The Cubs are 2-4 for the spring so far, and are beating the Diamondbacks 4-1 as I write this. Spring training records are always pretty much arbitrary, and indeed this year, despite the losing record, the individual performances for players who are actually going to make the roster have, by and large, been pretty good.
Let's start with Carlos Zambrano, who made his 2nd start of the spring today finishing with 3 IP
, 0 ER, 1 H, 1 BB, 3 K. Zambrano has been notoriously shaky at the start of seasons, especially last year, so hopefully we keep seeing numbers like this as he starts to build up more innings. Certainly only 1 walk is a stat you like to see, as Z's control was kind of all over the place last year. Oh yeah, he threw in a solo home run at the plate as well.
Also pitching today was Rich Hill, who finished with a line of 3 IP, 1 ER, 0 H, 3 BB, 1 K. Ted Lilly has made one start giving up 1 run, while Jason Marquis and Jon Lieber have been a little bit shakier, giving up 2 runs each in 1 start. Ryan Dempster has pitched 5 IP and allowed 2 earned runs, so the Dempster as starter experiment is off to an okay start. Obviously it's only March 5th, and going 2-3 innings barely constitutes "starting," so I don't know how much can be read into these numbers. I don't think anything will be settled in terms of the rotation for a while yet.
Carlos Marmol, with 2 scoreless innings, has fared the best out of the contenders for closer thus far, with Bob Howry and Kerry Wood giving up 4 and 3 runs respectively between them in 2 IP each. I'm on record as saying I'd prefer Marmol for the closer's spot. Elsewhere in the 'pen, Neal Cotts, trying to come back from a season in which he got sent down to AAA, didn't do himself any favors getting rocked in an outing on Sunday in a game that I actually caught some of on TV. Shingo Takatsu's return to American baseball is off to a rocky start as well.
As for the hitters, first and foremost let's talk about Kosuke Fukudome, who's done well for himself thus far. 5 games in his Avg/OBP/Slug is .400/.600/.700, and he hit his first spring training home run. Obviously, he's not going to have a .600 OBP in the regular season, but hopefully he does get some walks on a regular basis, something that Cubs hitters have not been able to do well enough in recent years. Ryan Theriot is off to a good start as well, with 7 hits and 2 steals. People fell in love with Theriot at the beginning of last year, but kind of wavered on him towards the end of the season when he got into a hitting slump. Hopefully he can start off well again this year and keep the momentum going this time. Geovany Soto's hitting 4-for-10 thus far, after a great end to 2007, so every indication points to him being just fine as the Cubs' starting catcher this year. Felix Pie probably has the early lead for the center field job, as he's hit 2 home runs already. Derrek Lee has 2 singles in 8 ABs, but he has 4 walks as well. There's no reason to believe that he won't be as good as should be expected.
So yeah, that's what's happening so far. Obviously these are really small sample sizes for statistics, and things may be completely different come April. We'll see. Next update: Whenever I feel like. Over the weekend maybe.
Full spring stats
Wednesday, March 05, 2008
Thursday, February 28, 2008
Michael Clayton
Michael Clayton (****)
The tone of Michael Clayton is set immediately as the film begins with a voice over from Tom Wilkinson's character, Arthur to the title character played by George Clooney. Off of his medication, Arthur, a manic-depressive, claims to have had a moment of clarity when he steps outside of the huge law firm where he works. After going through several alternate theories, he eventually concludes that as he emerges from the office building, its as if he's emerged from "the asshole of an organism who's sole function is to excrete the poison, the ammo, the defoliant necessary for other, larger, more powerful organisms to destroy the miracle of humanity" (IMDB). This grandiose monologue is a microcosm of the entire movie. It's a biting commentary not just about the greed of corporations or the ruthlessness of the lawyers who represent them, but also about the entire lifestyle and business culture that encapsulates them.
Despite his struggles with his mental illness, Arthur is an absolute genius at what he does, and has made a Arthur has been working on the same case-- the defendant in which is a fictional company that makes agricultural products called uNorth-- for something like six years. Essentially, uNorth is facing a class action lawsuit over the possibility that a weed killer that they produce has posed a risk to humans. As the case has sluggishly played out, Arthur amassed boxes upon boxes full of data breaking down every meticulous detail. At some point, Arthur became simply tired of working on the same case, or realized he couldn't in good conscience defend uNorth any more (maybe both) and appeared to begin to change the way he looked at the case so as to start building a case against uNorth. At the same time, he goes off of his antidepressants which leads to him becoming obsessed with one of the plantiffs, a young girl named Anna who lives on a farm. Everything goes to hell when Arthur naked while rambling about Anna during a routine hearing (no seriously). This would pose an obvious problem for uNorth were it to be disclosed. Enter: Michael Clayton.
Michael is the "cleaner" for the same law firm that employs Arthur (think Mr. Wolf from Pulp Fiction -- he solves problems). He was a trial attorney before and liked it, but he has shown a knack for being able to handle the dirty work, and his boss, played by Sydney Pollack has every intention to keep him in his current position. He's been friends with Arthur for years and has nothing but respect for him, but its his job to diffuse the situation, and its in his best interest to do his job well at the moment. Michael attempted to open a bar, something he could fall back on in anticipation of the day when he would want out of his current career. To do so, however, he had to borrow money from people who don't like to have debtors. And so Michael has a two-fold dilemma: he has to do his job and do it well if he's to have the money to get out of debt, but as time goes on and shady dealings start to reveal themselves, he has a hard time not sympathizing with Arthur. The antagonist in the film is Karen Krowder, a uNorth employee who wants to keep the company's pristine image in tact no matter what the cost. While her actions are certainly villainous, she's not really portrayed as an evil character, so much as she's portrayed as someone whose worked her way up the corporate ladder to a position with prestige, but that also requires morally bankruptcy, and is too meek to try and change that fact.
I think one of the keys to Michael Clayton is that Arthur, the "crazy" guy, is actually the character who seems most trustworthy to the viewer. It's an important distinction, that while his manic depression is a very real and very serious illness, his revelation about the system in which he and his colleagues work is genuine. That he seems to see the truth that's clouded to everyone else around him is what makes Arthur a great tragic character and it's what makes Michael Clayton stand out so far above and beyond most legal thrillers.
The tone of Michael Clayton is set immediately as the film begins with a voice over from Tom Wilkinson's character, Arthur to the title character played by George Clooney. Off of his medication, Arthur, a manic-depressive, claims to have had a moment of clarity when he steps outside of the huge law firm where he works. After going through several alternate theories, he eventually concludes that as he emerges from the office building, its as if he's emerged from "the asshole of an organism who's sole function is to excrete the poison, the ammo, the defoliant necessary for other, larger, more powerful organisms to destroy the miracle of humanity" (IMDB). This grandiose monologue is a microcosm of the entire movie. It's a biting commentary not just about the greed of corporations or the ruthlessness of the lawyers who represent them, but also about the entire lifestyle and business culture that encapsulates them.
Despite his struggles with his mental illness, Arthur is an absolute genius at what he does, and has made a Arthur has been working on the same case-- the defendant in which is a fictional company that makes agricultural products called uNorth-- for something like six years. Essentially, uNorth is facing a class action lawsuit over the possibility that a weed killer that they produce has posed a risk to humans. As the case has sluggishly played out, Arthur amassed boxes upon boxes full of data breaking down every meticulous detail. At some point, Arthur became simply tired of working on the same case, or realized he couldn't in good conscience defend uNorth any more (maybe both) and appeared to begin to change the way he looked at the case so as to start building a case against uNorth. At the same time, he goes off of his antidepressants which leads to him becoming obsessed with one of the plantiffs, a young girl named Anna who lives on a farm. Everything goes to hell when Arthur naked while rambling about Anna during a routine hearing (no seriously). This would pose an obvious problem for uNorth were it to be disclosed. Enter: Michael Clayton.
Michael is the "cleaner" for the same law firm that employs Arthur (think Mr. Wolf from Pulp Fiction -- he solves problems). He was a trial attorney before and liked it, but he has shown a knack for being able to handle the dirty work, and his boss, played by Sydney Pollack has every intention to keep him in his current position. He's been friends with Arthur for years and has nothing but respect for him, but its his job to diffuse the situation, and its in his best interest to do his job well at the moment. Michael attempted to open a bar, something he could fall back on in anticipation of the day when he would want out of his current career. To do so, however, he had to borrow money from people who don't like to have debtors. And so Michael has a two-fold dilemma: he has to do his job and do it well if he's to have the money to get out of debt, but as time goes on and shady dealings start to reveal themselves, he has a hard time not sympathizing with Arthur. The antagonist in the film is Karen Krowder, a uNorth employee who wants to keep the company's pristine image in tact no matter what the cost. While her actions are certainly villainous, she's not really portrayed as an evil character, so much as she's portrayed as someone whose worked her way up the corporate ladder to a position with prestige, but that also requires morally bankruptcy, and is too meek to try and change that fact.
I think one of the keys to Michael Clayton is that Arthur, the "crazy" guy, is actually the character who seems most trustworthy to the viewer. It's an important distinction, that while his manic depression is a very real and very serious illness, his revelation about the system in which he and his colleagues work is genuine. That he seems to see the truth that's clouded to everyone else around him is what makes Arthur a great tragic character and it's what makes Michael Clayton stand out so far above and beyond most legal thrillers.
Thursday, February 21, 2008
...to be the best in the National League
As promised, part 2 of my look at the Cubs going into the 2008 season, focusing on hitting.
