A Big (Fun/Hilarious) Waste of Time

I love reading Entertainment Weekly; I don't care if it is one step above US Weekly and therefore 3.5 steps "journalistically" above The Sun-- I still look forward to getting a new issue every week. I got a subscription initially for the 4 seasonal movie preview issues, but I find myself unable (and unwilling) to break the habit.

(Un)Fortunately I made the mistake of going out to their site today to fill out the survey for who is the greatest Entertainment/TV icon and got sucked into their photo-lists. Here are a few of them and links so that you can enjoy them too (hopefully the links work).

"Bad" Meaning "Good"
EW.com's staff recently confessed the critical duds we secretly love...
http://www.ew.com/ew/gallery/0,,20041669_20041673_1549094,00.html

Critically Adored movies we just don't get
EW.com's staffers recently confessed the ''great'' films they just don't get -- now, see what our readers had to say on the subject

http://www.ew.com/ew/gallery/0,,20041669_20041673_1543584,00.html

Intergalactic Legendary
On EW.com's PopWatch blog, we asked you to name the characters/creatures you'd love to hang out with...
http://www.ew.com/ew/gallery/0,,20041669_20041673_20037930,00.html

A Guy Cry

...Here are the flicks that'll jerk tears out of the toughest guys.

http://www.ew.com/ew/gallery/0,,20041669_20041673_20015186,00.html

Such geek-a-licious fun!

Resident Evil: Extinction - Another POV

Milla Jovovich + kicking zombie butt one more time, with feeling + fun companions + a dash of Mad Max = alright by me

I can agree with my co-writer that Resident Evil: Extinction (or RE3) was not quite as good as the other two films, but it was good enough. I would even raise that to pretty darn good for what it was (a videogame movie). Don't get me wrong; I am particularly amused by comics-to-screen- and game-to-screen translations, but they are never going to be included in the film cannon, and we all know that, even as we get excited about a movie's release. I don't actually play most of these games before I go to the films, but I think the medium is interesting, and the storytelling opportunities are pretty intriguing. (Maybe someday I will actually do an analysis of the transmutation of myths into videogame storylines, but that is geekdom that I will save for another day). It's a valid genre, in my opinion.

I like the Mad Max series; there is even a gawky-looking man who has a useful talent (here, adding a light moment while shaking label-less cans of "mystery food" to determine their contents (Joe Hursley, playing Otto), while Mad Max had the pilot (Bruce Spence, who has made quite a niche for himself in Sci-Fi, whether we recognize him or not). I love post-apocalyptic stories (even though I am pretty sure I would not be one of the survivors). Most of all, I love Milla Jovovich, and the types of projects that she has come to inhabit (yep, even UltraViolet), baring all for our amusement, if not for "art". I love seeing Oded Fehr; he is a manly-man, without being a chavanistic Rambo. (More about the gender-equity later.) I really do like his character in these films, and I like the affection for Alice's character that is revealed. I suppose in a world like this, anyone who you can stand, and who is willing to help you survive, is a friend.

If you check out the IMDB page for the references this movie makes to others, that is pretty amusing:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0432021/movieconnections
I would like to add one: Texas Chainsaw Massacre. Was anyone else creeped out by the demented "family" broadcasting for survivors? I suppose if the world has ended, I will be too busy trying to survive, finding food and gas, to be worried about amusing myself by further whittling away at the number of people left. Still, I suppose it could count as "hunting", in a sadistic-sort of way.

I think the thing that I liked best about RE3 is that it was much more 'realistic' than the second movie; more like the first. Yes, I am aware that the previous statement is not without a touch of irony, but if you look at the "universe" created by the plot, the 3rd movie returns the scale of suspension of disbelief to more manageable levels, similar to RE1. (I mean, seriously, who was going to believe Sienna Guillory as a brunette cop? She manages to be almost as pathetically hideous as Asia Argento.)
I also liked the character of the White Queen; the idea is amusing. She could have had a bit of a larger role, but then again, too many ingredients can further unbalance an already-percarious recipe.
--See 'Comments' for more dish--

Mr. Brooks

Too many storylines + unsympathetic main character + pinch of Silence of the Lambs= tepid mess

I'll admit to being interested to see Mr. Brooks (obvi, since I rented it). I was even willing to overlook the not-so-positive reviews and give the movie a chance. I am pretty over Kevin Costner, but serial killer movies can be interesting. I did actually enjoy the part where his character is actually conflicted over being addicted to killing people; that aspect is not really explored. Over and over, however, I had the suspicion that the screenwriters had the script for The Silence of the Lambs in the back of their minds while they were writing the film. Granted, the main character is a rich girl with daddy issues, rather than a poor one, but that doesn't make Demi Moore's character correspondingly more interesting. None of the frisson between the killer and the cop is present between Det. Atwood and Mr. Brooks, even though they try to throw that it at the very last minute.

