John Favreau is one of those directors in which I really don't care for most of his films, but I actually really like the guy. And by that, I mean that I know he's not a hack or a fraud. Ive seen plenty of interviews, his Dinner For Five show, and he genuinely seems like a lover of film and has that genuine non-forced nerd quality about him. But not in the annoying vein of Quentin Tarantino. Like a more relaxed Martin Scorsese (in terms of personality, NOT film making). Im not the biggest fan of Iron Man (in fact, I think it's actually pretty bland). Iron Man 2? It got scathed, but I dont think it's much worse than Iron Man. It's just kinda' more of the same. That doesn't go to say that I think either are terrible. I am just not a giant fan of his movies. Until Cowboys & Aliens.
To jump right in, I really enjoyed Cowboys & Aliens. What I love most is that it's a western with aliens. Not a sci-fi film with cowboys. It's almost the opposite of Star Wars. Think about the scene in which Obi-Wan, Luke and Han all meet for the first time. It's in a bar (which would translate to a saloon), and they're basically looking for a gun for hire with a horse and carriage. It's a western in a sci-fi setting. That's what I think makes this film work. It's the fact that they try to establish characters that actually interact with each other. Not just fodder for the aliens to fuck with. I actually kind of gave a shit about why this kid shouldnt be sent to jail, and the repercussions that would come. Obviously, it's not going to be character work that you're going to see in Once Upon A Time In The West or The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly, but it's enough to actually CARE.
Ill continue with the top-billing name. Daniel Craig. Ive grown to really like him. He met all the requirements of a James Bond and he seems like a rather cool dude. The role was originally supposed to go to Robert Downey Jr. (no surprise there [everyone wants their Bobby DeNiro]), but for some reason, he didnt do it. And I dont mind because Daniel Craig did a good job portraying the Eastwood-esque badass. I have a feeling that Downey Jr. would have included more of his signature wit, which would not have been a totally bad thing. I just think the character called for a more take-no-shit kind of actor. And Craig definitely carried that out within the first 15 minutes. Punching dicks and bashing heads into steel? That works.
Now to the main reason I pledged myself to this movie... Harrison Ford. I remember when the movie was announced, I was like, "Yeah, I'll check it out.". Then Ford was casted and I went from "Sounds cool" to "IM IN". It was something that I always figured he has done, but never actually did. A western. I mean, look at Indiana Jones. I know that when I think about Indy, I see dirt, deserts, and all the ruggedness that comes with a western. Except now, he's actually IN one. PERFECT casting by Favreau. Harrison Ford fanboy-ism aside, was he phenomenal in Cowboys & Aliens? No. But he was pretty damn fucking cool. The one thing about his character that I was surprised with and enjoyed was he was a semi-heel to start with. He wasn't a terribly good man. And Ford needs that. He's always the hero, rarely ever the baddie. That isn't to say he stays like that, but for the little while he is, it's fun to see what he does with his character Dolarhyde.
The rest of the cast was pretty impressive as well. Sam Rockwell, Clancy Brown (Starship Troopers!), and a brief appearance from STEPHEN. Who's Stephen? A wanted man from his island. Okay, maybe Im cross-referencing here. Stephen from Braveheart, David O'Hara. I love that guy. Braveheart, The Departed, this. Everything he's in, he's golden. But again, the cast was pretty damn good. Olivia Wilde was good too. Though, any problems with her character that I had werent really HER fault. More so the writing. Cant really talk about those problems due to it kinda' being a giant fucking spoiler. Though mentioning it being a spoiler might be a spoiler in of itself...
The aliens. Spoiler or not, I have to touch up on what half the fucking movie is about. This has been a fairly disappointing year in alien design. And for that statement to exist, there has to be a plethora of alien films. And this year there were plenty. Battle: LA, Paul, I Am Number Four, Super 8, Transformers: Dark of the Moon. Now of all those releases, only 3 are straight-forward alien films. Battle: LA, Super 8 and now Cowboys & Aliens. And as I said, the creature designs have been "meh". Battle: LA's aliens were incomprehensible and Super 8's alien design was pretty fucking lame. And Cowboys & Aliens? Well, it was a slightly satisfying visual. When I first saw the creature, I didnt know what to think. Then I saw more of it, and my opinion started to become more whole. And to be honest, I thought it was okay. And at this point, that's good enough for me. After being so incredibly amped for Super 8, and it delivering such a crappy creature design, I can settle for the aliens in this film. They're almost crustacean-looking aliens. But not like District 9. In this, they're more bulky and menacing. Could they have given me a better-looking alien? Yeah. Did it turn me off to the film? No.
The score. Nothing overly memorable, but I dug it. Im listening to it on YouTube now just to remember the tone of it. I remember liking it. But I was also drunk, so I dont remember too much of the score itself. But hearing it now, there are actually more layers to it than I remember. It has 3 particular thematic ques. The action ques, the western guitar ques, and some softer emotional ques, in which I du. The score wasn't mind-blowing, but it definitely complimented the film. And that is essentially what a score's main purpose is.
Is this one of the better summer films? Id say so. It hasnt been an incredible summer. Let alone, year. Im hoping the fall and winter brings some surprise gems.
But my hat's off to Favreau. Finally a movie I can say I actually really like from him. That's another thing I give him immense credit for. NOT to shoot the film in 3D. And Im not hopping on the "I hate 3D" train. I love 3D when the film calls for it and when it's done properly. This movie? There was really nothing that screamed "3D!!!". But that's not why I respect Favreau for his decision. It's because he wanted to shoot his western on celluloid film. And with 3D, you have to shoot digital unless you want a mediocre post-converted 3D final product. So in the end, Cowboys & Aliens is a job well done. But seriously... Cowboys & Paraplegics? Come on.Click here to read the full article...
Michael Bay Action Movie #9. That's how many people will look at Transformers: Dark of the Moon. And I cant really say I disagree with them. But the difference is... I actually really enjoy (most of) Michael Bay's films. Do any of them have intricate and/or compelling stories? No, not particularly. But the man knows how to make a solid action flick. That is for sure. I really don't want to start this review off all "Michael Bay! Michael Bay! Michael Bay!", but I think I need to address my position on the dude. I am well-aware that his films are mindless action. I know he owns his copy of "How To Make A Movie" with the "Characters" and "Story" chapters ripped out. But guess what? He DOES know how to make a movie. He just needs to hire the proper writers. But when I walk out of a Michael Bay film (even Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen), I never feel ripped off (well, that kinda also has to do with being a theatre manager and not having to pay). But what I mean by that is, he DOES give you his bang for your buck. Literally. There is a reason the films cost so much. And that's the production value. The FX, the locations, and the all-around scale of the film.
People can complain about his movies being FX-heavy. Well? Fuck off. You can complain about films being too FX-heavy if their FX are terrible. And even though I voice my pro-Bay opinion with a slightly less defensive tone, I will battle anyone who says his films' FX are "shitty" or "terrible". Feel the way you want about him (and I can totally see why people hate his films). But do NOT trash the FX. That is the one thing he is more talented at than anyone. Bringing great special FX to the big screen. And no, that doesnt make a film good. But it certainly helps a great deal. Alright, Ive said what I needed to say. Now to TFDOTM. No, not "Transformers: Dark of the Moon", "Total Fucking Destruction On The Maximum Level". Okay, so there's no "L". I thought it was clever enough to not have to waste it. Im an idiot. The review...
2007, Transformers. A fun, surprisingly entertaining movie. Didnt know how much you could do with a live action toy franchise film. But it was fun enough to lure me back for the second. 2009, Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen. Eh. Everyone trashes it, but I look at it for what it is... Robots punching each other in the dick. And dont kid yourself, that is what they are. But the first has that element of surprise. The second was just more of the same, just longer. People seemed to think they could take more away from an orgy-of-metal film. As much as I can enjoy Revenge of the Fallen, I do admit it was a far lesser film. Now, 2011, we have Transformers: Dark of the Moon. And I can honestly say that surprise element is back. And that's only due to Revenge of the Fallen falling off the wagon a bit. Had Revenge been just as good at the first, there would be no surprise in Dark of the Moon being good. It would just be expected. But Bay hopped back on the wagon again, and really made a solid Transformers film again.