The Cubs were a so-so hitting team last year. They were 8th in the NL in runs, basically putting them right in the middle. Really, they had a lot of the same problems that they've seemed to have for a lot of years now, even though the roster has complete changed. Even though some of the worst offenders are gone, like Corey Patterson, Juan Pierre, Jerry Hairston Jr., Sammy Sosa, et. al., their plate discipline was still pretty bad, and they were 2nd to last in the NL in walks. They also left guys on base in a lot of key situations, which they were notorious for in the Dusty Baker era. They hit far fewer home runs than they had hit in past years, but in a way that's actually encouraging, because they did find a way to get some runs home regardless, even if they should've been able to score more than they did. So here's a breakdown of the Cubs offensively as they look now:
Outfield
The big free agent move in the off-season for the Cubs was the acquisition of right-fielder Kosuke Fukudome from the Chunichi Dragons in Japan. Fukudome played 8 years in Japan (stats) and had a .300+ average and an OBP close to .400. Who knows how well those numbers will transfer over though. Often times Japanese hitters have really good plate discipline, so hopefully Fukudome is of that ilk. Apparently, Lou is toying with idea of having Fukudome hit 3rd with Lee in clean-up, which would seem to be a big endorsement of his hitting. Soriano is going to be in left again, which leaves center field which is going to be a much less cut and dry situation. It seems like its Felix Pie's job to lose, but if he hits like he did at times last year who knows if he'll stay there. They really don't have as many options at center though. Matt Murton can't really play center with any degree of success, and he may end up being traded before season starts. Apparently Ronny Cedeno spent the winner learning center field in an attempt to stay on the team as a utility guy, but Cedeno in center on any sort of a regular basis isn't really anything I want to see. Then there's Sam Fuld who was called up last September, but didn't really do anything besides pinch run. I have no idea if he can hit or not. So all signs seem to point to Pie starting in center. He needs to show much more consistency than he did last year though. He kept alternating from AAA to MLB, and it seemed like every time he was called up he'd go on a brief hot streak and then all of a sudden not be able to make contact with the ball.
Infield
Derrek Lee obviously has the 1st base position locked up. Darryl Ward will see be around to back him up there. At 2nd, it looks like DeRosa is the starter for now (at least he's first on the depth chart on cubs.com), but if Fontenot goes on a tear again maybe he'll win the job. Shortstop would seemingly belong to Theriot who was very good for most of 2007 before slowing down at the end, and Ramirez will be back at 3rd, at least until he gets hurt again. 2007 was awful for the Cubs at the catching position. They began with Michael Barrett, who was promptly traded after fighting Carlos Zambrano in the dugout and playing generally terrible defense. They then went through a clusterf*** of Rob Bowen, Koyie Hill, and Jason Kendall, until they finally brought up Geovany Soto at the very end of the year and, as it turned out, the kid could hit. I'm very exciting to seeing more of Soto this year. I've seen him on a couple of different top prospects lists, and who knows, maybe he could make a run for rookie of the year.
So it seems like the lineup is going to look something like this going into 2008:
1. Soriano
2. Theriot
3. Fukudome
4. Lee
5. Ramirez
6. DeRosa
7. Soto
8. Pie
9. (pitcher)
That has the potential to be a very good lineup if Fukudome makes the adjustment to MLB pitching well enough to hit 3rd effectively. I like the idea of Ramirez down a spot. Obviously, he has a ton of power, but he also has a habit of grounding into double plays at inopportune times and I think Fukudome and Lee will be better at ensuring that runs get home. If The Riot doesn't return to the form he showed in the middle of last year and just sort of hovers in the ~.250-.260 range and doesn't draw that many walks, I'd like to see him possibly moved down to 7th, with Soto bumped up a spot, and DeRosa or Pie in 2nd depending on which one of them is hitting better. If he hits close to .300 again though, obviously you want his base stealing ability high up in the order.
So yeah, that's what I think. But then again, the last time I played baseball was coach pitch in like 2nd grade, so what do I know really?
Next update: Thoughts on the first few spring training games that are going to start at the end of the month.
The Cubs were a so-so hitting team last year. They were 8th in the NL in runs, basically putting them right in the middle. Really, they had a lot of the same problems that they've seemed to have for a lot of years now, even though the roster has complete changed. Even though some of the worst offenders are gone, like Corey Patterson, Juan Pierre, Jerry Hairston Jr., Sammy Sosa, et. al., their plate discipline was still pretty bad, and they were 2nd to last in the NL in walks. They also left guys on base in a lot of key situations, which they were notorious for in the Dusty Baker era. They hit far fewer home runs than they had hit in past years, but in a way that's actually encouraging, because they did find a way to get some runs home regardless, even if they should've been able to score more than they did. So here's a breakdown of the Cubs offensively as they look now:
Outfield
The big free agent move in the off-season for the Cubs was the acquisition of right-fielder Kosuke Fukudome from the Chunichi Dragons in Japan. Fukudome played 8 years in Japan (stats) and had a .300+ average and an OBP close to .400. Who knows how well those numbers will transfer over though. Often times Japanese hitters have really good plate discipline, so hopefully Fukudome is of that ilk. Apparently, Lou is toying with idea of having Fukudome hit 3rd with Lee in clean-up, which would seem to be a big endorsement of his hitting. Soriano is going to be in left again, which leaves center field which is going to be a much less cut and dry situation. It seems like its Felix Pie's job to lose, but if he hits like he did at times last year who knows if he'll stay there. They really don't have as many options at center though. Matt Murton can't really play center with any degree of success, and he may end up being traded before season starts. Apparently Ronny Cedeno spent the winner learning center field in an attempt to stay on the team as a utility guy, but Cedeno in center on any sort of a regular basis isn't really anything I want to see. Then there's Sam Fuld who was called up last September, but didn't really do anything besides pinch run. I have no idea if he can hit or not. So all signs seem to point to Pie starting in center. He needs to show much more consistency than he did last year though. He kept alternating from AAA to MLB, and it seemed like every time he was called up he'd go on a brief hot streak and then all of a sudden not be able to make contact with the ball.
Infield
Derrek Lee obviously has the 1st base position locked up. Darryl Ward will see be around to back him up there. At 2nd, it looks like DeRosa is the starter for now (at least he's first on the depth chart on cubs.com), but if Fontenot goes on a tear again maybe he'll win the job. Shortstop would seemingly belong to Theriot who was very good for most of 2007 before slowing down at the end, and Ramirez will be back at 3rd, at least until he gets hurt again. 2007 was awful for the Cubs at the catching position. They began with Michael Barrett, who was promptly traded after fighting Carlos Zambrano in the dugout and playing generally terrible defense. They then went through a clusterf*** of Rob Bowen, Koyie Hill, and Jason Kendall, until they finally brought up Geovany Soto at the very end of the year and, as it turned out, the kid could hit. I'm very exciting to seeing more of Soto this year. I've seen him on a couple of different top prospects lists, and who knows, maybe he could make a run for rookie of the year.
So it seems like the lineup is going to look something like this going into 2008:
1. Soriano
2. Theriot
3. Fukudome
4. Lee
5. Ramirez
6. DeRosa
7. Soto
8. Pie
9. (pitcher)
That has the potential to be a very good lineup if Fukudome makes the adjustment to MLB pitching well enough to hit 3rd effectively. I like the idea of Ramirez down a spot. Obviously, he has a ton of power, but he also has a habit of grounding into double plays at inopportune times and I think Fukudome and Lee will be better at ensuring that runs get home. If The Riot doesn't return to the form he showed in the middle of last year and just sort of hovers in the ~.250-.260 range and doesn't draw that many walks, I'd like to see him possibly moved down to 7th, with Soto bumped up a spot, and DeRosa or Pie in 2nd depending on which one of them is hitting better. If he hits close to .300 again though, obviously you want his base stealing ability high up in the order.
So yeah, that's what I think. But then again, the last time I played baseball was coach pitch in like 2nd grade, so what do I know really?
Next update: Thoughts on the first few spring training games that are going to start at the end of the month.
Monday, February 18, 2008
They got the power, they got the speed...
Alright, so this year I decided I'm going to blog about the Cubs this season. We'll see how long this lasts. Anyway, it seems like a big thing in the media this year is going to be the fact that this is "year 100" since the Cubs won the World Series. People in the media seem to be playing this up to be way more significant than it actually is, and I'm sure it won't be long before people start talking about how they're destined to win it all this year. That's not to say that I don't think they're capable of winning the World Series this year, because they very well could. At the same time though, people have to reign in their excitement and realize that this is a team that was 85-77 and reached the playoffs largely because the NL Central was a terrible, terrible division. They have made some good additions, but none of them seem to scream "this makes them the frontrunners!" especially with the Mets acquiring Johan Santana, making their rotation a pretty damn good one if it can stay reasonably healthy.
So let's break down exactly how the Cubs are looking going into Spring Training:
Starting Pitching
For the first time since 2003, the Cubs had a rotation that stayed healthy and, for the most part, effective for the entire year. They had 4 guys make 30+ starts, and Sean Marshall made 19 after being inserted into the rotation after Wade Miller started off the year in awful fashion. Jason Marquis was pretty erratic, and finished with a so-so ERA of 4.60, but the rest of the rotation had ERAs under 4. Carlos Zambrano had a down year by his standards and had some serious issues like the fist-fight with Michael Barrett, and yet still managed to win a career high 18 games. With Kerry Wood, Bob Howry, and Carlos Marmol in the running for the closer's spot, the Cubs are trying to work Ryan Dempster back into the rotation. Dempster made 6 starts at the beginning of 2005 and was bad in that role, but we'll see what happens this year. They also acquired the one time ace of the Cubs staff Jon Lieber, who has battled injury since leaving the Cubs, but is still a solid pitcher when healthy. On top of that they have guys who spent most of 2007 in AAA like Sean Gallagher who could come in in a pinch. So the Cubs might have somewhat of a logjam at starting pitcher, but better too many than not enough. Personally I think a rotation of Zambrano/Lilly/Hill/Marshall/Lieber sounds good to me. I don't know if the Cubs will be willing to have Marquis as the odd man out though, as they paid a good amount of money for him.
Relief Pitching
As mentioned above, the closer's role is going to be openly contested between Carlos Marmol, Bob Howry, and Kerry Wood. Kerry Wood made 22 relief appearances last year, and looked somewhat shaky at first, but managed to post a 3.33 ERA. If he's as healthy as is being claimed now going into the season, I'd say there's a really good chance he'd get the job. The biggest question mark would be how he would be able to handle pitching on consecutive days if the Cubs had a big string of close games. Carlos Marmol was fantastic last year as a set-up man and has shown he could handle the workload, appearing in 59 games last year despite the fact that they didn't call him up until about a month or so into the season. Bob Howry has also been very good in the back of the bullpen, with a 3.32 ERA last year, but may not be overpowering enough to be a "lights out" closer at this point in his career. Personally, I'd like to see Marmol get a shot, but I'd understand if they went with a more veteran option. Will Ohman and the Cubs parted ways at the end of last season, so the Cubs are probably going to have to find another left-hander to go along with Scott Eyre in the bullpen, who had a down year last year. The Cubs resigned Neal Cotts, so he might be an option, even though spent most of last season in AAA. They also have Carmen Pignatiello who appeared in some games scattered throughout last year. It'll be interesting to see what they do with Kevin Hart, who was called up in September and looked very good in 11 innings pitched. They also still have Angel Guzman and Michael Wuertz available. I dunno if this is going to be an overpowering bullpen, but it will probably be reasonably deep in the case of injuries.
