I’ve been making a habit lately of trying to find more obscure films at the local rental store. I got tipped off to Dinner Rush by a couple review sites and decided to pick it up. I was in for a serious treat. Ostensibly starring Danny Aiello as the long-time owner of a newly trendy Italian restaurant in Tribeca (Manhattan), Dinner Rush follows a large group of characters through one important night.
After opening with an introductory sequence where Aiello’s partner is gunned down in the streets by some two-bit thugs trying to move in on their bookmaking business, the movie jumps to the start of the dinner rush (get it?) an indeterminate but short time later. Throughout the rest of the night the narrative follows approximately seven story lines which intersect in various ways. Primarily you have Aiello and his dealings with his two sons Udo and Duncan. Udo is the star chef at the restaurant who is bringing in massive business and rave reviews, but turning it into a place his father doesn’t like very much. Duncan is the screw-up son who has a major gambling problem, yet keeps getting bailed out by his father. Both sons are screwing Nicole, but she’s really in love with Duncan. Black and Blue are the two thugs that killed the partner and want a piece of the business. To make things interesting Duncan owes them a ton of money. Also dining out that night is an important food critic, a snobby obsequious art critic with his entourage, and a random guy at the bar who gets too much screen time to be totally unimportant.
In case you think I gave too much away, that was about the first 20 minutes worth of plot. For the next 80 minutes you get to act as a fly on the wall constantly swirling between the various stories. By far the most impressive aspect of this project is the constant energy filling the movie but also the clarity with which the story is told. Much of the movie takes place in the kitchen, where you really get the sense of the frantic nature of high-end food preparation. Everyone down there is loose and friendly, yet extremely professional. The stuffy, pretentious atmosphere of the dining room contrasts that. We get to watch the two greeters and several servers contend with all the patrons while also hearing the snide comments made as they walk away. At the bar you’ve got a trivia genius pouring drinks and answering questions at five bucks a challenge. John Corbett as “the guy at the bar” acts, for most of the movie, as the audience’s avatar.
I didn’t even notice while watching the movie, but upon reflection the multicultural cast is refreshing. So often in movies (when they even bother to try) you’ve got what seems to be a painstaking attempt at equal representation. In Dinner Rush you have what seemed to me to be a fairly accurate representation of the various ethnic and cultural groups you would have working in or patronizing this establishment. Best of all, they didn’t play “the Black greeter” or “the Hispanic cook,” but people in the story who happened to be Black or Hispanic.
This is obviously a fairly low budget movie, but the production design was excellent. I think it sets a fabulous example and a good idea for low-budget flicks. If you don’t have much money then set the whole damn thing in one place and trick it out nice. There’s no commentary or features or anything, so I don’t even know if it was a set or location. After watching the movie I couldn’t guess – it could have been either. Due to logistics much of this must have been done using steadicam, since the camera was constantly moving and there simply is not enough room on the set to lay tracks. Contrary to becoming annoying, the constant movement helped add to the frenetic pace of the restaurant. I have several questions about directorial choices like certain distant camera setups and the deliberate blurring in the epilogue. I didn’t get whatever they were attempting to convey, and the affectations were too sporadic to define a “style” for the film.
This story completely hooked me, and not only was I not worried about trying to figure out what would happen, but I’m fairly certain that had I been I still would not have guessed to outcome. It’s very difficult to tell a story in such a compressed time span and have something important occur yet not telegraph it or make it feel too “constructed.” Every single one of the characters comes alive and has a back-story attached to it. That is a tribute to both the script and the actors. I hate writing reviews where I can’t bitch about something, but sometimes there’s just no large-scale complaint to harp on. This is a great movie and I plan to look forward to more from Bob Giraldi (director), Rick Shaughnessy and Brian Kalata (first time writers).
October 25, 2007
From the Vault: Out Cold
Ski Patrol for the new millennium
I had to see this in the theatre by myself when it came out because no one would go with me. I really hate doing that; not particularly because I like the conversation or company involved with going to and waiting for a movie to start. I can do without that. I hate the fact that people there can all tell you’re by yourself. I normally try to go as close as possible to when the film starts which helps alleviate the awkwardness. I try to get friends to go, and often they even express interest in going, but it ends up getting put off. So, to avoid not seeing a movie at all I go by myself a lot. I just remember from my time working at a theatre there were always the middle aged men and women who would come to the theatre by themselves. It seemed so sad. Now, I’m just a few years away from being one of them.
Anyway, as someone who spent an enjoyable part of his childhood partaking in the inherent wackiness of the Ski Patrol and Ski School franchises I knew what I expected and hoped for. While somewhat weighed down with the hip sensibility of the modern era it delivered on nearly all fronts.
Let’s go through the checklist:
• Random minor stars people vaguely recognize
• Hilarious drunken antics
• Peripheral sage-like character
• Wacky sidekick
• Great freakin ski stunts
• Lovable losers engaged in a mortal struggle with nefarious, rich bastards trying to take over their town
• Huge party scene
• Amazingly hot women in various state of undress
At this point I have to stop and mention that Out Cold is part of a disturbing trend of the past few years where movies that clearly should have been R rated and featured naked women did not do so. American Pie and Road Trip helped break that trend – and good for them. Despite the rampant lack of breasts, there are several scenes of bare male asses. While naked man ass always equals good comedy, I don’t think I’d be going too much out on a limb saying that even most women would rather see a perfectly formed undressed female body than a pale, hairy white guy ass. I’m for equality – let’s have both!
In this particular iteration of a well-trod plot, one of the London twins (One was in Party of Five and another Dazed and Confused and one in that Aerosmith video and I have no idea which is which) heads up a motley band of ski patrol members. Actually, they never really say that they are ski patrol, they just kind of work there. Five or six of them have names and a few others just stand around in the background hoping for their SAG card. It seems the founder of Bull Mountain died a year ago and his weasely son is planning to sell the mountain to rich developer John Majors (played by Lee Majors). I’ll give the name thing a pass since his company is called Major Resorts – so there’s a reason for it. At first the locals are somewhat excited because the current owner (Willie Garson) is a loser and Majors brings along excitement and hot women, most notably Victoria Silvstedt as his stepdaughter. Garson is an example of the character actors that turn up in something like this. I recall him best from a recurring spot on “NYPD Blue”, but others may know him as Stanford Blatch from “Sex and the City.” Either way he’s just barely a “Hey, It’s that guy.”
The group of friends quickly finds that they liked things better the way they were before and set out to sabotage the sale – of course. Along the way you have some great gags and a love triangle between Rick Rambis (Jason London), a girl from the town, and someone he knew briefly and fell hard for on a trip to Cancun.
That’s quite enough of the plot. There are only two reasons to watch this movie – the snowboard scenes and the jokes. The former is really excellent and it appears as though they got some pro snowboarders and an experienced Second Unit Director to film some great stuff. The credits roll over a bloopers reel of stunts gone awry much like what you see in the bails videos in a Tony Hawk game…only on snow. As for the jokes, they predominantly work. Most of the best gags revolve around Luke, played by Zack Galifianakis, who I have never seen or heard of before. It looks like had a Comedy Central Presents special and a TV show or two – quite possibly on MTV. He is absolutely hilarious and I would like to see more of his work in the future.
