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.
Monday, December 1, 2008
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.
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
Movie Review - Knocked Up
This is part of my review backlog. I actually saw the movie a month ago, but am only now getting around to reviewing it.
Let me start by saying, this is the first "Team Apatow" film that I've seen. So there may be conventions I am unfamiliar with and I know he uses a lot of stock actors in his films.
Second disclaimer, this review is of the extended unrated DVD of the film, not the theatrical release.
I first became aware of Knocked Up when a friend pointed me to a deleted scene which they had released onto You Tube. The scene was the "Brokeback Mountain" deleted scene (in a shortened, edited form than the one which appears in the deleted scenes on the DVD.) Having seen it, and laughing my butt off, the thought went through my mind "If this was deleted and that funny, the rest of the movie must be fantastic."
When I finally got around to seeing the movie, I went into it not with that in mind, but rather, a "this should be fun," frame of mind.
In that I was not disappointed.
I remember seeing the trailers for this film and thinking it would be a comedy about pregnancy and, having two kids and been side by side with my wife while she went through them, I felt there would be some great gags about it.
I was wrong.
Yes, Katherine Heigl is pregnant in the film. Yes, she was impregnated via a one night stand with a, for lack of a better term, underachiever who's drifting through life. The trailer tells you all this. What the trailer doesn't tell you is the preganacy is a vehicle for a commentary on relationships from both the main couple, as well as Katherine Heigl's sister and her husband's perspective.
And really, that's what the movie is about: Relationships. It's about two people who would most likely have never met, let alone gotten together without the intervention of a judicious amount of alcohol, who, as a result of their one night stand face being parents and trying to make a relationship work.
I've read criticism that someone like Seth Rogan would never have had a chance at Katherine Heigl regardless if GBH was involved and I have to disagree. I thought Judd Apatow's handling of their first and subsequent interactions in the bar was plausible. Having never picked up anyone, or been picked up in a bar, I have no personal basis for comparison, but I did goto college and saw several unlikely reltionships form by various forms of inebriation lowering people's bullshit factor to the point where they are themselves without a lot of the walls they throw up in normal social situations. And, in cases like that a lot of people find that underneath it all, alot of us have common views and a desire to connect with someone.
So, with that in mind, the subsequent pregnancy put forward, what you are left with is two people, without the benfit of alcohol or marijuana (word of warning, there's a fair amount of drug humor in this film so, if that is not to your taste, you will want to avoid the movie,) who are trying to force down those walls and find things in common.
Unfortunately for them, their immediate role models for relationships are as follows:
Katherine Heigl's sister and her husband: The main sub-characters in the film, they have a relationship that is fairly toxic, but mostly for standard reasons (I'm not making judgement here on stereotyping, I've known several couples like this): She's a very dominant, agressive personality, mostly as a defensive reaction to the way the world has treated her, he's more laid back and really has no clue on how to assert himself. And you view them and think "you know, if he could tell her what he wants/needs without fear of an aggressive attack back at him (i.e. she actually listens to what he says without judging at any time,) a lot of what's "broken" in their relationship wouldn't even be an issue."
Seth Rogan's buddies which he lives with: With one exception, none of them are in a relationship and you get the impression that most of them are the type who would spend all day complaining about not being in a relationship until they got into one and then they would spend all day complaining about the hassle that the relationship is.
Seth Rogan's Dad: Divorced many times, never has had a stable relationship which lasted any significant amount of time.
So, there's not a lot of good pickings there.
But it does bring me to another positive of the movie: the casting.
In some ways, Katherine Heigl and Seth Rogan are secondary in this movie to the backing characters. Both of them are wonderful in their roles, with Seth Rogan really carrying the movie because, if he had failed in bringing the character of Ben to life and giving him the depth necessary for the film, the rest of the ensemble would not shine as well as they do.
Katherine Heigl's "sister" is played by Judd Apatow's real wife, Leslie Mann and she's brilliant. Very often when there's a dominant female character in a movie she's "the bitch" and that's all. Apatow gave his wife a good script to work with and she brings forward a character who's not one dimensional.
Paul Rudd is cast as her husband and, once again, he's perfectly cast. If miscast, both he and Leslie Mann would have been comic relief and that's it. But he's a real person and it shows in both the writing as well as his delivery of the character.
Harold Ramis has a small role as Seth Rogan's dad in this film and, once again, he delivers it exceptionally well. When he's on screen either via a phone call, or in person, you get the sense that, unlike his portrayal of Russell Ziskey in Stripes, that he's not playing this for laughs, though he delivers one of the best lines in the film. I liken this to one of his more mature roles, such as the role of Mark Harmon's best friend, Allen Appleby in "Stealing Home," (an underated film in my eyes.)
Finally, I have to mention Alan Tudyk and Kristin Wiig's characters who play off of each other so well. You may recognize Alan Tudyk as Wash from Firefly/Serenity or his role as Steve the Pirate in Dodgeball, but, unless you saw the original Joe Schmo show on Spike, you may not recognize Kristin Wiig (she was brilliant in Joe Schmo, BTW.) In the scenes which they appear, it almost seems like Katherine Heigl's character is a vehicle to allow these two to have their moments and they have them brilliantly.
So, what about the rest of the Apatow regulars? Honestly, they did their jobs well, but, I really didn't care much about them and most of the performances were good for what they were written as, however, I thought, for the most part they blended together.
And that, in some ways, is where the movie falls down for me. I bought the premise of the movie. I breathed in the smoke and even inhaled. But, there were certain running gags with his buddies that I felt could have been cut without losing much from the film. Now, I do have to say, I haven't seen the theatrical release, so some of what irritated me may very well have been trimmed or even cut in the movie people saw in the theaters.
Still, in the end of the day, I laughed, I empathised with the characters and I was entertained.
Let me start by saying, this is the first "Team Apatow" film that I've seen. So there may be conventions I am unfamiliar with and I know he uses a lot of stock actors in his films.
Second disclaimer, this review is of the extended unrated DVD of the film, not the theatrical release.
I first became aware of Knocked Up when a friend pointed me to a deleted scene which they had released onto You Tube. The scene was the "Brokeback Mountain" deleted scene (in a shortened, edited form than the one which appears in the deleted scenes on the DVD.) Having seen it, and laughing my butt off, the thought went through my mind "If this was deleted and that funny, the rest of the movie must be fantastic."
When I finally got around to seeing the movie, I went into it not with that in mind, but rather, a "this should be fun," frame of mind.
In that I was not disappointed.
I remember seeing the trailers for this film and thinking it would be a comedy about pregnancy and, having two kids and been side by side with my wife while she went through them, I felt there would be some great gags about it.
I was wrong.
Yes, Katherine Heigl is pregnant in the film. Yes, she was impregnated via a one night stand with a, for lack of a better term, underachiever who's drifting through life. The trailer tells you all this. What the trailer doesn't tell you is the preganacy is a vehicle for a commentary on relationships from both the main couple, as well as Katherine Heigl's sister and her husband's perspective.
And really, that's what the movie is about: Relationships. It's about two people who would most likely have never met, let alone gotten together without the intervention of a judicious amount of alcohol, who, as a result of their one night stand face being parents and trying to make a relationship work.
I've read criticism that someone like Seth Rogan would never have had a chance at Katherine Heigl regardless if GBH was involved and I have to disagree. I thought Judd Apatow's handling of their first and subsequent interactions in the bar was plausible. Having never picked up anyone, or been picked up in a bar, I have no personal basis for comparison, but I did goto college and saw several unlikely reltionships form by various forms of inebriation lowering people's bullshit factor to the point where they are themselves without a lot of the walls they throw up in normal social situations. And, in cases like that a lot of people find that underneath it all, alot of us have common views and a desire to connect with someone.
So, with that in mind, the subsequent pregnancy put forward, what you are left with is two people, without the benfit of alcohol or marijuana (word of warning, there's a fair amount of drug humor in this film so, if that is not to your taste, you will want to avoid the movie,) who are trying to force down those walls and find things in common.
