Movie Review: The Hangover
Hangover Review
I liked this movie. I think I may say that I loved this movie until about 15 minutes before the end, but it was one of the few comedies that is worth seeing. Having given it that compliment, let me add the caveat that it’s worth seeing once.
Comedies usually suck. The talented writers in Hollywood apparently having decided to abandon the field, I find it difficult to laugh at what becomes an exercise in fart jokes, scat humor and sexual innuendo that while perhaps funny at age 12, or funny when I’m over twice as old but want to infantilize myself back to that age, is decidedly not funny having seen the same formula a thousand times.
Hangover binges on real comedy, and it’s the last 15 minutes, the hangover from the substantive laughs, when you start to regret your previous decisions.
For some reason it devolved into sexual slapstick and crude humor. It started with great situational humor, slightly more highbrow than your typical Adam Sandler tragedy, but then decided to light the script on fire for the last half act.
It’s worth noting that all modern movies are tempted by the pied piper of scriptwriting these days, the hard story arc that gives you a taste in the beginning and works through small reveals throughout the story to give you pieces that lead to a worthwhile twist of a finale, and it lends itself to one viewing. Television series that follow this logic, such as the wonderful Battlestar Galactica, fell into this trap and now, upon rewatching, one can’t really do it out of sequence. The totality of the story in the Hangover, that these guys wake up and have no idea what happened and try to piece it together, works decently the first time through, but won’t lend itself to the ridiculous amounts of rewatching one can do with truly classic comedies like Ghostbusters, Woody Allen movies, Chris Farley movies, etc.; and one also is frustrated that, as funny as the movie is and with the comedic talent at their fingertips, no one scene or groups of scenes are truly outlandishly funny.
In ten minutes on screen Jim Carrey consistently delivers comedy in such memorable moments that are altogether lacking in this movie. Which isn’t to call this a chuckle movie, there are certainly significant laughs within, and that’s why it’s certainly worth seeing, but I struggle to think of many Bill Murray or John Candy, or even Steve Martin movies that can’t be watched repeatedly and still, consistently, deliver a fun time.
Perhaps this is to hold these newcomers to an impossible standard. The iconic moments, after all, come only in time and not in the heat of the moment. The first time I saw the Big Lebowski, after all, the only laugh was when the dude crashed his car into the dumpster, and only through rewatchings did I discover the epic redefinition of comedy that it was. Similarly I recall hating Family Guy and Southpark when I first came upon them, only to open up to them in time. Perhaps the same will happen with the Hangover, but I struggle to find the elements present that might give it that potential. I’ll give them the benefit of the doubt, but in the meantime I’d recommend seeing this once, and refrain from binging twice on the Hangover.
B, 84/100, ***/****
Labels: comedy, movie review
Movie Review: Lone Gunmen tv series
So it's been off the air for 8 years, but I'm finally getting around to watching a few episodes of the "Lone Gunmen" series... and it's absolutely awful. It's an awkward collection of slapstick comedy, drama and intrigue, but it almost purposefully omits the redeeming parts of the X-Files. I'd like it to be better, but it's almost painful in its awfulness. The characters are vapid, the dialogue is so stupid and silly that it wouldn't pass muster as a children's show. I just can't believe that a show as decent as the x-files could be written and produced by relatively the same people.
Labels: movie review
Movie Review of the "Attack of the 50 Foot Tall Woman"
So I watched this movie last night, thanks again to Netflix. I think my interest came from
the well-done poster though when it arrived I did notice that it's 66 minute run time was a bit suspicious. When I looked at the movie's description and premise it seemed:
Outlandish - good
Campy - good
Silly sci-fi - good
Intellectually deconstructable - good
So, I thought, really, how could this go wrong? With a movie premise this silly, it has to be a great movie. And yet, in almost every way, this movie sucked. The writing sucked, the acting sucked, the plot sucked, the effects sucked, and the execution sucked. There are some movies from this period that go a long way on a small budget or put together a wonderful story that is still very basic, as does the Outer Limits and Twilight Zone series. This movie, however, just plain sucked. It's almost unwatchable, and is certainly not worth your time.
F, 5/100, 0/****
Labels: movie review, movies
Movie Review of The Machinist
Review of The Machinist
This was a good movie trying very hard to be great. There were moments where I felt like it was part Memento, and yet at other parts as though it was a modern colorized film noir combined with European cinema, a few stark camera angles and purposeful confusion in order to throw you off. This movie was trying very hard to be great, but just doesn’t quite make it.
Christian Bale does a fabulous job, and obviously really delivers. The main deficits of this movie is in a script that was a little too disjointed and striving for artsy and camera work that was more than simple and yet not truly great. There aren’t moments of any shots that were especially daring or any new perspectives that grab you. In an age where every aspect of the movie process is broken down to its elements and the audience has come to expect greatness in every aspect, it simply came up short.
Another movie I watched over the weekend, just for grins, was 1993’s “The Fugitive” and it struck me how plain that movie is, and how basic it is, and yet how strongly it delivers. It’s not pretentious, it’s direct and simple and yet so powerfully entertaining. It makes a script about a falsely accused doctor and makes it so identifiable and puts you in the role of Dr. Richard Kimball so well that each aspect works.
The Machinist isn’t simple, and you don’t identify with the protagonist, there are so many different sequences that are disjointed, relatively unconnected, and brought together at the end in such a way that doesn’t leave the viewer feeling as though it’s an adequate resolution to the various issues presented. And before anyone says that insomnia can explain his various crazy moments and scenes, one should realize that I could, thus, written in a giant duck named Chester who played cards and had the voice of Katherine Hepburn and been just as relevant. If the movie can be made in such a way where the contents don’t matter, then what’s the point of watching a movie, just flash a black screen with white text and tell me what the message is and move on. Skip the song and dance and save everyone the money.
