Happy holidays, dear reader (singular... i mean, who am i kidding, right?). With the solstice over, i now have a small array of movies and games given to me seemingly specifically for the purpose of invoking my ire once more. I even got a pair of theater tickets (i just need to trick some unsuspecting female into going to the theater with me - i have until 2011, by expiration date). As such, i'll be spending the next few posts going through this list of movies, hopefully within the month, and spewing my opinion on them here for all to see. As i'm also learning how to draw now, maybe i'll even include a few drawings for accompanyment. But we'll see - i have other reasons to learn how to draw (i had to cut down on my pay porn sites due to the economic downturn).
While there appears to be some decent looking movies in the pile, there are also things like Mortal Combat (yeah...) so there's lots of room for great anger and great enjoyment to be had by all. But enough background, let's get to the first movie...
Idiocracy: a movie about stupidity... or was it just a stupid movie? Brought to you by a fellow physicist (Mike Judge - King of the Hill and Office Space guy) Idiocracy's plot is as simple as the characters it portrays. Thanks to rampant commercialism and "a lack of natural predators", the future is composed entirely of people slightly less intelligent than they are today (though, miraculously, technology seemed to have advanced as well). The result of which is fox news is pretty much unchanged and the main character (who's travelled to the future via a plot-device) is the smartest person in the world - but not by a whole hell of a lot. It's sort of like that episode of the simpsons where Homer becomes "smart", but dragged out for about 90 minutes.
The movie is listed as a comedy and originally i expected the humour to be derived largely from the more "intellectual" side of the spectrum. Ironically, however, the comedy is instead derived largely from the dumbed-down, simplistic form of entertainment the film openly derides. So, basically, when you ARE laughing, you're laughing at yourself, laughing at yourself, laughing at... well, you get the idea.
The main characters are supposed to be of average intelligence by today's standards and i guess they sort of are: It takes the main male character half a day to figure out what has happened to him and it takes the main female character significantly longer than that for the same realization to dawn on her. Hooray for sexism!
The problem arises is that because they are so average, they kind of don't really appeal to anyone. Not to say they're unlikeable, but you just don't identify with them enough to care when they're put in trouble. Will Joe make it out alive from the futuristic legal system of the US? Probably, but who cares?
Having an "average" hero is not BAD per-se, but it's not good, either. People typically view themselves as extremes and hence don't "click" well with so-called "averages". You, my dear reader, no doubtfully view yourself as just as fun and quirky as Homer Simpson, just as intelligent as Greggory House (of House MD) and with the driving abilities rivalling that of Mario Andretti! Hell, you probably think yourself as strong and agile as your favourite superhero... if only in comparison to the pathetic "average" of society. Unfortunately, you're wrong: You're boring, unintelligent, out of shape and (chances are) not a very good driver, either.
No, i'm not trying to insult you. I, too, view myself as all of those wonderful things (except, i actually am). But the fact remains: you don't view yourself as "average". Just like guidance counsellors told you many years ago (and you foolishly believed), you're special - just like everyone else.
Anyways, getting back from my long journey to "what the hell is he talking about" land: Idiocracy is an oddly non-offensive "sardonic" look at what the future holds: The people who live in the future are portrayed sympathetically as well-meaning "high school" type personalities (because stupidity ends after high school!) and aren't nearly as dangerous as real-life morons (libertarianism, anyone?). It's really quite odd because the portrayal of stupid people in the movie's present is far more scathing, though only slightly more accurate.
The other thing that's kind of odd, despite the current poor health problems of north americans in general (and poor, ignorant north americans specifically), there are a surprisingly large number of relatively fit people in the future. Even "Average Joe" main character is pretty far from "average joe north american" when it comes to relative health. Now, not everyone in the movie is fit, but considering the *ahem* "plot", you'd think they would've at least TRIED to make it a little more accurate. It's not like they're trying to not offend stupid, fat people.
As far as the good traits of the movie are concerned, there really isn't that much. There are a few visual puns that are worth a laugh or two, but the entire "everyone's a knuckle dragging hillbilly" gets old quite fast. Really, there isn't that much to enjoy... i suspect i just wasn't drunk enough to be watching it in the first place.
The film ends with the "message" that simply reading a few books can cure stupidity the same way aspirin cures a headache. The male lead marries the female lead, thus ending the statutory love story required in all movies by law, and everyone (in the future) learns just a little and the world becomes a better place as a result. I give this movie two stars out of a possible 5 (cause 2 is a smaller number than 5): there are worse movies, but there are also much, much better ones, too.
Saturday, December 27, 2008
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
Super Princess Peach - SPP
So.... i just finished Super Princess Peach for the DS. For those of you who don't know what this game is, it's basically the gender flip of any mario game. Instead of peach being kidnapped and mario rescuing her, it's mario kidnapped and peach rescuing him. Now, i'm not a fan of the "gender flip" (feminists answer to their own inadequacies, hehehe! *sigh* why am i still single?), but this game is, dare i say it? Fun! Like, really fun.
The game is a typical platformer that reminds me more of Warioland 4 for the gameboy advanced than the mario games. Instead of just stomping on goombas and such as in mario games, peach uses a weapon (an umbrella) to smack them around. Additionally, she has a set of emotions which, like any woman's, runs from "calm" to "crying" to "fuming angrily" (at the drop of a hat!).
*hides from women* please don't hurt me!
The emotions run off of a "vibe" metre (something like a magic bar) allowing peach only a finite amount of time to use them. However, the metre can be refilled by making her talking umbrella (perry) eat enemies (pretty dark, eh?) and can later be upgraded at a shop by using the coins you collect in levels. Additional upgrades are also available in said shop, including more hit points (hearts, in peach's case) and additional abilities (like one to float, etc).
Now that i've got all that "what i like" crap out of the way, let me get on with what i DON'T like.
...
Actually, there's not much i don't like. But there were things that did seem off to me. Not off enough to anger me, but off none the less.
First of all, WHY the gender flip? Mario's a classic platformer and Peach is the classic damsel in distress. The roles don't flip very well. I mean, if Bowser spends all his time sending hundreds of goombas at mario in timed environments, forcing him to traverse numerous challenges just to rescue peach, why oh why didn't he just slit his throat when the shoe's on the other foot? See, with Peach, Bowser has a thing for her (or at least, this is how it's been developed in the mario-verse) so it makes since that he doesn't kill HER. But i just don't buy it the other way around.
Also, i think Peach just makes a good damsel in distress. It's classic, if not a bit device-y, and makes better story sense (in more ways than above). Without getting into all the "sexism in video games" and "vg plotlines" crap, suffice it to say, humans are emotive creatures and nothing like an emotive construct (Mario and Peach's relationship?) to move a logical story. Sorry, that's just the way life works.
The other thing that kind of seemed off to me, and this is more of a personal off, is, no matter how much i like the game (and i do like this one) it's very hard to stand up in public and say, "yes, i, a desirable young heterosexual male, enjoys playing as a pink-dress wearing princess". Though i played the game on the bus, i found myself kind of shrinking away from inquiring eyes. I guess the conditioning of the human animal is a hard thing to ignore.
Finally, the last thing that bothered me about this game is... the critics themselves! (what an odd thing to say, right?) Critics for this game actually come from two categories: feminists (yes, really) and "hard core gamers".
Feminist critics complain about the "sexism" of peach using emotions to thwart her foes (yes, they really said this). Naturally, they miss the point that EVERYONE in the game (bowser, goombas, etc) uses emotions due to the characteristics of the land (vibe island). What's truly ironic is that feminists consider a gender flip of what they believe to be a sexist-against-women franchise to also be a sexist-against-women game (whoo, boy). Of course, a gender flip, by design, is reverse discrimination, but i guess that "subtle" point is lost, too.
Think about it... group a persecutes group b. Is the "right" reaction to say "ok, whatever happened to group b should now be perpetrated against group a". If you said yes, you'd probably feel right at home in Rwanda (you sick bastard). NB: i don't consider EITHER game to be sexist in any way (i just like Peach as the oft-used damsel in distress)!
Now onto my much more disliked critics: the hard core gamers! Yes, these people with all their love of video games have essentially RUINED them for everyone else! Where i found SPP to be a moderately challenging game i can play in my spare time (hey! That's just what i WANT from a game!) they bitched about it being "too easy". Self proclaimed "hard core gamers" are the douchebags that believe a video game is ONLY fun if you have to PRACTICE it first! A game is only "challenging" if you spend 45 minutes dying to a boss before you figure out how to kill him in 5. Remember the last time you had fun dying repeatedly in a game? Me neither. DROP DEAD, ASSHOLES!
To end on a somewhat different note: after playing through SPP i immediately sought to discuss it with my brother (a fellow gamer) and when he asked me about the emotions function, i immediately sought to find an image on google regarding my favourite of them (Peach angry - how could it be anything else?).
Now, if you're moderately familiar with the internet, you probably know what happened next. I put in "Peach angry" into The Google and lo and behold, pornography! Normally, i'd relish at this find (woo! Pron!) but when i'm trying to actually find something, it makes me wonder if ANY google image search is "work safe". The funniest thing about all this is the KINDS of images i turned up: Bowser raping Peach.
"Huh... well, i guess that WOULD make her angry," i thought. "Sad, too, i bet."
The other thing i thought was "who gets off on this, anyway? Isn't Bowser, like... a hideous monster?" But i guess i'm probably looking too deeply into internet pornography trends.
All in all, SPP is a good game. I give it an 8.5 out of ten (room for improvement, but still worthwhile). Now, if you'll excuse me, i'm going to go sort my hate mail (those from feminists, those from hard core gamers).
The game is a typical platformer that reminds me more of Warioland 4 for the gameboy advanced than the mario games. Instead of just stomping on goombas and such as in mario games, peach uses a weapon (an umbrella) to smack them around. Additionally, she has a set of emotions which, like any woman's, runs from "calm" to "crying" to "fuming angrily" (at the drop of a hat!).
*hides from women* please don't hurt me!
The emotions run off of a "vibe" metre (something like a magic bar) allowing peach only a finite amount of time to use them. However, the metre can be refilled by making her talking umbrella (perry) eat enemies (pretty dark, eh?) and can later be upgraded at a shop by using the coins you collect in levels. Additional upgrades are also available in said shop, including more hit points (hearts, in peach's case) and additional abilities (like one to float, etc).
Now that i've got all that "what i like" crap out of the way, let me get on with what i DON'T like.
...
Actually, there's not much i don't like. But there were things that did seem off to me. Not off enough to anger me, but off none the less.
First of all, WHY the gender flip? Mario's a classic platformer and Peach is the classic damsel in distress. The roles don't flip very well. I mean, if Bowser spends all his time sending hundreds of goombas at mario in timed environments, forcing him to traverse numerous challenges just to rescue peach, why oh why didn't he just slit his throat when the shoe's on the other foot? See, with Peach, Bowser has a thing for her (or at least, this is how it's been developed in the mario-verse) so it makes since that he doesn't kill HER. But i just don't buy it the other way around.
Also, i think Peach just makes a good damsel in distress. It's classic, if not a bit device-y, and makes better story sense (in more ways than above). Without getting into all the "sexism in video games" and "vg plotlines" crap, suffice it to say, humans are emotive creatures and nothing like an emotive construct (Mario and Peach's relationship?) to move a logical story. Sorry, that's just the way life works.
The other thing that kind of seemed off to me, and this is more of a personal off, is, no matter how much i like the game (and i do like this one) it's very hard to stand up in public and say, "yes, i, a desirable young heterosexual male, enjoys playing as a pink-dress wearing princess". Though i played the game on the bus, i found myself kind of shrinking away from inquiring eyes. I guess the conditioning of the human animal is a hard thing to ignore.
Finally, the last thing that bothered me about this game is... the critics themselves! (what an odd thing to say, right?) Critics for this game actually come from two categories: feminists (yes, really) and "hard core gamers".
Feminist critics complain about the "sexism" of peach using emotions to thwart her foes (yes, they really said this). Naturally, they miss the point that EVERYONE in the game (bowser, goombas, etc) uses emotions due to the characteristics of the land (vibe island). What's truly ironic is that feminists consider a gender flip of what they believe to be a sexist-against-women franchise to also be a sexist-against-women game (whoo, boy). Of course, a gender flip, by design, is reverse discrimination, but i guess that "subtle" point is lost, too.
Think about it... group a persecutes group b. Is the "right" reaction to say "ok, whatever happened to group b should now be perpetrated against group a". If you said yes, you'd probably feel right at home in Rwanda (you sick bastard). NB: i don't consider EITHER game to be sexist in any way (i just like Peach as the oft-used damsel in distress)!
Now onto my much more disliked critics: the hard core gamers! Yes, these people with all their love of video games have essentially RUINED them for everyone else! Where i found SPP to be a moderately challenging game i can play in my spare time (hey! That's just what i WANT from a game!) they bitched about it being "too easy". Self proclaimed "hard core gamers" are the douchebags that believe a video game is ONLY fun if you have to PRACTICE it first! A game is only "challenging" if you spend 45 minutes dying to a boss before you figure out how to kill him in 5. Remember the last time you had fun dying repeatedly in a game? Me neither. DROP DEAD, ASSHOLES!
To end on a somewhat different note: after playing through SPP i immediately sought to discuss it with my brother (a fellow gamer) and when he asked me about the emotions function, i immediately sought to find an image on google regarding my favourite of them (Peach angry - how could it be anything else?).
