Release Date: April 27, 2001
Time Kate wanted to see it: Since I learned about its existence: about 18 months or so ago.
Reason Kate procrastinated: I actually got it out of the library several times! Including this time. Researching the release date, I was totally surprised that it came out so long ago. Ah, time truly does fly.
Category: Movie, Comedy, True Story
Kate says I'm a Sam Neill fan, so it was inevitable that I would eventually see this movie. Sam Neill does a wonderful job as the soft-spoken yet passionate director of the Parkes satellite installation, Cliff Buxton. The rest of the cast is equally magnificent; one of the nice things about watching movies for the video club is coming across actors and actresses in unexpected roles. Patrick Warburton delivers a more than credible performance as the brusque American engineer! In fact, all the roles are gently and lovingly played.
The movie reminds me of The Right Stuff and Apollo 13, not just for the subject matter and the use of original footage but for the way in which the story is presented. As in the former movies, The Dish relates extraordinary events from the "ground level," so to speak--through the everyday efforts and lives of the people who enabled them to occur.
This is the type of true-story-telling that I appreciate the most. Rather than being struck with BIG EVENTS EVERY THREE MINUTES, the big events are the result of seemingly minor actions in each scene, a quiet unwinding. The end result is one of those truly extraordinary opportunities: for just a moment, the viewer sees historical events through the eyes of those who actually witnessed them.
Landing on the moon was really something, especially considering that the engineers, astronauts, and scientists brought it about with what seems to us, now, almost archaic technology. Talk about goosebumps and tears! I love movies that leave me thinking, Human beings are cool. If Da Vinci had had the wherewithal, he'd have gone to the moon!That's how cool we are!
Not to mention, the movie is very funny in a sly, dry-humor way. Deep-voiced Rudi with his walkie-talkie and his "sections" is hilarious. Kevin Harrington as Mitch and Tom Long as Glenn have great repartee. Warburton, naturally, is dry as dry can be (though he does downplay his usual cynical edge, which impressed me; Jim Carrey may be funny, but I'm always charmed when an actor works more to support a film's overall tone than his own career). The Prime Minister delivers great quips. The McIntyres (the mayor's family) is just adorable with its quick by-plays.
All in all, this is definitely a movie I will watch again!
Mike says I had never heard of this movie. Not a peep. In fact, I lack the vocabulary to fully express my ignorance of both the film and source material itself. As such, it was with some trepidation that I put in the film and prepared for what I thought was a flick about scientists building a satellite dish to look for extraterrestrial life. Okay, so I admit it, maybe my research for this flick wasn't entirely thorough....
The film I ended up watching was fairly entertaining, especially given that in reality, we're watching four guys listen to the radio. Luckily, the actors are able to perform and sell their parts well enough that even this is gratifying and interesting. Thankfully though, the film does focus on some other things to break up the potential monotony.
Australian humor really is unique . . . one can sense the distant relation to English humor, mixed with a dash of plain old oddness. Australian movies seem a bit more willing to poke fun at themselves and the people that live there, which makes watching them a real treat.
One thing I really did enjoy about the movie was the soundtrack, which provided a nice mix of instrumental and songs of the era. The mix of historical footage also really helps set the tone of the film. All in all, not a bad film.
But . . . after watching it, I can understand why the film is fairly unknown. Imagine Apollo 13 from the point of view of one of the guys in the background. Sure, interesting things are going on, but he never really gets involved. There are two main incidents that happen in the movie, and neither feel particularly urgent or really that notable. Interesting, perhaps, but probably more so to the people that live in the area.
Still, given the general lack of excitement and, perhaps, pertinence, the film is still very well made, written, and acted, and is not a bad addition to your "Historical Space Film" collection. However, make sure you're well-rested before you watch it.
Showing posts with label List 8. Show all posts
Showing posts with label List 8. Show all posts
Friday, March 9, 2012
Friday, March 2, 2012
White Collar: Pilot
Aired Date: October 23, 2009
Time Mike wanted to see it: I've been a fan of USA since it stopped showing reruns and started actually making television shows, and I wanted to see this right around the time it started getting a lot of buzz, so just a couple months after it came out. I guess 2 years isn't too bad.
Reason Mike procrastinated: I don't know if I procrastinated, or just waited until it took almost no effort to see it. Although, it was on my Netflix instant queue for a couple months before I finally watched it.
Category: Television, mystery, cop/con
Mike says I liked the pilot quite a bit. I'll say that right off. This show has a fun feel, and I dig the whole "rat-pack throw back" vibe (Internet, witness the coining of a phrase!).
It's also a fairly clever premise, although one has to wonder if the show came from plans of a failed series version of Catch Me If You Can. And I do enjoy when criminals have a better sense of high society and etiquette than the cops.
Seeing Bomer bounce his witty style off the generally serious and glum agents is a lot of fun, as is wondering how far he'll push the envelope.
I really don't have a lot to say, because the show is fairly simple. A little humor, a little drama, and some seriously quirky characters is kind of the USA formula, and it works pretty well.
I do have to mention, though, that I differ from Kate in my feelings about DeKay. For some reason, I don't trust his character. Perhaps I've seen him as a villain one too many times, maybe I like Bomer so much that I have sided with him against the FBI. I'm not really sure. The show puts a lot of effort into making the audience like him... but I can't help but feel a little...wary. Hopefully, that'll clear up as the show goes on.
While White Collar isn't my usual type of show, it's a good compromise show for my wife and me, keeping me interested with the humor, and keeping her interested with the crime and mystery. I look forward to seeing where it goes!
Kate says when I learned that Bryce Larkin of Chuck had his own show, I was not surprised. Matt Bomer has the looks and charisma, intensity and humor to pull off a leading man role.
Nevertheless, I'm very glad the producers paired him with Tim DeKay. Not only does DeKay remind me of Rubert Graves (Lestrade in BBC Sherlock)--so much so that the American accent actually throws me--but the relationship/repartee/guy-romance between Bomer and DeKay is really what makes White Collar work. For one thing, unlike Patrick Jane and Lisbon (whom I still watch), I feel like DeKay can actually control his maverick ("Get in the car!"). Also, Bomer manages to sell his character as fundamentally kind and even decent (Simon Baker is too good at playing damaged and unaccountable characters--I really mean that; his unfixable Jane persona doesn't help the show work, but boy, is he good at it!).
White Collar's concept is engaging. The pilot is more than the usual 50 minutes (ah, remember the old days when pilots were two-parters? I confess I prefer one-hour pilots), but I hardly noticed. Like many pilots, naturally, way too much stuff was thrown at me at once (rich widow! FBI Agent's wife! missing girlfriend! lesbian co-worker?) but the main plot/necessary information was adequately and quickly provided.
I went ahead and watched the next episode "Threads" and I'm happy to report, the "stuff" calms down quite a bit. However, I still sense an unevenness. Is the show supposed to be some kind of 24-deal? Or some kind of Leverage-deal? I prefer my producers and directors to know right off the bat.
I'll probably pick up a few more episodes before I decide if I'm a long-time fan. If no vision appears in the next few episodes--eh, there's so much more to watch. But I adore Willie Garson, so that might keep me coming back. (That's the adorable Marty from Stargate SG-1!)
Time Mike wanted to see it: I've been a fan of USA since it stopped showing reruns and started actually making television shows, and I wanted to see this right around the time it started getting a lot of buzz, so just a couple months after it came out. I guess 2 years isn't too bad.
Reason Mike procrastinated: I don't know if I procrastinated, or just waited until it took almost no effort to see it. Although, it was on my Netflix instant queue for a couple months before I finally watched it.
Category: Television, mystery, cop/con
Mike says I liked the pilot quite a bit. I'll say that right off. This show has a fun feel, and I dig the whole "rat-pack throw back" vibe (Internet, witness the coining of a phrase!).
It's also a fairly clever premise, although one has to wonder if the show came from plans of a failed series version of Catch Me If You Can. And I do enjoy when criminals have a better sense of high society and etiquette than the cops.
Seeing Bomer bounce his witty style off the generally serious and glum agents is a lot of fun, as is wondering how far he'll push the envelope.
I really don't have a lot to say, because the show is fairly simple. A little humor, a little drama, and some seriously quirky characters is kind of the USA formula, and it works pretty well.
I do have to mention, though, that I differ from Kate in my feelings about DeKay. For some reason, I don't trust his character. Perhaps I've seen him as a villain one too many times, maybe I like Bomer so much that I have sided with him against the FBI. I'm not really sure. The show puts a lot of effort into making the audience like him... but I can't help but feel a little...wary. Hopefully, that'll clear up as the show goes on.
While White Collar isn't my usual type of show, it's a good compromise show for my wife and me, keeping me interested with the humor, and keeping her interested with the crime and mystery. I look forward to seeing where it goes!
Kate says when I learned that Bryce Larkin of Chuck had his own show, I was not surprised. Matt Bomer has the looks and charisma, intensity and humor to pull off a leading man role.
Nevertheless, I'm very glad the producers paired him with Tim DeKay. Not only does DeKay remind me of Rubert Graves (Lestrade in BBC Sherlock)--so much so that the American accent actually throws me--but the relationship/repartee/guy-romance between Bomer and DeKay is really what makes White Collar work. For one thing, unlike Patrick Jane and Lisbon (whom I still watch), I feel like DeKay can actually control his maverick ("Get in the car!"). Also, Bomer manages to sell his character as fundamentally kind and even decent (Simon Baker is too good at playing damaged and unaccountable characters--I really mean that; his unfixable Jane persona doesn't help the show work, but boy, is he good at it!).
White Collar's concept is engaging. The pilot is more than the usual 50 minutes (ah, remember the old days when pilots were two-parters? I confess I prefer one-hour pilots), but I hardly noticed. Like many pilots, naturally, way too much stuff was thrown at me at once (rich widow! FBI Agent's wife! missing girlfriend! lesbian co-worker?) but the main plot/necessary information was adequately and quickly provided.
I went ahead and watched the next episode "Threads" and I'm happy to report, the "stuff" calms down quite a bit. However, I still sense an unevenness. Is the show supposed to be some kind of 24-deal? Or some kind of Leverage-deal? I prefer my producers and directors to know right off the bat.
I'll probably pick up a few more episodes before I decide if I'm a long-time fan. If no vision appears in the next few episodes--eh, there's so much more to watch. But I adore Willie Garson, so that might keep me coming back. (That's the adorable Marty from Stargate SG-1!)
Labels:
List 8,
Television
Friday, February 24, 2012
Highlander
Release Date: March 8, 1986
Time Kate wanted to see it: This wasn't so much an "I want to see" as an "I guess I should." Highlander seems to be one of those films--one of those cult films that I had to see to fully appreciate my media culture.
Reason Kate procrastinated: Is this a guy flick or what!?
Category: Film, Fantasy, Cult Classic
Kate says I'd heard a great deal about Highlander over the years, but I'd never seen the movie, and I think I'd seen exactly one half of one episode of the television series. I think my lack of interest always came down to one thing:
Isn't this a guy flick?
I don't think a female friend has ever mentioned Highlander to me. Female friends have mentioned Star Trek and Star Wars and even Lord of the Rings. But never Highlander.
However, the real reason I never got around to seeing this movie may be that it is too surreal to be believed; it starts off with Sean Connery's voice, Queen, and professional wrestling, and then . . .
