Final Thoughts

The Late Review:State of Play

passenger57 — Tue, 28 Apr 2009 04:08:36 +0000

“So what’s the verdict?”

State of Play wasn’t something I was extremely excited about; the trailers were well made but made it seem like another run of the mill political thriller. What I got though was an old school political themed murder-mystery that was highly entertaining.

I think what I liked most about State of Play was it’s story; it was tightly written and well executed. Each scene moves the movie from point a to point b but there’s just enough of each character sprinkled into each scene that as the movie moves along, you get a good feeling of their motivations and personalities. The more you get to know each of the characters, the more you question their roll in the stories and it helps makes the movie much more enjoyable as you try to guess what’s going to happen next. The twists the story takes are well thought out and impressively surprisingly. If you watch enough movies you get good at calling out the twists or surprises at the end but in State of Play, the ending comes from left field and after some thought, it makes sense with the given clues.

The only problem I had with the story was that while it was interesting it also lacked a sense of danger. There were a few moments of tension throughout the film and towards the end but there wasn’t a real sense of danger for Russel Crowe or Rachel McAdams. The only thing that seemed to pressure them was their deadline; I feel like the movie could have added a little more tension with more on the line for the two reporters.

Crowe and McAdams are great in their roles. Crowe is far from his Gladiator form but his physical transformation is almost a physical manifestation of his character’s grizzled attitude. His character though is fairly simple and throughout the movie you’re guessing his true motivations. He carries the movie well through it’s various twists and turns. McAdams holds herself well against Crowe and is far easier to look at. Her character’s softer generally more personal approach to reporting is a great contrast to Crowe’s hard edged cynical fact based approach. She provides a great foil and counterpoint.

Ben Affleck, Helen Mirren and Jason Bateman have smaller parts in the movie and are all equally effective. Mirren is given the least amount of screen but she’s also quite fun as a hardnosed editor. Affleck plays it subtle but it works well with his character and his place in the movie. Bateman is fun and humorous as a sleeze ball; thankfully, his screen time is short enough to enjoy without over staying his welcome. Michael Bereresse plays the physical threat in the movie and while imposing, I feel that he isn’t used as much as he could have been.

The movie is put together well enough and the direction and framing are done well enough to get the point across without being distracting. The editting also follows the rule of being good without being distracting. The movie as a whole is good without being anything new.

It’s a solid movie that can entertain you for it’s run.

The Late Review: Knowing

passenger57 — Thu, 02 Apr 2009 05:24:19 +0000

“I know I’m now Nic Cage but what’d you think?”

Nicholas Cage is King of the Popcorn movie and as such, most of his movies follow the tried true formula of popcorn movies (Nic Cage+Intriguing Job+Woman+Mystery= Awesome). I can’t remember a recent Nic Cage movie that hasn’t followed this formula and walking into knowing I was expecting the Nic Cage formula in all it’s glory.
What I got though was an almost entirely entertaining sci-fi movie that was one step away from being pretty good while still on the Cage Formula.

I guess since I’ve already mentioned Nicholas Cage, his performance from in Knowing isn’t any different from any other Nic Cage classic minus some of the horrendous haircuts. In Knowing he plays an astrophysicist hell bent on figuring out the meaning a paper of seemingly random numbers has to do with his kid. He hits all the right notes acting concerned, brave, curious and caring when needed. There are moments when his talent comes through but for the most part, he doesn’t do anything that adds to the film but more importantly, he doesn’t take away from it either. Knowing suffers from some albaism in it’s casting of Chandler Canterbury as Cage’s son but he’s a proficient child actor. I enjoyed the fact that he wasn’t too cute nor was he too annoying in his portrayal of earnest innocence. Though the movie focuses on Cage, the kid holds his own against the superstar and I feel like almost steals some of the more emotional scenes from him.
Rose Byrne and Lara Robinson are cast female counterparts to the Cage/Chandler experience and both do well considering there feels like there is less for them to do. Rose is given a little more than Robinson to do as her character’s state of mind unravels through the course of the movie. She really manages to nail the look of panic. You’d think it’d be easy to act out something like “panic” or “fear” but believe me, it’s hard. Robinson is serviceable if not a little useless and sometimes just kind of there.

