Writing a traditional review of Alien seems almost pointless. This is one of the biggest franchises in not just science fiction, but movies in general. I don’t think there is anyone that hasn’t at least heard of it, if not seen at least one of the films. The accolades this movie has achieved from oscars and slews of other awards, numerous shining reviews at the time of its release and today, not to mention many sci fi fans naming it as one of their all time favorites. So what can i add? I mean, when I write a review here, I try to at least make it something that represents my specific feelings towards something and if you should go see it. But this? This is a movie that’s been reviewed, analyzed and studied for 30+ years, and it creates a certain challenge when I’m trying to review it and not sound redundant.
Thankfully, there’s an answer. What I plan to do is not only give my thought on the film, I will talk a bit about its history and as well as compare and contrast the different versions of it. Yes, thanks to the 2003 quadrilogy boxed set, each film has two versions; The regular theatrical cut and a special extended or director’s cut. I will look at both and give my thoughts and give each a separate score and which gets my overall recommendation. While I realize that this is a movie most people have already seen, I am still working off the principle of not wanting to spoil good movies, and so I will try not to give too many things away if I can avoid it. (bad movies can suck it though.) So now, with all this aside, let’s look at the movie that started it all back in 1979: Alien
Alien’s behind the scenes history is some of the most intriguing when you actually hear it, and the fact that it even got made in the capacity that it did is almost a miracle. It first started as an idea by screenwriter Dan O’Bannon. O’Bannon had made a film during his last year at USC with John Carpenter called Dark Star, it was pretty much their final project but sparked some interest from a distributor so they expanded it into a full movie. It was not a very successful film, but it was something to get them noticed, but O’Bannon wasn’t quite satisfied with it. He had a whole sequence where an astronaut, (played by himself) had to chase after and fight off a goofy looking alien creature in the form of a painted beach ball. This worked fine in Dark Star which was a bit of a dark comedy, but he always felt like the movie would have worked better as a horror film, that scene in particular. So he started writing Alien with his friend Ron Shusett, who gave him the idea for the film’s infamous chest-burster scene. The idea was that a group of astronauts would wake up from hyper sleep to find a distress signal of a ship that was long ago destroyed and in there investigation an alien lifeform gets on board, killing the crew off one by one. It was a good enough idea for a young film school graduate, it’s a solid enough idea and could make for a fun movie.
However, O’Bannon was then briefly involved with one of movie history’s most notoriously failed projects, Alejandro Jodorowsky’s attempt to adapt Frank Herbert’s novel Dune. While it was a rather wasted trip with that project finally imploded, O’Bannon did meet up with one Hans Rudulof (H.R.) Giger, whose art work he felt was the perfect thing for the creature in the movie he was writing and at that point planning on directing.
So, once back in the states he finally polished off the last of the script for the film and he and Shusett started handing the script around to various studios and actually almost started rolling cameras on the movie with Roger Corman, the king of the low budget, and his studio. However, the script ended up in the hands of David Giler, Gordon Carroll and Walter Hill of Brandywine films who liked it, through some re-writes and pushing along got it into the hands of 20th century fox, who after the success of Star Wars were putting the green light on anything they had that involve outer space in some way. Eventually it ended up in the hands of RIdley Scott which was where the movie finally had cameras roll and the rest is history.
Ok, that out of the way how did this not uncommon and yet strangely round about origin end up as a finished film? Well, to bring up the obvious, the movie is great. It has a solid enough premise, and went with the bold choice of having the film’s main hero be a woman, something that is far more common today thanks to this film’s success. So where do I start? What is it that makes this movie work so well and still hold up today? Atmosphere, this movie is dripping in it.
There is never a single moment in this movie that doesn’t have something going on for it. From its cold and unnerving opening where the ship looks almost abandoned, to the heart pounding climax. It’s a hard thing to do in a movie at all, let alone in a thriller where you have to keep the movie going while at the same time keeping the urgency up, but damned if Alien doesn’t do it amazingly well. That’s the movie’s major strength, and a lot of it I feel comes from the fact that it was a movie that didn’t have a single central voice calling the shots. Yes, a lot of the thanks needs to go to Ridley Scott for numerous touches that give the movie it’s pulse, but just as much needs to go to cinematographer Derek Vanlint who lights and frames the movie in such a pitch perfect way it seems almost like breathing for him and of course editor Terry Rawlings who seriously makes the movie.
I feel that’s the film’s greatest technical strengths. None of the scene never outwear their welcome, nor does the movie itself ever feel like it’s lagging. Rather slowly sucking the audience in and slowly building the intensity with how fast paced the final moments of the movie are. Rawlings skillfully handles everything with the touch of a master. Which is even more surprising when you find out that this was one of his earliest credits in the position.
And of course the cast must be mentioned for all they add. Everyone does a great job, and this is no big surprise since it’s entirely a cast of up and coming future A listers. But of course the big star launched that we should look at is Sigourney Weaver. This was not exactly Weaver’s first movie, but it was her first starring role and one of the things that everyone likes to talk about is how badass the character of Ripley is, which I think is a little odd if we just go by the first movie.
One of the things I always found most interesting about the movie is that Ripley just feels like a natural character. In fact it’s not even clear that she’s the heroine until the end of the second act when she has to take command. The performance is very natural, and it a performance of a person that is in serious danger that only keeps getting worse with each passing moment. Weaver imparts so much to the character with minimal dialogue and give this character a great amount of presence. Even while the movie was giving off a more ensemble feel at the start, Ripley has something about her that makes her stand out, all thanks to Weaver.
But what’s a hero without a villain? In this movie we are first introduced to the vicious xenomorphs. The design is fantastic, it’s one of the few alien monster designs that truly feel like something totally foreign, but at the same time feels hauntingly familiar. It’s elongated head and gnashing teeth with the inner mouth are just creepy and made even more so by the fact that the main body actually resembles a humanoid, giving us the unease of the idea of a body perverted. Each of the creature’s various life cycle stages all feel unique and complement each other as they never feel like clash.
I could write a book about this movie, I really do love it quite dearly, but at the same time I know that there are already so many already written and I don’t want to ramble too much. But I said there were two versions, and I’ve been talking about the theatrical cut. So how’s the director’s cut? Well to be honest, it hardly feel worth mentioning. It’s not that it makes the movie terrible, but when the movie was already so good, and so well balanced that it should have just been left as is. The movie had clearly left those scenes out for a reason, they weren’t needed and added to that the amount of retooling required to make them fit makes a lot of the film feel forced, which is sad. It’s nice to see how these scenes would have been in the movie, but that’s it. Now some may say that I’m being harsh and that I shouldn’t rain on the fact that a director got to have his version finally released, but that’s the joke, Scott prefered cut is the 1979 theatrical cut. Not kidding, in the insert included with the special edition dvd in the boxed set, he flat out says so:
“... I felt the original cut of Alien was perfect. I still feel that way.”
So to state the blatantly obvious, Alien get a big hell yes watch it from me. It’s a great piece of filmmaking and science fiction, and not very many of those seem to come out anymore. If you haven’t seen and think you’d want to, go for it.
