Title: Transformers: Dark of the Moon (2011)
Michael Bay lies at the forefront of modern day Snake Oil Salesmen; he dresses sharp, has been around long enough to call himself a veteran (note: call himself a veteran), and boy golly does he have a product you just can't wait for. Sure enough though, his speech is too well rehearsed, that it's all for not, and you find yourself with something certainly less than promised. Though because it was such a big seller, around comes Mr. Bay again. He tells you that this time he's gone bigger, he's gone better, and sure as shootin, this time, you are going to be MORE blown away. Again though, the buyer is left bewildered and befuddled that what they were told, doesn't match what they were given. Worried that his target audience is falling by the wayside, Mr. Bay does the unthinkable: he apologizes. He laments that he understand that many are dismayed with his product, including himself. He personally vows, for the sake of his integrity, nay his loyal followers, that he will do right by them. That this time, he is going to give it that extra something. Let it be said, right here, right now; if you show a turd in 3D, you are just showing a turd in 3D. That turd, ladies and gentlemen, is Transformers 3.
True there is much debating about what kind of film can be made from a toy line, or lucrative series of cartoons, for that matter. The issue at hand is a film of cognitive sense or merit. No one is looking for a game changer or awards darling, for the most part people are looking for something slightly better than decent. What Micheal Bay is able to come up with for Transformers 3 is relatively astounding. He made a film, a sequence of photographs projected onto a screen with sufficient rapidity as to create the illusion of motion and continuity. Outside of that there are moments where people talk, occasionally broken up by giant transforming robots fighting. So.....those are the positives. The issues that arise out of the murk are more than a plethora. Scenes exist, merely to shoot people in a pretty light...Not a constructive light. Nor a light of any other importance than to convey "don't you think that looks nice". It has the appearance, sure, but there is no understanding of it's importance in the greater whole. There is a sequence in the film with the supposedly surprising betrayal of a human character, who is working on the side of the bad guys. The issue here makes no sense, specially when there was already a scene in the 2nd film to show that it was possible for a Deception (or any evil robot for that matter) to pose as a human. The logical decision would be to have had the human character killed and replaced in secret by said evil transformer because said treacherous human had access to something of importance to overthrow all human life, but alas, this is a Baytacular, and things like common sense, reasonable decibel level, and coherence are severely lacking.
Again I am brought back to the snake oil salesman, or even more recently, the Evangelical Healers. There is a good show to be had, if you are able to strip away all the things that make one a sensible, semi-intelligent person. True people often just want to be entertained, but that never means they deserve to be insulted, or even worse, be lead to believe that they aren't being insulted, and are told that what they are being told and sold isn't going to be gotten by everyone, and that you are smarter for not being more analytic. The same goes for films featuring Madea, Larry the Cable guy, and Kevin James.
The film going public wants to be entertained on another level. There are signs of it everywhere. They want to be entertained, enthralled, captivated, and more or less elated. They want to be intruiged by something new and they want to be motivated to push their collective thoughts out into the lobby where they converse about what certain things meant, what the movie said to them, and have an intellectual conversation about everything they saw on the screen. Yes there are a place for large CGI blockbusters that want to make money, but your main objective in those instances should be to entertain (The Avengers (2012), or to elevate a certain film genre past it's set preconceptions (The Dark Knight (2008). The majority of the public will still say that they want their brain turned off from time to time (that why we had the 80's), but in the end, things won't change unless those making the films, attempt to start that change for the better, from within.
* 1/2 out of *****
Monday, September 10, 2012
Action Monday: X-Men - First Class (2011)
Title: X-Men - First Class (2011)
(Backlogged and edited 6/21/11 & 9/10/12)
It's interesting to look back, a little over year later, and see what a movie has done to the cinematic landscape, from the point of which it was still in "advanced screenings". For a long period of time the project that eventually would become "First Class" was a muddled confusing mess. It was based off a comic book that wasn't common knowledge to non-comic book fans. It was coming off 2 much maligned film entries ("Last Stand" & "X-Men Origins: Wolverine"). So in the world that was exceedingly becoming mostly superheroes-centric in the summer, the brilliant minds at FOX did what any producers would seemingly do......They hired Kevin Bacon to play their big bad (This one not This one).
In the most basic terms "First Class" is fun. A lot of fun. At times it is even a stellar film, but odd casting/scripting moments threaten to derail the film mid-stride. Not that one can really blame the filmmakers. They were trying to bridge two gaps simultaneously: those of the average film-goer and those of the the more hardcore nerdset. Truth be told in the end the studio will always side with the money and the nerds invariably will take what minor victories they can (and secretly hate on all the minor discrepancies [it's a weird culture, hence having a side bar in a side bar]). The lead cast does more than capable work, helping to sell the overall endeavor. This being a true "origin story" we get a vary wide cast of time to try and fully understand 3 characters, and then throw in a a conflict and some teenagers to pad things out. Honestly, had this film solely focused on Magneto, Xavier, & Mystique, then the case could have been made for a potentially great and game changing film. If you are paying attention for most of the film, you could feasibly explain the central conflict away as: Xavier and Magneto fight over the future of Mystique to further their own mutant cause, and that works. It works very well. Out of the 3 leads though, it is Michael Fassbender's coming out party as Magneto. Anyone who has yet to see the film, and is confused as to why within the last year, and the next subsequent few years are littered with films featuring his name (and Tom Hardy's after "The Dark Knight Rises") need to see this film, as well as Hunger (or in Tom Hardy's case Bronson). Fassbender's work here is where the fun element comes from. Infusing a mutant James Bond with an ax to grind against any and all Nazi's is a moment of sheer brilliance. The Magneto here isn't fully at his most evil, nor powerful. He is a blunt and angry blunt instrument to be fashioned into whatever vision the right person wants him to be. He feels alone and alienated, not by his powers, but by the events that plagued his early life. On the flip side of the coin we find James McAvoy as the privileged and calming Charles Xavier. His main contention in the film is that he is following Patrick Stewart's exceedingly successful run in the previous 4 films. The Xavier here can easily be seen morphing into Stewart's role eventually, though his self appointed braggadocio is a little thick. We know his eventual endgame, though the movie does make it a wrenching and is cripplingly effective (sorry).
