Film Review :: All Things Andy Gavin

Archive for Film Review

Why Lucy Why?

Feb20

Title: Lucy

Cast: Scarlett Johansson (Actor), Morgan Freeman (Actor), Luc Besson (Director)

Genre: Science Fiction

Watched: January 7, 2015

Summary: Dumb ^ 3

I loved The Fifth Element and The Professional (flaws and all), so if you add Scarlett Johansson into the mix, you’d hardly think things could go too wrong. But they do, they really do.

Lucy is just a stunningly dumb film trying to “act” like a smart one. Now, it’s not unwatchable (unless there is stock footage, a CGI australopithecine, or Morgan Freeman on screen), but it makes absolutely no sense.

The meta-premise of a woman undergoing a sort of personal Singularity could be decent, but this is combined with a watered down splash of crime thriller. Maybe Besson lost Gary Oldman’s phone number? Even this mundane part is lame with absolutely no character or character development. There is no personality to the mumbling Chinese gangster heavy. No real threat as we know Lucy could just wave him into a coma.

Back to the premise. One of my biggest problems is the regurgitation of that lame-ass idea that “we only use 10% of our brain.” Ok. Lets even pretend this is true (it really isn’t) and that a bag of leaking untested drugs in your stomach can wake up the remaining 90%. How on earth would this give you magic powers over gravity, other people, the ability to see things around the world, alter matter, defy the laws of conservation of mass and energy and all that? Wouldn’t you just get smarter? Or more neurotic?

Combine this idiocy with an unexplained desire to film Morgan Freeman spouting nonsense about the same subject while intercut with cheesy nature footage and you have a recipe for serious cheese. French cheese I guess, like old Livarot. Stinky, but without the yummy creamy center.

There are so many stupid things about the “plotting” of this film. To get started:

Who shoots Richard (in broad daylight)?
Why is the bad guy killing some guys for the hell of it in his suite?
Why are they going global with this new drug before even testing it locally? (as they apparently have no idea what it does)
Why do they have to call someone who speaks English?
Why do they put the drug mule in a room for a couple of hours before sending her to the plane and why do they then kick her in the stomach?
How the hell is some of that first extra 10% of her brain she regains include martial arts and weapons training?
Why does she keep killing strangers and expecting us to think it’s okay?
If she can put people to sleep with the wave of an arm, why does she bother fighting them?
If she is willing to shoot half a dozen random strangers on her way to the hospital, why doesn’t she kill the bad guy when she has a chance? Reason: Besson wanted him to come back for a gratuitous and useless shootout that served no dramatic function.
What the hell was that particle system half-dissolution that happened on the plane and how did she “snap out” of it.
What’s up with Scarlett playing these “emotionless” SciFi characters? This is like the same roll as Under the Skin, just with less nudity and more guns.
And most importantly, why do we need Morgan Freeman at all? He’s a great actor, sure, but totally annoying as a lecture box.

And that’s only the first 20 minutes off the top of my head. It keeps on going.

Now, if you really wanted to make a movie about someone escalating in intelligence and reaching their own personal Singularity, that would be fine. It would be much better to put that in the context of a self-rewriting AI or someone under the influence/intervention of nano machines designed for that purpose. Possibly Alien nano machines? Combine with Prometheus! Why use this dump brain percentage bit? Why include all the impossible magic powers?

If you’ve got some total nonsense that requires the willing suspension of disbelief, also fine, but don’t rub our faces in it by continually lecturing on the subject!

Plus, when a character almost instantly becomes so powerful, you give up all the drama. Remember, drama is when you care for a character and so empathize with the tension between what they want and what the plot gives them. Emotionless protagonists with infinite powers hardly fit that bill.

Lucy was clearly written to require that shutting off 90% of our brains to watch it.

Find more book reviews here.

By: agavin
Comments (3)

Posted in: Movies

Tagged as: Film Review, Luc Besson, Lucy, Morgan Freeman, Scarlett Johansson, Science Fiction

The Bling Ring is Pretty Wild

Oct04

Title: The Bling Ring

Cast: Israel Broussard (Actor), Katie Chang (Actor), Sofia Coppola (Director)

Genre: Satire

Watched: September 18-20, 2013

Summary: As reality bending as a Terry Gilliam film

I was drawn to see The Bling Ring for two reasons: Director Sofia Coppola (I liked both Lost in Translation and Marie Antoinette) and Emma Watson (who didn’t love Hermione?). I finished with a peculiar feeling: Was I watching Fiction or Truth? Satire or Exploitation? I just couldn’t be sure.

In The Perks of Being a Wallflower, Emma Watson, despite her character’s high damage level, never totally leaves Hermione behind. Yet here, the similarities are only surface level. The bright intelligence behind the eyes has given way to a cold calculated cunning. Particularly chilling — and effective — are the bits at the end where her character “apologizes” blankly for herself by declaring that her “main goal in life is to be a leader” and that her destiny is to “save humanity or the environment or something.”

[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r4c6hmrwba0]

This statement, buried as it is in referential fiction, struck me as true. Not the text about her being a leader (hopefully), but the subtext and psychological reality behind the statement, an absolute belief in “If I say it, it must be true.”

So what is true here? I had to know. As the credits rolled surfed the web to find out about the real Bling Ring. The names had all changed, but the players remained vaguely similar (although the timeline was drastically altered). The story was clearly based on Nick Prugo’s perspective. Emma Watson’s character, it turns out, was based on “real” life Alexis Neiers. Who, it seems, “starred” in a reality show called Pretty Wild while moonlighting as a burglar. I found a video of her to see if the film portrayal read true.

And then found myself sucked down into the abyss that is Pretty Wild. Now, I could only stomach a couple episodes (blessedly free on Netflix), but they hit me in the gut, leaving me with a strange greasy feeling on my skin. Line after line in the film is pulled/adapted right out of this “reality.”

But again, what’s true?

In The Bling Ring we have a bunch of actors playing at being real people (but with fictitious names) in a supposedly true story based on a reality show about some real people warping their real lives for the camera. How much of the show is genuine? It certainly feels like very little.

[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qMuG-S6uYtI]

And what's with all these random tattoos on teenage girls? An ankh, the Buddha's head? The same principle at work. "If I have the Buddha's head tattooed on my arm I must be a good person!"

And what’s with all these random tattoos? An ankh, the Buddha’s head? The same principle at work. “If I have the Buddha’s head tattooed on my arm I must be a good person!”

Other reviewers have said this before about Pretty Wild, but watching it, you do have the sinking feeling that the end of Western Civilization is nigh. We have sunk to new lows. The pit yawns open before us. What is clearly real is that these four girls (or at least the mom and the two principle older daughters) are completely devoid of anything but narcissism. Raised on a diet of fashion magazines and home schooled with a curriculum based on the movie version of The Secret? Not even the book! The movie! I dare say these girls fall in that vast majority of Americans unburdened by basic facts like: “Thomas Jefferson was the third president of the United States.”

As completely f**ked up as these girls seem in the show, digging on the web reveals the real story is probably far more sordid. The show fails to mention that Tess is already a Playboy model, her undetermined membership in this bizarre family, and certainly doesn’t dig into the heavy drug use and other self destructive behaviors (just google for topless pictures of Tess Taylor smoking a bong, or the pair doing heroin).

But again, all the participants seem to be willing another reality into focus. The “if I say it, it must be true” principle at work. The rhetoric and the actions are completely disconnected.

And equally disturbing is the bizarre line the Pretty Wild producers walk between satire and exploitation. Sure, it’s clear the “actors” are the main target of mockery, but how about the audience? What’s with the gratuitous presence of Tess’ breasts as secondary performers. The show goes out of its way to show these thinly blurred twins at any opportunity. I’m all for nudity, frequently complaining in my reviews about its relative absence in recent films, but here it feels so forced, as do the omnipresent shots of LA freeways, palm lined streets, and that most exciting of subjects: the ugly stucco facade of girl’s house.

