag which is nothing more than a 3-second clip in which Bruce Campbell walks on to say one of his famous catchphrases. No scene, no context, nothing actually happening onscreen, just a popular B-movie saying something you've already heard him say a thousand times*. Granted, a post credits tag is likely only to be seen by die hard fans anyway, but what kind've cheap, pandering, meaningless waste of Bruce Campbell's time and ours was that? What are you making here, an <i>Evil Dead</i> remake or an <i>Evil Dead</i> fan film?<br />
<br />
That's not to say the film is without merit. Fede Alvarez was reportedly handpicked by Sam Raimi, and it's no wonder why. The dude is loaded with potential that just oozes off every frame of this film. I hope in the future he gets to work on his own projects where he doesn't feel tied down to some previous legacy, because I could easily see great things coming from him. The gore is even better than the trailers implied: gooey, visceral, outrageous and consistently entertaining. And he really gets good performances out of his actors, who throw themselves into this madness with wild abandon. The stand out and instant scream queen is newcomer Jane Levy**. She is absolutely astounding in her enthusiasm, nailing every moment whether it calls for vulnerability or maniacal glee. If they follow through with their plans to make further sequels following her character who will eventually meet and team up with the original Ash Williams(!?), then I'm onboard.<br />
<br />
But if this is to become it's own franchise, it must learn to form it's own style. Alvarez's constant fluctuating from mimicking Raimi's fondness for cheesy quick zooms to replicating the same grimy-looking, jump scare vibe as more modern horror films is not going to cut it. The film suffers from a lack of a singular identity, and while it has many enjoyable moments, it falls far short of the classic it's spawned from. <br />
<br />
*...which was immediately met by thunderous applause by the audience I was with, who immediately declared it "the best part of the film". So I guess <i>Evil Dead</i> fans don't mind being pandered too. <br />
<br />
**Of whom I was apparently already supposed to be aware? Sorry, I don't watch <i>Subergatory</i>. Joshua the Anarchisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14935756109060751464noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-665563271670508138.post-74924262089493857382013-04-03T23:30:00.000-04:002013-04-04T11:05:08.255-04:00Movie Review: The Croods<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/72/The_Croods_poster.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/72/The_Croods_poster.jpg" width="216" /></a></div>
<br />
<i> The Croods</i> is a movie that is both better than expected yet still disappointing which are two things one cannot often say about the same film. On the one hand it has all of the studio Dreamworks' worst habits on display, a fact which was made pretty clear by the marketing. On the other hand, it shows some surprising awareness as to the vast potential of its own premise; never enough to take advantage of it, but enough to come frustratingly close to greatness. It's just good enough to make you wish it was better.<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
The setup feels not unlike a spiritual prequel to <i>The Flintstones</i>. The titular Croods family are cavemen who already embody well-worn sitcom archetypes (overcompensating Dad, voice-of-reason Mom, rebellious teenage daughter, dopey overweight brother, hellraiser baby, and pain-in-the-ass live-in Grandmother) but haven't yet learned to bend the laws of reality in order to turn assorted rocks and foliage into working facsimiles of modern household objects (which they sort've do over course of the film). After loosing their isolated cave home to a rockslide, the sheltered & timid Croods must overcome their fear of change in order to survive. They are aided in this quest by an uncommonly progressive caveman named Guy (Ryan Reynolds), who believes the world is ending and is seeking higher ground in order to weather the apocalypse.<br />
<br />
Like the depressing majority of children's fare these days, the film does not think much of its audiences' attention span. The film devolves into a dazzling roller coaster ride at every opportunity. Our cavemen heroes barely have two seconds to sit still before they're once again running & leaping at breakneck speeds from this or that peril, bouncing off of obstacles and finding unlikely ways to catapult themselves through the air. It's certainly a spectacle to watch and makes effective use of the 3D, but it becomes rather predictable after a while and it's hard not to notice that it's all just filler for a film that either can't or won't make good use of its story material. <br />
<br />
And therein lies the disappointment, because story material there is, and damn promising material at that. The film revolves around the basic theme of fear of change. The Croods were long ago scarred into the caves after witnessing the perils of prehistoric earth pick off their neighbors one by one: predators, natural disasters, disease, etc. In order to survive, the family matriarch, Grug (Nicolas Cage), has sheltered his family in a cave which they venture out of only briefly during daylight for food, and never stray further than is necessary. They are surviving, but stagnating, afraid to leave or explore, or do anything to improve their rather pitiful lot in life. Only the coming of age daughter, Eep (Emma Stone) seems discontent with this, and it is she that drags her family kicking and screaming down the painful road of change, with help from Guy of course. It's a simplistic but timeless theme in a story that is at times genuine and effectively told. <br />
<br />
But I can't help but notice how much better it <u>could've</u> been told. Of course Dreamworks' usual inclusion of pop culture references is annoying, but it rather beside the point and not as intrusive this time around at any rate. What I'm referring to is the rather obvious but unconventional and underused presentation style they might've gone with. Obviously it's futile to complain about the logic of a group of cavepeople so primitive they haven't even discovered fire yet speaking perfect English to one another. That's simply the way the film chose to go, and it's consistent and competently integrated so I can hardly complain. But I can't help but imagine the possibilities if they'd taken a slightly more realistic approach. Imagine the film completely free of dialogue, the characters communicating only in grunts, gestures, and facial expressions. Kids are more understanding of nonverbal communication than adults give them credit for. The fear is that it won't hold their interest, but in fact it often holds their interest better than it does adults. After all it wasn't that long ago for them that they themselves communicated without words. This fact was partially exploited to great success in the first act of <i>WALL-E</i> & in the sadly forgotten <i>Spirit: Stallion of the Cimarron</i>. Imagine if <i>The Croods</i>, had played itself as more of a feature length segment of <i>Fantasia</i>, with purely visual storytelling, epic musical scores and grandiose visuals. The film is already mostly a sight-seeing tour, with most of the effort going into the admittedly majestic scenery, populated by creatively designed creatures of hypothetical evolutionary turns. With the excellent score by Alan Silvestri backing it up, the film is often a marvel to look at, and I just feel that the wonder of it all is being diluted by the so-so presentation of the narrative.<br />
