Day 156 - 6/5/09 - Movie #156
BEFORE: Well, I passed the written test for "Who Wants to Be a Millionaire" - which got me a sit-down interview with a contestant selector, who was no doubt judging me not on smarts, but on looks and personality. For me, this is the much more difficult part of the audition. I tried to remember to smile, answer coherently, and be interesting without looking like I was trying to remember to do all those things... Nope, nothing came up on the test relating to any of the movies I've watched so far this year - but I did mention my New Year's resolution, in the hopes that the movie project itself is somewhat interesting.
Let me get this over with as well - I hope this movie clears up the "Matrix" storyline somehow. If ever a film series got bogged down in the weight of its own mythology, it's this one. More complicated than the "Terminator" and "Star Trek" storylines combined... There's the Oracle, the Architect, the Frenchman, the Train Man...and I still don't understand exactly who or what any of them are.
THE PLOT: The human city of Zion defends itself against the massive invasion of the machines as Neo fights to end the war at another front while also opposing the rogue Agent Smith.
AFTER: Well, we finally see the giant techno-battle that kept getting mentioned in the last film - those "diggers" kept getting closer and closer to the city, but never seemed to arrive. I was starting to wonder if they weren't real either... This becomes a tale of triumph and tragedy - yes, the remains of humanity rise up, band together, and attempt to throw off the shackles of their alien robot (?) oppressors, as Neo tries to broker peace between man and machine. The tragedy is, I still haven't the foggiest grasp of the specifics - it all just seems to be beyond comprehension somehow.
And the REAL tragedy is what could have been accomplished with the money that was spent making this movie. Wouldn't humanity have been better off if that money had been put toward finding a cure for some disease, or feeding an African nation for a decade, or sending some inner-city youths to college? What a pointless waste.
RATING: 6 out of 10 Sentinels (again, I'm averaging between a 9 for amazing effects and a 3 for insufficient plot details)
Friday, June 5, 2009
Thursday, June 4, 2009
The Matrix Reloaded
Day 155 - 6/4/09 - Movie #155
BEFORE: Of course I've seen "The Matrix", but I never followed up and watched its sequels. Since I've seen the world destroyed several times already this week, plus I'm in a robot vibe, and since I just found a new hole-in-the-wall store in Manhattan that's selling loads of older DVDs for $5.99 each, it's a perfect time for this film. These DVDs don't seem to be "previously viewed", they may just be unloading stock before Hi-Def and/or Blu-Ray take over the marketplace. Walking out with a stack of cheap DVDs has helped me clear some films from my want list, but unfortunately at the same time it's increasing my "to watch" list. I better watch one of these DVDs to make sure I didn't just buy a bunch of empty cases...
I don't know why this Matrix sequel didn't do so well - I think it's because the title made it sound like just a re-edit of the original film? I bet if they had just broke down and called it "Matrix 2" it would have done better.
THE PLOT: Neo and the rebel leaders estimate that they have 72 hours until 250,000 probes discover Zion and destroy it and its inhabitants. During this, Neo must decide how he can save Trinity from a dark fate in his dreams.
AFTER: The action sequences are spectacular - but I probably should have re-watched the original film first. I remember that the fights take place in some kind of virtual reality, but that's about where my understanding of the film ends. If the reality we see isn't real, then how do the fights matter? If they're not really "there" and can't be damaged, then why all the punching?
I don't understand all the "rules" of the virtual reality - do people in the matrix represent computer programs? Viruses? Or the humans that are kept alive in those stasis chambers we saw in the first film?
The movie is loud, flashy, and action-packed, but it leaves me wishing I understood more of the "science" in this science-fiction. I'm guessing they worked out the action sequences first, and then made a narrative that would tie them together...
So, is Neo the "One" or not? WTF just happened? Now I have to go to IMDB and read the plot so I can understand the movie I just watched...
RATING: 5 out of 10 tractor-trailers (an average derived from an 8 for technical wizardry and a 2 for an incomprehensible story)
BEFORE: Of course I've seen "The Matrix", but I never followed up and watched its sequels. Since I've seen the world destroyed several times already this week, plus I'm in a robot vibe, and since I just found a new hole-in-the-wall store in Manhattan that's selling loads of older DVDs for $5.99 each, it's a perfect time for this film. These DVDs don't seem to be "previously viewed", they may just be unloading stock before Hi-Def and/or Blu-Ray take over the marketplace. Walking out with a stack of cheap DVDs has helped me clear some films from my want list, but unfortunately at the same time it's increasing my "to watch" list. I better watch one of these DVDs to make sure I didn't just buy a bunch of empty cases...
