Posted by Chad Van Alstin
The blog is officially on an indefinite hiatus. We're both too damn busy to make the current format work. Expect a rebirth -- a change to the format -- hopefully coming soon. Brad and I are getting together for a "peace beer" tomorrow night in hopes of figuring out what we want to do with the blog.
We both really enjoy writing about movies, but the alternating post format doesn't always work, especially when Brad and I agree on the films (which often happens).
We'll hopefully be back soon.
-Chad
Tuesday, June 19, 2012
Thursday, June 14, 2012
Chad's Take: Prometheus (2012) - 3.5 Stars
Prometheus is a Ridley Scott film, so it’s no surprise that it looks absolutely incredible. The visuals are dark, haunting, and truly original. This is the best looking movie I have seen this year, and it may very well be one of the best looking science fiction films of all time.
If you’re looking for scares, you will still find a lot of great horror moments in Prometheus, many of which will bring back memories of the original Alien (1979). One scene in particular, involving an emergency extraction surgery, is the modern equivalent of the famous 'chest burst' scene that shocked audiences more than 30 years ago.
Wednesday, June 13, 2012
Brad's Take: Prometheus - ***1/2
Hey! Remember when Ridley Scott used to direct great films? Neither do I, because I wasn't born yet. Okay, there was Matchstick Men, but even that was almost ten years ago now. For the last decade plus, Scott has been busy crafting lofty, "respectable" films, historical epics and quaint dramas about wineries. I realize that this all sounds incredibly negative, but I bring it up in this way only to communicate the excitement that I was certainly not alone in feeling now that Scott has shucked all of this shameless Oscar-bait and has returned to the genre he helped legitimize thirty years ago with the modern sci-fi epic/pseudo Alien prequel, Prometheus. And, while I'm guessing that some will be disappointed, maybe even dislike it intensely, I say Prometheus delivers... For the most part.
Prometheus follows a crew traveling through space to a distant planet where a duo of archaeologists, Holloway and Shaw (Logan Marshall Green and a brilliantly faux-frail, surprisingly survivalist Noomi Repace), believe human life originated. Hoping to find Life's Engineers, they've convinced Peter Weland (the "W" of Alien's Weyland Yutani Corp.) to fund an expensive mission, which enlists a cold, apathetic Charlize Theron (continuing her streak of appearing in "the best movie of the summer so far" (cameo in That's My Boy?)) as the ship's commander, Idris Elba as a goofy redneck-of-the-future, playing the ship's captain, and Michael Fasbender as the ship's android companion (an Alien staple), deceptively carrying out a secret agenda while modeling his mannerisms and speech patterns after Peter O'Toole from Lawrence of Arabia, which is quite good, and quite effectively unsettling. All, of course, are joined by a handful of other doomed souls who will demonstrate the horrors of the alien menace contained on the planet in the disguised exposition of act two... And I say that with the utmost adoration.
Amidst all of the body horror (which includes throat snakes and eyeball worms, among others I'll not mention here) and the steadily rising level of suspense and dread are some deeper, more existential questions, and this where the film gets really interesting, and also where it ultimately falls a bit short. A film about the search for the creation of life naturally poses an unanswerable question, and though the film posits an interesting theoretical answer early on, replacing it with a more disturbing question, asking why our creators wanted to destroy us. The film leaves this question unanswered as a tease for the sequel, a copout for sure, though I must admit one that absolutely piques my curiosity. Also running parallel to this issue of creation is that of religion vs. science, though I'm not exactly sure where the film falls on the topic. Though the film is essentially about curiosity itself, this unanswered thematic ambiguity mounts throughout the film, setting up an inevitable feeling of slight disappointment in the end.
But that's focusing on the negative, especially unfair considering it actually has the courage to ask grand philosophical questions, the closest to which we've had this summer being "How does Bruce not constantly turn into The Hulk?" And what's more important, at least in summer movie terms, is that its action and the scale of its spectacle are just as big as its unanswered questions. Scott and his cinematographer, Dariusz Wolski, create an darkly enchanting experience that is bleak and beautiful. Using real, wide-open landscapes, Prometheus is as overwhelmingly huge as Alien was cramped and claustrophobic. Combined with an elegant use of 3D, this film is visually unmatched, and is the first time I've been less impressed when seeing the 2D presentation the second time around. Scott also heeds the advice he received from effects master Douglas Trumbull on the set of Blade Runner: "If you can do it live, do it live," which makes for a (mostly) minimal use of CGI, and gives the world of the film that much more dimension.
Prometheus also deserves a lot of credit for its originality. Reboots, remakes, sequels, and the like are getting very stale, and Prometheus offers a new way to build on a franchise, (very refreshing if the practice must continue), for it is really only technically a prequel... That is more of an extra tidbit, for it is completely its own film with its own characters and mythology. It just so happens that it also sets up a previously established film series, and while its handling of this tie- in at the very end was a little ham-fisted, the idea is no less interesting for it. And while this may not have been the brilliant masterpiece we all hoped it would be, it'll certainly do for now, and I suspect it will endure. If nothing else it's a welcome return to sci-fi for Ridley Scott, and a strong case for the potential of 3D as a genuine cinematic device. Bravo.
Tuesday, June 12, 2012
A Quick Update!
Posted by: Chad Van Alstin
Brad and I had settled on doing Ridley Scott's Prometheus for the movie this week. However, the reviews are delayed. Both of us have full time jobs, and are free time is becoming quite limited. While we loving having our friendship destroyed in this public forum, finding the time to throw our sticks and stones has been a little bit difficult.
We'll be getting the reviews up sometime later this week; just in time for some discussion.
Stay tuned.
-Chad
Brad and I had settled on doing Ridley Scott's Prometheus for the movie this week. However, the reviews are delayed. Both of us have full time jobs, and are free time is becoming quite limited. While we loving having our friendship destroyed in this public forum, finding the time to throw our sticks and stones has been a little bit difficult.
We'll be getting the reviews up sometime later this week; just in time for some discussion.
Stay tuned.
-Chad
Saturday, June 9, 2012
Entry 9: RE: "Snow White" - Full Disclosure
Posted by: Bradley Redder
Well, since this will likely be the last word on Snow White (though with all of your pestering attempts to side-step the movie itself, it feels a bit like the first word), I'll admit that my rating of the film was bumped up when I saw your lax 2.5 stars, shocking after reading your post-screening texts describing it as "a waste of money" and "boring crap." So I took my modest 3 star rating and elevated it to bring out the ire in you.
That said, I changed nothing in my review, and still feel that it was a solid summer movie (easily the best to date). I have to admit that don't really understand your complaint about the CGI. Maybe I'm just a little thick in the head, but you're essentially criticizing something you say you liked. I'm far from the world's biggest fan of CGI, but I think Snow White's use of it was much more elegant than a typical movie; rather than pit a bunch of animated characters against each other, whether giant, super-powered, robotic, or beast-like, it used it more in its backgrounds to shape and fill out its world. You say it relies on it completely, and I say you're mistaken. The Avengers relies on it far more than this film, and at least this one does, as you say, make it look cool. While I would have loved to see an actual set with natural light that looked this beautiful and inviting, at least I got that beauty in some form... Visual appeal/beauty being another element lacking in the CGI-laced Avengers.
Not to simply bring back your words on other films, but given that my reaction to this particular film is heavily influenced by its position as the first gratifying film of the summer, I'll continue doing so anyway. You praised Tim Burton's visuals in Dark Shadows pretty highly, yet for some reason decry the same use of CGI backgrounds in Snow White? What up with that?
Again, I'm not saying that it's not a legitimate complaint, and also again, I am increasingly upset by the strong reliance on CGI in movies these days, but I can't complain too loudly when it is used to such a visually appealing end as it is in Snow White, and I think the thoroughness of its beauty softened me up and put me on tilt to accept and genuinely care about its admittedly stock characters. And if that sounds like a condescending comment, it's really not, but is really said with the utmost admiration. The film is far from perfect, but very far from "boring crap."
Well, since this will likely be the last word on Snow White (though with all of your pestering attempts to side-step the movie itself, it feels a bit like the first word), I'll admit that my rating of the film was bumped up when I saw your lax 2.5 stars, shocking after reading your post-screening texts describing it as "a waste of money" and "boring crap." So I took my modest 3 star rating and elevated it to bring out the ire in you.
That said, I changed nothing in my review, and still feel that it was a solid summer movie (easily the best to date). I have to admit that don't really understand your complaint about the CGI. Maybe I'm just a little thick in the head, but you're essentially criticizing something you say you liked. I'm far from the world's biggest fan of CGI, but I think Snow White's use of it was much more elegant than a typical movie; rather than pit a bunch of animated characters against each other, whether giant, super-powered, robotic, or beast-like, it used it more in its backgrounds to shape and fill out its world. You say it relies on it completely, and I say you're mistaken. The Avengers relies on it far more than this film, and at least this one does, as you say, make it look cool. While I would have loved to see an actual set with natural light that looked this beautiful and inviting, at least I got that beauty in some form... Visual appeal/beauty being another element lacking in the CGI-laced Avengers.
Not to simply bring back your words on other films, but given that my reaction to this particular film is heavily influenced by its position as the first gratifying film of the summer, I'll continue doing so anyway. You praised Tim Burton's visuals in Dark Shadows pretty highly, yet for some reason decry the same use of CGI backgrounds in Snow White? What up with that?