Is this art imitating life? I don’t know, but it certainly isn’t art.

For more Film reviews, click here.

Including Emma Watson’s better turns in Wallflower or Harry Potter.

And p.s. does no one in Hollywood lock their doors or turn on their alarm?

Role Models

By: agavin
Comments (1)

Posted in: Movies, Television

Tagged as: Alexis Neiers, Bling Ring, burgulary, Emma Watson, Film Review, Pretty Wild, reality tv, Sofia Coppola, Tess Taylor

Hansel & Gretel – Arrrrrgg!

Aug21

Title: Hansel & Gretel

Cast: Jeremy Renner (Actor), Gemma Arterton (Actor), Tommy Wirkola (Director)

Genre: Fantasy / Fairy Tale / Action

Watched: August 11, 2013

Summary: Reaches for (and finds) new lows

OMG, someone finally ripped off Van Helsing! Actually, more like mated it with The Man with the Iron Fists. Lest it not be clear, I loathed Van Helsing. It is, in my humble opinion, one of the worst big budget films of all time. Hansel & Gretel is actually better. Not a lot better mind you, but watchable in a sort of horrifying way.

At least it feels like a single unified “vision.” Cough cough. The film is consistent in tone. But what a strange tone! In some ways, it’s a faithful spawn of the original fairy tale (or Satan), but it steals from and mashes in every conceivable bit of jazzed up bad video game / comic sensibility and time period, over-the-top and almost post-modern humor, then goes for the utter gusto.

Some interesting (and terrifying) observations about the film: It apparently cost only $50 million to make. Actually fairly cheap given the number of sets and constant fx shots. They clearly didn’t spend the money on the stars. We all know Jeremy Renner to be under a curse that magically compels him to take every role offered. On the scary side H&G did over $200 million worldwide and a sequel is in production. Spare us now!

The witch designs are borrowed from Clive Barker’s Nightbreed

Probably the thing that most offends me is the fundamental tonal blend. At some level, one might consider this a horror film, and there is a creepy ass story that could be made out of the original fairy tale. If you lost the we-already-know-it intro and immersed us in a dark forest period village where children were being murdered and the townsfolk turned upon themselves — that could have worked. But H&G eschews subtlety at any and all levels. The scenario makes a high level sense (i.e. you can mostly follow the “plot”), but the world building does not. Where is this? When is this? It looks like a 19th century — no maybe 17th — village. But we have half-indestructible heroes, more witches than children, machine-gun crossbows, multi-stage bullets, witches better at high-wire hand to hand combat than curses, love-struct trolls, and so much more. It’s just plain bizarre. There is even this major scene in the middle where a rape and a fumbling love encounter are intercut. Woah! And weird.

Unlike its putrescent progenitor, Van Helsing, I think H&G actually leans on sets instead of CGI for the locations. They filmed it in Germany. This leant (some) of the backgrounds a slightly realistic touch, if a bit Grim Brothers Kitsch. The post-300 costumes and props — not so much. Also very hit or miss is the flip dialog, mostly consisting of Gretel’s one liners and ham-handed exposition aimed at explaining what passes for plot. The witchy plan is so laughable that I wonder if the outline wasn’t done by the writer’s eight year-old son: Wait for Blood Moon, grab twelve kids (for sacrifice), plus dine on heart of Great White Whale (wait, didn’t I mean Witch?).

You might wonder why I mentioned The Man with the Iron Fists, even though it’s an entirely different action sub-genre. But both films take a similar (and oddball) approach at amping and aping the conventions of their betters. They place wire-flying blood-spurting quip-shouting action at the forefront, forgetting that this is meaningless if you don’t actually have characters you care about. Or a world that makes sense. And both films have this Tarantino inspired tone that forbades any suspension of disbelief — while failing to understand any of the stylistic talents of the master.

These witches don’t look any less fake on the big screen

Oh yes, and shall we mention that it’s pretty damn gory. Mixed in with all the camp, there are some horrific deaths here, which further lends to the incredibly odd stylistic tone. Toss into that the haphazard attempt to give both leads romantic interests. Wow, this creates some skin crawling awfulness. I didn’t know who to be me more uncomfortable for: the writers, producers, actors, characters, or just me! That intercut rape scene. Shiver. Not like it’s “the ear scene” in Reservoir Dogs or anything, but the clash of elements is so startlingly inappropriate, I don’t even know what to say.

If this is the new normal, shoot me with a gatling crossbow now!

For more Film reviews, click here.

These tender moments are intercut with his sister’s beating and near rape

By: agavin
Comments (3)

Posted in: Movies

Tagged as: fairy tale, Film Review, Gemma Arterton, Hansel & Gretel, Hansel & Gretel Witch Hunters, Jeremy Renner, Movie Review

Life of Pi

Jan09

Title: Life of Pi

Cast: Irrfan Khan (Actor), Ang Lee (Director)

Genre: Magical Realism

Watched: January 5, 2013

Summary: Luminous

Ang Lee is pretty damn amazing. Here is a Chinese filmaker with an ouvre that includes such varied work as Brokeback Mountain, Hulk, Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon, Eat Drink, Man Woman, Lust, Caution, and now Life of Pi (all except for Hulk pretty brilliant). That one man can capture both the unique Chinese flavor of Crouching Tiger and the Western American rhythm of Brokeback. Amazing.

Now we have this film, which resists all categorization. At one level, it’s an eminently watchable survival adventure and pure visual treat. I haven’t read the book yet (I will now), but I have to asume it has a fable-like quality, and so does the film. The color alone is surreal and intense. The cinematography is gorgeous. Some of the shots… woah. There is some odd unreal nighttime lighting here too — although it works. There is very heavy use of shallow depth of field to good effect.

It’s worth noting that I saw the film in 3D, which has clearly graduated from three years ago when it was only for the likes of Alice in Wonderland (hiss) and How to Train Your Dragon. Now we have it in high budget literary adventure religious allegory. Interestingly, I’m pretty convinced that 3D has the effect of decreasing realism. It makes everything look like CGI, heightened, super-real, like an HDR photograph.

The acting is also superb. The casting of Pi at various ages is dead on. All three are highly emotive. And the tiger — who is presumably 90% CGI — he’s the stuff of legend. There is one damn cool animal. The soggy cat hanging off the side of the boat is just so sad, lest us forget that the Bengal Tiger is the world’s most dangerous land animal. Tiger’s are fast, deadly, climb, swim, and can bat your head off with one paw. Imagine sharing a lifeboat with one! There’s a 19th century tiger known to have killed over 430 men.

The film is to beautiful, that the ocean itself, and its bevy of sea life, becomes a character. As desperate as Pi (and Richard Parker the Tiger) are, they can’t help but marvel at the little seen wonders that present, and us with them.

Thematically, I’m not yet sure how to digest Life of Pi. It’s a pretty deeply emotional movie, and at some level plays to the film medium’s visual strengths. The picture hints at deeper philosophical notes, but doesn’t really illuminate. I sense extreme abbreviation. After all, 450 pages of novel would result in perhaps six hours of film.

NOTE: two weeks later I read the book. My thoughts here.

For more Film reviews, click here.

And I have to wonder, how did Pi keep the boat so clean? Did he train the tiger to poop over the side?

By: agavin
Comments (10)

Posted in: Movies

Tagged as: 3D, Ang Lee, Bengal Tiger, Brokeback Mountain, Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon, Film Review, Irrfan Khan, Life of Pi, Yann Martel

Men in Black 3

Dec28

Title: Men in Black 3

Cast: Will Smith (Actor), Tommy Lee Jones (Actor), Barry Sonnenfeld (Director)

Genre: Sci-Fi Action

Watched: December 1, 2012

Summary: Surprisingly decent

I picked this up because of the time travel angle, but it turned out to be a pretty fun film. It’s not high art, and in fact it doesn’t have anything new to say about time travel, or anything else either. It’s also a ridiculous romp. A clear guilty pleasure.

