Today was a game of movie roulette. I didn't know what was in the theaters and I didn't know what time anything was playing. I just went to the theater, found a movie playing in English, and decided I'm going to watch. It turned out to be Abduction. That's why it's called a gamble I suppose.
I wasn't looking forward to this movie at all. Taylor Lautner is a terrible actor. In this movie, he was just horrible. I'd say the biggest problem he has is that he's too reserved. He never expresses much emotion in his voice. His face also is not very expressive. He is a poor choice to be a leading man. Not that Lily Collins was any better by any stretch. The only actor in the whole movie giving any kind of performance was Alfred Molina. If that guy can make Dr. Octopus in Spiderman 2 seem threatening, he's a hell of an actor.
If I had to give my overall impression, it would be this: It's a bad movie, but not nearly as bad as I thought it would be. Don't get me wrong. I didn't like it. But I didn't like it for some specific reasons. It's not like Colombiana where the whole thing rubbed me the wrong way. Unlike that monstrosity, Abduction is largely filmed well. The story, while having some notable exceptions that I'll get into shortly, was tightly told. There weren't nearly as many WTF scenes as I thought there would be. Right now on rottentomatoes.com as I write this, it's sitting at 4%! That means the critics liked Season of the Witch more than this! Believe me, Abduction is not that bad.
So here's the story. Nathan (Lautner) is a carefree 18 year old pain in the neck much like all teenagers. He has a loving family that likes to beat the crap out of him... oh sorry... train him to fight, he has a close knit circle of friends (only 1 we see after the opening scene) and a beautiful girl with a massive crush on him that lives next door (dating some other douchebag). Then while doing research for a sociology paper with Karen (Lily Collins) he discovers that he is on a missing person's website.
Ok. I feel I need to stop here for a minute. How awesome of an idea is this part right here? This idea alone just screams all kinds of drama. Nathan has a life he never knew about, a family he never knew, and the people he called Mom and Dad just might be violent kidnappers hanging out in suburbia! I'm sure someone out there has already written this movie! But here comes the twist...
SPOILERS!
Nathan is the son of a CIA black ops agent and he was put into protective custody by his father and the agency to keep him away from foreign operatives. And that's the second act of the movie. The bad guys find him, the CIA is trying to find him, Nathan is running away with Karen from both groups, and he doesn't know who to trust.
This is where the wheels fall off. The introduction of the CIA super spy element into the movie just makes it a mess. Instead of exploring the emotional fire hose that comes with realizing your entire life was a lie, instead we get fight scenes and a way too complicated plot. Let me try and straighten the latter part out. Nathan's real father is a CIA deep undercover agent. He stole a like a NOC list of 25 CIA agent's names from a foreign operative. Now that operative wants it back. It sounds simple, but then there's the whole thing with the fake parents being CIA agents, the psychologist also being a CIA agent, the lead CIA agent wants to get the list because his name is on it and that is bad because... the plot said it was. Believe me. They had to explain the Act II plot twice and it still wasn't ever clear.
Already I have a problem. The Title. The title of the movie is Abduction. But there wasn't ever any abductions! In fact, the most interesting part of the movie became null right at about the 30 minute mark.
While there wasn't any one "movie breaker" moment, there were a few scenes that pushed my buttons.
1) Right at the beginning of the movie, we see Nathan riding on the hood of the car and his friend driving at around 70 mph. Not a good way to endeer me to this character. Instead I see a reckless dumbass about to go get liqured up at a party. Yeah. I don't like him.
2) While Nathan and Karen are on the train, they start to get intimate. The reminice, start kissing, and start taking their clothes off. Then, Karen just stops and says, "I'll go get food." Problem #1 that is very jarring. They go from hot and heavy, to normal in about a second. Problem #2 this is so contrived it makes my head hurt. There's guys chasing you so Karen thinks it's a good idea to split up? She's an idiot. Problem #3 and I admit this is nitpicking but while she is getting food, she casually picks up a Milky Way and says in her vally girl voice, "He'll like this." Why not put up a big neon sign at the bottom blinking "PRODUCT PLACEMENT"
3) And this one will probably only bother me. It's in the trailers but during the climax, Nathan slides down a glass ceiling. To get away from the bad guy, Kazlow. (Michael Nyqvist) It bothered me because Jackie Chan did the exact same stunt about 13 years ago in Who Am I? Get it? Who Am I? As in I don't know who I am? As in Nathan doesn't know who he is? Jackie had amnesia and Lautner was lied to his whole life? So, Jackie Chan did it first, he did it better, and he didn't almost break his fool leg landing. It's nitpicky and I doubt anyone else would've known since Who Am I? is one of Jackie Chan's least known movies outside of China, but it's one of my favorites and I didn't like watching Lautner rip off Jackie Chan!
4) The end of the climax Kazlow is running after Nathan and this is where I stop believing he is any kind of threat as a spy. THE GUY IS RUNNING AND YELLING AT NATHAN HE IS GOING TO SHOOT HIM WHILE HAVING THE GUN OVER HIS HEAD! IN FRONT OF HUNDREDS OF PEOPLE! He has a gun. He has both hands on the gun. His hands are over his head. He is running and yelling his murderous intent within earshot of hundreds of Pirates fans. And this is supposed to be some kind of super spy?
5) They are at the party. Nathan sees his dream girl arrive with her boyfriend. The boyfriend is an asshole. He bumps into Nathan just because he wanted to pick a fight. One can assume that he's jealous that his girlfriend lives next door to him and she likes him, but they never explore this. The next scene we see the boyfriend him and Karen broke up. But that's not what annoys me. This is by far the best example of how bad an actor Lautner is. The guy says, "be careful" or something else equally duchebaggery. Lautner, in his most monotone voice ever, says, "excuse yourself you bumped into me." And I don't think I saw his lips move. I think they dubbed that line in! And he showed no emotion at all.
I know I just went ragging on the movie, but really it isn't as bad as I thought it would be. The action scenes again are the same fast forward, extreme closeup, shaky camera scenes that piss me off so much; but overall it is filmed pretty well. The plot is overworked and the acting is lifeless. But it could've been far worse.
It's worth a dollar in the redbox.
Thursday, September 29, 2011
Sunday, September 25, 2011
Coming Soon: 9/30/11
New week, new set of movies. Let's take a look!
1) 50/50: Story of friendship and survival when a kid is diagnosed with cancer.
The Good: A very emotional and powerful story.
The Bad: Might be too impactful.
Final Thoughts: Everyone has been effected by cancer in some way or another. It's a terrible disease and sometimes the treatment is almost as bad as the disease. These stories are going to make you cry. Be prepared.
2) What's Your Number?: Woman reads a magazine article and believes she is going to be alone forever.
The Good: I got nothing
The Bad: This is offensive to women and to intellectual people everywhere.
Final Thoughts: Because she read somewhere that if she dated more than 20 guys she won't get married, she goes on a road trip to get back together with an ex-boyfriend? Not one in perticular. Just one of them. Any one of them... Yep. I don't need to check. The world has officially run out of stupid. This movie sucked up all the stupid.
3) Dream House: Family moves into a new house but find out that it was the scene of a murder that was never solved.
The Good: Daniel Craig is in it. Also, it sounds like a good, old time, who done it? kind of movie.
The Bad: The trailer looks pretty good up until they give away the twist and bring in the ghosts.
Final Thoughts: I might go see it but I am not all that enthused. Still might be good.
4) Courageous: The story of the lives of four police officers and their struggles to be good Dads and good cops.
The Good: It looks awesome. It highlights the importance of being a good parent and actually taking the time and making sacrifices.
The Bad: I see nothing wrong with it.
Final Thoughts: Anyone with kids or anyone thinking of having kids should see this movie. You might learn something about being a parent and about being a good human being.
5) Tucker & Dale vs Evil: A horror comedy about two guys who are mistaken for killer rednecks by camping preppies.
The Good: Looks hilarious. I love it when movies play around with expectations.
The Bad: Might be a bit too slap stick for some taste. And the blood might turn others off.
Final Thoughts: I so want to see this movie! To hell with Harold and Kumar. I want more Tucker and Dale!
See you at the movies!
1) 50/50: Story of friendship and survival when a kid is diagnosed with cancer.
The Good: A very emotional and powerful story.
The Bad: Might be too impactful.
Final Thoughts: Everyone has been effected by cancer in some way or another. It's a terrible disease and sometimes the treatment is almost as bad as the disease. These stories are going to make you cry. Be prepared.
2) What's Your Number?: Woman reads a magazine article and believes she is going to be alone forever.
The Good: I got nothing
The Bad: This is offensive to women and to intellectual people everywhere.
Final Thoughts: Because she read somewhere that if she dated more than 20 guys she won't get married, she goes on a road trip to get back together with an ex-boyfriend? Not one in perticular. Just one of them. Any one of them... Yep. I don't need to check. The world has officially run out of stupid. This movie sucked up all the stupid.
3) Dream House: Family moves into a new house but find out that it was the scene of a murder that was never solved.
The Good: Daniel Craig is in it. Also, it sounds like a good, old time, who done it? kind of movie.
The Bad: The trailer looks pretty good up until they give away the twist and bring in the ghosts.
Final Thoughts: I might go see it but I am not all that enthused. Still might be good.
4) Courageous: The story of the lives of four police officers and their struggles to be good Dads and good cops.
The Good: It looks awesome. It highlights the importance of being a good parent and actually taking the time and making sacrifices.
The Bad: I see nothing wrong with it.
Final Thoughts: Anyone with kids or anyone thinking of having kids should see this movie. You might learn something about being a parent and about being a good human being.
5) Tucker & Dale vs Evil: A horror comedy about two guys who are mistaken for killer rednecks by camping preppies.
The Good: Looks hilarious. I love it when movies play around with expectations.
The Bad: Might be a bit too slap stick for some taste. And the blood might turn others off.
Final Thoughts: I so want to see this movie! To hell with Harold and Kumar. I want more Tucker and Dale!
See you at the movies!
Saturday, September 24, 2011
Killer Elite Review: I'll have a Commando hold the ham and cheese.
Killer Elite indeed. They say this movie is based on a true story. If by true story, they mean a discredited non-fiction book that the writer admits was dramatized to sell better, then yes it's based on a true story.
I'll just say that at best it's a mixed bag. The action is good, but at times not shot very well. Sometimes the action scenes get repetitive, but then something interesting happens. But what kills this movie is the atrocious dialogue. After about an hour, I was finishing the lines of dialogue before they opened their mouths. And then I looked at my watch and saw there was another hour to go! I can almost forgive the cliche story, the at times boring action, the poor acting, but I just can't get over the dialogue. NOBODY TALKS LIKE THAT! It's like the movie Commando but more annoying and not funny.
Let's play a little game. It's called, "Finish the cliche." I'll set up the dialogue and you try to guess the answer. I'll post the answers at the bottom. Here we go.
1) Clive Owen says, "What? That's it? You think you just get to walk away?" A:
2) Jason Statham asks, "Why did they want me?" A:
3) Evil British person says, "I look at you and I see the 2%. The 2% that just love killing. That's why you will never get out." A:
4) Man has a drink in his hand and it's early in the day. A:
Robert DeNiro was completely wasted too. He wasn't on screen much but when he was, he stole the show. He even got a few laughs out of me toward the end.
Jason Statham. I admit I have a softspot for the guy. I liked him in the Transporter, The Bank Job, and The Expendables. I feel like I've been tricked into thinking he is a good actor. Really, he's a good action star. He does great stunts and he can do some impressive fight scenes, but he is such a wet blanket in this movie. Just that grumbling all through the movie about how he's done and doesn't want to do this. There wasn't any emotion attached to him. I really didn't care if he succeeded because I was too busy trying to figure out who the bad guys were.
And who the hell are the Feathermen? I was going to make that question number 5 but I didn't know how to word it correctly. "We have a light touch. That's why we are called the Feather Men." They are some kind of secret society of former British SAS agents. What is their role in the movie? Almost none. But they are in it. Somehow.
But the majority of the plot revolves around the job Jason Statham does for some Shiek in exile. He wants the men who killed three of his sons to confess and then killed. Danny (Statham) in return would get six million dollars and his friend Hunter (DeNiro) back because Hunter was kidnapped by the Shiek.
Added into the story are of course the standard action cliches. The hot girlfriend that doesn't know what's happening, the obligatory wife and kids who are mentioned but never seen, the plucky antagonist who won't let it go, the reluctant protagonist that just wants out of the game, etc.
The dialogue is terrible, the story cliche, and the action while good at times was redundant and poorly shot. Take a pass on it.
And here are your answers to today's game, "Finish That Cliche"
1) You can always be found.
2) Because you are the best.
3) That's what I've done. Not who I am.
4) It's 5:00 somewhere in the world.
I'll just say that at best it's a mixed bag. The action is good, but at times not shot very well. Sometimes the action scenes get repetitive, but then something interesting happens. But what kills this movie is the atrocious dialogue. After about an hour, I was finishing the lines of dialogue before they opened their mouths. And then I looked at my watch and saw there was another hour to go! I can almost forgive the cliche story, the at times boring action, the poor acting, but I just can't get over the dialogue. NOBODY TALKS LIKE THAT! It's like the movie Commando but more annoying and not funny.
Let's play a little game. It's called, "Finish the cliche." I'll set up the dialogue and you try to guess the answer. I'll post the answers at the bottom. Here we go.
1) Clive Owen says, "What? That's it? You think you just get to walk away?" A:
2) Jason Statham asks, "Why did they want me?" A:
3) Evil British person says, "I look at you and I see the 2%. The 2% that just love killing. That's why you will never get out." A:
4) Man has a drink in his hand and it's early in the day. A:
Robert DeNiro was completely wasted too. He wasn't on screen much but when he was, he stole the show. He even got a few laughs out of me toward the end.
Jason Statham. I admit I have a softspot for the guy. I liked him in the Transporter, The Bank Job, and The Expendables. I feel like I've been tricked into thinking he is a good actor. Really, he's a good action star. He does great stunts and he can do some impressive fight scenes, but he is such a wet blanket in this movie. Just that grumbling all through the movie about how he's done and doesn't want to do this. There wasn't any emotion attached to him. I really didn't care if he succeeded because I was too busy trying to figure out who the bad guys were.
And who the hell are the Feathermen? I was going to make that question number 5 but I didn't know how to word it correctly. "We have a light touch. That's why we are called the Feather Men." They are some kind of secret society of former British SAS agents. What is their role in the movie? Almost none. But they are in it. Somehow.
