The fifth installment of the Harry Potter is likely to be the least celebrated and enjoyed of the series. It contains action only in its bookends, and it does little to explore the world of magic beyond taking the audience to places we already knew existed, like The Ministry of Magic. Furthermore, some of the major characters of the series, such as Dumbledore, Hagrid, and Draco malfoy are relegated to a mere 5-15 minutes of total screentime each--arguably a heinous unforigiveable sin to the Potter fan.
If this is the reaction, however, it is unfortunate; for Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix is one of the strongest entries to the series as far as actual storytelling and character development are concerned. If the character and personhood of Harry himself have ever been in question, they are put to the ultimate test in this film, as Harry truly rises to the occasion to become not only a leader of the forces of good but layered hero with resentments, fear, angst, and all manner of baggage that comes with heroism.
In fact, The Order of the Phoenix places Harry Potter in the echelon of truly developed heroes of the modern age, alongside Buffy the Vampire Slayer (TV, not Film) and Luke Skywalker. His story is not one solely for children or thirty-year old pseudo-wizards who collect squirrel blood and crow feathers in jars. Harry Potter's tale is a dynamic one for all people, another modern day myth with breadth and resonance, worthy of its huge profitability and undying adoration.
I have not gone into plot here, for I feel that is actually an afterthough compared to the thematic explorations within the film. Needless to say, the movie follows Harry and his friends trying to solve another mystery while also breaking the rules and trying to get through school. It's the same structure as the last 4, but it's enough of a twist on said structure to feel new and fresh. Again, the action in this fifth entry is sparce, but when it is onscreeen, it's breathtaking. Some of the beloved characters in the series take a distant backseat, but there are plenty of others surrounding Harry to provide the laughs and innocence for which the series is known. There are a few lulls in the pace of the film overall, but they are never long enough to make one restless or bored. This is a strong, character-driven piece of the series that serves as not only an excellent set-up for the mayhem to ensue in further entries but also a transtition from the innocent school days to the dark times ahead.
I am going to give Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix a very solid (8 out of 10) Cinemabuns.
I am torn on my review of Harry Potter - The Order of the Phoenix. On one hand it was the most developed and rich movie in the franchise on the other hand it was the least enjoyable. So I find it hard to evaluate the movie fairly. It feels much like a difficult episode of your favorite show, the one where a character you love dies. It may have been necessary and right to do it but you didn't enjoy the process. So while I respect the heck out of the actors and filmmakers I was left a bit disappointed in the movie as far as being enjoyable, however I am still fully awaiting the 6th and 7th movies because I think we paid some tolls in this movie for future gains.
As Cj said the characters are greatly improved as we get deeper into them, especially as we see them grow or we get more backstory on some of the older characters. Although, some of the characters were screaming for more screentime (Like the Order for which the book and movie are named, and Snape who should get a spinoff called Snape Escape) while I would love to have cut down some of Umbridge's scenes since I hated her with a loathing that would be tough to fathom. But usually if you find yourself hating the villian then they probably did something right.
Ultimately, I think this movie enriches the entire Harry Potter series and moves it confidently forward into the next but as a free standing film which is how I have to review it. I give it a 7, bordering on a 6.5.
This review might have gone in a different direction if I'd written it a week ago. For years -- really since 1999 when I was living in England and my brother's friends were obsessed with some book about some wizard kid -- I'd resisted reading the Harry Potter books. Before The Prisoner of Azkaban came out I tried to start that book, but the first two movies weren't a fitting a substitute for the first two books as I'd imagined and I felt a little lost and disengaged. Then came this week's Pottermania with an army of my friends and neighbors talking about the final book, the media reporting on spoilers (even though they less prone to reveal the ending of the book than they're willing to reveal, say, secret Bush administration war-on-terror schemes), and I figured: Here's an opportunity to blitz through the saga before the secrets are revealed. So since starting the first book three days ago I've read 700 pages of Potter and I've absolutely become a fan.
But I saw The Order of the Phoenix before all of that. And as less-than-obsessive fan of the films, I found it merely okay, a bit weaker than the previous films. This is an age of criminally bloated movies, and director David Yates deserves some sort of medal for pledging to make the shortest-ever Potter epic -- a mere 138 minutes, almost a half hour trimmer than Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets. Thing is, I like the extra fat in these movies. Nobody wants to spend hours in the seedy Miami or Los Angeles or Kalamazoo of some Michael Mann movie, but who doesn't want to maximize their stay at Hogwarts? And Yates doesn't let us do that. Like C.J. says, some of the fascinating relationships Potter made over the past four years are barely dealt with here. Does Draco Malfoy even get a line of dialogue? Or does he just smirk in a couple of montages? Yates and his editors strip away some of the fun of the Potter series in order to give us a straightforward action-mystery-fantasy.
The action/mystery elements of the story are fine. Just fine. There's a rush of excitement when the old Order appears in the Ministry of Magic to do battle with the Death-Eaters, but that's mostly because we've been introduced to the Order -- the Death-Eaters could have been exciting, too, if any of their characters had been built up the way Lucius Malfoy's had been. It's not as much fun as the scenes at Hogwarts. The Ministry of Magic, heretofore simply sort of bumbling and easily-led, becomes malicious in its attempt to pretend Voldemort doesn't exist and that the classes of wizards and witches are the real threat to order. It's an old story, the hidebound bureaucracy defending its power at the expense of the civilization it governs, and Yates-Rowling tell it beautifully.
Christopher Columbus' first two adaptations, for all their treacle and flaws, were the sorts of films that could set a kid's imagine on fire. Maybe it wasn't even Yates' intention, but The Order of the Phoenix couldn't do that.
I give the disappointing but diverting fifth Potter film 7 out of 10.
Hey guys, I thought I would add just a few comments. I’m not a "thirty-year old pseudo-wizard who collects squirrel blood and crow feathers in jars", nor have even read the books, though I have seen all the films and enjoyed each one to some degree. I went into Order of the Phoenix with only a mild or casual interest.
The movie opens with Harry sitting on a swing set in what looks like arid mid-west America. It was a little disorienting being thrown into a place so foreign to the world of the Potter movie series. This opening scene was a good indication of what the rest of the film was going to be like for me, I always felt a step behind. I could tell that the movie was only highlighting the major elements of the book and leaving out some of the finer details – but that’s usually what happens with book-to-movie adaptations - and I felt at a disadvantage by not being familiar with the book series. I left the theater with a desire to read the books which did not happen with any other Potter film.
Despite these minor qualms I still enjoyed this installment of the Harry Potter series. I was able to identify with some of the Hogwarts students dealing with fear and inadequacy as they trained for war (I identified with the fear and inadequacy part not the training for war part). Overall, Order of the Phoenix gets a 7 out of 10, but would have been a 6 had it not given me the desire to read the books.
Showing posts with label Cinemabun Reviews. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Cinemabun Reviews. Show all posts
Thursday, July 19, 2007
Monday, June 11, 2007
Dirty Harry (9 out of 10)
Dirty Harry is the 1971 cop film that stars Clint Eastwood in one of his best roles as Inspector Harry Callahan. Set in San Francisco, Inspector Callahan works in the SFPD homicide division where he has solved many gruesome homicides and complex cases. Famous in the SFPD for going on his "gut instinct" rather than using conventional methods, Harry will do anything possible to bring criminals in San Francisco to justice. Opting for a more brutal weapon for the job, Harry touts a .44 magnum, at the time "The most powerful handgun in the world."
A murder occurs, and Harry finds a Ransom note saying that the killer "Scorpio" would kill a person each day until the city paid him a large sum of money. The killer plays a game of cat and mouse with Harry, eventually putting him to the test with a telephone race throughout San Francisco. Eventually Harry searches the villain's home without a warrant, and when arrested is let go on a technicality and blames Harry for injuries that were not caused by him. The finale shows the killer with an entire school bus full of children that he holds for ransom until he has been paid.
