tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15278481483972587402024-03-08T10:56:32.605-08:00Max Reviews StuffAnonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03985715453248300822noreply@blogger.comBlogger22125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1527848148397258740.post-61099054834688056712014-11-10T19:04:00.001-08:002014-11-10T19:04:40.217-08:00Fury<div class="MsoNormal">
Fury is
the latest from writer/director David Ayer, creator of the acclaimed End Of
Watch and frowned on Sabotage. The film is about a tank crew at the end of the
Second World War led by a dashing Brad Pitt doing his best impression of himself
as Lt. Aldo Raine, while Logan Lerman does his best not to be out acted by Shia
Laboeuf. Truth be told, this film is not as cut and dry as its screenplay would
have you believe but, it still fails to pave over the chasms that make up the
scenes between each battle scene.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;">
Brad Pitt, Shia Laboeuf, Michael
Pena and Jon Bernthal star as the veteran tank crew members; Collier, Boyd,
Garcia and Travis respectively. Joining them is Logan Lerman as Pvt. Norman in
a typical fish out of water scenario,
“He’s a typist, he shouldn’t be in a tank, but we’re short on men!”
cliché kind of way. For the most part they all make it work. None of the acting
will really endear you to them or knock your socks off but they make enough of
it that they come across as though they’d truly served together. It’s a natural
kind of chemistry. The problem though rests in two places, firstly we’ve seen
all this before and while it’s done well, it is not memorable and will make you
think of other, similar characters and roles. Brad Pitt suffers the worst from
this as his character is the same one from Inglorious Basterds, transposed into
a tank. Sure it’s a good character, but let’s try something new. The second
problem is vastly more of an issue. Fury, the tank, has no personality, no
character. Serenity, the Falcon,
Enterprise the Memphis Belle and so on, all these vessels had a personality.
They endeared themselves to the viewer, they are characters in their own right,
with or without a crew. In this film, Fury is nothing more than a lumbering
death machine, it feels like a dime a dozen straight off the line with none of
the history that its crew shares. It’s like hiring Keanu Reeves to star in a
drama about the holocaust.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;">
That said, the characters and
scenes themselves look alarmingly authentic. The world that this film occupies shares more
in common with the grit and grime of Peckinpah and its foreign contemporaries
than it does with modern Hollywood films. Fury does not shy away from
brandishing the horrors of war. Both the protagonists and the antagonists do
barbaric things all throughout the film and all innocence is lost within days
from even the most righteous of characters. The look of the film helps to realize
the ugliness and hate that has seeped into these people’s lives. In one scene
in particular, Pitt and Lerman’s characters enter a well-kept apartment with
two young women inside. It is a calm and quiet scene until the ugliness of
their world and deeds catches up to them in the form of their crewmates,
spoiling any beauty the scene once held. This kind of cynicism is refreshing in
a world where Hollywood thinks that all films must have clear cut good and
evil. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;">
Sadly though, the script does not
fare so well for much of the film. When I had read a draft of the screenplay,
the one thing that kept nagging away at me was the massive divide between the
battle scenes and the expository ones. The action was tense and pulse pounding,
the exposition was dull and floundering. Luckily the finished product had
wonderful battle scenes and the exposition was not as bad as I had expected.
Still though, the issue remained. Anytime the tank stopped for character
development, the film stalled. Momentum was lost to humdrum moments that anyone
who has seen a war film before has already seen. What’s worse is that they come in stark
contrasted to the exquisitely scripted and filmed battles.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;">
Speaking of said battles, they
are a great reason to see this film in theatres. The sound and visual splendor over takes you
each time you hear a tank shell whistle by or smash through metal and flesh.
The sound of the gears squealing and turning as the drivers scramble to beat
their foe to the punch is heart-pounding.
The sound alone makes this film tense enough, but then they put the
cameras into the tank. The shots are cramped and looked greasy and lived in.
You can feel the terror as the sound of shells, bullets and grenades bounce of
the full. When you see a tank explode or get set a flame, it is thanks to these
sights and sounds that you will feel mortified and saddened. Through this, Ayer
forces empathy upon the viewer. <o:p></o:p></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;">
Overall, Fury is a pretty good
film, but mostly due to its attention to technical detail and depiction of war
as not something glorious, but rather a soul corrupting force. The performances
are solid, but are hampered by a sense of, been there done that, draped over
the film by the script. If you are a war buff or action fan, this will be right
up your alley. If you are looking for something deeper, with more
characterization, you may wish to look elsewhere.<o:p></o:p></div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03985715453248300822noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1527848148397258740.post-37340825717594564002014-11-08T16:26:00.002-08:002014-11-08T16:26:35.874-08:00Under The Skin<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;">
Jonathan Glazner's, of Sexy Beast
and countless music videos fame, latest film is a sight to behold, a triumph of
form and function. Scarlet Johansson plays a strange woman who roams the roads
and highlands of Scotland, seducing young men into her van and driving them to
her lair for a sinister yet never disclosed purpose. That is probably the best
way to explain what goes on in this movie, but that is not what this film is
about. Rather instead of sultry seduction and Johansson’s curves, the film is
about humanity in all its forms. The film does not disclose this easily, it is
not to be taken for granted, it demands your full attention, since it refuses
to lay out any of its plot through exposition.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;">
Where oh where does one begin to
lavish praise upon the film, you could start just about anywhere really, but I
will start with the look of the film. It is a gorgeous blend surrealist imagery
with haute couture. The film has some superb superimposition shots and
photography to go with its art direction. Just about every scene pops out at
you in one way or another and they all serve to do more than just look cool or
pretty, they bring forth emotions of all sorts, feelings of warmth, loneliness
or the first love. One shot has Scarlet Jo sound asleep, superimposed upon a
gentle forest wrapping itself around her. The feeling of warmth, safety and
comfort that washes over you is worth two hours of your time right there. There
is another scene, where she is at the beach watching tragedy unfold. As a
viewer it leaves you feeling cold and conflicted. The hyper in focus waves
crashing down upon the pastel colored beach echo the sentiment of the event. Everything
is so calm and yet this violent event is taking place all at the same time. Finally,
there are the abduction scenes, their eerie nature is only heightened by the
sleek blackness that surrounds their demise. Glazer uses this imagery to convey
all the basest emotions about humanity, from lustful depravity to redemptive
love. This film tells you it’s story through these visuals, the position of the
cameras, the use of light, colour and movement all create a much more nuanced
and revelatory experience than words ever could.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;">
Mica Levi, a young musical artist,
has crafted one of the most memorable scores in a long while and one of the
best of the year. As a point of comparison I would point you to Trent Reznor
and Atticuss Ross' score for The Social Network, but with a kind of natural refinement.
Levi achieves what they achieved, a sound that perfectly adds to the tone and
feel of each scene. This is most evident in the abduction, 'ensaring?' scenes.
As the men are seduced and walk, literally dick first, to their own demise, the
score ramps up with this, not grating but rather unsettling chord all the while
making it sufficiently pleasant that you always remain attentive to the whole
scene even as the visuals lure you into a daze. Furthermore, anytime that this
unsettling chord comes on, you snap to attention, drawn and slightly afraid of
what is to come. Within each abduction scene, this theme changes ever so
subtly. You feel that something queer has happened, but never does it feel
obscene or intrusive. The rest of the score use this same kind of lovely
jarring approach. It creeps all around you, never letting you settle in and
become lackadaisical, but never distracting of the tale or image.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;">
This combination of sight and
sound is perfectly blended in this tight script by Jonathan Glazner (also
director) and Walter Campbell. It is light on dialogue and heavy on imagery.
The script is a give and take affair, it is a rich and wonderful tale but in
order to appreciate it, the viewer must be patient and very attentive. There
are no one liners, or cool dialogue, the dialogue feels like more of a
commercial break, a pause to the flurry of story given to you through
breathtaking imagery and hypnotic sounds. As I said earlier, the film demands
your respect. It will not guide you by the hand with characters spouting out
expository lines for the sake of some nitwit.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;">
Finally, there's Scarlett, the
center of the film, holding everything in place. Her other two films this year
have failed to make use of her excellent talents, but here Glazner makes use of
them to their fullest. Who knew that she could pull off a Scottish accent? Sure
it's not perfect, but the minimalist dialogue allows it to seem natural without
stretching credibility. She may not say much, but her wordfs are carried with
confidence and skill. More importantly is the grace of her movements and
expressiveness of her face. Over the course of the film she is a wonder behold.
Her role ranges from emotionless seductress, to loving angel of hope, to a
terrified creature just hoping to understand the world around her. She does all
this effortlessly, transitioning without missing a beat. Her character radiates
exotic charm even as her face remains blank. This natural evolution of her is
marvelous and has been rightfully acclaimed.<o:p></o:p></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;">
The film is a wonder to behold,
everything just melts together so perfectly that there really is no flaw to be
found. It achieves every goal, that being said, this film will not satisfy
everyone. It is contrarian to most western expectations of a great film, due to
the high demand it places on its viewers. Those looking for simple pleasures or
an easy to digest film should look elsewhere. Comparable viewing might be, ‘Enter
the Void’ or ‘Valhalla Rising’. If that is your thing, you will adore this
picture.<o:p></o:p></div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03985715453248300822noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1527848148397258740.post-27627038610560470942014-10-28T14:42:00.001-07:002014-10-28T14:42:02.951-07:00A Million Ways to die in the West otherwise known as, 2 hours of Seth McFarlane shitting in your face<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;">
Mr. McFarlane, you're film was
fucking awful. For twenty three minutes I sat and starred at the screen. I
waited as a barrage of wildly unfunny jokes and astoundingly bad delivery from
people who are supposed to be masters of the art form. For twenty three minutes
I wondered if a single joke would land. For twenty three minutes I wondered how
limited my life prospects were that I would keep sitting here, allowing myself
to be showered in your toxic verbal diarrhea. Then, at twenty three minutes, I
chuckled. I know it was twenty three minutes, because I paused the film just to
check how long it took McFarlane to land one joke. It was a gay joke that
finally got me. It was not overt, but it wasn't subtle. The joke felt natural,
it felt like it should've been the weak joke in a good movie. And just like
that it was gone, like a sliver of gold being washed away by a sea of unending
shit. And that is all this movie is really, several jokes that would stand out
on a bland episode of Family Guy that are drowned out in a nearly two hour
flurry of bad writing, bad delivery, shoddy writing and half assed
performances.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;">
Let’s begin with the writing, it
is absolutely terrible for pretty much the two hour duration. It's almost as if
McFarlane had written down the premise on scrap paper as he took a shit and
then handed it off to The Cleveland Show's writing team. The jokes all have
this feeling of being recycled, like a comedian who has told the same joke a
million times and has grown bored with it and passed it on too his protégé to
recycle some more. The frontier is a dangerous place where any wacky thing can
kill you, photographs weren't always instant, and the frontier had hookers, bar
fights. That last sentence is how the movie feels, like the McFarlane and co.,
wrote down a list of stuff from the olden days and just filmed it, hoping that
the joke would come in the moment or some shit. Even the cut away gags feel
lazy. There’s no zing or surprise to them. They feel like a fat man squashed
into an airplane seat. This kind of laziness is unacceptable from McFarlane and
co. This brings us to the next point, with this hundred and how-ever many pages
of unbelievable ineptitude the actors are wasted. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;">
The actors of the film are all
incredibly talented, save one. Neeson, Harris, Ribbisi, Silverman even
Gottfried have done wonderful things in the past but here they are simply left
hanging, scrambling for a lifeline. Neeson as the villain is limp. Neeson can
play a badass in his sleep and yet, somehow McFarlane’s shitty writing and direction
makes clinch one of the worst bad guys I've ever seen. Neither funny nor
menacing. Much of this seems to come from Leeson either not understanding his
role or not caring at all about it. He has the usual grisly growl but his
delivery seems off, like either the lines don’t work or Neeson is not sure of
how clench his face and body as he delivers these lines. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;">
Silverman and Harris are left
repeating their general shtick, but with all the joy and fun sucked out of it.
Sarah Silverman for some reason is not doing her deadpan humour; instead she is
made to over act and force unfunny lines at the screen. I’m pretty sure that
here copy of the script was "You are a hooker, insert joke here". This
is probably the biggest shame of the film. You have one of the most talented
comics in the world, you could’ve given her a logline and had her write her own
dialogue the night before and it would’ve probably turned out better than this.
McFarlane quelled an angel while filming this and as such has saddened the world
a little bit more.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;">
Harris on the other hand is given
the kitsch song and dance, maniacal mustache villain role. I've got no funnies
to say about this role, it just stinks. Everyone in this movie stinks, being
left with zingers like, "don't drink and horse!” Go fuck yourself and your
lazy movie McFarlane. Speaking of whom, his 'acting' is the worst; he makes
Tarantino look like Tom fucking Hanks.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;">
Sure McFarlane can do some great
voice work and he is a terrific performer, his Oscar's hosting was fantastic. You
naysayers should just go back to your VCR and watch some eighties SNL reruns. His
work in this movie though is god awful. Every line, of every joke that escapes
his breath in this film will make you cringe. He is a self-aware cartoon
character and that isn't funny, it's just sad. What makes it even worse is that
his facial expressions almost never change. Think about it, McFarlane’s arms
flailing wildly at the mere concept of a joke, while his face remains more
frozen than a Keanu Reeves action figure. His vanity overcomes him in this film
and chews the worn concept out until it’s a deranged mess.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;">
Usually I like to put in a little
something good about the movie, even if it's bad. Bucky Larson was made by
people who had fun; Prometheus had ambition and so on. A Million Ways to die in
the West has nothing good about it. It is recycled trash that should never have
made it to production. What makes it all worse is that it is a film made by
talented people who got lazy and are basically telling the audience to go fuck
themselves for two hours while McFarlane rakes in the cash and laughs at the
chumps he calls fans. This kind of dreck would be expected from the Wayans
brothers, or the guys behind Meet the Spartans, but not from McFarlane. If I
were McFarlane I would not have released this shit for the sheer sake of my
career. <o:p></o:p></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;">
I truly hope that you're
experience in making this dreck will only serve to make Ted 2 a better movie.<o:p></o:p></div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03985715453248300822noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1527848148397258740.post-91245741901838775472014-10-19T13:38:00.003-07:002014-10-19T13:38:50.920-07:00Lucy<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;">
Lucy is a film based on the myth
of humanity only using 10% of our brain power. It is Luc Besson's first self-written
and directed action flick in a long, long time as such it feels very nostalgic,
like an ode to his early work. Having said that, Lucy feels like a like a
missed opportunity, more of a nostalgic mess rather than heartwarming memory of
Luc Besson's work from the 90s.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;">
In the film, Scarlett Johansson
plays Lucy, an American student on vacation in Taipei. One hungover morning she
is forced to do a mysterious delivery by her week long boyfriend. If a massive
hangover and a boyfriend who looks like he sleeps in a dumpster aren't bad
enough, soon enough Lucy finds herself face to face with a psychotic Korean mob
boss. One thing leads to another and she wakes up in a bed having been turned
into a carrying case for some kind of future-science drug. Yada-yada-yada, drug
bag bursts in her stomach and she goes all batshit crazy looking for a mixture
of revenge and more of the drug. Had this been the entire driving force of the
movie, it would have been fantastic. Scarlett Jo, kicking ass, Chok-Min Sook
going all psycho on everyone, Morgan Freeman narrating the whole thing. Seriously
think about all of that for a moment, it is a dream come true. It is too bad
then, that at the halfway mark the film turns into dull techno babble and pseudo-science
with the action relegated to background as
if they were some old drapes.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;">
The action scenes are probably
the most disappointing part of the film. Besson has choreographed some grand
mayhem in the past and has even fostered most this generation’s action
franchises in one way or the other. <i>Kiss
of The Dragon</i>, <i>Fifth Element</i>, <i>Leon</i> and the rest of his old work all
had this insanely beautiful violence that was paced perfectly and was wrought
with tension. Sadly in Lucy, they feel
like they were an afterthought. Almost as if the script was written with
lengthy passages of sciency sounding bullshit, with place holders labeled,
action scene here, scattered along every few pages. I can see Besson sitting at
his work desk wondering if he could turn <i>A
Beautiful Mind</i> into an action film. But not a loud and furious, all
engrossing gunplay type of action film, something more along the lines of timid and restrained
Victorian gunplay.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;">
Chok-Min Sook plays the dastardly
villain Jang. You know he's psychotic because he is introduced right after he
brutalizes two random people in the washroom. A one dimensional villain in this
type of movie is fine. It rallies the audience behind the hero and if the role
and actor mix well, a one dimensional villain transcends cliché and becomes a magnetic
force. In this way, Jang is very reminiscent of Gary Oldman's Zorg and
Stansfield, from the Besson classics; <i>The
Fifth Element</i> and <i>Leon</i>,
respectively. Sadly, where the Oldman was given room to breathe, flesh out his
characters madness' and eat more scenery than Meryl Streep when she feels like
winning an Oscar, Sook is left only crumbs too feast on. His scenes diminish as
the movie unfolds, going from full on moments where he sucks in all the attention
from every viewer like some angry black hole looking for more food, to sitting
in a car brooding like some generic everyman villain Hollywood loves these
days. If the villain was generic it would have been fine, but the problem is
that he is not. There is obviously plenty of fun to have with him and we get
glimpses of it throughout the movie. Sadly those glimpses are just that,
glimpses into something that could've been, instead of the yawn worthy movie bad
guy number 6 we get. Who knows, maybe
when the inevitable super special 100% edition is released we will get to see
more of Jang and his absurd lunacy. At the end of the day though, Besson can
and has done better which makes Jang’s waste an even bigger shame.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;">
Then we have Morgan Freeman, this
is his second strike of the year after the shitfest that was Transcendence. Yet
again Freeman is relegated too spewing pseudo-science while wearing some
proffesory garb. Yes we know, Morgan Freeman sounds wise and insightful and
wearing those jackets make him look like the most dapper old man this side of
the 1950s. Problem is, even Morgan Freeman can't turn shit into gold. Besson,
Pfister and Freeman have tried that twice and failed miserably both times. It's
almost as if Freeman doesn't want to narrate my dreams anymore, so he just chooses
the scripts with the dumbest science shit in the hopes that I won't be soothed
by his voice anymore. Nice try Freeman, but I don't give up that easily.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;">
Lastly and most importantly we
have the titular Lucy, who starts off as a badass, shooting anyone in her way,
cabbies, cancer victims, mobsters etc. Yet as the story progresses and she
becomes more powerful she somehow becomes less and less badass. This though is
not the most troubling part. The troubling part is that as she becomes the most
powerful human to ever exist, literally, she requires men to take care of her
more and more. Her first act as a superhuman is to clear a room of villains and
shrug off a bullet wound. That's the movie I wanted to see. By the end of the
film she requires regular men to hold off Jang and his army for her.
