Never in my life have I seen so many goddamn explosions. In fact, I think that might have been the original working title for Live Free or Die Hard, the fourth installment of the Die Hard series starring Bruce Willis. Of course producers backed off when they realized having “Goddamn” in the title might have negated that PG-13 rating. Live Free or Die Hard is a joke.
I know I will probably take one on the chin for this as most movie-goers are going to love this film. Bruce Willis is back as John McClane and he’s taking on more terrorists. For some, that’s the worth the price of admission alone. Then you add blowing up a helicopter with a car, a battle with a bad-ass kung-fu chick, lots of gunplay, a battle between a semi-truck and a jet plane, and most fans are going to go nuts for this movie. However, those people don’t mind that there’s no plot, even though the first act began with a pretty good attempt at one.
The first act introduces us to our baddie Thomas Gabriel (played by Timothy Olyphant, who I like a lot, and even like in this role), a jilted computer engineer who decides to use computer technology and a group of hackers to bring America to its knees over the Fourth of July weekend. There are some extreme leftist ideas, speaking the disenchantment of those who would ring the phrase, “I love my country, but fear my government.” At times, it almost feels anti-American, and that, to me, was extremely interesting and bold considering the political climate that we currently live in. Obviously, John McClane is going to save the day, but not before the ideas of those who live comfortably as capitalist fat cats, and blindly follow their government are questioned, right? Well, no … actually … what begins as an interesting premise dissolves into everything exploding, with the plot being a mere backdrop, and never actually living beyond the plot devices of the sequels that preceded it.
I like Justin Long (The Mac kid, who doesn’t actually use a Mac in this film), who is the buddy in this go-round of Die Hard: The Buddy Sequels, playing a computer hacker and unwitting accomplice to Thomas Gabriel’s meltdown of technology. This is pretty much the starting point of the story as there can be no witnesses and John McClane finds himself protecting the hacker with a criminal record. There are some nice ‘buddy’ moments, admittedly, and I did like this film through most of the first and second acts, but the third act becomes a parody of itself.
The filmmakers have forgotten every reason why it is that they have a job making a fourth, yes fourth, Die Hard film. You make sequels when you have a successful film. I understand that, but none of the sequels have lived up to their predecessor, and Live Free or Die Hard might be the worst offender. Die Hard is a perfect action film that reinvented action movies, as well as reinvented what we expect from the action hero. The entire film takes place in one building, and a shoeless John McClane takes on the terrorists and defeats them because he is brave, cool, collected, and smarter than his adversaries. He is a regular guy who saves the day against all mathematical probability.
As the sequels have progressed, however, the filmmakers have forgotten, or just ignored these facts. Sure, I want to see big action, but I don’t need to see it at the expense of plot. When there is little story making me truly believe the action occurring on screen is even partly feasible, then my attention is already lost, which brings me to my complaints about the third act. I’ll forgive the weak CGI in the highway tunnel scene that we’ve all seen in the trailer, depicting a car flipping into the air and Willis and Long just ducking in time. I’ll forgive the ridiculousness of a car going up a ramp and crashing into a helicopter. I will not forgive a semi-truck battling a jet plane while pieces of the highway are crashing all over the place only to wind up with Willis surfing on top of said jet. That was it. The over-the-top aspects that I could buy into as summer popcorn fun, disappeared into mockery.
People will like this film if they’re looking for 2 hours and 10 minutes of non-stop cartoon-like action, with a few catch phrases sprinkled in there, and if they can also accept the fact that it starts out with promise only to fail in its storytelling. I could not be so forgiving.
Thursday, June 28, 2007
Monday, June 25, 2007
Behind the Mask: The Rise of Leslie Vernon is Probably the Best Horror Film You've Never Seen!
Behind the Mask: The Rise of Leslie Vernon comes to DVD on June 26, thanks to the fine folks at Anchor Bay. However, it is also thanks to the fine folks at Anchor Bay that most have never heard of this film. What is without a doubt the best horror film to be released in years, Behind the Mask was only given limited release in theaters, and was, ultimately, marketed wrong. In many cases this film was being billed as a documentary of a serial killer, which we’ve seen enough, and is interesting enough, but totally off the mark in this case, and not going to get the attention of horror fans who should have seen this film.
The Rise of Leslie Vernon is not a documentary about a serial killer, nor is it merely a mockumentary about a serial killer. It is a perfect post-modern deconstruction of the supernatural horror film. Leslie Vernon (an inspired performance by Nathan Baesel) is a man who was presumably killed as a young boy by the townspeople of Echo Falls where the legend of that fateful night lives on, and he is now ready to begin a killing spree worthy of his myth.
With journalist Taylor Gentry (Angela Goethals) and a film crew in tow, Leslie describes how it is that he plans to live up to the masters Jason, Freddy, Mike and Chuck, and even delves slightly into how they do it. The idea of the supernatural is never made to be silly or ridiculous, but instead is serious work, and takes much in the way of preparation. Baesel’s Vernon is very funny, witty and charismatic, which makes Behind the Mask seem like a comedy, but it is his charming attitude that makes him seem that much more haunting. Not all killers are outwardly psychotic; it is because they are charming and charismatic that guys like Jeffrey Dahmer and Ted Bundy were so successful at luring unsuspecting victims.
It is, however, Vernon’s dry explanations that make this film a bit comedic as he deconstructs the genre, and even introduces us to his mentor, Eugene, played by Scott Wilson. Wilson seems to represent more of the Slasher/ Grindhouse films of the 60s and 70s, prior to the obligatory sequel. He is a man who has respect for the game of fear, and knows that if he didn’t play his part, then there would be no evil to go head to head with good.
