Scott Pilgrim vs. the World
Directed by: Edgar Wright
Starring Michael Cera and Mary Elizabeth Winstead
After decades of seeing Toronto play anything but itself it’s nice to see two movies in one year where the ol’ girl actually gets to show the CN Tower and not have to hide the km/hour signs. And with the lead actor and two supporting characters also being Canadian … well, I’m just shocked.
While Chloe perhaps shoots this city better than it’s ever been seen, Scott Pilgrim vs. the World goes even a little farther by actually mentioning the city as well. However, once we adjust to the fact that the setting is truly in Toronto (for Canadians it’s an unusual adjustment) then we can just sit back and let the movie take us for a ride.
Our director, Edgar Wright is no stranger to making inventive, high paced action/comedies being the director of both Shaun of the Dead and Hot Fuzz. I think he’s topped himself with Scott Pilgrim.
The movie is fresh, modern and quick and unlike pretty much anything you’ve seen before. What’s great about the film is that although it’s definitely for a young audience its essential story line—boy fights for girl—is universal. Now, a boy fighting for a girl is something we’ve seen a thousand times before, but not like this.
The basic plot is thus: Scott (Cera) is a 23 year old slacker, “I’m in a band” dude who is trying to get over heartbreak by dating a high school girl, Knives Chau (Ellen Wong). Mercilessly teased by friends and band-mates over dating a 17 year old, Pilgrim continues his near platonic relationship until he meets Ramona Flowers (Winstead) and is instantly smitten. But dating Ramona isn’t so simple, Scott must fight (and I mean freakin’ fight) all of Ramona’s exes before he can capture the girl of his dreams (literally).
The fights are exceptionally well done and carried out in a comic-book/video game/over-the-top fashion. Naturally, they are also hilarious. Part of the humour comes from the fact that the fights are happening at all, part of it comes from a wee, skinny slacker being able to form a fist, let alone kick ass; but most of the humour comes from the ADD mode of everything-all-the-time.
While the style and look of the film is impressive, the movie wouldn’t be as good as it is without such an effective turn from a great ensemble cast. The leads Cera and Winstead are strong and well cast but the supporting actors truly shape the film. They roll with the various tones and situations, being droll, crazy, demented or heart-felt when the need arises, but they are always honest and that is essential for a movie like this. The audience would have drifted away after twenty minutes in this sensory over-load extravaganza, if the cast didn’t keep the emotions real, wry and true. My favourite of the supporting cast is Ellen Wong as Knives. Wong is cute, heart-breaking, funny and is literally a green belt in taekwondo, which, trust me, is important in this film.
However, it wouldn’t be right to review this movie without specifically looking at the performance of Michael Cera. I’ve heard complaints of Cera playing “the same character” in every movie. I actually don’t think this is true. Cera is considerably different in this movie than in others. His last movie, Youth in Revolt, is even more of a departure. In this film, Cera has perfect timing, is both awkward and strong and does a pretty damn good job with the fight scenes, which I don’t think many people would have predicted (me included). Also, if we’re going to criticize Cera for being “the same” then we better be prepared to say that for nearly every other actor out there. Only a few actors can completely disappear into their roles (Streep, Penn, Depp, Pearce) while most play different characters that may have a similar energy. This lack of variety does not mean they are not good actors. I think George Clooney is a great actor but he doesn’t shave his head and speak with a Kiwi accent just to have a different “feel.” Jimmy Stewart and Humphrey Bogart are two of my all time favourites, but one could accuse them of being “the same” in many roles. It’s not all about versatility; it’s more about honesty and whether the audience tunes into the character’s emotions. I think Cera has that, and it comes through in this film.
Scott Pilgrim vs. the World keeps you entertained without getting stale or losing its heart; thanks to strong direction and a tight ensemble cast. Besides, how can you not like a film where the hero wears a CBC t-shirt.
Very good flick.
Point of Interest: The only confusing thing about this film is that it didn’t make very much money at the box office. It received (generally) great reviews with an 81% rating on Rotten Tomatoes and it’s certainly geared to the traditional movie-going audience of teenagers, so why the weak box-office? I’ve heard some speculate that the Toronto setting might have affected sales. It’s one of the reasons nearly every movie gets “set” in America even if it’s not shot there, or based on a book that has a different setting all together (High Fidelity being moved to Chicago from London being a great example). Many studio execs feel that if a movie isn’t in America and about Americans then the U.S. audience won’t care. I don’t know if that’s true, but studios certainly act as if it is, Americanizing nearly every thing they touch (I’m just glad they left Wolverine Canadian!).
Thursday, September 23, 2010
Thursday, September 16, 2010
The Other Guys: Review
The Other Guys
Directed by: Adam McKay
Starring Will Ferrell and Mark Wahlberg
Sometimes a movie tries to be too many different types of film and suffers for it. Sometimes a movie can have different styles, different messages and switch genres every five minutes and still pull off an entertaining, hilarious thrill-ride: The Other Guys gets it done.
The jokes are both subtle (sometimes) and outrageous (much more often) but are nearly always funny. Sure, there are some misses here and there, but that’s to be expected when there are just so damn many of them. More often that not, they find their mark.
