Tuesday, 11-15-6
I've been watching way too many movies this week. All I wanted to do was go to bed and sleep but I couldn't. I came across a Robin Williams movie and it looked interesting.
In the not too distant future, they invent implants that record and timestamp everything you see and hear in your entire life. When you die, they recover the implant and a 'cutter' edits your life down to a movie that everyone watches at your funeral.
There were so many directions they could have gone with this one. It really is a great idea and opens so many options for a great movie. Unfortunately, they didn't take any of the good paths, they wussed out and left the movie lame.
The cutter (Williams) is presented with the job of cutting together the film of a prominent man that helped develop the technology. The world is divided on the ethics of the implants and a retired cutter is after Williams to get the film of the man to get any dirt on him and discredit the company. Williams learns that he was also implanted as an infant and now wonders about the ethics of it too. He sees disturbing things every day from people's lives and he edits them out to make them look like good people at their funerals. The latest film is no different, the man was molesting his child. He destroys the film and walks away. The retired cutter that was after him was actually hired to obtain the film for the wife because she knew what was going on and didn't want it getting out. After destroying the film, Williams thinks he is safe until the killer reminds him that his implant saw everything he saw in the original film and then his accomplice kills him.
Ehh, I've seen worse. The crappy thing was that this one had so much potential and went no where. I didn't like it but I didn't think it was the worst I'd ever seen.
Tuesday, , 11-14-6b
For those of you who don't get it, the last picture is Lester Bangs (famous music critic). I thought I was being clever... Kiss, Kiss, bang, bang? Oh, come on!!!
I ordered this one on a recommendation from a friend who said I'd like it. I'd have to say they were right. It was pretty good. I found out that it is a remake but I haven't seen any of the originals so I can't compare or complain. I only mention it because, after watching it, it feels like a remake. Maybe it's the campy feel of a 1950's movie or possibly the plot itself was just too dated but it felt like they were rehashing an old premise.
A New York thief escapes capture by pretending to be an actor. He is "discovered" and flown to LA. An acting coach teams him up with a detective to learn the role. They stumble on to a murder and meet his high school dream girl. Dream girl's sister is murdered and it appears both murders are related. Together they beat the bad guys and solve the case.
Not much for plot but the dialog was pretty funny. I didn't expect much but the interaction between Robert Downey Jr. and Val Kilmer was pretty good. Of the two, Kilmer has the best lines. Downey just sets them up. Not a fantastic movie, nothing worth mentioning, but not bad. I could think of worse ways to spend the time.
Tuesday, , 11-14-6a
I've wanted to see this one for a while but I never remembered to check it out. Heffner told me about this one. We got on a conversation about Christian Bale (back when it was announced he would be the new Batman) and he told me about 'Equilibrium' and 'The Machinist'. Now Equilibrium was bad-ass! It's a little undercooked but still, a great flick. Based on that, I wanted to see The Machinist. When I got to the hotel room tonight, it was starting just as I turned on the TV. Perfect timing.
A guy works in a factory and lives a very dull and routine life. He is emaciated and he says he hasn't slept in over a year. His ritualistic life is interrupted by the appearance of a mystery man who is always slipping away from him. He starts to hallucinate and he puts together a lot of clues that don't really fit. The second half of the movie is just a matter of letting the viewer catch up with the hallucinations. The mystery man turns out to be himself, the car the mystery man drives was his from a year ago. The woman he sees everywhere turns out to be the mother of a boy he ran over a year ago in a hit and run. When he figures this out, he turns himself in and the final scene is him being taken to a jail cell and falling asleep.
It was obvious that whoever put this movie together was a big Dostoyevsky fan. In case none of us were smart enough to figure that out, they plant clues for us. The marquee reading "Crime and Punishment", the main character reading "The Idiot", all the 'left v right' paths... Someone just got out of grad school didn't they?
