TRUE GRIT (2010) (a review)

TRUE GRIT (2010) (a review)

A remake of the classic film starring John Wayne by the Coen Brothers (Fargo, Blood Simple) and stars Jeff Bridges, Matt Damon, Josh Brolin, Hailee Steinfeld and Barry Pepper. It was nominated for 10 Academy Awards (but the big winner that night was KING'S SPEECH).

The story: a young girl's father is killed and she hires a bounty hunter to bring the killer in to justice. However, there is a marshall who wants the criminal brought to justice for different crimes and the girl doesn't want that, she wants the criminal to go to jail for killing her father so now they are competing for that.

Was it good?

Not really.

Look, I know it's the Coen Brothers and Jeff Bridges is always entertaining, and I guess if you like westerns where people mumble a lot, but there's just not much here. It's like a less compelling version of TAKEN where they are trying to grab a criminal instead of his daughter and you really don't care if they suceed or not.

To it's credit, it's very different than TAKEN. TAKEN was an energic action B-movie made cool by Liam Neeson. This movie is slow, has a lot of humor (much from Matt Damon, who seems miscast so you can't tell if you are laughing with him or at him). And the end for me didn't do anything either. It wasn't deep, it wasn't exciting.

The movie just didn't do anything for me.

*** AVOID ***

BATTLE: LOS ANGELES (2011) (a review)

BATTLE: LOS ANGELES (2011) (a review)

A futuristic war story about aliens invading and trying to take over Los Angeles. Well, actually they are trying to take over the world, but the movie focuses on one group of soldiers in los Angeles and their efforts to defeat the aliens. Stars Aaron Eckhart (Batman: Dark Knight), and Michelle Rodriguez (Lost) and directed by Jonathan Liebesman (who has made such brilliant films at Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Beginning and Darkness Falls).

The story: Aliens attack. A marine who is ready to retire is called back into duty to fight them and eventually with a gung ho attitude and a big semper fi, gosh darn it we're able to defeat them!

Was it good?

No. It was one of the dumbest things I've ever seen, and I've sat through four Pauly Shore movies. The problem isn't that the movie is BAD, it's just that the movie is EMPTY.

Let's be honest -- this is basically war porn. And by that I mean it has lots of shooting and fighting and a big pro-military-guns-are-good vibe to it, but nothing else. It's science fiction without any science. It's speculative fiction without any thought. There is nothing special or even specific about the aliens. They are just different and attacking us so let's kill them. There isn't anything special about their weapons or about their tactics or about themselves or anything. Seriously, this is a movie that makes INDEPENDENCE DAY look clever and deep.

And why are they trying to attack us? Water. Not that water has anything to do with the story -- all of which takes place on land -- but I guess we're the only ones who have water that isn't frozen and for a species that has developed advanced weaponry and interstellar travel heating ice (ala the rings of Saturn) is more of a bother than wiping out another species. So, yeah, that was well thought out and makes a lot of sense.

But of course this isn't a movie about thinking...at all...ever...not even in term of the plot which has nothing clever or interesting to it...this is about us being attacked by something evil that we can just shoot and shoot and shoot. And to the movie makers credit the feel of the movie, the man-in-the-foxhole vibe is pretty intense. As much as I hated the movie, I can understand why some other people (especially pro-war gun nuts) would like it. And the movie knows it's audience -- it's all pro-military, pro-America, pro-killing the "others," just like any proper movie aimed at Rupublican NRA fetishists would be.

For me, though, a movie with no thought to it, a movie with nothing to say beyond semper fi, a movie that is only there to blow things up...well, that's a movie I can't recommend.

**** AVOID ****

LITTLE RED RIDING HOOD (2011) (a review)

This is the gothic romance retelling of the classic fairy tale, directed by Katherine Hardwick, the director of TWILIGHT. The idea came from Leonardo DiCaprio (from TITANIC) and is produced by his company, Apian Way. The movie stars Amanda Seyfried, Gary Oldman, Virginia Madsen, Lukas Haas, Max Irons and Julie Christie.

