Game OverThinker. Episode 17. "Homeless."
Little Big Planet, niche games and depressing sales results. Check it out:
http://gameoverthinker.blogspot.com/2008/12/episode-seventeen-homeless.html
Tuesday, December 30, 2008
I'm on Internet TV once again!
The Escapist has once again given me a slot for a movie review on their show, this time involving "Twilight." Now you know why I didn't do that "on my own." Check out the show here:
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/the-escapist-show/481-Episode-Nine-Dead-Rising-Chop-Till-You-Drop
I come in at about 5:45, but I do reccomend you check out the whole thing - they're covering the Wii version of "Dead Rising," and there's a Zero Punctuation preview for what looks like a Prince of Persia review. Fun!
UPDATE:
Oh, and hey... just thought of something: This is the first time I've had one of these up for something that was new and revelent... so, if anyone out there is feeling helpful, it might be fun to go and toss some links to this in the direction of your favorite movie-discussion forum, chatroom, message-board, whatever - particularly ones where "Twilight" is being discussed or is likely to be discussed. The IMDB board for the film, for example, would be a good idea. I'd be interested to see what the actual feedback on something "fresh" is.
Thanks.
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/the-escapist-show/481-Episode-Nine-Dead-Rising-Chop-Till-You-Drop
I come in at about 5:45, but I do reccomend you check out the whole thing - they're covering the Wii version of "Dead Rising," and there's a Zero Punctuation preview for what looks like a Prince of Persia review. Fun!
UPDATE:
Oh, and hey... just thought of something: This is the first time I've had one of these up for something that was new and revelent... so, if anyone out there is feeling helpful, it might be fun to go and toss some links to this in the direction of your favorite movie-discussion forum, chatroom, message-board, whatever - particularly ones where "Twilight" is being discussed or is likely to be discussed. The IMDB board for the film, for example, would be a good idea. I'd be interested to see what the actual feedback on something "fresh" is.
Thanks.
Saturday, December 27, 2008
The Spirit (2008)
As if the geekdom NEEDED any evidence beyond "All-Star Batman & Robin" (or the entire last decade or so of his career, really) that Frank Miller has turned perhaps irrevocably into a self-hating destroyer of his own work and all he's ever professed to love, please keep in mind that he still calls the late, legendary Will Eisner - creator of The Spirit - a friend and mentor... yet he has turned Eisner's signature creation, one of the most groundbreaking and important in all of the medium, into the most toxically awful comic adaptation since Joel Schumacher first opted for anatomically-correct Batsuits.
It's not enough to call "The Spirit" a bad movie... it's one of the THE bad movies. What we have here is a must-be-seen cultural touchstone, a moment that any film geek worth his salt will want to be able to say he remembers experiencing for the first time. It sits in a rare pantheon with the most truly awful of the awful - think "Myra Breckenridge." Think "Zabriske Point." Think "Showgirls" and the "Sgt. Peppers Lonely Hearts Club Band" movie with the Bee Gees. This will be a punchline for decades, and we will speak of it forever.
Eisner's "Spirit" was a newspaper strip (so popular that for a time papers would carry it in it's own section instead of placing it with the other comics) about a masked man who took a licking and kept on ticking - an ex-cop named Denny Colt who uses the fact that the underworld believes he's been killed to assume a vigilante identity. Part hard-boiled noir, part romance, part slapstick, part kiddie fantasy and part gritty action drama, there's still never been anything else exactly like it - not for nothing does the comic publishing world call it's highest honor "The Eisner Award." It was always going to be a problem to adapt this material into a film - Spirit is often a supporting character in his own adventures, a nigh-indestructible Rod Serling taking readers on a tour of urban fancy that was, tonally, all over the map: Spirit could be romancing a curvaceous hitwoman in one scene, and partnering with Santa Claus to save Christmas in the next. Hard-edged thugs share the same panels with glamorous pinup beauties with names like Sand Saref or Plaster of Paris.
Miller's "solution" to this conundrum is twofold: He opts to suck the fun out by bathing the whole film in the monotone sheen thats become a boring cliche in the genre AND by turning the circumstances of Spirit's joked-about invulnerability into a plot point; then he fills in the cracks with his standard-issue bag of tricks and the ultimate over-the-top "what the HELL are you buying that you needed to say yes to this??" turn from Samuel L. Jackson.
The sole plus side of the film, aside from being able to enjoy it's transcendant awfulness for the sake of comedy, is that Miller retains a (visually) acute taste in women - he's honored The Spirit's tradition of curvaceous pinup-princess female characters by packing the cast with some of the best-looking women in the business and pouring them into a boutique's worth of fetish-doll costuming. One can feel pity on Scarlett Johanssen, Eva Mendes, Paz Vega (so thats where she's been...) Sara Paulson and Jamie King for having to debase themselves with Miller's tone-deaf tuff-girl dialogue, but they've never looked better. Thank goodness for small, (even-numbered) favors.
It's not enough to call "The Spirit" a bad movie... it's one of the THE bad movies. What we have here is a must-be-seen cultural touchstone, a moment that any film geek worth his salt will want to be able to say he remembers experiencing for the first time. It sits in a rare pantheon with the most truly awful of the awful - think "Myra Breckenridge." Think "Zabriske Point." Think "Showgirls" and the "Sgt. Peppers Lonely Hearts Club Band" movie with the Bee Gees. This will be a punchline for decades, and we will speak of it forever.
Eisner's "Spirit" was a newspaper strip (so popular that for a time papers would carry it in it's own section instead of placing it with the other comics) about a masked man who took a licking and kept on ticking - an ex-cop named Denny Colt who uses the fact that the underworld believes he's been killed to assume a vigilante identity. Part hard-boiled noir, part romance, part slapstick, part kiddie fantasy and part gritty action drama, there's still never been anything else exactly like it - not for nothing does the comic publishing world call it's highest honor "The Eisner Award." It was always going to be a problem to adapt this material into a film - Spirit is often a supporting character in his own adventures, a nigh-indestructible Rod Serling taking readers on a tour of urban fancy that was, tonally, all over the map: Spirit could be romancing a curvaceous hitwoman in one scene, and partnering with Santa Claus to save Christmas in the next. Hard-edged thugs share the same panels with glamorous pinup beauties with names like Sand Saref or Plaster of Paris.
Miller's "solution" to this conundrum is twofold: He opts to suck the fun out by bathing the whole film in the monotone sheen thats become a boring cliche in the genre AND by turning the circumstances of Spirit's joked-about invulnerability into a plot point; then he fills in the cracks with his standard-issue bag of tricks and the ultimate over-the-top "what the HELL are you buying that you needed to say yes to this??" turn from Samuel L. Jackson.
The sole plus side of the film, aside from being able to enjoy it's transcendant awfulness for the sake of comedy, is that Miller retains a (visually) acute taste in women - he's honored The Spirit's tradition of curvaceous pinup-princess female characters by packing the cast with some of the best-looking women in the business and pouring them into a boutique's worth of fetish-doll costuming. One can feel pity on Scarlett Johanssen, Eva Mendes, Paz Vega (so thats where she's been...) Sara Paulson and Jamie King for having to debase themselves with Miller's tone-deaf tuff-girl dialogue, but they've never looked better. Thank goodness for small, (even-numbered) favors.
Seven Pounds
If you were like me, you MARVELED at the effectiveness of Will Smith and director Gabriele Muccino's "The Pursuit of Happyness," wondering HOW they managed to remove every shred of false emotionality, cheese, heavy-handed symbolism and sappy sentimentality from a project that was PRIMED for them. Now, we have our answer: They saved it all up and used it to make THIS stumbling mess of Oscar bait.
Here's a movie that almost plays out like it was made on a dare: "Bet you can't make a maudlin tearjerker about a messianic IRS agent; bonus points if you can make a jellyfish a pivotal element." As it turns out, you CAN do this... you just shouldn't.
The hook here is supposed to be that the trailers have you wondering what the hell the film is actually about, and that it doesn't all "come together" until the final "shocking" ten minutes or so. Maybe that part will work for you. Honestly? I was pretty sure I'd figured out the story from the first trailers, and was surprised to later find out it was supposed to be vauge. Oh, well.
To be sporting, I won't tell you anything about the main plot other than what WAS shown plainly in the trailer: Will Smith is a mysterious, soft-spoken man with IRS credentials and apparently great wealth who's smarting emotionally over some yet-unrevealed personal moral failing in his recent past. He spends the film investigating and meeting various sick people in need of organ transplants, 'testing' their worth and situations for a yet-unrevealed reason. Whatever it is, it involves a rather unorthodox promise to help made by his friend (Barry Pepper) and seems to be complicated by his development of a romantic interest in one of his subjects: Rosario Dawson as a young woman in need of a new heart. Okay. That was the trailer. Do YOU have some inkling as to what the "big idea" might be? Ah, good. So it's not just me.
Anyway... I don't think it's a bad idea for a movie, myself, but the end result is torpedoed by a treacly, predictable series of scenarios and disasterously heavy-handed symbology. The story views Smith's character a martyr figure, fine - but does he REALLY need, in addition to all his other skills (he can, for example, repair a century-old machine he's never heard of just by studying it VERY intently and stopping off at the Home Depot) the seemingly supernatural ability to tame misbehaving dogs, understand the unspoken thoughts of an invalid old woman and even pull miraculous gardening solutions out of thin air? Memo to Mr. Smith: Messiah complexes tend to get movie stars into trouble. See Cruise comma Tom, Gibson comma Mel.
Here's a movie that almost plays out like it was made on a dare: "Bet you can't make a maudlin tearjerker about a messianic IRS agent; bonus points if you can make a jellyfish a pivotal element." As it turns out, you CAN do this... you just shouldn't.
The hook here is supposed to be that the trailers have you wondering what the hell the film is actually about, and that it doesn't all "come together" until the final "shocking" ten minutes or so. Maybe that part will work for you. Honestly? I was pretty sure I'd figured out the story from the first trailers, and was surprised to later find out it was supposed to be vauge. Oh, well.
To be sporting, I won't tell you anything about the main plot other than what WAS shown plainly in the trailer: Will Smith is a mysterious, soft-spoken man with IRS credentials and apparently great wealth who's smarting emotionally over some yet-unrevealed personal moral failing in his recent past. He spends the film investigating and meeting various sick people in need of organ transplants, 'testing' their worth and situations for a yet-unrevealed reason. Whatever it is, it involves a rather unorthodox promise to help made by his friend (Barry Pepper) and seems to be complicated by his development of a romantic interest in one of his subjects: Rosario Dawson as a young woman in need of a new heart. Okay. That was the trailer. Do YOU have some inkling as to what the "big idea" might be? Ah, good. So it's not just me.
Anyway... I don't think it's a bad idea for a movie, myself, but the end result is torpedoed by a treacly, predictable series of scenarios and disasterously heavy-handed symbology. The story views Smith's character a martyr figure, fine - but does he REALLY need, in addition to all his other skills (he can, for example, repair a century-old machine he's never heard of just by studying it VERY intently and stopping off at the Home Depot) the seemingly supernatural ability to tame misbehaving dogs, understand the unspoken thoughts of an invalid old woman and even pull miraculous gardening solutions out of thin air? Memo to Mr. Smith: Messiah complexes tend to get movie stars into trouble. See Cruise comma Tom, Gibson comma Mel.
Monday, December 22, 2008
VOTE FOR GAME OVERTHINKER (again!)
Wow.
The Screwattack.com Gaming 1337 awards have moved on to the finals, and thanks to all of YOU... I made it in. "Game OverThinker" is one of the FINAL THREE nominees for "Best Gaming Show;" alongside Mega64 and Unforgotten Realms.
WTF? Look, I'm not going to put on some bullshit humble-face and pretend like I don't bust my ass on these things or that I don't think I do a damn good job most of the time but... seriously? The HELL am I doing nominated alongside Mega64 and Unforgotten Realms??
Anyway, this DOES mean I've got to gently ask you all to once again head over to... http://screwattack.com/Vote
...and vote for GAME OVERTHINKER for "Best Gaming Show" (and whoever else you like for everything else.) Thank you all so much, what a great Christmas gift I genuinely was not expecting.
The Screwattack.com Gaming 1337 awards have moved on to the finals, and thanks to all of YOU... I made it in. "Game OverThinker" is one of the FINAL THREE nominees for "Best Gaming Show;" alongside Mega64 and Unforgotten Realms.
WTF? Look, I'm not going to put on some bullshit humble-face and pretend like I don't bust my ass on these things or that I don't think I do a damn good job most of the time but... seriously? The HELL am I doing nominated alongside Mega64 and Unforgotten Realms??
Anyway, this DOES mean I've got to gently ask you all to once again head over to... http://screwattack.com/Vote
...and vote for GAME OVERTHINKER for "Best Gaming Show" (and whoever else you like for everything else.) Thank you all so much, what a great Christmas gift I genuinely was not expecting.
Sunday, December 21, 2008
Valkyrie
Hey, I saw something early! Good for me!
As the barrage of trailers have now informed you, this is the story of one Col. Klaus von Stauffenberg, a German military officer who joined and subsequently spearheaded an attempt to assassinate Adolf Hitler and stage a military coup against the Nazi Elite. You are aware, one hopes, that this didn't work.
So, here's a challenge facing anyone trying to film this story: Everyone knows Hitler wasn't assassinated, so even if you've never heard this particular story you know how it ends. There's two ways, then, to make this work as a narrative (as opposed to a documentary). Option #1: Make a sprawling, likely lugubrious epic that sets up all the context and backstory explaining how things got to this point, who these conspirators were and why they chose this moment to act which won't be especially riveting but will tell a fascinating historical tale. Option #2: Cut out every shred of context, larger-themes, ANYTHING that isn't directly related to the forward-momentum of the conspiracy and hope that avoiding context will let the audience briefly forget that they already know the ending and can get wrapped up in the thrill of the chase.
"Valkyrie" goes with Option #2.
It's a well-made mechanical thriller, it just doesn't have any real heft to it. There's no real depth or character to any of the players or the film they inhabit: Tom Cruise - as Stauffenberg - steps onscreen, announces that he's decided that Hitler must be stopped, and spends the rest of the film plowing ahead toward that goal. The movie follows his lead. Who were these guys? What were their motives aside, from the general "Hitler was bad?" No time for that - it's just straight-on through the exciting parts of what's ultimately a pretty damn clever power-grab.
Up to a point this all works, the movie is exciting and goes along quick and agreeably... there just isn't anything to hang onto after it ends. Change the costumes and this could be the second and third act of an Ocean's Eleven sequel.
As the barrage of trailers have now informed you, this is the story of one Col. Klaus von Stauffenberg, a German military officer who joined and subsequently spearheaded an attempt to assassinate Adolf Hitler and stage a military coup against the Nazi Elite. You are aware, one hopes, that this didn't work.
So, here's a challenge facing anyone trying to film this story: Everyone knows Hitler wasn't assassinated, so even if you've never heard this particular story you know how it ends. There's two ways, then, to make this work as a narrative (as opposed to a documentary). Option #1: Make a sprawling, likely lugubrious epic that sets up all the context and backstory explaining how things got to this point, who these conspirators were and why they chose this moment to act which won't be especially riveting but will tell a fascinating historical tale. Option #2: Cut out every shred of context, larger-themes, ANYTHING that isn't directly related to the forward-momentum of the conspiracy and hope that avoiding context will let the audience briefly forget that they already know the ending and can get wrapped up in the thrill of the chase.
"Valkyrie" goes with Option #2.
It's a well-made mechanical thriller, it just doesn't have any real heft to it. There's no real depth or character to any of the players or the film they inhabit: Tom Cruise - as Stauffenberg - steps onscreen, announces that he's decided that Hitler must be stopped, and spends the rest of the film plowing ahead toward that goal. The movie follows his lead. Who were these guys? What were their motives aside, from the general "Hitler was bad?" No time for that - it's just straight-on through the exciting parts of what's ultimately a pretty damn clever power-grab.