It gets freakier.
This has to be one of the most random movies I've ever seen. It's Batman meets The Terminator meets Star Wars meets 80's rock video.
There are moments that stand out. The Scotland 1500s scenes are surprisingly sharp and believable, and I was impressed by MacLeod staying with Heather until the end of her life. I also loved the "duel" on Boston Commons. I agree with Mike that the shift between present and past makes the film far more engaging than if the story was told chronologically. Many times, the "we won't tell you the secret until the end" gambit back-fires (especially when the secret is pretty tame). But here, it works.
As for the characters: I thought the cops were underused (as always). I considered Brenda Wyatt rather pointless--not all that endearing, and she and MacLeod gave me zero reason to believe in their relationship long-term.
I found Kurgan seriously disturbing. One of the best scenes in the movie is between MacLeod and Kurgan--in the church. The scene delivers real meat. Back on the streets, however, Kurgan is just a Joker-like character: random badness is uncomfortable to watch and, really, who cares?
I did like MacLeod although his modern personality is lightly skimmed over. And I really liked that the swords are wielded as truly heavy weapons. It makes the final scene much more exciting.
That all said, now that I've seen it . . . I can't say whether I like the movie or not. The entire viewing experience was similar to undergoing a freak of nature. Does one hate thunderstorms? Actually, I love thunderstorms. Uh, does one hate solar flares? Well, yes, if one is stuck in one, but they are just there, ya know. What more can one say?
Though I may check out the series.
(I should mention that the excellent James Cosmo shows up for two seconds and immediately becomes the best actor in the film. I adore actors like James Cosmo who have long, steady, working careers--that is real success!)
Mike says Highlander is one of those must see movies that every Geek has to see at least once. But woe be unto the Geek who watches it twice, for he shall see something like unto an acid trip set to 80's rock ballads. To say that Highlander is bizarre is akin to saying that Richard Simmons seems a little effeminate.
What makes it even weirder is the franchise it spawned: 5 sequels (more if you count every version of Highlander II) and two TV series. Pretty impressive, if not inconsistent, for a film that pretty conclusively brings its premise to a complete end. It appears that there can be only one immortal, until you need to cash in on a sequel, then a few more will randomly crop up.
As Kate says, the movie starts weird, and just keeps going from there. When I first saw the film, I was pretty blown away by it. I don't know if it was youth, being a few years closer to the 80's, or a combination of the two. Watching it now, the film really does come across as the quintessential "Cult Favorite," that being a film the broad public avoids but a enthusiastic few adore beyond all reason. It's with some shock that I now find myself categorized with the broad public.
The film is disturbing, odd, and creative in alternating states, making it a definite mixed experiance when it comes to watching . . . the movie wavers between amazing and horrendous, almost as if sections of it were filmed by different directors.
There were many things I liked, however. Lambert is just odd enough an actor to take this role in stride, with his enigmatic accent and unexpected humor making him believable as McLeod. The sword fights and imagery of Gods fighting on Big City streets is also very cool, and I think the film really caught this sense of there being an hidden layer under everyday life, where strange and amazing things happen.
I also love the pace and structure of the movie--I think the flashbacks are well done, often outshining the modern scenes. Jumping back and forth, gradually filling us in on who and what McLeod is as he goes about his business is fascinating.
On the other hand, there was plenty I didn't like. I agree with Kate on the romance; it was obviously thrown in to meet the standards of 80's movies: Nudity, Gore, and random violent acts by psychotic punk rockers. The Kurgen just makes me plain uncomfortable (though I did like how he is savvy to the current era). And despite the abssolute awesomeness of the concept of the movie, there are holes in the story and plot wide enough to drive a truck through (can someone explain why Sean Connery is so willing to help McLeod?). I think the second movie was an attempt to fill in some of these holes . . . and ended up making them worse.
The 80's rock imagery just took it over the top, making some scenes nightmarish and painful to watch. The Kurgen's neck safety pins alone are enough to inspire nausea.
Despite this, it is easy to see why it was hard for filmmakers and fans to let the concept go, as there are some pretty cool ideas and intriguing phrases peppered throughout the movie. Terms like "The Gathering," "The Quickening," really inspire interest and give a sense of myth to the idea of the film. And with a catchphrase like "There Can Be Only One," producers are probably still salivating at the idea of cashing in on these ideas.
Now, I have had a chance to see some of the series (though not much), and it's pretty entertaining; once you get over the fact that none of it should exist. As for the sequels . . . well, I think the filmmakers should have followed the advice given in the catchphrase.
I can't help thinking the film might have worked a little bit better like this:
Time Kate wanted to see it: This wasn't so much an "I want to see" as an "I guess I should." Highlander seems to be one of those films--one of those cult films that I had to see to fully appreciate my media culture.
Reason Kate procrastinated: Is this a guy flick or what!?
Category: Film, Fantasy, Cult Classic
Kate says I'd heard a great deal about Highlander over the years, but I'd never seen the movie, and I think I'd seen exactly one half of one episode of the television series. I think my lack of interest always came down to one thing:
Isn't this a guy flick?
I don't think a female friend has ever mentioned Highlander to me. Female friends have mentioned Star Trek and Star Wars and even Lord of the Rings. But never Highlander.
However, the real reason I never got around to seeing this movie may be that it is too surreal to be believed; it starts off with Sean Connery's voice, Queen, and professional wrestling, and then . . .
It gets freakier.
This has to be one of the most random movies I've ever seen. It's Batman meets The Terminator meets Star Wars meets 80's rock video.
There are moments that stand out. The Scotland 1500s scenes are surprisingly sharp and believable, and I was impressed by MacLeod staying with Heather until the end of her life. I also loved the "duel" on Boston Commons. I agree with Mike that the shift between present and past makes the film far more engaging than if the story was told chronologically. Many times, the "we won't tell you the secret until the end" gambit back-fires (especially when the secret is pretty tame). But here, it works.
As for the characters: I thought the cops were underused (as always). I considered Brenda Wyatt rather pointless--not all that endearing, and she and MacLeod gave me zero reason to believe in their relationship long-term.
I found Kurgan seriously disturbing. One of the best scenes in the movie is between MacLeod and Kurgan--in the church. The scene delivers real meat. Back on the streets, however, Kurgan is just a Joker-like character: random badness is uncomfortable to watch and, really, who cares?
I did like MacLeod although his modern personality is lightly skimmed over. And I really liked that the swords are wielded as truly heavy weapons. It makes the final scene much more exciting.
That all said, now that I've seen it . . . I can't say whether I like the movie or not. The entire viewing experience was similar to undergoing a freak of nature. Does one hate thunderstorms? Actually, I love thunderstorms. Uh, does one hate solar flares? Well, yes, if one is stuck in one, but they are just there, ya know. What more can one say?
Though I may check out the series.
(I should mention that the excellent James Cosmo shows up for two seconds and immediately becomes the best actor in the film. I adore actors like James Cosmo who have long, steady, working careers--that is real success!)
Mike says Highlander is one of those must see movies that every Geek has to see at least once. But woe be unto the Geek who watches it twice, for he shall see something like unto an acid trip set to 80's rock ballads. To say that Highlander is bizarre is akin to saying that Richard Simmons seems a little effeminate.
What makes it even weirder is the franchise it spawned: 5 sequels (more if you count every version of Highlander II) and two TV series. Pretty impressive, if not inconsistent, for a film that pretty conclusively brings its premise to a complete end. It appears that there can be only one immortal, until you need to cash in on a sequel, then a few more will randomly crop up.
As Kate says, the movie starts weird, and just keeps going from there. When I first saw the film, I was pretty blown away by it. I don't know if it was youth, being a few years closer to the 80's, or a combination of the two. Watching it now, the film really does come across as the quintessential "Cult Favorite," that being a film the broad public avoids but a enthusiastic few adore beyond all reason. It's with some shock that I now find myself categorized with the broad public.
The film is disturbing, odd, and creative in alternating states, making it a definite mixed experiance when it comes to watching . . . the movie wavers between amazing and horrendous, almost as if sections of it were filmed by different directors.
There were many things I liked, however. Lambert is just odd enough an actor to take this role in stride, with his enigmatic accent and unexpected humor making him believable as McLeod. The sword fights and imagery of Gods fighting on Big City streets is also very cool, and I think the film really caught this sense of there being an hidden layer under everyday life, where strange and amazing things happen.
I also love the pace and structure of the movie--I think the flashbacks are well done, often outshining the modern scenes. Jumping back and forth, gradually filling us in on who and what McLeod is as he goes about his business is fascinating.
On the other hand, there was plenty I didn't like. I agree with Kate on the romance; it was obviously thrown in to meet the standards of 80's movies: Nudity, Gore, and random violent acts by psychotic punk rockers. The Kurgen just makes me plain uncomfortable (though I did like how he is savvy to the current era). And despite the abssolute awesomeness of the concept of the movie, there are holes in the story and plot wide enough to drive a truck through (can someone explain why Sean Connery is so willing to help McLeod?). I think the second movie was an attempt to fill in some of these holes . . . and ended up making them worse.
The 80's rock imagery just took it over the top, making some scenes nightmarish and painful to watch. The Kurgen's neck safety pins alone are enough to inspire nausea.
Despite this, it is easy to see why it was hard for filmmakers and fans to let the concept go, as there are some pretty cool ideas and intriguing phrases peppered throughout the movie. Terms like "The Gathering," "The Quickening," really inspire interest and give a sense of myth to the idea of the film. And with a catchphrase like "There Can Be Only One," producers are probably still salivating at the idea of cashing in on these ideas.
Now, I have had a chance to see some of the series (though not much), and it's pretty entertaining; once you get over the fact that none of it should exist. As for the sequels . . . well, I think the filmmakers should have followed the advice given in the catchphrase.
I can't help thinking the film might have worked a little bit better like this:
Friday, February 17, 2012
Percy Jackson and the Olympians: The Lightning Thief
Release Date: February 12, 2010
Time Mike wanted to see it: I was vaguely interested since I saw the preview, about 3-4 months before the release date. And, coincidentally, I finally watched it on Sunday, February 12th (2012), exactly 2 years from release!
Reason Mike procrastinated: I meant to see it in the theater; I might have even made plans that fell through. But I somehow missed it, and I think I was meaning to read the book first... anyway, somehow it fell off my radar until recently.
Category: Children's Fantasy Novel Series Adaptation
Mike says I still haven't read the novel. I've been meaning too, but somehow I haven't. But I thought, "Meh, there's no rule that says I have to read it before I watch the movie . . ." And so I did.
If it wasn't for this list, I'm not so sure I would have ever gotten around to watching this, and finding it for sale for 5 bucks didn't help matters. Even when I saw the preview, I knew that the movie was a bid for the Harry Potter crown, and after already seeing The Golden Compass come and go away in failure, I didn't really expect much from this movie.
Like I said, I knew this was a Harry Potter bid, but I had somehow missed the fact that it shared a director with the Potter franchise: Chris Columbus, the man who started it all.
And so, having already mentioned it twice, I should go ahead and say it upfront: yes, Percy Jackson is a Harry Potter clone. There's no real point in denying it. The movie follows many of the same story beats as the first Potter film, and even shares some of the same mythological creatures.
