| by Allan Stackhouse |
I've never seen the 1973 The Crazies so I cannot speak of it. Normally, I would absolutely detest the idea of a modern day remake of a classic horror. In this case, no one seemed to care or had even heard of the original. This was of no further consequence considering that The Crazies surprised me with its high quality. The trailer certainly looked very good but it didn't get me in theaters, but if you're keeping track, only two movies have managed to get money out of my pocket since the beginning of my time here at Cosmic Toast Studios: Toy Story 3 and Inception. With its recent release to Blu-ray and DVD, the bar for this year's horror roster has been set. Horror movie vets Timothy Olyphant (Scream 2) and Radha Mitchell (Silent Hill) lead this frightening tale of what could be our government's response to a horrifying outbreak.
While the movie was not perfect, the cinematography, especially for a horror movie was very good. The majority of the first act's shots were done in long focus. Showing this amount of distance and openness gave me the fear that something was just around the corner waiting to attack. Horror movies too often rely on close ups to convey a sense of confinement. Those are all well and good but the screenwriters and director played on the idea of the scariness of farmland. If you aren't scared of farmland, great. For those of us who are, this adds a layer of fear that's similar to the one found in Jaws.
Watching a pregnant woman in danger is frightening. There's just no getting around the innate fear of a person carrying the unborn life of another being attacked. George Romero, in his horror wisdom, understood this in 1973 and it still holds its power today. Horror violence against anyone doesn't exactly make me comfortable and it definitely doesn't make me comfortable watching a pregnant lady fight for her life. If this was the intention of the director and writer, it was a brilliant tool in scaring the audience and raising the stakes of danger. The role does not rest on its circumstances, however. Judy empowers herself, pregnancy and all, to protect herself, her unborn child, and those around her.
The screenwriter and director completely understand the value of foreshadowing and the power it can have in horror films. After Rory is fatally shot by David, a satellite's view of the town says, “Initiate Containment Protocol.” This informs us that someone is watching and it asks us to make the connection as the appearances of the army become more frequent. David picking up the lighter at the truck stop was also very nice. The scene might have held on him holding the lighter a little too long but it still foreshadowed the handiness of his last minute selection. Some might call it a plot hole but I saw David's potential infection from stabbing one of the crazies with the knife stuck in his hand as a clever ruse from the screenwriters. For those of us that were paying attention and worried for David, he turned out to be fine. There's nothing wrong with a little cinematic bait, especially for someone like me who was taking notes during the film.
The emphasis of visual storytelling and almost complete lack of exposition was so admirable in this film. In an early scene, Judy reaches across the bed. David isn't there. He is working on shaving a piece of wood, a completely monotonous task, to get his mind off of having to shoot and kill somebody. This visually communicates the torment David feels and the concern Judy has for her husband. In this same sequence, another nice use of visual storytelling occurs when Judy passes by a room whose door is open. The crib is empty. She goes down to meet David who puts his hand on her stomach. It might have saved the movie a lot of time to simply cut to Judy exiting the doorway and David saying something about her pregnancy but the results are visual puzzle pieces for us to put together, a form of storytelling that I was not at all expecting out of a horror movie. Perhaps that's not good of me to be stereotyping what horror films lack but it's nonetheless appreciated because it communicates the emotion the characters are feeling in a genre where the default is fear communicated by screaming. In a slightly even more complicated bit of visual storytelling, David's face starts out as clean shaven. Then, throughout the film, it grows and grows. This firstly speaks of stress and then secondly of his obvious inability to groom himself due to killing crazies.
There are classic horror movie moments though. Namely, “You stupid, b-word” moments. The first notable one was when Sandra, alerted by the noise coming from the barn, stands in front of the menacing hay tiller with blades upon blades just feet away from her. I absolutely love these moments because they are the kind at which my dad would angrily yell, “Stupid.” Immediately after Sandra turns off the hay tiller, she drops her flashlight upon hearing her son's yells. Seriously. She just drops it on the ground as if it won't come in handy after hearing someone scream. Even our fair and brave heroine isn't immune to stupidity. After Judy packs, she passes by the nursery and hesitates. She enters and everything is set up for her to have a sentimental moment with the last time she will see this room but in the corner, at the end of the scene, a crazy stands in waiting. We know from her hesitation that Judy shouldn't go in there yet she does. That stupid, b-word.
It wouldn't be a good horror movie if I didn't scream. In a particularly scary scene, David uncovers what is stirring underneath a sheet on a gurney: a man whose mouth has been sewn shut. When David removes the stitches, the man on the gurney utters two frightening words, “Behind you.” Behold the infected coroner who swings at David with a motorized bone saw. I don't want to give all of these moments away but trust me in that there were a few choice moments at which my neighbors probably thought I saw a spider or something with wings.
Rounding up the integral types of scenes are the “F*ck yeah!” moments. Russell, after saving David and Judy, shoots both of the infected on the floor multiple times in the head because he's “making sure.” I, as a zombie movie freak, know the importance of this and it's nice that Russ has this bit of common sense even though he himself is going crazy. A lesser so “F*ck yeah!” moment would definitely be when David rescues Judy from the crazies in the school. He asks her, “Are you okay.” She replies, “No, not really.” Of course she's not but that's an awesome answer. This, besides having already saved her friend, solidified her character for me. While she's not a tough chick, she's got her head on straight and we can tell that she's going to make it to the end of the film.
The unfortunate thing about The Crazies is the pacing. Whereas the movie's conflict is set up swiftly enough, the movie loses steam in the second and third acts. It may have been said in the film that the goal is to escape the area but the result seems to be the main characters walking around aimlessly. Not enough is drawn for me to care about David or Judy other than the fact they survive the longest. The circumstance of Judy's pregnancy successfully did make me fear for her safety but the second and third acts play out so slowly. Scary as they were, I thought there was a lack of connection between the scenes in these particular acts as well. It felt like, “Okay, now they're going to go here and something scary happens. And now, they're going to here and it's going to be even scarier.” That sort of set up is fine when I'm watching the scenes but the result from me watching the parts in between is boredom.
