Pop Bunker » Movie Review

[Good Stuff / Bad Stuff Review] Transformers: Dark of the Moon (2011)

Dale Cooper — Sat, 02 Jul 2011 01:49:49 +0000

There are going to be a million reviews of Transformers: Dark of the Moon (DotM). I frankly am not up for a full review. It’s not that it was terrible and not worth to review or anything snarky like that, it’s simply that in this case I do not want to contribute to the ad nauseam with 800-1200 words.

It might also be that I’m lazy. The lazier can just read the bolded words and phrases below.

The Good Stuff

The 3D and CGI is impressive. I would put it at Avatar level. A nice contrast to Avatar is how the best 3D scenes of DotM are shot using familiar landscapes. Avatar struggled with selling its CGI as tactile when used to portray large areas like the background. The furries looked nice in Avatar and certain shots were awe-inspiring, but once the action moved to the heavily CGI jungles, one could not escape the feeling of watching an animation. Dark of the Moon is not like that. The Transformers are perfectly inserted into scenes. The action and destruction takes place in an urban landscape that we recognize. The difference of shooting such quality 3D in a mostly real environment is startling. The 3D pops more; our brains recognize the landscape and assimilate the action on the screen in a much faster, more familiar pace. Aces 3D. Brilliant.
The retconning of world history was kind of fun. JFK, the moon “landing,” Nixon, Obama, Chernobyl, the bankrupt space race, a real Buzz Aldrin cameo – all of these are changed in some way in an attempt to give authenticity to the story. It doesn’t work in that way, but it is fun – similar to Forest Gump.
John Turturro, Frances McDormand, John Malkovich. The latter two played as a mash-up of their most celebrated characters. It was goofy, but they do those character types very well.
Leonard Nimoy’s voice acting was classy. It was especially nice to hear him ham it up a little as a baddie.
The last 45 minutes. Wow.
The troops gettin’ some. I’m not a big rah rah patriot. I quietly respect the life of which I take advantage, but I am not one to experience heart swelling pride during campy patriot pandering. However, the old school war pastiche that Michael Bay works with during the long finale played as a well executed tribute to The Dirty Dozen-era war movies. And the human combatants have leveled up when dealing with Decepticons.
The wingsuits. It’s possible that these scenes would not register in 2D, but in 3D this crazy extreme sport achieves fantastic visuals. Sure, it’s superfluous and is completely unnecessary, but when you are making a 2:40 movie anway, might as well include the kitchen sink.
The final battles scenes. When Optimus Prime lets go, it is awesome to behold. These boss fights make the movie worth seeing.
The sound. This is obvious, but the movie sounds amazing. Especially memorable are the bass strikes used when Decepticons attack or have the advantage.

The Bad Stuff

Michael Bay’s adolescent obsession with fat lipped, vapidly characterized Cover Girl models. Rosie Huntington-Whiteley was only cast to be a doe-eyed sex toy with fat red lips. Bay’s brazenly brandished eye candy robs the movie of credibility because it is impossible to take a movie seriously that writes in more subtle emotion for an all CGI yellow robot in disguise named Bumble Bee than for the most prominent female character. Nearly all of the painful scenes in DotM can be attributed to attempting to work in Huntington-Whiteley and whatever the point of her character is.
- Bay works in gratuitous scenes of Huntington-Whitley’s Carly that range from exploitative to jarringly melodramatic. An example of the former is near the beginning where Carly’s panty-clad ass is followed up the stairs. And again later when her lecherous boss (probably the most Bay-like character in the trilogy) eye fucks Carly while using sensual words to describe a classic automobile/Carly’s tight body yo. As to the latter, a shot near the end includes dreadfully slow slow motion, shit burning, and a sexily tussled Carly at center frame just looking… looking… and cut away. Once again Bay proves he is as emotionally deep as a shot glass.
- No one bought the “romance” between Megan Fox and Shia LaBeouf and those actors spent two movies together. Spending endless minutes attempting to get the audience to buy into a Shia LaBeouf and Huntington-Whitley romance while simultaneously using it as a crucial plot point? Yah, that’s terrible.
The first hour and fifteen minutes. I fell asleep twice. I was very tired – was up before four that morning – but still, twice. The first 75 minutes was empty and characterless, spending too much time on exposition, Sam and Carly’s “relationship,” and a bunch of other random scenes of disinterest.
Shia LaBeouf as Sam playing the rudderless hunk just looking to make a difference. First of all, I mean really? Every girl that walks past LaBeouf in DotM can’t help but to mentally undress the manly stud and look back at him with a wanton leer. Gag. This is how Michael Bay believes everyone acts – as if in the boring beginning bits of a porn flick. There is no other explanation.
The soundtrack. The score is ok. I didn’t take note of it one way or the other, but the soundtrack is atrocious. Songs are inserted in an attempt to create some emotional resonance, but instead the treacly modern rock makes every scene suck no matter other qualities. I’m not going to look up who the artists are, but the soundtrack sounds like Creed, Kings of Leon, Nickleback, Five for Fighting, Limp Bizkit and other soulless crap rock that is peddled to the tasteless and tone deaf.
Robot overload. I don’t know most of the Transformers, good or bad. Additionally, robots at close combat lose CGI definition. It looks a little messy.
The Villain Soliloquy. How many movies with villains have been made? For how long has the villain reveal speech been parodied and otherwise made fun of? Well, whatever, because it happens here. There is a human helping the Decepticons and he possess the typical evil human trait of explaining everything to the good guys before the day is in the bag. Even worse, the “dialogue” between the baddie and the goodie eventually drops all pretense and becomes exposition by way of a voiceover with obviously different audio quality, etc. Very lazy and amateurish writing.

