I used to love trailers when I was a kid. I remember the day my small town got the E! Entertainment Channel and on came a show called "Coming Attractions". It promised nothing but "The best part of going to the movies... the trailers!"
Here is an episode from 1996.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wElqEg-4_WQ
Watching this video makes me think of two things. First, what in the world happened to Cameron Diaz? I understand that it has been about 16 years since then but she looks like a skeleton compared to how she looked in that "Feeling Minnesota" trailer. Also, this show makes me realize I will never look at trailers the same way again.
The days of 28.8 kbps modems allowed me to view trailers as they were released after loading them... for a very... very... low time. I remember waking up early on a snow day and downloading the latest trailer to "Batman and Robin". It only took me 2 hours. Was it worth it? I thought so. Was the movie worth it. No. Definitely not.
Flash forward to now where I'm seeing every movie that is coming out and my views on trailers have completely changed. In a perfect world, I wouldn't even have to see them. I could come right into the theater to my reserved seat just as the studio logo comes on for the film. More often than not, all I need to know is who is affiliated with a movie and the basic plot to know if I want to see it.
Take for example, "Pacific Rim", coming out in July. It is a movie directed by Guillermo del Toro who is the director who directed the modern-day classic "Pan's Labyrinth" along with the much-better-than-they-shoud be "Hellboy" films. It is about monsters who attack major cities (!) who must be defeated using giant human-controlled robots (!!!). Also Charlie Day of "It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia" and "Horrible Bosses" fame is in it as is Idris Elba (!!!!). You don't need to show me one frame of that movie and you've got my $7.50. Any trailer will just hurt my initial experience of seeing it. I've already seen one trailer and it actually made me LESS excited for the final product. Apparently a new trailer was released. I imagine it will play before "Iron Man 3"
Do you need to see a trailer to know if you want to see a big summer blockbuster? Did seeing a trailer for "Transformers", "The Avengers" or anything big-budget spectacle really convert anybody to see them? I would imagine not. These were tickets that could have been sold purely on a 10-second static picture of the poster with the release date below it.
I don't need a loud, flashy trailer to appear and spoil the movie for me. I remember hiding from the "Inception" trailers before that came out. I somehow managed not to see it (probably by not seeing many movies in the theater) until it played before "The A Team". I put my head down and hummed to myself. I must have looked insane but it definitely allowed my first viewing on that movie to be relatively blind.
I have seen the trailers for the upcoming summer films far too many times. I know this is because I've seen far too many movies. I know that when theaters are playing roughly 15 minutes of trailers before a movie, I'm bound to see them repeatedly. I don't think I can handle another viewing of "The Lone Ranger" trailer though. I'm happy "Iron Man 3" is coming out on Friday not just because I'm excited to see what Shane Black can do with the franchise but that I won't have to hear Ben Kinglsey say "You'llllllll nevvveeeeeerrrrr seeeeee meeeee commmmming" in his odd accent before every movie again. I'd also very much like not to hear David Allan Grier say "Well... now you're having puppies!" in the "Peeples" trailer again.
I was listening to the Rope of Silicon podcast recently and heard the critics Laremy Legal and Brad Brevet talk about how they are fairly subjected to what a film is like before seeing it. It appears that critic screenings don't come with trailers before them. Not only do they get early entry to a reserved seat away from the crowd but they also don't have to see trailers. Oh. My.
In my quest to replicate the experience of going in rather blind to a movie, I've decided I'm going to do my best to hide from trailers. I'm going to start bringing in headphones to movies. I'm going to have them lodged in my ears playing an audiobook. Maybe a How to Learn Spanish tape ("Un boleto para Hombre De Hierro Tres, por favor". Maybe I will catch up on some "This American Life". Maybe I will just blare Slayer to get me primed to suffer through "Smurfs 2". I may look slightly deranged but at least I will be going in mostly pure to these movies. I also won't have to be reminded about the upcoming "One Direction 3D" experience.
Tuesday, April 30, 2013
Sunday, April 28, 2013
To 3D or not 3D: My Dilemma
First off, I need to admit that I got that great title from a website called Cinema Blend. They review 3D films and tell you how well the 3D is utilized. Here is their review for The Avengers:
http://www.cinemablend.com/new/3D-Or-3D-Buy-Right-Avengers-Ticket-30660.html
Trailer after trailer is playing these days promoting the upcoming summer tent-pole films. Almost all of them end with "See it in Real 3D" or even "See it in IMAX 3D". I must say that I've never really been a fan of the experience of seeing 3D movies. I recall being very impressed with the 3D in "Coraline" but that is about it. I have seen plenty of movies though where it simply just dimmed the image, made me feel awkward to be wearing glasses, and made me more curious about what the image looked like without my glasses on than with them.
As you can expect, I go out of my way to find non-3D showings. Not only are they usually cheaper and less attended, but they are more enjoyable. Recently, I drove 30 minutes to see a 2D screening of "Hansel and Gretel: Witch Hunters". I could have driven considerably less and seen it in 3D or even IMAX 3D but that was not what I wanted. I didn't want to see an awkward computerized re-tooling of a film. I don't want to do that so badly that it usually makes me have to wake up incredibly early (well... relatively incredibly early) to go see the 2D screening of something. "Jurassic Park" was only playing at 11am in 2D. I got myself out of bed to see that instead of seeing a fake-converted 3D mess.
This is not to say that I always shy away from 3D. I recently saw "Jack the Giant Slayer" and the only showtime I could make was 3D. It did look pretty good but it was natively shot in 3D by a director who knows what he is doing. I still firmly believe it did nothing to add to the enjoyment of the movie though.
The problem I come upon as a "film critic" is that I don't know if I SHOULD be seeing 3D movies or 2D movies when given the option of both. Which is the director's true "vision"? If I review a 2D version of a 3D movie, am I truly reviewing the same movie? People were amazed and astounded over the 3D presentation of "Avatar". I only saw it in 2D and it more than likely would have only gotten 2 stars from me. Was I missing something not seeing it in 3D. Did I see the same movie as most of the 3D viewers?
"Iron Man 3" and "Star Trek Beyond Darkness" are coming out in the next few weeks. They are both being released in IMAX which is something I'm frothing at the mouth to see. IMAX's increased resolution and booming sound will no doubt help both films. Unfortunately, both films have been post-converted into 3D. They weren't filmed with 3D cameras. They are being run through computers in order to create a fake 3D appearance. I've seen movies like this. They are more often than not, disappointing. Variety critic Scott Foundas found the 3D conversion of "Iron Man 3" "unremarkable" and suggested viewers "see it in 2D and (they) will miss little, but keep a few extra dollars in (their) wallet" (http://variety.com/2013/film/reviews/iron-man-three-review-1200413714/). "Star Trek Beyond Darkness" director J.J. Abrams has come out and said he had no interest in making the movie in 3D and that:
“The studio said, ‘You have to make it in 3D if you’re going to make it, for economic reasons. But my feeling was I didn’t like 3D. So the idea of doing Star Trek in 3D was ridiculous. But that was very helpful in some ways, because it let us work with stereographers and the 3D crew in a way that didn’t assume we just loved 3D.” (http://www.digitalspy.com/movies/news/a449669/jj-abrams-i-was-forced-to-make-star-trek-into-darkness-in-3d.html)
So why should we pay more for a dimmed presentation that many find disorienting and that the directors didn't truly want in the first place. A lot of time it comes down to convenience. I am lucky enough to be able to find a 2D showing of "Iron Man 3" for Thursday. There is no such thing as a 2D IMAX showing though. The 2D showing will no doubt be on a smaller screen than the 3D showings. I'm basically limiting myself in the presentation because I am choosing the 2D. More and more, theaters are only previewing the 3D version. It seems that critics often are only being shown the 3D cut. Most recently, "G.I. Joe Retaliation" was released a day early but only in 3D and IMAX 3D. I had to wait until the next day to see and review it. That one day could make a large difference in terms of readers (not that I have those now but in a hypothetical future).
