So this is actually a complilation of some of the movies I've seen since going on vacation near the end of December (in no particular order.)
Vantage Point: This movie had all the makings of a potential disaster and avoided most of them. I wasn't sold on the "same incident from multiple viewpoints" concept, especially after the first time "reboot." However, the movie avoided rehashing "what has gone on before," to the point where they lost the viewer each time they reset the clock to show a new perspective, and rather did a very good job of advancing the plot. The action was handled well in the film, and while the twists were very predictable, the movie held together very well. From a plausability standpoint, I has concerns that this would turn into an extended episode of "24" which has more plot holes and plausability issues than a Laurell K. Hamilton novel, but, once again, the writing was handled very well and giving the personal perspective of everyone was a welcome touch.
However, there is no way this movie would have worked anywhere near as well as it did without Forrest Whitaker. I've been a fan of his since Fast Times and Ridgemont High and every movie he's in he brings a humanizing touch too (yes, even Last King of Scotland.) His character was not only central to bringing the whole plot together, but, without his ability to get you to believe in his character, this movie wouldn't have worked. I was entertained!
Southland Tales: Make no bones about it, this movie is a mess. The plot, unlike Richard Kelly's last film, Donnie Darko, never really came together into a satisfying conclusion. The writing is uneven and it was pretty obvious to me that Kevin Smith had at least a substantial contribution into the majority of Sarah Michelle Geller's character's lines, because Richard Kelley cannot write characters like her, and certainly a majority of what came out of her mouth sounded more in tune with a Kevin Smith film than a Richard Kelly.
The sad thing is, this movie has a ton of potential, not as a movie, but a 4-6 hour mini-series. The back story is interesting, the anthropology behind the world as it is in the movie was engaging. Even the "plot" of the film had potential, but it just never came together in any satisfying way.
From a visual perspective, most of the time the movie is really well put together, however, especially in the drug sequences, Richard Kelly went too overboard in trying to get us to see the scene as a dream and would have been better off taking them with a more realistic approach.
Three actors really stood out in the film for me: 1. Cheri Oteri. I would have liked to have seen her character foam at the mouth a little more, but she did very well in a mostly non-comedic role. 2. Jon Lovitz: All I can say is, holy crap. This small role gave me a perspective that he would make one heck of a "disturbed psychotic," in a psychological thriller. I didn't think he had it in him, but he does. 3. Dwayne Johnson. We know he can play "the Rock," and saw glimpses of that character here, but he impressed me as someone who was, at times, completly neurotic.
While the movie as a whole was a mess, I enjoyed parts of it.
The Bucket List: Take two great actors, put them in a melanchology buddy film and let them go. This movie had potential to head straight down the tubes and managed to avoid the drain. Once again, the markerting department screwed this one up, trying to play it as a comedy. Yes, there where funny moments in it, however, this was more of a character study focused on the character growth as they approach death. Sure, it's hard as heck to market a movie about two guys who are dying, but they could have done better.
One thing I noticed with this film is the trend Jack Nicholson is taking in his recent roles: He's still playing "Jack Nicholson" but with more introspection. It's almost as if he's taking roles that reflect where he's at in life after playing "Jack Nicholson" for the last 30 years. And, if he is, in fact making said decisions consciously, I suspect George Clooney may want to watch those films and figure out that the life of the Hollywood playboy will leave you quite alone in the end.
Regardless, I enjoyed this film.
Jane Austen Book Club: I like romatic dramas. Especially those which focus on characters with believable situations. This movie easily met this criteria. Both intelligent in the nature of the interpersonal relationships as well as the light humor which was used throughout the movie to keep it moving along, the movie flowed exceptionally well and, while I had a few quibbles with one of the characters, I enjoyed engaging with all the characters for the two hours of this movie. While I don't have as much to say about the film, it was probably the one I enjoyed the most.
Over Her Dead Body: This movie had a lot of potential and never reached it. A lot of the comedy fell flat (much of the "humor" was Eve Longoria Parker's character being mean to another and that type of humor never sits well with me,) the romance was stilted at best and I really felt bad for Jason Biggs who seems to be increasingly stereotyped into the comedic sidekick, but never seems to get the quality of material he deserves. I did laugh at a few of the jokes and while the movie was predictable, I didn't get up from the couch thinking "what a waste." On the other hand, I didn't leave the couch thinking "Wow, that was a lot of fun."
Bourne Ultimatum: The Jason Bourne films all seem to flow together to me in one giant mush. They remind me of the TV series 24, but with more intelligence. The third installment was no different. Yes, there are a few action scenes, however, the movie, like the first two is esentially one oddly paced chase film all the while trying to solve a mystery. That isn't to say they don't have their place and are certainly a welcome exception to the standard action films these days, however, there's just nothing unique enough between the three films to make them absolutley stand out for me. I am entertained by the series, but wish there was more to distinguish the three apart.
Doomed: Straight to cable film about a TV game show where people who are under the death penalty have the chance to win money and their freedom. Did I mention there were "zombies" on the island? The movie actually had potential to be a commentary on our society in a number of ways and fell flat. Really flat. While I didn't ask for my 85 minutes back, I didn't think the movie had much to offer after the fact and wouldn't reccomend it.
Gangs of the Dead: Another straight to cable film as far as I can tell. This time the Zombies are in the 'hood and two rival gangs and policemen have to cooperate to survive. This one was so bad I didn't even finish it. Medicore plot, awful effects, and acting that made me wince. I was not entertained.
Definitely, Maybe: So this was another film marketed as a "Romantic Comedy," but really, there wasn't a lot of comedy in the film. The premise of a soon to be divorced father telling his daughter the story of his love life without mentioning which woman in the sotry is his soon to be ex-wife has potential. And the movie was engaging in each of the pastiche's which forwarded the story. However, the pacing was off on this one. Ryan Reynolds did a good job as the main character, however, I felt his character should have been taken in a different direction by the director or writer in the "sad sack" part of the story. They played it for humor which was inappropriate and made his character less sympathetic, when the moments had the potential for you to really identify with him. Still, the movie was enjoyable.
Monday, January 12, 2009
Monday, December 1, 2008
Movie review - Twilight
It's been a while since I've had anything to say about entertainment. Not because I haven't been watching movies, but rather that life has intervened and most of the movies I've been watching are ones I've already seen. I do have a list to get through, but wanted to start back up with a movie still in the theaters: Twilight.
Obviously, I'm not the target audience for this film. Keep that in mind.
I understand the vampire conventions. I read a lot of books and watch a lot of movies. The Twilight series is one I've never read, so I went into the movie with no preconceptions.
As a story concept, the first movie in this series is solid: Girl moves to new town, girl falls for hot boy, hot boy is a 100 year old vampire, issues ensue which only strengthen the bond between them.
Nothing spectacularly new. Yes there are "twists" such as that the vampire is part of a small clan which are "vegetarian" vampires, which means they don't "eat" human blood and sunlight causes them to go all glittery as part of their predatory capabilities, but, like Buffy the Vampire Slayer's "Angel" "Bill" from True Blood, "Edward" from Twilight is a new generation of vampire: self aware as a killer and choosing to reject his societal norms trying to integrate into the human society.
Still, the movie had a lot of issues some of which come from catering to an audience with preconceptions.
Like the Harry Potter series, Twilight has a built in audience of millions who've already read this book and, most likely, the entirety of the series.
So the writers and director are left in a really precarious position: How far can you go into the depths of the book be it with subtle nuances or outright display without alienating the people who are seeing the movie because they were intrigued by the trailer but haven't read the books, heard of the books but know nothing about them, or are being dragged, possibly kicking and screaming, by someone who is flat out in love with the books?
For the first two on the former list, you’re really stuck. Go too in depth and you lose the first time viewer. Don’t go in depth enough and the fan who is your built in audience will not be dragging their friends to see it when they go for the second or third time.
From someone coming into this world with no preconceptions and no understanding of the world, I thought the movie missed on a lot of levels plot wise.
I know I’m not one for spoilers, but there are some specifics I need to complain about so………..
********SPOLIER ALERT********
For someone just coming into the books, I still have no idea if the sheriff father knows of the existence of vampires. There are intimations that he most likely does, then again, he seems so clueless about the nature of the attacks that I have to wonder. This plot point needs to be clarified in the movie.