But the majority of the plot revolves around the job Jason Statham does for some Shiek in exile. He wants the men who killed three of his sons to confess and then killed. Danny (Statham) in return would get six million dollars and his friend Hunter (DeNiro) back because Hunter was kidnapped by the Shiek.
Added into the story are of course the standard action cliches. The hot girlfriend that doesn't know what's happening, the obligatory wife and kids who are mentioned but never seen, the plucky antagonist who won't let it go, the reluctant protagonist that just wants out of the game, etc.
The dialogue is terrible, the story cliche, and the action while good at times was redundant and poorly shot. Take a pass on it.
And here are your answers to today's game, "Finish That Cliche"
1) You can always be found.
2) Because you are the best.
3) That's what I've done. Not who I am.
4) It's 5:00 somewhere in the world.
Wednesday, September 21, 2011
Contagion review: aka S**t happens and then you die.
F***. I don't know where to begin. This movie is just so good. I watched a lot of movies this year. I have officially been blown away. Best movie I've been to all year. Has to be one of the scariest things ever put in a theater.
It's about a killer disease that kills a person in less than a week. That's it. It's a very straight forward story and it's filmed much like a docudrama. It has the feeling like this is something that already happened sometime in the past and we are looking at it in a history class or something. Then it's all dramatized to emphasize all the chaos and panic that came with the disease.
People were guessing the disease is transmitted through physical contact. When they said that, I realized I was touching my face with my mouth open. Then they started showing the "chain of custody". Think of all the times you touch your face or some other parts of your body. Think about how many times you touch a door knob or a keyboard. And then someone else touches it. And then they touch something else. This movie is going to make people germophobic! Watch the news, I bet hand sanitizer is going to be in short supply very soon because of this movie.
I also have to mention just how REAL everything felt. Nothing felt staged. I mean, at all. Everywhere you look, there were people getting sick, people getting violent, etc. The entire time I'm in the back of my mind thinking, "yeah. I'd probably react like that too." That's what is so terrifying. This movie actually has me questioning basic human decency and if decency is even a good thing.
Let me explain. Lawrence Fishburne plays a doctor with the CDC. He is responsible for trying to control the chaos while people look for a cure. There's an outbreak in Chicago where his girlfriend lives. He calls her and tries to get her out of the city before the quarantine. He did it because he loves her and worried about her. We all would feel that. But here's the problem... people found out he did it. Now his credibility goes to hell. When he is on the news trying to calm everyone's fears and debate this weasily little muckraking profiteer (played brilliantly by Jude Law) he is set up as the scapegoat and panic spreads even more. It literally is one of those moments where doing the decent/loving thing was the wrong move.
Think about things this way. How much do you trust the government? Every day we hear on the internet and the news about how ineffective and corrupt the government is. They sometimes show flow charts of money and ad hoc kickbacks to politicians. We see these things and we obviously lose trust in the government. Why wouldn't we? Then, a disaster like this hits. Who do we turn to? Can we turn to the government? That's the brilliance behind Alan. (Jude Law's character) He was the first to see the problem even though he didn't know it really was a problem. He tried to warn everyone on the internet and became famous for doing that. Then, he decides to cash in on his celebrity. He introduced a "cure" for the disease and then became more famous and incredibly wealthy. Did it help people? Who knows. I'm sure there would be plenty of stories, but no hard facts. In the meantime, the government is going through the painstaking research process to find a medicine that works. Which is more satisfying to hear during a crisis? Take this medicine right now! The government is trying to weed out undesirable people and make some money! or We are working as fast as we can. Please have patience. Did I say how genius this movie is?
The only person acting rationally through the entire crisis is Mitch (Matt Damon). Why is he the only one acting rationally? Because he was exposed to the disease early and was immune. Again, think about it... really think about it. Fear comes from the unknown. We don't know where it came from. We don't know how it started. We don't know how it spreads. We don't know how to fight it. We don't know ANYTHING! But here we have a man who is immune to the disease. He's guaranteed not to get sick and die. He's already lost his wife and step child to the disease and that was early on. He only has one thing left to fear and that is losing his biological daughter. And that's the focus of his character the entire movie. He does everything he can to keep his daughter away from everyone. And you know you would do the same in his shoes.
It's also refreshing to watch a movie that doesn't have an agenda. Most people would see this movie and think, "how can we prevent this from happening?" The point is that you can't prevent it. It has happened, it is happening, and it will happen in the future. Disease is everywhere. We've had major pandemics before, and we will have them in the future. There aren't any procedures or regulations that would prevent it and nobody is really prepared for it. Why would anyone be prepared? It's about as logical as saying, "why doesn't the government have a plan for what to do when the aliens attack?" These things are by nature unpredictable. All we as people can do is deal with it once it happens and do our best.
I will conclude by emphasizing the feelings of realism, helplessness, futility, and frustration that comes from this movie. It really is just so impactful. It's a very rare breed of movie these days. It needs to be seen.
It's about a killer disease that kills a person in less than a week. That's it. It's a very straight forward story and it's filmed much like a docudrama. It has the feeling like this is something that already happened sometime in the past and we are looking at it in a history class or something. Then it's all dramatized to emphasize all the chaos and panic that came with the disease.
People were guessing the disease is transmitted through physical contact. When they said that, I realized I was touching my face with my mouth open. Then they started showing the "chain of custody". Think of all the times you touch your face or some other parts of your body. Think about how many times you touch a door knob or a keyboard. And then someone else touches it. And then they touch something else. This movie is going to make people germophobic! Watch the news, I bet hand sanitizer is going to be in short supply very soon because of this movie.
I also have to mention just how REAL everything felt. Nothing felt staged. I mean, at all. Everywhere you look, there were people getting sick, people getting violent, etc. The entire time I'm in the back of my mind thinking, "yeah. I'd probably react like that too." That's what is so terrifying. This movie actually has me questioning basic human decency and if decency is even a good thing.
Let me explain. Lawrence Fishburne plays a doctor with the CDC. He is responsible for trying to control the chaos while people look for a cure. There's an outbreak in Chicago where his girlfriend lives. He calls her and tries to get her out of the city before the quarantine. He did it because he loves her and worried about her. We all would feel that. But here's the problem... people found out he did it. Now his credibility goes to hell. When he is on the news trying to calm everyone's fears and debate this weasily little muckraking profiteer (played brilliantly by Jude Law) he is set up as the scapegoat and panic spreads even more. It literally is one of those moments where doing the decent/loving thing was the wrong move.
Think about things this way. How much do you trust the government? Every day we hear on the internet and the news about how ineffective and corrupt the government is. They sometimes show flow charts of money and ad hoc kickbacks to politicians. We see these things and we obviously lose trust in the government. Why wouldn't we? Then, a disaster like this hits. Who do we turn to? Can we turn to the government? That's the brilliance behind Alan. (Jude Law's character) He was the first to see the problem even though he didn't know it really was a problem. He tried to warn everyone on the internet and became famous for doing that. Then, he decides to cash in on his celebrity. He introduced a "cure" for the disease and then became more famous and incredibly wealthy. Did it help people? Who knows. I'm sure there would be plenty of stories, but no hard facts. In the meantime, the government is going through the painstaking research process to find a medicine that works. Which is more satisfying to hear during a crisis? Take this medicine right now! The government is trying to weed out undesirable people and make some money! or We are working as fast as we can. Please have patience. Did I say how genius this movie is?
The only person acting rationally through the entire crisis is Mitch (Matt Damon). Why is he the only one acting rationally? Because he was exposed to the disease early and was immune. Again, think about it... really think about it. Fear comes from the unknown. We don't know where it came from. We don't know how it started. We don't know how it spreads. We don't know how to fight it. We don't know ANYTHING! But here we have a man who is immune to the disease. He's guaranteed not to get sick and die. He's already lost his wife and step child to the disease and that was early on. He only has one thing left to fear and that is losing his biological daughter. And that's the focus of his character the entire movie. He does everything he can to keep his daughter away from everyone. And you know you would do the same in his shoes.
It's also refreshing to watch a movie that doesn't have an agenda. Most people would see this movie and think, "how can we prevent this from happening?" The point is that you can't prevent it. It has happened, it is happening, and it will happen in the future. Disease is everywhere. We've had major pandemics before, and we will have them in the future. There aren't any procedures or regulations that would prevent it and nobody is really prepared for it. Why would anyone be prepared? It's about as logical as saying, "why doesn't the government have a plan for what to do when the aliens attack?" These things are by nature unpredictable. All we as people can do is deal with it once it happens and do our best.
I will conclude by emphasizing the feelings of realism, helplessness, futility, and frustration that comes from this movie. It really is just so impactful. It's a very rare breed of movie these days. It needs to be seen.
Sunday, September 18, 2011
Coming Soon: 9/23/11
Time again to take a look at what will be in theaters this weekend. While last week had some good ones, what will we see coming out this week? Surprisingly, a good number of true story movies coming out this week so let's take a look.
1) Abduction: A kid realizes he was the victim of an abduction and his parents aren't his real parents. But finding his real parents might unveil an even darker secret.
The Good: It's.... uhm.... yeah....
The Bad: From the trailers, I see that the acting sucks. Also, the story is overblown at best and drivel at worst.
Final Thoughts: Taylor Lautner has no business being a leading man. I realize he has a female following because he took his shirt off a lot in Twilight, but he is a terrible actor. The talents of Sigorney Weaver and Alfred Molina are wasted in movies like this. Go see it to see beautiful people try to be gritty. Yeah. Even I can't say that with a straight face.
2) Moneyball: Based on the true story of Billy Beane and his bargin bin approach to building a baseball team that changed the game forever.
The Good: True stories of overcoming adversity are just awesome. Plus, I love baseball so I already want to go see it.
The Bad: It's a sports movie mixed with the 'ultra glamorous world of a corporate office'. Brad Pitt is playing Billy Beane? wow.
Final Thoughts: This one I'm biased. I love true stories and I love baseball. If you don't, then there's no reason to see this movie. I'm also interested because I remember the Oakland A's taking a rag tag team and making baseball history. But does all the credit go to Beane? It'll be interesting to see how much credit they give to Ken Macha or the Big Three: Mark Mulder, Barry Zito, and Tim Hudson. We'll see.
3) Killer Elite: True story of special ops agents doing what they do.
The Good: Jason Statham, Robert DeNiro, and Clive Owen in an action movie. Do I need to say more?
The Bad: Expect something to follow the hollywood action formula.
Final Thoughts: It should be good. Jason Statham doing what he does best. If you liked The Bank Job, this should be your movie.
4) Dolphin Tale: True story of a dolphin that had her tail cut off and the struggle to live with a prosthetic tail.
The Good: Should be a fairly good family movie. Who doesn't love dolphins?
The Bad: Probably going to be a bit sappy. Lots of tug at your heart moments.
Final Thoughts: Give it a watch. This one seems harmless enough and it just might make you feel something.
5) Red State: Evil preacher in the backwoods being evil because he's evil. Seriously. Look at the trailer for yourself and try to figure out what is going on. I can't.
The Good: Should be fairly scary. Trailer looked creepy anyway.
The Bad: I can't begin to describe how uninterested I am. Stereotypes don't impress me. It's just lazy writing.
Final Thoughts: It's ugly, violent, and exists only to make people angry. Some people call it 'provocative' but that just means purposefully makes people angry. I don't have any desire to be preached to when I watch a movie. The good news is that it's expected to have a limited theatrical release and comes out on DVD in October. It's safe to skip it and rent it for cheaper.
See you at the movies
1) Abduction: A kid realizes he was the victim of an abduction and his parents aren't his real parents. But finding his real parents might unveil an even darker secret.
The Good: It's.... uhm.... yeah....
The Bad: From the trailers, I see that the acting sucks. Also, the story is overblown at best and drivel at worst.
Final Thoughts: Taylor Lautner has no business being a leading man. I realize he has a female following because he took his shirt off a lot in Twilight, but he is a terrible actor. The talents of Sigorney Weaver and Alfred Molina are wasted in movies like this. Go see it to see beautiful people try to be gritty. Yeah. Even I can't say that with a straight face.
2) Moneyball: Based on the true story of Billy Beane and his bargin bin approach to building a baseball team that changed the game forever.
The Good: True stories of overcoming adversity are just awesome. Plus, I love baseball so I already want to go see it.
The Bad: It's a sports movie mixed with the 'ultra glamorous world of a corporate office'. Brad Pitt is playing Billy Beane? wow.
Final Thoughts: This one I'm biased. I love true stories and I love baseball. If you don't, then there's no reason to see this movie. I'm also interested because I remember the Oakland A's taking a rag tag team and making baseball history. But does all the credit go to Beane? It'll be interesting to see how much credit they give to Ken Macha or the Big Three: Mark Mulder, Barry Zito, and Tim Hudson. We'll see.
3) Killer Elite: True story of special ops agents doing what they do.
The Good: Jason Statham, Robert DeNiro, and Clive Owen in an action movie. Do I need to say more?
The Bad: Expect something to follow the hollywood action formula.
Final Thoughts: It should be good. Jason Statham doing what he does best. If you liked The Bank Job, this should be your movie.
4) Dolphin Tale: True story of a dolphin that had her tail cut off and the struggle to live with a prosthetic tail.
The Good: Should be a fairly good family movie. Who doesn't love dolphins?
The Bad: Probably going to be a bit sappy. Lots of tug at your heart moments.
Final Thoughts: Give it a watch. This one seems harmless enough and it just might make you feel something.
5) Red State: Evil preacher in the backwoods being evil because he's evil. Seriously. Look at the trailer for yourself and try to figure out what is going on. I can't.
The Good: Should be fairly scary. Trailer looked creepy anyway.
The Bad: I can't begin to describe how uninterested I am. Stereotypes don't impress me. It's just lazy writing.
Final Thoughts: It's ugly, violent, and exists only to make people angry. Some people call it 'provocative' but that just means purposefully makes people angry. I don't have any desire to be preached to when I watch a movie. The good news is that it's expected to have a limited theatrical release and comes out on DVD in October. It's safe to skip it and rent it for cheaper.
See you at the movies
Friday, September 16, 2011
Anatomy of a Movie: The Three Acts
Movies much like stage plays rely heavily on the three act format for the script. In those three acts could be several scenes, but each act has a specific purpose.
Act I: The introduction. Especially in movies, the introduction to the characters and the circumstances revolving around them is critical. Normally, the first act is anywhere between ten to twenty minutes. We need to know who the characters are, we need to know a little about their backstory, we need to know how it's relevant to what is coming up in the movie, and we need to set the stage for act II. There is a a lot that needs to be done in a very short amount of time.