Narrated by a man who once sang about killing cops and now plays one on TV (Ice-T) this is one of the better “buddy-cop” movies to come along, and it’s certainly one of the better “buddy-cop” parodies ever done. That’s what makes The Other Guys interesting; it’s much more than typical “parodies” like Date Movie and Scary Movie, it actually has decent acting, a real story, and more importantly, biting political satire. Still, it is a parody. Not just of buddy-cop films, but of action films altogether. The action sequences are so ridiculous they border on surreal, thus lambasting the typical over-the-top action seen in so many movies where the hero can fly his car through any old building and emerge without a scratch. Just when you think this is how they’re going to do it, cheesy violence with no consequences, they switch gears and suddenly the “heroes” at the start of the film meet a very real (though inexplicable) end.
This is where our main characters, Detective Allen Gamble (Ferrell) and Detective Terry Hoitz (Wahlberg) come in. Both have been delegated to back-up detectives, helping the real cops who are on the street fighting crime, by doing paper work. Gamble is very happy and safe pushing paper and crunching numbers, whereas Hoitz is itching to get back out on the street. The back story of how these two ended up where they are is hilarious and I won’t ruin it for you here, but then a case comes down that prods them away from their desks.
The gags are great. Gamble and Hoitz getting “tricked” into accepting bribes, the hobo orgies and desecration of Gamble’s Prius; the Prius itself contrasting with the super-cops’ mint condition SS Chevelle and the scorching hotness of Gamble’s wife (Eva Mendes) and their bizarre relationship. Perhaps the best gag of all though, is the political humour and surprising insight. You don’t expect the savvy lines about the bail out of the ultra rich being blended into a movie like this, but just in case you missed it (and there’s a good chance that we did) the end credits knock it over your head—but in a good way.
I joked that the end credits were the best part of Robin Hood in an earlier review (they were) but these end credits are even better. Filled with well researched facts (Sony insisted for fear of lawsuits) the end credits spell out the huge gap between what large financial corporations and executives get away with in relation to the rest of us. My favourite was the CEO salary compared to the average employee salary. Starting at about 10 to 1 in 1924 it slowly grew to about 20 to 1 in the 1950s … it is now currently 319 to 1. If that doesn’t piss you off, I don’t know what will. Some might feel it’s a little jarring that these Michael Moore-like credits come at the end of The Other Guys but there are hints of this message throughout, as well as the crime that they are investigating itself. It may have been a better film if this theme was explored a little more but we should be happy for any political message at all in what is otherwise a zany, buddy-cop flick.
Kudos should also go out to Ferrell and Wahlberg. We expect them to be funny, especially Ferrell, but they also make the viewer care about these guys. It’s not a big dramatic turn or anything; they just both have the ability to create empathy for characters that aren’t all that likeable.
Check out The Other Guys. It’s not perfect, there are a couple of lulls, but it’s inventive, different, takes unexpected turns, and has a slyly hidden political punch.
Point of Interest: As mentioned earlier the hero cops drive around in a mint condition ’69 SS Chevelle. I love this. It’s a shot at so many different films and TV shows where the tough cops always drive a cool muscle car. I happen to love old muscle cars so I’ve always noticed this little quirk. What’s great about The Other Guys is when this beautiful Chevelle gets destroyed they’re driving a different Chevelle the next day. And, naturally, once our leads earn their chops, they have a mint condition first generation Camaro … perfect.
Directed by: Adam McKay
Starring Will Ferrell and Mark Wahlberg
Sometimes a movie tries to be too many different types of film and suffers for it. Sometimes a movie can have different styles, different messages and switch genres every five minutes and still pull off an entertaining, hilarious thrill-ride: The Other Guys gets it done.
The jokes are both subtle (sometimes) and outrageous (much more often) but are nearly always funny. Sure, there are some misses here and there, but that’s to be expected when there are just so damn many of them. More often that not, they find their mark.
Narrated by a man who once sang about killing cops and now plays one on TV (Ice-T) this is one of the better “buddy-cop” movies to come along, and it’s certainly one of the better “buddy-cop” parodies ever done. That’s what makes The Other Guys interesting; it’s much more than typical “parodies” like Date Movie and Scary Movie, it actually has decent acting, a real story, and more importantly, biting political satire. Still, it is a parody. Not just of buddy-cop films, but of action films altogether. The action sequences are so ridiculous they border on surreal, thus lambasting the typical over-the-top action seen in so many movies where the hero can fly his car through any old building and emerge without a scratch. Just when you think this is how they’re going to do it, cheesy violence with no consequences, they switch gears and suddenly the “heroes” at the start of the film meet a very real (though inexplicable) end.
This is where our main characters, Detective Allen Gamble (Ferrell) and Detective Terry Hoitz (Wahlberg) come in. Both have been delegated to back-up detectives, helping the real cops who are on the street fighting crime, by doing paper work. Gamble is very happy and safe pushing paper and crunching numbers, whereas Hoitz is itching to get back out on the street. The back story of how these two ended up where they are is hilarious and I won’t ruin it for you here, but then a case comes down that prods them away from their desks.
The gags are great. Gamble and Hoitz getting “tricked” into accepting bribes, the hobo orgies and desecration of Gamble’s Prius; the Prius itself contrasting with the super-cops’ mint condition SS Chevelle and the scorching hotness of Gamble’s wife (Eva Mendes) and their bizarre relationship. Perhaps the best gag of all though, is the political humour and surprising insight. You don’t expect the savvy lines about the bail out of the ultra rich being blended into a movie like this, but just in case you missed it (and there’s a good chance that we did) the end credits knock it over your head—but in a good way.
