When I saw the trailer for this movie, I have to admit, I was pretty pumped. Because I know whenever I walk around, and especially when I pursue women, a bunch of dudes always c**k-block me. Gotta support the underdog.
Alright, that’s a gross simplification of this movie. Synopsis ho!
David Norris (Matt Damon) is an up-and-coming New York politician fresh off his …. unsuccessful bid for Senator. Prior to his concession speech, he meets a charming woman, Elise Sellas (Emily Blunt) who somehow snuck her way behind the scenes of the venue (and into the men’s bathroom). But she didn’t know that she also snuck her way into Norris’ heart (actually it was pretty clear that she knew that). When Norris meets her again on the bus- after Some Strange Black Guy (Some Strange Black Guy) failed to prevent him from getting on said bus- and gets her number, Norris arrives at work. However, upon entering, a bunch of Strange White Guys (bunch of Strange White Guys) are erasing memories of his co-workers. Startled, Norris attempts to flee, but is captured and told that these strange men comprise the Adjustment Bureau, who make sure that people’s lives follow the path outlined for them… even if that path doesn’t include the beautiful professional dancer Elise that Norris is in love with…
I mentioned that I wanted to see this movie when I saw the trailer. I actually saw this movie on a flight months after it was out of theaters (they said something about paying for headphones, but I had my own so uhhh the movie was free)… and uhhh… soooo…. Here’s what I thought.
THE AWESOME:
1) THE CAST
It’s a very small cast, or at least it’s one of those casts where you don’t need character names. The guys in suits? Bad guys. Except maybe the one. Handsome white guy? Hero. Check. You know, stuff like that.
No one has an insanely difficult character, but all roles are performed admirably. It’s impossible not to root for Damon’s Norris, as he literally fights fate, or the forces of fate. Although Norris’ campaign is a little too Barack-y for me (young guy runs for Senate, Presidential hopeful within a few years of win perhaps), he is very likeable, which makes it all the more frustrating that Blunt’s Sellas does not understand the forces at work that make Norris appear like an asshole. For long stretches of the movie, Sellas allows herself to be victimized again and again (and keep in mind the movie takes place over several years). It’s an interesting relationship that they develop; I imagine it’s similar to having a very loving relationship with a paranoid schizophrenic. I think the key word here is passion. Both actors utilize it throughout the romantic thriller, and it keeps what becomes a monotonous story more interesting.
Everyone working for the Bureau has a name, but honestly, who gives a sh*t, because I can’t remember any of them. I don’t even know if they mentioned the names during the actual movie. I had to look up the one’s name that I put in the synopsis. The member with the most screen time kinda looks and sounds like Jigsaw, so no matter what his name was, he’s Jigsaw to me. Anyway, I digress, these guys are mysterious obviously, but I found myself most of the time getting bored or confused with them. We’re supposed to empathize with them- hey, it’s a tough job, but somebody’s got to do it- but it’s never really clear WHY they have to do their jobs. The actors did a good job though, handling roles that were surprisingly bland as hell.
2) THE CHASE(S)
A lot of this movie is running from the Bureau, in that clichéd you-can’t-outrun-your-fate kinda deal. Some of them are short, some are long, some are interesting, some aren’t. I include them all though, because I’m sort of retroactively comparing them to the final chase, which was, in a word, sweet. Despite not seeing Inception, the final chase was something I imagine could just as easily belong in that movie. I don’t want to describe it in any detail in case you want to see the movie, but trust me, it’s worth the wait and it’s an impressive use of effects that don’t make you want to gorge your eyes out from overusage.
3) THE PREMISE
I am not going into detail- you’ve read the synopsis I hope.
THE NOT AWESOME:
1) THE STORY
I know what you’re thinking. How can you like the premise, but not the story? Aren’t they very related?
Yes, yes they are. But hear me out.
This movie was loosely based on a short story by Phillip K. Dick; people controlling a lot of sh*t and reality not being what you think was kinda his thing (Minority Report, A Scanner Darkly, and Blade Runner were all based works of his, to name a few). Why do I mention this? Because it was a SHORT story. There is a reason it was a short story. There’s simply not enough in it to sustain a novel, or in this case, a movie.
I felt for most of the movie that I was waiting for the big twist, the game-changer, the reveal, something that would immediately affect this story to the climactic chase. And, for the most part…. They’d tell you some tiny bit of news (“Hey, look at this! This doesn’t make any sense!”), and the other characters would agree (“We agree”), and I’m sitting there waiting for that information to manifest itself in advancement of the story. Like, okay, we’re getting all the puzzle pieces, now to see the big picture!
This movie, to me, felt a giant tease. There needed to be more to this story. More twists, more intrigue, more character development, just more. I think the writers forgot that this movie was feature length and just stttrrrreeetttccchhhhed everything out to fit the format.
2) THE ENDING
This pissed me right the f**k off. I was expecting a bit more. It seemed really abrupt and really predictable, and very clichéd. They don’t even try to wrap it up very nicely. I would have preferred some lesson to be learned, or some inner truth revealed. Instead, it was more of a “Alright, you win!”
What’s that? You say that there is a lesson?
I suppose. I can think of maybe three ways to put it.
(1) “Free will and determination can overcome any circumstances.”
(2) “True love will always find a way.”
(3) “If there is one thing the history of evolution has taught us it's that life will not be contained. Life breaks free, expands to new territory, and crashes through barriers, painfully, maybe even dangerously.”
I’m going to debunk each of these one by one, starting with the easiest.
(3) This was a line spoken by Jeff Goldblum in Jurassic Park.
(1) Um. No matter how bad I wanted to be a professional basketball player, no matter how bad, I am way too white, way too slow, way too short, and way too bummed-legged to do it. Especially now, since there are players two years younger than me in the League currently, and I am out of college. No amount of determination or choosing to practice will ever get me a check from the NBA. Although with this whole lockout deal coming up…
But you get my point. Some things just aren’t meant to be, and there’s nothing that we can do about it.
(2) This is really the same thing as (1), just concerning love. And therefore IT IS SIGNIFICANTLY MORE DANGEROUS.
There was this girl I crushed on for a while. I’m going to change her name to protect the innocent. Let’s call her “Smchessica Smchalba”, or SS for short.
Now, let’s say I possess this book which tells me that SS and I are meant to be together. It’s totally fate, I have "proof". Now, I know this was meant to be, so obviously the only rational decision is to stalk her for years to try to convince her that when I was watching Sin City I knew we would live a wonderful life together.
But to my surprise, she does not believe that we’re destined for each other. Imagine that.
Now, this is the danger that is inherent in this movie: according to this movie, HER OPINION DOESN’T MATTER. At no point in this story was Blunt’s character really given a conscious decision on the matter, not any one that could be trusted or that she could really think about. If it’s fate, it’s going to happen anyway, and if it’s not, don’t worry, the man’s going to make it fate. This movie justifies, or can help to justify why stalkers exists! Sorry SS, I will continue to call you and hang outside the gates of your mansion in Beverly Hills! SOMEDAY YOU'LL REALIZE!
Note: I am well aware that women stalk as well. (Leave me alone Bethany!)
The bottom line is I don’t think this movie was aware of the implications of the ending, especially when considering that (believe it or not!) women have a say in the relationships.
Here’s how I would have ended it. SPOILERSSSSS
The Bureau finds Damon and Blunt together and ready to kill them or do whatever it is they’re going to do (in the movie it sounds like a lobotomy) for defying “the plan”. Just then, the Chairman contacts the members of the AB to forget about it. The members leave, with no explanation to the couple as to why this has happened. It’s just over for them. Congrats!
Then….
(A) Back at the HQ for the AB, the Chairman reveals to the AB members that THEY TOO have a fate that they are following, and the entire movie was about how THEY have veered off course.
(B) Back at the HQ for the AB, the Chairman reveals to the AB members that the book they have been using this whole time was an experiment or otherwise NOT book of fate as they were led to believe.
Or (C) The Bureau members get in a helicopter and notice a Pterodactyl flying off into the sunset.
Any of those endings would have been better. It’s what Rod Serling would have called “the ticket”, the twist, the WTF moment. It would have made you think!!!
Sorry for all the b**ching. So did the Adjustment Bureau prove its worth to the people, or get cut from next year’s budget?
Overall, on a scale of 1-10, 1 being sh**ty and 10 being mind-blowing, The Adjustment Bureau gets a….
5.5: This isn’t a terrible movie. This isn’t a good movie. And in retrospect, trying to review this SOB, I found myself constantly thinking that it is a fairly forgettable movie. I can’t say I would recommend to film to anyone, unless you were really interested in it already (as I was). But your time and money is much better spent on other movies, like Blade Runner. I got the vibe that this movie was trying for a Matrix-style “what is reality/freedom?” thing without the martial arts or mysticism to accompany it, and it really showed. As I mentioned earlier, there’s just not enough to this movie, and while rooting for the underdog is fun (and easy to do), there’s an utter lack of imagination that becomes more and more noticeable as the film wore on. It feels like half of a film.
Friday, July 15, 2011
Monday, July 11, 2011
Awesome Reviews: X-Men: First Class
I love X-Men. I love them so much. It’s a story that I think lends itself to the big screen much better than other superheroes, save for maybe Batman. Before I dive into the review, just a few housecleaning items.
1) I did not see X-Men Origins: Wolverine, so if they are any discrepancies between that movie and First Class, I can’t comment on them. (EDIT: However, I just borrowed Wolverine from a friend, so there may be a further edit of this review)
2) When I saw the trailer for the film, my expectations, despite my experience with X3, were enormous.
3) The vast majority of my X-Men knowledge comes from the film series, the animated TV show, and random bits of information. I did not read the comics much, and I am not an expert by any means.
So without any further adieu, let’s get rolling with that synopsis, shall we?
There will be spoilers in this review, but if you’ve seen practically any of the other movies, you know all of them already.
It’s the 1960s- the cold war, John F. Kennedy, and the civil rights movement origins for mutants. (Your textbooks said it was for African-Americans, but nah it was totally mutants). Moira MacTaggert (Rose Byrne) is working for the CIA, looking for a potential traitor in the shady American political underground, who may be giving secrets to those pesky Soviets. After witnessing what can only be described as “some pretty funky shit” [citation needed], she enlists the help of Charles Xavier (James McAvoy), a telepathic mutant himself who also has the ability to bend bullet trajectories around Angelina Jolie. The government takes interest in several mutants to help their investigation, including one revenge-seeking concentration camp survivor Erik Lensherr (Michael Fassbender), with the power to manipulate metal. However, just because Xavier and Lensherr work together doesn’t mean they see eye-to-eye…
THE AWESOME:
1) Professor X and Magneto
Let me clear something up here. X1 and X2 were great films largely because of Patrick Stewart and Ian McKlellan. X3 wasn’t a total piece of shit because of Patrick Stewart and Ian McKlellan. So it’s pretty damn important that Xavier and Lensherr have a strong relationship. That’s a lot of pressure on McAvoy and Fassbender, but they completely deliver. We see their earliest memories, why they are who they are and we are SHOWN, not told, their philosophies on mankind. It just works. Fassbender in particular was phenomenal, and while I had a little trouble seeing McAvoy growing up to be Stewart, Fassbender effortlessly convinced me that McKlellan was on the way. Great performances.
2) THE STORY- SPOILER ALERT
I won’t say that the writing was awesome, but the story was. It kind of reminded me of a spy movie- appropriate for the time period, I suppose. (SPOILER ALERT) Sebastian Shaw (Kevin Bacon) manipulates everyone around him in order to set up a nuclear war scenario, and it is very interesting to see how he does it- by playing his hand very carefully.
The best compliment I feel you can give a movie is that you don’t notice how long it is. X-Men: First Class clocks in at 2 hours and 15 minutes but with this solid of a story, and pretty good (occasionally great) writing, it doesn’t feel that long AT ALL. It sucks you in from the first moments and keep it going the entire way- a solid execution of a good script.
3) THE MUTANTS
How can I put this?
Remember all the cool X-Men? Your favorites? Go ahead, think of that particular one- your absolutely favorite mutant.
You got him/her?
Alright, bad news. Overwhelming odds are, that mutant is not in this movie. Which makes it all the more impressive that they were able to attract me to the characters and make them so damn likable. More importantly, they seemed to learn from X3 that quality over quantity is better- the mutants that we encounter in this movie, we really get to know.
I can’t say any of the mutants besides Professor X and Magneto really stood out- I mean, the acting didn’t blow me away or anything (for a variety of reasons)- but the roles were competently handled and the cast had great chemistry. If I had to pick, I’d say Nicholas Hoult (Hank McCoy/Beast) probably did the best job from a supporting standpoint, but then again, the beauty of the X-Men is that there are so many interesting characters and relationships that you tend not to notice individuals (apart from their mutant powers/abilities, obviously), and you see groups instead.
4) THE EFFECTS
I am a big hater of CGI. It’s overused and makes every film look the same after a certain point. HOWEVER, this film expertly uses to CGI, particularly in its action sequences and its background. Simply put, I knew I was looking at CGI, but it wasn’t the distracting oh-my-god-the-animators-are-really-going-overboard CGI, but it actually ENHANCED THE MOVIE (imagine that).
That being said, I can appreciate the sequences- most notably the early scenes with a young Magneto that realistic stunts were performed. It seems like a rarity nowadays in superhero movies. I don’t want to say too much more and ruin the fun of these scenes, but they were pretty cool.
5) CAMEOS
I could only spot two (although IMDB said there was three). Really cool for those who really pay attention, even though one cameo is blatant.
THE NOT AWESOME:
1) MYSTIQUE
Raven/Mystique (Jennifer Lawrence) is a f**king disaster for long portions of this film. And it’s certainly not Jennifer Lawrence’s fault- it’s the writers.
Is this girl mental? I’m serious, does she have some sort of problem that prevents her from having coherent thoughts about how she sees the world and the basic interactions that humans have with one another?
I can deal with confusion- it’s only natural that a young girl (beginning of the movie) and young woman born with layers of blue prosthetics all over her body would feel awkward in a society where having dark skin makes you a second rate citizen (remember it’s the 1960s)- I get that. But there’s a difference between being confused or uneasy with your place in society, and being uncomfortable HAVING THOUGHTS.
Maybe it’s just me, but I do NOT see this character growing up to be Rebecca Romijn’s confident portrayal, particularly in X3.
2) CONTINUITY
I have heard two theories regarding the continuity of this film in relation to the others in the series:
a) it’s a direct prequel- everything is supposed to flow exactly into the other movies.
b) it’s kind of a direct prequel- it could go into the other movies and the general plot points and scenarios apply, but a lot of the specifics the audience is supposed to look the other way
So, if it’s A:
MAJOR ISSUES come up, especially with characters relationships, ESPECIALLY concerning X3. I realize this is tough to counter- how could those films have known about the plot of this one?- but it’s just really hard to swallow. Again, Mystique was really poorly handled in this regard (specifically in relation to Professor X).