I don't know why this Matrix sequel didn't do so well - I think it's because the title made it sound like just a re-edit of the original film? I bet if they had just broke down and called it "Matrix 2" it would have done better.
THE PLOT: Neo and the rebel leaders estimate that they have 72 hours until 250,000 probes discover Zion and destroy it and its inhabitants. During this, Neo must decide how he can save Trinity from a dark fate in his dreams.
AFTER: The action sequences are spectacular - but I probably should have re-watched the original film first. I remember that the fights take place in some kind of virtual reality, but that's about where my understanding of the film ends. If the reality we see isn't real, then how do the fights matter? If they're not really "there" and can't be damaged, then why all the punching?
I don't understand all the "rules" of the virtual reality - do people in the matrix represent computer programs? Viruses? Or the humans that are kept alive in those stasis chambers we saw in the first film?
The movie is loud, flashy, and action-packed, but it leaves me wishing I understood more of the "science" in this science-fiction. I'm guessing they worked out the action sequences first, and then made a narrative that would tie them together...
So, is Neo the "One" or not? WTF just happened? Now I have to go to IMDB and read the plot so I can understand the movie I just watched...
RATING: 5 out of 10 tractor-trailers (an average derived from an 8 for technical wizardry and a 2 for an incomprehensible story)
Wednesday, June 3, 2009
I, Robot
Day 154 - 5/3/09 - Movie #154
BEFORE: Another movie that I've been TRYING to watch for a couple years, since bringing home one of those promo Academy screeners. OK, so it's not really an "apocalypse" film, it's more like a murder-mystery with robots - but it is a depiction of a bleak future where the robots are threatening to take control, and I'm not interested in watching any Terminator film without Ah-nold in it. This looks like it might be a cross between "I Am Legend" and "Wall-E" ?
THE PLOT: In the year 2035 a techno-phobic cop investigates a crime that may have been perpetrated by a robot, which leads to a larger threat to humanity.
AFTER: When I was a kid, I read the Isaac Asimov story that this is based on, so I'm familiar with the "three laws" that are supposed to govern robot behavior - the first one says that robots are forbidden to harm humans, but it seems like someone forgot to tell these robots! Either the robots have evolved, or there's some kind of loophole that Will Smith's character has to uncover. Any conflict in their programming should cause a HAL-type meltdown, but the film sidesteps this is a rather neat way.
I found the multi-layered tanks full of robots to be VERY similar to the Battle tanks in Star Wars: Episode I, and the logic behind the robot takeover to be a thinly-veiled take on the Patriot Act. The robots need to destroy humans' freedoms to keep them safe...or something like that. The climactic ending actually seemed more like "The Terminator" crossed with "The Matrix".
And hey, cool, the lead robot, Sonny, was "played" by Alan Tudyk, aka Steve the Pirate from "Dodgeball". Didn't care too much for the female lead, she just seemed like Sandra Bullock Lite. Another thrilling action movie with Will Smith - doesn't this guy ever get tired?
RATING: 8 out of 10 positronic doohickeys.
Today's my test for "Who Wants to Be a Millionaire - Movie Edition". There better be at least one question about a movie I've seen in the past 2 weeks, or else I've made a horrible miscalculation.
BEFORE: Another movie that I've been TRYING to watch for a couple years, since bringing home one of those promo Academy screeners. OK, so it's not really an "apocalypse" film, it's more like a murder-mystery with robots - but it is a depiction of a bleak future where the robots are threatening to take control, and I'm not interested in watching any Terminator film without Ah-nold in it. This looks like it might be a cross between "I Am Legend" and "Wall-E" ?
THE PLOT: In the year 2035 a techno-phobic cop investigates a crime that may have been perpetrated by a robot, which leads to a larger threat to humanity.
AFTER: When I was a kid, I read the Isaac Asimov story that this is based on, so I'm familiar with the "three laws" that are supposed to govern robot behavior - the first one says that robots are forbidden to harm humans, but it seems like someone forgot to tell these robots! Either the robots have evolved, or there's some kind of loophole that Will Smith's character has to uncover. Any conflict in their programming should cause a HAL-type meltdown, but the film sidesteps this is a rather neat way.
