|
|
Tonight, we went to catch Flightplan. It's an okay thriller, so long as you don't think too hard about the plot. Or the actual details.
Jodi Foster plays a woman who's husband has fallen to his death in Berlin. She and her daughter are flying the body home to Long Island NY on a trans-Atlantic flight. Both mom and daughter fall asleep, then Ms. Foster awakens after three hours. The daughter is missing.
From there, the movie follows Foster as she tries to find her daughter without going so completely over the dead end that she is immobilized for the duration of the flight. Foster has to try to win over skeptical members of the flight crew, the increasingly on edge passengers (wouldn't you be a wee bit upset if someone started to act out more and more each time while encased in a tube some thirty thousand feet above the ocean?) all while keeping her wits about her. Foster is up to the challenge and mostly pulls it off.
The cinematography was interesting, if not a touch overwrought. The abundance of reflected imagery made it readily apparent that things are not what they seem, but I found that to be a bit much after a while.
Watch time 52 minutes. If you've seen the film and/or want some spoilers, check out the extended comments.
For one thing, I found it to be quite incredulous that the kidnappers/blackmailers would just happen to find someone with a small child than can be used for leverage and has intimate knowledge of the construction of a very large commercial airliner. Even with Ms. Foster's stated professional (she works on jetliner engines as an engineer/designer), given the size and complexity of a commercial jetcraft, the odds that a single specialist would be able to have all the intricate details of the plane in their head, on demand, with perfect instant recall is rather unlikely.
Moving on to a more political topic, a while back, the union for flight attendents has lodged a protest regarding this film, saying that having one of the bad guys (or, in this case, a bad girl) be a flight attendent is in poor taste.
"Should there be another 9/11, it would be critical for the cabin crew to have the support of their passengers, not the distrust that this movie may engender," said Tommie Hutto-Blake, president of the Association of Professional Flight Attendants. "Our fellow crew members who perished in the line of duty deserve more respect."
The press release goes on to call for a boycott of the film.
What I don't understand here is why they would be up in arms about this movie. One person (1!) is a member of the evil plot, and the attendent in quesetion pulls out before the schema can come all the way to fruition. Not the other twenty some members of the crew. Yes, some of the members of the crew are depicted as being less than 100% dedicated towards serving the crew at all times, but is this any surprise to anyone that maybe someone might slack off from time to time? And, in any case, when the chips are down (like when Ms. Foster's character deploys the air masks), all the attendents leap to help the passengers.
If there was going to be any group offended by their respresentation, it would be the air marshalls. It's pretty clear in this film that the air marshall is the one behind everything, killing the husband, kidnapping the daughter and manipulating the crew (particularly the captain).
I'm not all that worried about this -- for better or worse, there will always be some percentage of bad apples in any group of people. I'm sure that most, if not all of both air marshalls and flight attendents are consciencious, forthright people trying to do their level best. After all, this is just a movie.
And, if you really want to get into a movie that makes flight attendents look bad, check out Passenger 57.
Tonight was Tim Burton's Corpse Bride. This was a great film, particularly in light of my personal life at this time (I'm getting all hitched and stuff in a few months). So the idea of a wedding going humorously awry is quite appealing to me, given all the headaches of getting this thing planned.
Filmed in a fashion similar to Nightmare Before Christmas, the movie is shot in stop motion animiation. The somewhat jerky movements give the overall feel an otherworldly tinge to it. However, I think the plot and story of Corpse were more fully developed than Nightmare. Nightmare was clever and had a neat idea, but it could have and should have been more fleshed out than it was. Corpse, on the other hand, possesses a robust story, allowing the side sections to be more inventive.
I'd highly recommend this one for anyone looking for a good romp. No watch time.
Tonight was a critic's pass to the showing of the soon to be coming film Serenity. Written and directed by Joss Whedon (of Buffy and Angel fame, this show picks up where the now defunct TV series left off.
The movie stars the same cast as the original TV show. They are an effective ensemble, and the film has very good visuals and special effects. But the main reason why I wanted to see this flick was Whedon's writing. Both Buffy and Angel were some of my favorite TV shows for a while, and it's almost wholly because of Whedon's gift with the pen. I don't know if I would have picked the same cinematography (particularly the scene where Mal (the captain) is giving a speech to the crew while backlit and is almost completely washed out. Or maybe I'm just missing the subtleties of the moment), but it works much more often than it doesn't.
I have to wonder what someone who has never seen the show would think of this flick. I've watched a few of them here lately, but I was hardly a fan of it when it came out. Tonight's screening was basically comprised of 90% fanboys/girls; accordingly, they loved every little thing that happened. Since I'm not a novice on the subject, I got a lot of the subtext and story. I suspect that if I was coming to Serenity cold, I would have probably felt like I picked up a book at about the ninth chapter.
All in all, I'd recommend this movie to anyone who wants a sci-fi flick with good tension and action while not minding thinking a wee bit. No watch time.
Today, I caught the documentary Murderball. It's a great film, full of humor, pathos and human spirit. Murderball is the original name for rugby played by quadraplegics. The level of disability of the individual playing is awarded a point (1 to 4), and the points of all team members on the field at one time have to add up to eight. Each athlete uses a customized wheelchair that seems to be a rolling metal cage -- I think one of the people in the film called it a battering ram on wheels.
