This is bittersweet. Since I am no longer living in US, I no longer can watch films on the same day they are released in the US and therefore making me unable to react to most of the annual Best-of lists written by the critic. I usually do this lists closer to the Oscar ceremony rather than in end of December since I can't watch all the movies unless I live in LA/NY. But this may be the last list whose entries I watched in US. I watched 44 new films released last year and looking at the list, I should have watched many more knowing that it would be my last year living there.
These are my list of thoughts on last year's films. I'd keep it simple this time, starting with the bad going to good.
BAD:
Worst Excuse For a Film:
Sex and The City: The Movie - This film has no story whatsoever. In other movies, some of the "major" plot points would be resolved in a few minutes but in this movie, they drag on for the whole 2 hours. It's a shame because the original series was actually a good show. But this film is just an excuse to get this 4 women back together again and do their stuffs as well as showing some product placements for its target audience.
Mamma Mia! - This goes back to the original musical which itself was an excuse to have ABBA songs staged. Except the original musical doesn't have Pierce Brosnan terrible voice.
Most Overrated:
The Curious Case of Benjamin Button - The Curious Case of Benjamin Button peaked emotionally halfway throughout the film. After that, the film goes downhill. It's not a bad film but the central romance which anchors the 2nd half of the film is unconvincing and that proves to be the film's undoing. Also, the film seems to show that lessons from life aging backwards are more or less the same with normal life aging forwards, which makes the whole idea that drives the movie somewhat pointless. Lastly, Brad Pitt is really flat here, especially towards the end of the film. Given the # of oscar nominations this film has including Brad Pitt as best actor, this film is the most overrated film of the year.
Biggest Disappointment:
Quantum of Solace - Casino Royale was a great success because it treated James Bond seriously and make him more human. Ironically, Quantum of Solace fails because it tried to replicate Casino Royale without adding anything fresh to it.
Pineapple Express - 2007 was Judd Apatow's year with the success of Knocked Up and Superbad. But 2008 proved to be a dud with the failure of Drillbit Taylor and this film, which fails to mix humor and action effectively. Plus, Seth Rogen starts to show quickly within 1 year how little range he has. He better improve fast or else lose his career.
The X Files: I Want To Believe - It's fine if Chris Carter wants to just do a supernatural story rather than continuing the mythology for the 2nd film. But when the reunion of Mulder and Scully has been long awaited for years and all you've got is just a lame supernatural story that sounds like a bad episode, you're wasting all the goodwill that have built up for this moment.
Indiana Jones and The Kingdom of The Crystal Skull - one weakness of the Indiana Jones films are that they never set any rules for the supernatural happenings in their universe; anything can happen. When the aliens show up in the end, you just can't help but shake your head. But the worst part of the film is that the feeling that Lucas and Spielberg makes this because so many fans ask for it, not because they have anything new and exciting to show.
Be Kind Rewind - Michel Gondry is a talented visionary director, but he's a poor writer. His story has poor structure and the dialogues have bad timings. He needs to work with good writers like Charlie Kauffman so that we can see more Eternal Sunshine than another interesting failure like this.
Worst Film:
21 - turns a fascinating true story into a boring cliched film complete with the main character narrating everything. But perhaps the worst part of the film is that there's no way the characters in the film can get into MIT in the first place given how stupid they can be.
10000 BC - An epic movie that's part boring and part the funniest unintentional comedy of the year.
Hancock - A film that doesn't know what it wants to be - a superhero dark comedy or a tragedy - that results in a tonal mess. Part of it is because the film feels like it has been edited by the studio not director Peter Berg. Lastly, like Hitch, Will Smith has again shown how afraid he is to tackle the subject of mixed-race romance head on in exchange for making the film more commercial.
The Happening - I commented on the first draft of the screenplay that M Night needs to make improvement on the romance aspect of the script. He did improve on that but he also chickened out and removed some of the best things that made the story scary. Plus the acting from Mark Wahlberg, Zooey Deschanel, and John Leguizamo is surprisingly terrible. The worst part is, this time around, even M Night's directing has let him down.
Eagle Eye - A preposterous, ridiculous high tech thriller that thinks it's smart when it's actually so implausible and absurd.
... and the worst film of the year is ...
Righteous Kill - how can a film with De Niro, Pacino and written by the writer of Inside Man be so bad? We should have suspected given that no big studio wants to distribute this and it's produced by Millenium Films and directed by Jon Avnet who also made the Pacino stinker 88 Minutes. But still, I expected some decent film at least. What I've got here instead is a sleazily made cop film with dialogue and acting worse than any cop show on TV. Some of the dialogue and acting by Pacino and De Niro are very embarassing and I sure hope that they paid well for this gig. But the most embarassing thing in this film is that the best performance in this film that has Pacino, De Niro, John Leguizamo and Carla Gugino is perhaps given by 50 Cent.
and now, THE GOOD
Most Overlooked Villain:
Prince Nuada in Hellboy II (played by Luke Goss) - it's rare that we see a good villain in superhero films. Luke Goss' Prince Nuada is a great villain with a great commanding presence and a great martial arts ability. It's too bad that he's overshadowed by The Joker in The Dark Knight. While The Joker is an exceptional villain in an exceptional film, we need to see more Prince Nuada in other films that can gamely oppose the heroes. Nuada puts the villain in the first Hellboy, Rasputin, to shame.
Most Overlooked Performance:
Aaron Eckhart (as Harvey Dent in The Dark Knight) - another actor overshadowed by Heath Ledger's performance as the joker, Aaron Eckhart's Harvey Dent has perhaps the biggest character arc in the film, more so than the batman and the joker and given the importance of the character - he's what batman and joker are fighting for. his performance shouldn't be ignored.
Adam Sandler (as Zohan in You Don't Mess With The Zohan) - puts on a fake accent and attempts a Ben Stiller-like fake persona in Zohan, an Israeli super commando who secretly wanst to be a hairdresser, resulting in perhaps his funniest comedic role since The Wedding Singer
James Franco (as Saul in Pineapple Express) - This is perhaps the most criminally overlooked performance of the year. James Franco, previously known as a serious and moody actor who unfortunately always appear in more bad movies than good, gives a career changing performance as a stoned weed dealer in Pineapple Express which is surprisingly very effective. He's perhaps the best thing that happened in the film. Had this been shown in any year except 2008, perhaps James would have perhaps gotten a best actor nomination for this role.
