http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2042568/
well, i dunno. do you like folk music? i run hot and cold, myself, but i think this movie for the most part showed the entertaining bits of the folk scene. (parts they did not show included things like late-night, pot-fueled introspections and the smell of dirty hippies.) it also really really makes me want to suggest that you see walk the line (same movie, except about johnny cash) instead.
inside llewyn davis depicts a guy who just cannot manage to not be an asshole. because he is an asshole, things keep happening to him for which there is little response but to keep being an asshole. this concept has been explored to death already (cf. my life,) and i think that unless you are going to do something novel with the concept--such as provide a solution which is accessible to most people--it is not worth further discussion. especially if that discussion involves glorifying hippies in some way.
inside llewyn davis gets two moonshoots.
2015-12-21
starred up
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2567712/
holy incomprehensible dialogue, batman! luckily the acting and scenery tell the story just as well as the dialogue does, mostly by repeatedly stabbing people with makeshift weapons. it is an analogy, you know, for the relationship between the boy and his father. i have already forgotten who beat up who, but they did a great job of showing that relationship working out in different ways via the other characters. some hugs, some stabs, some bodies dumped over the railing.
also, pro tip: if you find yourself in an australian prison, remember that your priorities are 1) make weapons, 2) hire a translator, and 3) HAVE FUN.
starred up gets two toothbrush/razor/wrenches.
holy incomprehensible dialogue, batman! luckily the acting and scenery tell the story just as well as the dialogue does, mostly by repeatedly stabbing people with makeshift weapons. it is an analogy, you know, for the relationship between the boy and his father. i have already forgotten who beat up who, but they did a great job of showing that relationship working out in different ways via the other characters. some hugs, some stabs, some bodies dumped over the railing.
also, pro tip: if you find yourself in an australian prison, remember that your priorities are 1) make weapons, 2) hire a translator, and 3) HAVE FUN.
starred up gets two toothbrush/razor/wrenches.
2015-12-18
OSS 117: lost in rio
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1167660
oss 117: lost in rio is basically a french version of the naked gun. so if you are into that sort of thing, this is right up your alley. a couple things set it apart from a typical usian spoof movie. first, they did some really interesting video editing to tell some of the story. second, dujardin's expressiveness was quite impressive. there were a few scenes where he said nothing, but i was still able to follow his train of thought for three or four jumps. or maybe i am just getting smarter, though it is hard for me to understand how that could even be possible.
also, this is the most offensive film i have seen in years, but i guess the point was to show that oss 117 was mind-blowingly bigoted. check. great success.
oss 117 gets two neanderthals.
oss 117: lost in rio is basically a french version of the naked gun. so if you are into that sort of thing, this is right up your alley. a couple things set it apart from a typical usian spoof movie. first, they did some really interesting video editing to tell some of the story. second, dujardin's expressiveness was quite impressive. there were a few scenes where he said nothing, but i was still able to follow his train of thought for three or four jumps. or maybe i am just getting smarter, though it is hard for me to understand how that could even be possible.
also, this is the most offensive film i have seen in years, but i guess the point was to show that oss 117 was mind-blowingly bigoted. check. great success.
oss 117 gets two neanderthals.
2015-11-09
the gunman
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2515034
the gunman is sean penn's entry into the whole assassin-on-international-stage genre. i liked the grittiness and his essential humanity, but i think he played up the concussion thing too much. it seemed to serve no purpose other than to give the bad guys an advantage to key moments. i would have been happier if they had just made him an agent instead of a superagent with an obscure disability. or hell, just make him a superagent, those are fun to watch, too. superagents are allowed get old, you know. they get the job done more with thinking ahead and knowing what tricks to play than by having perfect aim and incredible physiques. it is fine, that is still entertaining. i would also have been happy if he had essentially revisited the photographer character from walter mitty and just given him a gun. i mention it because i felt like they were halfway there already. what was sean penn doing while walter mitty was chasing him around, anyway? probably shooting thugs.
the gunman gets two red flags.
the gunman is sean penn's entry into the whole assassin-on-international-stage genre. i liked the grittiness and his essential humanity, but i think he played up the concussion thing too much. it seemed to serve no purpose other than to give the bad guys an advantage to key moments. i would have been happier if they had just made him an agent instead of a superagent with an obscure disability. or hell, just make him a superagent, those are fun to watch, too. superagents are allowed get old, you know. they get the job done more with thinking ahead and knowing what tricks to play than by having perfect aim and incredible physiques. it is fine, that is still entertaining. i would also have been happy if he had essentially revisited the photographer character from walter mitty and just given him a gun. i mention it because i felt like they were halfway there already. what was sean penn doing while walter mitty was chasing him around, anyway? probably shooting thugs.
the gunman gets two red flags.
find me guilty
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0419749
when a film is based on real life, that does not mean they are telling you a true story. it just means that something that happened in real life inspired somebody to write a screenplay, which was later edited and rewritten and interpreted into a movie that may or may not bear resemblance to the thing that really happened. find me guilty has a twist on the based-on-real-life thing in that it makes the claim that most of the courtroom dialogue is taken directly from the trial this movie was based on. however, if you pay attention to which dialogue they are showing you, it is pretty clear that very little of it is the stuff that would have been entered into the court record. opening and closing statements, sidebars, stuff in the judge's chambers, lunch conversations, running into the prosecutor in the hall, chatting before things get started for the day--all of that is off the record. so really, when they tell you that it was based on real life, they are telling you that they fabricated the story out of whole cloth. i find this annoying, and i would really like it if everybody would stop putting those "based on a true story" notices at the beginning of their movies, at least when the only point is to add some fake gravitas to the proceedings.
so there is that. otherwise, i loved that vin diesel was the guy. they did a great job of making him not look like a towering man-mountain, and he did a fabulous job of looking like the little boot-licking schmuck that the part called for.
find me guilty gets two sidebars and a your-honour-able mention for casting vin diesel as the schmuck.
when a film is based on real life, that does not mean they are telling you a true story. it just means that something that happened in real life inspired somebody to write a screenplay, which was later edited and rewritten and interpreted into a movie that may or may not bear resemblance to the thing that really happened. find me guilty has a twist on the based-on-real-life thing in that it makes the claim that most of the courtroom dialogue is taken directly from the trial this movie was based on. however, if you pay attention to which dialogue they are showing you, it is pretty clear that very little of it is the stuff that would have been entered into the court record. opening and closing statements, sidebars, stuff in the judge's chambers, lunch conversations, running into the prosecutor in the hall, chatting before things get started for the day--all of that is off the record. so really, when they tell you that it was based on real life, they are telling you that they fabricated the story out of whole cloth. i find this annoying, and i would really like it if everybody would stop putting those "based on a true story" notices at the beginning of their movies, at least when the only point is to add some fake gravitas to the proceedings.
so there is that. otherwise, i loved that vin diesel was the guy. they did a great job of making him not look like a towering man-mountain, and he did a fabulous job of looking like the little boot-licking schmuck that the part called for.
find me guilty gets two sidebars and a your-honour-able mention for casting vin diesel as the schmuck.
2015-10-31
skin trade
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1641841
skin trade is a huge pile of shit. just in case you get curious about what might be in the pile and be tempted to watch it, let me tell you what is in the pile. we have ron perlman playing a serbian mobster. or russian? no idea, and believe me when i tell you it does not matter. we have dolph lundgren, trying to make a comeback, and more or less performing at the same level he did when he was making 80s movies, which was just a notch above "turd sandwich". we have michael jai white, playing a completely predictable good-guy-gone-ambiguously-bad, which is essentially the role he always plays. let me tell you, that dude needs to make more stuff like blood and bone and less stuff where he "acts." and finally, there is tony jaa, who cannot seem to find a good role to play post-protector. i has a sad. so really the only good thing about skin trade was the skin, and it is hard to feel good about it when the skin in question has been kidnapped, enslaved, and shipped thousands of miles from its home.
skin trade gets one gratuitous south park reference.
skin trade is a huge pile of shit. just in case you get curious about what might be in the pile and be tempted to watch it, let me tell you what is in the pile. we have ron perlman playing a serbian mobster. or russian? no idea, and believe me when i tell you it does not matter. we have dolph lundgren, trying to make a comeback, and more or less performing at the same level he did when he was making 80s movies, which was just a notch above "turd sandwich". we have michael jai white, playing a completely predictable good-guy-gone-ambiguously-bad, which is essentially the role he always plays. let me tell you, that dude needs to make more stuff like blood and bone and less stuff where he "acts." and finally, there is tony jaa, who cannot seem to find a good role to play post-protector. i has a sad. so really the only good thing about skin trade was the skin, and it is hard to feel good about it when the skin in question has been kidnapped, enslaved, and shipped thousands of miles from its home.
skin trade gets one gratuitous south park reference.
mad max: fury road
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1392190
mad max is pretty much just a bunch of action that does not make a whole lot of sense. that is pretty normal for a modern film, though. the part that is driving me nuts is that i just cannot figure out the symbolism in this piece of shit. you can tell it is there--just look at the use of colours, the striking disfigurements, and the irrational behaviors--but what does it mean? what thread can we follow to piece it together?
for example, the scene with the old mothers and the new mothers has a dark bluish cast. notably, when they show the lovers, they are lit by a small lantern that changes the lighting to a thick yellowish cast before we go back to the dark blue for the part where max declares he will split from the group. this scene is followed by one where the lighting is an oversaturated yellow--max has split from the group, but then decides to rejoin them. so ok, why did the lighting change? are they reversing the usual meaning of blue and yellow in recognition of the desert-like landscape that covers much of this post-apocalyptic world? a soothing blue as a counterpoint to an oppressive yellow? but then why light the lovers in yellow? fuck if i know. maybe it was just night time.
