Category Archives: Movies

Movies

Spy trailer…

First heard about this movie a while ago, the latest from Director Paul Feig and starring Melissa McCarthy (whose previous collaborations included the hysterical Bridesmaids and The Heat).  Didn’t hear much about it since then and was surprised to find that the film already has a trailer!  And the film also features Jude Law and Jason Statham?!

As it is a Paul Feig/Melissa McCarthy film, if you’re going to check out the trailer, you have to go with the redband version:

Seems fun but, frankly, I can’t say this trailer lit things up as much as I hoped.  Still, it was miles more interesting/funny than the awful trailer for Sex Tape and the premise of Melissa McCarthy doing a James Bond-type spoof is, while not necessarily a super original concept, one that has potential.

The real curiosity for me is how Jude Law and, especially, Jason Statham works in this.  These two could be the key to this film really taking off.

Books/Literature, Movies

5 Reasons Great Directors Eventually Make a Bad Movie…

…this list is by Daniel Dockery and can be found on Cracked.com or by clicking the below link:

http://www.cracked.com/blog/5-reasons-great-directors-eventually-make-bad-movie/

I find such ruminations fascinating because it seems almost everyone that has been very successful in creating exceptional work(s) of art, be they paintings, music, literature, or movies, eventually releases something that is, for lack of a better word, sour.

Director Alfred Hitchcock had perhaps one of the all time greatest careers in cinema, releasing films that were undeniably “Hitchcokian”.  These films were noted for featuring great suspense and skullduggery along with some very, very funny black humor.  His first feature was made in 1922 and his last was released in 1976, making for a career that lasted a mind boggling 54 years.

Arguably, he “came into his own” and began releasing his distinctive brand of films in the early to mid 1930’s on, reaching his creative peak (again, in many people’s opinions) in the mid 1950’s through the early 1960’s.  During those years Mr. Hitchcock directed such movie landmarks as Rear Window (1954), Vertigo (1958), North By Northwest (1959), Psycho (1960), and The Birds (1963) (RIP Rod Taylor).  However, those weren’t the only films he released during that time.  Mr. Hitchcock was nothing if not proficient, but I suspect most people would site the films I list above as his “cream of the crop”.

But a very curious thing happened after The Birds: Whether it was age or disinterest or perhaps any of the other five reasons mentioned in the above link (one could argue a few might well apply) Mr. Hitchcock abruptly hit what amounted to a creative wall.  He would go on to make five more feature films after The Birds:  Marnie (1964), Torn Curtain (1966), Topaz (1969), Frenzy (1972) and Family Plot (1976).  While these films have their defenders, even the most dedicated Hitchcock fans offer few reasons to revisit either Torn Curtain or Topaz.  I’m equally certain even the strongest defenders of Mr. Hitchcock’s last decade plus of production, if cornered, have to admit none of the above listed films come close to the dizzying heights of his best works.

So what happened?  One is left to speculate.  When I was younger, I had this vision of a writer who sat before their typewriter (this was before the era of the computer) and daydreamed and then wrote whatever fancy hit him/her.

The reality is that writing, like most other artistic endeavors, is a job.  Their product is the result of work.  Often very, very hard work.

An author has to make a book that sells if s/he is to have a career in the field.  To do so, they have to please audiences as well as those who publish their work.  This entails a great deal of pressure.  For directors, I imagine, the pressure is multiplied.  To begin, you have to convince investors you have the talent and potential product that will offer these money people a good return on their investment.  Once you get the investment and production begins, these investors don’t simply disappear.  You can be certain they’re going to keep an close eye on what you’re up to and make sure you aren’t squandering their cash.

Add to that the fact that you’re dealing with a cast and crew, sometimes in the hundreds, who will have a myriad of different levels of interest in whatever you’re making.  Some may view the work as nothing more than a paying job while others may be just as invested as you are.  Then again, there’s the danger they’re too invested and have vastly different visions of how the work should be presented.  If your talent has a big enough “name”, they may demand changes that they feel will accentuate their work but which you, as a director, may feel harms the overall product.  And that’s not counting your garden variety clashes of personalities.

I don’t envy directors.  The fact that good, even great films have been produced in the past and will no doubt be made into the future shows that sometimes the stars align and a good work is made.  Sometimes, if you’re crafty and creative enough, several good films will be released under your name.

But there seems to inevitably come a time when things don’t work out as well as they should.  Hopefully, you’ll recover and learn from your experience and once again create something audiences feel matches your very best work.

Hopefully.

Movies

Supernova (2000) BluRay review…but not by me!

