First off, "Bruges" is pronounced "brooge," as in it rhymes with "scrooge." You better drop the "es" or sound like a total idiot when you mention the movie's title. Not that I personally made that mistake. No way. Not a chance.
In Bruges is a great movie, by the way. "Don't hold it against me," is a common refrain that Americans in the movie say by way of admitting they're citizens of the United States (why do I now picture all Americans traveling abroad as constantly apologizing that they're American?).
But the movie could also say that about having Colin Farrell star in it: "Yes, Colin stars in me, but please! Don't hold that against me!" And you shouldn't because Farrell makes this movie. He's hilarious in it. He's got some of the movie's best lines and he delivers them like the half-drunken Irishman he probably is in real life, accompanied with some of the best facial acting I've seen in recent memory. If the sight of Farrell sickened you from the half dozen or so movies he's made this past decade, push that illness aside and give the man and his unibrow another chance. You won't be disappointed.
Even if Bruges is a shithole.
Showing posts with label Movies. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Movies. Show all posts
Sunday, April 19, 2009
Sunday, March 29, 2009
W.
Wifezilla and I watched Oliver Stone's W. the other night and both of us liked it. If you're a fan of Bush, you probably won't be a fan of this movie, but that's only about 20% of people polled, so chances are W. will appeal to a broad audience.
Unlike other Stone movies, like JFK, W. does not reek of conspiracy and paranoia. I wouldn't say its historically accurate by any means, but the movie does seem to take a good stab at guessing what some of the behind-closed-doors meetings of Bush and his cabinet were like.
Josh Brolin was simply outstanding as George Bush. His performance reminds me of how well Joaquin Phoenix nailed Johnny Cash in Walk the Line. Scene after scene, I was amazed at how well Brolin captured Bush's mannerisms and cadence. Especially impressive is how he avoided a parody of the president; there's a clear distinction between Brolin's Bush and that of Will Farrell's.
Still, not all the performances were as good. Wifezilla didn't like Dreyfuss' Dick Cheney and we both hated Thandie Newton as Condaleezza Rice. I had no problem with Stone spinning Rice as Bush's toadying sycophant, but Newton spoke with a nasally, Urkel-esque voice that effectively destroyed entire scenes. I can't believe Stone let her play the character that way. If her character were in more of the movie, she may have single-handedly ruined it.
By the end of the movie, when Brolin's Bush struggles to answer a reporter's question as to what mistakes he has made during his presidency, I don't loath Bush anymore. I pity him. Stone obviously doesn't like Bush, and paints the man's presidency as a failure. Even so, Stone suspects that Bush realizes his cabinet conspired to lead him into a war he should have never started. I was painful to watch Bush grill Cheney and Rumsfield and Powell, almost berating them as to the location of the WMDs. Bush asks them the same question the rest of America asks later: how could CIA and NSA intel be so wrong?
Most likely because those agencies were telling the powers-that-be what they wanted to hear. For that, Bush deserves full blame for the Iraq war, despite any regrets he may have that he can't share publically. I blame him, but W. helps me understand how it all could have gone down and imagine a circumstance where Bush might not have ended up as one of the worst presidents the United States ever had.
Unlike other Stone movies, like JFK, W. does not reek of conspiracy and paranoia. I wouldn't say its historically accurate by any means, but the movie does seem to take a good stab at guessing what some of the behind-closed-doors meetings of Bush and his cabinet were like.
Josh Brolin was simply outstanding as George Bush. His performance reminds me of how well Joaquin Phoenix nailed Johnny Cash in Walk the Line. Scene after scene, I was amazed at how well Brolin captured Bush's mannerisms and cadence. Especially impressive is how he avoided a parody of the president; there's a clear distinction between Brolin's Bush and that of Will Farrell's.
Still, not all the performances were as good. Wifezilla didn't like Dreyfuss' Dick Cheney and we both hated Thandie Newton as Condaleezza Rice. I had no problem with Stone spinning Rice as Bush's toadying sycophant, but Newton spoke with a nasally, Urkel-esque voice that effectively destroyed entire scenes. I can't believe Stone let her play the character that way. If her character were in more of the movie, she may have single-handedly ruined it.
By the end of the movie, when Brolin's Bush struggles to answer a reporter's question as to what mistakes he has made during his presidency, I don't loath Bush anymore. I pity him. Stone obviously doesn't like Bush, and paints the man's presidency as a failure. Even so, Stone suspects that Bush realizes his cabinet conspired to lead him into a war he should have never started. I was painful to watch Bush grill Cheney and Rumsfield and Powell, almost berating them as to the location of the WMDs. Bush asks them the same question the rest of America asks later: how could CIA and NSA intel be so wrong?
Most likely because those agencies were telling the powers-that-be what they wanted to hear. For that, Bush deserves full blame for the Iraq war, despite any regrets he may have that he can't share publically. I blame him, but W. helps me understand how it all could have gone down and imagine a circumstance where Bush might not have ended up as one of the worst presidents the United States ever had.
Sunday, March 8, 2009
Watchmen
There's lots of reviews floating around out there on the Watchman movie, most of them flogging the movie for poorly adapting its source material. Here's the review from CNN.
I don't agree with this guy, but at least he read the book, which likely isn't the case with some of the written opinions of the Watchmen. The controversy swirling around this movie has always been how anyone would film the "unfilmable" movie. So it strikes me as a bit lazy and tired to read reviews bitching about how Snyder stuck too closely to the graphic novel:
"Snyder slavishly transcribes what's set down 5 inches in front of his face."
but somehow also adapted the movie enough to also invite this criticism:
"On the few occasions where the filmmakers do exercise their imaginations -- in a credit montage relating the glory days of the crimefighters Weegee-style, and in a neat improvement on Moore's climax -- the results are actually ingenious and sharp."
From the git-go, Snyder and the team that worked on this film were damned if they do, equally damned if they don't. I think the film did a great job of capturing the angst of washed up superheroes, the vigilantism and detective work of Rorschach, and the fear of an over dramatized Cold War conflict. Few book to movie translation ever go well because opinions vary widely on the inevitable editing and contracting that must be done when the source material is squeezed on to the big screen.
Snyder did about as good a job as anyone could have.
