by Jason Pyles / December 27, 2008
2008 was a great year for the cinema and a momentous year for my family. I only make mention of my life’s personal events to emphasize that after having our first baby, a college graduation, a move across the country and working one and a half new jobs, I’ve only been able to see 101 of this year’s films (in contrast to my 176 reviews in 2007). And unfortunately, many films that are receiving the most critical acclaim are, as of yet, unseen by me.* (see list below)
So again, the following 11 films are only some of the best films of 2008.
1.) The Dark Knight (PG-13)
Some people have said “Iron Man” is a superhero movie for those who don’t like superhero movies. OK, maybe, but it’s still a superhero movie, an excellent one. But “The Dark Knight” transcends the genre. And not to be technical, but Batman never really was a superhero in the truest sense: He’s just a rich guy with the means to have slick, crime-fighting gadgets. But let me be clear here: Yes, Christopher Nolan is a superb director whose contributions cannot be diminished; Christian Bale successfully pulls off the bat man with a straight face; in fact, all the film’s actors have become their characters. Yet it is Heath Ledger’s performance as the Joker that makes “The Dark Knight” so lofty. Ledger deserves the Oscar — and not as a consolation prize for being deceased. A good villain is just as important as having a good hero. Among the films I’ve seen in 2008, “The Dark Knight” is the best of the year.
2.) The Orphanage (R)
“The Orphanage” is a truly creepy film and perhaps more impressive, one of the few effective haunted house movies. Filmed in Spanish with English subtitles, this non-slasher, spine-tingler is rated R but not for the usual reasons: Its rating is solely due to “disturbing content.” I might have termed it “troubling” content.
3.) Cloverfield (PG-13)
Everybody plays the “what if” game. And because of that, “Cloverfield” is pure cinematic delight because it allows the “what if” game to unfold before our eyes. What if a real monster attacked New York City? This is no King Kong or Godzilla monster mash; “Cloverfield” endeavors, as realistically as possible, to portray such a horrific event. Best of all, the movie pulls us up onto the screen, into the action, because we identify with a character videographer’s subjective point of view through his camera lens, a trick that “Quarantine” later attempted in October but with much less success.
4.) Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed (PG)
Highly controversial and arguably slanted unfairly, “Expelled” is a documentary for “the believers,” meaning, those who believe “Genesis” over “The Origin of the Species.” Ben Stein is the gadfly of the scientific community as he observes that it seems to have closed its mind to ideas like Creationism and wholly accepted Evolution. “Expelled” is a showdown that is much more engaging than it sounds.
5.) Snow Angels (R)
Some films can carefully portray with lifelike verisimilitude the sad dramas that play out in the lives of regular, everyday people. “Snow Angels” is one such film, and its magnificence is matched only by its pensiveness.
6.) Run Fatboy Run (PG-13)
Because its director is David Schwimmer and its title is “Run Fatboy Run,” you may doubt my judgment on this surprising comedy. But Schwimmer shows considerable promise as a director, and the movie’s title is likely a marketing design, even though it is somewhat fitting. “Run Fatboy Run” is funny, but it’s also inspiring. This movie is a banner and a beacon for anyone who’s tired of being a loser and wants to stop sucking.
7.) Rambo (R)
I know. Sy Stallone is like 62 years old and “Rambo,” like most of the “Rocky” movies, is a thing of the ‘80s. But who goes to see a “Rambo” movie? Someone expecting a Merchant Ivory Production? No. Someone who wants to see “Rambo” blow everybody away. Done. But that’s not what makes this movie excellent: Reportedly, in this time of war, Stallone wanted to try to depict the true horrors of warfare, and it appears he has succeeded with a film that approaches the graphic violence of “Saving Private Ryan” (1998). And though it’s difficult to make a war film that doesn’t ultimately glorify war (which I suppose “Rambo” still does), it still paints a vividly grotesque picture.
8.) Iron Man (PG-13)
As mentioned above, “Iron Man” is a fine example of a comic book movie. It’s a well made, summer-fun, big-budget, popcorn blockbuster that is wonderfully entertaining. But as Heath Ledger is to “The Dark Knight,” so is Robert Downey Jr. to “Iron Man.” He makes the movie worth seeing on the merits of his humorous performance alone.
9.) Tropic Thunder (R)
Speaking of Robert Downey Jr., when an actor can convincingly perform in layers, piling character upon character within a role, then you know he or she has a remarkable gift. I don’t care if this is a comedy, he still should be nominated for his performance. Not only is “Tropic Thunder” hilarious, it savagely cannibalizes and ridicules the Hollywood from whence it sprang. It has an updated variation of the “Three Amigos!” (1986) plot that’s both smarter and funnier.
10.) The Ruins (R)
Many people will disagree with my ranking “The Ruins” among this list, but I don’t care. This is an excellent horror movie, which is nearly an oxymoron. While watching this film, imagine that you have fallen into this scenario. Yes, the vines (which are not the point) are ridiculous, but this is no “Little Shop of Horrors” (1986). Setting the vines aside, which are merely a plot device, the true horrors of “The Ruins” could happen. What is scarier than being marooned in another country and watching those who are with you — the only people you thought you could trust — make dreadful decisions out of fear? It is what the characters do to one another (and it’s typically not meant to be mean-spirited) in this midst of their crisis that makes “The Ruins” an effective horror movie.
11.) U2 3D (G)
I’m not even a U2 fan, per se. But I like their music, and besides, who doesn’t enjoy concerts? “U2 3D” is comprised of incredible footage from several U2 concerts that puts the viewer up on the stage with the performers. And even without the 3-D glasses, this would still be an enjoyable experience for any music lover — especially a true U2 fan.
Jason's Honorable Mention of 2008:
4 Months, 3 Weeks, and 2 Days
Appaloosa
Changeling
Charlie Bartlett
Definitely, Maybe
The Happening
Horton Hears a Who!
The Incredible Hulk
Lakeview Terrace
The Other Boleyn Girl
Penelope
Pride and Glory
Quantum of Solace
Righteous Kill
Smart People
Under the Same Moon
Untraceable
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* These are the films from 2008 that I haven’t seen yet that are supposed to be exceptional:
Ballast
The Band’s Visit
Che
A Christmas Tale
Chop Shop
The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
Defiance
Doubt
The Duchess of Langeais
The Edge of Heaven
Encounters at the End of the World
The Fall
Frost/Nixon
Frozen River
A Girl Cut in Two
Gran Torino
Happy-Go-Lucky
In Bruges
I.O.U.S.A.
I’ve Loved You So Long
The Last Mistress
Let the Right One In
Man on Wire
Milk
My Winnipeg
Rachel Getting Married
The Reader
Revolutionary Road
Shotgun Stories
Slumdog Millionaire
Standard Operating Procedure
Synecdoche, New York
Tell No One
Trouble the Water
Vicky Cristina Barcelona
WALL-E
The Wrestler
XXY
------------------------------------------------------------------------
And for what it’s worth (which isn’t much), these are the 10 worst movies of 2008, with the absolute most terrible one listed at the bottom.
Doomsday
Harold & Kumar Escape From Guantanamo Bay
Vantage Point
The Eye
How She Move
Superhero Movie
First Sunday
Witless Protection
One Missed Call
Meet the Spartans
Saturday, December 27, 2008
Monday, December 22, 2008
Debate: In Cold Celluloid
by Jason Pyles / December 22, 2008
Ever since the gangster pictures of the 1930s, there has been considerable debate about the portrayal of violence in film — is it exploitative? — or does it serve a meaningful purpose? It’s such an age-old controversy, many people are altogether weary of the discussion. But I have a different question, though it is related to this topic.
In 1967, Richard Brooks released a film called “In Cold Blood” that is an adaptation of Truman Capote’s novel by the same name. Both tell the grim but true tale of two zeros who planned to rob a Kansas farm family and slaughtered them all in the process. The phrase “senseless deaths” has never been more fitting.
(Interestingly, the film stars Robert Blake as one of the killers; you might remember that around 2002, Blake was arrested for the murder of his second wife but was later acquitted in 2005.)
Relative to the explicit and graphic nature of present-day movies, “In Cold Blood” is tame, perhaps even mild enough for a PG rating — minus the profanity.
But here’s the issue: The film is shot in the actual home of the murdered family. This begs an obvious moral question. What was the merit in shooting the film in their home? The reasons must have pertained to authenticity and perhaps because it’s somewhat intriguing, but are these reasons justified? I suspect that it had less to do with artistic motives and more to do with cashing in on a fascinated nation’s curiosity.
Yet, I can’t help but wonder if the same heinous event befell my family — heaven forbid — how would I feel if Hollywood wanted to tell the story within the walls of our sacred home, where the horrific acts occurred?