You may notice I’m not going into any details whatsoever about the jokes – I feel like doing that could spoil them. This movie so barely works as it is that I wouldn’t want to chance taking anything away from it. Likewise, don’t watch the trailer before the movie cause it shows a few things best left as surprise. Out Cold is directed by “The Malloys” who, aside from choosing a really pretentious credit, have absolutely no film experience whatsoever according to the IMDB. They do a perfectly acceptable job, but I can’t help but think that someone with more comedy experience could have cranked it up a notch in overall quality. I mean, who do you have to blow to get a directing job these days? Is there a list, cause I’ll sign up? The writer is a first time guy too, and I just don’t get it. I’ve had ideas like this sitting on the crapper. It’s not bad, it’s just not anything extraordinary. On the plus side the thing at least doesn’t have a list of writers the length of your arm. If you like wacky, screwball comedies and are looking for something that at least tries to hearken back to the glory days of 80’s cinema then you should give this a chance.
I had to see this in the theatre by myself when it came out because no one would go with me. I really hate doing that; not particularly because I like the conversation or company involved with going to and waiting for a movie to start. I can do without that. I hate the fact that people there can all tell you’re by yourself. I normally try to go as close as possible to when the film starts which helps alleviate the awkwardness. I try to get friends to go, and often they even express interest in going, but it ends up getting put off. So, to avoid not seeing a movie at all I go by myself a lot. I just remember from my time working at a theatre there were always the middle aged men and women who would come to the theatre by themselves. It seemed so sad. Now, I’m just a few years away from being one of them.
Anyway, as someone who spent an enjoyable part of his childhood partaking in the inherent wackiness of the Ski Patrol and Ski School franchises I knew what I expected and hoped for. While somewhat weighed down with the hip sensibility of the modern era it delivered on nearly all fronts.
Let’s go through the checklist:
• Random minor stars people vaguely recognize
• Hilarious drunken antics
• Peripheral sage-like character
• Wacky sidekick
• Great freakin ski stunts
• Lovable losers engaged in a mortal struggle with nefarious, rich bastards trying to take over their town
• Huge party scene
• Amazingly hot women in various state of undress
At this point I have to stop and mention that Out Cold is part of a disturbing trend of the past few years where movies that clearly should have been R rated and featured naked women did not do so. American Pie and Road Trip helped break that trend – and good for them. Despite the rampant lack of breasts, there are several scenes of bare male asses. While naked man ass always equals good comedy, I don’t think I’d be going too much out on a limb saying that even most women would rather see a perfectly formed undressed female body than a pale, hairy white guy ass. I’m for equality – let’s have both!
In this particular iteration of a well-trod plot, one of the London twins (One was in Party of Five and another Dazed and Confused and one in that Aerosmith video and I have no idea which is which) heads up a motley band of ski patrol members. Actually, they never really say that they are ski patrol, they just kind of work there. Five or six of them have names and a few others just stand around in the background hoping for their SAG card. It seems the founder of Bull Mountain died a year ago and his weasely son is planning to sell the mountain to rich developer John Majors (played by Lee Majors). I’ll give the name thing a pass since his company is called Major Resorts – so there’s a reason for it. At first the locals are somewhat excited because the current owner (Willie Garson) is a loser and Majors brings along excitement and hot women, most notably Victoria Silvstedt as his stepdaughter. Garson is an example of the character actors that turn up in something like this. I recall him best from a recurring spot on “NYPD Blue”, but others may know him as Stanford Blatch from “Sex and the City.” Either way he’s just barely a “Hey, It’s that guy.”
The group of friends quickly finds that they liked things better the way they were before and set out to sabotage the sale – of course. Along the way you have some great gags and a love triangle between Rick Rambis (Jason London), a girl from the town, and someone he knew briefly and fell hard for on a trip to Cancun.
That’s quite enough of the plot. There are only two reasons to watch this movie – the snowboard scenes and the jokes. The former is really excellent and it appears as though they got some pro snowboarders and an experienced Second Unit Director to film some great stuff. The credits roll over a bloopers reel of stunts gone awry much like what you see in the bails videos in a Tony Hawk game…only on snow. As for the jokes, they predominantly work. Most of the best gags revolve around Luke, played by Zack Galifianakis, who I have never seen or heard of before. It looks like had a Comedy Central Presents special and a TV show or two – quite possibly on MTV. He is absolutely hilarious and I would like to see more of his work in the future.
You may notice I’m not going into any details whatsoever about the jokes – I feel like doing that could spoil them. This movie so barely works as it is that I wouldn’t want to chance taking anything away from it. Likewise, don’t watch the trailer before the movie cause it shows a few things best left as surprise. Out Cold is directed by “The Malloys” who, aside from choosing a really pretentious credit, have absolutely no film experience whatsoever according to the IMDB. They do a perfectly acceptable job, but I can’t help but think that someone with more comedy experience could have cranked it up a notch in overall quality. I mean, who do you have to blow to get a directing job these days? Is there a list, cause I’ll sign up? The writer is a first time guy too, and I just don’t get it. I’ve had ideas like this sitting on the crapper. It’s not bad, it’s just not anything extraordinary. On the plus side the thing at least doesn’t have a list of writers the length of your arm. If you like wacky, screwball comedies and are looking for something that at least tries to hearken back to the glory days of 80’s cinema then you should give this a chance.
Kangaroo Jack: I don’t want to live in a world where this movie is a hit
The second I put in this disc and was greeted by the animated menu featuring a talking kangaroo, I wanted to just take it back out and forget I ever planned to watch – but I had a job to do. Ever since those closing credits embraced me like sweet sweet death, I’ve been trying to decide where to lay the blame for this abomination. Do I blame uber-producer Jerry Bruckheimer? He’s certainly behind the movie, but I think it probably would have gotten made whether he was involved or not. David McNally the director only has one previous credit – Coyote Ugly, which is also a Bruckheimer film. But, again had he decided against throwing the better angels of his nature down the toilet, it would simply have been made with a different director. I’d like to blame Jerry O’Connell, whose acting track record is…uneven. However, I get the feeling that either his agent hates him very very much, or he simply says, “yes” to anything because he likes money. I know Christopher Walken does – he said in an interview he just loves to work. No, we can’t blame the actors – they’re just doing a job, and none of them are big enough players to have had the juice to push this through themselves.
We must blame Steve Bing. He is credited with both the story and screenplay – it was his idea. That’s the doorstep on which this flaming bag of shit must be laid. Somewhere in the dark recesses of his mind, this dilettante heir-playboy-screenwriter who has been in the news more for knocking up Elizabeth Hurley than actually working, decided that the world needed a movie with a dancing, rapping, cgi kangaroo. Shame on you Steve Bing. Shame.
Kangaroo Jack is about two life long friends sent to Australia by the mob to deliver $50,000 to some guy in the outback. You see, Charlie’s (O’Connell) step-dad (Walken) is the head of a New York crime family. Charlie and Louis (Anthony Anderson) accidentally lead the cops to one of Walken’s warehouses where they find millions in stolen goods. Rather than kill them (because Charlie’s mother would cry) he sends them on a mission of retribution – the aforementioned Australia trip. All they have to do is rent a car, drive to a town in the outback and deliver the envelope. They of course egregiously mess this up.
I’ve never been much for movies that are based entirely on the terminal stupidity of the characters. They hit a kangaroo on the road. They put glasses and a jacket on the kangaroo to take pictures of it. Kangaroo wakes up and hops away. Jacket is on the kangaroo. Money is in the jacket. Now they have to find the Kangaroo to deliver the money. I’m supposed to root for two guys so stupid that they screwed up a mission for the mob by putting $50,000 on a kangaroo? I don’t want to give anything away, but the same terminal stupidity that caused this mess actually saved their lives. Amazing – two people too stupid to live turn out to be too stupid to die. Or maybe it was the power of their friendship or some such nonsense. This seems as good a time as any to point out that while watching the film a friend and I had to repeatedly turn to each other to clarify plot points, only to discover we didn’t give a damn. If I recall correctly I think he repeatedly said, “I hope they all die in a fiery blaze.” I concurred. Unfortunately it was not to be.
