Another review borrowed from jmaddy.com. I think this is a most interesting review in the sense that the response to Tom Cruise has grown worse and worse since the film came off. I even praised Tom Cruise's ability
My main concern going into this film was that I've seen it before and I'm not talking about the 1950s movie or the famous 1930s radio broadcast. I was thinking more in this case of the 1997 summer blockbuster hit Independence Day, and while a film being a remake doesn't automatically drive me away, I really couldn't see where this movie could go that its predecessors hadn't already explored.
Independence Day, after all, was a scientifically updated version with state-of-the-art special effects, and it's not like science has gotten THAT much more modern in the last 8 years...I was proved wrong. With Independence Day, director Roland Emmerich managed to recreate H.G. Wells' original "World" vision into a modern epic by showing us things on a truly global scale (he also showed his talent for globally scaled drama in 2004's Day After Tomorrow). War of the Worlds, on the other hand, tells the same story from the point-of-view of a single family's journey through the crisis.
The film's genius lies in how little he wavers from that vision. It's uncompromising in leaving the questions unanswered that this plot naturally lends itself to being asked (such as "what are these aliens doing here?", "where did they come from?", etc.). As a result, we went through the movie experiencing and learning about the danger at the same time the characters were. The effect was so pervasive it feels more than anything else like a 2-hour roller coaster ride, no doubt enhanced by Spielberg's deft camera- work, which for the first time since Jaws reminding us of his unrivaled brand of terror with which he revolutionized blockbusters 30 years ago in Jaws.
As with other films of his, Spielberg adds an estranged- father-and-son plot on top of the main story, with Tom Cruise as custody-sharing blue collar dad Ray Ferrier and Justin Chatwik as the rebellious son, with Dakota Fanning added as a loving young daughter for contrast. The relationships between Cruise and his two kids, both of whom carry significant loads of the script with precision, adds a whole new depth to the action scenes. As for Cruise, for all his crazy antics that have been filling the newspapers lately, he shows definite growth in this role and doesn't just carry this film with a mistimed sparkling grin, but with a convincing-yet-firm performance as a father.
Wednesday, May 09, 2007
Wedding Crashers (2005) review
This is another review that I'm proceeding to move from another site. I actually gave Wedding Crashers only a so-so review, despite the fact that most people loved it:
From the same comedic team (more or less) that brought you Zoolander, Dodgeball, and Old School, the latest annual installment of a comedy has arrived about people who don’t actually exist (frat boys who technically aren’t college students, professional dodgeball players, etc), but could very easily exist when you think about it.
The comedic team that I’m talking about is combination of at least one guy with the last name Wilson, Ben Stiller, Vince Vaughn and Will Ferrell who rotate playing the lead, playing the sidekick/rival, not being in the movie at all, and providing a much loved 2-minute cameo. Owen Wilson and Vaughn take the leads as two more characters that guys could easily enjoy vicariously living through for a couple hours: John Beckwith and Jeremy Klein (Wilson) are two divorce lawyers who spend their spare time crashing weddings solely to meet girls.
After years of practice they’ve refined it down to an art. One of the best running comic gags, in fact, is that they have a lengthy rule book that they memorize and regularly cite from in various situations.
The story begins when after a very successful wedding season, shown through a well-made opening montage; the two buddies decide to end off the season with a bang by crashing what will be their most high stakes wedding to date. Why this wedding is a bigger deal to them than any other wedding is beyond me, but nevertheless, the two go to the wedding and both find themselves with bigger messes than they can clean up by wedding’s end. Jeremy falls for one of the bride’s sisters, Claire, and all is going well until he meets her boyfriend. Rachel McAdams (The Notebook) plays Claire a little too lackadaisically charming to come off as anything but clichéd.
John, meanwhile, has such good luck with the bride’s other sister that he manages to have sex with her before the wedding is even over. Unfortunately, she mistakes his love of the chase for true love and his efforts to flee the scene get foiled by his love-struck partner in crime who insists they stick around. This is the point in the movie when, like John, it would be best to flee the scene ourselves.
While the film is lined with sharp and hilarious snippets of dialogue throughout, the story is unevenly paced and it never really gets back to that screwball comedy feel it attains in the film’s first half hour.
If not for the fact that these guys will probably be appearing in movie theaters again in some cameo or comedy vehicle before I even finish mourning their failure, I’d have been disappointed because with a few minor tweaks, I could have seen this movie working. For example, one of the downturns that are used in these types of romantic comedies to prevent the guy and girl from getting together before working things out takes up almost a year of the story and one of the characters gets depressed to the point of feeling suicidal. In this scene and in general, the movie too often drifts a little too far away from lighthearted-comedy mode. Considering how with characters that revel in the joy of taking advantage of girls at weddings, the movie’s tone is quite cynical when you think about it, it wouldn’t be a good idea to get the audience taking the film too seriously at all.