Narratively this makes no sense either, because two scenes earlier, she
effortlessly disabled six of his men with a wave of her wrist. On top of that
she drags around the male cop just to have someone hold her hand and 'remind'
her of what she used to be. <i>Leon</i> and <i>Fifth Element</i> both had limp romance
angles but they worked. They worked because the film established them properly
in their own world. In <i>Leon</i>, it was
awkward and felt quite off, but it matched the tone of the film. In <i>The Fifth Element</i> it was cheesy and
light, just like the movie. In Lucy, the romance is just shoved into the film,
like amateurs filming a fisting session. Why would a god need some bumbling French
cop to hold off some two bit mobsters, when she could just as easily make all
those mobsters float off into the sky?<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;">
This all being said, the movie is
not without its merits. The score is terrific; it’s vibrant and heart pumping.
It is also part of the feeling of nostalgia that washes over fans of Besson's
early work. This is all due to Eric Serra being the composer, the genius behind
<i>The Fifth Element</i>. The score does
exactly what any score should, heighten each scene it's attached too. Serra's
work takes even the limpest of scenes and brings drama too it, like a really
good athlete trying to carry his team.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;">
On top of this, the
cinematography and art direction is also top notch. The cinematography evokes a
great deal of <i>Leon</i>. It feels kind of like going back to your
childhood home, if that childhood home was the setting of a love story between
a brain damaged hitman and an eleven year old girl. This feeling of nostalgia
also lets you disregard certain weaknesses in the action scenes, namely that
they get weaker as the film progresses.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;">
Finally the colour scheme works
really well. It's crisp and clean and matches the tone of each progressive
scene quite well. The use of colours is not original or even all that creative really,
borrowing aspects from all over the place. Instead the scheme feels finely
tuned, as the work of a master should.<o:p></o:p></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;">
Overall the film is a clashing
mess of two separate films. The first half is exactly what the trailers sell
you on. Scarlett Jo, getting drugged up and going Kung-Fu with a side of
gunplay on everyone. The second half of the film is a pseudo-sciency mess of
outdated science myths with shitty philosophical pondering. Besson enthusiasts
will find some joy in the nostalgia, but will be left remembering a master's
glory and ruminating on his fall. Everyone else will sit down watch the movie
and give a resounding shrug of indifference.<o:p></o:p></div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03985715453248300822noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1527848148397258740.post-65337661841666190202014-06-29T19:04:00.001-07:002014-06-29T19:04:15.917-07:00Stalingrad (2013) aka Fedor Bondarchuk's big fuck you too vets of the second world war<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;">
Not to be confused with the
excellent German film of the same name from 1993, Fedor Bondarchuk’s take on
what is the most harrowing of human depravity is nothing short of an atrocity
in and of itself. It is a beautifully shot mockery of the horrors of war and
the sacrifices made by those who suffered through it. It fails on almost every
level in which a film can fail. Avoid at all cost, for details continue
reading.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;">
Stalingrad takes its inception
from the true life events of Pavlov’s house. This was an apartment building in
Stalingrad where twenty-five Russian soldiers held off hundreds of German
soldiers under the command of one sergeant Pavlov. Bondarchuk takes this epic
premise and infuses it with stale romantics, over-choreographed action
sequences and so much heavy handed propaganda that it to feel like a soap opera
with Spielbergian production values.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;">
The script is the first and
foremost problem. Like Enemy at the Gates before it, Stalingrad seems to think
that a war story cannot be told authentically without a love story. In this
case Stalingrad one ups Enemy at the Gates by cramming not one, but two stale
and forced romantic angles. The first is between Katya, the Russian civilian
who stays behind in the ruined shell of a city and her valiant defenders, six
Russian soldiers. The script routinely points out that there are in fact six
main soldiers at the house and yet she only falls in love with five, for
whatever reason. It’s okay though, the sixth guy is in the navy so he’s probably
gay or something. At no point in the film does any kind of truly romantic
action actually occur. Throughout, she routinely becomes a liability, a
distraction and yet for whatever reason, five men fall in love with her.
Instead of manning defenses and planning strategies on how to survive, they
bake her cakes, run across trenches with bath tubs while under fire and gawk
and awe. Out of what do they bake this cake? Fuck you, that’s what. This movie
is not about logic or authenticity, don’t forget that. In the end this angle
winds up becoming very creepy as they all begin to treat her as a prize, gazing
upon her as a sacrificial lamb destined to be their salvation. They all see her
as a ticket to their own salvation, always ready to unload their personal deamons on her, but
never once taking her issues into account. This might have been some kind of
super deep point made in the script. If it is, it was done very poorly because
it comes off as a shallow way to artificially extend runtime.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;">
The second love story is the
better of the two, not that, that’s saying much. This ‘love’ story is between
the German captain Khan (Thomas Krietschman) and Masha a Russian civilian. This
arc fails miserably as well. The two do not speak one anothers language, but
through the power of love they find a connection. Does it matter that Khan
rapes her and treats her as a valued ornament? Of course it doesn’t, because
they love each other deeply, even as she tightly grips a knife for defense in
anticipation of his return. The film at one point does try to address the issue
of wartime rape, but quickly brushes it away as if it’s something icky that is
nothing more than a footnote. Add another check in the shamefull column for
this film. The last point of contrition with the love stories is how they treat
the women. They are eye candy, porcelain dolls to be saved by greasy patriotic
men with conflicted morals. This causes the biggest flaw with the romantic
arcs, they are one sided. This essentially means we only get half the story and
miss out on some crucial parts. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;">
Now that we have the forced
romance part taken care of, let’s take a gander at the characters, shall we.
The Russians, bold, patriotic, heroic, valiant and whatever other propaganda
like descriptor you can throw out. You won’t learn their names because that is
unimportant. Bondarchuk seems to think that character development only gets in
the way of cool explosions. At least Bay tries to give his characters cool
names so as to be memorable. There is the stoic captain, the bear like naval
marine, the boyish artillery officer, the silver tongue sniper, the silent
badass and the father figure. They all get a forgettable backstory that is only
good for a laugh through quite possibly the worst narration ever put into a
major production, more on that later. All you really need to know is that these
guys are, badass. Like, really badass, so badass in fact that all their fight sequences
automatically go into slow motion and they never miss a shot.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;">
On the other side of the conflict
we have the Nazis. These aren’t the Nazis you will find in a film that is
dedicated to authenticity. They have no character, no humanity. They are
cartoon villains worthy of some terribly animated Hannah-Barbara cartoon. Their
level of cartoonishness knows no bounds, they offer sacrifices to the pagan
gods and then pray to the one true god for protection, they bumble about like
idiots in a city full of snipers. They scream and stomp and you can almost see
the steam shooting from their ears as they scream at their freshly foiled plan.
This level of cartoonishness does not heighten their monstrousness, rather it
neuters it. You can take them no more seriously than a Scoobie Doo villain of
the week as they fumble about, failing to catch zem pesky Ruskies.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;">
Yet none of the above is even the
most egregious of faults to be found in the film although it ties into it. Yes
I did just use egregious, deal with it. Where Stalingrad (1993) and Enemy at
the Gates attempted and by in large succeeded at showing you the horrors of
war, the brutality of combat and its effects on those who witness it or
participate in it, Stalingrad (2013) glorifies it. The only way to describe it
is, imagine if Call of Duty marketed itself as a war simulator. The film shows
us the battles as these over-choreographed MMA matches, where everyone has a
blackbelt. It strips away the reality by glossing over the brutality of the
battle and the suffering and trying to make it look cool for the sake of
Americanizing the film. Watching the action scenes was sickening. Bondarchuk
and company, perversely fetishize the brutality of war, there were some moments
were I could feel tears of disgust swelling in my eyes. That has never before
happened to me. There were times that the choreography of the shots and action
became indistinguishable from a videogame. I was shocked and stunned. It is one
thing for an action or war movie to revel in death and destruction for the sake
of entertainment. It is a wholly different matter when said film seeks to
honour veterans through this form of tasteless mockery.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;">
The final nail in the coffin for
this atrocious garbage is the narration/dubbing. Having watched the dubbed
version I cannot conclusively say whether the Russian narration was any good.
What I can say though is that it is completely unnecessary. The script has the
narrator either describing the scene you are about to watch verbatim or giving
you some melodramatic description of feelings that would be more at home on a
soap like “All my circuits”. The dubbing only serves to compound all of this.
It sounds as if they hired the producers bag boy and had him record all the
dialogue the afternoon before the film’s release. The voice sound stale,
robotic and worst of all, way too young to be coming from the faceless narrator.
But hey, if you’re gonna shit on heroes, you might as well go all out right? <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;">
But why would they do this? 3D,
that’s why. Three dimensions is the curse and extremely minor blessing of this
film. Billed as Russia’s first 3D film, it pays more attention to the format of
the camera, rather than the tail. Every scene and shot is framed in service to
three dimensions. The slow motion is reminiscent of 300 and works perfectly
well with the 3D element. Frankly told, the 3D is eye popping and the
cinematography is fantastic. It is one of the only two good things about this
film. Sadly what the filmmakers fail to realize is that, a movie that is a
slave to 3D gimmicks is a terrible idea, no matter how pictueresque each and
every frame of your film is.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;">
The other good part of the film
is Thomas Kriestchman. He is fantastic in the film. He brings ethos and
humanity to his character. His performance is all the better when you factor in
the fact that his character is a scatter shot of emotions and reasoning. His
vacant stares and hallow declarations of love fit perfectly into the beautiful
rubble created for this film. Kriestchman’s Khan perfectly encapsulates the
collapsing world all around him. I imagine this comes from the fact that
Stalingrad (1993) was one of his first films so some of the experience must
have carried over to this turd of a production. Too bad that the role was
buried by hammy dialog and action found in the script.<o:p></o:p></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;">
At the end of the day, all one
can say about this movie is that it is a polished turd. By far, this is the
worst film I have ever had the displeasure to watch. Poorly made and insulting.Fuck
you Fedor Bondarchuk and who ever gave you the money to make this piece of
shit. I hope you never get funded again.<o:p></o:p></div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03985715453248300822noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1527848148397258740.post-50994087125322740892014-05-21T22:49:00.001-07:002014-05-21T22:49:58.842-07:00Godzilla 2014<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;">
Godzilla 2014 is a strange film,
but not in the sense of its general quality or some psychedelic plot. Rather,
the film is a great monster movie, but not all too great a Godzilla film. Unlike most reboots and remakes, this film is
not an origin story, it is an introduction story. The best comparison is to The
Incredible Hulk (2007). The opening credits serve as an origin to the world
which this film inhabits, before jumping to the start off point for the film.
In 1999, a mining corporation discovers an underground cavern in the Philippines
containing the bones of ancient beasts as well as some eggs (referred to
parasites in the film, but way too big to actually be parasites). Investigating
these bones and eggs is a secret (for once not evil) multi-government agency called
Monarch, headed by Dr. Serizawa (Ken Wantanabe) and Dr. Graham (Sally Hawkins). Things go south
and a nuclear reactor in Japan is destroyed and turned into a gestation nest
for the newly birthed MUTO. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;">
This is where the Brody family
comes into play. The father and wife (Bryan Cranston and Juliette Binoche
respectively) work in the nuclear power plant while their son Ford goes to a
school nearby. When the nuclear power
plant is destroyed, the mother dies (not a spoiler, not only is it in the
opening, but it’s also in the trailer!) and the family is left broken.
Flash-forward fifteen years later and Joe Brody discovers that a monster attack
is imminent. Que, monster battles as Joe
and Ford Brody become stuck in the middle of a battle of the gods.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;">
That last bit there is what this
film does perfectly. Garth Edwards, perfectly captures the enormity of the
conflict. The battles between Godzilla and the MUTOs are massive in scope and
scale. These aren’t your generic monster battles. They’re battles between gods,
where man is nothing more than an insignificant ant, hoping to not get
squashed. Edwards and co. really play that part up really well, reducing the
main characters too little more than spectators to a boxing match where the
Earth is the ring. The destruction is on a scale truly deserving of the Kaiju
title. The only other films in recent memory that can be used as a point of
comparison are Cloverfield and Pacific Rim. Cloverfield, while having the same
scale, is shot from a human’s perspective, so you can never truly appreciate
the size of the beast. Pacific Rim on the other hand, while massive, is dwarfed
by the Godzilla beasts, they are about the size of his leg and half as thick at
best. Truly, the only comparison is the murals of Cthulu. A monstrous god, too
whom humanity is an insignificant ant. The shots of the actors and even
buildings scale truly drives this home. When the lizard drops, a skyscraper
goes down beneath him. The best among these is definitely the HALO jump scene.
Riders into a massive storm to a bone chilling soundtrack.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;">
The next thing to note is that of
the score. It’s fantastic, perfectly infusing the film with the much needed
dread of a monster movie, while keeping the later style of fun. Desplat truly
did something great with the score. It’s
never brash, nor annoying. It pops up to highlight the scene when needed and
slips into the background when it’s nothing more than decoration for the world.
An early contender for best score, perhaps?<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;">
The mixture of sight and sound
would have been masterful all on its own, but with the help of a mostly
excellent cast, the movie goes above and beyond. Bryan Cranston, Ken Wantanabe
and David Straitharen are the shining points. Cranston plays Joe Brody with
earnestness and compassion. Cranston aptly, handles carrying the massive weight
of being the emotional anchor of the film. Even when he is not on screen, his
impact echoes all throughout the film. Ken Wantanabe, plays the impassioned
scientist, hoping to uncover the secrets of these ancient beasts. His roles
harkens back to the old films, where he would played entirely as a straight man
scientist spouting cheese one liners that make you either cringe or laugh.
Wantanabe does the same here, except in his case, he carries the lines with
conviction and seriousness. Lines like, “let them fight”, earn no cringes or
smirks, but instead, shivers along your back. When Wantanabe speaks, you
listen. Straithern plays the American military muscle, but a more sensible
military man than what American cinema has given us. Straithern is the perfect
actor to bring us a military leader who uses prudence and caution when dealing
with unknowns. Even when he is forced to extremes, Straithern strives to make
you believe that he has no other choice and would be the first to consider it
(this character should really be used more often as a thinking man soldier,
rather than the RAH-RAH-RAH, Hollywood usually spits out). All is not jolly in
the casting department though.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;">
Hawkins and Olsen are both lift
with little too do. Hawkins’ talent is wasted on a role that amounts to little less
than an assistant who speaks the obvious and ‘oos’ and ‘ahhs’ when required.
Olsen fares little better, being reduced to a role which she surpassed in her
first film. Neither character is really essential to the film in the way
Cranston, Wantanabe and Straithern are in there supporting roles and serve more
too highlight faults rather than heighten story or tension.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;">
Then we have Aaron Tyler-Johnson.
The man is a plank, a black hole of acting, the Michael Cera of action movies.
Unlike Olsen and Hawkins, Johnson is given too much and he cannot shoulder it.
He did fine in KickAss, because he was supposed to be out of place and lacking
in confidence. In Godzilla, he does not play a rookie, but still sounds
inexperienced (he actually sounds like he’s still going through puberty for
most of the film). He has no gravitas, no conviction. Maybe it will come with
time, but that’s still a ways away.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;">
My final, ‘problem’ with the film
is the lack of Godzilla. Yeah he looks and sounds amazing, but his time in the
film is short. There is a distinct lack of focus on him as he only shows up in
the last third of the film really. The reveal is handled really well and plays
out fantastic, which would’ve worked out great in any old regular monster
movie. When you have Godzilla in the name though, you have a very different set
of priorities when it comes too who is the lead of your film. The film spends
far too much time on the indestructible Ford and not enough on everyone’s
favorite giant lizard.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;">
On the other hand, the film is
filled with an abundance of shout outs to Zilla fans, young and old. The
soundtrack has little bits that sound like the old scores with a modern twist.