Despite Columbus obviously trying to duplicate his Potter success, Percy does largely maintain its own identity, having a unique atmosphere and tone. The film also quickly breaks the "candy coating" of the first 2 Potter films, delivering several decapitations, sword wounds, and even one near disembowelment.
Percy also strays from the clean and and tidy feel of the Potter films, name dropping terms like ADHD and Dyslexia, almost in a blatant attempt to communicate that the fantasy learning environment of Hogwarts won't be appearing in this film. As if to underscore this, when Camp Half-Blood, the learning place of the demi-gods, is finally shown, there are no images of scholarly learning, only exciting action scenes and a surprising amount of violence.
Despite the familiar elements (or those obvious attempts to avoid the familiar), Percy is actually pretty entertaining. The cast assembled for some of the supporting roles is impressive, with Sean Bean and Pierce Brosnan lending their credibility to this American fantasy (much as those British actors did in that OTHER series I keep mentioning).
The main cast does a fine job, though they are far from amazing. The story is fun, though, with some pretty clever amalgamations of Greek mythology with American culture. I found the idea of Olympus being at the top of the Empire State Building very cool, yet kinda familiar . . . then I remembered an unpublished novel I read years ago by a very talented writer . . . But maybe I'll let her talk about it (nudge nudge, Kate!).
Columbus did seem to avoid the page per page approach he took with the Potter films. In the last couple days I've started reading the novel, and the movie definitely takes some liberties, changing the identity of the thief, the fate of a few characters, and even the purpose of the quest (to a point). Several adventures and random happenings from the book are actually tied into the main story really well for the movie, giving the story a more organized, driven feel.
The film also gives some characters the freedom to act as they really would, instead of tying them to the outcome of the book (which seemed a little out of character in some instances). Essentially though, if one were to combine Harry Potter (yeah, I said it again, sorry) with Clash of the Titans, Percy Jackson is pretty much the film you would get.
That said, I did enjoy it, and overall found it a pretty entertaining film and found myself really impressed with the visuals. I'm also pretty entranced by the mythology the movie presents. I want to know more about this modern magical world and its history. Though, in the end, I couldn't help but think the film was missing one obvious line:
"Release the Kraken!" oh well..... maybe next time.
Kate says I started the book (by Rick Riordan) awhile back. It's not bad, but it didn't engage me.
The movie engaged me more. If I remember correctly, I think the main character is slightly older than in the book for which I personally was grateful. Harry Potter used up a lifetime of interest in little kiddies having magical powers. (More about this later--as Mike mentions, it is hard to avoid comparing the two franchises.)
I was extremely pleased to see Sean Bean and Pierce Brosnan's names pop up. What a treat, especially Sean Bean! Unfortunately, he isn't in the movie all that much. I realize the movie is about and for kids, but there are a number of truly awesome actors playing minor parts in this film, and it's hard not to be a tad disappointed when they make no more than token appearances (Joe Pantoliano always makes me laugh). I did get a kick out of all the crisp British accents. Such authority!
Several things about the movie are very cool. It's hard to get excited about settings these days, knowing how easy it is for filmmakers to create fantastical environments for cheap, but I liked the use of modern sites to reach Olympian sites. And the movie opens with a STUNNING image.
In terms of plot, I always appreciate action movies that give me the problem right away. Plus, I've always been a fan of Greek mythology (yeah, Mike, I thought of my Greek mythology novel, too; problem is, if I published it now, everyone would say I was borrowing from Riordan!), so I was highly amused by the "updated" version of many of the gods. Luke as Hermes' son, for example, is quite believable (especially in his love for high technology). The rock 'n roll dysfunctional Hades and Persephone are downright amusing.
In fact, I have few complaints about the movie. The mother's "death" is rather casually dealt with, and, like so many action movies these days, the movie is too long. The quest is interesting--the Lotus Casino with "Poker Face" playing is especially clever--but each scene could have been considerably shorter. Whatever happened to the good old 90-minute movie?
And there is the whole over-done kid-with-instant-powers stuff. I'm not opposed to the motif: it has a long and noble pedigree. But it's been done to death. Percy is slightly more believable than Harry Potter here in that his "flaws" (dyslexia, ADHD) turn out to be strengths, i.e. he has been learning how to handle his "powers" all his life. But I found myself far more invested in the emotional problem (his separation from his father) than in his heroic abilities. Consequently, the absence of those aforementioned awesome British actors became more and more bothersome as the movie progresses. (I did find Grover quite amusing.)
Like Mike, I remarked the director linkage between Harry Potter and Percy Jackson. In all honesty, this was initially a bit of a turn-off. I consider the first Harry Potter movie a boring slide-show that tries so hard to be the book, it fails to BE a movie.
I think Percy Jackson avoids this. The movie really moves (as Mike mentions, there is a surprising degree of adult content and some lines I'm amazed got in). Which makes me wonder how far Rowlings and the fans hampered the initial Harry Potter movie's "success" ("success" here being entirely relative since Rowlings certainly shouldn't complain).
But it also makes me wonder how die-hard fans of Percy Jackson feel about this movie. With only two chapters of the first book under my belt, I never felt lost or confused. I also never felt bitter (ah, they left out the best part!). But die-hard fans may feel differently.
All said, the movie is worth renting, and I'm a tad surprised that it didn't get more press. Percy has more going for him than Harry, including age, a mild sense of irony, and toughness. Perhaps things will take off with the second movie.
Time Mike wanted to see it: I was vaguely interested since I saw the preview, about 3-4 months before the release date. And, coincidentally, I finally watched it on Sunday, February 12th (2012), exactly 2 years from release!
Reason Mike procrastinated: I meant to see it in the theater; I might have even made plans that fell through. But I somehow missed it, and I think I was meaning to read the book first... anyway, somehow it fell off my radar until recently.
Category: Children's Fantasy Novel Series Adaptation
Mike says I still haven't read the novel. I've been meaning too, but somehow I haven't. But I thought, "Meh, there's no rule that says I have to read it before I watch the movie . . ." And so I did.
If it wasn't for this list, I'm not so sure I would have ever gotten around to watching this, and finding it for sale for 5 bucks didn't help matters. Even when I saw the preview, I knew that the movie was a bid for the Harry Potter crown, and after already seeing The Golden Compass come and go away in failure, I didn't really expect much from this movie.
Like I said, I knew this was a Harry Potter bid, but I had somehow missed the fact that it shared a director with the Potter franchise: Chris Columbus, the man who started it all.
And so, having already mentioned it twice, I should go ahead and say it upfront: yes, Percy Jackson is a Harry Potter clone. There's no real point in denying it. The movie follows many of the same story beats as the first Potter film, and even shares some of the same mythological creatures.
Despite Columbus obviously trying to duplicate his Potter success, Percy does largely maintain its own identity, having a unique atmosphere and tone. The film also quickly breaks the "candy coating" of the first 2 Potter films, delivering several decapitations, sword wounds, and even one near disembowelment.
Percy also strays from the clean and and tidy feel of the Potter films, name dropping terms like ADHD and Dyslexia, almost in a blatant attempt to communicate that the fantasy learning environment of Hogwarts won't be appearing in this film. As if to underscore this, when Camp Half-Blood, the learning place of the demi-gods, is finally shown, there are no images of scholarly learning, only exciting action scenes and a surprising amount of violence.
Despite the familiar elements (or those obvious attempts to avoid the familiar), Percy is actually pretty entertaining. The cast assembled for some of the supporting roles is impressive, with Sean Bean and Pierce Brosnan lending their credibility to this American fantasy (much as those British actors did in that OTHER series I keep mentioning).
The main cast does a fine job, though they are far from amazing. The story is fun, though, with some pretty clever amalgamations of Greek mythology with American culture. I found the idea of Olympus being at the top of the Empire State Building very cool, yet kinda familiar . . . then I remembered an unpublished novel I read years ago by a very talented writer . . . But maybe I'll let her talk about it (nudge nudge, Kate!).
Columbus did seem to avoid the page per page approach he took with the Potter films. In the last couple days I've started reading the novel, and the movie definitely takes some liberties, changing the identity of the thief, the fate of a few characters, and even the purpose of the quest (to a point). Several adventures and random happenings from the book are actually tied into the main story really well for the movie, giving the story a more organized, driven feel.
The film also gives some characters the freedom to act as they really would, instead of tying them to the outcome of the book (which seemed a little out of character in some instances). Essentially though, if one were to combine Harry Potter (yeah, I said it again, sorry) with Clash of the Titans, Percy Jackson is pretty much the film you would get.
That said, I did enjoy it, and overall found it a pretty entertaining film and found myself really impressed with the visuals. I'm also pretty entranced by the mythology the movie presents. I want to know more about this modern magical world and its history. Though, in the end, I couldn't help but think the film was missing one obvious line:
"Release the Kraken!" oh well..... maybe next time.
Kate says I started the book (by Rick Riordan) awhile back. It's not bad, but it didn't engage me.
The movie engaged me more. If I remember correctly, I think the main character is slightly older than in the book for which I personally was grateful. Harry Potter used up a lifetime of interest in little kiddies having magical powers. (More about this later--as Mike mentions, it is hard to avoid comparing the two franchises.)
I was extremely pleased to see Sean Bean and Pierce Brosnan's names pop up. What a treat, especially Sean Bean! Unfortunately, he isn't in the movie all that much. I realize the movie is about and for kids, but there are a number of truly awesome actors playing minor parts in this film, and it's hard not to be a tad disappointed when they make no more than token appearances (Joe Pantoliano always makes me laugh). I did get a kick out of all the crisp British accents. Such authority!
Several things about the movie are very cool. It's hard to get excited about settings these days, knowing how easy it is for filmmakers to create fantastical environments for cheap, but I liked the use of modern sites to reach Olympian sites. And the movie opens with a STUNNING image.
In terms of plot, I always appreciate action movies that give me the problem right away. Plus, I've always been a fan of Greek mythology (yeah, Mike, I thought of my Greek mythology novel, too; problem is, if I published it now, everyone would say I was borrowing from Riordan!), so I was highly amused by the "updated" version of many of the gods. Luke as Hermes' son, for example, is quite believable (especially in his love for high technology). The rock 'n roll dysfunctional Hades and Persephone are downright amusing.
In fact, I have few complaints about the movie. The mother's "death" is rather casually dealt with, and, like so many action movies these days, the movie is too long. The quest is interesting--the Lotus Casino with "Poker Face" playing is especially clever--but each scene could have been considerably shorter. Whatever happened to the good old 90-minute movie?
And there is the whole over-done kid-with-instant-powers stuff. I'm not opposed to the motif: it has a long and noble pedigree. But it's been done to death. Percy is slightly more believable than Harry Potter here in that his "flaws" (dyslexia, ADHD) turn out to be strengths, i.e. he has been learning how to handle his "powers" all his life. But I found myself far more invested in the emotional problem (his separation from his father) than in his heroic abilities. Consequently, the absence of those aforementioned awesome British actors became more and more bothersome as the movie progresses. (I did find Grover quite amusing.)
Like Mike, I remarked the director linkage between Harry Potter and Percy Jackson. In all honesty, this was initially a bit of a turn-off. I consider the first Harry Potter movie a boring slide-show that tries so hard to be the book, it fails to BE a movie.