The survival aspect was very similar to 28 Days Later, which I believe was done better than The Crazies. While I did enjoy the film, I don't think a sequel is necessary. You're probably screaming “Saw 3D” at me, which is your right, but unless it's another entity, I'm not entirely interested. 28 Weeks Later was good but essentially the same move as its predecessor. The film had many things that I liked about it but I would have liked the pacing to have been kept at the rate set in the first act. All in all, definitely worth a watch.
Thursday, July 29, 2010
Tuesday, July 27, 2010
A Fond Welcome to My World: Scott Pilgrim vs. The World
| by Allan Stackhouse |
It can be a struggle for me to keep a fresh perspective on films. If I don't watch something opening weekend, the reviews following a film's release inundating my brain can be like a dark ink that taints a jar of water. Luckily, I had the opportunity to see Edgar Wright's newest venture, Scott Pilgrim vs. The World, last weekend. After seeing it, I now liken Edgar Wright as the Pixar of live action motion pictures in his ability to consistently produce high quality films. Justin Thomas has broken down the high marks of Shaun of the Dead and the sheer perfection of Hot Fuzz. It is my pleasure to say that Edgar Wright has done it again. The film most unexpectedly embodied some of my favorite things: kung fu, fabulous gays, and hipster bashing.
I imagine that the majority of people who see the film will be unfamiliar with the source material as I was. The funny bits in the trailers and some nice fight scene clips stirred interest but much unlike The Last Airbender, the movie actually delivers in visual effects and story. There's a million things that are funny, the fight scenes are thrilling, and the characters are so juicy I can't stand it. I can unequivocally say that this movie is for everyone. There's fight scenes for the boys (and girls), a love story for the girls (and boys), and dazzling visual effects and humor for the masses.
Michael Cera. If the discussion on Michael Cera's acting ability was not yet over, let it be over with Scott Pilgrim. The character he portrays is another departure from the awkwardness of George Michael Bluth. Just as with Francois Dillinger in Youth in Revolt, he personifies a lady killer. Not an unlikable one though, he's someone who we can get behind, despite him, at 22, dating a 17 year old private school girl. He may not make the best decisions but he's bright eyed and a good person. The decisions he makes throughout the film prove that he is a flawed character but, with the counsel of his sister, played by the amazing Anna Kendrick of Up in the Air, he maintains an air of determination for what he wants out of life.
Bradley James Allan, fresh off his work on Kick Ass, gives us more of the amazing high-flying stunt work that makes my heart race. Those of us who grew up with anime and video games are more familiar with these standout characters who perform quick and devastating moves. We've seen it on Dragon Ball Z, now we want more movies to do it with real people. Edgar Wright and maybe Hollywood too understands that this kind of martial arts is cool, when done right, f*cking cool. Bradley worked and studied under the Jackie Chan stunt team so he knows what he's doing and how to take it to the next level. Wushu is simply beautiful to watch and these moves in tandem with a brilliant new property AND special effects produced visually dazzling results. As someone who's grown up with Jackie Chan's films, the throwbacks to Jackie's moves in old movies were so appreciated: notably, the boob punch from Armour of God and the girl-assisted fight from one of the three Police Story movies, I don't remember which one.
My absolute favorite fight, even though all of them were terrific, was Scott and Ramona versus evil ex number 4, Roxy Richter. In the scene, Ramona decides to take Roxy on herself, a ginormous hammer that would make Thor's jealous versus a vicious battle chain. The rules of the match requires Scott to defeat her himself and, in a beautifully choreographed scene, Ramona physically controls Scott's body to help defeat her. This kind of choreography not only looks challenging but it adds layers into the story, informing the viewers that 1, Ramona is a skilled fighter herself and 2, she cares enough about Scott to help him defeat Roxy.
Especially pleasing to me was a positive portrayal of a gay character, personified by the third, and nonetheless talented Culkin brother, Kieran. Some might argue that the character of Wallace being so promiscuous does not accurately represent all gay men. To that, I argue that every gay person has a promiscuous friend or at least knows of a slutty gay friend. These people exist and I was thrilled that the movie so accurately and unashamedly included this character as a positive influence on Scott's life. He provided an enormous amount of humor and I'm so grateful that this film exposed fans of comic books and action movies to a gay character that wasn't tokenized. These characters are oft found in chick flicks that and they are often anecdotal. Wallace is caring, honest, sexually selfish, and fabulous. I absolutely adored this character.
If you happen to be a hipster, I'm sorry but I hate you and your kind. I don't appreciate the rags you wear, your lack of hygiene, the veganism pedestals from which you look down upon others, your vocally challenged singers in your bands, and your incessant depressed attitudes. Thankfully, Edgar Wright feels the same way I do. The hipster demon chicks made me laugh so hard and so loudly. The scene in which Scott must pass through the hipster security to get to G-Man's lair was almost too much. To send me even further over the moon, this was done TWICE.
What does work in particular for the film that would not work for the graphic novel was the music. I'm not the biggest fan of bands but this music completely made the film. Sex Bob-Omb is a genuinely good band with a good sound. Selling one's sound to an audience with scenes that are so integral to the film was not an easy task yet it was executed expertly. I wanted Sex Bob-Omb to absolutely destroy their competition. This competition entwining with Scott's quest to defeat the League of Evil Exes was a stroke of brilliance on Brian Lee O'Malley, the graphic novel's writer. Two conflicts are always better than one. Film wise. In real life, that's not so fun.
In this film in particular, the constant vignettes made the film feel more like a video game. I found these additions to form an immersive experience. The pee bar was on screen for all of three seconds yet it serves as another indication to the audience of what is going on in the scene while obviously also providing another layer of humor. Edgar Wright is a master of adding these details and layers into his films and it is something I cannot get enough of. Let this prove as an example that an immersive experience can be created without depending on 3D cameras or 3D conversion.
Unfortunately, in contrast to Justin Thomas' view of Hot Fuzz, Scott Pilgrim is not perfect. Like Shaun of the dead, there is just one particular part that doesn't really make sense. Scott's lack of decision between Ramona and Knives is not only frustrating but did not play out well in the last scene of the film following G-Man's defeat. His decision to be with Knives instead of Ramona was left a little too ambiguous for me. Scott, having fought so hard for Ramona, ends up choosing Knives, and then, not a minute later, Knives encourages Scott to go to Ramona, who we want him to be with and was the point of the film. Indecision at the point of resolution was a really poor choice and ultimately an unfortunate way to end such a great film.
