Because I am pathetically far behind on modern mainstream movies - a tragic confluence of a) hating movie theatres, and b) not having any video rental places within walking distance of my apartment - I finally got around to watching two biggies: John Carter, and The Artist. John Carter: True to many of cinema's greatest financial failures (Heaven's Gate, Ishtar), I quite enjoyed John Carter. The only real misstep in it (besides assuming that people are way, way more familiar with the source material than they actually are) is Carter himself - Taylor whatever-the-fuck hasn't got the chops to pull off the charmingly scurrilous rogue archetype, so he just comes across as a dick for most of it. That's a problem for the supposed hero of the movie. But I loved pretty much everything else about it - the art design is fucking fantastic, the CGI is really great, and Mark Strong gets to Mark Strong his way through another movie. Those books were some of the very first fantasy books I ever read as a kid, so the whole thing was warmly nostalgic for me. Your mileage may vary, of course. The Artist is just fantastic. It's so good at evoking the time period that it almost comes across as fetishistic. I was a big fan of the director's previous OSS series of spy-spoofs, and this has exactly the same manic obsession to detail. The story's pretty good too - it starts off as a cross between Singin' In The Rain and All About Eve, but doesn't quite go where I expected. Anyway, it's a great example of a movie who's very existence is self-selecting for an audience: Are you the kind of person who would be turned on by a (mostly) silent, monochromatic picture shot in 4:3 about the introduction of the talkies? Then you should totally watch this. Here's the weird connective tissue between the two movies: Awesome dog characters. John Carter's got this pet that's a cross between a pug and a rhinoceros that is absolutely the best part of the movie. Whatever team did the animation for that creature clearly had a blast. And in The Artist, the whole movie is stolen by Uggie, a little Jack Russell terrier who gives a more convincing performance than, say, Keanu Reeves ever has in anything. Uggie is such a good dog that he will inevitably make you look at your own dog with mounting disgust.
You are pathetically behind on mainstream movies and decided John Carter was the one to spend your limited time on? Were you trying to convince yourself that you'd missed nothing by not watching mainstream movies? Did enough people even see that film for it to count as mainstream?
I watched John Carter because I loved the stories when I was a kid, and I'm fascinated by the capriciousness of the movie-going public. Going by the numbers, John Carter should have been some massive failure on every level, but it isn't. It's actually a pretty good, pretty fun, pulpy movie. Nothing earth-shattering, but I didn't hate myself for watching it like I did for, say, Avatar.
John Carter's not bad, per se. It's just a little too long and a little too bland. Largely because of the poor lead actor, but also because we've already seen most of the major set pieces in other movies, which ripped them off from Burroughs in the first place. Lynn Collins went a long way to helping my enjoyment of John Carter. A long way.
Watched Samsara last night. Not quite as cohesive as Baraka, but even more pointed in its apparent indictment of industrialization and social stratification. Fricke's cameras, as always, captured some interesting imagery. It reminded me a bit of a masterful jazz performance, actually. Familiar themes explored from alternate angles as a virtuoso improvises on top of a solid, time-tested foundation.
Urrrgh. There's a used bookstore that I often hit on my way to work because they have a pretty good selection of used blurays. So I was excited to find a copy of Kathryn Bigelow's awesome first feature, Near Dark*, still one of my fave vampire flicks and a great overlooked 80s classic. BUT - and here's where I must register my disgust over the internet - they CHANGED THE COVER to look like a fucking Twilight movie. WHAT YOU SEE NEXT YOU CAN NEVER UNSEE: GAH-ROSSSSSSSS. Fuck you, marketing departments. * Or, as I like to think of it, Bill Paxton's Finest Moment.
From that cover you would assume that the guy is a sparkly vampire, the girl is the human in love with him, and the other people are vampire hunters. It's like the marketing people haven't even read the description, much less actually seen the film.
And yet, despite all that, I suspect the new cover accomplished its goal of selling more units of an obscure, underseen horror movie from thirty years ago.
Oh, sure. If that's the price I pay for a nice bluray transfer of Near Dark, then, you know, whatever. It's not like I have to look at the cover while I'm watching the movie or anything. But still. Grooooooooooossssssssss.
Last night: Jules & Jim, Truffaut's French new-wave classic. I'm far from the world's biggest Truffaut fan, but when he's good (The 400 Blows, Day For Night, Jules & Jim) he's pretty damn great. The reason I am continually drawn to the French new wave is the sheer exuberance of film-making on display. The opening half-hour of Jules & Jim is totally manic - a massive exposition dump right at the beginning, whip pans, freeze-frames, newsreel footage, and an excitable camera that seems barely able to control itself. The new wave was so charmingly drunk on the wild, untapped possibilities of movies that it's impossible for any movie nut like myself to not be swept away by it. Also, from my vantage point of being 42 in the year 2012, Jules & Jim is so clearly a movie made by young people. Truffaut was 30 when he made it, and the flush and vigor of youth is apparent in every frame.