Again, I'm not saying that it's not a legitimate complaint, and also again, I am increasingly upset by the strong reliance on CGI in movies these days, but I can't complain too loudly when it is used to such a visually appealing end as it is in Snow White, and I think the thoroughness of its beauty softened me up and put me on tilt to accept and genuinely care about its admittedly stock characters. And if that sounds like a condescending comment, it's really not, but is really said with the utmost admiration. The film is far from perfect, but very far from "boring crap."
Entry 8: RE: "Snow White" - CGI all up in here!
Posted by Chad Van Alstin
Of course it has CGI. I'm not opposed to CGI; I'm even known to occasionally love it.
My point was that Snow White relies entirely on CGI to push the film forward. Every scene seems to be about creating a cool looking effect, and it only sometimes succeeds.
It sacrifices story just to create some cool looking images. Let's face it, this is a fairy tale you can read in three minutes, and they stretched that story into over two hours, adding very little in the process. There's so much filler in Snow White, and all of that filler is just CGI for the sake of CGI.
I just don't see the emotional element here that you talk about in your review. There's nothing about this movie that even pushes a human element -- even falsely. Who am I supposed to empathize with? These are incredibly fictional characters from an age old story, and they haven't changed a bit.
The dwarfs look fantastic. However, I wasn't able to relate to them, or care about them at all. Their presence in the story helped provide familiarity -- nothing more. They added absolutely nothing to the story, and I don't think they were a necessary addition to the film.
Of course it has CGI. I'm not opposed to CGI; I'm even known to occasionally love it.
My point was that Snow White relies entirely on CGI to push the film forward. Every scene seems to be about creating a cool looking effect, and it only sometimes succeeds.
It sacrifices story just to create some cool looking images. Let's face it, this is a fairy tale you can read in three minutes, and they stretched that story into over two hours, adding very little in the process. There's so much filler in Snow White, and all of that filler is just CGI for the sake of CGI.
I just don't see the emotional element here that you talk about in your review. There's nothing about this movie that even pushes a human element -- even falsely. Who am I supposed to empathize with? These are incredibly fictional characters from an age old story, and they haven't changed a bit.
The dwarfs look fantastic. However, I wasn't able to relate to them, or care about them at all. Their presence in the story helped provide familiarity -- nothing more. They added absolutely nothing to the story, and I don't think they were a necessary addition to the film.
Entry 7: RE: "Snow White" - (Scratching Head)
Posted by: Bradley Redder
Umm... ... ...Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.
Hm.
So let me get this straight... I ask for a legitimate complaint against something in Snow White, rather than an unnecessary comparison to Lord of the Rings, which you clearly see as a better film (I, again, may or may not), and you choose to attack it for having too much CGI? CGI that you find visually appealing, even! I am going to do something uncharacteristic here and not launch into a long-winded diatribe on the topic, because I'm confident that even your Lord of the Rings cosplay lackeys will see the absurdity in your approach. However, I will address your complaint against Snow White.
I never said that there was no CGI in the film. Of course there's CGI in it... it's a film produced in 2012! Isn't it contractually obligated to have CGI? What I did say was that it was used only when necessary, and that it elects smaller moments over huge, long, drawn-out, tireless CGI action spectacles. Instead it uses its CGI to create a world, and an atmosphere, which it does quite beautifully, as you say so yourself. How many times did someone get hit with a sword, only to shatter into glass? We saw this maybe eight or ten times... Ravenna used those glass beings as misdirection, and that's exactly how the film treats them. There could have been a huge battle with them scaling walls on ladders while their buddies attack from behind with catapults and flaming arrows, but instead we get a few to give us an idea of what they are, and what Ravenna is capable of. And most of them are hit as background action to a more present, a more flesh-and-blood dramatic event: the showdown between Snow White and Ravenna. How many times did someone turn into butterflies? I don't remember seeing that, so I'll say once? How many times did someone turn into a flock of birds? Ravenna did this a few times, maybe three? Either way, I say CGI was used when needed, and more importantly, the real sets, the real costumes, make-up, props... The entirety of Snow White's production design were carefully created to seamlessly incorporate its CG elements... When something isn't real, it still looks good... I'm still drawn into the world of the film by whatever it is, be it glass soldier, flock of birds, or apple (though I don't remember that as CG, maybe when it decays over twelve years to show the passage of time and transformation of the landscape under Ravenna's evil, hopeless reign?).
Given that our time is running low, I'd like to hear what you have to say about the dwarves. I spent a good portion of my review raving about this, and am curious to know what you thought of them. I say they looked exquisite, and were also good characters. And boy, that list of adjectives must be getting pretty long if you're spending so much time on it. You can post it in installments if you want... It doesn't have to be all at once.
Hm.
 |
| "There's a lot of CGI here." |
Hmm.
 |
| "There's so much damn CGI here that at times it actually starts to bother me." |
Hmmmmm.
 | |
|
 |
| "If you're looking for a movie that's limited on the CGI and instead focuses more on set design and actors..." |
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.
 |
| "...I may have some examples (wink, wink)." |
Given that our time is running low, I'd like to hear what you have to say about the dwarves. I spent a good portion of my review raving about this, and am curious to know what you thought of them. I say they looked exquisite, and were also good characters. And boy, that list of adjectives must be getting pretty long if you're spending so much time on it. You can post it in installments if you want... It doesn't have to be all at once.
Entry 6: RE: "Snow White" - Even the apples are computer generated!
Posted by Chad Van Alstin
Ok, really? Did you really not think Snow White was loaded with CGI? There's so much
damn CGI here that at times it actually starts to bother me. How many times did
someone get hit with a sword only to shatter into glass, turn into butterflies,
or morph into a flock of birds?
Even the apple given to Snow White by the Evil Queen is computer generated.
Even the apple given to Snow White by the Evil Queen is computer generated.
There's a lot of CGI here. If you're looking for a movie that's limited on the CGI and instead focuses more on set design and actors, I may have some examples (wink, wink). See, this is where talking about Snow White with you is going to be really hard; we can't even agree about what was on screen.
What I saw was a film loaded with CGI in virtually every background and every scene. While most of it looked great, it still relies entirely on CGI to give the film its look and feel.
I have no idea what movie you saw, but we didn't see the same one.
Entry 5: RE: "Snow White" - Apples
Posted by: Bradley Redder
This ploy you've conceived with your silver (maybe downgraded to bronze?) tongue almost seems like a trick the seductive, manipulative Ravenna would devise in Snow White. She had that devious touch that was amplified by a hopeless lust for power via immortality that got the best of her in the end, too. So stop trying to get me to bite into those poisoned Lord of the Rings apples of yours. By the way, how are those adjectives for LOTR characters coming along? Talking in circles naturally leads to the omission of thoughts that weren't originally part of the track, but could you kindly make a pitstop from your loquacious raceway to answer the question, please? If not, then how about we shut the fuck up about Lord of the Rings already...
Entry 4: RE: "Snow White" - The Unfairest of Them All
Posted by: Bradley Redder
I'm not entirely sure why you posted that video, but thank you for doing so. My guess is you secretly feel guilty about the bullshit you're trying to pull with this Lord of the Rings question, and want to be found out, otherwise you wouldn't have chosen a video that so clearly delineates our roles in its scenario... I read it as I'm the wronged angel who is being set up by a crooked lawyer (you) by using cheap theatrics to shock the jury; everybody knows I'm in the right, but how can you stare at a child accusing molestation and tell him to shut his mouth? In our case, if you're not following, the child and anatomically correct doll represent Lord of the Rings.
I don't understand why you need a frame of reference to talk about this. Have you that little to complain about the actual film that you're willing to spend half of your posts re-iterating a useless question? If we talk about a sci-fi film (like next week!) do I have to tell you how it stacks up to 2001 or Star Wars? Do I have to compare a movie that has sharks to Jaws? It makes no sense, this question you insist on asking. If you say my praise is baseless, that's fine, but poke holes in the actual praise I've sewn... Don't pull out a whole new tapestry. And for what it's worth, I think Snow White owes its existence much more to Tim Burton's demonically overwrought Alice in Wonderland rather than your "precious" Lord of the Rings trilogy.
Maybe your brain cannot wrap itself around my praise because it's already occupied wrapping itself around those circles in which you're busy talking. You're question still makes no sense, and has no relevance, and I stand by my parallel question. You know my feelings on those films, and all you're trying to do is frame the argument in such a way that I cannot have a fair chance at being taken seriously: If I say Snow is better than Rings, you blast me for taking down such a highly praised cinematic achievement, and invoke popular opinion to bury me as a contrarian, yet if I concede that Rings is better than Snow, you take the comment out of context and say that I admit it is a generally inferior film.
Well, I won't give in. We can discuss that trilogy of yours on here in its own week, if you like, but I think you owe it to our legions of fans to actually make a legitimate point on Snow White at some point.
 |
| From the brilliant Lord of the Rings |
I'm not entirely sure why you posted that video, but thank you for doing so. My guess is you secretly feel guilty about the bullshit you're trying to pull with this Lord of the Rings question, and want to be found out, otherwise you wouldn't have chosen a video that so clearly delineates our roles in its scenario... I read it as I'm the wronged angel who is being set up by a crooked lawyer (you) by using cheap theatrics to shock the jury; everybody knows I'm in the right, but how can you stare at a child accusing molestation and tell him to shut his mouth? In our case, if you're not following, the child and anatomically correct doll represent Lord of the Rings.