Next update: Hitters
So let's break down exactly how the Cubs are looking going into Spring Training:
Starting Pitching
For the first time since 2003, the Cubs had a rotation that stayed healthy and, for the most part, effective for the entire year. They had 4 guys make 30+ starts, and Sean Marshall made 19 after being inserted into the rotation after Wade Miller started off the year in awful fashion. Jason Marquis was pretty erratic, and finished with a so-so ERA of 4.60, but the rest of the rotation had ERAs under 4. Carlos Zambrano had a down year by his standards and had some serious issues like the fist-fight with Michael Barrett, and yet still managed to win a career high 18 games. With Kerry Wood, Bob Howry, and Carlos Marmol in the running for the closer's spot, the Cubs are trying to work Ryan Dempster back into the rotation. Dempster made 6 starts at the beginning of 2005 and was bad in that role, but we'll see what happens this year. They also acquired the one time ace of the Cubs staff Jon Lieber, who has battled injury since leaving the Cubs, but is still a solid pitcher when healthy. On top of that they have guys who spent most of 2007 in AAA like Sean Gallagher who could come in in a pinch. So the Cubs might have somewhat of a logjam at starting pitcher, but better too many than not enough. Personally I think a rotation of Zambrano/Lilly/Hill/Marshall/Lieber sounds good to me. I don't know if the Cubs will be willing to have Marquis as the odd man out though, as they paid a good amount of money for him.
Relief Pitching
As mentioned above, the closer's role is going to be openly contested between Carlos Marmol, Bob Howry, and Kerry Wood. Kerry Wood made 22 relief appearances last year, and looked somewhat shaky at first, but managed to post a 3.33 ERA. If he's as healthy as is being claimed now going into the season, I'd say there's a really good chance he'd get the job. The biggest question mark would be how he would be able to handle pitching on consecutive days if the Cubs had a big string of close games. Carlos Marmol was fantastic last year as a set-up man and has shown he could handle the workload, appearing in 59 games last year despite the fact that they didn't call him up until about a month or so into the season. Bob Howry has also been very good in the back of the bullpen, with a 3.32 ERA last year, but may not be overpowering enough to be a "lights out" closer at this point in his career. Personally, I'd like to see Marmol get a shot, but I'd understand if they went with a more veteran option. Will Ohman and the Cubs parted ways at the end of last season, so the Cubs are probably going to have to find another left-hander to go along with Scott Eyre in the bullpen, who had a down year last year. The Cubs resigned Neal Cotts, so he might be an option, even though spent most of last season in AAA. They also have Carmen Pignatiello who appeared in some games scattered throughout last year. It'll be interesting to see what they do with Kevin Hart, who was called up in September and looked very good in 11 innings pitched. They also still have Angel Guzman and Michael Wuertz available. I dunno if this is going to be an overpowering bullpen, but it will probably be reasonably deep in the case of injuries.
Next update: Hitters
Juno
Juno (****)
I've been neglecting this again, and now it's been a while since I saw Juno so this review isn't really going to do the movie justice. In short, it's the best movie released in 2007 to this point (still have a lot of work to do there though). The title character as well as Michael Cera's character are both fantastic, it's brilliantly written (by a first-time screenwriter), and the movie has a Wes Anderson-ish quirkyness to it that absolutely sells the whole thing. Juno represents the same sort of celebration of non-conformity that Napolean Dynamite did, except Juno is a much more complete and much less annoying character.
I've been neglecting this again, and now it's been a while since I saw Juno so this review isn't really going to do the movie justice. In short, it's the best movie released in 2007 to this point (still have a lot of work to do there though). The title character as well as Michael Cera's character are both fantastic, it's brilliantly written (by a first-time screenwriter), and the movie has a Wes Anderson-ish quirkyness to it that absolutely sells the whole thing. Juno represents the same sort of celebration of non-conformity that Napolean Dynamite did, except Juno is a much more complete and much less annoying character.
Monday, January 28, 2008
3:10 to Yuma & Cloverfield
Picked up 3:10 to Yuma on DVD and watched it in the afternoon yesterday before going to see Cloverfield in the evening.
3:10 to Yuma (***1/2)
A western that reminded me somewhat in tone (if not so much story) of Open Range, 3:10 to Yuma is an enthralling western that combines some great gunfighting and action sequences with an interesting presence. Russel Crowe and Christian Bale star in what could be considered the roles of the villain and hero respectively if you had to sum the movie up in one sentence, but the film is very morally ambiguous and more complex than a good vs. evil story.
The film opens with Crowe's character, Ben Wade, leading a gang of outlaws as they rob a train full of railroad money, and kill the pinkertons assigned to guard it in the process. Meanwhile, Christian Bale's character, Dan Evans, is a rancher and Civil War veteran (who lost a good part of his foot in said war) in debt to people who don't have much sympathy for debtors. Their stories intertwine as Christian Bale witnesses the robbery, which eventually leads to Ben Wade's captor. Wade is scheduled to be transported by train (the 3:10 to Yuma specifically, hence the title) to where he'll be tried (and hung since his guilt of numerous crimes is obvious). In the meantime, however, Wade's tremendously imposing gang is scheming to free Wade from his captors. Evans agrees to guard Wade until he can be put on the train and collect a reward for his service.
Evans's oldest son William has always thought his father to be somewhat of a coward, and is somewhat seduced by Ben Wade's much more direct and violent way of handling situations. Wade and Evans, also develop a "two sides of the same coin" sort of relationship, as they realize they respect certain aspect of each other's character, even if their moral fabric is not much alike. As the film develops it becomes more about Evans's struggle to save his ranch by collecting the reward for the delivery of Wade, rather than Wade himself being brought to justice. At times, Wade seems to show a genuine sympathy for Evans's plight. In this way, the film is a lot like a Sergio Leone movie, in that its not so much about a heroic figure bringing evil men to justice on behalf of the townspeople, as it is a story with very complex and individualistic characters who seem to exist outside of the realm of the "commonfolk."
3:10 to Yuma also sports some beautiful cinematography, and takes time to show the beauty of the setting, and has some great shots that visually match the tone of the story. The only thing that may be off-putting to some is that in a few climactic action sequences the film seems to develop a case of "Bad Boys syndrome," and becomes more focused with the violence and body count itself rather than why its happening.
Cloverfield (**1/2)
Cloverfield is a movie that's not quite like any movie that's been made before, and that's not entirely a good thing. On one hand, it's a great technical achievement, combining state-of-the-art computer effects with a very "ground level" documentary style. At the same time, however, there really isn't much substance to the film besides the experience that this combination creates, and while it was fun to watch the first time, I can't really imagine the film having a lot of staying power. There's a couple genuinely terrifying moments, but at other times the entire thing almost seems too surreal for it to even register as fear.
3:10 to Yuma (***1/2)
A western that reminded me somewhat in tone (if not so much story) of Open Range, 3:10 to Yuma is an enthralling western that combines some great gunfighting and action sequences with an interesting presence. Russel Crowe and Christian Bale star in what could be considered the roles of the villain and hero respectively if you had to sum the movie up in one sentence, but the film is very morally ambiguous and more complex than a good vs. evil story.
The film opens with Crowe's character, Ben Wade, leading a gang of outlaws as they rob a train full of railroad money, and kill the pinkertons assigned to guard it in the process. Meanwhile, Christian Bale's character, Dan Evans, is a rancher and Civil War veteran (who lost a good part of his foot in said war) in debt to people who don't have much sympathy for debtors. Their stories intertwine as Christian Bale witnesses the robbery, which eventually leads to Ben Wade's captor. Wade is scheduled to be transported by train (the 3:10 to Yuma specifically, hence the title) to where he'll be tried (and hung since his guilt of numerous crimes is obvious). In the meantime, however, Wade's tremendously imposing gang is scheming to free Wade from his captors. Evans agrees to guard Wade until he can be put on the train and collect a reward for his service.
Evans's oldest son William has always thought his father to be somewhat of a coward, and is somewhat seduced by Ben Wade's much more direct and violent way of handling situations. Wade and Evans, also develop a "two sides of the same coin" sort of relationship, as they realize they respect certain aspect of each other's character, even if their moral fabric is not much alike. As the film develops it becomes more about Evans's struggle to save his ranch by collecting the reward for the delivery of Wade, rather than Wade himself being brought to justice. At times, Wade seems to show a genuine sympathy for Evans's plight. In this way, the film is a lot like a Sergio Leone movie, in that its not so much about a heroic figure bringing evil men to justice on behalf of the townspeople, as it is a story with very complex and individualistic characters who seem to exist outside of the realm of the "commonfolk."
3:10 to Yuma also sports some beautiful cinematography, and takes time to show the beauty of the setting, and has some great shots that visually match the tone of the story. The only thing that may be off-putting to some is that in a few climactic action sequences the film seems to develop a case of "Bad Boys syndrome," and becomes more focused with the violence and body count itself rather than why its happening.
Cloverfield (**1/2)
Cloverfield is a movie that's not quite like any movie that's been made before, and that's not entirely a good thing. On one hand, it's a great technical achievement, combining state-of-the-art computer effects with a very "ground level" documentary style. At the same time, however, there really isn't much substance to the film besides the experience that this combination creates, and while it was fun to watch the first time, I can't really imagine the film having a lot of staying power. There's a couple genuinely terrifying moments, but at other times the entire thing almost seems too surreal for it to even register as fear.
Wednesday, January 02, 2008
2007 Top Ten list
Like the other ones, expect this to be edited from time to time as I getting to seeing other '07 movies in the future.
1. Juno - An amazingly well written movie that takes a story about a teenage girl getting pregnant and spins it into a broader exploration into what happens when someone who is a complete non-conformist has to deal with some huge societal issues. Plus, it's really funny.
2. Michael Clayton - Awesome legal triller that both gets you involved in the plot while also offering a scathing commentary on the whole system in which corporate lawyers thrive.
