36 posts tagged “three thumbs”
I haven't seen this film in a few years - probably since it came out in fact - and I was surprised at how different the film was from what I remembered it. The film is about a woman who is a combination of human and alien dna who goes around wanting to have sex in order to reproduce. Only, that isn't really what it is.
In the beginning, she isn't a woman at all but a young girl. I had totally forgotten that. There's probably a good 20 minutes at the beginning of the film where she is a girl and then she turns into a full grown woman. Sil, as the woman is known, is also a lot more cunning than I remembered.
I'm sure part of my distorted memory is because of Natasha Henstridge and her boobs. Her turning into a monster is pretty much all I really remembered. Henstridge is pretty good and does a pretty good job of playing Sil as she learns and begins to come to grips with what she is.
A lot of the film is spent on the people who are chasing her who I had almost totally forgotten about. One element in particular is kind of odd. ForestWhitaker plays a guy who is said to be an empath but basically is psychic and can tell things about people and can lead them to Sil. Why they included this paranormal aspect I'm not entirely sure. It is an extra element that isn't really all that needed.
Species is pretty good but it is really crying out for a remake rather than the endless direct to video sequels it is getting. There is a lot of potential here but the pace is just kind of off and the specifics of the plot aren't quite what it seems like they should be. In some ways if plays out like a detective story with the team trying to find Sil and prevent her from mating. The film needs more action and it really needs better computer generated effects. There aren't many scenes with cgi in them but the ones that do have it stick out like a sore thumb.
three thumbs up
I would mate with her
as long as I lived through it
and no space babies
In the beginning, she isn't a woman at all but a young girl. I had totally forgotten that. There's probably a good 20 minutes at the beginning of the film where she is a girl and then she turns into a full grown woman. Sil, as the woman is known, is also a lot more cunning than I remembered.
I'm sure part of my distorted memory is because of Natasha Henstridge and her boobs. Her turning into a monster is pretty much all I really remembered. Henstridge is pretty good and does a pretty good job of playing Sil as she learns and begins to come to grips with what she is.
A lot of the film is spent on the people who are chasing her who I had almost totally forgotten about. One element in particular is kind of odd. ForestWhitaker plays a guy who is said to be an empath but basically is psychic and can tell things about people and can lead them to Sil. Why they included this paranormal aspect I'm not entirely sure. It is an extra element that isn't really all that needed.
Species is pretty good but it is really crying out for a remake rather than the endless direct to video sequels it is getting. There is a lot of potential here but the pace is just kind of off and the specifics of the plot aren't quite what it seems like they should be. In some ways if plays out like a detective story with the team trying to find Sil and prevent her from mating. The film needs more action and it really needs better computer generated effects. There aren't many scenes with cgi in them but the ones that do have it stick out like a sore thumb.
three thumbs up
I would mate with her
as long as I lived through it
and no space babies
Another superhero movie. This one wasn't based on a comic book though. I was interested in the concept but unfortunately it delves into conventionality at the end.
Basically, Will Smith is Superman who drinks and has a bad attitude. He is drunk all the time. He curses. He tries to stop crimes but usually ends up causing more damage than he prevents.
All that is good. That bit is entertaining. Then Smith's character meets Jason Bateman's character who tries to straighten him out and make him respectable and it goes lame. Then someone else with powers shows up and it gets really lame and conventional. Had the film ended with Hancock rejecting respectability and basically saying, "I'm all powerful. If I wanna be drunk all the time I'm going to" it would have been much more interesting.
There are some interesting part, however. His backstory isn't entirely filled out. We are given hints as to why he exists but it isn't spelled out for us which is kind of a good departure from most superhero origin films. There also isn't really a strong central villain either. There is a bad guy but he is more a mechanism for moving the plot forward rather than the whole point of the story as in nearly every other superhero film. This is also kind of nice to see. It is good to see a superhero story which isn't all about triumphing over evil.
three thumbs up
it's hard to hate him
should have gotten a real ass.
Busey is Hancock
Basically, Will Smith is Superman who drinks and has a bad attitude. He is drunk all the time. He curses. He tries to stop crimes but usually ends up causing more damage than he prevents.