Most Underrated:
Speed Racer - I'll admit that Speed Racer isn't a great film and for a family film, the plot could be simplified. However, the criticial drubbing and the failure of this film was highly unfair. The Wachowski Brothers managed to successfully bring the anime eye candy to live action but they don't forget the heart in the family story either. I'm happy to see that it has already become a cult film with some fans (including Richard Corliss in Time Magazine who names it in his top 10 films in 2008). I hope that time will give this film a chance to be recognized.
Sex Drive - In a year where Judd Apatow sex comedies flopped, suddenly a great teen sex comedy film that wasn't made/produced by Apatow came out of nowhere and was missed by everyone. Sex Drive has many characteristics of good Apatow movies - funny sex jokes, romantic storyline that actually has real heart - but it doesn't feel like an Apatow film (none of the apatow regulars show up, for one). Plus, this films is perhaps the first film to integrate the recent web activities like chatting, blogging and youtube successfully into the film. The film deserves to be found by more audience.
Best Pics:
The Dark Knight - An almost perfect film in every way. Nothing more needs to be said about this film. The Academy snub for Best Picture and Director will haunt them forever.
Slumdog Millionaire - It's a great year when of the 2 best pictures of the year, one is very dark, somber affair and the other one is an inspiring, underdog fairy tale. Make no mistake, Slumdog Millionaire is not one of those false, schmaltzy Hollywood fairy tale, but a truly wonderful one that gives fairy tale a good name. All thanks to director Danny Boyle who kept things authentic as much as possible by shooting in India and writer Simon Beaufoy who adapted the plot brilliantly from a book by Vikas Swarup. This is the film that will win the oscar this year.
Cloverfield - It's a divisive movie because of the overhype and because when it showed up, the Blair Witch handheld style pissed off many in audience (and sent some vomiting). But when the hype settled, Cloverfield is a successful experiment. The handheld style was utilized effectively to generate tension and despite the "real time" nature of the handheld film the filmmakers still managed to tell the whole story in a typical story arc of a hollywood film. Lastly, kudos for the filmmakers for having the guts to put the ending there. This film has successfully deconstructed and revolutionized the monster movie genre at the same time.
Doubt
Milk
Traitor
Definitely, Maybe
The Incredible Hulk
Wall-E
Best Film To Talk About:
Doubt
Most Pleasant Surprises:
Definitely, Maybe - Best surprise of the year. It's a film that starts like any other romantic comedy but morphs into an insightful film that examines about the choices that we did and did not make in life and how much we regret them later in life. The film defies many romcom cliches and keep the audience guessing. The casting of the girl who have a great chemistry with Ryan Reynolds that it's obvious she's "the one" but that only serves to better the film
Rambo - when Sylvester Stallone made Rocky Balboa, people laughed and were surprised it was good. When Sly announced he was making another Rambo, people naturally laughed harder. Unlike Rocky, the character Rambo has become a joke over the years. That's why everyone who laughed would find themselves even more surprised by how good the final product was. The fourth Rambo film is a straight old school action films with guns and violence and a lot of excitement. But most importantly, Sylvester Stallone has done the impossible - bringing back respectability to the classic character.
Valkyrie - It stars Tom Cruise. The ending is already known even before the movie was made. Yet, Bryan Singer still managed to make a tense and ultimately sad tale of people who sacrificed their life to do the right thing.
You Don't Mess With The Zohan - Adam Sandler ditched his typical childish humour and went for something that Ben Stiller would do: create a fake persona and lampoon it by living and breathing it. When Sandler puts on a fake accent and bad hair to play a macho israel commando who secretly wants to be a hairdresser, the result is comedy gold.
Sunday, February 22, 2009
Thursday, September 11, 2008
Why Americans don't love soccer ... and why I don't love their sports* either
* - NFL, NBA, MLB, NHL, NASCAR
I read this article, 7 Reasons Why America Will Never Embrace Soccer, long ago. Go ahead and read it, the author is pretty reasonable and thoughtful (this isn't another why soccer sucks/is gay article). Funny enough, some of the reasons listed are also the same reasons I don't embrace the american sports (or at least the way it's organized, viewed and worshipped in America). Reasons like:
Americans Don't Have The Attention Span and Low Scores - just too bad, it's their loss. Especially when it comes to low scores, how American Football artificially inflates its score by awarding a touchdown by 6 points. bah.
I read this article, 7 Reasons Why America Will Never Embrace Soccer, long ago. Go ahead and read it, the author is pretty reasonable and thoughtful (this isn't another why soccer sucks/is gay article). Funny enough, some of the reasons listed are also the same reasons I don't embrace the american sports (or at least the way it's organized, viewed and worshipped in America). Reasons like:
Americans Don't Have The Attention Span and Low Scores - just too bad, it's their loss. Especially when it comes to low scores, how American Football artificially inflates its score by awarding a touchdown by 6 points. bah.
Lack of Statistics - The author mentioned that "Being able to rattle off batting, FG, or QB ratings bring joy to millions of Americans. In soccer, the only real stats are passes, tackles, goals, and saves ... the stats simply aren’t as meaningful nor interesting as other mainstream American sports." This is the same thing that frightens me whenever I tried to take a look at a popular american sport. I mean turnover rates, rushed yards - what the fuck is that? It's like every single player is measured by the statistics of their performance, it's scary. That's why I love Soccer because the statistics don't matter. Heck the only numbers that matter is the number of goals and who win or lose, that's it, simple.So instead of statistics, I can enjoy the performance and artistry of players like Messi, Kaka, Ronaldo, etc. That's why it's called the beautiful game. But I guess many typical american sports fans can't appreciate the beauty of the sports, confuses it with "gay" and would rather spend their time obsessing over meaningless statistics.
But other than that I'd also like to add a few more on why it's hard for me to embrace the american sports.
Franchise - the dreaded, ugly F-word by many soccer fans everywhere. There's a good reason why many soccer teams are called Club, that's because most soccer club are indeed started as community, local based sports club. With that, it brings a sense of loyalty and belonging for many local communities. Even big clubs like Barcelona and Bayern Munich are owned by fans. In america, most sports teams in NBA, NFL, MLB are owned by some rich billionaires or corporations and they are always operated as a money making machine first and a sports team second.