From the same comedic team (more or less) that brought you Zoolander, Dodgeball, and Old School, the latest annual installment of a comedy has arrived about people who don’t actually exist (frat boys who technically aren’t college students, professional dodgeball players, etc), but could very easily exist when you think about it.
The comedic team that I’m talking about is combination of at least one guy with the last name Wilson, Ben Stiller, Vince Vaughn and Will Ferrell who rotate playing the lead, playing the sidekick/rival, not being in the movie at all, and providing a much loved 2-minute cameo. Owen Wilson and Vaughn take the leads as two more characters that guys could easily enjoy vicariously living through for a couple hours: John Beckwith and Jeremy Klein (Wilson) are two divorce lawyers who spend their spare time crashing weddings solely to meet girls.
After years of practice they’ve refined it down to an art. One of the best running comic gags, in fact, is that they have a lengthy rule book that they memorize and regularly cite from in various situations.
The story begins when after a very successful wedding season, shown through a well-made opening montage; the two buddies decide to end off the season with a bang by crashing what will be their most high stakes wedding to date. Why this wedding is a bigger deal to them than any other wedding is beyond me, but nevertheless, the two go to the wedding and both find themselves with bigger messes than they can clean up by wedding’s end. Jeremy falls for one of the bride’s sisters, Claire, and all is going well until he meets her boyfriend. Rachel McAdams (The Notebook) plays Claire a little too lackadaisically charming to come off as anything but clichéd.
John, meanwhile, has such good luck with the bride’s other sister that he manages to have sex with her before the wedding is even over. Unfortunately, she mistakes his love of the chase for true love and his efforts to flee the scene get foiled by his love-struck partner in crime who insists they stick around. This is the point in the movie when, like John, it would be best to flee the scene ourselves.
While the film is lined with sharp and hilarious snippets of dialogue throughout, the story is unevenly paced and it never really gets back to that screwball comedy feel it attains in the film’s first half hour.
If not for the fact that these guys will probably be appearing in movie theaters again in some cameo or comedy vehicle before I even finish mourning their failure, I’d have been disappointed because with a few minor tweaks, I could have seen this movie working. For example, one of the downturns that are used in these types of romantic comedies to prevent the guy and girl from getting together before working things out takes up almost a year of the story and one of the characters gets depressed to the point of feeling suicidal. In this scene and in general, the movie too often drifts a little too far away from lighthearted-comedy mode. Considering how with characters that revel in the joy of taking advantage of girls at weddings, the movie’s tone is quite cynical when you think about it, it wouldn’t be a good idea to get the audience taking the film too seriously at all.
Tuesday, May 08, 2007
Why must professional athletes be such bad sports?
I saw Tracy McGrady lose the series to Utah the other night and I felt he was a better sport than most but he was awfully down on himself. I think that many professional sports teams have such unrealistic expectations of themselves and the culture that's created by it sets a bad example.
I'm sure that many people admire the attitude of pretty much every NBA player I've seen interviewed who will say that all the individual accolades don't compare to a championship ring. They say they're career is measured by championships won and that sounds like the most politically correct thing to say in the world, and you can't really knock them for saying that, but let's be honest.....I'm sure many people would rather have Kevin Garnett, Reggie Miller, John Stockton, or Karl Malone's career (although those people made the finals) than Beno Udrih, Tyronne Lue or Mark Madsen. So a championship isn't all that matters.
What's more, you can't judge an individual athletes' merits on a championship because as much as we might like to romanticize the notion of the player carrying his team to a championship, it doesn't really exist. There have been pretty much no championships that have been won by a single star. A championship is won by putting the right pieces together. Jordan had Pippen, Duncan has had Robinson, Ginobli and Parker at various points, and people are neglecting the fact that with the additions of Larry Hughes and Donyell Marshall, Cleveland has one of the deepest benches in the league with Marshall, Snow, Damon Jones, Daniel Gibson and Anderson Varejo. If we'd like to knock ourselves back into reality and away from the romantic notions of the sport, Tim Duncan, Dirk Nowitzki, Kevin Garnett, Ben Wallace, Yao Ming, Tracy McGrady, Jason Kidd and Jermaine O'Neal are merely seperated as players by having front offices who were able to give them the right support at the right time and not by whether they've won a championship or led their team to the finals.
I understand the importance of a positive attitude and the need to shoot for the stars but you've got 30 teams and I don't like this attitude of 29 teams being losers. That's the professional athlete way of thinking, which in a way I can't complain about in the sense that at least they care about the game. If one charge about NBA players is that they're apathetic and only compare about the money so they can afford expensive jewelery and clubbing, than it's better that they're fixated on winning to the point where the press conferences show them getting depressed and feeling like failures if they don't.