It is in this understanding of good and evil that Vernon explains that the true battle for someone in his line of work is against the Survivor Girl, the virgin who has the only true chance at surviving his killing spree. The plot thickens, of course, when Robert England as Doc Holloran shows up to fulfill the role of Vernon’s “Ahab,” the man from his past hell bent on stopping his murder spree.
The DVD has some nice behind-the-scenes stuff as well as some deleted and extended scenes. All have commentary with director Scott Glosserman, which does much to explain and expand on some of the concepts within the film. The actor commentary is fun, but not particularly informative. It amounts to little more than storytelling, not so much a mini-film school as some director commentaries can be. Ultimately, though, it is not the extras that make this DVD worth owning, although there’s some good stuff in there, all worth watching, it is the brilliance of this film that you are going to want to watch again and again.
Behind the Mask: The Rise of Leslie Vernon is everything Scream should have been. Instead of playing to laughs exclusively, BtM is exactly what it strives to be. It is not a parody and, in fact, plays more to its intended audience, but does enough explaining that a mainstream audience could have a lot of fun here. At its heart, though, this is a celebration of horror films that is itself the beginning of a new killer to add to the pantheon of greats.
The Rise of Leslie Vernon is not a documentary about a serial killer, nor is it merely a mockumentary about a serial killer. It is a perfect post-modern deconstruction of the supernatural horror film. Leslie Vernon (an inspired performance by Nathan Baesel) is a man who was presumably killed as a young boy by the townspeople of Echo Falls where the legend of that fateful night lives on, and he is now ready to begin a killing spree worthy of his myth.
With journalist Taylor Gentry (Angela Goethals) and a film crew in tow, Leslie describes how it is that he plans to live up to the masters Jason, Freddy, Mike and Chuck, and even delves slightly into how they do it. The idea of the supernatural is never made to be silly or ridiculous, but instead is serious work, and takes much in the way of preparation. Baesel’s Vernon is very funny, witty and charismatic, which makes Behind the Mask seem like a comedy, but it is his charming attitude that makes him seem that much more haunting. Not all killers are outwardly psychotic; it is because they are charming and charismatic that guys like Jeffrey Dahmer and Ted Bundy were so successful at luring unsuspecting victims.
It is, however, Vernon’s dry explanations that make this film a bit comedic as he deconstructs the genre, and even introduces us to his mentor, Eugene, played by Scott Wilson. Wilson seems to represent more of the Slasher/ Grindhouse films of the 60s and 70s, prior to the obligatory sequel. He is a man who has respect for the game of fear, and knows that if he didn’t play his part, then there would be no evil to go head to head with good.
It is in this understanding of good and evil that Vernon explains that the true battle for someone in his line of work is against the Survivor Girl, the virgin who has the only true chance at surviving his killing spree. The plot thickens, of course, when Robert England as Doc Holloran shows up to fulfill the role of Vernon’s “Ahab,” the man from his past hell bent on stopping his murder spree.
The DVD has some nice behind-the-scenes stuff as well as some deleted and extended scenes. All have commentary with director Scott Glosserman, which does much to explain and expand on some of the concepts within the film. The actor commentary is fun, but not particularly informative. It amounts to little more than storytelling, not so much a mini-film school as some director commentaries can be. Ultimately, though, it is not the extras that make this DVD worth owning, although there’s some good stuff in there, all worth watching, it is the brilliance of this film that you are going to want to watch again and again.
Behind the Mask: The Rise of Leslie Vernon is everything Scream should have been. Instead of playing to laughs exclusively, BtM is exactly what it strives to be. It is not a parody and, in fact, plays more to its intended audience, but does enough explaining that a mainstream audience could have a lot of fun here. At its heart, though, this is a celebration of horror films that is itself the beginning of a new killer to add to the pantheon of greats.
Monday, June 18, 2007
Silver Surfer Helps Take Fantastic Four to New Heights!
Is it possible? Is Fantastic Four 2: Rise of the Silver Surfer really, truly, the first great summer blockbuster?! It’s certainly the most fun I’ve had staring up at that silver screen this summer. With all of the talk about it being directed at kids and carrying a PG rating, I have to say that the PG doesn’t matter. There isn’t going to be nudity or partial nudity in an FF film; there isn’t going to be any blood and gore in an FF film; and there certainly isn’t going to be any cussing in an FF film. However, there is another suggested nude scene with Sue Storm, there is a little bit of risqué humor, and it does lean a little dark at times. Keep in mind, though, that all of the places one might desire for this film to go to achieve that PG-13 rating are the very same places that the comic book never goes. This is a family film and that’s ok.
FF2 has officially learned from the mistakes made on the first film, and writers Don Payne and Mark Frost have made a nice effort in bringing the feeling of Marvel’s First Family to the big screen. I daresay that Don Payne gets it! Yes, we need big action, but we also need depth within the family and between the four main characters, and it’s all here. This time, the jokes are funny, the action is fun, and the villain doesn’t come off as silly. Doom is in this film, but he’s depicted as a bit more dark and menacing, even if Julian McMahon as Victor seems to grin and wink at the camera. It’s when we see Doom that this character works.
On the set of Rise of the Silver Surfer in Vancouver Julian McMahon was asked if Doom would be a bit more evil this go round, and his response was a cocky grin and, “Well, you can’t make him too evil or the kiddies wouldn’t be able to watch.” The problem then, is that he has no idea what comic book evil is. It’s not the same as real world evil. It is without rhyme or reason, more about grudges and power … well, that sounds a lot like real world evil, but my point is that the hero always wins in comics, and always defeats the larger than life evil of a comic book villain, and is not a danger to the innocence of “the kiddies.”