They wreck the truck chasing the kangaroo and end up in a small dusty town. There they meet Blue – an old, drunken coot who also happens to be a pilot and the only redeemable part of this film. Louis contacts “Mr. Smith” and stalls him while they work out a way to find the kangaroo. At some point they make mention of the fact there are 20 million kangaroos in Australia, but these jokers seem to have no trouble repeatedly finding and losing this particular one. Plan B involves an airplane, which also doesn’t work out, and then they set out on foot to find Jessie, (Estella Warren of nearly mute Planet of the Apes fame. Plan C involves farting camels and romantic intrigue. Seriously, I know it looks like I made that up.
By this point Mr. Smith and his people are hot on their trail – they think the idiots just took the money and are hiding. Walken’s mob people also fly over because they think the same thing. Both groups also plan to kill the idiots, money or not. I won’t even go into how stupid someone would have to be to decide to run off with the money, but go ahead and fly to Australia and get almost all the way to their destination first. I won’t go into that because Charlie and Louis have already proven that is Exactly how stupid they are, so it’s strangely believable.
One out of place montage sequence, dozens of DOA “jokes” and several near brushes with death later everything is sorted out and we can all live happily ever after.
To be fair, I was pleasantly surprised at one thing – the only time the kangaroo speaks is during Charlie’s hallucination – thank God for small favours.
This is a terrible movie. The script is trite and horrid; the acting (aside from Blue) wooden and predictable. Some of the action sequences were well shot, and as much as I hate to say it the CG kangaroo was well done – but those are minor points. The kangaroo “dancing” made me want to kill myself and those I love. The campfire scene looked like they dug up the old Three Amigos set and removed the cacti. The “jokes” were well-worn and predicable – and that doesn’t include the ones that fell so flat they cannot even be considered jokes. The plot, once fully revealed, was so stupid as to be insulting. Jerry O’Connell is quickly becoming an even better barometer of movies to avoid than Freddie Prince Jr. I can’t even really get it in my head to properly dissect this pile of crap. I want to – I’d like to go scene by scene and show how stupid the dialogue is and how little sense the plot makes. Unfortunately I cannot do that because it all starts with how horrendous the idea itself is. The entire product screams out “I have a distain for the movie-going public and wish to make lot’s of money by pumping out something so mind-numbingly hideous that I cannot look at myself in the mirror.” I just get the feeling that absolutely no one aside from the second unit director (action sequences) cared at all about doing a good job, and I hate them for it.
Since I simply cannot force myself to analyze this any more deeply I’ll leave you with one final thought – This Movie Made $80 Million Dollars in the Theatre.
We must blame Steve Bing. He is credited with both the story and screenplay – it was his idea. That’s the doorstep on which this flaming bag of shit must be laid. Somewhere in the dark recesses of his mind, this dilettante heir-playboy-screenwriter who has been in the news more for knocking up Elizabeth Hurley than actually working, decided that the world needed a movie with a dancing, rapping, cgi kangaroo. Shame on you Steve Bing. Shame.
Kangaroo Jack is about two life long friends sent to Australia by the mob to deliver $50,000 to some guy in the outback. You see, Charlie’s (O’Connell) step-dad (Walken) is the head of a New York crime family. Charlie and Louis (Anthony Anderson) accidentally lead the cops to one of Walken’s warehouses where they find millions in stolen goods. Rather than kill them (because Charlie’s mother would cry) he sends them on a mission of retribution – the aforementioned Australia trip. All they have to do is rent a car, drive to a town in the outback and deliver the envelope. They of course egregiously mess this up.
I’ve never been much for movies that are based entirely on the terminal stupidity of the characters. They hit a kangaroo on the road. They put glasses and a jacket on the kangaroo to take pictures of it. Kangaroo wakes up and hops away. Jacket is on the kangaroo. Money is in the jacket. Now they have to find the Kangaroo to deliver the money. I’m supposed to root for two guys so stupid that they screwed up a mission for the mob by putting $50,000 on a kangaroo? I don’t want to give anything away, but the same terminal stupidity that caused this mess actually saved their lives. Amazing – two people too stupid to live turn out to be too stupid to die. Or maybe it was the power of their friendship or some such nonsense. This seems as good a time as any to point out that while watching the film a friend and I had to repeatedly turn to each other to clarify plot points, only to discover we didn’t give a damn. If I recall correctly I think he repeatedly said, “I hope they all die in a fiery blaze.” I concurred. Unfortunately it was not to be.
They wreck the truck chasing the kangaroo and end up in a small dusty town. There they meet Blue – an old, drunken coot who also happens to be a pilot and the only redeemable part of this film. Louis contacts “Mr. Smith” and stalls him while they work out a way to find the kangaroo. At some point they make mention of the fact there are 20 million kangaroos in Australia, but these jokers seem to have no trouble repeatedly finding and losing this particular one. Plan B involves an airplane, which also doesn’t work out, and then they set out on foot to find Jessie, (Estella Warren of nearly mute Planet of the Apes fame. Plan C involves farting camels and romantic intrigue. Seriously, I know it looks like I made that up.
By this point Mr. Smith and his people are hot on their trail – they think the idiots just took the money and are hiding. Walken’s mob people also fly over because they think the same thing. Both groups also plan to kill the idiots, money or not. I won’t even go into how stupid someone would have to be to decide to run off with the money, but go ahead and fly to Australia and get almost all the way to their destination first. I won’t go into that because Charlie and Louis have already proven that is Exactly how stupid they are, so it’s strangely believable.
One out of place montage sequence, dozens of DOA “jokes” and several near brushes with death later everything is sorted out and we can all live happily ever after.
To be fair, I was pleasantly surprised at one thing – the only time the kangaroo speaks is during Charlie’s hallucination – thank God for small favours.
This is a terrible movie. The script is trite and horrid; the acting (aside from Blue) wooden and predictable. Some of the action sequences were well shot, and as much as I hate to say it the CG kangaroo was well done – but those are minor points. The kangaroo “dancing” made me want to kill myself and those I love. The campfire scene looked like they dug up the old Three Amigos set and removed the cacti. The “jokes” were well-worn and predicable – and that doesn’t include the ones that fell so flat they cannot even be considered jokes. The plot, once fully revealed, was so stupid as to be insulting. Jerry O’Connell is quickly becoming an even better barometer of movies to avoid than Freddie Prince Jr. I can’t even really get it in my head to properly dissect this pile of crap. I want to – I’d like to go scene by scene and show how stupid the dialogue is and how little sense the plot makes. Unfortunately I cannot do that because it all starts with how horrendous the idea itself is. The entire product screams out “I have a distain for the movie-going public and wish to make lot’s of money by pumping out something so mind-numbingly hideous that I cannot look at myself in the mirror.” I just get the feeling that absolutely no one aside from the second unit director (action sequences) cared at all about doing a good job, and I hate them for it.
Since I simply cannot force myself to analyze this any more deeply I’ll leave you with one final thought – This Movie Made $80 Million Dollars in the Theatre.
October 19, 2007
Friday 10/19 predictions
I’m going to make this quick since I’m working on some lengthier material and there are Tons of new movies this week.
30 Days of Night
I like vampires; I like vampire movies. The director’s previous movie Hard Candy was dark and deftly shot and quit a surprise. I can’t even put my name on why, but this looks bad. Not fun bad either, just poorly done. I prefer my vampires Anne Rice style – sensual and cultured and successful; these look like feral beasts.