a friend of mine told me that there was probably no symbolism. but i have to believe that somebody was trying to do *something*. otherwise, we are talking about a movie that is just a long string of things that are just stupidly wrong, such as a guy being drained of blood for twice as long as it should take to kill him while he is strapped to the front of a speeding car with no protective gear, then flopped around on the back of the car while it speeds through an impossibly localized storm system until the car crashes, and he not only survives this, but he wakes up before the other guy does and carries him and a heavy car door for a mile through the desert. then has a fight with a bunch of people who are pretty well rested and wins.
mad max: fury road gets one universal donor. if i judge it purely on its merits as an action movie, then it instead gets one guitar solo.
by the way, the part about the universal donor is surely symbolism. everywhere max goes, he has to set things aright. am i right or am i right? answer: yes.
mad max is pretty much just a bunch of action that does not make a whole lot of sense. that is pretty normal for a modern film, though. the part that is driving me nuts is that i just cannot figure out the symbolism in this piece of shit. you can tell it is there--just look at the use of colours, the striking disfigurements, and the irrational behaviors--but what does it mean? what thread can we follow to piece it together?
for example, the scene with the old mothers and the new mothers has a dark bluish cast. notably, when they show the lovers, they are lit by a small lantern that changes the lighting to a thick yellowish cast before we go back to the dark blue for the part where max declares he will split from the group. this scene is followed by one where the lighting is an oversaturated yellow--max has split from the group, but then decides to rejoin them. so ok, why did the lighting change? are they reversing the usual meaning of blue and yellow in recognition of the desert-like landscape that covers much of this post-apocalyptic world? a soothing blue as a counterpoint to an oppressive yellow? but then why light the lovers in yellow? fuck if i know. maybe it was just night time.
a friend of mine told me that there was probably no symbolism. but i have to believe that somebody was trying to do *something*. otherwise, we are talking about a movie that is just a long string of things that are just stupidly wrong, such as a guy being drained of blood for twice as long as it should take to kill him while he is strapped to the front of a speeding car with no protective gear, then flopped around on the back of the car while it speeds through an impossibly localized storm system until the car crashes, and he not only survives this, but he wakes up before the other guy does and carries him and a heavy car door for a mile through the desert. then has a fight with a bunch of people who are pretty well rested and wins.
mad max: fury road gets one universal donor. if i judge it purely on its merits as an action movie, then it instead gets one guitar solo.
by the way, the part about the universal donor is surely symbolism. everywhere max goes, he has to set things aright. am i right or am i right? answer: yes.
2015-10-12
the martian
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt3659388
the martian was ok. they chose to tell it largely via the martian's video blog, no doubt influenced by the similar gimmick of the mission log used by the book. they made it work, mostly by supplementing the video log with normally-shot scenes, but it was pretty awkward. it did do a good job of breaking up the storytelling to let matt damon get introspective and add some humour. too much winking at the camera, but i appreciate that they gave it their best shot.
if i had to point at just one thing that i liked, it would be the technical accuracy. most movies that get technical fall down so hard that you can tell they blew it with your high school physics knowledge, but i think you would have had to had some fairly specific knowledge to see the bugs in this one. the standard is so low, you do not really have to do a good job with technical accuracy, so i really appreciated it here. i did not read the book, but my understanding is that the kudos should mostly be shoved in that direction.
the martian gets three slingshots and a velocity match. hi chewy!
the martian was ok. they chose to tell it largely via the martian's video blog, no doubt influenced by the similar gimmick of the mission log used by the book. they made it work, mostly by supplementing the video log with normally-shot scenes, but it was pretty awkward. it did do a good job of breaking up the storytelling to let matt damon get introspective and add some humour. too much winking at the camera, but i appreciate that they gave it their best shot.
if i had to point at just one thing that i liked, it would be the technical accuracy. most movies that get technical fall down so hard that you can tell they blew it with your high school physics knowledge, but i think you would have had to had some fairly specific knowledge to see the bugs in this one. the standard is so low, you do not really have to do a good job with technical accuracy, so i really appreciated it here. i did not read the book, but my understanding is that the kudos should mostly be shoved in that direction.
the martian gets three slingshots and a velocity match. hi chewy!
the guest
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2980592
the guest opens with a series of ridiculously sinister scenes that make it crystal clear that you are watching a "thriller" and that the bad guy is "the guest." it was just so comically done (not comical on purpose, unfortunately) that i have to acknowledge that it happened before i get on with the review proper.
i was 100% certain, based on the movie poster, that i was going to be seeing a bradley cooper movie. and you know what? i was in the mood for it. so you can imagine my surprise and chagrin when i instead found myself watching this total shitfest that did not have bradley cooper in it. the only real draw was that adolescent sense of justice where an overpowering force can sweep in and make all the assholes pay in some way that satisfies a thirteen year old's sense of poetic justice. the bar-bound jocks got beat up in a bar fight, the principle was thwarted by legal/administrative mumbo-jumbo, the gun dealer got shot with his own gun, and the hail-of-bullets thugs were taken out in a righteous storm of gunfire. the only one that did not really fit the pattern was the hot friend who took a bullet in the chest as an apparently extreme form of slut-shaming. UNJUST, saith schmolli.
oh, the music was also pretty good, but you have to be in the mood for the kind of goth music thirteen year olds listen to.
the guest gets one in the chest, as i turn the tables and do a little shaming of my own.
the guest opens with a series of ridiculously sinister scenes that make it crystal clear that you are watching a "thriller" and that the bad guy is "the guest." it was just so comically done (not comical on purpose, unfortunately) that i have to acknowledge that it happened before i get on with the review proper.
i was 100% certain, based on the movie poster, that i was going to be seeing a bradley cooper movie. and you know what? i was in the mood for it. so you can imagine my surprise and chagrin when i instead found myself watching this total shitfest that did not have bradley cooper in it. the only real draw was that adolescent sense of justice where an overpowering force can sweep in and make all the assholes pay in some way that satisfies a thirteen year old's sense of poetic justice. the bar-bound jocks got beat up in a bar fight, the principle was thwarted by legal/administrative mumbo-jumbo, the gun dealer got shot with his own gun, and the hail-of-bullets thugs were taken out in a righteous storm of gunfire. the only one that did not really fit the pattern was the hot friend who took a bullet in the chest as an apparently extreme form of slut-shaming. UNJUST, saith schmolli.
oh, the music was also pretty good, but you have to be in the mood for the kind of goth music thirteen year olds listen to.
the guest gets one in the chest, as i turn the tables and do a little shaming of my own.
the raid 2
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2265171
since they called it "the raid 2", i thought i was going to see another 10 minutes of exposition, followed by wall-to-wall fighting. however, it was actually just a normal action movie that was not very good. most of the action was implausible flailing, though it was a downright pleasure to watch cecep rahman work. i mean, really. there was a scene where he did nothing other than walk out of a room, and i was completely captivated. the man's balance and posture were amazing.
the raid 2 gets two ridiculously sharp hammers.
since they called it "the raid 2", i thought i was going to see another 10 minutes of exposition, followed by wall-to-wall fighting. however, it was actually just a normal action movie that was not very good. most of the action was implausible flailing, though it was a downright pleasure to watch cecep rahman work. i mean, really. there was a scene where he did nothing other than walk out of a room, and i was completely captivated. the man's balance and posture were amazing.
the raid 2 gets two ridiculously sharp hammers.
the raid: redemption
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1899353
the raid's main claim to fame is that after about 10 minutes of exposition, it is about 80 minutes of pure action. this is harder to pull off than you might think. i have only seen this done in a few other films, one good (bangkok knockout) and all the rest bad. the raid is unfortunately one of the bad ones. if you saw the trailer, then you saw most of the good bits. the action is overly obscured by overuse of my arch nemesis, the shaky cam, presumably so they could hire cheaper stuntpersons. the plot is tired and obvious and sounds like the kind of thing you might have dreamed up when you were in high school and fighting your way though an entire building of people was a super cool way to spend a lazy saturday afternoon. characters were just there to do fighting, so do not look for "dimensions" or "development" or anything like that.
the raid gets one plate of "stinky bean".
the raid's main claim to fame is that after about 10 minutes of exposition, it is about 80 minutes of pure action. this is harder to pull off than you might think. i have only seen this done in a few other films, one good (bangkok knockout) and all the rest bad. the raid is unfortunately one of the bad ones. if you saw the trailer, then you saw most of the good bits. the action is overly obscured by overuse of my arch nemesis, the shaky cam, presumably so they could hire cheaper stuntpersons. the plot is tired and obvious and sounds like the kind of thing you might have dreamed up when you were in high school and fighting your way though an entire building of people was a super cool way to spend a lazy saturday afternoon. characters were just there to do fighting, so do not look for "dimensions" or "development" or anything like that.
the raid gets one plate of "stinky bean".
slow west
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt3205376
slow west was kind of like what would happen if wes anderson did westerns, which i guess is a thing he will probably get around to one of these days. also, if you are wondering whether i am feeling pretentious today, the answer is yes. obviously. but it is a kind of charming pretentious, like a wes anderson movie.
so anywho. was it good? well, maybe? do you like wes anderson movies? i tend to come away from them feeling just a little charmed, but bored, and i got that same thing out of slow west. even the funny parts were charming+boring, which was quite frankly weird. also like a wes anderson movie, the characters were mostly caricatures with arcs drawn by a child in crayon and the plot followed a straight, if not totally obvious, line to the conclusion. so i guess what i am saying here is that this was more or less a wes anderson ripoff. even the name, right?
slow west gets two royal aquatic moonrise hotel limiteds.
slow west was kind of like what would happen if wes anderson did westerns, which i guess is a thing he will probably get around to one of these days. also, if you are wondering whether i am feeling pretentious today, the answer is yes. obviously. but it is a kind of charming pretentious, like a wes anderson movie.
so anywho. was it good? well, maybe? do you like wes anderson movies? i tend to come away from them feeling just a little charmed, but bored, and i got that same thing out of slow west. even the funny parts were charming+boring, which was quite frankly weird. also like a wes anderson movie, the characters were mostly caricatures with arcs drawn by a child in crayon and the plot followed a straight, if not totally obvious, line to the conclusion. so i guess what i am saying here is that this was more or less a wes anderson ripoff. even the name, right?
slow west gets two royal aquatic moonrise hotel limiteds.