<br />
And the narrative itself is not without its problems, more specifically the fact that it's never quite clear who the protagonist is supposed to be. At first it seems to be Eep, who's Disney princess-esque desire to escape her dull home life is the impetus for the action. But sometime during the second act, Grug abruptly hijacks the film from his daughter and suddenly it's his feelings of inadequacy driving the plot.<br />
<br />
At the end of the day the film is a satisfactory diversion that stinks of a wasted opportunity. What is more primal and universal among humanity than our desire to explore, and the need to keep moving forward? Even as kids we understand that, and done right, this film's account of the beginning of civilization could've been the first transcendent children' movie since <i>Where the Wild Things Are</i>. But I can only review the movie in front of me, not the one I wish was in front of me. So in summary: Your kids could do worse, but they could also do a hell of a lot better. Joshua the Anarchisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14935756109060751464noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-665563271670508138.post-60825341098135786682013-03-14T17:03:00.000-04:002013-03-14T17:12:19.179-04:00Movie Review: "Jack the Giant Slayer"/"Oz: The Great & Powerful"<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-1jUx4KCjmwc/UUI9GJg8kTI/AAAAAAAAAgw/AOR-2Z_YD4I/s1600/Jack+&+Oz.bmp" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="259" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-1jUx4KCjmwc/UUI9GJg8kTI/AAAAAAAAAgw/AOR-2Z_YD4I/s320/Jack+&+Oz.bmp" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
If you had told me that a 2010 movie by Tim Burton would be one of the most influential forces of the next few years of cinema, I never would've believed you. Burton had long past the point of predictability, just about everyone was sick of his schtick, and I was sure he had nowhere to go but down. But for whatever reason, <i>Alice in Wonderland</i> was a massive hit, so massive that ever since then making darker, action fantasy versions classic fairy tales have been in high demand in the industry. In the last two weeks, two such films have come out, so we're going to take a look at them both.<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/b/b4/Jack_the_Giant_Slayer_poster.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/b/b4/Jack_the_Giant_Slayer_poster.jpg" width="222" /></a></div>
<br />
Most people are unaware of this (including me up until a few weeks ago) but "Jack the Giant Slayer" isn't just some cutsie riff on <i>Buffy the Vampire Slayer</i> they came up with for their grim 'n griffy <i>Jack & the Beanstalk</i> reboot (my god, I never thought I would seriously say those words). <i>Jack the Giant <u>Killer</u></i> was an actual British fable that was something of a sequel (in as much as such a thing existed back then) to the more well known <i>Jack & the Beanstalk</i> story. The thing plays out like an ancient Greek myth, with the heroic Jack traveling the country killing every giant he comes across in interesting & gory ways, picking up an arsenal of magical weaponry along the way. He weds a princess, joins the Knights of the Round Table, and at one point <b>decapitates the flippin' Devil</b>. In other words, it's way cooler than anything that happens in this movie.<br />
<br />
<i>Jack the Giant Slayer</i> is actually the second adaption of the old fable, and like it's 1962 predecessor, it borrows the name but little else. Instead it takes the basic plot structure and iconography of the more familiar "Beanstalk" fairy tale, and re-contextualizes it to add in more action. Now there is not one giant, but an entire army dwelling in the clouds, and the beans are a magical MacGuffin created by druids as a stairway to heaven. No really. Also there's a stir-crazy adventure-craving princess love interest of the Disney variety, a scheming King's adviser armed with another magical MacGuffin, and a swashbuckling knight sporting a Justin Bieber haircut for some reason. <br />
<br />
The film is directed by Bryan Singer, and is surprisingly the first outright failure in his filmography. I say "surprisingly" because given Singer's limited abilities, it's rather surprising how he's only now managed to make a genuinely bad movie. In the past I've called him the "master of mediocrity", and while he's certainly not the sole competitor for that title, it still holds true in my mind. The man simple has no real style or creative vision of his own. He's a competent filmmaker but has never come into his own as a true auteur. And while as a result nothing he's made has ever truly excelled, he's never really faltered below par either. Until now that is.<br />
<br />
The film is aesthetically unpleasing, though when Bryan Singer is involved that's to be expected. Still, the film is exceptionally unpleasant to look at even for him. The costumes have a slapped-together look to them, as do the designs on the horribly unreal looking CGI giants, and Singer's tendency to shoot everything in a dull, grayish hue clashes with the films attempts to be a bright & colorful <i>The Princess Bride</i>-esque affair. On top of that the tone is out of control, wobbling between childish toilet humor & brutal violence, resulting in a film that can't decide whether it's for little kids or the action crowd.<br />
<br />
The cast is made up of provably good actors, none of whom seem particularly interested in going the extra mile for this project. The usually awesome Ian McShane seems even more bored than he did in <i>Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides</i>. Ewan McGregor puts in the most effort as the aforementioned swashbuckling Bieber, but his efforts are completely wasted. Stanley Tucci is suitably sly as the villain, but his actions make little sense and he exits the movie by the end of the second act, leaving us the impression that his character existed solely to pad out the film. Newcomer Eleanor Tomlinson makes an unceremonious debut as the romantic lead, and should probably get a new agent so we can see how she fairs in an actual good movie. And Nicolas Holt does his best with the adventurous but shy farmboy routine, but honestly he seemed far more alive as a zombie in <i>Warm Bodies</i>. <br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/5/52/Oz_-_The_Great_and_Powerful_Poster.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/5/52/Oz_-_The_Great_and_Powerful_Poster.jpg" width="216" /></a></div>
