|
Where the hell did THIS come from?
The closest thing to "buzz" that "Mean Girls" managed to generate prior to it's release were some magazine puff peices about the rising-star status of lead actress Lindsay Lohan. It didn't even get the usual attention obligated for films connected to the "Saturday Night Live" franchise, despite being produced by Lorne Michaels, written by comic Tina Fey and having a solid chunk of it's "grownup" cast comprised of SNL veterans (Tim Meadows plays a principal, Fey herself turns up as a math teacher.)
Now it's a major surprise hit, the #1 movie in America this past weekend and earning some of the best reviews of any comedy this year.
Something extraordinary has happened here: Someone has actually made a funny, accessible, mainstream teen comedy set in a High School that is smart, insightful and witty and got it released to major theaters WITHOUT a tie-in hip-pop soundtrack OR untalented pretty-faces from WB sitcoms taking up space in key roles. Something ever MORE extraordinary happened after that: The teen-comedy audience is GOING TO SEE IT. In droves. Multiple times.
Teenagers going to see GOOD movies? This could upset the whole system.
Plot is actually pretty basic: 17 year-old Cady (Lohan) enters a typical suburban High School after having been homeschooled by her parents for all years prior (out of necessity, they were globetrotting researchers in Africa during her previous school-age years.) She's a misfit, completely unprepared for American teenaged life and all it's myriad complexities.
It looks, briefly, like the stage is set for a much more deeply cynical film than eventually emerges: Cady is 'taken in' by a pair of non-conformists (a 'goth' chick and a guy described as 'almost too gay to function') who help her navigate the cliques and subcultures that make up and divide the student body. It'd be easy, from this point, to turn the film into a cynical "high school is hell" flaying of the culture, but the film has something different in mind: Getting "inside" the psychology of teenage cliques to understand why they exist in the first place.
The school, we learn, is culturally-dominated by a trio of "perfect" girls called "The Plastics." The leader of the group, Regina, dictates through her very existance the fashion, culture and mood of the entire student body. At first, Cady is warned against them by her new friends. But when The Plastics take an interest in "helping" Cady into popular-hood her friends urge her to go for it. The reason? 'goth' chick has a major axe to grind with Regina, and Cady will be an undercover operative in a mission to destroy The Plastics from within.
But the film is "really" about the sabotage, either. What it's mostly about is Cady's experience being inducted into "Plastic-hood" and the myriad reasons she finds it both repellant AND exciting. The film is written with a keen, knowing wit. It understands, and makes a central theme, out of the sobering reality that the need of some of the students to destroy the Plastics and all that they stand for is just as much of a pathology as the need of the rest of the students to make goddesses of them.
And when things go bad, as they always do in such films, Cady isn't our aloof superior narator condeming the "ignorance" of American teens; she's a hugely culpable in the chaos that engulfs the final act, and the film manages to turn it's hero into an EXAMPLE of it's message rather than lecturing us on the evil's of clique-hood.
At all turns, the film sets up potentially-cliche scenes that would be crushing bores in lesser comedies and instead finds opportunity to go in surprising new directions. There's an "unauthorized" party at a house with out-of-town parents, but instead of "don't break that!" jokes the film focuses on the character moments taking place. There's a "sexy dance" by the Plastics at a talent show, but while it's fun to see the "hotties" in skimpy Santa suits the scene is REALLY about the shifting "ranks" of the clique. A school-wide riot? Yup, the film has one... but it's cause and resolution are about as atypical as they can probably get. A major character suffers a "funny" injury, but the "joke" actually ends at the punchline and has REAL implications of the story.
Have you ever thought you hated a certain food until you had it prepared "properly" and found you liked it? Watching this film, and realizing how many ways it goes right where other teen comedies go wrong, is like that.
For me, the most pleasant surprise here is seeing Tim Meadows (late of "The Ladies Man") as the principal. Usually, this is a throwaway role in these films... but Meadows steps up and delivers a performance that is 100% straight and real. He can act. He can act DAMN WELL. It's a small role, but it could have been a broad caricature and it isn't: It feels real, I believed this was a principal of a high school. Where has Meadows been hiding this talent for drama? And WHY?
This is the best mainstream teen comedy I've seen in at least a decade, smart and clever in a way most films aimed at ANY age group almost never are. If you've got teens looking to see this , LET THEM. If you've got daughters, DEFINATELY take them. Teenagers need all the films like this they can get.
Summary: Highly, HIGHLY reccomended.
With that headline, you probably guessed that our first topic for musing-upon will be the now-public first glimpses of the new costume for "Batman Begins." Ain't seen `em yet? Here's the link:
http://batmanbegins.warnerbros.com/batphoto.html
I'd have prefered the first look at this have been in "harsher" lighting so we could get a good look at the design of the suit, but these "mood lighting" shots (from the film?) offer a good idea of what it will look like onscreen.
That in mind, my immediate reaction: This is the best suit for a Batman film thus far. I love that it looks lightweight and semi-loose, definately NOT the big clumsy armor jobs from the Burton and Schumacher films. The two details that'll prove most controversial about the suit are fully on display, as well: The "small-ears" look on the cowl and the "two colors/textures" scheme of the design. It's hard to make out in these shots, but the suit mirrors the comic version in that the torso, arms and legs are dark gray while the cape, cowl, boots and gloves are black and, it would seem, of a different material.
For the record: I tend to prefer Batman with the longer ears, but this is a great interpretation on the small-ears version which I know many fans prefer (and are present in the "Batman: Year One" comic that the film is partly inspired-by.) What makes them work for me here is that, if you look close, you can see that they actually curve and point forward, giving the cowl a slick "determined" shape. Well done.
As for the two-colors (though it seems to be a VERY slight difference, more in texture than color, from these shots) look, all I can say is it's about damn time. The "solid black" color scheme was always a big problem in the prior films, serving to often reduce the Dark Knight to a solid blob of black and seriously limiting perception of movement (not that the actors could move much in the bulky armor-style costumes to begin with.) This is a gorgeous set of design choices, even if a part of me still wishes that they'd have REALLY been ballsy and used the classic blue-gray colors rather than black-gray. Ah, well.
