Appaloosa A new western. The genre simply will not die, and I for one, am delighted. This one is based on the Novel of the same name, and stars, is directed by, and was co-written for the screen by, Ed Harris. We love Ed Harris. It also stars Rene Zellweger, Vigo Mortensen, Jeremy Irons and Lance Henriksen and a host of other excellent character actors.
It takes place in the 1880’s in the New Mexico Territory. Right away that makes it worth watching. I love the geology and landscape of New Mexico. The story is a classic western tale. Two men, beginning to age, are long-time partners, making a living as temporary lawmen, cleaning up towns where the law is far away. Ed Harris is Virgil Cole, the leader, and Vigo Mortensen is Everett Hitch, his faithful, more-than-competent side-kick.
They are hired to clean-up a town being besieged by Jeremy Irons, an ambitious rancher who has murdered the marshal and his two deputies. Rene Zellweger arrives, a recent widow, and muddies the water.
At first, I thought it was going to be just a rip-off of Lonesome Dove, with the two iconic lawmen, one wound too tight and the other too loose, but the relationship, despite a few obvious similarities to Gus And Call, is complicated and has nuances of its own.
The characters are wonderful, complex, and full of pathos. (You like that word? I heard it on a Peter Paul and Mary album) The drama is excellent; with good pacing and suspense. The action is great, although it cannot be described as an action movie. It is in the same vein as The Unforgiving.
Cole, the hard-nosed, unbending, fearless lawman, has seen it all and knows he is better than the rest. Everett is more easy-going, understanding, and better educated. His character seems to me to be the most interesting. But he is clearly a follower, content to let Cole lead, despite his own superior skills. Vigo Mortensen, as Everett, is great. I loved the character. The story is complicated. The scenery is magical. The sets and costumes are authentic. Little things make the difference. The Indians they encounter are Chiricahua, which is correct for that part of the world, and they are from the San Carlos tribe, which is accurate as well. The San Carlos were some of the last to surrender to a reservation, and were raiding that part of the world at the time the story takes place. I like accuracy.
This is a superior movie. Not perfect, but well worth seeing. It has strong language, nudity, and fairly graphic violence, and is rated R. Nita would like it without the cussing and naked Rene.
Saturday, October 18, 2008
Movie Review Quarantine
Quarantine I’m sure you’ve seen the previews. A disparate group of people are quarantined inside an apartment building after fire and police respond to a 911 call. A two-person news team is following the fire department that night and are caught inside as well. The authorities are not telling them anything, but something is killing the people inside. A scene from the trailer has already become iconic—a woman lying on the floor in front of a night vision video camera, terrified, her eyes glowing, crawling in the pitch dark. Suddenly she is being dragged back into the shadows by an unseen force, screaming as she vanishes. That scene made me go see the move, despite knowing it would be terrible. Besides, the evil thing might be Zombies, right?
Surprise! It isn’t a terrible movie. It is inventive, scary, suspenseful, violent, gory and very well written. The entire movie—every frame—is seen from the vantage point of the news camera, similar to Cloverfield but still manages to bring a different look and perspective to the movie. We know what the people trapped in the building know, which is very little, as they try to find out what is happening, why the government has locked them inside without telling them anything, and as they figure out how to survive. Slowly clues begin to emerge and connect, but we never do (which means they never do) find out exactly what is happening—other than people being killed and ripped to pieces, or shot if they try to escape.
It doesn’t have the holes most of these kinds of features are subject to, mostly because they give us so little information. But the people inside are believable, human, terrified, and behave in ways that come across as genuine, valid responses to something fundamentally beyond their experience or even imagination. It isn’t a Zombie move. It is much more sinister because it is much closer to the realm of reality.
Everyone in it does a first rate job of acting. There are no big names in it.
I recommend it if you are a true aficionado, otherwise stay away. It’s good, but it’s in-your-face violence and terror. It is rated R and deservedly so.
Surprise! It isn’t a terrible movie. It is inventive, scary, suspenseful, violent, gory and very well written. The entire movie—every frame—is seen from the vantage point of the news camera, similar to Cloverfield but still manages to bring a different look and perspective to the movie. We know what the people trapped in the building know, which is very little, as they try to find out what is happening, why the government has locked them inside without telling them anything, and as they figure out how to survive. Slowly clues begin to emerge and connect, but we never do (which means they never do) find out exactly what is happening—other than people being killed and ripped to pieces, or shot if they try to escape.
