The Raid: Redemption
2011 action movie
Rating: 13/20
Plot: Police raid an apartment complex, and a lot of people get shot and booted in the head. It's a bone-snappin' good time!
As long as you don't pop this in looking for things like character development and story, you'll be just fine. I can't remember anything about the characters in this one actually except that one was ruthless and two were related. And that's about it. But it doesn't matter because this is credits-to-credits action mayhem, and so well choreographed that it almost becomes high art. It's the kind of violence you can feel through the screen, every crack of a radius, every concussive head-against-the-wall, every two or three story stairway drop, every machete or hatchet to the shoulder blade, every stab in the gut. Gareth Evans doesn't screw around here. He doesn't let the story development get in the way of the carnage development, and he doesn't interrupt the proceedings with any one-liners or silly moments. The tone is consistently dark, and the pace is punishing. A lot of that is the appearance of the setting. It all takes place in this dilapidated apartment building which allows for some cool close-quarter fight choreography. It all looks terrific, especially if you're used to watching a lot of frenetic video game action, but after a while, it sort of runs out of new things to show us. This is a movie that I enjoyed watching, or at least the animal inside of me (baby koala) did. It's the kind of thing that can make your intestines twitch.
This movie and a poker game forced me to listen to Linkin Park (possibly for the first time ever?) twice in one week. I thought the guitar-heavy score worked well with the visuals in this one.
I'll watch the sequel the next time I'm in the mood for some Indonesian martial arts or just want a movie with a high body count. The sequel is cleverly titled The Raid 2.
Time Travel Movie Fest: The Jacket
2005 time travel movie
Rating: 13/20
Plot: A Gulf War and head-wound veteran discovers a very roundabout way to get laid. Obviously, it's based on a Jack London story.
See, that plot synopsis is pretty funny if you've seen the movie. It made me laugh anyway.
There are two people with the initials K.K. in this movie, and one of them is extraordinarily pretty while the other is not. This is the second time travel movie featuring Kris Kristofferson, the pretty one, that I've seen during my popular Time Travel Movie Fest. At this stage in his career, he's the type of actor who doesn't even need lines. He just needs that face, a face with a lifetime of remorse hidden beneath the wrinkles. I just always like seeing Kristofferson's face. Kiera Knightley must have filmed her parts in between Pirate movies. It seems like a different character for her since the movie didn't take place a century and a half ago. Daniel Craig's also got a small role playing a paranoiac who talks about the Organization for the Organized. In a way, I kind of wished that character was more important. Jennifer Jason Leigh is her usual inconspicuous self. Adrien Brody has to carry this thing, and he sometimes is just a little off. There's a range of emotions, probably too many, and some of his dialogue is really goofy. Because of his performance, I kind of figured this was heading for a big Shammalammadingdongian reveal, but apparently his performance was just not very good instead.
I liked the story here, and a time travel story where a guy travels into the future, gets information that helps him in the present, and then changes that future is interesting although I'm never sure how it all works. And naturally, there are paradoxes. A feel-good (depending on your interpretation) denouement, one messed up by a "How much time do we have?" line that nearly sinks the entire film, is satisfying for the most part, and it's refreshing to see a character exist as unselfishly as Brody's character does in this. There's never even an attempt to explain why the character can suddenly travel in time unless I just missed it, but if you just go with it, the narrative isn't all that bad. Some weirdo twitchy special effects kind of nauseated me after a while though.
Brian Eno scored this movie and did it about as passively as you'd guess he would. It also had Iggy Pop and somebody named Andy Tubman and the Jane Doe's during the credits.
Here's a picture of Kris Krisofferson without a shirt:
Oh, there's film version of the Jack London story from 1920 called The Star Rover. Kris Kristofferson might be in that one, too. Unfortunately, I'm not sure I can find it, but I'd love to compare the two.
Inside Out
2015 animated movie
Rating: 17/20 (Jen: 19/20; Abbey: 17/20; Dylan: 11/20; Buster: 17/20)
Plot: A young girl deals with her emotions following a move from the Midwest to San Francisco.
I'll start the way the theater experience started with the short. "Lava" was cute enough, but it didn't feel like anything new, and I didn't really like the song. Things just seemed too obvious and unoriginal.
Hey, look! Pixar's back! I didn't hate Monster University or anything, but with no Pixar movie at all in 2014 and what seems like a dozen sequels with an underwhelming Brave in the middle, I was getting a little worried about the company. This movie is full of originality and lovable characters, combines humor and pathos in a way that can only be described as Pixar-esque, bursts with color and imaginative imagery, and is just so smart.
A lot of people have probably seen similar ideas in literature, movies, or television shows, but has it ever been this well executed? The voice work captures the emotion characters perfectly. Poehler as Joy brings that infectious enthusiasm that she had with her Parks and Recreation character, the sort of thing that could make her really irritating if you knew her in real life but charming, even through the flaws, here. Phyllis Smith has a voice that I knew I knew while watching but had to look up later to figure it out. She's the older woman from The Office, and she's got the perfect dumpy voice for Sadness. Bill Hader, Lewis Black, and Mindy Kaling are great as Fear, Anger, and Disgust. Best of all might be Richard Kind as an imaginary friend named Bing Bong. That's a character who should only work in a movie created by the makers of Ice Age or something. You almost want him to be gone as soon as he shows up, but instead of quickly wearing out his welcome, he actually manages to get more lovable as it goes. The human characters are pushed to the side for the most part so that the focus can be on what's happening in the little girl's mind, but when they're on the screen, the people seem like they could actually be people.
