34 posts tagged “untimely reviews”
Every now and then, a movie comes along and sets an impossible to beat standard for an entire genre. “Star Wars” did it for sci-fi movies. “Titanic” did it for disaster movies. “The Dark Knight” does it for comic book movies.
Two and a half hours never felt so good, which is ironic considering the subject matter. This is one gruesome movie. Even though actual murders are are mostly kept off-camera, they do mount up. Sometimes we see a body falling or a vehicle explode. Other times the bodies show up pre-murdered. A few murders are merely mentioned. We never really see the gory details and that restraint is to the film’s credit. Batman feels bad about every death, of course, and considers retiring. If I saw every facet of each death, I’d probably tell him to do the same thing. Batman’s fights are non-lethal but visceral affairs and not over edited like the incoherent fights that plagued “Batman Begins”.
The story is non-linear but it has a central theme: the corruptibility of man. The psychopathic Joker sees everyone as corrupt and guiltlessly works to reveal that “truth”. “Batman” is the incorruptible hero, the Joker’s polar opposite. In the middle is everyone else. We cheer as some unexpectedly rise to the Joker’s challenge. We are aghast at others who are complicit in the Joker’s murderous schemes. The plot requires some suspension of disbelief. Some of the Joker’s plans require the invention of new technology on the part of Batman. Perhaps the Joker simply knows that he should never underestimate Batman.
In terms of greatest comic book movies of all time, “The Dark Knight” has some serious competition that start with “S”: “Spiderman” and “Superman”. Sam Raimi’s “Spiderman” gives us an awkward teen superhero worthy of our empathy in a parable who’s moral is oft quoted by kids and their seniors. Richard Donner’s “Superman” gave us all the goodness and grit of a god-like hero with all the special effect wonders available in the late 1970s. “The Dark Knight” trumps them all. It gives us a Batman tortured by his conflict between his refusal to kill (his “one rule”) and the death that surrounds his fight against crime. It gives the Joker, played by Heath Ledger in the best superhero movie performance ever. All superhero films have a hero and a villain, sure, but “The Dark Knight” has an ace up its sleeve: an entire Gotham city’s worth of the most fleshed out supporting characters in comic movies history.
Sometimes a movie’s length and wide cast is its detriment. The crime drama “Heat” is one of those movies that is about one hour and several quiet character development scenes past greatness. The devil really is in the details. “The Dark Knight” can deliver a great movie with mass appeal because it makes the hard choices, much like Batman himself. I give extra points to The Dark Knight for its willingness to kill off staple characters of the franchise. We also never find out the Joker’s real background: why a criminal genius chooses to be an anarchist. Other events are sped up, like the creation of villains and the development of new technology. So be it. Life is too short to watch every single backstory. And piqued curiosity bests strained patience. Making the hard decisions makes for a good movie. Also making the right decisions makes for an instant classic.
I give “The Dark Knight” 5 out of 5 bat-stars.
Sometimes a movie is so amazingly great that it transcends itself. "Pulp Fiction" comes to mind as one of these kinds of movies. These instant classics convey a compelling story and show us intriguing characters but the spectator experience is uplifted by how the movie was filmed. These movies are art and "No Country for Old Men" is simply the best art I have seen in years. A friend of mine was asked if he loved it and he responded, "love is not a strong enough word to describe how I feel about this movie." That's about the best accolade a movie can get.
All of the principal players in this movie could have been awarded an Oscar for their performance. Javier Bardem did win an award for his chilling role of a complicated madman. Tommy Lee Jones provided one of his best performances ever as a Texas sheriff burnt-out from what he sees as an increasingly violent world. Josh Brolin is unerapreciated, in my opinion, for his very down-to-earth portrayal of a the ordinary guy on the run from an extraordinary killer. Special kudos should also go to the large cast of ordinary looking folk such as the man who plays a befuddled gas station attendant desperate to end an ever more akward conversation with Javier Bardem's assasin.
