Cinematic Ambivalence

On comic book movies and Superman

2011-09-03T16:06:00.000-07:00

So a few days ago I ran across this post that has some early shots of the new Superman reboot. I posted on google+ lamenting about how Hollywood just doesn't get how to update old favorites. There's not much we can do about that. Except maybe quit our day jobs and become filmmakers (I wish). But one of the responses to my post caught my eye, so I decided to rant about that for a while.

The comment was:

"I think the only way to make Superman more gritty is to make him less super. If he is indestructible he isn't all that interesting."

That's true. And it's it's always been true of Superman. But that's not the last word. Why is Superman a classic story then? Why has it endured for 50 years? Why are people even today excited about a Superman movie even while watching Hollywood screw it up?

Well first off, I reject the idea that the only way to modernize something is to make it more "gritty" or "real". That can certainly be awesome. It's saving the Batman franchise as we speak. But I think that makes sense. Batman was always supposed to be dark. He's always been a tragic figure. The delicious conflict in Batman is that Bruce Wayne could easily have become a psychopath. You could even argue that he is. It's just that he has managed to channel his rage into doing good. And "good" is even a relative term in the Batman universe.

But we're not talking about Batman. We're talking about Superman. Supes is all american. He's clean cut and heroic. He's not conflicted about his mission or his values at all. In fact, I would argue that we like Superman precisely because we know he is going to win. It's about justice. No matter how bad the bad guys get, they will never be as awesome as Superman. So we delight in seeing the bad guys grow to epic proportions and then still get trounced.

And that brings me to my problem with the last Superman movie. A comic book movie is only as good as it's villains. Compare X-Men to the Fantastic Four. Magneto is an epic villain; the dumbed down version of Dr. Doom was not. And as much as I like Kevin Spacey, he is no epic super villain on the Superman scale. What makes a Superman movie enjoyable is watching him be super. They need to ratchet up the awesome in order to convey just how powerful he is. And that creates a much more satisfying experience.

But that's not the only piece of the puzzle. You need more than an epic villain and some super spectacle. You also need to give me a reason to follow the story arc. Remember that we already know what happens at the end. Superman stands over the defeated bad guys without a scratch on him. Everything's back to normal. So you've got your work cut out for you in filling in the middle. The real question is where does the conflict come from in Superman stories? You can't have a film without conflict. That's where Superman Returns fell down.

In most other good guys vs. bad guys story, the primary conflict comes from a simple and primal place. What if the good guy loses? We watch the bad guy's schemes come to fruition. We watch the hero get beat down. And there's a possibility that he won't make it in time to save the world. Sure, you can make the same argument that we know what's going to happen. We know the hero will triumph. But at what cost? Batman limps away at the end of the Dark Knight pursued by authorities. The love of his life and the public symbol of justice are both dead. We care because there is a cost to victory.

So what about Superman? What things can we take away from him? Not many. There's no way they can kill Lois Lane. She's the only real world attachment he has. If he lost her, he'd probably just leave. He only protects the rest of us because of the abstract human value system imparted by his parents. Oh, what about his parents? Well in that same vein, Superman's parents could die at any time. They've fulfilled their purpose in raising him to be Earth's greatest hero. He rarely seeks their advice or suffers because they aren't around. So everyone in Superman's life really only serves as a convenient foil for falling into the villains trap and luring him in. Not so riveting.

Well I have a different idea about what creates conflict for Superman. Loneliness and isolation. And I don't mean just because he's an alien and his home was destroyed. He is alone in everything. He is the mightiest of us, so whenever there is a problem, he alone can save us. But there is only one of him. As fast as he is, he can't be everywhere. And he must always be careful not to hurt anyone. What happens when he can't save everyone? How does he choose who to save? What is the backlash when he makes the wrong choice? What does it do to him every time people die because he didn't come through? What if Superman became paralyzed by the monumental weight on his shoulders? What if he gives up? Even for the briefest of moments.

Perhaps this is a darker way to look at things. But I think it still happens within the black and white world that Superman inhabits. Finding that balance is tough. But I think it could be really compelling.

And it's far better than the only other idea that Hollywood has. "Let's just change his clothes".

Transformers 2 or: How To Tell If Your Brain Has an Off Switch

2009-06-29T16:09:00.000-07:00

I saw Transformers 2 at the first midnight show Wednesday. I had hoped to write this review before the weekend. But in true lazy-ass fashion, I neglected to adequately warn you of the impending doom represented by this movie. And because I failed in my duty, Michael Bay sailed to a $200 million opening week. And with that, my hopes of ridding myself of the Cinematic Ambivalence disease were irrevocably damaged.

Now that I've gotten over the melodrama, let's talk about why this movie sucked.

My feelings about TF2 were pretty much summed up in my initial tweet after the viewing.

"That was simultaneously one of the best and one of the worst movies I've ever seen."

I did enjoy parts of the movie. Whenever Optimus Prime started kicking ass, I was on the edge of my seat like everyone else. This movie does deliver on the overabundance of giant robot mayhem that was sorely missing from the first movie. But instead of canceling out the horrible schlock that filled in the rest of this movie, it somehow served to make me revile it even more. Because the simple fact is, if anyone gave a shit about this being a good movie, it could've been amazing.

Instead, what was clear to me is that no one was trying to make a good movie. They were trying to make a movie that would make as much money as possible. And the best way to do that is to make a movie that no one will dislike. That's a pretty important distinction and it's the real reason I would be pretty nervous if I ever get the chance to make movies with Hollywood types. You see my logic goes something like this:

If you make the best movie possible with the best talent you can get, then everyone will like it and it'll make a ton of money.

I know, sounds reasonable right? But here's how the logic actually works in Hollywood when it comes to Summer Blockbusters:

If we get people to turn off their brains and enjoy themselves for a few hours they'll thank us for giving them a diversion. All we have to do is follow the tried and true formulas, put some big spectacles in it and throw in some hot stars. Everyone will think it's awesome because they can't remember anything that they disliked about it!

