The Trailer Park is a monthly feature reserved for trailers or synopsis that:
A) caused me to make that teenage girl sound, "meh"
B) the synopsis didn't warrant a trailer viewing
C) content I had no interest in
D) trailers viewed that evoked nothing
E) trailers that were so forgettable that by the time I was ready to review them, I couldn't even remember the title of the film
F) All of the above
G) None of the above
Think of the Trailer Park as a public service....
So, in no particular order, I give you this months installment of Trailer Park:
In Time (still playing and still looks like Justin Timberlake crap)
Alvin and the Chipmunks: Chipwrecked (seriously?)
The Darkest Hour (a lost hour and a half)
Johnny English Reborn (didn't know he was born and hadn't heard that he died)
Ladies vs. Ricky Bahl (more Bollywood cheese and the longest synopsis ever)
Thanks for reading.
Saturday, 31 December 2011
VIEWED: Carnage
My recommendation for this one was...
"I hope to see this film over the holidays, just to kill my festive spirit."
The only thing this film killed was my desire to see another new Polanski film.
Just to recap...
Carnage is the story of two couples, parents of school-aged children, who meet after one of the children hits the other in the face with a stick. It appears that the entire story takes place in one couple's home, making this much like a stage play - like Albee's Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolfe.
As the afternoon meeting progresses, the thin veil of civility slowly drops. Add alcohol into the mix and personal issues within each relationship begin to arise. More alcohol, less civility... Is Polanski showing us how ugly his personal life is/was by showing us how ugly we are beneath our social conventions?
The short answer is: Yes. But Roman, what you did is still wrong by any moral standard.
While the acting was good, the 1:15 minute film (that seemed much longer) confirmed in my mind that Polanski made this film as a f**k you to social convention rather than to entertain anyone but himself.
"I hope to see this film over the holidays, just to kill my festive spirit."
The only thing this film killed was my desire to see another new Polanski film.
Just to recap...
Carnage is the story of two couples, parents of school-aged children, who meet after one of the children hits the other in the face with a stick. It appears that the entire story takes place in one couple's home, making this much like a stage play - like Albee's Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolfe.
As the afternoon meeting progresses, the thin veil of civility slowly drops. Add alcohol into the mix and personal issues within each relationship begin to arise. More alcohol, less civility... Is Polanski showing us how ugly his personal life is/was by showing us how ugly we are beneath our social conventions?
The short answer is: Yes. But Roman, what you did is still wrong by any moral standard.
While the acting was good, the 1:15 minute film (that seemed much longer) confirmed in my mind that Polanski made this film as a f**k you to social convention rather than to entertain anyone but himself.
Tuesday, 27 December 2011
Mission Impossible 4: Ghost Protocol
Say what you want about Tom Cruise, the guy has made some classic movies. From Risky Business to Top Gun to Magnolia to Jerry Maguire to Eyes Wide Shut (which I really liked)... I also liked Collateral, Minority Report and even The Last Samurai.
But the role that made me laugh and say, "damn, not only can Cruise act but he isn't taking himself too seriously," was the producer in Tropic Thunder. Brilliant role AND the dude can dance.
Cruise just keeps making good (rarely great) but good, entertaining movies. There's often very cool action and, even when there isn't, this dude can act (sure, there have been a few bombs). I hear so much anti-Tom Cruise sentiment and yet he continues to consistently deliver. Box office returns and entertainment value is a winning formula (right Lightening?).
So, does one judge him by his weird personal persona and shit that he's pulled? Does one judge Polanski, Gibson or Allen despite their great works? Well, yes we judge them, but does that make their work any less significant?
Shawn of the Dead is in this one. I watched Shawn of the Dead again on Netflix (Netflix Canada really sucks).
The trailer for MI: 4 is really great. A super spy action hero, should he choose to accept an "impossible" mission is charged with saving face, grace, honour, integrity and, of course, the world. The stunts look awesome. The MI franchise continues to deliver while the Bond franchise continues to deliver cold pizza: some people still like it, but it ain't the same as hot...
Yeah, I have no doubt that this one will deliver and I have no doubt that I'll see it, hopefully soon.
But the role that made me laugh and say, "damn, not only can Cruise act but he isn't taking himself too seriously," was the producer in Tropic Thunder. Brilliant role AND the dude can dance.
Cruise just keeps making good (rarely great) but good, entertaining movies. There's often very cool action and, even when there isn't, this dude can act (sure, there have been a few bombs). I hear so much anti-Tom Cruise sentiment and yet he continues to consistently deliver. Box office returns and entertainment value is a winning formula (right Lightening?).
So, does one judge him by his weird personal persona and shit that he's pulled? Does one judge Polanski, Gibson or Allen despite their great works? Well, yes we judge them, but does that make their work any less significant?
Shawn of the Dead is in this one. I watched Shawn of the Dead again on Netflix (Netflix Canada really sucks).
The trailer for MI: 4 is really great. A super spy action hero, should he choose to accept an "impossible" mission is charged with saving face, grace, honour, integrity and, of course, the world. The stunts look awesome. The MI franchise continues to deliver while the Bond franchise continues to deliver cold pizza: some people still like it, but it ain't the same as hot...
Yeah, I have no doubt that this one will deliver and I have no doubt that I'll see it, hopefully soon.
Wednesday, 21 December 2011
The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (2011)
In 2009, a friend invited me to see a film called, The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo. I hadn't read, nor even heard of the Stieg Larsson Millennium Trilogy, so I had no idea what to expect. I was blown away by the intensity of this film. It was disturbing and graphic but every scene seemed necessary and enhanced a very intricate story. I thought it was a great film. The subtitles didn't detract from the film in any way.
The trailer on IMDB for the 2011 version is 3:40 long. In almost five months of Beerbohmtastic, it wins the award for longest trailer ever. BUT... I think it was that long so that it could show that it is word-for-word, scene-for-scene, set-for-set, exactly the same as the original, which is only two years old. Whether it is exactly the same is left to be seen.
I'm not a fan of Daniel Craig. His Bond is about as sharp as a sack of wet mice (Foghorn Leghorn). He was good in Munich and very good in Defiance. No doubt he can act, but the Bond thing was annoying. I can't wait to avoid seeing the next Bond film. This is sad to me because I used to love the franchise.
The 2009 film was really, really good. If the 2011 film is an exact copy, but in English, then is that really a bad thing? AND it's directed by David Fincher! This is the dude that directed Fight Club, Se7en, and one of the wife's favourites, The Curious Case of Benjamin Button. The thing about Benjamin Button is that the original short story by F. Scott Fitzgerald is way shorter than the movie by Fincher. The wife smacked me for making that comment as we exited the theatre.
I always say (well, Huss does) that it's better to remake a bad movie, well, than to remake a good movie badly. I'm not sure how this applies to remaking a good foreign film exactly the same but in English...
I'll see this one just to compare the two and will report back.
The trailer on IMDB for the 2011 version is 3:40 long. In almost five months of Beerbohmtastic, it wins the award for longest trailer ever. BUT... I think it was that long so that it could show that it is word-for-word, scene-for-scene, set-for-set, exactly the same as the original, which is only two years old. Whether it is exactly the same is left to be seen.
I'm not a fan of Daniel Craig. His Bond is about as sharp as a sack of wet mice (Foghorn Leghorn). He was good in Munich and very good in Defiance. No doubt he can act, but the Bond thing was annoying. I can't wait to avoid seeing the next Bond film. This is sad to me because I used to love the franchise.
The 2009 film was really, really good. If the 2011 film is an exact copy, but in English, then is that really a bad thing? AND it's directed by David Fincher! This is the dude that directed Fight Club, Se7en, and one of the wife's favourites, The Curious Case of Benjamin Button. The thing about Benjamin Button is that the original short story by F. Scott Fitzgerald is way shorter than the movie by Fincher. The wife smacked me for making that comment as we exited the theatre.
I always say (well, Huss does) that it's better to remake a bad movie, well, than to remake a good movie badly. I'm not sure how this applies to remaking a good foreign film exactly the same but in English...
I'll see this one just to compare the two and will report back.
Tuesday, 20 December 2011
Young Adult
I watched this trailer twice because I wasn't sure if Charlize Theron's character was serious or just suffering from delusions, cluelessness or possibly narcissistic personality disorder. The background music in the trailer is David Bowie's, Queen Bitch from his 1972 album, Hunky Dory, so is this a tell?
Diablo Cody, who also wrote Juno, which was cute and clever, is likely cute and clever.
Young Adult is the story of a relatively successful writer who returns to her hometown because she wants to rekindle a high school romance. There are two problems. The first is that he is happily married and has a new baby and the second is that she feels that he is the right one for her and doesn't care if she ruins his marriage. In the trailer Charlize is a delusional bitch and is called that by others.
Charlize is a hot, Oscar winning actress that has made some very interesting movies but also played a developmentally delayed woman about to have a fling with Michael in Arrested Development - that was an odd choice.
I'm not sure what I think of Patrick Wilson. I liked him as Night Owl in Watchmen, but in other things I've seen him in he's hit and miss.
Judging by the trailer, which is the point of this blog, I didn't find this story interesting, intriguing or even clever. That said, I want to give Diablo Cody the benefit of the doubt because I can't imagine that this story is as pointless as the trailer looks.
Diablo Cody, who also wrote Juno, which was cute and clever, is likely cute and clever.
Young Adult is the story of a relatively successful writer who returns to her hometown because she wants to rekindle a high school romance. There are two problems. The first is that he is happily married and has a new baby and the second is that she feels that he is the right one for her and doesn't care if she ruins his marriage. In the trailer Charlize is a delusional bitch and is called that by others.
Charlize is a hot, Oscar winning actress that has made some very interesting movies but also played a developmentally delayed woman about to have a fling with Michael in Arrested Development - that was an odd choice.
I'm not sure what I think of Patrick Wilson. I liked him as Night Owl in Watchmen, but in other things I've seen him in he's hit and miss.
Judging by the trailer, which is the point of this blog, I didn't find this story interesting, intriguing or even clever. That said, I want to give Diablo Cody the benefit of the doubt because I can't imagine that this story is as pointless as the trailer looks.
Friday, 16 December 2011
VIEWED: I Melt With You
My recommendation for this one was...
"I Melt With You is a very bad title, given what the trailer implies about the story. While I'm not judging this movie by its title, only by its trailer, I'm strangely curious about this one. Maybe I'll catch it at the Rainbow on a Tuesday."
At home, sick in bed with the flu, I was bored and stumbled upon this film on-line, while sadly becoming bored with the old episodes of Kolchak: The Night Stalker I enjoyed in re-run form as a kid. At the time, Kolchak must have been cutting edge and quite scary, but by today's standards it looks kind of silly. A reporter walking around chasing monsters and aliens with a "pocket" camera and "portable" tape recorder strapped around his neck, while dragging around a "portable" typewriter. These devices look ridiculous given the technology age we live in. My point is that we often idealise our memories only to be disappointed when we try to re-live them. Ironically, this is an underlying theme in I Melt With You.
My assessment of the trailer was accurate in some ways and way off in others. I Melt With You is a much better film than Very Bad Things and I Know What You Did Last Summer. I feel dumb for the comparison.
POSSIBLE SPOILER:
This film is very well acted. I thought Rob Lowe and the fourth guy were stand outs. Jane and Piven were very good, too. The concept is that, as young men, they make a pact and in twenty-five years, if their lives haven't turned out the way they had hoped, then they must share an experience. To further skew their perception, they come to the realisation, albeit too late, that their positive memories are all drug induced.
Well, each character is a failure in some way. But who in their 40's has the life they had envisioned in their teens? Very few, I imagine. Though the payoff or "secret" in I melt with you is kind of extreme, I think the film will strike a chord with most men and some women over 35.
I still don't like the title.
"I Melt With You is a very bad title, given what the trailer implies about the story. While I'm not judging this movie by its title, only by its trailer, I'm strangely curious about this one. Maybe I'll catch it at the Rainbow on a Tuesday."
At home, sick in bed with the flu, I was bored and stumbled upon this film on-line, while sadly becoming bored with the old episodes of Kolchak: The Night Stalker I enjoyed in re-run form as a kid. At the time, Kolchak must have been cutting edge and quite scary, but by today's standards it looks kind of silly. A reporter walking around chasing monsters and aliens with a "pocket" camera and "portable" tape recorder strapped around his neck, while dragging around a "portable" typewriter. These devices look ridiculous given the technology age we live in. My point is that we often idealise our memories only to be disappointed when we try to re-live them. Ironically, this is an underlying theme in I Melt With You.
My assessment of the trailer was accurate in some ways and way off in others. I Melt With You is a much better film than Very Bad Things and I Know What You Did Last Summer. I feel dumb for the comparison.
POSSIBLE SPOILER:
This film is very well acted. I thought Rob Lowe and the fourth guy were stand outs. Jane and Piven were very good, too. The concept is that, as young men, they make a pact and in twenty-five years, if their lives haven't turned out the way they had hoped, then they must share an experience. To further skew their perception, they come to the realisation, albeit too late, that their positive memories are all drug induced.
Well, each character is a failure in some way. But who in their 40's has the life they had envisioned in their teens? Very few, I imagine. Though the payoff or "secret" in I melt with you is kind of extreme, I think the film will strike a chord with most men and some women over 35.
I still don't like the title.
Wednesday, 14 December 2011
Carnage
The trailer for Carnage made me think of Edward Albee's, Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolfe. I hold Albee in the highest regard, as I do Mamet, Beckett, Bukowski, Thompson and DeVito, to name a few. Story tellers who need few props or gimmicks to deliver tension, conflict - I believe the term is "character driven." Anyway, I love character driven stories with good dialogue.
Funny and kind of surprising, that this a Roman Polanski film. Surprising because I thought he was in jail somewhere - should one separate an interesting professional career from a sketchy personal life? I guess you could put Woody Allen in the same category.
Funny because I mentioned Polanski in my review of Shame. I made reference to his film Bitter Moon. Bitter Moon is a film that every man should see. It's a film about a man who's relationship with a beautiful young woman, for him, is based on sex. For her, it is more than that - she is in love. After he finally dumps her, and I think he tries a few times, she is truly devastated. Very shortly afterwards, he has an accident and becomes a paraplegic. She takes on the role of care giver and, as he is now fully dependent on her, she is in control... "Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned..." Imagine your worst fears within this scenario and you have a powerful and disturbing film.
Carnage is the story of two couples, parents of school-aged children, who meet after one of the children hits the other in the face with a stick. It appears that the entire story takes place in one couple's home, making this much like a stage play - like Albee's Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolfe.
As the afternoon meeting progresses, the thin veil of civility slowly drops. Add alcohol into the mix and personal issues within each relationship begin to arise. More alcohol, less civility... Is Polanski showing us how ugly his personal life is/was by showing us how ugly we are beneath our social conventions?
The trailer looks like an examination of parenthood, relationships, social dynamics amidst the deconstruction of civility. The children and the incident that brought the couples together are much less important than the interaction between the adults. In the end, the trailer doesn't give away the outcome. Do the relationships survive? Given that this is a Polanski film, I trust that the children will get over the incident long before the adults get over their afternoon together.
I hope to see this film over the holidays, just to kill my festive spirit.
Funny and kind of surprising, that this a Roman Polanski film. Surprising because I thought he was in jail somewhere - should one separate an interesting professional career from a sketchy personal life? I guess you could put Woody Allen in the same category.
Funny because I mentioned Polanski in my review of Shame. I made reference to his film Bitter Moon. Bitter Moon is a film that every man should see. It's a film about a man who's relationship with a beautiful young woman, for him, is based on sex. For her, it is more than that - she is in love. After he finally dumps her, and I think he tries a few times, she is truly devastated. Very shortly afterwards, he has an accident and becomes a paraplegic. She takes on the role of care giver and, as he is now fully dependent on her, she is in control... "Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned..." Imagine your worst fears within this scenario and you have a powerful and disturbing film.
Carnage is the story of two couples, parents of school-aged children, who meet after one of the children hits the other in the face with a stick. It appears that the entire story takes place in one couple's home, making this much like a stage play - like Albee's Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolfe.
As the afternoon meeting progresses, the thin veil of civility slowly drops. Add alcohol into the mix and personal issues within each relationship begin to arise. More alcohol, less civility... Is Polanski showing us how ugly his personal life is/was by showing us how ugly we are beneath our social conventions?
The trailer looks like an examination of parenthood, relationships, social dynamics amidst the deconstruction of civility. The children and the incident that brought the couples together are much less important than the interaction between the adults. In the end, the trailer doesn't give away the outcome. Do the relationships survive? Given that this is a Polanski film, I trust that the children will get over the incident long before the adults get over their afternoon together.
I hope to see this film over the holidays, just to kill my festive spirit.
Monday, 12 December 2011
Shame
A man addicted to sex isn't new. Exploring why a man is addicted to sex isn't really new either. Having a man who is addicted to sex face why he is addicted to sex and that the addiction comes from a dark, perhaps painful or traumatic place.... well maybe that isn't new either. At least, though, Shame isn’t a remake, prequel or sequel. It appears to be an attempt for a deeper understanding of an often trivialized issue.
The stereotypical sex addict male in movies is a pig, a slut, and often portrayed humorously. But, after he meets the right girl, he realizes the error of his ways and how wrong it was to treat objects like women.... or women like objects and is somehow absolved by his new commitment to... well, commitment.