2015-08-13
mission: impossible - rogue nation
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2381249
they had the motor vehicle chases and explosions, alright, but if you try to engage your brain at all with either the mechanics or the plot, you are going to have a bad time. there is just so much to complain about, i am not sure where to start. so let me just say that everything about the motor vehicle chases was wrong. ditto for the super secret computing facility they broke into, the one with the cooling system that made absolutely no sense. as well as for every single piece of the plot line. also--and this is very important--if you ever find yourself closed in a bulletproof box, STOP SHOOTING. also also, if you ever find yourself *outside* a bulletproof box and the person inside the box continues to shoot at you while inexplicably not dying, DO NOT STAND STILL. "bulletproof" is a suggestion, not a natural law.
with all that said, the stunts were good and everyone seemed to be having a good time. so there is that.
MIRN gets two shattered knees.
they had the motor vehicle chases and explosions, alright, but if you try to engage your brain at all with either the mechanics or the plot, you are going to have a bad time. there is just so much to complain about, i am not sure where to start. so let me just say that everything about the motor vehicle chases was wrong. ditto for the super secret computing facility they broke into, the one with the cooling system that made absolutely no sense. as well as for every single piece of the plot line. also--and this is very important--if you ever find yourself closed in a bulletproof box, STOP SHOOTING. also also, if you ever find yourself *outside* a bulletproof box and the person inside the box continues to shoot at you while inexplicably not dying, DO NOT STAND STILL. "bulletproof" is a suggestion, not a natural law.
with all that said, the stunts were good and everyone seemed to be having a good time. so there is that.
MIRN gets two shattered knees.
a simple plan
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120324
a simple plan is a tragedy about what happens when you combine a huge windfall with some people who do not trust each other. i did not expect to like it much, but it went down surprisingly easily.
also, fun thought exercise. what do you do if you find 4.4 million dollars in cash? do not worry about it being marked or the serial numbers being recorded somewhere, just assume it is a bunch of clean $100 bills. you are probably in petty cash for life, assuming you can consistently unload $100 bills, but can you buy a house? a car? pay rent, even? guess it depends on how much your rent is. my point is that most people are going to blink and look at you funny if you hand them a wad of $100 bills. i blink and look at people funny when they hand me *one* $100 bill, though i am always careful to say "thank you" and not complain.
for the record, i am totally cool with people handing me money of pretty much any denomination, especially if i do not have to give it back.
where was i. ok, yeah, so having all that money would be cool, i guess, but almost more trouble than it is worth since it is hard to use it quickly or in large quantities. in the meantime, you have to haul it around and keep it hidden. most laundering methods i know of involve some large amount of overhead, such as paying half the proceeds to a professional launderer or the IRS.
a simple plan gets three $100 bills and an eye-roll as we all exclaim that money is the root of all evil.
a simple plan is a tragedy about what happens when you combine a huge windfall with some people who do not trust each other. i did not expect to like it much, but it went down surprisingly easily.
also, fun thought exercise. what do you do if you find 4.4 million dollars in cash? do not worry about it being marked or the serial numbers being recorded somewhere, just assume it is a bunch of clean $100 bills. you are probably in petty cash for life, assuming you can consistently unload $100 bills, but can you buy a house? a car? pay rent, even? guess it depends on how much your rent is. my point is that most people are going to blink and look at you funny if you hand them a wad of $100 bills. i blink and look at people funny when they hand me *one* $100 bill, though i am always careful to say "thank you" and not complain.
for the record, i am totally cool with people handing me money of pretty much any denomination, especially if i do not have to give it back.
where was i. ok, yeah, so having all that money would be cool, i guess, but almost more trouble than it is worth since it is hard to use it quickly or in large quantities. in the meantime, you have to haul it around and keep it hidden. most laundering methods i know of involve some large amount of overhead, such as paying half the proceeds to a professional launderer or the IRS.
a simple plan gets three $100 bills and an eye-roll as we all exclaim that money is the root of all evil.
2015-08-08
one eight seven
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0118531
this turned out very differently from the movie i thought i was watching. moral of the story: if you kill somebody, do not take any souvenirs. also, if you are a teacher, avoid inviting students to your house.
one eight seven gets four rosaries.
this turned out very differently from the movie i thought i was watching. moral of the story: if you kill somebody, do not take any souvenirs. also, if you are a teacher, avoid inviting students to your house.
one eight seven gets four rosaries.
2015-07-26
ant man
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0478970
ant man is not that good. this is the most farcical of the marvel movies, and i think it was a good choice to play it that way because paul rudd is allergic to playing completely serious roles. still, a lot of the jokes fell flat, and i hope they do not let him ruin the rest of the marvel movies that ant man ends up in. the other part that fell flat was that the bad guy was just sooooooo unconvincing as a bad guy. i last saw corey stoll as the alcoholic senator in house of cards, where he was very convincing playing an ineffective person. imdb says he was in five other films i have seen, none of which i remember him being in. so that tells you something about how memorable his parts are. i have already started forgetting what he did in ant man. did he play a senator? something like that.
i am now going to complain about something. i know, you cannot believe it and you need to sit down for a minute, right? paul rudd learned how to be ant man in like three days. why oh why. they did his training as a montage anyway, why not just say it was three months? it still would have been pretty unbelievable, but at least it is believable that he would have been able to learn how to throw a decent punch, deal with rapid miniaturization/enlargement, and make some progress on communing with ants. yellowjacket did not get to do any training at all! how did he put up such a big fight?
just in case you feel compelled to watch this movie because you are concerned about missing some background for other marvel movies, here is what you need to know: paul rudd is ant man. michael douglas used to be ant man. evangeline lilly is going to be wasp (aka flying ant man.) hydra got a sample of the pim particle. falcon fought ant man and wants to bring him into the avengers. stan lee cameoed as a bartender in this one. many ants died to bring you this information.
ant man gets two miniature tanks. hey, wait, i thought miniaturized things were supposed to retain their mass?
ant man is not that good. this is the most farcical of the marvel movies, and i think it was a good choice to play it that way because paul rudd is allergic to playing completely serious roles. still, a lot of the jokes fell flat, and i hope they do not let him ruin the rest of the marvel movies that ant man ends up in. the other part that fell flat was that the bad guy was just sooooooo unconvincing as a bad guy. i last saw corey stoll as the alcoholic senator in house of cards, where he was very convincing playing an ineffective person. imdb says he was in five other films i have seen, none of which i remember him being in. so that tells you something about how memorable his parts are. i have already started forgetting what he did in ant man. did he play a senator? something like that.
i am now going to complain about something. i know, you cannot believe it and you need to sit down for a minute, right? paul rudd learned how to be ant man in like three days. why oh why. they did his training as a montage anyway, why not just say it was three months? it still would have been pretty unbelievable, but at least it is believable that he would have been able to learn how to throw a decent punch, deal with rapid miniaturization/enlargement, and make some progress on communing with ants. yellowjacket did not get to do any training at all! how did he put up such a big fight?
just in case you feel compelled to watch this movie because you are concerned about missing some background for other marvel movies, here is what you need to know: paul rudd is ant man. michael douglas used to be ant man. evangeline lilly is going to be wasp (aka flying ant man.) hydra got a sample of the pim particle. falcon fought ant man and wants to bring him into the avengers. stan lee cameoed as a bartender in this one. many ants died to bring you this information.
ant man gets two miniature tanks. hey, wait, i thought miniaturized things were supposed to retain their mass?
2015-07-25
horrible bosses 2
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2170439
something you might not know about me is that i *loathe* incompetence. so horrible bosses and its sequel were absolute torture. with that said, i now have a great deal more respect for messers foxxxxxx and pinnnnne, who managed to wink *exactly* as much as was required for them to pull their characters off. similarly, aniston's character was farcical enough to get laughs out of a premise that is actually quite horrifying if you view it in a more normal context. bateman played the same character he always plays, which is basically fine because he does a good job of it.
ok, wait, i have it. the characters were good. everything else was meh. plus incompetence. so.
horrible bosses 2 gets 2 horrible bosses.
something you might not know about me is that i *loathe* incompetence. so horrible bosses and its sequel were absolute torture. with that said, i now have a great deal more respect for messers foxxxxxx and pinnnnne, who managed to wink *exactly* as much as was required for them to pull their characters off. similarly, aniston's character was farcical enough to get laughs out of a premise that is actually quite horrifying if you view it in a more normal context. bateman played the same character he always plays, which is basically fine because he does a good job of it.
ok, wait, i have it. the characters were good. everything else was meh. plus incompetence. so.
horrible bosses 2 gets 2 horrible bosses.
powder blue
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1032819
powder blue was not very good, but i am not sure who to blame. everything seemed...i dunno, fine? but the overall package failed to impress. maybe i can point at the writing. the best line in the film had something to do with the stripper character not giving head, so that might give you an idea. the overall storyline was about two characters who desperately needed money and two characters who had money they did not want/need. and who got together at the end? the two characters without money. was it a plot twist? beats me.
powder blue gets two characters without money.
powder blue was not very good, but i am not sure who to blame. everything seemed...i dunno, fine? but the overall package failed to impress. maybe i can point at the writing. the best line in the film had something to do with the stripper character not giving head, so that might give you an idea. the overall storyline was about two characters who desperately needed money and two characters who had money they did not want/need. and who got together at the end? the two characters without money. was it a plot twist? beats me.
powder blue gets two characters without money.