I don't understand why you need a frame of reference to talk about this. Have you that little to complain about the actual film that you're willing to spend half of your posts re-iterating a useless question? If we talk about a sci-fi film (like next week!) do I have to tell you how it stacks up to 2001 or Star Wars? Do I have to compare a movie that has sharks to Jaws? It makes no sense, this question you insist on asking. If you say my praise is baseless, that's fine, but poke holes in the actual praise I've sewn... Don't pull out a whole new tapestry. And for what it's worth, I think Snow White owes its existence much more to Tim Burton's demonically overwrought Alice in Wonderland rather than your "precious" Lord of the Rings trilogy.
Maybe your brain cannot wrap itself around my praise because it's already occupied wrapping itself around those circles in which you're busy talking. You're question still makes no sense, and has no relevance, and I stand by my parallel question. You know my feelings on those films, and all you're trying to do is frame the argument in such a way that I cannot have a fair chance at being taken seriously: If I say Snow is better than Rings, you blast me for taking down such a highly praised cinematic achievement, and invoke popular opinion to bury me as a contrarian, yet if I concede that Rings is better than Snow, you take the comment out of context and say that I admit it is a generally inferior film.
Well, I won't give in. We can discuss that trilogy of yours on here in its own week, if you like, but I think you owe it to our legions of fans to actually make a legitimate point on Snow White at some point.
Entry 3: RE: "Snow White" - If it would please the court...
Posted by: Chad Van Alstin
The reason why my question matters, Bradley, is because I don't think Snow White would have ever seen the light of day if not for the Lord of the Rings films. This movie borrows so heavily from the formula set down by Lord of the Rings that it's impossible not to make a comparison; unless you always imagined Snow White battling trolls and sieging castles, army in tow.
Further, Lord of the Rings is the only real frame of reference we have when judging a fantasy film like Snow White. Your questions about the Godfather trilogy and Star Wars trilogy are far, far less relevant, as those are completely different types of movies. Their influence of each other is not obvious.
Basically, I think we need to put your review of Snow White into perspective -- how does this fantasy epic match up to others in the genre? I admit that, since most people with quality taste laud the Lord of the Rings, my asking is a little bit of a dirty tactic. However, I think it's still very relevant to the discussion nonetheless.
Look, there's a lot we can debate about with Snow White, but my brain is still having an incredibly difficult time wrapping itself around your baseless praise. I need a proper frame of reference; I need to understand where you're coming from.
So, is Snow White a better film than Lord of the Rings?
Thursday, June 7, 2012
Entry 2: RE: "Snow White" - Objection
Posted by: Bradley Redder
Regardless, your courtroom antics will get you nowhere here. How dare you ask such an irrelevant question to open the proceedings here! How dare you invoke the most well-received fantasy series in recent memory, if not all time, one on which you know my contrary feelings already, and ask me to compare a completely unrelated film to it in the hopes of winning the jury over to your side by default... How dare you! Well, I refuse to give an answer (which may be yes, may be no) to that question until you explain why it is necessary to this discussion.
In my client's defense, to address to the only actual point you made, before all of your tantalizing theatrics, I think the amount of character development is perfectly suitable for this type of film. Fairy tales rely on stock characters like princesses and heroes, and stock dynamics like good vs. evil. Why should my client, a re-imagining of such a story, be any different? What I did like was what the actors brought to these portrayals... Charlize Theron's slightly over-the-top, yet all-too-human jealous rage and the way Rupert Sanders captured her expressive eyes (my favorite such shot from the trailer (in fact the image displayed on the the trailer to the right (which oddly isn't really in the trailer)) didn't make it into the film), oozing menace and manipulation. And Chris Hemsworth's noble grieving drunkard has the same spirit he has as Thor: Very strong, powerful, and knowledgeable, yet emotionally vulnerable (in the film Thor, not in the all-encompassingly invulnerable The Avengers) and compassionate to those whom his actions affect.
But if character in fantasy films is what you seek, and Lord of the Rings is what you're pushing, then how about giving me an adjective or two describing, oh, I don't know, Gimli? Legolas? Arwen? ...Elrond? And "stoic" or "good with bow or axe" are not acceptable.
In a related quandary, I think it's safe to say that without the success of The Godfather and the original Star Wars films popularizing the trilogy format, a trilogy like Lord of the Rings would never have seen the light of day. Before we continue, I would like you, Chad Van Alstin, to answer a simple question for me:
Is Lord of the Rings a better trilogy than both The Godfather and the original Star Wars trilogies?
Please, try to keep your answer objective. I just think the legions of This Week's Movie fans deserve to hear the answer, before they decide to cease taking you seriously.
I know you refuse to actually sit down and watch one of those LOTR films with me for fear of me exposing their flaws to your blissfully ignorant blind adoration of them, but perhaps you'd be willing to discuss them on here some week when there is no worthy release in theaters... Say June 15? Although I don't know if I have forty-six hours to spend watching a film trilogy between now and then, so maybe another time. That is, if you think you could actually find enough in them (objectively, something you seem to be fond of) to actually defend. If not, could you please pick up my gauntlet and hand it back to me?
I know you refuse to actually sit down and watch one of those LOTR films with me for fear of me exposing their flaws to your blissfully ignorant blind adoration of them, but perhaps you'd be willing to discuss them on here some week when there is no worthy release in theaters... Say June 15? Although I don't know if I have forty-six hours to spend watching a film trilogy between now and then, so maybe another time. That is, if you think you could actually find enough in them (objectively, something you seem to be fond of) to actually defend. If not, could you please pick up my gauntlet and hand it back to me?
Entry 1: RE: "Snow White" - One Fantasy to Rule Them All
Posted by: Chad Van Alstin
Your praise for this very average film officially makes your film taste unpredictable -- and that isn't a compliment. While I think that there is some value to be had here in terms of the visuals, everything else about this movie really falls flat.
I wouldn't have minded the complete lack of character development if this movie was just more fun. Sadly, I didn't really enjoy any of the action at all; there's just nothing special about it.
What we have here is an art film that isn't smartly done, and instead relies entirely on its visual presentation (which has some serious issues) to sell itself. Snow White is a really weak movie. While I don't necessarily mind an action-packed Snow White re-telling, I think that some care could have been taken to bulk up the characters and setting.
I think it's safe to say that without the success of the Lord of the Rings movies a film like Snow White would never have seen the light of day. Before we continue I want you, Brad Redder, to answer a simple question for me:
Please, try to keep your answer objective. I just think the legions of This Week's Movie fans deserve to hear the answer, before they decide to cease taking you seriously.
Your praise for this very average film officially makes your film taste unpredictable -- and that isn't a compliment. While I think that there is some value to be had here in terms of the visuals, everything else about this movie really falls flat.
I wouldn't have minded the complete lack of character development if this movie was just more fun. Sadly, I didn't really enjoy any of the action at all; there's just nothing special about it.
What we have here is an art film that isn't smartly done, and instead relies entirely on its visual presentation (which has some serious issues) to sell itself. Snow White is a really weak movie. While I don't necessarily mind an action-packed Snow White re-telling, I think that some care could have been taken to bulk up the characters and setting.
I think it's safe to say that without the success of the Lord of the Rings movies a film like Snow White would never have seen the light of day. Before we continue I want you, Brad Redder, to answer a simple question for me:
Is Snow White and the Huntsman a better film than the Lord of the Rings trilogy?
Please, try to keep your answer objective. I just think the legions of This Week's Movie fans deserve to hear the answer, before they decide to cease taking you seriously.
Wednesday, June 6, 2012
Brad's Take: Snow White & the Huntsman - ***1/2
I walked into Snow White & the Huntsman with the honest thought that there is no reason for it to be good... The second re-imagining of Snow White in as many months, this time as a big-budget, epic action/adventure spectacle? Pshaw. Perhaps it was just the suffocating air-headedness of this season's summer offering thus far draining my optimism and conditioning me to expect to just not give a damn about what I'm watching, because not only was this new Snow White the first movie of the summer that has kept me from dozing off for a cool five minutes, but it also seemed surprisingly fresh and original at times.
And why wouldn't an adventurous take on Snow White be good? While I'm not familiar with the actual fairy tale, I have seen the Disney film, and anyone who's truly honest will admit that something needed to be done differently than it was in that overrated albeit gorgeously animated classic. In this incarnation we see the dark side of Charlize Theron in a brilliantly-conceived performance as Ravenna, who seduces her way into marrying the king of an unnamed land, killing him, and locking his daughter, Snow White (a sometimes bland, sometimes rousing Kristen Stewart), away for years, while she steals the youth of the land's maidens. Snow White's number comes up when Ravenna discovers that Snow's heart will grant her eternal youth, and after Snow escapes into the dark woods, Ravenna coerces The Huntsman, a grieving drunkard of a widower (played with the humor and gentle masculinity that I've come to appreciate from Chris Hemsworth) into bringing Snow back alive.
It's a rather simple premise, but I find myself abundantly willing to continue laying it all out, but a good movie is not about the what, but about the how, and Snow White is, for better or worse, pleasingly fundamental. Director Rupert Sanders, perhaps thanks to clear-cut fairy tale conventions, gives us instantly understandable characters whose motivations are never ambiguous, yet lets each of his actors add touches that transform dangerously stock characters into real people... who happen to live in a fantasy world where magic exists. Sanders makes us care about what happens to these people, even though we essentially already know, something that seems to be a difficulty among recent action spectacles. He takes the time to introduce us to this world and its narrative, before slinging the giant trolls and mischievously hostile dwarfs upon us, and mercifully keeps the CGI to a minimum, using it only when necessary, while most of the time focusing on actual sets and props, and flesh-and-blood people.