<br />
I liked <i>Oz: The Great & Powerful</i> quite a bit, and the reason for that is childishly simple, emphasis on <u>childish</u>. While this may have been greenlit to ride the gritty-fairy-tale-re-imagining wave the industry's high on right now, it is very much NOT an action-oriented "adult" take on the <i>Wizard of Oz</i> universe. On the contrary, it's one of the best children's fantasy movies to come out in a while, never losing the innocence of 1939 classic, while still remaining engaging to children and adults alike.<br />
<br />
A big part of retaining the innocence of <i>Oz</i> comes from that fact that it never devolves in a <i>LOTR</i> wannabe battle scene. Sure, there are plenty of chase scenes, action and even a few genuine scares, but director Sam Raimi is more than aware how woefully out of character it would be for the Munchkins, a people so childlike they have organizations like the Lullaby League & the Lollipop Guild, to charge into battle armed to the teeth to skewer & stab Winkies and Flying Monkeys to death. That just wouldn't be the Oz we know and love. By realizing that, the film forces itself and & its characters to become more creative.<br />
<br />
As previously mentioned, this film comes courtesy of Sam Raimi, and while hiring the director of <i>Evil Dead II</i> to direct a children's movie seems a dubious proposition at best, in retrospect it makes a surprising amount of sense. Raimi does have a tendency to approach even his horror films with childlike glee, and his personal style draws largely from vaudevillian humor and retro Old Hollywood cinematography. In short, it's not hard to deduce that he's likely quite found of the original <i>Wizard of Oz</i>, and possesses an innate understanding of its appeal. The film has every reference to and recreation of iconography from the MGM film that copyright law will allow, references he applies with the delicate touch of an actual artist, not the copy-paste approach a corporate hack like J.J. Abrams uses when approaching <i>Star Trek</i> (yeah, I went there).<br />
<br />
The film is imperfect though, and the main weakness lies in the cast. James Franco displays very little range here, and his insistence at playing the film protagonist, Oscar Diggs, as more or less himself really takes one out of the movie. At no point is he believable as an 19th century magician, and he completely fails at as a magician regardless of the period. Mila Kunis starts off well enough, conveying the innocence and sensitivity of her character, but when it comes time for her to assume the Wicked Witch persona she suddenly seems out of her depth. The costume looks great and Kunis is clearly throwing herself into the role with admirable gusto, but she has no menace at all, and her scenes start to resemble a dream sequence on <i>That 70's Show </i>after a while. To her credit, her laugh sounds pretty good, though so radically different for her witch voice otherwise I suspect it may have been dubbed by someone else. <br />
<br />
Fortunately the other half of the cast more than make up for it. Michelle Williams absolutely steals the show, giving her part as the Good Witch Glinda real emotion and gravitas with a little touch of wimsy & girlishness, distantly reminiscent of the Billie Burke portrayal. If they ever decide to make another live action <i>Super Mario Bros.</i> movie, she would be the perfect choice for Princess Peach (though vastly overqualified). Rachel Weisz is also unique & engaging as the <u>other</u> Wicked Witch, devilishly manipulative & cruel while surprisingly vulnerable & nuanced. She acts circles around Franco & Kunis in all of their scenes together. Also, as bonus for Raimi fans she becomes a Heinous Horror Hag at one point. <br />
<br />
So if it wasn't clear before, <i>Oz: The Great & Powerful</i> wins. Not Raimi's best but a fun time at the movies, genuinely funny and exciting in a charmingly innocent way.<i> Jack the Giant Slayer</i> on the other hand is best forgotten, and probably already has been. Joshua the Anarchisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14935756109060751464noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-665563271670508138.post-79342897308979928362013-03-02T23:27:00.000-05:002013-03-21T23:27:56.040-04:00The Lunatic Fringe: Sexism in Hansel & Gretel: Witch Hunters?<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="309" src="http://blip.tv/play/g8Ekg4%2BvRwA.x?p=1" width="500"></iframe><embed src="http://a.blip.tv/api.swf#g8Ekg4+vRwA" style="display: none;" type="application/x-shockwave-flash"></embed>
<br />
<br />
Josh puts WAY too much thought into a movie about fighting two-headed witches.Joshua the Anarchisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14935756109060751464noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-665563271670508138.post-37840791564496436342013-02-14T02:40:00.003-05:002013-02-14T02:49:04.731-05:00Movie Review: Beautiful Creatures<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/5/5a/BeautifulCreaturesMoviePoster1.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/5/5a/BeautifulCreaturesMoviePoster1.jpg" width="216" /></a></div>
<br />
I'm reluctant to use the term "Anti-<i>Twilight</i>" because it has become such a cliche. It's the nature of pop culture phenomenons that we inevitably spend a few years comparing <u>everything</u> to them. <i>The Hunger Games</i> is the Anti-<i>Twilight</i> because Katniss is a good role model. <i>True Blood</i> is the Anti-<i>Twilight</i> because it has "real" (read: more traditional) vampires. <i>Warm Bodies</i> is the Anti-<i>Twilight</i> because it's...you know, good. But I can think of no other apt name to describe <i>Beautiful Creatures</i>, as "The Anti-<i>Twilight</i>" it what it has very intentionally set out to be in the same way that <i>The Golden Compass</i> set out to be the Anti-Narnia.<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
The story takes place in the fictitious Gatlin, South Carolina, a town which is either a parody of rural South Carolina or was written by someone who only knows the state by reputation. Speaking as a current South Carolina resident, I admit we have more than our share of backwards-thinking, fundamentalist rednecks here, and yes, we have way more churches than is reasonable. We are not cartoon characters however. Our churches don't have banned book lists, we don't hold constant Civil War reenactments, and we certainly don't have accents that make us sound like extras off the set of <i>Gone with the Wind</i>. It's like South Carolina as written by Stephen King. <br />
<br />