The real star of this film is its own cinametography. Perhaps the first 1/3 of this film is dominated by a desolate Texas landscape that never looked so good. This film also makes use of clever shot that deftly tell us what has happened or what will happen. The film also brings ordinary places to life. Cheap hotel rooms and trailer homes have never before come to life as they do in this film. Much of the beauty of this fim is wasted on an old fashioned standard definition television, of course. Mark Twain may have said "You will always regret the things you didn't do". I truly regret passing up the opportunity to see this film in a theater. Do not make my mistake, see this movie the right way!
Despite all of the accolades from critics and me, some people did not like this movie. My wife for instance, did not care as much for it as I did. Her complaints were few but stong: there is graphic violence and blood and many scenes are slow and expository, as I'm sure the book was. In defense of this movie, the blood and gore show the real consequences of violence. The movie also has a statement to make about violence that is well told through its characters and well conveyed by the brilliant cast of actors. There is nothing wasted in this film; some scenes are diamonds, but each scene is a gem.
I rate this movie as 5 out of 5 "must see"s. You must see it. You must see it. You must see it. You must see it. You must see it.
- a good story.
- good actors
- great villains
- great action
- a female character who is more than eye candy
An avid news watcher, I know that when "Iron Man" hit the theaters last spring, it was popular. Unlike most crash-and-burn movies, "Iron Man" stayed popular. It had something called word-of-mouth. I was certainly swayed when ordinary people, i.e. the 99% of the population that does not read comic books, recommended this movie. Of course, having just had a baby, I didn't have to see it. Thank goodness for fast turnarounds on rentals.
The boy who made "Swingers" did good. "Iron Man" is so money. No spoilers here, just a simple recommendation that everyone see it. Some of the content is definitely not suitable for kids, and watching soldiers get cut down in a fictional Afghanistan was extra shocking because my big brother is serving in Iraq. For teens and adults, he violence is worth it. The message of being responsible with your life is done well. This is certianly the highest rated untimely review ever to appear on this blog.
Huzaa to "Iron Man" the movie!
Thinking back to the 1980s, there were a lot of great action movies. In an age before computer graphics (except "Tron" and the "Last Starfighter", like they even count), stunts and explosions had to be real. These ancient action films were more humanizing, because the danger was real. These movies brought me into the action. They made me root for the hero and hate the villain. None did this better than "Die Hard".
If there were a hall of fame of classic action films, "Die Hard" should be number one. It has a regular looking guy, no, scratch that, a little balding guy going up agaisnt European hit men armed with automatic weapons and anti-tank missiles. And the hero doesn't even have shoes. We watch him get beat up, blown up, shot, cut up with glass, and berated by the authorities that should be helping him. The villains are savvy and smart, which makes their comeupance all the more satisfying. It doesn't get any better than this. (A staple phrase from the 1980s).
So the action continues in the third sequal to this movie, "Live Free or Die Hard"? 20 years later we have computer graphics and internet inspired plotlines. This update gives us the hero jumping on fighter jets, launching police cars, blowing up stuff with fire extinguishers, driving through elevators, wait a minute, what? It definitely gets better than this.
While the first "Die Hard" was ingenously filmed in an office building turned prison turned maze of death, the latest sequel has the hero driving from all over the east coast. And instead of blowing up said office building as a snide dissing of the worship of corporate excess that pervaded the 1980s, the sequel takes down every institution that we take for granted yet reminding us that the internet is still cool. I was also annoyed by the resilience of the bad guys. Sure, the hero takes a licking and keeps on ticking (another stape phrase from the 1980s), but do we need to see the same bad guys keep coming back. Who needs more bad guys when you have two unkillable kungfu experts?
Perhaps the most telling moment in the sequel is the use of social hacking to jumpstart a car. The cell phone network has been destroyed by hackers and the hero is unable to warn the FBI about an attack on a power plant. He has to steal a car and starts fiddling with the wires. His hacker buddy, the Mac from the I'm a Mac commercial has a better idea. He triggers the air bag and then convinces the On-Star rep that she needs to start the car so he can get his dad to a hospital. That plan has a huge problem, On-Star uses the cell phone network, which is down. Also, why do movies try to impress us the acting abilities of its characters? All of the characters are played by actors, who are necessarily already good actors.