The stereotype (see most Adam Sandler movies and Harlequin Romances) is shallow, trivial, and disrespectful to both men and women AND, is really not that funny. It's not for me to judge - I spent many years as a musician - but I think it's important to have to face the emotional baggage that motivates our less honorable actions, at least at some point in our lives.
I'm by no means a psychologist, but I would imagine that the need for constant gratification must stem from a lonely, unfulfilled place. Maybe it's just the mood I'm in but I think this examination of shame in the movie Shame is a good thing. It'll be even better if it's executed well.
I've seen Michael Fassbender in two films and liked them both. He was good as the pompous Brit spy in Inglorious Basterds and he was very believable as a young Magneto in X-Men First Class. The dude can act.
All this to say that the trailer for Shame makes the film look interesting, thought provoking and perhaps uncomfortably emotional for both men and women.
I'll wait until I'm in the right mood and then watch Bitter Moon by Roman Polanski... I mean go see Shame.
The stereotypical sex addict male in movies is a pig, a slut, and often portrayed humorously. But, after he meets the right girl, he realizes the error of his ways and how wrong it was to treat objects like women.... or women like objects and is somehow absolved by his new commitment to... well, commitment.
The stereotype (see most Adam Sandler movies and Harlequin Romances) is shallow, trivial, and disrespectful to both men and women AND, is really not that funny. It's not for me to judge - I spent many years as a musician - but I think it's important to have to face the emotional baggage that motivates our less honorable actions, at least at some point in our lives.
I'm by no means a psychologist, but I would imagine that the need for constant gratification must stem from a lonely, unfulfilled place. Maybe it's just the mood I'm in but I think this examination of shame in the movie Shame is a good thing. It'll be even better if it's executed well.
I've seen Michael Fassbender in two films and liked them both. He was good as the pompous Brit spy in Inglorious Basterds and he was very believable as a young Magneto in X-Men First Class. The dude can act.
All this to say that the trailer for Shame makes the film look interesting, thought provoking and perhaps uncomfortably emotional for both men and women.
I'll wait until I'm in the right mood and then watch Bitter Moon by Roman Polanski... I mean go see Shame.
Friday, 9 December 2011
The Sitter
I didn't see Adventures in Babysitting but I knew of it so I watched the trailer after I watched the trailer for The Sitter. Jonah Hill is no Elisabeth Shue, but Elisabeth Shue is no Jonah Hill, either.
The differences and similarities in the movies are many. Ms. Shue was eager to babysit. Mr. Hill was not. Ms. Shue was trying to do the right thing. Mr. Hill was not. Ms. Shue tried to be responsible and, despite the circumstances, looked out for the best interest of the kids. Mr. Hill? Apparently not. Both had to look after “difficult” children. Both had to leave the safety of the home, thus leading to “adventures.”
As well, they are two babysitters with different motives, putting themselves and the children in their charge, in potentially dangerous situations. Shue cares. Hill doesn't (at least in the trailer). Do you know who else doesn't care for The Sitter? ME.
I generally find Jonah Hill amusing, even though almost every role is basically Seth from Superbad. Although he is likeable as the juvenile with comedic angst, the irresponsible slacker babysitter acting a jerk for laughs in this movie deserves a serious beat down.
WTF time in film making are we living in where comedy has to be so mean-spirited? Like those idiots (referring to the writers of) Harold and Kumar shoot Santa in the face and it's called comedy? What does that say about us? And so what if asshead babysitter does good in the end? So what if he learns a lesson? Will we remember the lesson or will we continue to accept and then perpetuate the mean-spirited comedy?
It's too bad, because even though I haven't seen Moneyball, yet, Hill looked really good in a relatively serious supporting role. No doubt he has talent, but if he doesn't take on more roles like Moneyball, his shtick will become very tired. And, yes, he's not Elisabeth Shue.
I will never see The Sitter, but I will look for Adventures in Babysitting.
The differences and similarities in the movies are many. Ms. Shue was eager to babysit. Mr. Hill was not. Ms. Shue was trying to do the right thing. Mr. Hill was not. Ms. Shue tried to be responsible and, despite the circumstances, looked out for the best interest of the kids. Mr. Hill? Apparently not. Both had to look after “difficult” children. Both had to leave the safety of the home, thus leading to “adventures.”
As well, they are two babysitters with different motives, putting themselves and the children in their charge, in potentially dangerous situations. Shue cares. Hill doesn't (at least in the trailer). Do you know who else doesn't care for The Sitter? ME.
I generally find Jonah Hill amusing, even though almost every role is basically Seth from Superbad. Although he is likeable as the juvenile with comedic angst, the irresponsible slacker babysitter acting a jerk for laughs in this movie deserves a serious beat down.
WTF time in film making are we living in where comedy has to be so mean-spirited? Like those idiots (referring to the writers of) Harold and Kumar shoot Santa in the face and it's called comedy? What does that say about us? And so what if asshead babysitter does good in the end? So what if he learns a lesson? Will we remember the lesson or will we continue to accept and then perpetuate the mean-spirited comedy?
It's too bad, because even though I haven't seen Moneyball, yet, Hill looked really good in a relatively serious supporting role. No doubt he has talent, but if he doesn't take on more roles like Moneyball, his shtick will become very tired. And, yes, he's not Elisabeth Shue.
I will never see The Sitter, but I will look for Adventures in Babysitting.
Tuesday, 6 December 2011
I Melt With You
Because I didn't watch chick flicks back in the day, I didn't know who Tom Jane was. Then, by total fluke, I saw a film called Stander, based on the true story of an early 70's South African cop, turned bank robber. The film was so well-acted and compelling that I thought Tom Jane was South African - his accent was that good. Imagine my amusement when I read that he is from St. Louis. Needless to say, with my new found respect for him, I loved The Punisher.
I've seen Jeremy Piven in a few movies, though I didn't see the Cling-on’s or Hanger's On or whatever his TV show was called - people tell me it was good. In the movies I've seen him in he's an excellent supporting character. Rob Lowe is such an odd ball. I am always amused when I see him in a movie. I don't know who the other guy is.
I Melt With You is the story of four lifelong friends who have been getting together once a year for many years. They look to be in their 40's now, but they still party like teenagers when they get together. And, SURPRISE! Either something bad has happened in the past and they share the secret or something just happened and they make a pact to share the secret... that's the billed “thriller” part of it.
This 2:03 trailer should have ended around the 1:40 mark. After 1:40, it shows sirens, people running and close-ups of the four main character's sad faces and it ends with Tom Jane's wife asking what happened to his friends. So, is the trailer implying that he has to kill them all to keep the secret? Why give away so much? The teaser part was actually interesting. Now, all I can think of is: Very Bad Things meets I know What You Did Last Summer.
Wasn't Jeremy Piven in Very Bad Things? It's a Jon Favreau film about a bunch of family men, buddies that, on the eve of one of their weddings, go to Vegas, pick up a hooker and accidentally kill her. Everything falls apart from there. Very Bad Things was a very bad movie.
I Melt With You is a very bad title, given what the trailer implies about the story. While I'm not judging this movie by its title, only by its trailer, I'm strangely curious about this one.
Maybe I'll catch it at the Rainbow on a Tuesday.
I've seen Jeremy Piven in a few movies, though I didn't see the Cling-on’s or Hanger's On or whatever his TV show was called - people tell me it was good. In the movies I've seen him in he's an excellent supporting character. Rob Lowe is such an odd ball. I am always amused when I see him in a movie. I don't know who the other guy is.
I Melt With You is the story of four lifelong friends who have been getting together once a year for many years. They look to be in their 40's now, but they still party like teenagers when they get together. And, SURPRISE! Either something bad has happened in the past and they share the secret or something just happened and they make a pact to share the secret... that's the billed “thriller” part of it.
This 2:03 trailer should have ended around the 1:40 mark. After 1:40, it shows sirens, people running and close-ups of the four main character's sad faces and it ends with Tom Jane's wife asking what happened to his friends. So, is the trailer implying that he has to kill them all to keep the secret? Why give away so much? The teaser part was actually interesting. Now, all I can think of is: Very Bad Things meets I know What You Did Last Summer.
Wasn't Jeremy Piven in Very Bad Things? It's a Jon Favreau film about a bunch of family men, buddies that, on the eve of one of their weddings, go to Vegas, pick up a hooker and accidentally kill her. Everything falls apart from there. Very Bad Things was a very bad movie.
I Melt With You is a very bad title, given what the trailer implies about the story. While I'm not judging this movie by its title, only by its trailer, I'm strangely curious about this one.
Maybe I'll catch it at the Rainbow on a Tuesday.
Sunday, 4 December 2011
Catch .44
I began reading Joseph Heller's Catch 22 while waiting for work in central Florida. I was bored, had the book with me, as I'd been meaning to read it, and decided to sit by the pool and start it. I made myself comfortable and opened the book. There were a few families and individuals scattered pool-side. From almost the first paragraph I began to giggle. People glanced at me. I read more and giggled more. I tried to muffle the laughs, but muffling caused me to laugh even more. People seemed both amused and annoyed by me. After a few pages, I left the pool, went back to my room to read in private. Catch 22 was possibly one of the most laugh-out-loud (LOL for the kids) books I've ever read.
The term catch 22, within the context of the novel is basically, if one is "crazy," one should be discharged from the army. However, if one knows that one is crazy, then the army deems acknowledgement as being sane and thus, no discharge. The statement being that there are a lot of crazy soldiers in the army that don't know they're crazy, fighting for our freedom.... Clinger from the TV show, M.A.S.H. acted crazy but was never discharged, like the main character of Catch 22. A comparison would be kind of like wanting to get a union job, but you can't because you're not in the union and the only way to get into the union is to have a union job... follow? I guess the term also refers to a situation where one can't win, "damned if you do, damned if you don't."
Speaking of "damned if you do and damned if you don't" the trailer for Catch .44 shows that the main characters (the women) are in a catch 22 situation. So, Catch .44 is either double no-win situation or nobody in the film wins or the film is titled in honour of the calibre of the .44 magnum gun that made Dirty Harry's day.
Either way it looks like one of those slick double-cross movies where everyone has an agenda and no-one is who they seem and the good guys are bad guys and the bad guys are bad guys that may or may not be good guys and criminal activity is an out for some folks who are in dead end jobs but nothing is as easy or attractive as it seems and.... well, that's only the moral.
Bruce Willis is getting old. His edge, at least in this trailer, is gone. Forest Whitaker is always great and he seems to carry the trailer. Malin Ackerman, as annoying as she was in Watchmen (and I loved Watchmen), didn't seem annoying in the trailer for Catch .44.
I'd like to see Catch .44 when it comes out on video, but since there is no video store near me I guess I won't be able to see it...
The term catch 22, within the context of the novel is basically, if one is "crazy," one should be discharged from the army. However, if one knows that one is crazy, then the army deems acknowledgement as being sane and thus, no discharge. The statement being that there are a lot of crazy soldiers in the army that don't know they're crazy, fighting for our freedom.... Clinger from the TV show, M.A.S.H. acted crazy but was never discharged, like the main character of Catch 22. A comparison would be kind of like wanting to get a union job, but you can't because you're not in the union and the only way to get into the union is to have a union job... follow? I guess the term also refers to a situation where one can't win, "damned if you do, damned if you don't."
Speaking of "damned if you do and damned if you don't" the trailer for Catch .44 shows that the main characters (the women) are in a catch 22 situation. So, Catch .44 is either double no-win situation or nobody in the film wins or the film is titled in honour of the calibre of the .44 magnum gun that made Dirty Harry's day.
Either way it looks like one of those slick double-cross movies where everyone has an agenda and no-one is who they seem and the good guys are bad guys and the bad guys are bad guys that may or may not be good guys and criminal activity is an out for some folks who are in dead end jobs but nothing is as easy or attractive as it seems and.... well, that's only the moral.
Bruce Willis is getting old. His edge, at least in this trailer, is gone. Forest Whitaker is always great and he seems to carry the trailer. Malin Ackerman, as annoying as she was in Watchmen (and I loved Watchmen), didn't seem annoying in the trailer for Catch .44.
I'd like to see Catch .44 when it comes out on video, but since there is no video store near me I guess I won't be able to see it...
Friday, 2 December 2011
A Very Harold and Kumar Christmas - in 3D
I had a friend who worked on the Harold and Kumar go to White Castle, film. She's been in the film business for many years and she told me that working on the set of Harold and Kumar go to White Castle was the most fun she's ever had on a movie set. She also said that viewing the film was a huge let down.
I saw H and K go to White Castle. I didn't work on the film but agree that it was a huge let down. Some might say it was idiotic... not me, necessarily, but some.
I didn't want to see them at Guantanamo Bay.
The trailer had enough juvenile adult subject matter to take aim at Bad Santa (please see my November post for Arthur Christmas) but all the pieces of Harold and Kumar Save Christmas (Or was that Earnest who saves it?) seem more like an assortment of stupid human tricks and tasks aimed at an audience that is not made up of me.
So, the gist of it is that two guys who likely come from one or more of the following backgrounds: Hindu, Sikh, Muslim, Buddhist, Taoist..... none of which celebrate Christmas, shoot Santa in the face (not as an act of hostility, but by accident.... how is this funny?) and then must save Christmas, while gay (not that there's anything wrong with it) Doogie Howser continues to pretend he's a bad boy, playboy, ladies’ man Heff type and, from what I get from the trailer, may or may not be a relative of, or affiliated with Santa Claus. And, you get all this in 3-D!
In the words of Forest Gump, "stupid is as stupid does."
If I'm physically handed this film in February, I might watch it in July.
I saw H and K go to White Castle. I didn't work on the film but agree that it was a huge let down. Some might say it was idiotic... not me, necessarily, but some.
I didn't want to see them at Guantanamo Bay.
The trailer had enough juvenile adult subject matter to take aim at Bad Santa (please see my November post for Arthur Christmas) but all the pieces of Harold and Kumar Save Christmas (Or was that Earnest who saves it?) seem more like an assortment of stupid human tricks and tasks aimed at an audience that is not made up of me.
So, the gist of it is that two guys who likely come from one or more of the following backgrounds: Hindu, Sikh, Muslim, Buddhist, Taoist..... none of which celebrate Christmas, shoot Santa in the face (not as an act of hostility, but by accident.... how is this funny?) and then must save Christmas, while gay (not that there's anything wrong with it) Doogie Howser continues to pretend he's a bad boy, playboy, ladies’ man Heff type and, from what I get from the trailer, may or may not be a relative of, or affiliated with Santa Claus. And, you get all this in 3-D!
In the words of Forest Gump, "stupid is as stupid does."
If I'm physically handed this film in February, I might watch it in July.
Thursday, 1 December 2011
Beerbohmtastic reaches 2000 reader mark!!!
In less than 4 months, Beerbohmtastic has been read more than 2000 times in 10 different countries. Thank you for the emails and comments and thank you for reading!
November Trailer Park
The Trailer Park is a monthly feature reserved for trailers or synopsis that:
A) caused me to make that teenage girl sound, "meh"
B) the synopsis didn't warrant a trailer viewing
C) content I had no interest in
D) trailers viewed that evoked nothing
E) trailers that were so forgettable that by the time I was ready to review them, I couldn't even remember the title of the film
F) All of the above
G) None of the above
Think of the Trailer Park as a public service....
So, in no particular order, I give you this months installment of Trailer Park:
Dirty Movie (Another stupid movie from National Lampoon)
In Time (Justin Timberlake playing Justin Timberlake, makes it to the Trailer Park again)
Like Crazy (Like hell I'll see this one - sorry Anton but Fright Night turned me off you)
Paranormal Activity 3 (didn't see 1 and 2 and likely will not)
The Twilight Saga (I think this one is called breaking wind, part 1)
Thanks for reading.
A) caused me to make that teenage girl sound, "meh"
B) the synopsis didn't warrant a trailer viewing
C) content I had no interest in
D) trailers viewed that evoked nothing
E) trailers that were so forgettable that by the time I was ready to review them, I couldn't even remember the title of the film
F) All of the above
G) None of the above
Think of the Trailer Park as a public service....
So, in no particular order, I give you this months installment of Trailer Park:
Dirty Movie (Another stupid movie from National Lampoon)
In Time (Justin Timberlake playing Justin Timberlake, makes it to the Trailer Park again)
Like Crazy (Like hell I'll see this one - sorry Anton but Fright Night turned me off you)
Paranormal Activity 3 (didn't see 1 and 2 and likely will not)
The Twilight Saga (I think this one is called breaking wind, part 1)
Thanks for reading.
Wednesday, 30 November 2011
Arthur Christmas
For most of my life, the annual Christmas movie was, A Christmas Story. Who didn't love the adventures of Ralphie in his quest for the "Red Ryder BB gun with a compass in the stock, and this thing which tells time" while everyone tells him that he'll "soot his eye out." The quotes and the movie are sheer poetry.
I never thought that my favourite Christmas movie would ever stop being my favourite Christmas movie. Now it's a very close second, slightly behind Bad Santa. Yeah, I know, how could you go from a movie that uses the "f" word once, to a movie whose dialogue is based in profanity? I don't know. But if you look beneath the profanity, Bad Santa is a sweet movie about friendship, redemption and finding the spirit of Christmas, but for adults. Humour me.