Nope, instead of having any of the elements that made Silence great, Mr. Brooks is an over-cooked modge-podge of storylines. It's as if the plot were dealt out with cards, and Mr. Costner and Ms. Moore needed to have nearly equal stacks (of course his is slightly larger, as he is the eponymous character, after all). Perhaps they had two movies that didn't quite stand alone, so the writers thought they would combine them. Take away any one of the too-many plot lines; daughter with a secret, messy divorce, trust fund, imaginary friend, serial killer who is out for vengeance, and the whole house of cards falls. But leave them all in, and there is just too much to cover while still managing not to get in-depth on much of anything. The end result is more unsatisfying that intriguing.

Some of the story lines are more interesting, I will give you that. Who wouldn't want to track down and kill the guy who cut you off in traffic? That was an amusing way to select a target for the irritating Mr. Smith. (Seriously, he was a jerk, and his storyline was satisfying. I liked how the opposing natures sorted themselves out. How did he think that he could compete?) The fact that the guy just so happens to be the soon-to-be money-grubbing ex is just a little too pat. (If you see the movie, this won't really count as a spoiler; you may not be able to see it coming from miles away, but this movie sure does let you see every "twist" from at least around the corner). It was pretty funny though, to follow Mr. Brooks' decision to observe the vengeful serial killer out to get the detective who is hunting him (instead of cat-and-mouse, the game is survival-of-the-most-predatorial).

I read on the IMDB trivia page for this film, that it was planned as a trilogy. What did they think would be left to mine for plot in the future? To follow up with the daughter? That would be interesting, if Mr. Brooks' fears come true. I admit to being truly baffled to the purpose of the last few minutes of the film, if there was not a planned follow-up. I half want them to do it, just to see if they could come up with an interesting story. The opportunity is too great, though, for another over-blown thriller with little satisfactory payout, so perhaps better just to leave it be.

--See 'Comments' for more review--

Elizabeth: The Golden Age

Grandeur + fantastic costumes + screen hotties = appealing look at 'history'

Lots of critics have stated that Elizabeth: The Golden Age is nowhere near as good as Elizabeth. I think they are flat-out wrong. I will concede that there is almost no way to repeat or top the impact of the first film, but they come pretty close.

(From here on out, I will have to borrow EW's critic Lisa Schwartzbaum's naming system: "E1" and "E2")

I find it a bit odd that a director with relatively little experience was handed E1 and its assuredly huge production budget in the first place. I guess that goes to show that you do not have to be born in a place to properly revere its history. (Although his following film, Four Feathers, was a real snore!) Whatever his background, I say "Let Shekar Kapur at it!" He did a fabulous job with the first film, revealing the shining Cate Blanchett and breathing new life in to the costume-drama and historical piece genres. I was in high school the first time around, and was also inspired to learn more about the vaunted monarch. Kapur says that he has a trilogy in mind and I can't wait to see the final installment. As long as he keeps making these movies, assuming he doesn't relax his standards, I am there to see them.

E2 represents the natural progression in the life of an extraordinary woman who was bounds ahead of her time. E1 focused on her climb to power, but E2 explores the emotional, personal, and political costs of staying on top. Here is a woman who has just about everything at her command, but she still wants more. Her wants, it turns out, are for the things that come with a more normal life. Not only that, but the stakes of the game that she is playing are her country and her life (for her, in that order). One critic said that this was the most expensive game of Barbie that they had seen. True, perhaps, but only in the way that it was Elizabeth who was the puppet master. It is fascinating to watch her fly in a rage at her lady in waiting for daring to yank some slack into her own strings, rather than depending on her mistress to allow it to her. The relationship between the two characters, rather, between so many of the characters is what drives this movie, not a succession of action-inducing murder. There are still intrigues and assassination attempts in E2, but this time it is about the person underneath the crown and the costs of bearing it.