I throughly enjoyed this movie. It was exciting, showing athletes in top form. The details of their disability was completely secondary. You watched the strategy of the teams come together, how each member of the team found the strength to persevere, all concluding in the paralympic games in Athens 2004. It doesn't quite end the way you might think it would, either.
I'd wanted to see Sin City ever since I saw the commercials on TV. Yes, it looked really violent, aimed at the typical adolescent (either in actuality or in spirit) who would like Frank Miller's comic book, but it also looked really slick, with lots of eye candy.
As a friend of mine sat down, he asked me to describe the film we were just about to watch. "Film noir," I said. "Very film noir." He then asked me to define what film noir means. To be honest, I was stumped a bit. The best I could come up with was "bad people doing bad things to even worse people."
As expected from a Robert Rodriguez film (Spy Kids notwithstanding), it was very violent. Keeping true to the comic, the men are men and the women are accessories. Excepting the hooker army, of course. The storylines (taken from three different episodese) are somewhat interlinked in a Pulp Fiction-y sort of way. Technical merits on the flick are very high; striking visuals, almost all black and white with splays of color. In short, lots of eye candy.
I'm kind of ambivalent about the film itself, though. The characters are somewhat engaging, but mostly due to the purity of the archetype they inhabit. The stories move right along, but it didn't quite engage. I spent a lot of time reacting to the visceralness on the screen, but not a lot being engage in the drama onscreen.
Watch time 1:04
This is a lovely little Holly/Bollywood musical, as light as a feather and just about as meaningful. If you're even vaguely familiar with the Jane Austen book, then there aren't going to be much in the way of surprises. But, the music is well done, the scenery gorgeous, the people who should be beautiful are (and the ones who aren't, aren't) and it's a good bit of cotton candy fluff for an afternoon outing.
Watch time 1:05
Tonight, I caught the film adaptation of The Merchant of Venice. Back in college, I studied Shakespeare for a bit. I have read the play before, but I've never seen it performed -- in any form. My understanding is that this is the first time the play has ever been filmed. I guess that most people shy away from this particular work of Bill because of its anti-Semitism.
The play does have some anti-Semitic aspects to it; there's no doubt of that. It's not one dimensional, though. Shakespeare crafts Shylock to be more than a stereotype. Yes, he demands repayment of his loan with it's onerous terms, but it's the getting there. First off, he makes a very substantial loan to a man of means who should have no trouble repaying the amount, and he makes that loan at no interest. This is not the action of a loan shark. He also makes that loan even after Antonio has spit in his face, working actively against Shylock's interests.
What pushes Shylock over the edge is the loss of his daughter. She elopes with a Christian man, causing Shylock to lose his mind with grief and rage. He views the debt owed to him by the Christian as a stand-in for the man who stole his daughter (at least, in his mind).
Unfortunately, Shylock's character does present a number of stereotypical elements; when learning that his daughter is carousing with her new lover, he seems more distraught that she spent a large sum of money in one sitting than the detail that she was perhaps acting in an inopportune fashion.
And back to the film itself. The movie stars Al Pacino as Shylock, Jeremy Irons as Antonio, Lynn Collins as Portia and Joseph Fiennes (repeating in another Shakespeare flick) as Bassanio. Irons is very understated, and Fiennes is appropriately moonstruck in his pursuit of the winsome Collins. Pacino does his usual thing, chewing up the scenery whenever he gets a chance, but his rendition of the "Hath not a Jew eyes" monologue was quite gripping.
The sets and costumes of the film are up to the usual Merchant/Ivory standard that seems to be required for any period piece these days. For some reason, a number of scenes were either set in a brothel or immediately outside of one. While this allows the movie to show some bare flesh (thereby getting that coveted R rating), I'm not sure if it helps the story very much. It does imply that the Christians in the play were less than morally pure (see, they frequent a whorehouse!), I don't think that it added all that much to Bill's vision.
One of things that has always bothered me about this play is the ending. If it was a movie written for Hollywood, I would suspect that the ending was tacked onto the original story after a test screening where the audience said that Shylock's demise was too much of a downer. But who am I to criticize the Bard, eh?
All in all, not one of the best Shakespearean films I have ever seen (if you want a good one, check out Henry V or Looking For Richard, the latter of which also stars Pacino).
Watch time :57.
I went to this movie expecting a brain off kind of experience. What I got instead was an openly insulting movie (and a very long 96 minutes at that).
Elektra is a movie based (more or less) on a Marvel comic series of the same name. I won't bother boring you with anything silly like plot or character. Mostly becuase they are not to be found in this cinematic opus. Wooden acting, characters and writing that aspires to be one-dimensional, enough backplot for three or four movies and absolutely nothing to engage anyone.
The only thing even vaguely worthwhile in the entire flick is Jennifer Garner. Aside from the eye candy aspects, she does her level best to overcome the dreck she was handed. To be honest, I'm not sure who owed what to whom, but hopefully all the bets have now been paid off.
Watch time :23. And :56. And 1:19.
As I walked into this movie, I was expecting Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon, just without all that pesky romance stuff. That's not quite what I got.
Don't get me wrong; this is first and foremost an action movie. It's not quite all, though. The cinematography on this movie makes the film. There's the usual wire stunts and high flying fighting, but the visuals are just stunning. The story is told in flashbacks, with each flashback being a distinct color (starting with black, then to red, yellow, blue, green, ending in white). Thanks to IMDB's trivia on the movie (warning -- spoilers), I understand the symbology a little better. The distinct color shifts make each segment of the film, propelling the story right along.
