Wow, it's been awhile since I blogged. We actually went to see Man of Steel early last week while we were out of town, and it was the first time I've ever been to a drive-in theater. The experience was awesome. The movie was .... not.
First, the good side:
-- Amy Adams made a decent Lois Lane. Smart-alecky, adventurous, principled journalist.
-- Laurence Fishburn would have made a great Perry White... If he'd had more than five minutes of screen time.
-- They didn't force Superman into stupid glasses and pretend like nobody could tell who that was.
-- That was the most convincing Jor-El I've ever seen (Russell Crowe's character); perhaps because it's the most OF Jor-El I've ever seen.
-- The character of Zod made sense. Disgruntled general trying to change the system.
Less than good side:
They forgot to develop any of the other characters. I know nothing about this Clark Kent aside from he's passive-aggressive and likes to run around shirtless. Seriously, Henry Cavill, I know you trained hard to get the physique for the part, but I didn't need to see the abs in excruciating detail... repeatedly. Couldn't you and the writers have trained for, I don't know, character and plot development instead? I know Star Trek (2009) was good, but it wasn't good for the three-pronged ships, the improbable usage of black holes as a weapon, and a villain in unlikely armor trying to get revenge.
Friday, June 28, 2013
That Movie that was Called World War Z
So I went to see the latest zombie flick that happens to share the title with the international bestseller by Max Brooks. Seriously, as a zombie action movie, it was pretty good ... in that it's on TV on a Saturday afternoon kind of way. As a movie that I will ever pay money for again? Not so much.
I'm being a little unfair. I've recently listened to the audiobook for World War Z, which has really good voice acting for a compelling narrative of episodes from all over the world describing first the zombie outbreak and initial denials ("Zombies? No way."), survival stories, the establishment of safe zones, and humanity getting back on its feet and fighting back against the zombie horde. The movie that shares the same name is the story of Brad Pitt as former UN journalist faced with the zombie outbreak, flying all over the world searching for a cure for the virus.
My problems with World War Z:
1. Fast zombies. In the book, Brooks goes into great detail to describe the brainless, shuffling, moaning, hungry, indefatigable, unfazed zombie horde. No leadership. No hierarchy. Everybody's equally dull and hungry. In the movie, zombies can not only run, they apparently have grown thicker skulls that can bash in car windows in ways that Chuck Norris could never dream. Seriously, movie makers? That should have splattered their own brains long before they could have ever bashed through a car windshield -- effectively, zombie suicide.
2. No one can use their telephones or email. Why on earth is Brad Pitt wasting jet fuel going to talk to people in Korea, Israel, and the UK who clearly have both generators and telecommunications access? How would zombies interrupt satellite communications? This is what was the strong point of the book; it looked at how people would actually react: using military-grade weapons designed to wound and not necessarily kill humans, locking zombie-infected family members in apartments rather than killing them, raiding camping stores for supplies, gathering information online, etc.
3. There was a deus ex machina. Fast zombies with a 12-second incubation period require it. The movie did set it up, beginning with the opening credits, to be fair. But this was somehow less compelling than the survival stories of people who feared infection by a virus with a two-day incubation period. That incubation period allowed the virus to become a pandemic. Of course, what am I complaining about? What could be better than a zombie? More zombies!
Granted, no fabulous book is ever going to be a perfect movie, even if a perfect movie were possible. But, seriously, it was like the script writers read the first fifty pages and said, "I know how THIS is going to end." Right. And I bet you're still under the impression that Dr. Horrible ended well, too. And Elizabeth Bennett totally found true love with Colonel Wickham. :-|
Ways that World War Z would have made a viable movie:
1. Select a few stories and have the journalist interview them and have them shown as a series of flashbacks. Brad Pitt could be the journalist still, or if that's not enough action for the big name, then you could save your casting budget to fill in the gobs of bit parts that would entail.
2. If you can't handle actually demonstrating that you have read the book, then just stick to one story in the book. Then, you keep Brad Pitt as action star, you have fewer roles to cast, and your movie deserves the same title as the book.
