Super 8

            

           I would like to take this opportunity to thank the makers of Super 8.  Thank you, J.J Abrams and company for allowing me the opportunity to see what it would have been like to have seen a film like E.T. or Close Encounters of the Third Kind or even Jaws in theaters.  As a guy who was born in 1991, I am very grateful.

            I understand Super 8 wasn’t quite on par with those films as far as quality, but it had the same spirit.  It was a blast of fresh air to see a summer movie that was content just having fun.  No darker themes, no sex scenes, and no leaving it open to create some sort of mega trilogy.  Just a romp through the imagination of its creator, and a nostalgic glimpse at an interesting time, especially for movies.

            It never fails to amaze me how far good characters can take a film.  It was especially surprising in this film, as I nearly always hate children in movies.  But this group of kids were instantly likable, and more importantly, realistic.  They didn’t sound like a surrogate for a screenwriter desperately trying to squeeze laughs from an audience.  They sounded like real kids, and what we hear from them was just us overhearing some of their conversations.  They don’t know we’re listening, and they don’t care.

            The scares in the film were fine, but really, the scares and the monster in general took second seat to the main bunch of characters.  At times, the monster plot almost seemed to be a distraction from the main attraction that was these kids attempts to make a zombie movie.  It never became a real issue, but the idea was there, gently tugging at my subconscious in some scenes.

            While I realize it’s impossible, I almost wish Abrams and company had refrained from using CGI at all, just for the purpose of rounding out the nostalgic 1970’s feel.  I’m probably the only one, but I would have loved to see a claymation monster, and old school effects. 

            In the end, this movie isn’t about the CGI, or the monster, or the viral marketing campaign.  It’s about a feeling, and it’s a feeling that hasn’t been experienced by audiences for a long time.

4/5

X-Men: First Class

X-Men: First Class was a unique case in that every single problem the movie had was the director’s fault.  This is strange, because at it’s worst; direction is something most viewers won’t even consciously notice.  But really, the screenplay was fine, if not extraordinary, and most of the acting was phenomenal.  All of my complaints came from the clumsy, oftentimes inept direction handled by Mr. Matthew Vaughn.

The first red flag that went up for me was the opening scene, where Magneto reveals his power to the Nazis.  The scene was lifted nearly shot-for-shot from the original X-Men movie.  “Really?”  I thought.  I understand this is vital information for the audience, but isn’t it the point of a reboot/prequel to show us things we’re familiar with already in a new and interesting way?  I shrugged it off in the hopes that it was just a minor misstep for the film, but I soon realized this scene was the least of the movie’s problems.

I don’t think there was a single scene in this movie that didn’t make me laugh.  Between cheesy reaction shots, hilariously awkward exposition scenes, or bizarre choices as far as actor handling, the entire film had an uncomfortable, humorous vibe.  It was so excessive in fact, that I began to wonder if Mr. Vaughn had intentionally decided to adopt a campier, more retro tone to fit with the 1960’s setting.  That would have been fine, but if the director doesn’t let the audience in on the joke, then the joke is on him.  It’s never a good thing if the audience can’t tell if a movie is trying to be funny or not.   And considering the hundreds of repressed chuckles I heard during the scene where Magneto’s mother is shot in front of him, I’m going to assume Vaughn didn’t know he was being funny.  The kid who played Magneto might have been a fine actor, but even Daniel Day Lewis himself couldn’t make actions like these not hilarious: “Okay kid, I want you to shout ‘AAAARGH!!!’, pause, turn, then repeat three or four times.  Action!”

Vaughn also struggled to convey a coherent narrative for the audience to follow.  During certain points of the film, it would suddenly occur to me that I had no idea what was going on.  “Kevin Bacon bad, Xavier good” was about the extent of the information I absorbed.  Any other details were lost in a myriad of dull conversations and laughably obvious exposition scenes, where we would awkwardly cut to two generals presenting a few lines for the sole purpose of setting up the next scene.

As I said, if not for the incompetent direction, First Class could have been a very enjoyable film.  James McAvoy and Michael Fassbender were perfect as Xavier and Magneto.  I had no trouble believing that these two could grow up to be the Patrick Stewart and Ian McKellen versions of the characters I was familiar with, but at the same time they brought their own traits to the roles, and made the characters more three dimensional in the process.  It’s just a shame that the man in charge of them couldn’t direct his way out of a paper bag.

Oh, and one more thing.  SPOILER ALERT.

