Red claims to be The A-Team with older heroes. Red is actually a crummy wannabe A-Team with older heroes. This becomes a problem considering that Red's source material is something entirely different.
RED the comic book is written by Warren Ellis (who is better known for writing super-hero comics like Thor, Wolverine, Thunderbolts, and Astonishing X-Men) to trash-talk the corrupt, irredeemable nation Ellis believes the United States to be. The comic is a drama--and a very dark one at that. It is also only three issues (about 60 pages with large panels). It has four characters shown for more than two panels.
Red the movie is written by the Hoeber Brothers (Whiteout) to kinda-sorta talk about how insane the US is, but also to tell a cute love story, and mostly to showcase endless action and not-so-endless comedy. It is two hours long, meaning by the time the opening credits finish you will have been able to memorize the book. It also has more characters than Valentine's Day.
The movie is of a group of retired Special-Ops (John Malkovich, Helen Mirren, Morgan Freeman, Brian Cox, and Ernest Borgnine) led by a former government killing machine (Bruce Willis; The Sixth Sense, Die Hard) fighting back against an onslaught of government troops led by a mis-guided but well-physiqued CIA chief (New Zealand actor Karl Urban in what is hopefully a career-making preformance), who is privately concerned to find out his job has connections to a villainous crimelord (Richard Dreyfuss). To continue to-BLAM!--describe the--KABLOOEY!--plot it is impossible not ignore--BUDDAABUDDAA!--the nonstop action--BANGBANGCRASHKABOOOOOOOOOOM! This in and of itself is not a bad thing--the problem arises when one notes that a) none of this in the comic and b) the filmmakers are incapable of coming up with a suitable exposition. What we get is that the CIA and MI6 and the KGB (they are really the same thing) are often used as random gangsters' killing machines and also that if someone fires a bazooka and a second later you fire a handgun they will collide in air to maximum effect. That is about it for plot. Set aside the fact that it is stupid, there is the concerning fact that it is anti-patriotic enough that in the unlikely event someone remembers something from the story it will likely result in them blowing up the CIA headquarters (which, according to the movie, is a pretty easy task). Of course it is no where near as dark and anarchistic as RED the book, so fans of that series (and presumably Warren Ellis) will sit in the theater covering their ears to block out the continuous gunfire and crying at how little Hollywood cares about expressing their beloved cause.
Of course the film is not all bad. After all, with that cast and that many explosions you can't screw it up that badly. True, the movie isn't as funny as The A-Team, and doesn't have well-sequenced action scenes like The A-Team or, if you are tired of this comparison, The Expendables. Still, it does have good action and it is funny. Part of this is due to the script, but also Robert Schwentke (The Time Traveler's Wife)'s skillful direction and the excellent talent of the cast. Every single one of the actors does an excellent--and I mean excellent-- job, especially John Malkovich as a mentally-unstable yet masterfully-violent retiree and Mary-Louise Parker as the bored desk clerk who is being hunted-down simply because she was the one friend of the head "old-timer." This almost makes up for the films faults. Almost.
For a similar yet superior in every way mercenary action-comedy see the--you guessed it--A-Team. If you want to see old stars teaching those young hooligans some lessons go rent the Expendables. If you want an in-depth look at the dark and irredeemable world we hate to live in you should be at Barnes-and-Noble reading the book. Actually, if you are the third, you should be re-evaluating your life, but I guess that is none of my business.
Friday, October 29, 2010
Tuesday, October 26, 2010
The Social Network (F)
Sometimes a movie has an element that is certain to be a severely destructive influence on viewers. The Social Network has four.
The plot revolves around a super-genius who shares the name of Mark Zuckerberg (Jessie Eisenberg; The Squid and the Whale, Zombieland) looking back on the events he is being sued for. The movie suggests that Zuckerberg used unethical and possibly illegal tactics first when dealing with fellow entrepreneurs Cameron and Tyler Winklevoss (mostly Armie Hammer with some Josh Pence to make the illusion of identical twins) and his best friend Eduardo Saverin (Andrew Garfield, Boy A) while creating Facebook.