As with Pixar's best work--Up, of course; Ratatouille; two of the Toy Story movies; Finding Nemo--there's a great combination of fun humor that doesn't lean on pop culture references or fart jokes and genuinely touching moments. Since you fall in love with the characters, you feel for them. Pixar's model's been copied, but the imitators often pale in comparison because they forget to create characters the audience is going to empathize with and really embrace. These are characters you care about, even when they are goofy-looking imaginary friends. I don't want to give anything away since this movie's been out less than a week, but there's a moment with Bing Bong that yanked at my lacrimal glands like the most touching Pixar moments--the end of Toy Story 3, the first ten minutes of Up, countless other moments because that's what Pixar's all about. That the creators of this are able to accomplish that with a goofy-looking imaginary friend is just amazing to me. This movie's vibrant and has very funny characters saying very funny things. You'll have fun watching the movie, and you'll laugh. But you also might cry, especially you parents once you figure out exactly what this is all about.
I think one thing I really liked about this is that there really wasn't a bad guy. Life was the antagonist in this movie, and life, as most adults know, really is often antagonistic. And the child's realization of that is really what this movie's all about. I did often wonder, especially since I watched this a few seats down from a five-year-old, whether all of this would make sense for a kid. I eventually decided that I think it's going to mean different things for different people with different ages and different experiences, really the way the best art and stories should work. I think this is a movie that might mean one thing for kids, something completely different for older kids, and something else entirely for adults. This is one of those movies that you could watch multiple times at different stages of your life and gain new meaning and wisdom from the experience.
These animated movies have gotten ridiculously realistic. During the first seconds of the "Lava" short, I wondered if Pixar was cheating and actually using shots of real water and sky and island. The realistic parts of this movie--the parts involving San Francisco or human beings--look very realistic. But what I really liked with the animation was the contrast with the way the girl's mind was animated. It still had that computer-animated look, of course, but there was something traditional about it, too. It was cartoony, and a lot of the reason was because of the freedom the animators must have had with the colors and shapes they were allowed to use. The inside of a person's mind doesn't have to look a certain way, and what the animators came up with to show us something we'll never actually see feels spontaneous and free and lively and original. There's a touch of the surreal, there are nods to many animation styles and art forms, and there's just so much to see. Without a doubt, I'll watch this again to catch details that were missed. This really did feel like an adventure inside a child's mind, and even if the idea of spending an hour and a half with an actual child might sound terrifying, I can't imagine somebody not having fun on this trip.
Finally, I just loved how intelligently this was written. There were lots of directions they could have gone with this story, and you can't cover every aspect of the human mind in one feature film. I don't know a lot about psychology or the brain, but I loved how this did explore all over. It touches on random thoughts, long-term and short-term memory, fears, ear worms. It's been a while since I've seen Donald in Mathematical Land, but in a way, this reminded me of a cross between that--or something else by Disney that is more cerebral, and Alice in Wonderland. There's an intelligent whimsy. The themes resonate, even if you're not a preteen girl, and you can just tell that these people didn't just have an idea and spit it at the audience as quickly as they could. This is a rich exploration of that girl's mindset and growth, and it's an investigation of just how all these different emotions play a part in the development of healthy-minded human beings. Something this smart can't be written hastily.
Pixar wonderfully dove into the unknown here. When I first heard about this project, I thought it was risky, the kind of thing that would have to be dumbed-down in order for kids to really enjoy it, one of those sounds-good-on-paper ideas that doesn't really translate to the big screen all that well. I'm so happy with this finished product, and after I see it a few more times, it just might end up being one of Pixar's very best.
Time Travel Movie Fest: About Time
2013 romantic comedy (with time travel)
Rating: 17/20
Plot: A guy who's had no luck with love finds out from his father that the males in his family are capable of time travel. There are rules and all, but it's still a pretty sweet deal. Rather than use his new gift for financial gain, he decides to try to use it to find love.
Look! This movie was directed by a Hobbit:
Hobbit
He's Richard Curtis (who's directed only this, Love Actually, and the underrated Pirate Radio), and I almost avoided his movie because I thought the poster was terrible and don't usually like romantic comedies that much. "From the creators of Love Actually" didn't quite sell this to me like it would most people. Luckily, because of this Time Travel Movie Fest, I gave it a shot, and it's easily the best of the time travel movies I've seen thus far. I laughed; I cried; I thought about masturbating. That's the trifecta.
Hot damn! I loved this movie!
Tim, the main character played by Domhnall Gleeson, has an Amelie poster in his room, and with the playfulness of About Time, I think it's appropriate. They have a similar airiness and feel, the kind of movie that sort of washes over you like mist from a waterfall. Fans of Amelie might watch this and wonder what the hell I'm talking about, but I thought this was a less stylish Amelie with all the French sucked out of it. It at least filled me with warmth like Jean-Pierre Jeunet's work. The characters are utterly charming and quirky. I can understand somebody disliking these characters if they're anglophobic or something, but other than that, I can't imagine somebody watching this and disliking any of the characters. Well, maybe the baby. Richard Cordery plays an uncle, completely oblivious to everything that is going on, hilariously. There's Harry the playwright (Tom Hollander) who is humorously misanthropic. I'm not sure that guy had a line in this movie that I didn't think was funny, a lot of it because of that dry British wit and a lot because of Hollander's delivery. Calling somebody a "sarcastic cow," asking Tim if his mother still looks like Andy Warhol, answering the door with a hearty "What the fuck do you want?", telling Tim that he can have sex with his daughter if he wants because "apparently everybody else does." On paper, he's too bitter and sardonic to like, but I wanted to hang with the dude. Well, maybe on the other side of the room. His best line might be after the debut of a play when he claims, "It's the Titanic of play openings, but with no survivors. No women, no children. Not even Kate Winslet. All dead."
But you'd probably have to be there.
Bill Nighy plays Tim's dad. You know those tears and laughs I mentioned earlier? A lot of them come from what Nighy does with this character. The guy is just so likable. And what's he use his time travel abilities for? "Books, books, books." You have to respect a guy who uses time travel just to make sure he has a chance to read everything.