Most impressive of all, Sanders manages to make this large-scale epic feel somewhat low-key and personal, bathing his characters in seemingly natural light and using a lot of effective handheld camera-work to draw us in. Visually, it's absolutely hypnotic. While generally solid all-around, Snow White is certainly at its best when carving its own unique way through the material. It's handling of the dwarfs is inspired, to say the least. I'm not sure how the filmmakers pulled it off, but they cast half a dozen of the best character actors to play them, and somehow made them look absolutely believable at half their actual height. I spent the second half the film in awe of whatever sorcery resulted in Ian McShane and Toby Jones appearing to be three-feet tall and still be able to carry dramatic weight.
Banal narration in the prologue aside, even the moments Snow White feels boxed in by its limiting conventions are handled with subtle grace. Surprised to find myself so involved in the film two-thirds of the way through, I started to cringe when anticipating how the mythical true love's kiss that revives Snow White after biting the poisoned apple would be handled, only to be soothed by its tenderness and sincerity. The scene is followed immediately by another potentially cringeworthy call to arms, by Snow White herself, that blindsided me into a rousing sympathy for the cause.
Though somewhat standard at times, Snow White & the Huntsman elects for smaller, more emotionally engaging and perceptually intriguing moments, rather than never-ending, CGI-filled, mindlessly droning action sequences, and it's all the better for it. A technical wonder with occasional short periods of narrative dullness, it's quite memorable, if not downright extraordinary.
Chad's Take: "Snow White and the Huntsman" - 2.5 Stars
Yes, in this version of the film there are battles between armies and some vicious fantastical monsters; however, these elements do very little in terms of adding something new to the same old story. Instead these scenes feel like additions made only to meet the audience's fantasy film expectations.
The epic battles (which don't seem all that epic) feel like an aside to the fairy tale and don't mesh very well into the story. We're told that Snow White is supposed to lead an army against the Evil Queen and restore her father's kingdom, but the reasons behind Snow White's charisma aren't properly articulated and are never well examined.
Monday, June 4, 2012
This Week's Movie - 6/4-6/10
Posted by: Bradley Redder
Snow White & the Huntsman
Directed by Rupert Sanders
Written Evan Daugherty and John Lee Hancock
Starring, Kristen Stewart, Chris Hemsworth, Charlize Theron, Sam Claflin, Sam Spruell, Ian McShane, Bob Hoskins, Ray Winstone, Nick Frost, Toby Jones, Eddie Marsan
Well, it's that time of the week... The time when I pretend like I had any plan of posting this announcement sooner than now, apologize, and then describe my expectations for this week's movie as though I haven't already seen it...
I'm sorry for the tardiness of this post... I meant to announce next week's movie a few days ago, when we decided we'd be doing the new take on Snow White, Snow White & the Huntsman, but time just got away from me, and now it's Sunday night again. I should probably be feeling a little bit more dread about this upcoming viewing experience, but I'm strangely optimistic that it will be satisfying in some way. We'll see. Reviews this week will be posted Tuesday, with discussion to follow throughout the rest of the week.
Also, how cool is the image below, with the "play" button perfectly placed beneath Charlize's eyes and above her lips, with the triangle looking like a surrogate clown nose?
Directed by Rupert Sanders
Written Evan Daugherty and John Lee Hancock
Starring, Kristen Stewart, Chris Hemsworth, Charlize Theron, Sam Claflin, Sam Spruell, Ian McShane, Bob Hoskins, Ray Winstone, Nick Frost, Toby Jones, Eddie Marsan
Well, it's that time of the week... The time when I pretend like I had any plan of posting this announcement sooner than now, apologize, and then describe my expectations for this week's movie as though I haven't already seen it...
I'm sorry for the tardiness of this post... I meant to announce next week's movie a few days ago, when we decided we'd be doing the new take on Snow White, Snow White & the Huntsman, but time just got away from me, and now it's Sunday night again. I should probably be feeling a little bit more dread about this upcoming viewing experience, but I'm strangely optimistic that it will be satisfying in some way. We'll see. Reviews this week will be posted Tuesday, with discussion to follow throughout the rest of the week.
Also, how cool is the image below, with the "play" button perfectly placed beneath Charlize's eyes and above her lips, with the triangle looking like a surrogate clown nose?
Saturday, June 2, 2012
Entry 7: RE: "MIB3" - Just to Be "Clear" Pt. 2
Posted by: Bradley Redder
It's not the water in the toilet that I'd be concerned about... It's the bowl itself. The water may be clean going in, but once it has sat there festering in whatever germination and bacteria have settled on the porcelain after who knows how many bare asses have squatted down to mercilessly loose their demonoid bowels into the frail bowl, this so-called "dish-ware" with the "clean" water in it, I don't know if I'd be so quick to protect my sugary $0.49 investment. I sometimes feel icky just letting my precious urine touch it, let alone eat something that fell in for even a fraction of a second. But hey, just as you're free to love Men in Black 3, you're free to eat whatever from wherever.
It's not the water in the toilet that I'd be concerned about... It's the bowl itself. The water may be clean going in, but once it has sat there festering in whatever germination and bacteria have settled on the porcelain after who knows how many bare asses have squatted down to mercilessly loose their demonoid bowels into the frail bowl, this so-called "dish-ware" with the "clean" water in it, I don't know if I'd be so quick to protect my sugary $0.49 investment. I sometimes feel icky just letting my precious urine touch it, let alone eat something that fell in for even a fraction of a second. But hey, just as you're free to love Men in Black 3, you're free to eat whatever from wherever.
Entry 6: RE: "MIB3" - Men in Black-Hole
Posted by: Bradley Redder
As for me entertaining myself, years of alcoholic parentage and being left alone for days at a time with nothing but a broken comb and rusty razorblades, building forts out empty cigarette cartons and defending Marlboro Manor from the genetically enhanced rat infestation have hardened me against the forces of boredom. Have you ever sipped the toxic green blood from the skull of the rat-king after successfully defending an attack on the South Wall? I highly doubt it, because I don't think you'd have been such a Grumpy Gus when it came to my little fiction, and it's a shame because I had such grand plans for future posts, dozens of witty replies at the ready, but Noooooo... Chad can't be bothered to indulge in my harmless, little ploy.
That aside, you are absolutely right: MIBIII is $230 million gift wrap for nothing but air. There is absolutely nothing to it, so much of nothing that I was willing to forego my week's shenanigans to make sure that point is clear. I still can't even believe you included a plot summary in your review... How arduous that must have been trying to come up with three lines of actual description for this void. And yes, it is stuck in that state between being at all praiseworthy and at all bad enough to passionately take down, so perhaps you understand why I resorted to fabricating a reality in which you loved it... I had to do something to pass this week without wanting to rip the keys off of my laptop.
Friday, June 1, 2012
Entry 5: RE: "MIB3" - Just to be clear...
Posted by Chad Van Alstin
I don't consume things that fall into the toilet; however, I still say the five second rule applies. That's mostly clean water in there. You can probably eat a fallen lollipop without getting sick.
I don't consume things that fall into the toilet; however, I still say the five second rule applies. That's mostly clean water in there. You can probably eat a fallen lollipop without getting sick.
Entry 4: RE "MIB3" - Bored.
Posted by Chad Van Alstin
At least you're incredibly creative about it. Nice work. Very original.
And you're very creative.
There is no real depth to Men in Black 3 worth discussing, and I'm finding it very difficult to put together a reply to this thread. Not only because you seem content on just talking to yourself, but because this film is just so bland.
I sat here attempting to force a reply to what you wrote, but it's very difficult to come up with anything to say. While I at first decided to blame you solely for this, I came to realize my apathy is just the best way to deal with a film with such little content.
There's nothing in Men in Black 3 worth caring about, and there's nothing in the film that really stands out in my mind as being worthy of analysis. Men in Black 3 is a forgettable experience, destined to be buried in the bargain bin of mediocrity. I almost wish that it were a worse film, since then it would be at least easy to trash is.
Sadly, since everything about this movie sits just below average, it falls into this strange paradox where it's hard to hate it, but even harder to love it. It was a waste of $10 that would have been better spent drinking, or maybe purchasing a Slinky.
Thursday, May 31, 2012
Entry 3: RE: "MIB3" - Henry David Thoroughly Genius
Posted by: Bradley Redder
Hmm... I remain unconvinced. All I got from your post was that you have a crush on Josh Brolin and you seem to think it's okay to eat things out of the toilet... Or were you just listing things that you think you have in common with my dog? Charles Barkley (or as my neighbors call him, "The Round Mound of Rehound"), sometimes eats stuff out of the toilet, but he doesn't actually like Josh Brolin that much... It was just coincidence that he was licking the screen that one time when you walked in on me watching that American Gangster DVD featurette.
Why do you keep insisting in your posts that you didn't like this movie when you keep sending me these texts waxing on about how great it was? I want to focus on this part of last-night's segment of your serialized dissertation, when you were discussing the impeccability of the time-travel aspects of the film, "...where most ofther [sic] time travel movies are so completely reckless in their depcition [sic] of the lasting effects of actions carried out in THe past... as if you could kill time without injuring eternity. men in black 3 makes sure it gets everything right, down to the letter".