No, even as someone who is, for lack of a good term, “conservative” I thoroughly enjoy even liberal movies, which, of course, they all are, because on some basic level they engage ideas in a way that we refrain from doing in normal life. The movies are a vehicle by which to live life a little more brightly, and so when they go out of their way to be confusing they ought try even harder, as in Memento, to give a perfect delivery and a compelling point. Another way of saying that is that one should not be so flip with the rules until one has mastered the rules. Hemingway wrote in simple sentences, and did wonderfully. Every movie need not be a twist, a change or a new exploration into the movies itself especially if one is not prepared to fully deliver on that promise. Sadly, the Machinist, though somewhat laudable for trying, succeeds best in coming up short.
C-, **/****, 70/100
Labels: movie review
Movie Review: Drag me to Hell
Looking for movie suggestions, it's often tough to feel cinematically motivated considering the film gluttony I experience courtesy of
Netflix. Movies, now, have to be a bit more than just the nice experience of going to the movies. Dare I say it, I actually expect movies to be good. And at
$10.50 a ticket in Worcester, I actually want them to be pretty good.
Drag me to Hell looked like it was going to be a waste of time, money and expectations, I knew something would be different, though, when I saw that
Sam Raimi was attached to the film or had written the original script. And sure enough, it was near-perfect.
The movie plays with you in a way that one isn't used to, in a way that a few newer films such as "
Funny Games" have attempted to do: thoroughly postmodern, aware that they are movies, but still 80% within their genre and yet trying very subtly to break out. There are obviously serious filmmakers who are trying to not only make great movies but are trying to do new things, to try fresh ideas on the screen and are willing to risk audience dissatisfaction in order to do so.
Just some of the slights and thrills in Drag me to Hell are bound to get replicated in other subsequent thrillers. There was an excellent shot where a demon was haunting the protagonist, and as she walked through a dark house as she opened the kitchen door, the camera which was about five feet in front of her suddenly zoomed back and was suddenly surrounded by clamoring pots and pans hanging above a kitchen island. The effect was solid, smooth and well-done. Another effect worth noting was at night where the protagonist turned on a flashlight, pointed it at the wall and saw the shadows of something not between her and the light, obviously the demon. i'm not doing the movie effect justice, but it just came across perfectly. This wasn't just a campy, cheaply-made no-name thriller, this was a thriller that played with the movie, that danced around with the frights and tried hard to make something of itself. It seems cliche to say that it was 'aware of itself' but it was not just that, it was also aware of your expectations. I read
the IMDB page before I went, and was surprised to see that the first reviewer noted how well-done the distraction and thrills were in the movie. The small things you were expecting never came about, and were often just a method to lull you into a false security before hitting you hard with the real fright.
I should also disclose that I enjoyed the small demonization of the Gypsies in the movie considering my own 2005 run-in/attack by Gypsies in Rome.
This was an excellent movie, a testament to the power of film, and a real joy. I was entertained, well frightened and hope that more like it come in the future.
A-, ****/****, 93/100,
trailerLabels: movie review, movies
movie review: Quarantine
Quarantine - 2008Previews:
"The Haunting of Molly Hartley"
-the thesis on this one seems initially interesting, but falls apart pretty quick. Yes, the Devil is real, but not more powerful than God. These recent movies seem to give to the Devil a power he lacks: control over our actions, control over our lives, and greater power than God. Silly.
Bank thriller - "The International"
-looks very good vs. bad and yet it's interesting that the cultural programming everywhere else is very careful to constantly reinforce that it's never quite that simple, that there's always a way to take the side of the bad guys. Clive Owen either has the worst agent in the world or chooses incredibly inane roles for himself. It's also shamefully obvious that the 'political assassinations' are of popular leftists and never of right-wing people who routinely get assassinated as well. It's this stupid way in which Hollywood rationalizes that big business is somehow in lock step with the Christian Coalition and the NRA. It's just so staggeringly stupid.
Quantum of Solace
-I'm not really that happy with the new Bond, but it looks somewhat entertaining
Twilight - vampires
-looks hokey and too many camera tricks
Zach and Miri make a porno
-continued degradation of culture
There's a lot of very shaky camera work in this movie, it's very first-person, very youtube-ish, and certainly existing in the wake of Cloverfield, and both are in the wake of the Blair Witch Project.
As a regular of zombie movies, it was interesting to see how they treat the disease. Some movies use the most precise definition, that of the actual living dead reanimated, whereas most recent movies tend to use a biological agent in order to mollify an audience that wants a degree of realism. Quarantine uses "human rabies" as its zombie plot-device, and it's not distractingly bad.
The movie also features a degree of government utilitarianism which sets the movie in motion. They use an apartment building as the setting, and exit is controlled by a government attempting to keep the contagion localized. It added a nice dimension of fear, that the government was just waiting for these people to die. They weren't staging a rescue and weren't there to help them in their time of need, they were just one of 200 million taxpayers and couldn't die fast enough.
One innovation in the movie was the first "lens death" or perhaps more accurately "beating by lens" that I've seen. In order to kill a zombie the cameraman repeatedly uses the camera itself to kill zombie, lucky for us that he directs the lens in the direction of the zombie. A great gimmick. The overall gimmick of the camcorder, though, was never reconciled fully. One person demanding that history record an event doesn't quite work. All zombie movies have a basic level of entertainment because they allow the audience to reflect upon the state of nature and man's most primal instincts. 28 days later 28 weeks later, notably in the latter's opening sequence, played that idea out very well. Yet, here in Quarantine, trying to escape from zombies in an apartment building, what's the motivation to keep the cameras rolling and not try to stay alive? I'll buy "human rabies" but I couldn't buy the desire to keep filming by a man scared for his life.
