Tropic Thunder is the kind of movie I usually hate. Jammed up with stars anywhere they can fit them, relying on costume for the movie's biggest gags, and Ben Stiller is prominently involved. Sounds like the latest crappy version of Austin Powers, no? Despite all of these things working decidedly against it, Tropic Thunder is a total blast.
It's a very "hollywood" film (something else I usually dislike), in that most of the characters are based on either specific hollywood giants or a particular category of hollywood sleezeballs. Some of these feel a little old-hat (particularly Stiller's character), but other characters (particularly Robert Downey Jr and Tom Cruise) are so ridiculously over the top-- and yet played with such commitment-- that they evolve past simple satire and move into the realm of really compelling comic characters.
And frankly, those two really carry the movie. Stiller has some surprisingly decent moments as well, but really, the reason to see this movie is for Downey and Cruise. They're just fucking hysterical, to put it simply. What's fun about these characters-- and to a certain extent, everyone else in the movie-- is that they are absolutely insane, and yet you can see how their internal logic works, or at least why that character thinks it works. It's a perfect marriage of absurdity and observation, and while I firmly believe that Downey and Cruise are the strongest performances and best examples of this, it's also definitely true for Jack Black, Ben Stiller, Matthew McConaughey (actually pretty good as Stiller's agent), and Nick Nolte (a pleasure to watch as the Vietnam vet with a secret. There are also nice performances from Steve Coogan, Bill Hader, Danny McBride and fun cameos from Lance Bass to Jon Voight. Clearly Stiller emptied his rolodex for this one.
Speaking of Stiller, the guy definitely deserves some props for this one. Personally, I've always felt like he was a one trick pony (his best movies are probably Something About Mary and Meet The Parents, which are basically identical comedically) but here he does a nice job of staying away from that stupid brand of "awkward humor". His character work is just ok-- although I love his portrayal of "Simple Jack", his character's attempt at a character piece about a retarded boy-- but I have to give the man some credit for his directing. He gets simply stunning performances out of most of the cast, particularly (not to sound like a broken record) Downey and Cruise. He does a nice job of mixing in some fun action scenes to keep the movie's pace up, and there are some fun Apocalypse Now nods in there too.
All in all, the movie is extremely sharp. It's just a little bit light on the laughs-- it's the kind of movie that tickles your brain more than your gut-- but it honestly didn't bother me at the time. The only other real complaint I could see making is that it's so hollywood-y, but I think that's simply a reflection of the genre, and far from being distracting, provided most of my favorite jokes. Clearly this movie is a labour of love for everyone involved, and that's always enjoyable to watch.
And dear god, Downey and Cruise alone are worth the price of admission. This one is way better than we expected.
Scores:
Downey: 9/10
Cruise: 10/10
Stiller: 7/10
Black: 7/10
Directing: 8/10
Writing: 7.5/10
Overall (not an average): 8.3/10
Tuesday, August 19, 2008
Sunday, August 17, 2008
The King of Kong: Fistful of Quarters
Let me say this: I fancy myself a pretty good pac-man (or ms. pac-man) player. Missle Command, Centipede, Tetris. Nothing amazing, but I like to think I'm alright at those kind of early video games.
Wrong. Oh, so wrong.
King of Kong is a 2007 documentary about classic 80's video game players. While video games have continued to grow and develop and things like Madden Tournaments and Major League Gaming have introduced competitive gaming into our culture, these particular dorks have felt no reason to leave behind the earliest pizza parlor greats. And after watching this movie, I can see why.
The film is an exploration of these giants of gaming and the people who chronicle and officiate their games. There's bias, lies, sketchy videotape, tampered machines, and a 65+ year old buddhist running the whole thing.
The main story follows two men, Billy Mitchell and Steve Wiebe. Billy Mitchell was a child prodigy at these games; he was a teen in the late 80's, and excelled at the games even then. While Billy dominated all the games, his only standing world record was in Donkey Kong, which is considered the hardest of all of these games. Mitchell is a totally nuts egomaniac whose self confidence has propelled his successful hot sauce business and his gaming records and achievements (in 1999 he recorded the first perfect Pac-Man game, completing all 200 something levels and getting the maximum points on each one!) He is a revered, but reclusive, figure throughout the film. It's amazing to watch him politicize such a trivial occurrence.
Wiebe, by contrast, is a semi-OCD father and husband who bought a Donkey Kong machine for his garage. He kicks off the drama by breaking Mitchell's all-time record (870,000) and scoring over a million points for the first time ever. In the background of his million point game VHS tape, his kid is screaming about needing his butt wiped (yes, really) and then starts crying "STOP PLAYING DONKEY KONG! STOP PLAYING DONKEY KONG!" while his dad sets the record. I mean, you can't make this stuff up.
I don't want to spoil the whole story, but it gets pretty intense between the two. Watching Mitchell try to be this Machiavellian figure over such a small, petty bit of trivia is enthralling, and watching Wiebe push his family to their limit is equalling compelling.
Plus, you get to see these guys really kick ass at Donkey Kong, which is pretty cool. All in all this movie was balls out awesome.
-- final thought-- I couldn't believe that there wasn't some Japanese dude that could crush these 45 year old nerds. Maybe that's racist, but I suspect they simply don't keep track of these things in Japan.
Scores:
How do you score a documentary? Overall, 8/10 in comparison to other documentaries.
Wrong. Oh, so wrong.
King of Kong is a 2007 documentary about classic 80's video game players. While video games have continued to grow and develop and things like Madden Tournaments and Major League Gaming have introduced competitive gaming into our culture, these particular dorks have felt no reason to leave behind the earliest pizza parlor greats. And after watching this movie, I can see why.
The film is an exploration of these giants of gaming and the people who chronicle and officiate their games. There's bias, lies, sketchy videotape, tampered machines, and a 65+ year old buddhist running the whole thing.