Up to a point this all works, the movie is exciting and goes along quick and agreeably... there just isn't anything to hang onto after it ends. Change the costumes and this could be the second and third act of an Ocean's Eleven sequel.
The Tale of Despereaux
Sidebar: I hate being sick. Hate it. Hate not having any energy. Hate not being in control of my body. Hate losing whole days (or several days) to just sleeping and waiting for everything to repair itself. I can't believe I used to WISH for this shit just to get out of school. The FUCK was wrong with me??
Anyway...
"The Tale of Despereaux" looks like it took forever to make, so it's probably unfair to suggest that it's bearing more than a passing resemblance to something a cynical team of executives would concoct if told to create "Ratatouille meets Harry Potter" is anything other than coincidence. Especially since, in spite of how it eventually shakes out (SPOILER ALERT: less than wonderful) there's a tremendous amount to be admired in it. Here's a non-Pixar animated film that takes itself seriously, doesn't talk down at all to it's young audience, nails a kind of lyrical fairy-story melancholy seldom attempted outside of Hayao Miyazaki and - best of all - doesn't contain a SINGLE obnoxious pop-culture reference. It's just too bad it's so structurally unsound.
It's one thing for a family film to have a deep, layered plot... it's quite another for it to have a plot so convoluted and confounding that it would be frustrating to follow in an "adult" film. There are about five major characters at the center of five individual story-arcs with their own origins, motives and goals; and aside from key plot-points they don't really connect to one another all that much. There's enough material here for an entire season of a half-hour TV show, and it's all haphazardly crammed into a single movie.
Briefly: There's a kingdom called Dor, where everyone loves soup. During a big soup festival, a friendly rat named Roscuro accidentally falls into the Queen's bowl, inducing a fatal heart. This throws the King into depression, leading him to banish all rats to the dungeon - where even gentle Roscuro is forced to join a barbaric feudal society of vermin - and ban all soup - which leaves the Royal Soup Chef despondent and estranged from his assistant, a ghost (unexplained) made of vegetables. Meanwhile, a big-eared mouse named Despereaux keeps getting in trouble because he wants to be brave and knight-like while mice are supposed to be timid and fearful. He befriends the castle's Princess, a no-no which gets him banished to the dungeon in time to ALSO befriend Roscuro and hatch a joint plan of attonement. Also involved are an evil Rat King (who's name I'm not sure was ever said aloud) who placates the rat horde with gladiator games and a miserably-backstoried servant girl with a creeping case of Princess Envy. If you're noticing that Despereaux seems to comprise the less-interesting part of his own tale, you're halfway there.
The movie has all the hallmarks of a lengthy literary adaptation being crammed into a "highlight reel" of a feature film, and a quick Google informs me that it's indeed based on a Newbury Award winning book... which, puzzlingly, seems to be summarized as a lot LESS convoluted than the movie. Either way, there's just not enough room for anything to BREATHE.
It all seems to be working fine up to a point, with a nice deliberate pace that takes time introducing Roscuro (who's really more of the movie, to be honest) and the rest of the supporting cast and their stories before even getting to Despereaux (who never really gets away from being Reepicheep without the entertaining egomania.) But the cracks start to show in the second act. Without spoiling, the story requires two of the good-guys to take an INCREDIBLY dark, tragic character turn that the film doesn't leave enough room to fully explore - instead of a natural progression of bad decision to realization to redemption, it seems more like two major characters go momentarily insane and then get better right away for the finale.
And I've STILL got no idea what was up with the vegetable-man!
It's a great looking movie and an admirable try... but it falls apart.
Anyway...
"The Tale of Despereaux" looks like it took forever to make, so it's probably unfair to suggest that it's bearing more than a passing resemblance to something a cynical team of executives would concoct if told to create "Ratatouille meets Harry Potter" is anything other than coincidence. Especially since, in spite of how it eventually shakes out (SPOILER ALERT: less than wonderful) there's a tremendous amount to be admired in it. Here's a non-Pixar animated film that takes itself seriously, doesn't talk down at all to it's young audience, nails a kind of lyrical fairy-story melancholy seldom attempted outside of Hayao Miyazaki and - best of all - doesn't contain a SINGLE obnoxious pop-culture reference. It's just too bad it's so structurally unsound.
It's one thing for a family film to have a deep, layered plot... it's quite another for it to have a plot so convoluted and confounding that it would be frustrating to follow in an "adult" film. There are about five major characters at the center of five individual story-arcs with their own origins, motives and goals; and aside from key plot-points they don't really connect to one another all that much. There's enough material here for an entire season of a half-hour TV show, and it's all haphazardly crammed into a single movie.
Briefly: There's a kingdom called Dor, where everyone loves soup. During a big soup festival, a friendly rat named Roscuro accidentally falls into the Queen's bowl, inducing a fatal heart. This throws the King into depression, leading him to banish all rats to the dungeon - where even gentle Roscuro is forced to join a barbaric feudal society of vermin - and ban all soup - which leaves the Royal Soup Chef despondent and estranged from his assistant, a ghost (unexplained) made of vegetables. Meanwhile, a big-eared mouse named Despereaux keeps getting in trouble because he wants to be brave and knight-like while mice are supposed to be timid and fearful. He befriends the castle's Princess, a no-no which gets him banished to the dungeon in time to ALSO befriend Roscuro and hatch a joint plan of attonement. Also involved are an evil Rat King (who's name I'm not sure was ever said aloud) who placates the rat horde with gladiator games and a miserably-backstoried servant girl with a creeping case of Princess Envy. If you're noticing that Despereaux seems to comprise the less-interesting part of his own tale, you're halfway there.
The movie has all the hallmarks of a lengthy literary adaptation being crammed into a "highlight reel" of a feature film, and a quick Google informs me that it's indeed based on a Newbury Award winning book... which, puzzlingly, seems to be summarized as a lot LESS convoluted than the movie. Either way, there's just not enough room for anything to BREATHE.
It all seems to be working fine up to a point, with a nice deliberate pace that takes time introducing Roscuro (who's really more of the movie, to be honest) and the rest of the supporting cast and their stories before even getting to Despereaux (who never really gets away from being Reepicheep without the entertaining egomania.) But the cracks start to show in the second act. Without spoiling, the story requires two of the good-guys to take an INCREDIBLY dark, tragic character turn that the film doesn't leave enough room to fully explore - instead of a natural progression of bad decision to realization to redemption, it seems more like two major characters go momentarily insane and then get better right away for the finale.
And I've STILL got no idea what was up with the vegetable-man!
It's a great looking movie and an admirable try... but it falls apart.
Wednesday, December 17, 2008
Monday, December 15, 2008
The Day The Earth Stood Still
SPOILER WARNING
Somewhere inside this bloated, unpleasant movie is a genuinely interesting science fiction tale struggling to get free - it fails. To watch it is to watch potential die under pressure from mandate: A nifty-sounding idea (an extraterrestrial Noah's Ark retelling in which humanity tries to talk an alien god-figure out of his doom-flood decision) dies painfully from contorting itself into a LOUSY idea (an ID4-ized rehash of the same-named 1950s scifi classic.)
In case it's been awhile (or never) on your end, the original film details the arrival of alien ambassador Klaatu and his robot bodyguard Gort, come to inform humanity that we've got another thing coming if we think the rest of the galaxy will ALLOW us to develop space travel before we get our pesky Cold Warrin' ways under control.
This time around, environmental destruction has, of course, supplanted the Cold War and Klaatu (Keanu Reeves) isn't at all in a diplomatic mood. As it turns out, The Aliens have decided that our planet-destroying ways pose too much danger to all the OTHER species on Earth, so we're too be wiped out while he spares samples of the others. This is where the new Gort comes in - he starts out looking like the original, then winds up as something completely different.
Oddly enough, it's the callbacks to the original film that drag it down - the "new" elements are almost uniformly interesting and provocative. The new Gort looks cool, but the effects used to realize him are awful and it makes no sense for him to spend two acts of his existance looking like a forty-foot version of the original. The film takes a long detour wherein an elderly scientist (John Cleese) tells Klaatu's human pals stuff we've already figured out just so they can do the "blackboard bit" from the first one.
The director is Scott Derrickson, who made the similarly-squandered "Exorcism of Emily Rose" a few years back. Interestingly, this now means he's been responsible for making preachy, poorly-made genre films for both the Right AND the Left - way to branch out.
Skip this.
Somewhere inside this bloated, unpleasant movie is a genuinely interesting science fiction tale struggling to get free - it fails. To watch it is to watch potential die under pressure from mandate: A nifty-sounding idea (an extraterrestrial Noah's Ark retelling in which humanity tries to talk an alien god-figure out of his doom-flood decision) dies painfully from contorting itself into a LOUSY idea (an ID4-ized rehash of the same-named 1950s scifi classic.)
In case it's been awhile (or never) on your end, the original film details the arrival of alien ambassador Klaatu and his robot bodyguard Gort, come to inform humanity that we've got another thing coming if we think the rest of the galaxy will ALLOW us to develop space travel before we get our pesky Cold Warrin' ways under control.
This time around, environmental destruction has, of course, supplanted the Cold War and Klaatu (Keanu Reeves) isn't at all in a diplomatic mood. As it turns out, The Aliens have decided that our planet-destroying ways pose too much danger to all the OTHER species on Earth, so we're too be wiped out while he spares samples of the others. This is where the new Gort comes in - he starts out looking like the original, then winds up as something completely different.
Oddly enough, it's the callbacks to the original film that drag it down - the "new" elements are almost uniformly interesting and provocative. The new Gort looks cool, but the effects used to realize him are awful and it makes no sense for him to spend two acts of his existance looking like a forty-foot version of the original. The film takes a long detour wherein an elderly scientist (John Cleese) tells Klaatu's human pals stuff we've already figured out just so they can do the "blackboard bit" from the first one.
The director is Scott Derrickson, who made the similarly-squandered "Exorcism of Emily Rose" a few years back. Interestingly, this now means he's been responsible for making preachy, poorly-made genre films for both the Right AND the Left - way to branch out.
Skip this.
Sunday, December 14, 2008
Milk
I have what I'd like to call a Death Row outlook on movies for the most part, in that I'm generally interested in the execution above all else. In other words, I'm not of the opinion that the subject matter should either make a film innately "better" or excuse flaws - a well made, exciting movie based on a video game is in my mind superior to a poorly made, boring movie about (just for example) the Holocaust.
"Milk" is the sort of film that provides the exception to my rules, or at least makes me want to make one. On the one hand, it's a wholly conventional, by-the-numbers recent-history biopic straight out of the playbook. You know the drill: cut-in newsreel footage, era-appropriate music, everything timed out EXACTLY as you expect. Never heard of Harvey Milk? No problem - just imagine any recent bio movie if it had been about a gay political activist in 1970s San Fransisco and there you go.
On the other hand... I think that's kind of the point. Director Gus Van Sant etc. all seem to understand that the particular Civil Rights struggle in question here is still very much a struggle, and the principal aim of the film appears to be making a "gay rights movie" that can be understood, accepted and embraced by a "straight" mainstream audience. Call it subversion-by-conventionality, but it's definately there.
The whole thing is anchored by a simply fantastic lead performance by Sean Penn as Harvey Milk, an SF camera store owner who stumbled into activism on the way out of the closet and found he had a knack for it - transforming the city's Castro Street "gay ghetto" into a political powerbase and remaking himself into the firebrand of the then-burgeoning Gay Rights movement. I know people don't "like" Penn... some for better reasons than others, but you can't say he doesn't have the talent to make you forget for a few hours. This is his best work in years - though I'd be remiss not to point out that big chunks of the film are stolen right out from under him by Emile Hirsch as a kid who goes from jaded young hustler to super-saavy political operator as one of Milk's protege's.
It's Penn's show, but the film does do an overall solid job of setting the tone and immediacy of Milk's too-short moment and, yes, framing the events in a way that strips away the sensation and "other-ness" to allow a wider audience to hear it's message. And it's not shy about playing with some of the less clear-cut events in question, such as the unlikely ally by-then-Assemblyman Milk has in then-Governor Ronald Reagan during Milk's career-defining battle against Proposition 6 (a bill to allow the for-that-reason firing of gay schoolteachers.)
Where it stumbles a bit is with Josh Brolin's character of Dan White, a fellow Assemblyman who plays a key but tragic role in Milk's final days. The film wants White to be an important character throughout the story, but never really finds a through-line despite Brolin's winning performance. At the end of the day, he's in too much of the film to have his ultimate motives/issues left so ambiguous.
This is a good one.
"Milk" is the sort of film that provides the exception to my rules, or at least makes me want to make one. On the one hand, it's a wholly conventional, by-the-numbers recent-history biopic straight out of the playbook. You know the drill: cut-in newsreel footage, era-appropriate music, everything timed out EXACTLY as you expect. Never heard of Harvey Milk? No problem - just imagine any recent bio movie if it had been about a gay political activist in 1970s San Fransisco and there you go.
On the other hand... I think that's kind of the point. Director Gus Van Sant etc. all seem to understand that the particular Civil Rights struggle in question here is still very much a struggle, and the principal aim of the film appears to be making a "gay rights movie" that can be understood, accepted and embraced by a "straight" mainstream audience. Call it subversion-by-conventionality, but it's definately there.
The whole thing is anchored by a simply fantastic lead performance by Sean Penn as Harvey Milk, an SF camera store owner who stumbled into activism on the way out of the closet and found he had a knack for it - transforming the city's Castro Street "gay ghetto" into a political powerbase and remaking himself into the firebrand of the then-burgeoning Gay Rights movement. I know people don't "like" Penn... some for better reasons than others, but you can't say he doesn't have the talent to make you forget for a few hours. This is his best work in years - though I'd be remiss not to point out that big chunks of the film are stolen right out from under him by Emile Hirsch as a kid who goes from jaded young hustler to super-saavy political operator as one of Milk's protege's.
It's Penn's show, but the film does do an overall solid job of setting the tone and immediacy of Milk's too-short moment and, yes, framing the events in a way that strips away the sensation and "other-ness" to allow a wider audience to hear it's message. And it's not shy about playing with some of the less clear-cut events in question, such as the unlikely ally by-then-Assemblyman Milk has in then-Governor Ronald Reagan during Milk's career-defining battle against Proposition 6 (a bill to allow the for-that-reason firing of gay schoolteachers.)
Where it stumbles a bit is with Josh Brolin's character of Dan White, a fellow Assemblyman who plays a key but tragic role in Milk's final days. The film wants White to be an important character throughout the story, but never really finds a through-line despite Brolin's winning performance. At the end of the day, he's in too much of the film to have his ultimate motives/issues left so ambiguous.
This is a good one.
Saturday, December 13, 2008
Slumdog Millionaire
A young man in his 20s is kicking ass as a contestant on a locally-produced version of "Who Wants To Be A Millionaire." In between tapings, he's interrogated by the police over suspicions that he's cheating because he's from a poor neighborhood and thus they don't believe he can possibly have the education to know the answers he knows. He's not cheating, of course - it's actually all some kind of amazing divine luck: ALL of the seemingly-difficult answers are burned into his memory thanks to popping up in the major events of his colorfully hardscrabble Dickensian life - what other kind do poor Movie Kids have, after all. Isn't that something else? His account of these events to the authorities forms the narrative structure of the film, a tale of too-clever-by-half kids making do with what they can, amazing encounters, narrow escapes and, of course, The Girl.
This should REALLY suck, right?
Re-read the above description, keep in mind that this film has been released NOW as opposed to forty years ago as a Tommy Kirk vehicle, and tell me you're not inclined to expect complete and utter pablum likely starring some Disney Channel teen idol looking for a film career. BUT... and it's a big but... the film in question takes place amid the slums of modern India. See? Now you're suddenly more interested. What a difference a gloss of exoticism makes on these tired Western eyes, no?
It also helps, of course, to have Danny Boyle directing.
