*Minor spoilers... but I'm hoping you won't see the movie.*
This movie is purely unreviewable. It's the biggest piece of shit that I've seen in a long time, certainly of this year. I will defend Amazing Spider-man 2 against this any day of the week.
No, I do not like Michael Bay. I hate him. I hate him because I think he's doing this on purpose. I really enjoyed Pain & Gain... maybe too much. It gave me amnesia, so I went into T4 with my fingers crossed. Actually, I would've gone into T4 with my fingers crossed regardless. I don't WANT a movie to fail for any reason! And I definitely don't want to sit through almost three hours - THREE HOURS - of complete shit just for fun! After T2 and T3, I thought maybe Transformers 4 would be different. But nope. It was two hours and forty-five excruciating minutes of Michael Bay ejaculating on the movie screen in 3D. My fault for seeing it in 3D, I know. I thought it might add to the fun.
The good - it was different. Mark Wahlberg was in it, along with Stanley Tucci and Kelsey Grammer. They're decent actors, so when they're delivering the shittiest dialogue I've seen in a movie in the past six months, I cringe a *hair* less. I take in a deep breath and think, "it's not their fault," and I try my best to give them a pass.
The scenery was nice. But I could have stayed home and Google Earth'd 'China' and been more comfortable. That's like saying "I went to see the Hobbit because I like New Zealand."
Also, there were no gigantic robot testicles. Oh, and Megan Fox. No Megan Fox.
That's it. To recap the good - a slightly better cast with the same awful dialogue, pleasant travel guide scenery, missing Megan Fox, and no robot testicles.
How would I rate this movie against the others? T1, T4, T3, T2 (or T2, T3? I forget). Unfortunately, that's like rating four gourmet dinners of goose shit. One plate might have less goose shit than the other, but they're all goose shit.
The bad -
- I'm not sure what the plot was. I thought, "that must mean I'm stupid, try harder!" But when I tried harder, I came up with several plot lines... I wasn't sure which to follow. I'm pretty sure they were all equally absurd.
- Only the Autobots transformed properly in this film. The 'evil' robots (there were no true Decepticons) sort of phased in and out, like the way The Lawnmower Man disintegrated people. I'm pretty sure that's why they weren't in the commercials. The FX crew said, "Well... we can either transform the Autobots on this budget or the Decepticons... pick one. It's the worst CGI I've seen in a long, long time.
- Good and bad. One of the human characters, who was infected with Bay Humor (that ridiculous, say anything, almost slapstick style humor in which the camera stays with the character several seconds longer than it should after a punchline), died horrifically early in the film. That was good. That I was relieved he died is bad, I'm pretty sure. Come to think of it, that 'death scene' was completely out of line with the tone of the rest of the movie. It was almost like a second director came on just for that scene. Kudos.
- Remember how the Transformers could just scan other cars on our highways and change form at will? That was back in this movie. But it also gave them instant repair-o-matic ability. So why not use it all the time? Just wonderin'.
- Wait, back to the plot... why does Lockdown want Prime again? The Makers want him? As a trophy? Or wait, what? And why would he ever make a deal with the CIA when he can just turn his face into a giant cannon?
- Lockdown. He almost made the Good list. He was THE enemy in the film. Not Megatron, not Galvatron. Unfortunately, he was kind of formless, could oddly turn his face into a gun, could also turn into a car... lazy. Lazy, lazy, f'n lazy. Lazier than the Decepticons in the previous films. It was like fighting an enemy of gray silly putty.
- Why do some Transformers have tongues?
- At about 1:20 into the film, I realized I was staring at my left knee instead of watching the movie. Not long after this, the characters found an abandoned luxury train to spend the night on and I envied them for being able to sleep in the theater.
- Did you know Transformers smoked cigars? I didn't. But they do.
- Oh my god, the music was AWFUL!! Every once in a while, Bay would toss in another riveting low-angle shot and some horrid, teen angst moanfest chorus to remind us that this was really half-movie, half-music video.
- 2:00 mark and I admit that I closed my eyes. I refused to leave because, dammit, I made it through 'Showgirls' and 'Batman & Robin', I sure as shit was going to make it through T4!
- If the Transformers were terraforming Earth, then why allow it to ever revert ba... Nevermind.
- Stanley Tucci was a bad guy that suddenly, like at the flip of a light switch, went into that aforementioned Bay Humor... sweaty, schticky, *slurping on a juice box* (no, not kidding) rant... and then back to bad again, yelling at a group of elderly women to "Get the fuck out of the way." It was inappropriate, misplaced and ... wtf, it was just bad. Poor Stanley Tucci. I know he didn't want to do it.
- Yes, the Dinobots are in the movie. The end of the movie. Here they are and there they go! Poof. Sorry.
- About the end, where was Galvatron? He sort of pussed out, didn't he?
- I'm pretty sure Bay's Transformers are racist.
- Optimus Prime, not unlike R2-D2, apparently has hidden rocket boosters. He uses them to fly into space, signaling another sequel. Didn't see that coming. Phhbt.
Please don't watch this film. I saw the film so you don't have to watch this film. Take your kids to something else. If you're an older Transformers fan, you're spoiling the experience for yourself by watching it - rewatch the animated movie and call it an afternoon. I saw the trailers for this and I thought maybe I was getting Unicron, Galvatron, Dinobots... instead, I got an awful plot laced with bad humor, a terrible score, twenty-year old CGI layered over live action, and some dumb blond actress that wouldn't stop screaming for nearly three hours. And if you ARE going to watch this, do NOT see it in 3D. It adds nothing but frustration to the experience, as most 3D films do.
Go get a hot wax or something less painful than this.
Saturday, June 28, 2014
Friday, March 14, 2014
12 Years a Slave (Nov 2013)
Now that the Oscars have come and gone, we know that 12 Years a Slave had several nominations and won the coveted Best Picture for 2013. Lupita Nyong'o won Best Supporting Actress for her role in the film, as well. But I'm having a lot of trouble wondering how Chiwetel Ejiofor and Michael Fassbender didn't walk away with Best Actor and Supporting Actor awards, respectively, for their roles. That's not fair of me... I haven't seen Dallas Buyers Club, yet, so I'll have to readdress that later. But it's baffling.
12 Years a Slave is based on a old book, memoir really, by Solomon Northup, a free black man living in New York during the 19th century as a farmer and fiddler with a home, a wife, a family... he was just a man, basically, no different than you or me in this time. And something happens - he's kidnapped, after a bad night of drinking (watch yourselves!), tossed on a boat, given a new name and sold into slavery. Imagine it... you wake up in chains instead of your bed. No matter how loudly you scream or how much you argue, you're beaten, tossed on a boat and then sold. Sold. And for the next 12 years, you're whipped, beaten, forced to work in fields. For all you know, you will never, ever see your wife and children again. It's closest kin in this day and age would be being wrongly convicted for murder and thrown into jail without a definitive sentence, nor with any rights. While wrongful convictions happen, we do our best to avoid them. Solomon Northup did not have the mercy of our present legal system.
It's brutal. It's everything that you should have learned in history class (but didn't) and much more, onscreen in all of its disgusting infamy. There is nothing sugar-coated about it. Everyone remembers the first time they saw Saving Private Ryan. It was gory and harsh. Soldiers were shot, maimed and blown apart. If you were like me, you sat and watched it with one hand covering your eyes. Watching Saving Private Ryan was like being hit over and over again.