In his 1968 review of “In Cold Blood,” Roger Ebert wrote this:
“And every detail of the film, from the physical appearance of the actors to the use of actual locations like the Clutter farmhouse, was chosen to make the film a literal copy of those events. I do not object to this. Men have always learned about themselves by studying the things their fellows do. If mass murders of this sort are possible in American society (and many have been), then perhaps it is useful to see a thoughtful film about one of them.”
My Take:
I’ve heard this argument before, but I don’t buy it. I think it’s imperative for us to realize that monsters exist and such dangers are possible, but to me “In Cold Blood” crosses the line with its shooting location. When I watched “Breakdown” (1997), for example, I thought it a valuable cautionary tale, but it was fictitious; whereas, “In Cold Blood” unfortunately happened. (And regarding violence in film, most people think it’s fun to be scared. Fine. So fictitious horror is one thing, but when we watch the “Saw” movies for their “entertainment value?!,” I think that’s sociologically problematic.)
Please feel free to post comments and discuss this question.
[ Note: I might mention, as a mere afterthought, that we’re probably more familiar with the more recent Philip Seymour Hoffman film, “Capote” (2005), about the journalist and author who followed the story and conducted extensive interviews with one of the killers. ]
Ever since the gangster pictures of the 1930s, there has been considerable debate about the portrayal of violence in film — is it exploitative? — or does it serve a meaningful purpose? It’s such an age-old controversy, many people are altogether weary of the discussion. But I have a different question, though it is related to this topic.
In 1967, Richard Brooks released a film called “In Cold Blood” that is an adaptation of Truman Capote’s novel by the same name. Both tell the grim but true tale of two zeros who planned to rob a Kansas farm family and slaughtered them all in the process. The phrase “senseless deaths” has never been more fitting.
(Interestingly, the film stars Robert Blake as one of the killers; you might remember that around 2002, Blake was arrested for the murder of his second wife but was later acquitted in 2005.)
Relative to the explicit and graphic nature of present-day movies, “In Cold Blood” is tame, perhaps even mild enough for a PG rating — minus the profanity.
But here’s the issue: The film is shot in the actual home of the murdered family. This begs an obvious moral question. What was the merit in shooting the film in their home? The reasons must have pertained to authenticity and perhaps because it’s somewhat intriguing, but are these reasons justified? I suspect that it had less to do with artistic motives and more to do with cashing in on a fascinated nation’s curiosity.
Yet, I can’t help but wonder if the same heinous event befell my family — heaven forbid — how would I feel if Hollywood wanted to tell the story within the walls of our sacred home, where the horrific acts occurred?
In his 1968 review of “In Cold Blood,” Roger Ebert wrote this:
“And every detail of the film, from the physical appearance of the actors to the use of actual locations like the Clutter farmhouse, was chosen to make the film a literal copy of those events. I do not object to this. Men have always learned about themselves by studying the things their fellows do. If mass murders of this sort are possible in American society (and many have been), then perhaps it is useful to see a thoughtful film about one of them.”
My Take:
I’ve heard this argument before, but I don’t buy it. I think it’s imperative for us to realize that monsters exist and such dangers are possible, but to me “In Cold Blood” crosses the line with its shooting location. When I watched “Breakdown” (1997), for example, I thought it a valuable cautionary tale, but it was fictitious; whereas, “In Cold Blood” unfortunately happened. (And regarding violence in film, most people think it’s fun to be scared. Fine. So fictitious horror is one thing, but when we watch the “Saw” movies for their “entertainment value?!,” I think that’s sociologically problematic.)
Please feel free to post comments and discuss this question.
[ Note: I might mention, as a mere afterthought, that we’re probably more familiar with the more recent Philip Seymour Hoffman film, “Capote” (2005), about the journalist and author who followed the story and conducted extensive interviews with one of the killers. ]
Sunday, December 21, 2008
Australia (2008)
O Masterpiece
O Excellent
O Good
X OK
O Mediocrity
O Avoid
Review by Jason Pyles / December 21, 2008
“Australia” is essentially two movies combined, and it hearkens back to the extravagant epics of the early ’60s, when Hollywood was overextending itself to compete with television: e.g., “Cleopatra” (1963).
With a 165-minute run time, “Australia’s” first story involves an uppity, English widow (Nicole Kidman) who commissions an Aussie cowboy (Hugh Jackman) to lead a cattle drive in hopes of eclipsing a local monopolist who was destroying her late husband’s business.
Few films feature such large-scale cattle drives (which are the western equivalent of road movies), but “Australia” is no “Lonesome Dove” (1989) — the best cattle drive movie and one of the great westerns.
The latter half of “Australia” strains for a dramatic attempt to reassemble the couple’s makeshift family amidst the turbulent backdrop of World War II.
“Australia” begins with silly comedy that’s not as funny as “Crocodile Dundee” (1986), breaks into an adventure that’s inferior to “Raiders of the Lost Ark” (1981), falls short of accomplishing the visual sweep of “Lonesome Dove,” and wraps up with wartime melodrama comparable to “Pearl Harbor” (2001). Yet “Australia” wishes to evoke all of the above.
Yes, the movie is somewhat entertaining, but aside from a couple of parables on racism, broad spectacle is the extent of “Australia’s” ambition: In planning this film, I picture a number of studio execs sitting around a table, compiling all the elements that would delight audiences. Their primary consideration: have Kidman and Jackman kiss as many times as possible.
Directed by Baz Luhrmann
Nicole Kidman / Hugh Jackman / Brandon Walters
Adventure / Drama 165 min.
MPAA: PG-13 (for some violence, a scene of sensuality, and brief strong language)
U.S. Release Date: November 26, 2008
Copyright 2008: 329
O Excellent
O Good
X OK
O Mediocrity
O Avoid
Review by Jason Pyles / December 21, 2008
“Australia” is essentially two movies combined, and it hearkens back to the extravagant epics of the early ’60s, when Hollywood was overextending itself to compete with television: e.g., “Cleopatra” (1963).
With a 165-minute run time, “Australia’s” first story involves an uppity, English widow (Nicole Kidman) who commissions an Aussie cowboy (Hugh Jackman) to lead a cattle drive in hopes of eclipsing a local monopolist who was destroying her late husband’s business.
Few films feature such large-scale cattle drives (which are the western equivalent of road movies), but “Australia” is no “Lonesome Dove” (1989) — the best cattle drive movie and one of the great westerns.
The latter half of “Australia” strains for a dramatic attempt to reassemble the couple’s makeshift family amidst the turbulent backdrop of World War II.
“Australia” begins with silly comedy that’s not as funny as “Crocodile Dundee” (1986), breaks into an adventure that’s inferior to “Raiders of the Lost Ark” (1981), falls short of accomplishing the visual sweep of “Lonesome Dove,” and wraps up with wartime melodrama comparable to “Pearl Harbor” (2001). Yet “Australia” wishes to evoke all of the above.
Yes, the movie is somewhat entertaining, but aside from a couple of parables on racism, broad spectacle is the extent of “Australia’s” ambition: In planning this film, I picture a number of studio execs sitting around a table, compiling all the elements that would delight audiences. Their primary consideration: have Kidman and Jackman kiss as many times as possible.
Directed by Baz Luhrmann
Nicole Kidman / Hugh Jackman / Brandon Walters
Adventure / Drama 165 min.
MPAA: PG-13 (for some violence, a scene of sensuality, and brief strong language)
U.S. Release Date: November 26, 2008
Copyright 2008: 329
Sunday, November 30, 2008
Twilight (2008)
O Masterpiece
O Excellent
X Good
O OK
O Mediocrity
O Avoid
Review by Jason Pyles / November 30, 2008
My friend Merinda Pearce said it best when she explained, “Even though ‘Twilight’ is a love story about teenage vampires, it’s a lot better than it sounds.” Despite my initial skepticism, Merinda was correct. “Twilight” is adapted from Stephenie Meyer’s book of the same name, an addictive series that has seduced many female readers (including my wife).
Though I haven’t read the book, the movie is intriguing — without a doubt — and the film’s success (and presumably the book’s) lies in its ability to make us increasingly anxious about what will happen next. We’ve all heard numerous vampire stories, which makes “Twilight’s” fresh appeal somewhat surprising.
While her mother and step-father travel to Florida for spring training, 17-year-old “Bella” Swan (Kristen Stewart), of Phoenix, moves to the tiny town of Forks, Washington (population 3,120) to live for a time with her father, Charlie Swan (the uncannily likable Billy Burke), who serves as Forks’ chief of police.
