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".
Sunday, July 20, 2008
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."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)