Unless you're an A-list celebrity or supermodel you've probably had a bad hair day--or several of them--or some wrinkles that just won't go away no matter how much Botox you use. Wouldn't it be great then if you could have a remote-controlled robot body that never gets old and always looks perfect? That's the basic premise behind "Surrogates." Or to put it another way: it's like "Avatar" only instead of controlling a ten-foot-tall blue alien you're controlling a robot that looks human.
Like another 2009 sci-fi movie "District 9," "Surrogates" starts off with news footage showing how in fourteen years technology goes from a monkey being able to control a robotic limb with its mind to 98% of the world having better-than-perfect reproductions of themselves. It's hard to swallow this the way it's presented. The first part of the technology, the monkey controlling a robotic limb, is actually very real and could lead to the next generation of prosthetic limbs that can actually replace the missing one. But I think this technology is still in the experimental phase. To go from that to what's presented in "Surrogates" in less than 15 years is unbelievable. But if you can suspend disbelief there, the rest of the movie is a serviceable sci-fi thriller in the league of "I, Robot" or "Paycheck" though not in the same league as "Blade Runner" or "Minority Report" in its execution.
OK, so suspending disbelief let's say that 98% of people, even all those goat herders in Afghanistan or Mongolia, are using surrogate robotic bodies. We still have some humans who reject the use of surrogates, seeing them as an abomination. One of these "meatbags" stalks a wealthy seemingly young man. He pulls out what looks sort of like a modified Dustbuster, and fires a burst of blue energy that fries not only the young man, but the actual young man controlling the surrogate. Such a thing has never happened before.
What's worse is that the young man turns out to be the son of Lionel Carver, the creator of surrogate technology who was forced out of his own company when he started making inconvenient statements opposing their widespread use. FBI agent Tom Greer (Bruce Willis) is brought in to investigate the crime. As you'd expect, this investigation leads him to uncover a conspiracy involving a variety of different parties who are all trying to kill each other.
I couldn't help wondering if this movie might have done better at the box office if it had featured Will Smith like "I, Robot" or "I Am Legend." But then Smith isn't really old enough to have enough contrast between him and his surrogate. Since he's pushing 60, Bruce Willis is a better choice for this as you can clearly see the difference between his wrinkle-free surrogate with its creepy blond hair and the bald, wrinkled actor with his graying goatee. The script wisely doesn't have him perform too many "Die Hard"-type stunts in non-surrogate mode, though unlike those other movies he doesn't get set up for many good quips here either. The script also doesn't probably have enough twists or turns, clocking in at less than 90 minutes. What disappoints me is that we see the big factory/headquarters of VSI, the surrogate manufacturer early in the movie when surrogate Tom Greer is investigating the murder but we never go back there. Clearly a chance was squandered to have some fun in there, where maybe Tom could have battled an army of out-of-control surrogates or something. Oh well.
Also, unlike the aforementioned "District 9" or "Blade Runner" this script doesn't have too much on its mind concerning the background issues. The issues about the surrogates and the questions that arise aren't really dealt with all that much. (A couple of questions I have: Wouldn't this put industries like restaurants out of business if everyone's robots who don't need to eat? Though maybe oil changes would do booming business. Also, wouldn't the population start dying out? Presumably surrogates don't have sperm or ovaries. I suppose you could make babies in labs. But what happens if you're in a bar and you meet a nice girl/guy surrogate and fall in love? Is that even possible anymore? Do you move your controller beds in together or just stay separate? Of course one issue that is sort of raised is: what happens if you see that hot girl surrogate in the bar and find out it's a fat guy controlling her?) See, there's a lot to think about here but the movie doesn't really try to build any depth to its world, preferring to just use the surrogates as a prop for chases and fights.
Anyway, I thought it was a perfectly serviceable movie, just not especially memorable. It might be more memorable if that robot technology ever does start really taking off. A definite rental.
That is all.
My score: 62/100 (2.5 stars)
Metacritic score: 45/100 (1.5 stars)
Sunday, January 31, 2010
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
Julie & Julia
In sort of homage to the movie focusing on two completely time periods, I'm going to write this review as two completely different reviews.
The first review is the one for you, anyone who reads this. On average I've noticed most people who comment on my reviews are female (or at least claim to be) and I think they'd enjoy this movie far more than I did, so I'm gong to direct this portion of the review at them. OK, here goes.
When her life seems stuck in a rut, Julie Powell (Amy Adams)--with some advice from her husband--decides to spice things up by creating a blog and vowing to cook all 524 recipes in Julia Childs' massive "Mastering the Art of Fine French Cooking." As you'd expect, this involves a lot of time and expense, which isn't easy considering Julie is just a phone jockey at an insurance company dealing with 9/11 victim families.