In basketball, teams don't always win but you can appreciate what you've done right. Houston for instance, has made the playoffs for 3 of the last 4 years: that's something. They took it to 7 games, that's something else. That's better than sitting at home watching the play-offs. There was no sense in that locker room after the game or by the sports media of "well, the outcome was decided over a series of 7 games and it really could have gone either way." I used to be a cross-country and track runner for my high school team, and that's what a friend of mine once said to comfort me after he beat me in one race by a small margin and it gave me a great sense of perspective. I think the lesson Houston should have taken from their loss, was take it a sign that the team's doing well and move on and I think that's really the best lesson you can preach as a role model. Instead, the Houston organization fires the coach and will probably trade half the team away.
I have a belief and it's one that I'm often surprised isn't so universal as ethical values go. This belief is that I don't think people should be fired without due cause and I even feel this way about NBA Basketball Coaches even if they get paid millions of dollars. Even if Jeff Van Gundy was rehired by the Magic and he enjoys it there, I don't believe everything's ok. He should have had the chance to leave on his own terms.
Also, why did the Pacers just fire Rick Carlisle? The Pacers had an off-year: big deal. The Suns had an off-year in 2004 after making the playoffs in 2003. The year after that they won the West and made the conference finals with returning players as three of the four big pieces (I'm referring to Johnson, Marion, Stoudamire).
Why do GMs respond so melodramatically to one off-year and fire coaches who have proven to do more good than bad* to the team Aside from building up the Detroit team that won a championship, Carlisle led the Pacers to the playoffs in two of three seasons, and the 2004-2005 season and its first round upset in the playoffs was especially hard to pull off considering the infamous Ron Artest-Ben Wallace brawl in Auburn Hills. It's rediculous to think it was even Rick Carlisle's fault they didn't make the playoffs. I don't have exact numbers on me but it has been fairly apparent that when a team makes a big roster adjustment, it will usually take a significant amount of time for chemistry to be developed.
I think that when managers fire managers for what appears to be no legitimate reason, this sends an incredibly bad message to kids and all other athletes: "Either win, win, win or you're not good enough for the team." Trigger happy GMs and the mindset that victories are meaningless unless you win the big prize in the end is contributing to a culture of winning and losing that's becoming increasingly out of hand.
*i.e. Byron Scott in N.J. mid-season after leading his team to the finals twice, George Karl in Milwaulkee for one bad season, Paul Silas in Cleveland for one 12-game losing stretch with Cleveland, Flip Saunders
I'm sure that many people admire the attitude of pretty much every NBA player I've seen interviewed who will say that all the individual accolades don't compare to a championship ring. They say they're career is measured by championships won and that sounds like the most politically correct thing to say in the world, and you can't really knock them for saying that, but let's be honest.....I'm sure many people would rather have Kevin Garnett, Reggie Miller, John Stockton, or Karl Malone's career (although those people made the finals) than Beno Udrih, Tyronne Lue or Mark Madsen. So a championship isn't all that matters.
What's more, you can't judge an individual athletes' merits on a championship because as much as we might like to romanticize the notion of the player carrying his team to a championship, it doesn't really exist. There have been pretty much no championships that have been won by a single star. A championship is won by putting the right pieces together. Jordan had Pippen, Duncan has had Robinson, Ginobli and Parker at various points, and people are neglecting the fact that with the additions of Larry Hughes and Donyell Marshall, Cleveland has one of the deepest benches in the league with Marshall, Snow, Damon Jones, Daniel Gibson and Anderson Varejo. If we'd like to knock ourselves back into reality and away from the romantic notions of the sport, Tim Duncan, Dirk Nowitzki, Kevin Garnett, Ben Wallace, Yao Ming, Tracy McGrady, Jason Kidd and Jermaine O'Neal are merely seperated as players by having front offices who were able to give them the right support at the right time and not by whether they've won a championship or led their team to the finals.
I understand the importance of a positive attitude and the need to shoot for the stars but you've got 30 teams and I don't like this attitude of 29 teams being losers. That's the professional athlete way of thinking, which in a way I can't complain about in the sense that at least they care about the game. If one charge about NBA players is that they're apathetic and only compare about the money so they can afford expensive jewelery and clubbing, than it's better that they're fixated on winning to the point where the press conferences show them getting depressed and feeling like failures if they don't.
In basketball, teams don't always win but you can appreciate what you've done right. Houston for instance, has made the playoffs for 3 of the last 4 years: that's something. They took it to 7 games, that's something else. That's better than sitting at home watching the play-offs. There was no sense in that locker room after the game or by the sports media of "well, the outcome was decided over a series of 7 games and it really could have gone either way." I used to be a cross-country and track runner for my high school team, and that's what a friend of mine once said to comfort me after he beat me in one race by a small margin and it gave me a great sense of perspective. I think the lesson Houston should have taken from their loss, was take it a sign that the team's doing well and move on and I think that's really the best lesson you can preach as a role model. Instead, the Houston organization fires the coach and will probably trade half the team away.