Our male lead comes in the form of Ethan Wate, professionally discontent teenager and proud owner of the complete Classic Rebellious Youth Literature Collection (<i>Catcher & the Rhye</i>, <i>A Clockwork Orange</i>, <i>Slaughterhouse 5</i>, kid's got 'em all). He meets and falls in love with girl named Lena, a member of a mysterious and reclusive family living on the outskirts of town. Naturally in a town apparently run by the mom from <i>Carrie</i> they are believed to be satanists, but are in fact sorcerers, or "Casters" as they call themselves. Lena is a prodigy with difficulty controlling her powers, and is fearfully awaiting her 16th birthday, on which she will either remain good or become evil, something female casters apparently have no choice in. Do you see where this is going?<br />
<br />
It's important to remember that while many criticisms have been levied against the <i>Twilight</i> series, by far the most troubling was its sexual politics. Bella Swan's over-dependence and self-deprecation had an unmistakable tone of misogyny & traditionalist subservience. <i>Beautiful Creatures</i> takes that tradition of sexually repressed obedient women supported by Stephanie Meyer and spits in its face. We are told in the film that unlike males, female casters have no choice as to whether they are "claimed" by good or evil. Lena has a cousin who was claimed for evil, and not only does "claiming" look so much like an orgasm that I'm surprised that got away with it, but the claimed evil girl immediately becomes a sexually promiscuous temptress. There is a curse associated with Lena's bloodline that caused all her female ancestors to turn evil because of a man, and Lena's family are determined to keep Ethan & Lena apart, for fear that if she falls in love with a boy he will invertible break her heart thus driving her to evil. The implication is clear: Magic <u>itself</u> has a virgin-whore complex in this universe. Lena must stand and prove that she is <u>not</u> some fragile women who can't control herself or her emotions.<br />
<br />
As goals for a film go, providing a rebuttal to the misogyny of <i>Twilight</i> is an admirable one. And I appreciate how the ending resolution doesn't treat good and evil as bipolar opposites but as two halves of the same whole. But despite its good intentions, the film just isn't very well-written. The characters are broad stereotypes, the mythology is poorly-explained, and the story flows awkwardly. Character's actions rarely feel like a natural progression, they just go wherever the plot requires and get exposited at. <br />
<br />
Fortunately the film is salvaged by a wonderful supporting cast. Jeremy Irons may have the least convincing accent in the last decade, but he's a joy to watch anyways. Viola Davis is great as always, and Emmy Rossum delivers a fun, sly turn as the secondary villain. But the real show stealer is Emma Thompson as the main villain. Thompson's one of my favorite actresses, endlessly versatile and energetic, and her performance alone makes the film worthwhile. She fortunately has a good amount of screen time, and her sinister yet somehow quirky and vaguely bipolar monologues are endlessly entertaining. <br />
<br />
Despite severe shortcomings in the script, I found <i>Beautiful Creatures</i> to be surprisingly entertaining. It's unlikely to become a franchise, because if the aforementioned <i>Golden Compass</i> taught us anything it's that existing solely as the response to another film won't get you far. But if some fun campy acting and a big middle-finger to <i>Twilight</i> sounds worth your time, then give it a look. Joshua the Anarchisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14935756109060751464noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-665563271670508138.post-20659117164423772942013-01-26T02:18:00.005-05:002013-01-26T11:46:44.968-05:00Movie Review: "Movie 43" & "Hansel & Gretal: Witch Hunters"<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/e0/Movie_43_poster.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/e0/Movie_43_poster.jpg" width="215" /></a></div>
<br />
..........<br />
..........<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://iambrony.jsmart.web.id/mlp/gif/112326__UNOPT__safe_fluttershy_animated_vomit.gif" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="180" src="http://iambrony.jsmart.web.id/mlp/gif/112326__UNOPT__safe_fluttershy_animated_vomit.gif" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
Well, it's been a while since a movie made me physically ill. I guess I was due for one.<br />
<br />
I admit to being optimistically curious when I first walked into <i>Movie 43</i>. Anthology films are tragically rare these days, and the trailer had had more than a few genuinely funny moments. And while I am loathe to use hyperbole for the sake of humor about any movie...well, I don't use images of Fluttershy puking lightly.<br />
<br />
To best articulate how painfully unfunny this movie is, I will describe the first short to you, which takes up roughly the first 5-10 minutes of the movie. Kate Winslet is on a blind date with Hugh Jackman, who is of course the perfect date, handsome, charming, wealthy, everything a girl could want. There's just one minor...um, physical peculiarity that Kate can't stop staring at, but everyone else seems oblivious too. He's got...well, you remember the Ballchinian from <i>Men in Black II</i>? <br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20111022183425/men-in-black/images/d/d7/Ballchinian_alien.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="287" src="http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20111022183425/men-in-black/images/d/d7/Ballchinian_alien.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
Yeah. It's like that. That's the joke for the entirety of the first interminable short. They lifted the worst joke from <i>Men in Black II</i> of all things, a joke you might remember lasting all of 5 seconds, and padded it out into a five minute short. "Ooh gross, pubic hair got in his soup!" "Ooh gross, he's accidentally teabagging that little boy!" It's just that, and Kate Winslet feeling as uncomfortable as the audience, for five seemingly-endless minutes. And it only goes downhill from there. <br />
<br />
Let me stop you right there and get what you're immediately thinking out of the way: No, I'm not a prude, & no, I'm not above lowbrow humor. In theory I'm fine with taboo or unpleasant subject matter being mined for comedy (though I will say that with the exception of George Carlin, no one have EVER made me laugh at a fart and I doubt anyone ever will). But I do take exception to gross out humor for its own sake. Gross outs are fine if they're in the service of an actual joke, but not if it by itself is meant to be the joke. "It's disgusting, therefore it is funny" is just not a sentiment I agree with.<br />
<br />
A few of the shorts are clever in concept, but a rarely funny in execution. One features Liev Schreiber & his real-life girlfriend Naomi Watts who take a disturbingly literal approach to homeschooling. As someone who actually was homeschooled, to my eternal regret, I could at least appreciate its intent, but somehow it still never clicked. The best short by far comes at the end & stars Terrence Howard in a brief spoof of inspirational period piece sports dramas about desegregation. Sure it's still just one joke but it mostly manages not to overstay its welcome for once, and brings us the only genuine laughs in the movie. No wonder they put almost the whole thing in the trailer. <br />