I think Percy Jackson avoids this. The movie really moves (as Mike mentions, there is a surprising degree of adult content and some lines I'm amazed got in). Which makes me wonder how far Rowlings and the fans hampered the initial Harry Potter movie's "success" ("success" here being entirely relative since Rowlings certainly shouldn't complain).
But it also makes me wonder how die-hard fans of Percy Jackson feel about this movie. With only two chapters of the first book under my belt, I never felt lost or confused. I also never felt bitter (ah, they left out the best part!). But die-hard fans may feel differently.
All said, the movie is worth renting, and I'm a tad surprised that it didn't get more press. Percy has more going for him than Harry, including age, a mild sense of irony, and toughness. Perhaps things will take off with the second movie.
Friday, February 10, 2012
Inception
Aired Date: July 16, 2010
Time Kate wanted to see it: I believe when Mike recommended it, sometime after it came out on DVD.
Reason Kate procrastinated: Actually, for me, this isn't procrastinating! It came out less than 2 years ago!
Category: Film, Sci-fi
Kate says BE WARNED! I will be giving away the ending.
To begin with, I love Hans Zimmer's scores.
Second, what an awesome cast! I referring specifically to Joseph Gordon-Levitt as the cool, gentleman Bourne, Tom Hardy as wry Eames, the excellent Ken Watanabe as Saito, Ellen Page as the lecturing team member who doesn't come across as too lecturing, Marion Cotillard as a rather complex manifestation of Cobb. Not to mention Lukas Haas showing up as Nash (man, that guy gets around!) and Cillian Murphy acting non-crazy while looking younger than he did in Batman Begins!
And Leonardo DiCaprio. I actually don't mind Leonardo too much despite Titanic. He isn't like Tom Cruise whom I have trouble watching in just about anything. It isn't Tom Cruise's personal life that bothers me; it's that every character he plays is a type of put-upon victim (chased by women he has to kill; persecuted by authorities he has to destroy), and I can't help but think it is a projection of Cruise's personality.
But DiCaprio deliberately, and interestingly, goes off-grid for movies, and he actually has the ability to do it.
Music and actors aside, I loved the milieu ("setting" sounds so drab for what Nolan has pulled off). Like in Batman Begins, the city-scapes feel authentic while also being fantastic and elaborate. They remind me of Miyazaki's animated city-scapes in movies like Howl's Moving Castle.
So what about the plot?
I was incredibly pleased that the ending didn't entail a dream-within-a-dream solution (I am aware that perhaps we are meant to think that; more on this later). The Leverage-type con was enough to hold my interest, but I would have been terribly disappointed if the whole thing had just been all-in-the-mind. Matrix did it, people. Can we move on now?
However, the major problem with the ending NOT being a dream-within-a-dream is that not all the "real" bits of the movie feel "real." The whole sequence in Morocco or wherever doesn't feel real at all--yet it is supposed to be. Additionally, some things are just off--like the kids haven't aged, which is weird. And why would Saito want to join the team? (It is possible that all along he really just wanted to have the layered dream experience, but this is NOT made clear.)
I do realize that questioning the nature of reality might be Nolan's point--for instance, the choice isn't Dom giving up limbo for reality but Dom giving up limbo for the better dream (with his children and intact team rather than with a faded projection of an angry woman). But it's the sort of thing that confuses the film's intentions; it also doesn't make me go, "Wow, how profound! That totally makes me, like, consider the nature of reality." It just makes me think the script-writers are lazy.
So I would have enjoyed the ending as much as the rest of the film (man, that elevator sequence is cool!) if the ending had been clearer in its conclusion (and been set up for better).
That said, the movie is definitely worth watching, and Nolan does seem far more concerned with having fun with sets than with making a big point (in fact, I think he may have forgotten the film's point)--which is rather refreshing! In fact, Nolan has the following to say (obtained from Wikipedia):
Mike says I'm still a little mad at Leonardo DiCaprio for The Aviator. That's not very fair of me, but it's true. To be honest, I was a little bugged by everything I had seen DiCaprio in through the years leading up to Inception. And by bugged, I meant I hated them. Fiercely. And even though I knew this had more to do with the director of those movies (wow, I really dislike Martin Scorsese), it was with some hesitation that I saw Inception.
The only thing that kept my hopes up was the thought "It's Nolan. He won't let me down."
And the cool thing is, he didn't. I loved the movie utterly and completely, groaning aloud at the end and still loving that Nolan wouldn't give me an easy way out; no, just like the rest of the movie, the ending gave me something to think about.
I was so blown away, I saw it again. The SAME DAY.
The great thing about the film, in general, is that this is hard core, deep concept sci-fi with almost no props, no obviously fantastical setting (yes, a dream is fantastic, but it doesn't LOOK fantastic, unless you look at just the right time), and explanations that rely on things most people experience everyday.
The uninformed passerby would assume that Inception is some sort of chase movie, or drama, and wouldn't pick up on the nature of the film until the later half, which, admittedly, does feature a man running up a wall and a massive city scape that could never exist in reality. That the film also works as a heist film only adds to the experience.
The actors are dead on in their performances, and every scene, line, and expression is a delight. I love that even though Cobb is the protagonist of the film, he's not really the hero. That honor goes to the suave and, ok, even I have to admit it, dead sexy Joseph Gordan-Levitt (though it pains me, and my wife is laughing at me over my shoulder, I can't deny the truth). As Arthur, Levitt fights the bad guys, saves the team and even kisses the girl.
And DiCaprio does a great job as Cobb, bringing just the right level of depth and guilt to the humbled genius.
Above all, the film looks amazingly. Each shot is beautiful, and the editing creates a smoothly disjointed dreamlike quality. While Kate is right that this does keep many parts of the film from feeling real, it does help punch in the dreamlike feel of the movie.
I love this type of movie--let's call it "build-free sci-fi"--where amazing things happen in completely familiar and believable environments. Even the "dream machine" is very simple and instantly understandable. Connect everyone and press the big button, and Presto! Shared dreaming. Wait, why is he floating? Oh, it's a dream? cool, I get it.
Now, I'm not claiming this film is simple or accessible to everyone, because that is in no way true. The film really does make you work to enjoy it. But I like that Nolan seems to avoid making it more complicated than he has to. Sure, these are deep concepts (Wait, a dream, within a dream, within a dream, and then they explore the subconscious? really?).
But this is a great, original film that truly delivers. Now if only my actual dreams were that cool!
Time Kate wanted to see it: I believe when Mike recommended it, sometime after it came out on DVD.
Reason Kate procrastinated: Actually, for me, this isn't procrastinating! It came out less than 2 years ago!
Category: Film, Sci-fi
Kate says BE WARNED! I will be giving away the ending.
To begin with, I love Hans Zimmer's scores.
Second, what an awesome cast! I referring specifically to Joseph Gordon-Levitt as the cool, gentleman Bourne, Tom Hardy as wry Eames, the excellent Ken Watanabe as Saito, Ellen Page as the lecturing team member who doesn't come across as too lecturing, Marion Cotillard as a rather complex manifestation of Cobb. Not to mention Lukas Haas showing up as Nash (man, that guy gets around!) and Cillian Murphy acting non-crazy while looking younger than he did in Batman Begins!
And Leonardo DiCaprio. I actually don't mind Leonardo too much despite Titanic. He isn't like Tom Cruise whom I have trouble watching in just about anything. It isn't Tom Cruise's personal life that bothers me; it's that every character he plays is a type of put-upon victim (chased by women he has to kill; persecuted by authorities he has to destroy), and I can't help but think it is a projection of Cruise's personality.
But DiCaprio deliberately, and interestingly, goes off-grid for movies, and he actually has the ability to do it.
Music and actors aside, I loved the milieu ("setting" sounds so drab for what Nolan has pulled off). Like in Batman Begins, the city-scapes feel authentic while also being fantastic and elaborate. They remind me of Miyazaki's animated city-scapes in movies like Howl's Moving Castle.
So what about the plot?
I was incredibly pleased that the ending didn't entail a dream-within-a-dream solution (I am aware that perhaps we are meant to think that; more on this later). The Leverage-type con was enough to hold my interest, but I would have been terribly disappointed if the whole thing had just been all-in-the-mind. Matrix did it, people. Can we move on now?
However, the major problem with the ending NOT being a dream-within-a-dream is that not all the "real" bits of the movie feel "real." The whole sequence in Morocco or wherever doesn't feel real at all--yet it is supposed to be. Additionally, some things are just off--like the kids haven't aged, which is weird. And why would Saito want to join the team? (It is possible that all along he really just wanted to have the layered dream experience, but this is NOT made clear.)
I do realize that questioning the nature of reality might be Nolan's point--for instance, the choice isn't Dom giving up limbo for reality but Dom giving up limbo for the better dream (with his children and intact team rather than with a faded projection of an angry woman). But it's the sort of thing that confuses the film's intentions; it also doesn't make me go, "Wow, how profound! That totally makes me, like, consider the nature of reality." It just makes me think the script-writers are lazy.
So I would have enjoyed the ending as much as the rest of the film (man, that elevator sequence is cool!) if the ending had been clearer in its conclusion (and been set up for better).
That said, the movie is definitely worth watching, and Nolan does seem far more concerned with having fun with sets than with making a big point (in fact, I think he may have forgotten the film's point)--which is rather refreshing! In fact, Nolan has the following to say (obtained from Wikipedia):
I choose to believe that Cobb gets back to his kids, because I have young kids. People who have kids definitely read it differently than those who don't . . . I've read plenty of very off-the-wall interpretations . . . The most important emotional thing about the top spinning at the end is that Cobb is not looking at it. He doesn't care.Mucho thanks to Mike for sending me the above quote!
Mike says I'm still a little mad at Leonardo DiCaprio for The Aviator. That's not very fair of me, but it's true. To be honest, I was a little bugged by everything I had seen DiCaprio in through the years leading up to Inception. And by bugged, I meant I hated them. Fiercely. And even though I knew this had more to do with the director of those movies (wow, I really dislike Martin Scorsese), it was with some hesitation that I saw Inception.
The only thing that kept my hopes up was the thought "It's Nolan. He won't let me down."
And the cool thing is, he didn't. I loved the movie utterly and completely, groaning aloud at the end and still loving that Nolan wouldn't give me an easy way out; no, just like the rest of the movie, the ending gave me something to think about.
I was so blown away, I saw it again. The SAME DAY.
The great thing about the film, in general, is that this is hard core, deep concept sci-fi with almost no props, no obviously fantastical setting (yes, a dream is fantastic, but it doesn't LOOK fantastic, unless you look at just the right time), and explanations that rely on things most people experience everyday.
The uninformed passerby would assume that Inception is some sort of chase movie, or drama, and wouldn't pick up on the nature of the film until the later half, which, admittedly, does feature a man running up a wall and a massive city scape that could never exist in reality. That the film also works as a heist film only adds to the experience.
The actors are dead on in their performances, and every scene, line, and expression is a delight. I love that even though Cobb is the protagonist of the film, he's not really the hero. That honor goes to the suave and, ok, even I have to admit it, dead sexy Joseph Gordan-Levitt (though it pains me, and my wife is laughing at me over my shoulder, I can't deny the truth). As Arthur, Levitt fights the bad guys, saves the team and even kisses the girl.
