Generally speaking, the winter season is a treasure trove of great films. Unlike the summer season, which mainly consists of brainless popcorn flicks, winter provides a more intellectual affair, although some blockbuster films squeeze in during the holidays. For any film geek, this is the time to get out and go to the theaters.
I have seen three films this winter season so far: Lee Daniels' gripping drama, "Precious"; James Cameron's return to the big screen, "Avatar"; And Guy Ritchie's adrenaline-filled take on a legendary character, "Sherlock Holmes."
"Precious" may stand out as being the most depressing film of the bunch, no doubt due to comedian Mo'Nique's viciously sublime performance as the abusive mother of protagonist Precious Jones. It's hard to even remember her comedic work when watching the film, so capable she is doing serious, dramatic work. With gorgeously gritty cinematography, Daniels beautifully helms Precious' struggle to take control of her life, and sever ties with her destructive family. "Precious" is not only an achievement for an independent film, but for a film, in general.
3D has come back from its dormant state in recent years, and is now nearly included in every animated film that comes out. However, I sincerely doubt they use it as effectively as Cameron uses it in "Avatar." After years of hype, Cameron has come out from his own dormant state to create a bold, and powerful epic that completely re-writes the rules of modern filmmaking. From the first moment, Cameron utilizes 3d as it should be used: as a storytelling device. Not a cheap, last-minute addition. He also uses the story as a commentary on human behavior; how we react to new races, new lands. However, Cameron doesn't force-feed us the message. You can go into the film and simply enjoy the tremendous visuals. And that makes the mark of a great film, where you can enjoy it on many different levels.
There are hundreds of interpretations of the character, Sherlock Holmes, that are featured in novels, films, and television. Some stay close to the original stories by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, others stray very far. It seems that Guy Ritchie's film, starring Robert Downey Jr as the famous detective, would fall in between. While featuring a much more psychical Holmes and Watson than we are used to, the intellect and spirit of the characters remain, as well as their difficult but enduring relationship. Nearly every aspect of the mythos is covered, including a brief appearance by Holme's archnemesis, Moriarty (cue sequel!). Despite whatever beefs you have have with Ritchie's interpretation, it is hard not to simply enjoy the film, especially considering the great acting talent on display here. There's the forementioned Downey Jr, Jude Law as Watson, Mark Strong as Lord Blackwood, Kelly Reilly as Mary Morstan, Eddie Marsan as Inspector Lestrade, and Rachel McAdams as Irene Adler.
All in all, the winter season has started out pretty well. Let's hope it continues to be a fun ride.
AJP.
Wednesday, December 30, 2009
Monday, November 23, 2009
The Saints Are Coming...But Maybe They Should Go Back
A recent development in the film industry is the power that DVD sales have. For instance, if a film had a lackluster theater box office, but has a strong DVD presence, you can bet on a sequel to be in the works.
One example of this, what is now considered a cult classic, is "The Boondock Saints," directed by Troy Duffy. Despite having an extremely limited release (it was only shown on five screens), it developed a tremendous following on DVD, due, in part, to an exclusive deal with Blockbuster Video, and would wind up making $50 million on the format. Considering Duffy's belligerent behavior during the making of the film (documented in the great film "Overnight, a must-see), it's surprising that the film would, eventually, be felt as a success. However, it did seem that Duffy's career in Hollywood was dead, due to the notoriety that "Overnight" gave him.
It seems like Duffy isn't done tellin' the story of the Saints just yet. But perhaps, that's not as great as it sounds.
"Boondock Saints II: All Saints Day" is the follow-up to Duffy's debut, and features numerous actors from the first film, including Sean Patrick Flanery, Norman Reedus, and Billy Connolly. It features the boys coming back from Ireland to settle the score with a crime lord who has ties with the Saints' past.
Their return to cinema, however, is marked by a constantly silly, and awkward eight-grade sense of humor, featured in an amateurish and insipid script.
What made the first one work was that although it had a tongue-in-cheek tone, the actors played their roles with sincerity, they believed every word they're saying, especially Flannery, and Reedus. None of that is featured in this film. The Saints constantly crack dick jokes, and try to emulate action hero stars.
And, the new additions to the cast do very little to help, most of all Julie Benz, who plays Eunice Bloom, an FBI agent sent to investigate the Saints reappearance. Basically, the character is a proxy for Willem Dafoe's Paul Smecker in the first installment, but Bloom isn't nearly as interesting or entertaining to watch. She is given a southern accent, which is hardly authentic, and sounds more like a broad caricature, something you'd see in a cartoon. In one scene, where she's explaining her analysis of a shoot-out, she imagines herself in the shoot-out, wearing a cowgirl outfit, and constantly whipping her gun. The scene is so awkwardly done, you are completely taken out of the moment, and wondering what the hell was Duffy thinking.
SPOILER - Smecker does, however, re-appear in the end, despite reports stating the contrary. His appearance gives the film a much-needed boost of fun, and we are given a taste of what could've been if Dafoe had been more of a featured player.
Besides Dafoe, there is some noteworthy acting work. Mainly, Peter Fonda's performance as The Roman, a mysterious, former colleague of Ill Duce. It was the one of the only times in the film where I truly was encapsulated by an actor's performance. Judd Nelson's role is brief, but entertaining as well.
If you're a fan of the first, it's definitely worth a watch. But don't bet on the Saints capturing lighting in a bottle again.
AJP.
One example of this, what is now considered a cult classic, is "The Boondock Saints," directed by Troy Duffy. Despite having an extremely limited release (it was only shown on five screens), it developed a tremendous following on DVD, due, in part, to an exclusive deal with Blockbuster Video, and would wind up making $50 million on the format. Considering Duffy's belligerent behavior during the making of the film (documented in the great film "Overnight, a must-see), it's surprising that the film would, eventually, be felt as a success. However, it did seem that Duffy's career in Hollywood was dead, due to the notoriety that "Overnight" gave him.