Theatrical cut: 5 out of 5
Extended/Director’s cut: 4 out of 5
Next time, we look at how the franchise took off like a wild fire with the 1986 sequel, Aliens.
Friday, August 17, 2012
Tuesday, July 31, 2012
Prometheus
Ridley Scott. I’d say something like “there’s not a more misunderstood genius” or “a sage of the medium of film” but that’d be a lie. Scott is a filmmaker that has made some great movies and also some very forgettable ones too. It’s not that Scott really has tangible strengths or weakness, it’s rather more that his weak films stand out considerably when you see the stronger works he’s done. Granted I’m one of the weird people that like his more low key and personal movies like “A Good Year” (a actually quite fun movie) or “Matchstick Men” (fix that if you haven’t seen it.) but for the most part Scott seems to get the most praise when he does big, world building type projects, like one of his most praised works “Blade Runner”. Not to mention that things like “G.I. Jane” or “White Squall” are just mediocre and forgettable. I wouldn’t even go so far as to say he’s polarizing, he’s just a fairly talented film maker with great movies and not so great movies dotted through his resume. One example of his great movies is actually only his second movie and it is one of the high water marks of the sci fi genre, “Alien”.
I love this movie. I have such love for this movie that my girlfriend might get jealous. It’s a pitch perfect example of atmosphere, the pacing is tight and well done, the acting superb and I could seriously go on and on and on about this movies style, production history, and the people involved, but that’s not what I’m here to talk about. I”m here to talk about “Prometheus”, one of the most anticipated sci fi movies in a very long time. Why you ask? Aside from the simple fact that Ridley Scott is making a more than welcome return to the sci fi genre, it’s also a prequel to “Alien”. Yes, you read that correctly, prequel.
If you aren’t a die hard sci fi fan, then you are blissfully unaware of how ice cold the word ‘prequel’ renders the fan boy’s blood cold these days, largely thanks to one George Lucas. In general the idea of a prequel is flawed for several reasons, but more specifically if it takes place before the previous film, either everyone makes it out alive, or no one does thus tension is forever lost. Plus, in sitting down to try and think of prequels that have worked before the only one I could think of was “Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom”. Yes, most people think of it as a sequel, but if you actually pay attention to the dates at the start, it takes place before “Raiders of the Lost Ark”. And that’s it, the only other ones that exist are the trilogy of which WE DO NOT SPEAK! Also that abortion of a lazy cash in that was the “The Thing” remake masquerading as prequel. So needless to say, the tension was high on this one, not helped for most fans by some of the news coming from the set. Now, I’m one that really prefers to NOT read news from the sets of big productions because I like to be surprised, and I like to try (this is the keyword here, TRY) to go in with an open mind to these things.
So how was “Prometheus”? Excellent. It’s not a perfect film by any stretch and I would debate that no such thing actually exists, but “Prometheus” is a damn well crafted movie. Taking place in the not too distant future, some scientist have discovered evidence that in ancient times mankind was visited by extraterrestrial beings that may have also been our progenitors. So with a star map in hand they head out to a distant planet to try and see if they can make contact. That’s really the big idea, they go looking for “god”. However on arrival, they discover some dark and terrifying secrets, and things just get worse from there.
The biggest thing in this movie’s favor is Scott’s really firm grasp of tone and atmosphere. There are so many moments in this movie that are just giving you a big holy shit money shot and the man knows where and how to place the camera to get exactly the right reaction out of the audience. That shot you see in the trailer of the room with the giant face? Even when you know what it looks like, it’s something to behold when it’s revealed in the movie. Plus, the contrast between their ship Prometheus and the alien planet well nicely done. This is assisted by some stellar cinematography that truly lets the production design shine and giving fans of the first film a very nice treat with how meticulous they recreated some of the sets.
The performances are all great with the stand out being Michael Fassbender who promptly walks away with the movie the moment he shows up as the android, but mention must also be made of Charlize Theron as the corporate stooge that tagged along for the trip and Noomi Rapace is very engaging as the scientist in charge of the mission.
And thus we come to the real meat of why I loved this movie so much, the story. Now, from reading/watching other reviews and discussing this with others that have seen the film, many people are hyper focused on the fact that while it’s an alien prequel it seems to focus more on was originally a B story that Scott flipped around to the main plot and made the alien prequel stuff the B plot. Honestly, this was part of what made it a good prequel. Just think for a moment folks, the movie was originally pitched as a straightforward alien prequel, how would that have been better? The fact that this movie has the whole looking for our creator premise makes it more interesting with the reveal of the alien xenomorphs as a great twist/perk to the whole idea. Just think about this, these people are going searching for answers, they are literally looking for GOD, and that would have been the B story. No, not just the B Story, the B story in a monster movie, that would have probably ended up looking like a monster movie we’ve already seen. The fact that it’s a big idea that explored throughout the narrative makes the film itself interesting and the fact that it’s the reveal of the origin of the aliens works better for it. Plus, it really likes to take a show don’t tell approach to a lot of the ideas and moments that it explores, which I like because while narrative hand holding is sometimes a good and even necessary thing, it can often times feel invasive or unnatural, alien if you will. The whole idea of the movie is that they went searching for the answers to some big questions, how would it make the movie better to just straight up tell them that the answer to all life is 42? Ok, that would actually be awesome, but I have a point here. The point is that there are always going to be questions, and that’s a good thing. Humans are just naturally curious creatures and we will never be satisfied with what we know. I know so much trivia about my favorite movies, but I’m always looking for more. Some people go looking for bigfoot because that want to know for sure that it does or doesn’t exist, philosophers are constantly examining and debating the point of life, but what happens then? There’s nothing wrong with searching for knowledge, hell I honestly think things would be better if more people did it, but what happens when we know everything? I try not to think about it.
Look I’m not going to spoil any more of the movie, you all should watch it. it’s a great movie and it has some nice well done ideas in it and it’s seriously the best movie connected to “Alien” since 1986. Give it a watch.
5 things you shouldn’t look for the answers of. out of 5
You know, writing this reminded me how interesting the whole Alien franchise, good and bad, is to look like, and I’m in the mood to revisit it So for the next month we’ll take a look at the other four films, starting where it all began. Alien.
I love this movie. I have such love for this movie that my girlfriend might get jealous. It’s a pitch perfect example of atmosphere, the pacing is tight and well done, the acting superb and I could seriously go on and on and on about this movies style, production history, and the people involved, but that’s not what I’m here to talk about. I”m here to talk about “Prometheus”, one of the most anticipated sci fi movies in a very long time. Why you ask? Aside from the simple fact that Ridley Scott is making a more than welcome return to the sci fi genre, it’s also a prequel to “Alien”. Yes, you read that correctly, prequel.