During all this, we see Inspector Callahan doing heroic tasks such as foiling robberies, and stakeouts. Although the film is often incorrectly referenced for the Eastwood line "Go ahead, make my day" (This would not be heard until the fourth Dirty Harry movie "Sudden Impact") There are many other famous quotes to be heard such as:
: "I know what you're thinking. "Did he fire six shots or only five?" Well, to tell you the truth, in all this excitement I kind of lost track myself. But being as this is a .44 Magnum, the most powerful handgun in the world, and would blow your head clean off, you've got to ask yourself a question: Do I feel lucky? Well, do ya, punk?"
The dialog is one of the greatest aspects of this movie. Eastwood delivers lines that are real and believable. They show cop wisdom, emotion, and toughness. The Killer is totally a believable psychotic and makes you cringe at some of the repulsive facial expressions and dialog that he gives. The action is well paced, and will keep you on the edge of your seat. The soundtrack is catchy, especially during chase sequences. Harry Callahan is a true police hero, something special that over time has been forgotten in between red tape and paperwork.
I give this movie 9 tasty Cinemabuns out of 10. A true classic that holds up very well even after over 35 years. Spawning 4 sequels, this franchise is right at the top along with Eastwood's "Man with no name" series. Dirty Harry is a must see.
A murder occurs, and Harry finds a Ransom note saying that the killer "Scorpio" would kill a person each day until the city paid him a large sum of money. The killer plays a game of cat and mouse with Harry, eventually putting him to the test with a telephone race throughout San Francisco. Eventually Harry searches the villain's home without a warrant, and when arrested is let go on a technicality and blames Harry for injuries that were not caused by him. The finale shows the killer with an entire school bus full of children that he holds for ransom until he has been paid.
During all this, we see Inspector Callahan doing heroic tasks such as foiling robberies, and stakeouts. Although the film is often incorrectly referenced for the Eastwood line "Go ahead, make my day" (This would not be heard until the fourth Dirty Harry movie "Sudden Impact") There are many other famous quotes to be heard such as:
: "I know what you're thinking. "Did he fire six shots or only five?" Well, to tell you the truth, in all this excitement I kind of lost track myself. But being as this is a .44 Magnum, the most powerful handgun in the world, and would blow your head clean off, you've got to ask yourself a question: Do I feel lucky? Well, do ya, punk?"
The dialog is one of the greatest aspects of this movie. Eastwood delivers lines that are real and believable. They show cop wisdom, emotion, and toughness. The Killer is totally a believable psychotic and makes you cringe at some of the repulsive facial expressions and dialog that he gives. The action is well paced, and will keep you on the edge of your seat. The soundtrack is catchy, especially during chase sequences. Harry Callahan is a true police hero, something special that over time has been forgotten in between red tape and paperwork.
I give this movie 9 tasty Cinemabuns out of 10. A true classic that holds up very well even after over 35 years. Spawning 4 sequels, this franchise is right at the top along with Eastwood's "Man with no name" series. Dirty Harry is a must see.
Ocean's 13 (7 out of 10)
Not unlike its predecessors, Ocean’s 13 is a film of style over substance, of surface over depth, of actors more than characters; and like the first (not the second) of the three of Ocean’s flicks, it works. Well.
The aforementioned analysis of this series is in no way a criticism. The style of this flick is perfectly apropos for it, considering the movie’s setting in the flashy, all-substance environs of Vegas. In fact, rather than being a criticism, this choice to embrace the movie’s ambience of cool is its saving grace. The film is better for this focus on jokes, gags, and moments of suave; and in fact, its dependence on these tools is necessary, because the stories of this and the second outing are weak at best.
Ocean’s 13 follows the “ensemble revenge sequel” format, wherein one of the members of a tight crew gets hurt, and the others re-unite for to avenge their comrade. The injured buddy, a near comatose Rueben (Elliot Gould), was duped by Mr. Banks (Al Pacino), a well-known and successful casino owner. Once he finds out about it, Danny Ocean (George Clooney) rallies Rusty, Basher, and the rest of the gang to dupe Mr. Banks by hitting him where it hurts the most--rigging the casino games so that he loses money while also ruining the trip of a critic in order to destroy Banks’ streak of getting the “Five Diamond Award”. Okay, so that’s the premise. It’s silly and aware of it. In fact, much to the movie’s credit, it never takes itself seriously.
Rather, it embraces the silliness and gives the audience plenty to enjoy, particularly site gags and snappy dialogue from charismatic stars essentially playing extensions of their Hollywood personas (with the exception of Don Cheadle, who tends to be much more subdued than he is here and actually acts a little). That being said, Ocean’s 13 is a fun time at the movies, if you go to it with an appropriate expectation, that it is more of the same, and the same is good for what it is. I am giving Ocean’s 13 a solid 7 Cinemabun’s out of 10 possible. Still a hearty snack at 7, but no dessert feast.
Tuesday, May 29, 2007
Pirates of The Caribbean: At World's End (4 out of 10)
Pirate of the Caribbean: At World's End is the final act in the first Pirates of the Caribbean Trilogy. The film is a major visual accomplishment but not the epic, clear-cut bookend many had hoped for. Actually, that's inaccurate, Pirates: At World's End is epic and has a great story, just not well-told, cohesive story--and frankly, that's a huge problem.
In fact, that is going to be the eternal criticism of Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End. The story is too full, too difficult to put together, and too long for the average fan or casual viewer to work through. That is not the fault of the audience but of the filmmakers, for they made the movie far too complex for the average person to enjoy. This is particularly a problem for a franchise like Pirates of the Carribean, a set of self-aware popcorn flics relying heavily on the "fun" factor of going to the movies. The Pirates movies should not be this difficult to follow, nor this incoherently complex. Alas, that is the case with At World's End, and it really hurts the movie.
The story once again follows Captain Jack Sparrow, Will Turner, and Elizabeth Swann during their misadventures on the high seas. There are far too many betrayals and plot twists to summarize in a paragraph; but needless to say, events snowball toward an enormous, harrowing battle in a rainstorm between the two major ships of the franchise. The resolution for all the story threads throughout the trilogy may or may not satisfy audience members, but they are all wrapped up here in some form or another. Beyond this, the visuals in the film are exceptional, both in regard to cinematography and special effects. So, the story is plodding, difficult, and overly complicated, but it's nice to watch.
Now, there is an X-factor to the movie, and that is this: if an audience member is willing to fight through the detail and complexity of the incohesvie plot and put the pieces together themselves, the movie (particularly coupled with Dead Man's Chest), is very entertaining, enjoyable, and rewarding. The story at its essence is mythic retelling of legendary and harrowing events leading the end of the historically tyrannical East India Trading Company. The series as a whole plays out more like a campfire story pirates would tell each other than easy-to-follow popcorn cinema. The fact that it does this makes the Pirates experince a very satisfying one for those willing to make sense of it. If one is ready to invest the energy and work into putting the incoherent stories together, the Pirates movies play out like very broad, stretching legends of the Caribbean. Yes, they are overly complex and problematic and unbelievable; but most legends are. Looking at the movie this way is great; but as I said, the average viewer won't get there, adn they shouldn't have been expected to. Many will see a mess of plot points and characters that make little sense and just write the flic off, and they have every right to do so. These stories are certainly not told as well as they could have been, despite how wonderful they may be if one puts the pieces together.
All that being said, Pirates of the Carribean: At World's End gets 4 out of 10 cinemabuns. The incohesive story makes the overall movie a mediocre outing. While I enjoyed it, it took a great deal of mental investment for me to make sense of the mess onscreen, and I do not see nor expect the average viewer having the same willingness to do that, and really, they should not have to, not for these flicks. The movie's two good action set pieces and beatuiful visuals are wonderful, but hardly enough to carry it as a watchable film with a well-told story. If you're a big Pirates fan ready to work through the movie, give it a whirl and be ready for the challenge. If you couldn't care less about these characters or this particuarly pirate franchise, then don't bother with this. It'll frustrate you and make you feel you had 3 hours of your life stolen like pirate booty.
Monday, May 21, 2007
Shrek the Third (5 out of 10)
Shrek the Third(which will further be referred to as "Shrek 3") is not a bad movie. It's an okay, dull movie. In the whole landscape of cinema, this is the norm. It is the average, and maybe that's bad, but it is the way it is. However, with movies like Shrek 3, Spider-man 3, and subsequent Pirates films, we expect something more--something more clever, something more interesting--because of the previous films. This is why Shrek 3 will not be seen as a good movie, it fails to meet the standard of its prior entries. That doesn't make it a bad movie, just a movie. In all honesty, though, it does deserve some credit. It's average.