The idea of heading up north to take advantage of lack of sun is also original, but this one just doesn’t hook me. Considering it’s the only new horror movie opening it will probably do decent business then drop off when Saw 4 comes out.
The Comebacks
I am a Huge David Koechner fan, but this looks terrible. All the recent spoof movies have fallen into similar traps. A spoof movie should not just recount events from other movies – it should reference and mock the conventions. Comedy is not made by throwing out references that the audience “gets,” it’s having an original take on it. I’ll catch this on HBO in a couple months to see if I’m right.
Gone Baby Gone
Ben Affleck’s directorial debut. I just might be the only person on Earth excited by that. I’m a big Affleck apologist – he certainly made some bad films, but I think he’s a talented intelligent guy and not surprised at all this is getting Excellent reviews. I’m expecting this to be regarded as a top-tier detective film in the future.
Nightmare Before Christmas: 3D
Nightmare is one of my favorite movies of all time, so I am very excited Disney has decided to make the re-release a regular event. The score, the animation, everything about this film is fantastic. It’s only playing over at Mall of Georgia on IMAX, but I highly recommend the trip. I went last year and I’ll be going again – it’s only out for Three Weeks, so get on it.
Rendition
In early previous this looked a little melodramatic, but I’ve read a bit more and am now expecting this to be one of the best films of the year. It’s difficult to take on such a divisive topic without preaching, and hopefully this one can pull it off. The cast is normally excellent. The director almost won Best Foreign Film last year. I doubt this will make much money, but I think it’ll be very good.
The Ten Commandments
I had never heard of this animated feature prior to looking at this week’s releases. It appears to have rounded up a handful of name actors known for being in just about anything – Sir Ben Kingsley for example (there is NO excuse for Bloodrayne), and Christian Slater. The computer animation doesn’t look very good – but there’s certainly a market for this film and if you are in it, you probably already know about it.
Sarah Langdon and the Paranormal Hour
A PG rated suspense/ghost movie involving no one I have ever heard of. I – have nothing more to say about this.
Things We Lost in the Fire
Halle Berry really wants to be a serious actress – and already got rewarded for being so, but I just don’t think she’s very good. I think Benecio del Toro can be brilliant. However, this looks like some overwrought weeper that will come and go in theaters with barely a blip. Occasionally a film like this does get staying power, but the fact I’ve seen almost no advertising doesn’t bode well.
Recap:
Nothing looks enjoyably bad this week. Horror fans – think twice about the frozen vampires. Drama fans: Rendition and Gone Baby Gone are very good bets.
People who like movies: Go see Nightmare Before Christmas in 3D.
30 Days of Night
I like vampires; I like vampire movies. The director’s previous movie Hard Candy was dark and deftly shot and quit a surprise. I can’t even put my name on why, but this looks bad. Not fun bad either, just poorly done. I prefer my vampires Anne Rice style – sensual and cultured and successful; these look like feral beasts.
The idea of heading up north to take advantage of lack of sun is also original, but this one just doesn’t hook me. Considering it’s the only new horror movie opening it will probably do decent business then drop off when Saw 4 comes out.
The Comebacks
I am a Huge David Koechner fan, but this looks terrible. All the recent spoof movies have fallen into similar traps. A spoof movie should not just recount events from other movies – it should reference and mock the conventions. Comedy is not made by throwing out references that the audience “gets,” it’s having an original take on it. I’ll catch this on HBO in a couple months to see if I’m right.
Gone Baby Gone
Ben Affleck’s directorial debut. I just might be the only person on Earth excited by that. I’m a big Affleck apologist – he certainly made some bad films, but I think he’s a talented intelligent guy and not surprised at all this is getting Excellent reviews. I’m expecting this to be regarded as a top-tier detective film in the future.
Nightmare Before Christmas: 3D
Nightmare is one of my favorite movies of all time, so I am very excited Disney has decided to make the re-release a regular event. The score, the animation, everything about this film is fantastic. It’s only playing over at Mall of Georgia on IMAX, but I highly recommend the trip. I went last year and I’ll be going again – it’s only out for Three Weeks, so get on it.
Rendition
In early previous this looked a little melodramatic, but I’ve read a bit more and am now expecting this to be one of the best films of the year. It’s difficult to take on such a divisive topic without preaching, and hopefully this one can pull it off. The cast is normally excellent. The director almost won Best Foreign Film last year. I doubt this will make much money, but I think it’ll be very good.
The Ten Commandments
I had never heard of this animated feature prior to looking at this week’s releases. It appears to have rounded up a handful of name actors known for being in just about anything – Sir Ben Kingsley for example (there is NO excuse for Bloodrayne), and Christian Slater. The computer animation doesn’t look very good – but there’s certainly a market for this film and if you are in it, you probably already know about it.
Sarah Langdon and the Paranormal Hour
A PG rated suspense/ghost movie involving no one I have ever heard of. I – have nothing more to say about this.
Things We Lost in the Fire
Halle Berry really wants to be a serious actress – and already got rewarded for being so, but I just don’t think she’s very good. I think Benecio del Toro can be brilliant. However, this looks like some overwrought weeper that will come and go in theaters with barely a blip. Occasionally a film like this does get staying power, but the fact I’ve seen almost no advertising doesn’t bode well.
Recap:
Nothing looks enjoyably bad this week. Horror fans – think twice about the frozen vampires. Drama fans: Rendition and Gone Baby Gone are very good bets.
People who like movies: Go see Nightmare Before Christmas in 3D.
October 16, 2007
A Tale of Two Comedy “Brands” Part I
In the next two posts, I will be comparing recent output of two comedy series – National Lampoon and American Pie.
National Lampoon has a long and storied history originating with a humour magazine at Harvard. In the 1970’s thy branched out into film and scored a huge hit in Animal House, still widely considered on of the best comedies ever made. While no other film rose to that level of success, for the next ten years National Lampoon put out a run of films in theatres and video (most notably the Chevy Chase “Vacation” series) establishing the brand as reliably entertaining. Since about 2003 National Lampoon moved to mostly a distribution model, acquiring third party concepts and even completed films and then slapping on the National Lampoon name and throwing out on video. This means that not only has the output dramatically increased, but the quality it much more varied. Walk into any video store now, and there will probably be four or five National Lampoon movies in the new release section alone (IMDB lists 30 movies since 2003). They almost all follow the teen sex comedy model, and look uniformly low budget and mediocre-to-bad.
One the other side we have American Pie, a 1999 Universal Pictures film that surprised everyone by earning over $100 Million domestic, one of the highest grosses ever for an R rated film. Throughout the 1990’s teen comedies had been neutered as studios did not think they could make any money with adult ratings (I recall specifically on the Can’t Hardly Wait commentary the creators said they were forced to change significantly for a PG-13), and American Pie turned that perception on its head. As with everything in Hollywood, if it makes money, it gets a sequel. American Pie got two – both performing extremely well and also managed to be good movies. And then I was surprised – they put out direct-to-video movies, only tenuously related to the original trilogy. The first, Band Camp say Stifler’s brother at Band Camp. The next, Naked Mile, has Stifler’s cousin (see a pattern?) going to visit some university. I find it extremely interesting that Stifler (Seann William Scott) in the first movie was ostensibly the villain, but so popular that he became more and more ingrained in subsequent films to the point his character history becomes the focus of the spin-offs.
I’m not morally offended by these direct-to-video releases, and I understand that brand recognition automatically moves units regardless of quality, but it just makes me sad to see a quality trilogy stretched out into irrelevance. So, with that absurdly long introduction, let’s get into American Pie Presents: The Naked Mile.
