My uncle's Netflix account takes us to the family features category, one full of disasters and one providing us with the disaster that is today's movie...
Y'know, funny thing, I was actually reading a little bit about this movie just last week. In particular, I was looking at information about Disney films, and found the career of the guy who directed The Black Cauldron somewhat fascinating. Together with long-time veteran Ted Berman, Richard Rich (no relation to the infamous Harvey Comics character) directed what many consider Disney's absolute worst theatrical animated film, and certainly one of its biggest flops at the box office. I don't think it's all that bad, questionable choices regarding the bustiness of the witches aside, but going off of his IMDB page, its bombing probably cost Rich a job with Disney. The vast, vast majority of his work since then has been direct-to-video short animations based off of various parts of the Bible or the lives of prominent historical figures, but what little work he's done on the film side of things since makes me think he's spent the last 30 or so years trying to prove to Disney that he can do what they do just as well and on his own.
Musicals based off of traditional fairy-tale material worked out? How about The Swan Princess? Wackier, less than family friendly fare gets an adaptation in the late 90s? Here's The King And I, what'd you think of that? Religious stuff coming out of Disney's new big competitor gets success with The Prince of Egypt? I've totally got religious stuff, try Muhammad: The Last Prophet. And sequel after sequel after sequel to any of his ventures that make even the slightest little bit of money at the box office, including four sequels to today's film.
And today's film, for those of you who don't read the URL or the title for some ungodly reason, is Alpha and Omega, or as I like to call it: Richard Rich Desperately Tries To Make Dreamworks Rip-Offs Work For Him After Disney and Dreamworks Copycatting Failed. It is, without a doubt, a pretty awful movie, and this is coming from someone who willingly went to see Open Season when it was in theaters and liked it. In short, it's just another attempt to do a CGI cartoon and ride the wave of Dreamworks' success - or, like I noted up there, the wave of crappy Dreamworks wannabes who think vulgar and pointless is the formula for success. I didn't like it, but as per usual I'm obliged to actually write a review here, so what're you gonna do?
The film's story supposedly concerns two packs of wolves in the Canadian tundra at odds against one another over which pack gets to hunt the caribou herd in their valley, and the tensions that arise when an important member of one pack goes missing just before a wolf marriage type thing that would unite the packs. With tensions rising, it's a race against time before bloodshed begins and the two packs tear each other apart. It's not a terribly original story, but something of interest could come out of normally sociable animals going feral.
Too bad the ACTUAL plot of the movie involves alpha wolf Kate and omega wolf Humphrey enacting out the same no-stakes high-class loves low-class story for the billionth time, except with even less to bring to the tired story than most other iterations. The two of them are the exact same overconfident teenage girl and cock empty-headed teenage boy you get in every story of this type, hauled off to a new park in Idaho to repopulate and get thrust into an epic journey back home. Again, might be interesting stuff, if the two of them had any kind of chemistry or if the journey back was any kind of epic. As it stands, it's bland, boring, and uneventful.
None of the characters really stand out unless they're badly designed, like the golfing goose who pops in to give Kate and Humphrey advice on the way home. If they're not hard to look at, they're all just wolves with grey-black or gold-brown fur - a few characters who I think were meant to look different but all just wind up looking the same. The environments are northwestern forests designed to the barest minimum of functionality, and despite some cursory efforts to throw in an action scene or two, it simply isn't fun or engaging to look at. I am by no means an expert on animation or visual design, but if I don't want to look at it for the whole length of the film, or even just a fraction of the length, then it's a failure.
Beyond the twin failures of the story and look of the film, the choices made for the comedy also fall flat. It's all butt and thinly-veiled sex jokes. I wish I was joking here, but I'm not. There's a few jokes about the goose's nationality, and beyond that it's all either "howling together is totally like sex," or butt jokes. It's incredibly odd coming from a film produced by a man who directed a whole plethora of watered-down, family-friendly Bible stories. You'd expect even the tiniest bit of less than pure humor to be beyond his reach, and yet... "Shove his tail up his butt." "I'm gonna pretend mosquitos bit my butt so I can shove dirt in this guy's face." "Get your butt out of my face." "Oh no, I'm about to ram into a caribou's butt." "There's one moon I don't want to howl at." All butt jokes, none of them funny, none of them inventive, just... butts.
It's weird. I don't subscribe to the notion that Shrek's success with off-color comedy and a less than serious story absolutely ruined animation - I think some of the best stuff the medium has ever seen, indeed, the best mainstream stuff, has come out SINCE Shrek - but at the same time, the films that achieve mainstream success that aren't good films seem to have gotten worse. Maybe it's because when you try to copy the low-brow without understanding what makes it work, you really don't have anywhere to go but down, but the sort of crap most non-Disney and Dreamworks studios try to pass as kids films because kids supposedly aren't as discerning just feels crappier than ever. I'm certain there were bad animated kids films before Shrek, and I'm all but certain a fair deal of them were worse than shit like Alpha and Omega due to the general lack of respect animation was afforded after the failure of Fantasia. Yet some part of me just can't help but feel like we're in an era with both the best of the best and the worst of the worst.
Blegh. Sorry. I'm talking out of line again. My area of study is supposed to be the cognitive-behavioral aspect of human psychology and how to treat mental problems and everyday issues using an understanding of said aspects, not the history of animation and family entertainment. I watch and read the work of people who have a lot more meaningful stuff to say about these things - my job here is just to say if a movie I picked at random is any good or not.
And Alpha and Omega isn't good. It's not blatantly or deliberately offensive (even the constant butt jokes have more an air of someone laughing at a naughty word than an attempt to shock or offend), but that's about the best I can say for it. It introduces its main character to me by having him bobsledding down a rocky mountain in a log, mess up, get launched out, and bump into his love interest for a midair dead eyed loving stare. There aren't any attempts to make me care about him, or think he's someone I should laugh at, or look at him as a cypher for other, more interesting characters. He, along with every other character and event in the movie, fails to interest me, and looks ugly and unappealing while doing so to boot.
I wish I could end this review by saying the movie at least doesn't waste any potentially interesting new ideas - the two tribes with mounting tensions plot might have been interesting, but it's definitely been done before - yet even on that merit the film fails. For some of its howling as sex scenes, it plays around with the notion of wolves howling as a means of conveying music. The only time I can think of this being explored before is in Twilight Princess, and here the filmmakers had an opportunity to work with the concept beyond just rehashing old Zelda tunes as howls. But nope, it's just somewhat melodic howling set to what I was tempted to call a pop song I don't know before finding out the film has an entirely original score. Yet another potentially interesting idea completely squandered.
Alpha and Omega is outright bad, and yet somehow it has four direct-to-video sequels, with three more on the way. I can't understand for the life of me who keeps shelling out enough money for these things. I'm tempted to say furries based on the sheer length of the TV Tropes pages on these films, but I'd like to think the furry community has more integrity than that. Whoever keeps buying these and showing them to their children, I just don't understand you. I might not have the life experience to fully GET what trying to raise a child can be like, but I understand it's wearying and really, really hard. That's no excuse for not exposing your child to better material. Even the Scooby-Doo film that came out the same year would be better than this.
(Assorted thoughts:
- The film ends with a dedication to to Dennis Hopper, who died shortly after completing his voice work, and I can't help but feel it's more a slap in the face than an honorable dedication.
- Near as I can tell, the biggest thing the guy who voiced Humphrey did aside from this was the Mac in Apples I'm A Mac And I'm A PC commercials. Doesn't really say a lot of great things about career trajectory.
- What kind of name is Humphrey for a wolf anyways?
- The film has no less than four logsledding sequences, and they all use what looks like the exact same camera-work for the first-person shots.
- There was also a subplot about the other pack's young male alpha and Kate's best friend falling in love, but I don't give a shit about it, so this is all the mention it gets.)
School's starting this week, so don't be surprised if updates get a little hazier as I try to work out a schedule and find some steady work.
Monday, August 31, 2015
Friday, August 28, 2015
Repo! The Genetic Opera - Fifty-two songs is a bit excessive, don't you think?
Due to moving conditions and general laziness preventing me from rolling a film this week, I took a friend's suggestion for a film on Netflix, which I'd been putting off for months.
So guess who slept through part of Thursday and spent most of the day either lazing about watching his uncle's movies or shopping for stuff for university? And guess who spent most of Friday moving into his dorm and taking care of financial situations. If you guessed Gilbert, then you'd be right, although I am slightly concerned about how you managed to guess in such an exact manner. Since I'm a lazy bastard, I've decided that rather than squeeze in a film once I'm all moved in and frantically try to type out a review late at night, I'll just watch a movie a friend recommended to me and squeeze out a review late at night anyways. It's not a perfect system, but it's what we're rolling with.
Besides, I've been meaning to set up a reader recommendation thing if this blog ever got popular enough to have readers aside from my dad and Adept, so consider this the first one of those.
Anyways, the film Foehammer's been pushing me towards seeing for months on end now was Repo! The Genetic Opera, a recent cult film about organ harvesting intrigue set to the sort of music Meat Loaf rejects from Jim Steinman for being too over the top. It's designed as an incredibly stylized, gory film, and carries the air of wanting to pass itself as SOMETHING YOU'VE NVER SEEN BEFORE, unintentional misspelling included. Seeing as I don't exactly indulge in splatterhouse musicals too terribly often, I can't really tell you if it succeeds in doing so, but I can at least tell you if I enjoyed the result or not. So let's do that and see if I did.
The set-up involves a world completely consumed by the twin plagues of an organ failure epidemic and the inability to stop singing for two minutes. Although the second curse has no cure, a company known as GeneCo offers up organ transplants for the whole world, making it not only necessary, but trendy and fashionable to get a new heart or face. Of course, this all goes upsides down and backwards when GeneCo pushes for laws allowing organ repossession from supposed deadbeats who couldn't pay for their surgery. Now, with half the populace terrorized by the slasher villain-like Repo Men and the other half addicted to a painkiller extracted from corpses, GeneCo's top exec must figure out how to make the system run after he's gone.
All of this is told in a sliding comic book panel style, which is interesting enough, but doesn't show up often enough for my tastes. The film's aesthetic puts me in mind of Sin City, with a few sets that certainly look completely digital and deliberately designed after comic art, so a few more pop-ups throughout the film couldn't have hurt. As it stands, the panel style only shows up to open and close the movie, and provide a few flashbacks regarding the same story from three perspectives early on in the film. I'd have preferred they work as transition shots, but what are you gonna do?
Anyways, the actual plot of the film revolves around Shilo Wallace, a girl locked away in her room by her father Nathan (played by Anthony Stewart Head, in a surprise appearance that I only parsed after about fifteen minutes of him being onscreen - I'm used to him doing a British accent for Buffy). Nathan has locked Shilo up due to a rare incurable blood disease that took her mother, and to prevent her from discovering his real work as a Repo Man. However, as is wont to happen with teenage girls in fiction, Shilo wants more out of life, and sneaks out at night, resulting in her stumbling upon a conspiracy involving her favorite GeneCo pop star, pain killer addiction on the streets, and a dark secret in her family's past.
You'll notice I took the time to set up both the backstory and the actual story this time around. I did so because I feel it's a bit necessary to emphasize how complicated the movie's story FEELS while watching it. There's a huge amount of information you need to parse in order to follow the story and understand character motivations (a whole bunch of stuff regarding a three way, sexually charged sibling rivalry, and a Greek choir-like gravedigger are some of the things you'll need to pay attention to), and until the last twenty minutes, I had some trouble untangling it all beyond the most basic thread. And by the end, with that understanding, I didn't feel there was anything deeper to the story. It's a narrative presented as is, with no deeper themes or challenges or anything to be ABOUT. Some people might not mind, especially since it's a horror-comedy musical, but I spent all that time trying to understand the story, so I might as well be rewarded for it.
However, a fair deal of my confusion may have come from the musical nature of the movie. I am perfectly aware this is a somewhat popular cult film, and that what I'm about to say may be contentious for some, but the songs don't really do anything for me. They're perfectly fine, presumedly well-composed songs, and I liked listening to them in the movie (nothing ever struck me as obnoxious or bad), but they sort of clutter up the film a bit. According to Wikipedia, there are 54 distinct songs in this movie; even if some of them are only a few seconds long, that's a LOT of songs for one picture. One song tends to start before another ends, and the rapid changes in tone and tempo between them make following things somewhat difficult for me. Compounding the issue is a tendency towards incomprehensible lyrics, and a straight-up lack of anything memorable. I like Seventeen and the gravedigger's song at the beginning, but in general the only songs I remember anything from are the ones where people move into a screaming, metal growl.
(This said, I do remember getting really into some of the songs while watching, even if I don't remember how they go or even which ones they were now, so give that to the movie. For whatever it's worth.)
Although the songs muddle the story up a bit for me, I do enjoy the characters. All the actors turn in perfectly good performances (Paris Hilton may have won the Razzie for her turn as one of the GeneCo heirs, but "vain and image obsessed" is what you expect out of her), and as someone who likes music but has no training in it, I can't identify any bad singing in the movie. Hell, some of the vocal performances I'd go so far as to call great in places. Additionally, they're all drawn out clearly enough in their roles and visual designs that it's easy to tell who is who and what they want out of life. How they relate to one another is another thing entirely, but on their own, each character works as a functioning unit. Special shout-out to Stewart Head for making both his fatherly facade and tormented grinning madman play equally well, and Terrance Zdunich for making the grave robber the right sort of creepy - and also for having an interesting last name.
Really, the film's look is what I like best about it. It's all fluorescents and neons and black lights with a dark gothic take on the future, and like I said there's some comic book art influence running through it. I don't want to say it makes the world look dreamlike or surreal, because the whole thing feels a little too... I'm inclined to say "grounded," but it's not the right term. More like if a bunch of punk-goths decided to stage an opera in their local hang-out. Like a stage play is the phrase I'm looking for. Maybe.
I also enjoyed the costume design. As I noted, the look of each character helps define who they are and make them easily identifiable, but even the background characters had good costumes created for them. Nothing really memorable comes to mind (a recurring problem with this film, it seems) but while watching it they offer up a sense that this is a world completely obsessed with fashion. Not just clothing or make-up, mind, but body modification and the latest trendy designer organs. They add a little bit of believability to the backstory and make the world easier to get drawn into.
Overall, though, I just don't find the film terribly memorable. There ARE plenty of elements I enjoyed, but once the film ended, I could only recall little bits and pieces of it. Although enjoyability is an important aspect of any piece of media, I'd say memorable moments or beats or plot points are essential to any work actually STAYING with you. Repo! The Genetic Opera doesn't have those. When the credits finished, I didn't remember much beyond what I've reported here, and felt no desire to watch it again. That is, I'd argue, a huge blow against it for me.
However, it DOES make for quite an experience. I'd be loath to say I HATED the first reader recommendation for the blog, and I'd also be a liar if I said so. Repo! is certainly an interesting film, and I can see where the cult status comes from, but I don't dislike it. If anything, it simply doesn't do anything for me. It's worth checking out if the phrase "horror-musical splatter comedy" appeals to you, but I wouldn't expect to have it stick with you for too long afterwards. If you wind up liking it, though, I'd recommend giving it another go-around. I've already started giving some of the songs a relisten, and I'm slowly coming around on the film.
Maybe I'll give it another look someday.
(Assorted thoughts:
- "DADDY'S GIRL'S A FUCKING MONSTER" and "It's my job... to steal, and rob.... GRAAAAAAAAAAAAVES!" are the two lines that stuck in my head, for the record.
- I just remembered the line "Tell me why oh why are my genetics such a bitch," and how it instantly put me to thinking of Shilo as Liquid Snake for a fair portion of the movie.
- Although I didn't remember any songs while writing up this review, I'm still gonna look up the soundtrack on YouTube and probably have some of the stuff I liked on rotation over the weekend.
- Joan Jett makes a cameo. I think it's a neat one.
- The sibling with a face stretched over his face isn't too creepy during the live-action stuff, but the panel he gets at the end looks incredibly disturbing to me, and I don't know why.
- Any time the film makes good on the splatter part of its genre, it basically turns into Bye Body Part: The Movie. Bye eyes. Bye face. Bye spine. Etc.
- Some of the moments in the movie make it seem like everyone is actually singing all their lines and everyone around them is perfectly aware of that fact. Especially a moment early on where the grave robber screams out one of his lines and alerts the authorities to his presence.