Unfortunately for them, their immediate role models for relationships are as follows:
Katherine Heigl's sister and her husband: The main sub-characters in the film, they have a relationship that is fairly toxic, but mostly for standard reasons (I'm not making judgement here on stereotyping, I've known several couples like this): She's a very dominant, agressive personality, mostly as a defensive reaction to the way the world has treated her, he's more laid back and really has no clue on how to assert himself. And you view them and think "you know, if he could tell her what he wants/needs without fear of an aggressive attack back at him (i.e. she actually listens to what he says without judging at any time,) a lot of what's "broken" in their relationship wouldn't even be an issue."
Seth Rogan's buddies which he lives with: With one exception, none of them are in a relationship and you get the impression that most of them are the type who would spend all day complaining about not being in a relationship until they got into one and then they would spend all day complaining about the hassle that the relationship is.
Seth Rogan's Dad: Divorced many times, never has had a stable relationship which lasted any significant amount of time.
So, there's not a lot of good pickings there.
But it does bring me to another positive of the movie: the casting.
In some ways, Katherine Heigl and Seth Rogan are secondary in this movie to the backing characters. Both of them are wonderful in their roles, with Seth Rogan really carrying the movie because, if he had failed in bringing the character of Ben to life and giving him the depth necessary for the film, the rest of the ensemble would not shine as well as they do.
Katherine Heigl's "sister" is played by Judd Apatow's real wife, Leslie Mann and she's brilliant. Very often when there's a dominant female character in a movie she's "the bitch" and that's all. Apatow gave his wife a good script to work with and she brings forward a character who's not one dimensional.
Paul Rudd is cast as her husband and, once again, he's perfectly cast. If miscast, both he and Leslie Mann would have been comic relief and that's it. But he's a real person and it shows in both the writing as well as his delivery of the character.
Harold Ramis has a small role as Seth Rogan's dad in this film and, once again, he delivers it exceptionally well. When he's on screen either via a phone call, or in person, you get the sense that, unlike his portrayal of Russell Ziskey in Stripes, that he's not playing this for laughs, though he delivers one of the best lines in the film. I liken this to one of his more mature roles, such as the role of Mark Harmon's best friend, Allen Appleby in "Stealing Home," (an underated film in my eyes.)
Finally, I have to mention Alan Tudyk and Kristin Wiig's characters who play off of each other so well. You may recognize Alan Tudyk as Wash from Firefly/Serenity or his role as Steve the Pirate in Dodgeball, but, unless you saw the original Joe Schmo show on Spike, you may not recognize Kristin Wiig (she was brilliant in Joe Schmo, BTW.) In the scenes which they appear, it almost seems like Katherine Heigl's character is a vehicle to allow these two to have their moments and they have them brilliantly.
So, what about the rest of the Apatow regulars? Honestly, they did their jobs well, but, I really didn't care much about them and most of the performances were good for what they were written as, however, I thought, for the most part they blended together.
And that, in some ways, is where the movie falls down for me. I bought the premise of the movie. I breathed in the smoke and even inhaled. But, there were certain running gags with his buddies that I felt could have been cut without losing much from the film. Now, I do have to say, I haven't seen the theatrical release, so some of what irritated me may very well have been trimmed or even cut in the movie people saw in the theaters.
Still, in the end of the day, I laughed, I empathised with the characters and I was entertained.
Monday, February 11, 2008
Movie review: Pathfinder
Last night I finally got to see Pathfinder on cable.
A friend of mine classifies this film, along with 300, as being in the "gorenography" category, and I can easily see why.
Of course, without the gore, you'd drop a 99 minute movie down to an 80 minute movie and the lack of plot would be even more glaring.
But, I digress. Let's start with cinematography.
This movie had a lot of potential. You had a fantastic setting, with amazing trees and mountains as well as plenty of coastline to play with.
And then they chose to film the majority of it in dark settings with little focus to the actual shots. It appeared that the only time we ever got the camera to focus on a particular part of a scene was when atrocities were being commited, about to be commited, or the director chose to try and have scenery convey emotion because he wasn't capable to getting the performance out of his actors.
I'm familiar with most of the actors in this film from other roles. They have ability. Even with as limited a script as this was (the entire movie is, for all intents and purposes, one giant chase scene, limited to people on foot or horseback,) there was enough there to both draw out good performances as well as give the viewer something to care about. However, between the script and the director, they could have just as easily cast the US Olympic swim team in this movie and it wouldn't have made a difference (my apologies to the US Olympic swim team if you are, in fact, all deserved winners of Tony, Emmy, Oscar and Golden Globe awards, my point was to chose a group whom I presume has limited acting experience but has united toward a common goal and suggest they could have replaced the professionals due to the limitations previously mentioned.)
So, cinematography is out, directing is out, I'm initimated the writing has issues, so let's go there.
This movie had potential. The concept wasn't bad (Norsemen raid the United States in approximately 1100, leave behind a kid who won't commit atrocities against the indigenous population, whos adopted by the indigenous people and grows up. Jump forward 15 years later and our nasty Norsemen have come back to settle for good, much to the objection of the one warrior who's trained with a sword (for those of you who are worried about spoilers, I've covered maybe the first 10 minutes of the movie.)
However, after that, there's not much that the movie has to offer. Yes, there's a strong female character love interest, but, for the most part, she gets in the way, and, while she's supposed to be a motivating factor, really, she could have been a "blood brother" and it would have been no different a movie for the most part.
Could this movie been written better? Absolutely, but it would have been a different movie. Not a chase film. And the movie would not have suffered from this change.
Finally, I'm going to address the action. In a word, I'd rather see the Sylvester Stallone epic "Cobra" that endure the action sequences from this film again. Once again, with a better director vision, this could have been an enjoyable chase/action film. Never once did I get the sense of urgency from the action. The lead character, at several points in time is being chased by a whole heck of a lot of ugly, armored, vicious beasts of human beings who have proven several times that the indigenous people are essentially ants to be removed from the picnic before you sit down to eat, yet, at no real time do we get the impression that this is more than a training exercise for him.
So, with most of the urgency removed, what's left?
The fight sequences are, for the most part, uninspired and too one sided to be of any interest. I suspect, even if I were of an age where this movie would have appealed to me, that the lighting was too dark to "enjoy" (if that's the right word) the various gratuitous (and believe me, they were gratuitous) limb and sundry body part removals. There wasn't even enough "spatter" to make Joe Bob Briggs raise an eyebrow.
So, as I mentioned at the top of the review, this movie was classified by a buddy of mine as Gorenography, but, honestly, I don't think it even deserves that classification. To classify it in that genre, would imply it deserves to be there. Instead, it would be better to shuffle it off to the side as wanting to be in that category, but not making it there. Not for lack of trying, but rather because to give it that much notice would possibly suggest someone else should see this movie.
And, since it didn't meet the "I was entertained" criterion, better to leave it to the side where it can moulder away.
A friend of mine classifies this film, along with 300, as being in the "gorenography" category, and I can easily see why.
Of course, without the gore, you'd drop a 99 minute movie down to an 80 minute movie and the lack of plot would be even more glaring.
But, I digress. Let's start with cinematography.
This movie had a lot of potential. You had a fantastic setting, with amazing trees and mountains as well as plenty of coastline to play with.
And then they chose to film the majority of it in dark settings with little focus to the actual shots. It appeared that the only time we ever got the camera to focus on a particular part of a scene was when atrocities were being commited, about to be commited, or the director chose to try and have scenery convey emotion because he wasn't capable to getting the performance out of his actors.
I'm familiar with most of the actors in this film from other roles. They have ability. Even with as limited a script as this was (the entire movie is, for all intents and purposes, one giant chase scene, limited to people on foot or horseback,) there was enough there to both draw out good performances as well as give the viewer something to care about. However, between the script and the director, they could have just as easily cast the US Olympic swim team in this movie and it wouldn't have made a difference (my apologies to the US Olympic swim team if you are, in fact, all deserved winners of Tony, Emmy, Oscar and Golden Globe awards, my point was to chose a group whom I presume has limited acting experience but has united toward a common goal and suggest they could have replaced the professionals due to the limitations previously mentioned.)
So, cinematography is out, directing is out, I'm initimated the writing has issues, so let's go there.