I don't agree with this guy, but at least he read the book, which likely isn't the case with some of the written opinions of the Watchmen. The controversy swirling around this movie has always been how anyone would film the "unfilmable" movie. So it strikes me as a bit lazy and tired to read reviews bitching about how Snyder stuck too closely to the graphic novel:
"Snyder slavishly transcribes what's set down 5 inches in front of his face."
but somehow also adapted the movie enough to also invite this criticism:
"On the few occasions where the filmmakers do exercise their imaginations -- in a credit montage relating the glory days of the crimefighters Weegee-style, and in a neat improvement on Moore's climax -- the results are actually ingenious and sharp."
From the git-go, Snyder and the team that worked on this film were damned if they do, equally damned if they don't. I think the film did a great job of capturing the angst of washed up superheroes, the vigilantism and detective work of Rorschach, and the fear of an over dramatized Cold War conflict. Few book to movie translation ever go well because opinions vary widely on the inevitable editing and contracting that must be done when the source material is squeezed on to the big screen.
Snyder did about as good a job as anyone could have.
Saturday, February 7, 2009
The Christian Bale Rant
I have to admit, I loved the Christian Bale rant that exploded on this past week's headlines. it was long as it was eloquent and will serve as radio DJ fodder for years to come.
You can hear Christian explain the context of the rant and apologize for it here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=twjEIWL1vTs
You can hear Christian explain the context of the rant and apologize for it here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=twjEIWL1vTs
Saturday, December 13, 2008
Tropic Thunder
Wifezilla and I watched Tropic Thunder last night. I laughed so hard throughout, I cried. Crying morphed into a coughing fit at the part where Jack Black is tied to a tree to tough out his heroin addict and offers to, uh, "service" anyone who lets him go. I think I missed the next two minutes of the movie from blinding laughter.
The "full retard" conversation was equally hilarious. I know the movie drew flak for crossing this line, but in this day and age, I think pretty much anyone and everyone is up for ridicule. Plus, I think Stiller was making more fun of actors trying to snag Oscars by playing retards than retards themselves.
Maybe.
The "full retard" conversation was equally hilarious. I know the movie drew flak for crossing this line, but in this day and age, I think pretty much anyone and everyone is up for ridicule. Plus, I think Stiller was making more fun of actors trying to snag Oscars by playing retards than retards themselves.
Maybe.
Saturday, November 22, 2008
Star Wars: The Clone Wars
Netflix mailed me this movie since I put it in my queue. I watched it last night with my girls and . . .
IT WAS ACTUALLY GOOD!
I know! I couldn't believe it myself! Until the credits rolled, revealing that George Lucas neither directed nor wrote the movie.
Aha!
I hope everyone detects the emerging pattern here. Lucas has nothing to do with a Star Wars movie, it's good. Lucas wraps his greasy mitts around a Star Wars movie, it sucks. Remember when Stan Lee used to personally get involved in those early Marvel movies? Oh, they were terrible! Same thing here. And the way J.J. Abrams is shaping up the next Star Trek movie lends additional impetus that Lucas must step aside for others to continue the Star Wars brand.
I get all goosebumpy just thinking about it.
IT WAS ACTUALLY GOOD!
I know! I couldn't believe it myself! Until the credits rolled, revealing that George Lucas neither directed nor wrote the movie.
Aha!
I hope everyone detects the emerging pattern here. Lucas has nothing to do with a Star Wars movie, it's good. Lucas wraps his greasy mitts around a Star Wars movie, it sucks. Remember when Stan Lee used to personally get involved in those early Marvel movies? Oh, they were terrible! Same thing here. And the way J.J. Abrams is shaping up the next Star Trek movie lends additional impetus that Lucas must step aside for others to continue the Star Wars brand.
I get all goosebumpy just thinking about it.
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
Idiocracy and WALL-E
After watching Mike Judge’s Idiocracy, I wondered if the creators of Pixar’s WALL-E had watched it too. Both movies share a common vision for the future of humankind: stupid, lazy, illiterate, barely functioning. The big difference between the movies is that in WALL-E, computers were taking care of everything, to the point they were taking OVER everything. In Idiocracy, civilization was merely crumbling back to the Stone Age.
I found Judge’s movie to be more to the point about humankind. I like the notion that natural selection can’t work on people. Since we have no predators, nature can’t weed out the smart, fast, strong from the stupid, slow, weak. Everyone survives. In Judge’s twisted world, stupid people procreate in greater numbers than smart people, creating a kind of reverse natural selection that eventually threatens thousands of years of human evolution. Judge makes clever use of professional wrestling, a Gatorade drink, monster truck rallies, and the restaurant chain Fuddruckers to make his point.
In WALL-E, technology is more the threat. The movie guesses that people are going to slowly cede more and more responsibility and power to machines. The most poignant moment in the movie is when the captain struggles to read a manual about returning to earth and growing crops. With machines doing everything, people had lost the ability to even read. There’s some natural selection ingrained in that scenario, which again makes me wonder if the Pixar people used Judge’s movie as a springboard to their own.
Idiocracy came and went in the theaters with little to no fanfare. I didn’t even know the movie existed until I saw it my cable guide. Since it is so obscure, I’m willing to bet there are legions of potential fans out there. I highly recommend the movie, especially for fans of Team America and other modern, dark satire.
I found Judge’s movie to be more to the point about humankind. I like the notion that natural selection can’t work on people. Since we have no predators, nature can’t weed out the smart, fast, strong from the stupid, slow, weak. Everyone survives. In Judge’s twisted world, stupid people procreate in greater numbers than smart people, creating a kind of reverse natural selection that eventually threatens thousands of years of human evolution. Judge makes clever use of professional wrestling, a Gatorade drink, monster truck rallies, and the restaurant chain Fuddruckers to make his point.
In WALL-E, technology is more the threat. The movie guesses that people are going to slowly cede more and more responsibility and power to machines. The most poignant moment in the movie is when the captain struggles to read a manual about returning to earth and growing crops. With machines doing everything, people had lost the ability to even read. There’s some natural selection ingrained in that scenario, which again makes me wonder if the Pixar people used Judge’s movie as a springboard to their own.
Idiocracy came and went in the theaters with little to no fanfare. I didn’t even know the movie existed until I saw it my cable guide. Since it is so obscure, I’m willing to bet there are legions of potential fans out there. I highly recommend the movie, especially for fans of Team America and other modern, dark satire.