The story is, no joke, exactly as I laid it out above - but the location makes all the difference. The sheer SCALE of the centuries-established poverty of the Bombay (soon to be Mumbai) slums is unlike anything most people have ever seen... a "poor neighborhood" the size of a "poor continent." Scenes of the poor and/or orphaned children clambering across massive industrial pipes the size and length of the Great Wall, or picking through a dump so vast they can/have-to literally camp out while crossing it are the stuff you'd see in a surreal dream-sequence - except it's real. This is "showy" filmmaking that goes back to the days when we were still figuring out what filmmaking WAS: Want them to snap to attention during a story they've heard a billion times before? Shoot it somewhere REALLY interesting.
It's almost something like a family film... but, though it's not especially graphic things get REALLY intense a lot of the time. The requisite child-exploiting bad guys of the first act are a really sick pack of scoundrels that would likely cause Oliver Twist and David Copperfield to mess their knickers rather than crack wise; and like most life-stories about poverty-stricken youth it morphs into a gritty gangster saga in it's second half. It's also pretty unsparing in it's depiction of Indian Police "interrogation" techniques - if this is how they handle suspected TV Game Show cheats, I don't think anyone has to worry about the Mumbai terrorists "getting off easy."
But, it finally manages the trick of being uplifting and even joyous despite the occasional spurts of darkness WITHOUT becoming cheesy or treacly. I'm gonna call it "reccomended" (not that you'll need my encouragement when the innevitable Awards showers begin.)
This should REALLY suck, right?
Re-read the above description, keep in mind that this film has been released NOW as opposed to forty years ago as a Tommy Kirk vehicle, and tell me you're not inclined to expect complete and utter pablum likely starring some Disney Channel teen idol looking for a film career. BUT... and it's a big but... the film in question takes place amid the slums of modern India. See? Now you're suddenly more interested. What a difference a gloss of exoticism makes on these tired Western eyes, no?
It also helps, of course, to have Danny Boyle directing.
The story is, no joke, exactly as I laid it out above - but the location makes all the difference. The sheer SCALE of the centuries-established poverty of the Bombay (soon to be Mumbai) slums is unlike anything most people have ever seen... a "poor neighborhood" the size of a "poor continent." Scenes of the poor and/or orphaned children clambering across massive industrial pipes the size and length of the Great Wall, or picking through a dump so vast they can/have-to literally camp out while crossing it are the stuff you'd see in a surreal dream-sequence - except it's real. This is "showy" filmmaking that goes back to the days when we were still figuring out what filmmaking WAS: Want them to snap to attention during a story they've heard a billion times before? Shoot it somewhere REALLY interesting.
It's almost something like a family film... but, though it's not especially graphic things get REALLY intense a lot of the time. The requisite child-exploiting bad guys of the first act are a really sick pack of scoundrels that would likely cause Oliver Twist and David Copperfield to mess their knickers rather than crack wise; and like most life-stories about poverty-stricken youth it morphs into a gritty gangster saga in it's second half. It's also pretty unsparing in it's depiction of Indian Police "interrogation" techniques - if this is how they handle suspected TV Game Show cheats, I don't think anyone has to worry about the Mumbai terrorists "getting off easy."
But, it finally manages the trick of being uplifting and even joyous despite the occasional spurts of darkness WITHOUT becoming cheesy or treacly. I'm gonna call it "reccomended" (not that you'll need my encouragement when the innevitable Awards showers begin.)
Wednesday, December 10, 2008
Yatterman
The first thing to know about trying to get "into" Anime is that unless you're ALSO going to try and absorb every single facet of Japanese popular fiction from about the end of WWII on, you're NEVER going to know "enough."
Case in point: Up until about fifteen minutes ago, I was unaware of the existance of something called "Yatterman" - though it's apparently HUGE in it's native country. I'm aware of it as of now because it turns out that batshit-insane Japanese filmmaker Takeshi Miike ("Audition" would be his best-known work over here) has turned in a big-budget (for Japan) live-action adaptation. One of the most interesting developments in genre film in recent years has been the revelation that Miike's gonzo stylings - previously used exclusively in service of just about the most violent, surreal, graphic, horrifying and yet brilliant/frequently-hysterical movies you'll ever see - are a near-perfect fit for children's films; first-evidenced in "The Great Yokai War." This film looks for continue the trend.
Here's the trailer:
Anyway, as if a new Miike film wasn't a mandatory must-see ANYWAY, a quick jaunt to Wikipedia informs me that "Yatterman" is apparently about a boy/girl duo of globe-trotting inventor/heroes who's primarily transport/weapon is a giant robot dog that transforms into an all-terrain rescue vehicle. Their enemies are a Boris & Natasha-style trio of heavies led by a femme fatale who dresses like an even-more-fetishized "Batgirl."
Yeah. Seeing this as soon as possible.
Case in point: Up until about fifteen minutes ago, I was unaware of the existance of something called "Yatterman" - though it's apparently HUGE in it's native country. I'm aware of it as of now because it turns out that batshit-insane Japanese filmmaker Takeshi Miike ("Audition" would be his best-known work over here) has turned in a big-budget (for Japan) live-action adaptation. One of the most interesting developments in genre film in recent years has been the revelation that Miike's gonzo stylings - previously used exclusively in service of just about the most violent, surreal, graphic, horrifying and yet brilliant/frequently-hysterical movies you'll ever see - are a near-perfect fit for children's films; first-evidenced in "The Great Yokai War." This film looks for continue the trend.
Here's the trailer:
Anyway, as if a new Miike film wasn't a mandatory must-see ANYWAY, a quick jaunt to Wikipedia informs me that "Yatterman" is apparently about a boy/girl duo of globe-trotting inventor/heroes who's primarily transport/weapon is a giant robot dog that transforms into an all-terrain rescue vehicle. Their enemies are a Boris & Natasha-style trio of heavies led by a femme fatale who dresses like an even-more-fetishized "Batgirl."
Yeah. Seeing this as soon as possible.
Monday, December 8, 2008
Can I just ask...?
So, apparently, "Jurassic Park 4" ain't gonna happen: http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=51101
Well, that sucks.
But... can I just ask, now that apparently the ONLY franchise about dinosaurs allowed to exist in an era where you can CGI up an army of them for less than it costs for a Jim Carrey walk-on is done with... CAN WE GET SOME MORE FUCKING DINOSAUR MOVIES NOW, PLEASE?
Seriously. Back in the 50s and 60s when all anyone had to work with were expensive, time-consuming suits, stop-motion puppets and intricate miniature photography we were getting like 30 to 40 dinosaur movies a year. But today? Nothing. That's fucking criminal. And don't tell me the audience isn't there... "Dragon Wars" was HUGE internationally. Someone get behind a camera and get this shit done.
Well, that sucks.
But... can I just ask, now that apparently the ONLY franchise about dinosaurs allowed to exist in an era where you can CGI up an army of them for less than it costs for a Jim Carrey walk-on is done with... CAN WE GET SOME MORE FUCKING DINOSAUR MOVIES NOW, PLEASE?
Seriously. Back in the 50s and 60s when all anyone had to work with were expensive, time-consuming suits, stop-motion puppets and intricate miniature photography we were getting like 30 to 40 dinosaur movies a year. But today? Nothing. That's fucking criminal. And don't tell me the audience isn't there... "Dragon Wars" was HUGE internationally. Someone get behind a camera and get this shit done.
Saturday, December 6, 2008
Synecdoche NY
Saw it. Liked it. Not a fucking clue what it's actually supposed to mean just yet, but it's incredibly arresting and watchable. Manages an interesting trick with a minor supporting character played by Jennifer Jason Leigh whereby she evolves into about the closest thing the film has to an outright villian - and a fairly reprehensible creature of one at that - entirely offscreen. The character turns up about four times very briefly, but somehow second-hand information from other characters fleshes her out more than some of the more frequently-seen players. Neat trick, if nothing else.
The basic idea here is a middle-age-to-death story of a struggling theatre director (Philip Seymour Hoffman) who opts to use a McArthur Genius Grant to stage a "massive theater piece." His scheme involves renting a MASSIVE warehouse, building a to-scale recreation of New York City and populating it with actors playing himself, his aquaintances and just random people in an autobiographical recreation of... well, everything. Soon enough, there are actors playing actors PLAYING ACTORS, the story turns so inward that a set of the warehouse goes up IN the warehouse and the whole thing seems to consume everyone involved. It may help to note that the world outside the warehouse is actually MORE surreal: One character buys and lives in a house that is perpetually on-fire but never burns down, a therapist seems to operate through some form of precognition, and the Director finds the actor to play him in a mysterious fellow who has been following him around secretly his entire life. Oh, and there are small implications throughout that even the "real" parts are being stage-managed in some way, like Hoffman pausing to squirt in artificial-tears before a big breakdown scene.
So, yeah... it's a Charlie Kaufman movie. I'm not sure it all fits together as well as some of his previous scripts, but it's incredibly interesting and full of BIG ideas to chew on. Oh, and a topless Emily Watson. You CAN'T go wrong with that. (She's soooo much hotter than she gets credit for most of the time.)
Incidentally, for what it's worth, a "Synecdoche" (Sin-Ech-Doh-Key) is when you use a part of something to refer to a whole, usually as in a group (i.e. referring to an army as "500 guns" instead of "500 men WITH guns.") I've not the foggiest what it means in the context of the film-proper, however, aside from a rhyming pun on the central location of Scenectady, New York. Make of that what you will.
The basic idea here is a middle-age-to-death story of a struggling theatre director (Philip Seymour Hoffman) who opts to use a McArthur Genius Grant to stage a "massive theater piece." His scheme involves renting a MASSIVE warehouse, building a to-scale recreation of New York City and populating it with actors playing himself, his aquaintances and just random people in an autobiographical recreation of... well, everything. Soon enough, there are actors playing actors PLAYING ACTORS, the story turns so inward that a set of the warehouse goes up IN the warehouse and the whole thing seems to consume everyone involved. It may help to note that the world outside the warehouse is actually MORE surreal: One character buys and lives in a house that is perpetually on-fire but never burns down, a therapist seems to operate through some form of precognition, and the Director finds the actor to play him in a mysterious fellow who has been following him around secretly his entire life. Oh, and there are small implications throughout that even the "real" parts are being stage-managed in some way, like Hoffman pausing to squirt in artificial-tears before a big breakdown scene.
So, yeah... it's a Charlie Kaufman movie. I'm not sure it all fits together as well as some of his previous scripts, but it's incredibly interesting and full of BIG ideas to chew on. Oh, and a topless Emily Watson. You CAN'T go wrong with that. (She's soooo much hotter than she gets credit for most of the time.)
Incidentally, for what it's worth, a "Synecdoche" (Sin-Ech-Doh-Key) is when you use a part of something to refer to a whole, usually as in a group (i.e. referring to an army as "500 guns" instead of "500 men WITH guns.") I've not the foggiest what it means in the context of the film-proper, however, aside from a rhyming pun on the central location of Scenectady, New York. Make of that what you will.
Punisher: War Zone
...is completely fucking awesome and needs to be seen by you NOW.
It's just this side of ironic that the whole "hook" of Punisher as a comic character is that he's essentially a "realistic" movie-vigilante transplanted into a superhero-vigilante world, hence translating him "back" to film has always been slightly difficult. Here, they've finally made it work by letting Punisher bring the "comic-book-ness" of his world to the movies with him: We've got a hero who's basically yet another John Rambo/"Death Wish" heavily-armed urban crimefighter set up against a villian - the disfigured gangster Jigsaw - who's additude and operations are right out "Batman." And yet, it finally.
Plotwise, it's uncomplicated: Frank Castle (Ray Stevenson, officially an action star) aka "The Punisher" is an ex-military hardass who's waging a one-man war on NYC organized crime after seeing his wife and kids killed for witnessing a mob hit. He hits a moral dilema upon learning that his most-recent mob mass-execution has produced a pair of unintended consequences: Firstly, he's unwittingly placed psychotic low-level thug Billy "The Beaut" Russoti (Domonic West) - now bearing horrible facial scars and rechristened "Jigsaw" - into leadership as the sole survivor of The Family; and secondly that one of the hoods he DID kill was actually an undercover FBI agent - which puts the law MUCH more heavily on his trail and places the late agent's widow and daughter into imminent Jigsaw-related danger. Do ya suppose maybe he'll consider hanging it all up, only to see... I dunno, maybe evil rising in his absence and realize he's the only one who can keep doing what he's doing? I wonder...
The details all seemingly grow out of the Marvel Studios mandate to "listen to the fans" that informed "Iron Man" and this year's OTHER successful "reboot" of "The Incredible Hulk." For all the talk of drawing from Garth Ennis' recent work with the character, this version of Punisher hews most closely to the characters mainstream comics heyday in the 1980s - right down to amusing supporting roles for complicit Detective Soap and tech-saavy Microchip (Wayne Knight in a surprising "straight" semi-dramatic turn.)
Otherwise, it's all about how many bullets can be fired, how many faces can be blown-up/caved-in, how many explosives can be set off and how many times the audience can be made to applaud the sheer bravado with which "Green Street Hooligans" director Lexi Alexander - a stuntwoman and former kickboxing champion turned filmmaker - piles on the badassery like she's on a one-woman mission to out-testosterone every male action director on the planet. She comes pretty damn close, too. It's easy to imagine this film taking away "Crank's" crown as the ultraviolent "guy movie" to beat.
This is everything I want in a Punisher movie, and damn near everything I want in an action movie. Taken on it's own terms, it's damn near perfect.
It's just this side of ironic that the whole "hook" of Punisher as a comic character is that he's essentially a "realistic" movie-vigilante transplanted into a superhero-vigilante world, hence translating him "back" to film has always been slightly difficult. Here, they've finally made it work by letting Punisher bring the "comic-book-ness" of his world to the movies with him: We've got a hero who's basically yet another John Rambo/"Death Wish" heavily-armed urban crimefighter set up against a villian - the disfigured gangster Jigsaw - who's additude and operations are right out "Batman." And yet, it finally.
Plotwise, it's uncomplicated: Frank Castle (Ray Stevenson, officially an action star) aka "The Punisher" is an ex-military hardass who's waging a one-man war on NYC organized crime after seeing his wife and kids killed for witnessing a mob hit. He hits a moral dilema upon learning that his most-recent mob mass-execution has produced a pair of unintended consequences: Firstly, he's unwittingly placed psychotic low-level thug Billy "The Beaut" Russoti (Domonic West) - now bearing horrible facial scars and rechristened "Jigsaw" - into leadership as the sole survivor of The Family; and secondly that one of the hoods he DID kill was actually an undercover FBI agent - which puts the law MUCH more heavily on his trail and places the late agent's widow and daughter into imminent Jigsaw-related danger. Do ya suppose maybe he'll consider hanging it all up, only to see... I dunno, maybe evil rising in his absence and realize he's the only one who can keep doing what he's doing? I wonder...
The details all seemingly grow out of the Marvel Studios mandate to "listen to the fans" that informed "Iron Man" and this year's OTHER successful "reboot" of "The Incredible Hulk." For all the talk of drawing from Garth Ennis' recent work with the character, this version of Punisher hews most closely to the characters mainstream comics heyday in the 1980s - right down to amusing supporting roles for complicit Detective Soap and tech-saavy Microchip (Wayne Knight in a surprising "straight" semi-dramatic turn.)
Otherwise, it's all about how many bullets can be fired, how many faces can be blown-up/caved-in, how many explosives can be set off and how many times the audience can be made to applaud the sheer bravado with which "Green Street Hooligans" director Lexi Alexander - a stuntwoman and former kickboxing champion turned filmmaker - piles on the badassery like she's on a one-woman mission to out-testosterone every male action director on the planet. She comes pretty damn close, too. It's easy to imagine this film taking away "Crank's" crown as the ultraviolent "guy movie" to beat.
This is everything I want in a Punisher movie, and damn near everything I want in an action movie. Taken on it's own terms, it's damn near perfect.
Friday, December 5, 2008
Australia
Wow.
Does this suck.
It's not QUITE "Twilight" awful (i.e. everyone's favorite Mormon Vampire Abstinence Porn blockbuster will remain the worst thing I've seen all year for the forseeable future) but it's up there. Think "Pearl Harbor" bad. Think "Transformers" bad.