Examples are always best. Here is an example of a great screenplay that has a great first act: Die Hard. First scene we are introduced to John McClane. He's on an airplane, a little apprehensive about flying, we establish that he's a cop just by showing his gun and a little dialogue, we see he's an average joe because he doesn't sit in the back of the limo, we establish he has marriage troubles with dialogue between him and the limo driver... and all this is done in a very short amount of time, but very effectively. We also meet Holly. We get to know her situation a bit. We learn that she misses the big lug and has some regrets about taking this job in LA. We see that it was a huge opportunity for her because she has her own office with her name on the door. The office conflicts and politics are established and become important later in the movie. (especially with Ellis) We also see a lot about the terrorists. The way they take the building, how they dress and interact with each other, how Hans carries himself as an aristocratic character in complete opposition to John McClane's character, and we know what the terrorists want. It's a beautiful setup to a great movie. All done in about the first twenty minutes of the movie.
A bad example would be Battle: Los Angeles. There almost isn't a first act at all. The audience is told the aliens invade through a news reel. Next thing we know, we are in a briefing talking about how the US military plans to fight back. The motivations of the aliens are glanced over, we never see the aliens clearly, and no characters are established other than they are soldiers. It's impossible to have drama if we don't know who the people are, what they are fighting for/against, or why we should care. It's like building a house with no foundation. Do you really expect it to keep standing?
Act II: Things get interesting. By far the longest act in any movie is act II. Once we set the stage, now things can start to go wrong. Everyone knows that conflict is the bread and butter of drama. Nobody wants to see a movie where everything is fine. That doesn't happen in real life and it shouldn't happen in a movie. Think of all the ways to have conflict: personality conflicts between characters, personality conflicts with one character, outward fights between characters, political tension, racial tension, religious tension, gender tension, social class tension, economic tension, and on and on. Act II is where the writer has fun. Act I everything is set up nicely, Act II we get to break everything.
The name of the game is conflict. And in keeping with the traditional writing model, the conflict must steadily increase. If there are any surprise twists or sub-plots, act II is where to put them. The most important thing is to keep the tension rising. There can be breaks of course. Even a viewing audience needs a chance to catch their breath. A running firefight for sixty minutes might sound good, but it's taxing and the audience will lose interest.
In slasher movies, there's a reason people get killed one at a time. It's to keep the action rising. One person gets killed, reaction shot by the survivors, some dialogue, and repeat. By killing only one person it also provides a little creativity in how that person dies. As I said, we have to keep the action rising. If person #1 has his head cut off with a machete, person #2 can't die in a relatively more tame way. It just becomes a let down and the audience just says, "that's it? Lame." Think about Final Destination 5. The first person dies by falling off the uneven bars and breaks her back/neck. Overall, a fairly tame way to die even though the death scene was very elaborate. But the next scene is a guy dieing in a massage parlor. Needles are embedded deep into his skin, there's a fire, and a Buddah statue crushes his head like a grape. That's called upping the ante.
Act III: The final countdown. In any movie this is it. This is the grand finale. This is the moment the entire movie has built up to. This is the final fight scene. This is the moment of realization. The climax and final resolutions. Here we find out if the two lovers live happily ever after, if the good guy defeats the bad guy, or even if anybody lives. Many people will forgive a slow buildup if the payoff is good. But not if they wait too long. Let's go back to Die Hard. The climax of the movie is the showdown between Hans and McClane. Hans' plan is all but ruined, he has Holly hostage, another villian is there with a gun too, the building is a fiery mess, and all John McClane has is a gun with two bullets. How does he solve this problem? It's the classic Mexican standoff scene. One man vs two and the life of a loved one in the balance. It's a great scene. It is about the last twenty minutes of the movie. We have our climatic scene and then all the loose ends get resolved. Beautiful.
An example of a bad climax would be Shutter Island. While it's not a bad movie, it is anti-climatic. Throughout the movie it's a mystery of what is really going on. All the pieces just don't fit and as our intrepid inspector is about to confront the shady doctor, the music swells, the door opens, and.... they have a nice chat.... yeah.... great movie. It's very suspenseful and a must see if you haven't seen it yet, but the climax is very disappointing. It just feels like the whole story fell off a cliff. All the tension and drama gets sucked out of the room immediately. The realization is satisfying but not dramatic.
Another example of a bad climax is when it goes on for too long. Transformers 3 has this problem. The climax is a disjointed mess of action sequences that don't fit well together and sometimes undermine each other. And it goes on for about an hour! There is such a thing as too much action.
Some movies break from the three act style with mixed results. Shawshank Redemption for example could be considered a four act play. The climax of the movie is Andy's brilliant escape from prison. But that isn't the end of the movie. While most of the movie revolves around Andy, it's not entirely his movie. Red is telling this story to us much like Grandpa reading us a bedtime story. Act III is the completion of Andy's story, but Act IV is what happens to Red. It's a break from the norm and some people like this, but it does have the problem of dragging out the resolution to the story. Something that is normally very quick, suddenly becomes the last twenty minutes or so of the movie. That's a lot of time for an audience that has already seen the best part and is ready to go home.
How the movie plays out is entirely up to the writer of the script. Some acts might be longer or shorter. Some disregard the three act format all together. However, breaking a movie down into three acts is usually a winning formula.
Act I: The introduction. Especially in movies, the introduction to the characters and the circumstances revolving around them is critical. Normally, the first act is anywhere between ten to twenty minutes. We need to know who the characters are, we need to know a little about their backstory, we need to know how it's relevant to what is coming up in the movie, and we need to set the stage for act II. There is a a lot that needs to be done in a very short amount of time.
Examples are always best. Here is an example of a great screenplay that has a great first act: Die Hard. First scene we are introduced to John McClane. He's on an airplane, a little apprehensive about flying, we establish that he's a cop just by showing his gun and a little dialogue, we see he's an average joe because he doesn't sit in the back of the limo, we establish he has marriage troubles with dialogue between him and the limo driver... and all this is done in a very short amount of time, but very effectively. We also meet Holly. We get to know her situation a bit. We learn that she misses the big lug and has some regrets about taking this job in LA. We see that it was a huge opportunity for her because she has her own office with her name on the door. The office conflicts and politics are established and become important later in the movie. (especially with Ellis) We also see a lot about the terrorists. The way they take the building, how they dress and interact with each other, how Hans carries himself as an aristocratic character in complete opposition to John McClane's character, and we know what the terrorists want. It's a beautiful setup to a great movie. All done in about the first twenty minutes of the movie.
A bad example would be Battle: Los Angeles. There almost isn't a first act at all. The audience is told the aliens invade through a news reel. Next thing we know, we are in a briefing talking about how the US military plans to fight back. The motivations of the aliens are glanced over, we never see the aliens clearly, and no characters are established other than they are soldiers. It's impossible to have drama if we don't know who the people are, what they are fighting for/against, or why we should care. It's like building a house with no foundation. Do you really expect it to keep standing?
Act II: Things get interesting. By far the longest act in any movie is act II. Once we set the stage, now things can start to go wrong. Everyone knows that conflict is the bread and butter of drama. Nobody wants to see a movie where everything is fine. That doesn't happen in real life and it shouldn't happen in a movie. Think of all the ways to have conflict: personality conflicts between characters, personality conflicts with one character, outward fights between characters, political tension, racial tension, religious tension, gender tension, social class tension, economic tension, and on and on. Act II is where the writer has fun. Act I everything is set up nicely, Act II we get to break everything.
The name of the game is conflict. And in keeping with the traditional writing model, the conflict must steadily increase. If there are any surprise twists or sub-plots, act II is where to put them. The most important thing is to keep the tension rising. There can be breaks of course. Even a viewing audience needs a chance to catch their breath. A running firefight for sixty minutes might sound good, but it's taxing and the audience will lose interest.
In slasher movies, there's a reason people get killed one at a time. It's to keep the action rising. One person gets killed, reaction shot by the survivors, some dialogue, and repeat. By killing only one person it also provides a little creativity in how that person dies. As I said, we have to keep the action rising. If person #1 has his head cut off with a machete, person #2 can't die in a relatively more tame way. It just becomes a let down and the audience just says, "that's it? Lame." Think about Final Destination 5. The first person dies by falling off the uneven bars and breaks her back/neck. Overall, a fairly tame way to die even though the death scene was very elaborate. But the next scene is a guy dieing in a massage parlor. Needles are embedded deep into his skin, there's a fire, and a Buddah statue crushes his head like a grape. That's called upping the ante.
Act III: The final countdown. In any movie this is it. This is the grand finale. This is the moment the entire movie has built up to. This is the final fight scene. This is the moment of realization. The climax and final resolutions. Here we find out if the two lovers live happily ever after, if the good guy defeats the bad guy, or even if anybody lives. Many people will forgive a slow buildup if the payoff is good. But not if they wait too long. Let's go back to Die Hard. The climax of the movie is the showdown between Hans and McClane. Hans' plan is all but ruined, he has Holly hostage, another villian is there with a gun too, the building is a fiery mess, and all John McClane has is a gun with two bullets. How does he solve this problem? It's the classic Mexican standoff scene. One man vs two and the life of a loved one in the balance. It's a great scene. It is about the last twenty minutes of the movie. We have our climatic scene and then all the loose ends get resolved. Beautiful.
An example of a bad climax would be Shutter Island. While it's not a bad movie, it is anti-climatic. Throughout the movie it's a mystery of what is really going on. All the pieces just don't fit and as our intrepid inspector is about to confront the shady doctor, the music swells, the door opens, and.... they have a nice chat.... yeah.... great movie. It's very suspenseful and a must see if you haven't seen it yet, but the climax is very disappointing. It just feels like the whole story fell off a cliff. All the tension and drama gets sucked out of the room immediately. The realization is satisfying but not dramatic.
Another example of a bad climax is when it goes on for too long. Transformers 3 has this problem. The climax is a disjointed mess of action sequences that don't fit well together and sometimes undermine each other. And it goes on for about an hour! There is such a thing as too much action.
Some movies break from the three act style with mixed results. Shawshank Redemption for example could be considered a four act play. The climax of the movie is Andy's brilliant escape from prison. But that isn't the end of the movie. While most of the movie revolves around Andy, it's not entirely his movie. Red is telling this story to us much like Grandpa reading us a bedtime story. Act III is the completion of Andy's story, but Act IV is what happens to Red. It's a break from the norm and some people like this, but it does have the problem of dragging out the resolution to the story. Something that is normally very quick, suddenly becomes the last twenty minutes or so of the movie. That's a lot of time for an audience that has already seen the best part and is ready to go home.
How the movie plays out is entirely up to the writer of the script. Some acts might be longer or shorter. Some disregard the three act format all together. However, breaking a movie down into three acts is usually a winning formula.
Wednesday, September 14, 2011
Shark Night review: Now with out the Night!
Okay. We all knew this was a bad movie. I knew it was a bad movie going in. There's no possible way anyone could ever even think that this was going to be a good movie. But I wanted to see it anyway. Why you might ask? Because it was going to be bad. It's hard to explain the irony of finding enjoyment in intentionally bad movies; but that was what I was expecting. I was expecting a whole laundry list of bad movie cliches. I wanted to see something that would be best seen on the siffie channel. (Sorry. SyFy channel) That's what we get with this movie alright. It's bad.
But that's the wrong question. Was it enjoyable? For me, my answer is no. Here's why.
1) It's a PG-13 movie. That means we see sexy women in bakinis. Okay. Good. We see them take off said bakinis. Okay. Good. But we don't see any nudity. Because that's not PG-13. Bad.
2) It's a PG-13 movie. That means the death scenes are incredibly tame. Not only are they tame, but repetitive as well. Everyone kinda remembers the first Jaws kill. We see someone treading water and screaming. Then there's the copious amounts of blood in the water. Then the person sinks in the water and that's it. Dead. We see that at least four times in this movie. We see the shark jump out of the water twice. There were so many different sharks in this movie and so many different opportunities to do different things, but instead just more of the same. Bad and boring.
3) The story was illogical. It's expected in a movie like this that the plot wouldn't make any sense. That's not what I mean. What I mean is that the script doesn't pass the 4th grader test. Imagine you are describing this movie to a snarky fourth grader: These college kids go up to a lake for the weekend and they are attacked by sharks. Question: what kind of sharks? Answer: All kinds of sharks. Cookie cutter sharks, tiger sharks, hammerhead sharks, and even a great white! Question: How did the sharks get in there? Answer: uhm... this really stereotypical redneck found a friend with shark like teeth to help him catch sharks and put them in the lake. Question: Don't sharks live in the ocean? Answer: It's a salt water lake. In Louisiana. Question: But aren't cookie cutter sharks, tiger sharks, hammerheads, and great whites all deep sea sharks? They would starve to death in a lake. Answer: the people feed them? I don't know, kid. Stop asking questions.
Literally, there are sharks from all over the world put into this lake for reason X (no spoilers here but believe me, it's stupid) and never is it even hinted at as to how this happened.
Poor acting, one note characters, stupid plot, boring action scenes, boring kills, transparent villians, and lame effects.
Here's the good parts:
1) There was one really good character. I really wanted to see more of him. Malik is a basketball star and madly in love with girl #3. I forget her name. Nothing is ever known of her other than she's his girlfriend and she's a chicana. Anyway, his arm is bitten off by the shark, his girlfriend is killed, and he doesn't look like he's going to live much longer. So, he goes gangsta on the shark! He grabs a spear and he is going to throw down with the shark. And he wins! It was the only legitimate "bad ass" part of the whole movie. I loved it!
2) The tiger shark. If you saw Rise of the Planet of the Apes, maybe you will remember the ape with the scars and the missing eye. He looked just gnarly. The tiger shark in this movie looks the same way. There are all these scars over his face and I think an eye was missing. (could be mistaken about that) But just seeing that shark for that split second was awesome. It made me laugh. I wanted more gnarly looking sharks.
3) The Great White: It happened when we finally get the Great White at the end of the movie. You knew they were going to do it. You knew they had to copy Jaws somehow. Well, they used the Jaws music. No surprise there. But what I wasn't expecting was them copying the end of Jaws 4! I swear I heard the shark roar!
Don't spend your money in the theaters for this. It'll be on the SyFy channel before you know it.
But that's the wrong question. Was it enjoyable? For me, my answer is no. Here's why.