Sigh, perhaps a timely showing would have been more exciting. When the audience is cheering and the screen is as tall as my house, every movie seems better. Alas, on my standard definition TV, "Live Free or Die Hard" was neither alive, free, dead, or hard.
Despite my love of Halo 3 and general affinity for two star movies, I more often enjoy small movies about human interaction. "Once" is one of the best of these movies. It is about the love(not) between two people from different worlds but one passion: music. Unlike a romantic comedy, this movie can be relished by those for whom love is on the outs: because sometimes it is better to be single and available.
No spoilers here, not that they would be worth it. Compared to most movies this film is almost shot in real time. This goes to show that in most movies the plot is given too much emphasis over nuances. If you like nuances, seeing into the lives of characters, "Once" is like a rare jewel in a pile of less rare jewels.
"Once" is partly (or mostly) elevated above the dross partly because the music is actually fantastic. One scene in particular is striking because we can completely understand why a skeptical sound engineer would be surprisingly impressed by the music. We can't just pretend a song works because the movie says it works. It has to work outside of the story. One of the greatest movie songs is "Constant Sorrow" from the movie "O Brother, Where Art Thou". A central part of the storyline involves the sensational popularity of the old-timey song. The song works in the story, of course. But if the song had been the normal movie made trash, the sub-story would be stupid and the entire movie would be mediocre. But the song is awesome, and the movie is great. The same is true of the music in "Once."
"Once" will give you the good feeling of seeing a film that leaves me intellectually stimulated and emotionally satisfied. Can I stress the greatness of this movie enough? Lets find out: "Once" should be shown in every film class, "Once" should be on everyone's list of great movies of all time, "Once" should be seen and loved by everyone who says they love music, "Once" should have won more Oscars.
Oh, the damage that video games have done to cinema. Every since I satiated my bloodlust with cultural tour de force "Halo 3", I have forsaken all other media. But too much of a good thing is somehow bad, in theory, so I took a break from saving the galaxy to watching the X-men save the world in "X-men 3: Last Stand"
"X-men 3" seemed exciting almost a year and a half ago, when it was released in theaters. For some reason, I never made it out to see it, and my excitement has since waned. There are no crowds, no long lines, and no fanboy talk before watching an untimely movie. Maybe this is how movie critics feel at their special screenings: "ho-hum, there's work to be done, wait, which movie is this again?"
I recommend Roger Ebert's review of the first "X-men" movie (watchable on-line). He wondered why the movie wasn't all about a character named "Storm". She can control the weather, and is in Ebert's view, the most powerful and interesting of the "X-men". The movies instead centers on a character named "Wolverine", who has metal forks in his hands and looks like he smells bad. Not that Wolverine isn't interesting, but when other characters can fly, levitate objects, and shoot lasers out of their eyes, he seems a bit boring. Regardless, Wolverine is one of the most popular comic book characters of all time. He just isn't very exciting in movies.
The rest of the movie is about the really powerful mutants. The movie sets forth a scale of mutant powers, with class 1 being the weakest and class 5 the strongest. It is like the Fujita scale for mutations. Most of the mutants in the movie are only class 1 and 2 and dress accordingly: boring blacks, browns, and greys. Near the end the movie, there is a delightful scene where one of the younger and presumably weaker X-men tricks a powerful villain into defeating himself. This type of scene is gold for me. I love it when superheros dig deep and defeat the forces of evil with their cunning and courage. This movie could have used more moments like that.
I will give props to "X-men 3" for its complicated theme of tolerance and understanding. The fictional President makes a powerful argument that mutants cannot go unchecked, for one powerful mutant could subvert democracy. Hence the conflict between mutant rights and the right to vote. "X-men 3' thus breaks through the simple premise of using mutants as a metaphor for discrimination and gives us a more cerebral experience than "X-men" and "X2: X-men United".
So I actually recommend "X-men 3". Wolverine may not be as interesting as to play Master Chief, but he beats the pants off of "Greatest American Hero". As an extra bonus, "X-men 3" turns Frazier into a blue man-ape. If anything, you can discuss with your friends what you would want your mutant power to be or whether it is worth losing your power to fornicate.
