How do you feel about profanity in movies?
It's okay if its restrained and has a purpose. 66%
There is far, far too much of it. 16%
It doesn't bother me. 16%
Saturday, March 1, 2008
Friday, February 29, 2008
Review - Semi-Pro
I think I remember when Will Ferrell was funny--way back before he relied on gratuitous shots of his pockmarked, weirdly hairy fat jiggling on screen for at least half of the movie to be funny. He has always relied on potty humor and frat party jokes but now he doesn't even try to actually be funny. He has clearly come to think that whenever he graces our screens with his presence we should automatically be laughing; unfortunately, he hasn't been funny since Anchorman, although Blades of Glory had its moments. Semi-Pro is the lowest he's fallen yet and he is beginning to take other actors down with him, most notably Will Arnett, who barely even manages to be recognizable on the screen in this movie.
The plot of the film follows Jackie Moon (Ferrell) and his struggling amateur basketball team, the Flint Tropics, who must get at least fourth place in their league in order to be a part of the ABA merger with the NBA.
The few jokes that are hidden in the script are beaten to death, in several scenes which carry on for far too long, although on the plus side this gives the audience even longer to try to find out why it is funny. Unfortunately, the 90 minute runtime is not nearly enough for anyone to find anything funny about this predictable and amateur excuse for a film.
Woody Harrelson shows up as the wise-sage Monix who is supposed to help the Tropics to get to the championship. He quickly becomes the focus of the film which is a problem because he doesn't even attempt to be funny. I don't meant to say that he isn't funny. I literally mean that his character never cracks a joke, never finds himself in an awkward situation. The only thing that is funny about him are his attempts to provide life lessons to the other players. Additionally, he is engaged in a romantic subplot with Maura Tierney (who is really slumming it these days). Unfortunately, the specifics of their relationship are never explained. Tierney's character seems to be living with her brother? boyfriend? It is never made clear who he is although his obsession with Monix is made very evident.
In many cases, the movie feels like a slapdash attempt to string together several scenes that Ferrell couldn't fit into his other movies. These scenes are presented under the guise of 'promotions' for the team and give Ferrell the opportunity to wrestle a bear, dress like a sun and dance with seahorses. And the laughs they desperately strive for are as transparent as Will Ferrell's new comedy style in which he thinks everything is funny just because he screams it.
In the words of Jackie Moon, " I just wish I could puke this all away!"
The plot of the film follows Jackie Moon (Ferrell) and his struggling amateur basketball team, the Flint Tropics, who must get at least fourth place in their league in order to be a part of the ABA merger with the NBA.
The few jokes that are hidden in the script are beaten to death, in several scenes which carry on for far too long, although on the plus side this gives the audience even longer to try to find out why it is funny. Unfortunately, the 90 minute runtime is not nearly enough for anyone to find anything funny about this predictable and amateur excuse for a film.
Woody Harrelson shows up as the wise-sage Monix who is supposed to help the Tropics to get to the championship. He quickly becomes the focus of the film which is a problem because he doesn't even attempt to be funny. I don't meant to say that he isn't funny. I literally mean that his character never cracks a joke, never finds himself in an awkward situation. The only thing that is funny about him are his attempts to provide life lessons to the other players. Additionally, he is engaged in a romantic subplot with Maura Tierney (who is really slumming it these days). Unfortunately, the specifics of their relationship are never explained. Tierney's character seems to be living with her brother? boyfriend? It is never made clear who he is although his obsession with Monix is made very evident.
In many cases, the movie feels like a slapdash attempt to string together several scenes that Ferrell couldn't fit into his other movies. These scenes are presented under the guise of 'promotions' for the team and give Ferrell the opportunity to wrestle a bear, dress like a sun and dance with seahorses. And the laughs they desperately strive for are as transparent as Will Ferrell's new comedy style in which he thinks everything is funny just because he screams it.
In the words of Jackie Moon, " I just wish I could puke this all away!"