The main story follows two men, Billy Mitchell and Steve Wiebe. Billy Mitchell was a child prodigy at these games; he was a teen in the late 80's, and excelled at the games even then. While Billy dominated all the games, his only standing world record was in Donkey Kong, which is considered the hardest of all of these games. Mitchell is a totally nuts egomaniac whose self confidence has propelled his successful hot sauce business and his gaming records and achievements (in 1999 he recorded the first perfect Pac-Man game, completing all 200 something levels and getting the maximum points on each one!) He is a revered, but reclusive, figure throughout the film. It's amazing to watch him politicize such a trivial occurrence.
Wiebe, by contrast, is a semi-OCD father and husband who bought a Donkey Kong machine for his garage. He kicks off the drama by breaking Mitchell's all-time record (870,000) and scoring over a million points for the first time ever. In the background of his million point game VHS tape, his kid is screaming about needing his butt wiped (yes, really) and then starts crying "STOP PLAYING DONKEY KONG! STOP PLAYING DONKEY KONG!" while his dad sets the record. I mean, you can't make this stuff up.
I don't want to spoil the whole story, but it gets pretty intense between the two. Watching Mitchell try to be this Machiavellian figure over such a small, petty bit of trivia is enthralling, and watching Wiebe push his family to their limit is equalling compelling.
Plus, you get to see these guys really kick ass at Donkey Kong, which is pretty cool. All in all this movie was balls out awesome.
-- final thought-- I couldn't believe that there wasn't some Japanese dude that could crush these 45 year old nerds. Maybe that's racist, but I suspect they simply don't keep track of these things in Japan.
Scores:
How do you score a documentary? Overall, 8/10 in comparison to other documentaries.
Monday, August 11, 2008
Pineapple Express
Pineapple Express is aimed almost exactly at me.
An action comedy with blood and gore more like 48 Hours than The 40 Year Old Virgin, Pineapple Express is an unabashed love letter to marijuana. I mean, explosions, a sexy girl, and tons of weed? I'm there.
So why didn't I like it that much?
The film delivers what it promises. Rogan and Franco play very funny, but also honest, stoner characters, and their relationship with pot is more complicated and truthful then a movie like "half-baked" or "how high", where the relationship is much more black and white. They delve into all levels of "dealer awkwardness" and "friend vs smoking buddy awkwardness". Rogan acknowledges the effects pot has on his life, but doesn't feel the need to change. I enjoyed Franco's brief vignette selling pot to the guys he hates. It's nice to see a movie that accepts the reality of the world of stoners. And they get extra points because usually, in these movies, when they cough or blow out smoke, there's no actual smoke. These guys smoke pot like pros, which gives them more opportunity for insider pot jokes. And for the stoners amongst us, those are a lot of fun, and paint a fairly believable backdrop for the film.
This honesty serves the action element of the film well, because the seeming normality of their stoner exploits provides a contrast with the insane, over-the-top action sequences. It doesn't quite work-- it's still a little much to believe that these goof-offs can handle AK-47's like pros, but the acting in these sequences is goofy enough that it's not too much of a distraction. It was kind of refreshing to see some well-executed but not-complicated fight scenes, where the acting, not the choreography, is on display. And they don't shy away from blood and violence, which gives the second half of the movie in particular a flavor that other Apatow joints don't/can't match.
James Franco merits complimenting here somewhere. He plays Rogan's super-stoner dealer, and walks a fine line between smoked-himself-retarded and dim-but-really-sweet-guy-who-just-wants-friends. It's a part that easily could have been way overdone, but Franco balances it nicely-- and is gut-bustingly funny.
So, I'm pretty much sold on the movies overall construction. But the real meat of this kind of movie-- the jokes-- is a little lean. Watching dudes get stoned and try to have conversations is admittedly pretty entertaining (note to movie-goers: get stoned before seeing this, or don't go), but it gets kind of old quick, and the rest of the movie isn't quite funny enough to keep you laughing throughout.
I've always given Apatow et al., a lot of leeway as far as the criticism that their movies all sound kind of similar. But, unfortunately, a lot of this territory has been covered in 40 Year Old Virgin (where Rogan plays a Stoner), Knocked Up (where Rogan plays a Stoner) and Superbad (where Rogan plays a dumb cop who drinks too much). I'm not getting down on Rogan-- I think he's extremely funny, and look forward to his next movie. But... this just feels like he took some of his favorite stoner elements that snuck into other movies, and brought them back. They're done bigger and better here, but you can't help feel that it's a little old hat.
There are some hilarious moments-- Rogan's last conversation with his girlfriend is a really great gag, especially in the way that it tosses aside some convention. The car chase scene is the first chase scene i've really enjoyed in a while. And Franco's gross hair is just perfect.
There's a lot of funny things that go right in this movie, but ultimately, it's just another notch in Apatow and Rogan's belts. Wait for the rental-- that way you can smoke WHILE you watch it, which is clearly how it was meant to be seen.
SCORES
Rogan 7/10 (not much new here, but it's still pretty funny)
Franco 8/10 (fun to see him play so against type)
Writing 6.5/10
Directing 7.5/10
Weed 4/20 (LOL GET IT?!?!!!)
Overall (not an average)- 6.5/10
An action comedy with blood and gore more like 48 Hours than The 40 Year Old Virgin, Pineapple Express is an unabashed love letter to marijuana. I mean, explosions, a sexy girl, and tons of weed? I'm there.
So why didn't I like it that much?
The film delivers what it promises. Rogan and Franco play very funny, but also honest, stoner characters, and their relationship with pot is more complicated and truthful then a movie like "half-baked" or "how high", where the relationship is much more black and white. They delve into all levels of "dealer awkwardness" and "friend vs smoking buddy awkwardness". Rogan acknowledges the effects pot has on his life, but doesn't feel the need to change. I enjoyed Franco's brief vignette selling pot to the guys he hates. It's nice to see a movie that accepts the reality of the world of stoners. And they get extra points because usually, in these movies, when they cough or blow out smoke, there's no actual smoke. These guys smoke pot like pros, which gives them more opportunity for insider pot jokes. And for the stoners amongst us, those are a lot of fun, and paint a fairly believable backdrop for the film.
