NOT GEEK
It was a fun movie with the right amount of explosions and funny one liners.
That's it. That's all I have to say about it. Sometimes one side has more to consider than the other.
I give it a B, B-, depending on how much CGI BUGS the SHIT out of you.
GEEK
The director is Kenneth Branagh. Marvel made a big deal out of this and they were right to do so, because he's a Name. Not a Name in the sense of "He's a good film director" (he isn't), but simply a Name in the sense that.... you've heard of him, he's famous enough to generate buzz. Comic Nerds might not even cry foul because Branagh the Director has domain over a separate Nerd Kingdom: Shakespeare. So internet buzz was genuinely positive, or at least optimistic.
The problem with this, and I called it at the time too (did it still count if I didn't have a blog?), is that Kenneth Branagh hasn't had a commercial hit, OR a good movie, since before Clinton was President. He is not good at this. What little success he DID have came when he was in a relationship with the ethereal, expansively talented, Oscar-winning Emma Thompson. A woman who left him when he nailed Helena Bonham-Carter (hindsight, much?). ET went on to win an Oscar, KB went on to direct no-budget Shakespeare adaptations for Showtime. I've seen them. They are visually and conceptually below average. "As You Like It" literally lays there like a bloated corpse, daring you to poke it with a stick.
After the overblown, much-hyped, mediocre-received "Hamlet" in 1996, he didn't direct anything for four years, no doubt to lick his wounds and figure out what other pretentious, self-serving project he wanted to work on next. In 2000 and 2006 he did two other Shakespeare adaptations (Love's Labour's Lost, and As You Like It, respectively), the first of which had a higher budget than the second, neither were memorable nor interesting to look at. The acting was adequate, but that's what happens when you get good actors. Under no circumstances should you rent these from Netflix. Even if you're a fan of interesting Shakespeare productions (which I am), neither of these are good. This is a failed director trying to get a toehold back into the industry.
And so someone listened, and gave him "Sleuth" (2007), a movie which is only kind of not very good on its own, and then a complete failure when held up next to the original with Michael Caine and Laurence Olivier. AND YET THEY GAVE HIM THE THOR JOB ANYWAY.
All of these movies were bad, Branagh's last that was a big hit was "Dead Again" in 1990, which was 21 years before Thor. You know, when Chris Hemsorth was seven.
Anyway, in failing to be concise yet again, the upshot is this: Kenneth Branagh is a shit director. He might be able to direct theatre, yes, he seems to have a knack with actors. But that is only one small part of film directing, a job which also includes shot selection, lenses, depth of field and length of shot, all of which Branagh has proven time and time again that he is no damn good at, and he has shown no progress in getting any damn better. He simply doesn't care.
THOR: The first act of this movie is wasted. It opens on some humans in the desert, who then run into Thor. Then there's a brief flashback that shows how Thor got there, and this brief flashback goes on for 45 FUCKING MINUTES. It is the entire first act of the movie, and CGI is layered onto it like the producers never saw a single movie after "The Phantom Menace," they commit every sin except for a main character MADE of CGI (wisely, they make the head of CGI-bad guys an actual actor in makeup. This works spectacularly well and creates the only bit of menace in the entire overblown battle sequence). Watching cartoons bounce off each other for 45 minutes is uninteresting if you've ever played a video game in your life. It is every bit as awful as the first act of Spider-Man 3. Thor, Act 1: F.
Finally we get back to Earth. Character development actually begins here, and despite the films terrible track record up to this point, Branagh actually stands back and lets his actors emote, in a movie where they are not required to. Portman seems genuinely concerned, yet distracted by her work. Hemsworth seems bold and douchey, yet distracted by his lust for glory. And Tom Hiddleston as Loki bothers to give his character layers, when other action movies would just have him walk in and recite plot points. The jokes fly quickly, there's no one character just to be comic relief. The humor is situational, and it works. When it's time to get serious, everyone gets serious. The production design is quite lovely. The costume design is so lazy it looks like the non-Vikings just put on whatever was in their closet and went to work. Act 2: A.