This movie had potential. The concept wasn't bad (Norsemen raid the United States in approximately 1100, leave behind a kid who won't commit atrocities against the indigenous population, whos adopted by the indigenous people and grows up. Jump forward 15 years later and our nasty Norsemen have come back to settle for good, much to the objection of the one warrior who's trained with a sword (for those of you who are worried about spoilers, I've covered maybe the first 10 minutes of the movie.)
However, after that, there's not much that the movie has to offer. Yes, there's a strong female character love interest, but, for the most part, she gets in the way, and, while she's supposed to be a motivating factor, really, she could have been a "blood brother" and it would have been no different a movie for the most part.
Could this movie been written better? Absolutely, but it would have been a different movie. Not a chase film. And the movie would not have suffered from this change.
Finally, I'm going to address the action. In a word, I'd rather see the Sylvester Stallone epic "Cobra" that endure the action sequences from this film again. Once again, with a better director vision, this could have been an enjoyable chase/action film. Never once did I get the sense of urgency from the action. The lead character, at several points in time is being chased by a whole heck of a lot of ugly, armored, vicious beasts of human beings who have proven several times that the indigenous people are essentially ants to be removed from the picnic before you sit down to eat, yet, at no real time do we get the impression that this is more than a training exercise for him.
So, with most of the urgency removed, what's left?
The fight sequences are, for the most part, uninspired and too one sided to be of any interest. I suspect, even if I were of an age where this movie would have appealed to me, that the lighting was too dark to "enjoy" (if that's the right word) the various gratuitous (and believe me, they were gratuitous) limb and sundry body part removals. There wasn't even enough "spatter" to make Joe Bob Briggs raise an eyebrow.
So, as I mentioned at the top of the review, this movie was classified by a buddy of mine as Gorenography, but, honestly, I don't think it even deserves that classification. To classify it in that genre, would imply it deserves to be there. Instead, it would be better to shuffle it off to the side as wanting to be in that category, but not making it there. Not for lack of trying, but rather because to give it that much notice would possibly suggest someone else should see this movie.
And, since it didn't meet the "I was entertained" criterion, better to leave it to the side where it can moulder away.
Friday, January 18, 2008
Movie review: Cloverfield
Like a lot of people, I've been obsessively following the new Bad Robot film, Cloverfield for the past 6 months.
I first saw the teaser in front of Transformers, went through the Ethan Haas puzzles, only to find out they had nothing to do with Cloverfield. As the movie has approached, there's been countless discussions at work about what rumors were true, what new clues had been discovered, and a lot of scepticism of whether this movie would live up to the hype.
This afternoon, I found out the answer.
For me, the answer was a resounding yes!
Is this a movie to "redefine" the genre' of giant monster movies? Not at all.
Because this isn't a "giant monster movie."
Yes, there is a large monster, yes it's trashing Manhattan. But that's merely the vehicle to set up the story.
First and foremost, this is a story about people and their reactions to disaster.
There are going to be a lot of comparisions to September 11, 2001 with this movie. I can't speak to the accuracy of the rolling wave of dust from collapsed buildings or the sheer confusion where communication is limited and what many people had was simply what they could see, none of it good. I can't speak to any of this because I was on the other side of the country on that day.
What I can speak to, is the reaction of Rob, the main character of the movie. And, in that respect, they got it right.
From my perspective, in everyone's life there is probably at least one person who has at one point or another, been the center of what is good and "right," with your life. You may not see them for a decade, or even talk to them during that stretch of time but, in the back of your mind they are always there, always important and when you do see them it's as if time has not passed and the level of comfort you've felt with them is rekindled.
I've been lucky that I have a few friends like that, one of whom lives in Manhattan and works for a company which had offices in the World Trade Center Towers. I didn't know where her office was located at the time, but after the towers fell that day, I sent a frantic email to her just needing to know she was ok. When I got the response she was fine, that her office was in a different part of New York City, the relief I felt can't be described.
But what if it had been different?
If this was one of those people in your life you would move heaven and earth to get to them to help.
And that's what this movie is really about.
This is the movie about people being people in the face of hell on earth trying to support each other while everything falls apart.
A lot has been made about the hand held camera work in this movie and I'm going to touch on it for two points.
The first is about the camerwork itself. I think it says alot about the director, Matt Reeves and the way he cut the movie. Yes, I understand they often did 50 or 60 takes to get a living feel for the camera work, but in terms of suspension of disbelief, I really felt like I was following a real person filming this, not a director who was only showing you what you needed to see to build suspense. The reactions felt right as the character of "Hud" is panning around wildly at times, especially in the beginning of the movie where the characters don't have a lot of focused direction and Hud is reacting to any and everything. Later, as we start moving toward getting to Beth, the person Rob needs to move heaven and earth to help, the camera is more focused and directed, until the next pitfall hits the group.
From a technical standpoint, I also thought the way Reeves handled the hand help camera viewpoint was exceptionally well done. He starts the movie with inexpert and deliberate over the top jerking of the camera before quickly moving to a more "sedate" version of the hand help camera view.
So, why did he do it?
Much the way you close your eyes for 10-20 seconds to adjust to the darkness, by going over the top initially and disorienting the movie goer, Reeves gives the viewers the equivelent of the 20 seconds of darkness. So, you start to adjust. And when all hell breaks loose and you are back to the original level of shakiness in the camera you've adjusted enough to not only not get sick, but to be able to follow along as if it's you behind the camera. And, as the movie builds to new levels, you are once again somewhat used to the shaking of the camera. And, as the movie reaches its climax you are fully immersed and can handle what's going on before you.
Now, is this to say that things are always shaky and in constant motion? Actually not. Though a good portion of the movie is spent in this mode, there are respites, well timed to allow you to catch your breath and take in what needs to be seen. Still, this is not a movie I would want to be idly flipping channels on a weekday evening and come across in the middle.
My second comment about the hand held camerawork comes in answer to a question that one of the group I saw the movie with had as we walked out of the movie. She mused that she probably would have put down the camera after an hour or so and wondered why the character of "Hud" didn't. The answer I now have for her, having thought about it for a few hours is as follows:
Drew Goddard did a fantastic job of writing this movie. Matt Reeves did a fantastic job of directing this movie. In the 50 to 60 takes that they did for most shots, the actors were probably directed to a certain extent to bring out their characters and find out what would fit best with them.
The character of Hud is the best friend of Rob. We are quickly shown he's insecure and it's implied he relies on Rob for a lot of his direction. As the movie progresses, it's Hud behind the camera who makes the wise cracks which are plainly a defense mechanism. But the wise cracks are really a secondary defense mechanism. His primary weapon against the horror around him is this camera. As long as he is filming and looking through the viewfinder, it's just a film. It's not actually happening to him or his friends because it's all on video. If he ever puts the camera down (which does happen several times) he actually has to confront what is going on around him and that is something he does not want to do.
So, on all those levels the movie succeeded brilliantly. You cared about these characters and as the group was whittled down, you felt their pain. The reactions of the camera and the actors were fantastic. I think Matt Reeves was dead on when he cast professional actors who weren't stars. You looked at them as if they were people not "that Hollywood star who's being badgered by paparazzi but I liked their last film so I'm going to see this one." It was because there weren't any preconceived notions that "oh that's Tom Hanks," but rather someone whos face and imdb.com resume didn't come to mind as soon as you saw them that allowed you to suspend disbelief and really experience this as it was meant to: an intimate perspective of a rather large catastrophe.
There's one moment that really brought it all into perspective for me. At one point during the film the characters have to choose to move from the subway tubes to the surface again (it's in a commercial so not much of a spoiler) however, when they go through the door to the "unknown," they find themselves in a familiar space. In this case, the comment was "Oh, it's 59th street." I don't know the New York subways at all. But, at one pointin time when I lived in the Bay Area, I could tell you what station along my BART line and throughout San Francisco we were at by just at a glance. That simple comment solidified the movie for me. These were people who have just discovered that they have emerged into a comfort zone by opening the mystery door. And that level of comfort in the "oh" spoke worlds about who these people are.
Now, having just blathered on about how this isn't a giant monster movie, I do need to discuss the "Big Bad."
