Machete
Directed by Robert Rodriguez and Ethan Maniquis
Starring: Danny Trejo, Jessica Alba, Robert De Niro, Michelle Rodriguez and Steven “Fatso” Seagal
Wish I was Machete.
Stupendously ugly but liquid nitrogen cool, the man knows how to take out the trash--and get the girl(s) too.
Machete is a continuation of the grindhouse theme Rodriguez started with, well, Grindhouse, a double feature that he and Quentin Tarantino put together a few years ago. Easily the best part of Grindhouse was the previews shown before each flick, with the Machete trailer being one of the better ones.
If you don’t have an appreciation for grindhouse movies or even a love of “B” movies, then you almost certainly won’t like Machete. If, however, you like all types of movies, dig the exploitation, baby; attend Chris Alexander’s Film School Confidential! and aren’t put off by excessive gore, then you’re going to love Machete.
Starting at 10 and then flying along at 11, Machete not only glories in its excess it revels in political conspiracies and satire that actually touch on the truth … albeit, the truth on steroids. Machete is successful because it embraces stereotypes (hilariously) and its gore is funny rather than offensive; not only that, the music is so apropos, it gets laughs all on its own.
Rodriguez and Maniquis deftly capture the 70’s feel. You wouldn’t know you were watching an up-to-date film except for the fact that there are cell phones and computers. Keep in mind though, “Machete don’t text.”
The acting is well done, with the actors generally “getting” the genre they’re living in. Ironically, Lindsay Lohan is better as a revenging nun than as a strung out drug addict; sometimes it’s tough to play yourself. Jessica Alba is “this close” to being naked, Michelle Rodriguez is tough and beautiful as usual and truly seems to understand what kind of film she’s making. But it’s Danny Trejo who’s the star, and it’s great to see this character actor take on the leading role--he puts the movie on his shoulders and never lets us down.
The political story line, like everything else, is pumped to the extreme but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t hit on the very real themes of fear and bigotry. But the reason I like Machete so much is because it’s just having such a good time being Machete—to thine own self be true. Damn straight.
Point of Interest: I liked Grindhouse when it was released in theatres but (unlike most of the critics) I liked Planet Terror more than Death Proof. I found Death Proof too self-referential and it was two entirely different films smashed together to make one. But as I mentioned earlier it was the previews that were the best part of Grindhouse. How horribly disappointed I was then, when I purchased both Death Proof and Planet Terror only to discover that the previews that were in Grindhouse weren’t included on the two-disc DVDs (except Machete). Of course that was a few years ago, and just recently they released the Blue Ray DVDs with the trailers … weasels. The good news is that the Canadian contribution to the trailers (and I thought the best) was Hobo with a Shotgun, and it’s been made into a feature to be released in 2011—praise Jebus.
Thursday, October 21, 2010
Thursday, October 7, 2010
Salt: Review
Salt
Directed by: Phillip Noyce
Starring Angelina Jolie, Liev Schreiber and Chiwetal Ejiofor (really good actor, incomprehensible name)
Salt is a pretty decent action flick.
So does that mean it gets a good review? Should a movie get a good review just because of the genre it’s in? How many times have we heard, “Well, it’s good for a horror film,” or “it’s all right for a zany comedy?” In other words, should we cut some slack to a film just because it’s of a certain type? Sure, we should, we do it all the time. Nobody sees Lord of the Rings or Harry Potter and says, “That’s so unrealistic, a wizard can’t do that!” So we suspend our disbelief depending on the genre of film; but they still have to be well made. The first Lord of the Rings (mostly animated …. mostly) wasn’t well received because it wasn’t well done, or at least well done enough to appeal to everyone, not just nerds.
So Salt is pretty good … for an action flick. The acting is actually quite good. I think Angelina Jolie is an excellent actress. Now, don’t get all huffy—she is. Yes, she broke Jen’s heart and she used to carry around Billy Bob’s blood and she kissed her brother for far too long once, but despite all that, she’s a very talented actress. Watch Changeling or A Mighty Heart and tell me I’m wrong; and she’s good in this too, appropriately teary or determined as the need arises. Liev Schreiber is sardonic and immanently watchable, and Chiwetal Ejiofor brings clarity and purpose to his role as well as a bang-on Yankee accent.
The action scenes are pretty well done, especially when Jolie is jumping from moving cars and trucks to escape a highway pursuit. The plot has a pretty cool paranoid cold war conspiracy element to it, so why is this only a decent action flick instead of a great one?
Believability.
