Saturday, December 4, 2010
Friday, December 3, 2010
Allan's 2010 Picks for Gifts #4: Playtime Toy Story 3 Sheriff Woody
Toy Story 3 Playtime Woody is my It toy pick for the kiddies (4+). It's practically a replica from the movies only tangible and built to be played and interacted with. Buttons are great but the nostalgia that a pull-string provides combined with an INTERACTIVE COWBOY HAT make it a great toy.
Thursday, December 2, 2010
Allan's 2010 Picks for Gifts #3: Jason Natural Lotion
The 3rd item on my gift guide is Jason Natural lotion. I've been using their products for a year and couldn't be more happy with them. Everything is manufactured using organic ingredients and their scents are not too faint nor too strong. The lotion really moisturizes your skin without that greasy feeling from The Body Shop or other brands.
Jason's products are incredibly affordable. This tube costs $7.19 at their online store and is available in select stores.
Jason's products are incredibly affordable. This tube costs $7.19 at their online store and is available in select stores.
Wednesday, December 1, 2010
Allan's 2010 Picks for Gifts #2: ANY Blu-ray Player
This is THE year to get a Blu-ray player. HDTVs AND Blu-ray discs have significantly lowered in price point this year. Blu-ray sections take up half of most media sections at retail stores and they'll soon get to 3/4 and then the whole thing and then how will you watch movies? $99 is what DVD players used to cost and you could go even cheaper than this one. You deserve high definition and so do your loved ones.
This model is the Panasonic DMP-BD65 and it's less than $100 at Amazon.com. You could go with a fancier more expensive model but if you're willing to do that, I'd say just get a PS3.
This model is the Panasonic DMP-BD65 and it's less than $100 at Amazon.com. You could go with a fancier more expensive model but if you're willing to do that, I'd say just get a PS3.
Tuesday, November 30, 2010
Allan's 2010 Picks for Gifts #1: Darth Vader Slippers
First up are these Darth Vader Slippers at $19.99. Nice slippers cost at least $30-$40 and barely get used but these are simply too awesome not to wear all the time. The black polyfiber material will not collect dirt as cotton or terry cloth of any other lighter color. These are a must for any Star Wars fan.
Available at Hot Topic for $19.99Friday, October 22, 2010
Hidden Gem: The Blue Tooth Virgin
| by Allan Stackhouse |
The Blue Tooth Virgin is a wonderful gem of an indie film released to DVD earlier this year. Director and writer Russell Brown with two handfuls of a production crew created a great character-driven story about what can happen when you criticize a friend's work. Anyone who is in a creative field will enjoy or at least be able to appreciate the screenwriting storyline. Stars Austin Peck and Bryce Johnson truly shine in this charming film.
Russell teamed with the amazing, oft teamed with Gus Van Sant, editor Curtiss Clayton (To Die For, The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford, and Drugstore Cowboy). At first, I couldn't figure out what made this film so good. Luckily, there is a featurette included on the DVD that explained some of Curtiss Clayton's editing process. To make these dialogue-heavy, non-moving scenes more interesting, Curtiss would limit the focus on each character, not to the point where it would be just a bunch of back and forth boring cutting. The edits were made with regard to the emotion and tone the director was going for.
The characters in this film are so strong and defined in The Blue Tooth Virgin. Sam, played by former Days of Our Lives and As the World Turns actor Austin Peck, is a struggling writer who once saw success and is thirsty for success again. His friend David, played by familiar TV face Bryce Johnson, has always had it easy and lives a cushy life as a writer for a magazine. The conflict that develops between these two characters begins with Sam's request for David to read his recently finished screenplay titled The Blue Tooth Virgin. David HATES Sam's script and, just from the dialogue in the film surrounding it, it sounds horrible. David experiences a desire to be completely honest with Sam and then changes his mind, which of course Sam takes offense to and gets particularly nasty about it. The script proves to be an interesting test of their friendship.
The poor quality of Sam's script leads to even more hilarious characters. There are two confidants, one for David and one for Sam. Sam turns to expensive script doctor Zena, played wonderfully and eccentrically by Karen Black. Their dialogue is actually kind of off-putting at first but through the course of this initial uncomfortableness, it turns out to be all part of the process, a great reveal for both Sam and the audience. David's confidant is Dr. Christopher, played by Roma Mafia, who's just as no nonsense as David if not more. She is inclined to believe what David is telling her and sympathizes with what he is going through. Both of these characters added humor to the film but also an opportunity for David and Sam to develop outside of their conversations with each other.
I'm absolutely thrilled that E1 decided to distribute this, despite its release from 2008, because the film serves as an example of the fruit of independent filmmaking. A small cast of professionals, actors, and locations made a funny, engaging, and emotionally honest film that I am very happy to have come across.
The Blue Tooth Virgin is a wonderful gem of an indie film released to DVD earlier this year. Director and writer Russell Brown with two handfuls of a production crew created a great character-driven story about what can happen when you criticize a friend's work. Anyone who is in a creative field will enjoy or at least be able to appreciate the screenwriting storyline. Stars Austin Peck and Bryce Johnson truly shine in this charming film.
Russell teamed with the amazing, oft teamed with Gus Van Sant, editor Curtiss Clayton (To Die For, The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford, and Drugstore Cowboy). At first, I couldn't figure out what made this film so good. Luckily, there is a featurette included on the DVD that explained some of Curtiss Clayton's editing process. To make these dialogue-heavy, non-moving scenes more interesting, Curtiss would limit the focus on each character, not to the point where it would be just a bunch of back and forth boring cutting. The edits were made with regard to the emotion and tone the director was going for.
The characters in this film are so strong and defined in The Blue Tooth Virgin. Sam, played by former Days of Our Lives and As the World Turns actor Austin Peck, is a struggling writer who once saw success and is thirsty for success again. His friend David, played by familiar TV face Bryce Johnson, has always had it easy and lives a cushy life as a writer for a magazine. The conflict that develops between these two characters begins with Sam's request for David to read his recently finished screenplay titled The Blue Tooth Virgin. David HATES Sam's script and, just from the dialogue in the film surrounding it, it sounds horrible. David experiences a desire to be completely honest with Sam and then changes his mind, which of course Sam takes offense to and gets particularly nasty about it. The script proves to be an interesting test of their friendship.
The poor quality of Sam's script leads to even more hilarious characters. There are two confidants, one for David and one for Sam. Sam turns to expensive script doctor Zena, played wonderfully and eccentrically by Karen Black. Their dialogue is actually kind of off-putting at first but through the course of this initial uncomfortableness, it turns out to be all part of the process, a great reveal for both Sam and the audience. David's confidant is Dr. Christopher, played by Roma Mafia, who's just as no nonsense as David if not more. She is inclined to believe what David is telling her and sympathizes with what he is going through. Both of these characters added humor to the film but also an opportunity for David and Sam to develop outside of their conversations with each other.
I'm absolutely thrilled that E1 decided to distribute this, despite its release from 2008, because the film serves as an example of the fruit of independent filmmaking. A small cast of professionals, actors, and locations made a funny, engaging, and emotionally honest film that I am very happy to have come across.
Tuesday, October 19, 2010
New on Blu: A Prophet
| by Allan Stackhouse |
Someone raved about this movie some time ago so I admit that my perspective wasn’t completely fresh when I watched French writer/director Jacques Audiard’s A Prophet. The experience for me was a mildly entertained one but that could very well be because I completely lost interest in the film after the first act.
The great thing about A Prophet's script is that its conflict is set up so quickly. Malik El Djebena is sentenced to six years in prison and is almost immediately propositioned to kill someone or be killed. His appearance doesn’t entirely fit the dominating white presence in the prison nor the growing Arab one, allowing him to navigate both worlds. He does not have a choice about it because of the Corsican gang practically running the place, receiving instruction on specifically how to perfrom the kill as well. His attempts to get out of it are met with failure. These consistent and well-crafted raises in stakes were well-directed and enthralling.
This act's end unfortunately proved to be the peak of drama for the entire film. It is just after this incredibly exciting string of scenes that the plot becomes very watery and altogether unimportant. The film seemed to shoot its wad and then expected these slower paced scenes to be able to carry the rest of the film which, for me, was entirely unsuccessful. The end of the film attempts to regain the first act’s momentum with Malik’s sudden decision to improvise upon learning that his final targets are not going to exit their vehicle. This scene is actually quite brilliant stylistically with its choice of angles, slow motion footage, and sound design but even these traits cannot make up for the lack of interest I had when watching the scenes that lead up it.
The suspense built by the scene where Malik kills Reyeb is thick, that is not in question. The scene in which he kills him of course doesn't go to plan, further building the suspense. He earns the protection of Cesar Luciani. Malik’s climb up the gang ladder by turning into a porter for the Corsicans and then running favors for Cesar, his boss, and Jordi, his business associate in drug sales, did not prove to be anywhere near the stakes of his first foray into the prison world.
As the title states, we are made to believe during the film that Malik is a prophet of some sort but even that isn’t completely fleshed out. It as actually only addressed in the scene where he predicts the car accident. The drug dealer is in awe of his "gift" but there’s no other scenes to support the idea built by this one. Why have it at all? Why not have it earlier? Why not more consistently reference it?
As much as I wanted to enjoy this film, I simply could not. If you’re up for a well-crafted gangster movie, you will likely enjoy A Prophet more than I did. The recurring subject of race doesn’t completely translate for me but perhaps there are some nuances in gang-related subject matter that are ultimately foreign to me.
2.5/5
Someone raved about this movie some time ago so I admit that my perspective wasn’t completely fresh when I watched French writer/director Jacques Audiard’s A Prophet. The experience for me was a mildly entertained one but that could very well be because I completely lost interest in the film after the first act.
The great thing about A Prophet's script is that its conflict is set up so quickly. Malik El Djebena is sentenced to six years in prison and is almost immediately propositioned to kill someone or be killed. His appearance doesn’t entirely fit the dominating white presence in the prison nor the growing Arab one, allowing him to navigate both worlds. He does not have a choice about it because of the Corsican gang practically running the place, receiving instruction on specifically how to perfrom the kill as well. His attempts to get out of it are met with failure. These consistent and well-crafted raises in stakes were well-directed and enthralling.
This act's end unfortunately proved to be the peak of drama for the entire film. It is just after this incredibly exciting string of scenes that the plot becomes very watery and altogether unimportant. The film seemed to shoot its wad and then expected these slower paced scenes to be able to carry the rest of the film which, for me, was entirely unsuccessful. The end of the film attempts to regain the first act’s momentum with Malik’s sudden decision to improvise upon learning that his final targets are not going to exit their vehicle. This scene is actually quite brilliant stylistically with its choice of angles, slow motion footage, and sound design but even these traits cannot make up for the lack of interest I had when watching the scenes that lead up it.
The suspense built by the scene where Malik kills Reyeb is thick, that is not in question. The scene in which he kills him of course doesn't go to plan, further building the suspense. He earns the protection of Cesar Luciani. Malik’s climb up the gang ladder by turning into a porter for the Corsicans and then running favors for Cesar, his boss, and Jordi, his business associate in drug sales, did not prove to be anywhere near the stakes of his first foray into the prison world.
As the title states, we are made to believe during the film that Malik is a prophet of some sort but even that isn’t completely fleshed out. It as actually only addressed in the scene where he predicts the car accident. The drug dealer is in awe of his "gift" but there’s no other scenes to support the idea built by this one. Why have it at all? Why not have it earlier? Why not more consistently reference it?
As much as I wanted to enjoy this film, I simply could not. If you’re up for a well-crafted gangster movie, you will likely enjoy A Prophet more than I did. The recurring subject of race doesn’t completely translate for me but perhaps there are some nuances in gang-related subject matter that are ultimately foreign to me.
2.5/5
Monday, October 11, 2010
New on Blu: Iron Man 2
| by Allan Stackhouse |
Iron Man 2 is one of the worst movies I've seen all year. I was bored to tears with this, desperately hoping something interesting or exciting would happen but to no avail. Theexcuse idea that this film was rushed is not acceptable here nor ever, especially to someone who staunchly supports Marvel's many forms of media. X-Men: The Last Stand was given the rush job but it was at least somewhat palatable while this was completely bland, boring, and not even close to even a Michael Dudikoff B-movie. I look forward to these blockbusters every year because they're around my birthday and I couldn't be more glad that I skipped Iron Man 2 when it was in theaters.
The problems, many as they are, root from the script. There is no distinction between acts, the first act running right through the second, providing scene after scene of an unmasked Iron Man doing this an an unmasked Iron Man doing that. Jon Favreau, from his close personal relationship with RDJ, let him do whatever he wanted and the results were annoying and indulgent. It's absolutely bewildering to me as to why the successful fusion of Mark Fergus and Hawk Ostby (Children of Men) and Arthur Marcum and Matt Holloway's scripts was discontinued and placed in the untrained and unworthy hands of Justin Theroux. I'm sure some great chemistry happened between RDJ and Justin on the set of Tropic Thunder, which Justin also wrote, but this change of gears did not work.
Sam Rockwell had a completely wasted performance in this film. He is sooooo talented and, similar to Hugo Weaving in The Wolfman, he had absolutely no character to work with. His character, Justin Hammer's, depiction as a rival to Tony Stark has no arc and is one of the many points of erosion in Iron Man 2's armor. A bumbling technological rival who isn't even funny as half of the conflict in the script? No. Sorry. Did not work. Even the scene with Sam's amazing dance moves served little to cover up the film's failure in capturing my interest. Just as ill developed is the conflict of Tony's palladium core keeping him alive and killing him alive at the same time. This was posed so poorly constructed that I couldn't have cared any less about it. And how does the film resolve this conflict? Instantaneously when his new atomic number 118 core is placed, which took all of 2 minutes to create! This notion of having to accept super hero movies as these flashy movies where nothing really happens is so condescending, especially when there is so much source material to work with and ideally improve.
The fight scenes amount to a whopping THREE and all are SO short: one where Iron Man fights War Machine, one where Ivan Vanko (another snoozer villain) attacks Tony in Monaco, and one where both Iron Man and War Machine fight some drones. The first one is so unwarranted. A million reasons or villains could have been used to have a fight scene with Iron Man, the star of the film, but what's the motivation: Rhodey needs to cool Iron Man down. WTF?!?!?!?! This so strongly stinks of machismo and does absolutely nothing for the plot of the story. The second one provided at least some drama, having Tony out of his suit but the battle is over as soon as he suits up. Why can't the drama be created when he's in the suit? The final fight scene, when Iron Man and War Machine get to show off in all of their technologically advanced mechanical glory is shown in a brief three minutes. I have absolutely no investment in the scene because 1. they're machines that don't even look cool and 2. because the film has didn't set up any attachments or feelings for me to feel.
I absolutely hated the portrayal of women as lapdogs for their male counterparts in this film. Gwyneth Paltrow's Pepper Potts was so unbelievably naggy in this film. A woman of education, power, and beauty is still nothing but a blabbermouth in the end according to this film. Even Gwyneth's idle dialogue that opened some scenes sounded very forced and unnatural, which is hard to stomach being a fan of hers. Scarlett Johansson did what she could but the misdirection and poor editing sank whatever potential she had. On paper, Justin Theroux may have thought he was making her a character to be admired: multilingual, well-educated, trained for combat, etc., but the focus of her role is always at tthe whim of men. Even her fight scene left much to be desired. A good edit could have saved her but it was so unbelievably awful. During Black Widow's main fight scene, there are so many cuts for such a small amount action.
Just to let me rant for a sec, Garry Shandling had SO many injectables in his face I was surprised it was moving at all during the panel scene in the beginning of the film. The distance from Tony may have saved him a little bit but the last scene of the film where he smiles between Tony and Rhodey has some frightening closeups. Looking young and good for the camera is one thing but to the point where the result is horrific is not good for the film. Jon Favreau should have seen this.
The only redeeming element to this film was Samuel L. Jackson. His presence is stoic and restrained, with lines to match his presence and body language. Nick Fury's scene time across all of the Marvel films can be counted in seconds yet I found his character here to have the most development and purpose. In retrospect, that's unbelievable since Pepper, Tony, and Rhodey all had a whole - and might I add good - film's worth of development to rely upon.
Even the high resolution of Blu-ray was not enough for me to enjoy this film/piece of garbage. I'm honestly heartbroken by its severely low quality. I can remember some years ago, feeling enthralled and inspired by Jon Favreau's humor and insights when he hosted Dinner for Five but this film let me down at almost every point. Maybe that man still exists somewhere but Iron Man 2 has to be one of his biggest failures in quality to date.
Iron Man 2 is one of the worst movies I've seen all year. I was bored to tears with this, desperately hoping something interesting or exciting would happen but to no avail. The
The problems, many as they are, root from the script. There is no distinction between acts, the first act running right through the second, providing scene after scene of an unmasked Iron Man doing this an an unmasked Iron Man doing that. Jon Favreau, from his close personal relationship with RDJ, let him do whatever he wanted and the results were annoying and indulgent. It's absolutely bewildering to me as to why the successful fusion of Mark Fergus and Hawk Ostby (Children of Men) and Arthur Marcum and Matt Holloway's scripts was discontinued and placed in the untrained and unworthy hands of Justin Theroux. I'm sure some great chemistry happened between RDJ and Justin on the set of Tropic Thunder, which Justin also wrote, but this change of gears did not work.
Sam Rockwell had a completely wasted performance in this film. He is sooooo talented and, similar to Hugo Weaving in The Wolfman, he had absolutely no character to work with. His character, Justin Hammer's, depiction as a rival to Tony Stark has no arc and is one of the many points of erosion in Iron Man 2's armor. A bumbling technological rival who isn't even funny as half of the conflict in the script? No. Sorry. Did not work. Even the scene with Sam's amazing dance moves served little to cover up the film's failure in capturing my interest. Just as ill developed is the conflict of Tony's palladium core keeping him alive and killing him alive at the same time. This was posed so poorly constructed that I couldn't have cared any less about it. And how does the film resolve this conflict? Instantaneously when his new atomic number 118 core is placed, which took all of 2 minutes to create! This notion of having to accept super hero movies as these flashy movies where nothing really happens is so condescending, especially when there is so much source material to work with and ideally improve.