While most of them are rooted in their host city long enough to form strong local attachments and identity, it's possible and perfectly acceptable to see teams move around from one part of the country to another, as can be seen from the recent move of Seattle Supersonics to Oklahoma or even the fact that SF Giants were originally from NY, just because the Franchise or its owner needs it (usually for monetary reasons). Just to illustrate the difference, recently English club Everton FC which is based in Liverpool had a very hard time convincing its supporters to move to a new stadium to just outskirt of the city even though the move is necessary for the club growth; that's how strong the local attachment is to the club. Attachment is important, I know people who have been supporting Liverpool non-stop since their 70s/80s glory days even if they have never been there. How could that happen? That's because Liverpool has a long and glorious history and part of that history is always rooted locally in Liverpool even as the name grows more and more global. Could you imagine Liverpool FC moving out of city of Liverpool and taking their history with them? It would be unthinkable and would cause a great uproar. Speaking of Liverpool FC, it's owned by 2 american owners who have tried to operate it like a franchise and look at how they're treated by the fans.
That's why it's so hard for me to root for any sports team in America. Last time I supported a team was The Chicago Bulls during the Michael Jordan era and once he's gone, I'm gone too (and so does many other s0-called "fans"). The only team I can support is my college teams (Go Bears) because that's where I went to school and I have attachment and I know that Cal has been around for 140 years or so and won't move anywhere, that's probably the closest to a US sports team that I can support.
But other than that I'd also like to add a few more on why it's hard for me to embrace the american sports.
Franchise - the dreaded, ugly F-word by many soccer fans everywhere. There's a good reason why many soccer teams are called Club, that's because most soccer club are indeed started as community, local based sports club. With that, it brings a sense of loyalty and belonging for many local communities. Even big clubs like Barcelona and Bayern Munich are owned by fans. In america, most sports teams in NBA, NFL, MLB are owned by some rich billionaires or corporations and they are always operated as a money making machine first and a sports team second.
While most of them are rooted in their host city long enough to form strong local attachments and identity, it's possible and perfectly acceptable to see teams move around from one part of the country to another, as can be seen from the recent move of Seattle Supersonics to Oklahoma or even the fact that SF Giants were originally from NY, just because the Franchise or its owner needs it (usually for monetary reasons). Just to illustrate the difference, recently English club Everton FC which is based in Liverpool had a very hard time convincing its supporters to move to a new stadium to just outskirt of the city even though the move is necessary for the club growth; that's how strong the local attachment is to the club. Attachment is important, I know people who have been supporting Liverpool non-stop since their 70s/80s glory days even if they have never been there. How could that happen? That's because Liverpool has a long and glorious history and part of that history is always rooted locally in Liverpool even as the name grows more and more global. Could you imagine Liverpool FC moving out of city of Liverpool and taking their history with them? It would be unthinkable and would cause a great uproar. Speaking of Liverpool FC, it's owned by 2 american owners who have tried to operate it like a franchise and look at how they're treated by the fans.
That's why it's so hard for me to root for any sports team in America. Last time I supported a team was The Chicago Bulls during the Michael Jordan era and once he's gone, I'm gone too (and so does many other s0-called "fans"). The only team I can support is my college teams (Go Bears) because that's where I went to school and I have attachment and I know that Cal has been around for 140 years or so and won't move anywhere, that's probably the closest to a US sports team that I can support.
Salary Cap and Draft - Two things that stereotypical americans love about their country is 1) it's a Free country and 2) Football. Yet, ironically, the rules of players transfers and salaries in NFL (and NBA, MLB, MLS) are designed to make each franchises in the league more or less "balanced" to prevent a dominant team and to prevent players salary from spiralling out of control. The way they do that is by making a needlessly confusing draft and salary cap system that would impress Communists (and americans who love statistics). In soccer leagues in europe, it's more like a free market capitalism where the richest clubs can buy whatever talents it wants and therefore we always see the same group of clubs win the trophies each year. Now of course, as I mentioned earlier, there are pros and cons of both systems which are almost opposite of each other. But I just find it ironic that the current transfer rules and regulations in NFL etc is far less "free" than the soccer ones in europe. But hey, don't take my word for it, in 2007, Nick Saban, then head coach of Miami Dolphins in NFL moved to coach University of Alabama in college football. One reason for his switch (besides being made the highest paid college football coach) is that the recruiting system is more free in college. In a recent Forbes magazine article, he's quoted as saying: "You were almost penalized for success," he says. A good year meant lower draft picks and a more difficult schedule. "In the NFL you get one first-round draft pick if you're lucky," says Saban. "You couldn't really outwork anybody else. In college I could recruit ten players with first-round talent every year." Again another plus points for college sports system.
Now, I'm not saying that soccer leagues are always better. There's a lot of grey areas. There are fan owned sports team in US too like Green Bay Packers. Given the recent takeovers of English Premier Leagues clubs by rich peoples like Roman Abramovich (Chelsea), Abu Dhabi Group (Manchester City), Gillet and Hicks (Liverpool FC) and given the spiralling wages of many top football players, the top soccer clubs start to look more and more like american style Franchise as well. But I still can't embrace the US sports after living there for over 6 years. I guess it's just down to the way the world thinks vs the way americans think. I still refuse to change from Metric system to US measurement units (miles, yard, foot, pound etc). As long as this differences in thinking exist, I probably will not embrace the american sports and americans will never embrace Football.
Now, I'm not saying that soccer leagues are always better. There's a lot of grey areas. There are fan owned sports team in US too like Green Bay Packers. Given the recent takeovers of English Premier Leagues clubs by rich peoples like Roman Abramovich (Chelsea), Abu Dhabi Group (Manchester City), Gillet and Hicks (Liverpool FC) and given the spiralling wages of many top football players, the top soccer clubs start to look more and more like american style Franchise as well. But I still can't embrace the US sports after living there for over 6 years. I guess it's just down to the way the world thinks vs the way americans think. I still refuse to change from Metric system to US measurement units (miles, yard, foot, pound etc). As long as this differences in thinking exist, I probably will not embrace the american sports and americans will never embrace Football.
