Day 217 - 8/5/09 - Movie #213
BEFORE: No, it's not based on a comic book. But this seems to have turned into "Terrorist and Vigilantes" week - and I felt this movie would make sense here, with back-to-back Natalie Portman films.
THE PLOT: Professional assassin Leon reluctantly takes care of 12-year-old Mathilda, a neighbor whose parents are killed, and teaches her his trade.
AFTER: Ms. Portman seems to have a knack for hanging out with a bad crowd - if it's not a Dark Lord of the Sith, she's associating with terrorists and hit men. This was her first major film role, and she plays the savviest pre-teen this side of Jodie Foster in "Taxi Driver". Jean Reno plays Leon, the expert hitman, and I wish they'd shown more of his "jobs", because they're the highlight of the film.
It's a strange pairing - Matilda teaches Leon to read and connect emotionally, and he teaches her how to clean and fire guns. Gary Oldman steals the film though (as he usually does...) by playing a corrupt DEA agent who pops pills before taking someone out.
RATING: 6 out of 10 milk cartons
Wednesday, August 5, 2009
Tuesday, August 4, 2009
V For Vendetta
Day 216 - 8/4/09 - Movie #212
BEFORE: From assassins to terrorists, and another movie based on a comic book, written by Alan Moore for DC/Vertigo. As an extra coincidental bonus, this movie came up in a trivia round last night, a video round that featured clips of explosions from various films...
THE PLOT: A shadowy freedom fighter known only as "V" uses terrorist tactics to fight against his totalitarian society. Upon rescuing a girl from the secret police, he also finds his best chance at having an ally.
AFTER: This is a tale set in a dystopian-future England - one that has suffered war, plague and terrorism, and whose government has clamped down on citizens' rights in order to protect the populace. A rogue terrorist named V (who might be the subject of government experiments to combat or even create a plague) revives the spirit of Guy Fawkes, blows up government buildings and kidnaps a British-accented Natalie Portman. (wouldn't you?) I found it hard to fully understand his motivations (maybe that's a hard thing to depict) since his theories are full of conspiracies.
There's a part of the film in the middle that I'm just not buying - it suggests that you can make someone stronger by breaking their spirit, that you've got to be cruel to be kind - and vice versa, I suppose. That's no real justification for psychological torture - if V tortures someone, even to prove a point, how is he any better than the secret police in the system that he's fighting? I can see similarities to the other works of Alan Moore, particularly the way the "Watchmen" comic is structured (I'll be watching that film later this week...) but just because someone says that a bunch of events are connected, it doesn't mean that they actually are part of a conspiracy.
There are some important points here about gay rights, human rights, and oppressive governments, but unfortunately they're wrapped up in a terrorist manifesto, which is hard for some people to take. The film had the bad fortune to be scheduled for release in the U.K. shortly after some real-life London bombings in 2005...
RATING: 7 out of 10 angry mobs (it's really a 6, but I bumped it up after some thrilling action sequences late in the film)
BEFORE: From assassins to terrorists, and another movie based on a comic book, written by Alan Moore for DC/Vertigo. As an extra coincidental bonus, this movie came up in a trivia round last night, a video round that featured clips of explosions from various films...
THE PLOT: A shadowy freedom fighter known only as "V" uses terrorist tactics to fight against his totalitarian society. Upon rescuing a girl from the secret police, he also finds his best chance at having an ally.
AFTER: This is a tale set in a dystopian-future England - one that has suffered war, plague and terrorism, and whose government has clamped down on citizens' rights in order to protect the populace. A rogue terrorist named V (who might be the subject of government experiments to combat or even create a plague) revives the spirit of Guy Fawkes, blows up government buildings and kidnaps a British-accented Natalie Portman. (wouldn't you?) I found it hard to fully understand his motivations (maybe that's a hard thing to depict) since his theories are full of conspiracies.
There's a part of the film in the middle that I'm just not buying - it suggests that you can make someone stronger by breaking their spirit, that you've got to be cruel to be kind - and vice versa, I suppose. That's no real justification for psychological torture - if V tortures someone, even to prove a point, how is he any better than the secret police in the system that he's fighting? I can see similarities to the other works of Alan Moore, particularly the way the "Watchmen" comic is structured (I'll be watching that film later this week...) but just because someone says that a bunch of events are connected, it doesn't mean that they actually are part of a conspiracy.
There are some important points here about gay rights, human rights, and oppressive governments, but unfortunately they're wrapped up in a terrorist manifesto, which is hard for some people to take. The film had the bad fortune to be scheduled for release in the U.K. shortly after some real-life London bombings in 2005...