At Bella’s new high school, she encounters the mysterious, pale-faced Cullen kids, who turn out to be vampires, unbeknownst somehow to everyone else in the community. A mutual and eventually romantic intrigue befalls Bella and one of the Cullens named Edward (Robert Pattinson). But when a blood-sucking vampire and a human fall in love, things become dangerously complicated.
And the precarious circumstances of the unlikely couple’s relationship comprise the bulk of the film. Edward hungers for Bella’s blood, but he is well aware of the magnitude of such a dating faux pas. Edward’s family also finds his new girlfriend … tempting. Then there are other local vampires who aren’t so well mannered.
The best aspect to “Twilight” is its ability to make us as curious as Bella is about Edward’s vampirism. A remarkable incident occurs that initially tips Bella off that Edward is very different from the boys down in Arizona. But at the risk of evoking the wrath of die-hard “Twilight” fans, I was disappointed by the way the movie breaks its own spell when we’re shown poorly depicted demonstrations of vampiric power.
Unfortunately, “Twilight’s” portrayal of a vampire’s physical abilities (which is precisely when we need Hollywood’s illusory magic the most) is ridiculously unconvincing. Watching Edward leap about, scaling trees is comparable to a high school stage production of “Peter Pan.” I kept looking for the wire.
The worst aspect to “Twilight” is its performances. Perhaps the actors are not the ones to blame. I have read excerpts of dialogue from Meyer’s book, and at times, the cast may have had little to work with. But I suspect the real culprit is director Catherine Hardwicke, who also directed “The Nativity Story” (2006), “Lords of Dogtown” (2005) and “Thirteen” (2003).
For instance, during Bella’s first few encounters with Edward, poor Robert Pattinson’s performance is laugh-out-loud ludicrous — again, something I blame on Hardwicke’s instruction (or lack thereof). I’m sure the book describes a similar scene, but Edward just keeps staring at Bella — “real hard.” Honestly, I was worried the kid was going to pull something from straining so much. … And incidentally, shooting a person’s movements at a slower speed so they’ll playback in fast-forward, merely looks like fast-forward, not super-human speed.
Otherwise, the film’s casting works. The Cullen vampires are beautiful people, as the book prescribes. Kristen Stewart, who is somewhat reminiscent of the “Gilmore Girls’” Alexis Bledel, makes a fine Bella. Pattinson’s Edward is a faint mix between Jason Priestley and New Age pianist Paul Cardall — especially during his piano scene. And Cam Gigandet’s (“Never Back Down”) James is genuinely unsettling.
Vampire movies have been around a long time; the German film, “Nosferatu” (1922), is the earliest one I was aware of, but according to a vampire history Web site, a British film called “The Secrets of House No. 5” (1912) was the first one. (Tod Browning and Bela Lugosi’s “Dracula” didn’t come out until 1931.)
In any case, vampires have been in the cinema for decades, and their attributes have been fairly consistent, until recently. The overlooked “Cronos” (1993) throws a different spin on vampirism, for example. And “Twilight” is quite liberal with its vampiric “rules” and limitations. But much like zombies, who have become frighteningly fast in recent years, I guess vampires have to evolve, too.
Directed by Catherine Hardwicke
Kristen Stewart / Robert Pattinson / Billy Burke
Romance / Thriller 122 min.
MPAA: PG-13 (for some violence and a scene of sensuality)
U.S. Release Date: November 21, 2008
Copyright 2008: 327
O Excellent
X Good
O OK
O Mediocrity
O Avoid
Review by Jason Pyles / November 30, 2008
My friend Merinda Pearce said it best when she explained, “Even though ‘Twilight’ is a love story about teenage vampires, it’s a lot better than it sounds.” Despite my initial skepticism, Merinda was correct. “Twilight” is adapted from Stephenie Meyer’s book of the same name, an addictive series that has seduced many female readers (including my wife).
Though I haven’t read the book, the movie is intriguing — without a doubt — and the film’s success (and presumably the book’s) lies in its ability to make us increasingly anxious about what will happen next. We’ve all heard numerous vampire stories, which makes “Twilight’s” fresh appeal somewhat surprising.
While her mother and step-father travel to Florida for spring training, 17-year-old “Bella” Swan (Kristen Stewart), of Phoenix, moves to the tiny town of Forks, Washington (population 3,120) to live for a time with her father, Charlie Swan (the uncannily likable Billy Burke), who serves as Forks’ chief of police.
At Bella’s new high school, she encounters the mysterious, pale-faced Cullen kids, who turn out to be vampires, unbeknownst somehow to everyone else in the community. A mutual and eventually romantic intrigue befalls Bella and one of the Cullens named Edward (Robert Pattinson). But when a blood-sucking vampire and a human fall in love, things become dangerously complicated.
And the precarious circumstances of the unlikely couple’s relationship comprise the bulk of the film. Edward hungers for Bella’s blood, but he is well aware of the magnitude of such a dating faux pas. Edward’s family also finds his new girlfriend … tempting. Then there are other local vampires who aren’t so well mannered.
The best aspect to “Twilight” is its ability to make us as curious as Bella is about Edward’s vampirism. A remarkable incident occurs that initially tips Bella off that Edward is very different from the boys down in Arizona. But at the risk of evoking the wrath of die-hard “Twilight” fans, I was disappointed by the way the movie breaks its own spell when we’re shown poorly depicted demonstrations of vampiric power.
Unfortunately, “Twilight’s” portrayal of a vampire’s physical abilities (which is precisely when we need Hollywood’s illusory magic the most) is ridiculously unconvincing. Watching Edward leap about, scaling trees is comparable to a high school stage production of “Peter Pan.” I kept looking for the wire.
The worst aspect to “Twilight” is its performances. Perhaps the actors are not the ones to blame. I have read excerpts of dialogue from Meyer’s book, and at times, the cast may have had little to work with. But I suspect the real culprit is director Catherine Hardwicke, who also directed “The Nativity Story” (2006), “Lords of Dogtown” (2005) and “Thirteen” (2003).
For instance, during Bella’s first few encounters with Edward, poor Robert Pattinson’s performance is laugh-out-loud ludicrous — again, something I blame on Hardwicke’s instruction (or lack thereof). I’m sure the book describes a similar scene, but Edward just keeps staring at Bella — “real hard.” Honestly, I was worried the kid was going to pull something from straining so much. … And incidentally, shooting a person’s movements at a slower speed so they’ll playback in fast-forward, merely looks like fast-forward, not super-human speed.
Otherwise, the film’s casting works. The Cullen vampires are beautiful people, as the book prescribes. Kristen Stewart, who is somewhat reminiscent of the “Gilmore Girls’” Alexis Bledel, makes a fine Bella. Pattinson’s Edward is a faint mix between Jason Priestley and New Age pianist Paul Cardall — especially during his piano scene. And Cam Gigandet’s (“Never Back Down”) James is genuinely unsettling.
Vampire movies have been around a long time; the German film, “Nosferatu” (1922), is the earliest one I was aware of, but according to a vampire history Web site, a British film called “The Secrets of House No. 5” (1912) was the first one. (Tod Browning and Bela Lugosi’s “Dracula” didn’t come out until 1931.)
In any case, vampires have been in the cinema for decades, and their attributes have been fairly consistent, until recently. The overlooked “Cronos” (1993) throws a different spin on vampirism, for example. And “Twilight” is quite liberal with its vampiric “rules” and limitations. But much like zombies, who have become frighteningly fast in recent years, I guess vampires have to evolve, too.
Directed by Catherine Hardwicke
Kristen Stewart / Robert Pattinson / Billy Burke
Romance / Thriller 122 min.
MPAA: PG-13 (for some violence and a scene of sensuality)
U.S. Release Date: November 21, 2008
Copyright 2008: 327
Sunday, November 9, 2008
Classifying a Movie as a "Rental"
by Jason Pyles
How often do I disagree with Roger Ebert? Not very often.
But in Ebert’s Oct. 23 Answer Man column, he said that recommending a movie as a rental (as opposed to seeing it in the theater) is terrible advice. Ebert said when someone tells you to “wait for the video,” that usually means don’t see it, but he thinks it should mean see the movie. After all, Ebert reasons, two hours of a person’s life are the same whether they’re spent in the theater or at home.
I submit that the deal-breaker between recommending a theater viewing and a video rental is whether a film is worth paying $8 to see, or is it only worth $3? (Yeah, yeah, I know, when considering matinee prices versus evening shows, exorbitant Blockbuster video prices, reasonable Netflix prices, etc., it all depends. Indeed, the cost of watching movies can vary wildly, but generally speaking, I hope we can agree that renting a movie is typically less expensive than seeing it in the theater, all things considered.)