Now for some bad news.
Continuing the "we have NO IDEA what to do" state of affairs surrounding development of the "Hulk" sequel comes THIS report that star Eric Bana (about to get some BIG exposure in "Troy") hasn't even been ASKED about reprising his role:
http://www.superherohype.com/hulk/index.php?id=1307
This is problematic, as he's UNDER CONTRACT to make at least one sequel, so if ANYTHING was happening he'd have been the first to know. Good news for those expecting a sequel this is not.
Meh. "Hulk" will continue to be the misunderstood wonder of the first-wave of Marvel movies.
Enough comic-related news. Big surprises at the box-office this past weekend, and for a change a few pleasant ones:
Tina Fey's "Mean Girls" opened HUGE at #1. Haven't seen the flick yet, but just about everyone worth listening to has told me it's just about the best "teen" comedy in ages, and it's a comfy feeling to think that the same teen-girl audience that was supposed to turn the moronic "13 Going On Thirty" into a big hit has instead embraced something that endeavors toward intelligence.
It's actually a big summer for clique-culture-related youth-appeal flicks with female leads. Next week will bring us good sis bonding with bad sis in "New York Minute," the vehicle in which the Olsen Twins officially declare their intention to stop being seen as an annoying duo-act aimed at small children and instead be seen as individual sex-objects aimed at horny older men. I don't mean to be crass, but the film looks awful and there's something innately "off" about how enthusiastically the pair are jumping at the chance to embrace "look! blonde barely-legal twins! please fetishize us!" as a method of self-promotion. (Film's trailer has them capering around wearing towels.) At this rate they'll be on an MTV stage making some TiVO moments with Madonna within a year.
The most buzzed-about of the youth flicks (and the one I'm most interested in seeing) is "Saved," following the adventures of a high school girl who rebels against the powerful clique that dominates her school. The twist is that in this case the clique is a fanatical gang of born-again Christians. A satirica; flaying of the WWJD crowd is just what the doctor ordered, and will hopefull make a handy antidote to "The Passion." Added bonus: Mandy Moore ducked out of the film "Havoc" (it would've required kinky nude scene) to star in this, leaving the "Havoc" role (and it's nudity) to be filled by "Ella Enchanted's" luscious Anne Hathaway. Amen.
For those keeping track: Yes, I'm praising an anti-youth-ministry spoof and anticipating the nude starlet in another film it has made possible. Anyone in some way "troubled" by that is advised to read another Blog.
Hey, speaking of "The Passion," guess what else came out this weekend? Jim "Jesus Christ Action-Star" Caviezel's golf-legend biopic "Bobby Jones: Stroke of Genius." Didn't hear it was out? Didn't hear about it, period? You're not alone. The film is a bona-fide commercial dud. It used to be being the suddenly-famous star of "one of the biggest films ever" could generate interest in subsequent projects. Wonder why it's not working in this case? Could it be, maybe, that "the world" isn't as in love with Mel Gibson's Christian-Right Torture-Porn epic as we've been led to believe? That the massive grosses are more driven by controversy-hype and the agressive free-promotion by preachers and religious groups with an agenda to see the film do well than by actual mass-market enthusiasm?
Nah, guess I'm still just a "conspiracy nut," right?
Ahem. Finally, what would a Movie Geek Blog be without some dispatches from the Land of Once-Great Franchises Being Slowly Bludgeoned to Death By Their Half-Mad Creators, aka "Star Wars" news. For over a year, we've been hearing that a SW-universe TV series is planned to follow Episode 3, and now it's looking like confirmation. TheForce.net has some details:
http://www.theforce.net/holonet/index.shtml#23814
Sigh. It's starting to hurt to keep pretending that SW is still some kind of viable thing. "Star Wars" is DEAD. Lucas started bleeding it slowly to death via papercuts with the ghastly Special Editions, then picked up the pace and shot it between the eyes with the Prequel Trilogy, and will soon dance all over it's bloodied corpse with the S.E.-only DVDs.
People, geeks and non-geeks alike, please listen to me: It's over. It's sad that it's over, it's unfair that it's over, but it's over. The only thing that can "save" Star Wars is for it to take a break. Let the beast sleep awhile, let time and tide push the memories of Special Editions and Prequels far into the dark reaches of popular culture, so that the original Holy Trilogy can be seen once again in it's own glory apart from the inferior junk that followed.
Trying to "draw it out," no matter how decent a TV series might be, can likely only serve to dillute the franchise further. I'm imploring us all here to prove we love it by setting it free.
WARNING: This review contains SPOILERS, you have been warned.
It's amusingly appropriate for Greg Kinnear and Rebecca Romijn Stamos to be playing a married couple, being that they share the distinction of being fine dramatic actors who emerged from backgrounds usually known to produce the opposite: Kinnear was a jokey cable TV host, Stamos a supermodel.
I bring this up to illustrate a point: "Godsend" is such a bore that one actually has time to ruminate on things like that.
The trailers have already told you the plot, and if you missed those you'll no-doubt hear about it on the dozen-or-so "tie-in" news stories about the "controversial" issues the film raises (or, to be more precise, exploits for cheap stabs at being of-the-moment.) But, for completeness' sake: Our leads have an 8 year-old son who buys it in a freak car accident. They are approached by your basic mad scientist Richard Wells (Robert DeNiro) who tells them he can clone their son (named, of course, Adam) from a single stem cell (oooh! oh-so-topical science lingo!) in a procedure that is foolproof but "very illegal." All goes well until Adam 2 (who, of course, is unaware of his origins) passes the age at which Adam 1 died and starts having the usual visions and behavior problems displayed by progeny of "The Omen," "Bad Seed" and "Sixth Sense."