Shrek 3 follows the title character as he attempts to find Arthur Pendragon, the next heir to the kingdom of Far, Far Away after Shrek and Fiona. Why is Shrek looking for him? Shrek does not want to be king, for he intends to take Fiona away from the kingdom of Far, Far Away and back to their comfy, secluded swamp. Meanwhile, Prince Charming rallies the villains of dozens of fairytales to his side to take over Far, Far Away and have their own happily ever afters. In the end, stuff happens which I won't ruin here. I'll just say its anti-climactic at best.
Over the course of completing the task at hand, the movie takes a few missteps, spending time with an emotionally unstable Merlin and some stuck-up, very unlikable princesses (an obvious jab at Disney, which is a staple of the series). In addition to these story problems, the comedy is very hit and miss, with the same tried-and-true jokes feeling stale, and the new jokes only working part of the time. Overall, the movie fails in more ways than it works, but it works enough to be an "okay" and watchable two-star movie.
The reason so many people will dislike Shrek 3 is becuase of the standard set by the prior films, and this film doesn't live up to it. Frankly, I have many personal qualms with the Shrek movies, but even taking those into account, Shrek 3 is still a watchable "kids" movie, but it is a generic watchable "kids" movie--much like other-non-pixar computer animated movies of the last ten years. I give Shrek 3 a very generous 5 out of 10 cinemabuns since it is an average movie overall. However, if you love and respect the previous 2 films, it will feel like a 2 out of 10. It lacks the cleverness and overall charm of its previous entries, but is still up to the very, very low par of films, particularly current children's animation.
It sounds like Shrek 3 is suffering from the Third-Movie-In-A-Series-Blues. Batman Forever anyone?
Yeah, it's about that level of mediocre. Maybe a little better, but not much. Acutally, now that I think about how much Two-Face sucked... yeah, Shrek 3 is better...but nothing in Shrek 3 is remotely as powerful as "Kiss from a Rose".
Shrek 3 follows the title character as he attempts to find Arthur Pendragon, the next heir to the kingdom of Far, Far Away after Shrek and Fiona. Why is Shrek looking for him? Shrek does not want to be king, for he intends to take Fiona away from the kingdom of Far, Far Away and back to their comfy, secluded swamp. Meanwhile, Prince Charming rallies the villains of dozens of fairytales to his side to take over Far, Far Away and have their own happily ever afters. In the end, stuff happens which I won't ruin here. I'll just say its anti-climactic at best.
Over the course of completing the task at hand, the movie takes a few missteps, spending time with an emotionally unstable Merlin and some stuck-up, very unlikable princesses (an obvious jab at Disney, which is a staple of the series). In addition to these story problems, the comedy is very hit and miss, with the same tried-and-true jokes feeling stale, and the new jokes only working part of the time. Overall, the movie fails in more ways than it works, but it works enough to be an "okay" and watchable two-star movie.
The reason so many people will dislike Shrek 3 is becuase of the standard set by the prior films, and this film doesn't live up to it. Frankly, I have many personal qualms with the Shrek movies, but even taking those into account, Shrek 3 is still a watchable "kids" movie, but it is a generic watchable "kids" movie--much like other-non-pixar computer animated movies of the last ten years. I give Shrek 3 a very generous 5 out of 10 cinemabuns since it is an average movie overall. However, if you love and respect the previous 2 films, it will feel like a 2 out of 10. It lacks the cleverness and overall charm of its previous entries, but is still up to the very, very low par of films, particularly current children's animation.
It sounds like Shrek 3 is suffering from the Third-Movie-In-A-Series-Blues. Batman Forever anyone?
Yeah, it's about that level of mediocre. Maybe a little better, but not much. Acutally, now that I think about how much Two-Face sucked... yeah, Shrek 3 is better...but nothing in Shrek 3 is remotely as powerful as "Kiss from a Rose".
Saturday, May 19, 2007
Babel (7 out of 10)
"If you want to be understood...Listen", so reads the tagline for the movie Babel, which gets it's name from the tower that was built in hopes of reaching God and the heavens. But God destroyed the tower and scattered the people and there was a great confusion of tongues. In the movie a deaf Japanese girl struggles to be accepted by those outside her circle of deaf and mute friends and makes some wrong choices along the way. One of the film maker's major messages was that misunderstanding can effect far more than we can imagine. We need to show compasion to those we don't understand or realate to and put ourselves in their shoes. We can really hurt others when we choose the easy way out and distance ourselves from them instead of taking a little time to find a better way to communicate. Misunderstanding comes in many forms and can happen to anyone. But how do we react when we are rejected by those who don't understand us or tragedy stikes because of mis-communication or when anger is left to fester instead of speaking up and sharing that anger? For me this movie was a meditation on what happens when we make little mistakes, when we choose to let a small sin slide. We may not think that something so small can do much damage, but we are wrong. Forgivness and redemption can heal many wounds but sometimes it takes disaster to make us take that next step.
Babel is a well made, though at times I felt like it was the type of movie that middle aged adults who listen to WXPN and watch PBS go nuts over which is most likely true, and being nominated for numerous Academy Awards only confirms this suspicion (out of all it's noms one Oscar was taken home: the Oscar for best original score/music. I would agree that the music was one of the highlights). It can be bleak movie at times but I think by the end there is some hope. 7 Cinemabuns for this one.
Babel is a well made, though at times I felt like it was the type of movie that middle aged adults who listen to WXPN and watch PBS go nuts over which is most likely true, and being nominated for numerous Academy Awards only confirms this suspicion (out of all it's noms one Oscar was taken home: the Oscar for best original score/music. I would agree that the music was one of the highlights). It can be bleak movie at times but I think by the end there is some hope. 7 Cinemabuns for this one.
Monday, May 7, 2007
Spider-man 3: 6 out of 10
I can't believe I saw this movie on Sunday, and I'm the first to be posting a review...Chris and Bobby, you had better respond to this. Bottom line, Spider-man 3 is not as well-made, well-developed, or as interesting as the two previous films. I am going to judge it on its own merits, but I know the first question viewers have about sequels is how they stack up to the original. Spider-man 3 fails to match the others in any facet except, arguably, action and the involvement of Bruce Campbell-- as far as his cameo is concerned, this movie has the best one of the trilogy. So, there you have it.
Now, the movie itself. Spider-man 3 follows Peter Parker's struggle against his own selfishness. While the movie sports villains the likes of Venom, Sandman, and New Goblin, the real antagonist to our hero is himself, particularly as he struggles with the concept of his own nature versus the responsibility of being a hero. This may seem a bit of a re-hash of Spider-man 2, in which Parker retired from crimefighting for a portion of the film in order to chase his own desires; but Spider-man 3 takes steps in a different direction altogether, questioning the ability of Peter to fully embrace his heroic persona and maintain it despite challenges from day-to-day life, like problems with Mary jane Watson. This makes for a great premise; but unfortunately the execution fails to deliver on it.
The disjointed, almost episodic, nature of the story really leaves much to be desired, specifically for a franchise with so much depth and cohesive storytelling in its past. Whereas the other films really dealt with Peter alone, with the supporting characters driving his story, Spider-man 3 moves more like an ensemble piece, following the development and redemption of Sandman, the emotional turmoil of troubled Mary Jane, and the vengeance of Harry Osburn. On top of that, the film gives hints of a very rich story involving both Eddie Brock and Gwen Stacy, but it really uses them more as devices for action more than actual supporting characters--moreso, they are undeveloped characatures of comic book archetypes, the brash threat and the bombshell. I would venture an argument that even Doc Ock's wife in Spider-man 2 had more depth and use than either Stacy or Brock are given here.