3. No Country for Old Men - A movie with a lot of subtleties that I'm not sure I picked up on fully watching for the first time, but even at face value its a great cat and mouse story with a terrifying "the world is meaningless so I might as well kill everyone" sort of villain.
4, There Will Be Blood - Even though it looks like a period piece with a grand message about what it meant to live in that place and that era, this is in fact a movie that looks inward at its black-hearted, nihilistic main character. Daniel Day Lewis's performance is fantastic.
5. American Gangster - A lot of people called this a new Scarface, but Denzel Washington's character is more quiet and calculating than was Tony Montana, and Russel Crowe's parallel story as an honest cop in a dishonest city adds a lot.
6. Sweeney Todd - Great black humor and great visuals from Tim Burton. A musical for all of us who feel musicals are too sappy.
7. Once - Review of this coming soon. A very low-key and simple film about two people who randomly meet and realize that together they make a great musical voice.
8. Black Book - An intense film taking place in occupied Holland in World War II. An exciting espionage movie, and simultaneously a melancholy personal story.
9. Knocked Up - Judd Apatow's dialog is some of the funniest ever put to paper.
10. Zodiac - David Fincher, whose Seven was creepy as hell because of its black atmosphere, makes another creepy and intriguing movie here, and does it this time by sticking very close to the facts of a real life case. Probably one of most interesting murder mysteries out there.
-------------------------------------------------------------
11. 310 to Yuma
12. Hot Fuzz
13. Bourne Ultimatum
14. Superbad
15. 300
The Darjeeling Limited
Breach
Transformers
Spiderman 3
Beowulf
Pirates 3
Movies I have not seen that I suspect could make the list: There Will Be Blood, Eastern Promises, Paprika, Persepolis, No End in Sight, Grindhouse, King of Kong, and probably some more.
1. Juno - An amazingly well written movie that takes a story about a teenage girl getting pregnant and spins it into a broader exploration into what happens when someone who is a complete non-conformist has to deal with some huge societal issues. Plus, it's really funny.
2. Michael Clayton - Awesome legal triller that both gets you involved in the plot while also offering a scathing commentary on the whole system in which corporate lawyers thrive.
3. No Country for Old Men - A movie with a lot of subtleties that I'm not sure I picked up on fully watching for the first time, but even at face value its a great cat and mouse story with a terrifying "the world is meaningless so I might as well kill everyone" sort of villain.
4, There Will Be Blood - Even though it looks like a period piece with a grand message about what it meant to live in that place and that era, this is in fact a movie that looks inward at its black-hearted, nihilistic main character. Daniel Day Lewis's performance is fantastic.
5. American Gangster - A lot of people called this a new Scarface, but Denzel Washington's character is more quiet and calculating than was Tony Montana, and Russel Crowe's parallel story as an honest cop in a dishonest city adds a lot.
6. Sweeney Todd - Great black humor and great visuals from Tim Burton. A musical for all of us who feel musicals are too sappy.
7. Once - Review of this coming soon. A very low-key and simple film about two people who randomly meet and realize that together they make a great musical voice.
8. Black Book - An intense film taking place in occupied Holland in World War II. An exciting espionage movie, and simultaneously a melancholy personal story.
9. Knocked Up - Judd Apatow's dialog is some of the funniest ever put to paper.
10. Zodiac - David Fincher, whose Seven was creepy as hell because of its black atmosphere, makes another creepy and intriguing movie here, and does it this time by sticking very close to the facts of a real life case. Probably one of most interesting murder mysteries out there.
-------------------------------------------------------------
11. 310 to Yuma
12. Hot Fuzz
13. Bourne Ultimatum
14. Superbad
15. 300
The Darjeeling Limited
Breach
Transformers
Spiderman 3
Beowulf
Pirates 3
Movies I have not seen that I suspect could make the list: There Will Be Blood, Eastern Promises, Paprika, Persepolis, No End in Sight, Grindhouse, King of Kong, and probably some more.
Sweeney Todd
Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street (***1/2)
More musicals need wanton, graphic violence. That's my conclusion upon seeing Tim Burton's movie adaptation of Sweeney Todd, originally a Tony award winning musical. Johnny Depp, oft-used in Tim Burton films, stars here as the title character who was once a barber in industrialized London, before a corrupt judge (Alan Rickman) sentences him to a false charge out of envy for his wife. The judge ends up raping his wife and keeping his daughter as his ward. Years later, Todd returns to London hellbent on revenge. He meets Mrs. Lovett (Helena Bonham Carter), who has taken over his old barber shop and converted it to the self-proclaimed worst meat pie shop in London. Sweeney retrieves his old barber's shears, which he seems to treat like a samurai would treat his katana, buried underneath the floor on the upper level. He's set to slit the judge's throat with them, but he finds the judge difficult to get to. Eventually Sweeney and Mrs. Lovett get sidetracked and devise a scheme which significantly increases the reputation of Mrs. Lovett's shop, while at the same time turns the tables on the wealthy elite in London and finds them at the mercy of the poor, in a manner of speaking. Mrs. Lovett is eventually convinced that she and Sweeney can start a new, if somewhat bizarre, life with each other, while in the meantime a young sailor attempts to steal away Joanna, Sweeney's daughter from the captivity of the judge.
I like some of the songs in Sweeney Todd better than others, but then again I'm really not much for musicals in general, and I have to admit that at its best the film's music is pretty damn good. The setting of industrialized London is perfect for Tim Burton to run wild with the dark, Gothic style he's become known for. Some of the set pieces are fantastic, and if anything some of them are actually too "loud" and distract from the characters to an extent.
Overall, Sweeney Todd is a lot of fun with brilliant macabre humor and social commentary with a lot of fun, outside-of-the-norm musical numbers.
More musicals need wanton, graphic violence. That's my conclusion upon seeing Tim Burton's movie adaptation of Sweeney Todd, originally a Tony award winning musical. Johnny Depp, oft-used in Tim Burton films, stars here as the title character who was once a barber in industrialized London, before a corrupt judge (Alan Rickman) sentences him to a false charge out of envy for his wife. The judge ends up raping his wife and keeping his daughter as his ward. Years later, Todd returns to London hellbent on revenge. He meets Mrs. Lovett (Helena Bonham Carter), who has taken over his old barber shop and converted it to the self-proclaimed worst meat pie shop in London. Sweeney retrieves his old barber's shears, which he seems to treat like a samurai would treat his katana, buried underneath the floor on the upper level. He's set to slit the judge's throat with them, but he finds the judge difficult to get to. Eventually Sweeney and Mrs. Lovett get sidetracked and devise a scheme which significantly increases the reputation of Mrs. Lovett's shop, while at the same time turns the tables on the wealthy elite in London and finds them at the mercy of the poor, in a manner of speaking. Mrs. Lovett is eventually convinced that she and Sweeney can start a new, if somewhat bizarre, life with each other, while in the meantime a young sailor attempts to steal away Joanna, Sweeney's daughter from the captivity of the judge.
I like some of the songs in Sweeney Todd better than others, but then again I'm really not much for musicals in general, and I have to admit that at its best the film's music is pretty damn good. The setting of industrialized London is perfect for Tim Burton to run wild with the dark, Gothic style he's become known for. Some of the set pieces are fantastic, and if anything some of them are actually too "loud" and distract from the characters to an extent.
Overall, Sweeney Todd is a lot of fun with brilliant macabre humor and social commentary with a lot of fun, outside-of-the-norm musical numbers.
Sunday, December 02, 2007
Superbad + Futurama's back!
Superbad (***1/2)
In the same year as the similarly brilliant Knocked Up, comes Superbad, another movie from Judd Apatow's production company. The film isn't directed by Apatow, but it's co-written by Seth Rogan, who starred in Knocked Up, and the movie has the same sort of dialog that's over the top vulgar, yet more accurate to real life than that of most any other movie. The movie is essentially a chronicle of high school seniors being high school seniors on their last big weekend before graduation. They're horny, they want to get trashed, and they don't really care what ridiculous measures they have to go to accomplish either of those two goals.
Michael Cera, who was absolutely brilliant as George Michael in "Arrested Development" is amazing here as Evan for the same reasons. He has excellent comedic timing, and has one of the best "wow, this is awkward" type of expressions around. Jonah Hill (the guy from Knocked Up who used a hospital wheelchair to do a Steven Hawking impression, among other things) is hilarious as well and complements Evan, who is more of the straight man, very well.
Futurama: Bender's Big Score (***)
The first of what is to be four direct-to-DVD Futurama films tells a great story, and has several memorable bits, though at the same time a fair share of bits fall flat. Enough of them work to make it worth a buy, and if you liked the series you'll like this.
Capote (***)
Had this for a while but just watched it recently. May do a write up soon. Lazy right now.
In the same year as the similarly brilliant Knocked Up, comes Superbad, another movie from Judd Apatow's production company. The film isn't directed by Apatow, but it's co-written by Seth Rogan, who starred in Knocked Up, and the movie has the same sort of dialog that's over the top vulgar, yet more accurate to real life than that of most any other movie. The movie is essentially a chronicle of high school seniors being high school seniors on their last big weekend before graduation. They're horny, they want to get trashed, and they don't really care what ridiculous measures they have to go to accomplish either of those two goals.
Michael Cera, who was absolutely brilliant as George Michael in "Arrested Development" is amazing here as Evan for the same reasons. He has excellent comedic timing, and has one of the best "wow, this is awkward" type of expressions around. Jonah Hill (the guy from Knocked Up who used a hospital wheelchair to do a Steven Hawking impression, among other things) is hilarious as well and complements Evan, who is more of the straight man, very well.
Futurama: Bender's Big Score (***)
The first of what is to be four direct-to-DVD Futurama films tells a great story, and has several memorable bits, though at the same time a fair share of bits fall flat. Enough of them work to make it worth a buy, and if you liked the series you'll like this.
Capote (***)
Had this for a while but just watched it recently. May do a write up soon. Lazy right now.