The plot of the movie is rather engaging, dealing with one of the formative times in Chinese history. How much the film is based on history, I couldn't tell you (although I'll make the guess of just some bare bones outlines and not much more). I'd say that this is a good matinee movie. Watch time :47.
Tonight, I caught a showing of Collateral. But, before I get into that, I should talk about the theatre itself.
The showing I saw was in the "club section." Tickets ran about 25% more, and they had reserved seating. Not to mention that the seats were larger, with more legroom. I don't know if I would pay the extra amount for the seats in the future, but it was nice this time around (hey, it's my birthday. What the heck).
I had anticipated the movie for awhile; I've enjoyed quite a few of Michael Mann's films before. This one had all the earmarks of a Mann film -- slick, enjoyable to look at, sumptuous production values. The presence of both Tom Cruise and Jamie Foxx I saw as necessary evils.
This flick was not a disappointment in this regard. I suppose my greatest criticism would have been the last half an hour or so. The movie just ran out of steam, meandering without knowing how to end. Prior to that, it was a pretty good ride, so long as you didn't think to hard about it.
Watch time :46.
Today was The Bourne Supremacy. The original flick was a pretty good popcorn thriller, and this one is actually an improvement on the original. Taut, quickly paced, with one of the best car chases I've seen in quite some time (I don't know what manufacturer makes that taxi, but I'll buy three of their cars right now).
Matt Damon plays the main character straight, which was probably the best choice in this situation. Actually, all of the actors play their parts rather well. Tony Gilroy's adapation of the Ludlum novel brings out the disorientation of a muddled memory to the screen with as much clarity as is possible.
I'd highly recommend it. Watch time 1:05
A few years ago, there was this flick called Trekkies. A documentary about the fans of the TV show, it was quite funny and interesting. A sequel is on the way.
I caught Anchorman today at a "matinee" (I say that word in quotes because the price for the "matinee" was $9.50, whereas the regular show would have been $9.75. WTF??). I was hoping for something along the lines of Dodgeball or Old School, but I didn't quite get it.
The movie was decent enough, with a few rather funny moments to tide me over through the mediocre parts. Wil Farrell did a, well, decent job of his part, and Christina Applegate was underused. Steve Carell (a refugee from the Daily Show) completely stole every scene he had, playing the mildly retarded weather man. As far as the rest of the cast goes, there are some great cameos, and a plethora of refugees from SNL.
Watch time :46.
Oh, and the credits. Yes, there are some easter eggs in the credits (including one from Smokey And The Bandit for some reason), but they're not worth staying. Apparently, they had some many outtakes worth keeping that there will be an entire second DVD worth when this movie hits the home market.
Tivo picked up Red Dragon for me overnight. I remember this when it came out and thought it might be interesting -- Edward Norton is one of my favorite actors working these days, and Hopkins is an old pro (period, but this role in particular). I'm glad that I didn't. I'm also glad that I watched it at home, because I could do other things while it was on.
Why am I glad? One very simple reason: Manhunter. The 1986 film, directed by Michael Mann, is superior to Red Dragon in almost every way. The production is less slick (in a good way), the main character (portrayed by William Peterson, best known today from CSI) brooding and effective, the primary villian far more frightening and -- bear with me for the heresy -- Brian Cox's Hannibal Leckter is more chilling. And the difference in last names is not accidental; the spelling for the name was changed between movies.
Hopkins' Lecter is frightening in its perversion of a high class, urbane sophisticate who is also completely sociopathic and amoral. Cox's Lecktor is brilliant, arrogant (in that abrasive way of people who are really smart, expect other people to be just as smart and are sorely disappointed in every one of them that they are not) and completely commands attention even though he is never seen outside of the confines of his cell. Hopkins seems like a professor that was a little out there -- the kind of guy when you hear that he kills and eats people, you'd cock your head and say, I could see that. Not Cox; he'd be a complete shock.
If you happen to go and catch Manhunter (and disagree with me), first -- how dare you disagree with me! (I kid; I kid!) and second, bear in mind that I saw it years before Silence Of The Lambs, so it's the yardstick by which I compared Silence. Silence has a psychological battle between Lector of the Lambs and Jodie Foster's FBI agent and it dominates the movie -- their toe-to-toe gave the film energy and made it compelling to watch. Manhunter is a more straight-ahead crime flick, but the appreciation for both the criminal and cop gets the energy moving.
And, as a complete side note, I don't think that Michael Mann ever really felt that his film got the appreciation it deserved. So, he recycled large swathes of the plot, the characters, the mannerisms -- the whole thing, actually -- into a Miami Vice episode (which Mann was writing at the time).
Now this is some serious free time.
Thanks to Cory for the tip.
Over the long weekend, I joined the hordes of people checking out Spiderman 2. I enjoyed the first one as the summer movie popcorn fest it was, I had heard good things about this flick from quite a few sources, so I had pretty high expectations.
I rather enjoyed this movie. It was a good popcorn summer action flick -- of that, there can be no doubt -- but it also worked as a remarkably faithful adaption of the comic book series. More than just a retelling of the story (an epsiode here or there), this film captured the thematic concept of the Spiderman stories. A kid who doesn't have a charmed life (no invulnerability, no billions of bucks, just a desire to do the right thing) who has to make his way in the world as a real human (job problems, women problems, parent problems) while trying to balance it against what he feels as his calling.