It seems like Duffy isn't done tellin' the story of the Saints just yet. But perhaps, that's not as great as it sounds.
"Boondock Saints II: All Saints Day" is the follow-up to Duffy's debut, and features numerous actors from the first film, including Sean Patrick Flanery, Norman Reedus, and Billy Connolly. It features the boys coming back from Ireland to settle the score with a crime lord who has ties with the Saints' past.
Their return to cinema, however, is marked by a constantly silly, and awkward eight-grade sense of humor, featured in an amateurish and insipid script.
What made the first one work was that although it had a tongue-in-cheek tone, the actors played their roles with sincerity, they believed every word they're saying, especially Flannery, and Reedus. None of that is featured in this film. The Saints constantly crack dick jokes, and try to emulate action hero stars.
And, the new additions to the cast do very little to help, most of all Julie Benz, who plays Eunice Bloom, an FBI agent sent to investigate the Saints reappearance. Basically, the character is a proxy for Willem Dafoe's Paul Smecker in the first installment, but Bloom isn't nearly as interesting or entertaining to watch. She is given a southern accent, which is hardly authentic, and sounds more like a broad caricature, something you'd see in a cartoon. In one scene, where she's explaining her analysis of a shoot-out, she imagines herself in the shoot-out, wearing a cowgirl outfit, and constantly whipping her gun. The scene is so awkwardly done, you are completely taken out of the moment, and wondering what the hell was Duffy thinking.
SPOILER - Smecker does, however, re-appear in the end, despite reports stating the contrary. His appearance gives the film a much-needed boost of fun, and we are given a taste of what could've been if Dafoe had been more of a featured player.
Besides Dafoe, there is some noteworthy acting work. Mainly, Peter Fonda's performance as The Roman, a mysterious, former colleague of Ill Duce. It was the one of the only times in the film where I truly was encapsulated by an actor's performance. Judd Nelson's role is brief, but entertaining as well.
If you're a fan of the first, it's definitely worth a watch. But don't bet on the Saints capturing lighting in a bottle again.
AJP.
Saturday, November 14, 2009
Bloody Rock N Roll!
Probably one of the most important decades in music, and arguably of the best, is the sixties. Its impact was so great that we can still see the ripples in music today. Not to say other decades aren't important, but if one would to only mention one decade, it would have to be the sixties.
And this is the setting for Richard Curtis' film, Pirate Radio, or known in its home, the UK, as The Boat that Rocked. It tells the story of a group of djs who embark on a ship to play rock and pop songs for the United Kingdom, who is depraved of this great music.
The film is told mainly through the viewpoint of Carl, a young man sent to the ship by his mother due to his troublesome behavior. While no doubt an odd choice on his mother's part, Carl does go through a series of life-changing events, all in the name of rock and roll.
This is Curtis' second film, after Love Actually. He worked for years as a screenwriter, scribing such films as Notting Hill, and Four Weddings and a Funeral. He also practically invented the British romantic comedy single-handily. However, for a writer turned director, the film is quite visually interesting. The sheer contrast of the wild, and loose Radio Rock ship and the cold, sterile government buildings is a subtle, but effective choice.
In those buildings, we generally see Kenneth Brangah, delivering a delicious performance as a government official determined to end Radio Rock's reign. He is joined by Jack Davenport, and the two make a great team, comedically.
The rest of the cast is sharp too. Bill Nighy, Nick Frost, Rhys Ifans - the best of the best of British acting talent is on display. Phillip Seymour Hoffman is also featured, as the lone American DJ. Despite being top-billed, he is hardly the main character. However, his presence is highly necessary and notable. As he did in Almost Famous, he just LOOKS like a man who loves rock and roll. And not because he can score chicks off of it, but because he loves the artform.
The film is actually inspired by a series of real pirate radio ships in the sixties. Foolish bastards, trying to take our rock and roll from us. They'll never learn.
AJP.
And this is the setting for Richard Curtis' film, Pirate Radio, or known in its home, the UK, as The Boat that Rocked. It tells the story of a group of djs who embark on a ship to play rock and pop songs for the United Kingdom, who is depraved of this great music.
The film is told mainly through the viewpoint of Carl, a young man sent to the ship by his mother due to his troublesome behavior. While no doubt an odd choice on his mother's part, Carl does go through a series of life-changing events, all in the name of rock and roll.
This is Curtis' second film, after Love Actually. He worked for years as a screenwriter, scribing such films as Notting Hill, and Four Weddings and a Funeral. He also practically invented the British romantic comedy single-handily. However, for a writer turned director, the film is quite visually interesting. The sheer contrast of the wild, and loose Radio Rock ship and the cold, sterile government buildings is a subtle, but effective choice.
In those buildings, we generally see Kenneth Brangah, delivering a delicious performance as a government official determined to end Radio Rock's reign. He is joined by Jack Davenport, and the two make a great team, comedically.
The rest of the cast is sharp too. Bill Nighy, Nick Frost, Rhys Ifans - the best of the best of British acting talent is on display. Phillip Seymour Hoffman is also featured, as the lone American DJ. Despite being top-billed, he is hardly the main character. However, his presence is highly necessary and notable. As he did in Almost Famous, he just LOOKS like a man who loves rock and roll. And not because he can score chicks off of it, but because he loves the artform.
The film is actually inspired by a series of real pirate radio ships in the sixties. Foolish bastards, trying to take our rock and roll from us. They'll never learn.
AJP.
Monday, October 19, 2009
Kevin Smith is Changing and Why I'm Okay with It.