The story: a young girl (Seyfried, because apparently people think she still looks 15) is in love with the boy next door, but she is to be married off to another guy who is rich, and while he's also nice and handsome she just doesn't love him. However, their village is under attack by a werewolf. Now a priest comes to hunt the werewolf who he says is someone who lives in the village (the people call it a werewolf but apparently didn't know werewolves were human most of the time). While the priest hunts the werewolf, the girl struggles to decide which boy she loves as she suspects each might be the wolf.

Was it good?

No.

It's bad. Very bad. Just a mess. I thought it was supposed to be a gothic romance, but there isn't really any story to the romance. She is supposed to marry one guy, but she's in love with someone else and decides to go with him...and that's the middle of the film. For the rest of the movie there's no tension at all. I suppose there's supposed to be some as she suspects that the guy might be the wolf, but it is all handled so poorly that it's hard to care. Not to mention they bounce you from suspect to suspect -- even her mom is a suspect at one point. In fact, the movie is so dominated by the question of who is the wolf that it feels more like a lame mystery than a lame romance.

It's a shame because I love the idea of using Little Red Riding Hood to tell a gothic romance, especially considering girls current obsession with bad boys (and what is the wolf other than ultimate dangerous, feral man?). However, this movie just failed to dig into any of that.

It wasn't romantic. It wasn't scary. The only thing it was is boring.

*** AVOID ***

***

On a message board someone asked:

"What does this (the failur eof the movie) tell us about the next dozen similar projects on the way?Should they pull the plug now?"

My answer:

I'm not sure what you mean by "similar projects."

I wouldn't pull the plug on anything because this. It was just a bad movie. There are few lessons I would take from it.

1) KNOW WHAT THE HELL YOU ARE DOING -- GENRE

I'm actually not sure what they were trying to do in this movie. I thought the idea was to do LRRH as a dark/gothic romance. I love the idea. But this isn't a gothic romance. This isn't a gothic anything, and it's not really a romance anything. Really what it is is a mystery, but the solution to the mystery ***SPOILERS*** is actually her father wanting her to leave with him. That's about as non-romance as you can get. In fact, this movie really is closer to THE WOLFMAN remake than it is to a romance story. Look at TWILIGHT -- you might love it or hate it, but it clearly is a romance story that has attracted millions of fans. IF YOU WANT TO MAKE A ROMANCE, THEN MAKE A ROMANCE.

2) KNOW WHAT THE HELL YOU ARE DOING -- CENTRAL QUESTION

I think almost every story has two central questions, usually an internal and external. One thing you should do is when you think about the movie, the genre, the audience ask yourself is your central questions are compelling AND are the answers compelling. Here the external question seemed to be WHO IS THE WOLF? Now if this is a fairy tale version of SCREAM it would make sense. But part of what made SCREAM work is the way they took a universal girl emotion -- Do I trust my boyfriend enough to give it up to him -- and externalized it to Do you think your boyfriend is a serial killer. There was a wonderful parallel there that the movie exploited beautifully (and which the sequels lacked which is part of why they sucked.)

So what's the parallel for the question of Who is the wolf? I don't know. I guess maybe they were trying to have it parallel her choice of men, but that really never worked. She makes her choice fairly early. You would think they use the idea of does she want a nice guy or a bad boy in some way, but that's not really there either. It's almost like they had her choosing between two guys because it worked in TITANIC, except TITANIC worked because it is basically ROMEO AND JULIET on a boat -- a girl set up to marry a man she doesn't love when she meets another guy and tries to run away with him, but fate itself then begins to seperate them and threaten their lives. LRRH doesn't have anything like that. Not at all.

And what is the answer to that question of Who is the wolf? ***SPOILER*** Well, it's her dad. How the fuck does that make sense? If you are making a romance the answer to the central question is her dad??? WTF?!?!?!?

Again, nothing works.

And that isn't even hitting at what the interior question is, because honestly I'm not sure there is one. At one point there is the struggle between which guy she will be with, bu that is decided so early and so easily that it's hardly a question at all.