The last third of the movie has a lot of shit blow up, which is fine, but then Thor goes back to Asgard and shit blows up there too, and it's all CGI bullshit and despite the city/planet looking absolutely fantastic, you're basically left with CG characters beating each other up on a CG rainbow bridge. I don't fucking care. The interesting stuff happens between the actors, and that's what any geek will be talking about the next day. Not Geek? You may not mind the CG so much. I am a geek, and I was there for Spider-Man 3. Sam Raimi made many an enemy that day. Act 3: B-.
Hollywood movies know that as long as they finish strong, the audience will be happy and recommend the movie and maybe even see it again. The first act can be as weak as anything, as long as there's gigantic set-pieces in the end. Branagh doesn't have a lot of Hollywood muscle so probably had to do what he was told; Jon Favreau had insisted on models and such for the Iron Man movies, the Marvel execs probably just wanted a big CG movie to feel like they were doing their jobs. Well, they got their way, and it made the movie worse. Congratulations, you're a producer.
On the side:
Five credited screenwriters:
WRITTEN BY: Ashley Miller and Zack Stentz and Don Payne
STORY BY: J. Michael Straczynski and Mark Prostovich
Broken down:
Miller and Stentz worked on "Terminator: Sarah Connor Chronicles." When that got cancelled, they went to work on "Fringe." Their geek cred is unimpeachable.
Don Payne used to work on "The Simpsons." When he eventually left that, he wrote "My Super Ex-Girlfriend." It is my theory they brought him in to add jokes.
There's nothing about the screenplay I find off or flawed, my only problem is that Branagh rushes through the entire first act as if he has to go to the bathroom, tilting the camera for no reason and point it at talking shots when he should be shooting reaction shots, and vice versa. Shooting a high-budget movie is NOT the same as shooting a low-budget play. The flaws in the movie lie solely with him; the writers are great. Online buzz say this "Thor" is closer to JMS's Thor in the comics, and I guess that seems to work out okay. Ultimately it's probably out of his hands, though: Prostovich wrote the script back in 2002 for a production that never got off the ground; its doubtful much of his script remains, but they probably had to credit him for legal reasons. JMS, presumably, didn't have much more input.
So from a Geek perspective, that's where we're at. But the thing is, I have a feeling... by the time Captain America rolls around, we'll have forgotten. All that we'll really remember is the "Not Geek" perspective, and that's all anyone can ask. If we're getting the Huge Stack o' Marvel Movies, like we were promised, they can't all be perfect. They just have to be good enough to (a) interest the casuals, and (b) not piss off the hardcore fans. And since there are no hardcore fans of Thor, this was the safest one to trust with a green director.
Onward to Cap, and then The Avengers.
Victory to Marvel, death to Michael Bay.
Showing posts with label bad movies. Show all posts
Showing posts with label bad movies. Show all posts
Saturday, May 7, 2011
Thursday, March 10, 2011
Furiouser and Furiouser
#ff - Go read the blog known only as SHAN! SHAN! SHAN! I have been totally one-upped this week by one of my friends getting to a Kurosawa movie before me, and I take full responsibility. I have no excuse other than I am a fat, lazy American.
(who's the sex machine that gets all the chicks? SHAN! then I can dig it).
I've seen a handful of Kurosawa movies, the best of which was "Rashomon" which I recommend to everybody. It's a familiar concept (one story told from four perspectives) and while in 2011 you might think it's played out.... KUROSAWA INVENTED IT. I've only ever had, like, three movies that put my jaw on the floor, and this was one of them.
So as long as we're talking about cinematic masterpieces that will span generations and have redefined all cinema that would follow it...........
FAST AND FURIOUS
(2009, dir. Justin Lin)
NOT GEEK
I saw the first one when it came out, because as hard as you may find it to believe, there was a time when Vin Diesel was not a punchline. To his credit, he's managed to ride that one-note concept for near-on a decade now, without slipping into self-parody (sup, Chuck Norris. sup, Ben Affleck. Sup, Kevin Costner. Sup, Russell Crowe).