Sunday, November 25, 2007
Beowulf
Beowulf (**1/2)
Firstly, I saw this in I-Max 3D and, if you ask me, any novelty in the 3D effect wears off pretty quickly and eventually just gets distracting. As for the movie itself, Beowulf has some elaborate and satisfying fight scenes, but doesn't really have enough supporting these fight scenes to be anything more than a run of the mill action movie. Neil Gaiman co-wrote the script, and at some points his knack for successfully combining myth with history-- which he does so well in his graphic novels like Sandman-- is able to come through, but at other times its unevenly paced and awkward. There isn't much character development, which is in part due to the fact that the movie is based on the centuries old epic poem, but more still needed to be done to make Beowulf a protagonist worth caring about. There is a big jump ahead in time midway through the film after which point Beowulf becomes much more of a two-dimensional character, and this half of the film is much more enjoyable. Almost no effort is made to establish the origins or motives of the villains: the grotesque zombie-like Grendel and his Siren-like mother, played by a very naked Angelina Jolie. Again, this is party due to the fact that this is based on an epic poem which has more room for ambiguity, but it doesn't make it any less frustrating watching characters battle demons whose reasons for being haven't really been established whatsoever. The animation is far superior to the genuinely creepy animation of Robert Zemekis's last animated film, The Polar Express, but some of the character's motions are still a bit stiff looking, and there is definitely some degree of an Uncanny Valley effect still going on.
Firstly, I saw this in I-Max 3D and, if you ask me, any novelty in the 3D effect wears off pretty quickly and eventually just gets distracting. As for the movie itself, Beowulf has some elaborate and satisfying fight scenes, but doesn't really have enough supporting these fight scenes to be anything more than a run of the mill action movie. Neil Gaiman co-wrote the script, and at some points his knack for successfully combining myth with history-- which he does so well in his graphic novels like Sandman-- is able to come through, but at other times its unevenly paced and awkward. There isn't much character development, which is in part due to the fact that the movie is based on the centuries old epic poem, but more still needed to be done to make Beowulf a protagonist worth caring about. There is a big jump ahead in time midway through the film after which point Beowulf becomes much more of a two-dimensional character, and this half of the film is much more enjoyable. Almost no effort is made to establish the origins or motives of the villains: the grotesque zombie-like Grendel and his Siren-like mother, played by a very naked Angelina Jolie. Again, this is party due to the fact that this is based on an epic poem which has more room for ambiguity, but it doesn't make it any less frustrating watching characters battle demons whose reasons for being haven't really been established whatsoever. The animation is far superior to the genuinely creepy animation of Robert Zemekis's last animated film, The Polar Express, but some of the character's motions are still a bit stiff looking, and there is definitely some degree of an Uncanny Valley effect still going on.
Monday, November 12, 2007
Knocked Up & American Gangster
Knocked Up (****)
One of the best comedies in recent years which, like The Forty Year Old Virgin shows Judd Apatow's ability to combine edgy-- but not overly crass-- comedy with a well-written and intelligent story. Seth Rogan is very good as Ben, the well meaning but lazy and uncultured stoner, as is Katherine Heigl, the woman who gets "knocked up," as well as Paul Rudd, as a married guy wishing he was still single. There are brilliant examples of satire involving all of these characters, combined by some hilarious bits from Ben's cast of stoner friends. An excellent comedy.
American Gangster (***1/2)
A very enjoyable crime drama from Ridley Scott, based on the true story of Frank Lucas, a black man who beat the Italian mafia at its own game selling heroin in New York City. Denzel Washington is very good as the unassuming, but methodical and calculating Lucas, and the way his plan to undercut the mob comes to fruition is interesting to watch, but the best half of the movie may be the other half. On the opposite side of things, a cop played by Russel Crowe tries to discover the source of the new heroin while constantly trying to dodge entanglements with others in the police force who are corrupt and don't like people butting in on their jurisdiction. His performance is very good as well. There's an epilogue that's sort of necessary to tie of the story, but doesn't quite fit with the rest of the film, and some other sections throughout that probably could've benefited from better pacing. Still, this is a movie that runs near three hours and remains pretty engrossing throughout. A very good movie that might see a few Oscar nods.
One of the best comedies in recent years which, like The Forty Year Old Virgin shows Judd Apatow's ability to combine edgy-- but not overly crass-- comedy with a well-written and intelligent story. Seth Rogan is very good as Ben, the well meaning but lazy and uncultured stoner, as is Katherine Heigl, the woman who gets "knocked up," as well as Paul Rudd, as a married guy wishing he was still single. There are brilliant examples of satire involving all of these characters, combined by some hilarious bits from Ben's cast of stoner friends. An excellent comedy.
American Gangster (***1/2)
A very enjoyable crime drama from Ridley Scott, based on the true story of Frank Lucas, a black man who beat the Italian mafia at its own game selling heroin in New York City. Denzel Washington is very good as the unassuming, but methodical and calculating Lucas, and the way his plan to undercut the mob comes to fruition is interesting to watch, but the best half of the movie may be the other half. On the opposite side of things, a cop played by Russel Crowe tries to discover the source of the new heroin while constantly trying to dodge entanglements with others in the police force who are corrupt and don't like people butting in on their jurisdiction. His performance is very good as well. There's an epilogue that's sort of necessary to tie of the story, but doesn't quite fit with the rest of the film, and some other sections throughout that probably could've benefited from better pacing. Still, this is a movie that runs near three hours and remains pretty engrossing throughout. A very good movie that might see a few Oscar nods.
Monday, October 22, 2007
The Bourne Ultimatum
The Bourne Ultimatum (***1/2)
A perfect final installment in the Bourne trilogy (although it might not actually be final), The Bourne Ultimatum's frantic action sequences manage to capture the same excitement that the first two provided without feeling redundant nor jumping the shark. Matt Damon gives another very good performance as Jason Bourne, a man who has a stoic resolve but is deeply internally haunted by the fragments of the memories he has of his entry into the "Treadstone" program. Joan Allen reprises her role from Supremacy as Pamela Landy, a woman trying to balance the responsibility of her government job with her sympathy and understanding of Bourne's plight. Paul Greengrass Ultimatum as he did Supremacy and he directs it in the same sort of ground level, "shaky camera" documentary style. This is sometimes distracting and can make it difficult to follow the action, but at the same time it captures the every-second-counts nature of Bourne's pursuit. The Bourne series provides some of the best action films in recent years and this entry is no exception.
A perfect final installment in the Bourne trilogy (although it might not actually be final), The Bourne Ultimatum's frantic action sequences manage to capture the same excitement that the first two provided without feeling redundant nor jumping the shark. Matt Damon gives another very good performance as Jason Bourne, a man who has a stoic resolve but is deeply internally haunted by the fragments of the memories he has of his entry into the "Treadstone" program. Joan Allen reprises her role from Supremacy as Pamela Landy, a woman trying to balance the responsibility of her government job with her sympathy and understanding of Bourne's plight. Paul Greengrass Ultimatum as he did Supremacy and he directs it in the same sort of ground level, "shaky camera" documentary style. This is sometimes distracting and can make it difficult to follow the action, but at the same time it captures the every-second-counts nature of Bourne's pursuit. The Bourne series provides some of the best action films in recent years and this entry is no exception.
Sunday, August 12, 2007
Another half-assed update
Still too lazy to write reviews as long as I'd been writing them before, but I don't want to totally abandon this.
Zodiac (***)
Based on the true story of the Zodiac killer, this film details the lives of those trying to solve the case, notably Jake Gyllinhall's character, a newspaper cartoonist with no expertise except for a personal interest in the cyphers used by the Zodiac. Gyllinhall gives a very good performance, as does Robert Downey Jr. While it lacks the atmosphere of Seven or the raw intensity of Fight Club, David Fincher does another solid job of directing here. The film does have some pacing problems, mostly because of the nature of the real life case, in which there were several long stretches of time during which the Zodiac didn't communicate with the media or police nor had any known victims. Still the case is one of the more intriguing unsolved mysteries out there, and Fincher clearly took great effort in adapting the real-life events for the screen.
Children of Men (****)
This film is probably best classified as science fiction, as it is set in a dystopian vision of the near future, but at its heart its a very focused and human drama. The film follows Clive Owen, a former political activist who is now too cynical, burned out, and alcoholic to care, who stumbles into the role of guarding a pregnant woman -- the first woman to become pregnant in almost 20 years. The film makes some very pointed political commentaries about present day reality. Britain,--which proclaims itself to be "soldiering on" amidst the chaos the infertility crisis brought upon the world--is seen as oppressive and jingoistic, and scenes of imprisoned illegal immigrants recall images from Guantanamo Bay. Still more than anything, the story at its heart is a story of human perseverance. Clive Owen's character, Theo, despite the depression he'd sunken into, finds something worth fighting for, and Children of Men is the account of how far he's willing to go to accomplish it. Despite some of the grandiose battle scenes and the near-future setting, the film is directed with a pretty minimalist style, using long, documentary like takes. And as I explained, the story is really a very simple and focused one and this simple style suits it perfectly. Even though its plot is quite different, I could see this being remembered in much the same way Blade Runner was remembered, in that its a story set in the future, but which is more about the people than the setting.
Zodiac (***)
Based on the true story of the Zodiac killer, this film details the lives of those trying to solve the case, notably Jake Gyllinhall's character, a newspaper cartoonist with no expertise except for a personal interest in the cyphers used by the Zodiac. Gyllinhall gives a very good performance, as does Robert Downey Jr. While it lacks the atmosphere of Seven or the raw intensity of Fight Club, David Fincher does another solid job of directing here. The film does have some pacing problems, mostly because of the nature of the real life case, in which there were several long stretches of time during which the Zodiac didn't communicate with the media or police nor had any known victims. Still the case is one of the more intriguing unsolved mysteries out there, and Fincher clearly took great effort in adapting the real-life events for the screen.
Children of Men (****)
This film is probably best classified as science fiction, as it is set in a dystopian vision of the near future, but at its heart its a very focused and human drama. The film follows Clive Owen, a former political activist who is now too cynical, burned out, and alcoholic to care, who stumbles into the role of guarding a pregnant woman -- the first woman to become pregnant in almost 20 years. The film makes some very pointed political commentaries about present day reality. Britain,--which proclaims itself to be "soldiering on" amidst the chaos the infertility crisis brought upon the world--is seen as oppressive and jingoistic, and scenes of imprisoned illegal immigrants recall images from Guantanamo Bay. Still more than anything, the story at its heart is a story of human perseverance. Clive Owen's character, Theo, despite the depression he'd sunken into, finds something worth fighting for, and Children of Men is the account of how far he's willing to go to accomplish it. Despite some of the grandiose battle scenes and the near-future setting, the film is directed with a pretty minimalist style, using long, documentary like takes. And as I explained, the story is really a very simple and focused one and this simple style suits it perfectly. Even though its plot is quite different, I could see this being remembered in much the same way Blade Runner was remembered, in that its a story set in the future, but which is more about the people than the setting.
