A few days ago I watched Despicable Me, partly because I'd heard good things about the sequel and wanted to see the one before it. There was a lot of funny stuff in there, and lots of laugh out loud moments.
However, it was probably the most derivative animated movie I've seen in a looooong time. Almost every element came from previous Pixar movies. I'd make a list off the top of my head, but it's such a trivial movie, I can't be bothered.
For a movie about a (super) villain, it has a lot of catching up to do to be as good as Megamind. It was as funny as Megamind, but nothing else about it came close. And a long way behind the Incredibles too.
Apollo 13, on the other hand, is still really, really good. Thankfully it's a movie that relies on story and characters and acting, and not special effects. New movies could learn a thing a too about restraint!
Just finished Iron Sky. That movie was sorely disappointing. It had a great premise, amazing design, but was too damn American. At its core, it had nothing to do with the moon or Nazis, it was all about American politics. There's a whole subplot about how Sarah Palin would be total bros with Nazis -- and this is coming from the Finnish! It's simply sickening.
Do you remember the types of movies that Iron Sky is poking fun at? All those schlocky 60's Scifi movies and TV shows with actual, honest to god Space-Nazi's? Compared to the "red menace" plot common to so many of those films the commentary in Iron Sky is positively subtle. An overblown message about American politics is part of the parody.
Also, if you want to make a statement against rampant militarism and imperialism, who other than America are you supposed to focus on? That's kind of our thing.
On WUB's advice, I finally watched The Place Beyond the Pines. Damn fine movie, if slowly-paced (which isn't always a bad thing, since the pacing made sense and was consistant).
Also, if you want to make a statement against rampant militarism and imperialism, who other than America are you supposed to focus on? That's kind of our thing.
But why make a perfectly nice movie like that into a statement against anything? It was advertised as a campy explodey blacksploitative blockbuster, it started as a campy explodey blacksploitative blockbuster, why make anything but a campy explodey blacksploitative blockbuster? I like camp, and I like politics, but those two things should be kept as far away from each other as possible.
I'm not unkind enough to Americans to speculate that this is entirely because it's a movie whose sole purpose is to take the piss out of America and Americans. Americans are usually alright at taking jokes like that.
I think it's because it's made by foreigners. I ain't gonna have no damn socialist Finn that don't know nothin' but vodka, ethnic homogeny, and helpin' Hitler lecture me about Murica.
Why do people feel like they have to remake all these movies for no reason? There is nothing wrong with Old Boy. Why make it again when you could have made something new? Whenever someone does a remake like this all I hear is "I'm not creative and can't come up with even one new idea."
Every other country on Earth watches our movies dubbed or subbed. They don't remake them completely. Turkish Star Wars non-withstanding. Just put the originals in the theaters.
Every other country on Earth watches our movies dubbed or subbed. They don't remake them completely. Turkish Star Wars non-withstanding. Just put the originals in the theaters.
For my film program, we watched The Deer Hunter tonight. I was blown away by it. I lamented for waiting for so goddamn long to get to it. It is a massive, sprawling, detailed story about steel mill workers from Pennsylvania going to Vietnam for the Vietnam War and changing irreparably because of what they witness there. One thing I noticed when watching this is that almost every war movie that subsequently came after it owed something to The Deer Hunter because there are a lot of tropes, plot points, etc. that I speculate came from here first. Some of my friends said it meandered a little which I disagree with. It's long, but it isn't as long as it could have been (3 hours is enough to tell this story).
I feared I wouldn't take it seriously because Christopher Walken was the star of it (and he is pretty much a self-parody at this point), but he was unbelievable and amazing as Nick...a man whose entire life that was ruined by a misunderstanding. He deserved the Oscar for Best Supporting Actor that he snagged because of this role. It also made me feel bad for him because he never again captured the lightning in a bottle he had with this movie. Robert De Niro puts in one of the performances of his career and it only made me sad that we aren't getting performances of this caliber anymore from him. The world was also properly introduced to Meryl Streep because of this as well and she was wonderful as always (although I wish she had a much larger role and more screen-time in general).
The Russian roulette scenes were really, really intense and literally had me pulling my hair out because I was so sucked in by it and they really raised the stakes to an insane level. It is truly a masterpiece and one of the greatest war movies ever made. Please see this movie. I greatly encourage it.
Went out for another double feature tonight. First up was Sightseers, which I thought was brilliant. I'm not sure I understood the ultimate point of it on a first watch (if there was one), but I thought the cinematography was top notch (lots of really great subtle touches), the two leads felt like they just were their characters, and the tone throughout was something I can't even confidently describe (pitch black yet also kind of zen?), but I can say I thought it was unique and subtly built up. Very well done. Too bad it actually came out last year, or I would call it my favourite of the year so far.
Second feature was Pacific Rim, and thankfully, it was pretty good. Not deep in any way (plot and characters are just the bare essentials with strong acting to enhance them), but it was super effective in the way a good summer blockbuster should be. The action was AWESOOOOME, it's a decent leap forward in casting diversity for mainstream Hollywood, and even the post-converted 3D looked pretty darn good. Not the year's first masterpiece or anything, but it's solid. I hope it does better than the box office experts are predicting. At the very least, I hope it beats out this shit-mound. Eugh.