Or you could have just called it One More Zombie Movie, Folks. 'Cause that's what it was. An enjoyable one to be sure with terrifying moans that they got right, but fast zombies? Really?
I'm being a little unfair. I've recently listened to the audiobook for World War Z, which has really good voice acting for a compelling narrative of episodes from all over the world describing first the zombie outbreak and initial denials ("Zombies? No way."), survival stories, the establishment of safe zones, and humanity getting back on its feet and fighting back against the zombie horde. The movie that shares the same name is the story of Brad Pitt as former UN journalist faced with the zombie outbreak, flying all over the world searching for a cure for the virus.
My problems with World War Z:
1. Fast zombies. In the book, Brooks goes into great detail to describe the brainless, shuffling, moaning, hungry, indefatigable, unfazed zombie horde. No leadership. No hierarchy. Everybody's equally dull and hungry. In the movie, zombies can not only run, they apparently have grown thicker skulls that can bash in car windows in ways that Chuck Norris could never dream. Seriously, movie makers? That should have splattered their own brains long before they could have ever bashed through a car windshield -- effectively, zombie suicide.
2. No one can use their telephones or email. Why on earth is Brad Pitt wasting jet fuel going to talk to people in Korea, Israel, and the UK who clearly have both generators and telecommunications access? How would zombies interrupt satellite communications? This is what was the strong point of the book; it looked at how people would actually react: using military-grade weapons designed to wound and not necessarily kill humans, locking zombie-infected family members in apartments rather than killing them, raiding camping stores for supplies, gathering information online, etc.
3. There was a deus ex machina. Fast zombies with a 12-second incubation period require it. The movie did set it up, beginning with the opening credits, to be fair. But this was somehow less compelling than the survival stories of people who feared infection by a virus with a two-day incubation period. That incubation period allowed the virus to become a pandemic. Of course, what am I complaining about? What could be better than a zombie? More zombies!
Granted, no fabulous book is ever going to be a perfect movie, even if a perfect movie were possible. But, seriously, it was like the script writers read the first fifty pages and said, "I know how THIS is going to end." Right. And I bet you're still under the impression that Dr. Horrible ended well, too. And Elizabeth Bennett totally found true love with Colonel Wickham. :-|
Ways that World War Z would have made a viable movie:
1. Select a few stories and have the journalist interview them and have them shown as a series of flashbacks. Brad Pitt could be the journalist still, or if that's not enough action for the big name, then you could save your casting budget to fill in the gobs of bit parts that would entail.
2. If you can't handle actually demonstrating that you have read the book, then just stick to one story in the book. Then, you keep Brad Pitt as action star, you have fewer roles to cast, and your movie deserves the same title as the book.
Or you could have just called it One More Zombie Movie, Folks. 'Cause that's what it was. An enjoyable one to be sure with terrifying moans that they got right, but fast zombies? Really?
Friday, June 7, 2013
Now You See Me: A Thieving Spectacle (minor spoilers)
We went to see Now You See Me this afternoon. Starring Jesse Eisenberg, Woody Harrelson, Isla Fisher, and Dave Franco (what is with Franco men starring in movies as magicians this year?!) as magicians who use their act to rob a bank, an insurance man (played by Michael Cain), and a vault, Now You See Me is a move strong on spectacle: the visuals are fabulous -- ranging from the stage performances of the magicians to the intense action sequences in Las Vegas, New York, and New Orleans. Mark Ruffalo and Melanie Laurent star as an FBI agent and an Interpol officer, respectively, who are trying to figure out how to connect the magicians with the robberies -- because that's the problem with a magic act, you see, it's hard to pin down the modus operandi.
The movie's cast is strong: The magicians are believable, particularly Woody Harrelson as a "mentalist" whose "targeted guessing" reminded me of Shawn Spencer from the TV crime dramedy Psych (which happens to be one of my favorite TV shows). Have you ever noticed how when two actors appear in multiple movies together they play the same roles over and over? Well, these guys managed to avoid it this time. It was nice to see Eisenberg and Harrelson in a movie together where neither of them fired a shotgun or hunted for Twinkies (Zombieland, for those not in the know, and definitely not one of my favorite movies ever). Mark Ruffalo plays the typical hardworking cop-detective-FBI-agent, and he plays it well, overall.