With Dark of the Moon, he made some good decisions and some bad decisions. First, the good. He erased those fucking terrible twin ebonic robots. Unlike most people, I wasnt offended by them in the second film. What is there to be offended by? So what? They speak like black people. If you were offended, just piss off. The problem with the ebonic robots was that they were FUCKING ANNOYING. And luckily, Bay had enough sense to scrap them for this film. That isn't to say that he doesnt have stupid robots in this. Just not on level of retardation as Skids and Mudflap. Another thing done right by Bay was that he scaled the film down. But by JUST enough. Pirates 4 tried to scale it down from the third film, and it just made it fucking BORING. Pirates 4 felt so damn bland because it needed to feel bigger. Dark of the Moon had just the right size and scope. Granted, the film is still HUGE. But it's not all over the world. The film mostly takes place in D.C. and Chicago.
Now... The bad. As expected, the humor. Or as I call it "Michael Bay Humor". I dont think I really need to elaborate on what that is, but I will anyway. Bay has the humor of an 5th grader. And that's not to say I dont have the humor of a child, but I dont make $200 million dollar films with 5th grader humor. And you know what? Every 15 childish jokes, does come that one guilty laugh. It sometimes CAN make you laugh. But I dont forget why Im sitting in that seat. It's because I want to hear robot dicks clanking together for 2 and a half hours. But my 5th grader humor aside, Bay is pretty terrible at humor. But when it is humorous, it's usually only humorous in the "laughing at you" kind of way.
The FX. Again, Bay and his team managed to make my brain hurt. And I mean that in a good way. Im very rarely confused with who's fighting who, as most people are. That's not the reason my brain hurt. The real reason is because I cannot understand, and probably never will understand how they manage to create such incredible FX. I still cant fathom how it's done. I understand that it is a plethora of animation artists, but that doesnt make it any less easier to comprehend. My hat goes off to all the sketch artists, the concept artists, the rendering artists, the animation artists, everyone. Each and every dollar really does show up on screen.
The 3D. This film has been praised to have the best 3D since Avatar. And I can say that I would agree with that. I dont particularly think it's better than Avatar's 3D, but it does a hold a light to it. Im happy Cameron convinced Bay to shoot in 3D before shooting. Because the last thing I would want Paramount to do with Dark of the Moon, is post-convert it as they did with their previous and upcoming releases for this year. Thor's post-conversion wasn't bad, but it doesnt really sell 3D in a GREAT light. And to my giant surprise, Bay didn't really pull any "Comin-At-Ya" 3D tricks. The film actually has less 3D gimmicks than Avatar. I would expect the opposite from Michael Bay.
The cast. Bay managed to round up an impressive cast. Well actually... They're all just Coen Brothers steals. Ill give him John Tutoro since he's been in every film since the first. But to bring John Malkovich and Frances McDormand into the mix, I liked that. McDormand was pretty okay. Nothing special. But I liked her in this. Malkovich was.. Well... Bay-ized. Michael Bay managed to turn him into a typical stupid Michael Bay character, but a fun stupid Michael Bay character. Basically, John Malkovich plays a Boston-accented Bob Barker. He talks like Matt Damon, but looks like he slept in Bob Barker's spray-tan soaked bed. As I said, his character was stupid, just not annoying stupid. Guilty-laugh stupid. And that's good enough for me in a Michael Bay film. Shia LeBeouf is Shia LeBeouf in this. Not particularly likeable, but not annoying-as-fuck as he can be. And his new girlfriend. Well, it's another case of Michael Bay casting a super model instead of an actress. So many people complain about Megan Fox's absence. Uh...What's the difference? Neither can act to save a short bus of retarded children. To me, it was like replacing a mannequin with a pull-string with another mannequin with a pull-string. Except... This mannequin looks like a duck. I dont know if Rosie Huntington-Whiteley spent money to get her lips to look like that, or needs to spend money to get them fixed. Regardless, I still think Megan Fox and Rosie Huntington were two broads who were getting boned by Michael Bay and happened to walk in front of the cameras for 3 movies.
I always hate vaguely writing about the end of the film because it's usually the worst or best part of the film. And you usually feel the most passionately about something you love or hate. Let's put it this way: If you have read any reviews on TF3, the end IS the best part of the film. For a solid 40+ minutes, it really stays strong. Ive read that it's "cant breathe great". No. There are a few minutes of down-time between each giant robot-destruction beat, but it's not dull downtime. All I can say aside from that is that THAT is where the 3D looks the absolute best. The fucking jumper pilot shots are just as good as anything Avatar 3D.
Wrapping up, see Transformers: Dark of the Moon if you are interested. If you're not a fan of Transformers, dont waste your time. And see it in 3D. It may not be as good as Avatar's 3D, but damnit, it's close. Dont feel like paying the 3D price? Steal glasses from the recycled glasses bin (have fun with that pink eye!). Just dont do it at my theatre. Ill kick your ass out.Click here to read the full article...
R.I.P. John Carpenter. Or rather, rest in peace John Carpenter's CAREER. Years and years ago John Carpenter made Ghosts of Mars. Awful. Just awful. Okay, maybe it was just a poor script choice for him. Whatever. Every director gets them. But USUALLY a director hops back on the wagon and makes a good film after that. Even if they make another shitty film even after hopping back on. And I can gladly say that Carpenter hasn't taken George Romero's route. George Romero is WAY past the point of no return. Almost so far that if he was announced "dead" tomorrow, I would say, "They're just releasing it?". But Im not going to go that far since he did create 3 of THEE greatest horror films to ever exist, and from what i've heard, Romero is a really nice guy, so I he doesnt deserve ANY bad words, PERSONALLY. But the man can't make a film worth sloth shit anymore. Ive said it before... All of Romero's fans should invest in putting ole' George in a home. And sadly, I think Carpenter might be next. Except... Carpenter SEEMS sensible enough to realize, "Wow, I dont make good movies anymore...".
So... John Carpenter. The man who made Assault on Precinct 13, Halloween, Escape from New York, The Thing, Big Trouble In Little China, Prince of Darkness, and so many more, he finally lost his marbles with The Ward. And you know what? It's not as bad as you're expecting. But it's not good. And I guess as a huge Carpenter fan, it could be worse. But in the end, the film just looks like a huge tombstone with his career engraved.
Okay, the film starts off pretty good. An okay set-up, a really cool title card, and some pretty cool credits (the classic Carpenter font, for those of you who are pathetic enough to know what I mean). And really, for the first 15-20 minutes, it's pretty okay. Nothing "FUCK YES"-worthy, but good nonetheless. Then the girls start "acting". Alright, horror movies and females acting... USUALLY the same outcome. A train wreck. But in something as non-over-the-top as this? Get SOME decent actors.
So as the movie "progresses" (to progress usually means to get better [in this case, it doesnt]), the same tricks are used. Something weird happens at night, it pans to the girls face, and it fades to the next day. That happens about 3 or 4 times. And it's not as if there are any pieces left for us to pick up or follow. It's just being mysterious for the hell of it. It wasn't until a couple minutes later where you say, "Wow...". And no, not that "Wow..." where you think something's going to happen. It's that "Wow..." where you realize you've seen this movie before. Not only that, but done better. It was called Shutter Island. Seriously, the movie was Shutter Island with a fraction of the budget. And seriously, when you pit John Carpenter against Martin Scorcese it's a hard battle for me. I LOVE both. I enjoy Carpenter's best films over Scorcese's best, but the difference between those two, is that Scorcese is so much more consistent throughout each and EVERY decade.