<br />
Never before have I seen so many people come together on a project and manage to produce something so nauseatingly difficult to sit through. It's like going to amateur comedy night: the performers are there to entertain themselves, not so much you. Hope Peter Farrelly and all his famous friends had fun getting together to waste 6 million bucks, because that is all that has been accomplished here. <br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/8/88/Hansel_and_Gretel_Witch_Hunters_.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/8/88/Hansel_and_Gretel_Witch_Hunters_.jpg" width="203" /></a></div>
<br />
You know, back it 2006, I would've called <i>Snakes on a Plane</i> a fluke. A fun experiment not likely to be repeated. But between this, <i>Snow White & the Huntsman</i>, and <i>Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter</i>, it appears the "sounds like a joke but is actually a real movie" movie is official a real genre. And I know you don't wanna hear this, but here's the bad news...it's actually good.<br />
<br />
Yeah, I know you were looking forward to endlessly mocking this one, seeing a dumb idea justly fail, but in an age that loves to hate, director Tommy Wirkola has done the worst thing imaginable: gone and made a good movie out of it. It's not exceptionally great, but I'll say the same thing for this I said for <i>Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter</i>. This is the best possible result we could've asked for from a premise like this. <br />
<br />
If the title wasn't explanation enough, the movie is framed as a hypothetical sequel to the classic Hansel and Gretal story, in which the two children upon surviving their encounter with the witch grow up to be professional witch hunters. Now, unlike vampire hunters or werewolf hunters, which are of course fictional professions, witch hunting was a real thing, and it wasn't exactly the kind've activity one should admire. Mostly it involved reactionary, superstitious mobs burning, drowning, and otherwise executing innocent women. The movie is very aware of this, and is quick to differentiate between the professional Hansel & Gretal who know a witch when they see one, and the ignorant local authorities ready to hang any innocent girl who looks at them funny. Additionally, there's a running subplot about the siblings learning that good witches actually do exist*, just in case actual practicing Wiccans out there are offended by the title. <br />
<br />
The basic style of the film is some combination of <i>The Brothers Grimm</i> and <i>Van Helsing</i>, but manages to be superior to both of those, or at the very least more entertaining. A big part of that is that unlike other R-rated action offerings this months, the film actual makes use of its rating. The film is wall-to-wall gore, some CG, some practical, but all of it red & messy. The action is pretty relentless, but never quite exhausting, and with the menagerie of creatively deformed witches queuing up for the slaughter, it certainly commands your attention. Gemma Arterton & Jeremy Renner both have good action hero screen presences, and with Peter Stormare & Famke Janssen hamming it up for them to face off against, it makes for a well-utilized cast. Also there's a pretty descent-looking animatronic troll in there too, so that's cool. <br />
<br />
The movie is flagrantly anachronistic, so much so that it's actually rather charming. The actors make no attempt to speak in a period specific way, casually throwing around modern profanity & euphemisms in Midwestern American accents. The guns and technology are steampunk of the highest order, meaning essentially modern guns dressed up to look old-ish, though at one point they are clearly using modern ammunition. They have old-timey versions of everything: scrapbooks, missing children posters on milk bottles; at one point they use a phonograph with a record made out of stone. The Flintstones would be proud. The movie just does not give a fuck, and the effect is that it feels less like a period piece and more like a renaissance festival that got out of hand.<br />
<br />
Don't let me oversell this, the film is shallow, silly, and likely not that memorable, but it's fun while you're watching it, and is easily the best time at the movies I've had this month. Though to be honest, after seeing <i>Movie 43</i> EVERYTHING looks good in comparison. <br />
<br />
*It's easy to differentiate the good witches from the bad ones. The evil ones are uglier, you see. Except for Famke Janssen of course, even under that old crone makeup she's still smokin'.Joshua the Anarchisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14935756109060751464noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-665563271670508138.post-47976016984269171362013-01-24T01:53:00.000-05:002013-01-24T02:19:33.730-05:00Movie Review: Texas Chainsaw 3D<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/a6/TheTexasChainsawMassacre3DPoster.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/a6/TheTexasChainsawMassacre3DPoster.jpg" width="215" /></a></div>
<br />
So here's a shocker for ya:<i> It ain't that bad.</i><br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://images.wikia.com/antfarm/images/0/0e/Gasp.gif" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="160" src="http://images.wikia.com/antfarm/images/0/0e/Gasp.gif" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
Yeah, alright, calm down. It's ain't that good either. It's been that kinda month, honestly. Generally January is thought of as the all-around worst month for movies, since no studio puts out anything they are particularly proud of in the month after the holidays when everyone's broke. Sometimes that makes things interesting, something too off-beat to be marketable will come out & surprise us all, or at least something interestingly bad. But most years, it's just dull. Lots of middle of the road stuff with nothing much worth talking about. <i>Gangster Squad</i>, <i>Broken City</i>, <i>The Last St</i><i>and</i>...I tell ya, there's nothing worse for a critic than an unremarkable movie.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/250x250/31200303.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/250x250/31200303.jpg" /></a></div>
<br />
Right, sorry, got off on a tangent there. Mind if we go on another one?<br />
<br />
The evolution of slasher genre fascinates me, becomes it seems to mostly revolve around trying to come to grips with its own utter lack of growth and creative success. When you think about it, you may notice that there are far more good movies that mock, deconstruct, invert, or put a comedic spin on slashers than there are actual good slashers. I mean, how many straightforward slasher films can you name that were genuinely, no-qualifiers great? A handful at most? There's <i>Psycho</i>, assuming you really stretch the definition, there's the original <i>Halloween</i>...and that's all I can think of. Sure, there are a few more that are okay, but none that really deserve to called "great". Let's face it, no one goes to a slasher movie to be scared. They go for the trashiness, the sleaze, the gore. It's a genre that just never rose to anything. It's pure b-movie guilty pleasure, that's its peak.<br />