Sidebar: The "rules" in this movie are that you can only travel to a time when you existed. You can relive moments, and you can butterfly-effect the heck out of everything. So what would you use time travel for? Erase mistakes? Find love? Make some money? Read books? I think I'd use it to watch more movies.
Back to the father. This movie is a romantic comedy, but there's also a touching father/son relationship, too. In fact, there's a moment in this movie where the focus seems to shift to that relationship instead of the romantic one. And the moments they share and the words they share and sometimes the lack of words they share, though existing in this kind of quirky movie world and admittedly manipulative, are just so touching. Nighy's character is the dad you might wish you had even if you really enjoy your own dad. And he's great at table tennis (without the ball) and knows his music, calling Jimmy Fontana's Il Mondo the "greatest album ever recorded by an Italian who looks like he has a dead badger on his head."
Of course, you don't watch a romantic comedy for father/son relationships. I often have trouble buying movie love. Watching the initials meetings between Gleeson's Tim and Rachel McAdams Mary, their blossoming romance, and all the other stuff that happens is just about the most beautiful relationship I've seen in a movie. It really is. The dad tells Tim earlier in the movie that "all the time travel in the world can't make somebody love you," but that's kind of close to what Tim attempts to do. Tim and Mary's first scene is wonderful, a love-at-first-sight moment that doesn't involve time travel at all. And it actually doesn't involve sight. It's a brave scene taking place in a completely-dark restaurant with blind waiters. For several moments, you've just got a dark screen and you hear their voices. And when you do get to see Rachel McAdams for the first time when Tim gets his first glimpse of her? Well, I can't speak for every man, but I know I fell in love with her at the exact same time he did. This performance alone made me decide that I need to add Woody Allen's time travel movie to the docket even though I've already seen it just because she's in it. I loved her, and I loved this relationship.
This movie could have gone various directions. There's a moment when I thought Tim was dicking around a little too much, and I thought I knew exactly where things were going. And I was pissed. And then it doesn't go there at all. Then, you figure it's about to go somewhere else, but it doesn't go there either. This movie, unlike any movie I've ever seen, just seems to go exactly where it needs to go. And I'm not going to just ignore the manipulative aspects and tell you that it's all perfect, but I'm not going to talk about them either. So I guess I am going to ignore them. God, I loved these two, and I think I loved this movie just a little more because it refused to go there or there or there.
The music's pretty good in this, too, including an overly-sentimental use of a Nick Cave song. The Cure's used in a montage at one point, but a lot of the music turns out to be provided by buskers which was kind of cute. I don't know who Paul Buchanan is, but I loved this song "Mid-Air" that was in this somewhere. I don't even know if I liked the song, but I liked how well it fit in this.
Ok, I've probably gushed enough. This is the type of movie that just nails life. I don't want to spoil anything, but there are all these little moments that just hit you in the gut, make you reevaluate the way you go about your business, the way you love, the way you experience, and the way you see things. The time travel's there, but people allergic to science fiction should not be worried about it. It's there not to be realistic or bend our minds but to teach us about life and love, and it does it wonderfully. Highly recommended.
Time Travel Movie Fest: Millennium
1989 movie
Rating: 12/20
Plot: An airline crash investigator tries to figure out what happened with a mysterious crash during which the co-pilot reported the bodies of the passengers were burned up before the catastrophe. Turns out that time travel is involved.
The premise is intriguing, and there's a real sense of mystery with this story since it's nothing you've really seen before. There are budget concerns which can be forgiven and storytelling concerns which really can't, and there's a goofiness here, like the movie couldn't make up its mind if it wanted to be a 1980's movie or not. There's a weird-looking plane tragedy opener with crash test dummies and lots of explosions. Things then slow down for a bit while Kris Kristofferson tries to decide whether or not he wants a cup of coffee. And then, once we hit the future, we get characters like this robot
which has human mouth and eyeballs and is about as funny as C3PO. For example, this conversation:
Person: Your mother was a cash register.
Creepy Assed Robot: But she turned a tidy profit.
Those lines shouldn't be in any movie. You also have this wheelchaired character
who seemed to be in charge for reasons that either weren't explained very well or were explained when I wasn't paying attention. And then there's a handful of elderly people, who might actually be in charge rather than Gray Wheelchair Man, in these tubes. One of them looks like this
and seems like she should be in an episode of Doctor Who instead of a movie. The future stuff is more strange than interesting, and the body-snatching plot, although it does allow for a nifty visual where bewildered plane passengers watch their doppelgangers walk past them, never made a lot of sense to me. Of course, when you give your goofy robot with a human mouth and eyeballs a last line like "It is not the end. It is not the beginning of the end. It is the end of the beginning," then maybe you're not all that interested in making sense anyway.
One thing I did like, probably because I'm a sucker for this when I see it in movies, is when you see the same series of scenes from a different character's perspective. Cheryl Ladd's future person meets up with Kris Kristofferson's present person, and we don't really know what's going on the first time we see it. We're just supposed to buy that Cheryl Ladd and Kris Kristofferson are compatible. I mean, don't get me wrong. If Kris Kristofferson came to my house and asked me to sleep with him, I'd do it. You know, because of Convoy. How could I pass up the chance? But it seems like an odd pairing to me. When we see that series of scenes the second time, more from Ladd's point of view, it all clicks, and there's some humor that works well.
This movie has, perhaps, the finest moment of Kristofferson's career, by the way. It's a scene where he's dicking around with some kind of tool and gets himself zapped. It's good stuff.
Things really get gross at the end. Things turn orange, Kristofferson and Ladd make out in front of a professor, and somebody winds up pregnant. The orange confuses, but maybe not as much as the way this movie tries to deal with paradoxes. If somebody could explain that to me, I'd appreciate it.
Anyway, despite the flaws, this isn't a bad B-movie. It has the feel of a made-for-television movie, but it's got an interesting concept, a handful of neat scenes, and an attractive female lead. And Kris Kristofferson, a guy who wouldn't have starred in a bad movie.