The fight scenes amount to a whopping THREE and all are SO short: one where Iron Man fights War Machine, one where Ivan Vanko (another snoozer villain) attacks Tony in Monaco, and one where both Iron Man and War Machine fight some drones. The first one is so unwarranted. A million reasons or villains could have been used to have a fight scene with Iron Man, the star of the film, but what's the motivation: Rhodey needs to cool Iron Man down. WTF?!?!?!?! This so strongly stinks of machismo and does absolutely nothing for the plot of the story. The second one provided at least some drama, having Tony out of his suit but the battle is over as soon as he suits up. Why can't the drama be created when he's in the suit? The final fight scene, when Iron Man and War Machine get to show off in all of their technologically advanced mechanical glory is shown in a brief three minutes. I have absolutely no investment in the scene because 1. they're machines that don't even look cool and 2. because the film has didn't set up any attachments or feelings for me to feel.
I absolutely hated the portrayal of women as lapdogs for their male counterparts in this film. Gwyneth Paltrow's Pepper Potts was so unbelievably naggy in this film. A woman of education, power, and beauty is still nothing but a blabbermouth in the end according to this film. Even Gwyneth's idle dialogue that opened some scenes sounded very forced and unnatural, which is hard to stomach being a fan of hers. Scarlett Johansson did what she could but the misdirection and poor editing sank whatever potential she had. On paper, Justin Theroux may have thought he was making her a character to be admired: multilingual, well-educated, trained for combat, etc., but the focus of her role is always at tthe whim of men. Even her fight scene left much to be desired. A good edit could have saved her but it was so unbelievably awful. During Black Widow's main fight scene, there are so many cuts for such a small amount action.
Just to let me rant for a sec, Garry Shandling had SO many injectables in his face I was surprised it was moving at all during the panel scene in the beginning of the film. The distance from Tony may have saved him a little bit but the last scene of the film where he smiles between Tony and Rhodey has some frightening closeups. Looking young and good for the camera is one thing but to the point where the result is horrific is not good for the film. Jon Favreau should have seen this.
The only redeeming element to this film was Samuel L. Jackson. His presence is stoic and restrained, with lines to match his presence and body language. Nick Fury's scene time across all of the Marvel films can be counted in seconds yet I found his character here to have the most development and purpose. In retrospect, that's unbelievable since Pepper, Tony, and Rhodey all had a whole - and might I add good - film's worth of development to rely upon.
Even the high resolution of Blu-ray was not enough for me to enjoy this film/piece of garbage. I'm honestly heartbroken by its severely low quality. I can remember some years ago, feeling enthralled and inspired by Jon Favreau's humor and insights when he hosted Dinner for Five but this film let me down at almost every point. Maybe that man still exists somewhere but Iron Man 2 has to be one of his biggest failures in quality to date.
Tuesday, October 5, 2010
Review: The Social Network
| by Allan Stackhouse |
Chalk up another marvel by David Fincher. The Social Network is an absolutely captivating tale of the rise of Facebook and the subsequent falls of those allegedly involved in its inception. This is one of the best films I've seen all year, despite the sweltering conditions of the Arclight in Hollywood Friday night. I remember my staunchly negative mindset during the film's promotion, thinking it was ridiculous to make a film about something so seemingly rudimentary as Facebook. How wrong I was. The tale that screenwriter Aaron Sorkin and director David Fincher spin is a gripping one of genius, betrayal, and social networking.
Aaron Sorkin wonderfully adapted Ben Mezrich's The Accidental Billionaires, forming entrancing monologues and witty dialogue for every character. Mark himself had some great lines but the incredulous expressions of Tyler and Cameron Winklevoss really took the cake. The script is driven by dialogue but it doesn't turn into exposition; it actually moves the story along and doesn't serve as patches for the plot. The story is riveting. Mark Zuckerburg is a genius programmer who's on the verge of developing what we know today as Facebook. The film is split between with lawsuit scenes, held in private offices. Each timeline feeds the other, adding drama to one and reason to the other. This is a brilliant and masterfully executed form of storytelling.
The music and score added to the hypnotic nature of the film. Trent Reznor is new to scores but found himself working again with Atticus Ross who produced for Nine Inch Nails albums, for whom Trent Reznor is the lead singer. That particular genre is light in my iPod but the post-industrial and dark ambient sounds for which they are both known could not have worked any better in the film. Under many scenes of dialogue was a piece of music that echoed the figurative darkness of the scenes. This attention to sound made the experience of watching the film so complete.
I particularly enjoyed the restraint in the depiction of Mark Zuckerburg's character. The film didn't demonize him, at least I didn't find that it did. Mark, in the film, is a genius, seemingly getting into Harvard on the merits of his own intelligence rather than the nepotism of the Winklevosses. In a matter of just a year, he coded his way to the top of social networking. His ousting of Eduardo Saverin from Facebook was a really dirty thing to do but the film forces sympathy when Eduardo and Mark address each other at their hearing.
The film is also a marvel technically. I could have sworn Armie Hammer had a twin brother but did not see another actor credited with his last name in the opening credits. After the film, I found out Josh Pence acted as the body double for Tyler Vinklevoss. Armie Hammer's face was then digitally placed over Josh's. The effect is seamless and a marvel in technology. Josh Pence and Armie Hammer expertly mimicked the other's actions, completely pulling the wool over my eyes. This effect is, I'll dare say, perfect. Perhaps I'd be able to point out a mistake after the movie is released on Blu but this act of having a stand in for a twin has come a LONG way since the old days of “double screen.”
The only flaw of the film was in Justin Timberlake's casting. Perhaps the producers felt that they needed a name to sell the film but, as talented as Justin is in everything else he does (singing, song writing, dancing, clothing design, comedic acting), he did not have the dramatic chops to convey the paranoia, seduction, and seriousness of Sean Parker. Sean's character starts off harmlessly enough but I still get the sense that Justin's focus is still too much on the delivery instead of getting into the character, which again, he does with ease for his many appearances on Saturday Night Live. Take for instance one of my favorites, Robin Gibb. His tone is kept timid and his straight face is retained throughout almost the entire sketch. In the scenes with Sean Parker, Justin's tone is always the same when expressing the breadth of his emotions.
In the end, I don't feel the film is either a sob story for Eduardo Saverin nor a witch hunt for Marc Zuckerburg. I believe the film was more about the bitter end of a friendship brought on by success. This theme is a common one in films about bands or musicians but to have the subject matter be about something that half a billion people use was a surprising parallel for me. The film is interestingly framed with Mark Zuckerburg talking with a girl who feels sorry for him. I feel this film is incredibly relevant to the youth of today because it illustrates the cost of losing oneself in a business, relationship, drugs, etc. after forsaking those that helped you get there in the first place.
4.5/5
Chalk up another marvel by David Fincher. The Social Network is an absolutely captivating tale of the rise of Facebook and the subsequent falls of those allegedly involved in its inception. This is one of the best films I've seen all year, despite the sweltering conditions of the Arclight in Hollywood Friday night. I remember my staunchly negative mindset during the film's promotion, thinking it was ridiculous to make a film about something so seemingly rudimentary as Facebook. How wrong I was. The tale that screenwriter Aaron Sorkin and director David Fincher spin is a gripping one of genius, betrayal, and social networking.
Aaron Sorkin wonderfully adapted Ben Mezrich's The Accidental Billionaires, forming entrancing monologues and witty dialogue for every character. Mark himself had some great lines but the incredulous expressions of Tyler and Cameron Winklevoss really took the cake. The script is driven by dialogue but it doesn't turn into exposition; it actually moves the story along and doesn't serve as patches for the plot. The story is riveting. Mark Zuckerburg is a genius programmer who's on the verge of developing what we know today as Facebook. The film is split between with lawsuit scenes, held in private offices. Each timeline feeds the other, adding drama to one and reason to the other. This is a brilliant and masterfully executed form of storytelling.
The music and score added to the hypnotic nature of the film. Trent Reznor is new to scores but found himself working again with Atticus Ross who produced for Nine Inch Nails albums, for whom Trent Reznor is the lead singer. That particular genre is light in my iPod but the post-industrial and dark ambient sounds for which they are both known could not have worked any better in the film. Under many scenes of dialogue was a piece of music that echoed the figurative darkness of the scenes. This attention to sound made the experience of watching the film so complete.
I particularly enjoyed the restraint in the depiction of Mark Zuckerburg's character. The film didn't demonize him, at least I didn't find that it did. Mark, in the film, is a genius, seemingly getting into Harvard on the merits of his own intelligence rather than the nepotism of the Winklevosses. In a matter of just a year, he coded his way to the top of social networking. His ousting of Eduardo Saverin from Facebook was a really dirty thing to do but the film forces sympathy when Eduardo and Mark address each other at their hearing.
The film is also a marvel technically. I could have sworn Armie Hammer had a twin brother but did not see another actor credited with his last name in the opening credits. After the film, I found out Josh Pence acted as the body double for Tyler Vinklevoss. Armie Hammer's face was then digitally placed over Josh's. The effect is seamless and a marvel in technology. Josh Pence and Armie Hammer expertly mimicked the other's actions, completely pulling the wool over my eyes. This effect is, I'll dare say, perfect. Perhaps I'd be able to point out a mistake after the movie is released on Blu but this act of having a stand in for a twin has come a LONG way since the old days of “double screen.”
The only flaw of the film was in Justin Timberlake's casting. Perhaps the producers felt that they needed a name to sell the film but, as talented as Justin is in everything else he does (singing, song writing, dancing, clothing design, comedic acting), he did not have the dramatic chops to convey the paranoia, seduction, and seriousness of Sean Parker. Sean's character starts off harmlessly enough but I still get the sense that Justin's focus is still too much on the delivery instead of getting into the character, which again, he does with ease for his many appearances on Saturday Night Live. Take for instance one of my favorites, Robin Gibb. His tone is kept timid and his straight face is retained throughout almost the entire sketch. In the scenes with Sean Parker, Justin's tone is always the same when expressing the breadth of his emotions.
In the end, I don't feel the film is either a sob story for Eduardo Saverin nor a witch hunt for Marc Zuckerburg. I believe the film was more about the bitter end of a friendship brought on by success. This theme is a common one in films about bands or musicians but to have the subject matter be about something that half a billion people use was a surprising parallel for me. The film is interestingly framed with Mark Zuckerburg talking with a girl who feels sorry for him. I feel this film is incredibly relevant to the youth of today because it illustrates the cost of losing oneself in a business, relationship, drugs, etc. after forsaking those that helped you get there in the first place.
4.5/5
Tuesday, September 28, 2010
Review: Me & Orson Welles
| by Allan Stackhouse |
For the younger generation out there that is only seeing Me & Orson Welles for Zac Efron, they will be treating themselves not only to ninety minutes of Zac's statuesque looks but also to a classic film made in modern times. Orson Welles is a legend in early filmmaking and for this film to come along to remind - or introduce - us of his existence is terrific as not only a concept but also as an ode to to someone who helped forge modern filmmaking. I found this film funny, charming, and altogether very entertaining. Though the story line was on the simpler side, the drama played out quickly and succinctly.
I am the first to admit that I do not like period pieces because of the incessant melodrama and the poor choices in cinematography with characters so irritatingly pompous that they make me want to destroy something. However, this film had excellent cinematography, enough to convey a classic time without some stupid bleached out effect. The set design more than successfully created an old American environment and time. Its entire existence pleases me because nothing about it is "modern" but it still holds up as a film. The love story is a little on the dated side but it fits for this generation because there can be more to an adult love story than sex. The story follows Richard Samuels, played by Zac Efron, in his quest to become part of Orson Welles' theater production of Julius Caesar. A concurrent love story develops when Richard becomes interested in Claire Danes' Sonja Jones.
English actor Christian McKay fabulously portrayed theater director and actor Orson Welles. Just from the few movies and articles I've come across of Orson Welles, I gathered that this portrayal was wholly accurate while Christian did add some of his own panache to the role. His delivery of lines for the distinct fashion that Orson Welles spoke was spot on. While Richard's character was the only one to have any significant arcs, Claire Danes provided a great a supporting character to Richard.
Of Richard Linklater's previous works, I've only seen Waking Life and A Scanner Darkly but I found those brilliant and I think him incredibly versatile to have produced such avant garde films to a completely traditional film with Me and Orson Welles. The performances he garnered from the cast and the consistent building up of each character provided scenes that never lost their connectivity and never ceased to be interesting. In fact, I didn't pause the film once throughout my viewing of it.
The consistent conflict of the film is launching Julius Caesar, the play. Orson continuously pushes the opening date back, at the chagrin of the theater owner. All of the characters are trying to get ahead in this film: Orson wants to produce the best play that ever existed, Richard wants respect and the affections of Sonja, and Sonja wants to climb the theater ladder. These characters, having distinct motivations, were instrumental in creating such a complete film.
I found the story to be interesting because it's a cautionary tale of what life in theater or entertainment can potentially be like. It is entirely too rare for someone in entertainment to be looking out for anyone other than themselves. Zac Efron makes this mistake when he quits the play. Orson does come crawling back to him but only for the sake of opening day. After the first show, Orson sends him packing and doesn't even do it to his face. This might villainize the persona of Orson Welles but I believe it to be an accurate portrayal of what a man of genius can be like.
Narratively, the ending is appropriate. It doesn't tie things up in a nice bow, and what kind of message would it send to viewers about theater if it did? A bad one.
Despite my overall reluctance to watch this in theaters, I'm glad that I gave this film a chance. Even if you have absolutely no idea who Orson Welles was or don't care who he is, the film stands on its own two feet and proves itself as a cautionary tale while not restorting to any ridiculous gimmicks. The acting is great and the characters are interesting; a marvelous effort by director Richard Linklater.
For the younger generation out there that is only seeing Me & Orson Welles for Zac Efron, they will be treating themselves not only to ninety minutes of Zac's statuesque looks but also to a classic film made in modern times. Orson Welles is a legend in early filmmaking and for this film to come along to remind - or introduce - us of his existence is terrific as not only a concept but also as an ode to to someone who helped forge modern filmmaking. I found this film funny, charming, and altogether very entertaining. Though the story line was on the simpler side, the drama played out quickly and succinctly.
I am the first to admit that I do not like period pieces because of the incessant melodrama and the poor choices in cinematography with characters so irritatingly pompous that they make me want to destroy something. However, this film had excellent cinematography, enough to convey a classic time without some stupid bleached out effect. The set design more than successfully created an old American environment and time. Its entire existence pleases me because nothing about it is "modern" but it still holds up as a film. The love story is a little on the dated side but it fits for this generation because there can be more to an adult love story than sex. The story follows Richard Samuels, played by Zac Efron, in his quest to become part of Orson Welles' theater production of Julius Caesar. A concurrent love story develops when Richard becomes interested in Claire Danes' Sonja Jones.
English actor Christian McKay fabulously portrayed theater director and actor Orson Welles. Just from the few movies and articles I've come across of Orson Welles, I gathered that this portrayal was wholly accurate while Christian did add some of his own panache to the role. His delivery of lines for the distinct fashion that Orson Welles spoke was spot on. While Richard's character was the only one to have any significant arcs, Claire Danes provided a great a supporting character to Richard.
Of Richard Linklater's previous works, I've only seen Waking Life and A Scanner Darkly but I found those brilliant and I think him incredibly versatile to have produced such avant garde films to a completely traditional film with Me and Orson Welles. The performances he garnered from the cast and the consistent building up of each character provided scenes that never lost their connectivity and never ceased to be interesting. In fact, I didn't pause the film once throughout my viewing of it.
The consistent conflict of the film is launching Julius Caesar, the play. Orson continuously pushes the opening date back, at the chagrin of the theater owner. All of the characters are trying to get ahead in this film: Orson wants to produce the best play that ever existed, Richard wants respect and the affections of Sonja, and Sonja wants to climb the theater ladder. These characters, having distinct motivations, were instrumental in creating such a complete film.
I found the story to be interesting because it's a cautionary tale of what life in theater or entertainment can potentially be like. It is entirely too rare for someone in entertainment to be looking out for anyone other than themselves. Zac Efron makes this mistake when he quits the play. Orson does come crawling back to him but only for the sake of opening day. After the first show, Orson sends him packing and doesn't even do it to his face. This might villainize the persona of Orson Welles but I believe it to be an accurate portrayal of what a man of genius can be like.
Narratively, the ending is appropriate. It doesn't tie things up in a nice bow, and what kind of message would it send to viewers about theater if it did? A bad one.
Despite my overall reluctance to watch this in theaters, I'm glad that I gave this film a chance. Even if you have absolutely no idea who Orson Welles was or don't care who he is, the film stands on its own two feet and proves itself as a cautionary tale while not restorting to any ridiculous gimmicks. The acting is great and the characters are interesting; a marvelous effort by director Richard Linklater.
Wednesday, September 22, 2010
Coco Avant Chanel
| by Allan Stackhouse |
If you're completely lost when it comes to the French language, remember that avant means before in English. The French language film is immediately framed in a time when women were not treated as equals in society. It tells a tale of Gabrielle Bonheur Chanel's past, avant she becomes the household name she is today. Unfortunately, the events in this tale are not particularly interesting. As much as I cared about Chanel's character, the dramatic elements in the film that acted as the focus of the film were not very deep or meaningful.
