Posts Tagged ‘movie review’
4 items.
May21
Considering the amount of controversy and vitriol my first review generated two weeks ago, it’s fitting to follow up with a movie that most of the free world has yet to see. Considering it was released in theaters, on DVD and as part of HDNet movies all on the same day, it’s not as though the studio didn’t try.
The movie is Diggers, a small ensemble piece that’s been making the film festival rounds and is really worth your time if you have a chance to pick it up.
The movie centers around four friends (Paul Rudd, Ken Marino, Ron Eldard and Josh Hamilton) scraping to get by in 1976 Long Island. Like their fathers and their fathers before them, they’re clam diggers. The external conflict comes from a large conglomerate that is restricting the waters where the best catches can be made, muscling out the small-time fishermen. In an act of self-preservation, some in the community sell out. Our four protagonists, however, stay true to their small-town way of life.
On paper, this probably doesn’t sound like much to get excited over. But Diggers does an exceptional job of creating a very particular sense of time and place. The bars are dimly lit and gritty, the fishermen’s boats cobbled together out of what looks like scrap lumber. Everyone carries the deshevled look of blue collar wear and tear. Although everyone is economically depressed, fed up with government and big business, wrestling with personal problems and deep emotional loss – you never really get the sense that these people are upset about it because of the relationships they’ve forged and their shared identity as a community.
I know, I know. This sounds lofty in contrast to the coming tidal wave of big blockbusters, but I encourage you to check this film out. Paul Rudd – undervalued in nearly every movie he’s in – turns in a stellar performance as Hunt. Having recently lost his father, Paul struggles to find direction in the face of impending change. A “silent flirtation” with a city girl on vacation (Lauren Ambrose) and his passing interest in photography might offer a way out. In this respect, the screenplay falters because it isn’t anything you haven’t seen in a dozen other movies. But what Diggers accomplishes revolves less around the decision Hunt makes regarding his future and more around how the singular event of his fathers death ripples through the lives of the people around him.
As the only father in the group, Ken Marino delivers a hilarious and complex portrait of responsibility as someone emotionally tethered to his integrity but equally combustive when dealing with his kids. The stress of his home life and financial situation leads him to swear in front his kids and have yelling matches with his wife (Sarah Paulson). But just as quick as he is with his temper, he is as quick to squash his kids using those same swears around him and every cross word with his wife is met with a loving smile. Swallowing his pride in the face of a new baby on the way, he applies for a job with the the looming conglomerate and it’s heart-wrenching to watch.
Marino’s script is all the more surprising when you consider he was once a member of the MTV sketch comedy group The State. Going into the movie with that knowledge might color your perspective. While there are funny moments, make no mistake – this is not a comedy. Again, a surprise considering this guy was on TV a few years ago as Louie – the guy who “wants to dip his balls” into things.
Ron Eldard is fine as the town him-bo who shacks up with Hunt’s sister (Maura Tierney) looking for a partner to quell her grief. Josh Hamilton turns in an acceptable performance as the resident philosophical pot grower that serves mostly a comedic purpose when paired against the high-strung Marino. Their characters add dimension, but not much weight. Ambrose sticks out like a sore thumb, but mostly due to the script’s contrivance to use her as an avatar of Hunt’s self-discovery. Her supportive critique of his photography was an eye-roller. Of course the lazy dreamer with no ambition could really “do something” with his photography. Naturally every big city Manhattanite knows everything about what makes a successful art career.
These grievances aside, Diggers is a quite, intimate movie that doesn’t presume to be anything more than it is. A portrait of small-town life on the East coast in the mid-1970’s. It tells its story at it’s own pace and makes few exceptions. The characterizations are warm and familiar while representing a sub-strata of life most of us aren’t close to. While the coming-of-age aspects of the film are at times rote, this film is a perfect counterbalance to the buffet of major studio sequels currently filling up screens.Take a lazy Saturday afternoon and curl up with this one. You won’t regret it.
[ No Comments ]
Being a fan of The Simpsons for nearly two decades, there was probably no movie this summer I looked forward to with as much breathless abandon as The Simpsons Movie. Would the film live up to the hype? Would it meet my expectations? Or would it be smashed to bits on the jagged rocks of my childhood memories?
Being a Simpsons fan of this magnitude, I questioned whether even doing a review was appropriate. Obviously, I would be biased. But I hedged my bets. I figured there were enough like-minded people in the world that would benefit from not having their dreams shattered if the movie was poor and who would be equally as enthralled if the film turned out to be everything they hoped for. Hence, the words you’re reading now.
