Get back here, 2009! I'm not finished with you yet. . .
So I decided to write up a "where are they now" kind of follow-up list, capped off with my pick for the Worst Movie of 2009. You know, just cuz. Here we go -
Drag Me to Hell
There will be a direct-to-video "Drag Me to Hell Part 2". There is no official word of this, I just have this funny feeling. Director Sam Raimi has moved on. . . to OZ. He's making "Oz, the Great and Powerful", a reboot of the classic series, featuring the Wizard of Oz as the central character. James Franco will star as the man behind the curtain.
Star Trek
"Star Trek 2" is on the way for summer, 2012. Meanwhile, director J.J. Abrams has made "Super 8" for the summer of 2011. I'm looking forward to seeing this. Quite a lot! God Bless the movies of the '80s. . .
Inglorious Basterds
What the hell is Quentin Tarantino doing now? Unknown, but the word on the street strongly suggests that his next movie will be a Western. Cool.
Cloudy With a Chance of Meatballs
While Sony Pictures Animation has released animated films of dubious quality, post-"Meatballs", the filmmakers Phil Lord and Chris Miller have gone over to the world of live-action with "Bob, the Musical", about a man with brain damage who thinks his life has turned into a grand movie musical. These guys also might have something to do with the upcoming big screen update of "21 Jump Street", with Johnny Depp returning to the role that made him famous.
Franklyn
Where have you gone, Gerald McMorrow? Don't be sad. Just because your movie was unfairly dumped by an uncaring studio doesn't mean it wasn't awesome!
Red Cliff
John Woo has been hinting at retirement lately. Recently, he co-directed the okay movie "Reign of Assassins". Or, more accurately, he was called upon by the producers to save the movie from the missteps of the previous director. In other words, a clean up job.
Coraline
Director Henry Selick is currently working with Pixar Studios, supposedly on a new stop-motion animation project.
The Hurt Locker
What do you do if you win lots of Oscars? If you're Kathryn Bigelow, you make "Triple Frontier", an action movie set in South America starring Johnny Depp and Tom Hanks.
Zombieland
"Zombieland 2" will arrive in 2012. And in 3-D. Until then, Ruben Fleischer made another movie - "30 Minutes or Less", due this August.
Watchmen
There will be no sequel (it's a self contained story, duh), so Zack Snyder went on to make the disappointing "Sucker Punch" (see review). He may redeem himself next summer, though. He's making "Superman: The Man of Steel", an all-new reboot of the legendary character for 2012. So far, everything I've heard about this new one sounds great! Fingers crossed. . .
The Hangover
Todd Phillips and the boys have gone back to the well.
Hmmm. We'll see.
Avatar
James Cameron will be bringing us "Avatar 2", followed by "Avatar 4". Wait, that's wrong. Let me see. . .
divide by 2. . . carry the 1. . .
I mean "Avatar 3". It's a trilogy. Or, it will be. He's also working on a live-action adaptation of the Japanese anime series "Battle Angel Alita".
A Serious Man
The Coen Brothers made "True Grit" after this. Stay tuned for my upcoming Top 25 Movies of 2010 list. Now they are working on a remake of "Gambit", which may be on my Top 25 Movies of 2012 list.
Up
Pixar goes on. "Toy Story 3" kicked ass in 2010. "Cars 2" hits this summer (eh). Of the two directors of "Up", only Pete Docter seems to be working (where are you, Bob Peterson?). Docter is directing "Monsters University", the prequel to "Monsters, Inc", which he also directed.
District 9
Neill Blomkamp is hard at work on a giant sci-fi movie called "Elysium", starring Matt Damon and Jodie Foster. Coming 2012. Yippee! And, yes, there may be a "District 9 Part 2". No confirmation, yet.
Ponyo
Hayao Miyazaki is making a sequel to his 1992 film "Porco Rosso", about a pig who flies around in a biplane. Trust me, it's cute.
Moon
Director Duncan Jones (interesting slice of tidbittery - he's the son of David Bowie) made "Source Code", now playing. Short review - It's my second favorite movie of 2011 (at the moment), second only to "13 Assassins". Jake Gyllenhaal does a bang-up job in the lead role, the story is endlessly thought provoking and full of twists and tension, and it's actually quite an emotionally moving experience. Exceptional science fiction. Whatever Mr. Jones decides to make next, I will see it.
And, for sharp-eyed viewers, there is evidence in this movie that it takes place in the same fictional future as "Moon". Neat.
