So much going on ... where to begin? Well, I've got a ton to talk about in terms of movie and TV reviews, so let's get to it.
TV STUFF:
- I really enjoyed Thursday night's big wedding episode of THE OFFICE. Regular readers know that I usually get down on The Office when it gets too cheesy or sentimental, but hey, if ever there was an episode where such a tone was appropriate, it was this one. Plus, even with the emotional high of Pam and Jim's wedding, the hour-long installment still managed to pack in a ton of hilarity. From Andy's hilariously ill-timed injury to his nether regions, to Dwight's attempts to woo Pam's relatives, there were a ton of very memorable, very funny bits scattered throughout the hour. I think the big x-factor going into this one was Michael Scott. Make him too awkward or embarassing here, and you risk being too dark and off-putting. At the same time, what would an Office wedding be without some well-placed, cringe-inducing comedy from the world's worst boss? As it turned out, I thought they did end up making Michael just a little *too* awful here. In general, the best moments of this episode were the smaller and subtler character bits. I dont know if they needed Michael's over-the-top antics thrown in as well. But in the end, they made up for it, I thought, with some awesome scenes between Michael and Pam's mom, which were pretty classic. I think ultimately, there were some moments where this episode lost it's way a bit, but, I also think that it was, overall, a pretty great episode and a satisfying conclusion of sorts to the long-running Jim & Pam saga.
My Grade: A-
- Meanwhile, PARKS AND RECREATION has slowly but surely been getting better each week. I'm now at the point where I am really enjoying the show and looking forward to new episodes each week. Louis CK has been great as a soft-spoken cop in the first stages of a relationship with Amy Poehler's character. And the rest of the cast has really begun to shine this season. It's not quite at that A-level yet, but all of the elements are there, and I am definitely in from here on out.
My Grade: B+
- On the other hand, I'm just not that into COMMUNITY. I want to like it, but I just haven't found it to be that sharp or that funny quite yet. And I think there are some real problems with the premise and characters that are going to be a problem in the long-run. This is one of those shows that, I think, seems funnier on paper than it actually is in practice. Sure, every episode produces a witty quote or two that Entertainment Weekly can re-print. But a couple of witty lines of dialogue does not a great show make. I don't know - is there something I'm missing here?
My Grade: B-
- FLASH FORWARD is a show that really wowed me with its pilot, but seems on the verge of dropping the ball in the weeks since. I mean, the pilot episode set the stage for a lot of intriguing storylines, but so far, with two additional episodes under our belts, NOTHING of any great interest has really happened yet. What felt fresh and exciting in the pilot is now quickly becoming stagnant. What made for a great premise is now leading to endless recaps each week of the same stuff we've already covered. I don't get it - why is this show treading water like it is? Get to the good stuff already. Give us some hints about the nature of the flash-forwards and who or what is behind them. Give us some mythology, some meat to chew on. This week's ep had two minutes of coolness at the episode's end - a scene that implied that the flashes have happened before, but in more limited scope. It was just enough to keep me interested for one more week. But man, did we have to wade through a lot of noise to get to that flash of coolness. I mean, okay, I was pretty intrigued by the premise that this old ex-Nazi holed up in a German prison had some knowledge that might be a key to solving the mystery of the flash-forwards. Immediately I had visions of some grand backstory that would tie the flashes to World War II, Nazi conspiracies, and secret government experiments. But, there was no awesome reveal of a cool, X-Files-style mythology. Instead, we got a number of lame sequences involving vague imagery of dead crows. Even worse, the Nazi guy explains to our FBI agents how the three minute and seventeen second time laps of the flashes corresponds to the kaballah. Um, yeah, because no rabbi or scholar on earth would have thought of that sooner. Anyways, I don't know about you guys, but to me Flash Forward is losing momentum and losing it fast. Next week's ep may be make or break.
My Grade: C+
- For my weekly high-concept sci-fi fix, at least I can count on FRINGE to deliver the goods - even if I've been watching it on delay since Thursdays are now so packed with good TV. Fringe has just been crazy lately though. To be honest, it's a fine line. Personally, I'm fine with the show becoming increasingly comic book-ish - I love that stuff, afterall. But I can see how a casual fan might have tuned in to this past week's ep and let out a big ol' "WTF?" after all was said and done. Because, yeah, Fringe has gone from a reality-based show about psuedo-science to a full-on, mythology-heavy sci-fi yarn about shapeshifting invaders from parallel worlds. Wow. But here's the thing - to me this transition has worked because: a.) it's slowly escalated over time, and b.) the show has such a solid foundation of characters. Even when the storylines get crazy, the characters remain well-rounded and relatable, and the dialogue remains sharp. Look at this week's episode - even in the midst of shapeshifting invasion drama, we got a very strong subplot about Walter reconnecting with a former test subject, and the realization that he did make a positive difference in some of his old subjects' lives, even if he now regrets the tests he subjected them to. We got those great Walter moments, and we also got the return of Leonard Nimoy as the enigmatic William Bell. Some very cool hints about the overarching plot, and again, Anna Torv has really come into her own here and has been cooly captivating in the show's lead role. Good stuff, and Fringe, I think, is still THE must-see drama on TV right now.
My Grade: A-
- Speaking of TV dramas getting a little bit insane, how about Friday's episode of SMALLVILLE? While the overal writing and plotting still left something to be desired, this episode had one thing going for it: roving hordes of undead ZOMBIES! I will say this: Smallville, for all its faults, is often a showcase for some really nice visual direction. This zombiefied episode looked great - there were some really cool looking zombies, and some pretty awesome action to boot. I mean, Tess Mercer taking out a legion of the undead with nothing but a katana sword? Pretty sweet, I'll admit. Zombie Lois Lane? Yes, please. Now, there was a lot of the usual Smallville clunkiness in between the bouts of fun zombie action. The explanation for and solution to the zombie outbreak was pretty lame, and the inclusion of Zod at the end felt very shoehorned-in. And geez, although I enjoy Lois and think Erica Durance does a great job, Smallville as usual drags things out to interminable lengths. I mean, if you want there to be an ongoing, subtle sexual tension between Clark and Lois - fine. But if every scene has the two of them on the verge of making out, the come on, get it over with already! So yeah, this ep of Smallville had some weaksauce moments, but it also had a lot of surprisingly kickass zombie mayhem. Sweet.
My Grade: B+
- It's funny, my brother and I sat down to watch THE SIMPSONS last night, and for a little while, at least, both of us were laughing like old times. The first act or two of last night's episode, which parodied the current Ultimate Fighting craze, showed a lot of promise. The premise was merely decent, but the dialogue was sharp and the jokes were hitting the mark. But man, this one fizzled out completely in the last ten minutes or so. The comedic momentum simply ground to a halt. Plus, even the early quality of the jokes couldn't hide the fact that, in the end, this ep didn't have all that much to day. The popularity of a violent sport like ultimate fighting is an interesting topic to tackle, but all of the character reactions in this ep felt pretty rushed. Marge began to protest the fighting events just because, and the ending provided no real resolution or lesson. Still, I do give The Simpsons credit for one thing: this is the third straight episode that has focused on as ingle, cohesive storyline from start to finish. That is a good sign for things to come. Now, next week is the annual Treehouse of Horror episode. The last couple of years' Halloween specials have been pretty bad, so I'm really, really hoping that this year we get something good.
My Grade: B
- As for FAMILY GUY, this was yet another mediocre episode in my book. Sure, it featured the guest voices of Dan Akroyd and Checy Chase as themselves, and sure, it featured a full-on Spies Like Us parody. But too many jokes in this one fell totally flat for me to give it high marks. Every joke was either a retread of an earlier gag from a previous episode, or a retread of a gag from earlier in this episode. Come on FG, you can do better.
My Grade: C+
Okay - time for a movie review. I actually saw two movies this weekend - WHIP IT and PARANORMAL ACTIVITY. But I think I'm going to save the latter for its own blog post. I have a lot to talk about with regards to that one. For now, here's a look at the directorial debut of Drew Barrymore ...
WHIP IT Review:
- Whip It differentiates itself from the typical underdog sports movie in that it hits you right in the face with a two-fisted jolt of 100% grrrrl-power, not from concentrate. In actress Drew Barrymore's first-ever directorial effort, the free-spirited Hollywood mainstay gives us a movie that, really, is less about the competition of roller derby, and much more about the punk-rock, dare-to-be-different aesthetic that the sport inspires and encourages. Most sports movies are about finding the will to win and triumphing over adversity. This one isn't really a sports movie at all. Instead, it's a coming-of-age flick about a girl raised to be a prim and proper beauty queen, who ditches all that to enter the rough n' tumble world of roller derby. This is a movie about switching one's internal radio dial from easy listening to rock n' roll.
And that's cool. Barrymore is up to the task of showing the inner struggle of our main character, Bliss, as she tries to both appease her traditional, small-town parents and also to come out of her shell and find her true calling. But at the end of the day, a lot of the credit for Whip It's success has to go to Ellen Page. Page is great in this one, just as she was in Juno, and she brings a realism and intelligence to the movie that few others could have. In addition, a couple of the supporting actors really do a nice job as well. My unlikely favorite? Daniel Stern. It's been a long time since I've see this original member of the Wet Bandits in a substantial film role, but Stern does a very nice job here as Bliss' beer-swilling, football-lovin', guy's-guy dad. On paper, it sounds like a somewhat conventional role - and in some ways it is. But Stern brings a ton of heart to the movie, and is responsible for some of Whip It's most effective scenes. Marcia Gay Harden also does a nice job as Bliss' uptight mom. What it all adds up to is that the scenes involving Bliss and her parents are almost always the movie's strongest.
The rest of the movie isn't quite as good. Bliss' roller derby teammates have awesome names like Smashley Simpson and Bloody Holly, but they don't get much time to shine. One of the keys to a great sports movie is to give each character their big moment to shine (or as Mighty Ducks fans call it, their "knucklepuck moment"), and Whip It doesn't really do that. Which is too bad, because you've got people like Zoe Bell and Drew Barrymore herself in those roles. Similarly, Juliette Lewis, in full-on crazy mode, plays Iron Maven, a rival derby doll with a serious grudge against the young upstart Bliss (whose derby name is Babe Ruthless). There is a lot of potential with Lewis' character, but ultimately there isn't that much of a rivalry to speak of. She seems like she's only there because every movie like this needs a rival-team antagonist. But Barrymore doesn't seem too concerned with building up a true grudge match between Babe and Maven.
Barrymore's only middling interest in the actual ins and outs of roller derby ultimately hampers the movie a bit. It's tough, because from what little I know of roller derby, it's a pretty chaotic sport that I have to imagine is pretty tough to dramatize. Drew Barrymore does a nice job of capturing all of the craziness around the derby matches - the over-the-top announcers (here played by a pretty funny Jimmy Fallon), the hipster fans, the professional wrestling-esque atmosphere. And she does a good job of showing just how brutal those matches can be - there are plenty of hard hits and bloodied noses and wince-inducing falls. But the actual matches are rarely all that dramatic.
A couple other elements of the movie also seem a bit glossed-over. The worst offender is the main romantic subplot, in which Bliss falls for an emo rocker type, who I guess is supposed to be another part of her ever-expanding world of danger and rebellion. But I have to say, the whole thing is pretty thin, and the small amount of real emotion that propels the relationship makes it seem unworthy of the overly-long underwater hookup scene in the middle of the movie.
One subplot that I did like - the inclusion of Arrested Development's Alia Shawkat as Bliss' best friend. She brings her usual charm and comic timing to the role, and helps to emphasize the movie's themes of escaping from small-town drudgery into a more meaningful life. The scenes with Ellen Page and Alia together - especially those at the ramshackle diner where they both work, tend to be funny and really well done. The other standout is SNL's Kristen Wiig, who gets the most depth of any of the derby dolls, serving as a surrogate mother figure of sorts for Bliss. Coming off her well-realized turn in Extract, Wiig continues to show that she can do a lot more than just goofy sketch comedy characters.
Overall, I liked the vibe of Whip It. There's a great rock n' roll soundtrack, a great lead in Ellen Page, and a positive message at the center of the movie. It's a punk rock sports movie with heart. I just wish that Drew Barrymore and co. had focused their energies a bit more and spent as much time on the rest of the movie as they did on the relationship between Bliss and her parents. As it is, there's a great movie buried somewhere in there, but what we get is merely pretty good.
My Grade: B
- Okay, next time: things get PARANORMAL.
Monday, October 12, 2009
Thursday, October 8, 2009
Danny is A SERIOUS MAN. The Latest from Joel and Ethan Coen - Reviewed!
A SERIOUS MAN Review:
- "Man, those Coen Bros. are *good*." I kept thinking a variation on that sentiment over and over again while watching the Coens' latest, A Serious Man. While watching this hilarious, thought-provoking, and brilliantly-shot and acted film, I had that same feeling I've had while watching other Coen Bros. productions, that same feeling I got recently while watching movies like Inglorious Basterds. The feeling that the director has you in the palm of their hand. The feeling that you're watching a master manipulator - of images, of words, of storytelling - at work. It's amazing to simply watch A Serious Man and marvel at each delicately chosen turn-of-phrase, at each carefully crafted character, at each visually-rich shot and each precisely effective camera angle. This is another superlative movie from perhaps the best writers-directors working today.