But 12 Years a Slave is different. I sat through the entire movie, not with my hand over my eyes, but with my hand covering my mouth. My nose was wrinkled. I was disgusted. It was like being hit once with a large blunt object. Boom, you're knocked down. I can't imagine wanting to watch this again, to the extent of a movie like Private Ryan. The film forces you to walk in Northup's shoes and you feel everything that he does, all the despair. The treatment that the slaves are made to suffer is just... unfathomable. But it happened. And now, I've seen, I took it in, I processed it... and that's enough.
I know this may be an unpopular opinion, but 12 Years a Slave might be a case in which the actors and actresses earned their wages. Sure, we'd all love to be paid what they make, right? It certainly would be my dream to make that kind of money 'just' to shoot a movie. But I can't imagine any of these actors, no matter how small their role, walking away from a day's shoot and not collapsing under the sheer emotional weight of their work.
Lupita Nyong'o's performance was wonderful and she truly deserved her Oscar. She portrayed a character who was singled out for some of the worst physical and sexual abuse by her slave owner, groomed over the years to accept it. You watch her take the abuse in silence, like a broken dog, and it is awful.
But remember that this story is about Ejiofor's character, Solomon Northup, documenting his story over 12 years. When you meet Nyong'o's slave character, she's already broken. This movie shows the *breaking* of Solomon Northup, the removal of hope from a once free man. And in that way, this film is graphic. Ejiofor shows us this in frustrated screams and in silent tears. He shows us a man being crushed slowly and relentlessly, until he finally just gives in. Freedom lost. Gone.
And the Crusher - if there's anyone I can imagine walking off the set and needing a break at the end of the day, it's Michael Fassbender, THE slave owner. We meet other slave owners in the film, like the always charismatic Benedict Cumberbatch, and by the end of this movie, you'll be thinking to yourself, "If I had to be a slave, Christ I hope I'd end up with Cumberbatch... for life." Fassbender portrays an owner completely devoid of mercy or pity for his property. Slaves aren't human. Slaves are animals. And when animals need training or lessons, they are beaten... or stabbed... or hung... or raped. Fassbender is wild and vile and disgusting. He is everything evil, except criminal. For he bought these people and his actions are legal. And by the end of the movie, as awful as he is, you'll buy him, too. Fassbender's 'Epps' is easily in my Top 10 Villains of this past decade... unless I'm just not thinking hard enough.
12 Years a Slave is not a fun movie and maybe you think it's one that you can skip. But if you do decide to watch this film, you will be treated to an exceptional story with an undeniably spectacular cast. Of the nine Oscar nominations for Best Picture in 2013, I can see why this seemed like such an easy win.
12 Years a Slave is based on a old book, memoir really, by Solomon Northup, a free black man living in New York during the 19th century as a farmer and fiddler with a home, a wife, a family... he was just a man, basically, no different than you or me in this time. And something happens - he's kidnapped, after a bad night of drinking (watch yourselves!), tossed on a boat, given a new name and sold into slavery. Imagine it... you wake up in chains instead of your bed. No matter how loudly you scream or how much you argue, you're beaten, tossed on a boat and then sold. Sold. And for the next 12 years, you're whipped, beaten, forced to work in fields. For all you know, you will never, ever see your wife and children again. It's closest kin in this day and age would be being wrongly convicted for murder and thrown into jail without a definitive sentence, nor with any rights. While wrongful convictions happen, we do our best to avoid them. Solomon Northup did not have the mercy of our present legal system.
It's brutal. It's everything that you should have learned in history class (but didn't) and much more, onscreen in all of its disgusting infamy. There is nothing sugar-coated about it. Everyone remembers the first time they saw Saving Private Ryan. It was gory and harsh. Soldiers were shot, maimed and blown apart. If you were like me, you sat and watched it with one hand covering your eyes. Watching Saving Private Ryan was like being hit over and over again.
But 12 Years a Slave is different. I sat through the entire movie, not with my hand over my eyes, but with my hand covering my mouth. My nose was wrinkled. I was disgusted. It was like being hit once with a large blunt object. Boom, you're knocked down. I can't imagine wanting to watch this again, to the extent of a movie like Private Ryan. The film forces you to walk in Northup's shoes and you feel everything that he does, all the despair. The treatment that the slaves are made to suffer is just... unfathomable. But it happened. And now, I've seen, I took it in, I processed it... and that's enough.
I know this may be an unpopular opinion, but 12 Years a Slave might be a case in which the actors and actresses earned their wages. Sure, we'd all love to be paid what they make, right? It certainly would be my dream to make that kind of money 'just' to shoot a movie. But I can't imagine any of these actors, no matter how small their role, walking away from a day's shoot and not collapsing under the sheer emotional weight of their work.
Lupita Nyong'o's performance was wonderful and she truly deserved her Oscar. She portrayed a character who was singled out for some of the worst physical and sexual abuse by her slave owner, groomed over the years to accept it. You watch her take the abuse in silence, like a broken dog, and it is awful.
But remember that this story is about Ejiofor's character, Solomon Northup, documenting his story over 12 years. When you meet Nyong'o's slave character, she's already broken. This movie shows the *breaking* of Solomon Northup, the removal of hope from a once free man. And in that way, this film is graphic. Ejiofor shows us this in frustrated screams and in silent tears. He shows us a man being crushed slowly and relentlessly, until he finally just gives in. Freedom lost. Gone.
And the Crusher - if there's anyone I can imagine walking off the set and needing a break at the end of the day, it's Michael Fassbender, THE slave owner. We meet other slave owners in the film, like the always charismatic Benedict Cumberbatch, and by the end of this movie, you'll be thinking to yourself, "If I had to be a slave, Christ I hope I'd end up with Cumberbatch... for life." Fassbender portrays an owner completely devoid of mercy or pity for his property. Slaves aren't human. Slaves are animals. And when animals need training or lessons, they are beaten... or stabbed... or hung... or raped. Fassbender is wild and vile and disgusting. He is everything evil, except criminal. For he bought these people and his actions are legal. And by the end of the movie, as awful as he is, you'll buy him, too. Fassbender's 'Epps' is easily in my Top 10 Villains of this past decade... unless I'm just not thinking hard enough.
12 Years a Slave is not a fun movie and maybe you think it's one that you can skip. But if you do decide to watch this film, you will be treated to an exceptional story with an undeniably spectacular cast. Of the nine Oscar nominations for Best Picture in 2013, I can see why this seemed like such an easy win.
Saturday, February 22, 2014
Kick-Ass 2 (Aug 2013)
There's a great novelty about Kick-Ass. It's about a teenager who decides he's had enough of his boring high school life and takes to the city to fight crime. The problem, though, is that he hasn't been bitten by a radioactive spider, wasn't born with mutant genes, or didn't crash-land on Earth from an alien planet. He doesn't have superpowers. Hell, he doesn't even have powers. He's just an ordinary kid. And because he's just an ordinary kid, Kick-Ass gets his Ass-Kicked. The only thing that saves him is his eventual team-up with a better trained ten-year old heroine named Hit-Girl. Together, they do pretty damned well.