Bitchy vampire sister. I get it. She hates our heroine because she wants Edward and will be the antagonist for the next movie. I thought the completely non subtle way we were hammered over the head with the intimation she’s going to cause trouble in the next movie was waaaaaaaaaaaay overdone at the end.
Native American Werewolves. It’s implied but we never see them. Maybe they aren’t integral to this plot, but they are implied. We needed more background than a Google Indian legend found on Google. At one point during the movie we are told there is a complication to Edward and Bella’s relationship because of the Native American friends her dad has but it comes to nothing. You needed to emphasize this thread more, especially since I am willing to be it becomes a big issue later on.
Teenie Boppers. This movie has them and there are subplots involving them, however they sort of come and go throughout the movie and usually in an intrusive way. This was one of those plot areas I felt probably had to be in for the fan folk as well as the overall story line, but was so poorly executed that it distracted from the overall experience.
Points for realism. Ok, I get that you are messing with the vampire codex to explain why they don’t show themselves in sunlight in this day and age. However, even in the “rainiest place in the United States,” you are going to have more than 8 days with sunlight and that seems to be “the line” high schools draw these days for absences. Yes, “daddy” is a doctor and could write them medical notes, but no school in the world is going to let the kids out of school that much and let them pass/graduate.
Make up your mind what movie you are making. Once again, it’s based on a book with probably a lot more back story and I know that my wife insists there are no new plot ideas but, as near as I can tell you have the following movies happening all together:
A: Ten Things I Hate About You: They combined the “Bad boy with a lot of rumors surrounding him romantic interest” with the “new kid in school” romance element.
B: She’s All That: “Outcast finds a place with the popular crowd.”
C: Karate Kid: “New kid in town triumphs over adversity and background to get the hot, unattainable rich kid.”
D: The Lost Boys and Near Dark: “New kid in town hooks up with hot vampire and deals with integration issues with the long standing members of the pack.”
E: Sixteen Candles: “Outcast Girl gets the hot guy with the cool car.”
And those are just the teen romance movies.
Then you have the secondary conflict.
A: The Terminator: “James will not stop until Bella is dead and is much stronger and more powerful than the puny human.”
B: The Terminator 2: “Strong non human and counterpart fight over the human doing untold damage to the scenery in the process.”
C: Any martial arts film from Hong Kong or the USA after about 1995: It’s all about the wirework.
*********END PLOT SPOILERS********
So, with all that out, lets talk effects:
Ok, this is a medium budget film.
But, there are no “A” list actors in the film.
So say the film had a small (approximately 10 million) budget for effects. I had small quibbles with the strength displays, with the car scene from the trailer being the best of them and very well done. What bugged me the most is the “super speed” effects which were done throughout the film. In specific, it’s the legs. Every single one of those shots were done in low light or in forest. There was NO (pardon my yelling) reason to show the legs of the vampires as they did the super speed thing. It looked cheesy and detracted from the film. In every shot I can remember, there would have been no detraction from the scene to either do a combination of two things:
1. Give us a first person POV not looking at people’s legs. Bella, as she clings to Edward and he runs through the woods. That scene would have been enhanced by a first person POV of her looking over Edwards head as they race through the woods. Yes, it was done in Return of the Jedi. And, you know what, it worked! What they did with the wide angle pan shot was make things look silly. The same could have been done for James’ run through the woods/racing the car and, once again, you add tension to a scene that should have had tension, instead of pulling us out of the scene with the silliness.
2. If you’re going to do a side pan shot, make them a blur with flashes of hair and clothing color to remind us who is running. By having the environment react to the vampire racing through it as opposed to showing them directly, you add texture to the shot without overdoing it.
Makeup:
I have to mention the makeup especially on Carlisle: Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay overdone with the whiteface. He looked like a guy with a lot of white pancake makeup on or his face was covered in zinc oxide, not that he was someone who never saw the sun. I don’t care if I’m bleeding out, having a massive coronary and have a limb held on only by a flap of skin all at the same time, if he walked into my room as a doctor, I’m running out of the room.
So what about sound? As you can probably deduce if you’ve read any of my earlier reviews, I’m an audio junkie. To me, sound matters. This movie has it’s ups and downs. First, I have to give the director credit for making a teenage movie without a single obvious and intrusive pop song tie in (there may have been one, but it was so well done I couldn’t remember it.) The orchestration underlying most scenes was well placed.
But!
(There’s always a but.)
Music enhances the mood. The orchestration used throughout the majority of the film was trying for haunting and mysterious and came across as slow and plodding. In the few scenes there was tension or action, we had the same slow paced orchestration. I’m not asking for Rossini or Paganini in the action scenes but picking up the pace in the orchestration would have, once again enhanced the scenes and further drawn the viewer in. Instead, we plodded along with the music and were distanced from the tension.
And that underlies a major problem in the movie: Pacing.
This movie was so unevenly paced, I was unsure whether I was watching a comedy, a romance, a mystery or an action film. Once again, the movie couldn’t make up it’s mind and moved in fit’s and spurts which distracted from the story.
Finally, the acting.
I’m tying this into the directing in this case, because this film is filled with actors I am familiar with and know their capabilities and ranges (with the exception of the leads, of which I only knew one as Cedric Diggory in Harry Potter and Goblet of Fire which wasn’t a “stretch” type of role.) I think the best acting in this film came from the teenagers at the high school. They were real, plausible and genuine. As for the vampires, older townsfolk and vampires, with few exceptions which were scene based, they seemed to be plodding through the film without much belief in the role they were playing. The one adult exception would be Gil Birmingham who played the Native American dad the wheelchair. He was likeable, had interactions with other characters that seemed to bring out some semblance of believable humanity as opposed to looking at someone acting a role.
Now, less you think I despised this movie, the truth is, I enjoyed large parts of it, however, as a whole, the movie was somewhat of a mess and was more on the line of "wait for video" rather than the matinee price I paid.
Still, it did meet my criterion for fun, and I was entertained.
Obviously, I'm not the target audience for this film. Keep that in mind.
I understand the vampire conventions. I read a lot of books and watch a lot of movies. The Twilight series is one I've never read, so I went into the movie with no preconceptions.
As a story concept, the first movie in this series is solid: Girl moves to new town, girl falls for hot boy, hot boy is a 100 year old vampire, issues ensue which only strengthen the bond between them.
Nothing spectacularly new. Yes there are "twists" such as that the vampire is part of a small clan which are "vegetarian" vampires, which means they don't "eat" human blood and sunlight causes them to go all glittery as part of their predatory capabilities, but, like Buffy the Vampire Slayer's "Angel" "Bill" from True Blood, "Edward" from Twilight is a new generation of vampire: self aware as a killer and choosing to reject his societal norms trying to integrate into the human society.
Still, the movie had a lot of issues some of which come from catering to an audience with preconceptions.
Like the Harry Potter series, Twilight has a built in audience of millions who've already read this book and, most likely, the entirety of the series.
So the writers and director are left in a really precarious position: How far can you go into the depths of the book be it with subtle nuances or outright display without alienating the people who are seeing the movie because they were intrigued by the trailer but haven't read the books, heard of the books but know nothing about them, or are being dragged, possibly kicking and screaming, by someone who is flat out in love with the books?
For the first two on the former list, you’re really stuck. Go too in depth and you lose the first time viewer. Don’t go in depth enough and the fan who is your built in audience will not be dragging their friends to see it when they go for the second or third time.
From someone coming into this world with no preconceptions and no understanding of the world, I thought the movie missed on a lot of levels plot wise.
I know I’m not one for spoilers, but there are some specifics I need to complain about so………..
********SPOLIER ALERT********
For someone just coming into the books, I still have no idea if the sheriff father knows of the existence of vampires. There are intimations that he most likely does, then again, he seems so clueless about the nature of the attacks that I have to wonder. This plot point needs to be clarified in the movie.
Bitchy vampire sister. I get it. She hates our heroine because she wants Edward and will be the antagonist for the next movie. I thought the completely non subtle way we were hammered over the head with the intimation she’s going to cause trouble in the next movie was waaaaaaaaaaaay overdone at the end.