The Godzilla vs Mothra wink on a background poster. Hell, even Wantanabe’s
character is a reference/bridge to the legacy. All the winks bring glee to
anyone who’s experienced a Gojira film before.<o:p></o:p></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;">
Overall this is a fantastic monster
movie. Its lows are easily overlooked, while its highs are stunning and leave
you breathless. It’s most glaring flaw, is the lack of lizard, that said
though, when the green-man is on screen, he is handled perfectly and leaves you
wanting more. Garth Edwards really knocks it out of the park with his second
feature. Everything he has learned with his debut Monsters, is improved upon in
every way in Godzilla. By the end, the film does two things. First, Godzilla
has comeback with a solid bite, mimicking the return of Planet of the Apes.
Secondly, the film Establishes Edwards as a new voice in filmmaking, who can
aptly handle, small intimate films as well as large scale summer blockbusters.<o:p></o:p></div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03985715453248300822noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1527848148397258740.post-44370842176357834202014-04-29T22:30:00.002-07:002014-04-29T22:30:49.465-07:00Transcendence aka Fuck you Johnny Depp!<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;">
I went into this movie expecting
a bad movie, all the reviews said so. And yet, the bland looking trailer passive
aggressively insisted that this would be innocuous mediocrity, at worst. Sadly,
I failed to appreciate how bad this film was really going to be. I assume that
it was due to a mixture of, hoping against hope that Paul Bettany finally gets
a good live action movie where he is more than a voice and the thought that Pfister had picked up a
thing or two from Nolan. I can hear you laughing at me know and it’s okay, I
deserve it. Simply put the film is a series of panoramic vista shots with a
thesaurus reading for dialogue. All the while, the filmmakers painstakingly
remind you of all the better films this movie is influenced by.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;">
Transcendence is a film about
great ideas. It’s about one couples (the Casters, played by Johnny Depp and
Rebecca Hall) desire to create a better world. The movie is also about one
psycho Luddite group’s hate for social media (led by a blonde Kate Mara who
seems upset that she couldn’t get a role in Interstellar). This group, called
RIFT (cuz everyone loves abbreviations that take a minute to go through), wants
us to know that they are on the bleeding edge of the science/morality debate,
by quoting fears from the 70s. It really made me think, was it too late to get
a refund? Anyways, when these two groups collide, it’s bland and unexciting and
Will Caster has his brain uploaded into a computer. It’s all very reminiscent
of Lawnmower Man but nowhere near as fun and it’s upsettingly Pierce Brosnan
free. What follows is a whole dictionary’s fill of pseudo-techno babble and
quasi-philosophical bullshit that makes one squirm and fidget like a pregnant
woman having contractions. Sadly, there is no bundle of joy at the end, merely
a lingering foulness, as if Johnny Depp had just wiped his sweaty underwear on
your tongue and expected you to thank him for it.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;">
The biggest problem with the film
seems to be an identity crisis. No one involved with the film seems to know
what they want it to be. Is it a serious, hard science love story, like a
realistic Her? Is it a hard science disaster film, in the vein of Soderbergh’s
Contagion? Is it an action thriller? It’s all of these things really, but it
never once does any of these things well. It jumps back and forth between the
settings and characters, all of whom have a different thematic tone. It’s very
jarring and does not allow for any of the themes or characters to have an anchor
to the feels section of your heart and mind. Whenever an emotional investment
does begin to form between the audience and the character, there is a seismic
tonal shift that hits restart on any connection you may have formed. All the
while you will be left shuddering at how all these aspects are reminiscent of
other, better films. The other odd thing is that, much of this, could’ve been
mitigated with a clear cut villain, but we never really get one. The film jumps
back and forth, trying to decide who’s the real villain, like the asshole at
Tim Horton’s who can’t decide between the apple fritter or cruller (just take
the cruller, everyone always takes the cruller).<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;">
It doesn’t help that the script
is a shoddy mess of clichéd writing and tensionless suspense scenes. Take the scenes involving the Casters, they
all sound like they were written by a highschooler with a thesaurus. They croon
and pang with heartbreak as their lips sing about quantum processing and monkey
brains. There is no passion in the words and the actors don’t even try to pretend
there is chemistry the two of them. They’re like two breadsticks put side by
side and ordered to make out. Will Caster himself is probably the worst
character in the film. As an audience member, you’re supposed to question his
motives, you’re supposed to question whether he really is Will or if he’s a
machine gone rogue (I think they were trying to create a Hal 9000 for hipsters).
This could’ve been a cool mystery had it been done right. Sadly, there is no
tension since every suspect action is followed by an overwhelmingly altruistic
one. Even his suspect actions are never all that dastardly or menacing to begin
with (it’s like they were trying to make Will Caster Jesus, but Mary Magdeline
is the Judas). Will’s progression as a potentially psychotic AI is ridiculously
inferior to Jobe’s in Lawnmower Man. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;">
The rest of the characters kind
of just mull about as the story renders them neutered, left with their hands in
their pockets, kicking dirt while they wait for something to happen. They watch
and wait as things get better and better throughout the world. There is
literally nothing bad or sinister conveyed in this period. As they mull about,
they contemplate their actions and attack peaceful hybrids. Watching the luddites
and FBI I kept asking myself, how are the filmmakers expecting me too root for
these guys? They spend most of their time being sinister and shooting healed
cripples, how did anyone think these are people anyone but Ed Bundy would root
for? They have the education of a freshman philosophy student and try to kill
that which they don’t understand. The film actively tries to make the audience
root for the uneducated villains with no good justification. The cast seems to
have figured this out and is evidently confused as they play their roles,
evident by the strange glares they give one another after their lines.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;">
The cast itself is remarkably
wasted. We’re told that Mrs. Caster is this genius, but all we see is a
stereotypical wife who seemingly has a growing alcohol addiction. Rebecca Hall
does her best, whimpering face, forced tears, the whole package, sadly she’s
got nothing to work with. All the shots of her in the lab, longing for her
husband are wasted as soon as she opens her mouth and reads those neutering
lines. All the fawning is forced and draining. Hell, hire Kristen Stewart, at
least that way you won’t be damaging a serious actress’ career. Oddly enough,
while her character is more poorly written, it doesn’t make me hate her as an
actress, Depp on the other hand.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;">
This film makes me outright hate
Depp as an actor. He does not exude self-confidence or naiveté in his role.
Instead we get a kind of smugness, one that comes from an actor who has yet to
realize that he has become a joke. He
has this sort of vacant stare and bland delivery, almost as if he thinks
scientists have all the emotional output of Robbie the Robot. Whereas Hall is
let down by the script even as she tries to make sense and quality of it, Depp
tries his best make each line as flat as possible. He really should go do a
film with someone who won’t pandered to his celebrity, maybe then well get a
real performance from him again.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;">
The last of the big three is Paul
Bettany. Usual Paul Bettany does the supporting role in good films and stars in
terrible shit. This time around he is left mulling about, looking lost. He is
supposed to be the down to earth, “let’s think of what could go wrong”
character in the trio. This only comes into play when he is against the AI. The
script derides and lampoons this character at every turn and yet Bettany takes
the abuse and pushes forward. It’s like he is the only one in the cast who saw
the potential and was thus blinded to the rotting carcass that was his role. He
does that whole, British best friend who is not as hyper intelligent as the
lead thing, with a lot of conviction. Really, Bettany does deserve a clap since
he wades through the shit-monsoon of lines and the pendulum of emotions and
conflicts his character is put through and still manages to be the only
character you can really connect with.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;">
The rest of the cast is kind of
just, there, waiting for something to happen. Kate Mara plays the crazy
terrorist, she channels her sister Rooney’s performance in Girl With the Dragon
Tattoo. It’s a lot of brooding and ridiculous assertions that are never really
fleshed out. Cillian Murphy is
criminally wasted, confined to the role of FBI guy, with no room to actually
give his performance any life. Lastly, Morgan Freeman, plays Morgan Freeman,
minus the charm and wit we have come to expect from him.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;">
Sure the acting and story are
shit, but what of the look of the film, this is a Wally ‘Nolan’s protégé’
Pfister film we’re talking about. Sure it’s well shot, filled with eye catching
vistas and slow motion shots worthy of an Imax commercial. Sadly, none of it is
fresh or original. We’ve seen it done and we’ve seen it done better before, by
Pfister himself. In many cases the vista
shots are out of place and are crudely jammed into the narrative, further
clogging the pacing up. For whatever reason, Pfister seems to use the same
vista shots over and over again even though they have no particular importance
to the grand narrative or any of the characters in particular.<o:p></o:p></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;">
Last time I posted a review, I
said that I had wished for the Robocop remake to be a trainwreck, at least that
way the film would have been memorable. This film is that trainwreck I had
hoped for. Filled with grand ideas, a terrific cast and a director who has
spent as decade learning from one of Hollywood’s best. Every single thing about
this movie fails, spectacularily. The plot is muddled, dull and childish, more
concerned with sounding smart, than connecting with the audience. The acting is
lost between shoddy direction and an overreaching but, underachieving script.
The direction is more concerned with having sweeping vista worthy of an Imax
commercial than providing the audience with something worth watching. Mix that
with a pompous actor who has finally stripped away all his credit and dived
head first into confused absurdity and you have your first true trainwreck of
the year. Save your money, save your time, go watch Lawnmower Man instead, at
least Pierce Brosnan won’t let you down.<o:p></o:p></div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03985715453248300822noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1527848148397258740.post-91637652465432067962014-04-27T11:39:00.000-07:002014-04-27T11:39:02.819-07:00Double feature, Machete Kills and Robocop (2014) aka the night when I couldn't wash away my anger with liqour<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;">
Hey there gang, today we have my
first double feature review; Machete Kills and Robocop (the remake not the
classic). I had intended this to be a fun, ‘let’s review bad movies while
drinking’ post. Instead I got, the liquor was bad and I could sit through one
and a half of those movies. So let’s begin!<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;">
Machete Kills, what can I say
about you that hasn’t been already said? Probably nothing but let’s give it a
go. I will not attempt to explain what the movie is about, if you expect a
serious story, skip to the next movie and save an hour and half of your life.
In fact, do so anyways, trust me on this one. As usual we get a fake trailer in
the opening this purposefully bad movie, usually these are hilarious and awesome
too watch. The first Machete trailer was
gold and Hobo with a Shotgun is a classic, Machete Kills in space? Not so much,
it’s a parody of a parody. It’s not fun, it’s just dull, on the Brightside it’s
the fair warning of what’s to come, so you can just turn off the movie before
it really starts. Yay!<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;">
The movie begins as typical as
possible, with Machete and his partner stopping some corrupt soldiers from
selling stolen weapons. If you’re still watching this movie, you will instantly
see that all the joy from the original has already been sucked out. Alba and
Trejo strain to maintain enthusiasm that is just nowhere to be found. “Fuck it, let’s move ahead, maybe it’ll get
better. Carlos Estves will be gold” I thought to myself. When good old Charlie does
show up onscreen all I could think was, “Why is Charlie Sheen trying to do an
impression of his father?” and then I thought, “God Martin Sheen did not pass
along much of his acting talent did he?”
This thought repeats itself every single time Charlie Sheen appears on
screen, gone is that ‘WINNING’ attitude, all we are left with is a husk of a
clown. A sad, sad clown.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;">
Then the movie jumps to a beauty
pageant where we are introduced to Amber Heard’s character, who doesn’t
actually get a name, she gets a title and a job. Beauty Queen and CIA agent. Oh
what fun, we might get an amusing examination of women’s roles in film with
satire, nope, que the porno music! Does this porno music add anything? No, it
is not bad funny, it is not well made (hell 70s porno music was more eloquent).
All it does is remind you that this film is made by hokey gags not fit for Mad
TV. This entire section, serves to outline how characters are treated in this
film. Unlike in the first Machete, where the characters were boiled down to
their most extreme and insanely fun. The second one, boils all of the
characters too bad gags. Sofia Vergara’s character, is not a character, it’s a
composite of every bad “woman, fucked over by men” trope ever put to film. All
Rodriguez did too add flavor, was add on a machine gun brazier and the dick
pistol from, From Dusk till Dawn. Oddly enough, it seems as though Rodriguez
noticed this flaw in his film and decided to add a little serious comedy with
Bichir’s character, a crazy CIA/Drug Lord gone Castro. Except, he goes so
overboard, that the character just drains the fun from the screen, every time
he pops into frame. By this point I was already busy finishing my drink while
chit chatting on Facebook about how the Community episode was.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;">
There was one bright, albeit
wasted performance, Walton Goggins. He plays El Chameleon, the only character
name aside from Machete I could remember. Walton Goggin’s brings the exact air
of levity that this film requires. He, genuinely understands his role and how to
make it work. It’s mix of Clint Eastwood and Tarantino, if that makes sense.
Sadly he’s onscreen for less than five minutes and then we occasionally hear
him doing voice overs for lesser actors. Hell, this character was essentially
created to jam in cameos by the look of it. He hired Lady Gaga to be, Lady
Gaga. Why Robert, why? She steals time from everyone else and is somehow devoid
of any stage presence. Then again it’s not like there is much to Gooding Jr.
and Banderas’ performances. They just show up, say something wacky and go away.
What a waste. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;">
Further hampering the film is its
neutered style. The nudity, the gore, the bravado, it’s all stripped of the
glee and merriment we had from the first. In place of nostalgic nudity we get
titillation, which would be fine, but it’s ham-fisted in a way that only a
fourteen year old boy could make it. The gore, in place of cheesy but fun
looking effects, we are treated to CGI blood and dismemberment that looks like
it was made by someone who just learned how to use Adobe. The effects are
layered onto one another, using no blending, leaving all the scenes looking like
a grade school collage. It’s not endearing, it’s distracting. The bravado and
fun of the first one, is forced onto screen by a script and direction that is
so overly specific that it leaves no room for fun and creativity. Hell even the
guys at Asylum can write better shit than this.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;">
At the end of this day, this film
(more of a turd sandwhich really) suffers from Rodriguez drinking too much of
his own Kool Aid. The characters are poorly thought out, the story simply drags
on and on, while the actors try so damn hard to be camp that they veer off into
Nic Cage territory, only they don’t have Cage to guide them. You will be
looking at your watch after thirty minutes, if not sooner. By the 86 minute mark, I gave up. This movie
was so bad that, it is only the second film I have had to quit (and I watched
the piece of shit Hitman movie all the way through, it was as painful as it
sounds). By the end, this film left me with three thoughts. Firstly, I miss the
old, EL Mariachi Rodriguez. The one who wanted to make good fucking movies,
rather than simply top the last one. Secondly, Rodriguez should not be allowed
to work with Alexa Vega, it`s creepy (she was the daughter in Spy Kids).
Lastly, this made me have a sinking feeling that maybe, Sin City will not be as
awesome as it looks. Lord Jebas, may you guide Rodriguez back into the light.
Anyways, now that torture is over, let`s move onto something less painful.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;">
Next up we have Robocop. You know
the story, it`s an age old one. A good cop with a heart of gold, takes on
corruption and crime, gets killed and then is turned into an unflinching
killing machine who finds his soul. It’s a timeless tale really. Too be
entirely honest, I had extremely mixed feeling going into this. On one hand, it
seemed like a desecration of something holy. A classic piece of my childhood,
one of my first film loves (my parents thought it was fine for me to watch this
as a six year old, boy were they right!). On the other hand, the remake was
handed off to Jose Padhilla, the guy who made Elite Squad 1 and 2 (if you haven’t
seen these films, stop reading this, go watch them and then comeback, I’ll just
watch some cat videos on YouTube while I wait). This guy knows action and he
knows how to balance it with a story you can invest your heart into.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;">
The film begins of promisingly as
we are introduced to the world by Samuel L Jackson. Having Sam Jackson in your
movie is never a bad thing, but if Oldboy taught me anything, it is that the
Jackson factor can be highly deceiving. In this case, though it does a fairly
bang on job at giving you a layout of what to expect from the film, a lot of
fluffy talk about the ills of society, wrapped up in a flashy package brought
to you by Hollywood. It screams generic from the very onset. From the poorly
handled social politics about today, to the cool, but woefully mis-imagined
technology of the near future.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;">
The changes made to the story
seem very tacked on, as if they couldn’t figure out how to make it feel fresh.
In its two hour span, the film drags out what was the opening forty minutes or
so of the original. The nuance of Padhilla’s previous films is gone, instead we
are left with a by committee affair. Badass cop with a justice boner? Check.
Minority sidekick? Check. A shady corporation filled with characterless drones?
Check. A totally hot wife, who cries and whines a lot? Check. Meaningless winks
at the superior original? You better believe it. A vague moral message, that
isn’t well thought out? You bet your ass!<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;">
This vague moral message of
corporate greed, versus moral righteousness that is portrayed in the film is
made unnecessarily complex. Where is in the first, these drones were a new
thing and the corporation just needed to test it, this new version decides to
bring in politics. It’s immoral, it’s untested, it’s un-American for a robot to
kill a man, when a person will kill just fine. It’s unnecessarily complex.