Moving on as to why The Ward is a lame chapter in Carpenter's career. He really needs to edit from the past while he creates in the future. And what I mean by that is, a lot of the times, the edits and sound design were really bringing out that "Straight-to-Video" quality. Or lack thereof. If he edited this as if were made in the 80's, and not with all the editing tricks of today, it would have felt like a lesser 80's Carpenter film. And as uninspiring as that sounds, it's hopeful at the same time. Meaning, all he would have to do is find that perfect script and he's golden. If his direction was sharp in this, I would totally give it more points. But it wasn't. Sharp direction with a poor script, is Michael Bay. Bash the guy all you want, but he knows how to make a movie. Knows pacing. Knows shots. Knows how to ecenomically make a film. A story? Not so much. Unfortunately with Carpenter, he cant choose a good script or direct as well as he could before. And another sad fact about The Ward is that he didnt score it. And it's not the first time he hasn't scored a film of his, but maybe it would have given it some more of that Carpenter feel. But granted, one of the best things about the film was SOME of the music. And I say "SOME" because there were little sections that I loved, but mostly were just that annoying mesh of sounds and kinda-almost-music. I hate that.
And the end. Well. Im not going to "ruin" it. But halfway through I thought, "Please dont be that It's ___ in _____ head" ending. Hope I didnt ruin it for you. Because I totally didnt expect it. At all. Not. One. Bit. Like, at all. Ugh. I really expected more from Carpenter. Really? The ending in which was popular 5 years ago? It's not even like he hopped on the band wagon. He hopped on a band wagon that lost it's wheels years ago.
Does the movie suck? I guess not? But is it good by any means? I guess not. It's one of those. And I still cant decide which is worse. I love John Carpenter. I always will. He's made some of my all-time favorite movies. And he seems like a real great down-to-earth guy that I would blow my whole paycheck on, to buy him countless rounds of booze and countless packs of smokes, but I dont know if he has it anymore, as a film maker. When I heard Romero was making whatever "... Of the Dead" film a year or two ago (I honestly forget what it was called, thats how bad his career has gotten), but when I heard about his film announcement, I didnt really even pay attention. But Carpenter? You bet your ass I was on it. I followed the film with every story that was ran. But then it got a shit-release. And unlike The Beaver, I guess I can understand why. The movie was not good. But can you give the greatest horror film maker a shot? Even if the movie sucks, give him a good run. I never thought you could get worse than STV (Straight-to-Video). But you can... VOD (Video-on-Demand). And that's what The Ward has gotten. John Carpenter, the man who made HALLOWEEN, is now VOD film director.
I remember a little over a year and a half ago, I saw a little teaser before Iron Man 2, and it was a film called "Super 8". Now, the first image was a yellow truck. And for some reason, the first image that came to mind was Close Encounters of the Third Kind. Which of course features Richard Dryfuss' character, Roy Neary's truck. There was no particular reason as to why I thought THAT truck, it's just what I thought. And it wasn't until "something" was trying to break out of the train cargo that I thought "Wow, this might be a Close Encounters reference". So as the months passed by, more marketing was done for the film. TV spots, trailers, posters and I was instantly hooked. I love aliens, I love Spielberg, and I really dig Abrams (not so much his work, but his nerd/creative mentality). I mean, I just like the guy. So without going into complete spoiler territory, Ill keep it to a mininum.
First off, I want to explain one thing. There is a difference between ripping off and homage. Tarantino rips people off. In his HEAD, he's paying tribute to whoever he is ripping off, but there is nothing to indicate "HEY! This is from another movie!" to the average movie goer. And Ill admit it, sometimes he rips people off good (as counter-insulting as that sounds [is that a word?]). But what Abrams is doing here is just a complete homage to the ole late 70's/80's Amblin films. And honestly, just having Speilberg as producer on this film instantly makes it a homage to his films. It's kind of like if I were to film a scene in which a guy parks his car like The Blues Brothers. If it was just that, you would say, "That's ripped straight out of The Blues Brothers!". But if he parks the car like The Blues, and his passenger said, "Okay, Elwood...". That's a nod or a homage to The Blues Brothers. It's not trying to pass as it's own. And as I said, just having Spielberg as a producer instantly passes it as a nod and not a rip off to any of his films.
And you know what? The movie works. Until the end. But Ill get to that later. For now, Ill elaborate as to why 80% of the movie works. First of all, the kids. They casted a GREAT group of kids. It was clear they were going for The Goonies/E.T. group of kids. And it worked really well. You have the lead, Elliot-type character, the fat Chunk-like character, the girl, and the side friends. But the best was the main kid, the fatty, and the girl. This is a first time job for most of them, and they hit the right timing on most of their lines. The main kid didn't overact anything really, at all. The fat kid had some great, genuine comic timing, and the girl had that right balance of "the regular girl" and totally not boring. And the one great thing about it was, they seemed like they were actually a real group of friends, eventhough they all met on the set. Kudos to the kids and casting agents. And to Abrams for knowing how to direct kids.
As mentioned above, this movie is a bunch of movies in one. And to just put it out there, it's: The Gonnies, E.T., Close Encounters, District 9, and Signs all in one. The Goonies and E.T. I already elaborated on. But the main influence, that I see, is Close Encounters. And Im not just saying that cause it's one of my absolute favorite movies of all. There are shots taken DIRECTLY from Close Encounters. From the evacuation scenes, to the US Military's presence, to even the setting. It's all Close Encounters. And I dont have a problem with that. It actually did it quite well. I absolutely love that small-town rustic 70's look. It makes your bond with the group of kids that much more meaningful. If it were in a kind of boring setting, you wouldnt really care what the hell they were doing, or where they were going.
I also listed Signs as one of the influences. Was it an influence? I dont think so. Could it have been a rip-off? I think so. And this not being a spoiler, the kid's mom is dead in the beginning of the movie. So all it is, is the kid and his father, who is a local police deputy. So therin lies not only a Signs rip-off, but a Spielberg nod. Instead of father-neglect (a common theme in Spielberg films), it's his mother. Only, she didnt neglect him. She died. But getting back to the Signs rip-off. In Signs, a father is left with his two kids after his wife dies from being hit by a car while jogging. And the person who hit her tried to reach out to the husband, but just couldnt bring himself to it. In this, dude's wife dies because a co-worker called out, she covered his shift, and something terrible happened at work and she died. The dude goes to the funeral and tries to reach out and the husband doesn't want it. There's more to it in the film, but I dont want to lay the whole movie out for you. But there are some story-points taken from Signs.
The other film it kind of riffs from is District 9. And with this, Im not going to get into. Reason being, it would give too much away, story wise. Although, Im sure you might have guessed what it might have taken from D9. Now those are the films that I saw that Abrams had been influenced by. But he listed a few others, officially, as influences. The Thing, Scanners, and Slumber Party Massacre. Slumber Party, really? Apparently, it was for soundtrack musical choises. Why that film? Dont know. But it's odd and I like it.
The end. Dont worry, it's safe to read after this point. It's no secret, you see the movie you see the monster. Or alien. Or whathaveyou. And THERE lies the problem for me. The one thing Abrams SHOULD have taken from Spielberg's past films, was Jaws. In Jaws, you barely see the shark until really the end. Yes, you see glimpses of it, but not the entire thing. First off, Abrams could have chosen a MUCH better creatur design. And this is coming from someone who loved Cloverfield (I dont give a flaming shit. That was a great monster movie!). I loved the Cloverfield monster. It looked as if a creepy white hairless cat had mutated with a grasshopper. It just looked fucking cool. But this monster... Eh... No. Im not going to describe it, because that would be fucking retarded. But they could have done better. Much better. I have a comparrison as to what the monster looked like, but I wont say. Ill only give 3 clues: A 1998 animation film that ends with the letter "Z". Moving on...
The monster was where the brick started to crumble. And what happened after... They could have avoided the "SHOW EVERYTHING" approach. And I guess that's the end of the review really. The rest would just be spoilers.
All in all, it was a fun movie. Had an intriguing story, some really good acting, some fun references, a decent score, and a worthy entry for Abrams' film catalog. Was I disappointed? Yeah. Was it terrible? No. It'll actually probably end up being one of the better summer movies. Oh yeah, and there are lense flares.Click here to read the full article...