That said, the movie has a great use of night vision, and an absolutely fabulous final sequence that really redeemed a movie at risk of being a little too kitschy. They had an evil kid motif and firemen who were heroic, and just a little too much stereotyping and political correctness that was getting quite stale. So, whereas
28 weeks later is redeeming only for its opening sequence, Quarantine is similarly redeeming only for its conclusion.
B+
Labels: movie review
Movie Review: Scattered notes and thoughts on the movie "Australia"
Scattered notes and thoughts on the movie "Australia"
Friday, January 2, 2009 at 8:35am | Edit Note | Delete
Thoughts on Australia
(I was going to take this and make a coherent review out of it, but the movie sucked so much it really isn't worth it, and I thought it might be mildly amusing to paste my notes on here in some postmodern way so that you can try and decipher my little thought-nuggets to myself.)
Previews:
Marley and me
Bride wars
Last chance Harvey
All of which I found odd choices to preview an action movie
-Movie starts with b.s. racial politics that becomes distracting
-Glorifies a racial murder of a white, giving momentary sympathy for his racial murder, only 90 minutes later to explain that it was a white killing a white
-Plays a tired motif of white murders blamed on minorities really done by whites for simple financial gain
-the aboriginal half-breed is a very ugly kid who speaks like Jar Jar Binks
-anti-white racialism throughout
-there’s a relatively pointless domestic violence relationship between the evil white man with an aboriginal woman, the depth of this relationship is quite laughable.
-anti-Christianism: half breed not treated the same way by local religious individuals, even though historically the opposite is true
-white legalism causes the drowning death of mother, as she is hiding from the local sheriff, it’s a passing sleight, but notable in that the white man’s ways of enforcing the laws without mercy causes her to drown. Again, the depth of the portrayal in the movie actually makes me want to root for the bureaucrat.
-glamorizing a witch doctor
-false Gaia mysticism and earth-worship
-white typing – all four bad guys are white
-false mysticism and spirituality
-racial aging critique: posits whites as much older, and the colored races as always much younger. There are no serious roles for aged coloreds or infirm coloreds – the only portrayals allowed are of youthful minorities and old whites.
-they needed an actor and actress much younger than Kidman and Jackman to truly pull off the roles their characters suggested. Kidman should have been in her early 20’s and Jackman should probably have even been younger.
-white paternalism and obligation – either colonialism is bad or it isn’t – whites are told through cinema that their influence ruins local people, and yet whenever local people are on the down and out, whites are somehow obligated to act. It’s one or the other people! Aid can’t come without control.
-denial of triumphalism: nothing good ever came from a white man’s hands. There’s no greatness in his military success, in the unquestioned beauty of his art, in the amazing feats of civilization he has wrought nor in the frontier which he has conquered. Rather, all that we can praise is that which is weak, mediocre and ugly.
-where does white hatred come from?
-accessing power
-group think
-critical theory
-action scenes are way too short and stunted
-movie says that blacks wouldn’t get treated by hospitals – wtf, not sure if that’s true
-corporate fearmongering – how often in real life is the real villain a corporation? About 99/100 in my life it’s either been a government or a bureaucrat, never a company with whom I could give my business to someone else. (*notable exception: my declared global jihad against the Verizon Corporation)
-confusion of gender roles
-gender roles don’t equal gender rights – when Nicole Kidman wants to enter a dirty saloon, it becomes some stupid tale of gender discrimination that there are appropriately male and female areas. Saying that a lady belongs elsewhere than in a bar is a function of roles and not rights, and adhering to proper roles is not the denial of rights. Every restrictive action is not a denial of a right. To think otherwise would be to say that man has all rights to all things at all times. I certainly don’t expect a right to your wallet and your keeping said wallet is denying my rights. When you go to the bathroom, it is a societal rule and role that one to a stall, and denying some pervert access to your stall does not deny him his God-given right to be in your bathroom stall, it’s respecting the roles within society.
-faux social reform
-unnecessary and needless cruelty
-Japanese demonization – extremely shallow villains who really aren’t shown much on screen anyway
-equating the value and virtue of barbarism to civilization
-repeated closeups of the ugly kid – obviously trying to glamorize and make a star out of a hideously ugly child
-stolen generations – is this the point of the damn movie?
-missed opportunity to take advantage of more of the Australian landscape, for better cinematography – could have truly been grand
-rough dialogue
-“too long” is the wrong assessment, just an ineffective use of time and squandered opportunities – I don’t really know more about Australia having seen this movie.
-not nearly enough jap war scenes
-macro level events given short shrift and really no context
-power leads either to the aggrandizement of self or altruism, usually the former
-evil character wasn’t actually in a position of power, he was the downtrodden blue collar worker. A weird social stature for the movies, and one that might be a bit out of place. Resentment is a correct posture for such a person, but is really vengeful rage the right place? I think other movies would have preferred to give the character more depth or audience empathy. Some reasonable explanation as to why he felt this way, that it didn’t just materialize out of white man rage.
-white colonialism is wrongly depicted – it is and always was a liberal movement – to help and save those that colonialists wrongly believed were less fortunate that they weren’t born white.
D-
62/100
*/****
Comments from Facebook:
Updated about 6 months ago · Comment · Like
Geoff Woliner at 9:45am January 2
Excellent analysis, Dr. Wetmore. I took the exact same themes away from ''Meatballs 2''.
Ben Wetmore at 1:13pm January 2
well, you mean other than the acknowledgment that Richard Mulligan deserved an oscar for Meatballs2, right?
