Title: ROBOGEISHA (2009)
What can really be said about RoboGeisha.......Maybe, that it feels like insanity personified. Of course, now adays when it comes to the Japanese film market, about 50% of it's offerings can fall into that category. What with the likes of 'Fish Story', 'Machine Girl', and 'Tokyo Gore Police', out there to choose from.
The thing that helps Geisha apart, though, is it's tounge-blade firmly planted in the cheeks of all involved. Besides it's outlandish imagery, is a savegly feirce humor, of the slapstick variety, often engaging in moments of, 'I assure you, none of us take any of these proceedings seriously'. It helps the film, and it's audience find it's footing, and relax accordingly. Assuridly the film is loaded with various WTF! moments, but for clarity sake, attempts to put a narrative wedged into things. It certainly is a crazy crazy story for that part, one that found me grinning from ear to ear, with glee, as well as a fair share of horror.
Geisha opens with an assassination attempt that it interrupted by the title character. She then proceeds to tell her story, of how she came to be here (though the film never flashes back at the end, saddlyl. We learn the the struggles of 2 sisters, one a geisha, and one the glorified servant girl, to said geisha. the disappoint thing about the film, is this is a 'show, don't tell' affair. An instance where, first viewing should be withe a group of friends. Second would be forcing a friend who missed out on the festivities, so watch it will you, while constantly chiding....'just wait'.......
The filmmakers are very strong when it comes to the stage of truly running with a concept, no matter the concequences. I can't think of any film in recent history, that is supposed to include shoddy cgi, as an enhancement. It reinforces the heightened reality of the film. Any time (save for the not flashing back to the present at the end) you find yourself question the things said, or shown on screen.....someone answers it.
RoboGeisha isnmt a good film by any stretch of the imagination. Inspired, insane, fun, and memorable? yes
*** out of *****
Monday, February 28, 2011
Saturday, February 26, 2011
Animation Saturday: The ILLUSIONIST (2010)
Title: THE ILLUSIONIST (2010)
Sometimes images with the absence of words, convey the human emotion best. Coupled with the right music, and you have a heartbreaking pure moment of art. The Illusionist by Sylvain Chomet has several of these, none as effecting as the last few moments of the film. I knew the moment was coming, knew it's meaning, yet when it arrived, i found myself trying has hard as possible to hold back the welling. This speaks to the skill of the artist at work, and 2 films in, Chomet is certainly that. There is a beauty and artistry that hand-drawn animation has to it. The subtle lines and curves, the crush of colors. One is able to buy more into the emotions and story at hand due to the disconnect. Herein lies the issue with CG animated features, the added texture may look beautiful, yet the mind know it is something not real, attempting to be. We, as an audience find ourselves more guarded to these films, in a sense because they are a threat to what we believe, can't possibly be. Personally though, it's never been an argument for me, while there are plenty of CG animated features that i do enjoy, it's more so the story they are telling, rather than the sight, i am engaged in. It's a testament to many artist out there, that in the last 2 years, the dark horse in the Oscar category of Best Animated Feature, is a non-major produced hand animated film.
The story of and behind The Illusionist has been written about many times over. It concerns an unproduced script by Jacques Tati of "Mon Oncle", "M. Hulton's Holiday" and "PlayTime". It became well documented that a member of Tati's family wrote a revealing and exposing (though not forthcoming) letter to Roger Ebert (click here). I feel though that the film should be viewed on it's own merits, as it's own piece of work. Tati may have wished his film to be different, and Chomet says that story was by Tati, and himself is credited as adapting it.
The film takes place over an unnamed period in 1959. An aging, and faltering magician (based off of Tati himself), makes his way across the british countryside, taking his show where he can. During a stop on an island, he is befriends Alice, who subsequently follows him on his journey to Edinburgh. To help support his and her lives, he takes various odd jobs whilst trying to keep his act a foot. It's episodic in nature, with long pieces and short pieces combined. The animation is gorgeous through and through, and as a testament to it, Chomet has English, and French spared through out, along with gibberish, so that everyone can understand what is happening in the film. This isn't a disney or dreamworks film here. The note that is left for Alice is exceptionally heart-aching. There are many dark stretches throughout as we may often find in life. It's a film without any real twists, with something to say if you are willing to listen. If there is any justice in the world, it will win the Oscar on the 27th of February.
**** 1/2 out of *****
Sometimes images with the absence of words, convey the human emotion best. Coupled with the right music, and you have a heartbreaking pure moment of art. The Illusionist by Sylvain Chomet has several of these, none as effecting as the last few moments of the film. I knew the moment was coming, knew it's meaning, yet when it arrived, i found myself trying has hard as possible to hold back the welling. This speaks to the skill of the artist at work, and 2 films in, Chomet is certainly that. There is a beauty and artistry that hand-drawn animation has to it. The subtle lines and curves, the crush of colors. One is able to buy more into the emotions and story at hand due to the disconnect. Herein lies the issue with CG animated features, the added texture may look beautiful, yet the mind know it is something not real, attempting to be. We, as an audience find ourselves more guarded to these films, in a sense because they are a threat to what we believe, can't possibly be. Personally though, it's never been an argument for me, while there are plenty of CG animated features that i do enjoy, it's more so the story they are telling, rather than the sight, i am engaged in. It's a testament to many artist out there, that in the last 2 years, the dark horse in the Oscar category of Best Animated Feature, is a non-major produced hand animated film.
