Mr. Movie reviews: The Curse of the Were-Rabbit
Congratulations to the marketing staff that realized that Wallace and Gromit where big enough draws that Ralph Fiennes, and Helena Bonham Carter’s voices are not where the selling point is. BTW most expressive voice Ralph has used to date. According to the creators they stole pieces of earlier films and made tests with the voices. If so I hope Lady Campanula Tottington doing a scene from “Fight Club” is on the DVD.
A children’s movie that has not been spread with the same retarded butter most children films have been as of late. When will the studios learn, you don’t make movies for 7 years olds. You always make a movie that is entertaining to yourself, sometimes the content is appropriate for children. The ageless Wallace and Gromit continue their technophile platonic relationship in this their first feature length film.
Wallace a prototypical aspergers sufferer creates massive rube Goldberg devices to do things like dress himself in the morning, and act as security systems for the towns ultra competitive over-sized vegetable gardeners. The town is over-run with bunnies, and Wallace and Gromit’s humane bunny disposal unit has become the de facto first response vegetable guard. The bunnies have begun to pile up as one might imagine bunnies might. So in classic Wallace/Fred Flintstone/Gilligan’s Island fashion they use a bit of technology to deter the bunnies.
I’m not making the argument that this is an intelligent film, it’s just a good one. The spoofing of Were-wolf fims, and “King Kong,” are very apt. There is a bit of laughing at oneself realizing the current fiction is no more ridiculous that the one you saw last week. It is just more malleable.
The sexual tension between Wallace and Lady Tottington is palpable from the first. This is in opposition to Victor Quartermaine (Ralph Fiennes) repugnant courting of the lady. It all comes to a lovely safe platonic ending to the relief of Gromit, and several bunnies.
Tuesday, February 07, 2006
Thursday, February 02, 2006
Mr. Movie reviews: “Match Point”
If you love movies, there is one thing that you always love about Woody Allen films. Is it the comedy, no it hasn’t been comedy for years, it is production value. Mr. Allen has supplanted Merchant Ivory as having the most warm realistic set pieces on celluloid. His narratives move through well appointed rooms, accurately sized apartments, and fully realized offices. All of this depicted in interesting not flat ways.
“Match Point” is a difficult film to watch. The hero is a bounder, Chris, that makes good with being attractive and keeping his mouth shut. We as viewers do not like him, and instinctively root against him. Yet the other characters in the film love him, he seems to excel in the office. You watch this character harder and harder trying to discern his charm over the other characters. Chris seems flat, his ingratiating moves seem so hapless that you emotionally reach out and fill out the other characters. It’s a masterful stroke of creating empathy in the audience. One that I am sure is not entirely welcome by most viewers.
Inducing that kind of empathy reminds me of something I once heard about Polanski directing “Repulsion,” Roman puts a bit of action in a room. He then directs Gilbert Taylor, The Director of Cinematography, to move the camera so the action is blocked by the doorway. When Taylor watches the movie with an audience, he sees all the people crane their necks, unconsciously trying to peer in to the room.
“Match Point,” kind of has a chumpy ending, a little comedy to make up for the emotional distress. It’s not really bad at all for what is some ways a re-tread of Crimes and Misdemeanors.
If you love movies, there is one thing that you always love about Woody Allen films. Is it the comedy, no it hasn’t been comedy for years, it is production value. Mr. Allen has supplanted Merchant Ivory as having the most warm realistic set pieces on celluloid. His narratives move through well appointed rooms, accurately sized apartments, and fully realized offices. All of this depicted in interesting not flat ways.
“Match Point” is a difficult film to watch. The hero is a bounder, Chris, that makes good with being attractive and keeping his mouth shut. We as viewers do not like him, and instinctively root against him. Yet the other characters in the film love him, he seems to excel in the office. You watch this character harder and harder trying to discern his charm over the other characters. Chris seems flat, his ingratiating moves seem so hapless that you emotionally reach out and fill out the other characters. It’s a masterful stroke of creating empathy in the audience. One that I am sure is not entirely welcome by most viewers.
Inducing that kind of empathy reminds me of something I once heard about Polanski directing “Repulsion,” Roman puts a bit of action in a room. He then directs Gilbert Taylor, The Director of Cinematography, to move the camera so the action is blocked by the doorway. When Taylor watches the movie with an audience, he sees all the people crane their necks, unconsciously trying to peer in to the room.
“Match Point,” kind of has a chumpy ending, a little comedy to make up for the emotional distress. It’s not really bad at all for what is some ways a re-tread of Crimes and Misdemeanors.