This honesty serves the action element of the film well, because the seeming normality of their stoner exploits provides a contrast with the insane, over-the-top action sequences. It doesn't quite work-- it's still a little much to believe that these goof-offs can handle AK-47's like pros, but the acting in these sequences is goofy enough that it's not too much of a distraction. It was kind of refreshing to see some well-executed but not-complicated fight scenes, where the acting, not the choreography, is on display. And they don't shy away from blood and violence, which gives the second half of the movie in particular a flavor that other Apatow joints don't/can't match.
James Franco merits complimenting here somewhere. He plays Rogan's super-stoner dealer, and walks a fine line between smoked-himself-retarded and dim-but-really-sweet-guy-who-just-wants-friends. It's a part that easily could have been way overdone, but Franco balances it nicely-- and is gut-bustingly funny.
So, I'm pretty much sold on the movies overall construction. But the real meat of this kind of movie-- the jokes-- is a little lean. Watching dudes get stoned and try to have conversations is admittedly pretty entertaining (note to movie-goers: get stoned before seeing this, or don't go), but it gets kind of old quick, and the rest of the movie isn't quite funny enough to keep you laughing throughout.
I've always given Apatow et al., a lot of leeway as far as the criticism that their movies all sound kind of similar. But, unfortunately, a lot of this territory has been covered in 40 Year Old Virgin (where Rogan plays a Stoner), Knocked Up (where Rogan plays a Stoner) and Superbad (where Rogan plays a dumb cop who drinks too much). I'm not getting down on Rogan-- I think he's extremely funny, and look forward to his next movie. But... this just feels like he took some of his favorite stoner elements that snuck into other movies, and brought them back. They're done bigger and better here, but you can't help feel that it's a little old hat.
There are some hilarious moments-- Rogan's last conversation with his girlfriend is a really great gag, especially in the way that it tosses aside some convention. The car chase scene is the first chase scene i've really enjoyed in a while. And Franco's gross hair is just perfect.
There's a lot of funny things that go right in this movie, but ultimately, it's just another notch in Apatow and Rogan's belts. Wait for the rental-- that way you can smoke WHILE you watch it, which is clearly how it was meant to be seen.
SCORES
Rogan 7/10 (not much new here, but it's still pretty funny)
Franco 8/10 (fun to see him play so against type)
Writing 6.5/10
Directing 7.5/10
Weed 4/20 (LOL GET IT?!?!!!)
Overall (not an average)- 6.5/10
Saturday, August 2, 2008
Wanted
The guy who sat next to me at my screening of "Wanted" (no, we didn't go together; apparently in the summer in new york, movies are always sold out, even a month after they come out) is the kind of moviegoer I usually hate-- every time there was an "oooh" or "ahhh" moment, he would literally ohh and ahh (peppered with the occasional "Oh, shit!"). Well, by the time James McAvoy is shooting other bullets out of the air, this guy was unable muster any more amazement. "Wanted" had beaten him.
That's what's fantastic about the movie-- it's a summer blockbuster in the turest sense of the genre; explosions, sex, glitz, glamour, and guns. In a summer where it's competition (Iron Man, Dark Knight) is keeping it clean enough to earn a PG-13, Wanted goes balls-to-the-walls the whole time, giving us a litany of curse words and a glorious shot of Angelina Jolie's supple, well, butt, on it's way to an unabashed R rating. Good. Let the blood flow, I'm not eight years old. Let's fuck some shit up.
It's ironic that the movie is the American Debut for Russian director Timur Bekmanbetov (say that three times fast), because the movie is the epitome of the loud expensive hollywood blackbuster, a truly American art form if there ever was one. The screenplay is clearly written by a couple of fellows familiar with their Syd Field, as it plays by all the rules for hollywood screenplays. It doesn't try to reinvent the genre, instead happy to work within it, hitting all of the required cliches with such a lack of shame that we in the audience are able to simply enjoy what is essentially a nothing-new-under-the-sun journey.
Simply put, it kicks fucking ass, doesn't apologize for it, and has just enough tounge-in-cheek that you feel like the movie was as much a guilty pleasure for the filmmakers as it certainly is in the audience.
James McAvoy is great at playing a nobody who gets to live out a fantasy that is decidedly delicious; the world's best assassins are going to train him to be an assassin. Awesome. It's like Harry Potter for alcoholics. McAvoy squeezes a ton out of this role, managing to pull off the neurotic "before" stage, the giddy "during" stage, and the serious "after" stage of his training. He speaks to the audience in voiceover that unabashadly shatters the fourth wall, but it's sucessfull because it cues the audience in, saying "yes, we know, it's all over the top. That's the point. Come on, it's fun!"
Angelina Jolie is, if possible, even sexier than usual. Maybe it's something about a woman with a gun, or maybe it's that big chase scene where McAvoy is clearly looking up her skirt as she leans out over the hood of the car, steering with her high heels and shooting with her antique pistols. Whatever it is, she carries an air of coy superiority that absolutely works here.
The story isn't as bad as you'd expect, either. There's a legitamite twist at the end of the second act that I didn't see coming (though that could be because I was drinking jack and coke the whole time-- definitely the kind of movie you want a few drinks for), and a couple of nice little vignettes right at the end that keep you on your toes enough that you can simply enjoy all the cool shit blowing up.
Speaking of the cool shit blowing up, I feel compelled to say that the action sequences in this movie are totally unparalleled. The Dark Knight should be taking notes, as every set piece (and oh, there are several) in this romp is perfectly executed-- you always know where everybody is, what they're shooting at, why shit is blowing up all over the place. Add to that some of the sharpest CGI effects I've ever seen, and you've got fight scenes that pop off the screen like a comic book. There's a stroke of scriptwriting genius that allows this. The number one problem with movies where people chase each other with guns is that either people have to be bad shots and miss each other a ton, or the scene will be over in a few shots. By giving the characters this supernatural control over their bullets, the fights take on a precision unparalleled in movie gunfights.