I’m a big believer in pedigree for films – looking at who’s behind it and their past work to evaluate expectations and relative quality. On that note, I want to look at those behind this most recent effort compared to the original.
Technically Naked Mile has two writers, although Adam Herz (the original American Pie writer) is credited only with characters. I think it’s interesting to see where people have gone since that huge first hit. Here’s a side by side comparison of the primary creators of the first and latest film:
Looking at Herz and Weitz is fascinating. The director took his success and went on to direct five completely different movies and produce others. Herz wrote the entire trilogy (and there’s certainly nothing wrong with that) and then…well I guess just decided to spend his money for a while. I hope he at least did something really frivolous and decadent. As for Naked Mile, it’s not unusual at all to have newcomers tackle these kinds of projects, but even here we see the director move on and the writer keep going back to the same well. A final interesting note is George Lucas in Love was a short film Nussbaum produced and released himself that got enough buzz to get him a real job.
Ok, I’ve been putting this off long enough – it’s time to talk about the film. The film is Awful.
Fine…details. Let’s start with plot, shall we? Some loser high school kid has a girlfriend that won’t sleep with him and an invitation to go to a nearby college for the weekend of their annual Naked Mile event. This is based on a real tradition at University of Michigan. Loser high school kid Erik and some friends head up there, but not before his well-meaning girlfriend gives him a “guilt-free” pass. She’s not ready to sleep with him, but doesn’t want him to leave her for someone that will. She regrets this decision immediately but cannot reach him to revoke it. Does anyone see where this is going? At the college Erik hooks up with his cousin Dwight, king of the most awesomest frat in town. Forced wackiness ensues…mostly drinking related. Erik meets a hot girl, starts to fall for her but must decide about his girlfriend back home. Meanwhile his girlfriend Tracy is being convinced to sleep with a guy back home, since Erik is likely doing the same.
I’m not sure why, but I won’t reveal the dramatic ending where everyone learns something about themselves and lives happily ever after – or do they? What is important about a movie like are the bits…and this movie has bits. Not funny bits, but bits. In the car on the way there someone urinates on someone, which was edgier and funnier when it happened in American Pie 2. There an interminable football sequence against a frat of midgets, which I really don’t know what to think of. One the one hand there isn’t a lot of work for little people, and most of the jokes made at their expense managed to make the other party look like the bad guy. However, their entire presence in the movie seemed to rely on the “ha ha they’re midgets but badasses” premise. Maybe it’s similar to post-feminist feminism where some women would own their sexuality to use it to their advantage or be just as sexually liberal as men traditionally have the right to be. I also liked that they were the villain rather than purely the visual gag. So I guess, regarding the little person appropriateness question, I’m going with – just this side of inappropriate but not definitely not very funny. Unless of course my motive guesses are incorrect and they just thought midgets were funny – but I’m big on benefit of the doubt.
I’m a bit sketchy on much of the rest because it wasn’t funny. The third act involves the naked run itself, and there is certainly a lot of naked. I hate supposedly sexy movies that don’t deliver on promised nudity. One of Erik’s ongoing character traits is irritable bowels when nervous – he defecates in a clothes dryer early in the film. One of Erik’s friends gets the sexual tables turned on him at the “big party” because strap-ons and sore butts are Always hilarious. My main problem with jokes like that is that there is potential for funny, but the loaded winking gay panic aspect of laughing just at the situation itself is troubling. Absolutely nothing else in the film is memorably worth mentioning, and I just watched it yesterday. The less said about Eugene Levy collecting a paycheck the better.
Verdict – avoid at all costs and check online for the good bits if so inclined.
National Lampoon has a long and storied history originating with a humour magazine at Harvard. In the 1970’s thy branched out into film and scored a huge hit in Animal House, still widely considered on of the best comedies ever made. While no other film rose to that level of success, for the next ten years National Lampoon put out a run of films in theatres and video (most notably the Chevy Chase “Vacation” series) establishing the brand as reliably entertaining. Since about 2003 National Lampoon moved to mostly a distribution model, acquiring third party concepts and even completed films and then slapping on the National Lampoon name and throwing out on video. This means that not only has the output dramatically increased, but the quality it much more varied. Walk into any video store now, and there will probably be four or five National Lampoon movies in the new release section alone (IMDB lists 30 movies since 2003). They almost all follow the teen sex comedy model, and look uniformly low budget and mediocre-to-bad.
One the other side we have American Pie, a 1999 Universal Pictures film that surprised everyone by earning over $100 Million domestic, one of the highest grosses ever for an R rated film. Throughout the 1990’s teen comedies had been neutered as studios did not think they could make any money with adult ratings (I recall specifically on the Can’t Hardly Wait commentary the creators said they were forced to change significantly for a PG-13), and American Pie turned that perception on its head. As with everything in Hollywood, if it makes money, it gets a sequel. American Pie got two – both performing extremely well and also managed to be good movies. And then I was surprised – they put out direct-to-video movies, only tenuously related to the original trilogy. The first, Band Camp say Stifler’s brother at Band Camp. The next, Naked Mile, has Stifler’s cousin (see a pattern?) going to visit some university. I find it extremely interesting that Stifler (Seann William Scott) in the first movie was ostensibly the villain, but so popular that he became more and more ingrained in subsequent films to the point his character history becomes the focus of the spin-offs.
I’m not morally offended by these direct-to-video releases, and I understand that brand recognition automatically moves units regardless of quality, but it just makes me sad to see a quality trilogy stretched out into irrelevance. So, with that absurdly long introduction, let’s get into American Pie Presents: The Naked Mile.
I’m a big believer in pedigree for films – looking at who’s behind it and their past work to evaluate expectations and relative quality. On that note, I want to look at those behind this most recent effort compared to the original.
Technically Naked Mile has two writers, although Adam Herz (the original American Pie writer) is credited only with characters. I think it’s interesting to see where people have gone since that huge first hit. Here’s a side by side comparison of the primary creators of the first and latest film:
Paul Weitz | Joe Nussbaum | Erik Lindsay | Adam Herz |
|---|---|---|---|
Director | Director | Writer | Writer |
Cirque du Freak (2008) (pre-production) | B.F.F. (2009) (pre-production) | American Pie Presents: Beta House (2007) (V) (completed) | American Pie Presents: Beta House (2007) (V) (completed) |
American Dreamz (2006) | Sydney White (2007) | American Pie Presents: The Naked Mile (2006) (V) | American Pie Presents: The Naked Mile (2006) (V) |
In Good Company (2004) | American Pie Presents: The Naked Mile (2006) (V) | American Pie Presents Band Camp (2005) (V) (characters) | |
"Cracking Up" (1 episode, 2004) Pilot (2004) TV Episode | Sleepover (2004) | American Wedding (2003) (characters) (written by) | |
About a Boy (2002) | George Lucas in Love | American Pie 2 (2001) (characters) (screenplay) (story) | |
Down to Earth (2001) | "Go Fish" (2001) TV Series (unknown episodes) | ||
American Pie (1999) | American Pie (1999) (written by) | ||
+ Producer on 8 others |
Looking at Herz and Weitz is fascinating. The director took his success and went on to direct five completely different movies and produce others. Herz wrote the entire trilogy (and there’s certainly nothing wrong with that) and then…well I guess just decided to spend his money for a while. I hope he at least did something really frivolous and decadent. As for Naked Mile, it’s not unusual at all to have newcomers tackle these kinds of projects, but even here we see the director move on and the writer keep going back to the same well. A final interesting note is George Lucas in Love was a short film Nussbaum produced and released himself that got enough buzz to get him a real job.