As I'm finishing my edits on this, I find myself wanting to watch the film again. Besides embodying some of my favorite things, the film had a great story, was visually immersive, and had some amazing action scenes. The ending really could have been better but this being its only flaw doesn't make me love the movie any less. I don't have money to be spending on entertainment but I think I may have to buy that set of Scott Pilgrim books that's yet to be released.
It can be a struggle for me to keep a fresh perspective on films. If I don't watch something opening weekend, the reviews following a film's release inundating my brain can be like a dark ink that taints a jar of water. Luckily, I had the opportunity to see Edgar Wright's newest venture, Scott Pilgrim vs. The World, last weekend. After seeing it, I now liken Edgar Wright as the Pixar of live action motion pictures in his ability to consistently produce high quality films. Justin Thomas has broken down the high marks of Shaun of the Dead and the sheer perfection of Hot Fuzz. It is my pleasure to say that Edgar Wright has done it again. The film most unexpectedly embodied some of my favorite things: kung fu, fabulous gays, and hipster bashing.
I imagine that the majority of people who see the film will be unfamiliar with the source material as I was. The funny bits in the trailers and some nice fight scene clips stirred interest but much unlike The Last Airbender, the movie actually delivers in visual effects and story. There's a million things that are funny, the fight scenes are thrilling, and the characters are so juicy I can't stand it. I can unequivocally say that this movie is for everyone. There's fight scenes for the boys (and girls), a love story for the girls (and boys), and dazzling visual effects and humor for the masses.
Michael Cera. If the discussion on Michael Cera's acting ability was not yet over, let it be over with Scott Pilgrim. The character he portrays is another departure from the awkwardness of George Michael Bluth. Just as with Francois Dillinger in Youth in Revolt, he personifies a lady killer. Not an unlikable one though, he's someone who we can get behind, despite him, at 22, dating a 17 year old private school girl. He may not make the best decisions but he's bright eyed and a good person. The decisions he makes throughout the film prove that he is a flawed character but, with the counsel of his sister, played by the amazing Anna Kendrick of Up in the Air, he maintains an air of determination for what he wants out of life.
Bradley James Allan, fresh off his work on Kick Ass, gives us more of the amazing high-flying stunt work that makes my heart race. Those of us who grew up with anime and video games are more familiar with these standout characters who perform quick and devastating moves. We've seen it on Dragon Ball Z, now we want more movies to do it with real people. Edgar Wright and maybe Hollywood too understands that this kind of martial arts is cool, when done right, f*cking cool. Bradley worked and studied under the Jackie Chan stunt team so he knows what he's doing and how to take it to the next level. Wushu is simply beautiful to watch and these moves in tandem with a brilliant new property AND special effects produced visually dazzling results. As someone who's grown up with Jackie Chan's films, the throwbacks to Jackie's moves in old movies were so appreciated: notably, the boob punch from Armour of God and the girl-assisted fight from one of the three Police Story movies, I don't remember which one.
My absolute favorite fight, even though all of them were terrific, was Scott and Ramona versus evil ex number 4, Roxy Richter. In the scene, Ramona decides to take Roxy on herself, a ginormous hammer that would make Thor's jealous versus a vicious battle chain. The rules of the match requires Scott to defeat her himself and, in a beautifully choreographed scene, Ramona physically controls Scott's body to help defeat her. This kind of choreography not only looks challenging but it adds layers into the story, informing the viewers that 1, Ramona is a skilled fighter herself and 2, she cares enough about Scott to help him defeat Roxy.
Especially pleasing to me was a positive portrayal of a gay character, personified by the third, and nonetheless talented Culkin brother, Kieran. Some might argue that the character of Wallace being so promiscuous does not accurately represent all gay men. To that, I argue that every gay person has a promiscuous friend or at least knows of a slutty gay friend. These people exist and I was thrilled that the movie so accurately and unashamedly included this character as a positive influence on Scott's life. He provided an enormous amount of humor and I'm so grateful that this film exposed fans of comic books and action movies to a gay character that wasn't tokenized. These characters are oft found in chick flicks that and they are often anecdotal. Wallace is caring, honest, sexually selfish, and fabulous. I absolutely adored this character.
If you happen to be a hipster, I'm sorry but I hate you and your kind. I don't appreciate the rags you wear, your lack of hygiene, the veganism pedestals from which you look down upon others, your vocally challenged singers in your bands, and your incessant depressed attitudes. Thankfully, Edgar Wright feels the same way I do. The hipster demon chicks made me laugh so hard and so loudly. The scene in which Scott must pass through the hipster security to get to G-Man's lair was almost too much. To send me even further over the moon, this was done TWICE.
What does work in particular for the film that would not work for the graphic novel was the music. I'm not the biggest fan of bands but this music completely made the film. Sex Bob-Omb is a genuinely good band with a good sound. Selling one's sound to an audience with scenes that are so integral to the film was not an easy task yet it was executed expertly. I wanted Sex Bob-Omb to absolutely destroy their competition. This competition entwining with Scott's quest to defeat the League of Evil Exes was a stroke of brilliance on Brian Lee O'Malley, the graphic novel's writer. Two conflicts are always better than one. Film wise. In real life, that's not so fun.
In this film in particular, the constant vignettes made the film feel more like a video game. I found these additions to form an immersive experience. The pee bar was on screen for all of three seconds yet it serves as another indication to the audience of what is going on in the scene while obviously also providing another layer of humor. Edgar Wright is a master of adding these details and layers into his films and it is something I cannot get enough of. Let this prove as an example that an immersive experience can be created without depending on 3D cameras or 3D conversion.
Unfortunately, in contrast to Justin Thomas' view of Hot Fuzz, Scott Pilgrim is not perfect. Like Shaun of the dead, there is just one particular part that doesn't really make sense. Scott's lack of decision between Ramona and Knives is not only frustrating but did not play out well in the last scene of the film following G-Man's defeat. His decision to be with Knives instead of Ramona was left a little too ambiguous for me. Scott, having fought so hard for Ramona, ends up choosing Knives, and then, not a minute later, Knives encourages Scott to go to Ramona, who we want him to be with and was the point of the film. Indecision at the point of resolution was a really poor choice and ultimately an unfortunate way to end such a great film.