I haven’t received my copy of Supernova yet but figured those interested in an early review of the BluRay release of this film and what it has on it in the way of extras might like to read this:

http://www.dvddrive-in.com/reviews/n-s/supernovablu.htm

As I mentioned before, I find Supernova a deeply flawed yet (to me) remarkable curiosity of a film, especially given all the talent in front of and behind the scenes.  If you’re interested in my review of the film, you can find it here.

Please make no mistake about it: Supernova is a very, very bad film, a trainwreck from the get go that during its creation went through many hands before finally being dumped into a “theatrical” release.

Yet in spite of this I’m fascinated by the film, especially when I believe elements of it seemed to work their way -consciously or not- into 2012’s Prometheus.  I say this only because Supernova’s primary director, Walter Hill, is the producer of all the Alien films since the first one, up to and including Prometheus.

Despite the fact that the film is such a wreck, its one of those total misfires that, like a moth to light, I can’t help but look at.

Movies

David Cronenberg on Internet Criticism…

…it would appear he doesn’t like at least parts of it, including the Rottentomatoes “averages”:

http://io9.com/david-cronenberg-says-rotten-tomatoes-is-wrecking-film-1677869612

I think he has a point in that nowadays just about anyone out there (including me!) can be a critic and, sometimes, some opinions appear (to put it kindly) ill informed.

Yet everyone, including Mr. Cronenberg, should remember what by now should be an obvious fact: Personal tastes in the arts (movies, music, books, stories, etc. etc.) are subjective.  Just because someone inartfully states they found a film a failure because it was “boring” and/or conversely a success because the “effects were so cool” while offering few well reasoned facts as to why they liked/didn’t like a film doesn’t mean their personal opinion is wrong.  Others may well like or dislike a film for the very same reasons.

Where I do agree with Mr. Cronenberg is in the fact that by aggregating critical scores we’re giving equal weight to well thought out reviews as well as those that, in his opinion, aren’t.  Interestingly, he further notes that some well thought out critics that wouldn’t otherwise appear has done so thanks to the internet.  This, to him, is more the exception rather than the rule.

For me, I like Rottentomatoes if only to get a general idea of where critics (all of them!) and, more interesting, audiences stand with regard to movies.  I don’t tend to get too deeply into the reviews and only use the compendium score to get a general idea of how things fall.  Then again, unlike Mr. Cronenberg, a very successful and a times challenging moviemaker, I clearly don’t dive as deeply into the individual reviews as he does.

Like many modern things, it is the way things are.  Perhaps these aggregate opinions are harmful in the long run if they influence studios to the point that they delude the quality of film.  But it seems to me there have always been good and bad works out there and you can look long and hard to find what personally works for you.

Anyway, I’ll close on this, a list of 25 movies that critics loathed yet audiences loved, brought to you by (who else!?) Rottentomatoes:

http://www.hollywood.com/card/movies/57692333/movies-audiences-loved-critics-hated-rotten-tomatoes#234671/3

Movies

Guardians of the Galaxy (2014) a (mildly) belated review

Bear with me here…I know I’ve written about this before, but I think its pertinent.

Back in 1977 I was an 11 year old boy who absolutely loved science fiction.  I couldn’t get enough of the then in syndication original Star Trek, Twilight Zone, Outer Limits, Wild, Wild, West, etc.  I was heavily into reading sci-fi books and equally, if not more so, into reading comic books.  And science fiction films?  I was head over heels for them, catching whatever I could whenever I could.

I don’t recall the exact details but word got out back then in 1977 that a brand new science fiction feature film was THE hot ticket to catch that summer.  The movie was Star Wars.  I headed to the closest cinema on, I believe, the first or second week of that movie’s release, sat in my chair, and waited to be blown away.  The lights went down, the movie started and the crowd around me, for the most part composed of younger boys like myself, went wild.  They whooped and hollered.  They clapped and screamed.

And I sat there as the movie played out and wondered what it was I was missing.

Don’t get me wrong: I didn’t hate Star Wars.  But despite my age (I was an ideal age for the movie’s release), my interests (ditto), and the euphoric crowd around me which should have at the least pumped me up, the film just left me…cold.  So little did Star Wars thrill me that I skipped that movie’s highly anticipated sequel, The Empire Strikes Back when it first appeared in theaters.  I wouldn’t see that film until a couple of years later, when it aired on TV.  I thought Empire was OK but my feelings regarding it were on par with the original.

Fast forward to this year.  I’m a whole lot older but many of the interests I had back in 1977 remain with me today.  I still love science-fiction.  I still love to watch sci-fi on TV or in the movies, and I’m always on the look out for genuinely good sci-fi fare.