In the sequel, Tobey Maguire gets a chance to actually do some acting, as opposed to just looking sort of stunned and kind of Keanu Reeves like. The best acting of the film is a tie in the same character: Alfred Molina provides a three dimensional, thoughtful villian who's transformation from reasonable scientist to sociopath while remaining the same character is quite remarkable, and the four metal tentacles attached to his body are animated/puppeteered in such a way that they are almost a character to themselves.
Analytical types (and I'm one of them) will have to turn off a good bit of thinking and just suspend disbelief. The laws of physics are contravened so many times that I stopped paying attention to it in fairly short order, and there are some gaping logic holes, like (spoiler warning) if there's one chip that would prevent the robotic arms from taking over the wearer, why leave the chip exposed so that it could get easily damaged? And, for that matter, why were the arms evil? Did someone forget to flip the switch to "good"?
Sam Raimi has set the bar against which all other comic adaptions will be judged (and there are a slew of them coming -- I saw at least four in the previews for this film alone). I'd highly recommend this flick for a big screen showing -- the effects alone are worth the price of admission.
Tonight, I caught Dodgeball. I wasn't expecting much (as I know that some people downright hate the flick sight unseen), but I have to say I was pleasantly surprised. This was one of the funnier films I have seen in quite some time. Lowbrow, sophmoric funny, but I literally laughed hard enough to have a headache.
The nearest comparison that I can draw would be to Airplane. If you didn't like the one joke, don't worry, there will be another any second that you probably will.
Watch time 1:17
This morning, I got a last minute offer to go to a critic's screening of the new Jackie Chan flick, Around The World In 80 Days. I like Jackie Chan movies, so I thought I'd go. Even if it was 9 in the morning.
This is first and foremost a Disney movie. When I say that, think back to the 70's, as Walt pumped out sacchariny stuff like The Swiss Family Robinson, A Thousand Leagues Under The Sea or The Apple Dumpling Gang. Nice enough, you can take your kids to it without even the slightest worry that anything bad will appear on screen, and there'll be the occasional thing thrown in for the adults as well.
With that in mind, the main reason why people go to see a Jackie Chan film (martial arts moves, acrobatics, etc.) is somewhat lacking. There's some action, but it's all very carefully PG rated (leaning heavily towards the G side). No one ever actually gets hurt, nothing bad really happens and it's even more cartoonish than usual. Furthermore, there are no cookies in the credits as there normally are in a Jackie Chan movie, showing all the stunts that didn't go well.
But, it's a pleasant flick. Everything happens right on schedule for the formula to progress as it should, there's not a lot of actual suspense in the movie, but it's still entertaining enough. There are a lot of cameos, though. Enough that I spent a good bit of time trying to place them (I'm not going to say who all they are, but there are enough to entertain you, if that's what you're into.
Watch time :34
Today, I went and caught a showing of the Stepford Wives. I can vaguely remember the original, so the basic plot wasn't going to be a shock. However, I had read that they were going to do the remake as a black comedy, so I was interested in checking it out.
There were some chuckles here and there, mostly (actually almost completely) playing to stereotypes. But I couldn't say that this was a good movie. It didn't go far enough to work as a satire (and there were far too many strawmen to really be able to buy into it), and the comedy was obvious and one dimensional.
Watch time :47
If you want a film review that tells the entire story in about a quarter of an hour, this is for you. Great for a snicker if you've already seen the movie.
Thanks to Solonor for the tip.
Tonight, I went and caught Harry Potter And The Prisoner of Azkaban. Having seen both the first and second installments of the series -- as well as being a fan of the director, I was looking fowards to this movie.
Perhaps I made a mistake in having read the book. Because of that, I was very aware of all the abridging that was occurring. The movie was already a bit on the long side, but adding some minor details (who the originators of the Marauder's Map were and the relationship between Harry's father and Professor Snape, for instance) would have greatly fleshed out the film without taking up too much time.
What was in the story was told in a visually arresting style, but with a journeyman's pacing. Animatronic animals abounded all over the place -- distractingly so. And there was one scene (Harry walks through the halls of Hogwarts at night using a light at the end of his wand to show the way); it was shot in such a manner to almost appear completely computer generated (à la Final Fantasy). I have no reason to think that it did, but it appeared that way when I saw it.
The acting was, okay, with a few exceptions. Gary Oldman was convincing and commanded attention everytime he was on screen. Emma Thompson was a treat, portraying the not-quite-all-there divination professor. And I have quite a bit of sympathy for Micharl Gambon, who had to try and fill Richard Harris' quite large shoes.
All in all, this was a passable summer movie. I think I would have preferred a bit more fidelity to the books, but that's just me. Watch time 1:07.
I got a free pass to catch a critic's screening on this movie, so I decided to go (what the heck, it's free -- well, almost). Based on both the advertisements for this flick and it's predecessor, I wasn't expecting much of anything.
And, I actually got more than what I had bargained for. The graphics and CGI were very well done, producing some arresting visuals. The action scenes were more than up to snuff, and the sardonicism of the humor fit the darkness of the film.
The basic premise of the movie is that an overwhelming evil is plaguing the universe. To fight it, they get a completely amoral criminal to combat the evil. I suppose a take on Bismark's aphorism "The enemey of my enemy is my friend." The plot, while not particularly compelling, was better written than I had expected. There is palace intrigue, dark humor all over the place, an anti-hero acting against his own best interests as well as a prision system seemingly modeled on Escape from New York.