Rating: 12/20
Plot: An airline crash investigator tries to figure out what happened with a mysterious crash during which the co-pilot reported the bodies of the passengers were burned up before the catastrophe. Turns out that time travel is involved.
The premise is intriguing, and there's a real sense of mystery with this story since it's nothing you've really seen before. There are budget concerns which can be forgiven and storytelling concerns which really can't, and there's a goofiness here, like the movie couldn't make up its mind if it wanted to be a 1980's movie or not. There's a weird-looking plane tragedy opener with crash test dummies and lots of explosions. Things then slow down for a bit while Kris Kristofferson tries to decide whether or not he wants a cup of coffee. And then, once we hit the future, we get characters like this robot
which has human mouth and eyeballs and is about as funny as C3PO. For example, this conversation:
Person: Your mother was a cash register.
Creepy Assed Robot: But she turned a tidy profit.
Those lines shouldn't be in any movie. You also have this wheelchaired character
who seemed to be in charge for reasons that either weren't explained very well or were explained when I wasn't paying attention. And then there's a handful of elderly people, who might actually be in charge rather than Gray Wheelchair Man, in these tubes. One of them looks like this
and seems like she should be in an episode of Doctor Who instead of a movie. The future stuff is more strange than interesting, and the body-snatching plot, although it does allow for a nifty visual where bewildered plane passengers watch their doppelgangers walk past them, never made a lot of sense to me. Of course, when you give your goofy robot with a human mouth and eyeballs a last line like "It is not the end. It is not the beginning of the end. It is the end of the beginning," then maybe you're not all that interested in making sense anyway.
One thing I did like, probably because I'm a sucker for this when I see it in movies, is when you see the same series of scenes from a different character's perspective. Cheryl Ladd's future person meets up with Kris Kristofferson's present person, and we don't really know what's going on the first time we see it. We're just supposed to buy that Cheryl Ladd and Kris Kristofferson are compatible. I mean, don't get me wrong. If Kris Kristofferson came to my house and asked me to sleep with him, I'd do it. You know, because of Convoy. How could I pass up the chance? But it seems like an odd pairing to me. When we see that series of scenes the second time, more from Ladd's point of view, it all clicks, and there's some humor that works well.
This movie has, perhaps, the finest moment of Kristofferson's career, by the way. It's a scene where he's dicking around with some kind of tool and gets himself zapped. It's good stuff.
Things really get gross at the end. Things turn orange, Kristofferson and Ladd make out in front of a professor, and somebody winds up pregnant. The orange confuses, but maybe not as much as the way this movie tries to deal with paradoxes. If somebody could explain that to me, I'd appreciate it.
Anyway, despite the flaws, this isn't a bad B-movie. It has the feel of a made-for-television movie, but it's got an interesting concept, a handful of neat scenes, and an attractive female lead. And Kris Kristofferson, a guy who wouldn't have starred in a bad movie.
The Strange Color of Your Body's Tears
2013 dream
Rating: 15/20
Plot: A man comes home from a trip and finds his wife missing. So he investigates.
No, I did not understand what was going on. It all takes place in one apartment building which might represent one human being's psyche or something. And all of the characters might be the same person. or maybe all the characters are one of two characters. If you decide to watch this movie because you want a good story or good characters, you are going to end up disappointed. This is the type of movie that I feel I could watch a hundred times and never really get a grasp on what exactly is going on.
Watch this for the visual flare. I can't think of another movie I've seen recently where the creators have this much command of their visuals. It's unbridled camera trickery, and I'd understand if you watched this and wanted to argue that it's all style and no substance or that directors Helene Cattet and Bruno Forzani are just showing off. But when the style's this stylish, you take notice, you let it happen, and you let your eyes gobble it all up. You've got garish colors, lurid perspectives, black 'n' white touches, split screen tomfoolery. You name the trick, and Cattet and Forzani probably utilize it in painting the screen for us. Masterful visual storytelling even when there's not much of a story at all. It's the cinematic equivalent of looking into a kaleidoscope for a little over an hour and a half. Violence and sex abounds, and although I kind of wish there was a little less of the former, there was still something exquisite about most of that, too.
This is abstract, and for that reason, it's not for everybody. But I can't imagine a lot of people would watch this and not appreciate it as a work of art. I know Cattet and Forzano only from one of the better shorts in that ABC's of Death anthology, but I'm impressed with what they've done here to stretch the medium and use a myriad of tricks we've all seen before to create something that I really haven't seen before.
It's possible that I could watch this again, get a better idea of what the hell it's about, and rate it higher. Regardless, anybody who's spent any time reading my poorly-written thoughts on movies already knows that I don't really need a lot of substance to like or even love a movie. I'm fine with nothing but style, and this movie's about as stylish as it gets.
Cinderella
2015 fairy tale retelling
Rating: 16/20 (Jennifer: 19/20; Buster: 20/20)
Plot: It's the same plot as the Chinese folk tale "Yeh-Shen" except it doesn't have a talking fish in it.
I was on the edge of my seat near the end of this new Disney Cinderella movie because I was really hoping they'd divert from Charles Perrault's French version, the one that Disney made sure we all knew and loved, and end this like the Grimm's version--with mutilated feet and and avalanche of boulders. Unfortunately, those Disney people are a bunch of pussies and thought mangled heels would have clashed with the pretty imagery of the rest of the movie. No little girls want to see that glass slipper smeared with step-sister blood, I guess.
I just gave this movie a bonus point because it wasn't a musical. It's the kind of thing you don't really appreciate while watching the movie, but when you've had a couple days to think about it, it makes a huge difference.