So this past summer, THE big movie release proved to be Guardians of the Galaxy.  After all was said and done, not only did the movie have the largest box office of the year, it scored an genuinely impressive 90% positive among critics and astonishingly strong 94% positive among audiences according to Rottentomatoes.com.

I didn’t have the time to catch the film when it was released theatrically, though there was at least one occasion where I almost saw it.  When the film was finally released to video, I quickly snatched up a copy of the BluRay.

Yesterday, I finally had time to watch this film.

Oh brother.

…oh, brother…

History, it would seem, has a habit of repeating itself, no?

For what is Guardians of the Galaxy but a modernized updating (and for the most part remake) of Star Wars?  Think about it: Our hero, Peter Quill, aka StarLord (Chris Pratt), is essentially a dual/hybrid version of both Luke Skywalker and Han Solo.  You had your Princess Leia-ish character in Gamora (Zoe Saldana), your Chewbacca in Drax (David Bautista), C3P0/R2D2 in Rocket Racoon (voiced by Bradley Cooper), and Obi-Wan Kenobi in Groot (voiced by Vin Diesel).

As for the bad guys, you have your “Emperor” in Thanatos (his appearance in this film, IMHO, was a complete waste), your Grand Moff Tarkin was Ronan while your Darth Vader was Nebula (the usually very delightful Karen Gillian, virtually unrecognizable under a ton of makeup).  Nebula, like Darth Vader, (SPOILER!) escapes death at the end of the feature to appear, of course, in the sequel to come.

The plot involves the bad guy trying to get a hold of a Infinity Gem which will allow him to destroy a world (another Star Wars concept, no?), and through the course of the adventure our heroes even wind up breaking out of a prison.

Yikes.

I have to ask: If you are like me and didn’t care all that much for Star Wars, what do you suppose the odds are you’d would like a virtual clone of that film?

By this point in time, it’s silly to either recommend of urge people away from this film.  Audiences have spoken with their wallets and with the critics’ adulation.  Still, despite some humorous lines here and there, I really didn’t like this film.

I know, I fall into a very small group, the 10% of critics and 6% of audiences that didn’t like Guardians of the Galaxy.  Yet there you have it.  Unlike the vast majority of people out there, this film just didn’t do it for me.

Oh well.

Movies

10 Best and 10 Worst Sci-Fi Films of 2014

Yesterday I posted a list of 10 Worst Films of the year (read it here), today I found this list io9.com featuring a 10 Best and 10 Worst Sci-Fi Films of 2014:

http://io9.com/the-10-best-and-10-worst-science-fiction-and-fantasy-mo-1672135627

In the Best Of category, I’ve seen a whopping 5 of the 10 listed and have a sixth film (Guardians of the Galaxy) waiting for me to see on BluRay.  Of the ones I’ve seen, I concur that Edge of Tomorrow, Captain America: The Winter Soldier, Snowpiercer, and The Lego Movie were all outstanding pieces of entertainment.  The order in which I’d place them in, however, varies.

Still, if you’re hunting good sci-fi films from 2014, you can’t miss with the four listed above.

The one I disagree with is Under The Skin.  I reviewed that film a while back (read my review here) and thought the film was decent but, in the end, flawed.  Since seeing it I haven’t changed my opinion and, therefore, would not consider this work a “Top 10” release for 2014.  Strangely, IMDB lists the film as being made/released in 2013.  Based on this alone, I’m not sure why this film found its way onto this particular list.

Anyway, more food for thought for movie fans!

Movies

Worst Films of 2014

1 Comment

One can quickly list several films from the previous year one really, really enjoyed, but there is a weird fascination I have -perhaps it’s a bit of sadism- for worst film lists.

I’m certain the people behind these particular works tried hard to make the best film they could with the money/time/talent they had at their disposal but for whatever reason, the project, in the eyes of many, simply failed.

Perhaps spectacularly.

So, in honor of these failed works, a roundup of “Worst Films of 2014” lists, starting with the AV Club:

http://www.avclub.com/article/20-worst-films-2014-212689

In this particular list I’ve seen a grand total of…one film: 3 Days To Kill.  I didn’t hate that film but freely admit it wasn’t an earth shattering experience.  Still, #2 worst film of the year?  I don’t know about that.