The story of and behind The Illusionist has been written about many times over. It concerns an unproduced script by Jacques Tati of "Mon Oncle", "M. Hulton's Holiday" and "PlayTime". It became well documented that a member of Tati's family wrote a revealing and exposing (though not forthcoming) letter to Roger Ebert (click here). I feel though that the film should be viewed on it's own merits, as it's own piece of work. Tati may have wished his film to be different, and Chomet says that story was by Tati, and himself is credited as adapting it.
The film takes place over an unnamed period in 1959. An aging, and faltering magician (based off of Tati himself), makes his way across the british countryside, taking his show where he can. During a stop on an island, he is befriends Alice, who subsequently follows him on his journey to Edinburgh. To help support his and her lives, he takes various odd jobs whilst trying to keep his act a foot. It's episodic in nature, with long pieces and short pieces combined. The animation is gorgeous through and through, and as a testament to it, Chomet has English, and French spared through out, along with gibberish, so that everyone can understand what is happening in the film. This isn't a disney or dreamworks film here. The note that is left for Alice is exceptionally heart-aching. There are many dark stretches throughout as we may often find in life. It's a film without any real twists, with something to say if you are willing to listen. If there is any justice in the world, it will win the Oscar on the 27th of February.
**** 1/2 out of *****
Friday, February 25, 2011
Sci-Fi Friday: DANTE 01 (2008)
Title: Dante 01 (2008)
There was a time that the duo of Jeunet & Caro meant something. With "Delicatessen" and "City of Lost Children" under their respective belts, it seemed like they were going to blaze a cinematic trail for years to come. "Alien Resurrection" had a hand in changing things, with Jeunet bumped up to taking the directing reigns himself, while Caro was simply in charge of the respective art departments. Jeunet would go on to make "Amelie", "A Very Long Engagement", as well as most recently "Micmacs", and Caro has only "Dante 01" to add to his directorial notches.
The problem with Dante is that it could have been an excellent film. Early on it is noticed that Jeunet brought the whimsy and fantasy to the duo, and Caro brought the dark and grime. That would never seem to be a bad thing, yet since he didn't have the catalog built as his colleague, so his effort crumbles under the weight. It's simply a case, where the end of a film completely, utterly destroys any good will of the proceedings. Budget restrictions be damned, plenty of successful directors have made a weakness into a strength, using their creativity and cinematic knowledge to overcome, surprising everyone. To say that Caro misses the opportunity is not only sad, but just sort of depressing.
The film begins in the far reaches of space, at an experimental prison facility, where inmates have agreed to take part in corporate experiments, in exchange for clemency regarding their sentences. A new doctor shows up, hoping to test some of the corporations new radical protocols, as well as bringing a new unknown inmate along, who was found floating in a bloodied spacecraft alone. The atmosphere is rich, thick and dense with grime, darkness, and shadows. The low lightning not only helps distract from the low budget, but also sets the stage for the type of film he is hoping to make. The titular character is christened Saint-Georges by one of his fellow inmates. If you are smart you are noticing the name of the film, that characters name and you are wondering if there are any more religious or literary references. If so, you would be dead on. Details like that help the Dante immensely in it's early stages, from the minor pontificating by Persephone (you gotcha) and Elisa, or the introduction to the prisoners. Amongst them, Dominique Pinon stands out as he always does, as Caesar, the leader of the prisoners. Pinion is instantly recognizable from either directors films, along with his picture in the dictionary next to the definition for "unfortunate face". He glowers, and oozes the little power he wields, while recognizing he is only a minor cog, though relishes at a chance to snap "take care of them." What good prisoner leader wouldn't? Saint-Georges, meanwhile, in unable to speak. He spends his time seeing visions, whilst writhing in pain. No one thinks much of it. The a prisoner is near death, and who but Georges himself, miraculously saves him. There are many intriguing questions and strands brewing by this point in the film. On one side the doctor Elisa is eying the top spot in the station by administering the new protocol of using nanobots on the prisoners, for means of controlling their outbursts. The other concerns the weird insight/powers of Saint-Georges who seems to be eradicating nanobots of a different sort. Caro keeps everything close and tense, ratcheting up the intriguing with each passing moment.........Then, the last 10 minutes of the film happen, destroying everything. I had to go back a chapter a few times, checking the current time on the film to see if there was any skipping going on. There wasn't. Frustration, anger, disappointment grew inside me. It comes off as the biggest slap in the face ending I have ever seen. Had the film been poorly shot, horrendously acted, in the vein of "The Room", "Troll 2" or "Birdemic", then the ending would have been par. Dante 01 though felt as if it was going to be something else. Caro has said in numerous interviews that he was disappointed with the ending of the film, but that when the budget was cut from 8 million euros to 4 million, it's an understandable issue. Just makes you wonder, when he took that big of a hit, if he felt less inclined to work on the film, besides contractual obligation.
Who knows how the rest of the film would have played out. Hopefully it will be a lessened learned, because for all it's faults, "Dante 01", whilst an oddity, shows that Caro can still put a film together. Here's to hoping he can find a studio willing to back him all the way, next time.