Thursday, February 28, 2008
Review - Rendition
It's a shame that the movie-going public is so addicted to popcorn movies that it won't give philosophical movies like Rendition a chance. Rendition, featuring such Hollywood heavyweights as Meryl Streep, Reese Witherspoon, Jake Gyllenhaall and J.K. Simmons seems like it should have been an unquestioned box office success but its thoughtful treatment of the US policy of "extraordinary rendition"(a policy in which our government can legally take suspected terrorists, arrest them, send them away and have them tortured for information without due process of any kind) was far too serious of fare for a country that would rather see Larry the Cable Guy moon the camera for an hour and a half.
The film itself is a great success, featuring knockout performances from its entire cast but it really excels in the scenes where the moral issues aren't as black and white as they seem. it's easy to denounce these ideas when we know that El-Ibrahimi is innocent and undeserving of questioning but its also hard to disagree with Streep's Corrine Whitman, the government representative who authorizes the kidnapping, when she argues that 4,000 people were saved in London by information gathered through rendition. It's difficult for our idealism to remain strong when we are reminded of the terrorist attacks of 9/11, the London bombings and the Iraq War. Some part of me wanted Anwar to be guilty of collusion with the terrorists because it would have made the moral conundrum that director Gain Hood presents even more difficult to reason.
The actual construction of the film left something to be desired. A chronological twist at the end of the film is confusing upon the first viewing and unnecessary on the second and there is a lot of wasted potential for the amazing ensemble of actors and actresses that grace the screen. Hood spends far too much time stirring up animosity within his audience by focusing on scenes of torture rather than emphasizing the psychological changes happening within Gyllenhaal's Douglas Freeman or pondering the ruthless efficacy and detachment of Streep's cold-hearted Whitman. The best scenes of the film are her confrontations with Witherspoon and Peter Sarsgaard, who turns up as a powerful Senator's aide.
In his shining moment, he ambushes Whitman at a party, offering to send her a copy of the constitution so that she can brush up on the civil rights she is violating by imprisoning El-Ibrahimi. She retorts with a promise to send him the 9/11 commission report. Their ideological clash is the essence of the entire movie. Hood makes it impossible to remain neutral. You either have to side with the wicked witch of the FBI or the naive young politician's aide. There is no middle ground.
If pathos is more your form of argument, you might find it easier to subscribe to Witherspoon's ambush in the Senator's office where she demands to know where her husband is and Streep coolly replies, in typical government rote, that she has no idea.
Ironically enough, the strongest scenes of the film are also the best evidence of the films major weaknesses. It just doesn't manage, within the context of the film itself, to make the moral argument strongly enough. It is too clear which side of the argument Hood supports. A truly thought provoking film would have presented both sides of the argument as strongly as possible and allowed the audience to make its own decision rather than simply ruminating on the immorality of the topic.
But maybe thats not what Hood was trying to do. Maybe he was simply trying to make a film that demonstrated the devolution of American morals and our sacrifice of the moral high ground in the face of fear. If that's the case, then Rendition is a wildly successful venture.
The film itself is a great success, featuring knockout performances from its entire cast but it really excels in the scenes where the moral issues aren't as black and white as they seem. it's easy to denounce these ideas when we know that El-Ibrahimi is innocent and undeserving of questioning but its also hard to disagree with Streep's Corrine Whitman, the government representative who authorizes the kidnapping, when she argues that 4,000 people were saved in London by information gathered through rendition. It's difficult for our idealism to remain strong when we are reminded of the terrorist attacks of 9/11, the London bombings and the Iraq War. Some part of me wanted Anwar to be guilty of collusion with the terrorists because it would have made the moral conundrum that director Gain Hood presents even more difficult to reason.
The actual construction of the film left something to be desired. A chronological twist at the end of the film is confusing upon the first viewing and unnecessary on the second and there is a lot of wasted potential for the amazing ensemble of actors and actresses that grace the screen. Hood spends far too much time stirring up animosity within his audience by focusing on scenes of torture rather than emphasizing the psychological changes happening within Gyllenhaal's Douglas Freeman or pondering the ruthless efficacy and detachment of Streep's cold-hearted Whitman. The best scenes of the film are her confrontations with Witherspoon and Peter Sarsgaard, who turns up as a powerful Senator's aide.
In his shining moment, he ambushes Whitman at a party, offering to send her a copy of the constitution so that she can brush up on the civil rights she is violating by imprisoning El-Ibrahimi. She retorts with a promise to send him the 9/11 commission report. Their ideological clash is the essence of the entire movie. Hood makes it impossible to remain neutral. You either have to side with the wicked witch of the FBI or the naive young politician's aide. There is no middle ground.