The story itself is actually quite original (well by Nic Cage standards) and for two-thirds is quite gripping. I’m not sure what it is about the last third of the movie that bothers me but the ending falls flat compared with it’s build up. Even though the movie is sci-fi the twist ending somehow left me wanting for more and felt a little left field. Over all though, the story is quite enjoyable and worth the ride. More impressive though is the way the story is told (framing) and the pacing of the movie. I could have seen this movie crushed under it’s CG or useless emotionality but director Alex Proyas does a good job balancing the blockbuster aspects of the time film with it’s quieter moments. The effects in the film are amazing and quite seamless (well natural disaster wise). There is also manages a slick one shot involving a crash plane and people burning that I have no idea how they did it but it’s amazing. It’s pretty easy to say that the production value is high and mixed with Proyas storytelling quite effective.

It’s real easy to see that the real winner and star of this movie was Proyas.

Knowing is not the movie I thought it was going to be. Maybe it’s because I lowered my expectations to Nic Cage standards but I like to think that it’s just a solid example of good movie making.

It’s a solid movie and worth the watch.

The Opinion: The TV Show Formula

passenger57 — Thu, 26 Mar 2009 01:10:47 +0000

“I know, we blew it…”

There’s a formula to television shows.

Sometimes the formula is all about the story; boy meets girls, boy woos girl, boy and girl have kids. Sometimes the formula is all about characters; boy gets super powers, boy deals with super humanity. Sometime the formula is about figuring things out; boy has questions, boy finds answers. And sometimes the formula is a combination of things like setting, characters and story. Whatever the formula for a certain show is, a show’s success is utterly dependent on figuring out it’s own formula and going with what works.
Some shows get this (Chuck, Bones, House) and take their formula and run with it. It’s only been a season and half but Chuck’s gone from Nerd Herder to a government weapon all while dealing what that means to his life. The FBI agents and scientists on Bones playfully banter with one another while solving case after case. And House just solves mysterious while being a dick. 24 is milking season after season with the same premise for years now of one man fighting to keep his country safe. These shows are using their own formulas be it witty banter, endearing characters, asshole characters or balls to the wall action and finding ways to repackage them. Aside from Chuck (too new) you never really get tired of seeing whats’ going on even though you generally know the flow of the story. It’s like watching a sports game, you know the rules, you know the quarters/periods/innings but you just don’t know how it all ends.

Now some show don’t figure out what’s working(Life on Mars, Heroes, Lost) and they suffer for it. Heroes and Lost have been hit hard with bad reviews because of the decisions to stray from the winning formulas of what worked with the first few seasons. Life on Mars suffered cancellation by not being to figure out what was most important to it’s story (it’s own premise) before being canceled. It sucks, I liked the show but that’s the price you pay. While each of those shows has suffered to a degree with viewers you can’t fault them with experimenting. If you don’t know what’s working you have to changes things to figure them out right? While ratings and cancellation are possible, so is a stronger understanding of what’s working. Take Friday Night lights for example, I doubt you’ll ever see that show stray again from it’s roots as a homegrown drama about small town life ever again. The first season of the show was a strong look at life in a small community centered around football. People loved it. The second season lost it’s focused and was almost universally panned for straying from the homegrown world of character is had created in the first season. The second season was highlighted by a murder that not only felt out of place but rather odd considering the previous stories. The third season was a return to form and return to praise for the show.

It’s a little frustrating to me to see networks carting out half baked ideas (Kath and Kim) based on winning formulas rather than going out on a limb and see what’s possible. I mean honestly, how many more police-oriented shows are possible (The Unusuals being next)?

The television formula is a tricky double edged sword. On one hand, you get killed if you’re too original (Pushing Daises) and on the other get killed if you’re almost like something else (Castles). The important part of the television formula though is that success isn’t dependent on one person, on any one premise or any one story. What it is dependent on is sharp writers who know how to work within the confines and when to break them. A lot of what’s missing from good television today is the lack of the sharp minds to write them that way.

First Impressions: Castle

passenger57 — Thu, 19 Mar 2009 19:48:19 +0000

“Not bad?”

