Hello dear readers, for those of you that have been keeping up to date on current events you know that it is, in fact, 2011. Therefore 2010 is behind us.
But many great things happened in the world of Comics in 2010... and they can't go unnoticed. So I decided that I would give out the award for "Best...." in a few categories related to the funny books that I love so much.
Without further ado... the 1st annual Brookies.
BEST WRITER: This Brookie designates the writer who crafted the best stories and was... the best writer. And the nominees are...
+ Mark Millar (Kick Ass 2, Nemesis, Superior, Ultimate Avengers, and others)
+ Jason Aaron (PunisherMAX, Scalped, Wolverine: Weapon X, Wolverine)
+ Garth Ennis (The Boys and Others)
+ Robert Kirkman (Invincible, The Walking Dead, Astounding Wolfman, Haunt, and others)
+ Geoff Johns (Blackest Night, Brightest Day, Green Lantern, The Flash, and others)
And the winner is..... Robert Kirkman.
It seems only right that Kirkman wins this award. Even though Millar and Aaron had stellar years, Kirkman continues to write compelling stories with heavy focus on characters which I love.
BEST ARTIST: Writing is only half the creative process, this category rewards the visual half of Comic production.
+Steve McNiven (Nemesis)
+Steve Dillon (PunisherMAX, Ultimate Avengers 3)
+Francis Manupal (The Flash)
+Jason Howards (The Astounding Wolfman)
+Ryan Ottley (Invincible)
And the winner is... Steve McNiven.
Nemesis was fantastic in no small part to the beautiful and chaotic art of McNiven who helped give violent life to Millar's story about a real world super villain.
BEST LIMITED SERIES (Non Crossover): Not every series starts with the intention of a long run, this category praises the best limited series, as a rule they had to start in 2010, even if they haven't finished yet.
+Nemesis: The story of a super villain and the cop trying to stop him.
+Nancy in Hell: A girl fights her way through and out of hell, encountering zombies, beasts, and making out with Lucifer himself.
+Neonomicon: A modern update of Lovecraftian mythology, told by Alan Moore... the god-king of comics.
+Hit-Monkey: The "year one" tale of Marvel's monkey man slayer.
+Ultimate Avengers 3: A black ops team doing The Ultimate Universes dirty work, although there are three only one is nominated here.
And the winner is... Nemesis.
This should be no surprise to any readers of my CBW posts simply because I have given all the Nemesis issues above 9's. The story was compelling, the dialogue unrelenting, and the art fantastic... but it's Millar and McNiven so all that stuff was obvious.
BEST NEW SERIES: A category to praise any series that had an issue #1 released this year.
+Secret Avengers: A black ops team that consists of Marvel's bad asses doing dirty work.
+MorningGlories: A boarding school teaches 6 new students all kinds of new reasons to hate school.
+Wolverine: A revival of one of Marvel's most famous characters, kicking off with said character fighting his way out of hell.
+Namor: The First Mutant: An exciting return for Namor to his own title.
And the Winner is..... MorningGlories.
A truly fantastic start. MorningGlories weaves intrigue, romance, and teenage angst better than most of today's teen based fiction, even though it's not targeted at that demographic.
BEST COMPANY: A Category praising the company that provided the best stories in 2010
+DC
+Marvel
+Image
+Dark Horse
+IDW
+Dynamite
And the Winner is..... Marvel.
While Brightest Day was a let down, Marvel's Shadowland as well as memorable individual titles led to a very fine year from the House of Ideas, here's hoping they can continue to wow me in 2011.
BEST SERIES (On Going)
+ Captain America
+ Invincible
+ The Walking Dead
+ The Boys
+ Scalped
And the Winner is..... Scalped.
Scalped has been consistently one of the best series on the racks and the recently concluded "Unwanted" arc cemented this as not only my favorite series at the moment, but the best series to keep going strong from 2009 to 2010 and into 2011.
Well there's what Dr. Brooklyn is telling you to like when it comes to comics in 2010. Stay tuned with me through out 2011 and I'll keep you up to speed on what's worth liking and what's worth passing.