So, since 1983's A Christmas Story, there have been dozens of pretenders that have tried to de-throne the champ. Many have tried, feebly. Among the pretenders: Earnest Saves Christmas, all the Santa Claus(e) movies, Fred Claus, Surviving Christmas (which, by the way, filmschoolrejects.com picks to be the worst Christmas movie ever). The list of bad Christmas movies is just an endless list of... um... bad Christmas movies. To be honest, I can’t think of any good ones. Elf was funny only because Peter Dinklage beats the crap out of Will Ferrell. Peter Dinklage was really great in The Station Agent AND there aren’t enough movies where Will Ferrell gets the crap beat out of him.
Oh yeah, Arthur Christmas. I first watched what was called the "teaser." If by tease they mean, annoy, then it was successful. It told me nothing and I didn't care. The theatrical trailer gave much more. The gist of it is the answer to the question: how does Santa deliver all those toys? Well Santa's amazing hi-tech Christmas machine is how every kid gets presents in one night. Like all hi-tech, however, there is always a glitch - kind of like Microsoft Windows freezing for no reason at any given moment. This glitch is that one kid doesn't get a present. So, Arthur Christmas uses the old-school method, reindeer and sleigh (which doesn't make sense, at least in the trailer) because how did the old school method ever deliver all those billions of presents? Well, he saves Christmas by getting the present to the one kid. I'm guessing that most of the story will be the “humourous journey.” Yes, it's all in the trailer.
I hope kids enjoy this movie, because it's important for kids to believe in something. Me? I believe that I will likely never see this film. No risk of de-throning the champ from this one.
I never thought that my favourite Christmas movie would ever stop being my favourite Christmas movie. Now it's a very close second, slightly behind Bad Santa. Yeah, I know, how could you go from a movie that uses the "f" word once, to a movie whose dialogue is based in profanity? I don't know. But if you look beneath the profanity, Bad Santa is a sweet movie about friendship, redemption and finding the spirit of Christmas, but for adults. Humour me.
So, since 1983's A Christmas Story, there have been dozens of pretenders that have tried to de-throne the champ. Many have tried, feebly. Among the pretenders: Earnest Saves Christmas, all the Santa Claus(e) movies, Fred Claus, Surviving Christmas (which, by the way, filmschoolrejects.com picks to be the worst Christmas movie ever). The list of bad Christmas movies is just an endless list of... um... bad Christmas movies. To be honest, I can’t think of any good ones. Elf was funny only because Peter Dinklage beats the crap out of Will Ferrell. Peter Dinklage was really great in The Station Agent AND there aren’t enough movies where Will Ferrell gets the crap beat out of him.
Oh yeah, Arthur Christmas. I first watched what was called the "teaser." If by tease they mean, annoy, then it was successful. It told me nothing and I didn't care. The theatrical trailer gave much more. The gist of it is the answer to the question: how does Santa deliver all those toys? Well Santa's amazing hi-tech Christmas machine is how every kid gets presents in one night. Like all hi-tech, however, there is always a glitch - kind of like Microsoft Windows freezing for no reason at any given moment. This glitch is that one kid doesn't get a present. So, Arthur Christmas uses the old-school method, reindeer and sleigh (which doesn't make sense, at least in the trailer) because how did the old school method ever deliver all those billions of presents? Well, he saves Christmas by getting the present to the one kid. I'm guessing that most of the story will be the “humourous journey.” Yes, it's all in the trailer.
I hope kids enjoy this movie, because it's important for kids to believe in something. Me? I believe that I will likely never see this film. No risk of de-throning the champ from this one.
Tuesday, 29 November 2011
Hugo
I love Martin Scorsese. I don't care for 3-D movies. I love Ben Kinglsey. I don't care for Jude Law. I like that this trailer made me think that this may (or may not be) an updated fantasy version of Oliver Twist. I like that Sacha Baron Cohen is in a comedic role without the use of Ali G., Borat or Bruno.
Even though the trailer for Hugo is 2:26, it doesn't really give away the core of the story. What we know is: a young boy is orphaned. His father, an inventor of sorts, leaves him a clue to something special before he dies. Not sure why The Great Mouse Detective just popped into my head. Speaking of The Great Mouse Detective, Jude Law as Dr. Watson in the Robert Downey Jr. Sherlock Homes was the most tolerable Jude Law in memory.
So, Hugo, lives in the train station and artfully dodges Baron Cohen, the security guard until he, by chance, discovers the "key" to his father's secret. The secret is some sort of magical fantasy world.
The not-so-secret part is, films directed by Martin Scorsese, though not always great, are often interesting. If I were to make a list of my favourite movies (there are too many to actually ever list), Scorsese directed quite a few (Taxi Driver, Raging Bull, Goodfellas, Cape Fear, Casino...). Though this is a departure from his usual dramas, I just know that it'll be entertaining and worth the cost of admission.
I will likely see this on a big screen.
Even though the trailer for Hugo is 2:26, it doesn't really give away the core of the story. What we know is: a young boy is orphaned. His father, an inventor of sorts, leaves him a clue to something special before he dies. Not sure why The Great Mouse Detective just popped into my head. Speaking of The Great Mouse Detective, Jude Law as Dr. Watson in the Robert Downey Jr. Sherlock Homes was the most tolerable Jude Law in memory.
So, Hugo, lives in the train station and artfully dodges Baron Cohen, the security guard until he, by chance, discovers the "key" to his father's secret. The secret is some sort of magical fantasy world.
The not-so-secret part is, films directed by Martin Scorsese, though not always great, are often interesting. If I were to make a list of my favourite movies (there are too many to actually ever list), Scorsese directed quite a few (Taxi Driver, Raging Bull, Goodfellas, Cape Fear, Casino...). Though this is a departure from his usual dramas, I just know that it'll be entertaining and worth the cost of admission.
I will likely see this on a big screen.
Monday, 28 November 2011
VIEWED: 50/50
My recommendation for this one was...
"If 50/50 is half as moving as the trailer looks, then I would say it's a must see."
It was.
50/50 is the story of a 27 year old man, played by Joseph Gordon-Levitt, who is diagnosed with cancer. Despite the serious subject matter, the film depicts the cancer journey and its effects on the individual and the ones close to him with humour and compassion. What I noticed is that everyone's reaction to the cancer was different.
Though 50/50 was a bit slow at first there were some great performances. Gordon-Levitt is honest and real. Angelica Houston is always great. She was perfect as Gordon-Levitt's mother. And, though Rogen continues to play what is now expected of Rogen in every role: the immature, goofy side-kick, in 50/50 it worked, well.
Because everyone has been touched by cancer in some way, this film is relevant.
"If 50/50 is half as moving as the trailer looks, then I would say it's a must see."
It was.
50/50 is the story of a 27 year old man, played by Joseph Gordon-Levitt, who is diagnosed with cancer. Despite the serious subject matter, the film depicts the cancer journey and its effects on the individual and the ones close to him with humour and compassion. What I noticed is that everyone's reaction to the cancer was different.
Though 50/50 was a bit slow at first there were some great performances. Gordon-Levitt is honest and real. Angelica Houston is always great. She was perfect as Gordon-Levitt's mother. And, though Rogen continues to play what is now expected of Rogen in every role: the immature, goofy side-kick, in 50/50 it worked, well.
Because everyone has been touched by cancer in some way, this film is relevant.
Saturday, 26 November 2011
VIEWED: X-Men: First Class
My recommendation for this one was...
I heard through the grapevine that Dr. Manhattan and Mystique were dating. Big screen viewing.
I finally got around to seeing X-Men: First Class. I loved the 60's feel and the historical context. The Cuban missile crisis stuff was cool. It had all the elements, drama and acting that I expected, and brought some context to the franchise, but it just didn't deliver on the action. While it had it's moments, it didn't live up to my comic book movie adaptation devotion.
So, what would I say to the makers? It isn't you, it's me... Was anyone else disappointed in this one?
I heard through the grapevine that Dr. Manhattan and Mystique were dating. Big screen viewing.
I finally got around to seeing X-Men: First Class. I loved the 60's feel and the historical context. The Cuban missile crisis stuff was cool. It had all the elements, drama and acting that I expected, and brought some context to the franchise, but it just didn't deliver on the action. While it had it's moments, it didn't live up to my comic book movie adaptation devotion.
So, what would I say to the makers? It isn't you, it's me... Was anyone else disappointed in this one?
Friday, 25 November 2011
Snow White and the Huntsman
After watching the trailer for Snow White and the Huntsman, another trailer caught my eye called, Mirror Mirror. I watched that one, too. Mirror Mirror is a comedy of sorts and a kind of twist like Drew Barrymore's Ever After: A Cinderella Story. It's kind of annoying how two movies with basically the same story are released around the same time. It happens every so often, but that's not what I'm reviewing...
Snow White and the Huntsman looks pretty damn cool. The original Brother's Grimm story wasn't the light Disney story. It was a harsh look at vanity and envy served with cruelty and supernatural elements - no mention of dwarfs in the trailer. One of the elements of a "fairy tale" is the happy ending. I've heard that early, original "fairy tales" were created to scare kids into choosing a righteous path. I wonder what the modern equivalent is?
Charlize Theron. She looks great as the evil queen. She's made some good movies and was intense in her Oscar winning performance in Monster. The problem is that every time I see her, now, I think of the character she played in Arrested Development. She played, Rita, a developmentally delayed (not sure if that's the politically correct term) love interest of Michael. She was funny and cute and it further showed her versatility, especially after Monster. I just hope that I don't think of Rita and giggle while the evil queen in Snow White and the Huntsman is trying to scare me.
While I trust Snow White and the Huntsman will stick to its fairy tale roots and have the happy ending, I like the dark medieval feel and am curious as to how it will play out. The trailer kind of reminded me of Harry Potter meets Lord of the Rings. While I doubt Snow White will be as epic, I get the sense that it'll be an entertaining spin.
I think I'll see this one on the big screen.
Snow White and the Huntsman looks pretty damn cool. The original Brother's Grimm story wasn't the light Disney story. It was a harsh look at vanity and envy served with cruelty and supernatural elements - no mention of dwarfs in the trailer. One of the elements of a "fairy tale" is the happy ending. I've heard that early, original "fairy tales" were created to scare kids into choosing a righteous path. I wonder what the modern equivalent is?
Charlize Theron. She looks great as the evil queen. She's made some good movies and was intense in her Oscar winning performance in Monster. The problem is that every time I see her, now, I think of the character she played in Arrested Development. She played, Rita, a developmentally delayed (not sure if that's the politically correct term) love interest of Michael. She was funny and cute and it further showed her versatility, especially after Monster. I just hope that I don't think of Rita and giggle while the evil queen in Snow White and the Huntsman is trying to scare me.
While I trust Snow White and the Huntsman will stick to its fairy tale roots and have the happy ending, I like the dark medieval feel and am curious as to how it will play out. The trailer kind of reminded me of Harry Potter meets Lord of the Rings. While I doubt Snow White will be as epic, I get the sense that it'll be an entertaining spin.
I think I'll see this one on the big screen.
Thursday, 24 November 2011
The Muppets
In the forgettable, Forgetting Sarah Marshall, Segal writes and acts in a musical of Dracula and is surrounded by Muppets, he also shows his penis - but not to Muppets. That would just be sick. Harvey Keitel showed his penis in the original Bad Lieutenant. It symbolized his vulnerability. I don't think there was a point to Segal showing his. While Segal may have the edge in that category, he is no Keitel as an actor.
The first thing that popped into my head when the trailer started was, "The band, man! Let's put the band back together..." The Blues Brothers.
It looks like it's a movie about bringing the old Muppets (band) together to make a movie. Why couldn't they have made a sequel to Muppets in Space? How about Muppet the Barbarian? Maybe a superhero movie called Muppetman. That would be fun. A movie about making a movie or a story of someone writing a story is beyond unoriginal.
It's sad because Muppets are original. I loved Sesame Street and the Muppet Show. I like Amy Adams and I even like Segal. They both seem genuine.
The problem is that this trailer just looks so lame. I'll have to pass, for now.
The first thing that popped into my head when the trailer started was, "The band, man! Let's put the band back together..." The Blues Brothers.
It looks like it's a movie about bringing the old Muppets (band) together to make a movie. Why couldn't they have made a sequel to Muppets in Space? How about Muppet the Barbarian? Maybe a superhero movie called Muppetman. That would be fun. A movie about making a movie or a story of someone writing a story is beyond unoriginal.
It's sad because Muppets are original. I loved Sesame Street and the Muppet Show. I like Amy Adams and I even like Segal. They both seem genuine.
The problem is that this trailer just looks so lame. I'll have to pass, for now.
Tuesday, 22 November 2011
The Descendants
After reading the synopsis I almost added this one to this month’s Trailer Park.... almost. I'm not sure why I watched the trailer but I'm glad I did. It was pretty good.
George Clooney is an interesting character. In half his films he plays George Clooney and the other half he is a decent actor. Not that I've seen all of his movies... He even won an Oscar for Syrianna, in which he plays George Clooney acting. Hmmm, I guess that’s the third side. Now that I think about it he was the third side in Confessions of a Dangerous Mind. Maybe the third side is really the first side and the second side is still the decent actor. Maybe this posting should be called confusions of a blogging mind.
Where was I? The Descendants is the story of a man who calls himself "the back-up parent... the understudy." His wife has an accident and he must step up and become a full time parent to his two daughters, one is post-pubescent, one is pre-pubescent. We never actually see the wife in the trailer but we learn that she has been having an affair and the post-pubescent daughter knew about it and is acting out her anger. The synopsis describes something about needing to sell the family house that has been in the family for years, but the trailer only focuses on the human conflict.
Yeah, I know what you're thinking. How does this sound interesting or important or relevant? Well, it doesn't but for some reason I found the trailer compelling. I also made the wife watch it just to be sure the soy milk that I used to drink hadn't altered my hormones. When the trailer ended she looked at me and said, "hmm, let's see this film." I told her that just because I liked the trailer doesn’t mean I’ll be seeing the film AND there's a difference between being in touch with your feminine side and actually touching your feminine side.
Yeah, this will be a date night movie.
George Clooney is an interesting character. In half his films he plays George Clooney and the other half he is a decent actor. Not that I've seen all of his movies... He even won an Oscar for Syrianna, in which he plays George Clooney acting. Hmmm, I guess that’s the third side. Now that I think about it he was the third side in Confessions of a Dangerous Mind. Maybe the third side is really the first side and the second side is still the decent actor. Maybe this posting should be called confusions of a blogging mind.
Where was I? The Descendants is the story of a man who calls himself "the back-up parent... the understudy." His wife has an accident and he must step up and become a full time parent to his two daughters, one is post-pubescent, one is pre-pubescent. We never actually see the wife in the trailer but we learn that she has been having an affair and the post-pubescent daughter knew about it and is acting out her anger. The synopsis describes something about needing to sell the family house that has been in the family for years, but the trailer only focuses on the human conflict.
Yeah, I know what you're thinking. How does this sound interesting or important or relevant? Well, it doesn't but for some reason I found the trailer compelling. I also made the wife watch it just to be sure the soy milk that I used to drink hadn't altered my hormones. When the trailer ended she looked at me and said, "hmm, let's see this film." I told her that just because I liked the trailer doesn’t mean I’ll be seeing the film AND there's a difference between being in touch with your feminine side and actually touching your feminine side.
Yeah, this will be a date night movie.
Sunday, 20 November 2011
Tower Heist
I had to watch two trailers for Tower Heist because the first trailer was a bunch of 40ish guys being taught to shoplift by Eddie Murphy, but without context. The second trailer brought clarity to what the film was really about: stealing back from one who stole, or an eye for an eye, or breaking the law to seek justice... Sadly, the reality of our society (and the films that we see) promote revenge and contradict all Judeo-Christian ethics. Or is this movie really just a metaphor for the Occupy Movement? The 99% seeking revenge on the 1% that has been sticking it to the 99%?
I will give my humble, marginally informed opinion on Occupy and get back to judging this film by its trailer(s).
Arab Spring had a purpose: overthrow the Egyptian government. I get it. It worked. It's done - yet there is still conflict. From my limited understanding, the Occupy moverment is about overthrowing the 1% that holds the 99% of the wealth? What exactly is the objective? Further, how do they propose to make change happen? (If someone has a link to the manifesto, please send it to me).
Today, I heard on the radio that the Occupy movement in D.C. wants an old school that used to be a homeless shelter turned back to a homeless shelter. Good idea, but is that what the Occupy Movement is about? Is the movement now advocacy in tents? I know there are organizations all over North America trying to address the homeless issue - NYC's Common Ground is doing an amazing job. I saw the work, first hand, a few years ago and it was very impressive. I digress.
Will Tower Heist make Occupy people feel good? The trailer didn't make me feel good. Nor did it make me laugh, nor anything, really. Well, not true. I hate to hear about pension money being pissed away by greedy assholes.
So, here we have a cast of actors that haven't done much of note lately - at least in my opinion. Stiller had so much promise and then gave us Zoolander - Tropic Thunder was fun, though. Broderick is likeable but hasn't replicated his Ferris Bueller screen presence in anything I've seen him in, since. Casey Affleck is versatile. Michael Pena is a solid actor but isn't in enough movies. Eddie Murphy peaked with Beverly Hills Cop, though I loved him in Bowfinger, he hasn't really made a decent film in a long time.
