Clip #2
Clip #1
Thursday, November 27, 2008
Friday, November 14, 2008
Quantum of Solace (2008) - WARNING! Major spoilers ahead
Plot: Daniel Craig reprises his role as Ian Fleming's James Bond in Quantum of Solace, the 22nd feature in the 007 film franchise. Fueled by the betrayal of Vesper, the woman he loved, Bond's determination to track down the mastermind behind the sinister organization that blackmailed her takes him to Haiti, where he finds an unlikely ally in the beautiful and feisty Camille (Olga Kurylenko). The trail quickly leads to the ruthless Dominic Greene (Mathieu Amalric), but with the British Government and the CIA working against him, Bond must kill or be killed on his mission to uncover the truth.
Firsts: Direct sequel of a previous Bond film, gunbarrel sequence appears at the end of the movie
Gadgets: None besides the fancy wall and table computers used in the MI6 offices
Girls Bond slept with: Agent Fields
Elaborate murder attempt that Bond escapes: There's plenty of attempts to kill him, but all are pretty straight-forward
Personal review: After all the hype, would you expect anything less than for me to have seen this at the midnight showing last night? So what's the verdict? Well, if I had to sum it up it's not a great Bond film, but a necessary one. There is plenty to enjoy here, for sure, but it is also a significant step down from the amazing Casino Royale. I have a feeling you'll be seeing me use the word 'but' a lot in this review because there are so many aspects of the film that left me divided.
Let's begin with a few Bond mainstays that I wanted to see in this film that were missing from Royale: 1) Q, 2) Moneypenny, 3) the traditional gunbarrel sequence. Well there was no Q or Moneypenny, but that was ok. The Bond producers have said they will return when it fits the story. And since this was a continuation of Royale, I perfectly understand why they aren't here, but I would like them back at some point. As for the gunbarrel sequence, yes it's here in its traditional form but they put it at the end of film. WHY?!? Director Marc Forster said he wanted it as a surprise, but I thought that was a dumb move. You're going to have traditional Bond fans, like myself, upset throughout the beginning of the film thinking that they got rid of it altogether. I'm glad it wasn't scrapped, but putting it at the end didn't make sense to me at all. Hopefully that gets changed next time out.
It appears from some of the stuff that I've read that Marc Forster was responsible for a lot of the changes that I did not care for in the film. I don't know if it was really him, but if it was, I hope he does not get asked back to direct another Bond film. Another example is with the credit sequence. Instead of sticking with Daniel Kleinman, who's done the past five Bond films, they go with a production crew that has worked with Forster on his previous films. I liked the concept that they went with in the credit sequence, but something just felt off about it.
The action sequences are another area of the film that I did not care for Forster's approach on. The actual action that was going on was very cool. Some excellent concepts in both hand-to-hand fights and vehicular chase sequences. However, Forster felt the need to shoot everything so close up and intimate that you lost a lot of the time, what was actually going on. He tried mimicking Paul Greengrass' style used in the Bourne flicks, but I just didn't care for it here. I know a lot of people cheered Royale for making the Bond franchise more like the Bourne films, but I don't want a carbon copy. Let Bourne be Bourne and Bond be Bond.
Of course, the one constant that remains solid here is Craig. I continue to love the approach he is taking with the character. I've read a lot of critics who feel the character is too angry and unapproachable, but I didn't get that. Sure, the film centers around his revenge mission, but I felt there to be plenty of glimpses of his lighter side and there were several moments throughout the film that garnered laughs from the crowd. So the whole criticism of the film being too somber doesn't fly with me.
I also really loved the locales that they chose for the film. I thought they once again did a great job of picking out events and locations that seemed new in a Bond films and added something to the action around them. I particularly loved the Tosca scenes, both for exhibiting the beautiful performance and for showcasing Bond being an awesome prick to the bad guys. However, I do wish they could have made the locales a bit more varying. The film had a consistent brown, black, white motif, which looked dirty and got monotonous. I also didn't care for the cutesy title cards indicating the new location. They seemed out of place and unnecessary, especially when they just said in the previous scene where they were going.
As for the rest of the cast, I enjoyed them but I thought they were all underutilized. Mathieu Amalric is decent, but doesn't get to truly exhibit pure evil. I also found it odd as to how hands-on he was in his evil plans considering how supposedly secret his organization was (a point stressed early on in the film). I also enjoyed both Bond girl and thought both were absolutely gorgeous. They also had some interesting characteristics about them, that weren't fully explored. I loved the Goldfinger homage involving Agent Fields though. But for Bond not to have slept with Camille at any point in the film just seemed wrong on many levels.
Finally, I thought the film really could have used to expanded its ending. There are two seperate scenes were Bond confronts a key villain, yet we do not get to see the conversations between them. Instead, we just see the aftermath. Given how much time we've spent over these two films on the betrayal of Vesper and the organization behind it, I really thought it was a ripoff not to see Bond interact with these characters more and let us hear the information that we want to know. The film is under two hours, a rariety for Bond films, so there was no reason why those scenes shouldn't have been included.
Overall, in a vaccuum, the film is a very entertaining action movie. For Bond fans, there is no doubt going to be some disappointment. As I said at the beginning, while this may not have been a great film, it was a necessary one. It has closed the chapter on Vesper and I think now they are ready to have Bond truly be Bond again. There have been some interviews already indicating this, so I'm anxious to see if they are good on their word. Definitely see this movie, just don't expect the same quality that you got with Casino Royale. 8.5/10
Thursday, November 13, 2008
An Exercise in Stupidity
Day 3 and still going strong (I feel like I'm in a prescription medicine commercial). Last night's film was Burn After Reading, the latest film from the Coen brothers. To call a film like this odd, would seem like a negative critique unless you are the Coens. It is amazing how these two continue to produce such diverse and quirky films and be successful at it. If you didn't know any better it would be hard to tell that this movie was made by the same people who did No Country For Old Men.