If it’s B:
What the hell does that mean? Okay, so I’ll ignore some parts (from what I understand this mostly applies to the Wolverine movie details), and this spares most of the criticism of Mystique, but I just don’t get what they mean. It seems like a cop-out, just in case they want to use this as a reboot for the franchise (oh God please no).
NOW, all this being said, will this ruin this particular film?
No, the continuity only causes problems if you’ve seen the only films or are picky or both.
3) MINOR ISSUES
- the writing got a little lazy and awkward at times. This refers to dialogue, specifically a few scenes meant to showcase philosophy (see Prof X and Magneto in AWESOME). Not a killer, but noticeable. Like they were trying to give a wink to hardcore fans, but missed a bit.
- Kevin Bacon is an extremely talented actor, but there were so many times I just laughed and laughed at the prospect of his playing the main villain. I think it’s from watching Footloose and Tremors so many times. Especially Tremors. God I love Tremors.
- Even if you haven’t seen any of the other movies, or know much about the story at all, you can see almost everything coming.
- the pivotal moment of the film between the Americans and Soviets is just about the corniest sh*t I’ve ever seen in a superhero movie. This includes Spiderman 3. The dialogue is just so terrible….
- This movie is not Tremors.
Verdict time! So does this movie has Class 5 mutant awesome in it, or does it reek like Juggernaut’s jock strap?
Overall, on a scale of 1-10, 1 being sh**ty and 10 being mind-blowing, X-Men: First Class gets a…
7.5: This may be the best film in the X-Men series. There’s a lot going on this film, and it’s quite a ride. I highly recommend it to any comic book/superhero fans. I haven’t mentioned this word yet, but the movie felt HUGE. It felt EPIC, like this sh*t mattered. It’s what made X1 and X2 work, and what was missing from X3. I didn’t even mention a lot of the mutants specifically, but almost all felt necessary to the story, and some were BAD ASS. This movie deserves to be seen on the big screen. Not a perfect movie, and I don’t think it was better than Spiderman 2, but it was pretty sweet. Go see it!
1) I did not see X-Men Origins: Wolverine, so if they are any discrepancies between that movie and First Class, I can’t comment on them. (EDIT: However, I just borrowed Wolverine from a friend, so there may be a further edit of this review)
2) When I saw the trailer for the film, my expectations, despite my experience with X3, were enormous.
3) The vast majority of my X-Men knowledge comes from the film series, the animated TV show, and random bits of information. I did not read the comics much, and I am not an expert by any means.
So without any further adieu, let’s get rolling with that synopsis, shall we?
There will be spoilers in this review, but if you’ve seen practically any of the other movies, you know all of them already.
It’s the 1960s- the cold war, John F. Kennedy, and the civil rights movement origins for mutants. (Your textbooks said it was for African-Americans, but nah it was totally mutants). Moira MacTaggert (Rose Byrne) is working for the CIA, looking for a potential traitor in the shady American political underground, who may be giving secrets to those pesky Soviets. After witnessing what can only be described as “some pretty funky shit” [citation needed], she enlists the help of Charles Xavier (James McAvoy), a telepathic mutant himself who also has the ability to bend bullet trajectories around Angelina Jolie. The government takes interest in several mutants to help their investigation, including one revenge-seeking concentration camp survivor Erik Lensherr (Michael Fassbender), with the power to manipulate metal. However, just because Xavier and Lensherr work together doesn’t mean they see eye-to-eye…
THE AWESOME:
1) Professor X and Magneto
Let me clear something up here. X1 and X2 were great films largely because of Patrick Stewart and Ian McKlellan. X3 wasn’t a total piece of shit because of Patrick Stewart and Ian McKlellan. So it’s pretty damn important that Xavier and Lensherr have a strong relationship. That’s a lot of pressure on McAvoy and Fassbender, but they completely deliver. We see their earliest memories, why they are who they are and we are SHOWN, not told, their philosophies on mankind. It just works. Fassbender in particular was phenomenal, and while I had a little trouble seeing McAvoy growing up to be Stewart, Fassbender effortlessly convinced me that McKlellan was on the way. Great performances.
2) THE STORY- SPOILER ALERT
I won’t say that the writing was awesome, but the story was. It kind of reminded me of a spy movie- appropriate for the time period, I suppose. (SPOILER ALERT) Sebastian Shaw (Kevin Bacon) manipulates everyone around him in order to set up a nuclear war scenario, and it is very interesting to see how he does it- by playing his hand very carefully.
The best compliment I feel you can give a movie is that you don’t notice how long it is. X-Men: First Class clocks in at 2 hours and 15 minutes but with this solid of a story, and pretty good (occasionally great) writing, it doesn’t feel that long AT ALL. It sucks you in from the first moments and keep it going the entire way- a solid execution of a good script.
3) THE MUTANTS
How can I put this?
Remember all the cool X-Men? Your favorites? Go ahead, think of that particular one- your absolutely favorite mutant.
You got him/her?
Alright, bad news. Overwhelming odds are, that mutant is not in this movie. Which makes it all the more impressive that they were able to attract me to the characters and make them so damn likable. More importantly, they seemed to learn from X3 that quality over quantity is better- the mutants that we encounter in this movie, we really get to know.
I can’t say any of the mutants besides Professor X and Magneto really stood out- I mean, the acting didn’t blow me away or anything (for a variety of reasons)- but the roles were competently handled and the cast had great chemistry. If I had to pick, I’d say Nicholas Hoult (Hank McCoy/Beast) probably did the best job from a supporting standpoint, but then again, the beauty of the X-Men is that there are so many interesting characters and relationships that you tend not to notice individuals (apart from their mutant powers/abilities, obviously), and you see groups instead.
4) THE EFFECTS
I am a big hater of CGI. It’s overused and makes every film look the same after a certain point. HOWEVER, this film expertly uses to CGI, particularly in its action sequences and its background. Simply put, I knew I was looking at CGI, but it wasn’t the distracting oh-my-god-the-animators-are-really-going-overboard CGI, but it actually ENHANCED THE MOVIE (imagine that).
That being said, I can appreciate the sequences- most notably the early scenes with a young Magneto that realistic stunts were performed. It seems like a rarity nowadays in superhero movies. I don’t want to say too much more and ruin the fun of these scenes, but they were pretty cool.
5) CAMEOS
I could only spot two (although IMDB said there was three). Really cool for those who really pay attention, even though one cameo is blatant.
THE NOT AWESOME:
1) MYSTIQUE
Raven/Mystique (Jennifer Lawrence) is a f**king disaster for long portions of this film. And it’s certainly not Jennifer Lawrence’s fault- it’s the writers.
Is this girl mental? I’m serious, does she have some sort of problem that prevents her from having coherent thoughts about how she sees the world and the basic interactions that humans have with one another?
I can deal with confusion- it’s only natural that a young girl (beginning of the movie) and young woman born with layers of blue prosthetics all over her body would feel awkward in a society where having dark skin makes you a second rate citizen (remember it’s the 1960s)- I get that. But there’s a difference between being confused or uneasy with your place in society, and being uncomfortable HAVING THOUGHTS.
Maybe it’s just me, but I do NOT see this character growing up to be Rebecca Romijn’s confident portrayal, particularly in X3.
2) CONTINUITY
I have heard two theories regarding the continuity of this film in relation to the others in the series:
a) it’s a direct prequel- everything is supposed to flow exactly into the other movies.
b) it’s kind of a direct prequel- it could go into the other movies and the general plot points and scenarios apply, but a lot of the specifics the audience is supposed to look the other way
So, if it’s A:
MAJOR ISSUES come up, especially with characters relationships, ESPECIALLY concerning X3. I realize this is tough to counter- how could those films have known about the plot of this one?- but it’s just really hard to swallow. Again, Mystique was really poorly handled in this regard (specifically in relation to Professor X).
If it’s B:
What the hell does that mean? Okay, so I’ll ignore some parts (from what I understand this mostly applies to the Wolverine movie details), and this spares most of the criticism of Mystique, but I just don’t get what they mean. It seems like a cop-out, just in case they want to use this as a reboot for the franchise (oh God please no).
NOW, all this being said, will this ruin this particular film?
No, the continuity only causes problems if you’ve seen the only films or are picky or both.
3) MINOR ISSUES
- the writing got a little lazy and awkward at times. This refers to dialogue, specifically a few scenes meant to showcase philosophy (see Prof X and Magneto in AWESOME). Not a killer, but noticeable. Like they were trying to give a wink to hardcore fans, but missed a bit.
- Kevin Bacon is an extremely talented actor, but there were so many times I just laughed and laughed at the prospect of his playing the main villain. I think it’s from watching Footloose and Tremors so many times. Especially Tremors. God I love Tremors.
- Even if you haven’t seen any of the other movies, or know much about the story at all, you can see almost everything coming.
- the pivotal moment of the film between the Americans and Soviets is just about the corniest sh*t I’ve ever seen in a superhero movie. This includes Spiderman 3. The dialogue is just so terrible….
- This movie is not Tremors.
Verdict time! So does this movie has Class 5 mutant awesome in it, or does it reek like Juggernaut’s jock strap?
Overall, on a scale of 1-10, 1 being sh**ty and 10 being mind-blowing, X-Men: First Class gets a…
7.5: This may be the best film in the X-Men series. There’s a lot going on this film, and it’s quite a ride. I highly recommend it to any comic book/superhero fans. I haven’t mentioned this word yet, but the movie felt HUGE. It felt EPIC, like this sh*t mattered. It’s what made X1 and X2 work, and what was missing from X3. I didn’t even mention a lot of the mutants specifically, but almost all felt necessary to the story, and some were BAD ASS. This movie deserves to be seen on the big screen. Not a perfect movie, and I don’t think it was better than Spiderman 2, but it was pretty sweet. Go see it!
Saturday, June 25, 2011
Awesome Reviews: Super 8
Awesome Reviews: Super 8
I really like J.J. Abrams. While I’ve never seen a single episode of Alias, I’m a huge Lost fan, and I liked a few of his past films, notably Cloverfield (it was good) and Star Trek (which was really good).
I avoided reviews, synopses, whatever I could find on this movie. I wanted to know NOTHING about this film before I saw, to keep an open mind and to prevent spoilers. So, to my great surprise and disappointment, this movie is not a documentary about the hotel chain.
Before I actually get to the review, a brief warning.
Now, when I do my reviews, I usually have a brief introduction on the premise of the movie. This will be no exception. If you’re like me, skip the next paragraph and go straight to the AWESOME section- actually, you’re better off skipping the review. If you can deal with some minor spoilers (or are not planning on catching the flick), read on! Any major spoilers will be marked by SPOILER- I’m going to try and avoid them as much as possible.
“Super 8” revolves around a group of middle school students in a suburban Ohio town who are making a movie during the summer of 1979. During a shoot, an accident occurs which ushers in military personnel, whose presence alert the rest of the town to something out-of-the-ordinary going on. As disturbances increase and fear and paranoia take charge of Lillian, Ohio, these students and friends find themselves at the center of the mystery- and this one has a much deeper plot than in their home movie.
Let’s hit the lists!
AWESOME:
1) THE SCREENPLAY
This is, simply, a well-written film. You find yourself rooting for virtually every resident in this town (more on them in a moment), and like many films of this kind the story really shines in its lack of adult presence through large chunks of the movie.
In a word, this movie is TENSE. After the accident, I spent the rest of the film waiting for something bad to happen- and this got even worse when I knew when it was actually going to happen. The town slowly descends into ever-increasing darkness, in the absence of manifested light (the power goes on and off repeatedly with little warning), in the absence of knowledge, and the increase of suspicion (similar to The Twilight Zone’s The Monsters are Due on Maple Street- another creepy screenplay set in an idyllic town). Not content to be simply another sci-fi film, the story also takes time to really delve into the inner workings of the town and its inhabitants, particularly Jackson Lamb (Kyle Chandler), the sheriff who the town turns to for answers.
The movie takes its time revealing important plot points- I found myself wondering when (after the accident) we would finally get a clue as to what the hell was going on- but (especially if you are a fan of Lost) you enjoy the ride. Clever, funny, suspenseful, scary (I was shocked near the end of the film at how graphic- but not gory- it became), and nostalgic, this a fantastically well-structured script- even if the ending/reveal is somewhat predictable.
2) THE ACCIDENT (minor spoilers ahead!)
The accident I keep referring is to a train derailment, the best crash I have seen on film since Final Destination 2’s opening highway crash. It might even be better. It is impossibly difficult to describe with any accuracy- it was a mind-blowing, disorienting, sensational clusterf*ck of an accident, especially since the audience and the main character Joe Lamb (Joel Courtney) could see it coming, while many of the other characters are blissfully unaware. If you are a fan of film- any film- if you ever saw an action movie you liked- if you’re not blind- you owe it to yourself to watch this scene.
If you are like me, and knew little or nothing to me about this movie before seeing it, you have no idea what will happen to these kids. At one point, I was convinced every last one of them could possibly be killed right here- which would make one upsetting movie- but sh*t what a twist that would be!
3) THE CAST
Now there certainly are main characters in the film, but the way that this movie is put together it really feels like an ensemble cast. I will admit that by the end of the movie, I still did not know many of the character’s names- I was content enough just to learn faces and relationships, because it seems like there are that many important people in this movie.
This is excellently cast, and especially as somewhat of a film/theater/acting geek myself I instantly related to the kids and the small-town mindset of Lillian. I was born in 1988- 9 years AFTER this movie takes place- yet somehow I found myself being insanely nostalgic throughout the first half of the movie, when things are “slow” (I use that term loosely). This movie makes you feel like a kid again, and what was important to you at 12 or 13 years old.
There were no weak links in the cast, but if you put a gun to my head and force me to pick the best performance, I’d probably go with Elle Fanning (yes, Dakota Fanning’s little sister who I WISH SO BAD was named Carolina Fanning) as her character is probably the most complex, alongside Jackson Lamb. Let me put it to you this way- I can’t recall a film where Dakota Fanning made me go “Holy crap, she’s amazing”. No such issue with Elle.
It’s tough to pick though, because like when I was growing up, your friends had a group mentality about themselves- and the actors work so well with each other with such a chemistry that they all deserve some serious props.
4) THE SETTING/COSTUMING
Not a whole lot of specifics I want to get into here, but this was a town I wouldn’t mind visiting. Costuming was fantastic, and like with other “era” pieces, the attention to detail was much appreciated.
5) THE MOVIE
I mean the kids’ movie. Hilarious. ESPECIALLY if you’ve ever tried to make a movie with your friends.