RATING: 7 out of 10 angry mobs (it's really a 6, but I bumped it up after some thrilling action sequences late in the film)
Monday, August 3, 2009
Wanted
Day 215 - 8/3/09 - Movie #211
BEFORE: Back-to-back Angelina Jolie films, making the transition to comic-book movies. Yes, this counts, it was based on a comic book. I assure you, there is a method (sort of) to my madness. Unfortunately, the volume on my recording is really low - thanks to Time Warner Cable's new Mystro DVR software, I think. (Did I mention that I hate Mystro?) I used to be able to control the DVR's audio output volume - now, not so much. Anyway, I'll try to judge the movie and not my low-volume recording of same.
THE PLOT: A frustrated office worker learns that he is the son of a professional assassin, and that he shares his father's superhuman killing abilities.
AFTER: Well, that was a slice of awesome! I may not be an expert on action movies, but I know what I like! Damn, this film STARTS with over-the-top action scenes, then says, "Well, how high can we go from here?"
I was right to use this film to transition out of fantasy movies - make no mistake, this is a fantasy film, as realistic as, well, a comic book. There's an attempt to tap the fantasy node on the male brain, by showing an office drone who gets visited by Angelina Jolie, and recruited into a secret society of assassins, who train him (in the style of "Karate Kid") to unlock his ability to slow down time (in the style of "The Matrix") to pull off some impossible, jaw-dropping stunts. Plus, who among us hasn't dreamed of telling off their boss, or smacking their most annoying co-worker in the face with a keyboard?
Since in real life hitmen can't "curve" the path of a bullet, or shoot the wings off of flies, the exaggerated action here is the equivalent of pornography, when compared to real-world sex. Is this a new genre - action porn? There are so many OMG! or WTF? moments in the stunts and special FX, like bullets colliding in mid-air, or when Jolie scoops up our hero in a spinning-out car, that this should give the Mythbusters guys enough material for a whole season's worth of shows - I know they covered a couple of these things already, but I bet they've just scratched the surface.
RATING: 9 out of 10 jars of peanut butter (let the flaming and second-guessing begin...)
BEFORE: Back-to-back Angelina Jolie films, making the transition to comic-book movies. Yes, this counts, it was based on a comic book. I assure you, there is a method (sort of) to my madness. Unfortunately, the volume on my recording is really low - thanks to Time Warner Cable's new Mystro DVR software, I think. (Did I mention that I hate Mystro?) I used to be able to control the DVR's audio output volume - now, not so much. Anyway, I'll try to judge the movie and not my low-volume recording of same.
THE PLOT: A frustrated office worker learns that he is the son of a professional assassin, and that he shares his father's superhuman killing abilities.
AFTER: Well, that was a slice of awesome! I may not be an expert on action movies, but I know what I like! Damn, this film STARTS with over-the-top action scenes, then says, "Well, how high can we go from here?"
I was right to use this film to transition out of fantasy movies - make no mistake, this is a fantasy film, as realistic as, well, a comic book. There's an attempt to tap the fantasy node on the male brain, by showing an office drone who gets visited by Angelina Jolie, and recruited into a secret society of assassins, who train him (in the style of "Karate Kid") to unlock his ability to slow down time (in the style of "The Matrix") to pull off some impossible, jaw-dropping stunts. Plus, who among us hasn't dreamed of telling off their boss, or smacking their most annoying co-worker in the face with a keyboard?
Since in real life hitmen can't "curve" the path of a bullet, or shoot the wings off of flies, the exaggerated action here is the equivalent of pornography, when compared to real-world sex. Is this a new genre - action porn? There are so many OMG! or WTF? moments in the stunts and special FX, like bullets colliding in mid-air, or when Jolie scoops up our hero in a spinning-out car, that this should give the Mythbusters guys enough material for a whole season's worth of shows - I know they covered a couple of these things already, but I bet they've just scratched the surface.
RATING: 9 out of 10 jars of peanut butter (let the flaming and second-guessing begin...)
Sunday, August 2, 2009
Beowulf (2007)
Day 214 - 8/2/09 - Movie #210
BEFORE: This is the all-CGI version from a year or two ago. There are classic storylines, then there are classic STORIES. In fact, this is based on one of the first stories ever, it's only like 1,000 years old! For once I don't have to worry about giving away plot details as the plot is just - man fights monster, right?
THE PLOT: The warrior Beowulf must fight and defeat the monster Grendel who is terrorizing towns, and later, Grendel's mother, who begins killing out of revenge.