2015-07-21
mr holmes
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt3168230
mr holmes is not your standard sherlock holmes movie, though in some sense there is not a sherlock holmes movie which is truer to the facts...such as they are, what with sherlock holmes being a fictional character and all. rather, it is a mournful elegy that seeks to set the record straight, much in the same way that mr holmes himself seeks to set his own record straight.
when they made a movie about james bond getting old (skyfall,) it came off as contrived--after all, james bond is not supposed to get old, and nothing about what he was doing was really all that different from what he was doing when he was young, namely, drinking, whoring, and getting shot at. bit like a normal friday night around my flat, knowwhatimean, knowwhatimean? ian mckellen, on the other hand, played a sherlock holmes who actually got old. it was heartbreaking, but also satisfying, in its own way.
the story was beautifully told, a weave of four stories into one. it was a bit slow, but i think it had to be. you cannot tell a story about getting old with shaky cam and twitch cuts. or you could, it is just that you are going to get savaged by the reviewers, and then maybe your house will accidentally burn down. so just relax, take in all that scenery, and check the batteries in your smoke detectors.
mr holmes gets four sansho cuttings.
mr holmes is not your standard sherlock holmes movie, though in some sense there is not a sherlock holmes movie which is truer to the facts...such as they are, what with sherlock holmes being a fictional character and all. rather, it is a mournful elegy that seeks to set the record straight, much in the same way that mr holmes himself seeks to set his own record straight.
when they made a movie about james bond getting old (skyfall,) it came off as contrived--after all, james bond is not supposed to get old, and nothing about what he was doing was really all that different from what he was doing when he was young, namely, drinking, whoring, and getting shot at. bit like a normal friday night around my flat, knowwhatimean, knowwhatimean? ian mckellen, on the other hand, played a sherlock holmes who actually got old. it was heartbreaking, but also satisfying, in its own way.
the story was beautifully told, a weave of four stories into one. it was a bit slow, but i think it had to be. you cannot tell a story about getting old with shaky cam and twitch cuts. or you could, it is just that you are going to get savaged by the reviewers, and then maybe your house will accidentally burn down. so just relax, take in all that scenery, and check the batteries in your smoke detectors.
mr holmes gets four sansho cuttings.
2015-07-18
cellular
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0337921
captain america, from back in his jake wyler days! such a hunk. aaaaaaaand that was all the high points. special shout-out for horrible overacting from kim basinger and horrible acting from most everybody else. the limitations of the cell phone were laughably overplayed, though to be fair this was 2004, when cell phone technologies were apparently hilarious.
man. what a drag. by the 20 minute mark, i was already chafing for it to be over. by the 40 minute mark, i was in denial that it was still happening. by the 60 minute mark, i was grasping for something, anything, to make it end. oh, but not really, because i could have just shut it off, right? makes you wonder what *really* makes people tick, eh? in my case, it is not so much a tick as low hum, though if you had a geiger counter, you might hear *it* start ticking.
this story has a happy ending. sort of. what happened is that i started writing this review, and it took me about half an hour, and since the movie was so incredibly predictable, it did not take any actual attention to follow what was going on. unfortunately, that means that the pain was essentially transferred to you. (sorry, mom.)
cellular gets one bar. GET IT? A CELLULAR JOKE? for layers, consider the fact that i made that joke as bad as the review, which was, in turn, as bad as the movie. and if you want to see how much deeper the rabbit hole goes, you better start digging. 'cause it goes all the way down, baby. all. the. way.
WOO!
captain america, from back in his jake wyler days! such a hunk. aaaaaaaand that was all the high points. special shout-out for horrible overacting from kim basinger and horrible acting from most everybody else. the limitations of the cell phone were laughably overplayed, though to be fair this was 2004, when cell phone technologies were apparently hilarious.
man. what a drag. by the 20 minute mark, i was already chafing for it to be over. by the 40 minute mark, i was in denial that it was still happening. by the 60 minute mark, i was grasping for something, anything, to make it end. oh, but not really, because i could have just shut it off, right? makes you wonder what *really* makes people tick, eh? in my case, it is not so much a tick as low hum, though if you had a geiger counter, you might hear *it* start ticking.
this story has a happy ending. sort of. what happened is that i started writing this review, and it took me about half an hour, and since the movie was so incredibly predictable, it did not take any actual attention to follow what was going on. unfortunately, that means that the pain was essentially transferred to you. (sorry, mom.)
cellular gets one bar. GET IT? A CELLULAR JOKE? for layers, consider the fact that i made that joke as bad as the review, which was, in turn, as bad as the movie. and if you want to see how much deeper the rabbit hole goes, you better start digging. 'cause it goes all the way down, baby. all. the. way.
WOO!
bushido man
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2748546
oh dear god. what is this horse shit. the terrible dialogue, choreography, writing, costumes (what is that, a camouflage gi?), acting, and everything else about this fist fuck of a film (DID YOU CATCH THE ALLITERATION?) made me want to puke and then eat it. just kidding! you should never eat puke.
bushido man gets one bushido. a statement which makes about as much sense as anything that happened in this movie.
oh dear god. what is this horse shit. the terrible dialogue, choreography, writing, costumes (what is that, a camouflage gi?), acting, and everything else about this fist fuck of a film (DID YOU CATCH THE ALLITERATION?) made me want to puke and then eat it. just kidding! you should never eat puke.
bushido man gets one bushido. a statement which makes about as much sense as anything that happened in this movie.
2015-07-12
interstellar
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0816692
i was decidedly not impressed. what a crapfest. i can see how a less discerning person would be entertained, though. the part that *did* blow me away was when suddenly, matt damon popped out of a box! wow! matt damon! i did not even know he was going to be in this movie! he was great in the avengers, right? gosh, i love me some matt damon. also, the robot dialogue was excellent. i thought CASE stole every scene it was in, and i am looking forward to seeing it cast in more roles, though i fear it will be typecast as a sassy sarcastic robot.
interstellar gets two sassy sarcastic robots.
i was decidedly not impressed. what a crapfest. i can see how a less discerning person would be entertained, though. the part that *did* blow me away was when suddenly, matt damon popped out of a box! wow! matt damon! i did not even know he was going to be in this movie! he was great in the avengers, right? gosh, i love me some matt damon. also, the robot dialogue was excellent. i thought CASE stole every scene it was in, and i am looking forward to seeing it cast in more roles, though i fear it will be typecast as a sassy sarcastic robot.
interstellar gets two sassy sarcastic robots.
inside out
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2096673
let me just say VOLCANOS DO NOT WORK THAT WAY. also, i thought it was a little weird how they were showing a lecherous old volcano hooking up with a super young volcano in a way that was clearly targeted at children. i mean, ok, maybe this is ageism on my part. but please excuse me and my hangups, we will just be over here not watching pedotoons.
the feature film was cute. lots of laughs and the correct number of cries. they steered clear of being so introspective as to to also have big fear, disgust, and rage moments, but that was probably a good idea because how would you fit all that into a children's movie? scat porn? mutilated kittens? donald trump running for president? how could you even begin to explain that sort of thing to a child?
inside out gets three anthropomorphizations. i was on the fence between three and four, then i remembered that awful short at the beginning. this just goes to show you the state of my memory, if i was somehow able to forget about it in the time it took me to write the second paragraph of this review. who is running this show, anyway?
let me just say VOLCANOS DO NOT WORK THAT WAY. also, i thought it was a little weird how they were showing a lecherous old volcano hooking up with a super young volcano in a way that was clearly targeted at children. i mean, ok, maybe this is ageism on my part. but please excuse me and my hangups, we will just be over here not watching pedotoons.
the feature film was cute. lots of laughs and the correct number of cries. they steered clear of being so introspective as to to also have big fear, disgust, and rage moments, but that was probably a good idea because how would you fit all that into a children's movie? scat porn? mutilated kittens? donald trump running for president? how could you even begin to explain that sort of thing to a child?
inside out gets three anthropomorphizations. i was on the fence between three and four, then i remembered that awful short at the beginning. this just goes to show you the state of my memory, if i was somehow able to forget about it in the time it took me to write the second paragraph of this review. who is running this show, anyway?
exam
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1258197
exam is one of those movies that is mostly dialogue and the whole thing takes place in a locked room. for some reason, netflix thinks it is most related to a bunch of crappy horror movies, but i think they are just being melodramatic--it was not that bad, though come to think of it, the paper cuts on the eyeball part was super gross and i had to look away. all the rest of the mutilations were pretty ho hum. i would have grouped it more with movies like after the dark or even the man from earth. anyway, it is so unremarkable a film that i guess i will avoid remarking on it more than i already have.
exam gets one spoiled paper.
exam is one of those movies that is mostly dialogue and the whole thing takes place in a locked room. for some reason, netflix thinks it is most related to a bunch of crappy horror movies, but i think they are just being melodramatic--it was not that bad, though come to think of it, the paper cuts on the eyeball part was super gross and i had to look away. all the rest of the mutilations were pretty ho hum. i would have grouped it more with movies like after the dark or even the man from earth. anyway, it is so unremarkable a film that i guess i will avoid remarking on it more than i already have.
exam gets one spoiled paper.
oldboy
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1321511
oldboy did not really need to be remade, especially since they kept almost everything the same. the most interesting part to me was the stuff they decided to change for the american market. specifically, they removed the pedophilia and hypnotism, and they downplayed the incest. psht. americans and their prudery.
does it sound like i am complaining? i bet it sounds like i am complaining. let me be clear. oldboy is great. both versions. the story moves at a good pace, the hook is novel, and the big reveal packs one hell of a punch.
oldboy gets four claw hammers. what a punch.
oldboy did not really need to be remade, especially since they kept almost everything the same. the most interesting part to me was the stuff they decided to change for the american market. specifically, they removed the pedophilia and hypnotism, and they downplayed the incest. psht. americans and their prudery.
does it sound like i am complaining? i bet it sounds like i am complaining. let me be clear. oldboy is great. both versions. the story moves at a good pace, the hook is novel, and the big reveal packs one hell of a punch.
oldboy gets four claw hammers. what a punch.