Last but not least is fan favorite Raven (Mystique) as portrayed in this younger state by Jennifer Lawrence, pre-HUNGER GAMES craze. She is serviceable at best, though the fault isn't 100% her own (about60% 50%). The film asks her to have the emotions of her Rebecca Romijin counterpart, while simultaneously asking her to carry the bulk of the developmental role along side Fassbender. They are the two standing on the outside, who constantly question what the world will think of them if their powers are ever found out, but....then they decide to give her Beast as a love interest. Here we find ourselves as the heart of the issue of the story. We begin with the basic origin stories of our 3 main leads, bring them all together with a bang, let them spend a little time tat-a-tat, and then someone from the producers office says "we need more teenagers!" This is one of the few films (at it's initial set-up at least), that could effectively been a very good cheat film where the "First Class" of the title isn't even brought up until the very end (though in a throwaway sense, it technically still is). At the expediency of a weird section of the film, Magneto and Xavier take a globe-trotting holiday recruiting as many mutants they can, as long as they are under 30 (save for Darwin). They then get caught up with a government organization, bad guys appear, and the Cuban Missile crisis happens. Yes, it is a period piece, of sorts...or not. Throwing in a bunch of teenagers is needed to found the basis of the X-men, but their choices for the most part (of the included mutants) leaves much to be desired, not to mention their characterization.
The most frustrating thing about the last part above is that it is all conveyed with a sense of Fun. There are action set pieces, there are smarmy asides, references to other comics and characters, and Oliver Platt. A lot happens, with quick lines to explain it away, but it feels crammed and rushed when you think about it, but melts away to the fun underneath when watched. Much of that credit is due to the direction of Matthew Vaughn, writing of Jane Goldman and guiding hand of the ever omnipresent Bryan Singer. They get what they want the film to be, and they understand how to make the audience enjoy what is on the screen, without being emotionally involved. That disconnect comes at a steep price, because it is due to servicing both the mainstream public, and die hard comic book fans. There's the blockbuster element and the name checking element, fighting both for control of what is meant to be a tent-pole film. What you are left with is a film that upon inspection starts to loose it's luster, saved by the fact that when you are watching it the first time, you are enjoying it on the most basic level. Is it fun? We've covered that. Is it good? Depends on the scene, but is at least is so in a kinetic fashion. Is it a good start to a new franchise? A very positive yes. If they take what worked in this film, further expanding it into it's own thing, finding it's voice with each film: yes. Though it must be said that if they go for the jugular concerning the blockbuster element of it, given FOX's past with superhero films, could sink it. In the end, "First Class", is an enjoyable diversion. It's fun, loud, at times enthralling adventure piece, contained within a muddled story, that coasts along thanks to the performances of its star cast. At the very least, it's hard to totally be against a teenage oriented comic-book movie in 2011 that manages to showcase performances from the likes of Kevin Bacon, Oliver Platt, Michael Ironside, Ray Wise, James Remar and Rade Serbedzija....and January Jones once more showing she has the acting ability of an shiny unplugged toaster.
*** 1/2 out of *****
(Backlogged and edited 6/21/11 & 9/10/12)
It's interesting to look back, a little over year later, and see what a movie has done to the cinematic landscape, from the point of which it was still in "advanced screenings". For a long period of time the project that eventually would become "First Class" was a muddled confusing mess. It was based off a comic book that wasn't common knowledge to non-comic book fans. It was coming off 2 much maligned film entries ("Last Stand" & "X-Men Origins: Wolverine"). So in the world that was exceedingly becoming mostly superheroes-centric in the summer, the brilliant minds at FOX did what any producers would seemingly do......They hired Kevin Bacon to play their big bad (This one not This one).
In the most basic terms "First Class" is fun. A lot of fun. At times it is even a stellar film, but odd casting/scripting moments threaten to derail the film mid-stride. Not that one can really blame the filmmakers. They were trying to bridge two gaps simultaneously: those of the average film-goer and those of the the more hardcore nerdset. Truth be told in the end the studio will always side with the money and the nerds invariably will take what minor victories they can (and secretly hate on all the minor discrepancies [it's a weird culture, hence having a side bar in a side bar]). The lead cast does more than capable work, helping to sell the overall endeavor. This being a true "origin story" we get a vary wide cast of time to try and fully understand 3 characters, and then throw in a a conflict and some teenagers to pad things out. Honestly, had this film solely focused on Magneto, Xavier, & Mystique, then the case could have been made for a potentially great and game changing film. If you are paying attention for most of the film, you could feasibly explain the central conflict away as: Xavier and Magneto fight over the future of Mystique to further their own mutant cause, and that works. It works very well. Out of the 3 leads though, it is Michael Fassbender's coming out party as Magneto. Anyone who has yet to see the film, and is confused as to why within the last year, and the next subsequent few years are littered with films featuring his name (and Tom Hardy's after "The Dark Knight Rises") need to see this film, as well as Hunger (or in Tom Hardy's case Bronson). Fassbender's work here is where the fun element comes from. Infusing a mutant James Bond with an ax to grind against any and all Nazi's is a moment of sheer brilliance. The Magneto here isn't fully at his most evil, nor powerful. He is a blunt and angry blunt instrument to be fashioned into whatever vision the right person wants him to be. He feels alone and alienated, not by his powers, but by the events that plagued his early life. On the flip side of the coin we find James McAvoy as the privileged and calming Charles Xavier. His main contention in the film is that he is following Patrick Stewart's exceedingly successful run in the previous 4 films. The Xavier here can easily be seen morphing into Stewart's role eventually, though his self appointed braggadocio is a little thick. We know his eventual endgame, though the movie does make it a wrenching and is cripplingly effective (
Last but not least is fan favorite Raven (Mystique) as portrayed in this younger state by Jennifer Lawrence, pre-HUNGER GAMES craze. She is serviceable at best, though the fault isn't 100% her own (about
The most frustrating thing about the last part above is that it is all conveyed with a sense of Fun. There are action set pieces, there are smarmy asides, references to other comics and characters, and Oliver Platt. A lot happens, with quick lines to explain it away, but it feels crammed and rushed when you think about it, but melts away to the fun underneath when watched. Much of that credit is due to the direction of Matthew Vaughn, writing of Jane Goldman and guiding hand of the ever omnipresent Bryan Singer. They get what they want the film to be, and they understand how to make the audience enjoy what is on the screen, without being emotionally involved. That disconnect comes at a steep price, because it is due to servicing both the mainstream public, and die hard comic book fans. There's the blockbuster element and the name checking element, fighting both for control of what is meant to be a tent-pole film. What you are left with is a film that upon inspection starts to loose it's luster, saved by the fact that when you are watching it the first time, you are enjoying it on the most basic level. Is it fun? We've covered that. Is it good? Depends on the scene, but is at least is so in a kinetic fashion. Is it a good start to a new franchise? A very positive yes. If they take what worked in this film, further expanding it into it's own thing, finding it's voice with each film: yes. Though it must be said that if they go for the jugular concerning the blockbuster element of it, given FOX's past with superhero films, could sink it. In the end, "First Class", is an enjoyable diversion. It's fun, loud, at times enthralling adventure piece, contained within a muddled story, that coasts along thanks to the performances of its star cast. At the very least, it's hard to totally be against a teenage oriented comic-book movie in 2011 that manages to showcase performances from the likes of Kevin Bacon, Oliver Platt, Michael Ironside, Ray Wise, James Remar and Rade Serbedzija....and January Jones once more showing she has the acting ability of an shiny unplugged toaster.