Fast forward a few years and now we have Kick-Ass 2. The actions of our heroes from the first film have inspired several changes. While ordinary citizens are donning costumes and taking to the streets as vigilantes like Kick-Ass and Hit-Girl did to fight crime, we now have a new villain, The Mother F@#$er, intent on hunting down Kick-Ass to get revenge for what he did in the climactic finale during the original movie. Kick-Ass, still interested in fighting street crime, joins a team of "good guys". The MFer, wanting his revenge, pays off a team of assassins to hunt him down... a team of "bad guys". Two posses. Sharks and Jets, I guess. But wait a minute - what about Hit-Girl, scene stealer of the first movie? She's hanging up the cape and struggling with her own problems in high school...
Noooooo! Really? But it's Hit-Girl! You can't do that to Hit-Girl!
I suppose that was inevitable. If you're making sequels and keeping the same cast, the one thing you can't fight is the aging process. The charm of Hit-Girl is that she's not just the sidekick. She might be younger than Kick-Ass, but she's the hero doing the real damage - bouncing off walls, jumping off roofs, smashing through windows. She's been trained and she's not nearly as vulnerable as our other heroes. But she's still a little kid! That's the fun of it!
Again, can't fight it. Chloe Moretz is a few years older now and the story needs to be adjusted to fit on-screen. Now, it probably seems like I'm complaining... "recast Hit-Girl!" or "leave Hit-Girl out of the sequel!" Actually, I'm saying just the opposite. Chloe is such a scene stealer as Hit-Girl... If you're going to adjust the script to accommodate an older Hit-Girl, then you could have left Kick-Ass out of this movie and made this her film.
While I thought the movie was okay, it felt like I was watching two stories - 1) what happens when Kick-Ass joins a team and 2) what happens when Hit-Girl adjusts to older life. While it sounds like #2 would be the obviously boring choice, it wasn't. I actually enjoyed her struggle. I thought it was Hit-Girl meets the movie Mean Girls. If they had expanded that and framed her as The MFer's target (easily done), then I think it would've made a really good movie.
So what about Kick-Ass and his adventures with the new team? Good, but kind of boring. The new director, Jeff Wadlow, did a few things well enough. If you saw the original, directed by Matthew Vaughn, then you expected the vulgarity and the over-the-top action scenes... lots of blood and ridiculousness. But was it engrossing? No. And I just didn't really care about Kick-Ass! Honestly, I was much more interested this time in the secondary characters and even The MFer as the villain than I was the hero of the movie. Jim Carrey nailed it as Colonel Stars and Stripes and didn't get as much play time as I would have liked. Neither did the rest of the team - Night Bitch, Dr. Gravity, Insect Man. I know that if you develop these kinds of characters, then you risk the movie being three hours long... but what does it say if I'm more invested in them than Kick-Ass? It ain't good.
My other complaint is that I was hoping the movie would be a little bit more "comic book-y". Can we make that a word, please? I'm not talking to the extent of Scott Pilgrim, but more than just a few "Meanwhile..." ink bubbles. Obviously, the movie doesn't take itself very seriously, so why not play that up? I thought the best combination of comic action was the fight between Hit-Girl and Mother Russia. To those who aren't fans of the slow motion camera direction, you won't be impressed, but it definitely beat Wadlow's shaky cam fights used earlier in the movie. I thought the Hit-Girl / Mother Russia throw-down was the best-of-the-best. Definitely left me wanting more.
Although I was late watching this flick, I heard a lot of fans clamoring for another sequel after this was released. I have no idea what you're smoking. It's not that I'm screaming against it, but ... again, the novelty is gone. Our heroes are aging, they aren't as much fun, it rubs across the grain of the graphic novels. I'll certainly admit that they left the movie open for another sequel (wasn't hard to do), but it didn't make a ton of money either. The studio isn't going to jump at the chance.
It must seem like I'm crapping all over it. I'm not. It was okay and even rewatchable. I think my expectations were too high... I really enjoyed the first film (and love the comic). When I'm watching the movie, though, and have to hold back from skipping scenes until Hit-Girl or Colonel Stars and Stripes is the main attraction again, then I know I'm forcing myself to like it. That's no good.
Fast forward a few years and now we have Kick-Ass 2. The actions of our heroes from the first film have inspired several changes. While ordinary citizens are donning costumes and taking to the streets as vigilantes like Kick-Ass and Hit-Girl did to fight crime, we now have a new villain, The Mother F@#$er, intent on hunting down Kick-Ass to get revenge for what he did in the climactic finale during the original movie. Kick-Ass, still interested in fighting street crime, joins a team of "good guys". The MFer, wanting his revenge, pays off a team of assassins to hunt him down... a team of "bad guys". Two posses. Sharks and Jets, I guess. But wait a minute - what about Hit-Girl, scene stealer of the first movie? She's hanging up the cape and struggling with her own problems in high school...
Noooooo! Really? But it's Hit-Girl! You can't do that to Hit-Girl!
I suppose that was inevitable. If you're making sequels and keeping the same cast, the one thing you can't fight is the aging process. The charm of Hit-Girl is that she's not just the sidekick. She might be younger than Kick-Ass, but she's the hero doing the real damage - bouncing off walls, jumping off roofs, smashing through windows. She's been trained and she's not nearly as vulnerable as our other heroes. But she's still a little kid! That's the fun of it!
Again, can't fight it. Chloe Moretz is a few years older now and the story needs to be adjusted to fit on-screen. Now, it probably seems like I'm complaining... "recast Hit-Girl!" or "leave Hit-Girl out of the sequel!" Actually, I'm saying just the opposite. Chloe is such a scene stealer as Hit-Girl... If you're going to adjust the script to accommodate an older Hit-Girl, then you could have left Kick-Ass out of this movie and made this her film.
While I thought the movie was okay, it felt like I was watching two stories - 1) what happens when Kick-Ass joins a team and 2) what happens when Hit-Girl adjusts to older life. While it sounds like #2 would be the obviously boring choice, it wasn't. I actually enjoyed her struggle. I thought it was Hit-Girl meets the movie Mean Girls. If they had expanded that and framed her as The MFer's target (easily done), then I think it would've made a really good movie.
So what about Kick-Ass and his adventures with the new team? Good, but kind of boring. The new director, Jeff Wadlow, did a few things well enough. If you saw the original, directed by Matthew Vaughn, then you expected the vulgarity and the over-the-top action scenes... lots of blood and ridiculousness. But was it engrossing? No. And I just didn't really care about Kick-Ass! Honestly, I was much more interested this time in the secondary characters and even The MFer as the villain than I was the hero of the movie. Jim Carrey nailed it as Colonel Stars and Stripes and didn't get as much play time as I would have liked. Neither did the rest of the team - Night Bitch, Dr. Gravity, Insect Man. I know that if you develop these kinds of characters, then you risk the movie being three hours long... but what does it say if I'm more invested in them than Kick-Ass? It ain't good.