What did you think?
Similar Posts:

Hobo With A Shotgun (Review)

Chris Corning — Thu, 30 Jun 2011 16:00:05 +0000

Director: Jason Eisener / Writers: John Davies, Jason Eisener (story) / Stars: Rutger Hauer, Molly Dunsworth, and Robb Wells

From its humble beginnings as a fake trailer created for a SXSW movie trailer contest, Hobo with a Shotgun came out guns blazing as a cult classic before it was even clear that it would be made into a full-length feature. And with such magnificent camp, gratuitous violence, and good old-fashioned gore, how could it not? I first heard about the movie when I learned it was being made available for streaming through certain sites before being released to theaters, and yet somehow or another I never got around to watching it. So when some friends called Saturday to see if I wanted to go down to Long Beach for a screening, I knew I had to do it.

In true hobo fashion, Rutger Hauer rolls into town on an open train car, apparently hoping to get a new start at life. Unfortunately the city he’s arrived in bears an uncanny resemblance to the futuristic Detroit as imagined in Robocop, but this city is even worse: it appears to be in Canada. As he sets about collecting recycling to start saving money toward a lawnmower purchase (because what homeless man doesn’t need a good lawnmower??), he quickly stumbles upon the source of much of the city’s problems. Mobster-type madman Drake and his equally mad knucklehead sons, Slick and Ivan, seem to have a chokehold on the city and its law enforcement personnel.

The sadistic family basically uses the city’s inhabitants, especially the homeless and impoverished, for their own personal amusement. And of course, what better means of amusement is there than torturing, disfiguring, dismembering, and murdering random street people? Slick and Ivan can apparently think of none.

After rescuing a young hooker named Abby from the clutches of these maniacs, Hobo takes on a sort of father-figure type role to her. Or, to put it in his terms, the bear let someone into its magic circle. (Sounds like something he could go to jail for, right?) Hobo eventually finds himself pushed to the edge by Drake and his sadistic progeny and is forced to acquire—yes, you guessed it—a shotgun!

This movie is packed with hilariously quotable one-liners (“If life gives you razor blades, then make a baseball bat covered in razor blades!”) and over-the-top violence and bloodshed. And yet somehow through its complete absurdity, Rutger Hauer is able to deliver some of his lines with a surprising sense of authenticity. Even Abby, in her “hobos aren’t homeless—their home is everywhere, so they have a bigger home than any of us” speech, manages to almost make you forget, if only for a fraction of a second, that you’re watching a movie about a hobo tearing through town with a shotgun.

This movie is a delightful and absolutely hilarious foray into a ~~Canadian~~ bizarre dystopian city, and who better to be our guide than a well-armed vagrant? If you get a chance to see this one, I highly recommend it.Similar Posts:

Cinematic Blues – June 27, 2011

Elwood J. Blues — Mon, 27 Jun 2011 13:00:02 +0000

If you had asked me, while I shuffled through my pile of movies, which of the following three I thought I would enjoy the most…I would have been wrong. SO wrong. I’m usually pretty close to the mark when I pre-judge movies, because I’ve seen way too many.

This week, however, my powers failed me. Two outright stinkers, and a diamond in the rough.

On with the show!

♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦

STREET KINGS 2: MOTOR CITY (2011)
Written by Ed Gonzalez and Jeremy Haft
Directed by Chris Fisher
20th Century Fox

”Standard issue suits me just fine.”

This direct-to-video sequel (in name only) to 2008’s STREET KINGS doesn’t waste a whole lot of time establishing itself. It’s a color-by-numbers story about bad cops and good cops and who is which and you’ve seen it all before.

Ray Liotta (who is seriously in need of an A-List comeback) plays Detroit cop Marty Kingston, injured in the line during an undercover narcotics sting. Flash-forward three years, and suddenly cops are dying. Cops that used to work with Marty.

Marty is partnered with rookie homicide detective Dan Sullivan (Shawn Hatosy, playing essentially the same character he plays on TNT’s “SOUTHLAND“) to go find the killer. And we all know who the killer is because we’ve all watched movies before, so it’s just a matter of Sullivan catching up with us.

Every character in this movie is straight out of central casting, and the whole thing is a waste of time. A death in the third act should have come much sooner, and the (in my opinion, unfinished) ending tries for an emotional resonance that is very un-earned. I can think of at least four different ways to re-write this script, and each of them would have been 100 times better, and each of them still would have made a bad movie. I’m embarrassed for everyone involved.