If you aren’t a die hard sci fi fan, then you are blissfully unaware of how ice cold the word ‘prequel’ renders the fan boy’s blood cold these days, largely thanks to one George Lucas. In general the idea of a prequel is flawed for several reasons, but more specifically if it takes place before the previous film, either everyone makes it out alive, or no one does thus tension is forever lost. Plus, in sitting down to try and think of prequels that have worked before the only one I could think of was “Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom”. Yes, most people think of it as a sequel, but if you actually pay attention to the dates at the start, it takes place before “Raiders of the Lost Ark”. And that’s it, the only other ones that exist are the trilogy of which WE DO NOT SPEAK! Also that abortion of a lazy cash in that was the “The Thing” remake masquerading as prequel. So needless to say, the tension was high on this one, not helped for most fans by some of the news coming from the set. Now, I’m one that really prefers to NOT read news from the sets of big productions because I like to be surprised, and I like to try (this is the keyword here, TRY) to go in with an open mind to these things.
So how was “Prometheus”? Excellent. It’s not a perfect film by any stretch and I would debate that no such thing actually exists, but “Prometheus” is a damn well crafted movie. Taking place in the not too distant future, some scientist have discovered evidence that in ancient times mankind was visited by extraterrestrial beings that may have also been our progenitors. So with a star map in hand they head out to a distant planet to try and see if they can make contact. That’s really the big idea, they go looking for “god”. However on arrival, they discover some dark and terrifying secrets, and things just get worse from there.
The biggest thing in this movie’s favor is Scott’s really firm grasp of tone and atmosphere. There are so many moments in this movie that are just giving you a big holy shit money shot and the man knows where and how to place the camera to get exactly the right reaction out of the audience. That shot you see in the trailer of the room with the giant face? Even when you know what it looks like, it’s something to behold when it’s revealed in the movie. Plus, the contrast between their ship Prometheus and the alien planet well nicely done. This is assisted by some stellar cinematography that truly lets the production design shine and giving fans of the first film a very nice treat with how meticulous they recreated some of the sets.
The performances are all great with the stand out being Michael Fassbender who promptly walks away with the movie the moment he shows up as the android, but mention must also be made of Charlize Theron as the corporate stooge that tagged along for the trip and Noomi Rapace is very engaging as the scientist in charge of the mission.
And thus we come to the real meat of why I loved this movie so much, the story. Now, from reading/watching other reviews and discussing this with others that have seen the film, many people are hyper focused on the fact that while it’s an alien prequel it seems to focus more on was originally a B story that Scott flipped around to the main plot and made the alien prequel stuff the B plot. Honestly, this was part of what made it a good prequel. Just think for a moment folks, the movie was originally pitched as a straightforward alien prequel, how would that have been better? The fact that this movie has the whole looking for our creator premise makes it more interesting with the reveal of the alien xenomorphs as a great twist/perk to the whole idea. Just think about this, these people are going searching for answers, they are literally looking for GOD, and that would have been the B story. No, not just the B Story, the B story in a monster movie, that would have probably ended up looking like a monster movie we’ve already seen. The fact that it’s a big idea that explored throughout the narrative makes the film itself interesting and the fact that it’s the reveal of the origin of the aliens works better for it. Plus, it really likes to take a show don’t tell approach to a lot of the ideas and moments that it explores, which I like because while narrative hand holding is sometimes a good and even necessary thing, it can often times feel invasive or unnatural, alien if you will. The whole idea of the movie is that they went searching for the answers to some big questions, how would it make the movie better to just straight up tell them that the answer to all life is 42? Ok, that would actually be awesome, but I have a point here. The point is that there are always going to be questions, and that’s a good thing. Humans are just naturally curious creatures and we will never be satisfied with what we know. I know so much trivia about my favorite movies, but I’m always looking for more. Some people go looking for bigfoot because that want to know for sure that it does or doesn’t exist, philosophers are constantly examining and debating the point of life, but what happens then? There’s nothing wrong with searching for knowledge, hell I honestly think things would be better if more people did it, but what happens when we know everything? I try not to think about it.
Look I’m not going to spoil any more of the movie, you all should watch it. it’s a great movie and it has some nice well done ideas in it and it’s seriously the best movie connected to “Alien” since 1986. Give it a watch.
5 things you shouldn’t look for the answers of. out of 5
You know, writing this reminded me how interesting the whole Alien franchise, good and bad, is to look like, and I’m in the mood to revisit it So for the next month we’ll take a look at the other four films, starting where it all began. Alien.
Saturday, April 28, 2012
Lunatic's Top 25 Part One
So, I’ve finally reached that point. It’s that one question all movie buffs dread but know that they must at some point figure out an answer for: “What are your favorite movies?” Honestly, I really really love a TON of movies. I have special equipment like a region free DVD player for imports, a VCR for things that aren’t even released on DVD and even a Laserdisc player for movies that either have a feature not on the DVD or don’t have a version I prefer on DVD. I just really LOVE film and I just couldn’t decide how many movies to include. Ten seemed too little, and then I thought maybe 50 but that was just pushing it, so I eventually decided on 25. So intermittently through the rest of the year, I will count down from 25 to my all time number one. I’m not doing this as a normal top 10 for one major reason, I have a very specific and personal reason for picking these movies and ranking them as I do. Just devoting simply a paragraph to them just doesn’t feel like I’d be doing them justice, so I’m giving a full breakdown of why I picked it and like it as much as I do. But I would like to clarify, these are FAVORITES, not what I feel are the BEST, granted I know there would be some of these on that list, this is more about my personal experience with film and the ones that stand out for me as especially enjoyable. Therefore, at long last, let the countdown proper begin:
Number 25:
Creature From The Black Lagoon (1954)
I’ve made it no secret that I have a love for the old B style movies, and especially those from the 50’s and 60’s, and this movie’s the reason why. I was about eight or nine years old when I first saw this movie and I was hooked. Not only was it the first movie I saw in black and white, but it was just so much fun to watch. Scientist exploring an ominous area that no one had apparently seen and lived to tell the tale, a monster that terrorizes them while at the same time looking pretty goofy when you stop to think about it, and just copious amounts of hammy acting.
Why this one over things like “The Blob” or “Them!”? Pretty simple, nostalgia. I can’t help it, the fact that this was the one I saw first is probably just me being all sentimental, but if I’m ever feeling like watching something cheesy and silly with a goofy monster, I reach for this one.
A lot of it has to due with the acting and directing, this movie does not ever stop taking itself seriously, you have actors playing scientists that do things no scientist would ever do, and yet you buy it because they just have this air to them that feels truly genuine. Even if you ignore that aspect, a lot of the different characters are just fun and they have some great lines delivered hilariously. I have a feeling director Jack Arnold was aware of this because he really goes all in with some great inserts of the monster that hold off the reveal until just the right time, not to mention the movie has a very ensemble feel to it.
While the story is nothing special it does have a lot of the troupes of the genre; the beauty and beast touches, the monster carrying the girl away limp in its arms, the good scientist and the in it just for fame and glory “evil” one, the quirky local, etc. Even if it’s not wholly original and the movie when combined with its 1955 sequel is just a huge rip off of 1933’s “King Kong”, I still enjoy it for how fun all the characters are and how nicely paced it is. Especially at the beginning and end when movies like this tend to drag at that time.
But of course, a monster movie is nothing without a monster and man do I have lots of love for the Gill man. From the great suit designed by Bud Westmore and his team (Millicent Patrick, Jack Kevan, Chris Mueller, Robert Hickman) to the great portrayal by dual team Ben Chapman (while on the surface) and Ricou Browning (while underwater). All this gives the creature such a depth to even make his menacing of the scientists seem almost like he was the victim (also potentially due to Jack Arnold) and his antagonism only brought to life by the bombastic theme that plays anytime he shows up.