I'm spoiling NOTHING, I'm confident, by pointing out that DeNiro's Dr. Wells eventually sports a sinister agenda, dangerous ego and a loose grasp of sanity. You knew that already because the film is a prey-on-suburban-fears non-thriller about cloning, and thus it presumes that the majority of audiences that are going to like it already "know" that cloning is an automatic-evil because, for lack of a cleaner term, "the preacher said so."
And that's the problem. The film isn't really "about" CLONING any more than "Stepford Wives" was really "about" psychological reprogramming. All the talk of cloning and stem cell research is just so much spackle and fresh tile on the same tired old "morality" play thats been repeated ad-nauseum since the first idiot missed the point of "Frankenstein:" An eeeeevil scientist "tampers in God's domain" (read: makes actual progress) and unleashes "the forces of evil" by doing so.
The problem with stories like this is that exploring the implications of new science, even with a negative ideological slant, in an intelligent way would require more brainpower than the average likely veiwer for the genre is willing to expend on their film watching. So the stories innevitably have to cheat and assign some extra bit of evil on behalf of the mad scientist in order to explain away all the things going bump in the night.
I won't spoil the "big twist" here, primarily because I'm still not sure exactly what the POINT of it is supposed to be. However, I will say that no prizes are to be awarded for guessing that the third act involves: A "race against time" to unravel a mystery, a female character stalked in dark and unfamiliar surroundings, a meant-to-be-taken-as-evil-at-face-value rant by a scientist and, yes, a "sage-like" black woman (the only person of color with a speaking role in the film, of course) who offers up "the final peice of the puzzle" while surrounded by religious imagery talking about seeing "nothin' but eeeeeevil behind them eyes!" Anyone who is the least bit surprised to hear ANY of that is respectfully asked to please see more films.
Again, without spoiling the "surprise," allow me to say one thing about the film's finale: In the history of moronic movie endings, this one stands unique. It's common for thrillers like this to be filmmed with more than one possible finale, but "Godsend" offers up a series of "gotchas" which seem to have been sampled from a collection of entirely-unrelated multiple endings. If you can find the point in all of this, other than a desperate stab for one more "look behind you!!!!!!" from the easily-pleased in the audience, let me know, won't you?
Sorry for the lack of activity. Long couple of days, long story. Let's play catch-up:
THE WATCHTOWERS ARE BURNING
AICN went old school last weekend and BROKE a major news item. To wit: Darren Aronofsky ("Pi," "Requiem for a Dream") is apparently ready to take up the job which many a director before him has deemed insurmountable: A film adaptation of Alan Moore's acclaimed comic book novel, "Watchmen."
AICN's "Moriarty" tells the tale (which has since been confirmed) here:
http://www.aintitcoolnews.com/display.cgi?id=17410
If you're unfamiliar with "Watchmen," GET FAMILIAR with it. Seriously. I don't care if you've never cracked a funnybook in your life; "Watchmen" is one of the must-read books of the 20th Century. Never read it? That's a situation that must be rectified, trust me. Get down to you're local bookstore (it's collected in novel form, so most regular booksellers carry it) and pick up a copy. You'll thank me.
That out of the way, my first reaction? I'll believe there's a "Watchmen" movie when I'm done watching it. This has been one of the great-unfilmables of the book world since it was published, and even with directorial attachment it's still a HUGE likelihood that this will prove an insurmountable task yet again. Don't mean to rain on anyone's parade with the pessimism, but keep this in mind: It took over thirty years for someone to even ATTEMPT a film of "Lord of The Rings," and it took half-a-CENTURY for a GOOD one to be made.
Second reaction: ANYONE who can make a film of this book that even halfway works is a craftsman of supreme talent. Those of you who've read it understand. "Watchmen" is a deep, complex, multi-layered work that tells not only a story through comic panels; but also through news-clippings, character-interviews and even seemingly-unconnected paralell stories being READ BY the characters, and NONE of it is "fat": EVERYTHING has something to do with something else. It's Moore's ultimate thesis on the concept of costumed superheroes, and it's PACKED. It's also largely devoid of "superheroic" action, it's mostly dialogue and conversation among characters. Most of it's "fights" are quick affairs over in a few blows, and what "major" action setpieces there are are tossed off as one-panel splashes usually during monologues.
It's also bleak, bloody and dark as anything you'll ever read. Without giving too much away, the book's ultimate "gotcha!" would've have been called "too much of a downer" by 90% of studio heads five years ago, today I can't imagine a producer who would get within five feet of it. Read it and you'll understand, just trust me. If this was written into an original screenplay rather than an adaptation, it never would've made it into the 2nd draft. The suits are TERRIFIED of this aspect of the story, and for once they aren't just being paranoid: Public outcry could potentially by the worst ever seen over a major film.
That said, I'm damn curious what the filmmakers come up with here. Aronofsky is primed for a breakout with his rescued pet-project, "The Fountain," and if it works this is BIG material. Good luck.
IT'S DEAD, JIM
As the "Star Wars" franchise struggles through those last agonizing steps toward it's final merciful death after nearly 10 years of sadistic torture by it's creator (or "Episode III" as those of you still in denial are still calling it,) lets not forget that the OTHER big spacefaring franchise is standing on shaky legs as well: "Star TREK" is in deep Tribble. The "Next Generation" movies never caught on with the public-at-large, "Deep Space Nine's" setup doesn't really lend itself to features and the last TWO TV series have been critical, commercial and audience failures.
So leave it to "Trek" producer Rick Berman to give the fanbase a big scare when it's down.
For years, Trek fans have lived under the dark cloud of fear that the producers would look in the direction of the "Starfleet Academy" concept in order to craft an unholy crossbreed: A "teenage youth-drama" in the Star Trek universe. Now, it looks as though that nightmare may come true.
IESB.com has more:
http://www.iesb.net/movies/movie42504.htm
Yup, a "prequel trilogy" set in the "Starfleet Academy" vein. Joy.