Wednesday, February 01, 2006
Mr. Movie reviews: “Underworld II: Evolution”
Mrs. Movie loves vampire films, so I went and saw this POS. Is it a bad sign when your cheering for the good guy to die. The first one was interesting for some of it’s production design, but this time around we’ve seen it and it’s all as tired as the plot device that ends the life of the really bad vampire.
I would surmise the plot but it barely makes sense. Vampires and werewolves come from the same immortal family. Two brothers, one is bitten by vampire the other Werewolf. These two are old school and uncivilized, and apparently despite being more powerful than the new breed, they have been held prisoner for eight centuries or so. This isn’t the plot this is the setup, unfortunately it’s explained three quarters of the way through the film.
I’m sure there is requisite violence for 13 year old boys. Which this film is squarely aimed at.
Mrs. Movie loves vampire films, so I went and saw this POS. Is it a bad sign when your cheering for the good guy to die. The first one was interesting for some of it’s production design, but this time around we’ve seen it and it’s all as tired as the plot device that ends the life of the really bad vampire.
I would surmise the plot but it barely makes sense. Vampires and werewolves come from the same immortal family. Two brothers, one is bitten by vampire the other Werewolf. These two are old school and uncivilized, and apparently despite being more powerful than the new breed, they have been held prisoner for eight centuries or so. This isn’t the plot this is the setup, unfortunately it’s explained three quarters of the way through the film.
I’m sure there is requisite violence for 13 year old boys. Which this film is squarely aimed at.
Monday, January 02, 2006
Mr. Movie reviews: Wolf Creek
The truth is out, the real monsters are people. There is a trend I have noticed were the scariest monsters are random people that you might meet. These types of monsters make for more disturbing horror films. The potential for a postal co-worker is so much more probable than any vampire. This notion makes for the unnerving sensations the well executed film can leave us with.
Wolf Creek, the story of some teens waylaid in the Australian outback is a good example. The film is well executed. While it starts a little slow, investing you in the relationships in the hero and heroines’ characters, the film eases into creepy. There are some wonderful moments that everyone will recognize where the characters start to second guess themselves, and they are doomed by their fear of offending someone. We as viewers reach out and start to construct the narrative at this point. The narrative takes a leap to the very bad for our subjects, and their monster.
While the ensuing series of events and set pieces are familiar, they are executed with an enthusiastic eye for horror detail. The characters cease to be individuals at a certain point and become the reactive meat puppets running from the baddy. At this point though, you like the character are looking for the escape. Which is to stay you have invested in these characters and are willing them to get out, you are empathizing with their predicament.
Just as you get comfortable and familiar with this mode, it is the narrative that turns on you. I would have appreciated this film much more if there had been a little more unreliability in the narrator. This could have made the beginning half of the film not quite so boring. I could easily be convinced that this film was very well directed, and that what felt wrong or awkward in the acting made sense in the aftermath. That could just be me helping though.
Wolf Creek, the story of some teens waylaid in the Australian outback is a good example. The film is well executed. While it starts a little slow, investing you in the relationships in the hero and heroines’ characters, the film eases into creepy. There are some wonderful moments that everyone will recognize where the characters start to second guess themselves, and they are doomed by their fear of offending someone. We as viewers reach out and start to construct the narrative at this point. The narrative takes a leap to the very bad for our subjects, and their monster.
While the ensuing series of events and set pieces are familiar, they are executed with an enthusiastic eye for horror detail. The characters cease to be individuals at a certain point and become the reactive meat puppets running from the baddy. At this point though, you like the character are looking for the escape. Which is to stay you have invested in these characters and are willing them to get out, you are empathizing with their predicament.
Just as you get comfortable and familiar with this mode, it is the narrative that turns on you. I would have appreciated this film much more if there had been a little more unreliability in the narrator. This could have made the beginning half of the film not quite so boring. I could easily be convinced that this film was very well directed, and that what felt wrong or awkward in the acting made sense in the aftermath. That could just be me helping though.
Tuesday, December 27, 2005
Mrs. Movie Reviews: The New World
My dear husband is being incredibly generous with his review. Ponderous would have been a gift compared to what Mr. Malick presented with his new film The New World. This film is filled with long shots of the sky, fields of grass and of course the soaring forest, which are indeed often beautiful but really how many tree tops do you want to see over a two and a half hour period. The attempted poetic dialog (if you can call it that, since 90% of it is thoughts as opposed to characters actually speaking to one another) is trite, repetitive and often just slurred. And to make matters worse the score is one of the all time most annoying streams of music ever put to a film – possibly second to the lovely single notes from Eyes Wide Shut. I was so aggravated by the end of the film that I had to apologize to friends afterwards for my current state of irritation. When all is said in done you are better off simply staring at a postcard of the redwoods while someone scratches their nails against a chalkboard.