AFTER: Not only one of the first stories, one of the first examples of three-act plot structure, based on Beowulf's three battles - vs. Grendel, Grendel's mother, and then later in life, a dragon. But there's a twist here which is sort of soap-opera like, and adds a whole new dimension to the fight with the dragon.
I noticed that Neil Gaiman co-wrote the screenplay - I'm very curious now to find out about the deviations from the original Beowulf storyline, and whose idea they were. Of course, classic stories change over time, and reflect the times in which they're told - one example of this is having Grendel's mother appear not as a monstrous beast, but as a hot, naked, Angelina Jolie, covered in liquid gold. Well, do you think that when the devil appears to you, it's going to look like a horrible dragon, or a beast with horns and a spiked tail? No, that's not how the devil works - the devil will appear to you in a very seductive form, like a hot, naked Angelina Jolie, covered in liquid gold!
In the first part of the story, as the kingdom is being attacked by Grendel, we come to suspect that there might be more to King Hrothgar's story than he's let on - what's his connection to Grendel, and for that matter, Grendel's mother? Why is the beast attacking the kingdom, anyway? None of this matters to Beowulf, of course - he came to town to slay monsters and drink mead, and he's all out of mead...
Beowulf prefers a fair fight - Grendel doesn't have a sword, so he can't use one. Grendel doesn't wear clothing, so Beowulf strips down. This sets up a great fight sequence - you can see Beowulf holding back while he studies the way that Grendel kills his men. He's learning his opponent's strengths and weaknesses, and figuring out a way to defeat him! In addition to showing monster-fighting in the buff, the movie is filled with phallic references - when he encounters the hot nakedness of Grendel's mother, she literally melts his sword. And later when fighting the dragon, Beowulf's sword is just a few inches too short - does he have something to prove, or what?
The CGI animation is slightly better than what was seen in "Shrek 3" - but the action is a non-stop thrill ride, with the best dragon-battle sequence I've seen all week...
RATING: 7 out of 10 serving-wenches
BEFORE: This is the all-CGI version from a year or two ago. There are classic storylines, then there are classic STORIES. In fact, this is based on one of the first stories ever, it's only like 1,000 years old! For once I don't have to worry about giving away plot details as the plot is just - man fights monster, right?
THE PLOT: The warrior Beowulf must fight and defeat the monster Grendel who is terrorizing towns, and later, Grendel's mother, who begins killing out of revenge.
AFTER: Not only one of the first stories, one of the first examples of three-act plot structure, based on Beowulf's three battles - vs. Grendel, Grendel's mother, and then later in life, a dragon. But there's a twist here which is sort of soap-opera like, and adds a whole new dimension to the fight with the dragon.
I noticed that Neil Gaiman co-wrote the screenplay - I'm very curious now to find out about the deviations from the original Beowulf storyline, and whose idea they were. Of course, classic stories change over time, and reflect the times in which they're told - one example of this is having Grendel's mother appear not as a monstrous beast, but as a hot, naked, Angelina Jolie, covered in liquid gold. Well, do you think that when the devil appears to you, it's going to look like a horrible dragon, or a beast with horns and a spiked tail? No, that's not how the devil works - the devil will appear to you in a very seductive form, like a hot, naked Angelina Jolie, covered in liquid gold!
In the first part of the story, as the kingdom is being attacked by Grendel, we come to suspect that there might be more to King Hrothgar's story than he's let on - what's his connection to Grendel, and for that matter, Grendel's mother? Why is the beast attacking the kingdom, anyway? None of this matters to Beowulf, of course - he came to town to slay monsters and drink mead, and he's all out of mead...
Beowulf prefers a fair fight - Grendel doesn't have a sword, so he can't use one. Grendel doesn't wear clothing, so Beowulf strips down. This sets up a great fight sequence - you can see Beowulf holding back while he studies the way that Grendel kills his men. He's learning his opponent's strengths and weaknesses, and figuring out a way to defeat him! In addition to showing monster-fighting in the buff, the movie is filled with phallic references - when he encounters the hot nakedness of Grendel's mother, she literally melts his sword. And later when fighting the dragon, Beowulf's sword is just a few inches too short - does he have something to prove, or what?
The CGI animation is slightly better than what was seen in "Shrek 3" - but the action is a non-stop thrill ride, with the best dragon-battle sequence I've seen all week...