Thirst
No sequel here, but filmmaker Chan-wook Park is working on a dark mystery/drama called "Stoker". No relation to Bram.
Taken
"Taken 2" arrives in 2012, with Liam Neeson returning. Maybe they will call it "Taken Again" or "Taken As Well" or "Taken Too". I vote for "Tooked". Olivier Megaton directs (great last name for an action movie director). The director of the original, Pierre Morel, went on to deliver John Travolta's "From Paris With Love" (s'alright) and was developing a new big screen version of Frank Herbert's "Dune", but that fell through.
Where the Wild Things Are
No sequel here. And Spike Jonze has been on a spree, making lots of short films.
The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus
Minnesotan Terry Gilliam has trouble getting people to finance his films. So what does he do? He makes an opera! "The Damnation of Faust" opens soon. Probably only in New York. Looks great.
Outlander
Howard McCain - Have you seen this man? He made a cool movie that was pirated endlessly and barely released in theaters. Didn't help that it was a fairly large budgeted movie. Come back, Howie!
Paranormal Activity
The first sequel to this movie will probably appear on my Top 25 Movies of 2010 list. Don't know about Part 3, yet. Will find out soon. In the meantime, Oren Peli (director of the original P.A.) has made "Area 51", the story of an alien breakout in the secret Nevada airbase, told through the lenses of the airbase security cameras. Interesting, if a little played out by now.
Crank: High Voltage
Rumors of a "Crank 3" continue to circulate, but nothing concrete yet. Directors Mark Neveldine and Brian Taylor have shimmied on to "Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance", once again starring Nicolas Cage. If it wasn't for their involvement, I wouldn't be very interested in this sequel. Due in 2012.
Fantastic Mr. Fox
Wes Anderson is filming something called "Moonrise Kingdom". It's a comedic thriller starring Bruce Willis and Edward Norton. I'm there.
And now, my pick for The Worst Movie of 2009 -
After Last Season
Mind boggling. And not in a good way. I enjoy watching a "good" bad movie, but this one is just too pretentious and dull to qualify. And I can't believe it was actually released in theaters. Hell, it had a wider release than a couple of my picks for the Top 25 Movies of 2009! It's a sci-fi tale about a couple of medical students who participate in an experiment - they have their brains hooked up to a machine which transforms their thoughts into virtual reality. And there are murders going on in the city, and. . . screw it, I still don't care. Those of you hoping for a "Troll 2" style fun fest will be sorely burned. At least I didn't see it at the movies. I saw it at home. By myself. With my cat. Sigh. Dookie Alert. . .
One exchange of dialogue has always haunted me, and I still see it quoted here and there on the 'net:
"So, picture a flat surface. Out of the surface, one letter rises."
"From the alphabet?"
"Yes".
Folks, this movie is deadly serious. It's not meant to be a joke at all! No winking, no nudging! THIS MOVIE MUST BE STOPPED AT ALL COSTS!!!
(undecipherable gibberish)
Friday, April 29, 2011
Saturday, April 23, 2011
Thursday, April 21, 2011
Shifty Classics: The Adventures of Robin Hood (1938)
"It's much too warm to brawl with such a windbag."
Of all the cinematic attempts to tell the legendary tale of Robin of Locksley, I think this is, by far, the best one. It is also the first one. When King Richard "The Lionheart" is captured during the Crusades, his treacherous Norman bro, Prince John (Claude Rains), and his devious lackey Sir Guy of Gisborne (a.k.a. the Sheriff of Nottingham, played by Basil Rathbone) attempt to steal the throne of England, mistreating the local Saxons in the process. Enter Robin (Errol Flynn), a lower-class Saxon lord with a hankering to do the right thing. Gathering a small army of like-minded locals in nearby Sherwood Forest, these merry men harry, waylay and befuddle the oppressive Normans, robbing from the rich and giving to the poor. Robin also woos Norman babe Maid Marion (Olivia de Havilland), you know, in his spare time.
It's a colorful movie, both figuratively and literally. This was in the early days of Technicolor, so the colors pop off the screen with their historically inappropriate brightness. Add to that lots of high-energy action sequences, dastardly villains, goofy humor, wide-eyed romance, large scale setpieces, a surprisingly high body count, memorable musical score, and a genuine atmosphere of good natured fun that's just so damn infectious. It's a classic, one whose influence can still be seen in filmmaking culture today, 70-plus years later.