Gabrielle and her sister Adrienne work in a brothel as singers when the majority of the female employees there work as prostitutes. The male patrons treat them as objects and Étienne Balsan expresses his distaste in Gabrielle's bold attitude. Gabrielle despises this weak image of women, expressing her disgust of it to the general. I found it hypocritical of her to have so vehemently denied the old image and roles of women yet slip into them herself later in the film.
I was largely disappointed with cinematography in this film. Perhaps the standard definition should take the blame but I noticed many opportunities where better uses of lighting and focus could have done wonders. The shot at the end with the models going down the staircases with mirrors was a golden opportunity to show something interesting instead of just a medium shot with Coco in focus and the models walking past her as she observes them. The lighting was basic and overly diffused, a technique that's so stereotypical of period pieces. Perhaps not having been able to see this film in high definition was a good thing since the image would have been clearer but the focuses and shots would look just as bland as they were.
Regarding the clothing as a visual tool, this was done very seldom. Her claim to fame being a fashion designer, I was expecting more of an appropriate use of this instead of just this recurring element that sets up drama with the other character but not here career. In one scene, Coco observes the clothing among the gentry-folk.
The catalyst to the explosion of Coco's design creativity is evidently placed on Boy's death. This was troubling for me because whatever momentum that Coco had left as a woman and designer after her willingness to be his mistress was gone at the action's of someone else, not through her own willingness. Because Boy died, she will now become the designer she was destined to become. If this was actually what happened, fine. However, as a film, this does not play out well. I think it's sending the message that men, no matter how independent women are, will always be needed by women in order to get further in life. Perhaps this was true at the time but the concept does not work here.
In the middle of the second act, I began to find this film overly pretentious with the characters' constant dance around what everyone was actually trying to say. Whether the love triangle between Coco, Balsan, and Boy happened in real life or not, I found this indirect way of speaking and doing things to be very irritating and stereotypical of period pieces. If you can stomach this old form of speaking and handling relationships, perhaps you will enjoy this film. The refrain from saying what anyone really wanted to set up long and irritating conversations that promoted this turn of the century melodrama.
As a side note, when you think of fashion's most famous houses, do you think of Calvin Klein, Giorgio Armani, Ralph Lauren, Gianni Versace? What do all of those have in common? They're male-headed houses ironically for women's fashion. The text at the end of the film reads something to sort of, “She achieved success in a man's world.” This is a great fact to know but there was not enough of this in the film. What was there were these constant looks of disgust or disapproval.
The elements that I did find interesting were her interest in fashion, her relationship with her sister. Multiple times throughout the film, Coco mentions her parents and her time at the orphanage, the story always different than the last time. Did she experience shame over this? Adrienne came in and out of the story and her storyline was not concluded. Her last appearance in the film is at Coco's house/studio
I was not “gripped” by this film in the least, even though whoever wrote the back of the DVD claimed that it would be. The drama that's also touted in the film I found to be very pretentious and uninteresting. Where there was a lot of opportunity to make this film more visually pleasing, the film chose instead to focus on the melodramatic elements of Coco's story instead of playing up her independence and drive to succeed.
If you're completely lost when it comes to the French language, remember that avant means before in English. The French language film is immediately framed in a time when women were not treated as equals in society. It tells a tale of Gabrielle Bonheur Chanel's past, avant she becomes the household name she is today. Unfortunately, the events in this tale are not particularly interesting. As much as I cared about Chanel's character, the dramatic elements in the film that acted as the focus of the film were not very deep or meaningful.
Gabrielle and her sister Adrienne work in a brothel as singers when the majority of the female employees there work as prostitutes. The male patrons treat them as objects and Étienne Balsan expresses his distaste in Gabrielle's bold attitude. Gabrielle despises this weak image of women, expressing her disgust of it to the general. I found it hypocritical of her to have so vehemently denied the old image and roles of women yet slip into them herself later in the film.
I was largely disappointed with cinematography in this film. Perhaps the standard definition should take the blame but I noticed many opportunities where better uses of lighting and focus could have done wonders. The shot at the end with the models going down the staircases with mirrors was a golden opportunity to show something interesting instead of just a medium shot with Coco in focus and the models walking past her as she observes them. The lighting was basic and overly diffused, a technique that's so stereotypical of period pieces. Perhaps not having been able to see this film in high definition was a good thing since the image would have been clearer but the focuses and shots would look just as bland as they were.
Regarding the clothing as a visual tool, this was done very seldom. Her claim to fame being a fashion designer, I was expecting more of an appropriate use of this instead of just this recurring element that sets up drama with the other character but not here career. In one scene, Coco observes the clothing among the gentry-folk.
The catalyst to the explosion of Coco's design creativity is evidently placed on Boy's death. This was troubling for me because whatever momentum that Coco had left as a woman and designer after her willingness to be his mistress was gone at the action's of someone else, not through her own willingness. Because Boy died, she will now become the designer she was destined to become. If this was actually what happened, fine. However, as a film, this does not play out well. I think it's sending the message that men, no matter how independent women are, will always be needed by women in order to get further in life. Perhaps this was true at the time but the concept does not work here.
In the middle of the second act, I began to find this film overly pretentious with the characters' constant dance around what everyone was actually trying to say. Whether the love triangle between Coco, Balsan, and Boy happened in real life or not, I found this indirect way of speaking and doing things to be very irritating and stereotypical of period pieces. If you can stomach this old form of speaking and handling relationships, perhaps you will enjoy this film. The refrain from saying what anyone really wanted to set up long and irritating conversations that promoted this turn of the century melodrama.
As a side note, when you think of fashion's most famous houses, do you think of Calvin Klein, Giorgio Armani, Ralph Lauren, Gianni Versace? What do all of those have in common? They're male-headed houses ironically for women's fashion. The text at the end of the film reads something to sort of, “She achieved success in a man's world.” This is a great fact to know but there was not enough of this in the film. What was there were these constant looks of disgust or disapproval.
The elements that I did find interesting were her interest in fashion, her relationship with her sister. Multiple times throughout the film, Coco mentions her parents and her time at the orphanage, the story always different than the last time. Did she experience shame over this? Adrienne came in and out of the story and her storyline was not concluded. Her last appearance in the film is at Coco's house/studio
I was not “gripped” by this film in the least, even though whoever wrote the back of the DVD claimed that it would be. The drama that's also touted in the film I found to be very pretentious and uninteresting. Where there was a lot of opportunity to make this film more visually pleasing, the film chose instead to focus on the melodramatic elements of Coco's story instead of playing up her independence and drive to succeed.
Thursday, September 16, 2010
New on Blu: The Book of Eli
| by Allan Stackhouse |
If you're like me, you didn't bother to see this film. It may have interested you at the time of its release but it just wasn't enough to get twelve or however many dollars out of you to see some Denzel. Even with my $12 in tact, Denzel delivers in The Book of Eli. Not only is his acting great but the technical elements were visually stunning as well. I unfortunately had to rent this on DVD because the Blu-ray copies were out at Blockbuster but even displayed with an upscaled image, the cinematography was well done.
In its first eight minutes, there is no dialogue. Nothing but Eli's actions and the disarray and shambles of his surroundings tell a story. There are no people around him except the dead. Everything is barren, indicating some sort of post-Apocalyptic event. He searches in a cautious manner, despite the silence, for something we come to find out are shoes. This dependence on setting, props, costume, and cinematography to set up the story is brilliant. I wish more films would rely more on those features to tell their stories.
Eli as a character is complex - he is a fighter, intelligent, and religious. There is a scene where he slowly drifts into the shadow from a tunnel and, as just a silhouette, quickly dispatches seven armed hijackers. The action is beautiful. Body parts fall and blood flies from Eli's whetted blade. Eli is established early on as an anti-hero. He does not allow the hijackers female member to come with him. At the point when Eli sees a couple getting murdered, he does nothing except recite, “Stay on the path” while the woman screams for her life. This reluctance to assist others despite a small amount of effort to do so asks the viewers if he's really a hero or if his quest is really that important.
The fight scene in the bar was lively on its own with heads being offed left and right but the camera's movement adds another layer of dimension to it instead of this angle after that angle and another angle to feature this move, etc. The camera completes two 360s, mixed with some rotating closer angles, before Eli dispatches the last of his attackers.
The conflict of the film is centered around the book, its value worth taking lives to protect. That importance is unfortunately manifested in a very melodramatic manner in the film's second and third acts. Gary Oldman's Carnegie hurting Solara's mother (Jennifer Beals) to get her to tell him what Eli had? Call me very bored. The action fortunately makes up for it with its revelation that Eli is bullet proof, simply walking away from the gunmen and using no more than 1 or 2 bullets to dispatch each one. The reasoning behind this being holy is acceptable but the revelation that Eli was blind the entire time was too much.
One actor's acting that I did not appreciate was Jennifer Beals'. Her vacuous stare into nothingness and ability to still walk around unaided was so distracting. It wasn't until the end of the film that I realized she was blind. There could have been any number of things to help indicate to the viewer that she was visually impaired but I found the question to nag me like a mosquito. I understand that this was to give Carnegie his final blow but we see it coming and we don't care because it was so poorly constructed in the first place. Gary Oldman's performance is way too over the top. It's abundantly theatrical in comparison to Denzel Washington and Mila Kunis' restraint.
The sepia tones helped to give the sense of a barren atmosphere. It's not explained what exactly has happened to the earth, which is fine since the story is not a dying human race story. The brownish tones indicate some sort of massive pollution or something going wrong with the sun. The visual storytelling in this film was very well done. In one scene, Solara stops in the middle of their walk, still reeling from her attack. Eli comforts her, revealing growth in his character.
I was a little confused as to what the message the film was trying to convey. Was it save the environment? Save religion? I don't know. This ends up being the film's downfall. The story is not particularly exciting. Eli is trying to get to the copy of the bible to the west so it can do what? Save themselves despite the country being laid to waste? There's no actual stakes in this film which is very unfortunate since it was complemented by rich images and terrific action sequences.
Despite my high marks for its technical achievements, I didn't completely enjoy The Book of Eli as a film. The film's entire focus is on the importance of this book which, in the end, did nothing. Talk about anticlimactic. Had the story's choice been to use this anticlimax to highlight a more tangible or visual purpose, I would have understood. The film ends with book being published and placed on a shelf. Okay, so it's just going to sit there? It's not going to be spread to the masses and change the ways of the vagrants in the few and small towns that still exist? This importance completely gets away from the film when it could have easily provided an appropriate conclusion for an otherwise okay film.
As a side note, I adore that Allen and Albert Hughes, two African American brothers, are making a name for themselves with their now second big budget film but if they expect to make films higher than their average 6.8 rating on IMDb, they are going to have to be more aware of the direction of the story.
If you're like me, you didn't bother to see this film. It may have interested you at the time of its release but it just wasn't enough to get twelve or however many dollars out of you to see some Denzel. Even with my $12 in tact, Denzel delivers in The Book of Eli. Not only is his acting great but the technical elements were visually stunning as well. I unfortunately had to rent this on DVD because the Blu-ray copies were out at Blockbuster but even displayed with an upscaled image, the cinematography was well done.
In its first eight minutes, there is no dialogue. Nothing but Eli's actions and the disarray and shambles of his surroundings tell a story. There are no people around him except the dead. Everything is barren, indicating some sort of post-Apocalyptic event. He searches in a cautious manner, despite the silence, for something we come to find out are shoes. This dependence on setting, props, costume, and cinematography to set up the story is brilliant. I wish more films would rely more on those features to tell their stories.
Eli as a character is complex - he is a fighter, intelligent, and religious. There is a scene where he slowly drifts into the shadow from a tunnel and, as just a silhouette, quickly dispatches seven armed hijackers. The action is beautiful. Body parts fall and blood flies from Eli's whetted blade. Eli is established early on as an anti-hero. He does not allow the hijackers female member to come with him. At the point when Eli sees a couple getting murdered, he does nothing except recite, “Stay on the path” while the woman screams for her life. This reluctance to assist others despite a small amount of effort to do so asks the viewers if he's really a hero or if his quest is really that important.
The fight scene in the bar was lively on its own with heads being offed left and right but the camera's movement adds another layer of dimension to it instead of this angle after that angle and another angle to feature this move, etc. The camera completes two 360s, mixed with some rotating closer angles, before Eli dispatches the last of his attackers.
The conflict of the film is centered around the book, its value worth taking lives to protect. That importance is unfortunately manifested in a very melodramatic manner in the film's second and third acts. Gary Oldman's Carnegie hurting Solara's mother (Jennifer Beals) to get her to tell him what Eli had? Call me very bored. The action fortunately makes up for it with its revelation that Eli is bullet proof, simply walking away from the gunmen and using no more than 1 or 2 bullets to dispatch each one. The reasoning behind this being holy is acceptable but the revelation that Eli was blind the entire time was too much.
One actor's acting that I did not appreciate was Jennifer Beals'. Her vacuous stare into nothingness and ability to still walk around unaided was so distracting. It wasn't until the end of the film that I realized she was blind. There could have been any number of things to help indicate to the viewer that she was visually impaired but I found the question to nag me like a mosquito. I understand that this was to give Carnegie his final blow but we see it coming and we don't care because it was so poorly constructed in the first place. Gary Oldman's performance is way too over the top. It's abundantly theatrical in comparison to Denzel Washington and Mila Kunis' restraint.
The sepia tones helped to give the sense of a barren atmosphere. It's not explained what exactly has happened to the earth, which is fine since the story is not a dying human race story. The brownish tones indicate some sort of massive pollution or something going wrong with the sun. The visual storytelling in this film was very well done. In one scene, Solara stops in the middle of their walk, still reeling from her attack. Eli comforts her, revealing growth in his character.
I was a little confused as to what the message the film was trying to convey. Was it save the environment? Save religion? I don't know. This ends up being the film's downfall. The story is not particularly exciting. Eli is trying to get to the copy of the bible to the west so it can do what? Save themselves despite the country being laid to waste? There's no actual stakes in this film which is very unfortunate since it was complemented by rich images and terrific action sequences.
Despite my high marks for its technical achievements, I didn't completely enjoy The Book of Eli as a film. The film's entire focus is on the importance of this book which, in the end, did nothing. Talk about anticlimactic. Had the story's choice been to use this anticlimax to highlight a more tangible or visual purpose, I would have understood. The film ends with book being published and placed on a shelf. Okay, so it's just going to sit there? It's not going to be spread to the masses and change the ways of the vagrants in the few and small towns that still exist? This importance completely gets away from the film when it could have easily provided an appropriate conclusion for an otherwise okay film.
As a side note, I adore that Allen and Albert Hughes, two African American brothers, are making a name for themselves with their now second big budget film but if they expect to make films higher than their average 6.8 rating on IMDb, they are going to have to be more aware of the direction of the story.
Tuesday, September 14, 2010
True Blood: Season 3 Review
| by Allan Stackhouse |
While it's a little bit of a bummer for the last taste of an otherwise great season be the incredibly disappointing season finale, this season of True Blood was fangtastic. See what I did there? Glorious deaths, a slew of new characters, and character origins abounded in this season's tale of some nefarious characters seeking to do harm to our favorite residents of Bon Temps.
A plethora of characters were introduced and many met their “true deaths.” The body count was particularly high this season, much higher than the previous seasons. Also stepped up were the extremely well done special effects, providing very satisfying scenes to characters we hated. Franklin's midair explosion into gallons of blood was absolutely fantastic. Not only did it end the character who terrorized Tara but it was a marvel in traditional special effects. The use of live animals was taken just a smidgen further than a cow or pig from season 2 - in season 3, we got not only wolves but a ton of them graced the screen as well as a panther. How about the makeup on the near-burned to his true death Russell? And the orange glows where he was sprayed with silver? Woo!
What was different from the seasons before was the lack of sex scenes. I hope I'm not coming off as perverted by pointing this out but there were multiple suggestions of the act while not many actual scenes of it. There is less focus on Sookie's telepathy but perhaps that was because she spent the majority of her time around vampires. A welcome return for me were the reunions between Sookie and Tara. It's these unbreakable bonds between the human characters that are the show's core elements, one that can be returned to despite any craziness that falls upon them.
The focus of vampire politics carried through the majority of the season. There are some serious plays for power by Russell, the vampire King of Mississippi. The focus changes after Eric kills the Russell's lover Talbot. Bill and Eric had competing ulterior motives, one always threatening to expose the other. It was a big chess game with Sookie unfortunately caught in the middle. The balance on the scales of the vampire world were tipped to a shocking level as Russell beheads the magister. In an effort to contain Russell, Eric is completely honest to the Authority but it fell upon deaf ears, resulting in the killing a newscaster on live television, a single act that will no doubt shape the future seasons.
The delve into Sookie's origins, which we've been wondering about for two seasons, finally came to a head in a rather anticlimactic manner but the subsequent gradual build up to her significance as faerie (or her faerie blood) completely made up for it. The growing control of her powers happens at exactly the right amount of narrative time. Bill and Sookie's appearance in the ethereal faerie realm delivered in that it constantly asked questions, revealing only painstaking bits of information at a time. The finale's final scene is Sookie going with Claudine into a world possibly deeper than previously seen served as a great setup for season 4. If only the finale wasn't so full of these lengthy scenes for each and every other character, this would have made a bigger impact.
A standout performance was that of Alfre Woodard as Lafayette's mother, Ruby Jean Reynolds. Alfre is such a talented actress and made her character so memorable, despite only appearing in a few scenes. She gave her character so much life for a paranoid schizophrenic while still a loving mother on the inside. A contrast to this is unfortunately Crystal, played by Lindsay Pulsipher. She offers nothing to Ryan Kwanten's expertly played southern bumpkin. Honestly, what's so hard about playing white trash? I haven't seen any of her other work so perhaps she's actually a decent actress but this was really really not her role.