So no, E2 is not going to be as thrilling as E1. That kind of magic is hard to repeat, but the second film is no less marvelous in many other ways. I still think that there should be Oscar nominations all around, and a certain win in the costume category. Geoffrey Rush has certainly given another terrific performance. I adore the paternal relationship that has sprung up between Walsingham and his sovereign; I hope that depiction was accurate, because anyone familiar with the life of the lady knows that her own father never gave her a positive model. Walsingham too has given up much for the sake of queen and country, and he is paying for it with his health. Like him, Elizabeth has known power and control, but cannot relinquish it no matter the personal cost. They reveal the addictiveness that such command can inspire, while also showing that it can eventually wear your down and come close to destroying the person inside.
...
--See 'comments' for more--

30 Days of Night

Faithful translation + convincing acting + claustrophobic isolation = decent vamp movie

Once again, I read the source material before I saw the film adaptation. They did a good job; bonus points for stretching one graphic novel into a 113-minute movie without straining story or the pacing too much. (I felt it was a bit slow, but I also knew about the twisty-ending, so I am not a fair judge. My sweetie said it moved along just fine, however.) I was curious going into the movie whether the writers would stray too much, as they tend to do when their inspiration is inked, not typed. Nope, they did a good job there, and the actors did a great job of really making their desperation relate-able. It's got to be pretty hard to be thrown into day-for-night for 70 days of filming. I would be jetting off to a Caribbean island where the only thing that I would have to be leery of is the local water and making a fool of myself after too many mini-umbrella-ed drinks!

When I first heard that the movie was being compared to 28 Days Later for the carnage-factor, I was curious. I mean, I know the movie was going to be about a town being slaughtered, but to me, the story is more about the cat-and-mouse game to be played out between the vamps and the survivors. They did a good job of spinning that out, but man, were those vamps wasteful with their initial glut! I would have thought that they would have kept a few more like cattle, to save for later. To me, the ripping rather than biting seemed like a waste; no wonder these vamps were hungry--they play with their food too much. What use is red snow?
What really impressed me was the birdseye view of the carnage; that was neat in its execution.

The leading actors, Josh Hartnett and Melissa George, did a really credible job as two butt-kickers who have fallen out, but once teamed up, are greater than the sum of their parts (or issues). I think they spent a tad too long on their strained relationship (seriously, after being locked in an attic together for more than an hour, I would have to talk things out! What else is there to do?). I am glad that the writers didn't make up any "issues" for them; this was not a relationship drama, it was a survival drama.
The human characters met or exceeded my expectations, although I was a little underwhelmed by the vamps. In the graphic novels, I took their demarcated speech to mean that it was sibilant, not some Slavic-tinged language. C'mon, it's got to be hard to talk around those teeth, so they still would have needed the subtitles. I guess it was easier to make the actors unintelligible in a systematic way than to have them speak English.
...

--More to follow, as a 'comment'--

Sleuth: 1972 version

Two great actors + stage script + killer set = appreciably classic film

If you've been following this blog for a while, you will have noticed that I have a fondness for reading the book a movie is based on. In this instance, I wanted to see "the original" before deciding whether or not to see the remake.

First of all, I adore Michael Caine; I want him to be my great uncle (since he's a tad too old to marry). I very much enjoyed watching him be Milo Tindle, even if the character is supposed to be a "jumped-up pantry boy". (Will they put that great line in the remake? I hope so!) The best part was listening to him drift back into his Cockney accent and lingo during his lines; what fun! He does it in such a way that you are not sure at first whether he means to do so. On the other hand, since I find the actor so likable, it was difficult to find his character as despicable as one is supposed to. With Jude Law, however, I feel that I will not have that problem. His bobble-headed self is going to be a person I love to hate. Will the ending be the same? I was disappointed in the original, but I would probably take great satisfaction in the remake. I also think he is going to sink his teeth into being the older character and shred the scenery. I can't wait to see/hear him verbally eviscerate the pretentious Milo; it's going to be fantastic!

I don't have a lot of appreciation for Sir Olivier, since I have not yet had the time to work my way back to his era of cinema. However, based on this movie as my sole evidence, his character was a little over-blown to me, but I think that the actor was having a fantastic time. I can't wait to see what Michael Caine does with the role; hopefully he will be a little less manic, but I can imagine that the scene of him tearing around the house in search of clues is going to be quite satisfying. Olivier played it with a little too much game-ness for what was happening, and not enough desperation for me to really believe that he was in fear. I think that Caine will be better at adding the terror the character is supposed to feel.

I did like the set, even though I found all of the mechanized trinkets more than a little creepy. Their cacophony in the final moments of the movie was perfect, however, and more than a little hellish. I can't wait to see what they are going to do with the Euro-fashionably-bare decor in the update. I will also be pretty interested in seeing whether Inspector Doppler makes his appearance. He is on the cast list, so he must. Who will be in the new portrait of the wandering wife? I really did like the wink-nudge-nudge of the cast list for the original (IMDB-trivia it after you have seen the movie, so as not to spoil things), which has been carried over.