Thursday, December 22, 2005
Wednesday, December 21, 2005
Mr. Movie reviews: King Kong
Wifey cried. It's a good tent pole product, and a popcorn movie that could have cleaned up for a whole summer. I think waiting for Oscar positioning, or timing release for Oscar positioning was a big mistake for shareholders. Did you really think people would forget about this one by Oscar time? Well at least this will wipe Harry Potter off whatever screens it is still on.
Much has been made of Jacksons obsession with the original, and it shows in this over long re-make. Now obviously this is better than the original, and a very good film, but I can still complain. There are some points, where they seem to show the same action over and over again, Kong on the mountain top when he first takes Beauty up to the top. We keep seeing what begins to look like a loop of Kong smashing about, albeit exhibiting wonderfully natural, chimpanzee behaviors.
One thing that they do in the film that is part of the classic is openly play with the size of Kong. If I get a chance to ask Mr. Jackson about this point I will be very grateful. There is a shot at the end where he is smaller, as if he shrinks in death. He also kind of adjusts to fight the Dinosaurs.
I think a lot of people will see this movie twice, there is a lot to see in it. Maybe someone will make a phantom cut of the movie and get rid of the Jimmy storyline, stay in school kids.
Much has been made of Jacksons obsession with the original, and it shows in this over long re-make. Now obviously this is better than the original, and a very good film, but I can still complain. There are some points, where they seem to show the same action over and over again, Kong on the mountain top when he first takes Beauty up to the top. We keep seeing what begins to look like a loop of Kong smashing about, albeit exhibiting wonderfully natural, chimpanzee behaviors.
One thing that they do in the film that is part of the classic is openly play with the size of Kong. If I get a chance to ask Mr. Jackson about this point I will be very grateful. There is a shot at the end where he is smaller, as if he shrinks in death. He also kind of adjusts to fight the Dinosaurs.
I think a lot of people will see this movie twice, there is a lot to see in it. Maybe someone will make a phantom cut of the movie and get rid of the Jimmy storyline, stay in school kids.
Mr. Movie reviews: The Producers
So It’s about as good as the original. I remember, fondly, seeing this film every year at BBYO regionals, as a double bill with “The Twelve Chairs.” These collectively are known as Mel’s earlier more intelligent work.
The nutty nazi role has been expanded, and they no longer attempt to blow up the theatre. That was probably considered being in …more bad taste/worst taste/ badder taste?
The nutty nazi role has been expanded, and they no longer attempt to blow up the theatre. That was probably considered being in …more bad taste/worst taste/ badder taste?
Mr. Movie reviews: "Syrianna"
Well I am pretty liberal, and I just barely liked it. This is a very well written and amazingly well edited piece of work. It just didn’t have the immediacy, the hysterical paranoia that Traffic had.
Traffic was almost a horror film, where drugs were this boogey man that was coming for us all. And “Syrianna,” is about greed and how it’s dragging down particular people. You should take your ginkgo biloba before you see it, because you might forget that Matt Damon’s character is in grief, similar to the newly minted terrorist.
Trying to figure out what the CIA is trying to do is pointless. What they hope to accomplish with the mission they send a pudgy George Clooney back to Beirut for is vague. George and Mel Gibson apparently are in a private battle to see who can grow the most biblical beard. I’m really rooting for George, but I have to admit Mel’s really onto a more authentic sand and pepper look. It may come down to matching eyebrows.
I recommend seeing this film in a theatre that doesn’t sell soda. I think everyone in the theatre I was in got up twice to take a piss. And of course cam back and said “what did I miss.” Walk away for three minutes from this film and you probably won’t miss anything. See the whole film and you probably will feel you did miss something. This is more or less the point, multiple huge issues overlapping; do not evolve into cogent narratives.
This country used to be the straight shooters of the world, we traded on this. Now the president spies on everyone, when NSA spying is used for insider trading will be put the lot of them in prison, take their money, and save social security?
Traffic was almost a horror film, where drugs were this boogey man that was coming for us all. And “Syrianna,” is about greed and how it’s dragging down particular people. You should take your ginkgo biloba before you see it, because you might forget that Matt Damon’s character is in grief, similar to the newly minted terrorist.