Even the movie’s “best” moment could have been tweaked to make it a hell of a lot better.  The scene where Hugh Jackman appears to turn down Xavier for the first time was undeniably funny.  So why did Vaughn feel the need to ruin the joke by staying on Wolverine for about thirty seconds too long, just to watch him order another drink?  It’s as if Vaughn was afraid people wouldn’t get it, so he beat the cameo over our heads just to make sure, and made the one enjoyable scene awkward in the process.  Thanks Vaughn.  Thanks a lot.

1/5

Thor

            

            Thor is one of those movies that you expect to be terrible, winds up being pretty good, then you never think about again for the rest of your life.  At least until The Avengers comes out, maybe.

            I thought that Thor looked pretty stupid.  I mean, it’s hard to get excited about a movie that openly admits it is just a required precursor to a hopefully much cooler movie due out in a few years.  The situation wasn’t helped by some very dumb previews, and a main star who’s biggest credit is being “the dad of Captain Kirk in the Star Trek reboot”.

            All that being said, Thor turned out to be pleasantly surprising.  The action was cool, the ice monster things were scary, and Chris Hemsworth’s likability is not to be underestimated.  Really, the best thing about this movie was that it wasn’t afraid to be fun.  I love The Dark Knight, but not every superhero movie needs to mimic its gritty, realistic tone.  Especially superhero movies that feature a “rainbow bridge” and a 25-foot tall magical fire-breathing robot.  This movie would have been laughable had it all been treated seriously, and fortunately Kenneth Branagh and team realized this and decided to have fun with it.

            And, like most fun popcorn summer blockbusters, this one was not perfect.  I found Loki as the villain to be very boring.  It was an interesting attempt to have a comic book villain be multi-faceted and relatable, but the screenwriter and Tom Hiddleston make Loki so watered down, I don’t care what happens to him one way or the other.  Another puzzling casting move was having Natalie Portman play the scientist love interest.  If you’re going to hire one of the best actresses alive today, why not make her character more interesting than a brick wall?  And despite the riotous laughter coming from my theater, I thought Kat Dennings was ingratiating as the comic relief.  But that one might just be me.

            Still, I expected Thor to be completely stupid, and it was only a little stupid. It had fun, and the fun was catching.  That being said, I have no desire to ever see it again.  Although I am completely psyched for The Avengers.  Is it 2012 yet?

3/5

Why a Third Ghostbusters Film Wouldn't Be a Ghostbusters Film

I’m going to talk about Ghostbusters 3.

I grew up on Ghostbusters 1 and 2, and love is not a strong enough word to describe how I feel about those films.  Even now, after the Internet has informed me that the sequel isn’t very good, I still feel nothing but adoration for both of these films.  If you asked me to show you nostalgia, I’d hand you a copy of Ghostbusters.

So when I started hearing whispers of a possible third film in the franchise, I began bubbling with excitement.  I could experience what audiences did in 1984.  I could go to the theaters and see what the Ghostbusters had been up to in their 20 year absence, and experience a brand new story with them.  It would be like visiting old friends.

Only, it wouldn’t.  I’ve been thinking about it recently, and I’ve come to realize something surprising.  I don’t want a third film.  At all.  Even if it were good, even if it were acceptable, it wouldn’t be a Ghostbusters film.

When I watched Indiana Jones 4, I, along with the rest of the world, was heartbroken.  A trilogy we had grown to love had been brought into the modern world, rehashed, spit shined, and crammed through the hard drive of a computer, and came out soulless.  I hated the abundance of CGI, the horrible plot, and the ridiculously cheesy dialogue.  At the time, I didn’t think that Indy’s age was a problem.  I thought that with a better movie, I wouldn’t have noticed the fact that Harrison Ford was now 60.  But now, if you watch all four films in a row, the age difference between 3 and 4 is too jarring to ignore.  It’s depressing.  Indy isn’t supposed to get old.  He’s immortal.  He’s supposed to be fast and too clever for age to catch him.  But here is Harrison Ford, grunting and wheezing his way through another “adventure”.  The true Indy wasn’t even in the fourth film.  And how can you have an Indiana Jones movie without the real Indiana Jones?

The same tragedy is about to happen to Ghostbusters.  I don’t care if the story is hilarious and the dialogue is completely in sync with the original films.  Bill Murray and the rest of the cast are now retirement aged, and there’s nothing anyone can do about that.  Inevitably, a third film would only depress me.  It would only be a grim reminder that no matter what anyone does, you’re going to get old and die.  That’s not exactly what I want the subtext of a comedy film to be.

The second biggest problem I have besides the age issue, is that of special effects.  It is completely in the Ghostbusters world to have cheesy special effects.  In their world, the ghosts are all stop-motion, or men in masks, or models.  They don’t look realistic, and they’re not supposed to.  That being said, can you imagine a potentially huge blockbuster nowadays being given the go-ahead by the studio to film using completely old school effects?  Of course not.  They’d insist on shining everything up.  CGI ghosts, CGI proton beams, CGI fucking Slimer.  There goes the series that everyone loved.