Yup, green tights. For camoflage, you see.
'Cuz they're in the woods.
Directed by Michael Curtiz ("Captain Blood", "Casablanca") and William Keighley ("G-Men"), "The Adventures of Robin Hood" was a smash hit at the box office. It had to be. The budget was huge for the time period (about $2 million), and Technicolor was still a bit of a gamble. But the star power of the two lead actors, combined with the overwhelming "fun-ness" of the movie itself brought in the crowds en masse. Errol Flynn was the biggest action star of the time (see the equally good pirate flick "Captain Blood"). He brought loads of earnestness and charisma to the role, and was hands-on with all the action sequences. And the gusto. By God, the GUSTO. For all the oppression and death and struggle going on in the story, the characters seem to be loving every minute.
It's old-school Hollywood fun that never fails to brighten my mood. It's unfettered innocence - adventure without cynicism. In a word, refreshing.
Of course, the character of Robin Hood would return to theaters countless times over the years. None of them were ever as influential, or as good, but this is one of those timeless tales that will always be retold. I've not seen all of the other Robin Hood movies, but I remember a couple of them - like Disney's animated "Robin Hood" of 1973, with animals standing in for humans. It was pretty much just a remake of "The Adventures of Robin Hood", but it was rather well done. Sean Connery took on the role, with Audrey Hepburn as Maid Marian in 1976's "Robin and Marian". It was alright. Connery later appeared as Richard the Lionheart in 1991's "Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves", starring Kevin Costner in the title role. This was my generation's Robin Hood and it still holds up well today. Costner gets a lot of flack for playing the character without an English accent but, hey, Errol Flynn didn't have one either, so who cares. Two years later, Mel Brooks' "Robin Hood: Men in Tights" made fun of that fact, but was more a parody of the 1938 "Hood" rather than the 1991 "Hood". I laughed a couple of times. And Dave Chappelle was in it. Remember him?
Lately, Russell Crowe took on the role in Ridley Scott's 2010 "Robin Hood". Meh. It had a unique spin on the classic tale; it was a prequel, recounting exactly how Robin of Locksley became Robin Hood and ending just as Robin and his merry men enter Sherwood Forest to hide. Obviously the studio was hoping for sequels, but there won't be any. Cate Blanchett (as Maid Marian) was the best thing about the movie. They should have shifted the main perspective to her character and retitled the movie "Maid Marian". Would've been much better.
Then there's "Robin B Hood" (2006), starring Jackie Chan. It has absolutely nothing to do with the Robin Hood legend, nor are there any characters named "Robin", "B", or "Hood" anywhere in the movie. So how the hell does the title relate to the content? I dunno, but it's a fun flick.
I guess the original title was "Rob-B-Hood", but that makes no sense either.
So in the end, Flynn is in - "The Adventures of Robin Hood" still rocks. Maybe someday someone will make a Robin Hood movie to equal this legendary classic, but until that day comes, I will continue to greet each day with a hearty laugh - and GUSTO!
Of all the cinematic attempts to tell the legendary tale of Robin of Locksley, I think this is, by far, the best one. It is also the first one. When King Richard "The Lionheart" is captured during the Crusades, his treacherous Norman bro, Prince John (Claude Rains), and his devious lackey Sir Guy of Gisborne (a.k.a. the Sheriff of Nottingham, played by Basil Rathbone) attempt to steal the throne of England, mistreating the local Saxons in the process. Enter Robin (Errol Flynn), a lower-class Saxon lord with a hankering to do the right thing. Gathering a small army of like-minded locals in nearby Sherwood Forest, these merry men harry, waylay and befuddle the oppressive Normans, robbing from the rich and giving to the poor. Robin also woos Norman babe Maid Marion (Olivia de Havilland), you know, in his spare time.
It's a colorful movie, both figuratively and literally. This was in the early days of Technicolor, so the colors pop off the screen with their historically inappropriate brightness. Add to that lots of high-energy action sequences, dastardly villains, goofy humor, wide-eyed romance, large scale setpieces, a surprisingly high body count, memorable musical score, and a genuine atmosphere of good natured fun that's just so damn infectious. It's a classic, one whose influence can still be seen in filmmaking culture today, 70-plus years later.
Yup, green tights. For camoflage, you see.
'Cuz they're in the woods.