Geoff Woliner at 1:53pm January 2
Exactly. Plus, ''Australia'' could have benefitted immensely from the depth of an Italian street rat in a dress in a prizefight to save the camp.
Jennifer Wellnitz at 2:17pm January 2
I happened to enjoy the movie...I think it makes a difference on what your passionate about in life. It is a movie about passion...not history.
Ben Wetmore at 1:59pm January 3
Jennifer - I don't take that away from the movie, and even if is legit, then all the other crap they threw in there really makes it distracting to get to. Now, yes, I am a bit 'high octane' in my movie preferences, but so it goes.
KatieRynn Hickman at 6:08pm January 3
i thought the little "creamy" boy was adooooorable!
Ben Wetmore at 6:13pm January 3
http://www.smh.com.au/ffximage/2007/05/26/walters27507_wideweb__470x352,0.jpg
looks like an alien
KatieRynn Hickman at 10:38pm January 3
nuh-uh... he made me wanna run off to Australia and adopt one but then i realized i'd raise him "white" and he wouldn't get to go on walkabout.
even though i thought he was adorable (and hugh jackman was insanely attractive) i didn't like the movie.
Ben Wetmore at 11:34pm January 3
why didn't you like it?
nicole kidman is insanely attractive as well, even pushing 40, 50 or whatever.
Steve Cassarino at 8:40am January 20
Late to comment. Wetmore, you're right about the kid. I think the medical term for his condition is butt fugly.
Labels: movie review
Movie Review: Tropic Thunder
As part of my deconstruction of our troubled cultural outlets, I report from the front on "
Tropic Thunder" the latest disaster from Ben Stiller.
Labels: movie review
Thoughts on "The Wire"
I finally finished the HBO series "The Wire" this weekend, thanks to Netflix and my friend Jeff Cox for infecting me with the best piece of television ever.
And so I wrote up some thoughts about the show, and about what I thought made it so great. Essentially, I think what made it great was its gritty realism combined with a real pressing social problem that seems implacable: that of the modern socially self-destructing city.
Labels: movie review
Movie Review: X-Files 2
Movie Review: X-Files 2
Sunday, August 10, 2008 at 1:11am
A few weeks ago I went to see the second installment in the X-Files cinema, and overall I have to say that it’s quite unimpressive. It took me a few weeks just to transcribe my notes just because, well, the movie was that unmotivating.
In fact, let me relay to you the pre-movie entertainment first, because that was somewhat interesting:
Pre-show commercials - since there isn't enough commercialism in life, we now get to watch them before the movie starts:
1. ODCP - Office of Drug Control Policy
In the beginning, there was this just absolutely silly Public Service Announcement from the Office of Drug Control Policy involving a teenager taking off t-shirts that have sayings on them. I don't even understand what this is trying to say, and frankly it pisses me off that not only am I paying taxes to subsidize this crap, but it's so byzantine that I can't even understand it. I don't need tax dollars thrown at drug prevention that requires some postmodern deconstruction of its message so that I can decipher it. I can’t believe taxpayer money finances this lunacy.
2. Wal-Mart
That whore Hannah Montana was promoting Wal-Mart, which is undoubtedly beneath her now that her photographer of choice is court photographer of the elites, and I’ll admit a damn good one, Annie Leibovitz. Still, I love low prices everyday.
3. Every other ad: Batman
Every ad was in the wake of Batman: The Dark Knight, either a Verizon phone somehow related to Batman or some trinket that could conceivably have a batman logo somewhere on it, thereby enhancing its value from simple crap to crap with a reference to Batman on it.
Movie Previews:
1. Yet another Star Wars travesty
If you needed a reason not to see this movie, George Lucas’ involvement should suffice.
2. Miracle at Santa Anna
Why does it take Spike Lee to give us good war movies? Undoubtedly this one will have an overbearing political correctness, and the German villains will be ridiculously over the top, but it looks like it nevertheless might be worth seeing. It further inflames my Hollywood hatred though to realize the many war movies we’re still missing out on. They'll be making a remake of Battlefield: Earth before we ever get another Bridge on the River Kwai or any serious Naval movie of World War II.
3. Death Race
Sadly it looks like Joan Allen is hurting for money, so she’s been dragged into this ridiculous movie. It looks like the plot was sketched out at the recess lot at the local middle school.
4. Mirrors
Hells yes. Intense preview, looks great. A campy horror movie with a new twist: your evil self in the mirror. And with Jack Bauer involved, it can’t go wrong.
5. Babylon, A.D.
Vin Diesel has now graduated to a special league of bad acting, a category known only by its poster child: Wesley Snipes. Steven Seagal is the vice chairman of that category, and those three are perhaps the most unwatchable actors that still get roles. That last caveat was so that I didn’t have to mention Treat Williams. Again, why are we given such trash and yet we can't get a good war movie at least once a year? I did appreciate that they apparently are stealing dialogue in this preview from one of my favorite movies: The Postman. Every movie this clown makes is just a rehash of "XXX" - the CGI and special effects just get old.
Overall critiques of X-Files2:
Perhaps it's just laziness, but there wasn't enough cohesion in the movie to give you a serious review. The movie hinges on the prophecies of a pedophile priest to psychically 'see' abductions that are happening. And while that gives the movie the opportunity to discuss some interesting concepts, the overall effort falls flat and never flows. They could have talked about redemption, but didn't. They could have taught the audience something about the nature of suffering, but didn't. They could have rehashed older discussions about faith in the face of adversity and pain, but didn't. They could have given us a creature feature, but didn't. They could have taught the audience about stem cells, treatment, and the ethics of the medical profession, but didn't.