Wednesday, June 25, 2008
Zohan Review
I reviewed this 2 months ago, but left it dusted. So I'm publishing it now
1. You Don't Mess With The Zohan
Other than romantic comedies with Drew Barrymore and occasional non-comedy forays like PT Anderson's Punch Drunk Love, I usually skip Adam Sandler movies. The guy's comedic persona (especially ever since The Waterboy) is too crude, annoying and childish (only Will Ferrell can top him) for my taste. However, after seeing the trailer for "You Don't Mess With The Zohan", it becomes the first Adam Sandler movie that I anticipate for a very long time.
Why the anticipation? Zohan is probably the first time Adam Sandler created a new comedic persona since The Waterboy and it's also probably his first attempt at doing a good spoof/parody ala Ben Stiller or Sacha Baron Cohen's Ali G and Borat. Of course, it also helps that it has a killer premise: Zohan is the best commando Israel has ever seen (by the best, I mean he can stop bullets in real time kind) whose lifelong dream is only to become a hairstylist. Last but not least, Judd Apatow of the 40 Years Old Virgin, Knocked Up, Superbad fame help co-write the script. Does the end product live up to the potential? Not quite, but there's still good time to be had.
First, let's make one thing clear, Adam Sandler of the old is gone. Gone are the crude shouting, toilet, gross jokes. In are broad, cartoonish, nonsensical gags that Stephen Chow could do (or used to be able to) in his sleep, and Sandler is better for it. It's also great that the writers and Sandler embrace the cartoonish, nonsensical comedy to their heart and pull it on their sleeves - with gags like grenade ping pong, Zohan's physical abilities - they're not always successful, but they're more often funny than what Adam Sandler used to make. But credit has to go to the Zohan character and Sandler himself, from The Zohan's masculine, oversexed persona to his fake accent and to his Chuck Norris-esque ability to be immune from any physical harm. I believe this is a character spoof is quite accurate, even if I have never met/known an Israeli before. After all, many cheesy Chuck Norris action films used to be produced by Israelis producer Menahem Golan and Goram Globus and you could probably see the striking similarity between Zohan and Chuck Norris.
Then, there's there's the issue of this movie being a message movie. Sandler's last film, I Pronounce You Chuck and Larry, had this sincere but ultimately hypocritical attempt at a homosexual tolerant message. This movie does have some preachy messages about the Israel-Palestinian conflicts. But unlike Chuck and Larry, this film is smart enough to be a cartoon that the messages don't come accross too forcefully. After all, only in a cartoonish movie like this can we see a man capable of stopping bullets with his bare hand and an immigrant community of Israelis and Palestinians living together.
Rating: 3.5 /5
Wednesday, June 11, 2008
Warning on M Night Shyamalan's The Happening
This friday, M Night Shyamalan's next movie The Happening will open in US. I'm here to warn you to consider not watching it.
Now, I'm a big fan of M Night, every single movie after the sixth sense. But his last movie, The Lady In The Water, was so terrible I named it the worst film I've seen in 2006. But I still have faith in him; so when I heard that he was going to make his next movie, The Green Effect (it's been retitled to The Happening) with a story about nature turning against mankind, I become interested and was hoping that it would be his comeback to goodness.
But I was impatient. Last year, after much searching online, I found the first draft of the script (titled The Green Effect) and read it.
It was bad. It wasn't as terrible as Lady In The Water, but make no mistake, it was bad.
The script has some good parts (which involves wind blowing) that would give M Night some cool and terrifying directing set pieces. but that's about it on the positive. The story is interesting but characters are not. But the worst part was the ending.
Now, I know many people are incensed by the ending of Signs. I happen to be one who don't mind because the movie was solid enough that by the time the ending comes, I didn't even notice the plot hole. Why do I mention Signs? Because for those people who hate Signs, the ending in the script is even more stupid than the Aliens whose weakness is water in Signs. It's really that bad (it explains what "the green effect" is so cornily).
Well, it's only the first draft and the script has been rewritten numerous times for sure during the production. But having seen the trailers for the film so far, I must say that many elements in the first draft have made it into the film. I just hope, for the sake of Shyamalan's career, that the ending doesn't make it.
Now, I'm a big fan of M Night, every single movie after the sixth sense. But his last movie, The Lady In The Water, was so terrible I named it the worst film I've seen in 2006. But I still have faith in him; so when I heard that he was going to make his next movie, The Green Effect (it's been retitled to The Happening) with a story about nature turning against mankind, I become interested and was hoping that it would be his comeback to goodness.
But I was impatient. Last year, after much searching online, I found the first draft of the script (titled The Green Effect) and read it.
It was bad. It wasn't as terrible as Lady In The Water, but make no mistake, it was bad.
The script has some good parts (which involves wind blowing) that would give M Night some cool and terrifying directing set pieces. but that's about it on the positive. The story is interesting but characters are not. But the worst part was the ending.
Now, I know many people are incensed by the ending of Signs. I happen to be one who don't mind because the movie was solid enough that by the time the ending comes, I didn't even notice the plot hole. Why do I mention Signs? Because for those people who hate Signs, the ending in the script is even more stupid than the Aliens whose weakness is water in Signs. It's really that bad (it explains what "the green effect" is so cornily).
Well, it's only the first draft and the script has been rewritten numerous times for sure during the production. But having seen the trailers for the film so far, I must say that many elements in the first draft have made it into the film. I just hope, for the sake of Shyamalan's career, that the ending doesn't make it.
Friday, June 6, 2008
Save Speed Racer
... or just save it as much as you can by watching it now if it's still playing. By missing this movie, even if it isn't a great film, you might have just missed a truly good movie there.
By now, if you had not seen Speed Racer, you'd probably know that it's a big box office flop. Reportedly made by Wachowski Brothers who made The Matrix films for a budget of over 100 million (typical for a summer blockbuster type), it has only grossed a puny $40 million so far in US. Not to mention the usual negative bashing towards the film and its makers. Which is too bad, because this is a genuinely good film that deserve more.
Now, before I start defending this film and The Wachowski Brothers, I'm not going to be like other apologists who keeps overpraising this film as great or perfect because this movie isn't. This films has its flaws. Actually, its only flaw is its overly complicated story and running length. The Wachowskis clearly intended this film for kids and to be watched with the family with its unapologetically cartoonish (in a good way) visuals; however, they should have the common sense not to make a plot so convoluted that it encompasses over 2 hours (and the kids won't understand the corporate manipulation and betrayal anyway). The Wachowskis should have just simply made a simple good guy vs bad guy story with a strong identifiable villain which the movie lacks.