We begin with a good villain: Borris the Animal. He’s plenty zany and has one arm and a face hugger that lives in his remaining hand. He also has it out for Tommy Lee Jones, who locked him up 40 years earlier. When he breaks out of his lunar prison, he wants nothing more than to travel back in time and kill our taciturn hero. Which he does. Will Smith then has to head back himself and put things to right.

Josh Brolin plays “young Agent K” (Jones). The resemblance is uncanny, in looks, in voice, in mannerism. Jones himself isn’t even in the film for more than a few minutes. There isn’t any time travel paradox here. There’s just hunt down the villain and try to kill him. But the film luxuriates in campy 1969 visual gags. Costumes, Andy Wharhol, the Apollo 11 launch, and so on. It’s like Madmen without the drama. The rocket launch really is pretty cool.

MIB puts its money on screen. There isn’t a normal shot in the whole film. Aliens abound. Not exactly realistic. The tech difference over 40 years is handled in the same over-simplified manner as in X-men first class. Everything is the same, except it was bigger then, with 60s styling. Guns: bigger. Memory eraser: bigger. Aliens, definitely bigger (and slimier).

Michael Stuhlbarg (Boardwalk Empire‘s Arnold Rothstein) plays a very amusing four dimensional being. Defiantly found him groovy. I can’t even remember the second MIB, but this one has to be better.

For more Film reviews, click here.

By: agavin
Comments (1)

Posted in: Movies

Tagged as: aliens, Barry Sonnenfeld, Film Review, Josh Brolin, Men In Black, Men in Black 3, Tommy Lee Jones, Will Smith

Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn, Part 2

Nov21

Title: Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn, Part 2

Director/Stars: Kristen Stewart (Actor), Robert Pattinson (Actor), Bill Condon (Director)

Genre: Fantasy

Watched: November 19, 2012

Summary: Disney Vamps

BDP2 is not nearly as vomit inducing as part 1. Sure, I did my fair share of cringing, but mostly the film brought a smirk to my face.

This is the story of a family of carebear vampires. Sure, they have creepy red eyes, but they get to race through sun dapples forests and jump off 8,000 foot cliffs into the Northwestern surf.

The film manages to do an okay job with some of the story’s odder elements, like the fact that Jacob has a love-crush on an infant. That the infant in question is a hideous CGI doll certainly makes it feel less pedophilic. It’s all watchable if you’ve kept up with the series, and there is certainly more conflict than in part 1. The Volturi are up to no good, hail from Tuscany and don’t seem the least bit Italian, but Michael Sheen plays one of those camp villains you just love to hate.

Just as in the previous four films, the overzealous use of CGI and crazy sped up action lends the film an extremely fake look. Act 2, where the good guys recruit “witnesses” to come to their defense, seemed languid. The whole multicultural array of vamps felt extra silly in a film of silly. Stereo-typed Brazilians join up with stereo-typed Russians join up with stereo-typed Irish and the like, but oh well, this is Twilight.

The film alludes to Edward and Bella’s “out of control” sex life, but provides us with only the chastest of scenes. Not only has the royal couple created some kind of weird halfbreed (even if the 7 year-old version is pretty cute – and I mean harmless-kiddy-cute not Jacob-the-pedophile-cute), but the whole vampire nation has cross bred themselves with the X-men.

Everyone seems to have a power. Pain ray, elemental control, clairvoyance, mysterious smelly black smoke of doom, you name it. Mortals may have some trouble keeping track of the rather vast crew of red eyes and their manifold abilities. It doesn’t matter too much. Eventually, they all form up in two lines on a nice big frozen lake for the final showdown.

But the showdown never happens. Or does it? Actually, the final non-fight was pretty cool. Best action sequence in the series so far. Perhaps the only one that was kinda exciting. Michael Sheen can sneer with the best of them.

All in all a fitting end to the “saga.” It is what it is, but it ain’t really about vampires.

[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ti0H-bvMi3I]

And it’s worth checking out this Cracked magazine review of the whole series too.

Read my Twilight review or New Moon or Eclipse or Breaking Dawn, part 1.

For more Film reviews, click here.

Or discover my own paranormal novels.

By: agavin
Comments (6)

Posted in: Movies

Tagged as: Bill Condon, Breaking Dawn, Film Review, Kristen Stewart, part 2, Robert Pattinson, Twilight, Twilight Saga

Prometheus Rebound

Nov02

Title: Prometheus

Cast: Noomi Rapace (Actor), Michael Fassbender (Actor), Ridley Scott (Director)

Genre: Science Fiction

Watched: October 25, 2012

Summary: Trying to go long! (7/10)

In many ways, Prometheus, harkens back to 60s and 70s Science Fiction (novels). Not only is it Ridley Scott’s vague take on a prequel to his own 1979 Alien, but it ambitiously tackles gigantic open ended questions in the manner of Rama, Gateway, and the like. But does it succeed?

Not entirely.

[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sftuxbvGwiU]

This film is certainly broader and vaster than Alien — which is a contained “monster in a box” sort of story, albeit a brilliant one — and the actors are pretty good, but Prometheus feels a little rushed. Most of the characters seem to be acting on mysterious hidden agendas that don’t make total sense. And they proceed with a crazy sort of recklessness — given the obvious high level of risk even before it devolves into a total cluster f**k. I mean, come on, who sends a team that doesn’t know each other to the other side of the galaxy? Who thinks it’s a good idea to take off your helmet in a giant alien pyramid or stick your fingers in xeno-goo?

Also, despite the pretense of “hard sci-fi”, there are a lot of liberties taken with physics, biology, and the like. Can gigantic alien donut ships really roll and flop across the ground? I don’t think so, big objects don’t have the tensile strength to topple like that, look what happened to the twin towers. Can you outrun one on foot? Or why does an expedition that auto maps every millimeter of their surroundings with glowing holographs need to ask crew members what “coordinates” they’re standing at?

Still, I enjoyed the film. Ridley at least tried to make a great film, even if he only ended up with a good one. This is no mindless action romp with unmemorable talking cardboard cutouts. It’s a real solid effort, starkly gorgeous to boot, and definitely better than Robin Hood!

For more Film reviews, click here.

By: agavin
Comments (19)

Posted in: Movies

Tagged as: alien, Arts, Film Review, Michael Fassbender, Noomi Rapace, Prometheus, Ridley Scott, Science Fiction

John Carter and Writing Don’ts

Jun15

Title: John Carter

Cast: Taylor Kitsch (Actor), Lynn Collins (Actor), Andrew Stanton (Director)

Genre: Science Fiction (liberally)

Watched: June 9, 2012

Summary: Dull and overdone (4/10)

When I first saw the trailer for John Carter I was intrigued and full of questions.

What is this? How do those late 19th century western images fit in with the “other world” and alien thing? I liked the music. Somehow I felt I was supposed to know who the hell John Carter was. I didn’t. It took me months to find out.

And the irony is that I’ve actually read A Princess of Mars, albeit nearly thirty years ago, but failed to remember the hero’s name. Perhaps a hint that this even was Mars would have helped.

In any case, none of that affects the film itself.

I’m not going to describe the plot, but instead talk about what works and doesn’t. Fundamentally, I think it could have been a great movie — but it’s not. In fact, only the effects make it vaguely watchable.