Directed by Michael Curtiz ("Captain Blood", "Casablanca") and William Keighley ("G-Men"), "The Adventures of Robin Hood" was a smash hit at the box office. It had to be. The budget was huge for the time period (about $2 million), and Technicolor was still a bit of a gamble. But the star power of the two lead actors, combined with the overwhelming "fun-ness" of the movie itself brought in the crowds en masse. Errol Flynn was the biggest action star of the time (see the equally good pirate flick "Captain Blood"). He brought loads of earnestness and charisma to the role, and was hands-on with all the action sequences. And the gusto. By God, the GUSTO. For all the oppression and death and struggle going on in the story, the characters seem to be loving every minute.
It's old-school Hollywood fun that never fails to brighten my mood. It's unfettered innocence - adventure without cynicism. In a word, refreshing.
Of course, the character of Robin Hood would return to theaters countless times over the years. None of them were ever as influential, or as good, but this is one of those timeless tales that will always be retold. I've not seen all of the other Robin Hood movies, but I remember a couple of them - like Disney's animated "Robin Hood" of 1973, with animals standing in for humans. It was pretty much just a remake of "The Adventures of Robin Hood", but it was rather well done. Sean Connery took on the role, with Audrey Hepburn as Maid Marian in 1976's "Robin and Marian". It was alright. Connery later appeared as Richard the Lionheart in 1991's "Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves", starring Kevin Costner in the title role. This was my generation's Robin Hood and it still holds up well today. Costner gets a lot of flack for playing the character without an English accent but, hey, Errol Flynn didn't have one either, so who cares. Two years later, Mel Brooks' "Robin Hood: Men in Tights" made fun of that fact, but was more a parody of the 1938 "Hood" rather than the 1991 "Hood". I laughed a couple of times. And Dave Chappelle was in it. Remember him?
Lately, Russell Crowe took on the role in Ridley Scott's 2010 "Robin Hood". Meh. It had a unique spin on the classic tale; it was a prequel, recounting exactly how Robin of Locksley became Robin Hood and ending just as Robin and his merry men enter Sherwood Forest to hide. Obviously the studio was hoping for sequels, but there won't be any. Cate Blanchett (as Maid Marian) was the best thing about the movie. They should have shifted the main perspective to her character and retitled the movie "Maid Marian". Would've been much better.
Then there's "Robin B Hood" (2006), starring Jackie Chan. It has absolutely nothing to do with the Robin Hood legend, nor are there any characters named "Robin", "B", or "Hood" anywhere in the movie. So how the hell does the title relate to the content? I dunno, but it's a fun flick.
I guess the original title was "Rob-B-Hood", but that makes no sense either.
So in the end, Flynn is in - "The Adventures of Robin Hood" still rocks. Maybe someday someone will make a Robin Hood movie to equal this legendary classic, but until that day comes, I will continue to greet each day with a hearty laugh - and GUSTO!
Saturday, April 16, 2011
Scream 4 (2011)
Color me surprised. And "spoiler-free".
First came "Scream" (1996), the movie that gave the nearly dead horror genre a kick in the pants, setting off a seemingly unstoppable horror boom which has sustained mightily for 15 years straight. First-time writer Kevin Williamson and legendary genre director Wes Craven provided not only shocks and suspense, but humor, strong characterizations, and a witty, self-aware perspective which gave the series its unique flair. I've always felt that the humor and the wit worked far better than the scares, but there are still a couple of intense scenes. Plus, I like the characters. It's an undeniable classic.
The following year, Kevin Williamson and Wes Craven returned with "Scream 2" (1997), which comments on the tropes of horror movie sequels while at the same time, well, being one. And, surprise, it was nearly as good as the original. Except that they killed of my favorite character in the series, but that only ramps up the suspense - anyone can die at any time!
"Scream 3" (1999) was intended to be the end of the series, wrapping up (and commentating on, of course) the rules of all things "trilogy". Wes Craven was back, but Kevin Williamson had to bow out due to scheduling conflicts. This may explain why this entry is a step down from the previous two. It's less witty, less scary, and a little bit pooped out. Nonetheless, it's still okay. But disappointing.
Over ten years after the "finale" comes the seemingly unnecessary fourth chapter in the series. Wes Craven is back, and so is writer Kevin Williamson, as well as the surviving cast, plus some new victims. I went into the theater not really looking forward to seeing it, but curious nonetheless. After all, what more was left to say in the world of "Scream"?