Omincorp, could have just said, ‘fuck the states, let’s sell these cop drones
to every country that doesn’t have a law against it’, problem solved, movie
over. Think about it, China, North Korea and Russia would’ve bought it no
questions asked. Also, the writers seem too think that they are writing this
film for children. They write on screen the name of every location, even if the
building or newspaper on screen already says the location. Example, every time
the movie goes to Omnicorp’s headquarters, there is a prompt on screen telling
you “Omnicorp’s Headquarter”, its ridiculously unnecessary, considering the
building in the shot has Omincorp’s scrawled all over it in big bold letters.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;">
This isn’t to say that the story
isn’t without its merits though. It a few vague flourishes of greatness, the
movie does attempt to tackle some good questions. How would Robocop deal with
his family moving on? Whereas the first movie doesn’t dwell on it too much, the
remake does make a valiant attempt at addressing this, it’s too bad that this
is drowned out by Ms (Mrs?) Murphy’s overwrought hysterics. As well, the
overall training is handled well, as is the whole mental stability thing. Like
the family affair, the mental stability is mostly alluded to in the original,
where as in the remake, it is worked into the plot quite nicely. The film is a
mix of some neat ideas, with shoddy execution, that mental stability everyone
is so concerned with? Well Alex Murphy does not seem all that mentally stable,
unless you think Harry Calhoon was a stable member of society. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;">
I’ll say this right out of the
gate, the only character worth a damn, is Gary Oldman’s, Dr. Norton. He’s
basically Oldman playing Commisioner Gordon as if he were a scientist. It’s a
solid performance with nuance and emotion, only hampered by a script that puts
him into brain numbing situations. Beyond that, the characters are mostly
cardboard cutouts. Kinneman’s Murphy is a husk of Weller’s Murphy. Whereas
Weller was able to juggle, the robotic and human side of his character,
Kinneman seems flat. Now this might have something to do with the script. In
the original, Murphy is a ray of sunshine. He looks forward to his day, to
helping make the city better, a different flavour to the brooding action heroes
and the comedic heroes of the 80s. He is a cop who has a really shitty day. In
the remake, they throw all of that out and make him a stock action hero. A
rough and tumble family man, with a TUDE! This causes problems with the whole,
the experimental cop must be stable thing. Then we have Valon, in the original
he’s is fun. He is a villain that you enjoy watching and you enjoy watching his
death even more. Kurtwood Smith brought charisma and bravura too the role. The
guy who plays Valon this time, is generic. Put him in a line up with his
henchmen and you won’t be able to tell the difference. Hell, remove him from
the film and you would barely notice. Lastly we have, Lewis. In the original,
Lewis, played by Nancy Allen was the badass. Murphy could have just as easily
been her sidekick and her being a woman, brought a breath of fresh air to an
overly macho film. In the remake, we have a wasted Michael K Williams. Where,
Lewis was useful in the original, in the remake, Lewis doesn’t do much. He
could be replaced by any old cop. Essentially, everyone but Oldman is wasted.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;">
Lastly I’d like to touch on the
technical aspects of the film. This is the only part of the film that truly
crashes into a wall and explodes into a ball of fiery shit. The art design and special effects, seem
dated. It brings nothing new to the table. At least Transformers made you pause
and look at it for a moment, even if you thought it looked horrible. In Robocop
2014 all the deisgns and effects look drab and uninspired, like the left over
from Value Village. Then we have the sound, boy is it a clunker. Rarely do I
say anything about this technical aspect, but here it warrants a bashing. Like
the effects and art design, it’s very Value Village. A Frankenstien of stolen
effects that don’t play nice with one another. The films solution? Make it so
loud, so that the audience can’t tell it’s shit. This movie shows us why you
can’t apply the wall of sound philosophy to a film’s special effects.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;">
At the end of the day, this is
not the catastrophic disaster that I had originally envisaged. It’s mostly a
quiet wet fart. It’ll be forgotten before you know it. Which is kind of a shame,
I think I would’ve preferred a train wreck. At least that, I would remember in
a week.<o:p></o:p></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;">
So, there you have it, my double
bill. Watching these two films back too back, was most definitely not worth my
time and it surely is not worth yours. Go watch The Raid 2 instead, you can
thank me later.<o:p></o:p></div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03985715453248300822noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1527848148397258740.post-51506314361183084252014-04-07T10:06:00.000-07:002014-04-07T10:06:01.083-07:00Blog Tour<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;">
This blog tour is where writers
and authors answer questions about their writing process. Last week, my friend
and former classmate Lucas Armstrong wrote one up last week, check him out here, <o:p></o:p><a href="http://lukethoughtbubble.blogspot.ca/">http://lukethoughtbubble.blogspot.ca/</a></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b><u>What I’m working
on:<o:p></o:p></u></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;">
Hard to nail down specifics,
since I’m always working on two or more projects at a time, but here is a
slice. I’m working gritty crime drama pitch bible, with two female leads and a psychedelic
murder mystery, about a porn star. These two projects are my main focus right
now. On the docket I am also bouncing around a trans-humanist sci-fi story.
Between all that I also work on this review site. Currently I am working on
expanding it from merely reviewing films and TV. I’m trying to write up several
other types of reviews such as; reviewing the drunk hobos that I encounter day
to day at work or maybe reviewing other people roommates for them. It’s all in
the early stages but, soon you might be reading about that time everyone at
work had an HIV scare after we arrested a pirate.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b><u>How does my work
differ from others of its genre?<o:p></o:p></u></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;">
I would like to imagine that all
my work is wonderfully original and differs from everything else in the ocean,
but at the end of the day I don’t think that is what should be my main focus.
When it comes to my fiction work, I prefer to tweak the existing stylistic
flourishes that I enjoy. Kind of like a collage of everything I find exquisite,
except told through my eyes and hands. As for my reviews, well that differs in
how I give ratings. More specifically, I don’t. Scoring a film, game, music or
whatever by boiling it down to a number seems a tad absurd, unless it is
compiled into an aggregate review. By boiling a film down to a series of
numbers or stars seems like a poor way to convey ones feelings about a
particular art form. Furthermore, it tends to steal the readers gaze and
thinking from the content of the review. I prefer to not give a number, instead
having my words explain my feelings. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b><u>Why do I write
what I do?<o:p></o:p></u></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;">
I have always had a fascination with
history and science, although I am terrible at the latter. In particular I love
crime history and war history as well as space operas. As such, I voraciously
consume everything about these subjects as I can; film, news, books, pulpy
novels that you wouldn’t be caught dead reading in public (well I would, I’d
just call it research). As time passed, I found myself wanting to tell these
stories myself. Create my own worlds that abide by my rules. If that sounds a
tad megalomaniacal, it’s because it is. Let me have my fantasy!<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
As for my reviews, well that comes from my lifelong love of
films and my egotistical desire to explain to people why The Thin Red Line is
ten times the war film that Saving Private Ryan is. Well that and the fact that my friends keep
telling me that I should write up my vitriol filled rants to share with the
internet.<i><o:p></o:p></i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b><u>How does your
writing process work?<o:p></o:p></u></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;">
My process is hampered by a
full-time job so it’s a struggle to actually sit down and write properly at
home for an hour or two as opposed to scribbling notes in a journal. What I
usually do is, take a notebook and jot down ideas or work on an outline while
at work. The notebook phase consists of either jot notes for ideas to develop
later on or full blown outlines.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;">
Once the notebook phase is
complete I move onto either a more structured outline or go straight to first
draft. At this point, most of what was written in my journal is ditched as new
ideas take the place of old ones. When this happens I use the ideas from the
notebook as an anchor, so what I write does not wildly veer off in every direction.
After each draft I then usually take a cooling off period, working on another
piece, before I go back and edit.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;">
When I write reviews the process
is a little bit different. As I watch whatever it is I am reviewing I jot down
all the various points; cons, pros, interesting tidbits etc. Afterwards I try
to immediately to write the first draft of the review, one filled with all
sorts’ typos and grammatical errors. Sadly
this is not always the case, an example being that my Captain America review
won’t be up for a few days, even though I have already seen. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;">
Editing works the same for both
my reviews and my fiction. It is a hate fuelled experience, filled with
swearing, coffee and self-loathing as I lament my inattention to high school
English.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b>Next week on the blog
tour circuit:<o:p></o:p></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b>Robyn Lester</b>, an
Ottawa based screenwriter who is busy living the high life. When she’s not writing screenplays, she keeps
herself occupied working retail and foraging for free, sometimes discarded,
food. In addition she writes theatre
reviews for the Charlebois Post and does script coverage for a local production
company. Read her here,<o:p></o:p><a href="http://robynlester.wordpress.com/">http://robynlester.wordpress.com/</a></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b>Keely ‘<i><u>Zoidberg</u></i>’</b> and <b>Ashley</b> are not-so-secret nerds and will
latch on to almost anything with hype. But don't worry, they do more than gush
(Note: wehaveartsdegrees.com is not code for tumblr) they also take an in-depth
look at why the hype behind Veronica Mars or Saturday Night Live is warranted
while giving little tidbits of life observations along the way. Read about them
at; We Have Arts Degrees <a href="http://www.wehaveartsdegrees.com/">www.wehaveartsdegrees.com</a><o:p></o:p></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b>Alyssa</b> and <b>Sarah</b> are two aspiring screenwriters
with a New Years resolution to make 2014 the year of 'women in film' both in
front of and behind the camera. We aim to watch and review 100 women made films
in the coming year. All you really need to know about is is that we love
Beyonce, reality TV, and the Ikea monkey. You can find them at, <o:p></o:p><a href="http://fempiremovieclub.blogspot.ca/">http://fempiremovieclub.blogspot.ca/</a></div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03985715453248300822noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1527848148397258740.post-85417662977042333962014-04-06T18:06:00.001-07:002014-04-06T18:06:22.999-07:00Snowpiercer, The best film of 2013, not released in 2013<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;">
The world of Snowpiercer takes
place in the not too distant future. In this world, the attempt to reverse
global warming has gone terribly, terribly wrong, resulting in a new ice age.
The only survivors are left living aboard a train, power by perpetual motion.
These survivors exist in a world of strict order and classes. The upper class
live at the front of the train and eat good food, their children are educated
and are allowed windows amongst other things. The poor on the other hand, live
at the back of the train, in squalor. They are all dirty, ragged and subsist on
protein squares. Having had enough of this Curtis (Chris Evans), the reluctant
leader and his mentor Gilliam (John Hurt) decide to stage an uprising. The
movie itself, starts shortly before the uprising begins.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;">
Joon-ho Bong (The Host) directed
this film along with Kelly Masterson (Before the Devil Knows You’re Dead) wrote
it. The film is tight and lean, quickly summing up the world in a quick
prologue and letting the story flourish on its own afterwards. The film allows
no room for pointless rumination about society through stilted dialogue.
Instead, it is jam packed visually. When the group of revolutionaries moves
from the, dank dark cars to the luxurious cars near the front, their awe and
bewilderment is not spoiled through pointless evidentiary squawking by the side
characters. When a character asks how the gang can solve a problem or an
impending crisis, we don’t see them mulling about discussing solutions. Instead
we see them gather up a ton of barrels and watch as they make the solution
happen. It’s this show don’t tell attitude that really keeps the pace rolling
along smoothly, eliminating the need for distracting technobabble. The
exposition that does occur, serves to enhance our understanding of the world of
Snowpiercer. It strengthens ties of characters and bring about a better
understanding of the horror in which the denizens of the live. By the end of the
film, all of the questions that are left unanswered, don’t seem all that
bothersome. Snowpiercer answers the questions that need answering, anything
else, it will let you pondered the mechanics of it all. Much like the original
Matrix, this film strives to make you believe that this world is real, not only
through narrative though.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;">
The art direction and cinematography
carries its share of the load. The camera work is fantastic not because of the
shots or use of filters, but rather how it is able to portray such a
claustrophobic environment, with spacious shots that give the cast and train
room to breathe. During the vicious revolutionary battles, it gives the viewer
an all-encompassing view as well as the down in the trenches perspective and
thanks to the editors this is down fluidly, without jarring transitions. These
battles and fights are shot wonderfully. They know the constraints that bind
them and work to make the fights engrossing within the tight space given. You
get a sense that all these people have truly learned how to exist within this
small space. Pay close attention to what the camera focuses on.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;">
The art directors too, do a great job. They
are expertly conscious of the world. Every single car and room has the perfect
feel. Like a tiny enclosed alien world, dressed up to look like home. But, there
is always something nagging at you, telling you it’s wrong. This sense of
unease helps to bring you to the right empathetic mindset, to sympathize with
all who live trapped in their coffin of survival. The outifts chosen for the
classes and characters are fantastic. They contrast each other wonderfully and
do the talking for the characters. For instance, instead of a character flat
out calling the guards and riot police monsters, they are dressed as riot gear,
with aprons and butcher knives. Yes it sounds like a hammer over the head, but
this simple decisions means we don’t need some holier than though exposition
about butchery from some self-righteous character. Furthermore, the levels of
extravagance and quaintness of each outfit, tells the viewer what class the character
belongs to rather than having it verbally spewed upon the viewer awkwardly.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;">
The people who live in this
perpetual train are built upon archetypes and moments. They are simple
characters in the sense that, the audience will not need to ‘figure’ them out.
As a viewer, you can easily empathize with the character or conversely, despise
them if that’s what needs to be done. The only trait shared among all the
characters is, survival. Hero, villain, weird egg delivering bald dude, they all
have an intrinsic need and desire to survive. The meaning of what survival is
too each of them is how they differ. Tilda Swinton’s, Mason, will betray, lie
and sacrifice others all to survive. She is like a rat who has found a nice
warm coat pocket with a seemingly endless supply of cheese. Swinton, takes this
role and barrels through it marvellously. She knows her character innately and
is able to portray all the quirks and vileness through gestures and snorts,
rather than scowls and dialogue alone. John Hurt’s Gilliam on the other hand,
looks not for his own survival, but rather for that of his adopted children.
His time has come and gone, no he seeks to teach the future, to ensure their
survival. Hurt does an admirable job, but it is nothing special. His mentor
role is not ground-breaking or rule bending. Instead he plays the mentor we
have been watching for generations, and with his experience he pulls it of
charmingly well. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;">
Chris Evans portrayal of Curtis,
a man with a dark past who seeks life by attaining freedom for him and his, is
really the only role that could have used a little more beefing up. Whereas
Keanu Reeves might struggle with the extra layer of characterization and
emotion required for the role, Evans seems to be confined within his role, up
until the very end. Evans’ emotional outbursts can seem awkward and misplaced
even when they are in the appropriate moment. If this sounds odd, it’s because
it is very odd. It seems to be a problem with the script or the direction of
the scene, because Evans is seemingly on the cusp of becoming Hollywood’s new
intelligent action hero. Aside from those few odd scenes, he seamlessly
transitions from being a bold yet reluctant hero, to a damaged man hoping to
atone for his sins. One scene in particular near the end, breaks down the
Adonis persona that he has built up over a decade, too give the viewer a
wonderful moment where Evans steals all your feels. Lastly, Ièd like to speak
of Kang-ho Song. Playing the role, of damaged security expert, addicted to
drugs is an all too stereotypical role, thankfully, here it is done well. All
his lines are in Korean, so you must pay attention to what he says, but at the
same time you need to pay attention to how he says it and where his eyes linger.
His mannerisms are just as important as his words. His character is how Bong,
demands that we as a viewer pay attention to the film. This is not a film for
the lazy or those who expect a simple Luc Besson-esque action thriller and Song’s
character and the portrayal will show you why. The rest of the side characters
are excellent as well. Allison Pill, Luke Pasquilino, Jamie Bell, Octavia
Spencer, Ed Harris and so forth inhabit their characters wonderfully. They do
not try to steal the show, instead they work as finely sharpened instruments,
to keep a well-oiled machine, not only running, but running above and beyond
our expectations.<o:p></o:p></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;">
As the title blatantly says, this
is the best film of last year, not released last year. It has everything you
could want from a film; ingenious action scenes, basic characters structures an
underlying complexity that grows as the film progresses and its philosophical intelligence
is one that rewards the viewer rather than punishes them. Snowpiercer is a film
that demands your attention to be fully appreciated. To watch this film
half-heartedly is to only see a tenth of the glory that lives within its
frames. The film, dangles all your feels over the precipice, but then embraces
them to give you that warm feeling of hope. But by the end of the film, you
will know that the hope this film has left with you, came at a dire cost. And
when you do come to that point, you will be sitting on the edge of your seat
with anxious glee.<o:p></o:p></div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03985715453248300822noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1527848148397258740.post-998645031000026392014-03-25T00:14:00.002-07:002014-03-25T00:14:37.436-07:00Oldboy 2013<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;">
Let me start off by saying that,
when I first found out that Spike Lee would be directing the American remake, I
was over the moon. He seemed like one of the few American directors who could
do the film justice. Keep the soul, the suffering and the heart of the tale
intact. I felt that it was a blessing that the undoubtedly neutered, Spielberg
and Smith remake would never see the light of day. Boy was I fucking wrong. The
movie reeks of unnecessary American remake syndrome, no soul, no heart. Like a
teenage boy it puts the little head, before the big head.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;">
Before we get into the bad stuff,
let us get the few good bits out of the way. The performances are really the
only good bits. Josh Brolin gives a rock solid performance. No, it doesn’t come
close to rivalling Min-sik Choi, but with a better script, Brolin might have.
He carries the pain and confusion as if it were a rock left upon his back.