Basically, this movie is everything a summer blockbuster should be. Fun, funny, sexy, thrilling, loud and fast. Maybe the films "morals" leave something to be desired, and don't expect to see much character development, save a little from McAvoy, but hey, if you want to see some fucking badass shit, this movie is for you. Totally worth the $12 to see it on the big screen, too.
(Final Note: If you have ever lived in or are familiar with Chicago, you're in for a treat. This movie makes use of the cityscape in a way that the Dark Knight simply didn't even try too. The scenes on top of the L train are awesome.)
SCORES:
James McAvoy: 8/10
Angelina Jolie: WillYouMarryMe?/10
Writing: 7/10
Directing: 8/10
Effects: 11/10
OVERALL (not an average): 9/10. (I can't give it a 10, I'd reserve that for something a little more 'important', but I'd say that's just a limitation of the genre. There's very little to quibble about here.)
That's what's fantastic about the movie-- it's a summer blockbuster in the turest sense of the genre; explosions, sex, glitz, glamour, and guns. In a summer where it's competition (Iron Man, Dark Knight) is keeping it clean enough to earn a PG-13, Wanted goes balls-to-the-walls the whole time, giving us a litany of curse words and a glorious shot of Angelina Jolie's supple, well, butt, on it's way to an unabashed R rating. Good. Let the blood flow, I'm not eight years old. Let's fuck some shit up.
It's ironic that the movie is the American Debut for Russian director Timur Bekmanbetov (say that three times fast), because the movie is the epitome of the loud expensive hollywood blackbuster, a truly American art form if there ever was one. The screenplay is clearly written by a couple of fellows familiar with their Syd Field, as it plays by all the rules for hollywood screenplays. It doesn't try to reinvent the genre, instead happy to work within it, hitting all of the required cliches with such a lack of shame that we in the audience are able to simply enjoy what is essentially a nothing-new-under-the-sun journey.
Simply put, it kicks fucking ass, doesn't apologize for it, and has just enough tounge-in-cheek that you feel like the movie was as much a guilty pleasure for the filmmakers as it certainly is in the audience.
James McAvoy is great at playing a nobody who gets to live out a fantasy that is decidedly delicious; the world's best assassins are going to train him to be an assassin. Awesome. It's like Harry Potter for alcoholics. McAvoy squeezes a ton out of this role, managing to pull off the neurotic "before" stage, the giddy "during" stage, and the serious "after" stage of his training. He speaks to the audience in voiceover that unabashadly shatters the fourth wall, but it's sucessfull because it cues the audience in, saying "yes, we know, it's all over the top. That's the point. Come on, it's fun!"
Angelina Jolie is, if possible, even sexier than usual. Maybe it's something about a woman with a gun, or maybe it's that big chase scene where McAvoy is clearly looking up her skirt as she leans out over the hood of the car, steering with her high heels and shooting with her antique pistols. Whatever it is, she carries an air of coy superiority that absolutely works here.
The story isn't as bad as you'd expect, either. There's a legitamite twist at the end of the second act that I didn't see coming (though that could be because I was drinking jack and coke the whole time-- definitely the kind of movie you want a few drinks for), and a couple of nice little vignettes right at the end that keep you on your toes enough that you can simply enjoy all the cool shit blowing up.
Speaking of the cool shit blowing up, I feel compelled to say that the action sequences in this movie are totally unparalleled. The Dark Knight should be taking notes, as every set piece (and oh, there are several) in this romp is perfectly executed-- you always know where everybody is, what they're shooting at, why shit is blowing up all over the place. Add to that some of the sharpest CGI effects I've ever seen, and you've got fight scenes that pop off the screen like a comic book. There's a stroke of scriptwriting genius that allows this. The number one problem with movies where people chase each other with guns is that either people have to be bad shots and miss each other a ton, or the scene will be over in a few shots. By giving the characters this supernatural control over their bullets, the fights take on a precision unparalleled in movie gunfights.
Basically, this movie is everything a summer blockbuster should be. Fun, funny, sexy, thrilling, loud and fast. Maybe the films "morals" leave something to be desired, and don't expect to see much character development, save a little from McAvoy, but hey, if you want to see some fucking badass shit, this movie is for you. Totally worth the $12 to see it on the big screen, too.
(Final Note: If you have ever lived in or are familiar with Chicago, you're in for a treat. This movie makes use of the cityscape in a way that the Dark Knight simply didn't even try too. The scenes on top of the L train are awesome.)
SCORES:
James McAvoy: 8/10
Angelina Jolie: WillYouMarryMe?/10
Writing: 7/10
Directing: 8/10
Effects: 11/10
OVERALL (not an average): 9/10. (I can't give it a 10, I'd reserve that for something a little more 'important', but I'd say that's just a limitation of the genre. There's very little to quibble about here.)
Tuesday, July 29, 2008
WALL-E
WALL-E, despite it's slick presentation and robo-centric story, is a movie from a bygone era. At first glance, it seems like old hat for Pixar, who have made a industry and a genre out of giving a voice to things that don't get one (mostly animals and toys). But to judge this movie's style off of a past efforts is to do yourself an enormous disservice. Unlike Toy Story, WALL-E (mostly) works within the confines of the world they've created, mainly, that menial robots are not usually programmed to talk or reason at the level of an adult. So, instead of piping Tom Hanks' voice in for a robot, they instead create the character through inspired and (for CGI) unprecedented acting. WALL-E, in addition to being essentially silent, is cute, precocious, innocent, inquisitive, and a real sweetheart. There's a not-so-subtle resemblance to Charlie Chaplin in WALL-E's mannerisms. In short, Pixar has done the unthinkable-- they've made a robo-"Tramp".
Top to bottom, the film just oozes with Chaplin. WALL-E is prone to the same kind of accidents, gets himself into the same kind of trouble, and falls in love with the same ease and adorable authenticity that were the hallmarks of Chaplin's tramp. Even WALL-E's interaction with the cockroach are reminiscent of scenes from Chaplin's legendarily sweet film "The Kid."