Friday, July 13, 2007
Half-assed update
I've neglected this for a little while, but here's a couple movies I've seen recently.
Pan's Labyrinth (****)
Deserving of every bit of the praise it's received, this is a brilliant movie from Guillermo Del Toro intertwining a dark fantasy story with a period drama set in the Spanish Civil War. The story follows a young girl as she migrates between the real girl and the fantasy world which may or may not exist outside of her own head. The visuals are amazing, and the story is effectively and beautifully simple.
Transformers (***)
It has many of the trademarks of a Michael Bay movie in that its obnoxiously loud and more than a little bit cliche, but I have to admit that it was fun to watch. The Transformers are great to look at, and the movie has a number of amazing action sequences. Despite the inherent campyness of a movie based on '80s action figures and the one-dimensional nature of a lot of the characters, the movie can be touching in some parts. A decent popcorn movie.
Pan's Labyrinth (****)
Deserving of every bit of the praise it's received, this is a brilliant movie from Guillermo Del Toro intertwining a dark fantasy story with a period drama set in the Spanish Civil War. The story follows a young girl as she migrates between the real girl and the fantasy world which may or may not exist outside of her own head. The visuals are amazing, and the story is effectively and beautifully simple.
Transformers (***)
It has many of the trademarks of a Michael Bay movie in that its obnoxiously loud and more than a little bit cliche, but I have to admit that it was fun to watch. The Transformers are great to look at, and the movie has a number of amazing action sequences. Despite the inherent campyness of a movie based on '80s action figures and the one-dimensional nature of a lot of the characters, the movie can be touching in some parts. A decent popcorn movie.
Sunday, June 17, 2007
Black Book
Black Book (***1/2)
(Zwartboek)
It's been about a week and a half now since I saw this, so it's not completely fresh in my mind, but this is in World War II era espionage-type triller directed by Paul Verhoeven, aka the dude who made Robocop. All of the characters speak their native languages, and so the film is subtitled with English, Dutch, German, and Hebrew all being spoken.
The film's protagonist is Rachel Stein, a Jewish woman hiding out in the countryside in the Netherlands during German occupation. She decides to flee on a boat which takes passengers to liberated territory under cover of darkness. The boat, however, is quickly discovered by a German patrol boat and its passengers are gunned down, with only Rachel escaping. The remainder of the film follows Rachel as she attempts to aid the Dutch resistance movement, while also trying to discover what happened the night the boat was discovered. As part of this effort, she seduces a German S.S. officer and begins working at the local Gestapo headquarters under an assumed name.
The film is probably not the most profound movie ever made about World War II, but it does do an excellent job of painting a portrait of the Netherlands during and immediately after World War II, and makes a number of interesting social commentaries. But moreso than that, the film really works as a thriller, and Rachel's elaborate double agent role leads to a number of tremendously tense scenes. Black Book is easily worth a watch.
(Zwartboek)
It's been about a week and a half now since I saw this, so it's not completely fresh in my mind, but this is in World War II era espionage-type triller directed by Paul Verhoeven, aka the dude who made Robocop. All of the characters speak their native languages, and so the film is subtitled with English, Dutch, German, and Hebrew all being spoken.
The film's protagonist is Rachel Stein, a Jewish woman hiding out in the countryside in the Netherlands during German occupation. She decides to flee on a boat which takes passengers to liberated territory under cover of darkness. The boat, however, is quickly discovered by a German patrol boat and its passengers are gunned down, with only Rachel escaping. The remainder of the film follows Rachel as she attempts to aid the Dutch resistance movement, while also trying to discover what happened the night the boat was discovered. As part of this effort, she seduces a German S.S. officer and begins working at the local Gestapo headquarters under an assumed name.
The film is probably not the most profound movie ever made about World War II, but it does do an excellent job of painting a portrait of the Netherlands during and immediately after World War II, and makes a number of interesting social commentaries. But moreso than that, the film really works as a thriller, and Rachel's elaborate double agent role leads to a number of tremendously tense scenes. Black Book is easily worth a watch.
Monday, June 04, 2007
PotC: At World's End
Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End (**)
The Pirates movies have been perhaps not the most important movies made as of late, but they have worked as entertaining escapist adventure movies. The third leg of the trilogy, At World's End, however tries to do way too much, and ends up being more exhausting than anything else. Even though there was a significant cliffhanger at the end of the second film leading into At World's End, in many ways the first two films were basically self-contained. Curse of the Black Pearl centered around Jack Sparrow and company facing off against Barbosa's crew for the cursed Aztec treasure, while Dead Man's Chest centered around Jack's debt to Davy Jones and the Flying Dutchman. In contrast, At World's End's plot is incredibly complex, incorporating characters from both of the two films, who create a number of entangling and changing alliances with each other. I don't know if the last two films were planned out when the first was created, but watching this movie, some of the new things revealed about the characters certainly seem forced to try and fit them into this web of intrigue. All this would be well and good if it added up to something great at the end, but the film's climax, nor any other part of it, is really any more exciting than the sequences that the first two movies culminated with after much less set-up.
If you've seen the first movie you know that (highlight) Jack is dead, and that Barbosa and company are setting out to find him and bring him back. The movie begins with them in Singapore stealing maps to "Davy Jones' locker" to accomplish this task. They meet Chow-Yun Fat, who is sort of wasted as a largely uninteresting pirate captain local to Singapore. They, of course, eventually find Jack, but not before a surrealistic scene of Jack in a sort of purgatory which is mildly amusing but which goes on for way too long. The movie gets more ridiculous from there, as the British navy and the East India Company tries to use Davy Jones and the Flying Dutchman as an enforcer for their own aims. Barbosa and Jack decide that a conference needs to be held with the nine Pirate captains from all over the world to try and stop them, lest pirates become extinct. The entire notion of a pirate council seems too far over the top. The series obviously never attempted to be realistic, but when all the pirates gather around a table in their own crazy looking, stereotypical ethic costumes it almost reaches self-parody (and yes, Keith Richards is in it).
Jack is still funny, the action is still visually cool, and there are a lot of moments which put a smile on your face, but the attempt at adding multiple plot twists and creating a huge web of entangling alliances between the characters is just a bad idea. What results is a convoluted plot that detracts from the simple sense of adventure which is the reason why the series is popular for people other than the 13-year old Jack Sparrow demographic. The movie's run time is three hours, which was fine for an epic like Lord of the Rings, but just exhausting in this case.
The Pirates movies have been perhaps not the most important movies made as of late, but they have worked as entertaining escapist adventure movies. The third leg of the trilogy, At World's End, however tries to do way too much, and ends up being more exhausting than anything else. Even though there was a significant cliffhanger at the end of the second film leading into At World's End, in many ways the first two films were basically self-contained. Curse of the Black Pearl centered around Jack Sparrow and company facing off against Barbosa's crew for the cursed Aztec treasure, while Dead Man's Chest centered around Jack's debt to Davy Jones and the Flying Dutchman. In contrast, At World's End's plot is incredibly complex, incorporating characters from both of the two films, who create a number of entangling and changing alliances with each other. I don't know if the last two films were planned out when the first was created, but watching this movie, some of the new things revealed about the characters certainly seem forced to try and fit them into this web of intrigue. All this would be well and good if it added up to something great at the end, but the film's climax, nor any other part of it, is really any more exciting than the sequences that the first two movies culminated with after much less set-up.
If you've seen the first movie you know that (highlight) Jack is dead, and that Barbosa and company are setting out to find him and bring him back. The movie begins with them in Singapore stealing maps to "Davy Jones' locker" to accomplish this task. They meet Chow-Yun Fat, who is sort of wasted as a largely uninteresting pirate captain local to Singapore. They, of course, eventually find Jack, but not before a surrealistic scene of Jack in a sort of purgatory which is mildly amusing but which goes on for way too long. The movie gets more ridiculous from there, as the British navy and the East India Company tries to use Davy Jones and the Flying Dutchman as an enforcer for their own aims. Barbosa and Jack decide that a conference needs to be held with the nine Pirate captains from all over the world to try and stop them, lest pirates become extinct. The entire notion of a pirate council seems too far over the top. The series obviously never attempted to be realistic, but when all the pirates gather around a table in their own crazy looking, stereotypical ethic costumes it almost reaches self-parody (and yes, Keith Richards is in it).
Jack is still funny, the action is still visually cool, and there are a lot of moments which put a smile on your face, but the attempt at adding multiple plot twists and creating a huge web of entangling alliances between the characters is just a bad idea. What results is a convoluted plot that detracts from the simple sense of adventure which is the reason why the series is popular for people other than the 13-year old Jack Sparrow demographic. The movie's run time is three hours, which was fine for an epic like Lord of the Rings, but just exhausting in this case.
Stranger than Fiction
Stranger than Fiction (***1/2)
If Stranger than Fiction is remembered years from now, it'll probably be because of Will Ferrell's performance. Ferrell, known more for his loud, over-the-top, performances like in Ancorman shows that he can still be funny without yelling and running to walls, and is capable of very serious moments as well. In the film Ferrell plays Harold Crick. He works for the IRS and, even though he's quite good at it, he doesn't seem to care much for his job. He seems to aspire for more in his life, but is too timid to take any sort of initiative. Really, he's not very interesting as a movie character except for the fact that he hears a voice in his head. Not just a voice, however, but a female voice narrating his own life as it happens.
The early part of the film explores this idea. What would it be like if your life was being constantly narrated? How would it be described even when you were doing the most mundane of things? How could you possible concentrate on your life when you heard someone narrating it, and then how would your ensuing frustration be addressed by the narrator? All of this leads to some very funny scenes which, again, show that Ferrell has potential beyond some of the obnoxious characters he's famous for.
The film's real hook comes when the narrator mentions Harold's "imminent death." She doesn't mention how or why he's going to die, only that he is going to die, and soon. Harold goes to see a psychologist who tells him he's schizophrenic, leading to this exchange:
"Mr. Crick, you have a voice speaking to you."
"No, no to me. About me."