Wednesday, October 1, 2008
Iron Man Watched
Last night, I cracked the whip and demanded an early start to the evening rituals. The snot bags were hosed down and read at break neck speed. Their reading time extended to account for my movie viewing. I scooted Wifezilla out the door to her kung fu session. And with the house quieted to a hush, I sat down in my favorite chair, fired up my entertainment system, cranked the receiver volume to “roof collapse,” and finally, finally watched Iron Man.
I loved it. Bob Downy Jr. was perfectly cast as Tony Stark. The story was solid. Yes, it was silly at times, like Afghan terrorists handing a hostage Tony a cache of weapons to build them one uber missile system. But it’s based on a comic book so I can definitely let reality bend. Especially when the story and dialogue are good. It was great watching Tony slowly put his second suit together. That was a great moment when he first tested his boot stabilizers; the powerful momentum sent him splattering against a ceiling wall.
I also really liked Jeff Bridges as a bad guy. I knew right away he was the movie’s villain; the lower cut beard gave it away. I also instantly predicted that Tony would need his first core heart, the one he tells Pepper to dispose. She frames it instead, referencing quite cleverly the Tin Man from Wizard of Oz. Tony later lurches and fumbles for it in the midst of cardiac arrest. Even though it was a neon sign plot device, I didn’t at all mind. Our heroes fight best when the odds are against them. Tony had to dig deeper than his power core provided to defeat the fully charged War Machine.
I can’t wait for the sequel.
I loved it. Bob Downy Jr. was perfectly cast as Tony Stark. The story was solid. Yes, it was silly at times, like Afghan terrorists handing a hostage Tony a cache of weapons to build them one uber missile system. But it’s based on a comic book so I can definitely let reality bend. Especially when the story and dialogue are good. It was great watching Tony slowly put his second suit together. That was a great moment when he first tested his boot stabilizers; the powerful momentum sent him splattering against a ceiling wall.
I also really liked Jeff Bridges as a bad guy. I knew right away he was the movie’s villain; the lower cut beard gave it away. I also instantly predicted that Tony would need his first core heart, the one he tells Pepper to dispose. She frames it instead, referencing quite cleverly the Tin Man from Wizard of Oz. Tony later lurches and fumbles for it in the midst of cardiac arrest. Even though it was a neon sign plot device, I didn’t at all mind. Our heroes fight best when the odds are against them. Tony had to dig deeper than his power core provided to defeat the fully charged War Machine.
I can’t wait for the sequel.
Monday, September 29, 2008
And the Lord Smiled and Said . . .
"LET THERE BE IRON MAN."
And so there was Iron Man.
Iron Man eluded me this summer. This past summer I wrote extensively about how every effort I made to see the movie in the theater was met by fate’s cold backhand. Now the movie is coming out on DVD tomorrow and sweet karma has delivered it into my Netflix queue. That’s right, the gods smiled down upon me. Divine intervention commandeered a Netflix lackey, forcing her, with all the exaggerated jerks and twitches that come with being overridden by a god, to connect a Mr. James Thomson with a freshly minted Iron Man DVD.
You see, it all comes out in the wash.
And so there was Iron Man.
Iron Man eluded me this summer. This past summer I wrote extensively about how every effort I made to see the movie in the theater was met by fate’s cold backhand. Now the movie is coming out on DVD tomorrow and sweet karma has delivered it into my Netflix queue. That’s right, the gods smiled down upon me. Divine intervention commandeered a Netflix lackey, forcing her, with all the exaggerated jerks and twitches that come with being overridden by a god, to connect a Mr. James Thomson with a freshly minted Iron Man DVD.
You see, it all comes out in the wash.
Office Space
Wifezilla and I watched Office Space last night. The movie teaches so much truth about the day-to-day work grind, it should almost be required viewing for every employed American citizen. From the opening traffic jam (where the geezer on a walker outruns the gridlocked cars) to the incessantly jammed printer, the movie is equal parts profane, profound, and didactic. Twenty years from now, the movie will still entertain and teach.
Now if you’ll excuse me, I have to introduce a baseball bat to my localized network printer.
Now if you’ll excuse me, I have to introduce a baseball bat to my localized network printer.
Friday, September 12, 2008
Damit Jim! I'm a Star!
According to J.J. Abrams, director of the upcoming Star Trek movie, William Shatner turned down an offer for a cameo appearance in the movie. Apparently The Shat demanded a pivotal, co-starry role. Abrams admitted that Shatner deserved such a part, but that he "died on screen. Maybe a smarter group of filmmakers could have figured out how to resolve that."
Looks like Bill is back to making those riveting Priceline Negoiator commercials I love so much.
Looks like Bill is back to making those riveting Priceline Negoiator commercials I love so much.
Tuesday, September 9, 2008
Will Smith as Captain America?
G4 reports rumors that Will Smith has been cast in the role of iconic Captain America for the far away release, The First Avenger: Captain America.
Will Smith is a good actor, but his last few movies have been passable to outright stinky. I'm thinking of I Am Legend and Hancock here. And casting a black actor for this role is about as 180 as you can go. Steve Rogers in the comic iteration is blond-haired, blue-eyed, corn-fed white meat. Which makes me greatly afraid of Smith playing Caps as a home-boy. I just can't envision Captain America flinging his shield to the background rhythm of 50 cent or a Diddy. If Smith eschews The Hood and plays him more mainstream, then it stands a chance of succeeding. Even then, I'm worried that the race cast will prove too distracting to the movie overall. Like getting hit with a thick wet fish every time Will Rogers appears on screen, bludgeoning the story and action right out of the audience.
What about Matt Damon in the role? His brofriend Affleck got Daredevil, Damon as Caps would tie them up. And Damon can do action, as he's proved over and over again with the Borne series. He's got the look, chiseled features and a physique that once effectively modeled Calvin Klein underwear. He's as good an actor as Smith and rather than distract from the role and the movie as a whole, would accentuate a good story and highlight its action elements.
But that's just me. I'm sure some Hollywood genius added all this up and came up with the sum Will Smith. If it's the same bean counter that did Hancock, I'll wait for the DVD.