I thought that phrase about killing time and injuring eternity was so strange for you to use, and then I realized I'd heard it before, in Henry David Thoreau's Walden. Do you really think it was necessary to invoke Thoreau to make a point about this silly little movie? And the time-travel plot is so dry in it anyway. I don't know what you liked so much about it. I will admit that Michael Stuhlbarg's character, Griffin, is one of the more interesting ones in the film, but his schtick got old pretty quickly, especially once I realized that it wasn't really going anywhere. For those who haven't seen the film, or who fell asleep, Griffin holds the arcnet that J and K are looking for, and is a being who is aware of every timeline in existence, though he is perpetually unsure which timeline is actually playing out "presently." It's an interesting idea, I'll admit, to see someone aware of every detail of every potential outcome to a situation, but for me it also trivialized everything I was watching and might have even unwrapped itself in the end.
Griffin floats through every scene with an almost apathetic nonchalance, pointing out what might happen, depending on which timeline they're in at the "moment." But the rest of the characters, as well as Barry Sonnenfeld in his direction, make everything that's happening seem so imperative, like it matters, even after we're told that a timeline does exist in which K dies, another in which the world blows up, etc. This begs the question, why does it matter what I'm watching? In the universe of the film nothing essentially matters... If J saves K and they get the arcnet up, I guess that's cool, but it still leaves open the idea that in a parallel universe, K died, and the Bocclorettians (or whatever they're called) invade Earth and take over, so the suspense of the film is basically which timeline Sonnenfeld is going to show me. It's like a "Choose Your Own Adventure" book, only I don't actually get to choose the adventure. Instead I watch the least interesting version of the potential story contained within the pages. I can't believe you loved the time-travel so much. It just seemed like it created a silly rule that didn't really hold up under any scrutiny, and everyone just went with it. To also quote your friend, Henry, and his book, Walden, that you like so much, "Any fool can make a rule, and any fool will mind it." What do you have to say for yourself? And please don't pretend like you didn't say any of this.
Hmm... I remain unconvinced. All I got from your post was that you have a crush on Josh Brolin and you seem to think it's okay to eat things out of the toilet... Or were you just listing things that you think you have in common with my dog? Charles Barkley (or as my neighbors call him, "The Round Mound of Rehound"), sometimes eats stuff out of the toilet, but he doesn't actually like Josh Brolin that much... It was just coincidence that he was licking the screen that one time when you walked in on me watching that American Gangster DVD featurette.
Why do you keep insisting in your posts that you didn't like this movie when you keep sending me these texts waxing on about how great it was? I want to focus on this part of last-night's segment of your serialized dissertation, when you were discussing the impeccability of the time-travel aspects of the film, "...where most ofther [sic] time travel movies are so completely reckless in their depcition [sic] of the lasting effects of actions carried out in THe past... as if you could kill time without injuring eternity. men in black 3 makes sure it gets everything right, down to the letter".
I thought that phrase about killing time and injuring eternity was so strange for you to use, and then I realized I'd heard it before, in Henry David Thoreau's Walden. Do you really think it was necessary to invoke Thoreau to make a point about this silly little movie? And the time-travel plot is so dry in it anyway. I don't know what you liked so much about it. I will admit that Michael Stuhlbarg's character, Griffin, is one of the more interesting ones in the film, but his schtick got old pretty quickly, especially once I realized that it wasn't really going anywhere. For those who haven't seen the film, or who fell asleep, Griffin holds the arcnet that J and K are looking for, and is a being who is aware of every timeline in existence, though he is perpetually unsure which timeline is actually playing out "presently." It's an interesting idea, I'll admit, to see someone aware of every detail of every potential outcome to a situation, but for me it also trivialized everything I was watching and might have even unwrapped itself in the end.
Griffin floats through every scene with an almost apathetic nonchalance, pointing out what might happen, depending on which timeline they're in at the "moment." But the rest of the characters, as well as Barry Sonnenfeld in his direction, make everything that's happening seem so imperative, like it matters, even after we're told that a timeline does exist in which K dies, another in which the world blows up, etc. This begs the question, why does it matter what I'm watching? In the universe of the film nothing essentially matters... If J saves K and they get the arcnet up, I guess that's cool, but it still leaves open the idea that in a parallel universe, K died, and the Bocclorettians (or whatever they're called) invade Earth and take over, so the suspense of the film is basically which timeline Sonnenfeld is going to show me. It's like a "Choose Your Own Adventure" book, only I don't actually get to choose the adventure. Instead I watch the least interesting version of the potential story contained within the pages. I can't believe you loved the time-travel so much. It just seemed like it created a silly rule that didn't really hold up under any scrutiny, and everyone just went with it. To also quote your friend, Henry, and his book, Walden, that you like so much, "Any fool can make a rule, and any fool will mind it." What do you have to say for yourself? And please don't pretend like you didn't say any of this.
Wednesday, May 30, 2012
Entry 2: RE: "MIB3" - It Puts Me to "Sleep".
Posted by: Chad Van Alstin
Stop with your lies! I really didn't like this film at all. Since
you are so important as to need two full posts worth of information, I'm only
going to pick one thing to respond to for now -- Josh Brolin.
My finding value in his performance is like dropping a lollipop in the toilet -- you can still enjoy it, but really you're only making the best of a bad situation. Brolin is doing a pretty damn good impression of Tommy Lee Jones, and that's about as far as the praise goes.
He's a good actor. And the cast in this film is full of talent; however, even the few moments where they all shine can't make this a good film. I still just think it's important to point out the positive aspects of a film, assuming there are any.
I did forget to mention the Andy Worhol scene, and I'm glad you brought it up in your review. I found this scene to be rather funny. However, it all seemed like a gag fit for another film. it didn't really fit into the plot at all. Still, I find the work of Andy Worhol to be pretentious -- pseudo-intellectual -- crap, and I laughed during this sequence.
My finding value in his performance is like dropping a lollipop in the toilet -- you can still enjoy it, but really you're only making the best of a bad situation. Brolin is doing a pretty damn good impression of Tommy Lee Jones, and that's about as far as the praise goes.
He's a good actor. And the cast in this film is full of talent; however, even the few moments where they all shine can't make this a good film. I still just think it's important to point out the positive aspects of a film, assuming there are any.
I did forget to mention the Andy Worhol scene, and I'm glad you brought it up in your review. I found this scene to be rather funny. However, it all seemed like a gag fit for another film. it didn't really fit into the plot at all. Still, I find the work of Andy Worhol to be pretentious -- pseudo-intellectual -- crap, and I laughed during this sequence.
Still, these moments of
decent comedy are few and far between. Most of the jokes seem to stem from the personality of Boris the Animal who,
unlike you, I don't take seriously at all; his mannerisms just wear on me
rather quickly.
Tuesday, May 29, 2012
Tommy Lee Jones Interview
I stumbled upon this interview with Tommy Lee Jones while looking for the source of a quote on Wikipedia, where he said about the possibility of a fourth (Please no) film in the franchise, "It's easy to pick up where we left off. We know what we are doing, we know hoe to do it. It's just a hell of a lot of fun."
From the first time I saw the trailer for Men in Black 3, I thought for sure that Tommy Lee Jones said he didn't want to do it, so they figured out a way to minimize his part. Chad mentioned in his review a similar feeling, and this has to be evidence that Jones had no desire to do a third Men in Black. Though Jones' lack of interest could possibly be the result of being asked what may be the worst set of questions imaginable.
Entry 1: RE: "MIB3" - A Mid-Summer Movie's Dream
Posted by: Bradley Redder
Well! What a change of tune! I was not expecting you to blast this movie so hard; when you walked out of it a few days ago and sent me a barrage of texts detailing how much you enjoyed it, I was sure you'd rate it at least three stars. I know that I've never said "It's brilliant science fiction with a hint of Shakespearean father-son tension that resolves in one of the sweetest moments on screen in years" about a movie and then turned around and gave it a star and a half. What changed since then? Did you sneak a peak at my review when it was still in draft yesterday and get worried that your comments were a bit over-the-top, get panicked and temper your praise for my sake? Please don't... You really don't have to do that; all opinions are welcome here. Maybe you saw something in it that I didn't. I'd certainly like you to delve more into your extensive comparison between this and the 19th century Transcendentalist movement... I just didn't see it.
In all seriousness, I honestly didn't see much to praise about Boris the Animal, which seems to be what you liked most. To me he felt a little too serious. He wasn't goofy enough for this ridiculous plot, and I didn't see any tongue-in-cheek in the performance, either. That's not a knock on Jemaine Clement (who I've really liked in everything I've seen him in); I actually didn't even know that was him until after the film, because he seems to just be covered in costume and CGI, preventing anything real from coming through. I'll agree on Josh Brolin, though. He did do a great Tommy Lee Jones impression, but I'm not sure how far that compliment goes in the context of the film, considering that that's kind of all it was.