*** 1/2 out of *****
Tuesday, June 21, 2011
New Release Sunday: Green Lantern (2011)
Title: Green Lantern (2011)
Cinema is such an interesting field. As cinephiles it is very easy to get caught up with the changing of a guard, that we become complacent, spoiled if you will, with high quality fare. So it should come to no surprise, that while not a horrendous effort, the big screen debut of "The Green Lantern" is seen as nothing more mediocre, annoying at best.
The pieces all seem to be in place, engaging lead (Ryan Reynolds, slightly checking back into his "Van Wilder" days here), super-powers (a ring that makes hard-light constructs), epic mythology (OA is right there, several times), big special effects set pieces (true the effects are rather lackluster, but still). The culprit at hand here is two-fold sadly; it lacks a menacing antagonist, and has no true threat to our hero, let alone the universe. Essentially, DC decided to take 15 steps back (see: years) in it's superhero effort, and hope that it could ride the wave of everything surrounding it. If you missed the reference before, I was pointing out that most DC efforts not including a gravely voiced half detective/half ninja, named after a nocturnal animal, usually see a main threat as an almost crashing plane or helicopter. This is 2011, even an 11 month old child would expect better. Then again this is an origin story in it's truest fashion, one that still believes that cribbing from Campbell's monomyth is neither trite or overdone. Beyond even the quibbles with narrative, the film finds many instances to stop itself in it's tracks. Literally, there are at least 4 different scenes that follow action beats, which threaten to derail the entire film. Yes, the marketing analysts decided that Blake Lively needed more screen time (apparently to wear a dress and or push-up bra), but she essentially has no purpose to be wedged into the already stuffy proceedings. A lot of that blame can be placed on the 5 screenwriters & director Martin Campbell. Campbell, has a string of successes making mainstream films more entertaining than they should in GoldenEye, Casino Royale (2006), Mask of Zorro and recently Edge of Darkness under. The transition to comic book sci-fi could easily be a detractor, though most of that works despite itself. Truth be told, many of the films faults are the same ones shared by another superhero venture from the '11 summer slot, THOR. The difference between the films is that THOR coasts along with it's performances, as well as a pervading aura of "cool". When we are spending time on OA, meeting a few of the Lantern Corps best, and being handed a lot of mythology, the film feels like something special, and if they manage to make a sequel with a few tweaks behind the scenes, it could be worth your money. It's difficult to say that, because you shouldn't have to slog through a so-so film to get to a great one. Most of those films find themselves dead in the water, as the detractors come forward, picking apart all their grievances. Only in extreme cases, mostly those that involve large large profit margins, does a "next" film get picked up.
For a completely different argument, I humbly submit Green Lantern: First Flight (2009) as exhibit B-Q. Clocking in at a slim 77 minutes, the animated feature from DCAU (DC Animated Universe), comes an origin story of Hal Jordan, that is funnier, more action packed, with more heart, and a talented cast that rivals that of it's Big Screen brethren. Sure it feels crammed as well, but at 30 minutes less than the live-action venture, that's forgivable.
Green Lantern (2011) feels like it's trying to build a foundation for a bigger world without giving much reason to care. There are a few hints, and references to a possible DC Universe, but unlike the current MARVEL fiasco (seriously, enough with S.H.E.I.L.D.), it's a name dropped here,a background shot there, and a total waste of Angela Bassett*.
All these ideas again brings me back to the statement of being spoiled. Green Lantern is a perfectly solid film, if it were made between 1997 - 2001. Take out out a feel braking moments, and there is a film that the "Fantastic Four" audience would eat up. As film-goers we are getting to a point where we expect more from even the most basic of Superhero films. We want to quake in our boots at the galactic threat. We want to cheer as our hero lays the beat down on whomever gets in their way. We want to laugh as the side-kick hops in at the last minute, apologizing for their tardiness. More than anything, we want to be engaged by the events upon the screen. We want to feel a connection to the characters, because they are endearing, because they are assholes, but mostly because the people behind the picture took a few moments to establish characters over cliches. It can only be hoped that moving forward, Super Hero films try to grow with the audience that is watching them. Otherwise I assure you, we'll end up with an Aquaman film, and that's when I'll hang up my hat.
** out of *****
*- Wikipedia Amanda Waller to see how important a character she actually is in the DC Universe, as well as her portrayal in other media.
Cinema is such an interesting field. As cinephiles it is very easy to get caught up with the changing of a guard, that we become complacent, spoiled if you will, with high quality fare. So it should come to no surprise, that while not a horrendous effort, the big screen debut of "The Green Lantern" is seen as nothing more mediocre, annoying at best.