Before getting into the major flaws in the film, I think it is necessary to point out the hypocrisy of the film critic community. Last summer when The Last Airbender came out, M. Night Shyamalan got a lot of criticism for having white actors play characters which in his source material (a fictional, stylized cartoon) appeared Chinese and Inuit. Just a month or so before that, Prince of Persia got criticized for similar reasons. Now this movie opens up and Andrew Garfield plays Eduardo Saverin. Saverin is in real life Hispanic, and in the movie it is important that he is Hispanic, but Garfield is obviously Caucasian. If one is going to take offense at white actors playing non-white roles, one should at least be consistent.
The aforementioned issue, however, is a mild error in the vast sea of mistakes that make up this movie. To begin with, one should stop trying to ignore the fact that these are real people the film is slandering. This might be acceptable if the story was trying to follow the facts as best as can be, but Writer Aarron Sorkin (A Few Good Men; Charlie Wilson’s War) and Director David Fincher (Fight Club; The Curious Case of Benjamin Button) have openly yet quietly stated that they are making a work of fiction and changed boatloads of facts to make a better story and convey their message. If one made a movie about what an excellent leader Hitler was, and it had a great message and astounding visuals, it would still be a bad movie because it is offensive to make up facts that will hurt real, living people. Likewise, this movie is a disgusting attack on people like Zuckerberg because it is presenting false events as truth. For example, saying that minors were allowed in Zuckerberg’s house and encouraged to get high is not something one could write in a newspaper article (in fact, it seems it was rare that Zuckerberg ever partied), but it is apparently allowed for these statements to be presented as absolutes in a “biographic” movie. In real life Zuckerberg was dating for much of the time he was inventing Facebook, but in The Social Network he was largely motivated by his loneliness after having been dumped. Saverin’s poor business decisions had caused Facebook to be in very deep trouble financially—at least in part because he did not move to California—a piece of trivia the movie leaves out. Zuckerberg’s Facebook coworker Sean Parker’s cocaine arrest was changed a great deal from reality to make him seem like the selfish villain Justin Timberlake got praise for playing. Saverin was not really Zuckerberg’s first partner. The list goes on and on.
Sorkin and Fincher have insisted that they wanted to be impartial and this is what came out. That could not be farther from the truth. Zuckerberg and Parker come out as evil because the book the film is somewhat based on (a biography called The Accidental Billionaires) was made with hours of consulting from none other than Eduardo Saverin. Of course Saverin himself could not have hoped for the movie to be as absurdly distorted as it is. It is sickening that this is being accepted as a realistic account of what happened in the early days of the social network.
On a related note, all of the acting is terrible. Not that it would be bad acting if it was on entirely fictional characters; its just that the actors take tremendous liberties with the roles of the real-life people they are playing. For example, Eisenberg talks twice as fast as real-Zuckerberg since he wants to convey how smart and detached he is. In an interview, Fincher said he was aware of this but says he wants the film’s Zuckerberg to symbolize a lot more. He seems to forget that his symbolic-Zuckerberg is hurting the image and feelings of the real Zuckerberg.
The film would be awful if these were its only flaws, but in fact it gets worse. For example, the drinking and drug abuse reaches levels never-before shown in a PG-13 film. Drinking (underage drinking!) is not only presented as a relatively harmless, silly habit; it is shown as something that all college students do and should not be afraid to do. Sure characters behave stupidly while drunk, but it is implied that this is just a time in life when such things happens. Likewise, marijuana use by minors during the midday in Zuckerberg’s house is used to convey a “party” atmosphere; not a building full of addicts. Parker’s cocaine abuse is portrayed as a poor idea, but mostly because it will hurt his reputation, not his life.
In a further display of purposefully spreading false information, The Social Network’s view of the legal system has a closer resemblance to the courts shown in Planet of the Apes then the ones you will find in real life. The movie states that cases are judged on a combination of personal prejudice and presentation of the witnesses, with absolutely no regard for things like the Constitution or the actual events. True, The Social Network would have had trouble finding the time to explore the complex legal arguments behind the Facebook lawsuits, but “being lazy” or “wanting to tell a story that sounds good” aren’t exactly valid excuses considering the movie claims it paid attention to the facts.