Monday, February 7, 2011
Gang Tapes: A Review
When most people think of the found footage genre the immediate thought is to things like Blair Witch Project (1999) or Cloverfield (2008), as well as some other science fiction and monster movies that have tried to emulate those movies style, yet there are other movies that have done the foot footage dance without the acclaim of the avaunt garde Blair Witch Project or the mystery leading up to the viral marketing fueled Cloverfield, one of these is Gang Tapes (2001) a movie which follows a gang in Los Angeles after one of the young bloods aquires a camera and begins to document what he and his friends have to go through from drive bys to Kris's first time.
This film isn't for everyone. The main reason for this is the fact that in a lot of ways this isn't a standard movie, there is no established story arc where the story is revealed a course is set out and an end will be achieved, instead this is the definition of a "Slice of Life movie" where scenes are merely vignettes that run as long as Kris left the film rolling.
Gang Tapes isn't anything new, really, the gangster "coming of rage" (as the back of the DVD case quips) story has been around in film since the 1930s (See Little Caesar (1931) for a prime early example), but the way the film handles it is the main saving grace of a weak movie. Instead of seeing the gangsters as tragic antiheroes who are like modern cowboys we see crime as it is: beatings, cooking up some crack rocks, grand theft auto, and more are shown with brutal intensity that is helped by the fact that all but one of the leads are played by former gang members, adding a level of verisimilitude that is lacking in most gangster fare.
Though a film is not made into a good film with realism alone. The script is painfully realistic making use of the N word and the F word more often then using the word "and." Furthermore, there's no shortage of slang making Gang Tapes seem like a foreign language film to those who don't know anything about LA slang... like me for example.
The next major flaw is the acting, which is both good and bad. Yes, by casting gang members you get an added intensity that actors can't bring... yet by not casting actors you get the clunky reading of lines and horrible handling of extended dialogue that gangsters don't know how to do. I'm not saying acting is the hardest thing to do, but there is a certain level of skill that was distinctly lacking in this movie. The worst failing of this movie though is how the leads are treated like throwaway characters. Kris, Lonzo, and Cyril are the only characters that I can remember the names of... and those three have their names said a bunch of times including a monologue in which Cyril explains how he got his "gang name."
Gang Tapes sets out with a lot of ambition and a very unique premise, yet, the finished product requires a heavy dose of polish and maybe a little less ambition. There are definitely worse movies, but there are scores of better ones dealing with similar subject matter.
Dr. Brooklyn says: AT LEAST WATCH this movie (6.75/10)
This film isn't for everyone. The main reason for this is the fact that in a lot of ways this isn't a standard movie, there is no established story arc where the story is revealed a course is set out and an end will be achieved, instead this is the definition of a "Slice of Life movie" where scenes are merely vignettes that run as long as Kris left the film rolling.
Gang Tapes isn't anything new, really, the gangster "coming of rage" (as the back of the DVD case quips) story has been around in film since the 1930s (See Little Caesar (1931) for a prime early example), but the way the film handles it is the main saving grace of a weak movie. Instead of seeing the gangsters as tragic antiheroes who are like modern cowboys we see crime as it is: beatings, cooking up some crack rocks, grand theft auto, and more are shown with brutal intensity that is helped by the fact that all but one of the leads are played by former gang members, adding a level of verisimilitude that is lacking in most gangster fare.
Though a film is not made into a good film with realism alone. The script is painfully realistic making use of the N word and the F word more often then using the word "and." Furthermore, there's no shortage of slang making Gang Tapes seem like a foreign language film to those who don't know anything about LA slang... like me for example.
The next major flaw is the acting, which is both good and bad. Yes, by casting gang members you get an added intensity that actors can't bring... yet by not casting actors you get the clunky reading of lines and horrible handling of extended dialogue that gangsters don't know how to do. I'm not saying acting is the hardest thing to do, but there is a certain level of skill that was distinctly lacking in this movie. The worst failing of this movie though is how the leads are treated like throwaway characters. Kris, Lonzo, and Cyril are the only characters that I can remember the names of... and those three have their names said a bunch of times including a monologue in which Cyril explains how he got his "gang name."
Gang Tapes sets out with a lot of ambition and a very unique premise, yet, the finished product requires a heavy dose of polish and maybe a little less ambition. There are definitely worse movies, but there are scores of better ones dealing with similar subject matter.