** out of *****
There was a time that the duo of Jeunet & Caro meant something. With "Delicatessen" and "City of Lost Children" under their respective belts, it seemed like they were going to blaze a cinematic trail for years to come. "Alien Resurrection" had a hand in changing things, with Jeunet bumped up to taking the directing reigns himself, while Caro was simply in charge of the respective art departments. Jeunet would go on to make "Amelie", "A Very Long Engagement", as well as most recently "Micmacs", and Caro has only "Dante 01" to add to his directorial notches.
The problem with Dante is that it could have been an excellent film. Early on it is noticed that Jeunet brought the whimsy and fantasy to the duo, and Caro brought the dark and grime. That would never seem to be a bad thing, yet since he didn't have the catalog built as his colleague, so his effort crumbles under the weight. It's simply a case, where the end of a film completely, utterly destroys any good will of the proceedings. Budget restrictions be damned, plenty of successful directors have made a weakness into a strength, using their creativity and cinematic knowledge to overcome, surprising everyone. To say that Caro misses the opportunity is not only sad, but just sort of depressing.
The film begins in the far reaches of space, at an experimental prison facility, where inmates have agreed to take part in corporate experiments, in exchange for clemency regarding their sentences. A new doctor shows up, hoping to test some of the corporations new radical protocols, as well as bringing a new unknown inmate along, who was found floating in a bloodied spacecraft alone. The atmosphere is rich, thick and dense with grime, darkness, and shadows. The low lightning not only helps distract from the low budget, but also sets the stage for the type of film he is hoping to make. The titular character is christened Saint-Georges by one of his fellow inmates. If you are smart you are noticing the name of the film, that characters name and you are wondering if there are any more religious or literary references. If so, you would be dead on. Details like that help the Dante immensely in it's early stages, from the minor pontificating by Persephone (you gotcha) and Elisa, or the introduction to the prisoners. Amongst them, Dominique Pinon stands out as he always does, as Caesar, the leader of the prisoners. Pinion is instantly recognizable from either directors films, along with his picture in the dictionary next to the definition for "unfortunate face". He glowers, and oozes the little power he wields, while recognizing he is only a minor cog, though relishes at a chance to snap "take care of them." What good prisoner leader wouldn't? Saint-Georges, meanwhile, in unable to speak. He spends his time seeing visions, whilst writhing in pain. No one thinks much of it. The a prisoner is near death, and who but Georges himself, miraculously saves him. There are many intriguing questions and strands brewing by this point in the film. On one side the doctor Elisa is eying the top spot in the station by administering the new protocol of using nanobots on the prisoners, for means of controlling their outbursts. The other concerns the weird insight/powers of Saint-Georges who seems to be eradicating nanobots of a different sort. Caro keeps everything close and tense, ratcheting up the intriguing with each passing moment.........Then, the last 10 minutes of the film happen, destroying everything. I had to go back a chapter a few times, checking the current time on the film to see if there was any skipping going on. There wasn't. Frustration, anger, disappointment grew inside me. It comes off as the biggest slap in the face ending I have ever seen. Had the film been poorly shot, horrendously acted, in the vein of "The Room", "Troll 2" or "Birdemic", then the ending would have been par. Dante 01 though felt as if it was going to be something else. Caro has said in numerous interviews that he was disappointed with the ending of the film, but that when the budget was cut from 8 million euros to 4 million, it's an understandable issue. Just makes you wonder, when he took that big of a hit, if he felt less inclined to work on the film, besides contractual obligation.
Who knows how the rest of the film would have played out. Hopefully it will be a lessened learned, because for all it's faults, "Dante 01", whilst an oddity, shows that Caro can still put a film together. Here's to hoping he can find a studio willing to back him all the way, next time.
** out of *****
Thursday, February 24, 2011
HORROR Thursday: Black Death (2010)
Title: Black Death (2010)
Historical Horror. The genre just has a decidedly disgusting ring to it, not in the favorable sense mind you. It's a sub-genre that almost screams of trying to hard, when it seems like the elements would flow together. The history of mankind is littered with horrendous, stupefying, startling events. Seems ripe for the picking. Though, as with most things, the easier things appear, the harder they are to piece together. In 2011, I myself have barred witness to 2 films, both historical horror in nature, taking place during the dark ages, surrounding themselves with possible witchcraft pertaining to the Black Plague, and the men of god who deal with the sussing out of things. No 2 films, so closely matching on paper, could ever, ever be as different. On one side is "Season of the Witch", a film I do not wish anyone to see (the less said about monks transforming into zombies the better). The other is "Black Death", by Christopher Smith, the director of such genre efforts, "Severance", and "Creep".
The greatest strength of "Black Death" comes in the form of its characterization. Sure not everyone is made 3-dimensional, but every character has his moment, and are acted in a style both refreshing and missed. This is to say the film has everything one would want (action, gore, magic, horses), but doesn't forget that you are going to spend 90+ minutes, where people have to eventually talk. Talk they do, at great lengths about religion, family, honor. This is a true "men-on-a-mission" film, men with a goal, as well as purpose worth dying for. The film opens in 1348 (I believe, those years blend together), the plague has swept the land, killing thousands indiscriminately. A young monk offers his services to the immortally bad-ass Sean Bean, who elevates any dark ages piece, to guide him to a village, that is said to have been, as of yet, untouched by the pestilence. Though this band, hired by the Bishop, isn't going to see god's work in the town, word has spread that a demon is held up and worshiped there in his steed. Less be said beyond that, for this is a film that is quick, sometimes terse, certainly visceral, but every part of it an experience. Smith's direction here goes from simply engaging an audiences gag reflexes, to inflicting pain on their mind, which is to say, "think".