Native American Werewolves. It’s implied but we never see them. Maybe they aren’t integral to this plot, but they are implied. We needed more background than a Google Indian legend found on Google. At one point during the movie we are told there is a complication to Edward and Bella’s relationship because of the Native American friends her dad has but it comes to nothing. You needed to emphasize this thread more, especially since I am willing to be it becomes a big issue later on.
Teenie Boppers. This movie has them and there are subplots involving them, however they sort of come and go throughout the movie and usually in an intrusive way. This was one of those plot areas I felt probably had to be in for the fan folk as well as the overall story line, but was so poorly executed that it distracted from the overall experience.
Points for realism. Ok, I get that you are messing with the vampire codex to explain why they don’t show themselves in sunlight in this day and age. However, even in the “rainiest place in the United States,” you are going to have more than 8 days with sunlight and that seems to be “the line” high schools draw these days for absences. Yes, “daddy” is a doctor and could write them medical notes, but no school in the world is going to let the kids out of school that much and let them pass/graduate.
Make up your mind what movie you are making. Once again, it’s based on a book with probably a lot more back story and I know that my wife insists there are no new plot ideas but, as near as I can tell you have the following movies happening all together:
A: Ten Things I Hate About You: They combined the “Bad boy with a lot of rumors surrounding him romantic interest” with the “new kid in school” romance element.
B: She’s All That: “Outcast finds a place with the popular crowd.”
C: Karate Kid: “New kid in town triumphs over adversity and background to get the hot, unattainable rich kid.”
D: The Lost Boys and Near Dark: “New kid in town hooks up with hot vampire and deals with integration issues with the long standing members of the pack.”
E: Sixteen Candles: “Outcast Girl gets the hot guy with the cool car.”
And those are just the teen romance movies.
Then you have the secondary conflict.
A: The Terminator: “James will not stop until Bella is dead and is much stronger and more powerful than the puny human.”
B: The Terminator 2: “Strong non human and counterpart fight over the human doing untold damage to the scenery in the process.”
C: Any martial arts film from Hong Kong or the USA after about 1995: It’s all about the wirework.
*********END PLOT SPOILERS********
So, with all that out, lets talk effects:
Ok, this is a medium budget film.
But, there are no “A” list actors in the film.
So say the film had a small (approximately 10 million) budget for effects. I had small quibbles with the strength displays, with the car scene from the trailer being the best of them and very well done. What bugged me the most is the “super speed” effects which were done throughout the film. In specific, it’s the legs. Every single one of those shots were done in low light or in forest. There was NO (pardon my yelling) reason to show the legs of the vampires as they did the super speed thing. It looked cheesy and detracted from the film. In every shot I can remember, there would have been no detraction from the scene to either do a combination of two things:
1. Give us a first person POV not looking at people’s legs. Bella, as she clings to Edward and he runs through the woods. That scene would have been enhanced by a first person POV of her looking over Edwards head as they race through the woods. Yes, it was done in Return of the Jedi. And, you know what, it worked! What they did with the wide angle pan shot was make things look silly. The same could have been done for James’ run through the woods/racing the car and, once again, you add tension to a scene that should have had tension, instead of pulling us out of the scene with the silliness.
2. If you’re going to do a side pan shot, make them a blur with flashes of hair and clothing color to remind us who is running. By having the environment react to the vampire racing through it as opposed to showing them directly, you add texture to the shot without overdoing it.
Makeup:
I have to mention the makeup especially on Carlisle: Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay overdone with the whiteface. He looked like a guy with a lot of white pancake makeup on or his face was covered in zinc oxide, not that he was someone who never saw the sun. I don’t care if I’m bleeding out, having a massive coronary and have a limb held on only by a flap of skin all at the same time, if he walked into my room as a doctor, I’m running out of the room.
So what about sound? As you can probably deduce if you’ve read any of my earlier reviews, I’m an audio junkie. To me, sound matters. This movie has it’s ups and downs. First, I have to give the director credit for making a teenage movie without a single obvious and intrusive pop song tie in (there may have been one, but it was so well done I couldn’t remember it.) The orchestration underlying most scenes was well placed.
But!
(There’s always a but.)
Music enhances the mood. The orchestration used throughout the majority of the film was trying for haunting and mysterious and came across as slow and plodding. In the few scenes there was tension or action, we had the same slow paced orchestration. I’m not asking for Rossini or Paganini in the action scenes but picking up the pace in the orchestration would have, once again enhanced the scenes and further drawn the viewer in. Instead, we plodded along with the music and were distanced from the tension.
And that underlies a major problem in the movie: Pacing.
This movie was so unevenly paced, I was unsure whether I was watching a comedy, a romance, a mystery or an action film. Once again, the movie couldn’t make up it’s mind and moved in fit’s and spurts which distracted from the story.
Finally, the acting.
I’m tying this into the directing in this case, because this film is filled with actors I am familiar with and know their capabilities and ranges (with the exception of the leads, of which I only knew one as Cedric Diggory in Harry Potter and Goblet of Fire which wasn’t a “stretch” type of role.) I think the best acting in this film came from the teenagers at the high school. They were real, plausible and genuine. As for the vampires, older townsfolk and vampires, with few exceptions which were scene based, they seemed to be plodding through the film without much belief in the role they were playing. The one adult exception would be Gil Birmingham who played the Native American dad the wheelchair. He was likeable, had interactions with other characters that seemed to bring out some semblance of believable humanity as opposed to looking at someone acting a role.
Now, less you think I despised this movie, the truth is, I enjoyed large parts of it, however, as a whole, the movie was somewhat of a mess and was more on the line of "wait for video" rather than the matinee price I paid.
Still, it did meet my criterion for fun, and I was entertained.
Saturday, July 19, 2008
Movie Review - Reign Over Me
This movie was actually part of my video fest while the family was out of town, but I felt it deserved a full review rather than a quick dash an go.
First let's talk Adam Sandler.
I like Adam Sandler as an actor and a comedian. Before I saw this film I would have said he'd done mostly good movies, two great ones and a few not so good films. I'd say they were bad films, but even the ones I really didn't like had moments where I will still quote today and, for that reason alone, they deserve a "not so good" rating from me.
(In case you're wondering, the two films I rate as "great" are "The Wedding Singer" and "Spanglish." I'm not a big PTA fan and while I appreciated Sandler's role and the stretch from his previous characters, I just didn't think "Punch Drunk Love." was a great film.)
If there were any one complaint I have about Adam Sandler's characters it's the "over the top" nature that most seem to have, even if it's for a moment in a movie where the character didn't display said attributes before.
As you can guess by my great rating of "Spanglish" I do see a lot of potential for Sandler in a straight dramatic role.
"Reign Over Me" proved that, not only can Sandler act in a completely dramatic role, he can do so in a fashion where the "over the top" character doesn't come out.
Now, certainly, the director has a lot to do with this as well. There is one scene in particular where his character is out of control (I won't go into specifics as it's a pivitol scence in the film) where a lesser director/actor whould have let the out of control character that Sandler has built up come out and play and it would have shattered the scene and possibly the whole movie in that moment. However, in that moment, Sandler may have defined his career as an actor. The pain the character is feeling, the issues that he'd (not) dealing with, it all comes out in a powerful scene that compeltely captured me.
So what about the rest of the film?
The truth is, this isn't Adam Sandler's film: It's Don Cheadle's. The story really revolves around his character.
The basics of the film (mostly shown in the trailer) are as follows:
Don Cheadle's character, Alan, is a dentist who's got a lot of dissatisfaction in his life. By chance, he runs into his old Dentistry college roommate, Charlie (Sandler.) Charlie lost his wife and 3 girls during 9/11 (they were on one of the planes from Boston,) a fact Alan is aware of (but no mention is made during the trailer as to when he found out.)
Charlie in his grief has disconnected from reality in several ways: he doesn't practice dentistry anymore, drives around Manhattan at night on an electric scooter and has tried to build up a wall of denial about what has happened to his life.
What the trailer tried to convey was this is a "buddy film" where Don Cheadle's character Alan reconnects with Adam Sandler and frees himself by living vicariously through Charlie.
The truth is, this isn't that film. That's the film the marketing folks tried to sell you to get you in the theaters.