3) KNOW WHAT THE HELL YOU ARE DOING -- TROPES

Movies like this that are playing around with pre-existing material, obviously part of the fun is what you do with the familiar to make it fresh and interesting. Here what tropes do they play with? Well, none. They have a nice beat with the "My what big eyes you have..." lines but that's about it. They don't really use anything from the fairy tale -- they don't exploit the concept at all. Compare that to SNOW WHITE AND THE HUNTSMAN -- everything is there, the dwarves, the wicked queen, the prince, the apple, the mining, the magic mirror...often picked up and twisted around in ways that while not being subversive, are at least different and fresh. Here they don't use the story. That means for the people that are intrigued by the idea of a retelling of LRRH they aren't delivering what the audience wants. While I didn't love SW&tH for various reasons, it delivered tons of good stuff for people who want to see the big movie version of their classic fairy tale.

4) KNOW WHAT THE HELL YOU ARE DOING -- THEME

I think we all know that in a lot of ways theme is the appendix of the screen writing world -- basically considered useless until something starts to go horribly wrong. However, theme can have a powerful impact if it's not done in too didactic of a manner. SW&tH used theme in a smart way -- instead of the girl being helpless and having to be saved, he made it about teaching the girl to save herself (a reflection of what fairy tales were meant to do originally). It's a wonderful theme (not especially well executed) that cuts to the core of the story. In LRRH what is the theme? Um...try not to be a wolf? I don't know. Again, a lack of anything -- a clear romance story, a strong central question, a strong internal question, an exploration of the tropes of the original story...make this a mess completely lacking any sort of unity which makes an effective and powerful theme impossible.

There are lots of ways to have made this an effective movie. Like I've said, I love the concept of retelling LRRH as a gothic romance. So why not start by asking what romance you want to play around with? The fact that the movie doesn't have a compelling romance at the center that draws on the tropes and themes of the original story is a strong signal that these people wandered off the path and into the dark woods of bad metaphores where anyone can get lost and holy crap where the am I and how did I get here where it's so dark and there are so many trees? I'm so scared...

There's no reason to think this style of movie can't work -- whether it's reinventing fairy tales or a dark romance. But it's a good example that if you are going to make a movie you need to make clear what kind of movie you want to make and make sure all the element are being exploited and unified.

CHOOSE (2009) (a review)

CHOOSE (2009) (a review)

A horror movie about starring Kevin Pollack (Money Drop, USUAL SUSPECTS) and Katheryn Winnick (that episode of HOUSE MD where he talks to the girl who was raped)

The story: a serial killer is running around forcing people to choose between two horrible decisions (like losing their face or their looks, killing their mom or their dad, etc). A journalism student and her police office father race to catch the killer.

Was it good?

No. But it wasn't bad. It was just so by-the-numbers. From the concept, which felt like SEVEN-lite, to the murders (which were kinda gross but not really twisted enough like in 7), to the characters, to the dialog, to the reveals at the end (oh my -- a personal connection -- I never would have expected that!) There isn't one single beat in the movie that feels new or original or interesting. You watch it and ask "What did the writer find fascinating? What was it that drew him to want to write this?" And honestly I have no idea. It's like a movie dreamed up by a producer slapping together elements form other hit movies he didn't personally like but that were successful so what the hell.

Also there are two completely useless scenes in the movie. One has the lead actress take a shower for no reason and the second has her taking a bath for no reason. Now, I'm not one to wet blanket some old fashioned gratuitous fun, but there isn't even any gratuity in the scenes, so why have the scenes there are all? I'm not sure I've ever heard of gratuitous non-nudity before but this film has it. If you aren't going to make the scenes useful (i.e. help the story) and if you aren't going to make the fun (whoo-hoo nakedness!) then just cut them entirely. It's called editing. When you use it, it can actually help your film.

And what was Kevin Pollack doing in this? Maybe it was before he got the gig for MONEY DROP, or he owed someone a favor? It's hard to imagine the guy in USUAL SUSPECTS making this because he loved the script.

Now, that's the bad, but there is good here. Namely, the actress Katheryn Winnick. How crap is she hot. I mean, just beautiful. I'd watch her in anything. In fact, I checked IMDB and she's been in a bunch so by next week this blog might be full of her movies. Unfortunately, the story an dialog don't let her do anything that really would qualify as "good acting" but there is something about that girl that is interesting on screen. I'd be nice to see her in a better role.

Also, while the story is very by-the-numbers, for the first half it's also doing the job and pretty entertaining. You have a killer running around and people trying to stop him. If it can work for every procedural on tv it can work here too.