The movie surprised me in its stark briskness, that could be due to the fact that it was a smaller budgeted film, or it could be due to the fact that Smith was aware that most audiences knew rudimentary information about the period of the film, and that it was best to move along with the actual story. Monk has conflict of conscious, the band of mercenaries of god have varied checkered paths, nothing is at it seems.
Through out the film, I found myself thinking about "Season of the Witch", wondering where a film goes so wrong. Here before me was a film that didn't skimp on the visceral, both mental and meat, whilst not betraying history, insulting the audience or having a character walk around with a non-appropriate timed accent. The question can be raised, is it simply the desire to make more money that can rob a film of it's intellectual ideas. Can't audiences plunk down their hard-earned money to see a film that has people pontificating intellectually, soundly, and then have something blow-up in the background? 2010 found something in a form of that, with "Inception", though at times it felt as if Christopher Nolan was holding back ever so slightly, not to bite the hand that forked over so much money to him. "Black Death" though, feels as if it's being cast aside, not only because it's being sent out to a world littered with DTV fantasies, but that it was never given a chance to prove its worth. Throughout the world, where they actually appreciate films? Sure. Yet North American distribution is now a days, akin to being drafted in the first round, it doesn't mean that you're better than anyone, it just meant the loudest people wouldn't stop talking about you for 2 seconds, to hear how this lesser known individual is most decidedly better.
Perhaps this is to be the true use of the internet, and the merry band of internet film critics. Let us stand up for the "true" underdog, the film that is worth your time, and effort, to find and enjoy. I'm not speaking of an old film, a classmate found a clip of online because 50 other sites said that one scene was funny. I mean films that truly deserve to be enjoyed, passed around and discussed. The way we all used to before the internet, and on demand, and downloading.......there was a point in time that people paid for bootlegs, because they were legitimately rare. This film, had it come out in that time, I would have paid greatly for.
This is a film where people discuss religions, the ideas behind them, following blindly. It discusses different people of different gods, discussing who is right and who is wrong. It is a film that then says that the victor, may not be who you would first expect. It asks how far you are willing to go to survive, to fight for what you believe in, and how much of your life, is really in your own hands. It's not an amazing film, it's a very rather good one, but we live in a time, where such things seem to be rather rare.
**** out of *****
(pssst.....click on that link up top, you can rent it from amazon)
Historical Horror. The genre just has a decidedly disgusting ring to it, not in the favorable sense mind you. It's a sub-genre that almost screams of trying to hard, when it seems like the elements would flow together. The history of mankind is littered with horrendous, stupefying, startling events. Seems ripe for the picking. Though, as with most things, the easier things appear, the harder they are to piece together. In 2011, I myself have barred witness to 2 films, both historical horror in nature, taking place during the dark ages, surrounding themselves with possible witchcraft pertaining to the Black Plague, and the men of god who deal with the sussing out of things. No 2 films, so closely matching on paper, could ever, ever be as different. On one side is "Season of the Witch", a film I do not wish anyone to see (the less said about monks transforming into zombies the better). The other is "Black Death", by Christopher Smith, the director of such genre efforts, "Severance", and "Creep".
The greatest strength of "Black Death" comes in the form of its characterization. Sure not everyone is made 3-dimensional, but every character has his moment, and are acted in a style both refreshing and missed. This is to say the film has everything one would want (action, gore, magic, horses), but doesn't forget that you are going to spend 90+ minutes, where people have to eventually talk. Talk they do, at great lengths about religion, family, honor. This is a true "men-on-a-mission" film, men with a goal, as well as purpose worth dying for. The film opens in 1348 (I believe, those years blend together), the plague has swept the land, killing thousands indiscriminately. A young monk offers his services to the immortally bad-ass Sean Bean, who elevates any dark ages piece, to guide him to a village, that is said to have been, as of yet, untouched by the pestilence. Though this band, hired by the Bishop, isn't going to see god's work in the town, word has spread that a demon is held up and worshiped there in his steed. Less be said beyond that, for this is a film that is quick, sometimes terse, certainly visceral, but every part of it an experience. Smith's direction here goes from simply engaging an audiences gag reflexes, to inflicting pain on their mind, which is to say, "think".
The movie surprised me in its stark briskness, that could be due to the fact that it was a smaller budgeted film, or it could be due to the fact that Smith was aware that most audiences knew rudimentary information about the period of the film, and that it was best to move along with the actual story. Monk has conflict of conscious, the band of mercenaries of god have varied checkered paths, nothing is at it seems.
Through out the film, I found myself thinking about "Season of the Witch", wondering where a film goes so wrong. Here before me was a film that didn't skimp on the visceral, both mental and meat, whilst not betraying history, insulting the audience or having a character walk around with a non-appropriate timed accent. The question can be raised, is it simply the desire to make more money that can rob a film of it's intellectual ideas. Can't audiences plunk down their hard-earned money to see a film that has people pontificating intellectually, soundly, and then have something blow-up in the background? 2010 found something in a form of that, with "Inception", though at times it felt as if Christopher Nolan was holding back ever so slightly, not to bite the hand that forked over so much money to him. "Black Death" though, feels as if it's being cast aside, not only because it's being sent out to a world littered with DTV fantasies, but that it was never given a chance to prove its worth. Throughout the world, where they actually appreciate films? Sure. Yet North American distribution is now a days, akin to being drafted in the first round, it doesn't mean that you're better than anyone, it just meant the loudest people wouldn't stop talking about you for 2 seconds, to hear how this lesser known individual is most decidedly better.