The actual film is as follows:
Alan has a lot of dissatisfaction in his life. He seems to be drifting, letting everyone else dictate how his life should be. He works in a dentistry practice that he put together and now his partners are stomping all over him. The pain of everyday life shows on his face which has lead to more than one woman trying to seduce him to help ease his obvious anguish in life. And moreover, he's aware of his ennui. He finds reasons to leave the building his practice is in at the same time as a psychologist, played by Liv Tyler and asks her advice on behalf of a "friend," a ploy she sees right through.
By chance encounter, Alan sees his old roommate, whos circumstances he's been aware of since September 2001 (and he tried to contact him after the attacks.) Later, he encounters him a second time in such a manner that he can actually talk to his former roommate. It becomes quickly apparent to Alan that Charlie has completely and deliberately lost touch with reality: He's been remodeling his kitchen for 5 years, he denies evern having a wife and kids and spends a lot of his days obsessing over a video game only to play drums with a punk band at night.
Feeling he has no control over his own life, Alan believes he can help Charlie take control of his.
And that's just the first 30 minutes of the movie.
This is not a simple movie.
There's a lot of complexity going on with mutiple subplots that tie in together very well.
But it's really the acting and direction which stand out in the film.
Without some serious acting chops from both Cheadle and Sandler, this movie would quickly degenerate into the buddy film it was advertised as and a lot of the subtlety would be lost without Mike Binder's direction. It certainly doesn't hurt that Binder wrote the film and has the experience to pull off his own vision (something I don't know that he would have been able to if this had been written 15 years ago when he wrote and directed another one of my "comfort films" "Indian Summer.")
A word of note: This is not a "happy go lucky" film. If you're in the mood for light entertainment ala "Happy Gilmore," this is not the film for you at this time. This is a serious drama and while it may or may not cause you to reflect on your own life, it's certainly one that will get you thinking.
I was entertained.
First let's talk Adam Sandler.
I like Adam Sandler as an actor and a comedian. Before I saw this film I would have said he'd done mostly good movies, two great ones and a few not so good films. I'd say they were bad films, but even the ones I really didn't like had moments where I will still quote today and, for that reason alone, they deserve a "not so good" rating from me.
(In case you're wondering, the two films I rate as "great" are "The Wedding Singer" and "Spanglish." I'm not a big PTA fan and while I appreciated Sandler's role and the stretch from his previous characters, I just didn't think "Punch Drunk Love." was a great film.)
If there were any one complaint I have about Adam Sandler's characters it's the "over the top" nature that most seem to have, even if it's for a moment in a movie where the character didn't display said attributes before.
As you can guess by my great rating of "Spanglish" I do see a lot of potential for Sandler in a straight dramatic role.
"Reign Over Me" proved that, not only can Sandler act in a completely dramatic role, he can do so in a fashion where the "over the top" character doesn't come out.
Now, certainly, the director has a lot to do with this as well. There is one scene in particular where his character is out of control (I won't go into specifics as it's a pivitol scence in the film) where a lesser director/actor whould have let the out of control character that Sandler has built up come out and play and it would have shattered the scene and possibly the whole movie in that moment. However, in that moment, Sandler may have defined his career as an actor. The pain the character is feeling, the issues that he'd (not) dealing with, it all comes out in a powerful scene that compeltely captured me.
So what about the rest of the film?
The truth is, this isn't Adam Sandler's film: It's Don Cheadle's. The story really revolves around his character.
The basics of the film (mostly shown in the trailer) are as follows:
Don Cheadle's character, Alan, is a dentist who's got a lot of dissatisfaction in his life. By chance, he runs into his old Dentistry college roommate, Charlie (Sandler.) Charlie lost his wife and 3 girls during 9/11 (they were on one of the planes from Boston,) a fact Alan is aware of (but no mention is made during the trailer as to when he found out.)
Charlie in his grief has disconnected from reality in several ways: he doesn't practice dentistry anymore, drives around Manhattan at night on an electric scooter and has tried to build up a wall of denial about what has happened to his life.
What the trailer tried to convey was this is a "buddy film" where Don Cheadle's character Alan reconnects with Adam Sandler and frees himself by living vicariously through Charlie.
The truth is, this isn't that film. That's the film the marketing folks tried to sell you to get you in the theaters.
The actual film is as follows:
Alan has a lot of dissatisfaction in his life. He seems to be drifting, letting everyone else dictate how his life should be. He works in a dentistry practice that he put together and now his partners are stomping all over him. The pain of everyday life shows on his face which has lead to more than one woman trying to seduce him to help ease his obvious anguish in life. And moreover, he's aware of his ennui. He finds reasons to leave the building his practice is in at the same time as a psychologist, played by Liv Tyler and asks her advice on behalf of a "friend," a ploy she sees right through.
By chance encounter, Alan sees his old roommate, whos circumstances he's been aware of since September 2001 (and he tried to contact him after the attacks.) Later, he encounters him a second time in such a manner that he can actually talk to his former roommate. It becomes quickly apparent to Alan that Charlie has completely and deliberately lost touch with reality: He's been remodeling his kitchen for 5 years, he denies evern having a wife and kids and spends a lot of his days obsessing over a video game only to play drums with a punk band at night.
Feeling he has no control over his own life, Alan believes he can help Charlie take control of his.
And that's just the first 30 minutes of the movie.
This is not a simple movie.
There's a lot of complexity going on with mutiple subplots that tie in together very well.
But it's really the acting and direction which stand out in the film.
Without some serious acting chops from both Cheadle and Sandler, this movie would quickly degenerate into the buddy film it was advertised as and a lot of the subtlety would be lost without Mike Binder's direction. It certainly doesn't hurt that Binder wrote the film and has the experience to pull off his own vision (something I don't know that he would have been able to if this had been written 15 years ago when he wrote and directed another one of my "comfort films" "Indian Summer.")
A word of note: This is not a "happy go lucky" film. If you're in the mood for light entertainment ala "Happy Gilmore," this is not the film for you at this time. This is a serious drama and while it may or may not cause you to reflect on your own life, it's certainly one that will get you thinking.
I was entertained.
Monday, July 7, 2008
Movie reviews - Video Fest
There comes a time in everyone's life when they find themselves at odds for a few days.
In my case, my family is down in the Bay Area so I took the time to gorge out on cable and DVD's.
While these reviews will be in no way as extensive as my previous, I thought I'd share some of my observations from the couch from this long weekend:
Kickin it Old Skool:
I'm a fan of social commentary and this movie provided it with a lot of low humor with a sweet undertone of a love story. My biggest complaint about the film (and it is a small complaint at that,) was the cruelty of the "bad guy." Yes, he was an ass and we got that. I just felt he was unnecessary cruel. However, Jamie Kennedy and his "crew" pulled off the "retro" dance moves with panache and humor and the underlying story was done with enough thought that I was able to both suspend my disbelief and enjoy myself. I was entertained.
Crank:
My first thought after seeing this film was "whomever green lighted this film should be shot." The movie was "over the top" much in the way a Troma film is, but with high production values. However, even with it's over the top nature, the film just fell flat. With the exception of the last 10 inutes of the film, I couldn't have cared less that the lead character was dying because he just wasn't sympathetic. The only redemption the film had was the final gunfight, and even then that was not spectacular, but it did serve it's place: it ended the film in a more satisfying way than the rest of the film went. I was not entertained.
Resident Evil Apocolypse:
I've some to expect certain things from the Resident Evil movies: Bad direction, cheezy action, misdirected story lines and a whole lot of fun from movies that don't take themselves seriously. The third movie in the Resident Evil series delivered on all that I expected. The only real disappointment I felt with this movie was with Oded Fehr's character. It's a minor spoiler, but hey, he dies! The disappointment I felt was what I assumed he felt when he read the script and found out he didn't get to zombify. After all, this is his 2nd RE film, you know he's going to die. If I were the actor, I'd want to get my undead on. Not that the way he went out wasn't good, bordering on great, but, no zombie! I was entertained!
Van Wilder 2: The Rise of Taj:
So, first things first, if you're going to do a formulaic movie, this is a good example of how to do it. The movie went a little lighter on the gross out factor than the first, but it is still an underlying "feel good" movie about personal growth with more focus on the underdog triumphing over adversity. Kal Penn pulled off the more mature and confident Taj with the panache of Ryan Reynolds Van Wilder character from the first movie, but in such a manner that you never wanted to compare the two characters: In this movie Taj is his own man and walking his own path, but the the self confidence and caring that Van Wilder instilled in him fromt he first film. I was entertained.