The pieces all seem to be in place, engaging lead (Ryan Reynolds, slightly checking back into his "Van Wilder" days here), super-powers (a ring that makes hard-light constructs), epic mythology (OA is right there, several times), big special effects set pieces (true the effects are rather lackluster, but still). The culprit at hand here is two-fold sadly; it lacks a menacing antagonist, and has no true threat to our hero, let alone the universe. Essentially, DC decided to take 15 steps back (see: years) in it's superhero effort, and hope that it could ride the wave of everything surrounding it. If you missed the reference before, I was pointing out that most DC efforts not including a gravely voiced half detective/half ninja, named after a nocturnal animal, usually see a main threat as an almost crashing plane or helicopter. This is 2011, even an 11 month old child would expect better. Then again this is an origin story in it's truest fashion, one that still believes that cribbing from Campbell's monomyth is neither trite or overdone. Beyond even the quibbles with narrative, the film finds many instances to stop itself in it's tracks. Literally, there are at least 4 different scenes that follow action beats, which threaten to derail the entire film. Yes, the marketing analysts decided that Blake Lively needed more screen time (apparently to wear a dress and or push-up bra), but she essentially has no purpose to be wedged into the already stuffy proceedings. A lot of that blame can be placed on the 5 screenwriters & director Martin Campbell. Campbell, has a string of successes making mainstream films more entertaining than they should in GoldenEye, Casino Royale (2006), Mask of Zorro and recently Edge of Darkness under. The transition to comic book sci-fi could easily be a detractor, though most of that works despite itself. Truth be told, many of the films faults are the same ones shared by another superhero venture from the '11 summer slot, THOR. The difference between the films is that THOR coasts along with it's performances, as well as a pervading aura of "cool". When we are spending time on OA, meeting a few of the Lantern Corps best, and being handed a lot of mythology, the film feels like something special, and if they manage to make a sequel with a few tweaks behind the scenes, it could be worth your money. It's difficult to say that, because you shouldn't have to slog through a so-so film to get to a great one. Most of those films find themselves dead in the water, as the detractors come forward, picking apart all their grievances. Only in extreme cases, mostly those that involve large large profit margins, does a "next" film get picked up.
For a completely different argument, I humbly submit Green Lantern: First Flight (2009) as exhibit B-Q. Clocking in at a slim 77 minutes, the animated feature from DCAU (DC Animated Universe), comes an origin story of Hal Jordan, that is funnier, more action packed, with more heart, and a talented cast that rivals that of it's Big Screen brethren. Sure it feels crammed as well, but at 30 minutes less than the live-action venture, that's forgivable.
Green Lantern (2011) feels like it's trying to build a foundation for a bigger world without giving much reason to care. There are a few hints, and references to a possible DC Universe, but unlike the current MARVEL fiasco (seriously, enough with S.H.E.I.L.D.), it's a name dropped here,a background shot there, and a total waste of Angela Bassett*.
All these ideas again brings me back to the statement of being spoiled. Green Lantern is a perfectly solid film, if it were made between 1997 - 2001. Take out out a feel braking moments, and there is a film that the "Fantastic Four" audience would eat up. As film-goers we are getting to a point where we expect more from even the most basic of Superhero films. We want to quake in our boots at the galactic threat. We want to cheer as our hero lays the beat down on whomever gets in their way. We want to laugh as the side-kick hops in at the last minute, apologizing for their tardiness. More than anything, we want to be engaged by the events upon the screen. We want to feel a connection to the characters, because they are endearing, because they are assholes, but mostly because the people behind the picture took a few moments to establish characters over cliches. It can only be hoped that moving forward, Super Hero films try to grow with the audience that is watching them. Otherwise I assure you, we'll end up with an Aquaman film, and that's when I'll hang up my hat.
** out of *****
*- Wikipedia Amanda Waller to see how important a character she actually is in the DC Universe, as well as her portrayal in other media.
Wednesday, June 15, 2011
Action Monday: Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides (2011)
Title: Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides (2011)
How does one go about reviewing a film, whose sole purpose is to make money? That's the second thought I had after seeing the film in question. The first thought? What did I just see, and why did it happen?
There was a lot of speculation from everyone in the known world when Pirates 4 was announced. Most of it ranged from, "what is it about" to "do we need another one". Various stories leaked early, concerning the rights to various books being picked up, possible cameos and so forth. Things took a worse turn when it was publicly acknowledged that star Johnny Depp was rather uninterested in reprising his iconic role of Captain Jack Sparrow. Needless to say, all these issues are readily on display in the final product.
A movie of this magnitude, needs a few key factors in place to make it a success, or at least a decent diversion of time. Sadly it lacks in all departments, save for the fact that it eventually ends. The movie showcases 3 of it's most glaring flaws, all within the first 15 minutes. First of all, there is a very forced, and uninspired vibe to the proceedings. Instead of a natural flow, the scenes seem to exist, because the writers are convinced this is what people expect or want to see. While the audience should be an active participant in the films events, doesn't mean that it should be made directly for them. Everyone has differing tastes, and if you shoot for the middle, you can only ever just grasp mediocrity. Second, we get a line asking if Sparrow ever managed to find the Fountain of Youth (due to the fact that the map from Pirates 3 is stuffed in his shirt). His response is that he simply grew tired of it and gave up. Lastly, Sparrow is the main focus of the film. He is its central character, the hero, and not a role that he should have ever been relegated to. The reason that Captain Jack Sparrow became such an iconic character, was because he worked all the angles, was crazy, has insane luck, all the while being a lovable scamp. He is the true example of "there is such thing as too much of a good thing". The original Pirates Trilogy (yes, we are at a point of referring to it thusly), had the over arching love story of Will Turner and Elizabeth Swan. Sparrow's role and story was integral, but it wasn't at the forefront. This confusing may be derived from the fact that, Depp, as big a star as he is, has his name first on the credits. Which also leads me to say, a phrase I never thought I would. The love story absence from the fourth film is a big issue. In its place there are 2 minor flirts that are never fully developed. The much publicized teaming of Penelope Cruz and Johnny Depp, and that of a Missionary and a Mermaid. The latter's story has the beginnings of something interesting, though it never develops and leads to one of the most awkward blurt outs ever. (For the life of me I can't even remember if the Missionary's name had been uttered before the scene, let alone the mermaids). This is of no consequence, as the Missionary will disappear moments later, with none of the cast being surprised or curious of his whereabouts.
On Stranger Tides is a cash-grab pure and simple. Sure that can easily be said about most of the films that are released in the summer, but most of those are at least 3 times as fun, as what's on display here.
* out of *****
How does one go about reviewing a film, whose sole purpose is to make money? That's the second thought I had after seeing the film in question. The first thought? What did I just see, and why did it happen?
There was a lot of speculation from everyone in the known world when Pirates 4 was announced. Most of it ranged from, "what is it about" to "do we need another one". Various stories leaked early, concerning the rights to various books being picked up, possible cameos and so forth. Things took a worse turn when it was publicly acknowledged that star Johnny Depp was rather uninterested in reprising his iconic role of Captain Jack Sparrow. Needless to say, all these issues are readily on display in the final product.