Castle isn’t a bad show, certainly much better than what I expected, and while it won’t win any sort of medal for originality it does at least prove to entertaining.

The entertainment value of the show rests squarely on Nathan Fillion and he carries more than his share of the work load here. It would have been easy for his character to come off as self-centered douchebag but Fillion plays him with a good sense of arrogance, intelligence and charm that make the character very enjoyable to watch. It’s his sense of enthusiasm though that really makes the show more bearable than it should be and the show’s strongest quality. Stana Katic is beautiful and another show she may have been perfect but on Castle she seems to get enveloped by Fillion’s charisma and charm. I can see that they were going for the straight laced sharp shooter but she’s dull. I actually enjoy the relationships with Tamala Jones who plays a medical coroner and Jon Huertas and Seamus Dever as detectives. All of them play more straight laced characters but seem to give them more life and personality than anything Stana can deliver. Susan Sullivan and Molly C Quinn play Fillion’s family and they’re quite enjoyable. All the characters on the show are enjoyable except for Stana and it hurts the show most because she’s supposed to carry the weight of the show with Fillion.

The actual premise of the show and the stories are nothing special. The show is built around Fillion and Katic and it’s supposed to be about their sizzle but the murders and crimes they’re solving are so far run of the mill and not together all that exciting. I don’t think I’ve seen a cop show that does more paper work than Castle. The cases and crimes don’t need to be outlandish but they need to be interesting and here Castle fails. That’s a serious no-no for a cop show but the show seems to embrace’s it corniness and basically sweeps the cases under the rug in favor of witty banter and popcorn moments.

Overall Castle isn’t a bad choice but you could certainly do better.

The Late Review: Watchmen

passenger57 — Mon, 09 Mar 2009 18:10:29 +0000

“Well?”

So the Watchmen wasn’t bad but it wasn’t exactly good either; it’s a good attempty at telling an epic story that ends up getting muddled down by it’s own moving parts.

Walking in, I thought the dense story would work against the movie. Oddly, that’s not the case and while the movie is still dense, it’s compressed enough to get the good points across while still being effective. It’s an impressive feat considering all the ground covered in terms of politics, religion and murder. The opening montage is well done and good example of what some good framing and clean editing can do to tell a story.

The rest of the movie though can get a little self indulgent. Some scenes are used well to move the plot forward and expand on ideas while others just feel a little bit tacked on. The core story is solid and it’s pacing is good enough but there’s just too much other stuff going on at points.
If you’re going into the movie expecting balls to the wall action you maybe sadly a little disappointed. Watchmen has some great, violently gory bits but the movie is focused on the characters (which is well done).

The actors and actresses that give the characters all pretty much do a decent job. Everybody’s talking about Jackie Earle Haley as Rorschach and it’s well deserved. The character it well written and Haley plays him with an intelligence that borders insanity. It’s entirely enjoyable to follow him throughout the movie. Billy Crudup was also great considering most of his acting was done motion capture. His voice brought a humanity to the character that could have easily been lost. Matthew Goode and Patrick Wilson are serviceable in their parts but their low key performances get lost in the action and badassery for the other actors. I like Jeffrey Dean Morgan the best though; his character stole the show for me. I think if he were in the movie longer, he would have registered as a stronger presence. There’s a bit of Albaism with the casting of Malin Ackerman and Carla Gugino. Their parts felt a little underwritten and almost after thoughts compared to the other characters. Gugino though brings more to the table. Ackerman is okay but she is definately the weakest of all the actors in the movie.

Visually, the movie is beautiful and quite awesome in it’s use of framing, slo-mo and good old camera movement; everything looks epic. The problem is though that somewhere in translation something gets lost and the feeling of wonderment and awe is lost. Had the makers of the movie found a way to cut things down just a little bit more to make a tighter and less sprawling movie, I think that the Watchmen would have been amazing.

I wanted to love Watchmen but as it stands, I like it but can’t recommend it to the casual viewer. This is a movie for the fanboys, the demographic and the brave. It’s an amazing piece of work that just fails to translate properly with the masses. I personally think that the story would have been better served with twelve one hour hbo style specials but that’s just me.