1) It's a PG-13 movie. That means we see sexy women in bakinis. Okay. Good. We see them take off said bakinis. Okay. Good. But we don't see any nudity. Because that's not PG-13. Bad.
2) It's a PG-13 movie. That means the death scenes are incredibly tame. Not only are they tame, but repetitive as well. Everyone kinda remembers the first Jaws kill. We see someone treading water and screaming. Then there's the copious amounts of blood in the water. Then the person sinks in the water and that's it. Dead. We see that at least four times in this movie. We see the shark jump out of the water twice. There were so many different sharks in this movie and so many different opportunities to do different things, but instead just more of the same. Bad and boring.
3) The story was illogical. It's expected in a movie like this that the plot wouldn't make any sense. That's not what I mean. What I mean is that the script doesn't pass the 4th grader test. Imagine you are describing this movie to a snarky fourth grader: These college kids go up to a lake for the weekend and they are attacked by sharks. Question: what kind of sharks? Answer: All kinds of sharks. Cookie cutter sharks, tiger sharks, hammerhead sharks, and even a great white! Question: How did the sharks get in there? Answer: uhm... this really stereotypical redneck found a friend with shark like teeth to help him catch sharks and put them in the lake. Question: Don't sharks live in the ocean? Answer: It's a salt water lake. In Louisiana. Question: But aren't cookie cutter sharks, tiger sharks, hammerheads, and great whites all deep sea sharks? They would starve to death in a lake. Answer: the people feed them? I don't know, kid. Stop asking questions.
Literally, there are sharks from all over the world put into this lake for reason X (no spoilers here but believe me, it's stupid) and never is it even hinted at as to how this happened.
Poor acting, one note characters, stupid plot, boring action scenes, boring kills, transparent villians, and lame effects.
Here's the good parts:
1) There was one really good character. I really wanted to see more of him. Malik is a basketball star and madly in love with girl #3. I forget her name. Nothing is ever known of her other than she's his girlfriend and she's a chicana. Anyway, his arm is bitten off by the shark, his girlfriend is killed, and he doesn't look like he's going to live much longer. So, he goes gangsta on the shark! He grabs a spear and he is going to throw down with the shark. And he wins! It was the only legitimate "bad ass" part of the whole movie. I loved it!
2) The tiger shark. If you saw Rise of the Planet of the Apes, maybe you will remember the ape with the scars and the missing eye. He looked just gnarly. The tiger shark in this movie looks the same way. There are all these scars over his face and I think an eye was missing. (could be mistaken about that) But just seeing that shark for that split second was awesome. It made me laugh. I wanted more gnarly looking sharks.
3) The Great White: It happened when we finally get the Great White at the end of the movie. You knew they were going to do it. You knew they had to copy Jaws somehow. Well, they used the Jaws music. No surprise there. But what I wasn't expecting was them copying the end of Jaws 4! I swear I heard the shark roar!
Don't spend your money in the theaters for this. It'll be on the SyFy channel before you know it.
Monday, September 12, 2011
Coming Soon 9/16/11
It's that time of the week again! Time to make plans to see the new movie release. Let's see what's coming out and what's worth going to see?
1) Drive: A professional criminal/driver finds himself in hot water with dangerous criminals and a female passenger.
The Good: Should be a solid action flick. Lots of fast cars and guns going off.
The Bad: Haven't we all seen this movie with the Transporter? Several times?
Final Thoughts: It should be good but I'm not expecting much other than another "high-octane thrill ride." As action movies go, it's hard to go wrong with guns and car chases. My problem is that it's been done to death in hundreds of movies. To make another, it has to bring something new to it and I don't see anything new. I'll still watch it and enjoy it.
2) Straw Dogs: Remake of the 1971 thriller, a hollywood family goes to the south to prepare a house for sale and lots of old conflicts and tensions arise.
The Good: Solid story. Interesting. Looks like it's very well acted and tense.
The Bad: Basically the story is five rednecks want to rape a man's wife. If violence against women isn't your cup of tea, don't see the movie.
Final Thoughts: Remakes in general don't stand up to the originals. This one might be an exception. It looks tense and the story is solid. It's a character study of how far a man would go to protect himself and the woman he loves. Check it out.
3) I Don't Know How She Does It. A charcter driven romantic comedy about the modern life of a career woman/wife/mother of two.
The Good: Has much of a Ferris Beuller feel to the movie where we have a narration from the protagonist. It appears to treat the source material with the dignity it deserves with less emphasis on the obvious low-brow humor.
The Bad: Don't expect too many laugh out loud moments. This is not that kind of comedy.
Final Thoughts: It looks like a great movie with a great cast looking at a serious issue. I'm expecting a lot of cliche moments, but I think it'll be a cute movie to watch.
4) Restless: Terminally ill woman with lust for life meets hopelessly depressed boy.
The Good: If I were a twilight fan, this might be my movie.
The Bad: Contrived and cliche. It's what's for dinner.
Final Thoughts: It has all the emotion of a hallmark card. Sap and ham don't go well together. Skip it.
5) Stay Cool: Man goes back to his hometown to give a commencement speech. Along the way he has a trip down memory lane.
The Good: Lots of comedic talent in this movie.
The Bad: I hate with a burning passion these movies where every woman on the planet wants to jump the bones of the pretty boy protagonist.
Final Thoughts: No. Just... no.
See you at the movies.
1) Drive: A professional criminal/driver finds himself in hot water with dangerous criminals and a female passenger.
The Good: Should be a solid action flick. Lots of fast cars and guns going off.
The Bad: Haven't we all seen this movie with the Transporter? Several times?
Final Thoughts: It should be good but I'm not expecting much other than another "high-octane thrill ride." As action movies go, it's hard to go wrong with guns and car chases. My problem is that it's been done to death in hundreds of movies. To make another, it has to bring something new to it and I don't see anything new. I'll still watch it and enjoy it.
2) Straw Dogs: Remake of the 1971 thriller, a hollywood family goes to the south to prepare a house for sale and lots of old conflicts and tensions arise.
The Good: Solid story. Interesting. Looks like it's very well acted and tense.
The Bad: Basically the story is five rednecks want to rape a man's wife. If violence against women isn't your cup of tea, don't see the movie.
Final Thoughts: Remakes in general don't stand up to the originals. This one might be an exception. It looks tense and the story is solid. It's a character study of how far a man would go to protect himself and the woman he loves. Check it out.
3) I Don't Know How She Does It. A charcter driven romantic comedy about the modern life of a career woman/wife/mother of two.
The Good: Has much of a Ferris Beuller feel to the movie where we have a narration from the protagonist. It appears to treat the source material with the dignity it deserves with less emphasis on the obvious low-brow humor.
The Bad: Don't expect too many laugh out loud moments. This is not that kind of comedy.
Final Thoughts: It looks like a great movie with a great cast looking at a serious issue. I'm expecting a lot of cliche moments, but I think it'll be a cute movie to watch.
4) Restless: Terminally ill woman with lust for life meets hopelessly depressed boy.
The Good: If I were a twilight fan, this might be my movie.
The Bad: Contrived and cliche. It's what's for dinner.
Final Thoughts: It has all the emotion of a hallmark card. Sap and ham don't go well together. Skip it.
5) Stay Cool: Man goes back to his hometown to give a commencement speech. Along the way he has a trip down memory lane.
The Good: Lots of comedic talent in this movie.
The Bad: I hate with a burning passion these movies where every woman on the planet wants to jump the bones of the pretty boy protagonist.
Final Thoughts: No. Just... no.
See you at the movies.
Anatomy of a Movie: Characters
Let's talk about characters in movies. More specifically, what makes for a good, well-rounded character instead of a poorly written, one-note, stereotype. I chose the Star Wars movies as an example because they highlight both the best and worst in characterization.
If you've ever been in a middle school English class, you know that there are protagonists and antagonists in any story. The protagonist is often misunderstood to mean the "good guy" in the story. While that is normally the case, it's not always true. The protagonist is better defined as "whose story is this?" The central character in which all events seem to circle around in the story. For example, in Star Wars, the protagonist is clearly Luke Skywalker. This is his story about finding the droids, leaving home and the life he once knew, and setting out on a grand adventure full of danger and self-discovery. While we do meet other interesting characters along the way (Han, Leia, etc) none of them are ever the driving element of the story. Never is that more clear than in The Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi because both of those movies are always about the relationship between Luke, Darth Vader, and if Luke will join the dark side.
The opposite of the protagonist is the antagonist. Again many people think of the antagonist as the "bad guy." Even in the English language, to be antagonistic means to be disagreeable and generally not likable. But in terms of a story, the antagonist is the person or thing in direct conflict with the protagonist. Again taking the example of Star Wars, the antagonist is Darth Vader. Little is known about his history or motivations (until the prequel trilogy ruined that). He's an enigma. Dark, shadowy, and always menacing. We are interested in this character because he has to have some motivation for wanting to stop the protagonist. He has to have his own dreams and aspirations that are in conflict with what the protagonist wants. Luke wants to stop the evil empire from ruling the galaxy while Darth Vader wants to stop the rebels and rule the galaxy. We learn later of course that the motivations are more in depth than that but that's the basic idea.
I was careful to define protagonist and antagonist because simply labeling them the good guy vs the bad guy is misleading and not always the case. The protagonist doesn't always have to be a heroic or noble character. Sometimes the protagonist can be someone we generally don't like. Imagine you were going to make Star Wars but from the point of view of Darth Vader. That makes the movie drastically different! We don't have to like him or even agree with what he does. But it becomes his story. It's about his motivations for conquering the galaxy, his attachment to Luke, and the loyalty he has to the Emperor. This is what we see in the Star Wars prequel trilogy. Often when we have a character like this as the protagonist, it's classified as a tragedy.
There are no more important characters than the protagonist and the antagonist.
Aside from the stars of the show we have the supporting characters. We tend to know less about them because in movies we have much less time to tell the story than say a novel. That doesn't mean they are any less interesting. Han Solo is a perfect example of a great supporting character. What do we know about him? He's a gruff, dirty, foul, ill mannered space thug but with some noble characteristics like loyalty, determination, intelligence, and charisma. He is every bit the noble rogue and could easily be the star of his own movie. (works for Captain Jack Sparrow, right?) As a supporting character, their job in the story is to assist the main character (protagonist or antagonist depending on which side). While they might be reluctant to get involved, ultimately they play a direct part in resolving the conflict in some way.
Lastly, we come to peripheral characters. These characters we might interact with on a limited basis, but most of the time they aren't that important. Their importance varies of course. Jabba the Hutt and Boba Fett are peripheral characters and have an important role to perform, but still the movie could cut them out completely and it wouldn't effect the overall story. Jabba the Hutt is a good example. We only see him in the original trilogy in Return of the Jedi because Han Solo is his prisoner and the others mount a rescue. Imagine if we were writing this story. We go back to Empire Strikes Back and instead of Han being frozen in carbonite and sent to Jabba, he instead is killed or Luke makes the save before he is frozen. That means Han is never sent to Jabba's palace, there isn't any reason to go back to Tattooine to rescue him, and therefore no need to have Jabba the Hutt in the movie. We can write off Han Solo flying back there by himself to pay the debt he owes and go straight to Luke Skywalker flying in his X-wing to continue training with Yoda.
The original Star Wars trilogy is an excellent example of great characterization. Every character is fleshed out, well-rounded, and memorable. Now, let's contrast that with the poor characterization we see in the Star Wars prequel trilogy.
Our protagonist changes from the Phantom Menace to Attack of the Clones. In the Phantom Menace the protagonist is Obwan. This is his story of meeting Anikin Skywalker. When we reach Attack of the Clones and Revenge of the Sith, the story is now about Anikin Skywalker and his fall from grace. This by itself is not a problem but it has to be handled correctly. We first have to establish Obwan as the protagonist in Phantom Menace. So, what do we know about Obwan Kanobi? It's right about here that I don't have an answer to that question. We know plenty about him as a secondary character from New Hope, but we never learn anything about Obwan Kanobi from Phantom Menace; at least nothing new or emphasized. We do learn one thing, Obwan is a bit rash in his youth compared to the wise sage we know from New Hope, but that part of his character is never emphasized. We never see him do anything daring. He is a loyal student to his master and eager to learn the ways of the force. But that is in no way sufficient characterization for the protagonist in a movie.
Contrast Luke Skywalker from New Hope vs Obwan Kanobi from Phantom Menace. We know Luke is a lonely farm boy with dreams of traveling. He's ambitious, a dreamer, and even a bit reckless. He's an orphan who lives with his aunt and uncle. We don't know what happened to his parents other than they died and it's something that bothers Luke as he tries desperately to find answers to his past.
Obwan is a young teenage student learning to be a warrior/priest.
And how about Anakin Skywalker in Attack of the Clones and Revenge of the Sith. What kind of character is he? He's whiny, emotional, self-important, obsessive, and easily fooled. What are his good characteristics? And that's my problem with the prequel trilogy in a nutshell. Tragedy is when a character we like falls victim to his own shortcomings. We have to like him first, then we feel bad and a sense of loss when he turns evil. Instead we like him more in Return of the Jedi when we see the conflicts between good and evil he has inside.
The antagonist also is very different. In Phantom Menace we have Darth Maul. He never talks and we never learn anything about him. We know he's a good fighter but that's it. He never does anything to build dread. Before we ever see Darth Vader he is attacking an unarmed ship and when we do see him, he interrogates a guy by lifting him up in the air by his neck with one hand. Edge goes to Darth Vader.
The supporting characters also are not given the dignity they deserve. What do we learn about Princess Amidala? Young, childish, and a bit spoiled. That's about it. What do we learn about Anikin Skywalker? He's Jesus. I'm only slightly kidding about that. He shows no dark characteristics other than "fear" and he was a boy born of a virgin mother. There is so little established about these characters it's frustrating.
And lastly, we come to the perpheral characters and oh God do I not want to bring up Jar Jar Binks. This is the quintesential one note character. His whole character is that he is stupid. What do we know about him? Why was he out in the forest when his people live under the water? He's stupid and clumsy. So stupid and clumsy he was banished by his people. Wow. We see Jar Jar in Attack of the Clones. Briefly. Even the writers knew they created an offensive annoying stereotype so they got him off the screen as quickly as possible and had him speak only when absolutely necessary.
Just ask yourself a few basic questions: 1) who is this character? 2) What do we know about this character? and 3) What are the good and bad qualities of this character? If you can answer these 3 basic questions, it's a good character.