It was a pretty good watch. I'm glad I saw it but it came off a little convoluted. Excellent premise, but the balance seemed to swing a little too much into the artsy area. If nothing else, it's worth seeing just to look at what Bale looked like just a year before filming the Batman movie. That wasn't a body double or CGI, He actually lost all that weight to look like that. Such dedication to a role. I've liked him since 'American Psycho' and I loved him in 'Equilibrium'. I'll give this movie credit based on Christian Bale. It was good enough that I liked it but I probably wouldn't watch it again.
Monday, 11-13-6b
I saw about 90% of this one. It was bad. It was a matter of too little too late. If this had come out before the original, maybe it would rate better. I thought the original was bad too, but it has become a horror classic and any remake will be compared to it. I like that the new one goes a little deeper into the DeFeo family and acknowledges the supposed true story, even if they just glossed over it. IRL: Can't pay your rent? Tell everyone the house is haunted... The explanation of the old priest slaughtering the Indians was original. I hadn't heard of a movie saying that the hauntings were caused by building on Indian burial grounds or anything like that. So refreshing to hear a new idea like that...
It sucked. It relied on FX and nothing more. No one thought enough to maybe give any of the characters depth or anything. It was as bad as the original but at least the original was original. This one is like photocopying an old, bad fax. The more you copy it, the blurrier it gets.
Monday, 11-13-6a
I saw this in the hotel room in two parts. I saw it from the middle to the end and then from the beginning to the middle later that night. Normally I wouldn't do that but I hadn't expected to like this so I figured seeing it from the middle would show me enough to walk away. It was alright. Enough that I saw the rest of it when it repeated.
It follows the original plot almost exactly. Famous football player is arrested and thrown in prison. Warden is a hard-ass, guards are abusive. They set a game between the cons and the guards. Cons band together just so get a shot at the guards. As the game progresses, the it looks like the cons will win, the warden tolls football star to throw the game 'or else'. He does and loses the respect from the cons. Close to the end, he decides playing to win is worth anything the warden/guards can throw at him. He comes back in the game and the cons win.
I liked the original and wasn't expecting much with Adam Sandler replacing Burt Reynolds and Chris Rock as "Caretaker" but somehow it worked. I think part of the reason is that Burt Reynolds was in this one as the old coach. The only real down side to this movie is that they overplayed Chris Rock. If he kept his mouth shut or they scrapped only a handful of lines, I wouldn't have anything bad to say about this one. Unfortunately, they let Rock run on and on with the cheesy lines. It was cute at first but they over did it. When the huge dude picked him up and squeezed him and he hollers, "Down Shreck, down!" That was alright, but it wasn't the only bad line. They flood the movie with bad lines one right after another. It was like watching "the best of Wesley Snipes".
It was good. If you liked the original, this one won't make you cringe but it's definitely updated with modern references and that wouldn't be so bad if it weren't Chris Rock delivering all of the lines.
Tuesday, 11-7-6
I remember seeing this one a long, long time ago and recently it came up that I didn't remember the details from this one at all. For some reason I thought it was Robin Williams and John Lithgow in the car that got hit and that was why Lithgow's penis was removed. Damn, see what watching things like this will do to a child?
OK, this one is a difficult one to summarize. From what I've read, it's a much better book than a film but I haven't read it yet. The story is supposed to be about the entire life of a man from birth to death. A child is born to a very unorthodox nurse who basically climbed onto a dying soldier on his death bed to conceive the baby. She raises the child as a single mother and is a very straight-forward, no bull-shit type of woman who raises her son to be the same way. The boy grows up to be a long-suffering writer who is a very devoted family man. On a lark, mother writes a book and it is sensationalized over night. She becomes the hero to the women's right movement in the 70s. She opens her house to a militant group of feminists who Garp is often at odds with. The mother is assassinated and shortly after, Garp is killed by one of the feminists. The end.
Sounds like a crappy movie but all the good bits are in between. The funny and touching moments come at points that have nothing to do with the main plot. Of course, the real plot is the life experiences of one man but I couldn't summarize it like that. This is one movie that I liked enough that I am going to go get the book and read it. Not that the movie was life-changing or anything, but it was sweet.