Will Smith is a good actor, but his last few movies have been passable to outright stinky. I'm thinking of I Am Legend and Hancock here. And casting a black actor for this role is about as 180 as you can go. Steve Rogers in the comic iteration is blond-haired, blue-eyed, corn-fed white meat. Which makes me greatly afraid of Smith playing Caps as a home-boy. I just can't envision Captain America flinging his shield to the background rhythm of 50 cent or a Diddy. If Smith eschews The Hood and plays him more mainstream, then it stands a chance of succeeding. Even then, I'm worried that the race cast will prove too distracting to the movie overall. Like getting hit with a thick wet fish every time Will Rogers appears on screen, bludgeoning the story and action right out of the audience.
What about Matt Damon in the role? His brofriend Affleck got Daredevil, Damon as Caps would tie them up. And Damon can do action, as he's proved over and over again with the Borne series. He's got the look, chiseled features and a physique that once effectively modeled Calvin Klein underwear. He's as good an actor as Smith and rather than distract from the role and the movie as a whole, would accentuate a good story and highlight its action elements.
But that's just me. I'm sure some Hollywood genius added all this up and came up with the sum Will Smith. If it's the same bean counter that did Hancock, I'll wait for the DVD.
Tuesday, September 2, 2008
Dan in Real Life
The movie starring Steve Carell shot for mediocrity and that's what moviegoers got. I disliked this movie from the git-go, when Marie, played without note by Juliette Binoche (who?), exhales an impossible monologue on all the qualities of a book she's seeking. I think she's looking for a romance book but who can tell as she meanders aimlessly and contradicts herself repeatedly. All directed at Dan, who she mistakes as a worker at the bookstore. I guess the screenwriter thought that was a great "how we first me" story. Wrong. The scene doesn't even get points for mentioning the book, Everyone Poops. Shame on them for squandering that kind of potential.
And then there's Dan's family. They gather together for a week. It's a big family, more than ten people, including their spawn. They play games together. Like team crossword puzzle, boys against girls. Aerobics on the front lawn. And hide and seek. Yes, the adults play too. Watching Dan and Marie hide behind a bed while Dane Cook prattled on in the midst of his countdown, I imagined myself a participant, oak bat in hand, hunting them all down one by one and clubbing them senseless like a hooded polar hunter beats baby seal pups. I'd club them all until they promised to stop glamorizing family life. And then beat them some more even after they agreed.
I had to clench my imaginary bat quite firmly when the family talent show came together. It was full-blown, complete with sign-up list, decorations, and a fake stage and backdrop. For the love of God, who in the hell wrote this crap (turns out it's the same guy that directed it. Uh huh). A family talent show? That was the only pretext they could think of to allow Steve Carell to badly portray strumming an acoustic guitar and badly singing The Who's Let My Love Open the Door? The Brady Bunch are a more believable family than these specimens. I just pray most of America hated the Burns family as much as I. If most of America is thinking, "Gosh, I wish I could play hide and seek with my extended family," then I just might have to move to Canada. Or Guam.
The show did have a laugh or two. I found Dan's middle daughter amusing and scary. She thinks she's in love and hates that her dad stand between her and true love. At one point she screams across the lawn at Dan, "You're a MURDERER OF LOVE." It was funny, but not even close enough for wholesale redemption. This movie bordered on being as bad as The Family Stone. The two movies share much in common, mostly that they both suck.
And then there's Dan's family. They gather together for a week. It's a big family, more than ten people, including their spawn. They play games together. Like team crossword puzzle, boys against girls. Aerobics on the front lawn. And hide and seek. Yes, the adults play too. Watching Dan and Marie hide behind a bed while Dane Cook prattled on in the midst of his countdown, I imagined myself a participant, oak bat in hand, hunting them all down one by one and clubbing them senseless like a hooded polar hunter beats baby seal pups. I'd club them all until they promised to stop glamorizing family life. And then beat them some more even after they agreed.
I had to clench my imaginary bat quite firmly when the family talent show came together. It was full-blown, complete with sign-up list, decorations, and a fake stage and backdrop. For the love of God, who in the hell wrote this crap (turns out it's the same guy that directed it. Uh huh). A family talent show? That was the only pretext they could think of to allow Steve Carell to badly portray strumming an acoustic guitar and badly singing The Who's Let My Love Open the Door? The Brady Bunch are a more believable family than these specimens. I just pray most of America hated the Burns family as much as I. If most of America is thinking, "Gosh, I wish I could play hide and seek with my extended family," then I just might have to move to Canada. Or Guam.
The show did have a laugh or two. I found Dan's middle daughter amusing and scary. She thinks she's in love and hates that her dad stand between her and true love. At one point she screams across the lawn at Dan, "You're a MURDERER OF LOVE." It was funny, but not even close enough for wholesale redemption. This movie bordered on being as bad as The Family Stone. The two movies share much in common, mostly that they both suck.
Monday, September 1, 2008
Gone Baby Gone
***Spoiler Alert***
Amazing movie. Surprisingly so, since it starred Casey Affleck and was directed by his older brother, Ben. You know, the dude that starred in Armageddon?
I guess that's why the movie caught me unawares. Turns out Casey is a really good actor, but he is a new face; I've seen him in one other movie, The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford. Ben pulls a coherent, driven narrative together that kept my attention throughout, even had me at the edge of my seat a few times. Both men surprised me with compelling acting and focused directing. I won't underestimate them again.
It's the ending that clinches the movie. When Casey finally uncovers the truth of what really happened to Amanda, he's faced with a moral dilemma. Does he blow the whistle and return Amanda to her mother? Or does he look the other way, knowing an abduction took place but that it likely is in Amanda's best interests that she is removed from a Boston ghetto.
The movie poses the question to three of its main characters, Patrick, Angela, and Jack Doyle. Doyle kidnapped the girl in the first place, so he begs Patrick to drive back down the road and forget he knows where Amanda is. Jack took Amanda both to save her from a self-absorbed, strung-out mother and to fill the void left behind when his own daughter was abducted and killed years ago. His act is illegal but his moral compass is sound. Angela flat out tells Patrick he should leave Amanda where she is. That if puts her back with her deadbeat mother, she'll hate him for it. Patrick represents the only character in the movie who believes Amanda should be returned. It doesn't matter that she will more likely live a better, safer life with Doyle and his wife. The kidnapping mars the good deed of saving her from a life of Jerry Springer, mule runs, and a revolving door of strange men in her tiny life.