Now, if you're moderately familiar with the internet, you probably know what happened next. I put in "Peach angry" into The Google and lo and behold, pornography! Normally, i'd relish at this find (woo! Pron!) but when i'm trying to actually find something, it makes me wonder if ANY google image search is "work safe". The funniest thing about all this is the KINDS of images i turned up: Bowser raping Peach.
"Huh... well, i guess that WOULD make her angry," i thought. "Sad, too, i bet."
The other thing i thought was "who gets off on this, anyway? Isn't Bowser, like... a hideous monster?" But i guess i'm probably looking too deeply into internet pornography trends.
All in all, SPP is a good game. I give it an 8.5 out of ten (room for improvement, but still worthwhile). Now, if you'll excuse me, i'm going to go sort my hate mail (those from feminists, those from hard core gamers).
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
Futurama Movie: Bender's Game
Well, i'm back, after a very long break with yet another scathing review. You didn't think i'd give up on this blog altogether, did you? Writing, is, after all, the only thing that fills the void in my empty, empty life.
So, futurama's newest made for tv movie, Bender's game, (that's three so far, if you can count that high) came out today and yours truly took a chance and saw it for myself. If you've seen either of the previous movies, you probably think this was a stupid endeavor as you "know" it was going to suck. Well, let me tell, i've seen all three and i can say without a hint of hyperbole that this one was a trillion times worse than the previous ones put together.
I went into this movie expecting a play off of dungeons and dragons with more jokes akin to the cliched "my plus one (whatever)" and jokes about virginity and other niche specific proddings. After all, this is what the futurama writers did best when they weren't producing shitty made-for-tv movies. Instead, what we get is some contrived plot about fuel that i assume is supposed to be a parody of what's happening with big oil but falls far short of anything remotely clever or topical. In fact, the only actual part about fantasy games like D&D is relegated to the odd cut scene with the "loser" characters of the cast until the last 20 minutes when it's inexplicably thrust in for the main storyline (and even then more resembles a LotR's parody than D&D).
What's more, the story itself is composed of several different plots, and jumps around so awkwardly you can't help but think that it was written by 7 or 8 writers and sewed together last second before it had to be sent to be produced. Many of the other plots barely start and don't finish and the hackneyed "twist" near the end is so obvious and unimportant, it's a wonder they even included it in the first place, particularly considering if cannon, it has HUGE implications on the future of the actual story itself.
The other thing this movie lacks is the one thing it should have in spades: comedy. It has everything going for a good equation for comedy, after all. An array of established characters with loads of traits, quirky plot lines (fragmented though they may be) and a setting so vast and diverse (the future!) you couldn't possibly run out of original jokes and ideas. And yet... *sigh*
The problem with futurama it seems is that they've fallen into the pit of "character humour is the only humour". Let me put this simply: characters, no matter how diverse and colourful, are not funny on their own (incidentally, this is a problem with almost EVERY show out there, not just futurama).
Fry is a stupid, lazy oaf from the past. This isn't funny. Leela is a prudent woman with a penchants for violence. This isn't funny (on a side-note, female characters are almost always written badly due to the gender flip phenomenon). Bender is a greedy, self-adoring alcoholic. This isn't funny. The characters themselves are not funny because no character trait, no matter how exaggerated, is funny! Not on it's own, anyway. What is funny is Fry's inability to fully adapt to a future so different to our current time, it seems oddly familiar. Character traits need to be contrasted against a situation, otherwise it's just "life" and who in their right mind finds that funny? As someone anonymous once said (and i'm copying) "comedy happens when two ideas intersect" not when the same idea intersects with itself.
Now, i could sit here and rant all day about the shortcomings of this movie (and contemporary tv shows in general)... but that's probably why i'm still single. So instead, i'll just say, if you liked futurama, the beast with a billion backs, seek help. If not, don't watch this movie as it's pretty much more of the terrible same. This ranter gives Bender's Game a single imaginary star (out of a possible 5 real stars).
So, futurama's newest made for tv movie, Bender's game, (that's three so far, if you can count that high) came out today and yours truly took a chance and saw it for myself. If you've seen either of the previous movies, you probably think this was a stupid endeavor as you "know" it was going to suck. Well, let me tell, i've seen all three and i can say without a hint of hyperbole that this one was a trillion times worse than the previous ones put together.
I went into this movie expecting a play off of dungeons and dragons with more jokes akin to the cliched "my plus one (whatever)" and jokes about virginity and other niche specific proddings. After all, this is what the futurama writers did best when they weren't producing shitty made-for-tv movies. Instead, what we get is some contrived plot about fuel that i assume is supposed to be a parody of what's happening with big oil but falls far short of anything remotely clever or topical. In fact, the only actual part about fantasy games like D&D is relegated to the odd cut scene with the "loser" characters of the cast until the last 20 minutes when it's inexplicably thrust in for the main storyline (and even then more resembles a LotR's parody than D&D).
What's more, the story itself is composed of several different plots, and jumps around so awkwardly you can't help but think that it was written by 7 or 8 writers and sewed together last second before it had to be sent to be produced. Many of the other plots barely start and don't finish and the hackneyed "twist" near the end is so obvious and unimportant, it's a wonder they even included it in the first place, particularly considering if cannon, it has HUGE implications on the future of the actual story itself.
The other thing this movie lacks is the one thing it should have in spades: comedy. It has everything going for a good equation for comedy, after all. An array of established characters with loads of traits, quirky plot lines (fragmented though they may be) and a setting so vast and diverse (the future!) you couldn't possibly run out of original jokes and ideas. And yet... *sigh*
The problem with futurama it seems is that they've fallen into the pit of "character humour is the only humour". Let me put this simply: characters, no matter how diverse and colourful, are not funny on their own (incidentally, this is a problem with almost EVERY show out there, not just futurama).
Fry is a stupid, lazy oaf from the past. This isn't funny. Leela is a prudent woman with a penchants for violence. This isn't funny (on a side-note, female characters are almost always written badly due to the gender flip phenomenon). Bender is a greedy, self-adoring alcoholic. This isn't funny. The characters themselves are not funny because no character trait, no matter how exaggerated, is funny! Not on it's own, anyway. What is funny is Fry's inability to fully adapt to a future so different to our current time, it seems oddly familiar. Character traits need to be contrasted against a situation, otherwise it's just "life" and who in their right mind finds that funny? As someone anonymous once said (and i'm copying) "comedy happens when two ideas intersect" not when the same idea intersects with itself.
Now, i could sit here and rant all day about the shortcomings of this movie (and contemporary tv shows in general)... but that's probably why i'm still single. So instead, i'll just say, if you liked futurama, the beast with a billion backs, seek help. If not, don't watch this movie as it's pretty much more of the terrible same. This ranter gives Bender's Game a single imaginary star (out of a possible 5 real stars).
Sunday, September 14, 2008
Kung Fu Panda
Ok, originally i didn't want to review this movie, but due to my lack of a social life as of late (like, the last 25 years or so), i've not seen anything else recently and i really need something to put up for a review. Kung Fu Panda, for those of you who don't know it, is a children's animated movie about a panda (Po) who learns kung fu. Deep, no?
Now, usually here i'd follow up with some snide comments or glib remarks (ed: whiny reader "but you already made one!"), but not this time. Why? Because i actually didn't mind the damned movie! I know, since my WallE review, people say i only like animated movies. But that's not true! I hated HATED Starwars: Clonewars. That movie haunts me to this day, weighting me down like an albatross about my neck! But i digress.
Back to the movie: Kung Fu panda is a kids movie, plain and simple. Its themes are aimed at children, teaching them acceptance of those who are different, etc and the light hearted humour is aimed primarily at children. But like any good piece of children's fiction, it has elements aimed at adults, too. However, the truly best part about this movie is its story. While it has an "obvious" outcome, this movie shows that even a clichéd plot can be successful if done correctly. After all, a story's about the journey, not the destination; this is something FAR too many movies these days forget.
Now, let's talk about the voice talent: Po, the main character is done by "comedian" jack black. Now, i'm no fan of jack black; i find his fat-ass to be more pathetic than comedic. But when he's the voice of a fat, pathetic, anthropomorphic panda, somehow this works. He seemed somewhat reigned in by the story and was even able to deliver the "serious" lines with the tinge of honesty they required: a feat i'm sure even he was surprised by (Oh my god, jack black can act? Well, no, but he can fake it pretty good). As far as voice acting goes, i think jack black did quite a decent job.
But what about the other characters of the movie? Surely with such talent lined up as Angelina Jolie (Tigress), Jackie Chan (Monkey), Lucy Liu (Viper), David Cross (Crane) and Seth Rogen (Mantis) it must've been a STELLAR performance. However, given that the "furious five" (characters voiced by the above) play almost a side-line role, i can't help but think the excessive voice talents were needless. It's a cartoon, for god's sake! You could've gotten Dan Castellaneta to do half the voices and saved a ton on the voice acting! In fact, when it comes to "the five", i think they get a total of half a dozen lines each! Man, i wanna know what they bid for those jobs!
I mean, the only reason to get big name stars for ANYTHING is not because they're good actors (most of them aren't, anyway), but because idiot adult movie goers are fanboys/girls. But this is a kids movie, so probably most kids don't know (or care) who the fuck Lucy Liu or Jackie Chan are. Hell, as far as that goes, i'm sure most adult MEN don't care about the voice acting of Angelina Jolie or Lucy Liu (sad but true, ladies). Why do you think that stupid Tomb Raider movie is so popular? Because of Angelina's "quality acting"? Don't make me laugh!
Further, you don't even get to see Jolie or Liu half naked or in skin tight clothing (ed: in a kids movie? It could happen... and does in Japan i'm sure). So really, there's no need for them to be in the film at all, is there? Smooth move, producers!
Note: to those women out there who think the above is a "sexist comment" let me ask you how many of you saw Titanic (many times, as the case may be) just becaues Leonardo Dicaprio was the star and he gets his shirt wet? And no, he's not a great actor nor is Titanic that great a movie, so you can't use those excuses.
...
That's what i thought!
Anyway, as far as Kung Fu Panda goes as a whole, it was pretty good. I was entertained by its light hearted story, clichés and all. If nothing else, i was happy to see something that wasn't a remake, sequel or parody. I give it a 3.5 out of 5 (not quite as good as WallE, but good none the less).
Now, usually here i'd follow up with some snide comments or glib remarks (ed: whiny reader "but you already made one!"), but not this time. Why? Because i actually didn't mind the damned movie! I know, since my WallE review, people say i only like animated movies. But that's not true! I hated HATED Starwars: Clonewars. That movie haunts me to this day, weighting me down like an albatross about my neck! But i digress.
Back to the movie: Kung Fu panda is a kids movie, plain and simple. Its themes are aimed at children, teaching them acceptance of those who are different, etc and the light hearted humour is aimed primarily at children. But like any good piece of children's fiction, it has elements aimed at adults, too. However, the truly best part about this movie is its story. While it has an "obvious" outcome, this movie shows that even a clichéd plot can be successful if done correctly. After all, a story's about the journey, not the destination; this is something FAR too many movies these days forget.
Now, let's talk about the voice talent: Po, the main character is done by "comedian" jack black. Now, i'm no fan of jack black; i find his fat-ass to be more pathetic than comedic. But when he's the voice of a fat, pathetic, anthropomorphic panda, somehow this works. He seemed somewhat reigned in by the story and was even able to deliver the "serious" lines with the tinge of honesty they required: a feat i'm sure even he was surprised by (Oh my god, jack black can act? Well, no, but he can fake it pretty good). As far as voice acting goes, i think jack black did quite a decent job.
But what about the other characters of the movie? Surely with such talent lined up as Angelina Jolie (Tigress), Jackie Chan (Monkey), Lucy Liu (Viper), David Cross (Crane) and Seth Rogen (Mantis) it must've been a STELLAR performance. However, given that the "furious five" (characters voiced by the above) play almost a side-line role, i can't help but think the excessive voice talents were needless. It's a cartoon, for god's sake! You could've gotten Dan Castellaneta to do half the voices and saved a ton on the voice acting! In fact, when it comes to "the five", i think they get a total of half a dozen lines each! Man, i wanna know what they bid for those jobs!
I mean, the only reason to get big name stars for ANYTHING is not because they're good actors (most of them aren't, anyway), but because idiot adult movie goers are fanboys/girls. But this is a kids movie, so probably most kids don't know (or care) who the fuck Lucy Liu or Jackie Chan are. Hell, as far as that goes, i'm sure most adult MEN don't care about the voice acting of Angelina Jolie or Lucy Liu (sad but true, ladies). Why do you think that stupid Tomb Raider movie is so popular? Because of Angelina's "quality acting"? Don't make me laugh!
Further, you don't even get to see Jolie or Liu half naked or in skin tight clothing (ed: in a kids movie? It could happen... and does in Japan i'm sure). So really, there's no need for them to be in the film at all, is there? Smooth move, producers!
Note: to those women out there who think the above is a "sexist comment" let me ask you how many of you saw Titanic (many times, as the case may be) just becaues Leonardo Dicaprio was the star and he gets his shirt wet? And no, he's not a great actor nor is Titanic that great a movie, so you can't use those excuses.
...
That's what i thought!
Anyway, as far as Kung Fu Panda goes as a whole, it was pretty good. I was entertained by its light hearted story, clichés and all. If nothing else, i was happy to see something that wasn't a remake, sequel or parody. I give it a 3.5 out of 5 (not quite as good as WallE, but good none the less).
Friday, August 29, 2008
88 minutes, 21 ironman, 30000 feet and a middle seat.