In my case, my family is down in the Bay Area so I took the time to gorge out on cable and DVD's.
While these reviews will be in no way as extensive as my previous, I thought I'd share some of my observations from the couch from this long weekend:
Kickin it Old Skool:
I'm a fan of social commentary and this movie provided it with a lot of low humor with a sweet undertone of a love story. My biggest complaint about the film (and it is a small complaint at that,) was the cruelty of the "bad guy." Yes, he was an ass and we got that. I just felt he was unnecessary cruel. However, Jamie Kennedy and his "crew" pulled off the "retro" dance moves with panache and humor and the underlying story was done with enough thought that I was able to both suspend my disbelief and enjoy myself. I was entertained.
Crank:
My first thought after seeing this film was "whomever green lighted this film should be shot." The movie was "over the top" much in the way a Troma film is, but with high production values. However, even with it's over the top nature, the film just fell flat. With the exception of the last 10 inutes of the film, I couldn't have cared less that the lead character was dying because he just wasn't sympathetic. The only redemption the film had was the final gunfight, and even then that was not spectacular, but it did serve it's place: it ended the film in a more satisfying way than the rest of the film went. I was not entertained.
Resident Evil Apocolypse:
I've some to expect certain things from the Resident Evil movies: Bad direction, cheezy action, misdirected story lines and a whole lot of fun from movies that don't take themselves seriously. The third movie in the Resident Evil series delivered on all that I expected. The only real disappointment I felt with this movie was with Oded Fehr's character. It's a minor spoiler, but hey, he dies! The disappointment I felt was what I assumed he felt when he read the script and found out he didn't get to zombify. After all, this is his 2nd RE film, you know he's going to die. If I were the actor, I'd want to get my undead on. Not that the way he went out wasn't good, bordering on great, but, no zombie! I was entertained!
Van Wilder 2: The Rise of Taj:
So, first things first, if you're going to do a formulaic movie, this is a good example of how to do it. The movie went a little lighter on the gross out factor than the first, but it is still an underlying "feel good" movie about personal growth with more focus on the underdog triumphing over adversity. Kal Penn pulled off the more mature and confident Taj with the panache of Ryan Reynolds Van Wilder character from the first movie, but in such a manner that you never wanted to compare the two characters: In this movie Taj is his own man and walking his own path, but the the self confidence and caring that Van Wilder instilled in him fromt he first film. I was entertained.
Sunday, June 15, 2008
Movie Review(s) Iron Man Vs. The Incredible Hulk
I actually have a slew of movie reviews I've been meaning to post, but haven't gotten around to it, so I'm going to start with a dual review of the first two films from Marvel studios: Iron Man and the Incredible Hulk.
Let's start off with the basics:
Iron Man - Unlike Godzilla movies, when you say "man in suit" you aren't talking about some guy in a rubber suit doing pro wrestling moves through a 5' tall mock up of Tokyo. This is a piece of military hardware built by a savant weapons designer.
Hulk - Move over Barry Bonds, someone else is on the juice! Though in all seriousness, it's not chemicals which alter the Hulk but rather Gamma radiation. However, when his heart rate hits a certain level, chemical changes take place and you've got Kermit singing "It's not easy being green" in the background as Ed Norton experiences 'roid rage on a level previously not thought to be possible.
I'll be the first to admit, I like comic book movies in general. I think the '80's and '90's had some real missteps with Dolph Lundgren as "The Punisher," I don't even remember who played "Captain America" Superman 4 in "the quest for more money" and the less said about the 'Hoff as "Nick Fury" the better.
Still, this most recent decade has brought some decent comic book movies: I liked the first two X-men movies, same with Spiderman's 1 and 2. (Disclaimer, I have yet to see #3 of either series based on some "stay the heck away" recomendations from friends but, now that they are on cable which I'm already paying for I will see them.) The reimaging of "The Punisher" with Thomas Jane was decent on his side, but was a classic example of why John Travolta peaked with "Grease" 30 years ago and would be better off doing voiceovers for Panasonic TV's with Christian Slater. Daredevil had problems, but the Directors cut is actually pretty good. I have similar issues with HellBoy. While I did not universally hate Elektra like most people, I will acknowledge the movie had problems. And, conversely, I did not stand cheering for Batman Begins like most folks. It was an OK movie and I will be the first to admit I am looking forward to the Dark Knight, but I did not think the movie walked on water by any means.
Which brings us back to the two movies in hand:
You don't even need to put a gun to my head for me to pick a preference. I thought Iron Man was the better movie of the two. However, there's a lot to both movies to like and they are, functionally, two very different movies.
To start: Iron Man is an origin story. Hulk seems to acknowledge the Ang Lee movie of about 5 years ago and doesn't retread on what has come before and takes place 5 years post origin story.
From a characterization perspective both Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jr. in Iron Man) and Bruce Banner (Edward Norton in The Incredible Hulk) are fairly true to what I remember from the comics (though I'm no expert. I'm probably the only Pen and Paper RPG gamer who wasn't obsessed with comics.) From a movie character development perspective, both are stories about people coming to accept their new place in society, but from two different perspectives:
Iron Man is ultimately, (in my opinion) a more complete movie about a person who is drifting through life playing a role that is expected of him within the family business, all the while living a life or priveledge without thought to what damage he's doing in either his personal or professional life. When the reality of the damage he's doing is shoved into his face, like a person with a new religion, he grabs at his chance for redemption with a fervor.
The Incredible Hulk is about a person who is living with the consequences of his actions, all the while trying to reverse the course of those actions. Through actions not of his own making, he has to come to terms with what has happened to him and accept that his difference can be used to help.
And that's the first difference why I prefer Iron Man to the Incredible Hulk. Tony Stark's story is of a man who is very much acting upon his new circumstances. Bruce Banner is running from his.
With character out of the way, let's talk effects and action:
Iron Man doesn't rely on CGI to carry it. Yes, there is CGI throughout, but a lot of the effects were done practically, which makes for a more realistic movie. Hulk relies on CGI for a lot of the movie where it should trust both the actors as well as practical effects folks (read model makers.)
While I appreciate the need for a lot of Mocap for Hulk since finding a 9-10 foot actor with overly large muscles who looks like Ed Norton is pretty impractical, even if you were to scour the WWE, I still felt a lot of the action sequences relied too heavily on CGI.
And that's where the two movies really start to diverge: action. In many ways the Hulk is a very long chase movie where dramtic plot development points are broken up in between chase/fight scenes. Iron Man has it's share of action scenes, but they all seem to be part of a larger plot development sequence with a goal in mind. The Hulk felt forced in a lot of places, as if the director looked at the script and said "for timing purposes, we need to add a fight here, a chase there."
When action sequences occur in Iron Man, they are from a personal perspective. Each sequence is designed to draw you, the viewer into the movie and almost feel as if you have ownership over the way things turn out. The Hulk stands back like an impersonal observer most of the time and has the viewer as an observer. Plus, the director relied on a crutch that many action directors seem to be using these days: slow motion in action scenes.
(rant on)
For all you aspiring directors there should be two schools of thought for action sequences:
1. Kevin Smith and the "I can't direct for shit," method where the action is impersonal and usually from a single, often stationary, "third person" perspective so that we, as the viewer have an almost omnicient view of what's happening.
2. Stephen Spielberg and other directors to whom the view from the camera is the view the audience sees. With full Von Clausewitz "Fog of War," effect. So you may not have the full view of what's hapening in the battle. You see what our hero does and sees and that's got to be enough for right now. You don't need a hand held camera for this as has been become a standard over the last 20 years, but you don't reveal everything.
Although I admire a lot of Stanley Kubrick's work, I will _never_ forgive him for Full Metal Jacket where he took the first person perspective and jacked it up with the "slow motion bullet ripple through flesh," effect. Without that we may never have been inflicted with the Matrix trilogy, all 3 movies which were vastly overrated (and yes, I am aware of how trashed #2 and #3 were in the press. As far as I am concerned, the world would have been much better off if the Wachowski brothers had not smoked a shitload of dope and gotten in a food fight while stoned.)