Brolin seems to be the reason this film is being received fairly well, and I don't really understand it. Even if he was good, the rest of the film is so blank... I literally did gasp when I saw how much money was spent on it, and I do feel that there is a lot of talent involved that all seem to have forgotten to go with their collective gut on what is charming, clever, and funny, because MIBIII is seriously lacking in each of those in every way. It doesn't even take advantage of its time-travel premise all that well. It might have been interesting to see comparatively low-tech 60s high-tech MIB devices, but instead, Sonnenfeld seems to have followed the logic that a sequel has to be bigger rather than that of an earlier time means smaller, but then again, when someone throws an ungodly amount of money at you to make this movie, what choice do you have? What were those silly gyro-cycle thingies we both found to be the source of the most awkward and embarrassing Men in Black 3 promo photos on the Internet?
Full disclosure: I dozed off for about seven or eight minutes in the middle of this thing, and I didn't feel like waiting around a half hour to catch the minutes I missed at another screening at the theater. It was about forty minutes in and I wasn't enjoying the film very much, and then I decided that I was just going to let go of any expectations I might have brought in with me and just try to enjoy the film for what it is... No more than four minutes later I was sleeping, so I missed everything from the Coney Island fight to young K interrogating J. I came to as J was being loaded into the big neuralizer tube.
Did I miss anything important, maybe some of those Shakespeare scenes? Can you fill me in on what I slept through? Actually, never mind... Don't tell me. I think that in my dream state the film's most repeated line may have penetrated some inner-region of my brain, so I'll just refrain from asking questions I don't want to know the answers to.
Well! What a change of tune! I was not expecting you to blast this movie so hard; when you walked out of it a few days ago and sent me a barrage of texts detailing how much you enjoyed it, I was sure you'd rate it at least three stars. I know that I've never said "It's brilliant science fiction with a hint of Shakespearean father-son tension that resolves in one of the sweetest moments on screen in years" about a movie and then turned around and gave it a star and a half. What changed since then? Did you sneak a peak at my review when it was still in draft yesterday and get worried that your comments were a bit over-the-top, get panicked and temper your praise for my sake? Please don't... You really don't have to do that; all opinions are welcome here. Maybe you saw something in it that I didn't. I'd certainly like you to delve more into your extensive comparison between this and the 19th century Transcendentalist movement... I just didn't see it.
In all seriousness, I honestly didn't see much to praise about Boris the Animal, which seems to be what you liked most. To me he felt a little too serious. He wasn't goofy enough for this ridiculous plot, and I didn't see any tongue-in-cheek in the performance, either. That's not a knock on Jemaine Clement (who I've really liked in everything I've seen him in); I actually didn't even know that was him until after the film, because he seems to just be covered in costume and CGI, preventing anything real from coming through. I'll agree on Josh Brolin, though. He did do a great Tommy Lee Jones impression, but I'm not sure how far that compliment goes in the context of the film, considering that that's kind of all it was.
Brolin seems to be the reason this film is being received fairly well, and I don't really understand it. Even if he was good, the rest of the film is so blank... I literally did gasp when I saw how much money was spent on it, and I do feel that there is a lot of talent involved that all seem to have forgotten to go with their collective gut on what is charming, clever, and funny, because MIBIII is seriously lacking in each of those in every way. It doesn't even take advantage of its time-travel premise all that well. It might have been interesting to see comparatively low-tech 60s high-tech MIB devices, but instead, Sonnenfeld seems to have followed the logic that a sequel has to be bigger rather than that of an earlier time means smaller, but then again, when someone throws an ungodly amount of money at you to make this movie, what choice do you have? What were those silly gyro-cycle thingies we both found to be the source of the most awkward and embarrassing Men in Black 3 promo photos on the Internet?
Full disclosure: I dozed off for about seven or eight minutes in the middle of this thing, and I didn't feel like waiting around a half hour to catch the minutes I missed at another screening at the theater. It was about forty minutes in and I wasn't enjoying the film very much, and then I decided that I was just going to let go of any expectations I might have brought in with me and just try to enjoy the film for what it is... No more than four minutes later I was sleeping, so I missed everything from the Coney Island fight to young K interrogating J. I came to as J was being loaded into the big neuralizer tube.
Did I miss anything important, maybe some of those Shakespeare scenes? Can you fill me in on what I slept through? Actually, never mind... Don't tell me. I think that in my dream state the film's most repeated line may have penetrated some inner-region of my brain, so I'll just refrain from asking questions I don't want to know the answers to.
Monday, May 28, 2012
Chad's Take: "Men in Black 3" - 1.5 Stars
When I arrived at the theater to see Men in Black 3, memories of the first film were at the forefront of my mind. However, I can't remember much about the second film at all. Where the first movie was a clever mix of action and comedy, the second film was just a collection of silly moments, none of which are funny enough to be very memorable.
I'm sad to say that the third film is no different. Men in Black 3 seems like one outrageous moment after another, connected by a story that is less than interesting.
A space villain, Boris the Animal (Jemaine Clement), has broken out of prison and seeks vengeance against his arresting officer, Agent K (Tommy Lee Jones). Boris travels back in time and kills a younger Agent K (Josh Brolin), which dooms all of mankind to a destruction by alien warships.
If you're confused, I apologize. I'm doing my very best to describe the plot as accurately as possible.
Will Smith reprises his role as Agent J, who also travels back in time to thwart Boris' plan. This whole time travel gimmick seems like a decent way to write Tommy Lee Jones out of the movie, since most of the film will feature Will Smith partnered up with Josh Brolin. It's rather strange to see Jones receive top billing; his screen time is quite limited.
Brad's Take: Men in Black 3 - *1/2
It's late. Much later than my normal review-writing time, and I'm tired, almost as tired of being awake as I am of thinking about Men in Black. Why is it so late? Because I've been sitting here staring at my computer, turning over in my mind the idea of posting the lyrics to Will Smith's theme song to the original Men in Black instead of writing an actual review. On the one hand, I think it would perfectly reflect my feelings on a film which doesn't really demonstrate any more effort beyond cutting and pasting something from somewhere else and calling it a night. But I'm not sure the statement would be effective without a thorough explanation even longer than this one, and it might put me in the position in which I'd come off as the asshole, rather than the team that led to me handing over fourteen hard-earned dollars to see this slop. It doesn't even have the integrity to be really awful, so that I could at least throw out some adjectives with a little emotion behind them. Nope. Instead it's just the hollow corpse of a once-clever and imaginative film.
I'm not too sure what Men in Black 3, or as I like to type it, MIBIII, is about, which is an eensie bit depressing considering how much time I have to imagine writer Etan Cohen spent developing the story for this overstuffed, undercooked turkey. He takes the modern approach to film comedy of creating such an overwhelmingly convoluted plot scenario that it just pounds the audience into submission trying to follow it that they don't even realize that almost none of it is funny. MIBIII seems to fancy itself more of a sci-fi film than a comedy, which would be fine if it raised any interesting quandaries worth pondering longer than it takes to say the name of the film's villain alien race, something like "Vocclorettabillunozenbrout." Wait... No, the simplicity of its ideas force me to the conclusion that it couldn't have been that long, but I remember it being equally nonsensical.
This leaves the film in that criminal territory of ridiculously over-budgeted comedy at (GASP!) $215 million. Money can't buy happiness, or humor apparently. MIBIII reeks of talented people who have simply lost their instinct for what is fun, or funny, and as a result, the film flounders haplessly, desperately grabbing onto anything that might lead to a laugh, and it's twisty time-travel plot means that what they get hold of is (Surprise!) historical anachronisms and a re-imagining of some historical figures and events. And aside from a scene where Bill Hader portrays Andy Warhol as an undercover agent who thinks his work is pretentious garbage, it all feels (Surprise!) as stale as you'd expect a sequel to Men in Black 2 to be, or as I like to type it, as MIBII II B. (In the interest of paralleling MIBIII's hackiness, I'll say that) I wish a man in black would have neuralized me after I walked out of the theater!
This Week's Movie - 5/28-6/3
Posted by: Bradley Redder
Men in Black 3
Directed by Barry Sonnenfeld
Written by Etan Cohen
Starring Will Smith, Tommy Lee Jones, Josh Brolin, Alice Eve, Emma Thomson, Bill Hader
A big thank you to Tom Kaminski, who stepped in on extremely short notice last week for The Grey. A different perspective and valuable comments were much appreciated, especially when we asked him to do it at around midnight last Sunday.
And apologies to you for again posting this around, uh, midnight Sunday night, the announcement of our week's discussion topic, the unasked-for sequel to the unasked-for sequel to 1997's Men in Black. Chad is back, and, umm, uhhhh, ooh geez, mmmmm-WE'RE NOT EXPECTING MUCH! Phew... There, I said it. Trailer below, discussion all week...
Friday, May 25, 2012
Entry 3: RE: "The Grey" - Conceptual Canines
Posted by: Bradley Redder
Great point about societal individualism influencing our film heroes, but I think it almost negates your earlier argument that The Grey's lapses in plausibility give it nothing cool, no visceral feeling. Now, I understand that this is all subjective and difficult to argue, but I'm going to do it anyway, given that I'm in the position to defend the film.
There have certainly been a lot of "extraordinary man in extraordinary situation" movies lately, many of them quite literally featuring extraordinary men (and a few women) with a dozen superhero movies being released every year. The Grey does not match that description, instead it features an "ordinary man in an extraordinary situation," an often much more interesting, though for some reason much less popular approach to heroism. An ordinary man in over his head essentially produces an underdog which, unless he happens to be obnoxious or abrasive or some other form of asshole, I think we are inherently drawn into caring about/rooting for.