Finally, there is the issue that The Social Network’s overall theme is not just offensive, it’s arrogant. The movie has not thought out any of the benefits of Facebook—at best it shows it as just the newest manifestation of modern culture and interaction (Sorkin and Fincher obviously think our culture and interactions are done terribly). At worst, The Social Network portrays Facebook as an easy way to get in trouble because of negative pictures/videos or a way for people you thought liked you to make fun of you behind your back. Practically everyone has had a negative experience over the internet, but to insult the whole idea is like throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Fincher and Sorkin might be annoyed about things said and done over Facebook, but it is arrogance for them to portray it as an mindless drug for people who don’t even think into the reasons its used. I have received much support and comfort over Facebook from friends who I would otherwise have not been able to keep up with. I think Facebook and the internet is helpful and a good thing. True, Fincher and Sorkin do not outright condemn Facebook, but they sure use a selective vision, not spending any time focusing on its benefits but going to great lengths to show its faults.
The Social Network is an abominable insult not just to Zuckerberg and Parker, or even filmmaking—it insults society and all the humanity tied to it.
The plot revolves around a super-genius who shares the name of Mark Zuckerberg (Jessie Eisenberg; The Squid and the Whale, Zombieland) looking back on the events he is being sued for. The movie suggests that Zuckerberg used unethical and possibly illegal tactics first when dealing with fellow entrepreneurs Cameron and Tyler Winklevoss (mostly Armie Hammer with some Josh Pence to make the illusion of identical twins) and his best friend Eduardo Saverin (Andrew Garfield, Boy A) while creating Facebook.
Before getting into the major flaws in the film, I think it is necessary to point out the hypocrisy of the film critic community. Last summer when The Last Airbender came out, M. Night Shyamalan got a lot of criticism for having white actors play characters which in his source material (a fictional, stylized cartoon) appeared Chinese and Inuit. Just a month or so before that, Prince of Persia got criticized for similar reasons. Now this movie opens up and Andrew Garfield plays Eduardo Saverin. Saverin is in real life Hispanic, and in the movie it is important that he is Hispanic, but Garfield is obviously Caucasian. If one is going to take offense at white actors playing non-white roles, one should at least be consistent.
The aforementioned issue, however, is a mild error in the vast sea of mistakes that make up this movie. To begin with, one should stop trying to ignore the fact that these are real people the film is slandering. This might be acceptable if the story was trying to follow the facts as best as can be, but Writer Aarron Sorkin (A Few Good Men; Charlie Wilson’s War) and Director David Fincher (Fight Club; The Curious Case of Benjamin Button) have openly yet quietly stated that they are making a work of fiction and changed boatloads of facts to make a better story and convey their message. If one made a movie about what an excellent leader Hitler was, and it had a great message and astounding visuals, it would still be a bad movie because it is offensive to make up facts that will hurt real, living people. Likewise, this movie is a disgusting attack on people like Zuckerberg because it is presenting false events as truth. For example, saying that minors were allowed in Zuckerberg’s house and encouraged to get high is not something one could write in a newspaper article (in fact, it seems it was rare that Zuckerberg ever partied), but it is apparently allowed for these statements to be presented as absolutes in a “biographic” movie. In real life Zuckerberg was dating for much of the time he was inventing Facebook, but in The Social Network he was largely motivated by his loneliness after having been dumped. Saverin’s poor business decisions had caused Facebook to be in very deep trouble financially—at least in part because he did not move to California—a piece of trivia the movie leaves out. Zuckerberg’s Facebook coworker Sean Parker’s cocaine arrest was changed a great deal from reality to make him seem like the selfish villain Justin Timberlake got praise for playing. Saverin was not really Zuckerberg’s first partner. The list goes on and on.
Sorkin and Fincher have insisted that they wanted to be impartial and this is what came out. That could not be farther from the truth. Zuckerberg and Parker come out as evil because the book the film is somewhat based on (a biography called The Accidental Billionaires) was made with hours of consulting from none other than Eduardo Saverin. Of course Saverin himself could not have hoped for the movie to be as absurdly distorted as it is. It is sickening that this is being accepted as a realistic account of what happened in the early days of the social network.
On a related note, all of the acting is terrible. Not that it would be bad acting if it was on entirely fictional characters; its just that the actors take tremendous liberties with the roles of the real-life people they are playing. For example, Eisenberg talks twice as fast as real-Zuckerberg since he wants to convey how smart and detached he is. In an interview, Fincher said he was aware of this but says he wants the film’s Zuckerberg to symbolize a lot more. He seems to forget that his symbolic-Zuckerberg is hurting the image and feelings of the real Zuckerberg.