The acting's fine but far from the star of the show. Lily James plays Cinderella, and she's cute throughout without being breathtakingly so until the point when she's supposed to be. Her bosom? Appropriate. I like that there's a vulnerability with James, and when the character's being "kind," you just believe it. Richard Madden is the Prince, and his teeth are perfect. Unless they're CGI teeth which I guess is a possibility these days. The two step-sisters are good without being overly comical. There are funny moments in the script, but those funny bits aren't obvious. Bonham Carter's weird face makes for a good Fairy Godmother although her voice kind of sounds like a lot of other narrator voices. Best of all--probably expected--is Cate Blanchett as the step-mother. I don't think that's a particularly difficult role to play. It's an easy sort of malicious, but I wouldn't want to underestimate the job Blanchett does with the character. She makes evil fun, and pretty much every line she has, no matter how nice it might seem on paper, feels vicious.
But the real star of the show would be the luscious visuals and colors. This is the type of movie where there's just so much to look at. You kind of want to sit there and absorb it all--every color, every movement of a dress, every shadow in an attic, every part of the architecture, every bit of nature. And that's easy to do since the story is so familiar. You can ignore the narrative and just focus on looking at things. And those things are stunning. I loved Cinderella's house even though Cate Blanchett did not. The castle's interior was as beautiful as you'd expect it to be, and the gardens were just as beautiful. The ball? Well, the amount of colors and the costumes--this has to win awards for costuming--make it a feast, a dance sequence that makes Disney animated dance sequences like the famous Beauty and the Beast one look like bullshit. This isn't an animated movie, but it's exquisitely drawn like it's one. Even the CGI doesn't get in the way. There are numerous shots of a quartet of mice as well as some lizards and a duck, and although it's the kind of thing you'd figure would completely ruin a movie like this, it didn't. The CGI, even at its most preposterous, was convincing. All fairy tales should look as good as this movie.
As I said, you know the story going on. The additions--more of Cinderella's parents in the exposition, some stuff with the king, more meanness after the ball--fit fine, and there are some nods to the original Disney animated classic that are nice touches.
I had reservations about this one, not because I don't think the original is some untouchable sacred cow or anything, but because it just seemed like a tired idea. But this is a tired story so lovingly retold that Disney's come close to matching the original which would put this in the running for the best version of this fairy tale. If only it had those mangled feet!
Time Travel Movie Fest: Donnie Darko
2001 drama
Rating: 11/20
Plot: A possibly-schizophrenic teenager escapes death thanks to Harvey, falls in love, and then engages in various shenanigans including lollygagging, whimsy, malarkey, balderdash, gobbledygook, and kerfuffling. Harvey turns out to be a bad influence, he spots bubbles emerging from the rib cages of his family and friends, and he starts reading up on time travel.
I really kind of hate this movie, interesting since I watched it fourteen years ago and thought I liked it. But any movie you need to do this much extensive research to understand and then are completely unsatisfied when you get what might be answers is just not a movie for me. I mean, apparently you need to visit the website that director Richard Kelly created for this and read an imaginary book on time travel philosophy to fully grasp what is going on here, and as a guy who just likes to watching fucking movies, I don't have any interest in making that kind of commitment. I don't like the movie enough to do any of that anyway.
This movie at least ties the record for most Gyllenhaals in one movie.
I like Jake Gyllenhaal, and the guy's been on fire lately. Both he and his sister seem to gravitate toward these interesting, complex roles in these interesting, complex movies. Here, they're not exactly characters with a ton of depth. The boy Gyllenhaal character might fool you into thinking there's depth, but he's more a character constructed of Hollywood craziness cliches. Still, there's an intensity to the performance that makes the character memorable.
Frank, until he takes his costume rabbit head off at least, is a menacing presence, but he sort of becomes less menacing the more you see him. I think the giant rabbit is probably in the movie too much. And I love this bit of dialogue:
Boy Gyllenhaal: Why are you wearing that stupid bunny suit?
Frank: Why are you wearing that stupid man suit?
But you know what? That little conversation really has nothing to do with the rest of the movie. Seriously, most of what happens in this movie doesn't have to do with the rest of the movie. Things just kind of happen. There's self-help guru pedophilia, the perils of English teaching, some random movie bullies including a odd Seth "I like your boobs" Rogan. The romance, one of the few things in this movie that does seem to matter, never really gels. Donnie makes decisions that, I guess, tell the audience how deep those feelings are, but there's not much we get to see that makes it feel that way. Nothing resonates because nothing, in the end, really matters all that much.
Drew Barrymore is awful in this, and her character is idiotic. She's a movie teacher, very different from a real teacher. "Sit next to the boy you think is the cutest." What? She's so bad, but she needs to be there to remind me more of E.T. And her "fuuuuuuucccccckkkk" in this is epic.
Donnie Darko's got a little bit of style, an 80's grimy glaze with a soundtrack (Echo and the Bunnymen [Bunny! Get it?], Tears for Fears, Duran Duran, The Church, Joy Division), and, as long as you're willing to pay close enough attention, some neat recurrent details. But unless I'm missing a whole lot--and I will note that I very likely am--it just doesn't add up to much of anything.
The 'Burbs
1989 dark comedy
Rating: 13/20
Plot: Suburbanites suspect their neighbors are up to no good, and their meddling leads to problems for everybody involved.
Neighbor suspicions are there, of course, but there's also one line from this movie--"He has a right to know."--that almost found it's way into Waits' song. Waits growled, "We have a right to know."
You know who's irritating? Cory Feldman is irritating. It's been 30 years since I first saw that guy on screen, so maybe it's time for me to get past this, but Feldman just has an annoying face. He's in this movie way too much, representing the audience in a way as we voyeuristically spy on these suburbanites spying on their neighbors. I think I would rather have been represented by a quieter character rather than a loud-mouthed kid with a stupid grin.
One thing Tom Hanks does really well is stay out of other actors' ways. He's always had the Everyman quality, and here, he's mostly the perfect straight man with a cast of eccentric characters around him. Hanks is funny enough, but his performance is better because he allows Bruce Dern and Rick Ducommun to stand out. Dern is especially funny, both with the lines his character's given about stapling dog's asses shut or references to Tom Hanks' testicles and some physical comedy. Ducommun's funny, too, at least in the kind of way where you figure he's some Saturday Night Live alumnus whom you've never heard of. But in a good way.