While the Coens' quirkiness has prevented me from seeing some of their work (I'll probably get stoned for saying this, but I've never seen The Big Lebowski), I found this one to be much more accessible, thanks in part to the all-star cast. Aside from headliners like George Clooney and Brad Pitt, the film boasts an amazing lineup of great character actors including Frances McDormand, John Malkovich, Tilda Swinton, JK Simmons, Richard Jenkins, and David Rasche. All of them are wonderful here.
What is particularly fun to watch in all of these performances is how spectacularly stupid each character is. In a lot films, dumb characters can become real annoying. You sit their frustrated, watching them do one stupid move after the next. But in this case, it's actually pretty exciting. You know that their stupidity is eventually going to cost them, but you don't know exactly how and therein lies the fun. It's also fun to see so many of these great actors play against type to be so stupid. Each one seems to relish in this game of 'can you top that' idiocy?
As good as everyone is, I must single out Brad Pitt. He often gets dismissed as an actor because of his celebrity status, but he is really great in this film. He is the dim bulb who shines the brightest. He steals every scene he is in and I wish he would have been in the film more. Seeing his performance here, makes me all the more interested to see what he'll do next month in The Curious Case of Benjamin Button.
I'll try my best to explain the film's plot if you're not familiar with what it is about, but it is somewhat complicated. Pitt and McDormand are employees at a local Washington DC gym and happen to find a disc that potentially has government secrets belonging to Osbourne Cox (Malkovich), a CIA agent who recently quit/was fired. Malkovich is married to Tilda Swinton, who's having an affair with Clooney. As the film progresses the lives of these five people become intertwined as they stumble through life trying to get ahead. There's a lot more to that, but that's the basic gist.
I found the film was a bit slow early on. I give them credit for trying to establish these characters. But because the film is only 96 minutes long, that early character development short changes the rest of the action once the film's plot really kicks into high gear. The early parts aren't boring, just a bit frustrating because you're anxious to see where everything goes.
At times, the story may seem inconsequential. However, any concerns about that are allieviated in the final scene of the film. The scenes provides the perfect coda for everything that has happened in the film and it's damn funny to boot. It's interesting how both this and No Country For Old Men end with a scene of dialogue when you would expect something more action-oriented. But unlike No Country, this ending is way more satisfying. Its ending is as brutally honest and straightforward as No Country's was random and ambiguous.
Now just because the film ends with dialogue doesn't mean there isn't some violence thrown in. If you've seen any Coen brother film, you know that they can produce some violence scenes that are equally gruesome and realistic in their depiction and this one is no different. I knew going in that I could expect to see some pretty shocking deaths, but it still wasn't enough preparation for when the murders actually took place.
In case it hasn't been made clear, this is truly a Coen brothers movie. If you're a fan of their work, I easily can recommend you see this film. Then again, given their cult status, I'm sure most fans of the Coens have already seen this. Fro everyone else, I feel this is a more accessible film than some of their other works and I would recommend you watch it. If for nothing else, then you can enjoy a lot of A-list stars having a lot of fun playing off-the-wall characters. And if you're not laughing during that final scene, something is wrong with you. Grade: B
While the Coens' quirkiness has prevented me from seeing some of their work (I'll probably get stoned for saying this, but I've never seen The Big Lebowski), I found this one to be much more accessible, thanks in part to the all-star cast. Aside from headliners like George Clooney and Brad Pitt, the film boasts an amazing lineup of great character actors including Frances McDormand, John Malkovich, Tilda Swinton, JK Simmons, Richard Jenkins, and David Rasche. All of them are wonderful here.
What is particularly fun to watch in all of these performances is how spectacularly stupid each character is. In a lot films, dumb characters can become real annoying. You sit their frustrated, watching them do one stupid move after the next. But in this case, it's actually pretty exciting. You know that their stupidity is eventually going to cost them, but you don't know exactly how and therein lies the fun. It's also fun to see so many of these great actors play against type to be so stupid. Each one seems to relish in this game of 'can you top that' idiocy?
As good as everyone is, I must single out Brad Pitt. He often gets dismissed as an actor because of his celebrity status, but he is really great in this film. He is the dim bulb who shines the brightest. He steals every scene he is in and I wish he would have been in the film more. Seeing his performance here, makes me all the more interested to see what he'll do next month in The Curious Case of Benjamin Button.
I'll try my best to explain the film's plot if you're not familiar with what it is about, but it is somewhat complicated. Pitt and McDormand are employees at a local Washington DC gym and happen to find a disc that potentially has government secrets belonging to Osbourne Cox (Malkovich), a CIA agent who recently quit/was fired. Malkovich is married to Tilda Swinton, who's having an affair with Clooney. As the film progresses the lives of these five people become intertwined as they stumble through life trying to get ahead. There's a lot more to that, but that's the basic gist.
I found the film was a bit slow early on. I give them credit for trying to establish these characters. But because the film is only 96 minutes long, that early character development short changes the rest of the action once the film's plot really kicks into high gear. The early parts aren't boring, just a bit frustrating because you're anxious to see where everything goes.
At times, the story may seem inconsequential. However, any concerns about that are allieviated in the final scene of the film. The scenes provides the perfect coda for everything that has happened in the film and it's damn funny to boot. It's interesting how both this and No Country For Old Men end with a scene of dialogue when you would expect something more action-oriented. But unlike No Country, this ending is way more satisfying. Its ending is as brutally honest and straightforward as No Country's was random and ambiguous.