The most cynical of the group I saw this with (you know the type; always griping, nothing is ever positive, on high blood pressure medication by 35,) said the creature was a complete Cthulhu rip off and not original at all. And he's right, but not in the way he meant.
I will be the first to admit, I like Lovecraft's writing, not for his meter or even the prose, but rather the obtuse descriptions (okay, so that's part of his prose) he comes up with. In that respect the giant monster in Cloverfield would be aptly described by Lovecraft because it's a downright horror show in and of itself. It's something out of several people's nightmares and you don't look at it an say "ooh, giant mutant iguana exposed to radiation over several generations and ever expanding."
This creature isn't easily described both because often what you see of it is constantly in motion and it's not standing still long enough for you to stop and say "hrm, they took the head of x, the legs of y, added in z with a little of w thrown in for good measure." When it does slow down enough, or the camera is at an angle to get a better view you take it in and your mind doesn't want to accept what you are seeing.
Another thing done execptionaly well was the lack of background music or score. There was nothing to distract you from the immersion experience. And immersion in sound it had. If there's any justice, this movie will win a technical oscar for sound because, despite the lack of the latest music video tie in song or "haunting score to enhance the mood," everything around you is a multi-layered auditory symphony in the movie. Even when the the characters are focused on something else, there's the background noise of a war being fought somewhere nearby: weapons are being discharged, the monster is roaring and things are getting blown up or flattened by the newest immigrant to come through Ellis Island. There are several moments in the film where the characters are inside buildings where all the alarms are going off. You know the type, the piercing beeps going off in concert with the flashing strobes. One type of director would have them going off, then slowly fade them down. Reeves didn't. They are as loud and obnoxious as they are in real life and they complete the scene.
So, having slobbered like a dog over a fresh bone, is the movie perfect? No.
Every time the camera is turned off and back on, we get a scene (this found media is a tape over from a defining moment in Rob and Beth's friendship,) from the previous recording and there were at least two scenes where I can think of where it broke up the flow of the movie.
Some of the setup of the movie I thought was a little forced. They introduced the main characters in a reasonable fashion, but there were a few moments that felt a little less than real.
However, once the movie gets moving it's mostly a non stop ride. When there finally is a break in the action, I found myself looking at the screen just listening to the rapid beating of my heart, taking in everything and wondering what the hell the movie had done to me.
So, does the movie meet the "was I entertained" criterion?
Let's put it this way. I had a gift certificate to the theater that's been sitting in my wallet for ten months. I used it on this movie because I didn't think it could live up to the hype. Now I wish I'd paid for the movie so I could use it on something else that might not be a good bet.
I first saw the teaser in front of Transformers, went through the Ethan Haas puzzles, only to find out they had nothing to do with Cloverfield. As the movie has approached, there's been countless discussions at work about what rumors were true, what new clues had been discovered, and a lot of scepticism of whether this movie would live up to the hype.
This afternoon, I found out the answer.
For me, the answer was a resounding yes!
Is this a movie to "redefine" the genre' of giant monster movies? Not at all.
Because this isn't a "giant monster movie."
Yes, there is a large monster, yes it's trashing Manhattan. But that's merely the vehicle to set up the story.
First and foremost, this is a story about people and their reactions to disaster.
There are going to be a lot of comparisions to September 11, 2001 with this movie. I can't speak to the accuracy of the rolling wave of dust from collapsed buildings or the sheer confusion where communication is limited and what many people had was simply what they could see, none of it good. I can't speak to any of this because I was on the other side of the country on that day.
What I can speak to, is the reaction of Rob, the main character of the movie. And, in that respect, they got it right.
From my perspective, in everyone's life there is probably at least one person who has at one point or another, been the center of what is good and "right," with your life. You may not see them for a decade, or even talk to them during that stretch of time but, in the back of your mind they are always there, always important and when you do see them it's as if time has not passed and the level of comfort you've felt with them is rekindled.
I've been lucky that I have a few friends like that, one of whom lives in Manhattan and works for a company which had offices in the World Trade Center Towers. I didn't know where her office was located at the time, but after the towers fell that day, I sent a frantic email to her just needing to know she was ok. When I got the response she was fine, that her office was in a different part of New York City, the relief I felt can't be described.
But what if it had been different?
If this was one of those people in your life you would move heaven and earth to get to them to help.
And that's what this movie is really about.
This is the movie about people being people in the face of hell on earth trying to support each other while everything falls apart.
A lot has been made about the hand held camera work in this movie and I'm going to touch on it for two points.
The first is about the camerwork itself. I think it says alot about the director, Matt Reeves and the way he cut the movie. Yes, I understand they often did 50 or 60 takes to get a living feel for the camera work, but in terms of suspension of disbelief, I really felt like I was following a real person filming this, not a director who was only showing you what you needed to see to build suspense. The reactions felt right as the character of "Hud" is panning around wildly at times, especially in the beginning of the movie where the characters don't have a lot of focused direction and Hud is reacting to any and everything. Later, as we start moving toward getting to Beth, the person Rob needs to move heaven and earth to help, the camera is more focused and directed, until the next pitfall hits the group.
From a technical standpoint, I also thought the way Reeves handled the hand help camera viewpoint was exceptionally well done. He starts the movie with inexpert and deliberate over the top jerking of the camera before quickly moving to a more "sedate" version of the hand help camera view.
So, why did he do it?
Much the way you close your eyes for 10-20 seconds to adjust to the darkness, by going over the top initially and disorienting the movie goer, Reeves gives the viewers the equivelent of the 20 seconds of darkness. So, you start to adjust. And when all hell breaks loose and you are back to the original level of shakiness in the camera you've adjusted enough to not only not get sick, but to be able to follow along as if it's you behind the camera. And, as the movie builds to new levels, you are once again somewhat used to the shaking of the camera. And, as the movie reaches its climax you are fully immersed and can handle what's going on before you.
Now, is this to say that things are always shaky and in constant motion? Actually not. Though a good portion of the movie is spent in this mode, there are respites, well timed to allow you to catch your breath and take in what needs to be seen. Still, this is not a movie I would want to be idly flipping channels on a weekday evening and come across in the middle.
My second comment about the hand held camerawork comes in answer to a question that one of the group I saw the movie with had as we walked out of the movie. She mused that she probably would have put down the camera after an hour or so and wondered why the character of "Hud" didn't. The answer I now have for her, having thought about it for a few hours is as follows:
Drew Goddard did a fantastic job of writing this movie. Matt Reeves did a fantastic job of directing this movie. In the 50 to 60 takes that they did for most shots, the actors were probably directed to a certain extent to bring out their characters and find out what would fit best with them.
The character of Hud is the best friend of Rob. We are quickly shown he's insecure and it's implied he relies on Rob for a lot of his direction. As the movie progresses, it's Hud behind the camera who makes the wise cracks which are plainly a defense mechanism. But the wise cracks are really a secondary defense mechanism. His primary weapon against the horror around him is this camera. As long as he is filming and looking through the viewfinder, it's just a film. It's not actually happening to him or his friends because it's all on video. If he ever puts the camera down (which does happen several times) he actually has to confront what is going on around him and that is something he does not want to do.
So, on all those levels the movie succeeded brilliantly. You cared about these characters and as the group was whittled down, you felt their pain. The reactions of the camera and the actors were fantastic. I think Matt Reeves was dead on when he cast professional actors who weren't stars. You looked at them as if they were people not "that Hollywood star who's being badgered by paparazzi but I liked their last film so I'm going to see this one." It was because there weren't any preconceived notions that "oh that's Tom Hanks," but rather someone whos face and imdb.com resume didn't come to mind as soon as you saw them that allowed you to suspend disbelief and really experience this as it was meant to: an intimate perspective of a rather large catastrophe.
There's one moment that really brought it all into perspective for me. At one point during the film the characters have to choose to move from the subway tubes to the surface again (it's in a commercial so not much of a spoiler) however, when they go through the door to the "unknown," they find themselves in a familiar space. In this case, the comment was "Oh, it's 59th street." I don't know the New York subways at all. But, at one pointin time when I lived in the Bay Area, I could tell you what station along my BART line and throughout San Francisco we were at by just at a glance. That simple comment solidified the movie for me. These were people who have just discovered that they have emerged into a comfort zone by opening the mystery door. And that level of comfort in the "oh" spoke worlds about who these people are.