There were some surprises in the casting department as well. Dame Judy Dench plays a supporting role (what bet did she lose to be in this flick?), thereby proving the dictum that a well trained British actor can make even the worst role seem regal. Thandie Newton plays a Lady MacBeth character to Karl Urban's conflicted warrior, while Colm Feore is cast rather against type as the military ruler.
I don't know as to whether or not I would recommend this flick, though. It was a decent Sci-Fi/action popcorn summer film. The effects/visuals will be more striking on the big screen, though.
Watch time :47
The director of the Harry Potter movies has signed on to direct the film version of the play Rent. I'm having trouble envisioning the children friendly version of a story about hip arsty folk dying of AIDS in NYC, but maybe it will work out.
For the life of me, I can't imagine why I voluntarily went to a disaster movie. I was expecting the effects to be top notch, but I cannot right now remember even a single disaster movie that was any good. The Day After Tomorrow keeps the tradition alive and well.
The effects are pretty good, though. The CGI of LA getting wiped out from a brace of tornadoes and NYC going several stories underwater was well done, and believable (at least, as far as the graphics go). The story, however, was completely rote. Yet another entry into this summer's cavalcade of clichés.
Just a word or two on both the politics and the science of this flick. The politics: I would just like to see the size and number of people they had to use to carry the ax. To say the writer/director had a very large ax to grind would not even begin to cover the bases. The US Vice-President in this film bears more than just a passing resemblance to Dick Cheney, and the US President is portrayed as a barely functioning dimwit. Not to mention the specific references to Kyoto and other similar matters. Just a touch on the heavy handed side.
The science. Note to the writer. Just because you include dialog that would seem to be vaguely scientific in nature ("We're pulling down air from the upper troposphere!") doesn't make it actually seem intelligent. It almost seemed as if they were stringing together really big words to seem impressive. "I think we are at a desalinization point that could lead to a cataclysmic climatological alteration in the endoplasmic reticulum!" Bravo.
Watch time -- well, there were two this go 'round. The first one was at about :04 into the flick when the opening stunt caused me to groan. The second time around was :27 or so.
-- Update --
If you want some actual, real science, check out a pro-warming guy and an anti-warming guy. Never let it be said that I don't try to show as many sides of an argument as I can.
-- Update 2 --
The guys from South Park were thinking about making a puppet version of this film at the same time. I think I would have rather seen that.
Thanks to Al for the tip.
Tonight, I took the time to catch the sequel to Shrek. The original flick was good, kind of an anti-fable with dark humor. Accordingly, I had some high expectations for the second go 'round.
I rather liked this movie. Antonio Banderas voices the part of Puss In Boots, and he was easily the best character in the story; anytime he was on screen, I was almost always laughing (particularly with the eyes). The writing took some time to get started, but it coasted along on the same dark rail as the first film, slyly working over the fairy tales with a rather modern sardonicism.
No watch time; I was enjoying the movie so much, I didn't look down.
I have seen what may be a perfect movie. Van Helsing should be shown in film schools as an object lesson; both in what not to ever do and in how to cram as many clichés into a two hour span as possible.
There is nothing good to say about this movie. I knew it was going to be bad when I went into the theatre (I was hoping for at least some good CGI and effects), but I had no idea it was going to be Battlefield Earth kind of bad. Really, you almost have to see this to appreciate the true atrociousness of this cinema piece. Don't, but you know what I mean.
I would honestly expect a movie this bad to be a career killer for some of the people involved. Not Beckingsale, as this is the second bad vampire movie in which she has been involved in a row. But this may be the last we see of Jackman for a while (at least until X-Men 3).
If someone asks you to go and see this movie, they are not your friend. Watch time :24.
I'm sure that many of you have heard about this film; it's getting lots of attention in the press. Some of the media coverage is using this film as a weapon against the corporate culture of the American food economy; others use the film as a jumping off point to talk about personal responsibility.
It was a pretty good documentary, in the Michael Moore "Choose a conclusion and pick evidence to fit it" sort of way. Very entertaining, though. It was amazing to watch this guy's reaction to thirty days of non-stop eating at McDonald's (with a few caveats: he was eating a more or less vegetarian diet both beforehand and afterwards, so changing to all meat and grease would be a shock to the system, and he pretty much ceased all exercise). I know as I was watching the film I started to feel badly about the soda I was drinking. And deciding to eat a salad with some water on the way home.
A good friend of mine came up with his own answer to the obescity problem, melting off about eighty pounds over the last year or so (congrats again, Mikey!). How did he do it? He ate less and exercised more. Imagine that.
Watch time 1:42.
-- Update --
And, in related news, some doctors want McDonald's to install thinner doors. Why, you might ask?
FAST food restaurants should fit narrow doors to stop fatties getting in to eat more junk, medics claim.
Chains like McDonald’s should have size limits just as theme parks have height restrictions on rides, the docs say.
Monty Python's The Life Of Brian will be rereleased to the theatres. Great film, great satire on religion. I'd recommend it to anyone who likes British humor.
By any means necessary. I have seen the trailer for this, um, movie twice now. I can only hope it dies the quick death it so clearly deserves.
Today, I made the mistake of going to see Mean Girls. Written by Tina Fey (who's writing on SNL I really like), I was expecting a well written, well crafted flick with a healthy dose of sardonicism and satire.