Dr. Brooklyn says: AT LEAST WATCH this movie (6.75/10)
Wednesday, January 12, 2011
Review of the Titans (1981)
First let me apologize, dear and faithful readers, for a mortal nerd sin... until today I had never seen the original Clash of the Titans (1981), yes I sat through the effects laden hot mess that was last summers Clash of the Titans (2010), but the original evaded me. Although, seeing as how I would have been a decade late on this movie even if I watched it my first day in existence, I don't feel to bad.
If you check IMDb, Wikipedia, the back of the DVD case, or the end credits this movie is considered a Desmond Davis picture, due to his directorial credit, but this is not his movie. No, this movie belongs from beginning to end to Ray Harryhausen and his effects mastery, because no matter how the rest of the movie shines, at the time of it's creation there was no one who could have done it like the master of old school SFX.
Though even with this praise, I must point out that this movie is infinitely less SFX based than the recent adaptation. It's weird, considering that this story is an amalgamation of the Greek myths, how original the story feels. The parts are old, but the sum is fresh, an impressive feat for a movie that is essentially a popcorn version of Greek lore. And here is where the two versions of this movie veer the most, even in the face of (at the time) groundbreaking stop motion, the story is never given the back seat.
A lesson modern blockbusters should learn, that effects are like condiments... fine on a burger, but to pour ketchup and mustard directly down one's gullet would be both foolish and grotesque. The same can be said of the special effects and movies... effects are good in a movie, but pure special effects just for the sake of special effects is both foolish and grotesque.
But don't get me wrong and think the script and story makes it the Citizen Kane (1942) of Sword and Sandal fare. Yes, it's better than some, and I'd even say most, in that particular sub genre, but above average to good is where this movie dwells. A lot of the dialogue falls under the Lucas rule: You can write it, but you can't read it, making for some clunky exchanges even if the actors could have handled more... albeit not much more. Beverly Cross does a great job of sticking close(ish) to the source material, weaving several different yarns into one nice tapestry, but the final cloth is all bright colors and not and amazing design.
When it comes to acting there is a lot of what viewers have come to expect, good enough where no cringes are induced, but not quite good enough where any one performance makes the viewer sit up whenever an actor appears onscreen. The closest a performance gets is Laurence Olivier's turn as king of the gods, Zeus, but seeing as how he has very little screen time... there's not really enough to judge the performance as great.
Although the effects may seem dated, the story and action help make the movie an exciting thrill ride and superior in many ways to the all style sequel. In terms of fun it's more than worth a watch, but it won't blow your mind.
Dr. Brooklyn says: LIKE this movie (8.25/10)
If you check IMDb, Wikipedia, the back of the DVD case, or the end credits this movie is considered a Desmond Davis picture, due to his directorial credit, but this is not his movie. No, this movie belongs from beginning to end to Ray Harryhausen and his effects mastery, because no matter how the rest of the movie shines, at the time of it's creation there was no one who could have done it like the master of old school SFX.
Though even with this praise, I must point out that this movie is infinitely less SFX based than the recent adaptation. It's weird, considering that this story is an amalgamation of the Greek myths, how original the story feels. The parts are old, but the sum is fresh, an impressive feat for a movie that is essentially a popcorn version of Greek lore. And here is where the two versions of this movie veer the most, even in the face of (at the time) groundbreaking stop motion, the story is never given the back seat.
A lesson modern blockbusters should learn, that effects are like condiments... fine on a burger, but to pour ketchup and mustard directly down one's gullet would be both foolish and grotesque. The same can be said of the special effects and movies... effects are good in a movie, but pure special effects just for the sake of special effects is both foolish and grotesque.
But don't get me wrong and think the script and story makes it the Citizen Kane (1942) of Sword and Sandal fare. Yes, it's better than some, and I'd even say most, in that particular sub genre, but above average to good is where this movie dwells. A lot of the dialogue falls under the Lucas rule: You can write it, but you can't read it, making for some clunky exchanges even if the actors could have handled more... albeit not much more. Beverly Cross does a great job of sticking close(ish) to the source material, weaving several different yarns into one nice tapestry, but the final cloth is all bright colors and not and amazing design.
When it comes to acting there is a lot of what viewers have come to expect, good enough where no cringes are induced, but not quite good enough where any one performance makes the viewer sit up whenever an actor appears onscreen. The closest a performance gets is Laurence Olivier's turn as king of the gods, Zeus, but seeing as how he has very little screen time... there's not really enough to judge the performance as great.
