Attack the Block
Finally caught up enough to write about a movie I saw only a week ago...rather than a month ago.
So yes, let's get on with it shall we? I had high hopes for Attack the Block. After all, it touted Producers James Wilson and Nira Park of Shaun of the Dead and Hot Fuzz fame as well as Executive Producer Edgar Wright, director of those two classic films, and starred Nick Frost, co-star of Shaun of the Dead and Hot Fuzz (Simon Pegg, however, was nowhere to be seen). In other words, it had some good pedigree attached to it (Attack the Block Director Joe Cornish was also an actor in Hot Fuzz). Perhaps, though, my expectations were too high. The film failed to live up to what I had hoped it would live up to- that being another hit in the mold of Shaun of the Dead and Hot Fuzz. Attack the Block did have a few notable limitations that those films didn't. First, that Edgar Wright didn't direct it. Second, that Edgar Wright and Simon Pegg didn't write it. And third, that Simon Pegg didn't headline it. The best I should have hoped for was Shaun of the Dead lite...with aliens.
And really... that's what I got. The movie was in no way bad. Other, I should say, than in ways it wanted to be bad. It had a notably low budget look and feel and that only added to the film's cheeky tone. All of which was much to the movie's benefit. There was only really one major problem with the movie: it wasn't funny enough. Whenever it started to get genuinely funny, the filmmakers would inject a little unwarranted and all-too-serious social commentary. Maybe this was supposed to be satirical in nature, if so, they should have focused on making their points in a more humorous way. As it was, it felt more like a genuine and earnest call for attention to the plight of London's troubled youth. (In case you're unfamiliar, the story involves aliens invading a London housing project and the young gang members' struggle to defend their turf... and honor.). Social commentary is all well and good in the right place... even would have been fine here if it hadn't served as such a wet blanket to an otherwise entertaining movie. It was almost as though Cornish kept feeling guilty for straying from his important message. (A message that was brought into a much wider view by the London youth riots earlier this summer). I understand that a system that perpetuates a sense of hopelessness among a group of truly downtrodden young people is a troubling problem, but why pepper your alien-invasion comedy with such messages? What we really want to see is a bunch of kids kicking alien ass while spouting the almost indecipherable jargon of the hip hop/ popular culture. For the most part, that is what the movie delivered too... damn it. If only Cornish had left the Paul Haggis sledgehammer of subtlety alone. But, no, here he wields it like the master himself.
But again, I don't want to come off as though I hated the movie. I didn't. The social commentary bit was only a minor irritation. For the most part, the movie was good fun. I especially liked how it seemed as though the filmmakers blew all their effects budget on the plethora of grisly death scenes throughout the movie. It kind of left them limited options when it came to being able to produce the army of alien invaders. Luckily they were able to scrape enough dough together to produce one extremely fake looking rubbery alien puppet and a horde of black shag carpet-clad, day-glo plastic teeth sporting alien ape-dog beasts. They looked like some kind of demented, eye-less muppet. It was awesome. I couldn't help but chuckle every time they slithered onto the screen. I kind of reminded me of the movie the kids of Super 8 were putting together, only funnier and with worse make-up. It looked so low-budget, you kind of started to wonder whether it actually was by choice and that it actually cost a bundle of money to make such low-budget creatures. Whatever the case, it was a high point of the movie.
As were the actors. Other than Frost (reliably funny here), I believe most of the actors here were relative unknowns- particularly stateside. What they lacked in experience, however, they made up for in enthusiasm. It was a lot fun to watch these kids ham it up and have a blast making their little alien invasion flick. The real winner here was John Boyega who played the young gang's leader Moses. Boyega resembled a young Denzel Washington, burning with intensity in nearly every scene. Boyega managed to say more with his expressions than through his dialog which is a pretty nifty feat for any actor, especially one as inexperienced as he is. I have to imagine bigger and better things are on the horizon for him.
Not that Attack the Block was a horrible starting point. In the end, it was a movie with a pretty clever story acted out by young, inexperienced but engaging actors. It was a lot more fun than it wasn't, but it just didn't live up to the lofty standards of the filmmakers' previous efforts. Not a bad directorial debut for Joe Cornish in the least, just not an instant classic. But, then again, they can't all be, can they?
Grade: B+
Tuesday, September 20, 2011
Movie List 2011: 36.) Transformers: Dark of the Moon
Transformers: Dark of the Moon
I had originally thought that I had blown my opportunity to see this one. Then, out of nowhere and due to what must some kind of record slow/shitfest of an early September movie release schedule, there popped back into theaters Transformers 3. So, I had the opportunity to go see a lengthy movie I didn't need to see to know it was going to suck. And before I go any further let me just assure you, it did suck.
But let's rewind a bit. After the first two Transformers movies and the absolute mess that was the G.I. Joe movie, I had feared that the next logical step in the continued brutalization of my childhood would be the release of a home video capturing the reanimated corpse of Mr. Rogers beheading Big Bird and having his way with the neck hole. Then they announced the imminent release of Transformers 3... with the absolutely idiotic title of Transformers: Dark of the Moon... and I thought that maybe the Mr. Rogers video wouldn't have been so bad. To a degree. That said, Transformers was a horrible movie- typical of Michael Bay- but not so horrifically bad that you'd root to see one of your very early childhood heroes murder another one of your very early childhood heroes and then do unspeakable things to its lifeless body. So it has that going for it.