Once Upon A Time In Anatolia. I'm willing and ready to call this one a masterpiece. It's a procedural about a murder, where the police are led by the killer through an ancient night to the body. That's going to give you entirely the wrong impression about the film; the plot exists merely as a vehicle for us to study these characters. They're all parts of this small landscape in Anatolia, and they all spend some time in their separate ways wondering about this land and their place within it. Some of them, the night threatens to swallow, and the age of the world weighs heavily upon them. Some are caught up in life's emotions to the point that escape from anything emotional is all on their mind. One is living in a kind of strange pragmatic silence like the stoics of the Westerns it feels indebted to. Throughout the course of the night and the day we see them unwind and develop, their truths becoming evident in subtly glorious performances, particularly that of Yilmaz Erdogan. Their path hinges upon a key sequence in a local village, where they are bequeathed a vision of mundane sorts. In the semi-gloom, lit with a moving lamp, their sleep-deprived states give their minds an edge so that we can see what drives their core in simple expressions. It's an incredible scene, the more so for being shot half in darkness and half in light, something of a theme for the film. It's just one of many sequences that strike at the viewer, both in how they are shot and why. The DP for this has a full mastery of his art, and the director uses this to the full. Every scene is so carefully placed, the lighting clever and the following, the distances and the changes slow but vital to the the unfolding of the drama. The first half of the film, shot at night, feels entirely of the next world. Not this; the film could have ended that night and been an entirely different poem about a separate life. It is long, yes, and it is slow, yes, but I think it needs to be. It's such an exquisite, painterly work of visual beauty and the ragged, tarnished humanity that only cinema seems to really grasp. These is a truly wondrous creation; dare I say that this is another beat of the slow heart of vital cinema. "'Once upon a time in Anatolia, there was a night that began like this.' You can tell it like a fairytale. Isn't that right, Doctor?" Notes; there were some ghastly artefacts (a constant jangling sound) in the 2.0 mix of the soundtrack I had, but the 5.1 was fine, It's also two and a half hours long, which might be too long for many people. Understandably, I hasten to add. It's a very long film, so be prepared. Fully worth it, though.
I watched Indie Game, The Movie, which covers the development of Meatboy and Fez, with a little bit about Braid. It was good at times, but sometimes insufferable, in the end overall good. I knew in advance that Meatboy was a huge success, so it was great to see the one guy who was practically starving and depressed end up with a happy ending. It was a good little movie, and I felt like I learned something, which is always good with documentaries.
I watched Moonrise Kingdom, which was really wonderful for the first half, but lost some steam around when the kids are captured. I also wasn't a fan of the special effects used in the action scenes, such as hanging from the lighthouse at the end, or Edward Norton waving Harvey Keitel from a fireball. Wes Anderson movies have always been stylized, but up until now they haven't looked cheap. I can't decide whether there's some reason for them that I just don't get, or if it's an unfortunate decision based on his Fantastic Mr. Fox experience, but compared to say, the river scene from Darjeeling or the car crash scene in Tenenbaums, they just don't compare. Everything with the kids though, from the moment they meet right to their tryst at the secret cove was absolutely magical. Speaking of The Royal Tenenbaums, reading reviews of Moonrise Kingdom, I was surprised to discover that many critics incorrectly rank Tenenbaums below Rushmore on the Anderson totem pole, some going so far as to say they don't like it.
I just happened to have watched this recently with my wife. Both of us felt that it was strongly reminiscent of the Cuban film Viva Cuba, but inferior in almost every way. Like Moonrise Kingdom, it is about children running away and it similarly has a somewhat fairy tale feel to it. But whereas Moonrise Kingdom simply feels stylized, Viva Cuba has genuine heart. I recommend people to check it out if they liked the Wes Anderson film.
I too would rank Tennenbaums slightly below Rushmore, although Tennenbaums is indeed a great movie. It's a very, very small gradient. Basically, it's one Gwyneth Paltrow below Rushmore.
You are, as sinnick said, incorrect. Rushmore is fine, but Tennenbaums is in a different class entirely.
Tennebaums I find a little too pat at the end. Which, you know, fair enough as he's consciously going for a short-story-in-the-New-Yorker feel. Rushmore is shaggier and wilder; the story shoots off into unexpected places. Tennenbaums has less rougher edges, but kinda like the rough edges. Also: "A Quick One". I should also note that, like Kubrick, my favourite Wes Anderson movie tends to be the last one I saw. I haven't seen Tennebaums for a while.
There are certain movies you can walk in at the middle of and be fine. Babel is not one of those movies.
Went to go see The Rock at the local Alamo Drafthouse theater last night. Complete with in-theater pyrotechnics to sync up with all the explosions on the screen, and it's a Michael Bay film, so we all came out feeling slightly singed. They actually dragged out the old 35mm projector for it, so in between reels they did short intermissions with games like "Chug the VX canister!" (a jar full of what was apparently green jello and pop rocks) and seeing who could deliver the best rendition of both "I'd take pleasure in guttin' you, boy" and "Winners go home and fuck the prom queen!" lines. Perhaps I am a wee bit biased, as it is actually my favorite movie (no sarcasm or exaggeration, it holds up as #1) but that was the most fun I've had in a theater since the live roast of Hackers.