Doom has a grudge against Reed, and uses it as his reason for becoming the iron fisted dictator of Latveria, which is glazed over in this film, but his bid to take over the world is there, and in terms of comic book evil, all you really need is a grudge. But it’s only there because the writers understand the character.
It is because the writers understand the character, that this film is stepped up a notch. Tim Story also does a fine job of mixing the humor and emotion with some fun action beats. We finally get to see Reed step up and become the leader of this team. No longer is he the wimp that he was in the first film. Ioan Gruffud is still a little awkward, but the characterization is strong. Sue, who spent much of the first film in a “whoa is me, why can’t we get married” state of mind, comes full circle in this film and becomes more of the matriarch that we know and love from the comic books.
While Reed and Sue are slowly becoming the heads of the “family,” the relationship between Johnny and Ben deepens and is right on. Chris Evans understands the character of Johnny Storm so well that he stole the show in the first film; this time around, he gives a better performance, but doesn’t steal the show because he’s no longer the only actor working his ass off. Michael Chiklis is great as The Thing, still curmudgeonly, but really is the ever-lovin’ blue eyed Thing. As much as Johnny and Ben pick on each other, we see a little bit of heart here. Through Johnny’s cocky attitude, we see that he is a bit jealous of Ben and Alicia, and it works without being mired in emotion like the first film.
Which brings us to the Silver Surfer, whom this story is primarily about. WOW! Silver Surfer is one of those characters in the comic book that instantly captures the imagination. Few other mediums could do justice to a silver entity riding a surfboard through space, which is why it works in comics, and these things don’t always work in movies. Fans have been clamoring for years to see Norin Radd on the big screen, much the way fans thought they wanted to see Venom. To the benefit of FF and the Silver Surfer, though, Tim Story makes this character work. Doug Jones, also, should receive kudos aplenty as his movements make this character so fluid, so cosmic, so … perfect. That Laurence Fishburn plays the voice is sort of inconsequential. So much emphasis was put on the effort to get a “real actor” to voice the surfer, but with few lines it could have been anyone, and should have been Doug Jones. Fishburn didn’t make me love the character any more than I did already. It’s the story that drives the character, and the story is fun.
In fact, one of the largest geek complaints is in making Galactus a storm cloud, but I think seeing is believing. Would I have liked to see the big purple and blue eater of worlds? You bet your surfboard I would have, but it didn’t matter. He was depicted more as a circumstance, and it worked. Much the way Venom was rushed into Spidey 3, putting Galactus as more than just a presence in this film, might have felt rushed. Instead, seeing a cloud of dust and debris as he makes his bid to eat Earth ends up feeling a bit more cataclysmic, perhaps, less silly. And if you look close enough, you’ll even see an outline of the helmet.
This is Silver Surfer’s story, and the movie is stronger for it. It is an entertaining ride, and just plain old popcorn-eatin’ fun! I give it a 7.5 out of 10. It’s good, fun adventure that doesn’t pander at the kids, and doesn’t just try to sell them action figures (although, there certainly are action figures and fast-food tie-ins, and oh how I would love a Fantasticar!). Rise of the Silver Surfer understands that the adults can like these movies, too.
FF2 has officially learned from the mistakes made on the first film, and writers Don Payne and Mark Frost have made a nice effort in bringing the feeling of Marvel’s First Family to the big screen. I daresay that Don Payne gets it! Yes, we need big action, but we also need depth within the family and between the four main characters, and it’s all here. This time, the jokes are funny, the action is fun, and the villain doesn’t come off as silly. Doom is in this film, but he’s depicted as a bit more dark and menacing, even if Julian McMahon as Victor seems to grin and wink at the camera. It’s when we see Doom that this character works.
On the set of Rise of the Silver Surfer in Vancouver Julian McMahon was asked if Doom would be a bit more evil this go round, and his response was a cocky grin and, “Well, you can’t make him too evil or the kiddies wouldn’t be able to watch.” The problem then, is that he has no idea what comic book evil is. It’s not the same as real world evil. It is without rhyme or reason, more about grudges and power … well, that sounds a lot like real world evil, but my point is that the hero always wins in comics, and always defeats the larger than life evil of a comic book villain, and is not a danger to the innocence of “the kiddies.”
Doom has a grudge against Reed, and uses it as his reason for becoming the iron fisted dictator of Latveria, which is glazed over in this film, but his bid to take over the world is there, and in terms of comic book evil, all you really need is a grudge. But it’s only there because the writers understand the character.
It is because the writers understand the character, that this film is stepped up a notch. Tim Story also does a fine job of mixing the humor and emotion with some fun action beats. We finally get to see Reed step up and become the leader of this team. No longer is he the wimp that he was in the first film. Ioan Gruffud is still a little awkward, but the characterization is strong. Sue, who spent much of the first film in a “whoa is me, why can’t we get married” state of mind, comes full circle in this film and becomes more of the matriarch that we know and love from the comic books.
While Reed and Sue are slowly becoming the heads of the “family,” the relationship between Johnny and Ben deepens and is right on. Chris Evans understands the character of Johnny Storm so well that he stole the show in the first film; this time around, he gives a better performance, but doesn’t steal the show because he’s no longer the only actor working his ass off. Michael Chiklis is great as The Thing, still curmudgeonly, but really is the ever-lovin’ blue eyed Thing. As much as Johnny and Ben pick on each other, we see a little bit of heart here. Through Johnny’s cocky attitude, we see that he is a bit jealous of Ben and Alicia, and it works without being mired in emotion like the first film.