And DiCaprio does a great job as Cobb, bringing just the right level of depth and guilt to the humbled genius.
Above all, the film looks amazingly. Each shot is beautiful, and the editing creates a smoothly disjointed dreamlike quality. While Kate is right that this does keep many parts of the film from feeling real, it does help punch in the dreamlike feel of the movie.
I love this type of movie--let's call it "build-free sci-fi"--where amazing things happen in completely familiar and believable environments. Even the "dream machine" is very simple and instantly understandable. Connect everyone and press the big button, and Presto! Shared dreaming. Wait, why is he floating? Oh, it's a dream? cool, I get it.
Now, I'm not claiming this film is simple or accessible to everyone, because that is in no way true. The film really does make you work to enjoy it. But I like that Nolan seems to avoid making it more complicated than he has to. Sure, these are deep concepts (Wait, a dream, within a dream, within a dream, and then they explore the subconscious? really?).
But this is a great, original film that truly delivers. Now if only my actual dreams were that cool!
Friday, February 3, 2012
Farscape: Premiere
Aired Date: March 19, 1999
Time Mike wanted to see it: A good friend started bugging me to see it somewhere around 2005, and I've been vaguely interested in seeing it since then. When I started using Netflix on my Xbox over a year ago, it instantly went into my instant queue....and stayed there, unwatched, for nearly a year.
Reason Mike procrastinated: It just looks...well, cheap. And cheesy. And there are so many other under-rated little known cable sci-fi shows that I've been meaning to watch (Sliders, Stargate), or have watched (Firefly, Babylon 5), that Farscape just kinda of got overlooked.
Category: Syndicated/Cable Low-budget Sci-fi
Mike says I really should have been more excited when, after years of putting it off, I finally sat down and watched Farscape. But really, I felt like I was doing some chore I had been avoiding until the last possible moment. And, sadly, I continued to feel that way through most of it.
I can say I was impressed with the pace of the first episode. It gets moving FAST, with John off the planet and far off into space within ten minutes. The inclusion of a veteran astronaut as John's dad was a little over the top, but admittedly a nice touch that should have received a little press.
The premise is run-of-the-mill sci-fi: traveler thrown into a far off place and searching for home is really a standard at this point, not to mention that any territory already explored by a Star Trek series is a risk, especially for a little known concept without any sort of brand recognition tied to it.
As such, I really couldn't help but draw the obvious comparison between Star Trek: Voyager and Farscape, which is a discussion that I would guess (without Googling to check) has raged across the Internet for years.
What Farscape has going for it is a strong male lead, a sexy and assertive female lead, and some funny one liners. And, in the end, that's about it. It's easy to guess that the political intrigue with the human-like species will progress through the remainder of the show, and at some point John will become leader of a rebellion rather than getting home (again, speculation).
Voyager, however, while being far than perfect, explores the idea of being lost in a far more interesting way. First off, humanoid characters are more interesting as main characters. Secondly, instead of focusing on one lone man experiencing new things, we get to see how an entire community reacts and adapts. We also get to see how the decisions of that community impact the cultures they meet on their way home.
As a fan of Firefly and Joss Whedon, I really do appreciate humor in my sci-fi, which Voyager was always a little light on. It seems that humor is a common element in cable sci-fi and usually it works pretty well. Star Trek, however, has always been a bit more serious, with its humor being a little more dry and subtle. Farscape's humor is perhaps the only real thing that might bring me back, though it's questionable.
While funny, the universe the show creates is just a tad too weird, as well as cheap looking, to really hook me. I am a little tempted to see what might be in store down the road, but, then again, I do have a long list of shows to see (one day, Stargate, I promise!)
Kate says this was the first time I saw anything Farscape-related! Bizarre, huh? It's bizarre to me. I've at least caught glimpses of Xena and Andromeda over the years, but somehow Farscape didn't make it on my radar.
Based on the opening minutes of the Farscape pilot, it would probably have stayed off my radar--if, that is, I wasn't reviewing the pilot for this list. The first few minutes of the pilot were supremely off-putting. I still have no idea why the astronaut's best friend, D.K., was in the pilot--and I have even less of a no-idea why a scientist working for NASA would dress and act like a punk rocker.
Luckily, I kept watching, and I will say that once John gets thrown through the wormhole, the episode really picks up. It delivers a great deal of information in an hour but not in an overly confusing or distancing way. In fact, "Premiere" is what Lucas should have done for Star Wars I, II, and III. The politics are simple but intelligent (if a bit wooden in delivery). The events unfold through John's eyes, so the viewer gains understanding at the same time he does. (The actor does a good job capturing John's confused resilience in the face of his new circumstances.)
Just as importantly, the hero, John Crichton, looks and acts the part (one reason I couldn't get into the recent Robin Hood series was because I never could believe in Jonas Armstrong as a leader). Ben Browder as John Crichton convinced me of his intelligence, resourcefulness, leadership and fundamental kindness ("Go. Go play") right away.
And I liked his sense of humor: "I'll fill you full of . . . little yellow bolts of light." (The pilot could have used more humor, though pilots are almost always overly serious.)
Plus John has a good relationship with the female lead, Aeryn--more than adequate sexual tension and strong character development issues.
Unfortunately, John and Aeryn bring me to my closing confession: although I enjoyed the pilot, I can't see myself watching much more Farscape. The problem: I had zero interest in anyone but the humans. The priest, Pa'u Zotoh Zhaan, was somewhat interesting, but D'Argo bored me, and the other main characters . . . Muppets. I've mentioned before that I like Muppets as Muppets; otherwise, I need human faces.
This lack of relatable characters is quite different from Star Trek: TNG and Stargate. With either of those shows, if I get tired of one character, I just start focusing on another. I enjoy Data episodes, Picard episodes, Riker episodes, Geordi episodes. Even Troi delivers some engaging plots. And though I'm not a huge fan of Klingon episodes in general, Worf does have some kickin' storylines (plus I can see his expressions).
Likewise, I enjoy Daniel episodes and Jack episodes and Samantha episodes and Teal'c episodes.
But, based on only the Farscape pilot (which is not, I grant, a very fair assessment), I would be invested in precisely two characters and since the show obviously focuses on their relationship, I would pretty much be held hostage to that one relationship.
I do watch shows where I am held hostage to one relationship, X-Files being the most notable example (Bones, Lois & Clark are two others). And there's no reason for me to suppose that Aeryn and John's relationship wouldn't engage me as much as Mulder and Scully's, especially since I like the characters. But I'm not sure there is enough there there to keep me watching.
Time Mike wanted to see it: A good friend started bugging me to see it somewhere around 2005, and I've been vaguely interested in seeing it since then. When I started using Netflix on my Xbox over a year ago, it instantly went into my instant queue....and stayed there, unwatched, for nearly a year.
Reason Mike procrastinated: It just looks...well, cheap. And cheesy. And there are so many other under-rated little known cable sci-fi shows that I've been meaning to watch (Sliders, Stargate), or have watched (Firefly, Babylon 5), that Farscape just kinda of got overlooked.
Category: Syndicated/Cable Low-budget Sci-fi
Mike says I really should have been more excited when, after years of putting it off, I finally sat down and watched Farscape. But really, I felt like I was doing some chore I had been avoiding until the last possible moment. And, sadly, I continued to feel that way through most of it.
I can say I was impressed with the pace of the first episode. It gets moving FAST, with John off the planet and far off into space within ten minutes. The inclusion of a veteran astronaut as John's dad was a little over the top, but admittedly a nice touch that should have received a little press.
The premise is run-of-the-mill sci-fi: traveler thrown into a far off place and searching for home is really a standard at this point, not to mention that any territory already explored by a Star Trek series is a risk, especially for a little known concept without any sort of brand recognition tied to it.
As such, I really couldn't help but draw the obvious comparison between Star Trek: Voyager and Farscape, which is a discussion that I would guess (without Googling to check) has raged across the Internet for years.
What Farscape has going for it is a strong male lead, a sexy and assertive female lead, and some funny one liners. And, in the end, that's about it. It's easy to guess that the political intrigue with the human-like species will progress through the remainder of the show, and at some point John will become leader of a rebellion rather than getting home (again, speculation).
Voyager, however, while being far than perfect, explores the idea of being lost in a far more interesting way. First off, humanoid characters are more interesting as main characters. Secondly, instead of focusing on one lone man experiencing new things, we get to see how an entire community reacts and adapts. We also get to see how the decisions of that community impact the cultures they meet on their way home.
As a fan of Firefly and Joss Whedon, I really do appreciate humor in my sci-fi, which Voyager was always a little light on. It seems that humor is a common element in cable sci-fi and usually it works pretty well. Star Trek, however, has always been a bit more serious, with its humor being a little more dry and subtle. Farscape's humor is perhaps the only real thing that might bring me back, though it's questionable.
While funny, the universe the show creates is just a tad too weird, as well as cheap looking, to really hook me. I am a little tempted to see what might be in store down the road, but, then again, I do have a long list of shows to see (one day, Stargate, I promise!)
Kate says this was the first time I saw anything Farscape-related! Bizarre, huh? It's bizarre to me. I've at least caught glimpses of Xena and Andromeda over the years, but somehow Farscape didn't make it on my radar.
Based on the opening minutes of the Farscape pilot, it would probably have stayed off my radar--if, that is, I wasn't reviewing the pilot for this list. The first few minutes of the pilot were supremely off-putting. I still have no idea why the astronaut's best friend, D.K., was in the pilot--and I have even less of a no-idea why a scientist working for NASA would dress and act like a punk rocker.
Luckily, I kept watching, and I will say that once John gets thrown through the wormhole, the episode really picks up. It delivers a great deal of information in an hour but not in an overly confusing or distancing way. In fact, "Premiere" is what Lucas should have done for Star Wars I, II, and III. The politics are simple but intelligent (if a bit wooden in delivery). The events unfold through John's eyes, so the viewer gains understanding at the same time he does. (The actor does a good job capturing John's confused resilience in the face of his new circumstances.)
Just as importantly, the hero, John Crichton, looks and acts the part (one reason I couldn't get into the recent Robin Hood series was because I never could believe in Jonas Armstrong as a leader). Ben Browder as John Crichton convinced me of his intelligence, resourcefulness, leadership and fundamental kindness ("Go. Go play") right away.
And I liked his sense of humor: "I'll fill you full of . . . little yellow bolts of light." (The pilot could have used more humor, though pilots are almost always overly serious.)
Plus John has a good relationship with the female lead, Aeryn--more than adequate sexual tension and strong character development issues.
Unfortunately, John and Aeryn bring me to my closing confession: although I enjoyed the pilot, I can't see myself watching much more Farscape. The problem: I had zero interest in anyone but the humans. The priest, Pa'u Zotoh Zhaan, was somewhat interesting, but D'Argo bored me, and the other main characters . . . Muppets. I've mentioned before that I like Muppets as Muppets; otherwise, I need human faces.
This lack of relatable characters is quite different from Star Trek: TNG and Stargate. With either of those shows, if I get tired of one character, I just start focusing on another. I enjoy Data episodes, Picard episodes, Riker episodes, Geordi episodes. Even Troi delivers some engaging plots. And though I'm not a huge fan of Klingon episodes in general, Worf does have some kickin' storylines (plus I can see his expressions).
Likewise, I enjoy Daniel episodes and Jack episodes and Samantha episodes and Teal'c episodes.