It doesn’t have the holes most of these kinds of features are subject to, mostly because they give us so little information. But the people inside are believable, human, terrified, and behave in ways that come across as genuine, valid responses to something fundamentally beyond their experience or even imagination. It isn’t a Zombie move. It is much more sinister because it is much closer to the realm of reality.
Everyone in it does a first rate job of acting. There are no big names in it.
I recommend it if you are a true aficionado, otherwise stay away. It’s good, but it’s in-your-face violence and terror. It is rated R and deservedly so.
Movie Review Max Payne
Max Payne This is the latest in what is becoming its own sub-genre; the underground comic movie. Mainstream comics have become, as we all know by now, huge money makers when done well, and there seems to be a niche consistent enough for these (usually darker) undergrounds to find an audience as well. I’m not sure what an underground comic is. The mainstream comics are DC and Marvel, by and large, so maybe underground is anything not DC or Marvel. They also usually have a more adult-oriented theme, are longer and darker, and the artwork is often better—or maybe just the printing.
At any rate, Max Payne is a good example of the film noir look the undergrounds seem to prefer.
The story revolves around a burnt-out DEA agent (Mark Wahlberg) whose wife and infant son were murdered, and one of the three perps is still out there. He chances into some kind of bizarre cabal, the members of which all wear a stylized tattoo of wings. The wings represent the Valkyrie, denizens of Norse mythology whose task it was to sweep the honored dead (anyone who died in battle) from the field and fly them to Valhalla. People are dying. Valkyries are involved, but no one is certain if they are real or hallucinations. Payne’s murdered family is connected. As he gets closer to the truth, he discovers a huge conspiracy behind the corporation his wife used to work for. And blah, blah, blah.
The movie has a look and a feel to it. In every scene it is either snowing or raining. It is cold and dreary with snow piled up everywhere. I don’t know why. It was filmed in color, but it looked as if they muted the colors to give it a dour look.
Wahlberg is good. He has turned into a decent, consistent actor. Beau Bridges turns in a fine piece of work as Payne’s fathers old partner, now head of security for the same corporation. Needless to say, our anti-hero gets to the bottom of things, makes extreme decisions and saves the day, sort of. His wife and child are still dead.
But he has a new girl, Mila Kunis, who, in one feature role, manages to put a bullet right between the eyes of her That 70’s Show character, Jackie. Mila has grown up. It’s fun to listen to her speak her native tongue in the movie (she is Russian) and know she isn’t doing it phonetically.
It’s a pretty good movie if you like the genre. I don’t recommend it to the grown-up middle-agers who are in the mood for a date movie. PG-13. Barely. Nita would have hated it.
At any rate, Max Payne is a good example of the film noir look the undergrounds seem to prefer.
The story revolves around a burnt-out DEA agent (Mark Wahlberg) whose wife and infant son were murdered, and one of the three perps is still out there. He chances into some kind of bizarre cabal, the members of which all wear a stylized tattoo of wings. The wings represent the Valkyrie, denizens of Norse mythology whose task it was to sweep the honored dead (anyone who died in battle) from the field and fly them to Valhalla. People are dying. Valkyries are involved, but no one is certain if they are real or hallucinations. Payne’s murdered family is connected. As he gets closer to the truth, he discovers a huge conspiracy behind the corporation his wife used to work for. And blah, blah, blah.
The movie has a look and a feel to it. In every scene it is either snowing or raining. It is cold and dreary with snow piled up everywhere. I don’t know why. It was filmed in color, but it looked as if they muted the colors to give it a dour look.
Wahlberg is good. He has turned into a decent, consistent actor. Beau Bridges turns in a fine piece of work as Payne’s fathers old partner, now head of security for the same corporation. Needless to say, our anti-hero gets to the bottom of things, makes extreme decisions and saves the day, sort of. His wife and child are still dead.
But he has a new girl, Mila Kunis, who, in one feature role, manages to put a bullet right between the eyes of her That 70’s Show character, Jackie. Mila has grown up. It’s fun to listen to her speak her native tongue in the movie (she is Russian) and know she isn’t doing it phonetically.