Speaking of Crystal, one storyline that I did not like this season was Jason's. This was a travesty to me since he's one of my favorite characters. He's not providing the same amount of humor that he was in season one and two which was a big let down. Too much effort is being made to develop Jason into an upstanding character. Savior to the inbred werepanthers? Give me a break. What's wrong with having just a normal funny character? The whole character of Crystal seemed a little undercooked and the show could have easily done without this particular story.
Despite the missteps, the season did well in telling a story about a quest for power. Russell, in just the span of one season, established himself as a vampire worthy of fear. He had history with Eric. As always, a king's blind quest for more results in his downfall. As always, Sookie's involvement with things is underestimated, her attackers unaware of her ability to prove herself useful as a human or faerie.
As in the previous seasons, hints at the following seasons are included but there were too many setups and not enough conclusions. As was pointed out to me, half the episode was more of a jump into the next season. I feel like Alan Ball's little prologue message was there to make up for the lack in quality of the last episode. The foreshadowing that was done to previous seasons' standards was in Arlene's possibly evil baby. And what was up with the doll in Hoyt and Jessica's house? *shiver* Witches are going take over Bon Temps and I'm only a little bit excited... okay, a lot.
While it's a little bit of a bummer for the last taste of an otherwise great season be the incredibly disappointing season finale, this season of True Blood was fangtastic. See what I did there? Glorious deaths, a slew of new characters, and character origins abounded in this season's tale of some nefarious characters seeking to do harm to our favorite residents of Bon Temps.
A plethora of characters were introduced and many met their “true deaths.” The body count was particularly high this season, much higher than the previous seasons. Also stepped up were the extremely well done special effects, providing very satisfying scenes to characters we hated. Franklin's midair explosion into gallons of blood was absolutely fantastic. Not only did it end the character who terrorized Tara but it was a marvel in traditional special effects. The use of live animals was taken just a smidgen further than a cow or pig from season 2 - in season 3, we got not only wolves but a ton of them graced the screen as well as a panther. How about the makeup on the near-burned to his true death Russell? And the orange glows where he was sprayed with silver? Woo!
What was different from the seasons before was the lack of sex scenes. I hope I'm not coming off as perverted by pointing this out but there were multiple suggestions of the act while not many actual scenes of it. There is less focus on Sookie's telepathy but perhaps that was because she spent the majority of her time around vampires. A welcome return for me were the reunions between Sookie and Tara. It's these unbreakable bonds between the human characters that are the show's core elements, one that can be returned to despite any craziness that falls upon them.
The focus of vampire politics carried through the majority of the season. There are some serious plays for power by Russell, the vampire King of Mississippi. The focus changes after Eric kills the Russell's lover Talbot. Bill and Eric had competing ulterior motives, one always threatening to expose the other. It was a big chess game with Sookie unfortunately caught in the middle. The balance on the scales of the vampire world were tipped to a shocking level as Russell beheads the magister. In an effort to contain Russell, Eric is completely honest to the Authority but it fell upon deaf ears, resulting in the killing a newscaster on live television, a single act that will no doubt shape the future seasons.
The delve into Sookie's origins, which we've been wondering about for two seasons, finally came to a head in a rather anticlimactic manner but the subsequent gradual build up to her significance as faerie (or her faerie blood) completely made up for it. The growing control of her powers happens at exactly the right amount of narrative time. Bill and Sookie's appearance in the ethereal faerie realm delivered in that it constantly asked questions, revealing only painstaking bits of information at a time. The finale's final scene is Sookie going with Claudine into a world possibly deeper than previously seen served as a great setup for season 4. If only the finale wasn't so full of these lengthy scenes for each and every other character, this would have made a bigger impact.
A standout performance was that of Alfre Woodard as Lafayette's mother, Ruby Jean Reynolds. Alfre is such a talented actress and made her character so memorable, despite only appearing in a few scenes. She gave her character so much life for a paranoid schizophrenic while still a loving mother on the inside. A contrast to this is unfortunately Crystal, played by Lindsay Pulsipher. She offers nothing to Ryan Kwanten's expertly played southern bumpkin. Honestly, what's so hard about playing white trash? I haven't seen any of her other work so perhaps she's actually a decent actress but this was really really not her role.
Speaking of Crystal, one storyline that I did not like this season was Jason's. This was a travesty to me since he's one of my favorite characters. He's not providing the same amount of humor that he was in season one and two which was a big let down. Too much effort is being made to develop Jason into an upstanding character. Savior to the inbred werepanthers? Give me a break. What's wrong with having just a normal funny character? The whole character of Crystal seemed a little undercooked and the show could have easily done without this particular story.
Despite the missteps, the season did well in telling a story about a quest for power. Russell, in just the span of one season, established himself as a vampire worthy of fear. He had history with Eric. As always, a king's blind quest for more results in his downfall. As always, Sookie's involvement with things is underestimated, her attackers unaware of her ability to prove herself useful as a human or faerie.
As in the previous seasons, hints at the following seasons are included but there were too many setups and not enough conclusions. As was pointed out to me, half the episode was more of a jump into the next season. I feel like Alan Ball's little prologue message was there to make up for the lack in quality of the last episode. The foreshadowing that was done to previous seasons' standards was in Arlene's possibly evil baby. And what was up with the doll in Hoyt and Jessica's house? *shiver* Witches are going take over Bon Temps and I'm only a little bit excited... okay, a lot.
Friday, September 10, 2010
New on Blu: Why Did I Get Married Too?
| by Allan Stackhouse |
When you think of black characters, which ones come to mind? A gangster? A drug dealer? Some other stereotype with a comedic twist put on it? You might not even be aware of this stereotype but the significance of Tyler Perry's films begin with his realistic black characters. He's well aware of the existence of the token characters and includes some of them in his films but he also includes regular everyday people who just so happen to have darker skin. I don't think anyone who hasn't taken a black history class or ever paid that much attention to black history sees the significance of Tyler Perry's films, choosing to form their opinion from trailers, guesses or negative review titles, but if he will not do it, who will? Michael Bay? James Cameron? David Lynch? There is no dancing around a coffee table in 2008's Why Did I Get Married? nor in this year's sequel Why Did I Get Married Too? but the film is a solid story about a group of four married couples whose lives may seem perfect but are far from it.
What I like in particular of Why Did I Get Married Too? is first and foremost its characters. The positive representations of black people in this film could so easily be switched out with white people, Native Americans, Jews, you name it. The film doesn't take too much time to explain what the characters do since it is a sequel but the professions of two of them are a doctor and sports commentator. What a big difference to see this group of people in nice homes with happy children instead of in the projects with guns. It is this effort from Tyler Perry to show the world that life for black people isn't just gangs, drugs, and crime that I appreciate and respect. In this film, and all his others, Tyler gets a solid performance out of each of his actors. It saddens that, to this day, tokenism, though not at its previous levels is still around (see Percy Jackson: The Lightning Thief or any other movie that Denzel Washington is not in).
There is such rich situational comedy in this film. One of the funniest moments of the film is when Angela, relaxed and refreshed from a dip in the tropical ocean, is suddenly covered with human ashes. She runs back into the ocean and her screams can be heard in the background as Patricia, Sheila, and Dianne get to know the old married couple who were spreading the ashes. The comedy is also tongue in cheek at times. Angela's elderly white neighbor is a bit of a nosy nag who cannot outright say things to her.
The tension that's provided for these characters is a little peculiar at first. Mike, Sheila's ex-husband in the first film, more than coincidentally appears at the same vacation spot and it is not only annoying for the cast but annoying for me as well. It's narratively too convenient to have this person there for no reason other than to start conflict. The foreshadowing of the conflicts for Tyler Perry's (a director who is really capable of acting and directing, ahem, M. Night) Terry and Sharon Leal's Dianne are first hinted at when Dianne accidentally calls Terry 'Phil.' She comes home with a bouquet of flowers which Terry finds the card stick inside. It's these little snowflakes of conflict that snowball into the drama that builds in the film.
The dramatic lengths that Janet Jackson's Patricia goes through in this film are nothing short of impressive. After violently restraining Patricia during an argument, Gavin burns the album that carried their baby's pictures. She falls into a despair of drinking and smoking, avoiding all contact with everyone. Patricia goes absolutely psychotic when her husband tries to take some of his belongings from their home. She shows up behind Terry and Troy like a serial killer and smashes everything in sight. Janet's natural tone of voice is completely overshadowed by the despair and fury from the destruction she releases upon the house. Tyler Perry had a wonderful subject in Janet Jackson, drawing out a completely memorable and terrifying performance.
I was pleased to see some growth in Jill Scott's acting abilities. I found them to be a little green in Why Did I Get Married?. Angela is absolutely incredible. She's such a hothead and is the one character out of the group that has some of that token sass. I understand its use in other films in that it provides humor, as does in this film, but that being the default depiction of black women is not fair or right. Michael Jai White gives another killer performance. One of my favorite lines of his is “This dude just threw a ficus through a window.” His incredulous face at Angela when she is going off on another rant is priceless. There is expression in his face but also a look of absolute horror in his eyes.
Honestly, I am appalled that this film is rated so poorly on IMDb. It was so refreshing for me to see such a positive portrayal of relationships amongst any people instead of the ridiculous melodrama that the films being marketed to today's youth is being presented as. This is my second favorite Tyler Perry film, right behind Diary of a Mad Black Woman.
5/5
When you think of black characters, which ones come to mind? A gangster? A drug dealer? Some other stereotype with a comedic twist put on it? You might not even be aware of this stereotype but the significance of Tyler Perry's films begin with his realistic black characters. He's well aware of the existence of the token characters and includes some of them in his films but he also includes regular everyday people who just so happen to have darker skin. I don't think anyone who hasn't taken a black history class or ever paid that much attention to black history sees the significance of Tyler Perry's films, choosing to form their opinion from trailers, guesses or negative review titles, but if he will not do it, who will? Michael Bay? James Cameron? David Lynch? There is no dancing around a coffee table in 2008's Why Did I Get Married? nor in this year's sequel Why Did I Get Married Too? but the film is a solid story about a group of four married couples whose lives may seem perfect but are far from it.
What I like in particular of Why Did I Get Married Too? is first and foremost its characters. The positive representations of black people in this film could so easily be switched out with white people, Native Americans, Jews, you name it. The film doesn't take too much time to explain what the characters do since it is a sequel but the professions of two of them are a doctor and sports commentator. What a big difference to see this group of people in nice homes with happy children instead of in the projects with guns. It is this effort from Tyler Perry to show the world that life for black people isn't just gangs, drugs, and crime that I appreciate and respect. In this film, and all his others, Tyler gets a solid performance out of each of his actors. It saddens that, to this day, tokenism, though not at its previous levels is still around (see Percy Jackson: The Lightning Thief or any other movie that Denzel Washington is not in).
There is such rich situational comedy in this film. One of the funniest moments of the film is when Angela, relaxed and refreshed from a dip in the tropical ocean, is suddenly covered with human ashes. She runs back into the ocean and her screams can be heard in the background as Patricia, Sheila, and Dianne get to know the old married couple who were spreading the ashes. The comedy is also tongue in cheek at times. Angela's elderly white neighbor is a bit of a nosy nag who cannot outright say things to her.
The tension that's provided for these characters is a little peculiar at first. Mike, Sheila's ex-husband in the first film, more than coincidentally appears at the same vacation spot and it is not only annoying for the cast but annoying for me as well. It's narratively too convenient to have this person there for no reason other than to start conflict. The foreshadowing of the conflicts for Tyler Perry's (a director who is really capable of acting and directing, ahem, M. Night) Terry and Sharon Leal's Dianne are first hinted at when Dianne accidentally calls Terry 'Phil.' She comes home with a bouquet of flowers which Terry finds the card stick inside. It's these little snowflakes of conflict that snowball into the drama that builds in the film.
The dramatic lengths that Janet Jackson's Patricia goes through in this film are nothing short of impressive. After violently restraining Patricia during an argument, Gavin burns the album that carried their baby's pictures. She falls into a despair of drinking and smoking, avoiding all contact with everyone. Patricia goes absolutely psychotic when her husband tries to take some of his belongings from their home. She shows up behind Terry and Troy like a serial killer and smashes everything in sight. Janet's natural tone of voice is completely overshadowed by the despair and fury from the destruction she releases upon the house. Tyler Perry had a wonderful subject in Janet Jackson, drawing out a completely memorable and terrifying performance.
I was pleased to see some growth in Jill Scott's acting abilities. I found them to be a little green in Why Did I Get Married?. Angela is absolutely incredible. She's such a hothead and is the one character out of the group that has some of that token sass. I understand its use in other films in that it provides humor, as does in this film, but that being the default depiction of black women is not fair or right. Michael Jai White gives another killer performance. One of my favorite lines of his is “This dude just threw a ficus through a window.” His incredulous face at Angela when she is going off on another rant is priceless. There is expression in his face but also a look of absolute horror in his eyes.
Honestly, I am appalled that this film is rated so poorly on IMDb. It was so refreshing for me to see such a positive portrayal of relationships amongst any people instead of the ridiculous melodrama that the films being marketed to today's youth is being presented as. This is my second favorite Tyler Perry film, right behind Diary of a Mad Black Woman.
5/5
Wednesday, September 8, 2010
Machete Don't Text (but it's a good movie)
| by Allan Stackhouse |
If you saw Grindhouse, you are aware of the sheer awesomeness of Machete just as a trailer. Now made into a feature film, Machete has nearly swept the weekend box office, coming in at #2. The over the top hilarity of the trailer continues on in the film. It has the makings of a cheesy B movie but it's written well and has enough money to afford some great special effects and stunts. Robert Rodriguez and Ethan Maniquis directed one heck of a ride with this film while still drawing viewers' attention to a very important issue in this country, one apparently very close to Robert Rodriguez. I will use the term 'immigrants' instead of 'Mexicans' because I know many Hispanic illegal immigrants are not Mexican.
The classification by Robert Rodriguez of this film as a Mexploitation film takes away from the legitimacy of the film's message of being aware of immigrants' roles in this country: dishwashers, day laborers, nurses, chefs, gardeners, you name it. While the action is of course entertaining, the most interesting element of the film was this social commentary on race in America. The inclusion of Mexican immigrants in all their various occupations in this country serves as a reminder to everyone that this particular group of people, regardless of your personal feelings on the matter, is very much ingrained in the function of our country. Extremists who want to keep all immigrants out, immigrants themselves, and everyday American sympathizers all have a voice in this film.
The portrayal of white characters highlighted one particular extremist group of white people. The ridiculousness of these individuals was accurate in my mind. For those white people out there that say this isn't an accurate portrayal of white people, I will say that this is likely not about you. And if you still have a problem with it, you should watch just about any live action film out there to make yourself feel better - many films portray black people as ghetto, Hispanics as servants, and Asians as brainy types. The film's language is often very crude and portrays the people who use this language of very low intelligence.
The violence in the film is on the gratuitous side and judging from the sudden fade outs from many of the scenes, I assume we've got a lot coming to us in the unrated version. By the direction, the violence serves both as a tool to convey humor and drama. The crucifixion of Cheech Marin's Padre is a particularly violent scene that is not intended to be funny. One sequence in particular that got the audience cheering at the show I caught was Machete's hospital escape. He uses the foreshadowed length of a human intestine to secure his escape and it's so over the top that just thinking about it makes me smile.
Michelle Rodriguez stole the show. Besides looking absolutely amazing in the film, she gave a completely convincing performance of Luz, the taco truck lady who secretly helps immigrants. Her transformation at the end of the film when she returns as She was hinted at during the opening credits but was nonetheless amazing. Just by name alone, the cast was jaw-dropping but the performances they gave lived up to each of their long list of credits. Danny Trejo didn't have many lines, just as many heroes in late '80s/early '90s films, but he did play a very convincing character whom I found myself rooting for in the film.
The story itself is fairly basic but having the perspective changed did provide a fresh viewing experience. The only part of this film that I didn't like was the third act. I feel like it was too straightforward and provided no real conflict to the main character, whereas the preceding acts had a lot of impossible situations. The kidnapping of Jessica Alba's Sartana was supposed to provide a sense of urgency in the film but it did not. Had there been a scene in which Steven Segal's Torrez tormented Sartana instead of just depending on the revelation to Machete that , more of the drama would have been heightened.
As much as I love Sin City for reminding today's youth of the wonder noir, I find this film to be Robert Rodriguez' most significant film to date. Despite the violent nature, Machetecame from a place of awareness of one's own race, deliberately pointing out the role of Hispanics in this country and their depiction in film. As a person of Asian descent and a filmmaker, I truly appreciated this as a film as well as drawing attention to a subject that many of today's American minds – young or old - don't realize is an important part of what the USA is made of.
4/5
If you saw Grindhouse, you are aware of the sheer awesomeness of Machete just as a trailer. Now made into a feature film, Machete has nearly swept the weekend box office, coming in at #2. The over the top hilarity of the trailer continues on in the film. It has the makings of a cheesy B movie but it's written well and has enough money to afford some great special effects and stunts. Robert Rodriguez and Ethan Maniquis directed one heck of a ride with this film while still drawing viewers' attention to a very important issue in this country, one apparently very close to Robert Rodriguez. I will use the term 'immigrants' instead of 'Mexicans' because I know many Hispanic illegal immigrants are not Mexican.
The classification by Robert Rodriguez of this film as a Mexploitation film takes away from the legitimacy of the film's message of being aware of immigrants' roles in this country: dishwashers, day laborers, nurses, chefs, gardeners, you name it. While the action is of course entertaining, the most interesting element of the film was this social commentary on race in America. The inclusion of Mexican immigrants in all their various occupations in this country serves as a reminder to everyone that this particular group of people, regardless of your personal feelings on the matter, is very much ingrained in the function of our country. Extremists who want to keep all immigrants out, immigrants themselves, and everyday American sympathizers all have a voice in this film.