If you've ever been in a middle school English class, you know that there are protagonists and antagonists in any story. The protagonist is often misunderstood to mean the "good guy" in the story. While that is normally the case, it's not always true. The protagonist is better defined as "whose story is this?" The central character in which all events seem to circle around in the story. For example, in Star Wars, the protagonist is clearly Luke Skywalker. This is his story about finding the droids, leaving home and the life he once knew, and setting out on a grand adventure full of danger and self-discovery. While we do meet other interesting characters along the way (Han, Leia, etc) none of them are ever the driving element of the story. Never is that more clear than in The Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi because both of those movies are always about the relationship between Luke, Darth Vader, and if Luke will join the dark side.
The opposite of the protagonist is the antagonist. Again many people think of the antagonist as the "bad guy." Even in the English language, to be antagonistic means to be disagreeable and generally not likable. But in terms of a story, the antagonist is the person or thing in direct conflict with the protagonist. Again taking the example of Star Wars, the antagonist is Darth Vader. Little is known about his history or motivations (until the prequel trilogy ruined that). He's an enigma. Dark, shadowy, and always menacing. We are interested in this character because he has to have some motivation for wanting to stop the protagonist. He has to have his own dreams and aspirations that are in conflict with what the protagonist wants. Luke wants to stop the evil empire from ruling the galaxy while Darth Vader wants to stop the rebels and rule the galaxy. We learn later of course that the motivations are more in depth than that but that's the basic idea.
I was careful to define protagonist and antagonist because simply labeling them the good guy vs the bad guy is misleading and not always the case. The protagonist doesn't always have to be a heroic or noble character. Sometimes the protagonist can be someone we generally don't like. Imagine you were going to make Star Wars but from the point of view of Darth Vader. That makes the movie drastically different! We don't have to like him or even agree with what he does. But it becomes his story. It's about his motivations for conquering the galaxy, his attachment to Luke, and the loyalty he has to the Emperor. This is what we see in the Star Wars prequel trilogy. Often when we have a character like this as the protagonist, it's classified as a tragedy.
There are no more important characters than the protagonist and the antagonist.
Aside from the stars of the show we have the supporting characters. We tend to know less about them because in movies we have much less time to tell the story than say a novel. That doesn't mean they are any less interesting. Han Solo is a perfect example of a great supporting character. What do we know about him? He's a gruff, dirty, foul, ill mannered space thug but with some noble characteristics like loyalty, determination, intelligence, and charisma. He is every bit the noble rogue and could easily be the star of his own movie. (works for Captain Jack Sparrow, right?) As a supporting character, their job in the story is to assist the main character (protagonist or antagonist depending on which side). While they might be reluctant to get involved, ultimately they play a direct part in resolving the conflict in some way.
Lastly, we come to peripheral characters. These characters we might interact with on a limited basis, but most of the time they aren't that important. Their importance varies of course. Jabba the Hutt and Boba Fett are peripheral characters and have an important role to perform, but still the movie could cut them out completely and it wouldn't effect the overall story. Jabba the Hutt is a good example. We only see him in the original trilogy in Return of the Jedi because Han Solo is his prisoner and the others mount a rescue. Imagine if we were writing this story. We go back to Empire Strikes Back and instead of Han being frozen in carbonite and sent to Jabba, he instead is killed or Luke makes the save before he is frozen. That means Han is never sent to Jabba's palace, there isn't any reason to go back to Tattooine to rescue him, and therefore no need to have Jabba the Hutt in the movie. We can write off Han Solo flying back there by himself to pay the debt he owes and go straight to Luke Skywalker flying in his X-wing to continue training with Yoda.
The original Star Wars trilogy is an excellent example of great characterization. Every character is fleshed out, well-rounded, and memorable. Now, let's contrast that with the poor characterization we see in the Star Wars prequel trilogy.
Our protagonist changes from the Phantom Menace to Attack of the Clones. In the Phantom Menace the protagonist is Obwan. This is his story of meeting Anikin Skywalker. When we reach Attack of the Clones and Revenge of the Sith, the story is now about Anikin Skywalker and his fall from grace. This by itself is not a problem but it has to be handled correctly. We first have to establish Obwan as the protagonist in Phantom Menace. So, what do we know about Obwan Kanobi? It's right about here that I don't have an answer to that question. We know plenty about him as a secondary character from New Hope, but we never learn anything about Obwan Kanobi from Phantom Menace; at least nothing new or emphasized. We do learn one thing, Obwan is a bit rash in his youth compared to the wise sage we know from New Hope, but that part of his character is never emphasized. We never see him do anything daring. He is a loyal student to his master and eager to learn the ways of the force. But that is in no way sufficient characterization for the protagonist in a movie.
Contrast Luke Skywalker from New Hope vs Obwan Kanobi from Phantom Menace. We know Luke is a lonely farm boy with dreams of traveling. He's ambitious, a dreamer, and even a bit reckless. He's an orphan who lives with his aunt and uncle. We don't know what happened to his parents other than they died and it's something that bothers Luke as he tries desperately to find answers to his past.
Obwan is a young teenage student learning to be a warrior/priest.
And how about Anakin Skywalker in Attack of the Clones and Revenge of the Sith. What kind of character is he? He's whiny, emotional, self-important, obsessive, and easily fooled. What are his good characteristics? And that's my problem with the prequel trilogy in a nutshell. Tragedy is when a character we like falls victim to his own shortcomings. We have to like him first, then we feel bad and a sense of loss when he turns evil. Instead we like him more in Return of the Jedi when we see the conflicts between good and evil he has inside.
The antagonist also is very different. In Phantom Menace we have Darth Maul. He never talks and we never learn anything about him. We know he's a good fighter but that's it. He never does anything to build dread. Before we ever see Darth Vader he is attacking an unarmed ship and when we do see him, he interrogates a guy by lifting him up in the air by his neck with one hand. Edge goes to Darth Vader.
The supporting characters also are not given the dignity they deserve. What do we learn about Princess Amidala? Young, childish, and a bit spoiled. That's about it. What do we learn about Anikin Skywalker? He's Jesus. I'm only slightly kidding about that. He shows no dark characteristics other than "fear" and he was a boy born of a virgin mother. There is so little established about these characters it's frustrating.
And lastly, we come to the perpheral characters and oh God do I not want to bring up Jar Jar Binks. This is the quintesential one note character. His whole character is that he is stupid. What do we know about him? Why was he out in the forest when his people live under the water? He's stupid and clumsy. So stupid and clumsy he was banished by his people. Wow. We see Jar Jar in Attack of the Clones. Briefly. Even the writers knew they created an offensive annoying stereotype so they got him off the screen as quickly as possible and had him speak only when absolutely necessary.
Just ask yourself a few basic questions: 1) who is this character? 2) What do we know about this character? and 3) What are the good and bad qualities of this character? If you can answer these 3 basic questions, it's a good character.
Saturday, September 10, 2011
Final Destination 5 review: Death by Irony.
Going into this movie, I already knew what kind of movie it was going to be. This is a slapstick movie for gore fans. It's a bloody version of the Three Stooges. It's Itchy and Scratchy. It's a Tom and Jerry cartoon. It's not scary. In fact, if someone were to describe this as a dark comedy, then it's a masterpiece. It's one of the funniest movies I've seen in a while. It's meant to be uncomfortable because of all the blood and death, but after it happens, I heard laughter in the theater more than once. It's a good movie to laugh at people dieing because the death scenes are just rediculous. So, yeah. I enjoyed it. The acting is terrible, it's stupid, there's no story at all, but try and tap into that sadistic side of your personality and enjoy the carnage.
I wish I could've seen it in 3D. From the title screens, things are flying at you immediately. This movie meets my criteria for acceptable 3D. It's cheesy schlock that shouldn't be taken too seriously and it was specifically shot for 3D with all the different 3D specific scenes throughout the movie.
I tried to look up the correct word to describe this movie. I think the word is "irony" but that word is often misused. I wanted to use the correct word to describe it. It's not coincidence. That doesn't fit. What word would you use? A gymnast who has been doing it for 15 years dies doing a dismount off the uneven bars? I know: Tragedy. But we are talking about a movie here. I keep wanting to say it's "ironic" but I'm not sure if that's the correct term. Since my dictionary isn't much help, I'm just going to use the word "irony."
That really does sum up this movie though. It's irony. It's ironic that a guy would get a premonition about being killed and unable to do anything about it. It's ironic that the only person in the movie with bad eyesight gets killed while going in for laser eye surgery. Isn't it? That's why I don't think it's "death" trying to get these characters, but some kind of manifestation of "irony."
Here's what we learn in this movie: 1) Death doesn't like to be cheated. They say that enough during the movie that it is the most important. So, if you survive a deadly encounter via supernatural means, you might as well just off yourself. If you don't, then death is going to have some fun killing you in increasingly hilarious situations. 2) Death has a quota. Yep. If you do somehow survive a deadly encounter via supernatural means, then you can kill someone and then you get that person's life. All the remaining time that person had on this Earth gets traded for yours. So, it doesn't matter who. Just got to fill a quota for the day.
Here I will run down the list of the death scenes and if you don't want to know, then don't read further. SPOILERS! But I do want to make my case for how ironic this movie really is. But really, you should already know how this ends.
1) The gymnast. Candice is an 18 year old intern at this company. (I think they said they were a paper manufacturer or something.) And I seriously hope she is 18 because it's clear she's in high school and she is having sex with not Tom Cruise. (Peter: played by Miles Fisher. All kidding aside, he looks and sounds just like a young Tom Cruise. It's eerie.) She does her first routine on the beam. While she does that, a screw falls point up on the beam. She misses it, finishes her routine and moves to the uneven bars. While this is happening, water is falling on an exposed power chord. Ignore this because it's just misdirection. What happens is someone else steps on the screw, falls over, knocks the chalk tray into a fan, it blows in Candice's face and she falls off the uneven bars, breaks her back and is folded like a pancake. backwards. Here's the irony: she's been doing gymnastics for a long time. And to have a freak accident like this and to kill her when it wouldn't kill anyone else. If you fall on the uneven bars, it'll hurt, but I doubt it would make you into a human accordian. Humans are a fragile species, but we aren't made of jello. Trained gymnast killed in freak gymnastics accident. irony.
2) The Massage Parlor. This guy Isaac is the one I especially wanted to see die in an agonizing way. He's fat, balding, wears glasses, one of the biggest womanizers on the planet, and just an all around unpleasant guy. When everyone dies, he goes to their cubicles and steals their spare change. He even steals a certificate for a free massage at this massage parlor. *wink* So he goes into the room, makes fun of the statue of Buddha on the wall (yes I mention this for a reason), and lies down. He gets worked over pretty hard and then has needles stuck in him. He's told to sleep for 30 minutes and the lady leaves. Just then the towel with alcohol catches on fire, the table breaks, all the needles get driven in to his body, and just before the fire reaches him, the shelf holding the Buddha statue falls and crushes his head. Yep. He makes fun of how heavy the Buddha is and then is crushed by it. Irony!
3) Laser Eye Surgery gone wrong. Olivia is a b****. She hears that Candice dies and she is almost cheering. So, she goes to get laser eye surgery because her eyes are really bad and she hates wearing glasses. She is strapped in and the doctor leaves because the paperwork is incomplete. In the meantime she is so nervous about the whole thing she pops the eye off the teddy bear the doctor gave her for her nerves. Before all this, she leaves a cup of water on the water cooler. It falls off and short circuts the outlet. Then the short circut goes into the laser controls. It activates at about 10 times normal strength and now looks more like the laser beam from Independence Day before it destroyed the Emprie State Building. It burns out her eye, she struggles to get free from the table, somehow she gets knocked out the window and on to a car. Then her eye falls out of her head and a car runs over it. Irony overload!
4) The death sidestep: It's established that if one of them kills another person, they would get all the remaining time that person had on Earth. Because like I said, Death has a quota and doesn't really care who. So, our token black guy, Nathan accidentily kills a guy he doesn't like. (could be on purpose. Not 100% clear) So, Nathan lives. More on him later.
5) Monkeying around. Before Nathan killed this guy, (his name is Roy but nobody cares. He's an ass) Roy put a giant wrench on a hot boiler. By the time the boss, Dennis, comes down to ask a few questions, it explodes from the heat and buries itself in his head. What's the irony here? Well, before he shows, the others were talking about who died in what order. Before he could answer, in pops Dennis and dies. Irony to the face!
6) The thrilling conclusion: Not Tom Cruise is in painful mourning over losing his 18 year old girlfriend and he figures it's not fair that his best friend's girlfriend lives. (Molly) So, he's going to kill her to sacrifice to Death. Ever since the setup, the police have been investigating these people because they thought Sam, the guy who had the preminition, was a terrorist. Not Tom Cruise shoots the cop instead. Now, he wants to kill Molly because she is a witness to the murder of a federal agent. Long story short, Sam kills Peter and that means Sam gets the cop's life. I guess lives are transferrable. It makes sense in the context of the movie. But here's the irony! The cop had only 2 weeks left to live! Remember that old cliche about cops dieing 2 weeks before they retire? I do! Sam and Molly get on an airplane to France because he got an internship to be a chef. The plane crashes. Sam and Molly both die.
7) Now remember I said Nathan lived because he killed that ass**** Roy? Turns out he was terminally ill! Oops! The crashing plane falls on him and he dies.
But the ultimate irony has to be the whole plot of the movie. Sam gets a preminiton that saves his life and the lives of 8 others. But that's the gag. There is no hope of saving these people. So, if you get deadly preminition, you might as well sit back, relax, have a poptart, and enjoy the show. Logically, one would think that this priminition was means someone is trying to warn them. That they were supposed to live. Nope. It's Death just messing with them. It's Death's sense of humor. He wanted to have a little bit of fun at their expense. An event that saves your life marks you for death. That is irony.
I wish I could've seen it in 3D. From the title screens, things are flying at you immediately. This movie meets my criteria for acceptable 3D. It's cheesy schlock that shouldn't be taken too seriously and it was specifically shot for 3D with all the different 3D specific scenes throughout the movie.
I tried to look up the correct word to describe this movie. I think the word is "irony" but that word is often misused. I wanted to use the correct word to describe it. It's not coincidence. That doesn't fit. What word would you use? A gymnast who has been doing it for 15 years dies doing a dismount off the uneven bars? I know: Tragedy. But we are talking about a movie here. I keep wanting to say it's "ironic" but I'm not sure if that's the correct term. Since my dictionary isn't much help, I'm just going to use the word "irony."