Seriously: Skip this, and go watch the original STREET KINGS, or TRAINING DAY, or even POLICE ACADEMY for a better cop movie than this one.

Elwood Says: 1 Farm that Smells Like Garlic out of 5

NO STRINGS ATTACHED (2011)
Written by Elizabeth Meriwether and Michael Samonek
Directed by Ivan Reitman
Paramount Pictures

”It was exciting. It was like…you were cheering while you were doing it. You were like, ‘Look at my dick!’”

15 Years Ago at summer camp, Adam and Emma shared a moment. Not a great moment, but a moment. 10 years later at college, Adam and Emma meet again and attend the funeral of Emma’s father. 5 years later, another chance encounter.

Today…Adam (Ashton Kutcher) is an production assistant for a “GLEE”-like television show. Emma (Natalie Portman) is doing her medical residency. Through a series of drunken events, Adam finds himself in Emma’s apartment, and bedroom, and…well. You know.

This movie pulls from a lot of sources. It leans heavily on WHEN HARRY MET SALLY… (one of my all-time favorite movies), falls on a lot of RomCom cliché grenades, and has its share of crass humor. It manages to blend all of this very well, and creates a well-told story with characters I really liked.

Kutcher is mature and layered in his portrayal of Adam – something that shocked me a bit, frankly. He may finally be outgrowing Michael Kelso. Adam is very game, and very genuine, and I truly enjoyed watching him interact not only with Emma but everyone else in the cast. Portman is beyond charming, playing Emma as smart and driven, but not in a stick-in-the-mud way. Emma is able to laugh at herself, is well aware of the world around her, and is extremely self-aware as well. Hence the titular arrangement in this movie: No time for love. Just sex.

I have no idea if I would have been as impressed with this movie if I had watched it before I watched STREET KINGS 2, but I laughed a lot. The supporting cast almost steals this movie in some scenes, but none of it goes so far over the top that you feel like it was trying too hard.

This was simply a very straight-forward adult comedy, and a good one.

Elwood Says: 4 Period Mixes out of 5

THE NEXT THREE DAYS (2010)
Based on “Pour elle” by Fred Cavayé and Guillaume Lemans
Screenplay by Paul Haggis
Directed by Paul Haggis
Lionsgate

”You want this too much. You’re gonna fuck it up.”

John (Russell Crowe) and Lara Brennan (Elizabeth Banks) are a happy couple in Pittsburgh – young son, healthy careers, supportive families. Until one morning, the police break in and arrest Lara for the murder of a co-worker. Flash forward 3 years. Trial and conviction have come and gone, as has Lara’s last chance for appeal. When a resigned Lara attempts to take her own life, John begins to plan to break her out of prison before she’s transferred to a more permanent facility.

This could have been THE FUGITIVE. It wasn’t. This could have been PRESUMED INNOCENT. It wasn’t. This could have been…um…what’s another Harrison Ford movie I could reference here? It doesn’t matter, because it wasn’t that one either.

This movie had everything going for it. It had a rock solid cast behind Crowe and Banks, including Liam Neeson, Oliva Wilde, Aisha Hinds, Lennie James, and Brian Dennehy. It had an Emmy- and Oscar-Winning writer and director in Paul Haggis. It was marketed as a taut character drama and was a fairly low budget production.

Still, THE NEXT THREE DAYS is slow, poorly scripted, and above all else, ridiculously plotted. There is not a single point in this film at which any average viewer wouldn’t be able to list off several reasons why or how ‘XYZ’ couldn’t have happened that way. There is no way in the world that John should have been able to attempt what he did. I appreciated that the cops aren’t idiots. All that planning, and because of a busted tail light the detectives catch up to John mid-escape in, like, 3 seconds. One exception to this is at the end of the film, when we see the original detectives going over the crime scene again – and then we veer right back into “there’s no way this happens right now.”

The only scene that carried any worthy emotion was where John’s Dad (Dennehy, who still has more acting presence in his left eyebrow than a lot of headliners have in total these days) discovers the plane tickets, and then later says goodbye to his son. That was very touching, but immediately after you’re wondering why John is carrying those documents around in him jacket days before he plans to make his move, as if he’s asking to get caught.

All in all, this movie is frustrating, logically. It makes no sense at all.

Elwood Says: 2 Bump Keys out of 5Similar Posts:

[Review] Rubber (2010)

Dale Cooper — Wed, 22 Jun 2011 03:12:21 +0000

Rubber (2010)
Magnet Releasing

Directed and written by Quentin Dupieux

Starring Stephen Spinella, Jack Plotnick, Wings Hauser, Roxane Mesquida

Rating 3 of 5

Rubber is a sort of horror movie and a sort of absurd comedy, but not anything like what you would expect. The film somewhat mirrors the works of Franz Kafka and is especially reminiscent (in structure if not theme) of the novella, The Trial (ebook), and the short story, The Penal Colony. In brief, you have to see this movie in order to understand what you are not understanding.