And Transformers 2 delivers on that idea better than any movie in recent memory. This movie contains more overdone cliches and hackneyed plot devices than anything in my darkest nightmares. And furthermore, it's headlined by 2 of the worst, most throwaway "movie stars" to ever demand multi-million dollar paychecks in exchange for pretending to be likable.

Let's take a walk through this train wreck shall we?

Sam (Shia LeBeouff) and Mikaela (Megan Fox) are still together. Because only a harrowing adventure featuring giant robot aliens could make Megan Fox forget that she is way out of LeBeouff's league. Yep, you've gotta be the savior of mankind to have a shot with this chick. The camera spends so much time on closeups of her cleavage that I had flashbacks of nursing.

Sam's mom is a cutout caricature of the zany mom who goes through split-second mood swings with "hilarious" results. "Oh boo hoo, my wittle boy is off to college." * switch * "I don't care of they are giant space robots, tell them to stop blowing up my flower garden" And that's before she innocently inhales an entire bag of weed-laced brownies. Then things really get "fun." Don't even get me started on the stupid, over-sexed, pseudo-geek roommate, or the fact that even John Turturro buys into this stupid sidekick nonsense. In the late 80's early 90's, this routine would've been pure gold. As it is, it made me pray for Megan Fox to show up again. At least she's nice to look at and doesn't talk half as much.

The super macho marines return in this installment to continue shooting metal aliens with regular bullets like it has any effect whatsoever. At least we didn't have to hear more about Tyrese's left butt cheek. And they're joined by the uptight bureaucrat that knows nothing about what's happening but doesn't let that stop him from making terrible decisions. But what's even more mind-blowing is that Bay and the writers of this film would have us believe that America's leaders are arrogant enough to speak for the entire world! "The President may determine that you're a threat to our national security. And you would then be asked to leave our planet." Hey buddy, can we put it to a democratic vote on whether we'd like to keep the benevolent aliens who have saved our asses once already? As a matter of fact, fuck off and let Optimus and the crew stay in Switzerland or something. Good grief.

The Autobots in the first movie were bland caricatures at best and blatant stereotypes at worst ("What's crackin' little bitches?" Yes, that actually happened) And because we let them get away with that least time, those lovable guys are replaced by the worst robotic minstrel show since, well... ever. Introducing Skids and Mudflap. Along with black stereotypical accents ("Who you talkin' to fool?"), these two bumbling knuckleheads come with gold teeth and big ears to boot (remember they can change their shape at will, they CHOSE to look like this). And they top it off by claiming proudly that they "don't do too much reading." And to add insult to injury, they are extremely incompetent and the most ineffectual at protecting the humans in the movie. Even though that's all they are supposed to do. Even Bumblebee smacks them around and he has always been the runt of the group.

I honestly don't really care about the so-called racism these characters represent. White people won't stop doing this until we stop showing them that we like it (I'm looking at you Tyler Perry). It bothers me more that they chose to go with outdated stereotypes. At least stay current! I can't remember the last time I heard a black person say "I'mma bust a cap in yo ass." Get T.I. to do the voices or something. Oh wait, he's in prison for doing something monumentally stupid. Get Lil Wayne then. At least let him advise on the current state of black slang before making your $200 million movie.

I would comment on the inane plot of this movie. But honestly, I don't even remember it. Apparently there's this old Deceptacon who's more badass than Megatron and the only person who can stop him is Optimus Prime. World hangs in the balance, yada yada yada. I would've been perfectly fine with it except for the fact that they spent waaaay to much time talking about it. This movie was 2 and half hours long. You can cram in all the action, crude humor, slow motion boob shots and sad, over-dramatic death scenes you want. You're still only gonna end up with an hour and a half. And the rest of it is spent explaining in great detail why Sam has been chosen to revive Optimus Prime and save the world. Only it's the worst excuse for a coherent plot you can imagine.

Optimus Prime is a descendant of the ancient Primes who once ruled their entire race. How do giant robots have kids? How come there's only one left? Meh, whatever.
One of the pyramids in Egypt contains an ancient alien death machine. How did the decades of study by scientists miss this fun factoid? Meh, whatever.
There is a special key that activates the machine and it was sealed away long ago. Why seal it? Why not destroy it and the machine? Meh, whatever.
If the Autobots are the good guys and knew about all this, how come they didn't give us a heads up? That's an easy one. Cause then there wouldn't be a sequel! Oh, and because they smartly crammed all of their historical knowledge in the magic cube that was destroyed in the first movie. Nice move Sherlock.

You know I could go on about what was wrong with this sorry excuse for a movie. But it would only result in my fingers cramping and my soul dying a little more with each passing minute. Plus it doesn't matter, because you liked it. You thought it was awesome. Because you found that little switch in the back of your brain that let's you enjoy this drivel without thinking too hard about it. That is truly a gift my friend. Cherish it. I have yet to receive this gift and so I'll continue to lose brain cells with each passing summer. Can't wait for G.I. Joe!

THE Review is in... Roger Ebert on Terminator Salvation

2009-05-20T08:42:00.001-07:00

So... today I am excited for this movie.

Roger Ebert:
Terminator Salvation ** (2 stars)
'Anyway, most of the running time is occupied by action sequences, chase sequences, motorcycle sequences, plow-truck sequences, helicopter sequences, fighter-plane sequences, towering android sequences and fistfights. It gives you all the pleasure of a video game without the bother of having to play it.'

Yes, Yes.Y.E.S. Earlier in the review he guesstimates it to be about 90% action by volume. Maybe this will be the all-out action and destruction Terminator movie I have been waiting for 20 years to see.
I have been trying not to get my hopes up for this movie as I was afraid that they would do 2 things: hold back on the action and add a tedious story to make us sit through (see Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines).
Even with a 40% on RT, all of the reviews keep washing those fears away. The ones that are bad consistently say that it is because of a lack of story, all that say it is good say that the action sequences are mind-blowing. I guess we will know in about 14 hours.