The Late Review: Eastbound & Down

passenger57 — Wed, 04 Mar 2009 15:52:55 +0000

“We show some promise…maybe?”

Eastbound & Down isn’t perfect but it’s a promising start to what could be wholly entertaining series.

Now I’m not a big fan of Danny Mcbride; I always thought he was kind of a one trick pony after seeing him in Pineapple Express and then in Tropic Thunder. While he was funny in both, the characters he was playing were essentially the same dude and maybe I’m the only one but I thought after a while, the bits with him started to wear thin.
Going into Eastbound & Down, I was expecting more of the same. Now I was right but within the framework of the show it works. His character is a moron but watching his character’s supersized ego deal with the normalcy of a normal life is hilarious. The jokes are fast and the range of humor is pretty good; you’ve got one liners, weird situations, stupidity and r-rated jokes. A lot of the bases are covered in terms of humor. The show is funny and Danny McBride is front and center.
The rest of the cast is fairly good with Jennifer Irwin and Andrew Daly making the most of their limited time. There’s an odd quirkiness to each of the characters but Irwin and Daly manage to give their characters a little more depth than the rest of the cast. I think with some time, the other characters can really shine and it wouldn’t hurt. John Hawkes and Katy Mixon would benefit most from having a little more time and story thrown their way. I understand the show is about McBride’s character but without a stronger characters around him, the show will get old.
The show’s pacing is pretty solid and allows for jokes and story to work hand in hand to move things along. It’s pretty well done and so far, for a thirty minute show, none of the time feel wasted. Everything feels like it’s moving towards a conclusion and I like it.

All in all, the humor of Eastbound & Down isn’t for everyone but it’s worth a shot.

The Hype: The Watchmen Comic Book Teaser

passenger57 — Mon, 23 Feb 2009 04:14:19 +0000

“You know you’re excited…”

So it’s almost the end of the Februrary and the only thing I can think of is that the Watchmen is coming out in a few short weeks and I’m sure you can expect the media blitz for the Watchmen very soon.
What’s got me excited though is the website for the 8bit beat’em up that popped up a few weeks ago and this trailer made from the motion comic book.

Who watches the Watchmen?
I’d sure as hell like too.

The Late Review: The Wrestler

passenger57 — Mon, 16 Feb 2009 04:03:48 +0000

“So we didnt suck…totally..”

I’m not sure what to make of The Wrestler. While I thought it was a good movie, I don’t think I would go out there and recommend as something you need to go see.

There was a lot of hype going into The Wreslter for me. Some of it came from the overly positive reviews I have been reading but most of it came from my love of professional wrestling. I’ve loved it (pro-wrestling) for as long as I can remember and I’ve always thought that the backstage politicking and athleticism involved with the sport would be a perfect backdrop for a movie. The Wrestler was supposed to be the action packed inside look behind the curtain. It wasn’t; what it was a close up look at a down and out guy who just so happened to wrestle for a living.

The problems I have with the movie aren’t with Mickey Rourke. Mickey’s future paychecks have pretty much been padded by his performance in The Wrestler but it’s well earned. Mickey’s face isn’t exactly one that disappears into a movie but there was no Cruise effect; he is his character. His performance carries the movie and any other actor would have given the movie a different feel. So now that I’ve said that Mickey was great, I can safely say, his character is a dick. I couldn’t find anything about him I think I liked. How can you care about his downward spiral when there seems to be no redeeming value to him?
That for me, was a killer and it really hampered my ability to enjoy the movie.

There’s been lots of talk about Marissa Tomei’s nudity in the movie; wow, she’s hot. Like Mickey, I can’t really imagine another actress who would have done well with the role. The nudity is a bonus. Evan Rachel Wood l is also in the movie and her scenes are quite emotional and she does well with the material. She does feel a bit underused though.