The film would be awful if these were its only flaws, but in fact it gets worse. For example, the drinking and drug abuse reaches levels never-before shown in a PG-13 film. Drinking (underage drinking!) is not only presented as a relatively harmless, silly habit; it is shown as something that all college students do and should not be afraid to do. Sure characters behave stupidly while drunk, but it is implied that this is just a time in life when such things happens. Likewise, marijuana use by minors during the midday in Zuckerberg’s house is used to convey a “party” atmosphere; not a building full of addicts. Parker’s cocaine abuse is portrayed as a poor idea, but mostly because it will hurt his reputation, not his life.
In a further display of purposefully spreading false information, The Social Network’s view of the legal system has a closer resemblance to the courts shown in Planet of the Apes then the ones you will find in real life. The movie states that cases are judged on a combination of personal prejudice and presentation of the witnesses, with absolutely no regard for things like the Constitution or the actual events. True, The Social Network would have had trouble finding the time to explore the complex legal arguments behind the Facebook lawsuits, but “being lazy” or “wanting to tell a story that sounds good” aren’t exactly valid excuses considering the movie claims it paid attention to the facts.
Finally, there is the issue that The Social Network’s overall theme is not just offensive, it’s arrogant. The movie has not thought out any of the benefits of Facebook—at best it shows it as just the newest manifestation of modern culture and interaction (Sorkin and Fincher obviously think our culture and interactions are done terribly). At worst, The Social Network portrays Facebook as an easy way to get in trouble because of negative pictures/videos or a way for people you thought liked you to make fun of you behind your back. Practically everyone has had a negative experience over the internet, but to insult the whole idea is like throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Fincher and Sorkin might be annoyed about things said and done over Facebook, but it is arrogance for them to portray it as an mindless drug for people who don’t even think into the reasons its used. I have received much support and comfort over Facebook from friends who I would otherwise have not been able to keep up with. I think Facebook and the internet is helpful and a good thing. True, Fincher and Sorkin do not outright condemn Facebook, but they sure use a selective vision, not spending any time focusing on its benefits but going to great lengths to show its faults.
The Social Network is an abominable insult not just to Zuckerberg and Parker, or even filmmaking—it insults society and all the humanity tied to it.
Thursday, October 14, 2010
Devil (A)
More mystery than horror, Devil plays like classic Agatha Christie novels if Christie put expert detail into religion and morals and had a brilliant director. One of the best films this year!
The story invented and produced by M. Night Shyamalan (The Sixth Sense, Unbreakable) and written by Brian Nelson (30 Days of Night) is inspired by a particular Agatha Christie mystery—though I won’t give the plot away by telling you which one. Of course, this being Shyamalan, the film is woven into a plotline of deep religious pondering. Furthermore, Director John Erick Dowdle (Quarantine) uses creative camera angles to create claustrophobia and a suspenseful tone. Shyamalan has taken a lot of heat for announcing that his Night Chronicles, of which Devil is the first, are to be made by up-and-coming filmmakers, but this proves that it was a genius choice.
Depressed police Detective Bowden (Chris Messina, Julie & Julia) and deeply religious security Guard Ramirez (Jacob Vargas, Next Friday) team-up to help five people trapped in an elevator. Of course things don’t go as planned. Everyone in the elevator has a dark past—especially a certain one who is very likely Satan, Prince of Evil, and kills somebody each time the lights go out. Which one is this violent killer? Tough to tell. It could be the tough-guy security guard (Bokeem Woodbine), anxious senior citizen (Jenny O’Hara), secretive young lady (Bojana Novakovic), ex-soldier (Logan Marshall-Green), or abrasive salesman (Geoffrey Arend).
The movie’s biggest fault is undoubtedly the Hispanic stereotypes personified by Ramirez. Not particularly negative ones per say (deeply superstitious is the only unusual way Ramirez acts), but not exactly perfect either. Another problem is that the people being (possibly) punished by the Devil all have dark pasts that your average movie-goer can’t relate to—even so, the film finds away around this
Dowdle’s camera angles are exceptionally creative—slanted yet steady views, slightly upward shots—and generally add to the mood. Keep in mind that said mood is only partially horror—Devil has much more in kind with The Twilight Zone than Drag Me to Hell. Still, this isn’t a problem, and it offers a great chance to have an actual moral. This being mystery/horror, discussing that moral is an absolute no-no, but I think it is commendable that a film from genres infamous for uninspired plots manages to come up with a good, impactful theme. Devil has been made with great effort from all concerned and the result is exceptional.