Where I think most movies would simply settle for the basic underdog scenario, I think The Grey builds on it by fleshing out its characters, which only makes that underdog quality seem more intense, giving us a reason to want these guys to make it other than that they probably won't. In our reviews we both mentioned our impression of this film going into it, that it looked like a standard blood-thirsty action premise with wolves instead of guys with guns, but right from the start it sets itself apart from that with a five-minute prologue that sets up Neeson's broken, regretful, lost character. And then it surrounds him with ridiculously normal guys who carry on meaningless conversations, like normal guys do.
This is really starting to meander, so I'll just get to it. You say it's not visceral, but I say all of these things make it that much more visceral, even more so than a beast ripping your organs out is already. I think its absurd level of normalcy only contributes to the adrenaline rush it sometimes breaks out into. Even the moments in which the wolves attack are ordinary... sitting by a fire talking about nothing special, taking a leak... these make it that much more immediate, because it's relatable. I bullshit around a fire; I piss outside, and seeing a giant wolf savagely ripping out a man's entrails while he does these things that I do all the time, rather than at the end of a long parkour chase (which certainly has its merits... make no mistake about it), makes The Grey that much more effective. How can you say you feel nothing for these poor guys, out there all alone, being hunted by wolves? Have you no heart?
Forgive the dry meandering, but I had to wake up very very early for a dentist's appointment this morning, and got precious little sleep. On top of that, the odd sensation of tartarless teeth has been a constant source of distraction, so I may not have all of my wits about me at the moment.
Great point about societal individualism influencing our film heroes, but I think it almost negates your earlier argument that The Grey's lapses in plausibility give it nothing cool, no visceral feeling. Now, I understand that this is all subjective and difficult to argue, but I'm going to do it anyway, given that I'm in the position to defend the film.
There have certainly been a lot of "extraordinary man in extraordinary situation" movies lately, many of them quite literally featuring extraordinary men (and a few women) with a dozen superhero movies being released every year. The Grey does not match that description, instead it features an "ordinary man in an extraordinary situation," an often much more interesting, though for some reason much less popular approach to heroism. An ordinary man in over his head essentially produces an underdog which, unless he happens to be obnoxious or abrasive or some other form of asshole, I think we are inherently drawn into caring about/rooting for.
Where I think most movies would simply settle for the basic underdog scenario, I think The Grey builds on it by fleshing out its characters, which only makes that underdog quality seem more intense, giving us a reason to want these guys to make it other than that they probably won't. In our reviews we both mentioned our impression of this film going into it, that it looked like a standard blood-thirsty action premise with wolves instead of guys with guns, but right from the start it sets itself apart from that with a five-minute prologue that sets up Neeson's broken, regretful, lost character. And then it surrounds him with ridiculously normal guys who carry on meaningless conversations, like normal guys do.
This is really starting to meander, so I'll just get to it. You say it's not visceral, but I say all of these things make it that much more visceral, even more so than a beast ripping your organs out is already. I think its absurd level of normalcy only contributes to the adrenaline rush it sometimes breaks out into. Even the moments in which the wolves attack are ordinary... sitting by a fire talking about nothing special, taking a leak... these make it that much more immediate, because it's relatable. I bullshit around a fire; I piss outside, and seeing a giant wolf savagely ripping out a man's entrails while he does these things that I do all the time, rather than at the end of a long parkour chase (which certainly has its merits... make no mistake about it), makes The Grey that much more effective. How can you say you feel nothing for these poor guys, out there all alone, being hunted by wolves? Have you no heart?
Thursday, May 24, 2012
Entry 2: RE: "The Grey" - Biting Back
Posted by: Thomas Kaminski
I'm sorry about my apparent charlatanry regarding my knowledge of natural wolf behavior. What I did was generalize the behaviors of many wolves and their prey (like these) to the interactions between wolves and humans.
The thing is the article you referenced was an interview with a researcher who worked in Yellow Stone, the national park which is famous for (among many reasons, obviously) its Wolf reintroduction program. Humans had actually killed all the wolves in Yellow Stone off in the early 1900's. But then their prey started overpopulating, and the ecosystem got thrown out of whack. So we put them back in. Now these wolves, like most wolves that are around civilization, wouldn't attack us- I assumed it was because they know better. However I figured that in the middle of Bumblefuck, Alaska, they may be more likely to treat humans as they would any old Bison.
I agree with you that complete plausibility is not necessary or even desirable in a story. It is just that I like it when such deviations, even in the realm of fantasy, exist to expand upon some sort of central theme- or at least, be really cool. I didn't think this movie was that cool. I just didn't feel anything visceral when watching it. But that is just me. I can't really argue feelings.
I like your idea about the movie redefining manliness, which didn't cross my mind at all really. But it does make sense. I look at his admission of vulnerability from a different framework.
We live in a radically individualistic society, so many of our movies tend to be about one person who has the world on their shoulders- or people who in some way excel beyond everyone else. And a common attribute these people possess is an invulnerability to fear or death. Neeson has neither.
They did a study once (forgive me, I read about this in a psychology textbook years ago and don't feel like finding the reference)- they went through thousands of articles in Japanese and American newspapers. And what they found was that anytime there was a crime, the ways in which the papers described the stories were measurably different. In Japan the stories tended to focus much more upon the perpetrators' life stories, their childhood, their schools, their socioeconomic status, etc...whereas in America they found that the articles tended to focus on the details of the crime, the immediate circumstances, and immediate implications. And this data is indicative of qualitative differences in the ways in which people think about and approach the world. Namely, in the West we are more likely to place huge emphasis on the individual, the self-made man, and look at progress and achievements as purely individual accomplishments. And this attitude leads to the production of cinema with invulnerable heroes, however unrealistic or unrelatable they may be. It may seem like a stretch, but I do believe that many films about superheroes and invulnerable men are in fact a type of propaganda. It's all about subtext, that is all. For these reasons I commend the movie for producing a character like this. He is not completely absent from films, but the trend down the other road is much more prevalent.
I'm sorry about my apparent charlatanry regarding my knowledge of natural wolf behavior. What I did was generalize the behaviors of many wolves and their prey (like these) to the interactions between wolves and humans.
The thing is the article you referenced was an interview with a researcher who worked in Yellow Stone, the national park which is famous for (among many reasons, obviously) its Wolf reintroduction program. Humans had actually killed all the wolves in Yellow Stone off in the early 1900's. But then their prey started overpopulating, and the ecosystem got thrown out of whack. So we put them back in. Now these wolves, like most wolves that are around civilization, wouldn't attack us- I assumed it was because they know better. However I figured that in the middle of Bumblefuck, Alaska, they may be more likely to treat humans as they would any old Bison.
I agree with you that complete plausibility is not necessary or even desirable in a story. It is just that I like it when such deviations, even in the realm of fantasy, exist to expand upon some sort of central theme- or at least, be really cool. I didn't think this movie was that cool. I just didn't feel anything visceral when watching it. But that is just me. I can't really argue feelings.
I like your idea about the movie redefining manliness, which didn't cross my mind at all really. But it does make sense. I look at his admission of vulnerability from a different framework.
We live in a radically individualistic society, so many of our movies tend to be about one person who has the world on their shoulders- or people who in some way excel beyond everyone else. And a common attribute these people possess is an invulnerability to fear or death. Neeson has neither.
They did a study once (forgive me, I read about this in a psychology textbook years ago and don't feel like finding the reference)- they went through thousands of articles in Japanese and American newspapers. And what they found was that anytime there was a crime, the ways in which the papers described the stories were measurably different. In Japan the stories tended to focus much more upon the perpetrators' life stories, their childhood, their schools, their socioeconomic status, etc...whereas in America they found that the articles tended to focus on the details of the crime, the immediate circumstances, and immediate implications. And this data is indicative of qualitative differences in the ways in which people think about and approach the world. Namely, in the West we are more likely to place huge emphasis on the individual, the self-made man, and look at progress and achievements as purely individual accomplishments. And this attitude leads to the production of cinema with invulnerable heroes, however unrealistic or unrelatable they may be. It may seem like a stretch, but I do believe that many films about superheroes and invulnerable men are in fact a type of propaganda. It's all about subtext, that is all. For these reasons I commend the movie for producing a character like this. He is not completely absent from films, but the trend down the other road is much more prevalent.
Wednesday, May 23, 2012
Entry 1: RE: "The Grey" - "Wolves are Wimps"
Posted by: Bradley Redder
Well, after a little research inspired by some comments in your review I have discovered that you're claims about wolves are wrong. It is true that wolves would not act in real life as they do in this film, but rather than savagely attack all of the men at once and kill them, they are much more likely to run away at the sight of a human, especially several standing next to a fire with weapons in hand. Much of Neeson's character's expertise on wolves is actually entirely made-up as well, but where some may see this as a bad thing, I honestly don't care.
I'm not usually one to attack a film's verisimilitude, or its faith to source material, two things that come into play with The Grey, as it is also an adaptation of a short story. I'm all for dramatic license and, in the case of adaptations especially, I actually prefer it. In the case of fabricating a new reality, or certain aspects of it, as long as it is done with any amount of care, I'm all for it. It's essentially like a sci-fi premise. If the wolves just cowered away from Neeson and co. throughout the film, how boring would that be? Carnahan establishes that Neeson knows wolves, and Neeson gives us the rundown on these wolves, and that's enough for me... for all intents and purposes, they're real. And the film is all the better because of it, for it rewards anyone willing to go along with its premise, however unrealistic it might be.