Although the effects may seem dated, the story and action help make the movie an exciting thrill ride and superior in many ways to the all style sequel. In terms of fun it's more than worth a watch, but it won't blow your mind.
Dr. Brooklyn says: LIKE this movie (8.25/10)
Monday, January 10, 2011
Review Carter
A Muppets Christmas Carol. That was my first introduction to the legendary Sir Michael Caine. Obviously not his first movie, and not even his first movie made after I entered the world... but A Muppets Christmas Carol was the first time I had ever seen him act. Fast forward 15 odd years and I find myself watching Caine in a very different role, that of Jack Carter in the 1971 movie Get Carter.
To say that Get Carter is a different role from the previously mentioned movie would be a gross understatement, for everything about the movie except the British setting, and star, is different. Viewers here find Caine portraying Jack Carter, a hit man who's returned to his place of birth to pay his brother final respects. Although listed as the victim of his own drinking and driving, but Carter won't believe it. So begins a mystery in which Carter begins to scour the British Crime scene trying to find a man called "Brumby." But, as is typical in mystery fare, Carter has bitten off more than he's able to chew, resulting in intrigue, murder, gangsters, lots of ins, lots of outs and a lot of what have you.
For a movie with a lot of substance, there is plenty of style as well. The story unfolds in two ways: the ongoing events on the screen, but the story also unfolds in the viewers mind, with previous events being explained with later scenes, only making sense with a complete viewing. And yet, even with a tapestry of a script there is enough style to impress (Many shots suggest Quentin Tarantino took notes during a viewing of this film.) But, most of the style doesn't come from Mike Hodges, instead it comes from just how bloody cool Michael Caine is, even though Hodges brings a major portion of the cool. In many ways Get Carter was ahead of it's time, paving the way for Tarantino, Guy Ritchie, and the many others who have made movies in Gangster Suave* sub genre.
Even beyond shot composition, many style choices suggest an avaunt garde quality. There is little over laying music, instead relying on a more ambient soundtrack. Yes, there are several cases of music that isn't "in universe" but because most of the movie lacks score, there is a sense of realism that is lacked by many films even today. There are no dramatic music stabs to alert the presence of rival gangsters, no high tempo chase music to get the viewers heart racing, just the sounds caused by the people as they fulfill Hodges directions... beauty in simplicity.
But, as I hinted on earlier, all the directorial magic is meaningless unless there is a cast able to capitalize on his or her direction. The Cinema gods smiled fondly down on Hodges, granting him with one of the truly phenomenal actors of all time: Sir Michael Caine. Caine's Carter is charming, cruel, suave, and foreboding. In short, Jack Carter is like James Bond's crazy brother. Yet, even when he is beating up cronies, Carter is able to find the time to seduce several women, and be the kind of anti-hero every man secretly wishes they could be.
Surrounding Caine is a strong cast, albeit mostly of unknowns to me... due to my general ignorance of 1970s British cinema. Bryan Mosely and John Osborne are as cuddly as cobras in their roles as scheming crime lords, both trying to use Carter's rage for their own benefit. The rest of the cast supplements Caine nicely, but in so many ways this is his movie, take him out and you'd get a lesser movie... a lesson that it seems the 2000 remake learned the hard way.
Although I disagree with the Total Film claim that Get Carter is the greatest British film of all time (as I often times disagree with cross genre rankings) but Get Carter does succeed in being not only one of the better British films I've seen, but by being one of the best Crime movies I've seen.
Dr. Brooklyn says: LIKE this movie (9.5/10)
*Gangster Suave is not an established genre... as such don't go looking for movies labeled as Gangster Suave... you won't find them.
To say that Get Carter is a different role from the previously mentioned movie would be a gross understatement, for everything about the movie except the British setting, and star, is different. Viewers here find Caine portraying Jack Carter, a hit man who's returned to his place of birth to pay his brother final respects. Although listed as the victim of his own drinking and driving, but Carter won't believe it. So begins a mystery in which Carter begins to scour the British Crime scene trying to find a man called "Brumby." But, as is typical in mystery fare, Carter has bitten off more than he's able to chew, resulting in intrigue, murder, gangsters, lots of ins, lots of outs and a lot of what have you.