I joked that the end credits were the best part of Robin Hood in an earlier review (they were) but these end credits are even better. Filled with well researched facts (Sony insisted for fear of lawsuits) the end credits spell out the huge gap between what large financial corporations and executives get away with in relation to the rest of us. My favourite was the CEO salary compared to the average employee salary. Starting at about 10 to 1 in 1924 it slowly grew to about 20 to 1 in the 1950s … it is now currently 319 to 1. If that doesn’t piss you off, I don’t know what will. Some might feel it’s a little jarring that these Michael Moore-like credits come at the end of The Other Guys but there are hints of this message throughout, as well as the crime that they are investigating itself. It may have been a better film if this theme was explored a little more but we should be happy for any political message at all in what is otherwise a zany, buddy-cop flick.
Kudos should also go out to Ferrell and Wahlberg. We expect them to be funny, especially Ferrell, but they also make the viewer care about these guys. It’s not a big dramatic turn or anything; they just both have the ability to create empathy for characters that aren’t all that likeable.
Check out The Other Guys. It’s not perfect, there are a couple of lulls, but it’s inventive, different, takes unexpected turns, and has a slyly hidden political punch.
Point of Interest: As mentioned earlier the hero cops drive around in a mint condition ’69 SS Chevelle. I love this. It’s a shot at so many different films and TV shows where the tough cops always drive a cool muscle car. I happen to love old muscle cars so I’ve always noticed this little quirk. What’s great about The Other Guys is when this beautiful Chevelle gets destroyed they’re driving a different Chevelle the next day. And, naturally, once our leads earn their chops, they have a mint condition first generation Camaro … perfect.
Tuesday, August 31, 2010
The Karate Kid: Review
The Karate Kid
Directed by: Harold Zwart
Starring Jaden Smith, Jackie Chan
Should we moan so much over Hollywood’s complete lack of originality and their compulsive desire to only make movies that are based on TV shows, video games, and already successful, somewhat older movies?
Yes, we should.
But before we get smug about it (we Canadians do like to get smug) we should also remember that it is simply human nature to do remakes and that we’ve been doing it for as long as we've known. Nearly everything Shakespeare wrote was based on previous plays. The story of Jesus was told countless times in countless ways thousands of years before the year 1 A.D. Culturally, we stand on the shoulders of those who came before us, and sometimes we improve things, and sometimes we don’t.
After that grandiose introduction we come to the mediocre The Karate Kid, which adds little to the original and takes too long to do it.
Still, this remake is not horrible. The stars of the film do a pretty decent job. It beautifully captures some of China’s landmarks (if not its people) and the fighting sequences are if anything, better than the original. However, at a running time of 2 hours and 20 minutes, this film meanders too long to find it’s mojo; but that’s not its worst problem, the worst thing about the film is the age of its star.
In the original film, Ralph Macchio (who was actually in his twenties) played a kid in his late teens. Jaden Smith plays a 12 year old kid and he looks like a young 12 year old. How does that affect the film? It lessens the danger, it lessens the stakes. I’m not saying a 12 year old can’t feel out of place and afraid, but young adults beating and bullying each other is simply more threatening and more real than kids who haven’t got their pubes yet duking it out. As much as his age hurts the fights and lessens the tension, it’s even more uncomfortable in the romantic subplot. Here, not only did they make the absurd mistake of having a 12 year old in a romantic storyline; they also cast an actress who seems decidedly older than Smith in both looks and demeanour. So, now we have a situation where a 12 year old kid manages to pick up a girl who looks three years older than him, and oh yeah, he doesn’t speak a word of her language. This is both, a) unbelievable, and b) creepy.
While Smith’s acting is decent and he does have his charm, there’s a major problem with his character—he’s not very likable. It’s not that the kid can’t act; he’s just portraying a character that’s pretty tough to root for. He’s known for the summer that he’s moving to China but has made zero effort to learn the language. He’s completely disrespectful to his mother (repeatedly) and does little but gripe and complain to the person who helps him the most (Chan). I’m supposed to be cheering for this kid who has been thrown into a foreign land, who’s being bullied and picked on and instead I’m hoping some Asian kid teaches him some manners.
But the film has one very strong saving grace: Jackie Chan. Not very well known for dramatic turns, especially in English language films, Jackie Chan delivers a performance that is every bit as good as Pat Morita’s in the original if not better. Pat Morita received an Oscar nod; Chan deserves one more. The film comes alive when Chan’s on the screen. It has more meaning, it has more depth, it has more comedy, and it becomes more realistic and engaging.
As mentioned earlier, the fighting sequences are quite well done, especially the one and only scene where Chan jumps into the fray, but here again, the star’s age lessens the impact of the fights. Smith just appears so young, small, and slight that he looks like he could Hong Kong Phooey on someone’s butt for 20 minutes and still wouldn’t be able to knock them down without a ladder and a baseball bat. That being said, the final kung fu move is a pleasure to watch.
If you decide to go see The Karate Kid at the Bloor, you’ll see some pretty cool fights and a nice performance from Jackie Chan … or you could rent the original and fall in love with Elisabeth Shue all over again.
Point of Interest: Jaden Smith’s parents (Will and Jada Pinkett Smith) are the producers of The Karate Kid. While despotism is nothing new to the entertainment industry, the kid’s parents did him a disservice by making this film when he was so young. If they had waited four or five more years they could have produced a film with a much bigger physical and emotional wallop.