Which brings us to the Silver Surfer, whom this story is primarily about. WOW! Silver Surfer is one of those characters in the comic book that instantly captures the imagination. Few other mediums could do justice to a silver entity riding a surfboard through space, which is why it works in comics, and these things don’t always work in movies. Fans have been clamoring for years to see Norin Radd on the big screen, much the way fans thought they wanted to see Venom. To the benefit of FF and the Silver Surfer, though, Tim Story makes this character work. Doug Jones, also, should receive kudos aplenty as his movements make this character so fluid, so cosmic, so … perfect. That Laurence Fishburn plays the voice is sort of inconsequential. So much emphasis was put on the effort to get a “real actor” to voice the surfer, but with few lines it could have been anyone, and should have been Doug Jones. Fishburn didn’t make me love the character any more than I did already. It’s the story that drives the character, and the story is fun.
In fact, one of the largest geek complaints is in making Galactus a storm cloud, but I think seeing is believing. Would I have liked to see the big purple and blue eater of worlds? You bet your surfboard I would have, but it didn’t matter. He was depicted more as a circumstance, and it worked. Much the way Venom was rushed into Spidey 3, putting Galactus as more than just a presence in this film, might have felt rushed. Instead, seeing a cloud of dust and debris as he makes his bid to eat Earth ends up feeling a bit more cataclysmic, perhaps, less silly. And if you look close enough, you’ll even see an outline of the helmet.
This is Silver Surfer’s story, and the movie is stronger for it. It is an entertaining ride, and just plain old popcorn-eatin’ fun! I give it a 7.5 out of 10. It’s good, fun adventure that doesn’t pander at the kids, and doesn’t just try to sell them action figures (although, there certainly are action figures and fast-food tie-ins, and oh how I would love a Fantasticar!). Rise of the Silver Surfer understands that the adults can like these movies, too.
Tuesday, June 12, 2007
Wait Till Your Father Gets Home is Both a Reflection of 1972 and Today!
In 1989 The Simpsons aired their Christmas special, and for many, this was something totally new, a depiction of a dysfunctional nuclear family that seemed more familiar to many families than what was depicted on typical sitcoms. In the beginning that show had dysfunction, but its popularity was largely due to its heart.
However, when that show was aired, not once do I remember it being compared to, what seems to me, its obvious predecessor, Wait Till Your Father Gets Home. With Season One released as a Hanna-Barbera Classic Collection by Time Warner last week, it has become apparent to me what an overlooked treasure this show is.
Wit Till Your Father Gets Home was originally aired in 1972 and features the voice of Tom Bosley as Harry Boyle, an understanding father trying to understand a vastly changing world. His neighbor is conservative, way to the right, terrified of the communist threat to America, and thus runs a crack outfit of pseudo militants, The Vigilantes, bent on bringing justice and safety to their quiet neighborhood. And so The Vigilantes stand as a great example of just one extreme.
His children, however, go to the opposite extreme. The two oldest children, Alice and Chet serve to show the bleeding-heart liberalism that was prevalent in the 70s. Just one example, is in an early episode in which the family suspects Harry of cheating with his secretary. They don’t believe him when he denies it, yet they try to understand why he would cheat, rather than chastise him for doing so. Of course, not once do they consider that he didn’t. And Harry utters, “I get treated better around here when they think I’ve done wrong.” And the largest, most prevalent theme when dealing with the kids is that Chet, at 22, refuses to get a job.
Does any of this sound familiar? Is it a case of history repeating itself, as more and more kids are frightened of entering the workplace after college? Of course, it doesn’t help that there are few jobs waiting for them.
The youngest son, Jamie, who is voiced throughout the season by both Willie Ames and Jackie Earl Haley, seems to be a prototype for Alex P. Keaton, and sign of what is to come in the 80s. The young, entrepreneurial Jamie is constantly trying to sell whatever services he has for a little extra change, and even tries to barter up the value of a lost tooth, asking why the Tooth Fairy doesn’t account for inflation.
And in the middle of all, is Mom. She is a mom of the past. She is dependent on house and husband, but is ruler of the roost at home. However, she is always supportive of both the kids and Harry. She is the sole voice of reason, even when no one is listening.
Overall, it is a very unique family dynamic that sort of encapsulates the feelings of change that were spreading through the mass consciousness. And right along side of all of this social commentary is an animation style that fits the show so well. It is very pared down, putting less emphasis on backgrounds, and more emphasis on characters, and with this minimalist approach the viewer is left with a sort of less-is-more feeling.
In the end, the best way to describe it is as Family Guy living next door to American Dad with the heart, emotions, truth and honesty of the first few seasons of The Simpsons. For those who remember this show, it is worth the purchase as a reminder of the past, and a reminder of the present as it holds up remarkably better than many sitcoms of the 70s. That, in my mind is due to the themes taking precedence over the visual commitment of painting the 70s. It’s just a family, dealing with the issues of their, and our, times.
However, when that show was aired, not once do I remember it being compared to, what seems to me, its obvious predecessor, Wait Till Your Father Gets Home. With Season One released as a Hanna-Barbera Classic Collection by Time Warner last week, it has become apparent to me what an overlooked treasure this show is.