The movie's greatest crime was that of great expectations: that it would be fun, scary, intriguing, informative and exciting: like the first two seasons of the television show. Sadly, it did not deliver.
So, here are 29 snippets and thoughts about the movie. Quibble with them if you wish, Arndt.
1. The dialogue was stiled and artificial
2. Additionally, it was unrealistic dialogue, the black agent says “Mulder’s sister was taken by E.T.” in a very awkward moment in front of Mulder, as he meets another agent for the first time, who is sort of the love interest.
3. The villain is very cliche, a quasi-redneck with the souped-up truck, reference the Jeepers Creepers movie (Josie, this shout out is for you)
4. The bad guys are Russians, I mean, come on. Couldn't we at least use some generic Idaho neo-nazis or something?
5. The choice of villains show the overall cowardice of Hollywood in engaging real villains other than businessmen, and accentuates the detachment of the industry from the people: Drugs, Abortion, Community, Institutions breaking down—HBO's "the Wire" offers a compelling liberal interpretation of the villains in our midst, and yet they can't even deal with that level of honesty. They could have tried to give us real villains, here it’s just silly. And overall it's really more of a CSI episode than a legitimate X-File. Nothing about the film was a real “creature feature” other than the psychic abilities of the priest.
6. Scully’s confusion on the nature of suffering was silly, as even a nominal Catholic or even someone just lightly aware of C.S. Lewis would have thought about this before and know solid reasons for this, it wouldn't be a new subject at the tender age of 40.
7. Did Mulder and Scully have a child and I missed it? I stopped watching the last few seasons due to its ridiculousness
8. Awkward music throughout
9. There was a subplot involving stem cell research, but it was bungled overall. Which becomes a missed opportunity, and just a diversion within the plot, not explored well.
10. Bad cinematography, the shots were never solid, more television-like than cinematic, straight to dvd/cable? There were plenty of scenes to give us more fun with the camera, and more aesthetic, but they didn't deliver.
11. The tension between agents seemed fake, and the presence of the love interest for Mulder didn't work. Her death was also a bit strange, with the camera following her down the elevator shaft. A bit out of place.
12. The science angle, not just on stem cells, had several unique teaching moments that were fumbled.
13. Too much dialogue about “the darkness” between Mulder and Scully-- the conversation never evolved, it kept talking about this abstract emotion on a very superficial level.
14. God doesn’t do evil or bad things, yet the movie has a lot of intellectual confusion on this point and doesn't resolve it well.
15. This was not a good script, both in terms of the structure and the words. No one has a monologue worth remembering.
16. Russians are just the enemies of convenience, it could just as easily have been anyone else.
17. When Mulder's car goes off the cliff, the police find the car way too quick, did he hit the onstar button? Also, the killer doesn't come after him, and he's conveniently close to the compound. This whole progression was just silly.
18. Mulder has a lame ass entry into the building/compound at the end of the movie, and gets disarmed easily.
19. Skinner appears near the end, and is almost superfluous to the movie.
20. The whole concept of the redemption of a pedophile/pederast? Good topic, failed execution. I though Scully's rage at the priest was over the top, but if they had done it a little different it might have worked. It was the only part of the main plot that almost came together in a good way.
21. I can't say it enough: there was really bad dialogue
22. In between scenes were choppy, the script didn’t flow
23. They really didn’t pull the surgery subplot all the way together
24. This was more of a crime mystery than an x-files episode, always straining to get back to those season 1 and 2 roots.
25. I suspect this all might result from some of the same star trek problems: moving a solid TV show to a cinematic presentation, are the standards too high? Is pressure from the studio different than network pressures? Perhaps the level of oversight on a script strips out the creativity and uniqueness of the writers, resulting in the blandness that ruins so many movies.
26. As well, I suspect the director Chris Carter used bad takes. It looks like Carter generally directed the TV series, but the first movie was controlled by someone else. This was what they call in the business a "good decision."
27. Maybe they’re demonstrating a different market: the very low-budget movie, a level between TV and a full movie operation – should this be treated as such? Is this a major studio independent production? The budget was $30 million, compared to the first movie's $66 million. Spend a few more million on the next sequel on a better writing team and a real director.
28. This might be kicking them while they're down, but in the closing credits there is a background of a very out of place ocean considering the entire movie is set in West Virginia I believe, and after the credits finish one sees mulder and scully boating to a remote island together, a bit silly and weird. An obvious nod to the fans I guess, but, again, just out of place.
29. Concept was good, script was bad, execution was bad, acting was bad.
D-, */**** 60/100
Updated about 10 months ago
Comments from Facebook:
Josie Marko at 2:51pm August 11, 2008
Jeepers is the shit.
Labels: movie review
Movie Review: Pineapple Express
Movie Review: Pineapple Express
Sunday, August 10, 2008 at 12:29am
Pineapple Express
An action stoner movie whose only remarkable trait was its graphic violence and graphic acting violence done by Seth Rogen and other guy, James Franco. Franco's acting in this movie was almost unbelievably bad, as though the real joke of the movie was how poorly delivered Franco's lines were. Overall, parts of the film were funny, but most of it was stupid not in the funny sense, but in the plain unfunny stupid sense.
I enjoyed Superbad and Knocked Up, but this, well, just didn't work for me.
Though the great Tom Petty, future mayor of Bridge City, once explained to me in song that I don't know how it feels, and maybe that means I also don't know how to find this movie funny while not being a pothead.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Pineapple_ExpressD+, */****, 60/100
Comments from Facebook:
Christopher J. Brown at 7:33am August 10, 2008
Thug Life!
