Showing posts with label Roger Ebert. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Roger Ebert. Show all posts

Tuesday, August 16, 2016

Inexplicable Movie Review: Jason Bourne



Note: Spoilers follow for Jason Bourne.

On Twitter, I quipped that the most unrealistic part of the new Jason Bourne movie, Jason Bourne, is that there is a tech-like Comic Con panel, and somehow, Chris Hardwick isn’t hosting it. However, that was more because it struck me as a funny line, whereas the truth was a bit less humorous. “Somehow, an armored police SWAT truck and a Dodge Charger tear through the streets of Vegas, with the armored car plowing through a row of about 20 cars with drivers in them at one point.”

There are some Grand Theft Auto-level traffic hijinks going on in this movie, except that in the video game, cars get destroyed after a couple crashes. In contrast, Jason Bourne has multiple action sequences where cars and motorcycles manage to survive hopping over curves, smashing other cars, and being used as battering rams. The drivers are usually unaffected by these crashes, but they at least have the slight justification of being trained assassins.

Anyway, this is by far the most mindless of the Bourne movies, to its detriment. I liked the original trilogy because they combined the car chases and hand-to-hand fighting of conventional action movies with an existential crisis. There was always a lingering feeling that Bourne was uneasy with his power, and using it reluctantly.

In contrast, Jason Bourne uses flimsy justification to get the “gang” back together. You see, there is a NEW evil, government surveillance program that’s way worse than the one from the original trilogy, and because of that, Julia Stiles needs to get herself a movie paycheck, because rent on a good New York City loft is high.

… Okay, maybe she really liked the script or something. I don’t know why, though. It basically takes some current buzzwords and hot news stories – Facebook! Wikileaks! Surveillance! Greek riots! – and throws them into a blender. The result is something that feels more appropriate for a bad CBS show that your parents watch, not a motion picture I paid $10 for. This film features a lot of dramatic, unrealistic Hacking and Surveillance and Bugging. Yes, it’s the CIA, but they still can’t turn a grainy image into crystal clear by yelling, “Enhance!”

As a result, the only thing really propping the movie up is Bourne, and hey, Matt Damon is Matt Damon. He’s still friggin’ great. As pointed out in a review on RogerEbert.com by Brian Tallerico, Damon probably has 25 lines of dialogue in the entire film. He works though as the quiet, steely type that’s the closest thing to a “realistic” superhero we have in the movies.

Damon gets to do cool Bourne-stuff, like decking guys with one punch in unlicensed bare-knuckles boxing matches, a la Snatch, although Bourne does his work in the desert. (Side note: Remember when Jason Statham was funny?) The only other character that gets to show some “personality” is Vincent Cassel as the unnamed Asset, essentially a predecessor to Bourne. Cassel manages to convey antagonism with his sneers and stares, which is important, since he doesn’t get much screen time because we need 20 scenes about hacking and data gathering.

Speaking of, the rest of the cast feels somewhat wasted. Tommy Lee Jones plays the heavy, CIA director Robert Dewey, but he’s so far to the Evil side of the ledger that you can’t ever really put yourself in his shoes. There is more nuance in the positions of Iron Man and Captain American in Marvel’s Civil War. Alicia Vikander is incredibly easy on the eyes as the CIA counter-intelligence technology something or other, but because the movie is so muddled in its plot, it’s unclear what her motivations are.

Something for the sequel, I suppose. It’s unclear if the movie will get one, but so far, it’s made $246 million against a budget of $120 million, suggesting it’s a modest hit even without being released in China, Mexico or Russia yet. I’d be game for another installment, just because Damon is getting older and that would be an interesting dynamic to play with, plus the biggest hanging curve with the series is, “How does Bourne actually continue with his life?” By the end of Jason Bourne, pretty much every significant person in Bourne’s life is dead, except Pam Landy (not in this movie) and Paz, the assassin from the third movie (also not in this movie). They still have some room to run with the series, but not much.