- Of some interest - Anthony Stewart Head singing Sweet Transvestite. You're welcome.)
I'm really sorry this review got out so late. Although I joked in the set-up about working on it late, I didn't really have any intention of ACTUALLY pushing it out with only two hours left in the day. Either way, it's here, and I'm at my college now, so yay for both those things. Now to try and get some ACTUAL work to support myself and not die, hopefully.
So guess who slept through part of Thursday and spent most of the day either lazing about watching his uncle's movies or shopping for stuff for university? And guess who spent most of Friday moving into his dorm and taking care of financial situations. If you guessed Gilbert, then you'd be right, although I am slightly concerned about how you managed to guess in such an exact manner. Since I'm a lazy bastard, I've decided that rather than squeeze in a film once I'm all moved in and frantically try to type out a review late at night, I'll just watch a movie a friend recommended to me and squeeze out a review late at night anyways. It's not a perfect system, but it's what we're rolling with.
Besides, I've been meaning to set up a reader recommendation thing if this blog ever got popular enough to have readers aside from my dad and Adept, so consider this the first one of those.
Anyways, the film Foehammer's been pushing me towards seeing for months on end now was Repo! The Genetic Opera, a recent cult film about organ harvesting intrigue set to the sort of music Meat Loaf rejects from Jim Steinman for being too over the top. It's designed as an incredibly stylized, gory film, and carries the air of wanting to pass itself as SOMETHING YOU'VE NVER SEEN BEFORE, unintentional misspelling included. Seeing as I don't exactly indulge in splatterhouse musicals too terribly often, I can't really tell you if it succeeds in doing so, but I can at least tell you if I enjoyed the result or not. So let's do that and see if I did.
The set-up involves a world completely consumed by the twin plagues of an organ failure epidemic and the inability to stop singing for two minutes. Although the second curse has no cure, a company known as GeneCo offers up organ transplants for the whole world, making it not only necessary, but trendy and fashionable to get a new heart or face. Of course, this all goes upsides down and backwards when GeneCo pushes for laws allowing organ repossession from supposed deadbeats who couldn't pay for their surgery. Now, with half the populace terrorized by the slasher villain-like Repo Men and the other half addicted to a painkiller extracted from corpses, GeneCo's top exec must figure out how to make the system run after he's gone.
All of this is told in a sliding comic book panel style, which is interesting enough, but doesn't show up often enough for my tastes. The film's aesthetic puts me in mind of Sin City, with a few sets that certainly look completely digital and deliberately designed after comic art, so a few more pop-ups throughout the film couldn't have hurt. As it stands, the panel style only shows up to open and close the movie, and provide a few flashbacks regarding the same story from three perspectives early on in the film. I'd have preferred they work as transition shots, but what are you gonna do?
Anyways, the actual plot of the film revolves around Shilo Wallace, a girl locked away in her room by her father Nathan (played by Anthony Stewart Head, in a surprise appearance that I only parsed after about fifteen minutes of him being onscreen - I'm used to him doing a British accent for Buffy). Nathan has locked Shilo up due to a rare incurable blood disease that took her mother, and to prevent her from discovering his real work as a Repo Man. However, as is wont to happen with teenage girls in fiction, Shilo wants more out of life, and sneaks out at night, resulting in her stumbling upon a conspiracy involving her favorite GeneCo pop star, pain killer addiction on the streets, and a dark secret in her family's past.
You'll notice I took the time to set up both the backstory and the actual story this time around. I did so because I feel it's a bit necessary to emphasize how complicated the movie's story FEELS while watching it. There's a huge amount of information you need to parse in order to follow the story and understand character motivations (a whole bunch of stuff regarding a three way, sexually charged sibling rivalry, and a Greek choir-like gravedigger are some of the things you'll need to pay attention to), and until the last twenty minutes, I had some trouble untangling it all beyond the most basic thread. And by the end, with that understanding, I didn't feel there was anything deeper to the story. It's a narrative presented as is, with no deeper themes or challenges or anything to be ABOUT. Some people might not mind, especially since it's a horror-comedy musical, but I spent all that time trying to understand the story, so I might as well be rewarded for it.
However, a fair deal of my confusion may have come from the musical nature of the movie. I am perfectly aware this is a somewhat popular cult film, and that what I'm about to say may be contentious for some, but the songs don't really do anything for me. They're perfectly fine, presumedly well-composed songs, and I liked listening to them in the movie (nothing ever struck me as obnoxious or bad), but they sort of clutter up the film a bit. According to Wikipedia, there are 54 distinct songs in this movie; even if some of them are only a few seconds long, that's a LOT of songs for one picture. One song tends to start before another ends, and the rapid changes in tone and tempo between them make following things somewhat difficult for me. Compounding the issue is a tendency towards incomprehensible lyrics, and a straight-up lack of anything memorable. I like Seventeen and the gravedigger's song at the beginning, but in general the only songs I remember anything from are the ones where people move into a screaming, metal growl.
(This said, I do remember getting really into some of the songs while watching, even if I don't remember how they go or even which ones they were now, so give that to the movie. For whatever it's worth.)
Although the songs muddle the story up a bit for me, I do enjoy the characters. All the actors turn in perfectly good performances (Paris Hilton may have won the Razzie for her turn as one of the GeneCo heirs, but "vain and image obsessed" is what you expect out of her), and as someone who likes music but has no training in it, I can't identify any bad singing in the movie. Hell, some of the vocal performances I'd go so far as to call great in places. Additionally, they're all drawn out clearly enough in their roles and visual designs that it's easy to tell who is who and what they want out of life. How they relate to one another is another thing entirely, but on their own, each character works as a functioning unit. Special shout-out to Stewart Head for making both his fatherly facade and tormented grinning madman play equally well, and Terrance Zdunich for making the grave robber the right sort of creepy - and also for having an interesting last name.
Really, the film's look is what I like best about it. It's all fluorescents and neons and black lights with a dark gothic take on the future, and like I said there's some comic book art influence running through it. I don't want to say it makes the world look dreamlike or surreal, because the whole thing feels a little too... I'm inclined to say "grounded," but it's not the right term. More like if a bunch of punk-goths decided to stage an opera in their local hang-out. Like a stage play is the phrase I'm looking for. Maybe.
I also enjoyed the costume design. As I noted, the look of each character helps define who they are and make them easily identifiable, but even the background characters had good costumes created for them. Nothing really memorable comes to mind (a recurring problem with this film, it seems) but while watching it they offer up a sense that this is a world completely obsessed with fashion. Not just clothing or make-up, mind, but body modification and the latest trendy designer organs. They add a little bit of believability to the backstory and make the world easier to get drawn into.
Overall, though, I just don't find the film terribly memorable. There ARE plenty of elements I enjoyed, but once the film ended, I could only recall little bits and pieces of it. Although enjoyability is an important aspect of any piece of media, I'd say memorable moments or beats or plot points are essential to any work actually STAYING with you. Repo! The Genetic Opera doesn't have those. When the credits finished, I didn't remember much beyond what I've reported here, and felt no desire to watch it again. That is, I'd argue, a huge blow against it for me.
However, it DOES make for quite an experience. I'd be loath to say I HATED the first reader recommendation for the blog, and I'd also be a liar if I said so. Repo! is certainly an interesting film, and I can see where the cult status comes from, but I don't dislike it. If anything, it simply doesn't do anything for me. It's worth checking out if the phrase "horror-musical splatter comedy" appeals to you, but I wouldn't expect to have it stick with you for too long afterwards. If you wind up liking it, though, I'd recommend giving it another go-around. I've already started giving some of the songs a relisten, and I'm slowly coming around on the film.
Maybe I'll give it another look someday.
(Assorted thoughts:
- "DADDY'S GIRL'S A FUCKING MONSTER" and "It's my job... to steal, and rob.... GRAAAAAAAAAAAAVES!" are the two lines that stuck in my head, for the record.
- I just remembered the line "Tell me why oh why are my genetics such a bitch," and how it instantly put me to thinking of Shilo as Liquid Snake for a fair portion of the movie.
- Although I didn't remember any songs while writing up this review, I'm still gonna look up the soundtrack on YouTube and probably have some of the stuff I liked on rotation over the weekend.
- Joan Jett makes a cameo. I think it's a neat one.
- The sibling with a face stretched over his face isn't too creepy during the live-action stuff, but the panel he gets at the end looks incredibly disturbing to me, and I don't know why.
- Any time the film makes good on the splatter part of its genre, it basically turns into Bye Body Part: The Movie. Bye eyes. Bye face. Bye spine. Etc.
- Some of the moments in the movie make it seem like everyone is actually singing all their lines and everyone around them is perfectly aware of that fact. Especially a moment early on where the grave robber screams out one of his lines and alerts the authorities to his presence.
- Of some interest - Anthony Stewart Head singing Sweet Transvestite. You're welcome.)
I'm really sorry this review got out so late. Although I joked in the set-up about working on it late, I didn't really have any intention of ACTUALLY pushing it out with only two hours left in the day. Either way, it's here, and I'm at my college now, so yay for both those things. Now to try and get some ACTUAL work to support myself and not die, hopefully.
Wednesday, August 26, 2015
Tucker and Dale vs. Evil - I'd be evil too if my name was Chad.
Random.org bestows on us my dad's Netflix account, which brings us to goofy comedies, which gives us today's feature...
No offense to my dad - really, no offense, especially since I know for a fact he reads every post I make on this blog when I link to them on Facebook - but he watches a lot of crackpot stuff on Netflix. Not because he believes in any of it, mind you. The reason he always gives is watching so he can argue properly with the crazies should he ever come across them personally. Me, I don't follow the train of logic; most of the time you're not going to encounter the crazies, and when you do they're just straight-up not worth arguing on. Not to mention the repetitiveness of it all. You've seen one guy explain why his Chewbacca roar is really a Bigfoot cry, you've seen all five million.
He needs stuff to listen to while doing work at home, though, so I'm not gonna fault him for it. I just don't hold with what he puts on.
Anyways, the reason I bring all this up is because while rolling through the options for today, I saw an awful lot of movies I'd REALLY prefer not to watch for today. I'm not sure how I'd review a documentary on Chatsworth or Best Evidence: Top 10 UFO Sightings, beyond just rolling my head on the keyboard to equal the amount of eloquence you'd get from a movie like that. But, fortunately, the random number god brought me to Goofy Comedies, and graciously let me sidestep such schlock as Scary Movie Five and Bebe's Kids and gave me something at least interesting looking to watch: Tucker and Dale vs. Evil. Also known as AskReddit's favorite quote-unquote "underrated" movie to recommend right behind Moon (1994).
Boy oh boy did they undersell it. I largely mean in that every time reddit says something is underrated, I assume what they really mean is either something to the effect of "not underrated at all" or "the most horrific piece of shit you ever did see." But either way, based off of reddit's constant parroting of this movie's name without giving any context whatsoever to why it's good, I wasn't expecting the film to ACTUALLY be good, much less get me right into it straight off the bat.
The film's basic plot concerns the usual "hillbillies killing sex-obsessed college kids" formula as seen in movies like Deliverance (look at me, name dropping all over the place today) turned on its head. The hillbillies, stern but well-meaning Tucker and dim but good-hearted Dale, are just a pair of innocent young men looking to fix up their new vacation home and go fishing while just so happening to be born and raised hicks. By contrast, the group of largely nameless college kids, led by Chad and Allison, are paranoid, distrusting of anyone different, and easily prodded towards violence - especially Chad, who's constantly itching to go hillbilly hunting. When a series of misunderstandings lead to Tucker and Dale taking Allison to their shack to tend to her wounds, things quickly escalate into multiple violent deaths and constantly increasing tensions between the two sides.
Naturally, of course, this is all played for laughs. It's a horror-comedy film, and it plays the deaths for all they're worth. The comedy requires a bit of familiarity with standard horror movie tropes and cliches, but if you've seen even one "crazed backwoods maniac slaughters teens in the woods" movie, you'll basically have the idea downpat. The sheer ridiculousness of the group's sudden leaps to conclusions and Tucker and Dale's complete obliviousness to what's going on around them are great on their own, but when you have people start jumping into wood chippers and getting nail boards straight through the skull, the bloody comedy's just fantastic. I was chuckling throughout the whole runtime.
Of course, a movie that just repeats the same joke over and over without variation is gonna get old fast, so Tucker and Dale have much needed personalities and good human interactions. The relationship between the two of them is nice enough - they movie never makes them out as anything but hardworking, thick-headed good ol' boys who care about each other, never stooping to the obvious "looks like a hick but is really cultured" joke - but what I really like is Dale's relationship with Allison. Although he's not cultured or smart, Dale has brain problems that make him really good at remembering things and horrible at socializing and reasoning. Allison, being a psychology student, eventually comes to empathize with him and treat him like a real person who needs help. It's just really sweet watching the two of them warm up to each other and interact, and it leads to some scenes I'd say come close to being genuinely heartwarming.
(Course, as a bonus, it's nice seeing the psychology major represented as a level-headed, reasonable person whose methods only don't work because of the extremity and oddness of the situation, as opposed to just being straight-up crackpot.)
On the other end of the spectrum, I think Chad makes for a great bad guy. And no, I don't think I'm spoiling anything by saying that - it's pretty damn obvious from his first prominent scene, wherein he tries to force himself on Allison that he's not exactly a good guy. He's gung-ho to turn survival of the fittest from the very second Tucker and Dale strike him as even a mild threat, and his obsession with hillbilly murder just grows and grows and grows. By the end of the film, he's just as much of a monster as Jason, creating a psycho axe-murderer from the same cloth said axe-murderers typically chop through to get at the young adult flesh underneath. Jesse Moss plays a through and through bastard here, and I love every second of it.
From there, I can't think of much else to say about the movie without getting into spoiler territory. There's not exactly much plot TO spoil, but there are some great bits I'd rather avoid talking about because they're too good to not leave fresh. Plus there's the matter of me just not having too many other points to talk about. The film has a good message about not judging other people for how they look and advocating listening to one another through Allison's psychology talk, and beyond that, it's simply a really good, really funny film with some great laughs, great kills, and a really nice emotional center to latch onto.
Out of all the films I've officially reviewed for the blog, I'd say it's the best so far. It's on both Netflix and Amazon Instant, so give it a try sometime!
(Assorted thoughts:
- There's one scene early on where Tucker and Dale get stopped on the way to their campsite, and by a way of a poorly spilled beer and easily caught zipper, the police officer thinks Dale's sucking Tucker off. I suppose it's a means of setting up the idea of misunderstandings later in the film, but it feels a little out of place and incongruous to me.
- Thank fucking god the dog lives. I AM gonna spoil that cause it fucking sucks when the dog dies in movies. But he makes it out OK in this one. So there.
- I know I was implying earlier that Reddit always exaggerates, but after watching the movie I looked up the trailer for this film because they said it spoils everything and... well... it kinda does spoil almost every major joke and plot point in the movie. In chronological order. So maybe give the trailer a miss.
- The quip game is strong in this movie. I'm talking Joss Whedon before he decided every line needs to be a quip strong.)
Anyways, mini-review here! The night before watching Tucker and Dale, I saw another really, REALLY good movie on Netflix. An animated film out of Ireland called The Secret of Kells. It's a take on the story of how the Book of Kells (one of Ireland's oldest and most valued national treasures) was created, and it's designed to look like an old pre-perspective tapestry. The characters are all really well designed, each with their own unique look and pose (I especially love the abbot's long, towering stoop), and the colors in the film are just... look at them. There are a whole slew of strong emotional moments, and it gets really heavy towards the finish before having one of the most relieving and beautiful endings I've ever seen in an animated film.
So yeah, as a second recommendation for the day, go give Secret of Kells a look. I personally promise that you're gonna love the hell out of it.
No offense to my dad - really, no offense, especially since I know for a fact he reads every post I make on this blog when I link to them on Facebook - but he watches a lot of crackpot stuff on Netflix. Not because he believes in any of it, mind you. The reason he always gives is watching so he can argue properly with the crazies should he ever come across them personally. Me, I don't follow the train of logic; most of the time you're not going to encounter the crazies, and when you do they're just straight-up not worth arguing on. Not to mention the repetitiveness of it all. You've seen one guy explain why his Chewbacca roar is really a Bigfoot cry, you've seen all five million.
He needs stuff to listen to while doing work at home, though, so I'm not gonna fault him for it. I just don't hold with what he puts on.