This is a real shame, too. Topher Grace had great presence and in another story could have been a brilliant yin to Peter's yang. Stacy would have served perfectly as Mary Jane's replacement given Dunst's repeated missteps with the fans and possible removal from the franchise. The death of Mary Jane at the hands of Venom would have made for great drama; but we are instead treated to her being kidnapped (yes, for the third time in three movies), and the opportunity is wasted, at least in this picture. Furthermore, Bryce Dallas Howard's beauty and charisma could have easily drawn a segment of the audience into her corner for a love triangle. With Harry and Eddie Brock in the mix, the whole romantic angle would have been blown wide open for jealousy, angst, adn all-manner of turmoil.
Talking about what might have been is a moot point, however, since we're interested in the movie as it stands. Despite the lack of solid dramatic progression and character development, Spider-man 3 offers a great deal of entertainment and valuable food for thought, especially for its wide, young impressionable fanbase. The thematic exploration on which Raimi seemingly devotes his most talented focus is really the film's savior. While the aciton is good and helpful for passing the time, it is re-addressing the saga's themes of forgiveness, redemption, responsibility, restraint, and other virtues that make Spider-man 3 a great comic-book movie despite itself. Whether the movie spends time tying up concepts from the first flics or building on them by exploring new aspects of heroism, Spider-man 3 succeeds in driving home some very good life-lessons insync with the comic that inspired it--making the movie itself feel very much like a Stan Lee retelling of the fabled hero's struggle against the particular villains featured in the story. Some of these themes are on the nose and very upfront, which is distracting; and others are subtle and engaging. Whether this was Raimi's intent is irrelevent as they are all very well communicated throughout the story and really maintained some level of cohearance to the film's choppy structure.
It's arguable that despite any sequels that come, Spider-man 3 indeed closed the book on the initial adventures of Peter Parker. He has learned a great deal about himself, friendship, love, honor, and we can trust he will carry these lessons into new adventures, regardless of whether we see them on film. While the movie is imperfect in many ways, it's literally saved by its virtue. I give Spider-man 3 a 6 out of 10. It lacks much of the depth of the original entries and is a bit of a mess on its own; however, the adequate action, exploration of theme, and closing of the initial Spidey films still make it well worth a viewing.
CJ, I enjoyed the movie – it wasn’t as good as the first two, I agree – but my assessment of the film is based on a different perspective than yours. I haven’t seen many movies in the theater lately so I enjoyed this summer blockbuster for what it was. Here are some of my thoughts:
Spider-man 3 is what every 12 year-old male has wanted to see since he was 7. It’s full of satisfying action and thrills, with plenty of 12 year-old “whoa, did you see that??!!” moments. It’s also geared enough towards adults to make a 12 year-old feel like they are a part of something bigger and more grown-up. So then, for the grown-up the appeal may come on a different level but the “whoa did you see that?!?!?” moments are still there. The action takes place mostly in CGI, which is to be expected and really is the only way to accomplish the type of action featured. CGI has always been a stumbling block for me, particularly when people are rendered in CGI. I know that the graphic artists do the best they can but even for a big budget film like LotR: Return of the King the technology just isn’t there (Legolas climbing up an Oliphant and then sliding down it’s back looking like Link in a trailer for a next-gen Zelda game is really distracting to me). But Spidey 3’s creators slam us in the face with such fast-paced fights that we don’t have a chance to worry about how the CGI looked. There are plenty of laughs that appeal to young and old alike. For example, Spider-man standing proudly in front of the waving American flag. Also the Bruce Campbell cameo that CJ mentioned and emo Peter dancing his way down the street in his new suit. Which is a segment that I didn’t particularly like. But our Cinemafriend Phil reminded me that it was a good time in the movie for some humor and it illustrated how the symbiote host influenced Peter. This is the type of movie that benefits from theater viewing. You are more likely to get caught up in the action and drama coming from the big screen. Some of the glaring mis-steps may be more evident the second time around on a TV set. After seeing this movie the 25 year-old in me was maybe a little restless but satisfied and the 12 year-old, well, he felt the same way.
Now, the movie itself. Spider-man 3 follows Peter Parker's struggle against his own selfishness. While the movie sports villains the likes of Venom, Sandman, and New Goblin, the real antagonist to our hero is himself, particularly as he struggles with the concept of his own nature versus the responsibility of being a hero. This may seem a bit of a re-hash of Spider-man 2, in which Parker retired from crimefighting for a portion of the film in order to chase his own desires; but Spider-man 3 takes steps in a different direction altogether, questioning the ability of Peter to fully embrace his heroic persona and maintain it despite challenges from day-to-day life, like problems with Mary jane Watson. This makes for a great premise; but unfortunately the execution fails to deliver on it.
The disjointed, almost episodic, nature of the story really leaves much to be desired, specifically for a franchise with so much depth and cohesive storytelling in its past. Whereas the other films really dealt with Peter alone, with the supporting characters driving his story, Spider-man 3 moves more like an ensemble piece, following the development and redemption of Sandman, the emotional turmoil of troubled Mary Jane, and the vengeance of Harry Osburn. On top of that, the film gives hints of a very rich story involving both Eddie Brock and Gwen Stacy, but it really uses them more as devices for action more than actual supporting characters--moreso, they are undeveloped characatures of comic book archetypes, the brash threat and the bombshell. I would venture an argument that even Doc Ock's wife in Spider-man 2 had more depth and use than either Stacy or Brock are given here.
This is a real shame, too. Topher Grace had great presence and in another story could have been a brilliant yin to Peter's yang. Stacy would have served perfectly as Mary Jane's replacement given Dunst's repeated missteps with the fans and possible removal from the franchise. The death of Mary Jane at the hands of Venom would have made for great drama; but we are instead treated to her being kidnapped (yes, for the third time in three movies), and the opportunity is wasted, at least in this picture. Furthermore, Bryce Dallas Howard's beauty and charisma could have easily drawn a segment of the audience into her corner for a love triangle. With Harry and Eddie Brock in the mix, the whole romantic angle would have been blown wide open for jealousy, angst, adn all-manner of turmoil.
Talking about what might have been is a moot point, however, since we're interested in the movie as it stands. Despite the lack of solid dramatic progression and character development, Spider-man 3 offers a great deal of entertainment and valuable food for thought, especially for its wide, young impressionable fanbase. The thematic exploration on which Raimi seemingly devotes his most talented focus is really the film's savior. While the aciton is good and helpful for passing the time, it is re-addressing the saga's themes of forgiveness, redemption, responsibility, restraint, and other virtues that make Spider-man 3 a great comic-book movie despite itself. Whether the movie spends time tying up concepts from the first flics or building on them by exploring new aspects of heroism, Spider-man 3 succeeds in driving home some very good life-lessons insync with the comic that inspired it--making the movie itself feel very much like a Stan Lee retelling of the fabled hero's struggle against the particular villains featured in the story. Some of these themes are on the nose and very upfront, which is distracting; and others are subtle and engaging. Whether this was Raimi's intent is irrelevent as they are all very well communicated throughout the story and really maintained some level of cohearance to the film's choppy structure.
It's arguable that despite any sequels that come, Spider-man 3 indeed closed the book on the initial adventures of Peter Parker. He has learned a great deal about himself, friendship, love, honor, and we can trust he will carry these lessons into new adventures, regardless of whether we see them on film. While the movie is imperfect in many ways, it's literally saved by its virtue. I give Spider-man 3 a 6 out of 10. It lacks much of the depth of the original entries and is a bit of a mess on its own; however, the adequate action, exploration of theme, and closing of the initial Spidey films still make it well worth a viewing.