Perhaps this is to be the true use of the internet, and the merry band of internet film critics. Let us stand up for the "true" underdog, the film that is worth your time, and effort, to find and enjoy. I'm not speaking of an old film, a classmate found a clip of online because 50 other sites said that one scene was funny. I mean films that truly deserve to be enjoyed, passed around and discussed. The way we all used to before the internet, and on demand, and downloading.......there was a point in time that people paid for bootlegs, because they were legitimately rare. This film, had it come out in that time, I would have paid greatly for.
This is a film where people discuss religions, the ideas behind them, following blindly. It discusses different people of different gods, discussing who is right and who is wrong. It is a film that then says that the victor, may not be who you would first expect. It asks how far you are willing to go to survive, to fight for what you believe in, and how much of your life, is really in your own hands. It's not an amazing film, it's a very rather good one, but we live in a time, where such things seem to be rather rare.
**** out of *****
(pssst.....click on that link up top, you can rent it from amazon)
Wednesday, February 23, 2011
Comedy Wednesday: Mystery Team (2010)
Title: Mystery Team (2010)
There is a big difference between a stupid movie, and a movie whose characters are stupid. "Mystery Team" is certainly a member of the latter. The brainchild of YouTube sensations "Derrick Comedy", the film reveals in its love of manchildren (in a platonic, from afar way) and mines whatever comedy can be brought from any situation. ANY. Of course there are some faults laying around, thankfully though, most of them are minor.
The films conceit is simple. The titular Mystery Team were a big deal when they were about 7 years old, much to the delight of the whole town. The problem is, QQ years later, the boys, now High School seniors, still act, and dress, as if they were still "Boy" Detectives. They spend their time solving crimes for 10 cents, which at worst involve, "who put their fingers in the boysenberry pie?" The opportunity to truely prove themselves, comes in the plea of an 8 year old girl, who wants the team to find out her mother's killers. Of course, things get out of hand and the boys find themselves breaking into houses, lumber mills, and "gentleman's clubs". An air of innocence, lost and found hangs over the proceedings, and if it weren't for some strong performances, and clever writing, the film would feel flat and trite.
For a film like this to work, not only does the audience have to find themselves invested, but the actors as well. Thankfully the comedy team have a great chemistry, with Donald Glover the obvious standout. For those uninitiated, I highly suggest checking out season 1 of "Community" for Glover's portrayal of Troy. The film is also litered with cameo apperances from numerous NBC comedys, including "SNL", "30 Rock" and "Parks & Recreation", and Matt Walsh, king of doing any part in any comedy, since his glory days with "UCB".
Lots of comedies these days tend to be episodic in nature, with a sagging middle, so to say that Mystery Team avoids that, is astonishing. True this isn't a film for everyone's taste. I for one would rather see something this purely fun, than another Kevin James, or Rob Schneider piece of drivel. Outlandish? Yes. Ridiculous? Rightfully so. In comedy forevery low-brow fart-a-thon, and every high concept witty talk piece, that has to be a middle ground. a film to have its cake, eat it too, then laugh at their friend who has frosting on their nose. Sometimes, like the gang in the move themselves, it's a good idea to step outside our comfort zone, and allow ourselves to be surprised.
*** 1/2 out of *****
(Apologizes for any spelling or grammatical errors, my internet went down, so i wrote this all on my droid 2's browser, so wednesday would be covered)
There is a big difference between a stupid movie, and a movie whose characters are stupid. "Mystery Team" is certainly a member of the latter. The brainchild of YouTube sensations "Derrick Comedy", the film reveals in its love of manchildren (in a platonic, from afar way) and mines whatever comedy can be brought from any situation. ANY. Of course there are some faults laying around, thankfully though, most of them are minor.
The films conceit is simple. The titular Mystery Team were a big deal when they were about 7 years old, much to the delight of the whole town. The problem is, QQ years later, the boys, now High School seniors, still act, and dress, as if they were still "Boy" Detectives. They spend their time solving crimes for 10 cents, which at worst involve, "who put their fingers in the boysenberry pie?" The opportunity to truely prove themselves, comes in the plea of an 8 year old girl, who wants the team to find out her mother's killers. Of course, things get out of hand and the boys find themselves breaking into houses, lumber mills, and "gentleman's clubs". An air of innocence, lost and found hangs over the proceedings, and if it weren't for some strong performances, and clever writing, the film would feel flat and trite.
For a film like this to work, not only does the audience have to find themselves invested, but the actors as well. Thankfully the comedy team have a great chemistry, with Donald Glover the obvious standout. For those uninitiated, I highly suggest checking out season 1 of "Community" for Glover's portrayal of Troy. The film is also litered with cameo apperances from numerous NBC comedys, including "SNL", "30 Rock" and "Parks & Recreation", and Matt Walsh, king of doing any part in any comedy, since his glory days with "UCB".