I watched Jack the Giant Slayer. It's a very stupid movie, of course. But why should it be "of course" when it's directed by Brian Singer? Wasn't he once a good director?
The script is terrible. It started reminding me of the worst of the Star Wars prequels when I heard lines like:
"Keep up, or else you'll fall behind."
"Something happened here."
Of course it's Ewan McGregor saying these lines. The next line was:
"I've got a very bad feeling about this."
That said, I quite like Ewan McGregor, even when he's in terrible movies. I'd happily watch him swinging a light saber in a Obi-Wan Kenobi spin-off movie.
Problem number 73 with Jack the Giant Slayer: Jack kills fewer giants than a team of soldiers with a machine gun. I mean a machine crossbow. The giants he does kill he uses the following methods:
A: stabbing a giant in the back. B: letting a stupid giant fall off a cliff while hiding. C: Let's say "poison".
Not exactly the most heroic ways to slay monsters!
I only watched it due to it playing on all the screens on my plane. I could either watch it without sound or plug in the headphones. For the state of the script, I wish I'd not have bothered listening in. The script and acting were way better in my head.
From the clips I've seen, the accents on the Father-and-son Jager team are excruciatingly bad.
Yeah they were.
Yep. Although, I will say I had less of a problem with their accents being bad than with them not articulating their dialogue well enough, so it was sometimes hard to understand them. Regardless of accent accuracy, if they had slurred fewer words together and not been so quiet/grumbly to hear so often, then I would've been okay with them. It was mostly the father who had that problem, but the son had it sometimes too.
I just watched Pacific Rim, the action scenes were awesome, the acting is a little sloppy, and the story does not have as many plot holes as I was expecting. Over all it was a pretty ok movie.
Don't expect character development. You get the most vanilla protagonist ever. If you like the action scenes in Evangelion but not the Shinji-learns-who-he-is parts or the end, you'll like Pacific Rim. It's a B+ but not life-changing.
You could read something interesting into it. Taken as an allegory of the morally relativistic cynicism of Hollywood subsuming and destroying the idealistic spirit of the properties it seeks to reboot, however shallow they may be, serving to further deaden the souls and feeding the mindless blood lust of the popcorn munching general audience, I think it works.
You could read something interesting into it. Taken as an allegory of the morally relativistic cynicism of Hollywood subsuming and destroying the idealistic spirit of the properties it seeks to reboot, however shallow they may be, serving to further deaden the souls and feeding the mindless blood lust of the popcorn munching general audience, I think it works.
I thoroughly enjoyed the movie. Any changes to the original mythos is irrelevant to the majority of the audience. My dad grew up listening to the Lone Ranger radio show and watched the TV series when it was brand new and enjoyed the movie very much as well. I don't think the movie was perfect, but I would watch it again for sure. I will probably even own it when it come out on Bluray.
I also enjoyed Pacific Rim, a lot, and that movie was just feeding the mindless blood lust of the popcorn munching audience. Obviously different people have different tastes, and I do tend to enjoy movies that others don't, but that is mostly from an entertainment standpoint, and the ability to shut off my brain for a couple hours of fun.
I saw the Joss Whedon Much Ado About Nothing (sans das Greg). It is flat out the best Shakespeare I have ever seen on film.
Even over Kenneth Branagh's Hamlet?
The only one of Branagh's Shakespeare movies I like is Henry V. As a director he has a huge sentimental streak that mars his work. The casting in Hamlet was bizarre. I didn't think all the actors were even in the same movie.
Saw a free screening of R.I.P.D. last night. It wasn't great, but it was pretty fun. It was kind of annoying for the first little while when it was just Ryan Reynolds and Kevin Bacon copping it up together, but once the supernatural special effects and M.I.B.-like sets started coming in, and more importantly once Jeff Bridges and Mary-Louise Parker came into the picture, it picked up a lot. I liked it.
Which is why I'm a little surprised and disappointed that it was hidden from critics until today, and that the reviews now coming in are mostly scathing. Looks like they're really hating on the movie for trying to be Men in Black, and for being formulaic. Is it trying to be M.I.B.? Abso-fucking-lutely, but I didn't really care. I knew that from the trailer going in, and I kind of wanted a new M.I.B. seeing as the last two actual M.I.B. movies haven't exactly lived up. Also yes, the actual plotline to it is super rote, but there's a lot of respectable creativity going on in the creature design, the worldbuilding, and the action sequences (there's a particularly good one in the middle when they chase a big fat dead-o). There was a lot of practical effects-making in with all the CG, which I thought was cool as well. I liked the chemistry between Reynolds and Bridges once they got into a groove together, and LOVED Parker in her role. Would have liked to see more of the actors playing the "civilian" forms of Reynolds and Bridges, too. I would watch an actual movie where Marisa Miller and James Hong play a take-no-shit cowboy woman and a badass Chinese grandpa as buddy cops.