Wit Till Your Father Gets Home was originally aired in 1972 and features the voice of Tom Bosley as Harry Boyle, an understanding father trying to understand a vastly changing world. His neighbor is conservative, way to the right, terrified of the communist threat to America, and thus runs a crack outfit of pseudo militants, The Vigilantes, bent on bringing justice and safety to their quiet neighborhood. And so The Vigilantes stand as a great example of just one extreme.
His children, however, go to the opposite extreme. The two oldest children, Alice and Chet serve to show the bleeding-heart liberalism that was prevalent in the 70s. Just one example, is in an early episode in which the family suspects Harry of cheating with his secretary. They don’t believe him when he denies it, yet they try to understand why he would cheat, rather than chastise him for doing so. Of course, not once do they consider that he didn’t. And Harry utters, “I get treated better around here when they think I’ve done wrong.” And the largest, most prevalent theme when dealing with the kids is that Chet, at 22, refuses to get a job.
Does any of this sound familiar? Is it a case of history repeating itself, as more and more kids are frightened of entering the workplace after college? Of course, it doesn’t help that there are few jobs waiting for them.
The youngest son, Jamie, who is voiced throughout the season by both Willie Ames and Jackie Earl Haley, seems to be a prototype for Alex P. Keaton, and sign of what is to come in the 80s. The young, entrepreneurial Jamie is constantly trying to sell whatever services he has for a little extra change, and even tries to barter up the value of a lost tooth, asking why the Tooth Fairy doesn’t account for inflation.
And in the middle of all, is Mom. She is a mom of the past. She is dependent on house and husband, but is ruler of the roost at home. However, she is always supportive of both the kids and Harry. She is the sole voice of reason, even when no one is listening.
Overall, it is a very unique family dynamic that sort of encapsulates the feelings of change that were spreading through the mass consciousness. And right along side of all of this social commentary is an animation style that fits the show so well. It is very pared down, putting less emphasis on backgrounds, and more emphasis on characters, and with this minimalist approach the viewer is left with a sort of less-is-more feeling.
In the end, the best way to describe it is as Family Guy living next door to American Dad with the heart, emotions, truth and honesty of the first few seasons of The Simpsons. For those who remember this show, it is worth the purchase as a reminder of the past, and a reminder of the present as it holds up remarkably better than many sitcoms of the 70s. That, in my mind is due to the themes taking precedence over the visual commitment of painting the 70s. It’s just a family, dealing with the issues of their, and our, times.
Friday, May 4, 2007
Spider-Man 3 Allows Too Many Villains to Ruin the Stew!
When Spider-Man first hit the big screen in 2002, I remember describing my enthusiasm as that of a 16-year-old girl on prom night. I could hardly contain my excitement. However, as Sam Raimi and company embark on the third installment of the franchise, I have quite a different phrase ringing in my brain: I didn’t love it! I wanted to love it, but it’s the weakest of the three, and a sloppy effort as a film.
What should have been a slam dunk instead reeks of producer and studio interference. Sam Raimi said from day one that he grew up with, and is a fan of the classic Spidey stories, and the classic villains. And he made it very clear that he was never a fan of Venom, and he would, therefore, never appear in the Spider-Man movies. But, then word gets out that Spidey 3 will include the black suit and a certain brain eating symbiote. So the questions start flying last year at San Diego Comic Con and Sam’s extremely diplomatic response was that the producers thought it was time, that it’s what the fans wanted, and Sam agreed. Although, I don’t think in his heart of hearts that he did agree. And my question to Avi Arad is this: It’s what the fans wanted. Really? Did you beat the pavement, Avi, and ask them?
Now, I’ll admit that I am not a fan of the Venom character and see him as a representation of the Dark Age of comic books that was the 1990s, with brooding heroes and dark, sinister villains. The 90s weren’t really a “fun” time for comic books, and this movie, unlike its predecessors, just isn’t fun. But it’s not Venom’s fault. The problem is that this is two movies forced into one that leaves no room for complete story arcs for any of the villains.
Had this film found a focus and built its story around a specific set of conflicts, it could have been great, but instead it suffers from Part 3 Syndrome and seems to want to cram in as much as possible, just in case there isn’t a fourth installment. So, instead the film relies on a series of coincidences to force conflict, and put all of our characters at odds. Harry is the only one of the villains who receives a decent arc, and in fact, steals every scene he’s in. James Franco plays Harry as vengeful, yet also playful after an incident leaves him with no short term memory. This, then, sets up a nice conclusion for the character, who is actually allowed to develop, unlike Sandman, Venom and even Gwen Stacy.
Sandman is forced into the story as Peter’s origin is seemingly rewritten to give him motivation to fight Sandman. Flint Marko could have been sympathetic without having to put him on the criminal parallel path of Peter. One goes to jail, while the other is lauded as a hero. And Marko, just happening to fall into the experiment that turns him to sand, also feels forced. And it didn’t have to be.
Venom suffers from the same problem. In order to tell Venom’s tale, Peter has to reject the suit, but telling the tale of the black suit in a one hour chunk in the middle of this film, makes Peter too dark and menacing, as opposed to building up over a year or so in monthly installments. Which, again, leaves everything feeling rushed. Peter rejects the suit and Eddie Brock just happens to be in the same church to receive the symbiote. Too coincidental, but there was little time to build as the rest of the film meanders around, trying to give all of these characters something to do and failing miserably.
And, why oh why, couldn’t Harry have been a Goblin. Making him something out of the Ultimate Marvel Universe again reeks of producer interference; especially considering the fact that we are shown an alternate Goblin mask during Harry’s introduction. What could have been a brain-melting third act battle sequence depicting three of Spidey’s villains, instead becomes unappealing icing on a cake I don’t want to eat.