Sharto Copley and Sam Jackson both had loads of fun with their respective roles
by the looks of it. Their screen presence is undeniable as they chew through
each scene with glee. If anything, this film once more proves that being a
villain is far more fun than being the hero. This is where the positives end
and the shit sandwich begins.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-indent: 36.0pt;">
The film itself follows the plot of the original almost
scene for scene, only diverging at the end and a few little things here and
there, so if you’ve seen the original there really is no need to watch this
remake. Actually, some of the changes
that are actually made only serve to damage the film. Take Joe’s friend Chucky,
in the original the character owns an internet café. This is how Joe was introduced
to computers and the internet. In the remake Chucky, owns a bar. Apparently
every American badass is only allowed to have bartenders/owners as friends. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-indent: 36.0pt;">
I said that
the performances are the only good bits, I really should’ve said they are good
in spite of the script. You must give the actors credit for overcoming the
grand over simplifications imposed on them Protosevich. He peels away all the
layers of each and every character, until only one core feature is left per
character. Combine them all and maybe you will have a fully fleshed out
character. Well that or Voltron, who knows.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-indent: 36.0pt;">
The villain is
stripped of all complexity and depth. He is no longer a broken man who can
balance his desire for vengeance with keeping up appearances. No, now he is an
offensive gay stereotype. In the original his vengeance wasn’t imposed by
meaningless violence, it was calculated to a perverse sense of justice that
could let him have a modicum of peace. In the remake, this complexity is thrown
out the window, he is made into a one dimensional stereotype. They take a broken
man, who lives in a sort of moral grey space and turn him into sadomasochistic
gay stereotype. Lee and co., take no time to establish his frame of reference
as was done in the original. In the original, his point of view is essential to
establishing his mentality, but it is not present in the film. The POV explains
his mentality, it gives us the flip side of the coin to the protagonist. It
turns them both into monsters and messed up avenging angels. How could the man
who has made so many classics let that tanker sized detail slip through the
cracks? It is downright offensive. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-indent: 36.0pt;">
Then we have
Joe. Like Copley’s villain, in the original, Joe’s character is a complex
character that exists in a moral grey. In the 2003 version, the violence aimed
for a stylized realism. The violence perpetrated by Joe was part of his characterisation;
it told us tons of detail about his pain and desires without ever spilling it
out in a vomit of words. In the remake, the over-choregraphed violence, strips
that away from Joe. There is the scene where Joe beats up and possibly kills
several jocks in broad daylight. In the original, Oh Dae Su is not the
aggressor, he does his best to end the fight as quickly and efficiently as
possible. Joe is not a broken man trying to find meaning, he is an 80’s action
star in a serious drama and that my friends, fails on every fucking level
possible. In the remake, they try to make it all style and all flash, Joe is
the vigilante aggressor in an over stylized fight. Instead of efficiently
moving past the obstacle to go continue to his goal, he stops and fights. He
kills not out of necessity, but rather in service of fulfilling the assumed
blood lust of the audience. Yes that can be cool too watch, but not if that’s
not what your film is about. Like sex in violence must have contextual reason
in any film, otherwise it is a distraction. It should fit logically and
meaningfully. Here it is jarring for all the wrong reasons. It betrays the film
itself by depicting brutality as stylish rather than cringe-worthy. This leads
us to the hallway fight.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-indent: 36.0pt;">
Yes they kept
it in the film and boy did they butcher the fight. Where the original fight was
a brutal marathon of endurance, shot with a low key and grimy style, this new
fight exemplifies everything wrong with the remake. Everyone involved struggles
to make the fight even cooler than the original and in the process, misses why
the original was so cool. Lee’s fight is all about style and flash, it’s about
having Joe make cool looking kills and fancy blows, but they’re all fluff. The
stylishness draws attention to the fact that the scene is over-choreographed.
In the original, you would cringe with the blows, because you could see the
restraint, the fear, the exhaustion in each of the participants faces. The
attacks have an air of disunity to them. Every blow, block and stab left its
mark on the viewer. In the original, the fight showed that Joe is a brawler,
not a trained fighter. This was done to establish that even though he could
fight goons, Joe could not stand up to trained professionals. By stripping this
brutality from the remake they serve to create confusion when Joe does finally
confront a trained fighter. Fuck you Lee and Protosevich for shitting on one of
the best fight sequences ever filmed.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-indent: 36.0pt;">
The costume
and art design is yet another tumble down a cliff. It’s as if the costume
designer thought that the outrageous outfits from superhero comic books would
actually look good on screen. They dress up Sam Jackson as some sort of pimp
who’s a bit to obsessed with Sin City. The man chews up every scene he is
given, but I’m sure he was left famished as he hunted for a role that was a far
more filling then the scraps of this train wreck.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
This only scratches the surface
of what’s wrong with the film: <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
-the scene with Joe on a bicycle
belongs in a comedy<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
-the showdown at the bar with the
scraggly looking goons who look like mercenary hobos <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
-the American desire for a thong
wearing sex puppet assistant who’s more furniture than person<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
-every time Copley plays with his
fingers<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
-why the fuck is it that only two
characters have aged over the course of 20 years? <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-indent: 36.0pt;">
The ending,
like everything else in this film, it tries to outdo the original in the
ickiness factor. In some ways it does, but unlike in the original where the
revelations are heartbreaking, in the American version the revelations are push
so far beyond the boundaries that one can’t help but laugh as it dives head
first into a comedy. It’s like Mark Protosevich simply did not understand it.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-indent: 36.0pt;">
The film is
like a circus freakshow. It begs to be gawked at. It calls for your attention with
its vapid displays of shocking moments and CGI arterial spurts. It takes, truly
heart wrenching moments and turns them into carnival amusment, defeating the
entire point of the manga and the 2003 film.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-indent: 36.0pt;">
In the end,
you can see that the effort and desire was there. I truly believe that everyone
involved thought they were making a good film. It is too bad that they decided
to focus on how to make it cooler than the original instead of making something
with soul. I guess Spike Lee just really needed a cash influx.<o:p></o:p></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-indent: 36.0pt;">
Only for those
with morbid curiosity about how badly an Oldboy remake could be.<o:p></o:p></div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03985715453248300822noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1527848148397258740.post-47724344363349143112014-03-22T17:41:00.003-07:002014-03-22T17:41:48.316-07:00Hannibal, Season 2 ep 1-4 review<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;">
Okay so maybe we aren’t
officially midway yet but who cares, I’ve been putting this off for way too
long. Where season one was merely an entrée, season two serves up the goods in
the most delectable of ways. Season two builds upon every aspect of the first
in staggeringly beautiful of ways. The acting, the colour palette, the story
arcs they are all wonderfully realised. So far any ways. This is the best cable
show, not on cable.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;">
Season one left us with Will
Graham locked away for Lecter’s crimes, while the eponymous Hannibal was left
free to not only to continue his spree but also, steal Will’s life. In the
first half of the season we have seen away with, killer of the week stories as
a main focus. Instead they have been shifted to the background while the main
course is, us watching Graham and Hannibal play a game of chess, using all the
other characters as piece in their deadly game of the mind.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;">
Firstly, my hat goes off to Brian
Retzell, James Hawkinson and Karim Hussian. These three, under Fuller’s vision
one would assume, have created a texture so engrossing, it is hypnotizing. The
sound and visuals of the show are so striking that they captivate you with
every episode, every scene, every shot. The lack of harsh contrast in shots, lets you
forget that you are watching a show about serial killers and instead drops you
into a gothic mural of the macabre. The sound is a delight to the auditory
senses. Every scene is scored perfectly, none of that emo, flavor of the month band
providing you with, been there felt that music. The music never steals the
scene, it plays harmoniously with the visual cues to deliver the best possible
experience. The mixture of these two flavors is absolutely stunning to behold.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;">
The next kudos goes too Brad
Milburn and the other art directors who dress these scenes in such a perfect
meld of modernity and gothic styling. Every little detail is just so rich and
dare I say, flavorful. Yes, yes I dare say it. As well, the costume designers
do a phenomenal job at giving each outfit a story to tell. The outfits and
makeup tell us more than words ever could. In particular there is one scene
where both Lecter and Graham are suiting up, the contrast is palpable. One
takes time to get every little detail just right, while the other goes through
the motions. Yes, that is direction, but the choice of suits to demonstrate
this differing philosophy on preparation is just as important.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;">
These things of course would have
little consequence if they were not in service to a great story and Mr. Fuller
and company, certainly have a great story to tell. Think of season one as a
prologue, or maybe the first book in a series. An introduction to the
characters and the struggles. The themes and styling from where we can leap into
the abyss of madmen, doing mad things. Season two, the sequel, builds of each
and every single point, elegantly, leaving no detail unexplored unless it
serves a purpose to be left unturned. Where the Hannibal films progressively
degenerated into torture porn, relying on shock value to give the audience a
thrill, the show goes for subtlety. It leaves the most gruesome of details up
to the viewer to imagine. Yes their is blood, yes there are organs a plenty,
but they all serve to build on the story. Unlike certain other serial killer
themed shows (The Following), Hannibal does not wallow in unnecessary guts and
gore. Instead it focuses on the why and how. Why does Hannibal do what he does?
How is Graham going to get himself out of this predicament? This all leads to
another great aspect of the show. Dramatic irony. Here it is used marvellously,
it is no crutch from point a to point b. Instead it is used for tension. The
goal is not how the killer does what he does, nor is it how the cops will catch
the killer of the week. By throwing away these fake surprises, Hannibal goes
for the jugular in ways that only cable dared to do until now. In essence, we
care more about the character who is doing the act rather than the act being
portrayed. The intricate murders are merely a stylistic gateway to lure you
into a deeper, far richer world, much like a honey trap.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;">
Now for the performances. Well
start, obviously enough, with Mads Mikkelson. By god is he incredible, if he
does not get an emmy or globe nod, shame on the people who hand those out. He
portrays Hannibal with a complexity far greater than in any of the Anthony
Hopkins performances. He plays it as innocently as a child burning ants.
Hannibal, knows that what he is doing is wrong, but he just can’t grasp as to
why it is wrong. Mads, captures this childlike ignorance, wrapped in a cloak of
elegance perfectly. He portrays a fake sympathy with utter ease and in a
moment’s notice he turns it into violent, focused madness as if on a switch.
Mikkelson surrounds himself with an air of curiosity and innocence that is so
genuine, that at times you forget that he plays the boogeyman. He does it so
well, you may feel truly justified for rooting for him instead of the good
guys.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;">
Speaking of the good guys. Where
Norton played Will Graham as a generic, great analyst, Hugh Dancy, gives the
character soul. In the first season, he played a gifted but lost soul. He was
innocent, aware of the evil of the world, yet somehow untouched, distanced from
it. In season two, Graham has been, not only touched, but corrupted by the evil
that surrounds him. Hannibal’s betrayal has left him, not shattered but,
focused. Graham knows his goal and has let go of understanding the why and now
focuses on the how. The how being, how he can free himself of his shackles and
get revenge. Dancy, dances pound for pound with Mikkelson, bringing a subtle,
yet simmering loathing to his performance. It is nuanced and natural. A breath
of fresh air into the geeky yet head first protagonist which we have had
pounded into us for so very, very long. Dancy carries the air of corrupted
innocence, extremely well.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;">
Now, for Fishburne. Oh Larry, how
glad am I that you ditched the formulaic and mediocrity of CSI and came over to
a program that truly deserves your talent. Where in season one, Fishburne played
almost a generic boss, with a few flourishes of real character rather than
caricature, in season two we see his character develop into a real human being.
Crawford becomes more than simply an FBI boss, he is made into a man struggling
to juggle his quickly collapsing personal life with the heavy demands of his
position within the bureau. Fishburne carries with him a sincere sense of
regret about what he believes is a personal betrayal of Will Graham, by himself.
The scenes between him and his onscreen wife, Gina Torres, are sublime. In
fact, the fourth episode, without spoilers, is heart devastating. The two of
them play out there roles, with touching devastation. You can feel their pain
even as the two are forced to make light of events to keep their days going.
The best part about all of this, is how seamlessly it is integrated into the
main focus of the plot. Hannibal is not their therapist because he is the best,
they choose him because they are friends. They fall prey to Hannibal false
compassion. It is a terrible shame that Torres’ character has an expiry date
that is set in stone.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;">
Then we have the three
musketeers, wisely enough reorganized for this season to be more than simple
gimmicks. Aaron Abrams and Scott Thomson have seen their roles reduced but,
also refined. By reducing their screen time the writers have left them with
only scene stealing moments. Their dialogue scraped down to the most efficient
and witty, possible. Thompson and Abrams carry this with zest and a wonderful
sense of begrudging chemistry. Almost as if they had spent twenty years
together. It also helps that, by the end of the season we will probably see
their roles greatly increased. Hettiene Park’s, Beverly Katz on the other hand
has seen her role greatly increase, at the expense of another character. Park
and the writers do great job of retooling her as Graham’s doubt ridden
champion. The only actual problem with the three musketeers, is that they are all
job, all the time. Unlike the other characters on the show, we have yet to even
glimpse at what their lives are outside the office. I wish they would give a
small glimpse into the characters personal lives. Maybe show them grabbing
lunch and have them talk about what they’re doing on the weekend? That would be
nice.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;">
Lastly and sadly the only real
downer in the season so far, is Alana Bloom, played by Caroline Dhavernas.
Dhavernas is serviceable in her role and could probably be better, the problem
though is that she hasn’t been given much to work with. It’s almost as if the
writers came up with the season and then realized that they had left out Bloom.
Unlike the necessity to the character in the first season as both,
counter-point to Crawford and confidant too Graham, here she is just, there.
Most of her position has been filled by Katz, a logical move based on how this
plays out and where the series is going.
I can understand why she has been reduced, but her appearances serve
mostly to remind me that the character is borderline useless this season.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;">
Mr. Fuller and co., your
adaptation so far, has elevated the show beyond simple hackneyed network
slasher fare. Unlike The Following which relies on blood and shock to grasp the
viewers’ attention, Hannibal seduces you with truly intriguing characters.
Their actions and inaction in the story is secondary to allowing us to delve
into their motivations. Watching Hannibal imitate people, by reducing humanity
to a flip of a coin is carried out with such panache. Watching Will Graham
blossom from timid professor too, vengeance hungry anti-hero is completely
engrossing. All the while, the show finds time to focus on the inhumane
humanity of the serial killers that are featured. Broken beings, who like Hannibal
simply do not know how to be normal, nor do they understand what it is.<o:p></o:p></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;">
Hopefully, the second half of the
season stays strong and we see some more love for this show come awards season.<o:p></o:p></div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03985715453248300822noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1527848148397258740.post-86356430184061171162014-03-03T13:35:00.001-08:002014-03-03T13:35:43.848-08:00Dallas Buyers Club<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;">
Dallas Buyers Club is a film
about Ron Woodrof, a slick talking, homophobic, bare backing cowboy who live by
his own rules. Living his rough and tumble style of life is all fun and games,
until an on the job accident leads him to learn that he has HIV. What could
have been a generic by the numbers biopic, is instead this tender, small scale
film about human connections. The soul of the tale is captured in the three
leads and how Vallee and his crew maneuver their gear to showcase, not only
their vulnerability, but also their strength.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;">
The greatest strength of the film
really comes from its scope and lack of grandiosity, oddly enough this is also
its biggest flaw, but more on that later. There is no national campaign, no
fervor to turn the lead into the messiah with the world of the film. No, Borten
and Wallack instead choose to center the story on a deeply flawed man, who
makes a change in his community. Aside from several moments, where Woodroof
feels more like the cog in a movement, you never get to see the impact of his
actions beyond Dallas, but in truth, that probably do more to hinder the film.
It allows the work to breathe and accept its own surroundings. It allows the
characters, leads, extras and everyone in between, to really lose themselves in
the surroundings. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;">
The writers seemed to have gone
for this all along. Unlike American Hustle, which suffers from being a timeline
Borten and Wallack prefer the smaller scale that makes this film be more than a
circus freak show of lights and extravaganza. Part of this is how they don’t
flood the film with scene stealing, yet ultimately over-bloating characters.
Dallas Buyer Club does have a big cast, but they always get their time and it
is always meaningful. Why? Because they serve to drive the thematic core
forward. Steve Zahn’s character for instance, ultimately a minor character, but
one who serves to work as an audience guidepost to the progression of Woodroof
throughout the film. Really, unlike American Hustle, Dallas Buyers Club knows
how to use its characters to serve the plot. It also helps that a wide number
of real life people where sewn together to give us these detailed, if only
fleeting, portraits of those who were there at the start.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;">
It is in this atmospheric environment
that we really get to experience why this film is so lauded, the performances.