In the end, Patrick calls the cops and Amanda returns to her mother. Doyle goes to jail and Angela leaves Patrick. The last scene of the movie is probably the saddest. Little Amanda sits on a couch watching TV while Patrick talks to her mother. She's getting ready for a date, some guy who saw her on TV during the publicity of Amanda's disappearance. She hardly talks to Amanda directly, in fact mostly talks as if she's not even there. Patrick asks who is taking care of Amanda while she's out. The mother laughs at the question and says a friend who is about to find out in five minutes.
Patrick knows he is observing the consequences of his decision right before his eyes. He watched when Amanda was torn from Doyle's wife, a couple that put Amanda first in their lives, as all good parents do. As the mother continues to prep and prune, Patrick sees first hand that Amanda is worse off then she was. He takes all this in, but is he second guessing himself at this point? It would be hard not to, but he so strongly argued the case for returning Amanda, he might still think it was the right thing to do.
Or maybe not. Upon hearing that Amanda might not have anyone watching her, Patrick volunteers. He alone is responsible for putting her back into the care of a mother who isn't selfless enough to care for a fish, let alone a little girl. To make amends, he's going to have to watch over Amanda, protect her, keep her safe. A small price to pay for being able to do the right thing? Or the inevitable burden for having to live with a choice you made? Both probably, given that Patrick would have been conflicted no matter what choice he made.
Amazing movie. Surprisingly so, since it starred Casey Affleck and was directed by his older brother, Ben. You know, the dude that starred in Armageddon?
I guess that's why the movie caught me unawares. Turns out Casey is a really good actor, but he is a new face; I've seen him in one other movie, The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford. Ben pulls a coherent, driven narrative together that kept my attention throughout, even had me at the edge of my seat a few times. Both men surprised me with compelling acting and focused directing. I won't underestimate them again.
It's the ending that clinches the movie. When Casey finally uncovers the truth of what really happened to Amanda, he's faced with a moral dilemma. Does he blow the whistle and return Amanda to her mother? Or does he look the other way, knowing an abduction took place but that it likely is in Amanda's best interests that she is removed from a Boston ghetto.
The movie poses the question to three of its main characters, Patrick, Angela, and Jack Doyle. Doyle kidnapped the girl in the first place, so he begs Patrick to drive back down the road and forget he knows where Amanda is. Jack took Amanda both to save her from a self-absorbed, strung-out mother and to fill the void left behind when his own daughter was abducted and killed years ago. His act is illegal but his moral compass is sound. Angela flat out tells Patrick he should leave Amanda where she is. That if puts her back with her deadbeat mother, she'll hate him for it. Patrick represents the only character in the movie who believes Amanda should be returned. It doesn't matter that she will more likely live a better, safer life with Doyle and his wife. The kidnapping mars the good deed of saving her from a life of Jerry Springer, mule runs, and a revolving door of strange men in her tiny life.
In the end, Patrick calls the cops and Amanda returns to her mother. Doyle goes to jail and Angela leaves Patrick. The last scene of the movie is probably the saddest. Little Amanda sits on a couch watching TV while Patrick talks to her mother. She's getting ready for a date, some guy who saw her on TV during the publicity of Amanda's disappearance. She hardly talks to Amanda directly, in fact mostly talks as if she's not even there. Patrick asks who is taking care of Amanda while she's out. The mother laughs at the question and says a friend who is about to find out in five minutes.
Patrick knows he is observing the consequences of his decision right before his eyes. He watched when Amanda was torn from Doyle's wife, a couple that put Amanda first in their lives, as all good parents do. As the mother continues to prep and prune, Patrick sees first hand that Amanda is worse off then she was. He takes all this in, but is he second guessing himself at this point? It would be hard not to, but he so strongly argued the case for returning Amanda, he might still think it was the right thing to do.
Or maybe not. Upon hearing that Amanda might not have anyone watching her, Patrick volunteers. He alone is responsible for putting her back into the care of a mother who isn't selfless enough to care for a fish, let alone a little girl. To make amends, he's going to have to watch over Amanda, protect her, keep her safe. A small price to pay for being able to do the right thing? Or the inevitable burden for having to live with a choice you made? Both probably, given that Patrick would have been conflicted no matter what choice he made.
Thursday, August 28, 2008
Hurm
Rorschach could be the coolest superhero in all of comicdom. He definitely has the coolest one-liner of any superhero: hurm. I don't know why, but it cracks me up when he says it. It usually follows a monologue or conversation he doesn't approve of, a kind of mellow hrmp!, all the conviction with none of the emotion. I also like the wavy dialogue balloons Alan Moore uses for Rorschach. I noticed immediately that when Rorschach was in prison and maskless, the wavy balloon reverted to normal. When Nite Owl and that skank rescue him and he gets his costume back, the rumbling returns. Ah, pure genius.
Like most things I read and then analyze, I'm waaaay behind the relevant curve. This time, almost twenty-five years. Which surprises me because I was fifteen when The Watchmen came out. I wasn't collecting or even reading comics which I guess put me enough out of the loop that the graphic novel went completely past my consciousness. The novel's recent trailer in front of Batman has spurred renewed interest both from loyal fans and the rest of us who were in the dark. I can't fathom how they're going to summarize The Watchmen into a quality movie experience. I'm a huge fan of its movie type, namely Sin City and 300, so I'm ripe for disappointment.
But if all they do is get Rorschach right, it's all good.
Like most things I read and then analyze, I'm waaaay behind the relevant curve. This time, almost twenty-five years. Which surprises me because I was fifteen when The Watchmen came out. I wasn't collecting or even reading comics which I guess put me enough out of the loop that the graphic novel went completely past my consciousness. The novel's recent trailer in front of Batman has spurred renewed interest both from loyal fans and the rest of us who were in the dark. I can't fathom how they're going to summarize The Watchmen into a quality movie experience. I'm a huge fan of its movie type, namely Sin City and 300, so I'm ripe for disappointment.
But if all they do is get Rorschach right, it's all good.
Tuesday, July 29, 2008
American Gangster
Wifezilla and I watched American Gangster last night. I was mostly underwhelmed. Crowe puts in a much more interesting performance in 3:10 to Yuma and Washington has too many shots of him staring grimly off to the side. And this movie needed some masterful performances to pull itself out of mediocrity. It didn't get them.