Now just because the film ends with dialogue doesn't mean there isn't some violence thrown in. If you've seen any Coen brother film, you know that they can produce some violence scenes that are equally gruesome and realistic in their depiction and this one is no different. I knew going in that I could expect to see some pretty shocking deaths, but it still wasn't enough preparation for when the murders actually took place.
In case it hasn't been made clear, this is truly a Coen brothers movie. If you're a fan of their work, I easily can recommend you see this film. Then again, given their cult status, I'm sure most fans of the Coens have already seen this. Fro everyone else, I feel this is a more accessible film than some of their other works and I would recommend you watch it. If for nothing else, then you can enjoy a lot of A-list stars having a lot of fun playing off-the-wall characters. And if you're not laughing during that final scene, something is wrong with you. Grade: B
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
Time to start thinking about summer
The first snow is falling in parts of the U.S. around now (More in some places than others, sorry South Dakota), but if you're Hollywood, you're all ready to start talking summer movies. Here are a couple of new trailers slated for next summer.
First is Up, the latest entry from the people at Pixar:
And then there's Roland Emmerich's 2012, which might as well be called The Day After Tomorrow 2:
First is Up, the latest entry from the people at Pixar:
And then there's Roland Emmerich's 2012, which might as well be called The Day After Tomorrow 2:
Hybrid cartoon
Day 2 of my week of movies rolls on as I saw the latest entry from the folks at Pixar yesterday. After the underwhelming Ratatouille, Pixar has rebounded nicely with the beautiful WALL-E. This is an amazing piece of animation that at times makes you forget you're actually watching a cartoon.
WALL-E is about a trash compacting robot who is left to clean up a now uninhabitated Earth. One day he comes across EVE, a robot sent to analyze the planet's conditions. WALL-E quickly becomes smitten with EVE, or at least as smitted as robots can be. Without giving too much of the plot away, the two embark on an adventure that could potentially save the planet and make it safe to live on again.
What is surprising about this film is that it actually has a very strong political message. Themes of environmentalism and activism are very prevalent, although they're likely lost on the younger audience. I wasn't bothered by it, especially since it's a positive message for all of us to remember, but it was surprisingly nonetheless. The folks at Pixar have never really been this political before, so it will be interesting to see if this trend continues or if they just felt it fit nicely in with the story they were trying to tell here.
While the themes of the film may catch people off guard, what's not shocking is the quality of the animation. Pixar continues to raise the bar with each film they produce as it relates to the animation. The textures are rich and precise, the action is seemless, the characters finely detailed; everything is just a wonder to the eyes. And because a large portion of the film takes place on the uninhabitable Earth, there is a gritty, realistic feel to the movie. A lot of the landscape made it seem like this was any other live action postapocalyptic film.
There is one new element added into the animation here; live people. There are a few scenes which actually show video of real human beings. For instance, WALL-E is seen watching a video of Hello Dolly. Even more interesting is Fred Willard doing a cameo as the CEO of a large Wal-Mart-like corporation. He speaks via video to the captain of the ship that is currently housing all of the remaining Earthlings. This was an odd choice because the rest of the human beings are computer animated. I'm not sure why they decided on this break in continuity, but it didn't really negatively affect my opinion of the film; especially because Fred Willard's brief appearance provides some decent laughs. I'll be curious to see if they continue blending live action and computer animation in their future films.
As I just mentioned, Fred Willard's character does provide some humorous moments in the film. But sadly, there isn't a whole lot more laughs beyond that. That's not really a fault of the script though. This film is a bit more serious and focused on the "love story" between WALL-E and EVE. So while I would have liked a few more laughs, they probably would have negatively changed the tone of the film. WALL-E's antics do provide some smiles, but this isn't like Toy Story where you have characters constantly wisecracking.
Having a film try to create a love story between two robots could have been extremely difficult, but the Pixar people manage to pull it off. Even though these robots have a very limited vocabulary, they are still able to communicate with each other and to the audience the connection they've formed. You'll become invested in these character and want to see them succeed in their quest. It's the mark of a good film when you can ignore the absurdity of a premise like robots establishing a relationship and simply get wrapped up in good storytelling.
For adults, I'm not sure if this one has the replay value that some of the other Pixar films have. As much as I enjoyed this, I'm not going to make any special effort to see it again. Kids, of course, are different and will likely gobble this up with a spoon like they do with most computer animated films. But everyone should do themselves a favor and at least see this once. Since this will be arriving on DVD soon, you'll probably really enjoy this if you have a quality television to play it on. Once you watch it, you'll agree with me that Pixar has created yet another masterpiece that they can add to their ever-growing library. Grade: A-
WALL-E is about a trash compacting robot who is left to clean up a now uninhabitated Earth. One day he comes across EVE, a robot sent to analyze the planet's conditions. WALL-E quickly becomes smitten with EVE, or at least as smitted as robots can be. Without giving too much of the plot away, the two embark on an adventure that could potentially save the planet and make it safe to live on again.
What is surprising about this film is that it actually has a very strong political message. Themes of environmentalism and activism are very prevalent, although they're likely lost on the younger audience. I wasn't bothered by it, especially since it's a positive message for all of us to remember, but it was surprisingly nonetheless. The folks at Pixar have never really been this political before, so it will be interesting to see if this trend continues or if they just felt it fit nicely in with the story they were trying to tell here.
While the themes of the film may catch people off guard, what's not shocking is the quality of the animation. Pixar continues to raise the bar with each film they produce as it relates to the animation. The textures are rich and precise, the action is seemless, the characters finely detailed; everything is just a wonder to the eyes. And because a large portion of the film takes place on the uninhabitable Earth, there is a gritty, realistic feel to the movie. A lot of the landscape made it seem like this was any other live action postapocalyptic film.