It’s a pretty good movie if you like the genre. I don’t recommend it to the grown-up middle-agers who are in the mood for a date movie. PG-13. Barely. Nita would have hated it.
Movie Review Eagle Eye
Eagle Eye An action cyber-thriller which takes place the “day after tomorrow”. It is a technical fantasy. The stars are Shia LaBeouf (from Transformers) and Michelle Monaghan (Made of Honor and Gone Baby Gone). They are two seemingly random people, living their lives, total strangers, when they both receive phone calls from a mysterious woman which throws them together and into a series of harrowing escapades as they try to figure out who the woman is, how she is doing these impossible and bizarre things to them and what she wants. It is centered around a hi-tech anti-terrorism scenario.
The action is nonstop, the tension is set to ‘high’ and never lets up. The special effects are great, inventive and high quality.
The basic premise, and the god-like technical expertise of the mysterious woman, are sheer fantasy.
The problem with trying to write a review for a movie like this, is anything I say about the plot will give too much away. The story is convoluted, clever, and basically unbelievable, but lots of fun. It does require the traditional and willing suspension of disbelief. We are required to believe that a terrestrial agency is capable of simultaneously controlling and manipulating every electronic and digital device on the planet. It paints a very spooky picture and you may leave with a profound sense of paranoia.
Ultimately, it is a cautionary tale, warning us that humans need to be careful when creating artificial intelligence. This is by no means the first movie to warn us about that. Remember The Corbin Project? But not to worry. It occurred to me, while sitting in the darkened theater, that humans will never build computers or robots smarter that we are. The reason? We’re not smart enough.
Billy Bob Thornton is great as the FBI agent. It is rated PG-13. It’s pretty good, but not great. If you’re looking for a thriller and non-stop action, and don’t mind some gaping holes and sci-fi gimmicks, this is a good date movie. Nita would like it, but she’d have screamed a dozen times and feinted twice, so I’m glad I didn’t take her.
The action is nonstop, the tension is set to ‘high’ and never lets up. The special effects are great, inventive and high quality.
The basic premise, and the god-like technical expertise of the mysterious woman, are sheer fantasy.
The problem with trying to write a review for a movie like this, is anything I say about the plot will give too much away. The story is convoluted, clever, and basically unbelievable, but lots of fun. It does require the traditional and willing suspension of disbelief. We are required to believe that a terrestrial agency is capable of simultaneously controlling and manipulating every electronic and digital device on the planet. It paints a very spooky picture and you may leave with a profound sense of paranoia.
Ultimately, it is a cautionary tale, warning us that humans need to be careful when creating artificial intelligence. This is by no means the first movie to warn us about that. Remember The Corbin Project? But not to worry. It occurred to me, while sitting in the darkened theater, that humans will never build computers or robots smarter that we are. The reason? We’re not smart enough.
Billy Bob Thornton is great as the FBI agent. It is rated PG-13. It’s pretty good, but not great. If you’re looking for a thriller and non-stop action, and don’t mind some gaping holes and sci-fi gimmicks, this is a good date movie. Nita would like it, but she’d have screamed a dozen times and feinted twice, so I’m glad I didn’t take her.
Monday, September 22, 2008
Movie Review: Burn After Reading
Burn After Reading: This is the new feature by the always risky and always brilliant Cohen Brothers, who brought us Fargo, Oh Brother! Where Art Thou, No Country for Old Men (based on a novel by Cormac McCarthy), and my favorite, Raising Arizona, among others. We have certain expectations from Joel and Ethan, which include sparkling and occasionally bizarre dialogue, more twists than a barber poll, and an ending that might have nothing to do with the rest of the story. My kind of movie.
The plot centers around a series of unfortunate and unconnected events which placed sensitive CIA information in the hands of a pair of ne’r-do-wells, both of whom work at a local health club. (Brad Pit and Frances McDormand.) John Malkovich lost the CD during a career meltdown. His wife is having an affair with George Clooney, former US Marshall, now indeterminate Homeland Security agent, who then meets McDormand and starts diddling her as well. McDormand hatches a plot to blackmail the CIA guy so she can pay for twelve females worth of plastic surgery and “remake” herself. In the meantime . . . .