But besides that, I don't understand some of the hatred regarding this film. When the first trailer come out, I was impressed by its unapologetically cartoonish and colourful visuals as well as the outrageous and but wacky fast racing action that recalls video games like F-Zero series and Mario Kart series; I thought it was great and revolutionary and it could to to anime what Sin City did to its comic book counterpart. But alas, it wasn't to be. Although I never experience it for myself, I'm aware that there are strong reactions against the visuals. again, if people can embrace Sin City, why can't they embrace this?
Sometimes I can't help but think that some people are just against The Wachowski for some reasons. It probably started since The 2nd and 3rd Matrix films (which are admittedly flawed and polarizing) and it continues on to V For Vendetta (and to lesser extent, last year's The Invasion). People have been waiting for this Schadenfreude moment to come and of all time, it has come for this movie. I'm not sure why Wachowskis brothers are hated. Sure, they're eccentric (on of them had sex change operation) and mysterious (almost never does publicity). But after seeing this movie, I'm convinced that they're one of the better filmmakers today who not only make films with distinct and boundary pushing visuals, but most importantly also know how to tell a story. It'd be sad if they lose total creative control because this movie flopped.
Take for example the opening race scene. It was a gorgeous, fast paced scene, where we see Speed in a race, it's intercut with crowd, commentaries and scenes from Speed's childhood where we see that he's close with his older brother, Rex. Speed easily leads the race, but he's chasing against a "ghost" red car - his brother's car. As more flashbacks appear, we know that his brother would meet a tragic fate later, and at the same time, we finally know that Speed's goal for this race wasn't only to win it, but beat his brother's record. and when he finally reached the finished line, he did something that really revealed a lot about his character. It was just so elegant and exciting, with no Michael Bay style rotating camera bullshit, with fast cuts - but not distracting, which is refreshing, if you think about it, because Wachowskis have reputation as visual director, but they still care about plot and character development.
Then, there's writing and acting. Yes, the plot was unnecessarily convoluted, but when it comes to emotional scenes, the wachowskis really hit home run. There are 2 scenes where first, the older brother left the family and has his last talk with the dad and a similar scene years later when Speed tries to do the same. It was simple, to the point and yet poignant. The actors are also great in this one. When you have good serious actors like Susan Sarandon, John Goodman, Christina Ricci and Emile Hirsch doing a cartoonish movie like this, it usually ends more often bad than good. But thankfully, the actors know the material really well enough to strike the right tone for the characters. Emile Hirsch was particularly not as bad as I thought he would be after I saw his wooden performance in the trailer. But the best surprise come from John Goodman; I remember seeing him in a lot of movies in the 90s and he somewhat disappeared since early 2000s but it's really good to see him back here with a strong performance. Oh, and then, there's the korean superstar Rain, he's okay, his english is not surprisingly accented, but he definitely doesn't ruin the movie.
At the end of the day, it's normal to hear people complain that summer movies aren't what it used to be, that they're rubbish made for the dumbed down teenage audiences, and yet when the right movie come along that has good fun and and good story for the whole family, it gets ignored. Speed Racer, is one of those movies, and you definitely owe it to yourself not to miss it.
Rating: 3.5 /5
Friday, May 30, 2008
Tropic Thunder Red Band Trailer and The Real Ben Stiller
This red band trailer for Ben Stiller's upcoming comedy Tropic Thunder (coming out August 15), has been online weeks ago. But I'll highlight it here:
And here's the link for high quality version (Quicktime and iTunes required):
http://www.apple.com/trailers/paramount/tropicthunder
and why do I post this?
well what do you think is the one movie I anticipate most this summer?
What is that I hear you say? The Dark Knight? The Incredible Hulk? Bah, none of them. Excites me as much as Tropic Thunder.
Why is that? Well, for starters, the Real Ben Stiller is finally back. Forget about Meet The Parents movies, forget about the Night At The Museum, forget about Dodgeball , forget about Along Came Polly and heck, forget about the great There's Something About Mary (which is more like a Farrelly Brothers movie). The Real Ben Stiller is perhaps the best spoof artist working in hollywood right now, who spoof stuffs so funny, the makers of *whatever genre - Scary, Epic, Date whatever* Movie movies should be put on death row. I mean after all, this is the guy who made Zoolander in 2001, the comedy masterpiece that sends up male models. I can't think and recall fondly a funnier, smarter spoof movie, and one which I can watch repeatedly and still laugh at the same jokes, than that. I mean just look at the quotes from the title character, Derek Zoolander:
"Rufus, Brint, and Meekus were like brothers to me. And when I say brother, I don't mean, like, an actual brother, but I mean it like the way black people use it. Which is more meaningful, I think."
"Have you ever wondered if there was more to life, other than being really, really, ridiculously good looking?"
"At the Derek Zoolander Center For Children Who Can't Read Good And Wanna Learn To Do Other Stuff Good Too, we teach you that there's more to life than being really, really good looking."
and those are just a few of my favourites. and also, don't forget the walk off scene between Zoolander and Hansel (played by Owen Wilson), refereed by David Bowie, set to the tune of Michael Jackson's "Beat It". That was brilliant. Whoever came up with the idea of putting those guys, David Bowie and "Beat It" should win a Nobel Prize.
Still don't believe me, here are some works Ben Stiller had done in the past:
Backstreet Boyz, a spoof of Backstreet Boys
Mission Improbable - Sending up Tom Cruise and Mission Impossible 2
Heat Vision and Jack. A 30 minute pilot about an austronaut and a talking motorcycle made in 1999 that didn't get picked up. Featuring Owen Wilson and Jack Black before they became super famous.
and look, the original Zoolander short skit:
What you don't find them funny? Dude, something is really wrong with your sense of humour. Just kidding, hahaha.
But seriously, I hope you can see that Ben Stiller doesn't just randomly spoof stuffs or randomly creates jokes; when he spoof something, he creates really well made characters and/or situations that closely mimic (but not too close) the real things he's trying to spoof. He's a great writer too (or helped by great writers). In some ways, his method is like the works of method actors who usually research on the characters they're playing. That's why the works of the real Ben Stiller is memorable, funny and not cheap.
and Tropic Thunder reflects that. Just so you know, it's about a bunch of famous actors making a troubled war movie who gets thrown into a real warzone and realize that they're not making a movie anymore. It's trying to spoof grim epic war movies like Apocalypse Now and Platoon. But don't just look at the story. Watch the trailer I put above and can you see what the characters spoof?