I have a belief and it's one that I'm often surprised isn't so universal as ethical values go. This belief is that I don't think people should be fired without due cause and I even feel this way about NBA Basketball Coaches even if they get paid millions of dollars. Even if Jeff Van Gundy was rehired by the Magic and he enjoys it there, I don't believe everything's ok. He should have had the chance to leave on his own terms.
Also, why did the Pacers just fire Rick Carlisle? The Pacers had an off-year: big deal. The Suns had an off-year in 2004 after making the playoffs in 2003. The year after that they won the West and made the conference finals with returning players as three of the four big pieces (I'm referring to Johnson, Marion, Stoudamire).
Why do GMs respond so melodramatically to one off-year and fire coaches who have proven to do more good than bad* to the team Aside from building up the Detroit team that won a championship, Carlisle led the Pacers to the playoffs in two of three seasons, and the 2004-2005 season and its first round upset in the playoffs was especially hard to pull off considering the infamous Ron Artest-Ben Wallace brawl in Auburn Hills. It's rediculous to think it was even Rick Carlisle's fault they didn't make the playoffs. I don't have exact numbers on me but it has been fairly apparent that when a team makes a big roster adjustment, it will usually take a significant amount of time for chemistry to be developed.
I think that when managers fire managers for what appears to be no legitimate reason, this sends an incredibly bad message to kids and all other athletes: "Either win, win, win or you're not good enough for the team." Trigger happy GMs and the mindset that victories are meaningless unless you win the big prize in the end is contributing to a culture of winning and losing that's becoming increasingly out of hand.
*i.e. Byron Scott in N.J. mid-season after leading his team to the finals twice, George Karl in Milwaulkee for one bad season, Paul Silas in Cleveland for one 12-game losing stretch with Cleveland, Flip Saunders
Sunday, May 06, 2007
Review of Bewitched
Will Ferrell's over-the-top comedy gives the movie its moments and Nicole Kidman proves she's just as capable of playing light-hearted fluff as she is at drama, but credit to this movie goes mainly to Nora Ephron. With Sleepless in Seattle, When Harry Met Sally, You've Got Mail and now Bewitched, the director and co-writer has further solidified herself as one of the few consistently good writers of romantic comedy films.
I read a negative review of this film by the Washington Post that called the movie outdated saying, "Nicole Kidman plays a role ordinary reserved for Meg Ryan, that Meg Ryan herself even stopped playing long ago." On the contrary, I think Nora Ephron makes such solid movies because she is so acutely attuned to the latest trend. You've Got Mail, a movie about two people falling in love over the internet, came out in 1998, well before widespread e-dating. Similarly, Sleepless in Seattle's star-crossed pair find each other through a call-in radio show. Sound familiar? Dr. Laura or the fictional Frasier Crane, maybe?
Considering that this own film's release date is sandwiched between remakes of the Longest Yard, Batman, the Honeymooners, and the Bad News Bears, the Pink Panther, and Charlie and the Chocolate Factory on the other end, it seems pretty far-fetched to call this picture outdated with all this hysterical nostalgia going on around us.
Ephron's story lines are also well-written and have a screwball comedy sense of fun, this one being no different. In particular, she has a lot of fun playing with her life-imitates-art theme here in her story about a has-been actor trying to reboot his career with a remake of Bewitched casts Nicole Kidman as his costar, who turns out to be an actual witch.
As mentioned previously, Will Ferrell's hilarious ad-libs make their way into the movie and while he's slightly miscast, it isn't too big of an obstacle. Nicole Kidman is excellent as well. Shirley MacLaine makes the most of her small role, especially the scenes she shares with Michael Caine in their romantic subplot
I read a negative review of this film by the Washington Post that called the movie outdated saying, "Nicole Kidman plays a role ordinary reserved for Meg Ryan, that Meg Ryan herself even stopped playing long ago." On the contrary, I think Nora Ephron makes such solid movies because she is so acutely attuned to the latest trend. You've Got Mail, a movie about two people falling in love over the internet, came out in 1998, well before widespread e-dating. Similarly, Sleepless in Seattle's star-crossed pair find each other through a call-in radio show. Sound familiar? Dr. Laura or the fictional Frasier Crane, maybe?
Considering that this own film's release date is sandwiched between remakes of the Longest Yard, Batman, the Honeymooners, and the Bad News Bears, the Pink Panther, and Charlie and the Chocolate Factory on the other end, it seems pretty far-fetched to call this picture outdated with all this hysterical nostalgia going on around us.