A Serious Man is set in that strange Coen Bros. universe that has one foot firmly planted in reality, with a keen eye towards observational humor, and the other foot threatening to veer off into the surreal and strange. That said, many have commented that this is the duo's most autobiographical work to date - based, to some extent, on their Jewish upbringings in 1960's midwestern suburbia. And there is a detail and authenticity to some of the characters and events here that could only have come from personal experience. I think that those who had a semi-traditional Jewish upbringing will smile in recognition at many of the scenes here. The odd mix of American suburbia and half-assimilated Jewish life (that still exists today) is perfectly captured, in scenes of Hebrew school drudgery, of awkward talks with not-as-smart-as-you-hoped-they'd-be rabbis, and in a masterful sequence covering the tense, climactic moments of a bar-mitzvah service. But even if you're not Jewish or not familiar with Jewish customs, I think you'll nonetheless get caught up in this world that the Coens create. The attention to detail draws you in, and the humor, the characters, and the dialogue keeps you glued to the screen.
This being the Coens though, A Serious Man is not simply a slice-of-life sort of movie. As always, they take small people and look at them from a cosmic viewpoint. Like Burn After Reading, A Serious Man has the feeling of watching these characters as they blindly stumble their way towards the cruel punchline of a grand cosmic joke. This is a movie about an ordinary man whose carefully-composed life is unravelling at the seams. His wife has suddenly taken up with another man, his son spends all his time watching F-Troop and listening to his transistor radio rather than studying his bar-mitzvah torah portion. At his job as a college physics professor, an angry student is trying to bribe him to upgrade his F to a passing grade. He's theoretically up for tenure but can never elicit a straight answer from his bosses about his prospects. His sadsack of a brother is staying at his house, perpetually occupying the bathroom. His daughter nags him, his neighbor scares him, and his lawyer is overpriced. All of these problems, major and minor, keep escalating until this ordinarily unassuming man is on the verge of breaking down. And that leads to the central qustion at the heart of the movie: is there some deeper meaning to all of life's struggles? Are they God's way of telling us something? Is there method to the madness, or do we simply lead lives devoid of any real meaning or purpose? The recurring theme of the movie is seemingly profound stories that are rendered meaningless because they don't have any sort of real ending, they don't contain any real answers to the very questions that they pose. The movie itself is one of those stories. It makes us think about the nature of true wisdom and knowledge. Is there any great truth to be found in the bible, in the old stories, in ancient tradition, that is really any deeper or more reassuring than the lyrics of a Jefferson Airplane song? Is a passage of Leviticus any more meaningfull than: "When the truth is found to be lies - and all the joy within you dies - don't you want somebody to love?" A man steeped in culture and religion would argue that, surely, the wisdom of a learned rabbi trumps that of a rock n' roll song. But this movie posits that maybe it's all just noise. Whatever works for you. If it really is all meaningless, then who is anyone to pass judgement on anyone else?
These are the kind of themes that I love, and these are the kinds of discussions that almost always arise after a Coen Bros. movie. Their stories are sometimes small in scale, but always enormous in terms of thematic scope.
It goes without saying that A Serious Man contains the same sort of brilliant, rythmic dialogue that we've seen in movies like Fargo and No Country For Old Men. It goes without saying that it has the same kind of hilarious back-and-forth exchanges that made movies like The Big Lebowski into cult classics. And it goes without saying that it has the same kind of sweeping, iconic cinematography that characterizes those same movies. A Serious Man even features a stirring score from frequent Coen collaborator Carter Burwell. But here's something that I haven't heard a lot of people talk about - the casting. The Coens have a knack for finding just the right talent to bring their distinct characters to life. A Serious Man lacks almost any name actors. It features a lead known mostly for theater work in Michael Stuhlbarg. But man, this is a defining performance for the actor, playing the put-upon Larry Gopnick. He's absolutely great here, a wound-tight, neurotic physics professor who can rarely quite emote exactly what's on his mind. Exactly the kind of everyman primed and ready for a meltdown should his small universe begin to fall apart. Stuhlbarg is surrounded by an amazing cast of character actors. There's Richard Kind from Curb Your Enthusiasm as the down-on-his-luck uncle. There's a scene-stealing Fred Melamed as the dorky Sy Ableman - the slow-talking Jew who, much to everyone's surprise, somehow wins the affections of Gropnick's wife, and then proceeds to cordially work out the details of a ritual divorce with Larry. George Wyner is absolutely hilarious in several scenes as Gropnick's useless rabbi. And Aaron Wolff is really good and very funny as Gropnick's teenaged son, who preps for his bar-mitzvah torah reading by smoking a joint in the bathroom just prior to the service. Again, these aren't big-name talents, but man, they do great work in A Serious Man.
I could go on and on about this one, but I'll simply say that this, to me, is in the upper tier of the Coen Bros. catalogue. Whenever the brothers release a new movie, there are always the naysayers who claim that their latest doesn't measure up to their best works. And there are always those who think that just because a movie is a comedy, that it couldn't possibly measure up to a strictly serious work. But A Serious Man is a serious movie. Sure, it's funny as hell, but in many ways it's just as dark, if not darker, then No Country For Old Men. At least in that movie, evil is personified in Anton Chigurgh - he's a tangible embodiment of our fears and worst instincts. Here, the eternal question of why bad things happen to good people has no answer, has no rhyme or reason. A Serious Man is both a look at the lives of American Jews in the 1960's and also a deeper examination of the questions and neuroses that have plagued the Jewish people from ancient times until now. It reminded me of something that teachers and rabbis used to tell us in Hebrew School - that if you start studying the kaballah before you are ready, the questions that will be posed and the truths that will be revealed could be so overwhelming as to drive you insane. So tread carefully when looking for hidden meaning. A Serious Man confronts this path for answers and shows us the potential to come up empty. It's a movie I'll be talking and thinking about for a long time to come.
But the bottom line is this: this one is yet another must-see from Joel and Ethan Coen.
My Grade: A
- "Man, those Coen Bros. are *good*." I kept thinking a variation on that sentiment over and over again while watching the Coens' latest, A Serious Man. While watching this hilarious, thought-provoking, and brilliantly-shot and acted film, I had that same feeling I've had while watching other Coen Bros. productions, that same feeling I got recently while watching movies like Inglorious Basterds. The feeling that the director has you in the palm of their hand. The feeling that you're watching a master manipulator - of images, of words, of storytelling - at work. It's amazing to simply watch A Serious Man and marvel at each delicately chosen turn-of-phrase, at each carefully crafted character, at each visually-rich shot and each precisely effective camera angle. This is another superlative movie from perhaps the best writers-directors working today.
A Serious Man is set in that strange Coen Bros. universe that has one foot firmly planted in reality, with a keen eye towards observational humor, and the other foot threatening to veer off into the surreal and strange. That said, many have commented that this is the duo's most autobiographical work to date - based, to some extent, on their Jewish upbringings in 1960's midwestern suburbia. And there is a detail and authenticity to some of the characters and events here that could only have come from personal experience. I think that those who had a semi-traditional Jewish upbringing will smile in recognition at many of the scenes here. The odd mix of American suburbia and half-assimilated Jewish life (that still exists today) is perfectly captured, in scenes of Hebrew school drudgery, of awkward talks with not-as-smart-as-you-hoped-they'd-be rabbis, and in a masterful sequence covering the tense, climactic moments of a bar-mitzvah service. But even if you're not Jewish or not familiar with Jewish customs, I think you'll nonetheless get caught up in this world that the Coens create. The attention to detail draws you in, and the humor, the characters, and the dialogue keeps you glued to the screen.
This being the Coens though, A Serious Man is not simply a slice-of-life sort of movie. As always, they take small people and look at them from a cosmic viewpoint. Like Burn After Reading, A Serious Man has the feeling of watching these characters as they blindly stumble their way towards the cruel punchline of a grand cosmic joke. This is a movie about an ordinary man whose carefully-composed life is unravelling at the seams. His wife has suddenly taken up with another man, his son spends all his time watching F-Troop and listening to his transistor radio rather than studying his bar-mitzvah torah portion. At his job as a college physics professor, an angry student is trying to bribe him to upgrade his F to a passing grade. He's theoretically up for tenure but can never elicit a straight answer from his bosses about his prospects. His sadsack of a brother is staying at his house, perpetually occupying the bathroom. His daughter nags him, his neighbor scares him, and his lawyer is overpriced. All of these problems, major and minor, keep escalating until this ordinarily unassuming man is on the verge of breaking down. And that leads to the central qustion at the heart of the movie: is there some deeper meaning to all of life's struggles? Are they God's way of telling us something? Is there method to the madness, or do we simply lead lives devoid of any real meaning or purpose? The recurring theme of the movie is seemingly profound stories that are rendered meaningless because they don't have any sort of real ending, they don't contain any real answers to the very questions that they pose. The movie itself is one of those stories. It makes us think about the nature of true wisdom and knowledge. Is there any great truth to be found in the bible, in the old stories, in ancient tradition, that is really any deeper or more reassuring than the lyrics of a Jefferson Airplane song? Is a passage of Leviticus any more meaningfull than: "When the truth is found to be lies - and all the joy within you dies - don't you want somebody to love?" A man steeped in culture and religion would argue that, surely, the wisdom of a learned rabbi trumps that of a rock n' roll song. But this movie posits that maybe it's all just noise. Whatever works for you. If it really is all meaningless, then who is anyone to pass judgement on anyone else?
These are the kind of themes that I love, and these are the kinds of discussions that almost always arise after a Coen Bros. movie. Their stories are sometimes small in scale, but always enormous in terms of thematic scope.
It goes without saying that A Serious Man contains the same sort of brilliant, rythmic dialogue that we've seen in movies like Fargo and No Country For Old Men. It goes without saying that it has the same kind of hilarious back-and-forth exchanges that made movies like The Big Lebowski into cult classics. And it goes without saying that it has the same kind of sweeping, iconic cinematography that characterizes those same movies. A Serious Man even features a stirring score from frequent Coen collaborator Carter Burwell. But here's something that I haven't heard a lot of people talk about - the casting. The Coens have a knack for finding just the right talent to bring their distinct characters to life. A Serious Man lacks almost any name actors. It features a lead known mostly for theater work in Michael Stuhlbarg. But man, this is a defining performance for the actor, playing the put-upon Larry Gopnick. He's absolutely great here, a wound-tight, neurotic physics professor who can rarely quite emote exactly what's on his mind. Exactly the kind of everyman primed and ready for a meltdown should his small universe begin to fall apart. Stuhlbarg is surrounded by an amazing cast of character actors. There's Richard Kind from Curb Your Enthusiasm as the down-on-his-luck uncle. There's a scene-stealing Fred Melamed as the dorky Sy Ableman - the slow-talking Jew who, much to everyone's surprise, somehow wins the affections of Gropnick's wife, and then proceeds to cordially work out the details of a ritual divorce with Larry. George Wyner is absolutely hilarious in several scenes as Gropnick's useless rabbi. And Aaron Wolff is really good and very funny as Gropnick's teenaged son, who preps for his bar-mitzvah torah reading by smoking a joint in the bathroom just prior to the service. Again, these aren't big-name talents, but man, they do great work in A Serious Man.
I could go on and on about this one, but I'll simply say that this, to me, is in the upper tier of the Coen Bros. catalogue. Whenever the brothers release a new movie, there are always the naysayers who claim that their latest doesn't measure up to their best works. And there are always those who think that just because a movie is a comedy, that it couldn't possibly measure up to a strictly serious work. But A Serious Man is a serious movie. Sure, it's funny as hell, but in many ways it's just as dark, if not darker, then No Country For Old Men. At least in that movie, evil is personified in Anton Chigurgh - he's a tangible embodiment of our fears and worst instincts. Here, the eternal question of why bad things happen to good people has no answer, has no rhyme or reason. A Serious Man is both a look at the lives of American Jews in the 1960's and also a deeper examination of the questions and neuroses that have plagued the Jewish people from ancient times until now. It reminded me of something that teachers and rabbis used to tell us in Hebrew School - that if you start studying the kaballah before you are ready, the questions that will be posed and the truths that will be revealed could be so overwhelming as to drive you insane. So tread carefully when looking for hidden meaning. A Serious Man confronts this path for answers and shows us the potential to come up empty. It's a movie I'll be talking and thinking about for a long time to come.
But the bottom line is this: this one is yet another must-see from Joel and Ethan Coen.
My Grade: A
Wednesday, October 7, 2009
THE INVENTION OF LYING - Reviewed! Plus More!