There is one new element added into the animation here; live people. There are a few scenes which actually show video of real human beings. For instance, WALL-E is seen watching a video of Hello Dolly. Even more interesting is Fred Willard doing a cameo as the CEO of a large Wal-Mart-like corporation. He speaks via video to the captain of the ship that is currently housing all of the remaining Earthlings. This was an odd choice because the rest of the human beings are computer animated. I'm not sure why they decided on this break in continuity, but it didn't really negatively affect my opinion of the film; especially because Fred Willard's brief appearance provides some decent laughs. I'll be curious to see if they continue blending live action and computer animation in their future films.
As I just mentioned, Fred Willard's character does provide some humorous moments in the film. But sadly, there isn't a whole lot more laughs beyond that. That's not really a fault of the script though. This film is a bit more serious and focused on the "love story" between WALL-E and EVE. So while I would have liked a few more laughs, they probably would have negatively changed the tone of the film. WALL-E's antics do provide some smiles, but this isn't like Toy Story where you have characters constantly wisecracking.
Having a film try to create a love story between two robots could have been extremely difficult, but the Pixar people manage to pull it off. Even though these robots have a very limited vocabulary, they are still able to communicate with each other and to the audience the connection they've formed. You'll become invested in these character and want to see them succeed in their quest. It's the mark of a good film when you can ignore the absurdity of a premise like robots establishing a relationship and simply get wrapped up in good storytelling.
For adults, I'm not sure if this one has the replay value that some of the other Pixar films have. As much as I enjoyed this, I'm not going to make any special effort to see it again. Kids, of course, are different and will likely gobble this up with a spoon like they do with most computer animated films. But everyone should do themselves a favor and at least see this once. Since this will be arriving on DVD soon, you'll probably really enjoy this if you have a quality television to play it on. Once you watch it, you'll agree with me that Pixar has created yet another masterpiece that they can add to their ever-growing library. Grade: A-
Reno's finest shall return
Big news on the return of Reno 911 for season 6...
If you're not familiar with these two new additions, Roberts was the literal doctor on Arrested Development and Truglio was the guy who hit Jonah Hill with his car in Superbad. In my opinion, both sound like great additions to the cast.
Comedy Central announced Monday that its law enforcement comedy Reno 911! is returning for a sixth season along with two new cast members, Ian Roberts (Sergeant Jack Declan) and Joe Lo Truglio (Deputy Franky Rizzo).
Production on the series will resume this month, and the new 10-episode season will debut on March 12, 2009.
The creators of the half-hour comedy, Robert Ben Garant, Kerri Kenney-Silver and Thomas Lennon, also star in the series as cops on the beat in Reno, Nevada.
“We could not be more excited to have Ian Roberts and Joe Lo Truglio join the cast of Reno 911! We’ve taken the show up a notch,” said Garant, Lennon and Kenney-Silver in a statement.
La Truglio previously worked with Garant, Kenney-Silver and Lennon on MTV sketch comedy series The State, which was canceled in 1995.
If you're not familiar with these two new additions, Roberts was the literal doctor on Arrested Development and Truglio was the guy who hit Jonah Hill with his car in Superbad. In my opinion, both sound like great additions to the cast.
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
Meta is betta
This may be a bit ambitious on my part, but there are a handful of movies I want to see right now at the budget theater and this is the last week I'll have before things get really hectic with school and the holidays, so I'm going to try and have a week of big movie reviews here, culminating in seeing Quantum of Solace this Friday. But for today, we kick things off with the last of the big summer comedies I had yet to see, Tropic Thunder.
Directed by and starring Ben Stiller, this film is about a bunch of primadonna actors who are filming a war movie. Fed up with their attitude, the director leaves the actors out in the middle of the Vietnamese jungle to toughen up, all the while telling them that they are out there to shoot scenes for the movie. Don't worry, the movie is more straight-forward than I'm making it out to be.
Of course, one of the most talked about aspects of this movie before it was released was Robert Downey Jr.'s controversial role. He plays Kirk Lazarus, an award-winning Australian actor who undergoes a radical surgery in order to turn his skin black so that he could play the African-American sergeant. No doubt, you saw him featured prominently in the commercials for the film. Not only does he have the funniest moments in the trailer, but that is true of the whole film. This has truly been one amazing summer for Robert Downey Jr. and it is capped off with this masterful performance. He not only does a great job portraying a black man, but he has a really good Australian accent too. Seeing his performance is probably worth the price of admission alone.
But if you're looking for more beyond Downey's performance, the film ends up being a bit more hit and miss. I found this to be very similar to Zoolander, which not surprisingly, was also directed by Stiller. When the film is focused on satire, whether it be Hollywood here or the fashion industry in Zoolander, the film is extremely funny and smart. Stiller is very good at picking up on the nuances of the target of his satire and pointing them out in very comedic ways. This film opens with a series of trailers featuring the various actors in the film. Each are completely different, but they all perfectly capture the style and look of real trailers in that genre. There is also an Access Hollywood segment in the film which could easily have been about a real film; it is spot on.
However, once the film moves beyond satire and settles into its own actual story things start to fall apart. I just felt that the narrative wasn't strong enough here, even though I really liked the concept. For starters, most of the actors realize pretty quickly that they aren't filming a movie anymore and are in actual danger. While it's realistic, it took away a huge part of the film's humor. Only Stiller's character maintains the illusion that it is all part of the movie and a lot of his humorous interactions with the real environment are wrapped up in a montage. But for the rest of the characters, it just becomes a survival story which isn't all that interesting. Part of the problem there is that they've spent the first part of the film establishing that these actors are primadonnas, which doesn't make the audience really become invested in seeing them make it out alive.
