1) I haven't written since before "The Hunger Games," but after nearly a year in release there's nothing more to be said. It was surprisingly adequate for a director with only three movies under his belt. Lenny Kravitz was wasted (as in, he should've been given more to do). The director did not trust his own camera work, and would frequently cut away from something really interesting... the finale made it look like the entire games took place in a holodeck, and sending the contestants all together in the same shuttle, only to enter the field from different rooms, makes absolutely no sense. RE: THE BOOK. IF IT AIN'T BROKE, DON'T FIX IT. (though the twitter controversey was worth a headshake or two).
2) Let's just jump right to it: JJ Abrams directing Episode VII. That means the same man controls both Star Trek and Star Wars. NO. NO. NO. NO. NO. NO. NO. This is not okay. As geeks we should rail against it. As "not geeks" we should not give a single FUCK, because the only non-SW or ST things JJ has directed are (1) Mission Impossible 3, (2) Super 8, and (3) Lost. Two of the three were total shit. Discuss amongst yourselves.
It'll be adequate, depending on the screenplay. Except for the fact that they have no story other than the one written by Timothy Zahn. (Heir to the Empire). Were any of us really clamoring for a sequel to "Return of the Jedi?" No. No, sir, we were not.
3) The Dark Knight Rises. From a non-geek perspective, it was quality entertainment with some grand characters and the style we've come to know from Christopher Nolan. From a Geek perspective, it was disappointing and a kick in the teeth. Look:
The ending of "The Dark Knight" raised many a possibility. Now he's not a mysterious crimefighter-- he's a vigilante, on the the run from the cops. This will make his job harder, this will truly test him. Four years later (and ten years later, in the context of the movie), we find out that... Bruce Wayne handled it by.... DOING NOTHING. This is the worst possible option. I recognize that Nolan probably didn't want to direct any more of these, if indeed he even wanted to do the third. But while the movie was fine, the premise was a cop-out. And Bane's death was incredibly, incredibly anti-climactic. Also Batman died. I don't care what Alfred saw in the restaurant-- it was the same restaurant from earlier in the movie, and there's no way he walked into it on accident. It was a fantasy sequence, and in making it real Nolan is essentially saying, "That's the whole story. Riddler? Penguin? Superman? None of that shit happened. He fought Joker, Bane, then he died." No, fuck you, he didn't. Read a comic book.
4) "The Justice League." ... There are two kinds of superhero movies. "Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer," and "Batman Begins." The fact that anyone even uttered the words 'Ben Affleck' should answer you pretty fucking well which category this will be in.
5) The Man of Steel. I don't care how good the trailer is, it was directed by Zack Snyder. And while I will forever be wowed by his visuals in "Dawn of the Dead," he has become so lazy since then, his every movie has been underwhelming and embarrassing. And before you mention "300," go back and watch it again. Take a drink every time you hear Gerard Butler slip back into his Scottish accent. If you finish the movie sober, I will give you $1,000,000 dollars. And no, you can't cheat by muting the entire film. I tried that once, and I passed out from masturbating.
6) The Avengers. WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO.
7) DAT. EVIL DEAD. TRAILER.
8) The Amazing Spider-Man: Andrew Garfield has no screen presence, and Marc Webb is a music video director who got lucky. I feel about it like I felt about "Batman and Robin" ... yes, there are people who will like it. These people never read a comic book. History is on my side here, people.
BUT THEN AGAIN, WE ARE LIVING IN A WORLD WHERE THE SAME MAN CONTROLS BOTH STAR WARS AND STAR TREK.
The state of being a geek is........... bad. Even with that White House response to the Death Star petition. Let's one of us make a billion dollars and buy back the rights to something, eh?
.... oh, and I know there's no trailer for the second Wolverine movie, but do we really want to live in a world where THAT gets a sequel, and "John Dies at the End" isn't even playing in theaters? C'MONNNNNNNNNNNNNN.......
*Warning, this blog makes references that not even Google may know, you have to be a GEEEEEEK
Showing posts with label zack snyder. Show all posts
Showing posts with label zack snyder. Show all posts
Friday, January 25, 2013
Friday, March 25, 2011
What If You Spent $50 Million on a CGI Man Taking a Shit?
SUCKERPUNCH
(2011, "directed" by Zack Snyder)
GEEK / NOT GEEK
It's kind of difficult to comment on the movie, without just writing, "Terrible," and clicking the submit button. To write a good comment, one must write WHY it is terrible... but where to begin? If someone came into your home, and took a shit in the middle of your living room, would you need to explain in a calm manner, three reasons why the person was wrong for doing such a deed? No. You'd toss them by their ear out onto the street, left with the unenviable task of having to clean up. Perhaps you'd even call the police.