The movie's strong point, however, is its tightly woven, face-paced plot that keeps you guessing on where the next part in the elaborate magicians' show/plan/heist. Of course, much of this you can glean from the trailer. Contrary to the trailer, however, the movie does not center around the Robin Hood, 99% rhetoric that is so appealing nowadays.
And yet. And yet, at the end of the movie, I left the movie feeling robbed. The dramatic plot twist at the end of the movie felt fake, the semi-romantic relationships fell flat (as a pancake under an anvil), and the writers should, quite honestly, have rethought the ending. For a movie about people who create elaborate plans months and years in advance, the writers didn't plan very well for the ending. Allow me to explain: if your dramatic plot twist relies on a "whodunit"-style setup, you can't change things totally out of the blue. You have to drop clues so that the audience can keep guessing or at the end look back and realize what you could have seen all along, but you got distracted by other plot elements. I believe the magician term is "misdirection." Which the movie talks about and demonstrates quite thoroughly. It's just writers either A) wrote themselves into a corner, or B) didn't plan far enough ahead to drop the appropriate clues, or C) had to rewrite the ending at the last minute for some reason or other. Incidentally, the writers could have taken a page from the writers of Psych, although they actually do go a bit overboard at times with singling out clues along the way.
So that's that: the magicians who stole millions stole the show and the writers failed to deliver a satisfactory ending -- which is quite frustrating because up to that point the numerous plotlines held together quite nicely.
And heart. It was missing heart.
In the end: would I buy it? Nah. I might rent it just so I can see if I missed the clues that make the big reveal make sense. Is it pretty on the big screen? Definitely. Like I said, the movie is all about spectacle.
One last thing: Dave Franco made a better magician than James Franco, IMHO. But that's highly influenced by the writing, too.
The movie's cast is strong: The magicians are believable, particularly Woody Harrelson as a "mentalist" whose "targeted guessing" reminded me of Shawn Spencer from the TV crime dramedy Psych (which happens to be one of my favorite TV shows). Have you ever noticed how when two actors appear in multiple movies together they play the same roles over and over? Well, these guys managed to avoid it this time. It was nice to see Eisenberg and Harrelson in a movie together where neither of them fired a shotgun or hunted for Twinkies (Zombieland, for those not in the know, and definitely not one of my favorite movies ever). Mark Ruffalo plays the typical hardworking cop-detective-FBI-agent, and he plays it well, overall.
The movie's strong point, however, is its tightly woven, face-paced plot that keeps you guessing on where the next part in the elaborate magicians' show/plan/heist. Of course, much of this you can glean from the trailer. Contrary to the trailer, however, the movie does not center around the Robin Hood, 99% rhetoric that is so appealing nowadays.
And yet. And yet, at the end of the movie, I left the movie feeling robbed. The dramatic plot twist at the end of the movie felt fake, the semi-romantic relationships fell flat (as a pancake under an anvil), and the writers should, quite honestly, have rethought the ending. For a movie about people who create elaborate plans months and years in advance, the writers didn't plan very well for the ending. Allow me to explain: if your dramatic plot twist relies on a "whodunit"-style setup, you can't change things totally out of the blue. You have to drop clues so that the audience can keep guessing or at the end look back and realize what you could have seen all along, but you got distracted by other plot elements. I believe the magician term is "misdirection." Which the movie talks about and demonstrates quite thoroughly. It's just writers either A) wrote themselves into a corner, or B) didn't plan far enough ahead to drop the appropriate clues, or C) had to rewrite the ending at the last minute for some reason or other. Incidentally, the writers could have taken a page from the writers of Psych, although they actually do go a bit overboard at times with singling out clues along the way.
So that's that: the magicians who stole millions stole the show and the writers failed to deliver a satisfactory ending -- which is quite frustrating because up to that point the numerous plotlines held together quite nicely.
And heart. It was missing heart.
In the end: would I buy it? Nah. I might rent it just so I can see if I missed the clues that make the big reveal make sense. Is it pretty on the big screen? Definitely. Like I said, the movie is all about spectacle.