Rubber opens with “the audience” arriving along a dusty desert road in the American Southwest. A car slowly approaches from the another direction knocking over chairs in the process. When the car stops, the trunk opens and a man wearing a uniform gets out. He is Lieutenant Chad (Spinella). Lt. Chad explains to the audience the philosophy of “No Reason,” followed by a summary of the movie they are about to see where what happens, happens for no reason. Lt. Chad leaves and “the audience” members are enclosed in a viewing area designated with a velvet rope (made to stand since the chairs were destroyed). They are also handed binoculars and instructed to turn and view a certain area. This is where the movie takes place, seen through the binoculars (only for “the audience” in the film; not the one at home). And yes, before you ask, the binoculars are able to track “the movie” no matter what distance away the action is. “The Audience” is like the fourth wall, but part of the film. Its existential inclusion immediately sets the film firmly as a Kafka pastiche.

Soon after all eyes are glued to binoculars, we are taken to the action; observing the same that “the audience” is viewing through the binoculars. What we – and they – see is a tire in a junk yard. After a few moments, the tire stands on its own. The newly sentient tire learns to roll and how to deal with different terrain as well as the difficulties of being round and at the mercy of certain obstacles. The films quickly shifts to a montage of the tire rolling; rolling around in the desert while nature documentary-like music plays to underscore we are seeing the birth and initial steps of this young tire in the wild.

Eventually the tire is able to travel without falling and the viewer (both us at home and “the audience” viewing through binoculars) is introduced to the tire’s destructive side. You might think that a movie about a killer tire would be highlighted by the tire running over or bouncing off things. Not so much. Instead this killer tire has the telepathic ability to make things explode. Things like rabbits and human heads. Right. The tire can make human heads explode.

The film strings together some kills and a bit of stalking similar to a slasher genre flick, but sets itself apart by occasionally breaking down the fourth wall, but this fourth wall is part of the movie for it substitutes the viewer at home with “the audience” in the desert. The one participant in “the movie” that seems to be aware that he is in a movie is Lt. Chad from the beginning whose character is called in to investigate a string of random killings. Simultaneously the Accountant (Plotnick) works with the Lieutenant but is not a character in “the movie” – he is also part of the fourth wall and interacts with “the audience.” The accountant executes a plan to remove “the audience” from the equation. It is explained if there is no audience, the movie does not have to go on. Due to mistakenly thinking there is no more audience to perform for, “the movie” stops near the middle and Lt. Chad breaks character. After attempting to prove to the extras that they are part of a movie, Lt. Chad is informed “the audience” is still in play and dejectedly begins to perform his lines from the movie once again.

“My God, the kid was right. The killer is the tire.” – Lt. Chad.

The tire is obsessed with an attractive female called Sheila (Mesquida) who has been able to escape the tire’s killing psionic death blow. The movie continues as the tire mows down all that stands in the way between it and Sheila.

There is so much in this movie including many side characters, bizarre humor, subtle jokes, nonsensical happenings, and WTF moments that a more thorough explanation is impossible. Rest assured that “the audience” and “the movie” eventually converge. The interaction between “the audience,” Lt. Chad, the Accountant, and “the movie” seems to comment via veiled innuendo on the nature of entertainment (and maybe society), audience captivity and lack of original options, and ultimately, perhaps, the entire nature of making and marketing a film (and maybe life). Rubber seems to imply there is No Reason for what drives the film industry other than making movies for an audience that the industry detests. And that there is No Reason for seeing a film other than the film is playing and we are supposed to watch it. The subtext goes a little deeper than that, but once again you will have to watch the movie to understand what I mean. Be sure to stick through until the credits begin to roll; the key to “the movie” and the film is provided once the tire’s ultimate destination is revealed.

Rating: 3 out of 5

Similar Posts:

[Review] Green Lantern (2011)

Tom Edwards — Mon, 20 Jun 2011 13:00:51 +0000

When a film with as much hype surrounding it as Green Lantern finally comes out, theatergoers will often go into their viewing with the mindset – without having seen anything more than a trailer – that they will like or dislike the film. Green Lantern isn’t going to change anyone’s mind; those that want to like it will, and those who want it to be bad will see it as such.

This indifference will be the thing that keeps Green Lantern from being the blockbuster Warner Brothers was hoping for. There is nothing in the film that is “must-see”; no shocking twists, no controversy, no hysterically bad scene to mock – nothing. The film has action, it has some decent special effects, it has some humor, and it has a good leading man (Ryan Reynolds is charming without being obnoxious, which I’d never thought I’d say.) But at the same time, none of those things stand out over other films that have come out recently.

What seems to hurt Green Lantern the most is a script that tries to do too much in 105 minutes. We get a little bit of everything, but not a whole lot of anything. Hal has issues with his family, a complex relationship with his co-worker/boss/ex-girlfriend, suddenly becomes a member of a group of space police (the majority of whom give him hell), and has to battle not one but two “bad guys” before the film is up. While it comes off as muddled to those who are new to the story, those who are familiar with the Green Lantern comics will see many smaller subplots that are barely touched and pushed into the background, making the script either a throwaway to build sequels off of, or – if you’re more optimistic – a good script that had too many notes from executives and rewrites to make something that flowed properly.