Now, having just blathered on about how this isn't a giant monster movie, I do need to discuss the "Big Bad."
The most cynical of the group I saw this with (you know the type; always griping, nothing is ever positive, on high blood pressure medication by 35,) said the creature was a complete Cthulhu rip off and not original at all. And he's right, but not in the way he meant.
I will be the first to admit, I like Lovecraft's writing, not for his meter or even the prose, but rather the obtuse descriptions (okay, so that's part of his prose) he comes up with. In that respect the giant monster in Cloverfield would be aptly described by Lovecraft because it's a downright horror show in and of itself. It's something out of several people's nightmares and you don't look at it an say "ooh, giant mutant iguana exposed to radiation over several generations and ever expanding."
This creature isn't easily described both because often what you see of it is constantly in motion and it's not standing still long enough for you to stop and say "hrm, they took the head of x, the legs of y, added in z with a little of w thrown in for good measure." When it does slow down enough, or the camera is at an angle to get a better view you take it in and your mind doesn't want to accept what you are seeing.
Another thing done execptionaly well was the lack of background music or score. There was nothing to distract you from the immersion experience. And immersion in sound it had. If there's any justice, this movie will win a technical oscar for sound because, despite the lack of the latest music video tie in song or "haunting score to enhance the mood," everything around you is a multi-layered auditory symphony in the movie. Even when the the characters are focused on something else, there's the background noise of a war being fought somewhere nearby: weapons are being discharged, the monster is roaring and things are getting blown up or flattened by the newest immigrant to come through Ellis Island. There are several moments in the film where the characters are inside buildings where all the alarms are going off. You know the type, the piercing beeps going off in concert with the flashing strobes. One type of director would have them going off, then slowly fade them down. Reeves didn't. They are as loud and obnoxious as they are in real life and they complete the scene.
So, having slobbered like a dog over a fresh bone, is the movie perfect? No.
Every time the camera is turned off and back on, we get a scene (this found media is a tape over from a defining moment in Rob and Beth's friendship,) from the previous recording and there were at least two scenes where I can think of where it broke up the flow of the movie.
Some of the setup of the movie I thought was a little forced. They introduced the main characters in a reasonable fashion, but there were a few moments that felt a little less than real.
However, once the movie gets moving it's mostly a non stop ride. When there finally is a break in the action, I found myself looking at the screen just listening to the rapid beating of my heart, taking in everything and wondering what the hell the movie had done to me.
So, does the movie meet the "was I entertained" criterion?
Let's put it this way. I had a gift certificate to the theater that's been sitting in my wallet for ten months. I used it on this movie because I didn't think it could live up to the hype. Now I wish I'd paid for the movie so I could use it on something else that might not be a good bet.
Sunday, January 13, 2008
Game rant - In game cut scenes
It's time for the first of my rants:
In game cut scenes/cinematics and the worst offender of them, Oblivion games!
Let me start by making a blanket statement: I don't mind cut scenes. They make for a logical transition between acts of a game, especially if time has passed and can even be enjoyable at times. However, too many games are becoming increasingly dependant on cut scenes to convey information which could otherwise be brought out by exposition, game play, hidden clues etc.
The problem is that developers like Oblivion have increasingly started to use cut scenes to push their single player games into a very linear fashion. I played the original Bioware creations of Neverwinter Nights and Knights of the Old Republic to their conclusion. Oblivion then came in with the "2" versions of the games and took what was an enoyable experience and completely trashed them to the point where I cannot complete either game.
I'm an old school gamer. I expect my role playing games to have role playing in them, even if all the conversations you might have with an individual within the game only lead to a single conclusion (though often they did not.) I'm not sure if Oblivion just doesn't trust the intelligence of their audience, or if some marketing weenie took a look at a Blizzard RTS game which used cut scenes to further the plot, or they are just lazy, but they took two enjoyable games and comepletely destroyed the sequels.
I would love to see the time which they state the gameplay allows for, and then subtract the cut scenes to figure out how much actual gameplay there is. Because both of those games are incredibly weak on writing and they force you to view sometimes a percieved 10 + minutes of cut scenes which could have easily been achieved with maybe 16 options worth of dialog which brought you to 2 or three different conclusive paths. And no, I don't think watching a 2 minute cinematic, which then gives you a user clickable insteraction, which jumps into antoher cinematic, followed by another click and then a 3rd which resolves the plot in the direction which the developer wanted you to go meets the criterion for a role playing game.
For old school D&D players, the analogy I would use would be to compare a Judges Guild module to a TSR module.
At the time, I think the Judges Guild modules would run you 5-6 bucks compared to 3-5 for a TSR module.
Sure, TSR gave you a carboard stock cover which doubled as a fold out game masters screen with the dungeon map.
But the TSR module also gave you a single path.
Yes, there was some open endedness to some of their dungeons. You can go left, right or straight and each path lead you to a different area, but you always wound up at the same final destination.
A Judges Guild adventure was usually just that. You had probably 4-5 times the content of a TSR module designed to be played as a campaign. There would be multiple maps of different areas which you could adventure in the order you wanted. Sure, you had to complete certain tasks to unlock others.
But, more inportantly, JG trusted in the intelligence of it's players. They gave you a template that you could, with a little imagination, build years of adventuring from.
Now take a Bioware RPG. Is it linear? Absolutely! But the writing was done well enough that, while you would wind up at a final waypoint along the story tree, how and in what order you accomplished that was your own choice. And, along the journey, you uncovered more of the story/mystery through conversations with various NPC's.
Compare that to an Oblivion sequel. There is less open ended gameplay. A tackes you too B which takes you to C. And, in case you didn't know that this was the direction you were supposed to go, in a case where a Bioware conversation with 4 or 5 NPC's would gradually reveal the story, Oblivion force feeds you the story with a cut scene between your character and a single NPC, possibly bringing a 2nd into the conversation without your bidding.
The funny thing is, the folks at Oblivion are gamers. I've seen their potential employye questionairre. It asks what games you play not only PC, but RPG and Board Games. It just seems that they have yet to move beyond the TSR stage of design and into a much more open ended style which promotes not only good writing, but gives the user the illusion of control over the story.
In game cut scenes/cinematics and the worst offender of them, Oblivion games!
Let me start by making a blanket statement: I don't mind cut scenes. They make for a logical transition between acts of a game, especially if time has passed and can even be enjoyable at times. However, too many games are becoming increasingly dependant on cut scenes to convey information which could otherwise be brought out by exposition, game play, hidden clues etc.
The problem is that developers like Oblivion have increasingly started to use cut scenes to push their single player games into a very linear fashion. I played the original Bioware creations of Neverwinter Nights and Knights of the Old Republic to their conclusion. Oblivion then came in with the "2" versions of the games and took what was an enoyable experience and completely trashed them to the point where I cannot complete either game.
I'm an old school gamer. I expect my role playing games to have role playing in them, even if all the conversations you might have with an individual within the game only lead to a single conclusion (though often they did not.) I'm not sure if Oblivion just doesn't trust the intelligence of their audience, or if some marketing weenie took a look at a Blizzard RTS game which used cut scenes to further the plot, or they are just lazy, but they took two enjoyable games and comepletely destroyed the sequels.
I would love to see the time which they state the gameplay allows for, and then subtract the cut scenes to figure out how much actual gameplay there is. Because both of those games are incredibly weak on writing and they force you to view sometimes a percieved 10 + minutes of cut scenes which could have easily been achieved with maybe 16 options worth of dialog which brought you to 2 or three different conclusive paths. And no, I don't think watching a 2 minute cinematic, which then gives you a user clickable insteraction, which jumps into antoher cinematic, followed by another click and then a 3rd which resolves the plot in the direction which the developer wanted you to go meets the criterion for a role playing game.
For old school D&D players, the analogy I would use would be to compare a Judges Guild module to a TSR module.
At the time, I think the Judges Guild modules would run you 5-6 bucks compared to 3-5 for a TSR module.
Sure, TSR gave you a carboard stock cover which doubled as a fold out game masters screen with the dungeon map.