Ok, so this is kind of a compilation of reviews after i took a flight to vancouver for work. The flight (air canada) was terrible, being delayed 3 hours and 15 minutes, i got stuck on a standby flight in the back middle seat where the headphones don't work and the seats don't recline (not mine, but the guy next to me). While on this flight (and the one back, where i ALSO got stuck in a middle seat, despite paying in advance for an aisle - fuck you, air canada!), i saw three movies that will knock your socks off... for how terrible they are. In decreasing order of quality, here they are!
21:
A movie about the MIT card counting club (but "white washed", as it were), this movie takes a semi interesting story and fills it with needless romance, needless adversaries and needless(ly) easy math problems to prove the main character is a "genius". I guess i should be happy they used real problems, but still, can't the damned writers do some BASIC research? It's not that hard; if you don't "get" math, find someone who does.
Anyway, the story is pretty solid but strewn with inaccuracies and pointlessness for the sake of "conflict". The acting's not bad, but i really could've done without the constant updating of the count scenes that seem more to distract than add anything to the story. Maybe i'm being biased by my other crappy movie selections, but i'll give this movie a +2.5 out of five.
Ironman:
While i must admit that because my headphone jack didn't work i couldn't hear the entire movie. But, that being said, no amount of dialog, no matter how elequoent and expertly delivered could've saved this movie from the crapfest that it was.
The main character, ironman (tony stark) is a weapons manufacturer who gets captured while on a trip to afghanistan and ends up imprisoned in a squalid looking cave so well equiped that within 20 minutes three miracles of science will be performed within its walls. First, his cellmate performs open heart surgery and saves stark's life, then stark builds a powersource that can last for eons and needs no recharnging (why doesn't his company sell this?) and a preliminary version of the ironman suit. Wow... and yet, the afghanis can't even equip themselves with anything better than archaic cold-war weaponry and camels for transportation. I'm not sure if this is a racist statement (by the movie) or just inadequate writing, but neither would surprise me.
Tony escapes back home a changed man and decides to change his companies focus from weapons to humanitarian pursuits, but still stubbournly refuses to sell that magnificint power generation technology you could build in a cave that could last for a lifetime (THAT'S how you manage a business!). He also builds himself the REAL ironman suit in the basement of his mansion and as unbelievable as this part is, it's probably the best part of the movie, since you've been waiting (by this point) a good 45 minutes to see the titular character.
Anyway, once the ironman character is (finally) established, the movie has some catching up to do and it makes no mistake of this by ramming through the remaining bits of plot until the movie itself climaxes in a fight between ironman and a second ironman that's not bad, but a long time coming given the rest of the movies tone of doing nothing. As the credits role, Ironman the song is played and i can't help but feel like the song should've been played a hell of a lot earlier.
My reviewer senses are tingling and they tell me to give this movie a 1 out of five.
88 minutes:
GARBAGE! As far as quality is concerned, 88 minutes sits somewhere between "the worst movie i've ever seen" (spiderman3?) and "the worst movie ever made". For a movie that's supposed to be going somewhere (it's a thriller) it sure takes forever to get there. The by line of the movie is that a forensic psychiatrist gets a call on his cell phone and is told he has 88 minutes to live... and that's also the entire plot. Really, there's nothing else to it. The writers/directors and everyone spend no time on "needless" things like character development, atmosphere or coherency in the plot and get right into the "action". While the movie is supposed to be about a killer who tortures and kills his victims, the greatest victim in this movie is by far the plot.
The premise is that a serial killer has been imprisoned on death row thanks to the testimony of the main character (dr gramm). 9 years later, his execution date is coming up and copycat murders start to occur with the murderer overtly telling police that they didn't arrest the right person. Of course, the police being gullable idiots just believe this and start questioning dr gramm's original testimony. The plot thickens to the consistency of water when the good dr gets a call on his cellphone telling him he has 88 minutes to live. We later find out the meaning of this odd choice of minutes as the time it took gramm's sister's to be tortured to death, but because of the crappiness of the story and the inadequate delivery of this "bombshell", nobody cares and you start to think "arbitrary" would've been just as good an explination. While you're supposed to feel "pressure" whenever the murderer calls and announces the minutes left (concluding with the silly catch phrase "tick tock, doc"), you only feel relief as you know that soon this horrible, horrible movie will be over.
I should also mention that the acting in this movie is UNBELIEVABLY BAD! I mean, splinters in my eyes, bad. I mean, "sylvestor stallone looks like heath ledger in comparison", bad. I mean, it's so bad, i can't even begin to convey how terrible it was! My mind just doesn't know an analogy for it! I never really found al pacino to be a decent actor before (he's a mafia tough guy and can't play anything else, as this movie clearly proves), but even HE could've done better than this! Hell, sylvestor stallone could've done better even WITH his "droolling out the side of his mouth" acting! I'd believe stalone's an intellectual long before i believe al pacino's character was.
Now, i know what you're thinking. If this movie was so terrible, why oh why did i almost watch all of it (i didn't, btw). Well, the only defence i can give is that it was being played on the plane and i didn't learn (until too late) that kung fu panda was also playing which, no matter how bad, could ONLY be a great movie in comparisson.
As one final fuck you to this movie, i'd like to take this time to give away *all* the elements of the "plot" so that there's no way in hell you'll put yourself through the serious torture that is 88 minutes too long: the killer is the badguy's defence attorney. Short list, no?
As a reviewer, i give this movie a -3.5 out of 5, thereby taking away the previous stars given to the other movies in this compilation review and leaving a net of 0 out of 5 for the lot. Now for a few words for the writer:
There! You happy, gary thompson (writer)? Your shitty movie is SO BAD it RUINED other people's movies! Even Ironman, which really didn't need your help! You suck at life and deserve to be tortured almost as badly as you did this script! It's people like you that take up oxygen and space in hollywood and forever stall my BRILLIANT tv series from ever being produced! I hate you SO MUCH it's unbelievable! You're the reason producers won't take chances on good stuff (like my scripts) because they instead take huge financial hits producing crap like this! I sincerely hope that when you walk down the streets people boo and belittle you and make fun of your small penis size.
I could go on ranting at you, but no... there's really only one insult good enough for someone like you!
You, sir, are a SPOONY BARD! (Thank you, final fantasy iv)
21:
A movie about the MIT card counting club (but "white washed", as it were), this movie takes a semi interesting story and fills it with needless romance, needless adversaries and needless(ly) easy math problems to prove the main character is a "genius". I guess i should be happy they used real problems, but still, can't the damned writers do some BASIC research? It's not that hard; if you don't "get" math, find someone who does.
Anyway, the story is pretty solid but strewn with inaccuracies and pointlessness for the sake of "conflict". The acting's not bad, but i really could've done without the constant updating of the count scenes that seem more to distract than add anything to the story. Maybe i'm being biased by my other crappy movie selections, but i'll give this movie a +2.5 out of five.
Ironman:
While i must admit that because my headphone jack didn't work i couldn't hear the entire movie. But, that being said, no amount of dialog, no matter how elequoent and expertly delivered could've saved this movie from the crapfest that it was.
The main character, ironman (tony stark) is a weapons manufacturer who gets captured while on a trip to afghanistan and ends up imprisoned in a squalid looking cave so well equiped that within 20 minutes three miracles of science will be performed within its walls. First, his cellmate performs open heart surgery and saves stark's life, then stark builds a powersource that can last for eons and needs no recharnging (why doesn't his company sell this?) and a preliminary version of the ironman suit. Wow... and yet, the afghanis can't even equip themselves with anything better than archaic cold-war weaponry and camels for transportation. I'm not sure if this is a racist statement (by the movie) or just inadequate writing, but neither would surprise me.
Tony escapes back home a changed man and decides to change his companies focus from weapons to humanitarian pursuits, but still stubbournly refuses to sell that magnificint power generation technology you could build in a cave that could last for a lifetime (THAT'S how you manage a business!). He also builds himself the REAL ironman suit in the basement of his mansion and as unbelievable as this part is, it's probably the best part of the movie, since you've been waiting (by this point) a good 45 minutes to see the titular character.
Anyway, once the ironman character is (finally) established, the movie has some catching up to do and it makes no mistake of this by ramming through the remaining bits of plot until the movie itself climaxes in a fight between ironman and a second ironman that's not bad, but a long time coming given the rest of the movies tone of doing nothing. As the credits role, Ironman the song is played and i can't help but feel like the song should've been played a hell of a lot earlier.
My reviewer senses are tingling and they tell me to give this movie a 1 out of five.
88 minutes:
GARBAGE! As far as quality is concerned, 88 minutes sits somewhere between "the worst movie i've ever seen" (spiderman3?) and "the worst movie ever made". For a movie that's supposed to be going somewhere (it's a thriller) it sure takes forever to get there. The by line of the movie is that a forensic psychiatrist gets a call on his cell phone and is told he has 88 minutes to live... and that's also the entire plot. Really, there's nothing else to it. The writers/directors and everyone spend no time on "needless" things like character development, atmosphere or coherency in the plot and get right into the "action". While the movie is supposed to be about a killer who tortures and kills his victims, the greatest victim in this movie is by far the plot.
The premise is that a serial killer has been imprisoned on death row thanks to the testimony of the main character (dr gramm). 9 years later, his execution date is coming up and copycat murders start to occur with the murderer overtly telling police that they didn't arrest the right person. Of course, the police being gullable idiots just believe this and start questioning dr gramm's original testimony. The plot thickens to the consistency of water when the good dr gets a call on his cellphone telling him he has 88 minutes to live. We later find out the meaning of this odd choice of minutes as the time it took gramm's sister's to be tortured to death, but because of the crappiness of the story and the inadequate delivery of this "bombshell", nobody cares and you start to think "arbitrary" would've been just as good an explination. While you're supposed to feel "pressure" whenever the murderer calls and announces the minutes left (concluding with the silly catch phrase "tick tock, doc"), you only feel relief as you know that soon this horrible, horrible movie will be over.
I should also mention that the acting in this movie is UNBELIEVABLY BAD! I mean, splinters in my eyes, bad. I mean, "sylvestor stallone looks like heath ledger in comparison", bad. I mean, it's so bad, i can't even begin to convey how terrible it was! My mind just doesn't know an analogy for it! I never really found al pacino to be a decent actor before (he's a mafia tough guy and can't play anything else, as this movie clearly proves), but even HE could've done better than this! Hell, sylvestor stallone could've done better even WITH his "droolling out the side of his mouth" acting! I'd believe stalone's an intellectual long before i believe al pacino's character was.
Now, i know what you're thinking. If this movie was so terrible, why oh why did i almost watch all of it (i didn't, btw). Well, the only defence i can give is that it was being played on the plane and i didn't learn (until too late) that kung fu panda was also playing which, no matter how bad, could ONLY be a great movie in comparisson.
As one final fuck you to this movie, i'd like to take this time to give away *all* the elements of the "plot" so that there's no way in hell you'll put yourself through the serious torture that is 88 minutes too long: the killer is the badguy's defence attorney. Short list, no?
As a reviewer, i give this movie a -3.5 out of 5, thereby taking away the previous stars given to the other movies in this compilation review and leaving a net of 0 out of 5 for the lot. Now for a few words for the writer:
There! You happy, gary thompson (writer)? Your shitty movie is SO BAD it RUINED other people's movies! Even Ironman, which really didn't need your help! You suck at life and deserve to be tortured almost as badly as you did this script! It's people like you that take up oxygen and space in hollywood and forever stall my BRILLIANT tv series from ever being produced! I hate you SO MUCH it's unbelievable! You're the reason producers won't take chances on good stuff (like my scripts) because they instead take huge financial hits producing crap like this! I sincerely hope that when you walk down the streets people boo and belittle you and make fun of your small penis size.
I could go on ranting at you, but no... there's really only one insult good enough for someone like you!
You, sir, are a SPOONY BARD! (Thank you, final fantasy iv)
Saturday, August 23, 2008
Clonewars the movie
Garbage. Dictionary.com defines it as "anything that is contemptibly worthless, inferior, or vile". I define it as Starwars Clonewars. Whether you're a fan of the movies or just your average hate-filled, online movie reviewer, you'll find nothing redeeming in this kind of movie.
Now, originally, i didn't want to review this movie, partially because i was embarassed i'd seen it, but mostly because i have nothing to say about it; it's just that bad. But of course, i've become somewhat of a legend among my reader (singular) and they've begun to use me as a kind of barometre of sorts to gage what movies they should watch. As a result, i've put in the painstaking effort to make a review of this film. Forgive me if it sounds forced on more than one occassion as it's really not a review i want to be writing.
The first thing you have to understand about this movie is that it's non-canonical. It doesn't fit in with the starwars universe and that's probably all for the best. Much like the dreaded nintendo virtual boy, it's one of those things i'm guessing lucas is more than happy to pretend doesn't exist. But, unfortunately for him and us, it does and we all have to share the shame of nintendo's mistake.
Getting back to the movie:
The movie, which "fits in" somewhere between episodes 20 and 21 of the cartoon series, clonewars, chronicals the asinine adventures of anakin skywalker and his padewan learner of an unmemorable name as they go on what one can only hope is a single mission before being ripped apart by fate. Anakin was given this padewan not by choice but by a combination of cruel prank slash learning experience devised by Obi-Wan Kenobi, Yoda and the jedi council and, given the nature of the character that is his padewan, i'm convinced that it's this singular act of cruelty that paved the way for anakin to become the dark lord of the sith, Darth Vader (hell, WATCHING it made me want to destroy humanity... or at least george lucas).
Being a writer myself, i feel i have an obligation to ridicule and mock the writers of this movie, but seeing as i'm an asshole, i'll let their film do that for me (ha! Foisted by their own petard!).