At the same time the movie chronicles how a bored ex-government worker named Julia Childs (Meryl Streep) decides to spice up her life in Paris by learning French cuisine. As an American she faces an uphill battle against French snobbery, but in the end she becomes a real chef and endeavors to create a cookbook of French recipes for Americans. This is a massive undertaking requiring much time and effort.
So you see how the lives of the two women are parallel. In time Julie gains a lot of respect for Julia Childs, becoming sort of obsessed with her. (The feeling is not mutual.) And Julia gains the respect of cooks and publishers. Woo hoo.
Basically it's a nice, gentle movie with no real shocks or twists--except maybe burning something. I have never watched the real Julia Childs so I have no idea how well Meryl Streep impersonates her. (I've heard negative comments on this but obviously the Golden Globe people thought differently, but then again they thought "Avatar" was the best drama, so I'm not sure I'd trust their judgment.) I've never read the blog or book by Julie Powell either, so I have no idea how much of this is accurate. (I thought I read in a review that she did not really come up with the blog in the manner portrayed by the movie, but I can't be sure.)
If you're looking for some harmless fun and great culinary ideas, then this is a good movie to watch.
My score: 62/100 (2.5 stars)
Metacritic score: 66/100 (2.5 stars)
#
OK, now let me say for those few men who might ever see this: there is absolutely nothing in this for you. Nothing. The closest we get to action is that Julie has to kill some poor lobster to the strains of "Psycho Killer" by Talking Heads, though I think actually her husband does the deed.
There's no nudity, which come to think of it is just as well. Do you want to see Julia Child naked? No, no, a thousand times no!
From a purely artistic standpoint, this movie is as limp as a stick of butter left out in the sun. Julia Childs is shown as plucky with a great can-do attitude. Julie is slightly whinier but just as plucky. Their respective husbands are supportive and that's it, though once Julie's husband grows a backbone and walks out on her. Of course he comes back! There are no surprises in this movie, except that the two women don't meet. Since they probably took so many other liberties with reality, what harm could one more have done? Really, they could have hugged and swapped recipes and it could have faded to black and most everyone would go home happy.
I was actually depressed by the time this movie ended. What really bums me out is to think that Julie Powell got a book deal and a movie deal and yet her only discernible talent seems to be being able to follow directions from a cookbook. It's the same feeling I get whenever I see Paris Hilton or Kim Kardashian, complete no-talent whores who have never done a damned thing in their lives to deserve anything they have. (OK, Julie Powell might not be a whore. At the least she probably doesn't have a sex tape on the Internet--yet.) She certainly didn't do anything that most anyone else could have done, so long as they could read directions in a cookbook. You could say she stood on Julia Childs' ample shoulders.
And yeah, I'm jealous. I'll admit it. It's the same envy whenever someone like Madonna comes out with a crappy children's book or someone like Monica Lewinsky gets a huge advance for a book. What the hell do they know about writing? Not a bloody thing! I work and strain, trying to produce a real story and wade through all sorts of muck trying to get the thing published while these no talent ass-clowns just saunter right up to a six-figure advance on a whim or because they were classless enough to get involved with some huge scandal. This is the world we live in. And it's not fair! It's not fair at all!
F**k you Julie Powell, wherever you are.
That is all.
(PS: What I learned from this movie is that all you need is some good schtick to realize dreams of fame and fortune. You think Emotionally Unstable Film Critic has possibilities? They could get Lewis Black to play me in the movie version since Sam Kinnison and Chris Farley are long dead.)
The first review is the one for you, anyone who reads this. On average I've noticed most people who comment on my reviews are female (or at least claim to be) and I think they'd enjoy this movie far more than I did, so I'm gong to direct this portion of the review at them. OK, here goes.
When her life seems stuck in a rut, Julie Powell (Amy Adams)--with some advice from her husband--decides to spice things up by creating a blog and vowing to cook all 524 recipes in Julia Childs' massive "Mastering the Art of Fine French Cooking." As you'd expect, this involves a lot of time and expense, which isn't easy considering Julie is just a phone jockey at an insurance company dealing with 9/11 victim families.
At the same time the movie chronicles how a bored ex-government worker named Julia Childs (Meryl Streep) decides to spice up her life in Paris by learning French cuisine. As an American she faces an uphill battle against French snobbery, but in the end she becomes a real chef and endeavors to create a cookbook of French recipes for Americans. This is a massive undertaking requiring much time and effort.
So you see how the lives of the two women are parallel. In time Julie gains a lot of respect for Julia Childs, becoming sort of obsessed with her. (The feeling is not mutual.) And Julia gains the respect of cooks and publishers. Woo hoo.