The Beaver. He's here to save Walter's life. And this being a spoiler without being a spoiler, he saves Walter's life. Now that might tell you the outcome of the film, but it's not the outcome of the film that you really care about. It's what causes the outcome...
Now it's no secret that I am completely homosexual for Mel Gibson. It's no secret that I have 10 Mel Gibson posters lining my whole bed. It's no secret that whatever he says or does affects me 0%. In fact, a lot of it makes me smile and only adds to his genius insanity (Ill get into that later). But the point Im trying to get across is that, as I sit here, typing up this review, Im being non-biased. I can tell whether I like a film because it's a good film, or if I like it because someone I admire is in it. And The Beaver is a film I like because it is a good film.
When I first heard about this film, I had one question. It was slightly different than most people's initial question, which was, "Is he really doing this movie?". But mine was, "Is this art imitating life, or vice versa?". Because this a PERFECT role for Mel Gibson. Let's see, one of his most iconic characters (that WASNT Max Rockantanksy or William Wallace) was portraying an insane person. Martin Riggs. And The Beaver's Walter Black wasn't far off, in terms of sickness in the head. So I was instantly excited for this film (aside from the fact that it was Mel Gibson's next prospect). Okay, got that out of the way. Moving on...
The Beaver as some of you may know was directed by Jodie Foster. And not having directed a film for 16 years, she did a damn good job. And as any movie, it didnt play without flaws. But I was really impressed with her directing capabilities. First off, this film had a script that was on the "Black List" for a while. And for that alone, I give Foster immense credit for taking on this project. Now with a film like this, you balance on a VERY thin line of drama and comedy. And that's a very hard thing to do. But Foster does it good. Granted, not perfect, but good. To get into more specifics, there is a scene where Walter tries to kill himself. She actually hits all the points that she needs to hit in that scene. She nails the comedy of him not being able to even kill himself properly, but then nails the drama and pity you start to feel towards him by letting it settle to make you think, "Shit, it's funny, but it's really kinda' sad...". Unfortunately, she doesnt use that perfect formula throughout, but it at least keeps you aware that the film you're watching, it's made by someone who DOES know what they're doing.
Before I get to the flaws of the film, Ill touch up on the positive aspects of it. First and foremost (and again, Im being non-biased) is Gibson. This film might not be what is considered an "Oscar-worthy" film (eventhough it's a thousand times better than half the dogshit that is nominated), but his performance is. Gibson really does carry this film. And not without the help of Foster's direction. Walter Black is clearly the source of "The Beaver"'s voice, but Foster manages to include Gibson's mouth or face in every shot, whether he's blurry in the background, or right aside the puppet, he's always there to remind you that it's not a completely silly premise. Now, if you walked into the theatre completely unaware about the movie, you would say to yourself, "Really?!", but it's Gibson's portrayal of his character where you stop smiling and start to realize that this guy has a serious condition. Some actors uses tones and line-delivery to really drive a scene. Gibson, not only does that, but he uses his facial expressions to really sell the scene. You have method actors, actors who NEED to get into a character, and natural actors, who can do almost any role without HAVING to go that extra mile. And Gibson is the latter.
Now to the direction. If this movie is any indictation, I can say that Jodie Foster knows how to balance multiple tones. For instance, this was comedy and drama and she did it well. but as I said before, it didnt play without flaws. Some scenes felt as if she should have treated them with a little less unintentional humor. There were scenes where it should have focused more on Walter than Walter and the beaver. Maybe she was trying to convey the feeling that his family felt, with them not being able to deal with him without the beaver, but personally, I felt it could have focused more on HIM than them. Maybe get inside his head a little more BEFORE he finds the beaver puppet. But she did achieve a good balance formula for about 85% of the movie.
One other flaw though, was Walter's son. And this might actually be a partially biased opinion. But I didnt feel very sympathetic towards him. First off, I do not like Anton Yelchin as an actor. Secondly, his whole storyline didnt really demand the amount of interest as his father's. Dude wrote papers for other people in high school... Okay. So where's the conflict? It was a very weak attempt to make us feel for the guy. Thirdly, his relationship with the girl he liked was pretty weak as well. Not as weak as the "conflict" he faced with writing papers for people, but weak nonetheless. I kinda' didnt give a shit about what was going on when he was on screen by himself or with his fling.
Aside from those nit-picks, the film was pretty damn good. Im still not sure as to whether or not the film exceeded my expectations, but it definately met them. It served a fairly decent score, a humble acting job by Jodie Foster, some good shots, good editing, an all around good film. Too bad it's not going to make any money due to being given a shitty limited release, and now a shitty expansion run. Mel Gibson regurgitates a chill pill again, and automatically NO ONE is going to flock out to see his movies again? Charlie Sheen anyone? The guy has made more cash in the past year by milking his pathetic psuedo-insanity than most actors in the business. Gibson deserves a proper comeback. Edge of Darkness? Kicked ass. Did okay in the box office. But that's what happens when you dump a movie in January. Give him a good script, a good director (if not him), a good release date, and his career is back on track...
This is a list comprised of mostly nit-picky film nerd gripes. And is really only for film nerds. Now, this list doesnt deem every movie bad for being guilty of including some of these nit-picks. Hell, a lot of the movies on this list are some of my absolute favorites, but they are still cliches in film that piss me off.
1. Cops Always Arriving After the Finale
My first gripe is the fucking cops always arriving after the finale or showdown, or what have you. I understand it either makes the third act and conclusion that more personal or intense, without the whole Police force there, but come on, it's just too convenient. But there are some exceptions. Some very good exceptions. For instance, Silence of the Lambs. The absence of the Police is almost a plot device in the third act of that movie. The Police think they have Buffalo Bill's house, but they dont. Leaving Clarice alone in Buffalo Bill's house. Thus making it a pretty damn intense scene. And some people would say Die Hard is guilty of it too, but it's not. At all. The cops definitely get there on time... They just cant do a thing about the situation.
Films guilty of this:
- Lethal Weapon (in which I love) - The Terminator (not that the cops could do a fucking thing anyway... It's The Terminator) - Big Trouble In Little China (in which I love) - Predator 2 - And plenty more...
2. Ground Bullets
This is a kinda' tricky one. Being as I dont have any specific examples to present. But it's something I've seen time and time again. Okay... If you're in a helicopter and you're shooting at your target, and you miss, what are you going to see? You're going to see either a spark (on concrete), a dust cloud (if you're in a desert), or water splashes (if youre target is in water). And I have no problem with that, because it's 100% accurate. What I DO have a problem with is a bullet traveling parallel to the ground, missing it's intended target, and seeing the result of it penetrating the ground, water or what have you. Okay, I get it. The bullet missed the target. But it's not going to fall that quickly from however far away the person is (50 feet, 100 feet, 200 feet). Yes, it depends on the gun. But very few guns used in film are close-range guns (with the exception of shot guns). Like I said, there really arent specific examples. But Im pretty certain you can find movies like Rambo: First Blood Part II (in which I love), Rambo III (in which I also love), and a lot of TV guilty of this.
3. Computer Noises
Now here's one I have PLENTY of examples of. And in fact, this is the one that bothers me the most! I absolutely fucking hate it. So let me elaborate... So you're watching (let me think of a terrible fucking movie guilty of this throughout the whole movie)... Oh that's right! Live Free or Die Hard. Okay, so you're watching Live Free or Die Hard and Justin Long is typing away on the computer (like everyone does in the whole fucking movie), and as he's typing you hear these "processing" noises. Everytime a window opens, moves, minimizes, a message pops up, a message is sent, THERE'S A FUCKING NOISE. I dont care what computer you have, no computer makes those noises. In fact, all the computers being used in "high tech" movies like these should be quieter, shouldnt they? You know, cause they're like... High tech and shit. Bottom line, it's really irritating hearing those noises. It's almost they think were too retarded to know they're using a computer, so they have to give us noises to signal that they are, in fact, using a computer. Suck my ass.
And the movies guilty of this? Virtually every movie made from the mid-90's on.