Tower Heist is a sort of reflection of our times. Pensions misappropriated, unstable economy, white collar crimes perpetrated by the 1%, not brought to justice and the working stiffs doing the wrong things for the right reasons to seek revenge... It's kind of sad to think that in the real world it's the working stiff that gets stiffed the most. Yeah, I get the occupy thing. I just don't know if it's going to be effective.
Tower Heist. Don't get me wrong, I like Eddie Murphy, as I do the cast of this film. I just don't think it will deliver. That said, I'll likely see it on a big screen at The Rainbow on a Tuesday. For $4, most of us 99% can afford to see a movie once in a while.
I will give my humble, marginally informed opinion on Occupy and get back to judging this film by its trailer(s).
Arab Spring had a purpose: overthrow the Egyptian government. I get it. It worked. It's done - yet there is still conflict. From my limited understanding, the Occupy moverment is about overthrowing the 1% that holds the 99% of the wealth? What exactly is the objective? Further, how do they propose to make change happen? (If someone has a link to the manifesto, please send it to me).
Today, I heard on the radio that the Occupy movement in D.C. wants an old school that used to be a homeless shelter turned back to a homeless shelter. Good idea, but is that what the Occupy Movement is about? Is the movement now advocacy in tents? I know there are organizations all over North America trying to address the homeless issue - NYC's Common Ground is doing an amazing job. I saw the work, first hand, a few years ago and it was very impressive. I digress.
Will Tower Heist make Occupy people feel good? The trailer didn't make me feel good. Nor did it make me laugh, nor anything, really. Well, not true. I hate to hear about pension money being pissed away by greedy assholes.
So, here we have a cast of actors that haven't done much of note lately - at least in my opinion. Stiller had so much promise and then gave us Zoolander - Tropic Thunder was fun, though. Broderick is likeable but hasn't replicated his Ferris Bueller screen presence in anything I've seen him in, since. Casey Affleck is versatile. Michael Pena is a solid actor but isn't in enough movies. Eddie Murphy peaked with Beverly Hills Cop, though I loved him in Bowfinger, he hasn't really made a decent film in a long time.
Tower Heist is a sort of reflection of our times. Pensions misappropriated, unstable economy, white collar crimes perpetrated by the 1%, not brought to justice and the working stiffs doing the wrong things for the right reasons to seek revenge... It's kind of sad to think that in the real world it's the working stiff that gets stiffed the most. Yeah, I get the occupy thing. I just don't know if it's going to be effective.
Tower Heist. Don't get me wrong, I like Eddie Murphy, as I do the cast of this film. I just don't think it will deliver. That said, I'll likely see it on a big screen at The Rainbow on a Tuesday. For $4, most of us 99% can afford to see a movie once in a while.
Thursday, 17 November 2011
Melancholia
I liked Kirsten Dunst in Jumanji.
You know how some movies are described as "rip roaring romps," or "action-packed," or "awakens the senses" or even "thought provoking?" Melancholia is none of those. The title perfectly describes it and while melancholy is a mood/emotion that certainly has a place in movies, two hours of it? Seriously... based on the trailer for this one, it should be called Dullancholia.
I'm being a bit harsh. While watching the trailer I laughed when, during the typical dysfunctional family dynamics of the wedding, we learn that a planet is heading straight for earth and there is a chance that all life will end. So, why is this funny? It's a Simpson’s episode.
In the Simpsons episode, Homer predicts that the meteor about to hit Springfield will dissolve once it enters the earth's atmosphere. To everyone's surprise, he's right.
Nothing in the trailer for Melancholia indicates that the characters, all suffering from melancholy, by the way, embrace life and try to make the best of their remaining days. There's nothing to show that their melancholy changes in any way in the face of imminent death. On the contrary, the melancholy seems to be the mood from beginning to end. So, what's the point of that? The writers could have placed any scenario after the wedding. How about a terrorist attack or maybe a tidal wave or impending ice age or zombie plague? The only thing missing from Melancholia is a soundtrack by The Smiths. I know there's more of a point to Melancholia. The planet is called Melancholia and the mood is reflected in the film. Wow. Clever. The trailer, however, says nothing to make me want to care.
The other thing about the trailer is that there is nudity - albeit a long shot of it - naked, melancholy from Kirsten Dunst.
I think I'll pass on this one and dust off some Smiths records. Louder Than Bombs should give me a more meaningful melancholy than Melancholia, and I could clean out the shed and not lose the 2 hours I'll never get back.
You know how some movies are described as "rip roaring romps," or "action-packed," or "awakens the senses" or even "thought provoking?" Melancholia is none of those. The title perfectly describes it and while melancholy is a mood/emotion that certainly has a place in movies, two hours of it? Seriously... based on the trailer for this one, it should be called Dullancholia.
I'm being a bit harsh. While watching the trailer I laughed when, during the typical dysfunctional family dynamics of the wedding, we learn that a planet is heading straight for earth and there is a chance that all life will end. So, why is this funny? It's a Simpson’s episode.
In the Simpsons episode, Homer predicts that the meteor about to hit Springfield will dissolve once it enters the earth's atmosphere. To everyone's surprise, he's right.
Nothing in the trailer for Melancholia indicates that the characters, all suffering from melancholy, by the way, embrace life and try to make the best of their remaining days. There's nothing to show that their melancholy changes in any way in the face of imminent death. On the contrary, the melancholy seems to be the mood from beginning to end. So, what's the point of that? The writers could have placed any scenario after the wedding. How about a terrorist attack or maybe a tidal wave or impending ice age or zombie plague? The only thing missing from Melancholia is a soundtrack by The Smiths. I know there's more of a point to Melancholia. The planet is called Melancholia and the mood is reflected in the film. Wow. Clever. The trailer, however, says nothing to make me want to care.
The other thing about the trailer is that there is nudity - albeit a long shot of it - naked, melancholy from Kirsten Dunst.
I think I'll pass on this one and dust off some Smiths records. Louder Than Bombs should give me a more meaningful melancholy than Melancholia, and I could clean out the shed and not lose the 2 hours I'll never get back.
Wednesday, 16 November 2011
Jack and Jill
I never thought I'd say this, but... I'm getting really bored with Adam Sandler. Every movie is an extension of Billy Madison or Happy Gilmore. Isn't Happy Madison also the name of his production company?
Let's take a look (at the ones I've seen - and I did like most of them):
Billy Madison: Adam as rich loser who annoys people then does the right thing, makes good, and gets the hot girl.
Happy Gilmore: Adam as lovable loser who annoys people then does the right thing, makes good, and gets the hot girl.
The Wedding Singer: Adam as love-scorned loser who makes good, and gets the hot girl.
The Waterboy: Adam as momma's boy loser who annoys momma then makes good, and gets the hot girl.
Big Daddy: Adam as lovable loser who annoys people then does the right thing, makes good, and gets the hot girl.
Little Nicky: Adam as son of Satan who annoys demons then does the right thing, makes good, and gets the hot girl.
Punch Drunk Love: Adam as odd, straight man who annoys the wrong people then does right thing, gets the girl but still makes odd.
Then a few "family man" movies and movies where he's the untamed ladies’ man who falls for one special "hot girl." Didn't Harlequin Romance build a mega-franchise on this premise? Sandler is smart and has made millions making formulaic mindless comedies. Respect to him for knowing what sells, that alone is a talent.
In Jack and Jill (the second 2:33 trailer in a row for me) appears to be another Happy Madison formulaic "comedy." This time, Sandler, who gets to flex his acting muscle, plays twins. The comedic Jill, twin sister of straight man, Jack. The too long trailer shows a series of gags, ranging from one-liners to slapstick - he looks terrible as a woman. The only thing that made the trailer interesting was Al Pacino's interest in Jill. It was funny, yet kind of creepy. Was this the first comedy for Pacino? Oh, Al.
So, Jack and Jill is: Twin sister of rich family man loser, annoys people then does the right thing and gets Al Pacino.
Yawn.
Let's take a look (at the ones I've seen - and I did like most of them):
Billy Madison: Adam as rich loser who annoys people then does the right thing, makes good, and gets the hot girl.
Happy Gilmore: Adam as lovable loser who annoys people then does the right thing, makes good, and gets the hot girl.
The Wedding Singer: Adam as love-scorned loser who makes good, and gets the hot girl.
The Waterboy: Adam as momma's boy loser who annoys momma then makes good, and gets the hot girl.
Big Daddy: Adam as lovable loser who annoys people then does the right thing, makes good, and gets the hot girl.
Little Nicky: Adam as son of Satan who annoys demons then does the right thing, makes good, and gets the hot girl.
Punch Drunk Love: Adam as odd, straight man who annoys the wrong people then does right thing, gets the girl but still makes odd.
Then a few "family man" movies and movies where he's the untamed ladies’ man who falls for one special "hot girl." Didn't Harlequin Romance build a mega-franchise on this premise? Sandler is smart and has made millions making formulaic mindless comedies. Respect to him for knowing what sells, that alone is a talent.
In Jack and Jill (the second 2:33 trailer in a row for me) appears to be another Happy Madison formulaic "comedy." This time, Sandler, who gets to flex his acting muscle, plays twins. The comedic Jill, twin sister of straight man, Jack. The too long trailer shows a series of gags, ranging from one-liners to slapstick - he looks terrible as a woman. The only thing that made the trailer interesting was Al Pacino's interest in Jill. It was funny, yet kind of creepy. Was this the first comedy for Pacino? Oh, Al.
So, Jack and Jill is: Twin sister of rich family man loser, annoys people then does the right thing and gets Al Pacino.
Yawn.
Sunday, 13 November 2011
J. Edgar
On every level this looks like a winning combination, but...
The trailer is too long (2:33) and tells too much of the story, unnecessarily. It's a true story and can all be verified on Google so why the overkill? J. Edgar Hoover's life and career are well documented, and frankly, there was enough interesting stuff in the first minute of the trailer to make the film look appealing (who didn't love The Untouchables?)... but what do I know, right? What I have heard about J. Edgar Hoover, founder of the FBI, is that he used to like to wear women's clothing. That part wasn't in the too long trailer.
Leonardo DiCaprio. Never had time for him until I saw Catch Me If You Can. Since then, I've become a fan. The only exception was that terrible film he starred in after Catch Me If You Can, about Howard Hughes. I trust this biopic will be better than The Aviator.
Clint Eastwood movies. We all know that, within the 2 hours of this film, we will be manipulated into caring about the characters only to have that attachment ripped from us in the form of a tragic death or loss of some kind (Million Dollar Baby? Gran Torino?). While I like Eastwood movies, he kind of has that clever, I'll fuck with your emotions because I'm a good film-maker, I'm brilliant at developing plot and character and don't you forget who the man is, so go ahead, make my day, Disney-style arrogance.
J. Edgar could be one of those movies that sweeps the Oscars, earning the gold for both Eastwood and DiCaprio. It could be this year's Ray or Walk the Line or The Last King of Scotland. It could also be one of those movies that I will never get around to seeing.
Kind of curious about the women's underwear thing... but not sure how curious.
The trailer is too long (2:33) and tells too much of the story, unnecessarily. It's a true story and can all be verified on Google so why the overkill? J. Edgar Hoover's life and career are well documented, and frankly, there was enough interesting stuff in the first minute of the trailer to make the film look appealing (who didn't love The Untouchables?)... but what do I know, right? What I have heard about J. Edgar Hoover, founder of the FBI, is that he used to like to wear women's clothing. That part wasn't in the too long trailer.
Leonardo DiCaprio. Never had time for him until I saw Catch Me If You Can. Since then, I've become a fan. The only exception was that terrible film he starred in after Catch Me If You Can, about Howard Hughes. I trust this biopic will be better than The Aviator.
Clint Eastwood movies. We all know that, within the 2 hours of this film, we will be manipulated into caring about the characters only to have that attachment ripped from us in the form of a tragic death or loss of some kind (Million Dollar Baby? Gran Torino?). While I like Eastwood movies, he kind of has that clever, I'll fuck with your emotions because I'm a good film-maker, I'm brilliant at developing plot and character and don't you forget who the man is, so go ahead, make my day, Disney-style arrogance.
J. Edgar could be one of those movies that sweeps the Oscars, earning the gold for both Eastwood and DiCaprio. It could be this year's Ray or Walk the Line or The Last King of Scotland. It could also be one of those movies that I will never get around to seeing.
Kind of curious about the women's underwear thing... but not sure how curious.
Thursday, 10 November 2011
Editorial: Re-releasing classics instead of re-making them?
As I scanned through the usual sources looking for trailers of now playing and upcoming movies, I noticed something quite odd. The following movies were in the "Now Playing" sections:
Hitchcock's The 39 Steps and The Birds and Rear Window (Rear Window is one of my all-time favourites)
Ben Hur with Charlton Heston (many years ago I heard a joke: What did Ben Hur say to his sister Ben Him? We should switch names or they'll start calling me Ben Gay - not that there's anything wrong with it)
Charade with Cary Grant and Audrey Hepburn (Two icons)
Kubrick's A Clockwork Orange (Sick and brilliant movie)
Dial M for Murder with Grace Kelly (Great story stars a great beauty)
Monty Python and the Holy Grail AND The Life of Brian (Love them both)
Rebel Without a Cause with James Dean (Serious Classic)
What a novel idea! Instead of remaking classic films, just re-release! What a great way to expose audiences to the classics, without butchering the classics with lame remakes. Speaking of butchering, while I was going to school, I had a job at Colorization. I used to paint by numbers, on computer, coloring black and white movies. I was involved in thebutchering Colorizing of films such as It's a Wonderful Life, The Stranger (Orson Welles), Otto Preminger's St. Joan (where, in a crowd scene I found someone wearing a wrist watch - not unlike the Peter Sellers character on the set of a movie in The Party) and the entire Laurel and Hardy collection.
My point? One of the key messages of Colorization was: Colorizing black and white classics will expose a whole new audience to great cinema. The logic was that young people didn't want to watch black and white films. While it exposed me to some great cinema, the concept inevitably failed and so did the company. Again, what's my point? I think I'm trying to say that re-releasing will hopefully provide a big screen viewing opportunity for people who likely own these films and maybe expose younger people, too. I don't know if younger generation movie buffs will seize the opportunity to see these films on the big screen, but I really hope they do. Movies often reflect our cultural evolution, our changing values and so, for me, it's really cool to glimpse the history of an art form that is only about 100 years old. Thus, re-releasing classics instead of remaking them is appealing to me. Maybe when all the classics are re-released, some new ideas will evolve... oh my, I actually sound optimistic.
The first time I saw the film, Casablanca, I marveled at how cliché the sayings were, you know, "play it again, Sam." "There's been a murder, round up the usual suspects..." "The lives of two people don't amount to a hill of beans in this crazy world..." But then I realized that many of the expressions we consider cliché had to start somewhere. Many started in these classic, often quoted and misquoted films of yester-year.
While basking in nostalgia and goodwill I had another thought, which is sadly based in cynicism. You know, cash grab, cheaper to re-release than make movies now that Blockbuster is dead (please see my post on Oct. 27, 2011). But you know what? I think it's great that we have opportunities to view classics on the big screen. So, all cynicism aside, I hope movie lovers take advantage of this opportunity because there is so much crap out there.
Think of viewing an old classic on a big screen like putting your money on a sure thing. Send me your thoughts.
Hitchcock's The 39 Steps and The Birds and Rear Window (Rear Window is one of my all-time favourites)
Ben Hur with Charlton Heston (many years ago I heard a joke: What did Ben Hur say to his sister Ben Him? We should switch names or they'll start calling me Ben Gay - not that there's anything wrong with it)
Charade with Cary Grant and Audrey Hepburn (Two icons)
Kubrick's A Clockwork Orange (Sick and brilliant movie)
Dial M for Murder with Grace Kelly (Great story stars a great beauty)
Monty Python and the Holy Grail AND The Life of Brian (Love them both)
Rebel Without a Cause with James Dean (Serious Classic)
What a novel idea! Instead of remaking classic films, just re-release! What a great way to expose audiences to the classics, without butchering the classics with lame remakes. Speaking of butchering, while I was going to school, I had a job at Colorization. I used to paint by numbers, on computer, coloring black and white movies. I was involved in the
My point? One of the key messages of Colorization was: Colorizing black and white classics will expose a whole new audience to great cinema. The logic was that young people didn't want to watch black and white films. While it exposed me to some great cinema, the concept inevitably failed and so did the company. Again, what's my point? I think I'm trying to say that re-releasing will hopefully provide a big screen viewing opportunity for people who likely own these films and maybe expose younger people, too. I don't know if younger generation movie buffs will seize the opportunity to see these films on the big screen, but I really hope they do. Movies often reflect our cultural evolution, our changing values and so, for me, it's really cool to glimpse the history of an art form that is only about 100 years old. Thus, re-releasing classics instead of remaking them is appealing to me. Maybe when all the classics are re-released, some new ideas will evolve... oh my, I actually sound optimistic.
The first time I saw the film, Casablanca, I marveled at how cliché the sayings were, you know, "play it again, Sam." "There's been a murder, round up the usual suspects..." "The lives of two people don't amount to a hill of beans in this crazy world..." But then I realized that many of the expressions we consider cliché had to start somewhere. Many started in these classic, often quoted and misquoted films of yester-year.