As for the wolves being allegorical in some way, I don't see it either, though I also don't see it as just a bunch of dudes fighting wolves. In addition to setting the film up as a sort of blind-siding character study , which I'll discuss in a later post, I think it speaks to man's reaction to and impulse in a dangerous situation. I say The Grey redefines the Hollywood notion of manliness, because in this film fear and recognition of danger seem to be the hallmark of a real man, a capable hero. Neeson freely admits that he is terrified, "scared shitless" when addressing Diaz's (Frank Grillo) false-bravado, which not only makes him feel more heroic for being able to handle himself throughout the film, but also resets the audience's expectation and makes the experience that much more perilously exciting... heroes don't admit to being scared, so if he does, then who knows what we're about to see? It's just one more thing that I feel sets this apart from a typical action thriller.
Also, your opening line is funny... On the blu-ray commentary, Joe Carnahan says that he feels the plane crash is the best crash sequence ever filmed. While I'm inclined to see this as cocky and automatically disagree, I actually can't think of a better one off the top of my head. Thoughts?
Well, after a little research inspired by some comments in your review I have discovered that you're claims about wolves are wrong. It is true that wolves would not act in real life as they do in this film, but rather than savagely attack all of the men at once and kill them, they are much more likely to run away at the sight of a human, especially several standing next to a fire with weapons in hand. Much of Neeson's character's expertise on wolves is actually entirely made-up as well, but where some may see this as a bad thing, I honestly don't care.
I'm not usually one to attack a film's verisimilitude, or its faith to source material, two things that come into play with The Grey, as it is also an adaptation of a short story. I'm all for dramatic license and, in the case of adaptations especially, I actually prefer it. In the case of fabricating a new reality, or certain aspects of it, as long as it is done with any amount of care, I'm all for it. It's essentially like a sci-fi premise. If the wolves just cowered away from Neeson and co. throughout the film, how boring would that be? Carnahan establishes that Neeson knows wolves, and Neeson gives us the rundown on these wolves, and that's enough for me... for all intents and purposes, they're real. And the film is all the better because of it, for it rewards anyone willing to go along with its premise, however unrealistic it might be.
As for the wolves being allegorical in some way, I don't see it either, though I also don't see it as just a bunch of dudes fighting wolves. In addition to setting the film up as a sort of blind-siding character study , which I'll discuss in a later post, I think it speaks to man's reaction to and impulse in a dangerous situation. I say The Grey redefines the Hollywood notion of manliness, because in this film fear and recognition of danger seem to be the hallmark of a real man, a capable hero. Neeson freely admits that he is terrified, "scared shitless" when addressing Diaz's (Frank Grillo) false-bravado, which not only makes him feel more heroic for being able to handle himself throughout the film, but also resets the audience's expectation and makes the experience that much more perilously exciting... heroes don't admit to being scared, so if he does, then who knows what we're about to see? It's just one more thing that I feel sets this apart from a typical action thriller.
Also, your opening line is funny... On the blu-ray commentary, Joe Carnahan says that he feels the plane crash is the best crash sequence ever filmed. While I'm inclined to see this as cocky and automatically disagree, I actually can't think of a better one off the top of my head. Thoughts?
Tuesday, May 22, 2012
Brad's Take: The Grey - ***1/2
Upon seeing the trailers for The Grey, I immediately classified it as the latest seemingly annual January/February Liam Neeson revenge/renegade thriller. Not that that would necessarily have been a bad thing, but right from the start, The Grey establishes itself as something much more than simple revenge thriller.
With The Grey, writer/director Joe Carnahan leaves behind his recent sloppy action spectacles, the abysmal Smokin' Aces, and what can only be described as an exercise in cinematic sadism, which he dared to call A-Team, and gets back to what made him worth paying attention to in the first place: gritty, tension-fueled, character-based thriller. The Grey follows a group of outcasts, formerly working in the arctic, as they try to stave off freezing, hunger, broken spirits, and a pack of giant, man-eating wolves after their plane goes down in the middle of nowhere with no hope of rescue.
Neeson leads an amazing cast of character actors as a broken man who was hired to pick off wolves with a sniper rifle. In another film, or perhaps with another actor, this would seem like a cheap character, more of a plot device than a fleshed-out human, but Carnahan and a very grizzled Neeson go to great lengths to make him not only believable, but complex and sympathetic as well. And for good reason too, for the film really comes down to him, in more ways than one, and caring about his many struggles is made as much a priority as providing entertainment via slick wolf attacks.
Now that's not to imply that the wolves are handled lightly. They're surprisingly impressive to look at, given that they're not real. Through a combination of CGI and animatronics, Carnahan gives us just enough visually to fear these vicious creatures, but relies more on shadows and sound effects to really instill dread in the audience. Though even more surprising, and more impressive, too, is Carnahan's reserve in exploiting this technical achievement and making a standard survival thriller about man vs. beast. Instead he delivers a much more contemplative film that ultimately establishes itself as a sort of meditation on death and an attempt to redefine Hollywood braun and manliness. Gone, I hope, are the days when dudes shrug off any hardship and sorrow, because in all honesty, The Grey proves that tears and fears are not only much more manly, but also much more interesting.
Tom's Take: The Grey - 2 1/2 Stars
"Liam Neeson, amma let you finish, but Oceanic Flight 815 was the greatest plane crash of all time."
I actually liked this movie more than I thought I would. Based on the few commercials I saw, it seemed like it would just be another Hollywood gore-fest. While it was most certainly not lacking in this department, the violence was not at all gratuitous. This film’s draw was not to be another installment in a series of ever more violent and grotesque films (a trend which seems to be pervading the industry)- I found that refreshing.
I am still trying to figure out if this movie was intended to be allegorical in some way. You could just look at it as a bunch of dudes getting killed by wolves and fighting for their lives. But I think this is unlikely because of the way the wolves behave throughout the film. I don’t want to give any explicit details, but it is clear that these animals do not behave as they would in nature. If they felt threatened by these humans, they could have easily killed all of them early on. And that is, in fact, what they would have done. But instead we see them kill systematically, ritualistically- as though they are playing some sort of game with the humans. As if they are testing those who remain. This could be the case, or it could just be another case of people writing about things they don’t really understand.
So the movie wasn’t devoid of creativity, and it was not masturbatory in violence. However, it still didn’t really surprise me much. There were no things that happened that I really couldn’t expect. But the characters were believable enough, and it was visually appealing. Overall it was worth the 6 bucks for the HD rental.
Monday, May 21, 2012
Guest Blogger - Tom Kaminski
Posted by: Bradley Redder
Unfortunately my fellow blogger, Chad Van Alstin, has an absurdly busy week ahead of him. We both have full-time jobs, and he'll be balancing a few other things for the next couple of days, and decided he would be unable to do this week's movie justice, so we're bringing in a guest... Mr. Tom Kaminski.
I met Tom on the first day I moved into my college dorm, when he drunkenly knocked on my door at 2 a.m. and asked if I wanted to eat some of the pizza he had just ordered. I of course said yes, and at the same time the following night he knocked again and told me I owed him a pizza, so I ordered one and while we waited for it we made fun of a couple of guys fist-fighting on the lawn... We've been friends ever since.
A few facts about Tom:
1. He thinks the moral relativism and social satire in Tremors 3 makes it better than Tremors and Tremors 2 put together.
2. He's seen every SNL movie adaptation at least one-and-a-half times.
3. When he gets depressed he dips his feet in public pools and watches Law & Order reruns on his iPod.
One of those may or may not be true; try and guess which one it is while reading our discussion of The Grey all this week.
Unfortunately my fellow blogger, Chad Van Alstin, has an absurdly busy week ahead of him. We both have full-time jobs, and he'll be balancing a few other things for the next couple of days, and decided he would be unable to do this week's movie justice, so we're bringing in a guest... Mr. Tom Kaminski.
I met Tom on the first day I moved into my college dorm, when he drunkenly knocked on my door at 2 a.m. and asked if I wanted to eat some of the pizza he had just ordered. I of course said yes, and at the same time the following night he knocked again and told me I owed him a pizza, so I ordered one and while we waited for it we made fun of a couple of guys fist-fighting on the lawn... We've been friends ever since.
A few facts about Tom:
1. He thinks the moral relativism and social satire in Tremors 3 makes it better than Tremors and Tremors 2 put together.
2. He's seen every SNL movie adaptation at least one-and-a-half times.
3. When he gets depressed he dips his feet in public pools and watches Law & Order reruns on his iPod.
One of those may or may not be true; try and guess which one it is while reading our discussion of The Grey all this week.
Sunday, May 20, 2012
This Week's Movie - 5/21-5/27
Posted by: Bradley Redder
The Grey
Directed by Joe Carnahan
Written by Joe Carnahan and Ian Mackenzie Jeffers
Starring Liam Neeson, Dallas Roberts, Frank Grillo, Dermot Mulroney, Joe Anderson, Nonso Anozie, James Badge Dale
Apologies again for waiting so long to announce our discussion piece for the week, but again we couldn't decide between the two major releases, which, like last week's Dark Shadows, we figured nobody really cared about. So this week we've decided that, in the absence of a theatrical release that looks interesting or relevant, we'll try an older release. Given that, we didn't go too old. The Grey was released earlier this year, and just last week on blu-ray, so it is available to rent. Trailer below, discussion all week...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)