What I got was fairly insipid, completely formulaic and predictable teen humor. There were the occasional flashes of cleverness (mostly throwaway lines between the adults in the flick), but otherwise, you could see what was coming a mile away.
On the one hand, it's good to see Tim Meadows working again. On the other hand, I really need to go and see a movie that has at least an IQ over room temperature.
Watch time 1:00.
Today, I had a little free time, so I decided to go and catch Hellboy. I've thought about seeing this movie for some time, as it qualifies as flick with enough visual eye candy to warrant a big screen viewing.
I didn't think all that much about this film. It was pretty standard sci fi action kind of stuff. The visuals were good, but not great. Not too much to really say about it, though. It was just a perfunctory flick.
Watch time :49
Then this site is for you.
When I picked up the Rush DVD, I also grabbed a copy of Sade's Lovers Live DVD. There are more songs on the DVD than there on the CD, so that was one of the reasons why I decided to pick it up.
I've never seen Sade live, so I have no comparison point here. The shows seem to be nice, with nice arrangements and a nice stage show. In fact, "nice" is the most appropriate word that I can really say about the show. It's nice, innocuous and completely cuddly and non-threatening. I think I enjoyed the live CD more when I was envisioning the show rather than actually watching it.
Her backing band was competent and well tuned, supporting her every step of the way. I didn't get much of a feel for any of their abilities, other than their playing their parts well.
I grabbed this DVD for about $10. It's worth that price, but I don't think I would pay all that much more for it.
I recently picked up a copy of the DVD Rush: Chronicles (it was on sale for $9.99). I'm glad that I didn't pay full price for it.
This DVD is a collection of various Rush videos from over the last few decades. The earlier videos are either live shoots (more or less) or studio footage. The latter ones are at best average (from today's perspective), with some being downright embarassing -- Time Stands Still in particular.
As some may have noticed, I usually put a thing called "Watch time" on my reviews. What it indicates is how engrossed I am in the film, the characters, the story, the visuals. The less I'm into the movie, the more I start to wonder how long I've been sitting there.
Yesterday, I took in Eternal Sunshine Of The Spotless Mind. I've been looking forwards to this film for some time, as it was written by Charlie Kaufman. Kaufman also wrote Being John Malkovich and Adaptation; both movies were great and completely from left field. So I had high expectations for this flick.
The good news is that it both met and exceeded those expectations. The writing was spot on, with clever highs and lows. I enjoyed the way that the director showed the action of the movie, as well as some rather interesting camera shots. Jim Carrey and Kate Winslet both did a great job -- which is a good thing, since the two of them dominate the movie and pretty much carry it all the way through.
I would highly recommend this movie to anyone who enjoys offbeat movies. Watch time 1:47.
I had a little free time yesterday, so I decided to catch a flick on a lark. David Mamet's Spartan was playing nearby, and I like some of his previous works (particularly The Spanish Prisoner), so I thought that would be a good one for a little bit of time.
This was not one of Mamet's more typical movies. Usually, he's concerned with con games and misanthropicism (ála House Of Games). While this movie did have the requiste subterfuge and double-crossings, it was more focused on action. I don't want to say too much about it -- the less you know about the plot, the more you'll enjoy the unfolding.
Val Kilmer was the primary star of this flick, with the usual Mamet supporting crew in tow (Ed O'Neill, William Macy and others). Most everyone did a good job with the material -- with Mamet, you either buy into the delivery style of the dialogue, or you don't -- but Kilmer did some of his best acting in quite some time.
Watch time :1.17
I went and caught Mystic River today. Why? Well, because both Sean Penn and Tim Robbins won an Oscar for their work in this film (Best Actor and Best Supporting Actor, respectively). So I was expecting lots of taut drama and high quality acting.
Let me start off by saying that Bill Murray was robbed. Completely and totally. Sean Penn did an okay job -- as did Robbins -- but everything felt so overwrought that I stopped caring. The dramatic conclusions weren't earned by either the actors or the script. The story had some gotcha style moments and some plot twists that held my interest from time to time, but for the most part, I was not moved by it.
Watch time :48.
I caught The Passion Of The Christ today after the A&S performance. Should be a nice little pick-me-up, eh? Not quite.
For starters, I'm not going to comment on the religiosity of the movie. The movie is unapologetically Christian, which is to be expected (and this review will be written from that viewpoint). I had a few things in mind about the film that I wanted to check out for myself -- the supposed anti-semitism of the flick, the extensive violence, the exclusive use of Aramaic and Latin.
First, the anti-Semitism. My impression on the film was that if you harbor even vaguely anti-Semitic thoughts, you'll find credence for them in this movie. Four -- 4! -- Jewish people act out so as to attempt to stop the execution of Christ. Why four? I don't really know, but I counted. After the abuse that Jesus suffers at the hands of the Jewish authorities (biblically undocumented by the way) even before being turned over to the Romans, I was starting to wonder if there would be even one sympathetic Jewish character who wasn't already a follower of Christ (which, I suppose, would make them to be Christians instead of Jewish). The reported beliefs of Gibson (and his father) are not much help for him on this count.
And what abuse was heaped in this film. There were a number of times when I was watching the film that I thought "had this been real, had this been an actual documentary of what happened, Jesus would have died somewhere on the march to Golgotha (if not during the scourging) from blood loss." I know that Gibson was trying to convey just how much suffering Christ was subjected to, but there came several points that seemed to be violence for violence's sake (the raven scene, for example).