But the TSR module also gave you a single path.
Yes, there was some open endedness to some of their dungeons. You can go left, right or straight and each path lead you to a different area, but you always wound up at the same final destination.
A Judges Guild adventure was usually just that. You had probably 4-5 times the content of a TSR module designed to be played as a campaign. There would be multiple maps of different areas which you could adventure in the order you wanted. Sure, you had to complete certain tasks to unlock others.
But, more inportantly, JG trusted in the intelligence of it's players. They gave you a template that you could, with a little imagination, build years of adventuring from.
Now take a Bioware RPG. Is it linear? Absolutely! But the writing was done well enough that, while you would wind up at a final waypoint along the story tree, how and in what order you accomplished that was your own choice. And, along the journey, you uncovered more of the story/mystery through conversations with various NPC's.
Compare that to an Oblivion sequel. There is less open ended gameplay. A tackes you too B which takes you to C. And, in case you didn't know that this was the direction you were supposed to go, in a case where a Bioware conversation with 4 or 5 NPC's would gradually reveal the story, Oblivion force feeds you the story with a cut scene between your character and a single NPC, possibly bringing a 2nd into the conversation without your bidding.
The funny thing is, the folks at Oblivion are gamers. I've seen their potential employye questionairre. It asks what games you play not only PC, but RPG and Board Games. It just seems that they have yet to move beyond the TSR stage of design and into a much more open ended style which promotes not only good writing, but gives the user the illusion of control over the story.
Sunday, January 6, 2008
Movie review - Transformers
We saw Transformers last night on DVD for the second time, third when you count seeing it in the theater on my birthday.
Overall, it's still a heck of an enjoyable movie.
I'll be the first to admit, I'm not a Michael Bay hater. Yes, he has his shortcomings as a filmmaker and has some habits which I find annoying (I'll get to those in a bit.) However, I have yet to see a Michael Bay film which I have not come away from saying "I was entertained!" Granted, while I have Bad Boys 2 taped, I haven't gotten around to watching it.
And, it's that statement which is my ultimate criteria for movies: Was I entertained? And, to further clarify, entertained, for me, means did I enjoy the experience by getting caught up in the movie, even if it was a movie I came out of wanting to slit my wrists in utter depression due to the hopelessness that the movie conveyed? Frankly, if a movie has that power, then the answer is yes, I was entertained, even if I will never, ever watch that movie again.
Like him or hate him, and I'm aware that many people hate him, Michael Bay does movies in a very formulaic way and the Tranformers movie was no exception (spoilers follow):
The formula usually involves the following elements:
1. Several very inconoclastic shots, usually of an unnamed character who gives us the proverbial "view from the gallery." Transformers delivered this many times over, the two most obvious being the little girl who watches the Transformer (Jazz?) come out of her swimming pool and the unnamed screaming lady who, in slow motion, watches a Transformer rotate over her as it's firing its cannon. I actually like this technique of Bay's because he does it well. If it's poorly done, you get pulled out of the moment and the sequence is ruined. Bay consistently includes these shots in a such a way that it draws the viewer in further, giving them a view of the big picture from the eyes of someone we have no investment in.
2. Several moments which are designed to play on your emotions. I'm conflicted on these. Bay consitstently uses these shots, and they are usually affecting, but I really hate the blatent manipulation. An example would be at the end of the film when Josh Duramel's character get's dropped off to finally meet his daughter and see the wife he's been missing. The music sets the emotional scene and we are watching this tender moment of both love and happiness. However, with Michael Bay it's almost always over the top. Another example would be when Bumblebee gets injured in the final fight and crawls toward Megan Fox, his eyes appearing to blink with tears. That scene was dragged out for 5-10 seconds longer than need be to deliberately pull on our emotions. If there's one thing that does bother me about a Michael Bay film it's that he does not seem to trust his audience enough to decide if the scene is supposed to make them feel a certain way and he needs to force the issue. Michael, I realize you will never see this, but, have some faith in the general public and don't go overboard. When you do you turn your audience off because they do realize they are being manipulated or you just screw it up royally (I love Armageddon, however, every time that William Fitchner interupts the Ben Affleck/Liv Tyler reunion with his stupid request to shake her hand I want to throw my remote through the TV because he destroyed a perfectly good scene with that.)
3. Grandiose shots designed to put the viewer in a awed state: Once again, I'm torn on these. Bay does do them well, especially with the introduction of the twin shuttles in Armageddon, but, I always feel he goes overboard on them. Once again, it comes back to manipulation. You've set up this amazing shot, use the correct music to trigger emotion, and then hold it for too long. In the Transformers it was the final speech by Optimus that was overdone. Yes, it's a fantastic shot of the Transformers backlit by the setting sun, but I always feel that shot is done backward. He starts with Shia Lebouf and Megan Fox making out on top of Bumblebee (which, BTW is a kind of perverse image Michael. That's a living thing and while it is Shia in the middle of a MMF sandwich instead of Megan, the sexual connotations take auto-erotica to a level I didn't want to goto,) and then moves to the "we stand alone" shot of the remaining Transformers backlit by the setting sun before moving to Optimus. I always thought that shot should have started with Optimus, moved to the Transformers and then when he gets to the "new friends" part of the speech it should have gone to Shia and Megan on the ground under a tree with Bumblebee in the background turned AWAY from them.
4. Action scenes which are so over the top you are not only drawn in, but feel some investature in the moment. Transformers did not disappoint with these. From the Scorpionik (SP?) attack sequence in the desert with the warthogs screaming in, to the highway chase with the skating robots, to the final battle where all heck breaks loose, Transformers delivered these with classic Michael Bay form. Yes, he's very formulaic with his grand action scenes; they always have music to set the mood, there is always a slow motion sequence and stuff blows up in grandiose fashion. So what! They are fun and the main reason I am consistently entertained by his movies. Plain and simple, Michael Bay gets action sequences and does them well.
5. Music that conveys the moment. This is another thing Michael Bay does exceptionally well. He has an idea of what he wants in a scene and chooses the music which sets the mood. Whether its the inclusion of a song or, more often and orchestral soundtrack moment, Bay gets it. The last thing I want, as a viewer, is too feel like I've just come out theater having watched a 2 hour session of MTV videos with plot squeezed in between songs instead of commercials (Daredevil and 300 being two of the worst offenders in the recent past.) He also has a good sense of volume control as well as balance. One of the things I absolutely hate about most movies these days is when you get the over the top volume song which detracts from the next 6 lines of dialog because your ears can't adjust quickly enough to the contrast change. This is especially noticeable when viewing a DVD at home. If there's one thing I don't think several filmmakers get enough credit for (Kevin Smith and Michael Bay both come to mind) is balancing the audio so that you are not missing part of the movie due to auditory level adjustment.
So there's my "Michael Bay forumla for movies," in a nutshell.
As I've mentioned, Transformers fit this across the board. And, once again, it doesn't bother me.
The movie was fun.
I was entertained.
Overall, it's still a heck of an enjoyable movie.
I'll be the first to admit, I'm not a Michael Bay hater. Yes, he has his shortcomings as a filmmaker and has some habits which I find annoying (I'll get to those in a bit.) However, I have yet to see a Michael Bay film which I have not come away from saying "I was entertained!" Granted, while I have Bad Boys 2 taped, I haven't gotten around to watching it.
And, it's that statement which is my ultimate criteria for movies: Was I entertained? And, to further clarify, entertained, for me, means did I enjoy the experience by getting caught up in the movie, even if it was a movie I came out of wanting to slit my wrists in utter depression due to the hopelessness that the movie conveyed? Frankly, if a movie has that power, then the answer is yes, I was entertained, even if I will never, ever watch that movie again.
Like him or hate him, and I'm aware that many people hate him, Michael Bay does movies in a very formulaic way and the Tranformers movie was no exception (spoilers follow):
The formula usually involves the following elements:
1. Several very inconoclastic shots, usually of an unnamed character who gives us the proverbial "view from the gallery." Transformers delivered this many times over, the two most obvious being the little girl who watches the Transformer (Jazz?) come out of her swimming pool and the unnamed screaming lady who, in slow motion, watches a Transformer rotate over her as it's firing its cannon. I actually like this technique of Bay's because he does it well. If it's poorly done, you get pulled out of the moment and the sequence is ruined. Bay consistently includes these shots in a such a way that it draws the viewer in further, giving them a view of the big picture from the eyes of someone we have no investment in.
