I don’t know quite what to say about this movie, so I don’t think I’ll say too much.
My overwhelming feeling toward A Serious Man is one of indifference. This is pretty odd for me, especially in light of the fact that this movie represents a largely underwhelming project by some of my favorite writer/directors; Ethan and Joel Coen.
I liked the cinematography, which produced many a beautiful and crisp portrait. I also could tell that the filmmakers had put a lot of effort into the sound design. I enjoyed all the Jefferson Airplane songs. I thought the opening vignette was quite disturbing, and subtly so.
However, the plot was sort of wandering and I could not engage with any of the characters. I thought the pacing was too slow. There were too many non sequiturs and unexplained events. Somehow the whole story felt overwrought yet also devoid of any significance whatsoever. A pointless exercise in raising the blood pressure of the audience.
Pretty blah. It just felt to me like a wasted afternoon. I think I’d rather have hated it.
25 February 2010
20 February 2010
The Wolfman (2010)
Picture this: you’re in a relationship with someone and things have started to go sour. Your person’s personality has become predictable and tiresome; traits that used to be quirky, exciting, and edgy now come off as eye-rollingly dull and predictable.
Sure, you still find this person attractive in some way. You started dating Staley McBlando for a reason—most likely relating to some combination of physical attractiveness and personality that they do, in fact, possess. However, at this moment in time, for whatever reason, you realize that you are just so freaking bored with this particular variation of your usual match’s patchwork of personal qualities that you have to get up from your table at the restaurant you always go to and walk out that familiar door, get in your car and drive as far away as you can get in an hour’s time. Right now.
Such is my relationship with werewolf movies. Despite the fact (or maybe because of?) their often formulaic nature, I find myself attracted to them again and again. My interest is snared by their promises of a tortured, brooding protagonist, silly mythologies of the occult, gory action sequences, and usually not very nuanced metaphors pertaining to the overlap in the human psyche between compassionate humanity and brutal animal instincts.
I freely admit that even though werewolf movies are usually awful when gauged by the standards applied to other cinema, I wholeheartedly enjoy watching them, laughing at them, and cringing at all the spilled guts and ridiculously bad acting. Usually if a movie offers me even one of the aforementioned traits I can walk away saying I enjoyed it. Even Wes Craven’s Cursed (2005), with its truly awful amateurish acting and hilariously cheesy dialogue, was one that I can say I genuinely enjoyed watching and was in some way entertained by, Christina Ricci and all.
But do you know what? Sitting through the colossally dismal The Wolfman the other night I felt like I was at the end of a stale relationship. Maybe it was the endless series of sucker-punch, sudden loud noise scare tactics. Or perhaps it was the hackneyed storyline that was somehow riddled with plot holes so gaping as to have an alienating effect. It might have been the usually sultry Benicio Del Toro’s abhorrent and irritating American accent, or Anthony Hopkins’s half-assed delivery of all his pointless lines. One definite source of my disgust was the stupid choice of not updating the look of the actual wolfman himself from the 1941 classic upon which this picture was based. Seriously, we decided to keep the black plastic dog nose, now painstakingly rendered in CGI? Come on!
Bottom line: approximately five to ten seconds of this was good*, the rest was dumb. Even to someone owns the soundtrack of American Werewolf in Paris and thinks The Howling III: The Marsupials is a good way to spend a Friday night.
--
* these five to ten seconds being 1) the opening credits and 2) the brief moment when Benicio del Toro stares hungrily at Emily Blunt’s décolletage with a blank look of arousal.
Sure, you still find this person attractive in some way. You started dating Staley McBlando for a reason—most likely relating to some combination of physical attractiveness and personality that they do, in fact, possess. However, at this moment in time, for whatever reason, you realize that you are just so freaking bored with this particular variation of your usual match’s patchwork of personal qualities that you have to get up from your table at the restaurant you always go to and walk out that familiar door, get in your car and drive as far away as you can get in an hour’s time. Right now.
Such is my relationship with werewolf movies. Despite the fact (or maybe because of?) their often formulaic nature, I find myself attracted to them again and again. My interest is snared by their promises of a tortured, brooding protagonist, silly mythologies of the occult, gory action sequences, and usually not very nuanced metaphors pertaining to the overlap in the human psyche between compassionate humanity and brutal animal instincts.
I freely admit that even though werewolf movies are usually awful when gauged by the standards applied to other cinema, I wholeheartedly enjoy watching them, laughing at them, and cringing at all the spilled guts and ridiculously bad acting. Usually if a movie offers me even one of the aforementioned traits I can walk away saying I enjoyed it. Even Wes Craven’s Cursed (2005), with its truly awful amateurish acting and hilariously cheesy dialogue, was one that I can say I genuinely enjoyed watching and was in some way entertained by, Christina Ricci and all.
But do you know what? Sitting through the colossally dismal The Wolfman the other night I felt like I was at the end of a stale relationship. Maybe it was the endless series of sucker-punch, sudden loud noise scare tactics. Or perhaps it was the hackneyed storyline that was somehow riddled with plot holes so gaping as to have an alienating effect. It might have been the usually sultry Benicio Del Toro’s abhorrent and irritating American accent, or Anthony Hopkins’s half-assed delivery of all his pointless lines. One definite source of my disgust was the stupid choice of not updating the look of the actual wolfman himself from the 1941 classic upon which this picture was based. Seriously, we decided to keep the black plastic dog nose, now painstakingly rendered in CGI? Come on!