No interest in the second two (part 2: Paul Walker sucks. part 3: Lucas Black sucks more), but the fourth one got good reviews and Netflix essentially makes them free, so I figured, what the hell.
The opening action sequence is not only exciting, it makes sense and is not ruined by ShakyCam. The last two seconds of it are enough to either chase you out of the room, or make you reach for the popcorn. If you like popcorn, read on...
It's a five-act structure, and the cast of characters are all given their moments, even characters who haven't been around since the first movie. The acting is good (except for Paul Walker). I'm not claiming Vin Diesel is a great actor, but in this movie he plays only to his strengths, meaning he (a) doesn't say much, and (b) constantly looks ready to do violence. It works for him. Meanwhile, Paul Walker in a suit looks like a penguin in a sarong.
In a bad action movie, shit happens for no reason, we don't care about the characters enough to remember their names, the explosions take place for no other reason than because nothing has blown up in a while, and there is One Good Guy, and One Bad Guy. Here, suddenly, none of that is true. It's an 8/10 easily, unless you just hate Vin Diesel on general principal, in which case there's always The Rock.
GEEK
Fuck.
Putting aside the fact, for a moment, that Justin Lin directed the third movie, let us also remember that he directed three episodes of "Community," including the 'Modern Warfare' episode. It was because of that and that alone I saw "Fast and Furious." The man knows his shit. He has one indie hit ("Better Luck Tomorrow") and two shitty studio movies where I'm sure he had little creative control, but then with this and the television, here he emerges, capable of doing talking scenes and action scenes with equal flair.
The movie was written by Chris Morgan, who wrote the third movie, sure, but also wrote "Wanted." Over the top, I know, but other than that bullshit about the Loom, everything was just fun ridiculousness.
Even from a geek standpoint, this film has no right to be good, but it is. The action is satisfying, the dialogue isn't retarded, the film is purdy to look at.
My lone complaint (other than Paul "I'd Much Rather Be Smoking Weed on a Beach" Walker): It's PG-13.
Ordinarily I don't care WHAT the rating is, but this is one of several movies in the last few years where the rating felt like a lie.
There's a sequence in the first third of the movie, where both O'Connor (Walker) and Torretto (Diesel) have to "Try out" for a drug runner, given a GPS map and a finish line and told the first person across that line gets the job. Four contestants start the race.
And the race starts off, and it's exciting and you are shown that each of the four is competent, and why they are worthy of being considered. And then I remember thinking, "This shit is so fucking dangerous. This only makes sense if at least one of these guys dies, to show the audience that shit is serious."
Then one of the cars is T-boned by a minivan.
I say "cars" because that's what happens. We see the driver look surprised, then we see one car hit another car, then the scene cuts back to the race. The accident is never shown or talked about again.
This is ridiculous. If you're showing an illegal race IN TRAFFIC, and one of your racers crashes, if you don't show his broken, bleeding body hanging out the window, then you are being dishonest, and you're cheating the audience. You are editing out Life so you can get a PG-13 rating, and thus (so they say) sell more tickets, all of them to males ages 13-17. Who now see illegal street racing without consequences.
I'm not trying to be conservative about this, I'm just saying that I'm a fucking adult, and if cars are going to speed at 80 miles an hour through busy LA streets, and if there's a crash, I want severed limbs and fireballs. I don't want a dented fender and a quick cutaway just because the producers want to sell tickets to a kid who was three years old when the first movie came out.
Some of the CG is questionable, this movie needed more nekkid women in it. I was entertained enough that I did not feel the need to shout out at the television. The story kept moving, there was more than just One Good Guy and One Bad Guy. I can recommend this. Even the ending left it open to another movie...
.... another movie that comes out next month.
With the Rock.
Vin Diesel vs. The Rock.
Fuck you, Hollywood.
Take my money.
(who's the sex machine that gets all the chicks? SHAN! then I can dig it).
I've seen a handful of Kurosawa movies, the best of which was "Rashomon" which I recommend to everybody. It's a familiar concept (one story told from four perspectives) and while in 2011 you might think it's played out.... KUROSAWA INVENTED IT. I've only ever had, like, three movies that put my jaw on the floor, and this was one of them.