I am ready to see the remake, but I am a tad skeptical. As I mentioned in my blog on The Dark is Rising, some things are just better set in Britain, and I hope that they don't transplant the story to this side of the Pond. Also, will they update Milo's job? There is very little more despicable to a blue-blood Englishman than a hairdresser putting on airs. Is there a more modern equivalent that they will trot out, or will that remain the same? We shall see.

Michael Clayton

Psychological Drama + splash of Legal Thriller + George Clooney = arresting film

Let me tell you, George Clooney was made to wear suits! I can't explain it better than he just looks fabulous and at home in them, even if he is hauling it up a wooded hill. (No spoilers, but when you do get to that particular scene, I think you will find it tense, but also emotionally satisfying and perhaps oddly compelling; I did.)

"Legal Thriller" is not my cup of tea. I have never read a John Grisham book (although I seem to have seen almost all of the movie adaptations of them.) and don't really intend too. I didn't think A Civil Action was particularly noteworthy, nor did I go gaga over The Insider. Nope, high fantasy is more to my taste. Even though I walked in to the film more than a little biased, I realized that the movie was more an exploration of the characters than a story bogged down in Erin Brockovich-ian chemistry details, minus the flip, sassy fun. "Exploration of character" sounds terribly boring, but Clooney manages to keep his "legal bag man" role real; this guy is actually relate-able and not smarmy, as one would expect.

Tom Wilkinson is cringe-worthy in his manic madness, which only proves to me that he is a good actor, even if I don't always enjoy seeing his characters (Normal, anyone?!? What a spiritually yucky movie). I do have to ask; what was up with the 6 bottles of Lysol on his butcher's block of a kitchen counter? I think they served two purposes:
1) To show how bonkers his character was and
2) To secure more product-placement revenue to offset the production budget.
I personally kept waiting for him to down it all in a fit of suicidal madness, but it wasn't really that kind of movie.

Tilda Swinton was great, as always, but how in the world did they make her look fat? Seriously, she is almost bone. The jacket she was wearing in her last scene did the trick, and was horridly atrocious. Her acting, however, was fantastic! It was fascinating to see her tightly controlled exterior come crashing down. Along the way, we were treated with snippets of scenes of her prepping for her day, working through her carefully-delivered wording as Head Councilor for a multinational corporation. I think Ms. Swinton turned a character who could have been an automaton on the page into someone the audience can almost feel sympathy for.
To me, she is a magnetic curiosity; I feel compelled to watch her. My favorite role of hers was the splendidly andogynous Gabriel in Constantine, but judging from IMDB, she is the go-to actress for indy gender-bending. Terrific; I can hardly think of a better person to do it (although Cate Blanchett may give Tilda a run for her money in I'm Not There.)

--Note: There is more text to follow, but I have recently been informed that my posts are "insanely long", so I will break off here and add a "comment" that contains the rest of my review. I also promise that it will be less gossip-y from here on out, focusing more on the plot and structure of the movie.--

The Dark is Rising 2.0

Classic YA book - Arthurian legend + cinematic liberties = pretty good time

As I mentioned in my comment on Lunanshee's posting about this movie, I have read all of the books in this series, and would recommend them to just about anyone. Apparently the actor Ian McShane found them too dense, but I think that YA readers can handle them just fine.

The fly in the ointment for this movie is that it is overshadowed too much by the other "Boy Who Conquered the Forces of Evil." HP may have Voldemort, but I would like to contend that Christopher Eccleston was really creepy as The Rider, particularly when he shows up in his buttoned-down psycho alter ego in Will's world. Still, the comparisons between the two are entirely too easy, to the detriment of a viewer's experience.
I also think that the release date doesn't work in the film's favor. This movie would have done incredibly well at Thanksgiving, not in the no man's land of between summer and holiday movies, with TV's premier week to distract us. As the author for the Chocolate and Vodka blog (see link in response posting) points out, these books/movie are best experienced around the Christmas holidays, when the atmosphere is just right for that brand of British mysticism. I don't know about you guys, but it is warm and sunny here, so it is more difficult to mentally transport oneself to the misty moors of England, or to a quaint village.