This review will contain the most spoilerish of SPOILERS, so read at your own risk.
"Man On Fire" is now R-rated revenge-spree movie number THREE to be playing in wide-release, joining last weeks top-two films "Kill Bill Vol. 2" and "The Punisher." For those keeping track, the only reason you should see either of the other two films instead of "Bill" is if "Bill" is sold out.
"Man" stars Denzel Washington as Creasy, a former counter-terrorism specialist with your standard-issue "haunted military hero" alcoholism and death-wish. He turns up in Mexico to touch base with an ex-colleague (Christopher Walken) and finds a job opportunity: Bodyguard to Lupita, (Dakota Fanning) the young daughter of a Mexican businessman and his American wife.
You know the drill, don't you? The little girl is wise beyond her years, precocious as all heck, etc., so no prizes for guessing she brings Creasy back from the brink and makes him "want to live" again.
It takes about a full half hour of swimming-coaching, gift-exchanging and puppy-walking until the film decides it's had enough setup and gets down to business: Lupita is kidnapped during a shootout that puts Creasy in the hospital, and when ANOTHER shootout erupts during the ransom-delivery and the "head baddie's" nephew is killed AND the money is stolen, "head baddie" gets bad and takes it out on his hostage. Exit Lupita.
Seriously, they kill Dakota Fanning. THAT made me sit up and take notice. "Holy crap! They KILLED THE LITTLE KID!? They NEVER kill the kid!" I was impressed. That this was "going all the way" could concievably make up for the dull, sappy first half.
They'd killed the kid, which means that when Creasy wakes up in the hospital and is informed of this his innevitable quest for revenge isn't a "rescue" with more violence: It's just revenge. He can't "save the day," it's just simple old-testament eye-for-an-eye vengeance. Creasy vows to kill not only those responsible but also "anyone who knew, anyone who profitted, anyone who opens an eye at me," gets a blessing from Lupita's mother and heads out to kill the bad guys.
Y'see, at THIS POINT I was digging this. The problem with most revenge movies is they always neuter their edge by turning the hero's single-minded quest into something "more noble." The girl is already dead, so now all thats left is for Creasy to go through the villians like a cathartic human chainsaw, yes?
No, not really. Oh, he kills the bad guys alright. Lots of them. And tortures a few creatively for information. Finger-slicing, ear-slashing, brutal beatings AND a C4-explosive-up-the-bum sequence. But early on in his quest he crosses paths with, yes, a Crusading Journalist for a muckraking Mexican newspaper and learns that the baddies he's chasing are connected to (sigh) a secret brotherhood of corrupt cops that (sigh) runs Mexico from behind the scenes. So, yes, (sigh) his mission of revenge takes on "added significance" (sigh) in that he will better society through his actions blah blah blah...
I hate this. This is what kept "Gladiator" from being perfect. A revenge thriller should be about revenge. Giving the revenge "socially concious" side-effects or "redirecting the rage" blunts the force of the plot. Once the essential element of "wrath of god" vengeance is sidetracked, it becomes just another cliche actioner; to the extent that you start getting the sneaking suspiscion they'll find a way to let Lupita survive... and then they do. Cowards.
Tony Scott directs, which means that while this is eventually an almost-but-not-quite-above-average thriller it at least LOOKS good. He's a master craftsman, and he employs here a hand-held style that would be very cool if it wasn't used for the ENTIRE movie, at which point it becomes grating and cheesy.
A more subtle but more troubling problem is the curious racial character-coding going on in the story: The characters a pitched broadly, and there seems to be some uncomfortably specific racial edge to the characterization. Denzel is the only black character, portrayed as basically a living weapon, a killing machine that only finds "proper direction" when inspired by the commands of either Lupita or her mother, both utterly-noble "pure" white women (blondes, no less) living in Mexico.
The Mexicans are played, across the board, as corrupt, violent and ugly in an almost subhuman way; if there's a negative stereotype of Hispanics in existance it's on display here: When Creasy invades the home of the head bad guy, the camera lingers on his equally-villianous pregnant wife and the multitude of yelpings kids already running around. The film is so dogged at portraying nearly all levels of Mexican society as inherently corrupt that when Lupita's father turns out to be a willing participant in her kidnapping, it's hardly a surprise. Rather, it just adds to the potential of a creepy racial underpinning to all this: As if the film is "teaching us a lesson:" 'Pity the poor white American who married a Mexican, just LOOK what happens!' I'd doubt this angle is there intentionally, but it's there and it's deeply off-putting.
So, yes, not really a great movie. Decent action, not much else.
You'll forgive me a satisfied cackle over the implications of this one. I think I've earned it.
It seems that, despite a financial take so huge that it simulataneously shattered boxoffice records AND my faith in humanity, Mel Gibson's Religious Right torture-porn epic, "The Passion of The Christ" is having difficulty inking a deal for it's network TV debut.
Why? Well, it seems that the big FCC crackdown on "indecent broadcasting" that most of the so-called Religious Right has been so joyfully cheering on as Michael Powell and his cronies use it to attempt to destroy the likes of Howard Stern and Janet Jackson is now making the nets skittish about airing the brutally-violent film without SEVERE editing which it's fervent supporters oppose.
From the Associated Press:
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040420/D822MAS00.html
Now, normally I'm not a bitter guy and I wouldn't ordinarily take humor from watching something blow up in the faces of even so odious a group as the extreme Religious Right. However, I'll make an exception this time.
Ha.
Ha.
HA.
HA!
Don't mistake this for me being on the side of the censors on this one, though. Far from it. I hate the new FCC crackdown, I hate that the FCC even has content-regulation powers to begin with. I oppose all forms of government censorship of the arts and the media. I oppose ALL mandatory ratings and content-control systems. I oppose the government telling television networks, radio stations and movie theaters what they are and are not allowed to broadcast or show through their privately-owned mediums. I favor the removal of ALL mandatory content "standards and practices" regulation from the television industry and the revamping of the MPAA film-ratings from a system of mandatory-enforcement to one of voluntary participation/interpretation on behalf of theater owners.