Firstly, the dialogue is so piss-poor its embarassing! It's made even worse by the fact that the voice actors clearly thought so as well since each line is delivered with such a detached and rushed feeling you can't help but feel the actors are literally counting the seconds before they can flee the recording studio. While i didn't stay to see the credits (when the lights came up, i was gone) i can only guess that the voice actors were listed as a dozen or so "anonymous's".
The characters that bothered me the most were the droids. Apparently someone decided it was "funny" to have robots making stupid and illogical comments even in the heat of battle. Maybe it's a little thing, but why on earth would you design a robot that's not only sentient but also retarded? Seems like it'd be easier for the separatists to just give up and surrender to me. I'd share some examples with you of their attrocious "jokes", but i've purposely drank so much that these lines are but distant memories now. So if you want a sample of some of the worst dialogue in history, you'll have to go and watch the film yourself (suckers!). But i strongly suggest you don't.
Now, as short as this review is, i'm not going to go on. To do so would be to give this terrible terrible movie way more credit than it's due. As such, i'll leave this here and if you're REALLY interested in this movie, you'll see it anyway. But honestly? You'd probably have more fun watching paint dry or being tortured to death.
Now, originally, i didn't want to review this movie, partially because i was embarassed i'd seen it, but mostly because i have nothing to say about it; it's just that bad. But of course, i've become somewhat of a legend among my reader (singular) and they've begun to use me as a kind of barometre of sorts to gage what movies they should watch. As a result, i've put in the painstaking effort to make a review of this film. Forgive me if it sounds forced on more than one occassion as it's really not a review i want to be writing.
The first thing you have to understand about this movie is that it's non-canonical. It doesn't fit in with the starwars universe and that's probably all for the best. Much like the dreaded nintendo virtual boy, it's one of those things i'm guessing lucas is more than happy to pretend doesn't exist. But, unfortunately for him and us, it does and we all have to share the shame of nintendo's mistake.
Getting back to the movie:
The movie, which "fits in" somewhere between episodes 20 and 21 of the cartoon series, clonewars, chronicals the asinine adventures of anakin skywalker and his padewan learner of an unmemorable name as they go on what one can only hope is a single mission before being ripped apart by fate. Anakin was given this padewan not by choice but by a combination of cruel prank slash learning experience devised by Obi-Wan Kenobi, Yoda and the jedi council and, given the nature of the character that is his padewan, i'm convinced that it's this singular act of cruelty that paved the way for anakin to become the dark lord of the sith, Darth Vader (hell, WATCHING it made me want to destroy humanity... or at least george lucas).
Being a writer myself, i feel i have an obligation to ridicule and mock the writers of this movie, but seeing as i'm an asshole, i'll let their film do that for me (ha! Foisted by their own petard!).
Firstly, the dialogue is so piss-poor its embarassing! It's made even worse by the fact that the voice actors clearly thought so as well since each line is delivered with such a detached and rushed feeling you can't help but feel the actors are literally counting the seconds before they can flee the recording studio. While i didn't stay to see the credits (when the lights came up, i was gone) i can only guess that the voice actors were listed as a dozen or so "anonymous's".
The characters that bothered me the most were the droids. Apparently someone decided it was "funny" to have robots making stupid and illogical comments even in the heat of battle. Maybe it's a little thing, but why on earth would you design a robot that's not only sentient but also retarded? Seems like it'd be easier for the separatists to just give up and surrender to me. I'd share some examples with you of their attrocious "jokes", but i've purposely drank so much that these lines are but distant memories now. So if you want a sample of some of the worst dialogue in history, you'll have to go and watch the film yourself (suckers!). But i strongly suggest you don't.
Now, as short as this review is, i'm not going to go on. To do so would be to give this terrible terrible movie way more credit than it's due. As such, i'll leave this here and if you're REALLY interested in this movie, you'll see it anyway. But honestly? You'd probably have more fun watching paint dry or being tortured to death.
Sunday, July 20, 2008
Batman: The Dark Knight
Let me start by being clear on this one point: this movie is not bad. It's just not all that great either. When compared to the phenomenal amounts of CRAP coming out of hollywood, it's pretty entertaining, but it's certainly a far cry from the "perfect movie" reviewers everywhere have been telling me it is and anyone who says otherwise is a moron.
The story is clunky and simple, certainly nothing there to challenge the viewer to think about and Heath Ledger's roll was... was... average. I suspect the only reason people have been saying otherwise is because of Mr Ledger's unfortunate circumstance of being "not alive anymore". But sad a fact as that may be, i'm going to call a spade a spade here. It's not like i can offend the deceased anyway (believe me, i'm sick enough to have tried). Besides, to be fair, most of it certainly isn't his fault.
But, why am i giving the movie reviewers rave as "the best batman yet" a thumbs down? Well, where do i begin? How about at the beginning with the story:
The reason people say the joker steal's the show is because, literally, that's all this "show" is: the joker. It's 2 and a half hours of joker. Joker joker joker. In fact, you'd think with so much action and plot oriented around the character they would've found time to (even accidentally) flesh the man out. But, no. Not in this movie. There's even a point where the police CATCH the joker and are interrogating him. Just when you think you're finally going to learn something about the criminal who's been harassing gotham city since literally the opening scenes of the movie, one of the random cops makes it clear that the joker has literally NO distinguishing characteristics, other aliases, matching dental records, fingerprints or any other hints at an origin or existence outside of "the joker". That's right, the enemy of gotham city, batman's nemesis, the biggest name in villainy in the entire DC universe is a complete UNKNOWN!
Excuse me while i scream my head off into the sky.
...
There, that's better...
While some may find this a "minor point" for the movie, they'd be wrong. It's a point that pretty much breaks my cardinal rule of what DEFINES a decent bad guy (and by this, i mean, as college profs are apt to say, what's "necessary, but not sufficient"). More than anything, ANYTHING, your audience should KNOW YOUR BAD GUY! This is part of, nay... the GREATEST part of, what makes a true villain truly villainous. In the first Batman movie (michael keaton, jack nicholson, etc) there was the whole theme of "joker makes batman makes joker...". Joker was still a psychotic criminal, but you KNEW something about him. You understood why he was the way he was (even if it was a twisted tale, as it truly should be). But in the Dark Knight, the writers drop this MOST VITAL OF PIECES and make the joker psychotic... just because. It's such a lazy concept they even had to have michael caine (alfred) overtly tell batman that "some men just want to watch the world burn".
Wow... just, wow. This, coming from a movie that tries to make the distinction between "a hero you deserver" and a "hero that you need". I guess when considering Heath Ledger didn't WRITE the role, he did a decent job... but in order for an actor to TRULY deserve that "excellent job" credit, he needs the writers to be there right along with him and if they are not he needs to be the one to make the writers change their lines (and yes, actors have made writers rewrite roles to fit their acting).
Moving away from Heath Ledger for a bit, let's talk about the other almost completely overshadowed enemy of the movie: Two Face. His roll is so unnecessary and meaningless in the movie it's easy to see why he's completely overshadowed. He was much more important as district attorney Harvey Dent but even then had an unaccountable mean streak and over dependence on a two headed coin that you just don't care enough when this so-called "white knight" falls from grace. Ultimately, this villain (but probably not entire character) could've been removed from the film and the only thing that would've happened is the movie would be half an hour shorter. Considering that by the end of the movie it feels artificially lengthened, i suspect that half hour wouldn't be terribly missed.
Fans of the first film will be happy to note the horrible acting of katie holmes has now been replaced by the horrible acting of maggie gyllenhall (had to look that one up). While katie's character was wooden and unmemorable ("she was in batman begins?") gyllenhall's character takes unmemorableness to the next level by being such a blatant story-device you hardly bat an eye when she's murdered halfway through the movie by the joker. My literal reaction was one of mild disinterest and considering it happens in an over-the-top explosion, that's saying something:
"Did rachel (gyllenhall) just die?"
"I think so."
"Oh."
Overall, i could keep ragging and raging on the story, but i think by now you get the picture. The movie has good action sequences (but in these days of superb CGI, what doesn't?) and a number of almost insurmountable challenges for the dark knight you do feel a little of the suspense coming through. But even this is marred by one too many scenes of belief suspension for it to make the movie. While the former batman movies made you suspend disbelief with batman's encyclopedic knowledge of chemicals and forensics, The Dark Knight takes it to the next level. After batman survives a fall from a skyscraper onto a car in the streets and walks away like it was a hangnail, you pretty much know that nothing the movie throws at him will make him break a sweat and that just does "wonders" for the immersion levels of the film.
In the final showdown, batman shows joker that the city's not as ruled by fear and emotion as he had hoped before finishing him off once and for all with a deadly cocktail of sleeping pills, pain killers and alcohol (i know, tasteless) thereby ending the joker's deadly and mostly pointless reign of terror. There's still the lingerings of the two-face plot, but since, as even other reviewers have noted, "heath ledger steals the show" you simply don't care and are pretty pleased to find that even this wraps up without much fuss in less 20 minutes because in your mind, "the movie ended with the joker".
The story is clunky and simple, certainly nothing there to challenge the viewer to think about and Heath Ledger's roll was... was... average. I suspect the only reason people have been saying otherwise is because of Mr Ledger's unfortunate circumstance of being "not alive anymore". But sad a fact as that may be, i'm going to call a spade a spade here. It's not like i can offend the deceased anyway (believe me, i'm sick enough to have tried). Besides, to be fair, most of it certainly isn't his fault.
But, why am i giving the movie reviewers rave as "the best batman yet" a thumbs down? Well, where do i begin? How about at the beginning with the story:
The reason people say the joker steal's the show is because, literally, that's all this "show" is: the joker. It's 2 and a half hours of joker. Joker joker joker. In fact, you'd think with so much action and plot oriented around the character they would've found time to (even accidentally) flesh the man out. But, no. Not in this movie. There's even a point where the police CATCH the joker and are interrogating him. Just when you think you're finally going to learn something about the criminal who's been harassing gotham city since literally the opening scenes of the movie, one of the random cops makes it clear that the joker has literally NO distinguishing characteristics, other aliases, matching dental records, fingerprints or any other hints at an origin or existence outside of "the joker". That's right, the enemy of gotham city, batman's nemesis, the biggest name in villainy in the entire DC universe is a complete UNKNOWN!
Excuse me while i scream my head off into the sky.
...
There, that's better...
While some may find this a "minor point" for the movie, they'd be wrong. It's a point that pretty much breaks my cardinal rule of what DEFINES a decent bad guy (and by this, i mean, as college profs are apt to say, what's "necessary, but not sufficient"). More than anything, ANYTHING, your audience should KNOW YOUR BAD GUY! This is part of, nay... the GREATEST part of, what makes a true villain truly villainous. In the first Batman movie (michael keaton, jack nicholson, etc) there was the whole theme of "joker makes batman makes joker...". Joker was still a psychotic criminal, but you KNEW something about him. You understood why he was the way he was (even if it was a twisted tale, as it truly should be). But in the Dark Knight, the writers drop this MOST VITAL OF PIECES and make the joker psychotic... just because. It's such a lazy concept they even had to have michael caine (alfred) overtly tell batman that "some men just want to watch the world burn".
Wow... just, wow. This, coming from a movie that tries to make the distinction between "a hero you deserver" and a "hero that you need". I guess when considering Heath Ledger didn't WRITE the role, he did a decent job... but in order for an actor to TRULY deserve that "excellent job" credit, he needs the writers to be there right along with him and if they are not he needs to be the one to make the writers change their lines (and yes, actors have made writers rewrite roles to fit their acting).
Moving away from Heath Ledger for a bit, let's talk about the other almost completely overshadowed enemy of the movie: Two Face. His roll is so unnecessary and meaningless in the movie it's easy to see why he's completely overshadowed. He was much more important as district attorney Harvey Dent but even then had an unaccountable mean streak and over dependence on a two headed coin that you just don't care enough when this so-called "white knight" falls from grace. Ultimately, this villain (but probably not entire character) could've been removed from the film and the only thing that would've happened is the movie would be half an hour shorter. Considering that by the end of the movie it feels artificially lengthened, i suspect that half hour wouldn't be terribly missed.
Fans of the first film will be happy to note the horrible acting of katie holmes has now been replaced by the horrible acting of maggie gyllenhall (had to look that one up). While katie's character was wooden and unmemorable ("she was in batman begins?") gyllenhall's character takes unmemorableness to the next level by being such a blatant story-device you hardly bat an eye when she's murdered halfway through the movie by the joker. My literal reaction was one of mild disinterest and considering it happens in an over-the-top explosion, that's saying something:
"Did rachel (gyllenhall) just die?"
"I think so."
"Oh."
Overall, i could keep ragging and raging on the story, but i think by now you get the picture. The movie has good action sequences (but in these days of superb CGI, what doesn't?) and a number of almost insurmountable challenges for the dark knight you do feel a little of the suspense coming through. But even this is marred by one too many scenes of belief suspension for it to make the movie. While the former batman movies made you suspend disbelief with batman's encyclopedic knowledge of chemicals and forensics, The Dark Knight takes it to the next level. After batman survives a fall from a skyscraper onto a car in the streets and walks away like it was a hangnail, you pretty much know that nothing the movie throws at him will make him break a sweat and that just does "wonders" for the immersion levels of the film.
In the final showdown, batman shows joker that the city's not as ruled by fear and emotion as he had hoped before finishing him off once and for all with a deadly cocktail of sleeping pills, pain killers and alcohol (i know, tasteless) thereby ending the joker's deadly and mostly pointless reign of terror. There's still the lingerings of the two-face plot, but since, as even other reviewers have noted, "heath ledger steals the show" you simply don't care and are pretty pleased to find that even this wraps up without much fuss in less 20 minutes because in your mind, "the movie ended with the joker".