Really the reason I pick this movie is that it is a perfect example of what I hope to see when I see a popcorn movie. It’s goofy, but not stupid. It’s silly, but passionately so. In a word, it just a ton of fun. I have seen it many times and I’ll probably see it many times more before it ever loses this spot that it has here, at number 25.
Number 25:
Creature From The Black Lagoon (1954)
I’ve made it no secret that I have a love for the old B style movies, and especially those from the 50’s and 60’s, and this movie’s the reason why. I was about eight or nine years old when I first saw this movie and I was hooked. Not only was it the first movie I saw in black and white, but it was just so much fun to watch. Scientist exploring an ominous area that no one had apparently seen and lived to tell the tale, a monster that terrorizes them while at the same time looking pretty goofy when you stop to think about it, and just copious amounts of hammy acting.
Why this one over things like “The Blob” or “Them!”? Pretty simple, nostalgia. I can’t help it, the fact that this was the one I saw first is probably just me being all sentimental, but if I’m ever feeling like watching something cheesy and silly with a goofy monster, I reach for this one.
A lot of it has to due with the acting and directing, this movie does not ever stop taking itself seriously, you have actors playing scientists that do things no scientist would ever do, and yet you buy it because they just have this air to them that feels truly genuine. Even if you ignore that aspect, a lot of the different characters are just fun and they have some great lines delivered hilariously. I have a feeling director Jack Arnold was aware of this because he really goes all in with some great inserts of the monster that hold off the reveal until just the right time, not to mention the movie has a very ensemble feel to it.
While the story is nothing special it does have a lot of the troupes of the genre; the beauty and beast touches, the monster carrying the girl away limp in its arms, the good scientist and the in it just for fame and glory “evil” one, the quirky local, etc. Even if it’s not wholly original and the movie when combined with its 1955 sequel is just a huge rip off of 1933’s “King Kong”, I still enjoy it for how fun all the characters are and how nicely paced it is. Especially at the beginning and end when movies like this tend to drag at that time.
But of course, a monster movie is nothing without a monster and man do I have lots of love for the Gill man. From the great suit designed by Bud Westmore and his team (Millicent Patrick, Jack Kevan, Chris Mueller, Robert Hickman) to the great portrayal by dual team Ben Chapman (while on the surface) and Ricou Browning (while underwater). All this gives the creature such a depth to even make his menacing of the scientists seem almost like he was the victim (also potentially due to Jack Arnold) and his antagonism only brought to life by the bombastic theme that plays anytime he shows up.
Really the reason I pick this movie is that it is a perfect example of what I hope to see when I see a popcorn movie. It’s goofy, but not stupid. It’s silly, but passionately so. In a word, it just a ton of fun. I have seen it many times and I’ll probably see it many times more before it ever loses this spot that it has here, at number 25.
Friday, April 20, 2012
You Might Not Have Seen It: John Woo's The Killer
You know in this day and age, I'm getting sick of action movies. I know this is going to make me sound old, but seriously, action movies used to be so much better. These days it's nothing. No really, nothing. No characters, no stakes, nothing to really make you care. Just dumb vapid crap meant to just impress you with the pretty 'splosions, fast cars and women with no personality in skimpy outfits. And I really want this to end.
Did we forget that half the fun of the "Die Hard" series was actually the character of John McClaine? Or that editing doesn't mean cutting every two seconds to cover up lazy shot design? Or even that an action movie CAN have a good story? Apparently! So as I'd rather not stew on this throughout the whole review, I'd like to talk about one of my favorite action movies of all time, John Woo's "The Killer".
John Woo is a director that some of you may have heard of, he had a few big budget studio movies like the John Travolta/Nicolas Cage actioner "Face/off" and the WWII film "Windtalkers". But what got him noticed was he stylized Hong Kong action flicks such as "A Better Tomorrow 1&2", "Hard Boiled" and of course, "The Killer".
To explain why I love "The Killer" so much is both simple and at the same time tricky, but let's get the easy out of the way first. The movie has a great story. Action legend Chow Yun-Fat plays an assassin for the Triad, but he actually is not an evil psychopath, he has a moral code and during one of his hits, he ends up essentially blinding a young woman. To make amends for this, he goes out of his way to try and make her life better, in the process falling in love with her, leading to him accepting one last job. At the same time, there's a police detective (Danny Lee) that's trying to track him down and added to this the Triad now wants him dead since he wants out, and while this is all going on he and the detective begin to form a mutual respect and eventually friendship paid off on in the film's truly amazing climax. The acting is superb on all fronts. Chow Yun-Fat just owns this character from the word go, with an imposing presence during his gun fights, but during the character scenes an undeniable charisma that makes you like him despite how he earns a living because he literally just sees it as a job. At the same time Danny Lee blends the right amount of determination and moral justice onto his character, not to mention that he and Chow Yun-Fat have great chemistry together and you really see a friendship develop between the two. Not to mention the way the bad guys act just adds so much suspense to every encounter with them there is. These are guys to do not mess around and you really want to see the heroes come out on top because they both have great motivations and because of the films shockingly brilliant climax has a huge amount of weight that the audience is greatly invested in. Especially when the ending goes a different direction than what you'd think, but is much more fitting for the story.
And on top of all this, the great story, terrific acting, we have Woo's amazing direction. There's an elegance to every scene and you can tell that every shot was planned, and every gun fight was staged so intensely and yet at the same time looks almost improvisational in how natural it feels. Woo grabs the viewer from the word go and keeps you on the edge of your seat during all the intense action, which has such a frenzied chaos and yet isn't jarring, or over done, at the same time finding ways to let the audience breathe while still keeping a pace that is engaging and adding to the story and even more dramatic weight to each successive action sequence. Plus this movie drips of nice mood and yeah, it's 80's-ness shows but that truly adds to how interesting a watch it is and it just feels so right.
The photography is gorgeous compliments of Wong Wing-Hang. Creating a nicely morose color palate to give rise to that great atmosphere I was just talking about and the editing actually takes the time to let you see it and doesn't need to cut all the time to allow for a feeling of chaos and tension, just a well thought out and executed pace with cuts made when they are needed for dramatic effect, not to cover up directorial failings.
There's nothing that Woo didn't think of for this movie. It's just a classic of the entire action genre and I can't recommend it enough. I actually showed this to a friend while re-watching it for this review and at one point he turned to me and ask: "Why don't they make action movies like this anymore?" I don't know, but I honestly think it has to do with the fact that action movies just seem lazier these days. There's no passion to them and that doesn't make for an engaging movie. "The Killer" is just a great film and if you claim yourself to be any kind of action movie fan, you owe it to yourself to see this movie. You won't regret it.
The Killer gets
5 awesome shoot outs out of 5
Did we forget that half the fun of the "Die Hard" series was actually the character of John McClaine? Or that editing doesn't mean cutting every two seconds to cover up lazy shot design? Or even that an action movie CAN have a good story? Apparently! So as I'd rather not stew on this throughout the whole review, I'd like to talk about one of my favorite action movies of all time, John Woo's "The Killer".