While basking in nostalgia and goodwill I had another thought, which is sadly based in cynicism. You know, cash grab, cheaper to re-release than make movies now that Blockbuster is dead (please see my post on Oct. 27, 2011). But you know what? I think it's great that we have opportunities to view classics on the big screen. So, all cynicism aside, I hope movie lovers take advantage of this opportunity because there is so much crap out there.
Think of viewing an old classic on a big screen like putting your money on a sure thing. Send me your thoughts.
Wednesday, 9 November 2011
Big Night (1996)
This month my friends who participate in "Edible Cinema" have chosen to view Big Night (1996). They will be cooking Italian food and drinking Italian wine. I don't know much about wine, but if I attend I'll bring a bottle of one of my favourites, Farnese Sangiovese. It's less than 8 bucks a bottle but tastes like a $12 bottle with food. You can get a big bottle for $13. Cheap and cheerful.
I've never heard of Big Night. I like to say (in a pompous British accent), "how can it be famous if I've never heard of it?" I enjoyed another lesser known Stanley Tucci film that was released a few years after this one called The Imposters, which starred other favourites Oliver Platt and Alfred Molina.
So, according to the trailer for Big Night, it's about two brothers who own a too authentic Italian restaurant. I like this Edible Cinema theme and I liked the trailer for Big Night. The film looks like a fun, dialogue driven story of food, family, and the frustration of restaurateurs struggling to provide authentic Italian food to customers who just want spaghetti and meat balls.
I know for a fact that Ron will prepare an authentic, delicious meal and choose perfect wines that would easily grace the menu of any good restaurant - even the one in this film. Sounds like a perfect evening.
Boun Appetito, my friends.
P.S. If I host an Edible Cinema evening, I'd screen Guess Who's Coming to Dinner and have people guess what's for dinner. If they guess wrong, they don't eat.... but that's why I haven't hosted, yet.
I've never heard of Big Night. I like to say (in a pompous British accent), "how can it be famous if I've never heard of it?" I enjoyed another lesser known Stanley Tucci film that was released a few years after this one called The Imposters, which starred other favourites Oliver Platt and Alfred Molina.
So, according to the trailer for Big Night, it's about two brothers who own a too authentic Italian restaurant. I like this Edible Cinema theme and I liked the trailer for Big Night. The film looks like a fun, dialogue driven story of food, family, and the frustration of restaurateurs struggling to provide authentic Italian food to customers who just want spaghetti and meat balls.
I know for a fact that Ron will prepare an authentic, delicious meal and choose perfect wines that would easily grace the menu of any good restaurant - even the one in this film. Sounds like a perfect evening.
Boun Appetito, my friends.
P.S. If I host an Edible Cinema evening, I'd screen Guess Who's Coming to Dinner and have people guess what's for dinner. If they guess wrong, they don't eat.... but that's why I haven't hosted, yet.
Tuesday, 8 November 2011
Immortals
I liked it when it was called, Clash of the Titans, but only the remake because I didn't see the original. Speaking of original, what is original about this film? A step further: what is interesting, entertaining, intelligent, relevent about this film?
I guess the only only logical answer is: Mickey Rourke. He has gone from the handsome, slightly bad boy of great films like Diner, Pope of Greenwich Village and Angel Heart, to a brilliant rendition of Charles Bukowski in Barfly.... fast forward to the monster in Sin City and then The Wrestler. I know he's made tons more movies but I just haven't seen them all to comment. I was completely blown away when I saw Sin City and realized, "holy crap, that's Mickey Rourke!" I was also blown away by the tragedy of Shakespearean (f**k-off Anonymous) proportions of the Wrestler.
Whatever happend to him (and we don't have to come out and say it...), there are two Mickey Rourkes - then and now. Then was charming and, frankly a good actor. Now is an aging action anti-hero. His metamorphisis was almost Kafka-esque. His transformation, almost frightening. Yet, he still has the acting chops.
I really didn't care for this trailer, it just seemed to, as Rourke says as Bukowski in Barfly, "ooze obviousness..."
I guess the only only logical answer is: Mickey Rourke. He has gone from the handsome, slightly bad boy of great films like Diner, Pope of Greenwich Village and Angel Heart, to a brilliant rendition of Charles Bukowski in Barfly.... fast forward to the monster in Sin City and then The Wrestler. I know he's made tons more movies but I just haven't seen them all to comment. I was completely blown away when I saw Sin City and realized, "holy crap, that's Mickey Rourke!" I was also blown away by the tragedy of Shakespearean (f**k-off Anonymous) proportions of the Wrestler.
Whatever happend to him (and we don't have to come out and say it...), there are two Mickey Rourkes - then and now. Then was charming and, frankly a good actor. Now is an aging action anti-hero. His metamorphisis was almost Kafka-esque. His transformation, almost frightening. Yet, he still has the acting chops.
I really didn't care for this trailer, it just seemed to, as Rourke says as Bukowski in Barfly, "ooze obviousness..."
Thursday, 3 November 2011
Another Happy Day
Q: When is Another Happy Day not another happy day?
A: When it's this movie.
With the back drop of a wedding: the special day where the bride is as beautiful as she will ever be and the groom is happier than he'll ever be. Sounds cynical, yes? Having been involved in many weddings, once as the groom in a failed one, my observation is meant to be coolly clever and not to piss on anyone's wedding cake. But that's not what Another Happy Day is about.
From the trailer, which looks angry, sad and a bit intense, we are introduced to a "modern" family (father leaves mother for another woman and mother raises kids alone) coming together for the wedding of their eldest son. Ellen Barkin, who in my opinion hasn't made nearly enough movies, is the scorned mother of the groom. Thomas Hayden Church, who in my opinion also hasn't made enough movies, plays the ex-husband who is now with Demi Moore. Demi Moore seems to play a more mature version of the character she played in the terrible adaptation of Carl Hiaasen's very entertaining novel, Strip Tease. She still looks great but her beauty seems only skin deep. I think she is perfectly cast as the selfish, apparently narcissistic step-mother. Does anyone else feel that, as an actress, Demi is kind of soul-less?
So, Another Happy Day is not. It's an examination of a family broken, and unable to come together for what is supposed to be a happy day. The kids, all at or close to adulthood are fighting their own respective demons.
I'm sure I'll see this because I know the wife will want to see it and we'll likely watch it on-line when Netflix Canada gets it - in three years or so...
A: When it's this movie.
With the back drop of a wedding: the special day where the bride is as beautiful as she will ever be and the groom is happier than he'll ever be. Sounds cynical, yes? Having been involved in many weddings, once as the groom in a failed one, my observation is meant to be coolly clever and not to piss on anyone's wedding cake. But that's not what Another Happy Day is about.
From the trailer, which looks angry, sad and a bit intense, we are introduced to a "modern" family (father leaves mother for another woman and mother raises kids alone) coming together for the wedding of their eldest son. Ellen Barkin, who in my opinion hasn't made nearly enough movies, is the scorned mother of the groom. Thomas Hayden Church, who in my opinion also hasn't made enough movies, plays the ex-husband who is now with Demi Moore. Demi Moore seems to play a more mature version of the character she played in the terrible adaptation of Carl Hiaasen's very entertaining novel, Strip Tease. She still looks great but her beauty seems only skin deep. I think she is perfectly cast as the selfish, apparently narcissistic step-mother. Does anyone else feel that, as an actress, Demi is kind of soul-less?
So, Another Happy Day is not. It's an examination of a family broken, and unable to come together for what is supposed to be a happy day. The kids, all at or close to adulthood are fighting their own respective demons.
I'm sure I'll see this because I know the wife will want to see it and we'll likely watch it on-line when Netflix Canada gets it - in three years or so...
Wednesday, 2 November 2011
Monthly Film Quips
Best film viewed by me in October: Real Steel (yeah, I know what I said - shut up, Huss)
Best film viewed by me, but not reviewed: Death to Smoochy (More like this please, Mr. DeVito)
Best actor in a film viewed by me regardless of whether reviewed: Wilfred Brimley in The Thing (1982)
Best blog entry on Beerbohmtastic in October, based on reader views: Good-bye Blockbuster (editorial)
Best pizza I've had all year while watching a movie: ZAZAZA in Ottawa (try the Crazy Horse)
Best new soft drink consumed while watching a movie and eating pizza: Tangerine Fanta
Best film viewed by me, but not reviewed: Death to Smoochy (More like this please, Mr. DeVito)
Best actor in a film viewed by me regardless of whether reviewed: Wilfred Brimley in The Thing (1982)
Best blog entry on Beerbohmtastic in October, based on reader views: Good-bye Blockbuster (editorial)
Best pizza I've had all year while watching a movie: ZAZAZA in Ottawa (try the Crazy Horse)
Best new soft drink consumed while watching a movie and eating pizza: Tangerine Fanta
October Recap
Three months of Beerbohmtastic.
Here are some month end stats for October:
Movie trailers/synopsis reviewed: 13
Movies viewed in October: 8
Movies reviewed actually viewed: 4
Reader insults: 4
Feelings hurt: 1
I hope you're having as much fun reading the blog as I am writing it.
Thank you for reading.
Here are some month end stats for October:
Movie trailers/synopsis reviewed: 13
Movies viewed in October: 8
Movies reviewed actually viewed: 4
Reader insults: 4
Feelings hurt: 1
I hope you're having as much fun reading the blog as I am writing it.
Thank you for reading.
Tuesday, 1 November 2011
Trailer Park (formerly the No Parking Zone)
The Trailer Park is reserved for trailers or synopsis that:
A) caused me to make that teenage girl sound, "meh"
B) the synopsis didn't warrant a trailer viewing
C) content I had no interest in
D) trailers viewed that evoked nothing
E) trailers that were so forgettable that by the time I was ready to review them, I couldn't even remember the title of the film
F) All of the above
G) None of the above
Think of the Trailer Park as a public service....
So, in no particular order, I give you the next (first) installment of Trailer Park:
The Three Muskateers 3D (Stupid gimmick on a tired story)
Puss in Boots (Antonio doesn't need to be seen anymore but Salma does)
Atlas Shrugged Part 1 (The vitue of selfishness, Ayn, is not waiting for Part 2)
Cell 211 (The lead's name is Tosar)
In Time (Justin Timberlake playing Justin Timberlake, yet again)
RA. One (Bollywood big budget sci-fi cheese curds)
Sophie (Dum without the bo)
Thanks for reading.
A) caused me to make that teenage girl sound, "meh"
B) the synopsis didn't warrant a trailer viewing
C) content I had no interest in
D) trailers viewed that evoked nothing
E) trailers that were so forgettable that by the time I was ready to review them, I couldn't even remember the title of the film
F) All of the above
G) None of the above
Think of the Trailer Park as a public service....
So, in no particular order, I give you the next (first) installment of Trailer Park:
The Three Muskateers 3D (Stupid gimmick on a tired story)
Puss in Boots (Antonio doesn't need to be seen anymore but Salma does)
Atlas Shrugged Part 1 (The vitue of selfishness, Ayn, is not waiting for Part 2)
Cell 211 (The lead's name is Tosar)
In Time (Justin Timberlake playing Justin Timberlake, yet again)
RA. One (Bollywood big budget sci-fi cheese curds)
Sophie (Dum without the bo)
Thanks for reading.
Monday, 31 October 2011
Halloween (1978)
In the spirit of the day....
John Carpenter's Halloween is considered a classic, but how does the trailer hold up?
One of the first things I noticed about the trailer was that the audience looks through the eyes/mask of the young killer. I'm not sure if you've read what I'm about to say, heard it, or observed it but...
I'm a fan of 50's and 60's B-movies, specifically monster movies. Whether the monster is of human form or out of this world form, in the early days, the chase or attack was from the perspective of the victim - we the victim/audience could see the monster/killer descending up on us. At some point in the evolution of the genre, the perspective changed. Now, the audience is the monster/killer and we descend upon the victim. Is this simply a reflection of our violent society? Food for thought.
While the slasher movie has evolved, the psychological component, in my opinion, has not. In the Halloween (1978) trailer, however, I found Donald Pleasence describing Michael Myers still creepy after all these years, "I spent 8 years trying to reach him, and then another 7 trying to keep him locked up because I realized that what was behind the boys eyes was purely and simply, evil." The tag line, "The Night HE Came Home", is also pretty creepy.
The other thing about this movie that I'd forgotten is that it's from the mind of John Carpenter. I've said that sometimes Carpenter's concepts are so great that the execution of them on film sometimes can't live up. Given this film's "classic" status, the theory doesn't apply here.
Though the trailer seemed dated, it's the original and it is a classic and I trust it is still a scary movie. I will likely watch it again to confirm.
Happy Halloween, 2011.
John Carpenter's Halloween is considered a classic, but how does the trailer hold up?
One of the first things I noticed about the trailer was that the audience looks through the eyes/mask of the young killer. I'm not sure if you've read what I'm about to say, heard it, or observed it but...
I'm a fan of 50's and 60's B-movies, specifically monster movies. Whether the monster is of human form or out of this world form, in the early days, the chase or attack was from the perspective of the victim - we the victim/audience could see the monster/killer descending up on us. At some point in the evolution of the genre, the perspective changed. Now, the audience is the monster/killer and we descend upon the victim. Is this simply a reflection of our violent society? Food for thought.
While the slasher movie has evolved, the psychological component, in my opinion, has not. In the Halloween (1978) trailer, however, I found Donald Pleasence describing Michael Myers still creepy after all these years, "I spent 8 years trying to reach him, and then another 7 trying to keep him locked up because I realized that what was behind the boys eyes was purely and simply, evil." The tag line, "The Night HE Came Home", is also pretty creepy.
The other thing about this movie that I'd forgotten is that it's from the mind of John Carpenter. I've said that sometimes Carpenter's concepts are so great that the execution of them on film sometimes can't live up. Given this film's "classic" status, the theory doesn't apply here.
Though the trailer seemed dated, it's the original and it is a classic and I trust it is still a scary movie. I will likely watch it again to confirm.
Happy Halloween, 2011.
Friday, 28 October 2011
The Rum Diary
Johnny Depp in a Hunter S. Thomson story? Awesome. Playing a young Hunter S. Thomson? Wicked!
I loved the manic nature of this trailer. It was very much in the spirit of Hunter S. Thompson, except I don't recall anything blowing up, but I'm sure something will in this film.
The first 20 minutes of Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas is arguably the funniest opening 20 minutes of any film I've ever seen. The restaurant scene where he tosses the tip, the car rental scene, the unforgettable drive to Vegas, the bats, Benicio del Toro singing "One toke over the line," the hitch-hiker (Toby McGuire) and the arrival and check-in in Vegas. Just thinking about these scenes cracks me up. I'm watching them tonight on Netflix.
Michael Rispoli was hilarious as Spinner in one of my favourite dark comedies, Death to Smoochy. He looks like a good sidekick for Depp in The Rum Diary.
Aaron Eckhart is hit and miss for me. I enjoyed watching him get scalped in Nurse Betty, found him annoyingly charming in Thank You for Smoking and enjoyed his acting in Suspect Zero. Other roles, not so much.
The Rum Diary is a perfect way for Depp to redeem himself (to my unimportant self) after all that mainstream pirate nonsense. I know Johnny is an avid fan of Beerbohmtastic and cares deeply when he's mentioned.... okay so I can be delusional sometimes, but it's not alcohol nor drug induced....
This film would be high on my viewing priority list if I was organized enough to have a viewing priority list. I'll see it anyway... likely soon.
I loved the manic nature of this trailer. It was very much in the spirit of Hunter S. Thompson, except I don't recall anything blowing up, but I'm sure something will in this film.
The first 20 minutes of Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas is arguably the funniest opening 20 minutes of any film I've ever seen. The restaurant scene where he tosses the tip, the car rental scene, the unforgettable drive to Vegas, the bats, Benicio del Toro singing "One toke over the line," the hitch-hiker (Toby McGuire) and the arrival and check-in in Vegas. Just thinking about these scenes cracks me up. I'm watching them tonight on Netflix.
Michael Rispoli was hilarious as Spinner in one of my favourite dark comedies, Death to Smoochy. He looks like a good sidekick for Depp in The Rum Diary.
Aaron Eckhart is hit and miss for me. I enjoyed watching him get scalped in Nurse Betty, found him annoyingly charming in Thank You for Smoking and enjoyed his acting in Suspect Zero. Other roles, not so much.
The Rum Diary is a perfect way for Depp to redeem himself (to my unimportant self) after all that mainstream pirate nonsense. I know Johnny is an avid fan of Beerbohmtastic and cares deeply when he's mentioned.... okay so I can be delusional sometimes, but it's not alcohol nor drug induced....
This film would be high on my viewing priority list if I was organized enough to have a viewing priority list. I'll see it anyway... likely soon.
Thursday, 27 October 2011
Editorial: Good-Bye Blockbuster
We live in a time where the corner video store has outlived the giant video box store. I'm not an economist. Actually, I had to look up the spelling. Blockbuster Video stores are closing at a rapid rate and that means that consumers, such as me, are turning to on-line sources to watch movies, TV shows and game rentals.