What's truly impressive is that all this is able to be done through computer animation and that it doesn't feel at all forced. The Pixar design team has outdone themselves in this film, particularly with our protagonist. His movements, in particular his 'eyes' have the same skittish, innocent tone as The Tramp. Even when he pops a cube of compressed garbage out from his chest (a trick not even Chaplin could pull off), he hops and sputters in such a way that you wonder if they somehow hooked up one of those motion capture suits to Charlie's ghost.
But as any appreciator of silent-era comedy can tell you, the films were made in a very different era of hollywood-- most of Chaplin's work is under 90 minutes (WALL-E wisely clocks in at just under 100 minutes), and the films simply don't match the careful planning and structure of modern hollywood movies. Great as they are, silent films are for a different style of movie-going. Luckily, WALL-E avoids this particular silent film convention with a pretty decent b-story.
The backdrop for our little robo-love story is a politically-topical, hard-to-argue-with vision of the future, where pollution has gotten so bad that mankind has been forced off the planet and into luxury space-ships, where they become detached from what's really important in life. Without spoiling too much, WALL-E, not that it is his intention, teaches humans about the value of life and love as contrasted with their boring, sedentary lifestyle. This story, while a little preachy for a $180 million fluff film, has a good message at it's heart-- it's hard to get too mad at a film that preaches environmental responsibility these days-- and is integrated extremely well into the main robo-love story, as the film's big set-peices advance both plots equally. Jeff Garlin chips in with a very nice bit of voice-acting as the ship's captain, walking that fine line between cartoonish enthusiasm and silliness like an old pro.
I'm not usually a big fan of "Family Films", but anyone who thinks that this movie is for kids has never spent a night laughing through "The Gold Rush" or "Modern Times." Like those Chaplin masterpieces, WALL-E is a small, sweet story presented in contrast with the grandest possible scale the filmmakers could conjure up at the time. Of course, the unlimited possibilities of CGI mean that writer/director Andrew Stanton has no limits imposed on him-- think Chaplin doing jokes about spaceships almost landing on top of him, and you've got the key element for this film.
In that sense, the film may signal the arrival of a new age of CGI-- one where acting and characterization of CGI characters have evolved so much that they're able to write a love letter to one of cinema's greatest giants, and have it feel like a love-letter rather than a rip-off. WALL-E is a film from a bygone era, with modern principles and construction. A solid, funny, sweet film for The Tramp in all of us. If this film doesn't illicit at least one "awww" from you, check your pulse-- you may be the robot.
side note: One thing, and this is very minor, that weirded me out a little was the voice acting for EVE. It was mostly fine, but every once in a while she would take a tone with WALL-E that sounded more matronly than lover-ly. Just a handful of lines, but it was rather creepy, given WALL-E's romantic infatuation.
SCORES:
WALL-E: 10/10 (if CGI actors could be nominated for Oscars, this would at least garner a nomination, and I'm not even remotely kidding)
EVE: 8/10
Jeff Garlin: 8/10
Writing: 7.5/10 (loses a few points for preachiness, predictability)
Directing: 7/10 (while very crisp, the film lacks the 'wow' factor of other CGI/Pixar efforts)
OVERALL (not an average): 8.5/10
Top to bottom, the film just oozes with Chaplin. WALL-E is prone to the same kind of accidents, gets himself into the same kind of trouble, and falls in love with the same ease and adorable authenticity that were the hallmarks of Chaplin's tramp. Even WALL-E's interaction with the cockroach are reminiscent of scenes from Chaplin's legendarily sweet film "The Kid."
What's truly impressive is that all this is able to be done through computer animation and that it doesn't feel at all forced. The Pixar design team has outdone themselves in this film, particularly with our protagonist. His movements, in particular his 'eyes' have the same skittish, innocent tone as The Tramp. Even when he pops a cube of compressed garbage out from his chest (a trick not even Chaplin could pull off), he hops and sputters in such a way that you wonder if they somehow hooked up one of those motion capture suits to Charlie's ghost.
But as any appreciator of silent-era comedy can tell you, the films were made in a very different era of hollywood-- most of Chaplin's work is under 90 minutes (WALL-E wisely clocks in at just under 100 minutes), and the films simply don't match the careful planning and structure of modern hollywood movies. Great as they are, silent films are for a different style of movie-going. Luckily, WALL-E avoids this particular silent film convention with a pretty decent b-story.
The backdrop for our little robo-love story is a politically-topical, hard-to-argue-with vision of the future, where pollution has gotten so bad that mankind has been forced off the planet and into luxury space-ships, where they become detached from what's really important in life. Without spoiling too much, WALL-E, not that it is his intention, teaches humans about the value of life and love as contrasted with their boring, sedentary lifestyle. This story, while a little preachy for a $180 million fluff film, has a good message at it's heart-- it's hard to get too mad at a film that preaches environmental responsibility these days-- and is integrated extremely well into the main robo-love story, as the film's big set-peices advance both plots equally. Jeff Garlin chips in with a very nice bit of voice-acting as the ship's captain, walking that fine line between cartoonish enthusiasm and silliness like an old pro.
I'm not usually a big fan of "Family Films", but anyone who thinks that this movie is for kids has never spent a night laughing through "The Gold Rush" or "Modern Times." Like those Chaplin masterpieces, WALL-E is a small, sweet story presented in contrast with the grandest possible scale the filmmakers could conjure up at the time. Of course, the unlimited possibilities of CGI mean that writer/director Andrew Stanton has no limits imposed on him-- think Chaplin doing jokes about spaceships almost landing on top of him, and you've got the key element for this film.
In that sense, the film may signal the arrival of a new age of CGI-- one where acting and characterization of CGI characters have evolved so much that they're able to write a love letter to one of cinema's greatest giants, and have it feel like a love-letter rather than a rip-off. WALL-E is a film from a bygone era, with modern principles and construction. A solid, funny, sweet film for The Tramp in all of us. If this film doesn't illicit at least one "awww" from you, check your pulse-- you may be the robot.
side note: One thing, and this is very minor, that weirded me out a little was the voice acting for EVE. It was mostly fine, but every once in a while she would take a tone with WALL-E that sounded more matronly than lover-ly. Just a handful of lines, but it was rather creepy, given WALL-E's romantic infatuation.