I hold the Cohen brothers to a high standard. Based on that standard, this movie is superior to 90% of the offerings from Hollyweird. Based on their other movies, this one falls a bit short. I think they all just wanted to have some fun. As far as I can tell, the movie is primarily a vehicle for Pitt and Clooney to be silly. Which they do quite well on screen, but even better when talking politics. I have no specific beef, other than Malcovich’s characters penchant for spewing spittle with the F word, which he does constantly. I was just hoping for more.
If you like the Cohen boys, you’ll like this one. It’s not for everybody. Nita would have walked out two minutes in. It just wasn’t memorable. Rated R.
The plot centers around a series of unfortunate and unconnected events which placed sensitive CIA information in the hands of a pair of ne’r-do-wells, both of whom work at a local health club. (Brad Pit and Frances McDormand.) John Malkovich lost the CD during a career meltdown. His wife is having an affair with George Clooney, former US Marshall, now indeterminate Homeland Security agent, who then meets McDormand and starts diddling her as well. McDormand hatches a plot to blackmail the CIA guy so she can pay for twelve females worth of plastic surgery and “remake” herself. In the meantime . . . .
I hold the Cohen brothers to a high standard. Based on that standard, this movie is superior to 90% of the offerings from Hollyweird. Based on their other movies, this one falls a bit short. I think they all just wanted to have some fun. As far as I can tell, the movie is primarily a vehicle for Pitt and Clooney to be silly. Which they do quite well on screen, but even better when talking politics. I have no specific beef, other than Malcovich’s characters penchant for spewing spittle with the F word, which he does constantly. I was just hoping for more.
If you like the Cohen boys, you’ll like this one. It’s not for everybody. Nita would have walked out two minutes in. It just wasn’t memorable. Rated R.
Sunday, June 8, 2008
Two Good Movies in a row on Sci Fi
An interesting thing happened last night. (Saturday June 8 2008). Something very rare—unique, in fact. I was watching the Sci Fi channel, as I try to do every Saturday night, because that’s when they show their new “Premier” Sci Fi movie of the week. One has to be a special kind of person to put up with that kind of abuse week after week. I can’t imagine their viewer numbers are very high—less than a thousand I would guess. And that’s because the movies, each made by and/or for the Sci Fi Channel, are the worst movies in the history of television. Every time I think they have reached a new low, they surprise and impress me with something so derivative, so poorly written, acted and directed, and with special effects that are nothing short of an embarrassment in this day and age, that I am forced to reevaluate my definition of crap. (Re: Sturgeon’s Law—“Ninety percent of everything is crap”). There have been a few exceptions, which have risen to barely tolerable, and even one that I quite liked, called, unfortunately, Sasquatch Mountain. It starred Rance Howard, Ron Howard's dad, Lance Henriksen (from one of the Alien movies along with Alien Vs Predator, and who starred in a pretty good TV series the name of which escapes me right now) Michael Worth (who also wrote the screen play) and Craig Wasson the guy who gets framed in Body Double, along with Cerina Vincent, whom I’ve never heard of but is hot and can actually act a little.
But last night, I saw TWO (2) good movies in a row on the Sci Fi Channel. The first was RISE: Blood Hunter (I know, who comes up with these titles? And even more worrisome, to whom are they directed?) It starred Lucy Liu, which seemed to be a major dip in her career, but at least she can act and is cute and stuff. It also had that bald guy who starred in The Shield, a cable cop series that I never watched but which garnered some acclaim. The reason this one was good is because it was coherent. Now, when one watches the Sci Fi channel, one has to redefine the term “good” to fit the source. In this case good is a sliding scale which tops out somewhere around “barely acceptable” by any rational standard. I won’t go into the plot. Suffice it to say it was a vampire movie with what some deluded soul imagined was a twist.
The other movie I had seen before, and liked well enough to sit through again. It was a British feature called Dog Soldiers, (not to be confused with the movie Last of the Dogmen which was a good movie and starred Tom Berenger). Dog Soldiers concerns a squad of Brit soldiers on a training mission to the Highlands of Scotland, which almost instantly goes bad. They run across another group (at least what remains of the camp) with one survivor, a Special Ops, hard-nosed Captain who is badly wounded and terrified. They are being hunted by something and lose two men before they eventually make it to a cottage in the middle of a remote forest, where they meet a young woman who knows a little about what’s going on, and where they become besieged by werewolves. And blah,blah,blah. Pretty well written, acted and directed. A genre-centric story to be sure, but believable, given the premise.