CJ, I enjoyed the movie – it wasn’t as good as the first two, I agree – but my assessment of the film is based on a different perspective than yours. I haven’t seen many movies in the theater lately so I enjoyed this summer blockbuster for what it was. Here are some of my thoughts:
Spider-man 3 is what every 12 year-old male has wanted to see since he was 7. It’s full of satisfying action and thrills, with plenty of 12 year-old “whoa, did you see that??!!” moments. It’s also geared enough towards adults to make a 12 year-old feel like they are a part of something bigger and more grown-up. So then, for the grown-up the appeal may come on a different level but the “whoa did you see that?!?!?” moments are still there. The action takes place mostly in CGI, which is to be expected and really is the only way to accomplish the type of action featured. CGI has always been a stumbling block for me, particularly when people are rendered in CGI. I know that the graphic artists do the best they can but even for a big budget film like LotR: Return of the King the technology just isn’t there (Legolas climbing up an Oliphant and then sliding down it’s back looking like Link in a trailer for a next-gen Zelda game is really distracting to me). But Spidey 3’s creators slam us in the face with such fast-paced fights that we don’t have a chance to worry about how the CGI looked. There are plenty of laughs that appeal to young and old alike. For example, Spider-man standing proudly in front of the waving American flag. Also the Bruce Campbell cameo that CJ mentioned and emo Peter dancing his way down the street in his new suit. Which is a segment that I didn’t particularly like. But our Cinemafriend Phil reminded me that it was a good time in the movie for some humor and it illustrated how the symbiote host influenced Peter. This is the type of movie that benefits from theater viewing. You are more likely to get caught up in the action and drama coming from the big screen. Some of the glaring mis-steps may be more evident the second time around on a TV set. After seeing this movie the 25 year-old in me was maybe a little restless but satisfied and the 12 year-old, well, he felt the same way.
Thursday, May 3, 2007
Hot Fuzz (8 out of 10)
Hot Fuzz, the highly anticipated follow-up from the makers of the cult classic Shaun of the Dead, is a sincere effort in paying tribute to the cop movies of the past while poking fun them at them as well. The story follows Nicholas Angel, a highly-decorated member of the London Police Service (they can't say "Police Force" cause it implies an amount of brutality), after he is sent from his comfortable life in the city to a quiet, rural township called Sanford, wherein the biggest crimes are shoplifting and missing water fowl. The reason for his transfer--he's too good. His arrest record is 4 times that of his nearest competitor, and he makes his peers look and feel inadequate and uncapable. In the township of Sanford, however, he won't get to use much of his training or cause much of a sitr, as it is the safest township in all of England--winning V"illage of the Year" for several years standing. Sanford is not all it appears to be, however, for the borough in the grip of a cruel and vicious killer; and Angel, along with his new partner, Danny Butterbum, must capture him.
If nothing else, Hot Fuzz is superiorly strong send-up film to the genre of buddy cop movies, specifically those of the last 25 years (from the first Lethal Weapon to the last Bad Boys). Citing movies like Point Break as particularly entertaining genre pictures, Hot Fuzz makes every effort to thank the movies from which it gets its inspiration while also having a bit of fun with the cliches that have developed from them over the years. The writing, directing, editing, and production value are all a significant step up from the original outing (Shaun of the Dead) by director and co-writer Edgar Wright, and all of the actors have improved as well. The film provides heartfelt moments, thrills, surprises, consistent comedy, and one of the greatest finales put to film in the last 3 three years. Despite any shortcomings the movie may have, its a strong and highly entertaining piece of moviemaking and should please anyone heading to the theatre to catch it.
This is not to imply that Fuzz is perfect, however. The movie is a bit slow for the first half--enjoyable but slow. In fact, were it not for Wright's creative humor and male lead Simon Pegg's charisma, the first hour could have been unbearable. Luckily, the comedy is enough to carry the weight of the lengthy set-up until the movie finds its legs and really begins to run with its central crime plot. However, getting to that point and following it to completion created an arguable imbalance. While Shaun of the Dead was able to synergize the romance, comedy, and horror genres, Hot Fuzz plays out as more of a three-course meal, beginning with a fish-out-of-water-comedy as an apetizer, then moving into a thriller for the main course, and finishing off with a bombastic action movie dessert. Horror elements are kind of like a drink being constantly refilled throughout the meal, and slapstick and wit are sort of like condiments available on the table at all times. I personally enjoyed this type of movement, but it does not display the synergy one might have expected, adn I can understand the majority of moviegoers perturbed by that.
Despite these minor qualms, however, Hot Fuzz is still a fantastic picture, one of the best and most entertaining that has come out this year. I will give it a very solid 8 Cinemabuns out of 10. It's slow start and arguable imbalances make for an uneven experience, but it's an incredibly enjoyable one regardless, with a great deal of action, comedy, and horror spread throughout the melee of genres to which the filmmakers choose to pay heartfelt tribute.
If nothing else, Hot Fuzz is superiorly strong send-up film to the genre of buddy cop movies, specifically those of the last 25 years (from the first Lethal Weapon to the last Bad Boys). Citing movies like Point Break as particularly entertaining genre pictures, Hot Fuzz makes every effort to thank the movies from which it gets its inspiration while also having a bit of fun with the cliches that have developed from them over the years. The writing, directing, editing, and production value are all a significant step up from the original outing (Shaun of the Dead) by director and co-writer Edgar Wright, and all of the actors have improved as well. The film provides heartfelt moments, thrills, surprises, consistent comedy, and one of the greatest finales put to film in the last 3 three years. Despite any shortcomings the movie may have, its a strong and highly entertaining piece of moviemaking and should please anyone heading to the theatre to catch it.
This is not to imply that Fuzz is perfect, however. The movie is a bit slow for the first half--enjoyable but slow. In fact, were it not for Wright's creative humor and male lead Simon Pegg's charisma, the first hour could have been unbearable. Luckily, the comedy is enough to carry the weight of the lengthy set-up until the movie finds its legs and really begins to run with its central crime plot. However, getting to that point and following it to completion created an arguable imbalance. While Shaun of the Dead was able to synergize the romance, comedy, and horror genres, Hot Fuzz plays out as more of a three-course meal, beginning with a fish-out-of-water-comedy as an apetizer, then moving into a thriller for the main course, and finishing off with a bombastic action movie dessert. Horror elements are kind of like a drink being constantly refilled throughout the meal, and slapstick and wit are sort of like condiments available on the table at all times. I personally enjoyed this type of movement, but it does not display the synergy one might have expected, adn I can understand the majority of moviegoers perturbed by that.
Despite these minor qualms, however, Hot Fuzz is still a fantastic picture, one of the best and most entertaining that has come out this year. I will give it a very solid 8 Cinemabuns out of 10. It's slow start and arguable imbalances make for an uneven experience, but it's an incredibly enjoyable one regardless, with a great deal of action, comedy, and horror spread throughout the melee of genres to which the filmmakers choose to pay heartfelt tribute.
Thursday, April 26, 2007
Children of Men (8 of 10)
If I paraphrased the story of Children Of Men for you here it would sound like a shameless commentary on our current situation or an overt warning for anyone who doesn’t care about our environment. But to see this movie on screen (at least the first viewing) is a much more visceral experience. The heady political agenda seems to be there, but only in the background. Children Of Men is set in the future, so I guess it can be called a Sci-Fi, but it doesn’t stick to the conventions. No Anit-Grav, no androids, no ray guns. Just a broken, decaying landscape that compliments the fallen and depraved society portrayed in this film.
I have always appreciated long, tracking, one takes and after seeing the amazing long shot in Tom Yum Goong (The Protector) I have become even more aware of them. In Children Of Men we get to see a few long shots that – with the exception of one – seem completely natural and do not distract from the momentum of it’s corresponding scenes. The first and best, takes place entirely in a moving car carrying 5 people. But here’s the catch: the camera is continually moving within the car so that it can record the action outside as well as conversations and reactions inside the car. This scene was shot and acted so well that some viewers may not even realize it’s one take, no cuts. There is a special feature on the DVD explaining how this scene was accomplished that is a must-see.
Director Alfonso Cuaron’s dystopian vision of 2027 is realized in bleak midtones (much if the story plays out during a rainy or cloudy day) and a dark reprisal of the world we know in 2007. Everything from vehicles to military equipment seems familiar and look only slightly advanced. The music that Michael Cain’s character calls Zen Music is just a bunch of grating noises all at once, which is only a few steps away from some of today’s experimental music.
Children Of Men deserves every bit of 8 Cinemabuns out of 10 because – though there may some gaps in the storytelling - it is a deep, compelling and well made Action Drama that transcends it’s politically charged story and creates a believable future with a reluctant hero that we can all relate to.