SCORES:
WALL-E: 10/10 (if CGI actors could be nominated for Oscars, this would at least garner a nomination, and I'm not even remotely kidding)
EVE: 8/10
Jeff Garlin: 8/10
Writing: 7.5/10 (loses a few points for preachiness, predictability)
Directing: 7/10 (while very crisp, the film lacks the 'wow' factor of other CGI/Pixar efforts)
OVERALL (not an average): 8.5/10
Wednesday, July 23, 2008
I Am Legend
As you might have gleaned on your own from my Batman review, a lot of how I judge a movie depends on the context I'm watching it in. I think that's especially apparent in this movie, which sounds a little better in review than it really is. It's just solid craftsmanship, and there's something to be said for that.
---
So, right up front, full disclosure; I haven't read the book. My understanding is that it's "better" and has a "very different" ending. And that they moved it to new york city from russia, and made the white, Russian guy into Will Smith, then added something about Bob Marley. Okay, fine. I understand, it's not as good as the book. Now, not giving half a thought to the book, or to high art, but just to seeing a good Movie, I can watch the movie and enjoy it. And I did.
It's nothing special. Will Smith fights zombies as the presumed "last man on earth". It's an unabashed shock thriller with things-that-go-bump-in-the-night. But the catch is this-- Will Smith is really good. I'm not a big Will Smith fan (I liked Ali, haven't seen pursuit of happiness, and hated Hitch), but this is right up his alley and he nails it. He's calm, cold, and calculating, as well as frightened, guilt-ridden and desperate. And, god help me, I'm a sucker for Dogs, and the dog in this movie is amazing. Definitely the best guy-and-a-dog movie ever.
I liked the ending. It's a little predictable, in terms of what actually happens to Will Smith and the world. But, the thing with the body in the ice, while a little obvious in hindsight, was subtle enough. The other scenes with the body were justified on their own, in addition to contributing to the end. And, while the Butterfly thing at the end is the kind of thing I'd usually find schticky, it was, again, subtly planted in the movie to feel natural, but not look obvious.
Yes, it's pure Hollywood, but that's the mentality you should take into this movie: It's a glitzy horror/adventure story starring the world's biggest movie star, in terms of box office appeal, and they spent a ton of cash making it look good. And then, surprise, it's got a heart. It's got depth of emotion. It's got a dog, and the dog is fucking awesome.
Scores:
Directing: 7/10 (IMO, when you don't notice the director, he's doing a good job)
Writing: 7/10
Will Smith: 7.5/10
Dog: 10/10
Bob Marley: 4/20
Overall (not an average): 7/10
---
So, right up front, full disclosure; I haven't read the book. My understanding is that it's "better" and has a "very different" ending. And that they moved it to new york city from russia, and made the white, Russian guy into Will Smith, then added something about Bob Marley. Okay, fine. I understand, it's not as good as the book. Now, not giving half a thought to the book, or to high art, but just to seeing a good Movie, I can watch the movie and enjoy it. And I did.
It's nothing special. Will Smith fights zombies as the presumed "last man on earth". It's an unabashed shock thriller with things-that-go-bump-in-the-night. But the catch is this-- Will Smith is really good. I'm not a big Will Smith fan (I liked Ali, haven't seen pursuit of happiness, and hated Hitch), but this is right up his alley and he nails it. He's calm, cold, and calculating, as well as frightened, guilt-ridden and desperate. And, god help me, I'm a sucker for Dogs, and the dog in this movie is amazing. Definitely the best guy-and-a-dog movie ever.
I liked the ending. It's a little predictable, in terms of what actually happens to Will Smith and the world. But, the thing with the body in the ice, while a little obvious in hindsight, was subtle enough. The other scenes with the body were justified on their own, in addition to contributing to the end. And, while the Butterfly thing at the end is the kind of thing I'd usually find schticky, it was, again, subtly planted in the movie to feel natural, but not look obvious.
Yes, it's pure Hollywood, but that's the mentality you should take into this movie: It's a glitzy horror/adventure story starring the world's biggest movie star, in terms of box office appeal, and they spent a ton of cash making it look good. And then, surprise, it's got a heart. It's got depth of emotion. It's got a dog, and the dog is fucking awesome.
Scores:
Directing: 7/10 (IMO, when you don't notice the director, he's doing a good job)
Writing: 7/10
Will Smith: 7.5/10
Dog: 10/10
Bob Marley: 4/20
Overall (not an average): 7/10
The Dark Knight
Alright, so, last night I went to see "The Dark Knight". I don't usually brave the theaters when they're mobbed, but stupidly I assumed that a Tuesday night wouldn't be that bad. It was. It was packed full, every screening of the movie sold out, and even though I got there an hour early, it was only to wait in line. Apparently, every human being in the country has been federally mandated to see this movie, and see it in theaters. Madhouse doesn't even begin to describe it. So, understandably, I was expecting to be blown out of the water.
Now, I'm not a huge fan of superhero movies. I find that generally speaking, the origin story takes so long to tell that by the time we're actually finding out who/what the bad guy is, we're well into the second act and the main conflict invariably feels tacked on. And while the origin stories are kind of cool, I already know what's going to happen, so I'm not so excited when it does, more relieved. It's probably not a coincidence that X-Men 2, where everything was already established, is my favorite of the genre.
Still, I have a lot of respect for Chris Nolan, despite my feelings on Batman Begins [which I'll link when I repost it here]. I also really like Aaron Eckhardt, and was excited for Ledger's performance, which has received unprecedented levels of oscar buzz. So while my expectations were slightly tempered by the fact that it is a superhero movie starring Christian Bale (more on that in a minute), I still went in thinking that this would be an excellent movie.
But, frankly: Meh.