That said, those little subplots are ignored easily enough to enjoy the film for what it really is – a sci-fi “blow stuff up” summer action film. The script doesn’t take itself deadly serious (with several jokes being made at the expense of the Green Lantern costume, especially the mask) which works well with Reynolds, a controversial pick for the normally stoic Hal Jordan. Peter Sarsgaard runs with the character of Hector Hammond, a disturbed character who deserved more focus than as a secondary villain, while Mark Strong’s Thaal Sinestro – the unofficial leader of the Green Lantern Corps – comes off well as a character meant really for backstory for a potential sequel. Whether that sequel gets made or not depends on whether moviegoers are willing to overlook the majority of critical reviews and embrace a film that isn’t as bad as critics want it to be, but isn’t as good as it should have been. I’ll give it a C+, which could have been a B- had I not been a fan of the comic and known where the film could have gone but didn’t.Similar Posts:

Cinematic Blues – June 20, 2011

Elwood J. Blues — Mon, 20 Jun 2011 13:00:27 +0000

Since I was in Calgary all weekend rocking the party that is the Calgary Expo I didn’t get a chance to review any Netflix-supplied films (and really, Netflix…I’ve been pimping you openly in this column for a long time. When will you start comping my account?).

Instead, here are a couple of recent purchases I made. Dale can expect my expense report to hit his desk shortly.

BLACK SWAN (2010)
Story by Andrés Heinz
Screenplay by Andrés Heinz, Mark Heyman, and John McLaughlin
Directed by Darren Aronofsky
Fox Searchlight

“Perfection is not just about control. It’s about letting go.”

By now most of you have either seen this movie or have heard all about it, and I can’t write up a better synopsis than Jocelyn did, so I’ll skip right over that part of the review and move on to the reaction part.

This movie FREAKED. ME. OUT. In a good way, though. It is so engrossing, and so well done all around, that you will get lost in the world it creates. The only thing that is clear is that Nina (Natalie Portman, who earned her Oscar here) is absolutely around the bend. Twice. The pressures put upon her by her mother, by her profession, by herself have taken such a tragic toll on her psyche that Nina’s breakdown is inevitable and sad.

This movie would not have been the same if it were set in a different workplace. This movie would not have been the same with different actors, or a different director. I know that sounds very John Madden (“If the other team had scored more points, they might have won.”) but I think that Black Swan represents a perfect storm of film making. No one else could have directed this film as effectively as Darren Aronofsky. Natalie Portman was Nina. Barbara Hershey as her overbearing mother scared me. Mila Kunis as Lily – the movie’s alleged antagonist – was AMAZING in the low-key way she played a very ambiguous character. Is she really a villain, or is Lily just another victim/vision of Nina’s psychosis? Winona Ryder was pitch-perfect as the dancer who is aging out of the spotlight and as the potential “after” example to Portman’s “before.”

The dance scenes were beautiful, and regardless of how often doubles were used there are plenty of scenes where it is very clear that Natalie Portman is doing her own dancing. I was blown away by the way the dances explored just as much of the movie’s thesis as the dialogue did.

I was startled by this film. I jumped multiple times. I got goose bumps. I was genuinely surprised in ways that movies can’t usually manage to do to me – especially when I know exactly what’s going on. I may need to watch this movie a few times to grasp its entirety, and I will be more than happy to do so.

Elwood Says: 4½ Broken Toenails out of 5.

P.S. – I couldn’t help but chuckle a little when Nina and Thomas (Vincent Cassell) were sitting around the fountain outside of Lincoln Center, because I flashed to the scene in Ghostbusters where Bill Murray continues to hit on Sigourney Weaver in that exact spot. I wanted to walk up to Portman and ask, “Who’s the stiff?” Sue me. I’m a nerd.

DRIVE ANGRY (2011)
Written by Todd Farmer and Patrick Lussier
Directed by Patrick Lussier
Summit Entertainment

“I never disrobe before a gunfight.”

Forget what you think this movie is going to be. I figured it was another Nicolas Cage paycheck movie that might be just okay for a rental. But I had a few extra bucks, find Amber Heard to be ridiculously attractive, and will watch anything that William Fichtner is in, so I bought it anyway. I don’t regret that decision. This movie was silly, violent, and just plain fun; a big delicious wheel of cheese.

Milton (Cage) is a man on a mission. See, his daughter and her husband have been killed, and his granddaughter kidnapped by Very Bad Man Jonah King (Billy Burke). Milton will stop at nothing to get the child back. Along the way he partners with recently unemployed and unengaged waitress Piper (Heard), whose muscle car sports the movie’s title on the license plate. Along the way Milton and Piper are not only pursued by the Local Sheriff Cliché (Tom Atkins), but also by a man known only as “The Accountant” (Fichtner).