I have had it with all of these mother f***ing 2 star movies on my mother f***ing cable. Actually, I'm not, because I have seen the epitome of a 2 star movie, "Snakes on a Plane". This is what 2 star movies are made to be.How untimely to see this movie now, more than a year and half after it first generated buzz for its inane title. The buzz may be over but the hissing, spitting, and biting, continues.
"Snakes on a Plane" is a snake bite above most "cheesy" disaster movies. First, you get Samuel L. Jackson in a lead role. He's great in every movie he is in, even the crappy ones. Second, you get the great line Samuel L. Jackson delivers in regards to his feelings about snakes and the plane they infest. Other than that, it is the same disaster movie you have seen dozens of times before.
The movie starts as any disaster movie would, with the signs of danger and the long introduction of the characters who will survive until the end. Everyone fits into a category we have seen before: the ditzy one, mr. ego, the jerk whose death we relish, the really nice person, the guy with helpful fighting skills, the hero, the comic relief guy, the "it was my last flight" lady, and Samuel L. Jackson. The snakes are all pretty much the same
I do recommend "Snakes on a Plane" over most things made for television. I do not recommend a "Snakes on a Plane" drinking game. Oh, and this movie is not for people afraid of snakes, flying, and Samuel L. Jackson.
"Little Miss Sunshine" is a fantastic movie. Nearing my mid thirties, I am constantly amazed at how much I like movies that are considerably small and seemingly simple. For instance, in my teen years, my favorite movie, hands down, was "Robocop". This movie had robo-heat and robo-action: Peter Weller's hand was shot off, Robocop takes out ED209, and we get to see the insane commercials of the a future late 1990s. But eventually "Robocop" was over-taken by "Forrest Gump". There were some 'splosions, tricky manipulation of real news footage, and a story that spanned decades. Yet, "Forrest Gump" was about a man, and not a cyborg. Then enlightenment. A friend in graduate school lent me a few Kevin Smith movies. These movies were cheaply made, had no special effects, and were populated by a cadre of amateurs. Yet I loved Kevin Smith's early movies. Now, today, after a youth of worshiping "Star Wars" and Spielberg, I find the small movies to be the most entertaining and likely the most fulfilling.
I didn't just get more cerebral or snooty about movies. My reviews of two stars movies tells of a man still interested in wholesale destruction. The enticing eye candy of special effects triumphs belies the truth of why we watch movies: it is in our nature to connect with other people. Just as we enjoy being with others, we like watching them and knowing their stories. Those movies that capitalize on this human nature are the movies that leave the most lasting impression. "Little Miss Sunshine" oozes humanity to the degree that I ended up feeling like a part of it
From the very beginning of "Little Miss Sunshine" to its very end, it is a movie about six members of a family, their lives, their feelings, and their connections to each other. Sure, all but the little girl were annoying in some way. Yet they were not some polarizing force. Everyone of them could be like someone you know. Heck, had I not known that every member of the cast was an actor, I would have pegged them all as real people. Ever member of the cast deserves an Oscar for the work they did. The ending also has a unifying theme and a morale that is quite uplifting.
Although only the 51st highest grossing film of 2006, it is likely the best.
If you do see "Little Miss Sunshine" and like the feeling it gives you, I recommend the minuscule budget movie "Pieces of April". It was outstanding in its timely showing and because it was filmed with a regular video camera, it probably looks even better on television.
Ever read a book then see the movie but think the book was better? Not me. If I know a movie is coming I won't spoil it by reading the book first. In the case of "V for Vendetta" however, I made a point of spoiling this movie.
"V for Vendetta" the movie is based on a graphic novel written by graphic novel legend Alan Moore. The book was written in the early 1980s about events that take place in the late 1990s. Talk about untimely!
Here in the mid 2000s, many of the themes of the book are outdated. We little fear nuclear war. Terrorism is now viewed as abhorrent under any circumstances. Men are not as sexist.