I will continue to find 2D showings but will continue to have that little voice in my head that questions if I'm doing the right thing.
http://www.cinemablend.com/new/3D-Or-3D-Buy-Right-Avengers-Ticket-30660.html
Trailer after trailer is playing these days promoting the upcoming summer tent-pole films. Almost all of them end with "See it in Real 3D" or even "See it in IMAX 3D". I must say that I've never really been a fan of the experience of seeing 3D movies. I recall being very impressed with the 3D in "Coraline" but that is about it. I have seen plenty of movies though where it simply just dimmed the image, made me feel awkward to be wearing glasses, and made me more curious about what the image looked like without my glasses on than with them.
As you can expect, I go out of my way to find non-3D showings. Not only are they usually cheaper and less attended, but they are more enjoyable. Recently, I drove 30 minutes to see a 2D screening of "Hansel and Gretel: Witch Hunters". I could have driven considerably less and seen it in 3D or even IMAX 3D but that was not what I wanted. I didn't want to see an awkward computerized re-tooling of a film. I don't want to do that so badly that it usually makes me have to wake up incredibly early (well... relatively incredibly early) to go see the 2D screening of something. "Jurassic Park" was only playing at 11am in 2D. I got myself out of bed to see that instead of seeing a fake-converted 3D mess.
This is not to say that I always shy away from 3D. I recently saw "Jack the Giant Slayer" and the only showtime I could make was 3D. It did look pretty good but it was natively shot in 3D by a director who knows what he is doing. I still firmly believe it did nothing to add to the enjoyment of the movie though.
The problem I come upon as a "film critic" is that I don't know if I SHOULD be seeing 3D movies or 2D movies when given the option of both. Which is the director's true "vision"? If I review a 2D version of a 3D movie, am I truly reviewing the same movie? People were amazed and astounded over the 3D presentation of "Avatar". I only saw it in 2D and it more than likely would have only gotten 2 stars from me. Was I missing something not seeing it in 3D. Did I see the same movie as most of the 3D viewers?
"Iron Man 3" and "Star Trek Beyond Darkness" are coming out in the next few weeks. They are both being released in IMAX which is something I'm frothing at the mouth to see. IMAX's increased resolution and booming sound will no doubt help both films. Unfortunately, both films have been post-converted into 3D. They weren't filmed with 3D cameras. They are being run through computers in order to create a fake 3D appearance. I've seen movies like this. They are more often than not, disappointing. Variety critic Scott Foundas found the 3D conversion of "Iron Man 3" "unremarkable" and suggested viewers "see it in 2D and (they) will miss little, but keep a few extra dollars in (their) wallet" (http://variety.com/2013/film/reviews/iron-man-three-review-1200413714/). "Star Trek Beyond Darkness" director J.J. Abrams has come out and said he had no interest in making the movie in 3D and that:
“The studio said, ‘You have to make it in 3D if you’re going to make it, for economic reasons. But my feeling was I didn’t like 3D. So the idea of doing Star Trek in 3D was ridiculous. But that was very helpful in some ways, because it let us work with stereographers and the 3D crew in a way that didn’t assume we just loved 3D.” (http://www.digitalspy.com/movies/news/a449669/jj-abrams-i-was-forced-to-make-star-trek-into-darkness-in-3d.html)
So why should we pay more for a dimmed presentation that many find disorienting and that the directors didn't truly want in the first place. A lot of time it comes down to convenience. I am lucky enough to be able to find a 2D showing of "Iron Man 3" for Thursday. There is no such thing as a 2D IMAX showing though. The 2D showing will no doubt be on a smaller screen than the 3D showings. I'm basically limiting myself in the presentation because I am choosing the 2D. More and more, theaters are only previewing the 3D version. It seems that critics often are only being shown the 3D cut. Most recently, "G.I. Joe Retaliation" was released a day early but only in 3D and IMAX 3D. I had to wait until the next day to see and review it. That one day could make a large difference in terms of readers (not that I have those now but in a hypothetical future).
I will continue to find 2D showings but will continue to have that little voice in my head that questions if I'm doing the right thing.
Saturday, April 27, 2013
"The Big Wedding" 2 stars out of 4 (C)
"The Big Wedding" is a pleasant movie with great actors. It is always nice to see great actors like Robert De Niro, Susan Sarandon, and Diane Keaton together. It is arguably De Niro's most fun performance in quite some time, although that is definitely not saying much. It contains many moments that made the largely senior-priced crowd laugh hard. It is hard to dislike it. It is a pity though that the scripting, characterization, and plot progression do not think higher of their audience. The film chugs along like an R-rated CBS sitcom making it difficult to actually believe some of the events the characters are experiencing. Still, it is not without charm.
Divorced couple Don (Robert de Niro) and Ellie (Diane Keaton). Their adopted son Alejandro (Ben Barnes) is getting married and his biological mother, Madonna (Patricia Rae), is visiting unexpectedly. Unfortunately, Madonna believes that divorce is a travesty and this will sully the reception. Don must push his live-in girlfriend, Bebe (Susan Sarandon) out of the picture in order to keep up appearances that he and Ellie are still together. All of this is going on as Don and Ellie's 29-year old son Jared (Topher Grace) tries to lose his virginity (no, you didn't read that wrong) and their daughter Lyla (Katherine Heigl) deals with a rocky break-up with her husband. Will everything turn out well in the end? How many episodes of a TV comedy have you seen before?
Justin Zackham wrote and directed this film based on the 2006 film "Mon frere se marie" and it would seem like something got lost in translation. Plot points, character motivations, and the overall progression no doubt flowed better in French than it does here. The movie reads like a list of events that someone wanted to put in a raunchy adult comedy and then figured out how to do this with the loosest of plots. Things that matter intensely to a character seem to only matter for that particular scene until it moves to the next character. The audience is left confused not knowing if we are supposed to truly care about these characters or just revel in the general chaos. Although the film mercifully doesn't included anyone falling into a wedding cake, it pulls out every other stereotypical plot event. Some of the jokes and plot developments do work but the whole thing adds up to a mediocre, forgettable film that will be aimed squarely at the $5 bin in a handful of years.