THE NOT AWESOME: (potential for MAJOR SPOILERS)
1) THE CLOVERFIELD EFFECT
SPOILER: Turn back now if you want to know NOTHING about the plot.
When the alien is finally revealed, I was disappointed to its similarity to the Cloverfield monster, both in appearance (albeit wayyyyyy smaller) and how it was filmed. I know exactly WHY Abrams chose to show it in this manner at the end of the movie, but honestly I was disappointed. I don’t need to see it in that detail.
2) REWATCH VALUE
Don’t get me wrong- there is some rewatch value- but I feel like that suspense on the first go around would be practically nill on second viewing. This is somewhat related to the Cloverfield Effect. I don’t want to have ALL the answers!
3) PREDICTABILITY (MAJOR SPOILER)
Didn’t they make this movie already? I didn’t see it, but this is one slight deviation from a District 9 kind of deal. I don’t know, I liked the movie A LOT but I was kind of disappointed with that. Maybe it’s just me nitpicking.
4) LENGTH
Just a tad under 2 hours, it could have been a bit shorter. There was a certain joy in the slow discovery, but it was a little annoying that minor details were kept from us at parts of the movie solely for inconvenience.
5) INCONSISTENT CHARACTER TRAITS
This applies mainly to the adults of the film. The major players among them all seem to a social disability of some kind since their motives and dispositions seem to change for plot convenience alone. And even in the midst of this emergency, I find it a little hard to believe that their emotional swings would be that broad. It doesn’t ruin the movie by any means, but it reminded me that I was watching a film, if that makes any sense. Sucked me out of the movie at times.
6) JUMP SCARES
After the third one, this really started to piss me off. You’re better than this, Abrams!
ALRIGHT THIS WAS WAYYY LONGER THAN I INTENDED IT TO BE.
I think I was trying to compensate for the lack of detail/spoilers. So what’s the verdict?
Overall, on a scale of 1-10, 1 being shitty and 10 being mind-blowing, Super 8 gets a…
Super 8: (HAHA GET IT) I wanted to give this movie a higher score, but 8 really is appropriate. This is a really good movie, with a lot of Spielberg motifs, an interesting if slightly recycled plot, excellently told. Movies like this is why I go to the cinema. Acted well, directed well, Super 8 takes you back to a seemingly more innocent time and builds suspense as well as any movie I’ve seen in years. Where it really shines though, is its nostalgic factor, both for cinephiles and anyone who looks back on their childhood and smiles.
I really like J.J. Abrams. While I’ve never seen a single episode of Alias, I’m a huge Lost fan, and I liked a few of his past films, notably Cloverfield (it was good) and Star Trek (which was really good).
I avoided reviews, synopses, whatever I could find on this movie. I wanted to know NOTHING about this film before I saw, to keep an open mind and to prevent spoilers. So, to my great surprise and disappointment, this movie is not a documentary about the hotel chain.
Before I actually get to the review, a brief warning.
Now, when I do my reviews, I usually have a brief introduction on the premise of the movie. This will be no exception. If you’re like me, skip the next paragraph and go straight to the AWESOME section- actually, you’re better off skipping the review. If you can deal with some minor spoilers (or are not planning on catching the flick), read on! Any major spoilers will be marked by SPOILER- I’m going to try and avoid them as much as possible.
“Super 8” revolves around a group of middle school students in a suburban Ohio town who are making a movie during the summer of 1979. During a shoot, an accident occurs which ushers in military personnel, whose presence alert the rest of the town to something out-of-the-ordinary going on. As disturbances increase and fear and paranoia take charge of Lillian, Ohio, these students and friends find themselves at the center of the mystery- and this one has a much deeper plot than in their home movie.
Let’s hit the lists!
AWESOME:
1) THE SCREENPLAY
This is, simply, a well-written film. You find yourself rooting for virtually every resident in this town (more on them in a moment), and like many films of this kind the story really shines in its lack of adult presence through large chunks of the movie.
In a word, this movie is TENSE. After the accident, I spent the rest of the film waiting for something bad to happen- and this got even worse when I knew when it was actually going to happen. The town slowly descends into ever-increasing darkness, in the absence of manifested light (the power goes on and off repeatedly with little warning), in the absence of knowledge, and the increase of suspicion (similar to The Twilight Zone’s The Monsters are Due on Maple Street- another creepy screenplay set in an idyllic town). Not content to be simply another sci-fi film, the story also takes time to really delve into the inner workings of the town and its inhabitants, particularly Jackson Lamb (Kyle Chandler), the sheriff who the town turns to for answers.
The movie takes its time revealing important plot points- I found myself wondering when (after the accident) we would finally get a clue as to what the hell was going on- but (especially if you are a fan of Lost) you enjoy the ride. Clever, funny, suspenseful, scary (I was shocked near the end of the film at how graphic- but not gory- it became), and nostalgic, this a fantastically well-structured script- even if the ending/reveal is somewhat predictable.
2) THE ACCIDENT (minor spoilers ahead!)
The accident I keep referring is to a train derailment, the best crash I have seen on film since Final Destination 2’s opening highway crash. It might even be better. It is impossibly difficult to describe with any accuracy- it was a mind-blowing, disorienting, sensational clusterf*ck of an accident, especially since the audience and the main character Joe Lamb (Joel Courtney) could see it coming, while many of the other characters are blissfully unaware. If you are a fan of film- any film- if you ever saw an action movie you liked- if you’re not blind- you owe it to yourself to watch this scene.
If you are like me, and knew little or nothing to me about this movie before seeing it, you have no idea what will happen to these kids. At one point, I was convinced every last one of them could possibly be killed right here- which would make one upsetting movie- but sh*t what a twist that would be!
3) THE CAST
Now there certainly are main characters in the film, but the way that this movie is put together it really feels like an ensemble cast. I will admit that by the end of the movie, I still did not know many of the character’s names- I was content enough just to learn faces and relationships, because it seems like there are that many important people in this movie.
This is excellently cast, and especially as somewhat of a film/theater/acting geek myself I instantly related to the kids and the small-town mindset of Lillian. I was born in 1988- 9 years AFTER this movie takes place- yet somehow I found myself being insanely nostalgic throughout the first half of the movie, when things are “slow” (I use that term loosely). This movie makes you feel like a kid again, and what was important to you at 12 or 13 years old.
There were no weak links in the cast, but if you put a gun to my head and force me to pick the best performance, I’d probably go with Elle Fanning (yes, Dakota Fanning’s little sister who I WISH SO BAD was named Carolina Fanning) as her character is probably the most complex, alongside Jackson Lamb. Let me put it to you this way- I can’t recall a film where Dakota Fanning made me go “Holy crap, she’s amazing”. No such issue with Elle.
It’s tough to pick though, because like when I was growing up, your friends had a group mentality about themselves- and the actors work so well with each other with such a chemistry that they all deserve some serious props.
4) THE SETTING/COSTUMING
Not a whole lot of specifics I want to get into here, but this was a town I wouldn’t mind visiting. Costuming was fantastic, and like with other “era” pieces, the attention to detail was much appreciated.
5) THE MOVIE
I mean the kids’ movie. Hilarious. ESPECIALLY if you’ve ever tried to make a movie with your friends.
THE NOT AWESOME: (potential for MAJOR SPOILERS)
1) THE CLOVERFIELD EFFECT
SPOILER: Turn back now if you want to know NOTHING about the plot.
When the alien is finally revealed, I was disappointed to its similarity to the Cloverfield monster, both in appearance (albeit wayyyyyy smaller) and how it was filmed. I know exactly WHY Abrams chose to show it in this manner at the end of the movie, but honestly I was disappointed. I don’t need to see it in that detail.
2) REWATCH VALUE
Don’t get me wrong- there is some rewatch value- but I feel like that suspense on the first go around would be practically nill on second viewing. This is somewhat related to the Cloverfield Effect. I don’t want to have ALL the answers!
3) PREDICTABILITY (MAJOR SPOILER)
Didn’t they make this movie already? I didn’t see it, but this is one slight deviation from a District 9 kind of deal. I don’t know, I liked the movie A LOT but I was kind of disappointed with that. Maybe it’s just me nitpicking.
4) LENGTH
Just a tad under 2 hours, it could have been a bit shorter. There was a certain joy in the slow discovery, but it was a little annoying that minor details were kept from us at parts of the movie solely for inconvenience.
5) INCONSISTENT CHARACTER TRAITS
This applies mainly to the adults of the film. The major players among them all seem to a social disability of some kind since their motives and dispositions seem to change for plot convenience alone. And even in the midst of this emergency, I find it a little hard to believe that their emotional swings would be that broad. It doesn’t ruin the movie by any means, but it reminded me that I was watching a film, if that makes any sense. Sucked me out of the movie at times.
6) JUMP SCARES
After the third one, this really started to piss me off. You’re better than this, Abrams!
ALRIGHT THIS WAS WAYYY LONGER THAN I INTENDED IT TO BE.
I think I was trying to compensate for the lack of detail/spoilers. So what’s the verdict?
Overall, on a scale of 1-10, 1 being shitty and 10 being mind-blowing, Super 8 gets a…
Super 8: (HAHA GET IT) I wanted to give this movie a higher score, but 8 really is appropriate. This is a really good movie, with a lot of Spielberg motifs, an interesting if slightly recycled plot, excellently told. Movies like this is why I go to the cinema. Acted well, directed well, Super 8 takes you back to a seemingly more innocent time and builds suspense as well as any movie I’ve seen in years. Where it really shines though, is its nostalgic factor, both for cinephiles and anyone who looks back on their childhood and smiles.
Sunday, May 15, 2011
Special Not Awesome: A Brief List of Why New "Family Guy" Sucks
IF THERE ARE ANY SPECIFIC EPISODES OF FAMILY GUY THAT YOU WOULD LIKE ME TO REVIEW, I AM TAKING SUGGESTIONS- LEAVE A COMMENT WITH THE EPISODE TITLE.
These are in no particular order.
1) It fails to make a point, instead just offending for the sake of offending.
There’s this kid I went to school with who made fun of everyone. Literally everyone. And while he was popular for a while- people thought he was funny- today, he doesn’t have any friends, because we all kind of realized oh hey, he’s a dick. Why do I want to hang out with him?
Listen, I’m all for offensive jokes- to a degree- and I believe that virtually everything has an element of humor in it. But there is a big difference in being a parody or satire of a situation, group of people, etc., and blatantly mocking it. Satire, when done well, pokes fun of society and can occasionally be hurtful but once you start losing the point of WHY you are making fun of society, you’ve gone from satire to straight-up asshole. And completely mean-spirited assholes aren’t funny- at least, not for very long.
2) The characters get less interesting by the minute.
Quick! Name a Chris-based episode!
Got one yet?
How about now?
Shit…. Uhh…
Where the hell did Chris go?
I remember a time in FG’s history where Chris and Meg were actual members of the family. You know, like ummm…. They mattered. Now, they’re just filler like most of the recent content of the show.
What’s worse, when Meg is around, she’s ignored.
So I ask you, what is the point of the character?
Kill her off. I’m serious. You don’t use her much, you’ve run the character into hate-this-character-only wall where she can’t carry a story on her own anymore, just kill her.
Chris gets a little more play, but he doesn’t need to be killed.
Yet.
I’m really annoyed that the show for the most part has devolved into the Seth MacFarlane voiced characters and Lois.
You know what? I freaking hate Brian, Stewie, and Peter. There, I said it.
With the possible exception of Brian, NONE of them have any interesting to offer on a regular basis.
This wasn’t always the case, of course, but as they say variety is the spice of life. And there is too much of a good thing.
Lois is the only real member of the family that is interesting, and that’s because she’s the only character that has a persona more developed that “the idiot”, “the disliked daughter”, etc. She’s the only one built for the long term… and it’s more and more apparent the longer the show goes on.
3) 5 minute cut-away gags are not funny.
Let’s say I’m making a short film. A comedy. It stars Blando, and Dull-ella as the male and female characters in an awkward situation. Maybe Dull-ella catches Blando … in the middle of something private that Blando was doing. Alone. I don’t know. Make up a scenario.
So Blando is caught off-guard, and no doubt Dull-ella is shocked.
WOULDN’T IT BE INTERESTING TO SEE THEIR REACTIONS? HOW THEY REMEDY THE SITUATION? I DON’T KNOW ANYTHING ALONG THOSE LINES?!
Man, you know, it sure would be funny to see that- so many avenues the writer can take after THAT premise, I’m sure.
Now, remember I am making this short film. And I haven’t made any other films before.
The judges at a comedy film competition are interested- what’s going to happen?
That’s why Blando looks directly at the screen and goes “Hey! Look at this!”
The scene immediately drops and in its stead Twisted Sisters music video for “We’re Not Gonna Take It” plays for the next four minutes uninterrupted.
The judges are confused. One bangs his head off the table repeatedly. The enthralled expressions on their faces give way to contempt as this non-sequitor is forced into their skulls.
When the video finally ends, Blando and Dull-ella are seated at a table. Dull-ella goes “Boy that was awkward yesterday.”
Blando: “Yes, it was.”
FIN.
Here’s the written response I would have received from the judges.
“F-Minus for Fucktard
What the shit was that? You are one of the laziest writers I have ever seen. Why did you think that was funny? What happened between your characters? All I remember from your film is Dee Snider in drag, and that stopped being funny 25 years ago! Do the human race a favor and never attempt to make a film again. We award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.”
Here’s the kicker. I made no money making that film.
Seth MacFarlane has more money that he could possibly spend and this is what he gives us every third episode of FG.
I don’t know how many thousands of dollars he makes per episode, but he doesn’t even finish it. He leaves 5 minutes for clips he can cheaply obtain and stick in there, and then I imagine he wipes his ass with a wad of bills while twirling his mustache as he leaves his office at 11:30 a.m. on a Friday with 2/3 of an episode done.
4) They’ve clearly run out of material….
The danger of using cut-away gags as often as they do (approximately 25 times per 22 minute episode) is that these are not a renewable resource.
I told myself I wouldn’t do this, but I’m going to compare FG to a much better-written show- South Park. Specifically the Kenny dying gag.
I think in the first 80 episodes of South Park, Kenny died 79 times or some crazy bullshit like that (he lived in a Christmas episode I believe).
Do you what they did after that?
THEY SAID ENOUGH IS FUCKING ENOUGH AND KNOCKED THAT SHIT OFF.
The well runs dry man, it’s not funny anymore. Or at least not nearly as funny.
The only other times Kenny has died since then is when it directly relates to the story they are currently telling- i.e. it is a plot device. See: Armies of Heaven vs. Armies of Hell and Coon and Friends/BP Disaster episodes.
Since Family Guy decided to do away with plot devices, this means they use cut-away gags with no rhyme or reason and do just whatever the hell they please.