My other complaint is that I was hoping the movie would be a little bit more "comic book-y". Can we make that a word, please? I'm not talking to the extent of Scott Pilgrim, but more than just a few "Meanwhile..." ink bubbles. Obviously, the movie doesn't take itself very seriously, so why not play that up? I thought the best combination of comic action was the fight between Hit-Girl and Mother Russia. To those who aren't fans of the slow motion camera direction, you won't be impressed, but it definitely beat Wadlow's shaky cam fights used earlier in the movie. I thought the Hit-Girl / Mother Russia throw-down was the best-of-the-best. Definitely left me wanting more.
Although I was late watching this flick, I heard a lot of fans clamoring for another sequel after this was released. I have no idea what you're smoking. It's not that I'm screaming against it, but ... again, the novelty is gone. Our heroes are aging, they aren't as much fun, it rubs across the grain of the graphic novels. I'll certainly admit that they left the movie open for another sequel (wasn't hard to do), but it didn't make a ton of money either. The studio isn't going to jump at the chance.
It must seem like I'm crapping all over it. I'm not. It was okay and even rewatchable. I think my expectations were too high... I really enjoyed the first film (and love the comic). When I'm watching the movie, though, and have to hold back from skipping scenes until Hit-Girl or Colonel Stars and Stripes is the main attraction again, then I know I'm forcing myself to like it. That's no good.
Thursday, February 13, 2014
Robocop (Feb 2014)
I loved the original Robocop. What wasn't to love? There were cyborgs, robots, and graphic, graphic violence. The bad guys were BAD guys. Between the gang violence and corporate corruption, the few good guys didn't have much of a chance in this futuristic Detroit. Even Detroit itself could be counted as a bad guy - seedy, dirty, filthy, worthless. It reeked. Everything in the original Robocop was intense, dialed to the max.
And that was always Verhoeven's trademark. I have a love / hate relationship with his movies. Yes, I loved Robocop. But do I need to see Officer Murphy shotgunned to chunks? No. Do I need to see Emil's skin melt away? No. Do I need to see ED-209 perforate that employee in the boardroom? Well... lol, kind of. It's making me giggle a little. Robocop's concept was great, but some of its direction was stupid. Same with Total Recall (give the concept credit there to Philip Dick). Same with Starship Troopers. I saw Showgirls at the theater and I think I left early. Verhoeven has this need to turn everything extreme, to the point he desensitizes his viewers and leaves them uncaring.
So, I was very happy when I heard that Robocop was coming to theaters again (not rebooted, right? remade?). I was hoping that whoever took the reins - Jose Padilha - would dial it back just a tad. I have this image of Spinal Tap turning their amps from 11 to maybe 9. I still want the action, I just don't need to be shocked. It had a great story! Let's spend a little more time on Murph's human struggles or on OCP's political corruption rather than melting someone's skin off?
Instead, this is what I got:
The story is only roughly the same. In this movie, OCP, the corporation, is making money hand-over-fist with its robotic security deployed worldwide. Here at home, however, the citizens of America won't allow the replacement of their police force with OCP's technology because robots lack conscience, judgment, heart... all those things that make us human. America doesn't trust them. So OCP establishes a pilot program in Robocop. It takes a cop who's just been obliterated by a car bomb, creates a cyborg with his left-overs, and puts him on the street to see if he can gain some of the public trust. Call it a compromise. And it works! He's on the street for just a few days and crime rates drop 80%! Wow! (That's really in the movie... I'm going to gloss over this.) His crime fighting is astonishingly efficient until he stumbles upon his own unsolved attempted murder, prompting him to break protocol and hunt down the filthiness hiding within his own police department. Barely related, he also finds that OCP might be a little corrupt, too.
And that's a HUGE problem with this movie. Everything that was bad was also intertwined in the original film. OCP was the end-all, be-all bad guy. It had dirty hands from the top of the food chain all the way down to the seediest of alley ways. Gang members even paid the OCP offices a visit, if you remember! Instead, this 2014 Robocop had the gang/police and OCP storylines play out distinctly. It was as if the writers and director finished filming the gang/police story and said, "Uh oh, we're way under time. Is there any way we can keep this film moving? Maybe add another bad guy?" So, as an afterthought, they decided to flesh out OCP into something more wretched later in the movie to keep us in our seats. Sure, OCP was contemptible, but corrupt? Like, point a gun at a kid and pull the trigger kind of corrupt? Not really. Not until the end, all of a sudden. How'd they go from selling robots to hostage takers? I guess I should gloss over that, too.
Another departure from the original movie was that Murphy's memory wasn't wiped, leaving him to struggle with his robo-humanity throughout the film. Most of this story element was fairly flat (if you're going to keep his wife and son in the movie, then play them up, damn it!), but it did mean more screen time with Gary Oldman, who played the doctor who "saved" Murph by creating the Robocop suit and talked Murphy through some of his emotional struggles. Anytime Oldman is onscreen, it's a treasure, and he brought the only emotional depth this film served. I won't deny that Michael Keaton did a fantastic job, as well (given the story's parameters), but Gary Oldman's supporting role was really the star of this film. Robocop himself didn't matter - Joel Kinnaman, Peter Weller... walk like a robot and you've got the role. I don't think Kinnaman showed much range, even when he was with his son, unfortunately.
A quick note about Keaton - I said he did a great job. He did. But his character was no Dick Jones. Dick Jones in the first Robocop was the ultimate weasel. One way or another, everything tied to him. If he had to throw a baby off a roof to get what he wanted, you wouldn't be surprised when he went through with it. Keaton's character, Raymond Sellars, was a weasel, but a baby killer? We're supposed to believe that at the end, apparently.
Finally, Detroit, city of sin. Honestly? Because if you took the gang scenes out of the movie, all you were left with was a couple alleyway drug deals. You didn't feel like Detroit was the sinkhole portrayed in the original Robocop. When they were panning shots through the police station, I swear I think every cop was at their desk. Maybe if they were out patrolling their city, they wouldn't need a cyborg helping out?
Other than these gripes, the action was fine for a PG-13 CGI movie. I asked for dialed down violence and, to my chagrin, I got it. There weren't many big sequences. Hell, half the time, Robocop was using a taser. It was nice to see ED-209 back on the big screen, but there was no thrill or tension to the fights. At least I liked Robocop's suit. That's something, right?
I didn't mind the movie in that I was mildly entertained for two hours, but I could have waited for the DVD. You know when you order a soda from a fast food restaurant and it has too much caramel and it's only mildly carbonated, but you're too lazy to take it back... so you drink it anyway? It's fine, but it's not the fizzy goodness you were hoping for. That was Robocop 2014.
And that was always Verhoeven's trademark. I have a love / hate relationship with his movies. Yes, I loved Robocop. But do I need to see Officer Murphy shotgunned to chunks? No. Do I need to see Emil's skin melt away? No. Do I need to see ED-209 perforate that employee in the boardroom? Well... lol, kind of. It's making me giggle a little. Robocop's concept was great, but some of its direction was stupid. Same with Total Recall (give the concept credit there to Philip Dick). Same with Starship Troopers. I saw Showgirls at the theater and I think I left early. Verhoeven has this need to turn everything extreme, to the point he desensitizes his viewers and leaves them uncaring.
So, I was very happy when I heard that Robocop was coming to theaters again (not rebooted, right? remade?). I was hoping that whoever took the reins - Jose Padilha - would dial it back just a tad. I have this image of Spinal Tap turning their amps from 11 to maybe 9. I still want the action, I just don't need to be shocked. It had a great story! Let's spend a little more time on Murph's human struggles or on OCP's political corruption rather than melting someone's skin off?