Many people I know only make it out to the theater on special occasions, meaning, a few times a year. So if I encourage them to go to the theater and sit among texting, talking, seat-kicking strangers, instead of watching it in the comfort of their own homes, which also have surround sound and big-screen TVs, then it had better be worth it. My friend Andy Howell immediately comes to mind.
There are four reasons to see a film in the theater:
1.) The audio-visual experience and being part of that week’s big, pop-culture event
2.) For a date
3.) If it’s truly excellent or has big surprises that could be spoiled by overhearing too much buzz
4.) Simply because you like going to the theater
And if you’re a movie critic, 5.) Because you have to review the movie asap.
Of course, there are some films that should be seen in theaters first: The six “Star Wars” episodes are good examples, because of the spectacle, the event itself, and the monster speakers. (When I heard Jango Fett’s “depth charges” (or whatever those explosive devices were called) that he unleashed while being pursued by Obi-Wan in Episode II, it was unforgettable. In fact, I saw “Attack of the Clones” a second time in the theater, just to be enveloped again in those two overwhelming sounds.)
But there was no reason to catch “Dan in Real Life” in the theater (even though it’s a good movie), when it was cheaper and more comfortable to snuggle up with my sweetheart and watch it at home.
However, whenever going out to the theater is part of a date-night itinerary, then the theater’s a fine (albeit unsociable) choice.
I realize that box-office figures send production companies “messages” from the public, which means avoiding the theater could potentially hurt the making of future, similarly good films. But DVD rentals and sales also send a message.
And as a movie critic (or a friend giving an opinion about a movie to another friend), it seems like it’s my duty to be an advocate for my trusting inquirer’s “movie allowance.” After all, we only have so much money we can spend on seeing movies. In addition, I also realize that movie critics should also be advocates for great films, which brings me to my final point.
Besides experiencing an audio-visual extravaganza or seeing a fine flick on a date, the only other reason to invest in theater prices is because the movie is so good, you shouldn’t wait for it to hit video. A good example of this would be “The Sixth Sense,” which also has a big secret that you wouldn’t want to risk being spoiled for you in the passing months until it hits DVD.
And don’t forget the people who see movies at the theater just for the experience of going out to the movies. That’s OK, too, of course.
In my rating system — Masterpiece, Excellent, Good, OK, Mediocre, Avoid — oftentimes there’s a fine line between Excellent and Good, and Good and OK. But to be clear, when I say a film is Excellent, that means it’s worth seeing in the theater and will always be a good rental choice. But when I say a movie is a rental, that means it’s good — but not $8 good.
How often do I disagree with Roger Ebert? Not very often.
But in Ebert’s Oct. 23 Answer Man column, he said that recommending a movie as a rental (as opposed to seeing it in the theater) is terrible advice. Ebert said when someone tells you to “wait for the video,” that usually means don’t see it, but he thinks it should mean see the movie. After all, Ebert reasons, two hours of a person’s life are the same whether they’re spent in the theater or at home.
I submit that the deal-breaker between recommending a theater viewing and a video rental is whether a film is worth paying $8 to see, or is it only worth $3? (Yeah, yeah, I know, when considering matinee prices versus evening shows, exorbitant Blockbuster video prices, reasonable Netflix prices, etc., it all depends. Indeed, the cost of watching movies can vary wildly, but generally speaking, I hope we can agree that renting a movie is typically less expensive than seeing it in the theater, all things considered.)
Many people I know only make it out to the theater on special occasions, meaning, a few times a year. So if I encourage them to go to the theater and sit among texting, talking, seat-kicking strangers, instead of watching it in the comfort of their own homes, which also have surround sound and big-screen TVs, then it had better be worth it. My friend Andy Howell immediately comes to mind.
There are four reasons to see a film in the theater:
1.) The audio-visual experience and being part of that week’s big, pop-culture event
2.) For a date
3.) If it’s truly excellent or has big surprises that could be spoiled by overhearing too much buzz
4.) Simply because you like going to the theater
And if you’re a movie critic, 5.) Because you have to review the movie asap.
Of course, there are some films that should be seen in theaters first: The six “Star Wars” episodes are good examples, because of the spectacle, the event itself, and the monster speakers. (When I heard Jango Fett’s “depth charges” (or whatever those explosive devices were called) that he unleashed while being pursued by Obi-Wan in Episode II, it was unforgettable. In fact, I saw “Attack of the Clones” a second time in the theater, just to be enveloped again in those two overwhelming sounds.)
But there was no reason to catch “Dan in Real Life” in the theater (even though it’s a good movie), when it was cheaper and more comfortable to snuggle up with my sweetheart and watch it at home.
However, whenever going out to the theater is part of a date-night itinerary, then the theater’s a fine (albeit unsociable) choice.
I realize that box-office figures send production companies “messages” from the public, which means avoiding the theater could potentially hurt the making of future, similarly good films. But DVD rentals and sales also send a message.
And as a movie critic (or a friend giving an opinion about a movie to another friend), it seems like it’s my duty to be an advocate for my trusting inquirer’s “movie allowance.” After all, we only have so much money we can spend on seeing movies. In addition, I also realize that movie critics should also be advocates for great films, which brings me to my final point.
Besides experiencing an audio-visual extravaganza or seeing a fine flick on a date, the only other reason to invest in theater prices is because the movie is so good, you shouldn’t wait for it to hit video. A good example of this would be “The Sixth Sense,” which also has a big secret that you wouldn’t want to risk being spoiled for you in the passing months until it hits DVD.
And don’t forget the people who see movies at the theater just for the experience of going out to the movies. That’s OK, too, of course.
In my rating system — Masterpiece, Excellent, Good, OK, Mediocre, Avoid — oftentimes there’s a fine line between Excellent and Good, and Good and OK. But to be clear, when I say a film is Excellent, that means it’s worth seeing in the theater and will always be a good rental choice. But when I say a movie is a rental, that means it’s good — but not $8 good.
Saturday, September 13, 2008
Righteous Kill (2008)
O Masterpiece
O Excellent
X Good
O OK
O Mediocrity
O Avoid
Review by Jason Pyles / September 13, 2008
Speaking of unfair expectations (which I did in my previous review of “Burn After Reading”), “Righteous Kill” is up against everyone’s belief that a movie starring Robert De Niro and Al Pacino should be as good as any one of their individual movies but squared. Yes, I’m referring to exponents.
As for me, I’m just rating this movie by itself, on its own terms — regardless of its cast. I mean, it doesn’t matter one bit that “The Devil’s Own” (1997), for example, has Harrison Ford and Brad Pitt, ‘cause that movie still sucks. You can even ask Brad Pitt.
But “Righteous Kill” is better than it seems. What I mean is, while I sat watching it, wondering what they were thinking, I eventually realized that its screenwriters were cleverer than I suspected. I can comfortably recommend that you check out this movie. Much like “Burn After Reading,” the Coen brothers’ film that was released the same day, “Righteous Kill” isn’t as good as you hoped it would be. Still, if you’ve only got time to catch one movie this weekend, choose “Righteous Kill” over the Coens.
“The Godfather: Part II” (1974) featured these two actors as father and son, but they never shared the screen at the same time. Then in 1995, Michael Mann’s “Heat” brought them together again but as enemies. So I guess it was inevitable that De Niro and Pacino get cast together in a buddy movie, as cop buddies, no less.
No spoilers follow. What follows is the premise, which is gleaned from the trailers: De Niro and Pacino play New York City police detectives, “Turk” and “Rooster,” respectively, and they’re tough on their criminals. Awfully tough. In fact, much of the movie is narrated by De Niro’s character, who’s filmed on a poor-quality camera giving a confessional interview, of sorts. Apparently, Turk has resorted to vigilantism to ensure that justice is served, and he becomes a serial killer who also happens to be a cop. And that’s all I can say.
No matter what, though, people are still going to be displeased with this movie. After all, it combines two titans of modern cinema, two of the finest actors alive. Many people don’t realize that great actors don’t necessarily make a movie great, but great actors can often make a not-so-great movie tolerable — sometimes. (No such luck with “The Devil’s Own.”) But “Righteous Kill,” on the other hand, is entertaining and good enough to put in your Netflix queue.
Directed by Jon Avnet
Robert De Niro / Al Pacino / 50 Cent
Crime / Drama 101 min.
MPAA: R (for violence, pervasive language, some sexuality and brief drug use)
U.S. Release Date: September 12, 2008
Copyright 2008: 313
O Excellent
X Good
O OK
O Mediocrity
O Avoid
Review by Jason Pyles / September 13, 2008
Speaking of unfair expectations (which I did in my previous review of “Burn After Reading”), “Righteous Kill” is up against everyone’s belief that a movie starring Robert De Niro and Al Pacino should be as good as any one of their individual movies but squared. Yes, I’m referring to exponents.