The relationship with an artist and a fan can be a strangely tumultuous one, at times. As fans, it's amazing how we react to our heroes' careers. It can range from utter disgust to sheer delight. It's an amusing relationship when you look at it from a distance, but when you're involved, it's very serious stuff.
Filmmakers are no exception.
We expect our filmmakers to entertain us with original content, yet when they make an audacious effort to broaden their horizons, we turn their backs on them. This hidden philosophy is evident in not only film geeks, but critics as well. Look at Martin Scorsese. Although he has directed wonderful films not related to crime, like The Aviator, but the films he is most known doing are his crime epics. When David Fincher showed his ability to stretch in "The Curious Case of Benjamin Button", fans of his darker work were outraged.
When it comes to Kevin Smith, I don't think anyone imagined him taking any 180 degree turns with his career. From the looks of it, it sounds like he didn't either. However, after "Zack and Miri Make a Porno" was released, he signed on to direct a script entitled "A Couple of Dicks", the first film he directed yet did not write. He stated that he is no longer interested in telling stories of the angry, young man, as Smith is 39, happily married, and has a successful career.
Smith is planning on working on a hockey period film entitled "Hit Somebody", based on the song of the same name by Warren Zevon and Mitch Albom. Unlike the rest of his films, it's mainly a drama, dealing with a hockey player who loves the game but is only used as someone hits the other player.
Also on Smith's plate is a political horror film named "Red State", with a villain being heavily inspired by Westboro Bapist Church minister Fred Phelps.
Clearly, Kevin Smith is taking a very different direction with his career. Am I mad? Not a single bit.
Josh Tyler at cinemablend.com criticized Smith's new direction, lamenting that his new films will not be the personal films he is known for, and referred to "Dicks" as a standard buddy-cop film.
Although it will be tough for "Dicks" to be a personal film, due to the movie being written by someone else, the title alone shows to me that this is not a typical buddy-cop film. "Somebody" sounds like one of the more personal pieces of work he has done in a while.
According to Smith, "Somebody" is a story about someone who has the dream, but not the talent. And this is what he related to most about the song, and instigated his desire to make the movie. If that doesn't sound personal, I'm not sure what it is. It may be not based on his experiences working in a conveince store, or his insecurity with his girlfriend, but it still counts as a personal film. He has a personal drive to tell this story.
I always loved Kevin Smith's work. I enjoyed his characters, dialogue, and observations about society and pop culture. But this new direction only excites me.
Even though I loved "ZAMMAP", it's clearly a film that Smith can do in his sleep. It's what he's known for. Now he's challenging himself and not resting on his laurels. He's taking risks with his work. And if these films work, which is very likely, who knows what other genres he will tackle next?
I am excited not only for the filmmaker in Smith, but for the man himself.
AJP.
Filmmakers are no exception.
We expect our filmmakers to entertain us with original content, yet when they make an audacious effort to broaden their horizons, we turn their backs on them. This hidden philosophy is evident in not only film geeks, but critics as well. Look at Martin Scorsese. Although he has directed wonderful films not related to crime, like The Aviator, but the films he is most known doing are his crime epics. When David Fincher showed his ability to stretch in "The Curious Case of Benjamin Button", fans of his darker work were outraged.
When it comes to Kevin Smith, I don't think anyone imagined him taking any 180 degree turns with his career. From the looks of it, it sounds like he didn't either. However, after "Zack and Miri Make a Porno" was released, he signed on to direct a script entitled "A Couple of Dicks", the first film he directed yet did not write. He stated that he is no longer interested in telling stories of the angry, young man, as Smith is 39, happily married, and has a successful career.
Smith is planning on working on a hockey period film entitled "Hit Somebody", based on the song of the same name by Warren Zevon and Mitch Albom. Unlike the rest of his films, it's mainly a drama, dealing with a hockey player who loves the game but is only used as someone hits the other player.
Also on Smith's plate is a political horror film named "Red State", with a villain being heavily inspired by Westboro Bapist Church minister Fred Phelps.
Clearly, Kevin Smith is taking a very different direction with his career. Am I mad? Not a single bit.
Josh Tyler at cinemablend.com criticized Smith's new direction, lamenting that his new films will not be the personal films he is known for, and referred to "Dicks" as a standard buddy-cop film.
Although it will be tough for "Dicks" to be a personal film, due to the movie being written by someone else, the title alone shows to me that this is not a typical buddy-cop film. "Somebody" sounds like one of the more personal pieces of work he has done in a while.
According to Smith, "Somebody" is a story about someone who has the dream, but not the talent. And this is what he related to most about the song, and instigated his desire to make the movie. If that doesn't sound personal, I'm not sure what it is. It may be not based on his experiences working in a conveince store, or his insecurity with his girlfriend, but it still counts as a personal film. He has a personal drive to tell this story.
I always loved Kevin Smith's work. I enjoyed his characters, dialogue, and observations about society and pop culture. But this new direction only excites me.
Even though I loved "ZAMMAP", it's clearly a film that Smith can do in his sleep. It's what he's known for. Now he's challenging himself and not resting on his laurels. He's taking risks with his work. And if these films work, which is very likely, who knows what other genres he will tackle next?
I am excited not only for the filmmaker in Smith, but for the man himself.
AJP.
Friday, October 2, 2009
Thoughts on "(500) Days of Summer" and "Jennifer's Body"
I know I said I was going to do a series of blogs relating to the works of Kevin Smith next, but I think I'll work on those later, because I want to re-watch the films, and I haven't done that yet.
I will, however, talk about my feelings on two pictures that I've recently seen: Marc Webb's "(500) Days of Summer" and Karyn Kusama's "Jennifer's Body." The former I saw yesterday, and the latter I saw a few weeks ago on Kelly's birthday, but I have forgotten to write about it.
As most film goers, when it comes to a certain subject matter, I would begin to expect what's to come, and not feel really invested in the story as a result. This is what can be referred to as autopilot storytelling.