Instead, this is what I got:
The story is only roughly the same. In this movie, OCP, the corporation, is making money hand-over-fist with its robotic security deployed worldwide. Here at home, however, the citizens of America won't allow the replacement of their police force with OCP's technology because robots lack conscience, judgment, heart... all those things that make us human. America doesn't trust them. So OCP establishes a pilot program in Robocop. It takes a cop who's just been obliterated by a car bomb, creates a cyborg with his left-overs, and puts him on the street to see if he can gain some of the public trust. Call it a compromise. And it works! He's on the street for just a few days and crime rates drop 80%! Wow! (That's really in the movie... I'm going to gloss over this.) His crime fighting is astonishingly efficient until he stumbles upon his own unsolved attempted murder, prompting him to break protocol and hunt down the filthiness hiding within his own police department. Barely related, he also finds that OCP might be a little corrupt, too.
And that's a HUGE problem with this movie. Everything that was bad was also intertwined in the original film. OCP was the end-all, be-all bad guy. It had dirty hands from the top of the food chain all the way down to the seediest of alley ways. Gang members even paid the OCP offices a visit, if you remember! Instead, this 2014 Robocop had the gang/police and OCP storylines play out distinctly. It was as if the writers and director finished filming the gang/police story and said, "Uh oh, we're way under time. Is there any way we can keep this film moving? Maybe add another bad guy?" So, as an afterthought, they decided to flesh out OCP into something more wretched later in the movie to keep us in our seats. Sure, OCP was contemptible, but corrupt? Like, point a gun at a kid and pull the trigger kind of corrupt? Not really. Not until the end, all of a sudden. How'd they go from selling robots to hostage takers? I guess I should gloss over that, too.
Another departure from the original movie was that Murphy's memory wasn't wiped, leaving him to struggle with his robo-humanity throughout the film. Most of this story element was fairly flat (if you're going to keep his wife and son in the movie, then play them up, damn it!), but it did mean more screen time with Gary Oldman, who played the doctor who "saved" Murph by creating the Robocop suit and talked Murphy through some of his emotional struggles. Anytime Oldman is onscreen, it's a treasure, and he brought the only emotional depth this film served. I won't deny that Michael Keaton did a fantastic job, as well (given the story's parameters), but Gary Oldman's supporting role was really the star of this film. Robocop himself didn't matter - Joel Kinnaman, Peter Weller... walk like a robot and you've got the role. I don't think Kinnaman showed much range, even when he was with his son, unfortunately.
A quick note about Keaton - I said he did a great job. He did. But his character was no Dick Jones. Dick Jones in the first Robocop was the ultimate weasel. One way or another, everything tied to him. If he had to throw a baby off a roof to get what he wanted, you wouldn't be surprised when he went through with it. Keaton's character, Raymond Sellars, was a weasel, but a baby killer? We're supposed to believe that at the end, apparently.
Finally, Detroit, city of sin. Honestly? Because if you took the gang scenes out of the movie, all you were left with was a couple alleyway drug deals. You didn't feel like Detroit was the sinkhole portrayed in the original Robocop. When they were panning shots through the police station, I swear I think every cop was at their desk. Maybe if they were out patrolling their city, they wouldn't need a cyborg helping out?
Other than these gripes, the action was fine for a PG-13 CGI movie. I asked for dialed down violence and, to my chagrin, I got it. There weren't many big sequences. Hell, half the time, Robocop was using a taser. It was nice to see ED-209 back on the big screen, but there was no thrill or tension to the fights. At least I liked Robocop's suit. That's something, right?
I didn't mind the movie in that I was mildly entertained for two hours, but I could have waited for the DVD. You know when you order a soda from a fast food restaurant and it has too much caramel and it's only mildly carbonated, but you're too lazy to take it back... so you drink it anyway? It's fine, but it's not the fizzy goodness you were hoping for. That was Robocop 2014.
Sunday, February 9, 2014
The Lego Movie (Feb 2014)
"Everything is awesome!" (<-- click me!)
I don't know how I'm going to write this little review with that song stuck in my head. I think it deserves an Academy Award for putting such a smile on my face. Unless How to Train Your Dragon 2 is a surprise success during the summer, I think Lego is already the frontrunner for the Best Animated Movie. It's only February.
The Lego Movie is directed by Phil Lord and Chris Miller, the same team responsible for Cloudy With a Chance of Meatballs (written and directed) and its 2013 sequel (written). Both were box office hits, each grossing roughly $125 million just domestically. The Lego Movie, with a budget of only $60 million - half of the first Cloudy - is toying proudly with breaking even in its first domestic weekend alone. No wonder the studio already has plans for its sequel! To keep the monetary comparisons going, Disney's Frozen, an absolute juggernaut, also made a little over $60 million in it's opening US weekend... BUT cost almost $150 million to make. We'll see what happens when the worldwide numbers are accounted, but if you smell profit around The Lego Movie, you're not wrong. At all.
This movie is straight-up fun! It's exactly what an animated blockbuster should be nowadays - smart, funny, colorful, engaging and quick... but not too quick (100 minutes)! The plot is wonderfully basic: our very ordinary Emmet is living a very ordinary life in a very ordinary town governed by the evil Lord Business, whose ultimate plan is to use his secret weapon, The Kragle, to freeze the world in place to prevent any non-conformity. Little does Emmet know, he has the power within himself as a Master Builder, to stop The Kragle and Lord Business, freeing everyone from their ordinary lives. But it'll take other Master Builders, like WyldStyle, Vitruvius, and Batman (yes!) to convince him that he can truly make a difference. Also, there's Unikitty. I loved Unikitty.
The animation in the film was wonderful, a blast of stop-motion style CGI, and it never stopped moving. Things didn't necessarily need to explode in order to feel like there was plenty of action on-screen. Driving to the coffee shop or dropping off dry cleaning felt somewhat frantic. But it was in no way similar to the seizure-provoking scene changes that we're used to in children's cartoons these days (Spongebob comes to mind). And it was all true to the spirit and accuracy of building Legos - to ride a horse, the holes in Emmet's behind had to interlock with the pegs in the horse's back (he missed, leaving him to bounce around awkwardly on his trip); when something did explode, plastic Lego flames bits were used rather than real fire; ocean waves were choppy as the animators built and rebuilt the pieces to give them an ebb and flow effect. Constant, but fun, movement.
It didn't take long for me to start laughing - picture a Lego, no elbows and no knees, trying to perform jumping jacks. Or walking around a construction site with a Lego croissant in one hand and a Lego hot dog in the other (who does that?). But I did worry during the first third of the movie that maybe this wasn't as clever as I had hoped it would be. Some of the early jokes were drawn out, aiming to engage kids rather than parents (not all... Emmet's commute to work was wonderful). I started to fear that I might have stumbled into a Despicable Me 2... loved the Minions, hated the fart jokes. That wasn't the case, however. By the time the movie really started progressing, there was plenty of humor, some nostalgic, for the older audience. All of the old Lego sets were in the movie, in their entirety, and many figures that we played with as kids had either cameos or starring roles (80's Lego space man!). I also was impressed with the time they took to include bits like Lego model numbers. When the Master Builders were assembling new sets, model numbers would appear on-screen in CGI white near them - something that kids might not understand, but parents who dropped a good deal of money on them for Christmas might (I know I heard more than one chuckle and groan).