But what does the closing of the last surviving "big box" video store really mean? Well, not being an economist, I don't know - but I'd love to hear your comments. For me and my family it means browsing through movies on computer, which is kind of boring. Searching genres, searching by actors, classics or new releases, the experience has changed. No longer can we spend way too much on impulse snack items near the checkout counter. No longer can we walk past the bargain bin of "previously viewed" movies for sale and say things like, "wow, Half-Baked is only $9.00!!!" or "Battlefield Earth? Wow, never saw that one. Should I pay $15.00 for a movie I will likely watch once?" Or "I liked Costner in Field of Dreams, maybe I should pay $12.95 for Water World."
Naturally I jest, but it was the experience - not the ridiculous cost of new DVDs, previously watched crap movies and impulse items, that made the local Blockbuster a community icon. Walking in, greeted by a pimply faced kid, and taking in the bright lights, sights, sounds and selection of entertainment related "collectibles" that kids and rich nerds wanted, nicely organized shelves, and trailers playing on televisions hanging from the ceiling, made choosing a movie part of the fun.
Say what you will about Blockbuster vs. the stay at home movie selection experience, but I already miss it. The wife articulated the void perfectly yesterday. She said, "I really miss watching all those trailers."
Yes! That’s it. The foreplay of watching a movie is now gone.
Though we can seek out trailers on-line, we have to choose the trailers. Choice is good but you don't know what movies are coming up if you don't constantly check. For us, this was an important part of the experience.
If the expression, "you get what you pay for" is true, then the overpriced cost of the Blockbuster experience was somehow worth it.
Good-bye, Blockbuster.
But what does the closing of the last surviving "big box" video store really mean? Well, not being an economist, I don't know - but I'd love to hear your comments. For me and my family it means browsing through movies on computer, which is kind of boring. Searching genres, searching by actors, classics or new releases, the experience has changed. No longer can we spend way too much on impulse snack items near the checkout counter. No longer can we walk past the bargain bin of "previously viewed" movies for sale and say things like, "wow, Half-Baked is only $9.00!!!" or "Battlefield Earth? Wow, never saw that one. Should I pay $15.00 for a movie I will likely watch once?" Or "I liked Costner in Field of Dreams, maybe I should pay $12.95 for Water World."
Naturally I jest, but it was the experience - not the ridiculous cost of new DVDs, previously watched crap movies and impulse items, that made the local Blockbuster a community icon. Walking in, greeted by a pimply faced kid, and taking in the bright lights, sights, sounds and selection of entertainment related "collectibles" that kids and rich nerds wanted, nicely organized shelves, and trailers playing on televisions hanging from the ceiling, made choosing a movie part of the fun.
Say what you will about Blockbuster vs. the stay at home movie selection experience, but I already miss it. The wife articulated the void perfectly yesterday. She said, "I really miss watching all those trailers."
Yes! That’s it. The foreplay of watching a movie is now gone.
Though we can seek out trailers on-line, we have to choose the trailers. Choice is good but you don't know what movies are coming up if you don't constantly check. For us, this was an important part of the experience.
If the expression, "you get what you pay for" is true, then the overpriced cost of the Blockbuster experience was somehow worth it.
Good-bye, Blockbuster.
Tuesday, 25 October 2011
Anonymous
Does epic still mean epic? As in grandiose, great size or extent, heroic, majestic? Or will it lose all meaning as it becomes part of slang?
The trailer makes this look like one of those epic period pieces, but holy crap, what are they saying?
I like the plays of William Shakespeare. I've read many of them and the name Shakespeare is synonymous with tragedy - not to mention his work is the cornerstone of great literature. We even use the term "Shakespearean" as a literary device.
Though I've heard, over the years and during my studies that there has always been debate over whom really wrote his plays, it kind of sucks that it's now truly public. It's a can of worms that, in my opinion, should be reserved for the halls of academia.
According to the synopsis, the events in this film are of one opinion, but why create this level of doubt in something that is an integral part of English studies beginning in junior high school? Why give youth more reason to doubt adults and ask the question: if this guy is a fake, why do we hafta read this confusing crap? South Park showed us that, though nothing is sacred, humour and satire can illustrate some of the flaws in what we hold sacred. You know, like Barbara Streisand. No humour or satire in Anonymous.
Speaking of sacred, I've also heard that Bob Dylan stole most of his songs from others. Did Einstein really create the Theory of Relativity or was he just a Beautiful Mind? Stephen King couldn’t have written all those novels, it must have been Richard Bachman. Not to mention Milli Vanilli didn't really sing their songs... See where this is going?
That said, regardless of this film's importance or relevance or whether it's even a good film or not, I think that publicly implying that Shakespeare was a fake is, how do the kids say it? An epic fail. Or, maybe my perception of the trailer is really the epic fail. Hmm... maybe I will see Anonymous.
The trailer makes this look like one of those epic period pieces, but holy crap, what are they saying?
I like the plays of William Shakespeare. I've read many of them and the name Shakespeare is synonymous with tragedy - not to mention his work is the cornerstone of great literature. We even use the term "Shakespearean" as a literary device.
Though I've heard, over the years and during my studies that there has always been debate over whom really wrote his plays, it kind of sucks that it's now truly public. It's a can of worms that, in my opinion, should be reserved for the halls of academia.
According to the synopsis, the events in this film are of one opinion, but why create this level of doubt in something that is an integral part of English studies beginning in junior high school? Why give youth more reason to doubt adults and ask the question: if this guy is a fake, why do we hafta read this confusing crap? South Park showed us that, though nothing is sacred, humour and satire can illustrate some of the flaws in what we hold sacred. You know, like Barbara Streisand. No humour or satire in Anonymous.
Speaking of sacred, I've also heard that Bob Dylan stole most of his songs from others. Did Einstein really create the Theory of Relativity or was he just a Beautiful Mind? Stephen King couldn’t have written all those novels, it must have been Richard Bachman. Not to mention Milli Vanilli didn't really sing their songs... See where this is going?
That said, regardless of this film's importance or relevance or whether it's even a good film or not, I think that publicly implying that Shakespeare was a fake is, how do the kids say it? An epic fail. Or, maybe my perception of the trailer is really the epic fail. Hmm... maybe I will see Anonymous.
Saturday, 22 October 2011
VIEWED: The Thing (1982)
In between watching season one of Dead Like Me, my day job, family, community work and trying to get through the pilot of American Horror Story, I watched the John Carpenter version of The Thing.
My recommendation for the new version of "The Thing" was....
"It doesn't look different enough for me to want to see it. I will, however, look for the John Carpenter version and watch it just to see if they make reference to the prequel team."
Well, in the very beginning of the Carpenter version, the prequel team arrives in a panic and then quickly dies. We do discover that a Norwegian team does extract the creature and the 1982 team is now stuck with it. However, unless everyone dies in the 2011 version of The Thing, then it's not a true prequel.
The 1982 version is a brilliant exercise in suspense, paranoia and fear. I really enjoyed it. The quote: It's better to remake a bad movie then it is to remake a good movie badly, is not mine. It belongs to my friend, Huss, who just sent me this commentary on the 2011 version of The Thing. I think it addresses his own quote. Now, I don't need to see it.
"Here's the problem & you can quote me; there is true clever & there is impulse or stoned clever. True clever means the idea has lasted through a hangover & it's actually good. Impulse clever is not waiting for the hangover test & going through with it.
The Thing 2011 is the perfect example of filmmakers staying drunk & keeping up impulse clever.
Here's what you need to ask yourself after you watch the impulse clever prequel; how did the Norwegians chopper over to Carpenter's crew? Where did the dog come from? And if the alien is so vicious & unrelenting, why would it be running away?"
Enough said. The Thing (1982) is enough for me.
My recommendation for the new version of "The Thing" was....
"It doesn't look different enough for me to want to see it. I will, however, look for the John Carpenter version and watch it just to see if they make reference to the prequel team."
Well, in the very beginning of the Carpenter version, the prequel team arrives in a panic and then quickly dies. We do discover that a Norwegian team does extract the creature and the 1982 team is now stuck with it. However, unless everyone dies in the 2011 version of The Thing, then it's not a true prequel.
The 1982 version is a brilliant exercise in suspense, paranoia and fear. I really enjoyed it. The quote: It's better to remake a bad movie then it is to remake a good movie badly, is not mine. It belongs to my friend, Huss, who just sent me this commentary on the 2011 version of The Thing. I think it addresses his own quote. Now, I don't need to see it.
"Here's the problem & you can quote me; there is true clever & there is impulse or stoned clever. True clever means the idea has lasted through a hangover & it's actually good. Impulse clever is not waiting for the hangover test & going through with it.
The Thing 2011 is the perfect example of filmmakers staying drunk & keeping up impulse clever.
Here's what you need to ask yourself after you watch the impulse clever prequel; how did the Norwegians chopper over to Carpenter's crew? Where did the dog come from? And if the alien is so vicious & unrelenting, why would it be running away?"
Enough said. The Thing (1982) is enough for me.
Thursday, 20 October 2011
The Thing(s) - 1951, 1982, 2011
First came The Thing from Another World (1951).
"Scientists and American Air Force officials fend off a blood-thirsty alien organism while at a remote arctic outpost." (IMDb). I do love the old sci-fi trailers - the poster is funny, too.
Then the John Carpenter remake called The Thing (1982).
"Scientists in the Antarctic are confronted by a shape-shifting alien that assumes the appearance of the people that it kills. (IMDb)."
The newest version is also called The Thing.
"At an Antarctica research site, the discovery of an alien craft leads to a confrontation between graduate student Kate Lloyd and scientist Dr. Sander Halvorson. (IMDb)"
While snooping around Google for some background on the three "Things", I came across discussions, some quite heated, arguing that the newest version is a prequel. Judging from the trailers, the stories, with slight modifications, all look pretty much the same. The only difference I can tell is that in the 2011 version, they discover and extract the apparent "organism" and let it loose. So, does this constitute the prequel label?
So, if the new "Thing" is a prequel, then the (1982) research team showed up blindly, not knowing that all their colleagues were eaten by a monster and they, too had to fight it off or die trying.... prequel, sequel, equal... it's still a remake of sorts and do you remember what I say about remakes? It's better to remake a bad film then it is to remake a good film, badly.
Because I haven't seen any "Things" I can't comment. I did hear that the first one (1951) was good and that the 1982, John Carpenter version was very good. John Carpenter. There's an interesting fellow. Conceptually, I don't know if there is a better film maker. The concepts behind the original Halloween, Escape from New York, They Live, Prince of Darkness and many more are often brilliant. The problem with some of Carpenter's work is that the execution or delivery of the final product does not or cannot live up to the concept. This applies to films like They Live, The Fog, Prince of Darkness, but Halloween, Escape from New York and, from what I hear, his version of The Thing, indeed deliver.
So, after watching all three "Thing" trailers, what can I say about the new version of The Thing?
It doesn't look different enough for me to want to see it. I will, however, look for the John Carpenter version and watch it just to see if they make reference to the prequel team.
"Scientists and American Air Force officials fend off a blood-thirsty alien organism while at a remote arctic outpost." (IMDb). I do love the old sci-fi trailers - the poster is funny, too.
Then the John Carpenter remake called The Thing (1982).
"Scientists in the Antarctic are confronted by a shape-shifting alien that assumes the appearance of the people that it kills. (IMDb)."
The newest version is also called The Thing.
"At an Antarctica research site, the discovery of an alien craft leads to a confrontation between graduate student Kate Lloyd and scientist Dr. Sander Halvorson. (IMDb)"
While snooping around Google for some background on the three "Things", I came across discussions, some quite heated, arguing that the newest version is a prequel. Judging from the trailers, the stories, with slight modifications, all look pretty much the same. The only difference I can tell is that in the 2011 version, they discover and extract the apparent "organism" and let it loose. So, does this constitute the prequel label?
So, if the new "Thing" is a prequel, then the (1982) research team showed up blindly, not knowing that all their colleagues were eaten by a monster and they, too had to fight it off or die trying.... prequel, sequel, equal... it's still a remake of sorts and do you remember what I say about remakes? It's better to remake a bad film then it is to remake a good film, badly.
Because I haven't seen any "Things" I can't comment. I did hear that the first one (1951) was good and that the 1982, John Carpenter version was very good. John Carpenter. There's an interesting fellow. Conceptually, I don't know if there is a better film maker. The concepts behind the original Halloween, Escape from New York, They Live, Prince of Darkness and many more are often brilliant. The problem with some of Carpenter's work is that the execution or delivery of the final product does not or cannot live up to the concept. This applies to films like They Live, The Fog, Prince of Darkness, but Halloween, Escape from New York and, from what I hear, his version of The Thing, indeed deliver.
So, after watching all three "Thing" trailers, what can I say about the new version of The Thing?
It doesn't look different enough for me to want to see it. I will, however, look for the John Carpenter version and watch it just to see if they make reference to the prequel team.
Wednesday, 19 October 2011
Martha Marcy May Marlene
I do like alliteration...
The first thing I do when I'm about to watch a trailer is check the duration of the trailer. If it's more than 2 minutes long, I add further judgment by assuming that it will give too much away and thus, not worth my viewing. So, not only do I judge a movie by its trailer, I sometimes judge a trailer by its duration. In The Book of Matthew (New Testament), somewhere near the beginning, we are told to, "judge not, lest ye be judged." There are so many ways to judge and misjudge... but you be the judge or Miss Judge.
There was a quiet intensity to the trailer for this film. The story is about a young woman who was a member of a cult-type group (unclear if by choice), somehow gets out and is taken in by her sister and brother-in-law. She is clearly distraught and struggles with both clear and vague memories of her experiences. One could say dreamlike or even nightmarish.
We ocassionally hear about abductions and involvement with cults and, should the victims survive, hear only about their return to their families. Rarely do we hear about the re-adjustment into the family or what effects do the victim's experiences have on themselves and their loved ones.
I know of a young girl that was abducted by some evil people, forced to take drugs and prostitute herself. After six months the police found her and reunited her with her mother. Two years later I heard that she still struggles with addictions and hasn't been able to heal from her ordeal. Very tragic.
The trailer seems to weave between Martha Marcy May Marlene's current situation (away from the "cult") and her experiences with the "cult." Before too much is given away, the trailer ends. I was very impressed that I didn't look at the timer once. This film looks like a good one.
Whether I view this on a big screen or not, I fully intend to see this film. But, as they say, "The road to hell is paved with good intentions..."
The first thing I do when I'm about to watch a trailer is check the duration of the trailer. If it's more than 2 minutes long, I add further judgment by assuming that it will give too much away and thus, not worth my viewing. So, not only do I judge a movie by its trailer, I sometimes judge a trailer by its duration. In The Book of Matthew (New Testament), somewhere near the beginning, we are told to, "judge not, lest ye be judged." There are so many ways to judge and misjudge... but you be the judge or Miss Judge.
There was a quiet intensity to the trailer for this film. The story is about a young woman who was a member of a cult-type group (unclear if by choice), somehow gets out and is taken in by her sister and brother-in-law. She is clearly distraught and struggles with both clear and vague memories of her experiences. One could say dreamlike or even nightmarish.
We ocassionally hear about abductions and involvement with cults and, should the victims survive, hear only about their return to their families. Rarely do we hear about the re-adjustment into the family or what effects do the victim's experiences have on themselves and their loved ones.
I know of a young girl that was abducted by some evil people, forced to take drugs and prostitute herself. After six months the police found her and reunited her with her mother. Two years later I heard that she still struggles with addictions and hasn't been able to heal from her ordeal. Very tragic.
The trailer seems to weave between Martha Marcy May Marlene's current situation (away from the "cult") and her experiences with the "cult." Before too much is given away, the trailer ends. I was very impressed that I didn't look at the timer once. This film looks like a good one.
Whether I view this on a big screen or not, I fully intend to see this film. But, as they say, "The road to hell is paved with good intentions..."
Tuesday, 18 October 2011
Margin Call
I recently watched Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps. Gordon Gekko predicts the decline of Wall Street before taking advantage of his position, state and family for his own personal gain. Greed never sleeps.
So, in Margin Call, with its great cast (and the Voice of Scar as Jeremy Irons is the perfect villain), are we exposed to the 12 hour period before the Wall Street crash? This appears to be the story of the events that led to the beginning of the end of America's economic power.
It's nice to get a bit of history and context, visually and in less than 2 hours. I guess my question is: Do we need movies that show us where we went wrong or could we instead use the hundreds of millions of dollars to try and fix the problem? Nah, short term profit for the 1% is better. Greed never sleeps.
I often wonder if making a film about a crisis, and so recent, somehow trivializes it. And, how timely this one is with the Occupy Wall Street movement gaining momentum? Is this a coincidence, will it add fuel to the fire or is it meant to trivialize the movement? Will the 1% care as much as the 99%? The 99% are the ones who will likely pay to see this one... wow, what irony.
I never do this, but the links below are to some very interesting perspectives on all of this.
http://shinderconsultants.blogspot.com/2011/10/99-percent.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/12/opinion/theres-something-happening-here.html?_r=2&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
Wait a minute. This blog isn't supposed to be serious. I'm not supposed to be serious. I review trailers not make social commentary on issues beyond my comprehension. I cater to an A.D.H.D., short attention spanned, borderline slacker audience.... namely, me.
I want to see Margin Call so's I kin gets me an edumacation on this here stuff.