Basically it's a nice, gentle movie with no real shocks or twists--except maybe burning something. I have never watched the real Julia Childs so I have no idea how well Meryl Streep impersonates her. (I've heard negative comments on this but obviously the Golden Globe people thought differently, but then again they thought "Avatar" was the best drama, so I'm not sure I'd trust their judgment.) I've never read the blog or book by Julie Powell either, so I have no idea how much of this is accurate. (I thought I read in a review that she did not really come up with the blog in the manner portrayed by the movie, but I can't be sure.)
If you're looking for some harmless fun and great culinary ideas, then this is a good movie to watch.
My score: 62/100 (2.5 stars)
Metacritic score: 66/100 (2.5 stars)
#
OK, now let me say for those few men who might ever see this: there is absolutely nothing in this for you. Nothing. The closest we get to action is that Julie has to kill some poor lobster to the strains of "Psycho Killer" by Talking Heads, though I think actually her husband does the deed.
There's no nudity, which come to think of it is just as well. Do you want to see Julia Child naked? No, no, a thousand times no!
From a purely artistic standpoint, this movie is as limp as a stick of butter left out in the sun. Julia Childs is shown as plucky with a great can-do attitude. Julie is slightly whinier but just as plucky. Their respective husbands are supportive and that's it, though once Julie's husband grows a backbone and walks out on her. Of course he comes back! There are no surprises in this movie, except that the two women don't meet. Since they probably took so many other liberties with reality, what harm could one more have done? Really, they could have hugged and swapped recipes and it could have faded to black and most everyone would go home happy.
I was actually depressed by the time this movie ended. What really bums me out is to think that Julie Powell got a book deal and a movie deal and yet her only discernible talent seems to be being able to follow directions from a cookbook. It's the same feeling I get whenever I see Paris Hilton or Kim Kardashian, complete no-talent whores who have never done a damned thing in their lives to deserve anything they have. (OK, Julie Powell might not be a whore. At the least she probably doesn't have a sex tape on the Internet--yet.) She certainly didn't do anything that most anyone else could have done, so long as they could read directions in a cookbook. You could say she stood on Julia Childs' ample shoulders.
And yeah, I'm jealous. I'll admit it. It's the same envy whenever someone like Madonna comes out with a crappy children's book or someone like Monica Lewinsky gets a huge advance for a book. What the hell do they know about writing? Not a bloody thing! I work and strain, trying to produce a real story and wade through all sorts of muck trying to get the thing published while these no talent ass-clowns just saunter right up to a six-figure advance on a whim or because they were classless enough to get involved with some huge scandal. This is the world we live in. And it's not fair! It's not fair at all!
F**k you Julie Powell, wherever you are.
That is all.
(PS: What I learned from this movie is that all you need is some good schtick to realize dreams of fame and fortune. You think Emotionally Unstable Film Critic has possibilities? They could get Lewis Black to play me in the movie version since Sam Kinnison and Chris Farley are long dead.)
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
500 Days of Summer
I might start ranting incoherently here, so be warned.
Anyway, it's rare when a movie moves me. This one did. It's the kind of experience where as you're watching it you kind of start nodding your head and saying to yourself, "Yeah, brother, I have been there." Because let's face it, most adults have had someone who hurt them emotionally at one time or another.
The narrator says at the beginning that "This is not a love story" and that's true. Most love stories just focus on the falling in love part. Cinderella meets Prince Charming they overcome an obstacle, have a few laughs, and ride off into the sunset. Other movies focus on the end of the relationship with the cheating, anger, recrimination, and ultimate separation. This movie focuses on the whole process from beginning to end, squeezing it into 500 days. (And that's not giving anything away because the movie follows a non-linear structure where we jump from beginning to end to middle and so forth.)
Basically to put it linearly, at Day 1 we have Tom Hanson (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) working at the New Hampshire Card Company, which as you might expect is located in Los Angeles, CA. During a meeting, Tom's boss is interrupted by his new assistant Summer (Zooey Deschanel) and just about instantly Tom is smitten.
The problem is that she doesn't seem all that interested in him. So for the first 25 or so days Tom goes through trying to get her attention to cursing her as a tease. Then comes a karaoke party after work where they both have a little too much to drink and sing some bad songs and finally things start taking off.
Except there's a problem. Of course there is! While Tom thinks he loves Summer, she's not wanting to make things too involved. Even after they sleep together, even after over 200 days together, she insists they're "just friends." Yeah, brother, I've been there. Sorry gals, but if a man's been inside you then either you're his girlfriend or his whore--which do you want to be? There is no such thing as casual sex or a f**k buddy, OK? Not in the real world. Not even in the movies! (See, I warned you.)
Well of course this leads to things unraveling. While she seems to get off relatively easy, Tom has a much more difficult time letting go. Really he spends about 200 days ultimately wallowing in misery and clinging to slim hopes of a reconciliation.