Bottom line: approximately five to ten seconds of this was good*, the rest was dumb. Even to someone owns the soundtrack of American Werewolf in Paris and thinks The Howling III: The Marsupials is a good way to spend a Friday night.
--
* these five to ten seconds being 1) the opening credits and 2) the brief moment when Benicio del Toro stares hungrily at Emily Blunt’s décolletage with a blank look of arousal.
17 February 2010
Dark City (1998)
I don’t want to go into a lot of details about the plot of Dark City except for the absolute basics; John Murdoch wakes up in a bathtub and realizes that reality isn’t real. Memories are false. The best way to describe life is as a series of ideas that have been injected into people’s heads.
Obviously this movie is pretty heavy, conceptually speaking. I like that it plays with ideas of memory, experience, and “reality.” I find the theories Dark City proposes thought provoking. Not earth-shatteringly interesting—just intriguing enough to produce a couple “hm” moments. The story itself is more than a bit cheesy. The acting does not help to reduce this cheesiness.
However, what bothers me more about Dark City is that despite being made in 1998 it still feels uncannily as if it sprang from the 1980’s. The effects are pretty hokey, even for that year. At first I thought “Oh this has a really nice style to it—very neo noir a la Blade Runner, mixed with the expected eighties aesthetics.” Eighties aesthetics are appropriate (albeit silly) when they come from 1983. Not so much 15 years later.
Overall, I'd say that the best way to describe Dark City is that it dances along the fine line between interesting and ridiculous. You’ll have to decide which side it ends up on for you.
--
Up Next:
The Wolfman!
Obviously this movie is pretty heavy, conceptually speaking. I like that it plays with ideas of memory, experience, and “reality.” I find the theories Dark City proposes thought provoking. Not earth-shatteringly interesting—just intriguing enough to produce a couple “hm” moments. The story itself is more than a bit cheesy. The acting does not help to reduce this cheesiness.
However, what bothers me more about Dark City is that despite being made in 1998 it still feels uncannily as if it sprang from the 1980’s. The effects are pretty hokey, even for that year. At first I thought “Oh this has a really nice style to it—very neo noir a la Blade Runner, mixed with the expected eighties aesthetics.” Eighties aesthetics are appropriate (albeit silly) when they come from 1983. Not so much 15 years later.
Overall, I'd say that the best way to describe Dark City is that it dances along the fine line between interesting and ridiculous. You’ll have to decide which side it ends up on for you.
--
Up Next:
The Wolfman!
09 February 2010
Edge of Darkness (2010)
Ok so… Mel Gibson with a Boston accent. Personal vendetta. Bad guys: watch out!
Sounds pretty ho-hum, right? I didn’t really want to see this movie either. I thought I knew everything about it from watching the previews. Friends, I was totally wrong.
Edge of Darkness is extremely intense in a "makes you squirm but you know you like it" kind of way. It also has some mind-blowing performances. The nuances of the writing allow the fairly hyperbolic set of characters to remain engaging. The editing is very cleverly done.
For these reasons I consider it to be a good movie. Well done, filmmakers. You delivered on the promise inherent to producing a film labeled “thriller.” I literally developed heartburn while watching because I got all caught up in the plot, which was significantly anxiety producing.
The only thing I had a problem with was the very last scene, but I won’t go into that here. It didn’t sour the overall effect of the movie, so I’ll leave you to pass your own judgment on it.
Make sure you watch this movie with someone else, because otherwise you’ll be freaked out and watching your back all way home. Scary!
Sounds pretty ho-hum, right? I didn’t really want to see this movie either. I thought I knew everything about it from watching the previews. Friends, I was totally wrong.
Edge of Darkness is extremely intense in a "makes you squirm but you know you like it" kind of way. It also has some mind-blowing performances. The nuances of the writing allow the fairly hyperbolic set of characters to remain engaging. The editing is very cleverly done.
For these reasons I consider it to be a good movie. Well done, filmmakers. You delivered on the promise inherent to producing a film labeled “thriller.” I literally developed heartburn while watching because I got all caught up in the plot, which was significantly anxiety producing.
The only thing I had a problem with was the very last scene, but I won’t go into that here. It didn’t sour the overall effect of the movie, so I’ll leave you to pass your own judgment on it.
Make sure you watch this movie with someone else, because otherwise you’ll be freaked out and watching your back all way home. Scary!
03 February 2010
Terminator Salvation (2009)
Wow. What were they thinking when they decided to produce this movie?
Answer: They were not. Thinking. At all.
Really really nonsensical plot that somehow still managed to be formulaic. Performances that you couldn’t label compelling under any circumstances.1 Lots of very expensive shots and sequences all leading to ultimate disappointment and in some cases, actual physical disgust that they even wasted the money putting them together in this context.
Blech.
--
1. Unless, of course, you count this performance. Way more genuine than anything that ended up on celluloid.
Answer: They were not. Thinking. At all.
Really really nonsensical plot that somehow still managed to be formulaic. Performances that you couldn’t label compelling under any circumstances.1 Lots of very expensive shots and sequences all leading to ultimate disappointment and in some cases, actual physical disgust that they even wasted the money putting them together in this context.
Blech.
--
1. Unless, of course, you count this performance. Way more genuine than anything that ended up on celluloid.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