And so Harold decides that he has to find someone whose expertise is in stories. He finds English professor Jules Hilbert, played by Dustin Hoffman, who is just eccentric enough and just enough into literature to think that helping Harold might actually be possible. He suggests that Harold try and determine whether the story being narrated about him is a comedy or a tragedy, leading to some funny scenes where Harold awkwardly attempts to get to know Ana Pascal, played by Maggie Gyllenhal, a woman who Harold is enthralled with but is in many ways his opposite.
Over the course of the film it becomes apparent that the narrator in Harold's head is an actual writer named Karen Eiffel, who was once critically acclaimed, but is now trying to overcome writer's block and finish her first novel in a number of years. The movie's ending raises questions about writing, and about death in fictional stories that would seem crazy to even consider, but somewhat seem to make perfect sense in the context of the film. Would we place the same importance on art if people actually died when art portrays death? It's an interesting question.
The film's ingenious plot is what stands out most about the film, but also of note are some of the visual effects used in the film. Harold, being very much left-brained, thinks entirely about math, and as we see him go about his day, we see things he encounters and interacts with overlayed with a mosaic of numbers and diagrams. On the bonus material of the DVD, the artists who created it called it a GUI, as in the GUI of an operating system. It is a unique effect and my only complaint about it is that it isn't used consistently throughout the film, and at times when it crops up it detracts from the dialogue going on at the same time.
Stanger than Fiction is one of the more interesting comedies in recent years. Its strange but enthralling plot let's Will Ferrell create a memorable character that is both very funny and at times a genuinely sympathetic figure.
If Stranger than Fiction is remembered years from now, it'll probably be because of Will Ferrell's performance. Ferrell, known more for his loud, over-the-top, performances like in Ancorman shows that he can still be funny without yelling and running to walls, and is capable of very serious moments as well. In the film Ferrell plays Harold Crick. He works for the IRS and, even though he's quite good at it, he doesn't seem to care much for his job. He seems to aspire for more in his life, but is too timid to take any sort of initiative. Really, he's not very interesting as a movie character except for the fact that he hears a voice in his head. Not just a voice, however, but a female voice narrating his own life as it happens.
The early part of the film explores this idea. What would it be like if your life was being constantly narrated? How would it be described even when you were doing the most mundane of things? How could you possible concentrate on your life when you heard someone narrating it, and then how would your ensuing frustration be addressed by the narrator? All of this leads to some very funny scenes which, again, show that Ferrell has potential beyond some of the obnoxious characters he's famous for.
The film's real hook comes when the narrator mentions Harold's "imminent death." She doesn't mention how or why he's going to die, only that he is going to die, and soon. Harold goes to see a psychologist who tells him he's schizophrenic, leading to this exchange:
"Mr. Crick, you have a voice speaking to you."
"No, no to me. About me."
And so Harold decides that he has to find someone whose expertise is in stories. He finds English professor Jules Hilbert, played by Dustin Hoffman, who is just eccentric enough and just enough into literature to think that helping Harold might actually be possible. He suggests that Harold try and determine whether the story being narrated about him is a comedy or a tragedy, leading to some funny scenes where Harold awkwardly attempts to get to know Ana Pascal, played by Maggie Gyllenhal, a woman who Harold is enthralled with but is in many ways his opposite.
Over the course of the film it becomes apparent that the narrator in Harold's head is an actual writer named Karen Eiffel, who was once critically acclaimed, but is now trying to overcome writer's block and finish her first novel in a number of years. The movie's ending raises questions about writing, and about death in fictional stories that would seem crazy to even consider, but somewhat seem to make perfect sense in the context of the film. Would we place the same importance on art if people actually died when art portrays death? It's an interesting question.
The film's ingenious plot is what stands out most about the film, but also of note are some of the visual effects used in the film. Harold, being very much left-brained, thinks entirely about math, and as we see him go about his day, we see things he encounters and interacts with overlayed with a mosaic of numbers and diagrams. On the bonus material of the DVD, the artists who created it called it a GUI, as in the GUI of an operating system. It is a unique effect and my only complaint about it is that it isn't used consistently throughout the film, and at times when it crops up it detracts from the dialogue going on at the same time.
Stanger than Fiction is one of the more interesting comedies in recent years. Its strange but enthralling plot let's Will Ferrell create a memorable character that is both very funny and at times a genuinely sympathetic figure.
Monday, May 14, 2007
Spiderman 3
Spiderman 3 (***)
The Spiderman trilogy (although it sounds like its going end up as more than a trilogy) as a whole is a lot of fun and a worthy adaptation of the long running comic book series. The third installment, however, is the weakest of the three and more erratic and less focused than the previous two. The first two movies were fairly simple, giving Spiderman one main villain to contend with and allowing plenty of time for Peter Parker to grow as a character and his relationships with Mary Jane and Harry Osborn to develop. These relationships are in no way abandoned in Spiderman 3, but they aren't as interesting because the movie simply has too much going on.
Chief amongst my complaints is the fact that the movie has one too many villains. Where the first film had the original Green Goblin and the second had Doctor Octopus, Spiderman 3 meanders between storylines involving Harry becoming the new Green Goblin, Flint Marko (Thomas Hayden Church) becoming The Sandman, and Eddie Brock (Topher Grace) becoming Venom. None of them are really given enough time to be truly memorable, except maybe for Harry, who has had a conflict with Spiderman/Peter building since the end of the first film. Even still, Harry's part in the film seems somewhat thrown together. In his first confrontation with Peter in early the movie Harry is thrown from his glider and suffers head trauma that manages to cause him to lose his memory of most everything past the death of his father. Afterwards, Peter tries to rekindle his friendship with him, and Mary Jane comes to confide in him regarding issues with her relationship with Peter. In this way, Harry is kept close to both Peter and M.J. for the remainder of the film. This seems too convenient, even for a comic book movie.
The main players in the Venom storyline: Eddie Brock, Gwen Stacy, and the black suit that eventually becomes the entity that is Venom are all introduced fairly early in the film, but are then mostly set aside while The Sandman's origin is told and he faces Spiderman in a visually cool but somewhat anti-climactic battle. The plot then shifts back again, as Peter begins to don the black suit, date Gwen Stacy and embrace his "dark side" in a sequence that's already led to thousands of emo jokes across the internet. The bottom line is that the lack of focus on any one of these characters means that their sum total doesn't add up to anything as interesting as the grand sum of the first two movies. We learn a little about The Sandman's motivations, and certain scenes cast him in a somewhat sympathetic light, but we don't see enough of him to truly care about his characters fate, nor does he really get a chance to develop much of a personality.
Meanwhile, the creation of Venom, while true to the comics, is similarly rushed and there isn't enough tension built before the inevitable battle. The film's ending does have some emotion to it, and while room for a sequel is definitely left open, there are significant developments and it does work as the closing to a trilogy. I was bothered, however, with some of the events leading up to the climax. There is an alliance made at the end of the film that seems to have a shaky justification based on what we're shown as an audience. It seems like a scene is missing. Again, the film seems to be rushing too much and trying to hastily find connections for multiple complicated story arcs. At times it felt like the filmmakers were trying to create Spiderman 3 & 4 at the same time. There is a rumor that Sam Raimi, who directed all 3 of the films, wanted to continue focusing on villains from the early period of the comic book series and originally wanted to include the Sandman, and only the Sandman in the film. Producer Avi Arad, allegedly, then more or less forced Raimi to write in Venom to appease the fans, many of which grew up reading Venom in comics during the 1990s and saw him in the cartoon show during the same period. I'm in no position to know if this is true or false, but it certainly seems plausible.
I have laid out some major problems I had with the movie, but I don't want to act as if I completely hated it. The humor that was in the first two films is still there (including another great Bruce Campbell cameo), the action is still both technically impressive and exciting to watch, and there are still a lot of moments that put a smile on your face. Even though I feel it is a step backward I don't think it destroys what the first two films began, nor does it do injustice to the characters or to the original series. All of the films have been worth the price of admission, and the series stands at the forefront of the recent trend of comic book movies, though it may soon be overtaken when the successors to the excellent Batman Begins are released.
The Spiderman trilogy (although it sounds like its going end up as more than a trilogy) as a whole is a lot of fun and a worthy adaptation of the long running comic book series. The third installment, however, is the weakest of the three and more erratic and less focused than the previous two. The first two movies were fairly simple, giving Spiderman one main villain to contend with and allowing plenty of time for Peter Parker to grow as a character and his relationships with Mary Jane and Harry Osborn to develop. These relationships are in no way abandoned in Spiderman 3, but they aren't as interesting because the movie simply has too much going on.
Chief amongst my complaints is the fact that the movie has one too many villains. Where the first film had the original Green Goblin and the second had Doctor Octopus, Spiderman 3 meanders between storylines involving Harry becoming the new Green Goblin, Flint Marko (Thomas Hayden Church) becoming The Sandman, and Eddie Brock (Topher Grace) becoming Venom. None of them are really given enough time to be truly memorable, except maybe for Harry, who has had a conflict with Spiderman/Peter building since the end of the first film. Even still, Harry's part in the film seems somewhat thrown together. In his first confrontation with Peter in early the movie Harry is thrown from his glider and suffers head trauma that manages to cause him to lose his memory of most everything past the death of his father. Afterwards, Peter tries to rekindle his friendship with him, and Mary Jane comes to confide in him regarding issues with her relationship with Peter. In this way, Harry is kept close to both Peter and M.J. for the remainder of the film. This seems too convenient, even for a comic book movie.
The main players in the Venom storyline: Eddie Brock, Gwen Stacy, and the black suit that eventually becomes the entity that is Venom are all introduced fairly early in the film, but are then mostly set aside while The Sandman's origin is told and he faces Spiderman in a visually cool but somewhat anti-climactic battle. The plot then shifts back again, as Peter begins to don the black suit, date Gwen Stacy and embrace his "dark side" in a sequence that's already led to thousands of emo jokes across the internet. The bottom line is that the lack of focus on any one of these characters means that their sum total doesn't add up to anything as interesting as the grand sum of the first two movies. We learn a little about The Sandman's motivations, and certain scenes cast him in a somewhat sympathetic light, but we don't see enough of him to truly care about his characters fate, nor does he really get a chance to develop much of a personality.