That really does sum up this movie though. It's irony. It's ironic that a guy would get a premonition about being killed and unable to do anything about it. It's ironic that the only person in the movie with bad eyesight gets killed while going in for laser eye surgery. Isn't it? That's why I don't think it's "death" trying to get these characters, but some kind of manifestation of "irony."
Here's what we learn in this movie: 1) Death doesn't like to be cheated. They say that enough during the movie that it is the most important. So, if you survive a deadly encounter via supernatural means, you might as well just off yourself. If you don't, then death is going to have some fun killing you in increasingly hilarious situations. 2) Death has a quota. Yep. If you do somehow survive a deadly encounter via supernatural means, then you can kill someone and then you get that person's life. All the remaining time that person had on this Earth gets traded for yours. So, it doesn't matter who. Just got to fill a quota for the day.
Here I will run down the list of the death scenes and if you don't want to know, then don't read further. SPOILERS! But I do want to make my case for how ironic this movie really is. But really, you should already know how this ends.
1) The gymnast. Candice is an 18 year old intern at this company. (I think they said they were a paper manufacturer or something.) And I seriously hope she is 18 because it's clear she's in high school and she is having sex with not Tom Cruise. (Peter: played by Miles Fisher. All kidding aside, he looks and sounds just like a young Tom Cruise. It's eerie.) She does her first routine on the beam. While she does that, a screw falls point up on the beam. She misses it, finishes her routine and moves to the uneven bars. While this is happening, water is falling on an exposed power chord. Ignore this because it's just misdirection. What happens is someone else steps on the screw, falls over, knocks the chalk tray into a fan, it blows in Candice's face and she falls off the uneven bars, breaks her back and is folded like a pancake. backwards. Here's the irony: she's been doing gymnastics for a long time. And to have a freak accident like this and to kill her when it wouldn't kill anyone else. If you fall on the uneven bars, it'll hurt, but I doubt it would make you into a human accordian. Humans are a fragile species, but we aren't made of jello. Trained gymnast killed in freak gymnastics accident. irony.
2) The Massage Parlor. This guy Isaac is the one I especially wanted to see die in an agonizing way. He's fat, balding, wears glasses, one of the biggest womanizers on the planet, and just an all around unpleasant guy. When everyone dies, he goes to their cubicles and steals their spare change. He even steals a certificate for a free massage at this massage parlor. *wink* So he goes into the room, makes fun of the statue of Buddha on the wall (yes I mention this for a reason), and lies down. He gets worked over pretty hard and then has needles stuck in him. He's told to sleep for 30 minutes and the lady leaves. Just then the towel with alcohol catches on fire, the table breaks, all the needles get driven in to his body, and just before the fire reaches him, the shelf holding the Buddha statue falls and crushes his head. Yep. He makes fun of how heavy the Buddha is and then is crushed by it. Irony!
3) Laser Eye Surgery gone wrong. Olivia is a b****. She hears that Candice dies and she is almost cheering. So, she goes to get laser eye surgery because her eyes are really bad and she hates wearing glasses. She is strapped in and the doctor leaves because the paperwork is incomplete. In the meantime she is so nervous about the whole thing she pops the eye off the teddy bear the doctor gave her for her nerves. Before all this, she leaves a cup of water on the water cooler. It falls off and short circuts the outlet. Then the short circut goes into the laser controls. It activates at about 10 times normal strength and now looks more like the laser beam from Independence Day before it destroyed the Emprie State Building. It burns out her eye, she struggles to get free from the table, somehow she gets knocked out the window and on to a car. Then her eye falls out of her head and a car runs over it. Irony overload!
4) The death sidestep: It's established that if one of them kills another person, they would get all the remaining time that person had on Earth. Because like I said, Death has a quota and doesn't really care who. So, our token black guy, Nathan accidentily kills a guy he doesn't like. (could be on purpose. Not 100% clear) So, Nathan lives. More on him later.
5) Monkeying around. Before Nathan killed this guy, (his name is Roy but nobody cares. He's an ass) Roy put a giant wrench on a hot boiler. By the time the boss, Dennis, comes down to ask a few questions, it explodes from the heat and buries itself in his head. What's the irony here? Well, before he shows, the others were talking about who died in what order. Before he could answer, in pops Dennis and dies. Irony to the face!
6) The thrilling conclusion: Not Tom Cruise is in painful mourning over losing his 18 year old girlfriend and he figures it's not fair that his best friend's girlfriend lives. (Molly) So, he's going to kill her to sacrifice to Death. Ever since the setup, the police have been investigating these people because they thought Sam, the guy who had the preminition, was a terrorist. Not Tom Cruise shoots the cop instead. Now, he wants to kill Molly because she is a witness to the murder of a federal agent. Long story short, Sam kills Peter and that means Sam gets the cop's life. I guess lives are transferrable. It makes sense in the context of the movie. But here's the irony! The cop had only 2 weeks left to live! Remember that old cliche about cops dieing 2 weeks before they retire? I do! Sam and Molly get on an airplane to France because he got an internship to be a chef. The plane crashes. Sam and Molly both die.
7) Now remember I said Nathan lived because he killed that ass**** Roy? Turns out he was terminally ill! Oops! The crashing plane falls on him and he dies.
But the ultimate irony has to be the whole plot of the movie. Sam gets a preminiton that saves his life and the lives of 8 others. But that's the gag. There is no hope of saving these people. So, if you get deadly preminition, you might as well sit back, relax, have a poptart, and enjoy the show. Logically, one would think that this priminition was means someone is trying to warn them. That they were supposed to live. Nope. It's Death just messing with them. It's Death's sense of humor. He wanted to have a little bit of fun at their expense. An event that saves your life marks you for death. That is irony.
Tuesday, September 6, 2011
3D: a history of a novelty.
Here is a brief history of 3D. 3D in movies is hardly new. It started a long, long time ago in a galaxy far, far away. Actually it was in Los Angeles in 1922. It was a movie called "The Power of Love" and it was shown in what they call anaglyph 3D. Basically it comes out in 2 colors (in this case red and green) to give the illusion of depth. They required the 3D glasses that almost everyone from the 50's or 80's would recognize immediately. But times changed and as we get to the 1950's we see a change from red and green to red and blue. And thus stereoscopic filmmaking was born.
By the 1950s we had the "golden age" of 3D movies. The technology had greatly improved thanks to polaroid cameras and now such movies as "The French Line", "Taza, Son of Cochise", and of course the most famous 3D movie of its time, "The Creature From the Black Lagoon." All the major studios were making 3D movies. Stars as varied as Vincent Price to the 3 Stooges were all doing 3D movies. Major Hollywood Blockbusters and B movie trash were all doing 3D.
So what happened? 3D back then had some huge problems that just couldn't be fixed with the technology of the time. 1) you were showing two prints of the movie at the same time. If they got out of sync, it became very noticable. 2) headaches and eyestrain were not that uncommon. 3) if you were sitting to the sides, you wouldn't get the effect. and 4) any cartoons in 3D looked like cardboard cutouts. And thus the fad mostly went away.
Over time the technology got better and 3D was used more sparingly. By the early 1980s, the fad had come back. Westerns and horror movies in 3D became very popular. Movies like "Comin' At Ya!" and "Parasite" were big hits so more 3D movies were on the way. Then somebody somewhere got cute with the marketing of 3D movies. Horror sequels were all over the place and some of them were up to their 3rd installment. Part 3.... 3D.... hilarious! Get it? Because it's the 3rd movie and it's in 3D. Yeah, it's more than a bit lame. But that's why we have movies like Jaws 3D. It's the third in the series but it's called Jaws 3D. They also did Friday the 13th part 3 in 3D and Amityville 3D.
How were the movies? In a word... bad. They relied way too much on the novelty of 3D. Far too many scenes of things flying at the screen and not to mention horrible stories. But the real nail in the coffin was the price to produce some of these movies.
But like any horror movie fan will tell you, just because the coffin is closed, doesn't mean it won't open up again. Enter IMAX, Disney, and the King of Pop: Michael Jackson. Oh yes. I have to bring up Captain Eo. IMAX was using 3D for more documentary type movies. But good old MJ wanted to do something different. He made a music video shot in 3D as an attraction at Disneyland. It's still in operation as far as I know. Overall, a good video. If you are in Disneyland, go see it.
IMAX came up with what is called alternate eye shutterglass technology. It's a fancy way of saying your eyes are blinking. But it happens to work very well in making 3D effects. This began a lot of what I would call "gimmick movies". These are attractions specifically to be in 3D and they aren't whole movies. They are usually about 30 minute shorts. And of course they were successful because 3D was new and novel again.
So we hit the fast forward button again and we are now in the early part of the 2000s. James Cameron just loves 3D. There's no other way to say it. Ghosts of the Abyss, Spy Kids 3D: Game Over, and the Adventures of Shark Boy and Lava Girl all with 3D in mind: all of them using technology James Cameron helped design along with Vince Pace.
While many movies bombed at the box office, some were more successful. The Polar Express for example did amazingly well. But if we are going to talk about successful 3D movies, the first one on everyone's mind these days is Avatar.
Avatar was a groundbreaking movie. The 3D technology was unlike anyone had ever seen before. And in terms of finance, Avatar is one of the most successful movies ever made. So, 3D movies made a resurgence. Now just about all movies are made in 3D. It's even to the point where we have game consoles using 3D technology! Man it sure has come along way from the goofy red and green paper glasses.
Even with new technology, here's the problem with 3D. 1) The 'hazing' effect. Sometimes things in the background look too far away and sometimes blurred out all together in favor of objects in the foreground. 2) eyestrain, headaches, and motion sickness. Sometimes it's just too much to take in. 3) color loss. With the new 3D glasses, they are tinted dark to get rid of some of the harsh edges. So if you are going to watch a 3D movie shot at night... bring a book. 4) It's too prevalent. 3D is added to movies that have no business being in 3D. 5) It's expensive!!!!!!
Avatar might be one of the most successful movies of all time, but it's also the single most expensive movie ever made! Let's not forget that the average ticket price for 3D is at least 3 to 5 dollars more than a normal 2D movie. And what do you get for your money? What does it add to the movie except a novelty? I can't call it a cheap novelty because it definately isn't cheap.
Bottom line: Some movies do benefit from 3D. But usually they are the "popcorn" movies. They are the cheesy B movie schlock that are meant to be entertaining in an ironic way. I loved Drive Angry in 3D because it's a very stupid movie with lots of stuff flying at the screen. It wouldn't be nearly as enjoyable in normal format. Movies like Tron: Legacy benefitted by having the grid scenes in 3D but did anyone get any benefit from seeing The Green Hornet in 3D?
Avatar was meant to be an experience. 3D added to that immersive world full of colors and weird things everywhere. But did it make the story any better? 3D is a distraction. It's an expensive distraction to hide bad movies and squeeze more money out of the audience. And I promise, 2D won't ask you to buy a new tv just so you can enjoy it at home.
By the 1950s we had the "golden age" of 3D movies. The technology had greatly improved thanks to polaroid cameras and now such movies as "The French Line", "Taza, Son of Cochise", and of course the most famous 3D movie of its time, "The Creature From the Black Lagoon." All the major studios were making 3D movies. Stars as varied as Vincent Price to the 3 Stooges were all doing 3D movies. Major Hollywood Blockbusters and B movie trash were all doing 3D.
So what happened? 3D back then had some huge problems that just couldn't be fixed with the technology of the time. 1) you were showing two prints of the movie at the same time. If they got out of sync, it became very noticable. 2) headaches and eyestrain were not that uncommon. 3) if you were sitting to the sides, you wouldn't get the effect. and 4) any cartoons in 3D looked like cardboard cutouts. And thus the fad mostly went away.
Over time the technology got better and 3D was used more sparingly. By the early 1980s, the fad had come back. Westerns and horror movies in 3D became very popular. Movies like "Comin' At Ya!" and "Parasite" were big hits so more 3D movies were on the way. Then somebody somewhere got cute with the marketing of 3D movies. Horror sequels were all over the place and some of them were up to their 3rd installment. Part 3.... 3D.... hilarious! Get it? Because it's the 3rd movie and it's in 3D. Yeah, it's more than a bit lame. But that's why we have movies like Jaws 3D. It's the third in the series but it's called Jaws 3D. They also did Friday the 13th part 3 in 3D and Amityville 3D.
How were the movies? In a word... bad. They relied way too much on the novelty of 3D. Far too many scenes of things flying at the screen and not to mention horrible stories. But the real nail in the coffin was the price to produce some of these movies.
But like any horror movie fan will tell you, just because the coffin is closed, doesn't mean it won't open up again. Enter IMAX, Disney, and the King of Pop: Michael Jackson. Oh yes. I have to bring up Captain Eo. IMAX was using 3D for more documentary type movies. But good old MJ wanted to do something different. He made a music video shot in 3D as an attraction at Disneyland. It's still in operation as far as I know. Overall, a good video. If you are in Disneyland, go see it.
IMAX came up with what is called alternate eye shutterglass technology. It's a fancy way of saying your eyes are blinking. But it happens to work very well in making 3D effects. This began a lot of what I would call "gimmick movies". These are attractions specifically to be in 3D and they aren't whole movies. They are usually about 30 minute shorts. And of course they were successful because 3D was new and novel again.
So we hit the fast forward button again and we are now in the early part of the 2000s. James Cameron just loves 3D. There's no other way to say it. Ghosts of the Abyss, Spy Kids 3D: Game Over, and the Adventures of Shark Boy and Lava Girl all with 3D in mind: all of them using technology James Cameron helped design along with Vince Pace.
While many movies bombed at the box office, some were more successful. The Polar Express for example did amazingly well. But if we are going to talk about successful 3D movies, the first one on everyone's mind these days is Avatar.
Avatar was a groundbreaking movie. The 3D technology was unlike anyone had ever seen before. And in terms of finance, Avatar is one of the most successful movies ever made. So, 3D movies made a resurgence. Now just about all movies are made in 3D. It's even to the point where we have game consoles using 3D technology! Man it sure has come along way from the goofy red and green paper glasses.
Even with new technology, here's the problem with 3D. 1) The 'hazing' effect. Sometimes things in the background look too far away and sometimes blurred out all together in favor of objects in the foreground. 2) eyestrain, headaches, and motion sickness. Sometimes it's just too much to take in. 3) color loss. With the new 3D glasses, they are tinted dark to get rid of some of the harsh edges. So if you are going to watch a 3D movie shot at night... bring a book. 4) It's too prevalent. 3D is added to movies that have no business being in 3D. 5) It's expensive!!!!!!