The writing is a mess. We have about four different beginnings. The opening prologue is set on Mars with the bad guy (sort of) that is totally useless and out of place. This is an “earth man goes to other world” story and by opening with the other world completely pops the mystery bubble. I’ll try to delete that scene from memory. The next is better, a bit of prologue presumably borrowed from the book’s attempt at verisimilitude where we learn that the titular John Carter died and left his estate to his nephew. This includes a journal of his adventures. Then we cut back to said adventures a decade earlier. In a fairly useless bit of Western which attempts to introduce our protagonist (in our third segment!) he illustrates that he is a jerk, belligerent, and manages to get himself teleported to Mars via Arizona. From there there the real story begins.

Several basic rules of straightforward writing are violated: 1. Start with your protagonist. 2. Make him or her likeable.

Plus, the direction is forced and hamhanded. In an early scene on earth, JC is “shows” he is resistant to authority by repeatedly (and foolishly) trying to escape the US army officers who merely wish to talk to him. This is done in a series of cuts. I know what the director was going for, but he fails utterly. The sequence comes off as forced and cheesy. In general, the over bombastic John Williams style score tries to sell a level of drama that the script does not create. The net effect is that you know how you are supposed to feel, but don’t: Melodrama.

This is not helped by the “additions” to the original novel’s plot. For some reason, a bunch of manipulating shape-shifting priests of undetermined origin and purpose are working behind the scenes to manipulate the moderately byzantine political landscape of Barsoom (aka Mars). This does nothing but make the principal villain seem lame and stupid. In short, a tool. Scenes feel rushed and suffer from a level of hamminess reminiscent of 1960s epic films. The actors who played Julius Caesar and Mark Antony in the excellent HBO Rome reprise their roles as campy Martian versions of the same part. In every scene they seem to be winking at the camera, all while wearing diapers and leather straps.

Even the effects and sets, as gigantic as they are, seem recycled. Part of this is a form of reciprocal IP theft between Edgar Rice Burroughs, George Lucas, and the producers of this film. Lucas lifted all sorts of feel and elements from the original novel for the Star Wars universe, and the John Carter producers felt the need to emulate much of the visual style he created. I don’t blame George, his world is a unique vision build from the parts of pop and pulp Science Fiction. But despite the extraordinary influence of A Princess of Mars, the John Carter film adds nothing to the genre.

That is not to say that it’s bad looking (diapers aside). The effects are well executed and the big open Western-style spaces impressive and moody. It’s just that without any real connection to the cardboard characters, it’s hard to care.

For my review of the original 1917 novel, click here.

For more Film reviews, click here.

By: agavin
Comments (22)

Posted in: Movies

Tagged as: A Princess of Mars, Andrew Stanton, Arts, Barsoom, Edgar Rice Burrough, Film Review, John Carter, Mars, Science Fiction, Taylor Kitsch

The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo

Jan14

Title: The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo

Director/Stars: Daniel Craig, Rooney Mara and Christopher Plummer, David Fincher (Director)

Genre: Mystery/Thriller

Watched: January 9, 2012

Summary: Very stylish dark thriller

TGWTDT is a peculiar literary and cinematic phenomenon. Wildly successful, it’s not your typical story or route to success. It also proves that some people, at least, still have an attention span.

Broadly, this is a serial killer mystery blended with a taunt character driven thriller. The story itself has an odd structure. For those of you that don’t know, we have an old Swedish billionaire who hires a brilliant investigative journalist to investigate the forty year-old unsolved murder of his niece. This is wound together with the life of a hacker/investigator (the titular girl) who investigates first the journalist and then the murders. But oddly, they don’t even meet for half of the film. The first half is driven by the journalist’s investigation and by dark character study of Lisbeth (the girl).

Be warned, this film contains crime scenes, grisly crime photos, crazy homicidal dudes in their dungeons, and a very harrowing rape sequence which is all too graphic. Director David Fincher lends his natural taste and talent for the creepy to the material with great success. No surprise, he directed my all time most disturbing film, Seven. This TGWTDT is much more stylish than the Swedish versions (and that was good too). Plus this style doesn’t trivialize the material at all, but only serves to heighten the emotional impact. The story is somewhat streamlined from the earlier film and the book, but also without significant sacrifice.

Daniel Craig is highly competent in the role and the excellent supporting cast makes fine work of the host of swedish creeps (and occasional decent human being). But it’s Rooney Mara’s Lisbeth that absolutely steals the show. Of course this character is probably to a good degree responsible for the success of the franchise, but Mara does her justice. Her Lisbeth is detached, yet sexy and vulnerable, but also kick ass physically and intellectually. She’s a very complex character and both her striking visual presence and subtle performance are riveting. I particularly liked her sexual relationship with Craig. Here’s a man who clearly is used to being a man, and then she reverses the whole deal on him. He likes her, but doesn’t really know what to make of the whole thing.

But for us, that’s great movie making. Just be warned, this is not a film for the squeamish.

For more Film reviews, click here.

Or read about my current project, The Darkening Dream.

By: agavin
Comments (0)

Posted in: Movies

Tagged as: Christopher Plummer, Daniel Craig, David Fincher, Dragon Tattoo, Film Review, Girl With Dragon Tattoo, Lisbeth Salander, Movie Review, Rooney Mara, Sweden, Swedish

Twilight Saga: Eclipse

Nov19

Title: Twilight Saga: Eclipse

Director/Stars: Kristen Stewart (Actor), Robert Pattinson (Actor), David Slade (Director)

Genre: Fantasy

Watched: June 2010 & Nov 16, 2011

Summary: Livarot

Eclipse is clearly the lame duck of the three pre-Breaking-Dawn Twilight films. It’s so cheesy that it makes the original and New Moon seem high art. First of all, the A-story is about as weighty as a sesame seed. We’ve got this entirely lame plot where ginger-haired hipster Victoria is still after Bella because of the ridiculous happenings of the first film. In order to thwart the plot crushing clairvoyance of Alice she has to act indirectly, raising an army of “Newborn” vampires to come after Bella and the Cullens. In this featherweight version of the vampire legend, new vampires are not just crazy (that’s fairly typical) but are extra strong. Well, at least we are told this. What we are shown (in the “final battle”) is that the Newborns die easily without causing the good guys to even break a sweat — only a few ribs. I find this incredibly lame. In my fictional universe, vampires grow in strength with the years, but at the same time very old vampires are extremely rare — and extraordinarily twisted, powerful, and dead. Did I mention they only come out at night and like to decorate their enemy’s houses with body parts?

But none of Eclipse‘s A-story really matters. It’s the B-story (romance) that holds the focus. This episode is all (I mean all) about the love triangle between Bella, Edward, and Jacob. Which is about as cheesy as Fourme d’Ambert, but again does have a certain charm, and more than a little humor. The “plot” forces ever more competition between our studs, leading to post-modern lines like “I’m Switzerland” or “does he own a shirt?” This trend climaxes (or doesn’t) in the amusing talkfest inside the tent at the end of the movie. Jacob has been hanging outside (shirtless of course) in a blizzard, but he ducks in to check on freezing Bella. Poor Edward just isn’t much help — no heartbeat = no bodyheat. “You’ll warm up faster if you take off your clothes,” Jacob advises when he crawls in the sleeping bag, right in front of his rival.

I must also mention that every time the A-story cuts in my skin crawls. The flashback with the Native Americans and the “cold ones” (vampires) was particularly seizure inducing. The little flash overs to Victoria and the Volturi “plotting” are perfunctory and really make no sense given the essentially first-person nature of the narrative. The plot (cough cough) is really driven (and hampered) by Alice’s corny power. This happens in the entire series. Since she can see the future, most decisions consist of her instantly knowing someone is going to show up or something is going to happen. Then they hop to it. Occasionally, like in New Moon, this screws something up briefly. Truth is, this is an amazingly lazy device on the part of Stephanie Meyer. It’s like a continuous deus ex machina. It even traps the author in Eclipse so she has to invent a whole reason Victoria can sneak up on them via her leaving it as a “last minute decision.” This is totally bogus. If she decided to leave it to the end to decide, she’s decided and Alice would know. BS alert!