Note: For those who don't know, I love Roger Ebert. Granted I don't always agree with his reviews but they do make it easy to decipher what the movie is like and whether or not I will like it. Suffice it to say, T:S sounds like a movie I will enjoy.

I Just Know McG Is Gonna Screw Me On This One

2009-05-19T08:33:00.000-07:00

Me: dude, Terminator tomorrow

Calfman: yeah, has a whole 25% on RT
Calfman: 2 to 6 though
Calfman: so it isnt all that true yet

Me: kinda nervous about it

Calfman: meh, you wont like it, I will
Calfman: all action, no story

Since This Went Unsaid...

2009-05-18T08:00:00.000-07:00

I wasn't really excited for Star Trek, looking back, I'm not sure why. I should have been. It was very good. Go see it. :)

note: I back dated this post so it will be in chronological order for the release of all this summer's movies. A full review may appear here at some point as well.

Expectations: Wolverine, the Appetizer of This Year's Summer Blockbusters

2009-05-05T09:39:00.000-07:00

To follow up on Marco's post: I also saw Wolverine at the midnight show. Not the same theater as Marco. And had a totally different, yet very similar reaction. I know, no surprise there.

I have to say that, once again, this is a movie that is only enjoyable if you know what to expect. If you go into it expecting a gore-filled slash-a-thon with Wolverine mowing down baddies with all but minimal resistance, it won't live up. However it was what I was expecting, watered-down and all.

The point of Wolverine is not to be the be-all end-all Wolverine movie. The point is to get asses in seats, money in pockets, and just not actively disappoint people. My expectation going into this movie was pretty low and that it would be what it was: same tone/intensity as the 3 previous X-Men movies, pulled punches on the gore/blood and overblown action sequences that give more weight to scale and being bombastic than technical proficiency and realism.

Now, I think there is something to be said for viewing and reviewing all movies in a vacuum, judging it against all films, and for its lasting appeal and delivery on its potential. In fact, I respect Marco's opinions for this reason. It is the review that looks at things from a distant perspective: When someone watches this movie 30 years from now, will it be what it could or should have been?

I personally tend toward reviewing the full experience of a movie, the zeitgeist if you will. In this context, I deliver the following review:

Wolverine was what I expected, no more, no less. And I liked it because of this. The best part of the experience though, was the Terminator Salvation trailer beforehand.

The last line of that simple review holds the key to my expectations and similarities to Marco's reaction: To me, Wolverine was destined to be a piece of trash, not awesome, not mind-blowing, but instead a forgettable lead-in to the Summer Blockbusters to come.

Right now, I would say that Wolverine was enjoyable. On the other end of the summer, after being visually thrashed by Transformers 2 and having my soul crushed by the bleak world envisioned in Terminator Salvation I may have a different opinion of Wolverine, if I even remember it happened.

Wolverine: Destined To Suck

2009-05-02T20:17:00.000-07:00

I saw Wolverine at a midnight show on Thursday. Despite what that implies, I wasn't that excited about it. In fact, I was pretty sure it was going to be a watered down, poorly written mess of a movie with underwhelming special effects to boot. My cinematic ambivalence was once again justified. The actual reasons I went to the midnight show are best saved for another post.

But I had to think for a bit before writing about the movie. What do I want to say about it other than it pretty much sucks? Well, I decided to talk about why it was destined to suck all along.

Movies like Wolverine, X-Men and Iron Man are required to have a PG-13 rating. I use the word "required" on purpose and I'll explain why. These movies have pretty big budgets. I'm calling anything over $80 million big, because that means the movie has to do very well to recoup the cost. With that in mind, I'm gonna take a stand and say it's damn near impossible for an R-rated movie to make that money back. There are still a lot of theaters that actually enforce the Restricted rating and there are still a lot of parents that forbid their children to see these films. And the sad fact is, if your movie has a large budget, but doesn't get a certain percentage of teenagers or younger children, you're toast.

Just think about the scene at your local theater at any given time. If it's packed, there's probably a pretty high percentage of teenagers or parents with multiple kids. If there's a low turnout of teenagers or kids, there's probably a low turnout of... everybody. The Underage are the bread and butter of big budget hollywood. Plain and simple.

So back to Wolverine. Why does it need to be R-rated? Why will it never work as PG-13? Because unlike a lot of other popular comics, the Wolverine comic itself is gloriously R-rated. In the comic, people are dismembered, decapitated and otherwise dispatched on a regular basis. There are buckets of blood. Or at least they were in the comics I remember (and still own). But this is in contrast to the X-Men comic and other places where Wolverine makes an appearance. These are your usual family friendly affairs. Instead of gutting a foe, Wolvie will cut down a light pole and let it fall on them or he'll miss the kill swing and kick them into a wall instead. Still cool, but definitely censored.

This is perfectly acceptable for Spiderman or Iron Man. But, Marvel knows better than to do this with the Wolverine comic. They created a classic anti-hero character with Logan. He's tough, a man of few words, takes shit from nobody and backs up his talk with decisive action. And then they made him more badass by giving him 2 key weapons.

Indestructible metal blades that can cut through anything
The ability to take any amount of physical abuse we can imagine.

When they took stock of their creation, they understood that Wolverine is an engine of violence. And not the wimpy violence that the other comic book heroes depend on. Stunning eye-beams, freeze rays, magnetism. Sure these are cool to look at, and I'd take any one of em if god were giving out random super powers. But they don't deliver the same level of morbidly satisfying mayhem as Adamantium Claws. Couple that with the healing factor. A power you can only showcase in one way: by beating the ever-loving piss out of Hugh Jackman. I'm picturing John McClane at the end of Die Hard, only in the next scene he's looking a bit better, and in the scene after that, he's back in tip top shape and kicking ass again. Basically, to capture what makes him appealing, the Wolverine movie should be the superhero version of Fight Club.