Plenty, my friends. This is my favorite entry in the series since the original. It doesn't re-invent the "Scream" wheel or anything, but it injects enough new ideas, twists, and strongly constructed scenes into the mix to make it interesting. It's about remakes. Horror remakes, specifically. Sidney Prescott has returned to Woodsboro to promote a self-help book she's written concerning her experiences as a survivor of great tragedy (3 of them, to be precise). Sure enough, new murders begin to occur via a mysterious Ghostface killer(s), and witty mayhem ensues.
The strongest scenes in the "Scream" movies are always the opening scene and the final scene, with scenes of varying quality in between. "Scream 4" is no different, except that my favorite line of dialogue in the entire series is spoken in the final scene here. I cannot repeat it - spoiler territory - but it's great. Besides the horror movie remake phenomenon, this film also skewers the self-obsessed "me" generation with razor sharp precision. This is easily the most cynical, and critical, entry in the franchise.
I also didn't realize how much I missed the returning characters until I saw them onscreen. I was like, hey, I remember you, I liked that thing you did that one time, and they were like, that's cool, I'm glad to be back, I'm getting a paycheck and everything this time, and I was like, heh heh, money is cool, and they were like, heh heh, hells yeah, and I was like, word, I make money and stuff too, not for acting or anything, but, you know, and they were like, yeah, I gotta go now, and I was all like, okay, I guess, I got stuff to do too, it was nice to see you again, and they were like, say hi to the family and all, and I said okay, I gotta finish this random tangent first, and they said, yeah, it's getting pretty old now so you should just stop, and I was like, sure, fine, whatever. . .
Ahem. The new cast members are fine. There's a Culkin kid in there, and President Roslyn from "Battlestar Galactica", and that fat annoying black dude from "Transformers". There's one character - the estranged boyfriend of Sidney's niece - who cracked me up every time he was onscreen. He's not particularly funny, it's just that every time he appears onscreen the other characters in the movie want him to go away. It was a running joke that got me every time. However, I seemed to be the only person in the audience who laughed at it. Go figure. There are also a couple of cameo appearances. And while the "Scream" movies have never been very gory, there seemed to be more "flowage" on display than in the previous flicks. A little more mayhem.
I left the theater in a good mood. This is a great place to end the series. It more than makes up for part 3. However, I have heard rumors that the head honchos at Dimension Films want to make two more, to round out a second trilogy. I say stop now, while the going's good.
First came "Scream" (1996), the movie that gave the nearly dead horror genre a kick in the pants, setting off a seemingly unstoppable horror boom which has sustained mightily for 15 years straight. First-time writer Kevin Williamson and legendary genre director Wes Craven provided not only shocks and suspense, but humor, strong characterizations, and a witty, self-aware perspective which gave the series its unique flair. I've always felt that the humor and the wit worked far better than the scares, but there are still a couple of intense scenes. Plus, I like the characters. It's an undeniable classic.
The following year, Kevin Williamson and Wes Craven returned with "Scream 2" (1997), which comments on the tropes of horror movie sequels while at the same time, well, being one. And, surprise, it was nearly as good as the original. Except that they killed of my favorite character in the series, but that only ramps up the suspense - anyone can die at any time!
"Scream 3" (1999) was intended to be the end of the series, wrapping up (and commentating on, of course) the rules of all things "trilogy". Wes Craven was back, but Kevin Williamson had to bow out due to scheduling conflicts. This may explain why this entry is a step down from the previous two. It's less witty, less scary, and a little bit pooped out. Nonetheless, it's still okay. But disappointing.
Over ten years after the "finale" comes the seemingly unnecessary fourth chapter in the series. Wes Craven is back, and so is writer Kevin Williamson, as well as the surviving cast, plus some new victims. I went into the theater not really looking forward to seeing it, but curious nonetheless. After all, what more was left to say in the world of "Scream"?
Plenty, my friends. This is my favorite entry in the series since the original. It doesn't re-invent the "Scream" wheel or anything, but it injects enough new ideas, twists, and strongly constructed scenes into the mix to make it interesting. It's about remakes. Horror remakes, specifically. Sidney Prescott has returned to Woodsboro to promote a self-help book she's written concerning her experiences as a survivor of great tragedy (3 of them, to be precise). Sure enough, new murders begin to occur via a mysterious Ghostface killer(s), and witty mayhem ensues.
The strongest scenes in the "Scream" movies are always the opening scene and the final scene, with scenes of varying quality in between. "Scream 4" is no different, except that my favorite line of dialogue in the entire series is spoken in the final scene here. I cannot repeat it - spoiler territory - but it's great. Besides the horror movie remake phenomenon, this film also skewers the self-obsessed "me" generation with razor sharp precision. This is easily the most cynical, and critical, entry in the franchise.