I wonder if it makes any sense to go on with this entry. The movie sucked. A lot of movies suck. The reason that it seems to sting so much is that the premise- that being Transformers in general, not any of the 13-year-old boy's wet dreams that Bay drew up in place of a script for his movies- had promise. And, Transformers was probably my favorite cartoon growing up. I loved Jazz. I wanted to be Jazz. And then, Michael Bay horked all over Jazz and his friends. By extension, he horked on me. The ass. But, I suppose I'm taking this all too seriously. What does it matter that Michael Bay made terrible movies out of (what I suppose was) a kinda corny cartoon show? It really doesn't matter... except that he tapped so well into the groins of 13-year-old boys that no one in their right mind would dare try to reboot the franchise for fear of it failing in comparison (I mean, in a strictly monetary sense). Oh well, I suppose there's always Go-Bots (FUCK!!!).
So, I'm not really sure it matters enough to spell out why the movie was so horrible. In a sense, it can only be compared to the other Transformers movies, G.I. Joe and maybe some of Bay's other movies. That's how bad it sucked. It can only properly be gauged in comparison with its peers. And, to that point, trying to decide which Michael Bay movie was the best is like trying to decide which of your last five shits smelled the best. What does it matter if one or two of them wouldn't cause anyone with a functioning olfactory bulb not convulse or retch, they all still smell distinctly like shit. And so it goes for Bay's movies.
For what it's worth, this wasn't the worst Transformers movie. I can't remember which of 1 or 2 I thought was worse. Probably 2, because I could at least process enough of what I was seeing to know that it was utter lunacy.... in 1 it was all such a messy blur that I suppose that in between seizures I was willing to give Bay the benefit of the doubt. At any rate, perhaps because it had no where to go but up, Transformers: Dark of the Moon was not the worst of the worst movies ever made. Nice compliment, eh?
So why wasn't it? Bay did, after all, decide to add a whole extra dimension of useless shitty-ness when he opted for the ever-ubiquitous and ever-gratuitous 3D format. I suppose it wasn't the worst movie ever made because it did have some semi-decent action sequences. Annnnnnnd, yep, that's the ONLY thing it had going for it. I should point out that the semi-decent action sequences encompassed only 15-20 minutes of the film's 157 minute total running time. The rest was garbage. Which means that in all likelihood it had 15-20 minutes more of semi-decent footage than the other two Transformers movies (and their demented cousin, G.I. Joe, the rise of Cobra... at least G.I. Joe had an actor the quality of Joseph Gordon-Levitt in it... Transformers 3 tries to go that route but instead managed to add a clearly flailing, rapidly devolving John Malkovich. Malkovich seems to be reeking of desperation as he tries to stay relevant whereas I'm pretty certain that Gordon-Levitt was just hoping to have the opportunity to swim in a pool filled with greenbacks a la Scrooge McDuck) combined.
So, where does Transformers go wrong? Well, for one, it was utter slow, boring, and needlessly moralistic for much of the movie. There was too much damn talking. Needless talking. Ugh. Sam (Shia LaBoeuf) continues to get girls waaaaaaaaay out of his schluppy league. He also continues to be a useless idiot- which the movie even recognizes by making his character- despite BOTH his previous efforts in saving the world- an unemployed/unemployable sad sack of shit. What else? They keep bringing back the quirky-to-the-point-of-bringing-the-audience-into-rage-induced-fits characters including Sam's parents (had no right to survive the first or second movie), and John Turturro's dispensable G-man gone rogue who should have just gone period. And, because you can never have too much of a bad thing, they added Malkovich to the quirky/annoying mix as Sam's eventual employer. Here, Malkovich decides that imitation is indeed the most sincere form of flattery as he decides to ape Turturro's stale take. Oh and the plot sucked. But that's to be expected by now, isn't it? But this- hopefully- is the grand shit-stained finale right? So they decided to bring everything to a head on one of the flimsiest turning points they could. Rosie Huntington-Whiteley's character (the one true surprise of the movie is that she is not the mute bimbo-in-distress that Bay would have you believe based on the film's trailer... which is actually a relief... no one really deserves that kind of a role.) manages to play Jedi mind tricks on the crippled (and oddly hooded) Megatron in order to get him to sabotage his grand plan before it had come to fruition. Yes, this is the same Megatron who knew he was too fucked up to see the thing through by himself. So rather than doing what the Megatron of the cartoon would do- use Sentinel Prime.. or whatever the hell his name was... to get the job done THEN take him out, Bay's 13 year old cadre of script writers decided that Megatron could be tricked into undermining himself despite all the work he put into seeing his plan come together. You know why they went that route? Because that's how 13-year-olds think. (I suppose I should have done one of those Spoiler alert bits.. but then... I kind of just jump right into it, don't? Doesn't make a ton of sense out of context does it? Nope. Doesn't make much sense in context either for that matter). Ok, right, you get it, the movie sucked.