So what did they give us instead?

Hugh Jackman's Wolverine smiles more than I do. Fail.
Instead of slashing through torsos like butter, he stabs everybody... in the shoulder. And the claws come out squeaky clean every time. Fail.
A truckload of giant timber logs falls on top of him, and they don't even do us the courtesy of giving him the trickle of blood down the forehead. Let alone showing us what we expected. The twisted, broken bones that will heal momentarily with really cool effects. Fail.
A man does get decapitated. And we don't even get to see the bloody stump or the death grimace on the disembodied head. Fail.
Only computer generated claws. Fail. (Having undeniably real steel blades strapped to Jackman's hands would've done a lot to placate me. Even if all he did was peel an apple or something)
Adamantium bullets? Wielded by an old white dude wearing a tie? W... T... F.

So how do you make a good PG-13 Wolverine movie? I have no idea. Because frankly, I can't imagine one that would deliver the carnage that the character embodies.

Observe and Report: Why Rape Isn't Always An Outrage

2009-04-15T08:12:00.000-07:00

Okay, maybe it should be. But I wanted to take a second to respond to Dan's post on the rape seen in the movie Observe and Report. The summary is that "rape in any form is not okay, and it's not okay the way treat it in this movie".

So before I respond, let me say I haven't seen the movie. I want to see it because I'm a fan of Seth Rogen and that genre of comedy usually.

As for this argument about the rape scene, I generally agree that the subject isn't given the weight that it deserves. But I'm not sure if condemning a movie like this is the right course of action. I'm reminded of a comment by Kevin Smith on his dvd "An Evening with Kevin Smith". He's a college campus talking to the students. And this occurs during a question and answer session.

A lesbian student asks a scathing question about the treatment of lesbians in the Smith movie "Chasing Amy". Essentially the student is upset that one of the characters implies that all a lesbian needs is to have good sex with a man once and that'll "straighten them out". Or something to that effect, but with more expletives. The scene is a derogatory treatment of lesbianism as an abberation that needs to be fixed instead of a personal choice that should be accepted.

Smith didn't shy from the question and his response was illuminating. He says of course no sane intelligent person would subscribe to that view. And that's why the sentiment comes out of the mouth of one of the most asinine, degenerate characters in the film. You're not supposed to think that this is how the filmmaker really feels. You're not even supposed to take it as a comment by society at large. You're supposed to understand that this is the mindset of the ignorant. You're supposed to understand that these are people we can chuckle at and dismiss. Not people who have a real voice in the diatribe of our society. And a director who chooses comedy as his medium for art, can take the license to present these hard societal questions in a way that at least gets a laugh.

I agree with that sentiment. It's the same as a slasher horror film that has stupid, sexed-up teenagers being decapitated. Nobody accuses the director or actors of being murderers or not giving the act of murder it's proper weight (at least not anymore, it was a big deal in the 70s). And everyone realizes that we're not supposed to agree with what the killer's doing. But you can still get a kick out of seeing the heads roll.

The same is true of O&R. From everything I've seen in the trailer, nobody in that movie should be counted on to produce anything resembling deep social commentary. They're not roll models. The guy who commits the crime in the film, played by Seth Rogen, is supposed to be an authority figure. Yet he is taunting a trauma victim about how she's the suspect will definitely come back and murder her. He is abusing his position of authority (as a mall security guard) to obstruct a police investigation, in an attempt to win points with said victim. He is roping in his equally ignorant comrades who are the epitome of negative stereotype. How can we be surrounded by absurdity and be okay with it, but pick out one certain scene and say "no, that's too serious." Give me a break.

So I'm actually kind of irritated by this whole curfuffle around O&R. It's just a movie. And a comedy at that. It shouldn't be responsible for taking the lead in our discourse about real rape and the way it's treated in our society. How about we spend a tick lamenting the fact that everyone on both sides seems to agree that Anna Faris does a "great job" playing a stupid, ignorant, druggie, alcoholic bitch. Why is that acceptable entertainment?

There are many things wrong with our society. But let's not focus on a comedy movie as the perpetrator of all of our woes. If you don't think it's right, don't go see it, and they'll probably stop making movies like it.

Slumdog Millionaire: The Reason We Love Movies

2009-02-22T18:22:00.000-08:00

Slumdog Millionaire is amazing. I'm sitting here watching the 81st Annual Academy Awards and hoping that Slumdog wins every category it's in. I just saw it yesterday and it changed my entire outlook on this year's movies.

Yesterday I went to a special theater event where they showed all of the Academy Awards Best Picture Nominees back to back. The line up went like this.

Milk
The Reader
The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
Slumdog Millionaire
Frost/Nixon

Almost 14 hours in total, it was a long day. You really have to be a film lover to sit still for that long and let someone tell you their story. I am in fact a film lover, but even I was a little groggy after the first 2 Movies. Remember these are Best Picture nominees. That requires them to be heavy and thought provoking by definition. They're supposed to weigh heavily on you. And they certainly took a toll, whether I thought they were excellent or not.

We took a big break in the middle because we had already seen Benjamin Button. And then came the clear gem of the evening. I've been hearing nothing but acclaim for Slumdog Millionaire for months. But I honestly had no desire to see it until some time in January when I read a short synopsis. Even the pitch to this movie is compelling. My paraphrasing:

A boy from the slums of Mumbai, India manages to land on that country's version of Who Wants to Be a Millionaire. He's one question away from winning it all, when he is arrested for suspicion of cheating. Now he must convince his accusers that his whole life has shown him the answers, and led him to this moment...