As far as the Aramaic and Latin goes, I would hazard a guess that Passion has to be the highest grossing foreign language film in American history.
Would I recommend this film? I don't know. It's become an event, so it's probably worth seeing just to find out for yourself what everyone is talking about. This movie is very clearly not appropriate for any child under, oh, 18 or so (and probably more than a few adults). For me, the most powerful moments in the film were watching the reactions of Mary to the sufferings of Jesus -- much more so than any of the physical aspects of Jesus’ own physical abuse.
-- Update --
Frank Rich of the NY Times responds to some of Gibson's comments. Worth a read to hear some of analysis on both the violence and anti-Semitism of the film.
I caught Starksy & Hutch tonight after rehearsal. I was expecting some mindless fluff and empty distraction -- and that's pretty much exactly what I got. The flick was entertaining enough; don't think too hard about what you're watching, and you'll have a good time.
The acting was, well, average, the script perfunctory. The sets and production values were pretty good, though -- the entire movie is set in the 70's, and everything has that kind of look and feel. The soundtrack, though, was superb. Lots of great memories there (even if most of the high school kids had never heard any of the songs).
The cameo at the end was priceless. Watch time 1:03
As a Christmas gift (yeah, it's a bit past Christmas, but I've been busy), I got a copy of Marcus Miller in Concert. I've seen Marcus play live once or twice, so I had my hopes up for this DVD.
The DVD is a recording made for some German TV show (Ohne Filter Musik Pur) in 1994, and the production values are right in line with a mid-90's TV show. Accordingly, the camera work is sometimes off (one person is soloing and the camera angles switch around until the producer finds the actual soloist), and the sounds is hardly the best musical DVD I've ever heard. The crowd is very laid back, to the point of seeming nearly sedated.
Only six songs are included -- Rampage, Panther, Steveland, Scoop, Tutu and Ju Ju. The total play time of the disc is about 60 minutes. Marcus has his usual supporting cast (Poogie Bell, Michael "Patches" Stewart), but no guitarists. Instead, he uses two keyboard players. This produces a rather synthetic sound. I prefer hearing him with another guitarist; the energy is different and more full of life.
It's enjoyable to watch Marcus play; he's one of the best and it shows. I wish that the quality of the DVD was better. This isn't so much a DVD to take notes to, but something to enjoy from time to time.
I caught the Oscar nominated Triplets of Belleville tonight. It was a, um, very French movie. There were no subtitles (which was not what I expected for a foreign flick), but that wasn't an issue. The story (such as it is) was very easy to follow. Some of the animation was rather well done; in particular, a dog barks at a commuter train. The speed slows down as one commuter makes a connection with the animal.
The best thing about this film was the music. It was the aural equivalent of found art; lots of creating sound through everyday objects (a newspaper, a vacuum cleaner, a fridge). I don't know if could recommend this film, though.
Tonight, I caught an advance screening of Hidalgo. The movie is supposed to be a true story about an American who enters in a three thousand mile race across the Arabian desert in the late 1800s. The film is supposed to be based upon a true story, but I don't know how much is dramatic license and how much is factual. From the blurb:
Based on the autobiography of distance rider Frank T. Hopkins, “Hidalgo” is an epic action-adventure and one man’s journey of personal redemption. Held yearly for centuries, the Ocean of Fire—a 3,000 mile survival race across the Arabian Desert—was a challenge restricted to the finest Arabian horses ever bred, the purest and noblest lines, owned by the greatest royal families. In 1890, an American, Hopkins, and his horse were invited to enter the race for the first time.
For starters, I'm glad that I got to go for free. This was a completely formulaic, paint-by-numbers filck. Nothing was unexpected. Hey, look, it's the quirky comic sidekick. And over there's the required love interest. That must be the bad guy. I'll bet that there's a bonding scene just at the start of the 2nd act. This film could have easily been thirty minutes shorter and no one would have noticed.
I can tell when I'm bored in a film because I start to play the "where-do-I-recognize-that-actor" game (for the record, C. Thomas Howell as the opening race competitor, J. K. Simmons as Buffalo Bill, Omar Sharif as the sheik and Malcolm McDowell as a husband on an ocean liner).
The actual standout actor in this movie was the horse (or, more accurately, group of horses). Far more expressive than anyone else in the film. The horse, I cared about. The humans, not so much. It's not a knock against the actual actors; I just don't think they had all that much to work with.
Watch time :47
I went and caught Something's Got To Give today for a bit of escapist fluff. And that's exactly what it was. It's a cute enough movie, formulaic and unsurprising. Keaton does good work (with the exception of a far too extended crying jag towards the end of the film); I'm not sure if the Academy nominated her because of her work or because she's who she is. Jack, well, he's playing a character that's written to be an awfully lot like Jack Nicholson. Keanu Reeves and Amanda Peet both appear, but they more of took up space and moved the story along than did actual acting. They didn't have much chemistry with either Keaton or Nicholson (respectively).
Watch time: 1:14.
Today, I caught Charlize Theron's new work, Monster. If she doesn't win every Best Actress award she's up for, then check to find out who paid off who. This is easily the best performance of her career.
Theron is completely unrecognizable in this role. If you didn't know it was her, you would have never guessed. She put on 30 pounds for the role, but the makeup people probably deserve an Oscar for their work as well.