The movie has a little trouble finding a consistent tone. When things are subtle and let the eccentricities and weirdness act on their own, the movie works. When things get a little louder, this seems to lose its focus. The best example is when two of the characters find a femur. Now, this entire scene could be some sort of parody or something on Joe Dante's part, but watching this in 2015, the prolonged screaming and quickly-zooming-in-and-out camerawork just made me roll my eyes.
The 'Burbs isn't a terrible comedy, but there was a lot more that could have been done with the idea. And probably a lot less that should have been done with the idea.
I might have a crush on 1980's Carrie Fisher, by the way. Is that just natural for somebody my age? That's probably a cliche, isn't it? I think I might be having a midlife crisis.
Valhalla Rising
2009 plodding action movie
Rating: 14/20
Plot: A mute, one-eyed warrior and a little kid travel with some Crusaders after the former escapes from slavery.
I've only seen Bronson from Nicolas Winding Refn. I loved that one enough to have this on my "To See" list. For several years. It's a unique movie, especially unique as an action fantasy movie. There has to be somewhere around 100 lines of dialogue in the entire movie with the protagonist, played by Mads Mikkelsen who was the bad guy in Casino Royale, not speaking at all. There are stretches of movie where nothing at all seems to be happening, and other scenes start to feel completely redundant. The landscape, although starkly beautiful and haunting, starts to lose its allure after a while. So I'm not sure this is a film that is going to end up being memorable.
It does stun while you're watching though. It's just a different sort of movie experience. There are blood spurts, piked heads, a nifty disemboweling. The soundtrack is abstract, the sort of perfect tones to accompany this sort of plotless journey. It's also very heavy on the sound effects--lots of squelching during violent moments and creakings and shufflings during quieter ones. It makes the hero's lugubriously-paced journey a sonic experience as well as a visual one.
Be warned though--this thing really is sluggishly paced, and despite the violence, I think a lot of people will be bored by something like this. It's one of those one-toned films more about pacing and atmosphere than in telling a good story, the filthy landscape being almost as much of a character as any of the actual characters in this. In fact, the characters are so flat that this feels more like allegory. I'm not schooled on Norse mythology enough to understand any connections made there, and I'm not quite sure what this was saying about any clash between those old beliefs and Christianity. That adds another layer for viewers smarter than I am.
One question for any linguists out there--was the f-word even around in 1,000 AD?
You know what? I type these blog posts on a computer. I guess I can look that up.
Time Travel Movie Fest: Frequently Asked Questions about Time Travel
2009 time-travel comedy
Rating: 14/20
Plot: Three friends deal with time travel issues after "a time machine that runs on karaoke and urine" sends them all over the place, leading to a critical choice.
There was a puking child within a minute of the opening credits, opening credits that recalled the swooshing block letters of the 1970's Superman movie. As a sucker for puking children, I was hooked.
Don't let that terrible poster scare you away from checking this out if you have any interest in time travel movies or British comedies. This is wacky, but it's that polite kind of wackiness you'd expect from the English. I guess the best compliment I can give this movie is that it's got a trio of goofballs who I would love to spend more time with. They're losers, but lovable losers, probably not far removed from those Big Bang Theory characters although I've not seen enough of that show to really know. Actually, they're probably not as smart as those characters, so forget I even made that comparison. They're funny though, with their ideas for movies about a a "Ninja Yodeler" and their geeky Star Wars/Star Trek mix-ups. I always wish that movies like this would stay away from very NOW humor; unfortunately, this one targets Paris Hilton and Morrissey, references that aren't going to make any sense in twenty years. Morrissey might not even make sense to a lot of Americans now actually.
Since this is a comedy, the time travel story doesn't really have to make that much sense. I'm fairly positive that it doesn't actually, but the story bursts with creativity and has a lot of fun with time travel motifs and cliches. Astute viewers, or maybe just middle-aged men with too much time on their hands who have watched far too many time-travel movies in the last couple weeks, will pick up nods to time-travel classics. The story keeps you guessing and stays fun even though the conclusion is far from satisfying.
In fact, it's a conclusion that tricks you into thinking you really will get to spend more time with these characters and their time-traveling adventures. Sadly, there aren't plans to continue the story, and the director, Garetch Carrivick, is not longer even alive. Carrivick directed a lot of television series, but this was his only movie.
The Island of Dr. Moreau
1996 science fiction movie
Rating: 12/20
Plot: An Englishman stranded in the middle of the ocean is picked up and taken to an island where a scientist is creating human and animal hybrids and working on his tan.
This movie is nowhere near as bad as its reputation would have you believe, and almost all of its problems are the result of bad writing rather than anything the actors are doing or the special effects. The movie's nowhere near as good as the 30's incarnation of this H.G. Wells novel, but it's actually kind of fun, at least to a certain point.
I'd never seen this and always wondered if the history of the movie would end up being much more interesting than the movie itself. You've got Brando in the twilight of his career, insisting on having a dwarf he'd befriended in most of his scenes and wearing an ice bucket on his head because he was bored. Of course, Brando was always the professional, so he called his ice bucket a "caloric converter" just to make it fit with the story. You've got all these stories of the actors hating each other nearly as much as they hate how often the script was rewritten. The shooting of this was so trying that David Thewlis refuses to watch the finished product.
Things start well enough with some cool opening credits--microscopic science crap and time-lapse image jumpiness with a powerful score. Then, there's Thewlis's voice, just perfect as he sets the scene. That scene--and remember that I'm sort of a sucker for people-stranded-in-the-middle-of-the-ocean scenes--has three men fighting "savagely" over the last canteen of water, and it sets the stage for this tale of humans and animals and animalistic humans and humanistic animals.