Exhibit A:
Exhibit B:
4. Dark Blue Filters
Ugh. Fucking dark blue filters. Really, whoever first decided to film a whole movie with this filter. Well... He must be a color blind prick. There are A LOT of movies guilty of this. And some can get away with it. One that comes to mind is Traffic. Why? Because it's used properly and used to suit the story. For those of you who have not seen Traffic, it's one of those quadruple intertwining-story movies. You know, 4 separate stories, inter cut with each other, that all are related towards the end of the movie? I really enjoy that kind of storytelling. Pulp Fiction did that, Sin City did that. It's just a neat concept. But yeah, Traffic uses about 4 filter throughout the whole film. One for every character story. And the dark blue filter used is for Michael Douglas' character. And Im pretty certain they used it for 2 reasons. The first: They needed to differentiate his story from everyone else's (as they did with each other character). And second: I think they wanted to portray Douglas' cold and lifeless world. Especially being that his daughter turns into a meth head.
But back to the cuntplaining, it just doesnt look good at all throughout a full-length movie. Here's an example: Payback. But fortunately, Mel Gibson can save almost any film.
Exhibit A:
5. The Misuse of the Words "Product Placement"
This isn't particularly a gripe I have with movies, as much as it is with the people who watch them. If you're watching a movie, and the movie is reality-based, in the real world, and your character is walking down the street and you see stores with "Coca-cola" signs, and "McDonalds" signs, and logos that you would typically see everyday? That is NOT product placement. But if you're watching a movie about vehicles turning into robots, and all of the sudden you see an XBox turn into a robot while making the signature XBox noise? THAT is product placement. Let me elaborate...
If you're going to make a film with realistic characters in a realistic setting, you NEED logos. You cant walk outside of your house WITHOUT seeing a car brand logo, food logos, etc., etc. It's part of our everyday lives. Believe me, if you took out all the logos of a movie that was, for instance, set in a city... You wouldnt believe how odd it would look. So in reality, you need logos. Now of course, if you have a movie set in todays day and age and the whole damn thing takes place in a pine box (Buried), logos are not completely necessary. THOUGH, there would be a logo on the phone, or the lighter, or his jeans, or his shirt. BUT, it would only be product placement, in my eyes, if they focused on the logo.
Now to the example of ACTUAL product placement. Back to the Transformers example. So, the XBox console gets affected by "The Cube" and it turns into a robot. Already, you have a blatant case of product placement. But what really sells it, is the fact that the sound designers specifically went out of their way to insert the trademark noise you hear in the XBox commercials. THAT is a product placement.
Exhibit A:
6. Slowed-down Scenes Shot at 24 Frames
There are A LOT of movies guilty of this. It's just too sketchy looking. If you want a scene in slow-motion, you shoot it to be in slow-motion. For instance, if you want to have a nice smooth and fluent scene in slow-motion, shoot it in 120 fps (frames per second). Basically, every movie is shot in 24 fps, the higher the frame-rate, the slow the movements. The way I see it, if a director slows down a scene shot in 24 fps, it looks like they didnt know what they were doing while doing the principal photography, and just said "fuck it!" in the editing room, and decided to put it in slow-mo.
Exhibit A:
And the proper way to shoot slow-motion:
... I still love Lethal Weapon considering it's guilty of 2 of my gripes on this list.
7. TV Lines on HD TV's
And the last? Well, Im getting tired of typing so Ill make it quick. First if all, high definition means there is NO grain and NO lines. So why do film makers and editors still insist on putting them on HD TV's? This typically happens when a character is watching a news report, or the news report is on the full screen. It makes absolutely no sense. The latest film I saw that suffers from this is Unstoppable. There's scenes where they cut back and forth to news reports, and the characters are clearly watching HD TV's and there's lines. I understand that 95% of television images, and computer screen images, and anything involving a screen is usually superimposed over a green screen. But do you have to take that extra step to make us aware that its a television?
Exhibit A:
Now at second glance, I see that there are lines on the screen, but there doesnt appear to be any on the titles and logos, which seems to indicate that it would be the camera producing the lines, and not the TV. But to be honest, I dont think that's the case. All news networks have converted to HD and use HD cameras. So at the end of the day... I think I still have something to bitch about. Phew!Click here to read the full article...
The year of 2010 was a pretty okay year I guess. Nothing like 2008, but a decent year nonetheless. A few let downs, a few as-good-as-expected-or-better films, and some real surprises. Anyway, here you go...
1. The Expendables
Fuck, do I love The Expendables. As I said before, it's not Rambo, but it's as close as it's going to get, in terms of old school action, I think. And what I love is that the term "The Expendables" is already being used as a description word. I've heard about numerous gather-of-stars, "It's The Expendables of __________". It's just nice to know that Stallone has created a new franchise. Do I hope he spends a little more time on the script the next time around? Yeah, it would help. But The Expendables was pretty much exactly what I wanted! And Im extremely happy it did so well opening weekend. $34 million for an R-rated action film? That's great. Especially given that it had very few "new" star power. Yeah, it had Jason Statham. But Jason Statham doesnt really drive box office sales. He has more of a cult following. To read my Expendables review, click here: THE EXPENDABLES REVIEW
2. Edge of Darkness
As I dont like to do with these retarded "Top" lists, I dont like to reiterate what I have already said in past reviews. So I'll keep it short. Edge of Darkness was fucking great. That's really all you need to know. It was a great slow-burn thriller, sprinkled with some action (which is how it should be). It was great to see Gibson again on the big screen. A lot of people would disagree with me, but fuck 'em. To read my Edge of Darkness review, click here: EDGE OF DARKNESS REVIEW
3. Machete
Here's a film that I never got around to review. But Machete was fucking GREAT. This was one of the surprises of 2010. Back in 2007 when Grindhouse came out, the faux-trailers were the best part of the experience (as most agreed). Machete being the best. So when I heard Robert Rodriguez was doing a full-length film about Machete I cringed as if I witnessed Kirstie Alley at a Golden Corral. But then casting news let out and I suddenly got an unwilling smile on my face. Robert DeNiro AND Steven Seagal in the same movie? Fuck. On top of that... Don Johnson? Cheech Marin? FUCK. It sounded too awesome to pass up. Then the trailer hit, and it looked pretty damn cool.
So fast-forward to September, I watched it, and it was fucking GREAT. First and foremost, it was hilarious. The movie could have easily been just balls-out fun. But it was actually hilarious. There are so many scenes where I lost my shit. For those of you who havent seen it, look out for...
- The blood-thermometer - Any scene with Steven Seagal - The electrocuting fence demo - Don Johnson being awesome - "Machete don't text." - Cheech's monitor-cross - Tom Savini's Assassin promo video - Any scene with Steven Seagal - "Death By Low-Rider Truck" - Robert DeNiro as a wetback - Robert DeNiro's political campaign - And whole fuck-load more...
I really thought the Machete full-length was going to be a cake's worth of icing on an enjoyable cupcake. But oddly enough, Rodriguez baked a DELICIOUS cake. With JUST enough icing! He successfully made an enjoyable cupcake into an equally enjoyable cake. Kudos.
4. Solitary Man
I had a feeling the Michael Douglas film of 2010 would make it to my list. But I didnt think it would be this one. It's just a shame Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps was a fart cake of a movie. But enough about Wall Street, I talked enough about it HERE.
Solitary Man was a movie I wasnt really looking forward to, but would watch it if I caught it on TV. I ended up renting it with my girlfriend one night, and I actually really liked it (hence why Im kind of writing about it on a "Top 5" list). Douglas was great in it (as usual). Hell, he was great in Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps (for what you saw of him), but the difference is, Solitary Man was an actual GOOD movie. Another great addition to the film, it reunited Douglas with Danny DeVito, which was great to see. I mean, there really isnt too too much to say about the film, except that it was a nice little surprise. Ill probably pick this up on Blu-Ray in a couple weeks and give it a re-watch.
5. Toy Story 3
"The Boy Are Back In Town". The theme song for two films this summer... The Expendables and a very similar film... Toy Story 3. Okay, Im lying, Toy Story 3 had a few more explosions.