I feel about mafia movies the same as I do boxing or sports movies. They all follow a formula, and only the great ones deviate enough to tell a truly compelling story. The mafia formula: protagonist hails from humble, low beginnings. If he isn't raised a criminal by his own family, his neighborhood does the job. Through ambition, ingenuity, and brutality, he climbs the ranks. He makes a name for himself. He eventually takes a big risk of some kind, like taking out a competitor(s) or discovering a new angle on old graft, and ends up at the top. He's flying high here, reaping the fruits of his ill-gotten gains: money, cars, mansions, etc. While out-on-the-town, he spies a beautiful woman across the dance floor. He woos her. They get married, or not. They're happy. For a time.
It's at this point he begins to get complacent, sloppy even. At the top, there's nowhere to go but back down. He or one of his associates makes a key mistake. Rivals try to muscle in on his territory. The cops close in. His wife/girlfriend starts whining and complaining about his job (haha, I always laugh my ass off when they do that). And then in the end, he either opens fire in the midst of a glorious gun battle or quietly ducks his head into a patrol car. If he's not dead at this point, the movie ends with a summary caption telling us how long he served and what he did when he got out.
American Gangster followed this to the letter. It took no chances and reaped no artistic reward. Unfortunately for Ridley Scott and company, I've seen The Departed, a mafia movie that rewrote the mafia film formula and turned out a great movie. One of my all-time favorites in fact. American Gangster opened with a caption that proclaimed what followed based on a true story. Sometimes the truth is less interesting than fiction.
I feel about mafia movies the same as I do boxing or sports movies. They all follow a formula, and only the great ones deviate enough to tell a truly compelling story. The mafia formula: protagonist hails from humble, low beginnings. If he isn't raised a criminal by his own family, his neighborhood does the job. Through ambition, ingenuity, and brutality, he climbs the ranks. He makes a name for himself. He eventually takes a big risk of some kind, like taking out a competitor(s) or discovering a new angle on old graft, and ends up at the top. He's flying high here, reaping the fruits of his ill-gotten gains: money, cars, mansions, etc. While out-on-the-town, he spies a beautiful woman across the dance floor. He woos her. They get married, or not. They're happy. For a time.
It's at this point he begins to get complacent, sloppy even. At the top, there's nowhere to go but back down. He or one of his associates makes a key mistake. Rivals try to muscle in on his territory. The cops close in. His wife/girlfriend starts whining and complaining about his job (haha, I always laugh my ass off when they do that). And then in the end, he either opens fire in the midst of a glorious gun battle or quietly ducks his head into a patrol car. If he's not dead at this point, the movie ends with a summary caption telling us how long he served and what he did when he got out.
American Gangster followed this to the letter. It took no chances and reaped no artistic reward. Unfortunately for Ridley Scott and company, I've seen The Departed, a mafia movie that rewrote the mafia film formula and turned out a great movie. One of my all-time favorites in fact. American Gangster opened with a caption that proclaimed what followed based on a true story. Sometimes the truth is less interesting than fiction.
Friday, July 25, 2008
Bullitt
I watched Bullitt today. It's the original cop action movie with Steve McQueen as the plays-by-his-own-rules police detective who gives the finger to the chain-of-command to get the job down. The movie is most noted for its car chase through the streets of San Francisco. When I was in high school, I wanted a '68 Mustang Fastback so badly, but not because I'd seen Bullitt. I wanted that car because seeing them ripping around the streets of Minot, North Dakota, I knew it was bad-ass. I even like the new version Ford put out. I've thought about trading one of my kids in for one but have yet to go through with it. Stupid ethics.
Aside from the engaging, original car chase, I found the movie to be ponderous and dull. The movie stopped to film the strangest of common day activities, sequences that shine some light on what life might have been like in late sixties San Fransisco, but weighed down the motion picture as a whole. Like Bullitt smelling onions at a corner grocery store. If you're an anthropologist who specializes in 60s American culture, this movie is a gold mine of information, the Rosetta Stone for post-Kennedy Americana. If you're a fan of fast-paced action movies centered on a cop anti-hero, you'll be disappointed. Or at the least you'll have to readjust your expectations as you watch McQueen sniff his produce for freshness and buy whole stacks of Swanson TV dinners.
This must have been riveting stuff back in the day. And I have to admit that McQueen has stage presence. But my generation's bad-boy cop was Bruce Willis in the Die Hard series. Live Free and Die Hard further cemented my fan-boy affection for Bruce as the rogue cop. I just can't think of any actor, past or present, who does it better. Maybe Willis and the Die Hard series owe Bullitt a debt for paving the way, but they're vastly better movies all around.
Now if Steve McQueen had flown his Mustang into the side of a hovering helicopter, maybe things would be different.
Aside from the engaging, original car chase, I found the movie to be ponderous and dull. The movie stopped to film the strangest of common day activities, sequences that shine some light on what life might have been like in late sixties San Fransisco, but weighed down the motion picture as a whole. Like Bullitt smelling onions at a corner grocery store. If you're an anthropologist who specializes in 60s American culture, this movie is a gold mine of information, the Rosetta Stone for post-Kennedy Americana. If you're a fan of fast-paced action movies centered on a cop anti-hero, you'll be disappointed. Or at the least you'll have to readjust your expectations as you watch McQueen sniff his produce for freshness and buy whole stacks of Swanson TV dinners.
This must have been riveting stuff back in the day. And I have to admit that McQueen has stage presence. But my generation's bad-boy cop was Bruce Willis in the Die Hard series. Live Free and Die Hard further cemented my fan-boy affection for Bruce as the rogue cop. I just can't think of any actor, past or present, who does it better. Maybe Willis and the Die Hard series owe Bullitt a debt for paving the way, but they're vastly better movies all around.
Now if Steve McQueen had flown his Mustang into the side of a hovering helicopter, maybe things would be different.
Wednesday, July 23, 2008
Batman: the Dark Knight
I went saw Batman today. In an IMAX theater, no less. If you've never been to an IMAX, just picture them pointing the movie projector on the side of a three-story building. I dare say it's almost too big, though you get used to the scope quickly.