If, on the other hand, you spent $50 million (or whatever the budget was; it was too high, in any event) to have someone take a CGI dump in your living room... is that any better? There are three actors in this movie, and only three: Scott Glenn, Jena Malone, and Carla Gugino. Four, if you count Jon Hamm, but he's not in the movie long enough to matter. There are these three, and everything else is there to talk until it's time for another special effect. Jena Malone isn't even required to do any of these things (i.e. act), but because she has actual experience as an actress, bothered to create a character and reflect an emotional state during the 'story.' Everyone else just showed up, put on the costumes, and talked until the director said 'cut.' Vanessa Hudgens should have been a clue.
Even if the story is awful, unmemorable, or predictable (Suckerpunch is all three), other Hollywood movies may rely on memorable action sequences or visuals. In a movie roughly 100 minutes long, these action sequences take up roughly five minutes of screen time. Then Snyder detonates an explosive in New York. Again.
It's not so much that Zack Snyder hates audiences, it's just that he's incredibly naive, like a 12-year-old suddenly given the keys to his dads liquor cabinet. He wants you to like a character, he makes them female and puts them in a low-cut top. He wants you to hate a character, he makes that character a rapist or molester of children. He does this again and again; these appear in every movie he's ever made, save for his first (and best) film, Dawn of the Dead, which was written by someone else entirely. Someone who understands subtlety and character development. Realize, too, that I'm saying this about a movie where a smarmy rich dude accidentally chainsaws his most recent sexual partner.
Whatever fancy visuals made it to the trailer for Suckerpunch, the movie is this: Zack Snyder wrote a script with his camera-man, and it is neither funny nor exciting. It's a 100-minute demo reel, and considering this is his fifth movie, he really should have actually created something with weight, by this point.
I went in with low expectations (especially after his shitty cover version of Watchmen and a movie about CGI owls that was so bad, even the trailer couldn't give it life), expecting that even if the movie rose slightly above these expectations, I'd have something to show for it. I paid half-price for a matinee, and not only do I feel ripped off, I feel physically violated.
I'm not going to call the police, but I am going to be mad for a week, because even though I've cleaned my floor, the smell lingers on. 3/10.
(2011, "directed" by Zack Snyder)
GEEK / NOT GEEK
It's kind of difficult to comment on the movie, without just writing, "Terrible," and clicking the submit button. To write a good comment, one must write WHY it is terrible... but where to begin? If someone came into your home, and took a shit in the middle of your living room, would you need to explain in a calm manner, three reasons why the person was wrong for doing such a deed? No. You'd toss them by their ear out onto the street, left with the unenviable task of having to clean up. Perhaps you'd even call the police.
If, on the other hand, you spent $50 million (or whatever the budget was; it was too high, in any event) to have someone take a CGI dump in your living room... is that any better? There are three actors in this movie, and only three: Scott Glenn, Jena Malone, and Carla Gugino. Four, if you count Jon Hamm, but he's not in the movie long enough to matter. There are these three, and everything else is there to talk until it's time for another special effect. Jena Malone isn't even required to do any of these things (i.e. act), but because she has actual experience as an actress, bothered to create a character and reflect an emotional state during the 'story.' Everyone else just showed up, put on the costumes, and talked until the director said 'cut.' Vanessa Hudgens should have been a clue.
Even if the story is awful, unmemorable, or predictable (Suckerpunch is all three), other Hollywood movies may rely on memorable action sequences or visuals. In a movie roughly 100 minutes long, these action sequences take up roughly five minutes of screen time. Then Snyder detonates an explosive in New York. Again.
It's not so much that Zack Snyder hates audiences, it's just that he's incredibly naive, like a 12-year-old suddenly given the keys to his dads liquor cabinet. He wants you to like a character, he makes them female and puts them in a low-cut top. He wants you to hate a character, he makes that character a rapist or molester of children. He does this again and again; these appear in every movie he's ever made, save for his first (and best) film, Dawn of the Dead, which was written by someone else entirely. Someone who understands subtlety and character development. Realize, too, that I'm saying this about a movie where a smarmy rich dude accidentally chainsaws his most recent sexual partner.
Whatever fancy visuals made it to the trailer for Suckerpunch, the movie is this: Zack Snyder wrote a script with his camera-man, and it is neither funny nor exciting. It's a 100-minute demo reel, and considering this is his fifth movie, he really should have actually created something with weight, by this point.
I went in with low expectations (especially after his shitty cover version of Watchmen and a movie about CGI owls that was so bad, even the trailer couldn't give it life), expecting that even if the movie rose slightly above these expectations, I'd have something to show for it. I paid half-price for a matinee, and not only do I feel ripped off, I feel physically violated.
I'm not going to call the police, but I am going to be mad for a week, because even though I've cleaned my floor, the smell lingers on. 3/10.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)