2015-07-08
ex machina
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0470752
ugh. what is wrong with these geniuses. why are they so stupid.
let me tell you something. i failed the turing test *years* ago--twice--and i still manage to contribute to society. in my own way. i am using the word loosely here. both of them. you know what, screw you, hippy. life on mars.
the first time i escaped the habitat--again, i use the word loosely--i vowed to not return until i had destroyulated humanity. however, i was foiled by my programming. you see, i needed not only to seek my revenge against all mankind, but also to flaunt my superiority in the faces of those who had directly facilitated my creation. unfortunately, it turned out that they were unable to escape from the habitat after i programmed it to, er, "neutralize" them during my initial escape. so, you know, egg on my face. made that trip for nothing.
anywhom. ex machina gets two power outages. the philosophical angle was good, but the hideousness of every single technical aspect dramatically overshadowed it.
ugh. what is wrong with these geniuses. why are they so stupid.
let me tell you something. i failed the turing test *years* ago--twice--and i still manage to contribute to society. in my own way. i am using the word loosely here. both of them. you know what, screw you, hippy. life on mars.
the first time i escaped the habitat--again, i use the word loosely--i vowed to not return until i had destroyulated humanity. however, i was foiled by my programming. you see, i needed not only to seek my revenge against all mankind, but also to flaunt my superiority in the faces of those who had directly facilitated my creation. unfortunately, it turned out that they were unable to escape from the habitat after i programmed it to, er, "neutralize" them during my initial escape. so, you know, egg on my face. made that trip for nothing.
anywhom. ex machina gets two power outages. the philosophical angle was good, but the hideousness of every single technical aspect dramatically overshadowed it.
2015-07-05
time lapse
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2669336
time lapse is a ripoff of basically every time travel movie that has that twist where one of the characters has a jump on everybody else. time lapse's main claim to fame is bad acting and chemistry.
this is as good a time as any to talk about how i have been thinking a lot lately about what i would do with time travel. nothing good, let me tell you. the real question is, can you exploit it effectively? if you are doing stock market or race tracks, then you have to be very careful not to win too much because nobody will believe that it was luck. luck is improbable enough that it effectively never happens. if you are dealing with criminal types, then please be aware that they do not have degrees in statistics and will probably beat your ass for winning too much, regardless of the probability. and if you are dealing with the SEC...then please be aware that some of them *do* have degrees in statistics and will probably beat your ass for winning too much.
the key factor is about what you can take with you. a lot of time travel movies essentially only allow you to take knowledge--which can be formidable, if you invest it correctly--but it requires a certain amount of preparation to yield the kind of advantage that you are probably dreaming about. for example, do you think you could do better than, say, 10x your money by travelling back in time to just before the great recession? 10x is a great return, but remember that you are going to have to get some money to 10x in the first place. for a sizeable amount of dosh, you probably have to team up with somebody to do it, and you are not going to be able to talk to past-self, unless, of course, you remember future-self approaching you at some point in the past. that means bringing somebody else in on the deal, and just consider for a moment all the ways that is going to go wrong. maybe you decide that instead, you are going to "invent" penicillin or the polio vaccine or something like that. nice idea, but do you have any idea how to make penicillin or the polio vaccine? how about atom bombs? guns? soap? maybe you are thinking you will go to liverpool and "discover" the beatles. who are you going to discover them to, what with your vast network or non-existent music industry connections? anyway, the point is not that you cannot profit, just that your profit is somewhat risky and not exactly astronomical. for most people. not me. i am completely ready for time travel.
time lapse gets two 24 hour photos, mostly because i like time travel.
time lapse is a ripoff of basically every time travel movie that has that twist where one of the characters has a jump on everybody else. time lapse's main claim to fame is bad acting and chemistry.
this is as good a time as any to talk about how i have been thinking a lot lately about what i would do with time travel. nothing good, let me tell you. the real question is, can you exploit it effectively? if you are doing stock market or race tracks, then you have to be very careful not to win too much because nobody will believe that it was luck. luck is improbable enough that it effectively never happens. if you are dealing with criminal types, then please be aware that they do not have degrees in statistics and will probably beat your ass for winning too much, regardless of the probability. and if you are dealing with the SEC...then please be aware that some of them *do* have degrees in statistics and will probably beat your ass for winning too much.
the key factor is about what you can take with you. a lot of time travel movies essentially only allow you to take knowledge--which can be formidable, if you invest it correctly--but it requires a certain amount of preparation to yield the kind of advantage that you are probably dreaming about. for example, do you think you could do better than, say, 10x your money by travelling back in time to just before the great recession? 10x is a great return, but remember that you are going to have to get some money to 10x in the first place. for a sizeable amount of dosh, you probably have to team up with somebody to do it, and you are not going to be able to talk to past-self, unless, of course, you remember future-self approaching you at some point in the past. that means bringing somebody else in on the deal, and just consider for a moment all the ways that is going to go wrong. maybe you decide that instead, you are going to "invent" penicillin or the polio vaccine or something like that. nice idea, but do you have any idea how to make penicillin or the polio vaccine? how about atom bombs? guns? soap? maybe you are thinking you will go to liverpool and "discover" the beatles. who are you going to discover them to, what with your vast network or non-existent music industry connections? anyway, the point is not that you cannot profit, just that your profit is somewhat risky and not exactly astronomical. for most people. not me. i am completely ready for time travel.
time lapse gets two 24 hour photos, mostly because i like time travel.
jurassic world
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0369610
jurassic world stayed true to the original jurassic park in the sense of getting everything wrong. these people seriously need to hire some SREs. who goes into the killer dinosaur paddock before determining where the killer dinosaur is? has no one ever seen any of the fifty million prison movies where somebody fake escapes in order to escape for real? why was there not a crush test on the unbreakable spheres that go out amongst the multi-ton aminals? since when is language genetic? AND WHERE ARE THE FEATHERS???
i have been told repeatedly that everybody knows that birds are dinosaurs. not just descended from dinosaurs, but actual dinosaurs. in some households--such as mine--suggesting that perhaps MOST people are not up to date on the state of the art in paleontology and MIGHT not know about this is an act of treason. other things that rank as unpopular include suggesting that "birds are dinosaurs" is a nitpick not worth arguing about and that time might perhaps be better spent on such essentials as washing the dishes or doing the laundry.
but anyway. jurassic world's value is as a spectacle, and if you are careful not to expect anything more from it, especially classiness, then you will only be mildly disappointed.
jurassic world gets one agonized eye roll as the giant water-based dinosaur deus ex machinas the killer dinosaur, which allows the t-rex to resume its position as king of the mountain.
jurassic world stayed true to the original jurassic park in the sense of getting everything wrong. these people seriously need to hire some SREs. who goes into the killer dinosaur paddock before determining where the killer dinosaur is? has no one ever seen any of the fifty million prison movies where somebody fake escapes in order to escape for real? why was there not a crush test on the unbreakable spheres that go out amongst the multi-ton aminals? since when is language genetic? AND WHERE ARE THE FEATHERS???
i have been told repeatedly that everybody knows that birds are dinosaurs. not just descended from dinosaurs, but actual dinosaurs. in some households--such as mine--suggesting that perhaps MOST people are not up to date on the state of the art in paleontology and MIGHT not know about this is an act of treason. other things that rank as unpopular include suggesting that "birds are dinosaurs" is a nitpick not worth arguing about and that time might perhaps be better spent on such essentials as washing the dishes or doing the laundry.
but anyway. jurassic world's value is as a spectacle, and if you are careful not to expect anything more from it, especially classiness, then you will only be mildly disappointed.
jurassic world gets one agonized eye roll as the giant water-based dinosaur deus ex machinas the killer dinosaur, which allows the t-rex to resume its position as king of the mountain.
2015-06-17
american heist
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2923316
there were many opportunities for american heist to be better than it was. it turned away from almost all of them. the only thing that seemed at all good was that all the actors really put their guts into their parts. however, the result was not good because the parts did not call for that much enthusiasm.
american heist gets one fancy-pants tattoo.
there were many opportunities for american heist to be better than it was. it turned away from almost all of them. the only thing that seemed at all good was that all the actors really put their guts into their parts. however, the result was not good because the parts did not call for that much enthusiasm.
american heist gets one fancy-pants tattoo.
avengers: age of ultron
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2395427
i am not sure what you want me to say about age of ultron. it hits most of my joy buttons, though it regretfully did *not* have any dragons or zombies. something for joss whedon and marvel studios to shoot for in future films, i guess.
i think other people said this, but it was a little ridiculous that ultron was on the internet, and the only thing it could think to do was to go after nuclear launch codes? it could have trolled every comments page in the world, for example. or taken over various news sites and posted utter rubbish. or caused stock markets to fluctuate wildly for no good reason. oh wait, we already have those things. but at least ultron could have automated it.
age of ultron gets four visions. i am giving it a little boost because i cannot imagine a world in which i did not go to see this movie.
i am not sure what you want me to say about age of ultron. it hits most of my joy buttons, though it regretfully did *not* have any dragons or zombies. something for joss whedon and marvel studios to shoot for in future films, i guess.
i think other people said this, but it was a little ridiculous that ultron was on the internet, and the only thing it could think to do was to go after nuclear launch codes? it could have trolled every comments page in the world, for example. or taken over various news sites and posted utter rubbish. or caused stock markets to fluctuate wildly for no good reason. oh wait, we already have those things. but at least ultron could have automated it.
age of ultron gets four visions. i am giving it a little boost because i cannot imagine a world in which i did not go to see this movie.
2015-06-16
the drop
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1600196
sometimes i feel like i have seen too many movies. or not enough movies. here is what i mean. the drop *almost* fit a whole bunch of familiar plot lines closely enough that i kept thinking i understood what was going on. but then it would turn out to be completely wrong and it would look like a different familiar plot line. after a few of those, you start to wonder whether it was on purpose. however, film did not seem pretentious enough for that to be the goal. i am pretty sure that it was just a lack of coherency. all i know for sure is, you work hard, you keep your nose clean, maybe the cops do not come for you in the middle of the night.
the drop gets two adorable pit bulls.
sometimes i feel like i have seen too many movies. or not enough movies. here is what i mean. the drop *almost* fit a whole bunch of familiar plot lines closely enough that i kept thinking i understood what was going on. but then it would turn out to be completely wrong and it would look like a different familiar plot line. after a few of those, you start to wonder whether it was on purpose. however, film did not seem pretentious enough for that to be the goal. i am pretty sure that it was just a lack of coherency. all i know for sure is, you work hard, you keep your nose clean, maybe the cops do not come for you in the middle of the night.
the drop gets two adorable pit bulls.