As I'm finishing my edits on this, I find myself wanting to watch the film again. Besides embodying some of my favorite things, the film had a great story, was visually immersive, and had some amazing action scenes. The ending really could have been better but this being its only flaw doesn't make me love the movie any less. I don't have money to be spending on entertainment but I think I may have to buy that set of Scott Pilgrim books that's yet to be released.
Thursday, July 22, 2010
Review: Youth in Revolt
| by Allan Stackhouse |
If you were curious as to whether Michael Cera could do anything but that awkward mumbling character, let Youth in Revolt set your curiosity aside. I recall seeing C.D. Payne on a late night show some time ago and laughing to the point where usually only the likes of younger comedians could make me laugh. I put the book on my Amazon Wishlist and it got lost in limbo but I remember being excited about Michael Cera's casting. Now, with its recent release to Blu-ray, I decided to give the movie its due.
The movie delivered. It had humor, hysterics, and material that harkened to my youth. I don't know if women or people who didn't grow up in the Northern California Bay Area will get as much out of the film as I did but it's such a treat when films are about where you're from. The film accurately encapsulated the charm and slower feel that the Bay Area has and the subsequent feeling of needing to escape it. The only issue I have with the cities' depictions is Ukiah. It is not beautiful there. Nothing is there. I recall the people being actually very unpleasant. Maybe they're nicer by the beach. As far as Berkeley, I really enjoyed the small town depiction. Before I was old enough to get into bars, I remember walking around Berkeley with a friend or two and just soaking up the scenery. It does have slow college-town elements that the adventurous Nick Twisp sought to escape.
Michael Cera's performance as Nick Twisp was not the most confident of characters, similar to his previous roles, yet his character was determined and never mumbled. I don't think I ever was so curious about Michael Cera's acting ability that I wondered if he could do anything else. Since everyone else was so spiteful and curious about it, a spark of a question did grow in me but it was answered with Francois Dillinger. Francois Dillinger never mumbled. He was the ultimate ladies man who knows exactly what to say to get what Nick Twisp desires. Such a far reaching departure from George Michael Bluth was a welcome surprise.
The supporting cast was a little hit and miss for me. The normally likable Steve Buscemi was kind of just blah to me. I did enjoy Adhir Kalyan, Fred Willard, and Ray Liotta but Justin Long and Zach Galifianakis' characters were rather there just to be there. With their notoriety, I felt more could have been done with them. Again, this could be attributable to the need for the focus to be on Nick Twisp but it would have behooved the movie to develop these side relationships so that they would not seem so anecdotal.
The story is somewhat of a coming of age story but in a less obvious vajayjay Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants and less over the top than American Pie Vol. 1-11. Coming from the perspective of a young boy whose desire is to lose his virginity, the default method seems to be slapstick. Youth in Revolt goes the route of determination, transpiring in the form of realistic challenges rather than the “You Laugh Now” type. While the goal of losing ones virginity is the same as other less intelligent films, the film rides more on the coming of age wave instead of the in your face sexual wave.
The stakes were constantly raised higher and higher in the film. When Nick's scheming come to a head, they really come to a head. After destroying part of Berkeley, Nick successfully gets himself sent to his father's in Ukiah to be with Sheeni Saunders. Sheeni, upon her grandfather's hearing of Nick's dangerous history, gets sent to a French boarding school hundreds of miles away in Santa Cruz. He drives to Santa Cruz and Nick comes close to his goal but is interrupted by the headmistress. With the plan of going to her foiled, Nick manipulates one of Sheeni's classmates to get her sent back to Ukiah. The plan is successful but the deceit is revealed upon Trent's, Sheeni's unseen until that point boyfriend, return to Ukiah. Nick's initial freedom from his crimes in Berkely catch up to him and he is eventually arrested, though not without a last ditch attempt to fake his own death. As you've read, the lengths that Nick will go to lose his virginity are quite lengthy. These alone are interesting enough but the constant decisions that Nick goes through draws intrigue to his quest.
While perhaps unable to draw the cult following of the book, Youth in Revolt as a film is still worth a watch. If you happen to enjoy Michael Cera at all, you will enjoy this film. His unexpected character departures were brilliant. He may not be in the market to be cast in the next Cameron Crowe movie but I for one am glad he found a role that proved his acting chops.
If you were curious as to whether Michael Cera could do anything but that awkward mumbling character, let Youth in Revolt set your curiosity aside. I recall seeing C.D. Payne on a late night show some time ago and laughing to the point where usually only the likes of younger comedians could make me laugh. I put the book on my Amazon Wishlist and it got lost in limbo but I remember being excited about Michael Cera's casting. Now, with its recent release to Blu-ray, I decided to give the movie its due.
The movie delivered. It had humor, hysterics, and material that harkened to my youth. I don't know if women or people who didn't grow up in the Northern California Bay Area will get as much out of the film as I did but it's such a treat when films are about where you're from. The film accurately encapsulated the charm and slower feel that the Bay Area has and the subsequent feeling of needing to escape it. The only issue I have with the cities' depictions is Ukiah. It is not beautiful there. Nothing is there. I recall the people being actually very unpleasant. Maybe they're nicer by the beach. As far as Berkeley, I really enjoyed the small town depiction. Before I was old enough to get into bars, I remember walking around Berkeley with a friend or two and just soaking up the scenery. It does have slow college-town elements that the adventurous Nick Twisp sought to escape.
Michael Cera's performance as Nick Twisp was not the most confident of characters, similar to his previous roles, yet his character was determined and never mumbled. I don't think I ever was so curious about Michael Cera's acting ability that I wondered if he could do anything else. Since everyone else was so spiteful and curious about it, a spark of a question did grow in me but it was answered with Francois Dillinger. Francois Dillinger never mumbled. He was the ultimate ladies man who knows exactly what to say to get what Nick Twisp desires. Such a far reaching departure from George Michael Bluth was a welcome surprise.