Want to support Steve’s blogging? Then purchase something via the Amazon clickthru link for Your Parents Basement, Steve’s other project! To read all of Steve’s past Inexplicable Movie Reviews, click here! For Inexplicable TV Reviews, click here! For Inexplicable Video Game Reviews, click here! And for Inexplicable Book Reviews, go here!

Wednesday, August 10, 2016

Inexplicable Movie Review: Now and Then



Note: Spoilers follow for Now and Then.

Now and Then is a good, but not great, coming-of-age story about young ladies. I don’t know their exact ages, because I’m not knowledgeable about when girls experience puberty, but it’s basically like a female-focused version of The Sandlot, or Stand By Me, or seemingly dozens of other guy movies. Now and Then is different from the stereotypical 1980s teen dramas (mostly starring Molly Ringwald) because there is way more of a focus on the relationships between the friends, as opposed to Much Strife about a boy.

Surprisingly, the movie sits at 19 percent on Rotten Tomatoes, although 82 percent of the people who watched it liked it. Ebert gave the film two stars, praising the work of the young actresses while pretty much savaging everything else.

Reading his review, I’d say it analyzes Now and Then pretty much on the nose. (It’s like he did it for a living, or something.) The storytelling device of the film – that it’s all a big flashback with some narration by grown-up Demi Moore – is kind of hokey. It only seems to exist to allow for four established actresses – Moore, Melanie Griffith, Rosie O’Donnell and Rita Wilson – to be on the movie’s masthead, since their total screen time is about 15 lackluster minutes.

The real stars of the movie are the young versions of the adults – Christina Ricci (Roberta), Thora Birch (Teeny), Gaby Hoffmann (Samantha) and Ashleigh Aston Moore (Chrissy). Hoffmann and Birch are especially strong, which probably isn’t all that surprising to y’all reading this, given that you know how their future movie careers turned out. Moore is the only one who stayed relatively unknown – According to Wikipedia, she stopped acting in 1997, and unfortunately died in 2007 at the age of 26.

Now and Then is at its best when it’s just showing interactions between the young actresses. The inevitable comparison in this regard is Stand By Me, but unfortunately as Ebert’s review highlights, the chats aren’t as effective in this movie because of the heavy-handed narration, the “flashback” method of the film, and some really hokey plot elements. You know, stuff like the gals stealing the guys’ clothing when they skinny-dipped, and a séance gone wrong, and just stealing plot points from Home Alone, of all things.

If you’re looking for a great, female-focused coming of age story, well, this isn’t it. Gilmore Girls is still the end-all, be-all for that sort of media. Still, I found it entertaining enough for its 90-minute run time. Just focus on the youngsters performances, and laugh at the Dark and Edgy Demi Moore. If you’re feeling nostalgic, Huffington Post has a then-and-now slideshow for Now and Then.

Want to support Steve’s blogging? Then purchase something via the Amazon clickthru link for Your Parents Basement, Steve’s other project! To read all of Steve’s past Inexplicable Movie Reviews, click here! For Inexplicable TV Reviews, click here! For Inexplicable Video Game Reviews, click here! And for Inexplicable Book Reviews, go here!

Friday, June 4, 2010

Pitching Perfect Projects: Eating Dinner and Looking For Work

I've got two somewhat-related project ideas tonight. For those unfamiliar with my previous post on this topic, you can check out it out here and here. The concept? Pitching ideas that I think would make fantastic movies or television shows. First up...

- Eating Dinner. This is based on the idea of Roger Ebert's old reviewing partner, Gene Siskel. Ebert has said several times that Siskel always asked himself one question about every movie he watched: Is this film better than just sitting in on dinner with the leads? I love that standard, because it's relatively simple to understand.