The story invented and produced by M. Night Shyamalan (The Sixth Sense, Unbreakable) and written by Brian Nelson (30 Days of Night) is inspired by a particular Agatha Christie mystery—though I won’t give the plot away by telling you which one. Of course, this being Shyamalan, the film is woven into a plotline of deep religious pondering. Furthermore, Director John Erick Dowdle (Quarantine) uses creative camera angles to create claustrophobia and a suspenseful tone. Shyamalan has taken a lot of heat for announcing that his Night Chronicles, of which Devil is the first, are to be made by up-and-coming filmmakers, but this proves that it was a genius choice.
Depressed police Detective Bowden (Chris Messina, Julie & Julia) and deeply religious security Guard Ramirez (Jacob Vargas, Next Friday) team-up to help five people trapped in an elevator. Of course things don’t go as planned. Everyone in the elevator has a dark past—especially a certain one who is very likely Satan, Prince of Evil, and kills somebody each time the lights go out. Which one is this violent killer? Tough to tell. It could be the tough-guy security guard (Bokeem Woodbine), anxious senior citizen (Jenny O’Hara), secretive young lady (Bojana Novakovic), ex-soldier (Logan Marshall-Green), or abrasive salesman (Geoffrey Arend).
The movie’s biggest fault is undoubtedly the Hispanic stereotypes personified by Ramirez. Not particularly negative ones per say (deeply superstitious is the only unusual way Ramirez acts), but not exactly perfect either. Another problem is that the people being (possibly) punished by the Devil all have dark pasts that your average movie-goer can’t relate to—even so, the film finds away around this
Dowdle’s camera angles are exceptionally creative—slanted yet steady views, slightly upward shots—and generally add to the mood. Keep in mind that said mood is only partially horror—Devil has much more in kind with The Twilight Zone than Drag Me to Hell. Still, this isn’t a problem, and it offers a great chance to have an actual moral. This being mystery/horror, discussing that moral is an absolute no-no, but I think it is commendable that a film from genres infamous for uninspired plots manages to come up with a good, impactful theme. Devil has been made with great effort from all concerned and the result is exceptional.
Legend of the Guardians: The Owls of Ga'Hoole (A-)
The gorgeous visuals, exciting action, and fantasy storyline makes Ga’Hoole have both the best action this year and enough of a story to back it up.
Though the poster proudly reminds us that Legend is from the studio that cursed us with Happy Feet, this film is nothing of the sort. The “children’s” book it is based on, by The Royal Diaries author Kathrine Lasky, is astoundingly violent; the writers, John Orloff (A Mighty Heart) and John Collee (Creation, Oceans) are more interested in older audiences; and Director Zack Snyder, who’s previous kiddy-flicks include the heartwarming 300 and uplifting Watchmen, only shies away from bloodshed, making the film a non-stop torrent of action. This isn’t a bad thing—the film can still satisfy most everyone—and it makes it extremely enjoyable for all.
All of this is a pretty incredible feat considering two problems facing the picture: First, there is the fact that owls really only are outside at night, so practically every scene takes place in the dark. The pacing and lighting is so good, though, that not once did it become irritating or hard to see. Second is that though there is not a human character in the whole movie, there are about twenty important characters, and the animals—including bluebirds, echidnas, bats, Tasmanian devils, and of course owls—are anthropomorphized as little as possible. For once a movie that doesn’t want to dumb down its source material!
