HT:  Kay

It's 2012 and the world is recovering from a financial collapse. The government of the United States was bought by a corporation that remains nameless and generally indescript throughout the entire movie. Our prisons, also corporate-owned, stage elaborate "death races" in which inmates compete for their freedom on a live internet feed. Viewers can subscribe to this feed for the low, low price of $250. Okay, plot hole right here: who the hell would pay $250 to watch the races? It was a stretch to get me to pay $10.25 to see this movie.

And now for a feeble attempt at a storyline: Jason Statham plays Jensen Ames, a generically sexy guy who works for the Man doing hard labor of the most boring variety. Jensen barely makes enough to survive, let alone support his hot wife and cute baby daughter. Being that we know Mr. Statham is meant for bigger and badder badassery, we can safely assume that his wife and daughter will be killed, kidnapped, or sold to Russian druglords. And we would be half right. While Jensen checks on his daughter, his wife is killed by a masked man who will play a significant role later in the film. Lo and behold, Jensen is framed for her murder and sent to Terminal Island, a maximum security prison run by an evil prison warden named Hennessey. Hennessey is played by Joan Allen who probably got lost on her way to audition for Stepford Wives 2.

We learn that Jensen, an ex-con, can race cars really well. So well in fact, that Hennessey had his wife killed just so he could race a car for the late Frankenstein (a nod to the original Death Race 2000) who no one knows is dead. Convenient? Yes. You know what else is convenient? An inmate who wins five Death Races automatically earns his freedom. Frankenstein One has already won four of his races. Jensen, or Frankenstein Two, must win only one more race before he is set free. Let's just go ahead and pretend that this system isn't totally fucked. Oh yeah, and the race is fixed.

Frankenstein Two is set to race with Frankenstein One's arch-nemesis, Machine Gun Joe (Tyrese in this film, Stallone in the first. Winner: Stallone), some Russian dude, an old NASCAR driver, an Asian, a Mexican, and several other nameless minorities.

Races are broken down into three rounds. Why? There is no discernable reason. The winner of the third race is the winner overall. I'm pretty sure someone realized that one Death Race is not long enough to sustain an entire movie. Also, it gives us time to get to know Frankenstein Two's pit crew: an old sage, a Mexican gangster and a bookish nerd who is probably autistic. We never learn what they're in for and frankly, they're pretty much cut from cardboard so go ahead with your stereotypes and figure it out for yourself. We have more important things to worry about -- boobs and the lack thereof so far in this film.

Each driver is assigned a "navigator" from the women's prison (in the future, only hot asian chicks and latinas go to jail!) who basically just sits in the car and tells them where to turn. Except that Machine Gun Joe kills off so many of his navigators that they give him men instead. Oh yeah, and he's The Gay...

And they're off! If you've succeeded in Mario Kart, you would effing own Death Race. Driving over sewer grates emblazoned with swords activates your guns (yeah, what?) and driving over sheilds activates your oil, smoke and napalm (and I repeat, what?). The R rating is earned by the "Death Heads," sewer grates with skull icons that cause a large spiked "death head" to rise from the course and impale your immediate opponent rendering him both dead and out of the race. Oh yes, it's chock full of deathy goodness...

Stay tuned for the shocking conclusion of Death Race: The Synopsis

            I’ve decided to lump days three and four together because after watching two movies about relationships in a row I needed a little action. So on day four I watched the Bruce Lee classic, Return of the Dragon, and on day five I watched Hellboy II: The Golden Army. If you want a summary of the two of them then here you go – 1. Bruce Lee beats up people, 2. Ron Pearlman beats up big monsters, there we go. Okay there’s more to them than that, but you get the gist of it.

            I’ve lumped these two together for more than simply because they involved a lot of fighting, I also learned similar messages from them both. I learned that in order to make a great action film you don’t need a lot of special effects. Today most martial arts films have guys jumping out of helicopters or running down the sides of buildings. But in Return of the Dragon Bruce Lee just whipped out some nunchucks and he’s automatically the king of badasses. More action films could learn from this movie that less can be more. Something as simple as Lee cracking his knuckles can be enough to make you cheer. (I also learned from this movie that if you’re watching a foreign film, watch it with subtitles, not an English dub).

            Hellboy also follows the same law, because even though there were tons of special effects in this movie, most of them came from costumes and puppets, not from CGI. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not bad mouthing CGI, but no matter how good it looks we’re not yet at that level of technology where I can look at a CGI image and think it looks realistic. When a person is interacting with just a green ball dangling in front of a screen you can kind of tell that they’re talking to nobody, but when there’s actually something there it makes it seem far more realistic.

            I also want to point out one other thing I learned from watching Hellboy. I saw it at a discount theatre, and I’ve never been to one before but I figured it wouldn’t be any different. But now that I’ve been to one let me tell you, it’s CHEAP FOR A REASON. Imagine if you watched a movie on a TV slightly larger than a normal one, then you invited everyone who you try to avoid eye contact with on the bus over to watch it with you. But hey, for a buck fifty you get what you pay for.

5 down, 495 to go

Régis

With that said, today's rant is on a topic that I love quite dearly: cars with guns.  I love car chases, and car chase movies in general.  The reason I got into the film business was due to the movie Ronin, which has arguably the best car chases I've ever seen.  I know, you're all like, "Ronin?  Really?  Most people get into this over something with artistic merit or at least for the promise of giant paychecks."

Thing is, I believe car chases have artistic merit.  Some people express themselves through sonnet or rich textured paintings or through deep metaphors hidden under layers of subtext in their writing.

I find truth and the beauty of the human experience in cars going really fast.  It also helps if the cars shoot at each other.

Enter the film Death Race, a remake of the Sly Stallone/Roger Corman film Death Race 2000.  Here is the plot synopsis for Death Race, presented via IMDB:

Ex-con Jensen Ames (Jason Statham) is forced by the warden of a notorious prison (Joan Allen) to compete in our post-industrial world's most popular sport: a car race in which inmates must brutalize and kill one another on the road to victory.

This movie should appeal to me.  It has cars, guns, cars with gun ATTACHED to them (that's key), Jason Statham (who's a cool dude), and Joan Allen (who's a classy actress).

So why do I care less?