I would love to talk about the end of the movie... slap a *spoiler* alert and give it all away. I won't. But it's the end of the movie that is going to make it completely rewatchable. That's where everything came together, especially humor and heart. Where I felt like the beginning of the film was a little more childish (not immature, but for kids), the end was tailored more for the parents. Little kids will appreciate the climactic action in Bricksburg, but may get bored with the other dramatic cutscenes that transform the movie into one on par with the Toy Story franchise. For us, it all comes together into something so wonderful, I wanted to buy a ticket for the next screening.
This was a great animated film and the voice casting was like the cherry on top. I generally don't care beforehand who's cast in these roles. Unless it's a travesty of a casting job, you get used to the voice actors or actresses within a few minutes of seeing their alter-egos on-screen. This was a real treat, though, like John C. Reilly playing Wreck-It Ralph. There wasn't a single miscast on the entire list (I would have paid money to see Morgan Freeman or Will Arnett do their lines). And to the genius who gave the villain role to Will Ferrell, you deserve a bonus. You'll all understand when you see... bah, I can't spoil it!
This will, no doubt, be in my movie collection - for me and my son. I can't think of the last time I've wanted to rewatch an animated movie so soon. It will also be on the 'white noise' list - that list of movies my son has that we can replay over and over in a single day without making me insane. Without delay, hop in line for The Lego Movie. It's a great little escape.
Everything is awesome!
I don't know how I'm going to write this little review with that song stuck in my head. I think it deserves an Academy Award for putting such a smile on my face. Unless How to Train Your Dragon 2 is a surprise success during the summer, I think Lego is already the frontrunner for the Best Animated Movie. It's only February.
The Lego Movie is directed by Phil Lord and Chris Miller, the same team responsible for Cloudy With a Chance of Meatballs (written and directed) and its 2013 sequel (written). Both were box office hits, each grossing roughly $125 million just domestically. The Lego Movie, with a budget of only $60 million - half of the first Cloudy - is toying proudly with breaking even in its first domestic weekend alone. No wonder the studio already has plans for its sequel! To keep the monetary comparisons going, Disney's Frozen, an absolute juggernaut, also made a little over $60 million in it's opening US weekend... BUT cost almost $150 million to make. We'll see what happens when the worldwide numbers are accounted, but if you smell profit around The Lego Movie, you're not wrong. At all.
This movie is straight-up fun! It's exactly what an animated blockbuster should be nowadays - smart, funny, colorful, engaging and quick... but not too quick (100 minutes)! The plot is wonderfully basic: our very ordinary Emmet is living a very ordinary life in a very ordinary town governed by the evil Lord Business, whose ultimate plan is to use his secret weapon, The Kragle, to freeze the world in place to prevent any non-conformity. Little does Emmet know, he has the power within himself as a Master Builder, to stop The Kragle and Lord Business, freeing everyone from their ordinary lives. But it'll take other Master Builders, like WyldStyle, Vitruvius, and Batman (yes!) to convince him that he can truly make a difference. Also, there's Unikitty. I loved Unikitty.
The animation in the film was wonderful, a blast of stop-motion style CGI, and it never stopped moving. Things didn't necessarily need to explode in order to feel like there was plenty of action on-screen. Driving to the coffee shop or dropping off dry cleaning felt somewhat frantic. But it was in no way similar to the seizure-provoking scene changes that we're used to in children's cartoons these days (Spongebob comes to mind). And it was all true to the spirit and accuracy of building Legos - to ride a horse, the holes in Emmet's behind had to interlock with the pegs in the horse's back (he missed, leaving him to bounce around awkwardly on his trip); when something did explode, plastic Lego flames bits were used rather than real fire; ocean waves were choppy as the animators built and rebuilt the pieces to give them an ebb and flow effect. Constant, but fun, movement.
It didn't take long for me to start laughing - picture a Lego, no elbows and no knees, trying to perform jumping jacks. Or walking around a construction site with a Lego croissant in one hand and a Lego hot dog in the other (who does that?). But I did worry during the first third of the movie that maybe this wasn't as clever as I had hoped it would be. Some of the early jokes were drawn out, aiming to engage kids rather than parents (not all... Emmet's commute to work was wonderful). I started to fear that I might have stumbled into a Despicable Me 2... loved the Minions, hated the fart jokes. That wasn't the case, however. By the time the movie really started progressing, there was plenty of humor, some nostalgic, for the older audience. All of the old Lego sets were in the movie, in their entirety, and many figures that we played with as kids had either cameos or starring roles (80's Lego space man!). I also was impressed with the time they took to include bits like Lego model numbers. When the Master Builders were assembling new sets, model numbers would appear on-screen in CGI white near them - something that kids might not understand, but parents who dropped a good deal of money on them for Christmas might (I know I heard more than one chuckle and groan).
I would love to talk about the end of the movie... slap a *spoiler* alert and give it all away. I won't. But it's the end of the movie that is going to make it completely rewatchable. That's where everything came together, especially humor and heart. Where I felt like the beginning of the film was a little more childish (not immature, but for kids), the end was tailored more for the parents. Little kids will appreciate the climactic action in Bricksburg, but may get bored with the other dramatic cutscenes that transform the movie into one on par with the Toy Story franchise. For us, it all comes together into something so wonderful, I wanted to buy a ticket for the next screening.
This was a great animated film and the voice casting was like the cherry on top. I generally don't care beforehand who's cast in these roles. Unless it's a travesty of a casting job, you get used to the voice actors or actresses within a few minutes of seeing their alter-egos on-screen. This was a real treat, though, like John C. Reilly playing Wreck-It Ralph. There wasn't a single miscast on the entire list (I would have paid money to see Morgan Freeman or Will Arnett do their lines). And to the genius who gave the villain role to Will Ferrell, you deserve a bonus. You'll all understand when you see... bah, I can't spoil it!
This will, no doubt, be in my movie collection - for me and my son. I can't think of the last time I've wanted to rewatch an animated movie so soon. It will also be on the 'white noise' list - that list of movies my son has that we can replay over and over in a single day without making me insane. Without delay, hop in line for The Lego Movie. It's a great little escape.
Everything is awesome!
Wednesday, February 5, 2014
Lone Survivor (Jan 2014)
I probably made a foolish decision, but there was a choice to be made - either see Lone Survivor, reportedly a good movie, but not one living up to its hype, or see 12 Years a Slave, nominated for umpteen Academy Awards. Figuring Lone Survivor would be nearing the end of its run and 12 Years a Slave might be picking up renewed steam because of the Oscar nods, I chose Survivor.
Lone Survivor is directed by Peter Berg and stars Mark Wahlberg, Taylor Kitsch, Emile Hirsch, and Ben Foster. This SEAL team of four is given a solo recon-mission in the hills of Afghanistan that will lead to the eventual kill or capture of a dangerous al Qaeda leader nearby. Their mission is jeopardized when they are stumbled across by Afghan civilians (maybe?), prompting the team to make a quick decision that ultimately leaves them under fire in a terrifying fight.