Sunday, July 13, 2008
WallE
Since many of my 2 readers have come forward and told me that i don't ever LIKE movies, i've gone through the painstaking effort to actually write a "positive" review, if you will (i thought The Trap had a positive review, but wtf do i know, right?). Today i saw the latest disney-pixar movie WallE; a movie so good it had me skipping down the fucking streets (happy now?).
The premise of WallE is a simple one: earth has become a massive dumb as a result of rampant consumerism fed by the global corporation/world leaders (the president is literally the CEO of the global corporation). So far so good: nothing to suspend disbelief over yet. Naturally, the only solution was for Apple to build (presumably) millions of emotive little garbage collecting robots while humanity takes a 5 year hiatus in the stars... and yes, they were made by apple as can be clearly told from their start up noise akin to a mac (ed: steve jobs: "first i take over pixar, tomorrow the world! Mwahahaha" ). 700 years later, at the start of the movie, WallE is all that remains of this robot army... and still no humans have returned.
Now, i could continue this review like other reviewers and basically just recap the plot verbatim, but since i think a REAL review should avoid doing that, i'll stick to keeping this an informal "rant". Needless to say, the movie plods along at a decent pace following WallE and the main female character (Eve: a heavily armed plant finding robot/mech of death) as they try to (inadvertently) lead humanity back to earth and learn to love all at the same time (but not without a little help from dolly parton). It was a story so charming and cute it made even MY blackened little heart melt a little:
*sniff* "if those cold, heartless machines can learn to love... *sniff* than maybe i can too!"
Of course, being an antisocial, inhuman monster incapable of finding anyone of the opposite sex to spend time with me (we can't ALL be desirable garbage collecting robots, ladies!) i was forced to suppress my emotions so as to keep them festering quietly as a mental illness until the appropriate time when i snap and kill everyone around me.
But back to the review/rant:
The conflict of the film is satisfied by a Hal-esque robot who's taken to controlling humanity through their complete dependence. Naturally, it takes the star-crossed lover robots to show humanity how to really live and in time, they rise up, overthrow their robot overlord and learn the importance of taking care of oneself.
Now, i liked this movie, but i've heard many criticisms of it from the oh-so-superficial graphics related criticisms ("it's too cartoony") to criticisms of the themes being too "overused" and "topical". To these critics i have only one thing to say: fuck you! Seriously, "too cartoony"? The story was good; it could've been even MORE cartoony and it STILL wouldn't've ruined the movie for me. If your shallow standard for a good movie is solely animation quality alone, watch The Hulk... you'll probably like it - no story but great CGI.
As for the themes, so what that they're a little overused. I mean, every single movie i've EVER seen has an overused POS theme that they often forget halfway through in favour of more action, crappier love stories and/or hokier comedy. Besides, what do you expect from a contemporary movie more than a topical theme. Sorry to break it to you, idiots, but EVERY movie theme is topical: it just depends on the time frame it's written.
Now, this isn't to say the movie had no faults, just that the oft cited "faults" are nothing more than the ramblings of idiots who miss the fucking point. Since i try very hard to find something wrong with every movie i ever see (it's apparently what i'm known for), i'll outline one fault i noticed myself: Eve. Why oh why did the female plant probing ipod have to be equipped with a death ray powerful enough to destroy a battleship? Were the people who designed her expecting her to encounter hostile life forms squatting on the unlivable surface of the Earth, fiercely defending any plant life that they may have? Perhaps it's the future's version of a rape-whistle, necessary to keep perverted male robots from getting too cheeky. Or perhaps she was designed by an emotionally unstable movie reviewer who's one too many robot-romance movies off the deep end already.
Ah well, whatever the reason, the movie is largely good with adequate themes and a cute story. Quite a good "kids movie" but certainly not a "kiddie movie" (note: i hate this derogatory term for children's fiction used by assholes and super-assholes alike). Any adult with a well developed sense of fun will find it widely enjoyable. This reviewer gives it an impossible 4 out of 5 stars. Now maybe i can get back to angrily ranting on the many other movies that piss me off (there certainly isn't a shortage of them).
The premise of WallE is a simple one: earth has become a massive dumb as a result of rampant consumerism fed by the global corporation/world leaders (the president is literally the CEO of the global corporation). So far so good: nothing to suspend disbelief over yet. Naturally, the only solution was for Apple to build (presumably) millions of emotive little garbage collecting robots while humanity takes a 5 year hiatus in the stars... and yes, they were made by apple as can be clearly told from their start up noise akin to a mac (
Now, i could continue this review like other reviewers and basically just recap the plot verbatim, but since i think a REAL review should avoid doing that, i'll stick to keeping this an informal "rant". Needless to say, the movie plods along at a decent pace following WallE and the main female character (Eve: a heavily armed plant finding robot/mech of death) as they try to (inadvertently) lead humanity back to earth and learn to love all at the same time (but not without a little help from dolly parton). It was a story so charming and cute it made even MY blackened little heart melt a little:
*sniff* "if those cold, heartless machines can learn to love... *sniff* than maybe i can too!"
Of course, being an antisocial, inhuman monster incapable of finding anyone of the opposite sex to spend time with me (we can't ALL be desirable garbage collecting robots, ladies!) i was forced to suppress my emotions so as to keep them festering quietly as a mental illness until the appropriate time when i snap and kill everyone around me.
But back to the review/rant:
The conflict of the film is satisfied by a Hal-esque robot who's taken to controlling humanity through their complete dependence. Naturally, it takes the star-crossed lover robots to show humanity how to really live and in time, they rise up, overthrow their robot overlord and learn the importance of taking care of oneself.
Now, i liked this movie, but i've heard many criticisms of it from the oh-so-superficial graphics related criticisms ("it's too cartoony") to criticisms of the themes being too "overused" and "topical". To these critics i have only one thing to say: fuck you! Seriously, "too cartoony"? The story was good; it could've been even MORE cartoony and it STILL wouldn't've ruined the movie for me. If your shallow standard for a good movie is solely animation quality alone, watch The Hulk... you'll probably like it - no story but great CGI.
As for the themes, so what that they're a little overused. I mean, every single movie i've EVER seen has an overused POS theme that they often forget halfway through in favour of more action, crappier love stories and/or hokier comedy. Besides, what do you expect from a contemporary movie more than a topical theme. Sorry to break it to you, idiots, but EVERY movie theme is topical: it just depends on the time frame it's written.
Now, this isn't to say the movie had no faults, just that the oft cited "faults" are nothing more than the ramblings of idiots who miss the fucking point. Since i try very hard to find something wrong with every movie i ever see (it's apparently what i'm known for), i'll outline one fault i noticed myself: Eve. Why oh why did the female plant probing ipod have to be equipped with a death ray powerful enough to destroy a battleship? Were the people who designed her expecting her to encounter hostile life forms squatting on the unlivable surface of the Earth, fiercely defending any plant life that they may have? Perhaps it's the future's version of a rape-whistle, necessary to keep perverted male robots from getting too cheeky. Or perhaps she was designed by an emotionally unstable movie reviewer who's one too many robot-romance movies off the deep end already.
Ah well, whatever the reason, the movie is largely good with adequate themes and a cute story. Quite a good "kids movie" but certainly not a "kiddie movie" (note: i hate this derogatory term for children's fiction used by assholes and super-assholes alike). Any adult with a well developed sense of fun will find it widely enjoyable. This reviewer gives it an impossible 4 out of 5 stars. Now maybe i can get back to angrily ranting on the many other movies that piss me off (there certainly isn't a shortage of them).
Wednesday, June 18, 2008
The Incredible Hulk
Ok, so there i was sitting in the theatre next to two of the biggest assholes i've ever met thinking "how could this POSSIBLY get any worse?" ... and that's when the movie began.
The Incredible Hulk is possibly the worst superhero adapted movie i've ever seen... no wait, that's not fair to spiderman 3, batman and robin or any number of garbage superhero movies i've seen in my life time... Well, suffice it to say, this movie was terrible. But, before i get into the story, let's start at the beginning.
The Incredible Hulk was created to make up for the box-office flop that was the first hulk movie (i believe this was called "the hulk" since marvel is known for originality). Marvel, not one to give up on a dead horse (*cough*spiderman 3!!!!!*cough*), immediately sought to remedy this failure with yet ANOTHER terrible movie. Of course, any other production company faced with one failure would call the series at that, but that's when marvel shines brightest (and yet, hollywood won't pick up my tv series). While those other "loser" production companies are losing out on lucrative movie deals, marvel sticks to its guns, no matter how bad an idea it may be (seriously, why are we, as a society, still paying money for this?).
I've always been a fan of dc comic stories over marvel myself. The stories are better and the superheroes (with the exception of superman) were just more believable. Marvel tends to take the view that an individuals superpowers should known no logical bounds. I mean, magneto, of x-men fame, has powers that seem to bring him unto a god... yet he's still defeatable by a guy with a metal skeleton and a guy who can shoot rainbows out of his eyes.
Now, i could go on all night about what's wrong with marvel, but seeing as this is a review on the incredible hulk, let's just stick to that...
The movie starts with a 5 minute montage to bring viewers up to speed on the story of the hulk (i guess the first movie was so bad they expect half their audience didn't see it).
Once we get through that we're given some light story building of what bruce banner's been doing in the meantime then get straight to the action. I'd really like to say there's more to the movie than that, but no... that's it. Bruce banner becomes the hulk within 20 minutes and spends the next 2 hours screaming his head off. Yeah, yeah, there's a few points he converts back to bruce banner (if for nothing else than to add some "comedy" to the situation) but quite literally, this movie is a 2 hour piece of continuous action.
Now maybe some of you are thinking "2 hours of non-stop action? How can this fail!" but let me explain something... it's called "aggregate demand". Imagine something good, like, say, beer (if you're a drinker) or pot (if you're not). The first hit is good. It relaxes you, removes the stresses you're feeling at the time and generally has a pleasant affect. Hell, even the second, third and forth might make you feel better than that still. But as any drinker knows, the fun is not proportional to the amount you put in yourself... eventually, after your nth beer, you're not having fun anymore. And the same goes for action in an action movie. Listening to the hulk scream and bellow at the top of his lungs is great and all, but after about 20 minutes, you just want it to end.
It's not that the hulk doesn't have good moments in it, it's just they're too few to justify the TWELVE FIFTY i shelled out for this horrible piece of crap. There's a part at the beginning where bruce banner tells a bully (in horrible portugeuse) that he "wouldn't like (him) when (he's)... hungry". Hillarious! And later on, bruce banner almost gets to home base with his girlfriend when he remembers that even hot, passionate sex can bring out the animal within... and we all know what happens then: "hulk smash!".
The problem with this movie is it just doesn't have enough of these charming one liners (believe me: i'm making this sound as entertaining as i possibly can). Instead, prepare to have your hearing damaged by the constant screaming the CGI hulk does from scene 1 to the end.
I can't stop people from going to see bad movies (violence just doesn't seem to work), but if you have to go see this movie, you may want to find another way to entertain yourself. Being a canadian (a torontonian to be precise) and this movie being filmed in toronto, i found it quite enjoyable to point out all the canadiana in the film. If you're familiar with toronto and canada, here's a little game you might want to try. Ranging from easy to difficult, see if you can find the following pieces of canadiana: UofT, zanzibar, sam the record man, swish chalet and a smarties vending machine. I promise you, it'll be the most fun you'll have while watching this particular movie.
The Incredible Hulk is possibly the worst superhero adapted movie i've ever seen... no wait, that's not fair to spiderman 3, batman and robin or any number of garbage superhero movies i've seen in my life time... Well, suffice it to say, this movie was terrible. But, before i get into the story, let's start at the beginning.
The Incredible Hulk was created to make up for the box-office flop that was the first hulk movie (i believe this was called "the hulk" since marvel is known for originality). Marvel, not one to give up on a dead horse (*cough*spiderman 3!!!!!*cough*), immediately sought to remedy this failure with yet ANOTHER terrible movie. Of course, any other production company faced with one failure would call the series at that, but that's when marvel shines brightest (and yet, hollywood won't pick up my tv series). While those other "loser" production companies are losing out on lucrative movie deals, marvel sticks to its guns, no matter how bad an idea it may be (seriously, why are we, as a society, still paying money for this?).
I've always been a fan of dc comic stories over marvel myself. The stories are better and the superheroes (with the exception of superman) were just more believable. Marvel tends to take the view that an individuals superpowers should known no logical bounds. I mean, magneto, of x-men fame, has powers that seem to bring him unto a god... yet he's still defeatable by a guy with a metal skeleton and a guy who can shoot rainbows out of his eyes.
Now, i could go on all night about what's wrong with marvel, but seeing as this is a review on the incredible hulk, let's just stick to that...
The movie starts with a 5 minute montage to bring viewers up to speed on the story of the hulk (i guess the first movie was so bad they expect half their audience didn't see it).
Once we get through that we're given some light story building of what bruce banner's been doing in the meantime then get straight to the action. I'd really like to say there's more to the movie than that, but no... that's it. Bruce banner becomes the hulk within 20 minutes and spends the next 2 hours screaming his head off. Yeah, yeah, there's a few points he converts back to bruce banner (if for nothing else than to add some "comedy" to the situation) but quite literally, this movie is a 2 hour piece of continuous action.