Baz Luhrman is one of those filmmakers who I like in principal even while despising most of his movies. I understand that they have their defenders and even genuine fans, but Moulin Rouge and Romeo + Juliet are easily two of the most brutally terrible things I've ever had to sit through. The guy has an eye for cinema, he knows how to stage a scene, he's got good taste in actors and he can coax that rare playfulness (or even WARMTH) from Nicole Kidman... I just wish he'd put all this to use in movies that don't suck.
Also - and not that this is his "fault" or anything - but have you ever noticed that lots of the same critics who turn up their noses at, say, Robert Rodriguez or post-"Kill Bill" Tarantino for their indulgence in deliberate reference to the movie-ness of their movies have NO apparent issue with Luhrman, even though he's every bit the conossieur of cinematic reference? I guess when you're callbacks are to Busby Berkley and Judy Garland instead of Chang Cheh and Pam Grier, that makes it "okay."
Anyway, the idea here is for Luhrman to stage a big "old hollywood" melodrama epic about his homeland as if it had been staged in the actual Golden Age. It's a nice idea, but the follow-through is all over the map. Half of the time the characters are acting like the elevated caricatures of pre-method actorly bravado, the other half of the time they're "normal." Half the time it looks like a Technicolor road-show, half the time it looks like Saving Private Ryan.
The story is so predictable you can plot the entire film note-for-note based on a single mammoth chunk of exposition in the first five minutes: Nicole Kidman is a British aristocrat who needs a Drover ("aussie cowboy") played by Hugh Jackman to help her move beef cattle across the outback to break a land baron's monopoly. A conspiracy murder mystery, political commentary, the Stolen Generation of half-caste Aboriginal children and the WWII Japanese bombing of Darwin all conspire to keep them from settling down for 2 1/2 hours while you tick off how many "historical epic" cliches Luhrman can bungle within that running time. If you're not laughing by the time Aborigini Gandalf shows up to start throwing the magic around, you're probably one of Luhrman's financiers.
Does this suck.
It's not QUITE "Twilight" awful (i.e. everyone's favorite Mormon Vampire Abstinence Porn blockbuster will remain the worst thing I've seen all year for the forseeable future) but it's up there. Think "Pearl Harbor" bad. Think "Transformers" bad.
Baz Luhrman is one of those filmmakers who I like in principal even while despising most of his movies. I understand that they have their defenders and even genuine fans, but Moulin Rouge and Romeo + Juliet are easily two of the most brutally terrible things I've ever had to sit through. The guy has an eye for cinema, he knows how to stage a scene, he's got good taste in actors and he can coax that rare playfulness (or even WARMTH) from Nicole Kidman... I just wish he'd put all this to use in movies that don't suck.
Also - and not that this is his "fault" or anything - but have you ever noticed that lots of the same critics who turn up their noses at, say, Robert Rodriguez or post-"Kill Bill" Tarantino for their indulgence in deliberate reference to the movie-ness of their movies have NO apparent issue with Luhrman, even though he's every bit the conossieur of cinematic reference? I guess when you're callbacks are to Busby Berkley and Judy Garland instead of Chang Cheh and Pam Grier, that makes it "okay."
Anyway, the idea here is for Luhrman to stage a big "old hollywood" melodrama epic about his homeland as if it had been staged in the actual Golden Age. It's a nice idea, but the follow-through is all over the map. Half of the time the characters are acting like the elevated caricatures of pre-method actorly bravado, the other half of the time they're "normal." Half the time it looks like a Technicolor road-show, half the time it looks like Saving Private Ryan.
The story is so predictable you can plot the entire film note-for-note based on a single mammoth chunk of exposition in the first five minutes: Nicole Kidman is a British aristocrat who needs a Drover ("aussie cowboy") played by Hugh Jackman to help her move beef cattle across the outback to break a land baron's monopoly. A conspiracy murder mystery, political commentary, the Stolen Generation of half-caste Aboriginal children and the WWII Japanese bombing of Darwin all conspire to keep them from settling down for 2 1/2 hours while you tick off how many "historical epic" cliches Luhrman can bungle within that running time. If you're not laughing by the time Aborigini Gandalf shows up to start throwing the magic around, you're probably one of Luhrman's financiers.
Saturday, November 29, 2008
"Four Christmases," aka "Give Me More Comedies About Unappologetic Jerks"
Y'know what bothers me? We don't make many comedies about "iffy" people who STAY iffy anymore. Or at least it seems like we don't. Lots of comedies about all-around good people, LOTS about bad-to-iffy people who turn good in the third act... but very few where the main characters enter AND exit the film as just-this-side-of-dickish.
The original "Fun With Dick and Jane" was about a pair of people who were attractive and witty enough that we ENJOYED them... but who were also shallow, vain, lazy and obnoxious. And it WORKED because that delicate balance allowed the film to achieve that old saw about the having and consuming of one's cake: We enjoy watching Dick and Jane as they go through their adventure, but they've "got it coming" enough that we can ALSO enjoy circumstance conspiring to smack them around a little. The recent remake didn't have quite the same balls, instead framing it's leads as fundamentally good people stuck in a bad situation: a corporate raiding has left them unemployed and desperate, and they turn to crime as a last resort; while in the original they were a pair of pampered yuppie scum who turned to crime because it was easier than having to go get normal jobs. Unsurprisingly, the new version isn't very good.
See also: Part of the genius of the first "Vacation" is that Clark W. Griswold NEVER actually learns "his lesson" or anything else: He begins and ends the film almost psychotically-obsessed with his perfect family vacation, with his ultimate triumph being the final surrender of his family, the local police and even the proprietor of Wally World itself into joining him in the surreal fantasy-land where his perspective makes perfect sense.
The fact that comedies generally don't have those kind of balls anymore for the most part means that, when one goes to see a new comedy about "bad" or at least "socially unacceptable" behavior one must assume ahead of time that the film is going to turn - usually dishonestly - against itself in the third act... And it almost NEVER fully works, because most "bad behavior" comedies are at their core about letting the audience enjoy said behavior vicariously. See: "Wedding Crashers," which would have been even MORE hysterical and edgy if it had allowed Vince Vaughn and Owen Wilson to remain committed to their sketchy-yet-effective sexual hobby rather than having them "grow up." Problem is, it's harder than you'd think to really muster up the artistic guts to DO that when, at the end of the day, people LIKE their entertainment to ultimately reassure them that the basic mythology of "mainstream" cultural institutions (particularly ones they're part of) is sound and desirable.
And so we have "Four Christmases," which has a plot structure that allows four pretty-good setups for "dysfunctional family gathering" movies to be boiled down to their funniest elements and served together for maximum impact... but the same aforementioned lack of follow-through that finally renders it only 3/4ths of a good movie.
The central figures are Vince Vaughn and Reese Witherspoon as an urbane San Fransisco couple who are philosophically opposed to marriage, have no interest in becoming parents and are - this is important - completely and utterly in love. They ADORE one-another, spend as much time together as possible, and for all the world just can't be happier. And, for a moment there, it seems like the film might be more interesting than it seemed: Here are two characters SOMEHOW managing to live a life outside the social-strictures of "how relationships are supposed to go" who AREN'T poorer or flawed for the experience. But, you know it can't last: It's a modern American comedy, so you know ahead of time that the film will eventually contrive to punish their frivolity and cheer the triumph of Glorious Conformity. But they're fun while it lasts.
Understand, for the record, that I'm not griping about the film's message in and of itself - just the execution. The IDEA that these two people's rejection of the traditional holiday mythos represents a personal and relationship flaw that MUST be corrected... fine, no problem. Sure, it's trite and predictable, but nothing ultimately WRONG with it. The film just doesn't do a good job SELLING the premise: What we see of the relationship is perfectly functional, and the supposed "rifts" essentially boil down to their failure to reveal past family-related traumas.
Both characters are the children of messy divorces between colorful parents whom they make an annual ritual out of avoiding for the Holidays. But when circumstances collide forcing them to miss a vacation flight AND appear on TV looking guilty, they resign themselves to a marathon visit of all four eccentric households on Christmas day. This includes his boorish father (Robert Duvall) and roid-raging cage-fighter brothers, her born-again mother (Mary Steenburgen) and "cougar den" of sisters and aunts, his hippie mom (Sissy Spacek) and much younger boyfriend and finally her father (Jon Voight) the final uninteresting stop because thats where the "lessons" have to be learned.
The first three sketches, at least, retain a degree of the edge hinted at by the first act as, one by one, the various sacred cows of the American Christmas get trotted out for a swift kick in the ass: The kids aren't sweet and wonderful - they're brats. The babies aren't magical - they're loud and smelly. The Church nativity play isn't heartwarming - it's plastic and repellant. The thought ISN'T all that counts. Whack! Whack! Whack! Whack! It's all very funny and spectacularly cathartic if you can just forget that you're being set up for a "lesson" - especially the parts focusing on Witherspoon, who's natural I-practically-shit-fresh-baked-apple-pie All-American persona is here used to great ironic effect. She has a scene involving the improper holding of an infant that I actually felt a little bad about laughing so hard at, and several others involving her phobia about children. You haven't had this much fun watching a blonde chick whack the stuffing out of little kids since "Narnia."
But the fun DOES have to end, and end it does at the doorstep of John Voigt - who may actually be MORE insufferably treacly and heavy-handed here than he was in "An American Carol"... and in THAT film he was playing the Ghost of George Washington haunting the wreckage of 9/11. The guy's still a great actor, but he's allowed typecasting to turn him into a one-note effigy of The Repentant Boomer. I'm not sure how much of the goodwill the man garnered from his much-lauded 70s films and the much-appreciated fathering of your wife/girlfriend's secret gay crush he has left to throw away in these treacly cameos.
It's not a bad film, it's just a miss. And I just couldn't help but wonder if it wouldn't have been better to just follow through on that initial energy, kick the crap out of Holiday Cheer and leave the uplift to the other three billion Christmas movies.
The original "Fun With Dick and Jane" was about a pair of people who were attractive and witty enough that we ENJOYED them... but who were also shallow, vain, lazy and obnoxious. And it WORKED because that delicate balance allowed the film to achieve that old saw about the having and consuming of one's cake: We enjoy watching Dick and Jane as they go through their adventure, but they've "got it coming" enough that we can ALSO enjoy circumstance conspiring to smack them around a little. The recent remake didn't have quite the same balls, instead framing it's leads as fundamentally good people stuck in a bad situation: a corporate raiding has left them unemployed and desperate, and they turn to crime as a last resort; while in the original they were a pair of pampered yuppie scum who turned to crime because it was easier than having to go get normal jobs. Unsurprisingly, the new version isn't very good.
See also: Part of the genius of the first "Vacation" is that Clark W. Griswold NEVER actually learns "his lesson" or anything else: He begins and ends the film almost psychotically-obsessed with his perfect family vacation, with his ultimate triumph being the final surrender of his family, the local police and even the proprietor of Wally World itself into joining him in the surreal fantasy-land where his perspective makes perfect sense.
The fact that comedies generally don't have those kind of balls anymore for the most part means that, when one goes to see a new comedy about "bad" or at least "socially unacceptable" behavior one must assume ahead of time that the film is going to turn - usually dishonestly - against itself in the third act... And it almost NEVER fully works, because most "bad behavior" comedies are at their core about letting the audience enjoy said behavior vicariously. See: "Wedding Crashers," which would have been even MORE hysterical and edgy if it had allowed Vince Vaughn and Owen Wilson to remain committed to their sketchy-yet-effective sexual hobby rather than having them "grow up." Problem is, it's harder than you'd think to really muster up the artistic guts to DO that when, at the end of the day, people LIKE their entertainment to ultimately reassure them that the basic mythology of "mainstream" cultural institutions (particularly ones they're part of) is sound and desirable.
And so we have "Four Christmases," which has a plot structure that allows four pretty-good setups for "dysfunctional family gathering" movies to be boiled down to their funniest elements and served together for maximum impact... but the same aforementioned lack of follow-through that finally renders it only 3/4ths of a good movie.
The central figures are Vince Vaughn and Reese Witherspoon as an urbane San Fransisco couple who are philosophically opposed to marriage, have no interest in becoming parents and are - this is important - completely and utterly in love. They ADORE one-another, spend as much time together as possible, and for all the world just can't be happier. And, for a moment there, it seems like the film might be more interesting than it seemed: Here are two characters SOMEHOW managing to live a life outside the social-strictures of "how relationships are supposed to go" who AREN'T poorer or flawed for the experience. But, you know it can't last: It's a modern American comedy, so you know ahead of time that the film will eventually contrive to punish their frivolity and cheer the triumph of Glorious Conformity. But they're fun while it lasts.
Understand, for the record, that I'm not griping about the film's message in and of itself - just the execution. The IDEA that these two people's rejection of the traditional holiday mythos represents a personal and relationship flaw that MUST be corrected... fine, no problem. Sure, it's trite and predictable, but nothing ultimately WRONG with it. The film just doesn't do a good job SELLING the premise: What we see of the relationship is perfectly functional, and the supposed "rifts" essentially boil down to their failure to reveal past family-related traumas.
Both characters are the children of messy divorces between colorful parents whom they make an annual ritual out of avoiding for the Holidays. But when circumstances collide forcing them to miss a vacation flight AND appear on TV looking guilty, they resign themselves to a marathon visit of all four eccentric households on Christmas day. This includes his boorish father (Robert Duvall) and roid-raging cage-fighter brothers, her born-again mother (Mary Steenburgen) and "cougar den" of sisters and aunts, his hippie mom (Sissy Spacek) and much younger boyfriend and finally her father (Jon Voight) the final uninteresting stop because thats where the "lessons" have to be learned.
The first three sketches, at least, retain a degree of the edge hinted at by the first act as, one by one, the various sacred cows of the American Christmas get trotted out for a swift kick in the ass: The kids aren't sweet and wonderful - they're brats. The babies aren't magical - they're loud and smelly. The Church nativity play isn't heartwarming - it's plastic and repellant. The thought ISN'T all that counts. Whack! Whack! Whack! Whack! It's all very funny and spectacularly cathartic if you can just forget that you're being set up for a "lesson" - especially the parts focusing on Witherspoon, who's natural I-practically-shit-fresh-baked-apple-pie All-American persona is here used to great ironic effect. She has a scene involving the improper holding of an infant that I actually felt a little bad about laughing so hard at, and several others involving her phobia about children. You haven't had this much fun watching a blonde chick whack the stuffing out of little kids since "Narnia."
But the fun DOES have to end, and end it does at the doorstep of John Voigt - who may actually be MORE insufferably treacly and heavy-handed here than he was in "An American Carol"... and in THAT film he was playing the Ghost of George Washington haunting the wreckage of 9/11. The guy's still a great actor, but he's allowed typecasting to turn him into a one-note effigy of The Repentant Boomer. I'm not sure how much of the goodwill the man garnered from his much-lauded 70s films and the much-appreciated fathering of your wife/girlfriend's secret gay crush he has left to throw away in these treacly cameos.
It's not a bad film, it's just a miss. And I just couldn't help but wonder if it wouldn't have been better to just follow through on that initial energy, kick the crap out of Holiday Cheer and leave the uplift to the other three billion Christmas movies.
Thursday, November 27, 2008
New OverThinker episode...
http://gameoverthinker.blogspot.com/2008/11/episode-fifteen-politics-of-gaming.html
"The Politics of Gaming," or "Bob Asks For Trouble By Trying To Divine - Even As A JOKE - What The Political Leanings Of Various Game Characters Might Be." The line to hurl invectives at me for "slandering" your favorite mascot by suggesting their theoretical politics might align differently from yours forms to the left, behind the angry man dressed as Dixie Kong.
"The Politics of Gaming," or "Bob Asks For Trouble By Trying To Divine - Even As A JOKE - What The Political Leanings Of Various Game Characters Might Be." The line to hurl invectives at me for "slandering" your favorite mascot by suggesting their theoretical politics might align differently from yours forms to the left, behind the angry man dressed as Dixie Kong.