"Summer" definitely does NOT follow into that stigma. In fact, not only does it play with conventions, it spins them around silly. It's amazing that a film so laugh out loud funny, can be so damn tender real. That takes real talent; Not blowing up major buildings, or putting a billion fucks in your movie. It's balancing that right tone so you could enjoy a film with multiple levels, ideas.
Some have already placed the "romantic comedy" term unto "Summer", and while, sure, it's an easy and inevitable stereotype, and it brings the funny in spades, it does not bring to justice how inventive, and ingenious the film is. It does not show you how heartbreakingly painful this film can and should be for you. If you ever even remotely LIKED someone, you will relate to this film. If you don't, then I guess you suffer from many emotional problems or were against the film initially.
Now "Jennifer's Body" is a different story. While fun, exciting, scary, and witty, it's hardly a surprise-fest. Not to say it's unoriginal, but clearly screenwriter Diablo Cody knows there's certain beats in a horror film, which if weren't available, would make it a lesser experience. But she does bring her charm, and sharply realized characters, which makes it much more interesting.
She created an excellent antagonist who is terrifying yet a developed character at the same time. And Kusama picked the perfect person to portray that character, Megan Fox. She has gotten mainly negative comments about her acting skills, but I thought she was tremendously good, and capable of headlining a film.
It's easy to kick this film down like the majority of critics, but I really enjoyed this film. It's a horror/comedy in the traditon of An American Werewolf in London, Evil Dead II, or Fright Night. I'll happily excuse myself from the critics, and park myself in the J-Bod fan club.
AJP.
I will, however, talk about my feelings on two pictures that I've recently seen: Marc Webb's "(500) Days of Summer" and Karyn Kusama's "Jennifer's Body." The former I saw yesterday, and the latter I saw a few weeks ago on Kelly's birthday, but I have forgotten to write about it.
As most film goers, when it comes to a certain subject matter, I would begin to expect what's to come, and not feel really invested in the story as a result. This is what can be referred to as autopilot storytelling.
"Summer" definitely does NOT follow into that stigma. In fact, not only does it play with conventions, it spins them around silly. It's amazing that a film so laugh out loud funny, can be so damn tender real. That takes real talent; Not blowing up major buildings, or putting a billion fucks in your movie. It's balancing that right tone so you could enjoy a film with multiple levels, ideas.
Some have already placed the "romantic comedy" term unto "Summer", and while, sure, it's an easy and inevitable stereotype, and it brings the funny in spades, it does not bring to justice how inventive, and ingenious the film is. It does not show you how heartbreakingly painful this film can and should be for you. If you ever even remotely LIKED someone, you will relate to this film. If you don't, then I guess you suffer from many emotional problems or were against the film initially.
Now "Jennifer's Body" is a different story. While fun, exciting, scary, and witty, it's hardly a surprise-fest. Not to say it's unoriginal, but clearly screenwriter Diablo Cody knows there's certain beats in a horror film, which if weren't available, would make it a lesser experience. But she does bring her charm, and sharply realized characters, which makes it much more interesting.
She created an excellent antagonist who is terrifying yet a developed character at the same time. And Kusama picked the perfect person to portray that character, Megan Fox. She has gotten mainly negative comments about her acting skills, but I thought she was tremendously good, and capable of headlining a film.
It's easy to kick this film down like the majority of critics, but I really enjoyed this film. It's a horror/comedy in the traditon of An American Werewolf in London, Evil Dead II, or Fright Night. I'll happily excuse myself from the critics, and park myself in the J-Bod fan club.
AJP.
Monday, September 21, 2009
Is remaking a film that big of a deal?
When discussing any topic, there is eventually a cliche that will come up during the conversation. It's not necessarily the intent of the speaker to utilize a cliche, but it happens anyways. The cliche can be anything from a certain saying to a stigma that is often associated with the topic.
Cinema is no exception, to say the least. There's many cliches that are considered truisms for film buffs. Like considering Michael Bay a hack, Megan Fox is a hot piece of eye candy, and sequels and remakes are bad, always.
We'll avoid the first two, and focus on the last statement; specifically, remakes. In this current state of film, remakes are regarded as inevitable disasters. Whenever a remake is announced, it is usually hailed as a bad idea, and the filmmakers are questioned what on earth were they thinking.
When I initially became a film geek, I too joined in on the remake backlash. Over the years, however, I've resigned and became more objective about the matter. And I feel that the negativity surrounding remakes is unwarranted, for a number of reasons. Not that anyone who hates remakes is wrong, because an opinion can not be wrong. This is simply just my view on things.
First of all, I think it's weird to criticize a film when it's in the development stage. If you've seen trailers, clips, or etc, then it's understandable not to be interested, but when it's just an idea, it's hard to really judge it fairly, I feel.
You're also not inclined to see every remake that comes out of the woodwork, unless you're a film critic. You have the option of not seeing it. And clearly, if you know it's bad, you don't want to see it, so why do you want to see it anyway?
And it's not like "Hollywood", if you will, has lost its originality. Because since its beginning, "Hollywood" has been making films based on plays, books, short stories, etc. Many of the classic films, films that made a good amount of filmmakers join the business, are adaptations of other people's work. To Kill A Mockingbird, Wizard of Oz, Gone With The Wind all fall in that group. How is making a film based on a book more original than remaking a movie?
In one of the recent episodes of SModcast, the podcast hosted by filmmaker Kevin Smith and his producer, Scott Mosier, Mosier brought up a good point. I'm paraphrasing what he said, but he said something to the effect that people forget that these are movies we're talking about here. These are things that are meant to entertain us. And I feel that's an interesting point. People get so bent out of shape because they're remaking certain movies, but it's all meant to entertain us.
And just because a film is being remade, doesn't mean that the original film is automatically superseded by the new version. The original will still be there, as it was before. What's the harm in tackling the material again?
That's all I have to say for now. Again, I'm not meaning to criticize anyone's feelings on remakes. I'm just offering my views.
Later, all.
Cinema is no exception, to say the least. There's many cliches that are considered truisms for film buffs. Like considering Michael Bay a hack, Megan Fox is a hot piece of eye candy, and sequels and remakes are bad, always.
We'll avoid the first two, and focus on the last statement; specifically, remakes. In this current state of film, remakes are regarded as inevitable disasters. Whenever a remake is announced, it is usually hailed as a bad idea, and the filmmakers are questioned what on earth were they thinking.
When I initially became a film geek, I too joined in on the remake backlash. Over the years, however, I've resigned and became more objective about the matter. And I feel that the negativity surrounding remakes is unwarranted, for a number of reasons. Not that anyone who hates remakes is wrong, because an opinion can not be wrong. This is simply just my view on things.
First of all, I think it's weird to criticize a film when it's in the development stage. If you've seen trailers, clips, or etc, then it's understandable not to be interested, but when it's just an idea, it's hard to really judge it fairly, I feel.
You're also not inclined to see every remake that comes out of the woodwork, unless you're a film critic. You have the option of not seeing it. And clearly, if you know it's bad, you don't want to see it, so why do you want to see it anyway?
And it's not like "Hollywood", if you will, has lost its originality. Because since its beginning, "Hollywood" has been making films based on plays, books, short stories, etc. Many of the classic films, films that made a good amount of filmmakers join the business, are adaptations of other people's work. To Kill A Mockingbird, Wizard of Oz, Gone With The Wind all fall in that group. How is making a film based on a book more original than remaking a movie?
In one of the recent episodes of SModcast, the podcast hosted by filmmaker Kevin Smith and his producer, Scott Mosier, Mosier brought up a good point. I'm paraphrasing what he said, but he said something to the effect that people forget that these are movies we're talking about here. These are things that are meant to entertain us. And I feel that's an interesting point. People get so bent out of shape because they're remaking certain movies, but it's all meant to entertain us.
And just because a film is being remade, doesn't mean that the original film is automatically superseded by the new version. The original will still be there, as it was before. What's the harm in tackling the material again?
That's all I have to say for now. Again, I'm not meaning to criticize anyone's feelings on remakes. I'm just offering my views.
Later, all.
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
What's going on
For this blog, I'm going for less of an essay approach, although I will resume that later. I'm going to just ramble on what's been happening.
Saturday, Kelly and I chilled for the majority of the day. We went to McD's, and then went to her house to watch "I Love You, Man", and an episode of "The Mighty Boosh."
I enjoyed I Love You, Man quite a bit. I thought it was a very funny flick, with the leads, Paul Rudd and Jason Segel, stealing every scene. I felt that the director John Hamburg was trying to emulate Judd Apatow in a lot of ways; in particular, the editing of the improv jokes. It's clear that Rudd and Segel riffed a lot, and although it's funny stuff, it just went on longer than I'd like.
The Mighty Boosh is brilliant, in my opinion. It's insane, yet incredibly smart and observant. I just watched another episode today online, at adultswim.com. Check it out; I feel like an idiot that I hadn't watch it before. Thank you, Kelly, for introducing it to me.
Sunday, I went to Septemberfest in Schuamburg with my cousin and a few of our mutual friends. It was a fun trip. I went on the most rides, three, which is ironic, since I had intended to ride the least amount. I was very dizzy by the end.
I think I will write a blog relating to my feelings on the constant "re-make" backlash, and launch into a look at the films of certain directors, starting with Kevin Smith. It won't be a critical look at them, as I love all of them. Instead, it will be look at each film's themes, characters, and other things that I find interesting. I think Quentin Tarantino and Christopher Nolan will be after that. Who else should I consider? I would appreciate some suggestions.
That's all for now. Later.
Saturday, Kelly and I chilled for the majority of the day. We went to McD's, and then went to her house to watch "I Love You, Man", and an episode of "The Mighty Boosh."
I enjoyed I Love You, Man quite a bit. I thought it was a very funny flick, with the leads, Paul Rudd and Jason Segel, stealing every scene. I felt that the director John Hamburg was trying to emulate Judd Apatow in a lot of ways; in particular, the editing of the improv jokes. It's clear that Rudd and Segel riffed a lot, and although it's funny stuff, it just went on longer than I'd like.
The Mighty Boosh is brilliant, in my opinion. It's insane, yet incredibly smart and observant. I just watched another episode today online, at adultswim.com. Check it out; I feel like an idiot that I hadn't watch it before. Thank you, Kelly, for introducing it to me.
Sunday, I went to Septemberfest in Schuamburg with my cousin and a few of our mutual friends. It was a fun trip. I went on the most rides, three, which is ironic, since I had intended to ride the least amount. I was very dizzy by the end.
I think I will write a blog relating to my feelings on the constant "re-make" backlash, and launch into a look at the films of certain directors, starting with Kevin Smith. It won't be a critical look at them, as I love all of them. Instead, it will be look at each film's themes, characters, and other things that I find interesting. I think Quentin Tarantino and Christopher Nolan will be after that. Who else should I consider? I would appreciate some suggestions.
That's all for now. Later.
Friday, September 4, 2009
My love for "Clerks."
I first became aware of Kevin Smith during the sixth grade. His fifth film, Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back, came out on DVD, and I decided to rent it after hearing a friend talk about it. I would not recommend a Kevin Smith newbie J&SBSB, as it is reference-heavy. In fact, the whole story is predicated on events that happened in Chasing Amy. Regardless, I popped the movie in and began to watch. Right away, I was taken aback by the raw language. Being a pretty naive eleven-year old, I was unaware of the filthy things that came out of the characters' mouths. Once that shock value faded away, however, I was left with a belly full of laughs. After watching it, I got curious about the other films by Kevin Smith.
The first one I peeped after J&SBSB was Mallrats, Smith's sophomore film. Like J&SBSB, it mixed Smith's wonderful observational dialogue with wacky psychial gags. It quickly was endeared by me, and I even attempted to write a script that was heavily influenced by 'Rats.
The second one I saw was Clerks. Unlike 'Rats, it did not quickly endear to me. Which makes sense a little, seeing as 'Rats was a more accessible studio comedy. I wasn't sure why I didn't like as much; it certainly wasn't the jokes. I laughed at all the classic bits, like "37?!" or the "Star Wars" conversation. But something about it just didn't click for me at that point.
I would watch the rest of Smith's canon, and respond to it instantly. But Clerks was an oddball for a while. I would watch it repeatedly through junior high and then high school as well. I would understand more of the humor, but I wasn't dialed in that much.
Looking back, the thing that irked me was that I found the characters' situation implausible at the time. Dante seems aware of his lousy state of life, yet does nothing about it. Why doesn't he do something? Why can't he just go for the right girl, instead of going for the obvious wrong choice? What's wrong with him?
Then I grew up. I became closer to Dante's age. I became Dante to a certain extent. I was the guy who makes jokes about his lack of progress in life, and would do nothing about it. I would fall for the wrong women, and not learn from it.
It was then that the film endeared itself to me. Whilst very much a comedy, it's a haunting parable about the awkward stage of your life from when you have to make the best out of your situation and decide what your future'll be. It became a cautionary tale; A raw representation of a generation. Even more so after being complimented with the excellent sequel, Clerks II.
While it didn't start out as so, it became not only one of my favorite Kevin Smith films, but one of my favorite films to this day. If you haven't seen it, I would recommend doing so as soon as you can.
The first one I peeped after J&SBSB was Mallrats, Smith's sophomore film. Like J&SBSB, it mixed Smith's wonderful observational dialogue with wacky psychial gags. It quickly was endeared by me, and I even attempted to write a script that was heavily influenced by 'Rats.
The second one I saw was Clerks. Unlike 'Rats, it did not quickly endear to me. Which makes sense a little, seeing as 'Rats was a more accessible studio comedy. I wasn't sure why I didn't like as much; it certainly wasn't the jokes. I laughed at all the classic bits, like "37?!" or the "Star Wars" conversation. But something about it just didn't click for me at that point.
I would watch the rest of Smith's canon, and respond to it instantly. But Clerks was an oddball for a while. I would watch it repeatedly through junior high and then high school as well. I would understand more of the humor, but I wasn't dialed in that much.
Looking back, the thing that irked me was that I found the characters' situation implausible at the time. Dante seems aware of his lousy state of life, yet does nothing about it. Why doesn't he do something? Why can't he just go for the right girl, instead of going for the obvious wrong choice? What's wrong with him?
Then I grew up. I became closer to Dante's age. I became Dante to a certain extent. I was the guy who makes jokes about his lack of progress in life, and would do nothing about it. I would fall for the wrong women, and not learn from it.
It was then that the film endeared itself to me. Whilst very much a comedy, it's a haunting parable about the awkward stage of your life from when you have to make the best out of your situation and decide what your future'll be. It became a cautionary tale; A raw representation of a generation. Even more so after being complimented with the excellent sequel, Clerks II.
While it didn't start out as so, it became not only one of my favorite Kevin Smith films, but one of my favorite films to this day. If you haven't seen it, I would recommend doing so as soon as you can.
Monday, August 24, 2009
Films I need to see in 2010
For this blog, I will be discussing the films I'm looking forward to next year. I thought about doing it numerically, but felt that it was better to throw them out randomly. So here we go:
Inception
Release Date: July 16, 2010
Director/Screenwriter: Christopher Nolan
Cast: Leonardo DiCaprio, Ken Watanabe, Marion Cotillard, Ellen Page, Joseph-Gordon Levitt
Why I want to see this: Nolan is one of my favorite filmmakers. Even excluding his Batman films, I love Following, Memento, The Prestige. He is one of the bravest filmmakers today, in terms of his approach to filmmaking, and his storytelling sensibilities. Plus, the cast he has built is fantastic. If I didn't know Nolan was involved, I would probably want to see it anyway just based on the cast. There hasn't been any details relating to the plot, but I'm not worried.
A Couple of Dicks
Release Date: February 26, 2010
Director: Kevin Smith
Cast: Bruce Willis, Tracy Morgan, Adam Brody, Kevin Pollak, Jason Lee
Why I want to see this: Anyone who knows me is aware that I'm a big fan of Kevin Smith. But this is Kevin Smith doing something different. He's directing a script that he did not write, working with a major studio, and directing Bruce Willis. Those three things get me more excited than anything else. Unfortunately, the great title will probably be changed, but a title does not make a great movie. The execution does, and Smith is more than capable in that regard.
Iron Man 2
Release Date: May 7, 2010
Director: Jon Favreau
Cast: Robert Downey Jr., Gwyneth Paltrow, Don Cheadle, Mickey Rourke, Scarlett Johannson, Samuel L. Jackson
Why I do want see this: I was never a fan of the character in the comic books, but when I saw the first Iron Man a year ago, I was utterly captivated by RDJ's idiosyncratic performance, and the great storytelling. Considering basically the same cast and crew are involved, I'm so in for seconds. Plus, the additions of Cheadle, Johannson, and Rourke sound like great fits to the Iron Man universe.
Paul
Release Date: TBA 2010
Director: Greg Mottola
Cast: Simon Pegg, Nick Frost, Seth Rogen, Kristen Wiig, Bill Hader
Why I want to see this: I'm a huge Pegg/Frost follower, from Spaced to Hot Fuzz. And while Edgar Wright won't be directing, I'm more than content with Mottola, the helmer of Superbad and Adventureland. Add in an excellent comedy cast, and you have the ingredients for a great film.
Scott Pilgrim Vs. The World
Director: Edgar Wright
Cast: Michael Cera, Mary Elizabeth Winstead, Chris Evans, Kieren Culkin, Alison Pill, Ellen Wong
Why I want to see this: Edgar Wright first came to my attention when his first film, Shaun of the Dead, was mentioned by Kevin Smith in a posting on his web board. I quickly rented it, and utterly floored by the exciting direction and hilarious script. His second film, Hot Fuzz, was an even more entertaining film, and he took some serious steps forward with his filmmaking skills. His latest film is his first non-original work, being based on a series of graphic novels by Bryan O'Lee Malley. I have never read the graphic novels, but I'm excited regardless. Wright has picked an interesting cast as well, which makes me doubly excited.
Toy Story 3
Release Date: June 18, 2010
Director: Lee Unkrich
Cast: Tom Hanks, Tim Allen, John Ratzenberger, Don Rickles, Wallace Shawn, Michael Keaton
Why I want to see this: Pixar's canon of work is beyond impressive. Even excluding the previous Toy Story films, you have Monsters Inc., Finding Nemo, The Incredibles, Wall-E, Ratatouille, and Up. I can't recall a film studio that has so many winners as Pixar. Lee Unkrich has been working up the ranks of the Pixar staff for years, co-directing Toy Story 2 and Finding Nemo. This film is his first solo directorial effort, and I couldn't imagine a better person to take over the reins from John Lasseter. The same, great cast is returning, with some new additions such as Michael Keaton and Ned Beatty.
The Green Hornet
Release Date: July 9, 2010
Director: Michel Gondry
Cast: Seth Rogen, Jay Chou, Cameron Diaz, Nicolas Cage
Why I want to see this: I first became aware of the project when Kevin Smith was attached to write and direct. When he dropped out, Seth Rogen became attached to star and write the screenplay with Evan Goldberg. I thought he was an interesting choice for a superhero, and a good choice for writing the screenplay, due to his great work as a writer. Stephen Chow became involved as a director and co-star, which got me pumped up based on my love for "Kung Fu Hustle." Unfortuantely, he dropped out, and I was a little worried on who will take up the mantle, especially since Chow seemed like a great choice. There came in Gondry, who directed Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind and is one of my favorite filmmakers of all time. While he hasn't directed a proper action film, Gondry has a distinct visual style that would be a nice mix with action film grammar.
And that's the films I need to see in 2010.
Inception
Release Date: July 16, 2010
Director/Screenwriter: Christopher Nolan
Cast: Leonardo DiCaprio, Ken Watanabe, Marion Cotillard, Ellen Page, Joseph-Gordon Levitt
Why I want to see this: Nolan is one of my favorite filmmakers. Even excluding his Batman films, I love Following, Memento, The Prestige. He is one of the bravest filmmakers today, in terms of his approach to filmmaking, and his storytelling sensibilities. Plus, the cast he has built is fantastic. If I didn't know Nolan was involved, I would probably want to see it anyway just based on the cast. There hasn't been any details relating to the plot, but I'm not worried.
A Couple of Dicks
Release Date: February 26, 2010
Director: Kevin Smith
Cast: Bruce Willis, Tracy Morgan, Adam Brody, Kevin Pollak, Jason Lee
Why I want to see this: Anyone who knows me is aware that I'm a big fan of Kevin Smith. But this is Kevin Smith doing something different. He's directing a script that he did not write, working with a major studio, and directing Bruce Willis. Those three things get me more excited than anything else. Unfortunately, the great title will probably be changed, but a title does not make a great movie. The execution does, and Smith is more than capable in that regard.
Iron Man 2
Release Date: May 7, 2010
Director: Jon Favreau
Cast: Robert Downey Jr., Gwyneth Paltrow, Don Cheadle, Mickey Rourke, Scarlett Johannson, Samuel L. Jackson
Why I do want see this: I was never a fan of the character in the comic books, but when I saw the first Iron Man a year ago, I was utterly captivated by RDJ's idiosyncratic performance, and the great storytelling. Considering basically the same cast and crew are involved, I'm so in for seconds. Plus, the additions of Cheadle, Johannson, and Rourke sound like great fits to the Iron Man universe.
Paul
Release Date: TBA 2010
Director: Greg Mottola
Cast: Simon Pegg, Nick Frost, Seth Rogen, Kristen Wiig, Bill Hader
Why I want to see this: I'm a huge Pegg/Frost follower, from Spaced to Hot Fuzz. And while Edgar Wright won't be directing, I'm more than content with Mottola, the helmer of Superbad and Adventureland. Add in an excellent comedy cast, and you have the ingredients for a great film.
Scott Pilgrim Vs. The World
Director: Edgar Wright
Cast: Michael Cera, Mary Elizabeth Winstead, Chris Evans, Kieren Culkin, Alison Pill, Ellen Wong
Why I want to see this: Edgar Wright first came to my attention when his first film, Shaun of the Dead, was mentioned by Kevin Smith in a posting on his web board. I quickly rented it, and utterly floored by the exciting direction and hilarious script. His second film, Hot Fuzz, was an even more entertaining film, and he took some serious steps forward with his filmmaking skills. His latest film is his first non-original work, being based on a series of graphic novels by Bryan O'Lee Malley. I have never read the graphic novels, but I'm excited regardless. Wright has picked an interesting cast as well, which makes me doubly excited.
Toy Story 3
Release Date: June 18, 2010
Director: Lee Unkrich
Cast: Tom Hanks, Tim Allen, John Ratzenberger, Don Rickles, Wallace Shawn, Michael Keaton
Why I want to see this: Pixar's canon of work is beyond impressive. Even excluding the previous Toy Story films, you have Monsters Inc., Finding Nemo, The Incredibles, Wall-E, Ratatouille, and Up. I can't recall a film studio that has so many winners as Pixar. Lee Unkrich has been working up the ranks of the Pixar staff for years, co-directing Toy Story 2 and Finding Nemo. This film is his first solo directorial effort, and I couldn't imagine a better person to take over the reins from John Lasseter. The same, great cast is returning, with some new additions such as Michael Keaton and Ned Beatty.
The Green Hornet
Release Date: July 9, 2010
Director: Michel Gondry
Cast: Seth Rogen, Jay Chou, Cameron Diaz, Nicolas Cage
Why I want to see this: I first became aware of the project when Kevin Smith was attached to write and direct. When he dropped out, Seth Rogen became attached to star and write the screenplay with Evan Goldberg. I thought he was an interesting choice for a superhero, and a good choice for writing the screenplay, due to his great work as a writer. Stephen Chow became involved as a director and co-star, which got me pumped up based on my love for "Kung Fu Hustle." Unfortuantely, he dropped out, and I was a little worried on who will take up the mantle, especially since Chow seemed like a great choice. There came in Gondry, who directed Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind and is one of my favorite filmmakers of all time. While he hasn't directed a proper action film, Gondry has a distinct visual style that would be a nice mix with action film grammar.
And that's the films I need to see in 2010.
Saturday, August 22, 2009
Inglourous Basterds review
I recall reading British actor Simon Pegg's (of Shaun of the Dead and Hot Fuzz fame) blog when he described Tarantino's script for Inglourious Basterds, and he referred to it as audacious. Roger Ebert's recently posted review of the film also claimed the film of being audacious. And well I'd hate to simply rehash what these two fine gentlemen said before, if it is nothing else, Inglourious Basterds is undoubtedly audacious. A wild, funny, and passionate film that defies genres, and expectations.
The film goes back and forth, focusing on multiple characters who seemingly are un-connected until the end, where their fates are intertwined. There's Aldo Raine (Brad Pitt), and his secret service team, "The Basterds". On the Nazi side, there's Col. Hans Landa (Christoph Waltz), nicknamed, "The Jew Hunter." And there's Shossana Dreyfus, a Jewish cinema owner whose family was murdered by Landa.
Right away, we are introduced to Landa and his peculiar sensiblites. It's easy to see why Waltz was awarded the Cannes Best Actor Award; He brings a delightful glee to the role, but stops from going into camp. He makes an unforgettable impression on the audience, which is noteworthy, considering a good amount of his dialogue is in a different language.
In this film, we see Brad Pitt, the actor, rather than, Brad Pitt, the celebrity. The great thespian we saw in "Twelve Monkeys" or "Fight Club". The great thespian who was lost in murky junk like "Mr. and Mrs. Smith" and the "Ocean's" films. Pitt delivers each line with such panahce that when a scene that doesn't feature him comes on screen, we almost miss him a little.
Contrasting the wild and funny Landa and Raine is Dreyfus, whose arc is more dramatic in nature, but no less entertaining. She is constantly being harrassed by war hero Fredreick Zoller (Daniel Bruhl), who is infantuated with Shoshanna. He eventually convinces Dr. Joseph Goebbels to have his movie premiere at her cinema, which Shoshanna uses to her advantage to gain revenge.
As you can probably tell, I throughly enjoyed this film. It is utterly Tarantino in every way, shape, and form. The dialogue plays incredibly well, and every joke gets a laugh. The over-the-top violence is entertaining, not obscene. And there's movie references galore, which should make most movie geeks blush.
There are some scenes that go on a little too long, but I suspect those scenes would enjoyed more in a second or third viewing. And I certainly will be more than willing to watch this film again and again.
The film goes back and forth, focusing on multiple characters who seemingly are un-connected until the end, where their fates are intertwined. There's Aldo Raine (Brad Pitt), and his secret service team, "The Basterds". On the Nazi side, there's Col. Hans Landa (Christoph Waltz), nicknamed, "The Jew Hunter." And there's Shossana Dreyfus, a Jewish cinema owner whose family was murdered by Landa.
Right away, we are introduced to Landa and his peculiar sensiblites. It's easy to see why Waltz was awarded the Cannes Best Actor Award; He brings a delightful glee to the role, but stops from going into camp. He makes an unforgettable impression on the audience, which is noteworthy, considering a good amount of his dialogue is in a different language.
In this film, we see Brad Pitt, the actor, rather than, Brad Pitt, the celebrity. The great thespian we saw in "Twelve Monkeys" or "Fight Club". The great thespian who was lost in murky junk like "Mr. and Mrs. Smith" and the "Ocean's" films. Pitt delivers each line with such panahce that when a scene that doesn't feature him comes on screen, we almost miss him a little.
Contrasting the wild and funny Landa and Raine is Dreyfus, whose arc is more dramatic in nature, but no less entertaining. She is constantly being harrassed by war hero Fredreick Zoller (Daniel Bruhl), who is infantuated with Shoshanna. He eventually convinces Dr. Joseph Goebbels to have his movie premiere at her cinema, which Shoshanna uses to her advantage to gain revenge.
As you can probably tell, I throughly enjoyed this film. It is utterly Tarantino in every way, shape, and form. The dialogue plays incredibly well, and every joke gets a laugh. The over-the-top violence is entertaining, not obscene. And there's movie references galore, which should make most movie geeks blush.
There are some scenes that go on a little too long, but I suspect those scenes would enjoyed more in a second or third viewing. And I certainly will be more than willing to watch this film again and again.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