Directed by: Harold Zwart
Starring Jaden Smith, Jackie Chan
Should we moan so much over Hollywood’s complete lack of originality and their compulsive desire to only make movies that are based on TV shows, video games, and already successful, somewhat older movies?
Yes, we should.
But before we get smug about it (we Canadians do like to get smug) we should also remember that it is simply human nature to do remakes and that we’ve been doing it for as long as we've known. Nearly everything Shakespeare wrote was based on previous plays. The story of Jesus was told countless times in countless ways thousands of years before the year 1 A.D. Culturally, we stand on the shoulders of those who came before us, and sometimes we improve things, and sometimes we don’t.
After that grandiose introduction we come to the mediocre The Karate Kid, which adds little to the original and takes too long to do it.
Still, this remake is not horrible. The stars of the film do a pretty decent job. It beautifully captures some of China’s landmarks (if not its people) and the fighting sequences are if anything, better than the original. However, at a running time of 2 hours and 20 minutes, this film meanders too long to find it’s mojo; but that’s not its worst problem, the worst thing about the film is the age of its star.
In the original film, Ralph Macchio (who was actually in his twenties) played a kid in his late teens. Jaden Smith plays a 12 year old kid and he looks like a young 12 year old. How does that affect the film? It lessens the danger, it lessens the stakes. I’m not saying a 12 year old can’t feel out of place and afraid, but young adults beating and bullying each other is simply more threatening and more real than kids who haven’t got their pubes yet duking it out. As much as his age hurts the fights and lessens the tension, it’s even more uncomfortable in the romantic subplot. Here, not only did they make the absurd mistake of having a 12 year old in a romantic storyline; they also cast an actress who seems decidedly older than Smith in both looks and demeanour. So, now we have a situation where a 12 year old kid manages to pick up a girl who looks three years older than him, and oh yeah, he doesn’t speak a word of her language. This is both, a) unbelievable, and b) creepy.
While Smith’s acting is decent and he does have his charm, there’s a major problem with his character—he’s not very likable. It’s not that the kid can’t act; he’s just portraying a character that’s pretty tough to root for. He’s known for the summer that he’s moving to China but has made zero effort to learn the language. He’s completely disrespectful to his mother (repeatedly) and does little but gripe and complain to the person who helps him the most (Chan). I’m supposed to be cheering for this kid who has been thrown into a foreign land, who’s being bullied and picked on and instead I’m hoping some Asian kid teaches him some manners.
But the film has one very strong saving grace: Jackie Chan. Not very well known for dramatic turns, especially in English language films, Jackie Chan delivers a performance that is every bit as good as Pat Morita’s in the original if not better. Pat Morita received an Oscar nod; Chan deserves one more. The film comes alive when Chan’s on the screen. It has more meaning, it has more depth, it has more comedy, and it becomes more realistic and engaging.
As mentioned earlier, the fighting sequences are quite well done, especially the one and only scene where Chan jumps into the fray, but here again, the star’s age lessens the impact of the fights. Smith just appears so young, small, and slight that he looks like he could Hong Kong Phooey on someone’s butt for 20 minutes and still wouldn’t be able to knock them down without a ladder and a baseball bat. That being said, the final kung fu move is a pleasure to watch.
If you decide to go see The Karate Kid at the Bloor, you’ll see some pretty cool fights and a nice performance from Jackie Chan … or you could rent the original and fall in love with Elisabeth Shue all over again.
Point of Interest: Jaden Smith’s parents (Will and Jada Pinkett Smith) are the producers of The Karate Kid. While despotism is nothing new to the entertainment industry, the kid’s parents did him a disservice by making this film when he was so young. If they had waited four or five more years they could have produced a film with a much bigger physical and emotional wallop.
Monday, August 2, 2010
Get Him to the Greek: Review
Get Him to the Greek
Directed by: Nicholas Stoller
Starring Jonah Hill, Russell Brand and the many named Sean Combs
Get Him to the Greek is a sequel to the romantic comedy Forgetting Sarah Marshall. This is not a romantic comedy though, more of a “bromantic” road trip comedy with enough dark edges to make it interesting.
Russell Brand reprises his role of Aldous Snow, the out of control, addicted to everything rock star. The film opens with one of its best bits, a savage satire of the concerned celebrity “helping” Africa with Snow’s song and video, “African Child.” The politically incorrect and hopelessly self centred Snow doesn’t see the inevitable backlash coming, and after the critical and public pounding, sinks into debauchery after being sober for 7 years.
Now here’s where it gets a wee bit odd. Jonah Hill enters the picture playing a young music executive, Aaron Green for Pinnacle Records. The thing is, that’s not what he played in Forgetting Sarah Marshall. I know his role wasn’t that big in Forgetting Sarah Marshall, but to have a “continuation” of the story with the same actor in Brand playing the same role, and to have another actor who was also in that movie but now playing a completely different role, is a bizarre choice. I know people like to work with the same people, that’s understandable, but I’m sure they could have found another actor to play this role. That’s not to knock Johan Hill, the man’s a good actor and a good comedian (check out Cyrus when you get a chance, it’s his best role to date) but the casting is weird—not Harrison Ford suddenly playing Yoda in The Empire Strikes Back—but still.
It’s Aaron’s job to get Snow to an L.A. hall, The Greek Theatre, on time for an anniversary concert that will hopefully re-boot Snow’s career. That’s a simple and succinct summary of the plot, and it’s already right there in the title. But like all good road trips, the point of the film is what happens along the way.
