Halloween 2
2009
Dir. Rob Zombie
This may be a long one. I feel like I should explain my sordid history with horror movies, and specifically the "Halloween" movies, before I write about one.
The horror genre sucks. There is such an utter lack of quality material, and such a determined, almost fundamentalist defense of crap that my respect for the genre runs low. All of this makes finding a really good horror movie a pleasure though. There's something visceral about being as scared as you get the first time you watch "The Descent" or "The Exorcist".
Having said that, there are three things to note:
First, the original "Halloween" was always one of those bright lights in the face of the crap that surrounded it. It was minimal and it was truly frightening because of it. You aren't distracted by gallons of blood or victims being tortured. No game is being played and we don't get a motivation from Myers. He's just there and he's killing everyone. The sequel, however, was a by-the-numbers slasher flick with no creativity and less entertainment.
The second thing is that I like Rob Zombie. I think "House of 1,000 Corpses" is a reasonable effort at something... odd. "The Devils Rejects" on the other hand, is a standout. In the face of most of the mainstream crap being released, it was a pleasant surprise and needed change of pace. Most importantly, however, I liked his remake of "Halloween" a lot. It had problems but I thought it worked pretty well as a stand-alone movie.
Third, I have no issue with remakes. Is it representative of the larger problem with creativity in Hollywood" Yes, it is, but a remake should be treated like any other movie. It should be judged on it's own and more importantly, your enjoyment of the original shouldn't be tainted by the fact that someone tried again.
And now for Halloween 2 (and this will be short):
This movie is sloppy, really damn sloppy. Nearly everything is wrong with this movie. It's too dark to see what's going on and it's too choppy to figure it out on your own. Myers seems to be wandering around with no clear path for most of the movie, just so he has more people to kill. The "motivation" given to him this time around is contrived bullsh*t and only diminishes the story around it. The decision to turn Loomis into a greedy, rambling ass was misguided at best.
If there is anything good here, its the always reliable Malcolm McDowell and Brad Dourif. Neither gives anything close to a career high performance, but neither phones it in either. They are entertaining to watch, but since Dr. Loomis' storyline is useless and Dourif's "Sheriff Brackett" is only in a handful of scenes, they are hardly a redeeming feature.
In short, don't bother seeing the movie, even if you liked the first.
Saturday, May 15, 2010
Friday, May 14, 2010
Edge of Darkness (2010)
Edge of Darkness
2010
Dir. Martin Campbell
Overall, I was disappointed. Maybe my expectations were too high, but the fact is there was something about this movie that just wasn't hitting the right buttons like I expected.
There are three things of note here;
First, Mel Gibson is still one of the most commanding presences on screen. He knows how to control a scene and make it his. Gibson is one of our last true "movie stars" and I wish he did more acting these days. He has an uncanny ability to turn emotions on and off when necessary, and this is only complimented by the extremes he can jump to. Also, despite his age, he still handles the action sequences (some more demanding than others) with realistic refinement.
The second thing is, based on what I've seen him in*, Danny Huston is quickly moving from "interesting" to "please don't cast this man" in my book. He does "smug arrogance" extremely well, but that's about it. His ability to show emotion is lacking at best, and non-existent at worst. Admittedly, my view of him is probably tainted by his part in "Wolverine", which was one of the many preventable missteps in that movie. In "Edge of Darkness", he works for the first half of his scenes, when all he's doing is playing "smug arrogance", but as the movie progresses, he becomes outclassed and eclipsed by more capable actors. My opinion, sorry.
Third, and most simple is that Ray Winstone has been criminally underused. The pairing of him and Gibson is, in the least, inspired. These are two men who know how to handle the screen. His character deserved more time and more depth. This is not to suggest the character was crap, only that Winstone, in a beefier role, can take a movie to a new level (just watch "The Departed", a good movie on its own but a better movie because of Winstone).
Anyways, I would say the movie's biggest issue is the script. I have yet to watch the mini-series it is based on (its on the queue) but it seems like that was probably a better format. There is a lot of information coming at you in the movie and some of it is better explained than the rest. I never felt confused or lost to the point that I couldn't make sense of what was going on (in the sense that I never had to pause or rewind the movie because I felt like I was missing a huge piece of information), but once it was over, I couldn't help but feel like there were unresolved issues.
Maybe there is a longer cut out there that resolves this, or maybe I just missed something that was already there, after all, there was a remarkable amount of talent involved in this movie and I have a hard time believing they didn't have the same issues with the script that I did.
apologies for rambling
*From the top: Edge of Darkness, X-Men Origins: Wolverine, How to Lose Friends and Alienate People, 30 Days of Night, The Kingdom, Children of Men, The Aviator, 21 Grams. For the record, I don't remember him in the last four movies. Of the others, I thought he was good in "30 Days of Night" (for whatever that is worth) and I thought he was interesting in "How to Lose Friends...".