Daniel Rutherford at 12:57pm August 10, 2008
Wow, this is the first review of this movie I actually agree with 100%. Superbad and Knocked Up were awesome, this movie not so much. The plot was predictable and the jokes were few and far between. The first and last scenes of this movie should have been cut out altogether.
Labels: movie review
The pricing regime at the theaters
I went to the
X-Files 2 movie this weekend, which I'm writing a brief review (I disliked it) and it occurred to me, as I paid my $10.25 for a movie ticket, that it's silly that there's one standard fixed price for movies. In an era of escalating costs, and a growing population, if anything, these prices should be coming down and we should also come to expect different prices for different first-run movies. Initially I wanted to say this concept was
variable pricing, but I don't think that's correct. In practice what this should mean is that movies that have larger budgets should have a higher ticket price, that cost should be spread out and covered by those watching the individual movie and we shouldn't be subsidizing the crap that Hollywood's been making by paying inflated prices due to the studio's method of hiding costs. I think the effect on this would be to increase niche outlets, encourage more independent movies, discourage the ridiculous Hollywood salaries and overall promote the best, highest quality, movies. It would be a little free market where it's sorely needed: Hollywood. When the viewer gets less, let's pay less.
Labels: culture, movie review, movies
Movie Review: the Dark Knight
A review of the Dark Knight
Saturday, July 19, 2008 at 12:25pm
**warning, my reviews have spoilers, deal with it**
A Review of the Dark Knight
I want the first sentence of this review to say that this was the best movie I’ve seen over the past year. It met and exceeded my expectations, it was an epic of the first order, and a triumph of dialogue, cinematography and not the least, acting.
One odd critique I’ve had of other movies, is that the character development is always so predictable. All the key characters survive except the villain, the only deaths are at the end, good always wins, the good guy always stops the tragedy in Kiefer Sutherland/Jack Bauer style 2 seconds before detonation. Not so in the Dark Knight, quite the opposite, good people die, and the hero does not save them.
It would also be too easy for the writers to make Batman too flawed, and too unlikable, or to highlight the tension between being a caped freak and a normal guy too much and make us tire of the tension. Yet this movie balanced it out well, and I think that internal drama, as important as it is, was carefully put against a backdrop of action and thrills. The real prop of the movie are the Joker’s schemes, we’re really there not to understand the tensions of the Batman, but to see a quick thesis of those tensions and then see how they play out in these maniacal situations. And that’s where the movie delivers.
The Joker is always a step ahead, always ready, and frankly just smarter than Batman. He’s more committed, and that pays off just as it should. In a world without rules, those who have them will be always at a disadvantage. If anything, I was disappointed the movie didn't make Batman do more than violate a silly right like privacy to protect Gotham, and the dialogue about the Romans over dinner was perfect and the conversation really moved the plot and worked with it. Michael Caine's best line was about the Joker, and his detachment from motive or reason that moves normal criminals, "some men just want to watch the world burn."
The Joker wins every encounter, wins every battle. But only in retrospect do we realize that the battle is not against the Joker but against ourselves, and about whether we fundamentally change who we are in order to combat evil. It’s a very timely, and subtle, message for our modern age. There’s a somewhat needless reference to Echelon/FISA wiretaps in the movie, but it still manages to work. We all know Batman is Bruce Wayne, but who are those two people, and really what are their values and what are their motivations? The duality between the Batman and the Joker also works in another twisted way with the Batman and Harvey Dent, which works seamlessly and perfectly within the movie.
The dialogue, as well, cannot be understated as to its critical foundation in this movie’s greatness. The Joker’s lines are so perfectly written and so well delivered, that they leave a chill not for their diction but for their clarity and concepts. This Batman, unlike Tim Burton’s masterful 1989 interpretation as a comic book come to the movies, is a psychological thriller that has brought the movie Batman to our daily lives. A shudder went through me when the Joker having captured citizens of Gotham, killed them slowly in a video reminiscent of something from Al-Qaeda. This is not a Batman set in the 50’s, or in a hyperbolic Gotham without real police or a military, this is a Batman right down the street, with villains who are evil not in a hilarious dark comedy way, but in the deeply disturbing depth that the master villains deserve.
Heath Ledger’s performance was stunning. I did not recognize the actor I knew from such worthless previous performances such as 10 things I hate about you, The Patriot, A Knight’s Tale, rather, this was a completely transformed actor. It was a chilling experience, his mannerisms, his demeanor and his approach could not have been better. I don’t recall the last time I entertained the thought of returning to see a movie in the theater twice, yet I’m considering it now just to see Ledger’s performance a second time on the screen. It wasn’t over the top, it wasn’t silly and wasn’t funny. It was disturbing, it was compelling, it was acting.
I must also admit that I was skeptical of Ledger’s potential to play the Joker. Growing up, I devoured the 89 Batman as many times as I could: the moral clarity, the actions of the one to help the many, the self-sacrifice, all ingrained values within me that I, to no small extent, credit to quality movies like Batman. Those visuals, words and ideas imprinted on young minds certainly have consequences. And Nicholson’s performance was spot on for the mood of that movie: dark, comedic, and with a touch of silly. But the country has changed and I think that mood in this movie would have been quite misplaced. We’ve become more polarized, more serious and grittier. Reality television, youtube executions and graphic movies like Saw have given our minds a very different edge, and this movie floats among our current currents like a fish in the water, it functions as the tale not only we need to hear, but one that we want to hear. This is the Batman that needed to be made in 2008.
The movie had some shortcomings, all very minor. The wonderful Gary Oldman was underused, Christian Bale’s Batman voice is so awkward as to be distracting, certain plot points don’t quite weave together, and there’s no resolution to the joker at the end of the movie. However, those are all such small and minor points compared to how well this movie worked, that they’re insignificant.