Ephron's story lines are also well-written and have a screwball comedy sense of fun, this one being no different. In particular, she has a lot of fun playing with her life-imitates-art theme here in her story about a has-been actor trying to reboot his career with a remake of Bewitched casts Nicole Kidman as his costar, who turns out to be an actual witch.
As mentioned previously, Will Ferrell's hilarious ad-libs make their way into the movie and while he's slightly miscast, it isn't too big of an obstacle. Nicole Kidman is excellent as well. Shirley MacLaine makes the most of her small role, especially the scenes she shares with Michael Caine in their romantic subplot
Review of Batman Begins
Whatever you think of Batman Begins, you kind of have to give more credit to X-Men and Spiderman for getting it right the first time. The execs at Warner Brothers have changed their minds over what they want to do with this superhero franchise of theirs that they go and retool it every two movies.
So it’s kind of disorienting watching this one, in ways good and bad. For one, I feel a little disappointed in the batmobile: it’s more like a bat tank. Mainly, though, the story’s a lot more complicated with its humongous cast of characters. If I didn’t know any better, I’d guess there’s a rule that anyone who’s ever been nominated for an Oscar gets a coupon for a free role in a Batman movie that everyone’s cashing in on (if you want to know the exact stats, which I hope you do because I spent 10 minutes researching this, 5 actors in this movie have earned 12 oscar nominations between them), and they had to try extra hard to find parts for everyone., which led to some characters who just didn’t need to be there.
Like Morgan Freeman, for example, is a scientist who designs Batman’s gadgets. I love Morgan Freeman but what exactly is he doing there? Doesn’t Q belong with James Bond? Also, who’s the real villain? Aside from making the story confusing, I think part of the fun of Batman is that you have this whacked hero dressed up as a bat and then you have even wackier villains with themes of their own, like a guy who dresses like a Penguin or the Riddler. With the exception of the Scarecrow, this movie doesn’t really have that here. Unfortunately, I didn’t really see the scarecrow that much, anyway. I think the reason for adding someone like crime boss Carmone Falcone was to show us how bad of a place Gotham is. Now Tim Burton didn’t ever need to resort to that. He created such a dark tone that he could show us what Gotham just by showing us a frame of it. I will add, though, that most people who see this movie will probably agree that Commisioner Gordon and Alfred are both two really strong characters in this movie and they add a lot, unlike the other movies where they kind of stand around and look like idiots next to Batman.
So, as I say, the story’s different but as it stands on its own, it really works well. It had the same piecing-together-of-the-puzzle element that the Star Wars III prequels had, which is real cool. If you’ve watched any Batman TV episode or watched any Batman movie, then you can’t help but be intrigued by a movie that answers the questions, where did Batman get the idea for Batman, how did he get the batmobile or the batcave, where did he learn to fight?, etc.
So it’s kind of disorienting watching this one, in ways good and bad. For one, I feel a little disappointed in the batmobile: it’s more like a bat tank. Mainly, though, the story’s a lot more complicated with its humongous cast of characters. If I didn’t know any better, I’d guess there’s a rule that anyone who’s ever been nominated for an Oscar gets a coupon for a free role in a Batman movie that everyone’s cashing in on (if you want to know the exact stats, which I hope you do because I spent 10 minutes researching this, 5 actors in this movie have earned 12 oscar nominations between them), and they had to try extra hard to find parts for everyone., which led to some characters who just didn’t need to be there.
Like Morgan Freeman, for example, is a scientist who designs Batman’s gadgets. I love Morgan Freeman but what exactly is he doing there? Doesn’t Q belong with James Bond? Also, who’s the real villain? Aside from making the story confusing, I think part of the fun of Batman is that you have this whacked hero dressed up as a bat and then you have even wackier villains with themes of their own, like a guy who dresses like a Penguin or the Riddler. With the exception of the Scarecrow, this movie doesn’t really have that here. Unfortunately, I didn’t really see the scarecrow that much, anyway. I think the reason for adding someone like crime boss Carmone Falcone was to show us how bad of a place Gotham is. Now Tim Burton didn’t ever need to resort to that. He created such a dark tone that he could show us what Gotham just by showing us a frame of it. I will add, though, that most people who see this movie will probably agree that Commisioner Gordon and Alfred are both two really strong characters in this movie and they add a lot, unlike the other movies where they kind of stand around and look like idiots next to Batman.
So, as I say, the story’s different but as it stands on its own, it really works well. It had the same piecing-together-of-the-puzzle element that the Star Wars III prequels had, which is real cool. If you’ve watched any Batman TV episode or watched any Batman movie, then you can’t help but be intrigued by a movie that answers the questions, where did Batman get the idea for Batman, how did he get the batmobile or the batcave, where did he learn to fight?, etc.