Matthew McConaughey is a dazzling delight. His gaunt, emaciated look is only
part of what makes him great in this role. Yes, it is immediately arresting and
it is always stunning to see what a dedicated actor will go through for
something they believe in, but Matt brings more than that. His vast experience
in rom-coms and his forays into thrillers from the nineties have given him a
strong sense of timing that he brings perfectly to this. He brings soul and
conviction to his lines and movements. McConaughey perfectly captures the
transformation from ignorant homophobe, to educated activist without losing the
audience in his wake. The ingrained tics from the start of the film remain,
even if the outlook has changed.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;">
Jennifer Garner too has a strong
role as Dr. Saks. Sadly overlooked, Garner is sandwiched between two juggernaut
performances. The role itself is pretty generic, the amiable doctor with a
heart of gold but Garner brings to it a sense of earnestness and fire that
helps it rise above mediocrity. When you first meet her in the film, with her
eyes alone, she is able to portray what her character has seen and lived
through. Like with McConaughey, Garner has this cocoon that dissolves slowly
throughout the film, letting in not only other characters, but us, the viewers
as well. It’s a terrible shame that her role was overlooked, even if it is for
the simply reason of her co-stars doing such an amazing job. Frankly speaking,
she should have taken Amy Adams’ spot on the awards nomination docket.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;">
The final performance to speak of
is Leto. Jared Leto, why did you ever think that leaving acting to sing for
some shitty emo band was ever an option?
His role as Rayon, is one of those roles that will define him for the
rest of his career and rightly so. The depth of the performance is staggering. The
physical and personal transformation is like Bale at his best. Dropping all
sense of identity, Leto melts into the role and creates this beautiful human,
with their own glories and failures. His performances does not rely on hokey
fun or shock value but rather it relies on finding the clicks and patterns.
From the way he strikes up small talk to the way he moves, everything seems to
have this deeply real flow too it. Mix that with the soft spoken ferocity that
intimates a level of suffering without ever spelling it out and what you have
is an iconic performance. The role is made all the more better as the
characters and the audience learn that there is no happy ending. They are all
wearing masks, the only difference is that Leto is allowed to break that mask
and show us the pain and fear that is just sitting beneath the surface.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;">
Credit must also be given to
Jean-Marc Vallee, as a director he saw this small, intimate tale of woe and
faceless bureaucracy and brought it to the screen with a magical touch. The
choice of camera movement through the scene to ultimately maximize the impact
of each scene is done stupendously.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;">
All this gushing praise said and
done, one must also consider that, due to the scale of the film, and the
constant impending sense of doom, the tension kind of fizzles out by the end
and the ending itself is kind of flat. Unlike Philadelphia, there is no grand zeitgeist
type feel that will ever really take you away. I always found myself sitting
there, knowing I was watching a movie, even if the characters seemed real.
Secondly, when the end does come, it kind of just happens. The buildup is flat
and the catharsis just is not there. It’s more of a whimper to the bang that
these films have drawn us to expect. But I guess, it’s not really there in real
life either when you can see your expiry date around the corner, rather than on
the horizon.<o:p></o:p></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;">
Part of the heart break watching
this film, is watching the ignorance of Woodroof slowly disappear as his
misconceptions wash away, before realizing that this type of problem still
exists. The film at its best highlights, not only how much we’ve overcome, but
also how little we’ve come over the past thirty years. As heart breaking as
this film may be, it truly is deserving of two hours of your time.<o:p></o:p></div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03985715453248300822noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1527848148397258740.post-8315877794301992282014-02-20T12:28:00.000-08:002014-02-20T12:28:03.802-08:00House of Cards Season 2, Sophomore Slump? *spoilers obviously ahead*<div class="MsoNormal">
Meticulously shot, writing so succulent that its flavour
lasts upon your lips, long after the line was spoken. Topped off with acting so
meticulous, it leaves you with the shivers. The show’s second season is as to
be expected, a vicious labyrinth and macabre display of twisted nature of power
and those who wield it, all lovingly narrated by one of modern televisions most
loveable villains. That said, the show suffers a fair bit in its sophomore
season. Much like Homeland, it seems like the first go around left the writers
in a bit of a pickle as to how they’ll top their first majestic performance.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The
second season begins with Frank sizing up his post and figuring out what his
next move should be. As he sizes everyone up in relation to his new post, they
fawn at him. The only ones who seem to truly understand how ruthless and
methodical the Underwoods are, are the journalists from season one. As Zoe
continues her investigation, we are led to believe that Frank will have to
contend with the Nancy Drew of the journalistic world, even as he tries to drag
president Walker out from Tusk’s heel. Sadly, this is not to be. In retrospect,
after having seen the full season, the shocking end of the first season is kind
of the first crack within what is undoubtedly Netflix’s best show. But we will
get to that later.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
As
usual, every shot, every scene, every episode, they are all shot and framed
impeccably. The use of tones and shades alongside a perfect blend of
contrasting colours is a work of genius regardless of anything else that comes
from the show. From the creamy tones of the oval office, to the dark full
colours of the Underwood home, the viewer is never looking at a dull or
monotonous screen. The colour and set design as usual also serve to give the
characters, more character without them ever having to say a word. Let’s look
at Frank, throughout the show he is working on a model battlefield from the
civil war. Building a model battlefield, mimics what we see on screen. He is
creating his own battlefield, choosing who goes where and what colour they
wear. Whereas his political battles show us that he is still a man who is
grasping for the ultimate power. The miniature battlefield shows us how Frank
sees himself. A god among men, making them do his bidding, something all but
Claire are blind too it. Another example
is that of Raymond Tusk at the twilight of his arc. We find him in an elegant
hotel, but it is fairly sparse and extremely clean. Off course since this is
near the end of the season he is looking at the sunset. A lot more obvious than
Frank’s battlefield, but no less striking. A man of power, at the twilight of
not only him, but his empire as well. The show has also managed to capture the
feeling of isolation perfectly. Even when the screen is filled with actors and
happenings, the principles always seem to feel alone and separate from everyone
else. The framing of the shots gives the audience a taste, of the rarefied air
which the shows real life counter parts must breathe. Even when they meet those
of equal stature, the isolation never leaves, probably due to the fact that
they’re all ready to stab each other in the back, before they’re done turning.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The
dialogue is this show’s spice and vigor. It layered on so many levels that
there are no straight conversations. Every single sentence has at least two, if
not more, insinuations or layers. The care with which each line of dialogue is
written is astounding. The writers took care to cross their T’s and dot their
I’s. Frank’s soliloquys are as usual are a verbal delight. It’s verbal
masturbation on the writer’s part and performance ejaculation on Spacey’s part,
but when it sounds and looks this good, who would say no to such a fantastic
jerk?<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The
acting is usual, simply top notch. Spacey never misses a beat as the conniving
Underwood. Penn, is as cold and methodical in her portrayal of Claire as Spacey
with his rambunctious performance of Francis’. But in truth, it’s not the leads
that hold our attention. It almost never is, the leads are anchors of the series,
but it’s the other characters that make the world live and breathe. Molly
Parker for instance is dazzling in her performance the new whip, Jaquelin. In
credit to Parker and the writers she is devilish fun to watch as she tumbles
into the moral abyss, even as she denies it and even lies to herself about how
much she has fallen. Molly Parker brings earnestness even as she coldly tears
down obstacle, read people, in her path. Her face offs with Claire are in many
ways better than those Frank has with his numerous belligerents, and many a
time, far more interesting. The writers make great use of two wonderful female
characters as they battle over sex, but not in a salacious way, always
intelligently and scathingly, twisting presumed expectations.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Doug
Stamper, played creepily by Michael Kelly has a fantastic and tragic arc. As a
man who has towed the line of the abyss for so long, it is bittersweet to see
him succumb to his human failings. In Doug we first get a glimpse as to why
Remy is spoken so highly of. Remy lived and made himself into a legitimate
contender, while Doug, dies at the hands of Rachel, his impromptu prisoner,
while narrowly avoiding Frank’s chopping block due to his growing infatuation
with Rachel. Kelley manages to bring the tough, hard demeanor, one would expect
from his character. But, in between, the writers show us his humanity, the
cracks in his supposed perfect mask and how his addictions get the better of
him. This along with the detour into Freddy’s, Frank’s rib guy, life bring so
much colour to this slick and oily world. Reg E. Cathy is grand as a man whose
life is catapulted to luxury, only to be sucked back down and destroyed by one
slight misstep. The anger and acceptance seep through his teeth as he growls
the lines. Cathy’s growling throughout the series is one of the many minor
delights a show of this expertise offers.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Then we
have Remy, played wonderfully by Mahershala Ali. In season one, we only got a
glimpse of Frank’s former protégé. We heard little bits and pieces about who he
was and why he left. We always heard how good he was, but it was never really
justified. This season we finally got to see Remy in action and sadly, the
results are more tepid than hot. Ali does a wonderful job, but Remy’s character
arc seems to tip toe a fine line, far too carefully. Maybe it’s because we
didn’t see much of him in season one, but his softer side, seemed to hover over
him like a wet cloud. Only when we get biting moments of Remy’s true
intelligence to we as the audience get to peak at why Frank tread carefully
around Remy, even if he jokes about the man’s lack of foresight. Simply put,
Remy is quite possibly the show’s best bet at giving Frank a true adversary,
rather than the mishmash we have gotten so far. Truly, Remy and Jaquelin could,
together form a power couple as magnetic and charming as Frank and Claire. It’s
only the writers insistence that Remy still has a little bit of heart left that
keeps this from coming true.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Speaking
of adversaries, well this is one of the shows problems. Tusk and Walker seem
more like stumbling blocks, rather than true threats to Frank’s dreams. Are we
truly to believe that Tusk, a man with pockets so deep and resources so great, that he can shut down
the power grid of an entire coast line on a whim, would go down so easily
against Frank, a politician who is openly reviled by much of his own party? In
the same corner we also have Walker. A president so ridiculously inept that he
makes Bush seem like a fantastic political choice. He is so clueless that Frank
can basically sing and dance around the man, proclaiming his intentions as he
pleases. This is one of the show’s biggest problems. The writers seem to be
afraid of giving Frank a real challenge. They make his opponents either
cartoonishly dumb, or handicap them by rules that the Underwoods can ignore,
even if said opponent occupies the same murky world of morality and ethics.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
This is
where my praise and love of the show must be truly put aside as I explain why
the show took a step back in many ways. For a show such as this, stagnation is
truly a stab in the side and at many times this show it would seem, simply sat
on its laurels, succulent dialog. As I said earlier, the death of Zoe Barnes,
was in retrospect a sign of the cracks too come. This is because, it basically
gave Frank a free slate. It was so neatly wrapped up that Frank had nothing to
fear, as if the writers got bored of the story line and wanted to through it
away. But they didn’t, they kept dragging it along, first through Lucas then
through Gavin as a set up for season three. It’s as if they had second thoughts
about dumping that line but were not quite ready to let go. And of course Gavin
is a great hacker, who listens to techno at super high volume while having a
wine cabinet in his basically vacant apartment with a super high ceiling!
Sorry, got a tad carried away their. But at the end of the day, this is more a
minor problem. The real problem lies in how they have positioned Frank.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
In
season one, we see that Frank is above almost if not everyone. We can buy into
the fact that he should be in the next league up. We were led to believe that
the risks would be greater. With a disappointed sigh, I must acquiesce that
this is not so. Frank is so adept with toying with his opponents, that at times
it loses its fun. You never get the sense that Frank is truly in any danger.
For all we are told about the potential fall of Frank, the season never really
feels like it could happen. His hubris is always justified, as is his villainy.
Thus we never get to see the consequence for his actions, only the rewards.
Rewards, which the show doles out too freely.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;">
For a show so meticulous with its
words and framing, it seems awfully anxious to put Frank in the chair. This
makes the entire season feel almost as if it’s a point A to point B affair.
Rushing through plot points with wondrous dialog, simply to show us a monster
sitting at the head of the white house. It makes no real effort to make Frank
grow as a character. He simply stagnates and begins to slowly congeal as the
words spoken by Kevin Spacey, dance between your ears. Think of the way
Homeland’s second season stumbled about trying to recapture the magic of its
first season, that’s what House of Cards season two feels like.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The
last three paragraphs said and done, I would still highly recommend this show
to anyone. The dialogue is amazing, quite possibly the best on TV today. A
mixture of theatre with reality that poetically ensnares the viewers’ attention
with an iron grip for fifty minutes at a time. The acting, sublime and nuanced,
the roles are played perfectly, even if the role is that of a dunce. The visual
grace of the show is operatic in scope. After watching this show you will wish
that the same crew and DOPs light everything you watch. The sights, stick with
you just as the dialogue does. For days and days and days. My final word of
praise is left for the final shot. <o:p></o:p></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
Frank, takes
it all in as he waltz’ into his new office. After taking it all in, he turns to
the audience and puts on his new class ring, which he got as a gift from
Claire. He coolly stares at us, no lectures, no jokes. His gaze is a mixture of
mockery and admonishment, as if he knows that we condemn and vilify him. But
his stare shows us that we are no better, that our enjoyment is only possible
through his villainy. Then he knocks his class ring to the desk and credits
roll. What a site. Bring on season 3.<o:p></o:p></div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03985715453248300822noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1527848148397258740.post-21683849116418456452014-02-07T19:34:00.003-08:002014-02-07T19:34:29.621-08:00Jeff, Who lives at home <div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;">
<br /> I have just finished watching
this Duplass Bros. feature, staring Ed Helms and Jason Segel. For those who don’t
know who the Duplass brothers are I can’t completely blame you, that said, you
should know who they are. In fact if you watch the glory of The League you
already know one half of the team, Mark aka Pete. Just don’t go into this movie
expecting the same sort crude humour. Instead, the Duplass brothers deliver an
amazingly touching film with some great performances.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;">
The film takes place during one
day in the lives of Jeff, a man child afraid of the world, his brother Pat, a dick;
I mean he drives a Boxter Porsche, and lastly their mother Sharon, a grown
woman just looking for something new. All three deliver wonderfully touching
performances. Segel plays Jeff and at first seems like he’ll be playing his
regular shtick, but the script and direction of the Duplass Bros., gives his performance
calculated calmness that is truly endearing. The last time Segel was able to
deliver this kind of earnest performance was in <i>Forgetting Sarah Marshall</i> and ever since then he has been mimicking
it with varied results, but never has he reached that pinnacle. Until now, he
may have even surpassed it. Meanwhile Helms’ portrayal of Pat, was also a bit
worrisome of me, but yet again Duplass Co., manages to deliver something fresh
from a well-worn sock. He plays an asshole with few to no social skills, kind
of like Andy Bernard from season two of <i>The
Office</i>. The main difference in Pat from Andy is that where the writers from
<i>The Office</i> struggled for years to
give Andy soul, but because Andy is a caricature, a joke, a shtick, they were
ultimately unsuccessful. Mark and Jay on the other hand succeed marvellously,
simply because they make Pat a person and Helms just sprints along with it all without
fumbling. Sarandon’s performance is probably the only one that brings up a
gripe in me. This isn’t because it is bad but simply because there isn’t enough
of it. Her story is simple and acted really efficiently, but unlike Jeff and
Pat, her character never has room to breathe and soak up the events. This is a
consequence of an ultra-lean 83 minute runtime.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;">
This ultra-lean runtime has its
pros and its cons. In its brevity the movie never meanders about with
meaningless stand still. Every scene works with utmost efficiency, even if the
characters have their heads in the clouds. This makes the film hard to simply
dismiss or walk away from, since every scene is important. The cons on the
other hand involve things like Sharon’s moment of crisis and growth feel rushed
and at times over looked. The sense of urgency also means that we as an
audience have no room to soak up the atmosphere, it’s always go-go-go, like the
line at the soup Nazi’s kitchen. Though, one can pretty much ignore the con,
because the end is just so damned good and brings everything together into one
neat little bowtie without feeling forced, mainly due to the acting.<o:p></o:p></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;">
At the end of the day, this film
fantastic. Not in a way that I might say, rush out and tell all your friends,
but one of those nice movies that the next time you’re sitting at home on a Saturday
night with a bucket of ice cream and a box of Popeyes, you definitely shouldn’t
skip this over. Stop, check your clock, make sure you have a spare 83 minutes,
you can skip this part because who are we kidding, if you’re home alone on a Saturday
night using ice cream as chicken dip, you’ve got nowhere else to be that night,
or possibly ever. Also, ice cream does not go well as Popeye’s dipping sauce.<o:p></o:p></div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03985715453248300822noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1527848148397258740.post-83281356333476594622014-02-07T19:19:00.000-08:002014-02-07T19:19:26.477-08:00Frances Ha or alternatively, A middle aged white man has more insight on mid twenties women than Lena Dunham<div class="MsoNormal">
Frances
Ha at first seems like it’s going to be your typical indie film about a
struggling artist fighting the good fight for an hour and some before finally
breaking through and showing everyone around them, that yes they did indeed
have the power. As it turns out, thankfully, Frances Ha is not that film and
frankly I should have known better, seeing as this yet another Buambauch triumph,
Greenberg, Squid and the Whale, hipsters and film studies students should have queued
up their film boners right about now. Instead what we get is a film about a
woman who has just entered the real world and struggles to find her place in it.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Frances
is young, beautiful, in a frumpy natural sort of way, and completely relatable.
This rests solely on Gerwig, who performs marvelously. She is magical as the
whimsical Frances. A neurotic mess, but not a creepy one, rather compassionate
and soulful to a fault. Gerwig deftly mixes in jittery exaggerated movements to
liven up her words as she uses carefully chosen enunciation and pauses to
further involve the viewer in the character’s insecurities. Gerwig is simply
sublime yet sadly overlooked in this year’s boisterous awards season.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The
secondary character’s all serve to further along Frances struggle through life.