The visuals are great, the performances are strong, but the story and character development are lacking. We are given too little story in 2 hours and 20 minutes. If the Black Suit, and Venom had been saved for a fourth movie, and the film was shaved by 20 minutes, this could have been right in line with the first two, but instead it seems the bar was set too high, and the producers were too scared to let the stories develop on their own.
It breaks my heart to have to say that this film achieves little more than a 6.5 out of 10. I could break it down and go higher on acting, and visual effects, but we go to the movies for the whole product, and the pieces that made this product are strong at times, but the film is just not good.
What should have been a slam dunk instead reeks of producer and studio interference. Sam Raimi said from day one that he grew up with, and is a fan of the classic Spidey stories, and the classic villains. And he made it very clear that he was never a fan of Venom, and he would, therefore, never appear in the Spider-Man movies. But, then word gets out that Spidey 3 will include the black suit and a certain brain eating symbiote. So the questions start flying last year at San Diego Comic Con and Sam’s extremely diplomatic response was that the producers thought it was time, that it’s what the fans wanted, and Sam agreed. Although, I don’t think in his heart of hearts that he did agree. And my question to Avi Arad is this: It’s what the fans wanted. Really? Did you beat the pavement, Avi, and ask them?
Now, I’ll admit that I am not a fan of the Venom character and see him as a representation of the Dark Age of comic books that was the 1990s, with brooding heroes and dark, sinister villains. The 90s weren’t really a “fun” time for comic books, and this movie, unlike its predecessors, just isn’t fun. But it’s not Venom’s fault. The problem is that this is two movies forced into one that leaves no room for complete story arcs for any of the villains.
Had this film found a focus and built its story around a specific set of conflicts, it could have been great, but instead it suffers from Part 3 Syndrome and seems to want to cram in as much as possible, just in case there isn’t a fourth installment. So, instead the film relies on a series of coincidences to force conflict, and put all of our characters at odds. Harry is the only one of the villains who receives a decent arc, and in fact, steals every scene he’s in. James Franco plays Harry as vengeful, yet also playful after an incident leaves him with no short term memory. This, then, sets up a nice conclusion for the character, who is actually allowed to develop, unlike Sandman, Venom and even Gwen Stacy.
Sandman is forced into the story as Peter’s origin is seemingly rewritten to give him motivation to fight Sandman. Flint Marko could have been sympathetic without having to put him on the criminal parallel path of Peter. One goes to jail, while the other is lauded as a hero. And Marko, just happening to fall into the experiment that turns him to sand, also feels forced. And it didn’t have to be.
Venom suffers from the same problem. In order to tell Venom’s tale, Peter has to reject the suit, but telling the tale of the black suit in a one hour chunk in the middle of this film, makes Peter too dark and menacing, as opposed to building up over a year or so in monthly installments. Which, again, leaves everything feeling rushed. Peter rejects the suit and Eddie Brock just happens to be in the same church to receive the symbiote. Too coincidental, but there was little time to build as the rest of the film meanders around, trying to give all of these characters something to do and failing miserably.
And, why oh why, couldn’t Harry have been a Goblin. Making him something out of the Ultimate Marvel Universe again reeks of producer interference; especially considering the fact that we are shown an alternate Goblin mask during Harry’s introduction. What could have been a brain-melting third act battle sequence depicting three of Spidey’s villains, instead becomes unappealing icing on a cake I don’t want to eat.
The visuals are great, the performances are strong, but the story and character development are lacking. We are given too little story in 2 hours and 20 minutes. If the Black Suit, and Venom had been saved for a fourth movie, and the film was shaved by 20 minutes, this could have been right in line with the first two, but instead it seems the bar was set too high, and the producers were too scared to let the stories develop on their own.
It breaks my heart to have to say that this film achieves little more than a 6.5 out of 10. I could break it down and go higher on acting, and visual effects, but we go to the movies for the whole product, and the pieces that made this product are strong at times, but the film is just not good.
Friday, April 6, 2007
Grindhouse: Better than Sneaking Downstairs to Watch Skinemax while your parents are sleeping!
It was 1983 and I was on the verge of turning seven years old, 3D was all the rage between going to the 7-11 or Sunoco gas station to get 3D glasses for the local TV screening of Creature from the Black Lagoon, and a crop of films employing this new technology turning up at the theatres. My neighbors were going to the Drive-in and offered to take me with them. It was a double feature of Jaws 3D and Friday the 13th Part 3D. Louis Gosset Jr. was in Iron Eagle and I was just ecstatic at the prospect of him taking on a 3D shark. And I loved it. However, even deep in the heart of a horror fan, 6 years old was a bit young to see Jason killing college kids, so I rolled over and discovered that Return of the Jedi was playing across the lot. But while the film was across the lot, the speaker in our car was still promoting the grisly sounds of college kids dying at the hands of Jason. I would grow up with this rather unique experience that would shape my life for the rest of my days.
It is unfortunate, then, that Drive-ins are a thing of the past, thus negating any hope of future generations talking about that time they watched CGI Ninja Turtles kick monster butt while Kurt Russel kills young women with his car. I think kids and adults, both, need such an experience, and now it is that the generation who grew up with similar, but different and equally unique experiences are making movies. Robert Rodriguez and Quentin Tarantino are revolutionizing what movies can be, by taking a step into the past with Grindhouse, the throwback double feature that opens nationwide today.