This film would be totally lost without the charm of De Niro and Sarandon. The two are more fun than we have seen in quite some time. The script actually gives De Niro's character a few chances to really shine with his children, Bebe, and Ellie. He may be a colossal mess of a person (again a plot point that probably plays more loosely in the French original) but he is still presented as a mostly likable flawed character. He hasn't made me smile this much in far too many roles.
"The Big Wedding" is a flawed piece of fluff that will appear and disappear as quickly as it is consumed. It will no doubt provide a decent amount of entertainment for those who are fine with slightly ribald humor delivered by screen greats. It is not the great film that these actors deserve but it is better than it reads on paper. Attend this wedding if it is raining out and you have nothing better to do. The cake will be decent and you are always looking for an excuse to wear that dress or suit. Don't cancel your plans over it though.
Divorced couple Don (Robert de Niro) and Ellie (Diane Keaton). Their adopted son Alejandro (Ben Barnes) is getting married and his biological mother, Madonna (Patricia Rae), is visiting unexpectedly. Unfortunately, Madonna believes that divorce is a travesty and this will sully the reception. Don must push his live-in girlfriend, Bebe (Susan Sarandon) out of the picture in order to keep up appearances that he and Ellie are still together. All of this is going on as Don and Ellie's 29-year old son Jared (Topher Grace) tries to lose his virginity (no, you didn't read that wrong) and their daughter Lyla (Katherine Heigl) deals with a rocky break-up with her husband. Will everything turn out well in the end? How many episodes of a TV comedy have you seen before?
Justin Zackham wrote and directed this film based on the 2006 film "Mon frere se marie" and it would seem like something got lost in translation. Plot points, character motivations, and the overall progression no doubt flowed better in French than it does here. The movie reads like a list of events that someone wanted to put in a raunchy adult comedy and then figured out how to do this with the loosest of plots. Things that matter intensely to a character seem to only matter for that particular scene until it moves to the next character. The audience is left confused not knowing if we are supposed to truly care about these characters or just revel in the general chaos. Although the film mercifully doesn't included anyone falling into a wedding cake, it pulls out every other stereotypical plot event. Some of the jokes and plot developments do work but the whole thing adds up to a mediocre, forgettable film that will be aimed squarely at the $5 bin in a handful of years.
This film would be totally lost without the charm of De Niro and Sarandon. The two are more fun than we have seen in quite some time. The script actually gives De Niro's character a few chances to really shine with his children, Bebe, and Ellie. He may be a colossal mess of a person (again a plot point that probably plays more loosely in the French original) but he is still presented as a mostly likable flawed character. He hasn't made me smile this much in far too many roles.
"The Big Wedding" is a flawed piece of fluff that will appear and disappear as quickly as it is consumed. It will no doubt provide a decent amount of entertainment for those who are fine with slightly ribald humor delivered by screen greats. It is not the great film that these actors deserve but it is better than it reads on paper. Attend this wedding if it is raining out and you have nothing better to do. The cake will be decent and you are always looking for an excuse to wear that dress or suit. Don't cancel your plans over it though.
Thursday, April 25, 2013
"Pain and Gain" 3 stars out of 4 (B)
Who would have thought that underneath all those orange filters, Michael Bay had a comedic side to him. Sure there were a few funny throw-away lines in movies like "Armageddon". Most of those are because Owen Wilson could read the phonebook (wonder when that phrase is going to become too antiquated to make sense) and make me laugh. For every decent joke he has in a movie, he has racist jive-talking robots like in the second "Transformers" film or a car chase that involves dead bodies being thrown out of a moving car to stop our heroes. Not only did we not know that Bay had a comedic side but even a DARKLY comedic side. While "Pain and Gain" is not on par with the dark comedy work of directors like the Coen Brothers or David Fincher, it is still a very interesting and mostly daring comedy that in the hands of another director would have gotten the attention it deserves.
Daniel Lugo (Mark Wahlberg) is in a rut. He works every day at a fitness club helping out-of-shape people to better themselves. What Lugo really wants is to make his own life better. He wants the American dream. His dream is usually caked in false nostalgia or perceived needs. An impressive lawn-mower becomes a goal for him. Unfortunately, personal trainers don't make the money needed for expensive lawn-mowers and the dreams that follow after them. Lugo hatches a plan with fellow body-builders Adrian (Anthony Mackie) and Doyle (Dwayne Johnson) to extort money from one of his rich clients (Tony Shalhoub). It seems that all that HGH has fired their brains though as they discover that lifting weights doesn't quite make them ready for a life of crime.
Wahlberg again proves that he is a comedic actor. The role where he shined the most was in 2004's "I Heart Huckabees" where he played a bike-riding eccentric firemen. He brings some of that same manic energy to his portrayal of Lugo. It is very believable (unfortunately) that Wahlberg could be a dumb jock who thinks he is far smarter than he is. It is Johnson's portrayal of Doyle that is truly inspired though. Every scene with Doyle, a born-again Christian with a heart of gold and a fist of lead, is hilarious. Johnson has reached the point in his comedic acting where he doesn't even necessarily need to say anything in order to elicit a laugh from the audience. Here he plays one of his darkest and dimmest characters. This film would be very lost without his performance which might be the funniest character we've seen on screen in some time.
Bay's direction is not without its short-comings though. This is a 130-minute movie where if they had played the gratuitous slow-motion shots at full speed we would be looking at a sub-2 hour film. Bay has always had a difficult time simply putting the images on screen in an interesting way versus smashing it over our heads with "style". Some editing and turning down the "style" knob from "8" (which is still better than Bay's usual "11+") to a "5" would have really helped. Any comedy that is considering hiring Ken Jeong for a role needs to simply stop and cut the character. Here he plays a self-help guru who is considering funny simply because he is vulgar. This character has been done time-and-time again and most of the time it is Jeong behind it.
While "Pain and Gain" will never be confused with the works of the Coens, it is a sometimes sharp and interesting and almost always hilarious dark comedy. It is a shame that many people will automatically be turned off to the film based on the name above the title. If you can get past Bay's "explosive" tendencies (only one car blows up and it isn't even that large of an explosion!) you might be in for a treat. At the very least, we are seeing Wahlberg and Johnson do what they do best.
Daniel Lugo (Mark Wahlberg) is in a rut. He works every day at a fitness club helping out-of-shape people to better themselves. What Lugo really wants is to make his own life better. He wants the American dream. His dream is usually caked in false nostalgia or perceived needs. An impressive lawn-mower becomes a goal for him. Unfortunately, personal trainers don't make the money needed for expensive lawn-mowers and the dreams that follow after them. Lugo hatches a plan with fellow body-builders Adrian (Anthony Mackie) and Doyle (Dwayne Johnson) to extort money from one of his rich clients (Tony Shalhoub). It seems that all that HGH has fired their brains though as they discover that lifting weights doesn't quite make them ready for a life of crime.
Wahlberg again proves that he is a comedic actor. The role where he shined the most was in 2004's "I Heart Huckabees" where he played a bike-riding eccentric firemen. He brings some of that same manic energy to his portrayal of Lugo. It is very believable (unfortunately) that Wahlberg could be a dumb jock who thinks he is far smarter than he is. It is Johnson's portrayal of Doyle that is truly inspired though. Every scene with Doyle, a born-again Christian with a heart of gold and a fist of lead, is hilarious. Johnson has reached the point in his comedic acting where he doesn't even necessarily need to say anything in order to elicit a laugh from the audience. Here he plays one of his darkest and dimmest characters. This film would be very lost without his performance which might be the funniest character we've seen on screen in some time.