One: Paul W.S. Anderson is the director.  I used to defend this guy.  That was a long time ago, back when he had the bad but campy-in-a-fun-way Mortal Kombat and the awesome Event Horizon under his belt.  Time has not been kind to my relationship with Mr. W.S.  He did Resident Evil, which is a very pedestrian and kind of boring zombie movie.  In a world post-28 Days Later, you have to do something bitching with zombies to get my attention.  Resident Evil didn't.  It has a cool scene where people get diced by lasers.  Okay, point there.  But I actually can't remember there being a very interesting scene in that with zombies.  In a zombie movie, it's a problem when I have to struggle to think of a scene with zombies in it.

Then he did Alien vs. Predator, which is garbage of a film.  The sequel, Aliens vs. Predador: Requiem (I'm not sure what the "Requiem" there is alluding to), is actually much better.  And that film is not very good.  It's bad (basically, it's a teenage slasher movie where the monster killing the teenagers is both a bunch of Aliens and a Predator and an Alien-Predator... which is a cooler concept than the movie ends up being).

I'm a big Alien and Predator fan, but I had low hopes for the first one.  Very low.  It didn't have to try very hard at all to at least entertain me.  But the resulting movie is just flat, boring, and gore-free.  It's PG-13, for crying-out loud.  A PG-13 monster mash-up of two VERY rated R franchises.  What the douche?  The sequel (Reqiuem) at least had the balls to be disgustingly gorey.  Really, man, all I want are aliens ripping the crap out of each other from these films, and Anderson didn't even deliver that well enough to get me through it.

So, fail.

Two: It's been bouncing around for years.  I think this film was shot five years ago.  Never, never a good sign.

Three: I've seen little-to-no advertising for this film.  I live in LA.  I pass Beverly Hills Chihuahua posters every thirty feet, and that film comes out in October.  There is more movie marketing floating around this city than should possibly exist anywhere.  I saw a Death Race poster for the first time this morning, and it comes out in two weeks (oddly enough, I saw it hanging on a billboard outside the Nickolodeon head-office in Burbank... go figure).

Four: Doomsday already came out this year and totally filled my bill for cheesy/fun/insane 1980's-esque hyper-violence.  Sure, not a great movie by anyone's scale of judgment, but I loved the crap out of it.  And it had car chases and guns.  And Horses.  Yeah.

But, the ace that Death Race has that could top Doomsday for Sam's 2008 "Awesomely Cheesy/Bad Action-Movie of the Year" award is simple and elegant and amazing: THE CARS HAVE GUNS.  Like, ON them.  Like in Twisted Metal.

Yeah, I'm easily won over by something so stupid.  I'm actually writing an action movie with such a car-gun combo in it.  Granted, it's not the sole feature of the movie (unlike Death Race), but hell, I got one.  Death Race has like, crap, SEVEN.  At least from what I can tell by the trailer.

Thing is, Paul W.S. Anderson has failed to prove (to me, anyway) that he can do much with action other than bore me to death.  Action movies do not need to be super intelligent or skill-fully crafted (the Jason Bourne movies are both) to make me happy.  I can appreciate insanity, which is what Doomsday was.  Death Race looks positively boring outside of the topic of this rant, and that's a damn shame.

I want to be wrong.  Show me my wrongness, Death Race.  Please.  I want to believe a movie with gun-cars can be amazing.

I'm the target audience of a movie like this.  Me: 18-24 year-old man who is easily amused by explosions.  Screw this up, Death Race, and you will have quite a few questions to ask about yourself.

I know this is true, because Hollywood tells me so:

Every Asian is an expert in Kung-Fu, and they're ready to use it at a moment's notice.

Similarly, everyone in Japan has Ninja skills, and is an expert with a samurai sword.

A Good Guy rarely gets shot.  And if he does, it's only a flesh wound which quickly heals itself, and is of no consequence within the next couple of scenes.

People can easily outrun explosions.   Diving into the air in slow-motion at the last moment helps.

Terrorists aren't Arabs (or any other visible minority).   They're always Euro-Trash White Supremacists.   Just remember:  the only acceptable villains are Neo-Nazis.

After a brutal fight scene,  the only injury the Good Guy will ever exhibit is a small cut on his lip, or a tiny trickle of blood from one nostril.    He'll then touch his wound, incredulously look at the blood on his fingers, get angry and come back fighting even stronger than ever.

Someone armed with a gun is no match for a skilled swordsman.

The 250-lb. Bad Guy who's a martial arts expert will still get his ass whupped by a 115-lb. woman.

City waterfronts are huge areas of urban blight, with countless miles of abandoned buildings.  It's where the Bad Guys can hide, and their kidnap victims can be concealed.

Don't worry about torn muscles, damaged organs or the risk of infection.   A gunshot wound can instantly be healed, by just removing the bullet from the victim's body.

Every secret agent or Special Ops person can fly a fighter jet with greater skill than the Air Force pilots who spend their entire careers mastering the same aircraft.

Downtown streets are always full of fruit vendors,  whose carts are readily available to be destroyed during car-chase scenes.

Falling through a plate-glass window is perfectly harmless.  You won't so much as get a sliver of glass stuck in you.

Women are rarely ever the Bad Guy.   If they are, it's mandatory that they're portrayed as either East-German or Russian.

Bad Guys have still not figured out how to use handcuffs or zip-ties to restrain people, like the Cops do on a daily basis.

There is no set limit of the firepower of a shotgun shell.  It can be used to shoot a victim, or it can blow up and overturn an armored vehicle.

Helicopters are constantly flying into sky-scrapers and/or crashing in downtown streets.   No one ever gets hurt, though.  (Except the helicopter pilot, we assume).

All factories are poorly-lit buildings, and run automatically with no production staff or management supervisors.  There is plenty of steam and welding sparks, but nothing ever seems to be manufactured.

A high-caliber gun will have no recoil on the shooter, but it will lift the victim in the air and hurl him back ten feet through a window.