Is the film clichéd? Yeah, sure it is. Can we figure out the ending from the first few minutes? Probably. But Get Him to the Greek succeeds where so many other road trip movies fail, by having the comedy come quickly and slyly. Indeed, there were a number of jokes nearly missed because they were subtle and politically oriented and almost thrown away. The editing and pacing of the film places the viewer right in Aaron’s shoes--desperately aware of the time slipping away but too caught up in the sleaze and the fun to stop it. Naturally, there are gross out gags, and some sophomoric humour, but mostly the film tackles the vacuousness of the music and entertainment industries.
The film’s not all yucks though. We get to see the emptiness of fame and the utter loneliness that comes with it. Why Snow is constantly consuming his “medicine” becomes more interesting than the clownish behaviour it produces. These more dramatic scenes are generally well done, even if somewhat predictable, but are smartly cut short before skidding into maudlin.
Get Him to the Greek is not a great film, but it’s good. And in it’s category of road trip/comedy/coming of age/redemption movies, it’s one of the better one’s you’ll find.
Point of Interest: Everyone should have a furry wall … for when it’s needed.
Directed by: Nicholas Stoller
Starring Jonah Hill, Russell Brand and the many named Sean Combs
Get Him to the Greek is a sequel to the romantic comedy Forgetting Sarah Marshall. This is not a romantic comedy though, more of a “bromantic” road trip comedy with enough dark edges to make it interesting.
Russell Brand reprises his role of Aldous Snow, the out of control, addicted to everything rock star. The film opens with one of its best bits, a savage satire of the concerned celebrity “helping” Africa with Snow’s song and video, “African Child.” The politically incorrect and hopelessly self centred Snow doesn’t see the inevitable backlash coming, and after the critical and public pounding, sinks into debauchery after being sober for 7 years.
Now here’s where it gets a wee bit odd. Jonah Hill enters the picture playing a young music executive, Aaron Green for Pinnacle Records. The thing is, that’s not what he played in Forgetting Sarah Marshall. I know his role wasn’t that big in Forgetting Sarah Marshall, but to have a “continuation” of the story with the same actor in Brand playing the same role, and to have another actor who was also in that movie but now playing a completely different role, is a bizarre choice. I know people like to work with the same people, that’s understandable, but I’m sure they could have found another actor to play this role. That’s not to knock Johan Hill, the man’s a good actor and a good comedian (check out Cyrus when you get a chance, it’s his best role to date) but the casting is weird—not Harrison Ford suddenly playing Yoda in The Empire Strikes Back—but still.
It’s Aaron’s job to get Snow to an L.A. hall, The Greek Theatre, on time for an anniversary concert that will hopefully re-boot Snow’s career. That’s a simple and succinct summary of the plot, and it’s already right there in the title. But like all good road trips, the point of the film is what happens along the way.
Is the film clichéd? Yeah, sure it is. Can we figure out the ending from the first few minutes? Probably. But Get Him to the Greek succeeds where so many other road trip movies fail, by having the comedy come quickly and slyly. Indeed, there were a number of jokes nearly missed because they were subtle and politically oriented and almost thrown away. The editing and pacing of the film places the viewer right in Aaron’s shoes--desperately aware of the time slipping away but too caught up in the sleaze and the fun to stop it. Naturally, there are gross out gags, and some sophomoric humour, but mostly the film tackles the vacuousness of the music and entertainment industries.
The film’s not all yucks though. We get to see the emptiness of fame and the utter loneliness that comes with it. Why Snow is constantly consuming his “medicine” becomes more interesting than the clownish behaviour it produces. These more dramatic scenes are generally well done, even if somewhat predictable, but are smartly cut short before skidding into maudlin.
Get Him to the Greek is not a great film, but it’s good. And in it’s category of road trip/comedy/coming of age/redemption movies, it’s one of the better one’s you’ll find.
Point of Interest: Everyone should have a furry wall … for when it’s needed.
Thursday, July 29, 2010
House: Review
House
Directed by: Nobuhiko Obayashi
Starring a bunch of hot Asian girls
Combination H.R. Pufnstuf, Yellow Submarine and your worst/best acid trip; House will freak you out.
Too ridiculous to be frightening but too damn entertaining to dismiss, House seems to combine nearly every genre of film in a way that feels both amateurish and sharply brilliant. Some movies throw the kitchen sink at you; House goes in and gets the tub.
It has a plot. Let’s see … boy meets girl, boy loses girl, girl gets swallowed by a piano. Well, that’s not quite accurate but accuracy in a review of House would seem entirely inappropriate.
I saw it during a matinee and there were a decent amount of people there having a good time and some laughs but when I walked by tonight, there was a huge line-up for the evening show. I think that would be a great way to see House, with a packed, well … house; because more than anything else, House is funny.
Ironically, it has a very typical straight forward horror movie “plot.” A young woman doesn’t like her new step-mom so she goes off to visit her Aunt she hasn’t seen in years with six of her best friends. The house, the Aunt and a cat team up to destroy/possess/eat all the girls--the end. There, I’ve ruined it for you.
But I haven’t. The plot that you can see coming from a mile a way isn’t the point. It’s the journey that gets you there, man, it’s the journey. In fact, the film has great fun with its standard plot and stock characters; they’re even named for exactly what they are: Gorgeous is gorgeous, Kung Fu kicks ass, Prof is the smart one, Melody is the musician, and so on. The director’s having so much fun the actress’s even sneak coy little looks straight to the camera as if to say, “Wait till you see what’s next.” And that’s just it, you may have a good guess, my fellow film buff, as to what’s next, but you have no idea how they’re going to do it, say it, or present it, and especially, how many body parts will be lost.