The real meat of the book, however, is in its larger themes of government oppression and the courage to stand up to it. There is one particular event in this book that is as surprising as it is powerful. This one story within the story really defines the book and the entire read, sexist and all, is worth it for this one mind blowing moment.
The movie keeps the defining jewel of the book, but diverges poorly from the rest. Changes must be made. The future is not 1997 and technology has advanced. I can accept that. The book has a parade of scheming characters whose convoluted machinations could not be told in 2 hours. I can accept that too. Mysogeny is generally looked down upon in the 2000s. I applaud that. But, nuclear war has been replaced by a virus? Lame. Worse are the parts of the movie where the characters literally read through the plot. This isn't a book on tape; either show it or lose it. Things go downhill fast after an hour and fifteen minutes into the movie. As I said, the crowning jewel of the book remains virtually intact. See this movie just for that, then fast forward to the grand finale.
I am glad that I read the book first. Not because I necessarily prefer the book to the movie, which I do as all readers must. Quite the contrary, having seen the movie and its up to date vision of the dystopian future of England, I might have found the book to be out of date, out of touch, and generally sullied by its misconceived future and its author's treatment of female characters.
I also recommend another landmark graphic novel by Alan Moore, "The Watchmen". Some day it may also become a movie. Expect more threat of nuclear war and other things so tres 80s. Also expect a fairer treatment of women and an escoriating attack on machismo. After enough two star movies, it is refereshing to find a dense story with subtleties that unravel only upon long reflections. It surely beats the heck out of the "Clone Saga."
Some 2 star movies are really 3 stars movies. Some are really 1 star movies. Some are a travesty of lies.
On a lark, my wife and I decided to watch "Invincible". It was the kind of night when we really did not care what we watched so long as we both did not hate the concept of it. "Invincible" is one of those movies with an un-hate-able concept, the underdog surmounting all odds to succeed at sports. Neither of is a big fan of football, or as I like to think of it, "smear the ACL", but then again neither of us is a huge fan of interstellar wars and yet we both loved "Star Wars".
"Invicible" is a "true story" (more on that below) about football in the 1970s. I was only a wee boy in the 1970s, but from all accounts it was the worst decade ever. (Or at least the decade with the least hope for the future and the longest shirt collars.) Most of the actors in "Invinible" are your typical inner city working class types. They are supposed to sound Philadelphian but most sported the same accents when playing New Yorkers in NBC's short lived drama "The Black Donnelleys". The main character is Vince Papale, played by Mark Wahlberg. Movie Vince is a substitute teacher who played one year of football in high school but still regularly plays with this working class friends. Movie Vince is only the size of Mark Wahlberg and works as a substitute teacher. They goad him into trying out for the lowest ranked NFL team of 1976, the Philadelphia Eagles. Quite and soft spoken, Movie Vince relents and attends an open try-out.
My wife and I saw this movie in two parts. When little man screams, the 18 hour intermission begins. This led us to have time to reflect upon this movie. The movie, by the way, is also full of scenes reflection. Movie Vince only tries out for the Eagles after a time of quiet reflection. Then during training he reflects some more. He breaks a date with a super-hot football loving woman after reflection and then reflects upon his decision. He sits and reflects all over Philadelphia, in his car, outside the bar, and while walking down the street. During the interim I got to thinking that this guy sure does a lot of nothing.
At the end of the film, moving Vince makes a couple of plays and the restores the hope of an entire fanbase. My wife and reflected on the hour and half that led to one play. Post reflection, we felt a little disappointed.
I thought about all that quiet time. Was the real Vince Papale so trepadacious? Precious little internet research reveals "Invincible" to be, in fact, a lie. Vince Papale was actually a 6'2", 200 pound minor league football player. Vince earned an impressive minor league record and was invited to a training session by Eagles coach Dick Vermeil. When Vince retired from football, he became a TV broadcaster and then a marketing director. Vince was not an inexperienced player, he probably jumped at the opportunity to move from the minors to the majors, and he probably wasn't soft-spoken. The whole premise of this movie is pretty much crap.
So if you sorta' true stores filled with shots of Mark Wahlberg sitting quietly while looking at his feet, "Invincible" is a sure bet!