Monday, November 24, 2008
VOTE FOR GAME OVERTHINKER (aka ME)
I don't know which makes me feel like a bigger attention-whore: The constant self-promotion or the tactlessness of double-posting it into both blogs. BUT, that's the game.
ScrewAttack.com has informed me (and, I presume, many many many others) that I am elligible to be nominated for their Gaming 1337 ("leet") awards. So... if y'all dig my stuff, howzabout voting for me? ;)
Here's how it works: Go to this page: http://screwattack.com/Nominations Where you'll find a form with multiple fields in which to nominate folks/projects by their name and website URL for various awards. "Game OverThinker," for example, would best fit into the "best independent gaming show" category. Fill out each field (or only the ones on which you have an opinion) with the name and URL (my URL here is http://gameoverthinker.blogspot.com/ and the name is "Game OverThinker" remember,) then your name and email below and click "submit." Apparently you can do this once a day... I bet that would be a fun thing to do ;)
Thanks again for the support.
ScrewAttack.com has informed me (and, I presume, many many many others) that I am elligible to be nominated for their Gaming 1337 ("leet") awards. So... if y'all dig my stuff, howzabout voting for me? ;)
Here's how it works: Go to this page: http://screwattack.com/Nominations Where you'll find a form with multiple fields in which to nominate folks/projects by their name and website URL for various awards. "Game OverThinker," for example, would best fit into the "best independent gaming show" category. Fill out each field (or only the ones on which you have an opinion) with the name and URL (my URL here is http://gameoverthinker.blogspot.com/ and the name is "Game OverThinker" remember,) then your name and email below and click "submit." Apparently you can do this once a day... I bet that would be a fun thing to do ;)
Thanks again for the support.
Saturday, November 22, 2008
Twilight
I'm hoping against hope that I get to review what is apparently the most successful work of Mormon Vampire Abstinence Porn ever produced "officially" under different circumstances, but let me offer a few thoughts in no particular order:
- Joss Whedon is a fucking genius. I know I'm late to the party on this, but honestly I was never MASSIVELY into Buffy at any point. Just not my thing. But now having seeing what "teen-angst vampires in high school" looks like as executed by people without the first clue at what they're doing? WOW. I never knew how good I had it.
- Lead heroine's name is "Bella." Ha. Ha. Ha. Wow, I've got WHIPLASH from the sheer force of how clever that is.
- This movie IS the Love Story of our time - as in the MOVIE "Love Story." And much like that earlier film, this one will be loved FIERCELY by it's audience and make a ton of money but less than a decade from now they'll all be pretending they knew it was lame all along and NO ONE will be able to explain why it was ever such a big deal.
- Just about everything you need to know about the mental-stability of the folks working the teen-abstinence/"purity ring" movements is that they've largely embraced THIS franchise - the story of a sullen, antisocial teenaged girl who instantly subsumes her entire being into a relationship with a much older manic-depressive creep who behaves (to put it charitably) like a full-blown stalker and worries about getting too close to her because he might lose control of the urge to rip her throat out - as presenting a healthy view of romantic relationships to young girls.
- Things this movie "removes" from the vampire mythos: bats, coffins, fangs, garlic, stakes. Things it "contributes" in their place: Vampires like to play baseball, but they have to do it during thunderstorms because their super-powered bat-cracks won't be noticed; and instead of bursting into flames in sunlight, vampires' skin spontaneously sprouts a layer of Body Glitter. Sparkly, baseball-playing vampires. I never thought I'd miss Wesley Snipes so much...
Friday, November 21, 2008
Three brief thoughts
Seeing "Twilight" later tonight. Y'know what's already bugging me? I get that the lead vampire guys all look like the Jonas Brothers because it's mainly a movie for teenaged chicks... But how do they get all their man-makeup and hair gel properly applied without reflections? Or is this another "everything you know about vampires is wrong" thing? I dunno. When was the last time there WAS a vampire movie where all the 'rules' were in place, to begin with?
Also: Now that "Captain America" has a director and two writers (Joe Johnston and the Narnia scribes, respectively, in all three cases ALARMINGLY good if on-the-nose choices) thoughts now innevitably turn to casting. Let me weigh in on one of the bigger sticking points right off the bat: I think Captain AMERICA should be played by an AMERICAN actor - not because of some notion of patriotic symbolism... I just know it'll be annoying as HELL to have to hear that particular question-and-stock-answer come up in every damn interview for the next year and half.
"Casino Royale" had no jokes, no inside-references, no gadgets, no henchman, no nicknamed bad guys, no funny-name Bond girls, no SPECTER, no hideout, etc. "Quantum of Solace" has a couple jokes, one inside reference (to Goldfinger, and cracking well-done by the way,) a couple sorta gadgets, a sorta-henchman, a bad who's kind-of nicknamed (mock-environmentalist named "Greene,") one possibly funny-name Bond girl, the SUGGESTION of a very SPECTER-like 'Quantum' society and something almost resembling a hideout. My question: At this rate, is it going to take two or three more sequels for James Bond to turn into James Bond instead of a slightly-less whiny-bitch version of Jason Bourne?
Also: Now that "Captain America" has a director and two writers (Joe Johnston and the Narnia scribes, respectively, in all three cases ALARMINGLY good if on-the-nose choices) thoughts now innevitably turn to casting. Let me weigh in on one of the bigger sticking points right off the bat: I think Captain AMERICA should be played by an AMERICAN actor - not because of some notion of patriotic symbolism... I just know it'll be annoying as HELL to have to hear that particular question-and-stock-answer come up in every damn interview for the next year and half.
"Casino Royale" had no jokes, no inside-references, no gadgets, no henchman, no nicknamed bad guys, no funny-name Bond girls, no SPECTER, no hideout, etc. "Quantum of Solace" has a couple jokes, one inside reference (to Goldfinger, and cracking well-done by the way,) a couple sorta gadgets, a sorta-henchman, a bad who's kind-of nicknamed (mock-environmentalist named "Greene,") one possibly funny-name Bond girl, the SUGGESTION of a very SPECTER-like 'Quantum' society and something almost resembling a hideout. My question: At this rate, is it going to take two or three more sequels for James Bond to turn into James Bond instead of a slightly-less whiny-bitch version of Jason Bourne?
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
I'm on Internet TV again!
Hey, lookit that! "The Escapist Show" is airing another of my reviews, this time for "Max Payne." What swell guys.
Check it out here: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/the-escapist-show/421-Episode-Four-Mirrors-Edge
I'm in there at about 6:05, but you should watch the whole thing because they're good guys doing a good job. It's a little intimidating, to be honest, to be sharing vid-space with even a TRAILER for Zero Punctuation. I mean... who the hell am I, right?
As before, if you dig me doing this, let The Escapist know you'd like to see me more often:
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/contact/
Check it out here: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/the-escapist-show/421-Episode-Four-Mirrors-Edge
I'm in there at about 6:05, but you should watch the whole thing because they're good guys doing a good job. It's a little intimidating, to be honest, to be sharing vid-space with even a TRAILER for Zero Punctuation. I mean... who the hell am I, right?
As before, if you dig me doing this, let The Escapist know you'd like to see me more often:
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/contact/
Sunday, November 16, 2008
Alphabet Meme
Aw, crud...
I really don't like these things, but the burden of Internet psuedo-celebrity is that if someone calls you out and you don't respond people notice. FINE...
For the record, I got "tagged" for this by "Dirty Harry," the increasingly ironically-named right-wing movie blogger who - to his credit - is pretty decent about letting me treat his comment threads like a combination shooting-gallery, stress-relief ball and Free-Range Nutcase Game Preserve all the time. Yes, I know, he's being dippy about anti-Prop. 8 "McCarthyism" and I don't know that I've ever been called a "dolt" before... (http://dirtyharrysplace.com/?p=5652#comments) but c'mon, folks - Republicans are about to have a REALLY long, REALLY sucky four-to-eight years; you've got to expect a little snit-fit here and there. Be understanding with the poor little darlings - like you'd be with a small child or a Cubs fan.
Anyway... the fellow "tagged" me for a movie-blogger meme, which apparently originated over at Blog Cabins (http://blogcabins.blogspot.com/2008/11/alphabet-meme.html) by which your supposed to list various movies alphabetically. Well, easy enough... and I do need to post more. So here goes...
Anaconda
Beast From 20,000 Fathoms
Casshern
Dark Backward
Equilibrium
Frankenstein Conquers the World
Godzilla
Hunger, the (anyone who tells you they liked more than about ten to fifteen total minutes of this is probably a liar.)
It Came From Beneath The Sea
Jigoku (see "Hunger, the")
Killer Klowns From Outer Space
Last Dinosaur, the
Monster That Challenged The World, the
Night of The Lepus
Orochi: The Three-Headed Dragon
Planet of Dinosaurs
Q: The Winged Serpent
Rabbit-Proof Fence
Syngenor
Tron
Ultraman: The Next
Valley of Gwangi, the
War of The Gargantuas
Xtro
Yog: Monster from Space
Zapped!
I really don't like these things, but the burden of Internet psuedo-celebrity is that if someone calls you out and you don't respond people notice. FINE...
For the record, I got "tagged" for this by "Dirty Harry," the increasingly ironically-named right-wing movie blogger who - to his credit - is pretty decent about letting me treat his comment threads like a combination shooting-gallery, stress-relief ball and Free-Range Nutcase Game Preserve all the time. Yes, I know, he's being dippy about anti-Prop. 8 "McCarthyism" and I don't know that I've ever been called a "dolt" before... (http://dirtyharrysplace.com/?p=5652#comments) but c'mon, folks - Republicans are about to have a REALLY long, REALLY sucky four-to-eight years; you've got to expect a little snit-fit here and there. Be understanding with the poor little darlings - like you'd be with a small child or a Cubs fan.
Anyway... the fellow "tagged" me for a movie-blogger meme, which apparently originated over at Blog Cabins (http://blogcabins.blogspot.com/2008/11/alphabet-meme.html) by which your supposed to list various movies alphabetically. Well, easy enough... and I do need to post more. So here goes...
Anaconda
Beast From 20,000 Fathoms
Casshern
Dark Backward
Equilibrium
Frankenstein Conquers the World
Godzilla
Hunger, the (anyone who tells you they liked more than about ten to fifteen total minutes of this is probably a liar.)
It Came From Beneath The Sea
Jigoku (see "Hunger, the")
Killer Klowns From Outer Space
Last Dinosaur, the
Monster That Challenged The World, the
Night of The Lepus
Orochi: The Three-Headed Dragon
Planet of Dinosaurs
Q: The Winged Serpent
Rabbit-Proof Fence
Syngenor
Tron
Ultraman: The Next
Valley of Gwangi, the
War of The Gargantuas
Xtro
Yog: Monster from Space
Zapped!
Friday, November 14, 2008
Proposition 8
This is NOT a political blog.
(It's a blog run by a thoroughly irresponsible guy who can't remember to update often enough and overcompensates by making "comeback" posts about hot-button news topics, but NOT a political blog.)
Which is why I generally don't do political posts unless they have something to say "on topic." But, given that the major political story of the moment is now starting to spill over into the entertainment/film biz, I think I have some wiggle room to say something on this that doesn't sound like just me using my soapbox to foist my opinions upon my readers/visitors. Although - and listen carefully here - I'm not going to give you MY opinion on this matter, because I'm not really interested in the philosophical debate... I'm interested in the very REAL clash thats going on in the wake of it.
Just so we're all up to speed: Earlier in the year, the California Supreme Court ruled that homosexual couples had the right to enter into legal marriages in the state. A contingent of anti-gay activists, primarily backed up by the financial clout of the Mormon Church, lobbied successfully to get a constitutional amendment which would effectively ban such marriages - thus eliminating the newly-legalized right - added to the ballot in the recent elections. In a close vote of 52% to 48%, the measure passed banning same-sex marriage in the state.
Anyway, as one can imagine people are pretty heated about this on both sides, and this week it started getting REALLY ugly. Protests outside of churches are turning aggressive, and enterprising activists have taken to "outing" supporters of the ban. That last part has begun to hit the entertainment industry hard since, let's face it... Hollywood ain't a place where you want people to know you've got something against gays.
This sort of thing, of course, has thoughtful people - particularly thoughtful people who SUPPORT same-sex marriage, in this case - feeling slightly uneasy. Here's Jeffery Wells of "Hollywood Elsewhere," a vocal supporter of the cause, voicing his conflicted feelings on the story of Rich Raddon, the well-liked director of the FIND L.A. Film Festival who has found himself the target of a pending boycott after it was revealed that he donated $1500 to the "Yes on 8" effort: http://hollywood-elsewhere.com/2008/11/turn_the_other.php
Naturally, a controversial topic is going to lead people to reevaluate their opinions toward folks they "thought they knew" upon learning that they differ on such a profound issue... but NO ONE worth taking seriously likes the idea of people being shunned at work or "outed" for political beliefs. It's the sort of thing that brings to mind words like "witch hunt" or "McCarthyism." And, of course, it goes without saying that the folks who are becoming violent or intolerant in their anger toward Prop8 supporters should be condemned ESPECIALLY if one agrees with their stance, since they do their "side" no favors by acting this way.
BUT... here's the thing, and here's where I come down on the matter: This ISN'T just a simple matter of people offering a different opinion. Proposition 8 WASN'T an opinion poll of how you feel on the issue of equal-rights-for-homosexuals - it was an amendment to the constitution. It changed a law. It had a real, tangible effect. If you voted for it, you did NOT merely vote to register your moral opposition to homosexuality... you voted to take something away from people. Right or wrong, people tend to get MAD when that happens to them. You would if it happened to you.
I'm not here to condemn you if you support Prop 8 either in actuality (i.e. you're in CA and voted for it) or just philosophically. I don't really care, that's your business. What I WILL say to you if you fall into one of those camps and are now feeling bad that people are angry at you: Grow a pair. This ceased to be a nice debate among fellow citizens the moment YOU started spending money and effort NOT merely to voice your opinion but to literally take a right away from a fellow citizen. It's unreasonable for you to expect that the people you worked to take a right from wouldn't be angry at you. This is no longer about philosophy or academic disagreement - it's about very real concepts of tangible loss and gain - it's a FIGHT... and the principal consequence of getting into a fight is that you might get knocked around a bit. If that's not what you wanted, you never should've put on the gloves, never should've stepped into the ring and NEVER should've punched the other guy first.
(It's a blog run by a thoroughly irresponsible guy who can't remember to update often enough and overcompensates by making "comeback" posts about hot-button news topics, but NOT a political blog.)
Which is why I generally don't do political posts unless they have something to say "on topic." But, given that the major political story of the moment is now starting to spill over into the entertainment/film biz, I think I have some wiggle room to say something on this that doesn't sound like just me using my soapbox to foist my opinions upon my readers/visitors. Although - and listen carefully here - I'm not going to give you MY opinion on this matter, because I'm not really interested in the philosophical debate... I'm interested in the very REAL clash thats going on in the wake of it.
Just so we're all up to speed: Earlier in the year, the California Supreme Court ruled that homosexual couples had the right to enter into legal marriages in the state. A contingent of anti-gay activists, primarily backed up by the financial clout of the Mormon Church, lobbied successfully to get a constitutional amendment which would effectively ban such marriages - thus eliminating the newly-legalized right - added to the ballot in the recent elections. In a close vote of 52% to 48%, the measure passed banning same-sex marriage in the state.
Anyway, as one can imagine people are pretty heated about this on both sides, and this week it started getting REALLY ugly. Protests outside of churches are turning aggressive, and enterprising activists have taken to "outing" supporters of the ban. That last part has begun to hit the entertainment industry hard since, let's face it... Hollywood ain't a place where you want people to know you've got something against gays.