The portrayal of white characters highlighted one particular extremist group of white people. The ridiculousness of these individuals was accurate in my mind. For those white people out there that say this isn't an accurate portrayal of white people, I will say that this is likely not about you. And if you still have a problem with it, you should watch just about any live action film out there to make yourself feel better - many films portray black people as ghetto, Hispanics as servants, and Asians as brainy types. The film's language is often very crude and portrays the people who use this language of very low intelligence.
The violence in the film is on the gratuitous side and judging from the sudden fade outs from many of the scenes, I assume we've got a lot coming to us in the unrated version. By the direction, the violence serves both as a tool to convey humor and drama. The crucifixion of Cheech Marin's Padre is a particularly violent scene that is not intended to be funny. One sequence in particular that got the audience cheering at the show I caught was Machete's hospital escape. He uses the foreshadowed length of a human intestine to secure his escape and it's so over the top that just thinking about it makes me smile.
Michelle Rodriguez stole the show. Besides looking absolutely amazing in the film, she gave a completely convincing performance of Luz, the taco truck lady who secretly helps immigrants. Her transformation at the end of the film when she returns as She was hinted at during the opening credits but was nonetheless amazing. Just by name alone, the cast was jaw-dropping but the performances they gave lived up to each of their long list of credits. Danny Trejo didn't have many lines, just as many heroes in late '80s/early '90s films, but he did play a very convincing character whom I found myself rooting for in the film.
The story itself is fairly basic but having the perspective changed did provide a fresh viewing experience. The only part of this film that I didn't like was the third act. I feel like it was too straightforward and provided no real conflict to the main character, whereas the preceding acts had a lot of impossible situations. The kidnapping of Jessica Alba's Sartana was supposed to provide a sense of urgency in the film but it did not. Had there been a scene in which Steven Segal's Torrez tormented Sartana instead of just depending on the revelation to Machete that , more of the drama would have been heightened.
As much as I love Sin City for reminding today's youth of the wonder noir, I find this film to be Robert Rodriguez' most significant film to date. Despite the violent nature, Machetecame from a place of awareness of one's own race, deliberately pointing out the role of Hispanics in this country and their depiction in film. As a person of Asian descent and a filmmaker, I truly appreciated this as a film as well as drawing attention to a subject that many of today's American minds – young or old - don't realize is an important part of what the USA is made of.
4/5
Thursday, September 2, 2010
Black Dynamite = Dynamite
| by Allan Stackhouse |
Spoofs are a funny business. When they try to hard, they turn out like Epic Movie. When they're done with restraint, they turn out like the outrageously hilarious Black Dynamite. Though the film made fun of blaxploitation films of the 1970s. While there are no silver bullets to making a successful spoof, what will help is making a film that can stand on its own with the satirical elements as just the stitching for the garment as opposed to the actual fabric. Take for example Austin Powers - it's a hilarious film whose satirical '70s elements are wound across a cohesive tale of spies and super villains. The shots are not simply showcasing spoof after spoof of this recent funny thing in the news and that horrible movie. Black Dynamite is in the vein of Austin Powers but completely takes it to that next level that most big budget comedies shoot for yet only independent films seem to get (see Sunshine Cleaning).
There are two enormously funny winks in the scene with Michael Jai White's Black Dynamite and Kym Whitley's Honeybee. Kym herself is a master of comedic acting (Friday After Next) and she is a great scene partner for Michael. A boom mic drops into the shot above Michael and it seems like it's there for too long but Michael's glance at it resets the comedic clock. The genius in that is amazing is unspeakably brilliant. Honeybee, in a stressed exclamation to Black Dynamite, places an unlit cigarette to her lips and her subsequent smokeless exhale are simply too funny. The amount of comedy in such a small scene in dialogue, props, and acting all work together to provide such a richly funny scene.
Michael's physical prowess is noteworthy as well: ceiling high kicks, amazing nunchuku skills, and punches strong enough to break through brick*. The action scene following was surprisingly well done. It was pretty inventive to have the camera focusing only on one victim on the ground with bodies flying and falling around him. Black Dynamite's appearance only when that victim tries to escape was something out of a horror movie but made to work in a comedy.
The overacting in every scene was almost too much for me to handle. When on the phone with Black Dynamite, Aunt Billy calls him to inform him of his brother's death. She then sobs for a beat and then proceeds to berate him about a promise he made to his mother. That little purposely placed bit of crying was so hysterically funny that I had to watch it a few times. Overacting is a much better route to go down instead of half-witted pretty faces. Actors who are aware and capable of making their acting sound and look forced to the point where it's composed at the same time are truly skilled.
On the technical side, the film still managed to find a few to spoof itself as well. After struggling to hang up the phone with Aunt Billy, there is an obvious jump cut with Black Dynamite in frame. Also, Black Dynamite's dark skinned brother Jimmy is portrayed in a flashback by a lighter skinned actor – not the longest bit you could grasp the humor out of but still amazingly funny. Long lines of dialogue are kept to a minimum in normal films but Black Dynamite uses these lesser-used opportunities to garner humor from something of which you'd normally get a serious explanation: “This one child, I'll never forget. Poor little bastard was still alive. His little Chinese legs were blown clean off. Still see his little shins and feet hanging from the ceiling fan across the hut. He was charred from his head down to his little Chinese knees. He tried to get up but he fell over when what was left of his right leg broke off.” That's not the entire monologue but you get the picture. Everything is over the top but still pays mind to the film and not just the jokes.
At this point I must declare myself a fan of Michael Jai White. He has consistently proven himself as an actor in more than one genre, across years of films. I suppose it's not exactly by choice but it just came about somehow, just like it did with Gerard Butler. Now, as a screenwriter and producer, I admire Michael's many talents. As a film, Black Dynamite is a gem amongst a sea of lab-made stones. I am in total admiration of its filmmakers and their ability to make such a cohesive and hilarious film.
5/5
P.S. Thanks to Mr. Ben Jones of Sekretagent Productions for the awesome recommendation.
Spoofs are a funny business. When they try to hard, they turn out like Epic Movie. When they're done with restraint, they turn out like the outrageously hilarious Black Dynamite. Though the film made fun of blaxploitation films of the 1970s. While there are no silver bullets to making a successful spoof, what will help is making a film that can stand on its own with the satirical elements as just the stitching for the garment as opposed to the actual fabric. Take for example Austin Powers - it's a hilarious film whose satirical '70s elements are wound across a cohesive tale of spies and super villains. The shots are not simply showcasing spoof after spoof of this recent funny thing in the news and that horrible movie. Black Dynamite is in the vein of Austin Powers but completely takes it to that next level that most big budget comedies shoot for yet only independent films seem to get (see Sunshine Cleaning).
There are two enormously funny winks in the scene with Michael Jai White's Black Dynamite and Kym Whitley's Honeybee. Kym herself is a master of comedic acting (Friday After Next) and she is a great scene partner for Michael. A boom mic drops into the shot above Michael and it seems like it's there for too long but Michael's glance at it resets the comedic clock. The genius in that is amazing is unspeakably brilliant. Honeybee, in a stressed exclamation to Black Dynamite, places an unlit cigarette to her lips and her subsequent smokeless exhale are simply too funny. The amount of comedy in such a small scene in dialogue, props, and acting all work together to provide such a richly funny scene.
Michael's physical prowess is noteworthy as well: ceiling high kicks, amazing nunchuku skills, and punches strong enough to break through brick*. The action scene following was surprisingly well done. It was pretty inventive to have the camera focusing only on one victim on the ground with bodies flying and falling around him. Black Dynamite's appearance only when that victim tries to escape was something out of a horror movie but made to work in a comedy.
The overacting in every scene was almost too much for me to handle. When on the phone with Black Dynamite, Aunt Billy calls him to inform him of his brother's death. She then sobs for a beat and then proceeds to berate him about a promise he made to his mother. That little purposely placed bit of crying was so hysterically funny that I had to watch it a few times. Overacting is a much better route to go down instead of half-witted pretty faces. Actors who are aware and capable of making their acting sound and look forced to the point where it's composed at the same time are truly skilled.
On the technical side, the film still managed to find a few to spoof itself as well. After struggling to hang up the phone with Aunt Billy, there is an obvious jump cut with Black Dynamite in frame. Also, Black Dynamite's dark skinned brother Jimmy is portrayed in a flashback by a lighter skinned actor – not the longest bit you could grasp the humor out of but still amazingly funny. Long lines of dialogue are kept to a minimum in normal films but Black Dynamite uses these lesser-used opportunities to garner humor from something of which you'd normally get a serious explanation: “This one child, I'll never forget. Poor little bastard was still alive. His little Chinese legs were blown clean off. Still see his little shins and feet hanging from the ceiling fan across the hut. He was charred from his head down to his little Chinese knees. He tried to get up but he fell over when what was left of his right leg broke off.” That's not the entire monologue but you get the picture. Everything is over the top but still pays mind to the film and not just the jokes.
At this point I must declare myself a fan of Michael Jai White. He has consistently proven himself as an actor in more than one genre, across years of films. I suppose it's not exactly by choice but it just came about somehow, just like it did with Gerard Butler. Now, as a screenwriter and producer, I admire Michael's many talents. As a film, Black Dynamite is a gem amongst a sea of lab-made stones. I am in total admiration of its filmmakers and their ability to make such a cohesive and hilarious film.
5/5
P.S. Thanks to Mr. Ben Jones of Sekretagent Productions for the awesome recommendation.
Friday, August 27, 2010
New on Blu: Dorian Gray
| by Allan Stackhouse |
I can't seem to pick any winners this week. Dorian Gray is another remade for modern audiences film whose story doesn't stand the test of time. Maybe in 1890, the story seemed fresh and shocking but today it is antiquated and boring. I chose to rent this and Repo Men and unfortunately neither could hold my interest.
Even if you enjoy period pieces, which I do not, I do not think you will enjoy this film. And if you're just interested in watching Ben Barnes for two hours, there isn't enough story to enjoy him in. The decay of Dorian's youth and character has no visual or narrative appeal. So this guy can't age, so f*cking what? The constant dialogue, which was not at all interesting, felt like I was watching the recording of a play. Conversation after conversation takes place over pretentious this and pretentious that.
The film attempts to break up the dialogue by over-sexualizing Dorian's character, one change to modernize the film. That doesn't aid the film in making it more interesting; if anything, it provides a momentary distraction to the fact that nothing is actually happening. The ambiguity of Dorian's sexuality might appear interesting on paper but it is not on film, especially for today's audiences. So he's making out with a guy, big deal. The orgy scenes make this nothing more than a stuffy soft core porn.
The curse on Dorian is far too ambiguous to establish itself as the main conflict of the film. That Lord Henry Watton inadvertently sold Dorian's soul while having a simple conversation with him is not believable in the least. This was one key opportunity for the screenwriter to give flesh to the key event that sets up the rest of the film. I'm sure it's a stretch in the book and for no one, in over one hundred years, to be able to flesh out this particular event that is supposed to set the pace for the rest of the film is absolutely ridiculous. For something like that to just slip through the cracks after rewrite after rewrite is incredibly frustrating.
The special effects in this film were abhorrent. The fake blood looked like red water. Call me an expert on blood but obviously fake blood is pathetic. It is the one thing in a film that can communicate horror and violence to the viewer and for it to look so awful is so substandard, especially today. I can walk to any Halloween store and buy a bottle of fake blood or I could just order some online.
I suppose one of the film's redeeming qualities is Ben Barnes' physical acting. When Dorian first arrives in London, Ben's shoulders are hunched forward, conveying his shyness and hesitancy to meet these interesting strangers. His body language is less noticeable in the scenes after Dorian sells his soul, relying on nudity to fill the gap left by the lack of story. Regarding the other elements in this film, the cinematography looked very direct-to-dvdish. The costumes were decent and the interior lighting could have used a lot of work.
After seeing this, I honestly don't know if gothic horror can work for today's audiences. If Dorian is an example of one that is supposed to work, I'd bet that it's over for gothic horror. My taste in horror doesn't sway to Jason or Freddy but I certainly did not find this film enjoyable in any respect. Perhaps it's fit for sixth graders learning about gothic horror but it is definitely not fit for wide audiences.
I can't seem to pick any winners this week. Dorian Gray is another remade for modern audiences film whose story doesn't stand the test of time. Maybe in 1890, the story seemed fresh and shocking but today it is antiquated and boring. I chose to rent this and Repo Men and unfortunately neither could hold my interest.
Even if you enjoy period pieces, which I do not, I do not think you will enjoy this film. And if you're just interested in watching Ben Barnes for two hours, there isn't enough story to enjoy him in. The decay of Dorian's youth and character has no visual or narrative appeal. So this guy can't age, so f*cking what? The constant dialogue, which was not at all interesting, felt like I was watching the recording of a play. Conversation after conversation takes place over pretentious this and pretentious that.
The film attempts to break up the dialogue by over-sexualizing Dorian's character, one change to modernize the film. That doesn't aid the film in making it more interesting; if anything, it provides a momentary distraction to the fact that nothing is actually happening. The ambiguity of Dorian's sexuality might appear interesting on paper but it is not on film, especially for today's audiences. So he's making out with a guy, big deal. The orgy scenes make this nothing more than a stuffy soft core porn.
The curse on Dorian is far too ambiguous to establish itself as the main conflict of the film. That Lord Henry Watton inadvertently sold Dorian's soul while having a simple conversation with him is not believable in the least. This was one key opportunity for the screenwriter to give flesh to the key event that sets up the rest of the film. I'm sure it's a stretch in the book and for no one, in over one hundred years, to be able to flesh out this particular event that is supposed to set the pace for the rest of the film is absolutely ridiculous. For something like that to just slip through the cracks after rewrite after rewrite is incredibly frustrating.
The special effects in this film were abhorrent. The fake blood looked like red water. Call me an expert on blood but obviously fake blood is pathetic. It is the one thing in a film that can communicate horror and violence to the viewer and for it to look so awful is so substandard, especially today. I can walk to any Halloween store and buy a bottle of fake blood or I could just order some online.
I suppose one of the film's redeeming qualities is Ben Barnes' physical acting. When Dorian first arrives in London, Ben's shoulders are hunched forward, conveying his shyness and hesitancy to meet these interesting strangers. His body language is less noticeable in the scenes after Dorian sells his soul, relying on nudity to fill the gap left by the lack of story. Regarding the other elements in this film, the cinematography looked very direct-to-dvdish. The costumes were decent and the interior lighting could have used a lot of work.
After seeing this, I honestly don't know if gothic horror can work for today's audiences. If Dorian is an example of one that is supposed to work, I'd bet that it's over for gothic horror. My taste in horror doesn't sway to Jason or Freddy but I certainly did not find this film enjoyable in any respect. Perhaps it's fit for sixth graders learning about gothic horror but it is definitely not fit for wide audiences.
Thursday, August 26, 2010
New on Blu (but don't bother): Repo Men
| by Allan Stackhouse |
What is so hard about making a futuristic movie? Why I ever thought this was worth renting is absolutely mind boggling. If there ever were a film to deserve to flop this year it would be Repo Men. Jude Law stars as Remy, an employee of The Union, a company who appears good in their distribution of artificial organs. These artificial organs are very expensive so everyone must buy them on credit. Everyone ends up defaulting on their payments and Remy and his associates from The Union must go in and repossess them, effectively killing those people.
I don't want to sound too repetitive so I'll keep this one short...
The film's premise is to entertain the notion of a ton of people needing organ transplants in the future. Why? Medicine is constantly improving and to not explain why all of a sudden everyone's organs are failing is foolish. And despite this surge in organ failure, society is still in tact to the point of developing new technologies. That is fundamentally flawed and I do not buy it for one second. In theory, asking viewers to accept one far out idea isn't anything new but the idea must not have something in it that defeats itself. The concept of organ repossession has no feet to stand on without a reason why.
After the inherently flawed concept, the rest of the film completely falls apart. The characters in this film are worthless. Remy, having murdered a ton of people, having a change of heart, no pun intended? Give me a f*cking break. Him finding redemption in Beth only perpetuates the ridiculousness of his character. Were Remy simply a long distance killer by sniper rifle or bombs, I could see him rethinking his career but he was the kind to cut people open and leave them dying where they lay. I honestly could not have cared less for any of them.
If you insist on still watching this film, I assure you that the twist at the end provides no redemption. The revelation at the end that Jake rigged the defibrillator was predictable and not at all interesting.
This film cost $32 million to make and where that money went, I have no clue. I suppose I must admire Miguel Sapochnik's leap from storyboard artist to feature length film but this film is terrible. It felt like such a pathetic attempt to be an assassin movie in the guise of a half baked futuristic concept. What's even more infuriating is that this film apparently copied Darren Lynn Bousman's Repo! The Genetic Opera. Darren is no darling of the silver screen (Saw II, III, IV) but no one deserves to have their ideas bastardized. For something this awful and mainstream to have ripped off a peer's work is shameful but to not even have done anything to be proud of is utterly revolting.
I can't, in good conscience, further waste your time analyzing the rest of the worthless elements of this film. Go watch something else.
What is so hard about making a futuristic movie? Why I ever thought this was worth renting is absolutely mind boggling. If there ever were a film to deserve to flop this year it would be Repo Men. Jude Law stars as Remy, an employee of The Union, a company who appears good in their distribution of artificial organs. These artificial organs are very expensive so everyone must buy them on credit. Everyone ends up defaulting on their payments and Remy and his associates from The Union must go in and repossess them, effectively killing those people.
I don't want to sound too repetitive so I'll keep this one short...
The film's premise is to entertain the notion of a ton of people needing organ transplants in the future. Why? Medicine is constantly improving and to not explain why all of a sudden everyone's organs are failing is foolish. And despite this surge in organ failure, society is still in tact to the point of developing new technologies. That is fundamentally flawed and I do not buy it for one second. In theory, asking viewers to accept one far out idea isn't anything new but the idea must not have something in it that defeats itself. The concept of organ repossession has no feet to stand on without a reason why.