All that is good. That bit is entertaining. Then Smith's character meets Jason Bateman's character who tries to straighten him out and make him respectable and it goes lame. Then someone else with powers shows up and it gets really lame and conventional. Had the film ended with Hancock rejecting respectability and basically saying, "I'm all powerful. If I wanna be drunk all the time I'm going to" it would have been much more interesting.
There are some interesting part, however. His backstory isn't entirely filled out. We are given hints as to why he exists but it isn't spelled out for us which is kind of a good departure from most superhero origin films. There also isn't really a strong central villain either. There is a bad guy but he is more a mechanism for moving the plot forward rather than the whole point of the story as in nearly every other superhero film. This is also kind of nice to see. It is good to see a superhero story which isn't all about triumphing over evil.
three thumbs up
it's hard to hate him
should have gotten a real ass.
Busey is Hancock
Some folks are saying this was too long. I didn't feel that way seeing it. There were some parts that seemed unneeded or that could have been handled in more concise ways but I didn't want it to be over or anything.
One of the things that I've hated about a lot of other superhero films and the pre-Bale Batman films was the multiple villains. Starting with Batman Returns it seemed like every superhero movie had to have multiple villains in it. Even Spider-Man 3 had Venom and Sandman for no real reason. While having Ra's al Ghul and the Scarecrow in Batman Begins worked fairly well I was worried when I saw pictures of Two-Face. I didn't think having the Joker and Two-Face in the same film was needed. I was really surprised when not only they but the Scarecrow appears and the film actually works. I liked it better than Batman Begins.
The reason why it works is that a) the Scarcrow is barely in it and b) the Joker is tied directly into Two-Face. The two of them just don't happen to show up. There is a reason why both Two-Face and the Joker are in this. In fact, there's a pretty good reason why all this stuff had to be in it. Now, as I said, some of it could have been done differently and more quickly, but it all had its reason to be there.
The storyline is the best part of the film. The direction, on the other hand, isn't all that great. I've seen Memento and Batman Begins and I've never been impressed with his actual direction. He is a good writer. he might get good performances from the actors. When it comes to cinematography and camera shots, however, he is wholly uninteresting. He has no visual flair. If a director with some real style and energy had been behind the camera this really would have been over the top. As it is the film is just better than average. The death of Heath Ledger casts a shadow over the film and he might be award worthy. It isn't worthy of any non-technical awards though.
three thumbs up
Better than Begins
It ain't no Iron Man, though
Nor is it The Hulk.
One of the things that I've hated about a lot of other superhero films and the pre-Bale Batman films was the multiple villains. Starting with Batman Returns it seemed like every superhero movie had to have multiple villains in it. Even Spider-Man 3 had Venom and Sandman for no real reason. While having Ra's al Ghul and the Scarecrow in Batman Begins worked fairly well I was worried when I saw pictures of Two-Face. I didn't think having the Joker and Two-Face in the same film was needed. I was really surprised when not only they but the Scarecrow appears and the film actually works. I liked it better than Batman Begins.
The reason why it works is that a) the Scarcrow is barely in it and b) the Joker is tied directly into Two-Face. The two of them just don't happen to show up. There is a reason why both Two-Face and the Joker are in this. In fact, there's a pretty good reason why all this stuff had to be in it. Now, as I said, some of it could have been done differently and more quickly, but it all had its reason to be there.
The storyline is the best part of the film. The direction, on the other hand, isn't all that great. I've seen Memento and Batman Begins and I've never been impressed with his actual direction. He is a good writer. he might get good performances from the actors. When it comes to cinematography and camera shots, however, he is wholly uninteresting. He has no visual flair. If a director with some real style and energy had been behind the camera this really would have been over the top. As it is the film is just better than average. The death of Heath Ledger casts a shadow over the film and he might be award worthy. It isn't worthy of any non-technical awards though.
three thumbs up
Better than Begins
It ain't no Iron Man, though
Nor is it The Hulk.
This movie is hard for me to judge fairly because I've read the original comic book and the film is very different than the source material. The comic book is based on the premise: "What if the supervillains won and ruled the world?" In this world it turns out that all the supervillains teamed up and killed the heroes. Then, to make sure that no one would ever try to take them down, they made everyone in the world forget that superheroes ever existed and the control the world in secret as a kind of super-mafia.
In the movie the villains have been replaced with a league of assassins who have almost superhuman abilities. They have been around for a thousand years and kill people in order to guide the fate of the world.