A movie of this magnitude, needs a few key factors in place to make it a success, or at least a decent diversion of time. Sadly it lacks in all departments, save for the fact that it eventually ends. The movie showcases 3 of it's most glaring flaws, all within the first 15 minutes. First of all, there is a very forced, and uninspired vibe to the proceedings. Instead of a natural flow, the scenes seem to exist, because the writers are convinced this is what people expect or want to see. While the audience should be an active participant in the films events, doesn't mean that it should be made directly for them. Everyone has differing tastes, and if you shoot for the middle, you can only ever just grasp mediocrity. Second, we get a line asking if Sparrow ever managed to find the Fountain of Youth (due to the fact that the map from Pirates 3 is stuffed in his shirt). His response is that he simply grew tired of it and gave up. Lastly, Sparrow is the main focus of the film. He is its central character, the hero, and not a role that he should have ever been relegated to. The reason that Captain Jack Sparrow became such an iconic character, was because he worked all the angles, was crazy, has insane luck, all the while being a lovable scamp. He is the true example of "there is such thing as too much of a good thing". The original Pirates Trilogy (yes, we are at a point of referring to it thusly), had the over arching love story of Will Turner and Elizabeth Swan. Sparrow's role and story was integral, but it wasn't at the forefront. This confusing may be derived from the fact that, Depp, as big a star as he is, has his name first on the credits. Which also leads me to say, a phrase I never thought I would. The love story absence from the fourth film is a big issue. In its place there are 2 minor flirts that are never fully developed. The much publicized teaming of Penelope Cruz and Johnny Depp, and that of a Missionary and a Mermaid. The latter's story has the beginnings of something interesting, though it never develops and leads to one of the most awkward blurt outs ever. (For the life of me I can't even remember if the Missionary's name had been uttered before the scene, let alone the mermaids). This is of no consequence, as the Missionary will disappear moments later, with none of the cast being surprised or curious of his whereabouts.
On Stranger Tides is a cash-grab pure and simple. Sure that can easily be said about most of the films that are released in the summer, but most of those are at least 3 times as fun, as what's on display here.
* out of *****
Tuesday, June 14, 2011
New Release Sunday: SUPER 8 (2011)
Title: SUPER 8 (2011)
Nostalgia can be a powerful thing, for both good and bad reasons. Super 8 exemplifies both ends of the spectrum. On one hand, it harkens back to an era rich with the early works of Steven Spielberg, when ever the most jaded cinema-goer was swept up with elation, whimsy and wonder. The other hand though, begs to differ, how much joy is actually being derived from "Super 8", strictly from nostalgia alone. Don't misunderstand me, Super 8 is often a vastly entertaining film, but at the same time it is a film that wants to wallow in the glow of the past, without understanding how to make it's narrative stick.
Even if J.J. Abram's 3rd directorial effort is the greatest aping of an "Amblin" product ever, it's a testament to Abram's skill set. Looking back on such a short filmography, Abram's is a relatively easy director to pick apart. He's been lucky enough to start out on the top floor (Mission: Impossible III), move higher (Star Trek [2009]) before being allowed to write/direct his first original feature, and have it end up as a tent-pole summer event. Truth be told, each of the films, to a varying degree, endear themselves to the audience simply due to J.J. Abram's will, and the likability of said cast. The writing is never in question, thankfully, mostly because that is the glaring Achilles's Heel. Super 8 almost loses itself under the weight, though it only starts careening off a steep cliff within it's climax. If the point of the movie itself, is to recapture the woe-begone beginning days of Steven Spielberg, it's of note that the movie takes a page out of the Spielberg post 98: the inability to condense a film.
After all the harping is said and done, Super 8 is still a fantastically made film, one whose images are likely to linger with many a film-goer. The plot is rich with attention to detail, none more-so than when it tries as much as possible to entrench itself in 1979. Hair is still slightly feathered. Disco is starting to be looked down upon. People are baffled by the though of a personal cassette player, and no one, NO ONE......texts. Here kids have hobbies, and none more so than Joe, Charles, Cary, Martin and Preston. They all work tirelessly to make a horror film, under Charles watchful eye. Some of the best scenes of the film actually focus solely on the interaction between the friends, which seem as rich and true as anything in years. They enlist the help of rebellious Alice (Elle Fanning, proving that she got both the looks & talent from that family) to play a pivotal part in their little film, much to the enjoyment of our lead, Joe, who shares more of a past with Alice than he may know. One evening, the intrepid band are shooting at the local railway station, for what Charles deems "production value", and witness a horrendous train crash, one that only exists in the worst of nightmares. Little do the pint-sized guerrilla filmmakers know what lurks inside said train.
It's here that things start to split in "Super 8". One thread is creature feature, the other is a coming of age story. Each have their own share of moments, but there is a feeling that a separate film on each subject would have served the material better. A strange benefit of sorts, is that most of the time, whilst watching the actual feature, the situation is reversed. Only after removing oneself from the viewing experience do the cracks start to show. The wave of nostalgia is so strong it permeates everywhere, non-action oriented at least. J.J. Abram's hindrance is the creature feature aspect of the film. Seemingly dragged out of nowhere, the monster alien that Abram's unleashes seems a bit much. The monster eats/demolishes all that gets in his way, but the picture later asks for understanding and forgiveness. If the creature were merely a standard alien causing a ruckus, and not a large hulking mass, it wouldn't feel as diametrically opposed to the rest of the film.
Super 8 is an interesting beast. It's a summer film, but packed to the gills with lightly intriguing ideas and characters who seem real. It's a family film, a true matinee experience, but has enough blood and swearing to keep most children at bay. It's an amalgamation of "The Goonies", "Stand by Me", "Close Encounters of the Third Kind", "E.T.", and for the too too well versed "The Explorers". It's bustling with impeccable cinematography, winning performances, dread, suspense. It's a reminder of when films captured us......we can only hope that in the long run JJ Abrams is able to expand upon this ability and we can remember his film, rather than just those that came before.
**1/2 out of *****
Nostalgia can be a powerful thing, for both good and bad reasons. Super 8 exemplifies both ends of the spectrum. On one hand, it harkens back to an era rich with the early works of Steven Spielberg, when ever the most jaded cinema-goer was swept up with elation, whimsy and wonder. The other hand though, begs to differ, how much joy is actually being derived from "Super 8", strictly from nostalgia alone. Don't misunderstand me, Super 8 is often a vastly entertaining film, but at the same time it is a film that wants to wallow in the glow of the past, without understanding how to make it's narrative stick.