It's in the second half, where they start to figure out who the killer is why he is doing it and the personal connection, etc, that the movie starts to feel move like a spoof and less like a thriller. I've never understood why people who make crime movies also want this personal connection. SEVEN didn't have one. SILENCE OF THE LAMBS didn't have one. It's like they need to have every single aspect of the movie tie together, but what they forget is that it just becomes too much.

Now this could have been saved if they started the movie more from the killer's point of view, so that you plant the idea that he was building this giant trap for the protags. Of course, this would lessen (negate) some of the mystery of who he is, but it would also make the ending not be cheesey and suck.

It's not all bad, but you can do better. Personally, I'd just watch eps of CRIMINAL MINDS or even NUMBERS again over this.

*** AVOID ***

FLU BIRDS (a review)

A made for SyFy Channel movie...which is the same as all the other made for s-f movies. Stars Sarah Butler (of the I SPIT ON YOUR GRAVE remake, also reviewed on this blog).

The story: a group of kids are out in the woods when they are attacked by giant mutant birds. The kids flee to a local town/military base and the birds follow killing and infecting the town.

Was it good?

Not really. But like most of the made-for-SyFy movies it is oddly watchable. It reminds me of the old Creature Feature saturday afternoon horror movies I used to watch. They were these cheesy B&W things, but were still more interesting than most of the generically good stuff on the other channels.

The giant mutant birds are fun, and there's a nice twist in that the kids are at a truancy camp and when the birds kill their chaperone and they run off into the woods they become horribly lost, which adds a nice element. However, the rest is lame. From the dialog to the acting to the nonesense plot...it's a mess best for MST3King than for actual viewing pleasure.

It's one of the things I've never understood. The cheapest thing in the world is to get a writer to punch up the dialog a little. Grab some guy who made the Q's of some comp like Nichols and pay him a grand or two to do a dialog polish. They don't need to spend more production money, but a little more on the script would go a long, long way.

Oh well. While this wasn't horribly painful (if you are fond of Saturday afternoon monster movies) it's also not good enough for me to recommend.

**** AVOID ***

THE TOWN (a review)

THE TOWN (a review)

The crime movie directed and co-starring and co-written by BEN AFFLECK. Also stars: Jon Hamm, Jeremy Renner, Blake Lively, Pete Postlethwaite and Chris Cooper

The story: Four lifelong friend from a bad neighborhood of Boston, MA, rob a bank and terrorize the female manager. One of the group meets her later and begins to fall in love with her. Meanwhile, the cops are after the friends and while the robber-in-love wants to quit the others want to pull off one last big score -- to rob Fenway Park.

Was it good?

Yes. Although with all the buzz about it being an Oscar winner I thought it was going to be something different and really there's nothing here we haven't seen before. The friends who won't turn on each other. The guy who falls for the girl he wronged and will she betray him when she finds out or will she stand by him. It's basically an American crime version of MANON OF THE SPRING. It's good, but I wish they had taken a few unusual or unexpected turns. It's very by-the-numbers. As such, while I liked this it wasn't nearly as powerful as JEAN DE FLORETTE/MANON OF THE SPRING.

*** RECOMMEND ***

But also recommend JEAN DE FLORETTE and MANON OF THE SPRING

THE AMERICAN (a review)

This is the pseudo-action/thriller movie starring GEORGE CLOONEY with a funny haircut and an insanely hot Italian girl.

The story: Clooney is a hit man who hooks up with a super hot Italian girl and then decides he doesn't want to be a hitman, but someone else is after him so he has to kill them and then everything is okay.

Was it good?

No. But it wasn't bad...it was worse. It was BORING. I mean, I wrote a story in high school about an assassin who wants to quit and has anot't her assassin trying to kill him and I was 16. This version threw in more sex, but really the rest was actually dumber than what I had. At least I put something about the power future corporations would have as they grew bigger than most nations. This movie had nothing. Lots of quiet shots. Lots of thinking about something I don't know. I mean, this guy doesn't have that bad of a life. Sure he might not want to kill anymore but he doesn't really seem haunted by it and on the flip side he has money and no problem meeting really hot women to have sex with. He isn't really fighting for anything (certainly not to make up for the people he has killed in the past), so why do I care?

And the answer: I didn't.

Most boring movie I've seen in months.

*** AVOID ***