As for the movie, I liked it. People have not been exaggerating Ledger's performance as the Joker. The movie is nearly three hours long, so the director and screenwriters took their time in developing the story the way they wanted. They needed that time because the characters in this movie are complex. Some, like Wayne, we already know about. But others must fall from grace from an ethically high point, not an all-out free-fall, but instead slow, methodical pushing and prodding from events and people around them. The movie manages that fall with believability and conviction. Some tragedy too.
A common review tag line for Batman: the Dark Knight has been along the lines of, "Grim, epic, but where's the fun?" I guess they're referring to earlier iterations of the movie series, where spandexed asses suddenly bumped up against the camera and nipples were carefully spackled on to rubber chest pieces. Maybe they find it "fun" to see Tommy Lee Jones overact as Harvey Dent or Arnold Schwarzenegger apply his special brand of bad one-liners to Mr. Freeze.
Personally, I can't make myself watch those earlier versions of Batman. Maybe because I'm older I like my Batman dark, alone, vigilante. More Frank Miller, less Adam West. Yup, the vision and scope may not be the stuff of light-hearted fun; Marvel's Spider-Man series is better equipped for that. Mostly because Batman is a different hero than the likes of Spidey. Peter Parker wrestles with balancing his life as a hero with that of being a normal person. Bruce Wayne wrestles with the evil in his own soul. Batman sometimes becomes the very thing he fights in the name of justice, a proposition our friendly neighborhood wall-crawler rarely faces. It's that examination of what depths a man might plunge to bring forth the light that makes Batman: the Dark Knight good entertainment and nourishment for introspection.
Now if we can just get Christian Bale to allegedly stop bitch slapping his ma and sister, everything would be good.
As for the movie, I liked it. People have not been exaggerating Ledger's performance as the Joker. The movie is nearly three hours long, so the director and screenwriters took their time in developing the story the way they wanted. They needed that time because the characters in this movie are complex. Some, like Wayne, we already know about. But others must fall from grace from an ethically high point, not an all-out free-fall, but instead slow, methodical pushing and prodding from events and people around them. The movie manages that fall with believability and conviction. Some tragedy too.
A common review tag line for Batman: the Dark Knight has been along the lines of, "Grim, epic, but where's the fun?" I guess they're referring to earlier iterations of the movie series, where spandexed asses suddenly bumped up against the camera and nipples were carefully spackled on to rubber chest pieces. Maybe they find it "fun" to see Tommy Lee Jones overact as Harvey Dent or Arnold Schwarzenegger apply his special brand of bad one-liners to Mr. Freeze.
Personally, I can't make myself watch those earlier versions of Batman. Maybe because I'm older I like my Batman dark, alone, vigilante. More Frank Miller, less Adam West. Yup, the vision and scope may not be the stuff of light-hearted fun; Marvel's Spider-Man series is better equipped for that. Mostly because Batman is a different hero than the likes of Spidey. Peter Parker wrestles with balancing his life as a hero with that of being a normal person. Bruce Wayne wrestles with the evil in his own soul. Batman sometimes becomes the very thing he fights in the name of justice, a proposition our friendly neighborhood wall-crawler rarely faces. It's that examination of what depths a man might plunge to bring forth the light that makes Batman: the Dark Knight good entertainment and nourishment for introspection.
Now if we can just get Christian Bale to allegedly stop bitch slapping his ma and sister, everything would be good.
Tuesday, July 15, 2008
Hancock
So Wifezilla and I tried on three different occasions to see Iron Man. Each time we showed up, the movie got pulled at the last minute. The second coitus interruptus occurred to make preview room for Hancock. Wifezilla likes Will Smith and the commercials make the movie look pretty good, so we suckered into going.
Big mistake.
Just to get this out of the way, you've already seen some of the movie's best clips advertised on TV and previewed with other movies. The full version doesn't offer any novelty beyond what was advertised freely.
That wasn't the deal breaker. Neither was Will Smith. He's passable, if not unchallenged, in the role of a jaded superhero who is universally reviled and needed by the public at large. The suck factor is in finding out why he's a superhero. I won't share it here (mainly because I can't make myself regurgitate it), but the revelation is groan-inducing. And the metaphysical mechanics to explain it all are routinely contradicted throughout the movie, mostly to cull some melodrama. In the rush to explain why Hancock behaves the way he does, the movie gets sloppy and then I lose interest and then I get pissed because I'm reminded that I didn't drive all this way to see Hancock, I came here to see Iron Man, the movie the theater advertised to show at 7:20. Jerk offs.
Anyway, save your $10 and go see anything else but Hancock. I can barely recommend it on DVD.
Oh, and I still haven't seen Iron Man yet.
Big mistake.
Just to get this out of the way, you've already seen some of the movie's best clips advertised on TV and previewed with other movies. The full version doesn't offer any novelty beyond what was advertised freely.
That wasn't the deal breaker. Neither was Will Smith. He's passable, if not unchallenged, in the role of a jaded superhero who is universally reviled and needed by the public at large. The suck factor is in finding out why he's a superhero. I won't share it here (mainly because I can't make myself regurgitate it), but the revelation is groan-inducing. And the metaphysical mechanics to explain it all are routinely contradicted throughout the movie, mostly to cull some melodrama. In the rush to explain why Hancock behaves the way he does, the movie gets sloppy and then I lose interest and then I get pissed because I'm reminded that I didn't drive all this way to see Hancock, I came here to see Iron Man, the movie the theater advertised to show at 7:20. Jerk offs.
Anyway, save your $10 and go see anything else but Hancock. I can barely recommend it on DVD.
Oh, and I still haven't seen Iron Man yet.
Monday, June 9, 2008
Lions for Lambs
My biggest problem with the movie Lions for Lambs is that its creators came off as having a conviction that the rest of the United States doesn't share. In hindsight, I think most Americans agree that invading Iraq was a bad idea. The excuse for invading was based on faulty (or manipulated) intelligence and the plan for what to do after the invasion was completely non-existent. Bush has some historically low popularity polls that reflect the nation's sentiment on the job he's done. So I'm not quite sure why Robert Redford made a movie trying to convince us the government botched Iraq when most of us know it, wish it weren't so, and yearn for someone to come into presidential power and clean up the mess, an unenviable, perhaps impossible task.