I honestly cannot remember the last time a FG cut-away had me laugh. Like I mean, really laugh, like miss the next minute of the episode laugh- a regular occurrence when they had a writing staff still working for the show.
5) … because they rely on meta-humor WAYYYYY too much.
Although, I would take all the shitty cut-aways they have to give me if they would STOP using meta. Holy shit, is it annoying, and again, it relates to the fact that the writers have just threw their hands in the air, perhaps as if they no longer care, took their fat paychecks, AND STOPPED TRYING.
It’s pure laziness, and we reward it every time we watch a new episode.
These are the ones that piss me off the most:
“Oh we don’t have a clip? I thought we’d have a clip.”
“Hello, I’m Peter Griffin. We at Family Guy have decided not to air this gag as it is offensive. Oh, what the hell, let’s air it anyway.”
Any reference to the Cleveland Show or American Dad longer than 3 seconds.
Particularly that second one, because it took a minute to explain why they weren’t going to show it (not funny) followed by the actual gag (not funny). LAZINESS.
6) Attitude
I think most of my problems all stem from this one.
Remember the good ol’ days of Family Guy. Back when they didn’t have the money they do now. Back when they had to work for it. Do you remember the tone of the show?
It was more innocent (see- better satire), had more developed and interesting characters, the gags were fresh, more relevant, and didn’t crush the plots of the respective episodes. And the show and its writers didn’t walk around like they owned the joint.
The show was more inviting. It’s like that underground band that you hold a special connection with because, like, they’re YOUR band. Nobody else knows them.
Now, when your band hits it big time and other people start listening to it, does it ruin the relationship you have with it?
A little bit, yes, but if the band is truly good, then you’ll keep listening and you’ll keep enjoying them.
Now when Family Guy was revived, it was still pretty good. And suddenly, everyone was on board! FG was HUGE!!!
But FG knew it was huge. And every time a new episode airs, FG goes “yeah, that’s fucking right we’re fucking FG ya diggg? We don’t give a fuck what you think, you’re gonna laugh anyway.”
Instead of being that underground band, FG is now that ultra-rich, ultra-famous movie star that got pulled over for speeding- and we’re the cop.
We pull over FG for speeding -- i.e. we tell FG that it’s not funny anymore, they’ve lost sight of what they’re about—and FG replies, “Don’t you know who I am? I’m God damn Family Guy!” While most cops wouldn’t accept that excuse, we take it on a weekly basis.
We let them get away with it.
So I’m going to take a stand. I shall add my voice to the millions of you- in watch-dog groups, fans of good animation, fans of good comedy- that will call for Family Guy’s cancellation.
Put it- and us- out of our misery.
And for those of you who need to watch an animated program every week- check out Bob’s Burgers. I watch it every chance I get- it’s a damn good show with relatable, quirky characters, and developed storylines.
Want to convince me that FG deserves another shot? List an episode you want me to review.
For those of you that aren't sure what I consider "new" FG--- Season 7 for me is when it really went downhill. But I'll review any episode you want, and that I can get my hands on.
starckie out.
These are in no particular order.
1) It fails to make a point, instead just offending for the sake of offending.
There’s this kid I went to school with who made fun of everyone. Literally everyone. And while he was popular for a while- people thought he was funny- today, he doesn’t have any friends, because we all kind of realized oh hey, he’s a dick. Why do I want to hang out with him?
Listen, I’m all for offensive jokes- to a degree- and I believe that virtually everything has an element of humor in it. But there is a big difference in being a parody or satire of a situation, group of people, etc., and blatantly mocking it. Satire, when done well, pokes fun of society and can occasionally be hurtful but once you start losing the point of WHY you are making fun of society, you’ve gone from satire to straight-up asshole. And completely mean-spirited assholes aren’t funny- at least, not for very long.
2) The characters get less interesting by the minute.
Quick! Name a Chris-based episode!
Got one yet?
How about now?
Shit…. Uhh…
Where the hell did Chris go?
I remember a time in FG’s history where Chris and Meg were actual members of the family. You know, like ummm…. They mattered. Now, they’re just filler like most of the recent content of the show.
What’s worse, when Meg is around, she’s ignored.
So I ask you, what is the point of the character?
Kill her off. I’m serious. You don’t use her much, you’ve run the character into hate-this-character-only wall where she can’t carry a story on her own anymore, just kill her.
Chris gets a little more play, but he doesn’t need to be killed.
Yet.
I’m really annoyed that the show for the most part has devolved into the Seth MacFarlane voiced characters and Lois.
You know what? I freaking hate Brian, Stewie, and Peter. There, I said it.
With the possible exception of Brian, NONE of them have any interesting to offer on a regular basis.
This wasn’t always the case, of course, but as they say variety is the spice of life. And there is too much of a good thing.
Lois is the only real member of the family that is interesting, and that’s because she’s the only character that has a persona more developed that “the idiot”, “the disliked daughter”, etc. She’s the only one built for the long term… and it’s more and more apparent the longer the show goes on.
3) 5 minute cut-away gags are not funny.
Let’s say I’m making a short film. A comedy. It stars Blando, and Dull-ella as the male and female characters in an awkward situation. Maybe Dull-ella catches Blando … in the middle of something private that Blando was doing. Alone. I don’t know. Make up a scenario.
So Blando is caught off-guard, and no doubt Dull-ella is shocked.
WOULDN’T IT BE INTERESTING TO SEE THEIR REACTIONS? HOW THEY REMEDY THE SITUATION? I DON’T KNOW ANYTHING ALONG THOSE LINES?!
Man, you know, it sure would be funny to see that- so many avenues the writer can take after THAT premise, I’m sure.
Now, remember I am making this short film. And I haven’t made any other films before.
The judges at a comedy film competition are interested- what’s going to happen?
That’s why Blando looks directly at the screen and goes “Hey! Look at this!”
The scene immediately drops and in its stead Twisted Sisters music video for “We’re Not Gonna Take It” plays for the next four minutes uninterrupted.
The judges are confused. One bangs his head off the table repeatedly. The enthralled expressions on their faces give way to contempt as this non-sequitor is forced into their skulls.
When the video finally ends, Blando and Dull-ella are seated at a table. Dull-ella goes “Boy that was awkward yesterday.”
Blando: “Yes, it was.”
FIN.
Here’s the written response I would have received from the judges.
“F-Minus for Fucktard
What the shit was that? You are one of the laziest writers I have ever seen. Why did you think that was funny? What happened between your characters? All I remember from your film is Dee Snider in drag, and that stopped being funny 25 years ago! Do the human race a favor and never attempt to make a film again. We award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.”
Here’s the kicker. I made no money making that film.
Seth MacFarlane has more money that he could possibly spend and this is what he gives us every third episode of FG.
I don’t know how many thousands of dollars he makes per episode, but he doesn’t even finish it. He leaves 5 minutes for clips he can cheaply obtain and stick in there, and then I imagine he wipes his ass with a wad of bills while twirling his mustache as he leaves his office at 11:30 a.m. on a Friday with 2/3 of an episode done.
4) They’ve clearly run out of material….
The danger of using cut-away gags as often as they do (approximately 25 times per 22 minute episode) is that these are not a renewable resource.
I told myself I wouldn’t do this, but I’m going to compare FG to a much better-written show- South Park. Specifically the Kenny dying gag.
I think in the first 80 episodes of South Park, Kenny died 79 times or some crazy bullshit like that (he lived in a Christmas episode I believe).
Do you what they did after that?
THEY SAID ENOUGH IS FUCKING ENOUGH AND KNOCKED THAT SHIT OFF.
The well runs dry man, it’s not funny anymore. Or at least not nearly as funny.
The only other times Kenny has died since then is when it directly relates to the story they are currently telling- i.e. it is a plot device. See: Armies of Heaven vs. Armies of Hell and Coon and Friends/BP Disaster episodes.
Since Family Guy decided to do away with plot devices, this means they use cut-away gags with no rhyme or reason and do just whatever the hell they please.
I honestly cannot remember the last time a FG cut-away had me laugh. Like I mean, really laugh, like miss the next minute of the episode laugh- a regular occurrence when they had a writing staff still working for the show.
5) … because they rely on meta-humor WAYYYYY too much.
Although, I would take all the shitty cut-aways they have to give me if they would STOP using meta. Holy shit, is it annoying, and again, it relates to the fact that the writers have just threw their hands in the air, perhaps as if they no longer care, took their fat paychecks, AND STOPPED TRYING.
It’s pure laziness, and we reward it every time we watch a new episode.
These are the ones that piss me off the most:
“Oh we don’t have a clip? I thought we’d have a clip.”
“Hello, I’m Peter Griffin. We at Family Guy have decided not to air this gag as it is offensive. Oh, what the hell, let’s air it anyway.”
Any reference to the Cleveland Show or American Dad longer than 3 seconds.
Particularly that second one, because it took a minute to explain why they weren’t going to show it (not funny) followed by the actual gag (not funny). LAZINESS.
6) Attitude
I think most of my problems all stem from this one.
Remember the good ol’ days of Family Guy. Back when they didn’t have the money they do now. Back when they had to work for it. Do you remember the tone of the show?
It was more innocent (see- better satire), had more developed and interesting characters, the gags were fresh, more relevant, and didn’t crush the plots of the respective episodes. And the show and its writers didn’t walk around like they owned the joint.
The show was more inviting. It’s like that underground band that you hold a special connection with because, like, they’re YOUR band. Nobody else knows them.
Now, when your band hits it big time and other people start listening to it, does it ruin the relationship you have with it?
A little bit, yes, but if the band is truly good, then you’ll keep listening and you’ll keep enjoying them.
Now when Family Guy was revived, it was still pretty good. And suddenly, everyone was on board! FG was HUGE!!!
But FG knew it was huge. And every time a new episode airs, FG goes “yeah, that’s fucking right we’re fucking FG ya diggg? We don’t give a fuck what you think, you’re gonna laugh anyway.”
Instead of being that underground band, FG is now that ultra-rich, ultra-famous movie star that got pulled over for speeding- and we’re the cop.
We pull over FG for speeding -- i.e. we tell FG that it’s not funny anymore, they’ve lost sight of what they’re about—and FG replies, “Don’t you know who I am? I’m God damn Family Guy!” While most cops wouldn’t accept that excuse, we take it on a weekly basis.
We let them get away with it.
So I’m going to take a stand. I shall add my voice to the millions of you- in watch-dog groups, fans of good animation, fans of good comedy- that will call for Family Guy’s cancellation.
Put it- and us- out of our misery.
And for those of you who need to watch an animated program every week- check out Bob’s Burgers. I watch it every chance I get- it’s a damn good show with relatable, quirky characters, and developed storylines.
Want to convince me that FG deserves another shot? List an episode you want me to review.
For those of you that aren't sure what I consider "new" FG--- Season 7 for me is when it really went downhill. But I'll review any episode you want, and that I can get my hands on.
starckie out.
Tuesday, February 1, 2011
5 Least Awesome Songs of 2010 I’m Embarrassed to Admit I Like
My first Not Awesome ever was a Miley Cyrus song. But that doesn’t mean I hate all current songs.
As mentioned several times before, I don’t have an ipod.
I don’t listen to pop radio if I can help it. Especially since an alt rock station was added to my area in September 2010.
I hate people for making these songs popular.
And I think I hate myself more for liking these- well, some of these. Others I’m just plain ashamed that I like them. Only a few things at work here- let’s see the rules!
1) The song must have INITIALLY CHARTED in the HOT 100 in 2010.
2) The song must have been in the top 20 at some point.
3) I must be embarrassed by them.
These songs are ranked by only three things, the combination of how much I actually like them, how terrible the song actually is, and the amount of personal disappointment I hold from liking them. Each of those is on a scale from 1-5, 5 being the highest rating.
5) “Mine” (Taylor Swift)
I debated this one for a while, because for some reason, this seems to be the one artist right now that it’s okay for anyone to like. So why I am embarrassed by it?
Well, the song isn’t that bad. It’s catchy. And unlike the other songs on the list, there’s some pretty quality music and lyrical content.
But I am ashamed.
BECAUSE HOW MANY TIMES IS TAYLOR SWIFT GOING TO RELEASE THE SAME SONG WITH A DIFFERENT NAME?
God, it reminds me of listening to polka songs. Sure when you’re playing them they’re different (I assume) but to the common listener (me) they’re all the same.
One of these days I will write and record a Taylor Swift song. You heard me. I, starckie, a twentysomething male, will WRITE and RECORD a Taylor Swift song. I even came up with a flowchart to even help me do it…. And if you’re my facebook friend, you can see it.
And that’s my only real gripe on the song. I like it… just I liked other songs with the exact same themes, lyrical content, music, etc. that Taylor Swift has come out with.
I know better.
LIKE: 4
TERRIBLE: 2
EMBARRASSED: 3
TOTAL: 9
4) “Cooler than Me” (Mike Posner)
Every so often a club song comes out that I am powerless against. And this is it. I have no idea who Mike Posner is- it’s probably cause I think I’m cooler than him- but nevertheless, this is such a guilty pleasure.
I think its allure for me is that I can relate to being around tons and tons of people than think they are the shit, when they’re not. And I’m not saying that I am, but like, what’s up with the attitude?
I’m not saying the song is all that deep either. Just saying I know the feeling.
And they’re almost nothing to music… everything I like about this song can be attributed to Mike Posner’s vocals. He could be singing about cat shit, but with that smooth of a delivery, who the hell cares? The song’s like a trance.
And I’m not really that embarrassed by it. Sorry for the short entry.
LIKE: 5
TERRIBLE: 3
EMBARRASSED: 2
TOTAL: 10
3) “Take It Off” (Ke$ha)
Alright, I mean it, this is the worst song on here. I mean, I don’t love the song, but I do like it, and that’s pretty terrible.
Kesha never really sings, but she gets close with this one. Still most of it is that weird trashy talking thing.
You know what? I freaking hate Kesha.
I hate her.
I mean, the other artists on this list I don’t necessarily like, but Kesha I genuinely hate.
And she’s from Nashville?
Okay, wouldn’t have guessed that.
She’s the female equivalent of Andrew W.K. on the dance scene. Now there’s an image. But Andrew W.K. is a genuinely interesting person- I mean, he goes on motivational speaking tours- has a personality and yet still loves partying.
Kesha appears to love getting felt up by every guy in the room, getting trashed beyond oblivion, and making shitty music. And partying. I mean, which is fine, but Goddamn it, do you guys have to keep encouraging her by making every song of hers a hit?
She’s nothing special. If a way better artist in Andrew W.K. can’t get the hits, Kesha shouldn’t either.
Todd in the Shadows has described Kesha as the only artist who has been “Auto-tuned off-key”. I mean, you can give any other artist on this list the chance to record a Kesha song and it would be better. And that includes Taylor Swift and (SPOILER) Pitbull. I’m dead serious.