Tuesday, 10-31-6
Have you ever heard me say that I liked a remake? Especially a remake of a movie I like? Well if not, you have now. I liked the remake of "The Omen". Disregarding all the hype of its 6-6-06 release and all the hoopla, it was a good cover of the original.
They update it with modern events heralding the coming of the Anti-Christ. I have a question here; does it make sense for people that interpret Biblical prophecy to include three events (WTC collapse, Columbia explosion and Hurricane Katrina) that take place in a continent that did not exist to the writers of that prophecy? We still lived on a flat Earth according to the authors of scripture, not to mention that the moon used to provide her own light. If their powers allowed them to envision an unknown land and events millennia into the future, you'd think their powers would tell them the earth is spherical. OK, ok, digressing... Plus, I know all the fall-back excuses to prophecy interpretation so it was a useless question. It was just burning in my mind right about now.
They update the coming of the Anti-Christ fairly well. The noticeable thing about this version is that it is a modern overlay of the original. Every scene is familiar, the best lines are delivered the same, "Damien, look at me Damien! It's all for you Damien, it's all for you!" Even the scenery is familiar but different. They go out of their way to make things new but they don't over do it. The effects were good but not flashy. I especially loved that they didn't pan away for the death scenes. The decapitation, the fall, the spike, the hit and run; all of them were gruesome and fantastic.
Probably the best part of
the movie was Mia Farrow. That bitch creeped me out! The original
nanny was pretty good at being creepy but Mia just opened it up to a new level.
I didn't even know she was in the movie until I saw her name in the opening
credits. When I saw it, I was expecting the quiet demure version of her
and somehow cashing in on a little bit of the "Rosemary's Baby" action.
Nope. She just came in and blew away the rest of the cast. She was
perfect in the role, even if the role is a little far-fetched. Nobody
would allow her to stay on as nanny after just a few of her actions but that
flaw is in the original too so we can't count that against her. Yeah, I
loved the Mia Farrow as the Hell-sent-nanny bit.
If I have anything bad to say (and I always do) about this movie it would be the
loss of creepyness. The minor suspense in the original gave way to lots of
jumps but no suspense. The best example is the graveyard scene. Instead of
hearing the dogs growl, seeing the dogs approaching and the audience thinking,
"Is he going to make it out of there?" and then having the dogs attack; in this
one there is a close up, the music fades out (sure sign of a big moment) and
BAM!!! A fucking dog tackles him from off-screen like a cannon-fired
linebacker! It made Teresa jump about 20' in the air and was a really good
startling moment, but there wasn't any suspense in it at all. Lots of scenes
like that in this one.
The kid is nowhere as
creepy as the original Damien. Maybe this translates into "extra-creepy" for
some because the Anti-Christ could be ANY kid, but the original kid was
definitely better in my opinion. They could have done a better job in make-up
with him.
The mother was not much of
an actress. She just didn't have the presence to pull this one off. All too
often she wasn't scared or confused as much as she was just whining. I didn't
like her at all.
The father did a little
better but just seemed too young. Younger wouldn't have been so bad, in fact it
could have been good, except I kept getting the feeling that he was trying to do
his best Gregory Peck impersonation throughout the whole movie.
So, going against my conventional wisdom, I now have a remake that I like as much as the original. I think this is the second time I said this now. I don't remember which movie I said this about before, but I do remember liking a remake. So am I getting soft in my old age? Am I lightening up? Am I typing the same shit I wrote the LAST time I said this? I don't know the answers to any of these questions. If you liked the original "Omen", then "Omen v2006" won't let you down. It was a good update that didn't blaspheme the original just for the sake of being new.
Sunday, 10-29-6
Last night we watched the 3rd X-Men movie. It was much better than expected. It seems that there is a curse on #3s. 'Return of the Jedi' sucked (YES, it is a number 3, I don't care what you say!). 'Back to the Future 3' sucked. 'Matrix Revolutions' sucked. 'Godfather 3' sucked. But 'X-Men the Last Stand' was pretty damn good.