A prime example of this is Jack Black's character, who is an overweight comedian with a heroin addiction. Personally, I didn't really enjoy the character or his portrayal of him. Now I realize the role was originally meant for Owen Wilson until he ran into his own personal problems, so I'm not sure if my attitude would change if he had actually been in the movie. Overall, I felt Black's portrayal was too real to be funny and too funny to be taken seriously, if that makes sense. I guess what I'm saying is that he needed to take it to one extreme or the other.
While the film lags in the middle, it does somewhat redeem itself in the end. There are some nice parrallels between how this movie ends and how their fictional movie was supposed to end; although this again seemed confusing because it appeared that they were mocking the ending of the Hollywood film, but wanted you to treat the end of this film seriously. Like Black's performance, the entire film needed to do a better job of seperating the meta references from their own actual plot.
One thing I would be remiss if I didn't point out is that there are several fun cameos throughout the film; something that is becoming the norm in today's comedies. There's Danny McBride, last seen in Pineapple Express, as an overzealous pyrotechnics expert. I previously had not found him particularly funny, but he has a lot of good lines here and his wardrobe is hilarious as well. Matthew McConaughey shows up as the agent to Stiller's character and has a funny running gag regarding TiVo. And finally, an unrecognizable Tom Cruise plays a crass executive. Cruise has some funny moments, but I wish the character would have played things a little bit more straight (no pun intended). Seeing Cruise as a balding, pot-bellied guy would have been funny enough. However, they added on some odd character traits that weren't as funny. It was as if the movie was trying to hard to make everyone think "Wow, look at how funny and cool Tom Cruise is being". It's a fun cameo, but they would have been better off with the 'less is more' mantra there.
There is one other small criticism I have with the film that may not matter to most people. But for some reason, I found it difficult to understand a lot of the lines that the characters were saying. Either they were too softly spoken or said so quickly, I couldn't process what they said. When you have a comedy where half of your jokes are of the verbal kind, this isn't a good thing. There may have been even more humor I missed just because of their delivery. Perhaps, this would have been avoided with a more polished director.
I think there is enough here to give this a recommendation. The Hollywood satire is top notch and Downey gives a hell of a performance that gives him an outside chance at an Oscar nomination. The film suffers from some story problems, but if you're just looking to be entertained, then that probably won't matter to you. Comedy is such a subjective concept as it is, that it is difficult to properly evaluate these films. I personally didn't find this as funny as some of the recent Apatow comedies, but I know that won't be true for everyone. That's why I made the Zoolander comparison earlier in the review. That's probably the best barometer for you. If you enjoyed that film, you'll likely have a good time with this one as well. Grade: B
Directed by and starring Ben Stiller, this film is about a bunch of primadonna actors who are filming a war movie. Fed up with their attitude, the director leaves the actors out in the middle of the Vietnamese jungle to toughen up, all the while telling them that they are out there to shoot scenes for the movie. Don't worry, the movie is more straight-forward than I'm making it out to be.
Of course, one of the most talked about aspects of this movie before it was released was Robert Downey Jr.'s controversial role. He plays Kirk Lazarus, an award-winning Australian actor who undergoes a radical surgery in order to turn his skin black so that he could play the African-American sergeant. No doubt, you saw him featured prominently in the commercials for the film. Not only does he have the funniest moments in the trailer, but that is true of the whole film. This has truly been one amazing summer for Robert Downey Jr. and it is capped off with this masterful performance. He not only does a great job portraying a black man, but he has a really good Australian accent too. Seeing his performance is probably worth the price of admission alone.
But if you're looking for more beyond Downey's performance, the film ends up being a bit more hit and miss. I found this to be very similar to Zoolander, which not surprisingly, was also directed by Stiller. When the film is focused on satire, whether it be Hollywood here or the fashion industry in Zoolander, the film is extremely funny and smart. Stiller is very good at picking up on the nuances of the target of his satire and pointing them out in very comedic ways. This film opens with a series of trailers featuring the various actors in the film. Each are completely different, but they all perfectly capture the style and look of real trailers in that genre. There is also an Access Hollywood segment in the film which could easily have been about a real film; it is spot on.
However, once the film moves beyond satire and settles into its own actual story things start to fall apart. I just felt that the narrative wasn't strong enough here, even though I really liked the concept. For starters, most of the actors realize pretty quickly that they aren't filming a movie anymore and are in actual danger. While it's realistic, it took away a huge part of the film's humor. Only Stiller's character maintains the illusion that it is all part of the movie and a lot of his humorous interactions with the real environment are wrapped up in a montage. But for the rest of the characters, it just becomes a survival story which isn't all that interesting. Part of the problem there is that they've spent the first part of the film establishing that these actors are primadonnas, which doesn't make the audience really become invested in seeing them make it out alive.
A prime example of this is Jack Black's character, who is an overweight comedian with a heroin addiction. Personally, I didn't really enjoy the character or his portrayal of him. Now I realize the role was originally meant for Owen Wilson until he ran into his own personal problems, so I'm not sure if my attitude would change if he had actually been in the movie. Overall, I felt Black's portrayal was too real to be funny and too funny to be taken seriously, if that makes sense. I guess what I'm saying is that he needed to take it to one extreme or the other.
While the film lags in the middle, it does somewhat redeem itself in the end. There are some nice parrallels between how this movie ends and how their fictional movie was supposed to end; although this again seemed confusing because it appeared that they were mocking the ending of the Hollywood film, but wanted you to treat the end of this film seriously. Like Black's performance, the entire film needed to do a better job of seperating the meta references from their own actual plot.