John Woo is a director that some of you may have heard of, he had a few big budget studio movies like the John Travolta/Nicolas Cage actioner "Face/off" and the WWII film "Windtalkers". But what got him noticed was he stylized Hong Kong action flicks such as "A Better Tomorrow 1&2", "Hard Boiled" and of course, "The Killer".
To explain why I love "The Killer" so much is both simple and at the same time tricky, but let's get the easy out of the way first. The movie has a great story. Action legend Chow Yun-Fat plays an assassin for the Triad, but he actually is not an evil psychopath, he has a moral code and during one of his hits, he ends up essentially blinding a young woman. To make amends for this, he goes out of his way to try and make her life better, in the process falling in love with her, leading to him accepting one last job. At the same time, there's a police detective (Danny Lee) that's trying to track him down and added to this the Triad now wants him dead since he wants out, and while this is all going on he and the detective begin to form a mutual respect and eventually friendship paid off on in the film's truly amazing climax. The acting is superb on all fronts. Chow Yun-Fat just owns this character from the word go, with an imposing presence during his gun fights, but during the character scenes an undeniable charisma that makes you like him despite how he earns a living because he literally just sees it as a job. At the same time Danny Lee blends the right amount of determination and moral justice onto his character, not to mention that he and Chow Yun-Fat have great chemistry together and you really see a friendship develop between the two. Not to mention the way the bad guys act just adds so much suspense to every encounter with them there is. These are guys to do not mess around and you really want to see the heroes come out on top because they both have great motivations and because of the films shockingly brilliant climax has a huge amount of weight that the audience is greatly invested in. Especially when the ending goes a different direction than what you'd think, but is much more fitting for the story.
And on top of all this, the great story, terrific acting, we have Woo's amazing direction. There's an elegance to every scene and you can tell that every shot was planned, and every gun fight was staged so intensely and yet at the same time looks almost improvisational in how natural it feels. Woo grabs the viewer from the word go and keeps you on the edge of your seat during all the intense action, which has such a frenzied chaos and yet isn't jarring, or over done, at the same time finding ways to let the audience breathe while still keeping a pace that is engaging and adding to the story and even more dramatic weight to each successive action sequence. Plus this movie drips of nice mood and yeah, it's 80's-ness shows but that truly adds to how interesting a watch it is and it just feels so right.
The photography is gorgeous compliments of Wong Wing-Hang. Creating a nicely morose color palate to give rise to that great atmosphere I was just talking about and the editing actually takes the time to let you see it and doesn't need to cut all the time to allow for a feeling of chaos and tension, just a well thought out and executed pace with cuts made when they are needed for dramatic effect, not to cover up directorial failings.
There's nothing that Woo didn't think of for this movie. It's just a classic of the entire action genre and I can't recommend it enough. I actually showed this to a friend while re-watching it for this review and at one point he turned to me and ask: "Why don't they make action movies like this anymore?" I don't know, but I honestly think it has to do with the fact that action movies just seem lazier these days. There's no passion to them and that doesn't make for an engaging movie. "The Killer" is just a great film and if you claim yourself to be any kind of action movie fan, you owe it to yourself to see this movie. You won't regret it.
The Killer gets
5 awesome shoot outs out of 5
Monday, April 9, 2012
Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn Part 1 and The Hunger Games
We've been in an interesting time for bad movies, where it used to be luck of the draw if a critic had a bad one on their hands we've now been blessed with a consistent whipping boy for the past four years in the form of the "Twilight Saga" based on a series of four books aimed at young adults, specifically tween aged girls. While on the surface being harmless enough as a book, (apparently, I've never actually read them as, you know, I'm a guy.) the films have been very harshly bashed for their terrible acting, bland direction, awful scripts (all written by the same screenwriter I might add.) and a flat out horrible message for younger girls. However, things are finally coming to a close, as last year saw the release of the fourth movie, and this year saw the release of the light at the end of the awful tunnel.
To go over why "Breaking Dawn Part 1" is a terrible movie would be like sounding off on the twilight check list. So, allow me to make it more interesting by asking you to take a shot from whatever alcoholic beverage of your choosing as I run down my response to this movie. This time around, worst female character ever Bella Swan has finally gotten her somewhat reluctant boyfriend Edward to marry her and all is right with the world. But on the honeymoon when Bella says she wants to have sex with him BEFORE he turns her into a vampire, (yeah if you didn't know, Edward's a vampire and there's a love triangle involving another guy, Jacob, who is a werewolf. if you didn't know this already, color me surprised.) said sexual encounters end up with Bella getting pregnant with a vampire human hybrid and Jacob breaks off from his tribe to protect her from them, as the werewolves are pissed about this for a reason I'm still trying to figure out.
So the first big problem with this movie is the acting (take a shot). Again Kristen Stewart plays the non entity that is Bella Swan and again all her scene are dull, emotionless and just making you wish the character had died in the last movie to end this series (take a shot). Robert Pattinson returns as her boyfriend/husband that seems to be physically ill at her existence (take a shot) and proves that the only satisfying thing he's ever done in a movie is die (Seriously, I love "Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire" so much more now in hindsight). No one in this movie acts, they more go through the motions while thinking about what this and the next movie's paychecks will net them. The direction doesn't matter (take a shot) because the film maker is working with terrible material (take a shot) and the script is just awful (take a shot). The movie really hammers home how pointless it is in this one because there was no reason for them split the fourth book into two parts, but Summit entertainment and Lionsgate would have lost their cash cow and that would be bad. So horribly is this movie padded, that it is constantly clawing for the very right to exist. It's a pointless movie plain and simple. This is why I've never reviewed the "Twilight" movies, there is literally NOTHING new to say! The movies are bad and there's only so many ways to say that. So instead I'll just comment on what everyone has a problem with in these movies, it's terrible message.
Basically, when you get down to it, "Twilight" is a bad lifetime movie without the actual physical abuse. It's all about how Bella loves Edward so much she marries him and wants to become a vampire to spend forever with him. It's not so much that this is the idea that "Twilight" is selling as it is people looking a little too deeply into it. My girl friend who HAS read the books pretty much summed up the whole thing like this: They're about having a boyfriend. That's it, it's basically a trashy romance novel without the sex instead opting for a wait until your married abstinence message. I personally don't really see a lot of what people have issues with when I watch these things, but I will agree that Bella Swan is a terrible female role model. She's just a horrible person, every action she does is selfish, all her justifications are despicable, and the way she treats people is just down right cruel. I would actually love someone to remake this entire series without changing a thing except playing Bella's actions like SHE was the main villain. That'd be an interesting movie in my book and you'd barely have to change a damn thing. I bring all this up because I don't think younger girls should look up to this character, and now there is thankfully better one to fill the gap.
"The Hunger Games" is the Lionsgate follow up to the wild success of things like the "Harry Potter" and "Twilight" franchises with another this time trilogy of books by Suzanne Collins. In it's story, set in a somewhat post apocalyptic America, the country has been divided into a bunch of different zones and each year one male and one female between the ages of 12 and 18 to fight to the death in what are known as the Hunger Games. Our hero, Katniss Everdeen, has volunteered for the latest Games to save her sister. In the lead up to the actual Games, she and her cohort Peeta are taken to the Capitol to promote themselves to get sponsors to help them out in the arena.