The more favorable reviews that I had heard going into this movie had compared it to Saving Private Ryan and Black Hawk Down, of course - two of the best war movies we've seen in years. It didn't compare to those, nor did I expect them to. I'm not a fan of Peter Berg and the best that I could give him credit for was Hancock, which was fairly lifeless. I admit that it (Hancock) had some fun moments and the action would have excited me if I had seen it as a teenager. Based on Hancock, there was no way I was seeing Battleship. So imagine my complete and utter shock when I saw Lone Survivor. It was well worth the watch.
No, it didn't compare to Saving Private Ryan or Black Hawk Down. I think that was for two reasons: 1) character development and 2) scale. The development between these 'bros' was weak, at best. Aside from the real-life SEAL training montage at the beginning of the movie and a couple of shirtless exercise scenes with the actual actors, there wasn't much to build the audience relationship with the team (I thought they were going to throw in a Top Gun-esque volleyball game... they didn't. phew). You actually traveled with the platoon in Saving Private Ryan - you felt like you were taking the exhausting trek with them. In Black Hawk Down, there were enough breather moments running through the city or back at the barracks to get inside the soldiers' heads. I didn't feel like you had that in Lone Survivor - you went from team briefing to getting your ass handed to you. Sure, you obviously had enough connection to want the heroes to survive and you knew they were a band of brothers, but your main concern was "GET ME THE @#% OUT OF HERE!"
Just typing that gave me a knot in my gut again. Scale - scale worked for and against the movie. I was expecting the kind of vast, epic scale that we've become used to, not just in war movies, but any action movie. You expect something grand. When I heard and read the movie was set in the hills of Afghanistan, I expected (incorrectly) a fire-fight running through valleys and plains and hills and wow! My assumptions were wrong - those Saving Private Ryan-type scenes weren't there and it made me feel like something was missing. Quite frankly, it felt like you could have shot this movie in any recreational state park in the United States. Trees, yup. Rocks, yup. Big deal. Until shit really, really turned bad. That's when the scale absolutely worked.
That's when things got completely claustrophobic. Four guys, completely out-gunned by a hundred other soldiers with automatic weapons and RPGs, with nowhere to go but down, for the most part, in a very big hurry. This wasn't your Schwarzenneger flick - the enemy was trained, shot back, and didn't miss. Our heroes got bruised, broken, shot, maimed... and look at the title, folks - killed. I exclaimed a couple of times. You FELT what they were going through.
Not a bad word to say about the actors. It was a great cast and the real-world training they were put through in preparation for the roles paid off. But because it was a cast that was well-assembled, it makes me wish that the character development had been so much better. Of course, I felt the brotherhood while they were fighting on that mountain... I just wish there had been a little more. And again, aside from a couple plot and relationship jumbles, Berg knocked this one out. Maybe it was the inspiration he drew from the book itself, but this was a very good, powerful movie.
These soldiers do this in real life, people. If you keep that in mind (and I don't think that'll be a problem), you'll be glued.
Lone Survivor is directed by Peter Berg and stars Mark Wahlberg, Taylor Kitsch, Emile Hirsch, and Ben Foster. This SEAL team of four is given a solo recon-mission in the hills of Afghanistan that will lead to the eventual kill or capture of a dangerous al Qaeda leader nearby. Their mission is jeopardized when they are stumbled across by Afghan civilians (maybe?), prompting the team to make a quick decision that ultimately leaves them under fire in a terrifying fight.
The more favorable reviews that I had heard going into this movie had compared it to Saving Private Ryan and Black Hawk Down, of course - two of the best war movies we've seen in years. It didn't compare to those, nor did I expect them to. I'm not a fan of Peter Berg and the best that I could give him credit for was Hancock, which was fairly lifeless. I admit that it (Hancock) had some fun moments and the action would have excited me if I had seen it as a teenager. Based on Hancock, there was no way I was seeing Battleship. So imagine my complete and utter shock when I saw Lone Survivor. It was well worth the watch.
No, it didn't compare to Saving Private Ryan or Black Hawk Down. I think that was for two reasons: 1) character development and 2) scale. The development between these 'bros' was weak, at best. Aside from the real-life SEAL training montage at the beginning of the movie and a couple of shirtless exercise scenes with the actual actors, there wasn't much to build the audience relationship with the team (I thought they were going to throw in a Top Gun-esque volleyball game... they didn't. phew). You actually traveled with the platoon in Saving Private Ryan - you felt like you were taking the exhausting trek with them. In Black Hawk Down, there were enough breather moments running through the city or back at the barracks to get inside the soldiers' heads. I didn't feel like you had that in Lone Survivor - you went from team briefing to getting your ass handed to you. Sure, you obviously had enough connection to want the heroes to survive and you knew they were a band of brothers, but your main concern was "GET ME THE @#% OUT OF HERE!"
Just typing that gave me a knot in my gut again. Scale - scale worked for and against the movie. I was expecting the kind of vast, epic scale that we've become used to, not just in war movies, but any action movie. You expect something grand. When I heard and read the movie was set in the hills of Afghanistan, I expected (incorrectly) a fire-fight running through valleys and plains and hills and wow! My assumptions were wrong - those Saving Private Ryan-type scenes weren't there and it made me feel like something was missing. Quite frankly, it felt like you could have shot this movie in any recreational state park in the United States. Trees, yup. Rocks, yup. Big deal. Until shit really, really turned bad. That's when the scale absolutely worked.
That's when things got completely claustrophobic. Four guys, completely out-gunned by a hundred other soldiers with automatic weapons and RPGs, with nowhere to go but down, for the most part, in a very big hurry. This wasn't your Schwarzenneger flick - the enemy was trained, shot back, and didn't miss. Our heroes got bruised, broken, shot, maimed... and look at the title, folks - killed. I exclaimed a couple of times. You FELT what they were going through.
Not a bad word to say about the actors. It was a great cast and the real-world training they were put through in preparation for the roles paid off. But because it was a cast that was well-assembled, it makes me wish that the character development had been so much better. Of course, I felt the brotherhood while they were fighting on that mountain... I just wish there had been a little more. And again, aside from a couple plot and relationship jumbles, Berg knocked this one out. Maybe it was the inspiration he drew from the book itself, but this was a very good, powerful movie.
These soldiers do this in real life, people. If you keep that in mind (and I don't think that'll be a problem), you'll be glued.
Saturday, February 1, 2014
Man of Tai Chi (2013)
(Just released on Netflix streaming - released summer 2013 overseas and November 2013 in the US, though limited, I think.)
Ludicrous! My first actual review in a movie blog and I think I'll be taken seriously if I write about a martial arts film starring Tiger Chen (who?) and Keanu Reeves, who also happens to be making this film his directorial debut. You must have heard about it - Michael Cooney wrote it. Wait, who?
I missed almost every Oscar worthy movie in 2013, but Man of Tai Chi... yeah, I saw it.
First, please give me the benefit of the doubt - you stick to the subject matter with which you're most familiar. Anything testosterone driven has me at "Hello." I had heard about the movie eons ago and it finally popped up on the list of on-demand Netflix streams, so I had to give it a chance. Plus, I absolutely couldn't resist the temptation of... Keanu Reeves - Director.