Next up, Drew McWeeny’s list, presented in hitflix.com:

http://www.hitfix.com/motion-captured/the-worst-movies-of-2014-with-colin-farrell-johnny-depp-and-robert-downey-jr

In this case, I’ve seen exactly…none of them, though I admit being curious about Sin City: A Dame To Kill For.  I thought the original Sin City film, if nothing else, was an incredibly faithful adaptation of Frank Miller’s comic books/graphic novels.  Unfortunately, while I love the artwork and general “look” of those books, apart from the first Sin City graphic novel each subsequent story Mr. Miller presented was a little -sometimes a lot– worse than the one that preceded it.  By the time Mr. Miller reached the last of the books, which I believe was released well before the first Sin City film, whatever muse he was following had long ago abandoned him.

Mr. Weeny’s brief description of why he chose this particular film as one of his worst for 2014 touches upon some of my fears as to what to expect in this work.  Perhaps I won’t be seeing it any time soon after all…

Next up, Rolling Stone’s list:

http://www.rollingstone.com/movies/lists/10-worst-movies-of-2014-20141215

Again, saw only one film on this list: The Expendables 3.  Like 3 Days To Kill, I didn’t absolutely hate the film but can certainly understand why someone might.  It wasn’t a great film but I feel that had the other two Expendable films not been made this film would have received more positive word of mouth.  Still not saying anyone would have looked at the film as some kind of cinematic nirvana, though.

Finally, USA Today’s list of 2014 Turkeys:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/life/movies/2014/11/23/turkeys-worst-movies-2014/19185681/

The Expendables 3 makes this list as well and the others…haven’t seen ’em.

Finally, MovieInsider.com offers the following list of worst films based on a polling of ratings:

http://www.movieinsider.com/movies/worst/2014/

While looking over the various lists, what stuck me most interesting is how many right wing/christian conservative works were released in the previous year and how it appears most, if not all of them, were so ill-regarded.  In this particular list, the “worst” film is Left Behind, but in other some of the other lists above you’ll find such right wing fare as God’s Not Dead, Atlas Shrugged III, Saving Christmas, and America: Imagine a World Without Her.

I wonder if next year we’ll see even more such fare?

Movies

The Cat o’Nine Tails (1971) a (wildly) belated review

I’m fascinated with the similarities between old time murder mysteries and modern day horror films.  As “elegant” and relatively bloodless as the murder mysteries of author Agatha Christie were, if you push any one of her stories into a slightly more gorier mileiu, you have your modern horror feature.

I first realized this while watching the 1945 film version of Christie’s And Then There Were None.  In that movie, a group of disparate people are brought to an isolated island and, one by one, are killed off.  It occurred to me while watching that film that a more modern “take” of the story could highlight the messy deaths of the various characters over the tone and mystery of the story itself.

Director Dario Argento, best known for his “giallo” horror films, further proves my point with his second major work, The Cat o’Nine Tails.  The story goes like this: A blind man named Franco Arno (Karl Malden) and his adopted daughter live near a high tech research facility specializing in genetic mapping.  While walking back home one evening, the duo pass by a parked vehicle.  Inside, one of the scientists from that institute is talking to an unknown and shadowy individual.

Arno’s heightened sense of hearing picks up the fact that the scientist is trying to blackmail his mysterious companion.  That night the scientist is indeed killed, and Arno, with the help of reporter Carlo Giordani (James Franciscus), set out to find the killer…even as the bodies start to pile up and the killer targets them.

By today’s standards, The Cat o’Nine Tails is a dated piece of work.  I saw the American dubbed version and it is my understanding the original Italian version is a better overall film.  Still, what I saw was engaging enough but never got my pulse racing.  The mystery is rather hard to follow as the various suspects are given only short screen time before, for the most part, they’re killed.  The story picks up a bit when the murderer puts Arno, Giordani, and Arno’s adoptive daughter in his crosshairs, but we’re talking about the later stages of the film by that point.

What is intriguing is that you see what I was talking about before, the evolution of the murder mystery towards horror in this work, in this film.  The story could easily have been an Agatha Christie type mystery involving all the standard Christie-type characters.  The old blind man is effectively a character like Christie’s Ms. Marple.  The dashing and handsome reporter is your typical mystery hero type…on the job and, when the time comes, more than willing to use his fists.  Oh, and he’s a hit with the ladies (in this movie’s case, lady) as well.  The suspects, too, form a typical Christie circle of well-to-do’s who on the surface appear elegant and well-spoken yet underneath lurk some very dark secrets.

The murders, compared to the movie version of And Then There Were None, are much more “in your face”.  There is more blood and gore, though again by today’s standards nothing terribly shocking.

In the end, if you’re in the mood for some cinematic archeology and would like to see a movie that bridges the gap between the older, more “polite” murder mysteries of yesteryear and the gorier, more “in your face” horror films of today, you might find The Cat o’Nine Tails an interesting curio.  This applies double for fans of the works of Dario Argento.  Otherwise and given the movie’s dated tone and pace, you may want to stay away.  The Cat o’Nine Tails might have been strong stuff back when it was released, but by today’s standards is a far more sedate experience.