A little "too much action-not enough plot" for me but I'm not typical. I've also had a lot of X-Men comics exposure so the nerd in me wants to see the comic story unfold. I used to hang out in Jr. High with Carlo and he was a huge X-Men fan. Although Fred isn't an X-Men comic collector, I was around James' comic shop with him enough to absorb the conversations people had about silly things like "Who would win in a fight, Wolverine or Boba Fett?" and stuff like that. Comic geeks always seem to be obsessed with pitting 2 fictional characters against each other and vehemently arguing if someone differed in their predicted outcome. Well, obsessed with that or with fictional character sex.
The X-Men universes are so screwed up that any plotline would make sense because they do the "Alternate Universe" gig whenever someone writes a new story that doesn't jive with the existing one. There are some stories where Professor X died young so the mutants don't have his guidance. Others where he has joined forces with Magneto. So, nothing would be too weird for an X-Men movie.
In this one, they touch on Jean Grey and Dark Phoenix but they make it look like it's just a repressed personality, they left out all the whys and hows. Never really fleshing out the whole story. Good enough for movie work I guess. They wash it out into another plot where they have found a cure for mutation. I would rather have seen them focus on one story though. There is so much story in the "Dark Phoenix" series that it feels cheap now that the story started and ended all in one movie and most of the plot was left out. I still say she wouldn't have killed the Professor or Scott if they had put more story behind it.
Storm cut her hair and suddenly she doesn't look so hot any more. I heard Halle Berry wasn't going to be in this one unless they gave her role more importance. She took over the school after Professor X died. In the comics she ran the school during his absence so it only made sense.
I was surprised to see my favorite character, Juggernaut. I always chose him when playing the X-Men RPG in Jr. High. Carlo always chose Wolverine and kicked my ass. I don't remember Juggernaut being a true mutant though. His mutant power is sapped by Leech in the movie but I thought Juggy got his power from some magical stone? Also, wasn't he related to Professor X? Some cousin or step-brother or something? I was waiting for them to make something out of that but they never did. Maybe I'm thinking of someone else.
Rogue is still hot but she's barely in this movie. She's there just enough to show why some mutants might WANT the cure. Now that she's cured, it might be a good time to write in Gambit's character for X-Men4. Give him the tease of being able to hold Rogue in his arms before the cure wears off. Oh yeah, if you didn't know already, the cure is temporary, Magneto and Mystique will gain their powers back. The way they make movies, it would be hard to market a 4th installment without the Professor or Magneto.
So, overall I would say this is a good movie. It was actually plotted out well and for all the little details I saw (like the Golden Gate bridge's shadow not moving when they moved the bridge or the fact that the bridge was moved in the daylight but in the final scene (after dark) all the abandoned cars on the bridge have their headlights on.) there were very few moments that the inner-amateur-comic-geek in me didn't like. They killed off a lot of our favorite people; that was cool and something most Hollywood movies refrain from doing. I would like to have seen a little more emotion in Wolverine when he killed Jean Grey. It was quick and it had to be quick, but maybe a little suffering would have leant that scene a little more weight.
10-26-6
When the previews came out, it didn't look very good. When the movie came out, I only heard bad things about it. It was on HBO tonight and I'm bored to tears. (No hockey on the TV and I don't care about the teams in the World Series)
Maybe I'm just too jaded. Maybe I'm just too familiar with New Orleans mythos. Maybe I'm just too comfortable with the ideas behind Voodoo, hoodoo, voudon, or any variation thereof. Whatever the reason, the movie bored me to tears.
Basic premise: Kate Hudson is brought in to a decrepit home to care for a dying man. The guy suffered an apparent stroke but something isn't quite right. The man's wife is the standard, creepy southerner type. She tells a few stories about the attic and from there I should have turned it off because the rest of the movie is transparent. Years and years ago, two servants were caught "demonstrating" Voodoo to the white children and were hung. We saw the picture of the four (2 servants, 2 children) earlier in the movie and anyone who didn't put it together right then are probably the same people that enjoy M. Night Shyamalan movies... So, Kate Hudson is immersed in the Voodoo culture and starts to believe. There's a young lawyer guy that comes to the house a lot and she turns to him for help. Of course, he turns out to be "in on it all". She tries to protect the old man who still can't talk. She confronts the old woman and the lawyer and it becomes all out war. She wakes up after getting knocked out and she has the traits of the old woman now. The old woman is paralyzed and in shock. The lawyer and the Kate Hudson body are now the new embodiment of the old Voodoo servants. Yeah yeah, we've seen this all before.