Both films feature a man who is in a dead end job and one day finds out that his absentee father was the best killer in the world and has just been killed. He is then indoctrinated into the world behind the world.
Both the film and the comic feature some over the top murders and action scenes. However, they work better in the comic book because while the police don't know about the supervillains, the know enough to not ask questions and the villains can kill with impunity. In the film, however, they are secretive and the police are theoretically after them but they act as if they are above the law and there's never anything more than a newspaper headline to indicate that their over the top highly public murders have garnered any attention from the police.
There's also the fact that in the comic book the lead characters were drawn to look like Eminem and Halle Berry. In the film they are played by James McAvoy and Angelina Jolie. As good a job as Jolie does, I can't help but be distracted by the difference and disappointed that they had to get a white woman to play a role created for a black woman. McAvoy also kind of irritated me but I'm not sure why. It wasn't a big deal in his situation but it did come up from time to time.
As a stand alone film, I guess it was good. However, it could have been much more. It starts off very Fight Club-esque and it seems as if there will be some attempt to make a comment on the inanity of corporate life and the "waning of affect" that Frederic Jameson says is occurring. There is even a mention of an Ikea table -- which oddly isn't a table at all but rather a cheesy laminate counter top island.
After that interesting beginning, however, it quickly turns into Jumper. Full of special effects -- which to be fair were a million times better and more exciting than Jumper -- but basically being yet another story about daddy issues and fulfilling a destiny. Substitute Jamie Bell's mentor/teacher role in Jumper with Jolie in this and Samuel L. Jackson's older wiser potential mastermind who is one step ahead with Morgan Freeman's character and you've basically got the same film.
It is that notion that the main character is "fulfilling his destiny" that is perhaps most tiresome in this day. I wonder why it is that in a country where we worship the rugged individualist who can pull himself up by the bootstraps we have so many stories about the man who is born to a destiny and heir to become powerful because of his parents. Of course, to be fair the original story was written by a Scott and not an American so to ask why he wouldn't subscribe to American mythologies isn't fair.
The end is fairly close to the comic book and has an entertaining gun fight and is also surprisingly final. Had they tacked on a fairy tale ending it would have been much worse.
three thumbs up
the ending saves it
and Jolie is pretty good
different from the source
In the movie the villains have been replaced with a league of assassins who have almost superhuman abilities. They have been around for a thousand years and kill people in order to guide the fate of the world.
Both films feature a man who is in a dead end job and one day finds out that his absentee father was the best killer in the world and has just been killed. He is then indoctrinated into the world behind the world.
Both the film and the comic feature some over the top murders and action scenes. However, they work better in the comic book because while the police don't know about the supervillains, the know enough to not ask questions and the villains can kill with impunity. In the film, however, they are secretive and the police are theoretically after them but they act as if they are above the law and there's never anything more than a newspaper headline to indicate that their over the top highly public murders have garnered any attention from the police.
There's also the fact that in the comic book the lead characters were drawn to look like Eminem and Halle Berry. In the film they are played by James McAvoy and Angelina Jolie. As good a job as Jolie does, I can't help but be distracted by the difference and disappointed that they had to get a white woman to play a role created for a black woman. McAvoy also kind of irritated me but I'm not sure why. It wasn't a big deal in his situation but it did come up from time to time.
As a stand alone film, I guess it was good. However, it could have been much more. It starts off very Fight Club-esque and it seems as if there will be some attempt to make a comment on the inanity of corporate life and the "waning of affect" that Frederic Jameson says is occurring. There is even a mention of an Ikea table -- which oddly isn't a table at all but rather a cheesy laminate counter top island.
After that interesting beginning, however, it quickly turns into Jumper. Full of special effects -- which to be fair were a million times better and more exciting than Jumper -- but basically being yet another story about daddy issues and fulfilling a destiny. Substitute Jamie Bell's mentor/teacher role in Jumper with Jolie in this and Samuel L. Jackson's older wiser potential mastermind who is one step ahead with Morgan Freeman's character and you've basically got the same film.
It is that notion that the main character is "fulfilling his destiny" that is perhaps most tiresome in this day. I wonder why it is that in a country where we worship the rugged individualist who can pull himself up by the bootstraps we have so many stories about the man who is born to a destiny and heir to become powerful because of his parents. Of course, to be fair the original story was written by a Scott and not an American so to ask why he wouldn't subscribe to American mythologies isn't fair.