Lots of comedies these days tend to be episodic in nature, with a sagging middle, so to say that Mystery Team avoids that, is astonishing. True this isn't a film for everyone's taste. I for one would rather see something this purely fun, than another Kevin James, or Rob Schneider piece of drivel. Outlandish? Yes. Ridiculous? Rightfully so. In comedy forevery low-brow fart-a-thon, and every high concept witty talk piece, that has to be a middle ground. a film to have its cake, eat it too, then laugh at their friend who has frosting on their nose. Sometimes, like the gang in the move themselves, it's a good idea to step outside our comfort zone, and allow ourselves to be surprised.
*** 1/2 out of *****
(Apologizes for any spelling or grammatical errors, my internet went down, so i wrote this all on my droid 2's browser, so wednesday would be covered)
Monday, February 21, 2011
Action Monday: Takers (2010)
Film: Takers (2010)
Having seen too many movies to count, and having a brain that actually stores, and processes information, isn't always the best thing, when it comes to watching movies. If you know the formula, you can see all the pieces coming from a mile away. Though instead of just going with the movie, you find yourself actively picking at the holes, while the feature is still running it's course. The majority of my experience with "Takers" was much like that. I starred in awe as the crew responsible, took from any, and every crime/drama in the last 25 years, as well as turning the cliche level up to 11. Case in point, if you are an experienced Heist Crew who spouts line's like "we always wait a year between jobs....", you wouldn't expect anyone to change their tune, literally less than 5 minutes later. There is the adrenaline rush, there is the greed, then there is just pain stupidity. Another sign that the film you are watching isn't to the highest degree possible? You get bored during a shootout. With people brandishing such large weaponry, you'd expect to hear a cacophony of noise, bullets, cracked walls, body tears. Nowhere are you expecting a swelling pseudo-symphony, only broken up by the "Takers" standing in a room, confused, then surprised by the hail of gunfire. That is correct, the intrepid band of "Heroes" stand for a moment in a room to gather themselves, then are confused by the reminder, that the reason they are in the movie in the first place, is due to that fact that they are in a gun fight.
One could argue that "Takers" may have been more successful or found a better footing had it been a film made in the 80's, and by my own admission, I will state that it would have been infinitely better or far more laughable. As it stands now, it's more than disappointing and confusing, rather that horrendous, or unwatchable. This is in due partially to the casting, which include 2 musicians. Films are all about an audiences "willful suspension of disbelief"....but i can only try so hard to believe that Chris Brown's character is a master of Parkour. Just as much as I can believe that rapper T.I.'s character is worthy of his moniker "Ghost". For that matter most of the crew, their backgrounds, back-stories or personality (with the exception of Idris Elba's Gordon), are attributed to one line, or their fashion sense. Boiled down even further, after the first of the films 2 heists, the main crew walk in slow motion to each of their vehicles, of varying sizes. colors, makes. To further matters more, the film wants to pull a "Heat" by including 2 LAPD officers, in the form of Matt Dillon and Jay Hernandez. That film is also called to mind by this film's inclusion of their very own Waingro, the name forever associated to the loose cannon, added to a well-seasoned crew at the last minute, who exists to take everyone down, with their delusions of grandeur, and ability to annoy everyone, including the audience.
It's hard to discern who exactly "Takers" is for. It tries to feel cool, but at the same time, is littered with an air of not caring. It has two heists, one that is decidedly by the numbers, and the second of which is partially narrated by Ghost, apparently for the blind in the audience. The action is edited within an inch of it's life, presumably due to the fact that the movie is a PG-13 affair. None of it gels. We're led to believe that this crew is well organized, running together for at least 6 years, but there is no sense that any of them care what they are doing.
In the end "Takers" is just doing that job that many have done before, but with less finesse, or charisma, than that of its predecessors.
** out of *****
Having seen too many movies to count, and having a brain that actually stores, and processes information, isn't always the best thing, when it comes to watching movies. If you know the formula, you can see all the pieces coming from a mile away. Though instead of just going with the movie, you find yourself actively picking at the holes, while the feature is still running it's course. The majority of my experience with "Takers" was much like that. I starred in awe as the crew responsible, took from any, and every crime/drama in the last 25 years, as well as turning the cliche level up to 11. Case in point, if you are an experienced Heist Crew who spouts line's like "we always wait a year between jobs....", you wouldn't expect anyone to change their tune, literally less than 5 minutes later. There is the adrenaline rush, there is the greed, then there is just pain stupidity. Another sign that the film you are watching isn't to the highest degree possible? You get bored during a shootout. With people brandishing such large weaponry, you'd expect to hear a cacophony of noise, bullets, cracked walls, body tears. Nowhere are you expecting a swelling pseudo-symphony, only broken up by the "Takers" standing in a room, confused, then surprised by the hail of gunfire. That is correct, the intrepid band of "Heroes" stand for a moment in a room to gather themselves, then are confused by the reminder, that the reason they are in the movie in the first place, is due to that fact that they are in a gun fight.