As for me, I’m just rating this movie by itself, on its own terms — regardless of its cast. I mean, it doesn’t matter one bit that “The Devil’s Own” (1997), for example, has Harrison Ford and Brad Pitt, ‘cause that movie still sucks. You can even ask Brad Pitt.
But “Righteous Kill” is better than it seems. What I mean is, while I sat watching it, wondering what they were thinking, I eventually realized that its screenwriters were cleverer than I suspected. I can comfortably recommend that you check out this movie. Much like “Burn After Reading,” the Coen brothers’ film that was released the same day, “Righteous Kill” isn’t as good as you hoped it would be. Still, if you’ve only got time to catch one movie this weekend, choose “Righteous Kill” over the Coens.
“The Godfather: Part II” (1974) featured these two actors as father and son, but they never shared the screen at the same time. Then in 1995, Michael Mann’s “Heat” brought them together again but as enemies. So I guess it was inevitable that De Niro and Pacino get cast together in a buddy movie, as cop buddies, no less.
No spoilers follow. What follows is the premise, which is gleaned from the trailers: De Niro and Pacino play New York City police detectives, “Turk” and “Rooster,” respectively, and they’re tough on their criminals. Awfully tough. In fact, much of the movie is narrated by De Niro’s character, who’s filmed on a poor-quality camera giving a confessional interview, of sorts. Apparently, Turk has resorted to vigilantism to ensure that justice is served, and he becomes a serial killer who also happens to be a cop. And that’s all I can say.
No matter what, though, people are still going to be displeased with this movie. After all, it combines two titans of modern cinema, two of the finest actors alive. Many people don’t realize that great actors don’t necessarily make a movie great, but great actors can often make a not-so-great movie tolerable — sometimes. (No such luck with “The Devil’s Own.”) But “Righteous Kill,” on the other hand, is entertaining and good enough to put in your Netflix queue.
Directed by Jon Avnet
Robert De Niro / Al Pacino / 50 Cent
Crime / Drama 101 min.
MPAA: R (for violence, pervasive language, some sexuality and brief drug use)
U.S. Release Date: September 12, 2008
Copyright 2008: 313
Friday, September 12, 2008
Burn After Reading (2008)
O Masterpiece
O Excellent
X Good
O OK
O Mediocrity
O Avoid
Review by Jason Pyles / September 12, 2008
Let’s get one thing straight: I’m not a Coen brothers apologist, but let’s remember that their last movie received Best Picture — not to mention their ambiguous receipt of the Best Director Oscar — at the Academy Awards, so we’re all bound to have lofty expectations for this next film.
That’s what happened to M. Night Shyamalan after “The Sixth Sense” (1999), and he’s never been received the same way since, nor do I think his films have been viewed fairly because of it. Yes, I am a Shyamalan apologist.
And another thing about the Coens’ new flick: “Burn After Reading” is intended to be a comedy, a farcical parable, a scathing satire. So, let’s be wise and not hold it up against the likes of “No Country for Old Men.” We’d be talking about apples and oranges.
Not quite as silly as “O Brother, Where Art Thou?” (2000), “Burn After Reading” ridicules and rebukes the U.S. government and its intelligence program, namely the CIA, by highlighting the fallibility of human nature. The directors’ overarching statement seems clear: Crazy things will happen when we allow imperfect people to make life-or-death decisions that affect other imperfect people.
And we can tell that the Coens and their cast are being playful, mostly, except for a couple “No Country … ” or “Fargo-like” surprises that wake us up. But it’s not that the movie is boring, per se. “Burn After Reading” is expressly casual, however. Its characters meander around, making mischief as they mingle. The attention-getting action doesn’t kick in until about 60 minutes into the film, at which point, we only get about 36 minutes more of Coen-caliber filmmaking to enjoy.
“Burn After Reading” is a multi-character, multi-sub-plot entanglement whose general themes are primarily adultery and blackmail. Taking care not to spoil anything, I’ll vaguely sketch the main characters: Harry Pfarrer (George Clooney) is a U.S. marshal and womanizer whose scariest romantic association is with a human barracuda, Katie Cox (Tilda Swinton). Osborne Cox (John Malkovich) is a demoted CIA analyst whose disc of private information falls into the hands of Linda Litzke (Frances McDormand), and her dimwitted co-worker, Chad Feldheimer (Brad Pitt).
Basically, “Burn After Reading” is like trying to solve a Rubik’s Cube, you twist and turn colors on one side and it affects all the other sides. These characters affect one another in much the same way.
When it’s all said and done, “Burn After Reading” is a Coen brothers film, and therefore, should not be missed … but that’s not to say that renting it wouldn’t be sufficient.
Directed by Ethan Coen and Joel Coen
George Clooney / Brad Pitt / John Malkovich
Comedy / Crime 96 min.
MPAA: R (for pervasive language, some sexual content and violence)
U.S. Release Date: September 12, 2008
Copyright 2008: 312
O Excellent
X Good
O OK
O Mediocrity
O Avoid
Review by Jason Pyles / September 12, 2008
Let’s get one thing straight: I’m not a Coen brothers apologist, but let’s remember that their last movie received Best Picture — not to mention their ambiguous receipt of the Best Director Oscar — at the Academy Awards, so we’re all bound to have lofty expectations for this next film.
That’s what happened to M. Night Shyamalan after “The Sixth Sense” (1999), and he’s never been received the same way since, nor do I think his films have been viewed fairly because of it. Yes, I am a Shyamalan apologist.
And another thing about the Coens’ new flick: “Burn After Reading” is intended to be a comedy, a farcical parable, a scathing satire. So, let’s be wise and not hold it up against the likes of “No Country for Old Men.” We’d be talking about apples and oranges.
Not quite as silly as “O Brother, Where Art Thou?” (2000), “Burn After Reading” ridicules and rebukes the U.S. government and its intelligence program, namely the CIA, by highlighting the fallibility of human nature. The directors’ overarching statement seems clear: Crazy things will happen when we allow imperfect people to make life-or-death decisions that affect other imperfect people.
And we can tell that the Coens and their cast are being playful, mostly, except for a couple “No Country … ” or “Fargo-like” surprises that wake us up. But it’s not that the movie is boring, per se. “Burn After Reading” is expressly casual, however. Its characters meander around, making mischief as they mingle. The attention-getting action doesn’t kick in until about 60 minutes into the film, at which point, we only get about 36 minutes more of Coen-caliber filmmaking to enjoy.
“Burn After Reading” is a multi-character, multi-sub-plot entanglement whose general themes are primarily adultery and blackmail. Taking care not to spoil anything, I’ll vaguely sketch the main characters: Harry Pfarrer (George Clooney) is a U.S. marshal and womanizer whose scariest romantic association is with a human barracuda, Katie Cox (Tilda Swinton). Osborne Cox (John Malkovich) is a demoted CIA analyst whose disc of private information falls into the hands of Linda Litzke (Frances McDormand), and her dimwitted co-worker, Chad Feldheimer (Brad Pitt).
Basically, “Burn After Reading” is like trying to solve a Rubik’s Cube, you twist and turn colors on one side and it affects all the other sides. These characters affect one another in much the same way.
When it’s all said and done, “Burn After Reading” is a Coen brothers film, and therefore, should not be missed … but that’s not to say that renting it wouldn’t be sufficient.
Directed by Ethan Coen and Joel Coen
George Clooney / Brad Pitt / John Malkovich
Comedy / Crime 96 min.
MPAA: R (for pervasive language, some sexual content and violence)
U.S. Release Date: September 12, 2008
Copyright 2008: 312
Monday, August 18, 2008
The X-Files: I Want to Believe (2008)
O Masterpiece
O Excellent
O Good
O OK
X Mediocrity
O Avoid
Review by Jason Pyles / August 18, 2008
This movie is called “The X-Files: I Want to Believe,” but it should be called “I Want to Believe This Is the X-Files,” or better yet: “I Don’t Want to Believe This Is the X-Files.”
Rating the new “X-Files” sequel as mere mediocrity may seem harsh, but this movie utterly betrays the beloved television series that supposedly inspired it. Chris Carter should be a little ashamed of himself. The last time I heard of such an atrocity is when I learned that some animals eat their own babies. When I get this disappointed in a movie, sometimes I wish my mom had eaten me.
OK. Here’s the primary problem: Remember how the TV show was about the FBI’s “X-Files” (aka cases that were weird, unusual, paranormal, inexplicable, mysterious, seemingly supernatural, etc.)? Well, the only X-Files-ish element to this movie is that one guy is kind of psychic. Maybe. That’s it!