Bay's direction is not without its short-comings though. This is a 130-minute movie where if they had played the gratuitous slow-motion shots at full speed we would be looking at a sub-2 hour film. Bay has always had a difficult time simply putting the images on screen in an interesting way versus smashing it over our heads with "style". Some editing and turning down the "style" knob from "8" (which is still better than Bay's usual "11+") to a "5" would have really helped. Any comedy that is considering hiring Ken Jeong for a role needs to simply stop and cut the character. Here he plays a self-help guru who is considering funny simply because he is vulgar. This character has been done time-and-time again and most of the time it is Jeong behind it.
While "Pain and Gain" will never be confused with the works of the Coens, it is a sometimes sharp and interesting and almost always hilarious dark comedy. It is a shame that many people will automatically be turned off to the film based on the name above the title. If you can get past Bay's "explosive" tendencies (only one car blows up and it isn't even that large of an explosion!) you might be in for a treat. At the very least, we are seeing Wahlberg and Johnson do what they do best.
Wednesday, April 24, 2013
Do I need to see EVERY movie?
Hey, Gary Oldman. Should I see only the movies I want to see or should I see every one?
I've seen a lot of movies in the last month. A LOT of movies. I'm averaging three or so a week in the theater. I'm not just seeing the movies I want to see. I'm seeing everything. Thanks to my Movie Pass, I don't really have to think about the "money" I'm spending. Would I pay $8.50 to see "Scary Movie 5". Not a chance. I don't think I would even stream it for free (well, free after the $7.99 subscription fee) on Netflix. Why do I go see them then? I go because I know I should see almost everything. I know that by seeing a truly terrible movie, I can become better at my craft. Unfortunately, I didn't always write reviews for these movies. This is something that won't happen much in the future.
I just got done reading a book called "Film Critic" by critic Laremy Legal. In it, he recommends not seeing every movie. He says that there are critics out there who do it, of course, but that he doesn't think everyone should. Legal mentioned that he feared "burnout". Seeing movie after movie could potentially lead to it. He wanted to keep the experience of going to see movies enjoyable. I'd imagine this is so he doesn't see it as a long march to the edge of a cliff.
Since I've started this blog, I've seen everything I could see under my MoviePass that was within a 30 minute drive of me. There are a handful of movies playing in the Detroit area that I haven't seen but I have to consider the cost of gas and of my time. I have seen "Scary Movie 5". I have seen "Tyler Perry's Temptation". "Scary Movie 5" was awful. It wasn't the worst movie ever but it held no real purpose. "Temptation" was extremely entertaining for all the wrong reasons but it was definitely an experience. Arguably, it was the most fun experience I've had in a theater in the last month.
When I walk through the halls of my local theater, I look at the posters of upcoming films and I become worried. For every "This is the End", "Pacific Rim", or "Monsters University" that is coming out that I'm completely excited to see, there are movies like "Grown Ups 2", "The Smurfs 2", and "The Big Wedding". Movies that I want nothing to do with. I never saw the first "Grown Ups" or "The Smurfs" because they both looked terrible. Adam Sandler hasn't been funny since... "The Wedding Singer"? Yeah. I'll go with "The Wedding Singer". "The Smurfs" has George Lopez as a talking blue cartoon. No. No. No. "The Big Wedding" has a good cast but it seems to be the most bland and predictable movie I've seen released in a while.
I will go see all three though. Yes. My 27-year old self will see "One for 'Smurfs 2'. No. Not the 3D one. The 2D one. Thank you!"
If I'm not on some sort of list already, I will be after that that conversation.
Is this to say that I won't ever draw the line? No. I more than likely wouldn't have seen "The Oogieloves" in the theater when that came out last year. I would have, of course, gone if I was given it as an assignment by a publication. If I was attending a free screening or private screening. I would have done it. I am not going to be the only adult without a kid at a screening of a film like that.
Does this make me a hypocrite? Does this not know my passion for movies, watching them, and a potential future career? I'm not sure. I'm sad to let Gary Oldman down. If he had been in the "Oogieloves", I would have seen it. I promise.
I've seen a lot of movies in the last month. A LOT of movies. I'm averaging three or so a week in the theater. I'm not just seeing the movies I want to see. I'm seeing everything. Thanks to my Movie Pass, I don't really have to think about the "money" I'm spending. Would I pay $8.50 to see "Scary Movie 5". Not a chance. I don't think I would even stream it for free (well, free after the $7.99 subscription fee) on Netflix. Why do I go see them then? I go because I know I should see almost everything. I know that by seeing a truly terrible movie, I can become better at my craft. Unfortunately, I didn't always write reviews for these movies. This is something that won't happen much in the future.
I just got done reading a book called "Film Critic" by critic Laremy Legal. In it, he recommends not seeing every movie. He says that there are critics out there who do it, of course, but that he doesn't think everyone should. Legal mentioned that he feared "burnout". Seeing movie after movie could potentially lead to it. He wanted to keep the experience of going to see movies enjoyable. I'd imagine this is so he doesn't see it as a long march to the edge of a cliff.
Since I've started this blog, I've seen everything I could see under my MoviePass that was within a 30 minute drive of me. There are a handful of movies playing in the Detroit area that I haven't seen but I have to consider the cost of gas and of my time. I have seen "Scary Movie 5". I have seen "Tyler Perry's Temptation". "Scary Movie 5" was awful. It wasn't the worst movie ever but it held no real purpose. "Temptation" was extremely entertaining for all the wrong reasons but it was definitely an experience. Arguably, it was the most fun experience I've had in a theater in the last month.
When I walk through the halls of my local theater, I look at the posters of upcoming films and I become worried. For every "This is the End", "Pacific Rim", or "Monsters University" that is coming out that I'm completely excited to see, there are movies like "Grown Ups 2", "The Smurfs 2", and "The Big Wedding". Movies that I want nothing to do with. I never saw the first "Grown Ups" or "The Smurfs" because they both looked terrible. Adam Sandler hasn't been funny since... "The Wedding Singer"? Yeah. I'll go with "The Wedding Singer". "The Smurfs" has George Lopez as a talking blue cartoon. No. No. No. "The Big Wedding" has a good cast but it seems to be the most bland and predictable movie I've seen released in a while.
I will go see all three though. Yes. My 27-year old self will see "One for 'Smurfs 2'. No. Not the 3D one. The 2D one. Thank you!"
If I'm not on some sort of list already, I will be after that that conversation.
Is this to say that I won't ever draw the line? No. I more than likely wouldn't have seen "The Oogieloves" in the theater when that came out last year. I would have, of course, gone if I was given it as an assignment by a publication. If I was attending a free screening or private screening. I would have done it. I am not going to be the only adult without a kid at a screening of a film like that.