Im actually drinking right now, and losing motivation to write about cartoons, so Ill just say that Toy Story 3 was rad. With Despicable Me being RIGHT behind it.
The Un-Seen List:
Here are a few films that I still have not seen, that would probably make my list...
Shutter Island - I watched the beginning with my buddy, but we were drinking and passed out.
The Killer Inside Me - I heard it's misogynist. Why not?
Inception - A Christopher Nolan film about dreams? I dont think Ive been sober enough this year to see it yet.
The Town - I really enjoy heist films.
True Grit - Coen Brothers? Jeff Bridges? You bet your ass Im there... Just not this year. It comes out on Christmas, and Im fairly certain Ill be too busy to catch it. The ironic thing, Im a manager at a movie theatre. The only thing is, we lost the film to the competing theatre.Click here to read the full article...
So just the other night, I watched Tron: Legacy and... It wasnt that good.
Im going to start off by saying that I am not really a Tron fan to begin with. And just because I dont like a movie, doesnt mean I cant appreciate it. Tron really isnt that great of a film, but it does have effects ahead of its time. But the sad thing is that they dont stand the test of time. They're extremely dated and elementary. But like I said, thats not to say they werent ahead of their time... Just not this time.
So Tron: Legacy takes place just about 21 years later. And this is one of the strongest parts of the movie, the beginning. I mean, I really dont feel too strongly about this movie as I would a movie I loved or hated. It was just kind of "eh". The beginning sets up enough story to give a fuck about whats going on. But once they enter the "Tron world" I started to lose interest, oddly. I thought the world was going to be mind-blowing, visually. Except that... It wasnt. Did it look really cool? Yeah, it did. But each scene was kind of more of the same. Dark backgrounds, with bright-light highlights. That's really all the movie was 75% of the time. And just about 20 minutes into this world I started to realize why I liked the beginning 15-20 minutes more. Tron wasn't my kind of thing. Im just not into that kind of setting. I thought, from the trailers, I would visually eat this world up, but that wasnt the case. It just got old after a while.
Another let-down was the 3D. I didnt think it was shitty 3D. Not at all. But I was expecting something a little better. Love it or hate it, Avatar has incredible 3D. The best so far. And Tron: Legacy could have rivaled Avatar, but it didn't unfortunately. Though the 3D wasnt spectacular, the visuals were great. There could have been WAY more designs, but I really do want to point out that the visuals were worth most of the budget.
One thing Im reading in reviews is the lack of story. Hmmm... That's not true. There is enough story to serve a Disney movie, let alone... A TRON movie. In fact, one of the only parts I really really liked about the movie was a scene in the middle. Its a scene with Sam and his father Kevin Flynn (Jeff Bridges). It was actually really well-done. Had all the right elements, great cinematography, score, and performances. But once that scene ended, I went back to the "eh" shoulder-shrugging slouch.
But what I really did like about the movie, through and through, was the score, oddly enough. And Im not saying that in "Im not big on scores" kind of way, because I am a score fanatic. But with this particular score, it was mostly electronica. And I do NOT like electronica. But Daft Punk did a really good job with the score. There were some really catchy themes. Would I buy the score? Nah. Download it? Yeah. But yeah, thumbs up to Daft Punk.
And lastly, I give thumbs up to Joseph Kosinski, the director. Why I am I am giving thumbs up to the director of a movie in which I didnt really enjoy? Because I really didnt notice anything wrong with his decisions that DIDNT pertain to the Tron world. And like I said, I cant give him thumbs down because of decisions he made with a world I didnt like to begin with. For what it was, it was probably a worthy entry. But given that Im not a Tron fan, I really have no voice. I just want to see how he would do with original material.
All in all, go see it for the Pirates 4 trailer... Oh wait, even that was pretty bland (unfortunately, since I love all 3).Click here to read the full article...
"What? Nobody believes in comebacks anymore?" - Gordon Gekko, Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps
Mr. Gekko, I believe in comebacks!.. But when they're good. Unfortunately Gordon, your movie wasn't very good. I really wanted to like Wall Street 2, I really did. I mean, I absolutely love the first Wall Street (Why? Click HERE). But with Wall Street 2, it's biggest problem is that it's a fucking mess. It has potential to be a great sequel, that's for sure. But it just didnt know where to go, and for how long.
The movie started out pretty decent. It gave me nothing to say, "Maybe it'll get better...". No, it was a pretty solid re-introduction to Gordon Gekko and the new characters. But unfortunately, Im not here to talk about what's good about this movie. Because if that were the case, this write-up would be about 3 sentences long.
Now one of the many things wrong with this film, first and foremost, was the story. Now dont think the story wasnt there, because it definitely had enough back-stories and side-stories to create a compelling story. But thats exactly the problem... There were way too many. Fucking way too many. You have Gekko trying to get back in touch with his daughter, Jake (LeBeouf) and Gekko's daughter's story (the majority of the movie unfortunately), Jake and his mentor Zabel (Frank Langella), Jake and his green energy company, Jake and his money-grubbing mother (Susan Sarandon), and literally about 4 or 5 other sub-plots that either go nowhere or nowhere good. It almost seemed like they wrote 4 Wall Street movies and decided to say, "Eh, fuck it. Lets just make it one movie.". But what's even worse than that is that most of the sub-plots revolved around Shia LeBeouf sadly. Ive said it before, and Ill say it again, I dont HATE Shia LeBeouf, but I certainly dont like him. He is what I call as "Studio Golden Boy". Meaning, not a lot of people really like him, but the studios do and they put him in every movie that they know is going to make money, so when the numbers flood in, it looks like its attributed to him. And Ill be honest... I wish I had that little prick's career. That motherfucker has been apart of every franchise that I either worship or love: Indiana Jones, X-Files, Wall Street, Transformers (the first 3 being my nerd dreams). Anyway, back to cunting about Wall Street 2. Yeah, there was way too much LeBeouf I could handle.
The movie should really have been called "Wall Street: Douglas You Never See". I swear, Gordon Gekko has a grand total of 30 minutes screen time. I know he wasnt the main character even in the first Wall Street, but this was absolutely ridiculous. I remember my buddy Phil shouted out 25 minutes in (after they re-introduced Gekko), "Isnt Michael Douglas in this movie?". I immediately thought, "Well dude, its only the first 25 minutes. But then 25 minutes turned into 35, then 35 minutes turned to 45 minutes, you'd see him for about 5 minutes, then he would go away for another 20 minutes. I call bullshit. I mean really, the posters should have credited the actors like so: "Shia LeBeouf, Josh Brolin, with Eli Wallach and a special guest appearance by Michael Douglas". Ugh, fuck things.
And that last thing I want to complain like a child about is the FX and graphics they used. It was pretty ridiculous. There were scenes where you were literally the computer screen they were looking at. You saw the characters from the computer screen's point of view. It was absurd. The first shot (which is in the trailer) looked pretty cool, with all the stock numbers and shit scrolling by. I got it. It was stylish and effective. But then he literally used it for every fucking scene. Either regular computer screens dont exist in Oliver Stone's alternate 2008 and only holograms do, or he just made a really shitty and distracting film making decision. That, and he used these fucking awful elementary-level animated digrams used to describe what Jake's character was investing him time and money in (green energy things and stuff [I kinda forget what they were exactly, due to losing interest]).
There were very few things about Wall Street 2 that I actually enjoyed. Two of which were the cameos by Charlie Sheen and the real estate lady from the first one. But I will give credit where credit is due. Michael Douglas gave another killer performance with some pretty rad lines and phrases (naturally). As did Josh Brolin and Frank Langella. They were all good! But not enough to salvage this film. At times I felt like I was living in a 3-month year old's diaper. It was just so fucking messy.
Sylvester Stallone. Dolph Lundgren. Mickey Rourke. Jet Li. Jason Statham. Eric Roberts. Bruce Willis. Arnold Schwarzenegger. Kinda' unfathomable.