After the inherently flawed concept, the rest of the film completely falls apart. The characters in this film are worthless. Remy, having murdered a ton of people, having a change of heart, no pun intended? Give me a f*cking break. Him finding redemption in Beth only perpetuates the ridiculousness of his character. Were Remy simply a long distance killer by sniper rifle or bombs, I could see him rethinking his career but he was the kind to cut people open and leave them dying where they lay. I honestly could not have cared less for any of them.
If you insist on still watching this film, I assure you that the twist at the end provides no redemption. The revelation at the end that Jake rigged the defibrillator was predictable and not at all interesting.
This film cost $32 million to make and where that money went, I have no clue. I suppose I must admire Miguel Sapochnik's leap from storyboard artist to feature length film but this film is terrible. It felt like such a pathetic attempt to be an assassin movie in the guise of a half baked futuristic concept. What's even more infuriating is that this film apparently copied Darren Lynn Bousman's Repo! The Genetic Opera. Darren is no darling of the silver screen (Saw II, III, IV) but no one deserves to have their ideas bastardized. For something this awful and mainstream to have ripped off a peer's work is shameful but to not even have done anything to be proud of is utterly revolting.
I can't, in good conscience, further waste your time analyzing the rest of the worthless elements of this film. Go watch something else.
Monday, August 23, 2010
New on Blu: The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo
| by Allan Stackhouse |
For a while, I couldn't stop hearing about hearing about The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo. Remake this, casting that, etc. Now, with its recent release to Blu-ray, I was able to see for what all the hoopla was. The title is a bit of a mouthful (try it in Swedish) and the tattoo doesn't really have anything to do with the film. The film's original title is translated to “Men Who Hate Women” which is largely telling of the sentiment of some of the characters in this film. Despite the essentially non-descriptive title, the film provides an exciting foray into the mystery of what happened to Harriet Vanger.
There are some very interesting characters in this film. First, Lisbeth Salander. She's one tough cookie – not only in her leather clad appearance but also in her mind and spirit. She takes on a whole group of thugs in a subway station all by herself. Quite unexpectedly, her probation officer forces her to perform fellatio on him so she can be given money for a new computer after the thugs broke her old one. I questioned her portrayal as a positive character based on her willingness to be attacked again by Bjurman. The writer tricks us into believing this but then reveals after the attack that she was filming the entire event the whole time. I absolutely adore this trick because there is nothing in the script that leads us to think she is going to set him up. This sequence truly shows her spirit and her will to survive. It may be to an extreme length but her strength visually manifests in the plot and the vengeance she brings down upon her attacker.
Mikael Blomkvist is also an interesting character. He's the other lead of the film and I'm tempted to say that he has more screen time than Lisbeth, which muddies the reason for the title. After being sentenced to jail for six months for libel, Mikael willingly agrees to help Henrik Vanger in his quest to find out who killed his niece, Harriet. I questioned this motivation because the character doesn't need any money. He is only proposed a curious offer, the rewards of which he doesn't appear to be desperate for since the conversation with his ex-wife makes no mention of financial consequences.
Further regarding the casting, I admire that this film casted its characters based solely on their acting skill. I'm not at all saying that it's better to cast normal looking people who can act but it certainly is a better option than casting Justin Timberlake.
The beginning of the third act occurs right on time at exactly the 1:49 mark. One of the film's best assets is its story with its major twists and turns and the ending delivers. In this act, we discover that Martin is the killer of the women whom Harriet wrote down. This is a wonderful narrative turn though because it reminds us, as the viewers, that we are not seeking the murderer of these women who Harriet identified, we are seeking Harriet.
Even in the revelation of the killer, the expected exposition is short. Martin is a frightening character because he does not linger in the moment of our hero's death, like in the original Batman series. Instead, he beats Mikael, explains his actions in a concise manner over scenes of him committing these acts, and proceeds to hoist Martin up by his neck to strangle him. In a film of lesser quality, Martin would have recited line after line of explanations and conclusions and reasons, etc. The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo is not so sheepish; it gets to the point and moves on. It returns to the important conflict of the history: finding Harriet, which coincidentally is mentioned VERY briefly by Martin. The script does not point repeatedly point things out and expects us to be paying attention and not need reminders with all the lights of Las Vegas.
Regarding the American remake, I do understand the reason for its creation and I will give it my stamp of approval, unlike insert horror movie remake here. I'm sure the translator did an excellent job but the speed of speech did lose me at times. I found myself getting lost in the subtitles especially since I don't know any Swedish at all. An American remake will reach a much wider audience and will hopefully shave off some of the length of the unnecessary length of the film. Who knows if the film will actually be good but I understand the appeal ($$$) of bringing the story to a wider audience.
I've been hearing that Noomi Rapace has been catching everyone in Hollywood's attention. I cannot say from one film, despite her great performance, whether she is worthy of all this attention but I did like what she did her character.
As a film, I'd give this a four out of five. The story had some narrative twists that I'd normally expect to be lost or watered down from the change of medium. The film is somewhat indulgent with its 152 minute runtime (180 on the extended cut!) but I really enjoyed the film. I did have to take a break (or four) since the film was a heavier drama but this film really delivers in storytelling, characters, and heightened suspense. If there are fans of the book, I assume this length is to preserve as much of the 600 page book's events and structure as possible. I am thrilled to have seen this and am very excited to see the other two films in the series.
For a while, I couldn't stop hearing about hearing about The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo. Remake this, casting that, etc. Now, with its recent release to Blu-ray, I was able to see for what all the hoopla was. The title is a bit of a mouthful (try it in Swedish) and the tattoo doesn't really have anything to do with the film. The film's original title is translated to “Men Who Hate Women” which is largely telling of the sentiment of some of the characters in this film. Despite the essentially non-descriptive title, the film provides an exciting foray into the mystery of what happened to Harriet Vanger.
There are some very interesting characters in this film. First, Lisbeth Salander. She's one tough cookie – not only in her leather clad appearance but also in her mind and spirit. She takes on a whole group of thugs in a subway station all by herself. Quite unexpectedly, her probation officer forces her to perform fellatio on him so she can be given money for a new computer after the thugs broke her old one. I questioned her portrayal as a positive character based on her willingness to be attacked again by Bjurman. The writer tricks us into believing this but then reveals after the attack that she was filming the entire event the whole time. I absolutely adore this trick because there is nothing in the script that leads us to think she is going to set him up. This sequence truly shows her spirit and her will to survive. It may be to an extreme length but her strength visually manifests in the plot and the vengeance she brings down upon her attacker.
Mikael Blomkvist is also an interesting character. He's the other lead of the film and I'm tempted to say that he has more screen time than Lisbeth, which muddies the reason for the title. After being sentenced to jail for six months for libel, Mikael willingly agrees to help Henrik Vanger in his quest to find out who killed his niece, Harriet. I questioned this motivation because the character doesn't need any money. He is only proposed a curious offer, the rewards of which he doesn't appear to be desperate for since the conversation with his ex-wife makes no mention of financial consequences.
Further regarding the casting, I admire that this film casted its characters based solely on their acting skill. I'm not at all saying that it's better to cast normal looking people who can act but it certainly is a better option than casting Justin Timberlake.
The beginning of the third act occurs right on time at exactly the 1:49 mark. One of the film's best assets is its story with its major twists and turns and the ending delivers. In this act, we discover that Martin is the killer of the women whom Harriet wrote down. This is a wonderful narrative turn though because it reminds us, as the viewers, that we are not seeking the murderer of these women who Harriet identified, we are seeking Harriet.
Even in the revelation of the killer, the expected exposition is short. Martin is a frightening character because he does not linger in the moment of our hero's death, like in the original Batman series. Instead, he beats Mikael, explains his actions in a concise manner over scenes of him committing these acts, and proceeds to hoist Martin up by his neck to strangle him. In a film of lesser quality, Martin would have recited line after line of explanations and conclusions and reasons, etc. The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo is not so sheepish; it gets to the point and moves on. It returns to the important conflict of the history: finding Harriet, which coincidentally is mentioned VERY briefly by Martin. The script does not point repeatedly point things out and expects us to be paying attention and not need reminders with all the lights of Las Vegas.
Regarding the American remake, I do understand the reason for its creation and I will give it my stamp of approval, unlike insert horror movie remake here. I'm sure the translator did an excellent job but the speed of speech did lose me at times. I found myself getting lost in the subtitles especially since I don't know any Swedish at all. An American remake will reach a much wider audience and will hopefully shave off some of the length of the unnecessary length of the film. Who knows if the film will actually be good but I understand the appeal ($$$) of bringing the story to a wider audience.
I've been hearing that Noomi Rapace has been catching everyone in Hollywood's attention. I cannot say from one film, despite her great performance, whether she is worthy of all this attention but I did like what she did her character.
As a film, I'd give this a four out of five. The story had some narrative twists that I'd normally expect to be lost or watered down from the change of medium. The film is somewhat indulgent with its 152 minute runtime (180 on the extended cut!) but I really enjoyed the film. I did have to take a break (or four) since the film was a heavier drama but this film really delivers in storytelling, characters, and heightened suspense. If there are fans of the book, I assume this length is to preserve as much of the 600 page book's events and structure as possible. I am thrilled to have seen this and am very excited to see the other two films in the series.
Tuesday, August 17, 2010
Greek Gods Redux: Clash of the Titans
| by Allan Stackhouse |
Clash of the Titans makes two new films I've seen this year about the Greek gods. Both, rated PG-13 or less, provide moderately entertaining viewing experiences. The film came out in April of this year, well into the time when everyone was still raving about Avatar. This overexposure of Sam Worthington, who I actually like, turned me off from both films. But Ralph Fiennes and Liam Neeson in one film? I can barely remember these two people are in fact TWO different people so watching both in one was a bit of a challenge. Regardless of the challenges and preconceptions I may have had, the film was decent and worth catching.
I'm a fan of Sam Worthington. Ever since the Australian crocodile film Rogue in 2007 and Terminator: Salvation in 2009, I've grown to admire Sam's dramatic prowess. In Clash of the Titans, he plays Perseus, another character who needs to save the future, humankind, alienkind, you know the drill. The similarities in characters must have made the performances easier for him which is quite obviously a bit of typecasting. Typecasting can be looked at as a good thing or a bad thing; it all really depends on your feelings toward the actor. As far as Sam, I enjoy his heroic performances. For Sandra Bullock, I do not enjoy her endless bag of pathetic characters seeking redemption through the procurement of a male suitor. Thus, Sam's casting in this film provided a heroic portrayal of Perseus. Perhaps it was not as ethnically correct as Harry Hamlin with his beach tanned skin and buzzed hair but he still gave a good portrayal and performance nonetheless.
I suppose from the trailer, I was given the impression that the entirety of the film would be shot on a green screen. To my surprise, the majority of the film was shot on elaborate sets and locations such as the Maspalomas dunes, the Canary Islands, and Wales. The majority of the locations weren't particularly impressive or expansive but they served the story in helping to convey some sort of journey. The pillar upon which Andromeda was to be sacrificed was impressive. The exterior and interiors of Argos were all designed very well too yet they were lit so poorly. I was not at all taken by it. Every scene looked like the inside of a Sears.
The fight scenes, thankfully were kept in wide shots, which Louis Letterier thankfully knows how to do. I think he's trying to break out of the fill-in director image and I don't know if he's done it yet with this film (especially since The Incredible Hulk was a let down) but he's done a decent job in this film. The film is somewhat a revenge story. Normally, I like these films to be rated R and extremely violent but the film does what it can. It had some throwbacks to old American action films and I appreciated them. The stereotypical camaraderie speech made me laugh. And you can't have an American action film without one liners. Having waited to screen this film at home, I avoided the 3D conversion which, according to Louis, was made to improve the experience yet still comes off as gimmicky since it clearly sought to ride Avatar's coat tails.
The stakes in this remake were raised with newer technology. CGI may still not be the greatest but at least Louis was smart enough to keep the shots short during the action. I suppose the CGI scorpions were lightyears ahead of whatever form of technology used in the original. In the dessert sequence where the scorpions were attacking Perseus and his group, the scorpions perform a wide variety of actions and angles but the obvious blend of CGI and live action was at least skirted around with shorter cuts. This is instantly appreciated because I cannot stand being taken out of a movie at any point point, especially its action sequences. Bad CGI is a major culprit of that. (See Blade 3 for examples.)
There's a nice bit of odds and ends that give the film some sparks. Nicholas Hoult's natural speaking voice and skin color are preferable to the fake and bake and atrocious American accent in A Single Man. The film also reunites Tony and Effie from the UK series Skins. The cute mechanical owl from the original film makes a nice cameo. As far as the battle of the "Release the Kraken," I'm going to have to give it to Bill Nighy. It was a pretty blah line delivery from Zeus.
Having a slight aversion to things that look terrible, I did not care to watch the original Clash of the Titans. Even without more recent memories of the original, I prefer its newest incarnation. While not a marvel in modern filmmaking, the film is far from terrible. I think these stories deserve the rated R treatment. However, this one might be good for some kids. Maybe a little on the forgettable side but it's at least entertaining. Nothing truly spectacular happens in the film but this is not necessarily a completely bad thing. I don't know how good I would have felt paying to see this but watching it at home was a nice way to spend a couple of hours of my weekend.
Clash of the Titans makes two new films I've seen this year about the Greek gods. Both, rated PG-13 or less, provide moderately entertaining viewing experiences. The film came out in April of this year, well into the time when everyone was still raving about Avatar. This overexposure of Sam Worthington, who I actually like, turned me off from both films. But Ralph Fiennes and Liam Neeson in one film? I can barely remember these two people are in fact TWO different people so watching both in one was a bit of a challenge. Regardless of the challenges and preconceptions I may have had, the film was decent and worth catching.
I'm a fan of Sam Worthington. Ever since the Australian crocodile film Rogue in 2007 and Terminator: Salvation in 2009, I've grown to admire Sam's dramatic prowess. In Clash of the Titans, he plays Perseus, another character who needs to save the future, humankind, alienkind, you know the drill. The similarities in characters must have made the performances easier for him which is quite obviously a bit of typecasting. Typecasting can be looked at as a good thing or a bad thing; it all really depends on your feelings toward the actor. As far as Sam, I enjoy his heroic performances. For Sandra Bullock, I do not enjoy her endless bag of pathetic characters seeking redemption through the procurement of a male suitor. Thus, Sam's casting in this film provided a heroic portrayal of Perseus. Perhaps it was not as ethnically correct as Harry Hamlin with his beach tanned skin and buzzed hair but he still gave a good portrayal and performance nonetheless.
I suppose from the trailer, I was given the impression that the entirety of the film would be shot on a green screen. To my surprise, the majority of the film was shot on elaborate sets and locations such as the Maspalomas dunes, the Canary Islands, and Wales. The majority of the locations weren't particularly impressive or expansive but they served the story in helping to convey some sort of journey. The pillar upon which Andromeda was to be sacrificed was impressive. The exterior and interiors of Argos were all designed very well too yet they were lit so poorly. I was not at all taken by it. Every scene looked like the inside of a Sears.
The fight scenes, thankfully were kept in wide shots, which Louis Letterier thankfully knows how to do. I think he's trying to break out of the fill-in director image and I don't know if he's done it yet with this film (especially since The Incredible Hulk was a let down) but he's done a decent job in this film. The film is somewhat a revenge story. Normally, I like these films to be rated R and extremely violent but the film does what it can. It had some throwbacks to old American action films and I appreciated them. The stereotypical camaraderie speech made me laugh. And you can't have an American action film without one liners. Having waited to screen this film at home, I avoided the 3D conversion which, according to Louis, was made to improve the experience yet still comes off as gimmicky since it clearly sought to ride Avatar's coat tails.
The stakes in this remake were raised with newer technology. CGI may still not be the greatest but at least Louis was smart enough to keep the shots short during the action. I suppose the CGI scorpions were lightyears ahead of whatever form of technology used in the original. In the dessert sequence where the scorpions were attacking Perseus and his group, the scorpions perform a wide variety of actions and angles but the obvious blend of CGI and live action was at least skirted around with shorter cuts. This is instantly appreciated because I cannot stand being taken out of a movie at any point point, especially its action sequences. Bad CGI is a major culprit of that. (See Blade 3 for examples.)
There's a nice bit of odds and ends that give the film some sparks. Nicholas Hoult's natural speaking voice and skin color are preferable to the fake and bake and atrocious American accent in A Single Man. The film also reunites Tony and Effie from the UK series Skins. The cute mechanical owl from the original film makes a nice cameo. As far as the battle of the "Release the Kraken," I'm going to have to give it to Bill Nighy. It was a pretty blah line delivery from Zeus.
Having a slight aversion to things that look terrible, I did not care to watch the original Clash of the Titans. Even without more recent memories of the original, I prefer its newest incarnation. While not a marvel in modern filmmaking, the film is far from terrible. I think these stories deserve the rated R treatment. However, this one might be good for some kids. Maybe a little on the forgettable side but it's at least entertaining. Nothing truly spectacular happens in the film but this is not necessarily a completely bad thing. I don't know how good I would have felt paying to see this but watching it at home was a nice way to spend a couple of hours of my weekend.
Friday, August 13, 2010
Tom Ford's Newest Line: A Single Man
| by Allan Stackhouse |
I had a feeling that I should have just went ahead and bought A Single Man but no, I played it safe and clogged my Blockbuster queue. Tom Ford, who hasn’t even done a short film, has just schooled every gay director that made a film about his or her own kind.