Yes, we cut slack to movies because of their genre, but they have to be believable within that genre. Even fantasy films have to follow the rules of the universe they are in, and the same goes for action films, and this is an action film, not a superhero/comic book movie. The movie is just too implausible, even for an action flick. What makes the Bourne movies so superior to Salt? Jason Bourne does the most incredible things but they seem much more realistic. As spectacular as the (Bourne) action and story is, it is also gritty, tough and within the laws of physics. With Salt, I’m not even talking about the stunning escapes on the highway, I’m talking about the superhuman strength inside a 98 pound spy, the (repeated) ability to just “knock out” people she doesn’t want to kill, the gecko-like ability to scale walls and elevator shafts; essentially, this film gives Jolie’s character the strength of Superman and the skills of Spiderman in a movie with no superheroes. Oh, and there are certain gigantic plot holes that are entirely unbelievable. I can’t divulge too many without giving away much of the film, but let’s just mention one where Jolie’s character manages to inflict a certain amount of damage on someone because the “cuffs” that have been placed on her have about two feet of slack chain to work with. Have you ever seen cuffs like that in any action film/cop movie in your life, or even the last time you were arrested? Nope, me neither.
So, I can’t recommend Salt at a first run theatre. But it does have strong, watchable actors, and some pretty cool stunts … so if it’s at the Bloor … on a matinee … and you’re in the mood for popcorn or Glosette raisins … oh, what the hell, you talked me into it.
Point of Interest: Just another enormous plot hole that must be mentioned because it’s so stupid it’s almost funny. Jolie’s character is told to marry an entomologist because “spider experts” apparently have easy access to the North Korean border.
Really.
The most notoriously closed off military country in the world allows people studying spiders to cross back and forth between North and South Korea. Hell, don’t send Bill Clinton or Jimmy Carter to free the next captive American, just find your local German ex-pat bug expert to waltz across the border with a jar full of Black Widows and maybe a Praying Mantis on his shoulder—that’ll impress ‘em.
Directed by: Phillip Noyce
Starring Angelina Jolie, Liev Schreiber and Chiwetal Ejiofor (really good actor, incomprehensible name)
Salt is a pretty decent action flick.
So does that mean it gets a good review? Should a movie get a good review just because of the genre it’s in? How many times have we heard, “Well, it’s good for a horror film,” or “it’s all right for a zany comedy?” In other words, should we cut some slack to a film just because it’s of a certain type? Sure, we should, we do it all the time. Nobody sees Lord of the Rings or Harry Potter and says, “That’s so unrealistic, a wizard can’t do that!” So we suspend our disbelief depending on the genre of film; but they still have to be well made. The first Lord of the Rings (mostly animated …. mostly) wasn’t well received because it wasn’t well done, or at least well done enough to appeal to everyone, not just nerds.
So Salt is pretty good … for an action flick. The acting is actually quite good. I think Angelina Jolie is an excellent actress. Now, don’t get all huffy—she is. Yes, she broke Jen’s heart and she used to carry around Billy Bob’s blood and she kissed her brother for far too long once, but despite all that, she’s a very talented actress. Watch Changeling or A Mighty Heart and tell me I’m wrong; and she’s good in this too, appropriately teary or determined as the need arises. Liev Schreiber is sardonic and immanently watchable, and Chiwetal Ejiofor brings clarity and purpose to his role as well as a bang-on Yankee accent.
The action scenes are pretty well done, especially when Jolie is jumping from moving cars and trucks to escape a highway pursuit. The plot has a pretty cool paranoid cold war conspiracy element to it, so why is this only a decent action flick instead of a great one?
Believability.
Yes, we cut slack to movies because of their genre, but they have to be believable within that genre. Even fantasy films have to follow the rules of the universe they are in, and the same goes for action films, and this is an action film, not a superhero/comic book movie. The movie is just too implausible, even for an action flick. What makes the Bourne movies so superior to Salt? Jason Bourne does the most incredible things but they seem much more realistic. As spectacular as the (Bourne) action and story is, it is also gritty, tough and within the laws of physics. With Salt, I’m not even talking about the stunning escapes on the highway, I’m talking about the superhuman strength inside a 98 pound spy, the (repeated) ability to just “knock out” people she doesn’t want to kill, the gecko-like ability to scale walls and elevator shafts; essentially, this film gives Jolie’s character the strength of Superman and the skills of Spiderman in a movie with no superheroes. Oh, and there are certain gigantic plot holes that are entirely unbelievable. I can’t divulge too many without giving away much of the film, but let’s just mention one where Jolie’s character manages to inflict a certain amount of damage on someone because the “cuffs” that have been placed on her have about two feet of slack chain to work with. Have you ever seen cuffs like that in any action film/cop movie in your life, or even the last time you were arrested? Nope, me neither.
So, I can’t recommend Salt at a first run theatre. But it does have strong, watchable actors, and some pretty cool stunts … so if it’s at the Bloor … on a matinee … and you’re in the mood for popcorn or Glosette raisins … oh, what the hell, you talked me into it.
Point of Interest: Just another enormous plot hole that must be mentioned because it’s so stupid it’s almost funny. Jolie’s character is told to marry an entomologist because “spider experts” apparently have easy access to the North Korean border.
Really.