Adam Driver plays a variation of his Girls role, a quirky artist with
questionable morality and social sense. Except, he isn’t an over bearing piece
of furniture in this film. He is a full-fledged character with a real personal
philosophy rather than a series of quirky moments.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;">
Michael Zegen is the other
standout in a secondary role. This guy is on a role, taking on all manners of
roles of varying temperance and knocking each one out of the park. Zegen brings life and maturity to a character
that’s already been done to death. He is not annoying, nor is he tiresome, both
these things have equal due to the acting and the writing.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Baumbauch
and Gerwig have written an exquisite narrative that is whimsical, baffling,
heartwarming and enlightening all at the same time in many instances. The
characters are all written with care and tenderness, they aren’t caricatures of
clichés, rather they are reflections of the real world, only ever slightly
exaggerated to prove a point. The dialogues in large groups cross cuts
frantically and eloquently allowing you to follow each narrative strand, even
as jokes and witticisms fill the air.
There are even moments of banality in the dialogue that conveys meaning
and spirit in the words not said as the awkward pauses commence. The narrative,
much like Frances, is a disjointed mess of quick cuts that take the character
through a short time in her life an extremely fast pace. The film doesn’t
really have a true narrative, but rather through a series of moments in one
woman’s life held together through the glue of themes. It’s grand adventure, whimsical like a Wes
Anderson film but grounded enough in reality to remain relatable with a modicum
of real rather than kitsch. Buambauch and Gerwig navigate the angst of the new
working generation with care and grace. Further the finale is extremely
fulfilling, specifically because it does not give in to viewer expectation. You
don’t get to see what you want or expect, Gerwig and Baumbauch give you what
you need.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The
film isn’t simply a wonderful narrative strung together with performances, its
cinematography is striking and the music is engrossingly well chosen. Shot in
black and white, with all the right angles, its use of contrast never ceases to
amaze. The way the light shines off Sophie’s glasses in the darkness, or the
way Paris looks under the black and white gaze is striking to say the least. It
reminds one of Sin City, except it’s natural and not shot on green screen. It’s
natural, beautifully so.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The
music is wonderfully picked. It’s all low key hipster stuff, but without making
one feel like a douche for enjoying it. Not that faux hip underground stuff you
get in mainstream, young adult movies. No this is the real deal and it serves
to heighten every scene. It’s almost as if Baumbach and Gerwig stole the music
selectors from HBO and made them choose the most perfect music all without ever
making you feel like a douchebag for enjoying it.<o:p></o:p></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
The
film is a great statement to the world. It’s not about following your goals or
telling you how special you are. It’s focused on reality. It doesn’t need
cutesy hipsterism and the latest fashion trends to prove its point or drive its
story, I’m looking at you <i>Girls</i>. It
doesn’t need a colour palette from an acid trip and characters that all fall
under the category of quirky oddball, Wes Anderson. It gets by on strong
narrative, exquisite performances and a narrative that is wonderfully endearing
while simultaneously touching. Anyone who is a fan of Baumbauch or Girls should
watch this film. It will bring warmth and joy as it resolves, even if it isn’t
what you hoped that resolution would bring.<o:p></o:p></div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03985715453248300822noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1527848148397258740.post-62727175295792338272014-01-28T17:07:00.002-08:002014-01-28T17:07:48.240-08:00Girls S3 E4<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;">
This week’s episode gets off to
an awkward start with some great moments and some ‘why is this here?’
moments. While Hannah’s story arc starts
off great, a bit of black humour weaved into a terrible tragedy. It’s too bad we are quickly whisked off to watch
Marnie run around the city. And chin up, several extremely fake looking chin
ups. I guess it was supposed to show her trying to move on with her life or
something like that. It really isn’t clear since, having a post workout snack doesn’t
really instill a sense of empathy or endearment within me. It’s okay though, since Dunham and co. make
up for this later.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;">
The episode centers on Hannah’s
inability to feel any kind of empathy after the death of her publisher David.
She is fully committed to the idea that she and her upcoming eBook is what is
truly the victim of this tragedy. Along the way we encounter what are some clichéd
moments that are wonderfully dark and comedic. Hannah’s detachment from the
entire affair is perfect. Dunham finally gives relents and shows Hannah for
what she is, a horridly self-interested young woman who makes believe that she
is a good person. The end of the episode, with Hannah sitting there, spinning
her faux tale, is probably one of the best written indictments of Generation Y
put to screen. The way Hannah steals Christine’s story without a hint of
remorse or sheepishness is diabolical.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;">
This is where we see Adam finally
shine, aside from one moment early in the episode which can be easily brushed
off. For two seasons the show has used Adam as a piece of furniture until now,
this season he finally shows signs of growth. He calls Hannah out on her lack
of empathy and generally carries on with an insightful intelligence that has only
been hinted at before. It’s kind of odd that it took the show this long to
actually develop a character. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;">
The other bright spot of the
episode is Marnie, who for the first time this season is not a waste of screen
time. The scene where Marnie rips into Ray and his boss is mature and verbally
brilliant in its delivery. Her moment of comedic weakness forever haunts her,
but Marnie uses it as a jumping platform to finally break out from her funk.
The great thing about this is that it perfectly captures the frustration of gen
Y. Told to go to school, earn good grades and follow your dreams. Congrats now
you can work at a coffee bean! Marnie’s frustration with this is palpable and
finally finds common ground between her whiny bitch character and the audience
she serves.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;">
Sadly not all is wonderful, as
great in this episode at this point my review will change tone, drastically.
Christine, as Adam warned us in the last episode, has vastly over stayed her
welcome. The whole time Hannah spends with Christine and Laird is one big
cluster fuck of wasted time and potential. It’s full of zany and quirky
moments, god I wish you could hear the sarcasm in my voice as I type these
words. Cartwheeling in graveyards, dead turtle in bottles and Laird even cries
as he and Christine has a psychotic emotional connection. Fuck you Dunham! The
last half of the episode is bloated with all this zaniness. It’s as if, while
writing they couldn’t decide what zany thing the crazies should do. Instead,
they decided to cram it all together into one shit meatball which reeks of the
show’s great failures. The forcefulness of the scene robs all the emotion from
the meaning and Christine dissolves into nothing more than a wacky for the sake
of wacky character.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;">
Another problem is Jessa and
Shoshanna. Firstly, Jessa needs a new shtick. Her pseudo-freshman psychology
bullshit has outgrown its tiny boat. It goes nowhere and just makes the show
look dumb. Then after this all said and done we get what Dunham thinks is an
apology? A joke? A reference? I’m not sure what it’s meant to be, but it sure
as shit doesn’t work on neither a dramatic nor comedic level. Jessa winds up finding that one of her
supposedly dead friends isn’t dead and is really just trying to ditch Jessa. It’s
quite pointless up until the caricature from the IT Crowd strolls in. He’s black,
he’s got a fro and he’s hip, aka he’s got no fashion sense. The scene is so douche
and handled so poorly that you’ll exhale in relief as soon as the scene is
over.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;">
Finally, we have Shoshana. She
has no story arc, no growth and almost no screen time. In fact, she shouldn’t
even be in the episode, but I guess Dunham wanted to stroke her own ego by
showing everyone that she’s just like Seinfeld and David and can include every
character in every episode. And that’s how we learned about Shoshana’s bandana
collection. Just ignore it, it doesn’t last long and it’ll be forgotten by next
week.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;">
The last three paragraphs said
and done I must say, the episode is good. Dunham uses Hannah in this episode as
possibly the greatest critique of my generation thus far. Vain, self-involved
and out of touch with what should really concern us. While possibly the smart
commentaries on this new media literate generation it is half the time to
bloated to be completely effective, filled with unnecessary quirkiness that
steals attention from what matters. Marnie’s story gets off to a rocky start
but actually pulls through ahead and for the first time this season. Jessa’s terrible arc can be largely ignored,
mainly due to the strength of the philosophy and good, sharp writing.<o:p></o:p></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;">
Halfway through the season and we
have yet to see a terrible episode. Maybe, the show has turned it around. I’d
like to think so, but on the other hand I have a sinking feeling that when the
show does trip and fall, it will be the biggest slap to its viewership in the
shows history. Prove me wrong Dunham, prove me wrong.<o:p></o:p></div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03985715453248300822noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1527848148397258740.post-66149079567113760282014-01-19T22:26:00.002-08:002014-01-19T22:26:35.849-08:00Fuck me next to your dead mom!<div class="MsoNormal">
You’re Next Review<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
A film that embraces its genre trappings with glee and
merriment while at the same time feeling fresh and vibrant in a sea of schlock
and over complicated plot that dominates the genre.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The film starts off with Crispian and Erin on their way to
Crispian’s family cottage for his parent’s anniversary. Upon arrival it is evident that all is not
well, both with the house and the family. The house is eerie, full of dark
corners that squeak in the night. Meanwhile Crispian is the black sheep who struggles
to achieve the seeming success of the rest of his brood. Meanwhile Erin is left
in the focus as being somewhat strange and different. It doesn’t take long for
the lives of this WASP style family to crumble all around them.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
It all starts with a funny rip on pretentious filmmaking,
before devolving into a trifling argument between siblings. All seems set for
your typical family drama about meaningless life achievements when your piggy
bank can never run dry, courtesy of your really well to do parents. That is, until, BOOM! A character is killed
mid-dinner. From then on it’s an all-out struggle to survive as these privileged
white folks scramble for their wits. No you’re generic bloodletting does happen
but it happens in an interesting manner.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
There is no discernible order in which to expect a character’s
death and yet all the plot clichés are there. You see each death coming but
part of the surprise is which character will fall to the specific method of
execution. The deaths are gruesome, but not overly so. Unlike the torture porn
films of the Saw franchise, the film does not revel in the kill by drawing it
out. Instead it focuses on having you soak in the atmosphere that embodies the
scene of each kill. In a credit to the writer, the kills themselves are fairly
quick and are in completely appropriate in their approach to the goal of the
killers. To say anymore may give away far too many details. You know you can’t
help but you plead never the less. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
It is in these moments that the last girl cliché gets up,
but not to run as we have come to expect. Erin is an ass-kicker and Vinson does
it well. In contrast to all the
screaming and whimpering vixens and victims that populate these films, Erin
takes the lot that life has given and deals with it. The filmmakers take great
care to show that she isn’t your typical horror lead who takes three quarters
film to finally start kicking ass with an almost magical, instant competence.
Erin on the other hand maintains a rock solid competence throughout the film,
creating a sort of predator versus predator dynamic.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The look of the film is typically, full of deep dark colours
and bold, icky blood. The real pleasure is the tone that the music invokes. A
blend of synth-pop and creepy tones sets to invoke a mood of idyllic despair
grown from years of broiling yuppie discontentment. While it doesn’t completely
serve to engross you in the moment it does serve to show you that the film
knows its roots and it knows how to intelligently achieve its goals without
straining the realm of plausibility, as we’ve come to expect with the low end
thriller films.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
As a point of interests, fans of Hotline Miami will definitely
feel at home thanks to the masked villains and a similar soundtrack.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
At the end of the day this film is no game changer like what
the first Saw was. But maybe that’s a good thing. Shot cheaply and smartly the
films serves to harken back on old genre tropes while also twisting them just
enough to breathe some fresh air into a genre that is short on originality.
That and it gives us one of the best lines in film “Fuck me next to your dead
mom”.<o:p></o:p></div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03985715453248300822noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1527848148397258740.post-37433729209062564042014-01-18T00:08:00.003-08:002014-01-18T00:08:51.700-08:00Banshee Season 2 Episode 2<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;">
As usual, Banshee plays fast and
loose with dramatic tension and borders being extremely impossible, even for a
show that bends the term to its will willy-nilly in just about each and every
episode. The episode continues to follow the fallout surrounding Rabbit’s
invasion of Banshee and Kai’s ongoing war against Alex Longshadow.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;">
Lucas Hood’s struggle with his
dual role of Sheriff of Banshee and professional thief seems to be drawing to a
close, but by the end of episode two, it would seem that the affair will play
out slowly and carefully. Frankly, if
the quality level is maintained then Alan Ball and company will have no trouble
retaining viewership.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;">
The episode plays perfectly upon
the repercussions of both the last season and the previous episode. Hood and
Carrie real as both get some sort of comeuppance, Carrie heading off to jail
and Hood struggling with the fact that he alone is responsible for it. Starr
and Milecevic brood and grimace as is
appropriate for a show of such pulp nature. Frankly speaking, this entire arc
is handled with more depth and care than many ‘serious’ shows can achieve. This
may be attributed to the fact that the show being on Cinemax is free from the
pressured to deliver critical applaud, allowing it free reign to experiment.
This pays off in spades as Starr is given room to breath and go beyond his
character’s simple genre limitations.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;">
Meanwhile Kai and his niece are
dealing with the brewing war with Alex Longshadow and the reservation. Thomsen
as usual brings the appropriate dread to his presence as he uses his banked
favours and wide reaching power to threaten and intimidate and ever unsure
Lonshadow. The writers wisely use this as a moment to re-establish the fact
that Kai is not merely just some backwater hillbilly crime lord, but rather a
man who makes the best of his situation without ever once outreaching his
depth. On a side note my personal theory is that Kai will meet his doom by the
end of the season, from what looks to be an ever desperate Lonshadow, leaving
his niece, Rebecca, to take charge of the family business. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;">
Beyond that the episode seeks to
expand the side characters plot lines further. Deputy Lotus ‘ suspicions of
Hood grow further based on his brief but necessary exchange with proctor. The
scene also gives us insight into how things worked before Hood’s arrival, with
the BSD asking the right question but not actually caring what the answer is.
It will be interesting where Lotus’ loyalty ultimately lie. Meanwhile deputy
Kelly must deal with her abusive ex-husband. It plays out in a very typical
fashion, that said it properly serves to establish the idea that everyone in
Banshee has their secrets and frankly it serves to give even more of the side
characters depth and feeling.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;">
The culmination of Kelly’s issues
with her ex-beau are fantastically played out side by side with Carrie’s first
day in jail. Both are required to prove a point and both do so with a bang.
This is not just sexy girl violence that a show of this pedigree usually thrive
upon. The violence on display shows these women as not just sexy killing
machines, but rathe, people. They don’t fight in tights, they don’t grunt in a
sexy voice. They fight like animals, they fight to survive and they get hurt in
the process. The two fights seem to encompass and overlooked part of the show,
strong women. Yeah the show has a lot of nudity, but it doesn't shy away from
also making the women badasses, ones who do it in everyday clothes rather than
the skin tight sexified outfits Hollywood is typically used to.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;">
Sadly though the episode has its
share of failings, mainly ones come from the trappings that the show itself has
established upon itself. Firstly, the use of jarring cinematography. The show
loves to establish anxiety or unease through a series of disorienting shots,
which typically is fine, but this episode seems to overdo it well past the best
before date and it does it all in one sequence. When Carrie finally goes to
jail, we focus on Hood’s anxiety issues due to reliving his own first day in
jail. Problem is, we've been there and done that and the jarring camera work
does more to distract than enhance the sequence. Secondly, Kai Proctor already
had Hood rescue his daughter to his desire not to send his ‘army’ onto the
reservation and yet he seemed to have no trouble slipping into Alex’s house
late at night to prove a point later. If he was always capable of this then why
not do it in the first place and save the favour owed by Hood for later, when
this turf war escalate. Minor gripe? Maybe but it has the scent of the show
begging to break out of its trappings only to willingly resubmit to them for
the sake of expediency.<o:p></o:p></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;">
Overall this was a fine episode
to add to the series lexicon. It won’t bring converts over, but it most definitely
will reinforce the loyalty of the viewers it already has.<o:p></o:p></div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03985715453248300822noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1527848148397258740.post-7105635433112838512014-01-17T21:33:00.001-08:002014-01-17T21:33:28.268-08:00Save your cash, your ass will thank you<div class="MsoNormal">
American Hustle<o:p></o:p></div>
<br /><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;">
The film is chalk full of good
performances, too bad they’re drowned out by weak storytelling, blathering
dialog and an unsure sense of style.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;">
Bale, Cooper, Adams, Lawrence,
Renner and the rest all give solid performances. Bale as the self-assured
conman is as usual, methodical in his performance. Cooper is rightly over the top in his role as
the overly self-involved FBI agent. Adams is rock solid, albeit Russell and the
wardrobe department seem to think her cleavage should have top billing.
Lawrence does her Silver Linings shtick and does it really well. Renner is
wonderfully charismatic as the naïve corrupt mayor. And yet all these parts do
not add up to a great or even a good movie.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;">
The poor storytelling that is on
display in this film well, it wastes all the strength of its performances. The film is merely a series of events strung
together to deliver the semblance of a story. The film starts of quickly enough,
but quickly spirals out of control as the narration speeds through events and
character development from one set piece to the next. The audience has no time
to breathe or take in any of the atmosphere that Russell rushes through on his
way to fill the tale with detail. Characters are introduced and then promptly
discarded as if they were nothing more than set pieces (poor Michael Pena).
Major events are set up that have the pacing of a teledrama, like the
documentaries on crime you see while skipping through the history channel in
the morning, albeit with a few fucks more. It’s such a flurrying buzz of events
and information presented in a disorganized fashion that by the end you’re not
entirely sure what you’ve just sat through. Sure the story is all their, the pieces
fit, but the elegance of the man who brought us The Fighter, Three Kings and
such is nowhere to be seen. The narration does not help things, there are three
different narrations and their used in an ad hoc manner as if they weren’t sure
whether to use them or not, so instead they cut it down and sprinkled it down
at random points throughout the film. All this combines to create an
environment where even a great performance is easily lost to sloppy filmmaking.