Review of the Aristocrats:
I'm currently in the process of transferring some old reviews I wrote for a website called J-Maddy the summer before last summer to this website, so here's The Aristocrats (2005):
Last night, I took the metro to Rosslyn, hiked over a mile across the Potomac River into Georgetown and down a ways to go see this movie because Georgetown Lowe’s was the only theater that was showing it, due to the fact that it was banned in the movie theater I worked at. The film I’m talking about is “The Aristocrats”, a really cool documentary where something like 100 comedians (a lot of them famous: Whoppi Golberg, Robin Williams, John Stewart, Kevin Nealon, etc.) are asked to tell the same joke. The documentary also throws in some commentary, interviews, joke swapping sessions, etc.
I know what you’re thinking: doesn’t the same joke get old if everyone tells it? Well, some people I talked to said it kind of did, they should’ve stopped at 50, but the point is, in general the answer is no. The joke is a really open-ended one that each comedian tells differently. Oh yeah, and it’s also a really dirty joke. Really, really dirty. The film takes your mind to new levels of dirtiness that you never even knew existed which is why it’s banned in like 46 states, and you feel kind of like a criminal watching it.
At the same time, that’s the point of the film: that everyone has a dirty place. If the film was made for any single purpose, it would be a crusade against censorship. I think they make their case best by the fact that in their film, the comedian behind the famously corny family sitcom Full House Bob Saget tells a version of the joke so dirty, that he probably had to flee the country immediately afterwards.
Even as you’re disgusted a lot of the time you’re laughing. I think I realized for the first time ever how liberating it is to rearrange your priorities for a couple hours where being politically correct takes a back seat to laughter. When that happened, I knew the film had accomplished its mission.
Last night, I took the metro to Rosslyn, hiked over a mile across the Potomac River into Georgetown and down a ways to go see this movie because Georgetown Lowe’s was the only theater that was showing it, due to the fact that it was banned in the movie theater I worked at. The film I’m talking about is “The Aristocrats”, a really cool documentary where something like 100 comedians (a lot of them famous: Whoppi Golberg, Robin Williams, John Stewart, Kevin Nealon, etc.) are asked to tell the same joke. The documentary also throws in some commentary, interviews, joke swapping sessions, etc.
I know what you’re thinking: doesn’t the same joke get old if everyone tells it? Well, some people I talked to said it kind of did, they should’ve stopped at 50, but the point is, in general the answer is no. The joke is a really open-ended one that each comedian tells differently. Oh yeah, and it’s also a really dirty joke. Really, really dirty. The film takes your mind to new levels of dirtiness that you never even knew existed which is why it’s banned in like 46 states, and you feel kind of like a criminal watching it.
At the same time, that’s the point of the film: that everyone has a dirty place. If the film was made for any single purpose, it would be a crusade against censorship. I think they make their case best by the fact that in their film, the comedian behind the famously corny family sitcom Full House Bob Saget tells a version of the joke so dirty, that he probably had to flee the country immediately afterwards.
Even as you’re disgusted a lot of the time you’re laughing. I think I realized for the first time ever how liberating it is to rearrange your priorities for a couple hours where being politically correct takes a back seat to laughter. When that happened, I knew the film had accomplished its mission.
And the summer season is off: Spiderman breaks all the records
Well, the summer season has started (and I have yet to fully discuss that in another post that I had planned to post up) and it was a bang with the new Spiderman sequel. The critics gave it "mixed reviews" while the public saw it in record numbers. Early Sunday projections come to the tune of $149 million and all I can say is that I saw both these trends coming. It seemed obvious that the critics wouldn't like the 3rd part of a trilogy because they rarely do. The expectations are so high, that they're usually expecting the next Citizen Kane and this is usually more the case when the film directors like the 2nd half of the trilogy better. Roger Ebert called X-Men 2 the best superhero movie he'd ever seen until the year after that when he proclaimed Spiderman 2 the best superhero movie ever again, so again the expectations are going to be high.
My city paper's film critic, Ann Hornaday of the Washington Post, went on to express this self-fullfilling prophecy in her review of the film. She basically said, "Spiderman 3 cements the rule that the third leg of a trilogy will always be a massive disappointment, just like Batman Forever and X-Men 3." As I constantly try to remind people, it wasn't until Batman & Robin that the Batman series took a real dive. Batman Forever remains one of my favorite superhero films and I have yet to hear a rational argument for why X-Men 3 was not a good film. Maybe slightly less effective than the first two films, but the level of acting, plot complexity, and special effects are still way up there. By no means do I equate Brett Ratner and Bryan Singer as directors (I think much higher of the latter), but without seeing the opening credits, I would openly challenge many of the film critics who bashed X-Men 3 to identify whether it was a Singer or a Rattner movie.