The story itself moves at a moderate pace and gives some great insight into the camaraderie of wrestlers and some of things that go into making a wrestling match. The backstage stuff is quite interesting and something I would have love to have seen more of. The matches themselves are done exceptionally well. They’re highly entertaining and the scenes showing the aftermath are especially telling about the business. They’re also shot beautifully and really give a good feel for what it’s like to be in the ring. For a wrestling fan like myself, there are lots of little things that really make it feel like a real match. I would have love to have seen more wrestling in the movie but I can see why they didn’t do it. My problem with the story is that from beginning to end, it seems to hammer the point that the main character is down and out. After a while, it becomes just a little bit repetitive and there doesn’t seem to be enough emotional escalation to the story.
That was the second killer for me, there are no points in the story where I really questioned Mickey’s character’s motivation; I just felt like that from beginning to end, you knew what was going to happen.

Darren Aronofsky is a well made movie but it doesn’t translate into something that entertaining or enjoyable for me. I love professional wrestling and wanted to this movie to be something special but Mickey’s character and the lack of suspense in the story killed it for me.

If you’ve got nothing better to see, The Wrestler is good to see. It’ll give you something to talk about but you might be better off catching one of those crappy b-movies that are out now.

The Late Review: Taken

passenger57 — Fri, 06 Feb 2009 20:46:32 +0000

“Get Taken…”

I would have never pegged Liam Neeson as an action hero but here is in Taken kicking ass and bringing you along for the ride.

So the story is fairly simple and if you’ve seen the trailer, you already know what it is. Now I know everybody is all up in arms for good stories and originalities these days but the simplicity of the story helps to focus the film on Liam Neeson’s character and the movie’s action. Some action movies get lost in their own stories but not Taken.
The storytelling is straight forward and simple. The movie starts slow but in the first few minutes you learn everything you need to know about Liam Neeson’s character; his flaws, his skills, his family and his motivations. Once the movie picks up, it’s pure unadulterated action as the story gets from point A to point B. Some action movies get lost in their action (ahem Mike Bay) but Taken manages to be thrilling without letting things become a spectacle. More importnatly everything builds nicely and the action escalates perfectly; the best action sequences are saved for last.

Part of the thrill of the movie is seeing how effective and how far Liam Neeson’s character is willing to go. He starts the movie as a regular looking man but as it progesses you get to see his character’s true colors and it’s ridiculously bad ass. If you watch 24, the character is comparable to Jack Bauer but Liam Neeson’s line delivery and acting making the character feel much more dangerous. Also Liam Neeson’s voice is a great thing and moves up my list of celebrities who I want to record for my voicemail. Famke Janssen is in this, as well as, Maggie Grace (I think she’s type cast as damsel in distress) but the movie is all about Liam Neeson and he delivers.

Taken is a great movie from beginning to end. The execution, presentation, story and the characaters are all simple. and the movie all the better for it.
Taken is worth the watch.

The Late Review: Lie to me*

passenger57 — Fri, 30 Jan 2009 21:59:38 +0000

“Seriously, lie to me, tell me we’re decent…

I had high hopes for Lie to me but they’ve now been appropriately lowered. Lie to me is not my first choice for evening entertainment.

I think the problem with the show is that it’s really more style over substance. Is it cool to see how fancy facial recognition techniques are used to determine people’s motives? Yes. Is it cool to see pictures of celebrities and their facial ticks being analyzed? Yes. Is it cool to see them solve murders and mysteries with their fancy techniques? Nope; not at all. The premise is thin and as each case mounts, it feels like it just gets thinner and thinner. I’m not sure why I can buy other shows crime related shows like Numb3rs but for some reason Lie to me just doesn’t feel that interesting.

The packaging is nice though, everything is slick and done with a cinematic flair. Everything is really eye catching. Sadly, it’s waste because the cast isn’t really all that interesting. Tim Roth stars and he brings an edgy vibe to show and his character but it feels wasted; it’s almost like he’s just House light. What’s worse, his support cast is flat and boring. They all have their ticks and flaws but there’s nothing really about them that makes them worthwhile. I don’t have any connections to them and that might have been okay with some strong plots but it doesn’t happen.

I was seduced by the flashy advertising but after two weeks of Lie to Me, I think it’s safe to say that you wouldn’t being missing much by skipping. I think you’d actually be happier watching The Mentalist, it’s a similar styled show that minus the facial analysis, does everything right.