For those of you who firmly believe that The Simpsons should have ended over a decade ago when it was still “good” or jumped ship to other animated fare such as Family Guy (an argument I won’t get into), set aside your petty squabbles for the time being. Because, bias or no, The Simpsons Movie is the most fun I’ve had at the movies this year hands down.
What The Simpsons Movie does expertly well is the same thing that the television show does very well – rapid fire jokes and visual gags mixed in brilliantly with social and political satire. For example, in the movie’s opening sequence, The Simpsons are in the audience of an Itchy and Scratchy movie. Rolling his eyes at what he sees on screen, Homer bemoans the stupidity of watching something in a movie they can see at home for free. The audience is in on the joke from the get go and the writers push that gimmick successfully throughout the movie.
One scene has the trademark rolling Fox News scroll advertising fake Fox television programs. “That’s right. We advertise in our own movies now. What are you going to do about it?” it boasts. Shortly after a heartbreaking scene, the screen goes black and reads “To Be Continued.” The writers never treat the audience like morons. They don’t waste time with useless exposition. The launch right into the plot and don’t look back.
It would have been very easy for the filmmakers to cull from the eighteen year history of the show and cherry pick enough references to itself to fill it’s ninety minute running time. Aside from a non-direct, sly visual cue at the end of the film that rewards long time fans of the series, there is nothing cannibalistic about the film in its characterization or motivation.
Instead of taking the easy way out, the writers give us a very topical parable about environmentalism.They don’t take it too seriously. Lisa’s town hall lecture on the subject is called “An Irritating Truth.” However, in typical Simpsons fashion, grand adventure awaits. Angry, torch-bearing mobs, a daring escape to Alaska and arachnid swine. The action sequences in the film take advantage of the entire screen. And, while implausibility runs wild, there isn’t a moment where you aren’t entertained.
It adds nothing from a critical standpoint to attempt to delve in to the films other plot points. Bart’s new appreciation for his Bible-beating neighbor Ned Flanders or Homer’s hallucinatory odyssey toward self-actualization and realigning his priorities towards family, friends and community. As everyone knows, in The Simpsons universe, there isn’t any catastrophe that can’t be neatly wrapped up by episode’s end – just in time for next week’s zany mishaps and adventures. The same holds true here.
My only other gripe with the movie is it’s blend of traditional 2D and 3D animation. While the 3D backgrounds give us breath and scope never before seen in The Simpsons universe, it’s flat color pallet and lack of texture makes some scenes look very amateurish. The film loses some of the hand-drawn warmth of the television show and sometimes looks worse for it.
These issues aside, there has been no other film that I have laughed at longer or more consecutively than The Simpsons Movie and it has probably been the most pleasant movie-going experience I’ve had in ages.
[ No Comments ]
May26
MOVIE REVIEW – INDIANA JONES AND THE KINGDOM OF THE CRYSTAL SKULL
May 26th, 2008 |
(2 votes, average: 7.00 out of 10)
Typically, when a franchise fill series takes the better part of a generation to introduce another sequel into the pop culture landscape, the entry could be misconstrued as a money grab.
But, for whatever reason, the latest installment of the Indiana Jones is a film that fans have been chomping at the bit to see. Chalk it up to excellent marketing, and indelible heroic lead or perhaps the sands of time fogging the lens of nostalgia.
After all these years, does Indiana Jones and The Kingdom of The Crystal Skull hold up? Infuriatingly, yes and no. While not a dour or violent as the exhausting Indiana Jones and The Temple of Doom, Indiana Jones and The Kingdom of The Crystal Skull suffers from one too many head scratching, credibility straining moments that pull the view right out of the movie and suck the life from it.
However, the movie starts with a bang – literally. We catch up with our hero in 1957. Indy has been kidnapped and taken to a mysterious government warehouse in the middle of the Nevada dessert. His captor is KGB agent Irina Spalko, played with a hint of dominatrix glee by Cate Blanchet. She wants Indy to find an artifact that will give the Soviet army the upper hand in the escalating Cold War.
Indy’s romp and eventual escape from his Russian captors are the most exhilirating moments of the movie. And, although the sequence ends with one of those head-scratching moments I was referring to, you let it slide. Because it’s exactly the kind of "by the skin of your teeth" escape you wan to see Indiana Jones make.
Later on, when a switchblade-wielding greaser named Mutt Williams comes looking for Jones to help him track down his mother, also kidnapped by the Russians, it isn’t long before Indy is drawn back into the conflict.