This sort of thing, of course, has thoughtful people - particularly thoughtful people who SUPPORT same-sex marriage, in this case - feeling slightly uneasy. Here's Jeffery Wells of "Hollywood Elsewhere," a vocal supporter of the cause, voicing his conflicted feelings on the story of Rich Raddon, the well-liked director of the FIND L.A. Film Festival who has found himself the target of a pending boycott after it was revealed that he donated $1500 to the "Yes on 8" effort: http://hollywood-elsewhere.com/2008/11/turn_the_other.php
Naturally, a controversial topic is going to lead people to reevaluate their opinions toward folks they "thought they knew" upon learning that they differ on such a profound issue... but NO ONE worth taking seriously likes the idea of people being shunned at work or "outed" for political beliefs. It's the sort of thing that brings to mind words like "witch hunt" or "McCarthyism." And, of course, it goes without saying that the folks who are becoming violent or intolerant in their anger toward Prop8 supporters should be condemned ESPECIALLY if one agrees with their stance, since they do their "side" no favors by acting this way.
BUT... here's the thing, and here's where I come down on the matter: This ISN'T just a simple matter of people offering a different opinion. Proposition 8 WASN'T an opinion poll of how you feel on the issue of equal-rights-for-homosexuals - it was an amendment to the constitution. It changed a law. It had a real, tangible effect. If you voted for it, you did NOT merely vote to register your moral opposition to homosexuality... you voted to take something away from people. Right or wrong, people tend to get MAD when that happens to them. You would if it happened to you.
I'm not here to condemn you if you support Prop 8 either in actuality (i.e. you're in CA and voted for it) or just philosophically. I don't really care, that's your business. What I WILL say to you if you fall into one of those camps and are now feeling bad that people are angry at you: Grow a pair. This ceased to be a nice debate among fellow citizens the moment YOU started spending money and effort NOT merely to voice your opinion but to literally take a right away from a fellow citizen. It's unreasonable for you to expect that the people you worked to take a right from wouldn't be angry at you. This is no longer about philosophy or academic disagreement - it's about very real concepts of tangible loss and gain - it's a FIGHT... and the principal consequence of getting into a fight is that you might get knocked around a bit. If that's not what you wanted, you never should've put on the gloves, never should've stepped into the ring and NEVER should've punched the other guy first.
Saturday, November 8, 2008
odds and ends
Don't believe the haters: "Changeling" is a really good, intellectually-satisfying, quietly powerful drama. Working against it mainly are the misleading trailers and title, which both wrongly imply that the film is chiefly a melodrama about Jolie's character and the "fake" son when in fact that story is just the "human-level" anchor for a multi-level, multi-storyline, multi-character True Crime saga revolving around a hopelessly corrupt police department. It's not the best thing anyone involved has done, but it all works and you get A LOT of movie for you're money: It's at once a missing-child weepie, a women-in-prison thriller, a detective story, a crime saga, a social-activism fable and even partially a pretty grim horror film. It's unfortunate that "I want MY SON BACK!!!" has become something like this years "I wish I knew how to quit you!!!" when A.) the actual scene, in-context, KILLS and B.) Jolie's performance otherwise is a marvel of restrained, internalized acting.
"Madagascar 2" is about what you'd expect: Every funny bit from the first movie gets trotted back out to overstay it's welcome (even the crazy old lady who got into a fight with the lion is back!) and the funny new material... isn't very funny. It's not bad, but it's just a quick paycheck for everyone involved.
"Zack & Miri Make a Porno" is cute and, thankfully, hysterically funny in spots. It's nice to see Kevin Smith SUCCESSFULLY branch out, though it does seem kind of perfectly appropriate that this newest "break" from his View Askew franchise is largely a story about, yes: a schlubby, bearded slacker who finds direction and fulfillment by shooting a no-budget movie at his workplace starring his buddies. There's really no antagonist or much tension as to whether or not what we all know will happen will happen, but it's good-natured. The big revelations are, in order... #1: The new 'cleaned-up' Jason Mewes actually CAN act and be engaging as a character that isn't just a caricature of himself - in fact, he walks off with huge chunks of the film. #2: Brandon Routh? Good at comedy, alarmingly tall - alarming in the sense that you wonder "why didn't they take advantage of that stature in 'Superman' where he always appeared to be of average height?" #3: Justin Long? Yes, he can be more than "a Mac" - he's fantastic. #4: Real-life porn starlet Katie Morgan? Button-cute, funny as hell, solid comic actress and instantly likable (though those of you who've seen her various jokey HBO specials already knew that.) A mainstream comedy film career is hers, if she wants it.
"Madagascar 2" is about what you'd expect: Every funny bit from the first movie gets trotted back out to overstay it's welcome (even the crazy old lady who got into a fight with the lion is back!) and the funny new material... isn't very funny. It's not bad, but it's just a quick paycheck for everyone involved.
"Zack & Miri Make a Porno" is cute and, thankfully, hysterically funny in spots. It's nice to see Kevin Smith SUCCESSFULLY branch out, though it does seem kind of perfectly appropriate that this newest "break" from his View Askew franchise is largely a story about, yes: a schlubby, bearded slacker who finds direction and fulfillment by shooting a no-budget movie at his workplace starring his buddies. There's really no antagonist or much tension as to whether or not what we all know will happen will happen, but it's good-natured. The big revelations are, in order... #1: The new 'cleaned-up' Jason Mewes actually CAN act and be engaging as a character that isn't just a caricature of himself - in fact, he walks off with huge chunks of the film. #2: Brandon Routh? Good at comedy, alarmingly tall - alarming in the sense that you wonder "why didn't they take advantage of that stature in 'Superman' where he always appeared to be of average height?" #3: Justin Long? Yes, he can be more than "a Mac" - he's fantastic. #4: Real-life porn starlet Katie Morgan? Button-cute, funny as hell, solid comic actress and instantly likable (though those of you who've seen her various jokey HBO specials already knew that.) A mainstream comedy film career is hers, if she wants it.
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
OverThinker returns...
Hey! New episode, at last...
http://gameoverthinker.blogspot.com/2008/11/episode-fourteen-did-ya-miss-me.html
So... did anything ELSE of major historical significance that many of us probably never thought we'd see in our lifetimes happen tonight? ;)
http://gameoverthinker.blogspot.com/2008/11/episode-fourteen-did-ya-miss-me.html
So... did anything ELSE of major historical significance that many of us probably never thought we'd see in our lifetimes happen tonight? ;)
HOLY SHIT! I'M ON (INTERNET) TV!
Yeah, wow.
Here's Episode #2 of "The Escapist Show," with your's truly popping in at the tail end for a review of "Eagle Eye." I come in at about 7:30, but you should watch the whole thing. These guys are working hard, and doing a fine job:
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/the-escapist-show/332-Episode-2-Vicious-Cycle-Eat-Lead
And hey, if you like the show, me-on-the-show and you want to let The Escapist know about it, I'm sure they'd be glad for the feedback: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/contact/
Here's Episode #2 of "The Escapist Show," with your's truly popping in at the tail end for a review of "Eagle Eye." I come in at about 7:30, but you should watch the whole thing. These guys are working hard, and doing a fine job:
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/the-escapist-show/332-Episode-2-Vicious-Cycle-Eat-Lead
And hey, if you like the show, me-on-the-show and you want to let The Escapist know about it, I'm sure they'd be glad for the feedback: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/contact/
Friday, October 31, 2008
BIG NEWS!
Wow, this is cool. I've had to wait awhile to tell anyone about this, but now that I can I'm still pretty overwhelmed by it.
"The Escapist" (http://www.escapistmagazine.com/) is best known these days as the website home of video-game critic Yahtzee Croshaw's hugely popular "Zero Punctuation" weekly series. But it's ALSO a full-blown webzine of it's own with lots of other content. As of this week, that content now includes a weekly gaming/geek-culture news series called "The Escapist Show." You should be watching, it's awesome.
Anyway, "The Escapist Show" features along with it's regular content and contributors short humor segments provided by independent web guys, and next week (episode #2, tentatively planned to air on November 4th) the contributor will be... ME! I'll be doing a movie review - can't tell ya which movie yet. Cool, no?
I encourage everyone to check this out. Not just for me - the series looks really good and off to a great start. And if you like seeing my stuff on there, send some feedback over to Escapist telling them so, and maybe I'll get asked to come back for more. Look for it next week!
"The Escapist" (http://www.escapistmagazine.com/) is best known these days as the website home of video-game critic Yahtzee Croshaw's hugely popular "Zero Punctuation" weekly series. But it's ALSO a full-blown webzine of it's own with lots of other content. As of this week, that content now includes a weekly gaming/geek-culture news series called "The Escapist Show." You should be watching, it's awesome.
Anyway, "The Escapist Show" features along with it's regular content and contributors short humor segments provided by independent web guys, and next week (episode #2, tentatively planned to air on November 4th) the contributor will be... ME! I'll be doing a movie review - can't tell ya which movie yet. Cool, no?
I encourage everyone to check this out. Not just for me - the series looks really good and off to a great start. And if you like seeing my stuff on there, send some feedback over to Escapist telling them so, and maybe I'll get asked to come back for more. Look for it next week!
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
I'm back
The computer is basically back to life, yay. Need new printer and to fix something stupid I did trying to re-install Windows, but otherwise not bad. Updates should become frequent once more.
Monday, October 27, 2008
Seen Saw
BTW, this damn thing might actually get fixed soon. Yay, fixed.
I'm pretty sure I was done taking the "Saw" movies seriously after #4. It's not a bad franchise, just desperately played-out. #5 is basically 4 all over again: Lots of dull policework, increasingly uncreative traps, too much backstory on Jigsaw. Can this be over, now?
I'm pretty sure I was done taking the "Saw" movies seriously after #4. It's not a bad franchise, just desperately played-out. #5 is basically 4 all over again: Lots of dull policework, increasingly uncreative traps, too much backstory on Jigsaw. Can this be over, now?
Friday, October 24, 2008
W
Hey, look! It's working for another five minutes or so tonight!
I'm going to say that "W" is worth seeing, though it's really not spectacular or incendiary enough to be any kind of classic. It's basically a re-enactment of "big moments" we all remember hearing about, with acors playing the now-infamous big player parts - think SNL meets downtime at an Oscars telecast.
You've heard by now that the supposed "surprise" is how affectionate the film is toward George W. Bush as a character - displaying an obvious fondness for his black-sheep-made-good origin story and treating his self-willed triumph over alcoholism and Christian re-birth in sincere, non-mocking terms - presenting him as a decent if none-too-bright man who dug way, way, WAY over his head in an attempt to please his father. It's all true, but what seems to be missing is how "fair" Oliver Stone's film plays it with nearly ALL of the main-characters. As it unspools, not only Dubya but also Paul Wolfowitz, Karl Rove (!), George Tenet and especially Collin Powell are the largely-sympathetic "good guys" of the piece while Rumsfeld, Condoleeza Rice and (of course) Dick Cheney are the villians. Rove's defferential presentation is what stood out the most for me - it's easy to villianize him as a character, but here he comes off as a brilliant yet unfairly-overlooked political nerd for whom a symbiotic relationship with the charismatic but details-challenged Bush was his overdue ticket to the big time.
It's also pretty intriguing how the film ends up in ADORATION of Bush the Elder despite the broader theme of Dubya immolating himself in plea for fatherly approval, setting him up as a Truman-esque missed-opportunity historical figure: The Republican president who shunned the Religious Right and knew the wisdom of not trying to occupy Iraq the first time. Fascinating stuff, overall.
I'm going to say that "W" is worth seeing, though it's really not spectacular or incendiary enough to be any kind of classic. It's basically a re-enactment of "big moments" we all remember hearing about, with acors playing the now-infamous big player parts - think SNL meets downtime at an Oscars telecast.
You've heard by now that the supposed "surprise" is how affectionate the film is toward George W. Bush as a character - displaying an obvious fondness for his black-sheep-made-good origin story and treating his self-willed triumph over alcoholism and Christian re-birth in sincere, non-mocking terms - presenting him as a decent if none-too-bright man who dug way, way, WAY over his head in an attempt to please his father. It's all true, but what seems to be missing is how "fair" Oliver Stone's film plays it with nearly ALL of the main-characters. As it unspools, not only Dubya but also Paul Wolfowitz, Karl Rove (!), George Tenet and especially Collin Powell are the largely-sympathetic "good guys" of the piece while Rumsfeld, Condoleeza Rice and (of course) Dick Cheney are the villians. Rove's defferential presentation is what stood out the most for me - it's easy to villianize him as a character, but here he comes off as a brilliant yet unfairly-overlooked political nerd for whom a symbiotic relationship with the charismatic but details-challenged Bush was his overdue ticket to the big time.
It's also pretty intriguing how the film ends up in ADORATION of Bush the Elder despite the broader theme of Dubya immolating himself in plea for fatherly approval, setting him up as a Truman-esque missed-opportunity historical figure: The Republican president who shunned the Religious Right and knew the wisdom of not trying to occupy Iraq the first time. Fascinating stuff, overall.
Thursday, October 23, 2008
Popmatters Interview
VERY QUICKLY before this peice of shit computer crashes AGAIN:
A little under 2 months ago there was apparently so little news going on that I was interviewed about the "Game OverThinker" video series by LB Jeffries of PopMatters. The interview - the first time I've ever been interviewed by a national (international, really) publication Internet or otherwise - is now up at their site. Link here: http://www.popmatters.com/pm/feature/64317/the-new-youtube-game-criticism-an-interview-with-moviebob/
No time for any more cleverness on my part except to say... wow, this is pretty cool.
A little under 2 months ago there was apparently so little news going on that I was interviewed about the "Game OverThinker" video series by LB Jeffries of PopMatters. The interview - the first time I've ever been interviewed by a national (international, really) publication Internet or otherwise - is now up at their site. Link here: http://www.popmatters.com/pm/feature/64317/the-new-youtube-game-criticism-an-interview-with-moviebob/
No time for any more cleverness on my part except to say... wow, this is pretty cool.
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
In honor of "Bioshock" belatedly coming to PS3...
This is going to get me cyber-lynched, but it's a necessary preface: Whatever you think of her philosophical ideas, as a novelist Ayn Rand was kinda scattershot. She had her strong suits - story structure, scope, management of characters, Dickensian bad guy names (Ellsworth Tooey?) and an undeniable skill for stories of slowly-revealed systemic collapse. But, on the other hand, she quite simply seldom - if ever - cared to grasp not only how actual people behave or speak... but how characters in hyper-real books/movies behave or speak. It's one thing to have your characters exist primarily as avatars for philosophical ideals, it's another to have them act like walking speakerphones. Her characters don't speak, they ORATE in every situation regardless of context.
Which is why it was probably NOT the best idea to have her write the screenplay for the (appropriately wacky) 1949 adaptation of "The Fountainhead" and DEFINATELY not the best idea to agree to let her have absolute final-say on dialogue (though, given then theme of the work what the hell else would you expect?) And it's also why the only part of the film where the dialogue and mandated-delivery really WORKS is in the climactic "summation" scene wherein Gary Cooper's Howard Roark defends himself in court for the charge of destroying a building he'd been comissioned to designed after discovering that the agreement that his edgy, ultra-modern design not be altered without his consent has been violated (the book/character are basically a lionizing of Frank Lloyd Wright, if you've not read it.)
It still doesn't FULLY fit - this clearly isn't Cooper's natural diction and it's obvious he (and the rest of the cast, really) are working heavily from memorization. Still, it's quite a moment overall and, while I can't really get behind Objectivism in total THIS one speech is one I find to be a pretty fine presentation of ideas I'm generally pretty down with. Taken as a statement of personal integrity in general and the rights of artists/creative people in particular, I'd even call it somewhat inspiring. In any case, it's been on my mind, it says things I'd like to say better than I can say them, and it IS kinda the only part of the movie anyone needs to see. So, if you've never seen this, give it a watch (it's only about five minutes):
P.S. The YouTube link is the best-quality clip I could find, if you click it and the guy who put it up has other stuff on his setlist that you don't like I'm not endorsing it and I'm not responsible for it.