I also expected Spiderman 3 to do tremendously well, but duh. The harder question is why. I much prefer the X-Men series and tried to show it to my dad once, but for some reason he has a habit of running in the opposite direction of anything that appears sci-fi and about halfway through, he felt it was just unappealling and walked away.
It was too complex for him and in that respect, Spiderman with only one hero (Peter Parker), one villain (Doc Ock or the Green Goblin), one girl (MJ), and one variable who shifts in between (Harry Osborn), it's superhero/supervillain entertainment watered down enough so that anyone can partake. That's kind of the way I see it, at least. Magneto is a villain of Shakesperean proportions and he plays games of chess with his biggest arch rival. Despite Alfred Molina and Willhem Dafoe being serviceable actors, they played one-dimenstional villains. In Spiderman 1, the Peter Parker-MJ relationship is so cliche of the girl-next-door type story, that she's even literally next door. I also didn't feel that any of the key relationships evolved organically from Spiderman 1 to Spiderman 2. Harry and Peter Parker are "best friends" but that is merely a plot point. Do we ever see the two actually canoodling as friends? Despite the cliche factor, I might say that it was a somewhat effective progression from boy having a crush on girl to the two falling in love in Spiderman 1, but in Spiderman 2, there's an awkward stability between the two and they act as if they're lifelong friends. MJ is expecting things of him as "her best friend" such as being on time to the play. It's merely a relationship established at the start of the picture to move it along from one end of the spectrum to another.
Nevertheless, I do like the Spiderman Series and would give both movies thumbs up. I think that they do a great job of intermixing the superhero within the mundane world and that's another reason why this superhero trilogy has become such a mega force at the box office. Because it attracts the comic book nerds in droves while it attracts the people who aren't drawn to comic book storytelling. I think Tobey MaGuire is cast extremely against type and it plays off especially well. I just don't think it's on the level of really great movie making
Nevertheless, I will probably see Spiderman 3, mainly because when something's this big, you've gotta jump in and see what it's all about. I'm also extremely curious to see what they've done with Thomas Haden Church
My city paper's film critic, Ann Hornaday of the Washington Post, went on to express this self-fullfilling prophecy in her review of the film. She basically said, "Spiderman 3 cements the rule that the third leg of a trilogy will always be a massive disappointment, just like Batman Forever and X-Men 3." As I constantly try to remind people, it wasn't until Batman & Robin that the Batman series took a real dive. Batman Forever remains one of my favorite superhero films and I have yet to hear a rational argument for why X-Men 3 was not a good film. Maybe slightly less effective than the first two films, but the level of acting, plot complexity, and special effects are still way up there. By no means do I equate Brett Ratner and Bryan Singer as directors (I think much higher of the latter), but without seeing the opening credits, I would openly challenge many of the film critics who bashed X-Men 3 to identify whether it was a Singer or a Rattner movie.
I also expected Spiderman 3 to do tremendously well, but duh. The harder question is why. I much prefer the X-Men series and tried to show it to my dad once, but for some reason he has a habit of running in the opposite direction of anything that appears sci-fi and about halfway through, he felt it was just unappealling and walked away.
It was too complex for him and in that respect, Spiderman with only one hero (Peter Parker), one villain (Doc Ock or the Green Goblin), one girl (MJ), and one variable who shifts in between (Harry Osborn), it's superhero/supervillain entertainment watered down enough so that anyone can partake. That's kind of the way I see it, at least. Magneto is a villain of Shakesperean proportions and he plays games of chess with his biggest arch rival. Despite Alfred Molina and Willhem Dafoe being serviceable actors, they played one-dimenstional villains. In Spiderman 1, the Peter Parker-MJ relationship is so cliche of the girl-next-door type story, that she's even literally next door. I also didn't feel that any of the key relationships evolved organically from Spiderman 1 to Spiderman 2. Harry and Peter Parker are "best friends" but that is merely a plot point. Do we ever see the two actually canoodling as friends? Despite the cliche factor, I might say that it was a somewhat effective progression from boy having a crush on girl to the two falling in love in Spiderman 1, but in Spiderman 2, there's an awkward stability between the two and they act as if they're lifelong friends. MJ is expecting things of him as "her best friend" such as being on time to the play. It's merely a relationship established at the start of the picture to move it along from one end of the spectrum to another.
Nevertheless, I do like the Spiderman Series and would give both movies thumbs up. I think that they do a great job of intermixing the superhero within the mundane world and that's another reason why this superhero trilogy has become such a mega force at the box office. Because it attracts the comic book nerds in droves while it attracts the people who aren't drawn to comic book storytelling. I think Tobey MaGuire is cast extremely against type and it plays off especially well. I just don't think it's on the level of really great movie making
Nevertheless, I will probably see Spiderman 3, mainly because when something's this big, you've gotta jump in and see what it's all about. I'm also extremely curious to see what they've done with Thomas Haden Church
Thursday, May 03, 2007
Jamestown's 400th Anniversary & The New World Review
As a Virginia, I'm actually very excited that Jamestown is celebrating its 400th Anniversary. Time Magazine did a big feature on it and I agree with Time Magazine's assertion in the opening paragraph that Jamestown doesn't get the attention that Plymouth had.