The two rebel filmmakers who are, seemingly, fans above all else, have recreated the magic that once existed at the movies. In both "Planet Terror" and "Death Proof" the filmmakers use all of the dynamics from their favorite exploitation films, but make the stories more relevant, by acknowledging current technology such as cell phones. And it works. "Planet Terror" is absolutely inspired as it wastes little time introducing the characters and jumps headlong into one really bad zombie-filled evening in a small town. There's a loner rebel (Freddy Rodriguez), a restaurant owner who makes the best BBQ in the land (Jeff Fahey), his brother the Sheriff (Michael Biehn), a wayward Go-Go dancer (Rose McGowan), a crazed doctor and his wife the anesthesiologist (Josh Brolin and Marley Shelton), there's machine gun legs, zombies, a crazed military General (Bruce Willis), all of which make for a really fun, fast paced, over-the-top exploration of a lost genre, which is guaranteed to put a smile on your face.
Death Proof, however, is not as break-neck in its pacing. I had heard rumors of Rodriguez going over budget, delaying the production a bit, and also leaving very little left for Tarantino. It shows. In what is, about, an 80-minute film, at least half of it is filling time with long-winded Tarantino-style dialogue that sounds cool, but does little to effect the plot or story, leaving long moments where there is nothing going on. I also felt a bit let down in seeing Marley Shelton's Dr. Block show up in Death Proof as it almost cheapens the moment. "Death Proof," then, is a tie-in to "Planet Terror," as opposed to being two stand-alone features as part of a double-feature. And not only does this moment take the film somewhere odd, but it just stops and begins the next portion of its story, leaving that particular plot thread hanging. Now, I will say that when he kicks it in the short pants and gives us the car chases, they are brilliant. The climax of the film is amazing and feels so triumphant. Unfortunately, there's a lot of nothing to wade through beforehand. I kind of wish Tarantino's half had run first, thus leaving a more uplifting feeling rather than giving me the film with the most to complain about last.
But I digress, this film is more than worth the price of admission. Not only do you get two films for a single admission, but the icing on the blood splattered cake lies with the faux movie trailers done by the likes of Rodriguez, Edgar Wright, Eli Roth and Rob Zombie. In fact, I really want to see "Machete," "Don't," "Thanksgiving," and "Werewolf Women of the SS." And I've heard rumors that Rob Zombie might even be making his trailer into a feature. This is the stuff that childhood dreams are made of. I don't know that I want kids, but I wish I knew that somewhere children were faking sleep so that they could sneak downstairs to watch "Werewolf Women of the SS" on HBO.
This film is a solid A-, a 9, whatever your preference in scale. What Rodriguez and Tarantino have done is greater than merely making a movie, they have given a lost experience to those that missed it, and dug it up and repackaged it for those that lamented the genre's passing. A movie is one thing, but a lasting impression that changes what you thought movies could be ... that's taking it to a whole new level.
It is unfortunate, then, that Drive-ins are a thing of the past, thus negating any hope of future generations talking about that time they watched CGI Ninja Turtles kick monster butt while Kurt Russel kills young women with his car. I think kids and adults, both, need such an experience, and now it is that the generation who grew up with similar, but different and equally unique experiences are making movies. Robert Rodriguez and Quentin Tarantino are revolutionizing what movies can be, by taking a step into the past with Grindhouse, the throwback double feature that opens nationwide today.
The two rebel filmmakers who are, seemingly, fans above all else, have recreated the magic that once existed at the movies. In both "Planet Terror" and "Death Proof" the filmmakers use all of the dynamics from their favorite exploitation films, but make the stories more relevant, by acknowledging current technology such as cell phones. And it works. "Planet Terror" is absolutely inspired as it wastes little time introducing the characters and jumps headlong into one really bad zombie-filled evening in a small town. There's a loner rebel (Freddy Rodriguez), a restaurant owner who makes the best BBQ in the land (Jeff Fahey), his brother the Sheriff (Michael Biehn), a wayward Go-Go dancer (Rose McGowan), a crazed doctor and his wife the anesthesiologist (Josh Brolin and Marley Shelton), there's machine gun legs, zombies, a crazed military General (Bruce Willis), all of which make for a really fun, fast paced, over-the-top exploration of a lost genre, which is guaranteed to put a smile on your face.
Death Proof, however, is not as break-neck in its pacing. I had heard rumors of Rodriguez going over budget, delaying the production a bit, and also leaving very little left for Tarantino. It shows. In what is, about, an 80-minute film, at least half of it is filling time with long-winded Tarantino-style dialogue that sounds cool, but does little to effect the plot or story, leaving long moments where there is nothing going on. I also felt a bit let down in seeing Marley Shelton's Dr. Block show up in Death Proof as it almost cheapens the moment. "Death Proof," then, is a tie-in to "Planet Terror," as opposed to being two stand-alone features as part of a double-feature. And not only does this moment take the film somewhere odd, but it just stops and begins the next portion of its story, leaving that particular plot thread hanging. Now, I will say that when he kicks it in the short pants and gives us the car chases, they are brilliant. The climax of the film is amazing and feels so triumphant. Unfortunately, there's a lot of nothing to wade through beforehand. I kind of wish Tarantino's half had run first, thus leaving a more uplifting feeling rather than giving me the film with the most to complain about last.
But I digress, this film is more than worth the price of admission. Not only do you get two films for a single admission, but the icing on the blood splattered cake lies with the faux movie trailers done by the likes of Rodriguez, Edgar Wright, Eli Roth and Rob Zombie. In fact, I really want to see "Machete," "Don't," "Thanksgiving," and "Werewolf Women of the SS." And I've heard rumors that Rob Zombie might even be making his trailer into a feature. This is the stuff that childhood dreams are made of. I don't know that I want kids, but I wish I knew that somewhere children were faking sleep so that they could sneak downstairs to watch "Werewolf Women of the SS" on HBO.