I found the multi-layered tanks full of robots to be VERY similar to the Battle tanks in Star Wars: Episode I, and the logic behind the robot takeover to be a thinly-veiled take on the Patriot Act. The robots need to destroy humans' freedoms to keep them safe...or something like that. The climactic ending actually seemed more like "The Terminator" crossed with "The Matrix".
And hey, cool, the lead robot, Sonny, was "played" by Alan Tudyk, aka Steve the Pirate from "Dodgeball". Didn't care too much for the female lead, she just seemed like Sandra Bullock Lite. Another thrilling action movie with Will Smith - doesn't this guy ever get tired?
RATING: 8 out of 10 positronic doohickeys.
Today's my test for "Who Wants to Be a Millionaire - Movie Edition". There better be at least one question about a movie I've seen in the past 2 weeks, or else I've made a horrible miscalculation.
Tuesday, June 2, 2009
WALL-E
Day 153 - 6/2/09 - Movie #153
BEFORE: Yes, this counts as an apocalyptic film. Who says they can't feature lovable animated characters?
THE PLOT: In the distant future, a small waste-collecting robot inadvertently embarks on a space journey that will ultimately decide the fate of mankind.
AFTER: This is a great illustration of the point I was trying to make yesterday. This movie was universally loved by audiences, made a kajillion dollars at the box office, and was listed by many critics as one of the top movies of 2008 - so why did it rub me the wrong way?
First, it's very preachy - those irresponsible humans polluted their planet so much, they had to leave it and go into space. There go those Hollywood liberals again, with their hybrid cars and their recycling bins...the politics of the filmmakers are very transparent.
Second, there's the portrayal of all the humans as fat, lazy, tech-addicted morons. Suggesting a link between a big gut and a low I.Q. - as a person of above-average waist size, I think I'm offended. And as a filmmaker, I have to question the wisdom of ridiculing humans - you do realize they make up the majority of your target audience, don't you? Do you think that fat kids are so dumb they won't realize that they should go out and exercise unless you exaggerate it to the extreme and place it in a parable with some goofy robots? If anything, overweight people are SMART - it's the muscle-bound exercising jocks that are dumb, as long as we're stereotyping.
Third, we come to a common problem in animated films - the over-slapstickification of the robots' actions. A lot of falling down, falling over and bumping into things is not a good-enough substitute for proper dialogue and characterization, in my opinion. The ro(bot)mance between the high-tech WALL-E and the higher-tech EVE was interesting and charming, but since their only communication seemed to be saying their names to each other, over and over (with slightly different inflections, I'll admit), it's too repetitive to be considered some kind of ground-breaking minimalism.
You can disagree with my rating, go ahead, that's what makes this country (and planet) great. But I have to give it a...
RATING: 6 out of 10 compacted trash-blocks (I was all set to give it a 4, but I'm a sucker for a happy ending)
BEFORE: Yes, this counts as an apocalyptic film. Who says they can't feature lovable animated characters?
THE PLOT: In the distant future, a small waste-collecting robot inadvertently embarks on a space journey that will ultimately decide the fate of mankind.
AFTER: This is a great illustration of the point I was trying to make yesterday. This movie was universally loved by audiences, made a kajillion dollars at the box office, and was listed by many critics as one of the top movies of 2008 - so why did it rub me the wrong way?
First, it's very preachy - those irresponsible humans polluted their planet so much, they had to leave it and go into space. There go those Hollywood liberals again, with their hybrid cars and their recycling bins...the politics of the filmmakers are very transparent.
Second, there's the portrayal of all the humans as fat, lazy, tech-addicted morons. Suggesting a link between a big gut and a low I.Q. - as a person of above-average waist size, I think I'm offended. And as a filmmaker, I have to question the wisdom of ridiculing humans - you do realize they make up the majority of your target audience, don't you? Do you think that fat kids are so dumb they won't realize that they should go out and exercise unless you exaggerate it to the extreme and place it in a parable with some goofy robots? If anything, overweight people are SMART - it's the muscle-bound exercising jocks that are dumb, as long as we're stereotyping.