Which is why it was probably NOT the best idea to have her write the screenplay for the (appropriately wacky) 1949 adaptation of "The Fountainhead" and DEFINATELY not the best idea to agree to let her have absolute final-say on dialogue (though, given then theme of the work what the hell else would you expect?) And it's also why the only part of the film where the dialogue and mandated-delivery really WORKS is in the climactic "summation" scene wherein Gary Cooper's Howard Roark defends himself in court for the charge of destroying a building he'd been comissioned to designed after discovering that the agreement that his edgy, ultra-modern design not be altered without his consent has been violated (the book/character are basically a lionizing of Frank Lloyd Wright, if you've not read it.)
It still doesn't FULLY fit - this clearly isn't Cooper's natural diction and it's obvious he (and the rest of the cast, really) are working heavily from memorization. Still, it's quite a moment overall and, while I can't really get behind Objectivism in total THIS one speech is one I find to be a pretty fine presentation of ideas I'm generally pretty down with. Taken as a statement of personal integrity in general and the rights of artists/creative people in particular, I'd even call it somewhat inspiring. In any case, it's been on my mind, it says things I'd like to say better than I can say them, and it IS kinda the only part of the movie anyone needs to see. So, if you've never seen this, give it a watch (it's only about five minutes):
P.S. The YouTube link is the best-quality clip I could find, if you click it and the guy who put it up has other stuff on his setlist that you don't like I'm not endorsing it and I'm not responsible for it.
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
It lives
So... the computer which has been DEAD since about Friday is "back," so to speak... and thus so is what passes for my online "presence." Yay.
For what it's worth? "Max Payne?" Don't bother. Y'know what the problem with 90% of video game movies is? It's not that they're based on games... it's that they're based on the WRONG games.
There are PLENTY of games with original or at least uniquely-realized worlds and stories - Mario, Zelda, Bioshock, Dragon Quest, Prince of Persia, Fallout, Sonic, No More Heroes etc. all come to mind. Make a faithful adaptation of any of those and you'll probably get a good one. Trouble is, there are plenty of OTHER games that are basically just unofficial knock-offs of stuff that already existed - popular movies, for example - with the in-game benefit of interactivity. It's not exactly a new thing, either: Rastan, after all, was just Conan but you could PLAY it.
So one shouldn't REALLY be surprised when, for example, you make a Resident Evil movie and you get a Romero-ripoff... thats what Resident Evil IS. Likewise, since "Max Payne" was basically just a (very good) playable composite of every hard-bitten cop cliche from Mike Hammer to Dirty Harry to Martin Riggs, there's really no point in making a movie out of it and expecting anything OTHER than a generic cop thriller.
For what it's worth? "Max Payne?" Don't bother. Y'know what the problem with 90% of video game movies is? It's not that they're based on games... it's that they're based on the WRONG games.
There are PLENTY of games with original or at least uniquely-realized worlds and stories - Mario, Zelda, Bioshock, Dragon Quest, Prince of Persia, Fallout, Sonic, No More Heroes etc. all come to mind. Make a faithful adaptation of any of those and you'll probably get a good one. Trouble is, there are plenty of OTHER games that are basically just unofficial knock-offs of stuff that already existed - popular movies, for example - with the in-game benefit of interactivity. It's not exactly a new thing, either: Rastan, after all, was just Conan but you could PLAY it.
So one shouldn't REALLY be surprised when, for example, you make a Resident Evil movie and you get a Romero-ripoff... thats what Resident Evil IS. Likewise, since "Max Payne" was basically just a (very good) playable composite of every hard-bitten cop cliche from Mike Hammer to Dirty Harry to Martin Riggs, there's really no point in making a movie out of it and expecting anything OTHER than a generic cop thriller.
Saturday, October 18, 2008
blegh...
I know it's impolite to ask this, but... Adobe? Guys? Is it possible for Flash 9 to NOT crash Explorer? Just asking.
Sorry for lack of updates this week. Reason: Computer went nutty, had to fix. Still working on that.
Sorry for lack of updates this week. Reason: Computer went nutty, had to fix. Still working on that.
Monday, October 13, 2008
"He is a decent man..."
I'm not big on faith or belief. That's not to say I'm an atheist or even particularly anti-spiritual, I just prefer thought and knowledge 9 times out of 10 when I have the choice. Specifically, I'm not big on investing "faith" in things that exist in the physical world - you don't NEED to "believe" in real things because they're right there - you can see them, touch them, KNOW them and render a concrete personal verdict.
Which is sort of a long preface to explaining why there tends to be, in almost every major world event, a single key moment that stands out and reminds me why I tend to invest so little faith in, for example, my fellow man. Last week, that moment finally came for this year's U.S. Presidential Election:
Watch the whole thing.
Seen above: John McCain. War hero. American patriot. Distinguished United States Senator. A man more qualified in character and "on paper" to hold the office of President than any Republican or Democrat nominee who's run in my lifetime. A man who, by my accounting, was cheated out of the nomination by his own party in 2000 - a year in which I believe (yes, I said it) he would have won, would've been one of the great Presidents of history and would've left the country in a HELL of a better state than the man who won instead.
A man who - when confronted in the above clip by audience members at his one of his own speeches throwing lies, mischaracterizations, conspiracy theories and veiled racial/cultural epiteths at his opponent Barack Obama - responds by telling them that they are WRONG. That his opponent is not their enemy, that he is not a villian, that Obama is a good man and that, while he wants to win himself, they do not need to be AFRAID of an Obama victory.
Mark where you were when you saw this, because it'll be one of the only times you'll EVER see it: A candidate for President of the United States telling his supporters to, essentially, grow the fuck up. That they should vote for him because they think he's the better candidate or because they agree more strongly with his positions, not because of some trumped-up "battle between good and evil" pandering fear-mongering bullshit. He spoke to them like one adult to another, telling them they were behaving badly and expecting them to do better. You know, the things we used to expect LEADERS to do.
The audience's response? They booed him.
Every election we throw our hands up in exasperation over "mudslinging" and "negative campaigning." We put on our best Hamlet and wail about "why do they act like this!? WHY!!??" And we're completely full of shit about it. We know EXACTLY "why," and we're just trying to deflect the blame. Politicians campaign like spoiled, angry, entitled children because we MAKE THEM. We reward them when they do (i.e. George W. Bush gets to be the Republican nominee and later President after spreading a lie about McCain having an illegitimate black child in 2000) and when they do the right thing (see above) we PUNISH them. Because at the end of the day, sleazy and simplistic campaigns about character-assassinations and make-believe "good vs. evil" stagings WORK. Because enough people in this country are sufficiently ignorant, small-minded and intellectually WEAK for this to be the only way to stir them to political action.
We get the campaign we deserve.
Oh, BTW... MSNBC? Yeah. I'm the last guy to prattle on with the myth of the "liberal media boogeyman." HOWEVER, putting "McCain forced to defend Obama..." in the news blurb there? That's bad form. I know it makes for better copy and, let's face it, boogeyman bullshit or not we know he's not 'your' candidate, but that's poor sport plain and simple. Anyone watching the clip can see "forced" is a leading and contextually incorrect term to use here, not in the least because it's needlessly dismissive of a sincere action that you NEVER see presidential candidates take. Uncool.
Which is sort of a long preface to explaining why there tends to be, in almost every major world event, a single key moment that stands out and reminds me why I tend to invest so little faith in, for example, my fellow man. Last week, that moment finally came for this year's U.S. Presidential Election:
Watch the whole thing.
Seen above: John McCain. War hero. American patriot. Distinguished United States Senator. A man more qualified in character and "on paper" to hold the office of President than any Republican or Democrat nominee who's run in my lifetime. A man who, by my accounting, was cheated out of the nomination by his own party in 2000 - a year in which I believe (yes, I said it) he would have won, would've been one of the great Presidents of history and would've left the country in a HELL of a better state than the man who won instead.
A man who - when confronted in the above clip by audience members at his one of his own speeches throwing lies, mischaracterizations, conspiracy theories and veiled racial/cultural epiteths at his opponent Barack Obama - responds by telling them that they are WRONG. That his opponent is not their enemy, that he is not a villian, that Obama is a good man and that, while he wants to win himself, they do not need to be AFRAID of an Obama victory.
Mark where you were when you saw this, because it'll be one of the only times you'll EVER see it: A candidate for President of the United States telling his supporters to, essentially, grow the fuck up. That they should vote for him because they think he's the better candidate or because they agree more strongly with his positions, not because of some trumped-up "battle between good and evil" pandering fear-mongering bullshit. He spoke to them like one adult to another, telling them they were behaving badly and expecting them to do better. You know, the things we used to expect LEADERS to do.
The audience's response? They booed him.
Every election we throw our hands up in exasperation over "mudslinging" and "negative campaigning." We put on our best Hamlet and wail about "why do they act like this!? WHY!!??" And we're completely full of shit about it. We know EXACTLY "why," and we're just trying to deflect the blame. Politicians campaign like spoiled, angry, entitled children because we MAKE THEM. We reward them when they do (i.e. George W. Bush gets to be the Republican nominee and later President after spreading a lie about McCain having an illegitimate black child in 2000) and when they do the right thing (see above) we PUNISH them. Because at the end of the day, sleazy and simplistic campaigns about character-assassinations and make-believe "good vs. evil" stagings WORK. Because enough people in this country are sufficiently ignorant, small-minded and intellectually WEAK for this to be the only way to stir them to political action.
We get the campaign we deserve.
Oh, BTW... MSNBC? Yeah. I'm the last guy to prattle on with the myth of the "liberal media boogeyman." HOWEVER, putting "McCain forced to defend Obama..." in the news blurb there? That's bad form. I know it makes for better copy and, let's face it, boogeyman bullshit or not we know he's not 'your' candidate, but that's poor sport plain and simple. Anyone watching the clip can see "forced" is a leading and contextually incorrect term to use here, not in the least because it's needlessly dismissive of a sincere action that you NEVER see presidential candidates take. Uncool.
Sunday, October 12, 2008
Briefly...
QUARANTINE: No, I haven't seen "[REC]" yet, but this U.S. remake (same basic story: "last known video footage" of a news crew, firefighters and residents trapped in a building as an outbreak of weaponized super-rabies is turning everyone into feral cannibalistic crazies) has the stuff. I should preface this by mentioning that I absolutely DETEST "found-footage" movies on basic prinicipal - I regard it as the single most one-note, laziness-encouraging subgenres in all of modern filmmaking. There ARE standouts like Blair Witch and Cloverfield, but the VAST majority of the genre is absolute trash. But "Quarantine," in a single solitary scene (trust me, you'll know it when you see it, and if the scene occurs in "[REC]" the praise should apply retroactively) justifies the ENTIRE fucking genre. Seriously. As far as I'm concerned, every single "found footage" movie made thus far from "Cannibal Holocaust" to "Last Broadcast" all the way up to now has been building up to this ONE moment. Bravo.
BODY OF LIES: Poor Leonardo DiCaprio. Just when he was starting to hit the point where he no longer appeared too young to be playing men his own actual age along comes Ridley Scott to drop ANOTHER impossible physical acting job on him: An American spy who can convincingly disguise himself as an Arab terrorist in Iraq. Granted, he's only asked to do this in one scene, but it strikes a serious false-note in an otherwise pretty damn good War on Terror spy movie. It's basically a cops vs. feds vs. crooks deal set in the Middle East - DiCaprio is the field agent who immerses himself in the culture and street-level reality of enemy territory to take the fight to Al Qaeda, butting heads with Russell Crowe as the older CIA lifer who'd rather do things via smart-bombs, GPS satellites and his cell phone. Mark Strong gets another big "hey, who THIS now?" supporting part as the Jordanian Intelligence officer who's help they seek in setting up an anti-terror sting operation. Nothing Earth-shaking, but decent.
THE EXPRESS: True story of Ernie Davis, first black player to recieve the Heisman Trophy. The movie you're imagining as you read that sentence is the movie you get here, not a single surprise or stylistic shakeup. But it's a well-worn formula for a reason, and it more or less delivers. Dennis Quaid gets all the big lines as the tough-but-fair coach with a heart of gold. Extra points, at least, for concentrating almost exclusively on the football scenes and their direct external components and not weighing us down with extraneous backstory.
BODY OF LIES: Poor Leonardo DiCaprio. Just when he was starting to hit the point where he no longer appeared too young to be playing men his own actual age along comes Ridley Scott to drop ANOTHER impossible physical acting job on him: An American spy who can convincingly disguise himself as an Arab terrorist in Iraq. Granted, he's only asked to do this in one scene, but it strikes a serious false-note in an otherwise pretty damn good War on Terror spy movie. It's basically a cops vs. feds vs. crooks deal set in the Middle East - DiCaprio is the field agent who immerses himself in the culture and street-level reality of enemy territory to take the fight to Al Qaeda, butting heads with Russell Crowe as the older CIA lifer who'd rather do things via smart-bombs, GPS satellites and his cell phone. Mark Strong gets another big "hey, who THIS now?" supporting part as the Jordanian Intelligence officer who's help they seek in setting up an anti-terror sting operation. Nothing Earth-shaking, but decent.
THE EXPRESS: True story of Ernie Davis, first black player to recieve the Heisman Trophy. The movie you're imagining as you read that sentence is the movie you get here, not a single surprise or stylistic shakeup. But it's a well-worn formula for a reason, and it more or less delivers. Dennis Quaid gets all the big lines as the tough-but-fair coach with a heart of gold. Extra points, at least, for concentrating almost exclusively on the football scenes and their direct external components and not weighing us down with extraneous backstory.
Thursday, October 9, 2008
So close
(hat tip: http://www.joblo.com/bride-wars-poster )
To help understand why this blog is... like it so often is, here's a little peek into how my mind works. Pictured below, ALMOST the poster for the best movie ever made:
Sadly, as it turns out "Bride Wars" is NOT in fact a movie wherein Kate Hudson and Anne Hathaway star as a pair of strong-willed lesbian life-partners fighting the "war" over their right to legally marry and (one can only hope) embark on an eminently-photographable honeymoon - a film which, were it to exist, would be BOTH a powerful socio-political statement in the chief Civil Rights struggle of the age... a "Guess Who's Coming To Dinner" for our time... AND ALSO almost-unquestionably the most astounding never-thought-I'd-live-to-see-THAT image to be captured on film since man setting foot upon the moon.
But, 'tis not to be. Instead, the movie is about two longtime gal pals fighting to see who can plan the most elaborate, opulent wedding. Oh, well.
Hey... y'know what would be a great twist, though? If, at or around the end of the second act one or both women crossed some kind of "line" in terms of their scheming and alienated their spouses-to-be and/or one another; setting in motion some soul-searching and an eventual realization that getting too wrapped up in the material trappings of such things can cause one to lose sight of what's really important. No one would see THAT coming ;)
To help understand why this blog is... like it so often is, here's a little peek into how my mind works. Pictured below, ALMOST the poster for the best movie ever made:
Sadly, as it turns out "Bride Wars" is NOT in fact a movie wherein Kate Hudson and Anne Hathaway star as a pair of strong-willed lesbian life-partners fighting the "war" over their right to legally marry and (one can only hope) embark on an eminently-photographable honeymoon - a film which, were it to exist, would be BOTH a powerful socio-political statement in the chief Civil Rights struggle of the age... a "Guess Who's Coming To Dinner" for our time... AND ALSO almost-unquestionably the most astounding never-thought-I'd-live-to-see-THAT image to be captured on film since man setting foot upon the moon.
But, 'tis not to be. Instead, the movie is about two longtime gal pals fighting to see who can plan the most elaborate, opulent wedding. Oh, well.
Hey... y'know what would be a great twist, though? If, at or around the end of the second act one or both women crossed some kind of "line" in terms of their scheming and alienated their spouses-to-be and/or one another; setting in motion some soul-searching and an eventual realization that getting too wrapped up in the material trappings of such things can cause one to lose sight of what's really important. No one would see THAT coming ;)
Wednesday, October 8, 2008
REVIEW: Appaloosa (2008)
In the big strokes, in the trailers and at first glance; "Appaloosa" looks like a well-done entry in the subgenre of Westerns focusing on the strong, mostly-silent bond of friendship between a pair of lawmen. And that it is, but with a unique twist at the center that turns it from a straight-up Old West drama into something that's one part romance, one part buddy movie and very nearly one part cynical pitch-dark relationship comedy - John Ford meets Neil LaBute and Kevin Smith.