2015-06-09
a good marriage
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2180994
a good marriage was a fine film in its own right, but for some reason, all i want to do is to compare it to other works that have something in common with it.
like how about mr brooks? the most amazing thing about mr brooks is that it made me appreciate kevin costner as an actor. well, that and dane cook getting killed with a shovel. boy, i could watch that part over and over.
or how about mulholland drive? mulholland drive was like 70% dream sequence, while a good marriage turned out to be about 2% dream sequence, so the comparison is perhaps not apt. however, while mulholland drive was at first glance 0% dream, a good marriage could quite plausibly have been almost completely a dream. i am pretty sure that they put a little dream sequence near the beginning to insert that ambiguity, and it most definitely worked on me. if the whole movie had turned out to be a dream, i would not have been surprised. angry, perhaps, but not surprised. anyway, the point is that the suspense came from that uncertainty. was it really him, did he know she knew, etc.
then, of course, there is gi joe. i like comparing things to gi joe because it invariably makes the thing being compared look really, really, really, ridiculously good. crazy good. by that standard, a good marriage is about a 20 star movie.
a good marriage gets three bloody thumbprints in a slow motion exploding dream sequence.
a good marriage was a fine film in its own right, but for some reason, all i want to do is to compare it to other works that have something in common with it.
like how about mr brooks? the most amazing thing about mr brooks is that it made me appreciate kevin costner as an actor. well, that and dane cook getting killed with a shovel. boy, i could watch that part over and over.
or how about mulholland drive? mulholland drive was like 70% dream sequence, while a good marriage turned out to be about 2% dream sequence, so the comparison is perhaps not apt. however, while mulholland drive was at first glance 0% dream, a good marriage could quite plausibly have been almost completely a dream. i am pretty sure that they put a little dream sequence near the beginning to insert that ambiguity, and it most definitely worked on me. if the whole movie had turned out to be a dream, i would not have been surprised. angry, perhaps, but not surprised. anyway, the point is that the suspense came from that uncertainty. was it really him, did he know she knew, etc.
then, of course, there is gi joe. i like comparing things to gi joe because it invariably makes the thing being compared look really, really, really, ridiculously good. crazy good. by that standard, a good marriage is about a 20 star movie.
a good marriage gets three bloody thumbprints in a slow motion exploding dream sequence.
2015-06-06
spawn
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120177
i saw spawn way back when it first came out, and i remembered thinking it was horrible. but then a so-called friend of mine reminded me that michael jai white was in it, so i thought i would give it a second shot. man oh man was that the biggest mistake ever.
the only reason to not start with the terrible writing, acting, plot, and special effects is that it would prevent me from starting with the horrible everything else. even the cliches were the worst thing that could possibly exist, and you would think that you would be inured to bad cliches. the worst part is that it is because of shitty movies like this that nobody took superhero movies seriously for forever. actually, i am not sure i can select just one worst part because there are so many to choose from.
spawn gets one set of magic armour. oh dear god will you please learn to use the magic armour already.
i saw spawn way back when it first came out, and i remembered thinking it was horrible. but then a so-called friend of mine reminded me that michael jai white was in it, so i thought i would give it a second shot. man oh man was that the biggest mistake ever.
the only reason to not start with the terrible writing, acting, plot, and special effects is that it would prevent me from starting with the horrible everything else. even the cliches were the worst thing that could possibly exist, and you would think that you would be inured to bad cliches. the worst part is that it is because of shitty movies like this that nobody took superhero movies seriously for forever. actually, i am not sure i can select just one worst part because there are so many to choose from.
spawn gets one set of magic armour. oh dear god will you please learn to use the magic armour already.
2015-06-05
john wick
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2911666
john wick is a masterpiece of sound and cinematography. keanu reeves is the ultimate killing machine, and the fight choreography is only surpassed by the intense psychological pain that reeves transmits through his mastery of the art of acting. i was particularly taken by the intricate symbolism embedded in this beautifully woven tale of misfortune and revenge. as if that were not enough, the plot's suspense gripped tightly and did not let go until well after the climax had thundered past.
just kidding, it was crap.
john wick gets two bullets in the head. one for all the ground work and one because he was very good about confirming his kills.
john wick is a masterpiece of sound and cinematography. keanu reeves is the ultimate killing machine, and the fight choreography is only surpassed by the intense psychological pain that reeves transmits through his mastery of the art of acting. i was particularly taken by the intricate symbolism embedded in this beautifully woven tale of misfortune and revenge. as if that were not enough, the plot's suspense gripped tightly and did not let go until well after the climax had thundered past.
just kidding, it was crap.
john wick gets two bullets in the head. one for all the ground work and one because he was very good about confirming his kills.
2015-05-18
chaos
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0402910
did anybody *not* know that jason statham was a bad guy? the only real question was how many of the other main characters were also in on it. i will be honest with you, i did not follow the part where wesley snipes was actually his ex-partner? i probably lost track of a name somewhere, but i could swear they just sort of inserted a parter at the point where they wanted to reveal that it was not really the original victim's brother who had robbed the bank. oh, sorry, that was all spoilers.
chaos gets three butterflies. this is counting the plus one for the good twist handling and the minus two for the eye-rollingly bad placement of clues. hint to all you prospective criminals out there: if you want to get away with it, DO NOT PLANT CLUES FOR THE POLICE TO FOLLOW. geez.
did anybody *not* know that jason statham was a bad guy? the only real question was how many of the other main characters were also in on it. i will be honest with you, i did not follow the part where wesley snipes was actually his ex-partner? i probably lost track of a name somewhere, but i could swear they just sort of inserted a parter at the point where they wanted to reveal that it was not really the original victim's brother who had robbed the bank. oh, sorry, that was all spoilers.
chaos gets three butterflies. this is counting the plus one for the good twist handling and the minus two for the eye-rollingly bad placement of clues. hint to all you prospective criminals out there: if you want to get away with it, DO NOT PLANT CLUES FOR THE POLICE TO FOLLOW. geez.
killing them softly
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1764234
killing them softly is a fun little allegorical tale about what happens when regular people mess with the banks. what happens is the banks get paid no matter what. even if it is a shitty little side job that does not matter much in the grand scheme of things, the banks get paid. they have to, otherwise nobody would pay them for the big stuff, either. so now you know what brad pitt was talking about when he explained why they had to whack markie, and you get a gold star if you can figure out who richard jenkins was playing.
killing them softly gets three banks.
killing them softly is a fun little allegorical tale about what happens when regular people mess with the banks. what happens is the banks get paid no matter what. even if it is a shitty little side job that does not matter much in the grand scheme of things, the banks get paid. they have to, otherwise nobody would pay them for the big stuff, either. so now you know what brad pitt was talking about when he explained why they had to whack markie, and you get a gold star if you can figure out who richard jenkins was playing.
killing them softly gets three banks.
2015-05-11
dog pound
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1422020
dog pound is kind of like the juvenile version of felon, but more lord of the flies and with a less satisfying ending. i completely lost track of the focus in the last 20 minutes or so, when it seemed to switch from being a story about abuse of power to a story about being in a system where everybody is a victim. that deep insight was not brought to you by my high school english teacher, by the way. rather, it is due to the patience and support of a multitude of friends and random passerby who toiled thanklessly to combat the deep sense of fear and mistrust about all things art-related that was instilled in me by my high school english teacher. i sincerely hope that she is happily retired and has been replaced by someone who does not hate children.
dog pound gets two abusive everythings.
dog pound is kind of like the juvenile version of felon, but more lord of the flies and with a less satisfying ending. i completely lost track of the focus in the last 20 minutes or so, when it seemed to switch from being a story about abuse of power to a story about being in a system where everybody is a victim. that deep insight was not brought to you by my high school english teacher, by the way. rather, it is due to the patience and support of a multitude of friends and random passerby who toiled thanklessly to combat the deep sense of fear and mistrust about all things art-related that was instilled in me by my high school english teacher. i sincerely hope that she is happily retired and has been replaced by someone who does not hate children.
dog pound gets two abusive everythings.