2. Several moments which are designed to play on your emotions. I'm conflicted on these. Bay consitstently uses these shots, and they are usually affecting, but I really hate the blatent manipulation. An example would be at the end of the film when Josh Duramel's character get's dropped off to finally meet his daughter and see the wife he's been missing. The music sets the emotional scene and we are watching this tender moment of both love and happiness. However, with Michael Bay it's almost always over the top. Another example would be when Bumblebee gets injured in the final fight and crawls toward Megan Fox, his eyes appearing to blink with tears. That scene was dragged out for 5-10 seconds longer than need be to deliberately pull on our emotions. If there's one thing that does bother me about a Michael Bay film it's that he does not seem to trust his audience enough to decide if the scene is supposed to make them feel a certain way and he needs to force the issue. Michael, I realize you will never see this, but, have some faith in the general public and don't go overboard. When you do you turn your audience off because they do realize they are being manipulated or you just screw it up royally (I love Armageddon, however, every time that William Fitchner interupts the Ben Affleck/Liv Tyler reunion with his stupid request to shake her hand I want to throw my remote through the TV because he destroyed a perfectly good scene with that.)
3. Grandiose shots designed to put the viewer in a awed state: Once again, I'm torn on these. Bay does do them well, especially with the introduction of the twin shuttles in Armageddon, but, I always feel he goes overboard on them. Once again, it comes back to manipulation. You've set up this amazing shot, use the correct music to trigger emotion, and then hold it for too long. In the Transformers it was the final speech by Optimus that was overdone. Yes, it's a fantastic shot of the Transformers backlit by the setting sun, but I always feel that shot is done backward. He starts with Shia Lebouf and Megan Fox making out on top of Bumblebee (which, BTW is a kind of perverse image Michael. That's a living thing and while it is Shia in the middle of a MMF sandwich instead of Megan, the sexual connotations take auto-erotica to a level I didn't want to goto,) and then moves to the "we stand alone" shot of the remaining Transformers backlit by the setting sun before moving to Optimus. I always thought that shot should have started with Optimus, moved to the Transformers and then when he gets to the "new friends" part of the speech it should have gone to Shia and Megan on the ground under a tree with Bumblebee in the background turned AWAY from them.
4. Action scenes which are so over the top you are not only drawn in, but feel some investature in the moment. Transformers did not disappoint with these. From the Scorpionik (SP?) attack sequence in the desert with the warthogs screaming in, to the highway chase with the skating robots, to the final battle where all heck breaks loose, Transformers delivered these with classic Michael Bay form. Yes, he's very formulaic with his grand action scenes; they always have music to set the mood, there is always a slow motion sequence and stuff blows up in grandiose fashion. So what! They are fun and the main reason I am consistently entertained by his movies. Plain and simple, Michael Bay gets action sequences and does them well.
5. Music that conveys the moment. This is another thing Michael Bay does exceptionally well. He has an idea of what he wants in a scene and chooses the music which sets the mood. Whether its the inclusion of a song or, more often and orchestral soundtrack moment, Bay gets it. The last thing I want, as a viewer, is too feel like I've just come out theater having watched a 2 hour session of MTV videos with plot squeezed in between songs instead of commercials (Daredevil and 300 being two of the worst offenders in the recent past.) He also has a good sense of volume control as well as balance. One of the things I absolutely hate about most movies these days is when you get the over the top volume song which detracts from the next 6 lines of dialog because your ears can't adjust quickly enough to the contrast change. This is especially noticeable when viewing a DVD at home. If there's one thing I don't think several filmmakers get enough credit for (Kevin Smith and Michael Bay both come to mind) is balancing the audio so that you are not missing part of the movie due to auditory level adjustment.
So there's my "Michael Bay forumla for movies," in a nutshell.
As I've mentioned, Transformers fit this across the board. And, once again, it doesn't bother me.
The movie was fun.
I was entertained.
Saturday, January 5, 2008
Why the Wii is winning
I've started and not finished this post several times.
The question can be asked, why the Wii? Why not go with the Xbox 360 or the PS3?
We own a PS2. My wife and I purchased it on our anniversery about 4 years ago with the intention of using DDR to get in shape and have fun. Bad knees have kept me from playing DDR for most of that time. We own about 10 titles for the PS2, most of them purchased by or for our kids. The only one which has held my attention for more than 20 minutes is Crazy Taxi.
Is this indicative of myself or the game machine?
I'd have to say mostly it's me.
I started gaming on a computer more than 25 years ago (1981 if you want to be exact.) Back then, it was all text based, with the occasional ascii game. You could also use a modem to get to MIT and play this game called Zork, if you had access to an academic service (I did.)
Even prior to that, I started playing Dungeons and Dragons back at the old White Box set.
As time has gone on, most of the games I find myself drawn to are story/puzzle/strategy based with the occasional sports simulation thrown in. However, unlike the character of Brodie in Mallrats, I would not, and have not left a warm, occupied, bed to go play on a video game, especially not a sports simulation.
When the PS3 was announced, I was interested, but more in the "shiny new toy" syndrome way. The Xbox has never really held any interest to me, the 360 less so since you have to pay for the HD DVD as an add-on. When the cost was announced for the PS3, I cringed.
When the Wii came out, I was interested, but not enough to wait in line to buy one. As time went on, and several of my co-workers purchased Wii's and raved about them, my curiosity level was raised. Then, last May, while wandering through Costco as the guests of family (we ended our Costco membership about 8 years prior when they stopped taking Discover Card, and renewed it that day) lo and behold, there was a Wii bundle for sale, and there were many in stock. So, on an impulse, I convinced my wife we should get one.
Having now played on the Xbox 360, PS3 and Wii ( the others courtesy of friends,) I now know why Nintendo is winning.
1. First and foremost, the darn thing is fun out of the box. Are the graphics on the included Wii Sports so spectacular that they make your eyes pop? Absolutely not. But the 5 games, plus training simulations plus Wii Fitness are all fun. Sure, there are frustrations with them, but that first night we had the Wii was the final performance (and the reason my wife's Costco card bearing relatives were in town to begin with,) of our oldest son's appearance as Motel in Fiddler on the Roof. I was taping the show and had arranged to get into the theater when dropping our son off for cast call an hour prior to the doors opening. As part of my taping, I was also reserving the best seats in the house (by my observance,) for my wife and her parents with the understanding they would arrive at the time the doors opened.
6:30 came and no family. People were streaming into the theater and giving me ugly looks as my camera bag and microphone stretched out over the premium seats.
6:45, still no family. I've now had to demurely say "yes these seats are taken" more than 20 times.
Finally at 6:52, they arrive. Their reason for being late? They were bowling on the Wii and so lost track of time that they also forgot to eat dinner (which they were supposed to do as well.)
As time has passed, we've purchased several games for the Wii and been given a few others. And I still keep coming back to the Wii Sports as the games I want to play.
With a PS3 I'd have made a much larger investment in money just to get the machine with a game, and thusfar I have not seen the "wow factor" game that makes me want to own one.
Same with the Xbox 360.
2. The Wii as exercise. Yes, I'm aware of the study which says exercizing on the Wii is minimally better than walking to the fridge to get a beer and snacks and you would be better off doing actual exercise. I also think the study is inherantly flawed.
First and foremost, I use the Wii for exercise. Is it my only form, no. However, you try and do the Wii Punching bag training exercises for boxing for over 15 minutes and see how you're doing at the end. Unless you are languidly sitting on the couch doing it, you will move, build up a sweat and get your heart racing.
The same with Tennis, though it can take longer to build up your heart rate.
Secondly, the Wii gets you up and moving. And, the more you move, the more likely you are to engage in more exercise, not neccessarily on the Wii. I do expect within 3 years you will start to see studies in gerentology that show elderly people living longer in rest home situations where the rest home has a Wii. Because, as they get up and move, even if it is to play a non-cardio game such as Bowling, it gets them up and moving, which increases their immune system and their ability to fight disease.