I know right! You're kind of intrigued now too right. I went into it with almost no information and no expectations. And I was blown away. This movie was tremendous. It does almost everything right, and I only say "almost" in a vain attempt to try and retain a bit of my natural cynicism.

I want you to see this movie so much, I'm going to refrain from giving out spoilers. Instead I'll just talk about what you'll love about it, and hope that convinces you to see it. If it wins Best Picture tonight (and it should) then you'll certainly be able to catch it in theaters.

You'll love the characters

We watch the 2 brothers, Jamal and Salim, grow from young boys to young men. They are played by 3 different actors each and all are great. The fact that they all keep the same consistent character is astounding. You can't help but love with these boys while watching their adventures around India and the way they stick together through it. The poop scene, the Latika rescue scene, so many others. You really believe in them, you fear for them when they're in danger, and you feel elated when they triumph.

You'll love the story

The stories in Slumdog have been told for centuries. Two brothers, one on the wrong path. A young man chasing after his great love. And the reason they are always retold is that we love them. They are the stories we can always relate to. But recently I've found that it's harder and harder for these movies to hit pay dirt. Every time you see them, they get a little older, a little more familiar. And it's only a short hop from familiar to cliché.

The talent of a great filmmaker is that they can revitalize these tried and true tales. We want to see them again. But we want them to feel new. Slumdog pulls this off beautifully. Taking the story to India allows it to present so many new things. It introduces new set pieces that you're not used to. In some cases it's pretty jarring, like when the young brothers are picked up by an "orphanage" that turns out not to be such a safe haven. While watching your favorite story, you're also being exposed to a new world. And so Slumdog achieves what's become more difficult to do these days. It's gives us something that's "The same thing, only different."

You'll care how it ends

This was the clincher for me. This has been my primary complaint with many of the movies I've watched for the past 5 or more years. Hollywood is losing us on the ending. You know how it goes. You've watching a pretty good movie for the last hour and half, and then you're hit with the "twist". Somehow it has become a matter of course in Hollywood that people need some kind of unexpected turn to be interested in a film's ending. But when that ending turns out to be stupid or predictable or just plain uninteresting, you leave the movie feeling dissatisfied. Let down. Taken for a ride. A ride that cost $8-$12 depending on where you live.

Slumdog Millionaire combats this with 2 very simple methods.

You know the climax from the start of the movie
The entire movie is spent making you care about the climax

In fact, even if you haven't seen the movie, you know the climax right now. Jamal is one question away from winning 20,000,000 rupees ($402,257.11 US) with the final question on Who Wants to be a Millionaire. Will the authorities let Jamal play? And if so, will he win? The entire movie leads up to these answers, and by the end, you are at the edge of your seat in anticipation. Everything pulls you in and makes you root for the underdog. But the amazing thing is, I think I would've been just as satisfied whether the ending was happy or tragic.

That is the mark of a great film. And as of about 30 minutes ago, Slumdog Millionaire is the best film of the year 2008. Go see it. You won't be disappointed.

Benjamin Button: It doesn't matter if it's just like Forrest Gump

2009-01-25T19:10:00.000-08:00

I had a very interesting conversation thread about Benjamin Button with some friends of mine. I think it's interesting, so here it is pretty much verbatim. It started with forwarding a link from http://www.pajiba.com. The author of the post agrees with me.

Me:

Check it out. http://www.pajiba.com/the-curious-case-of-forrest-gump.htm

I said this exact thing when I came out of Benjamin Button. It's basically Forrest Gump with Brad Pitt. Still good, it just feels a little wrong.

Brad:

The only similarity that I saw in that movie to Forrest Gump is that he does a lot of things in his life. That is pretty much where it ends in similarity. There are two reasons it seemed similar. First, and most obviously, is that it came from Hollywood. Enough said there. Second, it is because both of those movies deal with situations that happen to pretty much everybody. Who knows someone who has been to a war? Had a crush on girl in school? Had a parent pass away? Jumped from job to job? Sure, you might not have worked on a tug boat or walked funny as a kid, but the underlying message is the same. In fact, the fact that is seemed so familiar is one of points of the movie and/or short story in my opinion.

Also, some of the images in that video are comparing apples to oranges. Forrest Gump was in the war, and the scene from Benjamin Button wasn't even him...it was the clock maker's son. And they compared Bubba Gump (a friend) to the guy who was essentially Benjamin Button's adopted father.

I personally think this movie was one of the best movies I have seen in a very long time. If you look past the surface and think about what it is saying overall, there are some really good things in there.

Aniyia:

I agree with brad. I already had this debate with marco :) (sent from my iphone)

Me:

I think you're both nuts. I'm not talking about the theme of the movie. I know it's supposed to paint a broad picture, and that you're supposed to identify with a lot of the situations. But I'm saying this dude used the exact same devices in two movies to do that. You guys might not be aware but the same dude wrote both screenplays. And anyway you look at it, there is no excuse as a writer for using the exact same plot devices in the exact same way.

In fact, I think this video didn't do a good enough job of pointing out the similarities. The Bubba character in Ben Button wasn't the step father dude, it was the pygmy dude. They got that wrong. And a few other things struck me. Why is it that you have to introduce a deus ex machina that makes the protagonist independently wealthy before he can have his major catharsis? Either your drunken father figure buys stock in Apple for you or your real, absentee father has a change of heart and leaves you his million dollar business. And obviously you don't care about the money. You've got better things to do like run around and be a bum (either running cross country or traveling the world like a vagabond). Seriously?

Like I said, I enjoyed both movies. But that is to be expected, because they are the same. That dude needs to get some new material. Or in about 8-10 years we will see Shia LaBeouf in the exact same story. And nobody wants that.

Brad:

I still don't buy it. The fact that the same guy wrote similar screenplays doesn't mean that he needs to get new ideas. It just means that the same stuff still plays 14 years later and people still eat it up. I don't hear people complaining when every zombie movie out there ends up like every other zombie movie. Same reason....it came from Hollywood.