For a movie with a lot of substance, there is plenty of style as well. The story unfolds in two ways: the ongoing events on the screen, but the story also unfolds in the viewers mind, with previous events being explained with later scenes, only making sense with a complete viewing. And yet, even with a tapestry of a script there is enough style to impress (Many shots suggest Quentin Tarantino took notes during a viewing of this film.) But, most of the style doesn't come from Mike Hodges, instead it comes from just how bloody cool Michael Caine is, even though Hodges brings a major portion of the cool. In many ways Get Carter was ahead of it's time, paving the way for Tarantino, Guy Ritchie, and the many others who have made movies in Gangster Suave* sub genre.
Even beyond shot composition, many style choices suggest an avaunt garde quality. There is little over laying music, instead relying on a more ambient soundtrack. Yes, there are several cases of music that isn't "in universe" but because most of the movie lacks score, there is a sense of realism that is lacked by many films even today. There are no dramatic music stabs to alert the presence of rival gangsters, no high tempo chase music to get the viewers heart racing, just the sounds caused by the people as they fulfill Hodges directions... beauty in simplicity.
But, as I hinted on earlier, all the directorial magic is meaningless unless there is a cast able to capitalize on his or her direction. The Cinema gods smiled fondly down on Hodges, granting him with one of the truly phenomenal actors of all time: Sir Michael Caine. Caine's Carter is charming, cruel, suave, and foreboding. In short, Jack Carter is like James Bond's crazy brother. Yet, even when he is beating up cronies, Carter is able to find the time to seduce several women, and be the kind of anti-hero every man secretly wishes they could be.
Surrounding Caine is a strong cast, albeit mostly of unknowns to me... due to my general ignorance of 1970s British cinema. Bryan Mosely and John Osborne are as cuddly as cobras in their roles as scheming crime lords, both trying to use Carter's rage for their own benefit. The rest of the cast supplements Caine nicely, but in so many ways this is his movie, take him out and you'd get a lesser movie... a lesson that it seems the 2000 remake learned the hard way.
Although I disagree with the Total Film claim that Get Carter is the greatest British film of all time (as I often times disagree with cross genre rankings) but Get Carter does succeed in being not only one of the better British films I've seen, but by being one of the best Crime movies I've seen.
Dr. Brooklyn says: LIKE this movie (9.5/10)
*Gangster Suave is not an established genre... as such don't go looking for movies labeled as Gangster Suave... you won't find them.
Tuesday, December 21, 2010
Tron: Legacy: A Review
It's been a while since I reviewed the original, but here I am reviewing the sequel... and I must say I'm feeling pretty good. Tron: Legacy (2010) is very much a sequel, with more references to the former than Empire, but in many ways Legacy stands on its own in a way few sequels do. As a heads up most of the plot will be ignored due to the fact that there are several twists and turns, a lot of ins, a lot of outs, a lot of what have you.
To begin with: Yes, the movie is pretty. I won't spend a lot of time on this seeing as how anyone who has viewed a single trailer knows that this movie is a stunning piece of CGI. The world of Tron came to life in ways that the creators of the original probably only dreamed of, with bright lights and vivid imagery, allowing the Grid to become a world of it's own, not a sound stage with a lot of neon tubing.
Also a thing of beauty is the Daft Punk Score, as a newbie to Daft Punk I was really impressed with how they were able to mix the sound of classic video game music with new style to make probably the best soundtrack I've heard in years, frankly if Daft Punk doesn't win the Oscar, or at least gets nominated, then there is something wrong with the Oscars... well... that's a rant for another day.
Really, my only problem with this movie comes in with the Script, although when compared with the first they are on par, Legacy does what the first one doesn't... leave frayed ends. The Purge of the ISOs is touched on, but the ISOs themselves are mentioned for just a few scenes. I know Disney was gunning for a sequel to this sequel, but the way the ending doesn't show what Sam has done now that's he's back, or for that matter what happened to Tron after his lights changed back to blue, leaves the viewer with a sense of longing. Furthermore, the whole state of the Grid is in question, now that Flynn and Clu are gone, will there be some rebuilding? Will Sam rebuild The Grid? Who knows? The viewers don't, that's for sure.