What follows is a slow unraveling of the film’s initial bounce and swagger. The film begins to feel less like a treasure hunt and more like a series of unending action sequences.
Part of Indiana Jones’s appeal is that he is an everyman hero who can be hurt and complains about the obstacles being thrown in his path. While there is a certain amount of that bruiser charm on display here (largely at the expense of star Harrison Ford’s advancing age), eventually you feel like there simply isn’t enough time between harrowing escapes and near-misses for Indy to reflect on his mortality in a humorous way. The pacing of the film gives neither the audience or our hero time to rest.
By the time the film reaches it’s ultimate conclusion, it all kind of feels like a blur. Less of a “whodunnit” and more of a “whatwuzthat?”
The performances in the film are all well done – especially Harrison Ford who inhabits Indiana Jones so thoroughly, it’s the most fun I’ve had watching him on screen in years. Shia LaBeouf comes off less annoying than I expected, toning down his more frantic actorly tics and zeroing in on the "not quite a nerd, not quite a hunk" niche he occupies so well.
But some of the characters feel perfunctory. Ray Winstone as a duplicitous adventurer adds nothing but dead-weight and false conflict to the proceedings. Karen Allen returns as Marion Ravenwood – Indiana Jones’s one, true love. But her contribution feels less like a contextual advancement of the plot but more of a "fill in the blank" role required to explain relationships between characters.
With these check marks in the minus column, the movie doesn’t fail completely. Even though I recognize some of the more awful, groan-inducing moments (Shia LaBeouf – Kind of the Monkeys, anyone?) the movie delivered the kind of entertainment I was looking for. In some ways, it ignites the imagination in unexpected ways.
For example, it was alluded that Jones spent his time between adventures operating behind enemy lines in World War II and was designated the Army rank of Colonel. Both my wife and I turned to each other at the same time and said”I want to see THAT movie!”
But, for what is is, Indiana Jones and The Kingdom of The Crystal Skull does not disappoint.
I think fanboys who are looking to pick apart every last detail of the movie won’t have a problem finding weaknesses in it’s armor. But, within it’s given context, how disappointed can you be? The sci-fi elements of the film fit within the 1950’s time period the movie takes place. The fantastic escapes and cartoonish villains really aren’t any worse than what Indy has faced in the past.
This is the double-edged sword of nostalgia. Some people will remember the original movies for being better than they were. Or, at least assume that Kingdom of Skull will always be the runt of the litter.
My biggest complaints have to do less with content and more with execution. Director Steven Spielberg swore up and down that the film would rely on practical effects and there is a little too much CGI for my taste in this picture. Some of the more knowing nods to past adventures could have been eliminated and the movie probably could have benefited from a little bit of a trim on its running time.
But overall? Fun is fun and Indiana Jones and The Kingdom of The Crystal Skull is an adventure I would line up for again in a heartbeat.
[ 1 Comment ]
I think when we first saw images of Liam Neeson as Zeus from the set of the movie, very few of us were impressed…
…but I think we can agree that Neeson’s delivery of “RELEASE THE KRAKEN” is a classic.
That said, the REAL joke in today’s comic is the Craklin Oat Bran in the third panel. Man, what a great cereal. So much fiber. I’m pooping myself just thinking about it!
I didn’t get a chance to see Clash of the Titans like I thought I would this weekend and that doesn’t bother me as much as I thought it would. I was looking forward to a bit of dumb cinema until I realized that lining up for that kind of abuse was, well, also dumb.
That didn’t seem to stop most people, though. Clash of the Titans made over $60 million at the box office this weekend.
Usually when a film makes that much in it’s first weekend, people start talking about filming a sequel. But I was momentarily emboldened when I thought to myself “Mythology doesn’t have a sequel does it?”
Not so fast. Director Louis Leterrier recently said that he envisioned a TRILOGY of films and Clash of the Titans writers Phil Hay and Matt Manfredi confirmed it. So be on the lookout for that one, I suppose.
I don’t have much more to say about the film, but I’m curious if anyone here saw it. If so, what did you think? Did anyone see it in 3D? Reportedly, the 3D effects are horrendous. I’d like to know if it’s as bad as the critics say it is. Leave your comments below.
In the meantime, I’m getting ready for C2E2 next week in Chicago. I’ve been working on a new booth banner and some exclusive merchandise. If you follow Theater Hopper on Facebook, I’ll be posting some images soon. Including a series of 1″ badges I’ll be selling as well as artwork from an exclusive print I hope to sell at the show as well.
That’s all for me. Thanks for swinging by and have a great day!
[ 28 Comments ]