That being said, turn about is fair play and I find the idea that the same regulations championed by the "conservative" Culture Warriors may wind up depriving them of the chance to foist the cinematic guilt-trip sermon that is "The Passion" on television audiences to be very, very, VERY funny indeed.
For the record: "The Passion" should be allowed to run uncut on any television network that wishes to run it, and so should everything else. If you own a TV network, you should be able to broadcast anything you damn well please and the government should not have word ONE to say about it; and to hell with inane non-issues like "the family viewing hour" and "unclean words."
With that in mind, here's some Religious Right hypocrite of the highest order to demonstrate the kind of nonsensical double-standard on behalf of "the movement" that makes me so giddy to see their beloved FCC step on THEIR toes for a change...
The Media Research Center is a conservative think-tank dedicating to chasing down and exposing examples of the "Liberal Media" boogeyman. It's founder and frequent columnist L. Brent Bozell ("guy with the orange beard" to less-frequent Cable News viewers) is a long-time pro-censorship advocate who ALSO runs the "Parents Television Council," an organization which calls itself "the only Hollywood-based organization dedicated to restoring responsibility to the entertainment industry." Funny how the PTC's definition of "responsibility" tends to sound a lot like "puritanical censorship."
Introduction done. Now, here's Mr. Bozell in his own words back on March 5th marching in lock-step with the rest of the Religious Right in their unanimous praise for "The Passion." He sees the "elite" film critics of America engaged in the usual "anti-traditionalism" conspiracy to destroy the film:
http://www.mediaresearch.org/BozellColumns/entertainmentcolumn/2004/col20040305.asp
Note his specific indictment of the "hypocrisy" of critics who complain about the film's ultraviolence.
I won't pretend Bozell doesn't make what LOOK like convincing points here. He's been a Religious Right propagandist for a long time, and he's good at it. Trouble is, his adoring love for the freedom of the entertainment industry to make explicit adult-level material seems to begin and end with "The Passion." HERE he is, in the very next colum on March 12th, attacking entertainment industry folks for complaining about the new FCC restrictions:
http://www.mediaresearch.org/BozellColumns/entertainmentcolumn/2004/col20040312.asp
Getting the picture? It's wrong to point out "The Passion's" content as objectionable, but controversial entertainments that AREN'T useful as Religious Right recruitment drives deserve to be censored.
Bozell likes to thrown around the word "double standard" in relation to the U.S. media. Ahem. Pot, this is Kettle, you're black.
Lest anyone complain I'm indicting the ENTIRE "conservative" culture in this country on this, rest assured I am most certainly not. Charles Krauthammer, a columnist respected in right-wing circles at a level usually reserved only for George Will and William F. Buckley, offered what I think is one of the most damning, insightful and intellectually-sound reviews of the film on record in the Washington Post.
You can read it here:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A31980-2004Mar4.html
Hey... y'think that the same folks who want "The Passion" uncut on network TV would step up and help Quentin Tarantino get the same treatment for "Kill Bill?"
Yeah, I wouldn't hold my breath either.
CHECK OUT THIS COLUMN
"The Punisher" movie isn't going to be newsworthy for much longer, so I'd like to take this on-topic opportunity to direct all readers to a wonderful little weekly web column that ought to be on the required weekly reading list for conossieurs of Geek Culture.
Scott Tipton, writing for the ever-surprising Moviepoopshoot.com, pens the column "Comics 101" which each week takes a different subject either of or related-to comic book lore and offers up an "everything you need to know about..." rundown thereof. Nevermind if you already know (or THINK you already know) everything he has to "teach," this is a damn fine read and is (when applicable) often tied in with the debut of films/TV series connected to that week's subject.
This week, Tipton offers a fine primer on, what else? "The Punisher," covering all the necessary ground from the character's origins as a guest-vigilante in "Spider-Man" and "Daredevil" adventures to the still-technically-happened-no-matter-how-much-we'd-like-to-forget-it late-90s "Punisher-as-Crow-knockoff" run, right up through the "Welcome Back, Frank" series that serves as the (loose) template for the current film:
http://www.moviepoopshoot.com/comics101/index.html
Well done, Mr. Tipton.
REVIEW RETHINKING:
I stand by my original review of "Punisher." I still think, even having had several more days to mull over it's various parts and discuss it at length with fellow Film Geeks, that it's a solid-if-unremarkable B-action flick with a certain 80s-throwback nostalgia appeal. However, as with a lot of imperfect actioners, the more time I think about the parts that didn't work the more I'm inclined to elaborate on them:
First, and most notably, the attempt to combine the base-outline of "Welcome Back, Frank" (re-emerged Punisher hides out with misfits in tenament, wages strategic war on local crime family) with a re-imagined origin story just doesn't work. Punisher having to track and kill the SPECIFIC guys responsible for wiping out his family while at the same time finding surrogate-family redemption is, aside from being kinda sloppily written in this case, at odds with the film's desire to get him going on a journey of crime-busting sequels: With his revenge secure and his "soul" saved, what reason does The Punisher have to keep on PUNISHING?
Curiously, the film refuses to go "all-the-way" when it comes to the hero's dubious grasp of sanity, which would've given them at least something resembling an "out" in this case. At the conclusion of this, it seems as though The Punisher is heading out to right wrongs for no better reason than, y'know, thats what guys with symbols on their shirts DO.
Bottom line: It's not BAD, it's just not a great film. Take away the Marvel tie-in, and it probably would've been an above-average direct-to-video release rather than a just-about-average theatrical release. (Coincidentally, this is the first Marvel movie to NOT open in the #1 spot.)
WARNERS TO FANS: "PLEASE STOP HATING US!"