Movies

The Expendables 3 (2014) a (very mildly) belated review

Back in 2012, while reviewing The Expendables 2, I wrote the following regarding the first Expendables film:

So you have this old friend who tells you a new story involving people from your youth.  This story plays on nostalgia and features plenty of old faces in familiar situations.  By the end of the story, you smile.  You’ve enjoyed yourself perhaps a little more than you would have because of the nostalgia value.  The story presented, after all, wasn’t all that earth-shattering or, to be blunt, particularly good.

I went on to state that while I enjoyed the first Expendables film and felt the second was an overall better work, the problem with The Expendables 2 was that it didn’t benefit from the lure of nostalgia as much as the first and therefore didn’t appeal as much as the first.

Fast forward to 2014 and the release of The Expendables 3.  This time around, one big name (Bruce Willis) is gone, replaced by an arguably bigger name, Harrison Ford.  The villain of this piece, played by Mel Gibson, is also a far better known and accomplished actor (if more controversial) than either Eric Roberts (E1) or Jean Claude Van Damme (E2).

So, is The Expendables 3 any good?

For my money, this is the best of the three Expendables films.  Having said that, it still isn’t all that great a film.

The movie starts off quite horribly, with a very unimpressive (and filled with absolutely terrible CGI) action set piece involving an Expendables raid on a prison train carrying Doc (Wesley Snipes), one of their “lost” members.  Thankfully, that terrible opening leads to a far better action sequence involving arms dealers in Somalia.  It turns out the Expendables’ target, Stonebanks (Mel Gibson), was the co-founder of the group and one time best friend/partner of Stallone’s Barney Ross.  He is a man Ross thought he killed years before and the hatred between the two is palpable.  It is their hatred that raises this movie’s stakes higher and makes what follows more personal than what we had in the previous two films.  Stallone and Gibson are given wonderful opportunities to play off each other, something the other Expendable films never had.

The hatred between Ross and Stonebanks leads to the Expendables leader dropping his co-horts and hiring a new crew because he’s more willing to risk their lives than his “family’s”.  A cold blooded decision, certainly, but it is a cold blooded business.

But Ross grows to respect and, yes, love this new group just as much as the old and when they fall prey to Stonebanks he is forced to rescue them with the aid of his old team plus a new entry (Antonio Banderas, delightfully wacky).  Much mayhem follows.

Strangely, I had a Wild Bunch feeling for the later half of the film and was hoping we were headed in that particular direction.  Alas, the film goes too soft in the end and the triumph is never quite matched with sadness.

A further note:  It was fun to see Harrison Ford, Arnold Schwarzenegger, and Jet Li in their smallish roles in the film.  I thought they were used just enough to amuse us but not too little (E1) or too much (E2).

In conclusion, if you enjoyed the first couple of Expendables films you should enjoy the third.  The draw, once again, lies in the nostalgia factor and seeing several icons of yesteryear inhabit the same movie frame.

Too bad the film goes a little too soft in the end.

Movies

Best/Worst Movies of 2014

Yeah, we’re not quite done with 2014 yet, but Entertainment Weekly already has their 10 Best and 5 Worst Films of the year:

http://www.ew.com/ew/gallery/0,,20326356_20879243,00.html

As usual, my interest winds up being just how many of these films I’ve seen…or want to see.

In this year’s case, I have not seen any of their “worst” five.  My wife caught Monuments Men on a long flight and thought it was “ok”, but I never had much of a desire to see it.  For that matter, the other four movies on this list are also films I have very little desire to see and, given the huge amount of stuff I would like to eventually like to get to, doubt I’ll catch those particular films.

As for the 10 Best, I’ve seen a grand total of two, Grand Budapest Hotel and Snowpiercer.  I loved, loved, loved Snowpiercer (#8) and thought it was one of the more ambitious sci-fi films of recent vintage.  Grand Budapest Hotel was fun and often laugh out loud funny, but as much as I liked it I don’t know if it was worth being considered the #3 film of the past year (opinions, as they say, are subjective).

I have Jodorowsky’s Dune (#10) on BluRay waiting for me to see it when I have the time and am interested in seeing Guardians of the Galaxy (#6, missed it when it was making a ton of cash in theaters), Gone Girl (#7), and Birdman (#9).  The remaining films on this list also look interesting but, again, I don’t know if I’ll find the time to see any of them.

Off to look for other “best/worst” of lists!