So as long as we're talking about cinematic masterpieces that will span generations and have redefined all cinema that would follow it...........
FAST AND FURIOUS
(2009, dir. Justin Lin)
NOT GEEK
I saw the first one when it came out, because as hard as you may find it to believe, there was a time when Vin Diesel was not a punchline. To his credit, he's managed to ride that one-note concept for near-on a decade now, without slipping into self-parody (sup, Chuck Norris. sup, Ben Affleck. Sup, Kevin Costner. Sup, Russell Crowe).
No interest in the second two (part 2: Paul Walker sucks. part 3: Lucas Black sucks more), but the fourth one got good reviews and Netflix essentially makes them free, so I figured, what the hell.
The opening action sequence is not only exciting, it makes sense and is not ruined by ShakyCam. The last two seconds of it are enough to either chase you out of the room, or make you reach for the popcorn. If you like popcorn, read on...
It's a five-act structure, and the cast of characters are all given their moments, even characters who haven't been around since the first movie. The acting is good (except for Paul Walker). I'm not claiming Vin Diesel is a great actor, but in this movie he plays only to his strengths, meaning he (a) doesn't say much, and (b) constantly looks ready to do violence. It works for him. Meanwhile, Paul Walker in a suit looks like a penguin in a sarong.
In a bad action movie, shit happens for no reason, we don't care about the characters enough to remember their names, the explosions take place for no other reason than because nothing has blown up in a while, and there is One Good Guy, and One Bad Guy. Here, suddenly, none of that is true. It's an 8/10 easily, unless you just hate Vin Diesel on general principal, in which case there's always The Rock.
GEEK
Fuck.
Putting aside the fact, for a moment, that Justin Lin directed the third movie, let us also remember that he directed three episodes of "Community," including the 'Modern Warfare' episode. It was because of that and that alone I saw "Fast and Furious." The man knows his shit. He has one indie hit ("Better Luck Tomorrow") and two shitty studio movies where I'm sure he had little creative control, but then with this and the television, here he emerges, capable of doing talking scenes and action scenes with equal flair.
The movie was written by Chris Morgan, who wrote the third movie, sure, but also wrote "Wanted." Over the top, I know, but other than that bullshit about the Loom, everything was just fun ridiculousness.
Even from a geek standpoint, this film has no right to be good, but it is. The action is satisfying, the dialogue isn't retarded, the film is purdy to look at.
My lone complaint (other than Paul "I'd Much Rather Be Smoking Weed on a Beach" Walker): It's PG-13.
Ordinarily I don't care WHAT the rating is, but this is one of several movies in the last few years where the rating felt like a lie.
There's a sequence in the first third of the movie, where both O'Connor (Walker) and Torretto (Diesel) have to "Try out" for a drug runner, given a GPS map and a finish line and told the first person across that line gets the job. Four contestants start the race.
And the race starts off, and it's exciting and you are shown that each of the four is competent, and why they are worthy of being considered. And then I remember thinking, "This shit is so fucking dangerous. This only makes sense if at least one of these guys dies, to show the audience that shit is serious."
Then one of the cars is T-boned by a minivan.
I say "cars" because that's what happens. We see the driver look surprised, then we see one car hit another car, then the scene cuts back to the race. The accident is never shown or talked about again.
This is ridiculous. If you're showing an illegal race IN TRAFFIC, and one of your racers crashes, if you don't show his broken, bleeding body hanging out the window, then you are being dishonest, and you're cheating the audience. You are editing out Life so you can get a PG-13 rating, and thus (so they say) sell more tickets, all of them to males ages 13-17. Who now see illegal street racing without consequences.
I'm not trying to be conservative about this, I'm just saying that I'm a fucking adult, and if cars are going to speed at 80 miles an hour through busy LA streets, and if there's a crash, I want severed limbs and fireballs. I don't want a dented fender and a quick cutaway just because the producers want to sell tickets to a kid who was three years old when the first movie came out.