Since the release of Rocky Balboa and Rambo, Ive been eager to see where Stallone's comeback, or career resurgence would take him. Now Ill be the first one to say it. The Expendables isn't Rocky Balboa or Rambo good. But that's not to say it isn't fucking awesome. And I guess, in a sense, I am being biased. Rocky and Rambo are pre-existing properties. The Expendables is something brand new (which is great). But with Rocky Balboa and Rambo, there was something to compare it to. And the fact that the 6th and 4th installments in a franchise were fucking incredibly good this late in the franchise (and in Stallone's career), you cant help but to praise those films. Where Rocky Balboa was more so an autobiography of Stallone's career, and Rambo was the best action movie in the past 20 years, The Expendables is just a great ensemble cast action film. Plain and simple.
And now to the actual film. Lets start with the story. I knew going in, that the story was basically a basic bare-bones story. Do I think the story was awful? Not at all. For me, it was enough to move the action along. Now, Ive read in the reviews about people cunting about how much of the story (or lack there of) was just fodder for this ensemble cast. And that may be the case, but it's not a terrible story. There are enough plot points to keep it interesting enough. A team of mercenaries are hired to overthrow a South American dictator and an ex-CIA agent. It turns out to be a giant front... And shit blows up. Would I have liked more story? Sure, but I got what I wanted from a fucking STALLONE action film. I would throw in a sarcastic "Stallone's not an Oscar-winning writer" line in there... But he is. But what people dont realize is that Rocky is not an action film... At all. It's a character drama. Hell, even First Blood is more-so a character drama then an action film. But what Im trying to say is, this is a Stallone action film. Youre going to get explosions, blood, more 'splosions, more blood, even more bullets, some more 'splosions, and maybe even a little... Explosions.
Now that the pesky "story" is out of the way, lets get to the juicy stuff. Like EXPLOSIONS. Id like to see Stallone direct his long-delayed Edgar Allen Poe film. You know, to really test out his directing chops. But for now, Im PERFECTLY content with his direction of action, and his sense for structure and pacing. The two things that Rambo and The Expendables have in common, is the structure. He opens the film with a bang, settles it down for a good 15 minutes, kicks some major ass, settles it down for a couple minutes, kicks some more ass, kicks some MAJOR ass, settles it down for a bit, then ends it with a GIANT FUCKING BANG. The last 20 minutes of Rambo and the last 30 minutes of The Expendables are FUCKING INSANE. Rambo's finale being the better, obviously. But The Expendables finale is only a couple notches below Rambo's.
First of all, these really aren't spoilers. Im not telling you who died or who killed who, but you need some setting up. Stallone is obviously the leader, Statham is a the knife expert, Terry Crews is the bomb-rifle guy, Jet Li is pretty much the stealth guy, from what I gathered, and Randy Couture is pretty much there to fight, I guess. But who I really want to get to is Terry Crews. Here is another example of how similar The Expendables is to Rambo. In Rambo, they use a .50 cal machine gun on people. .50 cal machine guns are supposed to be used on tanks, helicopters, etc. But no, Stallone said, "Let's tear 8-inch holes in people, then blow them apart.". The Expendables? Stallone said, "Let's use bombs like theyre bullets. And instead of using bombs to blow up buildings and vehicles, lets use them like bullets on people.". FUCKING AWESOME. There's a scene where Crews uses his bomb-rifle, with about 20 rounds on the enemy. It was absolutely incredible. And to make it even more incredible, it was all continuous. There are definitely a lot of radical action sequences in The Expendables. The opening pirate boat ship shootout, the scene where they blow up a boating dock, a dirt-road shoot out, the whole end battle, and the Jet Li/Dolph Lundgren scene. I really wish I could get into that scene, like bad, but Im not going to give any major spoilers. Fuck.
Moving onto the music. Stallone used Brian Tyler to score The Expendables. And Im pretty certain I know why. And that's because he did a fucking incredible job handling the Rambo score. And when I say incredible, I mean INCREDIBLE. With The Expendables he did an awesome job as well. I had to download the score due to it not being pressed and shipped to certain stores for some reason. But I listened to it before seeing the movie, and I wasn't overly impressed. With me, if you dont have a strong anchor (which is usually the main theme), I get bored. And I wasnt quite sure why he chose the main theme that he did. But then I saw the movie, and I totally got it. It doesnt cut through music like the Indiana Jones theme would, or the Rocky theme would. It has a very subtle horn section, with the string instruments really driving the theme. It works really well. It's got enough of an emotional anchor to actually feel something when you hear the theme. And once the theme came on towards the end battle, I totally got it. The rest of the score is pretty good too. And like I said, if you have a good main theme, or anchor, you can pick from that periodically throughout the rest of the score (which I personally love) and work from there.
Of course the casting of this movie was it's main driving force. But I gotta say, my favorite (aside from Stallone, obviously) casting in The Expendables was Dolph Lundgren. Ive always said that if I could choose one guy to be a giant action star or whatever, it would be Dolph Lundren. I fucking love Dolph Lundgren. And its so weird because he has done very few films Ive actually liked, but theres something about him that is just so fucking badass. Eventhough he's not a very good actor, the way he plays his roles is just fucking awesome. His role in The Expendables was great too. He pretty much played "the crazy guy with a drug problem". When he'd blow someone up, he'd have the biggest smile on his face, while the other guys are just there for business. Fucking love Dolph Lundgren. And speaking of great casting, Mickey Rourke was a perfect cast as well. He was pretty much the emotional anchor for the film. Which makes complete sense. There's a speech he gives that had me tear up a bit.
And now to "The Scene". When it was first announced, everyone went nuts. And I knew the marketing department was going to go crazy with it. And that is the Stallone/Schwarzenegger/Willis scene. Was the scene awesome? Yes. Yes it was. And I knew it was going to be short. But I didnt expect it to be that short. Regardless, it was a fun scene that gave Schwarzenegger's character some backstory. And Im assuming that's going to be used for The Expendables II (which Im pretty certain is already greenlit due to The Expendables already doing really well at the box office). And Bruce Willis was fucking great in the scene. He was quite hilarious. The scene kind of takes you out of the movie a little bit, but it was still a great scene to have in the movie.
And a little recommendation for the movie: Do not see the movie COMPLETELY BOMBED. I made the big mistake of getting smashed before and during the movie. I literally remember only the first half of the movie. Also, you should have a clear theatre presentation (picture and sound). I am a manager at a family-owned theatre, and I still recommend going out to your local AMC, Regal, etc. It's much more clear and it's louder. I mean, it really all depends on where you go obviously. Some theatres are all digital, some still use film, some have DTS, and some have Dolby Digital. But having seen it a second time, slightly buzzed at the Regal, I can honestly say I love the movie. It really is all about presentation. It affects your initial response to the film (or anything, really).
Is The Expendables a let-down? Not for me it isnt. The reviewers arent being too kind to it (in fact, theyre half and half). But when have they been kind to Stallone with something that wasn't Rocky or Rocky Balboa? All in all, The Expendables is a great first entry to a (possible) franchise that can go on to being another classic Stallone franchise. I can only imagine who theyre trying to get for Expendables II. Either way, Kurt Russell better be at the top of that list. At the VERY top. In fact, he should be hovering over that list. Stallone... Make it happen.Click here to read the full article...
The A-Team movie. What to expect... Ultra-cheese? Check. Mediocre/Sub-mediocre script? Check. A radical theme? Check. An abundance of ridiculous situations? Check. The movie has pretty much everything you need to make a good A-Team film. Except for one thing... Good character adaptations. Which is #1. I mean, the characters carried the show. Any true A-Team fan knows that the show really only had 1 or 2, MAYBE 3 original storylines. But the characters are what made it so damn fun to watch. Hannibal always had that devil's smile when a plan was forming in his head. Face always had that doubtful/sarcastic charm. Murdock was just awesomely insane. And B.A. was just mean and black.