The actresses relish their stereotypes ‘r us characters, but my favourite is Kung Fu; not just because she spends most of the movie running around in her underwear. I like her attitude. I believe most of us would like to think that we’d be brave enough to react to a witch/ghost/apparition by kicking it in the face.
Wildly entertaining, endlessly creative, funny and fun, House demands your attention.
May you be turned into a pile of bananas if you don't check it out.
Point of interest: Remarkably, this is the Toronto premiere for a cult classic that’s more than thirty years old. The Bloor saves us again. It makes me want to say the prayer I say every night, “Thank you baby Jesus for daisies, Ziggy comics, soft, fluffy bunnies, and the Bloor.” It’s also just been released on DVD by Criterion, but see it on the big screen with an audience if you get a chance.
Directed by: Nobuhiko Obayashi
Starring a bunch of hot Asian girls
Combination H.R. Pufnstuf, Yellow Submarine and your worst/best acid trip; House will freak you out.
Too ridiculous to be frightening but too damn entertaining to dismiss, House seems to combine nearly every genre of film in a way that feels both amateurish and sharply brilliant. Some movies throw the kitchen sink at you; House goes in and gets the tub.
It has a plot. Let’s see … boy meets girl, boy loses girl, girl gets swallowed by a piano. Well, that’s not quite accurate but accuracy in a review of House would seem entirely inappropriate.
I saw it during a matinee and there were a decent amount of people there having a good time and some laughs but when I walked by tonight, there was a huge line-up for the evening show. I think that would be a great way to see House, with a packed, well … house; because more than anything else, House is funny.
Ironically, it has a very typical straight forward horror movie “plot.” A young woman doesn’t like her new step-mom so she goes off to visit her Aunt she hasn’t seen in years with six of her best friends. The house, the Aunt and a cat team up to destroy/possess/eat all the girls--the end. There, I’ve ruined it for you.
But I haven’t. The plot that you can see coming from a mile a way isn’t the point. It’s the journey that gets you there, man, it’s the journey. In fact, the film has great fun with its standard plot and stock characters; they’re even named for exactly what they are: Gorgeous is gorgeous, Kung Fu kicks ass, Prof is the smart one, Melody is the musician, and so on. The director’s having so much fun the actress’s even sneak coy little looks straight to the camera as if to say, “Wait till you see what’s next.” And that’s just it, you may have a good guess, my fellow film buff, as to what’s next, but you have no idea how they’re going to do it, say it, or present it, and especially, how many body parts will be lost.
The actresses relish their stereotypes ‘r us characters, but my favourite is Kung Fu; not just because she spends most of the movie running around in her underwear. I like her attitude. I believe most of us would like to think that we’d be brave enough to react to a witch/ghost/apparition by kicking it in the face.
Wildly entertaining, endlessly creative, funny and fun, House demands your attention.
May you be turned into a pile of bananas if you don't check it out.
Point of interest: Remarkably, this is the Toronto premiere for a cult classic that’s more than thirty years old. The Bloor saves us again. It makes me want to say the prayer I say every night, “Thank you baby Jesus for daisies, Ziggy comics, soft, fluffy bunnies, and the Bloor.” It’s also just been released on DVD by Criterion, but see it on the big screen with an audience if you get a chance.
Saturday, July 17, 2010
Robin Hood: Review
Robin Hood
Directed by: Ridley Scott
Starring Russell Crowe, Kate Blanchett and some guy from Great Big Sea
The best part of Robin Hood is the end credits.
This is not a good sign.
What exactly is wrong with Robin Hood? It’s not like Ridley Scott is some hack—Alien, Blade Runner, Thelma and Louise and Black Hawk Down, to name just a few pieces of Scott’s considerable body of work. A fine collection of actors has been brought together as well; Russell Crowe, Kate Blanchett, Max Von Sydow and William Hurt are a few names most producers would be ecstatic to have attached to their projects.
No, Robin Hood suffers from something else. It just seems to wonder through the story, trying to get a foot-hold somewhere and never quite succeeding; and worse, it’s a pale reflection of other, similar but better movies. Obviously, the first reminder/let-down is Gladiator, another Scott/Crowe flick about a brave, truthful warrior who must fight tyranny against all odds. Robin Hood is Gladiator’s poor, somewhat embarrassing cousin. Where Gladiator is clear, concessive and compelling, Robin Hood is disjointed, lumbering and muddled. Other movies are planted in one’s mind while watching Robin Hood as well. With Kate Blanchett involved in a film about a woman fighting for her standing in “old-timey” England, we naturally think of Elizabeth, especially when she dons her armour. And the scene where the French land in England is straight out of Saving Private Ryan, just sub in the arrows and shields.
Some have criticized Robin Hood for being historically inaccurate, which is kind of like saying Miracle on 34th St. isn't factually correct. It’s not that the history is inaccurate, which it is (Robin Hood’s dad wrote the Magna Carta! No Way! Totally Dude! What’s the Magna Carta?); it’s the process of bringing all the historical “tweaks” together that bogs the film down. We are an hour and twenty minutes into the film before Robin Hood does anything at all like Robin Hood. It’s not that I don’t like a good back story, Batman Begins does a good job with it; but Robin Hood seems to be trying to give every character and every historical event its own private back story, so we end up with plenty of back story and not enough story itself.