But I’m not done. Continuing my theory that the series is teenage girl wish fulfillment we have this big B-story thread where Edward wants to get married but Bella resists. I’m pretty sure this is just to create further reason for him to actually do what she (and by proxy her teen audience) wants him to do: propose. Then there is his insistence on celibacy. But others have certainly gone into the whole vampire = the dangers of sex or whatever is going on here.

I’m not sure if I loathe the movie or actually enjoyed it as an odd sociological study (owing to it being so popular) or liked it because Kristen Stewart is hot. It was definitely not because of Edward’s eyebrows or Jacob’s six-pack.

Read my Twilight review or New Moon or Breaking Dawn, part 1 or part 2.
For more Film reviews, click here.
Or read about my own paranormal novels.

By: agavin
Comments (5)

Posted in: Movies

Tagged as: Bella, Bella Swan, Edward, Film Review, Jacob Black, Kristen Stewart, Movie Review, Robert Pattinson, Stephenie Meyer, Taylor Lautner, Twilight, Twilight Saga, Twilight Saga: Eclipse, Twilight Saga: New Moon

Fright Night (2011) – Not a waste of film

Aug21

Title: Fright Night

Director/Stars: Colin Farrell (Actor), Anton Yelchin (Actor), Imogen Poots (Actor), Craig Gillespie (Director)

Genre: Horror

Watched: August 19, 2011 (and before)

Summary: Fun update!

As a lifelong vampire fan — hell, my first novel is (somewhat) about vampires — I saw and loved the original Fright Night when it opened in 1985. Truth be told it was always one of my favorite vampire movies (up there with Coppola’s Dracula, Interview with the Vampire, Let the Right One In, and The Lost Boys). The 1985 Fright Night offers up a clever blend of comedy and horror. Not only is the movie very funny (and it holds up well today), but it’s not a pure spoof. The plot’s moderately clever, and the vampire, played by Chris Sarandon (Susan’s first husband) has a sinister charm and a genuine sense of menace. In my opinion vampires need a sense of menace (even the goofy Master from Buffy Season 1 is menacing). No sparkles for me.

So it was with some trepidation that I checked out the remake. See the trailer below:

I was pleasantly surprised to find the new version pretty fricking good. The story is loosely faithful to the original film. Buffy writer Marti Noxon penned the screenplay. She’s a consistently excellent writer, with the exception of the incredibly sucky I Am Number Four (maybe someone butchered it after the fact?) with a knack for catchy dialog. Most of the original elements survived intact, but character and balance has been adjusted significantly. Most substantially, Roddy McDowall‘s campy older vampire-killer TV host has been replaced by David Tennant channeling a campy blend of Chris Angel and Russell Brand. But that works.

The casting is top notch. Anton Yelchin is fast talking, self deprecating, and likable as Charlie. Imogen Poots is smoking inferno hot — and 21st century feisty/competent — as Amy. Hers is a career to watch, I wouldn’t be surprised to see her carrying a movie in the next year or two. The rest of the cast is fun too. But it’s Colin Farrell that steals the show with his visceral new take on the ancient killer. Farrell’s Jerry isn’t so slick or romantic as the classical vampire, but he brings a feral intensity to the role which is extraordinarily predatory. Supremely confident, this Jerry starts off the movie as a mere “human” predator, clearly a man not to be trusted with the ladies. But when he senses the kids are on to him, he doesn’t just depend on the defense of disbelief that the original did (although he does have some good fun with this) but goes straight for the jugular — literarily and figuratively. Part white trash, part serial killer, part vampire, he’s all around delicious to watch.

Noxon’s script is full of dark humor and quippy (but not too campy) lines. The story has been rearranged to suit modern tastes. Essentially act 1 has been compressed to almost nothing. Gone is the first third of the movie where the characters (although not the audience) are trying to sort out exactly what they’re dealing with. Instead, we open with vampire, and by scene three (perhaps 4-5 minutes) Charlie’s friend Evil is desperately trying to convince him that the new neighbor Jerry is a vampire. The movie makes no bones about confirming this either. It leaps right into fang games and breaks into a very extended second act filled with big chase and action scenes. This could have ruined the film, but the scenes are slick and intense. The final showdown perhaps felt a little rushed, and there was at least one major story error (the vampires show up in Vegas at exactly the wrong time and place with no explanation of how they knew to be there), but none of this really detracts from the fun and mayhem.

The effects are top notch and don’t get in the way too much. Sure they’re gratuitous, but they’re supposed to be. The editing is more classic, not the frantic mess that’s popular these days. And the cinematography was often quite striking. Certain shots were highly memorable: particularly both fang outs (Jerry and another), the stripper’s final number, and many others.

So vampire fans, go see.

For more Film reviews, click here.
For more vampire posts, here.

By: agavin
Comments (1)

Posted in: Movies

Tagged as: Anton Yelchin, Chris Sarandon, Christopher Mintz-Plasse, Colin Farrell, Craig Gillespie, Dracula, Film Review, Fright Night, horror, Imogen Poots, Lost Boys, Marti Noxon, Roddy McDowall, Vampire, vampires

The Eagle

Jul17

Title: The Eagle

Director/Stars: Channing Tatum (Actor), Jamie Bell (Actor)

Genre: Period Adventure

Year: 2011

Watched: July 7, 2011

Summary: Decent.

ANY CHARACTER HERE

It’s interesting that in the last year or so there have been two movies about the Roman legion “lost” in North Britain during the Hadrianic period. The other is Centurion which I review here. It just goes to prove that Hollywood loves to copy. Two volcano movies? Two Wyatt Earp films? Two Lambada films?

And, to boot, it’s unlikely the legion was actually “lost” (as in militarily). More likely it was just disbanded and the sketchy historical record makes it seem to have disappeared.

In any case, The Eagle is less stylized, and perhaps less anachronistic in terms of it’s action and look than Centurion. However, it doesn’t work as well. Centurion is a very fine chase movie, with almost no character development. The Eagle tries for the latter, with mixed success. The first half works best. Our hero, Centurion Marcus, is posted (on request) to a fort in Britain, proves himself and is injured, then gets shipped out to his uncle’s villa to recover. I liked this opening section, and the film is very well researched from a visual standpoint. The scenery and costumes are great. They didn’t, however, get as much right involving the way in which the Roman army is organized. They insisted on using modern terms like “duty roster” and “honorable discharge.” Roman soliders (of this period) weren’t enlisted out of civilian life. They were either senatorial/imperial appointees (mostly officers) or serving a fixed (20+ year) service.

But I did like this early section. The battle sequences were well done. I liked the crazy druid and his chariot (still in use then by tribal groups in Britain). I liked the legionaries fighting in formation (mostly).

But after recovering, Marcus makes the ridiculous decision to go north of Hadrian’s wall (into enemy Scotland) by himself, accompanied only by a celtic slave who owes him his life. His mission, taken upon himself, is to recover the Eagle (battle standard) lost by his father a decade or so before. He has no idea where it is. Scotland is a big place, full of celts and picts. They don’t like Romans.

But he blunders right into it after riding across some gorgeous wet looking scenery. Again, landscape and costumes look amazing. The movie also doesn’t have a lot of CG, which is good. The natives feel very… well native. I was reminded visually of The New World — a movie of stunning visual lushness about the Jamestown colony. After all that we have an encounter with this seal tribe, a fictionalized Northern British coastal tribe. Their look and ceremonies are wonderfully depicted. Marcus has a bit of slave/master reversal with his friend, but eventually the two grab the eagle and make a run for it, followed by a showdown.

The finale devolved into a kind of anachronistic “all cultures are equal” kind of thinking that just did not exist in the second century. Not only didn’t it exist then, it didn’t even exist during World War I, or any time in between. This modern, intensely modern, way of thinking was formulated during the 20th century. Sure a few people may have thought this way — slightly this way — in the 18th and 19th centuries. But precious few.