Anyways, the reason I bring all this up is because while rolling through the options for today, I saw an awful lot of movies I'd REALLY prefer not to watch for today. I'm not sure how I'd review a documentary on Chatsworth or Best Evidence: Top 10 UFO Sightings, beyond just rolling my head on the keyboard to equal the amount of eloquence you'd get from a movie like that. But, fortunately, the random number god brought me to Goofy Comedies, and graciously let me sidestep such schlock as Scary Movie Five and Bebe's Kids and gave me something at least interesting looking to watch: Tucker and Dale vs. Evil. Also known as AskReddit's favorite quote-unquote "underrated" movie to recommend right behind Moon (1994).
Boy oh boy did they undersell it. I largely mean in that every time reddit says something is underrated, I assume what they really mean is either something to the effect of "not underrated at all" or "the most horrific piece of shit you ever did see." But either way, based off of reddit's constant parroting of this movie's name without giving any context whatsoever to why it's good, I wasn't expecting the film to ACTUALLY be good, much less get me right into it straight off the bat.
The film's basic plot concerns the usual "hillbillies killing sex-obsessed college kids" formula as seen in movies like Deliverance (look at me, name dropping all over the place today) turned on its head. The hillbillies, stern but well-meaning Tucker and dim but good-hearted Dale, are just a pair of innocent young men looking to fix up their new vacation home and go fishing while just so happening to be born and raised hicks. By contrast, the group of largely nameless college kids, led by Chad and Allison, are paranoid, distrusting of anyone different, and easily prodded towards violence - especially Chad, who's constantly itching to go hillbilly hunting. When a series of misunderstandings lead to Tucker and Dale taking Allison to their shack to tend to her wounds, things quickly escalate into multiple violent deaths and constantly increasing tensions between the two sides.
Naturally, of course, this is all played for laughs. It's a horror-comedy film, and it plays the deaths for all they're worth. The comedy requires a bit of familiarity with standard horror movie tropes and cliches, but if you've seen even one "crazed backwoods maniac slaughters teens in the woods" movie, you'll basically have the idea downpat. The sheer ridiculousness of the group's sudden leaps to conclusions and Tucker and Dale's complete obliviousness to what's going on around them are great on their own, but when you have people start jumping into wood chippers and getting nail boards straight through the skull, the bloody comedy's just fantastic. I was chuckling throughout the whole runtime.
Of course, a movie that just repeats the same joke over and over without variation is gonna get old fast, so Tucker and Dale have much needed personalities and good human interactions. The relationship between the two of them is nice enough - they movie never makes them out as anything but hardworking, thick-headed good ol' boys who care about each other, never stooping to the obvious "looks like a hick but is really cultured" joke - but what I really like is Dale's relationship with Allison. Although he's not cultured or smart, Dale has brain problems that make him really good at remembering things and horrible at socializing and reasoning. Allison, being a psychology student, eventually comes to empathize with him and treat him like a real person who needs help. It's just really sweet watching the two of them warm up to each other and interact, and it leads to some scenes I'd say come close to being genuinely heartwarming.
(Course, as a bonus, it's nice seeing the psychology major represented as a level-headed, reasonable person whose methods only don't work because of the extremity and oddness of the situation, as opposed to just being straight-up crackpot.)
On the other end of the spectrum, I think Chad makes for a great bad guy. And no, I don't think I'm spoiling anything by saying that - it's pretty damn obvious from his first prominent scene, wherein he tries to force himself on Allison that he's not exactly a good guy. He's gung-ho to turn survival of the fittest from the very second Tucker and Dale strike him as even a mild threat, and his obsession with hillbilly murder just grows and grows and grows. By the end of the film, he's just as much of a monster as Jason, creating a psycho axe-murderer from the same cloth said axe-murderers typically chop through to get at the young adult flesh underneath. Jesse Moss plays a through and through bastard here, and I love every second of it.
From there, I can't think of much else to say about the movie without getting into spoiler territory. There's not exactly much plot TO spoil, but there are some great bits I'd rather avoid talking about because they're too good to not leave fresh. Plus there's the matter of me just not having too many other points to talk about. The film has a good message about not judging other people for how they look and advocating listening to one another through Allison's psychology talk, and beyond that, it's simply a really good, really funny film with some great laughs, great kills, and a really nice emotional center to latch onto.
Out of all the films I've officially reviewed for the blog, I'd say it's the best so far. It's on both Netflix and Amazon Instant, so give it a try sometime!
(Assorted thoughts:
- There's one scene early on where Tucker and Dale get stopped on the way to their campsite, and by a way of a poorly spilled beer and easily caught zipper, the police officer thinks Dale's sucking Tucker off. I suppose it's a means of setting up the idea of misunderstandings later in the film, but it feels a little out of place and incongruous to me.
- Thank fucking god the dog lives. I AM gonna spoil that cause it fucking sucks when the dog dies in movies. But he makes it out OK in this one. So there.
- I know I was implying earlier that Reddit always exaggerates, but after watching the movie I looked up the trailer for this film because they said it spoils everything and... well... it kinda does spoil almost every major joke and plot point in the movie. In chronological order. So maybe give the trailer a miss.
- The quip game is strong in this movie. I'm talking Joss Whedon before he decided every line needs to be a quip strong.)
Anyways, mini-review here! The night before watching Tucker and Dale, I saw another really, REALLY good movie on Netflix. An animated film out of Ireland called The Secret of Kells. It's a take on the story of how the Book of Kells (one of Ireland's oldest and most valued national treasures) was created, and it's designed to look like an old pre-perspective tapestry. The characters are all really well designed, each with their own unique look and pose (I especially love the abbot's long, towering stoop), and the colors in the film are just... look at them. There are a whole slew of strong emotional moments, and it gets really heavy towards the finish before having one of the most relieving and beautiful endings I've ever seen in an animated film.
So yeah, as a second recommendation for the day, go give Secret of Kells a look. I personally promise that you're gonna love the hell out of it.
Monday, August 24, 2015
Transformers 4: Age of Extinction - Insert witty joke about careers going extinct here.
We rolled Netflix, which gave us action & adventure and led us into today's... film...
Blegh. I'm really not a huge fan of giving out negative reviews. I think there's a place for them, but in my experience reading criticism online, the trend is usually towards just dishing it out for negativity's sake, or to appease a certain audience. Out and out saying a movie is bad and lacks any redeeming features strikes me as a really poor way to go about this, but... well... consider the film we're watching here.
The whole notion that modern films are nothing but giant explosions and mindless action and tits thrown in for fanservice is patently ridiculous. Even the vast majority of action films at least make some attempt at a coherent plot and show a modicum of restraint. But Michael Bay's Transformers films are, although I really hate to say this, representative of everything I find distasteful about modern film. Constant, never-ending action, characters with no development or relatable traits, camerawork that's hard to follow, backgrounds your eyes just can't process, a plot that feels like it's going in ten different directions and ultimately goes nowhere... Age of Extinction is just a bad movie.
I wouldn't call it the WORST movie I've ever seen, per say - until Death Bed: The Bed That Eats and Serenity stop existing, I'm hesitant to hand out that particular title to anything. If it weren't for the ability to pause and make fun of the dumber parts to my chat friends for as long as I like before resuming, I don't know if I'd've made it through the whole film. It's not as offensive as 2 was, but when that's the highest praise I can offer, it's not saying much. Give the damned thing a miss.
...
...still, I am ostensibly running a blog with the aim of roughly 2000 words on each film, so I might as well give it a shot. I watched it all the way through and complained about it enough to friends during the runtime. I can spare a few words for the blog.
The plot, insofar as it stands, involves the Transformers being on the run after some huge catastrophe from the last movie (which I haven't watched, for the record) turned public opinion against them. The US military has sworn off all associations with the Autobots, but what I think is some rogue branch or a PMC or something has started working with the Deceptacons to kill off the Autobots and make them look like the bad guys, with the help of a new Transformer named Lockdown. Meanwhile, Mark "My Character's Name Isn't Important Because You'll Just Be Calling Me Mark Wahlberg" Wahlberg's work as a down on his luck mechanic with a needlessly sexualized teenage daughter to take care of results in him discovering Optimus Prime in hiding. He tries to befriend Prime, but it takes an attack by the militaryPMCwhatever unit to gain his trust and also pick up a boyfriend for the daughter, who constantly oscillates in and out of the Irish accent he's supposed to have because we really learned our lesson about making fun of minorities but not really. Along the way, they uncover a plan by a Steve Jobs come lately character who plans to use mined Transformium to create rip-off Transformers and also My Little Pony plushies and Beats headphones. However, he's also created an Optimus Prime rip-off that turns out to be Megatron, and Lockdown plans on stealing the Transformium and also Optimus so he can get his hands on a nuke that will coat the entire world in Transformium and turn everybody into living metal just like the dinosaurs who come up at the beginning except they never show up again but an entire different group of Dinobots show up and...
I don't know how any of this relates to one another. It's generally possible follow each of the plot lines pretty well. They're simple enough to understand. But in trying to actually follow how everything actually relates to one another and, more importantly, why I should care about any of it, I've got nothing. Everything is just stretched thinner and thinner and thinner throughout the movie's runtime, to the point where I just gave up by the very end. I completely neglected to mention all of the stuff about the ancient conspiracy about the origins of the Transformers, and several characters who I feel like I should know but Wikipedia tells me are completely new to the movie.
Put another way - I kept up with all the twists and turns in Metal Gear Solid 2 just fine, and swallowed every hour-long dialogue in 4, but I simply could not keep pace with this movie.
The effort might at least be worth it if the action was good, but it's really not. There's one or two little bits I like, such as the new longcoat Trasnformer (Crosshairs, I think) using dragshoots to fight Deceptacon dogs (?) in midair, or Hound's one-robot stand against the Deceptacons towards the end, but anyone who knows anything about these movies should know what the problem is by now. Supposedly high-stakes, high-excitement scenes get brought down to no-stakes and no-excitement by a lack of attachment to the characters and a focus more on huge shots where everything in the world blows up at once and convoluted situations abound. Everything's just so fucking loud and noisy, in both an audio AND a visual sense, so I can barely follow or get invested even when I want to.
Honestly, some of the set-pieces feel like parodies of what you'd expect in a decent Transformers film. Like a bit where the human characters get to do all sorts of cool car stunts while just out of frame we see two Transformers going at each other's throats. But no time for that, we've gotta use a randomly placed ramp in an abandoned building to jump down onto another perfectly placed ramp at the bottom. Or how about the bit where Mark "Be Like Me If You Want To Have A Hot Daughter" Wahlberg has crashed a hijacked Deceptacon ship into someone's car, threatens to kill the guy for demanding an insurance statement, then takes a chug of Bud Lite and asks his daughter for his gun. Could go with Optimus Prime talking about how he's all about freedom and liberty while beating several new recruits into the ground and peppering his speech with threats to kill them if they won't work with him.
Or, if we really want to go with my favorite incongruous moment, we could talk about a death early in the film. The one where Mark "I Have Many Silly Nicknames Bestowed Upon Me In Quotation Marks In the Place Where My Middle Name Should Go" Wahlberg's overweight comedy sidekick business partner - who, up to this point, had done nothing but crack wise even as his home and all his possessions were destroyed in an attempt by the military to murder him - falls behind as the rest of the group runs away, resulting in him getting hit by a Transformium minibomb that completely disintegrates everything but his now metal skeleton. They linger on this man's still-standing corpse for such a goddamn long time, acting all shocked and solemn over the fact that HEY A MAIN CHARACTER JUST DIED... despite the fact that we knew NOTHING about him. Then the scene's over and we've gotta get back to "I'm only here to fuck your daughter" quips.
If I had to characterize the movie, and possibly the whole franchise, it would be with that scene. Inaprorpiate light-heartedness during incomprehensible action scenes, followed by a really out of place moment (like a serious character death or a robot pissing on someone) before getting right back to status quo without any acknowledgement beyond the hope for an audience's laughter. Business as usual isn't any fun to hang around with, what with all its Dutch angles and jokes made out of product placement, and it's just straight-up awkward to sit through the sudden shifts.
I wish I could at least say the special effects look good, but unfortunately, they don't. The Transformers' transformation scenes still look serviceable, and I'm sure they're still technical marvels, but they still look ugly and don't read well at all, especially with their new more human faces. When they're in "real" sets, the only way to distinguish them is by color pallet, and in all CGI environments, they all just fade into one slightly clunky design. And, as a special point I really feel deserves particular mention; Galvatron's transformation sequence looks like ass.
Seriously, I do not know how a movie with so much money poured into it as a Transformers film got away with an effect like that. Instead of the usual complex but followable transformations akin to the ones in the cartoons and toys, he and any Transformers like him just turn into a cloud of CG cubes, fly through the air, and then reform into their alternate shape. They're not even GOOD CG cubes, because they don't look like they're made out of a truck or a robot, they just straight up look like CG cubes. I wasn't even IN the movie for any of its running time, and somehow they still managed to yank me straight out.
Just... ugh, it's a really bad movie. Again, not the worst I've ever seen, but certainly boring and lifeless, and that's bad enough on its own. I'm sure someone could make a GOOD Transformers movie - maybe one exploring Optimus' struggles as his friends and people are cut down by the very species they're trying to protect, with the temptation to give into his diametric opposite's ideology growing ever stronger (as opposed to the usual "OPTIMUS ANGRY" schtick) - but it seems almost impossible at this point. Normally, I do everything I can to respect others' choices in the media they consume, but with Age of Extinction and all the other films in the series, I just have to wonder why they choose to do this to themselves.
I'm gonna stop here before the relentless negativity gets to me, and just write down my assorted thoughts.
(Assorted thoughts:
-It's really weird that, out of all the franchises getting cinematic universes nowadays, Paramount hasn't tried to make one out of Transformers. They've got so many characters that, if the TF wiki is believed, could easily carry their own film, but they're still sticking to the old formula of announcing one sequel after the last one succeeds and leaving it at that. Maybe they'd have to show some restraint if they didn't pour so much money into every installment.
-Lockdown had a gun for a face, so that's kinda cool, I guess.
- "It's the MOVIES nowadays that's a problem. Sequels and remakes, all that crap." You don't get to make that joke.
- Apparently this was a soft reboot of the franchise, but aside from the absence of a certain actual cannibal, I didn't notice.
- Obama HOPE posters, but with Optimus Prime and HATE. They're only on screen for a second, but it's the definition of trying too hard.
- Why does Mark Wahlberg's robot dog make Transformers transformation sound effects, but not the Transformers themselves?
- On the matter of needlessly dark subject matter, I'm sure the best way to engender a positive audience response is by having the first Transformer you show be a fan favorite, and then brutally slaughtering him.
- I apparently called Mark Wahlberg's character Yaegherberg at one point. I don't know why I thought it was funny or worth noting here.
- "What kind of man trades his flesh and blood brethren for metal?" "The trouble with loyalty to a cause is the cause always betrays you." "I do not know if we will meet again, but every time you look to the stars, think of one of them as my soul." "I know you have a conscience because you're an inventor like me." There were a lot of meaningless meaningful quotes in this movie, weren't there?
- Do you think Galvatron constantly looking like Megatron has something to do with you keeping Megatron's head in the room, Mister Inventor Guy?
- Maybe it would have helped if they'd stuck to their "OUR TRANSFORMERS ARE BETTER IN EVERY WAY" mission statement and called him Optimal Prime instead of Galvatron.
- No "Me, Grimlock" = Bad choice. I barely know anything about Transformers, and even I know that.
-Basically I spent the entirety of the running time wanting to watch George Clooney use a jackhammer to rapidly stake vampires again. From Dusk Till Dawn, 10/10, highly recommend, watch that instead.)
Although I was complaining all throughout the post, I do find now all the complaining helped. I haven't had the best day the last few days, so getting to bash on an out and out shitty movie helped a little. Still, I'm heading up to university in a few days, so here's to hoping I get a good movie for Wednesday and Friday.
Blegh. I'm really not a huge fan of giving out negative reviews. I think there's a place for them, but in my experience reading criticism online, the trend is usually towards just dishing it out for negativity's sake, or to appease a certain audience. Out and out saying a movie is bad and lacks any redeeming features strikes me as a really poor way to go about this, but... well... consider the film we're watching here.