You better rip that cover out to prevent any embarrassing moments where you suggest to friends/family that we watch Near Dark and then you take that case out and put it on the coffee table and everyone is immediately disgusted and disinterested to watch some B-movie Twilight ripoff you bought for $3.99.
"The Rock"'s Quality breakdown: 90%: Hans Zimmer's Score 8%: Ed Harris' performance 1%: Michael Beihn's performance 1%: The rest
Technically, Harry Gregson-Williams (Metal Gear Solid series, the Narnia films, etc) was the lead on the score, but as with anything from the Remote Control studio, Zimmer's influence overshadows everything.
Skyfall - Nice set pieces, boring otherwise. I think Ethan Hunt may be my new favorite spy. The Sitter - Okay, not great. Or all that good. I got that they were going for an Adventures in Babysitting redo, except that AinB was a kid's movie and this was not. Still, who doesn't love Sam Rockwell acting crazy? Total Recall - The new one. I find it kind of funny that a remake of a movie that didn't need a remake is produced by a film company called Original Film. The movie was okay. Scifi actioner with a nonsensical story and too many pointless nods to the original. I'm not sure why in a dark future where the world has been reduced to Australia and Great Britain they made Colin Farrell do an American accent, but what the hell do I know? That's My Boy - How bad do you think this movie could have been? It was worse than that. Much, much worse than that. Salon.com's review of it is titled 'Adam Sandler Hates You' with the tag 'His new movie about a rape survivor and his estranged son is supposed to be funny, but radiates pain and rage'. That just about covers it. Tasteless and unfunny in every possible way. I'm not sure why we kept watching it after the first twenty minutes. Masochism? Man. I hope we end up watching something we like this weekend.
This is why I've been watching more and more TV series and less and less film, the point where you might hit something decent is always so much closer.
You need to watch better movies, then. There's been a hundred years of great movies, and I'd be willing to bet large sums of money you haven't watched every single one of them.
I watched The Girl, which was about Hitchcock's obsession with Tippi Hedren, and I have to say I was a little disappointed. The first half of the movie is great, but then it just turns into a story about a sad old creeper who tried to get into Tippi's pants, and that wasn't that interesting.
We watched Frank and Ollie which was a documentary about two of Disney's nine old men. Probably the most amazing thing was during the "Making of..." dvd extra seeing how much of it was set up and staged. I think some of the interviews were even scripted. The director was Frank's son, and it was made in 1996 on film, and documentaries have changed an awful lot with the coming of digital. Also, since this was Disney produced, they kind of never mentioned Walt's shitty labor practices with his animators, and the strike that was the real reason for the end of the "golden age" of Disney animation. Also no one seems to notice or comment on the lack of women animators . Hey, google just spit up part of the form letter they sent to women seeking training or positions at Disney Animation. I love the internet: Anyway, it was an interesting look at a charming couple of old guys. They knew each other from their early 20's until they died. They lived with each other, then next to each other for their entire adult lives. The each married a wonderful gal, and had their first kids six days apart. When asked if they ever got mad at each other, they think about it for awhile and come up with something that happened back when they were in their 20's. Nothing else occurred to them.
I've caught loads of films recently as I catch up on the cinema (I only get to see them on TV, blame the kids). However, I finally managed to catch up on one I've been meaning to see for about 5 years, Rec. Oh My God. I'm not good with horror in general, but this terrified me. Really really good, but it will fuck up my dreams for about a month. I recommend it highly, but be warned its scary.
I hate it when they ain't been shaved!! Friends and I would drunkenly mock-quote this movie all the time in the late 80s. Until Road House came out and replaced it.
We watched Bernie yesterday and we both really liked it. It's nice every three or fours years to get a reminder that Jack Black can be quite good when a director bothers to get him to rein it in and play the character instead of playing JAAAACK BLAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACK!!!!!! He was good in this, although the real stars are the non-actor townsfolk. The guy that describes different parts of Texas is a treasure.
We had a free preview weekend of all the movie channels, so I filled up the DVR with a handful of random stuff that was on. First was Rise of the Planet of the Apes, which to me followed the Hancock formula. The premise is a bit silly, but they build it with half-interesting characters and reach at least a partially satisfying mid-movie rhythm. Then the whole thing takes a left turn and falls apart into an incoherent mess of plot holes. Excellent special effects, but...yeah. Last night I needed something to fill about an hour and a half so I watched Chronicle. My wife deemed it "kind of weird", and I was silently screaming "TETSUOOOOOOOOOO!" in my head by the end. There were a few points where the mid-tier budget effects were distracting, and some of the performances were a little ham-fisted at times, but overall it was decent enough.
The most frustrating thing about Chronicle was its failure to justify the found footage concept. Or maybe a better way to say it is that the found footage conceit didn't work well with the story they wanted to tell. Too often they had to come up with some contrived excuse to have a camera present, culminating in the ridiculous "thousand camera" climax.
Wrong, that's awesome -- just think about how many teenage girls will see that cover and decide to watch that movie, expecting sparkly vampire romance. Then chuckle quietly to yourself :)
I haven't seen Chronicle but from what you describe it sounds like they should have found some way to shake the found footage gimmick somehow, like District 9 managed to do, and just play it straight from then on.