Does this make me a hypocrite? Does this not know my passion for movies, watching them, and a potential future career? I'm not sure. I'm sad to let Gary Oldman down. If he had been in the "Oogieloves", I would have seen it. I promise.
Tuesday, April 23, 2013
"The Lords of Salem" 3 stars out of 4 (B-)
Rob Zombie has never been much for subtlety. One of his most well-known videos has him riding around in the Munster Mobile yelling about "dragulas". His film debut contained a character being turned into a human/fish hybrid in hopes of appeasing a demon (?) named Doctor Satan. It is with this knowledge of a lack of subtlety that makes a movie like "The Lords of Salem", his most fully realized film to date, all the more impressive. He has achieved a balance between jaw-droppingly twisted imagery and some actually beautifully-made shots to create an entertaining and surprising film. While it is definitely not without its fault, "The Lords of Salem" is more than likely his best film.
Heidi (Sheri Moon Zombie) is a radio shock-jock for a Salem, Massachusetts rock station. She is also a recovering drug addict who lives in an apartment that looks right out of "The Shining". One day at work she receives a package containing a vinyl record. It is said to simply be from "The Lords". Heidi pays the music over the radio and it starts triggering something dark and twisted inside her and other women in the community.
The first thing that jumps out about "The Lords of Salem" is that Zombie clearly doesn't care about his audience's expectations. This is not a bad thing, especially in the horror genre. The genre can often be as calculated, predictable, and relatively tame as a feel-good movie. Horror films often seem to just be trying to push buttons ("Gore here" "Jump here" "Cringe here"). "The Lords of Salem" does not do this. Zombie has made a very low-budget, slow, and methodical film that lingers with you. There are some scenes that I would have a difficult time explaining to you in print or even in person. While Zombie clearly wears his influences on his sleeve (the aforementioned Kubrick connections in terms of set design and even music) the film is never dull and complacent. It might not be everyone's idea of a fun Friday out at the fright flicks but it is definitely interesting.
Sheri Moon Zombie has now been in every one of his films. Often, she is among the worst aspects of them. Her character in "House of 1000 Corpses" and "The Devil's Rejects" almost derailed those films with her over-the-top and annoying performance. While she doesn't do anything incredible in "Lords", she is definitely far more reserved and actually seems like a natural fit for the character of Heidi. She does everything you can expect from a decent low-budget horror film actress. She is not a "scream queen" which is a welcome surprise.
"The Lords of Salem" is not without it's disappointments though. For every jaw-dropping moment of shocking imagery, Zombie has included something that seems out-of-place. Heidi and her fellow shock jockeys (Jeff Daniel Phillips and Ken Foree) seem out-of-place in such a dark and gothic film. Slow, disturbing scenes of witches being burned alive do not naturally progress to "Morning Zoo" sex and fart humor. While Zombie has no doubt had to deal with these types of radio personalities before, a little restraint in their characterizations would have helped this film to continue the overall feeling of dread he is trying to achieve. There are also some extremely abrupt story changes that seem to give the movie a surreal or dream-like quality. Sometimes this works and sometimes it definitely does not. The excuse of "It is surreal/dream-like!" or even the excuse of "The film is influenced by 70s European horror which sometimes had nonsensical plot developments" can only be used so many times before you roll your eyes. While these limitations definitely don't pull the film down all the way, they hold it back from being the masterpiece that this film could have been.
Much like his previous films, "The Lords of Salem" is not for everyone. It left the audience I saw it with a little shaken and confused. Not a person got up for the duration of the credits. I can't remember the last time I was in a movie theater where audiences reacted this way. If you go in expecting shocks and screams, you will be disappointed. If you go in with an open mind and want to see a sometimes breath-taking and sometimes convoluted horror story, you might walk away pleased. I believe we are still a film or two away from Zombie fully coming into his own as a director. Given the right material, he could easily be the Quentin Tarantino of the horror genre. Until then, although the evil characters in this film would most certainly disapprove of it, we can pray that material is coming soon.
Heidi (Sheri Moon Zombie) is a radio shock-jock for a Salem, Massachusetts rock station. She is also a recovering drug addict who lives in an apartment that looks right out of "The Shining". One day at work she receives a package containing a vinyl record. It is said to simply be from "The Lords". Heidi pays the music over the radio and it starts triggering something dark and twisted inside her and other women in the community.
The first thing that jumps out about "The Lords of Salem" is that Zombie clearly doesn't care about his audience's expectations. This is not a bad thing, especially in the horror genre. The genre can often be as calculated, predictable, and relatively tame as a feel-good movie. Horror films often seem to just be trying to push buttons ("Gore here" "Jump here" "Cringe here"). "The Lords of Salem" does not do this. Zombie has made a very low-budget, slow, and methodical film that lingers with you. There are some scenes that I would have a difficult time explaining to you in print or even in person. While Zombie clearly wears his influences on his sleeve (the aforementioned Kubrick connections in terms of set design and even music) the film is never dull and complacent. It might not be everyone's idea of a fun Friday out at the fright flicks but it is definitely interesting.
Sheri Moon Zombie has now been in every one of his films. Often, she is among the worst aspects of them. Her character in "House of 1000 Corpses" and "The Devil's Rejects" almost derailed those films with her over-the-top and annoying performance. While she doesn't do anything incredible in "Lords", she is definitely far more reserved and actually seems like a natural fit for the character of Heidi. She does everything you can expect from a decent low-budget horror film actress. She is not a "scream queen" which is a welcome surprise.
"The Lords of Salem" is not without it's disappointments though. For every jaw-dropping moment of shocking imagery, Zombie has included something that seems out-of-place. Heidi and her fellow shock jockeys (Jeff Daniel Phillips and Ken Foree) seem out-of-place in such a dark and gothic film. Slow, disturbing scenes of witches being burned alive do not naturally progress to "Morning Zoo" sex and fart humor. While Zombie has no doubt had to deal with these types of radio personalities before, a little restraint in their characterizations would have helped this film to continue the overall feeling of dread he is trying to achieve. There are also some extremely abrupt story changes that seem to give the movie a surreal or dream-like quality. Sometimes this works and sometimes it definitely does not. The excuse of "It is surreal/dream-like!" or even the excuse of "The film is influenced by 70s European horror which sometimes had nonsensical plot developments" can only be used so many times before you roll your eyes. While these limitations definitely don't pull the film down all the way, they hold it back from being the masterpiece that this film could have been.
Much like his previous films, "The Lords of Salem" is not for everyone. It left the audience I saw it with a little shaken and confused. Not a person got up for the duration of the credits. I can't remember the last time I was in a movie theater where audiences reacted this way. If you go in expecting shocks and screams, you will be disappointed. If you go in with an open mind and want to see a sometimes breath-taking and sometimes convoluted horror story, you might walk away pleased. I believe we are still a film or two away from Zombie fully coming into his own as a director. Given the right material, he could easily be the Quentin Tarantino of the horror genre. Until then, although the evil characters in this film would most certainly disapprove of it, we can pray that material is coming soon.