That being said, the visuals of the movie were just right. I loved the small town; to me, it was a believable setting. I also think that even though the story bores Ian McShane, he was a passable Merriman Lyon. I always pictured him exuding an omniscient stateliness, so when Frances Conroy (doing her very best Dame Maggie Smith impression) begins to bicker with him about the right way to communicate with a teen boy, I was a little surprised. However, as the movie went on, the interaction between the two leading Old Ones grew on me; they are more or less human too, with their own blind spots. Who does know how to deal with teens? Not many, and that is why they are so interesting yet frustrating. I do think that the writers imbued Will with too much doubt. Book-Will was a little too self-assured for an 11 year-old, but movie-Will reminds me too much of Book-Harry Potter in Order of the Phoenix, when I wanted to tell him to stop whining and get to business. Still, Alexander Ludwig did far better than I expected, and that is always nice.

--See 'comment' for more.--

Pushing Daisies

I was watching a re-run of the Pushing Daisies premier last week, when I realized that a couple of things were tickling my memory, as well as my sentimental attachments.

First of all, the visual style reminded me of something...the movie Amelie. Great; I loved that movie. No really-- I have seen it in French, Italian and German, I loved it so much. There is the same prevalence of the color green, and the vividness of colors, not to mention quirky characters living in a 'fantastic' atmosphere in which anything can happen. It doesn't hurt that Anna Friel (supporting character Chuck) reminds me strongly of the whimsy that Zooey Deschanel imbues all of her characters with. I also loved the appearance of Ellen Greene (Audrey, from the 1986 version of Little Shop of Horrors) as one of Chuck's aunts. As an aside, I loved her as Sylar's mummy dearest on Heroes and I can't believe it was her in Leon/The Professional! I had no idea, until I just IMDB'd her.

Secondly, I was caught by the narrator's soothing and airy voice. I knew I had heard it before, and as the opening credits appeared at the bottom of the screen, I realized that it was Jim Dale, narrator of the Harry Potter audio books. I adore Mr. Dale's readings of the magical series. I think he does a truly worthy job, and there is only one other (male) voice actor who really comes close to being competition; Roy Dotrice. Incidentally, Mr. Dale has the record for the greatest number of character voices.
In any case, it was delightful to hear a voice I enjoy do the narration for the show, kind of like Ian McKellan's on Stardust.

So, you are probably wondering if I actually liked the show. I did, at least enough to want to watch a little more. It won't supplant Grey's Anatomy or Battlestar Galactica on my Tivo or anything, but it was a good time. I will tune in for more, and I am happy to see that ABC is taking some chances with their programming. I don't, however, believe that the show will make it more than a season. I am happy to be proven wrong though--at least there is no "reality" to the show (read: contest, like Dancing with the Stars).

Too amazing not to share

I know that we are supposed to be discussing movies on this forum, but my coworker who loves art found this page for me. He knows that I could just eat up this style of art and that I have an Alphonse Mucha calendar hanging in my office each year. This jewelery is so fantastic that I cannot resist! The photos are excellent, as one would expect of a gallery.

http://www.tademagallery.com/ALL_ArtNouveau.htm

Becoming engaged recently has exposed me to more jewelry than I usually look at. Nothing that I have seen in the stores evokes a reaction as strongly as these pieces do, which makes me wonder if modern is really 'better'. I was astonished, practically floored, by looking at these pictures. Please let me know if you have seen anything lately that reminds you of these; I would love to be wrong. Now I am curious about how much jewelry like this goes for...better not to think about it!

Crank sequel?!?!

Seriously? Ick!
I just picked up this little tidbit of instant-IQ-drain at:
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/crank/news/1678451/

In the article, they say (about making a sequel's action live up to the first)
"You have to go twice as hard. So that's what we're going to do. "
Gross! What are they thinking?
There is also a comment about how this movie will get made next spring, writer's strike or no. My thought is "Well, you guys don't really have to worry now do you? A poo-flinging monkey can come up with a script better than the original. It is actually in the writer's best interest to be on strike rather than to write such a steaming pile of drivel."
And that's all the mental energy I am going to bestow on so worthless a topic!

Dark is Rising

Seeker: The Dark is Rising is the story of a boy who discovers that he is a key figure in the fight between the Light and the Dark. The film is based on the novel The Dark is Rising (first in the DiS series) by Susan Cooper. Having not read the book, I cannot say exactly how well the adaptation was, but the film was entertaining nonetheless. The acting was decent, not the best I've seen, but by far not the worst and the special effects were very well done. My only real complaint about the film is that there is not very much character development and the story jumps around a bit. However, considering that the intended audience is kids 10-15 years old, I think it is a well done movie. All in all a decent kids' fantasy.