I have always appreciated long, tracking, one takes and after seeing the amazing long shot in Tom Yum Goong (The Protector) I have become even more aware of them. In Children Of Men we get to see a few long shots that – with the exception of one – seem completely natural and do not distract from the momentum of it’s corresponding scenes. The first and best, takes place entirely in a moving car carrying 5 people. But here’s the catch: the camera is continually moving within the car so that it can record the action outside as well as conversations and reactions inside the car. This scene was shot and acted so well that some viewers may not even realize it’s one take, no cuts. There is a special feature on the DVD explaining how this scene was accomplished that is a must-see.
Director Alfonso Cuaron’s dystopian vision of 2027 is realized in bleak midtones (much if the story plays out during a rainy or cloudy day) and a dark reprisal of the world we know in 2007. Everything from vehicles to military equipment seems familiar and look only slightly advanced. The music that Michael Cain’s character calls Zen Music is just a bunch of grating noises all at once, which is only a few steps away from some of today’s experimental music.
Children Of Men deserves every bit of 8 Cinemabuns out of 10 because – though there may some gaps in the storytelling - it is a deep, compelling and well made Action Drama that transcends it’s politically charged story and creates a believable future with a reluctant hero that we can all relate to.
I loved this film, especially for the amazing long cuts. I am also really starting to like Clive Owen as a leading man character after this performance and his role in Sin City. I will second Bobby's rating of 8 out of 10. The movie made a lot of bold decisions that I really enjoyed like having several important characters not speak a lick of the language of the rest of the characters. And little character moments that remained off the cutting room floor like Clive Owen's constant battle to cover his feet with something. Also Michael Caine is brilliant.
Friday, April 13, 2007
Beverly Hills Cop (1984)
Today I'd like to review one of the best comedies of the 1980's, Beverly Hills Cop. Eddie Murphy stars in the role of Axel Foley a Detroit detective who has to go to Beverly Hills to find out who killed his best friend Michael Tandino. In a role originally intended for Sylvester Stallone, (who would go on to film his own version, "Cobra") Eddie Murphy does a wonderful job of playing the light hearted, but serious cop. When paired with Judge Reinhold and the rest of the Beverly Hills police force, antics ensue.
This movie is full of action and non-stop comedy. Eddie Murphy's trademark laugh is throughout the movie, and at one point even poked fun of. Many jokes use the style of Eddie's off the cuff humor that he used when he was on Saturday Night Live that seems so natural. This is the movie that launched the career of Eddie Murphy into the comedy superstar that he is today.
Beverly Hills Cop has one of the best soundtracks ever written, composed by Harold Faltermeyer. The main track "Axel F" skyrocketed throughout the charts, and peaked at #3 on the US charts. The other tracks on the soundtrack work well with Axel F, along with the rest of Harold Faltermeyer's score which would ultimately go on to win a Grammy.
One of the most interesting facts about Beverly Hills Cop is the role of Inspector Todd played by Gilbert R. Hill, was an actual Detroit police officer. When the director saw Gilbert in action, he said that he must have him play the role of Inspector Todd. Another minor (but key) character in Beverly Hills Cop is the role of "Serge" the art gallery attendant played by Bronson Pinchot. This role had no strict lines, and Bronson went on the create the persona himself. This role was a critical turning point for Bronson, as his role of Balki on Perfect Strangers is loosely based off of Serge.
The action sequences are believable, and so is the plot. I think so, and the American public did too, just look at the sales figures. This movie brought in over $230 million dollars at the US box office, which was unheard of for a comedy in 1984. Obviously this movie was a huge success, considering their budget was only $15 million. Beverly Hills Cop would go on to win the People's Choice Award in 1985 for "Favorite Motion Picture" This movie spawned 2 sequels, a Playstation 2 game in Europe, as well as Beverly Hills Cop 4 which Eddie Murphy has signed on to star in, and will be released in 2009. Beverly Hills Cop is rated "R" for Violence, Language, and brief nudity.
I give Beverly Hills Cop 9 Cinemabuns out of 10, because this movie still holds up very well after 20+ years. -Chris
I am going to back up Chandler on this. Beverly Hills Cop is an easy 9 Buns. The comedy, the action, the Reinhold, there is no end to its goodness. I love it every single time I watch it. With the exception of the female lead, the acting is perfect. Chris is wise to point out the particular greatness of Inspector Todd and Serge. They are two of my favorite characters in the history of cinea. Excellent call out Chandler. 9 out of 10!
I'm gonna bring the points down just a tad with an 8. The movie stalled for a few short minutes, and a few too many times (although not as bad as the second) they added what they needed to hurry the story. Like "where's the clue we need?" Oh right here in the first place we look.
This movie is full of action and non-stop comedy. Eddie Murphy's trademark laugh is throughout the movie, and at one point even poked fun of. Many jokes use the style of Eddie's off the cuff humor that he used when he was on Saturday Night Live that seems so natural. This is the movie that launched the career of Eddie Murphy into the comedy superstar that he is today.
Beverly Hills Cop has one of the best soundtracks ever written, composed by Harold Faltermeyer. The main track "Axel F" skyrocketed throughout the charts, and peaked at #3 on the US charts. The other tracks on the soundtrack work well with Axel F, along with the rest of Harold Faltermeyer's score which would ultimately go on to win a Grammy.
One of the most interesting facts about Beverly Hills Cop is the role of Inspector Todd played by Gilbert R. Hill, was an actual Detroit police officer. When the director saw Gilbert in action, he said that he must have him play the role of Inspector Todd. Another minor (but key) character in Beverly Hills Cop is the role of "Serge" the art gallery attendant played by Bronson Pinchot. This role had no strict lines, and Bronson went on the create the persona himself. This role was a critical turning point for Bronson, as his role of Balki on Perfect Strangers is loosely based off of Serge.
The action sequences are believable, and so is the plot. I think so, and the American public did too, just look at the sales figures. This movie brought in over $230 million dollars at the US box office, which was unheard of for a comedy in 1984. Obviously this movie was a huge success, considering their budget was only $15 million. Beverly Hills Cop would go on to win the People's Choice Award in 1985 for "Favorite Motion Picture" This movie spawned 2 sequels, a Playstation 2 game in Europe, as well as Beverly Hills Cop 4 which Eddie Murphy has signed on to star in, and will be released in 2009. Beverly Hills Cop is rated "R" for Violence, Language, and brief nudity.
I give Beverly Hills Cop 9 Cinemabuns out of 10, because this movie still holds up very well after 20+ years. -Chris
I am going to back up Chandler on this. Beverly Hills Cop is an easy 9 Buns. The comedy, the action, the Reinhold, there is no end to its goodness. I love it every single time I watch it. With the exception of the female lead, the acting is perfect. Chris is wise to point out the particular greatness of Inspector Todd and Serge. They are two of my favorite characters in the history of cinea. Excellent call out Chandler. 9 out of 10!
I'm gonna bring the points down just a tad with an 8. The movie stalled for a few short minutes, and a few too many times (although not as bad as the second) they added what they needed to hurry the story. Like "where's the clue we need?" Oh right here in the first place we look.
Wednesday, April 11, 2007
Days of Heaven 10 out of 10
Days of Heaven is the visual equivalent to one of Brian Eno’s ambient records, it doesn’t seem like much is happening until you really pay attention to the details. At which point you are captivated, and have no choice but to listen and watch carefully. The plot and dialogue are hidden beneath amazing cinematography and very deep and poetic narration that evoke a wide range of emotions. I should just say that this is one of my favorite movies ever, so please forgive me if I start gushing, but I love road movies and Terrence Malick and the mid-western United States and Old Testament history and Ennio Morrione, all of which are somehow involved in the movie.
Days of Heaven might not be categorized as a road movie but it’s about the journey of Bill, his girlfriend Abby and young sister Linda, running from the law, looking for work. They come to a farm in the Texas panhandle and take a job gathering wheat. In a story similar to Abraham and Sarah’s, Bill lies about being Abby’s brother, which later bring fire and insects to destroy the crop. The plot moves along at a slow pace and even takes a back seat to the beautiful cinematography. This is what you would get if you combined Ansel Adams (famous landscape photographer) and Sophia Copolla (Lost in Translation, Marie Antoinette).