So, in Margin Call, with its great cast (and the Voice of Scar as Jeremy Irons is the perfect villain), are we exposed to the 12 hour period before the Wall Street crash? This appears to be the story of the events that led to the beginning of the end of America's economic power.
It's nice to get a bit of history and context, visually and in less than 2 hours. I guess my question is: Do we need movies that show us where we went wrong or could we instead use the hundreds of millions of dollars to try and fix the problem? Nah, short term profit for the 1% is better. Greed never sleeps.
I often wonder if making a film about a crisis, and so recent, somehow trivializes it. And, how timely this one is with the Occupy Wall Street movement gaining momentum? Is this a coincidence, will it add fuel to the fire or is it meant to trivialize the movement? Will the 1% care as much as the 99%? The 99% are the ones who will likely pay to see this one... wow, what irony.
I never do this, but the links below are to some very interesting perspectives on all of this.
http://shinderconsultants.blogspot.com/2011/10/99-percent.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/12/opinion/theres-something-happening-here.html?_r=2&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
Wait a minute. This blog isn't supposed to be serious. I'm not supposed to be serious. I review trailers not make social commentary on issues beyond my comprehension. I cater to an A.D.H.D., short attention spanned, borderline slacker audience.... namely, me.
I want to see Margin Call so's I kin gets me an edumacation on this here stuff.
Sunday, 16 October 2011
VIEWED (by accident): Dream House
A funny thing happened on the way to Moneyball. At the last minute, the wife didn't feel like seeing a "baseball" movie and I couldn't convince her to see Red State again, so we ended up in Dream House.
My recommendation for Dream House was...
Maybe Daniel Craig becomes possessed by the house and kills (or tries to kill) his family like in The Shining...? You know what? I don't really feel compelled enough to want to see this film.
While the movie was not at all what I expected and the acting was pretty good, the story was sad, but the payoff comes too early, the climax is disappointing and the epilogue is cliché.
My recommendation for Dream House was...
Maybe Daniel Craig becomes possessed by the house and kills (or tries to kill) his family like in The Shining...? You know what? I don't really feel compelled enough to want to see this film.
While the movie was not at all what I expected and the acting was pretty good, the story was sad, but the payoff comes too early, the climax is disappointing and the epilogue is cliché.
Friday, 14 October 2011
New Monthly Feature: No Parking Zone
Starting this month I am adding a monthly "No Parking Zone." In the zone will be movie trailers or synopsis that:
A) caused me to make that teenage girl sound, "meh"
B) the synopsis didn't warrant a trailer viewing
C) content I had no interest in
D) trailers viewed that evoked nothing
E) trailers that were so forgettable that by the time I was ready to review them, I couldn't even remember the title of the film
F) All of the above
G) None of the above
Think of the No Parking Zone as a public service....
So, in no particular order, I give you October's No Parking Zone:
Footloose (Waste of time remake)
Force (Bollywood badass bore)
I Don't Know How She Does It (And a don't give a rats...)
Harry Potter and the.... whatever part 92 (Enough already)
Higher Ground (Not for me)
The Lion King 3D (Classic, but just another Disney cash grab)
The Smurfs (Yeah, I reviewed it, but I was stupid)
Resurrect Dead: The Mystery of the Toynbee Tiles (Where's Waldo? Who cares?)
Restless (Sorry, Gus)
Transformers 5 or 6 (Wherever the hell they're at)
What's Your Number? (My number is: Piss off)
Please send your comments to beerbohmtastic@gmail.com or click on 0 comments below each post to comment on a specific posting, publically.
Thanks for reading.
A) caused me to make that teenage girl sound, "meh"
B) the synopsis didn't warrant a trailer viewing
C) content I had no interest in
D) trailers viewed that evoked nothing
E) trailers that were so forgettable that by the time I was ready to review them, I couldn't even remember the title of the film
F) All of the above
G) None of the above
Think of the No Parking Zone as a public service....
So, in no particular order, I give you October's No Parking Zone:
Footloose (Waste of time remake)
Force (Bollywood badass bore)
I Don't Know How She Does It (And a don't give a rats...)
Harry Potter and the.... whatever part 92 (Enough already)
Higher Ground (Not for me)
The Lion King 3D (Classic, but just another Disney cash grab)
The Smurfs (Yeah, I reviewed it, but I was stupid)
Resurrect Dead: The Mystery of the Toynbee Tiles (Where's Waldo? Who cares?)
Restless (Sorry, Gus)
Transformers 5 or 6 (Wherever the hell they're at)
What's Your Number? (My number is: Piss off)
Please send your comments to beerbohmtastic@gmail.com or click on 0 comments below each post to comment on a specific posting, publically.
Thanks for reading.
Thursday, 13 October 2011
The Warrior's Way
Trailer made me think that the title should have been: Cowboys and Illegal Aliens.
The western theme, mixed with Aliens, Asians and/or Assassins (sorry, but I like the alliteration), seems to be popping up lately. The Favreau film, of course, which I intend to see. I tried to like Bunraku, but couldn't sit through it. Does it seem like every few years we see a few western themed movies?
Wild Wild West is memorable because, according to Kevin Smith, Jon Peters couldn't put his giant spider in the new Superman movie so he made Wild Wild West.
It appears that we have another apparent unconventional western. Truth be told, it kind of had the spirit of the old David Carradine series, Kung Fu. You know, the mysterious stranger shows up in the west, running from his past, looking for peace and finding only trouble.
So, the warrior in The Warrior's Way shows up in this town of misfits, meets a girl, befriends a washed up gunfighter (gee, there's a new one...), brings the wrath of an (illegal) alien force (flying ninjas) down upon the town and the town must unite in order to defeat the alien (flying ninja - in the trailer they literally fly) attack...
Hmmm.... maybe this IS Cowboys and Illegal Aliens?
I do like action movies. I like westerns. I know that the obviousness will be blatant, but I'm sure the fighting scenes will be cool.
I think it'll either view this at the Rainbow or (because Blockbuster finally closed in my neighbourhood) I'll wait until it's available on that movie site that costs $8.00 a month.
The western theme, mixed with Aliens, Asians and/or Assassins (sorry, but I like the alliteration), seems to be popping up lately. The Favreau film, of course, which I intend to see. I tried to like Bunraku, but couldn't sit through it. Does it seem like every few years we see a few western themed movies?
Wild Wild West is memorable because, according to Kevin Smith, Jon Peters couldn't put his giant spider in the new Superman movie so he made Wild Wild West.
It appears that we have another apparent unconventional western. Truth be told, it kind of had the spirit of the old David Carradine series, Kung Fu. You know, the mysterious stranger shows up in the west, running from his past, looking for peace and finding only trouble.
So, the warrior in The Warrior's Way shows up in this town of misfits, meets a girl, befriends a washed up gunfighter (gee, there's a new one...), brings the wrath of an (illegal) alien force (flying ninjas) down upon the town and the town must unite in order to defeat the alien (flying ninja - in the trailer they literally fly) attack...
Hmmm.... maybe this IS Cowboys and Illegal Aliens?
I do like action movies. I like westerns. I know that the obviousness will be blatant, but I'm sure the fighting scenes will be cool.
I think it'll either view this at the Rainbow or (because Blockbuster finally closed in my neighbourhood) I'll wait until it's available on that movie site that costs $8.00 a month.
Wednesday, 12 October 2011
The Big Year
Guy bonding movies are usually fun, unless they involve Very Bad Things (sorry Jon Favreau).
Steve Martin is awesome every which way. Whether serious or insanely comedic, he gives every performance "every man" compassion.
Speaking of "every man," Jack Black is the epitome of said type. His humour is a bit edgy because his characters often poke fun at the lazy-ass slacker in all of us.
I've said this before, but I am sooooooo tired of Owen Wilson. He's such a whiny little bitch on screen - with all due respect to his personal struggles. Even when the characters he plays aren't whiny bitches, he seems to portray them as whiny bitches. He looks a little more edgy in this one, so maybe there's hope.
If I could take a year off to do anything I want, I would get my hands on the EM-50 Urban Assault Vehicle (the Winnebago from the Bill Murray classic, Stripes) and drive through the most volatile, war-torn places on earth to first, see what I trust TV news doesn't show us and, secondly, to try to make sense of it.
It seems like, as we in western society continue to reap the benefits of evolving technologies, we become more disconnected from a deteriorating third world. Or maybe we just feel helpless... Besides, I'd be safe in the EM-50. I digress.
I'll see this film because of Steve Martin and Jack Black and not because I like birds.
Steve Martin is awesome every which way. Whether serious or insanely comedic, he gives every performance "every man" compassion.
Speaking of "every man," Jack Black is the epitome of said type. His humour is a bit edgy because his characters often poke fun at the lazy-ass slacker in all of us.
I've said this before, but I am sooooooo tired of Owen Wilson. He's such a whiny little bitch on screen - with all due respect to his personal struggles. Even when the characters he plays aren't whiny bitches, he seems to portray them as whiny bitches. He looks a little more edgy in this one, so maybe there's hope.
If I could take a year off to do anything I want, I would get my hands on the EM-50 Urban Assault Vehicle (the Winnebago from the Bill Murray classic, Stripes) and drive through the most volatile, war-torn places on earth to first, see what I trust TV news doesn't show us and, secondly, to try to make sense of it.
It seems like, as we in western society continue to reap the benefits of evolving technologies, we become more disconnected from a deteriorating third world. Or maybe we just feel helpless... Besides, I'd be safe in the EM-50. I digress.
I'll see this film because of Steve Martin and Jack Black and not because I like birds.
Tuesday, 11 October 2011
P.S. on Real Steel
Yeah, it's Rocky.
Yeah, it manipulated emotions like a Disney movie.
Yeah, it was predictable.
Yeah, it was entertaining. I say that begrudgingly.
And yeah, I misjudged a book (movie) by its cover (trailer).
Book closed on Real Steel.
Yeah, it manipulated emotions like a Disney movie.
Yeah, it was predictable.
Yeah, it was entertaining. I say that begrudgingly.
And yeah, I misjudged a book (movie) by its cover (trailer).
Book closed on Real Steel.
Monday, 10 October 2011
NOT VIEWED BY ME: Real Steel
A reader has viewed and reviewed Real Steel and was kind enough to send it to me. I will add my P.S. once (if) I see the film whose trailer I completely hated.
Please note: The views in this review do not necessarily reflect the views of Beerbohmtastic because I haven't seen the film yet. Thank you for sending this.
Via email:
Subject Line: VIEWED: Real Steel
"Real Steel" IS "Rocky", make no mistake.
But in an age where originality is as rare as a safe oil tanker, we must suffer with the best re-envisioning, re-imagining that the mediocre talent producing studio movies has to offer. Having spit that like cobra venom, I will say this; as a new millennium "Rocky", "Real Steel" works on every level.
Hugh Jackman & Evangeline Lily are, as the aforementioned premise & plot, exactly what you expect them to be. And say what you will about the "festive" & oft paycheck driven Hugh Jackman, that sumbitch is one entertaining bastard.
But the real star here is Dakota Goyo*, who plays Max Kenton the estranged son if Hugh Jackman's character. I preface this by saying, I don't like kids. In real life or on screen, not a fan of children. This kid though, got my attention. If Ryan Reynolds had half the acting chops & a quarter the charisma of Dakota Goyo, he would still be an asshole but at least a better performer.
I applaud & bow to the makers of "Real Steel" for knowing how to throw the same old shit in our faces & make it smell like an almost fresh rose. On an entertainment scale of 1-10, 10 being the best, I'd have to honestly give "Real Steel" a solid 7.
I mentioned I really hate kids though, right?
*Dakota Goyo or his management, if you ever read this, what the hell? Do you hate this kid(you) & want him to be face down in front if the Viper Room in four years? Change his(your) name.
Please note: The views in this review do not necessarily reflect the views of Beerbohmtastic because I haven't seen the film yet. Thank you for sending this.
Via email:
Subject Line: VIEWED: Real Steel
"Real Steel" IS "Rocky", make no mistake.
But in an age where originality is as rare as a safe oil tanker, we must suffer with the best re-envisioning, re-imagining that the mediocre talent producing studio movies has to offer. Having spit that like cobra venom, I will say this; as a new millennium "Rocky", "Real Steel" works on every level.
Hugh Jackman & Evangeline Lily are, as the aforementioned premise & plot, exactly what you expect them to be. And say what you will about the "festive" & oft paycheck driven Hugh Jackman, that sumbitch is one entertaining bastard.
But the real star here is Dakota Goyo*, who plays Max Kenton the estranged son if Hugh Jackman's character. I preface this by saying, I don't like kids. In real life or on screen, not a fan of children. This kid though, got my attention. If Ryan Reynolds had half the acting chops & a quarter the charisma of Dakota Goyo, he would still be an asshole but at least a better performer.
I applaud & bow to the makers of "Real Steel" for knowing how to throw the same old shit in our faces & make it smell like an almost fresh rose. On an entertainment scale of 1-10, 10 being the best, I'd have to honestly give "Real Steel" a solid 7.
I mentioned I really hate kids though, right?
*Dakota Goyo or his management, if you ever read this, what the hell? Do you hate this kid(you) & want him to be face down in front if the Viper Room in four years? Change his(your) name.
Sunday, 9 October 2011
First response to my Real Steel trailer review....
I received this email late last night and love it...
Subject Line: Re: the horrible bloodbath offering, "Real Steel"
To the Cruel & thoughtless heads of Touchstone Pictures:
As the President & first & only member of PETCGR(People for the Ethical Treatment of CG Robots) I was appalled by your latest Robot Snuff film, "Real Steel".
Was three Transformers not enough? When will the Torque Madas of Hollywood stop allowing CG Robots to be tortured & battered for their own sick amusement? What if the combatantant in the CG ring were your own CG son or daughter?
For shame, Touchstone Pictures for allowing such blatant CG cruelty to be exploited to line your coffers.
Sincerely,
NAME WITHELD
President
PETCGR
Subject Line: Re: the horrible bloodbath offering, "Real Steel"
To the Cruel & thoughtless heads of Touchstone Pictures:
As the President & first & only member of PETCGR(People for the Ethical Treatment of CG Robots) I was appalled by your latest Robot Snuff film, "Real Steel".
Was three Transformers not enough? When will the Torque Madas of Hollywood stop allowing CG Robots to be tortured & battered for their own sick amusement? What if the combatantant in the CG ring were your own CG son or daughter?
For shame, Touchstone Pictures for allowing such blatant CG cruelty to be exploited to line your coffers.
Sincerely,
NAME WITHELD
President
PETCGR
Friday, 7 October 2011
Father of Invention
Kevin Spacey. He's a very talented actor who has played some very interesting roles. Through roles such as, Williamson, the douchebag office manager in Glengarry Glen Ross, to the killer in Seven, the love interest in Pay it Forward, to the lead in American Beauty and his unforgettable performance in The Usual Suspects, he became an A-lister by showing his talent and versatility. But something happened. In many of his roles there seems to be a level of arrogance in his acting, regardless of the character he's playing. Maybe it's just my own observation. I used to like him. Now, when I see he's in a movie, I'm usually indifferent. Horrible Bosses? (Please see my review and my VIEWED comments).
Thus, while looking at the movie poster for Father of Invention just before clicking on the trailer, I thought this was going to be more of the same. Well, it looks like I was wrong again - sort of.
The Kevin Spacey at the beginning of the film - the infomercial character is exactly what I'm talking about. However, his fall from grace and struggle to reach the top again, hopefully will show the talent and versatility that we know he's capable of.
The Jerk, with Steve Martin popped into my mind when I saw the first part of the trailer. Steve's character invents a handle of sorts to prevent eye-glasses from falling off Bill Macy's face. His invention makes him millions, but when people start going cross-eyed, he loses everything. That's where the similarity ends... I think.
Riches to rags to riches stories can be entertaining. There were some funny moments in the trailer. Spacey, in a few scenes, actually looked humble.
I'd like to see Spacey play humble. But likely not first run. Maybe at the Rainbow.
Thus, while looking at the movie poster for Father of Invention just before clicking on the trailer, I thought this was going to be more of the same. Well, it looks like I was wrong again - sort of.
The Kevin Spacey at the beginning of the film - the infomercial character is exactly what I'm talking about. However, his fall from grace and struggle to reach the top again, hopefully will show the talent and versatility that we know he's capable of.
The Jerk, with Steve Martin popped into my mind when I saw the first part of the trailer. Steve's character invents a handle of sorts to prevent eye-glasses from falling off Bill Macy's face. His invention makes him millions, but when people start going cross-eyed, he loses everything. That's where the similarity ends... I think.
Riches to rags to riches stories can be entertaining. There were some funny moments in the trailer. Spacey, in a few scenes, actually looked humble.
I'd like to see Spacey play humble. But likely not first run. Maybe at the Rainbow.
Thursday, 6 October 2011
Bellflower
Many words of praise periodically (within the 2 minute trailer) fill the screen during the trailer. Praise from Film.com and Rolling Stone. MSN said it was a weird mix of John Hughes and Mad Max and I think I read something about a stylish critique of the idiocy and confusion in young manhood...since Fight Club.