Alright, so the song “Take It Off” is about Kesha’s ambition to become a pilot.
No?
“Take It Off” is about Kesha’s outrage at the things Family Guy gets away with, and her desire to have it pulled from television.
Not that either?
“Take It Off” is about…. Taking… your clothes off.
THAT’S SO SUBTLE OH MY FREAKKKKKKKKIIINGGG GAWDDDDDDD
Actually, that’s not entirely true. Let’s have Kesha explain it. “(It’s about) when I went to a drag show, and how really turned on I was by these transvestite men taking clothes off. I was like, What does that even make me?"
I can see how that was displayed through your lyrics Kesha. I can only assume that you convey this message through the lyric “There's a place downtown, where the freaks all come around.”
That’s nice. You’re fascinated by them, you’re turned on by them, and you call them freaks.
I’M BEING TOLERANT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ZOMG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
In all honesty though, am I surprised? No. I’d be more surprised if it didn’t. It sounds like a pile of dog shit would turn Kesha on. If there’s an earthquake in Mongolia, Kesha gets turned on here 2 days later.
By the way, I’ve got nothing against transvestite men, or their ability to take their clothes off. I just feel bad that I have to mention them in the same sentence as Kesha.
LIKE: 3
TERRIBLE: 5
EMBARRASSED: 5
TOTAL: 13
2) “I Like It” (Enrique Iglesias featuring Pitbull)
Now, THIS is embarrassing. The music’s horrendous, bland-ass, stupid club music with no hint of thought process. But that’s not what gets me.
I’m sorry Enrique. I know you’ve had other songs since “Hero” but I’m going to perfectly honest with you. I don’t listen to you. So that’s the last song off the top of my head that I know you had. And I have a real hard time connecting the epic cheesy-ness of “Hero” with the guy who says, “My girlfriend's out of town And I'm all alone Your boyfriend's on vacation And he doesn't have to know.”
“I can be your hero, baby…
I can have a one night stand with a washed up Latin singer that ruins my stable relationship and likely my life because c’mon do you really think you’re the first girl Enrique’s said that to?”
God, these lyrics… I’m not expecting much here, but I had more respect for Enrique than this.
Round round round
Give a low low low
Let the time time pass
'Cause we're never getting old
What the shit? I thought this was Enrique, not Rihanna.
But despite my disappointment in myself and Enrique for this one, Pitbull takes a song than would have still made this list, and made it ten times worse.
The city of Miami should do themselves a favor and publicly disown Pitbull. He’s just plain terrible. The random Spanish interjections should embarrass Americans everywhere. Mainly the “Fiesta!” Forever!” part. My hands are shaking with rage. I also like the shout out to Barack and Michelle… I’m sure they’d love to party with … Pitbull. He should have been sitting next to Biden at the State of the Union.
Speaking of, you know what I don’t get? Obama gets a shit-ton of shout-outs in songs- many of them party/dance songs, and yet has done nothing to suggest that he’s ever been a partier. I was a lot younger, but I don’t remember Clinton getting shout-outs like that. In fact, artists were making fun of him! DOUBLE STANDARD.
LIKE: 4
TERRIBLE: 5
EMBARRASSMENT: 5
TOTAL: 14
1) “California Gurls” (Katy Perry)
This was really a toss-up between “Teenage Dream” and “California Gurls” but in any case, I am BAFFLED by my enjoyment of Katy Perry. Nothing says “manufactured pop” like Katy Perry. Her vocals aren’t very good, the music isn’t very good, the songs as a whole are not very good. BUT WHY IS IT THEN THAT I LIKE ALMOST ALL OF THEM?
Seriously, I think I’m getting sick. I liked that one about Vegas, too, and I liked “Hot and Cold” before it got ridiculously overplayed. Why is it though, that no matter how much I hear “California Gurls”, it doesn’t get old for me?
The music is so freaking terrible. Just awful. Nothing memorable about it at all.
And Katy Perry’s constant “O-o-O-o-O” is the stuff I hear in my nightmares when loved ones are getting tortured.
I have weird dreams.
But anyways… these lyrics- who the hell writes this?
“West Coast represent- now put your hands up”
“So hot we’ll melt your popsicle”
What lazy ass writing. Not that I expect lyrical genius from the Katy Perry camp, but good God, everything in me should want to hate this song.
Not to mention Snoop Dogg, proving once and for all that he’s lost all street cred he’s ever had. This might be his biggest sell out, and that’s really saying something. His verses are absolute trash, that kind of stuff said by anyone else would get that person thrown out of recording. But Snoop can do this because… f*** you, that’s why! Just getting a paycheck with this one. Bastard.
Although I will say, as a heterosexual male, when Katy Perry does her … noises during Snoop’s verses…
I approve.
Anyway, the music video is a whole ‘nother story. While Katy Perry looks pretty freaking awesome (at least- in the clouds), it’s trash too!
Did you know that in California, the streets are paved with candy and instead of the palm trees she’s singing about giant lollipops grow from the ground? Yeah! For real!
No wonder the state’s budget is so bad! They spent how many millions PLANTING LOLLIPOPS.
But I digress. The song is complete shit. I mean, I don’t like Lady Gaga or anything like that, but at least she's original. This? Nothing about this is original. Not a damn thing.
Wait- maybe not. I’ve never seen a woman fasten giant bottles to her boobs and fire cream from them akin to a squirt gun. By the way, I know that sounds pretty hot, but trust me, it’s not. Just keep her naked in the clouds.
LIKE: 5
TERRIBLE: 5
EMBARRASSED: 5
TOTAL: 15
This might have been the most difficult to write entry on this blog. You all better enjoy it. Later.
As mentioned several times before, I don’t have an ipod.
I don’t listen to pop radio if I can help it. Especially since an alt rock station was added to my area in September 2010.
I hate people for making these songs popular.
And I think I hate myself more for liking these- well, some of these. Others I’m just plain ashamed that I like them. Only a few things at work here- let’s see the rules!
1) The song must have INITIALLY CHARTED in the HOT 100 in 2010.
2) The song must have been in the top 20 at some point.
3) I must be embarrassed by them.
These songs are ranked by only three things, the combination of how much I actually like them, how terrible the song actually is, and the amount of personal disappointment I hold from liking them. Each of those is on a scale from 1-5, 5 being the highest rating.
5) “Mine” (Taylor Swift)
I debated this one for a while, because for some reason, this seems to be the one artist right now that it’s okay for anyone to like. So why I am embarrassed by it?
Well, the song isn’t that bad. It’s catchy. And unlike the other songs on the list, there’s some pretty quality music and lyrical content.
But I am ashamed.
BECAUSE HOW MANY TIMES IS TAYLOR SWIFT GOING TO RELEASE THE SAME SONG WITH A DIFFERENT NAME?
God, it reminds me of listening to polka songs. Sure when you’re playing them they’re different (I assume) but to the common listener (me) they’re all the same.
One of these days I will write and record a Taylor Swift song. You heard me. I, starckie, a twentysomething male, will WRITE and RECORD a Taylor Swift song. I even came up with a flowchart to even help me do it…. And if you’re my facebook friend, you can see it.
And that’s my only real gripe on the song. I like it… just I liked other songs with the exact same themes, lyrical content, music, etc. that Taylor Swift has come out with.
I know better.
LIKE: 4
TERRIBLE: 2
EMBARRASSED: 3
TOTAL: 9
4) “Cooler than Me” (Mike Posner)
Every so often a club song comes out that I am powerless against. And this is it. I have no idea who Mike Posner is- it’s probably cause I think I’m cooler than him- but nevertheless, this is such a guilty pleasure.
I think its allure for me is that I can relate to being around tons and tons of people than think they are the shit, when they’re not. And I’m not saying that I am, but like, what’s up with the attitude?
I’m not saying the song is all that deep either. Just saying I know the feeling.
And they’re almost nothing to music… everything I like about this song can be attributed to Mike Posner’s vocals. He could be singing about cat shit, but with that smooth of a delivery, who the hell cares? The song’s like a trance.
And I’m not really that embarrassed by it. Sorry for the short entry.
LIKE: 5
TERRIBLE: 3
EMBARRASSED: 2
TOTAL: 10
3) “Take It Off” (Ke$ha)
Alright, I mean it, this is the worst song on here. I mean, I don’t love the song, but I do like it, and that’s pretty terrible.
Kesha never really sings, but she gets close with this one. Still most of it is that weird trashy talking thing.
You know what? I freaking hate Kesha.
I hate her.
I mean, the other artists on this list I don’t necessarily like, but Kesha I genuinely hate.
And she’s from Nashville?
Okay, wouldn’t have guessed that.
She’s the female equivalent of Andrew W.K. on the dance scene. Now there’s an image. But Andrew W.K. is a genuinely interesting person- I mean, he goes on motivational speaking tours- has a personality and yet still loves partying.
Kesha appears to love getting felt up by every guy in the room, getting trashed beyond oblivion, and making shitty music. And partying. I mean, which is fine, but Goddamn it, do you guys have to keep encouraging her by making every song of hers a hit?
She’s nothing special. If a way better artist in Andrew W.K. can’t get the hits, Kesha shouldn’t either.
Todd in the Shadows has described Kesha as the only artist who has been “Auto-tuned off-key”. I mean, you can give any other artist on this list the chance to record a Kesha song and it would be better. And that includes Taylor Swift and (SPOILER) Pitbull. I’m dead serious.
Alright, so the song “Take It Off” is about Kesha’s ambition to become a pilot.
No?
“Take It Off” is about Kesha’s outrage at the things Family Guy gets away with, and her desire to have it pulled from television.
Not that either?
“Take It Off” is about…. Taking… your clothes off.
THAT’S SO SUBTLE OH MY FREAKKKKKKKKIIINGGG GAWDDDDDDD
Actually, that’s not entirely true. Let’s have Kesha explain it. “(It’s about) when I went to a drag show, and how really turned on I was by these transvestite men taking clothes off. I was like, What does that even make me?"
I can see how that was displayed through your lyrics Kesha. I can only assume that you convey this message through the lyric “There's a place downtown, where the freaks all come around.”
That’s nice. You’re fascinated by them, you’re turned on by them, and you call them freaks.
I’M BEING TOLERANT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ZOMG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
In all honesty though, am I surprised? No. I’d be more surprised if it didn’t. It sounds like a pile of dog shit would turn Kesha on. If there’s an earthquake in Mongolia, Kesha gets turned on here 2 days later.
By the way, I’ve got nothing against transvestite men, or their ability to take their clothes off. I just feel bad that I have to mention them in the same sentence as Kesha.
LIKE: 3
TERRIBLE: 5
EMBARRASSED: 5
TOTAL: 13
2) “I Like It” (Enrique Iglesias featuring Pitbull)
Now, THIS is embarrassing. The music’s horrendous, bland-ass, stupid club music with no hint of thought process. But that’s not what gets me.
I’m sorry Enrique. I know you’ve had other songs since “Hero” but I’m going to perfectly honest with you. I don’t listen to you. So that’s the last song off the top of my head that I know you had. And I have a real hard time connecting the epic cheesy-ness of “Hero” with the guy who says, “My girlfriend's out of town And I'm all alone Your boyfriend's on vacation And he doesn't have to know.”
“I can be your hero, baby…
I can have a one night stand with a washed up Latin singer that ruins my stable relationship and likely my life because c’mon do you really think you’re the first girl Enrique’s said that to?”
God, these lyrics… I’m not expecting much here, but I had more respect for Enrique than this.
Round round round
Give a low low low
Let the time time pass
'Cause we're never getting old
What the shit? I thought this was Enrique, not Rihanna.
But despite my disappointment in myself and Enrique for this one, Pitbull takes a song than would have still made this list, and made it ten times worse.
The city of Miami should do themselves a favor and publicly disown Pitbull. He’s just plain terrible. The random Spanish interjections should embarrass Americans everywhere. Mainly the “Fiesta!” Forever!” part. My hands are shaking with rage. I also like the shout out to Barack and Michelle… I’m sure they’d love to party with … Pitbull. He should have been sitting next to Biden at the State of the Union.
Speaking of, you know what I don’t get? Obama gets a shit-ton of shout-outs in songs- many of them party/dance songs, and yet has done nothing to suggest that he’s ever been a partier. I was a lot younger, but I don’t remember Clinton getting shout-outs like that. In fact, artists were making fun of him! DOUBLE STANDARD.
LIKE: 4
TERRIBLE: 5
EMBARRASSMENT: 5
TOTAL: 14
1) “California Gurls” (Katy Perry)
This was really a toss-up between “Teenage Dream” and “California Gurls” but in any case, I am BAFFLED by my enjoyment of Katy Perry. Nothing says “manufactured pop” like Katy Perry. Her vocals aren’t very good, the music isn’t very good, the songs as a whole are not very good. BUT WHY IS IT THEN THAT I LIKE ALMOST ALL OF THEM?
Seriously, I think I’m getting sick. I liked that one about Vegas, too, and I liked “Hot and Cold” before it got ridiculously overplayed. Why is it though, that no matter how much I hear “California Gurls”, it doesn’t get old for me?
The music is so freaking terrible. Just awful. Nothing memorable about it at all.
And Katy Perry’s constant “O-o-O-o-O” is the stuff I hear in my nightmares when loved ones are getting tortured.
I have weird dreams.
But anyways… these lyrics- who the hell writes this?
“West Coast represent- now put your hands up”
“So hot we’ll melt your popsicle”
What lazy ass writing. Not that I expect lyrical genius from the Katy Perry camp, but good God, everything in me should want to hate this song.
Not to mention Snoop Dogg, proving once and for all that he’s lost all street cred he’s ever had. This might be his biggest sell out, and that’s really saying something. His verses are absolute trash, that kind of stuff said by anyone else would get that person thrown out of recording. But Snoop can do this because… f*** you, that’s why! Just getting a paycheck with this one. Bastard.
Although I will say, as a heterosexual male, when Katy Perry does her … noises during Snoop’s verses…
I approve.
Anyway, the music video is a whole ‘nother story. While Katy Perry looks pretty freaking awesome (at least- in the clouds), it’s trash too!
Did you know that in California, the streets are paved with candy and instead of the palm trees she’s singing about giant lollipops grow from the ground? Yeah! For real!
No wonder the state’s budget is so bad! They spent how many millions PLANTING LOLLIPOPS.
But I digress. The song is complete shit. I mean, I don’t like Lady Gaga or anything like that, but at least she's original. This? Nothing about this is original. Not a damn thing.
Wait- maybe not. I’ve never seen a woman fasten giant bottles to her boobs and fire cream from them akin to a squirt gun. By the way, I know that sounds pretty hot, but trust me, it’s not. Just keep her naked in the clouds.