Now maybe some of you are thinking "2 hours of non-stop action? How can this fail!" but let me explain something... it's called "aggregate demand". Imagine something good, like, say, beer (if you're a drinker) or pot (if you're not). The first hit is good. It relaxes you, removes the stresses you're feeling at the time and generally has a pleasant affect. Hell, even the second, third and forth might make you feel better than that still. But as any drinker knows, the fun is not proportional to the amount you put in yourself... eventually, after your nth beer, you're not having fun anymore. And the same goes for action in an action movie. Listening to the hulk scream and bellow at the top of his lungs is great and all, but after about 20 minutes, you just want it to end.
It's not that the hulk doesn't have good moments in it, it's just they're too few to justify the TWELVE FIFTY i shelled out for this horrible piece of crap. There's a part at the beginning where bruce banner tells a bully (in horrible portugeuse) that he "wouldn't like (him) when (he's)... hungry". Hillarious! And later on, bruce banner almost gets to home base with his girlfriend when he remembers that even hot, passionate sex can bring out the animal within... and we all know what happens then: "hulk smash!".
The problem with this movie is it just doesn't have enough of these charming one liners (believe me: i'm making this sound as entertaining as i possibly can). Instead, prepare to have your hearing damaged by the constant screaming the CGI hulk does from scene 1 to the end.
I can't stop people from going to see bad movies (violence just doesn't seem to work), but if you have to go see this movie, you may want to find another way to entertain yourself. Being a canadian (a torontonian to be precise) and this movie being filmed in toronto, i found it quite enjoyable to point out all the canadiana in the film. If you're familiar with toronto and canada, here's a little game you might want to try. Ranging from easy to difficult, see if you can find the following pieces of canadiana: UofT, zanzibar, sam the record man, swish chalet and a smarties vending machine. I promise you, it'll be the most fun you'll have while watching this particular movie.
Sunday, June 1, 2008
Indiana jones and the overused cliche
So i broke my cardinal cheapness rule and went to a movie at the theatre. Tee movie? Indiana Jones 4: the kingdom of the crystal skull. If you have not seen it and don't want any spoilers, stop here. Otherwise, read on. Now, i'm a pretty big fan of the other two indiana jones movies (i will NEVER acknowledge "temple of doom"! NEVER!), but this one was... well... where do i begin?
***************SPOILERS BELOW****************
First of all, the action scenes were stupider, the plot cornier and by the time the giant UFO showed up i knew that somewhere george lucas and steven spielberg were laughing at me personally. "Giant UFO?" you say? Yes. Giant UFO. I'm NOT making this up.
As for the movie itself, the plot is basically indiana jones, now a 60 year old former military man and tenured professor, goes off on a wild adventure with his former colleague's adopted son which later turns out to be (unsurprisingly) his own son. They travel to the amazon rain forests in their quest to return the crystal skull of the title to its birthplace, all the while under the pursuit of the new villains: a rapier weilding ukranian and her muttly crew of wascally wussians who have so little reason to be doing what they're doing it's pathetic. To be fair, they did try to capture the feelings of the day, what with the "red specter" and mccarthyism, but the "i like ike" line was just so cringe worthy, you start to wish they just stuck with the unmotivateably evil communists.
Speaking of the villains, the main one, the rapier weilding ukranian, is so two dimensional. The most character development she gets is when the fbi overtly TELL indiana (who had just recently survived a nuclear blast, mind you) about who she is and where she comes from.
Turns out her only real motivation is a lust for... knowledge? In the end, her "crazy" quest for knowledge lands her in hot water and she dies from what i call a "knowledge overload" (see kids? A little knowledge CAN be a bad thing!), her last words even being "i want to know... everything" (wow, that's just so evil!).
The movie ends with indiana making up with and marrying marian (the girl from the very first movie and young henry jones' mother) all while her former husband, indiana's friend and colleague and jr's father applauds: "way to score with my wife of 20 years, indie! WOO!"
All in all, hollywood again lived up to their reputation and ruined a series for me on the third movie (re: i will never acknowledge "temple of doom"). The movie's probably worth watching if you were a fan of the originals (nothing i say will convince you otherwise anyway), but from indiana surviving a nuclear blast in a fridge to the lame villainesse death at the end to the UFOs, there's just not enough here to call it "classic indiana".
***************SPOILERS BELOW****************
First of all, the action scenes were stupider, the plot cornier and by the time the giant UFO showed up i knew that somewhere george lucas and steven spielberg were laughing at me personally. "Giant UFO?" you say? Yes. Giant UFO. I'm NOT making this up.
As for the movie itself, the plot is basically indiana jones, now a 60 year old former military man and tenured professor, goes off on a wild adventure with his former colleague's adopted son which later turns out to be (unsurprisingly) his own son. They travel to the amazon rain forests in their quest to return the crystal skull of the title to its birthplace, all the while under the pursuit of the new villains: a rapier weilding ukranian and her muttly crew of wascally wussians who have so little reason to be doing what they're doing it's pathetic. To be fair, they did try to capture the feelings of the day, what with the "red specter" and mccarthyism, but the "i like ike" line was just so cringe worthy, you start to wish they just stuck with the unmotivateably evil communists.
Speaking of the villains, the main one, the rapier weilding ukranian, is so two dimensional. The most character development she gets is when the fbi overtly TELL indiana (who had just recently survived a nuclear blast, mind you) about who she is and where she comes from.
Turns out her only real motivation is a lust for... knowledge? In the end, her "crazy" quest for knowledge lands her in hot water and she dies from what i call a "knowledge overload" (see kids? A little knowledge CAN be a bad thing!), her last words even being "i want to know... everything" (wow, that's just so evil!).
The movie ends with indiana making up with and marrying marian (the girl from the very first movie and young henry jones' mother) all while her former husband, indiana's friend and colleague and jr's father applauds: "way to score with my wife of 20 years, indie! WOO!"
All in all, hollywood again lived up to their reputation and ruined a series for me on the third movie (re: i will never acknowledge "temple of doom"). The movie's probably worth watching if you were a fan of the originals (nothing i say will convince you otherwise anyway), but from indiana surviving a nuclear blast in a fridge to the lame villainesse death at the end to the UFOs, there's just not enough here to call it "classic indiana".
Monday, April 28, 2008
300
Or "how i learned to stop worrying and love the oil wars in the middle east".
Because this past weekend was my birthday and i wanted to do something special with myself (touching myself just isn't "specialy" anymore) i decided to watch a movie everyone raves about and that several people i know have been waiting for me to review: 300 (no, i do not touch myself when i think of half naked greek men: grow up, will you?).
Now, the movie officially runs for 120 some odd minutes, but i'm convinced, CONVINCED it's no longer than 45 minutes. Whoever the director was, he certainly was fond of that "slow motion" button:
King Leonidas: excuse me, men... i need to take a piss.
*The scene slows down as Leonidas turns and slowly walks toward a tree to do his business.*
Now, i realize that slow-mo shots are "cool" for certain action sequences, but after a while it just comes off as LAZY. There's no way the action in this or any movie is SO epic that every shot needs to be slowed down. I mean, even non-action sequences get the ol' slow-motion treatment. My personal favourite is when King Leonidas and his wife are shown to have sex in a number of sexual positions, each time with the scene slowing to a veritable crawl as the queen is clearly depicted to come to orgasm. Brilliant!
Besides the (over)use of the slow motion button, there was one thing about this film that bothered me from start to finish and that's the tone with which it's done. Now, i have to admit, before i saw this movie, several people had warned me that they felt very much that the movie was merely a propoganda flick aimed at dehumanizing middle easterners (those evil irania... er, persians!) and glorifying war. But, glaring historical inaccuracies aside, i did try to give the movie an honest, impartial review NOT based on these (as it turns out, VERY strong) overtones. However, it seems there's only so much jingoism and nationalism i can take. Everything about this movie screams "propoganda", from the way the spartans dress (only "wimps" need kevlar!) right down to the stupid jingoistic one-liners they crack out at every opportunity ("freedom isn't free": yeah, because when i think "freedom" i think of the chauvinistic pseudo-democracy of 400BC Greece).
The movie itself opens by talking about how great and noble King Leonidas is because he was raised (as all "real" spartan men are) a soldier. After all, if you're not a soldier, you're a vertible loser and useless to society. Later, there's even a part where Leonidas denounces the brave arcadian men who had to give up their livelihoods to try and defend their homelands as "not real soldiers" with the strong implication that those who are are worth far more than those who are not.
The villains of the movie are easy to identify and it's even more simple than "if they don't have perfectly chiseled physiques...". Litterally every persian is depicted as a grotesquely deformed, "souless" monster. Even Ephialtes (the traitorous spartan who helped the persians to victory) is depicted as a gruesome hunchback more concerned with gaining personal gratification than "serving his homeland".
In fact, the only antagonists NOT to fit the category of "hideous monster" are the politicians more concerned with finding a peaceful resolution to the conflict (the cowards!). But they are easily thwarted when it turns out their emissary is a greedy, self-serving rapist. Naturally, the traitor gives himself away in the most plot-devicy fashion when the queen stabs him in front of the entire congress (unhindered, mind you) and it's revealed he's carrying a small fortune in persian gold. Of course, why he's actually CARRYING the persian gold in sparta (essentially a useless currency) is never explained, but hey... how else can you clearly see he's a traitor unless he has money with the enemy's face on it?
All in all, the movie was not as good as it's hyped up to be, but i suppose if you're looking for a mindless action flick you could do a hell of a lot worse (see Transformers); you could also do a hell of a lot better (see The Matrix). But, if you're a fan of gory action without story (or a girl just looking for some rippling bicep action) you'll probably be more than happy with 300... provided you don't give it any thought (at all).
NB: i realize this review is short, but in my defence, the movie itself is short.
Because this past weekend was my birthday and i wanted to do something special with myself (touching myself just isn't "specialy" anymore) i decided to watch a movie everyone raves about and that several people i know have been waiting for me to review: 300 (no, i do not touch myself when i think of half naked greek men: grow up, will you?).
Now, the movie officially runs for 120 some odd minutes, but i'm convinced, CONVINCED it's no longer than 45 minutes. Whoever the director was, he certainly was fond of that "slow motion" button:
King Leonidas: excuse me, men... i need to take a piss.
*The scene slows down as Leonidas turns and slowly walks toward a tree to do his business.*
Now, i realize that slow-mo shots are "cool" for certain action sequences, but after a while it just comes off as LAZY. There's no way the action in this or any movie is SO epic that every shot needs to be slowed down. I mean, even non-action sequences get the ol' slow-motion treatment. My personal favourite is when King Leonidas and his wife are shown to have sex in a number of sexual positions, each time with the scene slowing to a veritable crawl as the queen is clearly depicted to come to orgasm. Brilliant!
Besides the (over)use of the slow motion button, there was one thing about this film that bothered me from start to finish and that's the tone with which it's done. Now, i have to admit, before i saw this movie, several people had warned me that they felt very much that the movie was merely a propoganda flick aimed at dehumanizing middle easterners (those evil irania... er, persians!) and glorifying war. But, glaring historical inaccuracies aside, i did try to give the movie an honest, impartial review NOT based on these (as it turns out, VERY strong) overtones. However, it seems there's only so much jingoism and nationalism i can take. Everything about this movie screams "propoganda", from the way the spartans dress (only "wimps" need kevlar!) right down to the stupid jingoistic one-liners they crack out at every opportunity ("freedom isn't free": yeah, because when i think "freedom" i think of the chauvinistic pseudo-democracy of 400BC Greece).
The movie itself opens by talking about how great and noble King Leonidas is because he was raised (as all "real" spartan men are) a soldier. After all, if you're not a soldier, you're a vertible loser and useless to society. Later, there's even a part where Leonidas denounces the brave arcadian men who had to give up their livelihoods to try and defend their homelands as "not real soldiers" with the strong implication that those who are are worth far more than those who are not.
The villains of the movie are easy to identify and it's even more simple than "if they don't have perfectly chiseled physiques...". Litterally every persian is depicted as a grotesquely deformed, "souless" monster. Even Ephialtes (the traitorous spartan who helped the persians to victory) is depicted as a gruesome hunchback more concerned with gaining personal gratification than "serving his homeland".
In fact, the only antagonists NOT to fit the category of "hideous monster" are the politicians more concerned with finding a peaceful resolution to the conflict (the cowards!). But they are easily thwarted when it turns out their emissary is a greedy, self-serving rapist. Naturally, the traitor gives himself away in the most plot-devicy fashion when the queen stabs him in front of the entire congress (unhindered, mind you) and it's revealed he's carrying a small fortune in persian gold. Of course, why he's actually CARRYING the persian gold in sparta (essentially a useless currency) is never explained, but hey... how else can you clearly see he's a traitor unless he has money with the enemy's face on it?
All in all, the movie was not as good as it's hyped up to be, but i suppose if you're looking for a mindless action flick you could do a hell of a lot worse (see Transformers); you could also do a hell of a lot better (see The Matrix). But, if you're a fan of gory action without story (or a girl just looking for some rippling bicep action) you'll probably be more than happy with 300... provided you don't give it any thought (at all).
NB: i realize this review is short, but in my defence, the movie itself is short.
Sunday, March 9, 2008
iRobot
Staring Will Smith (as Will Smith), the farmer from "Babe" and GLaDOS from "Portal", iRobot is a movie so loaded down with product placements you can't help but think the "iRobot", "iMac" connection is just a little too convenient (yes, i know it's actually "I, Robot"). Yup, from Will Smith's futuristic Audi right down to his "vintage, year 2004" Converse All Star (actual movie quote), iRobot plays like a gigantic commercial so horrible and nauseating you yearn for the 5 minute commercial breaks on television. In fact, when i watched it again on television recently (not all the way through), i couldn't help but think the commercials were the best part of the movie.