The end is fairly close to the comic book and has an entertaining gun fight and is also surprisingly final. Had they tacked on a fairy tale ending it would have been much worse.
three thumbs up
the ending saves it
and Jolie is pretty good
different from the source
I'm not entirely sure that this counts as a movie since it originally aired on television in the UK. However, it is pretty interesting so i'm going to review it anyway.
In some ways this 1968 television movie made by the BBC is both a precursor to reality television, especially Survivor, but also thematically similar to Mike Judge's film Idiocracy.
It starts off by telling us that the film takes place, "sooner than you think..." in a world where people don't do anything but watch television all day long. In fact, it has gone so far that rather than actually have sex themselves, all they do is watch people on television have sex as part of a competition. The main characters are the behind the scene people who produce the shows and judge the sex competitions in preparation for the upcoming sex olympics.
Because it was made for television we don't see any of the sex though. In reality, the movie isn't really about the sex but rather the fact that people have been dulled into passivity by watching television all day. The world is so passive that one character says, "Sex is not to do. Sex is to watch." and the characters regularly take drugs that are in tubes with baby bottle pacifiers on them. In the attempt to keep the people dull and entertained they eventually send some people out to live on an island by themselves where they have to try to survive without any television, electricity, or packaged food. As the participants encounter tragedy the television executives are more and more excited.
"The Year of the Sex Olympics" is really interesting because in trying to make a statement about the impact of television it very clearly predicts reality television. Now I'm a fan of most reality shows (although I really despise the current talent contests like American Idol and I've tired of Survivor) so I don't really buy into the message. It is also rather unevenly paced. Before they got to the Survivor part I felt it was getting pretty tedious. Then the survivor part moves kind of quick with a few things using a bit more explanation. Then it ends without a traditional Hollywood style comeuppance for society. In some ways I like the ending but in others it was a bit too sudden and lacked the real punch that I would have liked.
three thumbs up
reality shows
get a bad rap by some folks
I like them myself
In some ways this 1968 television movie made by the BBC is both a precursor to reality television, especially Survivor, but also thematically similar to Mike Judge's film Idiocracy.
It starts off by telling us that the film takes place, "sooner than you think..." in a world where people don't do anything but watch television all day long. In fact, it has gone so far that rather than actually have sex themselves, all they do is watch people on television have sex as part of a competition. The main characters are the behind the scene people who produce the shows and judge the sex competitions in preparation for the upcoming sex olympics.
Because it was made for television we don't see any of the sex though. In reality, the movie isn't really about the sex but rather the fact that people have been dulled into passivity by watching television all day. The world is so passive that one character says, "Sex is not to do. Sex is to watch." and the characters regularly take drugs that are in tubes with baby bottle pacifiers on them. In the attempt to keep the people dull and entertained they eventually send some people out to live on an island by themselves where they have to try to survive without any television, electricity, or packaged food. As the participants encounter tragedy the television executives are more and more excited.
"The Year of the Sex Olympics" is really interesting because in trying to make a statement about the impact of television it very clearly predicts reality television. Now I'm a fan of most reality shows (although I really despise the current talent contests like American Idol and I've tired of Survivor) so I don't really buy into the message. It is also rather unevenly paced. Before they got to the Survivor part I felt it was getting pretty tedious. Then the survivor part moves kind of quick with a few things using a bit more explanation. Then it ends without a traditional Hollywood style comeuppance for society. In some ways I like the ending but in others it was a bit too sudden and lacked the real punch that I would have liked.
three thumbs up
reality shows
get a bad rap by some folks
I like them myself
Sadly, the title is by far the best thing about this movie. It was made by Full Moon which should tell you all you need to know. It seems that most Full Moon titles are better than most Full Moon films.
As if you really need to know the plot it is about a killer played by Gary Busey -- which should tell you something about how his career is going... -- who is killed and cremated. Somehow his ashes get in some dough and when a girl who was shot by and whose brother was killed by Busey's character makes a gingerbread man with the dough the killer comes back to life as a killer gingerbread man.
After that it is just boring and not even interesting or funny. They get killed off one by one and they kill the gingerbread man but there's a teaser at the end for the sequel.
three thumbs down
As fast as you can
Run from the Gingerdead Man
I am not a fan.