One last thing: Dave Franco made a better magician than James Franco, IMHO. But that's highly influenced by the writing, too.
Sunday, June 2, 2013
Return to Blogging with a Double Feature
Okay, so it wasn't a true double feature: we didn't really go see two movies, one after another. We went to see The Great Gatsby on Friday night and finished off our book of discounted movie tickets this evening with Iron Man 3. We went from classic literature to comic book series, from adulterers to Avenger.
Enough with the comparisons. Short version: I'd recommend them both, and here's why.
The Great Gatsby was Baz Lurhman's glitzy take on the book that generations of high school students across America have read. It is the tale of Gatsby's love for Daisy, a woman married to the wealthy bigot Tom. Gatsby, since his brief acquaintance with Daisy during WWI (he was an officer on leave, she was a society girl), has made his fortune in unsavory business dealings. His weekly parties are glittery, gaudy, glamorous shindigs that no one is invited to and hundreds of people attend. Eventually, Gatsby meets back up with Daisy not through the parties (as he had planned) but through his neighbor Nick Carraway, the narrator of the book/movie and Daisy's cousin.
The problem with having taught a unit on the Jazz Age multiple times and having seen the Robert Redford movie several times is that I was constantly picking out anachronisms. It really messed with my willing suspension of disbelief. But that's not the point here. Once I got about 45 minutes into the movie, I was fully absorbed enough in the plot to ignore blatant anachronisms.
The music was interesting -- (kudos to Jay Z) many of the pieces would start out sounding like from the 1920s, but would morph into something more modern because, let's face it, there aren't that many pieces from the 20s that audiences today would enjoy. As the music played during Gatsby's parties, the dances that people were doing would also start out looking like something from the 20s -- stills from the movie would look a lot like illustrations of flappers' dancing from the period -- but looked very modern. A nice contrast occurs when Nick and Daisy do the Charleston in Gatsby's house, which really showed the difference between the modernized dances and the more traditional dance.
The visuals from the movie were quite good, although the CGI felt fake at times, particularly when transitioning from live actors to panning across the landscape. Maybe it was because I went to a 2D showing? Given the bright colors and surreal scenes at Myrtle's apartment (Myrtle is Tom's mistress, and Tom is Daisy's husband, for those not in the know), maybe the 3D would've been worth it.
The actors did a great job, I'd have to say. Leonardo Dicaprio made an admirable Jay Gatsby -- similar enough to Robert Redford to pay homage to the 1970s version and different enough to have taken on the role himself. The problem is that the Gatsby of the book had dark hair and blond Gatsbys always bother me. Carey Mulligan was a very good Daisy, portraying someone who wished she had the wide-eyed naivete that she pretended. Tobey Maguire was adequate as Nick Carraway -- he overdid the rusty old man voice at the beginning of his narration (from a sanitorium -- a frame story that was the innovation of the filmmakers). During much of the movie, he played Nick as a young man who has been somewhat sheltered and gets dragged into things by others. Joel Edgerton's Tom was frankly not as good as the 1974 movie, although he did look like a pig, which was amusing. He did do a better job than Bruce Dern at genuinely seeming to care about Daisy as she waivers about leaving him for Gatsby. "You mean you never loved me? Not even that day where I carried you so you wouldn't mess up your shoes?" actually had me believing that he genuinely did have a heart, even if you never could trust the jerk. Myrtle was suitably annoying. Wolfsheim was frightening. Wilson was a simpleton. As it should be, though Wilson was a bit overly stupid.
Have I mentioned that this was the one book I read in high school for school that I genuinely enjoyed? (Okay, there was Fahrenheit 451, too) So I was one of those people who was constantly comparing the book to the movie. It really worked against me because I wound up missing out on the "aha" moments that first-time viewing really requires.
There was a nice Easter egg for fans of the 1974 movie: one of the most memorable lines is where Daisy explains to Gatsby why she didn't wait for him -- "Because rich girls don't marry poor boys, Jay Gatsby!" The writers managed to include the line by having Jordan Baker's date say it at the first of Gatsby's parties that Nick attends. (Jordan Baker is Daisy's best friend and Nick's love interest in the book.)