What I can't rag on it about that plenty of other people DID rag on Bay about was the death toll featured in the movie. Bundles of innocent people bite it in the movie. That has to be the only realistic aspect of ANY of the Transformers movies. What do people think would happen in the throes of a hostile alien takeover? Innocent lives will be spared just because? No, hostile aliens would obliterate people, I would imagine, particularly if they got the sense that the easiest way to kill morale and any notion of humanity staging some kind of fight is to obliterate large portions of the populace. If hostile aliens did indeed invade Earth, I imagine a large chunk of the population is going to bite it. Naturally. So way to go, Michael Bay, there's your blind-squirrel-grabbing-a-nut moment for the decade. Way to bring the realism to a small portion of your otherwise horrible movie.
Grade: F+
I had originally thought that I had blown my opportunity to see this one. Then, out of nowhere and due to what must some kind of record slow/shitfest of an early September movie release schedule, there popped back into theaters Transformers 3. So, I had the opportunity to go see a lengthy movie I didn't need to see to know it was going to suck. And before I go any further let me just assure you, it did suck.
But let's rewind a bit. After the first two Transformers movies and the absolute mess that was the G.I. Joe movie, I had feared that the next logical step in the continued brutalization of my childhood would be the release of a home video capturing the reanimated corpse of Mr. Rogers beheading Big Bird and having his way with the neck hole. Then they announced the imminent release of Transformers 3... with the absolutely idiotic title of Transformers: Dark of the Moon... and I thought that maybe the Mr. Rogers video wouldn't have been so bad. To a degree. That said, Transformers was a horrible movie- typical of Michael Bay- but not so horrifically bad that you'd root to see one of your very early childhood heroes murder another one of your very early childhood heroes and then do unspeakable things to its lifeless body. So it has that going for it.
I wonder if it makes any sense to go on with this entry. The movie sucked. A lot of movies suck. The reason that it seems to sting so much is that the premise- that being Transformers in general, not any of the 13-year-old boy's wet dreams that Bay drew up in place of a script for his movies- had promise. And, Transformers was probably my favorite cartoon growing up. I loved Jazz. I wanted to be Jazz. And then, Michael Bay horked all over Jazz and his friends. By extension, he horked on me. The ass. But, I suppose I'm taking this all too seriously. What does it matter that Michael Bay made terrible movies out of (what I suppose was) a kinda corny cartoon show? It really doesn't matter... except that he tapped so well into the groins of 13-year-old boys that no one in their right mind would dare try to reboot the franchise for fear of it failing in comparison (I mean, in a strictly monetary sense). Oh well, I suppose there's always Go-Bots (FUCK!!!).
So, I'm not really sure it matters enough to spell out why the movie was so horrible. In a sense, it can only be compared to the other Transformers movies, G.I. Joe and maybe some of Bay's other movies. That's how bad it sucked. It can only properly be gauged in comparison with its peers. And, to that point, trying to decide which Michael Bay movie was the best is like trying to decide which of your last five shits smelled the best. What does it matter if one or two of them wouldn't cause anyone with a functioning olfactory bulb not convulse or retch, they all still smell distinctly like shit. And so it goes for Bay's movies.
For what it's worth, this wasn't the worst Transformers movie. I can't remember which of 1 or 2 I thought was worse. Probably 2, because I could at least process enough of what I was seeing to know that it was utter lunacy.... in 1 it was all such a messy blur that I suppose that in between seizures I was willing to give Bay the benefit of the doubt. At any rate, perhaps because it had no where to go but up, Transformers: Dark of the Moon was not the worst of the worst movies ever made. Nice compliment, eh?
So why wasn't it? Bay did, after all, decide to add a whole extra dimension of useless shitty-ness when he opted for the ever-ubiquitous and ever-gratuitous 3D format. I suppose it wasn't the worst movie ever made because it did have some semi-decent action sequences. Annnnnnnd, yep, that's the ONLY thing it had going for it. I should point out that the semi-decent action sequences encompassed only 15-20 minutes of the film's 157 minute total running time. The rest was garbage. Which means that in all likelihood it had 15-20 minutes more of semi-decent footage than the other two Transformers movies (and their demented cousin, G.I. Joe, the rise of Cobra... at least G.I. Joe had an actor the quality of Joseph Gordon-Levitt in it... Transformers 3 tries to go that route but instead managed to add a clearly flailing, rapidly devolving John Malkovich. Malkovich seems to be reeking of desperation as he tries to stay relevant whereas I'm pretty certain that Gordon-Levitt was just hoping to have the opportunity to swim in a pool filled with greenbacks a la Scrooge McDuck) combined.