Second, that said, *it wasn't that bad*. I can't believe I wrote that and I'll even write it again for good measure - it wasn't that bad. I didn't jump out of my seat at any point during the movie, but I'll give it it's due.
Man of Tai Chi, briefly, is about a Tai Chi student (Tiger Chen) who inadvertently becomes involved in an underground, reality-show fight club, directed by a blood-thirsty businessman (Keanu Reeves) who won't let the student leave without paying a very deadly price. Ugh.
The easiest thing to say about the movie is that, overall, it felt like a video game. Anybody can say and write that because, if you spend the energy to find out "Who the hell is Michael Cooney?", then you'll see he has almost nothing to his name but shorts and video games. And that's absolutely fine. The movie has a very standard plot - student gets roped into something he knows he shouldn't (and against his master's good lessons) because he needs the money for noble causes - simply to move the film from fight scene to fight scene. And as the character travels further along this standard, but tried-and-true, plot, the danger becomes greater and culminates with an "end boss" scene. It's no Ip Man, but it's definitely not a Street Fighter or Mortal Kombat. So I can't fault Cooney for writing a perfectly mediocre film and putting it into the hands of -
Keanu Reeves. Maybe I'm more forgiving of this man than others. If he's in an action film, I'll watch it. Now, if he's associated with an action film, I'll watch it. He's had enough action movies under his belt so that, if he's given a film that's not expecting much from its director, he can deal with it. There were no twists and no real surprises... everything was fairly linear. The scenes were straightforward, the landscapes weren't grand, the dialogue was sufficient, and the fighting was very well choreographed and filmed.
And the casting was certainly to his benefit - the member with the least amount of credit to his name was Tiger Chen, who performed solidly throughout the entire film. The supporting cast (Karen Mok, Simon Yam), those primarily consisting of the police force looking to take down the illegal fight club, are well-established and required little direction to make them work. The worst actor in the film, solely in my opinion - Keanu. Of course, it was Keanu! But as long as he's not making A Walk in the Clouds 2 (please burn my eyes out now), it works. The roles tend to work for Keanu, not the other way around. There always seems to be something around his characters that make me forget how bad Reeves is. The Matrix? Sure, Neo needs to take the stick out of his ass, but... he's "The One." Point Break? Johnny Utah is a fish on land, but who cares... he's hanging with Bodhi and the cool kids!
*I was going to say, "The action (only) roles tend to work for Keanu," but that's not necessarily true. He's been board-stiff in plenty of roles and they've worked fine for him - The Replacements is still a guilty pleasure of mine. A Scanner Darkly is also on my rewatch list (granted, also containing Robert Downey, Jr.). And if you try to tell me you flip the channel when Bill & Ted's is on, you're a liar.
So, don't expect much. Typical video game, action movie: one good guy, one bad guy, action scene after action scene, straight-forward story arc (good guy innocent, good guy hangs with bad lunch crowd, good guy falls from grace, good guy redemption). It had just enough heart to make me feel like I hadn't wasted my time at the end, which was refreshing. Try saying that about the Expendables.
If you're looking for a decent fight film with a character that you can root for, but a bad guy you can give or take, then put your Keanu prejudices at the door and see this film. You'll get more believable action than a generic Jason Stathom flick (and I love those) and a hero you can get behind.
Ludicrous! My first actual review in a movie blog and I think I'll be taken seriously if I write about a martial arts film starring Tiger Chen (who?) and Keanu Reeves, who also happens to be making this film his directorial debut. You must have heard about it - Michael Cooney wrote it. Wait, who?
I missed almost every Oscar worthy movie in 2013, but Man of Tai Chi... yeah, I saw it.
First, please give me the benefit of the doubt - you stick to the subject matter with which you're most familiar. Anything testosterone driven has me at "Hello." I had heard about the movie eons ago and it finally popped up on the list of on-demand Netflix streams, so I had to give it a chance. Plus, I absolutely couldn't resist the temptation of... Keanu Reeves - Director.
Second, that said, *it wasn't that bad*. I can't believe I wrote that and I'll even write it again for good measure - it wasn't that bad. I didn't jump out of my seat at any point during the movie, but I'll give it it's due.
Man of Tai Chi, briefly, is about a Tai Chi student (Tiger Chen) who inadvertently becomes involved in an underground, reality-show fight club, directed by a blood-thirsty businessman (Keanu Reeves) who won't let the student leave without paying a very deadly price. Ugh.
The easiest thing to say about the movie is that, overall, it felt like a video game. Anybody can say and write that because, if you spend the energy to find out "Who the hell is Michael Cooney?", then you'll see he has almost nothing to his name but shorts and video games. And that's absolutely fine. The movie has a very standard plot - student gets roped into something he knows he shouldn't (and against his master's good lessons) because he needs the money for noble causes - simply to move the film from fight scene to fight scene. And as the character travels further along this standard, but tried-and-true, plot, the danger becomes greater and culminates with an "end boss" scene. It's no Ip Man, but it's definitely not a Street Fighter or Mortal Kombat. So I can't fault Cooney for writing a perfectly mediocre film and putting it into the hands of -
Keanu Reeves. Maybe I'm more forgiving of this man than others. If he's in an action film, I'll watch it. Now, if he's associated with an action film, I'll watch it. He's had enough action movies under his belt so that, if he's given a film that's not expecting much from its director, he can deal with it. There were no twists and no real surprises... everything was fairly linear. The scenes were straightforward, the landscapes weren't grand, the dialogue was sufficient, and the fighting was very well choreographed and filmed.
And the casting was certainly to his benefit - the member with the least amount of credit to his name was Tiger Chen, who performed solidly throughout the entire film. The supporting cast (Karen Mok, Simon Yam), those primarily consisting of the police force looking to take down the illegal fight club, are well-established and required little direction to make them work. The worst actor in the film, solely in my opinion - Keanu. Of course, it was Keanu! But as long as he's not making A Walk in the Clouds 2 (please burn my eyes out now), it works. The roles tend to work for Keanu, not the other way around. There always seems to be something around his characters that make me forget how bad Reeves is. The Matrix? Sure, Neo needs to take the stick out of his ass, but... he's "The One." Point Break? Johnny Utah is a fish on land, but who cares... he's hanging with Bodhi and the cool kids!
*I was going to say, "The action (only) roles tend to work for Keanu," but that's not necessarily true. He's been board-stiff in plenty of roles and they've worked fine for him - The Replacements is still a guilty pleasure of mine. A Scanner Darkly is also on my rewatch list (granted, also containing Robert Downey, Jr.). And if you try to tell me you flip the channel when Bill & Ted's is on, you're a liar.
So, don't expect much. Typical video game, action movie: one good guy, one bad guy, action scene after action scene, straight-forward story arc (good guy innocent, good guy hangs with bad lunch crowd, good guy falls from grace, good guy redemption). It had just enough heart to make me feel like I hadn't wasted my time at the end, which was refreshing. Try saying that about the Expendables.
If you're looking for a decent fight film with a character that you can root for, but a bad guy you can give or take, then put your Keanu prejudices at the door and see this film. You'll get more believable action than a generic Jason Stathom flick (and I love those) and a hero you can get behind.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)