One could argue that "Takers" may have been more successful or found a better footing had it been a film made in the 80's, and by my own admission, I will state that it would have been infinitely better or far more laughable. As it stands now, it's more than disappointing and confusing, rather that horrendous, or unwatchable. This is in due partially to the casting, which include 2 musicians. Films are all about an audiences "willful suspension of disbelief"....but i can only try so hard to believe that Chris Brown's character is a master of Parkour. Just as much as I can believe that rapper T.I.'s character is worthy of his moniker "Ghost". For that matter most of the crew, their backgrounds, back-stories or personality (with the exception of Idris Elba's Gordon), are attributed to one line, or their fashion sense. Boiled down even further, after the first of the films 2 heists, the main crew walk in slow motion to each of their vehicles, of varying sizes. colors, makes. To further matters more, the film wants to pull a "Heat" by including 2 LAPD officers, in the form of Matt Dillon and Jay Hernandez. That film is also called to mind by this film's inclusion of their very own Waingro, the name forever associated to the loose cannon, added to a well-seasoned crew at the last minute, who exists to take everyone down, with their delusions of grandeur, and ability to annoy everyone, including the audience.
It's hard to discern who exactly "Takers" is for. It tries to feel cool, but at the same time, is littered with an air of not caring. It has two heists, one that is decidedly by the numbers, and the second of which is partially narrated by Ghost, apparently for the blind in the audience. The action is edited within an inch of it's life, presumably due to the fact that the movie is a PG-13 affair. None of it gels. We're led to believe that this crew is well organized, running together for at least 6 years, but there is no sense that any of them care what they are doing.
In the end "Takers" is just doing that job that many have done before, but with less finesse, or charisma, than that of its predecessors.
** out of *****
New Release Sunday: UNKNOWN
Film Title: UNKNOWN
It's a very interesting time for movies. February and March are often thought of as "The Spring Dumping Grounds". That dubious period after all the award-laden films have been released, but before the start of the summer onslaught. Luckily over the past few years the windows for the Spring and Fall trash heaps have slowly been closing. The disconcerting issue here is that it's becoming harder to second guess what is trash, and what's exactly worthwhile.
The case here is even more difficult with a film like "Unknown", it has a well known, and somewhat respected cast (Liam Neeson, Diane Kruger, Frank Langella, Bruno Ganz and Aidan Quinn). Is over-seen by a director who got a lot of attention by having one of the most out-there twists to a movie in recent years ("Orphan"). Has an intriguing enough plot, reminiscent of Hitchcock and all hiscopiers: Man is vacationing with wife. Man looses memory. Someone has taken his identity. Conspiracy Plot unfolds. Man races against time to put the pieces together, before it's too late. A film that exists in a web of confusion and disorientation until the inevitably riveting climax. That doesn't sound like the full explanation of the plot, but more like a mad lib sheet.....which the film itself seems to be following. The issue with these films is.....when the end comes, does the audience even care?
The missteps with "Unknown" lay simply there-in. The end credits just begin, and several movie-goers could be over-heard exclaiming, "oh, I guess it's done now". That isn't directly the fault of the movie, which is entertaining to say the least, if not by-the-book, and a decent time filler. It's merely a film without much care as to how it goes about things. The editor probably liked the end shot he had, decided to enjoy the scenery, and stylistically fade to black once the credits were already a quarter through. The action is fast, but cut all too quickly, leaving little to be savored, with one's own brain filling in the logistical gaps as the picture cuts, and cuts, and cuts. It would help the film move along, if there was something to be invested in on the screen. All the actors feel they are here to get the plot to the next piece, while small character moments exist to try and make the characters appear to be real, but as with the rest of the film, nothing is ever what it seems, even when it isn't.
Liam Neeson is the most confusing of the bunch, still trying to feel out the latter portion of his careers, feeling that awards and accolades of various sizes and colors, mean nothing in a day where you can beat the crap out of anyone, at any age, and garnish a larger paycheck. January Jones shows up to bring in the television crowd, and the men who appreciate seeing her in a dress. Her acting chops give much to be desired, which raises questions as to how crazy the character of Betty Draper on "Mad Men", is really supposed to be. The rest of the supporting cast is solid, if not just there to help the over-seas market pull in a larger sum. Out of them, Aidan Quinn is the nicest to see, happy to be able to return to a major film release, playing certainly against type.
Films like "Unknown" have their place and purpose, much like the Airport novels everyone reads. Everything is in plain sight, rather calculated to a precise formula. You only allow yourself to be surprised, by telling yourself you don't know any better.The movie often reminds one of Harrison Ford's " Frantic ", in which a doctor is attending a convention in Paris, and his wife goes missing. This leads him to become embroiled in a conspiracy, that includes finding himself being accompanied by a beautiful (albeit dirtied up) blonde. But a movie like "Unknown" falters under it's own weight. It asks the viewer to question the world around them, then stop to say, "well no, not that, don't worry about that." A director like Jaume Collet-Serra seems more interested in the odder moments. allowing the film to come to life in the 3rd act, which is without question the most entertaining piece. Where, just like Neeson's character, it accepts it's purpose, seeing it through to the very end. Collet-Serra does create several classic moments in the film, in the behavioral instances of several of the smaller characters. Pay close attention to the several scenes including Bruno Ganz's secretive Jurgen, who says so much more with his actions than deemed necessary. Now there's a character who should have their own film.
"Unknown" sadly never sinks nor swims, it merely floats about, being dragged by the current. Only sporadically, with sudden bursts and fits, does it splash feverishly at the water, showing variant signs of life. It is certainly a mid-February release, that gets seen on the self in November, as one asks themselves "Did I see this film? I think I did, but I can't remember if I liked it or not."
