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.
2015-10-31
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)