At least in my mind, this movie perfectly captures the whole relationship game. That's why it moved me, as I said in the beginning. I could so empathize with what Tom went through that I couldn't help but go back through my own memories. Thanks for opening old wounds! Yeah, brother, I've been there. Maybe not quite to this extent, but close enough. God willing I won't be there again, but the problem with the game of love is that you frequently go tilting at windmills. Or maybe it's more like the old lady at the slot machine who keeps pulling the lever 24 hours a day thinking THIS time will be the lucky one. And maybe it will be--ah, there's the rub. Those of us still in the game always cling to that hope, however slim it might be.
Before I get off too far on another rant, not everything in this movie worked for me. The overly precocious little sister Tom gets relationship advice from just grated on my nerves. That is one area where Tom and I clearly diverged, because my sisters are completely useless for relationship advice. (That's the subject of another rant.) It's not enough to ruin the movie for me, or even take off a half star.
Even if you have found your True Love or close enough to it, you can probably still relate to this story at one point in time. Most everyone has a Summer in their life. An evil, soul-snatching, heart-crushing...OK, I'll stop now.
BTW, during the movie it says that Summer quoted a song from Belle & Sebastian's "Boy With the Arab Strap" in her yearbook. Ironically I'd bought a couple of B&S albums this month. So I took that as a sign to go buy that ablum. Anything that prompts me to spend money definitely moved me.
That is all.
My score: 90/100 (4 stars)
Metacritic score: 76/100 (3 stars)
Anyway, it's rare when a movie moves me. This one did. It's the kind of experience where as you're watching it you kind of start nodding your head and saying to yourself, "Yeah, brother, I have been there." Because let's face it, most adults have had someone who hurt them emotionally at one time or another.
The narrator says at the beginning that "This is not a love story" and that's true. Most love stories just focus on the falling in love part. Cinderella meets Prince Charming they overcome an obstacle, have a few laughs, and ride off into the sunset. Other movies focus on the end of the relationship with the cheating, anger, recrimination, and ultimate separation. This movie focuses on the whole process from beginning to end, squeezing it into 500 days. (And that's not giving anything away because the movie follows a non-linear structure where we jump from beginning to end to middle and so forth.)
Basically to put it linearly, at Day 1 we have Tom Hanson (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) working at the New Hampshire Card Company, which as you might expect is located in Los Angeles, CA. During a meeting, Tom's boss is interrupted by his new assistant Summer (Zooey Deschanel) and just about instantly Tom is smitten.
The problem is that she doesn't seem all that interested in him. So for the first 25 or so days Tom goes through trying to get her attention to cursing her as a tease. Then comes a karaoke party after work where they both have a little too much to drink and sing some bad songs and finally things start taking off.
Except there's a problem. Of course there is! While Tom thinks he loves Summer, she's not wanting to make things too involved. Even after they sleep together, even after over 200 days together, she insists they're "just friends." Yeah, brother, I've been there. Sorry gals, but if a man's been inside you then either you're his girlfriend or his whore--which do you want to be? There is no such thing as casual sex or a f**k buddy, OK? Not in the real world. Not even in the movies! (See, I warned you.)
Well of course this leads to things unraveling. While she seems to get off relatively easy, Tom has a much more difficult time letting go. Really he spends about 200 days ultimately wallowing in misery and clinging to slim hopes of a reconciliation.
At least in my mind, this movie perfectly captures the whole relationship game. That's why it moved me, as I said in the beginning. I could so empathize with what Tom went through that I couldn't help but go back through my own memories. Thanks for opening old wounds! Yeah, brother, I've been there. Maybe not quite to this extent, but close enough. God willing I won't be there again, but the problem with the game of love is that you frequently go tilting at windmills. Or maybe it's more like the old lady at the slot machine who keeps pulling the lever 24 hours a day thinking THIS time will be the lucky one. And maybe it will be--ah, there's the rub. Those of us still in the game always cling to that hope, however slim it might be.
Before I get off too far on another rant, not everything in this movie worked for me. The overly precocious little sister Tom gets relationship advice from just grated on my nerves. That is one area where Tom and I clearly diverged, because my sisters are completely useless for relationship advice. (That's the subject of another rant.) It's not enough to ruin the movie for me, or even take off a half star.
Even if you have found your True Love or close enough to it, you can probably still relate to this story at one point in time. Most everyone has a Summer in their life. An evil, soul-snatching, heart-crushing...OK, I'll stop now.
BTW, during the movie it says that Summer quoted a song from Belle & Sebastian's "Boy With the Arab Strap" in her yearbook. Ironically I'd bought a couple of B&S albums this month. So I took that as a sign to go buy that ablum. Anything that prompts me to spend money definitely moved me.
That is all.