--a least a little bit of spoiling below--
It's good, don't get me wrong. I'd call it one of the better superhero movies in recent memory, and in a lot of ways it really succeeds. For example, the shining star of the movie, Ledger as The Joker, really shines brightly. Ledger brings a touch-- but only a touch-- of insanity and chaos to the role, which is exactly how it was written. He's creepy and funny, definitely a more interesting Joker than Nicholson's way back in the day (I like that movie a lot, by the way.) Aaron Eckhardt is really good for about 120 minutes (again, more in a minute.) Maggie Gyllenhall is just OK but that's a massive improvement over Katie Holmes. And the "batcycle" or whatever it's called was fun.
But, ultimately, what makes or breaks the movie is it's little "thesis" or "moral" or "message" or whatever you'd like to call it. The movie is, essentially, a contrast between the duality of man (and of super-men)-- the instincts that make the same species both take joy in violence and destruction and also the instincts that would make you push a stranger out of the way of an oncoming bus. Selfishness and indulgence versus morality and selflessness. And the Joker and Batman are a really great pair of characters to play this between. Particularly Batman, who, in Rachel, has a reason to be selfish. Think Darth Vader in Episodes 2 and 3 (terrible movies, but a similarly interesting premise). At this point, when Nolan and his brother sat down to write the movie, with this trope in mind, they had gold, jerry. Gold!
Unfortunately, this is where things started to go wrong.
First of all, my biggest complaint with the whole movie-- Batman. I know everybody loves Christian Bale, but this performance (much like his last batman) was clunky at best. Batman is this wonderful archetypal character with this amazing personal struggle... and I just didn't see it in Bale. I thought his performance as Bruce Wayne, specifically, was very lacking in depth. The only scene where he seemed even moderately emotive was after Rachel died, and even then, he it only seemed to truly bother him for about 5 minutes. I understand that he's playing Wayne as a public asshole, so I'll cut him some slack on those scenes (personally I thought he just seemed like a real life asshole, you know, the kind that would beat up his own mother, but I'll give him a pass there since he's effectively playing 3 personas: public bruce, private bruce, and batman.) But the "private bruce" character was totally flat and not at all interesting, and that's where the real drama should have been coming from. As The Batman, I thought Bale was OK, the voice seemed like it had been ratcheted up a couple notches, and I couldn't help but think of TV cartoon cop "Assy Mcgee". In general I thought the voice was a little silly (contrasted by ledger's joker who-- and this is key-- backed off the voice in key emotional moments). I just can't take a hero who sounds like he smokes 10 packs a day seriously.
Admittedly, part of the reason we are denied a quality private struggle for Wayne is because it isn't really in the script. Hard to blame Bale for that. But, why isn't it in there? The hero's struggle is really what drives most films. And, while we're on the subject, where is my personal moment, alone with the Joker? I want to see what happens when he wipes off that make-up. What lives under there? Does he believe his own rehetoric? Even if the answer is simply "yes", or if no answer is given, I wanted to see the question explored in the same way I wanted to see Wayne's struggle explored. This is where the movie fails.
Nolan wants so badly to make us see his trope or theme or whatever of the duality of man that he uses a great character and a great performance from Eckhardt as Harvey Dent to hammer the point home. In the battle for Dent, the Joker wins, and in the battle for Gotham, Batman wins, man is dual and Nolan's made his point. But here's the problem-- it makes the movie far too fucking long!
Now, I'm not one to complain about the length of a movie-- when it's justified . But to me, it felt like we were seeing two movies, which Nolan refused to split because without the second movie, it might not be immediately clear to stupider audiences what the first one was about. The Dent/Two-Face story hammered home Nolan's point, but it wasn't necessary. The Joker and Batman as two similar men with one crucial difference was enough of a story as is, and, as I stated earlier, could have used more exploration and explanation. The film could have ended when Rachel dies and Dent is disfigured, been the exact same length, and spent that extra 40 minutes exploring the characters more in-depth. Another unfortunate byproduct of this was that Harvey Dent, a dynamic and interesting character, all of a sudden became a shallow, predictable cliche, easily manipulated by the Joker. It hurt me to see such an independent character (and "the best of them") be so easily used, abused, and outthought by both the Joker and Batman. They could have spent a whole movie exploring the pain and anger that burned in two-face, but instead they just turned him into a rampaging madman, which sort of short-changed the role. I understand exactly why it was done, and I think that it served the film's thesis, but it wasn't necessary . I'm quite sure they'll make another one of these movies if they want to-- they should have given the Joker more screen time in this one and saved two-face for the next one. As it was, too much happens too quickly and we don't get to see some potentially excellent character work.
The film purports itself as a dark, gritty, character piece. One of my friends described it as "almost a character study on the Joker". Unfortunately, it's also a summer blockbuster, which means several big set pieces and explosions weather we need them or not (side note: while I respect Nolan and his guys for shooting so many of the stunts live, frankly, at this point, it's not worth it. The stunts didn't look any more real or fake than CGI, and compared to a movie like Wanted or Iron Man, the set pieces were pretty pedestrian. For a movie with so many explosions, I sure wasn't too excited about them.)
If the film had spent more of that 150 minutes on character, or split the character work over two movies, this could have been a really tremendous movie(s). As it is, it's simply a better-than-average blockbuster.
And also; how could they not explain the thing with Gordon's "death" a little better? What happened there? Not a crucial detail but I just wanted one line explaining it.
Numerical scores:
Directing: 7/10
Writing: 6/10 (5/5 for the idea, 1/5 for execution)
Christian Bale: 6/10
Heath Ledger: 9/10
Aaron Eckhardt: 7/10
Michael Caine: 11/10 (he's so cute, isn't he?)
Effects: 4/10
OVERALL (not an average): 7.5/10
Now, I'm not a huge fan of superhero movies. I find that generally speaking, the origin story takes so long to tell that by the time we're actually finding out who/what the bad guy is, we're well into the second act and the main conflict invariably feels tacked on. And while the origin stories are kind of cool, I already know what's going to happen, so I'm not so excited when it does, more relieved. It's probably not a coincidence that X-Men 2, where everything was already established, is my favorite of the genre.