What's up? I'm back with a midweek blast of blogtacular goodness, including a movie review of THE INVENTION OF LYING. I would, however, like to call attention to two of this past Spring's best movies, newly released on DVD ... both of which kind of fell under the radar. But, I strongly urge all of you guys to go check 'em out. For one thing, OBSERVE & REPORT is, to me, a modern comedy classic. It's from director Jody Hill, who did The Foot Fist Way and the HBO series Eastbound and Down. But while The Foot Fist Way was rough around the edges, Observe & Report is a polished movie that is ultra-dark, ultra-hilarious, and features, believe it or not, a riveting performance from Seth Rogen in the lead role. If you like uncompromising comedy, you have to check this one out as soon as possible. Also, I recommend checking out ANVIL: THE STORY OF ANVIL. The movie is hilarious, emotional, and involving - it's a documentary about a washed-up rock band known as Anvil, who despite years of struggle and rejection, still believes that they can achieve their shot at greatness. It's one of the best movies about rock n' roll I've ever seen, and you will come away from it a fan of Anvil and the never-say-die spirit that they represent.
TV STUFF:
- After a subpar season premiere, SMALLVILLE came back with a pretty decent episode this past week. If nothing else, the ep thankfully put a quick end to the Matrix-Clark storyline and returned Clark to The Daily Planet and got him out of that lame black trenchcoat. Also, Metallo proved to be a pretty darn good villain, thanks to a strong performance from Brian Austin-Green. I would definitely welcome further appearances by the character. In any case, it was nice to have a Smallville episode that had some depth to it - some darkness, some action, some real super-villainy. Still, I guess it speaks to the lameness of the season premiere that a somewhat cookie-cutter episode was such a relief. In some ways, this one followed the tired Smallville formula to a T, complete with Lois getting kocked unconcious *just* before Clark arrives on the scene to show off his superpowers. Chloe also continued to be really annoying in this episode. But, despite its fairly typical Smallvillian flaws, this episode definitely felt watchable. It had moments of coolness. Meaning, there is still some life left in this show.
My Grade: B
- I was somewhat ready to give up on GLEE, but then Kristen Chenoweth came along and convinced me otherwise. Maybe it's just my leftover love for all things Pushing Daisies, or maybe it's just that Chenoweth is that damn good, but likely it's a little of both that made me really enjoy last week's episode. Suffice it to say, KC's awesome guest appearance kept me interested for at least a little while longer.
My Grade: B+
- GOSSIP GIRL is a show that can basically get away with anything, because it presents all of its crazy storylines with a wink and a smile. To that end, I really enjoyed Monday's ep featuring Hillary Duff and Tyra Banks. But, I also think that the NYU setting is going to need some shots of momentum if its going to continue to hold interest. I found myself at times more interested in seeing Jenny Humphrey's high school exploits. But, next week, with Rupert and Lilly's wedding, and Georgina as the potential spoiler, looks like it could be pretty amazing.
My Grade: B+
THE INVENTION OF LYING Review:
- Ricky Gervais has got to be one of the funniest people working in comedy today. Every so often, you see something new in comedy and realize that you've just seen a paradigm shift. You realize that this movie or this TV show represents a bold new voice, and that it's time to sit up and take notice. I felt that way the first time I saw the original version of THE OFFICE. From that moment on, I was a fan of Gervais and eagerly looked forward to seeing what he'd come up with next. The Invention of Lying represents Gervais' first real film that he can call his own. He co-wrote it and directed it, and he also stars. And while the movie does conform to Hollywood convention to some extent, mostly, this is a far darker and more biting social satire than you're used to seeing from a major Hollywood picture. The Invention of Lying is smart, funny, and makes you think. In short, you should run out and see it as soon as you can.
The movie has a high concept similar in scope to movies like Albert Brooks' classic Defending Your Life or Mike Judge's more recent Idiocracy. Like those movies, Lying takes an almost sci-fi premise and uses it to put our own society under the microscope. In this universe, people can't lie. They simply never developed the mental capacity to say things that aren't true. In our reality, an inability to lie would probably mean that a lot of us would simply refrain from talking. But not so here. People talk. They express themselves. And the results are often quite unflattering in their bluntness. That means a lot of awkward confrontations where people greet each other and then explain how much they hate one another. It means that dates include tragically frank discussions about just how attractive you find one another. It means that when someone asks you what you're up to, you tend to tell them exactly what you're up to, which, as you can imagine, could get a bit uncomfortable.
But these little social oddities aren't all that The Invention of Lying is about, although it is certainly where a lot of the humor comes from (and Ricky Gervais, already the master of awkward comedy, is right at home with all that stuff). But the movie also goes much deeper (and this is where it probably differs from the typical Adam Sandler high concept comedy, or whatever). It looks at how the lack of lying affects the media - at how advertising becomes hilariously literal, and how movies are merely history lessons, and how religion, well, religion doesn't even exist.
The turning point of the movie is when the down-on-his luck character played by Gervais somehow overcomes his world's mental block and gains the ability to make things up. From there, as you can imagine, hilarity ensues. But as mentioned above, there is also a somewhat profound message behind the madness. The movie accomplishes a somewhat remarkable feat in this way - not only does it break down many of the everyday lies that comprise our day to day social interactions, but it tackles the very roots of religion, politics, etc. I don't think it does it in a mean-spirited way either. Gervais has that unique ability to be very dark and very cutting, yet still create moments of real warmth, and characters with real heart. Think The Office, think Extras. That same sensibility is on display here. A real intelligence and subtlety to the humor, but also a surprising amount of emotional connection.
It helps that the cast is up to the very difficult task of selling us on this oddball alterna-reality. Gervais is in fine form. Very funny, with some classic moments of David Brent-style befuddlement. But good lord, the man is actually a pretty amazing actor when he wants to be. There were hints of that on The Office and Extras, but here, there are some genuinely affecting scenes of sadness, scenes where you feel for him and scenes where you root for him. Jennifer Garner is also crazy-good in this movie. It's another one of those roles for her where it doesn't immediately stand out as anything amazing, but then you stop and wonder how many other actresses could actually pull off such a difficult role. The one problem with Garner is that, even in this quirky fairytale romance, let's face it, it's stretching it a bit to imagine her ending up with Gervais. You wonder if the movie might have worked slightly better if the object of Gervais' affections was someone without Garner's movie-star good looks. But again, she really does do a nice job with the material, so I give her a lot of credit.
Rob Lowe is great here as an obnoxious rival to Gervais. Louis C.K. is hilarious as his dimwitted sidekick. And man, the movie is practically overflowing with talented and/or hilarious actors in smaller roles. I mean, was there any better choice to play Gervais' bumbling boss than Arrested Development's Jeffrey Tambor? Tambor is great, and so is Tina Fey, Jonah Hill, Philip Seymour Hoffman, Martin Starr, Christopher Guest, and even Edward Norton. Yeah, those are some pretty heavy hitters right there. It's amazing to think about the talent that Gervais has assembled for this film. Office fans can even look forward to a funny cameo from co-creator (and Extras regular) Stephen Merchant.
The Invention of Lying really won me over. I think the one place where it falters is that, at times, it ignores all the funny and fascinating social commentary in order to become a somewhat by-the-numbers romantic comedy. And at it's core, this is a romantic comedy, which might be surprising or even disappointing for some. But while some of the Hollywood cliche moments might have been crippling for another movie, what separates this one from the pack is how smartly it plays off of and directly addresses many typical genre conventions. I mean, I am not a fan of the forced sentimentality of the usual rom-com, but I think that this movie genuinely earns most of its "awwww-shucks" moments. There is that deeper subtext here, and there is that somewhat profound statement working in the background. Because this isn't just a world where everyone tells the truth - it's a world where everything is based on facts and logic and truth. There are no fictions, no flights of imagination, no ideals. Therefore, the fact that love can exist in this world is truly a miracle in and of itself. It might sound cheesy, but the movie addresses these things with wit and cleverness. And aside from that, there are those looks at religion, media, etc. that produce some classic bits of satire.
So sure, this movie doesn't have quite the gloss or polish of some other big movies out right now. But it has some fascinating ideas at its core. And its often very, very funny. If you like The Office, Extras, or the humor of Ricky Gervais, make it a point to check this one out.
My Grade: A-
- Alright, I'm out. Later!
TV STUFF:
- After a subpar season premiere, SMALLVILLE came back with a pretty decent episode this past week. If nothing else, the ep thankfully put a quick end to the Matrix-Clark storyline and returned Clark to The Daily Planet and got him out of that lame black trenchcoat. Also, Metallo proved to be a pretty darn good villain, thanks to a strong performance from Brian Austin-Green. I would definitely welcome further appearances by the character. In any case, it was nice to have a Smallville episode that had some depth to it - some darkness, some action, some real super-villainy. Still, I guess it speaks to the lameness of the season premiere that a somewhat cookie-cutter episode was such a relief. In some ways, this one followed the tired Smallville formula to a T, complete with Lois getting kocked unconcious *just* before Clark arrives on the scene to show off his superpowers. Chloe also continued to be really annoying in this episode. But, despite its fairly typical Smallvillian flaws, this episode definitely felt watchable. It had moments of coolness. Meaning, there is still some life left in this show.
My Grade: B
- I was somewhat ready to give up on GLEE, but then Kristen Chenoweth came along and convinced me otherwise. Maybe it's just my leftover love for all things Pushing Daisies, or maybe it's just that Chenoweth is that damn good, but likely it's a little of both that made me really enjoy last week's episode. Suffice it to say, KC's awesome guest appearance kept me interested for at least a little while longer.
My Grade: B+
- GOSSIP GIRL is a show that can basically get away with anything, because it presents all of its crazy storylines with a wink and a smile. To that end, I really enjoyed Monday's ep featuring Hillary Duff and Tyra Banks. But, I also think that the NYU setting is going to need some shots of momentum if its going to continue to hold interest. I found myself at times more interested in seeing Jenny Humphrey's high school exploits. But, next week, with Rupert and Lilly's wedding, and Georgina as the potential spoiler, looks like it could be pretty amazing.
My Grade: B+
THE INVENTION OF LYING Review:
- Ricky Gervais has got to be one of the funniest people working in comedy today. Every so often, you see something new in comedy and realize that you've just seen a paradigm shift. You realize that this movie or this TV show represents a bold new voice, and that it's time to sit up and take notice. I felt that way the first time I saw the original version of THE OFFICE. From that moment on, I was a fan of Gervais and eagerly looked forward to seeing what he'd come up with next. The Invention of Lying represents Gervais' first real film that he can call his own. He co-wrote it and directed it, and he also stars. And while the movie does conform to Hollywood convention to some extent, mostly, this is a far darker and more biting social satire than you're used to seeing from a major Hollywood picture. The Invention of Lying is smart, funny, and makes you think. In short, you should run out and see it as soon as you can.
The movie has a high concept similar in scope to movies like Albert Brooks' classic Defending Your Life or Mike Judge's more recent Idiocracy. Like those movies, Lying takes an almost sci-fi premise and uses it to put our own society under the microscope. In this universe, people can't lie. They simply never developed the mental capacity to say things that aren't true. In our reality, an inability to lie would probably mean that a lot of us would simply refrain from talking. But not so here. People talk. They express themselves. And the results are often quite unflattering in their bluntness. That means a lot of awkward confrontations where people greet each other and then explain how much they hate one another. It means that dates include tragically frank discussions about just how attractive you find one another. It means that when someone asks you what you're up to, you tend to tell them exactly what you're up to, which, as you can imagine, could get a bit uncomfortable.
But these little social oddities aren't all that The Invention of Lying is about, although it is certainly where a lot of the humor comes from (and Ricky Gervais, already the master of awkward comedy, is right at home with all that stuff). But the movie also goes much deeper (and this is where it probably differs from the typical Adam Sandler high concept comedy, or whatever). It looks at how the lack of lying affects the media - at how advertising becomes hilariously literal, and how movies are merely history lessons, and how religion, well, religion doesn't even exist.
The turning point of the movie is when the down-on-his luck character played by Gervais somehow overcomes his world's mental block and gains the ability to make things up. From there, as you can imagine, hilarity ensues. But as mentioned above, there is also a somewhat profound message behind the madness. The movie accomplishes a somewhat remarkable feat in this way - not only does it break down many of the everyday lies that comprise our day to day social interactions, but it tackles the very roots of religion, politics, etc. I don't think it does it in a mean-spirited way either. Gervais has that unique ability to be very dark and very cutting, yet still create moments of real warmth, and characters with real heart. Think The Office, think Extras. That same sensibility is on display here. A real intelligence and subtlety to the humor, but also a surprising amount of emotional connection.
It helps that the cast is up to the very difficult task of selling us on this oddball alterna-reality. Gervais is in fine form. Very funny, with some classic moments of David Brent-style befuddlement. But good lord, the man is actually a pretty amazing actor when he wants to be. There were hints of that on The Office and Extras, but here, there are some genuinely affecting scenes of sadness, scenes where you feel for him and scenes where you root for him. Jennifer Garner is also crazy-good in this movie. It's another one of those roles for her where it doesn't immediately stand out as anything amazing, but then you stop and wonder how many other actresses could actually pull off such a difficult role. The one problem with Garner is that, even in this quirky fairytale romance, let's face it, it's stretching it a bit to imagine her ending up with Gervais. You wonder if the movie might have worked slightly better if the object of Gervais' affections was someone without Garner's movie-star good looks. But again, she really does do a nice job with the material, so I give her a lot of credit.