Meanwhile, the creation of Venom, while true to the comics, is similarly rushed and there isn't enough tension built before the inevitable battle. The film's ending does have some emotion to it, and while room for a sequel is definitely left open, there are significant developments and it does work as the closing to a trilogy. I was bothered, however, with some of the events leading up to the climax. There is an alliance made at the end of the film that seems to have a shaky justification based on what we're shown as an audience. It seems like a scene is missing. Again, the film seems to be rushing too much and trying to hastily find connections for multiple complicated story arcs. At times it felt like the filmmakers were trying to create Spiderman 3 & 4 at the same time. There is a rumor that Sam Raimi, who directed all 3 of the films, wanted to continue focusing on villains from the early period of the comic book series and originally wanted to include the Sandman, and only the Sandman in the film. Producer Avi Arad, allegedly, then more or less forced Raimi to write in Venom to appease the fans, many of which grew up reading Venom in comics during the 1990s and saw him in the cartoon show during the same period. I'm in no position to know if this is true or false, but it certainly seems plausible.
I have laid out some major problems I had with the movie, but I don't want to act as if I completely hated it. The humor that was in the first two films is still there (including another great Bruce Campbell cameo), the action is still both technically impressive and exciting to watch, and there are still a lot of moments that put a smile on your face. Even though I feel it is a step backward I don't think it destroys what the first two films began, nor does it do injustice to the characters or to the original series. All of the films have been worth the price of admission, and the series stands at the forefront of the recent trend of comic book movies, though it may soon be overtaken when the successors to the excellent Batman Begins are released.
Wednesday, May 02, 2007
Hot Fuzz plus 2 other short reviews
Hot Fuzz (***1/2)
Hot Fuzz is a loving tribute to the genre of over-the-top, Michael Bay style, explosive-filled cop dramas. The type of movie where physics and probability are of little to no consequence, and the main character always winds up the hero despite usually recklessly endangering dozens of people. It does for these sorts of movies what Shaun of the Dead did for zombie movies, which makes sense because it was written, directed, and acted by many of the same people.
The movie centers around Nicolas Angel, a cop in London who gets transferred to a one-horse down out in the country, simply because he's too good. He has a tireless devotion to his job and the best arrest record on the force, so much so that he's making everyone else looks bad. As the film begins, he tries to get accustomed to his new home of Sandford, meeting the various folksy inhabitants and his new co-workers. The police force in Sandford is much more lackadaisical, and understandably so, as there isn't much to do in the small town. Nicolas tries to shake off being such a fish out of water, and applies his knowledge from his London beat to his new assignment but it really doesn't work well. Where he used to be chasing down fleeing criminals, he now finds himself chasing around escaped swans. Futhermore, he finds himself frustrated with his well intentioned but mostly incompetent new parter, Danny.
The beginning of the movie is funny in its own right. Nicolas and Danny play off each other well, and all of the eccentric townspeople are-- one of which is a mustached Timothy Dalton--are great. But what the movie is going to be remembered for is its last half hour, where it intentionally becomes every bit as ridiculous as Bad Boys II and all the other movies its parodying with a series of preposterous action scenes. Nicolas eventually finds something is amiss in Sandford, and he has to set things right in the traditional Michael Bay/Jerry Bruckheimer fashion. In a mere half hour, there are countless quotable one-liners and applause-inducing "Oh ****!" moments. It is absolutely spot on as a parody and is going to be referenced for years to come as one of the funniest sequences to any movie.
I think the last half hour really works because the movie up to that point is so docile. It's the payoff at the end after we've gotten to know some of the characters, and their relationships have been developed a little bit. They could've made the entire movie as ridiculous as the ending and created sort of a new Naked Gun, but while the Naked Gun movies are hilarious in their own right, I don't think it would've worked as well in this case. The fact that the premise of the movie is initially more or less plausible makes the shenanigans at the end that much funnier. The entire movie builds to the end, and it delivers in every way. Hot Fuzz is a smart, well-written comedy that's probably going to become a cult classic alongside it's predecessor Shaun of the Dead.
The Weather Man (**1/2)
This is a movie starring Nicolas Cage as a David Spritz, a downtrodden, recently divorced, middle-aged man working as a TV weather man in Chicago. Some parts of the movie are written better than others. There's a few memorable lines and Nicolas Cage's narration in particular is great, but there are a few scenes where conversations seem kind of forced and awkward. Probably the strongest point of the movie is a great performance by Michael Caine as David's father.
Attack the Gas Station! (**1/2)
Uh... yeah, I wasn't really sure what to make of this. This is a Korean film from 1999 about a group of teenagers who, quite literally, attack a gas station. They rob it and hold people hostage, but more as a sign of rebellion against society than for any sort of monetary gain. There are a few flashbacks explaining how each of them were somehow wronged by a parent or an authority figure, or somehow had their dreams crushed. But really, beyond this, the movie basically just documents what happens as these four people try and torment the legitimate employees (and gang members who inexplicable show up) while trying to maintain the illusion that they're actually running the gas station themselves. Some of this is pretty amusing and it's an enjoyable watch, I'm just not sure if the broader stuff about the troubled past of each of the characters really adds up to anything except a flimsy pretext for why they're attacking a gas station.
Hot Fuzz is a loving tribute to the genre of over-the-top, Michael Bay style, explosive-filled cop dramas. The type of movie where physics and probability are of little to no consequence, and the main character always winds up the hero despite usually recklessly endangering dozens of people. It does for these sorts of movies what Shaun of the Dead did for zombie movies, which makes sense because it was written, directed, and acted by many of the same people.
The movie centers around Nicolas Angel, a cop in London who gets transferred to a one-horse down out in the country, simply because he's too good. He has a tireless devotion to his job and the best arrest record on the force, so much so that he's making everyone else looks bad. As the film begins, he tries to get accustomed to his new home of Sandford, meeting the various folksy inhabitants and his new co-workers. The police force in Sandford is much more lackadaisical, and understandably so, as there isn't much to do in the small town. Nicolas tries to shake off being such a fish out of water, and applies his knowledge from his London beat to his new assignment but it really doesn't work well. Where he used to be chasing down fleeing criminals, he now finds himself chasing around escaped swans. Futhermore, he finds himself frustrated with his well intentioned but mostly incompetent new parter, Danny.
The beginning of the movie is funny in its own right. Nicolas and Danny play off each other well, and all of the eccentric townspeople are-- one of which is a mustached Timothy Dalton--are great. But what the movie is going to be remembered for is its last half hour, where it intentionally becomes every bit as ridiculous as Bad Boys II and all the other movies its parodying with a series of preposterous action scenes. Nicolas eventually finds something is amiss in Sandford, and he has to set things right in the traditional Michael Bay/Jerry Bruckheimer fashion. In a mere half hour, there are countless quotable one-liners and applause-inducing "Oh ****!" moments. It is absolutely spot on as a parody and is going to be referenced for years to come as one of the funniest sequences to any movie.
I think the last half hour really works because the movie up to that point is so docile. It's the payoff at the end after we've gotten to know some of the characters, and their relationships have been developed a little bit. They could've made the entire movie as ridiculous as the ending and created sort of a new Naked Gun, but while the Naked Gun movies are hilarious in their own right, I don't think it would've worked as well in this case. The fact that the premise of the movie is initially more or less plausible makes the shenanigans at the end that much funnier. The entire movie builds to the end, and it delivers in every way. Hot Fuzz is a smart, well-written comedy that's probably going to become a cult classic alongside it's predecessor Shaun of the Dead.
The Weather Man (**1/2)
This is a movie starring Nicolas Cage as a David Spritz, a downtrodden, recently divorced, middle-aged man working as a TV weather man in Chicago. Some parts of the movie are written better than others. There's a few memorable lines and Nicolas Cage's narration in particular is great, but there are a few scenes where conversations seem kind of forced and awkward. Probably the strongest point of the movie is a great performance by Michael Caine as David's father.
Attack the Gas Station! (**1/2)
Uh... yeah, I wasn't really sure what to make of this. This is a Korean film from 1999 about a group of teenagers who, quite literally, attack a gas station. They rob it and hold people hostage, but more as a sign of rebellion against society than for any sort of monetary gain. There are a few flashbacks explaining how each of them were somehow wronged by a parent or an authority figure, or somehow had their dreams crushed. But really, beyond this, the movie basically just documents what happens as these four people try and torment the legitimate employees (and gang members who inexplicable show up) while trying to maintain the illusion that they're actually running the gas station themselves. Some of this is pretty amusing and it's an enjoyable watch, I'm just not sure if the broader stuff about the troubled past of each of the characters really adds up to anything except a flimsy pretext for why they're attacking a gas station.
Monday, April 02, 2007
300
300 (***)
I don't really feel the need to write a huge review for this. The story is more or less based on the historical battle of Thermopylae, but the story is basically a loose outline between huge, stylized fight scenes. Like the trailer, characters yell a lot of stuff dramatically, but the dialogue is really not all that important. Visually, the movie is amazing. Like Sin City, it's a testament to how CGI can be used to create otherwise impossible settings, without being loud and obnoxious and distracting from the human performances.
300 is in no way as deep of a work as Sin City. Sin City was just as stylized and violent, but each of its main characters went through a tremendous amount of development throughout their respective stories. While 300 follows its hero Leonitis, from his childhood up to his famous last stand, it's first and foremost about the battle itself and not about giving any deep insights about his character. But it's impossible not to find the fighting badass, and in the end that's really all you need for a movie to be entertaining enough to be worth the price of admission. If you like action movies, you'll like 300.
I don't really feel the need to write a huge review for this. The story is more or less based on the historical battle of Thermopylae, but the story is basically a loose outline between huge, stylized fight scenes. Like the trailer, characters yell a lot of stuff dramatically, but the dialogue is really not all that important. Visually, the movie is amazing. Like Sin City, it's a testament to how CGI can be used to create otherwise impossible settings, without being loud and obnoxious and distracting from the human performances.
300 is in no way as deep of a work as Sin City. Sin City was just as stylized and violent, but each of its main characters went through a tremendous amount of development throughout their respective stories. While 300 follows its hero Leonitis, from his childhood up to his famous last stand, it's first and foremost about the battle itself and not about giving any deep insights about his character. But it's impossible not to find the fighting badass, and in the end that's really all you need for a movie to be entertaining enough to be worth the price of admission. If you like action movies, you'll like 300.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)