Otherwise, “I Want to Believe” is nothing more than a second-rate, police procedural, criminal investigation, murder-mystery thriller. This could have been a made-for-television Saturday afternoon TBS movie.
We pick up with our favorite FBI agents, Dana Scully (Gillian Anderson) and Fox Mulder (David Duchovny). But obviously time has passed because they’ve gone their separate ways; I’m being general intentionally: Readers have varying spoiler sensitivity when it comes to plot summaries. But I can say this much, the point A that we left off from when we last saw these two characters is definitely not a straight line to the point B that we pick up at again in this movie. Much has happened, but Carter never bothers to fill us in on it.
In short, in Somerset, W.Va., people start going missing and an occasional severed body part turns up here and there, thanks to a psychic-priest-pedophile (Billy Connolly), who assists the authorities in finding said body parts. Scully and Mulder investigate. We get a needless subplot about a sick kid. The main plot creeps along slowly but not creepily enough. It almost starts getting interesting — but no. The end. Thanks for everything, Chris.
The first feature-length motion picture called “The X-Files” was released in 1998. It wasn’t too bad, but it was also a kind of a let-down. It went downhill quickly after the initial bomb-in-the-vending-machine scene. That film was directed by Rob Bowman. “X-Files” fans everywhere awaited the series’ feature-length redemption. With this new movie, we got Chris Carter as the director, which was a hopeful sign considering he was the mastermind behind the successful series. Nope. Not this time, either.
Supposedly, this new one, it seemed, was very hush-hush. Remember? You hardly heard anything about it until a week before its release. … Now we know why. I can’t believe we waited 10 years for this.
Directed by Chris Carter
David Duchovny / Gillian Anderson / Billy Connolly
Mystery / Thriller 104 min.
MPAA: PG-13 (for violent and disturbing content and thematic material)
U.S. Release Date: July 25, 2008
Copyright 2008: 306
O Excellent
O Good
O OK
X Mediocrity
O Avoid
Review by Jason Pyles / August 18, 2008
This movie is called “The X-Files: I Want to Believe,” but it should be called “I Want to Believe This Is the X-Files,” or better yet: “I Don’t Want to Believe This Is the X-Files.”
Rating the new “X-Files” sequel as mere mediocrity may seem harsh, but this movie utterly betrays the beloved television series that supposedly inspired it. Chris Carter should be a little ashamed of himself. The last time I heard of such an atrocity is when I learned that some animals eat their own babies. When I get this disappointed in a movie, sometimes I wish my mom had eaten me.
OK. Here’s the primary problem: Remember how the TV show was about the FBI’s “X-Files” (aka cases that were weird, unusual, paranormal, inexplicable, mysterious, seemingly supernatural, etc.)? Well, the only X-Files-ish element to this movie is that one guy is kind of psychic. Maybe. That’s it!
Otherwise, “I Want to Believe” is nothing more than a second-rate, police procedural, criminal investigation, murder-mystery thriller. This could have been a made-for-television Saturday afternoon TBS movie.
We pick up with our favorite FBI agents, Dana Scully (Gillian Anderson) and Fox Mulder (David Duchovny). But obviously time has passed because they’ve gone their separate ways; I’m being general intentionally: Readers have varying spoiler sensitivity when it comes to plot summaries. But I can say this much, the point A that we left off from when we last saw these two characters is definitely not a straight line to the point B that we pick up at again in this movie. Much has happened, but Carter never bothers to fill us in on it.
In short, in Somerset, W.Va., people start going missing and an occasional severed body part turns up here and there, thanks to a psychic-priest-pedophile (Billy Connolly), who assists the authorities in finding said body parts. Scully and Mulder investigate. We get a needless subplot about a sick kid. The main plot creeps along slowly but not creepily enough. It almost starts getting interesting — but no. The end. Thanks for everything, Chris.
The first feature-length motion picture called “The X-Files” was released in 1998. It wasn’t too bad, but it was also a kind of a let-down. It went downhill quickly after the initial bomb-in-the-vending-machine scene. That film was directed by Rob Bowman. “X-Files” fans everywhere awaited the series’ feature-length redemption. With this new movie, we got Chris Carter as the director, which was a hopeful sign considering he was the mastermind behind the successful series. Nope. Not this time, either.
Supposedly, this new one, it seemed, was very hush-hush. Remember? You hardly heard anything about it until a week before its release. … Now we know why. I can’t believe we waited 10 years for this.
Directed by Chris Carter
David Duchovny / Gillian Anderson / Billy Connolly
Mystery / Thriller 104 min.
MPAA: PG-13 (for violent and disturbing content and thematic material)
U.S. Release Date: July 25, 2008
Copyright 2008: 306
Sunday, August 17, 2008
Tropic Thunder (2008)
O Masterpiece
X Excellent
O Good
O OK
O Mediocrity
O Avoid
Review by Jason Pyles / August 17, 2008
Truly funny comedies seem to be an endangered species, which makes “Tropic Thunder” a rare animal. Much of this movie is hilarious — and vulgar — and hilarious. And I highly recommend it to any non-conservative movie buff.
The cat, no doubt, is out of the bag that “Tropic Thunder” is a fierce satire which mercilessly ridicules big-budget Hollywood and its bottom-line titans.
Ben Stiller, Robert Downey Jr., Jack Black, Tom Cruise, Matthew McConaughey, and Nick Nolte star in this movie about the making of a high-dollar, Vietnam War movie called “Tropic Thunder.”
Now, it’s interesting that the movie these characters are making is called “Tropic Thunder,” while the actual movie we’re watching also has the same title but is in fact a different movie. This would be similar to “Burden of Dreams” (1982) being named “Fitzcarraldo” (1982).
The fictitious studio has spared no expense in special effects, location shooting and big-name actors. Action movie star Tugg Speedman (Ben Stiller) is cast as Foley, the platoon leader. Rick Peck (Matthew McConaughey) is Speedman’s agent, and the most dedicated agent since Jerry Maguire.
And award-winning method actor Kirk Lazarus (Robert Downey Jr.) is an Aussie who has undergone a controversial pigmentation surgery to play an African-American soldier.
Jeff Portnoy (Jack Black) is a heroin addict who’s typically a comedic actor but trying to expand his résumé. Four Leaf (Nick Nolte) is the Vietnam vet who wrote “Tropic Thunder,” the book that the fictitious movie is adapted from. And last but not least, Tom Cruise plays the aptly named Les Grossman, the ruthless, despicable movie mogul whose production company is financing “Tropic Thunder.”
Right away the filming of the movie within the movie is problematic. It is costing far more than the studio execs planned, and the prima donna actors’ egos keep bumping heads. Following the advice of the war-vet-gone-author, first-time director Damien Cockburn (Steve Coogan) deploys his actors deep into the jungle, where they unwittingly encounter real hostiles that they suppose are also actors, much like we saw in “Three Amigos!” (1986).
“Tropic Thunder” gets so many things right: It begins with spoof trailers from the actors’ previous movies, all of which are fictitious, of course. These are great parodies, and are somehow reminiscent of the trailers that played between the “Grindhouse” (2007) double feature. One of these trailers takes aim at Eddie Murphy, and it’s a well-deserved attack.
This could almost be an action movie, too, which is another thing “Tropic Thunder” does right. Unlike Adam Sandler’s “You Don’t Mess With the Zohan” from earlier this year, “Tropic Thunder” is a comedy that also has some fairly entertaining action scenes. Once and a while they go over the top, particularly in the violence department, but it works for the intended comedic effect. “Zohan’s” attempts fail.
As noted above, “Tropic Thunder” is quite vulgar and will surely be offensive to many people: I winced while thinking how war veterans might react to this movie’s parody of “Platoon” (1986), and war in general. And I’ve already read scathing reactions to this movie’s ongoing jokes about mental retardation. Both communities probably should be offended.
Tom Cruise’s brave, surprise performance is a delight. And though Jack Black is usually quite humorous, he is mostly useless in this movie. But it is Robert Downey Jr. who truly steals the show. I suspect that his method-actor character pokes fun at Daniel Day-Lewis and those like him.
I know it’s extremely rare — and nearly unheard of — for comedic actors to be nominated for Academy Awards, but Downey Jr. should receive such a nod. He doesn’t have to win, but he should be nominated. I’m not holding my breath, and neither is Downey Jr.
His character dominates the screen with lines like, “I don’t read the script; the script reads me.” His makeup is exceptional, too. He truly looks like a black man. You know, in the pioneering days of motion pictures, white actors played African-Americans with black face makeup, a practice that has since stirred frequent resentment. So, Downey Jr.’s character shockingly returns to that distasteful yesteryear, incorporating many stereotypes. Whether it’s offensive or not, the role is well done.