Ben Stiller's Character - The Action Guy - spoof Arnold Schwarzenneger
Jack Black's Character - The Comedian - spoof Eddie Murphy and his unfunny fake suit movies
and best of all, Robert Downey Jr's Character - The Award Winner - about an award winning method actor so serious about his craft that he undergoes a skin colour change operation to play the african american character. just read that!
I guess it spoofs Russell Crowe and serious method actors like Daniel Day Lewis
and if you notice, there's a black guy character in the trailer too. you know what's the character's name? Alpa Chino.
So, yeah, I hope you guys will watch this movie and make this movie do well in box office this august. If it does well, that means Ben Stiller can make more movies that's closer to his spoof sensibility than the usual Night At The Museum craps. It's been 7 years since Zoolander and that's really long. So yeah, I hope it does really well and I pray one day, Zoolander 2 will come out.
And here's the link for high quality version (Quicktime and iTunes required):
http://www.apple.com/trailers/paramount/tropicthunder
and why do I post this?
well what do you think is the one movie I anticipate most this summer?
What is that I hear you say? The Dark Knight? The Incredible Hulk? Bah, none of them. Excites me as much as Tropic Thunder.
Why is that? Well, for starters, the Real Ben Stiller is finally back. Forget about Meet The Parents movies, forget about the Night At The Museum, forget about Dodgeball , forget about Along Came Polly and heck, forget about the great There's Something About Mary (which is more like a Farrelly Brothers movie). The Real Ben Stiller is perhaps the best spoof artist working in hollywood right now, who spoof stuffs so funny, the makers of *whatever genre - Scary, Epic, Date whatever* Movie movies should be put on death row. I mean after all, this is the guy who made Zoolander in 2001, the comedy masterpiece that sends up male models. I can't think and recall fondly a funnier, smarter spoof movie, and one which I can watch repeatedly and still laugh at the same jokes, than that. I mean just look at the quotes from the title character, Derek Zoolander:
"Rufus, Brint, and Meekus were like brothers to me. And when I say brother, I don't mean, like, an actual brother, but I mean it like the way black people use it. Which is more meaningful, I think."
"Have you ever wondered if there was more to life, other than being really, really, ridiculously good looking?"
"At the Derek Zoolander Center For Children Who Can't Read Good And Wanna Learn To Do Other Stuff Good Too, we teach you that there's more to life than being really, really good looking."
and those are just a few of my favourites. and also, don't forget the walk off scene between Zoolander and Hansel (played by Owen Wilson), refereed by David Bowie, set to the tune of Michael Jackson's "Beat It". That was brilliant. Whoever came up with the idea of putting those guys, David Bowie and "Beat It" should win a Nobel Prize.
Still don't believe me, here are some works Ben Stiller had done in the past:
Backstreet Boyz, a spoof of Backstreet Boys
Mission Improbable - Sending up Tom Cruise and Mission Impossible 2
Heat Vision and Jack. A 30 minute pilot about an austronaut and a talking motorcycle made in 1999 that didn't get picked up. Featuring Owen Wilson and Jack Black before they became super famous.
and look, the original Zoolander short skit:
What you don't find them funny? Dude, something is really wrong with your sense of humour. Just kidding, hahaha.
But seriously, I hope you can see that Ben Stiller doesn't just randomly spoof stuffs or randomly creates jokes; when he spoof something, he creates really well made characters and/or situations that closely mimic (but not too close) the real things he's trying to spoof. He's a great writer too (or helped by great writers). In some ways, his method is like the works of method actors who usually research on the characters they're playing. That's why the works of the real Ben Stiller is memorable, funny and not cheap.
and Tropic Thunder reflects that. Just so you know, it's about a bunch of famous actors making a troubled war movie who gets thrown into a real warzone and realize that they're not making a movie anymore. It's trying to spoof grim epic war movies like Apocalypse Now and Platoon. But don't just look at the story. Watch the trailer I put above and can you see what the characters spoof?
Ben Stiller's Character - The Action Guy - spoof Arnold Schwarzenneger
Jack Black's Character - The Comedian - spoof Eddie Murphy and his unfunny fake suit movies
and best of all, Robert Downey Jr's Character - The Award Winner - about an award winning method actor so serious about his craft that he undergoes a skin colour change operation to play the african american character. just read that!
I guess it spoofs Russell Crowe and serious method actors like Daniel Day Lewis
and if you notice, there's a black guy character in the trailer too. you know what's the character's name? Alpa Chino.
So, yeah, I hope you guys will watch this movie and make this movie do well in box office this august. If it does well, that means Ben Stiller can make more movies that's closer to his spoof sensibility than the usual Night At The Museum craps. It's been 7 years since Zoolander and that's really long. So yeah, I hope it does really well and I pray one day, Zoolander 2 will come out.
Thursday, May 29, 2008
Thoughts on The Indiana Jones Movies
Just finished watching Indy 4 on a company sponsored screening. Some thoughts:
First, Arnold came back from the future as The Terminator in 2003
then, Sylvester Stallone came out of retirement in Rocky Balboa in 2006
... followed by another adventure in Burma in Rambo this January
and don't forget Bruce Willis also returned for another yippee kay yay mother-(PG13 censored)-ing time in Live Free or Die Hard
Now the return of the 80s Action Heroes come in full circle with Harrison Ford in Indiana Jones and The Kingdom of The Crystal Skull.
(... as of this writing, there are plans to bring back Eddie Murphy for a 4th Beverly Hills Cop movie. I guess a 4th Godfather movie with Al Pacino can't be that far behind either)
Before I start talking about the movie, let me just go over briefly my thoughts on the franchise. Until about 3 weeks before the movie opens, I have sadly, never watched a single Indiana Jones movie. I remembered watching the 3rd movie, Indiana Jones and The Last Crusade, in theaters when I was a kid and got freaked out by it I asked my dad to leave the theater.
So 3 weeks before the movie opens, I finally netflixed the 3 movies. However, I could only watch the first 2. So here's what I think:
Raiders of The Lost Ark: Many people, filmmakers, critics consider this movie as one of the most beloved film of all time. I mean, if a film is so powerful that it inspired 3 kids to spend 7 years of their life making their version of a shot-for-shot remake, it must be something so god damned special right?