Two in one night. Unbelievable. Actually, I’m watching the Sci Fi Channel right now (my wife’s out of town) and I don’t even know what the movie is. Most Sci Fi movies use the same locations, actors, writers and sets. Both of these good ones did not. Hm-m-m-m-m.
But last night, I saw TWO (2) good movies in a row on the Sci Fi Channel. The first was RISE: Blood Hunter (I know, who comes up with these titles? And even more worrisome, to whom are they directed?) It starred Lucy Liu, which seemed to be a major dip in her career, but at least she can act and is cute and stuff. It also had that bald guy who starred in The Shield, a cable cop series that I never watched but which garnered some acclaim. The reason this one was good is because it was coherent. Now, when one watches the Sci Fi channel, one has to redefine the term “good” to fit the source. In this case good is a sliding scale which tops out somewhere around “barely acceptable” by any rational standard. I won’t go into the plot. Suffice it to say it was a vampire movie with what some deluded soul imagined was a twist.
The other movie I had seen before, and liked well enough to sit through again. It was a British feature called Dog Soldiers, (not to be confused with the movie Last of the Dogmen which was a good movie and starred Tom Berenger). Dog Soldiers concerns a squad of Brit soldiers on a training mission to the Highlands of Scotland, which almost instantly goes bad. They run across another group (at least what remains of the camp) with one survivor, a Special Ops, hard-nosed Captain who is badly wounded and terrified. They are being hunted by something and lose two men before they eventually make it to a cottage in the middle of a remote forest, where they meet a young woman who knows a little about what’s going on, and where they become besieged by werewolves. And blah,blah,blah. Pretty well written, acted and directed. A genre-centric story to be sure, but believable, given the premise.
Two in one night. Unbelievable. Actually, I’m watching the Sci Fi Channel right now (my wife’s out of town) and I don’t even know what the movie is. Most Sci Fi movies use the same locations, actors, writers and sets. Both of these good ones did not. Hm-m-m-m-m.
Monday, May 5, 2008
Iron Man
Iron Man At last! After all the waiting, the hype, the hopeful faithfulness of all true believers, the latest installment from Marvel Studios has arrived. Iron Man was always one of my favorite comics for two reasons; one, I loved the character of Tony Stark—the Über-genius billionaire man-about-town with no conscience, who produces the world’s most effective and destructive weapons systems, and two; the person he becomes inside the suit he designs—the man who champions the downtrodden and helpless, those caught in the grips of war and destitution, of unchecked crime and wanton violence.
The movie pays very careful attention to the story of how Stark becomes Iron Man, and, in my opinion, does as good or better job at being true to the spirit of the comic than any other attempt thus far. Robert Downey Jr. is well-cast as Tony Stark, the brilliant, wise-cracking, amoral designer behind Stark industries (and, now that I am old enough to notice, an obvious nod to Howard Hughes). Gwyneth Paltrow plays Pepper Potts, the efficient, dedicated, beautiful personal secretary to Stark, who is willing to sacrifice her career and even life to maintain her loyalty to him. (Gwyneth is looking fabulous in this role—those freckles slay me) And Jeff Bridges Plays Obadiah Stane (Get it? Stain?), the back-stabbing friend and business partner to Stark, who is selling weapons and munitions to terrorists under the table. Bridges plays a surprisingly effective villain. He is very believable. Lastly, Terrance Howard plays the Air Force Colonel who is the governments liaison to Stark Industries. All of these characters are from the original comics.
Stark, while demonstrating his newest weapons system, is injured and kidnapped by terrorists, who coerce him into building the new Jericho rocket for them. Instead he builds the Mark I Iron Man suit and destroys the bad guys. Woo hoo! He escapes, is rescued, and returns a changed man, keeping up the spoiled, playboy appearance, while designing and building the most effective weapons platform in history—IRON MAN! Da-da . . . da da dum, dadadadadadada da-dum-dum!
But wait! Obadiah has gotten hold of the original suit (now ruined) and the original drawings, and is making a suit of his own—bigger, badder, more powerful. Can Stark defeat his nemesis, Iron Monger? Will Pepper finally convince her boss that he is in love with her? And who’s going to repair the big hole in the roof of Stark’s bachelor pad?