Despite the strong actors, the acting isn’t always bang-on either. Russell Crowe is believable, but has picked some weird hybrid accent of Irish/Scottish that is for the most part indecipherable. There are a few times in the film when actors speaking French have subtitles, but I longed for them more whenever Russell was speaking. Kate Blanchett is good, so is William Hurt, and Oscar Isaac is petulant enough for Prince/King John. And I have to mention Great Big Sea’s Alan Doyle as one of Robin Hood’s Merry Men. He is primarily the minstrel and he doesn’t speak all that much, but it’s a bigger role than any Canadian actor had in Chloe, so good for him.
So, should you see Robin Hood? Well, there is lots of action for a movie that still feels slow. The film looks pretty good. Kevin Costner is nowhere in sight. Mark Strong makes a pretty cool bad guy. The Bloor has the best popcorn in the city, and like I said, the end credits rock. So if you must--see it, but only at the Bloor; to support our beloved theatre … and for the popcorn.
Point of Interest: The film ends by suggesting that the legend is “just beginning.” So, now that they've got all the crap out of the way they'll make a good movie, just not this one. Funnily enough, you sort of do feel like you’d want to see the next movie. The next movie looks great, fun and exciting; man I wish I could see that movie. Ironically, we probably won’t see that film since Robin Hood didn’t do all that well with the critics and more importantly, with the North American snack bar audience.
Directed by: Ridley Scott
Starring Russell Crowe, Kate Blanchett and some guy from Great Big Sea
The best part of Robin Hood is the end credits.
This is not a good sign.
What exactly is wrong with Robin Hood? It’s not like Ridley Scott is some hack—Alien, Blade Runner, Thelma and Louise and Black Hawk Down, to name just a few pieces of Scott’s considerable body of work. A fine collection of actors has been brought together as well; Russell Crowe, Kate Blanchett, Max Von Sydow and William Hurt are a few names most producers would be ecstatic to have attached to their projects.
No, Robin Hood suffers from something else. It just seems to wonder through the story, trying to get a foot-hold somewhere and never quite succeeding; and worse, it’s a pale reflection of other, similar but better movies. Obviously, the first reminder/let-down is Gladiator, another Scott/Crowe flick about a brave, truthful warrior who must fight tyranny against all odds. Robin Hood is Gladiator’s poor, somewhat embarrassing cousin. Where Gladiator is clear, concessive and compelling, Robin Hood is disjointed, lumbering and muddled. Other movies are planted in one’s mind while watching Robin Hood as well. With Kate Blanchett involved in a film about a woman fighting for her standing in “old-timey” England, we naturally think of Elizabeth, especially when she dons her armour. And the scene where the French land in England is straight out of Saving Private Ryan, just sub in the arrows and shields.
Some have criticized Robin Hood for being historically inaccurate, which is kind of like saying Miracle on 34th St. isn't factually correct. It’s not that the history is inaccurate, which it is (Robin Hood’s dad wrote the Magna Carta! No Way! Totally Dude! What’s the Magna Carta?); it’s the process of bringing all the historical “tweaks” together that bogs the film down. We are an hour and twenty minutes into the film before Robin Hood does anything at all like Robin Hood. It’s not that I don’t like a good back story, Batman Begins does a good job with it; but Robin Hood seems to be trying to give every character and every historical event its own private back story, so we end up with plenty of back story and not enough story itself.
Despite the strong actors, the acting isn’t always bang-on either. Russell Crowe is believable, but has picked some weird hybrid accent of Irish/Scottish that is for the most part indecipherable. There are a few times in the film when actors speaking French have subtitles, but I longed for them more whenever Russell was speaking. Kate Blanchett is good, so is William Hurt, and Oscar Isaac is petulant enough for Prince/King John. And I have to mention Great Big Sea’s Alan Doyle as one of Robin Hood’s Merry Men. He is primarily the minstrel and he doesn’t speak all that much, but it’s a bigger role than any Canadian actor had in Chloe, so good for him.
So, should you see Robin Hood? Well, there is lots of action for a movie that still feels slow. The film looks pretty good. Kevin Costner is nowhere in sight. Mark Strong makes a pretty cool bad guy. The Bloor has the best popcorn in the city, and like I said, the end credits rock. So if you must--see it, but only at the Bloor; to support our beloved theatre … and for the popcorn.
Point of Interest: The film ends by suggesting that the legend is “just beginning.” So, now that they've got all the crap out of the way they'll make a good movie, just not this one. Funnily enough, you sort of do feel like you’d want to see the next movie. The next movie looks great, fun and exciting; man I wish I could see that movie. Ironically, we probably won’t see that film since Robin Hood didn’t do all that well with the critics and more importantly, with the North American snack bar audience.
Monday, July 12, 2010
The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo: Review
The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo
Directed by: Niels Arden Oplev
Starring Noomi Rapace and Michael Nyqvist
As Kodos and Kang would say: “Holy Fleurking Schnit!”
The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo freakin’ rips it and does so in an art-house, intelligent way.
It’s a wonderful juxtaposition when a film can take it’s time, but never feel slow; build character without grinding to a halt; maintain suspense without lowering itself to the lowest common denominator; and keep you engaged and guessing throughout.