Sunday, April 21, 2013
"The Place Between the Pines" 1.5 stars out of 4 (D)
Derek Cianfrance wants you to know he is making an epic in every shot of "The Place Between the Pines". From the opening tracking one-shot of Ryan Gosling walking across a crowded carnival to the final shot of a wide-open field with Bon Iver "The Woods" blaring. He wants you to know he has studied filmmakers like Martin Scorsese and a scene that takes place during a baptism feels oddly like a modern day "Mean Streets". He also wants to hammer every single metaphor over your head with a mallet until you are drawn so deeply into his pretty images that you don't notice the hints of sexism and racism sprinkled throughout. He doesn't want you to question if his characters are performing realistic actions in realistic scenarios. He simply wants you to see the "deeper meaning". "The Place Between the Pines", Cianfrance's second film after 2010s infinitely better "Blue Valentine" is a mess. It is a film devoid of characters we care about who are acting in ways that only seem to further along a plot that desperately wants you to care but gives you no real reason to do so.
"The Place Between the Pines" is essentially three interweaving stories told using similar characters. The first (and easily the best story) involves Luke Glanton (Gosling), a carnival stunt bike rider who discovers on one of his visits to upstate New York that a fling he had the previous year with waitress, Romina, (Eva Mendes) produced a son who he didn't know existed. Glanton promptly quits his job and decides he wants to do right by his newfound family. The only way he can provide for his family though is through crime. The second story deals with police officer Avery Cross (Bradley Cooper) who deals with the corruption in his police force. The last story deals with a loner (Dane DeHaan) who develops a friendship with the tough-talking new kid in town (Emory Cohen) that quickly escalates into dangerous territories.
As mentioned earlier, Gosling's chapter is without a doubt the only compelling part of the film. While this is not one of his best performances (he truly needs to trademark his "staring into the world around him with a cold and detached feel" look) this chunk of the film features an interesting story about a man's tumble into crime. It features some truly exhilarating scenes featuring Glanton on his motor-bike that could have easily anchored an entire film. It is in the other parts of the movie where the film falters hard and fast. The Cross part is hackneyed and feels like a bad episode of a television drama. The "corruption on the force" plot angle is so played out by now that we are no longer interested. We are supposed to see their actions and say "For sham!" but in reality we just hope that Ray Liotta leaves the scene shortly. The final part features some of the best acting (Cohen could really do something in the future) but also some of the most thoroughly unbelievable plot developments I've seen in a drama in some time. A character makes such a quick and unexpected turn in their actions that it is almost laughable. We don't know if we should care or count the amount of days in the story that it took a seemingly docile person to become a monster. In the end, we are supposed to care and be impressed by all the inter-connected portions of the film. All I walked away with was boredom over seeing such a masterbatory film and anger that Bon Iver's great song was distilled into something one notch more touching or dramatic than a YouTube video of the song set against pictures of nature.
It can not be said that Cianfrance doesn't know how to make a movie look good. There are some truly inspired shots throughout the film (mostly in the first segment). He uses color well when he isn't simply using it to show the metaphorical bridges between characters ("Do you get it?! They both have extremely blue eyes! Let me even play a song about eyes being blue at the end of the movie!") The way he films the scenes of Gosling's crimes makes one wonder what he could have done just taking that character and creating a 90 minute film with it. By the end though, he has completely turned the audience against him. While it is never boring, it simply is disappointing and wants to congratulate itself at every turn. "Blue Valentine" was a mostly understated (if not slightly melodramatic) story that felt like something that could happen in real life. "The Place Between the Pines" feels like a story that could only exist in a novel with characters who are more caricatures than real human beings.
Upon leaving the theater, I heard groups of unhappy couples. One man even said "Well... you picked this one!" on his way out. This film will no doubt draw in viewers because of the pairing of Gosling and Cooper. It will also no doubt disappoint them heavily. Hopefully Cianfrance's next film is dialed down although I have no real hope that will happen. Like Gosling's character, it wants to do extremely elaborate high-speed tricks that serve no real purpose and you will forget them as soon as you walk to the next text.
"The Place Between the Pines" is essentially three interweaving stories told using similar characters. The first (and easily the best story) involves Luke Glanton (Gosling), a carnival stunt bike rider who discovers on one of his visits to upstate New York that a fling he had the previous year with waitress, Romina, (Eva Mendes) produced a son who he didn't know existed. Glanton promptly quits his job and decides he wants to do right by his newfound family. The only way he can provide for his family though is through crime. The second story deals with police officer Avery Cross (Bradley Cooper) who deals with the corruption in his police force. The last story deals with a loner (Dane DeHaan) who develops a friendship with the tough-talking new kid in town (Emory Cohen) that quickly escalates into dangerous territories.
As mentioned earlier, Gosling's chapter is without a doubt the only compelling part of the film. While this is not one of his best performances (he truly needs to trademark his "staring into the world around him with a cold and detached feel" look) this chunk of the film features an interesting story about a man's tumble into crime. It features some truly exhilarating scenes featuring Glanton on his motor-bike that could have easily anchored an entire film. It is in the other parts of the movie where the film falters hard and fast. The Cross part is hackneyed and feels like a bad episode of a television drama. The "corruption on the force" plot angle is so played out by now that we are no longer interested. We are supposed to see their actions and say "For sham!" but in reality we just hope that Ray Liotta leaves the scene shortly. The final part features some of the best acting (Cohen could really do something in the future) but also some of the most thoroughly unbelievable plot developments I've seen in a drama in some time. A character makes such a quick and unexpected turn in their actions that it is almost laughable. We don't know if we should care or count the amount of days in the story that it took a seemingly docile person to become a monster. In the end, we are supposed to care and be impressed by all the inter-connected portions of the film. All I walked away with was boredom over seeing such a masterbatory film and anger that Bon Iver's great song was distilled into something one notch more touching or dramatic than a YouTube video of the song set against pictures of nature.
It can not be said that Cianfrance doesn't know how to make a movie look good. There are some truly inspired shots throughout the film (mostly in the first segment). He uses color well when he isn't simply using it to show the metaphorical bridges between characters ("Do you get it?! They both have extremely blue eyes! Let me even play a song about eyes being blue at the end of the movie!") The way he films the scenes of Gosling's crimes makes one wonder what he could have done just taking that character and creating a 90 minute film with it. By the end though, he has completely turned the audience against him. While it is never boring, it simply is disappointing and wants to congratulate itself at every turn. "Blue Valentine" was a mostly understated (if not slightly melodramatic) story that felt like something that could happen in real life. "The Place Between the Pines" feels like a story that could only exist in a novel with characters who are more caricatures than real human beings.
Upon leaving the theater, I heard groups of unhappy couples. One man even said "Well... you picked this one!" on his way out. This film will no doubt draw in viewers because of the pairing of Gosling and Cooper. It will also no doubt disappoint them heavily. Hopefully Cianfrance's next film is dialed down although I have no real hope that will happen. Like Gosling's character, it wants to do extremely elaborate high-speed tricks that serve no real purpose and you will forget them as soon as you walk to the next text.