As Virginians, we studied Jamestown closely in our history books, and as Americans, Jamestown is studied to a lesser degree. In pop culture, Jamestown might be best known as the inspiration for two movies set ten years apart.
The first Pocohantas was a 1995 cartoon from Disney starring, among others, Mel Gibson (it now seems like poetic justice, considering his Euro-centric views, that he played a character who learned to be less ignorant) and Christian Bale (which is also ironic considering Bale starred in the New World). It was a typical Disney musical that didn't really distinguish itself from the ones that came before it ("Aladdin" "Beauty and the Beast") or after it ("Mulan"), but it might be the one I have the warmest memories of because of the material. It also did win an oscar for its song (as well as best score) "Colors of the Wind," which its predecessors "The Lion King", "Aladdin", and "Beauty and the Beast" all did, so it wasn't really anything special for Disney at the time.
Exactly 10 years later in 2005, The New World told the story in epic fashion. Those who are passionate about the Jamestown story were incredibly fortunate to have Terrence Malick chose this subject as his material for only his fourth film ever. It was my favorite film of that year.
Malick takes on the story with that sense of imagination while he grounds the visual look with ameticulous attention to historic detail. Thats one thing that really stands out and keeps things interesting during the picture's slower parts, especially for for people who are familiar with Eastern Virginia, seeing this movie is to see exactly what yourhometowns looked like 400 years ago.
A lot of the story, however, is very abstract. The score brilliantly alternates between baroque piano music, what one would imagine to be the music of the Native American tribe, and a serene silence in which nothing but the sounds of nature can be heard. Time seems abstract and sometimes journal entries from John Smith's journal are laid out as voice-over.
I later heard a lecture from a historical consultant for the film who told us that the film was supposed to be like a dream and it was meant to play to an audience who was already familiar with the story. The names John Rolfe, John Smith, and Pocohantas are never mentioned once he said. It would figure then that Terrence Malick saw himself as not a storyteller but a reinterpreter of a story that stands either as historical truth or myth. And by myth, I do mean myth. According to some history majors at the lecture I attended, there was a lack of literate people in the Jamestown colony and there is good evidence to suggest that John Smith's journals were embellished to the point where he might not have even ever met Pocohantas. I found that fascinating.
As Virginians, we studied Jamestown closely in our history books, and as Americans, Jamestown is studied to a lesser degree. In pop culture, Jamestown might be best known as the inspiration for two movies set ten years apart.
The first Pocohantas was a 1995 cartoon from Disney starring, among others, Mel Gibson (it now seems like poetic justice, considering his Euro-centric views, that he played a character who learned to be less ignorant) and Christian Bale (which is also ironic considering Bale starred in the New World). It was a typical Disney musical that didn't really distinguish itself from the ones that came before it ("Aladdin" "Beauty and the Beast") or after it ("Mulan"), but it might be the one I have the warmest memories of because of the material. It also did win an oscar for its song (as well as best score) "Colors of the Wind," which its predecessors "The Lion King", "Aladdin", and "Beauty and the Beast" all did, so it wasn't really anything special for Disney at the time.
Exactly 10 years later in 2005, The New World told the story in epic fashion. Those who are passionate about the Jamestown story were incredibly fortunate to have Terrence Malick chose this subject as his material for only his fourth film ever. It was my favorite film of that year.
Malick takes on the story with that sense of imagination while he grounds the visual look with ameticulous attention to historic detail. Thats one thing that really stands out and keeps things interesting during the picture's slower parts, especially for for people who are familiar with Eastern Virginia, seeing this movie is to see exactly what yourhometowns looked like 400 years ago.
A lot of the story, however, is very abstract. The score brilliantly alternates between baroque piano music, what one would imagine to be the music of the Native American tribe, and a serene silence in which nothing but the sounds of nature can be heard. Time seems abstract and sometimes journal entries from John Smith's journal are laid out as voice-over.
I later heard a lecture from a historical consultant for the film who told us that the film was supposed to be like a dream and it was meant to play to an audience who was already familiar with the story. The names John Rolfe, John Smith, and Pocohantas are never mentioned once he said. It would figure then that Terrence Malick saw himself as not a storyteller but a reinterpreter of a story that stands either as historical truth or myth. And by myth, I do mean myth. According to some history majors at the lecture I attended, there was a lack of literate people in the Jamestown colony and there is good evidence to suggest that John Smith's journals were embellished to the point where he might not have even ever met Pocohantas. I found that fascinating.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)