So yeah, was not it the greatest and kind of unoriginal? Yeah. But it was fun, and I don't think it's going to deserve the massive critical hate and box office bomb status that it will surely accrue.
Comments
However, it was probably the most derivative animated movie I've seen in a looooong time. Almost every element came from previous Pixar movies. I'd make a list off the top of my head, but it's such a trivial movie, I can't be bothered.
For a movie about a (super) villain, it has a lot of catching up to do to be as good as Megamind. It was as funny as Megamind, but nothing else about it came close. And a long way behind the Incredibles too.
It also got my hopes up for Gravity.
Also, if you want to make a statement against rampant militarism and imperialism, who other than America are you supposed to focus on? That's kind of our thing.
I'm not sure if that was ironic or not...
I feared I wouldn't take it seriously because Christopher Walken was the star of it (and he is pretty much a self-parody at this point), but he was unbelievable and amazing as Nick...a man whose entire life that was ruined by a misunderstanding. He deserved the Oscar for Best Supporting Actor that he snagged because of this role. It also made me feel bad for him because he never again captured the lightning in a bottle he had with this movie. Robert De Niro puts in one of the performances of his career and it only made me sad that we aren't getting performances of this caliber anymore from him. The world was also properly introduced to Meryl Streep because of this as well and she was wonderful as always (although I wish she had a much larger role and more screen-time in general).
The Russian roulette scenes were really, really intense and literally had me pulling my hair out because I was so sucked in by it and they really raised the stakes to an insane level. It is truly a masterpiece and one of the greatest war movies ever made. Please see this movie. I greatly encourage it.
Second feature was Pacific Rim, and thankfully, it was pretty good. Not deep in any way (plot and characters are just the bare essentials with strong acting to enhance them), but it was super effective in the way a good summer blockbuster should be. The action was AWESOOOOME, it's a decent leap forward in casting diversity for mainstream Hollywood, and even the post-converted 3D looked pretty darn good. Not the year's first masterpiece or anything, but it's solid. I hope it does better than the box office experts are predicting. At the very least, I hope it beats out this shit-mound. Eugh.
The script is terrible. It started reminding me of the worst of the Star Wars prequels when I heard lines like:
"Keep up, or else you'll fall behind."
"Something happened here."
Of course it's Ewan McGregor saying these lines. The next line was:
"I've got a very bad feeling about this."
That said, I quite like Ewan McGregor, even when he's in terrible movies. I'd happily watch him swinging a light saber in a Obi-Wan Kenobi spin-off movie.
Problem number 73 with Jack the Giant Slayer: Jack kills fewer giants than a team of soldiers with a machine gun. I mean a machine crossbow. The giants he does kill he uses the following methods:
A: stabbing a giant in the back.
B: letting a stupid giant fall off a cliff while hiding.
C: Let's say "poison".
Not exactly the most heroic ways to slay monsters!
I only watched it due to it playing on all the screens on my plane. I could either watch it without sound or plug in the headphones. For the state of the script, I wish I'd not have bothered listening in. The script and acting were way better in my head.
Over all it was a pretty ok movie.
Don't expect character development. You get the most vanilla protagonist ever. If you like the action scenes in Evangelion but not the Shinji-learns-who-he-is parts or the end, you'll like Pacific Rim. It's a B+ but not life-changing.
HOWEVER:
You could read something interesting into it. Taken as an allegory of the morally relativistic cynicism of Hollywood subsuming and destroying the idealistic spirit of the properties it seeks to reboot, however shallow they may be, serving to further deaden the souls and feeding the mindless blood lust of the popcorn munching general audience, I think it works.
I also enjoyed Pacific Rim, a lot, and that movie was just feeding the mindless blood lust of the popcorn munching audience. Obviously different people have different tastes, and I do tend to enjoy movies that others don't, but that is mostly from an entertainment standpoint, and the ability to shut off my brain for a couple hours of fun.
Which is why I'm a little surprised and disappointed that it was hidden from critics until today, and that the reviews now coming in are mostly scathing. Looks like they're really hating on the movie for trying to be Men in Black, and for being formulaic. Is it trying to be M.I.B.? Abso-fucking-lutely, but I didn't really care. I knew that from the trailer going in, and I kind of wanted a new M.I.B. seeing as the last two actual M.I.B. movies haven't exactly lived up. Also yes, the actual plotline to it is super rote, but there's a lot of respectable creativity going on in the creature design, the worldbuilding, and the action sequences (there's a particularly good one in the middle when they chase a big fat dead-o). There was a lot of practical effects-making in with all the CG, which I thought was cool as well. I liked the chemistry between Reynolds and Bridges once they got into a groove together, and LOVED Parker in her role. Would have liked to see more of the actors playing the "civilian" forms of Reynolds and Bridges, too. I would watch an actual movie where Marisa Miller and James Hong play a take-no-shit cowboy woman and a badass Chinese grandpa as buddy cops.
So yeah, was not it the greatest and kind of unoriginal? Yeah. But it was fun, and I don't think it's going to deserve the massive critical hate and box office bomb status that it will surely accrue.