Also, there was some dialogue that felt a little weird, falling under the Lucas Rule of "You can write it, but you can't read it." Though, there are few movies without an occasional snag in the script. I do appreciate all the Fan service that was done, I really do, but if you have time to include the Tanks passing in the background, then you should have time to polish the script enough to keep the ends of the strands inOle Duder's Kevin Flynn's The Grid loose.
The acting is actually a lot better than I thought it would be. But, as could be expected, Bridges stole the show in his double role as both Flynn and Clu. What was probably the best CGI piece was "Young" Flynn, even though there were a few times that the CGI was very obvious. Also strong was Olivia Wilde, who oozed sex appeal, at the same time she seemed innocent and naive. Garrett Hedlund is very good, but he lacks the pure laid back charm of Bridges in the original, and even here.
For a sequel, you won't find much better. Plot snags aside Tron: Legacy is a very fun ride and well worth a trip to the cinema for a big screen viewing. For fans of the first... it's definitely been worth the wait.
Dr. Brooklyn says: LIKE this movie (8.75/10)
To begin with: Yes, the movie is pretty. I won't spend a lot of time on this seeing as how anyone who has viewed a single trailer knows that this movie is a stunning piece of CGI. The world of Tron came to life in ways that the creators of the original probably only dreamed of, with bright lights and vivid imagery, allowing the Grid to become a world of it's own, not a sound stage with a lot of neon tubing.
Also a thing of beauty is the Daft Punk Score, as a newbie to Daft Punk I was really impressed with how they were able to mix the sound of classic video game music with new style to make probably the best soundtrack I've heard in years, frankly if Daft Punk doesn't win the Oscar, or at least gets nominated, then there is something wrong with the Oscars... well... that's a rant for another day.
Really, my only problem with this movie comes in with the Script, although when compared with the first they are on par, Legacy does what the first one doesn't... leave frayed ends. The Purge of the ISOs is touched on, but the ISOs themselves are mentioned for just a few scenes. I know Disney was gunning for a sequel to this sequel, but the way the ending doesn't show what Sam has done now that's he's back, or for that matter what happened to Tron after his lights changed back to blue, leaves the viewer with a sense of longing. Furthermore, the whole state of the Grid is in question, now that Flynn and Clu are gone, will there be some rebuilding? Will Sam rebuild The Grid? Who knows? The viewers don't, that's for sure.
Also, there was some dialogue that felt a little weird, falling under the Lucas Rule of "You can write it, but you can't read it." Though, there are few movies without an occasional snag in the script. I do appreciate all the Fan service that was done, I really do, but if you have time to include the Tanks passing in the background, then you should have time to polish the script enough to keep the ends of the strands in
The acting is actually a lot better than I thought it would be. But, as could be expected, Bridges stole the show in his double role as both Flynn and Clu. What was probably the best CGI piece was "Young" Flynn, even though there were a few times that the CGI was very obvious. Also strong was Olivia Wilde, who oozed sex appeal, at the same time she seemed innocent and naive. Garrett Hedlund is very good, but he lacks the pure laid back charm of Bridges in the original, and even here.
For a sequel, you won't find much better. Plot snags aside Tron: Legacy is a very fun ride and well worth a trip to the cinema for a big screen viewing. For fans of the first... it's definitely been worth the wait.
Dr. Brooklyn says: LIKE this movie (8.75/10)
Gremlins: A Review
Some movies stand the test of time not because of amazing stories or outstanding performances, but instead they just touch certain audiences in a certain way. In other words, they're just fun. Such is the case of Gremlins (1984), equal parts comedy and camp, with a delightful infusion of horror and Christmas joy to make a movie that will be remembered for decades because its fun and unique, but nobody will accuse it of being one of the greatest movies ever made.
In some ways the movie plays like a modern version of 'The Trouble with Tribbles' one of the truly classic Original Star Trek episodes, but other than the annoying, rapidly spawning creatures the similarities end there. Gremlins starts out very innocent, with a like able kid, matched with geeky yet like able parents, and a cranky old lady causing trouble in his life. In a lot of ways the characters work because they are very conventional, many are straight out of the standard 80s mold (think The Goonies). The redeeming element to this is that all the characters are very enjoyable, because viewers have seen them before.