Avatar might be one of the most successful movies of all time, but it's also the single most expensive movie ever made! Let's not forget that the average ticket price for 3D is at least 3 to 5 dollars more than a normal 2D movie. And what do you get for your money? What does it add to the movie except a novelty? I can't call it a cheap novelty because it definately isn't cheap.
Bottom line: Some movies do benefit from 3D. But usually they are the "popcorn" movies. They are the cheesy B movie schlock that are meant to be entertaining in an ironic way. I loved Drive Angry in 3D because it's a very stupid movie with lots of stuff flying at the screen. It wouldn't be nearly as enjoyable in normal format. Movies like Tron: Legacy benefitted by having the grid scenes in 3D but did anyone get any benefit from seeing The Green Hornet in 3D?
Avatar was meant to be an experience. 3D added to that immersive world full of colors and weird things everywhere. But did it make the story any better? 3D is a distraction. It's an expensive distraction to hide bad movies and squeeze more money out of the audience. And I promise, 2D won't ask you to buy a new tv just so you can enjoy it at home.
Sunday, September 4, 2011
Coming Soon: 9/9/11
It's going to be a big week for movie fans. Some very good movies coming out and three that I can't wait to see.
Contagion: A killer virus is spreading around the world and scientists must find a cure.
The Good: Beyond impressive cast, great story, and a great director calling the shots.
The Bad: The story while great will probably be nothing special. Expect something formulaic.
Final Thoughts: Not since The Expendables has such a group of talent been in the same movie. Marion Cotillard (Inception), Matt Damon (Bourne Identity), Lawrence Fishburne (The Matrix), Jude Law (Sherlock Holmes), Gweneth Paltrow (Iron Man), and Kate Winslet (Titanic) I don't care if the script was Howard the Duck, with this much talent, there's no way this is going to be a bad movie. Also, Steven Soderbergh is one of those directors where even his bad movies are good. Must see it!
Warrior: Ex-marine comes home to become an MMA fighter.
The Good: It's a dynamic story that is sorely lacking in most sports movies.
The Bad: I'm not much of a fan of Joel Edgarton. Just personal bias.
Final Thoughts: This is a sports movie that tries to be more than a sports movie. It's about the family dynamics and how much this tournament means to the people involved and now the prize money would solve a lot of problems. It's brother vs brother and all the animosity that exists between them wanting to win this fight and settle their issues inside the ring. Joel Edgarton's biggest movie so far has been the Star Wars prequel trilogy where he had a bit part and didn't do a very good job, however his co-star Tom Hardy is more than enough to carry a green actor like Edgarton. Throw in Nick Nolte and this is going to be a fun movie. IT'S FIGHT NIGHT!
Creature: Two campers come face-to-face with a local legend in the outskirts of New Orleans.
The Good: It's an independant monster movie full of actors looking for a break.
The Bad: You know going in that it's not going to appeal to a wide audience and should only appeal to the B movie shlock crowd.
Final Thoughts: It's definately not going to be a masterpiece by any stretch. It's full of young actors just getting their feet wet and a rookie director making a cheesy monster movie. But that's why I want to see it! You never know what you are going to see.
See you at the movies
Contagion: A killer virus is spreading around the world and scientists must find a cure.
The Good: Beyond impressive cast, great story, and a great director calling the shots.
The Bad: The story while great will probably be nothing special. Expect something formulaic.
Final Thoughts: Not since The Expendables has such a group of talent been in the same movie. Marion Cotillard (Inception), Matt Damon (Bourne Identity), Lawrence Fishburne (The Matrix), Jude Law (Sherlock Holmes), Gweneth Paltrow (Iron Man), and Kate Winslet (Titanic) I don't care if the script was Howard the Duck, with this much talent, there's no way this is going to be a bad movie. Also, Steven Soderbergh is one of those directors where even his bad movies are good. Must see it!
Warrior: Ex-marine comes home to become an MMA fighter.
The Good: It's a dynamic story that is sorely lacking in most sports movies.
The Bad: I'm not much of a fan of Joel Edgarton. Just personal bias.
Final Thoughts: This is a sports movie that tries to be more than a sports movie. It's about the family dynamics and how much this tournament means to the people involved and now the prize money would solve a lot of problems. It's brother vs brother and all the animosity that exists between them wanting to win this fight and settle their issues inside the ring. Joel Edgarton's biggest movie so far has been the Star Wars prequel trilogy where he had a bit part and didn't do a very good job, however his co-star Tom Hardy is more than enough to carry a green actor like Edgarton. Throw in Nick Nolte and this is going to be a fun movie. IT'S FIGHT NIGHT!
Creature: Two campers come face-to-face with a local legend in the outskirts of New Orleans.
The Good: It's an independant monster movie full of actors looking for a break.
The Bad: You know going in that it's not going to appeal to a wide audience and should only appeal to the B movie shlock crowd.
Final Thoughts: It's definately not going to be a masterpiece by any stretch. It's full of young actors just getting their feet wet and a rookie director making a cheesy monster movie. But that's why I want to see it! You never know what you are going to see.
See you at the movies
Friday, September 2, 2011
Movies I want to see: September
September is officially here. While August has brought us a lot of fun, what can we expect for what is traditionally a slow month for movies? Well, here is a list of movies coming out this month that has me exctied.
1) Shark Night 3D. Anyone going to see this movie has to know that it's a B movie. It's supposed to be bad. That's the fun of movies like this. They are campy, poorly acted, and a whole lot of fun.
2) Warrior. Now we are talking big time, fight time movies! Forget boxing. Mixed martial arts is the new epic fight game in town. So a movie based on it was bound to come out sooner or later. Truth be told there are already several but you get my point. Early reviews are already very positive. This is going to be great!
3) Contagion. This is what I would call a horror movie. A killer virus going world wide and all the panic that comes with it. Can't wait to see this one.
4) Creature. Much like Shark Night, this is more of a personal favorite. It's about a half man half alligator in the boondocks of Louisiana. I love monster movies when they are done well. I want to see this.
5) The Treasure Hunter. Think of it as National Treasure if it were in China. I'm not sure if this movie will make it to the US theaters but with guys like Jay Chou in it, you know there's going to be some awesome kung fu going on.
6) The Legend is Born: Ip Man. I saw Ip Man starring Donnie Yen and I'm hooked on this guy's story. He's a legendary kung fu master who lived during the occupation of the Japanese and later became Bruce Lee's teacher. If being Bruce Lee's teacher is the most BORING thing that happened in his life, try to picture what he went through. There's several movies made about him already starring the best Chinese martial artists in the world so naturally Sammo Hung Kam-Bo had to have his turn. Try to find it on DVD.
7) Moneyball. I love baseball. I love history. I love true stories of overcoming adversity. So why not a movie about Billy Beane starring Brad Pitt?
8) Killer Elite. I'll go see any movie with Jason Statham in it. Throw in Robert DeNiro and Clive Owen and you can't go wrong.
9) Machine Gun Preacher. Ok. This has to be the best title ever! I don't even need to know what it's about. It has the perfect B movie action title. I'm there.
10) Dream House. Daniel Craig in a horror/mystery movie involving several murders. Sounds like a lot of fun to me.
1) Shark Night 3D. Anyone going to see this movie has to know that it's a B movie. It's supposed to be bad. That's the fun of movies like this. They are campy, poorly acted, and a whole lot of fun.
2) Warrior. Now we are talking big time, fight time movies! Forget boxing. Mixed martial arts is the new epic fight game in town. So a movie based on it was bound to come out sooner or later. Truth be told there are already several but you get my point. Early reviews are already very positive. This is going to be great!
3) Contagion. This is what I would call a horror movie. A killer virus going world wide and all the panic that comes with it. Can't wait to see this one.
4) Creature. Much like Shark Night, this is more of a personal favorite. It's about a half man half alligator in the boondocks of Louisiana. I love monster movies when they are done well. I want to see this.
5) The Treasure Hunter. Think of it as National Treasure if it were in China. I'm not sure if this movie will make it to the US theaters but with guys like Jay Chou in it, you know there's going to be some awesome kung fu going on.
6) The Legend is Born: Ip Man. I saw Ip Man starring Donnie Yen and I'm hooked on this guy's story. He's a legendary kung fu master who lived during the occupation of the Japanese and later became Bruce Lee's teacher. If being Bruce Lee's teacher is the most BORING thing that happened in his life, try to picture what he went through. There's several movies made about him already starring the best Chinese martial artists in the world so naturally Sammo Hung Kam-Bo had to have his turn. Try to find it on DVD.
7) Moneyball. I love baseball. I love history. I love true stories of overcoming adversity. So why not a movie about Billy Beane starring Brad Pitt?
8) Killer Elite. I'll go see any movie with Jason Statham in it. Throw in Robert DeNiro and Clive Owen and you can't go wrong.
9) Machine Gun Preacher. Ok. This has to be the best title ever! I don't even need to know what it's about. It has the perfect B movie action title. I'm there.
10) Dream House. Daniel Craig in a horror/mystery movie involving several murders. Sounds like a lot of fun to me.
Thursday, September 1, 2011
Columbiana review. A lesson in film making
Normally when I do a review, I write in stream of consciousness. Sometimes I forget to add things but I get the general idea of what I'm thinking down on the page. It also allows me to have a bit more of a voice in my writing than to make just some impersonal review. This is me. But this time I'm just at a loss. I don't know how to convey to you my readers just how bad this movie truely is. Is it the worst movie I've ever seen? No. I've seen far worse movies but I dare say not many. But this time I need to make this a bit more organized because there's just so much stupid it's like being hip deep in mud. So, welcome all to a special storytelling class that is sure to enlighten.
Storytelling 101.
Lesson #1: You have to introduce a character before you do something to him/her. One would think this is fairly obvious. What emotional investment do you have if you don't know who the character is? Imagine if you will, Cinderella was not the story of Cinderella but of the fairy godmother and she just randomly chooses someone to give all the nice things she does so that person can go to the ball and live happily ever after. I'd like to think my first question is: who was that you gave all the stuff to? Why did you do that? Introduce the character before something happens to the character.
In this movie we see a guy get killed in prison by Cataleya (Zoe Saldana). This isn't a spoiler since it's in the trailer. I bring this up because the guy she kills we never seen before, don't know his name, don't really know why she killed him, or why she had such an elaborate plan to kill him. (more on "the plan" in lesson 2) Can you see the problem here? She killed a guy, went through a lot of trouble to kill this guy, and I do not know who the f*** he is! WHY!???!!!!
Lesson #2 You can't "plan" random events. Let's walk through that baffling killing scene, shall we?
Step 1: she wears a disguise and pretends to be really drunk and crashes into a police car.
Step 2: she is taken to a jail cell where she pretends to be asleep.
Step 3: In comes random bad guy ONE DAY EARLY who at least looks South American under FBI security. He's put in a different jail cell in a separate part of the holding area from Cataleya.
Step 4: Cataleya puts on her ninja outfit (I'm not kidding) and picks the lock on the cell door with a hairpin she had in her wig. (the police didn't bother to take her personal effects even though she nearly killed 2 cops in a DWI)
Step 5: She adjusts the camera so she can move freely without being seen. She did this despite the security guy looking right at the monitor as he turned on his radio to listen to the baseball game.
Step 6: She gets a glass of water and a spoon, picks the lock to the power room, and MacGyvers the power box to turn off at the exact second she needed so she can slip by a fan she coudn't possibly have known where it was and have the police officer not get curious why there was a glass of water and a spoon inside a secure room nobody ever went into.
Step 7: she crawls through the air vents until she somehow sneaks into the men's bathroom.
Step 8: the guard watching the prisoner she is about to murder needs to use the bathroom so he goes into the bathroom where Cataleya is waiting and knocks him out.
Step 9: she uses the unconscious guard to get access to the holding area where this guy is in his cell fast asleep.
Step 10: she draws a flower on his chest, wakes him up, tells him to unbutton his shirt (no idea why she buttoned it up again for him.) and shoots him in the chest and in the head.
Step 11: this of course alerts the police immediately because guns are very loud. She escapes through the air vent, manages to slip past all the police in the entire building, sneak back into her own cell, change clothes, pretend to be asleep before they come in to check on her.
If you believe even half of that could ever happen in real life let alone be meticulously planned out then this movie is for you.
Lesson #3: If you want dramatic effect, DON'T KILL MAIN SUPPORTING CHARACTERS OFF CAMERA! Oh more on Uncle Emelio I promise but how do you make such a stupid mistake? What's the best way to establish the villian as someone we don't like? What's the best way to pull at an audience's heart? Oh, I don't know.... KILL UNCLE BEN! In Spiderman, we get a lovely speach from Uncle Ben about the importance of duty and responsibility only to have him die a short time later. He at least lived long enough to die in Peter's arms. Here: he's just dead. Mama is dead, Tio is dead, and his friend the dog keeper? (I swear I never heard this guy's name but he's there too. He was in one scene where she goes to some random place to feed 2 rotweilers and pick up a passport.) THEY ALL DIED OFF CAMERA! And we all knew the exact moment they were going to die too. Cataleya showed up at church and sat next to Mama. They were all one happy family. And no sooner does she say that, but we see Marco (Jordi Malla) the guy who killed Catalaya's Mom and Dad and who Catalaya stabbed in the hand when she was 10.
Lesson #4: Don't contradict your own movie! It starts simple enough. Catalaya stabs Marco in the hand, some hired goons start shooting at her as she runs away. Marco says, "We need her alive!" Cut to a few minutes later. After 10 year old Catalaya impresses the audience with some lovely Parkour, she slips into an open storm drain where Marco and the others start shooting at her randomly.
Strike 1.
Next, don't make Uncle Emilio into some kind of voice of reason when it comes to killing people! Uncle Emilio and Catalaya are getting registered for school. She says she doesn't want to go. She just wants to learn how to kill people. So Uncle takes out his gun and kills a random motorist. He did this to show that any idiot can kill but smart killers live longer. Fast forward 15 years later. He wants her to get out of the business because he fears for her safety and has remorse for all that she's done.
Strike 2.
Finally, after her family is all dead, Cataleya goes to Agent Ross of the FBI (I'm not kidding. I didn't know this guy's name until I looked it up on IMDB.) and threatens to kill his family one at a time until he tells her where to find Don Luis. You see Don Luis is the guy her father used to work for before he was killed. Since then he's been living in New Orleans under CIA protection because..........