Oh yeah, while all this is going on, Tony has developed a miniature version of a fusion reactor in order to power a thingy in his chest. It seems that when the bad guys got him, his wounds included some shrapnel in the chest. A few pieces had to be left in—too close to the heart—and an electro-magnet implanted in his chest is keeping the steel from migrating to his heart and killing him. So that solves his energy problem. The suit is awesome. There is a scene where his robotic helpers are putting him into it for the first time, that is one of the coolest sequences I have ever seen. Great special effects. The story is coherent, the technology is actually possible—several sources are saying it is all doable in the next 20 years or so—and the action is edge-of-the-seat.
Nita went and loved it. I had to restrain her several times, and remind her to be quiet, but she was pretty well-behaved for the most part. Newell and Grah both give it an enthusiastic thumbs up, and Mason, my 10 year old nephew, endorses it without reservation.
It is rated PG-13. Nothing overtly objectionable (other than Stark’s lifestyle) but there is a very brief fore-play-a-boing-boing scene. Everyone has some clothes on, and it really is brief, if enthusiastic. No cussing, no gore, lots of wonderfully antiseptic violence and mayhem, all directed at bad guys who clearly have it coming. This is definitely one I want to own.
The movie pays very careful attention to the story of how Stark becomes Iron Man, and, in my opinion, does as good or better job at being true to the spirit of the comic than any other attempt thus far. Robert Downey Jr. is well-cast as Tony Stark, the brilliant, wise-cracking, amoral designer behind Stark industries (and, now that I am old enough to notice, an obvious nod to Howard Hughes). Gwyneth Paltrow plays Pepper Potts, the efficient, dedicated, beautiful personal secretary to Stark, who is willing to sacrifice her career and even life to maintain her loyalty to him. (Gwyneth is looking fabulous in this role—those freckles slay me) And Jeff Bridges Plays Obadiah Stane (Get it? Stain?), the back-stabbing friend and business partner to Stark, who is selling weapons and munitions to terrorists under the table. Bridges plays a surprisingly effective villain. He is very believable. Lastly, Terrance Howard plays the Air Force Colonel who is the governments liaison to Stark Industries. All of these characters are from the original comics.
Stark, while demonstrating his newest weapons system, is injured and kidnapped by terrorists, who coerce him into building the new Jericho rocket for them. Instead he builds the Mark I Iron Man suit and destroys the bad guys. Woo hoo! He escapes, is rescued, and returns a changed man, keeping up the spoiled, playboy appearance, while designing and building the most effective weapons platform in history—IRON MAN! Da-da . . . da da dum, dadadadadadada da-dum-dum!
But wait! Obadiah has gotten hold of the original suit (now ruined) and the original drawings, and is making a suit of his own—bigger, badder, more powerful. Can Stark defeat his nemesis, Iron Monger? Will Pepper finally convince her boss that he is in love with her? And who’s going to repair the big hole in the roof of Stark’s bachelor pad?
Oh yeah, while all this is going on, Tony has developed a miniature version of a fusion reactor in order to power a thingy in his chest. It seems that when the bad guys got him, his wounds included some shrapnel in the chest. A few pieces had to be left in—too close to the heart—and an electro-magnet implanted in his chest is keeping the steel from migrating to his heart and killing him. So that solves his energy problem. The suit is awesome. There is a scene where his robotic helpers are putting him into it for the first time, that is one of the coolest sequences I have ever seen. Great special effects. The story is coherent, the technology is actually possible—several sources are saying it is all doable in the next 20 years or so—and the action is edge-of-the-seat.
Nita went and loved it. I had to restrain her several times, and remind her to be quiet, but she was pretty well-behaved for the most part. Newell and Grah both give it an enthusiastic thumbs up, and Mason, my 10 year old nephew, endorses it without reservation.
It is rated PG-13. Nothing overtly objectionable (other than Stark’s lifestyle) but there is a very brief fore-play-a-boing-boing scene. Everyone has some clothes on, and it really is brief, if enthusiastic. No cussing, no gore, lots of wonderfully antiseptic violence and mayhem, all directed at bad guys who clearly have it coming. This is definitely one I want to own.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)