As I briefly touched on earlier, the script, by later Harry Potter helmer Chris Columbus, mixes comedy with horror to produce a very different Christmas movie. I was kind of impressed with how interesting a movie about little monsters could be. There's the main story involving the aforementioned monsters, there's also a romantic side plot for Billy (Zach Galligan). Again, these subplots are very cliche for a movie that came out during the 1980s, but the point is that they work.
In what was probably my favorite inclusion of the movie was the constant shots of old movies, many of which set the stage for the events of the movie. Particularly The Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1956) before the Mogwai began to break out of their own pods, it was little touches like this that allowed sci-fi genre fans an added level of enjoyment.
From the future looking back, the effects are quite lame, the creatures eyes often don't sync up and motion is very rigid and unnatural, something that today would be done easily with CGI. That being said, for the time the effects would have been cutting edge and probably would have left a young viewer or two with bad dreams for a while after seeing this movie.
Also, the human performances all fall into the "1980s camp" pile, due to shoddy acting made alright simply because the movie is shoddy itself therefore the average performance play along with the whole campy vibe, instead of seeming out of place. There are no great performances, but there's nothing on a Wiseau level, either.
As a piece of high quality cinema, Gremlins is a bit of a failure. The story is bizarre, matched with decent acting and sub par effects there's not a lot of substance. But taken as a piece of entertainment... there is a lot going for Gremlins. There are laughs, good characters, and even a bit of romance, all added up to make a very fun movie, even if it's not a Citizen Kane or a Casablanca.
Dr. Brooklyn says: LIKE this movie (8/10)
In some ways the movie plays like a modern version of 'The Trouble with Tribbles' one of the truly classic Original Star Trek episodes, but other than the annoying, rapidly spawning creatures the similarities end there. Gremlins starts out very innocent, with a like able kid, matched with geeky yet like able parents, and a cranky old lady causing trouble in his life. In a lot of ways the characters work because they are very conventional, many are straight out of the standard 80s mold (think The Goonies). The redeeming element to this is that all the characters are very enjoyable, because viewers have seen them before.
As I briefly touched on earlier, the script, by later Harry Potter helmer Chris Columbus, mixes comedy with horror to produce a very different Christmas movie. I was kind of impressed with how interesting a movie about little monsters could be. There's the main story involving the aforementioned monsters, there's also a romantic side plot for Billy (Zach Galligan). Again, these subplots are very cliche for a movie that came out during the 1980s, but the point is that they work.
In what was probably my favorite inclusion of the movie was the constant shots of old movies, many of which set the stage for the events of the movie. Particularly The Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1956) before the Mogwai began to break out of their own pods, it was little touches like this that allowed sci-fi genre fans an added level of enjoyment.
From the future looking back, the effects are quite lame, the creatures eyes often don't sync up and motion is very rigid and unnatural, something that today would be done easily with CGI. That being said, for the time the effects would have been cutting edge and probably would have left a young viewer or two with bad dreams for a while after seeing this movie.
Also, the human performances all fall into the "1980s camp" pile, due to shoddy acting made alright simply because the movie is shoddy itself therefore the average performance play along with the whole campy vibe, instead of seeming out of place. There are no great performances, but there's nothing on a Wiseau level, either.
As a piece of high quality cinema, Gremlins is a bit of a failure. The story is bizarre, matched with decent acting and sub par effects there's not a lot of substance. But taken as a piece of entertainment... there is a lot going for Gremlins. There are laughs, good characters, and even a bit of romance, all added up to make a very fun movie, even if it's not a Citizen Kane or a Casablanca.
Dr. Brooklyn says: LIKE this movie (8/10)
Sunday, December 19, 2010
I Review You, Man
Over the last few years the slacker set has invaded motion pictures and established a base camp in the romantic comedy genre. Some of the movies have turned into modern classics, with an endless stream of quoting and tie in merchandise for teenagers to wear. One of these movies was the 2009 movie I Love You, Man starring Paul Rudd (Knocked Up) and Jason Segel (Forgetting Sarah Marshall). In effect the movie is part of the current "slacker/striver" strain of the romantic comedy virus, but as it describes itself, it's a "bromantic comedy."