My score: 90/100 (4 stars)
Metacritic score: 76/100 (3 stars)
Bad Movie Reviews
Since I unplugged the cable about six months ago, I've been watching a local digital channel called "THIS" that seems to broadcast a lot of old (and mostly unmemorable) MGM/UA and affiliated movies. They save the best (by which I mean the worst) for Saturday nights. As a fan of the old "Mystery Science Theater 3000" show I've always enjoyed watching really terrible movies. So here are a few of the best of the worst:
ROTOR: This was apparently trying to cash in on the cyborg movie trend in the late '80s with "Terminator," "Robocop," and so forth. In it a cop/scientist/rancher (seriously) in Texas creates a cyborg called ROTOR (don't ask me what it means) to fight crime in a future time. The problem is the thing is rushed online and not all the bugs are worked out. After pulling over a speeder, ROTOR shoots the man and then begins pursuit of the female passenger.
WTF Moment: The hero calls a skunk-haired Amazon to help battle ROTOR and proceeds to take her to a hotel, where she promptly whips off her blouse to reveal a black tank top ala Rambo and they just as promptly leave the hotel, never to return.
Robot Jox: This was also trying to cash in on the robot fad. In this Cold War parable (or perhaps parody) the two remaining big nations fight not in long, costly wars but gladiator competitions featuring giant robots. On the American side is Achilles (aka Jim) and on the Russian side is Alexander. They do battle in their big robots for the fate of Alaska. (Really this is overdue for a Hollywood makeover with CGI and 3D. James Cameron could make a billion with it!)
WTF Moment: The biggest WTF is that the movie was penned by Joe Haldemann, winner of the prestigious Nebula and Hugo awards for classic sci-fi novels like "The Forever War." Maybe he should stick tobooks.
Dr. Goldfoot and the Girl Bombs: This secret agent spoof makes "Austin Powers" seem like "Citizen Kane." It stars Vincent Price as the titular character (who if he has a gold foot I don't remember seeing it) who as you'd guess is making bombs shaped like women to kill NATO generals in the '60s. The only man who can stop him is pop singer Fabian as the womanizing secret agent. Which he might do if he stops kissing random women long enough.
WTF Moment: There are many to choose from here. The pair of bumbling doormen who accidentally become secret agents are a WTF unto themselves. The biggest WTF might be when they confuse Fabian for a Chinese agent.
Some Girls Do: Another secret agent spoof from around the same time, only this one plays it much straighter. A British secret agent who looks disturbingly like Bond-era Sean Connery uncovers a madman's plot to use female robots to assassinate world leaders.
WTF Moment: I suppose it would be at the end where the trusty sidekick goes running off with a double-agent. Who needs patriotism when you can screw a hot turncoat?
Killer Klowns From Outer Space: It is exactly what the title promises. Clowns from outer space land on Earth to begin ensnaring the people of a small town in cotton candy cocoons. And you thought clowns were scary when you were kid!
WTF Moment: The actor who played the crusty old dean in "Animal House" plays a crusty old cop in this movie. I bet every day he came to the set thinking, WTF? How did I end up here?
Morons From Outer Space: Again, exactly what the title promises. It could also have been called "Rednecks From Outer Space" but that probably wasn't politically correct enough. Basically white trash aliens crash on Earth and become superstars. (Really, a remake with the Blue Collar Comedy Tour might be in order.)
WTF Moment: I'll admit I fell asleep halfway through this. When I woke up the last fifteen minutes or so were a total WTF for me.
Blacula: For reasons that are best not contemplated, an African prince and his wife show up at Dracula's house in the 18th Century or so. The prince becomes a vampire while his wife dies. He's locked in a coffin until freed in 1970s Los Angeles where he proceeds to dine on the local African-American population all while stalking a young woman who looks suspiciously like his former bride.
WTF Moment: Why are two homosexual men from California buying Dracula's house and moving everything in it to Los Angeles? Does that even remotely make sense?
That is all.
ROTOR: This was apparently trying to cash in on the cyborg movie trend in the late '80s with "Terminator," "Robocop," and so forth. In it a cop/scientist/rancher (seriously) in Texas creates a cyborg called ROTOR (don't ask me what it means) to fight crime in a future time. The problem is the thing is rushed online and not all the bugs are worked out. After pulling over a speeder, ROTOR shoots the man and then begins pursuit of the female passenger.
WTF Moment: The hero calls a skunk-haired Amazon to help battle ROTOR and proceeds to take her to a hotel, where she promptly whips off her blouse to reveal a black tank top ala Rambo and they just as promptly leave the hotel, never to return.