As if you really need to know the plot it is about a killer played by Gary Busey -- which should tell you something about how his career is going... -- who is killed and cremated. Somehow his ashes get in some dough and when a girl who was shot by and whose brother was killed by Busey's character makes a gingerbread man with the dough the killer comes back to life as a killer gingerbread man.
After that it is just boring and not even interesting or funny. They get killed off one by one and they kill the gingerbread man but there's a teaser at the end for the sequel.
three thumbs down
As fast as you can
Run from the Gingerdead Man
I am not a fan.
I great up with Raider of the Lost Ark. I was less impressed with Temple of Doom and equally unimpressed with Last Crusade. That isn't to say that I think they are bad films or anything. They just don't measure up to Raiders.
So how does Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull measure up for me? About the same as the other sequels. The storyline is pretty good. I'm a fan of Chariots of the Gods style theories and Coast to Coast AM. I don't believe in them but I sure want to. In some ways it would be a lot more interesting if that stuff were true. So I liked the storyline. I also didn't hate Shia LeBeouf. As in Transformers he was adequate. I didn't like his name "Mutt" though. There's a hint at the end that Shia's character could take over for Indy and Mutt Jones just doesn't sound good.
There are some details of the script I find would have been a bit better off left on the floor. I like it when the mystical stuff is less central to the story and there are other things more central to it like beating the Nazis or saving dad. In this one there is the goal of saving the college but it takes a back seat. There's one scene where Indy gets sort of hypnotized by they crystal skull where I was hoping that at the end he would laugh and say something about it all being some dumb superstition or something.
That is a pretty minor problem in comparison to the real problem of the special effects. Some people are trashing the CGI and while it isn't perfect I didn't find it nearly as bad as the practical effects. There is a scene that recreates the black and white footage of a town getting blown away by a nuclear bomb test that is obviously a model and there is another shot that is an overview of a cemetery that is also very obviously a model. You would think that after all these years and after the Lord of the Rings they would know how to make models that didn't look like models.
The worst offender by far, however, is the skull itself. When not glowing it looks like ass. It looks like they made it by taking one of those bluish plastic 5 gallon water cooler water jugs, cutting it into a skull shape and stuffing it full of crumpled up plastic cling wrap and crumpled aluminum foil. There's a scene with Indy holding it and talking about how perfect it is that is just laughable because the skull looks so plastic and full of crumpled up foil and plastic. You would think that with all the scenes the thing has they would make it look better. Moreover, you would also think that they would make it look like the beings that it is supposed to represent. It is supposed to look like the skull of one of the aliens people call the Grays. but instead of the skull stretching up it stretches back so that it looks almost exactly like a skull of one of the Aliens from the Alien films. The whole time I kept thinking about what an Alien vs. Indiana Jones film would be like.
three thumbs up
Indy is so old
Aliens would kill him quick
and little Mutt too.
So how does Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull measure up for me? About the same as the other sequels. The storyline is pretty good. I'm a fan of Chariots of the Gods style theories and Coast to Coast AM. I don't believe in them but I sure want to. In some ways it would be a lot more interesting if that stuff were true. So I liked the storyline. I also didn't hate Shia LeBeouf. As in Transformers he was adequate. I didn't like his name "Mutt" though. There's a hint at the end that Shia's character could take over for Indy and Mutt Jones just doesn't sound good.
There are some details of the script I find would have been a bit better off left on the floor. I like it when the mystical stuff is less central to the story and there are other things more central to it like beating the Nazis or saving dad. In this one there is the goal of saving the college but it takes a back seat. There's one scene where Indy gets sort of hypnotized by they crystal skull where I was hoping that at the end he would laugh and say something about it all being some dumb superstition or something.
That is a pretty minor problem in comparison to the real problem of the special effects. Some people are trashing the CGI and while it isn't perfect I didn't find it nearly as bad as the practical effects. There is a scene that recreates the black and white footage of a town getting blown away by a nuclear bomb test that is obviously a model and there is another shot that is an overview of a cemetery that is also very obviously a model. You would think that after all these years and after the Lord of the Rings they would know how to make models that didn't look like models.