At one point Downey Jr. alternates between the African-American soldier and the Australian-born actor. The concentration it must have taken to pull that off — and still be funny — is remarkable.
Remember his line from the trailer: “I’m the dude that’s playin’ the dude disguised as another dude”? That scene is brilliant because it has a double meaning. Watch for it.
All in all, “Tropic Thunder” is an excellent, laugh-out-loud comedy. It’s the kind of movie that’s best to watch by yourself, so you won’t feel ashamed of your reaction.
Directed by Ben Stiller
Robert Downey Jr. / Ben Stiller / Jack Black
Comedy / Action 107 min.
MPAA: R (for pervasive language including sexual references, violent content and drug material)
U.S. Release Date: August 13, 2008
Copyright 2008: 310
X Excellent
O Good
O OK
O Mediocrity
O Avoid
Review by Jason Pyles / August 17, 2008
Truly funny comedies seem to be an endangered species, which makes “Tropic Thunder” a rare animal. Much of this movie is hilarious — and vulgar — and hilarious. And I highly recommend it to any non-conservative movie buff.
The cat, no doubt, is out of the bag that “Tropic Thunder” is a fierce satire which mercilessly ridicules big-budget Hollywood and its bottom-line titans.
Ben Stiller, Robert Downey Jr., Jack Black, Tom Cruise, Matthew McConaughey, and Nick Nolte star in this movie about the making of a high-dollar, Vietnam War movie called “Tropic Thunder.”
Now, it’s interesting that the movie these characters are making is called “Tropic Thunder,” while the actual movie we’re watching also has the same title but is in fact a different movie. This would be similar to “Burden of Dreams” (1982) being named “Fitzcarraldo” (1982).
The fictitious studio has spared no expense in special effects, location shooting and big-name actors. Action movie star Tugg Speedman (Ben Stiller) is cast as Foley, the platoon leader. Rick Peck (Matthew McConaughey) is Speedman’s agent, and the most dedicated agent since Jerry Maguire.
And award-winning method actor Kirk Lazarus (Robert Downey Jr.) is an Aussie who has undergone a controversial pigmentation surgery to play an African-American soldier.
Jeff Portnoy (Jack Black) is a heroin addict who’s typically a comedic actor but trying to expand his résumé. Four Leaf (Nick Nolte) is the Vietnam vet who wrote “Tropic Thunder,” the book that the fictitious movie is adapted from. And last but not least, Tom Cruise plays the aptly named Les Grossman, the ruthless, despicable movie mogul whose production company is financing “Tropic Thunder.”
Right away the filming of the movie within the movie is problematic. It is costing far more than the studio execs planned, and the prima donna actors’ egos keep bumping heads. Following the advice of the war-vet-gone-author, first-time director Damien Cockburn (Steve Coogan) deploys his actors deep into the jungle, where they unwittingly encounter real hostiles that they suppose are also actors, much like we saw in “Three Amigos!” (1986).
“Tropic Thunder” gets so many things right: It begins with spoof trailers from the actors’ previous movies, all of which are fictitious, of course. These are great parodies, and are somehow reminiscent of the trailers that played between the “Grindhouse” (2007) double feature. One of these trailers takes aim at Eddie Murphy, and it’s a well-deserved attack.
This could almost be an action movie, too, which is another thing “Tropic Thunder” does right. Unlike Adam Sandler’s “You Don’t Mess With the Zohan” from earlier this year, “Tropic Thunder” is a comedy that also has some fairly entertaining action scenes. Once and a while they go over the top, particularly in the violence department, but it works for the intended comedic effect. “Zohan’s” attempts fail.
As noted above, “Tropic Thunder” is quite vulgar and will surely be offensive to many people: I winced while thinking how war veterans might react to this movie’s parody of “Platoon” (1986), and war in general. And I’ve already read scathing reactions to this movie’s ongoing jokes about mental retardation. Both communities probably should be offended.
Tom Cruise’s brave, surprise performance is a delight. And though Jack Black is usually quite humorous, he is mostly useless in this movie. But it is Robert Downey Jr. who truly steals the show. I suspect that his method-actor character pokes fun at Daniel Day-Lewis and those like him.
I know it’s extremely rare — and nearly unheard of — for comedic actors to be nominated for Academy Awards, but Downey Jr. should receive such a nod. He doesn’t have to win, but he should be nominated. I’m not holding my breath, and neither is Downey Jr.
His character dominates the screen with lines like, “I don’t read the script; the script reads me.” His makeup is exceptional, too. He truly looks like a black man. You know, in the pioneering days of motion pictures, white actors played African-Americans with black face makeup, a practice that has since stirred frequent resentment. So, Downey Jr.’s character shockingly returns to that distasteful yesteryear, incorporating many stereotypes. Whether it’s offensive or not, the role is well done.
At one point Downey Jr. alternates between the African-American soldier and the Australian-born actor. The concentration it must have taken to pull that off — and still be funny — is remarkable.
Remember his line from the trailer: “I’m the dude that’s playin’ the dude disguised as another dude”? That scene is brilliant because it has a double meaning. Watch for it.
All in all, “Tropic Thunder” is an excellent, laugh-out-loud comedy. It’s the kind of movie that’s best to watch by yourself, so you won’t feel ashamed of your reaction.
Directed by Ben Stiller
Robert Downey Jr. / Ben Stiller / Jack Black
Comedy / Action 107 min.
MPAA: R (for pervasive language including sexual references, violent content and drug material)
U.S. Release Date: August 13, 2008
Copyright 2008: 310
Tuesday, July 22, 2008
The Dark Knight (2008)
O Masterpiece
X Excellent
O Good
O OK
O Mediocrity
O Avoid
Review by Jason Pyles / July 22, 2008
“The Dark Knight” is the towering masterpiece of the superhero movie genre. Nothing else even comes close (except maybe “Batman Begins,” but it’s still a distant second).
In fact, I practice significant self-restraint to avoid ranking “The Dark Knight” as a masterpiece across the board, meaning, not just among superhero movies but among all movies. I can’t do that. I’ll explain later. But I do feel comfortable writing this: “The Dark Knight” is the best film of 2008 … thus far.
Yes, Heath Ledger’s Joker performance makes the movie. But one should not overlook the brilliance that is director Christopher Nolan. Let’s remember his filmography: “The Dark Knight,” “The Prestige” (2006), “Batman Begins (2005), “Insomnia” (2002) and “Memento” (2000). Oh, he also was a writer for all those great films, too, except “Insomnia.”
“The Dark Knight” isn’t perfect, but it’s close. I’m sentimental, sure, but not when it comes to dead actors. I thought Ledger’s untimely death back in January was regrettable, but I felt the same briefly passing pensiveness that I’d feel if any 28-year-old died.
Unfortunately, if Ledger receives an Academy Award next January for best supporting actor, I fear many people will shrug it off as a “consolation prize” for dying. But Ledger is deserving of a nomination for the merits of his performance alone. I can’t remember the last time I was so captivated by an actor. I couldn’t take my eyes off him.
For all you naysayers, if any exist, compare Ledger’s performance as Ennis Del Mar in “Brokeback Mountain” (2005) with this Joker performance. His range is undeniable; the distance between those two characters is so remarkably pronounced, it seems clear to me that Ledger was one of the great actors of his generation. And while it is true that artists are always better appreciated after they’re gone, I’m not just writing this because he’s dead.
Reportedly, veteran actor Michael Caine thought Ledger’s Joker performance was quite unsettling, even frightening. I’ve heard this a couple places, and I believe it’s true: To prepare for the role, Ledger stayed in a hotel room for a month to “become” the Joker. He worked on the character’s psychology and his voice. He supposedly kept a diary, according to the IMDb trivia, of the Joker’s thoughts and feelings to guide himself during his performances. And Ledger was also given various comic books featuring the Joker, so he could become acquainted with the character.
Not all the credit for this masterful character should be given to Ledger. It was brilliant (on somebody’s part) that he doesn’t have a perma-smile, but instead, scars that grimly suggest a smile. His makeup is “war paint,” used to scare people — not just a gimmick. At one point the Joker says he’s not crazy, which makes him scarier. (What if somebody were truly that vile and simultaneously completely sane? Uh oh.) Now that’s scary. And I love how he isn’t afraid of Batman (Christian Bale), nor is he intimidated; in fact, he greatly appreciates him. How do you battle a guy like that?
In short, Heath Ledger’s Joker is one of the best movie villains in the history of cinema (if not the best), ranking up there with the likes of Darth Vader, Hannibal Lecter and Norman Bates.