So, where does Transformers go wrong? Well, for one, it was utter slow, boring, and needlessly moralistic for much of the movie. There was too much damn talking. Needless talking. Ugh. Sam (Shia LaBoeuf) continues to get girls waaaaaaaaay out of his schluppy league. He also continues to be a useless idiot- which the movie even recognizes by making his character- despite BOTH his previous efforts in saving the world- an unemployed/unemployable sad sack of shit. What else? They keep bringing back the quirky-to-the-point-of-bringing-the-audience-into-rage-induced-fits characters including Sam's parents (had no right to survive the first or second movie), and John Turturro's dispensable G-man gone rogue who should have just gone period. And, because you can never have too much of a bad thing, they added Malkovich to the quirky/annoying mix as Sam's eventual employer. Here, Malkovich decides that imitation is indeed the most sincere form of flattery as he decides to ape Turturro's stale take. Oh and the plot sucked. But that's to be expected by now, isn't it? But this- hopefully- is the grand shit-stained finale right? So they decided to bring everything to a head on one of the flimsiest turning points they could. Rosie Huntington-Whiteley's character (the one true surprise of the movie is that she is not the mute bimbo-in-distress that Bay would have you believe based on the film's trailer... which is actually a relief... no one really deserves that kind of a role.) manages to play Jedi mind tricks on the crippled (and oddly hooded) Megatron in order to get him to sabotage his grand plan before it had come to fruition. Yes, this is the same Megatron who knew he was too fucked up to see the thing through by himself. So rather than doing what the Megatron of the cartoon would do- use Sentinel Prime.. or whatever the hell his name was... to get the job done THEN take him out, Bay's 13 year old cadre of script writers decided that Megatron could be tricked into undermining himself despite all the work he put into seeing his plan come together. You know why they went that route? Because that's how 13-year-olds think. (I suppose I should have done one of those Spoiler alert bits.. but then... I kind of just jump right into it, don't? Doesn't make a ton of sense out of context does it? Nope. Doesn't make much sense in context either for that matter). Ok, right, you get it, the movie sucked.
What I can't rag on it about that plenty of other people DID rag on Bay about was the death toll featured in the movie. Bundles of innocent people bite it in the movie. That has to be the only realistic aspect of ANY of the Transformers movies. What do people think would happen in the throes of a hostile alien takeover? Innocent lives will be spared just because? No, hostile aliens would obliterate people, I would imagine, particularly if they got the sense that the easiest way to kill morale and any notion of humanity staging some kind of fight is to obliterate large portions of the populace. If hostile aliens did indeed invade Earth, I imagine a large chunk of the population is going to bite it. Naturally. So way to go, Michael Bay, there's your blind-squirrel-grabbing-a-nut moment for the decade. Way to bring the realism to a small portion of your otherwise horrible movie.
Grade: F+
Movie List 2011: 35.) Cowboys and Aliens
Cowboys and Aliens
Again trying to catch up...
I'll try to spend less time filling this space with words and more time getting to the point here. That way, when I reread this I won't have the urge to punch myself as much.
Of the three movies I saw during my August 21st triple header, Cowboys and Aliens was the movie I liked the most. It was just ridiculous enough to be a lot of fun without being a complete mess... at least in my mind anyway. Don't get me wrong, it wasn't the cleanest movie by any stretch. Daniel Craig couldn't find one accent and stick with it for very long. And the movie did- at times- get way to bogged down in seriousness... (the whole father/son angle/triangle among Harrison Ford's Woodrow Dolarhyde, Paul Dano's Percy Dolarhyde, and Julio Cedillo's Bronc [I think it was... fact, is I don't remember the character's name... but he was a Native American] was a bit too mushy/tedious for my taste). But on the whole, the movie was indeed fun. I particularly enjoyed the typically grizzled (these days) Harrison Ford chewing up all his scenes and Paul Dano doing off-kilter as only he can. Olivia Wilde was also a nice touch (even if her character brought about the only true WTF moment... but still it was a WTF moment that I thought fit the movie well).
In the end, though, I suppose it was a far sloppier movie than Captain America was. Cap's tone was tighter and there really wasn't a misfire in the cast. Still, again, I go back to the utter ridiculousness of the premise. There's just something delightfully off about Old West meets Alien Invasion. I don't know, it just appealed to me. I was willing to go along with it where ever it went. Now might be a good time to mention that some of my favorite movies as I was... not precisely growing up... but getting older... were Tombstone, Frank and Jesse, and - much much more so- the first three Star Wars movies. In other words, I've always had a thing (if you will) for Sci Fi movies and westerns. This takes two of my all-time favorite types of movies and- admittedly a tad untidily- mashes them together in a genuinely fun movie. Sprinkle in some of my favorite actors (Harrison Ford and Paul Dano), add in two that I'd like to see more from (Daniel Craig and Olivia Wilde) and it was an easy buy-in for me.
I guess if I was being completely unbiased I'd say that the movie had issues deeper than what I am letting on here. But damn it, I wanted to like the movie so I'm going to like... for the most part. I also don't remember it quite as well as I should. At least specifics of it. I do remember liking it a lot when I saw it. But I suppose if the most memorable aspects of it are that Daniel Craig needs help with his old west accent and that the movie struggles to maintain what should have been a completely tongue-in-cheek, no solemnity in sight tone, I should downgrade it a touch. So... yeah...
Grade: B+
(just a touch above Cap on the B+ spectrum)
Again trying to catch up...
I'll try to spend less time filling this space with words and more time getting to the point here. That way, when I reread this I won't have the urge to punch myself as much.
Of the three movies I saw during my August 21st triple header, Cowboys and Aliens was the movie I liked the most. It was just ridiculous enough to be a lot of fun without being a complete mess... at least in my mind anyway. Don't get me wrong, it wasn't the cleanest movie by any stretch. Daniel Craig couldn't find one accent and stick with it for very long. And the movie did- at times- get way to bogged down in seriousness... (the whole father/son angle/triangle among Harrison Ford's Woodrow Dolarhyde, Paul Dano's Percy Dolarhyde, and Julio Cedillo's Bronc [I think it was... fact, is I don't remember the character's name... but he was a Native American] was a bit too mushy/tedious for my taste). But on the whole, the movie was indeed fun. I particularly enjoyed the typically grizzled (these days) Harrison Ford chewing up all his scenes and Paul Dano doing off-kilter as only he can. Olivia Wilde was also a nice touch (even if her character brought about the only true WTF moment... but still it was a WTF moment that I thought fit the movie well).