One thing I would be remiss if I didn't point out is that there are several fun cameos throughout the film; something that is becoming the norm in today's comedies. There's Danny McBride, last seen in Pineapple Express, as an overzealous pyrotechnics expert. I previously had not found him particularly funny, but he has a lot of good lines here and his wardrobe is hilarious as well. Matthew McConaughey shows up as the agent to Stiller's character and has a funny running gag regarding TiVo. And finally, an unrecognizable Tom Cruise plays a crass executive. Cruise has some funny moments, but I wish the character would have played things a little bit more straight (no pun intended). Seeing Cruise as a balding, pot-bellied guy would have been funny enough. However, they added on some odd character traits that weren't as funny. It was as if the movie was trying to hard to make everyone think "Wow, look at how funny and cool Tom Cruise is being". It's a fun cameo, but they would have been better off with the 'less is more' mantra there.
There is one other small criticism I have with the film that may not matter to most people. But for some reason, I found it difficult to understand a lot of the lines that the characters were saying. Either they were too softly spoken or said so quickly, I couldn't process what they said. When you have a comedy where half of your jokes are of the verbal kind, this isn't a good thing. There may have been even more humor I missed just because of their delivery. Perhaps, this would have been avoided with a more polished director.
I think there is enough here to give this a recommendation. The Hollywood satire is top notch and Downey gives a hell of a performance that gives him an outside chance at an Oscar nomination. The film suffers from some story problems, but if you're just looking to be entertained, then that probably won't matter to you. Comedy is such a subjective concept as it is, that it is difficult to properly evaluate these films. I personally didn't find this as funny as some of the recent Apatow comedies, but I know that won't be true for everyone. That's why I made the Zoolander comparison earlier in the review. That's probably the best barometer for you. If you enjoyed that film, you'll likely have a good time with this one as well. Grade: B
Saturday, November 8, 2008
Casino Royale (2006)
Plot: Casino Royale introduces James Bond before he holds his license to kill. But Bond is no less dangerous and with two professional assassinations in quick succession, he is elevated to '00' status. M sends the newly-promoted 007 to his first mission that takes him to Madagascar, the Bahamas, and eventually leads him to Montenegro to face Le Chiffre, a ruthless financier under threat from his terrorist clientele, who is attempting to restore his funds in a high-stakes poker game at the Casino Royale. Le Chiffre's cunning and cruelty come to bear on Bond and Treasury official Vesper Lynd (Eva Green) in a way that he could never imagine and he learns his most important lesson: Trust no one.
Firsts: Craig as Bond, appearances by Mathis, Mr. White and Jeffrey Wright as Felix Leiter, gun barrel sequence does not appear at the opening of the movie
Gadgets: Tracking device implant, personal defibrillator
Girls Bond slept with: Vesper Lynd; Would have slept with Solange had business not gotten in the way
Elaborate murder attempt that Bond escapes: Spiked martini, tortured with a knotted rope to the balls
Personal review: After 22 weeks, we've finally reached the end, which is ironic because this is the film that brought us back to the beginning. The Bond producers decided to reboot the franchise and the decision seems to have worked. I absolutely love this movie and have found Daniel Craig to be an excellent Bond thus far, even though many people weren't very confident in him when the announcement was originally made.
Not only is Craig a good Bond, but this is a really good movie too. Who knew Martin Campbell, who directed Goldeneye, could create such a beautiful and exciting picture? The action sequences are top notch, the locations are stylish and the movie manages to still have some fun too.
Part of what makes Craig such a good Bond is the way the character is written. Instead of being portrayed as some sort of superman, the character approaches situations in a way most people would. Take for instance, the opening chase sequence with the parkour artist. That guy leaping around like a frogman, but they have Bond slip and stumble in his jumps or just bust through walls instead of being able to leap over them. There are a lot of small touches like that which just make this an above average film.
Another one of the little things that I love about this film is how they withold many of Bond's trademark stuff until the end of the movie. If you notice the Bond theme and the 'Bond, James Bond' line are not used until the scene with Mr. White, as if to say he truly didn't become 'Bond' until after the Vesper incident. The way the film ends is just an amazing scene. The fact that this next film will start right where this one ends, makes me even more excited Quantum of Solace.
Speaking of the villains, Le Chiffre is all right, but not within the top eschelon of Bond villains. He's got the cool bloody tears and has some fun torturing Bond, but isn't truly significant. But knowing he was just a minor player within a larger organization makes it all right that he wasn't more memorable or evil.
And as for Eva Green as Vesper, she's certainly not the sexiest Bond girl. However, she brought an important vulnerability to the role which worked and made it believable as to why Bond would fall for her so hard. It appears that while she may not be the best Bond girl ever, she's likely to have the most significant impact on the franchise.
The lone common complaint about this film is that some feel it drags a bit and is too long. Those who believe this, typically point to the poker scenes as the parts that could have been cut. I don't really agree with this argument, but if there was an area that I would edit, it would be the Bond/Vesper scenes that occur after the tortune scene. I understand their purpose to advance Vesper's storyline, but they brought the film more to a halt than the poker scenes in my opinion. But like I said, in general, I really don't think the movie drags in the least.
I really feel like I could go on and heap more praise on this one, but I don't think its necessary. With it being the most recent and also likely seen by most people who read this, it seems like I don't really need to go into great detail as to why this is a good movie. Most will agree that Craig has been the right choice to take over the franchise after delivering such a knockout debut performance. I think all Bond fans are anxious to see what he now does for an encore. 10/10
Lost sets its premiere plus casting news
From EW.com...
And this comes from Yahoo news...