RATING: 7 out of 10 serving-wenches
The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian
Day 213 - 8/1/09 - Movie #209
BEFORE: I have news of a devastating loss - Time Warner Cable here in New York has replaced their "Passport" DVR software with something called "Mystro" - and as a result I've lost the ability to search for movies by an actor or director's name. This will make it tougher to track down those last two Hitchcock films, and my planned Clint Eastwood festival will now have to be scaled back. However, I now have access to more Movies On Demand channels, at $1.99 each (take that, $5.99 DVD store!) so I've been buying and recording like a madman, keeping my list of movies to watch hovering above 400 - thus ensuring that this project will continue, at least until the end of 2010.
The "Narnia" series of books was one of my favorites when I was a kid - I can remember when "Prince Caspian" was considered the 5th book in the series, not the 2nd - and I didn't realize at the time that it was sort of a "gateway drug" to harder fare like "The Lord of the Rings"! I watched the first movie last year, so now finally I'm following up.
THE PLOT: The Pevensie siblings return to Narnia, where they are enlisted to once again help ward off an evil king and restore the rightful heir to the land's throne, Prince Caspian.
AFTER: Since I didn't recall most of the exact details from the book (it's been a long time...) I can't rate the movie's faithfulness to the source material - but it was certainly action-packed, and just like in "Golden Compass", the best scenes were the fight scenes and the talking animals. Liam Neeson once again voices the lion Aslan, Peter Dinklage and Warwick Davis co-star as dwarves, and Eddie Izzard voices a sword-fighting mouse.
Much has been written over the years about the Christian symbolism in the Narnia books, and I can sort of see that here - the kingdom of Narnia is endangered by the apparent loss of its lion/god - what sort of god remains absent and watches from afar, as people fight and struggle and suffer?
RATING: 8 out of 10 centaurs
BEFORE: I have news of a devastating loss - Time Warner Cable here in New York has replaced their "Passport" DVR software with something called "Mystro" - and as a result I've lost the ability to search for movies by an actor or director's name. This will make it tougher to track down those last two Hitchcock films, and my planned Clint Eastwood festival will now have to be scaled back. However, I now have access to more Movies On Demand channels, at $1.99 each (take that, $5.99 DVD store!) so I've been buying and recording like a madman, keeping my list of movies to watch hovering above 400 - thus ensuring that this project will continue, at least until the end of 2010.
The "Narnia" series of books was one of my favorites when I was a kid - I can remember when "Prince Caspian" was considered the 5th book in the series, not the 2nd - and I didn't realize at the time that it was sort of a "gateway drug" to harder fare like "The Lord of the Rings"! I watched the first movie last year, so now finally I'm following up.
THE PLOT: The Pevensie siblings return to Narnia, where they are enlisted to once again help ward off an evil king and restore the rightful heir to the land's throne, Prince Caspian.
AFTER: Since I didn't recall most of the exact details from the book (it's been a long time...) I can't rate the movie's faithfulness to the source material - but it was certainly action-packed, and just like in "Golden Compass", the best scenes were the fight scenes and the talking animals. Liam Neeson once again voices the lion Aslan, Peter Dinklage and Warwick Davis co-star as dwarves, and Eddie Izzard voices a sword-fighting mouse.
Much has been written over the years about the Christian symbolism in the Narnia books, and I can sort of see that here - the kingdom of Narnia is endangered by the apparent loss of its lion/god - what sort of god remains absent and watches from afar, as people fight and struggle and suffer?
RATING: 8 out of 10 centaurs
Friday, July 31, 2009
Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow
Day 212 - 7/31/09 - Movie #208
BEFORE: I've been meaning to get to this one for a while - it's another of those alternate-universe films (I think). It's set in the 1930's or 40's, but with futuristic spaceships. Another film that got a really bad rap - did it deserve it?
THE PLOT: After New York City is attacked by giant flying robots, a reporter teams up with a pilot in search of their origin, as well as the reason for the disappearances of famous scientists around the world.
AFTER: It's definitely a visually stunning film, with giant robots, metallic winged flying machines, and jet-packs, which are all anachronistic. The color palette and stark lighting make it all look like an old 1930's movie serial or comic book, combined with Soviet propaganda posters. Unfortunately, the plot is extremely simplistic - "Machines attack NYC!" and rather short on details.
This is a movie that wants to be an "Indiana Jones" movie (or at least has the same inspiration), but comes up short. I did like the interesting way that they worked in a cameo by the late Laurence Olivier though. The other actors are either very flat (Jude Law) or cartoonish (Gwyneth Paltrow), there doesn't seem to be a happy medium.