The overall theme of the film becomes quite apparent quickly enough, and bonus points to the filmmakers for not spelling it out the way many films of this ilk would. Hint: The lead character’s name is Milton. The ‘Movie Math’ here is: “Supernatural” plus Bullitt, multiplied by Quentin Tarantino, and divided by the square root of Stir Crazy. Don’t forget to carry the Manson Lamps.

This film wrecks more Chargers than the Duke Boys, chews more scenery than Al Pacino playing a beaver, and is pure and simple brain candy. Turn off, tune in, and enjoy!

Elwood Says: 3½ “SPOILT” T-Shirts out of 5.Similar Posts:

Review: More Shion Sono—Cold Fish (2010)

Chris Corning — Fri, 17 Jun 2011 21:34:43 +0000

Director: Shion Sono / Writers: Shion Sono (screenplay), Yoshiki Takahashi (screenplay) / Stars: Makoto Ashikawa, Denden, and Mitsuru Fukikoshi

Cinefamily’s Shion Sono retrospective last weekend—where I got to see Love Exposure for a second time in all its glory—kicked off with an exclusive advance screening of Sono’s latest release, Cold Fish. Sometimes there are movies that say “based on a true story” and you can’t help but wonder by what stretch of the imagination that could possibly be true. Well, Shion Sono has quite the imagination, and as he mentioned in the Q&A at Cinefamily last weekend, the ideas and characters from Cold Fish were modeled after actual court transcripts from the case of an actual deranged murderer in Japan.

Happy couple, right?

The movie begins with the introduction to a small family: mild-mannered fish-store owner Shamoto and his wife and daughter. Shamoto’s wife is portrayed from the start as a woman who, unhappy with her lukewarm marriage, is basically putting in the minimum required effort to be a good wife. Shamoto’s daughter, who can’t stand her stepmother, is likewise an incredibly disrespectful and delinquent young woman. But after getting caught attempting to shoplift in a nearby store, Shamoto’s daughter is “rescued” by gregarious and charismatic Murata (played by popular Japanese actor Denden) who then invites her to come work in his large, popular fish-store across town.

Murata quickly exerts his influence on all of Shamoto’s family. The daughter’s employment involves living with other shop employee’s in what more or less constitutes a sort of halfway house situation. When they drop their daughter off to live there, Murata sends Shamoto home on his own giving himself an opportunity for a pretty intense exchange with Shamoto’s wife before driving her home.

He was always such a quiet man...

Finally Murata sets to work on Shamoto himself, insinuating him into a shady business deal that makes Shamoto very uncomfortable. But the shady business deal is just the beginning of a much more macabre plan on Murata’s behalf, which involves the process of making people “invisible.” Once you learn how to make people invisible, Murata insists, you become invincible.

From that point forward, the story only gets increasingly bizarre, gory, and disturbing. One of the beautiful things about Sono’s work, though, is that the movie remains just as hilarious as it is disturbing, often causing you to squirm and recoil in between fits of laughter. Cold Fish is supposed to hit theaters on July 6th, so if it’s playing anywhere near you I highly recommend you check it out.

Trailer:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PxwImfxDTnM

Similar Posts:

Foreign Focus: Arahan

Icy Sedgwick — Thu, 16 Jun 2011 13:09:49 +0000

So-yi Yoon as Wi-jin

When you think of kung fu movies, you’ll probably think of something from Japan, or China. In doing so, you might overlook this little gem from Korea, released in 2004. Made by Ryoo Seung-wan, billed as Korea’s answer to Stephen Chow, Arahan is slick, accomplished, and rather funny.

Arahan is a typical “underdog” tale, following the journey of Sang-hwan from trainee policeman to Tao Master. After being beaten up for daring to challenge a crime boss, Sang-hwan decides it’s high time he learned to fight. He begins his training with the Seven Masters (although there are only five), much to the disgust of Wi-jin, a fellow trainee and the daughter of one of the Masters. Sang-hwan is desperate to learn the famed Palm Blast move, but the other Masters urge patience, and try to teach him the principles of Tao. He aspires to the level of Maruchi, although his clumsiness would suggest this aspiration is to go unfulfilled.

Sang-hwan could be Luke Skywalker, King Arthur, or Harry Potter – the idea of an ordinary boy oblivious to the fact that he is, in fact, extremely powerful and simply needs the right opportunity isn’t exactly new. Indeed, Arahan doesn’t seek to break new ground. Instead, it sets out to entertain – a mission in which it succeeds with great aplomb. The “training montage” brings to mind those segments that all such films feature, in which our hapless hero is put through his paces and forced to learn humility before he learns utter badass-ery.

Of course, no underdog tale is complete without a villain, and in this case, we have Heuk-Woon. Heuk-Woon was one of the Seven Masters until their refusal to intervene in a war forced him to leave them. Now consumed by the desire to possess Arahan, a power that comes from enlightenment and that would allow him to rule the world, Heuk-woon is back and looking for trouble.