2010
Dir. Martin Campbell
Overall, I was disappointed. Maybe my expectations were too high, but the fact is there was something about this movie that just wasn't hitting the right buttons like I expected.
There are three things of note here;
First, Mel Gibson is still one of the most commanding presences on screen. He knows how to control a scene and make it his. Gibson is one of our last true "movie stars" and I wish he did more acting these days. He has an uncanny ability to turn emotions on and off when necessary, and this is only complimented by the extremes he can jump to. Also, despite his age, he still handles the action sequences (some more demanding than others) with realistic refinement.
The second thing is, based on what I've seen him in*, Danny Huston is quickly moving from "interesting" to "please don't cast this man" in my book. He does "smug arrogance" extremely well, but that's about it. His ability to show emotion is lacking at best, and non-existent at worst. Admittedly, my view of him is probably tainted by his part in "Wolverine", which was one of the many preventable missteps in that movie. In "Edge of Darkness", he works for the first half of his scenes, when all he's doing is playing "smug arrogance", but as the movie progresses, he becomes outclassed and eclipsed by more capable actors. My opinion, sorry.
Third, and most simple is that Ray Winstone has been criminally underused. The pairing of him and Gibson is, in the least, inspired. These are two men who know how to handle the screen. His character deserved more time and more depth. This is not to suggest the character was crap, only that Winstone, in a beefier role, can take a movie to a new level (just watch "The Departed", a good movie on its own but a better movie because of Winstone).
Anyways, I would say the movie's biggest issue is the script. I have yet to watch the mini-series it is based on (its on the queue) but it seems like that was probably a better format. There is a lot of information coming at you in the movie and some of it is better explained than the rest. I never felt confused or lost to the point that I couldn't make sense of what was going on (in the sense that I never had to pause or rewind the movie because I felt like I was missing a huge piece of information), but once it was over, I couldn't help but feel like there were unresolved issues.
Maybe there is a longer cut out there that resolves this, or maybe I just missed something that was already there, after all, there was a remarkable amount of talent involved in this movie and I have a hard time believing they didn't have the same issues with the script that I did.
apologies for rambling
*From the top: Edge of Darkness, X-Men Origins: Wolverine, How to Lose Friends and Alienate People, 30 Days of Night, The Kingdom, Children of Men, The Aviator, 21 Grams. For the record, I don't remember him in the last four movies. Of the others, I thought he was good in "30 Days of Night" (for whatever that is worth) and I thought he was interesting in "How to Lose Friends...".
Monday, May 3, 2010
The Salton Sea (2002)
The Salton Sea
2002
Dir. DJ Caruso
Convoluted would seem to be the key term here.
The thing is, I liked "The Salton Sea" up until it was over. In fact, I liked everything a lot up until the very end, which, for me, is something I could overlook if the rest of the movie was stellar.
But it wasn't.
Not that it was bad. Like I said, I liked it for the most part, and if you have the time it's worth a look. The supporting cast here works pretty well (although it's becoming increasingly clear to me that Adam Goldberg is probably known as "the Jew" in Hollywood circles) and its nice to remember that Val Kilmer could carry a movie at one point.
Once again though, the movie swan dives into mounds of horse crap when it finally gets around to telling you what's actually going on.
Without revealing too much about the story, I'll say (write) this; the movie is strongest when we are watching Kilmer in the life of the junkie. The flashbacks of his "previous self" are buzz kills. They are cheesy, poorly acted add-ons that serve more to discredit the story than add any emotion. The two detectives (Doug Hutchison and Anthony LaPaglia) are good, well rounded characters and I'm more or less okay with where their piece of the story wound up.
Pooh-Bear (Vincent D'Onofrio) was an embarrassingly obvious attempt at creating a character who would be memorable for his little (big) "quirks" (that's the best word I can think of right now).
I guess when it comes down to it I can't really say I liked it, but I certainly didn't hate it...
No trailer this time. Sorry
Apologies for rambling
2002
Dir. DJ Caruso
Convoluted would seem to be the key term here.
The thing is, I liked "The Salton Sea" up until it was over. In fact, I liked everything a lot up until the very end, which, for me, is something I could overlook if the rest of the movie was stellar.
But it wasn't.
Not that it was bad. Like I said, I liked it for the most part, and if you have the time it's worth a look. The supporting cast here works pretty well (although it's becoming increasingly clear to me that Adam Goldberg is probably known as "the Jew" in Hollywood circles) and its nice to remember that Val Kilmer could carry a movie at one point.