Rob Lowe is great here as an obnoxious rival to Gervais. Louis C.K. is hilarious as his dimwitted sidekick. And man, the movie is practically overflowing with talented and/or hilarious actors in smaller roles. I mean, was there any better choice to play Gervais' bumbling boss than Arrested Development's Jeffrey Tambor? Tambor is great, and so is Tina Fey, Jonah Hill, Philip Seymour Hoffman, Martin Starr, Christopher Guest, and even Edward Norton. Yeah, those are some pretty heavy hitters right there. It's amazing to think about the talent that Gervais has assembled for this film. Office fans can even look forward to a funny cameo from co-creator (and Extras regular) Stephen Merchant.
The Invention of Lying really won me over. I think the one place where it falters is that, at times, it ignores all the funny and fascinating social commentary in order to become a somewhat by-the-numbers romantic comedy. And at it's core, this is a romantic comedy, which might be surprising or even disappointing for some. But while some of the Hollywood cliche moments might have been crippling for another movie, what separates this one from the pack is how smartly it plays off of and directly addresses many typical genre conventions. I mean, I am not a fan of the forced sentimentality of the usual rom-com, but I think that this movie genuinely earns most of its "awwww-shucks" moments. There is that deeper subtext here, and there is that somewhat profound statement working in the background. Because this isn't just a world where everyone tells the truth - it's a world where everything is based on facts and logic and truth. There are no fictions, no flights of imagination, no ideals. Therefore, the fact that love can exist in this world is truly a miracle in and of itself. It might sound cheesy, but the movie addresses these things with wit and cleverness. And aside from that, there are those looks at religion, media, etc. that produce some classic bits of satire.
So sure, this movie doesn't have quite the gloss or polish of some other big movies out right now. But it has some fascinating ideas at its core. And its often very, very funny. If you like The Office, Extras, or the humor of Ricky Gervais, make it a point to check this one out.
My Grade: A-
- Alright, I'm out. Later!
Monday, October 5, 2009
Danny Goes to ZOMBIELAND! Plus: The Simpsons, Fringe, and MORE!
Well, it's back to the grind after what was, luckily, a fun and pretty packed weekend. I spent time in a Sukkah, went to a b-day party in West LA, and saw a couple of very entertaining films in ZOMBIELAND and THE INVENTION OF LYING.
So without further ado, some TV STUFF ...
- I was pretty shocked last week during a routine check of The A.V. Club website to discover that Thursday's episode of FRINGE was unceremoniously given a D+ grade. I mean, whaaat? It was hard to imagine an episode of one of TV's best dramas being THAT bad that it warranted such a poor grade. Of course, my brother eagerly reported back to me this weekend that the episode in question did not, in fact, suck, but, in truth, "ruled." So ... which was it? I sat down last night and downloaded the HD episode onto my XBOX (because I'm cool like that), and determined that the truth was somewhere in the middle. The fact is, Fringe is, at this point, something of a well-oiled machine. Even when the plotting isn't spectacular, the characters are so consistently well-drawn and entertaining that, as long as you get to see Olivia, Peter, Broyles, and most importantly, Walter, doing their thing, you're guaranteed a fun time. And on Thursday, all of our principles were in fine form. Lance Reddick had some kickass line readings. Anna Torv really did a great job playing Olivia as a scared but determined woman looking to get to the bottom of what's happened to her by any means necessary. Joshua Jackson did a nice job and gave some intriguing hints as to Peter's shady past exploits. And man, John Noble, as always, is just a joy to watch - funny, intense, and crazy all at once. That said, I did feel a bit of frustration with some of the forced weirdness - the whole bowling alley thing was a little too random for a show that is typically less about Yoda-like mysticism and more about hard science. Still, Kevin Corrigan makes the bowling alley scenes way more bearable than they might have been otherwise with a lesser actor. And speaking of cool actors, Stephen McHattie (of Watchmen) kicked ass in this ep as the gruff Colonel who has gone off the grid to prepare for otherdimensional invasion. Sweet. I think a fundamental problem with Fringe sometimes is that the show can never 100% focus on coming up with amazing monsters-of-the week in the vein of The X-Files. Since EVERY episode of Fringe tends to have at least some tie to the ongoing mythology, you don't get to really focus as much on the weekly cases as The X-Files did, and because of that, I think you get eps like this one where the freaks-of-the-week are cool, but nothing all that memorable or mindblowing. X-Files fans can quickly rattle off classic villains like the Jersey Devil, Fluke Man, Eugene Tooms, etc., whereas Fringe is forced to divide time between a number of ongoing subplots and side characters in any given episode. I think that sometime makes episodes like this one feel a bit all-over-the-place, and you wonder why they throw in scenes of Olivia and Peter going to Iraq rather than actually spending time with the freaks and seeing what makes them tick. So no, this one was definitely not a home-run, but it was solid, and, if anything, a reminder that Fringe is now so fundamentally strong as a series that it can overcome most of its weaknesses.
My Grade: B
- THE SIMPSONS followed up on a strong season premiere with a not-as-strong second episode of Season 21. I actually really liked the initial premise - that Mrs. Krabappel is unceremoniously fired after one of Bart's pranks goes wrong, and is replaced with a cool young teacher who encourages students to text message, download homework assignments, and friend him on Facebook. There was a lot of potential there, but for some reason, the ep quickly veered away from this and focused more on Mrs. Krabappel and her woes, an area that has been covered many a time in past Simpsons seasons. Even worse, Bart found a potential cure for her miseries in the form of "The Answer," a parody of keys-to-the-universe self-help books. The whole thing felt tired and kind of dated, and a lot of the Edna-centric humor fell kind of flat. It's too bad that we couldn't have focused more on the new teach and his eventual Frank Grimes-esque implosion (which also seemed like sort of a cop-out of an ending). Overall though, a decent ep that also felt like a missed opportunity.
My Grade: B-
- As a proud member of The Tribe, I love me some Jewish humor ... but, FAMILY GUY seems unable to do satirical humor these days without being cruel and crass for no good reason. Sure, last night's FG, in which Lois finds out that she's actually of Jewish descent, had some chuckle-worthy laughs (I liked how Peter's Jewish look came complete with "glistening chest-hair"), the episode had no real meat to its satire. The Jew angle was basically a way for the show to bust out every single Jewish stereotype there is one after another, without highlighting almost anything positive at all about Judaism. Worse, most of the jokes just were not that funny. Like I said, I love Jewish humor when it's done well, even if that humor pokes fun at the religion - trust me, we can take it. But I think back to the classic Simpsons episode where Krusty is revealed as being Jewish, the son of a rabbi, no less. That episode is so smart, so well-done ... hell, we watched it in Hebrew school. This one was just lazy, which seems to be the modus operandi of late for Family Guy. Still, one final item of note: I give an automatic bump-up for the hilarious Kathy Ireland gag, which produced the very-funny image of Peter pressing his Kathy cut-out against the shower door in a scene both hilarious and disturbing.
My Grade: C+
- The second episode of FLASH FORWARD was not the kind of hour I was hoping for or expecting following the great pilot episode. After all of the twists and turns of the pilot, this one felt like a whole lot of recap. Not only that, but it's as if some network execs turned up the dumb-it-down dial. All of the dialogue just felt overly expository, and so much was simply spelled out for the viewer. There were some real cringe-worthy moments in this one. I think the show is going to need some huge moments and big reveals soon if it's going to hook people for the longrun. I mean, there's only so many times I can care about FBI agents staring at the same blurry image of a guy on a computer screen. Yes, we get it, he's the only one who didn't black out. Next. Also, there was some reaaally hokey stuff here. I mean, did we really need our heroes to chase their suspect into some weird doll factory, complete with oh-so-scary nursery rhymes being recited in the background, like they are in EVERY HORROR MOVIE TRAILER EVER? If you have to try that hard to be creepy, there's probably something wrong.
My Grade: C+
Alright, time to talk about the movie that was, without a doubt, *the* event movie of the weekend despite the large amount of highly-anticipated flicks now out at the box office. Yep, time to get in touch with my inner zombie, and bring you ...
ZOMBIELAND Review:
- Zombieland is a movie with a great sensibility, and sometimes, that's enough to carry a movie. This is a movie that was clearly made by people who know from cool stuff. They know that zombies are cool. They know that Woody Harrelson as a Stone Cold Steve Austin-esque zombie hunter with a strange obsession with Twinkies, well, they know that that right there is one badass character. They get what makes zombies cool and fun and even funny. They get that at this point, most movie fans know Zombies 101 - at this point, we can skip the introductions and get right to the good stuff.
And there is a lot of good stuff in Zombieland. There's nervous, neurotic Jesse Eisenberg teamed up with Woody H. in what is certainly an odd couple for the ages. There's Emma Stone and Abigail Breslin as a team of sisters who prove that looks can be deceiving when it comes to survival of the fittest. There's action, comedy, and romance. There's plenty of Zombie mayhem and gore. There's memorable gags aplenty, and even a meta-cameo from a comedy legend, as himself. There's no doubt - Zombieland will entertain the crap out of you.
So the only remaining question is ... is Zombieland merely really good, or is it great? Well, I think it's one of those movies that has that spark, that potential for pure awesomeness. Its heart is in the right place, so to speak. Its director, newcomer Ruben Fleischer, is definitely now a name to watch - this guy knows his stuff, and has a knack for splicing genres and also for depicting stylishly framed action and carnage. He gets comedy, and gets how to create those kind of fun moments that make fanboys high five each other with glee.
But Zombieland is also a bit rough around the edges. It has many cool moments, but it feels more like a snack than a full meal. Like I said, all of the ingredients are there for not just a good movie, but a truly great one. But while the movie is great with characters, it falls short in terms of plot. There's a lot of meandering, and things sometime feel sort of directionless. There isn't exactly one driving plot point that keeps the movie moving forward - instead, it's more just about the characters living in this zombiefied, post-apocalyptic wasteland. It's a nice introductory piece, but it also makes you wonder what a crazier, bigger-budget sequel could be like. And it also makes you wish that the whole movie was as consistently good as some of its best scenes. Case in point -- Zombieland opens with an absolutely badass look at the new, zombie-apocalypse America, set to Metallica's "For Whom the Bell Tolls." It's a great, adrenaline pumping montage that gets you ready to rock n' roll. It's disappointing, then, that the finale, set in an amusement park overrun by zombies, never quite lives up to that previous level of awesomeness.
Also, I think there's just an overall lack of true intensity or danger. There's only a couple of scenes where we actually fear for the characters' lives. And again, the character stuff is great, but there's so *much* character stuff that the movie sometimes threatens to become Jesse Eisenberg's previous movie, Adventureland, but, you know, with zombies. Even the very-funny surprise cameo is cool, but man, it takes up A LOT of time that could have been devoted to plot and/or action.
But Zombieland is well worth seeing for the great characters and spot-on humor. The cast does an awesome job top to bottom. Woody Harrelson is at his iconic, badass best here, and Jesse Eisenberg's hilarious performance is evidence that, when in need of a neurotic, geeky Jew / unlikely hero for an action movie, Eisenberg should always be choice #1 as opposed to Shia. Emma Stone is sort of the thinking man's teen queen, and Abigail Breslin shows that she could have a great career post-child stardom.
So yeah - Zombieland is a movie that is aimed squarely at the heart of zombie-lovin' fanboys and fangirls everywhere. It's a movie that deserves its box-office success. Not a classic, not yet. But Part II could be. I say bring it on.
My Grade: B+
- Alright, I'm out for now. Next time: a review of THE INVENTION OF LYING.
So without further ado, some TV STUFF ...