This film is a solid A-, a 9, whatever your preference in scale. What Rodriguez and Tarantino have done is greater than merely making a movie, they have given a lost experience to those that missed it, and dug it up and repackaged it for those that lamented the genre's passing. A movie is one thing, but a lasting impression that changes what you thought movies could be ... that's taking it to a whole new level.
Thursday, April 5, 2007
First Snow: Moments Don't Make a Movie!
It's a slippery slope when a film tells you in the first act that your protagonist is going to die. If I know within the first 15 minutes that my main character isn't making it, then the entire film becomes about the journey, rather than the destination. At the beginning of "American Beauty" we know Kevin Spacey's Lester Burnham isn't making it, in fact, he's narrating this fact as we're looking at his dead body in the opening shot. Of course that technique wasn't new, having been lifted directly from "Sunset Boulevard," but the journey is what excites us about both of those films. Hell, "Penn and Teller Get Killed" tells you the ending in the title, but there ending is so damn clever, that the closing of that film, mixed with the journey leaves the viewer feeling fulfilled. The same cannot be said of "First Snow," starring Guy Pearce and written and directed by Mark Fergus (Children of Men).
From our opening scene Fergus uses his camera and script to indicate that our main character, Jimmy Starks, is a fast talker, not to mention rather vain. When Jimmy's car breaks down, the local mechanic can't fix it until nightfall so he needs to fill time by talking to a psychic who just happens to have trailer parked in the parking lot of the gas station/ bar. J.K. Simmons plays our psychic and is brilliant in the role, as always. He is very soft spoken and tells Jimmy of a coming windfall, specifically from Dallas. However, he ends the session quickly when the roads in his visions abruptly stop.
When the windfall of money arrives on the coattails of Dallas, Jimmy panics and needs to know what is coming next. And so we spend our second act with Jimmy trying to draw the lines and find out who would want him dead. He has two suspects, but does one of those suspects become a self-fulfilling prophecy? In a film that talks about fate, and roads travelled, so much of Jimmy's road happens due to his own actions upon finding out about his vague, but looming fate.
Between "The Lookout" and "First Snow" I really feel like neo-noir is more akin to no-noir. In the days of film noir it largely meant dark movie, this had much to do with the lighting as well as the story. But there was story in those films and it was our protagonist, often a detective, who stumbled into the story. What is being put in the theatres now relies heavily on camerawork and taking the single individual protagonist and trying to dig into their psyche with lots of long, slow shots. Perhaps this works for some, but I feel like too much time is being wasted in an attempt to make me feel what the director wants me to feel, rather than telling a story and actually letting me feel that emotion on my own. Ultimately, "First Snow" is too long. Too much time is spent showing us Jimmy's breakdown and fear of his own death. I would prefer setup, then a headlong slide to the conclusion. And it would help if the protagonist was mostly likeable.
Now, I will say that the third act succeeds for the most part. Fergus begins to allow usto settle in and watch Jimmy's destruction instead of shoving it down our throats. And his use of snow in those fleeting scenes feels bleak, yet fearless. I just wish he hadn't force fed us the conclusion and left a little more to the imagination. On a cale of 5, I can offer it little more than a 2. I didn't hate it, it's not a total waste of time, but it wastes too much time.
From our opening scene Fergus uses his camera and script to indicate that our main character, Jimmy Starks, is a fast talker, not to mention rather vain. When Jimmy's car breaks down, the local mechanic can't fix it until nightfall so he needs to fill time by talking to a psychic who just happens to have trailer parked in the parking lot of the gas station/ bar. J.K. Simmons plays our psychic and is brilliant in the role, as always. He is very soft spoken and tells Jimmy of a coming windfall, specifically from Dallas. However, he ends the session quickly when the roads in his visions abruptly stop.
When the windfall of money arrives on the coattails of Dallas, Jimmy panics and needs to know what is coming next. And so we spend our second act with Jimmy trying to draw the lines and find out who would want him dead. He has two suspects, but does one of those suspects become a self-fulfilling prophecy? In a film that talks about fate, and roads travelled, so much of Jimmy's road happens due to his own actions upon finding out about his vague, but looming fate.
Between "The Lookout" and "First Snow" I really feel like neo-noir is more akin to no-noir. In the days of film noir it largely meant dark movie, this had much to do with the lighting as well as the story. But there was story in those films and it was our protagonist, often a detective, who stumbled into the story. What is being put in the theatres now relies heavily on camerawork and taking the single individual protagonist and trying to dig into their psyche with lots of long, slow shots. Perhaps this works for some, but I feel like too much time is being wasted in an attempt to make me feel what the director wants me to feel, rather than telling a story and actually letting me feel that emotion on my own. Ultimately, "First Snow" is too long. Too much time is spent showing us Jimmy's breakdown and fear of his own death. I would prefer setup, then a headlong slide to the conclusion. And it would help if the protagonist was mostly likeable.
Now, I will say that the third act succeeds for the most part. Fergus begins to allow usto settle in and watch Jimmy's destruction instead of shoving it down our throats. And his use of snow in those fleeting scenes feels bleak, yet fearless. I just wish he hadn't force fed us the conclusion and left a little more to the imagination. On a cale of 5, I can offer it little more than a 2. I didn't hate it, it's not a total waste of time, but it wastes too much time.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)