However, instead of using it as a standard to judge movies on, why not just film movies or a show based on the concept? Of course, there is the legendary My Dinner With Andre, which stars the great Wallace Shawn. Most of y'all probably remember him as the funny dude from The Princess Bride, another great performance. If he's willing to sign on for the show, then great! If not, then we'll have to look elsewhere.

Some of you might be thinking - Hey, what about Shatner? He did have a show that was pretty similar to what I was pitching. However, the problem with him is that Shatner himself is too much of a buffoon, and doesn't have enough chops, to make it work. You need someone who brings something to the table besides a broad caricature. Preferably, you would involve someone who isn't widely known for just one role, or who has range as an actor. Actors with developed personas - Christopher Walken, Alec Baldwin - wouldn't really work for this, and a complete unknown wouldn't be believable as an equal of whoever he was talking to.

Assuming there is no limit to who I can cast, then I find George Clooney and Edward Norton to be the best choices. Clooney just exudes cool, between his presence in Ocean's Eleven and tagging anything hot that moves in Hollywood, yet I don't really know much about the guy. The same thing goes with Norton, except he also seems slightly nuts. He seems to have a slight sense of humor about himself, given his appearances on Stella and Modern Family. In the past, he dated Courtney Love and Salma Hayek, which is range in pretty much every conceivable way.

-----

Now we got a stew going...

- Looking For Work. Now, this is the show that Shatner could be on, if he wasn't busy with his show based on Twitter.

The premise is somewhat similar to Lookwell!, which I've written about in the past. In that show, Adam West played an out-of-work television detective, Ty Lookwell, who was deluded into thinking he could actually solve crimes now. It was nonsensical, and absolutely awesome.

The twist in this show is that the actor would just play him or herself. Obviously, Adam West would still work for this, as would anyone else who is normally seen as being available for just about any role with a paycheck - George Takei, Michael Caine, Carl Weathers. You can imagine it as the poor man's version of Curb Your Enthusiasm, except that it would be a scripted show with the character playing himself.

Part of the beauty of this is that it allows you the opportunity for tons of silly nostalgia and self-referential humor, especially when it comes to the business. The show should be a spoof of some of the more outlandish aspects of the trade - remember how Robert Goulet had a sitcom? - by putting the lead in ridiculous situations every week that he or she is completely serious about. (Spoofs work best when the people don't realize they're in a spoof; nobody ever cracks up in Airplane! or The Naked Gun.)

Thursday, May 27, 2010

Around The Web - Sex and the City sucks, more upfront fun and Jesus, Jesus, Jesus


Catching up on some various things I found funny, interesting or appealing from the web...

- As regular readers know, I love Roger Ebert in a way that should be illegal for a man to love another man. Perhaps Tommy Heinsohn loves Walter McCarty and Rajon Rondo more; I don't know, and I really hope I don't ever have to complete a test to find out.

Ebert is at his best when he is ripping into a truly horrible movie, such as Sex and the City 2. Frankly, the first movie looked like excrement, and the second movie looks even more horrid with the totally cheap plot device of transporting the characters to some foreign locale. He is no fan, giving it one star out of four, and he savages it from the opening paragraph:

Some of these people make my skin crawl. The characters of "Sex and the City 2" are flyweight bubbleheads living in a world which rarely requires three sentences in a row. Their defining quality is consuming things. They gobble food, fashion, houses, husbands, children, vitamins and freebies. They must plan their wardrobes on the phone, so often do they appear in different basic colors, like the plugs you pound into a Playskool workbench.
As a wise man once said, ouch baby! I've seen about half an episode of Sex and the City, and I found it... well, repugnant. Then again, I find no problem with professional wrestling, so go figure. Like Jersey Shore, I just find Sex and the City to be the embodiment of thoughtless, ridiculous extravagance. I understand that it is probably escapist fun for many, but given how many people seem to actually emulate the show, I'm not a fan.

- Slate finished its series on upfronts by having Troy Patterson go to the CW's presentation. There are at least two reasons that I'm happy they had Katy Perry perform at their upfront. Apparently, she's some sort of singer! Strangely, I had never noticed that she sang.