Thursday, April 18, 2013
"42" - 2.5 stars out of 4 (C+)
On paper, "42" is seemingly untouchable. The story of Jackie Robinson is simply MADE for film. It has everything you could expect from an inspirational, crowd-pleasing sports film. It doesn't tell you anything you didn't know or hadn't seen before but it will make the audiences clap and walk away feeling good. In that respect, "42" succeeds. It is only a partial success though as the movie is hurt by some very 21st century filmmaking flaws, odd direction, and a lack of editing.
"42" tells the story of the owner of the Brooklyn Dodgers, Branch Rickey (Harrison Ford). Rickey is trying to find the next source of income for his ballclub. He decides that bringing a talented African American player will help draw up ticket sales and maybe a bit of controversy. In comes, Jackie Robinson (Chadwick Boseman), a quick-witted player with a great woman by his side (Nicole Beharie). He knows that breaking the color barrier in baseball will be difficult. It turns out that it is, in fact, difficult. Jackie is not the one who needs to make changes. It is his teammates, ball club, and an entire sport that must change.
"42" is a movie that is screaming for a good director. This is the kind of story that deserves a filmmaker like Ron Howard. Howard can take any subject and make it a crowd-pleasing film that might not go down as a classic but that you will definitely enjoy and more than likely won't turn off when it is playing on TNT. Films like "Cinderella Man" and "Seabiscuit" show he can make a sports film. Unfortunately writer/director Brian Helgeland is not ready for a film of this magnitude. He shoots scenes far too close so that they lose any drama or scope. Shots of old ball clubs end up being awkwardly framed. Actual baseball playing contains obvious and distracting CGI. I know that it is unlikely that the cast is going to become highly accomplished baseball players before filming begins. A film like this deserves a realistic portrayal of baseball. Any CGI-trickery is tacky in a world where so many period sports films have succeeded. Helgeland's script isn't the problem. It is all about his presentation. When you have a story this good and pre-packed, your presentation becomes the key to a truly "good" movie. Without Ford, this movie could have easily been a large-budget "made for cable" film. You do not want to say that about such an epic story.
The cast is uniformly good. Harrison Ford does his first real acting since I can't remember when. Boseman does a fine job as Robinson although I'm not sure what prospects he has in the future. He looks so much like a vintage baseball player that I don't know how he can segue into standard film. The supporting cast including Christopher Meloni, Alan Tudyk, and John C. McGinley is all great but underused. All three receive not nearly enough screen-time. The casting of these three talented and recognizable faces almost makes the audience wish they had more time to really show their talent. While Ford's character has some good moments, it would seem that a little editing and more character development would have made this film better.
The biggest surprise in "42" is not Ford's performance but the characterization and writing of the relationship of Robinson and his wife Rachel (Belharie). This film easily could have just been about how they overcame adversity together and how she handled his fame and attention. Their scenes are very genuine and Belharie might be someone to watch in the upcoming years.
It is difficult not to recommend "42". It is a well-acted, interesting story that will most certainly make you think about the accomplishments of Robinson and the African American baseball players that followed. It is all entertaining but seems to be missing something special that matches such a perfect story. As it is, "42" is worth your time but you are probably better off tracking down the 1996 HBO film "Soul of the Game". It is a solid single but could have easily knocked a run in had it tried just a little more.
"42" tells the story of the owner of the Brooklyn Dodgers, Branch Rickey (Harrison Ford). Rickey is trying to find the next source of income for his ballclub. He decides that bringing a talented African American player will help draw up ticket sales and maybe a bit of controversy. In comes, Jackie Robinson (Chadwick Boseman), a quick-witted player with a great woman by his side (Nicole Beharie). He knows that breaking the color barrier in baseball will be difficult. It turns out that it is, in fact, difficult. Jackie is not the one who needs to make changes. It is his teammates, ball club, and an entire sport that must change.
"42" is a movie that is screaming for a good director. This is the kind of story that deserves a filmmaker like Ron Howard. Howard can take any subject and make it a crowd-pleasing film that might not go down as a classic but that you will definitely enjoy and more than likely won't turn off when it is playing on TNT. Films like "Cinderella Man" and "Seabiscuit" show he can make a sports film. Unfortunately writer/director Brian Helgeland is not ready for a film of this magnitude. He shoots scenes far too close so that they lose any drama or scope. Shots of old ball clubs end up being awkwardly framed. Actual baseball playing contains obvious and distracting CGI. I know that it is unlikely that the cast is going to become highly accomplished baseball players before filming begins. A film like this deserves a realistic portrayal of baseball. Any CGI-trickery is tacky in a world where so many period sports films have succeeded. Helgeland's script isn't the problem. It is all about his presentation. When you have a story this good and pre-packed, your presentation becomes the key to a truly "good" movie. Without Ford, this movie could have easily been a large-budget "made for cable" film. You do not want to say that about such an epic story.
The cast is uniformly good. Harrison Ford does his first real acting since I can't remember when. Boseman does a fine job as Robinson although I'm not sure what prospects he has in the future. He looks so much like a vintage baseball player that I don't know how he can segue into standard film. The supporting cast including Christopher Meloni, Alan Tudyk, and John C. McGinley is all great but underused. All three receive not nearly enough screen-time. The casting of these three talented and recognizable faces almost makes the audience wish they had more time to really show their talent. While Ford's character has some good moments, it would seem that a little editing and more character development would have made this film better.
The biggest surprise in "42" is not Ford's performance but the characterization and writing of the relationship of Robinson and his wife Rachel (Belharie). This film easily could have just been about how they overcame adversity together and how she handled his fame and attention. Their scenes are very genuine and Belharie might be someone to watch in the upcoming years.
It is difficult not to recommend "42". It is a well-acted, interesting story that will most certainly make you think about the accomplishments of Robinson and the African American baseball players that followed. It is all entertaining but seems to be missing something special that matches such a perfect story. As it is, "42" is worth your time but you are probably better off tracking down the 1996 HBO film "Soul of the Game". It is a solid single but could have easily knocked a run in had it tried just a little more.
Saturday, April 13, 2013
"Trance" 2 stars out of 4 (C)
The more films I see by him, Danny Boyle comes off like the art-house equivalent of Michael Bay. Everything he films looks fantastic and usually has some equally hypnotic music pumping over it. Whereas Michael Bay just specializes in "'SPLOSIONS!" (that is spelled correctly) and not a lot of substance, Boyle's substance is often its own 'splosion. It might look really good but you don't want to think about it too much lest you see the wires. "Trance" is one of these movies. It looks great and seems to go somewhere but by the end we are just left with hurt eyes and the feeling like we've been had.
If there is anything to say about Boyle's films is that they are often difficult to explain. "Trance" is no different. It is also quite difficult to explain without getting into some sort of spoilers. If you have any interest in going to this movie, it is probably best to go in responsibly blind. Simon (James McAvoy), an art auctioneer, is having a rough time. Robbers lead by a guy named Franck (Vincent Cassel) have burst into his art auction in hopes of stealing a priceless Goya painting.. During the procedures he is supposed to follow in the event of a robbery attempt, Simon hands Franck the painting only to attempt to be a hero. What does he get for his heroism? A hard hit to the head. So large, in fact, that he forgets a large span of time immediately after the cold-cocking. When Franck gets back to his lair (hideout?), he discovers the painting is not there. Only one person knows where it is, Simon. The problem is that Franck's blow to the head has seemed to dislodge that information. Franck decides to take Simon to see a hypnotist named Elizabeth (Rosario Dawson), in order to hopefully reconnect Simon with the missing information. Twists and turns follow.