Every Police Captain is a stressed-out Type-A personality, often an African- American.  He constantly yells at the Cop Hero, and reminds him: "One more screw up, and it's your badge!".     Despite his grumpiness, the Captain grudgingly tolerates the Cop Hero's unorthodox methods, because in the end, he gets the job done.

not an alien one in that damn thing.  i got excited for a second when one dude kinda looked like an alien, but no.  his head was just all messed up.

that's some of that old bullshit right there.

it was like a bad season ending two hour episode.

i couldn't figure it out, have scully and mulder been living together since the last movie?  why is the plot being plowed through only mulder and scully in the bedroom?  and no, we don't even get to see dana scully get plowed by fox mulder. 

that would have been worth my eight fifty.

but not that soap opera reject bullshit.

i thought for a second they might be trying to set up a spin off series with mulder and new character played by amanda peete.  but then they killed her off.

i felt embarressed i sat through the whole thing.  to make myself feel better i snuck into step brothers.  so it's only like i spend four and a quarter on each.

step brothers is certainly no old school.  or ricky bobby.  or anchorman.  or even that terrible woody allen movie will ferrell did.  but it has it's moments.  and those moments are pretty damn funny.

i'm not even sure they had to script this one.  hey will and john, you guys just go out there and act like a couple spoiled twelve year olds.  some of the stuff they do is funny.  some of the stuff they say is funny.  just like real twelve year olds.

and like a couple of real twelve year olds you are ready to ditch them in like fifteen minutes. ]]> http://niuse.wordpress.com/?p=258 Mon, 04 Aug 2008 10:37:29 +0000 niuse http://niuse.wordpress.com/?p=258 Mumbai, Aug 3 (IANS) What on earth do condoms have to do with action movies? Plenty!

Condoms are used in large quantities while shooting action scenes showing the villain or the hero with blood oozing out of their 'wounds' after being fired at. While canning such scenes, 'blood' filled condoms are strapped around the bodies of the stuntmen with tiny crackers attached to them through invisible wires.

When the hero 'fires' at the villain, the action director's assistants who follow the performers from the periphery press a remote control button. The crackers burst, the condoms tear and the 'blood' comes spilling out.

The scene may last only a few seconds on the screen, but prior to shooting, the stuntmen have to rehearse it a number of times to ensure proper synchronisation between the firing of the gun and the pressing of the remote.

Most Bollywood action coordinators prefer imported condoms because they do not get accidentally ruptured when the individual being shot at has to jump, tumble or roll down as the situation demands.

According to Gurbachan Singh, who assisted much sought after action director Veeru Devgan in the 1980s-90s, villains carried switches in their pockets before the advent of remotes and manually worked these when fired at.

'It was a clumsy affair, and most often, the desired effect could not be achieved. Therefore, audiences could detect how fake the scenes were,' Singh told IANS.

He revealed that before condoms came on the scene, tiny balloons were used during action sequences.

'But the balloons used to breach at unlikely moments, calling for repeated re-takes. I do not know who introduced condoms for action scenes, but they have proved to be good substitutes for balloons,' Singh said.

Mohan Baggad, who began his career as Devgan's assistant and later became an independent action director, said: 'Though the technology now used in Bollywood is far improved from what it was a decade ago, make-shift devices innovated by action directors still come in handy while shooting fights and other thriller scenes.

'Computer graphics cannot replicate everything. Of course, the sequence of blood spilling out of an injured man can be projected through computer graphics, but the end result looks artificial.

'The use of condoms in such scenes is a tested practice. Here again, only an expert cinematographer and editor can make such scenes look real on the screen,' Baggad told IANS.

While taking part in action scenes, don't stuntmen get injured when the crackers burst on their bodies?

'Only small crackers are used and so nobody gets seriously injured. There may be little abrasions, but those are tolerable, or one can say, they are the hazards of the trade. And it is a minor hazards when compared against other hazards stuntmen face while shooting,' Singh said.

'Yes, sometime accidents do occur. In such cases, apart from the producers, the association of the stuntmen bear the medical expenses,' he added.

Source: http://in.news.yahoo.com/43/20080803/914/ten-condoms-a-huge-hit-with-action-direc.html

var AdBrite_Title_Color = '0000FF';
var AdBrite_Text_Color = '000000';
var AdBrite_Background_Color = 'FFFFFF';
var AdBrite_Border_Color = 'CCCCCC';
var AdBrite_URL_Color = '008000';

Stephanie Zacharek is the most active movie reviewer for Salon.com, and has long been one of my least favorite reviewers working for any publication.  Recently she took a lot of flak over her review of "The Dark Knight" - basically the only part of it she singled out for significant praise was Heath Ledger, with nods to Aaron Eckhart and Maggie Gyllenhaal as well.  The rest of the movie she disliked, was bored or confused by, or outright hated.  Well, my opinion differs from hers in most respects, but she's entitled to be That Guy* - the guy who hates everything that other people like, and sticks up for mediocre underdogs for reasons most inscrutable.  She's just loyally following in the footsteps of her obvious inspiration, Pauline Kael - though, alas, with significantly less talent, and a lack of Kael's ability to make us temporarily feel like we might actually share her biases and opinions.

So whatever.  Zacharek sucks, but she can suck all she wants.  That's what I'm saying.

But this part of her review of the new "Mummy" movie actually made me angry:

In some ways I feel sorry for "Tomb of the Dragon Emperor" as an enterprise: Not only is it shoehorned into a forlorn early-August slot, by which point most of us are already suffering summer-blockbuster fatigue; it also has the further misfortune to arrive just a few weeks after the release of "The Dark Knight," a movie so revolutionary that Orson Welles himself has reportedly risen from his own emperor's tomb to concede that, you know, that "Citizen Kane" thing he made really wasn't so great after all.

"The Dark Knight" does make somewhat more visual sense than "Tomb of the Dragon Emperor," but both pictures suffer from similar delusions of grandeur, mistaking oversized scale for solid storytelling.

Hey Stephanie: Salon called, and they're looking for their review of "The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor."  Could you tear yourself away from "The Dark Knight" for a few seconds and track that down for 'em?  Thanks.

--

* Even though she's not literally a guy.

It starts out very well, setting the rules of a superhuman universe, and then introducing our main character, another narrator from Fight Club, whose Tyler Durden super-ego is a leading super assassin. His father was a member of a band of elite killers, an ancient clan of assassins. The targets for this merry band are written in the weft and weave of the fabrics from a magical loom, The Weaver of Fate. In ASCII, like magical punch cards. Like I said, stupid, and unfortunately the movie tries to reach Matrix heights of mumbo-jumbo by having a black leader, Morgan Freeman, speak in a sonorous voice, reciting the history and meaning of the fraternity.