There are so many great shots of the Texas landscape (actually filmed in Alberta Canada). One of the images that stands out to me is at the beginning of the film when people are piled on top of the train: free transportation in order to get to the next town with work. Back then instead of browsing CareerBuilder.com you hitched a ride on a train and at each station someone would solicit your help. It goes back to a time when life was simple, when our desires and needs were less complicated. Terrence Malick uses the same simplicity as a director. Holding the camera on a face beaten by the sun and dust from many years of work or on a stagnant marsh in the early morning while a duck flies across the screen going nowhere in particular. He rejects gloss and shine and communicates truth and realism. There is nothing flashy or stylized in this film, just true natural beauty.
Ennio Morricone - the composer responsible for the famous score to Fistful of Dollars and one of my favorite scores, The Mission - does an excellent job of highlighting the films emotions.
Like Brian Eno, Terrence Malick is a master of his craft and Days of Heaven is a testament to Malick’s patience and artistic eye.
This movie is an easy 10 Cinemabuns out of 10 for me. I was able to connect with the great story, visuals and music, which affected me in a very deep way.
Days of Heaven might not be categorized as a road movie but it’s about the journey of Bill, his girlfriend Abby and young sister Linda, running from the law, looking for work. They come to a farm in the Texas panhandle and take a job gathering wheat. In a story similar to Abraham and Sarah’s, Bill lies about being Abby’s brother, which later bring fire and insects to destroy the crop. The plot moves along at a slow pace and even takes a back seat to the beautiful cinematography. This is what you would get if you combined Ansel Adams (famous landscape photographer) and Sophia Copolla (Lost in Translation, Marie Antoinette).
There are so many great shots of the Texas landscape (actually filmed in Alberta Canada). One of the images that stands out to me is at the beginning of the film when people are piled on top of the train: free transportation in order to get to the next town with work. Back then instead of browsing CareerBuilder.com you hitched a ride on a train and at each station someone would solicit your help. It goes back to a time when life was simple, when our desires and needs were less complicated. Terrence Malick uses the same simplicity as a director. Holding the camera on a face beaten by the sun and dust from many years of work or on a stagnant marsh in the early morning while a duck flies across the screen going nowhere in particular. He rejects gloss and shine and communicates truth and realism. There is nothing flashy or stylized in this film, just true natural beauty.
Ennio Morricone - the composer responsible for the famous score to Fistful of Dollars and one of my favorite scores, The Mission - does an excellent job of highlighting the films emotions.
Like Brian Eno, Terrence Malick is a master of his craft and Days of Heaven is a testament to Malick’s patience and artistic eye.
This movie is an easy 10 Cinemabuns out of 10 for me. I was able to connect with the great story, visuals and music, which affected me in a very deep way.
Tuesday, April 10, 2007
GRINDHOUSE: 7 out of 10
In the mid 70s, urban movie theatres, called grindhouses, ran double-features of exploitation films. The genre name comes from the fact that these films exploited the audience's desire for the violent, the lewd, the debase, the dark, and the titillating. These movies became so large in number that sub-genres of the exploitation films began to spring-up, the "Naziploitation", "Blaxploitation", and more all became "types" of movies in this era that now, in our politically correct society, are looked down upon by many cultural critics and considered a part of the lexicon of cinema we all should forget.
But we can't, and we won't, particularly due to one man, an auteur named Quentin Tarantino, the director of the cult hit Reservoir Dogs and the contemporary classic, Pulp Fiction. Tarantino, more than any other single director, defends the cheap, gritty cinema of the 70s (that stuff we're supposed to forget ever got made) and actually cites it as the source of not only his inspiration but the template for his refined, highly stylized filmmaking. In fact, Tarantino's movies (with the exception of Kill Bill) look like they were shot on shoestring budgets with broken camera equipment and minimal dressing--just like the movies he loves most.
Well, 30 years later, Tarantino and his buddy Robert Rodriguez (of Sin City fame) unapologetically call back to the exploitation era with the double-feature, Grindhouse. Divided into two segments, Rodriguez' "Planet Terror" and Tarantino's "Death Proof", Grindhouse is an homage to the film-going experience urban theatres provided long ago. "Planet Terror" is a zombie movie to the nth degree, and "Death Proof" is a car movie--the type of car movie we in the states haven't been treated to since Steve McQueen's days. Between the segments are varied trailers from other directors, paying tribute to other subgenres of exploitation cinema.
In order to review Grindhouse, one has to accept one simple fact. This was not intended to be just a movie; it was intended to be an experience. From the opening trailer to the old introductions for "Restricted Rating" and "Feature Presentations", one is pulled into not just a movie but a way of watching movies. Both films have gone through significant "aging", with missing reels, large cigarette burns, audio mishaps, and discoloration; and it's all intentional, to make the movie-going experience feel like one is authentically at a grindhouse. It's these wonderful, novel details to the production that make this such a worthwhile movie-going experience. Make no mistake, it is these artifices that are the meat of this production, not the movies it includes. That being said, Grindhouse is an incredibly ambitious and very well-executed experience. When you buy your ticket, you are not just going to see a movie, you are going to spend your day/night AT the movies. So, above all else, consider Grindhouse more than just two movies,. Think of it as a single production intent on recreating the experience of a 70s exploitation double-header, for that is what it is.
Now, all that aside, I'll briefly discuss the movies involved since I'm sure that's what everyone REALLY wants to read. Frankly, they are good. They are both entertaining, but neither is exceptional. "Death Proof" almost reaches the echelons of excellence, but it just doesn't edit itself enough to do it.
"Planet Terror" is more banal. It’s basically a zombie movie, but it is a monster of a zombie movie. The chaos, the gore, the violence, are all taken to the boiling point, with no sign of letting up til the "The End" superscript comes over the final frame. This movie grabs you from the outset and does not let go. It straps you in, holds you down, and takes you on a ride--a fast, fun, and violent roller coaster unlike any you've ridden prior. And it’s fun. But that’s about how far it goes. It’s not moving, not grand, and not thought-provoking, it’s just fun, which is fine.
"Death Proof" is nearly the opposite. Whereas "Terror" spends little-to-no time letting you get to know the characters and just assaults you with action, “Death Proof” spends tons of time with the characters and builds slowly to the action. This is not to say that the movie has none, but Tarantino takes more time to not explore the movie’s victims then mutilate them. It's a good stratagem that, while not well-executed here, is an excellent template for how horror movies are best made. The best ones are all about either the tension building to the action OR the false sense of security when the action hits. Tarantino's overly-talky film does both of these things well. It lulls us into believing "the action isn't happening yet...but it's coming, and it's gonna be messy." On top of that, the movie has a BRILLIANT mid-film reversal that is a very pleasant surprise, which really set the movie apart and said so much about Tarantino as a filmmaker and storyteller. We all knew Tarantino loves women, BUT this movie and the way in which it ends solidifies his respect for the ladies. While imperfectly dialogue-ridden, "Death Proof" is an excellent movie and a very solid piece of the Grindhouse production.
But we can't, and we won't, particularly due to one man, an auteur named Quentin Tarantino, the director of the cult hit Reservoir Dogs and the contemporary classic, Pulp Fiction. Tarantino, more than any other single director, defends the cheap, gritty cinema of the 70s (that stuff we're supposed to forget ever got made) and actually cites it as the source of not only his inspiration but the template for his refined, highly stylized filmmaking. In fact, Tarantino's movies (with the exception of Kill Bill) look like they were shot on shoestring budgets with broken camera equipment and minimal dressing--just like the movies he loves most.
Well, 30 years later, Tarantino and his buddy Robert Rodriguez (of Sin City fame) unapologetically call back to the exploitation era with the double-feature, Grindhouse. Divided into two segments, Rodriguez' "Planet Terror" and Tarantino's "Death Proof", Grindhouse is an homage to the film-going experience urban theatres provided long ago. "Planet Terror" is a zombie movie to the nth degree, and "Death Proof" is a car movie--the type of car movie we in the states haven't been treated to since Steve McQueen's days. Between the segments are varied trailers from other directors, paying tribute to other subgenres of exploitation cinema.