Once again though, the movie swan dives into mounds of horse crap when it finally gets around to telling you what's actually going on.
Without revealing too much about the story, I'll say (write) this; the movie is strongest when we are watching Kilmer in the life of the junkie. The flashbacks of his "previous self" are buzz kills. They are cheesy, poorly acted add-ons that serve more to discredit the story than add any emotion. The two detectives (Doug Hutchison and Anthony LaPaglia) are good, well rounded characters and I'm more or less okay with where their piece of the story wound up.
Pooh-Bear (Vincent D'Onofrio) was an embarrassingly obvious attempt at creating a character who would be memorable for his little (big) "quirks" (that's the best word I can think of right now).
I guess when it comes down to it I can't really say I liked it, but I certainly didn't hate it...
No trailer this time. Sorry
Apologies for rambling
Thursday, April 29, 2010
Waterworld (1995)
Waterworld
1995
Dir. Kevin Reynolds
How do you go about expressing your undying love for a movie that most people seem to revile? How do you go about enlightening the nay sayers, the detractors and the haters?
Waterworld has, in many ways, the same appeal as "Starship Troopers"; it's essentially a B movie with a summer blockbuster budget. Watching this movie is like seeing what would happen if you took a "SyFy original movie" script and threw in some talent and $175,000,000.
None of that is a bad thing, by the way.
This is one of the few movies where Kevin Costner isn't a repulsive ass, and one of the many where Dennis Hopper proves he is one of the most entertaining actors in Hollywood (doubt me? check out "Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2").
Sure, there are a couple places where the logic and the reality of the movie don't quite meet: the bad guys travel around in what seems to be an oil-tanker fused to an island, they propel it with massive oars. Kevin Costner has gills. Somehow people are building mini-cities on top of water...
But I ask you this: what about ANY of that doesn't sound fucking great? Seriously.
Lastly though, we must apply the canceled show rule. This rule states that if a cast member from a great, but canceled-to-early show appears in a film, the fun quotient goes up a few. In this case, the show is Veronica Mars and the cast member is Tina Majorino.
There is a lot wrong with this movie, but none of it matters. The movie is too much fun to ignore.
Apologies for rambling
1995
Dir. Kevin Reynolds
How do you go about expressing your undying love for a movie that most people seem to revile? How do you go about enlightening the nay sayers, the detractors and the haters?
Waterworld has, in many ways, the same appeal as "Starship Troopers"; it's essentially a B movie with a summer blockbuster budget. Watching this movie is like seeing what would happen if you took a "SyFy original movie" script and threw in some talent and $175,000,000.
None of that is a bad thing, by the way.
This is one of the few movies where Kevin Costner isn't a repulsive ass, and one of the many where Dennis Hopper proves he is one of the most entertaining actors in Hollywood (doubt me? check out "Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2").
Sure, there are a couple places where the logic and the reality of the movie don't quite meet: the bad guys travel around in what seems to be an oil-tanker fused to an island, they propel it with massive oars. Kevin Costner has gills. Somehow people are building mini-cities on top of water...
But I ask you this: what about ANY of that doesn't sound fucking great? Seriously.
Lastly though, we must apply the canceled show rule. This rule states that if a cast member from a great, but canceled-to-early show appears in a film, the fun quotient goes up a few. In this case, the show is Veronica Mars and the cast member is Tina Majorino.
There is a lot wrong with this movie, but none of it matters. The movie is too much fun to ignore.
Apologies for rambling
Wednesday, April 28, 2010
Big Fan (2009)
Big Fan
2009
Dir. Robert D. Siegel
I'll start with the good:
Patton Oswalt is phenomenal in the lead. His situation is absurd, and it took a while for me to realize just how "sick" the character is, but you suffer with him throughout the movie. The supporting cast is also above average, but aside from Kevin Corrigan (his performance is also pretty damn good) they're nothing to write home about.
Now the bad:
This is one of the better examples of a movie not being able to find itself. It's pretty clear they were going for some sort of "dark" comedy, but it just isn't here. The material is ripe for a strong, dark comedy, but there is such an over-abundance of light humor interspersed throughout that the movie just feels confused. I'm sure a lot of this is a result of the focus on Oswalt's character, who is himself extremely confused person, and in that sense the tone certainly fits, but what can I say? it just didn't really work for me...
Over all though, it's definitely worth a watch if for nothing more than Oswalt's performance (and Corrigan's for that matter).
apologies for rambling
2009
Dir. Robert D. Siegel
I'll start with the good:
Patton Oswalt is phenomenal in the lead. His situation is absurd, and it took a while for me to realize just how "sick" the character is, but you suffer with him throughout the movie. The supporting cast is also above average, but aside from Kevin Corrigan (his performance is also pretty damn good) they're nothing to write home about.