Neglecting the fact that this loom wasn’t smart enough to pick out the names of Hitler, Stalin, Mao, or any number of psychopathic dictators, this merry band of highly-tuned killers has kept balance in the world by following its code, killing only those who deserve it. Without that code they are merely hired mercenaries.

So blah blah blah happens.

The director keeps the comic-book style coming, not quite maintaining the heights of the opening sequence, but giving us gravity defying car chases as our meek Clark Kent becomes the assassin who bends bullets. He becomes a hunter who quickly believes that he is following a law far beyond human law—he has become an instrument of fate.

So blah blah blah happens.

Now, I’m fine with all of this, though it is stupider than the Transporter films. What gets me is near the end of the second act where our hero meets his nemesis, a rogue agent who supposedly killed his father in the kick-ass opening. Of course, the agent is his father and it was all a deceit (see, his name is Cross, and his son is another, so that’s a double-cross. Ha!).

The problem, though, is that it all happens on a train stuffed with people. Innocent people, whose names, I doubt, are part of some fantasy rug. They all die as the train is sacrificed for the spectacle. Naturally, of course, the train suddenly seems empty of bodies as it hurtles down, or maybe we are to suppose they all got out.

The problem is that the movie is inconsistent with its morality. It seeks to establish an honourable law (killing the one to protect the many, that lovely, logical, Star Trek code which Kirk just can’t abide) to justify murder, but then calmly forgets it all as the movie slaughters thousands in order to have a cinematic moment.

Like many, it seeks to have its cake and eat it, too. The Matrix films have this problem, as well. Morpheus and the rest want to free humanity, but in their quest to do so any cops or other authorities, and gloriously dispatched. And as we were plainly told, if you die in the Matrix, you really die. Sure, the cops and security guards were working for The Man (I always think of Robert Altman when I see him, which is somehow fitting), but they were actually trying to protect people. It’s not that their killing may not be justified in the Machiavellian sense; it’s that no one gives any thought to it. “Hey, we are killing a lot of people here? Is what we are doing right?”

We get far more discussion over these things on Battlestar Galactica (Apollo and the destruction of the ship, the whole season on the planet with the suicide bombers and all) and, thankfully, The Dark Knight (which I can’t get away from these days it seems).

Stupid movies should never try to be smart. They only end up shooting themselves.

Here's a thing that drives me crazy: the entertainment media's endless need to find reasons why things fail.  I understand why the industry producing the entertainment does so: they have fragile egos, they don't want to lose their jobs, they already have a contract for more Brett Ratner movies, etc.  But when and why did this mentality infect every media source that reports on that entertainment?

It's peculiar enough that the focus of entertainment reporting has shifted heavily toward box office receipts.  We as consumers should care a lot more about quality than popularity or profitability, but somehow Hollywood has sucked us into feeling some sort of investment in their arms race of ridiculous spending.  I know it didn't, but like to think it did, start with "Titanic" - that the dollar figure attached to that movie (a now-standard $200 million) was so eye-popping that it kicked off a national obsession with budgets and grosses and revenues and other completely un-entertaining words.  Whatever it was, you can't page through "Variety" or "Entertainment Weekly" (or scan your favorite movie blog) without reading a bunch of bullshit about record opening weekends and percent dropoff from week one to week two.  It's what you have to put up with while trying to discern whose cakehole to fling your money at all summer long.

The byproduct of this fixation has been that whenever a big money project goes down in flames, there is a post-mortem by anyone remotely qualified (or immediately unqualified) to talk about such things.  This is how we got astute analyses like, "Audiences aren't ready for female superheroes.  That's what we learned from 'Catwoman' and 'Elektra'!"- never mind that both of those movies sucked and had laughable trailers, and that one of them was a spinoff from a movie no one really liked, starring a woman from a TV series not that many people watched.  It's also how we found out that audiences were burned out on sword-and-sandal epics ("Troy," "Alexander") - unless of course those epics tickled their salivary glands with lots of slow mo and a redonkulously ubiquitous catchphrase ("300" - just try not to spend all afternoon shouting "This... is... SPARTA!" now).

Here's a theory: people will watch movies that are entertaining, have good word-of-mouth (because they are entertaining), and are marketed well.  And they will not watch movies that do not achieve these things.  Big second week drop-off?  It's not because of some obscure demographic reason, it's because your movie sucks out loud and everyone who has seen it already can't call enough of their friends to warn them away.  (By the way, Diane: do not see "Hancock."  It sucks.  Out loud, even.)

But in the spirit of the entertainment media, of which I am now a pseudo-participant, I will offer some theories about why some recent high profile flops crawled out of the pool with red bellies and watery eyes:

~ "Gigli": America isn't ready for a sexy Latin lesbian who falls for a lantern-jawed Bostonion.

~ "Poseidon": the Bible Belt moviegoers reject any movie named after a god who isn't their God.  This also explains the failure of "Mars Attacks!" and the marginal returns of "Mighty Aphrodite."

~ "Snakes On A Plane": there shouldn't have been so many motherfuckin' snakes on that plane.  Snakes scare people.  How about one big snake - "Anaconda" did well, right?  Wait, I got it: 50% less snakes, 50% more wisecracking sidekicks.

There's been a general malaise toward the classic films of the world.  This feeling, that we should be quarentening these great works to Turner Classic Movies for the over 70 crowds in nursing homes.   It's as though because there aren't massive explosions, girls getting naked, and cool gadgets, that these movies are some how lacking, and substandard.  As though because these movies rely on words more than actions, that dialogue somehow makes a film worse.

Lets be perfectly clear, I am not against modern cinema.  I recognize some amazing work has come out in the past 20 years, but it seems doubtless to me that we've lost something in our culture.  I find this nowhere more evident than in the recent wave of superhero movies that have been plaguing movie theaters across the country.  These movies are generally loaded with condescending plots, predictable characters, more explosions and special effects than you can shake a stick at.  Just to cap off the formula, add a few scantily clad damsels in questionable states of distress, and general lack of moral ambiguity.  Why this formula?  Simply put, it sells seats.  Worse, when a movie does manage to be something that deviates from this formula, it is undercut by a wave of people that have some fear of change.