In the end, though, I suppose it was a far sloppier movie than Captain America was. Cap's tone was tighter and there really wasn't a misfire in the cast. Still, again, I go back to the utter ridiculousness of the premise. There's just something delightfully off about Old West meets Alien Invasion. I don't know, it just appealed to me. I was willing to go along with it where ever it went. Now might be a good time to mention that some of my favorite movies as I was... not precisely growing up... but getting older... were Tombstone, Frank and Jesse, and - much much more so- the first three Star Wars movies. In other words, I've always had a thing (if you will) for Sci Fi movies and westerns. This takes two of my all-time favorite types of movies and- admittedly a tad untidily- mashes them together in a genuinely fun movie. Sprinkle in some of my favorite actors (Harrison Ford and Paul Dano), add in two that I'd like to see more from (Daniel Craig and Olivia Wilde) and it was an easy buy-in for me.
I guess if I was being completely unbiased I'd say that the movie had issues deeper than what I am letting on here. But damn it, I wanted to like the movie so I'm going to like... for the most part. I also don't remember it quite as well as I should. At least specifics of it. I do remember liking it a lot when I saw it. But I suppose if the most memorable aspects of it are that Daniel Craig needs help with his old west accent and that the movie struggles to maintain what should have been a completely tongue-in-cheek, no solemnity in sight tone, I should downgrade it a touch. So... yeah...
Grade: B+
(just a touch above Cap on the B+ spectrum)
Movie List 2011: 34.) Captain America: The First Avenger
Captain America: The First Avenger
I am now way, way, way behind on keeping this thing up-to-date. I actually saw Captain America in August on the same day I saw Rise of Planet of the Apes (and Cowboys and Aliens). I've thought before that actually waiting a bit to write a review... or whatever this actually is... can be helpful. It's easier to figure out what made the movie memorable (if it was indeed memorable) if... you know... you have to remember it. This, however, may be overkill. It's been over a month. But, I can't catch up, if I don't look back. So here we go...
So yeah... Captain America... first impression? Errr, rather, what ever impression this is after having lived with seeing the movie for over a month? On the whole, it was a fun movie. That's the thing I remember most about it. Fun. It wasn't quite in the same vein as Thor, but it certainly wasn't tedious in the least (like... Batman Begins and- to a degree- Iron Man). But yeah, generally fun. Lots of tongue-in-cheekness. Not as action-driven as I'd have liked it to be, but it certainly had more action than brooding (a common trap of the origin story). So that all worked well. I'm not sure whether the tone of the movie was set because of Chris Evans or Chris Evans was cast to be Cap because of the intended tone of the movie. Either way, in retrospect, for this movie, I can't imagine anyone filling those boots better. I can't say I've seen...or even heard of Evans being in anything particularly serious. It's all light and fun for him. (But not all good... ahem... Fantastic 4 AND Fantastic Four 2... guess we won't be seeing any Avengers/Fantastic 4 cross-overs... at least with the original casts). Which ever was the case, I think it was a smart move. Evans comes off as a typically all-American type dude in ways that other names that were bandied about- John Krasinski... Nic Cage?... couldn't. And that all-American-ness is a key point to the movie. It is-after all- a 2 hour dissertation on what the quintessential idea of the American spirit is all about... or something along those lines. The Hollywood version of defining what it is to be American? I don't know, but there was definitely that sort of undertone to the flick.
That said, it must have been a tricky balance. They had to try to capture the jingoism of the World War II era without associating it with the more negative and close-minded ideals that often accompany extreme patriotism today. The risk, after all, was turning Captain America into some kind of retro-Tea Party symbol. They did succeed in avoiding that very avoidable pitfall, I think. But they still put a little too much emphasis on the morality angle and the "You Can Do It If You Really Try" cliche. What's right is rarely so black and white... but in terms of modern conflicts, I guess it doesn't get much more black and white than WWII. On the second point, they are being hypocrites- just as the comic book series was. Steve Rogers had as much spirit as anyone can sanely have. The problem is, he was a sickly waste of human flesh. Target practice for the Nazis, had he been allowed to enlist. The harder he would have tried the easier he would have been to kill. That's just life. So the fine folks writing the early Captain America series seemed to suggest that this essential American Fighting Spirit would see him through... so long as he agreed to become a science project first. "You can do it if you never give up, give it your all, and get pumped full of steroids or super-soldier serum." The hunted then becomes the hunter. It's hard to buy into all the lines they feed you here (and it was a bit overbearing at times) when we all know Cap would have been a glorified mascot at best in the war effort without the experiment. Before that minor turning point, Rogers would have best served the folks on the front lines if he had allowed himself to be skinned and worn as a parka.