This is all good news from my perspective. Let the countdown to January begin!
We don't know where the Island went -- but now know when we'll be seeing it again. ABC insiders say that the fifth season of the Emmy-nominated cypto-drama will premiere with a two-hour event on Jan. 21, 2009, at 8 p.m. That's a Wednesday, in case you don't know next year's calendar by heart, which means that Lost will be returning to its original day-of-the-week slot. (Last season, it aired on Thursday nights.)
While plans are still being finalized, sources indicate Lost will launch with its first two episodes aired back-to-back, not a single, two-hour opus like its season finales. (Should ABC reconsider the plan, look for the first hour of the two-hour event to be some kind of recap special.) Still TBD: if Lost will be making 8 p.m. its weekly Wednesday berth. An 8 p.m. start means the show will be competing against (gulp) Fox's American Idol. At 9 p.m., Lost will be tangling with Fox's new House-meets-The Mentalist procedural, Lie To Me, which will premiere the same night as Lost's return. When we get the regular time slot thing nailed down, we'll let you know. -- Additional reporting by Michael Ausiello and Lynette Rice
UPDATE: Look for Lost to make 9 p.m. its regular time slot, according to a source, albeit with the caveat that plans aren't 100 percent finalized.
NEW UPDATE: The Lost season five premiere will actually be a three hour event! An hour-long recap special will air at 8 PM, followed by the first two episodes from 9-11 PM. The series will air thereafter at 9 PM on Wednesdays.
And this comes from Yahoo news...
Reiko Aylesworth is in negotiations for a major recurring role on "Lost," which returns to ABC in early 2009.
She will play Amy, a smart and successful professional woman with a love for the outdoors who is looking for the right man. The actress played ill-fated federal agent Michelle Dessler on "24," recurred on NBC's "ER" last season.
This is all good news from my perspective. Let the countdown to January begin!
Friday, November 7, 2008
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
RIP Michael Crichton
From CNN.com...
Wow, that is sad and terrible news. I always loved his books and Jurassic Park was one of the first adult novels I read when I was growing up. It's a shame we'll won't get a chance to read another tale from this inventive and intelligent author.
Michael Crichton, the best-selling author of Jurassic Park and creator of the TV series ER, has died at the age of 66, according to a statement from his public relations firm. The release said the author died unexpectedly after a "courageous and private battle against cancer."
Wow, that is sad and terrible news. I always loved his books and Jurassic Park was one of the first adult novels I read when I was growing up. It's a shame we'll won't get a chance to read another tale from this inventive and intelligent author.
Monday, November 3, 2008
Heroes bombshell
and I don't mean Sylar going nuclear like we saw a few weeks ago.
From Comingsoon.net:
I haven't really spoke on here this season about my thoughts on Heroes. But in general, I've felt the show's been wildly uneven. I think the best comparison would be to Vince Russo's writing tenure in the WWF(E). At the moment when you're watching the show, there's a lot going on and things are very exciting. But once you've been away from it for a few hours, you realize a lot of things don't make sense and are a narrative disaster. Characters don't act based on who they are, they act based on what the storyline needs them to do. In addition, everything is kept very superficial, so you never really learn anything about these character or get to care for them in anyway. I have really hated how they have casually killed off so many villain characters this season with no fanfare, yet continue to have too many heroes that nobody wants to see (coughMattParkmancough).
I'm not sure if this firing was warranted, but if it can help bring some focus to the show, I'm all for it. Of course, we won't see the effects of this move for a while as they have quite a few episodes already done that haven't aired yet. As for the two guys that were fired, I wouldn't shed a tear for them. Both are accomplished writers and will easily find other work. For now, we just need to hope this show is able to find its mojo and return it to season 1 greatness.
From Comingsoon.net:
Variety says there was a big shakeup behind the scenes of NBC's "Heroes" on Sunday as writers/co-executive producers Jesse Alexander and Jeph Loeb were fired.
The duo had been with the show since its first season and were known to have led the day-to-day production operation under the direction of creator/executive producer Tim Kring.
"Heroes," produced by Universal Media Studios, has struggled in the ratings its third season. It's understood that Alexander and Loeb were let go because of NBC executives' frustration with the creative direction of the show.
The trade added that the show is also said to have been dealing with hefty budget overruns this season that are going well beyond its already sizable $4 million per-episode pricetag.
I haven't really spoke on here this season about my thoughts on Heroes. But in general, I've felt the show's been wildly uneven. I think the best comparison would be to Vince Russo's writing tenure in the WWF(E). At the moment when you're watching the show, there's a lot going on and things are very exciting. But once you've been away from it for a few hours, you realize a lot of things don't make sense and are a narrative disaster. Characters don't act based on who they are, they act based on what the storyline needs them to do. In addition, everything is kept very superficial, so you never really learn anything about these character or get to care for them in anyway. I have really hated how they have casually killed off so many villain characters this season with no fanfare, yet continue to have too many heroes that nobody wants to see (coughMattParkmancough).
I'm not sure if this firing was warranted, but if it can help bring some focus to the show, I'm all for it. Of course, we won't see the effects of this move for a while as they have quite a few episodes already done that haven't aired yet. As for the two guys that were fired, I wouldn't shed a tear for them. Both are accomplished writers and will easily find other work. For now, we just need to hope this show is able to find its mojo and return it to season 1 greatness.
Saturday, November 1, 2008
Howard's End
Here's more news from EW.com on why Terrance Howard won't be back as Col. Jim Rhodes in Iron Man 2:
When a summer blockbuster grosses more than $300 million, putting together a sequel is typically as simple as throwing buckets of money at your stars and signing a few pieces of paper. That hasn't been the case with Iron Man 2. It took months for Marvel Studios to lock in director Jon Favreau for the sequel. And reports that Don Cheadle will replace Terrence Howard as Col. Jim Rhodes — a supporting character who seemed poised for a big role in the follow-up after he muttered ''Next time, baby'' to Iron Man's steel suit — hint that IM2 isn't quite as infallible as the superhero at its center.