Pity the feature film division at Warner Bros. For years (since about 1997 to be precise) the web movie-gossip community has painted them (not unfairly) as a place where potentially-great projects go to die. In RECENT years, much of that web movie-gossip has begun to regularly filter into the mainstream film press. The closest Warners has been to a critics/boxoffice/merchandise/awards home run has been being tied to "Lord of The Rings" even though they didn't make it (WB's independently-run "sidekick" New Line Cinema did the honors.)
Pity them more still: The talk-of-the-town in Hollywood is the sudden "DUUUUHHHHH!" realization by the suits that there are deep, rich veins of great movie material and boxoffice profit to be mined from the world of comic book literature. Marvel, which owns the rights to roughly 50% of marketable comic characters, can seemingly throw solid-waste (or the Ben Affleck "Daredevil" movie) in the direction of any production house and have a smash hit. Warner Bros. DC owns the OTHER 50% of upper-echelon characters (like, oh, I dunno.. SUPERMAN, BATMAN, getting the picture?) DC is owned by Warner Bros., but Warner Bros can't seem to get a good comic book adaptation off the ground to save their life.
For the sake of illustration: DC's proposed new updating of "SUPERMAN," the most recognizable superhero character on the face of the earth, one of the most well-known icons of the 20th AND 21st century, possibly posessed of the most self-contained free-publicity of any multimedia franchise that exist or that ever WILL EXIST.. is languishing in development hell, plagued by a revoling-door of directors, screenwriters and the issue that every actor approached for the role has TURNED DOWN THE PROJECT. Meanwhile, Marvel's new movie of "MAN-THING," a so-obscure-as-to-be-almost-totally-forgotten 70s swamp-monster character, is now nearly completed with it's shooting and heading for a theatrical release this year. Anyone who doesn't see "what ain't right" in the above scenario is reading the wrong Blog.
Ahem. To their probable credit, WB seems to be getting it's act together with Chris Nolan's upcoming "Batman" flick. but BEFORE THAT, they'll be releasing the new "Catwoman" reimagining which, to put it mildly, is the possibly the purified "nightmare-come-to-life" movie for all comic book fans: Complete retooling of the character with only the name remaining? Check. God-awful costume described as "very hip, very street" by the publicity? Check. No connection to the continuity of the comic or prior film incarnations? Check. Designation as a (shudder) "romantic action-comedy?" Check. "Name" hip-for-the-moment star completely wrong for the lead but cast to bring in the legend "non-fan demographic"? Check.
The best reporting and report-relaying on this project has, of course, been being conducted by the good souls at Superherohype.com's "Catwoman" section:
http://www.superherohype.com/catwoman/
WB knew, expected and prepared for the Geekdom to loathe the very idea of this flick from the get go. They were ready and, really, didn't care. Remember: The cast-in-stone studio view of fandom-sects is, was and ever-shall-be that they are "just guys living in their mom's basement" who's negative opinion "doesn't matter because they'll see it and provide ticket money either way." Warner Bros. DOES NOT CARE what comic fans and their Film Geek brethern think, they care what "E! News" and "Entertainment Tonight" veiwers think.
Forgive me for being so, well, GIDDY at Warner Bros. having found themselves in the predicament that the film is looking like SUCH a joke-waiting-to-happen at this point that even the "who cares about you're moving, who are you WEARING!!??" crowd is starting to smell it coming. Thus far, what little press the film has gotten has centered on troubles with the first-time director and, yes, negative fan reactions to the whole shebang. It's spin-control time:
I direct your attention to a lil' report filed by comic artist Jim Lee on Newsarama.com today. Jim, it seems was recently flown by the producers of "Catwoman" from his current home in Italy to the Vancouver set to do some live-model sketches of Berry in her costume to be used on the obligatory movie-adaptation comic.
Lee reports back on his experience, which indeed sounds like quite a fun business trip for an especially hard-working artist:
http://newsarama.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=11988
Hm. A fan-favorite comic artist suddenly being associated with a fan-despised comic adaptation in dire need of a publicity-overhaul starting from the ground (web fandom) up? An artist currently in high-profile employment with the company that is both making the film AND owns the publisher of the comic? Hm.
Understand, I'm not implicating Lee (or anyone, for that matter) in anything untoward here. Lee is a hugely talented artist, one who's renderings of Berry in this film will undoubtedly look better than anything that winds up onscreen. Just positing, as a matter of admitted pure speculation, that perhaps WB is going for a sly bit of damage control with this confluence of events?
Not only is Lee a "good guy" name to a solid bloc of fans, he's in the process of a high-profile run on "Superman" thats going to get a lot of press and just finished a high-profile run on a year-long "Batman" arc that prominently featured Catwoman as a character. Could WB have been thinking, as they wrote the check to send Lee from Italy to Canada and back, that perhaps some of the "fanboy"-love currently surrounding Lee in connection with the DC arcana might rub-off on their troubled and in need of ANY love production?
Eh, it's up for interpretation of events, I suppose. Judge for yourself. I do, however, feel the need to speak in Mr. Lee's general direction at this point:
Jim, you're one heck of an artist. I'm sure I'm not the first comic/movie geek to tell you how much your ability to render voluptuous Amazonian-proportioned women in colorful spandex suggestively pawing at one-another meant to my life as an adolescent and continue to mean to my life today. As to your statement in the report that the early still of Halle-cat "don't do her justice," well... Man, I hope you're right on this one. We ALL, I'm thinking, hope you're right on this one.
I was late happening upon this one, but I'm running it anyway.
Back on April 5th, Zap2it.com ran a short peice concerning the apparent greenlighting of a sequel to Marvel's much-misunderstood "Hulk" movie.
Surprise surprise, the producers (Gale Ann Hurd and Avi Arad) are lightning-quick to point out that any sequel will be gently forced in a direction FAR away from Ang Lee's surrealist-impressionist dreamscape in the first film. Arad goes on to call the approach, literally, "Hulk-Lite."