All this is- of course- meaningless word-filling. The constant beating of that American Fighting Spirit and doing what's right message into my skull was at worst a minor irritation and one that I kind of fully expected going to see the movie (which also begs the question of why the didn't open the damn thing on the July 4th weekend. My guess is that they were afraid of being buried by Transformers 3. And with good cause. Robots and hot chicks are obviously more appealing to the mass of 13-16 year-old boys whom every summer movie producer targets than buff dudes running around in spandex... but I do think the natural tie in would have served the movie well.). The fact of the matter is that the movie was largely a fun action flick with a pretty good, light tone. Evans was- if not perfect- a damn good fit for the role. And Hugo Weaving (another go-to bad guy in the same mold as Mark Strong), Tommy Lee Jones (a scene thief here), and Stanly Tucci round out a pretty fantastic cast. I wasn't a huge fan of taking Cap's young sidekick, Bucky (Sebastian Stan) and aging him a bundle of years (and making him cooler than Cap for much of the movie) for the movie, but I suppose the whole kid sidekick deal kind of peaked with Burt Ward's performance as Robin in the 1960s Batman TV series. (At least in the traditional sense... kid sidekicks don't get much more badass than Hit Girl from the Kick Ass comics/movie.) At least they didn't end up with the whiny mess that was The Kid (Justin McGuire) from Six String Samurai.
Damn, I'm in a digressing-type mood here. The point here is that-again- Captain America: The First Avenger was... after the first... I dunno half hour... where Evan's over-sized head was digitally placed on the body of some science-class skeleton resulting in an ultimate "man that ain't right" moment...a solidly fun action flick. Nothing that's going to give you a headache thinking about it. Nothing that's ever going to be mistaken for art. But a good movie to just sit there and enjoy... for the most part. Especially if you're a red-blooded American (who believes there's nothing wrong with augmenting the American Fighting Spirit with a little chemical joy).
Grade: B+
I am now way, way, way behind on keeping this thing up-to-date. I actually saw Captain America in August on the same day I saw Rise of Planet of the Apes (and Cowboys and Aliens). I've thought before that actually waiting a bit to write a review... or whatever this actually is... can be helpful. It's easier to figure out what made the movie memorable (if it was indeed memorable) if... you know... you have to remember it. This, however, may be overkill. It's been over a month. But, I can't catch up, if I don't look back. So here we go...
So yeah... Captain America... first impression? Errr, rather, what ever impression this is after having lived with seeing the movie for over a month? On the whole, it was a fun movie. That's the thing I remember most about it. Fun. It wasn't quite in the same vein as Thor, but it certainly wasn't tedious in the least (like... Batman Begins and- to a degree- Iron Man). But yeah, generally fun. Lots of tongue-in-cheekness. Not as action-driven as I'd have liked it to be, but it certainly had more action than brooding (a common trap of the origin story). So that all worked well. I'm not sure whether the tone of the movie was set because of Chris Evans or Chris Evans was cast to be Cap because of the intended tone of the movie. Either way, in retrospect, for this movie, I can't imagine anyone filling those boots better. I can't say I've seen...or even heard of Evans being in anything particularly serious. It's all light and fun for him. (But not all good... ahem... Fantastic 4 AND Fantastic Four 2... guess we won't be seeing any Avengers/Fantastic 4 cross-overs... at least with the original casts). Which ever was the case, I think it was a smart move. Evans comes off as a typically all-American type dude in ways that other names that were bandied about- John Krasinski... Nic Cage?... couldn't. And that all-American-ness is a key point to the movie. It is-after all- a 2 hour dissertation on what the quintessential idea of the American spirit is all about... or something along those lines. The Hollywood version of defining what it is to be American? I don't know, but there was definitely that sort of undertone to the flick.
That said, it must have been a tricky balance. They had to try to capture the jingoism of the World War II era without associating it with the more negative and close-minded ideals that often accompany extreme patriotism today. The risk, after all, was turning Captain America into some kind of retro-Tea Party symbol. They did succeed in avoiding that very avoidable pitfall, I think. But they still put a little too much emphasis on the morality angle and the "You Can Do It If You Really Try" cliche. What's right is rarely so black and white... but in terms of modern conflicts, I guess it doesn't get much more black and white than WWII. On the second point, they are being hypocrites- just as the comic book series was. Steve Rogers had as much spirit as anyone can sanely have. The problem is, he was a sickly waste of human flesh. Target practice for the Nazis, had he been allowed to enlist. The harder he would have tried the easier he would have been to kill. That's just life. So the fine folks writing the early Captain America series seemed to suggest that this essential American Fighting Spirit would see him through... so long as he agreed to become a science project first. "You can do it if you never give up, give it your all, and get pumped full of steroids or super-soldier serum." The hunted then becomes the hunter. It's hard to buy into all the lines they feed you here (and it was a bit overbearing at times) when we all know Cap would have been a glorified mascot at best in the war effort without the experiment. Before that minor turning point, Rogers would have best served the folks on the front lines if he had allowed himself to be skinned and worn as a parka.