Some of the CG is questionable, this movie needed more nekkid women in it. I was entertained enough that I did not feel the need to shout out at the television. The story kept moving, there was more than just One Good Guy and One Bad Guy. I can recommend this. Even the ending left it open to another movie...
.... another movie that comes out next month.
With the Rock.
Vin Diesel vs. The Rock.
Fuck you, Hollywood.
Take my money.
Sunday, January 30, 2011
January is Balls
Three weeks?! That's too long. Not that anyone is hanging on my every word, but any writer worth his/her salt really needs to keep at this thing. If you didn't water your plants for three weeks, they would die. If you didn't have sex with your girlfriend for three weeks, she'd nail the pool boy. These are SERIOUS ISSUES, and also why I don't have plants.
I started this thing cuz there were a lot of movies around, and this being January (for another day anyway), there aren't many around at present. January movies always suck. Always. I don't know why everyone else hasn't picked up on this. If it were a GOOD movie, the studio would release it during March, or June, or if it's a drama, November/December during awards season. I never consciously noticed this until the mid-00's, when studios dumped two Uwe Boll "movies," two Januarys in a row, but it's been going on forever. Remember "Leprechaun?" Sure you don't. 1993. Jennifer Aniston. And a Leprechaun. Total shit (watch it at your next Bad Movie Night). Saw it in January of '93. The tradition continues to this day. (the movie thing. not the me-seeing-them-thing).
I was inspired by a friend of mine to start a second blog; Ironically, she went and deleted all her shit last week. I suspect she'll be back (she deletes her Facebook account every couple of months), but the point is: We're all interested in more than one thing. Said Friend was blogging life, photography, and a bit of modeling (all my friends are hot), I think if I only blogged movies and TV all the time, I'd look like a fat shut-in. And while I HAVE ballooned up to 135 lbs., I'm gonna try other shit on the side.
Eventually. I was gonna see about sports, but the Super Bowl is in a week and then there's nothing interesting on ESPN until March... and then not again until late August. I mean, I dig baseball and all, but... there's 162 games in a season. The first 80 or so I can take or leave.
Also I hit up the Seattle Sci-Fi Short Film Festival this past weekend (#ssff). I don't see enough short films. Neither do you. As yet another friend said, "They are PERFECT for my attention span!"
Back in February with another tirade. No really.
...
.... February Leprechaun. That's a lot of oddly-placed R's. Or a tongue twister. Or an awful band.
I started this thing cuz there were a lot of movies around, and this being January (for another day anyway), there aren't many around at present. January movies always suck. Always. I don't know why everyone else hasn't picked up on this. If it were a GOOD movie, the studio would release it during March, or June, or if it's a drama, November/December during awards season. I never consciously noticed this until the mid-00's, when studios dumped two Uwe Boll "movies," two Januarys in a row, but it's been going on forever. Remember "Leprechaun?" Sure you don't. 1993. Jennifer Aniston. And a Leprechaun. Total shit (watch it at your next Bad Movie Night). Saw it in January of '93. The tradition continues to this day. (the movie thing. not the me-seeing-them-thing).
I was inspired by a friend of mine to start a second blog; Ironically, she went and deleted all her shit last week. I suspect she'll be back (she deletes her Facebook account every couple of months), but the point is: We're all interested in more than one thing. Said Friend was blogging life, photography, and a bit of modeling (all my friends are hot), I think if I only blogged movies and TV all the time, I'd look like a fat shut-in. And while I HAVE ballooned up to 135 lbs., I'm gonna try other shit on the side.
Eventually. I was gonna see about sports, but the Super Bowl is in a week and then there's nothing interesting on ESPN until March... and then not again until late August. I mean, I dig baseball and all, but... there's 162 games in a season. The first 80 or so I can take or leave.
Also I hit up the Seattle Sci-Fi Short Film Festival this past weekend (#ssff). I don't see enough short films. Neither do you. As yet another friend said, "They are PERFECT for my attention span!"
Back in February with another tirade. No really.
...
.... February Leprechaun. That's a lot of oddly-placed R's. Or a tongue twister. Or an awful band.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)