Long-time readers of this blog (or new readers who've checked the archives, trust me this one is there) will recall that I was predicting back when "Hulk" was faring poorly at the boxoffice that the film will become an example which studio moneymen will cite as reason to weed rampant creativity out of mainstream action product.
Here's the link to Zap2it's article:
http://www.zap2it.com/movies/news/story/0,1259,---21110,00.html
Ahem. As Will Smith faux-deapans in the comically awful "I, Robot" trailers: Somehow, 'I told you so' doesn't QUITE cut it.
In my opinion, the (literal) money-quote from Arad here is as follows: "He won't be this tortured person, it will pick up at the end of the first movie," Arad says. "He's come to terms with his life and who he is and we can let him be the Hulk hero now."
Okay, producer-to-english translation: "We didn't turn as big a profit as we'd set out to, so next time around we're on creative autopilot and will serve America the by-the-numbers empty actioner they've demanded of us." That's whats going on here, and don't let anyone try and tell you it's anything more or less. The mass audience has refused it's steak and will now be served the Big Mac they demanded. Let's hear it for the system. Ick.
NOW, before the decent-sized portion of the Geekdom which also disliked the movie climbs down my throat on this one, settle down fellas. If you're thinking the suits' call on this one means that they'll be going "back to the roots" of the character and "fixing" the detail's Lee's first installment played around with, well, I'll just say you're optimism seems founded on a distinct lack of logic and evidence.
The parts of Arad's quote that should have all geeks fair and true quaking in their boots are his assertion that Banner/Hulk "won't be this tortured person" and will "come to terms with who he is." Um.. no. It's to be understood, of course, that Arad (who's overwhelmingly positive contributions to comics-on-film should not be overshadowed by this) is speaking to the mainstream press and not the fandom here but, seriously, this is Marvel Universe 101 here: If Banner isn't "tortured," there is NO HULK! The character is all about personality-split taken to a physical extreme, so if he "comes to terms with who he is" then he CEASES TO ALSO BE THE HULK, he's just "Bruce Banner, socially well-adjusted and terminally-uninteresting scientist."
Yeah, this is definately one of those times I'd have much prefered to be wrong.
It's certainly NO "Kill Bill," but as stripped-down guns-n-muscles vengeance sagas go "The Punisher" ain't half bad.
It's not the worst of the Marvel movies, that honor still belongs to "Daredevil," but it's lacking in the conviction and determination for quality that made "Spider-Man" and "X-Men" work. It's main aspiration is to get the name and image of Punisher into the movie-verse and give Marvel Films some footing in the hard-R arena.
Thomas Jane has the title role, an ex-military hardcase who dons a skull-insignia T-shirt and goes on a rampage of bloody revenge against the criminals who massacred his family and left him for dead.
The film deviates from it's source material in a number of key ways: Castle is now an ex-FBI undercover specialist with a military past rather than the Veitnam veteran of the comics. Instead of Castle's wife and son being the sole deaths that spur him on, his entire extended family is murdered; and rather than just being caught in the crossfire of senseless mob violence the Castles are the specific targets of hitmen working for Florida money launderer Howard Saint (John Travolta) who's criminal son was killed during Castle's final bust.
Decent enough setup for a tale of one man's revenge, but the trouble here is the needs of the movie are up against the needs of the movie FRANCHISE Marvel is hoping it creates. "The Punisher" of the comics, his "crazy-switch" already half-flipped by his tour of 'Nam duty, keeps on killing the baddies with no end in sight because of the faceless, indirect SENSELESSNESS with which his loved ones died: Because he can't really put a "face" on the villians, his war is with "crime" as an abstract idea, not just with one criminal.
So, while Castle's one-man-war on the Saint Family makes for a perfectly serviceable tale of tit-for-tat comeuppance, in the end it just makes him a wronged man settling a score with a specific foe; not the vigilante on a sequel-generating endless quest that the investors NEED him to be. Thus, the film gets frequently bogged-down in giving Castle "extra-heroics" like his warming-up to the neighbors in his tenament or rescuing a battered woman (Rebecca Romijn-Stamos) from an abuser; plus (SPOILER WARNING!) an ending coda with "The Punisher" concluding there's work yet to be done. The idea that THIS Frank Castle would go off on a nationwide tour of crimefighting even though he's finished HIS mission just doesn't wash with everything else we've been told about the character.
That aside, the film as is is pretty solid. It's not spectacular and doesn't really offer anything brand-spanking-new to the eye-for-and-eye genre, but theres not much "wrong" with it. Fans of lower-tech, angrier action films will find a lot to like here, the action scenes are heavy on the violence and especially fond of torture and extended beatings.
I especially enjoy the methodical sadism in Punisher's revenge scheme, which involves both brutal acts of violence and an intricately planned psychological warfare. All said and done, perhaps his plan is hinged on too many coincidences, but it's refreshing to see a film of this "tone" showing off it's hero's mental skills along with his combat skills. See also two standout matchups between Castle and two high-end hitmen, guitar-playing Harry Heck and a giant nigh-invincible brute called "The Russian" (wrestler Kevin Nash.)
Special mention goes, I think, to Laura Elena Harring and Will Patton as Saint's wife and top henchman, respectively. They aren't BIG roles, but they're important and the fine actors hired turn in fine work with limited material.
This is no great film, but it's devoid of any SERIOUS problems and it's paced quite well. Action fans will want to give it a look, for the old-school charm if nothing else.
Appologies that this isn't getting up sooner, It's been a busy day. To avoid my tendency to ramble and, lord knows, on this one I could, lets do this numerically:
1.) This is the best film thus far released in 2004, and will be a hard contender to beat for the best of the "Summer Movie Season" (yes, even though it's not quite "Summer" yet.) If you're any kind of fan of great moviemaking, go see this (AFTER you see #1, now available for rental, if you haven't already.)