If pathos is more your form of argument, you might find it easier to subscribe to Witherspoon's ambush in the Senator's office where she demands to know where her husband is and Streep coolly replies, in typical government rote, that she has no idea.
Ironically enough, the strongest scenes of the film are also the best evidence of the films major weaknesses. It just doesn't manage, within the context of the film itself, to make the moral argument strongly enough. It is too clear which side of the argument Hood supports. A truly thought provoking film would have presented both sides of the argument as strongly as possible and allowed the audience to make its own decision rather than simply ruminating on the immorality of the topic.
But maybe thats not what Hood was trying to do. Maybe he was simply trying to make a film that demonstrated the devolution of American morals and our sacrifice of the moral high ground in the face of fear. If that's the case, then Rendition is a wildly successful venture.
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
Feature - Top 10 Movie Haircuts
Call them the best. Call them the worst. Either way, they are distinctly memorable.
1. Johnny Depp and Helena Bonham Carter as Sweeney Todd and Mrs. Lovett in Sweeney Todd
2. Bert Lahr as Cowardly Lion in The Wizard of Oz
3. Carrie Fisher as Princess Leia in The Star Wars Trilogy
4. Javier Bardem as Anton Chigurh in No Country for Old Men
5. Gary Oldman as Dracula in Dracula
Honorable Mention for Jean-Baptiste Emanuel Zorg in The Fifth Element
6. John Franklin as Cousin Itt in The Addams Family
7. Cameron Diaz as Mary Jensen in There's Something about Mary
8. Johnny Depp as Edward Scissorhands in Edward Scissorhands
9. Elsa Lanchester as Bride of Frankenstein in Bride of Frankenstein
10. Will Ferrell as Mugatu in Zoolander
1. Johnny Depp and Helena Bonham Carter as Sweeney Todd and Mrs. Lovett in Sweeney Todd
2. Bert Lahr as Cowardly Lion in The Wizard of Oz3. Carrie Fisher as Princess Leia in The Star Wars Trilogy4. Javier Bardem as Anton Chigurh in No Country for Old Men5. Gary Oldman as Dracula in DraculaHonorable Mention for Jean-Baptiste Emanuel Zorg in The Fifth Element
6. John Franklin as Cousin Itt in The Addams Family7. Cameron Diaz as Mary Jensen in There's Something about Mary8. Johnny Depp as Edward Scissorhands in Edward Scissorhands
9. Elsa Lanchester as Bride of Frankenstein in Bride of Frankenstein10. Will Ferrell as Mugatu in Zoolander
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
Review - Van Helsing
Stephen Sommers' Van Helsing is one of the smartest spoofs since Airplane, whether it intends to be or not, and will unfortunately always be overlooked because of its embrace of blockbuster conventions and its failure to provide genuine scares. Those going into this film anticipating a horror movie will be sorely disappointed. However, those who expect only a loving, tongue-in-cheek homage to classic monster movies will be delighted with the adrenaline rush that Van Helsing provides.
The opening scene of the film, stylishly shot in black and white, trots out every monster movie cliche there is. We have an angry mob complete with pitchforks and torches, a mad scientist and even the immortal catchphrase "It's alive, It's alive." Not only is the scene excellently rendered and beautifully shot but its subtle allusions to less obvious monster movie conventions are excellently included. The shot of Igor, dwarfed by the shadow of the monstrous Dracula devouring Dr. Frankenstein is of particular note, utilizing the overused shadows of horror films in a new way.
Also worth praising is the sheer number of films that just this first scene manages to reference. The most obvious allusion is to Frankenstein and Dracula but there are also shades of more modern classics, specifically Young Frankenstein and Abbot and Costello Meet Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. Even the set pieces are recycled from old monster movies. Sommers more than proves his passion for the genre and his intention to make something that truly draws upon the influence of the monster movie canon.