Ok, I’ve been putting this off long enough – it’s time to talk about the film. The film is Awful.
Fine…details. Let’s start with plot, shall we? Some loser high school kid has a girlfriend that won’t sleep with him and an invitation to go to a nearby college for the weekend of their annual Naked Mile event. This is based on a real tradition at University of Michigan. Loser high school kid Erik and some friends head up there, but not before his well-meaning girlfriend gives him a “guilt-free” pass. She’s not ready to sleep with him, but doesn’t want him to leave her for someone that will. She regrets this decision immediately but cannot reach him to revoke it. Does anyone see where this is going? At the college Erik hooks up with his cousin Dwight, king of the most awesomest frat in town. Forced wackiness ensues…mostly drinking related. Erik meets a hot girl, starts to fall for her but must decide about his girlfriend back home. Meanwhile his girlfriend Tracy is being convinced to sleep with a guy back home, since Erik is likely doing the same.
I’m not sure why, but I won’t reveal the dramatic ending where everyone learns something about themselves and lives happily ever after – or do they? What is important about a movie like are the bits…and this movie has bits. Not funny bits, but bits. In the car on the way there someone urinates on someone, which was edgier and funnier when it happened in American Pie 2. There an interminable football sequence against a frat of midgets, which I really don’t know what to think of. One the one hand there isn’t a lot of work for little people, and most of the jokes made at their expense managed to make the other party look like the bad guy. However, their entire presence in the movie seemed to rely on the “ha ha they’re midgets but badasses” premise. Maybe it’s similar to post-feminist feminism where some women would own their sexuality to use it to their advantage or be just as sexually liberal as men traditionally have the right to be. I also liked that they were the villain rather than purely the visual gag. So I guess, regarding the little person appropriateness question, I’m going with – just this side of inappropriate but not definitely not very funny. Unless of course my motive guesses are incorrect and they just thought midgets were funny – but I’m big on benefit of the doubt.
I’m a bit sketchy on much of the rest because it wasn’t funny. The third act involves the naked run itself, and there is certainly a lot of naked. I hate supposedly sexy movies that don’t deliver on promised nudity. One of Erik’s ongoing character traits is irritable bowels when nervous – he defecates in a clothes dryer early in the film. One of Erik’s friends gets the sexual tables turned on him at the “big party” because strap-ons and sore butts are Always hilarious. My main problem with jokes like that is that there is potential for funny, but the loaded winking gay panic aspect of laughing just at the situation itself is troubling. Absolutely nothing else in the film is memorably worth mentioning, and I just watched it yesterday. The less said about Eugene Levy collecting a paycheck the better.
Verdict – avoid at all costs and check online for the good bits if so inclined.
October 5, 2007
New Movies - Friday Oct 5th 2007
This is a very difficult week for prognostication – we only have three movies opening wide and one of them I don’t think I’d watch for free on cable, but it might be good for those who like that movie.
The Heartbreak Kid: I am predisposed to hate this film, as I am so very very very tired of Ben Stiller. He makes a lot of really crap movies and for some reason I’m convinced he’s an absolute jerk in real life. However, this is a Farrelly Brothers movie, and they have had great success in the gross-out comedy game. Dumb and Dumber, Kingpins, There’s Something About Mary are considered by many to be comedy classics but they’re recent output hasn’t been as good and they’ve only made two movies in the last five years. This could turn out to be great – but my gut reaction says that not only is it going to be bad, but will bomb as well. I’d be very surprised if it made over $15 Mil this weekend.
The Seeker: Until a few years ago, big kids movies were almost uniformly awful, and fantasy leaning ones were worse. Harry Potter gave legitimacy (and bigger budgets) to this type of movie. This summer Stardust was a very pleasant surprise, and of course the first of the C.S. Lewis books was a huge hit. The Seeker, based on a popular book, plans to follow in that tradition. We have magical kids and a world that needs saving and somewhat incongruously Ian McShane as the good guy. I just can’t picture McShane outside of Deadwood, where he played one of the greatest roles ever. But anyway, this could be a terrific adventure, but I have a feeling it’s going to fall flat also.
Feel The Noise: I simply cannot do any better than the press release from Columbia Pictures.
After a run-in with local thugs, aspiring Harlem rapper Rob (Omarion Grandberry) flees to a place and father (Giancarlo Esposito) he never knew, and finds his salvation in Reggaeton, a spicy blend of hip-hop, reggae and Latin beats. Puerto Rico, the spiritual home of Reggaeton, inspires Rob and his half-brother Javi (Victor Rasuk) to pursue their dream of becoming Reggaeton stars. Together with a dancer named C.C., they learn what it means to stay true to themselves and each other, while overcoming obstacles in love, greed and pride, all culminating in an explosive performance at New York’s Puerto Rican Day Parade.
Swap out a few nouns and adjectives here and there, and this describes about 20 movies, from Breakin’ to Center Stage and of course Dirty Dancing. It’s not my kind of movie, and it’s entirely possible that for what it is, it’ll be very entertaining.
Wrap-up: I’m giving Feel the Noise a pass and betting that BOTH The Seeker and Heartbreak Kid of extremely bad and make very little money.
Side-note – George Clooney’s Michael Clayton opens elsewhere and looks pretty good. Wes Anderson’s Darjeeling Limited should be making its way to Atlanta soon also.
The Heartbreak Kid: I am predisposed to hate this film, as I am so very very very tired of Ben Stiller. He makes a lot of really crap movies and for some reason I’m convinced he’s an absolute jerk in real life. However, this is a Farrelly Brothers movie, and they have had great success in the gross-out comedy game. Dumb and Dumber, Kingpins, There’s Something About Mary are considered by many to be comedy classics but they’re recent output hasn’t been as good and they’ve only made two movies in the last five years. This could turn out to be great – but my gut reaction says that not only is it going to be bad, but will bomb as well. I’d be very surprised if it made over $15 Mil this weekend.
The Seeker: Until a few years ago, big kids movies were almost uniformly awful, and fantasy leaning ones were worse. Harry Potter gave legitimacy (and bigger budgets) to this type of movie. This summer Stardust was a very pleasant surprise, and of course the first of the C.S. Lewis books was a huge hit. The Seeker, based on a popular book, plans to follow in that tradition. We have magical kids and a world that needs saving and somewhat incongruously Ian McShane as the good guy. I just can’t picture McShane outside of Deadwood, where he played one of the greatest roles ever. But anyway, this could be a terrific adventure, but I have a feeling it’s going to fall flat also.
Feel The Noise: I simply cannot do any better than the press release from Columbia Pictures.
After a run-in with local thugs, aspiring Harlem rapper Rob (Omarion Grandberry) flees to a place and father (Giancarlo Esposito) he never knew, and finds his salvation in Reggaeton, a spicy blend of hip-hop, reggae and Latin beats. Puerto Rico, the spiritual home of Reggaeton, inspires Rob and his half-brother Javi (Victor Rasuk) to pursue their dream of becoming Reggaeton stars. Together with a dancer named C.C., they learn what it means to stay true to themselves and each other, while overcoming obstacles in love, greed and pride, all culminating in an explosive performance at New York’s Puerto Rican Day Parade.
Swap out a few nouns and adjectives here and there, and this describes about 20 movies, from Breakin’ to Center Stage and of course Dirty Dancing. It’s not my kind of movie, and it’s entirely possible that for what it is, it’ll be very entertaining.
Wrap-up: I’m giving Feel the Noise a pass and betting that BOTH The Seeker and Heartbreak Kid of extremely bad and make very little money.