Overall, will I buy it? Probably not. But was it worth seeing? Definitely. And the big-screen experience was worth it. The heart factor? I'm not willing to say it had enough -- for an epic love story gone Jazz Age, it fell oddly flat now and again. But it was good, and I would definitely recommend seeing if you like the story or are interested in seeing a non-action movie with lovely visuals and fun music. Just don't expect a happy ending. It is a Fitzgerald story, after all.
Now, if I haven't lost your attention totally, on to Iron Man 3, which will now get the short end of the stick because I'm tired and I have to go to work tomorrow.
Tony Stark returns, an insomniac who gets panic attacks when he thinks about the "New York thing" too much. Stark has grown up in that he can now acknowledge the role of his own actions in creating the situation that nearly lost him everything -- both his own life and Pepper Potts'. Stark is fighting his own inner demons and villains who are terrorizing U.S. targets (including Stark's own house) using super-soldiers with amazing regenerative abilities -- so long as they don't literally overheat and blow up. Some of the best moments in the movie are between Stark and a 12-year-old sidekick who helps him recover from the near-death of his suit.
Pro: Nonstop fun action sequences.
Pepper Potts could become another Avenger.
Con: It could have been improved greatly by exploring the PTSD side of things more. Nonsequitor moments in a therapist's office with ironic comments would have underscored the action and shown treatment of the psychological disorder that Stark now faces. Ultimately, Stark thinks his way out of his PTSD, his own shrapnel-approaching-the-heart problem, and Pepper Potts' being injected with the super-serum of melty-explosive doom. Not in a plot-oriented kind of way, but in a let's-wrap-things-up-with-a-big-bow way. Because Americans are just supposed to get over mental problems. Not have them treated. (Yes, there is the cute scene after the credits that seem to contradict this a bit, but one scene with that guy doesn't really count. Stark is still fixing himself through useful thoughts.
And I saw way too many women's rib cages. Good grief, for a movie set around Christmas time, you'd think they could have women fully dressed.
Overall? Worth going to the movies for. Would see again. Had a satisfactory amount of heart, though not abounding with it. Not likely to buy, though will probably rewatch before The Avengers II. Definitely best on the big screen.
Enough with the comparisons. Short version: I'd recommend them both, and here's why.
The Great Gatsby was Baz Lurhman's glitzy take on the book that generations of high school students across America have read. It is the tale of Gatsby's love for Daisy, a woman married to the wealthy bigot Tom. Gatsby, since his brief acquaintance with Daisy during WWI (he was an officer on leave, she was a society girl), has made his fortune in unsavory business dealings. His weekly parties are glittery, gaudy, glamorous shindigs that no one is invited to and hundreds of people attend. Eventually, Gatsby meets back up with Daisy not through the parties (as he had planned) but through his neighbor Nick Carraway, the narrator of the book/movie and Daisy's cousin.
The problem with having taught a unit on the Jazz Age multiple times and having seen the Robert Redford movie several times is that I was constantly picking out anachronisms. It really messed with my willing suspension of disbelief. But that's not the point here. Once I got about 45 minutes into the movie, I was fully absorbed enough in the plot to ignore blatant anachronisms.
The music was interesting -- (kudos to Jay Z) many of the pieces would start out sounding like from the 1920s, but would morph into something more modern because, let's face it, there aren't that many pieces from the 20s that audiences today would enjoy. As the music played during Gatsby's parties, the dances that people were doing would also start out looking like something from the 20s -- stills from the movie would look a lot like illustrations of flappers' dancing from the period -- but looked very modern. A nice contrast occurs when Nick and Daisy do the Charleston in Gatsby's house, which really showed the difference between the modernized dances and the more traditional dance.
The visuals from the movie were quite good, although the CGI felt fake at times, particularly when transitioning from live actors to panning across the landscape. Maybe it was because I went to a 2D showing? Given the bright colors and surreal scenes at Myrtle's apartment (Myrtle is Tom's mistress, and Tom is Daisy's husband, for those not in the know), maybe the 3D would've been worth it.