** 1/2 out of *****
It's a very interesting time for movies. February and March are often thought of as "The Spring Dumping Grounds". That dubious period after all the award-laden films have been released, but before the start of the summer onslaught. Luckily over the past few years the windows for the Spring and Fall trash heaps have slowly been closing. The disconcerting issue here is that it's becoming harder to second guess what is trash, and what's exactly worthwhile.
The case here is even more difficult with a film like "Unknown", it has a well known, and somewhat respected cast (Liam Neeson, Diane Kruger, Frank Langella, Bruno Ganz and Aidan Quinn). Is over-seen by a director who got a lot of attention by having one of the most out-there twists to a movie in recent years ("Orphan"). Has an intriguing enough plot, reminiscent of Hitchcock and all hiscopiers: Man is vacationing with wife. Man looses memory. Someone has taken his identity. Conspiracy Plot unfolds. Man races against time to put the pieces together, before it's too late. A film that exists in a web of confusion and disorientation until the inevitably riveting climax. That doesn't sound like the full explanation of the plot, but more like a mad lib sheet.....which the film itself seems to be following. The issue with these films is.....when the end comes, does the audience even care?
The missteps with "Unknown" lay simply there-in. The end credits just begin, and several movie-goers could be over-heard exclaiming, "oh, I guess it's done now". That isn't directly the fault of the movie, which is entertaining to say the least, if not by-the-book, and a decent time filler. It's merely a film without much care as to how it goes about things. The editor probably liked the end shot he had, decided to enjoy the scenery, and stylistically fade to black once the credits were already a quarter through. The action is fast, but cut all too quickly, leaving little to be savored, with one's own brain filling in the logistical gaps as the picture cuts, and cuts, and cuts. It would help the film move along, if there was something to be invested in on the screen. All the actors feel they are here to get the plot to the next piece, while small character moments exist to try and make the characters appear to be real, but as with the rest of the film, nothing is ever what it seems, even when it isn't.
Liam Neeson is the most confusing of the bunch, still trying to feel out the latter portion of his careers, feeling that awards and accolades of various sizes and colors, mean nothing in a day where you can beat the crap out of anyone, at any age, and garnish a larger paycheck. January Jones shows up to bring in the television crowd, and the men who appreciate seeing her in a dress. Her acting chops give much to be desired, which raises questions as to how crazy the character of Betty Draper on "Mad Men", is really supposed to be. The rest of the supporting cast is solid, if not just there to help the over-seas market pull in a larger sum. Out of them, Aidan Quinn is the nicest to see, happy to be able to return to a major film release, playing certainly against type.
Films like "Unknown" have their place and purpose, much like the Airport novels everyone reads. Everything is in plain sight, rather calculated to a precise formula. You only allow yourself to be surprised, by telling yourself you don't know any better.The movie often reminds one of Harrison Ford's " Frantic ", in which a doctor is attending a convention in Paris, and his wife goes missing. This leads him to become embroiled in a conspiracy, that includes finding himself being accompanied by a beautiful (albeit dirtied up) blonde. But a movie like "Unknown" falters under it's own weight. It asks the viewer to question the world around them, then stop to say, "well no, not that, don't worry about that." A director like Jaume Collet-Serra seems more interested in the odder moments. allowing the film to come to life in the 3rd act, which is without question the most entertaining piece. Where, just like Neeson's character, it accepts it's purpose, seeing it through to the very end. Collet-Serra does create several classic moments in the film, in the behavioral instances of several of the smaller characters. Pay close attention to the several scenes including Bruno Ganz's secretive Jurgen, who says so much more with his actions than deemed necessary. Now there's a character who should have their own film.
"Unknown" sadly never sinks nor swims, it merely floats about, being dragged by the current. Only sporadically, with sudden bursts and fits, does it splash feverishly at the water, showing variant signs of life. It is certainly a mid-February release, that gets seen on the self in November, as one asks themselves "Did I see this film? I think I did, but I can't remember if I liked it or not."
** 1/2 out of *****
Saturday, February 12, 2011
For Starters.....
This post will probably be deleted later, but everything needs a start.
Welcome to the first page for Movie Fix Daily.....adding yet another place to get your movie review fix. Now with a twist.
The internet is a wasteland with people opinions scattered all over the place. Lots of the items littered are reviews/criticism covering music, books, tv shows, and above all else MOVIES.
So here I am offering something new, or at least a different hook. Why not have a place where people can go each day and see a new review, genre specific. New movies. Old movies. Forgotten films. This time as I mentioned, genre specific according to the day.
For now the following will apply:
Action - Monday
Drama - Tuesday
Comedy - Wednesday
Horror - Thursday
Sci-Fi - Friday
Animated - Saturday
New Release - Sunday
Welcome to the first page for Movie Fix Daily.....adding yet another place to get your movie review fix. Now with a twist.
The internet is a wasteland with people opinions scattered all over the place. Lots of the items littered are reviews/criticism covering music, books, tv shows, and above all else MOVIES.
So here I am offering something new, or at least a different hook. Why not have a place where people can go each day and see a new review, genre specific. New movies. Old movies. Forgotten films. This time as I mentioned, genre specific according to the day.
For now the following will apply:
Action - Monday
Drama - Tuesday
Comedy - Wednesday
Horror - Thursday
Sci-Fi - Friday
Animated - Saturday
New Release - Sunday
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)