Side-note – George Clooney’s Michael Clayton opens elsewhere and looks pretty good. Wes Anderson’s Darjeeling Limited should be making its way to Atlanta soon also.
September 19, 2007
New Movies - Friday Sept 21st 2007
Anyone looking at this weekend’s films probably thinks Resident Evil: More Zombies Dying would be the big winner. I thought so too, until I realized that Dane Cook has a film opening. It’s too easy. It’s one-deck black jack with both dealer’s cards up.
Let me start with Resident Evil and get that out of the way. Did you see the first two? Did you like them? Do you want to see that again, but this time in a post-apocalyptic Las Vegas strip? Well there ya go. I’ll grab this on video, not because I particularly liked the others, but I am a big time sucker for post-apocalyptic films. The filmmakers know what they’re doing and they aren’t trying to go out of their comfort zone. Expect more death, more bullets and more crappy one-liners.
Now, for Dane Cook. He’s huge in stand-up. His last album sold more than any comedy album in 15 years. He had an HBO show – sure it was awful and had dismal ratings – but did you have an HBO show? He’s also a terrible comedian, not even really telling jokes, but just making references that his core audience remembers. That’s of course the jokes he actually writes. Here’s a youtube clip juxtaposing three separate Louis CK bits with strikingly similar a Dane Cook bits. If you further feel like following some Dane Cook bashing, then I encourage you, but this isn’t about his stand-up material – it’s about how likely his movie is to be bad.
To me, Good Luck Chuck looks awful. Certainly all of it cannot be blamed on Cook, since he neither wrote nor directed it, but I would certainly be more likely to give it a try with a different lead. Jessica Alba hasn’t really shown any great acting ability, but she sure is pretty, so I have no problem there. This kind of high-concept premise is very common, and often works out despite rarely rising above totally mediocre, but this seems to be one of those times all the laughs are in the preview.
A guy who sleeps with a woman only to have her then immediately find the man of her dreams? Then, the shallow guy meets the girl of his dreams and he can’t be with her for fear of losing her. Really? Is it just me or does that sound like the fantasy of two lonely drunken losers who decided to write a movie.
Let's not even mention Cook's last movie - Employee of the Month. Slacker guy / hot girl who makes him want to be better than he is. Ninety minutes of preening and smirking and...Bah.
Let me start with Resident Evil and get that out of the way. Did you see the first two? Did you like them? Do you want to see that again, but this time in a post-apocalyptic Las Vegas strip? Well there ya go. I’ll grab this on video, not because I particularly liked the others, but I am a big time sucker for post-apocalyptic films. The filmmakers know what they’re doing and they aren’t trying to go out of their comfort zone. Expect more death, more bullets and more crappy one-liners.
Now, for Dane Cook. He’s huge in stand-up. His last album sold more than any comedy album in 15 years. He had an HBO show – sure it was awful and had dismal ratings – but did you have an HBO show? He’s also a terrible comedian, not even really telling jokes, but just making references that his core audience remembers. That’s of course the jokes he actually writes. Here’s a youtube clip juxtaposing three separate Louis CK bits with strikingly similar a Dane Cook bits. If you further feel like following some Dane Cook bashing, then I encourage you, but this isn’t about his stand-up material – it’s about how likely his movie is to be bad.
To me, Good Luck Chuck looks awful. Certainly all of it cannot be blamed on Cook, since he neither wrote nor directed it, but I would certainly be more likely to give it a try with a different lead. Jessica Alba hasn’t really shown any great acting ability, but she sure is pretty, so I have no problem there. This kind of high-concept premise is very common, and often works out despite rarely rising above totally mediocre, but this seems to be one of those times all the laughs are in the preview.
A guy who sleeps with a woman only to have her then immediately find the man of her dreams? Then, the shallow guy meets the girl of his dreams and he can’t be with her for fear of losing her. Really? Is it just me or does that sound like the fantasy of two lonely drunken losers who decided to write a movie.
Let's not even mention Cook's last movie - Employee of the Month. Slacker guy / hot girl who makes him want to be better than he is. Ninety minutes of preening and smirking and...Bah.
September 14, 2007
From the Vault: The Island
The Island
2005
Michael Bay dir
Jerry Bruckheimer prod
This review contains “spoilers” but nothing that cannot be intuited from viewing the trailer for the film.
So here comes another mid-summer action flick, bombarding the airwaves with advertising but disappearing into the ether almost as fast as it arrived. So what went wrong?
- Jerry Bruckheimer? Check
- Michael Bay? Check
- Hottie? Check (and a bonus check for the skin-tight uniform)
- Explosions? Hell yeah
- Intriguing sci-fi premise vaguely reminiscent of Logan’s Run? Check (but a Minus for giving away the big reveal in the TRAILER)
- Sean Bean as bad guy? Check
- Buscemi!!!!! Check
- Hover bikes? Check
- The only decent part of the recent Star Wars trilogy? Check
So what the hell went wrong? This thing is right in my wheelhouse, as they say, and I loved it despite its numerous flaws – but I don’t expect anyone else to like it much at all. However, it should have been a big hit. Ewan McGregor is hot; Scarlett Johansson is hot; Steve Buscemi is…..funny. Say what you want about Bay, but he blows stuff up real nice. He’s a tactician, a visual genius, great at shooting memorable action scenes, and apparently incapable of telling a story with a modicum of subtlety. Actually, that isn’t true, there are some great moments in The Rock and Armageddon – I think he is just out of his league with the hard sci-fi plot.
The Island could have had really great sociological elements. I was hoping for more insight into the lifestyle, social structure and feelings of these people living in this antiseptic, rigid, authoritarian person factory. In the beginning of the film we meet Lincoln Six Echo, who lives in an enormous facility housing all the remaining people on earth. Earth, you see, is contaminated beyond repair by an unexplained occurrence and these lucky few survived and were brought here to live a boring, regimented, utilitarian existence until they hit the Lottery. Once they call your name for the Lottery, you get shipped off to The Island, where the air is clear, birds chirp and presumably you get to start picking out your own clothes.
Lincoln starts his day dressing in identical clothes, eating what the chip in his hand says he’s supposed to eat and…well that’s really sort of the problem with this portion of the movie. You have no idea what they actually Do. I understand there is a lot of waiting going on, and we do eventually see them at work and relaxing but there’s just not enough information for my taste. Soon we learn that Lincoln is unusual, in that he asks questions about his environment. The people running the place seem to be benevolent, but for some reason sinister. To jump ahead, Lincoln’s got a friend, Jordan Two Delta, who wins the Lottery. However, Lincoln has discovered that The Lottery isn’t so much something you want to win and they flee the facility. They quickly learn that, despite all they’ve been told, the rest of the world is alive and well and they were clones created for the express purpose of being an insurance policy for rich people who might want some of their organs some day. Naturally, Lincoln and Jordan are being chased, so they have to figure out a way to get out of their mess. Steve Buscemi helps them, things explode and an exciting conclusion is reached. The end.
- It all sounds like a jolly grand ole time, but I have nits to pick (in no particular order):
- Are we seriously supposed to believe that a facility as large as a small city was created hundreds or thousands of feet below ground?
- If you deliberately set a facility out in the middle of the desert why would you not have some kind of perimeter security, where anyone who happens to reach the top can just wander on out?
- Why would you waste miles of extra space in this underground facility just to setup video screens that appear to be of open spaces? You are CLONING people, I’m willing to assume your video technology is advanced enough you could have just put it in the windows.
- You paid millions for these clones, why aren’t they tagged with some kind of GPS implant?
- I like lists
- There is obviously some kind of tacit government or military approval of this sort of thing, why not just employ normal law enforcement instead of sending out a team of explosion happy mercenaries?