I really like David Thewlis. The guy gave one of the greatest acting performances of all time in Naked, and he's really good here, somehow not getting completely lost in the weirdness that Brando and Val Kilmer bring to that island. There was a moment when I laughed inappropriately after Thewlis meets the family and says, "Look at these people!" Those "people" give him a bewildered look, and Thewlis looks at Majia, the little fellow, and screams, "Look at him!" Majai's expression there was hilarious.
I also laughed when a guy kept saying "Lo-Mai" and then groaning after his friend's death. And, of course, the line "I want to go to dog heaven." You'd think that lines like that would not make it into the film with the amount of rewrites this thing went through.
Nelson de la Rosa is terrific as Brando's little friend, especially during a fantastic piano duet where Maija, wearing an outfit that matches Brando's, plays a piano perched atop another piano. There's no reason for Maija's character to exist, but when Brando wants a dwarf on set with him, you get the guy a dwarf. And the character--half mystery and half Weng Weng--should be the main character in a sequel--The Island of Dr. Moreau 2: Look at Him!
Look at him!
Brando was nominated for a Razzie, and there are stories about how he had to wear an earpiece and have his lines read to him during his scenes, but I actually liked the performance. Sure, he's kind of phoning things in here, but he's still a presence, and the character's fun. I mean, who knew that Dr. Moreau invented velcro? I certainly didn't. And the dude's got his own Popemobile thing where he can move--pastily--around the island. This movie transforms from interesting to kind of awesome once Brando and de la Rosa enter, and it really sinks once Moreau dies. Sadly, after a mysterious, almost surrealist first half, the movie gets confusing and is all downhill after Brando and his ice bucket are gone.
Other observations:
1) "I am Waggdi. . .ha ha ha!" I think Waggdi, might be on the autism spectrum. That's just a weird way to introduce yourself.
2) Ron Perlman plays the "Sayer of the Law" in this. One, that's a stupid name for a character, and somebody like Ron Perlman should be smart enough to refuse to play a character with a name like that. And here's my question about Ron Perlman: Has anybody really seen his real face? I'm working on a theory that he's had a prosthetic head in every single movie he's appeared in.
3) Val Kilmer's performance is so odd. He seems more than a little high. I'm not even sure if his performance is bad or not. It's just odd.
4) The 1st look at the animal/human hybrid things is completely horrifying. Llamas are involved, and I believe it's the creepiest birth seen I've ever seen. And all birth scenes are pretty creepy if you think about it.
5) The costumes/make-up in this is really good, but I got sick of the Hyena-Man. I was tired of hearing him talk, and he had this goofy gait--simultaneously drunk, animalistic, and effeminate.
6) Einsturzende Neubauten found their way into this, but it's not one of their better songs.
7) The CGI in this is a little gross. There's one ape man jumping around, and the effects are about as bad as they can be. 1996 was too early to have ape men jumping around. Just put a bunch of hair on a guy and get a couple trampolines like they did in the Turkish Star Wars movie.
8) I really lost track of what was going on in the last third of this. Thewlis started talking about "God number 1" and stuff, and I couldn't follow it all. Maybe I stopped caring because Hyena-Man was getting on my nerves.
9) Assassimon. What an unfortunate name. I'd hate to have a name with "ass" in it even once. But twice? It would be cool to have a friend who just impulsively jumped around hitting things with a stick though. I guess that's what you can expect from something with "ass" in its name twice. Imagine the ridicule.
10) The boar people listen to Gershwin, one starts humming along, and it's a musical moment that nearly tops the Brando/Dwarf piano duet from earlier.
Here's that piano duet, just in case you want to watch it. Trust me--you do.
11) The gun fight near the end of this movie is ridiculous. Where the hell did all the guns come from? As I said, once Brando leaves this story, the movie kind of loses its mind.
Time Travel Movie Fest: The Butterfly Effect
2004 Ashton Kutcher movie
Rating: 10/20
Plot: A college kid who experienced a lot of blackouts while growing up discovers that he can travel back in time through his journal. He does and messes everything up.
"There's one major hole in your story."
Well, there might be a lot of holes in your story, Bress and Gruber. The idea is an intriguing one, so intriguing that it actually makes perfect sense that they'd be remaking the movie ten years after this one came out. And you don't have to look that up. You can trust me on this one.
Here's what they're going to have to fix with this remake:
First, the acting. It's really bad. Ashton Kutcher is like a big awkward wart on somebody's thumb. He can't even eat right in this movie. His best moment is right here:
That's awesome. It's one of the many moments in this that aren't supposed to be funny but wind up making you laugh out loud anyway. I laughed when Lenny, college-aged and chubby, said, "I couldn't cut the rope." I laughed when Kutcher said, "Not again!" I laughed at a lot of scenes with William Lee Scott playing young Tommy, a psychopathic child who burns doggies alive and twists the heads off of his sister's dolls. His funniest moment might have been something that was supposed to be darkly humorous, the scene after he's squirted lighter fluid all over the sack with that dog in it, hits his sister with a board, and then screams, "Look at what you made me do!" I laughed when Melora Walters, the actress with a really annoying voice who plays Ashton Kutcher's mother, gets sick in one of the timelines. And I really laughed when Kutcher, using every ounce of acting talent that the good lord gave him, attempts to cry.
Nothing beats that scene with the granola bar though.
The main problem with this movie isn't the acting, however. It's that everything is just so obvious, just clumsily obvious. Things are almost comically exaggerated. Kids curse, blow things up, smoke, read Hustler, and even listen to heavy metal music. They aren't real troubled children with sociopathic tendencies. They're Hollywood bad kids. In one of the timelines, love-interest Kayleigh winds up living a melancholy existence, but in this type of movie, that just has to consist of her becoming a heavily-scarred and drug-addicted prostitute. There's suicide, prison rape, pedophilia, dead babies, missing arms, absent fathers, broken granola bars. If you ever want to play Trauma Bingo, this might be the movie you should use.