Now when casting was done for the film adaptation of The A-Team, I was on the fence. Liam Neeson as Hannibal? I can see it. Bradley Cooper as Face? I could definitely see it (though, I have a dislike for Bradley Cooper), Rampage Jackson as B.A.? Sure, why not. And Sharlto Copley as Murdock? Could have potential. But what I found to be the case after seeing the movie, they casted all of them for physical appearance alone. Because the only characters that were done justice were Murdock and B.A. And with B.A. it's not very hard to cast a mean black man as a mean black man. So really, Murdock was the only character who I actually really really liked. Now whether they casted Copley because of the success of District 9 or not, it really doesn't matter. He did a great job. Copley's Murdock mirrored Dwight Schultz's Murdock pretty closely without looking as if he tried harder than he needed to. His facial expressions were spot on. His line-delivery was spot on. He pretty much worked all around.
Having already covered who DID work, lets get to who didn't work... Hannibal and Face. It pisses me off because I remember before seeing the movie, I was pretty certain that Liam Neeson was going to nail the Hannibal character. But that he did not do, unfortunately. Now I noticed that part of it had to do with script. But I put most of the blame on Neeson. He played Hannibal so stiff. He was far too serious. The Hannibal character was more of a lax Joker, in my eyes. He always had a plan... Even when he didn't. When a plan would go to shit, he would make one up as he went along. He had this devilish charm about him. Liam Neeson's Hannibal was just a raspy-voiced stickler... With FAR too many "plans". And what I mean by that is, the word "plan" would come out of Hannibal's mouth at least 3 or 4 times in every fucking scene. And THAT is what I blame on the script, not Neeson. "It's all apart of the PLAN, kid!", "Ive got a PLAN!", "In every situation is a good PLAN!", "PLAN ahead!". I felt as if Neeson's Hannibal should have done life insurance commercials instead of being a Colonel.
Now on to "Shitty A-Team Character Adaptation #2". Bradley Cooper's Faceman. Or rather I should say Bradley Cooper From The Hangover's Faceman. Okay, I get it, Bradley Cooper can play a good douche bag. But there's one minor problem with casting him as Templeton "Face" Peck... FACE ISN'T A DOUCHE BAG. Yes, he might be conniving, manipulative, and cowardly at times. But he always does so in a gentleman fashion. That's just all apart of The Faceman's charm. Bradley Cooper From The Hangover's Faceman? Just a douche bag. No suave. No wit. No charm. I mean, there's a scene with him shooting from a tank while screaming, "COME ON! GET SOME! WHAT YOU GOT!? WHAT YOU GOT?!". Just shut. Your fucking. Mouth. The only time I recall Bradley Cooper doing anything in the Faceman fashion was when he was trying to get a press pass from a really hot Russian news reporter.
And well, B.A... Rampage Jackson played him black and mean. So I guess that's a plus. Also, I understand this is The A-Team in 2008 or whenever the film takes place. And I understand that you have to adapt the characters in a slightly more modern fashion. But do NOT strip away the character's of their signature traits. For instance, I was fine with B.A. cruising while jamming modern rap music (though, Run DMC would have made it that much cooler). But what I am not okay with is taking a suave gentleman-like character and turning him into a douchebag fratboy. You can go fuck yourself there. All in all I was pleasantly surprised with Murdock and B.A., but majorly disappointed with Hannibal and Face.
And now to the director, Joe Carnahan. I think he did an okay job with this film. The action in this was really fucking stupid, ridiculous, but most importantly... It was fun. And that's what the general consensus seems to be. It's a stupid stupid fun time. Now there were some pretty clever ideas put to film here, but most of it was just ridiculous for the most part. And the CGI in those scenes? Most of it was pretty bad (ESPECIALLY at the end where a bunch of loading containers look like giant falling Legos). But on the other hand, some of the CG wasn't too bad. But there wasn't really any scenes where you couldn't tell what was CG and was was not. A practical effect looked like a practical effect, and a CG effect looked like a CG effect.
The music. I just recently found out that Alan Silvestri scored The A-Team. I love Alan Silvestri, I think he has a lot of talent, BUT... Dude hasn't done anything really good in a long long while! Obviously he'll never ever top his Back to the Future score. It's just humanly impossible. But it doesn't mean he still can't create good music. And that's why I dont know why he hasn't scored anything that was any good as of late. I mean, he didn't do a terrible job with his A-Team score, but it wasn't really that good. The only thing he fucking nailed perfectly was the main theme. You hear the original Mike Post and Peter Carpenter theme at the end of the film, but it sounds almost identical, just bigger. Which I have absolutely no problem with. In fact, I think it sounded really good. But I would have liked to see him add in 1 or 2 newer themes to liven it up with. And if he did, then I didn't notice them.
In the end, it was a cool movie. Nothing great. Just a dumb and ridiculous fun time. I'll probably end up seeing it one more time (this time a little more sober), just to see if I feel any different (for better or for worse). Also, this is a minor spoiler. But for fans of the original series who don't usually stay til the end credits of films, Dirk Benedict and Dwight Schultz have cameos. Benedict's is pretty cool. But Schultz's is fucking hilarious.Click here to read the full article...
So a friend recently asked me on my thoughts on Clerks II. It triggered a relapse in my brain. I was far too drunk to explain the whole thing to him at the time. So instead, I told him to request the story on a message board (that way, I wouldn't have to reiterate myself). And that he did. I posted it, and I guess I thought it was worthy enough to post on here. So yeah, here you go:
Characters:
Branden Hafiz (Guts Spill) Jack Daniels Shot Glass 30 Pound Mirror Clogged Toilet With Piss And Shit Mother Brother Sister
Back when Clerks II came on OnDemand, I was curious, but wasn't even a big fan of the first one. I mean, I like it. But that's basically it. So anyway, I order Clerks II, and sitting by my side was an unopened bottle of Jack, a shot glass, and a mini table. My little rule for the night was: Take a shot everytime I thought something was supposed to be funny, so in fact, I would think it was funny. Sure enough, it kinda' worked. So we finally get to the end of the movie, and I really dont even remember what was going on, I had basically downed almost the whole bottle by the end of the film. Now, I know a lot you guys have probably drank a whole bottle of Jack (or any hard liquor) in a night. But this wasn't in the span of a night, it was in a span of 97 minutes. Now this was back when I only drank hard liquor and didn't even touch beer.
The film ends, I have no idea what I just saw, I get up, and THAT'S when it hit me, my functions, well... They weren't existent. I stumble through my kitchen and into the hallway. In my hallway I have this giant 30 pound mirror hanging on the wall. I look at it, lean onto it, the nail holding it up, came loose, and fell parallel with my back. Literally, the only thing keep it from falling over and shattering was my back. So I "gently" lay it on the floor and proceed to the bathroom. My bathroom toilet? Clogged. There's remnants of piss and shit pretty much caked onto the bowl. But when you gotta' puke, you gotta' puke. I puke into the toilet, thus splattering piss, shit and puke all over my face and shirt. Now fecal matter on the face doesn't really sit well with the brain, so of course I puke even more. It was just a cycle that just kept on repeating and repeating.
Once I stop puking, I look over and there is practically my whole family looking at me to see what's going on. I turn around with puke, piss and shit dripping off of my face, and that's all I remember.
And well, eversince that night, I haven't touched more than maybe 5 shots. I dont drink hard liquor anymore, just beer, beer, beer, as you all know. So yeah, that's kinda' it. Click here to read the full article...
We all know of some of the typical film poster trends. You have the floating heads posters, you have the orange/blue contrast posters, and plenty of other cliche (not always bad) posters. But there is one in particular that irritates me to no end. And that is what I call the "Red, White, and Nothing New" posters. You'll typically see this type of poster with comedies. I mean, Im all for minimalist posters. But this is not minimalist. This is just plain shit. The formula for the "Red, White, and Nothing New" poster is: White background + promotional photo + large blocky red text = complete and utterly uninspired shit fucking poster.
Now I know it's almost like beating a dead horse cunting about these posters, but they're not even just used for the shitty comedies. Even some decent comedies get the "Red, White, and Nothing New" treatment. So instead of reading about these pathetic and inexcusable hack-job posters, view 'em all below.