Third, we come to a common problem in animated films - the over-slapstickification of the robots' actions. A lot of falling down, falling over and bumping into things is not a good-enough substitute for proper dialogue and characterization, in my opinion. The ro(bot)mance between the high-tech WALL-E and the higher-tech EVE was interesting and charming, but since their only communication seemed to be saying their names to each other, over and over (with slightly different inflections, I'll admit), it's too repetitive to be considered some kind of ground-breaking minimalism.
You can disagree with my rating, go ahead, that's what makes this country (and planet) great. But I have to give it a...
RATING: 6 out of 10 compacted trash-blocks (I was all set to give it a 4, but I'm a sucker for a happy ending)
Monday, June 1, 2009
Waterworld
Day 152 - 6/1/09 - Movie #152
BEFORE: So, I'm in a quandary - I'm scheduled this Wednesday to take the test for the movie week of "Who Wants To Be a Millionaire". I could try to cram a lot of movie trivia in before then, or just stay the course. I'd hate to stop watching my daily movie to absorb a lot of useless facts, only to have a question come up about a movie that I WOULD have watched if I stuck to my schedule...this is how I'll drive myself crazy.
Continuing with the theme of planetary disasters and apocalypses, I'll watch this critically-panned disaster. What if the icecaps melted, and the world flooded so that humans had to live on boats and floating platforms?
THE PLOT: In a future where most of Earth is underwater, a mutated mariner fights starvation and outlaw "smokers," and reluctantly tries to help a woman and a young girl find dry land.
AFTER: This movie tanked at the box office, so it's got that smell of failure about it, but I don't think it's as bad as its repuation. It's a solid action movie, the hero is heroic, the villains are nasty, the main characters are on a quest - essentially it's just "The Road Warrior" on an ocean instead of a desert, right? RIGHT?
It's visually impressive, too - looks like a lot of money got wasted making this movie, based on what it brought in, but that in itself doesn't make it a bad film. I don't know, my rating system was called into question this weekend, when a friend of my BFF disagreed with my low rating of "The Man Who Fell to Earth", but you know what? It's all subjective. There are bound to be critically-acclaimed or well-liked films that I don't care for, and conversely there are bound to be critically-panned films that I'm going to rave about.
"Waterworld" probably won't become one of my favorite films, but it didn't bother or offend me either. Also, there was no grand message, or even much of an overall point, so in the end it gets a fairly neutral rating. As always, your mileage may vary, no money orders or C.O.D.s accepted, offer good in 49 out of 50 states. Sorry, Tennessee!
RATING: 6 out of 10 jet-skis
BEFORE: So, I'm in a quandary - I'm scheduled this Wednesday to take the test for the movie week of "Who Wants To Be a Millionaire". I could try to cram a lot of movie trivia in before then, or just stay the course. I'd hate to stop watching my daily movie to absorb a lot of useless facts, only to have a question come up about a movie that I WOULD have watched if I stuck to my schedule...this is how I'll drive myself crazy.
Continuing with the theme of planetary disasters and apocalypses, I'll watch this critically-panned disaster. What if the icecaps melted, and the world flooded so that humans had to live on boats and floating platforms?
THE PLOT: In a future where most of Earth is underwater, a mutated mariner fights starvation and outlaw "smokers," and reluctantly tries to help a woman and a young girl find dry land.
AFTER: This movie tanked at the box office, so it's got that smell of failure about it, but I don't think it's as bad as its repuation. It's a solid action movie, the hero is heroic, the villains are nasty, the main characters are on a quest - essentially it's just "The Road Warrior" on an ocean instead of a desert, right? RIGHT?
It's visually impressive, too - looks like a lot of money got wasted making this movie, based on what it brought in, but that in itself doesn't make it a bad film. I don't know, my rating system was called into question this weekend, when a friend of my BFF disagreed with my low rating of "The Man Who Fell to Earth", but you know what? It's all subjective. There are bound to be critically-acclaimed or well-liked films that I don't care for, and conversely there are bound to be critically-panned films that I'm going to rave about.
"Waterworld" probably won't become one of my favorite films, but it didn't bother or offend me either. Also, there was no grand message, or even much of an overall point, so in the end it gets a fairly neutral rating. As always, your mileage may vary, no money orders or C.O.D.s accepted, offer good in 49 out of 50 states. Sorry, Tennessee!
RATING: 6 out of 10 jet-skis
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