The worst offender by far, however, is the skull itself. When not glowing it looks like ass. It looks like they made it by taking one of those bluish plastic 5 gallon water cooler water jugs, cutting it into a skull shape and stuffing it full of crumpled up plastic cling wrap and crumpled aluminum foil. There's a scene with Indy holding it and talking about how perfect it is that is just laughable because the skull looks so plastic and full of crumpled up foil and plastic. You would think that with all the scenes the thing has they would make it look better. Moreover, you would also think that they would make it look like the beings that it is supposed to represent. It is supposed to look like the skull of one of the aliens people call the Grays. but instead of the skull stretching up it stretches back so that it looks almost exactly like a skull of one of the Aliens from the Alien films. The whole time I kept thinking about what an Alien vs. Indiana Jones film would be like.
three thumbs up
Indy is so old
Aliens would kill him quick
and little Mutt too.
I've been feeling guilty that I've been reviewing mainstream movies. With this film I get back to my roots: crap.
I'm a wrestling fan. However, I'm not a fan of the WWE which means I pretty much never see wrestling any more since WWE bought and ruined WCW and ECW. I don't think there has ever been a good wrestling movie. Grunt comes closest.
Grunt is a pseudo-documentary about a wrestler by the name of Mad Dog who has gone missing. You see, it turns out that several years ago Mad Dog was in a wrestling match and when his opponent's head got caught in the ropes of the ring, Mad Dog kept hitting him which resulted in the opponent being decapitated. Disgraced, Mad Dog left the business, and is rumored to have killed himself by jumping off a bridge. Now a new wrestler, The Mask, has taken the wrestling world by storm with moves and a physique that look wearily similar to Mad Dog. The documentarian within the film sets out to find out if it really is Mad Dog underneath the mask.
I think that one of the reasons why there has never been a good wrestling film is that they inevitably act as if wrestling were a true athletic competition rather than a scripted form of entertainment. It is this inability to take wrestling for what it is that makes it difficult to enjoy wrestling films. People who don't like wrestling think "Oh it is fake!" and won't watch it and people who like wrestling know that the outcomes of the matches are predetermined so when the film tries to bethe Rocky of wrestling they get turned off because they know that isn't realistic.
Grunt manages to almost pull it off by not taking itself tooesriously. There are some lame jokes but there are also some that are pretty funny. It also works because it deals with fans and people on the outside of the wrestling world who are tring to find out the identity of the man behind The Mask rather than being told from the inside of the business. Because it is over 20 years old and looks old it is easy to tell yourself, "Back then the wrestlers tried to convince people it was true and not all fans knew that it was not a real competition." By looking in from the outside they avoid any of the stuff about whether or not the matches are predetermined and can just focus on the mystery and the wrestling.
And focus on the wrestling it does. If you aren't a true wrestling fan then there's no way you will make it through this. Even I couldn't make it through without fast forwarding. The film is something like 110 minutes and I would guess that at least 40 of that is taken up by wrestling including one 20+ minute match at the end. One could argue that the long match at the end was necessary because that is where we learn the truth about Mad Dog and to be honest that was the only match I fast forwarded through. But it was just too long.
At the end you do find out who is under The Mask and what happened to Mad Dog but you don't really learn any of the whys or the hows. The documentarian kind of remarks on that at the end but it still leaves an empty feeling to the film.
three thumbs up
I say remake it
we need a good wrestling film
and this could be it
I'm a wrestling fan. However, I'm not a fan of the WWE which means I pretty much never see wrestling any more since WWE bought and ruined WCW and ECW. I don't think there has ever been a good wrestling movie. Grunt comes closest.
Grunt is a pseudo-documentary about a wrestler by the name of Mad Dog who has gone missing. You see, it turns out that several years ago Mad Dog was in a wrestling match and when his opponent's head got caught in the ropes of the ring, Mad Dog kept hitting him which resulted in the opponent being decapitated. Disgraced, Mad Dog left the business, and is rumored to have killed himself by jumping off a bridge. Now a new wrestler, The Mask, has taken the wrestling world by storm with moves and a physique that look wearily similar to Mad Dog. The documentarian within the film sets out to find out if it really is Mad Dog underneath the mask.
I think that one of the reasons why there has never been a good wrestling film is that they inevitably act as if wrestling were a true athletic competition rather than a scripted form of entertainment. It is this inability to take wrestling for what it is that makes it difficult to enjoy wrestling films. People who don't like wrestling think "Oh it is fake!" and won't watch it and people who like wrestling know that the outcomes of the matches are predetermined so when the film tries to bethe Rocky of wrestling they get turned off because they know that isn't realistic.