The tired old "creepy southerner" character is played out. The writing sucked. They spend 10 minutes doing the "ghosts in the mirrors" routine and then in the VERY NEXT scene, she gets something in her eye and needs her mirror. Oh boy, nothing like a little suspense huh? It's called plot development; most writers make an attempt at it. Although I did like the fact that her car didn't go smashing through the locked gates like in every other movie. Of course, the lawyer playing the same "RainMan soundtrack" record was a little spoon-fed, don't you think? And those were 2 absolutely beautiful PERFECT circles she drew in her panic. Such an artist Kate Hudson is. To be honest, for a creepy southerner movie, "Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil" was creepier than this.
Monday, 10-23-6
I've seen the promos for the movie and passed. It didn't look very good. I probably never would have checked it out but;
I'm a big fan of Henry Rollins. I was listening to one of his "spoken word" albums and he talks about how his agent set him up for an audition for a movie. He said, "Hey, I'm no actor but I'll get my face out there any way I can." When he saw that this was a Danny Devito movie, he knew he wouldn't get the part but went in any way with the sole intent of making such a scene, he'd be 'remembered'. He didn't get the part but he went in and scared the living hell out of Danny Devito and his assistant. The part called for a mentally unhinged person (punch-drunk boxer) and he was so over the top that Henry was actually 2nd in line for the part. It was a really funny story. So with that, I had to see what the scene was all about and I ordered it.
Overall the movie was bad... but it's good. Teresa and I couldn't figure out why we kept watching it. It's one of those that when the credits roll, you just sit there and say, "What did I just see? Why did I sit here this long? Huh..." but not in a bad way. It was bad, but it was funny. I still don't get it. I've gotten to the point where I'll turn off movies if they are really bad (just about any Will Ferrell movie) and I didn't turn this one off. I don't know...
The short version (taking VERY broad liberties with personalities and timelines):
OK, imagine PeeWee Herman is caught in a scandal. He is replaced with Barney and PeeWee vows to kill Barney or ruin his good name.
Robin Williams is Rainbow Randolph (Pee Wee) and Edward Norton is Smoochy (Barney). Of course, neither character is actually meant to BE PeeWee or Barney. In fact at one point Randolph calls Smoochy the "bastard son of Barney". The world of KiddieTV is not as clean as it would appear. The guy in the Smoochy suit IS clean and innocent. He insists on creative control so they can't market junk food to kids under the Smoochy name etc... He befriends (under duress) a boxer who has the mental capacity of a 4-year-old. In an attempt to kill Smoochy, the boxer is killed instead. The boxer is the brother of the woman who runs the local Irish Mafia. Rainbow Randolph is the obvious suspect but the Mafia finds out it's actually the charity organizer and agent that is trying to get rid of Smoochy for not "playing ball" with all the skimming and payouts. The charity tough guy is played by Harvey Fierstein. So freaking funny to see him as the 'tough'. Rainbow Randolph eventually tries to save Smoochy's life and in the end, they go back on the air together as one show. Yay!
Teresa and I loved the boxer character Spinner. As much as a fan of Rollins that I am, I say Michael Rispoli (Grama from Rounders) played the part beautifully and I'm glad Henry didn't get the part because it just wouldn't have been the same. Easily my favorite character. My favorite scene is when Randolph (in disguise) leads Smoochy to a benefit concert for hospitalized kids. He gets out on stage singing in costume with his guitar and the stage lights are lowered to reveal a Nazi convention. Everyone starts saluting and shouting, "Heil Smoochy!" Disturbing.
It was good. It was bad. I don't know where to put it. I won't buy it on DVD but if I saw it in the cut-out bin, I probably would. Might be worth checking out if you like twisted movies.
Last Updated: 06/20/07 06:30 p