The actors did a great job, I'd have to say. Leonardo Dicaprio made an admirable Jay Gatsby -- similar enough to Robert Redford to pay homage to the 1970s version and different enough to have taken on the role himself. The problem is that the Gatsby of the book had dark hair and blond Gatsbys always bother me. Carey Mulligan was a very good Daisy, portraying someone who wished she had the wide-eyed naivete that she pretended. Tobey Maguire was adequate as Nick Carraway -- he overdid the rusty old man voice at the beginning of his narration (from a sanitorium -- a frame story that was the innovation of the filmmakers). During much of the movie, he played Nick as a young man who has been somewhat sheltered and gets dragged into things by others. Joel Edgerton's Tom was frankly not as good as the 1974 movie, although he did look like a pig, which was amusing. He did do a better job than Bruce Dern at genuinely seeming to care about Daisy as she waivers about leaving him for Gatsby. "You mean you never loved me? Not even that day where I carried you so you wouldn't mess up your shoes?" actually had me believing that he genuinely did have a heart, even if you never could trust the jerk. Myrtle was suitably annoying. Wolfsheim was frightening. Wilson was a simpleton. As it should be, though Wilson was a bit overly stupid.
Have I mentioned that this was the one book I read in high school for school that I genuinely enjoyed? (Okay, there was Fahrenheit 451, too) So I was one of those people who was constantly comparing the book to the movie. It really worked against me because I wound up missing out on the "aha" moments that first-time viewing really requires.
There was a nice Easter egg for fans of the 1974 movie: one of the most memorable lines is where Daisy explains to Gatsby why she didn't wait for him -- "Because rich girls don't marry poor boys, Jay Gatsby!" The writers managed to include the line by having Jordan Baker's date say it at the first of Gatsby's parties that Nick attends. (Jordan Baker is Daisy's best friend and Nick's love interest in the book.)
Overall, will I buy it? Probably not. But was it worth seeing? Definitely. And the big-screen experience was worth it. The heart factor? I'm not willing to say it had enough -- for an epic love story gone Jazz Age, it fell oddly flat now and again. But it was good, and I would definitely recommend seeing if you like the story or are interested in seeing a non-action movie with lovely visuals and fun music. Just don't expect a happy ending. It is a Fitzgerald story, after all.
Now, if I haven't lost your attention totally, on to Iron Man 3, which will now get the short end of the stick because I'm tired and I have to go to work tomorrow.
Tony Stark returns, an insomniac who gets panic attacks when he thinks about the "New York thing" too much. Stark has grown up in that he can now acknowledge the role of his own actions in creating the situation that nearly lost him everything -- both his own life and Pepper Potts'. Stark is fighting his own inner demons and villains who are terrorizing U.S. targets (including Stark's own house) using super-soldiers with amazing regenerative abilities -- so long as they don't literally overheat and blow up. Some of the best moments in the movie are between Stark and a 12-year-old sidekick who helps him recover from the near-death of his suit.
Pro: Nonstop fun action sequences.
Pepper Potts could become another Avenger.
Con: It could have been improved greatly by exploring the PTSD side of things more. Nonsequitor moments in a therapist's office with ironic comments would have underscored the action and shown treatment of the psychological disorder that Stark now faces. Ultimately, Stark thinks his way out of his PTSD, his own shrapnel-approaching-the-heart problem, and Pepper Potts' being injected with the super-serum of melty-explosive doom. Not in a plot-oriented kind of way, but in a let's-wrap-things-up-with-a-big-bow way. Because Americans are just supposed to get over mental problems. Not have them treated. (Yes, there is the cute scene after the credits that seem to contradict this a bit, but one scene with that guy doesn't really count. Stark is still fixing himself through useful thoughts.
And I saw way too many women's rib cages. Good grief, for a movie set around Christmas time, you'd think they could have women fully dressed.
Overall? Worth going to the movies for. Would see again. Had a satisfactory amount of heart, though not abounding with it. Not likely to buy, though will probably rewatch before The Avengers II. Definitely best on the big screen.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)