Aside from lecturing its audience on what it already knows, the movie engaged in some creative dramatic license. Manipulative, really. At the very end of the movie, a Warthog is flying back and forth attempting to provide covering fire for two stranded American soldiers. For most of the movie, the two soldiers had been lying prone. But for some inexplicable reason, John Wayne heroics I guess, the two stand upright right as the Taliban moves in. They are silhouetted perfectly against the mountain background and the Taliban promptly gun them down. Moments later the Warthog returns and obliterates the area where the Taliban were standing. I know it makes for high Hollywood drama, but I don't believe trained U.S. soldiers would behave that way, especially when covering firing likely meant a rescue landing wasn't long away. Redford wanted those characters to be martyred for a cause they didn't believe in, but for a county they did. It rang hollow and contrived to me.
The reporter aspect of the movie was weak too. Meryl Streep's character is wracked with guilt for not properly getting to the truth about WMD in Iraq before the invasion. She feels reporters like herself were too complicit with the government and served an important role in selling the invasion to the American people. Which is true. The part I didn't like is when the Senator hands her a story, but she doesn't want to write it because she believes he's lying to her. Her reluctance was misplaced though. The Senator handed her a story to write about, a new offensive in Afghanistan, vague on details (when is the government not?) but full of quotes by him. A good reporter would take that story and write it full of "coulds," "wills ," and "perhaps." Instead, Streep wants to make amends for the reporting of the Iraq war and editorialize the story, spewing all her pent up frustration into one big rant. I completely agreed with her editor when he ordered her to write the story as is because that's her freaking job! To report! It's someone else's job to opine. If she wants to be a pundit, then she should quit her job as a reporter and then write thoughtful analytical commentary to her heart's content. I know I was supposed to feel some sense of tragedy when she wrote the story like her editor told her to and then broke out into tears driving by Arlington Cemetery, but I didn't. Once again, hollow and contrived.
I also had a problem with the two college students serving in Iraq. Through them, Redford hints that the trillions of dollars spent in Iraq would have been better spent in inner city neighborhoods here in the United States. Now, I don't disagree that all of the United States could benefit from an influx of cash into its infrastructure system. But Redford is as naive as Bush telling us Iraqi oil revenue would pay for the war if he thinks money is going to solve the problems that plague inner city neighborhoods. Those communities are a reflection of its residents' actions. No one from the outside can fix the irresponsible choices they make that lead to the social dysfunction surrounding them. All the money in the world can't stop someone from abusing or selling drugs, dropping out of school, robbing a liquor store, or abandoning a family. The fact of the matter is that most of inner city woes can be traced back to the disintegration of the basic family unit. This country is based on its citizenry behaving responsibly, working hard, and raising healthy children. But it's also based on free choice. I'm all for pumping money into fixing buildings and roads everything in the U.S., but inner city folks have to pull themselves up by their boot straps and help themselves first and foremost. I know some of them continue to make destructive choices while simultaneously blaming the government or other ethnic groups for their problems. Their situation will never improve until that cycle of blame and recrimination is broken in favor of ingenuity and industriousness.
So yeah, the movie has some major problems. Still, it's one of a few movies about the Iraq war. I guess it's worth watching if only for the discussion it might spawn. Here's hoping that Redford's next effort is less didactic and more Quiz Show.
Aside from lecturing its audience on what it already knows, the movie engaged in some creative dramatic license. Manipulative, really. At the very end of the movie, a Warthog is flying back and forth attempting to provide covering fire for two stranded American soldiers. For most of the movie, the two soldiers had been lying prone. But for some inexplicable reason, John Wayne heroics I guess, the two stand upright right as the Taliban moves in. They are silhouetted perfectly against the mountain background and the Taliban promptly gun them down. Moments later the Warthog returns and obliterates the area where the Taliban were standing. I know it makes for high Hollywood drama, but I don't believe trained U.S. soldiers would behave that way, especially when covering firing likely meant a rescue landing wasn't long away. Redford wanted those characters to be martyred for a cause they didn't believe in, but for a county they did. It rang hollow and contrived to me.
The reporter aspect of the movie was weak too. Meryl Streep's character is wracked with guilt for not properly getting to the truth about WMD in Iraq before the invasion. She feels reporters like herself were too complicit with the government and served an important role in selling the invasion to the American people. Which is true. The part I didn't like is when the Senator hands her a story, but she doesn't want to write it because she believes he's lying to her. Her reluctance was misplaced though. The Senator handed her a story to write about, a new offensive in Afghanistan, vague on details (when is the government not?) but full of quotes by him. A good reporter would take that story and write it full of "coulds," "wills ," and "perhaps." Instead, Streep wants to make amends for the reporting of the Iraq war and editorialize the story, spewing all her pent up frustration into one big rant. I completely agreed with her editor when he ordered her to write the story as is because that's her freaking job! To report! It's someone else's job to opine. If she wants to be a pundit, then she should quit her job as a reporter and then write thoughtful analytical commentary to her heart's content. I know I was supposed to feel some sense of tragedy when she wrote the story like her editor told her to and then broke out into tears driving by Arlington Cemetery, but I didn't. Once again, hollow and contrived.
I also had a problem with the two college students serving in Iraq. Through them, Redford hints that the trillions of dollars spent in Iraq would have been better spent in inner city neighborhoods here in the United States. Now, I don't disagree that all of the United States could benefit from an influx of cash into its infrastructure system. But Redford is as naive as Bush telling us Iraqi oil revenue would pay for the war if he thinks money is going to solve the problems that plague inner city neighborhoods. Those communities are a reflection of its residents' actions. No one from the outside can fix the irresponsible choices they make that lead to the social dysfunction surrounding them. All the money in the world can't stop someone from abusing or selling drugs, dropping out of school, robbing a liquor store, or abandoning a family. The fact of the matter is that most of inner city woes can be traced back to the disintegration of the basic family unit. This country is based on its citizenry behaving responsibly, working hard, and raising healthy children. But it's also based on free choice. I'm all for pumping money into fixing buildings and roads everything in the U.S., but inner city folks have to pull themselves up by their boot straps and help themselves first and foremost. I know some of them continue to make destructive choices while simultaneously blaming the government or other ethnic groups for their problems. Their situation will never improve until that cycle of blame and recrimination is broken in favor of ingenuity and industriousness.
So yeah, the movie has some major problems. Still, it's one of a few movies about the Iraq war. I guess it's worth watching if only for the discussion it might spawn. Here's hoping that Redford's next effort is less didactic and more Quiz Show.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