So at it's core the story is basically using the old gladiator games to make a deeper point gimmick and I feel it really works. Not having an entirely original story doesn't instantly make a movie bad, but I'm already starting to hear some backlash much in the same vain as "Dances with Wolves" in space with this being a more watered down version of things like "Battle Royale". I get that, I'm actually reading THAT book at the moment and when I went to "The Hunger Games" yeah it came to my mind, but really, this kind of plot is more about it's point than it's story. "Battle Royale" was more making about about Japanese culture and the "entitlement" generation while "The Hunger Games" is more making points about things like The 1% and reality tv shows. Even with all that it is a very well told version of said "unoriginal" story. The characters are all fleshed out and all the main characters have interesting arcs sprinkled with fun supporting characters.
The director on this was Gary Ross, famous for "Pleasantville" and "Seabiscuit", and he really goes all in on this one. He proves once again that he can get great performances out of great actors while at the same time making the movie interesting to look at... for the most part, but I'll get to that. Jennifer Lawrence is Katniss, and once again proves that she's a truly incredible talent and I'm glad to see her getting more high profile work. But the real show stealer, like always, is Woody Harrelson as a former Games survivor that's become a somewhat embittered drunk that's supposed to be Katniss and Peeta's mentor. He's just great fun every time he's on screen. In fact if I was to go on about how fun Stanley Tucci is as on of the hosts, or how great an over top caricature Elizabeth Banks turns in, but that would get really long and I have better things to talk about, just know that the acting in this movie is really entertaining.
Honestly I really liked this movie and the only real problems I have are nit picks like how the pacing at the beginning feels kind of rushed or how in some of the action scenes the shaky cam, while justified gets a little tiresome as it makes it hard to see what's happening, but those are just nit picks. Overall the movie is great and knowing that it's roughly being marketed to the same demographic as "Twilight" is a real win in my book. So while I'm giving "Twilight Saga: The Set Up for the next one" a total zero for just being a terrible movie. I'm more than happy to give "The Hunger Games" a 4.5 on my scale. It's a smart, interesting sci fi story with a great cast, don't miss this one.
To go over why "Breaking Dawn Part 1" is a terrible movie would be like sounding off on the twilight check list. So, allow me to make it more interesting by asking you to take a shot from whatever alcoholic beverage of your choosing as I run down my response to this movie. This time around, worst female character ever Bella Swan has finally gotten her somewhat reluctant boyfriend Edward to marry her and all is right with the world. But on the honeymoon when Bella says she wants to have sex with him BEFORE he turns her into a vampire, (yeah if you didn't know, Edward's a vampire and there's a love triangle involving another guy, Jacob, who is a werewolf. if you didn't know this already, color me surprised.) said sexual encounters end up with Bella getting pregnant with a vampire human hybrid and Jacob breaks off from his tribe to protect her from them, as the werewolves are pissed about this for a reason I'm still trying to figure out.
So the first big problem with this movie is the acting (take a shot). Again Kristen Stewart plays the non entity that is Bella Swan and again all her scene are dull, emotionless and just making you wish the character had died in the last movie to end this series (take a shot). Robert Pattinson returns as her boyfriend/husband that seems to be physically ill at her existence (take a shot) and proves that the only satisfying thing he's ever done in a movie is die (Seriously, I love "Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire" so much more now in hindsight). No one in this movie acts, they more go through the motions while thinking about what this and the next movie's paychecks will net them. The direction doesn't matter (take a shot) because the film maker is working with terrible material (take a shot) and the script is just awful (take a shot). The movie really hammers home how pointless it is in this one because there was no reason for them split the fourth book into two parts, but Summit entertainment and Lionsgate would have lost their cash cow and that would be bad. So horribly is this movie padded, that it is constantly clawing for the very right to exist. It's a pointless movie plain and simple. This is why I've never reviewed the "Twilight" movies, there is literally NOTHING new to say! The movies are bad and there's only so many ways to say that. So instead I'll just comment on what everyone has a problem with in these movies, it's terrible message.
Basically, when you get down to it, "Twilight" is a bad lifetime movie without the actual physical abuse. It's all about how Bella loves Edward so much she marries him and wants to become a vampire to spend forever with him. It's not so much that this is the idea that "Twilight" is selling as it is people looking a little too deeply into it. My girl friend who HAS read the books pretty much summed up the whole thing like this: They're about having a boyfriend. That's it, it's basically a trashy romance novel without the sex instead opting for a wait until your married abstinence message. I personally don't really see a lot of what people have issues with when I watch these things, but I will agree that Bella Swan is a terrible female role model. She's just a horrible person, every action she does is selfish, all her justifications are despicable, and the way she treats people is just down right cruel. I would actually love someone to remake this entire series without changing a thing except playing Bella's actions like SHE was the main villain. That'd be an interesting movie in my book and you'd barely have to change a damn thing. I bring all this up because I don't think younger girls should look up to this character, and now there is thankfully better one to fill the gap.
"The Hunger Games" is the Lionsgate follow up to the wild success of things like the "Harry Potter" and "Twilight" franchises with another this time trilogy of books by Suzanne Collins. In it's story, set in a somewhat post apocalyptic America, the country has been divided into a bunch of different zones and each year one male and one female between the ages of 12 and 18 to fight to the death in what are known as the Hunger Games. Our hero, Katniss Everdeen, has volunteered for the latest Games to save her sister. In the lead up to the actual Games, she and her cohort Peeta are taken to the Capitol to promote themselves to get sponsors to help them out in the arena.
So at it's core the story is basically using the old gladiator games to make a deeper point gimmick and I feel it really works. Not having an entirely original story doesn't instantly make a movie bad, but I'm already starting to hear some backlash much in the same vain as "Dances with Wolves" in space with this being a more watered down version of things like "Battle Royale". I get that, I'm actually reading THAT book at the moment and when I went to "The Hunger Games" yeah it came to my mind, but really, this kind of plot is more about it's point than it's story. "Battle Royale" was more making about about Japanese culture and the "entitlement" generation while "The Hunger Games" is more making points about things like The 1% and reality tv shows. Even with all that it is a very well told version of said "unoriginal" story. The characters are all fleshed out and all the main characters have interesting arcs sprinkled with fun supporting characters.
The director on this was Gary Ross, famous for "Pleasantville" and "Seabiscuit", and he really goes all in on this one. He proves once again that he can get great performances out of great actors while at the same time making the movie interesting to look at... for the most part, but I'll get to that. Jennifer Lawrence is Katniss, and once again proves that she's a truly incredible talent and I'm glad to see her getting more high profile work. But the real show stealer, like always, is Woody Harrelson as a former Games survivor that's become a somewhat embittered drunk that's supposed to be Katniss and Peeta's mentor. He's just great fun every time he's on screen. In fact if I was to go on about how fun Stanley Tucci is as on of the hosts, or how great an over top caricature Elizabeth Banks turns in, but that would get really long and I have better things to talk about, just know that the acting in this movie is really entertaining.