Now, i can hear what you're thinking, "if you hate the movie so much, why did you watch it again? On television no less." Well, i guess the reason is because it's got decent special effects (that and i needed to get another review up). The CGI makes it pretty to look at (if nothing else) and the action sequences are ok, if not just a little predictable.
*Gasp*! Do i detect a hint of praise? Well, let me assure you, other than that, iRobot has nothing going for it. NOTHING! The tech babble is bad enough that if you try thinking about ANYTHING they say, you'll certainly go mad. Other than their oft-repeated, ne'er explained "three laws" robot operating system (whatever that means) nonsense, they talk about "positronic brains" and other sci-fi mumbo jumbo that has little meaning and no other purpose than to make it sound like what they do is "complicated science".
That aside, let's get down to the actual "story" of the movie (if we can call it that). The main plot is the played out "robots go evil" i'm sure everyone is sick of (except hollywood) from Matrix, Terminator, Battlestar Galactica and any number of other sci-fi movies and television shows we've all had enough of. We get it! Society's afraid of rampant progress! Maybe that's not entirely an irrational fear, but it certainly shouldn't be your predominant one. Last i checked, the likes of our politicians and business leaders pose bigger threats than our computers and robots.
Anyways, that's not the part of the story that bothered me the most. The biggest problem came with the side-going love-story involving Will Smith and the female lead, a "genius" robotics specialist who can't seem to figure out how to run a CD player, drive a car or understand the basic mechanics behind an internal combustion engine (and they say our educational standards aren't sliding!):
"Gas explodes!" she yells with caution, as Will Smith gives her a ride on his archaic, yet still completely functional motorbike. Thanks, einstein. What, did the future do away with basic physics textbooks along with all those ancient technologies (but not ancient year 2004 shoes, apparently)?
Btw, where'd Will Smith get the gas for his bike if nobody uses internal combustion engines anymore? Did he refine the oil himself using his non-robotic apparatuses (considering how opposed to technology he seems to be)?
Anyways, i'm so sick of watching movies where the so-called scientists are dumber than the sparingly-educated cops on the force. Maybe society likes to think that cops are ingenius, clever people (and i'm sure some of them are; maybe even more so than some scientists) but i HIGHLY doubt the scientists of the world are so stupid as to be easily fooled by basic devices and simple physics. Well, except for maybe the Rand Corporation scientists... but, calling those people scientists is like calling a hotdog eating champion an "athlete".
Now, i can hear what you're thinking, "if you hate the movie so much, why did you watch it again? On television no less." Well, i guess the reason is because it's got decent special effects (that and i needed to get another review up). The CGI makes it pretty to look at (if nothing else) and the action sequences are ok, if not just a little predictable.
*Gasp*! Do i detect a hint of praise? Well, let me assure you, other than that, iRobot has nothing going for it. NOTHING! The tech babble is bad enough that if you try thinking about ANYTHING they say, you'll certainly go mad. Other than their oft-repeated, ne'er explained "three laws" robot operating system (whatever that means) nonsense, they talk about "positronic brains" and other sci-fi mumbo jumbo that has little meaning and no other purpose than to make it sound like what they do is "complicated science".
That aside, let's get down to the actual "story" of the movie (if we can call it that). The main plot is the played out "robots go evil" i'm sure everyone is sick of (except hollywood) from Matrix, Terminator, Battlestar Galactica and any number of other sci-fi movies and television shows we've all had enough of. We get it! Society's afraid of rampant progress! Maybe that's not entirely an irrational fear, but it certainly shouldn't be your predominant one. Last i checked, the likes of our politicians and business leaders pose bigger threats than our computers and robots.
Anyways, that's not the part of the story that bothered me the most. The biggest problem came with the side-going love-story involving Will Smith and the female lead, a "genius" robotics specialist who can't seem to figure out how to run a CD player, drive a car or understand the basic mechanics behind an internal combustion engine (and they say our educational standards aren't sliding!):
"Gas explodes!" she yells with caution, as Will Smith gives her a ride on his archaic, yet still completely functional motorbike. Thanks, einstein. What, did the future do away with basic physics textbooks along with all those ancient technologies (but not ancient year 2004 shoes, apparently)?
Btw, where'd Will Smith get the gas for his bike if nobody uses internal combustion engines anymore? Did he refine the oil himself using his non-robotic apparatuses (considering how opposed to technology he seems to be)?
Anyways, i'm so sick of watching movies where the so-called scientists are dumber than the sparingly-educated cops on the force. Maybe society likes to think that cops are ingenius, clever people (and i'm sure some of them are; maybe even more so than some scientists) but i HIGHLY doubt the scientists of the world are so stupid as to be easily fooled by basic devices and simple physics. Well, except for maybe the Rand Corporation scientists... but, calling those people scientists is like calling a hotdog eating champion an "athlete".
Saturday, January 26, 2008
The Trap
Ok, so this is probably the first documentary i've reviewed and incidentally, the first movie i reviewed i really really liked. So, before i get into the details, here's an overview:
The Trap is a three part documentary made by Adam Curtis and produced by the BBC. Now, i'm not normally a fan of documentaries nor the BBC in general since i find documentaries are typically deeply flawed and the BBC tends to be quite a bit more biased than the idiotic "i love everything british" fan-boys think (yes, it's no CNN, but a three legged weasel is still a weasel). But The Trap is different.
The Trap, like many of adam curtis' works, looks at the rise and effects of neo-liberal policies and practices since the second world war (arguably the starting point for all this madness). The Trap specifically analyzes the rise and effects of laissez-faire capitalism, negative freedom and game theory and how they shaped our current economic mindset (specifically those of the us and uk).
The film talks about how governments and groups like the Rand Corporation worked to build an economic theory that they thought was logical and intelligent, simply because their theory was internally mathematically consistent. This theory was built on the mathematics of game theory and would later lead to the ever proliferating ideology of Libertarianism (a form of mental disorder that spreads like a virus and effects grossly ignorant people). According to their theory, all individuals acting, in what's called a "rational self interested way", will invariably benefit not only themselves, but those around them as well. Basically, the idea that the invisible hand of the market can and would correct for any mistakes through the power of economics where governments had failed in the past.
This theory isn't "new". It was first proposed by the likes of adam smith... and even HE didn't invent it (adam smith only observed the economic structure in operation at the end of the 19th century in britain... then wrote a book about it). However, new or old, this theory is strewn with many flaws and the need for the "invisible hand" should act as an indicator of such. The Trap discusses many of these flaws, using expert testimony from credible sources, including the father of economic game theory, dr john nash himself in a thorough and convincing fashion. Of course, i'd like to point out that while libertarians believe in the model of the "rational self interested" human, the very existence of libertarians themselves should at least be proof that the "rational" part is completely wrong.
Ironically, the best thing about The Trap is the part that i found most aggravating about it. For the entire first hour, hour and a half, The Trap comes off (to me) as almost completely unwatchable. So how is it that i'm able to still give it a glowing review? Well, it's because this is exactly what a documentary SHOULD do! While other documentaries, like Sicko and Bowling for Columbine (say) are well received from beginning to end, the only ones doing the receiving are michael moore's dedicated personal fan club. The Trap doesn't do this "preaching to the choir" as it were. It starts off with a detailed look at all the benefits of game theory and how it rose to popularity. So, while people like me (ie, intelligent people) will be put off by the paranoid rantings and ravings of a schizophrenic dr nash, the very people who SHOULD be watching the documentary (ie, libertarians) will be completely sucked in, only to find, later on, that dr nash is his own worst enemy. It's a completely new way of conducting a documentary, but it is, in my view, the right one. As aggravated as i was with the first hour, its purpose is to fully explore how such nonsensical theories came to light and how the most foolish of us were misled to believe their own bullshit.
Now, i'd like to end on a bit of a different note. While i don't want to be repeating the points of the documentary, there's one point i'd like to drive home here, and that's the point of the "invisible hand". While libertarians and capitalists in general view the market as a totally infallible god-like entity (hence the "invisible"-ness) capable of manipulating society into the best point of equilibrium, this all stems from a fundamental misunderstanding of how capitalism works. Capitalisms proponents state that the system works because each and every individual will exchange something they don't want for something they want (whether that's goods for cash or vice versa). The object you acquired you clearly wanted more than what you gave up for it and in time, the system will adjust and correct to create an equilibrium that best serves the sum of its parts.
This theory works great... so long as the transactions are dealing with "non-required" goods/services. However, once the transaction is for a good or service that you require (like, say for example, healthcare) the theory fails as there's nothing a person isn't willing to give up for a necessity of life (no amount of cash) and so the self interested aspect catered to in a purely capitalistic society ends up delivering a veritable Hell onto the sum of its parts; a far cry from the utopia predicted by myopic libertarian philosophy. An important part of capitalistic theory, ignored by many of its proponents, is that the theory ONLY WORKS if the option to opt out of a transaction entirely exists as part of your consumer choices. No amount of "competition" can replace this option and once it's removed the theory breaks down and you end up with the "utopian paradise" of the third world.
In other words, as adam curtis so elegantly put it, "the invisible hand of the market is invisible because it isn't actually there."
The Trap is a three part documentary made by Adam Curtis and produced by the BBC. Now, i'm not normally a fan of documentaries nor the BBC in general since i find documentaries are typically deeply flawed and the BBC tends to be quite a bit more biased than the idiotic "i love everything british" fan-boys think (yes, it's no CNN, but a three legged weasel is still a weasel). But The Trap is different.
The Trap, like many of adam curtis' works, looks at the rise and effects of neo-liberal policies and practices since the second world war (arguably the starting point for all this madness). The Trap specifically analyzes the rise and effects of laissez-faire capitalism, negative freedom and game theory and how they shaped our current economic mindset (specifically those of the us and uk).
The film talks about how governments and groups like the Rand Corporation worked to build an economic theory that they thought was logical and intelligent, simply because their theory was internally mathematically consistent. This theory was built on the mathematics of game theory and would later lead to the ever proliferating ideology of Libertarianism (a form of mental disorder that spreads like a virus and effects grossly ignorant people). According to their theory, all individuals acting, in what's called a "rational self interested way", will invariably benefit not only themselves, but those around them as well. Basically, the idea that the invisible hand of the market can and would correct for any mistakes through the power of economics where governments had failed in the past.
This theory isn't "new". It was first proposed by the likes of adam smith... and even HE didn't invent it (adam smith only observed the economic structure in operation at the end of the 19th century in britain... then wrote a book about it). However, new or old, this theory is strewn with many flaws and the need for the "invisible hand" should act as an indicator of such. The Trap discusses many of these flaws, using expert testimony from credible sources, including the father of economic game theory, dr john nash himself in a thorough and convincing fashion. Of course, i'd like to point out that while libertarians believe in the model of the "rational self interested" human, the very existence of libertarians themselves should at least be proof that the "rational" part is completely wrong.
Ironically, the best thing about The Trap is the part that i found most aggravating about it. For the entire first hour, hour and a half, The Trap comes off (to me) as almost completely unwatchable. So how is it that i'm able to still give it a glowing review? Well, it's because this is exactly what a documentary SHOULD do! While other documentaries, like Sicko and Bowling for Columbine (say) are well received from beginning to end, the only ones doing the receiving are michael moore's dedicated personal fan club. The Trap doesn't do this "preaching to the choir" as it were. It starts off with a detailed look at all the benefits of game theory and how it rose to popularity. So, while people like me (ie, intelligent people) will be put off by the paranoid rantings and ravings of a schizophrenic dr nash, the very people who SHOULD be watching the documentary (ie, libertarians) will be completely sucked in, only to find, later on, that dr nash is his own worst enemy. It's a completely new way of conducting a documentary, but it is, in my view, the right one. As aggravated as i was with the first hour, its purpose is to fully explore how such nonsensical theories came to light and how the most foolish of us were misled to believe their own bullshit.
Now, i'd like to end on a bit of a different note. While i don't want to be repeating the points of the documentary, there's one point i'd like to drive home here, and that's the point of the "invisible hand". While libertarians and capitalists in general view the market as a totally infallible god-like entity (hence the "invisible"-ness) capable of manipulating society into the best point of equilibrium, this all stems from a fundamental misunderstanding of how capitalism works. Capitalisms proponents state that the system works because each and every individual will exchange something they don't want for something they want (whether that's goods for cash or vice versa). The object you acquired you clearly wanted more than what you gave up for it and in time, the system will adjust and correct to create an equilibrium that best serves the sum of its parts.
This theory works great... so long as the transactions are dealing with "non-required" goods/services. However, once the transaction is for a good or service that you require (like, say for example, healthcare) the theory fails as there's nothing a person isn't willing to give up for a necessity of life (no amount of cash) and so the self interested aspect catered to in a purely capitalistic society ends up delivering a veritable Hell onto the sum of its parts; a far cry from the utopia predicted by myopic libertarian philosophy. An important part of capitalistic theory, ignored by many of its proponents, is that the theory ONLY WORKS if the option to opt out of a transaction entirely exists as part of your consumer choices. No amount of "competition" can replace this option and once it's removed the theory breaks down and you end up with the "utopian paradise" of the third world.
In other words, as adam curtis so elegantly put it, "the invisible hand of the market is invisible because it isn't actually there."
Friday, January 11, 2008
Pirates of the Caribbean, At world's end
Pirates 3.