The whole notion that modern films are nothing but giant explosions and mindless action and tits thrown in for fanservice is patently ridiculous. Even the vast majority of action films at least make some attempt at a coherent plot and show a modicum of restraint. But Michael Bay's Transformers films are, although I really hate to say this, representative of everything I find distasteful about modern film. Constant, never-ending action, characters with no development or relatable traits, camerawork that's hard to follow, backgrounds your eyes just can't process, a plot that feels like it's going in ten different directions and ultimately goes nowhere... Age of Extinction is just a bad movie.
I wouldn't call it the WORST movie I've ever seen, per say - until Death Bed: The Bed That Eats and Serenity stop existing, I'm hesitant to hand out that particular title to anything. If it weren't for the ability to pause and make fun of the dumber parts to my chat friends for as long as I like before resuming, I don't know if I'd've made it through the whole film. It's not as offensive as 2 was, but when that's the highest praise I can offer, it's not saying much. Give the damned thing a miss.
...
...still, I am ostensibly running a blog with the aim of roughly 2000 words on each film, so I might as well give it a shot. I watched it all the way through and complained about it enough to friends during the runtime. I can spare a few words for the blog.
The plot, insofar as it stands, involves the Transformers being on the run after some huge catastrophe from the last movie (which I haven't watched, for the record) turned public opinion against them. The US military has sworn off all associations with the Autobots, but what I think is some rogue branch or a PMC or something has started working with the Deceptacons to kill off the Autobots and make them look like the bad guys, with the help of a new Transformer named Lockdown. Meanwhile, Mark "My Character's Name Isn't Important Because You'll Just Be Calling Me Mark Wahlberg" Wahlberg's work as a down on his luck mechanic with a needlessly sexualized teenage daughter to take care of results in him discovering Optimus Prime in hiding. He tries to befriend Prime, but it takes an attack by the militaryPMCwhatever unit to gain his trust and also pick up a boyfriend for the daughter, who constantly oscillates in and out of the Irish accent he's supposed to have because we really learned our lesson about making fun of minorities but not really. Along the way, they uncover a plan by a Steve Jobs come lately character who plans to use mined Transformium to create rip-off Transformers and also My Little Pony plushies and Beats headphones. However, he's also created an Optimus Prime rip-off that turns out to be Megatron, and Lockdown plans on stealing the Transformium and also Optimus so he can get his hands on a nuke that will coat the entire world in Transformium and turn everybody into living metal just like the dinosaurs who come up at the beginning except they never show up again but an entire different group of Dinobots show up and...
I don't know how any of this relates to one another. It's generally possible follow each of the plot lines pretty well. They're simple enough to understand. But in trying to actually follow how everything actually relates to one another and, more importantly, why I should care about any of it, I've got nothing. Everything is just stretched thinner and thinner and thinner throughout the movie's runtime, to the point where I just gave up by the very end. I completely neglected to mention all of the stuff about the ancient conspiracy about the origins of the Transformers, and several characters who I feel like I should know but Wikipedia tells me are completely new to the movie.
Put another way - I kept up with all the twists and turns in Metal Gear Solid 2 just fine, and swallowed every hour-long dialogue in 4, but I simply could not keep pace with this movie.
The effort might at least be worth it if the action was good, but it's really not. There's one or two little bits I like, such as the new longcoat Trasnformer (Crosshairs, I think) using dragshoots to fight Deceptacon dogs (?) in midair, or Hound's one-robot stand against the Deceptacons towards the end, but anyone who knows anything about these movies should know what the problem is by now. Supposedly high-stakes, high-excitement scenes get brought down to no-stakes and no-excitement by a lack of attachment to the characters and a focus more on huge shots where everything in the world blows up at once and convoluted situations abound. Everything's just so fucking loud and noisy, in both an audio AND a visual sense, so I can barely follow or get invested even when I want to.
Honestly, some of the set-pieces feel like parodies of what you'd expect in a decent Transformers film. Like a bit where the human characters get to do all sorts of cool car stunts while just out of frame we see two Transformers going at each other's throats. But no time for that, we've gotta use a randomly placed ramp in an abandoned building to jump down onto another perfectly placed ramp at the bottom. Or how about the bit where Mark "Be Like Me If You Want To Have A Hot Daughter" Wahlberg has crashed a hijacked Deceptacon ship into someone's car, threatens to kill the guy for demanding an insurance statement, then takes a chug of Bud Lite and asks his daughter for his gun. Could go with Optimus Prime talking about how he's all about freedom and liberty while beating several new recruits into the ground and peppering his speech with threats to kill them if they won't work with him.
Or, if we really want to go with my favorite incongruous moment, we could talk about a death early in the film. The one where Mark "I Have Many Silly Nicknames Bestowed Upon Me In Quotation Marks In the Place Where My Middle Name Should Go" Wahlberg's overweight comedy sidekick business partner - who, up to this point, had done nothing but crack wise even as his home and all his possessions were destroyed in an attempt by the military to murder him - falls behind as the rest of the group runs away, resulting in him getting hit by a Transformium minibomb that completely disintegrates everything but his now metal skeleton. They linger on this man's still-standing corpse for such a goddamn long time, acting all shocked and solemn over the fact that HEY A MAIN CHARACTER JUST DIED... despite the fact that we knew NOTHING about him. Then the scene's over and we've gotta get back to "I'm only here to fuck your daughter" quips.
If I had to characterize the movie, and possibly the whole franchise, it would be with that scene. Inaprorpiate light-heartedness during incomprehensible action scenes, followed by a really out of place moment (like a serious character death or a robot pissing on someone) before getting right back to status quo without any acknowledgement beyond the hope for an audience's laughter. Business as usual isn't any fun to hang around with, what with all its Dutch angles and jokes made out of product placement, and it's just straight-up awkward to sit through the sudden shifts.
I wish I could at least say the special effects look good, but unfortunately, they don't. The Transformers' transformation scenes still look serviceable, and I'm sure they're still technical marvels, but they still look ugly and don't read well at all, especially with their new more human faces. When they're in "real" sets, the only way to distinguish them is by color pallet, and in all CGI environments, they all just fade into one slightly clunky design. And, as a special point I really feel deserves particular mention; Galvatron's transformation sequence looks like ass.
Seriously, I do not know how a movie with so much money poured into it as a Transformers film got away with an effect like that. Instead of the usual complex but followable transformations akin to the ones in the cartoons and toys, he and any Transformers like him just turn into a cloud of CG cubes, fly through the air, and then reform into their alternate shape. They're not even GOOD CG cubes, because they don't look like they're made out of a truck or a robot, they just straight up look like CG cubes. I wasn't even IN the movie for any of its running time, and somehow they still managed to yank me straight out.
Just... ugh, it's a really bad movie. Again, not the worst I've ever seen, but certainly boring and lifeless, and that's bad enough on its own. I'm sure someone could make a GOOD Transformers movie - maybe one exploring Optimus' struggles as his friends and people are cut down by the very species they're trying to protect, with the temptation to give into his diametric opposite's ideology growing ever stronger (as opposed to the usual "OPTIMUS ANGRY" schtick) - but it seems almost impossible at this point. Normally, I do everything I can to respect others' choices in the media they consume, but with Age of Extinction and all the other films in the series, I just have to wonder why they choose to do this to themselves.
I'm gonna stop here before the relentless negativity gets to me, and just write down my assorted thoughts.
(Assorted thoughts:
-It's really weird that, out of all the franchises getting cinematic universes nowadays, Paramount hasn't tried to make one out of Transformers. They've got so many characters that, if the TF wiki is believed, could easily carry their own film, but they're still sticking to the old formula of announcing one sequel after the last one succeeds and leaving it at that. Maybe they'd have to show some restraint if they didn't pour so much money into every installment.
-Lockdown had a gun for a face, so that's kinda cool, I guess.
- "It's the MOVIES nowadays that's a problem. Sequels and remakes, all that crap." You don't get to make that joke.
- Apparently this was a soft reboot of the franchise, but aside from the absence of a certain actual cannibal, I didn't notice.
- Obama HOPE posters, but with Optimus Prime and HATE. They're only on screen for a second, but it's the definition of trying too hard.
- Why does Mark Wahlberg's robot dog make Transformers transformation sound effects, but not the Transformers themselves?
- On the matter of needlessly dark subject matter, I'm sure the best way to engender a positive audience response is by having the first Transformer you show be a fan favorite, and then brutally slaughtering him.
- I apparently called Mark Wahlberg's character Yaegherberg at one point. I don't know why I thought it was funny or worth noting here.
- "What kind of man trades his flesh and blood brethren for metal?" "The trouble with loyalty to a cause is the cause always betrays you." "I do not know if we will meet again, but every time you look to the stars, think of one of them as my soul." "I know you have a conscience because you're an inventor like me." There were a lot of meaningless meaningful quotes in this movie, weren't there?
- Do you think Galvatron constantly looking like Megatron has something to do with you keeping Megatron's head in the room, Mister Inventor Guy?
- Maybe it would have helped if they'd stuck to their "OUR TRANSFORMERS ARE BETTER IN EVERY WAY" mission statement and called him Optimal Prime instead of Galvatron.
- No "Me, Grimlock" = Bad choice. I barely know anything about Transformers, and even I know that.
-Basically I spent the entirety of the running time wanting to watch George Clooney use a jackhammer to rapidly stake vampires again. From Dusk Till Dawn, 10/10, highly recommend, watch that instead.)
Although I was complaining all throughout the post, I do find now all the complaining helped. I haven't had the best day the last few days, so getting to bash on an out and out shitty movie helped a little. Still, I'm heading up to university in a few days, so here's to hoping I get a good movie for Wednesday and Friday.
Friday, August 21, 2015
Another Woman - Maybe I should have watched Annie Hall first.
We go from Hulu to new releases to recent movies to our pick for the day, which doesn't fit the category, but...
T'be perfectly honest, Hulu isn't the best streaming service for movies. It's certainly great for catching up on recent TV shows, and depending on what they have at the time, I'd say their backlog of shows is better than Netflix's. But they don't have the sheer variety of popular and big name movies you can buy or rent or stream for free on Amazon, or the lesser known but still solid films as Netflix. They've certainly got a lot of movies, but beyond their entries from the Criterion Collection, Hulu's selection is mostly comprised of low-budget, low-effort schlock films that nobody's likely to have ever seen, and even less likely to have enjoyed.
And really, their sorting system is a little weird. I'm not entirely certain how today's film, Another Woman wound up under "recent movies". Maybe it had a rerelease on DVD in the last few years and they decided to stick it there, or maybe whatever algorithm they use to sort all their films just messed up and stuck it there. Either way, I don't really think a 1988 Woody Allen production belongs under the category. I was expecting to hit a cheerleader zombie movie, not a slow drama film about a midlife crisis.
That's really going to be a sticking point with this review. Another Woman is an older movie, aimed at an older audience, with radically different tastes in their dramas than me. I was able to make it through The Cider House Rules because it played by rules I'm more familiar with (constantly advancing story structure, actors I know from other sources, a few more bombastic scenes to break up the understated acting), but this was a difficult one for me. It's a very slow, sort of nebulous film where the events do tie together, but more with their relation to the character than in any kind of traditional structure. I suspect it is a good film, but only if these kind of movies are to your taste, and only if you're already familiar with the works of Woody Allen.
I'm just at a loss of things to say that wouldn't make me out as being disingenuous towards the film. I don't want to say if it's good or bad or even just mediocre - it's just sort've not to my tastes. Still, I watched it, and I feel some obligation to give it a summary and something of a review, so just stick with me while I do my best to give my opinion.
Marion Post has recently started work on a new novel in a private office in upstate New York, and is reasonably happy with her lot in life and the choices she's made. This quickly changes, however, when she discovers she can hear patients in the psychiatrist's office next door through the wall, particularly one woman named Hope, who is suicidally depressed. Her confessions cause Marion to start reevaluating her own life as a series of reunions, divorces, and generally unpleasant conflicts occur amongst her friends and family. As the story progresses, so too does Marion's realization that she's lived a cold, emotionless life, and may not have time to change her course.
The way I worded the last sentence there makes this sound like an incredibly dark movie, but it's more laid-back than you'd expect. That might not be the right term, but it's the best I've been able to think of. Characters have strong emotional reactions to old spouses showing up at a gathering and causing a scene, or being confronted about their regrettable love lives, but for the most part Marion and her peers take it all in stride. These are mature adults in their forties and fifties who have their own lives to manage - they'll bend when necessary so they don't wind up breaking at the wrong time. It's a more mature means of dealing with conflict than I usually see in fiction, and for a while it is nice to watch.
But there is that - "for a while." Another Woman lost me around the halfway point when it became clear it wasn't following a traditional narrative pattern where one event leads naturally into another. Incidents take place, Marion reflects on her life and listens to Hope, on to the next scene. She's the driving force of the film, and most of the events focused on are chosen for their ability to break her down and force her to confront her life. This is, of course, a perfectly valid and legitimate means of telling a story, and insofar as I'm able to tell, it's done rather well. Someone who connects to Marion and empathize with her struggles might get a fair deal of insight out of the film on how to deal with their own challenges and crises.
Unfortunately, I don't empathize with Marion. Not because I don't care about her or her struggles or those in real life who must bear what she bears; rather, I don't empathize because her character, much like the movie's tone and pace, are rather alien to me. Much as the actual film's slower pace and character focused narrative aren't elements I have much experience with, so too are Marion's ordeals and philosophical struggles unfamiliar. The movie feels like it's aimed at an audience who is much more familiar with her midlife regrets and are more likely to nod along and conclude that yes, they HAVE had similar struggles in their life, and it's so very nice to see them put on the big screen. A demographic less personally familiar with those trials and tribulations doesn't seem to be in consideration. Fair enough. Folks deserve to experience stories they can relate to at all points in life, and growing old is no excuse to stop having content produced for you.
It's just not for me.
Blegh. I feel like I'm being too negative here and outing myself as a know-nothing. This is two films now where I've complained about slower pacing and understated acting and called them bad qualities for a movie to work with. The film more than likely does work on its own merits, I'm just not qualified to judge it by those. I'm too young to properly appreciate this film, is all.
Maybe I should just focus on a few things I did enjoy before wrapping up and keeping this one short. No point in constantly digging myself into a hole if I can openly admit I'm digging myself into a hole, after all. The acting was fairly good - I liked several of the characters, and found it easy to believe their struggles. It's always nice to see familiar faces, and Ian Holm did a fairly good turn as Marion's husband. Some of the dream sequences were also nice to watch, and gave the film a good injection of intrigue during the latter half where it started to lose me. And...
...well, that's about it. Again, I'm not the right person to be writing this review. The movie by and large washed over me and didn't leave much of a mark, and it's nobody's fault but my own. The only complaint I can think to raise against is how the ending never shows Marion working to better her life. She's largely broken down, starts to make peace with people in her life, and the film ends on a resolve to do better. It goes against my tastes, but again, it's just that - my tastes. I prefer to see a character built up again after being broken down, and while it's a reasonable direction to take a story (especially if the overall goal is just to examine their psychology during the break), it's not one I like. Not a legitimate complaint, just a matter of taste.
Another Woman is probably a good movie, but also one I more than likely should have worked my way towards watching. If I'd given some of Woody Allen's previous, more critically acclaimed films a watch first, maybe I would've had some appreciation for his style of direction and storytelling and been better equipped to tackle this. As it stands, I jumped straight in, found myself wanting, and have nobody to blame but myself. Give it a look if the ramblings above sound appealing to you, even though I just can't recommend it based on my experience watching.
(Assorted thoughts:
- OK, one thing that DID stand out to me was a bit in the second half where Marion walks into the psychiatrist's office and stands there in the doorway listening to Hope talk about her problems for a while before the doctor dismisses her. The doctor then proceeds to ask Marion what SHE thinks is wrong with Hope, and openly divulges that she's suicidal and might be a lost cause. He takes his next patient, who happens to be Marion's father. Her father hobbles on past her, sits down, and starts talking about all his regrets in life without acknowledging anyone else is even there. The next scene is part of a dream sequence, but the way the movie leads into the bit with the psychiatrist certainly makes it SEEM like it's supposed to be reality, and, well...
- DO YOU EVEN KNOW WHAT PATIENT CONFIDENTIALITY IS, YOU FUCKING QUACK?
- Sorry, that's the psychology major talking, not the armature movie reviewer. But still.