The set pieces stand out as being particularly assured – witness the throwdown in the restaurant in which we see Sang-hwan first test his abilities, or the epic fight in the middle of a fountain. The final battle between Wi-jin/Sang-Hwan and Heuk-woon is truly astounding, mixing wirework, swords and kung fu to create an exhausting yet wonderfully choreographed sequence. The dashes of comedy help elevate the film to a level of sheer entertainment, and it is this that allows the film to sidestep any accusations of it being silly or even cheesy – it knows it is, and revels in it.

Arahan is a well-made and thoroughly entertaining watch, and I can’t recommend it enough!

Similar Posts:

Cinematic Blues – June 13, 2011

Elwood J. Blues — Mon, 13 Jun 2011 13:00:03 +0000

Welcome back to CINEMATIC BLUES! I’ve been away for a while, but my sabbatical has ended. I’m now tanned, rested, and ready to bring you reviews of movies you’ve likely already seen because I’m not much of a theater-goer. I rely on rentals from Netflix and purchases from Amazon to keep me up to second-run speed from the comfort of my own living room.

So, for readers that are new to the Pop Bunker, I say “Greetings and Salutations.” You can read the past columns here if you like, or just jump in.

Those of you who have been waiting patiently, I say…”Sorry I was gone for so long.” I can’t promise that this column will be every week, but it will be as close as I can manage.

On now with the business at hand.

THE COMPANY MEN (2010)
Written and Directed by John Wells
The Weinstein Company

“This is real, Bobby, okay? This is happening. To us.”

Bobby Walker (Ben Affleck) is a high-level sales rep at GTX. Or he was until he was laid-off from the only job he’s ever had since graduate school. His boss, Gene McClary (Tommy Lee Jones), is watching the company he helped build with his best friend and college roommate (Craig T. Nelson) go in a direction that favors the boardroom over the break room. Following the death of a former co-worker (Chris Cooper), these two men chart a new course for themselves and each other.

There’s a part of me who really liked this film. The part of me that was Bobby Walker a couple of years ago can relate to the pain of being laid off, the struggle of trying to secure new employment in this economy, and the realization that you cannot allow what you do to define all of who you are. That part of me understood all too well every thing Bobby was going through.

This all quickly fell apart in the third act when the movie went from tough love to wish fulfillment. The decisions that some of the characters make throughout are baffling to me, and even the conclusion relies heavily on the fact that these rich white men are able to help each other to start over at the half-way point, instead of from scratch.

The movie also completely wastes Kevin Costner in the role of the Blue Collar Sage (with a typically Costner bad ‘Bahstan’ accent attempt), and I found writer and director John Wells’ efforts to be not unlike his work on television’s ER and the 5th and 6th seasons of The West Wing – with a lot of straw arguments and characters. And some thinly veiled racism at the end.

The Company Men means well, and starts strong, but it misses its mark ultimately. I particularly liked Rosemarie DeWitt as Affleck’s wife, Maggie. She was a big highlight of the film for me, and the most real of all the people presented us in this film.

Elwood Says: 2½ New Gloves out of 5.

TRUE GRIT (2010)
Based on the novel by Charles Portis
Screenplay by Ethan and Joel Cohen
Directed by Ethan and Joel Cohen
Paramount Pictures

“I do not entertain hypotheticals. The world itself is vexing enough.”

I can’t remember the last time I have seen the 1969 version of True Grit, or if I’ve ever seen it in its entirety. So I was able to watch this updated tale without the preconceptions of seeing a remake of a beloved classic. However, preconceptions I did have.

One was the fact that this film – while nominated for several Academy Awards – won none. It lost out to The King’s Speech, The Fighter, and The Social Network in all major categories. After watching True Grit I can see why.

While a fantastically acted and directed film, it is firmly in the comfortable wheelhouse of its cast and crew. Jeff Bridges makes for a perfect Rooster Cogburn, a character that I suspect is probably the non-Lebowski half of Bridges real-life persona anyway. The direction and cinematography were textbook Cohen Brothers, who can make a stylized yet modern period piece in their sleep. So the Academy got those awards correct by nominating, but not celebrating, this film.

Let’s talk about where they got it wrong, specifically with Hailee Steinfeld. No offense to Melissa Leo, but Hailee got robbed. What a magnificent portrayal of the young Mattie Ross, with the perfect blend of confidence, fright, and faith. She and Bridges had a great chemistry in this film, and I’m willing to bet that he was Ms. Steinfeld’s biggest coach and cheerleader while making the film. I cannot wait to see what comes next in this actress’ career.

Overall, True Grit is a great western, and a movie that can and will support multiple viewings. It is worth having in any collection, but it wasn’t Oscar worthy.

Elwood Says: 3½ Yell County Rodeo Clowns out of 5.

BLUE VALENTINE (2010)
Written by Derek Cianfrance, Cami Delavigne, and Joey Curtis
Directed by Derek Cianfrance
Hunting Lane Films/The Weinstein Company

“How do you trust your feelings when they can just disappear like that?”

Friend of The Bunker Jaynie has been bothering me for weeks to review this film. I’m always happy to oblige requests, and after waiting an extra week to get a working disc from Netflix, here we are.