Still, I have a lot of respect for Chris Nolan, despite my feelings on Batman Begins [which I'll link when I repost it here]. I also really like Aaron Eckhardt, and was excited for Ledger's performance, which has received unprecedented levels of oscar buzz. So while my expectations were slightly tempered by the fact that it is a superhero movie starring Christian Bale (more on that in a minute), I still went in thinking that this would be an excellent movie.
But, frankly: Meh.
--a least a little bit of spoiling below--
It's good, don't get me wrong. I'd call it one of the better superhero movies in recent memory, and in a lot of ways it really succeeds. For example, the shining star of the movie, Ledger as The Joker, really shines brightly. Ledger brings a touch-- but only a touch-- of insanity and chaos to the role, which is exactly how it was written. He's creepy and funny, definitely a more interesting Joker than Nicholson's way back in the day (I like that movie a lot, by the way.) Aaron Eckhardt is really good for about 120 minutes (again, more in a minute.) Maggie Gyllenhall is just OK but that's a massive improvement over Katie Holmes. And the "batcycle" or whatever it's called was fun.
But, ultimately, what makes or breaks the movie is it's little "thesis" or "moral" or "message" or whatever you'd like to call it. The movie is, essentially, a contrast between the duality of man (and of super-men)-- the instincts that make the same species both take joy in violence and destruction and also the instincts that would make you push a stranger out of the way of an oncoming bus. Selfishness and indulgence versus morality and selflessness. And the Joker and Batman are a really great pair of characters to play this between. Particularly Batman, who, in Rachel, has a reason to be selfish. Think Darth Vader in Episodes 2 and 3 (terrible movies, but a similarly interesting premise). At this point, when Nolan and his brother sat down to write the movie, with this trope in mind, they had gold, jerry. Gold!
Unfortunately, this is where things started to go wrong.
First of all, my biggest complaint with the whole movie-- Batman. I know everybody loves Christian Bale, but this performance (much like his last batman) was clunky at best. Batman is this wonderful archetypal character with this amazing personal struggle... and I just didn't see it in Bale. I thought his performance as Bruce Wayne, specifically, was very lacking in depth. The only scene where he seemed even moderately emotive was after Rachel died, and even then, he it only seemed to truly bother him for about 5 minutes. I understand that he's playing Wayne as a public asshole, so I'll cut him some slack on those scenes (personally I thought he just seemed like a real life asshole, you know, the kind that would beat up his own mother, but I'll give him a pass there since he's effectively playing 3 personas: public bruce, private bruce, and batman.) But the "private bruce" character was totally flat and not at all interesting, and that's where the real drama should have been coming from. As The Batman, I thought Bale was OK, the voice seemed like it had been ratcheted up a couple notches, and I couldn't help but think of TV cartoon cop "Assy Mcgee". In general I thought the voice was a little silly (contrasted by ledger's joker who-- and this is key-- backed off the voice in key emotional moments). I just can't take a hero who sounds like he smokes 10 packs a day seriously.
Admittedly, part of the reason we are denied a quality private struggle for Wayne is because it isn't really in the script. Hard to blame Bale for that. But, why isn't it in there? The hero's struggle is really what drives most films. And, while we're on the subject, where is my personal moment, alone with the Joker? I want to see what happens when he wipes off that make-up. What lives under there? Does he believe his own rehetoric? Even if the answer is simply "yes", or if no answer is given, I wanted to see the question explored in the same way I wanted to see Wayne's struggle explored. This is where the movie fails.
Nolan wants so badly to make us see his trope or theme or whatever of the duality of man that he uses a great character and a great performance from Eckhardt as Harvey Dent to hammer the point home. In the battle for Dent, the Joker wins, and in the battle for Gotham, Batman wins, man is dual and Nolan's made his point. But here's the problem-- it makes the movie far too fucking long!
Now, I'm not one to complain about the length of a movie-- when it's justified . But to me, it felt like we were seeing two movies, which Nolan refused to split because without the second movie, it might not be immediately clear to stupider audiences what the first one was about. The Dent/Two-Face story hammered home Nolan's point, but it wasn't necessary. The Joker and Batman as two similar men with one crucial difference was enough of a story as is, and, as I stated earlier, could have used more exploration and explanation. The film could have ended when Rachel dies and Dent is disfigured, been the exact same length, and spent that extra 40 minutes exploring the characters more in-depth. Another unfortunate byproduct of this was that Harvey Dent, a dynamic and interesting character, all of a sudden became a shallow, predictable cliche, easily manipulated by the Joker. It hurt me to see such an independent character (and "the best of them") be so easily used, abused, and outthought by both the Joker and Batman. They could have spent a whole movie exploring the pain and anger that burned in two-face, but instead they just turned him into a rampaging madman, which sort of short-changed the role. I understand exactly why it was done, and I think that it served the film's thesis, but it wasn't necessary . I'm quite sure they'll make another one of these movies if they want to-- they should have given the Joker more screen time in this one and saved two-face for the next one. As it was, too much happens too quickly and we don't get to see some potentially excellent character work.
The film purports itself as a dark, gritty, character piece. One of my friends described it as "almost a character study on the Joker". Unfortunately, it's also a summer blockbuster, which means several big set pieces and explosions weather we need them or not (side note: while I respect Nolan and his guys for shooting so many of the stunts live, frankly, at this point, it's not worth it. The stunts didn't look any more real or fake than CGI, and compared to a movie like Wanted or Iron Man, the set pieces were pretty pedestrian. For a movie with so many explosions, I sure wasn't too excited about them.)
If the film had spent more of that 150 minutes on character, or split the character work over two movies, this could have been a really tremendous movie(s). As it is, it's simply a better-than-average blockbuster.
And also; how could they not explain the thing with Gordon's "death" a little better? What happened there? Not a crucial detail but I just wanted one line explaining it.
Numerical scores:
Directing: 7/10
Writing: 6/10 (5/5 for the idea, 1/5 for execution)
Christian Bale: 6/10
Heath Ledger: 9/10
Aaron Eckhardt: 7/10
Michael Caine: 11/10 (he's so cute, isn't he?)
Effects: 4/10
OVERALL (not an average): 7.5/10
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)