Hollywood insiders believe the exit stems from Terrence Howard's difficult behavior on the set of Iron Man. But those with intimate knowledge of the situation suggest a far more dramatic backstory: Howard was the first actor signed to the film and, on top of that, was the highest-paid. That's right: more than Gwyneth Paltrow. More than Jeff Bridges. More than Robert Downey Jr. And once the project fully came together, it was too late to renegotiate his deal. It didn't help that, according to one source, Favreau and his producers were ultimately unhappy with Howard's performance, and spent a lot of time cutting and reshooting his scenes. (Favreau could not be reached for comment, while Howard's publicist says: ''Terrence had a tremendous experience working on Iron Man.'')
As such, when Favreau and screenwriter Justin Theroux went to map out the sequel they found themselves minimizing Howard's story line. Once Marvel learned that Favreau was thinking of curtailing the role, the studio went to the actor's agents with a new and drastically reduced offer — a number that's similar to what supporting cast members were paid for the first movie. The agents, according to sources, were so taken aback by this new figure — estimated at somewhere between a 50 and 80 percent pay cut — that they questioned it. Why did they blanch? Multiple sources say that Marvel execs never told Howard's reps that they had issues with the star's on-set conduct. (Marvel would not comment for this story.)
It's unclear whether Howard's team walked away first, or if Marvel ended the discussion at that point. Either way, the studio moved quickly to secure Cheadle and the story leaked out the next morning, Oct. 14. And alas for Howard, there will be no next time.
Die Another Day (2002)
Plot: When his top-secret mission is sabotaged, James Bond (Pierce Brosnan) finds himself captured by the enemy, abandoned by MI6 and stripped of his 00-license. Determined to get revenge, Bond goes head-to-head with a sultry spy (Halle Berry), a frosty agent (Rosamund Pike) and a shadowy billionaire (Toby Stephens) whose business is diamonds...but whose secret is a diabolical weapon that could bring the world to its knees!
Firsts: Bullet coming at you in gun barrel sequence, story being told during opening credit sequence, singer of Bond theme having a role in the film
Gadgets: Surfboard with stowaway weapons, wristwatches with lasers and detonation devices, fully loaded Aston Martin with invisibility, ring with sonic agitation
Girls Bond slept with: Jinx and Miranda Frost
Elaborate murder attempt that Bond escapes: Chased by a laser harnessing the sun's power
Personal review: This is a very polarizing film, which may be appropriate given the large role ice plays in the film. Get it, polar, ice. Oh never mind. Anyways, in what would turn out to be Brosnan's last film as 007, there is a lot to like about this entry, but also a lot cringe-worthy aspects as well.
I really dug the opening sequence and the concept of Bond getting caught and tortured. It made the character a bit more falliable without ruining his credibility or reputation. Associated with that, even though it was far-fetched, the whole gene therapy to give the primary villain a true extreme makeover worked for me. It was just over-the-top to work in the Bond universe, plus it provided an added level of animosity between Bond and Moon/Graves that typically isn't found in these films. All of the scenes in Cuba were fun and did a nice job of calling back to older Bond films. Finally, Graves' ice palace was a great addition in the pantheon of classic Bond villain lairs.
In general, this is another action-packed adventure that is enjoyable to watch. However, as I said there are a few things that really drop the film a few notches. First off, I cannot stand the Jinx character. There was no reason to try and create a female Bond. The one-liners and bad-assery just don't work coming from Berry. It may be misogynist of me, but the Bond girls should remain eye candy and as damsels in distress to me. Unless, they're a villainous Bond girl, like Rosamund Pike's Miranda Frost, who I thought was awesome in this film. Sexy and evil in one little package. But back to Jinx, for a second; as sad as I was to see Brosnan leave before I thought he was done as Bond, if it meant putting the kibosh on the rumored Jinx spin-off movies, then I'm glad he chose to hang it up.
Now I mentioned before about the gene therapy being a bit over-the-top, but it's nothing compared to some of the gadgets and stunts in this film. First, there's the invisible car. Now I'm not as critical as some are of it, but it is pretty ridiculous. Still, I can only imagine how people in the 60s reacted to Bond's ejector seat car in Goldfinger. So maybe we shouldn't be too critical of that. The worse offender though is the chase scene with the Icarus laser that ends with Bond turning a jet car into a parasail. Bond has done some extreme stunts before, but this one was not only over-the-top but also looked really bad from a visual standpoint. Take for instance, the scene in Goldeneye where leaps off the cliff and somehow freefalls into the plane. Completely ridiculous, but it was filmed in a way to make it look like it actually happened. Compared to this parasailing scene which looks completely computer generated and phony.
Speaking of the look of the film, I was not fond of Lee Tamohori's direction as all. It seemed like he tried to infuse a Matrix-style of filmmaking into this movie and it just didn't work at all. Shots like the one with Zao (who by the way looked awesome with his 'world's most expensive acne') flipping his jacket in slow-motion as he prepares to torture Jinx was just silly and unnecessary.
In the end, this film really tried to merge old-school Bond with modern filmmaking and it ended up clashing instead of coming together harmoniously. There is enough fun and action in here to not call this a bad Bond film, but there are too many unlikeable aspects in it to consider it one of the best entries either. This one isn't as insulting as The World is Not Enough, but falls below Brosnan first two attempts. 7.5/10
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)