Dean and Cindy (Ryan Gosling, Michelle Williams) are at a point in their marriage where nothing is going right. They aren’t communicating, they aren’t being intimate, and they have totally different ideas about their careers. Dean is perfectly happy as a day laborer; Cindy is just hitting her stride as a nurse. Both came from troubled families that left them with no good examples of a functional relationship. As the story of their present unfolds, the movie weaves in and out of the past, bringing the story all the way around again.

When you see the stark contrast between the young couple full of promise, enthusiasm for life and for each other, and then the wholly opposite couple they’ve become, it’s a bit jarring. It’s also, I suspect, all too realistic. Gosling and Williams earned every accolade received for their roles here – especially Williams. Her hurt, and anger, and sadness as the present day Cindy was likely informed by the fact that this was filming at the time of Heath Ledger’s death.

Dean never knew he wanted a life like this, but he’s in it 100%. Cindy feels forced by circumstance, and seems regretful of her choices in life. Dean is only interested in being a good husband and father, and can’t help but notice that his effort in that area is unappreciated. He works to support the home and doesn’t need a job that fills a void, just one that earns him a paycheck. His 8 AM beer isn’t a symptom; it’s a luxury. Cindy wants more out of her career, because it’s the one place where she feels like she’s got any kind of control over her life or any real happiness. Until she discovers that even a new job offer she received is tainted with the unrealistic expectation of someone else.

The sex scenes are somewhat graphic and caused a bit of controversy when the movie was first released and issued an NC-17 rating, which was eventually overturned. They aren’t weirdly out of place here as the story that is being told is as raw and as real as they are. One scene in particular is quite uncomfortable to view, as if you’re witnessing something you shouldn’t be anywhere near.

The use of different film stock for the past and present scenes, and a very effective framing technique, made me admire Cianfrance’s direction. There wasn’t a large use of artificial light, which gave the whole thing a documentary kind of feel – appropriate since Cianfrance has a fair number of those on his CV. The ending scene – where past and present collide – is purely simple and heartbreaking.

This is not a movie that is telling a new story, nor does it offer any new answers or happy endings, but it will leave a lasting impression on you.

Elwood Says: 4 Ukulele Serenades out of 5.Similar Posts:

[Review] Super 8 (2011)

Lithera — Mon, 13 Jun 2011 04:52:39 +0000

Come with me on a journey back to 1982. There were a lot of good movies that came out in 1982. It was a fantastic year that included Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan, Tron, Blade Runner, The Thing, and Conan The Barbarian. There are a significant number of movies that came out that year that have seen successful remakes, sequels or there have been talks of remaking them soon to varying levels of success. (In fact, a new Conan movie is coming out later this year.) Judging by Super 8, one of my favorite movies to come out that year very obviously had a strong and lasting impact on a 16 year old JJ Abrams. That movie, directed by Super 8‘s producer, Steven Spielberg was E. T.: The Extra Terrestrial.

I could probably write an entire article about all of the movies that have clearly influenced this one. There are so many references and nods in the movie that it melds together into a love letter to the sort of movie we don’t often see these days. In the summer of 1979, a bunch of friends get together to attempt to make a super 8 movie. The main character is a teenage boy with a poster of the space shuttle on his wall, as well as a Star Wars action figure (in the packaging) on his bed stand and comic book characters on his walls. He has lost his mother and has a troubled relationship with his father. He and his friends capture the derailment of a military train on their super 8 camera – both events kicking off different chains of events – one with the friends reactions and one with the town’s reactions – that come together in the third act of the film.

There are so many things about Super 8 that have been done right, that I have a hard time figuring out where I want to start with it. Looking back, though, there are a few things that stand out. The first is Elle Fanning and her standout performance. In the film she plays a girl who’s performance is a revelation to everyone watching and she does the same for the rest of us watching on the other side of the fourth wall. With this role, she makes a case for being someone who will be in movies for a long, long time. The second is the relationships built between characters against the back drop of all of these events. Like many of the best coming of age stories (Stand By Me and Goonies come to mind), the event itself is a big deal but really, the more important part is how all of the characters react and how they grow. This movie certainly does not disappoint on that score. The third is the perfect mix between tension and laughter that is needed in this sort of movie. The monster itself is mostly off screen for the first two thirds of the movie, slowly building up to the impressive and frightening on-screen reveal.

There are a few things that hold this back from being the classic movies that it emulates. The first is the plot with Alice (Elle Fanning) and Joe’s (Joel Courtney) fathers. I understand what the attempt was but it never entirely seems to click. The movie would have been better served by spending more time developing the kids and their friendships instead of following those two around. There are also a few moments where your suspension of disbelief is stretched just far enough that you can have a little bit of a hard time getting it back. That leaves it feeling, at times, a little uneven. If you can ignore those moments or recover from them, you’ll be fantastic for the whole film.

In the end, all I can say is that this movie is my favorite of the summer without question – and coming from someone who loves comic books as much as I do, that says a lot. I can only hope that Mr. Abrams continues making movies like this and has reminded Mr. Spielberg of what we used to love about him and his work with E.T in 1982. I give Super 8 4 out of 5 stars.Similar Posts: