Award shows intend to honor popular, successful films and bring attention to artier, more difficult to market pieces of work. Unfortunately, this is a lose-lose situation, as one seems like pointing out the obvious, and other seems to choose something that isn't well-known. The 2010 Golden Globes, hosted by Ricky Gervais, failed to select any risky nominees, and instead went the easy, and predictable choices.
One of the biggest examples of this was James Cameron winning Best Director for "Avatar." Now, "Avatar" is a wonderful film, truly. A total and veritable game-changer. But game-changer or not, Cameron didn't earn it as much, I think. He hadn't made a picture for twelve years, and when he does, we throw the awards at him, instead of honoring someone like Tarantino, my pick, who had made three movies since he was nominated, four if you are under the "Kill Bill Vol 1&2 are separate movies" party.
An another obvious choice was Christoph Waltz' Best Supporting Actor win for "Inglourious Basterds." However, this was clearly the best choice. Waltz gave easily one of the most memorable performances this past DECADE, let alone year. And none of his fellow nominees even came close to matching the acclaim he received. Hopefully, this will mean he is a shoe-in for the Oscar.
I also think it's time that Pixar not have a monopoly on the animated film category. I mean, seriously, they might has well have an award waiting for them each year. "Up" was one of my favorite films of the year, don't get me wrong. But in terms of the achievement in the animation world, it seems like "Coraline" or "Fantastic Mr. Fox" were more deserving. Their handmade, stop-motion approach is a wonderful, refreshing change from the constant dominance that CG has on the genre.
As a contrast to the state of obviousness mentioned above, a genuinely surprising win was Jason Reitman and Sheldon Turner's Screenplay win for "Up in the Air," considering Tarantino was nominated, but well earned, since the film featured the most realistic dialog in some time, along with "Basterds." Although one wonders how much of Turner's work is featured in the film, and if not much, why he might not deserve the win. Regardless, a great choice.
Although some good choices were made here and there during the Globes, it's safe to say that they lost a bit of their luster this year.
AJP.
Monday, January 18, 2010
Saturday, January 2, 2010
Favorite films of '09
While I'm not one for being a conformist, there are certain traditons amongst bloggers, film critics, or film geeks in general. One of those is the "Best of '09" lists, which I'm sure, by now, you're all sick of seeing. But allow me to pipe in with my two cents.
AUTHOR'S NOTE: There is still a few films I have yet to see that possibly will make an appearance on this list once I do see them, so consider this blog a work-in-progress. The films I have yet to see are:
"The Hurt Locker."
"Where the Wild Things Are.."
"Fantastic Mr. Fox"
"Moon."
"Me and Orson Welles."
"The Box."
"Taking Woodstock."
"Imaginarium of Dr. Parnassus."
And now, without further ado, my favorite films of the year...
1. Up in the Air
2. Up
3. Inglourious Basterds
4. Funny People
5. (500) Days of Summer
6. Avatar
7. Star Trek
8. Coraline
9. District 9
10. Jennifer's Body
11. Precious
Honorable Mentions :
The Hangover
Orphan
Pirate Radio
Sherlock Holmes
AUTHOR'S NOTE: There is still a few films I have yet to see that possibly will make an appearance on this list once I do see them, so consider this blog a work-in-progress. The films I have yet to see are:
"The Hurt Locker."
"Where the Wild Things Are.."
"Fantastic Mr. Fox"
"Moon."
"Me and Orson Welles."
"The Box."
"Taking Woodstock."
"Imaginarium of Dr. Parnassus."
And now, without further ado, my favorite films of the year...
1. Up in the Air
2. Up
3. Inglourious Basterds
4. Funny People
5. (500) Days of Summer
6. Avatar
7. Star Trek
8. Coraline
9. District 9
10. Jennifer's Body
11. Precious
Honorable Mentions :
The Hangover
Orphan
Pirate Radio
Sherlock Holmes
Wednesday, December 30, 2009
Winter begins, and finally, the good movies are starting to come out.
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