Robot Jox: This was also trying to cash in on the robot fad. In this Cold War parable (or perhaps parody) the two remaining big nations fight not in long, costly wars but gladiator competitions featuring giant robots. On the American side is Achilles (aka Jim) and on the Russian side is Alexander. They do battle in their big robots for the fate of Alaska. (Really this is overdue for a Hollywood makeover with CGI and 3D. James Cameron could make a billion with it!)
WTF Moment: The biggest WTF is that the movie was penned by Joe Haldemann, winner of the prestigious Nebula and Hugo awards for classic sci-fi novels like "The Forever War." Maybe he should stick tobooks.
Dr. Goldfoot and the Girl Bombs: This secret agent spoof makes "Austin Powers" seem like "Citizen Kane." It stars Vincent Price as the titular character (who if he has a gold foot I don't remember seeing it) who as you'd guess is making bombs shaped like women to kill NATO generals in the '60s. The only man who can stop him is pop singer Fabian as the womanizing secret agent. Which he might do if he stops kissing random women long enough.
WTF Moment: There are many to choose from here. The pair of bumbling doormen who accidentally become secret agents are a WTF unto themselves. The biggest WTF might be when they confuse Fabian for a Chinese agent.
Some Girls Do: Another secret agent spoof from around the same time, only this one plays it much straighter. A British secret agent who looks disturbingly like Bond-era Sean Connery uncovers a madman's plot to use female robots to assassinate world leaders.
WTF Moment: I suppose it would be at the end where the trusty sidekick goes running off with a double-agent. Who needs patriotism when you can screw a hot turncoat?
Killer Klowns From Outer Space: It is exactly what the title promises. Clowns from outer space land on Earth to begin ensnaring the people of a small town in cotton candy cocoons. And you thought clowns were scary when you were kid!
WTF Moment: The actor who played the crusty old dean in "Animal House" plays a crusty old cop in this movie. I bet every day he came to the set thinking, WTF? How did I end up here?
Morons From Outer Space: Again, exactly what the title promises. It could also have been called "Rednecks From Outer Space" but that probably wasn't politically correct enough. Basically white trash aliens crash on Earth and become superstars. (Really, a remake with the Blue Collar Comedy Tour might be in order.)
WTF Moment: I'll admit I fell asleep halfway through this. When I woke up the last fifteen minutes or so were a total WTF for me.
Blacula: For reasons that are best not contemplated, an African prince and his wife show up at Dracula's house in the 18th Century or so. The prince becomes a vampire while his wife dies. He's locked in a coffin until freed in 1970s Los Angeles where he proceeds to dine on the local African-American population all while stalking a young woman who looks suspiciously like his former bride.
WTF Moment: Why are two homosexual men from California buying Dracula's house and moving everything in it to Los Angeles? Does that even remotely make sense?
That is all.
Career Opportunities
When John Hughes passed away last year, most everyone mentioned his popular '80s movies like "Ferris Bueller's Day Off" and "The Breakfast Club." Probably no one mentioned "Career Opportunities," which Hughes wrote and produced in 1991. But the good thing when you have a Netflix-type program is that it's easy to click on someone's name and find out all the stuff they did and watch it just for the Hell of it. As it turns out, there's probably a good reason no one brought up this movie, because it's not very memorable.
The story features some familiar themes of the aforementioned Hughes classics. Like Ferris Bueller, Jim Dodge (Franky Wright) is a big talker to the point of excess so that he's known as the Town Liar. While he likes to spin tales about working for the FBI or some big company, really he can't hold down a job to save his life, much to the consternation of his family, who wants the 21-year-old to move out of the house.
To help make that happen, Jim's dad gets him a job at the local Target department store as the night cleanup boy. (Watch for an uncredited cameo by John Candy as the Target manager.) The first convenient plot device is that his supervisor locks him in the store and then takes off to rendezvous with someone else. This leaves Jim alone in the store--or so he thinks.
While roller skating around the store just for fun, he comes upon Josie (a young Jennifer Connelly) whose father is the richest man in town. Turns out she was going to shoplift some stuff to get arrested and embarrass her father, but didn't have the guts so she hid in a dressing room. (There's your second convenient plot device.) They share some "Breakfast Club"-style angst about their parents and plans for the future.
This is all fine, but then the movie wipes out with the addition of two criminals (Dermot Mulroney and his brother) who somehow break into the Target. When I read the description I thought this being from John Hughes who wrote "Home Alone" we'd have the same kind of Rube Goldberg-type slapstick traps. Certainly in a Target store there were plenty of possibilities for that kind of mayhem. At the least there could have been some great cat-and-mouse between Jim/Josie and the thieves. None of this comes to pass.
The ending is handled so sloppily that it left me with several questions. First off, the thieves do such a terrible job looking after their prisoners, so why doesn't Jim or Josie use the phone to call for help? (Maybe they don't want it to become a hostage situation or fear retribution, but it never even comes up.) Or since the robbers aren't paying attention, couldn't they set some "Home Alone"-style traps or at least find a couple of butcher knives? And how does Jim know about a shotgun kept in the store since it's his first night in the store and his supervisor wasn't exactly the communicative type?