Now, before anyone gets to this, let me head it off.  The academy award for film, means nothing when reflected against culture.  That just means that a group of individuals feel a movie is significantly good, and you're going to get free press.  Yes, you get a shiny trophy, but do you think that's what most of the actors and directors are doing it for?   If you want proof, you can look at what pictures have made best picture over the past 20 years.  It's an interesting list to say the least.  Only 2 of those films are of note for grossing absurd amounts of money.   The Dark Knight could become the third if it happens to win best picture.  The Dark Knight happens to win best picture this year, it will be a dubious affirmation of the superhero lust pattern that shows no signs of stopping.

There's Nothing Wrong With A Hero

Now, I will admit there have been some damn good superhero movies.  I'm not going to mention The Dark Knight , which has arguably been generating ridiculous amounts of buzz and hype, primarily because I haven't seen it.   [I will also conceed that ridiculous amount of hype is actually perhaps too weak in describing it as I've seen an article comparing it to George W. Bush's presidency.]  Yet, there are other good superhero movies out there.  The Spiderman and X-men Series come to mind. Yet we've also been plagued with the wonderful Hulk (of variable quality), Catwoman, Daredevil, Fantastic 4, and the list goes on.  There's a point where being nostaligic for superheros is getting to be painful.

Yet, there are other heroes [not the TV show].  One's that don't wear capes, tights, or occasionally turn colors.  These aren't to be mistaken with Rambo, Rocky, or the recently recreated Indiana Jones (which to be fair, was better than expected), but rather, the long forgotten, one movie heroes. Whatever happened to the Juror 8s from 12 Angry Men , Sam Spade characters from The Maltese Falcon?  Have we replaced all of Hollywood's leading men with variants of James Bond?  We've deviated from the comedy of the Odd Couple to shoving pineapples up Hitler's ass.

If you didn't know better, you might almost think the movie had replaced the people.

I Guess You'll Do

Today, we have Tom Cruise, Matthew Broderick, Alan Rickman, Jason Schwartzman, Richard Gere, George Clooney, Shia LaBeouf, and god knows how many other in's and outs of the who's who in Hollywood.  The roles they play are comedians, crooks, and leading men.   Sometimes they play reluctant or unexpected heroes, but their saving the day is something that comes at too low a cost.  The struggle of the hero is now predictable, explosive, and filled with more baddies than even John Woo thought of throwing at even the most Hard Boiled.  Hollywood seems to be of the belief that a story is enhanced by using the dialogue for comedy to break up the action, comedy to advance the plot, and twists to hopefully make people think that the friend wasn't a friend at all.  To make matters worse, if the characters aren't secretly going to stab someone in the back, they're rigidly morally aligned with a creed.

Hasn't this already been done?

Worse yet, people don't behave like this in the real world.  What has been gained by cheapening the actions of the characters?  The motions that are now made with no deliberate intent.  Characters, no long cross rooms for items or events.  Camera's seem to take the place of people interacting with their environment.    Sometimes this benefits us as movie goers.  Making the film feel more personable, and the production seem more expensive, but generally does little to advance the plot.

Prince or Pauper?

Not all of these productions are massively bloated, star ridden, explosive filled, Hamilton stealing vices designed only to attract the public.   In this case, cinema has become more about money than art.   Thankfully, independent cinema has been trying to fill the artistic gap lost in film making.  The success has been arguable, and the films sporadically good or bad.  Yet, there is potential.  In the past few years the world has been bless (or cursed) by the release of Juno and Little Miss Sunshine.  Even if you were to hate the two mentioned films, it's worth noting that Pulp Fiction,  Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, American History X, and American Beauty have all been  independent releases.  Yet, none of them are as ridiculously ridiculously oversimplified as half of today's superhero movies.

So next time you're trying to think of what to watch.   Don't just reach for the remote to turn on the newest Hollywood smash and grab superhero movie, look a little deeper and try a classic movie.  See where cinema has come from, where it could go, and find out if what you've been watching is everything you've thought it was cracked up to be.

An average movie watcher:

While at lunch, notices that there is a guy who looks like Daniel Craig's James Bond sitting two tables away.

A writer:

Notices that besides herself, the Bondman, and the man Bond is talking to, there is no one else eating in the porch of the restaurant. Glances around room looking for hidden cameras in the restaurant and sees that there aren't any. Thinks to self, "You know, this would be a great place for some kind of action sequence." Thinks about possible storylines for the perfect action scene in a movie.

Someone with an overactive imagination:

Pays for her meal and the proceeds to leave the restaurant, but not before shooting the Bondman a look that says, "Hey, don't you try anything. I've got a Leatherman Sidekick in my purse and I'm not afraid to use it! Let me leave the restaurant before you prove why your name is James Bond to the business man you're talking to."

Hi there everyone:)

Long time no see. I must apologize. I have been so busy the last eight days that my head can't even see straight. As much as I have wanted to write, I have not had the opportunity to. What I have happened to have the opportunity to see is "The Dark Knight." It was great. I know a lot of people associate the movie doing well just because Ledger has passed on, but that is only part of the reason. The movie is one of the best, if not the best Batman movies ever. It is mostly due in part to the fact that Ledger was so good as the villian "Joker" that you are waiting for him to come on everytime he did. The plotline was absolutely terrific and the acting incredible.

Of course, as I have been saying, Heath Ledger is perfect as the "Joker." He is definitely not our old beloved Nicholson's character. No, this one came straight out of the graphic novel. It was almost terrifying at parts. A mad man to the core who is as unpredictable as a wildfire, the Joker finds joy in getting to Batman. The make-up definitely helped, but it was Ledger who brought it to life. No part of him looked like he was Heath Ledger. It was all the Joker. Also to be noted is that I was watching the very huge audience as well. While they were laughing at the Joker's jokes, it wasn't a regular laugh, it was  a terrified laugh.  Definitely a must see performance. Christian Bale should also be noted for his work as Batman. Subtle, yet provoking, it really makes you believe him and the emotions he is feeling, which is primarily hard because he has a huge mask over his face most of the time. Maggie Gyllenhal was absolutely terrific and redeemed itself for that not so great performance from Katie Holmes in the last movie. She just did not fit very well. Maggie did a great job at being the strong female with great emotion. I approve.

By the way, although the guys behind me in the theater did not like the performance by the actor who played "Dent," I have to say that I dare you to try to act next to Heath Ledger and Christian Bale and see what comes out of you. Plus, his villian is not like the Joker. The Joker is mad and outlandish and Dent is more of a confused villian. More human you would say, so the point of him matching the energy of the Joker would be ridiculous.