- I was pretty shocked last week during a routine check of The A.V. Club website to discover that Thursday's episode of FRINGE was unceremoniously given a D+ grade. I mean, whaaat? It was hard to imagine an episode of one of TV's best dramas being THAT bad that it warranted such a poor grade. Of course, my brother eagerly reported back to me this weekend that the episode in question did not, in fact, suck, but, in truth, "ruled." So ... which was it? I sat down last night and downloaded the HD episode onto my XBOX (because I'm cool like that), and determined that the truth was somewhere in the middle. The fact is, Fringe is, at this point, something of a well-oiled machine. Even when the plotting isn't spectacular, the characters are so consistently well-drawn and entertaining that, as long as you get to see Olivia, Peter, Broyles, and most importantly, Walter, doing their thing, you're guaranteed a fun time. And on Thursday, all of our principles were in fine form. Lance Reddick had some kickass line readings. Anna Torv really did a great job playing Olivia as a scared but determined woman looking to get to the bottom of what's happened to her by any means necessary. Joshua Jackson did a nice job and gave some intriguing hints as to Peter's shady past exploits. And man, John Noble, as always, is just a joy to watch - funny, intense, and crazy all at once. That said, I did feel a bit of frustration with some of the forced weirdness - the whole bowling alley thing was a little too random for a show that is typically less about Yoda-like mysticism and more about hard science. Still, Kevin Corrigan makes the bowling alley scenes way more bearable than they might have been otherwise with a lesser actor. And speaking of cool actors, Stephen McHattie (of Watchmen) kicked ass in this ep as the gruff Colonel who has gone off the grid to prepare for otherdimensional invasion. Sweet. I think a fundamental problem with Fringe sometimes is that the show can never 100% focus on coming up with amazing monsters-of-the week in the vein of The X-Files. Since EVERY episode of Fringe tends to have at least some tie to the ongoing mythology, you don't get to really focus as much on the weekly cases as The X-Files did, and because of that, I think you get eps like this one where the freaks-of-the-week are cool, but nothing all that memorable or mindblowing. X-Files fans can quickly rattle off classic villains like the Jersey Devil, Fluke Man, Eugene Tooms, etc., whereas Fringe is forced to divide time between a number of ongoing subplots and side characters in any given episode. I think that sometime makes episodes like this one feel a bit all-over-the-place, and you wonder why they throw in scenes of Olivia and Peter going to Iraq rather than actually spending time with the freaks and seeing what makes them tick. So no, this one was definitely not a home-run, but it was solid, and, if anything, a reminder that Fringe is now so fundamentally strong as a series that it can overcome most of its weaknesses.
My Grade: B
- THE SIMPSONS followed up on a strong season premiere with a not-as-strong second episode of Season 21. I actually really liked the initial premise - that Mrs. Krabappel is unceremoniously fired after one of Bart's pranks goes wrong, and is replaced with a cool young teacher who encourages students to text message, download homework assignments, and friend him on Facebook. There was a lot of potential there, but for some reason, the ep quickly veered away from this and focused more on Mrs. Krabappel and her woes, an area that has been covered many a time in past Simpsons seasons. Even worse, Bart found a potential cure for her miseries in the form of "The Answer," a parody of keys-to-the-universe self-help books. The whole thing felt tired and kind of dated, and a lot of the Edna-centric humor fell kind of flat. It's too bad that we couldn't have focused more on the new teach and his eventual Frank Grimes-esque implosion (which also seemed like sort of a cop-out of an ending). Overall though, a decent ep that also felt like a missed opportunity.
My Grade: B-
- As a proud member of The Tribe, I love me some Jewish humor ... but, FAMILY GUY seems unable to do satirical humor these days without being cruel and crass for no good reason. Sure, last night's FG, in which Lois finds out that she's actually of Jewish descent, had some chuckle-worthy laughs (I liked how Peter's Jewish look came complete with "glistening chest-hair"), the episode had no real meat to its satire. The Jew angle was basically a way for the show to bust out every single Jewish stereotype there is one after another, without highlighting almost anything positive at all about Judaism. Worse, most of the jokes just were not that funny. Like I said, I love Jewish humor when it's done well, even if that humor pokes fun at the religion - trust me, we can take it. But I think back to the classic Simpsons episode where Krusty is revealed as being Jewish, the son of a rabbi, no less. That episode is so smart, so well-done ... hell, we watched it in Hebrew school. This one was just lazy, which seems to be the modus operandi of late for Family Guy. Still, one final item of note: I give an automatic bump-up for the hilarious Kathy Ireland gag, which produced the very-funny image of Peter pressing his Kathy cut-out against the shower door in a scene both hilarious and disturbing.
My Grade: C+
- The second episode of FLASH FORWARD was not the kind of hour I was hoping for or expecting following the great pilot episode. After all of the twists and turns of the pilot, this one felt like a whole lot of recap. Not only that, but it's as if some network execs turned up the dumb-it-down dial. All of the dialogue just felt overly expository, and so much was simply spelled out for the viewer. There were some real cringe-worthy moments in this one. I think the show is going to need some huge moments and big reveals soon if it's going to hook people for the longrun. I mean, there's only so many times I can care about FBI agents staring at the same blurry image of a guy on a computer screen. Yes, we get it, he's the only one who didn't black out. Next. Also, there was some reaaally hokey stuff here. I mean, did we really need our heroes to chase their suspect into some weird doll factory, complete with oh-so-scary nursery rhymes being recited in the background, like they are in EVERY HORROR MOVIE TRAILER EVER? If you have to try that hard to be creepy, there's probably something wrong.
My Grade: C+
Alright, time to talk about the movie that was, without a doubt, *the* event movie of the weekend despite the large amount of highly-anticipated flicks now out at the box office. Yep, time to get in touch with my inner zombie, and bring you ...
ZOMBIELAND Review:
- Zombieland is a movie with a great sensibility, and sometimes, that's enough to carry a movie. This is a movie that was clearly made by people who know from cool stuff. They know that zombies are cool. They know that Woody Harrelson as a Stone Cold Steve Austin-esque zombie hunter with a strange obsession with Twinkies, well, they know that that right there is one badass character. They get what makes zombies cool and fun and even funny. They get that at this point, most movie fans know Zombies 101 - at this point, we can skip the introductions and get right to the good stuff.
And there is a lot of good stuff in Zombieland. There's nervous, neurotic Jesse Eisenberg teamed up with Woody H. in what is certainly an odd couple for the ages. There's Emma Stone and Abigail Breslin as a team of sisters who prove that looks can be deceiving when it comes to survival of the fittest. There's action, comedy, and romance. There's plenty of Zombie mayhem and gore. There's memorable gags aplenty, and even a meta-cameo from a comedy legend, as himself. There's no doubt - Zombieland will entertain the crap out of you.
So the only remaining question is ... is Zombieland merely really good, or is it great? Well, I think it's one of those movies that has that spark, that potential for pure awesomeness. Its heart is in the right place, so to speak. Its director, newcomer Ruben Fleischer, is definitely now a name to watch - this guy knows his stuff, and has a knack for splicing genres and also for depicting stylishly framed action and carnage. He gets comedy, and gets how to create those kind of fun moments that make fanboys high five each other with glee.
But Zombieland is also a bit rough around the edges. It has many cool moments, but it feels more like a snack than a full meal. Like I said, all of the ingredients are there for not just a good movie, but a truly great one. But while the movie is great with characters, it falls short in terms of plot. There's a lot of meandering, and things sometime feel sort of directionless. There isn't exactly one driving plot point that keeps the movie moving forward - instead, it's more just about the characters living in this zombiefied, post-apocalyptic wasteland. It's a nice introductory piece, but it also makes you wonder what a crazier, bigger-budget sequel could be like. And it also makes you wish that the whole movie was as consistently good as some of its best scenes. Case in point -- Zombieland opens with an absolutely badass look at the new, zombie-apocalypse America, set to Metallica's "For Whom the Bell Tolls." It's a great, adrenaline pumping montage that gets you ready to rock n' roll. It's disappointing, then, that the finale, set in an amusement park overrun by zombies, never quite lives up to that previous level of awesomeness.
Also, I think there's just an overall lack of true intensity or danger. There's only a couple of scenes where we actually fear for the characters' lives. And again, the character stuff is great, but there's so *much* character stuff that the movie sometimes threatens to become Jesse Eisenberg's previous movie, Adventureland, but, you know, with zombies. Even the very-funny surprise cameo is cool, but man, it takes up A LOT of time that could have been devoted to plot and/or action.
But Zombieland is well worth seeing for the great characters and spot-on humor. The cast does an awesome job top to bottom. Woody Harrelson is at his iconic, badass best here, and Jesse Eisenberg's hilarious performance is evidence that, when in need of a neurotic, geeky Jew / unlikely hero for an action movie, Eisenberg should always be choice #1 as opposed to Shia. Emma Stone is sort of the thinking man's teen queen, and Abigail Breslin shows that she could have a great career post-child stardom.
So yeah - Zombieland is a movie that is aimed squarely at the heart of zombie-lovin' fanboys and fangirls everywhere. It's a movie that deserves its box-office success. Not a classic, not yet. But Part II could be. I say bring it on.
My Grade: B+
- Alright, I'm out for now. Next time: a review of THE INVENTION OF LYING.
Friday, October 2, 2009
THE INFORMANT - Reviewed!
THE INFORMANT Review:
- I really enjoyed The Informant, but it's also one of those movies that kind of leaves you feeling a bit puzzled. It's a film that, for one thing, completely defied my expectations. Not having been overly familiar with the story behind the movie, I was caught off guard by the strange twists that the movie took. And when the film ended, I was left wondering what it all meant. What whas The Informant trying to say? Was it ultimately simply a character study? Was it a cautionary tale? A parable about the ability of large mega-corporations to corrupt a well-meaning man into a white collar monster? Whatever the case may be, I think the movie lacked the proper exclamation point to really put things into the proper perspective. But I also think that it's a film well worth seeing - a fascinating look inside the mind of a man with delusions of grandeur.
The Informant tells the story of Mark Whitacre, a seemingly unassuming exec at ADM, a large company that manufactures and distributes lysine - a key chemical component for many common food products. Whitacre, a soft-spoken family man with a wife and daughter, seems to discover that ADM is conspiring with its various competitors to carry out a price fixing scheme, and at some point decides to take what he knows and blow the whistle. Whitacre begins to work as an inside man for the FBI, and helps to feed them info as they conduct an investigation into ADM's potentially shady business practices. The results, at least at first, are pretty hilarious, as the semi-bumbling Mark tries to be a white collar James Bond of sorts. Gradually though, Mark not only becomes pretty adept at spying and manipulation, but, well, we learn that he himself may not be quite what he seems.
There's no doubt - Mark Whitacre, as portrayed here, is a completely fascinating character. He's both relatable but also someone who defies expectation. Matt Damon does an excellent job here too in the lead role. He really sells all of Mark's subtle emotions and nuances. You wouldn't typically think that Matt Damon could pull off playing a pudgy, middle-aged, mustachioed bean-counter ... but I give him credit, Damon pulls it off. It's a pretty impressive turn. But ... at the same time, you can tell that the role is something of a stretch for Damon. For a lot of reasons, the obvious comparison is William H. Macy in FARGO (a movie very similar in some ways to this one), and Damon just doesn't fully inhabit the in-over-his-head everyman character like Macy did. At times, Damon will drop his you-betcha accent and start talking more like Jason Bourne. And at times, his composure seems to shift a bit and suddenly, meek Mark Whitacre looks more like Matt Damon: leading man. I guess what I'm saying is that Matt Damon 90% nails this part, but there are definitely moments of slippage, where you can tell he is kind of stretching to stay fully in character.
One thing I really loved about The Informant though: the supporting cast. Director Steven Soderbergh has assembled a really fun group of actors here. These are all people who are fan-favorites, who are the type of people who don't appear often enough in big roles but who always get the job done. I mean, Scott Bakula of all people is in a large role here as the lead FBI agent working with Whitacre. And why not? I'm sure the studio could have paid five times as much to get Dennis Quaid or something, but Bakula is a very capable actor for this kind of role. I really enjoyed seeing him get such a prominent part and doing so well with it. All kinds of other cool actors turn up. Scott Adsit from 30 Rock. Joel McHale, in a nice turn as Bakula's weary FBI partner. Clancy Brown (!) as a hard-nosed attorney. Tom Papa as a smarmy ADM exec. Tony Hale from Arrested Development as Whitactre's lawyer. Patton Oswalt! The Smothers Brothers! Like I said, the cast is overflowing with these sort of lower-profile yet still-awesome actors. It's the kind of casting that makes you realize how lame (and unnecessarily pricey) so much Hollywood casting really is. I mean, Clancy Brown should basically be in every movie (I'm still waiting for him to show up again on LOST!).
Getting back to Matt Damon for a second though, I don't know, I guess my slight frustration with his character is that the script tries to both put us inside his head AND keep him mysterious to some degree. Throughout the movie, we hear snippets of Whitacre's running internal monologue - his comically well-reasoned observations and random theories. We are, literally, inside of his head. And yet, we keep getting these revelations about Whitacre's true nature, and by the end of the movie, we realize we never really got to know anything about the guy. Again, it's that strange feeling of emptiness I alluded to earlier. As in, we spent so much of the movie "getting to know" Mark, and yet, we eventually realize he is, in the end, a pretty baffling person. Again, there is never quite that "aha!" moment or true exclamation point.
But while the movie might have some big-picture issues, scene to scene it is incredibly sharp and witty. The sense of fun and absurdity just keeps escalating as the movie goes on. And there really is some great humor here - if nothing else, Damon has some great coming timing and really sells a lot of the subtle humor. Steven Soderburgh, meanwhile, directs the movie in a very understated, matter-of-fact manner. It places the focus on the script - a wise thing to do given the strong dialogue and character work.
I don't think The Informant ever quite reaches the sublime comic-tragic heights of, say, Fargo. But I do think it's a pretty fun and even fascinating movie in its own right, a small-scale but very thought-provoking and enjoyable movie, that makes for an interesting addition to the Soderbergh portfolio.