-Gene Hackman was apparently in this and I didn't even notice him.
-I don't know much about Woody Allen, but from what I do know, conversations about having sex on the floor are completely expected out of his films.)
Quick update here, some shit came up in Elena's life and she just wasn't able to get to a review this week. Not sure if she'll be updating next week or anything, but I do know she's still interested in contributing, so just keep following and I'll keep you posted.
T'be perfectly honest, Hulu isn't the best streaming service for movies. It's certainly great for catching up on recent TV shows, and depending on what they have at the time, I'd say their backlog of shows is better than Netflix's. But they don't have the sheer variety of popular and big name movies you can buy or rent or stream for free on Amazon, or the lesser known but still solid films as Netflix. They've certainly got a lot of movies, but beyond their entries from the Criterion Collection, Hulu's selection is mostly comprised of low-budget, low-effort schlock films that nobody's likely to have ever seen, and even less likely to have enjoyed.
And really, their sorting system is a little weird. I'm not entirely certain how today's film, Another Woman wound up under "recent movies". Maybe it had a rerelease on DVD in the last few years and they decided to stick it there, or maybe whatever algorithm they use to sort all their films just messed up and stuck it there. Either way, I don't really think a 1988 Woody Allen production belongs under the category. I was expecting to hit a cheerleader zombie movie, not a slow drama film about a midlife crisis.
That's really going to be a sticking point with this review. Another Woman is an older movie, aimed at an older audience, with radically different tastes in their dramas than me. I was able to make it through The Cider House Rules because it played by rules I'm more familiar with (constantly advancing story structure, actors I know from other sources, a few more bombastic scenes to break up the understated acting), but this was a difficult one for me. It's a very slow, sort of nebulous film where the events do tie together, but more with their relation to the character than in any kind of traditional structure. I suspect it is a good film, but only if these kind of movies are to your taste, and only if you're already familiar with the works of Woody Allen.
I'm just at a loss of things to say that wouldn't make me out as being disingenuous towards the film. I don't want to say if it's good or bad or even just mediocre - it's just sort've not to my tastes. Still, I watched it, and I feel some obligation to give it a summary and something of a review, so just stick with me while I do my best to give my opinion.
Marion Post has recently started work on a new novel in a private office in upstate New York, and is reasonably happy with her lot in life and the choices she's made. This quickly changes, however, when she discovers she can hear patients in the psychiatrist's office next door through the wall, particularly one woman named Hope, who is suicidally depressed. Her confessions cause Marion to start reevaluating her own life as a series of reunions, divorces, and generally unpleasant conflicts occur amongst her friends and family. As the story progresses, so too does Marion's realization that she's lived a cold, emotionless life, and may not have time to change her course.
The way I worded the last sentence there makes this sound like an incredibly dark movie, but it's more laid-back than you'd expect. That might not be the right term, but it's the best I've been able to think of. Characters have strong emotional reactions to old spouses showing up at a gathering and causing a scene, or being confronted about their regrettable love lives, but for the most part Marion and her peers take it all in stride. These are mature adults in their forties and fifties who have their own lives to manage - they'll bend when necessary so they don't wind up breaking at the wrong time. It's a more mature means of dealing with conflict than I usually see in fiction, and for a while it is nice to watch.
But there is that - "for a while." Another Woman lost me around the halfway point when it became clear it wasn't following a traditional narrative pattern where one event leads naturally into another. Incidents take place, Marion reflects on her life and listens to Hope, on to the next scene. She's the driving force of the film, and most of the events focused on are chosen for their ability to break her down and force her to confront her life. This is, of course, a perfectly valid and legitimate means of telling a story, and insofar as I'm able to tell, it's done rather well. Someone who connects to Marion and empathize with her struggles might get a fair deal of insight out of the film on how to deal with their own challenges and crises.
Unfortunately, I don't empathize with Marion. Not because I don't care about her or her struggles or those in real life who must bear what she bears; rather, I don't empathize because her character, much like the movie's tone and pace, are rather alien to me. Much as the actual film's slower pace and character focused narrative aren't elements I have much experience with, so too are Marion's ordeals and philosophical struggles unfamiliar. The movie feels like it's aimed at an audience who is much more familiar with her midlife regrets and are more likely to nod along and conclude that yes, they HAVE had similar struggles in their life, and it's so very nice to see them put on the big screen. A demographic less personally familiar with those trials and tribulations doesn't seem to be in consideration. Fair enough. Folks deserve to experience stories they can relate to at all points in life, and growing old is no excuse to stop having content produced for you.
It's just not for me.
Blegh. I feel like I'm being too negative here and outing myself as a know-nothing. This is two films now where I've complained about slower pacing and understated acting and called them bad qualities for a movie to work with. The film more than likely does work on its own merits, I'm just not qualified to judge it by those. I'm too young to properly appreciate this film, is all.
Maybe I should just focus on a few things I did enjoy before wrapping up and keeping this one short. No point in constantly digging myself into a hole if I can openly admit I'm digging myself into a hole, after all. The acting was fairly good - I liked several of the characters, and found it easy to believe their struggles. It's always nice to see familiar faces, and Ian Holm did a fairly good turn as Marion's husband. Some of the dream sequences were also nice to watch, and gave the film a good injection of intrigue during the latter half where it started to lose me. And...
...well, that's about it. Again, I'm not the right person to be writing this review. The movie by and large washed over me and didn't leave much of a mark, and it's nobody's fault but my own. The only complaint I can think to raise against is how the ending never shows Marion working to better her life. She's largely broken down, starts to make peace with people in her life, and the film ends on a resolve to do better. It goes against my tastes, but again, it's just that - my tastes. I prefer to see a character built up again after being broken down, and while it's a reasonable direction to take a story (especially if the overall goal is just to examine their psychology during the break), it's not one I like. Not a legitimate complaint, just a matter of taste.
Another Woman is probably a good movie, but also one I more than likely should have worked my way towards watching. If I'd given some of Woody Allen's previous, more critically acclaimed films a watch first, maybe I would've had some appreciation for his style of direction and storytelling and been better equipped to tackle this. As it stands, I jumped straight in, found myself wanting, and have nobody to blame but myself. Give it a look if the ramblings above sound appealing to you, even though I just can't recommend it based on my experience watching.
(Assorted thoughts:
- OK, one thing that DID stand out to me was a bit in the second half where Marion walks into the psychiatrist's office and stands there in the doorway listening to Hope talk about her problems for a while before the doctor dismisses her. The doctor then proceeds to ask Marion what SHE thinks is wrong with Hope, and openly divulges that she's suicidal and might be a lost cause. He takes his next patient, who happens to be Marion's father. Her father hobbles on past her, sits down, and starts talking about all his regrets in life without acknowledging anyone else is even there. The next scene is part of a dream sequence, but the way the movie leads into the bit with the psychiatrist certainly makes it SEEM like it's supposed to be reality, and, well...
- DO YOU EVEN KNOW WHAT PATIENT CONFIDENTIALITY IS, YOU FUCKING QUACK?
- Sorry, that's the psychology major talking, not the armature movie reviewer. But still.
-Gene Hackman was apparently in this and I didn't even notice him.
-I don't know much about Woody Allen, but from what I do know, conversations about having sex on the floor are completely expected out of his films.)
Quick update here, some shit came up in Elena's life and she just wasn't able to get to a review this week. Not sure if she'll be updating next week or anything, but I do know she's still interested in contributing, so just keep following and I'll keep you posted.
Wednesday, August 19, 2015
The Taking of Tiger Mountain - Less strategy, more skiing.
Roll one gives us Netflix, which leads into my uncle's Netflix, which takes us to international movies, which gives us our pick for the day...
My exposure to Asian entertainment is limited largely to the anime my dad and brother watch on adult swim. S'good stuff, pretty well put together most of the time, but it's only one form of entertainment, and one oftentimes defined by cheapness and poor dubbing at that. I've only watched a small handful of really, properly foreign films (when I say that, I mean films not made over in the UK, which for all the differences you could mention still subscribes to enough of the same conventions as US films that I can keep up without much effort), most of which are either martial arts or Godzilla flicks. I say all this because going into today's film, The Taking Of Tiger Mountain (courtesy of my uncle watching Iron Sky and rating it high enough for international movies to pop up on his dash), I expected to be completely alienated. A historical action film set in the aftermath of World War II focusing on a bunch of Chinese soldiers in the middle of nowhere? The cultural differences alone would be enough to put me off, not to mention my complete lack of knowledge of Chinese history. It was a film I went into with a certain degree of wariness.
After having seen it, I have only one thing to say.
Holy shit, why didn't anyone tell me about The Taking of Tiger Mountain sooner?
OK, OK, maybe I should back up just a touch. I really liked the movie, but I should probably provide some backstory before getting into gushing over it, because I feel it's important to the review making sense, and also showing that for as great as the movie is, there's reasons to have reservations about liking it.
The original story Tiger Mountain takes its inspiration from comes out of Chinese novelist Qu Bo's first book, 1957's Tracks in the Snowy Forest, a series of tales about members of the People's Liberation Army tracking down bandits and marauders in the snowy mountains of China's northeastern mountains, largely drawn from his own experiences as a member of the PLA. During the reign of Mao Zedong, a portion of the book was adapted into the opera Taking Tiger Mountain By Strategy, which became one of the eight model operas in China - the plays used by the government to emphasize China's strength and power while limiting the citizenry's exposure to outside or contrarian ideas. Director Xie Tielli created a film adaptation in 1970, and the opera remained a popular mainstay of the Peking Opera.
All of this is to say the story of Yang Ziorang and the 203rd unit is, to my understanding, a very familiar, well-worn story to the Chinese people. It's so inherently Chinese that, upon reading all this information after finishing the film, I was all the more impressed with how accessible it is. Director Tsui Hark is apparently a very popular, highly regarded director in his home country, and even directed Double Team stateside (a film which, for those like me whose first experience with internet film criticism was the Nostalgia Critic, is notable for helping to reveal that Doug Walker does not have the slightest clue how internet memes work), but if I had read any of this BEFORE watching the film, I might not have had any inclination to check out the rest of his work. Now, having seen how he managed to communicate the story in such a timeless yet effortlessly cool and relatable manner, I'm all for seeing what Flying Swords of Dragon Gate.
But I'm getting ahead of myself. The story first, then. In the aftermath of the second World War, bandits run rampant across China, and only the People's Liberation Army stands between them and the helpless, famished villages in the mountains. While moving through northeastern China, Commander 203 and his unit come across a group of bandits working for Lord Hawk, a ruthless warlord who has holed himself up in the fortress at Tiger Mountain. They soon discover his plot to assemble the three Advance Maps, which will allow him to assemble hoards of Japanese resources and dominate the region - and soon after, all of China - from his isolated mountain fortress. Only with the aid of a new arrival, the spy and counterintelligence expert Yang Ziorang, can they infiltrate the fortress and find a way to take down Lord Hawk's gang once and for all.
Right away, I want to note the story is very well paced. Despite being a 140 minute movie, the runtime only occassionally makes itself known during some of the slower scenes with the villages. Everywhere else, from the opening battle, to the slow yet steady reveal of Lord Hawk's plot, from Yang's adventures while infiltrating to the tense protracted wait for Hawk's men, moves so smoothly that I don't even care time is passing. And this is without getting into the numerous subplots with characters on both sides. I will note that I don't exactly remember any of their NAMES (especially not the various brothers in Hawk's gang), but they all give such good performances and have such interesting designs that I could probably pick them out of a lineup and rattle off their role in the film easily.
Speaking of performances, we get some great stuff from the leads. Commander 203, Tank and Gao all get pretty solid ones out of their actors, but it's our hero and lead villain who give the best shows. Zhang Hanyu plays Yang Ziorang, who seriously reminds me of a somewhat more comedic Chinese take on James Bond. Once he starts going, he doesn't stop, either chewing the scenery or speaking in soft, serious tones as the scene demands it, and generally giving off an air of a man who untangles every situation inside of ten seconds without letting you onto the fact that he did so in the first place until after he's done it. He's definitely playing a proto-spy character in a nontraditional setting, which gives him a really good villain to work off.
Tony Leung Ka-fei's Lord Hawk is, in theory, just a good villain. For the first hour of the movie they only let you hear him, which gives Ka-fei ample chance to do his best Doctor Claw (I don't know enough about China to come up with a suitable substitute), and when he's finally revealed, he takes on a fair deal of large ham, slightly comedic traits. In another movie, he might be a nonthreatening bad guy. But in this movie, his sudden outbursts through slow, self-contradicting speeches and displays of both ruthlessness and gentleness with his men give him just enough unpredictability to add tension to every scene he's in. Overall, Ka-fei just plays him wonderfully, and acts as a great foil to Yang.
But a movie like this isn't going to win just off its characters. The action has to play well too. And, admittedly, there aren't all that many action scenes in this movie. Going off my memories, the big set-pieces are the skirmish at the start, Yang fighting a tiger at fifty minutes (silly and out of nowhere, but effective), the battle at the village at around an hour and a half, and the final assault on Tiger Mountain at the end (plus one more, but I'll get to that in a moment). Fortunately the plotting in the first half and character of the bandits in the second half more than make up for the lack of action, and when they aren't available, there's a good tense argument going to fill the gaps. Yet even for the lack of action, it's all really good. There's a slow-mo, slightly 3D effect going on in certain shots, and they add a certain flair to the scenes that I'm a big fan of - although I could see why others might call it hokey.
I want to pay special attention to the bits in the last two action scenes where the characters employ skis; first as a means of getting around the battlefield faster and making themselves harder targets, and then to jump the crevice towards the back of Tiger Mountain and create a zip line across for the rest. It might be a silly thing to like, but I've never seen an action or war movie using skiing as a prominent aspect, and it's a refreshing addition that makes perfect sense for the snowy mountain setting. Plus, it just looks cool. Can't really fault anything in a movie like this for looking cool.
It all just works and blends together in a manner I can't help but love. Like I said, I was expecting a movie I couldn't penetrate for the cultural differences, but Tiger Mountain is very accessible to an American whose palette is more used to the Avengers than anything else. Beyond the setting and scenario (which they explain within the first ten minutes), there's not much need to understand the Chinese culture at the time, and the direction plays everything off as more a timeless tail with modern trappings, something anyone can get into. It's less like reading a different language and more like listening to a different accent of action films - unfamiliar, but still understandable. I'm definitely interested in seeing more of Hark's work, and more Chinese action films in general.
For all my praise, though, I do have my fair share of issues with the movie. I've already noted some of the village scenes have a tendency to drag, but my main problem is with the framing device. For some reason that I can't begin to understand, the film starts with a modern day Chinese-American man hearing a song from the original opera during a karaoke party and deciding to return home for New Years. He then vanishes until the end, when he arrives at home in the same village the soldiers defended, and his grandfather was a child they'd rescued during their adventure. Then he imagines how Lord Hawk's defeat MIGHT have gone in a manner that reminds me of James Bond played completely unironically. Then he and all the soldiers (still played by the same actors) eat New Years dinner, and the movie ends.
I can't, for the life of me, work out why the film is contextualized this way. It doesn't add anything to our understanding of the plot or characters, or even the man at the center of the framing device. I glanced around at some other reviews, and found a few hypotheses as to why it's here. Two that stick out to me particularly are Hark resenting the restrictions the government placed on his creativity and added the final sequence as a means of showing what he REALLY wanted to do, and Hark making fun of younger Chinese people for twisting a classic tale into something over the top. Me, after watching the film but before doing my supplementary reading, I thought it was an attempt to let off steam after finishing the movie and have a bit of fun poking at American styles of filmmaking (as the character in the framing device is Chinese-American). None of it really seems right though, and the film's final sequence just confuses me.
And... well, as I alluded to in the last paragraph, the Chinese government apparently had a pretty big hand in funding the film. The Chinese military in particular. Given the history of the Tiger Mountain story being used as a means of promoting compliance amongst the populace (although the characters are heroic, they're also communist revolutionaries trying to claim China for the party that would eventually lead to an oppressive regime in the late 20th century), this raises some questions as to the intentions behind this remake. Is it just the director's desire to give a fresh take on an old story, or the government funding a retelling in an effort to forward its interests? And if it is the latter, am I in the wrong for recommending the movie as heartily as I have?