Sadly, no. Like another popular film made by George Lucas, the very first Star Wars movie, I just couldn't bring myself to love and worship it like many others. It's a good movie for sure. On the outside, yeah it has an ingredient for a perfect movie: adventure, romance, comedy, various exotic locales, nazis as villains. But somehow I felt that I've seen these stuffs before. Which bring me to my next point, this movie has aged, become a victim of its own success and a formula of its own. Films like this probably didn't exist before 1981, that's why the audiences who watched it for the first time remembered it so fondly. But it spawned endless imitators that's still going until now. I'm not saying that this is a bad thing (after all, many good movies and characters owe their existence to Indiana Jones, including Die Hard's John McClane, I can't help but observe), but it's hard to love and appreciate this film after you've seen the stuffs that come after it first, just like Star Wars.
But let me just mention the good stuffs: Harrison Ford is just iconic as Indiana Jones. Then, Marion Ravenwood, played by Karen Allen, is probably the only romantic foil that should complement Indy, no others. And the truck chasing action sequence is still very tense and exciting as ever; and interestingly, it wasn't shot by Spielberg but his 2nd unit director Vic Armstrong. Other than that this movie has aged. you're welcome to see what it's all about and if you could experience it like those who saw it back when it played the first time, then you're one lucky person. (rating: 3.5/5)
Indiana Jones and The Temple of Doom: I'm going to bring up a Star Wars again. I love the Star Wars trilogy even though I wasn't impressed by the first movie. That's because the 2nd movie, The Empire Strikes Back was just a great movie that has this great story that makes the whole Star Wars saga more than just another space adventure story. The 2nd movie was so good that it made the first movie better too.
Now for Indiana Jones, the 2nd movie made me think about the first movie better too, but for totally different reason: The 2nd movie is just bad, so bad it makes the first movie looks good.
The first movie, even if it has aged, does so many things right that the 2nd one doesn't: establish the characters, story and mythology well. In the first movie, Indiana Jones together with Marion Ravenwood, who have a history of a love/hate relationship, chase after The biblical Ark of The Covenant against The Nazis, who is helped by the only man who could equal Indy, Belloq. In the 2nd movie, Indiana Jones get stuck in India with an chinese kid sidekick and an annoying damsel in distress and have to help a local village recover a magic stone from an evil cult. Can you see the difference? I don't know how the idea brainstorming goes for this movie, but it probably goes like this:
===
Spielberg: How can we top the first one?
Lucas: You know what would be a great Idea, let's make it a prequel so that we don't have to feel like we have to top the first one.
Spielberg: That's great. We need an exotic setting, so where should we put Indy this time?
Lucas: I don't know let's see ... I just read about these magic stones and cult stuff in India ... That's it, let's set it in India with those magic stones and cult there.
Spielberg: that's cool, what about Marion and the others?
Lucas: This is a prequel, remember? We don't have to care about Marion. In fact, I just have a great idea again, let's start the movie in Shanghai where Indy picks up this beautiful club singer damsel in distress and a sidekick who's a chinese kid and they go to India!!
Spielberg: Let's do it!
===
That's totally imaginary. But that's how I felt about the 2nd movie, things happen arbitrarily just to get Indy to an adventurous location and do his stuffs and both the annoying sidekick and damsel in distress are just there to fill the space. The only good thing about the 2nd movie is the action scenes in the mines. But that's about it, everything else is a waste of time. (Rating: 2.5 / 5)
I haven't watched the 3rd movie. So, onto the 4th film.
Indiana Jones and The Kingdom of The Crystal Skulls: I understand that people have been waiting a long time for this, about 19 years since the last movie came out. It's understandable if people have great expectations for this. However, just don't expect this to be a great movie. The motive of this film is only to give a final farewell gift to the fans (just like Rocky Balboa), perhaps. So everything plays out straight like the previous movies, with not much messing up, nothing less, nothing more. Because of that longtime fans will probably love everything here. But for other people like me, maybe not so much, as the movie even show how much the action adventure formula created by the first movie, like its star, has aged.
(SPOILERS ALERT)
Good stuffs about this movie: Harrison Ford is still as good as ever as Indy, although he does show his age. Shia LaBeouf isn't as bad as people thought he'd be, he's actually quite good in it. Best of all, Karen Allen returns as Marion Ravenwood and (like i said, this is a movie for fans) get to finally marry Indy this time around.
The bad stuffs: there are a lot of actions towards the end, but they are not as exciting as the set pieces in the previous movies. That's due to the lack of good villains. The communists are actually dangerous in the first half of the movie, and actually that's where the movie's best moments are, but they become less dangerous later on. and what's up with the aliens? I understand Indiana Jones have dabbled in supernaturals before but putting aliens there is just stretching it.
(End of Spoilers)
Rating: 3/5
So there you go, my thoughts on the Indiana Jones movies. I enjoyed, but don't love them. Lastly, Harrison Ford is the one and only Indiana Jones. So I hope that there will be no Shia LaBeouf Indiana Jones movie.
First, Arnold came back from the future as The Terminator in 2003
then, Sylvester Stallone came out of retirement in Rocky Balboa in 2006
... followed by another adventure in Burma in Rambo this January
and don't forget Bruce Willis also returned for another yippee kay yay mother-(PG13 censored)-ing time in Live Free or Die Hard
Now the return of the 80s Action Heroes come in full circle with Harrison Ford in Indiana Jones and The Kingdom of The Crystal Skull.
(... as of this writing, there are plans to bring back Eddie Murphy for a 4th Beverly Hills Cop movie. I guess a 4th Godfather movie with Al Pacino can't be that far behind either)
Before I start talking about the movie, let me just go over briefly my thoughts on the franchise. Until about 3 weeks before the movie opens, I have sadly, never watched a single Indiana Jones movie. I remembered watching the 3rd movie, Indiana Jones and The Last Crusade, in theaters when I was a kid and got freaked out by it I asked my dad to leave the theater.
So 3 weeks before the movie opens, I finally netflixed the 3 movies. However, I could only watch the first 2. So here's what I think:
Raiders of The Lost Ark: Many people, filmmakers, critics consider this movie as one of the most beloved film of all time. I mean, if a film is so powerful that it inspired 3 kids to spend 7 years of their life making their version of a shot-for-shot remake, it must be something so god damned special right?