In order to review Grindhouse, one has to accept one simple fact. This was not intended to be just a movie; it was intended to be an experience. From the opening trailer to the old introductions for "Restricted Rating" and "Feature Presentations", one is pulled into not just a movie but a way of watching movies. Both films have gone through significant "aging", with missing reels, large cigarette burns, audio mishaps, and discoloration; and it's all intentional, to make the movie-going experience feel like one is authentically at a grindhouse. It's these wonderful, novel details to the production that make this such a worthwhile movie-going experience. Make no mistake, it is these artifices that are the meat of this production, not the movies it includes. That being said, Grindhouse is an incredibly ambitious and very well-executed experience. When you buy your ticket, you are not just going to see a movie, you are going to spend your day/night AT the movies. So, above all else, consider Grindhouse more than just two movies,. Think of it as a single production intent on recreating the experience of a 70s exploitation double-header, for that is what it is.
Now, all that aside, I'll briefly discuss the movies involved since I'm sure that's what everyone REALLY wants to read. Frankly, they are good. They are both entertaining, but neither is exceptional. "Death Proof" almost reaches the echelons of excellence, but it just doesn't edit itself enough to do it.
"Planet Terror" is more banal. It’s basically a zombie movie, but it is a monster of a zombie movie. The chaos, the gore, the violence, are all taken to the boiling point, with no sign of letting up til the "The End" superscript comes over the final frame. This movie grabs you from the outset and does not let go. It straps you in, holds you down, and takes you on a ride--a fast, fun, and violent roller coaster unlike any you've ridden prior. And it’s fun. But that’s about how far it goes. It’s not moving, not grand, and not thought-provoking, it’s just fun, which is fine.
"Death Proof" is nearly the opposite. Whereas "Terror" spends little-to-no time letting you get to know the characters and just assaults you with action, “Death Proof” spends tons of time with the characters and builds slowly to the action. This is not to say that the movie has none, but Tarantino takes more time to not explore the movie’s victims then mutilate them. It's a good stratagem that, while not well-executed here, is an excellent template for how horror movies are best made. The best ones are all about either the tension building to the action OR the false sense of security when the action hits. Tarantino's overly-talky film does both of these things well. It lulls us into believing "the action isn't happening yet...but it's coming, and it's gonna be messy." On top of that, the movie has a BRILLIANT mid-film reversal that is a very pleasant surprise, which really set the movie apart and said so much about Tarantino as a filmmaker and storyteller. We all knew Tarantino loves women, BUT this movie and the way in which it ends solidifies his respect for the ladies. While imperfectly dialogue-ridden, "Death Proof" is an excellent movie and a very solid piece of the Grindhouse production.
As much as I love the experience itself, the execution does have its flaws. First and foremost, the movies are placed in reverse order. They should have shown "Death Proof" first and "Planet Terror" second. The pacing and tone of each conflict with one another in the current order because "Terror" gets your motor running and "Proof" slams on the brakes. In reverse, the dramatic build would have actually worked perfectly, with "Proof" taking its time and establishing this world of exploitation, with "Terror" acting as the 3rd-Act payoff, a massive non-stop climax to the dramatic journey of this experience. This was more than a mistake, it was a critical error. Second, Robert Rodriguez's "Planet Terror" does not at all feel like a 70s flic, despite all the artifices working overtime to make it so. It's just too "clean"; that is to say, it's shot selection, editing, pacing, and overall tone is TOO refined to feel like genuine exploitation. Tarantino actually goes out of his way to make “Death Proof” feel like a 70s flic, but it seems like Rodriguez did not have the confidence to go there and let the movie be less calculated than it should have been for this production. No offense against Rodriguez, but "Planet Terror" felt more like a movie made by someone trying to prove he gets it rather than someone who actually does. Third, while "Death Proof" is a better movie overall, it suffers from its own execution. The movie takes a great deal of time letting us get to know the characters; and to be honest, it's too much time--especially because the women are barely attractive, barely interesting, and somewhat unlikable. I know that's horrible of me to say, but it's the truth. Unlike Reservoir Dogs, Pulp Fiction, and Jackie Brown, the other talky Tarantino films, the female characters in “Death Proof” are neither cool nor interesting enough to warrant the time we are forced to spend with them. And that's a big problem. Fourth, if this movie really wanted to be the homage it claims, it should NOT have had any A or B-list celebrities. Not one. This movie should have been chock-full of unknowns or icons of the exploitation genre. Bruce Willis, Fergie, Rosario Dawson, even to an extant Naveen Andrews and Rose McGowan--as good as they may be-- had no business in this flic. The exploitation flics of the 70s were all made on shoestring budgets with cult actors or no-names, and this movie--ESPECIALLY with directors as talented as Rodriguez and Tarantino--should have embraced that. Give us Fred Williamson, Bruce Campbell, Roddy Piper, Robert Forester (who would have been perfect in the Willis Role), because the A-listers just made the experience we're supposed to have feel false.
Monday, April 9, 2007
Sha Po Lang (Killzone) 8 out of 10
Sha Po Lang or Killzone is a throwback to all those great Hong Kong action/crime/martial arts films of the 80’s and 90’s. If you are familiar with Asian actors you will recognize a few from the cast. I was most excited to see Sammo Hung who is the largest Chinese man in the film industry but still manages to hold his own against men half his size. He had many co-starring roles along side Jacky Chan and because of his weight was used mostly for comic relief. Hung looses the “Chinese version of Chris Farley” act and plays an intimidating crime lord in an amazing red suit in Killzone. Then there is Donny Yen. Every Asian man from Mongolia to Taiwan wishes he were Donny Yen. There are the cool, sometimes overdone fight stances, the smooth delivery of every punch, the spray-on tan and the confident bravado only a seasoned fighter could possess.
The story is plain and simple. Cops vs. Mob = Cop boss vs. Mob boss final battle. It doesn’t get too complicated like so many other Hong Kong crime dramas. In the same way the fights are simple yet brutal. The Director pulls the camera back and lets the fighters show their skill instead of using fancy editing, close up angles and shaky-cam techniques to simulate speed and chaos. Donny Yen and newcomer Wu Jing - who meet-up in an alley armed only with knife and collapsable baton - display some of the quickest fighting I have ever seen. And for the finale between Hung and Yen we see a mix of classic head pummeling and pro-wrestling pile-drivers.
Some may argue Killzone is short on fight scenes but for me the anticipation of the battles to come made them oh-so-sweet when the first punch flew. Hong Kong martial arts film has been stagnant lately and I hope this means we will continue to see quality films like this one in the future.
I'll give this movie 8 delicious Cinemabuns out of 10, due to severe karate action, awesome performances, and the excessive amount of glass broken by a single body-slam. I would recommend it to any one who liked Legend of the Drunken Master 2, The Killer or any other Hong Kong action film.
Bobby, I don't know about this movie, but I know about Samo Hung. That dude is awesome. He totally rocked in Meals on Wheels and My Lucky Stars. Good work on this review; you have enticed me to see this someday.
The story is plain and simple. Cops vs. Mob = Cop boss vs. Mob boss final battle. It doesn’t get too complicated like so many other Hong Kong crime dramas. In the same way the fights are simple yet brutal. The Director pulls the camera back and lets the fighters show their skill instead of using fancy editing, close up angles and shaky-cam techniques to simulate speed and chaos. Donny Yen and newcomer Wu Jing - who meet-up in an alley armed only with knife and collapsable baton - display some of the quickest fighting I have ever seen. And for the finale between Hung and Yen we see a mix of classic head pummeling and pro-wrestling pile-drivers.
Some may argue Killzone is short on fight scenes but for me the anticipation of the battles to come made them oh-so-sweet when the first punch flew. Hong Kong martial arts film has been stagnant lately and I hope this means we will continue to see quality films like this one in the future.
I'll give this movie 8 delicious Cinemabuns out of 10, due to severe karate action, awesome performances, and the excessive amount of glass broken by a single body-slam. I would recommend it to any one who liked Legend of the Drunken Master 2, The Killer or any other Hong Kong action film.
Bobby, I don't know about this movie, but I know about Samo Hung. That dude is awesome. He totally rocked in Meals on Wheels and My Lucky Stars. Good work on this review; you have enticed me to see this someday.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