But, based on only the Farscape pilot (which is not, I grant, a very fair assessment), I would be invested in precisely two characters and since the show obviously focuses on their relationship, I would pretty much be held hostage to that one relationship.
I do watch shows where I am held hostage to one relationship, X-Files being the most notable example (Bones, Lois & Clark are two others). And there's no reason for me to suppose that Aeryn and John's relationship wouldn't engage me as much as Mulder and Scully's, especially since I like the characters. But I'm not sure there is enough there there to keep me watching.
Labels:
List 8,
SciFi,
Television
Friday, January 27, 2012
Red
Release Date: October 15, 2010
Time Kate wanted to see it: When people began to recommend it to me--about the time it came out on DVD.
Reason Kate procrastinated: So many DVDs . . . so much daily living that gets in the way! And when it comes to checking DVDs off my list, I am more likely to go for television shows first, then movies--even though the movie experience can often be more satisfying. I have Mike to thank for pushing me to expand my horizons!
Category: Action-Comedy/Comic Book Adaptation (really!)
Kate says so I knew about Willis and Freeman and Malkovich and Mirren. But Karl Urban too! What a treat!!
This is a fun movie. I was already prepared to be impressed (which worried me a bit; don't want to get those hopes too high!). I wasn't prepared to be so amused and to be so amused in such an off-beat way. The humor isn't subtle so much as sideways--like Frank's house suddenly having Christmas decorations, the CIA documents with EVERYTHING blacked out, the whole meaning behind "RED."
John Malkovich.
I thought it was wise giving Willis the character-arc. Willis has a remarkable ability to down-play his own mythos. Frank is, yet isn't, McClane. He is a gentler, softer-spoken version of that particular action hero: "gooey on the inside."
And boy, Willis is aging well! I liked the May-ah, September relationship between Frank and Sarah (the actors' age difference is 9 years, not as much as I initially thought). I loved Sarah's, and Victoria's, sheer exuberance. I enjoyed the quick repartee and the fact that while Sarah is the girlfriend-who-stays-in-the-car, she isn't the whiny girlfriend-who-stays-in-the-car. She also isn't simply the means to an end. (My problem with True Lies, for instance, is that Jamie Lee Curtis, as Helen Tasker, is used to put the problem in motion, i.e. Arnold Schwarzenegger; by the end of the movie, she's more or less disappeared from the main action. Willis, on the other hand, is consistently paired with female characters who remain assets throughout the movie--even when taken hostage!)
Back to Urban: I think I was supposed to see Urban/Cooper as Frank's double which didn't really work for me. However, Urban as the ambiguous Cooper absolutely worked for me. Urban plays a good straight man, and he has that slight edge that makes his choices (good, bad, and odd) believable. This isn't The Fugitive where we really get inside Girard's head. Urban has to sell Cooper's fundamental personality in very brief shots. I think he pulls it off. (Then again, Urban could probably convince me that he was, oh, a futuristic ship's doctor. Wait, he already did that!)
Like so many of these types of movies, including The Fugitive, the ending is weaker than the premise. It IS clever but not particularly remarkable. The show isn't about the quest, however, but about the friendship, and that I completely enjoyed. There is a particular incident (which I won't give away--my reasons for not watching Serenity, basically) which upset me, but it is handled extremely well and is not entirely unexpected. And it isn't done to prove some kind of point about life or to manipulate the audience's emotions; it is done as the natural conclusion to the character's choices and personality.
Okay, sorry for being cryptic. Before I conclude, I should mention that I like the camera work for Red. I am far more aware, and more critical, of camera work in movies than in television (although I like the way NCIS scenes are cut). Action movies, especially, can so easily start to drag, yet there's this uneasy line between quick cuts and overly clever/nauseous cuts (Bourne Supremacy resides right on that line; I find it easier to watch Bourne 2 on my television than in a theater). Red is just about perfect. I rarely felt that the scenes were dragging, but at the same time, I didn't feel like an excess of coolness was being forced down my throat. And sometimes the camera work IS the joke, which is fun.
In conclusion, this movie is a tribute to Cold War classics and the larger-than-life personas that those classics spawned. It absolutely comes through!
Mike says Red was a complete surprise for me when I saw it in the theater. I didn't know what to expect, and I was deliriously happy with the outcome.
As Kate mentions, this is a FUN movie, first and foremost. Almost anything you might want to see you get. 'Why doesn't Frank just go beat the crap out of the agent?" Oh wait, that's what he's doing! Moment after moment in the movie is a sheer delight. Sarah talking with the duct tape, the underground lair in the trunk of the car. The grenade launcher in the Pig. And yes, I'm chuckling as I write this!
The chemistry of the characters is great, and the sheer amount of veteran well-known actors is astounding. This is a movie that you can tell a bunch of seasoned actors got together and said, "Let's have fun." And that's exactly what they did.
The introduction of each character is brilliant, and their respective send- offs are just as fun. As Kate mentions, however, the big reveal of the secret conspiracy is a little disappointing... and by disappointing, I mean I still don't fully get it. But, the bad guys get theirs, and the good guys get away. It's really all I needed, if not wanted.
Perhaps the most impressive thing about the movie is the way it handles its true to life balance between humor and drama. Just because we're having fun here doesn't mean that the characters can be hollow joke dispensers. Instead, they are real, believable, and complex people that see the humor of life while still fighting for what they feel is right. It's impressive feat that could have only been pulled off by the caliber of actors represented.
Red is Fun, action-packed, funny, and romantic enough to convince your wife to watch it with you (a bonus for me!). But beware, you might look at stuffed animals a little differently once you've watched it.
Time Kate wanted to see it: When people began to recommend it to me--about the time it came out on DVD.
Reason Kate procrastinated: So many DVDs . . . so much daily living that gets in the way! And when it comes to checking DVDs off my list, I am more likely to go for television shows first, then movies--even though the movie experience can often be more satisfying. I have Mike to thank for pushing me to expand my horizons!
Category: Action-Comedy/Comic Book Adaptation (really!)
Kate says so I knew about Willis and Freeman and Malkovich and Mirren. But Karl Urban too! What a treat!!
This is a fun movie. I was already prepared to be impressed (which worried me a bit; don't want to get those hopes too high!). I wasn't prepared to be so amused and to be so amused in such an off-beat way. The humor isn't subtle so much as sideways--like Frank's house suddenly having Christmas decorations, the CIA documents with EVERYTHING blacked out, the whole meaning behind "RED."
John Malkovich.
I thought it was wise giving Willis the character-arc. Willis has a remarkable ability to down-play his own mythos. Frank is, yet isn't, McClane. He is a gentler, softer-spoken version of that particular action hero: "gooey on the inside."
And boy, Willis is aging well! I liked the May-ah, September relationship between Frank and Sarah (the actors' age difference is 9 years, not as much as I initially thought). I loved Sarah's, and Victoria's, sheer exuberance. I enjoyed the quick repartee and the fact that while Sarah is the girlfriend-who-stays-in-the-car, she isn't the whiny girlfriend-who-stays-in-the-car. She also isn't simply the means to an end. (My problem with True Lies, for instance, is that Jamie Lee Curtis, as Helen Tasker, is used to put the problem in motion, i.e. Arnold Schwarzenegger; by the end of the movie, she's more or less disappeared from the main action. Willis, on the other hand, is consistently paired with female characters who remain assets throughout the movie--even when taken hostage!)
Back to Urban: I think I was supposed to see Urban/Cooper as Frank's double which didn't really work for me. However, Urban as the ambiguous Cooper absolutely worked for me. Urban plays a good straight man, and he has that slight edge that makes his choices (good, bad, and odd) believable. This isn't The Fugitive where we really get inside Girard's head. Urban has to sell Cooper's fundamental personality in very brief shots. I think he pulls it off. (Then again, Urban could probably convince me that he was, oh, a futuristic ship's doctor. Wait, he already did that!)
Like so many of these types of movies, including The Fugitive, the ending is weaker than the premise. It IS clever but not particularly remarkable. The show isn't about the quest, however, but about the friendship, and that I completely enjoyed. There is a particular incident (which I won't give away--my reasons for not watching Serenity, basically) which upset me, but it is handled extremely well and is not entirely unexpected. And it isn't done to prove some kind of point about life or to manipulate the audience's emotions; it is done as the natural conclusion to the character's choices and personality.
Okay, sorry for being cryptic. Before I conclude, I should mention that I like the camera work for Red. I am far more aware, and more critical, of camera work in movies than in television (although I like the way NCIS scenes are cut). Action movies, especially, can so easily start to drag, yet there's this uneasy line between quick cuts and overly clever/nauseous cuts (Bourne Supremacy resides right on that line; I find it easier to watch Bourne 2 on my television than in a theater). Red is just about perfect. I rarely felt that the scenes were dragging, but at the same time, I didn't feel like an excess of coolness was being forced down my throat. And sometimes the camera work IS the joke, which is fun.
In conclusion, this movie is a tribute to Cold War classics and the larger-than-life personas that those classics spawned. It absolutely comes through!
Mike says Red was a complete surprise for me when I saw it in the theater. I didn't know what to expect, and I was deliriously happy with the outcome.
As Kate mentions, this is a FUN movie, first and foremost. Almost anything you might want to see you get. 'Why doesn't Frank just go beat the crap out of the agent?" Oh wait, that's what he's doing! Moment after moment in the movie is a sheer delight. Sarah talking with the duct tape, the underground lair in the trunk of the car. The grenade launcher in the Pig. And yes, I'm chuckling as I write this!
The chemistry of the characters is great, and the sheer amount of veteran well-known actors is astounding. This is a movie that you can tell a bunch of seasoned actors got together and said, "Let's have fun." And that's exactly what they did.
The introduction of each character is brilliant, and their respective send- offs are just as fun. As Kate mentions, however, the big reveal of the secret conspiracy is a little disappointing... and by disappointing, I mean I still don't fully get it. But, the bad guys get theirs, and the good guys get away. It's really all I needed, if not wanted.
Perhaps the most impressive thing about the movie is the way it handles its true to life balance between humor and drama. Just because we're having fun here doesn't mean that the characters can be hollow joke dispensers. Instead, they are real, believable, and complex people that see the humor of life while still fighting for what they feel is right. It's impressive feat that could have only been pulled off by the caliber of actors represented.
Red is Fun, action-packed, funny, and romantic enough to convince your wife to watch it with you (a bonus for me!). But beware, you might look at stuffed animals a little differently once you've watched it.
Friday, January 20, 2012
Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides
Release Date: May 20, 2011
Time Mike wanted to see it: That's the problem... I never really wanted to see it. But, for approximately 8 months.
Reason Mike procrastinated: Well, I expected to see it in the theater, but... I didn't. Then I expected to rent it.... and I didn't. I think I realized that Disney was going for the extra buck, and with no "normal" characters to relate to, I expected to endure the movie rather than enjoy it.
Category: Sequel
Mike says that after Disney's Haunted Mansion with Eddie Murphy, I really didn't expect much from the first Pirates movie, Curse of the Black Pearl. Which may be one of the reasons I was so blown away by it. The first movie is absolutely enjoyable, on several levels. The following movies, well... let's say At World's End makes a compelling argument for Pirate-themed fantasy epics, if not fully succeeding, and leave it at that.