I really don't have the answer to that question. As I've stated multiple times here, my knowledge of China and its culture and politics is especially limited, so even passing negative judgement on what may be a propaganda piece in disguise would be foolhardy without proper cultural context. I will say, however, that for whatever it is, The Taking of Tiger Mountain impressed me greatly while I was watching it, and turned out as a great find from Netflix. I'd say look into the matter and decide for yourselves how you feel, but still do recommend the film, if only on the basis of being a great action film.
(Assorted thoughts
- While the film's description purposes a degree of historical accuracy, I highly doubt anyone quite so lavishly costumed and flamboyant as Lord Hawk and his gang were running around northern China after World War II.
- Seriously, I don't think I can emphasize how much combat-ready skiing makes me feel all giddy inside.
- A 1970 recording of the original opera is up on YouTube as of this writing. I might give it a look over the weekend, and I recommend you do the same.)
I wound up with a few things coming up during the writing of this article that prevented a second pass at polishing and editing from being done, so I hope the raw text I have here is good enough. Also, I'm not sure what happened with Elena, but she never got around to writing her review of Black Christmas. Here's to hoping she's able to start up tomorrow.
(There IS a reason why the sidebar says the schedule is only hypothetical, though...)
My exposure to Asian entertainment is limited largely to the anime my dad and brother watch on adult swim. S'good stuff, pretty well put together most of the time, but it's only one form of entertainment, and one oftentimes defined by cheapness and poor dubbing at that. I've only watched a small handful of really, properly foreign films (when I say that, I mean films not made over in the UK, which for all the differences you could mention still subscribes to enough of the same conventions as US films that I can keep up without much effort), most of which are either martial arts or Godzilla flicks. I say all this because going into today's film, The Taking Of Tiger Mountain (courtesy of my uncle watching Iron Sky and rating it high enough for international movies to pop up on his dash), I expected to be completely alienated. A historical action film set in the aftermath of World War II focusing on a bunch of Chinese soldiers in the middle of nowhere? The cultural differences alone would be enough to put me off, not to mention my complete lack of knowledge of Chinese history. It was a film I went into with a certain degree of wariness.
After having seen it, I have only one thing to say.
Holy shit, why didn't anyone tell me about The Taking of Tiger Mountain sooner?
OK, OK, maybe I should back up just a touch. I really liked the movie, but I should probably provide some backstory before getting into gushing over it, because I feel it's important to the review making sense, and also showing that for as great as the movie is, there's reasons to have reservations about liking it.
The original story Tiger Mountain takes its inspiration from comes out of Chinese novelist Qu Bo's first book, 1957's Tracks in the Snowy Forest, a series of tales about members of the People's Liberation Army tracking down bandits and marauders in the snowy mountains of China's northeastern mountains, largely drawn from his own experiences as a member of the PLA. During the reign of Mao Zedong, a portion of the book was adapted into the opera Taking Tiger Mountain By Strategy, which became one of the eight model operas in China - the plays used by the government to emphasize China's strength and power while limiting the citizenry's exposure to outside or contrarian ideas. Director Xie Tielli created a film adaptation in 1970, and the opera remained a popular mainstay of the Peking Opera.
All of this is to say the story of Yang Ziorang and the 203rd unit is, to my understanding, a very familiar, well-worn story to the Chinese people. It's so inherently Chinese that, upon reading all this information after finishing the film, I was all the more impressed with how accessible it is. Director Tsui Hark is apparently a very popular, highly regarded director in his home country, and even directed Double Team stateside (a film which, for those like me whose first experience with internet film criticism was the Nostalgia Critic, is notable for helping to reveal that Doug Walker does not have the slightest clue how internet memes work), but if I had read any of this BEFORE watching the film, I might not have had any inclination to check out the rest of his work. Now, having seen how he managed to communicate the story in such a timeless yet effortlessly cool and relatable manner, I'm all for seeing what Flying Swords of Dragon Gate.
But I'm getting ahead of myself. The story first, then. In the aftermath of the second World War, bandits run rampant across China, and only the People's Liberation Army stands between them and the helpless, famished villages in the mountains. While moving through northeastern China, Commander 203 and his unit come across a group of bandits working for Lord Hawk, a ruthless warlord who has holed himself up in the fortress at Tiger Mountain. They soon discover his plot to assemble the three Advance Maps, which will allow him to assemble hoards of Japanese resources and dominate the region - and soon after, all of China - from his isolated mountain fortress. Only with the aid of a new arrival, the spy and counterintelligence expert Yang Ziorang, can they infiltrate the fortress and find a way to take down Lord Hawk's gang once and for all.
Right away, I want to note the story is very well paced. Despite being a 140 minute movie, the runtime only occassionally makes itself known during some of the slower scenes with the villages. Everywhere else, from the opening battle, to the slow yet steady reveal of Lord Hawk's plot, from Yang's adventures while infiltrating to the tense protracted wait for Hawk's men, moves so smoothly that I don't even care time is passing. And this is without getting into the numerous subplots with characters on both sides. I will note that I don't exactly remember any of their NAMES (especially not the various brothers in Hawk's gang), but they all give such good performances and have such interesting designs that I could probably pick them out of a lineup and rattle off their role in the film easily.
Speaking of performances, we get some great stuff from the leads. Commander 203, Tank and Gao all get pretty solid ones out of their actors, but it's our hero and lead villain who give the best shows. Zhang Hanyu plays Yang Ziorang, who seriously reminds me of a somewhat more comedic Chinese take on James Bond. Once he starts going, he doesn't stop, either chewing the scenery or speaking in soft, serious tones as the scene demands it, and generally giving off an air of a man who untangles every situation inside of ten seconds without letting you onto the fact that he did so in the first place until after he's done it. He's definitely playing a proto-spy character in a nontraditional setting, which gives him a really good villain to work off.
Tony Leung Ka-fei's Lord Hawk is, in theory, just a good villain. For the first hour of the movie they only let you hear him, which gives Ka-fei ample chance to do his best Doctor Claw (I don't know enough about China to come up with a suitable substitute), and when he's finally revealed, he takes on a fair deal of large ham, slightly comedic traits. In another movie, he might be a nonthreatening bad guy. But in this movie, his sudden outbursts through slow, self-contradicting speeches and displays of both ruthlessness and gentleness with his men give him just enough unpredictability to add tension to every scene he's in. Overall, Ka-fei just plays him wonderfully, and acts as a great foil to Yang.
But a movie like this isn't going to win just off its characters. The action has to play well too. And, admittedly, there aren't all that many action scenes in this movie. Going off my memories, the big set-pieces are the skirmish at the start, Yang fighting a tiger at fifty minutes (silly and out of nowhere, but effective), the battle at the village at around an hour and a half, and the final assault on Tiger Mountain at the end (plus one more, but I'll get to that in a moment). Fortunately the plotting in the first half and character of the bandits in the second half more than make up for the lack of action, and when they aren't available, there's a good tense argument going to fill the gaps. Yet even for the lack of action, it's all really good. There's a slow-mo, slightly 3D effect going on in certain shots, and they add a certain flair to the scenes that I'm a big fan of - although I could see why others might call it hokey.
I want to pay special attention to the bits in the last two action scenes where the characters employ skis; first as a means of getting around the battlefield faster and making themselves harder targets, and then to jump the crevice towards the back of Tiger Mountain and create a zip line across for the rest. It might be a silly thing to like, but I've never seen an action or war movie using skiing as a prominent aspect, and it's a refreshing addition that makes perfect sense for the snowy mountain setting. Plus, it just looks cool. Can't really fault anything in a movie like this for looking cool.
It all just works and blends together in a manner I can't help but love. Like I said, I was expecting a movie I couldn't penetrate for the cultural differences, but Tiger Mountain is very accessible to an American whose palette is more used to the Avengers than anything else. Beyond the setting and scenario (which they explain within the first ten minutes), there's not much need to understand the Chinese culture at the time, and the direction plays everything off as more a timeless tail with modern trappings, something anyone can get into. It's less like reading a different language and more like listening to a different accent of action films - unfamiliar, but still understandable. I'm definitely interested in seeing more of Hark's work, and more Chinese action films in general.
For all my praise, though, I do have my fair share of issues with the movie. I've already noted some of the village scenes have a tendency to drag, but my main problem is with the framing device. For some reason that I can't begin to understand, the film starts with a modern day Chinese-American man hearing a song from the original opera during a karaoke party and deciding to return home for New Years. He then vanishes until the end, when he arrives at home in the same village the soldiers defended, and his grandfather was a child they'd rescued during their adventure. Then he imagines how Lord Hawk's defeat MIGHT have gone in a manner that reminds me of James Bond played completely unironically. Then he and all the soldiers (still played by the same actors) eat New Years dinner, and the movie ends.
I can't, for the life of me, work out why the film is contextualized this way. It doesn't add anything to our understanding of the plot or characters, or even the man at the center of the framing device. I glanced around at some other reviews, and found a few hypotheses as to why it's here. Two that stick out to me particularly are Hark resenting the restrictions the government placed on his creativity and added the final sequence as a means of showing what he REALLY wanted to do, and Hark making fun of younger Chinese people for twisting a classic tale into something over the top. Me, after watching the film but before doing my supplementary reading, I thought it was an attempt to let off steam after finishing the movie and have a bit of fun poking at American styles of filmmaking (as the character in the framing device is Chinese-American). None of it really seems right though, and the film's final sequence just confuses me.
And... well, as I alluded to in the last paragraph, the Chinese government apparently had a pretty big hand in funding the film. The Chinese military in particular. Given the history of the Tiger Mountain story being used as a means of promoting compliance amongst the populace (although the characters are heroic, they're also communist revolutionaries trying to claim China for the party that would eventually lead to an oppressive regime in the late 20th century), this raises some questions as to the intentions behind this remake. Is it just the director's desire to give a fresh take on an old story, or the government funding a retelling in an effort to forward its interests? And if it is the latter, am I in the wrong for recommending the movie as heartily as I have?
I really don't have the answer to that question. As I've stated multiple times here, my knowledge of China and its culture and politics is especially limited, so even passing negative judgement on what may be a propaganda piece in disguise would be foolhardy without proper cultural context. I will say, however, that for whatever it is, The Taking of Tiger Mountain impressed me greatly while I was watching it, and turned out as a great find from Netflix. I'd say look into the matter and decide for yourselves how you feel, but still do recommend the film, if only on the basis of being a great action film.
(Assorted thoughts
- While the film's description purposes a degree of historical accuracy, I highly doubt anyone quite so lavishly costumed and flamboyant as Lord Hawk and his gang were running around northern China after World War II.
- Seriously, I don't think I can emphasize how much combat-ready skiing makes me feel all giddy inside.
- A 1970 recording of the original opera is up on YouTube as of this writing. I might give it a look over the weekend, and I recommend you do the same.)
I wound up with a few things coming up during the writing of this article that prevented a second pass at polishing and editing from being done, so I hope the raw text I have here is good enough. Also, I'm not sure what happened with Elena, but she never got around to writing her review of Black Christmas. Here's to hoping she's able to start up tomorrow.
(There IS a reason why the sidebar says the schedule is only hypothetical, though...)
Monday, August 17, 2015
Halo 4: Forward Unto Dawn - Eh kills aliens and doesn't afraid of anything for maybe twenty minutes or so.
Roll one gives us Netflix, which gives us my brother's account, which leads us into Violent Action and Adventure, which gives us our film for today...
Unlike Hulu Plus and Amazon Instant, Netflix's list of choices isn't exactly the same thing every time. They always tailor the movies and shows you see based on whatever you happen to have watched before, which means my options are always tailor-made to my interests. The purpose of this blog, however, is not to constantly explore my own likes, but to randomly subject me to whatever movie happens to come up as a result of my viewing habits. Thus, in order to avoid any sort of stagnancy with my reviews when Netflix is rolled, I've decided to add an extra layer, and roll on whether or not to make the choice from my Netflix, or the ones shared with me by my dad, uncle, and brother (all of whom use the same account.) This should keep the exposure at least somewhat fresh, as all of us have rather different tastes in our browsing habits.
This role brought up my brother's account, which he has never used for anything at all, and should give us the closest thing to a completely unbiased set of Netflix suggestions as possible.
However, this lack of bias leads to dangerous territory. Dangerous territory such as movies I know absolutely nothing about and have no interest in being recommended, and subsequently chosen through the random rolls. Such is the situation I'm in today with the movie I am stuck with because of my refusal to reroll - Halo 4: Forward Unto Dawn.
I know fucking nothing about Halo. I've never owned an XBox of any sort, and the series never wound up as one I obsessively read about on Wikipedia when it became apparent I'd never play it in depth. The only time I've even seen it in action was when I was ten and played it for twenty minutes at someone's house. I tried to use the energy sword and got killed a lot. That's the entirety of my Halo experience. So as you might guess, I'm about as qualified to say whether or not this movie is good or bad or enjoyable as someone dropped dead into Act 3 of Metal Gear Solid 4.
That said, the movie isn't quite as impenetrable as I just made it sound, but it IS a film primarily for fans. The big draw seems to be around seven or eight moments where a thing from the games shows up and does the thing it does in the games. Beyond those, the story - told through the flashback of some military guy at the start making a decision to save Master Chief from deep space cryostasis despite nobody liking him much - looks to exist entirely as a means of saying, "So THAT'S who generic military commander from the opening cutscene of the new game is!" There's nothing wrong with that sort of goal, and I think it could have led to an interesting stand-alone story with elements from the games thrown in to appease fans while still creating a satisfying narrative for newcomers and casuals.
It's just too bad they didn't roll with it.
The bulk of the film concerns itself with the misadventures of Tom "the wiki informs me his last name is" Lasky - whose first name I only remember because it's the same as his actor's, Tom Green - at Corbulo Academy of military science, and his various conflicts with his drill instructor, general and headmistress of the academy, and, most disastrously, his teammates. I do not know a single thing about them. The film spends a fair deal of its opening moments dedicating a series of reality TV/start of a serious military documentary introductions to them (and just a lengthy side note - it never bugs me much, but the fact that they're 500 years in the future and at a hig-tech military academy on the eve of a war against aliens and all still talk and act like young adults do today just really tweaks me. I don't know why), and they're on screen for a fair deal of the film, but even the ones who are actually important and not just cannon fodder later on left no impression on me in the slightest. I remember one of them was sort of a dick, and one was Russian and then never spoke again, but beyond that, nothin'.
Lack of character is a big problem with this film. Everything really picks up once the Covenant (an earlier draft of this article said aliens for every instance of Covenant, until a friend virtually slapped me around and told me it made me sound like I wasn't paying attention) attacks and Master Chief shows up to do his thing, but it happens around fifty minutes into the movie, and even taking its origin as a five-part web series into account, spending three-fifths of the running time on generic military training plots just doesn't cut it. I barely consume any military fiction, and I've seen all these plot points before a million times over. New cadet doesn't like orders but he still functions well under the right conditions. Older sibling already in the forces who he has to live up to. Same with a parent. Reacting poorly to a part of the training that almost disqualifies him. Everything about clashing with his teammates. It doesn't make the film boring, but it does make it hard to care about any of the characters when the aliens attack.
Fortunately, things DO pick up when the Covenant attacks. Despite not caring about the deaths of anyone in the cast (or even realizing when a death happened sometimes), the action and effects look great, especially for a web series, and everything has a good layer of tension to it. Not edge of your seat pulse pounding, but more like "Where is? Is he gonna get 'em? Is he gonna get 'em? I know he's gonna get 'em but when's he gonna get OH LOOK HE GOT 'EM!" It's probably a result of finally using the stuff from the games everyone came to see, but it's still well done.
By the same merit, I also like Master Chief in the film. Having never played the games, I can't really say if he's portrayed accurately or lacks any depth he might have, but what's shown is pretty good. He's appropriately strong and heroic, but also cold and distant enough to cause tension amongst the main cast. A savior who won't turn on you but you're not sure you can trust until he's blown up a giant alien tank monster twice for you (I'm informed the tank monster is, in fact, a Hunter). His character's more badass than compelling, but given the "GET HYPE FOR HALO 4" reasoning behind making this, I can't complain.
Even with those positive merits, though, the film waits too long to actually use them. There's a bit I like after Chief first shows up where one of the surviving cadets talks about him like he's a robot and inferior to the ACTUAL soldiers, which intrigued me a bit. I wish it had been more than a throwaway line, because further tension between Master Chief and the soldiers could have helped Lasky's arc throughout the film. Something along the lines of being terrified of his "inner soldier" by the cold, callous Spartan, only to realize what a hero he is and save his life in return. Would have given his arc a lot more punch.