Strike 3.
You can't do something like that! You can't! You can't make us like a character and then make her act like a terrorist! Are you insane?!?
Lesson #5: If you are going to make an action movie, PUT ACTION IN IT! I swear as God as my witness there is only ONE hand-to-hand fight scene in this movie and if there were any logic in this world, it wouldn't have happened. I'm thinking back on this but I can count maybe 3 action scenes in the entire movie. I'm not counting the scene where she kills that fat guy because it really was just her shooting the guy and letting sharks eat him alive. There were at least 3 sex scenes in this movie. If there is more sex in your movie than action, IT'S NOT AN ACTION MOVIE!
Lesson #6 Figure out where your movie takes place. Don't call your movie Colombiana if you are only in Colombia for TEN MINUTES! The vast majority of the movie takes place in the United States. Zoe Saldana doesn't even attempt a South American accent. The only member of the cast that is remotely Spanish is Jordi Malla and he's from Spain not Colombia.
Lesson #7 Don't put in a love interest just for the sake of having one! Catalaya has a "boyfriend" (Danny: Played by Michael Vartan) I use that term very loosely because she never tells him her real name until the end of the movie, whenever she comes over to his apartment, they don't have any meaningful conversations; it's just for sex. And by the end of the movie Danny is willing to risk Federal prison charges for being associated with a now known terrorist/vigilante because he "loves" her. Dude. Seriously? Was the sex really that good? She systematically lied to you. A LOT! You don't even know her real name! You're going to be sent to prison to make friends with some very large man named Sprinkles and all you can say is you "love" her? Wow movie. Wow.
Lesson #8 The FBI doesn't have a world wide dragnet looking at everyone's cell phones! The only way they could ever find Catalaya was by chance. I'm dead serious. Danny took a picture of Catalaya while she was asleep and showed it to a friend. (no name given. ARGH!) Friend then sends the picture to random fat cop woman (no name). Random fat cop woman then runs the picture through her computer for reason: shut up this gets the movie over. And this immediately appears on Agent Ross' computer like the bat signal because up until this point we just established that we are indeed looking for a woman. I will repeat that. It needs repeating. The FBI was positive that 23 people could NOT have been killed by a woman. Until they finally joined us in the 21st century and decided it is indeed a woman. A woman who we don't have an ID for or a picture. But the minute this random fat cop woman ran a search on her computer for the half face of Catalaya, she can't even get up to go to the bathroom before the FBI has taken her computer and placed her under arrest.
Lesson #9 Don't assume I know people I've never seen before. The police are in a briefing talking about all the people Catalaya has killed. At one point Agent Ross stops and just says, "if you don't know who these twins are, you don't belong in this room." Okay. Fair enough. Where's the exit and I'll take my 8 dollars back too! Okay. Yes. I get it. Catalaya killed a lot of bad people. She's a vigilante and you have to bring her in. But so far the only people we know she killed was the one random guy in the holding cell, black guy who isn't Notorious BIG, and blonde could be a hooker woman. The only way I even know the last two is because you told us!
Lesson #10 If your star isn't very good at fighting, DON'T CAST HER IN AN ACTION MOVIE! I said earlier Zoe Saldana was in exactly 1 hand-to-hand fight. And considering the fight we did get, I think it's one fight too many. And it's not a fight that needed to happen. Pop Quiz: You have a gun drawn on the man who killed your mother and father. (off screen in another room despite your insistance that it was right in front of you.) The man doesn't have a gun and he is cornered in the bathroom. Do you A) engage in polite chit chat B) get in close enough so that he can disarm you C) try to stab him to death with a pair of tooth brushes or D) TAP TWO IN HIS HEAD AND FIND HIS BOSS! Guess which one she chose to do: If you guessed E... do A, B, and C then you win the cupie doll! The fight scene was shot in close up with shaky camera and the director's finger on the fast forward button. To say it looked bad is an understatement. By the way, I'm pretty sure that you can't kill someone by removing the top of a glock 9mm and jamming it into a guy's throat like it was a knife.
And finally
Lesson #11 For the love of all that is sacred and holy. Stop making the Leader so cliche that he feels some need to taunt the hero before the hero kills him! It's so painfully stupid I don't even want to talk about it. But, this is the cross I bare in being a film reviewer. This is to be instructive after all. Here goes. Big Bad Don Luis is stuck behind a garbage truck. You see he managed to flee during the intensely stupid fight scene climax. He got into a nice black van and sped away. Catalaya calls him on Marco's cell phone. Being all confident that he bravely ran away, he starts taunting her like he was Dr. No. Little did he know that Catalaya has super powers of Deus Ex Machina and her 2 rotweilers are in the van with him. And he never noticed they were there. With one command of EAT, the dogs kill Don Luis and our movie can finally limp to the end.
I hope this has been instructive. And while I don't ask for any sympathy since I've decided to do these things to myself, just remember I do this for you my dear readers so you don't have to waste your time and money on horrible movies.
Storytelling 101.
Lesson #1: You have to introduce a character before you do something to him/her. One would think this is fairly obvious. What emotional investment do you have if you don't know who the character is? Imagine if you will, Cinderella was not the story of Cinderella but of the fairy godmother and she just randomly chooses someone to give all the nice things she does so that person can go to the ball and live happily ever after. I'd like to think my first question is: who was that you gave all the stuff to? Why did you do that? Introduce the character before something happens to the character.
In this movie we see a guy get killed in prison by Cataleya (Zoe Saldana). This isn't a spoiler since it's in the trailer. I bring this up because the guy she kills we never seen before, don't know his name, don't really know why she killed him, or why she had such an elaborate plan to kill him. (more on "the plan" in lesson 2) Can you see the problem here? She killed a guy, went through a lot of trouble to kill this guy, and I do not know who the f*** he is! WHY!???!!!!
Lesson #2 You can't "plan" random events. Let's walk through that baffling killing scene, shall we?
Step 1: she wears a disguise and pretends to be really drunk and crashes into a police car.
Step 2: she is taken to a jail cell where she pretends to be asleep.
Step 3: In comes random bad guy ONE DAY EARLY who at least looks South American under FBI security. He's put in a different jail cell in a separate part of the holding area from Cataleya.
Step 4: Cataleya puts on her ninja outfit (I'm not kidding) and picks the lock on the cell door with a hairpin she had in her wig. (the police didn't bother to take her personal effects even though she nearly killed 2 cops in a DWI)
Step 5: She adjusts the camera so she can move freely without being seen. She did this despite the security guy looking right at the monitor as he turned on his radio to listen to the baseball game.
Step 6: She gets a glass of water and a spoon, picks the lock to the power room, and MacGyvers the power box to turn off at the exact second she needed so she can slip by a fan she coudn't possibly have known where it was and have the police officer not get curious why there was a glass of water and a spoon inside a secure room nobody ever went into.
Step 7: she crawls through the air vents until she somehow sneaks into the men's bathroom.
Step 8: the guard watching the prisoner she is about to murder needs to use the bathroom so he goes into the bathroom where Cataleya is waiting and knocks him out.
Step 9: she uses the unconscious guard to get access to the holding area where this guy is in his cell fast asleep.
Step 10: she draws a flower on his chest, wakes him up, tells him to unbutton his shirt (no idea why she buttoned it up again for him.) and shoots him in the chest and in the head.
Step 11: this of course alerts the police immediately because guns are very loud. She escapes through the air vent, manages to slip past all the police in the entire building, sneak back into her own cell, change clothes, pretend to be asleep before they come in to check on her.
If you believe even half of that could ever happen in real life let alone be meticulously planned out then this movie is for you.
Lesson #3: If you want dramatic effect, DON'T KILL MAIN SUPPORTING CHARACTERS OFF CAMERA! Oh more on Uncle Emelio I promise but how do you make such a stupid mistake? What's the best way to establish the villian as someone we don't like? What's the best way to pull at an audience's heart? Oh, I don't know.... KILL UNCLE BEN! In Spiderman, we get a lovely speach from Uncle Ben about the importance of duty and responsibility only to have him die a short time later. He at least lived long enough to die in Peter's arms. Here: he's just dead. Mama is dead, Tio is dead, and his friend the dog keeper? (I swear I never heard this guy's name but he's there too. He was in one scene where she goes to some random place to feed 2 rotweilers and pick up a passport.) THEY ALL DIED OFF CAMERA! And we all knew the exact moment they were going to die too. Cataleya showed up at church and sat next to Mama. They were all one happy family. And no sooner does she say that, but we see Marco (Jordi Malla) the guy who killed Catalaya's Mom and Dad and who Catalaya stabbed in the hand when she was 10.
Lesson #4: Don't contradict your own movie! It starts simple enough. Catalaya stabs Marco in the hand, some hired goons start shooting at her as she runs away. Marco says, "We need her alive!" Cut to a few minutes later. After 10 year old Catalaya impresses the audience with some lovely Parkour, she slips into an open storm drain where Marco and the others start shooting at her randomly.
Strike 1.
Next, don't make Uncle Emilio into some kind of voice of reason when it comes to killing people! Uncle Emilio and Catalaya are getting registered for school. She says she doesn't want to go. She just wants to learn how to kill people. So Uncle takes out his gun and kills a random motorist. He did this to show that any idiot can kill but smart killers live longer. Fast forward 15 years later. He wants her to get out of the business because he fears for her safety and has remorse for all that she's done.
Strike 2.
Finally, after her family is all dead, Cataleya goes to Agent Ross of the FBI (I'm not kidding. I didn't know this guy's name until I looked it up on IMDB.) and threatens to kill his family one at a time until he tells her where to find Don Luis. You see Don Luis is the guy her father used to work for before he was killed. Since then he's been living in New Orleans under CIA protection because..........
Strike 3.
You can't do something like that! You can't! You can't make us like a character and then make her act like a terrorist! Are you insane?!?
Lesson #5: If you are going to make an action movie, PUT ACTION IN IT! I swear as God as my witness there is only ONE hand-to-hand fight scene in this movie and if there were any logic in this world, it wouldn't have happened. I'm thinking back on this but I can count maybe 3 action scenes in the entire movie. I'm not counting the scene where she kills that fat guy because it really was just her shooting the guy and letting sharks eat him alive. There were at least 3 sex scenes in this movie. If there is more sex in your movie than action, IT'S NOT AN ACTION MOVIE!
Lesson #6 Figure out where your movie takes place. Don't call your movie Colombiana if you are only in Colombia for TEN MINUTES! The vast majority of the movie takes place in the United States. Zoe Saldana doesn't even attempt a South American accent. The only member of the cast that is remotely Spanish is Jordi Malla and he's from Spain not Colombia.
Lesson #7 Don't put in a love interest just for the sake of having one! Catalaya has a "boyfriend" (Danny: Played by Michael Vartan) I use that term very loosely because she never tells him her real name until the end of the movie, whenever she comes over to his apartment, they don't have any meaningful conversations; it's just for sex. And by the end of the movie Danny is willing to risk Federal prison charges for being associated with a now known terrorist/vigilante because he "loves" her. Dude. Seriously? Was the sex really that good? She systematically lied to you. A LOT! You don't even know her real name! You're going to be sent to prison to make friends with some very large man named Sprinkles and all you can say is you "love" her? Wow movie. Wow.
Lesson #8 The FBI doesn't have a world wide dragnet looking at everyone's cell phones! The only way they could ever find Catalaya was by chance. I'm dead serious. Danny took a picture of Catalaya while she was asleep and showed it to a friend. (no name given. ARGH!) Friend then sends the picture to random fat cop woman (no name). Random fat cop woman then runs the picture through her computer for reason: shut up this gets the movie over. And this immediately appears on Agent Ross' computer like the bat signal because up until this point we just established that we are indeed looking for a woman. I will repeat that. It needs repeating. The FBI was positive that 23 people could NOT have been killed by a woman. Until they finally joined us in the 21st century and decided it is indeed a woman. A woman who we don't have an ID for or a picture. But the minute this random fat cop woman ran a search on her computer for the half face of Catalaya, she can't even get up to go to the bathroom before the FBI has taken her computer and placed her under arrest.
Lesson #9 Don't assume I know people I've never seen before. The police are in a briefing talking about all the people Catalaya has killed. At one point Agent Ross stops and just says, "if you don't know who these twins are, you don't belong in this room." Okay. Fair enough. Where's the exit and I'll take my 8 dollars back too! Okay. Yes. I get it. Catalaya killed a lot of bad people. She's a vigilante and you have to bring her in. But so far the only people we know she killed was the one random guy in the holding cell, black guy who isn't Notorious BIG, and blonde could be a hooker woman. The only way I even know the last two is because you told us!
Lesson #10 If your star isn't very good at fighting, DON'T CAST HER IN AN ACTION MOVIE! I said earlier Zoe Saldana was in exactly 1 hand-to-hand fight. And considering the fight we did get, I think it's one fight too many. And it's not a fight that needed to happen. Pop Quiz: You have a gun drawn on the man who killed your mother and father. (off screen in another room despite your insistance that it was right in front of you.) The man doesn't have a gun and he is cornered in the bathroom. Do you A) engage in polite chit chat B) get in close enough so that he can disarm you C) try to stab him to death with a pair of tooth brushes or D) TAP TWO IN HIS HEAD AND FIND HIS BOSS! Guess which one she chose to do: If you guessed E... do A, B, and C then you win the cupie doll! The fight scene was shot in close up with shaky camera and the director's finger on the fast forward button. To say it looked bad is an understatement. By the way, I'm pretty sure that you can't kill someone by removing the top of a glock 9mm and jamming it into a guy's throat like it was a knife.
And finally
Lesson #11 For the love of all that is sacred and holy. Stop making the Leader so cliche that he feels some need to taunt the hero before the hero kills him! It's so painfully stupid I don't even want to talk about it. But, this is the cross I bare in being a film reviewer. This is to be instructive after all. Here goes. Big Bad Don Luis is stuck behind a garbage truck. You see he managed to flee during the intensely stupid fight scene climax. He got into a nice black van and sped away. Catalaya calls him on Marco's cell phone. Being all confident that he bravely ran away, he starts taunting her like he was Dr. No. Little did he know that Catalaya has super powers of Deus Ex Machina and her 2 rotweilers are in the van with him. And he never noticed they were there. With one command of EAT, the dogs kill Don Luis and our movie can finally limp to the end.
I hope this has been instructive. And while I don't ask for any sympathy since I've decided to do these things to myself, just remember I do this for you my dear readers so you don't have to waste your time and money on horrible movies.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)