Romans. No.

The Roman’s were actually very accommodating and tolerant of foreign cultures and races, radically so compared to medieval Europe, incorporating them in great numbers into their polity. But this stemmed not from any sense of cultural relativism, but from an intense pragmatism, and a world-crushing confidence in the ability of Roman society to absorb and transform.

But back to the film. Overall, I enjoyed it, but mostly from a visual and historical standpoint. The costumes, locations, and sets really are fantastic. It has a pretty ancient feel — ignoring some of the dialog. It’s not nearly as satisfying an adventure movie as Centurion. But it tried to be more. I also appreciate the extremely well done more traditional style of filmmaking. This is no 300, full of garish comic book stylization and whacky CG.

For more film reviews, click here.

By: agavin
Comments (0)

Posted in: History, Movies

Tagged as: Channing Tatum, Eagle, Eagle of the Ninth, Film Review, Hadrian, Hadrian's Wall, History, Jamie Bell, Legio IX Hispana, Legion, Movie Review, Roman legion, roman society, The Eagle

On Stranger Tides

Jun06

Title: Pirates of the Caribbean IV: On Stranger Tides

Director/Stars: Johnny Depp (Actor), Ian McShane (Actor), Rob Marshall (Director)

Genre: Pirate Fantasy

Read: May 28, 2011

Summary: Better than 2 or 3.

ANY CHARACTER HERE

This post isn’t so much a review of the 4th Pirates installment, but an little digression on its amusing relationship to one of my favorite books. Still, I’ll mention a few things about the film:

On Stranger Tides is a major improvement over Pirates 2 and 3 (blech). It feels more like a prequel to the first film (although technically it’s a straight sequel). Gone are Orlando and Knightly, and the plot focuses mostly on Jack Sparrow and some of the other baddies like Barbarossa and the new Blackbeard (played by the always likable Ian McShane). The plot is a bit of a retrenchment, involving a hectic quest for the Fountain of Youth. It’s more contained, more classically swashbuckled, with a welcome elimination of giant krakens, the afterlife, pirate councils, and ludicrous giant whirlpool ship battles. As such, if you can ignore the gapping plot holes and the merely token setup, it’s much more satisfying and fun to watch. It rates fairly close to the original, which is actually a pretty damn good movie — albiet a guilty pleasure for sure. The CGI is also much reduced. Not that it isn’t in nearly every frame, but it’s more contained and less bombastic. Structurally the elimination of the Orlando/Knightly thing also simplifies the whole character focus.

Now, on to the reason I’m writing this post. When I first saw the preview a year or so ago I was struct by the subtitle (On Stranger Tides) and the fact that the plot involved Blackbeard and the Fountain of Youth. I was instantly reminded of one of my three favorite Tim Powers novels, On Stranger Tides, about the same. Now This is a 1987 novel, and I read it in the 90s. But Powers is one of my favorite authors, and probably one of the biggest influences on my own writing (at least my first novel, The Darkening Dream). He blends history, the occult, and fantasy in an artful and seamless way. Anyone who hasn’t read him must immediately buy and read The Anubis Gates, one of my all time favorite novels. The original novel (On Stranger Tides) is a creepy and heavily researched story about Blackbeard’s maniacal search for immortality. It’s pretty brilliant and quintessential Powers. Much darker and scarier than this film.

Pirates IV is well… a Pirates of the Caribbean movie that involves Blackbeard and the Fountain of Youth. That’s about as far as it goes. Unless I missed something, the only other elements borrowed from the novel are a vague mention of zombies and the fact that when we meet Blackbeard his beard has smoldering flames hidden inside. This is a well documented feature of the man, as he claimed to be a priest of the voodoo god Baron Samedi whose magical totem is smoldering flame. This famous engraving shows the details. In any case the book is really cool and much more interesting than the film.

What’s interesting here is that Disney put “suggested by the novel On Stranger Tides by Tim Powers” in the credits and felt it needed to option the novel just to include the two basic elements of Blackbeard and the Fountain. Nothing else.

Hollywood.

Although I’m glad that Mr. Powers got at least some kind of payday as a result — he deserves it.

By: agavin
Comments (4)

Posted in: Books, Movies

Tagged as: Blackbeard, Film Review, Fountain of Youth, Ian McShane, Jack Sparrow, Johnny Depp, Movie Review, On Stranger Tides, Pirates of The Caribbean, Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl, Rob Marshall, Tim Powers

Movie Review: Thor

May15

Title: Thor

Director/Stars: Chris Hemsworth (Actor), Natalie Portman (Actor), Kenneth Branagh (Director)

Genre: Comic-book Action

Read: May 9, 2011

Summary: Weird.

ANY CHARACTER HERE

Other than Marvel’s apparent desire to pull a kind of cinematic equivalent of the 1980s “Secret Wars” there really aren’t a lot of reasons why this movie needed making. It’s actually kind of bizarre, and I can’t really imagine that the Thor (as in comic) audience is immense. Although maybe I’m wrong. But I’m going to comment on it both a writer/viewer and as a historian of the mythological. Despite being a big Marvel fan in the 80s, I never read Thor itself.

It’s competently cast. Everyone plays their roles as they should, and it’s actually a kinda fun movie to watch, particularly the parts with Thor in the “real world.” This is reminiscent of the scenes in Superman 2 where General Zod kicks ass in that town after arriving on earth.

But notice I say “the parts in the real world.” Because a good percentage, at least half, of Thor takes place off in the strange CGI worlds of Asgard and Jotunheim. After a two-second intro with Natalie Portman (hot but wasted) on Earth we are instantly transported into a giant backstory tour of these bizarre places, complete with voiceover by Anthony Hopkins as “all-father Odin.” There is no attempt to fit this information naturally into the narrative, just a ginormous CGI info-dump. The whole mythology has my head spinning, and I love mythologies. It certainly borrows liberally from cookie-cutter components of Norse myth, but its more like Stan Lee learned what he needed to know from Deities and Demigods (a favorite book of mine circa 1982!). I’m still coming to terms with the weirdness of fusing Norse myth and some kind of alien outer space cosmology. I’m not even really sure which it was supposed to be. Are they aliens that mankind interpreted as gods (most probably) or actually just gods?

There is a lot of cool looking stuff, but there is certainly no attempt to capture the nature of ancient polytheistic deity where gods ARE/EMBODY/SUBSUME multiple aspects of natural and physiological phenomenons. Not that I expected this. Still, one can always hope. There are occasionally masterpieces like Pan’s Labyrinth.

Well in any case, while the imagery is kinda like Valhalla meets Star Wars episode 3 cityscape, the whole Asgardian world just doesn’t make any sense. These like super immortal aliens lounge around with their dark age Viking stylings. And they love hand to hand combat. At least they mostly have beards (HISS directed at films about clean-shaven Ancient Greek men). The action in Asgard/Jotunheim also suffers from the way too much CGI factor, particularly the parts on Jotunheim where the five heroic actors are the only non computer elements. The giant legion of frost giants and the bigass ice-troll creature had that weightless feel. Not as bad as in a repulsive pile of excrement like Van Helsing (the film), but bad.

Still, along with the competent casting we do have competent — albiet uninspired — writing. The film, despite the INCREDIBLY weird mythology, is watchable and makes complete sense when taken at a scene by scene level. This is far far more than I can say of a turd like the aforementioned Van Helsing or various Michael Bey type movies. Maybe it stems from the odd choice of Kenneth Branagh as director (he must have needed to refresh his bank account). In Thor, the characters and their relationships are perfunctory, but they do have a kind of (cinematic) clarity. This basically made it fairly enjoyable. And to tell the truth, if they had built the whole film out of Thor on Earth, focusing on his relationship with the underused Ms. Portman, it could have been a good film.