I also didn't realize how much I missed the returning characters until I saw them onscreen. I was like, hey, I remember you, I liked that thing you did that one time, and they were like, that's cool, I'm glad to be back, I'm getting a paycheck and everything this time, and I was like, heh heh, money is cool, and they were like, heh heh, hells yeah, and I was like, word, I make money and stuff too, not for acting or anything, but, you know, and they were like, yeah, I gotta go now, and I was all like, okay, I guess, I got stuff to do too, it was nice to see you again, and they were like, say hi to the family and all, and I said okay, I gotta finish this random tangent first, and they said, yeah, it's getting pretty old now so you should just stop, and I was like, sure, fine, whatever. . .
Ahem. The new cast members are fine. There's a Culkin kid in there, and President Roslyn from "Battlestar Galactica", and that fat annoying black dude from "Transformers". There's one character - the estranged boyfriend of Sidney's niece - who cracked me up every time he was onscreen. He's not particularly funny, it's just that every time he appears onscreen the other characters in the movie want him to go away. It was a running joke that got me every time. However, I seemed to be the only person in the audience who laughed at it. Go figure. There are also a couple of cameo appearances. And while the "Scream" movies have never been very gory, there seemed to be more "flowage" on display than in the previous flicks. A little more mayhem.
I left the theater in a good mood. This is a great place to end the series. It more than makes up for part 3. However, I have heard rumors that the head honchos at Dimension Films want to make two more, to round out a second trilogy. I say stop now, while the going's good.
Thursday, April 7, 2011
Them's Fightin' Words - Sucker Punch vs. Battle: Los Angeles
Sucker Punch
Ah, Zack Snyder. In 2004 he gave us an unneeded but decent remake of "Dawn of the Dead". In 2007 he brought us "300", a visually arresting action fest based on the Frank Miller comic book which was based on real historical events. 2009 saw his bold adaptation of the "Watchmen" graphic novel hit theaters (see my "Top 25 of 2009" blog for further info), and "Legend of the Guardians: The Owls of Ga'Hoole" arrived in 2010, a decent animated movie based on the "Guardians of Ga'Hoole" novels. Then there's "Sucker Punch" (The Present Day - 2011, duh), Mr. Snyder's first attempt to make a movie based on a completely original script (written by him and another dude, Steve Shibuya - 'I'm shattered'). Unfortunately it doesn't work, which is a shame, because it seems to be an honest attempt by Zack (can I call you Zack?) to make a signature film, a personal masterwork straight from his film loving heart. But the movie derails at about the 2/3 mark and never recovers, disintegrating into ash before our very eyes. :^( - Sad Face.
Story? Sure, kind of. There are three levels of "reality" in this movie. The First Reality concerns our main character (or is she?) named Baby Doll (Emily Browning), who accidentally kills her sister and is committed to the local nuthouse by her evil stepdad, the intended target of her murderous wrath. All the nutty chicks at this nutty nuthouse work out their issues in a place called "The Theater" which, in the Second Reality, Baby Doll sees as a kind of burlesque/whorehouse where the ladies are imprisoned and forced to entertain male clientele. The ladies team up and decide to escape, but they need to get ahold of a few items first. In the Third Reality, their attempts to procure these items become special effects-laden action spectacles - for instance, when the ladies need to lift a lighter from a male client, it's presented as an epic battle against a fire-breathing dragon. And Scott Glen shows up as a zen spouting monk. Yeah, I'm not sure either. Like I said earlier, it's not bad for the first 2/3rds or so. Mr. Snyder knows how to make great looking and sounding music video, and the general weirdness of the storyline had me hooked for a while, wondering where it was going. Then there's a Big Twist (which I saw coming) and a couple of little twists (which I didn't), but they didn't amount to much. In the end, none of it "gelled". In a movie about false reality, you need to have some kind of touchstone, preferably emotional, to anchor the story as well as the audience. There's nothing like that here. And there are a couple of extra ideas added to the story which dilute the coherency even more, even when analyzing the story after the fact. It's a bummer.