(rant off)
Secondary characters/story:
Ok, I realize that the academy awards are a big show etc, however, by count, when it comes to actors with Oscar awards and/or nominations, Iron Man wins 4-3. And I also know that the Director has some small share in guiding the actors toward thier vision of what the movie should be, however, here's where we have some division.
For the "romantic interest" Hulk wins hands down. Liv Tyler's character of Betty Ross is much more integral to the story than Gweneth Paltrow's Pepper Potts. And that is a definite weakness to Iron Man - the secondary players in Tony Stark's story are just that; secondary. What he accomplishes as a person he could have done with anyone. From a more rounded story perspective, Hulk wins which helps Liv Tyler over Gweneth.
For the "Villian": each story has both a primary (read "big bad") and secondary villian. In both movies, it's the secondary villian who dictates the main character's initial development within the movie. This is not necessarily a bad thing since it adds a multi-dimensional aspect to influences for the main character's development to both movies (unlike, say the single dimension of Tim Burton's Batman.)
In the case of both movies, I personally felt the "big bad" needed more. In Iron Man, the main villian needed more screen time as an evil entity for us to really feel him in his full villianry. In the case of the Incredible Hulk I wanted more character development of the main villian. I wanted more than just glances into why he was the way he was and I wanted more depth to his reasoning before his actions.
Of the two movies, I personally felt the villian for Iron Man was both more believable as well as more of a villian. the main villian in the Hulk felt more like a vehicle for action than a true "villian."
A mention about sound in both movies. Once again, I felt Iron man had a better use of sound and soundtracks. When there was music in Iron Man, it was incidental music in the background that felt natural (double props to Jon Favreau for using Suicidal Tendancies "Instituionalized" in such a manner that it just felt "right" within the scene,) or very often there was no incidental orchestral score (which added to the "you are there" feel I previously mentioned). While I applaud the director of the Hulk for not falling into my previously ranted about trap of "heavy metal as action movie music video" I thought the orchestral score used throughout was too heavy handed. There are times when less is more and I think Hulk would have been a stronger movie had it not either had a score at all, or, if it was there, then one that was subtle in the background, not pushed to the forefront.
Finally, I would be remiss if I didn't mention "The Avengers."
Yes, it's obvious that Marvel studios is building to the Avengers (a tip, wait until the end of the credits of Iron Man for the first hint. The Hulk has it's hints dispersed throughout and it's "Avengers" moment comes right before the credits, so you don't have to wait through them if you don't want to.) It's also pretty clear it's more likely to be along the lines of the Ultimate Avengers rather than the original version. Which is all well and good. Just please, don't forget to make the rest of the movies as real movies.
Overall, I was entertained by the Hulk and went well beyond entertainment for Iron Man
Let's start off with the basics:
Iron Man - Unlike Godzilla movies, when you say "man in suit" you aren't talking about some guy in a rubber suit doing pro wrestling moves through a 5' tall mock up of Tokyo. This is a piece of military hardware built by a savant weapons designer.
Hulk - Move over Barry Bonds, someone else is on the juice! Though in all seriousness, it's not chemicals which alter the Hulk but rather Gamma radiation. However, when his heart rate hits a certain level, chemical changes take place and you've got Kermit singing "It's not easy being green" in the background as Ed Norton experiences 'roid rage on a level previously not thought to be possible.
I'll be the first to admit, I like comic book movies in general. I think the '80's and '90's had some real missteps with Dolph Lundgren as "The Punisher," I don't even remember who played "Captain America" Superman 4 in "the quest for more money" and the less said about the 'Hoff as "Nick Fury" the better.
Still, this most recent decade has brought some decent comic book movies: I liked the first two X-men movies, same with Spiderman's 1 and 2. (Disclaimer, I have yet to see #3 of either series based on some "stay the heck away" recomendations from friends but, now that they are on cable which I'm already paying for I will see them.) The reimaging of "The Punisher" with Thomas Jane was decent on his side, but was a classic example of why John Travolta peaked with "Grease" 30 years ago and would be better off doing voiceovers for Panasonic TV's with Christian Slater. Daredevil had problems, but the Directors cut is actually pretty good. I have similar issues with HellBoy. While I did not universally hate Elektra like most people, I will acknowledge the movie had problems. And, conversely, I did not stand cheering for Batman Begins like most folks. It was an OK movie and I will be the first to admit I am looking forward to the Dark Knight, but I did not think the movie walked on water by any means.
Which brings us back to the two movies in hand:
You don't even need to put a gun to my head for me to pick a preference. I thought Iron Man was the better movie of the two. However, there's a lot to both movies to like and they are, functionally, two very different movies.
To start: Iron Man is an origin story. Hulk seems to acknowledge the Ang Lee movie of about 5 years ago and doesn't retread on what has come before and takes place 5 years post origin story.
From a characterization perspective both Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jr. in Iron Man) and Bruce Banner (Edward Norton in The Incredible Hulk) are fairly true to what I remember from the comics (though I'm no expert. I'm probably the only Pen and Paper RPG gamer who wasn't obsessed with comics.) From a movie character development perspective, both are stories about people coming to accept their new place in society, but from two different perspectives:
Iron Man is ultimately, (in my opinion) a more complete movie about a person who is drifting through life playing a role that is expected of him within the family business, all the while living a life or priveledge without thought to what damage he's doing in either his personal or professional life. When the reality of the damage he's doing is shoved into his face, like a person with a new religion, he grabs at his chance for redemption with a fervor.
The Incredible Hulk is about a person who is living with the consequences of his actions, all the while trying to reverse the course of those actions. Through actions not of his own making, he has to come to terms with what has happened to him and accept that his difference can be used to help.
And that's the first difference why I prefer Iron Man to the Incredible Hulk. Tony Stark's story is of a man who is very much acting upon his new circumstances. Bruce Banner is running from his.
With character out of the way, let's talk effects and action:
Iron Man doesn't rely on CGI to carry it. Yes, there is CGI throughout, but a lot of the effects were done practically, which makes for a more realistic movie. Hulk relies on CGI for a lot of the movie where it should trust both the actors as well as practical effects folks (read model makers.)
While I appreciate the need for a lot of Mocap for Hulk since finding a 9-10 foot actor with overly large muscles who looks like Ed Norton is pretty impractical, even if you were to scour the WWE, I still felt a lot of the action sequences relied too heavily on CGI.
And that's where the two movies really start to diverge: action. In many ways the Hulk is a very long chase movie where dramtic plot development points are broken up in between chase/fight scenes. Iron Man has it's share of action scenes, but they all seem to be part of a larger plot development sequence with a goal in mind. The Hulk felt forced in a lot of places, as if the director looked at the script and said "for timing purposes, we need to add a fight here, a chase there."
When action sequences occur in Iron Man, they are from a personal perspective. Each sequence is designed to draw you, the viewer into the movie and almost feel as if you have ownership over the way things turn out. The Hulk stands back like an impersonal observer most of the time and has the viewer as an observer. Plus, the director relied on a crutch that many action directors seem to be using these days: slow motion in action scenes.
(rant on)
For all you aspiring directors there should be two schools of thought for action sequences:
1. Kevin Smith and the "I can't direct for shit," method where the action is impersonal and usually from a single, often stationary, "third person" perspective so that we, as the viewer have an almost omnicient view of what's happening.
2. Stephen Spielberg and other directors to whom the view from the camera is the view the audience sees. With full Von Clausewitz "Fog of War," effect. So you may not have the full view of what's hapening in the battle. You see what our hero does and sees and that's got to be enough for right now. You don't need a hand held camera for this as has been become a standard over the last 20 years, but you don't reveal everything.
Although I admire a lot of Stanley Kubrick's work, I will _never_ forgive him for Full Metal Jacket where he took the first person perspective and jacked it up with the "slow motion bullet ripple through flesh," effect. Without that we may never have been inflicted with the Matrix trilogy, all 3 movies which were vastly overrated (and yes, I am aware of how trashed #2 and #3 were in the press. As far as I am concerned, the world would have been much better off if the Wachowski brothers had not smoked a shitload of dope and gotten in a food fight while stoned.)
(rant off)
Secondary characters/story:
Ok, I realize that the academy awards are a big show etc, however, by count, when it comes to actors with Oscar awards and/or nominations, Iron Man wins 4-3. And I also know that the Director has some small share in guiding the actors toward thier vision of what the movie should be, however, here's where we have some division.