My Grade: B+
- I really enjoyed The Informant, but it's also one of those movies that kind of leaves you feeling a bit puzzled. It's a film that, for one thing, completely defied my expectations. Not having been overly familiar with the story behind the movie, I was caught off guard by the strange twists that the movie took. And when the film ended, I was left wondering what it all meant. What whas The Informant trying to say? Was it ultimately simply a character study? Was it a cautionary tale? A parable about the ability of large mega-corporations to corrupt a well-meaning man into a white collar monster? Whatever the case may be, I think the movie lacked the proper exclamation point to really put things into the proper perspective. But I also think that it's a film well worth seeing - a fascinating look inside the mind of a man with delusions of grandeur.
The Informant tells the story of Mark Whitacre, a seemingly unassuming exec at ADM, a large company that manufactures and distributes lysine - a key chemical component for many common food products. Whitacre, a soft-spoken family man with a wife and daughter, seems to discover that ADM is conspiring with its various competitors to carry out a price fixing scheme, and at some point decides to take what he knows and blow the whistle. Whitacre begins to work as an inside man for the FBI, and helps to feed them info as they conduct an investigation into ADM's potentially shady business practices. The results, at least at first, are pretty hilarious, as the semi-bumbling Mark tries to be a white collar James Bond of sorts. Gradually though, Mark not only becomes pretty adept at spying and manipulation, but, well, we learn that he himself may not be quite what he seems.
There's no doubt - Mark Whitacre, as portrayed here, is a completely fascinating character. He's both relatable but also someone who defies expectation. Matt Damon does an excellent job here too in the lead role. He really sells all of Mark's subtle emotions and nuances. You wouldn't typically think that Matt Damon could pull off playing a pudgy, middle-aged, mustachioed bean-counter ... but I give him credit, Damon pulls it off. It's a pretty impressive turn. But ... at the same time, you can tell that the role is something of a stretch for Damon. For a lot of reasons, the obvious comparison is William H. Macy in FARGO (a movie very similar in some ways to this one), and Damon just doesn't fully inhabit the in-over-his-head everyman character like Macy did. At times, Damon will drop his you-betcha accent and start talking more like Jason Bourne. And at times, his composure seems to shift a bit and suddenly, meek Mark Whitacre looks more like Matt Damon: leading man. I guess what I'm saying is that Matt Damon 90% nails this part, but there are definitely moments of slippage, where you can tell he is kind of stretching to stay fully in character.
One thing I really loved about The Informant though: the supporting cast. Director Steven Soderbergh has assembled a really fun group of actors here. These are all people who are fan-favorites, who are the type of people who don't appear often enough in big roles but who always get the job done. I mean, Scott Bakula of all people is in a large role here as the lead FBI agent working with Whitacre. And why not? I'm sure the studio could have paid five times as much to get Dennis Quaid or something, but Bakula is a very capable actor for this kind of role. I really enjoyed seeing him get such a prominent part and doing so well with it. All kinds of other cool actors turn up. Scott Adsit from 30 Rock. Joel McHale, in a nice turn as Bakula's weary FBI partner. Clancy Brown (!) as a hard-nosed attorney. Tom Papa as a smarmy ADM exec. Tony Hale from Arrested Development as Whitactre's lawyer. Patton Oswalt! The Smothers Brothers! Like I said, the cast is overflowing with these sort of lower-profile yet still-awesome actors. It's the kind of casting that makes you realize how lame (and unnecessarily pricey) so much Hollywood casting really is. I mean, Clancy Brown should basically be in every movie (I'm still waiting for him to show up again on LOST!).
Getting back to Matt Damon for a second though, I don't know, I guess my slight frustration with his character is that the script tries to both put us inside his head AND keep him mysterious to some degree. Throughout the movie, we hear snippets of Whitacre's running internal monologue - his comically well-reasoned observations and random theories. We are, literally, inside of his head. And yet, we keep getting these revelations about Whitacre's true nature, and by the end of the movie, we realize we never really got to know anything about the guy. Again, it's that strange feeling of emptiness I alluded to earlier. As in, we spent so much of the movie "getting to know" Mark, and yet, we eventually realize he is, in the end, a pretty baffling person. Again, there is never quite that "aha!" moment or true exclamation point.
But while the movie might have some big-picture issues, scene to scene it is incredibly sharp and witty. The sense of fun and absurdity just keeps escalating as the movie goes on. And there really is some great humor here - if nothing else, Damon has some great coming timing and really sells a lot of the subtle humor. Steven Soderburgh, meanwhile, directs the movie in a very understated, matter-of-fact manner. It places the focus on the script - a wise thing to do given the strong dialogue and character work.
I don't think The Informant ever quite reaches the sublime comic-tragic heights of, say, Fargo. But I do think it's a pretty fun and even fascinating movie in its own right, a small-scale but very thought-provoking and enjoyable movie, that makes for an interesting addition to the Soderbergh portfolio.
My Grade: B+
Thursday, September 24, 2009
Honest-To-Blog, a Diabolic Review of JENNIFER'S BODY, Plus: Modern Family, Cougar Town, and More!
So I've been back in LA since Monday night, and it's already been a crazy couple of days. Monday, for one thing, was a loooong day of travel. I boarded a Southwest flight out of Bradley Airport at 2 pm Monday afternoon, east coast time, and arrived in Burbank at 9 pm, west coast time. In between, I stopped in Chicago and Phoenix (always weird, because both are cities I'd love to actually *visit*, but have only been to due to stopovers in their airports). The flights themselves weren't too bad. I did some sleeping, some reading (I made a solid dent in The Yiddish Policemen's Union), and even, finally, watched some of the stuff I've had loaded up on my iPod for months now (yes, I finally watched Dr. Horrible's Sing-a-long Blog, all my Whedon-obssessed friends should be proud of me). But yeah, by the time I got back to CA, I was wiped. I thought the rest of this week would be easy by comparison, but then Tuesday happened. I went in in the afternoon for one of my twice-weekly physical therapy sessions for my ankle, and somehow, one of the excercises I did that afternoon really did some damage. They had me do this thing where I stood on a bar on one leg and kept going up and down on my toes over and over. Maybe it was stiffness from sitting on an airplane for several hours the day before, I don't know. But whatever it was, I woke up on Wednesday to find my right leg cramped up, bigtime. Like, I've had cramped muscles before, but this was crazy. And it kept getting worse throughout the day, to the point where some point in the late afternoon, I could barely stand up out of my chair at work, and was unable to keep my right leg fully stretched out. I hoped by today it would be substantially better, but instead I'm in Day 2 of crazy pain. I'm limping all over the place and my right calf is in bad shape. And I'm sure I'm not doing myself any favors by sitting hunched over a desk at work most of the day. Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh. As a wise man once said: dammit all.
TV STUFF:
- Well, I have some catching up to do with TV, but I will say this: Thursdays are just crazy now. Especially if Flash Forward turns out to be good. That would mean that you've got The Office, 30 Rock, Flash Forward, and Fringe (!) all airing on one jam-packed night. At least Flash Forward is on at 8 pm and not 9 ... but ... I wonder if Fringe will eventually move to a different night in the winter? I mean, how can you have Fringe and Lost on at the same time? That's just insanity.
- I've been singing its praises for a while now, but I think it's safe to say that MODERN FAMILY is probably my overall favorite pilot for this Fall. Not only does the show have a lot of great potential, but the pilot episode is just a great half-hour of TV, and one of the better comedy pilots I've seen. Traditionally, comedies have a tought time establishing themselves in their premiere episode. Great shows like The Simpsons, Seinfeld, and The Office took a whole season to really find their footing. But Modern Family really impressed me with how well the pilot introduced the cast of characters, established the show dynamic, and did so with a sort of twist ending to boot. I'll say this: when I first saw the pilot a couple months back, I honestly thought for most of the episode that Modern Family was about several different, unrelated families. The reveal at the end that all of the character were related actually took me by surprise, and was a very clever twist, especially as far as comedies go. Most importantly though, the show is funny. No, it didn't have me rolling on the floor the way an Arrested Development did, but there were several legit laugh out loud moments. And the cast really sold it, top to bottom. Special mention has to go to Ed O'Neal, if only because it's great to see him back on a funny TV show. Anyways, I am really high on Modern Family thus far. Very curious to see if the next couple of episodes maintain this high level of quality.
My Grade: A-
- On the other hand, I am not very big on COUGAR TOWN. I liked some aspects of the show, and I thought there was a certain sharpness to the writing. I also think the cast is generally talented, and really want to root for Dan Byrd since I loved the underrated Aliens In America. But, I just thought that the overall tone was off-putting, and I also felt like there was a mismatch between the premise and the star. The show is supposed to be about an aging woman in her 40's struggling to deal with the impending onset of middle age. But it stars Courtney Cox, in full-blown sex-bomb mode, who never comes across like a woman who would ever have to struggle with much of anything. In fact, most women in their 40's would probably kill to look as good as Cox does on this show. I don't know, there just seems to be a weird disconnect on this show, where it seems to be simultaneously making Cox's character into a "woah-is-me" type of character, yet also shows that she is take charge, gets what she wants, and says whatever's on her mind. It makes the whole thing feel kind of obnoxious, like listening to a supermodel complain about breaking a nail.
My Grade: C+
- I thought Monday's episode of GOSSIP GIRL was a lot of fun, definitely more entertaining than the season premiere. I loved the fish-out-of water element of Blair and Dan at NYU, with Blair suddenly the snobby outcast. A lot of hilarity ensued as Blair's high-end sushi party lost out to Vanessa and Georgina's movies-and-pizza hang out. I also just enjoyed Georgina's presence in general. She is kind of a crazy wild-card in the whole Gossip Girl mix, and I love her little secret war with Blair. Anyways, I thought this ep was pretty solid.
My Grade: B+
- Okay, so yesterday, despite my semi-crippled condition, I hobbled over to the movie theater to check out Diablo Cody's latest ...
JENNIFER'S BODY REVIEW:
- Jennifer's Body, for its entire duration, walks a VERY fine line. It constantly teeters on the edge between witty and overbearing, between campy and cool, between winning horror-comedy and would-be wannabe. In the end though, I am willing to give this movie the benefit of the doubt. There was enough that I liked about it that in the end it mostly won me over. For every line of dialogue that made me cringe, another struck me as being pretty cool. For every attempt at too-cool-for-school humor that fell flat, there was a moment of punk-rock craziness that made me love the unique sensibility that the movie brought to the table. I know that Diablo Cody elicits strong emotions from people, but in this case, I think she's helped to create a movie that's flawed, but at the same time, very entertaining and well worth checking out.
As I've talked about before, I was a huge fan of Juno. I thought it was a seminal movie, and was surprised at the immense backlash that threatened to overpower the critical and commercial adoration. I don't get the criticisms about the hyper-stylized dialogue - to me, the unique cadences and oddball phrases fit in perfectly with the unique and oddball world of Juno and its characters. But, with Jennifer's Body, I began to look at Cody's signature dialogue in a different light. Because while it seemed a perfect match for Juno, that same style of overly-playful and fanciful dialogue often just feels forced in a movie like Jennifer's Body. It made sense that a quirky, smart teen like Juno would talk in this unique manner. But it makes a lot less sense that the main characters here would talk in the exact same way. And I give credit to Megan Fox, Amanda Seyfried, and the rest of the talented cast - they do well with the material and make it work. But at the same time, when the bursting-with-bad-attitude Jennifer tells Seyfried's character, mousy Needy, to "move-on-dot-org", well, sorry Diablo, but that's just too much. There are several dialogue exchanges like that that just do not work. At all. But sometimes, Cody does strike gold, and has some genuinely inspired, Sam Raimi-like moments of horror-comedy coolness. (And by the way, the movie makes no secret that it is inspired by Raimi's Evil Dead flicks - there are about 500 homages to Raimi's iconic films throughout Jennifer's Body).
I've talked a lot about Diablo Cody, and I think part of what hurts this movie is that it lacks a great director to counterbalance Cody's script. I don't know, I think Karyn Kusama is an interesting director. But her movies seem like they have moments of visual inspiration sprinkled among many more scenes that are just sort of bland. It was that way with Aeon Flux, and it is that way here. There is some great imagery in the movie, some real iconic horror movie shots. Some nice, creepy, atmospheric stuff. But there's also the sense that the movie doesn't live up to its full visual potential. It almost reminded me a bit of Twilight in that regard, in that I liked the creepy atmosphere but also wished there was some additional visual flair, and action that had a bit more, well, bite. I think Jennifer's Body also suffers a bit in comparison to this summer's Raimi-directed Drag Me to Hell. That movie was such a pitch-perfect, awesomely-directed horror-comedy, that this movie, being a sort of grrl-powered homage to Raimi, can't quite live up to the great movies it's paying tribute to.