2.) "Kill Bill," as a completed movie, story and universe, is Quentin Tarantino's best film. The one-time "wunderkind" hotshot has matured (ironically, by "regressing" back into the pure video store Geekiness from whence he was spawned) into a writer/director of such energy and talent that he can at-once flawlessly balance AND beneficially merge dozens upon dozens of different genre styles, dialogue approaches and dramatic tones with an expertise that turns what could have been simple self-indulgent genre-clashing into a full, rich cinematic tapestry: Close-to-midpoint, when a heroic modern-day Samurai swordswoman finds herself in a deathtrap that would've been at home in a 70s schlock-horror chiller following a conflict with a heavy reminiscient of the original "Walking Tall" calls on her memories of training under an ancient White Lotus martial-arts master, the MOST unusual thing going on is how "real" Tarantino has made this collision of movie-fantasies seem.
3.) Wonderful though it may be, it does offer a certain confirmation that Miramax/Tarantino probably should've released this as one movie: This was meant to play as a one-shot-deal, and it does show. That it shows doesn't HURT this film on it's own, but it does have the effect of transforming the rythym of Tarantino's work from what (we can now see for certain) was meant as an epic tour through the B-movie subgenres that primarily shaped QT's directorial psyche into two mini-epics; the first paying it's regards to Blaxploitation, Anime and Japanese Samurai films, the second moving on to Chinese Kung-Fu, 70s Sleaze/Noir and Spaghetti Westerns.
4.) Uma Thurman, her story now concluded, deserves not only to be nominated for every applicable major acting award, she deserves to win them. What Quentin does as a director, she matches as an actress. Most major starlets would find the delivery of intensely-realistic dramatic emotion or the weilding of a samurai sword or martial-arts choreography or deft comedic timing to be enough challenge for INDIVIDUAL FILMS, but here the film demands Thurman to do ALL OF THAT and more not just in a single film but often in a single SCENE! I've always suspected it, but here she proves it for all time: Uma Thurman is one of the best actresses working in film today. In the world. PERIOD.
5.) Quentin Tarantino is possibly the best director in terms of the use of actors working in Hollywood: Not only does he provide the roles, dialogue and direction to nudge Michael Madsen and Darryl Hannah, (both of who's careers have been on the low end of the bell curve lately,) into perhaps the best performances of their careers; he has afforded David Carradine, who most had erroneously written off as a one-hit has-been only on-hand as a living peice of the film's 70s pop-culture cornucopeia, the vehicle for which to leap from "pop icon" RIGHT PAST "good actor after all" and straight to "MOVIE GOD." Carradine, as Bill, OWNS every scene he's in, his "Bill" is one of the great movie villians of all time: We're talking "Darth Vader" or "Khan" territory here. A star known for action roles in an action movie, Carradine hear is given a role that consists almost entirely a astonishingly-delivered dialogue, culminating in a trio of discussion-monologues in the final act which rank as movie dialogue for the ages.
6.) The other small drawback of the films' truncated release is that the tendency of viewing "sequels" is to expect a certain stylistic "rhyme" with the previous installment. Thus, those for whom the original "Kill Bill" was defined entirely in terms of the gravity-defying swordplay, blood-geysers and dark-slapstick The Bride encountered in the "Japanese genre-film" universe that wound up dominating much of Volume 1 and whom come to #2 expecting more of the same will set themselves up for a letdown: These final chapters move The Bride out of the "worlds" of the first film and into new ones, and thus entirely new styles of fighting, bloodshed and tone. There's simply no way these mid-and-final scenes (its really one movie, remember) could have topped the awesome carnage of The Bride's slaughter of O-Ren Ishii and The Crazy 88 in the "House of Blue Leaves" battle scene, so it heads in a different direction: The battles this time are more about strategy, motivation and pre-fight dialogue than they are about style. The "big" throwdown this time around is The Bride vs. Elle Driver (Daryl Hannah), which does with brutality and claustrophobia what the "Blue Leaves" fight did with elegance and scope.
7.) Gordon Lui as the White Lotus Priest Pai Mei: Master of The Five-Finger Palm Exploding Heart Technique is going to be a big Halloween costume for grownups this year. You heard it here first.
8.) In case you're wondering, the only thing more fun than SAYING White Lotus Priest Pai Mei: Master of The Five-Finger Palm Exploding Heart Technique is WATCHING Pai Mei: Master of The Five-Finger Exploding Heart Technique. You really ought to see it.
I'm not the ONLY person reviewing this today, of course. Just for fun, here's a few links to some of the Web's more nifty and out-there offerings I found:
For exoticisms sake, here's Johnathan V. Last of conservative Washington periodical "The Weekly Standard" weighing in:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/966letfi.asp
John, I don't like to use the following phrase much, but... man, I'm sorry, you just don't get it.
D.K. Holm, who pens reviews under the banner "Nocturnal Admissions" for Moviepoopshoot.com, has been one of Kill Bill's #1 cheerleaders since the day the original came out. He has devoted over 15 mini-articles to it between then and now. His review, one of the most well-researched (and also spoilerish, you've been warned) is right here:
http://www.moviepoopshoot.com/nocturnal/index.html
Speaking of missing the point by a mile and then some, here's some folks from a "Spirituality & Health" group of some kind, courtest Rottentomatoes:
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/click/movie-1131502/reviews_viewer.php?fb=no&rid=1271994
Finally, Jeffery Wells will probably land himself BACK on the naughty-list of film geekdom with his "did we see the same movie!??" rundown at the start of his regular column:
http://www.moviepoopshoot.com/elsewhere/index.html
Yeah, I know, I mostly posted negative reviews because I tend to find I learn more from people who disagree with me than those who agree. Even when those who disagree with me are as resoundingly WRONG as they are here :)
To make up, here's Rottentomatoes "positive list" of reviews, currently comprising an impressive 87% of their web-wide total:
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/KillBillVol2-1131502/
Agree with me? Disagree? Lets here it in the "comments" section. That's what it's there for :)
|
Search This Site
Syndicate this blog site
Powered by BlogEasy
Free Blog Hosting
|