Really, the whole movie could have benefited from the Covenant showing up a half hour earlier. It would have alleviated the problems with the rest of the squad being too shallow, and might've even made them more memorable, by drawing out stronger performances during stressful times. The filmmakers might have even been able to spread out the limited amount of "Oh SHIT it's the WARTHOG, you guys know the WARTHOG, right?" moments instead of cramming them into the last half hour, and generally had more of Master Chief around - which, again, given the mission statement of this film, can't possibly be a bad thing.
I rated this film two stars out of five on Netflix, but I don't think the descriptor of "didn't like it" is accurate. I enjoyed the movie, and it actually made me want to learn a little more about the Halo universe (a wiki binge might be in my near future), but I was disappointed in its overall structure and lack of punch where it was needed. "Flawed but still enjoyable, even for a nonfan" would be a much better description of my thoughts on this one.
(Assorted thoughts:
-There's way too many slow motion shots that last for three to five seconds, which are quite obviously made for trailer purposes.
-Seeing as the energy sword is the one thing I remember from my one time playing Halo, it was neat seeing it here, and everyone's confusion about it helped me work out that this was supposed to be a prequel to the entire series, and not just something tossed in the middle of the chronology.
-How the hell do you kill a planet's entire human population in fifteen minutes but leave all the trees perfectly intact? (Something about using plasma cannons to glass the planet)
-How the hell are you certain the only living people left on the entire planet were these four or five people? (The answer is apparently they used their tech to scan the planet.)
-How the hell do four or five people manage to be the only surviving individuals on a planet at ground zero of a ruthless alien attack?)
Anyways, I'd like to thank my co-contributor, Elena Young, for talking to me about the film afterwards and clearing up a few things so I don't sound like a total idiot. Elena, for the record, is going to fill in the blog's Tuesday-Thursday slots, using the same methods I do to choose movies, except only with Netflix. Look forward to her first article coming tomorrow. I'll see you guys Wednesday with another movie - one I'm hopefully more qualified to review.
Unlike Hulu Plus and Amazon Instant, Netflix's list of choices isn't exactly the same thing every time. They always tailor the movies and shows you see based on whatever you happen to have watched before, which means my options are always tailor-made to my interests. The purpose of this blog, however, is not to constantly explore my own likes, but to randomly subject me to whatever movie happens to come up as a result of my viewing habits. Thus, in order to avoid any sort of stagnancy with my reviews when Netflix is rolled, I've decided to add an extra layer, and roll on whether or not to make the choice from my Netflix, or the ones shared with me by my dad, uncle, and brother (all of whom use the same account.) This should keep the exposure at least somewhat fresh, as all of us have rather different tastes in our browsing habits.
This role brought up my brother's account, which he has never used for anything at all, and should give us the closest thing to a completely unbiased set of Netflix suggestions as possible.
However, this lack of bias leads to dangerous territory. Dangerous territory such as movies I know absolutely nothing about and have no interest in being recommended, and subsequently chosen through the random rolls. Such is the situation I'm in today with the movie I am stuck with because of my refusal to reroll - Halo 4: Forward Unto Dawn.
I know fucking nothing about Halo. I've never owned an XBox of any sort, and the series never wound up as one I obsessively read about on Wikipedia when it became apparent I'd never play it in depth. The only time I've even seen it in action was when I was ten and played it for twenty minutes at someone's house. I tried to use the energy sword and got killed a lot. That's the entirety of my Halo experience. So as you might guess, I'm about as qualified to say whether or not this movie is good or bad or enjoyable as someone dropped dead into Act 3 of Metal Gear Solid 4.
That said, the movie isn't quite as impenetrable as I just made it sound, but it IS a film primarily for fans. The big draw seems to be around seven or eight moments where a thing from the games shows up and does the thing it does in the games. Beyond those, the story - told through the flashback of some military guy at the start making a decision to save Master Chief from deep space cryostasis despite nobody liking him much - looks to exist entirely as a means of saying, "So THAT'S who generic military commander from the opening cutscene of the new game is!" There's nothing wrong with that sort of goal, and I think it could have led to an interesting stand-alone story with elements from the games thrown in to appease fans while still creating a satisfying narrative for newcomers and casuals.
It's just too bad they didn't roll with it.
The bulk of the film concerns itself with the misadventures of Tom "the wiki informs me his last name is" Lasky - whose first name I only remember because it's the same as his actor's, Tom Green - at Corbulo Academy of military science, and his various conflicts with his drill instructor, general and headmistress of the academy, and, most disastrously, his teammates. I do not know a single thing about them. The film spends a fair deal of its opening moments dedicating a series of reality TV/start of a serious military documentary introductions to them (and just a lengthy side note - it never bugs me much, but the fact that they're 500 years in the future and at a hig-tech military academy on the eve of a war against aliens and all still talk and act like young adults do today just really tweaks me. I don't know why), and they're on screen for a fair deal of the film, but even the ones who are actually important and not just cannon fodder later on left no impression on me in the slightest. I remember one of them was sort of a dick, and one was Russian and then never spoke again, but beyond that, nothin'.
Lack of character is a big problem with this film. Everything really picks up once the Covenant (an earlier draft of this article said aliens for every instance of Covenant, until a friend virtually slapped me around and told me it made me sound like I wasn't paying attention) attacks and Master Chief shows up to do his thing, but it happens around fifty minutes into the movie, and even taking its origin as a five-part web series into account, spending three-fifths of the running time on generic military training plots just doesn't cut it. I barely consume any military fiction, and I've seen all these plot points before a million times over. New cadet doesn't like orders but he still functions well under the right conditions. Older sibling already in the forces who he has to live up to. Same with a parent. Reacting poorly to a part of the training that almost disqualifies him. Everything about clashing with his teammates. It doesn't make the film boring, but it does make it hard to care about any of the characters when the aliens attack.
Fortunately, things DO pick up when the Covenant attacks. Despite not caring about the deaths of anyone in the cast (or even realizing when a death happened sometimes), the action and effects look great, especially for a web series, and everything has a good layer of tension to it. Not edge of your seat pulse pounding, but more like "Where is? Is he gonna get 'em? Is he gonna get 'em? I know he's gonna get 'em but when's he gonna get OH LOOK HE GOT 'EM!" It's probably a result of finally using the stuff from the games everyone came to see, but it's still well done.
By the same merit, I also like Master Chief in the film. Having never played the games, I can't really say if he's portrayed accurately or lacks any depth he might have, but what's shown is pretty good. He's appropriately strong and heroic, but also cold and distant enough to cause tension amongst the main cast. A savior who won't turn on you but you're not sure you can trust until he's blown up a giant alien tank monster twice for you (I'm informed the tank monster is, in fact, a Hunter). His character's more badass than compelling, but given the "GET HYPE FOR HALO 4" reasoning behind making this, I can't complain.
Even with those positive merits, though, the film waits too long to actually use them. There's a bit I like after Chief first shows up where one of the surviving cadets talks about him like he's a robot and inferior to the ACTUAL soldiers, which intrigued me a bit. I wish it had been more than a throwaway line, because further tension between Master Chief and the soldiers could have helped Lasky's arc throughout the film. Something along the lines of being terrified of his "inner soldier" by the cold, callous Spartan, only to realize what a hero he is and save his life in return. Would have given his arc a lot more punch.
Really, the whole movie could have benefited from the Covenant showing up a half hour earlier. It would have alleviated the problems with the rest of the squad being too shallow, and might've even made them more memorable, by drawing out stronger performances during stressful times. The filmmakers might have even been able to spread out the limited amount of "Oh SHIT it's the WARTHOG, you guys know the WARTHOG, right?" moments instead of cramming them into the last half hour, and generally had more of Master Chief around - which, again, given the mission statement of this film, can't possibly be a bad thing.
I rated this film two stars out of five on Netflix, but I don't think the descriptor of "didn't like it" is accurate. I enjoyed the movie, and it actually made me want to learn a little more about the Halo universe (a wiki binge might be in my near future), but I was disappointed in its overall structure and lack of punch where it was needed. "Flawed but still enjoyable, even for a nonfan" would be a much better description of my thoughts on this one.
(Assorted thoughts:
-There's way too many slow motion shots that last for three to five seconds, which are quite obviously made for trailer purposes.
-Seeing as the energy sword is the one thing I remember from my one time playing Halo, it was neat seeing it here, and everyone's confusion about it helped me work out that this was supposed to be a prequel to the entire series, and not just something tossed in the middle of the chronology.
-How the hell do you kill a planet's entire human population in fifteen minutes but leave all the trees perfectly intact? (Something about using plasma cannons to glass the planet)
-How the hell are you certain the only living people left on the entire planet were these four or five people? (The answer is apparently they used their tech to scan the planet.)
-How the hell do four or five people manage to be the only surviving individuals on a planet at ground zero of a ruthless alien attack?)
Anyways, I'd like to thank my co-contributor, Elena Young, for talking to me about the film afterwards and clearing up a few things so I don't sound like a total idiot. Elena, for the record, is going to fill in the blog's Tuesday-Thursday slots, using the same methods I do to choose movies, except only with Netflix. Look forward to her first article coming tomorrow. I'll see you guys Wednesday with another movie - one I'm hopefully more qualified to review.
Friday, August 14, 2015
The Cider House Rules - There's not as much crying as the Toby Maguire caricature would have you believe.
Roll one gives us Amazon Prime, which leads to roll two with editor's picks for movies, which leads to Oscar winners, which leads to today's film.
A problem inherent with running a blog like this, I think, is that there's really no way of getting around being a jackanape from time to time. I am, by no means, a film critic (the first of many professions and hobbies I am by no means a practitioner of), nor am I a student of filmmaking (there's a second), so my take and analysis on some of the more prestigious films bound to crop up from time to time are inevitably going to be ill-informed, and perhaps even flat-out wrong. I haven't thought of any means of avoiding the issue yet, and I highly doubt I'll be able to do so 100%, but I'll at least do what I can to talk about the movies in a somewhat mature, analytical manner.
I mention this because the first film I'm set to talk about for this blog is Lasse Hallström's The Cider House Rules, a film about the moral righteousness or lack thereof of abortions, one nominated for Best Picture and several other categories at the Academy Awards - and one that caught my eye when I rolled it primarily because the cast had a lot of actors from superhero movies.
Like an awful lot of folks my age (early 20s, in case you're wondering), I'm an absolute dork for superhero films. I've been a huge fan ever since the first Spider-Man came out, and have followed them quasi-religiously for close on fifteen years now. My early Wikipedia binges were dedicated largely to reading about the characters and the upcoming films, and I scour my current internet lurking spots for any news on them. I've seen almost every single one of the Marvel Cinematic Universe films in theaters, I'm extremely excited for the upcoming Batman V Superman movie, and Nic Cage's Ghost Rider is one of my favorite films despite the fact that I know it's objectively a bad film. I don't regret any of this, as I don't think there's anything WRONG with liking and getting heavily invested in this stuff, but it makes me feel a little odd here. I open up the cast for a movie, see Toby Maguire, Paul Rudd, and Charlize Theron, and think to myself, "Oh neat, Spider-Man, Ant-Man and Furiosa."
(I liked Fury Road, OK?)
((Also, on further reading, I found out Charlize Theron was in Hancock as the wife, but I didn't know that before and thus didn't bring it up.))
The idea of there being levels of film ,with the higher ones possessing an intrinsically higher quality and worth towards the culture, has never appealed to me, but identifying the actors in that manner makes me feel like a plebeian walking into a showing of 8 1/2 and pissing on the projector.
Not helping matters any was turning the movie on and finding its intro somewhat humorous. Not laugh out loud funny, but more in the "what is happening on screen and what is happening in the editing seem a little bit at odds with each other" sort of funny. You get the introductions to Doctor Larch (hi Alfred - I mean, My Cocaine - I mean, Michael Caine) and baby Homer Wells, which is perfectly fine, but when they start talking about how nobody wants him because he's too quiet, and one of his foster parents beating him, and Doctor Larch showing him how to perform an abortion against his objections... and all the while the happy, tinkly piano music just sorta powers on through. I don't really know much about music, but I am around... ninety, ninety-five percent certain "they beat him to stop him crying" is the sort of statement you don't play "isn't everything idyllic and wonderful right now" music over.
If I had to criticize the movie on any one major point, it'd be one related to that music. It deals with some pretty heavy stuff, even for a movie from the late 90s almost two decades after abortion was legalized in America; lots of stuff about how breaking the law may be the right thing to do if the law goes against your personal convictions and ignores the suffering of innocents, the morality of not using talents you have because they don't align with your beliefs, loss of a child figure, so on and so forth. But for some reason, I never really feel any of it. The film tends towards what I'd consider a fairly... i want to say lighthearted, but more laid back air would be the right term. You've got happy music playing over montages of people cheating on their spouse pulled away to war, or the secret funeral of a recently deceased orphan boy. And while the actors definitely show emotions (Toby Maguire's crying scenes make it easy for me to see why he was tapped for Spider-Man), it never seems quite as strong as feels it should be.
Some of this may be me and my preferences. I can appreciate subtle acting, and somewhat prefer larger than life characters. But even the strongest of performances in the film don't click with me. They are fine performances, don't get me wrong - special shout-out to Michael Caine as Doctor Larch and Delroy Lindo as Arthur Rose - but for a movie that seems tailor made to tug at the heartstrings, it really never does for me.
Having outed myself out as a complete know-nothing by criticizing the performances in a movie particularly noted for the strength of its performances, let me go on to say I do still like the story and thematic structure of the movie. For those not in the know and whom I've completely alienated by this point by talking in-depth about the film's characters without establishing any of them - the plot concerns perpetual orphan Homer Wells growing into his own man at the orphanage slash illegal abortion clinic where he lives with proprietor slash father figure Doctor Wilbur Larch. The board wants to replace Doctor Larch with someone younger (and presumedly more compliant with the law on abortions), but Homer is morally opposed to the abortion process, and eventually leaves with young couple Candy and Wally to live his own life and become an apple picker. While away, the situation back home slowly becomes more dire for Doctor Larch as the inevitable closes in, and Homer develops his own problems with his growing feelings for Candy. From there, it's a slow, steady boil to see if Homer will become his own man or return and use his skill as an abortionist to help those around him.
I suppose the tonal problem I mentioned is one inherent to the story and the way it's told. This isn't a huge, epic war between two towering egos who won't budge on their IMPLACABLE AND COMPLETELY JUSTIFIED VIEWS on THE SERIOUS AND IMPORTANT PROBLEM PLAGUING OUR COUNTRY.; it's the story of an adoptive father and son slowly drifting apart, and the potential for prosperity or tragedy for the both of them. The emotions ramping up too high would more than likely ruin the audience's perception of either character, and make it hard to sympathize with them for running away from responsibility or attempting to trick the other into coming back. I don't agree with it for the problems it causes with the tone for me, but I can understand why it's done that way.
They're not incredibly complicated characters (especially due to the need for them to remain simple to retain sympathy), but they are well-drawn. Homer's endearing for the passion he shows for the children, movies, and life beyond the orphanage. Despite his implied addiction to ether and determination to control Homer's life because he knows better, Doctor Larch comes off as a man far too set in his ways, yet still loving and well-meaning. And while I could talk about Candy or Wally, I'm much more interested in saying something about Arthur Rose, whose bits in the final third make a man who has done terrible, terrible things and isn't willing to cut people to get his way surprisingly relatable and pitiable. Really, he's my favorite character in the movie.
(Interesting side-note about Larch before moving on - I looked it up during the movie, and the use of ether for medical purposes was apparently banned in America decades before the movie takes place. Given his age, it makes his willingness to do abortions seem less progressive and more recessive - he probably learned the practice from someone else when he was younger and stuck with it throughout the decades because that's just how he does things. Adds a little extra layer to his character.)
And on the note of the characters being simple, I think it's also somewhat necessary for the themes to play out. They're best exemplified by one quote from late in the film - "Sometimes you gotta break some rules to put things straight." The central conflict is ultimately whether or not Homer will return to the orphanage to look after the children, even though someone else could take over and do just a good a job as him, even aligning with his own personal beliefs. But if he were to stay away, the abortions would stop, and some would suffer for it. The friction caused by his personal desires rubbing up against a legally questionable but morally righteous "destiny" is what makes the film compelling through the lack of engrossing, emotional performances - for me, anyways - and losing that by making someone empathize with Homer too much would take attention away from the purity of the thematic center.