Much unlike The Wolfman and Eclipse, there is an intelligent use of color. Upon finding something that triggers a memory of Jim in George, the picture is flooded with color. The gray and washed out pallets that are representative of George's despair blooms with warm flesh tones and a brilliant scheme. When Jennifer, the little girl, approaches George at the bank, the camera slowly pans up to reveal Jennifer's bright blue dress, ribbons, and eyes. The lead-in to this particular sequence is also visually captivating: an overhead shot of George going through his bag to find his identification while his gun clearly protrudes in the bag's side pocket. The gun is clean so even with the dark brown case over a bland bank's scheme, it stands out. And for the reverse shot to Jennifer, the pigment in George's face becomes so rich and alive. Dialogue is the default indicator of emotion but color can serve the same purpose. It is so rarely intelligently used at the level of this film.
The film was not so bold as to make sad scenes black and white. Tom Ford knows this too well. This attention to color and knowledge of its importance in human expression stems no doubt from Tom's longstanding career in high fashion. Instead of tailoring, fabrics, and dyes, Tom designs with angles, focuses, and color.
Not as pleasing to my senses is Nicholas Hoult's American accent. Nicholas is an amazing actor with his own natural accent but with his California accent, the emphasis on certain syllables made his performance less than believable. Perhaps Tom saw something in Nicholas as a director that I do not but an actual American actor or at least an actor who could more accurately speak with any American accent would have provided a much better scene partner to Colin Firth. In comparison to Matthew Goode's solid lack of any of his own English accent as Jim, I found the character of Kenny (Nicholas) very protrusive. Another unpleasant accent was that of Julianne Moore. This woman just was not born to do accents. She might look nice in a silk or satin gowns but her accents are simply atrocious. She mixes up the different kinds of English and Australian accents. Do not get me started on her Boston accents from 30 Rock. If I were from any place where she is drawing the accent from, I would be either embarassed or bowled over in laughter.
Just as unpleasing to my senses are the fake tans on Colin Firth and Nicholas Hoult. Their fair English skin looks absolutely ridiculous in the orange hues made by spray tans. Perhaps bed tanning would have been a more time consuming option but it was awful to the point that it took me out of the movie for a bit. As Kenny strips to convince George to swim in the ocean with him, even in the darkness the fakeness of the appearance of their skin color was very distracting. In all the day scenes where Kenny is speaking to George, I was just as equally distracted.
Among the wonderful things in A Single Man is its conflict. George is grief stricken from the death of his boyfriend Jim. In a hauntingly beautiful scene, George removes the gun from his wardrobe, examines it, and brings it to work with him. The conflict at that point could be called soft but if we’re really paying attention, we as viewers know that George is still planning to kill himself. Just to fully make the audience aware of his intentions, the gun makes a second appearance when George begins to remove it from his bag while in his car. Sadness from the loss of a spouse is communicable in any language and the fact that this particular relationship is between two men makes no difference in the story. Jim and could have easily been female characters and the story would not have been any less good. The fact that Jim and Kenny were men does add a certain element to the film since there are so few films that will feature these types of relationships.
The cinematography in this film is so enveloping in even just the simplest of shots. As George sits in his chair after being informed of Jim’s death, the camera picks up the red in Colin Firth’s face. His skin, in such a close shot, manages to provide a soft contrast from the fabric of the chair. Returning to the gun scene, these objects are treated as things of beauty. It’s not enough that we just see these objects. They are shot in a fashion that takes note of the detail and importance of these objects, people, location, etc.
Those who don't recognize Carlos, the prostitute at the liquor store, might not think anything of him but this is a nice bit of reverse sexism. Female super models have been cast in films just for their faces for many years and I'm sure it was a purposeful wink at women and gay men to have a male super model simply there to be pleasing to the eye. He, oddly enough, said some of the most memorable lines in the film: Sometimes awful things have their own kind of beauty. and Lovers are like buses, you just have to wait a little while and another one comes along.
Besides nice lines and use of color, the film has nice visual storytelling. After going to the bank, George returns home and neatly lays his affairs out. His instruction on a piece of paper reads, “Tie in a windsor knot.” That is significant in that it pokes fun of the pretense in fashion but also visually telling of this man's despair from Jim's death and desire to end his life.
The single (ha) flaw of A Single Man is the ending; unfortunately, that's a big deal. To make it worse, it's not a small flaw. The ending manifests itself in a horrible exposition. Had the film ended just two minutes prior, it would have been amazing. I know this is a flaw because having gone to film school, this was a common thing that students, including myself, made. It was an amateur mistake, one that I was not expecting Tom to make. Everything before this travesty of an expository ending was brilliant in terms of color, cinematography, and story. This providing the last taste in my mouth is tragic. George's voice overed speech was a cop out. The drama was never heightened to any particular point and if you're going to end a dramatic movie like that, which is not uncommon, you do not cheat the audience by telling them the signifance of the scene. Instead, why not challenge them with a cliffhanger or an open ending that would leave the audience to make an ending in our own minds. The end did provide some irony in that just upon his decision to not kill himself, he has a heart attack. Perhaps narratively, this worked out. In the book, it might have worked extremely well for the last chapter or two to have page after page of George's last thoughts but that does not work in this film.
Tom Ford, in an absolutely brilliant first venture in the world of film, has succeeded with A Single Man. I am crushed that the ending was such a blatant display of amateurism. What saves the film is the brilliant use of color, cinematography, and story. I highly recommend this film to anyone who is a fan of cinematography or tragedies. If you can look past the ending, which I am growing to do, you may enjoy the film even more than I have.
I had a feeling that I should have just went ahead and bought A Single Man but no, I played it safe and clogged my Blockbuster queue. Tom Ford, who hasn’t even done a short film, has just schooled every gay director that made a film about his or her own kind.
Much unlike The Wolfman and Eclipse, there is an intelligent use of color. Upon finding something that triggers a memory of Jim in George, the picture is flooded with color. The gray and washed out pallets that are representative of George's despair blooms with warm flesh tones and a brilliant scheme. When Jennifer, the little girl, approaches George at the bank, the camera slowly pans up to reveal Jennifer's bright blue dress, ribbons, and eyes. The lead-in to this particular sequence is also visually captivating: an overhead shot of George going through his bag to find his identification while his gun clearly protrudes in the bag's side pocket. The gun is clean so even with the dark brown case over a bland bank's scheme, it stands out. And for the reverse shot to Jennifer, the pigment in George's face becomes so rich and alive. Dialogue is the default indicator of emotion but color can serve the same purpose. It is so rarely intelligently used at the level of this film.
The film was not so bold as to make sad scenes black and white. Tom Ford knows this too well. This attention to color and knowledge of its importance in human expression stems no doubt from Tom's longstanding career in high fashion. Instead of tailoring, fabrics, and dyes, Tom designs with angles, focuses, and color.
Not as pleasing to my senses is Nicholas Hoult's American accent. Nicholas is an amazing actor with his own natural accent but with his California accent, the emphasis on certain syllables made his performance less than believable. Perhaps Tom saw something in Nicholas as a director that I do not but an actual American actor or at least an actor who could more accurately speak with any American accent would have provided a much better scene partner to Colin Firth. In comparison to Matthew Goode's solid lack of any of his own English accent as Jim, I found the character of Kenny (Nicholas) very protrusive. Another unpleasant accent was that of Julianne Moore. This woman just was not born to do accents. She might look nice in a silk or satin gowns but her accents are simply atrocious. She mixes up the different kinds of English and Australian accents. Do not get me started on her Boston accents from 30 Rock. If I were from any place where she is drawing the accent from, I would be either embarassed or bowled over in laughter.
Just as unpleasing to my senses are the fake tans on Colin Firth and Nicholas Hoult. Their fair English skin looks absolutely ridiculous in the orange hues made by spray tans. Perhaps bed tanning would have been a more time consuming option but it was awful to the point that it took me out of the movie for a bit. As Kenny strips to convince George to swim in the ocean with him, even in the darkness the fakeness of the appearance of their skin color was very distracting. In all the day scenes where Kenny is speaking to George, I was just as equally distracted.
Among the wonderful things in A Single Man is its conflict. George is grief stricken from the death of his boyfriend Jim. In a hauntingly beautiful scene, George removes the gun from his wardrobe, examines it, and brings it to work with him. The conflict at that point could be called soft but if we’re really paying attention, we as viewers know that George is still planning to kill himself. Just to fully make the audience aware of his intentions, the gun makes a second appearance when George begins to remove it from his bag while in his car. Sadness from the loss of a spouse is communicable in any language and the fact that this particular relationship is between two men makes no difference in the story. Jim and could have easily been female characters and the story would not have been any less good. The fact that Jim and Kenny were men does add a certain element to the film since there are so few films that will feature these types of relationships.
The cinematography in this film is so enveloping in even just the simplest of shots. As George sits in his chair after being informed of Jim’s death, the camera picks up the red in Colin Firth’s face. His skin, in such a close shot, manages to provide a soft contrast from the fabric of the chair. Returning to the gun scene, these objects are treated as things of beauty. It’s not enough that we just see these objects. They are shot in a fashion that takes note of the detail and importance of these objects, people, location, etc.
Those who don't recognize Carlos, the prostitute at the liquor store, might not think anything of him but this is a nice bit of reverse sexism. Female super models have been cast in films just for their faces for many years and I'm sure it was a purposeful wink at women and gay men to have a male super model simply there to be pleasing to the eye. He, oddly enough, said some of the most memorable lines in the film: Sometimes awful things have their own kind of beauty. and Lovers are like buses, you just have to wait a little while and another one comes along.
Besides nice lines and use of color, the film has nice visual storytelling. After going to the bank, George returns home and neatly lays his affairs out. His instruction on a piece of paper reads, “Tie in a windsor knot.” That is significant in that it pokes fun of the pretense in fashion but also visually telling of this man's despair from Jim's death and desire to end his life.
The single (ha) flaw of A Single Man is the ending; unfortunately, that's a big deal. To make it worse, it's not a small flaw. The ending manifests itself in a horrible exposition. Had the film ended just two minutes prior, it would have been amazing. I know this is a flaw because having gone to film school, this was a common thing that students, including myself, made. It was an amateur mistake, one that I was not expecting Tom to make. Everything before this travesty of an expository ending was brilliant in terms of color, cinematography, and story. This providing the last taste in my mouth is tragic. George's voice overed speech was a cop out. The drama was never heightened to any particular point and if you're going to end a dramatic movie like that, which is not uncommon, you do not cheat the audience by telling them the signifance of the scene. Instead, why not challenge them with a cliffhanger or an open ending that would leave the audience to make an ending in our own minds. The end did provide some irony in that just upon his decision to not kill himself, he has a heart attack. Perhaps narratively, this worked out. In the book, it might have worked extremely well for the last chapter or two to have page after page of George's last thoughts but that does not work in this film.
Tom Ford, in an absolutely brilliant first venture in the world of film, has succeeded with A Single Man. I am crushed that the ending was such a blatant display of amateurism. What saves the film is the brilliant use of color, cinematography, and story. I highly recommend this film to anyone who is a fan of cinematography or tragedies. If you can look past the ending, which I am growing to do, you may enjoy the film even more than I have.
Thursday, August 5, 2010
Don't Bother: The Wolfman
| by Allan Stackhouse |
Before you read this, please note that I watched the Unrated Version of the film as opposed to the Theater Version. What can I say, more blood and more guts is a selling point for me.
Upon seeing the trailer on TV, I remember being awestruck by the cast of Joe Johnston: Sir Anthony Hopkins, the Canadian marvel Christopher Plummer, and the versatile Benicio del Toro. Unfortunately, I was almost immediately let down by the film. Christopher Plummer appears in one scene (for which he is apparently not credited). Despite the name draw, none of the actors' performances provide enough to compensate for such a blatant lack of story.
Benicio plays Lawrence Talbot, a successful theater actor, who returns to his father's house upon the death of his brother. He is traumatized from his mother's suicide. At the start of the film, we can tell that something is amiss with his father, John Talbot. There are some nice bits of visual storytelling that reveal his character: his eyes staying bright while retreating into darkness. In the ambush scene in the first act, people are being decapitated left and right with no sight or sound of their attacker. Lawrence is attacked, bit by the werewolf and making him a werewolf.
I am utterly disappointed by the washed out pallet. Why are the default choices to make something old washing it out? After Effects. I have been to a handful of foreign countries and I'm . Washed out pallets do not work for these supernatural films. They don't work for films as fluffy as Eclipse and they don't work in what was supposed to have been a horror epic.
Hugo Weaving's initial appearance is commanding. I thought the movie was setting up Inspector Abberline as another protagonist, which would have proved an interesting narrative tool. He, himself, is displayed as flawed, not totally welcome by the townspeople for his by-the-book pursuit of the wolf. Yet again, his presence is wasted on a character whom I could care less about. It's quite unfortunate that these wasted characters become a recurring theme for the film: fantastic actor but very little character to act out. The only mildly impressive performance is Sir Anthony Hopkins as John Talbot. In the cell that holds Lawrence, he reveals that he killed Lawrence's mother. Unfortunately, this impressive bit of memorization is the epitome of exposition in the film. This movie simply tells us how to feel at every opportunity it gets.
I had absolutely no emotional attachment to any of these characters. I didn't care about anyone's survival. Not even the damsel in distress, Gwen Confliffe, played by Emily Blunt, another actress for whom I couldn't care less. Granted, she, like the other characters, had very little character to work with but she brings nothing to the table other than her face.
The movie, set in old England, was full of pompous old men. There's something so hilarious about watching pompous old men getting slaughtered that entirely works for this film. Lawrence, upon his first transformation, falls into the trap set by the townspeople but lays waste to their naievite. Twice in the film, they ended up killing another man. This didn't get to the point where it was hokey but it certainly made me chuckle a bit.
The double scare. If you're going to use them, use them sparingly. At first, I found the double scares to be a little lackluster but I found them funny after the second one. They only appeared at the dreams within dreams sequence and it would have been nice for the director to include these in the natural scape of the film but the fact that they put a smile on my face is a major plus.
I did not find the transformation scenes particularly good. The transformations relied entirely on CGI and it wasn't impressive in the least. If you're going to start out with great transformation scenes in 1981's An American Werewolf in London and a near-seamless blend of skin bursting special effects and body crunching visual effects in the Underworld series, you should be able to take it to next level. Especially after the bar was set almost twenty years ago. In Lawrence's first transformation, he writhes off screen and we can barely tell what is going on. The whole fear of the unknown thing does not work here because it's never presented as such. You cannot rely on a tool if you don't know how to use it.
Exposition, exposition, exposition. It's incomprehensible to me that a subject as interesting and scary as lycanthropy is shaved down to irritating dialogue about it. I don't mean to so harshly destroy Joe Johnston but this is the guy that Hollywood goes to when they can't get Spielberg. Spielberg directed both Jurassic Park and the Lost World but passed on Jurassic Park III. Who gets it? Joe Johnston of course. He's also done The Pagemaster and Hidalgo. He did direct October Sky, which I haven't seen, so maybe that's a good sign. His style reaks of the smell of someone filling in for someone else and the unfortunate thing is that it shows. Joe has done wonderful things in the world of art direction - The Empire Strikes Back, Raiders of the Lost Ark, Return of the Jedi - but how he ever landed Captain America, I probably don't even want to know. I don't think he's fit to direct action especially after watching The Wolfman.
Before you read this, please note that I watched the Unrated Version of the film as opposed to the Theater Version. What can I say, more blood and more guts is a selling point for me.
Upon seeing the trailer on TV, I remember being awestruck by the cast of Joe Johnston: Sir Anthony Hopkins, the Canadian marvel Christopher Plummer, and the versatile Benicio del Toro. Unfortunately, I was almost immediately let down by the film. Christopher Plummer appears in one scene (for which he is apparently not credited). Despite the name draw, none of the actors' performances provide enough to compensate for such a blatant lack of story.
Benicio plays Lawrence Talbot, a successful theater actor, who returns to his father's house upon the death of his brother. He is traumatized from his mother's suicide. At the start of the film, we can tell that something is amiss with his father, John Talbot. There are some nice bits of visual storytelling that reveal his character: his eyes staying bright while retreating into darkness. In the ambush scene in the first act, people are being decapitated left and right with no sight or sound of their attacker. Lawrence is attacked, bit by the werewolf and making him a werewolf.
I am utterly disappointed by the washed out pallet. Why are the default choices to make something old washing it out? After Effects. I have been to a handful of foreign countries and I'm . Washed out pallets do not work for these supernatural films. They don't work for films as fluffy as Eclipse and they don't work in what was supposed to have been a horror epic.
Hugo Weaving's initial appearance is commanding. I thought the movie was setting up Inspector Abberline as another protagonist, which would have proved an interesting narrative tool. He, himself, is displayed as flawed, not totally welcome by the townspeople for his by-the-book pursuit of the wolf. Yet again, his presence is wasted on a character whom I could care less about. It's quite unfortunate that these wasted characters become a recurring theme for the film: fantastic actor but very little character to act out. The only mildly impressive performance is Sir Anthony Hopkins as John Talbot. In the cell that holds Lawrence, he reveals that he killed Lawrence's mother. Unfortunately, this impressive bit of memorization is the epitome of exposition in the film. This movie simply tells us how to feel at every opportunity it gets.
I had absolutely no emotional attachment to any of these characters. I didn't care about anyone's survival. Not even the damsel in distress, Gwen Confliffe, played by Emily Blunt, another actress for whom I couldn't care less. Granted, she, like the other characters, had very little character to work with but she brings nothing to the table other than her face.
The movie, set in old England, was full of pompous old men. There's something so hilarious about watching pompous old men getting slaughtered that entirely works for this film. Lawrence, upon his first transformation, falls into the trap set by the townspeople but lays waste to their naievite. Twice in the film, they ended up killing another man. This didn't get to the point where it was hokey but it certainly made me chuckle a bit.