For the "romantic interest" Hulk wins hands down. Liv Tyler's character of Betty Ross is much more integral to the story than Gweneth Paltrow's Pepper Potts. And that is a definite weakness to Iron Man - the secondary players in Tony Stark's story are just that; secondary. What he accomplishes as a person he could have done with anyone. From a more rounded story perspective, Hulk wins which helps Liv Tyler over Gweneth.
For the "Villian": each story has both a primary (read "big bad") and secondary villian. In both movies, it's the secondary villian who dictates the main character's initial development within the movie. This is not necessarily a bad thing since it adds a multi-dimensional aspect to influences for the main character's development to both movies (unlike, say the single dimension of Tim Burton's Batman.)
In the case of both movies, I personally felt the "big bad" needed more. In Iron Man, the main villian needed more screen time as an evil entity for us to really feel him in his full villianry. In the case of the Incredible Hulk I wanted more character development of the main villian. I wanted more than just glances into why he was the way he was and I wanted more depth to his reasoning before his actions.
Of the two movies, I personally felt the villian for Iron Man was both more believable as well as more of a villian. the main villian in the Hulk felt more like a vehicle for action than a true "villian."
A mention about sound in both movies. Once again, I felt Iron man had a better use of sound and soundtracks. When there was music in Iron Man, it was incidental music in the background that felt natural (double props to Jon Favreau for using Suicidal Tendancies "Instituionalized" in such a manner that it just felt "right" within the scene,) or very often there was no incidental orchestral score (which added to the "you are there" feel I previously mentioned). While I applaud the director of the Hulk for not falling into my previously ranted about trap of "heavy metal as action movie music video" I thought the orchestral score used throughout was too heavy handed. There are times when less is more and I think Hulk would have been a stronger movie had it not either had a score at all, or, if it was there, then one that was subtle in the background, not pushed to the forefront.
Finally, I would be remiss if I didn't mention "The Avengers."
Yes, it's obvious that Marvel studios is building to the Avengers (a tip, wait until the end of the credits of Iron Man for the first hint. The Hulk has it's hints dispersed throughout and it's "Avengers" moment comes right before the credits, so you don't have to wait through them if you don't want to.) It's also pretty clear it's more likely to be along the lines of the Ultimate Avengers rather than the original version. Which is all well and good. Just please, don't forget to make the rest of the movies as real movies.
Overall, I was entertained by the Hulk and went well beyond entertainment for Iron Man
Friday, April 4, 2008
Book Review - Twilight Fall by Lynn Viehl
First off, let's start with the "truth in lending" disclosure:
I won an advance readers copy of this book on the author's blog (http://pbackwriter.blogspot.com/)
It is not the first book I've won on that site either. My wife first "met" the author through an online course she was teaching on http://www.fmwriters.com/ and we have several signed copies of her books as well as the majority of her back catalogue. However, we don't buy her books out of loyalty: we buy them because she's a darn good writer.
I first got "involved" with the Darkyn novels by either my wife or I (can't remember which at this point) winning a copy of the galley's before the release of the first book "If Angels Burn" before it was released to the public. We subsequently bought a copy of the book after it's release as well. So, I've been reading the series since it's inception.
With all that said, let's get to the book in specific and the series in general.
I'll start off by saying, this is not my favorite book in the series, though it is high up there. That honor belongs to it's immediate predecessor, Evermore (which I finally read two days before Twilight Fall.)
So why wasn't this my favorite book in the series? I personally felt Evermore was a more complete novel and romance. I also felt it stood alone much better than every other book in the series.
When you are writing a series, there are challenges for a writer: The first and foremost is to have a common thread between all the books. This can be as simple as following a main character as they move through life, or as complex as weaving a back story which both serves as a vehicle to introduce new characters as well as tell an overall story. Twilight Fall and the rest of the Darkyn novels fall in the latter category.
Given the genre (supernatural romance) there is the inevitable question: How does the series compare to Laurell K. Hamilton's "Anita Blake" series?
My personal answer is; there is no comparison.
I've read the majority of the Anita Blake series and, while they have their place, from a writing perspective you can't compare the two authors. The Anita Blake series is essentially a giant soap opera/soft moving toward hardcore pornography series which is both formulaic and, at best, adequately written/edited. Each book follows the same path (start a "mystery" with a brutal murder, spend the first 10% of the chapters on that, spend the next 80% on the main soap opera and then wrap up the mystery in a hurry in the last 10% of the book.) She's also in love with television and, for some reason thinks that ending a chapter, much as the scene before a commercial on television, with a "cliffhanger," is the way to keep your readers interested (it's not.)
The Darkyn series is not written like that. Each book is focused on a main romantic plot between characters who are connected to the overall "big picture," and, through their romance, more of the overall story is told. Yes, there are recurring characters who appear throughout the series, often on their own subplot, but their entrances and exits are both well thought out and don't come off as forced as well as they almost always (if not always) tie in to the main story/romance which is the focus of the particular book.
Twilight Fall, in particular, is definitely more of a "big picture" type of book. It may be it's one failing in as much as, unlike the other books in the series, this is not the book I could recommend to a first time Darkyn reader to start reading the series from. Not that it would confuse the reader, but rather that this book provides some answers to questions that have been teasing long time readers for quite some time. For readers of the series, this book definitely advances the overall back story in a very satisfying way.
I'm not going to get into specifics of the novel save for a few comments:
1. I don't think it was until Evermore that I really liked Michael Cyprien as a character. He was interesting, but, ultimately an arrogant stuffed shirt in my eyes. It's only been with Evermore and now Twilight Fall that I've started to both like him as a character, as well as start to see that, supernatural influence/ties aside, there might be someone there that Alexandra Keller could love.
2. The author asked people who might review the book to leave out the spoilers, one in particular (without actually mentioning it, which we as readers appreciate!) I'm certainly going to honor that. However, I do have to reiterate, especially for people who've been reading the series, this book is very much what we've been waiting for: A lot is revealed and questions are answered. We even get a glimpse of where (I presume) the series is going.
3. By the end of the book, I felt there was a scene missing. It's not a critical scene to the book in the overall big picture sense, and one that can certainly be played out in a later novel and may very well be better to have it's place later in the series. I won't go into details, but there was a scene of reconciliation that I would have liked to have seen happen by the end of the book (though not at the exact end of the book. The ending of the book is exactly where it needs to be.) It, like my "not for first time series readers" comment is a minor quibble.
Overall, Twilight Fall is exactly what I've come to expect from the author: Strong writing, a good, well paced story that keeps both the big picture as well as the individual romantic story well in focus.
I was entertained.
I won an advance readers copy of this book on the author's blog (http://pbackwriter.blogspot.com/)
It is not the first book I've won on that site either. My wife first "met" the author through an online course she was teaching on http://www.fmwriters.com/ and we have several signed copies of her books as well as the majority of her back catalogue. However, we don't buy her books out of loyalty: we buy them because she's a darn good writer.
I first got "involved" with the Darkyn novels by either my wife or I (can't remember which at this point) winning a copy of the galley's before the release of the first book "If Angels Burn" before it was released to the public. We subsequently bought a copy of the book after it's release as well. So, I've been reading the series since it's inception.
With all that said, let's get to the book in specific and the series in general.
I'll start off by saying, this is not my favorite book in the series, though it is high up there. That honor belongs to it's immediate predecessor, Evermore (which I finally read two days before Twilight Fall.)
So why wasn't this my favorite book in the series? I personally felt Evermore was a more complete novel and romance. I also felt it stood alone much better than every other book in the series.
When you are writing a series, there are challenges for a writer: The first and foremost is to have a common thread between all the books. This can be as simple as following a main character as they move through life, or as complex as weaving a back story which both serves as a vehicle to introduce new characters as well as tell an overall story. Twilight Fall and the rest of the Darkyn novels fall in the latter category.
Given the genre (supernatural romance) there is the inevitable question: How does the series compare to Laurell K. Hamilton's "Anita Blake" series?
My personal answer is; there is no comparison.