On top of all the acting the visual effects were awesome. The part where the BatMobile breaks down and what happens afterwards made me very happy. I was satisfied with the display of emotion throughout the movie, the writing walked that fine line between graphic novel drama and normal everyday drama, and there were some pretty fancy plotlines going on. I highly suggest you go to this movie. It is intense, dark, enlightening, and so much fun that you will go again (even if it is 2 and half hours, although at least you are getting your money's worth).

Yay Batman!

Alright, I'm off to make my terrific day!

Have a great one:)

It might not be the best movie ever made, but it is certainly the best movie I can remember seeing for myself.

I went to see it Saturday at the IMAX which was of course sold out.  When I got to the ticket booth, I asked the guy if there wasn’t one single seat left in the IMAX.  He said no sir, I’m sorry.

So I bought a ticket for the regular showing.  But being the sneaky guy I am, I walked into the IMAX theater just to see for myself.  At the IMAX you purchase numbered seats and they have ushers in there to help seat you.  Just so happens as I walked in, the usher on my side was helping someone to their seat up in the middle of the theater leaving the first row unguarded.  And there has a sparkly, golden seat calling my name.

Ha ha, suckers.

I didn’t feel safe until the lights went down though.  The theater was packed.  And there probably wasn’t a single empty seat.  I am lucky I didn’t get busted.

Needless to say, I was blown away.  Awesome is the only word that came to mind as I was walking out of the theater into the blinding sunlight of a humid July day in Louisville, Kentucky.

It was so good, I went to see it again the next day.  Just to make sure it was truly as bad ass as I thought it was.

It is.

It would have been nice to see all the same people reprise their roles from Batman Begins, but apparently Mrs. Tom Cruise didn’t think.  That’s it, she just didn’t think.  How can you not get back in this film?  Just one more reason I hate Tom Cruise.  I’m sure it’s his fault.

But that’s okay, Maggie Gyllenhaal looks like her a little bit and acted just like her, really.  I don’t know if she was intentionally trying to be Katie Holmes but she was dead on.  Speech patterns and all.  She’s just not quite as cute as Katie. 

Screw you Tom Cruise.

This thing was as good if not better the second time I saw it.  I’ll probably see it a third time.  I think it’s easily going to make more money than any movie in history; certainly it will make more money than any other movie this year.  And I know that’s not what gets you Academy Awards, but I’m starting to think they need to take box office draw into consideration.  I mean, gas is four bucks a gallon and it is at least six bucks for a matinee most places.  And if people are forking out that kind of bread two and three times to see the same movie, that means it’s pretty damn good.

The Guardian reports opening weekend ticket sales near $200 million.  http://film.guardian.co.uk/news/story/0,,2291950,00.html

That’s a lot of bread.

Go see this movie.  It is a definite full price, as soon as it comes out on DVD purchase. 

I give this film eleven dead Joel Shumachers out of ten dead Joel Shumachers.  Because Joel Shumacher should be buried under alive under the used ticket stubs of this film for what he did the Batman franchise with Batman Forever.  What a douche.

Oh, Heath Ledger’s Joker is off the charts frightening and hilarious.  Often times in the same scene.  In both screenings I saw this weekend, the audience reacted to his Joker like I have never seen in any other film.  Ever.  They laughed with him one moment and where scared to silence the next.

It’s an unfair answer, but I have some criteria: that it isn’t grossly offensive without a point (leaving out Bad Boys II); it is consistent to itself; and that it doesn’t treat its audience like a bunch of idiots. I don’t want a deus ex machina plucking people out as an excuse of bad filmmaking. If it’s going to be stupid and unbelievable, make it so from the git go.

Included here are musicals (what, do you sing and tap dance all the time?), most of the great HK cinema from the 1980’s and early 90’s (Swordsman, Chinese Ghost Story, the Woo actioners, and, the great, great Bride with the White Hair), porn, The Fifth Element, and another which comes from the Besson stable of insane action, the Transporter movies, of which, I was tickled to find out, there is going to be a third. They all share an uncomplicated narrative structure with porn—spectacle linked by explication. And people don’t go to porn for the talky bits.

The ridiculous actions interspersed with perfunctory but serviceable dialogue is where the Transporter movies, particularly the second, shine. The second, is better because it has less dialogue, less shrieking Shu Qi--though it has more shrieking Matthew Modine— more supermodels in lingerie two-handing some bad-ass guns, and only a cursory nod to real-world physics like gravity. Statham is able to pull it all off with his laconic, stony demeanour because if someone else were to scream “yee ha” as removed a bomb from his car’s undercarriage by using the dangling hook of a construction crane, leaping and spinning the car just at the point of detonation (money shot), we wouldn’t buy it.

It is an unbelievably stupid movie. The director, Louis Leterrier (could it be a better name? Terriers, as Bruce McCulloch knows, are the best breed), is aware it’s a dumb movie and doesn’t pretend it’s anything else (which is why I have a decidedly jell-o-y spot for the Charlie’s Angels movies but may be due to Crispin Glover, Bill Murray, and Sam Rockwell), and you buy it, refusing to shout “jesus, there’s just no way he jumped his car through a cement wall to land on another building” or then ask yourself “wait, just how the f@ck does he get down, the stairs?”

It doesn't matter. The kinetic energy is such that it plows right through such things. It's a wormhole, jumping you past the plot holes that exist in our universe. Seijin Suzuki used the same ideas--though far more stylistically--in both Tokyo Drifter and Branded to Kill. As long as the things don't slow down and keep you entertained without insulting you, it's fine. Suspension of disbelief is a wonderful thing but it has its limits.

Three things you should know about me and Hellboy II:

1. I didn't watch the first one

2. I haven't read any of the Hellboy comics

3. I was primarily attracted to go see the second one because I really liked Pan's Labyrinth, and I knew that Guillermo del Toro was directing it. (I didn't find out until afterward that he directed the first one as well.)

After watching the trailer, I was prepared for and expecting an action-packed superhero movie, with bits of fantasy elements woven throughout the story. It did deliver in this respect, although the charm and appeal from the trailer just didn't hold up through the movie, partially because it was overshadowed by an unexpected cheese factor.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for the romance in my superhero movies, but this was a little much. I remember some people laughing during certain cheesy scenes, and maybe the cheese was supposed to provide comedy, but I was wincing and sinking in my seat; this was cheese of the terrible and painful variety.