LIKE: 5
TERRIBLE: 5
EMBARRASSED: 5
TOTAL: 15
This might have been the most difficult to write entry on this blog. You all better enjoy it. Later.
Friday, January 14, 2011
Awesome Reviews: Scott Pilgrim Vs. the World
I really like doing these movie reviews. I should do them more often.
Now, to be honest, there’s a couple of things at play here. #1, I really don’t like Michael Cera. #2 I thought the trailer for this looked awesome. So I had very mixed emotions about seeing this movie.
Scott Pilgrim (AKA Michael Cera) is a loser who for some reason dates high school girls, has a band, and falls hopelessly for Ramona (Mary Elizabeth Winstead). He wants to date her, but finds out in order to do, he must fight and defeat (kill?) her seven evil ex’s.
How’s that for a concise synopsis?
THE AWESOME
1) THE VISUAL EFFECTS
There’s a shit-ton of them in the movie, and they range from the fight scene cartoonish to comic book lines to denote expression/emotion. Simply put, they’re stunning and add a nice touch to the film- like when the phone rings, literally “rrriiinngggg” appears on screen. It’s cool, and touches on the screenplay’s origin as a comic.
2) THE SUPPORTING CAST, PARTICULARLY THE EX’S.
Literally everyone else in the film is more interesting than Scott Pilgrim and Ramona. Everyone. His sister is more interesting, the ex’s are more interesting, the band mates are more interesting, his gay roommate is WAY more interesting- I would have gladly watched a movie about him. This may be as a result of the over-the-top nature of “the world” compared to Scott, but they made the movie. Even Ramona, who by all rights SHOULD be really interesting as the little-red-haired-girl to Scott’s Charlie Brown, the object of our desires, doesn’t do it for me. Why exactly does Scott want to go for her? I blame the story, which with so much action doesn’t really allow the film to explore the characters that much. But I digress.
It’s a breath of fresh air every time one of the ex’s (with one major exception) shows up, and most are very funny and memorable. We learn a lot about Ramona through the ex’s, who really run the gamut of loser to god.
3) THE MUSIC
This didn’t have memorable soundtrack or anything like that, but I did like the music, particularly from the band, that accompanied a lot of the action scenes. It really fit with the film. I don’t really know what else to say.
4) THE SET/LOCATION
There were a TON of locations for this film, and I loved the attention to detail that was put into them. It greatly hid the fact that they wasn’t really a lot of good dialogue in the film, and gave me at least something to look at when I didn’t care about hearing the same ol’ shit from Scott or Ramona AGAIN.
Most impressive were the way the set changed to fit the mood of the characters. In a scene at the music store, Scott must find a way to break up with his current girlfriend so that he can devote his attention to Ramona. Obviously not thrilled with this, the music sections were labeled “Gloom Rock”, and other silly, “sad” names. Nice touch, and while these didn’t make as much of an appearance as I’d have liked, it was appreciated.
5) THE WORLD
Alright, what I mean by this is how unapologetic the movie is by the surrealistic elements throughout. Who knew Toronto was so awesome? It seems like Scott just figured out apparently anything goes in the world, where people can summon demon hipster chicks and gain psychic powers from being vegan. That sorta shit made me laugh my ass at the sheer wtf-ness of it all. And the movie makes ZERO attempt to explain it, which is also pretty satisfying. It’s like “what, you didn’t know you can do all this shit, too?”
THE NOT AWESOME
1) THE MAIN CAST
In short, Michael Cera did nothing in the film that makes me change my mind about him in the least. He was terrible. Just terrible. He wasn’t the lovable loser or anything like that, he was just fucking annoying and whiny, and man did it piss me off. As mentioned above, virtually everyone else was more interesting. And I don’t know if it’s just me being biased or what, but it really seemed like he collected a paycheck for this one. They were certain scenes in this movie that I just couldn’t take him seriously as an actor- jokes fell flat, his anger was laughable, you name it. And again, maybe it’s just bias, but he was totally forgettable.
Mary Elizabeth Winstead did the best she could, but again, she wasn’t interesting either. Early in the film when she had the “what-is-this-girl-about” thing going for her, but as we learned more about her dating history (and this was rarely done in advance- some dude would show up and then we’d get some abridged backstory about them), I grew less fascinated with the character. If the ex’s weren’t a problem, and Scott could have immediately dated her, at least based on what I saw, he would have grown tired of her in about 25 minutes.
2) THE WRITING/SCREENPLAY
Now, let me clarify. Parts of this movie were extremely well-written- “Do you know how long it took me to get all of their contact information? Like TWO HOURS!”- but all-in-all, I was pretty damn disappointed. If I wrote some of the jokes on this blog, I’d have people blasting me for how lazy and shitty the blog was.
One line in this movie really pissed me the fuck off, and that’s because I remember it from the trailer and I was pissed then, too. It revolves around the fourth ex, and only female ex, Lesbi Girl-loving Bothways CunningLinguist Johnson, I believe her name was. Did you laugh at the name? You should have. Apparently, if you didn’t know, being bisexual is a joke in it of itself. Which raises an interesting question- why is the gay roommate like totally well-adjusted and interesting and nice, but this bisexual girl is such a holy terror?
This single character is the epitome of what went wrong with this movie. Every time Scott mentions “ex-boyfriends”, Ramona clarifies with “ex’s”. OH I WONDER WHY.
I’M BEING SUBTLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
But worse than that is being bisexual appears to be the only thing about this character. That’s it. Everyone else was either a douchebag, or the result of a fling, or a tool, or in possession of a mind-control device, or talented, or any combination of those of things, or whatever, but that’s the draw with this girl. Bisexual.
Are you laughing yet?
Now, for the line that made me want to vomit, paraphrased:
SCOTT: You dated her?
RAMONA: I was a little bi-curious.
LESBI: Yeah, well, I’m bi-furious!
BI-FURIOUS?!
This is supposed to be funny! That’s the laziest writing ever! Not only is it a play-on-words, but a really fucking terrible one at that. It’s totally unnecessary! I mean, the entire conversation wasn’t written well, but damn, that one line pretty much made me shut down for the rest of the movie. Terrible.
And that’s why the 4th ex personifies the movie, because it felt like everyone involved just took the scene off. If they wanted to, they could have put the time in to make this scene and this movie really good, but it’s like every couple of scenes was a train wreck, and this was by far, for me, the worst offender.
3) OVERKILL
And here we come to the heart of the problem: overkill. Almost everything in the movie had the potential to be good, but there was just too damn much of it.
The movie was WAYYYYYY too long, and I found myself by the third ex fight going alright, this is gonna pick up soon, right? Almost over, maybe a montage or something to get us where we need to be? Nope. Everything was seen in detail, although I was mercifully spared more movie by 2 of the ex’s fighting simultaneously. It clocked in about two hours, although it seemed much longer.
Even the pop culture references got to be too much. I understand the movie was set up like a video game, but for me to play 2 straight hours of a fighting game, it better be really, really good, and this movie wasn’t good enough to justify that sort of commitment.
Also, they absolutely loaded the front end of the movie with the Legend of Zelda sound effects. While cool at first, eventually I hit the ALRIGHT I GET THE POINT plateau and it got annoying.
Inexplicably, one seen is played with a laugh track and the Seinfeld music. But… it didn’t make any sense. And I'll admit I laughed at first, but it reminds me of newer Family Guy’s- a small amount of random shit is funny, but it has to make SOME sense and it can’t be all the time cause otherwise it’s incoherent. It's a cheap laugh but not a good one. I just didn’t understand it, and I WANTED to like that scene!
Alright, so what did I think of the movie?
On a scale of one to ten, one being shitty and ten being mind-blowing, I, starckie, give this movie a….
4: Haters gonna hate as they say, and I know a LOT of people who liked this movie, but I just couldn’t get into it. Which stinks, cause I like the plot, and I wanted to like the movie. But the trouble I had with it was that it was sooooo freaking surface value, and if you’re going to do that in a movie, it better be original as hell. And I know some of you are going to say this WAS original, and you’re right- it was. But not enough to justify the alarming lack of subtlety throughout it. There weren’t any ups and downs in it, it was just “okay on to the next fight/scene”. It’s okay to be surreal, but it’s got to be relatable as well, and for me that just didn’t happen. I mostly didn’t care about any of the main characters. Plus, I hate Michael Cera. So that doesn’t help either.
Now, to be honest, there’s a couple of things at play here. #1, I really don’t like Michael Cera. #2 I thought the trailer for this looked awesome. So I had very mixed emotions about seeing this movie.
Scott Pilgrim (AKA Michael Cera) is a loser who for some reason dates high school girls, has a band, and falls hopelessly for Ramona (Mary Elizabeth Winstead). He wants to date her, but finds out in order to do, he must fight and defeat (kill?) her seven evil ex’s.
How’s that for a concise synopsis?
THE AWESOME
1) THE VISUAL EFFECTS
There’s a shit-ton of them in the movie, and they range from the fight scene cartoonish to comic book lines to denote expression/emotion. Simply put, they’re stunning and add a nice touch to the film- like when the phone rings, literally “rrriiinngggg” appears on screen. It’s cool, and touches on the screenplay’s origin as a comic.
2) THE SUPPORTING CAST, PARTICULARLY THE EX’S.
Literally everyone else in the film is more interesting than Scott Pilgrim and Ramona. Everyone. His sister is more interesting, the ex’s are more interesting, the band mates are more interesting, his gay roommate is WAY more interesting- I would have gladly watched a movie about him. This may be as a result of the over-the-top nature of “the world” compared to Scott, but they made the movie. Even Ramona, who by all rights SHOULD be really interesting as the little-red-haired-girl to Scott’s Charlie Brown, the object of our desires, doesn’t do it for me. Why exactly does Scott want to go for her? I blame the story, which with so much action doesn’t really allow the film to explore the characters that much. But I digress.
It’s a breath of fresh air every time one of the ex’s (with one major exception) shows up, and most are very funny and memorable. We learn a lot about Ramona through the ex’s, who really run the gamut of loser to god.
3) THE MUSIC
This didn’t have memorable soundtrack or anything like that, but I did like the music, particularly from the band, that accompanied a lot of the action scenes. It really fit with the film. I don’t really know what else to say.
4) THE SET/LOCATION
There were a TON of locations for this film, and I loved the attention to detail that was put into them. It greatly hid the fact that they wasn’t really a lot of good dialogue in the film, and gave me at least something to look at when I didn’t care about hearing the same ol’ shit from Scott or Ramona AGAIN.
Most impressive were the way the set changed to fit the mood of the characters. In a scene at the music store, Scott must find a way to break up with his current girlfriend so that he can devote his attention to Ramona. Obviously not thrilled with this, the music sections were labeled “Gloom Rock”, and other silly, “sad” names. Nice touch, and while these didn’t make as much of an appearance as I’d have liked, it was appreciated.
5) THE WORLD
Alright, what I mean by this is how unapologetic the movie is by the surrealistic elements throughout. Who knew Toronto was so awesome? It seems like Scott just figured out apparently anything goes in the world, where people can summon demon hipster chicks and gain psychic powers from being vegan. That sorta shit made me laugh my ass at the sheer wtf-ness of it all. And the movie makes ZERO attempt to explain it, which is also pretty satisfying. It’s like “what, you didn’t know you can do all this shit, too?”
THE NOT AWESOME
1) THE MAIN CAST
In short, Michael Cera did nothing in the film that makes me change my mind about him in the least. He was terrible. Just terrible. He wasn’t the lovable loser or anything like that, he was just fucking annoying and whiny, and man did it piss me off. As mentioned above, virtually everyone else was more interesting. And I don’t know if it’s just me being biased or what, but it really seemed like he collected a paycheck for this one. They were certain scenes in this movie that I just couldn’t take him seriously as an actor- jokes fell flat, his anger was laughable, you name it. And again, maybe it’s just bias, but he was totally forgettable.
Mary Elizabeth Winstead did the best she could, but again, she wasn’t interesting either. Early in the film when she had the “what-is-this-girl-about” thing going for her, but as we learned more about her dating history (and this was rarely done in advance- some dude would show up and then we’d get some abridged backstory about them), I grew less fascinated with the character. If the ex’s weren’t a problem, and Scott could have immediately dated her, at least based on what I saw, he would have grown tired of her in about 25 minutes.
2) THE WRITING/SCREENPLAY
Now, let me clarify. Parts of this movie were extremely well-written- “Do you know how long it took me to get all of their contact information? Like TWO HOURS!”- but all-in-all, I was pretty damn disappointed. If I wrote some of the jokes on this blog, I’d have people blasting me for how lazy and shitty the blog was.
One line in this movie really pissed me the fuck off, and that’s because I remember it from the trailer and I was pissed then, too. It revolves around the fourth ex, and only female ex, Lesbi Girl-loving Bothways CunningLinguist Johnson, I believe her name was. Did you laugh at the name? You should have. Apparently, if you didn’t know, being bisexual is a joke in it of itself. Which raises an interesting question- why is the gay roommate like totally well-adjusted and interesting and nice, but this bisexual girl is such a holy terror?
This single character is the epitome of what went wrong with this movie. Every time Scott mentions “ex-boyfriends”, Ramona clarifies with “ex’s”. OH I WONDER WHY.
I’M BEING SUBTLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
But worse than that is being bisexual appears to be the only thing about this character. That’s it. Everyone else was either a douchebag, or the result of a fling, or a tool, or in possession of a mind-control device, or talented, or any combination of those of things, or whatever, but that’s the draw with this girl. Bisexual.
Are you laughing yet?
Now, for the line that made me want to vomit, paraphrased:
SCOTT: You dated her?
RAMONA: I was a little bi-curious.
LESBI: Yeah, well, I’m bi-furious!
BI-FURIOUS?!
This is supposed to be funny! That’s the laziest writing ever! Not only is it a play-on-words, but a really fucking terrible one at that. It’s totally unnecessary! I mean, the entire conversation wasn’t written well, but damn, that one line pretty much made me shut down for the rest of the movie. Terrible.
And that’s why the 4th ex personifies the movie, because it felt like everyone involved just took the scene off. If they wanted to, they could have put the time in to make this scene and this movie really good, but it’s like every couple of scenes was a train wreck, and this was by far, for me, the worst offender.
3) OVERKILL
And here we come to the heart of the problem: overkill. Almost everything in the movie had the potential to be good, but there was just too damn much of it.
The movie was WAYYYYYY too long, and I found myself by the third ex fight going alright, this is gonna pick up soon, right? Almost over, maybe a montage or something to get us where we need to be? Nope. Everything was seen in detail, although I was mercifully spared more movie by 2 of the ex’s fighting simultaneously. It clocked in about two hours, although it seemed much longer.