None of it really made sense. Without the thieves this could have been a perfectly adequate teen comedy, but the sloppy final act just brings the whole thing down and really none of the issues raised in the first 3/4 of the movie are dealt with--notably the problem Jim and Josie have with their respective parents.
Probably the only reason to watch this is if you're either such a huge Hughes fan that you have to watch everything he's done or you're a huge fan of Jennifer Connelly's cleavage. Seriously the shots of her cleavage are as numerous as those of Megan Fox in "Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen." And then there's her riding on the mechanical horse going up-and-down, up-and-down...OK, I'm losing focus here. What was I talking about? Oh yeah, basically there's not much reason for most people to watch this unless you fall into the categories above.
That is all.
My score: 62/100 (2.5 stars--the extra half-star for those cleavage shots!)
The story features some familiar themes of the aforementioned Hughes classics. Like Ferris Bueller, Jim Dodge (Franky Wright) is a big talker to the point of excess so that he's known as the Town Liar. While he likes to spin tales about working for the FBI or some big company, really he can't hold down a job to save his life, much to the consternation of his family, who wants the 21-year-old to move out of the house.
To help make that happen, Jim's dad gets him a job at the local Target department store as the night cleanup boy. (Watch for an uncredited cameo by John Candy as the Target manager.) The first convenient plot device is that his supervisor locks him in the store and then takes off to rendezvous with someone else. This leaves Jim alone in the store--or so he thinks.
While roller skating around the store just for fun, he comes upon Josie (a young Jennifer Connelly) whose father is the richest man in town. Turns out she was going to shoplift some stuff to get arrested and embarrass her father, but didn't have the guts so she hid in a dressing room. (There's your second convenient plot device.) They share some "Breakfast Club"-style angst about their parents and plans for the future.
This is all fine, but then the movie wipes out with the addition of two criminals (Dermot Mulroney and his brother) who somehow break into the Target. When I read the description I thought this being from John Hughes who wrote "Home Alone" we'd have the same kind of Rube Goldberg-type slapstick traps. Certainly in a Target store there were plenty of possibilities for that kind of mayhem. At the least there could have been some great cat-and-mouse between Jim/Josie and the thieves. None of this comes to pass.
The ending is handled so sloppily that it left me with several questions. First off, the thieves do such a terrible job looking after their prisoners, so why doesn't Jim or Josie use the phone to call for help? (Maybe they don't want it to become a hostage situation or fear retribution, but it never even comes up.) Or since the robbers aren't paying attention, couldn't they set some "Home Alone"-style traps or at least find a couple of butcher knives? And how does Jim know about a shotgun kept in the store since it's his first night in the store and his supervisor wasn't exactly the communicative type?
None of it really made sense. Without the thieves this could have been a perfectly adequate teen comedy, but the sloppy final act just brings the whole thing down and really none of the issues raised in the first 3/4 of the movie are dealt with--notably the problem Jim and Josie have with their respective parents.
Probably the only reason to watch this is if you're either such a huge Hughes fan that you have to watch everything he's done or you're a huge fan of Jennifer Connelly's cleavage. Seriously the shots of her cleavage are as numerous as those of Megan Fox in "Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen." And then there's her riding on the mechanical horse going up-and-down, up-and-down...OK, I'm losing focus here. What was I talking about? Oh yeah, basically there's not much reason for most people to watch this unless you fall into the categories above.
That is all.
My score: 62/100 (2.5 stars--the extra half-star for those cleavage shots!)
Thursday, January 21, 2010
Jennifer's Body
The worst thing a horror movie can be is boring. If you can even call "Jennifer's Body" a horror movie it's boring with a capital B. When there's as much bloodshed in the end credits as in the rest of the movie, you know you're in trouble. Though sadly even this bloodshed is portrayed in still images that don't show much so you're not getting much bang for the buck.
Like a combination of "Carrie" and "Scream" the movie is about a high school girl named Jennifer (obviously) who eats boys. This happens because an indie-rock band tries to sacrifice her to Satan to help their career. (Who knew the world of indie rock was so cutthroat?) This gives Jennifer awesome super powers, so long as she eats boys. Like her period, this needs to happen about once a month.
Her best friend Needy (who like in all high school-related movies is completely unattractive because she wears glasses) was at the bar when Jennifer ran into the band and suspects something is up. She especially gets suspicious when boys start dying. Blah, blah, blah whatever.
As I said, this movie was boring. I don't know why it got an R rating. There's a little gore and some bad language (and a girl-on-girl kiss) but not anything too much. Sadly anyone hoping to see Jennifer's body in "Jennifer's Body" will come away disappointed. The nudity is pretty PG-13 for whatever reason.