Even my dislike for cheesy romance aside, it just didn't seem to mix well with the other elements of the movie. It felt like the movie was trying to accomplish too much, trying to spread itself across too many elements---action, fantasy, comedy, romance.  While I'm not saying it's not possible to have all of these things and still have a good movie, Hellboy II just didn't incorporate them well enough into one smooth presentation. The end result was kind of choppy, and out of place.

That's not to say the movie didn't have its good parts though. It was still entertaining, and some of the fantasy visual elements of the movie (especially the creature design) were fantastic and definitely inspiring.

On the whole, Hellboy II was an average movie. Not sure if this is one I'd consider worth spending $10-$12 on to see in the theater, but not a bad one to rent on a slow Sunday. Just beware of the cheese:

Overall Rating: 6/10

]]> http://calsmovieblog.wordpress.com/?p=26 Wed, 09 Jul 2008 03:16:22 +0000 calrocks http://calsmovieblog.wordpress.com/?p=26 watching movies helps me recover from what my phycologist calls "blue funk".   so i've been on a movie watching tear as of late.  here are some of the dvd's i've watched recently and what i think about them.

national lampoon's van wilder.  ranks right up there animal house.

the big lebowski.  whenever i get stranded on that island where i can only take ten dvd's with me, it's one of them.

waiting.  so i might have a man crush on ryan reynolds.  but this movie hits so close to home for anyone that's ever worked in the food service industry.  it's real close to making that ten.

the pick of destiny.  looks like they had a really good time making that movie...and the music sequences are hilarious.  i kinda wish they would have put thier first album to celluloid rock opera style ala tommy.  that would have been awesome.  it's still funny though.

V for Vendetta.  it's one of the ten for sure.  i freaking love it.  natalie portman is sexy bald.  incredible peice of cinema.

casino royal.  better than those last couple of peirce brosnan ones they made.  but too damn long.  we didn't need to see the last thirty minutes.

batman begins.  can't wait to see the new one.

the royal tenenbaums.  classic.  not all people like wes anderson.  i do.  makes me want to go buy steve zissou and the life aquatic.  zissou makes the island.

Self never laughed so much in a movie, not since watching -- hmm, the first Austin Powers movie? "There's Something About Mary"?  Jason Stathan in "The Transporter"?

Truly, this was an action movie to end all action movies.

If you've ever longed to see a woman who looks like Angelina Jolie suddenly materialize at your elbow while you're standing in line at Long's and waiting for a prescription to be filled, this movie is for you.

If you've ever longed to see Angelina on top of a train do a graceful backward bend (at the knees) to avoid having head chopped off while train enters a tunnel, this movie is for you.

If you've ever wanted to see James McAvoy's gorgeous mug get beaten to a bloody pulp by a beefy Spaniard/Transylvanian uttering outrageous insults like "Pussy," then this movie is for you.

If you've ever wanted to know what it feels like to be submerged in a vat of wax, then this movie is for you.

If you've ever wanted to see Morgan Freeman get --- Nay, self will with-hold information about what lies in store for Morgan Freeman, just for the moment.

If you've ever wanted to see a movie directed by a guy whose first name is "Timur," then this movie is for you.

Self cannot possibly encapsulate in one short review all the delights of this movie, which include ricocheting bullets, gazillions of (bomb-carrying) rats, and a brief back-nude shot of Angelina showing that she has thirty-plus tattoos on backside alone, and that's not even counting the ones which (self learned from reading Vanity Fair ) represent the birth place coordinates of all her large brood.

When self left the theatre, she decided that she would never be able to see another action movie, not for at least another six months, not unless they can promise delights as many and as varied as all of the above.

Stay tuned, dear blog readers, stay tuned.

Hey everyone:)

So, who else absolutely loved the movie "Speed Racer?" I was in a great state of mind yesterday when I went to see it. This is how you make a movie absolutely incredible. You go into a really good movie expecting it to be enjoyable and then when you watch it you get blown away, because it wasn't only enjoyable, it was an incredible feat for the mind. It was moving, visually stunning, and just fun on top of it.

My favorite part about the movie was that the editing was done just like one thinks. You know how your mind fires off and you see all sorts of images in a weird sequence? Well, just watch the first part of the movie and you will see a good example. There are all different images that make up what the characters are thinking. It works though. Usually, a filmmaker would want to be careful using that technique just because the not so artistic might not understand what is going on and get confused. Never a good thing, but I didn't hear the audience getting confused. It was great.

We can't go anywhere without hearing about how visually stunning it was. What an incredible art direction! It reminded me of all those driving video games I used to play when I was a kid and I got to go on all these weird tracks. I was getting a little whoosy in a few spots, but nothing I couldn't handle. If you have ever seen any part of the television series then you know that the color scheming on it was absolutely perfect.

The acting was good for what they were looking for. Hirsch played Speed Racer perfectly. He looked the part and did a good job acting it. John Goodman looks and acts exactly like Pops so that is a given there. Susan Surandon did a great job as Mom. The little brother was perfect. He looked exactly like John Goodman too. Then there was Christina Ricci as Trixie. She did a really good job. Matthew Fox was in it and did an absolutely terrific job, as well as Eddie Izzard. You have to give them all brownie points, because they had to shoot this movie almost purely on green screen. That's a challenging thing to do. You try acting like something is there when it is not.....quite tricky.

This movie was the most surprising movie of the year. I was really blown away. Well worth a watch, especially if you have seen part or all of the television cartoon. I want to own this movie and if you guys know me at all that is a huge victory to end up in my DVD collection.

Alright, I'm off to make my terrific day!

Have a great one:)

Yep, it's crucify Will Smith time.  (We love that time almost as much as we love Thursday night spaghetti madness.)

Will Smith has a lot going for him.  He's charismatic, he can act ("Ali" proved it, if it accomplished little else), he's not an awful musician, and he's preternaturally good-looking.  Not only that, but he's an old-fasioned Entertainer of the most noble kind.  Every time you see Will Smith doing anything, it seems designed to make you at least a little bit happier.  Will Smith pushed "Independence Day" from intolerable hokum to mildly amusing pap, and pushed a sitcom into endless syndication through sheer force of personality (because trust me, nothing else in "The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air" was going to do it).  And on top of that, he seems to have an actual artistic inclination.  How else to explain his recent string of movie choices: "Ali," "The Pursuit of Happyness," "I Am Legend," and now "Hancock"?