Of course, that thematic strength is undermined somewhat by the lack of engaging performances. I think I understand why the choice was made to make the movie in this way, but it still keeps interesting themes from reaching their full potential. Maybe a little more energy, or less noodling around during the period where Homer's trying to avoid responsibility. But I really don't know.
Again, it's a little weird doing analysis of this film. I like to style myself a writer and teller of stories in general, so I should know a thing or two about it, even if I'm not very good at it. Just look at the writing above - jumping into analyzing things before I even introduce the story. But even for that, I'm just not experienced in analyzing and critiquing movies, and saying I have problems with a Best Picture nominee in a public space, even if I try to justify my reasoning and say I understand why the decisions were made the way they were - makes me feel like I'm committing some kind of cardinal sin. It's a compromising position is what it is.
Either way, I'd say The Cider House Rules is, for someone of my background and tastes, an enjoyable, if not particularly rewarding movie. It has enough charm (especially in the first third) and thematic depth (especially in the last third) to be engaging through performances that are well done but not very attention grabbing. I'm not really going to set up any kind of numbered rating system, but I'd say it's worth a watch if you've got the time and hankering.
(Just some quick assorted thoughts
- I saw that JK Simmons was in the movie, but I must've not been paying close attention in his scene, because I never saw him.
- The kids in the orphanage are really likable, although there wasn't any way Fuzzy was making it through the movie, being an innocent question-asker with bronchitis in a December release drama film.
- The various migrant workers all give good performances, but aren't really what I'd consider memorable by side character standards.
- Wuthering Heights officially confirmed for not as good as King Kong.
- I wasn't really sure where to put this in the review, so I'll say here while the film's central conflict of responsibility rubbing up against personal choice is intriguing, and it pulls off the finale well, I don't necessarily agree with the implication of one HAVING to use skills just because they have them and it's the "right thing to do, trademark." It just rubs me the wrong way for some reason, even though the film presents a very good argument that it IS the right thing for Homer to do.
-Amazon Prime's Oscar Winners category quite prominently displays Skyfall, yet they do not actually have Skyfall. Either it's a relic of when all the Bond movies were available on Prime, or they're trying to tempt me to actually spend money on individual films. I suspect the latter.)
So that's how things'll be operating around here. Poorly structured essays on whichever films I wind up rolling, followed by a half-assed rating and some various thoughts I didn't bother weaving into the actual body of the text. With any luck, I've succeeded in writing a piece you find entertaining, if not well put together, and I'm going to stop writing before I wind up unable to use anything but online film critic stock phrases. Have a good day, and see you next review.
A problem inherent with running a blog like this, I think, is that there's really no way of getting around being a jackanape from time to time. I am, by no means, a film critic (the first of many professions and hobbies I am by no means a practitioner of), nor am I a student of filmmaking (there's a second), so my take and analysis on some of the more prestigious films bound to crop up from time to time are inevitably going to be ill-informed, and perhaps even flat-out wrong. I haven't thought of any means of avoiding the issue yet, and I highly doubt I'll be able to do so 100%, but I'll at least do what I can to talk about the movies in a somewhat mature, analytical manner.
I mention this because the first film I'm set to talk about for this blog is Lasse Hallström's The Cider House Rules, a film about the moral righteousness or lack thereof of abortions, one nominated for Best Picture and several other categories at the Academy Awards - and one that caught my eye when I rolled it primarily because the cast had a lot of actors from superhero movies.
Like an awful lot of folks my age (early 20s, in case you're wondering), I'm an absolute dork for superhero films. I've been a huge fan ever since the first Spider-Man came out, and have followed them quasi-religiously for close on fifteen years now. My early Wikipedia binges were dedicated largely to reading about the characters and the upcoming films, and I scour my current internet lurking spots for any news on them. I've seen almost every single one of the Marvel Cinematic Universe films in theaters, I'm extremely excited for the upcoming Batman V Superman movie, and Nic Cage's Ghost Rider is one of my favorite films despite the fact that I know it's objectively a bad film. I don't regret any of this, as I don't think there's anything WRONG with liking and getting heavily invested in this stuff, but it makes me feel a little odd here. I open up the cast for a movie, see Toby Maguire, Paul Rudd, and Charlize Theron, and think to myself, "Oh neat, Spider-Man, Ant-Man and Furiosa."
(I liked Fury Road, OK?)
((Also, on further reading, I found out Charlize Theron was in Hancock as the wife, but I didn't know that before and thus didn't bring it up.))
The idea of there being levels of film ,with the higher ones possessing an intrinsically higher quality and worth towards the culture, has never appealed to me, but identifying the actors in that manner makes me feel like a plebeian walking into a showing of 8 1/2 and pissing on the projector.
Not helping matters any was turning the movie on and finding its intro somewhat humorous. Not laugh out loud funny, but more in the "what is happening on screen and what is happening in the editing seem a little bit at odds with each other" sort of funny. You get the introductions to Doctor Larch (hi Alfred - I mean, My Cocaine - I mean, Michael Caine) and baby Homer Wells, which is perfectly fine, but when they start talking about how nobody wants him because he's too quiet, and one of his foster parents beating him, and Doctor Larch showing him how to perform an abortion against his objections... and all the while the happy, tinkly piano music just sorta powers on through. I don't really know much about music, but I am around... ninety, ninety-five percent certain "they beat him to stop him crying" is the sort of statement you don't play "isn't everything idyllic and wonderful right now" music over.
If I had to criticize the movie on any one major point, it'd be one related to that music. It deals with some pretty heavy stuff, even for a movie from the late 90s almost two decades after abortion was legalized in America; lots of stuff about how breaking the law may be the right thing to do if the law goes against your personal convictions and ignores the suffering of innocents, the morality of not using talents you have because they don't align with your beliefs, loss of a child figure, so on and so forth. But for some reason, I never really feel any of it. The film tends towards what I'd consider a fairly... i want to say lighthearted, but more laid back air would be the right term. You've got happy music playing over montages of people cheating on their spouse pulled away to war, or the secret funeral of a recently deceased orphan boy. And while the actors definitely show emotions (Toby Maguire's crying scenes make it easy for me to see why he was tapped for Spider-Man), it never seems quite as strong as feels it should be.
Some of this may be me and my preferences. I can appreciate subtle acting, and somewhat prefer larger than life characters. But even the strongest of performances in the film don't click with me. They are fine performances, don't get me wrong - special shout-out to Michael Caine as Doctor Larch and Delroy Lindo as Arthur Rose - but for a movie that seems tailor made to tug at the heartstrings, it really never does for me.
Having outed myself out as a complete know-nothing by criticizing the performances in a movie particularly noted for the strength of its performances, let me go on to say I do still like the story and thematic structure of the movie. For those not in the know and whom I've completely alienated by this point by talking in-depth about the film's characters without establishing any of them - the plot concerns perpetual orphan Homer Wells growing into his own man at the orphanage slash illegal abortion clinic where he lives with proprietor slash father figure Doctor Wilbur Larch. The board wants to replace Doctor Larch with someone younger (and presumedly more compliant with the law on abortions), but Homer is morally opposed to the abortion process, and eventually leaves with young couple Candy and Wally to live his own life and become an apple picker. While away, the situation back home slowly becomes more dire for Doctor Larch as the inevitable closes in, and Homer develops his own problems with his growing feelings for Candy. From there, it's a slow, steady boil to see if Homer will become his own man or return and use his skill as an abortionist to help those around him.
I suppose the tonal problem I mentioned is one inherent to the story and the way it's told. This isn't a huge, epic war between two towering egos who won't budge on their IMPLACABLE AND COMPLETELY JUSTIFIED VIEWS on THE SERIOUS AND IMPORTANT PROBLEM PLAGUING OUR COUNTRY.; it's the story of an adoptive father and son slowly drifting apart, and the potential for prosperity or tragedy for the both of them. The emotions ramping up too high would more than likely ruin the audience's perception of either character, and make it hard to sympathize with them for running away from responsibility or attempting to trick the other into coming back. I don't agree with it for the problems it causes with the tone for me, but I can understand why it's done that way.
They're not incredibly complicated characters (especially due to the need for them to remain simple to retain sympathy), but they are well-drawn. Homer's endearing for the passion he shows for the children, movies, and life beyond the orphanage. Despite his implied addiction to ether and determination to control Homer's life because he knows better, Doctor Larch comes off as a man far too set in his ways, yet still loving and well-meaning. And while I could talk about Candy or Wally, I'm much more interested in saying something about Arthur Rose, whose bits in the final third make a man who has done terrible, terrible things and isn't willing to cut people to get his way surprisingly relatable and pitiable. Really, he's my favorite character in the movie.
(Interesting side-note about Larch before moving on - I looked it up during the movie, and the use of ether for medical purposes was apparently banned in America decades before the movie takes place. Given his age, it makes his willingness to do abortions seem less progressive and more recessive - he probably learned the practice from someone else when he was younger and stuck with it throughout the decades because that's just how he does things. Adds a little extra layer to his character.)
And on the note of the characters being simple, I think it's also somewhat necessary for the themes to play out. They're best exemplified by one quote from late in the film - "Sometimes you gotta break some rules to put things straight." The central conflict is ultimately whether or not Homer will return to the orphanage to look after the children, even though someone else could take over and do just a good a job as him, even aligning with his own personal beliefs. But if he were to stay away, the abortions would stop, and some would suffer for it. The friction caused by his personal desires rubbing up against a legally questionable but morally righteous "destiny" is what makes the film compelling through the lack of engrossing, emotional performances - for me, anyways - and losing that by making someone empathize with Homer too much would take attention away from the purity of the thematic center.
Of course, that thematic strength is undermined somewhat by the lack of engaging performances. I think I understand why the choice was made to make the movie in this way, but it still keeps interesting themes from reaching their full potential. Maybe a little more energy, or less noodling around during the period where Homer's trying to avoid responsibility. But I really don't know.
Again, it's a little weird doing analysis of this film. I like to style myself a writer and teller of stories in general, so I should know a thing or two about it, even if I'm not very good at it. Just look at the writing above - jumping into analyzing things before I even introduce the story. But even for that, I'm just not experienced in analyzing and critiquing movies, and saying I have problems with a Best Picture nominee in a public space, even if I try to justify my reasoning and say I understand why the decisions were made the way they were - makes me feel like I'm committing some kind of cardinal sin. It's a compromising position is what it is.
Either way, I'd say The Cider House Rules is, for someone of my background and tastes, an enjoyable, if not particularly rewarding movie. It has enough charm (especially in the first third) and thematic depth (especially in the last third) to be engaging through performances that are well done but not very attention grabbing. I'm not really going to set up any kind of numbered rating system, but I'd say it's worth a watch if you've got the time and hankering.
(Just some quick assorted thoughts
- I saw that JK Simmons was in the movie, but I must've not been paying close attention in his scene, because I never saw him.
- The kids in the orphanage are really likable, although there wasn't any way Fuzzy was making it through the movie, being an innocent question-asker with bronchitis in a December release drama film.
- The various migrant workers all give good performances, but aren't really what I'd consider memorable by side character standards.
- Wuthering Heights officially confirmed for not as good as King Kong.
- I wasn't really sure where to put this in the review, so I'll say here while the film's central conflict of responsibility rubbing up against personal choice is intriguing, and it pulls off the finale well, I don't necessarily agree with the implication of one HAVING to use skills just because they have them and it's the "right thing to do, trademark." It just rubs me the wrong way for some reason, even though the film presents a very good argument that it IS the right thing for Homer to do.
-Amazon Prime's Oscar Winners category quite prominently displays Skyfall, yet they do not actually have Skyfall. Either it's a relic of when all the Bond movies were available on Prime, or they're trying to tempt me to actually spend money on individual films. I suspect the latter.)
So that's how things'll be operating around here. Poorly structured essays on whichever films I wind up rolling, followed by a half-assed rating and some various thoughts I didn't bother weaving into the actual body of the text. With any luck, I've succeeded in writing a piece you find entertaining, if not well put together, and I'm going to stop writing before I wind up unable to use anything but online film critic stock phrases. Have a good day, and see you next review.
Wednesday, August 12, 2015
Testing, testing, one two three.
So I decided to create a blog. On blogger. In 2015. When I already have multiple blogs on tumblr.
Reasonably speaking, that should tell you all you need to know about me, but for the sake of having a post that's not just a self-depreciating remark, I'm Gilbert, also known as Gargus. I'm utterly atrocious at keeping schedules, and have a fair deal of mental health problems that are exacerbated by the resulting loneliness, boredom, and ennui. Watching movies and writing stuff helps, but even with all the time and resources in the world, I just never get around to any of it, which only makes the situation worse.
I get to figuring, what if I set up a blog for movie reviews that constantly gives me fresh content, something of an obligation to watch regularly, and put down my thoughts in a semi-coherent, even less semi-structured manner? Sounds like the sort of thing I could make work if I kicked myself in the hindquarters hard enough.
And thus was Randomized Movie Viewing born.
The way this exercise in giving myself things to do that doesn't involve real human interaction works is I take this online random number generator I found, and have it choose between Netflix (1), Hulu (2), and Amazon Prime (3). Whichever one I get, I go to and count off all the movie categories they have (TV is right out, I'm not about to commit to an entire show for this sort of thing), assign them numbers, and randomly choose again. From there, the same process is repeated with the movies within that category (or, in Amazon's case, after several category selections), and the movie is turned on and watched, no matter what it is. Even if it's Elf Bowling.
OK, maybe not if it's Elf Bowling. We'll see what happens when we get there.
Anyways, once I'm done, I just take my thoughts on the movie - anything that pops into my head while watching, stuff I say in online chats, the works - and compile it into a semi-coherent post. Hopefully I can manage something like 2000 words a post. Hopefully I can come off as entertaining and maybe even a touch insightful. More than likely not insightful - I like to consider myself well-educated and culturally rounded, but I know it's totally bullshit. Still, doesn't mean I can't try, right?
That's what we're doin' here. With any luck, I'll slap myself into a good enough mood to watch something Thursday, and get a post up on Friday. Till then, read this post over and over again and tell your cat about it. Not your friends or family, though, they'll probably just laugh at you.
Tell your friends and family.
So I decided to create a blog. On blogger. In 2015. When I already have multiple blogs on tumblr.
Reasonably speaking, that should tell you all you need to know about me, but for the sake of having a post that's not just a self-depreciating remark, I'm Gilbert, also known as Gargus. I'm utterly atrocious at keeping schedules, and have a fair deal of mental health problems that are exacerbated by the resulting loneliness, boredom, and ennui. Watching movies and writing stuff helps, but even with all the time and resources in the world, I just never get around to any of it, which only makes the situation worse.
I get to figuring, what if I set up a blog for movie reviews that constantly gives me fresh content, something of an obligation to watch regularly, and put down my thoughts in a semi-coherent, even less semi-structured manner? Sounds like the sort of thing I could make work if I kicked myself in the hindquarters hard enough.
And thus was Randomized Movie Viewing born.
The way this exercise in giving myself things to do that doesn't involve real human interaction works is I take this online random number generator I found, and have it choose between Netflix (1), Hulu (2), and Amazon Prime (3). Whichever one I get, I go to and count off all the movie categories they have (TV is right out, I'm not about to commit to an entire show for this sort of thing), assign them numbers, and randomly choose again. From there, the same process is repeated with the movies within that category (or, in Amazon's case, after several category selections), and the movie is turned on and watched, no matter what it is. Even if it's Elf Bowling.
OK, maybe not if it's Elf Bowling. We'll see what happens when we get there.
Anyways, once I'm done, I just take my thoughts on the movie - anything that pops into my head while watching, stuff I say in online chats, the works - and compile it into a semi-coherent post. Hopefully I can manage something like 2000 words a post. Hopefully I can come off as entertaining and maybe even a touch insightful. More than likely not insightful - I like to consider myself well-educated and culturally rounded, but I know it's totally bullshit. Still, doesn't mean I can't try, right?
That's what we're doin' here. With any luck, I'll slap myself into a good enough mood to watch something Thursday, and get a post up on Friday. Till then, read this post over and over again and tell your cat about it. Not your friends or family, though, they'll probably just laugh at you.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)