I suppose this isn't all that surprising because writer/producer Diablo Cody (of "Juno" fame) and director Karyn Kusama don't exactly have the reputation of George Romero or Wes Craven. They should probably just leave the horror movie business to professionals.
That is all.
My score: 25/100 (1 star)
Metacritic score: 47/100 (2 stars)
Like a combination of "Carrie" and "Scream" the movie is about a high school girl named Jennifer (obviously) who eats boys. This happens because an indie-rock band tries to sacrifice her to Satan to help their career. (Who knew the world of indie rock was so cutthroat?) This gives Jennifer awesome super powers, so long as she eats boys. Like her period, this needs to happen about once a month.
Her best friend Needy (who like in all high school-related movies is completely unattractive because she wears glasses) was at the bar when Jennifer ran into the band and suspects something is up. She especially gets suspicious when boys start dying. Blah, blah, blah whatever.
As I said, this movie was boring. I don't know why it got an R rating. There's a little gore and some bad language (and a girl-on-girl kiss) but not anything too much. Sadly anyone hoping to see Jennifer's body in "Jennifer's Body" will come away disappointed. The nudity is pretty PG-13 for whatever reason.
I suppose this isn't all that surprising because writer/producer Diablo Cody (of "Juno" fame) and director Karyn Kusama don't exactly have the reputation of George Romero or Wes Craven. They should probably just leave the horror movie business to professionals.
That is all.
My score: 25/100 (1 star)
Metacritic score: 47/100 (2 stars)
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
The Hangover
I haven't been a fan of the so-called "frat pack" movies like "Old School," "Anchorman," and "Wedding Crashers." I just didn't really find Will Farrell and Vince Vaughn very funny. So I didn't have much hope for a movie directed by the guy who did "Old School" and the lame "School for Scoundrels." So I was pretty surprised that I enjoyed the movie.
As implied by the title, "The Hangover" is about four friends who go to Las Vegas on the eve of a wedding. Doug is the groom-to-be who's being given one final taste of single life. The problem is after a night of partying, Doug has vanished. Adding to the problem is that his groomsmen: sauve already-married Phil (Bradley Cooper); whipped soon-to-be-engaged dentist Stu (Ed Helms); and chubby, hairy future brother-in-law Alan (Zach Galifianakis) don't have any memory of what happened after a toast on the roof of Caesar's.
Most of the movie then is devoted to Doug's friends trying to figure out important questions like: whose baby is in the closet, how did Stu lose a tooth, and how did a tiger get in the bathroom? And in figuring this out they hope to figure out what happened to their friend so they can get him to the wedding on time without getting caught.
I think what made this movie for me is that it's set up like a mystery. If it had been straight-ahead one thing after another it might have still had funny moments but it would have been more generic. Instead, it becomes fun to try and outguess the guys as they piece together the clues. Sometimes you're right and sometimes you're wrong but the guessing keeps you involved with the story.
Of course as you'd expect there's some crudity involved. There's plenty of bad language, though most of the sexual situations are saved until the end. So obviously if you're not into lower-brow humor this won't be your cup of tea. Still, I thought it was a lot better than the movies I listed at the beginning.
That is all.
My score: 75/100 (3 stars)
Metacritic score: 73/100 (3 stars)
As implied by the title, "The Hangover" is about four friends who go to Las Vegas on the eve of a wedding. Doug is the groom-to-be who's being given one final taste of single life. The problem is after a night of partying, Doug has vanished. Adding to the problem is that his groomsmen: sauve already-married Phil (Bradley Cooper); whipped soon-to-be-engaged dentist Stu (Ed Helms); and chubby, hairy future brother-in-law Alan (Zach Galifianakis) don't have any memory of what happened after a toast on the roof of Caesar's.
Most of the movie then is devoted to Doug's friends trying to figure out important questions like: whose baby is in the closet, how did Stu lose a tooth, and how did a tiger get in the bathroom? And in figuring this out they hope to figure out what happened to their friend so they can get him to the wedding on time without getting caught.
I think what made this movie for me is that it's set up like a mystery. If it had been straight-ahead one thing after another it might have still had funny moments but it would have been more generic. Instead, it becomes fun to try and outguess the guys as they piece together the clues. Sometimes you're right and sometimes you're wrong but the guessing keeps you involved with the story.
Of course as you'd expect there's some crudity involved. There's plenty of bad language, though most of the sexual situations are saved until the end. So obviously if you're not into lower-brow humor this won't be your cup of tea. Still, I thought it was a lot better than the movies I listed at the beginning.
That is all.
My score: 75/100 (3 stars)
Metacritic score: 73/100 (3 stars)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)