Even if J.J. Abram's 3rd directorial effort is the greatest aping of an "Amblin" product ever, it's a testament to Abram's skill set. Looking back on such a short filmography, Abram's is a relatively easy director to pick apart. He's been lucky enough to start out on the top floor (Mission: Impossible III), move higher (Star Trek [2009]) before being allowed to write/direct his first original feature, and have it end up as a tent-pole summer event. Truth be told, each of the films, to a varying degree, endear themselves to the audience simply due to J.J. Abram's will, and the likability of said cast. The writing is never in question, thankfully, mostly because that is the glaring Achilles's Heel. Super 8 almost loses itself under the weight, though it only starts careening off a steep cliff within it's climax. If the point of the movie itself, is to recapture the woe-begone beginning days of Steven Spielberg, it's of note that the movie takes a page out of the Spielberg post 98: the inability to condense a film.
After all the harping is said and done, Super 8 is still a fantastically made film, one whose images are likely to linger with many a film-goer. The plot is rich with attention to detail, none more-so than when it tries as much as possible to entrench itself in 1979. Hair is still slightly feathered. Disco is starting to be looked down upon. People are baffled by the though of a personal cassette player, and no one, NO ONE......texts. Here kids have hobbies, and none more so than Joe, Charles, Cary, Martin and Preston. They all work tirelessly to make a horror film, under Charles watchful eye. Some of the best scenes of the film actually focus solely on the interaction between the friends, which seem as rich and true as anything in years. They enlist the help of rebellious Alice (Elle Fanning, proving that she got both the looks & talent from that family) to play a pivotal part in their little film, much to the enjoyment of our lead, Joe, who shares more of a past with Alice than he may know. One evening, the intrepid band are shooting at the local railway station, for what Charles deems "production value", and witness a horrendous train crash, one that only exists in the worst of nightmares. Little do the pint-sized guerrilla filmmakers know what lurks inside said train.
It's here that things start to split in "Super 8". One thread is creature feature, the other is a coming of age story. Each have their own share of moments, but there is a feeling that a separate film on each subject would have served the material better. A strange benefit of sorts, is that most of the time, whilst watching the actual feature, the situation is reversed. Only after removing oneself from the viewing experience do the cracks start to show. The wave of nostalgia is so strong it permeates everywhere, non-action oriented at least. J.J. Abram's hindrance is the creature feature aspect of the film. Seemingly dragged out of nowhere, the monster alien that Abram's unleashes seems a bit much. The monster eats/demolishes all that gets in his way, but the picture later asks for understanding and forgiveness. If the creature were merely a standard alien causing a ruckus, and not a large hulking mass, it wouldn't feel as diametrically opposed to the rest of the film.
Super 8 is an interesting beast. It's a summer film, but packed to the gills with lightly intriguing ideas and characters who seem real. It's a family film, a true matinee experience, but has enough blood and swearing to keep most children at bay. It's an amalgamation of "The Goonies", "Stand by Me", "Close Encounters of the Third Kind", "E.T.", and for the too too well versed "The Explorers". It's bustling with impeccable cinematography, winning performances, dread, suspense. It's a reminder of when films captured us......we can only hope that in the long run JJ Abrams is able to expand upon this ability and we can remember his film, rather than just those that came before.
**1/2 out of *****
Sunday, June 5, 2011
New Release Sunday: KUNG FU PANDA 2 (2011)
Title: KUNG FU PANDA 2 (2011)
There is no real reason for Kung Fu Panda 2 to be any good, and by some stretch of the imagination, it isn't really all that great of a film. When it comes to the story, this panda is about as old as an original Volkswagen Beetle. You can see it's charm, but it's overpowered by how worn and grimy it look. Thankfully a ratty, and thin script can be brushed aside when a film looks, sounds and is fused with as much enthusiasm as this film is.
The film opens a few years after the end of the first entry, and we find the Dragon Warrior & Co. have been rather busy building up their name and reputation. Quickly we are treated to updates on Po's father's Noodle Shop, the peaceful status of Master Shifu (Dustin HoffmanO, and more importantly, we get to see the Furious 5 & the Dragon Warrior in battle. It's here, in the first of many action sequences, that PANDA earns it's keep. Beautifully choreographed martial arts, snippets of humor are all blended in with each of the 6 characters signature traits. Beyond this though, making it all brilliant, and almost worldly, is this: Po is still a bumbling fool. The key to however many Kung Fu Panda films we get (and there will assuredly be more, based on the ending set-up), is squared solely on Po (Jack Black) never losing track of who he is. Sure he is the Dragon Warrior, capable of kicking all kids of ass (and he does, on numerous occasions), but he is also a klutz, highly excitable, and a fanboy. These are all things that allow the audience to engage with Po in an easier manner. He is the kid inside all of us, who finally gets to live his dream, without losing sight of what is important. It goes without saying, one of the best running gags in the film is Po's insistence to calling out all of his and the team's "special moves" as they occur in battle.
The story moves quickly from set-up to set-up, with plenty of pizazz to cover up it's thin-ness and plot holes. Mostly of this sadly is thrown at the feet of Gary Oldman's Lord Shen, a white peacock with serious unresolved parental issues. Shen is glorious to look at, his design is brilliant and cut so fine, the colors a stark contrast in such a colorful film. It's even more intriguing to notice the fine delineation as to where blade are concealed amongst his feathers. There isn't much more to Shen than that though, the exile son of a rich dynasty, the majority of Shen's story is one that has been been done in a myriad of other Period Martial Arts films: the end of kung fu, by guns.
Truth be told, the other narrative thread is equally weak, that of Po wanting to learn more about what happened to his family before he came to the noodle shop, as well as his battle with "inner peace". Thankfully the film glosses over most events by keeping things moving briskly, often engaging in a series of bombastic action pieces. Panda 2 has more fights, certainly more harrowing and impressive than the original, with ounces of extra flair to boot. The joy, as previously stated, is the fact that while Po is very very adapt to beating up everyone in close proximity, his inner-fanboy causes him to misstep often, getting too caught up in the moment. Fists, feet, fur and feathers fly in all directions, and it's hard for any member of the audience, regardless of age to not get caught up in the moment. Action though, can only get you so far, and seeing as how this is a family animated feature, one has to bring up the humor. The team behind the feature have an interesting ear, and a knack for making a toilet humor joke one moment, and a more absurd low brow joke a second later. Of particular note is Mantis's running gag concerning the mating ritual of what else, a praying mantis.