3. There is also the Wii as a theraputic/learning device. My wife dislocated her shoulder severely this summer. To the point where they were talking surgery. A lot of the exercises she was prescribed were mimicked by the Wii Tennis simulation for returning balls. When she mentioned this to her physical therapist, he suggested she try it for two weeks to see what could happen with the usual caveats about not overdoing it, if it hurts, stop etc. Two weeks later, he insisted she continue doing so as her arm was making remarkable progress. A month after that, she was out of physical therapy. As the Wii games and periphreals (i.e. the Wii Fit aka the Balance Board) advance, it's possible that more and more simulations can be created for range of motion therapy as well as the addition of games which can be used for testing simulation (i.e. I can easily see using the Wii as an aid to help people train for the SAT's by helping them visualize the math problems where train A starts at 45 miles away running at 8mph and B starts 85 miles away and runs at 19 mph etc.)
4. Though obvious, price really has something to do with it. Beyond the fact that it takes a lot less time to save up for a Wii, the $249 entry price makes it in the realm of possibilty of an "impulse" buy (which is what we did.)
5. Casual gaming. There are alot more causal gamers out there than hardcore gamers. If you're in doubt, take a look at sites like Pogo.com and Popcap.com. In 3 years Pogo has gone from the ugly red-headed stepchild of EA, shunted to a seperate building, to their highest money making
division. Popcap started modestly with download games and has since expanded to retail outlets. I would even go so far as to suggest that World of Warcraft is a casual game (more on this in a later post.) But, in short, WoW was the first MMO to make it fun out of the box without a steep learning curve, which attracted the casual gamer. Causal gamers don't think about state of the art graphics. They want games which they can use as an escape, but don't need to commit a large amount of time to playing. Nintendo brought that to them with both Wii Sports and Wii play, then followed it up with Big Brain Academy, Mario Party 8 and the Zelda training game for the Wii Zapper. And, from what we've seen so far, they are continuing the trend with the upcoming Wii Fit. Once I actually give my kids Super Mario Galaxy, I might have to include that in as well.
The question can be asked, why the Wii? Why not go with the Xbox 360 or the PS3?
We own a PS2. My wife and I purchased it on our anniversery about 4 years ago with the intention of using DDR to get in shape and have fun. Bad knees have kept me from playing DDR for most of that time. We own about 10 titles for the PS2, most of them purchased by or for our kids. The only one which has held my attention for more than 20 minutes is Crazy Taxi.
Is this indicative of myself or the game machine?
I'd have to say mostly it's me.
I started gaming on a computer more than 25 years ago (1981 if you want to be exact.) Back then, it was all text based, with the occasional ascii game. You could also use a modem to get to MIT and play this game called Zork, if you had access to an academic service (I did.)
Even prior to that, I started playing Dungeons and Dragons back at the old White Box set.
As time has gone on, most of the games I find myself drawn to are story/puzzle/strategy based with the occasional sports simulation thrown in. However, unlike the character of Brodie in Mallrats, I would not, and have not left a warm, occupied, bed to go play on a video game, especially not a sports simulation.
When the PS3 was announced, I was interested, but more in the "shiny new toy" syndrome way. The Xbox has never really held any interest to me, the 360 less so since you have to pay for the HD DVD as an add-on. When the cost was announced for the PS3, I cringed.
When the Wii came out, I was interested, but not enough to wait in line to buy one. As time went on, and several of my co-workers purchased Wii's and raved about them, my curiosity level was raised. Then, last May, while wandering through Costco as the guests of family (we ended our Costco membership about 8 years prior when they stopped taking Discover Card, and renewed it that day) lo and behold, there was a Wii bundle for sale, and there were many in stock. So, on an impulse, I convinced my wife we should get one.
Having now played on the Xbox 360, PS3 and Wii ( the others courtesy of friends,) I now know why Nintendo is winning.
1. First and foremost, the darn thing is fun out of the box. Are the graphics on the included Wii Sports so spectacular that they make your eyes pop? Absolutely not. But the 5 games, plus training simulations plus Wii Fitness are all fun. Sure, there are frustrations with them, but that first night we had the Wii was the final performance (and the reason my wife's Costco card bearing relatives were in town to begin with,) of our oldest son's appearance as Motel in Fiddler on the Roof. I was taping the show and had arranged to get into the theater when dropping our son off for cast call an hour prior to the doors opening. As part of my taping, I was also reserving the best seats in the house (by my observance,) for my wife and her parents with the understanding they would arrive at the time the doors opened.
6:30 came and no family. People were streaming into the theater and giving me ugly looks as my camera bag and microphone stretched out over the premium seats.
6:45, still no family. I've now had to demurely say "yes these seats are taken" more than 20 times.
Finally at 6:52, they arrive. Their reason for being late? They were bowling on the Wii and so lost track of time that they also forgot to eat dinner (which they were supposed to do as well.)
As time has passed, we've purchased several games for the Wii and been given a few others. And I still keep coming back to the Wii Sports as the games I want to play.
With a PS3 I'd have made a much larger investment in money just to get the machine with a game, and thusfar I have not seen the "wow factor" game that makes me want to own one.
Same with the Xbox 360.
2. The Wii as exercise. Yes, I'm aware of the study which says exercizing on the Wii is minimally better than walking to the fridge to get a beer and snacks and you would be better off doing actual exercise. I also think the study is inherantly flawed.
First and foremost, I use the Wii for exercise. Is it my only form, no. However, you try and do the Wii Punching bag training exercises for boxing for over 15 minutes and see how you're doing at the end. Unless you are languidly sitting on the couch doing it, you will move, build up a sweat and get your heart racing.
The same with Tennis, though it can take longer to build up your heart rate.
Secondly, the Wii gets you up and moving. And, the more you move, the more likely you are to engage in more exercise, not neccessarily on the Wii. I do expect within 3 years you will start to see studies in gerentology that show elderly people living longer in rest home situations where the rest home has a Wii. Because, as they get up and move, even if it is to play a non-cardio game such as Bowling, it gets them up and moving, which increases their immune system and their ability to fight disease.
3. There is also the Wii as a theraputic/learning device. My wife dislocated her shoulder severely this summer. To the point where they were talking surgery. A lot of the exercises she was prescribed were mimicked by the Wii Tennis simulation for returning balls. When she mentioned this to her physical therapist, he suggested she try it for two weeks to see what could happen with the usual caveats about not overdoing it, if it hurts, stop etc. Two weeks later, he insisted she continue doing so as her arm was making remarkable progress. A month after that, she was out of physical therapy. As the Wii games and periphreals (i.e. the Wii Fit aka the Balance Board) advance, it's possible that more and more simulations can be created for range of motion therapy as well as the addition of games which can be used for testing simulation (i.e. I can easily see using the Wii as an aid to help people train for the SAT's by helping them visualize the math problems where train A starts at 45 miles away running at 8mph and B starts 85 miles away and runs at 19 mph etc.)
4. Though obvious, price really has something to do with it. Beyond the fact that it takes a lot less time to save up for a Wii, the $249 entry price makes it in the realm of possibilty of an "impulse" buy (which is what we did.)
5. Casual gaming. There are alot more causal gamers out there than hardcore gamers. If you're in doubt, take a look at sites like Pogo.com and Popcap.com. In 3 years Pogo has gone from the ugly red-headed stepchild of EA, shunted to a seperate building, to their highest money making
division. Popcap started modestly with download games and has since expanded to retail outlets. I would even go so far as to suggest that World of Warcraft is a casual game (more on this in a later post.) But, in short, WoW was the first MMO to make it fun out of the box without a steep learning curve, which attracted the casual gamer. Causal gamers don't think about state of the art graphics. They want games which they can use as an escape, but don't need to commit a large amount of time to playing. Nintendo brought that to them with both Wii Sports and Wii play, then followed it up with Big Brain Academy, Mario Party 8 and the Zelda training game for the Wii Zapper. And, from what we've seen so far, they are continuing the trend with the upcoming Wii Fit. Once I actually give my kids Super Mario Galaxy, I might have to include that in as well.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