Overall, it's is a very well done film. The writing and directing move the story along, painting a rather sympathetic portrait of a very unsympathetic character. The supporting actors and actresses do a fair to middlin' job (to borrow from my mother) -- nothing all that stand out, nothing bad, either. Christina Ricci holds her own, portraying the child that Theron's character allows herself to love.
I would say that this is the very antithesis of a date movie. Much like Boys Don't Cry (another harrowing powerful movie combining sexuality and violence), I walked out of the theatre pledging myself to asexuality for awhile.
One of the DVDs that I got for Christmas (thanks Mom & Dad) featured Victor Wooten and Carter Beauford (of the Dave Matthews Band).
The main focus of the DVD is the studio and creative process in which Carter played drums on two songs (Zenergy and Resolution) on Victor's Yin-Yang album. While it was interesting (having been through a number of studio sessions, seeing the pros do it was an fascinating contrast), it was not the most appealing segment. The conversations that both Wooten and Beauford would have about maintaining groove and feel, musicianship and ways of playing together (instead of just with each other).
The bonus material of the DVD are even better. Beauford talks about most of the songs on the Busted Stuff cd and how he created his part. He talks about his influences, his general approach and how he works with the other members of the band. What's left of the drummer in me really enjoyed his commentary.
Wooten's extras consist mostly of him doing Q&A before Bass Day '01. His answers are quite enlightening. Capping the bonus material is Victor's solo from Bass Day '01. Basically, he plays what would become the Flecktones song Reminiscence (from the Little Worlds album). Part of the way through the tune, he begins to radically detune his bass, resulting in all the strings basically hanging completely slack on the neck. He slaps and works the bass in that condition for a while and then begins to slowly bring the tension back to his strings. AFter a minute or two of working the strings, he pauses for a second, and then picks back up the song, completely in tune.
I saw Wooten do the same feat at the Ram's Head about two or three years ago. That time, he did it to the song "Joe's Journey" (also from the Yin-Yang cd). When he did this live, I was completely blown away. Tuning a bass by ear -- not so impressive. Tuning a bass by ear/feel/I-don't-really-know-how-he-did-it without stopping to actually tune the instrument? Damn impressive.
Happy New Year to everyone; I hope that you had a pleasant evening the night before.
I went to see The Station Agent. I have been wanting to see it for about the last month or so, but just haven't found the time to make it out to a theater. Today, I managed to find the time, though.
It's a good indie flick. A dwarf who inherits a train depot in a small NJ town, he meets some of the local people and discovers that he doesn't dislike the company of people anywhere near as much as he thought he did. There were lots of good moments in this story; the coffee guy who talks continuously to cover up his obvious loneliness, the recently divorced woman who just lost her son and may be viewing the new owner of the depot as a substitute and the librarian who is definitely viewing him as quite the dish.
This is a good movie for those who are into plot, character and acting. Probably a skip if you like things that blow up real good. Watch time 1:03
Well, I just got back from the three hour and forty-five minute (counting commercials and previews) opus known as Return Of The King. All in all, it was a good film. It definitely did not feel over three hours long and was probably the best of the trilogy. Unlike The Two Towers, the pacing of the film is pretty relentless; this is not a character driven actor's workshop.
For starters, there were ten commercials. And when I say commercials, I mean actual advertisements that I have seen a number of times on TV, blown up on the big screen. It's bad enough to get commercials after paying $8.00 for a ticket, but to get grainy, pixelated, recycled crap is even worse. And, judging from the commercials that ran, the studio believes that the target audience for Return of the King is rather obsessed with video games and Playstation.
Another thing I noticed about this showing -- the audience applauded. A lot. I don't understand people doing that at a movie. It's not theater; the actors can't hear anyone clapping. To me, applauding a movie is much like clapping and whistling should you hear a really good guitar riff when you're at home.
The fight scenes (and there are quite a number of them) are simultaneously chaotic and comprehensible. The special effects were spectacular, and the production values absolutely top notch. The acting was.... secondary. The location of New Zealand was not as featured as it was in the other two films (probably to make more room for the story and the combat scenes). I still want rather badly to go to New Zealand, though.
Watch time 2:12
"They played on more #1 records than the Beatles, the Beach Boys, the Rolling Stones and Elvis Presley combined…”
I watched Standing In The Shadows Of Motown tonight at home. I was familiar with the story, but the documentary was rather good. I would recommend it for anyone who appreciates the work that it takes to create good music, or for anyone who's interested in the Motown sound.
These are guys who really worked hard making the distinctive Motown sound and they were some of the truly original and creative geniuses on their instruments. They didn't get the recognition that they deserve, but just about every musician should be able to tell you who James Jamerson, Benny 'Papa Zita' Benjamin, Earl Van Dyke, Joe Hunter, Eddie Willis and Joe Messina are. But particularly Jamerson.
Motown is pretty much about all about the bass line. Jamerson's groove drives everything about the songs. Take "My Girl" for instance. It's instantly recognizable within three notes. Jamerson’s style is highly distinctive and his influence on other bass players is almost incalculable.
One of the more amazing stories is how he played the bass line to Marvin Gaye's "What's Goin' On" lying down on his back because he was afraid that he might fall off of his usual stool. Toss that on top of Jamerson's playing style (everything was done with a single finger), and you have a feat that most bass players couldn't do today on their best day.
Part of the extras on the DVD tell how the author of the source book was originally writing only about Jamerson. But, as he interviewed the musicians with which Jamerson played, the author realized that there was a bigger story here. Jamerson remains the focus of the film.