But I will compromise....there are similar scenes in both movies. But that is because they changed too much stuff from the 1921 version, and that is the screenwriter's fault. So if you are going to say the movies are the same based on visual similarities, then maybe. Other than that, they are pretty dissimilar....at least to me. Then again, I might be getting stuff from the movie and stuff from the short story mixed up.

Kelly:

What's weird to me is the Benjamin Button movie was adapted from the short story by Fitzgerald but after reading the story, the movie does seem quite a bit more like Forrest Gump than it seems like the actual story it is based upon.

You can read the entire short story here: http://www.readbookonline.net/read/690/10628/

Aniyia:

It strays quite a bit from the short story. But hey, they had to find a way to make it three hours long!

Brad:

So then maybe I am biased because I already knew the short story beforehand and went in looking for similarities between it and the movie.

Of course, now I if I watch it again, I will see more similarities between the two movies because they have been pointed out to me. So I am damned either way. I will just stick with the book.

Kelly:

Really though, couldn't they have stuck closer to the short story and just had the movie be 2 hours?

Not that I didn't love the movie. But I didn't realize how much it strayed from the original story and towards a Forrest Gump-esque tale.

What I think is interesting is that everyone involved in this conversation liked the movie. I admit to liking it less after further rumination. But that doesn't matter. I came out satisfied and recommended it to people. I'll probably buy the DVD. What this means to me is that we're doomed to get served the same things that have worked in the past, instead of what's fresh and new. Because we don't really mind that much.

Blindness: Apparently we're all assholes

2008-10-05T19:50:00.001-07:00

I almost didn't see this film. It's not getting very good reviews, and I started to feel like it was another in a long string of "great premise, bad execution" movies. But then I read one of the reviews and realized that it was exactly what I wanted to see. Criticism of the film came from Moriarty over at Ain't it Cool News. This excert pretty much sums up his feelings.

My first problem with the film, and perhaps the most insurmountable issue, is that this material is just plain hackneyed at this point. How many times can we see someone regurgitate the Stanford Prison Experiment in fictional form, this LORD OF THE FLIES microcosm that has been done and redone and redone and redone. Can we just accept it as a given that, under extreme duress, groups of people play out these same power dynamics again and again and again?

Moriarty - Ain't It Cool News

Well he's right. There's nothing really new here. But if you show me anything new in mainstream film in recent years, I'll buy you a drink. But this movie is worth seeing and I'll tell you why.

This movie makes you ask yourself which side you're on.

This movie starts with the "sane" world that we all know and love. Everyone out for themselves. Going about their business and trying to avoid everyone else. We get the typical "my marriage hs some issues" moments from the Julianne Moore/Mark Ruffalo union. We meet a few key players. Then people start going blind, and everything goes to shit.

The "sides" I'm talking about in this movie are the usual ones.

The uncaring government who hauls all the infected people off to quarantine and leaves them with inadequate food and supplies.
The apathetic and oblivious society at large (who are still unstricken) who allow friends and neighbors to disappear and never ask questions. And inside the quarantine we have the blind choosing sides as well.
Those who are trying to hold on to humanity and dignity.
And those who stave off despair by grabbing onto what little control their is. Control over other people.

If you're being cynical like the critics of this movie, you're saying "I know what happens here. There's nothing to keep me engaged". Well you've thrown your hat in with #2, and frankly, you're the real problem here. But I'll come back to that. Maybe you know what happens, but how can you not be engaged watching this? People are left without enough food, they don't have clean water or working toilets. They live in squalor and constant fear of the quarantine guards outside. They don't hear from their loved ones. There are children who's parents can't see them. And on top of all that, they can't see. They couldn't even distract themselves from it all for a few minutes by reading this stupid blog post.

Then we go inside the camp. No one can see except Julianne (There are no names in this movie by the way). That means what you think it means. No one is judged by their looks. Everyone is judged by what they say. Mark Ruffalo is a doctor (An opthamologist. The eye doctor was the center of the spreading contagion. A nice detail and obvious when you think about it). At first everyone likes to listen to him and they feel safe and comforted. For a while everyone is feeling pretty good about being in camp #3.

But then the #4 people start showing their true colors. Think about what you would do. You're blind. You can't just leave and fend for yourself. Everyone else is blind too. The playing field is effectively equalized. Oh and there's one more piece to the puzzle. People can't look at you. And almost as important, you can't see anyone look at you. This is the real twist on this story. The idea here is that the only reason most people stay within societal norms, is that they can't get away with doing bad things. People will see you. People will look at you with judgment. People will witness your deeds and testify to your villainy. But what if this wasn't true. What if there were no repurcussions either civil or moral? Think of that, and then put a gun in your hand.

That's the position that Gael Garcia Bernal is in. He's a lowlife. A common hood. But here he has all the power. It doesn't matter that he can't see either. He fires the gun once and says "I'll just keep firing straight until somebody gets hit." He could've been easily overpowered in any other situation. But no one can see. There's no group dynamic where everyone looks at each other and decides that it's worth the risk. They don't know what will happen. And more so, if they're the one to get shot, they won't even see it coming.

So all of a sudden the bad guys have won. Gael and his crew are in charge. They ration food. They take people's valuables. And finally, as things escalate, they rape women.

And finally there is a revolution. Finally one person realizes they have the power to change things. And when things are at their worst, good people pull together to affect change. Unfortunately their unorganized and literally blind to the facts. They're led by someone enlightened (get it?) But she doesn't know what to do. Even though she can see what's going on and wants to stop it. People die.

So I didn't mean for this to get me started on politics (honestly). But as I'm writing this, I realize that we're in danger of putting the bad guys in charge right now. I'm afraid of that happening. I hope there are enough of us who can still see.