By mid-way through the film you realize, that you might be more interested in
reading the Wikipedia article about the Abscam then actually finishing this meandering
film.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;">
Lawrence’s manic energy is drowned
out to make room for as much story as possible. Her character has no moments of
connection; she is all energy all the time. There is no respite from her
whimsy, she exits only to do bafflingly stupid things and is given no
redemptive qualities. Lawrence does her best, and I can imagine a lot of her
performance was left on the cutting room floor, but she can’t get over the fact
that her character is nothing more than a means to an end, like the car that
gets them from point A to point B. Renner fares little better as the nice but naïve
mayor. His character is made to look like such an oaf you begin to wonder how
he ever became a mayor of anything. These two are the main supporting cast so
if they’re treated like furniture, imagine how the third tier cast is treated.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;">
Cooper and Bale are good in their
roles, but their resolved to acting out specific scenes that rarely tie into
the previous one. This makes it seem as if their performances are uneven and at
time all over the place. By the end of it, the two seem to blend in as almost
one character that could be interchangeable were it not for the hair styles. Russell
should’ve look to The Town to see how it is that a film makes a clean cop look
like the bad guy.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;">
Adams on the other hand is
evidently trying and the camera pays her a lot of attention. Wait no sorry my
mistake, it pays her breasts a lot of attention. Apparently the films wardrobe
didn’t allow for a dress or shirt that didn’t show of her mammary glands. In a
film like this, this kind of attire distracts from the performance, which I
think was pretty good, but thanks to the camera’s constant focus on her tits or
hair I can’t be sure. In fact this brings up a great way to Segway to the next
point.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;">
With films dull, textbook like
narrative structure one might be prone to dose of or possibly even turn of the
movie and save yourself at least one hour that this movie robs you of. In my
case that wasn’t the case, I strove to finish it even as my brain screamed at
me to just read the Wikipedia article to see what happens. Thankfully I stayed
which allowed me to experience the good part of the film. No not the end, that
was just as boring as the start. No, I talk of the technical side and visual
style of the film. The camera work is fantastic. As the camera flows and weaves
through each set piece, it’s almost like floating through the film on a cloud.
You find yourself ignoring the blathering dialogue and enjoying the picturesque
view of the film.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;">
The art deco and cinematography
both do a wonderful job, even if they falter once or twice. The glitz and glamour
of the Abscam world is brought to vibrant light as the characters navigate
their harrowing odyssey. The disco scene in particular is stunning to behold.
The colours, the movement, the sound all match up perfectly. They almost make
you forget that you’re watching a shit film. The only odd part about the deco
style of the film is when they try to throw in some gritty realism. It
instantly looks out of place and knocks you from the daze. The start of the
disco scene is a prime example of this. It’s as if they are trying to be an ode
to seventies style fog machine but winds up looking cheap.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;">
All said and done, the film is
really just a montage of events padded to a two plus hour’s length. That or the film is really three hours long
and was cut down without care for structure or pacing. The performances are
good, but they are good enough to overlook the storytelling problems that
painfully populate the screen. A film with tons of stuff happening, but lacking
in tension. The Globes and the Academy might be giving Russell a pass, by I
sure as hell won’t. But hey, at least it looks pretty.<o:p></o:p></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
Oh and it has a pretty decent soundtrack.<o:p></o:p></div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03985715453248300822noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1527848148397258740.post-44836201076690439072014-01-17T19:13:00.001-08:002014-01-17T19:13:35.456-08:00<div class="MsoNormal">
The man with the orange cat<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Inside Llywen Davis Review<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;">
What strikes you first about this
film is the stunning cinematography. From the opening shots, the music melds
with the view, to create a warm aura that invites us to come join Llewyn on his
journey. It’s second only to Prisoners, the film that stole Deakins away from
the Coens. The palette is appropriately bleak for a film about the depressing
and muted life of one Llewyn Davis. The film does an excellent job of showing
the morose, seemingly endless sadness of the disappointment that follows the
lead around on his quest to not just find success, but find his place in life.
The bleakness that follows Llewyn is starkly contrasted by those who have found
joy and purpose in their lives.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;">
This muted sadness applies to all
the struggling musicians in the film, from Jim and Jean to Al Cody and the
rest. They struggle and have little to show for it and yet they stay true to
their goals. Some, like Jim and Jill are hinted to be on the breaking point,
while others like Johnny Five, just can’t seem to catch a break. The opposite
is shown for their counterparts who have seemed to accept their lot in life,
like the Gorfiens and Llywen’s sister. These characters lives are filled with
colour and joy even if, according to Llywen, they have settled. Each actor
plays their role with a quiet depth and soulfulness that is typical of a Coen
film.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;">
F. Murray Abraham brings heart to
his cold efficiency as a number money driven talent manager. Abraham’s,
Grossman brings to light the kind of creative sacrifice that Davis is unwilling
to submit to. Along with the script, Abraham manages to deliver the final blow
in such a way that it makes Llewyn look the fool, rather than Grossman being a
villain.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;">
Carrey Mulligan proves once more that
she is the best young actress in the mainstream as the unfaithful Jean. She
brings talent well beyond her years, outmatching many of her more experienced
counterparts in the business. Timberlake once more brings his magnetic presence
to the naïve Jim. Llewyn’s relationship with the Jim and Jean is a two sided
coin, showing the difference between someone who is trying to succeed through
talent alone and those who work hard and are willing to make small and great
sacrifices in order to achieve their goals.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;">
The entire supporting cast does a
wonderful job as is par for a film of this pedigree, but at the end of the day
it is Isaac who really shines. The Coens wrote a wonderful part about a man who
has lost his way in the world. He knows he has talent, but knows not how to
make the light shine down upon it. After having losing his musical sidekick he
floats through Greenwich, never knowing what’s next or how to reach the
treasure at the end of his journey. It’s
a wonderful role that finally brings Isaac to the leading man’s role which he
has been hinting at quite a bit with his past performances. He brings depth and
great timing to the role. His ticks are always on cue and his grimaces say more
about him and his thoughts than words ever could. It’s a shame he wasn’t nominated for an
Oscar.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;">
Sadly, the film’s not all muted
sunshine and roses. The muted tones and
bleak story, mixed with the Coens unusual sense of humour may leave you
wondering, why? What am I watching? Where is this going? About halfway through,
this is what I found myself asking of the film. As usual the contemplative
nature of their films leaves you with more questions than it answers. These
questions aren’t really meant to be answered though, they’re meant to be
pondered so that the audience can come to its own conclusion. The ending is
also appropriately bleak, so don’t expect to walk out with a skip in your step.<o:p></o:p></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;">
In closing, this is a really good
film, but those who aren’t fans of Coens dramatic comedies may very well be
left bewildered. Those who stick through the entirety of this poetic film will
find it filled with wonderful performances, tiny little throw away jokes,
“shahkmateh?” that add to the world and some great folk music and a deep and
ultimately fulfilling tale of the crushing strive to be an artist.<o:p></o:p></div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03985715453248300822noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1527848148397258740.post-15646588490061369552014-01-17T15:23:00.000-08:002014-01-17T15:23:26.698-08:00Girls Season 3 Episodes 1&2<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;">
Girls is a very peculiar show,
seasons 1&2 were full of promise and lofty goals but, and it’s a big but,
they both fell far short of their mark. To basically sum it up here is the
preface description of the first two seasons, taken from my conversation with a
friend.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;">
“It touches on some good ideas
and almost develops them before sliding back into its shell of white girls
“struggling to survive” tropes. One interchangeable white bitch gets a decent
paying office job, the horror! Another gets a book deal at 24, fuck me that’s
awful! And then they bitch during meaningless conversations that ignore moments
of genuine cleverness and satirical smarts as if they’re cliché and some sort
of annoyance. Season two made The Newsroom look smart.”<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;">
Having seen episodes one and two
of the new season twice brings me hope that the show is finally going to start
delivering on the promise, even if it hasn’t quite gotten there yet. The
following review will be of both episodes at the same time.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;">
Episode one starts of by
reintroducing each character and establishing the effect of the previous
season’s events. Hannah is back together with Adam, Marnie is mopping over her
lost love, Shoshanna is still growing and figuring out her style and way of
life as she prepares to graduate into the real world and Jessa, well turns out
she ran off to rehab.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;">
Hannah and Adam seem to be the
most problematic part of the series and yet in this fresh start it is showing
signs of growth. Instead of jumping into the tiresome rehash of Hannah trying
to work through her issues and get writing, we see her make progress. She has
the book deal in place and is working at it. She retains her annoying, and at this
point dull personal quirks. Though the first two episodes show these quirks
changing and evolving as the character grows, finally! This season retains one
problem for Hannah as a character and that is Adam.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;">
Let’s be clear, Adam is a useless
hamper to the series. As a character, he was all used up by the end of season
one. By the end of season two they were beyond straining to keep him as a
character. Rude, obnoxious, no redeeming characteristics what so ever and yet
they twisted the story, painfully so, to keep Adam and Hanna together. At the
end of the day, he is no longer a character; he is more of a personality quirk
for Hannah. He is dull and uninteresting, his antics are distraction that is a
waste of air time and his fits of childishness are contrary to the realistic
nature of the show. Adam has less growth than Sheldon Cooper at this point in
the series. He bogs down not only the show but more importantly Hannah. For the
first two episode he bounces back and forth between logic and
boorish man-child. The logical aspect of Adam is as always, well done,
but these moments are too few and far between. So long as he remains, Hannah
can’t grow. She will remain a ghost of the character Dunham wants to portray.
Ditch him and have Hannah get into the relationships the show hinted at in
season two. Just to be clear, Adam is not quirky, he is fucking annoying.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;">
Meanwhile Marnie remains in the
same role as always. The privileged white girl who whines about her life as if
it’s in some sort of wreck. Enough is enough. I get that she is supposed to be
dealing with heart ache, blah, blah, blah!
It’s not that her arc is terrible, not at all, it has some great moments
and opportunities for growth, but the show doesn’t take hold of these
instances. She always comes off as whiney and pretentious. Adding more of her mother to the show is a
great choice. She bridges the gap between Girls and Sex and the City in a
wonderful way, but it also goes to show everything that’s wrong with not only
Marnie but all the characters on the show. Amy, Marnie’s mom, is a strong,
self-assured woman who can almost be a surrogate for the audience. She tells
Marnie in not so many words, to grow up and stop hanging your dreams up on a
boy. Marnie brushes it off as if she is a teenage girl. This is a shame because
they’ve had her doing this for two seasons already. What’s really bewildering
is that Amy is a fun character who can be both tender and serious and this is
obviously where Marnie is headed. Too bad they’ve had Marnie, like much of the
rest of the cast, stuck in the same spot for two (hopefully not three) seasons
in a row. In the first two episode Marnie jumps back and forth between, grown
up women in charge of her own world and insane mess. The dinner scene is a
perfect example of how Marnie’s ‘depression’ comes off more like a mental.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;">
On a side note, whenever Marnie
and Adam share a scene, the character problems seem to fade away. When these two collide the show always
manages to make it interesting. The dinner scene is a perfect example of this.
The two mindset and philosophies seem to merge naturally and make the scene
worth watching. Too bad as soon as the two go back to their own little boxes
the problems arise once more.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;">
Then we get to Jessa, the free
spirit, who’s wise beyond her years. At the start of the season they reveal she
is now in rehab and this seems great at first. Finally, a character facing the
real world and the consequences of her actions! In fact Jessa and Shoshanna are
the only characters who have done this. Her marriage falling apart, her free
spirit ways, her affair to a married man, they all come with consequences that
Jessa can’t handle even if she appears to be the most advanced of her friends.
This season it seems that they have finally decided that Jessa should finally
have to own up to her follies instead of running away. Sadly though, this
falters. Not too badly, but badly enough that you start thinking about how it
could have been handle better. The problem is that the rehab story is very
clichéd. It looks as if the show has taken all the wrong parts of
Californication and applied them to Jessa. In the first two episodes she is
portrayed as a young, female version of Hank Moody with all its snark and
laisez faire attitude. Yes I know that Jessa already wore that hat, but the
rehab and how it is handled is just too much, it pushes Jessa from being a real
person and into the realm of self-parody. That is a terrible shame though, as
this could have been so much better if these scenes had sincerity too them. Instead,
the clichéd atmosphere of the scenes ruins any touching moment that seemed to
be boiling beneath it all just waiting for an escape. It becomes painfully
evident when characters make jokes that would be great, but they flounder since
these scenes have no weight to them. They aren’t heartbreakingly sad, but they
aren’t cheesy god awful (like what seemed to happen by the end of
Californication), they are just there.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;">
The last character, probably the
best, is Shoshanna. The air headed kid of the group, the one that all the other
girls look on with a kind of envy and protectiveness. She is the only character
so far who has sustained any growth throughout the series and she continues it
here. In season one, she is an introverted princess, so frightened by the
outside world that she keeps herself bottled up, while lying to herself about
her openness. In season two, she finally steps out into the world, she finds it
terrifying but she has the courage to grow and face the world head on. Now in
season three she has become bolder, more self-assured, even if her bubbly
ignorance still follows her sticks to her like glue. She is by far the only
truly likeable character in the series, this may be because she is the only
character with a backbone. Where everyone else runs back to the comfort of what
they know best when trouble strikes, Shoshanna faces it head on, even if the
outcome is not in her favour. She is her
own woman, much more grown up than any three of her friends, without the burden
of wallowing in self-pity. She does not seem to be afraid of the future, but
relishes the opportunity. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;">
There is one great scene in the
second episode where she and Hannah discuss Jessa. This season sums up both
characters perfectly and does it with more skill than was displayed with
character development over the last two seasons. Hannah moans and complains
about how hard life is (the one with a book deal, and a steady job that can pay
for a decent apartment in New York, yeah you’re really down on your luck), this
moaning and groaning sums up Hannah’s pessimism perfectly. Meanwhile Shoshanna
is upbeat and ready for the challenge of the real world. Where Hannah looks to
the past, Shoshanna is all about growth and stepping into the future. I would
venture to guess that this is also why Shoshanna is the only likeable
character. In a show about whiner and mopes, Shoshanna glows with hope and
optimism, committed to overcoming her obstacles rather than complain about them
with a bucket of ice cream.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;">
Phewph! That took longer than
expected, or probably needed. Don’t worry though, soon as I can afford an
editor I’ll fix it up.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;">
Character gripes aside, the first
two episodes of the season were pleasant. The dialog has improved greatly from
last season. While the show has always been well written, it’s been a tad too
spot on for me. It has always sounded like a regular mundane conversation that
you could have with your friends. I know that this is supposed to be the appeal
of the show but, the lack of pizzaz in the dialogue always leaves me unfulfilled
as a viewer. We watch shows like this to escape, not get sucked back into the
monotony of the everyday. Thankfully the first two episodes show a pulse when
it comes to the dialogue. It’s clever and witty without losing the weight of
the subject, for the most part. Amy Schumer’s brief appearance is a perfect
example of this. The vitriolic lashing that she gives Adam is great fun to
watch while also being something that you might one day encounter for
real. Dunham seems to have finally taken
Apatow’s tips on how to merge real world drama with fantasy land wittiness to
heart.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;">
Unlike the last two seasons which
have now become mostly a mishmash of events in no particular order (except the
scene’s which brought forth nothing but my animosity towards the show, how they
handled Donald Glover’s character arc being a prime example), this show already
has two really good scenes, both of
which are from the second episode. The opening starts of pretty standard, but
is tells you everything you need to know just as Adam slams the radio several
times to break it. It foreshadows that the episode is all about expectations
vs. reality. Hannah expects something
cool and hip but instead ends up with a doldrums affair. Here Lena Dunham shows
that she is getting a hang of melding a realistic take on a show about the daily
life of twenty-somethings and the realities of this being a TV show. It shows
boredom without actually making the viewer bored. The second scene is the one
detailed above about Shoshanna and Hannah sitting in the motel hallway. Its
glimmers like this make the show worth watching.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;">
The only real problem I had with
these first two episodes, is the stench of the last two seasons lingering
around. Marnie’s whiny nature lags in the first episode but Girls handles it
better in the second episode by having the culture clash of generations played
up. Sex and the City versus Girls is handled well without it being a stabbed at
the former. One thought though, what the fuck is gimchi and safora?<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;">
Finally as previously mentioned,
the idea of Jessa having to face the consequences of her actions is a great
idea, but it is not handled well. The scenes have no weight and the good jokes
drown in the mediocrity. The idea of her older British companion being a mirror
into the future for Jessa is great but at the last minute it is all dashed by
an instant one eighty in characteristics. I expect that this is more of a
stumble than a fall for the season. Jessa will probably take all season to
truly grow up. Hope she doesn't just up and disappear again, it grows tiresome.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;">
Overall, the show still has a
long way to go before it can live up to its potential. The acting is and always
has been good to great, but the stories have always dragged down the
performances. Season three seems to be on track to rectify this though. The characters are all positioned in such a
way that growth seems to be in their future, even if the handling of this
growth will be rocky at times. A
promising start to the season, sadly so were the last two premiers. Let’s hope
this time they deliver.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03985715453248300822noreply@blogger.com0