The supporting cast was a little hit and miss for me. The normally likable Steve Buscemi was kind of just blah to me. I did enjoy Adhir Kalyan, Fred Willard, and Ray Liotta but Justin Long and Zach Galifianakis' characters were rather there just to be there. With their notoriety, I felt more could have been done with them. Again, this could be attributable to the need for the focus to be on Nick Twisp but it would have behooved the movie to develop these side relationships so that they would not seem so anecdotal.
The story is somewhat of a coming of age story but in a less obvious vajayjay Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants and less over the top than American Pie Vol. 1-11. Coming from the perspective of a young boy whose desire is to lose his virginity, the default method seems to be slapstick. Youth in Revolt goes the route of determination, transpiring in the form of realistic challenges rather than the “You Laugh Now” type. While the goal of losing ones virginity is the same as other less intelligent films, the film rides more on the coming of age wave instead of the in your face sexual wave.
The stakes were constantly raised higher and higher in the film. When Nick's scheming come to a head, they really come to a head. After destroying part of Berkeley, Nick successfully gets himself sent to his father's in Ukiah to be with Sheeni Saunders. Sheeni, upon her grandfather's hearing of Nick's dangerous history, gets sent to a French boarding school hundreds of miles away in Santa Cruz. He drives to Santa Cruz and Nick comes close to his goal but is interrupted by the headmistress. With the plan of going to her foiled, Nick manipulates one of Sheeni's classmates to get her sent back to Ukiah. The plan is successful but the deceit is revealed upon Trent's, Sheeni's unseen until that point boyfriend, return to Ukiah. Nick's initial freedom from his crimes in Berkely catch up to him and he is eventually arrested, though not without a last ditch attempt to fake his own death. As you've read, the lengths that Nick will go to lose his virginity are quite lengthy. These alone are interesting enough but the constant decisions that Nick goes through draws intrigue to his quest.
While perhaps unable to draw the cult following of the book, Youth in Revolt as a film is still worth a watch. If you happen to enjoy Michael Cera at all, you will enjoy this film. His unexpected character departures were brilliant. He may not be in the market to be cast in the next Cameron Crowe movie but I for one am glad he found a role that proved his acting chops.
Monday, July 19, 2010
Review: An Unmastered Inception
| by Allan Stackhouse |
This is going to be a long one…
In effort to preserve a fresh perspective, I avoided all reviews for Christopher Nolan’s newest film, Inception. The trailers were all I needed to fan the flames of interest in the film. Killer cast, not a sequel, interesting concept, etc. While scrolling through the Facebook status updates of the Cosmic Toast Studios friends, I came across one on Friday: “Inception was life-changing.” The string of updates that sprouted over the weekend were ones of minds being blown and dreams being amazing. However, I successfully forgot about that update when I watched the movie and Inception, while good, was definitely not life-changing.
A film, in most cases, is supposed to capture your interest and attention at the fifteen minute mark. In some, it could take as little as one (Kill Bill), some as long as twenty (Percy Jackson), and in some, they can happen as late as thirty or even not at all (see any movie about horses or talking animals). My biggest problem with the film was that this moment where stakes are raised and interest is established did not occur until the eighty minute mark. I pulled out my phone at that exact moment in the Arclight in Hollywood because I couldn‘t believe it had taken so long for the film to get going. A film’s set up is integral and Christopher Nolan does this well in all his previous films -- Insomnia, The Prestige, The Dark Knight -- yet fails to do so in a concise or interesting manner in Inception.
Prior to this, the only established motivations are for Leonardo DiCaprio’s Cobb, the main character, to perform the inception that will secure his freedom to be reunited with his two children and Ken Watanabe‘s Saito to make sure he follows through on their deal. I waited and waited for close to the length of a feature film to find out the motivation of all the other well-casted supporting characters and I never found it. Their dialogue toward one another is entirely professional and this did not provide any indication to me to care about these characters or their relationships with one another. Having a professional investment to the point where they would risk their minds is common amongst assassin films but these people aren’t trying to kill anyone.
As a literary piece or a play, exposition is expected and integral. In film, it needs to be done sparingly and intelligently. Inception pays no regard to this and explains not only the endless mythos of entering and manipulating dreams but the story and motivations themselves. Ariadne’s introduction into the team, Saito convincing Cobb to join the team, practically all scenes within those first eighty minutes, and even here and there during the action packed last sixty-eight minutes were long sequences of dialogue and explanations.
The main conflict was Cobb doing what he needed to get back to his kids. I'm afraid I don't care. For not only himself but a group of other people who are not his friends, family or war buddies to take it upon themselves to help him makes no sense. There is no reason given as to why these characters care. It would have behooved the movie to have one thirty second scene in which they were presented with a briefcase of money, a pot of gold, or something to provide them some sort of motivation but this never occurred. Among the wonderfully talented Joseph Gordon Levitt, Ellen Page, Tom Hardy, and Dileep Rao, a driving force within all of them was never even so much as hinted at. Even motivating them with the sense that this was a street cred building challenge would have sufficed but we, as an audience, are not presented with any kind of solid driving force until the eighty minute mark when sh*t starts hitting the fan. The overt lack of character development in anyone besides Leonardo DiCaprio and Ken Watanabe was very frustrating especially after coming from such memorable characters such as Heath Ledger’s Joker. I believe Mr. Nolan got the performances that he wanted out of the actors yet there was no reason for me to care about anyone other than they were helping the main character. Which is nice of them, right?
When sh*t does start hitting the fan, the movie does find some of its footing. The last hour of the film did provide action-packed, suspenseful, visually stimulating ride. The characters, whose original assignment was to navigate the uncharted land of inception, turns into a life-threatening race against time. Unlike when under regular anesthesia, the special anesthesia they are under will not allow them to wake up if they happen to die in the the real world. Ellen Page’s Ariadne must navigate the fine line of keeping Cobb’s secret and protecting the others in the dream. Saito just tries to stay alive. Arthur must protect his team. Eames is just there to kick people’s asses and blow things up. Cobb’s motivation, to me, is not motivation. Instead of a staircase, I see more of an onion whose layers are peeled away which is fine for a mystery film but the setup, when finally established, is a survival/action film. Attempts to be both a suspense/action film in the past may have been successful but for Inception, the film flounders as it tries to figure out what kind of movie it is.