Anyway, all of the CW shows sound horrible, but none of them are really aimed at me. Nikita sounds like it would have potential if it was on another network, but since it is on the CW, then she will probably be a part-time assassin, and a part-time fashion consultant. Plain Jane and Shedding for the Wedding sound like rehashes of shows. And California Gurls and Hellcats sound like the horrid, standard fare for the CW.

- And finally... This entire story from Slate about three guys claiming to be Jesus Christ who were forced to live together is pretty nuts. Enjoy! (And p.s., wasn't Dogma an underrated movie? I totally agree!)

The Katy Perry photo is from here.

Sunday, April 18, 2010

The conflicted messages of Kick-Ass


In case you haven't heard, there is sort of a divide about whether Kick-Ass is fun or exploitative, since it has incredibly graphic, downright disturbing scenes featuring an 11-year-old girl killing and maiming scores of bad guys. IMDB users have given the movie an 8.5 rating as of Sunday night, while it shockingly got one star from Ebert, who is usually a good barometer for what I'll personally enjoy.

My own feelings on the flick are... conflicted. First, I think the trailers and advertising for the movie are REALLY misleading, which you should know going in. Realize that this movie is rated R, and it earns its R-rating and then some, in terms of language and graphic violence. The trailers make the movie seem like a silly lark, with costumed superheroes and McLovin'. Well yeah, he's in the movie, but as more of a secondary or supporting character, and before you get to his portions, you have plenty of graphic deaths and maiming.

One of my girlfriend's friends told her the movie was kind of like Superbad, which is completely false, unless you consider any movie with McLovin' automatically like Superbad. Kick-Ass has a lot more in common with the ultra-violent Kill Bill than any sort of Judd Apatow production.

I loved Kick-Ass because I realized pretty quickly what it was - A gritty superhero movie. This isn't Spiderman or Mystery Man, with super powers and jokes and slick production to bail the heroes out. The fighting is shockingly raw in Kick-Ass; Dave, a.k.a. Kick-Ass, is getting his ass beat more than rescuing and avenging. The movie is actually concerned with answering the question, "What would happen if some teenager tried to fight back in a crime-filled city?"

To be sure, there still are plenty of non-realistic aspects included, and they mostly have to do with the relationship between Big Daddy (Nicolas Cage in a good performance) and Hit Girl, the 11-year-old killer. She has been trained since birth to be a superhero and killer, but even with this in mind, her skills are frankly unbelievable and unrealistic.

Addressing Ebert's point - Yeah, there is something a bit unsettling about seeing an 11-year-old get shot and beat up. The shooting happens very early in the movie, but the coldness of the scene was... eerie.

The reaction of the audience also made me cringe. I was watching mostly with college and high school aged-kids, and several of them laughed as she got shot... without having any idea about whether she was actually hurt or not. It did remind me of the reaction of crowds to both portions of Kill Bill, and Inglorious Basterds, but both of those movies play in more of a "fantasy" universe than Kick-Ass to me.

However, I do think Hit Girl's scenes were realistic in the context of the film. Most other movies would have sugarcoated her role, and had Kick-Ass magically develop much better fighting skills to fill her role instead, or to never put Hit Girl in serious danger. Kick-Ass is uncompromising in this regard, and establishes early that it is not going to cop-out when it comes to the violence.

Anyway, I don't want to keep going on with potential spoilers. If you're a fan of Tarantino films or Sin City, then you will probably find Kick-Ass surprisingly enjoying, for the reasons I cited. However, if you hated those movies, and are expecting a silly sort of superhero movie, then avoid Kick-Ass at all costs!

The awesome poster of Kick-Ass, which I now kind of want, I found here. The picture of Hit Girl punching is from Ebert's review, linked again for you here. The "normal" picture of Hit Girl is from this site.

LinkWithin

Related Posts with Thumbnails