Pete (Rudd) seemingly has no friends, except his girlfriend and most of his female coworkers. With an impending wedding, Pete has a problem: He has no Best Man. As such, he decides to set out to find a best friend: involving a few gay men that think effeminate Pete is also gay, all leading to the meet cute with Sydney (Segel). The two instantly become friends and in true rom-com style spend all their free time together... falling deeper and deeper in bro-love.
As a romantic comedy there are many of the same pitfalls that plagues most movies in the genre, mainly being: Love and friendship like this is not instantaneous. Also, there's a love building montage set to "Tom Sawyer," and worst of all... two dimensional characters.
Jon Favreau is the worst offender here; as shown in movies like Swingers (1996), Favreau can do comedy, but here he is so abrasive there is little to no comedy... just... Favreau being an asshole. Rudd's character is just a loser, I'm sorry, but he is. For character's like Rudd's to work, they have to be more than just sad sacks. Tragically unhip, Pete is just a loser pretending to be cool... but the writers gave him so little real development he remains a loser acting cool. Then there's the opposite end of the spectrum in Sydney, a guy who is so hipster cool that he wears Ugg boots ironically, has a hybrid dog, and plays Rush songs. Again, there is so little characterization that Sydney is essentially what a 10 year old dreams they'll be like when they are nearing 30.
Bringing me to my biggest complaint with the movie: the script. I have seen just about the whole cast in other movies, even the back ground fillers pop up in most of the "edgy" comedy shows and movies. So I know they can do comedy and are all decent actors, leading the weakness of the movie to be shared between the script writers and the director, the latter being one of the former. There are some funny parts, but most of the movie isn't funny on it's own, laughs are only elicited because of Segel's over acting, the only redeeming part of this movie. The jokes are usually strung out longer than they should be, making them less funny than they were.
I heard this movie get hyped beyond belief, and I was a little let down. Segel and Rudd have both been in much better movies, so if you want a does of Segel or Rudd (or Segel and Rudd in some cases) check out most of the Apatow family tree. Though if you're looking for a few immature laughs and hip references check this out, but if you want a good comedy... don't.
Dr. Brooklyn says: PASS this movie (6/10)
Pete (Rudd) seemingly has no friends, except his girlfriend and most of his female coworkers. With an impending wedding, Pete has a problem: He has no Best Man. As such, he decides to set out to find a best friend: involving a few gay men that think effeminate Pete is also gay, all leading to the meet cute with Sydney (Segel). The two instantly become friends and in true rom-com style spend all their free time together... falling deeper and deeper in bro-love.
As a romantic comedy there are many of the same pitfalls that plagues most movies in the genre, mainly being: Love and friendship like this is not instantaneous. Also, there's a love building montage set to "Tom Sawyer," and worst of all... two dimensional characters.
Jon Favreau is the worst offender here; as shown in movies like Swingers (1996), Favreau can do comedy, but here he is so abrasive there is little to no comedy... just... Favreau being an asshole. Rudd's character is just a loser, I'm sorry, but he is. For character's like Rudd's to work, they have to be more than just sad sacks. Tragically unhip, Pete is just a loser pretending to be cool... but the writers gave him so little real development he remains a loser acting cool. Then there's the opposite end of the spectrum in Sydney, a guy who is so hipster cool that he wears Ugg boots ironically, has a hybrid dog, and plays Rush songs. Again, there is so little characterization that Sydney is essentially what a 10 year old dreams they'll be like when they are nearing 30.
Bringing me to my biggest complaint with the movie: the script. I have seen just about the whole cast in other movies, even the back ground fillers pop up in most of the "edgy" comedy shows and movies. So I know they can do comedy and are all decent actors, leading the weakness of the movie to be shared between the script writers and the director, the latter being one of the former. There are some funny parts, but most of the movie isn't funny on it's own, laughs are only elicited because of Segel's over acting, the only redeeming part of this movie. The jokes are usually strung out longer than they should be, making them less funny than they were.
I heard this movie get hyped beyond belief, and I was a little let down. Segel and Rudd have both been in much better movies, so if you want a does of Segel or Rudd (or Segel and Rudd in some cases) check out most of the Apatow family tree. Though if you're looking for a few immature laughs and hip references check this out, but if you want a good comedy... don't.
Dr. Brooklyn says: PASS this movie (6/10)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)