<br />
As a result, the genre tends to be at its best when it just embraces those limitations and stops taking itself seriously. If it can't scare us, it can at least make us laugh. For my money, the <i>Friday the 13th</i> series, arguably the face of the genre, didn't get good until <i>Part VI: Jason Lives*</i>, when they struck just the right tone, humorous enough to be enjoyable without being a complete farce.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://eightiesmovies.files.wordpress.com/2010/11/jasonlives.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="262" src="http://eightiesmovies.files.wordpress.com/2010/11/jasonlives.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
But aside for abandoning all hope of actually being scarey again and just being really graphic Bugs Bunny cartoons, there's a more recent change in the way slasher films are being approached that I've noticed. Slasher filmmakers have known for a long time that for the most part, nobody gives a shit about their protagonists, it's all about the slashers. The rest of the characters are just corpses waiting to happen at best, and annoyances waiting to be punished in spectacular fashion at worst. Sure there's the occasional would-be victim that manages to be memorable, but for the most part audiences go into a slasher movie actually rooting for the killer almost by default. After all, he's the one who'll be providing the actual entertainment. <br />
<br />
Slasher movies figured this out pretty quickly. Overtime they began to actively encourage this mindset, making the characters more deliberately unlikable and ramping up the gore and body counts. Before long the unspoken role of a slasher villain was harbinger of retribution, punishing people for their various misdeeds. Not an idea unique to slashers, to be fair. Horror stories have revolved around characters receiving horrific fates for their sins since long before film was invented. Though in slashers those sins were usually "being annoying" & "having a sex life".<br />
<br />
Which brings us finally to <i>Texas Chainsaw 3D</i>, a film which should be notable because, if nothing else, it is the first time I've seen someone take the idea of the audience rooting for the killer to its logical extreme. There's no way to make this point without spoiling, but in my defense the film is very upfront from the beginning that the real monsters of the story aren't the cannibalistic Sawyer clan & their chainsaw-wielding juggernaut...it's the ignorant, reactionary townsfolk who formed a lynch mob to burn them alive without trial. They actually manage to frame the story so that the <u>cannibals</u> are the lesser of two evils**. Once again, the "who's the REAL monster?" moral is in no way new to horror, it's just new to slashers. <br />
<br />
For the sake of full disclosure, I admit that to date I've seen a grand total of two TexChainMass*** movies: the 1974 original and this. But in comparing him to his slasher contemporaries, it's my assessment that Leatherface can't really be handled the same as the average blade-wielding mute giant. You can't play him the way you would Jason Voorhees or Michael Myers, because frankly, he by himself is not very intimidating. Even in his first appearance he cuts a rather comical figure. Clumsy, oafish, always grunting, his mask ill-fitting. This is not a criticism of the original mind you, because all of that was very intentional. The horror in the first film came out of the revelation that Leatherface is just the tip of the iceberg, a sad, pitiful pawn of the Sawyer family, cowardly and abused. He's not the unstoppable, deadly force...he's Gollum.<br />
<br />
Before I saw the original TexChainMass, people who described it to me would often use words like "realistic" & "subtle". Those people are very bad liars. No film about a cannibal who wears a human face and chases people with a chainsaw can be described as "subtle", regardless of the opening text claiming that the film is based on actual events (a massive exaggeration), or the somewhat documentary-style feel to the cinematography (which I imagine was more because of the budget more than anything else). The film is very extreme with a somewhat campy edge to it, and took itself far less seriously than audiences seem too. <br />
<br />
My point is that trying to make Leatherface actually scary is a loosing battle. You can either make him a joke like <i>Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2</i> did (I'm told), or you play up the sympathetic angle of him as the childlike victim abused and manipulated into being essentially the Sawyers' attack dog. The latter is the route the original took, but here, they've taken it a step further. Now it's not the Sawyers that are the real monsters that won't leave poor Leatherface alone, it's everyone else. Leatherface is the loyal defender of the misunderstood Sawyer family. It's a surprisingly new fresh take on the character, & one that I think has some potential.<br />
<br />
That's not to say this is the best possible realization of the concept. The film revolves around Heather, played by Alexandra Daddario of the Soul-Piercing Meg Foster Eyes. Her whole character arc is about discovering she's a Sawyer, which apparently means she a born killer. All well & good, except said arc remains motionless for most of the movie then suddenly goes from 0-60 in .3 seconds in the 3rd act. Contrary to what the "<i>Doom</i> caused Columbine" crowd will tell you, people with a slightly morbid taste in artwork are not serial killers waiting to happen. It's about as forced a behavior change as you can get. <br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_me0f052Fec1qgd3uwo1_500.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="320" src="http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_me0f052Fec1qgd3uwo1_500.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">God damn, I feel like I could go swimming in those things.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
But overall it's a pretty decent slasher film. Offers at least a few good practical gore scenes (some pretty bad CGI in there too but we can ignore it), plays to its audience well, and if nothing else getting the franchise away from Platinum Dunes can only be a good thing. I honestly believe this is a better direction for the series, and I'm curious to see where they go with it. Just so you know though, the best scene by far isn't until after the credits, so stick around. <br />
<br />
*Seriously, let's not pretend the first one was anything more than derivative & uninspired from now on, shall we? It was just a lazy<i> Halloween</i> wannabe with some <i>Psycho</i> & <i>Carrie</i> thrown in. The Jason movies were just never very good, not even at the beginning.<br />