And while I was thoroughly disappointed with the previous iteration, with its misplaced Eastern mysticism and martial arts focus, and yet they have completely won me back into their fold. I still revere Tim Burton’s previous interpretation, but Christopher Nolan has made a masterpiece perhaps even surpassing Burton’s vision. I recommend it to all who have even a passing interest in Batman.
****/**** A+, 100 out of 100
comments from Facebook:
Mark Robertson at 5:17pm July 19, 2008
I think they had all the resolution to the Joker at the end of the movie that they wanted. He got caught, but inevitably would be back on the streets. Unfortunately, with Heath Ledger dead it puts them in an awkward situation, it doesn't seem likely that anyone would be able to (and honestly who would want to try?) to replace Ledger with another actor. But killing off the character with stock footage (as was suggested by a friend of mine) doesn't seem to do justice to the character. Especially, considering the final dialogue between the Joker and Batman about how'd they'd always be enemies and such.
Andrew K. Smith at 5:44pm July 19, 2008
Your understanding of why the jokey style and tone of 1989 Batman might not appeal to today's younger moviegoers is dead on. You're a young Roger Ebert.
BTW: I think a lot people--myself among them--are interested in seeing Heath Ledger in the role that basically killed him. I'm not sure whether it's tragic or heroic when people die for art.
Ryan Sorba at 10:01pm July 19, 2008
Great review Ben. I just saw the movie and discussed many of the things you've written about over dinner. This was a joy to read.
Christopher Joshua Arndt at 10:05pm July 19, 2008
Actually, it was perfectly predictable.
All the people who were characters in the comics lived, and the character that was not a comic book character died.
Then there was the final fate of Dent. That was left somewhat... open.
However, the Joker was left alive at the end to emphasize that a superhero does not do this or that, eg "kill", especially since in the comics the Joker is famous for either being hauled away or dying in such a manner that there is n body, so obviously he will return. The death of Jack Nicholson's character in the 1989 movie was a horrific anomaly.
I honestly doubt that the Joker character was every seriously intended to return in this series. Heath Ledger's death probably changes nothing.
Ben Wetmore at 4:07am July 20, 2008
four thoughts:
1. thank you for the kind words Sorba and Andrew, you're both too kind.
2. I think that resolution to the joker question is an interesting one, and yes, they really have no way to deal with it at the end of the movie/in subsequent sequels considering ledger's death. Can the joker live in the narrative of future Batman movies without being acknowledged, without breaking out of jail? I don't think there's a very good answer in any case, though I really like Mark's analysis about how they need each other.
3. I admit being more excited to see the movie in seeing the role that brought Ledger down, I think on one hand its obviously very sad, but then again this was an actor who strived to become a madman, and then when he did, couldn't sleep at night. I think there's something very human, and somewhat romantic about that. This was certainly the performance of Ledger's career.
(continued)
Ben Wetmore at 4:11am July 20, 2008
4. I didn't want to undersell my love of Nicholson's previous performance. There's a scene in the 89 version where Nicholson kills the main mob boss dissenter, kicks everyone out, and then proceeds to talk to the corpse while obviously hearing voices that tell him to kill all the rest of the mob bosses. The color scheme of the clip is very 80's-ish, and the costumes are silly, but the performance by Nicholson and the thought of what's going on in the Joker's mind at that moment, as he argues with himself in front of a dead body, is very good and I'd say, a small taste of the depravity of what we get in this movie. I think Ledger's performance is clearly superior to Nicholson's, and perhaps even Ledger was a better actor in the end than Nicholson ever was, but you can tell that Nicholson was trying in 89 to get at a deeper darker joker that the script wouldn't give him, and perhaps, America wasn't ready to see quite yet.
So, I don't want to short-shrift the previous performance.
Morgan Brooke Wilkins at 10:12am July 20, 2008
Great Review. Thanks.
Steve Bierfeldt at 11:55am July 20, 2008
The only criticism I have of the review is that you only gave it a rating of 100. This movie is on the level of the Godfather, Empire Strikes Back, and Raiders of the Lost Ark. It is a spectacular movie first, which just happens to be based on a comic book. There were things I caught seeing it the second time that elevated it to an even greater height. (Didn't think that was possible.) Who caught the scene when Batman and Gordon go to save Rachel and Harvey, respectively? There is a twist there I only caught the second time. Or who caught the one line of dialogue that the black police chief says to Gordon about his "future as a commissioner?"
I happened to catch the original batman on cable last night and there is no question this is a superior film. So much so it's not even close. Perhaps the additional 20 years dates the film a bit, or perhaps I just remember it differently than when I was five years old. The Dark Knight is a cinematic masterpiece in every sense of the word.
Ben Wetmore at 1:21pm July 20, 2008
thank you Morgan and Steve, I'm flattered you both read it and liked my review.
Steve- I think you're right, and I'm interested in what the second viewing reveals. I'm expecting to see some more magic from Ledger, perhaps my expectations are too high.
As for the original Batman, I agree with you, but I'd have to still give Burton credit for making that original movie, which stands almost completely alone among movies before that time. It was the first comic book movie, and it was dark, it was grim, and even with its imperfections (read Arli$$, aka Robert Wuhl), was still a fabulous movie from its time. I mean, the Gotham parade with poison balloons with Prince's "Trust" in the background where Batman saves the day in the Batwing, it's just too good.
So, while there are a half dozen other Batman movies that are horrendous, those two are great even though the most recent was is, as you point out, much better.
Jason Miller at 2:08pm July 20, 2008
Great Review. I believe in Harvey Dent.