Honestly I really liked this movie and the only real problems I have are nit picks like how the pacing at the beginning feels kind of rushed or how in some of the action scenes the shaky cam, while justified gets a little tiresome as it makes it hard to see what's happening, but those are just nit picks. Overall the movie is great and knowing that it's roughly being marketed to the same demographic as "Twilight" is a real win in my book. So while I'm giving "Twilight Saga: The Set Up for the next one" a total zero for just being a terrible movie. I'm more than happy to give "The Hunger Games" a 4.5 on my scale. It's a smart, interesting sci fi story with a great cast, don't miss this one.
Monday, April 2, 2012
The Beyond
If you were to ask me what my personal favorite genre of movies is, I'd probably have to go with Horror, at least as I am currently writing this. This probably isn't that much of a shock considering how much I like to bring the genre up in my previous reviews and the fact that I get so infuriated by the recent string of horror remakes. (As an aside, I have recently seen that god awful remake posing as a prequel for John Carpenter's excellent version of "The Thing" and I almost reviewed that instead but all I could say was FUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCK!!!! It's terrible plain and simple and I want people to know that they must avoid it like the plague. Buy, yes BUY the John Carpenter version to show Universal Studios how ashamed they should be for green lighting that movie.) On the subject of remakes, a thing that one might note about this string of them is that before it was american horror films from the 80's, it was remakes of foreign and specifically Japanese horror films. I mention this because right in that time I was really starting to hit my main interest in horror and finding this out interested me in horror fodder from other countries, and thus I found the wondrous world of Euro-Horror. Most of what I have watched is from England, with things like Hammer, and Italy, thus bringing us to today's movie, Lucio Fulchi's "The Beyond".
Fulchi didn't really make too many waves over here in the states until his film "Zombi 2" known here simply as "Zombie" an unofficial sequel to the European cut of George Romero's "Dawn of the Dead" (Called "Zombi" in Europe hence why there isn't a "Zombi" 1 as pretty much all the home media for "Dawn" has simply kept the title.) Jumping on the success he had there he very quickly became a horror guy through and through with titles like "City of the Living Dead" and "The Beyond".
"The Beyond" is actually my favorite piece of Fulchi's work, but it has taken me forever to track down a copy for my home collection. Upon my first viewing of the film I immediately went out to get it, but the anchor bay edition I wanted had gone out of print, and all the remaining copies were far too expensive for my poor high school self. Now, thanks to the grace of someone not knowing what they had, I picked up a copy for a steal at my local haunt for used DVD's and thus this review is born.
So, plot! A woman buys a hotel in in Louisiana to renovate and re-open, not aware that it's actually built over one of the seven gateways into hell and when the wall blocking the gate way is torn down, well, really bad stuff happens. It's odd that I pick this as my favorite out of Fulchi's work because the movie is kind of a mess. The script likes to meander around with no real rhyme or reason, featuring a lot of horror set pieces that, while well done and creepy, don't really seem to be there for any good reason.
It feels weird and at times disjointed, not helped by the age old problem that many Italian horror films featured both American and Italian actors speaking English, but several of the Italian actors were re-dubbed due to not actually knowing English that well or to speaking it with a thick accent, the effect of this just really brings you out of the movie but strangely, this movie just works for me. It's just drips creepy mood and atmosphere, not to mention its just terrifying imagery.
In the scheme of things, "The Beyond" is basically Fulchi doing another movie about the living dead, and as far as zombie fare goes, it's solid. The dead get up and shamble about, people can't kill them without destroying the head, etc. It sports some pretty well done zombie make ups and the gore effects that come with that territory are well executed and impressive. The only real flaw is the story and pacing. It's clear fulchi was all about the set pieces and because of that, the story gets to hang with several scene that consist of clunky exposition and a few moments that really feel like they're in their to pad the run time. I mean, I've crucified other movies for this kind of problem mercilessly and yet I really like this one. Why is that?
Well, while it has flaws that I could understand some people being unable to overlook, it has numerous set pieces that I really dig, but acknowledge just come out of nowhere sometimes. Like the film's infamous spider sequence. It's really well done, but it brings the movie to a screeching halt saying "Look! Creepy spiders!". It's a well built scene that is genuinely weird and creepy, not to mention has a well done pace in it's own right. I really can't fully explain what it is about this movie that just does it for me other than the way it looks and it's amazingly good climax. It's just a moody flick, with some real interesting horror scenes and while it's technical failings are rather large when you think about it, I just can't help it. This movie, for me at least, really works and I highly recommend it. Hey, what do you have to lose? I can promise you won't see anything quite like it coming out in the near future.
3 out of 5.
Friday, March 9, 2012
Drive, Another Earth, and My Thoughts on the Indie Scene
In my time as a movie buff, I have taken some pretty interesting stances on certain celluloid issues, from my position that "Sucker Punch" is neither the god awfully piece of work its haters say it is, nor the masterpiece its defenders claim it to be, but simply an "ok" action flick; to the fact that I find "Dances with Wolves" to probably the most overrated piece of media in existence. And today, I get to lay down yet another one, I have a particular dislike for the current independent film industry. STOP! Let me clarify! I don't HATE it, but I really don't think it's some seminal area of film making, good things do come out of it, but like Hollywood, it has it's share of indefensible total crap. Allow me to explain with two examples, both from last year, and both technically independent works i.e. they were done without the aide of the big Hollywood studios during production.
The first is the movie "Another Earth". This movie embodies absolutely EVERYTHING I despise about the indie scene. It's a movie that has a decent enough premise, in this case that a second version of Earth has appeared in the solar system and it appears to be a very similar version of our own. Cool premise, right? It's why I watched it. But that's not what it's really about, no, it's about a girl that got drunk and killed a man's family in a car accident and how she deal with her crime and makes penance for it. I can't tell you how awful I found this movie, it reeks of self indulgence that's just clawing for any reason to exist outside that fact. This movie has a principle protagonist that is in EVERY scene, and this main actress (Brit Marling)was also the co-writer of the script, so there is no defending that point. This was her trying to create a vehicle for herself to show off her "acting" and I can't describe how horribly she fails. First of all, there are many many scenes where she's just sitting there doing nothing, well, not NOTHING per say, but they are clearly scenes there to "enhance" her character but, since she's kind of bland all over, they just end up being padding. Added to all this, the script seems to try and play her off as likable and sympathetic but given the actions she takes in the movie, I really don't want to sympathize with her, what she does gets down right cruel!
Not to mention that this movie is about as interestingly shot as a TV sitcom. It's just a bunch of close ups and some coverage shots to mix it up between the pretentious shots of our oh so likable main character walking in front of an effect shot of the second Earth while talking heads drone about its existence's implications. This brings us to the big flaw of the movie for me. Yeah I know I said that the actor co-writing the script bugged me but that's just because it felt like she was trying to bite of more than she could chew, actors can write and act in things very well, Simon Pegg springs to mind here. No, the big flaw I have with this movie is how it handles its main theme, Existentialism.