Some of the performances, in the few parts where actors were able to perform, were great. Cillian Murphy’s arcs in particular were highly captivating. I do not care for Marion Cotillard. She’s kind of just another pretty faced actress to me and this fact in tandem with her ability to act so convincingly as a villain made me absolutely detest her. I liken her to a Decepticon. It’s somewhat difficult to tag her as a villain since she was not real but she did pose a nice amount of interesting conflict to the team.
This movie did have some wonderful location shots. After hearing that Christopher Nolan insisted on filming in as many different countries as possible, I was practically already in line to buy tickets. Filming in Paris’ amazing architecture and building off of it was simply brilliant. Set design and location scouting is clearly not a problem for Christopher Nolan but these are not enough to support a movie of such great length.
The dreams within dreams storyline did get a little muddy. Since so many other things were explained to me through dialogue, I would have liked more to have been explained as to why the sense of synchronization of escaping dreams was so important to the characters. The limbo level dream’s time seemed infinite yet it and the other three dreams end come at the same time. I understood that this was important to wrap up the story but everything seems to get tied up in a nice bow even though the dreams within dreams are supposed to have slower time than the last.
Hans Zimmer's score completely outshined the film. I'm not a sound person but there were plenty of opportunities in the film where I wasn't paying attention to what I was watching and just soaked up the music. If you happened or happen to enjoy the film, the music in tandem will likely provide you a great movie watching experience but I, as a viewer, cannot depend on a supplementary element to fill the gaps of less than spectacular performances and a story that I did not care about.
Some sequences that I did particularly enjoy were the hotel scenes. As the van freefalls, gravity is jeopardized in the dream in the hotel. Joseph Gordon Levitt masterfully dispatches guards in a tumbling room like a gorilla in a young man‘s frame. The scene looked physically difficult for the actors and stuntmen and complicated for the crew to shoot. But the end result wound up being my favorite parts of the film.
The resolution at the end of the film is so much bigger than the initial conflict that was set up in the film. The idea of their lives being in danger literally does not come until the eighty minute mark. Have I told you that enough times? 80 WHOLE MINUTES!!!! For a lot of films these days, that's right about when films end. The length of Christopher Nolan's movies have this air of indulgence that I absolutely detest. Two hours and twenty-eight minutes is simply too long to tell a story that includes no side character development and a weak motivation for the main character. I walked away from the film knowing absolutely nothing about the supporting cast other than their professions.
A movie relying so heavily on exposition was quite unexpected out of Christopher Nolan. I have seen and enjoyed all of his films since 2000’s Insomnia which all had refined action, suspense, and darkness. In an attempt to veer from the darkness yet still create a mentally and visually stimulating film without the darkness, you would think that I would have responded better to the film. However, relaying information -- and therefore significance -- to the viewer through dialogue displayed such a surprising lack of mastery of the medium. Assuming that I'd be willing to wait the length of a film for the movie to gain my attention and interest was assuming way too much despite a likable last sixty minutes.
PS. Watch Satoshi Kon’s Paprika. Dream crime played out better for me in that.
This is going to be a long one…
In effort to preserve a fresh perspective, I avoided all reviews for Christopher Nolan’s newest film, Inception. The trailers were all I needed to fan the flames of interest in the film. Killer cast, not a sequel, interesting concept, etc. While scrolling through the Facebook status updates of the Cosmic Toast Studios friends, I came across one on Friday: “Inception was life-changing.” The string of updates that sprouted over the weekend were ones of minds being blown and dreams being amazing. However, I successfully forgot about that update when I watched the movie and Inception, while good, was definitely not life-changing.
A film, in most cases, is supposed to capture your interest and attention at the fifteen minute mark. In some, it could take as little as one (Kill Bill), some as long as twenty (Percy Jackson), and in some, they can happen as late as thirty or even not at all (see any movie about horses or talking animals). My biggest problem with the film was that this moment where stakes are raised and interest is established did not occur until the eighty minute mark. I pulled out my phone at that exact moment in the Arclight in Hollywood because I couldn‘t believe it had taken so long for the film to get going. A film’s set up is integral and Christopher Nolan does this well in all his previous films -- Insomnia, The Prestige, The Dark Knight -- yet fails to do so in a concise or interesting manner in Inception.
Prior to this, the only established motivations are for Leonardo DiCaprio’s Cobb, the main character, to perform the inception that will secure his freedom to be reunited with his two children and Ken Watanabe‘s Saito to make sure he follows through on their deal. I waited and waited for close to the length of a feature film to find out the motivation of all the other well-casted supporting characters and I never found it. Their dialogue toward one another is entirely professional and this did not provide any indication to me to care about these characters or their relationships with one another. Having a professional investment to the point where they would risk their minds is common amongst assassin films but these people aren’t trying to kill anyone.
As a literary piece or a play, exposition is expected and integral. In film, it needs to be done sparingly and intelligently. Inception pays no regard to this and explains not only the endless mythos of entering and manipulating dreams but the story and motivations themselves. Ariadne’s introduction into the team, Saito convincing Cobb to join the team, practically all scenes within those first eighty minutes, and even here and there during the action packed last sixty-eight minutes were long sequences of dialogue and explanations.
The main conflict was Cobb doing what he needed to get back to his kids. I'm afraid I don't care. For not only himself but a group of other people who are not his friends, family or war buddies to take it upon themselves to help him makes no sense. There is no reason given as to why these characters care. It would have behooved the movie to have one thirty second scene in which they were presented with a briefcase of money, a pot of gold, or something to provide them some sort of motivation but this never occurred. Among the wonderfully talented Joseph Gordon Levitt, Ellen Page, Tom Hardy, and Dileep Rao, a driving force within all of them was never even so much as hinted at. Even motivating them with the sense that this was a street cred building challenge would have sufficed but we, as an audience, are not presented with any kind of solid driving force until the eighty minute mark when sh*t starts hitting the fan. The overt lack of character development in anyone besides Leonardo DiCaprio and Ken Watanabe was very frustrating especially after coming from such memorable characters such as Heath Ledger’s Joker. I believe Mr. Nolan got the performances that he wanted out of the actors yet there was no reason for me to care about anyone other than they were helping the main character. Which is nice of them, right?