Even the pop culture references got to be too much. I understand the movie was set up like a video game, but for me to play 2 straight hours of a fighting game, it better be really, really good, and this movie wasn’t good enough to justify that sort of commitment.
Also, they absolutely loaded the front end of the movie with the Legend of Zelda sound effects. While cool at first, eventually I hit the ALRIGHT I GET THE POINT plateau and it got annoying.
Inexplicably, one seen is played with a laugh track and the Seinfeld music. But… it didn’t make any sense. And I'll admit I laughed at first, but it reminds me of newer Family Guy’s- a small amount of random shit is funny, but it has to make SOME sense and it can’t be all the time cause otherwise it’s incoherent. It's a cheap laugh but not a good one. I just didn’t understand it, and I WANTED to like that scene!
Alright, so what did I think of the movie?
On a scale of one to ten, one being shitty and ten being mind-blowing, I, starckie, give this movie a….
4: Haters gonna hate as they say, and I know a LOT of people who liked this movie, but I just couldn’t get into it. Which stinks, cause I like the plot, and I wanted to like the movie. But the trouble I had with it was that it was sooooo freaking surface value, and if you’re going to do that in a movie, it better be original as hell. And I know some of you are going to say this WAS original, and you’re right- it was. But not enough to justify the alarming lack of subtlety throughout it. There weren’t any ups and downs in it, it was just “okay on to the next fight/scene”. It’s okay to be surreal, but it’s got to be relatable as well, and for me that just didn’t happen. I mostly didn’t care about any of the main characters. Plus, I hate Michael Cera. So that doesn’t help either.
Tuesday, January 11, 2011
The Least Awesome Movies of 2010 (That I Didn't See)
I’ve had this idea for a while, and putting it bluntly what you see is what you get.
I’m going to list the movies, that I didn’t see, and the various reasons why I didn’t see it or why it sucked anyway. This could be because of a stupid premise, general reaction from critics, its pop culture status, etc.
These are by release date- not in terms of how bad they were.
TOOTH FAIRY
Although, it’s fitting this is first, since it makes me the most angry.
How long did it take Disney to come up with pile of shit? Take a hockey player- du-hur, they typically have bad teeth- and make him a tooth fairy!
I HAD BETTER MOVIE IDEAS THAN THAT IN THIRD GRADE!
I guess the funny part is that the Rock is a hockey player so notorious for hurting other players that he is nicknamed the tooth fairy, and in a …. Twist isn’t the word I’m looking for since you can see it coming from the opposite side of the globe, he has to BECOME a tooth fairy… for… some convenient plot reason! Oh Disney, when will the hilarity cease?!
This movie offends me for a couple of reasons.
1) Way to belittle possibly my favorite sport (next to football- it’s close)
2) How freaking intimidating of a hockey player can you be if the word “fairy” is in your nickname? The Rock “leads the league in penalty minutes”. When Dave Shultz did that for the Flyers (by the way he still holds the record for penalty minutes in a season, by far) he led that team to be called the “Broad Street Bullies”. Can you imagine if that team was led by Dave “the _____ fairy” Shultz? Listen Disney, you want me to believe the Rock becomes a supernatural entity exchanging teeth for money? Okay. Hockey goon nicknamed Tinkerbelle? Go f*** yourselves, I’m out.
3) The Rock isn’t a terrible actor! His movies aren’t good usually, but he’s alright! Why, Dwayne, why? Did you lose a couple million gambling? I don’t care what they’re paying you this is the sort of thing your grandkids are gonna laugh at you for! WHAT PRICE IS YOUR DIGNITY?
4) How many times are we going to see the uber-macho guy doing feminine, sensitive, or otherwise not manly things formula used? I mean for God’s sake, Disney themselves releases that movie like three times a year! I think Vin Diesel does one every three months!
5) Just because it’s a kids movie doesn’t mean you don’t have to try, Disney. The second I heard this premise, the 8-year-old kid starckie in my head went “Nope. I’ll just watch Aladdin again on VHS.” I hate movies that trick kids into accepting shitty quality. I don’t how much money this made, but any more than $30 worldwide is an outrage.
FROM PARIS WITH LOVE
I know virtually nothing about this movie, and I don’t care. Here’s why: if I’m going to watch a movie with the words “from”, “with”, and “love” in it, it’s going to be “From Russia With Love” (or “Love With that Girl From Korea” – I think that was unrated…
NOTE: THAT SECOND MOVIE DOESN’T EXIST (to my knowledge) I KNOW ONE OF YOU PROBABLY THOUGHT IT DID.
ALICE IN WONDERLAND
I already wrote about this movie in a “Not Awesome” entry, so I’m going to keep this brief. My main gripe with it was that virtually everybody I know proclaimed this to be “movie-of-the-millennium” quality after hearing Tim Burton was directing it, Johnny Depp was in it, and the visuals were good. And that I was ostracized for even hinting that it might be anything less since nobody’s seen it yet!
THE BOUNTY HUNTER
For reasons I won’t get into, I have a fairly good idea of what this movie is about, and this is all I’ll say.: One of the stupidest premises EVER, and this movie is exhibit A on why Jennifer Aniston should no longer be taken seriously as an actress- speaking of which, does anybody from Friends really have a career anymore?
DEATH AT A FUNERAL
I hate how once every year, most of the black actors/actresses in Hollywood get together, determined to make a move that will put African-Americans back another 20 years. This movie seemed especially determined to do that since IT WAS A REMAKE OF A BRITISH (SEE: BETTER) MOVIE OF THE SAME NAME NOT MORE THAN TWO YEARS AGO. That’s a really quick turnaround. And with more accessibility to foreign movies now than ever before, why bother with this shit?
Note: I didn’t see the British version either.
ROBIN HOOD
Didn’t I see a movie like this before? With Russell Crowe? Didn’t it win a lot of awards and shit, and I really liked it? Yeah, I’ll go watch that instead.
SEX AND THE CITY 2
Nuff said.
KILLERS
Sorry Ashton Kutcher, after Punk’d, that 70s show, and Dude, Where’s My Car?, I’m not buying it. I don’t even know if this was supposed to be a comedy or not, and I assure you, I don’t care.
MARMADUKE
WHAT!?!?! How you make a movie about Marmaduke, I’ll never know. I am amazed that there is a writer or group of writers out there capable of coming up with a screenplay about Marmaduke before committing suicide.
THE SORCERER’S APPRENTICE
Oh Jesus. Is this a more impressive feat than writing Marmaduke? I bet this movie was even worse than it. I mean, Nicholas Cage as the sorcerer… oh boy. This kinda defies logic, I don’t know if words exist to properly convey my amazement that this exists. This is proof Disney should do everything they can to have Pixar do everything for them, because obviously Disney is fresh out of ideas of any kind.
SALT
I saw the trailer, and here’s what I thought: Jason- oh wait- Angelina Bourne. No thanks.
VAMPIRES SUCK
Again, I already wrote this about this. See that for the details… but I will say this. At least the Twilight movies… are actual movies. Not good movies (I haven’t seen them either, so I’m qualified to say that), but I hate “fad” movies.
WALL STREET: MONEY NEVER SLEEPS
Insert “Shia LeBeouf” into any movie, and it almost guarantees I won’t see it.
JACKASS 3-D
This is what Youtube is for. I’m not paying for this.
UNSTOPPABLE
Runaway train. Denzel Washington. Being kind of a dick…. Umm…. Okay?
What exactly is the draw to this movie? The “based on a true story” part?
C’mon Denzel you’re better than this.
YOGI BEAR
Absolutely nothing in the trailer made me laugh. Or smile. Or stop banging my head against the wall. 8-year-old starckie couldn’t find a reason, even the most ill-based nostalgic ones, to go see this movie.
But I’m glad to see the dude who played the titular “Ed” on that TV show is getting work. I really liked that show!
LITTLE FOCKERS
As mentioned many times before, I hate Ben Stiller. And Owen Wilson ain’t much better.
Furthermore,
a)Meet the Parents wasn’t funny (I did see that)
b)Meet the Fockers looked terrible.
c)The trailer for Little Fockers looked even worse.
d)Is this the end for Robert DeNiro? Like the end, I’m done taking him seriously as an actor? I know his career has been steadily going downhill for a while now, but I don’t know if I can continue hoping that he’ll turn it around. Too painful.
e)Is that Dustin Hoffman? Noooo, man, not you too. You don’t need this.
f)Is that BARBRA STREISAND?!
THIS MOVIE NEEDS TO BE DESTROYED.
Well, that’s it. The worst movies of the year that I didn’t see. Disagree with me? Let me know- especially if one of these can restore my faith in God by actually being good.
I’m going to list the movies, that I didn’t see, and the various reasons why I didn’t see it or why it sucked anyway. This could be because of a stupid premise, general reaction from critics, its pop culture status, etc.
These are by release date- not in terms of how bad they were.
TOOTH FAIRY
Although, it’s fitting this is first, since it makes me the most angry.
How long did it take Disney to come up with pile of shit? Take a hockey player- du-hur, they typically have bad teeth- and make him a tooth fairy!
I HAD BETTER MOVIE IDEAS THAN THAT IN THIRD GRADE!
I guess the funny part is that the Rock is a hockey player so notorious for hurting other players that he is nicknamed the tooth fairy, and in a …. Twist isn’t the word I’m looking for since you can see it coming from the opposite side of the globe, he has to BECOME a tooth fairy… for… some convenient plot reason! Oh Disney, when will the hilarity cease?!
This movie offends me for a couple of reasons.
1) Way to belittle possibly my favorite sport (next to football- it’s close)
2) How freaking intimidating of a hockey player can you be if the word “fairy” is in your nickname? The Rock “leads the league in penalty minutes”. When Dave Shultz did that for the Flyers (by the way he still holds the record for penalty minutes in a season, by far) he led that team to be called the “Broad Street Bullies”. Can you imagine if that team was led by Dave “the _____ fairy” Shultz? Listen Disney, you want me to believe the Rock becomes a supernatural entity exchanging teeth for money? Okay. Hockey goon nicknamed Tinkerbelle? Go f*** yourselves, I’m out.
3) The Rock isn’t a terrible actor! His movies aren’t good usually, but he’s alright! Why, Dwayne, why? Did you lose a couple million gambling? I don’t care what they’re paying you this is the sort of thing your grandkids are gonna laugh at you for! WHAT PRICE IS YOUR DIGNITY?
4) How many times are we going to see the uber-macho guy doing feminine, sensitive, or otherwise not manly things formula used? I mean for God’s sake, Disney themselves releases that movie like three times a year! I think Vin Diesel does one every three months!
5) Just because it’s a kids movie doesn’t mean you don’t have to try, Disney. The second I heard this premise, the 8-year-old kid starckie in my head went “Nope. I’ll just watch Aladdin again on VHS.” I hate movies that trick kids into accepting shitty quality. I don’t how much money this made, but any more than $30 worldwide is an outrage.
FROM PARIS WITH LOVE
I know virtually nothing about this movie, and I don’t care. Here’s why: if I’m going to watch a movie with the words “from”, “with”, and “love” in it, it’s going to be “From Russia With Love” (or “Love With that Girl From Korea” – I think that was unrated…
NOTE: THAT SECOND MOVIE DOESN’T EXIST (to my knowledge) I KNOW ONE OF YOU PROBABLY THOUGHT IT DID.
ALICE IN WONDERLAND
I already wrote about this movie in a “Not Awesome” entry, so I’m going to keep this brief. My main gripe with it was that virtually everybody I know proclaimed this to be “movie-of-the-millennium” quality after hearing Tim Burton was directing it, Johnny Depp was in it, and the visuals were good. And that I was ostracized for even hinting that it might be anything less since nobody’s seen it yet!
THE BOUNTY HUNTER
For reasons I won’t get into, I have a fairly good idea of what this movie is about, and this is all I’ll say.: One of the stupidest premises EVER, and this movie is exhibit A on why Jennifer Aniston should no longer be taken seriously as an actress- speaking of which, does anybody from Friends really have a career anymore?
DEATH AT A FUNERAL
I hate how once every year, most of the black actors/actresses in Hollywood get together, determined to make a move that will put African-Americans back another 20 years. This movie seemed especially determined to do that since IT WAS A REMAKE OF A BRITISH (SEE: BETTER) MOVIE OF THE SAME NAME NOT MORE THAN TWO YEARS AGO. That’s a really quick turnaround. And with more accessibility to foreign movies now than ever before, why bother with this shit?
Note: I didn’t see the British version either.
ROBIN HOOD
Didn’t I see a movie like this before? With Russell Crowe? Didn’t it win a lot of awards and shit, and I really liked it? Yeah, I’ll go watch that instead.
SEX AND THE CITY 2
Nuff said.
KILLERS
Sorry Ashton Kutcher, after Punk’d, that 70s show, and Dude, Where’s My Car?, I’m not buying it. I don’t even know if this was supposed to be a comedy or not, and I assure you, I don’t care.
MARMADUKE
WHAT!?!?! How you make a movie about Marmaduke, I’ll never know. I am amazed that there is a writer or group of writers out there capable of coming up with a screenplay about Marmaduke before committing suicide.
THE SORCERER’S APPRENTICE
Oh Jesus. Is this a more impressive feat than writing Marmaduke? I bet this movie was even worse than it. I mean, Nicholas Cage as the sorcerer… oh boy. This kinda defies logic, I don’t know if words exist to properly convey my amazement that this exists. This is proof Disney should do everything they can to have Pixar do everything for them, because obviously Disney is fresh out of ideas of any kind.
SALT
I saw the trailer, and here’s what I thought: Jason- oh wait- Angelina Bourne. No thanks.
VAMPIRES SUCK
Again, I already wrote this about this. See that for the details… but I will say this. At least the Twilight movies… are actual movies. Not good movies (I haven’t seen them either, so I’m qualified to say that), but I hate “fad” movies.
WALL STREET: MONEY NEVER SLEEPS
Insert “Shia LeBeouf” into any movie, and it almost guarantees I won’t see it.
JACKASS 3-D
This is what Youtube is for. I’m not paying for this.
UNSTOPPABLE
Runaway train. Denzel Washington. Being kind of a dick…. Umm…. Okay?
What exactly is the draw to this movie? The “based on a true story” part?
C’mon Denzel you’re better than this.
YOGI BEAR
Absolutely nothing in the trailer made me laugh. Or smile. Or stop banging my head against the wall. 8-year-old starckie couldn’t find a reason, even the most ill-based nostalgic ones, to go see this movie.
But I’m glad to see the dude who played the titular “Ed” on that TV show is getting work. I really liked that show!
LITTLE FOCKERS
As mentioned many times before, I hate Ben Stiller. And Owen Wilson ain’t much better.