Once the film jumps forward a year, we are treated to another supremely entertaining, if a little science-fictiony for my tastes, scene where Van Helsing (Hugh Jackman) hunts down Mr. Hyde, who has been terrorizing the city of London for months. I'm a sucker for reinterpretations of literary figures. I loved what they did with the characters in The League of Extraordinary Gentleman so this scene is like a fanboy dream for me and other fans of this combination of genres. This is also where we start to get the first clues to the film's rather inventive premise. An update of the Van Helsing from Bram Stoker's original novel Dracula, this incarnation of the monster slayer is a young, guilt-ridden monster hunter who works for a shadow agency within the Vatican called the Knights of the Holy Order. He embodies the misunderstood hero archetype because he is also being hunted by authorities as a murderer because most of the monsters that he kills turn back into humans upon death and are then found by unknowing townspeople. This slick reimagining of the character is actually a surprisingly strong premise that could easily have led to a successful franchise.
Joining Jackman is Kate Beckinsale as the last member of a family that is intricately linked with Dracula and will not find true peace until he has been killed. Beckinsale herself is passable as the beautiful Anna Valerious. However, the character design is one of the few design flaws in the film. The tightly-corseted, spike heel wearing heroine is just completely unbelievable. A simple wardrobe change would have made her character much more realistic. I could also have done without the silly accent but I don't know how faithful it was to the region of Transylania so I won't pass judgment.
The real surprise of the movie is Richard Roxburgh as Count Dracula who somehow manages not to fall off of the tightrope he has stretched between cheesiness and genuine conflicted monster.
However, the real credit has to go to the design teams. The mise-en-scene of this film is amazing. The gothic castles and alchemic lair of Dr. Frankenstein are truly some of the most interesting sets in recent memory. This coupled with the character designs and transformations make for, at the very least, an interesting and memorable visual spectacle.
That's really what this film is about--the spectacle. It is at its best when it fully embraces its camp and revels in nostalgia for the early monster movies.
Despite some obvious plot contrivances, specifically the sunlight creating orb that they just haven't found a purpose for yet, the plot is an intriguing mesh of multiple storylines culled from years of classic films that, much like the Frankenstein monster, comes alive, imbued with a Sommers' excited energy. This film gets the mixture right because it doesn't take itself too seriously, a mistake made by other cross-franchise films like Freddy vs. Jason. It's simply a movie that does exactly what Hollywood intends it to: it entertains. That's really all that can be asked for. The winks to monster movie buffs and film buffs in general are just icing on the cake.
The opening scene of the film, stylishly shot in black and white, trots out every monster movie cliche there is. We have an angry mob complete with pitchforks and torches, a mad scientist and even the immortal catchphrase "It's alive, It's alive." Not only is the scene excellently rendered and beautifully shot but its subtle allusions to less obvious monster movie conventions are excellently included. The shot of Igor, dwarfed by the shadow of the monstrous Dracula devouring Dr. Frankenstein is of particular note, utilizing the overused shadows of horror films in a new way.
Also worth praising is the sheer number of films that just this first scene manages to reference. The most obvious allusion is to Frankenstein and Dracula but there are also shades of more modern classics, specifically Young Frankenstein and Abbot and Costello Meet Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. Even the set pieces are recycled from old monster movies. Sommers more than proves his passion for the genre and his intention to make something that truly draws upon the influence of the monster movie canon.
Once the film jumps forward a year, we are treated to another supremely entertaining, if a little science-fictiony for my tastes, scene where Van Helsing (Hugh Jackman) hunts down Mr. Hyde, who has been terrorizing the city of London for months. I'm a sucker for reinterpretations of literary figures. I loved what they did with the characters in The League of Extraordinary Gentleman so this scene is like a fanboy dream for me and other fans of this combination of genres. This is also where we start to get the first clues to the film's rather inventive premise. An update of the Van Helsing from Bram Stoker's original novel Dracula, this incarnation of the monster slayer is a young, guilt-ridden monster hunter who works for a shadow agency within the Vatican called the Knights of the Holy Order. He embodies the misunderstood hero archetype because he is also being hunted by authorities as a murderer because most of the monsters that he kills turn back into humans upon death and are then found by unknowing townspeople. This slick reimagining of the character is actually a surprisingly strong premise that could easily have led to a successful franchise.