I've read the majority of the Anita Blake series and, while they have their place, from a writing perspective you can't compare the two authors. The Anita Blake series is essentially a giant soap opera/soft moving toward hardcore pornography series which is both formulaic and, at best, adequately written/edited. Each book follows the same path (start a "mystery" with a brutal murder, spend the first 10% of the chapters on that, spend the next 80% on the main soap opera and then wrap up the mystery in a hurry in the last 10% of the book.) She's also in love with television and, for some reason thinks that ending a chapter, much as the scene before a commercial on television, with a "cliffhanger," is the way to keep your readers interested (it's not.)
The Darkyn series is not written like that. Each book is focused on a main romantic plot between characters who are connected to the overall "big picture," and, through their romance, more of the overall story is told. Yes, there are recurring characters who appear throughout the series, often on their own subplot, but their entrances and exits are both well thought out and don't come off as forced as well as they almost always (if not always) tie in to the main story/romance which is the focus of the particular book.
Twilight Fall, in particular, is definitely more of a "big picture" type of book. It may be it's one failing in as much as, unlike the other books in the series, this is not the book I could recommend to a first time Darkyn reader to start reading the series from. Not that it would confuse the reader, but rather that this book provides some answers to questions that have been teasing long time readers for quite some time. For readers of the series, this book definitely advances the overall back story in a very satisfying way.
I'm not going to get into specifics of the novel save for a few comments:
1. I don't think it was until Evermore that I really liked Michael Cyprien as a character. He was interesting, but, ultimately an arrogant stuffed shirt in my eyes. It's only been with Evermore and now Twilight Fall that I've started to both like him as a character, as well as start to see that, supernatural influence/ties aside, there might be someone there that Alexandra Keller could love.
2. The author asked people who might review the book to leave out the spoilers, one in particular (without actually mentioning it, which we as readers appreciate!) I'm certainly going to honor that. However, I do have to reiterate, especially for people who've been reading the series, this book is very much what we've been waiting for: A lot is revealed and questions are answered. We even get a glimpse of where (I presume) the series is going.
3. By the end of the book, I felt there was a scene missing. It's not a critical scene to the book in the overall big picture sense, and one that can certainly be played out in a later novel and may very well be better to have it's place later in the series. I won't go into details, but there was a scene of reconciliation that I would have liked to have seen happen by the end of the book (though not at the exact end of the book. The ending of the book is exactly where it needs to be.) It, like my "not for first time series readers" comment is a minor quibble.
Overall, Twilight Fall is exactly what I've come to expect from the author: Strong writing, a good, well paced story that keeps both the big picture as well as the individual romantic story well in focus.
I was entertained.
Sunday, March 16, 2008
Movie Review - Horton Hears a Who
Let me start off by saying: I'm not this film's intended audience.
Both my kids are teenagers and I'm nearing 40.
Now, with that in the open, let's talk about Horton Hears a Who in specific and Seuss adaptations in general.
I grew up on Dr. Seuss. When I had kids, the majority of the Seuss books we read to them were from my childhood collection that my parents had saved. I grew up listening to Seuss, learned to read on Seuss and taught my kids to read with Seuss. In short, I'm a big Theadore Geisel fan.
So, it should be no surprise that one of the first DVD's I bought my kids was How the Grinch Stole Christmas. I grew up on this movie. Even though I grew up Jewish, it was tradition to watch this movie on TV whenever it came on.
So, it was with much anticipation that I watched both The Grinch and Cat in the Cat on cable when they came out. And, with both, I had the same reaction: I felt both were horrid, self indulgent interpretations of Seuss that were better off having never been made.
Now, I'll be the first to admit, Jim Carrey doesn't do it for me most of the time. His persona that he adopts of the out of control, over the top characters is the type of comedy I hate the most. Adam Sandler has fallen into that category a lot as has Mike Myers. So, it's probably not too surprising that I couldn't even finish watching the Grinch. Fortunately, the director of Horton Hears a Who reigned in Carrey in his voicing of Horton. There's not a single "All Righty Now" to be found in his performance and the movie is much stronger for it.
Steve Carrell is another person who I've gotten little from any of his performances. Yes, his Roast of George Bush at the White House Press Corps dinner was brilliant, especially with the looks on Dubya's face that he clearly didn't get half the jokes. His performance in Bruce Almighty was something I didn't care for, but some of that may simply have been my general negative reaction to Jim Carrey's part in that movie as well. Now, I'll be the first to admit, I haven't seen Dan in Real life and want to, I don't watch The Office and I didn't think I could suffer through Evan Almighty, especially since it was, essentially Bill Cosby's "Right" made in film.
As the Mayor of Whoville, Carrell did just fine. His "I'm confused" character at the beginning was well meaning as voiced and, as the story progressed, his role became stronger as did his character.
I have to say, I loved the concept of a "goth" Jojo. They gave Jojo a back story that worked well and he essentially went goth in reaction to dad pushing him to be a mayor when he grew up.
Overall, I enjoyed this movie. I had several belly laughs during it and the story was good.
I do have some small quibbles with the movie.
1. The Animation: I like animation. I appreciate it for the technical aspects and the way it looks. As technology improves, so does animation. But, it gets to the point where it's too slick, too polished. There's a few spots where they go for photo realism in Horton and it just doesn't work. They needed to dumb down the animation on this film and make it, for lack of a better term, less shiny.
2. The pacing: This movie had strange pacing. It was a movie with heart. There were action scenes that were paced well, but, in contrast to the rest of the film, they felt like they broke up the flow of the film.
Both of these concerns are not something I suspect the intended audience would notice, but, I did.
Still, in the end, I was entertained.
Both my kids are teenagers and I'm nearing 40.
Now, with that in the open, let's talk about Horton Hears a Who in specific and Seuss adaptations in general.
I grew up on Dr. Seuss. When I had kids, the majority of the Seuss books we read to them were from my childhood collection that my parents had saved. I grew up listening to Seuss, learned to read on Seuss and taught my kids to read with Seuss. In short, I'm a big Theadore Geisel fan.
So, it should be no surprise that one of the first DVD's I bought my kids was How the Grinch Stole Christmas. I grew up on this movie. Even though I grew up Jewish, it was tradition to watch this movie on TV whenever it came on.
So, it was with much anticipation that I watched both The Grinch and Cat in the Cat on cable when they came out. And, with both, I had the same reaction: I felt both were horrid, self indulgent interpretations of Seuss that were better off having never been made.
Now, I'll be the first to admit, Jim Carrey doesn't do it for me most of the time. His persona that he adopts of the out of control, over the top characters is the type of comedy I hate the most. Adam Sandler has fallen into that category a lot as has Mike Myers. So, it's probably not too surprising that I couldn't even finish watching the Grinch. Fortunately, the director of Horton Hears a Who reigned in Carrey in his voicing of Horton. There's not a single "All Righty Now" to be found in his performance and the movie is much stronger for it.
Steve Carrell is another person who I've gotten little from any of his performances. Yes, his Roast of George Bush at the White House Press Corps dinner was brilliant, especially with the looks on Dubya's face that he clearly didn't get half the jokes. His performance in Bruce Almighty was something I didn't care for, but some of that may simply have been my general negative reaction to Jim Carrey's part in that movie as well. Now, I'll be the first to admit, I haven't seen Dan in Real life and want to, I don't watch The Office and I didn't think I could suffer through Evan Almighty, especially since it was, essentially Bill Cosby's "Right" made in film.
As the Mayor of Whoville, Carrell did just fine. His "I'm confused" character at the beginning was well meaning as voiced and, as the story progressed, his role became stronger as did his character.
I have to say, I loved the concept of a "goth" Jojo. They gave Jojo a back story that worked well and he essentially went goth in reaction to dad pushing him to be a mayor when he grew up.
Overall, I enjoyed this movie. I had several belly laughs during it and the story was good.
I do have some small quibbles with the movie.
1. The Animation: I like animation. I appreciate it for the technical aspects and the way it looks. As technology improves, so does animation. But, it gets to the point where it's too slick, too polished. There's a few spots where they go for photo realism in Horton and it just doesn't work. They needed to dumb down the animation on this film and make it, for lack of a better term, less shiny.
2. The pacing: This movie had strange pacing. It was a movie with heart. There were action scenes that were paced well, but, in contrast to the rest of the film, they felt like they broke up the flow of the film.
Both of these concerns are not something I suspect the intended audience would notice, but, I did.
Still, in the end, I was entertained.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