But again, I do really like the cast. Megan Fox is actually really good here. She shows a previously unseen ability to chew up scenery and deliver one-liners with evil aplomb, and to look good doing it (okay, well, that last part was a no-brainer, but still ...). And while Fox does a nice job and gets top billing, I think it's the uber-talented Amanda Seyfried who ultimately carries the movie, as the memorably-named Needy Lesnicky. Seyfried pulls off a feat similar to Alison Lohman in Drag Me to Hell - she recites her lines and carries herself with conviction and 100% commitment to the material, but at the same time knowingly winks at the audience a bit, with jsut the right amount of deliberate campiness. It's a great acting job, to be sure. A couple of other actors have memorable appearances in this one as well. Adam Brody is fun as a lame-o emo rocker who instigtes the demonic ritual that turns Jennifer from plain-old high school badgirl into flesh-eating succubus. And JK Simmons, fresh off Extract, is hilarious as an overly-sincere teacher who happens to have a hook in place of one of his hands. Also, the fanboy in me must point out that the great Lance Henriksen makes an uncredited cameo that is pretty random but nonetheless awesome. Given that Henrisken is an icon of horror (and star of one of my all-time fave TV shows, Millenium), it pretty much ruled that he shows up here.
As far as the plot goes, it is sort of loose, and some of that is probably deliberate. But you also never get 100% invested in the movie just because there's not all that much rhyme or reason to what's going on. Megan Fox becomes a demonic flesh-eater, kills some guys, etc. But there's never all that much explanation of why she has to seduce 'em before she eats 'em. And that's justo ne example of how the movie tends to do stuff just for the hell of it. Like the much-vaunted make-out session between Fox and Seyfried. No, I'm not complaining about it, just naming it as an example of another moment that is there for no particular reason, except to sell millions of copies of "unrated" DVD's in a couple of months.
At the same time, I do kind of dig what Diablo is going for beneath the surface. There's a fun, not-so-subtle subtext here that high-school is just an earthbound layer of hell, with the delicious irony being that post-demonic transformation Jennifer is really not all that different from pre-demonic transformation Jennifer. The whole succubus thing really just calls attention to all the worst instincts of the at times all-too-demon-like beings known as high school girls. Jennifer's Body may falter a bit on the details (like some cringe-worthy bits of dialogue or some pretty random plot-points), but the overall package is a lot of fun. The soundtrack is excellent and sets the perfect mood (loved the use of 90's-era Hole to close out the movie). There is some really creepy-awesome imagery. And the cast does a great job. Plus, without spoiling anything, the ending is just plain badass. Give Cody and Kusama and the cast a lot of credit - for all its flaws, Jennifer's Body is unlike any other horror-comedy you've seen.
My Grade: B+
- And I'm out. Until next time ...
TV STUFF:
- Well, I have some catching up to do with TV, but I will say this: Thursdays are just crazy now. Especially if Flash Forward turns out to be good. That would mean that you've got The Office, 30 Rock, Flash Forward, and Fringe (!) all airing on one jam-packed night. At least Flash Forward is on at 8 pm and not 9 ... but ... I wonder if Fringe will eventually move to a different night in the winter? I mean, how can you have Fringe and Lost on at the same time? That's just insanity.
- I've been singing its praises for a while now, but I think it's safe to say that MODERN FAMILY is probably my overall favorite pilot for this Fall. Not only does the show have a lot of great potential, but the pilot episode is just a great half-hour of TV, and one of the better comedy pilots I've seen. Traditionally, comedies have a tought time establishing themselves in their premiere episode. Great shows like The Simpsons, Seinfeld, and The Office took a whole season to really find their footing. But Modern Family really impressed me with how well the pilot introduced the cast of characters, established the show dynamic, and did so with a sort of twist ending to boot. I'll say this: when I first saw the pilot a couple months back, I honestly thought for most of the episode that Modern Family was about several different, unrelated families. The reveal at the end that all of the character were related actually took me by surprise, and was a very clever twist, especially as far as comedies go. Most importantly though, the show is funny. No, it didn't have me rolling on the floor the way an Arrested Development did, but there were several legit laugh out loud moments. And the cast really sold it, top to bottom. Special mention has to go to Ed O'Neal, if only because it's great to see him back on a funny TV show. Anyways, I am really high on Modern Family thus far. Very curious to see if the next couple of episodes maintain this high level of quality.
My Grade: A-
- On the other hand, I am not very big on COUGAR TOWN. I liked some aspects of the show, and I thought there was a certain sharpness to the writing. I also think the cast is generally talented, and really want to root for Dan Byrd since I loved the underrated Aliens In America. But, I just thought that the overall tone was off-putting, and I also felt like there was a mismatch between the premise and the star. The show is supposed to be about an aging woman in her 40's struggling to deal with the impending onset of middle age. But it stars Courtney Cox, in full-blown sex-bomb mode, who never comes across like a woman who would ever have to struggle with much of anything. In fact, most women in their 40's would probably kill to look as good as Cox does on this show. I don't know, there just seems to be a weird disconnect on this show, where it seems to be simultaneously making Cox's character into a "woah-is-me" type of character, yet also shows that she is take charge, gets what she wants, and says whatever's on her mind. It makes the whole thing feel kind of obnoxious, like listening to a supermodel complain about breaking a nail.
My Grade: C+
- I thought Monday's episode of GOSSIP GIRL was a lot of fun, definitely more entertaining than the season premiere. I loved the fish-out-of water element of Blair and Dan at NYU, with Blair suddenly the snobby outcast. A lot of hilarity ensued as Blair's high-end sushi party lost out to Vanessa and Georgina's movies-and-pizza hang out. I also just enjoyed Georgina's presence in general. She is kind of a crazy wild-card in the whole Gossip Girl mix, and I love her little secret war with Blair. Anyways, I thought this ep was pretty solid.
My Grade: B+
- Okay, so yesterday, despite my semi-crippled condition, I hobbled over to the movie theater to check out Diablo Cody's latest ...
JENNIFER'S BODY REVIEW:
- Jennifer's Body, for its entire duration, walks a VERY fine line. It constantly teeters on the edge between witty and overbearing, between campy and cool, between winning horror-comedy and would-be wannabe. In the end though, I am willing to give this movie the benefit of the doubt. There was enough that I liked about it that in the end it mostly won me over. For every line of dialogue that made me cringe, another struck me as being pretty cool. For every attempt at too-cool-for-school humor that fell flat, there was a moment of punk-rock craziness that made me love the unique sensibility that the movie brought to the table. I know that Diablo Cody elicits strong emotions from people, but in this case, I think she's helped to create a movie that's flawed, but at the same time, very entertaining and well worth checking out.
As I've talked about before, I was a huge fan of Juno. I thought it was a seminal movie, and was surprised at the immense backlash that threatened to overpower the critical and commercial adoration. I don't get the criticisms about the hyper-stylized dialogue - to me, the unique cadences and oddball phrases fit in perfectly with the unique and oddball world of Juno and its characters. But, with Jennifer's Body, I began to look at Cody's signature dialogue in a different light. Because while it seemed a perfect match for Juno, that same style of overly-playful and fanciful dialogue often just feels forced in a movie like Jennifer's Body. It made sense that a quirky, smart teen like Juno would talk in this unique manner. But it makes a lot less sense that the main characters here would talk in the exact same way. And I give credit to Megan Fox, Amanda Seyfried, and the rest of the talented cast - they do well with the material and make it work. But at the same time, when the bursting-with-bad-attitude Jennifer tells Seyfried's character, mousy Needy, to "move-on-dot-org", well, sorry Diablo, but that's just too much. There are several dialogue exchanges like that that just do not work. At all. But sometimes, Cody does strike gold, and has some genuinely inspired, Sam Raimi-like moments of horror-comedy coolness. (And by the way, the movie makes no secret that it is inspired by Raimi's Evil Dead flicks - there are about 500 homages to Raimi's iconic films throughout Jennifer's Body).
I've talked a lot about Diablo Cody, and I think part of what hurts this movie is that it lacks a great director to counterbalance Cody's script. I don't know, I think Karyn Kusama is an interesting director. But her movies seem like they have moments of visual inspiration sprinkled among many more scenes that are just sort of bland. It was that way with Aeon Flux, and it is that way here. There is some great imagery in the movie, some real iconic horror movie shots. Some nice, creepy, atmospheric stuff. But there's also the sense that the movie doesn't live up to its full visual potential. It almost reminded me a bit of Twilight in that regard, in that I liked the creepy atmosphere but also wished there was some additional visual flair, and action that had a bit more, well, bite. I think Jennifer's Body also suffers a bit in comparison to this summer's Raimi-directed Drag Me to Hell. That movie was such a pitch-perfect, awesomely-directed horror-comedy, that this movie, being a sort of grrl-powered homage to Raimi, can't quite live up to the great movies it's paying tribute to.
But again, I do really like the cast. Megan Fox is actually really good here. She shows a previously unseen ability to chew up scenery and deliver one-liners with evil aplomb, and to look good doing it (okay, well, that last part was a no-brainer, but still ...). And while Fox does a nice job and gets top billing, I think it's the uber-talented Amanda Seyfried who ultimately carries the movie, as the memorably-named Needy Lesnicky. Seyfried pulls off a feat similar to Alison Lohman in Drag Me to Hell - she recites her lines and carries herself with conviction and 100% commitment to the material, but at the same time knowingly winks at the audience a bit, with jsut the right amount of deliberate campiness. It's a great acting job, to be sure. A couple of other actors have memorable appearances in this one as well. Adam Brody is fun as a lame-o emo rocker who instigtes the demonic ritual that turns Jennifer from plain-old high school badgirl into flesh-eating succubus. And JK Simmons, fresh off Extract, is hilarious as an overly-sincere teacher who happens to have a hook in place of one of his hands. Also, the fanboy in me must point out that the great Lance Henriksen makes an uncredited cameo that is pretty random but nonetheless awesome. Given that Henrisken is an icon of horror (and star of one of my all-time fave TV shows, Millenium), it pretty much ruled that he shows up here.
As far as the plot goes, it is sort of loose, and some of that is probably deliberate. But you also never get 100% invested in the movie just because there's not all that much rhyme or reason to what's going on. Megan Fox becomes a demonic flesh-eater, kills some guys, etc. But there's never all that much explanation of why she has to seduce 'em before she eats 'em. And that's justo ne example of how the movie tends to do stuff just for the hell of it. Like the much-vaunted make-out session between Fox and Seyfried. No, I'm not complaining about it, just naming it as an example of another moment that is there for no particular reason, except to sell millions of copies of "unrated" DVD's in a couple of months.
At the same time, I do kind of dig what Diablo is going for beneath the surface. There's a fun, not-so-subtle subtext here that high-school is just an earthbound layer of hell, with the delicious irony being that post-demonic transformation Jennifer is really not all that different from pre-demonic transformation Jennifer. The whole succubus thing really just calls attention to all the worst instincts of the at times all-too-demon-like beings known as high school girls. Jennifer's Body may falter a bit on the details (like some cringe-worthy bits of dialogue or some pretty random plot-points), but the overall package is a lot of fun. The soundtrack is excellent and sets the perfect mood (loved the use of 90's-era Hole to close out the movie). There is some really creepy-awesome imagery. And the cast does a great job. Plus, without spoiling anything, the ending is just plain badass. Give Cody and Kusama and the cast a lot of credit - for all its flaws, Jennifer's Body is unlike any other horror-comedy you've seen.
My Grade: B+
- And I'm out. Until next time ...
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
Goin' Stitchpunk: 9 Reviewed, Plus: Scribblenauts Thoughts and More!
Well, by this time tomorrow, I will be on a plane en route to Connecticut, where I will spend a couple days coinciding with Rosh Hashana. You've got to love it - sitting still in a synagogue all day (and occasionally standing for long stretches) listening to the rabbi and cantor methodically chant Hebrew prayers about guilt and sin. Talk about a happy holiday! Man, we Jews truly are gluttons for punishment sometimes. In any case, I'll be back here in LA Monday night, and hopefully I'll quickly be able to catch up on the important stuff ... you know, like the premieres of The Office and Fringe.
Anyways ...
- I haven't talked all that much here about gaming, but man, I have to give an early shout out to SCRIBBLENAUTS. This new game for the Nintendo DS is plain and simply groundbreaking. I've only played through a handful of levels thus far, but the central conceit is so amazingly original that you can't help but get sucked in. Basically, you guide your character through a series of puzzle-based levels, and help him reach his goal by typing in words - literally just about any object or thing you can think of - and having your ideas materialize right there on screen for your puzzle-solving use. You can create a horse, a cow, a dinosaur, a vampire, a stick, a baseball bat, a ray gun, a black hole, an airplane, a car, a venus fly trap ... anything. Just write the name of the object and marvel as it appears right there on-screen. Need to get a cat out of a tree? You could just create a ladder and climb to get it ... or, you could create a pterodactyl, give it a length of rope, and have it fly to the cat and rescue it. Or why not create a superhero to swoop in and save the cat? Crazy! Sure, the controls are occasionally a bit wonky, but the sheer inventiveness that this game allows for is just mind-boggling. All day, I've been thinking about weird combinations of things to create. A knife-wielding monkey? An army of vampires? A robot with a jetpack? Awesome!