Anyway, let's wrap up. So the rest of the movie plays out as you would expect (with about 20 minutes of extra movie thrown in just so you don't leave feeling so dirty). Eventually we leave the quarantine camp and see what's happening in the outside world. I'll spare you the details. Not because I'm worried about spoiling more of it, but because it's not that good compared to the intensity of the camp.

In terms of filmmaking, this movie is strictly mediocre. But it's worth seeing because it's message is more relevant than people realize. You need to know what side you're on. You can blow it off as implausable. And maybe a mass epidemic of sudden onset blindness is exactly that. But the reality of societal collapse may not be so far fetched. Some might say we're staring at the start of one right now. But those people are just paranoid right? And besides, you can take care of yourself and your people, and that's all that matters right?

Go see the movie. It's worth $10 and an evening of your time. And if it doesn't strike a chord with you, you should probably really consider why that is.

The Dark Knight

2008-07-18T06:57:00.000-07:00

Wow.

We'll talk about it later. Just got see it. Now.

Hancock... What the Hell?

2008-07-03T13:27:00.000-07:00

First of all. This will be the first of many spoiler posts. Basically I realized that I can't talk about movies the way I want without spoiling the plot. So I'll try to give my opinion on the movie early on, but at a certain point all bets are off. By the way, Hancock is terrible.

I was never really excited about seeing Hancock. I'm generally a fan of Will Smith's big budget summer movies. At first glance, this one seems no different. But then it falls victim to the problem that seems to be plaguing all Superhero movies these days. How to balance telling a story with giving people the action they want to see. This is actually a problem for the action movie genre as a whole in my opinion. I have a lot of thoughts on this so I'll put it in another post.

The point is that the makers of Hancock falls handily into the trap. It serves up mediocre action and not enough of it, while giving us a half-assed, half-acted story that leaves you confused and angry rather than satisfied.

I should admit that I went into this movie looking for something. I read this review of the movie from www.pajiba.com before going to see it. Phillip Stevens voices something here that turned on a lightbulb for me.

The first problem is Will Smith, an actor who has long ceased playing any character other than Will Smith

This struck me as one of those "duh" moments like when you realize that Samuel L. Jackson has no real talent except for being great at yelling angry obscenities at people. You knew all along, but you were kinda better off being ignorant. Will Smith is always entertaining to watch. His charm is undeniable, and I can say that with full confidence in my manhood. But the very reason he's always entertaining is that he's always just playing the same dude that was entertaining in the last movie. Consider this:

Independence Day - aggressive pilot Will Smith fighting aliens
Bad Boys - rash cop Will Smith fighting criminals
Men In Black - goofy secret agent Will Smith, aliens again
I, Robot - disgruntled cop Will Smith fighting killer robots
Hitch - ultra-smooth Will Smith teaching lame dudes how to be more like Will Smith
Hancock - disgruntled superhero Will Smith fighting criminals

His summer movies are like three part Madlibs. Pick some crazy scenario, some cool job and then pick a shade of mood for him to be in. Box office gold.

Anyway, the important thing to note here is what this does for my impression of the film. I can enjoy the Fresh Prince doing his thing, while completely separating that from how I receive the rest of the film. Basically, instead of Will Smith carrying the film, he runs on ahead while the film falls flat on it's face.

So let's talk about the two things that make this film terrible. The first and second half of the film illustrate these two points nicely. The first half is the payoff from the trailers. It delivers the "promise of the premise" (forgot where I heard that). We want to see a drunken asshole superhero go around and tear stuff up. And there's a fair amount of this. But not nearly enough for me. The whale throwing bit form the trailer was great, but it's one of only 3 major incidents in the film that are worth mentioning. And one of these incidents is marred by nasty-looking CG. It was one of the only scenes of the film that I felt was cartoonish. Unfortunately it was also supposed to be the coolest.

Honestly this probably won't be a problem for most people. There may plenty of mayhem to satisfy the average movie-goer. But that was really the only reason I was interested in the film. And considering that the film itself even mentions the "dozens of incidents caught on tape and posted on YouTube", I'm feeling a little slighted with only a handful.

The third act of the film is what earns it a solid thumbs down. Basically we've watched Hancock mature from a drunken asshole who screws up while trying to help people, to a sober asshole who does a pretty decent job of helping people. Hooray! Let's end it here. But wait, we haven't really been given any major conflict here. Everything happened just a little too right. Oh, plus it's only been an hour or so. And then the ride goes into a downward spiral, the bottom of which is wrapped in murky darkness.

So Hancock is basically a low budget superman. He's really strong, he can fly and he's pretty much invincible. But that last part presents a problem. How are we going to be scared for him? Where's his challenge? When do we get to root for him as he faces certain defeat. Superman has this same problem, along with the Hulk and a few of the other big names. They need some sort of contrived weakness to add any kind of tension to their story. Unlike the rest of the super-powered crew who get the tar beat out of them on a regular basis (think Spider-man, Batman and Iron Man). The big guys need some kind of chink in their invulnerable armor. Superman has Kryptonite. The Hulk has the fact that he can be caught with his proverbial pants down as mild-mannered science geek Bruce Banner. So obviously the filmmakers had to invent something for Hancock. Wow, did they screw this up.

Okay, enough beating around the bush, I'll lay it out for you. Charlize Theron plays Jason Bateman's wife Mary in the movie. In an unforeseen (and unimpressive) twist, she also has superpowers and is also married to Hancock. And it turns out that when they are close to each other, they lose their powers. Read that again. Wait, first look up the term deus ex machina then read it again. Wow, did they screw this up.

Let's skip the fact that summer action block busters do not need last minute plot twists. This is particularly true of Superhero movies. The only thing we should be surprised by is how exactly the hero is going to save the day. But hey, you gotta try new things right? I'll give them points for effort. Let this failed experiment be a lesson to the rest of you.