Sadly, besides all the action, colorful animation, and variety of humor, there is a lack of depth in one of the most important departments of an animated feature; voice acting. With the exception of Jack Black and Seth Rogen, everyone else seems involved either due to contractual agreements, or need of a check (I'm looking at you Jean Claude Van Damme). Lines don't necessarily fall flat, as much as they merely are, and being keenly aware of how many voice actors exist out there, the question is, why pay top dollar for more than 2-3 big names. Jack Black as Po is clearly as good the second time around. It lends body and soul to an already lovable goof of a panda, and it's hard to imagine anyone besides Black having the tenacity needed to pull off such a character. Seth Rogen, on the other hand is an interesting exception. It's a little beguiling to wonder if Mantis's part was enlarged in this film due to Rogen's popularity, Matis's popularity, or if the writer's were in love with the character that much. The remainder of the Furious 5 are kind of a wash, Angelina Jolie's Tigress is given the most to work with out of them, and it falls horribly flat.
Animation is an interesting and fickle genre. Often relagated to children's features without much merit, the last 2 decades have seen a changing of the time. As readily as CGI animated features came to the forefront, there was the subtle decision to let adults enjoy these films along side there kids. From this new direction, Disney decided to crown a prince, whose voice and leadership would direct all to a bright future. In the following years the price took his rightful place on the throne, and thus far, his reign has been more then well received, barely tarnished at all. Yet, within the last few years, the black sheep of the CG Animated world has found it's rightful place as a Duke. One who is garnishing much attention rather quickly, waiting for the moment when the king becomes complacent, and the crown be removed........
**** out of *****
What does this have to do with Kung Fu Panda 2? At the end of the summer, take a look at the money vs critical acclaim when it comes to this movie and Pixar's Cars 2. A change may be coming again.
There is no real reason for Kung Fu Panda 2 to be any good, and by some stretch of the imagination, it isn't really all that great of a film. When it comes to the story, this panda is about as old as an original Volkswagen Beetle. You can see it's charm, but it's overpowered by how worn and grimy it look. Thankfully a ratty, and thin script can be brushed aside when a film looks, sounds and is fused with as much enthusiasm as this film is.
The film opens a few years after the end of the first entry, and we find the Dragon Warrior & Co. have been rather busy building up their name and reputation. Quickly we are treated to updates on Po's father's Noodle Shop, the peaceful status of Master Shifu (Dustin HoffmanO, and more importantly, we get to see the Furious 5 & the Dragon Warrior in battle. It's here, in the first of many action sequences, that PANDA earns it's keep. Beautifully choreographed martial arts, snippets of humor are all blended in with each of the 6 characters signature traits. Beyond this though, making it all brilliant, and almost worldly, is this: Po is still a bumbling fool. The key to however many Kung Fu Panda films we get (and there will assuredly be more, based on the ending set-up), is squared solely on Po (Jack Black) never losing track of who he is. Sure he is the Dragon Warrior, capable of kicking all kids of ass (and he does, on numerous occasions), but he is also a klutz, highly excitable, and a fanboy. These are all things that allow the audience to engage with Po in an easier manner. He is the kid inside all of us, who finally gets to live his dream, without losing sight of what is important. It goes without saying, one of the best running gags in the film is Po's insistence to calling out all of his and the team's "special moves" as they occur in battle.
The story moves quickly from set-up to set-up, with plenty of pizazz to cover up it's thin-ness and plot holes. Mostly of this sadly is thrown at the feet of Gary Oldman's Lord Shen, a white peacock with serious unresolved parental issues. Shen is glorious to look at, his design is brilliant and cut so fine, the colors a stark contrast in such a colorful film. It's even more intriguing to notice the fine delineation as to where blade are concealed amongst his feathers. There isn't much more to Shen than that though, the exile son of a rich dynasty, the majority of Shen's story is one that has been been done in a myriad of other Period Martial Arts films: the end of kung fu, by guns.
Truth be told, the other narrative thread is equally weak, that of Po wanting to learn more about what happened to his family before he came to the noodle shop, as well as his battle with "inner peace". Thankfully the film glosses over most events by keeping things moving briskly, often engaging in a series of bombastic action pieces. Panda 2 has more fights, certainly more harrowing and impressive than the original, with ounces of extra flair to boot. The joy, as previously stated, is the fact that while Po is very very adapt to beating up everyone in close proximity, his inner-fanboy causes him to misstep often, getting too caught up in the moment. Fists, feet, fur and feathers fly in all directions, and it's hard for any member of the audience, regardless of age to not get caught up in the moment. Action though, can only get you so far, and seeing as how this is a family animated feature, one has to bring up the humor. The team behind the feature have an interesting ear, and a knack for making a toilet humor joke one moment, and a more absurd low brow joke a second later. Of particular note is Mantis's running gag concerning the mating ritual of what else, a praying mantis.
Sadly, besides all the action, colorful animation, and variety of humor, there is a lack of depth in one of the most important departments of an animated feature; voice acting. With the exception of Jack Black and Seth Rogen, everyone else seems involved either due to contractual agreements, or need of a check (I'm looking at you Jean Claude Van Damme). Lines don't necessarily fall flat, as much as they merely are, and being keenly aware of how many voice actors exist out there, the question is, why pay top dollar for more than 2-3 big names. Jack Black as Po is clearly as good the second time around. It lends body and soul to an already lovable goof of a panda, and it's hard to imagine anyone besides Black having the tenacity needed to pull off such a character. Seth Rogen, on the other hand is an interesting exception. It's a little beguiling to wonder if Mantis's part was enlarged in this film due to Rogen's popularity, Matis's popularity, or if the writer's were in love with the character that much. The remainder of the Furious 5 are kind of a wash, Angelina Jolie's Tigress is given the most to work with out of them, and it falls horribly flat.
Animation is an interesting and fickle genre. Often relagated to children's features without much merit, the last 2 decades have seen a changing of the time. As readily as CGI animated features came to the forefront, there was the subtle decision to let adults enjoy these films along side there kids. From this new direction, Disney decided to crown a prince, whose voice and leadership would direct all to a bright future. In the following years the price took his rightful place on the throne, and thus far, his reign has been more then well received, barely tarnished at all. Yet, within the last few years, the black sheep of the CG Animated world has found it's rightful place as a Duke. One who is garnishing much attention rather quickly, waiting for the moment when the king becomes complacent, and the crown be removed........