- I'll also give a shout-out to BATMAN: ARKHAM ASYLUM. This is another game that I've barely scratched the surface of at this point, but man, this is the rare licenced game that just bleeds quality. It's been a long wait for a Batman game that truly delivers, and this one may just have been worth the wait. On the PS3, the graphics are dark, moody, and ultra-detailed. Better yet, the voice-acting is absolutely top-notch, with alumni of Batman: The Animated Series reprising their iconic roles. Kevin Conroy is Batman, and Mark Hammil is The Joker. 'Nuff said. Plus, the game actually emphasizes Batman's detective skills and penchant for sneaking around dark alleyways. A lot of puzzle-solving, stealth combat, and environmental interaction is involved in the gameplay, which makes this less a standard brawler and more a combination of games like Metal Gear Solid, Bioshock, and Metroid. I still have a couple of issues with the camera and controls, but the level of storytelling and overall depth here is pretty awesome.
- Speaking of BIOSHOCK, I recently completed that game after months of playing it on and off. I'm not normally a fan of first person shooters, but Bioshock's rep as a game more about atmosphere and storytelling than mindless blasting lured me in. I don't know, I did love the game's incredibly atmospheric level design and storytelling techniques, and rarely have I played a game this immersive. But, the actual gameplay never 100% grabbed me, and I felt like the combat got pretty repetitive after a while. And those freaking security bots - so annoying. I could see myself skipping out on the upcoming Part 2, depending on the reviews. I'm glad I played through the game, but I also didn't quite get the instant-classic vibe that others have. That said, this game would make one hell of a movie if done right. Get to it, guys.
And now for a movie review ... the latest from Focus Features, a computer-animated sci-fi dystopian epic known as 9.
9 Review:
- 9 is a movie that I really wanted to love. And at the very least, it's a movie that I will root for and respect. It's an ambitious CGI adventure NOT from Disney or Dreamworks. What's more, it's an animated movie NOT specifically aimed at kids, although it will likely have strong kid-appeal. Plus, the movie doesn't really look like anything I've seen before. Sure, there are all kinds of artistic influences that came to mind from videogames, comics, and sci-fi movies. But just the fact that it's a CGI movie NOT done in the house style of Pixar or Dreamworks is hugely refreshing. In fact, this movie just flat-out looks cool as hell. And on the whole, 9 is a pretty cool little movie. But unfortunately, the visuals are not really matched by much in the way of story or plot or character. It gives the whole thing the feel of a tech demo rather than a fully fleshed-out movie. It's almost as if you're watching the cut-scenes from a really cool videogame that you never actually get to play, because the story really serves as a very basic skeleton with which to prop up the action. It makes 9 a fun adventure to go on, one that's certainly pleasing to the eye, but it also means that the movie ultimately feels pretty hollow.
The basic premise of 9 is actually really cool. It's a post-apocalyptic story in which mankind has been decimated by technology gone awry, 1950's sci-fi style. In a last-ditch effort to preserve something of the human race before all is lost, the same scientist who created the machines that would later go Judgement Day on humanity conducts one last far-out experiment. He transfers his very soul into nine inanimate ragdolls, each doll containing a different aspect of his being. these patchwork creatures go on to awaken one by one, trying to make sense of the strange and dangerous world they find themselves in, and trying to elude the crazy, insect-like mecha-robots that still roam the scorched-earth wasteland, causing major-league destruction.
It's a pretty ambitious, epic premise that director Shane Acker presents us with. But what's weird is, we have this awesome world with an intriguing backstory, only to find that not all that much actually happens once we enter it. We mostly follow around "9" (each doll has a number corresponding to the order of their creation), the last of the group to awake, as he explores the world, runs afoul of the evil robots, and bonds and/or argues with his fellow stitchpunk beings. It'd be like if The Lord of the Rings plopped us into Middle Earth, but then just told us a story about dwarves bickering with elves and fighting the occasional cave troll ... or something.
The other weird thing is that this movie contains an absolutely stellar voice-cast, and yet ... they never have much in the way of dialogue to sink their teeth into. You've got Elijah Wood as the reluctant hero 9, Jennifer Connelly as the badass warrior 7, Christopher Plummer as the crotchety, self-appointed leader of the group, 1, Martin Landau as 2, John C. Reilly as steadfast sidekick 5, and Crispin Glover as (what else?) the oddball artist, 6. It's an impressive roster, to be sure. But this is one of those movies that's so sparsely written. There's not a ton of dialogue, and when there is, it tends to be recycled cliches from countless other sci-fi and action movies. You half expect someone to mutter "I've got a baaad feeling about this." at any moment.
Again though, this movie thrives on its visuals. There is so much loving detail in every shot, it really is a remarkable movie to just look at and take in. There was clearly A LOT of time and effort put into crafting this dark and fascinating universe. I also loved the segments that paid homage to old sci-fi films and posters and stuff like that. There is some really cool retro-y stuff here that reminded me of things like Bioshock, Sky Captain, etc. And the character design is pretty awesome as well. I loved the subtle visual signatures that distinguish each of the stitchpunk dolls. An the robotic villains are truly creepy and imposing. This is definitely a film that will startle smaller children - this isn't sanitized Disney character design - its dark, bleak, grotesque at times. And this isn't a safe movie either. Characters die. They make really bad decisions. There is some genuine moral ambiguity.
But again, the plotting is relatively clunky and heavy-handed. There are also some quasi spiritual / supernatural elements that seem pretty hamfistedly that get inserted into the story - they don't quite seem to fit with the otherwise science-based universe. There's also not a whole lot of depth here. I would have loved to see the details of the fascinating premise more fully fleshed-out, to really explore the world here and learn more about its backstory. Instead, like I said, there's not a lot of meat here. There is that very videogame-like feeling that you're kind of just along for a visual ride (and a number of the action scenes, dynamic though they are, seem lifted right from various games - platform jumping, anyone?). For the movie's visual uniqueness alone though, I'd say that 9 is definitely worth checking out. It's an original, creative vision, and I would love to see what Shane Acker could do if pared with a quality script that could match his astonishing visual talent.
My Grade: B
- Alright - next stop: Connecticut.
Anyways ...
- I haven't talked all that much here about gaming, but man, I have to give an early shout out to SCRIBBLENAUTS. This new game for the Nintendo DS is plain and simply groundbreaking. I've only played through a handful of levels thus far, but the central conceit is so amazingly original that you can't help but get sucked in. Basically, you guide your character through a series of puzzle-based levels, and help him reach his goal by typing in words - literally just about any object or thing you can think of - and having your ideas materialize right there on screen for your puzzle-solving use. You can create a horse, a cow, a dinosaur, a vampire, a stick, a baseball bat, a ray gun, a black hole, an airplane, a car, a venus fly trap ... anything. Just write the name of the object and marvel as it appears right there on-screen. Need to get a cat out of a tree? You could just create a ladder and climb to get it ... or, you could create a pterodactyl, give it a length of rope, and have it fly to the cat and rescue it. Or why not create a superhero to swoop in and save the cat? Crazy! Sure, the controls are occasionally a bit wonky, but the sheer inventiveness that this game allows for is just mind-boggling. All day, I've been thinking about weird combinations of things to create. A knife-wielding monkey? An army of vampires? A robot with a jetpack? Awesome!
- I'll also give a shout-out to BATMAN: ARKHAM ASYLUM. This is another game that I've barely scratched the surface of at this point, but man, this is the rare licenced game that just bleeds quality. It's been a long wait for a Batman game that truly delivers, and this one may just have been worth the wait. On the PS3, the graphics are dark, moody, and ultra-detailed. Better yet, the voice-acting is absolutely top-notch, with alumni of Batman: The Animated Series reprising their iconic roles. Kevin Conroy is Batman, and Mark Hammil is The Joker. 'Nuff said. Plus, the game actually emphasizes Batman's detective skills and penchant for sneaking around dark alleyways. A lot of puzzle-solving, stealth combat, and environmental interaction is involved in the gameplay, which makes this less a standard brawler and more a combination of games like Metal Gear Solid, Bioshock, and Metroid. I still have a couple of issues with the camera and controls, but the level of storytelling and overall depth here is pretty awesome.
- Speaking of BIOSHOCK, I recently completed that game after months of playing it on and off. I'm not normally a fan of first person shooters, but Bioshock's rep as a game more about atmosphere and storytelling than mindless blasting lured me in. I don't know, I did love the game's incredibly atmospheric level design and storytelling techniques, and rarely have I played a game this immersive. But, the actual gameplay never 100% grabbed me, and I felt like the combat got pretty repetitive after a while. And those freaking security bots - so annoying. I could see myself skipping out on the upcoming Part 2, depending on the reviews. I'm glad I played through the game, but I also didn't quite get the instant-classic vibe that others have. That said, this game would make one hell of a movie if done right. Get to it, guys.
And now for a movie review ... the latest from Focus Features, a computer-animated sci-fi dystopian epic known as 9.
9 Review:
- 9 is a movie that I really wanted to love. And at the very least, it's a movie that I will root for and respect. It's an ambitious CGI adventure NOT from Disney or Dreamworks. What's more, it's an animated movie NOT specifically aimed at kids, although it will likely have strong kid-appeal. Plus, the movie doesn't really look like anything I've seen before. Sure, there are all kinds of artistic influences that came to mind from videogames, comics, and sci-fi movies. But just the fact that it's a CGI movie NOT done in the house style of Pixar or Dreamworks is hugely refreshing. In fact, this movie just flat-out looks cool as hell. And on the whole, 9 is a pretty cool little movie. But unfortunately, the visuals are not really matched by much in the way of story or plot or character. It gives the whole thing the feel of a tech demo rather than a fully fleshed-out movie. It's almost as if you're watching the cut-scenes from a really cool videogame that you never actually get to play, because the story really serves as a very basic skeleton with which to prop up the action. It makes 9 a fun adventure to go on, one that's certainly pleasing to the eye, but it also means that the movie ultimately feels pretty hollow.
The basic premise of 9 is actually really cool. It's a post-apocalyptic story in which mankind has been decimated by technology gone awry, 1950's sci-fi style. In a last-ditch effort to preserve something of the human race before all is lost, the same scientist who created the machines that would later go Judgement Day on humanity conducts one last far-out experiment. He transfers his very soul into nine inanimate ragdolls, each doll containing a different aspect of his being. these patchwork creatures go on to awaken one by one, trying to make sense of the strange and dangerous world they find themselves in, and trying to elude the crazy, insect-like mecha-robots that still roam the scorched-earth wasteland, causing major-league destruction.
It's a pretty ambitious, epic premise that director Shane Acker presents us with. But what's weird is, we have this awesome world with an intriguing backstory, only to find that not all that much actually happens once we enter it. We mostly follow around "9" (each doll has a number corresponding to the order of their creation), the last of the group to awake, as he explores the world, runs afoul of the evil robots, and bonds and/or argues with his fellow stitchpunk beings. It'd be like if The Lord of the Rings plopped us into Middle Earth, but then just told us a story about dwarves bickering with elves and fighting the occasional cave troll ... or something.
The other weird thing is that this movie contains an absolutely stellar voice-cast, and yet ... they never have much in the way of dialogue to sink their teeth into. You've got Elijah Wood as the reluctant hero 9, Jennifer Connelly as the badass warrior 7, Christopher Plummer as the crotchety, self-appointed leader of the group, 1, Martin Landau as 2, John C. Reilly as steadfast sidekick 5, and Crispin Glover as (what else?) the oddball artist, 6. It's an impressive roster, to be sure. But this is one of those movies that's so sparsely written. There's not a ton of dialogue, and when there is, it tends to be recycled cliches from countless other sci-fi and action movies. You half expect someone to mutter "I've got a baaad feeling about this." at any moment.
Again though, this movie thrives on its visuals. There is so much loving detail in every shot, it really is a remarkable movie to just look at and take in. There was clearly A LOT of time and effort put into crafting this dark and fascinating universe. I also loved the segments that paid homage to old sci-fi films and posters and stuff like that. There is some really cool retro-y stuff here that reminded me of things like Bioshock, Sky Captain, etc. And the character design is pretty awesome as well. I loved the subtle visual signatures that distinguish each of the stitchpunk dolls. An the robotic villains are truly creepy and imposing. This is definitely a film that will startle smaller children - this isn't sanitized Disney character design - its dark, bleak, grotesque at times. And this isn't a safe movie either. Characters die. They make really bad decisions. There is some genuine moral ambiguity.
But again, the plotting is relatively clunky and heavy-handed. There are also some quasi spiritual / supernatural elements that seem pretty hamfistedly that get inserted into the story - they don't quite seem to fit with the otherwise science-based universe. There's also not a whole lot of depth here. I would have loved to see the details of the fascinating premise more fully fleshed-out, to really explore the world here and learn more about its backstory. Instead, like I said, there's not a lot of meat here. There is that very videogame-like feeling that you're kind of just along for a visual ride (and a number of the action scenes, dynamic though they are, seem lifted right from various games - platform jumping, anyone?). For the movie's visual uniqueness alone though, I'd say that 9 is definitely worth checking out. It's an original, creative vision, and I would love to see what Shane Acker could do if pared with a quality script that could match his astonishing visual talent.
My Grade: B
- Alright - next stop: Connecticut.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)