All this is- of course- meaningless word-filling. The constant beating of that American Fighting Spirit and doing what's right message into my skull was at worst a minor irritation and one that I kind of fully expected going to see the movie (which also begs the question of why the didn't open the damn thing on the July 4th weekend. My guess is that they were afraid of being buried by Transformers 3. And with good cause. Robots and hot chicks are obviously more appealing to the mass of 13-16 year-old boys whom every summer movie producer targets than buff dudes running around in spandex... but I do think the natural tie in would have served the movie well.). The fact of the matter is that the movie was largely a fun action flick with a pretty good, light tone. Evans was- if not perfect- a damn good fit for the role. And Hugo Weaving (another go-to bad guy in the same mold as Mark Strong), Tommy Lee Jones (a scene thief here), and Stanly Tucci round out a pretty fantastic cast. I wasn't a huge fan of taking Cap's young sidekick, Bucky (Sebastian Stan) and aging him a bundle of years (and making him cooler than Cap for much of the movie) for the movie, but I suppose the whole kid sidekick deal kind of peaked with Burt Ward's performance as Robin in the 1960s Batman TV series. (At least in the traditional sense... kid sidekicks don't get much more badass than Hit Girl from the Kick Ass comics/movie.) At least they didn't end up with the whiny mess that was The Kid (Justin McGuire) from Six String Samurai.
Damn, I'm in a digressing-type mood here. The point here is that-again- Captain America: The First Avenger was... after the first... I dunno half hour... where Evan's over-sized head was digitally placed on the body of some science-class skeleton resulting in an ultimate "man that ain't right" moment...a solidly fun action flick. Nothing that's going to give you a headache thinking about it. Nothing that's ever going to be mistaken for art. But a good movie to just sit there and enjoy... for the most part. Especially if you're a red-blooded American (who believes there's nothing wrong with augmenting the American Fighting Spirit with a little chemical joy).
Grade: B+
Tuesday, September 6, 2011
Movie List 2011: 33.) Rise of the Planet of the Apes
Rise of the Planet of the Apes
I'm a bit behind here seeing as I saw three of the next four movies I'm reviewing in August and the other on September 1st. Oh well, that's why this is the Untimely Movie Blog. I'll get to them when I can.
So without further ado, Rise of the Planet of the Apes....
There's nothing inherently wrong with Rise of the Planet of the Apes (except, perhaps, it's awkward title). Yes, it's an origin movie and I typically hate origin movies. Why? Because they generally tell a story with great detail and solemnity that hardly needs such focus. Origin movies generally take themselves too seriously. I've always felt that it doesn't matter as much how so and so became new and improved so and so as much as what new and improved so and so does and why. In a few instances, a more detailed exploration of how someone became someone seems necessary. Batman, for instance, is a complete headcase. Finding out how he became a crime-fighting headcase is worthwhile... if only they didn't treat it like a sacred artifact! (Why can't we have more fun with these discoveries?) At any rate, this particular origin story appealed to me. For one, because I know little of the world of Planet of the Apes. I've only ever seen the Marky Mark version. And I knew that this Apes film didn't address that version of the story because how that fucked-up world became what it was defied all explanation (at least, that's what I remember of that debacle). I assumed, then, that this Apes was addressing the original Planet of the Apes series of flicks. And, at least from my perspective, this seemed intriguing. After all, either because I haven't ever seen any of the original series or because it wasn't explained (and I believe there was a time when story-tellers didn't feel the need to explain every detail of their stories... and brood over the story's mythology), I have no idea why Earth- it would seem- became the planet of the apes. (Mystery is a fairly good reason to like an origin story. I have too much familiarity with most super hero types- the subject of 99% of origin movies- to be anything but bored with the inevitable outcome of the origin tale). So, pushing aside my customary skepticism over why it matters how something like Planet of the Apes came to be, I actually approached this movie with a fairly open mind. And like I said, there really wasn't anything overly wrong with the movie. It just wasn't overly exciting. It did what it set out to do: it told the story of how Earth became Planet Ape.
That said, when the dust settled I was kind of left with that "... huh." feeling. It was pretty underwhelming. After all, just because a movie delivers on its promise, that doesn't mean it will be a stellar film. (Case in point: Ninja Assassin.) I mean, if I was going to make a movie that revolved around how a scrap of wood became a pretty bitchin' birdhouse, unless I told the story right, it's probably not going to be very good. If I just do a step-by-step tutorial you might appreciate it, but I don't you'd be glued to the screen. And I suppose that's what Rise of the Planet of the Apes amounts to: a hypothetical tutorial on how to damn mankind while simultaneously providing an avenue for Ape-reign.
This isn't to say that Apes was completely boring. Yes, it was matter-of-fact and rather frill free. But it did have a few things going for it. The Apes were pretty cool to watch. These weren't the rubber-masked charades of the past. These apes were made of a mixture of CGI, motion-captured technology, and a liberal dose of the one and only Andy Serkis. It made for a compelling final product if nothing else. Beyond that there was Good James Franco delivering an understated and believable performance. (as opposed to the ham-meister Bad James Franco). Apes also featured John Lithgow- drawing from his experiences on the set of Harry and the Hendersons- to deliver a poignant man-ape performance. No, seriously, Lithgow is a welcome addition here as he has been in most of his work both on the big and small screens. And then there's Freida Pinto. No, her character doesn't add much to the movie, but she's a pretty good actress so she has that going for her. And, well, that's about it.
I actually should take back what I said about Rise of the Planet of the Apes. It does have one pretty huge flaw. Not the concept of the movie, I suppose. I stand by my belief that it is a story- on the surface- that is worth telling. I just wish they wouldn't have sucker-punched the audience in the end. The big reveal is beyond anti-climactic. I guess I should have written that when the dust settled I was left with that "... huh. -pause for a few minutes- Wait, what? That's it?" Feeling. Then eventually I did settle on just "... huh." I don't want to spoil anything for my hypothetical readers- which is also why I'm not going to pick apart some of the more ludicrous plot points (besides, I decided that my beefs were just a case of me being too picky). But the big ending? Come. On.