Furthermore,
a)Meet the Parents wasn’t funny (I did see that)
b)Meet the Fockers looked terrible.
c)The trailer for Little Fockers looked even worse.
d)Is this the end for Robert DeNiro? Like the end, I’m done taking him seriously as an actor? I know his career has been steadily going downhill for a while now, but I don’t know if I can continue hoping that he’ll turn it around. Too painful.
e)Is that Dustin Hoffman? Noooo, man, not you too. You don’t need this.
f)Is that BARBRA STREISAND?!
THIS MOVIE NEEDS TO BE DESTROYED.
Well, that’s it. The worst movies of the year that I didn’t see. Disagree with me? Let me know- especially if one of these can restore my faith in God by actually being good.
Friday, January 7, 2011
Awesome Reviews: True Grit
AWESOME REVIEWS: TRUE GRIT
Alright, it’s been a while since I’ve had a review, but I want to make a few things clear before I start:
1) I have a lot more experience in general with movies since my last review.
2) I’m somewhat biased when it comes to the Coen Brothers… even though I’ve only seen a few of their movies, I greatly enjoy them.
3) I have NOT seen the original “True Grit”
And with that, let’s dive right in.
As with many other Coen brothers’ films, it starts off with a monologue delivered by an older Mattie Ross, whom we’re soon introduced to as played by Hailee Steinfeld. We’re told that Tom Cheney (Josh Brolin), a notorious outlaw, shot and killed Mattie’s father, and while Mattie goes to deal with her late father’s affairs, she discovers that local law enforcement does not hold much hope for finding the murderer. Undeterred, she hires Col. Reuben “Rooster” Cogburn, a rough U.S. Marshall played by Jeff Bridges to bring Cheney to justice. Unfortunately for Mattie, however, a Mr. Texas-Ranger-and-don’t-you-forget-it LeBoeuf is also out to collect the bounty on Cheney, who’s escaped into Indian territory- provided Cheney goes to Texas for prosecution- against Mattie's intentions. Cogburn and LeBoeuf head out to find him, but Mattie has no desire to miss out on the hunt.
Awesome/Not Awesome has a strict NO SPOILER policy which now compels me to stop.
Anddddd… the breakdown.
AWESOME:
1) THE SUPPORTING CAST
I know this is kind of a weird thing to list first, but for as good as the principal cast was (and they were- I’ll get to it), what really got me deeply involved in the story from the get-go was the wide variety of supporting cast members that the casting director absolutely NAILED. I mean, people were spot-on- and I feel like another movie could have been made just about the inhabitants of the town. The movie spends a good deal of time in the town before heading out to Indian territory, and between all the people at a boarding house/hotel, courtroom, undertaker’s residence, etc., I got sucked in. It was impossible not to.
2) THE PRINCIPAL CAST
While at first, Hailee Steinfeld didn’t really do it for me, I was more and more impressed with her as the movie went on. Mattie Ross is the central figure of the story- it is told from her perspective- and it was not exactly an easy role. She sorta falls into that smack-talking I-know-a-disproportionate-amount-of-information-about-everything-considering-my-age category that arose sometime around Home Alone, but she manages to make it much more endearing (as opposed to annoying like so many other characters in the type do). It was greatly satisfying seeing that she was only person for whom Cheney’s capture is personal, and I’m not sure why. You could say her character exhibited “TRUE GRIT” in her determination to have her revenge (cue laugh track here).
Matt Damon did a great job as the Texas Ranger LeBoeuf, although (for reasons I won’t explain but that may be forgivable) I think his accent wasn’t exactly consistent through the movie. I don’t know- I’d have to see it again to confirm- but it was thoroughly enjoyable to see him get into a spat with virtually anyone else in the cast- Steinfeld, Bridges, etc.- and c’mon, who wouldn’t want to see some uppity condescending don’t-mess-with-Texas asshole get his ass handed to him verbally or physically? It’s why so many people hate the Dallas Cowboys!
While I wish Josh Brolin had a bit more screen time, it’s certainly understandable why he didn’t. After all, he’s the bounty the three main characters spend most of the movie looking for. He was really solid though, and when he finally did appear- after all we’d heard about Tom Cheney- it made it that much more satisfying.
But, of course, the scene-stealer was Jeff Bridges as Rooster Cogburn. Bridges was, in a word, phenomenal. Cogburn is known for his eye patch, his knack for shooting criminals rather than bringing them to justice, and his love of White Russians [citation needed]. Like Brolin, we’re introduced to him through quick stories and glimpses at first- but the character sets the mood and pace for the whole story with the aforementioned courtroom scene. Bridges’ low, gravelly, slow voice is the perfect foil to Damon’s LeBoeuf, and as a movie-goer I found myself being guided along by Cogburn just as Ross did.
3) THE CINEMATOGRAPHY/SET/COSTUMING
I could watch this movie again without audio and still come away satisfied. You can tell how much effort was put into every shot- and if there’s one thing I hate- it’s lazy film-making. The movie wastes no time showing the intricacies of the town- the outhouse, the advertisements, the dress, etc.- but what really sells it is the vastness of the country which they seem to capture on every shot once they’re out in the Indian territory. The landscape is huge, the lone structures strategically placed, the sun perfectly positioned- and I was more and more impressed as the movie went on. By the climax and (I wish I could say more), I forgot about the characters and just got lost in the scenery. Anybody wanting to know anything about what movies should look like and what you can accomplish with attention to detail need look no further.
4) THE WRITING
There is definitely a learning curve to the language used in the film, and it took me about 15 minutes to really understand clearly what was being said- and then another 15 minutes to understand what Jeff Bridges alone was saying. That’s not a bad thing- for me, it reminds me that this was another time and adds to the scope of the story- but it is something you need to be aware of, especially if you’re not a huge Western guy (and lord knows I’m not). That being said, the dialogue is appropriate, witty, and impressive. I found myself thinking at multiple times during the movie how much research it must have taken to get the script right. I appreciate the colloquialisms and idioms of the time, and coupled with actors (see 1 and 2) that are perfect for their respective roles, you’ve got one hell of a script. I’d love to get my hands on a copy of the script and read it. (Maybe I should just get the book?)
NOT AWESOME
Most of these will be pettier things since I’ve pretty much praised the film left and right.
1) As mentioned above, I would have liked to see more Matt Damon and Josh Brolin, but it didn’t detract from the movie at all. Maybe it’s just that they were pushed so much in the ads? I don’t know.
2) At least twice there were some audio/visual problems. Like they used one take’s audio and another’s visual, or they used a take with dialogue that was cut. Again, nothing major, but when I saw it, it took me a couple seconds to figure out what the hell happened.
3) At times, it approached unnecessarily brutal. Now, I realize I’m watching a Western here, and things WERE brutal back then, so maybe this isn’t a fair criticism. But there were two/three instances that shocked me with how frankly portrayed it was. However, I would much rather have a problem with that than the alternative. NOT showing the most disturbing violence would have probably killed the atmosphere of the movie. Chalk this one up to personal bias.
4) At an hour and 50 minutes, it was slightly too long. But I have no fricking idea what I’d cut. It all seemed necessary, and the movie built the suspense well.
5) There were no slamming women in the whole thing. Totally a guy thing to say, and honestly, only a gripe now that I’m thinking about it. We could have used one smoking hot townie or something! They had whores back then! Hell, they probably had MORE whores!
Overall, on a scale of 1-10, 1 being shitty and 10 being mind-blowing, True Grit gets a…
9.5: Practically everything in this movie is done better than I’ve seen in a long, long time. Anybody who appreciates movies should be obliged to see it. I don’t think True Grit will ever be one my favorite movies- I’m just not that kind of Western guy- but it will be one of the best-made movies top-to-bottom I’ve ever seen. But perhaps the thing that most satisfied me with the movie is that with so many blockbusters out there with campy-ass writing, huge special effects, the money-making whores of movies, there are still A-list people out there making quality art. And that’s what True Grit is- art.
Alright, it’s been a while since I’ve had a review, but I want to make a few things clear before I start:
1) I have a lot more experience in general with movies since my last review.
2) I’m somewhat biased when it comes to the Coen Brothers… even though I’ve only seen a few of their movies, I greatly enjoy them.
3) I have NOT seen the original “True Grit”
And with that, let’s dive right in.
As with many other Coen brothers’ films, it starts off with a monologue delivered by an older Mattie Ross, whom we’re soon introduced to as played by Hailee Steinfeld. We’re told that Tom Cheney (Josh Brolin), a notorious outlaw, shot and killed Mattie’s father, and while Mattie goes to deal with her late father’s affairs, she discovers that local law enforcement does not hold much hope for finding the murderer. Undeterred, she hires Col. Reuben “Rooster” Cogburn, a rough U.S. Marshall played by Jeff Bridges to bring Cheney to justice. Unfortunately for Mattie, however, a Mr. Texas-Ranger-and-don’t-you-forget-it LeBoeuf is also out to collect the bounty on Cheney, who’s escaped into Indian territory- provided Cheney goes to Texas for prosecution- against Mattie's intentions. Cogburn and LeBoeuf head out to find him, but Mattie has no desire to miss out on the hunt.
Awesome/Not Awesome has a strict NO SPOILER policy which now compels me to stop.
Anddddd… the breakdown.
AWESOME:
1) THE SUPPORTING CAST
I know this is kind of a weird thing to list first, but for as good as the principal cast was (and they were- I’ll get to it), what really got me deeply involved in the story from the get-go was the wide variety of supporting cast members that the casting director absolutely NAILED. I mean, people were spot-on- and I feel like another movie could have been made just about the inhabitants of the town. The movie spends a good deal of time in the town before heading out to Indian territory, and between all the people at a boarding house/hotel, courtroom, undertaker’s residence, etc., I got sucked in. It was impossible not to.
2) THE PRINCIPAL CAST
While at first, Hailee Steinfeld didn’t really do it for me, I was more and more impressed with her as the movie went on. Mattie Ross is the central figure of the story- it is told from her perspective- and it was not exactly an easy role. She sorta falls into that smack-talking I-know-a-disproportionate-amount-of-information-about-everything-considering-my-age category that arose sometime around Home Alone, but she manages to make it much more endearing (as opposed to annoying like so many other characters in the type do). It was greatly satisfying seeing that she was only person for whom Cheney’s capture is personal, and I’m not sure why. You could say her character exhibited “TRUE GRIT” in her determination to have her revenge (cue laugh track here).
Matt Damon did a great job as the Texas Ranger LeBoeuf, although (for reasons I won’t explain but that may be forgivable) I think his accent wasn’t exactly consistent through the movie. I don’t know- I’d have to see it again to confirm- but it was thoroughly enjoyable to see him get into a spat with virtually anyone else in the cast- Steinfeld, Bridges, etc.- and c’mon, who wouldn’t want to see some uppity condescending don’t-mess-with-Texas asshole get his ass handed to him verbally or physically? It’s why so many people hate the Dallas Cowboys!
While I wish Josh Brolin had a bit more screen time, it’s certainly understandable why he didn’t. After all, he’s the bounty the three main characters spend most of the movie looking for. He was really solid though, and when he finally did appear- after all we’d heard about Tom Cheney- it made it that much more satisfying.
But, of course, the scene-stealer was Jeff Bridges as Rooster Cogburn. Bridges was, in a word, phenomenal. Cogburn is known for his eye patch, his knack for shooting criminals rather than bringing them to justice, and his love of White Russians [citation needed]. Like Brolin, we’re introduced to him through quick stories and glimpses at first- but the character sets the mood and pace for the whole story with the aforementioned courtroom scene. Bridges’ low, gravelly, slow voice is the perfect foil to Damon’s LeBoeuf, and as a movie-goer I found myself being guided along by Cogburn just as Ross did.
3) THE CINEMATOGRAPHY/SET/COSTUMING
I could watch this movie again without audio and still come away satisfied. You can tell how much effort was put into every shot- and if there’s one thing I hate- it’s lazy film-making. The movie wastes no time showing the intricacies of the town- the outhouse, the advertisements, the dress, etc.- but what really sells it is the vastness of the country which they seem to capture on every shot once they’re out in the Indian territory. The landscape is huge, the lone structures strategically placed, the sun perfectly positioned- and I was more and more impressed as the movie went on. By the climax and (I wish I could say more), I forgot about the characters and just got lost in the scenery. Anybody wanting to know anything about what movies should look like and what you can accomplish with attention to detail need look no further.
4) THE WRITING
There is definitely a learning curve to the language used in the film, and it took me about 15 minutes to really understand clearly what was being said- and then another 15 minutes to understand what Jeff Bridges alone was saying. That’s not a bad thing- for me, it reminds me that this was another time and adds to the scope of the story- but it is something you need to be aware of, especially if you’re not a huge Western guy (and lord knows I’m not). That being said, the dialogue is appropriate, witty, and impressive. I found myself thinking at multiple times during the movie how much research it must have taken to get the script right. I appreciate the colloquialisms and idioms of the time, and coupled with actors (see 1 and 2) that are perfect for their respective roles, you’ve got one hell of a script. I’d love to get my hands on a copy of the script and read it. (Maybe I should just get the book?)
NOT AWESOME
Most of these will be pettier things since I’ve pretty much praised the film left and right.
1) As mentioned above, I would have liked to see more Matt Damon and Josh Brolin, but it didn’t detract from the movie at all. Maybe it’s just that they were pushed so much in the ads? I don’t know.
2) At least twice there were some audio/visual problems. Like they used one take’s audio and another’s visual, or they used a take with dialogue that was cut. Again, nothing major, but when I saw it, it took me a couple seconds to figure out what the hell happened.
3) At times, it approached unnecessarily brutal. Now, I realize I’m watching a Western here, and things WERE brutal back then, so maybe this isn’t a fair criticism. But there were two/three instances that shocked me with how frankly portrayed it was. However, I would much rather have a problem with that than the alternative. NOT showing the most disturbing violence would have probably killed the atmosphere of the movie. Chalk this one up to personal bias.
4) At an hour and 50 minutes, it was slightly too long. But I have no fricking idea what I’d cut. It all seemed necessary, and the movie built the suspense well.
5) There were no slamming women in the whole thing. Totally a guy thing to say, and honestly, only a gripe now that I’m thinking about it. We could have used one smoking hot townie or something! They had whores back then! Hell, they probably had MORE whores!
Overall, on a scale of 1-10, 1 being shitty and 10 being mind-blowing, True Grit gets a…
9.5: Practically everything in this movie is done better than I’ve seen in a long, long time. Anybody who appreciates movies should be obliged to see it. I don’t think True Grit will ever be one my favorite movies- I’m just not that kind of Western guy- but it will be one of the best-made movies top-to-bottom I’ve ever seen. But perhaps the thing that most satisfied me with the movie is that with so many blockbusters out there with campy-ass writing, huge special effects, the money-making whores of movies, there are still A-list people out there making quality art. And that’s what True Grit is- art.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)