Wow, i must love punishment. I mean, watching a sequel is pretty much asking for crappiness anyways, but why is it that the third movie is invariably always the worst? Godfather 3, Spiderman 3... Pirates 3. It's not like it can't be done well; i liked Return of the Jedi and Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade was quite exceptional. But i digress, Pirates of the Caribbean was an ok series and, maybe it's just me, but i actually liked the first two. However, the third one falls way short of this mark.
I guess the main thing that's wrong with this movie is that it sort of muscles through the plot devices as if subtly is out of fashion. The movie starts in Singapore (which the heroes go to sans boat, apparently), then goes to somewhere in the antarctic and then ends up in the afterworld, all in the span of about 20 minutes. Even the scenes in the underworld where Jack Sparrow has himself and his ship rescued make no sense. At one point, a veritable sea of rock-crabs wash jack and the black pearl back to the shorelines of the afterlife. But, where these rock-crabs come from and why they're helping him is left as a complete mystery (at least for now) and you, as the viewer, just have to accept that this is how things unfolded.
The other thing wrong with this movie in general is that they seem to be struggling to keep alive all the characters of the previous movies. while the film predominately focuses on the crew of the Black Pearl, we are shown brief snippets of Norrington and Elizabeth's father before both are quickly dispatched after what must've been 10 minutes of total screen time combined.
I guess it's ok that they killed them off. After all, they really did serve no purpose and it would've been distracting if they'd not been included at all. However, to see such major characters from the previous films just "vanish" really does them no credit, particularly since Norrington, a master swordsman by his own rite, was killed by a lowly member of the Flying Dutchman without so much as having a harsh word thrown.
Meanwhile, the film sticks to the previous formula (if you can call it that) of having a completely new villain, this time filled by the leader of the East India Trading Corporation. I forget what his name is, but the plot is that he has Davey Jones' heart and hence commands the Flying Dutchman to do his biddings. As far as badguy's go, he's not bad (as in, decent), but his plan is so nonsensical that even the writers felt embarrassed by it. As a result, the film's major focus is on constant battles between the Flying Dutchman and her crew and the Black Pearl and hers. By the end of the movie, you're so detached from the actual plot of the film that you don't care that it doesn't seem to actually resolve itself.
While it's true that the action scenes eclipse the plot, it's not because they were spectacular. In fact, compared with the previous movies, they kind of suck. Where were the epic sword fights with 2 or more combatants that keep switching sides? Those were the best parts, damnit! And this movie didn't have them!
Another thing that falls short is the comedy. The previous films had loads of comedic scenes in a variety of fashions from the visual comedy of seeing Jack on a shish-kebab to the concept humour of Jack freaking out about Elizabeth burning all the rum to make a smoke signal. However, the best this film can do is a delusional jack seeing dozens of himself manning all sorts of rolls. At first it's funny, but by about the third time, it's played out and you just want to see something different for a change.
All in all, the movie itself's not horrible, but it's not good either. It's definitely far weaker than its previous installments and while it does end on a note that leaves it open to sequels, you find yourself hoping that they just let this franchise die. But then, if writers knew when to kill the bastard offspring they produce, we wouldn't all be watching the 19th season (or whatever we're at) of the Simpsons, now would we?
Wow, i must love punishment. I mean, watching a sequel is pretty much asking for crappiness anyways, but why is it that the third movie is invariably always the worst? Godfather 3, Spiderman 3... Pirates 3. It's not like it can't be done well; i liked Return of the Jedi and Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade was quite exceptional. But i digress, Pirates of the Caribbean was an ok series and, maybe it's just me, but i actually liked the first two. However, the third one falls way short of this mark.
I guess the main thing that's wrong with this movie is that it sort of muscles through the plot devices as if subtly is out of fashion. The movie starts in Singapore (which the heroes go to sans boat, apparently), then goes to somewhere in the antarctic and then ends up in the afterworld, all in the span of about 20 minutes. Even the scenes in the underworld where Jack Sparrow has himself and his ship rescued make no sense. At one point, a veritable sea of rock-crabs wash jack and the black pearl back to the shorelines of the afterlife. But, where these rock-crabs come from and why they're helping him is left as a complete mystery (at least for now) and you, as the viewer, just have to accept that this is how things unfolded.
The other thing wrong with this movie in general is that they seem to be struggling to keep alive all the characters of the previous movies. while the film predominately focuses on the crew of the Black Pearl, we are shown brief snippets of Norrington and Elizabeth's father before both are quickly dispatched after what must've been 10 minutes of total screen time combined.
I guess it's ok that they killed them off. After all, they really did serve no purpose and it would've been distracting if they'd not been included at all. However, to see such major characters from the previous films just "vanish" really does them no credit, particularly since Norrington, a master swordsman by his own rite, was killed by a lowly member of the Flying Dutchman without so much as having a harsh word thrown.
Meanwhile, the film sticks to the previous formula (if you can call it that) of having a completely new villain, this time filled by the leader of the East India Trading Corporation. I forget what his name is, but the plot is that he has Davey Jones' heart and hence commands the Flying Dutchman to do his biddings. As far as badguy's go, he's not bad (as in, decent), but his plan is so nonsensical that even the writers felt embarrassed by it. As a result, the film's major focus is on constant battles between the Flying Dutchman and her crew and the Black Pearl and hers. By the end of the movie, you're so detached from the actual plot of the film that you don't care that it doesn't seem to actually resolve itself.
While it's true that the action scenes eclipse the plot, it's not because they were spectacular. In fact, compared with the previous movies, they kind of suck. Where were the epic sword fights with 2 or more combatants that keep switching sides? Those were the best parts, damnit! And this movie didn't have them!
Another thing that falls short is the comedy. The previous films had loads of comedic scenes in a variety of fashions from the visual comedy of seeing Jack on a shish-kebab to the concept humour of Jack freaking out about Elizabeth burning all the rum to make a smoke signal. However, the best this film can do is a delusional jack seeing dozens of himself manning all sorts of rolls. At first it's funny, but by about the third time, it's played out and you just want to see something different for a change.
All in all, the movie itself's not horrible, but it's not good either. It's definitely far weaker than its previous installments and while it does end on a note that leaves it open to sequels, you find yourself hoping that they just let this franchise die. But then, if writers knew when to kill the bastard offspring they produce, we wouldn't all be watching the 19th season (or whatever we're at) of the Simpsons, now would we?
Saturday, January 5, 2008
Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix
Aka, Harry Potter 5.
This time i'm reviewing Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix, the movie. Now, it's not actually a movie i'd recently seen, but instead a movie i'd recently REseen. As a fan of the books, i've so far made it a point to see each film as they came out in theatres. Recently, however, my parents had rented Harry Potter 5 for my nephew to watch while he was over for the holidays and so i decided to sit in and see it again for myself. But i digress. Let's get on with the review, shall we?
As it is an adaptation from a book, it's impossible to discuss it without comparing it to the book. I'll try to be as fair as possible, though, as any movie adaptation, no matter how well done, is typically worse than the book it was based off. That being said, this movie is no different.
Since the movie is adapted from a 600 plus page book, the plot barrels forward like a freight train on steroids; subtlety and nuance be damned. The result of this is many characters who had failed to appear in the film they were supposed to are dumped in now without any introduction and for no other purpose than contrived plot devices:
"It's a good thing that witch who lives across the street from the Dursley's shows up when she does, otherwise Harry and Dudley would've been in real trouble. Of course, it would've been even MORE convenient if she had appeared 3 films earlier when she was actually supposed to."
Now, something directors often do when they have to emphasize a subtle point is have characters outwardly vocalize their thoughts because they can't internally soliloquize. To a degree this is necessary. However, sometimes a director has to trust that his or her audience isn't composed entirely of morons and that they WILL pick up on the strongly hinted at occurances without the need of an on screen character pointing it out for them. Apparently, the director/writers of Harry Potter don't know when this is appropriate and when it's not. As a result, throughout the movie, Hermoine serves the role of outward soliloquizer, pointing out all the giant pink elephants in the room as we go because apparently you have to be a genius to get this stuff.
"What's going on?" Ron mutters upon hearing the ministry-appointed, Professor Umbridge cut off the Hogwarts' headmaster and insert her own ministry-approved spiel.
"The ministry's interfering at Hogwarts!" Hermoine declares.
Ron and Harry look dumbfound.
Phew, it's a good thing she straightened that out for me. I NEVER would've figured it out. Or maybe it was for the onscreen characters only. Harry and Ron can be quite thick sometimes.
Another thing people do in book adaptations is change some elements of the story. Again, sometimes this is necessary. Unless the movie were 8 hours long, it'd be incredibly hard to be truly faithful to the book. So, to a degree, story changes are a necessary evil. Yet, for some reason, directors take this liberty to an insane level and often end up changing story elements into completely different story elements for no obvious reason. I remember Fred and George Weasley rebelling and using some kind of magical garden spell on the school. Why was this changed to fireworks in the movie? Did it add anything? Did it save time? As far as i can tell, the only reason it was done is because fireworks "go boom" and plants do not. At any rate, story-wise it felt like something was taken away from me.
Another thing they did was have Percy Weasley make a non-speaking appearance near the middle of the film. I guess this was to remind the audience he's not dead (despite having an important role in the first movie and none since). But it still makes me wonder. After all, if you're not going to introduce the growing rift in the Weasley family or have them even mention his name, why have Percy show up at all? This, ironically, would be the perfect point to have characters outwardly soliloquize their feelings on the topic. But we, as the audience, are left with it as an "easter egg" and nothing more. I suspect we'll see more of Percy in the coming movies, but if we do, it'll be awkwardly explained how he and his father had had a falling out.
All in all, the movie wasn't too bad. I think upon my second time through i found it more entertaining than before. Of course, my blood alcohol level was also significantly higher (it WAS the holidays). Either way, if you're a fan of the books, you'll probably want to see it, regardless; if you're not, you won't. So i guess this review was a total waste of time (like my others aren't?). Ah well, we all make mistakes. Let's just hope our mistakes don't all get turned into movies.
This time i'm reviewing Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix, the movie. Now, it's not actually a movie i'd recently seen, but instead a movie i'd recently REseen. As a fan of the books, i've so far made it a point to see each film as they came out in theatres. Recently, however, my parents had rented Harry Potter 5 for my nephew to watch while he was over for the holidays and so i decided to sit in and see it again for myself. But i digress. Let's get on with the review, shall we?
As it is an adaptation from a book, it's impossible to discuss it without comparing it to the book. I'll try to be as fair as possible, though, as any movie adaptation, no matter how well done, is typically worse than the book it was based off. That being said, this movie is no different.
Since the movie is adapted from a 600 plus page book, the plot barrels forward like a freight train on steroids; subtlety and nuance be damned. The result of this is many characters who had failed to appear in the film they were supposed to are dumped in now without any introduction and for no other purpose than contrived plot devices:
"It's a good thing that witch who lives across the street from the Dursley's shows up when she does, otherwise Harry and Dudley would've been in real trouble. Of course, it would've been even MORE convenient if she had appeared 3 films earlier when she was actually supposed to."
Now, something directors often do when they have to emphasize a subtle point is have characters outwardly vocalize their thoughts because they can't internally soliloquize. To a degree this is necessary. However, sometimes a director has to trust that his or her audience isn't composed entirely of morons and that they WILL pick up on the strongly hinted at occurances without the need of an on screen character pointing it out for them. Apparently, the director/writers of Harry Potter don't know when this is appropriate and when it's not. As a result, throughout the movie, Hermoine serves the role of outward soliloquizer, pointing out all the giant pink elephants in the room as we go because apparently you have to be a genius to get this stuff.
"What's going on?" Ron mutters upon hearing the ministry-appointed, Professor Umbridge cut off the Hogwarts' headmaster and insert her own ministry-approved spiel.
"The ministry's interfering at Hogwarts!" Hermoine declares.
Ron and Harry look dumbfound.
Phew, it's a good thing she straightened that out for me. I NEVER would've figured it out. Or maybe it was for the onscreen characters only. Harry and Ron can be quite thick sometimes.
Another thing people do in book adaptations is change some elements of the story. Again, sometimes this is necessary. Unless the movie were 8 hours long, it'd be incredibly hard to be truly faithful to the book. So, to a degree, story changes are a necessary evil. Yet, for some reason, directors take this liberty to an insane level and often end up changing story elements into completely different story elements for no obvious reason. I remember Fred and George Weasley rebelling and using some kind of magical garden spell on the school. Why was this changed to fireworks in the movie? Did it add anything? Did it save time? As far as i can tell, the only reason it was done is because fireworks "go boom" and plants do not. At any rate, story-wise it felt like something was taken away from me.
Another thing they did was have Percy Weasley make a non-speaking appearance near the middle of the film. I guess this was to remind the audience he's not dead (despite having an important role in the first movie and none since). But it still makes me wonder. After all, if you're not going to introduce the growing rift in the Weasley family or have them even mention his name, why have Percy show up at all? This, ironically, would be the perfect point to have characters outwardly soliloquize their feelings on the topic. But we, as the audience, are left with it as an "easter egg" and nothing more. I suspect we'll see more of Percy in the coming movies, but if we do, it'll be awkwardly explained how he and his father had had a falling out.
All in all, the movie wasn't too bad. I think upon my second time through i found it more entertaining than before. Of course, my blood alcohol level was also significantly higher (it WAS the holidays). Either way, if you're a fan of the books, you'll probably want to see it, regardless; if you're not, you won't. So i guess this review was a total waste of time (like my others aren't?). Ah well, we all make mistakes. Let's just hope our mistakes don't all get turned into movies.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)