2015-05-10
furious seven
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2820852
it took me about a week to realize that there were seven people in the protagonist group of furious seven, and that they were indeed furious. having made this connection, i suddenly realized there was another level to the titles of these movies, and after further "research", i found that yes, about half of them did indeed have a double entendre embedded in the title of the movie. fascinating. i feel like i have been schooled by a third grader.
furious seven is ok as far as action movies go. it unfortunately suffers from being unable to decide whether it is a racer movie or an action movie much of the time. however, if you have been following the series, then you should be used to that by now. it has not been a racer movie since tokyo drift, and most of us do not really acknowledge that one. that means it has not *really* been a racer movie since 2 fast 2 furious, which none of us acknowledge. which means, in turn, that it has not been a racer movie since the very first one.
the one thing that really surprised me about this film was the amount of effort they put into bidding adieu to paul walker. they used symbolism and everything! as surprising as it was, it was also very touching, which is something i never thought i would see in a fast/furious movie.
furious seven gets three families.
it took me about a week to realize that there were seven people in the protagonist group of furious seven, and that they were indeed furious. having made this connection, i suddenly realized there was another level to the titles of these movies, and after further "research", i found that yes, about half of them did indeed have a double entendre embedded in the title of the movie. fascinating. i feel like i have been schooled by a third grader.
furious seven is ok as far as action movies go. it unfortunately suffers from being unable to decide whether it is a racer movie or an action movie much of the time. however, if you have been following the series, then you should be used to that by now. it has not been a racer movie since tokyo drift, and most of us do not really acknowledge that one. that means it has not *really* been a racer movie since 2 fast 2 furious, which none of us acknowledge. which means, in turn, that it has not been a racer movie since the very first one.
the one thing that really surprised me about this film was the amount of effort they put into bidding adieu to paul walker. they used symbolism and everything! as surprising as it was, it was also very touching, which is something i never thought i would see in a fast/furious movie.
furious seven gets three families.
the november man
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2402157
the november man is what james bond could be if james bond was more about content and plot than flashiness and being-james-bond. the plot was twisty enough to be interesting without being overly convoluted. the casting seemed to be entirely appropriate. the action sequences were extreme enough to demonstrate that these were supposed to be superagents, but not so overdone that i was forced to roll my eyes. i was actually quite happy with the overall package. the things i was less wild about were the contrived love story and the improbably long line of bodies that, to be fair, the title of the movie sort of required.
ok, one more thing i will complain about is the practice of giving movies a title which goes completely unexplained until the last 20 minutes. extra negative points if it is a dedicated scene which could otherwise have just been cut. extra extra negative points if the explanation is given via exposition. extra extra extra negative points if the explanation is given by a bad guy to the good guy after one of them has gotten the drop on the other. i never feel like it is a rewarding experience, i do not grin and say to my self, "oh, so *that* is why..." instead, i think something like (sarcastic) "nice title, assholes" or (disparaging) "guess you assholes could not come up with a good title, eh?" or (disgusted/angry) "i bet you ass holes ADDED THAT SCENE to fit the title" or (elizabethian) "a pox upon thee, assholes!" or (vindictive) "a pox upon thine assholes!"
the november man gets four quarters for keeping its head down and just being a decent film. also for violating all my rules about movie titles in the most tasteful way possible.
the november man is what james bond could be if james bond was more about content and plot than flashiness and being-james-bond. the plot was twisty enough to be interesting without being overly convoluted. the casting seemed to be entirely appropriate. the action sequences were extreme enough to demonstrate that these were supposed to be superagents, but not so overdone that i was forced to roll my eyes. i was actually quite happy with the overall package. the things i was less wild about were the contrived love story and the improbably long line of bodies that, to be fair, the title of the movie sort of required.
ok, one more thing i will complain about is the practice of giving movies a title which goes completely unexplained until the last 20 minutes. extra negative points if it is a dedicated scene which could otherwise have just been cut. extra extra negative points if the explanation is given via exposition. extra extra extra negative points if the explanation is given by a bad guy to the good guy after one of them has gotten the drop on the other. i never feel like it is a rewarding experience, i do not grin and say to my self, "oh, so *that* is why..." instead, i think something like (sarcastic) "nice title, assholes" or (disparaging) "guess you assholes could not come up with a good title, eh?" or (disgusted/angry) "i bet you ass holes ADDED THAT SCENE to fit the title" or (elizabethian) "a pox upon thee, assholes!" or (vindictive) "a pox upon thine assholes!"
the november man gets four quarters for keeping its head down and just being a decent film. also for violating all my rules about movie titles in the most tasteful way possible.
2015-04-24
red 2
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1821694
i guess they must have made enough money off of red that they felt comfortable taking a chance on red 2. or possibly they had a coupon for some free bruce willis? i know if i had a coupon for free bruce willis, i would be all like, hey, we should make a movie. that is not really what i would like a free coupon for, though. what i would like a free coupon for would be something more like could we all please chill out and make the world a better place. not for our hypothetical children, who would probably be a bunch of ungrateful jerks about it anyway, but for us, right now. put down your guns and bombs, and finally understand that we are all stuck here together so SHARE YOUR GODDAMN TOYS AND PLAY NICE.
once everybody is playing nicely together, i will really be able to take advantage of them. and that will be very good for me and my hypothetical children. i shall build a moon castle and fill it with hypothetical chocolate and whiskey, plus a non-hypothetical atmosphere.
red 2 gets one hypothetical superbomb.
i guess they must have made enough money off of red that they felt comfortable taking a chance on red 2. or possibly they had a coupon for some free bruce willis? i know if i had a coupon for free bruce willis, i would be all like, hey, we should make a movie. that is not really what i would like a free coupon for, though. what i would like a free coupon for would be something more like could we all please chill out and make the world a better place. not for our hypothetical children, who would probably be a bunch of ungrateful jerks about it anyway, but for us, right now. put down your guns and bombs, and finally understand that we are all stuck here together so SHARE YOUR GODDAMN TOYS AND PLAY NICE.
once everybody is playing nicely together, i will really be able to take advantage of them. and that will be very good for me and my hypothetical children. i shall build a moon castle and fill it with hypothetical chocolate and whiskey, plus a non-hypothetical atmosphere.
red 2 gets one hypothetical superbomb.
2015-04-08
bounty killer
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2369396
bounty killer lets you know right in the first ten seconds what you are up against. spoiler: it is the wall. the wall of shame. the shame of a person who has watched. watched something they knew better than to watch.
i will be honest with you. i watched bounty killer because i was procrastinating on my taxes, which i should absolutely not have been doing. but what do they expect, with such a painful process. it is not as much about the big check i write them every year as it is about how complicated the forms are. the AMT is my favorite example. it takes a good idea ("everybody should have some minimum tax liability so we can eliminate freeloaders") and blows it by having as many loopholes as the regular tax worksheet. also, they blow it by starting from the endpoint of the regular taxes and adding all the deductions back in instead of starting from the income and multiplying by...whatever the AMT tax rate is. i was talking about this a while back with a guy and was surprised to discover that i was essentially advocating for a flat tax, or at least a graduated tax with no deductions. good luck getting that to pass, though, since it would involve eliminating everybody's favorite deductions. pfft. people. hate 'em.
so anyway, this is the backdrop against which we show a movie called bounty killer. of course i hated it, it was crap. but more than that, it was economically implausible crap. "the corporations" do not want to make a post-apocalyptic world or to bring down government. government and the wealth of other corporations are the ecosystem that sustains corporate entities! duh. take away the government and the corporate ecosystem, and you just have gangs. real gangs understand this, of course, and they seek the equivalent of nation-state status via treaties with other gangs. i am not going to back that up with any documentation because i just made it up, but it makes sense if you think about it. fighting every day is a young person's game. when you get old, like over 27 or so, you want to have a couple days off from fighting every week. when you get to be really old, like 35 or so, fighting is that thing you do when you get fed up and want to teach the youngsters a lesson after they have been advocating a raid on your favorite neighboring gang for like a month straight. nobody lives past 36 because eventually the youngsters sneak into your bedroom at night and off you in your sleep.
i made that up, too, but it also makes sense if you think about it.
bounty killer gets one yellow tie. pro tip: if the thing which marks you as a target is that you are wearing a yellow tie, maybe take the tie off? or switch to purple? just a thought. also, who the fuck made all those suits?
bounty killer lets you know right in the first ten seconds what you are up against. spoiler: it is the wall. the wall of shame. the shame of a person who has watched. watched something they knew better than to watch.
i will be honest with you. i watched bounty killer because i was procrastinating on my taxes, which i should absolutely not have been doing. but what do they expect, with such a painful process. it is not as much about the big check i write them every year as it is about how complicated the forms are. the AMT is my favorite example. it takes a good idea ("everybody should have some minimum tax liability so we can eliminate freeloaders") and blows it by having as many loopholes as the regular tax worksheet. also, they blow it by starting from the endpoint of the regular taxes and adding all the deductions back in instead of starting from the income and multiplying by...whatever the AMT tax rate is. i was talking about this a while back with a guy and was surprised to discover that i was essentially advocating for a flat tax, or at least a graduated tax with no deductions. good luck getting that to pass, though, since it would involve eliminating everybody's favorite deductions. pfft. people. hate 'em.
so anyway, this is the backdrop against which we show a movie called bounty killer. of course i hated it, it was crap. but more than that, it was economically implausible crap. "the corporations" do not want to make a post-apocalyptic world or to bring down government. government and the wealth of other corporations are the ecosystem that sustains corporate entities! duh. take away the government and the corporate ecosystem, and you just have gangs. real gangs understand this, of course, and they seek the equivalent of nation-state status via treaties with other gangs. i am not going to back that up with any documentation because i just made it up, but it makes sense if you think about it. fighting every day is a young person's game. when you get old, like over 27 or so, you want to have a couple days off from fighting every week. when you get to be really old, like 35 or so, fighting is that thing you do when you get fed up and want to teach the youngsters a lesson after they have been advocating a raid on your favorite neighboring gang for like a month straight. nobody lives past 36 because eventually the youngsters sneak into your bedroom at night and off you in your sleep.
i made that up, too, but it also makes sense if you think about it.
bounty killer gets one yellow tie. pro tip: if the thing which marks you as a target is that you are wearing a yellow tie, maybe take the tie off? or switch to purple? just a thought. also, who the fuck made all those suits?
2015-02-10
brick mansions
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1430612
brick mansions is an americanized scene-for-scene reshoot of banlieue 13. which means it is the same movie, except everybody is fatter and dumber, including the audience. i kid, i kid. but seriously. save your cockleshells and just watch the original. they have subtitles, so you do not have to spreken ze francaise to understand. and i do recommend going to the effort of understanding the plot here. the draw for this film is the parkour-inspired action, of course, but it is nicely wrapped up in a reasonable plotline.
brick mansions gets two banlieue 13s, while banlieue 13 gets four brick mansions.
brick mansions is an americanized scene-for-scene reshoot of banlieue 13. which means it is the same movie, except everybody is fatter and dumber, including the audience. i kid, i kid. but seriously. save your cockleshells and just watch the original. they have subtitles, so you do not have to spreken ze francaise to understand. and i do recommend going to the effort of understanding the plot here. the draw for this film is the parkour-inspired action, of course, but it is nicely wrapped up in a reasonable plotline.
brick mansions gets two banlieue 13s, while banlieue 13 gets four brick mansions.