Now the bad:
This is one of the better examples of a movie not being able to find itself. It's pretty clear they were going for some sort of "dark" comedy, but it just isn't here. The material is ripe for a strong, dark comedy, but there is such an over-abundance of light humor interspersed throughout that the movie just feels confused. I'm sure a lot of this is a result of the focus on Oswalt's character, who is himself extremely confused person, and in that sense the tone certainly fits, but what can I say? it just didn't really work for me...
Over all though, it's definitely worth a watch if for nothing more than Oswalt's performance (and Corrigan's for that matter).
apologies for rambling
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
Easier With Practice (2009)
Easier With Practice
2009
Dir. Kyle Patrick Alvarez
Independent movies aren't usually my thing. I know how general a statement that is but when you talk about Independent Film as a genre, there is a template that comes to mind and "Easier With Practice" fits perfectly inside that template.
Anyways, I liked the movie. The quiet, contemplating tone (something that lasts for the duration) forces you to wallow in the awkwardness of the movie, and given the movies plot, there's a lot of it.
The movie hinges on a handful of one on one scenes between the main character and various people in his life. For the most part, theses scenes are played very well and as such, were the only thing keeping me from pausing the movie and stepping back from the (using this word to many times) awkwardness of it.
I guess the movie needs to be processed. Frankly, it's a small, short movie but it's very understated and there's a lot to think about here.
Apologies if I rambled
2009
Dir. Kyle Patrick Alvarez
Independent movies aren't usually my thing. I know how general a statement that is but when you talk about Independent Film as a genre, there is a template that comes to mind and "Easier With Practice" fits perfectly inside that template.
Anyways, I liked the movie. The quiet, contemplating tone (something that lasts for the duration) forces you to wallow in the awkwardness of the movie, and given the movies plot, there's a lot of it.
The movie hinges on a handful of one on one scenes between the main character and various people in his life. For the most part, theses scenes are played very well and as such, were the only thing keeping me from pausing the movie and stepping back from the (using this word to many times) awkwardness of it.
I guess the movie needs to be processed. Frankly, it's a small, short movie but it's very understated and there's a lot to think about here.
Apologies if I rambled
In The Company of Men (1997)
In The Company of Men
1997
Dir. Neil LaBute
I've been looking forward to this movie for a while, after having read good things about it. It always seemed interesting, and it was, but it wasn't exactly what I expected. For starters, it was much crueler than I ever thought it would be (not a bad thing). The characters, their lives and actions... it was all so depressing, but it was presented in this strange, delusional light. No one is aware of just how miserable they are (except for Howard, but he is too weak to ever do anything productive in changing this).
The three performances at the core of the movie are remarkably strong, carrying the brunt of the film. There is nothing here that really amounts to a "supporting role", as it's basically just the three characters.
The movie is presented with this disjointed feel. It's like watching a series of short, connecting skits (a serial would be an appropriate comparison I guess). It works for the most part but it's a bit disconcerting initially.
Lastly, without going into detail, the end of the movie is phenomenal.
Apologies if I rambled
1997
Dir. Neil LaBute
I've been looking forward to this movie for a while, after having read good things about it. It always seemed interesting, and it was, but it wasn't exactly what I expected. For starters, it was much crueler than I ever thought it would be (not a bad thing). The characters, their lives and actions... it was all so depressing, but it was presented in this strange, delusional light. No one is aware of just how miserable they are (except for Howard, but he is too weak to ever do anything productive in changing this).
The three performances at the core of the movie are remarkably strong, carrying the brunt of the film. There is nothing here that really amounts to a "supporting role", as it's basically just the three characters.
The movie is presented with this disjointed feel. It's like watching a series of short, connecting skits (a serial would be an appropriate comparison I guess). It works for the most part but it's a bit disconcerting initially.
Lastly, without going into detail, the end of the movie is phenomenal.
Apologies if I rambled
The Idea
It's been a long time coming, but I finally decided to get Netflix. I've been powering through my queue and here I am. The idea is that I'm going to review these movies withing a few hours of watching them. These won't be refined reviews, but rather pretty brief, immediate reactions.
I understand that some movies need to be processed, and that an immediate reaction can not possibly do them justice, but there are other movies that are about the immediate reaction.
This is something of an experiment for me, so consistency probably won't be a major player here, but it's my blog and it's not like anyone's reading it...
(cue sad music)
I understand that some movies need to be processed, and that an immediate reaction can not possibly do them justice, but there are other movies that are about the immediate reaction.
This is something of an experiment for me, so consistency probably won't be a major player here, but it's my blog and it's not like anyone's reading it...
(cue sad music)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