It can't be said that Danny Boyle makes bad looking films. "Trance" is no exception. It is quickly edited but never difficult to watch. Everything looks great (insert squeezy Rosario Dawson comment) and keeps the viewer interested. The problem with Boyle's films is that they aren't always easy to comprehend. I don't mean this in the sense that something like Terrance Malick's films are hard to understand. I mean that at times the plot can get so convoluted that you could swear it were littered with plot holes. Unfortunately, you aren't sure if it is in fact littered because you gave up trying. While the first half is entertaining and relatively easy to follow, the second half of "Trance" has scene after scene of eyebrow-raising plot developments that you will either want to dissect for the rest of the night or never think of again. I, unfortunately chose the later. The more I thought about the plot developments, the less they made sense and the more they appeared to just be an experiment. "What can I do next? Where can I take this story next?" As Ian Malcolm said in the recently re-released "Jurassic Park" "They were so preoccupied with whether or not they could that they didn't stop to think if they should."
There is very little reason to discuss the performances of the main actors as Boyle's films are more substance than content. Everyone is serviceable although I keep expecting Dawson to deliver a performance that impresses me and it doesn't seem like it will ever happen.
If Boyle can be commended for anything, it could be that "Trance" is a somewhat unexpected release after his last film, the much-loved but vastly overrated "Slumdog Millionaire". He could have played it safe and just made another feel-good movie. Instead he made a movie that hops between genres faster than you can follow. Too bad it isn't attached to a more competent film. Much of "Trance" feels like a first-time feature by a director that will no doubt produce something interesting in the future. There isn't really an excuse for the very experienced Boyle.
Sunday, April 7, 2013
"Evil Dead" 1.5 stars out of 4 (D+)
As I get older, I enjoy the stereotypical "gory horror movie" less and less. There was a certain charm to the horror films of the 70s, 80s, and some of the 90s. They were less about being gruesome and more about just be startling. The 70s and 80s films can be enjoyed simply on making fun of the fake plastic disembodied heads or the varying shades of red (pink? BROWN?) that they would use to make the blood. I find very little interest in so-called "torture porn". I don't like to see good people suffer. I can't understand why people would be alright with that. My favorite horror films are the ones that combine comedy and horror. I'm a fan of the "Final Destination" series. I'm also a fan of the original "Evil Dead" series. Sam Raimi's original films mixed comedy into horror and eventually turned into comedy with touches of horror. They had the audience laughing between being disgusted. This is where the 2013 remake of "Evil Dead" fails. It is just gruesome and mean with no hint of amusement or enjoyment. It is a well-made special effects reel with the beginnings of a good story that just stumbles around giving glimpses of the original series and then spitting on them with black bile.
You know the drill. Five young-adults meet up in a secluded cabin in the woods (not to be confused with THE "Cabin in the Woods", the infinitely better film from last year). They are all here to help Mia (Jane Levy) overcome a drug habit, a story-line that would have been perused and put in another film or used much better here (combining the "demons" of drug-use with real "demons", maybe?). The group is drawn to a horrible smell in the basement which turns out to be the mummified corpses of animals. You'd think this would be enough to get them to get back in the car, right? Nope. Eric (the insufferable Lou Taylor Pucci), the nerdy one (who you can tell is nerdy from the beard, of course) comes across a book that appears to be bound in human skin and has lots of creepy drawings and writings begging whoever reads it to not read it out loud or write the phrases. So naturally Eric does this. This unleashes some sort of power and it terrorizes the group.
The original "Evil Dead" was very violent and gory. The possessed characters lost limbs resulting in large amounts of bright red blood-like substances shooting and also quite a lot of white milk (for some reason). The gore was almost played for a comedic effect, something that the later "Evil Dead 2: Dead By Dawn" and "Army of Darkness" would fully utilize. The remake of "Evil Dead" doesn't want to make you laugh or smile. It wants to just make you look away. There is nothing surprising, funny, shocking, or interesting about seeing a person who is possessed urinate on themselves. It is simply an exercise in doing something simply because you can do it. I'm far from a hater of gory violence in horror films. It most certainly serves a purpose. The purpose they use it for in "Evil Dead" is simply to make you look away. If that is what you are looking for, by all means go right ahead.
A true scary horror film has to make you root for the characters. While Levy's character is believable (and deserves a much better movie), I could not possibly see Pucci's character killed fast enough. If you don't care about the characters, it just becomes blood splattered on a wall. This film can never decide if the characters are simply vessels filled with red goop or if we should care about them.
If there is anything to like about "Evil Dead" is that it almost never (if ever) relies on CGI effects. It leads me to hope that director Fede Alvarez can put together an original horror story using these techniques and make them look as good as they do here. Until then, I will be eagerly awaiting the next Ti West film or, to a lesser extent, the next Alexandre Aja film.
You know the drill. Five young-adults meet up in a secluded cabin in the woods (not to be confused with THE "Cabin in the Woods", the infinitely better film from last year). They are all here to help Mia (Jane Levy) overcome a drug habit, a story-line that would have been perused and put in another film or used much better here (combining the "demons" of drug-use with real "demons", maybe?). The group is drawn to a horrible smell in the basement which turns out to be the mummified corpses of animals. You'd think this would be enough to get them to get back in the car, right? Nope. Eric (the insufferable Lou Taylor Pucci), the nerdy one (who you can tell is nerdy from the beard, of course) comes across a book that appears to be bound in human skin and has lots of creepy drawings and writings begging whoever reads it to not read it out loud or write the phrases. So naturally Eric does this. This unleashes some sort of power and it terrorizes the group.
The original "Evil Dead" was very violent and gory. The possessed characters lost limbs resulting in large amounts of bright red blood-like substances shooting and also quite a lot of white milk (for some reason). The gore was almost played for a comedic effect, something that the later "Evil Dead 2: Dead By Dawn" and "Army of Darkness" would fully utilize. The remake of "Evil Dead" doesn't want to make you laugh or smile. It wants to just make you look away. There is nothing surprising, funny, shocking, or interesting about seeing a person who is possessed urinate on themselves. It is simply an exercise in doing something simply because you can do it. I'm far from a hater of gory violence in horror films. It most certainly serves a purpose. The purpose they use it for in "Evil Dead" is simply to make you look away. If that is what you are looking for, by all means go right ahead.
A true scary horror film has to make you root for the characters. While Levy's character is believable (and deserves a much better movie), I could not possibly see Pucci's character killed fast enough. If you don't care about the characters, it just becomes blood splattered on a wall. This film can never decide if the characters are simply vessels filled with red goop or if we should care about them.
If there is anything to like about "Evil Dead" is that it almost never (if ever) relies on CGI effects. It leads me to hope that director Fede Alvarez can put together an original horror story using these techniques and make them look as good as they do here. Until then, I will be eagerly awaiting the next Ti West film or, to a lesser extent, the next Alexandre Aja film.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)