But what this does to the story is horrendous. Throughout the film, there has been some kind of tension between Mary and Hancock. We assume it's sexual tension because Charlize is hot and there's no other love interest in site for Hancock. This kind of baffles me though, because not only is she happily married, but her husband is a nice guy. Usually when a film asks us to be okay with adultery, it at least has the decency to make us despise the jerk who's being cuckolded. But Ray (Bateman) is a good guy who loves his wife. And more so, he actually cares about helping Hancock. Please Will, don't screw him over. I don't care how disgruntled you are. That's not you.

Boom! All of a sudden Hancock and Mary are flying around fighting each other and causing massive property damage. Why? Because they love each other and she doesn't want her husband to find out. Oh, you mean why is Hancock fighting? Um, I'm not real sure. He has no idea what's going on the entire time. Did I mention he has amnesia? Yeah, I was trying to spare you that little nugget of joy. He has no idea who he is, who she is or why she's so upset. Awesome.

How could this possibly be explained? It's not of course. Mary makes a half-hearted attempt by saying "We've always been drawn to each other. That's how it's always been." or some such nonsense. But that's it. They are "built" to be together. They're automatically in love, and when they're apart, they somehow develop bad ass superpowers.

Who built them? Where do the powers come from? Why do they go away when you're together? How are you drawn to each other?

Nope, that's all we get. Sorry.

And now that that nasty bit of back story is out of the way, some lame dude with a pistol can walk up and shoot Hancock. Pardon me in advance, but Fuck That. I'm pissing myself off talking about this movie so I'm gonna wrap up. But to bring things home, here's how our titular hero saves the day. He doesn't. He's getting his ass kicked by some guy who's name I didn't even catch. And Ray saves him. The normal guy is the real hero of this story. And that's just super.

Take your money and go see Iron Man again.

Franchise Restarts or "So Dr. Jones, you managed to survive"

2008-05-23T21:07:00.000-07:00

My sense of anticipation for Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull is the very definition of Cinematic Ambivalence.

What we're dealing with is the latest example of the one of Hollywood's newest trends. Namely, resurrecting an old blockbuster franchise to take advantage of the built-in audience.
Obviously this is a good from a business perspective. Filmmakers and studios are out to make money. People will generally pay money to get something similar to what they've liked in the past. I suspect that once the idea was conceived it was kind of a no-brainer, and in general, the strategy works.

But what does it do to the integrity of the franchise? The problem with the way Hollywood is approaching these "restarts" is that by definition they have to be safe bets. The idea is to spend less money up front so you guarantee a higher return. Sometimes this means not bothering to secure the original actors, directors or writers. And in my opinion, this is usually a good indication that your film is going to be sub par. We've already had to watch helplessly as they gave Batman nipples turned the Terminator into a dumb blond.

But occasionally the new team has a passion and vision for the franchise that produces a film that is worth seeing. Rocky Balboa turned out to be an interesting look at what happened to our favorite iron underdog in his later years. Casino Royale showed us what happens when 007 stops hiding behind gadgets and kicks ass. I actually have several issues with both these films, but they both have one redeeming trait: they didn't make me hate the fact that they exist.

And thankfully, neither does Indy 4.

* spoilers *

My initial reaction to news of this sequel was probably the same as everyone else's: "What? But Harrison Ford is like 60!" But after that, it only got worse. This film had a lot going for it. The main character played by the same actor, director and writers returning, a big enough budget. Unfortunately these things started to be counteracted by the injection of too much dumb. For instance:

Shia LeBeouf as Indy's sidekick. He just helped ruin Transformers. Why add the burden of helping to ruin this as well?
No Sean Connery. Can't really blame them for this one. They tried really hard to get him.
Ridiculous set pieces. A geriatric Indy survives a nuclear explosion and being hurled miles away, only to get up and dust himself off without much more than an implicit "I'm getting too old for this."
A script with plot points that are so cliched you'd think it was written in the 50's instead of being set there. I will never forgive them for going with the long lost son angle.

If you knew me at all, you'd be asking why I didn't hate this movie. Well, I probably would have, accept a good friend of mine put it into the right context before went to see the it. I was doing my customary bad-mouthing of the movie based on the above points and several others that made me sure I would hate it. He responded as he often does with a self-assured easiness that made me want to strangle him: "Nope. Dude, it's gonna be awesome." And what he said next gave me a whole new perspective. Put simply, people don't like the Indy movies because they're "good". People just like to watch Harrison Ford be Indiana Jones.

Well son of a bitch. He's right. If you take for granted the always more than acceptable direction of Stephen Spielberg, the Indy films are nothing special. What makes them classic is the titular character. I'm gonna take a stand and say Henry Jones Jr. is one of the best Hero characters ever created. He's pure entertainment, from the arrogant macho act to the gruff altruistic scholar to the self-conscious romantic. All of these things are firmly intact in the latest installment. Indy may be showing his age, but that doesn't shop him from doing the job and he still does it a hell of a lot better than you or I can.

All of this is minted by the final thing they did right with this movie. Indy is surrounded by supporting characters that allow him to do and say the things that make him awesome. I have a personal and irrational dislike of Shia Labeouf as an actor (although it may be waning. more on that later maybe). But the dynamic between his character Mutt (?!!) and Indy is cool. Marion returns as Indiana's one true love, and they waste no time dropping back into their routine of viciously hilarious sniping to hide the goofy grade-school infatuation. Although Cate Blanchett fails miserably as the villain, I even like the Ray Winstone character for how he plays against Indy.

If you're a movie snob like me and you're looking for a good movie, be prepared to be upset with this sequel (Swinging on tree vines? Seriously?) But if you're an Indiana Jones fan, you'll like it well enough. Hell, if you can get past some of the more serious flaws you might even think it's great. I would say they definitely got away with this one. The only problem now is that they're already planning on making another one. Me thinks they're pushing their luck.