Oh, and there's a psychologist who actually tries to explain Kutcher's behavior with "Maybe he's upset because he doesn't have a dad." Maybe it was the delivery that made that seem so awkward.
You know what else is really awkward here? The attempt to make Ashton Kutcher's character some sort of Christ figure. Like everything else in this movie, it's just a little heavy-handed.
Speaking of hands, I think I know why Ashton Kutcher's hands were gone in one of this movie's timelines--they were embarrassed after seeing the exploding mailbox special effect. Ba dum chhh!
I think I might hate this movie a little more just because it seems that other people like it. Is that fair?
Men in Black II
2002 sequel
Rating: 10/20
Plot: An alien threat requires Will Smith to pull Tommy Lee Jones out of retirement and restore his memory.
I lost track of what was happening in this movie because I stopped caring. The best thing about this movie is Tommy Lee Jones, both as a post office employee oblivious of his former life and the grumpy Man in Black we knew from the first movie. He plays curmudgeonly as well as anybody, and his lines--with help from his delivery of those lines--are the funniest parts of this unfunny movie. Will Smith brings his usual charisma but just doesn't have a lot to work with here. I enjoy Rip Torn even if his character is a little too Tommy-Lee-Jonesish, and the ubiquitous Patrick Warburton is really the perfect actor to play a bumbling government official. Tony Shalhoub brings back his character from the first movie while David Cross plays, I think, a completely different guy.
I didn't care at all for Lara Flynn Boyle as the tentacled bad gal, Serleena. The tough apathy she plays the character with just feels like a cliche. And I really hated Johnny Knoxville in a dual role. He's annoying as both a big head and a little head, and he really overacts, trying to squeeze every drop of funny out of a script that just doesn't work at all. He's dreadfully bad.
The humor feels a little forced to me. Michael Jackson and Martha Stewart cameos are just odd, a gag about a "Ballchinnian" is just as funny as it is in Movie 43, and a beatbox-off between the Fresh Prince and Biz Markie seems out of place. There's a talking dog, of course, and that character is just as annoying as you think it would be. I enjoyed a line about nearly everybody who works in a post office being an alien, but it seems like an easy target. For a movie this cartoonish--I mean, Will Smith gets thrown all over the place, but nobody ever gets hurts--this really isn't that much fun. Any fun I might have been having was abducted when that stupid dog started singing "I Will Survive" and, about five minutes later, "Who Let the Dogs Out?" It seemed to be a lot of time to waste in a movie that was only about 90 minutes.
A lot of the problem is that the effects are terrible. Rick Baker does some alien work, and a lot of the alien design is creative and cool, but anytime CGI is used, it's pretty much a disaster. Look no further than a giant centipede thing in the subway during a big opening action sequence for proof. I'm fine with filmmakers being ambitious, but watching this subway scene and a lot of the other action sequences in the movie really took me out of the story. I understand it's all supposed to be cartoony anyway, but this stuff didn't even look as good as a cartoon.
I do like that there's a character named Dog Poop. Dog Poop's played by the late Sonny Tipton. I haven't checked any obituaries to see if "played Dog Poop in the popular film Men in Black II" made its way into any of them.
Oh, and I liked some of Danny Elfman's score.
I saw this because I have to watch the sequel for my Time Travel Movie Fest. I hope it's better than this one.
Time Travel Movie Fest: Frequency
2000 father/son movie
Rating: 13/20
Plot: A man who lost his firefighting father at a young age begins communicating with him on a ham radio and, thanks to his big mouth, manages to screw up a whole bunch of stuff.
This one strives for tears, laying it on really thick with the father/son relationship stuff and a soundtrack like syrup. I really think I would have liked both the movie and its characters a little more if Dennis Quaid's character would have said "Little Chief" or just "Chief" about a hundred times less.
Actually, I did think the characters were likable despite their accents. This is the second time travel movie I've seen recently with Jim Caviezel as he was also in Deja Vu. He's so boyish here, almost like he's modeling his performance off the performance of the little kid who's playing the younger version of his character. Dennis Quaid's accent is thick, almost like a parody, and the character's just too damn heroic. He nearly winds up as an action hero by the end of this thing.
The "time travel" stuff is as implausible as any of these other movies--a magic ham radio and Aurora Borealis?--but it's a cool idea. I like how the story's handled with all these changes in the past having these immediate impacts on John Sullivan's present, but it's a little odd that he retains memories from all versions of his past. Also, some of the touches, including one that involves an arm, don't make a lot of sense. But it all still helps develop its themes although I think those themes would have been stronger if this didn't have such a happy ending. The movie was just a lot more believable when it was dark. By the end, things get wacky, and the climactic moment, although a little predictable since there's something foreshadowed throughout the movie, is still capable of making you slap your forehead. A concluding montage also made me nearly gag. I did like how much of a factor the 1969 World Series was in this.
This movie, by the way, has to break some kind of cinema record for having the most shots of something falling in slow motion. I kept track, and there are 97 different things that fall in slow motion in this movie. Here's a list:
a baseball
a picture
a glass
a can of sardines
car keys
a piece of candy
a bicycle
a Herb Albert record
a knife
a pack of cigarettes
a shoe
an ink pen
a pair of sunglasses
a vibrator
an autograph book
a fireman helmet
rain
two people (from a window)
a slinky
a puppet
a catcher's glove
a baseball bat
papers
toenails (clipped)
a bowl
an iron
leaves
a baseball cap
a ham radio
long underwear
a puppet
a bicycle pump
a saltine
an empty manila folder
an hourglass
a fireman's hose
a snow globe
tweezers
a gun
a fishing pole
Ok, I'm bored with that. Email me if you'd like to see the complete list.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)




