But while it may be the most disappointing movie I've seen this year (so far), it's not an entirely bad movie. Take Adam Sandler's "Grown Ups", for example. The first minute of the movie is terrible, the last minute is terrible, and the 90+ minutes in between are terrible. In other words, it's terrible. Meanwhile, "Sucker Punch" has arresting visuals, kinetic action, great music, sexy sexy Jena Malone (as "Rocket" - my fave character), and a cast of actors who all seem to be giving it their best. It just doesn't amount to anything sensible or satisfying. Too bad. To be fair, I do want to view this movie again sometime and see if there's something I missed. I think all movies should be seen at least twice before getting reviewed anyway; one time to dispel all preconceptions, a second time to see the movie for what it is. So I'll let you know, should my opinion shift. To me, right now, "Sucker Punch" seems like the annoying pothead kid sister of "Inception". It's a nice try, Mr. Snyder, but no cigar.
Battle: Los Angeles
And now for something completely different - it's "Saving Private Ryan" meets "Independence Day"! Aaron Eckhart stars as Sgt. Nantz, a career military man who's only days away from retirement. Suddenly, alien bad guys begin invading coastal cities all over the planet and Nantz, put under the leadership of a green 2nd Lieutenant, must accompany his platoon into enemy territory to rescue survivors from a besieged police station. In Los Angeles, of course. It's a straight-up men-on-a-mission war movie with a sci-fi twist, featuring both the strengths and weaknesses (i.e. cliches) of both genres, but still emerging as an entertaining night at the movies. Shot with you-are-there immediacy by director Jonathan Liebesman, "Battle: L.A." is full of tension, emotion, horror, tension-breaking humor, and rah-rah action scenes that, at times, made me want to stand up and cheer. Hoo-rah! Kick the tires and light the fires! Kill them alien sons o' bitches! To quote Will Smith from "Independence Day" -
"Welcome to Urf!"
The special effects are very nicely done, especially since this movie was made for a lower budget than most sci-fi epics. The aliens aren't given much motivation or depth (they're here for our water - spoiler alert), but that's fine. It's the people I care about. The aliens are a little different from your usual E.T.s, though, a little stranger in their physical makeup, kind of interesting-looking. The cast is fine. Most of the characters are painted in broad character strokes, but this is a war movie where anyone can die at anytime, there's no time for lengthy in-depth emotional exchanges. But they're likable enough that you want them all to make it out alive. Many of them won't. Aaron Eckhart is given the most to work with, and he's great, except when he has to say a couple of cheesy cliche lines here and there, but he recovers nicely. Michelle Rodriguez is also here, playing the type of character she's never ever played before - a tough-talking butt-kicking hispanic soldier babe. Sarcasm.
In the end, it's a loving tribute to our fighting men and women all over the world. I'm not kidding, it really is. And you know what I love most about it? THERE'S ABSOLUTELY NO POLITICAL SUBTEXT OR SLANT ANYWHERE IN THIS MOVIE. It's so refreshing to see a war movie these days without a political agenda behind it. Thank. The. Lord. Like I said before, it's a love letter to the men and women who put their lives on the line for us, and also a great time at the movies. Nothing intensely groundbreaking, but surprisingly powerful. And it makes a helluva lot more sense than "Sucker Punch".
In this battle of the fighting flicks, "Battle: Los Angeles" wins!
Ah, Zack Snyder. In 2004 he gave us an unneeded but decent remake of "Dawn of the Dead". In 2007 he brought us "300", a visually arresting action fest based on the Frank Miller comic book which was based on real historical events. 2009 saw his bold adaptation of the "Watchmen" graphic novel hit theaters (see my "Top 25 of 2009" blog for further info), and "Legend of the Guardians: The Owls of Ga'Hoole" arrived in 2010, a decent animated movie based on the "Guardians of Ga'Hoole" novels. Then there's "Sucker Punch" (The Present Day - 2011, duh), Mr. Snyder's first attempt to make a movie based on a completely original script (written by him and another dude, Steve Shibuya - 'I'm shattered'). Unfortunately it doesn't work, which is a shame, because it seems to be an honest attempt by Zack (can I call you Zack?) to make a signature film, a personal masterwork straight from his film loving heart. But the movie derails at about the 2/3 mark and never recovers, disintegrating into ash before our very eyes. :^( - Sad Face.