Regardless, I was at the midnight premieres of both 2 and 3, so when On Stranger Tides (which, I just have to say, sounds totally like a dirty movie) was announced, with only the pirate characters returning, I was skeptical but still expected to see it. But I didn't.
As stated above, I just knew what was coming, and didn't have the heart to prove myself right. Thanks to this list, I've now done that. Sadly, the movie was pretty much what I suspected. There are good points, however, so I'll cover those first, and then, well, we'll cover the rest soon.
Depp as Jack Sparrow is always entertaining, and after a trilogy of seeing him be a roguish hero, it's nice that he hasn't descended into Jim Carey territory and basically become a parody of himself (Ace Ventura 2: When Nature Calls, I mean you). The other returning cast is equally fun and entertaining, although there seems to only be the three altogether.
Some of the action sequences are very nice, and my Blu-ray copy looked beautiful. There are some funny jokes, fun music (as Kate points out) and some cool fantasy ideas (ships in a bottle, Blackbeard controlling his ship). And, well, that's about it.
The story is blessedly direct, if surprisingly long, with far too many convenient plot twists with no prior set up (Kate mentions a couple of these below). We know where we're going, and we know what's probably gonna happen when we get there, and who exactly is going to make it.
Another thing that really bothers me is when certain payoffs/outcomes are unclear or undeserved. Jack saves his girlfriend, and she hates him for it, and he doesn't really care... even though he spends the entire movie obsessing about her.
The missionary saves the mermaid, and in turn she "saves" him... by sucking him down to the bottom of the ocean exactly like what the more evil mermaids did... presumably to mate with him, drown him, and eat him.
The Spaniards show up, create a little bit of suspense, and then disappear again into the night.
In the end, it's just sloppy writing that really should have been resolved before the movie began filming. Thankfully, we have action scene after action scene to break up one kind of tedium for another. The actions scenes are fun, but, well, predictable.
Perhaps the biggest flaw the movie suffers from is in trying to make the film work with the pirates alone. Unfortunately, pirates out-pirating other pirates isn't really all that interesting, especially when there's no character with a likable goal. There is no "Audience Surrogate," like Will and Elizabeth, for the pirates to argue with, shock and disgust, or threaten.
Really, aside for the very small sub-plot of the missionary and the mermaid (which ends pretty horrifically, as far as I can tell), there is not one character really worth caring about or worrying about in the entire movie. Even Jack was more of the "odd thing we're dealing with" in the previous flicks. The promotion to lead protagonist just doesn't suit him, committing him to pushing the story forward despite having a very weak reason to do so. We need a Jack free to dance between the subplots, bend the rules, and be free to make a surprising choice. By making him the key hero, he's too important to be truly entertaining.
Now, I should clarify: I didn't hate this movie. But I was right about one thing: it was more a practice in endurance rather than entertainment. I'm sure that there are several people who loved this movie to pieces. Me? I'd rather watch Black Pearl again.
Kate says I saw the first movie of this franchise and really enjoyed it. In fact, I've seen it multiple times.
I then tried to watch the second movie and got so bored, I gave up. I actually removed the movie from the DVD player before I finished! This NEVER happens since I can always go do something else and then come back to catch a few minutes here or there.
But the second movie just seemed a collection of silly events: oh, look, Jack Sparrow gets caught by cannibals; oh, look . . .
Nope, that's all I remember.
On Stranger Tides is far more watchable; I quite enjoyed it although it could have been 1/2 hour shorter (more on this later). It has, for one thing, a clear quest: find the Fountain of Youth. For another, it has some clever subplots; I especially liked the Cary Elwes look-a-like cleric and his mermaid girlfriend. I missed the dry-as-bones Norrington (Jack Davenport), but Sam Claflin (Philip the Cleric) is a good replacement, and the movie could actually have used more of him and Sparrow together (the dialog between them is very funny although, hey, don't you remember the days when Disney was so afraid of innuendo, they created Touchstone Pictures?)
The flaw is what I will here call the "Disney Syndrome" although it applies to all studios everywhere: Disney makes a film; the film is a hit; the writers/producers/etc. say, "That was great! Let's do it again, only MORE!"
So instead of one duel, there are six. Instead of one quest having three parts and one subplot, there is one quest having twelves parts and four subplots.
Ugh.
The downside of all the MORE is that way too many things have to be paid off at the end. In On Stranger Tides, the Spaniards are used in an interesting way, but do they really need to be there? And why have them kill off Groves who, just standing around, is far more interesting than the Spaniards?
And what does Jack Sparrow actually do for the mermaid for her to bring him the chalices? He isn't around her long enough for them to establish a relationship because he's off, you know, doing one of the twelve parts/four subplots.
The mermaid and her boyfriend subplot is nicely paid-off but far too quickly. I think this subplot may have pushed its way more to forefront than the writers anticipated or wanted; they had Depp and Rush and McShane to worry about, not a relatively unknown Englishman. I regret this decision but understand it; if you pay people tons of money, I suppose you should write lines for them.
I did absolutely adore the Judi Dench cameo.
Still it's a pity the writers didn't try harder. Often with movies like this, I just shrug and say, "Eh, sequel," but On Stranger Tides isn't Die Hard 2 which fails because it isn't, well, Die Hard. This is a movie that could have been a respectable, tight story but instead is a . . . shaggy dog story with some good bits.
I do love the music!
Time Mike wanted to see it: That's the problem... I never really wanted to see it. But, for approximately 8 months.
Reason Mike procrastinated: Well, I expected to see it in the theater, but... I didn't. Then I expected to rent it.... and I didn't. I think I realized that Disney was going for the extra buck, and with no "normal" characters to relate to, I expected to endure the movie rather than enjoy it.
Category: Sequel
Mike says that after Disney's Haunted Mansion with Eddie Murphy, I really didn't expect much from the first Pirates movie, Curse of the Black Pearl. Which may be one of the reasons I was so blown away by it. The first movie is absolutely enjoyable, on several levels. The following movies, well... let's say At World's End makes a compelling argument for Pirate-themed fantasy epics, if not fully succeeding, and leave it at that.
Regardless, I was at the midnight premieres of both 2 and 3, so when On Stranger Tides (which, I just have to say, sounds totally like a dirty movie) was announced, with only the pirate characters returning, I was skeptical but still expected to see it. But I didn't.
As stated above, I just knew what was coming, and didn't have the heart to prove myself right. Thanks to this list, I've now done that. Sadly, the movie was pretty much what I suspected. There are good points, however, so I'll cover those first, and then, well, we'll cover the rest soon.
Depp as Jack Sparrow is always entertaining, and after a trilogy of seeing him be a roguish hero, it's nice that he hasn't descended into Jim Carey territory and basically become a parody of himself (Ace Ventura 2: When Nature Calls, I mean you). The other returning cast is equally fun and entertaining, although there seems to only be the three altogether.
Some of the action sequences are very nice, and my Blu-ray copy looked beautiful. There are some funny jokes, fun music (as Kate points out) and some cool fantasy ideas (ships in a bottle, Blackbeard controlling his ship). And, well, that's about it.
The story is blessedly direct, if surprisingly long, with far too many convenient plot twists with no prior set up (Kate mentions a couple of these below). We know where we're going, and we know what's probably gonna happen when we get there, and who exactly is going to make it.
Another thing that really bothers me is when certain payoffs/outcomes are unclear or undeserved. Jack saves his girlfriend, and she hates him for it, and he doesn't really care... even though he spends the entire movie obsessing about her.
The missionary saves the mermaid, and in turn she "saves" him... by sucking him down to the bottom of the ocean exactly like what the more evil mermaids did... presumably to mate with him, drown him, and eat him.
The Spaniards show up, create a little bit of suspense, and then disappear again into the night.
In the end, it's just sloppy writing that really should have been resolved before the movie began filming. Thankfully, we have action scene after action scene to break up one kind of tedium for another. The actions scenes are fun, but, well, predictable.
Perhaps the biggest flaw the movie suffers from is in trying to make the film work with the pirates alone. Unfortunately, pirates out-pirating other pirates isn't really all that interesting, especially when there's no character with a likable goal. There is no "Audience Surrogate," like Will and Elizabeth, for the pirates to argue with, shock and disgust, or threaten.
Really, aside for the very small sub-plot of the missionary and the mermaid (which ends pretty horrifically, as far as I can tell), there is not one character really worth caring about or worrying about in the entire movie. Even Jack was more of the "odd thing we're dealing with" in the previous flicks. The promotion to lead protagonist just doesn't suit him, committing him to pushing the story forward despite having a very weak reason to do so. We need a Jack free to dance between the subplots, bend the rules, and be free to make a surprising choice. By making him the key hero, he's too important to be truly entertaining.
Now, I should clarify: I didn't hate this movie. But I was right about one thing: it was more a practice in endurance rather than entertainment. I'm sure that there are several people who loved this movie to pieces. Me? I'd rather watch Black Pearl again.
Kate says I saw the first movie of this franchise and really enjoyed it. In fact, I've seen it multiple times.
I then tried to watch the second movie and got so bored, I gave up. I actually removed the movie from the DVD player before I finished! This NEVER happens since I can always go do something else and then come back to catch a few minutes here or there.
But the second movie just seemed a collection of silly events: oh, look, Jack Sparrow gets caught by cannibals; oh, look . . .
Nope, that's all I remember.
On Stranger Tides is far more watchable; I quite enjoyed it although it could have been 1/2 hour shorter (more on this later). It has, for one thing, a clear quest: find the Fountain of Youth. For another, it has some clever subplots; I especially liked the Cary Elwes look-a-like cleric and his mermaid girlfriend. I missed the dry-as-bones Norrington (Jack Davenport), but Sam Claflin (Philip the Cleric) is a good replacement, and the movie could actually have used more of him and Sparrow together (the dialog between them is very funny although, hey, don't you remember the days when Disney was so afraid of innuendo, they created Touchstone Pictures?)
The flaw is what I will here call the "Disney Syndrome" although it applies to all studios everywhere: Disney makes a film; the film is a hit; the writers/producers/etc. say, "That was great! Let's do it again, only MORE!"
So instead of one duel, there are six. Instead of one quest having three parts and one subplot, there is one quest having twelves parts and four subplots.
Ugh.
The downside of all the MORE is that way too many things have to be paid off at the end. In On Stranger Tides, the Spaniards are used in an interesting way, but do they really need to be there? And why have them kill off Groves who, just standing around, is far more interesting than the Spaniards?
And what does Jack Sparrow actually do for the mermaid for her to bring him the chalices? He isn't around her long enough for them to establish a relationship because he's off, you know, doing one of the twelve parts/four subplots.
The mermaid and her boyfriend subplot is nicely paid-off but far too quickly. I think this subplot may have pushed its way more to forefront than the writers anticipated or wanted; they had Depp and Rush and McShane to worry about, not a relatively unknown Englishman. I regret this decision but understand it; if you pay people tons of money, I suppose you should write lines for them.
I did absolutely adore the Judi Dench cameo.
Still it's a pity the writers didn't try harder. Often with movies like this, I just shrug and say, "Eh, sequel," but On Stranger Tides isn't Die Hard 2 which fails because it isn't, well, Die Hard. This is a movie that could have been a respectable, tight story but instead is a . . . shaggy dog story with some good bits.