The most notoriously closed off military country in the world allows people studying spiders to cross back and forth between North and South Korea. Hell, don’t send Bill Clinton or Jimmy Carter to free the next captive American, just find your local German ex-pat bug expert to waltz across the border with a jar full of Black Widows and maybe a Praying Mantis on his shoulder—that’ll impress ‘em.
Sunday, September 26, 2010
Do you Know The Story of The Boy Who Lived? An Appeal to Muggles
Have you someone in your life who hasn’t read the Harry Potter books? Have you encouraged them only to be greeted with rolling eyes and an “I’m an adult and I don’t read kids’ books” attitude? It saddens me that there are people we know all around us who are on the wrong path; we will have to reach out to them. If there is a muggle in your life, have him/her read this testament … and pray.
Dear Muggles, or Those Who Don’t Know:
I was once like you old friend. My parents and others used to urge me to read Harry Potter. I would treat their appraisals of the books with scorn. Indeed, I mocked their happiness and contentment with life. A small part of me was confused with their joy and perhaps wanted to share in it, but I was too proud to let The Boy Who Lived into my heart. I was wandering, alone in this world, a muggle without a cause; and then something miraculous happened: I saw the film Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone. I was intrigued, but still I struggled against the strongest magic of all ... love. Then, finally, I read the books, and I came to realize what a friend I have in Harry.
Brother or sister, have you heard the story of The Boy Who Lived? Perhaps I could come by one afternoon and we could have tea and chat. I have some literature I would like you to read--seven books, actually. You may say, you've seen the movies and do not need to read the books. My friend, the movies are a trap for the weak and the attention challenged, and they are nothing but an echo of the true message. Many of your children have heard the message and believe. Your loved ones have embraced The Boy Who Lived, but we are concerned for you, you poor ignorant muggle. Many years from now as we journey to the next world we would be crushed to leave King's Cross Station without you. Join us, friend. Open the books, open your mind, open your heart, save your soul. "Love has a power beyond the reach of any magic," the apostle Albus taught us that, and that is the joy that awaits you.
OK, seriously dudes and lady dudes, you haven't read the books?! No excuses, read the books then you can pooh-pooh them with knowledge if you like, but you have to read them first. If you don’t know me personally then you should know that I am a confirmed snob, I have an honours degree in English, and I actually thought they were just for kids before I read them--but then I did, and they're great. I've re-read them many times, and with that, I'm more and more impressed with the many intriguing layers throughout the books and the imagination that was used to create that world. The parallels with the real world confront classism, racism, and corrupt governments, and most importantly of all, show that justice and love are worth fighting for; worth dying for. The books are remarkably funny, always compelling, and flat-out page turners. I already have to deal with some people I know not thinking the Beatles are all that great (oh, Elaine); don’t let me suffer through the knowledge that there are obstinate muggles out there meandering aimlessly through life--give the books a chance, and save yourself.
Dear Muggles, or Those Who Don’t Know:
I was once like you old friend. My parents and others used to urge me to read Harry Potter. I would treat their appraisals of the books with scorn. Indeed, I mocked their happiness and contentment with life. A small part of me was confused with their joy and perhaps wanted to share in it, but I was too proud to let The Boy Who Lived into my heart. I was wandering, alone in this world, a muggle without a cause; and then something miraculous happened: I saw the film Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone. I was intrigued, but still I struggled against the strongest magic of all ... love. Then, finally, I read the books, and I came to realize what a friend I have in Harry.
Brother or sister, have you heard the story of The Boy Who Lived? Perhaps I could come by one afternoon and we could have tea and chat. I have some literature I would like you to read--seven books, actually. You may say, you've seen the movies and do not need to read the books. My friend, the movies are a trap for the weak and the attention challenged, and they are nothing but an echo of the true message. Many of your children have heard the message and believe. Your loved ones have embraced The Boy Who Lived, but we are concerned for you, you poor ignorant muggle. Many years from now as we journey to the next world we would be crushed to leave King's Cross Station without you. Join us, friend. Open the books, open your mind, open your heart, save your soul. "Love has a power beyond the reach of any magic," the apostle Albus taught us that, and that is the joy that awaits you.
OK, seriously dudes and lady dudes, you haven't read the books?! No excuses, read the books then you can pooh-pooh them with knowledge if you like, but you have to read them first. If you don’t know me personally then you should know that I am a confirmed snob, I have an honours degree in English, and I actually thought they were just for kids before I read them--but then I did, and they're great. I've re-read them many times, and with that, I'm more and more impressed with the many intriguing layers throughout the books and the imagination that was used to create that world. The parallels with the real world confront classism, racism, and corrupt governments, and most importantly of all, show that justice and love are worth fighting for; worth dying for. The books are remarkably funny, always compelling, and flat-out page turners. I already have to deal with some people I know not thinking the Beatles are all that great (oh, Elaine); don’t let me suffer through the knowledge that there are obstinate muggles out there meandering aimlessly through life--give the books a chance, and save yourself.
Thursday, September 23, 2010
Scott Pilgrim vs. the World: Review
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!).
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 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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
.jpeg)