I don't really have time to go into too much detail on it, as it is a big philosophical principle, but I'm just going to say this: If your movie is an existentialist work, it had damn well explore the implications of that well and that is no simple task. This movie fails in it miserably as what it's trying to explore is with a poorly performed character that does some out right horrible stuff. This is a common trap for lazy writers that deal with Existentialism, and I'm frankly sick of it. But what really gets my teeth grinding about something like this is how the protagonist is usually played off, they are just depressed. Now, this doesn't instantly bad, a character coming out of an existential depression can make for a good story, hell it's basically a good part of the plot to "Clerks", a personal favorite of mine! But here, like most others, the character just never evolves, never become all that interesting, and just basically spends the movie say "Oh life is awful and I'm terrible and poor pitiful me." This is one of the things I despise most about the indie scene as a whole, it's a lot of people that are just making less stellar versions of things that have worked before, and maybe adding in things that they heard vaguely from their Philosophy 101 class to make it sound like their shallow movie is somehow deep and moving. However, this isn't always the case. One of the best films of last year was the art house crime thriller "Drive".
"Drive" gets everything right. It's fantastically shot, amazingly well directed and perfectly acted. In it Ryan Gosling plays a mechanic/part time stunt driver who moonlights as a getaway driver, and is actually never given an identity outside simply Driver. He begins to form a bond with a female tenant of his apartment building and decides to help her fresh out of prison husband with one last job and then things go south fast. Already that plot sounds like something that isn't even remotely original and yeah, it's not, but that's where the execution comes in.
This movie is less about the action, though it does go there in its own way, but it's all about mood. It has a very hazy atmosphere and actually feels like a bit of a send up of Tony Scott's "True Romance" (yes, I know it was a Tarantino script, don't correct me, I'm meaning the director here, who had more say on shot design.) This is helped by the amazing cast, from Gosling's almost emotionless, yet utterly human Driver. To Albert Brooks' absolutely jaw dropping turn as one of the gangsters (I'm not joking when I say he was totally snubbed by the Oscars.) Plus, I'm seriously not exaggerating when I say this is one of the most amazing well shot and edited movies I've seen in a long time. It's just that rare movie that you watch and it just washes over you with how good it is, and you have to keep reminding yourself that it's basically got the plot of a low budget movie that Canon might have released in the mid 80's.
It also proves my point, both movies do actually. The independent film industry can produce truly amazing work like "Drive" that just proves even if you have an unoriginal story, you can always leave your own touch on it, while "Another Earth" just proves that even without the constraints of a major studio watering everything down, you can still produce a total turd. And as a last little bit of food for thought, next time you want to bash Hollywood as soul less and all about the effects unlike Independent films, consider this: The "Star Wars" prequels are technically independent films.
Final Scores:
Another Earth: 0 out of 5
Drive: 5 out of 5
The first is the movie "Another Earth". This movie embodies absolutely EVERYTHING I despise about the indie scene. It's a movie that has a decent enough premise, in this case that a second version of Earth has appeared in the solar system and it appears to be a very similar version of our own. Cool premise, right? It's why I watched it. But that's not what it's really about, no, it's about a girl that got drunk and killed a man's family in a car accident and how she deal with her crime and makes penance for it. I can't tell you how awful I found this movie, it reeks of self indulgence that's just clawing for any reason to exist outside that fact. This movie has a principle protagonist that is in EVERY scene, and this main actress (Brit Marling)was also the co-writer of the script, so there is no defending that point. This was her trying to create a vehicle for herself to show off her "acting" and I can't describe how horribly she fails. First of all, there are many many scenes where she's just sitting there doing nothing, well, not NOTHING per say, but they are clearly scenes there to "enhance" her character but, since she's kind of bland all over, they just end up being padding. Added to all this, the script seems to try and play her off as likable and sympathetic but given the actions she takes in the movie, I really don't want to sympathize with her, what she does gets down right cruel!
Not to mention that this movie is about as interestingly shot as a TV sitcom. It's just a bunch of close ups and some coverage shots to mix it up between the pretentious shots of our oh so likable main character walking in front of an effect shot of the second Earth while talking heads drone about its existence's implications. This brings us to the big flaw of the movie for me. Yeah I know I said that the actor co-writing the script bugged me but that's just because it felt like she was trying to bite of more than she could chew, actors can write and act in things very well, Simon Pegg springs to mind here. No, the big flaw I have with this movie is how it handles its main theme, Existentialism.
I don't really have time to go into too much detail on it, as it is a big philosophical principle, but I'm just going to say this: If your movie is an existentialist work, it had damn well explore the implications of that well and that is no simple task. This movie fails in it miserably as what it's trying to explore is with a poorly performed character that does some out right horrible stuff. This is a common trap for lazy writers that deal with Existentialism, and I'm frankly sick of it. But what really gets my teeth grinding about something like this is how the protagonist is usually played off, they are just depressed. Now, this doesn't instantly bad, a character coming out of an existential depression can make for a good story, hell it's basically a good part of the plot to "Clerks", a personal favorite of mine! But here, like most others, the character just never evolves, never become all that interesting, and just basically spends the movie say "Oh life is awful and I'm terrible and poor pitiful me." This is one of the things I despise most about the indie scene as a whole, it's a lot of people that are just making less stellar versions of things that have worked before, and maybe adding in things that they heard vaguely from their Philosophy 101 class to make it sound like their shallow movie is somehow deep and moving. However, this isn't always the case. One of the best films of last year was the art house crime thriller "Drive".
"Drive" gets everything right. It's fantastically shot, amazingly well directed and perfectly acted. In it Ryan Gosling plays a mechanic/part time stunt driver who moonlights as a getaway driver, and is actually never given an identity outside simply Driver. He begins to form a bond with a female tenant of his apartment building and decides to help her fresh out of prison husband with one last job and then things go south fast. Already that plot sounds like something that isn't even remotely original and yeah, it's not, but that's where the execution comes in.
This movie is less about the action, though it does go there in its own way, but it's all about mood. It has a very hazy atmosphere and actually feels like a bit of a send up of Tony Scott's "True Romance" (yes, I know it was a Tarantino script, don't correct me, I'm meaning the director here, who had more say on shot design.) This is helped by the amazing cast, from Gosling's almost emotionless, yet utterly human Driver. To Albert Brooks' absolutely jaw dropping turn as one of the gangsters (I'm not joking when I say he was totally snubbed by the Oscars.) Plus, I'm seriously not exaggerating when I say this is one of the most amazing well shot and edited movies I've seen in a long time. It's just that rare movie that you watch and it just washes over you with how good it is, and you have to keep reminding yourself that it's basically got the plot of a low budget movie that Canon might have released in the mid 80's.
It also proves my point, both movies do actually. The independent film industry can produce truly amazing work like "Drive" that just proves even if you have an unoriginal story, you can always leave your own touch on it, while "Another Earth" just proves that even without the constraints of a major studio watering everything down, you can still produce a total turd. And as a last little bit of food for thought, next time you want to bash Hollywood as soul less and all about the effects unlike Independent films, consider this: The "Star Wars" prequels are technically independent films.
Final Scores:
Another Earth: 0 out of 5
Drive: 5 out of 5
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)