Currently, the belief is that Bill Murray’s refusal is the only thing stopping the third Ghostbusters film from starting production.  I have never loved Bill Murray more than I did when I heard that.  I don’t know his reasons, but I can pray that  some of them coincide with the issues I’ve mentioned here.  Bill Murray is an intelligent guy.  He doesn’t need to go desecrating a near perfect comedy franchise just because some over eager fans think they want it.

Unstoppable

            

            Unstoppable was a decent action film.  It was greatly helped by the likability of its two stars, Denzel Washington and Chris Pine.  I appreciate it for it’s simple, entertaining plot, which is reminiscent of such 90’s action classics like Speed and Die Hard.  I wouldn’t put it in the same league as those two, but it’s an admirable effort. 

            If you’ve read my reviews, you’ll know I try not to complain too much about obvious popcorn action movies, as long as they achieve what they set out to do: entertain.  This is why I approved of Sucker Punch, and despised Battle: Los Angeles.  Unstoppable achieved its goal of being entertaining, so I tip my hat to it for that.  I do feel it missed some opportunities in the suspense department though.

            This is mostly due to the camera work.  I’ve been reading a ton of stuff about Hitchcock recently, so I’ve noticed myself keeping an eye out for where the camera is placed in certain scenes and why.  Hitchcock talked a lot about the benefits of getting up close and personal in some instances, and why sometimes it’s better to back up and give a wide, unobtrusive view of things.

            This is where I feel Unstoppable stumbled.  There were some moments that could have been extremely tense and exciting for the audience, but due to the camera placement we felt left out.  The biggest example I noticed was when Denzel Washington’s character was jumping from car to car in an attempt to get to the front of a speeding train.  This would be scary as hell… for the person jumping.  For the uninvolved observer watching from 100 feet away, we don’t feel the intensity at all.  By placing the camera in the nearby helicopters and following trucks, we don’t get the full effect of the danger he is in, therein zapping almost all tension out of the scene.  If the camera had been from Denzel’s point of view, we as the audience would have been on the edge of our seats.  As it was, we felt like nothing but an uninvolved viewer watching from the safety of our television sets at home.

            There were many other suspenseful moments in the film, particularly when the camera did get up close and personal.  I was just disappointed the few times I felt an opportunity was missed.  All in all however, Unstoppable was a decent popcorn flick that more or less hit its target.

3/5

The Woman in Black Trailer

This.  Looks.  Creepy.

Get Low

            

            Get Low is a good example of getting exactly what the trailer promises you.  Not sure if you want to see Get Low or not?  Get on Youtube and watch the trailer.  If you like it, you’ll like the movie.

            I liked the trailer.   

            The film tells the supposedly true story of an old hermit named Felix Bush, who decides to host his own funeral while he is still alive so that he can hear what everyone thinks of him.  Robert Duvall is terrific as the cantankerous old man.  He particularly shines in scenes where his vulnerability is shown, such as when he goes to Sissy Spacek’s house in the middle of the night to try to make peace.  I also really enjoyed the “dog dreams” speech he gives to the young funeral parlor assistant, played by Lucas Black.  Bill Cobbs was also very powerful as the Rev. Charlie Jackson.  When he and Duvall were onscreen together, their combined power made me feel very secure, and a little sleepy.  Their voices are so deep and soothing.  If this sounds strange, watch the movie and tell me if you don’t feel the same way.

             One of the biggest draws for me in watching this movie was, of course, Bill Murray.  He does not disappoint as the wily old funeral home director.  He plays Bill Murray, like he always does, and for that I love him.

            The screenplay was fine.  It did a nice job building up the mystery around Bush’s past, and kept you guessing whether or not he was really a good guy or not.

            While the trailer for Get Low gives you a good idea of the film itself, the film does make some unexpected choices.   The film tended to downplay moments that you were lead to believe were going to be big, such as the announcement of Bush’s odd funeral plans, or even his “get low” speech.  This was especially evident in the climax of the movie.  The funeral party had been built up so much that I was left a little disappointed by it’s abruptness.  I suppose I can understand the filmmaker’s reasons for downplaying the funeral, so that the focus was not on the party but on Bush himself, but still.  I wanted to see a party.

            All in all, the film was enjoyable.  The music was terrific, with the notable exception of the final song, which I felt was too modern and didn’t jive with the rest of the soundtrack.  If you liked the trailer, you’ll like the film, minor quibbles aside.  I promise.

4/5