<br />
**That may sound odd, but honestly it's easier to get audiences to hate a character if their crime is more tangible to the average person. What I mean is, most of us have never in our lives been directly impacted by a serial killer or a cannibal. Some of us have, and we've all heard about such real-world events, but normally the kinds of things a slasher villain does, while horrific, are too extreme to resemble anything most people have experienced in their lives. It coats the actions of the Sawyers & Leatherface in a comforting layer of unreality. However, EVERYONE has had to deal with assholes in their life. Assholes are everywhere. So it's actually pretty easy to get someone to sympathize with the serial killer if the other guy is just an asshole, because being an asshole is a more tangible thing to audiences than serial killing. <br />
<br />
***For such a long title, we've never really come
up with a good abbreviation, huh? We could use the initials, but Turner
Classic Movies might sue.Joshua the Anarchisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14935756109060751464noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-665563271670508138.post-85648022178969993312013-01-12T10:38:00.002-05:002013-01-12T10:38:52.589-05:00 Joe and Josh discuss Voice Acting and the Oscars<iframe src="http://blip.tv/play/AYOM3wIC.x?p=1" width="500" height="309" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe><embed type="application/x-shockwave-flash" src="http://a.blip.tv/api.swf#AYOM3wIC" style="display:none"></embed>
<br />
<br />
Me and the awesome Joey Tedesco, one of my colleagues from the Agony Booth & host of <i>Cartoon Palooza</i>, sat down at MAGfest to have a little discussion about voice actors & how underappreciated they are in the film industry. I hope were can do a little more of a formal review together someday to expand upon this topic. Honestly, the fact that animation still isn't properly respected, at least here in the US, as a filmmaking technique is fascinating to me, and there's so much more to say about it.Joshua the Anarchisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14935756109060751464noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-665563271670508138.post-77062955655125115062013-01-10T12:15:00.000-05:002013-01-10T12:15:33.065-05:00My Top 10 Films of 2012Well, here we are. No sooner have I finished ranting against the <a href="http://www.agonybooth.com/video726_Greatest_Movie_All_Time_Vertigo_Citizen_Kane.aspx" target="_blank">entire concept of needlessly ranking vastly different movies into inherently devaluing lists</a>, and I'm already contradicting myself in the name of conformity. Ah well, the more things change, eh?<br />
<br />
Fortunately there's still a part of me that loves making lists in spite of my own musings. It's fun to collect and connect things you love, and the inevitably absurd arguments over insignificant details like the numbering have their own charm within reason. I suppose I could avoid all that and make a "Top 10 Movies of 2012 In No Particular Order", but that would ruin the inexplicable glee I get from sorting them based on arbitrary criteria (and no, I won't tell you what criteria).<br />
<br />
So here we go...<br />
<a name='more'></a><b> </b><br />
<b>Movies I Haven't Seen Yet</b> (mostly because I live in the middle of nowhere and can't see limited releases): <i>Zero Dark Thirty</i>, <i>Holy Motors</i>, <i>The Grey</i>, <i>This is 40</i>, <i>Cosmopolis</i>, <i>The Raid: Redemption</i>, <i>Bernie</i>, <i>Killer Joe</i>, <i>Safety Not Guaranteed</i> <br />
<br />
<b>Honorably Mentions</b>: <i>Argo</i>, <i>Skyfall</i>, <i>The Master</i>, <i>21 Jump Street</i>, <i>Beasts of the Southern Wild</i>, <i>Iron Sky</i>,<i> Flight</i>, <i>The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey</i>,<i> Dredd</i>, <i>Chronicle</i><br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/62/Ted_poster.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/62/Ted_poster.jpg" width="201" /></a></div>
<br />
10.<i> Ted</i><br />
I surprised even myself with this pick. When <i>Ted</i> came out I ignored it. <i>Family Guy</i> had only ever been okay at best to me, so I wasn't really expecting much when I finally gave this a shot. To my amazement, it turned out a suprisingly well-written comedy with actual depth and emotional stakes. The characters are very basic but feel genuine, which you really need to emotionally connect with your audience and thus create compelling drama. The clever script deconstructs the archetypical imaginary friend story, mocking it as well as celebrating it, & in the context of a decade that is in the middle of a massive nostalgia hangup culturally, McFarlane's overall sentiment of "yeah, that stuff from when we were kids was great...but don't forget to live in the moment" is a welcome one. <br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/5/57/Life_of_Pi_2012_Poster.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/5/57/Life_of_Pi_2012_Poster.jpg" width="213" /></a></div>
<br />
9. <i>Life of Pi</i><br />
This is largely a personal pick for me. I'm at a point in my life where I'm figuring a lot of things out (aren't we all?), and have yet to decide what I believe in a spiritual sense. <i>Life of Pi</i> spoke to me because it was about the very reason why I still can't quite say I don't believe in God: Because it is comforting to do so. It's a film about the very concept of faith, and it does so in a very whimsical, childlike way, which some may find off putting. It's difficult to reconcile the idea of delivering such weighty subject matter with the self-assured tone of a child speaking about Santa Claus, but I think that perhaps there's no better way to understand faith than through the mind of a child. <br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/e3/Seven_Psychopaths_Poster.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="239" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/e3/Seven_Psychopaths_Poster.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
8. <i>Seven Psychopaths</i><br />
Martin McDonagh deserves more recognition. On the surface he may seem just another wannabe Tarantino, but a closer look reveals a set of tropes, ideas, and skills utterly unique to him. <i>Seven Psychopaths</i> is possibly his best film yet, an utterly deranged, seeming random musing on the mindset of screenwriters and creatives in the film industry in general. Plus it has Christopher Walken giving his best performance in years. It's rare he's allowed to stretch his dramatic muscles like this. <br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/6a/Lincoln_2012_Teaser_Poster.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/6a/Lincoln_2012_Teaser_Poster.jpg" width="216" /></a></div>
<br />
7. <i>Lincoln</i><br />