The trouble is, the people he's working with keep missing the mark.  Wildly.

"Hancock" follows in the footsteps of "I Am Legend" by giving us a different Will Smith, a guy digging in and finding a performance other than the semi-iconic one from "Men in Black" that he could profitably repeat for the next 30 years if he wanted.  "I Am Legend" gave us a soulful, mournful Will Smith with almost no jokes and a lot of "last of my kind" angst.  "Hancock" gives us a kind of darkly comedic twist on the same thing; Smith's Hancock* drinks and possibly snorts coke and causes huge whirlwinds of catastrophe wherever he goes, but he's also rogueishly charming and gets off a few good wisecracks, like this one:

Random woman at the scene of a Hancock-caused train wreck: You smell like liquor!

Hancock: Bitch, I've been drinking!

It's so anti-clever that it's almost clever.  And Smith delivers the line with exactly the right go-fuck-yourself insouciance. 

But just like "I Am Legend," "Hancock" lets Smith down.  It takes a bold creative choice - a demythologizing approach to the hero pic that we might have been comparing to what "Unforgiven" did to the Western, or what Frank Miller's "The Dark Knight" did to, er, heroes - and swiftly discards it in favor of what the creative team clearly saw as a crowd-pleasing, blockbuster ending.  The second half is nothing but convoluted backstory mixed with bad plotting and the sacrifice of everything interesting about the main character.  By the time Hancock is predictably surviving the attack that should have killed him and (sort of) sacrificing himself to save the woman he (sort of) loves, the surly drunk of the opening scenes is long gone - and it turns out he took everything interesting about the movie with him.  It reminds me of the disappointment I felt when "I Am Legend" funneled into a predictable action/horror showdown at the end, except that lasted just a few minutes; "Hancock" goes off the rails halfway through.

What Smith needs is to follow his instincts the rest of the way.  He's clearly drawn to interesting material and potentially career-altering concepts, and doesn't want to keep recycling the lighter-than-air parts that made him such a bankable movie star.  But he also just as clearly is working with people that don't share his goals, and that want to ensure that their $100 million investments are recouped with interest at the box office.  The solution?  Dump the star salary, dump the grossly over-sized budgets and nail-chewing producers ("Do we put Hancock on a McDonald's cup, or Burger King?  Which one plays better?"), and team up with a true maverick.  How about an "I Am Legend" made for half the budget, with no CGI, and directed by George Romero?  How about a "Hancock" that follows through on its darkest instincts and doesn't track the theme from "Sanford & Son" over a scene of Hancock literally shoving someone's head up someone else's ass**?  Or how about Will Smith in a Werner Herzog or PT Anderson movie? 

He's standing on the threshold of something interesting.  Let's give him a push one way or the other.  'Cause right now, he's just blocking the door.

--

In other news... the trailer for "The Day The Earth Stood Still" (the remake starring Keanu Reeves) played in front of "Hancock" last night.  I'd like to ask the producers of this movie a question, and here it is: why "The Day The Earth Stood Still"?  I would have gone with "Star Wars" or "Aliens" or maybe "Caddyshack."  Really you could have chosen almost any title, and there would have been just as much resemblance between this movie and the one it is allegedly remaking.

Unless the next trailer for this movie includes a giant fuckin' robot named Gort, count me out.

Strangely, the remake virus has also infected Werner Herzog, of all people.  But in his predictably unpredictable fashion, he's decided to remake - get this - "Bad Lieutenant."  (wha?)  With Nicholas Cage and Val Kilmer.  Which means this will either be the best or the worst movie ever made.  So thumbs up, Werner!

--

* Not a penis joke.

** Really.  P.S. Sorry for the many, many spoilers in this post, but if I have discouraged you from seeing this movie, I feel I've done my job.

secret fraternity of assassins is a cool thing to make a movie about.  throw in some angelina jolie and the ability to bend bullets and you've got youself one pretty decent action flick.

the voice over parts kinda irritated me.  but i'm kinda irritated by most voice overs unless they are really good.  the shawshank redemption features some voice over and it's really, really good.  not so much in this one.  but this is a different type of movie.

just look at the pretty pictures and awesome action sequences.  don't pay any attention to the fact that some nerdy cubicle dweller just transformed into a ruthless, no pain feeling, bad assed killer in twenty minutes....

it's more entertaining than hancock.

oh, they showed the trailer for the new bond flick.  looks pretty cool other than the title was so gay i can't even remember what it was.

jason statham's new movie looks kick ass.  kind of a running man type of deal where they let convicts race cars with machine guns on tv for the chance to escape prison.

Developing the ideas of the Cold War pulp novels to fit in the present setting of global terror, the movie looks to be another knock out. Taking hints from past enemy organization 'SPECTRE,' the new baddie 'Quantum' is a worldwide organization on the level of GI Joe's Cobra or Marvel Comic's Hydra, with its influences spreading into MI6 and the CIA.

The theme of shadowy villains is joined by one of bloody revenge as Bond seeks revenge for the murder of his lover Vesper Lynd in the previous film, 'Casino Royal.' This kind of joining one film to the next has not been attempted since the conclusion of cult favorite and little known 'On Her Majesty's Secret Service' and the follow-up 'Diamonds Are Forever.' This is a great idea and will surely bring in new viewers to a franchise of films that is experiencing an unprecedented renaissance.

Quantum of Solace will be released on 7/7/08.

but i got hancock instead.

it's like the producers all sat down around a table having drinks and said we got a hundred million bucks and will smith to make kind of a new spin on super hero movies. 

then instead of going out and getting a writer, they sat there and made a list of all the cool things they would do if they had super hero powers.

and then they only had 45 minutes of movie and a couple really cool trailers.

someone said, hey you ever see my super ex girlfriend?

and someone else said, yeah, yeah.  let's throw something like that in there for our second plot twist.

i really should have gone to see Wall-E and tried to talk to that smoking hot milf that was taking her kid to see it in line right in front of me.  i even had the chance to jump behind her in the pop corn line.

screw you will smith.