The story is of Soren (Jim Sturgress) and Kludd (Ryan Kwanten), to brother barn owls that fall out of their nests and are kidnapped by Nazi-esque birds to serve legendary villain Metal-beak (unfortunately he never takes off his mask so we can’t see his supposedly missing face). Soren is horrified by what he sees in Metal-Beak’s war camp—such as magical weapons and a brainwashed army being made to conquer the world—so he unites with a band of friends (Anthony LaPaglia, Emily Barclay, and David Wenham) in the hopes of escaping and reaching the possibly mythical Knights of the Round Table for owls, called the Guardians of Ga’Hoole. Kludd meanwhile is beginning to believe Metal-Beaks sinister idea, and is beginning to take his and Soren’s little sister (Adriana deFaria) into his destructive world. In the hopes trying to fix the horrible situation, Soren thinks he has to unite with the strange senior owl Ezylryb (Geoffrey Rush) who isn’t all that he seems.
The film’s themes aren’t as strong as other fantasy epics like The Chronicles of Narnia or
Lord of the Rings, but it definitely has some good ones on believing in morals and respecting the
old and wise. This will be a great message to all the viewers, especially the younger ones.
Though by younger viewers I am referring to those at least six and possibly older, for the film’s
greatest element is not for the easily disturbed. There is no blood and little on-screen killing, but the death toll is considerably high and the non-stop violence is intense. Then again, it is not just intense—it is awesome. This is easily the best action film of the year so far, an honor much achieved because the action isn’t just silly cartoon—the scenes are breathtakingly beautiful and the characters, while probably silly looking to actual owls, and photo-realistic to the human eye. The film is definitely worth seeing in 3-D: The experience is utterly absorbing. Legend of the Guardians is gorgeous and thrilling. Whether wanting to see a great epic or an exciting action flick this is the movie for you.
Though the poster proudly reminds us that Legend is from the studio that cursed us with Happy Feet, this film is nothing of the sort. The “children’s” book it is based on, by The Royal Diaries author Kathrine Lasky, is astoundingly violent; the writers, John Orloff (A Mighty Heart) and John Collee (Creation, Oceans) are more interested in older audiences; and Director Zack Snyder, who’s previous kiddy-flicks include the heartwarming 300 and uplifting Watchmen, only shies away from bloodshed, making the film a non-stop torrent of action. This isn’t a bad thing—the film can still satisfy most everyone—and it makes it extremely enjoyable for all.
All of this is a pretty incredible feat considering two problems facing the picture: First, there is the fact that owls really only are outside at night, so practically every scene takes place in the dark. The pacing and lighting is so good, though, that not once did it become irritating or hard to see. Second is that though there is not a human character in the whole movie, there are about twenty important characters, and the animals—including bluebirds, echidnas, bats, Tasmanian devils, and of course owls—are anthropomorphized as little as possible. For once a movie that doesn’t want to dumb down its source material!
The story is of Soren (Jim Sturgress) and Kludd (Ryan Kwanten), to brother barn owls that fall out of their nests and are kidnapped by Nazi-esque birds to serve legendary villain Metal-beak (unfortunately he never takes off his mask so we can’t see his supposedly missing face). Soren is horrified by what he sees in Metal-Beak’s war camp—such as magical weapons and a brainwashed army being made to conquer the world—so he unites with a band of friends (Anthony LaPaglia, Emily Barclay, and David Wenham) in the hopes of escaping and reaching the possibly mythical Knights of the Round Table for owls, called the Guardians of Ga’Hoole. Kludd meanwhile is beginning to believe Metal-Beaks sinister idea, and is beginning to take his and Soren’s little sister (Adriana deFaria) into his destructive world. In the hopes trying to fix the horrible situation, Soren thinks he has to unite with the strange senior owl Ezylryb (Geoffrey Rush) who isn’t all that he seems.
The film’s themes aren’t as strong as other fantasy epics like The Chronicles of Narnia or
Lord of the Rings, but it definitely has some good ones on believing in morals and respecting the
old and wise. This will be a great message to all the viewers, especially the younger ones.
Though by younger viewers I am referring to those at least six and possibly older, for the film’s
greatest element is not for the easily disturbed. There is no blood and little on-screen killing, but the death toll is considerably high and the non-stop violence is intense. Then again, it is not just intense—it is awesome. This is easily the best action film of the year so far, an honor much achieved because the action isn’t just silly cartoon—the scenes are breathtakingly beautiful and the characters, while probably silly looking to actual owls, and photo-realistic to the human eye. The film is definitely worth seeing in 3-D: The experience is utterly absorbing. Legend of the Guardians is gorgeous and thrilling. Whether wanting to see a great epic or an exciting action flick this is the movie for you.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)