Mikael Blomkvist (Michael Nyqvist) is a reporter (remember them?) who actually does investigate stories rather than just releasing press kits, but gets set up for a fall from one of his corporate targets. Noomi Rapace plays Lisbeth Salander, an ex-con working for a security firm who has been hired to check out Blomkvist. Salander is complex, has a dark past, is unpredictable … and has a dragon tattoo.
Despite his guilty conviction of libel, Blomkvist is hired to investigate a 40 year old murder. The man employing Blomkvist is industrialist Henrik Vagner, trying to solve the mystery of who killed his beloved niece. Vagner is convinced that the perpetrator is someone within his own family as he is sent a yearly birthday token from the killer simply to torture him. Of course, Vagner’s suspicions are all speculation as no one knows exactly what happened 40 years ago and it’s Blomkvist who’s been brought in, in one last attempt to decipher a case that has stumped investigators for decades.
Lisbeth Salander develops an interest in Blomkvist while investigating him on behalf of Vagner and keeps tabs on him after the assignment is done. Thus, she is dragged into the case as well when she cracks a code that was in the victim’s diary. Allowing herself to get drawn in, she teams up with Blomkvist to investigate the murder together. Since I loathe reviews that do nothing but rehash the plot and in the process give away nearly the entire movie, the plot summary is going to have to stop right here … oooh, intrigued?
You should be. This movie pulls together all the elements of the story without letting the ball ever hit the floor. The film makers and actors deserve high praise for creating a film that runs nearly two and a half hours but feels considerably shorter.
Perhaps most exciting of all is that a new cinematic character, Lisbeth Salander, has been unleashed upon the public. Tough as nails, smart as a whip, beautiful but not pretty, Salander is easy to root for even though you’re not quite sure what’s going on inside her mind. Congratulations to Noomi Rapace for so successfully realizing this intriguing figure; oh, and make sure you see this movie before the inevitably lousy American version hits the screens.
Point of Interest: The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo is the first movie based on a series of books written by Stieg Larsson called the Millennium Trilogy. The Girl Who Played with Fire and The Girl Who Kicked the Hornets’ Nest are the last two. The story behind these books is as fascinating as the books themselves. Larsson was an investigative journalist/activist who probed extreme right and racist organizations and had to live the last several years of his life under death threats. The Millennium books were found and published after his passing and have become a world-wide phenomenon. I have yet to read the books myself (I’ll start after seeing the Played with Fire film) but based on this movie, I’m looking forward to diving in. I would love to hear any comments from people who have read the books to hear whether you think they did a good job with the adaptation.
Directed by: Niels Arden Oplev
Starring Noomi Rapace and Michael Nyqvist
As Kodos and Kang would say: “Holy Fleurking Schnit!”
The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo freakin’ rips it and does so in an art-house, intelligent way.
It’s a wonderful juxtaposition when a film can take it’s time, but never feel slow; build character without grinding to a halt; maintain suspense without lowering itself to the lowest common denominator; and keep you engaged and guessing throughout.
Mikael Blomkvist (Michael Nyqvist) is a reporter (remember them?) who actually does investigate stories rather than just releasing press kits, but gets set up for a fall from one of his corporate targets. Noomi Rapace plays Lisbeth Salander, an ex-con working for a security firm who has been hired to check out Blomkvist. Salander is complex, has a dark past, is unpredictable … and has a dragon tattoo.
Despite his guilty conviction of libel, Blomkvist is hired to investigate a 40 year old murder. The man employing Blomkvist is industrialist Henrik Vagner, trying to solve the mystery of who killed his beloved niece. Vagner is convinced that the perpetrator is someone within his own family as he is sent a yearly birthday token from the killer simply to torture him. Of course, Vagner’s suspicions are all speculation as no one knows exactly what happened 40 years ago and it’s Blomkvist who’s been brought in, in one last attempt to decipher a case that has stumped investigators for decades.
Lisbeth Salander develops an interest in Blomkvist while investigating him on behalf of Vagner and keeps tabs on him after the assignment is done. Thus, she is dragged into the case as well when she cracks a code that was in the victim’s diary. Allowing herself to get drawn in, she teams up with Blomkvist to investigate the murder together. Since I loathe reviews that do nothing but rehash the plot and in the process give away nearly the entire movie, the plot summary is going to have to stop right here … oooh, intrigued?
You should be. This movie pulls together all the elements of the story without letting the ball ever hit the floor. The film makers and actors deserve high praise for creating a film that runs nearly two and a half hours but feels considerably shorter.
Perhaps most exciting of all is that a new cinematic character, Lisbeth Salander, has been unleashed upon the public. Tough as nails, smart as a whip, beautiful but not pretty, Salander is easy to root for even though you’re not quite sure what’s going on inside her mind. Congratulations to Noomi Rapace for so successfully realizing this intriguing figure; oh, and make sure you see this movie before the inevitably lousy American version hits the screens.
Point of Interest: The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo is the first movie based on a series of books written by Stieg Larsson called the Millennium Trilogy. The Girl Who Played with Fire and The Girl Who Kicked the Hornets’ Nest are the last two. The story behind these books is as fascinating as the books themselves. Larsson was an investigative journalist/activist who probed extreme right and racist organizations and had to live the last several years of his life under death threats. The Millennium books were found and published after his passing and have become a world-wide phenomenon. I have yet to read the books myself (I’ll start after seeing the Played with Fire film) but based on this movie, I’m looking forward to diving in. I would love to hear any comments from people who have read the books to hear whether you think they did a good job with the adaptation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
.jpeg)