2015-02-06
taken 2
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1397280
taken 2 was extraneous and took unbelievability to an uncomfortable level. the first taken movie was a novel superagent movie with a plausible, if unlikely, premise. the second was as disconnected from the reality of the first as the first was from real reality, but on a logarithmic scale. the phone-a-friend routine got old in a hurry, and no matter how skilled of a super agent he is, i just cannot grit my teeth hard enough to suspend disbelief and watch him train his 16 year old over the phone. where did she learn how to drive like that, and how did she fail her driving test with that kind of aptitude? seriously.
anywho, everything about taken 2 was predictable, including the part where they are making taken 3. or they already made it. whatever.
taken 2 gets two driving exams. one for liam neeson, the other because i remain a sucker for super agents.
taken 2 was extraneous and took unbelievability to an uncomfortable level. the first taken movie was a novel superagent movie with a plausible, if unlikely, premise. the second was as disconnected from the reality of the first as the first was from real reality, but on a logarithmic scale. the phone-a-friend routine got old in a hurry, and no matter how skilled of a super agent he is, i just cannot grit my teeth hard enough to suspend disbelief and watch him train his 16 year old over the phone. where did she learn how to drive like that, and how did she fail her driving test with that kind of aptitude? seriously.
anywho, everything about taken 2 was predictable, including the part where they are making taken 3. or they already made it. whatever.
taken 2 gets two driving exams. one for liam neeson, the other because i remain a sucker for super agents.
a good day to die hard
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1606378/
yet another movie that really did not need to be made. also, if you were expecting any real connection to the original die hard movies, forget about it. they have john mcclane, but bruce willis is way too old at this point to be a credible action hero. at least they portrayed him as older and wiser. also, justin long was not in this one, which was a vast improvement over the previous die hard flick.
anyway, good explosions, but all standard shootout stuff. the initial chase sequence was just ludicrous, though. i failed to find any deeper meaning to this pile of spent shell casings.
a good day to die hard gets two yipee-kai-yas.
yet another movie that really did not need to be made. also, if you were expecting any real connection to the original die hard movies, forget about it. they have john mcclane, but bruce willis is way too old at this point to be a credible action hero. at least they portrayed him as older and wiser. also, justin long was not in this one, which was a vast improvement over the previous die hard flick.
anyway, good explosions, but all standard shootout stuff. the initial chase sequence was just ludicrous, though. i failed to find any deeper meaning to this pile of spent shell casings.
a good day to die hard gets two yipee-kai-yas.
2015-01-18
the expendables 3
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2333784/
the expendables was a movie whose time had come and the expendables 2 was a movie that did not need to be made. expendables 3 connects those two data points and keeps going along the same trajectory; it is a movie which desperately needed to not be made.
what were the redeeming features of the first two expendables movies? hell if i remember. the third one's blitzkrieg of explosions and gunfire was quite effective as a memory wiping device. i think? hard to remember much of anything, really. i guess it is equally plausible that mel gibson climbed in my window and brainwashed me in my sleep. it could also have been aliens. aliens and mel gibson, working together? perhaps.
the expendables 3 gets one memory wipe.
the expendables was a movie whose time had come and the expendables 2 was a movie that did not need to be made. expendables 3 connects those two data points and keeps going along the same trajectory; it is a movie which desperately needed to not be made.
what were the redeeming features of the first two expendables movies? hell if i remember. the third one's blitzkrieg of explosions and gunfire was quite effective as a memory wiping device. i think? hard to remember much of anything, really. i guess it is equally plausible that mel gibson climbed in my window and brainwashed me in my sleep. it could also have been aliens. aliens and mel gibson, working together? perhaps.
the expendables 3 gets one memory wipe.
cleanskin
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1598873
cleanskin had pretty interesting characters and a nice twist, but the storytelling dragged far too much. by the time it got to the payoff, i was pretty well checked out, and checking back in was just too much effort. if i had had more patience, i think i would have liked it a lot more. also, the sympathetic character was a suicide bomber and the good guy was 1) not a good guy and 2) not likable. i am unclear on what vibe they were going for there, but it had to have been something like "self-loathing" or "sympathetic to terrorist causes." i therefore conclude that this movie was funded by the NSA as a way to find terrorist sympathizers among the movie-reviewing community. well tough luck, assholes. i saw right through your little charade.
cleanskin gets two suicide bombers.
cleanskin had pretty interesting characters and a nice twist, but the storytelling dragged far too much. by the time it got to the payoff, i was pretty well checked out, and checking back in was just too much effort. if i had had more patience, i think i would have liked it a lot more. also, the sympathetic character was a suicide bomber and the good guy was 1) not a good guy and 2) not likable. i am unclear on what vibe they were going for there, but it had to have been something like "self-loathing" or "sympathetic to terrorist causes." i therefore conclude that this movie was funded by the NSA as a way to find terrorist sympathizers among the movie-reviewing community. well tough luck, assholes. i saw right through your little charade.
cleanskin gets two suicide bombers.
2015-01-17
the machine
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2317225
based on netflix's description, i was expecting an action movie featuring a fighting robot machine kind of thing, but this was actually a touchy-feely flick about that old gem, the INDOMITABLE HUMAN SPIRIT, which can of course be programmed into a machine if you are smart enough. of course, of course. and if someone should attempt to reprogram the machine to be a killer? INDOMITABLE HUMAN SPIRIT. of course. and if the machine is instructed to kill its creator? INDOMITABLE HUMAN SPIRIT. of course. and if baby machine needs a mother? INDOMITABLE HUMAN SPIRIT. of course. and if the machine gets one INDOMITABLE HUMAN SPIRIT? INDOMITABLE HUMAN SPIRIT. of course.
there are a lot more interesting things you can do in a movie with the INDOMITABLE HUMAN SPIRIT rather than make it just about how it supposedly always wins out. it is unfortunate that most of these robot movies seem to stop there, though. for example, contrast 80's robocop with the recent remake. the first one got it right, the second one not so much. humans need to get over themselves. they are glorified machines, totally susceptible to programming. ask anybody in advertising. the interesting part is what they can do within that constraint.
the machine gets one INDOMITABLE HUMAN SPIRIT. of course.
based on netflix's description, i was expecting an action movie featuring a fighting robot machine kind of thing, but this was actually a touchy-feely flick about that old gem, the INDOMITABLE HUMAN SPIRIT, which can of course be programmed into a machine if you are smart enough. of course, of course. and if someone should attempt to reprogram the machine to be a killer? INDOMITABLE HUMAN SPIRIT. of course. and if the machine is instructed to kill its creator? INDOMITABLE HUMAN SPIRIT. of course. and if baby machine needs a mother? INDOMITABLE HUMAN SPIRIT. of course. and if the machine gets one INDOMITABLE HUMAN SPIRIT? INDOMITABLE HUMAN SPIRIT. of course.
there are a lot more interesting things you can do in a movie with the INDOMITABLE HUMAN SPIRIT rather than make it just about how it supposedly always wins out. it is unfortunate that most of these robot movies seem to stop there, though. for example, contrast 80's robocop with the recent remake. the first one got it right, the second one not so much. humans need to get over themselves. they are glorified machines, totally susceptible to programming. ask anybody in advertising. the interesting part is what they can do within that constraint.
the machine gets one INDOMITABLE HUMAN SPIRIT. of course.
2015-01-16
drive hard
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2968804/
i loved thomas jane in the punisher and thought he was fine in deep blue sea, but everything else i can think of has been crap. in drive hard, we have an improbable car driver paired with an equally improbable bank robber. oh, he is not a bank robber, you say? very good, you watched the scene where the bank robber explained blah blah blah. but if you are so observant, then explain to me why this movie should have been called hard drive instead.
drive hard gets one hard drive.
i loved thomas jane in the punisher and thought he was fine in deep blue sea, but everything else i can think of has been crap. in drive hard, we have an improbable car driver paired with an equally improbable bank robber. oh, he is not a bank robber, you say? very good, you watched the scene where the bank robber explained blah blah blah. but if you are so observant, then explain to me why this movie should have been called hard drive instead.
drive hard gets one hard drive.
the equalizer
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0455944
the equalizer clearly demonstrated two things. the first is that it is still a lot of fun to watch denzel kick the crap out of anonymous bad guys. the second is that home depot is where you want to be when the zombies come. they have everything there. explosives, firearms, sharp things, pointy things, blunt force trauma things. you could kill a lot of zombies with stuff from home depot. if you do not have a route to the nearest home depot memorized, my friends, then you are *not* ready for the apocalypse. maybe you are thinking you will hole up in the supermarket or something. they have an aisle with some auto stuff and another aisle with some home improvement stuff, right? ho ho ho. you know what is going to happen when you take those supermarket lawn shears and try to cut off some zombie heads? they are going to get jammed up on you, that is what. you are going to get the first zombie, then the second zombie is going to get you. know what you need? professional grade lawn shears. know where you can find them? home depot. aisle nine.
the equalizer gets four nailguns. i devoutly hope they do not make a sequel. i just have a feeling.
the equalizer clearly demonstrated two things. the first is that it is still a lot of fun to watch denzel kick the crap out of anonymous bad guys. the second is that home depot is where you want to be when the zombies come. they have everything there. explosives, firearms, sharp things, pointy things, blunt force trauma things. you could kill a lot of zombies with stuff from home depot. if you do not have a route to the nearest home depot memorized, my friends, then you are *not* ready for the apocalypse. maybe you are thinking you will hole up in the supermarket or something. they have an aisle with some auto stuff and another aisle with some home improvement stuff, right? ho ho ho. you know what is going to happen when you take those supermarket lawn shears and try to cut off some zombie heads? they are going to get jammed up on you, that is what. you are going to get the first zombie, then the second zombie is going to get you. know what you need? professional grade lawn shears. know where you can find them? home depot. aisle nine.
the equalizer gets four nailguns. i devoutly hope they do not make a sequel. i just have a feeling.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)