A bit long? Maybe, towards the end a bit. Too concerned with with traditional biopic trappings and acknowledgement of all related history regardless of relevance? Possibly. Or perhaps all of that is just a charade masking a surprisingly <u>non</u>traditional political film about the pragmatism of dirty politics? Definitely. And of course, Daniel Day-Lewis's equally nontraditional portrayal of the man himself deserves every bit of the recognition it's gotten. <br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/b/b8/CitwTeaserSmall.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/b/b8/CitwTeaserSmall.jpg" width="216" /></a></div>
<br />
6. <i>Cabin in the Woods</i><br />
This really was Joss Whedon's year, huh? Puts out two outright masterpieces, gets catapulted to A-list status, and decides to relax by retreating to his summer home with his friends...to make a <i>Much Ado About Nothing</i> movie. Dude accomplishes more <u>on vacation</u> that you and I do in our lifetimes. As for <i>Cabin in the Woods</i>, what can I saw? If you haven't see it yet (seriously, shame on you) then I daren't spoil it for you, and if you have, then you know why it's this damn good. When you can make a thoughtful examination of the horror film industry and the plight of creativity it creates, and then mix it with possibly the most crowd-pleasing bloodbath in the history of the genre and make it work, that's the mark of true genius. <br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/0/0a/Looper_poster.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/0/0a/Looper_poster.jpg" width="207" /></a></div>
<br />
5. <i>Looper</i><br />
As I've said many times before, I love high-concept science fiction. So much so that I may've overstated the awesomeness of last year's<i> In Time</i> because I was desperate for my fix. <u>May've</u>.<i> </i>But one cannot overstate <i>Looper</i>. Narratively, it's just about perfect. Everything is foreshadowed without being too obvious, all truly problematic plotholes are dealt with way ahead of time. In fact it might be the closest I've seen any time travel story come to complete internal consistency. More than that, it's a wonderful character piece, with transformative performances from both Joseph Gordon-Levitt & Bruce Willis (which in the latter's case is something he doesn't get to do very often).<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/3/32/ParaNorman_poster.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/3/32/ParaNorman_poster.jpg" width="216" /></a></div>
<br />
4. <i>ParaNorman</i><br />
This is another one that snuck up on me. <i>ParaNorman</i> wasn't even on my radar when it first came out. Then I went & saw it. Twice. And it made me cry both times. I dare say no other film this year made a more personal emotional connection with me this year. That's certainly subjective praise, but it doesn't make the plot any less bold & meaningful, nor does it diminish the animation, which is among the finest stop-motion has to offer. Bullying is very well-trodden subject matter, so it's gratifying to see a message film for children about just that that still feels fresh, real, & never condescending. Plus, the strategically-placed classic horror references here & there are fun without ever dominating the film, a balance this year's <i>Frankenweenie</i> never managed to strike. <br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/f9/TheAvengers2012Poster.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/f9/TheAvengers2012Poster.jpg" width="216" /></a></div>
<br />
3. Marvel's <i>The Avengers</i><br />
I struggled to justify this one to myself. One the one hand, how could I leave out what is possibly my favorite film of the year? On the other, I realize that 90% percent of that is the comic book fan in me talking. Sure, it's one of the best superhero movies ever made, but how much is that actually saying? But ultimately I decided this: In 10, 20, 30 years, what will 2012 be remembered for movie-wise? What movies released this year will we still be talking about? What made the biggest splash? What did absolutely everyone go see & love? Cultural impact counts for a lot in film criticism, and while I can't predict the future, I feel pretty confident in saying that this might be the most enduring film of 2012. <br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/20/Cloud_Atlas_Poster.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/20/Cloud_Atlas_Poster.jpg" width="216" /></a></div>
<br />
2. <i>Cloud Atlas</i><br />
I weep for us as a species. The fact that this movie bombed and was met with sneers and sarcasm is the reason why. I've always liked the Wachowskis, even when their movies were awful, because they always aimed high. They always tried to mix indulgent fun with high-minded ideas, and though they didn't often succeed, the effort was always appreciated. But with all due respect to <i>The Matrix</i>, <i>Cloud Atlas</i> may very well be their masterpiece. Where some see bloated & overwrought, I see ambition that can barely contain itself. I've never seen such a perilous balancing act, both for the writer & the editor, work out so well. I've never seen so many chameleonic performances from actors I never knew had it in them. And I've certainly never seen such sincerity. So much build up for such a simple message, yet it never feels like a let down. It feels like the very thing the world desperately needs to hear right now...and nobody's listening. <br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/8/8b/Django_Unchained_Poster.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/8/8b/Django_Unchained_Poster.jpg" width="215" /></a></div>
<br />
1. <i>Django Unchained</i><br />
I'm not prepared to called this Quentin Taratino's best film, competition is too fierce to just declare that right out of the gate. But it may very well be his most perfect, or rather it may be the perfect Tarantino film. By that I mean it, more than anything else he's made, seems to take the desperate types of movies he tends to make and marries them in a way that never feels incongruous. Generally when you go to see a Tarantino film, you will see either a quieter, more personal film all about build up & small bursts of violence (<i>Jackie Brown</i>, <i>Kill Bill vol. 2</i>, etc.) or an action-oriented exploitation flick (<i>Death Proof</i>, <i>Kill Bill vol. 1</i>, etc.). And while his films of late have included elements of both (<i>Inglourious Basterds</i>), this is his first film that somehow feels like both at the same time. Joshua the Anarchisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14935756109060751464noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-665563271670508138.post-64765620699453189412012-12-31T12:20:00.000-05:002013-01-10T12:23:25.486-05:00The Lunatic Fringe: Greatest Movie Ever?<iframe src="http://blip.tv/play/g8Ekg4yMWwA.x?p=1" width="500" height="309" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe><embed type="application/x-shockwave-flash" src="http://a.blip.tv/api.swf#g8Ekg4yMWwA" style="display:none"></embed><br />
<br />
Citizen Kane is apparently not the greatest movie ever anymore. But was it in the first place?Joshua the Anarchisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14935756109060751464noreply@blogger.com0