Sadly, no. Like another popular film made by George Lucas, the very first Star Wars movie, I just couldn't bring myself to love and worship it like many others. It's a good movie for sure. On the outside, yeah it has an ingredient for a perfect movie: adventure, romance, comedy, various exotic locales, nazis as villains. But somehow I felt that I've seen these stuffs before. Which bring me to my next point, this movie has aged, become a victim of its own success and a formula of its own. Films like this probably didn't exist before 1981, that's why the audiences who watched it for the first time remembered it so fondly. But it spawned endless imitators that's still going until now. I'm not saying that this is a bad thing (after all, many good movies and characters owe their existence to Indiana Jones, including Die Hard's John McClane, I can't help but observe), but it's hard to love and appreciate this film after you've seen the stuffs that come after it first, just like Star Wars.
But let me just mention the good stuffs: Harrison Ford is just iconic as Indiana Jones. Then, Marion Ravenwood, played by Karen Allen, is probably the only romantic foil that should complement Indy, no others. And the truck chasing action sequence is still very tense and exciting as ever; and interestingly, it wasn't shot by Spielberg but his 2nd unit director Vic Armstrong. Other than that this movie has aged. you're welcome to see what it's all about and if you could experience it like those who saw it back when it played the first time, then you're one lucky person. (rating: 3.5/5)
Indiana Jones and The Temple of Doom: I'm going to bring up a Star Wars again. I love the Star Wars trilogy even though I wasn't impressed by the first movie. That's because the 2nd movie, The Empire Strikes Back was just a great movie that has this great story that makes the whole Star Wars saga more than just another space adventure story. The 2nd movie was so good that it made the first movie better too.
Now for Indiana Jones, the 2nd movie made me think about the first movie better too, but for totally different reason: The 2nd movie is just bad, so bad it makes the first movie looks good.
The first movie, even if it has aged, does so many things right that the 2nd one doesn't: establish the characters, story and mythology well. In the first movie, Indiana Jones together with Marion Ravenwood, who have a history of a love/hate relationship, chase after The biblical Ark of The Covenant against The Nazis, who is helped by the only man who could equal Indy, Belloq. In the 2nd movie, Indiana Jones get stuck in India with an chinese kid sidekick and an annoying damsel in distress and have to help a local village recover a magic stone from an evil cult. Can you see the difference? I don't know how the idea brainstorming goes for this movie, but it probably goes like this:
===
Spielberg: How can we top the first one?
Lucas: You know what would be a great Idea, let's make it a prequel so that we don't have to feel like we have to top the first one.
Spielberg: That's great. We need an exotic setting, so where should we put Indy this time?
Lucas: I don't know let's see ... I just read about these magic stones and cult stuff in India ... That's it, let's set it in India with those magic stones and cult there.
Spielberg: that's cool, what about Marion and the others?
Lucas: This is a prequel, remember? We don't have to care about Marion. In fact, I just have a great idea again, let's start the movie in Shanghai where Indy picks up this beautiful club singer damsel in distress and a sidekick who's a chinese kid and they go to India!!
Spielberg: Let's do it!
===
That's totally imaginary. But that's how I felt about the 2nd movie, things happen arbitrarily just to get Indy to an adventurous location and do his stuffs and both the annoying sidekick and damsel in distress are just there to fill the space. The only good thing about the 2nd movie is the action scenes in the mines. But that's about it, everything else is a waste of time. (Rating: 2.5 / 5)
I haven't watched the 3rd movie. So, onto the 4th film.
Indiana Jones and The Kingdom of The Crystal Skulls: I understand that people have been waiting a long time for this, about 19 years since the last movie came out. It's understandable if people have great expectations for this. However, just don't expect this to be a great movie. The motive of this film is only to give a final farewell gift to the fans (just like Rocky Balboa), perhaps. So everything plays out straight like the previous movies, with not much messing up, nothing less, nothing more. Because of that longtime fans will probably love everything here. But for other people like me, maybe not so much, as the movie even show how much the action adventure formula created by the first movie, like its star, has aged.
(SPOILERS ALERT)
Good stuffs about this movie: Harrison Ford is still as good as ever as Indy, although he does show his age. Shia LaBeouf isn't as bad as people thought he'd be, he's actually quite good in it. Best of all, Karen Allen returns as Marion Ravenwood and (like i said, this is a movie for fans) get to finally marry Indy this time around.
The bad stuffs: there are a lot of actions towards the end, but they are not as exciting as the set pieces in the previous movies. That's due to the lack of good villains. The communists are actually dangerous in the first half of the movie, and actually that's where the movie's best moments are, but they become less dangerous later on. and what's up with the aliens? I understand Indiana Jones have dabbled in supernaturals before but putting aliens there is just stretching it.
(End of Spoilers)
Rating: 3/5
So there you go, my thoughts on the Indiana Jones movies. I enjoyed, but don't love them. Lastly, Harrison Ford is the one and only Indiana Jones. So I hope that there will be no Shia LaBeouf Indiana Jones movie.
Friday, May 2, 2008
Quick Review: Iron Man
Robert Downey Jr is great as Tony Stark. He's a great actor, but I doubted he could pull off Tony Stark because he lacks "star power" to pull off such flamboyant character. But Downey really nailed it, make him very human even.
Iron Man suit is awesome.
However, for a summer movie, it's somewhat really lacking in awesomeness. Lots of explosion, but not enough action. and the final battle really blows. (Spoiler) It's Iron Man VS War Monger, another robot vs robot better that was done better last year in a certain sucky michael bay movie (end spoiler)
Let's expect more awesomeness to come in the sequel. See below
Rating: 3.5/5
(Possible Spoiler)
For the sequel, please do the following:
- bring a powerful villain
- James Rhodes, War Machine - makes it happen
- It's not so secret that Samuel L Jackson filmed a cameo for this film as Nick Fury, agent of SHIELD. I was waiting for him to appear. But instead, SHIELD is only mentioned in passing in the movie. Bah, so please bring him in next time!
UPDATE: Nick Fury does appear! wait until the end credits finish
- and another marvel superhero crossover, come on, we know Tony is going to be in the upcoming incredible hulk film
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)