Story? Sure, kind of. There are three levels of "reality" in this movie. The First Reality concerns our main character (or is she?) named Baby Doll (Emily Browning), who accidentally kills her sister and is committed to the local nuthouse by her evil stepdad, the intended target of her murderous wrath. All the nutty chicks at this nutty nuthouse work out their issues in a place called "The Theater" which, in the Second Reality, Baby Doll sees as a kind of burlesque/whorehouse where the ladies are imprisoned and forced to entertain male clientele. The ladies team up and decide to escape, but they need to get ahold of a few items first. In the Third Reality, their attempts to procure these items become special effects-laden action spectacles - for instance, when the ladies need to lift a lighter from a male client, it's presented as an epic battle against a fire-breathing dragon. And Scott Glen shows up as a zen spouting monk. Yeah, I'm not sure either. Like I said earlier, it's not bad for the first 2/3rds or so. Mr. Snyder knows how to make great looking and sounding music video, and the general weirdness of the storyline had me hooked for a while, wondering where it was going. Then there's a Big Twist (which I saw coming) and a couple of little twists (which I didn't), but they didn't amount to much. In the end, none of it "gelled". In a movie about false reality, you need to have some kind of touchstone, preferably emotional, to anchor the story as well as the audience. There's nothing like that here. And there are a couple of extra ideas added to the story which dilute the coherency even more, even when analyzing the story after the fact. It's a bummer.
But while it may be the most disappointing movie I've seen this year (so far), it's not an entirely bad movie. Take Adam Sandler's "Grown Ups", for example. The first minute of the movie is terrible, the last minute is terrible, and the 90+ minutes in between are terrible. In other words, it's terrible. Meanwhile, "Sucker Punch" has arresting visuals, kinetic action, great music, sexy sexy Jena Malone (as "Rocket" - my fave character), and a cast of actors who all seem to be giving it their best. It just doesn't amount to anything sensible or satisfying. Too bad. To be fair, I do want to view this movie again sometime and see if there's something I missed. I think all movies should be seen at least twice before getting reviewed anyway; one time to dispel all preconceptions, a second time to see the movie for what it is. So I'll let you know, should my opinion shift. To me, right now, "Sucker Punch" seems like the annoying pothead kid sister of "Inception". It's a nice try, Mr. Snyder, but no cigar.
Battle: Los Angeles
And now for something completely different - it's "Saving Private Ryan" meets "Independence Day"! Aaron Eckhart stars as Sgt. Nantz, a career military man who's only days away from retirement. Suddenly, alien bad guys begin invading coastal cities all over the planet and Nantz, put under the leadership of a green 2nd Lieutenant, must accompany his platoon into enemy territory to rescue survivors from a besieged police station. In Los Angeles, of course. It's a straight-up men-on-a-mission war movie with a sci-fi twist, featuring both the strengths and weaknesses (i.e. cliches) of both genres, but still emerging as an entertaining night at the movies. Shot with you-are-there immediacy by director Jonathan Liebesman, "Battle: L.A." is full of tension, emotion, horror, tension-breaking humor, and rah-rah action scenes that, at times, made me want to stand up and cheer. Hoo-rah! Kick the tires and light the fires! Kill them alien sons o' bitches! To quote Will Smith from "Independence Day" -
"Welcome to Urf!"
The special effects are very nicely done, especially since this movie was made for a lower budget than most sci-fi epics. The aliens aren't given much motivation or depth (they're here for our water - spoiler alert), but that's fine. It's the people I care about. The aliens are a little different from your usual E.T.s, though, a little stranger in their physical makeup, kind of interesting-looking. The cast is fine. Most of the characters are painted in broad character strokes, but this is a war movie where anyone can die at anytime, there's no time for lengthy in-depth emotional exchanges. But they're likable enough that you want them all to make it out alive. Many of them won't. Aaron Eckhart is given the most to work with, and he's great, except when he has to say a couple of cheesy cliche lines here and there, but he recovers nicely. Michelle Rodriguez is also here, playing the type of character she's never ever played before - a tough-talking butt-kicking hispanic soldier babe. Sarcasm.
In the end, it's a loving tribute to our fighting men and women all over the world. I'm not kidding, it really is. And you know what I love most about it? THERE'S ABSOLUTELY NO POLITICAL SUBTEXT OR SLANT ANYWHERE IN THIS MOVIE. It's so refreshing to see a war movie these days without a political agenda behind it. Thank. The. Lord. Like I said before, it's a love letter to the men and women who put their lives on the line for us, and also a great time at the movies. Nothing intensely groundbreaking, but surprisingly powerful. And it makes a helluva lot more sense than "Sucker Punch".
In this battle of the fighting flicks, "Battle: Los Angeles" wins!
Friday, April 1, 2011
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)