Trying to figure out what the CIA is trying to do is pointless. What they hope to accomplish with the mission they send a pudgy George Clooney back to Beirut for is vague. George and Mel Gibson apparently are in a private battle to see who can grow the most biblical beard. I’m really rooting for George, but I have to admit Mel’s really onto a more authentic sand and pepper look. It may come down to matching eyebrows.
I recommend seeing this film in a theatre that doesn’t sell soda. I think everyone in the theatre I was in got up twice to take a piss. And of course cam back and said “what did I miss.” Walk away for three minutes from this film and you probably won’t miss anything. See the whole film and you probably will feel you did miss something. This is more or less the point, multiple huge issues overlapping; do not evolve into cogent narratives.
This country used to be the straight shooters of the world, we traded on this. Now the president spies on everyone, when NSA spying is used for insider trading will be put the lot of them in prison, take their money, and save social security?
Thursday, December 15, 2005
Mr. Movie reviews: "Munich"
An Open Letter to Steven Spielberg
Dear Mr. Spielberg,
Thank you very much for Indiana Jones and “Shindler’s List,” I enjoyed them very much. On the subject of “Munich” I can’t say as much. Mr. Spielberg your film feels weak. Limp and devoid of a viewpoint, an impotent gesture, this film lacks conviction even as it tries to illustrate a man that loses his conviction. There is a scene in your film which I think ties your failure up pretty well. The cross cutting between the protagonists conjugal reunion with his wife and the death of the terrorists and their captives, is some pretty juvenile symbolism. It is crappy in the same way that adolescents find Dadaist manifestos attractive. I guess somewhere in all this pretense is some resemblance to “Serpico” and “The Fench Connection.”
On the subject of crap, the scene where the PLO agents and Mossad agents end up staying in the same safe house and fighting over the radio was tired. That they would end up agreeing to listen to Al Green as a compromise, was a bit of humor that felt misplaced in this film. If there was anything they would agree on listening to it would probably be a football game.
And speaking of crappy misplaced comments, I would like to mention those of Janusz Kaminski. “The Terrorists were not cold-blooded killers.” Now I realize Mr. Kaminski grew up being taught Israelis are “bad guys,” his words. The thing is when you set out to invade a hotel room and kill or be killed, that pretty much makes you a cold-blooded killer. Even if said occupants of room are Jewish. Now since Mr. Kaminski has left the wonderful Jew loving land of Poland, he has seen the other side of the coin in U.S. Soviet relationships. He obviously has not seen the Jewish side of this coin. Considering all the inequities, deaths on both sides, ethical miscarriages, there are some things you can say about the Israelis and the Jews. They don’t wish all Muslims death, they don’t wish all Arab countries destroyed, and they don’t want all non-Jews under Jewish law, and they certainly hold no ill will for Americans.
Terrorists and terrorism are bad, everyone gets it, why can’t Mr. Kaminski get it?
Well I am sorry that we both had to go through this, I hope we can all still get together for that Indiana Jones 4 thing.
Sincerely,
Mr. Movie
Dear Mr. Spielberg,
Thank you very much for Indiana Jones and “Shindler’s List,” I enjoyed them very much. On the subject of “Munich” I can’t say as much. Mr. Spielberg your film feels weak. Limp and devoid of a viewpoint, an impotent gesture, this film lacks conviction even as it tries to illustrate a man that loses his conviction. There is a scene in your film which I think ties your failure up pretty well. The cross cutting between the protagonists conjugal reunion with his wife and the death of the terrorists and their captives, is some pretty juvenile symbolism. It is crappy in the same way that adolescents find Dadaist manifestos attractive. I guess somewhere in all this pretense is some resemblance to “Serpico” and “The Fench Connection.”
On the subject of crap, the scene where the PLO agents and Mossad agents end up staying in the same safe house and fighting over the radio was tired. That they would end up agreeing to listen to Al Green as a compromise, was a bit of humor that felt misplaced in this film. If there was anything they would agree on listening to it would probably be a football game.