When sh*t does start hitting the fan, the movie does find some of its footing. The last hour of the film did provide action-packed, suspenseful, visually stimulating ride. The characters, whose original assignment was to navigate the uncharted land of inception, turns into a life-threatening race against time. Unlike when under regular anesthesia, the special anesthesia they are under will not allow them to wake up if they happen to die in the the real world. Ellen Page’s Ariadne must navigate the fine line of keeping Cobb’s secret and protecting the others in the dream. Saito just tries to stay alive. Arthur must protect his team. Eames is just there to kick people’s asses and blow things up. Cobb’s motivation, to me, is not motivation. Instead of a staircase, I see more of an onion whose layers are peeled away which is fine for a mystery film but the setup, when finally established, is a survival/action film. Attempts to be both a suspense/action film in the past may have been successful but for Inception, the film flounders as it tries to figure out what kind of movie it is.
Some of the performances, in the few parts where actors were able to perform, were great. Cillian Murphy’s arcs in particular were highly captivating. I do not care for Marion Cotillard. She’s kind of just another pretty faced actress to me and this fact in tandem with her ability to act so convincingly as a villain made me absolutely detest her. I liken her to a Decepticon. It’s somewhat difficult to tag her as a villain since she was not real but she did pose a nice amount of interesting conflict to the team.
This movie did have some wonderful location shots. After hearing that Christopher Nolan insisted on filming in as many different countries as possible, I was practically already in line to buy tickets. Filming in Paris’ amazing architecture and building off of it was simply brilliant. Set design and location scouting is clearly not a problem for Christopher Nolan but these are not enough to support a movie of such great length.
The dreams within dreams storyline did get a little muddy. Since so many other things were explained to me through dialogue, I would have liked more to have been explained as to why the sense of synchronization of escaping dreams was so important to the characters. The limbo level dream’s time seemed infinite yet it and the other three dreams end come at the same time. I understood that this was important to wrap up the story but everything seems to get tied up in a nice bow even though the dreams within dreams are supposed to have slower time than the last.
Hans Zimmer's score completely outshined the film. I'm not a sound person but there were plenty of opportunities in the film where I wasn't paying attention to what I was watching and just soaked up the music. If you happened or happen to enjoy the film, the music in tandem will likely provide you a great movie watching experience but I, as a viewer, cannot depend on a supplementary element to fill the gaps of less than spectacular performances and a story that I did not care about.
Some sequences that I did particularly enjoy were the hotel scenes. As the van freefalls, gravity is jeopardized in the dream in the hotel. Joseph Gordon Levitt masterfully dispatches guards in a tumbling room like a gorilla in a young man‘s frame. The scene looked physically difficult for the actors and stuntmen and complicated for the crew to shoot. But the end result wound up being my favorite parts of the film.
The resolution at the end of the film is so much bigger than the initial conflict that was set up in the film. The idea of their lives being in danger literally does not come until the eighty minute mark. Have I told you that enough times? 80 WHOLE MINUTES!!!! For a lot of films these days, that's right about when films end. The length of Christopher Nolan's movies have this air of indulgence that I absolutely detest. Two hours and twenty-eight minutes is simply too long to tell a story that includes no side character development and a weak motivation for the main character. I walked away from the film knowing absolutely nothing about the supporting cast other than their professions.
A movie relying so heavily on exposition was quite unexpected out of Christopher Nolan. I have seen and enjoyed all of his films since 2000’s Insomnia which all had refined action, suspense, and darkness. In an attempt to veer from the darkness yet still create a mentally and visually stimulating film without the darkness, you would think that I would have responded better to the film. However, relaying information -- and therefore significance -- to the viewer through dialogue displayed such a surprising lack of mastery of the medium. Assuming that I'd be willing to wait the length of a film for the movie to gain my attention and interest was assuming way too much despite a likable last sixty minutes.
PS. Watch Satoshi Kon’s Paprika. Dream crime played out better for me in that.
Thursday, July 15, 2010
New Kid on the Block: Percy Jackson
| by Allan Stackhouse |
Since Harry Potter, Lord of the Rings, and The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe, Hollywood has become the land of multi-book properties. This year's newest incarnation comes in the form of Percy Jackson & The Olympians: The Lightning Thief. It definitely follows suit with the long title rule: more words = epic. Hollywood is just going to keep rolling these out. We've got wizards, vampires, werewolves, dragons (even though that's a really hard property to make any money out of in live-action), and now we've got the Greek gods. Sometimes I wish I was astute enough to predict what the next thing will be but I'm sure I'll be doing a big “Oh yeah” for whatever happens to be next.
Percy Jackson is by no means spectacular. Its story is not gripping in the Harry Potter sense but it does tell a light-hearted adventure story about a boy with learning disorders who, upon discovering his father is Poseidon, must rescue his mother after being accused of stealing Zeus' lightning bolt. The film takes its time to get going. My suspension of disbelief did not kick in until the first half hour but when it did, I found myself really enjoying the story. I was expecting to be put off by the idea of Greek gods in present day but the story did not rely too heavily on any previous knowledge of them. The focus remained on the human characters and their roles. It established interest with a rescue story compounded by a specified and limited amount of time.
The unrest that's caused by this theft in the world of the Greek gods is believable but the film fails in putting any sort of weight in the human world. Perhaps the significance was worth being downplayed in favor of other events but, with scenes that tell us the world is in danger, I was left disappointed when the world's rescue comes off as a bonus after Zeus' bolt is returned. Swirling clouds and raging waters are a default modern day option when conveying earthly danger. How about some sinkholes? Earthquakes? Wildfires? Anything that doesn't swirl? These are all small additions that could have visually indicated the significance of Percy's quest.
Logan Lerman's role as a hero was slightly a shock to me. I am more accustomed to his performances as characters with a dramatic edge. In 3:10 to Yuma, he played a kid desperate to help protect his father. In Gamer, he played a hot shot video gamer with a handful of nice arcs. And in My One and Only, he was a curious young artist who was trying to keep his family together. I found his role in Percy more of a Peter Parker type of character but his youth definitely helped sell the idea of his character being in high school. As much as I love Tobey Maguire, Logan Lerman at 18 just sells it better than Tobey at 28.