Grunt manages to almost pull it off by not taking itself tooesriously. There are some lame jokes but there are also some that are pretty funny. It also works because it deals with fans and people on the outside of the wrestling world who are tring to find out the identity of the man behind The Mask rather than being told from the inside of the business. Because it is over 20 years old and looks old it is easy to tell yourself, "Back then the wrestlers tried to convince people it was true and not all fans knew that it was not a real competition." By looking in from the outside they avoid any of the stuff about whether or not the matches are predetermined and can just focus on the mystery and the wrestling.
And focus on the wrestling it does. If you aren't a true wrestling fan then there's no way you will make it through this. Even I couldn't make it through without fast forwarding. The film is something like 110 minutes and I would guess that at least 40 of that is taken up by wrestling including one 20+ minute match at the end. One could argue that the long match at the end was necessary because that is where we learn the truth about Mad Dog and to be honest that was the only match I fast forwarded through. But it was just too long.
At the end you do find out who is under The Mask and what happened to Mad Dog but you don't really learn any of the whys or the hows. The documentarian kind of remarks on that at the end but it still leaves an empty feeling to the film.
three thumbs up
I say remake it
we need a good wrestling film
and this could be it
I never got into the Speed Racer cartoon. I've seen a few episodes over the years but I never liked it. I hated the animation. I hated the voice acting and I found the stories to be incomprehensible. The movie is much better.
After the second and third Matrix films I'm sure that I wasn't the only one questioning the Wachowski's abilities. Speed Racer is not only certainly a Wachowski film it is also much better than the Matrix sequels.
If you are someone who is prone to seizures, don't see this movie. It is totally unreal looking in the best way possible. At first it actually takes a bit to get used to it because it almost looks like everything is moving at a million miles and hour and covered in neon and leds. Visually the film is just stunning. It is amazing. It is as if an entire film had been made on the set of the interior of the chocolate factory from Burton's Willy Wonka movie.
The plot is pretty good as far as action films go. The acting is pretty good. Christina Ricci is pretty but is so skinny it is scary. Seeing her head on that tiny neck I couldn't help but think that someone was going to pop it off like the head of a dandelion. One of the odd things is that apparently her character, Speed Racer's girlfriend, lives with him and his parents. A live in girlfriend? Weird.
She also brings up one of the problems with the film. While she does get in a fight and drive for a while, she and all of the women are basically just visual ornamentation. There are attractive women everywhere in this film but all they do is stand there and look pretty with only a couple exceptions. Ricci fights and drives, mom consoles, a driver's sister gives Speed Racer some help but mainly they just stand there and look pretty.
three thumbs up
a visual feast
lots of great special effects
not too feminist...
I'm not a fan of M. Night Shyamalan. I don't hate his films but I'm just not all that fond of them. By the time I got around to seeing the Sixth Sense, I had already heard all about the secret so it wasn't a secret for me. When I watched Unbreakable I thought the twist was so obvious I didn't even know it was supposed to be a twist until I heard people talk about it as such. The final straw was The Village. I figured out the twist in it based on the trailer. I knew that M. Night Shyamalan always appears in his films so I was curious as to how someone of Indian decent could plausibly appear in a period piece set in Colonial America.
Because of that, I swore off of paying for any more M. Night Shyamalan films. I figured I wasn't getting my money's worth if I wasn't surprised. Therefore, I passes on Lady in the Water. I'm glad I decided not to pay for any more of his films.
While watching this I literally said, "Wow" several times. And not some sort of "wow" in a good way. The first "wow" was that one of the characters is an Asian girl who speaks in a stereotypical "Me Love you long time" style accent. Wow. Then Ron Howard's daughter spends half the movie literally sitting around naked in the shower waiting for the man to saver her. And during large chunks of that time she doesn't talk. She literally has no voice. Wow. Then finally, M. Night Shyamalan gives himself a part as an author who is destined to write a book that will change the world. Wow.
That isn't to say that the film is completely without merit. There is this whole part about writing cliches and stock characters which is pretty interesting. But other than that it pretty well sucks. And not in a good way.
three thumbs down
M. Night Shyamalan
Won't be getting my money.
maybe not my time