In the end, I guess that is a pretty big deal, isn't it? I'm not going to say the movie sucked. It was a bit slow and by-the-numbers so to speak, but it was a fitting means to an end. An answer to a question I was genuinely interested in having answered. But if that's the best I can do, I can't really say it's good, can I? (well, make the damn rules around here, so I suppose I could... and I suppose if reading a pretty dry recipe book were my idea of entertainment I would think this movie was down-right awesome. But I don't and this isn't.)
Grade: C
I'm a bit behind here seeing as I saw three of the next four movies I'm reviewing in August and the other on September 1st. Oh well, that's why this is the Untimely Movie Blog. I'll get to them when I can.
So without further ado, Rise of the Planet of the Apes....
There's nothing inherently wrong with Rise of the Planet of the Apes (except, perhaps, it's awkward title). Yes, it's an origin movie and I typically hate origin movies. Why? Because they generally tell a story with great detail and solemnity that hardly needs such focus. Origin movies generally take themselves too seriously. I've always felt that it doesn't matter as much how so and so became new and improved so and so as much as what new and improved so and so does and why. In a few instances, a more detailed exploration of how someone became someone seems necessary. Batman, for instance, is a complete headcase. Finding out how he became a crime-fighting headcase is worthwhile... if only they didn't treat it like a sacred artifact! (Why can't we have more fun with these discoveries?) At any rate, this particular origin story appealed to me. For one, because I know little of the world of Planet of the Apes. I've only ever seen the Marky Mark version. And I knew that this Apes film didn't address that version of the story because how that fucked-up world became what it was defied all explanation (at least, that's what I remember of that debacle). I assumed, then, that this Apes was addressing the original Planet of the Apes series of flicks. And, at least from my perspective, this seemed intriguing. After all, either because I haven't ever seen any of the original series or because it wasn't explained (and I believe there was a time when story-tellers didn't feel the need to explain every detail of their stories... and brood over the story's mythology), I have no idea why Earth- it would seem- became the planet of the apes. (Mystery is a fairly good reason to like an origin story. I have too much familiarity with most super hero types- the subject of 99% of origin movies- to be anything but bored with the inevitable outcome of the origin tale). So, pushing aside my customary skepticism over why it matters how something like Planet of the Apes came to be, I actually approached this movie with a fairly open mind. And like I said, there really wasn't anything overly wrong with the movie. It just wasn't overly exciting. It did what it set out to do: it told the story of how Earth became Planet Ape.
That said, when the dust settled I was kind of left with that "... huh." feeling. It was pretty underwhelming. After all, just because a movie delivers on its promise, that doesn't mean it will be a stellar film. (Case in point: Ninja Assassin.) I mean, if I was going to make a movie that revolved around how a scrap of wood became a pretty bitchin' birdhouse, unless I told the story right, it's probably not going to be very good. If I just do a step-by-step tutorial you might appreciate it, but I don't you'd be glued to the screen. And I suppose that's what Rise of the Planet of the Apes amounts to: a hypothetical tutorial on how to damn mankind while simultaneously providing an avenue for Ape-reign.
This isn't to say that Apes was completely boring. Yes, it was matter-of-fact and rather frill free. But it did have a few things going for it. The Apes were pretty cool to watch. These weren't the rubber-masked charades of the past. These apes were made of a mixture of CGI, motion-captured technology, and a liberal dose of the one and only Andy Serkis. It made for a compelling final product if nothing else. Beyond that there was Good James Franco delivering an understated and believable performance. (as opposed to the ham-meister Bad James Franco). Apes also featured John Lithgow- drawing from his experiences on the set of Harry and the Hendersons- to deliver a poignant man-ape performance. No, seriously, Lithgow is a welcome addition here as he has been in most of his work both on the big and small screens. And then there's Freida Pinto. No, her character doesn't add much to the movie, but she's a pretty good actress so she has that going for her. And, well, that's about it.
I actually should take back what I said about Rise of the Planet of the Apes. It does have one pretty huge flaw. Not the concept of the movie, I suppose. I stand by my belief that it is a story- on the surface- that is worth telling. I just wish they wouldn't have sucker-punched the audience in the end. The big reveal is beyond anti-climactic. I guess I should have written that when the dust settled I was left with that "... huh. -pause for a few minutes- Wait, what? That's it?" Feeling. Then eventually I did settle on just "... huh." I don't want to spoil anything for my hypothetical readers- which is also why I'm not going to pick apart some of the more ludicrous plot points (besides, I decided that my beefs were just a case of me being too picky). But the big ending? Come. On.
In the end, I guess that is a pretty big deal, isn't it? I'm not going to say the movie sucked. It was a bit slow and by-the-numbers so to speak, but it was a fitting means to an end. An answer to a question I was genuinely interested in having answered. But if that's the best I can do, I can't really say it's good, can I? (well, make the damn rules around here, so I suppose I could... and I suppose if reading a pretty dry recipe book were my idea of entertainment I would think this movie was down-right awesome. But I don't and this isn't.)
Grade: C
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)