The Las Vegas scene was completely unexpected and utterly brilliant. Some might view it as a narrative pit stop yet it's helped along with ideas of mystery and indulgence. It held up to the adage I've made that any movie featuring Las Vegas will more than likely be good. Examples: The Hangover, Casino, Vegas Vacation, Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas, the Ocean's (all except 12). Debauchery amongst youngsters may not be the best message to convey to today's youth but it is a real one and I'm glad this film had the balls to portray it accurately. The scene made me think about the stuff I was doing when my friends and I were 17 and 18 and it made me laugh.
One thing that I definitely did not enjoy is the hint of tokenism in the film. It wasn't at the Song of the South level but it's unmistakeably present in Brandon T. Jackson's Grover Underwood. There will never be an adequate explanation for me, or anyone with common sense, as to why Percy and Annabeth, the white cast leads, speak proper English but Grover, the black lead, says things like “Ohhhh, what's crackin' y'all?” While this did not happen frequently, it happened once; after that first time, I found myself looking for it and finding it. In the year 2010, this is where we're at as far as portraying black characters to children and the rest of the world? I could go on and on about that and in fact, I likely will in a future editorial.
I was largely pleased with the visual effects of the film. I really can't get enough of watching a wound healing. It seriously gives me chills because it looks so realistic. One thing in particular that I was definitely not pleased with is the hair on Grover's goat legs. If it's going to look that fake, I don't know why filmmakers bother when a costume would have been suitable OR they could simply keep his hooves out of frame or at least make the cuts a lot quicker so I'm not completely turned off by CGI hair. The technology is simply not there yet and I wish Hollywood would realize that and stop cheating the shots. The early shot of Poseidon was an early shot that I was bothered by. You would think that someone would have figured out how to make a giant man walking out of the ocean look realistic but no. It was reminiscent of the original Clash of the Titans.
If you're looking for a movie to stand up against the likes of Harry Potter, you will likely be disappointed by Percy Jackson. However, as far as a stand alone, the movie is pretty good. It might have more to offer to kids rather than adults but, as a man-child, the movie was an enjoyable adventure.
Since Harry Potter, Lord of the Rings, and The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe, Hollywood has become the land of multi-book properties. This year's newest incarnation comes in the form of Percy Jackson & The Olympians: The Lightning Thief. It definitely follows suit with the long title rule: more words = epic. Hollywood is just going to keep rolling these out. We've got wizards, vampires, werewolves, dragons (even though that's a really hard property to make any money out of in live-action), and now we've got the Greek gods. Sometimes I wish I was astute enough to predict what the next thing will be but I'm sure I'll be doing a big “Oh yeah” for whatever happens to be next.
Percy Jackson is by no means spectacular. Its story is not gripping in the Harry Potter sense but it does tell a light-hearted adventure story about a boy with learning disorders who, upon discovering his father is Poseidon, must rescue his mother after being accused of stealing Zeus' lightning bolt. The film takes its time to get going. My suspension of disbelief did not kick in until the first half hour but when it did, I found myself really enjoying the story. I was expecting to be put off by the idea of Greek gods in present day but the story did not rely too heavily on any previous knowledge of them. The focus remained on the human characters and their roles. It established interest with a rescue story compounded by a specified and limited amount of time.
The unrest that's caused by this theft in the world of the Greek gods is believable but the film fails in putting any sort of weight in the human world. Perhaps the significance was worth being downplayed in favor of other events but, with scenes that tell us the world is in danger, I was left disappointed when the world's rescue comes off as a bonus after Zeus' bolt is returned. Swirling clouds and raging waters are a default modern day option when conveying earthly danger. How about some sinkholes? Earthquakes? Wildfires? Anything that doesn't swirl? These are all small additions that could have visually indicated the significance of Percy's quest.
Logan Lerman's role as a hero was slightly a shock to me. I am more accustomed to his performances as characters with a dramatic edge. In 3:10 to Yuma, he played a kid desperate to help protect his father. In Gamer, he played a hot shot video gamer with a handful of nice arcs. And in My One and Only, he was a curious young artist who was trying to keep his family together. I found his role in Percy more of a Peter Parker type of character but his youth definitely helped sell the idea of his character being in high school. As much as I love Tobey Maguire, Logan Lerman at 18 just sells it better than Tobey at 28.
The Las Vegas scene was completely unexpected and utterly brilliant. Some might view it as a narrative pit stop yet it's helped along with ideas of mystery and indulgence. It held up to the adage I've made that any movie featuring Las Vegas will more than likely be good. Examples: The Hangover, Casino, Vegas Vacation, Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas, the Ocean's (all except 12). Debauchery amongst youngsters may not be the best message to convey to today's youth but it is a real one and I'm glad this film had the balls to portray it accurately. The scene made me think about the stuff I was doing when my friends and I were 17 and 18 and it made me laugh.
One thing that I definitely did not enjoy is the hint of tokenism in the film. It wasn't at the Song of the South level but it's unmistakeably present in Brandon T. Jackson's Grover Underwood. There will never be an adequate explanation for me, or anyone with common sense, as to why Percy and Annabeth, the white cast leads, speak proper English but Grover, the black lead, says things like “Ohhhh, what's crackin' y'all?” While this did not happen frequently, it happened once; after that first time, I found myself looking for it and finding it. In the year 2010, this is where we're at as far as portraying black characters to children and the rest of the world? I could go on and on about that and in fact, I likely will in a future editorial.
I was largely pleased with the visual effects of the film. I really can't get enough of watching a wound healing. It seriously gives me chills because it looks so realistic. One thing in particular that I was definitely not pleased with is the hair on Grover's goat legs. If it's going to look that fake, I don't know why filmmakers bother when a costume would have been suitable OR they could simply keep his hooves out of frame or at least make the cuts a lot quicker so I'm not completely turned off by CGI hair. The technology is simply not there yet and I wish Hollywood would realize that and stop cheating the shots. The early shot of Poseidon was an early shot that I was bothered by. You would think that someone would have figured out how to make a giant man walking out of the ocean look realistic but no. It was reminiscent of the original Clash of the Titans.
If you're looking for a movie to stand up against the likes of Harry Potter, you will likely be disappointed by Percy Jackson. However, as far as a stand alone, the movie is pretty good. It might have more to offer to kids rather than adults but, as a man-child, the movie was an enjoyable adventure.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)