**** out of *****
What does this have to do with Kung Fu Panda 2? At the end of the summer, take a look at the money vs critical acclaim when it comes to this movie and Pixar's Cars 2. A change may be coming again.
Tuesday, March 22, 2011
Action Monday: THE WARRIOR'S WAY (2010)
Title: THE WARRIOR'S WAY (2010)
One should be wary of the film there are about to see, if it should be learned that it has sat on the shelf for 2 years. Hopes may dip further, if it is revealed that it has sat on the shelf for 2 years and still needs post-production work done. What may finally send the viewer over the edge, is if you cannot tell if said film is a joke, wavering back and forth during the runtime deciding; "if this is a joke, then who all is in on it?" Welcome, to "The Warrior's Way". I would like to think that the film has it's tongue planted as firmly in cheek as possible, without penetrating through to the other side. Getting yourself to this head-space mildly works, because it's the only logical way the inclusion of Geoffrey Rush, Danny Huston and Kate Bosworth makes any sense. Bosworth may be the most in need of the money, still attempting to regain her footing from "Superman Returns", only to see that Rachel McAdams is taking the majority of her roles.
A shaggy-dog affair, if I've ever seen one, The Warrior's Way, is a pot-smoker's backyard brainstorming session with a mid-sized budget. Long long ago, there were 2 clans of Ninjas who were locked in eternal battle. One of the ninjas rose through the ranks within his clan, with the desire to become the greatest swordsman in the world, ever. After dispensing 10 men in the opening scene, and killing the man whose title he covets, Yang (our hero, who is called by name very few times, and is about all he can utter in English), find himself alone with the only surviving member of his sworn enemy.......a baby. As often happens in these cases, the ninja decides he can't kill the child. It is uncertain if this is due to a code (which would be in keeping with many samurai, or assassin tales), but there is nothing to say what exactly causes the decision. Maybe his service term amongst the clan was almost done, and he decided that running off to America, raising his enemy's last surviving member, was suitable for early retirement. Sadly his commander gets wind to this, and sends a few assassins to take care of Yang, though over an hour takes place for him to dispatch his troops to America. Why, you ask? Well otherwise there would be no film. Another reason? There wouldn't be the wonderful inclusion of the failed circus town Yang travels to, in search of an old friend. Nor would there be the time spent with the mercenary, renegade whatever, "rogue" lead by Danny Huston's appropriately named "Colonel". Honestly, writing all this out confuses me, because, in between the events the film is convinced is a cohesive narrative.....things just happen. I can't discern exactly if this is the way the film is meant to be, if it was butchered in editing, or my brain was simply convinced it was on drugs. This is a film that has the run time of about 98 minutes. Eight of those minutes are the credits. Apparently footage is lost, or they had lots of people double, or tripled up for various positions.
There is more than enough weirdness to this story, though, that recommendation still has to be made, however ill advised it may be. It's the sort of film that has to be seen, just once. A weird sort of charm carries throughout the proceedings. The events don't have to be understood exactly, but merely marveled at. A fine line exists between a failed experiment and trash. In the experiment, there is a time, or period, in which those involved are sure they are doing something brilliant. In trash, everyone knows what the end result will be varying shades of bad, but they are going to get paid, regardless. The Warrior's Way, could easily start a new form of mystery film, one where at the end everyone gets together to decide what the hell they just watched.
** out of *****
One should be wary of the film there are about to see, if it should be learned that it has sat on the shelf for 2 years. Hopes may dip further, if it is revealed that it has sat on the shelf for 2 years and still needs post-production work done. What may finally send the viewer over the edge, is if you cannot tell if said film is a joke, wavering back and forth during the runtime deciding; "if this is a joke, then who all is in on it?" Welcome, to "The Warrior's Way". I would like to think that the film has it's tongue planted as firmly in cheek as possible, without penetrating through to the other side. Getting yourself to this head-space mildly works, because it's the only logical way the inclusion of Geoffrey Rush, Danny Huston and Kate Bosworth makes any sense. Bosworth may be the most in need of the money, still attempting to regain her footing from "Superman Returns", only to see that Rachel McAdams is taking the majority of her roles.
A shaggy-dog affair, if I've ever seen one, The Warrior's Way, is a pot-smoker's backyard brainstorming session with a mid-sized budget. Long long ago, there were 2 clans of Ninjas who were locked in eternal battle. One of the ninjas rose through the ranks within his clan, with the desire to become the greatest swordsman in the world, ever. After dispensing 10 men in the opening scene, and killing the man whose title he covets, Yang (our hero, who is called by name very few times, and is about all he can utter in English), find himself alone with the only surviving member of his sworn enemy.......a baby. As often happens in these cases, the ninja decides he can't kill the child. It is uncertain if this is due to a code (which would be in keeping with many samurai, or assassin tales), but there is nothing to say what exactly causes the decision. Maybe his service term amongst the clan was almost done, and he decided that running off to America, raising his enemy's last surviving member, was suitable for early retirement. Sadly his commander gets wind to this, and sends a few assassins to take care of Yang, though over an hour takes place for him to dispatch his troops to America. Why, you ask? Well otherwise there would be no film. Another reason? There wouldn't be the wonderful inclusion of the failed circus town Yang travels to, in search of an old friend. Nor would there be the time spent with the mercenary, renegade whatever, "rogue" lead by Danny Huston's appropriately named "Colonel". Honestly, writing all this out confuses me, because, in between the events the film is convinced is a cohesive narrative.....things just happen. I can't discern exactly if this is the way the film is meant to be, if it was butchered in editing, or my brain was simply convinced it was on drugs. This is a film that has the run time of about 98 minutes. Eight of those minutes are the credits. Apparently footage is lost, or they had lots of people double, or tripled up for various positions.
There is more than enough weirdness to this story, though, that recommendation still has to be made, however ill advised it may be. It's the sort of film that has to be seen, just once. A weird sort of charm carries throughout the proceedings. The events don't have to be understood exactly, but merely marveled at. A fine line exists between a failed experiment and trash. In the experiment, there is a time, or period, in which those involved are sure they are doing something brilliant. In trash, everyone knows what the end result will be varying shades of bad, but they are going to get paid, regardless. The Warrior's Way, could easily start a new form of mystery film, one where at the end everyone gets together to decide what the hell they just watched.
** out of *****
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)