RATING: 6 out of 10 laser beams
BEFORE: I've been meaning to get to this one for a while - it's another of those alternate-universe films (I think). It's set in the 1930's or 40's, but with futuristic spaceships. Another film that got a really bad rap - did it deserve it?
THE PLOT: After New York City is attacked by giant flying robots, a reporter teams up with a pilot in search of their origin, as well as the reason for the disappearances of famous scientists around the world.
AFTER: It's definitely a visually stunning film, with giant robots, metallic winged flying machines, and jet-packs, which are all anachronistic. The color palette and stark lighting make it all look like an old 1930's movie serial or comic book, combined with Soviet propaganda posters. Unfortunately, the plot is extremely simplistic - "Machines attack NYC!" and rather short on details.
This is a movie that wants to be an "Indiana Jones" movie (or at least has the same inspiration), but comes up short. I did like the interesting way that they worked in a cameo by the late Laurence Olivier though. The other actors are either very flat (Jude Law) or cartoonish (Gwyneth Paltrow), there doesn't seem to be a happy medium.
RATING: 6 out of 10 laser beams
Thursday, July 30, 2009
The Golden Compass
Day 211 - 7/30/09 - Movie #207
BEFORE: Another fantasy movie based on a children's book, this one got really bad reviews and seems really complicated. Let's see if it lives up (down?) to its rep...
THE PLOT: In a parallel universe, young Lyra Belacqua journeys to the far North to save her best friend and other kidnapped children from terrible experiments by a mysterious organization.
AFTER: Man, and I thought "Dungeons & Dragons" was confusing - I had to look up the plot of this film on the web, right after watching it, to even START to understand it. As best as I can tell, in this parallel universe people's souls are housed in animal companions called "daemons", if a person's daemon gets hurt they feel it, and if they die, their daemon dies also. Somewhere up North, someone is drawing power in the form of "dust" from another universe (dust being a substance that exists between universes...or something) Also, poor kids are being kidnapped or killed, and one little girl has the power to tell the truth by reading the symbols on a magical compass. That's it, as far as I get before getting confused...
I can't recall if this movie was criticized for being overly Christian (like the "Narnia" series) or somewhat Satanic - but if they didn't want parents to freak out, they should have called the animals "familiars", instead of a word that sounds like "demons" - it's not like you can see the name's spelling in a movie! The daemons of children are constantly shifting, they can look like almost any animal before they "settle" into one form - but in a movie, this makes it incredibly difficult to follow, with characters that are always changing shape!
The best character is a giant polar bear, voiced by Ian McKellen - if you think polar bears are kinda neat, and want to see them talk, fight and drink booze, this is the movie for you! Sam Elliott manages to (once again) make a movie better, and Nicole Kidman plays a stone-cold bitch! Unfortunately, this all feels like a set-up for a more exciting sequel that may never get made - it raises a lot of questions that don't get answered.
RATING: 4 out of 10 parkas.
BEFORE: Another fantasy movie based on a children's book, this one got really bad reviews and seems really complicated. Let's see if it lives up (down?) to its rep...
THE PLOT: In a parallel universe, young Lyra Belacqua journeys to the far North to save her best friend and other kidnapped children from terrible experiments by a mysterious organization.
AFTER: Man, and I thought "Dungeons & Dragons" was confusing - I had to look up the plot of this film on the web, right after watching it, to even START to understand it. As best as I can tell, in this parallel universe people's souls are housed in animal companions called "daemons", if a person's daemon gets hurt they feel it, and if they die, their daemon dies also. Somewhere up North, someone is drawing power in the form of "dust" from another universe (dust being a substance that exists between universes...or something) Also, poor kids are being kidnapped or killed, and one little girl has the power to tell the truth by reading the symbols on a magical compass. That's it, as far as I get before getting confused...
I can't recall if this movie was criticized for being overly Christian (like the "Narnia" series) or somewhat Satanic - but if they didn't want parents to freak out, they should have called the animals "familiars", instead of a word that sounds like "demons" - it's not like you can see the name's spelling in a movie! The daemons of children are constantly shifting, they can look like almost any animal before they "settle" into one form - but in a movie, this makes it incredibly difficult to follow, with characters that are always changing shape!
The best character is a giant polar bear, voiced by Ian McKellen - if you think polar bears are kinda neat, and want to see them talk, fight and drink booze, this is the movie for you! Sam Elliott manages to (once again) make a movie better, and Nicole Kidman plays a stone-cold bitch! Unfortunately, this all feels like a set-up for a more exciting sequel that may never get made - it raises a lot of questions that don't get answered.
RATING: 4 out of 10 parkas.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