Instead it was interesting, in a weird crazy mythological way.

If you’re curious about some real myth, check out Satyr plays!

By: agavin
Comments (18)

Posted in: Movies

Tagged as: Anthony Hopkins, Arts, Asgard, Chris Hemsworth, Film Review, General Zod, Kenneth Branagh, Marvel Comic, Movie Review, Natalie Portman, Norse mythology, reviews, Secret Wars, Stan Lee, Thor, Thor: Son of Asgard (Thor (Graphic Novels))

Back to the Future Part III

Apr12

Title: Back to the Future Part III

Director/Stars: Michael J. Fox (Actor), Christopher Lloyd (Actor), Robert Zemeckis(Director)

Genre: Time Travel Comedy

Year: 1990

Watched: March 31, 2011

Summary: Ug. What happened?

The end of part II leaves us with this sweet little setup. And then Back to the Future Part III just craps all over it.

Really this is barely a time travel movie. Basically Marty just pops back to 1885 to save Doc from being shot by Biff’s great-grandfather (again played by the same actor). The DeLorean has run out of gas… in 1885, so they have to figure out how to get it up to 88 miles an hour. Answer locomotive. This is a reverse of, but nearly the same, as the gimmick from the first movie with having to generate the 1.21 gigawatts of power via lightning bolt. Oh, and Doc falls in love.

What follows is a pretty silly, downright camp, little western pastiche. And that’s about it.

As I said, there isn’t much of the time travel and paradox fun we had in the first two films. But there is more rehash of the same jokes. Michael J Fox plays another McFly family member. Although one has to wonder why his great-grandmother still looks like Lea Thompson when she married into the family in the 50s! And the Fox genes must be dominant over the Glover ones. Oh we also get the “Biff eats manure” joke again. There’s also Doc’s little romance. I know it’s supposed to be sweet, but it really wasn’t doing it for me. Nothing really did, sorry.

This is only the second time I’ve seen the film (compared to like 15 times for part I and 5+ for part II). I remember being massively disappointed in the theater in 1990 (maybe even on opening night). I don’t feel any differently 21 years later.

I hope they don’t do some awful part IV that’s on par with Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull.

Check out the Back to the Future review Part I here.

Or my review of part II here.

By: agavin
Comments (2)

Posted in: Movies

Tagged as: Arts, Back to the Future, Back to the Future Part III, Christopher Lloyd, DeLorean, DeLorean time machine, Film, Film Review, Lea Thompson, Marty McFly, Michael J Fox, Movie, Movie Review, Robert Zemeckis, Time travel

Back to the Future Part II

Apr10

Title: Back to the Future Part 2

Director/Stars: Michael J. Fox (Actor), Christopher Lloyd (Actor), Robert Zemeckis (Director)

Genre: Time Travel Comedy

Year: 1989

Watched: March 30, 2011

Summary: Lots of time travel, and fun!

Following up on such a gem of a movie as 1985’s Back to the Future (my review here) must have been a daunting task. And it occasioned part II and part III being filmed together, and released only 6 months apart. As far as I know this was the first time this kind of joint production was ever done.

In any case, I always liked part II, particularly since it has the most time travel of the three, and certainly the most complex examination of the basic principle of time manipulation. It starts with a literal repeat of the last 3 minutes of BTTF (although they must have reshot some of it because they inexplicably replace Claudia Wells with Elisabeth Shue as the girlfriend — not that this lame duck role matters. They then pop into 2015, where Hilldale Ca is both the same and very different. The technological inovations proposed are pretty amusing, and most of them still haven’t happened in 2011. Again, where’s my hoverboard? But they missed a few things — like the cel phone, or the death of the fax machine.

Anyway, while avoiding paradox, and just having run with the same cast of actors playing different ages, characters, (and genders), Biff manages to steal the time machine, bring it back to 1955, and give himself a sports almanac. Then he inexplicably brings the DeLorean back to the good guys. Go figure! When they travel back to 1985 they find Biff’s nefarious influence has trashed the entire town and made a blade runner-esque hell of the place. There are some good moments here again paralleling the now standard running jokes with each character. Marty waking up to versions of his mother. The principal as bad ass with an axe to grind, etc.

Once they figure out how all this mess got rolling, back to 1955 they go to sort it out. This involves a parallel track recreation of the first movie’s main events without disturbing these. This is great fun, revisiting the “Enchantment Under the Sea” dance from a different perspective. As far as I know, this is the benchmark scene for a two-pass time travel-type scenario. The car chase at the end however, is a bit tedious. And why, may we ask, is it possible for Marty to call doc on a walkie-talkie from the back of Biff’s convertible, while Biff is about 2 feet away in the front seat? I don’t know about you, but when I’m alone in a car and someone has a conversation in the back seat, I generally notice.

The film ends with an awesome setup for the third part. I love the Western Union bit. But watching all three back to back as I did, I could have lived without ALL THREE movies replaying the footage of the Doc at the clock-tower.

These problems aside the movie is great fun. Other reviewers seem to find the time travel antics byzantine in this outing, but this is exactly what I loved about this film. At least it dares to create an alternate present, and then undo it. True there are a few moments where the cast has to answer audience questions in near straight exposition. For example, when Marty and Doc head from messed-up 1985 to 1955, but leave Jennifer (the useless Elisabeth Shue) behind, Marty has to ask why, and Doc launches into a whole explanation about how the time continuum will fix itself around them.

Again the technical transfer on the new blu-ray versions is awesome. This was always a slick film, with the future scenes in particular filled with fun effects. It holds up perfectly well. There is the occasional shot where the rotoscoping is obvious (compositing has gotten a lot better in the 22 years, Cliffhanger being, I think, the first film to use the new digital compositing). But these minor issues don’t date the film at all. Now if only they wrote a better part III.

Check out the Back to the Future Part I review here.

Or, coming soon, a review of part III.

For more 80s films, About Last Night, Better Off Dead, or The Sure Thing.

By: agavin
Comments (3)

Posted in: Movies

Tagged as: Back to the Future, Back to the Future Part II, Christopher Lloyd, Claudia Wells, Elisabeth Shue, Emmett Brown, Fiction, Film Review, Marty McFly, Michael J Fox, Movie Review, Movies, review, reviews, Robert Zemeckis, Time travel

Back to the Future

Apr07

Title: Back to the Future

Director/Stars: Michael J. Fox (Actor), Adrian Paul (Actor), Christopher Lloyd (Actor), Robert Zemeckis (Director)

Genre: Time Travel Comedy

Year: 1985

Watched: March 29, 2011

Summary: Still a jewel box of a script.

Because my second novel is about time travel, I’ve been trying to read and watch (or re-watch) as many time travel books and films as I can (not that I haven’t previously mined the genre). Although I’ve probably seen BTTF 15 times, it’s been a few years, more than 10 for sure.

I bought the new blu-ray Anniversary Trilogy too. This is a NICE restoration. The film looks as good as it did when I saw it right after getting back from summer camp in 1985, maybe better. And this was a slick slick film at the time. Really, other than a bit of noticeable rotoscoping, it could be a 2011 film.

Except it’s a lot better. The script and the editing make sense!

Because this is a few years before Top Gun would precipitate the precipitous marketing-driven decline of filmmaking, BTTF is simultaneously incredibly commercial and incredibly good. This script, by Robert Zemeckis and Bob Gale, is tight tight tight. I can only imagine how many passes it underwent because there is not one line out of place. You all know the story, but if you watch it again pay attention to how in the first 5 minutes everything you need to know is setup. Marty’s parents met in 1955 when Grandpa hit George McFly was his car (“We never did understand what he was doing on that road anyway.” Lorraine says). They go to the “Enchantment under the Sea Dance.” That same year Doc Brown got the idea for the time machine. Libyans have stolen some plutonium, it’s under Doc’s bed. In the next 5 minutes Doc teaches us everything we need to know about the time machine. Bang bang, all the ducks are lined up.