Umm.. the words idiocy and confusion in relation to Fight Club? Though Fight Club was a "stylish critique" it very clearly defined our flaws. "We are a generation of men raised by women..." "our fathers didn't give a shit..." "God doesn't care about you..." Fight Club became a way to FEEL something beyond the banality of our existence. I wouldn't call Project Mayhem idiotic or confused. On the contrary, it had a clear mandate: eliminate debt so that all are equal again. It was a statement about taking control of the shit lives, and debt, that were handed to us by our parents. At least I think that's what Chuck Palahniuk was telling us...
Oh yeah, I'm not reviewing MSN's idiocy and confusion here.
Bellflower has a gritty look to it and I get the sense that it's one of those movies that catches the viewer off guard. The title evokes a sense of calm that, from the trailer, seems non-existent. You just know that it will be shockingly violent, yet feel quite real.
A Bellflower is an invasive weed.
So, young men playing Mad Max with their cars, building weapons awaiting the apocalypse. Sounds like a Sunday afternoon in any North American suburb. One of the young men gets a girlfriend and everything goes to shit. Common theme given the idiocy and confusion of young men...
It's a first film by cinematographer turned director, Evan Glodell, so I'll reserve further judgment until I see it.
Yeah, I'm kind of curious.
Umm.. the words idiocy and confusion in relation to Fight Club? Though Fight Club was a "stylish critique" it very clearly defined our flaws. "We are a generation of men raised by women..." "our fathers didn't give a shit..." "God doesn't care about you..." Fight Club became a way to FEEL something beyond the banality of our existence. I wouldn't call Project Mayhem idiotic or confused. On the contrary, it had a clear mandate: eliminate debt so that all are equal again. It was a statement about taking control of the shit lives, and debt, that were handed to us by our parents. At least I think that's what Chuck Palahniuk was telling us...
Oh yeah, I'm not reviewing MSN's idiocy and confusion here.
Bellflower has a gritty look to it and I get the sense that it's one of those movies that catches the viewer off guard. The title evokes a sense of calm that, from the trailer, seems non-existent. You just know that it will be shockingly violent, yet feel quite real.
A Bellflower is an invasive weed.
So, young men playing Mad Max with their cars, building weapons awaiting the apocalypse. Sounds like a Sunday afternoon in any North American suburb. One of the young men gets a girlfriend and everything goes to shit. Common theme given the idiocy and confusion of young men...
It's a first film by cinematographer turned director, Evan Glodell, so I'll reserve further judgment until I see it.
Yeah, I'm kind of curious.
Wednesday, 5 October 2011
Real Steel
Are you kidding me? Hugh Jackman, who I like as an actor, is in a live action version of Rock 'em Sock 'em Robots - the toy that kids enjoyed for about 20 minutes several generations ago? This is surely some kind of joke. Is it produced by Mattel or Toys R Us? I'm sure Real Steel merchandise will hit the shelves shortly after opening weekend, if it hasn't already. Wasn't there some reality show where amateur inventors built little remote control robots to fight each other? I noticed that the viewer reviews where high (8.3 out of 10) but come on?
I'm a guy. I do guy stuff. I leave my socks right beside the laundry hamper without thinking how much it irritates my wife. I love car chases and watching things blow up. I was saddened when Hunter S. Thompson died while doing his favourite thing, blowing shit up. His death made me re-evaluate some of the things I do for amusement in my own back yard.
So the premise, according to the trailer is that boxing has evolved from human combat to machine combat. Jackman, a washed up fighter now builds machines and has one last chance for redemption by building a machine that can beat up another machine. Is it just me or does this sound completely idiotic?
I am really bothered by the fact that I want to see this movie just to find out if it is really as ridiculous and pointless as the trailer appears. And of course, so I can review it again.
I'm a guy. I do guy stuff. I leave my socks right beside the laundry hamper without thinking how much it irritates my wife. I love car chases and watching things blow up. I was saddened when Hunter S. Thompson died while doing his favourite thing, blowing shit up. His death made me re-evaluate some of the things I do for amusement in my own back yard.
So the premise, according to the trailer is that boxing has evolved from human combat to machine combat. Jackman, a washed up fighter now builds machines and has one last chance for redemption by building a machine that can beat up another machine. Is it just me or does this sound completely idiotic?
I am really bothered by the fact that I want to see this movie just to find out if it is really as ridiculous and pointless as the trailer appears. And of course, so I can review it again.
Tuesday, 4 October 2011
The Ides of March
Gosling, Clooney, Seymour-Hoffman, Giamati, Marissa Tomei.... this is a serious cast. The music and pace of the trailer made it a serious trailer.
Dating back to 1933, there are no less than 107 movies made about fictional Presidents. In the movie Dead Presidents, the bank robbers wore masks of dead presidents. In Point Break the bank robbers wore past president masks.
Devo wore Ronald Reagan plastic wigs on the cover of one of their albums. I think it was New Traditionalists or Duty Now for the Future. I can't remember.
In Shakespeare's Julius Caesar, the soothsayer told Julius Caesar to "beware the Ides of March." This was the day of his death. So, from the title, does the main character's career die on March 15? Is this a parody of Julius Caesar?
It looks like one of those films where the older established campaign professionals are jealous of the young arrogant, genius ladder climber who looks to be on the winning team. So, he's set up to be scandalized and then his choices will have an effect on his boss, the president or presidential nominee.
The Ides of March must foreshadow the professional death of the young blood.
Seems kind of predictable. Maybe, I'm wrong,
Likely a rental.
Dating back to 1933, there are no less than 107 movies made about fictional Presidents. In the movie Dead Presidents, the bank robbers wore masks of dead presidents. In Point Break the bank robbers wore past president masks.
Devo wore Ronald Reagan plastic wigs on the cover of one of their albums. I think it was New Traditionalists or Duty Now for the Future. I can't remember.
In Shakespeare's Julius Caesar, the soothsayer told Julius Caesar to "beware the Ides of March." This was the day of his death. So, from the title, does the main character's career die on March 15? Is this a parody of Julius Caesar?
It looks like one of those films where the older established campaign professionals are jealous of the young arrogant, genius ladder climber who looks to be on the winning team. So, he's set up to be scandalized and then his choices will have an effect on his boss, the president or presidential nominee.
The Ides of March must foreshadow the professional death of the young blood.
Seems kind of predictable. Maybe, I'm wrong,
Likely a rental.
Monday, 3 October 2011
Machine Gun Preacher
I laughed when I saw the title. Matter-of-factly titles sometimes work. What's Snakes on a Plane about? What about Cowboys and Aliens? What about Alien vs. Predator? And you can't forget Bambi vs. Godzilla.
From the trailer, however, the Machine Gun Preacher title seems to trivialize the spirit of this film. Unless, of course, the makers wanted to attract guys looking for a shoot 'em up action movie, only to make them cry. Or, girls could dupe their boyfriends into seeing it by saying, "honey, let's go see Machine Gun Preacher tonight." What guy wouldn't fall in love all over again at the suggestion of such a movie?
In the last ten years or so, through news, media and movies we've learned about the horrors of war in Africa. Senseless slaughters, child soldiers, blood diamonds, lawlessness and the western world's inactivity have created a bleak picture of Africa. Years ago I read a book by Franz Fanon called, the Wretched of the Earth. It talked about the effects of colonization and de-colonization. I didn't really get it at the time, but I think we are witnessing the effects of de-colonization, but what do I know?
Gerard Butler is a solid actor. I liked him in Reign of Fire. Hell, I loved Reign of Fire. He was okay in one of the Tomb Raider movies, 300 was okay, too.... Damn! I just IMDB'd him and he was in Phantom of the Opera. I mentioned in another review how much I hated the stage version. Phantom of the Paradise was better, anyway. No more on Gerard.
The trailer tells us that this is based on a true story. Whether it is or isn't, it looks like a pretty inspiring story about one troubled man's search for meaning and finding it helping orphans in Africa. Truth be told, I found the trailer to be quite moving, even though it gave away too much.
Despite the title and the connection to Phantom of the Opera, I still want to see this film.
From the trailer, however, the Machine Gun Preacher title seems to trivialize the spirit of this film. Unless, of course, the makers wanted to attract guys looking for a shoot 'em up action movie, only to make them cry. Or, girls could dupe their boyfriends into seeing it by saying, "honey, let's go see Machine Gun Preacher tonight." What guy wouldn't fall in love all over again at the suggestion of such a movie?
In the last ten years or so, through news, media and movies we've learned about the horrors of war in Africa. Senseless slaughters, child soldiers, blood diamonds, lawlessness and the western world's inactivity have created a bleak picture of Africa. Years ago I read a book by Franz Fanon called, the Wretched of the Earth. It talked about the effects of colonization and de-colonization. I didn't really get it at the time, but I think we are witnessing the effects of de-colonization, but what do I know?
Gerard Butler is a solid actor. I liked him in Reign of Fire. Hell, I loved Reign of Fire. He was okay in one of the Tomb Raider movies, 300 was okay, too.... Damn! I just IMDB'd him and he was in Phantom of the Opera. I mentioned in another review how much I hated the stage version. Phantom of the Paradise was better, anyway. No more on Gerard.
The trailer tells us that this is based on a true story. Whether it is or isn't, it looks like a pretty inspiring story about one troubled man's search for meaning and finding it helping orphans in Africa. Truth be told, I found the trailer to be quite moving, even though it gave away too much.
Despite the title and the connection to Phantom of the Opera, I still want to see this film.
VIEWED: The Killer Elite
My recommendation for this one was...
"With all the love in this review, I have no choice but to see this movie."
The funny thing about love is when it's going well, expectations are hightened. What happens when expectations are high? They often disappoint. That's why love is supposed to be forgiving.
Owen was the expected badass, even more so. Statham showed a human side to his badassary and it looked like it was as hard for him to be sensitive as it was for me to watch him be sensitive. DeNiro could play a lamp post and still be worthy of an Oscar nomination. His screen presence is amazing.
Yeah, love is forgiving....
I liked this movie, but I didn't love it.
"With all the love in this review, I have no choice but to see this movie."
The funny thing about love is when it's going well, expectations are hightened. What happens when expectations are high? They often disappoint. That's why love is supposed to be forgiving.
Owen was the expected badass, even more so. Statham showed a human side to his badassary and it looked like it was as hard for him to be sensitive as it was for me to watch him be sensitive. DeNiro could play a lamp post and still be worthy of an Oscar nomination. His screen presence is amazing.
Yeah, love is forgiving....
I liked this movie, but I didn't love it.
Sunday, 2 October 2011
October Film Quips
Danny DeVito needs to direct more movies. Danny, stop tweeting and give us another Throw Momma from the Train.
I wasn't fond of Tim Burton until I saw Big Fish. Make us another one like that, Tim.
Am I a freak because I love Chan Wook Park movies?
Takeshi Miike IS a freak. If I even think of Ichi the Killer, I feel sick.
New love for Quenten Tarantino after seeing Inglorious Basterds... again and again.
Red State is a feather in Kevin Smith's cap. Does Kevin Smith wear a cap?
I wasn't fond of Tim Burton until I saw Big Fish. Make us another one like that, Tim.
Am I a freak because I love Chan Wook Park movies?
Takeshi Miike IS a freak. If I even think of Ichi the Killer, I feel sick.
New love for Quenten Tarantino after seeing Inglorious Basterds... again and again.
Red State is a feather in Kevin Smith's cap. Does Kevin Smith wear a cap?
Saturday, 1 October 2011
Max Beerbohm Quote for October...
"You cannot make a man by standing a sheep on its hind-legs. But by standing a flock of sheep in that position you can make a crowd of men."
Friday, 30 September 2011
SEPTEMBER RECAP
Today marks the end of the second month of Beerbohmtastic.
Please keep the emails and comments coming.
Here are some month end stats:
Movie trailers/synopsis reviewed: 18
Movies viewed in August: 12
Movies reviewed actually viewed: 9
Reader insults: 1
Feelings hurt: .25
I just want to say that whether I like a movie or not, I have the utmost respect for anyone who can actually get a movie made. I have even more respect for those who do it well.
Thank you for reading.
Please keep the emails and comments coming.
Here are some month end stats:
Movie trailers/synopsis reviewed: 18
Movies viewed in August: 12
Movies reviewed actually viewed: 9
Reader insults: 1
Feelings hurt: .25
I just want to say that whether I like a movie or not, I have the utmost respect for anyone who can actually get a movie made. I have even more respect for those who do it well.
Thank you for reading.
Thursday, 29 September 2011
VIEWED: Drive
My recommendation for this one was:
"Car chase movies are fun. Though the trailer didn't really wow me, I'm sure there will be enough action to keep me entertained."
Ryan Gosling is good at playing odd, complicated, soft spoken characters. Lars and the Real Girl, United States of Leland, but in Drive the odd, complicated, soft spoken character is a mystery. There is no context for his superhero skills. Despite the decent performances, this was one dull story.
The 80's music didn't endear the film, either. Should have gone to see Red State again.
"Car chase movies are fun. Though the trailer didn't really wow me, I'm sure there will be enough action to keep me entertained."
Ryan Gosling is good at playing odd, complicated, soft spoken characters. Lars and the Real Girl, United States of Leland, but in Drive the odd, complicated, soft spoken character is a mystery. There is no context for his superhero skills. Despite the decent performances, this was one dull story.
The 80's music didn't endear the film, either. Should have gone to see Red State again.
VIEWED: Red State
My recommendation for this one was...
"This looks like a departure from what we've come to expect from Kevin Smith. I have no doubt he had a blast making this one. I just hope I have the stomach to enjoy watching it. Big screen."
Saw a screening of this last night. I was a bit worried that it would be a Rob Zombie-esque, Saw-type, grind-house film. You know, filled with disturbing and gratuitous violence. Let's face it; the trailer had that written all over it. That said, the trailer looked really cool and I was very interested in what Kevin Smith would do with a movie like this.
Well, if I can be so presumptuous as to say that Kevin Smith has come of age; I'm saying it. This story is so well written, told so tastefully, depicting human conflict and struggle, with a blurred line between good and evil and without judgment or the need for gratuitous violence. Everything: the story, dialogue, acting, visuals were brilliant.
I sat riveted to the screen for the hour-and-a-half and by the end could articulate only one word: Wow.
All hail Kevin Smith for he has taken this genre to a higher level.
"This looks like a departure from what we've come to expect from Kevin Smith. I have no doubt he had a blast making this one. I just hope I have the stomach to enjoy watching it. Big screen."
Saw a screening of this last night. I was a bit worried that it would be a Rob Zombie-esque, Saw-type, grind-house film. You know, filled with disturbing and gratuitous violence. Let's face it; the trailer had that written all over it. That said, the trailer looked really cool and I was very interested in what Kevin Smith would do with a movie like this.
Well, if I can be so presumptuous as to say that Kevin Smith has come of age; I'm saying it. This story is so well written, told so tastefully, depicting human conflict and struggle, with a blurred line between good and evil and without judgment or the need for gratuitous violence. Everything: the story, dialogue, acting, visuals were brilliant.
I sat riveted to the screen for the hour-and-a-half and by the end could articulate only one word: Wow.
All hail Kevin Smith for he has taken this genre to a higher level.
Tuesday, 27 September 2011
Margaret
Pretty intense trailer and subject matter.
Margaret is a moral struggle. Putting a teenager - and it's cool how Anna at 29 years old can still get away with playing a teenager- through the moral dilemma that is this film is an interesting examination. Let's face it, teenagers, with their sense of entitlement, invincibility, roller-coaster hormones and general idiocy combined with family, social and environmental pressures is enough of a struggle. I often tell teenagers that these years are probably the most difficult and if they can survive their teenage years and end up on a good path, the rest of their lives will seem much easier. The problem is, as Mark Twain said: youth is wasted on the young.
Anna Paquin is a very good actress. For me, the entire True Blood thing sucked... I was so annoyed with the trailer park vampire soft core porn thing that after the first season - which was viewed with my usual morbid fascination - I couldn't take any more. Lately, Matt Damon seems to have taken on more mature roles. He's a very talented actor - very believable. Ruffalo is pretty cool. My only comment is that this role seems similar to the one he played in Reservation Road.
The trailer was good. It really showed conflict and struggle without giving away the outcome. It was compelling, interesting and I want to know how the situation unfolds and whether it gets resolved.
Honey, guess what we're seeing next?
Margaret is a moral struggle. Putting a teenager - and it's cool how Anna at 29 years old can still get away with playing a teenager- through the moral dilemma that is this film is an interesting examination. Let's face it, teenagers, with their sense of entitlement, invincibility, roller-coaster hormones and general idiocy combined with family, social and environmental pressures is enough of a struggle. I often tell teenagers that these years are probably the most difficult and if they can survive their teenage years and end up on a good path, the rest of their lives will seem much easier. The problem is, as Mark Twain said: youth is wasted on the young.
Anna Paquin is a very good actress. For me, the entire True Blood thing sucked... I was so annoyed with the trailer park vampire soft core porn thing that after the first season - which was viewed with my usual morbid fascination - I couldn't take any more. Lately, Matt Damon seems to have taken on more mature roles. He's a very talented actor - very believable. Ruffalo is pretty cool. My only comment is that this role seems similar to the one he played in Reservation Road.
The trailer was good. It really showed conflict and struggle without giving away the outcome. It was compelling, interesting and I want to know how the situation unfolds and whether it gets resolved.
Honey, guess what we're seeing next?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)