I do love the music!
Friday, January 13, 2012
X-Files: I Want to Believe
FRIDAY THE 13TH REVIEW!
Release Date: July 25, 2008
Time Kate wanted to see it: When I learned it had come out (some time between 2008 and 2009).
Reason Kate procrastinated: I'm a fan of the series and didn't want to be disappointed. Also, I don't want the dream to be over! (Plus I haven't seen very many episodes past the sixth season; I'm more invested in early X-Files than later X-Files.)
Category: Sequel
Kate says I enjoyed this, mostly because it was like watching a long episode of early X-Files! That's X-Files when the mythology was still cool and ambiguous (before it got way too confused). X-Files: I Want to Believe has psychics, medical doctors doing weird experiments, serial offenders, the same Mulder-Scully arguments, crazy Russians. And snow! (I got to give Chris Carter's kudos for his near-obsession with setting movies and episodes in deep winter.)
It really is not necessary to have seen the X-Files series through to completion. Unlike the first movie, which I quite like (I remember going to see it, Mike!), this movie could really have taken place at any point in the X-Files chronology--even Mulder & Scully living together isn't all that outside the box. In fact, I thought Chris Carter did a fine job summing up the background information in a clean, throw-a-away fashion.
I will admit, I think the first three seasons of X-Files did produce better episodes than this one. But it is still nice that Chris Carter can produce the same fun more than a decade later. And some parts of this long episode, uh, movie, make more sense, such as Mulder and Scully having different jobs/interests. Also, the duo are relatively more direct about their relationship than in the series or first movie. Like Mike, I would have liked to see them work more together (perhaps, if the emotional arc could have come to a crisis earlier?)--in fact, in Seasons 1-3, Scully and the boy, with Mulder on assist, would have been one episode; Mulder and the crazy psychic, with Scully on assist, would have been another.
The one thing that seriously irked me was Scully pushing Mulder to get re-interested in the FBI and then balking when he, well, pulls a Mulder and gets really invested. I HATE this plot device, and I thought it made no sense. Scully is Mulder's rationalist lover, not his annoying girlfriend.
I thought it would have made more sense if Scully had tried to get Mulder interested in a minor, police issue (not realizing it would lead to the FBI), or if someone else had gotten Mulder involved or if Mulder had written a letter to the FBI, not expecting them to show up on his doorstep.
But the whole "well, I wanted you to stop hanging around the house, but I'm pissed that you couldn't just stop with a consultation" was stupid. Doesn't she know this guy at all? Mr. Obsessive himself?
She does, actually. So I thought the whole plot device was seriously unfaithful to the original characters.
However, it does its job of getting Mulder involved, and, once involved, I absolutely believe Scully would object to his obsessing--in her usual Scully way.
And I really liked the ending, Mulder saying, "Maybe the darkness finds us," and Scully saying, "I know it does" and her deciding in the end to go forward despite every rational reason to stop. That was a nice pay-off to the series.
And Skinner shows up! What's not to love?
Hmmm, I think I'll start rewatching my X-Files discs . . .
Mike says it's appropriate that Kate and I review this film now, nearly 13 years since we first saw the original film in theaters together. It was a fun time from what I recall, though I was there as a geek, and Kate may have actually been the fan. It was a fun, if odd movie, and I was excited at the prospect of seeing Mulder and Scully together once more when I heard a second movie was being released (by excited, I mean I saw it opening night in the theater).
The film starts in common X-Files manner, showing the audience a clue that begins the whole search for truth. Enter our heroes, cynical and faith worn in their lives, despite having what appears to be a comfortable long term relationship.
There are a lot of great moments in the first 20 minutes of the show, as the characters are all introduced, and the plot is laid out before us. There is some witty X-Files humor (the theme playing as we see a frame of George W. Bush), especially those that nod to the past, such as Mulder and his pencils.
The mystery laid out is a bizarre one, but compelling anyway, despite it's more gruesome aspects. And the return of the X-Duo is pretty satisfying. However...I found myself annoyed at how the "team reunion" seemed to be the team working apart. Mulder seems lost but seems to rediscover himself in the case. Scully, however, seems to have lost faith and is hiding in her new life.
One thing I did love about the film is that it treated the events of the series as old hat; yes, it happened, we know it happened, and some of that information is still relevant, so let's make some references! The movie is crammed with little name drops, references, inside jokes and the memories of big events. Mulder and Scully are living in the world that exists after the TV show, and the past is relevant, important, and worth talking about it.
Now, the movie itself isn't that amazing. Personally, I feel like I needed to hit the beach after watching it just to warm up. Second, while the evil guys are simply established, it was hard to fully grasp their motivations. and the investigation itself did seem to have a lot of coincidental lucky spots (granted, that's the upside of a psychic; you can get away with that).
We only ever see our villains in creepy moments that establish the threat and danger, but the main masterminds, either the doctor or the patient, never really have any lines (in English at least). We piece together that the purpose is to escape cancer, and perhaps gender crisis, by swapping bodies. This idea has so many holes, however, that it's more shocking and gross than emotionally wrenching.
The story with the most emotional charge is Scully's, but sadly it's also the section of the movie that doesn't really fit. Mulder and Scully really should be together. Or at least still be working on the same thing. The fact that the payoff for the Scully story is that she solves the case with a coincidental misprinted article is fairly weak, and is an obvious piece of deux ex machina.
The movie is ultimately about faith, whatever that may be placed in. Mulder and Scully both seem to find it again, but Scully's is the choice that carries the most weight and the largest consequences for her patient, although we never get to see the outcome. A confirmation of the audience's faith would have been welcome.
What makes the film work is the strong chemistry between Mulder and Scully, and the relative ease of the relationship they share. Sure, Frankenstein's monsters are cool and weird, but it was nice to be able to say goodbye to loved friends one last time.
Friday, January 6, 2012
Winnie the Pooh (2011)
Release Date: July 15, 2011
Time Mike wanted to see it: About 6 months
Reason Mike procrastinated: I wanted to take my son Benji to see it, but trips to the movies have been disastrous in the past. And with his current obsession with dinosaurs, the need to rent it wasn't very high.
Category: Reboot/updated sequel
Time Mike wanted to see it: About 6 months
Reason Mike procrastinated: I wanted to take my son Benji to see it, but trips to the movies have been disastrous in the past. And with his current obsession with dinosaurs, the need to rent it wasn't very high.
Category: Reboot/updated sequel
Mike says: I had a little anxiety about watching this movie for two reasons: First, I love Winnie the Pooh, and I treasure the original film (the following Pooh films through the years are cute but still inferior). Second, I watched this with my son, who hasn't watched any movie without a dinosaur for several months.
I was pleasantly relieved when I found that not only was I enjoying the film, but my son loved it as well! The film is super cute and clever, and I found myself chuckling through most of the movie. Winnie The Pooh is one of the recent films that reboots and updates a franchise, while still being a sequel. Think Fast & Furious, The Incredible Hulk, and Tron Legacy, but with cute stuffed animals.
I think the film succeeds in several ways. First off, the art is gorgeous. It really calls back to the original film while still utilizing modern methods. Second, they did a great job finding voices that come pretty close to the originals, and all the characters sound great.
The film is also really clever in its humor: All of the book gags are cute and funny, and Benji and I laughed every time something went awry in the pages of the book. Several of the gags and puns are also very clever, and the use of rhyme never really gets old.
From Benji's perspective, the film was perfect. While I really enjoyed the film and found it very cute, it did have a few flaws. Despite its best efforts, the musical numbers just aren't as catchy or fun as the original film. That the entire plot is built on a misunderstanding isn't new for the Pooh films, and is frankly silly (Benji, I should point out, thought it was brilliant). The over-arcing story is also something characteristic of the modern films. Which is fine, but I find myself missing the "story collection" format of the first film.
Probably the weirdest complaint I have is the subtle change in the type of humor used, where it's a little less innocent. Which is fine, but still a reflection of modern entertainment.
Overall, though, this is a very cute film, and does live up to the quality of the later sequels, if not quite meeting the original.
Kate says you know it is a Disney film when you have to watch 2 billion previews before you get to the movie.
Okay, that's a cheap shot. But true!
Winnie the Pooh (2011) does have a high standard to live up to. I was relieved that the film retained the lovely, classic look of the original. I was also impressed by the narrator choice. Could anybody be better than John Cleese?! The cool thing about John Cleese is that although he is frequently sardonic, he can do sweet and natural as well, and he does that in this film.
In general, the film is not as pop-culture-referential as many animated films are these days (think Shrek's references to Disney World, for instance) although there are a few (more, as Mike points out, than the original), including an odd little reference to Raiders of the Lost Ark. However, I think the lack of references is actually a strength of the film and could have benefited from an entire lack. Malcolm Gladwell has pointed out that although parents prefer watching shows like Sesame Street because of the "adult" clever references, very young children actually prefer mind-numbingly boring shows like Blues Clues. That is, very young kids prefer literal, straight-forward, no-extra references humor.
Winnie the Pooh (2011) is, I think, aimed more at children than at their parents--which is unusual enough to make it really remarkable. (It is difficult to see, for example, how anyone not a teen or older could really "get" Tangled.)
And it is more interesting/watchable than Blues Clues. I agree with Mike that the songs are less catchy, but, as he states, the literal use of the "text" is very clever, and there are some other very literal, straight-forward, no-references humor sections that are surprisingly clever: the balloon's static electricity, the anchor (a number of physics lessons at work!), the "knot not" complication.
In fact, the film is probably stronger than it's initial impression. It is so light (with a lightly delivered message), its strength as an overall film is not readily apparent--sort of like how Olympic gymnasts make their contortions look easy when really they are the result of a 24/7 obsession.
And it is tough for those of us who have seen and remember the older film to fully appreciate the new. If I'd never seen the older film . . .
The one enormous thing in this film's favor is that the writers/producers obviously cared about the original. This, to me, makes a tremendous difference. I will excuse a lot of flaws in the Narnia movies, for example, because the writers/directors/producers care about the story. One of the neatest parts of Winnie the Pooh (2011) is at the end when the real stuffed animals are shown with household items that represent items in the movie. It reminded me of Toy Story 3's homage to the joys of child-play and imagination. Kudos!
Saturday, December 31, 2011
And We're Back! And Updated!!
So in a list totally appropriate for New Year's, List 8 will be movies Mike and Kate haven't seen but want to/haven't gotten around to/always meant to. Half of the list are from Kate's "to do" list, half from Mike's. We will leave you to guess which is which (don't worry; you'll be told!).
1. Winnie-the Pooh: January 6th
2. X-Files: I Want to Believe: January, Friday the 13th
3. Pirates of the Caribbean 4
4. Red
5. Farscape Pilot
6. Inception
7. Percy Jackson
8. Highlander
9. White Collar Pilot
10. The Dish
Reviews will begin this weekend! Friday, January 6th!!
1. Winnie-the Pooh: January 6th
2. X-Files: I Want to Believe: January, Friday the 13th
3. Pirates of the Caribbean 4
4. Red
5. Farscape Pilot
6. Inception
7. Percy Jackson
8. Highlander
9. White Collar Pilot
10. The Dish
Reviews will begin this weekend! Friday, January 6th!!
HAPPY 2012!!
Labels:
List 8
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)