And speaking of crappy misplaced comments, I would like to mention those of Janusz Kaminski. “The Terrorists were not cold-blooded killers.” Now I realize Mr. Kaminski grew up being taught Israelis are “bad guys,” his words. The thing is when you set out to invade a hotel room and kill or be killed, that pretty much makes you a cold-blooded killer. Even if said occupants of room are Jewish. Now since Mr. Kaminski has left the wonderful Jew loving land of Poland, he has seen the other side of the coin in U.S. Soviet relationships. He obviously has not seen the Jewish side of this coin. Considering all the inequities, deaths on both sides, ethical miscarriages, there are some things you can say about the Israelis and the Jews. They don’t wish all Muslims death, they don’t wish all Arab countries destroyed, and they don’t want all non-Jews under Jewish law, and they certainly hold no ill will for Americans.
Terrorists and terrorism are bad, everyone gets it, why can’t Mr. Kaminski get it?
Well I am sorry that we both had to go through this, I hope we can all still get together for that Indiana Jones 4 thing.
Sincerely,
Mr. Movie
Friday, December 09, 2005
MR Movie reviews: Dreamer
Mr. Movie reviews: The Prize Winner of Defiance Ohio
Okay nine times better than it sounds. Holy dropped the marketing ball batman, this one came and went. I hope it’s out there somewhere for a Christmas weepie for someone who needs it. Certainly a nomination for best adapted screenplay is in the making. This movie opened September of 2005, and is not on DVD yet. Man, you’d think the company would try and get behind something this good. This is a red state movie. If you are all fired up about wanting good family entertainment, here it is. Please come get it. Those damn jane fonda lovin liberals dropped this like a steaming bag of dog poop, you can rescue it.
If you haven’t seen the film it’s about a woman who saves her family from ruin by winning jingle competitions throughout the fifties and early sixties. The characters strength that brings this family and all these individuals through is enviable. It could be considered ironic that now her memory continues to supply financial sustenance to this family. Julianne Moore is charming in this role; her character has more wasted class than the Learning Annex.
There is loads of fun in this movie reading this fifties family in our perfected hindsight. And if like me, you are a manly man that enjoys an honestly wrung sentimental tear, you will enjoy those tears shed for “The Prize Winner of Defiance Ohio.”
Okay nine times better than it sounds. Holy dropped the marketing ball batman, this one came and went. I hope it’s out there somewhere for a Christmas weepie for someone who needs it. Certainly a nomination for best adapted screenplay is in the making. This movie opened September of 2005, and is not on DVD yet. Man, you’d think the company would try and get behind something this good. This is a red state movie. If you are all fired up about wanting good family entertainment, here it is. Please come get it. Those damn jane fonda lovin liberals dropped this like a steaming bag of dog poop, you can rescue it.
If you haven’t seen the film it’s about a woman who saves her family from ruin by winning jingle competitions throughout the fifties and early sixties. The characters strength that brings this family and all these individuals through is enviable. It could be considered ironic that now her memory continues to supply financial sustenance to this family. Julianne Moore is charming in this role; her character has more wasted class than the Learning Annex.
There is loads of fun in this movie reading this fifties family in our perfected hindsight. And if like me, you are a manly man that enjoys an honestly wrung sentimental tear, you will enjoy those tears shed for “The Prize Winner of Defiance Ohio.”
Mr. Movie reviews: Mrs. Henderson Presents
This is what happens when the British try and do cute. I am sure my mother would love this movie, she'll watch anything on PBS with a british accent, that's how I discovered Monty Python.
Its a very nice movie, warm full of sexually alive old people.(shudder)
Yahoo! Shopping
Find Great Deals on Holiday Gifts at Yahoo! Shopping
Tuesday, November 29, 2005
Mr Movie Reviews: Chicken Little
Why did I see "Chicken Little?" Why not? I really wanted to see this film in 3D, but they didn't have it in a theatre in Denver while I was there. We also where hosting a non-english speaker, and we felt she might enjoy it more than "Capote."
The movie is generally amusing and frenetic enough at most times to keep your eyes from getting bored. The humor of this kindergarten trove of charachters mashed together in the kansas of our minds is comforting and safe. The movie does come to these crashing halts occasionaly so that the characters can emote some tired thing about how families should behave.
I am afraid what people in the future will think of our current obsession for pastiche entertainement. Will it be considered art or will it be recognized that we just ran out of ideas and made everything louder.
The movie is generally amusing and frenetic enough at most times to keep your eyes from getting bored. The humor of this kindergarten trove of charachters mashed together in the kansas of our minds is comforting and safe. The movie does come to these crashing halts occasionaly so that the characters can emote some tired thing about how families should behave.
I am afraid what people in the future will think of our current obsession for pastiche entertainement. Will it be considered art or will it be recognized that we just ran out of ideas and made everything louder.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