Currently on the Internet Movie Database, “The Dark Knight” is ranked No. 1 on its top 250 list. Impressive but temporary. That fickle list is always shifting. Even so, Rotten Tomatoes and its exclusive critics rank this movie 94 percent fresh (out of 100). So, the critics are impressed. The movie-going public is also pleased: “The Dark Knight” broke box-office records for the highest all-time gross for opening weekend, which was $155,340,000. It also broke the opening day record with $66.4 million.
Despite my desire to sit in the theater again for a back-to-back showing, the following reasons were my only grounds for not rating “The Dark Knight” as a bona fide masterpiece: The movie is too long, kinda like this review. Yes, I just wrote about how I was willing to sit through it again, but masterpieces (in my estimation) need to be re-watchable, over and over again. Few people will sit through an overly lengthy movie countless times: Case in point, how many times have you watched your “Lord of the Rings” trilogy?
(There is, however, one exception to this rule: The “Up” documentary series, which is up to its seventh film, is a masterpiece, without question, no matter how seldom one watches it.)
The other problems with “The Dark Knight” are that its labyrinthine plot and its often unintelligible action sequences are a little hard to follow. I love action sequences that are clearly able to be seen and comprehended. And the story is impressive; it’s just not a movie that is completely understandable the first time around.
Another problem is its “surprise” (which isn’t really a surprise for most people) super villain who develops later in the movie. I know the movie was just following the character, but he’s simply a weak character. I will credit this movie for not making us wait until the next film to encounter the wrath of that villain.
And why do most superhero movie franchises always hit that whiny point where the superhero cries about the world no longer needing him, lamenting that the world would be better off without him? That is so tiresome, and I was disappointed to see it in a movie of this caliber. But at least we didn’t have to have an origin story for the Joker, a mystery that made him creepier.
Due to the length of this review, I won’t cite examples, but I found it fascinating how many parallels there were (perhaps homages) to the 1989 “Batman” movie.
And now that I’ve reached the end of this review, I’ll close with a nutshell plot summary: Gotham City’s “white knight,” Harvey Dent (Aaron Eckhart) is cleaning up the city. He’s even putting the squeeze on the mafia. Joker (Ledger) comes out of the blue to rally the criminals and to kill their primary obstacle: Batman (Christian Bale).
“The Dark Knight” is a must-see — in the theater. Go right now and please, take me with you.
Directed by Christopher Nolan
Christian Bale / Heath Ledger / Aaron Eckhart
Action / Crime 152 min.
MPAA: PG-13 (for intense sequences of violence and some menace)
U.S. Release Date: July 18, 2008
Copyright 2008: 305
Addendum: I have received some interesting criticism for this review of "The Dark Knight," even though I gave it a great review. Some people didn't think my review was great enough. Read the exchange at www.ConsideringTheCinema.blogspot.com.
X Excellent
O Good
O OK
O Mediocrity
O Avoid
Review by Jason Pyles / July 22, 2008
“The Dark Knight” is the towering masterpiece of the superhero movie genre. Nothing else even comes close (except maybe “Batman Begins,” but it’s still a distant second).
In fact, I practice significant self-restraint to avoid ranking “The Dark Knight” as a masterpiece across the board, meaning, not just among superhero movies but among all movies. I can’t do that. I’ll explain later. But I do feel comfortable writing this: “The Dark Knight” is the best film of 2008 … thus far.
Yes, Heath Ledger’s Joker performance makes the movie. But one should not overlook the brilliance that is director Christopher Nolan. Let’s remember his filmography: “The Dark Knight,” “The Prestige” (2006), “Batman Begins (2005), “Insomnia” (2002) and “Memento” (2000). Oh, he also was a writer for all those great films, too, except “Insomnia.”
“The Dark Knight” isn’t perfect, but it’s close. I’m sentimental, sure, but not when it comes to dead actors. I thought Ledger’s untimely death back in January was regrettable, but I felt the same briefly passing pensiveness that I’d feel if any 28-year-old died.
Unfortunately, if Ledger receives an Academy Award next January for best supporting actor, I fear many people will shrug it off as a “consolation prize” for dying. But Ledger is deserving of a nomination for the merits of his performance alone. I can’t remember the last time I was so captivated by an actor. I couldn’t take my eyes off him.
For all you naysayers, if any exist, compare Ledger’s performance as Ennis Del Mar in “Brokeback Mountain” (2005) with this Joker performance. His range is undeniable; the distance between those two characters is so remarkably pronounced, it seems clear to me that Ledger was one of the great actors of his generation. And while it is true that artists are always better appreciated after they’re gone, I’m not just writing this because he’s dead.
Reportedly, veteran actor Michael Caine thought Ledger’s Joker performance was quite unsettling, even frightening. I’ve heard this a couple places, and I believe it’s true: To prepare for the role, Ledger stayed in a hotel room for a month to “become” the Joker. He worked on the character’s psychology and his voice. He supposedly kept a diary, according to the IMDb trivia, of the Joker’s thoughts and feelings to guide himself during his performances. And Ledger was also given various comic books featuring the Joker, so he could become acquainted with the character.
Not all the credit for this masterful character should be given to Ledger. It was brilliant (on somebody’s part) that he doesn’t have a perma-smile, but instead, scars that grimly suggest a smile. His makeup is “war paint,” used to scare people — not just a gimmick. At one point the Joker says he’s not crazy, which makes him scarier. (What if somebody were truly that vile and simultaneously completely sane? Uh oh.) Now that’s scary. And I love how he isn’t afraid of Batman (Christian Bale), nor is he intimidated; in fact, he greatly appreciates him. How do you battle a guy like that?
In short, Heath Ledger’s Joker is one of the best movie villains in the history of cinema (if not the best), ranking up there with the likes of Darth Vader, Hannibal Lecter and Norman Bates.
Currently on the Internet Movie Database, “The Dark Knight” is ranked No. 1 on its top 250 list. Impressive but temporary. That fickle list is always shifting. Even so, Rotten Tomatoes and its exclusive critics rank this movie 94 percent fresh (out of 100). So, the critics are impressed. The movie-going public is also pleased: “The Dark Knight” broke box-office records for the highest all-time gross for opening weekend, which was $155,340,000. It also broke the opening day record with $66.4 million.
Despite my desire to sit in the theater again for a back-to-back showing, the following reasons were my only grounds for not rating “The Dark Knight” as a bona fide masterpiece: The movie is too long, kinda like this review. Yes, I just wrote about how I was willing to sit through it again, but masterpieces (in my estimation) need to be re-watchable, over and over again. Few people will sit through an overly lengthy movie countless times: Case in point, how many times have you watched your “Lord of the Rings” trilogy?
(There is, however, one exception to this rule: The “Up” documentary series, which is up to its seventh film, is a masterpiece, without question, no matter how seldom one watches it.)
The other problems with “The Dark Knight” are that its labyrinthine plot and its often unintelligible action sequences are a little hard to follow. I love action sequences that are clearly able to be seen and comprehended. And the story is impressive; it’s just not a movie that is completely understandable the first time around.
Another problem is its “surprise” (which isn’t really a surprise for most people) super villain who develops later in the movie. I know the movie was just following the character, but he’s simply a weak character. I will credit this movie for not making us wait until the next film to encounter the wrath of that villain.
And why do most superhero movie franchises always hit that whiny point where the superhero cries about the world no longer needing him, lamenting that the world would be better off without him? That is so tiresome, and I was disappointed to see it in a movie of this caliber. But at least we didn’t have to have an origin story for the Joker, a mystery that made him creepier.
Due to the length of this review, I won’t cite examples, but I found it fascinating how many parallels there were (perhaps homages) to the 1989 “Batman” movie.
And now that I’ve reached the end of this review, I’ll close with a nutshell plot summary: Gotham City’s “white knight,” Harvey Dent (Aaron Eckhart) is cleaning up the city. He’s even putting the squeeze on the mafia. Joker (Ledger) comes out of the blue to rally the criminals and to kill their primary obstacle: Batman (Christian Bale).
“The Dark Knight” is a must-see — in the theater. Go right now and please, take me with you.
Directed by Christopher Nolan
Christian Bale / Heath Ledger / Aaron Eckhart
Action / Crime 152 min.
MPAA: PG-13 (for intense sequences of violence and some menace)
U.S. Release Date: July 18, 2008
Copyright 2008: 305
Addendum: I have received some interesting criticism for this review of "The Dark Knight," even though I gave it a great review. Some people didn't think my review was great enough. Read the exchange at www.ConsideringTheCinema.blogspot.com.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