- Scarlett Johansson – why not more cleavage?
- We’re supposed to believe these clones are dumb enough they suspect nothing despite the glaring inconsistencies in what they’re being told, yet Lincoln and Jordan are smart enough to outwit them all.
- I don’t buy that Anyone would give Sean Bean millions of dollars and not suspect he was hiding something/blaspheming God/planning to blow up London with a big laser satellite/trying to steal the Declaration of Independence/planning to take The Precious back to his daddy.
- Who in the hell is responsible for making Hover Bikes look lame, yet Chrysler’s cool?
- Mercenary with a heart of gold is so last century.
You know what I’m not upset about? The absurd product placement. I’ve seen complaints about this but it doesn’t really bother me for the following reasons:
- Movies cost money and if some of that money can be recouped by advertisers and poured back into the filmmaking then you’ve basically got free money to film with. I’d cover my actors in ads NASCAR style if someone gave me filmmaking money.
- Your precious real world is full of ads, and I’m almost willing to bet the reason you notice ads in film and television is not because there are More, but Less – their lack of ubiquity is jarring so that when you do see one you notice it. I read someplace (i.e. just made up this statistic) that the average American is exposed to three thousand advertisements a day.
- I find it funny when actors and screenwriters are forced to work in awkward nods to consumer products amidst car chases and lovemaking sessions.
- Likewise, I am impressed when a particularly well-done product placement is used so that it’s either integral to the plot or so well-suited you barely notice.
- Finally, I like to see people get all worked up about silly things
So, to sum up – I was very disappointed in The Island, but one cannot judge a movie based on what You wanted it to be, but what it is. Unfortunately, it’s a glossy, adrenaline filled ride topped with just enough pseudo social commentary and dystopic fear of the future/corporations/Sean Bean to make you wish it was about something more. And seriously, the hanging-off-the-side-of-the-building sequence was killer and the driving-on-a-truck one was pretty damn good too. In addition, the script had some very good dry humour and both actors did well, although they had virtually zero chemistry. I’d like to think this was on purpose as a nod to their undeveloped clone psyches and authoritarian upbringing, but I think Michael Bay doesn’t find women as sexy as he does hover bikes, so he spends more time on those.
Opening Tonight
This weekend gives us four major wide release openings, and as could be expected in September only one looks very good.
The Awesome:
Eastern Promises: After David Cronenberg hit a massive home run with A History of Violence, he’s teamed up again with Viggo Mortensen in what seems to continue his recent trend of accessible movies. For most of his career Cronenberg’s been known as an art house genius with films like Dead Ringers, Naked Lunch and Crash (the good one not the one with Matt Dillon), but now his fantastic work is being seen by audiences. Word so far indicates this is likely to be one of the best films of the year.
The Mediocre:
The Brave One: I think I liked this better the first time when it was called Death Wish. Jodie Foster has proven her acting prowess, but hasn’t been in anything decent in years, and this simply doesn’t seem like a Neil Jordan (The Crying Game) movie at all. I’m highly skeptical, but the pedigree alone means that true failure is unlikely.
Mr. Woodcock: Billy Bob Thornton doing more of his patented marvelous asshole shtick developed in Bad Santa and the Bad news Bears remake. It’s nice to see Susan Sarandon in something not as serious as her usual fare, but nothing else about this movie strikes me as rising above the mundane.
The unmitigated disaster:
Dragon Wars: I swear that up until yesterday I thought this was a sci-fi channel joint. It has everything – poorly rendered effects, a completely cliché plot, and best of all – there is absolutely no one you have ever heard of involved in any aspect of the filmmaking. Because it has dragons it’ll make a certain amount of money, but if this is still in theatres by October I will be stunned.
Dragon Wars is a sure fire bomb, and for anyone that enjoys watching Sci-Fi on Saturday afternoons this is a rare chance to see such a spectacle on the big screen. I know I’ll be there. And then I’ll cleanse myself with Eastern Promises.
The Awesome:
Eastern Promises: After David Cronenberg hit a massive home run with A History of Violence, he’s teamed up again with Viggo Mortensen in what seems to continue his recent trend of accessible movies. For most of his career Cronenberg’s been known as an art house genius with films like Dead Ringers, Naked Lunch and Crash (the good one not the one with Matt Dillon), but now his fantastic work is being seen by audiences. Word so far indicates this is likely to be one of the best films of the year.
The Mediocre:
The Brave One: I think I liked this better the first time when it was called Death Wish. Jodie Foster has proven her acting prowess, but hasn’t been in anything decent in years, and this simply doesn’t seem like a Neil Jordan (The Crying Game) movie at all. I’m highly skeptical, but the pedigree alone means that true failure is unlikely.
Mr. Woodcock: Billy Bob Thornton doing more of his patented marvelous asshole shtick developed in Bad Santa and the Bad news Bears remake. It’s nice to see Susan Sarandon in something not as serious as her usual fare, but nothing else about this movie strikes me as rising above the mundane.
The unmitigated disaster:
Dragon Wars: I swear that up until yesterday I thought this was a sci-fi channel joint. It has everything – poorly rendered effects, a completely cliché plot, and best of all – there is absolutely no one you have ever heard of involved in any aspect of the filmmaking. Because it has dragons it’ll make a certain amount of money, but if this is still in theatres by October I will be stunned.
Dragon Wars is a sure fire bomb, and for anyone that enjoys watching Sci-Fi on Saturday afternoons this is a rare chance to see such a spectacle on the big screen. I know I’ll be there. And then I’ll cleanse myself with Eastern Promises.
August 31, 2007
...and so we begin
Every week a handful of movies his theaters and even more drop on DVD. The odds that many these are well-made or even watchable are simply not in our favor. Rather than lament the situation, I've become a connoisseur of bad film. I like to find something decent in a bad film, or even get totally surprised by something sitting on the DVD shelf that looks awful. Of course, sometimes it's also fun to just revel in that absolute failure.
The only thing I really detest is lack of effort. There's nothing worse than a mainstream film that chooses to simply crank out some lowest-common-denominator detritus. Sometimes the filmmakers just grab a high concept plot off the shelf, throw darts at the gimmick wall and populate with generic character archetypes; sometimes they pull out the "important" ideas, manipulate the audience with unearned emotional beats, slather in overacting and go straight for the awards podium (A Beautiful Mind - I'm looking in your general direction). Either way, for someone that wants to work in the industry, it's infuriating. I would rather see someone shoot too high, or simply not have the resources than these people who just coast.
For this blog, I intend to give a weekly update on the worst-looking film releasing that weekend as well as review other more unknown films out on DVD. I'll be showcasing some things you may have overlooked that might be worth a watch and trying to warn against well-dressed duds. I look forward to comments about your favorite bad movies or anything else of interest.
The only thing I really detest is lack of effort. There's nothing worse than a mainstream film that chooses to simply crank out some lowest-common-denominator detritus. Sometimes the filmmakers just grab a high concept plot off the shelf, throw darts at the gimmick wall and populate with generic character archetypes; sometimes they pull out the "important" ideas, manipulate the audience with unearned emotional beats, slather in overacting and go straight for the awards podium (A Beautiful Mind - I'm looking in your general direction). Either way, for someone that wants to work in the industry, it's infuriating. I would rather see someone shoot too high, or simply not have the resources than these people who just coast.
For this blog, I intend to give a weekly update on the worst-looking film releasing that weekend as well as review other more unknown films out on DVD. I'll be showcasing some things you may have overlooked that might be worth a watch and trying to warn against well-dressed duds. I look forward to comments about your favorite bad movies or anything else of interest.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)