The double scare. If you're going to use them, use them sparingly. At first, I found the double scares to be a little lackluster but I found them funny after the second one. They only appeared at the dreams within dreams sequence and it would have been nice for the director to include these in the natural scape of the film but the fact that they put a smile on my face is a major plus.
I did not find the transformation scenes particularly good. The transformations relied entirely on CGI and it wasn't impressive in the least. If you're going to start out with great transformation scenes in 1981's An American Werewolf in London and a near-seamless blend of skin bursting special effects and body crunching visual effects in the Underworld series, you should be able to take it to next level. Especially after the bar was set almost twenty years ago. In Lawrence's first transformation, he writhes off screen and we can barely tell what is going on. The whole fear of the unknown thing does not work here because it's never presented as such. You cannot rely on a tool if you don't know how to use it.
Exposition, exposition, exposition. It's incomprehensible to me that a subject as interesting and scary as lycanthropy is shaved down to irritating dialogue about it. I don't mean to so harshly destroy Joe Johnston but this is the guy that Hollywood goes to when they can't get Spielberg. Spielberg directed both Jurassic Park and the Lost World but passed on Jurassic Park III. Who gets it? Joe Johnston of course. He's also done The Pagemaster and Hidalgo. He did direct October Sky, which I haven't seen, so maybe that's a good sign. His style reaks of the smell of someone filling in for someone else and the unfortunate thing is that it shows. Joe has done wonderful things in the world of art direction - The Empire Strikes Back, Raiders of the Lost Ark, Return of the Jedi - but how he ever landed Captain America, I probably don't even want to know. I don't think he's fit to direct action especially after watching The Wolfman.
Tuesday, August 3, 2010
True Blood Season 3 - A Midseason Review
| by Allan Stackhouse |
How highly can I speak of True Blood? I cannot say. Actually, that's a lie. I was super excited during season 3's buzz campaign but I found myself nervous going into the actual episodes. I wondered if the show could even come close to the magnitude of season 2. Maryann's near infinite power was so delicious, even up until its ravaged end. I was shaken out of this wonder at the last scene of It Hurts Me Too, episode 3. Or should I say my head was twisted all the way around? Too much? In any case, the show proves to be at the level set in season 2.
Ding dong the b*tch is dead. Which old b*tch? Lorena is dead! I've never wanted someone to die so badly since Lorena. She's been a thorn in my side for three seasons but the show did not let me down. Not only did just this one event deliver but the story, acting, and gore all delivered just like the best show on TV is supposed to do. New relationships are formed, old ones are tested, a wide array of villains seek to have their way at the expense of our favorite Bon Temps residents, and of course there's more sex and violence.
Let my hatred for for Lorena not detract from Mariana Klaveno's acting prowess. The control she wields over Lorena's voice and body language is truly astounding. She commands the attention of viewers and this is entirely one of the reasons why she invoked such a strong reaction out of viewers. This bitter hatred I felt was one that I had not felt since Lauren in the third season of JJ Abrams' Alias. Hey, they kind of have the same name. Viewer beware: the Lorena/Laurens of the world will do your favorite TV protagonists harm. They both met their ultimately satisfying end (for the viewers, definitely not them). Whereas Lauren was destroyed in a beautiful hail of bullets, Lorena, held back by Bill with a silver chain that ironically was holding him, is staked by Sookie. A fountain of blood erupts from her mouth and she explodes like a water balloon. A beautiful end worthy of a formidable villain.
Remaining as high as it was, the writing carries us into supernatural ecstasy. We are finding out what Sookie is, a mystery set up in the very first episode of the show. The manifestation of Sookie's powers in the second season and again in the third drew fascination to her. As Sookie recovers in the waiting room, her consciousness is transported to an ethereal realm where other mindreaders reside. The cliffhangers posed at the end of each episode continuously prove to be both amazing and maddening.
New faces to the world of True Blood are the enormously terrifying Russell Edgington, the King of Mississippi. His grip may not reach as far as Maryann's but through his henchman, his influence seems limitless. From Eric's flashback, we (or at least the smarter of the viewers) know that Russell and his pack of werewolves destroyed Eric's royal family. Russell kept this crown as a token of his destruction but to Eric, the crown's value has only grown for about nine hundred seventy-two years. The destruction that Russell so easily casts brings about the emotional side of Eric that we saw in last season. Perhaps not to the point where he cries blood but maybe this crown means even more than that.
Tommy Mickens. The air of mystery was drawn around Tommy and the Mickens family. Episode 6 revealed that he apparently is a contestant in the abhorrent world of dogfights. Honestly, I find this a little silly but this is providing Sam with a sense of family that he did not know he was looking for. Joe Lee and Melinda both turn out to be disgusting people. We know that Sam is capable of caring a lot about his love interests but the care Sam has for his brother is a nice contrast to sex and violence in the show.
The King may be the main villain but Franklin Mott is the character of whom I find myself the most afraid. Lorena might be relentless in her pursuit of Bill but Franklin is absolutely insane. Franklin's tree of insanity does bear fruit though; it comes in the form of Tara's character development. She has had her moments of sadness after Eggs' death but Franklin's pursuit of her leaves Tara no time to worry about that. She's in the fight of her life. The lengths that she's forced to go through surprised me at her ability to rise to the occasion of saving her own and Sookie's lives.
The breakout character this season is not a new one; it's actually Tara Thornton. The growth in her character this season was further than I could have imagined. Despite wanting to die and having been bound and gagged in the earlier episodes, Tara finds the will to survive. And survive she does. Some of the few amazing things she does: bites into Russell's neck and drinks his blood, she smashes Franklin's head into a mess of bone and brain bits, she almost outruns a werewolf, she takes a female werewolf on with her own bare hands, she lifts Bill's body like it's a rag doll, and she kicks Bill out into daylight for nearly killing Sookie.
I read an interview with Alan Ball in which he said the theme of this season was politics whereas the season before had the theme of religion. Alan and everyone involved created another brilliant chess game where, as is usually the case with politics, someone is trying to usurp power. The black king seeks to marry the white queen in order to control not only their respective states but soon the vampire way of life. Franklin is intolerant of of the oppression he feels the Authority over him, having lived in ages when there was no force that made their kind combine with humans.
In retrospect, I don't know if it's fair to say that any of these episodes are better than the other. There's certainly higher stakes in certain episodes, which obviously leads to preference but the theme of politics this season requires a different amount of setup. The results, luckily for us, remain the same: phenomenal characters. We're definitely set up to have an exciting second half of the season. Debbie, as can be told by her screaming, will go to Bon Temps to seek vengeance for Alcide killing Cooter. Franklin is going to pay Tara a visit. And King Russell? His power may continue to grow but I don't think Eric will allow his majesty's reign to go past season 3. 'Til next time, kids!
How highly can I speak of True Blood? I cannot say. Actually, that's a lie. I was super excited during season 3's buzz campaign but I found myself nervous going into the actual episodes. I wondered if the show could even come close to the magnitude of season 2. Maryann's near infinite power was so delicious, even up until its ravaged end. I was shaken out of this wonder at the last scene of It Hurts Me Too, episode 3. Or should I say my head was twisted all the way around? Too much? In any case, the show proves to be at the level set in season 2.
Ding dong the b*tch is dead. Which old b*tch? Lorena is dead! I've never wanted someone to die so badly since Lorena. She's been a thorn in my side for three seasons but the show did not let me down. Not only did just this one event deliver but the story, acting, and gore all delivered just like the best show on TV is supposed to do. New relationships are formed, old ones are tested, a wide array of villains seek to have their way at the expense of our favorite Bon Temps residents, and of course there's more sex and violence.
Let my hatred for for Lorena not detract from Mariana Klaveno's acting prowess. The control she wields over Lorena's voice and body language is truly astounding. She commands the attention of viewers and this is entirely one of the reasons why she invoked such a strong reaction out of viewers. This bitter hatred I felt was one that I had not felt since Lauren in the third season of JJ Abrams' Alias. Hey, they kind of have the same name. Viewer beware: the Lorena/Laurens of the world will do your favorite TV protagonists harm. They both met their ultimately satisfying end (for the viewers, definitely not them). Whereas Lauren was destroyed in a beautiful hail of bullets, Lorena, held back by Bill with a silver chain that ironically was holding him, is staked by Sookie. A fountain of blood erupts from her mouth and she explodes like a water balloon. A beautiful end worthy of a formidable villain.
Remaining as high as it was, the writing carries us into supernatural ecstasy. We are finding out what Sookie is, a mystery set up in the very first episode of the show. The manifestation of Sookie's powers in the second season and again in the third drew fascination to her. As Sookie recovers in the waiting room, her consciousness is transported to an ethereal realm where other mindreaders reside. The cliffhangers posed at the end of each episode continuously prove to be both amazing and maddening.
New faces to the world of True Blood are the enormously terrifying Russell Edgington, the King of Mississippi. His grip may not reach as far as Maryann's but through his henchman, his influence seems limitless. From Eric's flashback, we (or at least the smarter of the viewers) know that Russell and his pack of werewolves destroyed Eric's royal family. Russell kept this crown as a token of his destruction but to Eric, the crown's value has only grown for about nine hundred seventy-two years. The destruction that Russell so easily casts brings about the emotional side of Eric that we saw in last season. Perhaps not to the point where he cries blood but maybe this crown means even more than that.
Tommy Mickens. The air of mystery was drawn around Tommy and the Mickens family. Episode 6 revealed that he apparently is a contestant in the abhorrent world of dogfights. Honestly, I find this a little silly but this is providing Sam with a sense of family that he did not know he was looking for. Joe Lee and Melinda both turn out to be disgusting people. We know that Sam is capable of caring a lot about his love interests but the care Sam has for his brother is a nice contrast to sex and violence in the show.
The King may be the main villain but Franklin Mott is the character of whom I find myself the most afraid. Lorena might be relentless in her pursuit of Bill but Franklin is absolutely insane. Franklin's tree of insanity does bear fruit though; it comes in the form of Tara's character development. She has had her moments of sadness after Eggs' death but Franklin's pursuit of her leaves Tara no time to worry about that. She's in the fight of her life. The lengths that she's forced to go through surprised me at her ability to rise to the occasion of saving her own and Sookie's lives.
The breakout character this season is not a new one; it's actually Tara Thornton. The growth in her character this season was further than I could have imagined. Despite wanting to die and having been bound and gagged in the earlier episodes, Tara finds the will to survive. And survive she does. Some of the few amazing things she does: bites into Russell's neck and drinks his blood, she smashes Franklin's head into a mess of bone and brain bits, she almost outruns a werewolf, she takes a female werewolf on with her own bare hands, she lifts Bill's body like it's a rag doll, and she kicks Bill out into daylight for nearly killing Sookie.
I read an interview with Alan Ball in which he said the theme of this season was politics whereas the season before had the theme of religion. Alan and everyone involved created another brilliant chess game where, as is usually the case with politics, someone is trying to usurp power. The black king seeks to marry the white queen in order to control not only their respective states but soon the vampire way of life. Franklin is intolerant of of the oppression he feels the Authority over him, having lived in ages when there was no force that made their kind combine with humans.
In retrospect, I don't know if it's fair to say that any of these episodes are better than the other. There's certainly higher stakes in certain episodes, which obviously leads to preference but the theme of politics this season requires a different amount of setup. The results, luckily for us, remain the same: phenomenal characters. We're definitely set up to have an exciting second half of the season. Debbie, as can be told by her screaming, will go to Bon Temps to seek vengeance for Alcide killing Cooter. Franklin is going to pay Tara a visit. And King Russell? His power may continue to grow but I don't think Eric will allow his majesty's reign to go past season 3. 'Til next time, kids!
Monday, August 2, 2010
Month 3 @ Cosmic Toast Studios
| by Allan Stackhouse |
The work seems to have really amped up here at Cosmic Toast Studios. The entire studio is busy with a fun new project. On the sound side, we've got some amazing talent for the voices. I don't know if I'm allowed to say exactly who one actor is but let's just say that his pants are of a certain equally sided shape. Jen, our producing intern, has been doing a great job as script supervisor for the recordings. The animation work we've been producing for it is looking fantastic.
If you haven't noticed, I've started incorporating reviews for new movie releases to theaters instead of solely new Blu-ray releases. My first was Eclipse, which I didn't enjoy as much as New Moon. The fight scene was well worth the price of admission though. It's such a shame that the lengths in cinematography that New Moon went to were erased in favor of the washed out look from Twilight. My second new movie review was Inception. The trailer was stunning but the movie as a whole did not work for me. Great score though.
Unrelated to the studio, I was invited to attend a screening of Scott Pilgrim vs. The World which ended up being my third new movie review. I haven't been to one of these in a while so the process was a little anxiety-inducing but the movie was phenomenal! And I got to see it for free! I absolutely recommend it to everyone. Literally everyone. Michael Cera and all of the cast were great. The visual effects additions to all of the scenes made it seem more like a video game thus providing a more immersive viewing experience.
A few of the Cosmic Toasters made it down to Comic-Con and I reveled in their stories. Not so much with the one about somebody's eye area getting stabbed but just about all the others. Our Jesse Scully was on hand for the Resident Evil and Marvel panels. The vuvuzela story was absolutely hilarious. How cute was the little kid that asked Ryan Reynolds to recite the Green Lantern oath.
Marissa, one of our animation interns, attended the SIGGRAPH (Special Interest Group on GRAPHics and Interactive Techniques) annual conference on computer graphics. She met some amazing people. 3DS Max was celebrating its 20th anniversary. She didn't win any of the raffled prizes but she did get a blue AND red RenderMan walking teapot.
Colin, one of our animators, had Max Neptune and the Menacing Squid played at the Action on Film Festival in Pasadena. I was there the first night, Friday the 23rd. Due to popularity, Max Neptune was granted a second screening the following Sunday. Thursday, the day of the awards ceremony, came around and I unsuccessfully aided Colin with his tie. This was of no matter because Max Neptune won for Best Visual Effects Short. In his modesty, Colin didn't post anything about his win but I immediately updated the Cosmic Toast Studios and my personal Facebook pages to announce his win.
As the month winded down, the work seemed to ramp up. I was assigned my first screenwriting project and I was overjoyed. After a rewrite, my treatment was sent off so we'll see if the clients are happy with it. Kristin and Mike, of LA Music Blog, graciously offered me a writing opportunity for the site and of course I accepted. I will be covering the realms of mainstream pop and hip hop. Check out my first post!
Brandon celebrated his 8th birthday and he was gifted with a shiny new bicycle and a puppy. His name is Buster and he's adored by the kids... and everyone here. So much so that it was eye opening for me to see how hard little kids can fall in love for something.
We had a big pitch day last week and more pitches as August begins. This month is shaping up to be very productive here. Expect more movie reviews and now music news from me.
The work seems to have really amped up here at Cosmic Toast Studios. The entire studio is busy with a fun new project. On the sound side, we've got some amazing talent for the voices. I don't know if I'm allowed to say exactly who one actor is but let's just say that his pants are of a certain equally sided shape. Jen, our producing intern, has been doing a great job as script supervisor for the recordings. The animation work we've been producing for it is looking fantastic.
If you haven't noticed, I've started incorporating reviews for new movie releases to theaters instead of solely new Blu-ray releases. My first was Eclipse, which I didn't enjoy as much as New Moon. The fight scene was well worth the price of admission though. It's such a shame that the lengths in cinematography that New Moon went to were erased in favor of the washed out look from Twilight. My second new movie review was Inception. The trailer was stunning but the movie as a whole did not work for me. Great score though.
Unrelated to the studio, I was invited to attend a screening of Scott Pilgrim vs. The World which ended up being my third new movie review. I haven't been to one of these in a while so the process was a little anxiety-inducing but the movie was phenomenal! And I got to see it for free! I absolutely recommend it to everyone. Literally everyone. Michael Cera and all of the cast were great. The visual effects additions to all of the scenes made it seem more like a video game thus providing a more immersive viewing experience.
A few of the Cosmic Toasters made it down to Comic-Con and I reveled in their stories. Not so much with the one about somebody's eye area getting stabbed but just about all the others. Our Jesse Scully was on hand for the Resident Evil and Marvel panels. The vuvuzela story was absolutely hilarious. How cute was the little kid that asked Ryan Reynolds to recite the Green Lantern oath.
Marissa, one of our animation interns, attended the SIGGRAPH (Special Interest Group on GRAPHics and Interactive Techniques) annual conference on computer graphics. She met some amazing people. 3DS Max was celebrating its 20th anniversary. She didn't win any of the raffled prizes but she did get a blue AND red RenderMan walking teapot.
Colin, one of our animators, had Max Neptune and the Menacing Squid played at the Action on Film Festival in Pasadena. I was there the first night, Friday the 23rd. Due to popularity, Max Neptune was granted a second screening the following Sunday. Thursday, the day of the awards ceremony, came around and I unsuccessfully aided Colin with his tie. This was of no matter because Max Neptune won for Best Visual Effects Short. In his modesty, Colin didn't post anything about his win but I immediately updated the Cosmic Toast Studios and my personal Facebook pages to announce his win.
As the month winded down, the work seemed to ramp up. I was assigned my first screenwriting project and I was overjoyed. After a rewrite, my treatment was sent off so we'll see if the clients are happy with it. Kristin and Mike, of LA Music Blog, graciously offered me a writing opportunity for the site and of course I accepted. I will be covering the realms of mainstream pop and hip hop. Check out my first post!
Brandon celebrated his 8th birthday and he was gifted with a shiny new bicycle and a puppy. His name is Buster and he's adored by the kids... and everyone here. So much so that it was eye opening for me to see how hard little kids can fall in love for something.
We had a big pitch day last week and more pitches as August begins. This month is shaping up to be very productive here. Expect more movie reviews and now music news from me.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)