Then all this setup pays off over the next hour and a half. Every line. When we see that George McFly is in the road because he was a peeping tom and falls out of the tree, it’s oh so much funnier knowing that this is how he met his wife. And knowing that, when Marty screws up that meeting… changes are set in motion. Changes he has to fix. The parallelism between the present (1985) and past (1955) are contrived and slapstick but a joy to watch. We here about Uncle Joey in jail in the present, we get the “get used to that view” wisecrack about baby Joey behind the crib bars. We’re used to it now, we’ve seen it a lot of times, but this is a clever clever script.

And the casting couldn’t be better. For this kind of lovable goofball, Michael J. Fox is deservedly beloved. Christopher Lloyd steals the show with his over the top Doc (“Thank God I’ve still got my hair!”). Lea Thompson is a babe as Marty’s mom. Great writing great acting, what more could we want? And we have top notch production, music, and effects too. None of it looks dated on blu-ray.

Very interesting now, 25 years later, realizing that the 1985 of the story is almost as far back in time now as the 1955 was then. And 1955, that’s 56 years ago! Wow. So in a way, that adds an extra time travel jump to the whole thing. Which gets even more amusing when we pick up again with Back to the Future II and it’s 2015 setting!

LOL Where are the hoverboards?

For my review of part II, click here.

For more 80s reviews of mine, check out About Last Night, Better Off Dead, or The Sure Thing.

By: agavin
Comments (4)

Posted in: Movies

Tagged as: Back to the Future, Bob Gale, Christopher Lloyd, Emmett Brown, Fiction, Film Review, Lea Thompson, Michael J Fox, Movie Review, reviews, Robert Zemeckis, Time travel

The Sure Thing

Apr05

Title: The Sure Thing

Director/Stars: John Cusack (Actor), Daphne Zuniga (Actor), Rob Reiner (Director)

Genre: Teen Comedy

Year: 1985

Watched: April 4, 2011

Summary: Still holds up.

Continuing my 80s (and John Cusack) binge, I re-watched The Sure Thing again. 26 years really doesn’t show on this film. Sure the DVD transfer is a bit dated, and there are little 80s stylistic moments, particularly out in california, and it’s a tad goofier than movies tend to be now — but this is Rob Reiner in his good period. The same era that brought us The Princess Bride, This is Spinal Tap, and eventually When Harry Met Sally. There are just so many good lines.

And the film is anchored by an intelligent script and two fine actors. It isn’t a plot driven movie. We know what’s going to happen from about minute 5. For those of you either two young to remember or with frontal lobotomies, this is a story about a boy crossing the country to get laid, who is forced by circumstance to spend a lot of time with a really pretty but bookish girl (those didn’t seem to exist in the 80s — except that somehow I married one 15 years later). They argue. They fall in love but don’t know it. Events proceed as expected and in the final 30 seconds they kiss.

But the writing and acting make us want to care. How often does that happen anymore on screen?

Oh, and did I mention it’s funny? Really funny.

If you crave more 80s, see my reviews on About Last Night or Better Off Dead.

By: agavin
Comments (2)

Posted in: Movies

Tagged as: 80s, Daphne Zuniga, DVD, Film Review, John Cusack, Movie Review, Princess Bride, Rob Reiner, Sure Thing, The Sure Thing, This Is Spinal Tap, When Harry Met Sally...

Better Off Dead

Mar31

Title: Better Off Dead

Director/Stars: John Cusack (Actor), Demian Slade (Actor), Savage Steve Holland (Director)

Genre: Teen Comedy

Year: 1985

Watched: March 28, 2011

Summary: Absurdist, but classic.

For some strange reason I’ve been on an 80s kick lately. High School nostalgia or something. Not only did I make a playlist of synthoid classics, but I started combing Amazon marketplace for cheap (like $2) used DVDs. Somehow I missed seeing all of Better Off Dead in the 26 years since release (only bits and pieces on cable), surprising given my nearly comprehensive knowledge of 80s films, and that I’m a fan of John Cusack — excepting the execrable 2012.

This is one whacky film. While it must have seemed absurdist even in 1985, now, with the added retro touch and hammy 80s overacting it’s really out there, bordering on Salvador Dali level surreal. But it is enjoyable. In a way it’s a parody of the then contemporary genre of 80s teen comedy, but it’s also a brother in arms. Nothing is taken too seriously and there are a many priceless moments. Like one of my college buddies favorite lines, “NT, big difference” (referring to the textual delta between “testicles” and “tentacles”), Lane’s mom’s cooking crawling across the table, or the goofy skiing-pole lightsaber duel near the end. But with a modern perspective, there’s the added benefit of the nostalgic and silly 80s hair, clothing, music, and even half forgotten facts like: Skiing was once cool! I remember it all too well, my first published video game was Ski Crazed!

When I saw Hot Tub Time Machine last year (another guilty pleasure) I was well aware of all the 80s movie spoof moments, but I hadn’t realized how much John Cusack was referencing Better Off Dead specifically. The plot is fairly meaningless, but basically as silly as the film is, at the core of most of the jokes are real embarrassing situations that plagued many teens — certainly in the 80s, and probably now.

I was also not aware until I looked it up that Curtis Armstrong, better known as Booger, was already in his 30s when playing these silly teen characters. Or that he has played 122 roles! The guy’s been busy for decades.

If you want to see more 80s movie reviews, I also blogged yesterday on About Last Night.

By: agavin
Comments (7)

Posted in: Movies

Tagged as: Arts, Better Off Dead, Better Off Dead (film), Fiction, Film, Film Review, Hot Tub Time Machine, John Cusack, Movie, Movie Review, review, Savage Steve Holland, Ski Crazed

About Last Night

Mar30

Title: About Last Night

Director/Stars: Rob Lowe (Actor), Demi Moore (Actor), Edward Zwick (Director)

Genre: Romantic Comedy (R!)

Year: 1986

Watched: March 27, 2011

Summary: Holds up brilliantly.

I’ve always loved this movie. Perhaps I’m a romantic at heart. Perhaps it’s the David Mamet dialogue, or maybe Demi’s just hot. I’ve probably seen it 5-6 times, but not in the last 20 years. Although I still have the laserdisk somewhere. In any case, it’s out on blu-ray now, so being on my 80s kick I figured I’d see how it held up.

Perfectly.

The crisp blu-ray transfer helped, taking out the sometimes distracting poor color and funny old film grain legacy of old videotape transfers. But I got to remember what I liked so much about the film. And not just Demi’s nipples. First of all, there is the fact that this is an R-rated romantic comedy. How many others even exist? It’s sexy, the dialogue is raunchy and funny. Brilliant in fact. Particularly as delivered by James Belushi‘s over the top performance as the sexist best friend, or Elizabeth Perkins going toe to toe in bitchy counterpoint (made all the more amusing by having seen her in Weeds).

The most important thing about this film is the pitch perfect ebb and flow of the relationship between the two leads. It’s not the relationship everyone might have had, but it’s an accurate one. They feel like solidly real people. So in some ways, fairly unique among Romantic Comedies, there is truth here. Not every truth, but a specific one nonetheless. The film also has the audacity to cover nearly a year, and do it well, giving the rise and fall and then maybe rise again of this couple some actual weight and believability. You feel like they’ve changed and there’s been passage of time. Far too many films in the genre feel like about three dates, where the writers, not the characters, are building the relationship.

I loved the 80s outfits too. The Reboks, the sweaters and baggy shirts tied with belts, the high hip jeans. Sure they look silly, but… It’s also interesting to note the subtle culture changes that 25 years have wrought. The guy characters are allowed to be guys (and sexist) in ways that would be avoided today. I don’t really think men have changed, but Hollywood has.