Ed Harris (who also directed) and Viggo Mortensen are a pair of mercenary gunslingers running a martial-law-for-hire business, contracted by the dusty mining town of Appaloosa to deal with murderous carpetbagger/land-grabber Randall Bragg (Jeremy Irons) and his gang of thugs. Harris' Virgil Cole is a two-gun sly-talker while Mortensen's Everett Hitch is the quiet man with the big 8-gauge shotgun. In the kind of quiet, well-observed character beat that typifies the film, Cole constantly pours over the works of Emerson... but relies on Hitch to explain what the big words mean. The bottom line of the relationship - at work or otherwise is just as simple: Cole does the talking and takes point, Hitch always has his back; even if that means holding him back when his volatile temper gets the best of him (there's a definate "Searchers"-style post Civil War PTSD undercurrent to both men.)
The re-establishment of law in town and the confrontations with Bragg's goons all go according to plan - not just Cole's plan but the "plan" of the apocryphal laws of the Western genre (the two are nearly one and the same) right down to the one part that doesn't: The arrival of Renee Zellweger's Allison French - the innevitable beautiful, classy, too-fancy-by-far East Coast widow who - innevitably - stirs Cole's stony old heart and gets him to start fancyin' it's time to give up the killin' life and settle down. But then, the film takes a major left turn...
SPOILERS FOLLOW
She's a total slut.
No, really. That's the big "oh by the way" curveball of the story: Cole's idealized perfect lady - who astounds him with such alien ways as bathing before bed, playing piano and introducing him to window treatments - is something akin to the Old West equivalent of a nymphomaniac (or, as Hitch puts it, "I think Allie NEEDS to be with a man.") Not in mean way, not in a "liberated womanhood threatening the frontier tradition" way, not even in a mentally-unstable way... the gal just can't seem to stand sleeping alone. She throws herself at Hitch first change she gets, doesn't seem to need much coaxing to surrender to the bad guys and even seems capable of hooking up with Bragg - whoever the top man is at any given moment. THIS, of course, is a predicament that throws Cole into utter beffudlement.
The presence of this dynamic in an otherwise intentionally formula Western turns the whole world on it's head, and the heart of the film is watching what's essentially a "dude, my girlfriend is NUTS" movie play out between two old-school cowboys in the middle of an on-and-off shooting war with the bad guys. Harris' unparalelled expressive acting betrays enough pain to keep it from being outright "hillarious," but it's definately a comic sight to see these two weathered gun-hands sussing out the situation as though Allie were a mysterious, strangely-afflicted breed of horse - sounding at times like a grim, well-spoken Old Timey Dante and Randall from "Clerks:" Cole loves her, wants her, even admires her but, as he puts it "seems she'll fuck anything that ain't a goat." "She loves me when I'm around, then she loves you" he continues. Hitch agrees in the "simplest sense," but offers that "I don't think that's love in strictest sense." In many ways, this is every bit the "cowboys in uncharted territory" story that "Brokeback Mountain" was.
This is also where the film gets it's ultimate dramatic final thrust: Hitch always has Cole's back, it's his function in life to protect him from threats he might not see coming. So what, if anything, can he do to stop Allie's "condition" from hurting him when Cole is dead-set not to abandon her - and is it something he's willing/able to do? After all, the Old West offers solutions to the problem of "my best friend is in love with the wrong woman" that the modern world doesn't...
This was a nice surprise: An "offbeat" Western that works both as an action/drama and a slightly-skewed relationship piece. I liked it, I think a lot of you will, too.
FINAL RATING: 8/10
Ed Harris (who also directed) and Viggo Mortensen are a pair of mercenary gunslingers running a martial-law-for-hire business, contracted by the dusty mining town of Appaloosa to deal with murderous carpetbagger/land-grabber Randall Bragg (Jeremy Irons) and his gang of thugs. Harris' Virgil Cole is a two-gun sly-talker while Mortensen's Everett Hitch is the quiet man with the big 8-gauge shotgun. In the kind of quiet, well-observed character beat that typifies the film, Cole constantly pours over the works of Emerson... but relies on Hitch to explain what the big words mean. The bottom line of the relationship - at work or otherwise is just as simple: Cole does the talking and takes point, Hitch always has his back; even if that means holding him back when his volatile temper gets the best of him (there's a definate "Searchers"-style post Civil War PTSD undercurrent to both men.)
The re-establishment of law in town and the confrontations with Bragg's goons all go according to plan - not just Cole's plan but the "plan" of the apocryphal laws of the Western genre (the two are nearly one and the same) right down to the one part that doesn't: The arrival of Renee Zellweger's Allison French - the innevitable beautiful, classy, too-fancy-by-far East Coast widow who - innevitably - stirs Cole's stony old heart and gets him to start fancyin' it's time to give up the killin' life and settle down. But then, the film takes a major left turn...
SPOILERS FOLLOW
She's a total slut.
No, really. That's the big "oh by the way" curveball of the story: Cole's idealized perfect lady - who astounds him with such alien ways as bathing before bed, playing piano and introducing him to window treatments - is something akin to the Old West equivalent of a nymphomaniac (or, as Hitch puts it, "I think Allie NEEDS to be with a man.") Not in mean way, not in a "liberated womanhood threatening the frontier tradition" way, not even in a mentally-unstable way... the gal just can't seem to stand sleeping alone. She throws herself at Hitch first change she gets, doesn't seem to need much coaxing to surrender to the bad guys and even seems capable of hooking up with Bragg - whoever the top man is at any given moment. THIS, of course, is a predicament that throws Cole into utter beffudlement.
The presence of this dynamic in an otherwise intentionally formula Western turns the whole world on it's head, and the heart of the film is watching what's essentially a "dude, my girlfriend is NUTS" movie play out between two old-school cowboys in the middle of an on-and-off shooting war with the bad guys. Harris' unparalelled expressive acting betrays enough pain to keep it from being outright "hillarious," but it's definately a comic sight to see these two weathered gun-hands sussing out the situation as though Allie were a mysterious, strangely-afflicted breed of horse - sounding at times like a grim, well-spoken Old Timey Dante and Randall from "Clerks:" Cole loves her, wants her, even admires her but, as he puts it "seems she'll fuck anything that ain't a goat." "She loves me when I'm around, then she loves you" he continues. Hitch agrees in the "simplest sense," but offers that "I don't think that's love in strictest sense." In many ways, this is every bit the "cowboys in uncharted territory" story that "Brokeback Mountain" was.
This is also where the film gets it's ultimate dramatic final thrust: Hitch always has Cole's back, it's his function in life to protect him from threats he might not see coming. So what, if anything, can he do to stop Allie's "condition" from hurting him when Cole is dead-set not to abandon her - and is it something he's willing/able to do? After all, the Old West offers solutions to the problem of "my best friend is in love with the wrong woman" that the modern world doesn't...
This was a nice surprise: An "offbeat" Western that works both as an action/drama and a slightly-skewed relationship piece. I liked it, I think a lot of you will, too.
FINAL RATING: 8/10
Sunday, October 5, 2008
An American Carol
Yes, I saw it. Overall, considering I'm on the opposite side of most of the political points it's lecturing on behalf of, I don't think it's awful. The out-and-out jokes mostly land funny, and as individual vignettes they work just fine. The problem is the structure and the intent: The imposition of the "Christmas Carol" narrative and the fact that director David Zucker has a point to make that, for him, supersedes the jokes causes too many of the "skits" to go flat. You end up with several genuinely amusing, clever "bits" that just DEFLATE before your eyes as Kelsey Grammer shows up in a General Patton costume to explain the premise of the joke, sagely intone the message and deliver the lesson he wants us to take from it. What's more, it tries to go maudlin and serious in the third act, which is DEADLY in a movie like this. It's a unique kind of failure, though.
In case you hadn't heard of this (and, according to it's DISASTEROUS opening weekend take, there's a damn good chance of that) it's David "Airplane!" Zucker's satire of "liberal" politics, celebrities, interest-groups and Michael Moore in particular. It borrows the basic plot of "A Christmas Carol," with Moore look-a-like documentarian Michael Malone (Kevin Farley, Chris Farley's brother and actually very good in this) as he's visited on the eve of July 4th by the ghosts of JFK, Patton, George Washington (Jon Voigt) and Trace Adkins as Death who try to show him the negative impact his anti-patriotism has on his own life and the rest of the country.
During the "journey," some stopover skits include a visit to an alternate-reality South where Slavery still exists because Lincoln was against war, zombie ACLU lawyers, a dance number with aging-hippie College professors gleefully singing about how assured they are that the world situation today is EXACTLY the same as it was in 1968, Malone recieving the "Leni Reifenstahl Award for Documentary Filmmaking" and a visit to a pre-Pearl Harbor 40s anti-war "peace" rally (get it?) An interwoven secondary plot involves a trio of hapless Islamist terrorists (led by Robert Davi!) who are funding Malone's next movie (unknown to him) as a front to stage an attack.
On their own, the sketches themselves are mostly funny... but the follow-up attempts at seriousness kill it. And when it gets into the ALL-serious stuff - like Washington taking Malone back to a freshly-collapsed Ground Zero to lambaste him for his actions and worldview - are just dead in the water. They stop the thing cold, agree or disagree with what's being said.
Anyhoo... the punchline here is that it's a dud. A huge flop. 0pened at #9, despite massive promotion to it's target audience - in the "let's make it a hit to prove a point" vein - on talk radio, Fox News and the web. Here's the abridged version of some figures I dropped over at "Dirty Harry's Place" - a largely sociable and open-minded Republican-leaning movie site - earlier tonight: (original link: http://www.dirtyharrysplace.com/ )
"I mean, after all, I’ve been reading boxoffice analysis on the right-wing blogosphere for YEARS whenever a “liberal” film fails to outgross “Titanic,” along with the repeated talking points about how this proves that A.) box-office is the only real indicator of quality because it reflects how “da folks” feel, that B.) “liberal” Hollywood is out of touch and that C.) they’re pissing money away because a “conservative” movie would be HUGE if only they made one. So it only seems right and proper to look close at the numbers on this one."
"So, #9. Just to put that in some perspective: It opened behind - and made about 310,00 dollars LESS - on it’s heavily-promoted (on Fox, talk radio and the web) opening weekend than the Kirk-Cameron-fights-fires-for-Christ-movie made in it’s 2nd week PLUMMET. Know what else? It was only one spot ahead of “Religulous”… which was playing in less-than HALF the number of theatres. In fact, in terms of per-screen average Maher’s movie was the second highest ticket-seller, surpassed only be “Beverly Hills Chihuahua.”
"Boxoffice Mojo is FUN, innit? Let’s do s’more. Here’s some movies that opened better than “An American Carol.” See if you can detect a theme:
STOP LOSS: $4,555,117
LIONS FOR LAMBS: $6,702,434
CRASH: $9,107,071
THE CONTENDER: $5,303,900
TRAITOR: $7,868,465 ($10,006,327 when adjusted for three-day weekend)
JARHEAD: $27,726,210
RENDITION: $4,060,012
THE GOOD SHEPHERD: $9,912,110 ($14,142,760 when adjusted for three-day Xmas weekend)
It’s also, BTW, the lowest-grossing opening weekend EVER for a film directed by David Zucker. “Scary Movie 3″ - the absolute worst entry of it’s respective franchise - opened 10.6 TIMES as big. Even “My Boss’s Daughter” - the worst film Zucker has ever made - opened a full thousand bucks higher."
Now, what does all that mean? The same thing it "meant" when all the so-called "liberal" anti-war movies tanked: Bupkiss, really. Not a damn thing, other than that marketing still matters and that American audiences will, given the choice, generally avoid movies that want them to THINK regardless of what type of thoughts are in question. So maybe this can be where BOTH sides put the box-office-tally-to-prove-a-point thing to bed? Please?
In case you hadn't heard of this (and, according to it's DISASTEROUS opening weekend take, there's a damn good chance of that) it's David "Airplane!" Zucker's satire of "liberal" politics, celebrities, interest-groups and Michael Moore in particular. It borrows the basic plot of "A Christmas Carol," with Moore look-a-like documentarian Michael Malone (Kevin Farley, Chris Farley's brother and actually very good in this) as he's visited on the eve of July 4th by the ghosts of JFK, Patton, George Washington (Jon Voigt) and Trace Adkins as Death who try to show him the negative impact his anti-patriotism has on his own life and the rest of the country.
During the "journey," some stopover skits include a visit to an alternate-reality South where Slavery still exists because Lincoln was against war, zombie ACLU lawyers, a dance number with aging-hippie College professors gleefully singing about how assured they are that the world situation today is EXACTLY the same as it was in 1968, Malone recieving the "Leni Reifenstahl Award for Documentary Filmmaking" and a visit to a pre-Pearl Harbor 40s anti-war "peace" rally (get it?) An interwoven secondary plot involves a trio of hapless Islamist terrorists (led by Robert Davi!) who are funding Malone's next movie (unknown to him) as a front to stage an attack.
On their own, the sketches themselves are mostly funny... but the follow-up attempts at seriousness kill it. And when it gets into the ALL-serious stuff - like Washington taking Malone back to a freshly-collapsed Ground Zero to lambaste him for his actions and worldview - are just dead in the water. They stop the thing cold, agree or disagree with what's being said.
Anyhoo... the punchline here is that it's a dud. A huge flop. 0pened at #9, despite massive promotion to it's target audience - in the "let's make it a hit to prove a point" vein - on talk radio, Fox News and the web. Here's the abridged version of some figures I dropped over at "Dirty Harry's Place" - a largely sociable and open-minded Republican-leaning movie site - earlier tonight: (original link: http://www.dirtyharrysplace.com/ )
"I mean, after all, I’ve been reading boxoffice analysis on the right-wing blogosphere for YEARS whenever a “liberal” film fails to outgross “Titanic,” along with the repeated talking points about how this proves that A.) box-office is the only real indicator of quality because it reflects how “da folks” feel, that B.) “liberal” Hollywood is out of touch and that C.) they’re pissing money away because a “conservative” movie would be HUGE if only they made one. So it only seems right and proper to look close at the numbers on this one."
"So, #9. Just to put that in some perspective: It opened behind - and made about 310,00 dollars LESS - on it’s heavily-promoted (on Fox, talk radio and the web) opening weekend than the Kirk-Cameron-fights-fires-for-Christ-movie made in it’s 2nd week PLUMMET. Know what else? It was only one spot ahead of “Religulous”… which was playing in less-than HALF the number of theatres. In fact, in terms of per-screen average Maher’s movie was the second highest ticket-seller, surpassed only be “Beverly Hills Chihuahua.”
"Boxoffice Mojo is FUN, innit? Let’s do s’more. Here’s some movies that opened better than “An American Carol.” See if you can detect a theme:
STOP LOSS: $4,555,117
LIONS FOR LAMBS: $6,702,434
CRASH: $9,107,071
THE CONTENDER: $5,303,900
TRAITOR: $7,868,465 ($10,006,327 when adjusted for three-day weekend)
JARHEAD: $27,726,210
RENDITION: $4,060,012
THE GOOD SHEPHERD: $9,912,110 ($14,142,760 when adjusted for three-day Xmas weekend)
It’s also, BTW, the lowest-grossing opening weekend EVER for a film directed by David Zucker. “Scary Movie 3″ - the absolute worst entry of it’s respective franchise - opened 10.6 TIMES as big. Even “My Boss’s Daughter” - the worst film Zucker has ever made - opened a full thousand bucks higher."
Now, what does all that mean? The same thing it "meant" when all the so-called "liberal" anti-war movies tanked: Bupkiss, really. Not a damn thing, other than that marketing still matters and that American audiences will, given the choice, generally avoid movies that want them to THINK regardless of what type of thoughts are in question. So maybe this can be where BOTH sides put the box-office-tally-to-prove-a-point thing to bed? Please?