Christopher Joshua Arndt at 7:22pm July 20, 2008
I'm tempted to be an anal arse by insisting that the "original" Batman movie was a comedy made in the sixties starring Adam West with Ceaser Romero as the Joker.
I'm also tempted to insist that the original theatrical Batman was a serial that was released in the forties and the Caped Crusader fought a Japanese spy ring.
I don't care to do either of those things.
I do care to mention that if Joker was ever imagined to appear in a sequel film and Heath Ledger was not seriously inclined to play the character more than once, this character is not honestly tied to Ledger's performance. He did a good job, but not an original job. The Joker is someone else's character. My point is that more than one actor portrayed Ernst Blofeld and I cannot recall any critic claiming that this fact undermined the S.P.E.C.T.R.E. series in the Bond films.
Part of the reason this movie was so good was that is was so faithful to the comic book series, the stories, and the mythos. The only major character that was not from the comics was that Katie Gyllenhaal chick, the preachy preachy preachy woman whom I quickly learned to despise.
(Oddly enough the role she played in the first movie and to some extent the second was a sexualized female version of Harvey Dent).
The 1989 Batman film was a movie that happened to be based on a comic book series. Tim Burton was too pretentious to read comic books and had a particular disdain for nerds like me, a hypocrisy which I cannot bring myself to condemn.
Part of the many flaws from the 1989 production stemmed from it being a branchild of Burton, and coming from deviations to Batman lore.
Ben Wetmore at 3:07pm July 21, 2008
Chris- all your fandom comments might be true, but I dont think most people, myself included, care that much about the absolute purity of those things.
And I think you're flat wrong about the originality of Ledger's performance, compare Nicholson and Ledger, and compare Ledger to any other comic-book-movie villain, and i think you still see a very unique role.
I don't understand how your comment about SPECTRE relates here, Ledger did such a phenomenal job that he remade the role and merged it with himself, to replace him would just be silly. The Bond movies could get away with the revolving cast a lot easier since they weren't meant to have any serious continuity anyway. This is different, to explain it would be patronizing, silly or both, so I won't.
And though I admire films that take any established canon seriously, I don't think that's what made the movie great. It was great to me because of other factors completely outside of yours, so, again, your comment is silly and wrong. I dare say, it's wrong like kong.
And though I don't care much for Gyllenhaal as an actress, I didn't think her performance was preachy or out of place. And I didn't see her as a sexualized version of Harvey Dent either.
And if you feel Tim Burton is too un-nerdy for your likes, than, well, I don't even comprehend what plane of nerddom you exist on. Burton's movie was unique, it was a solid interpretation, and it brought a comic to the screen, point to another movie that succeeded as much prior to Burton's vision. I don't think you can, and I think we owe a lot to him and his 89 version in paving the way to many other movies that followed suit.
So, again, you're wrong like kong.
: )
Christopher Joshua Arndt at 3:09pm July 21, 2008
I think you miss too many of my points to judge the accuracy of situations.
And if you didn't think the Rachel Dawes' character was preachy, which is really a polite substitute for saying she was b****ing too much throughout both movies, you weren't watching the same flicks as the rest of the country.
Travis Hankins at 6:19pm July 21, 2008
The most disturbing part of the movie was seeing the Joker in a nurse's outfit, but it was also the funniest part because he was wearing a "Vote Harvey Dent" sticker...Classic!
Travis James Norton at 10:51pm July 21, 2008
Great review Ben. One of several I've read including the ones on slashfilm.com. I agree Christian Bale's voice was distracting in the final scenes. In fact many critics have mentioned that while Bale was keeping in character with his voice around Freeman while in the suit, the gruff voice wasn't needed. Just in case you didn't view them the viral videos offered by WB on the internet added to the backdrop of the movie before the bank robbery.
I look forward to watching the film on IMAX, but the IMAX theaters here in SoCal have been sold out since Friday.
My favorite scenes in no particular order in the movie were:
1) The motorcycle wall flip and truck flip
2) The disapearing pencil
3) The button malfunction while in Nurse outfit
4) China escape
5) The motorcycle chase sequence
Ben Wetmore at 12:14am July 22, 2008
hankins- yes, that was pretty creepy as well. the sticker was a great touch.
norton- you speak truth, friend, all of those scenes were awesome. I mean, the China escape was way way way over the top, but somehow, it still worked. hahaha. The disappearing pencil was comedy genius as well.
Ben Wetmore at 12:15am July 22, 2008
arndt- what do you mean by accuracy of situations?
I also like giving you a hard time, so take that into consideration.
Labels: movie review
A Quick Review of Hancock
So, I went to go see the Will Smith "Hancock" movie about alternative super-heroes. As no fan of Smith, I was reluctant to go, but the trailer looked promising. And while the movie has its fair share of gimmicks, there aren't many more than the previews already display. The real catch of this movie, I think the Directors forget, was not the convoluted storyline involving Charlize Theron as a perpetual mate for Hancock, but as the few treats of a superhero doing something spectacular and not realizing the consequences. The appeal was in the adventure, not in the drama. The film would have been better to spend the second half on humor and character development than on necessarily resolving this tension between Theron's character and Hancock. In fact, it was disappointing that a relatively promising concept was so poorly executed considering how right they got it at first: a man who had super powers whose social skills had been corrupted by his power to the point where he was unhappy and miserable.
According to Yahoo the critics picked up on the same problem. The movie had the chance to remind us that superhero are people too, and that the machinations we all go through on a daily basis are often a struggle: to remain in favor, to keep others happy, to keep our relationships stable. So, Hancock, as with many other recent Hollywood movies, suffers from a crime of great expectations. C-, **/****
Labels: movie review