Joining Jackman is Kate Beckinsale as the last member of a family that is intricately linked with Dracula and will not find true peace until he has been killed. Beckinsale herself is passable as the beautiful Anna Valerious. However, the character design is one of the few design flaws in the film. The tightly-corseted, spike heel wearing heroine is just completely unbelievable. A simple wardrobe change would have made her character much more realistic. I could also have done without the silly accent but I don't know how faithful it was to the region of Transylania so I won't pass judgment.
The real surprise of the movie is Richard Roxburgh as Count Dracula who somehow manages not to fall off of the tightrope he has stretched between cheesiness and genuine conflicted monster.
However, the real credit has to go to the design teams. The mise-en-scene of this film is amazing. The gothic castles and alchemic lair of Dr. Frankenstein are truly some of the most interesting sets in recent memory. This coupled with the character designs and transformations make for, at the very least, an interesting and memorable visual spectacle.
That's really what this film is about--the spectacle. It is at its best when it fully embraces its camp and revels in nostalgia for the early monster movies.
Despite some obvious plot contrivances, specifically the sunlight creating orb that they just haven't found a purpose for yet, the plot is an intriguing mesh of multiple storylines culled from years of classic films that, much like the Frankenstein monster, comes alive, imbued with a Sommers' excited energy. This film gets the mixture right because it doesn't take itself too seriously, a mistake made by other cross-franchise films like Freddy vs. Jason. It's simply a movie that does exactly what Hollywood intends it to: it entertains. That's really all that can be asked for. The winks to monster movie buffs and film buffs in general are just icing on the cake.
Monday, February 25, 2008
Sunday, February 24, 2008
Review - The Bucket List
The Bucket List has one major trick up its sleeve: its casting. Rob Reiner knew what he was doing when he cast two of the most recognizable film icons of this generation in the leading roles. The audience cannot help but remember their vivid, passionate portrayals in other films, which makes their devolution into elderliness and poor health all the more heart breaking. The story is that of two terminally ill cancer patients, roommates in the cancer ward, who decide to travel the world to satisfy their 'bucket list,' a list of things they want to do before kicking the bucket. The movie is a grand exercise in what exactly it takes to make America cry and nothing could be more emotionally striking than watching the former Joker loll in bed, shaved and trembling-- driven to tears and vomit by his bout with cancer. The same can be said of Freeman whose quiet, passive-aggressive Carter breaks your heart with his eventual deteriorating health.
Unfortunately, the rest of the film is your typical tear-jerker bringing little that is new to the formula. Each scene is far too predictable to be enjoyed and the characters are so supremely archetypical that they could have been culled from any movie.
The movie's biggest strength is that the relationship between Carter and Edward feels real. Reiner smartly spends nearly an hour of the film in their hospital room allowing their relationship to develop so that in the end it doesn't feel rushed or unbelievable. Despite the outlandishness of their adventures and the contrivances of their dreams, their love for each other is organic and ultimately satisfying. It's a welcome change to see two men who love each other portrayed in a decent and serviceable film.
It is a movie rife with cliches and formulaic twists that will be absolutely forgettable except for the persona-shattering performances and the obligatory tears that accompany any movie about terminally-ill patients. However, it is also a powerful testament to love- the love of a family, the love of a true friend and one cant help but leave the theater optimistic that someday he or she will forge a friendship as pure and redemptive of the one between Edward and Carter.
Unfortunately, the rest of the film is your typical tear-jerker bringing little that is new to the formula. Each scene is far too predictable to be enjoyed and the characters are so supremely archetypical that they could have been culled from any movie.
The movie's biggest strength is that the relationship between Carter and Edward feels real. Reiner smartly spends nearly an hour of the film in their hospital room allowing their relationship to develop so that in the end it doesn't feel rushed or unbelievable. Despite the outlandishness of their adventures and the contrivances of their dreams, their love for each other is organic and ultimately satisfying. It's a welcome change to see two men who love each other portrayed in a decent and serviceable film.
It is a movie rife with cliches and formulaic twists that will be absolutely forgettable except for the persona-shattering performances and the obligatory tears that accompany any movie about terminally-ill patients. However, it is also a powerful testament to love- the love of a family, the love of a true friend and one cant help but leave the theater optimistic that someday he or she will forge a friendship as pure and redemptive of the one between Edward and Carter.
