Category: Movies

Jenn and I went to see Mama Mia with some friends last weekend. The verdict: ack.

And that’s “ack ack ACK ACK” of the Mars-Attacks variety; watch this movie and your mind will melt.

It’s not bad so much as deeply annoying in some parts. I’m going to come at this sort of backwards: If the actors and actresses had been 100% non-big-names (like the lead Amanda Seyfried) then this would probably have been a pleasant experience. Amanda plays the sole daughter, named Sophie, of a former wild-child played by Meryl Streep. Streep’s character, Donna, had a series of flings 20 years ago with three guys in two weeks leading to the unknowability of who fathered Sophie. Sophie has the brilliant plan to invite all three father-possibles to her wedding in order to see which one is the sperm-donator.

The beginning of the movie starts out well. Things are topical and direct; the plot moves forward without any obvious forcing in order to fit in ABBA songs. (Oh yes! If you didn’t know, the entire story is hinged around various ABBA songs, with the lyrics telling the story of different parts of the characters’ lives.) Amanda is both a good singer and dancer, which given that this is a musical is somewhat (just a bit) important. Several scenes go by with Sophie as the center of the action.

Unfortunately [whoosh!] Sophie is suddenly sidelined and we learn that what we thought was a musical about Sophie (who can sing and dance) is actually about Donna (Meryl Streep) who can sing, mostly, but can’t dance at all. Then one of the father-possibles (Pierce Brosnan) joins in the singing and your head melts.

Ladies and Gentlemen, attention! Pierce Brosnan may have lots of face appeal, and look good in a clingy-wet white shirt, but he can’t sing worthy of the silver screen. When he opened up with his first lines, the audience in my theater started laughing, and we weren’t laughing with him. Ahh, Pierce. I’m sorry.

The various so-so voices and the one or two AHHHHH voices have managed to absoutely ruin my childhood. ABBA played a big part in my musical upbringing. I know most ABBA songs and a few of them word for word. Now as I listen to the ABBA Gold Album on my Ipod, I keep having flashes of the movie, with Streep or Brosnan doing their best to cause me palpitations.¹

On story notes, the plot seemed to be rather forced at times because they just had to have “Does Your Mother Know” or other song in the movie. In this respect it was in the highest traditions of the “musical” where the story is heading full tilt for the next station when suddenly everyone stops and sings about it for a while. Some musicals do this better than others. I’m going to place Mama Mia in the “others” category. There were also a few weird, random, sudden plot developments that just popped up without any foreshadowing or obvious causes. One of these sent my head spinning, especially because I’ve seen the BBC Pride and Prejudice so many times. That’s the only hint I’m giving.

So, in order of movie plot development:

1. Amanda Seyfried does a good job.
2. There’s lots of eye candy for all ages
3. It’s ABBA music so how can you not like it?
4. Um, WTF?
5. No no no, my ears! Why, Pierce, Why?
6. My childhood is dead…
7. The credits were awesome
8. Definite rental, if you see it at all

¹I’m listening to ABBA, attempting to associate something else other than the movie with the music. I may have to put these songs on my running mix list in order to alleviate the damage.

We saw The Dark Knight last Saturday. Verdict: “Very Good, but Traumatic.”

Of course, it was traumatic because it was so good. And it was so good because of Heath Ledger. He carried the movie from start to finish and without his performance as crazy-fucking-psycho Joker, the film would have been just another Superhero Action Flick. Ledger managed to portray the Joker in a fashion that was both insanely random yet still an evil genius. He was perfect in the role which drew from the beginnings of the comic as the anti-rational villain. The Joker in this piece was no mere villain, he was the epitome of chaos and anarchy. It seemed like he didn’t know what he was going to do from moment to moment and his very randomness had me clutching the arms of the seat a few times because I was afraid the film makers were going to take some of his actions to their logical conclusion.

I had a few issues with the wheels-within-wheels complexity of some of the Joker’s plots, though. There were several on screen moments when Joker said (essentially) “I’ve go no plans, I’m crazy!” yet his various diabolical deeds speak of highly sophisticated management and control of resources and people. But, Ledger did such a good job with the Joker that I can let it slide.

Batman, played by strong-jawed-boy, was only ok. He did everything he was supposed to but he really wasn’t the main character. Joker was, as well as Harvey Dent, played by Aaron Eckhart, whom I love. Harvey, the idealistic new District Attorney for Gotham, does a great job filling the role of the White Knight in this movie, with a twist.

Maggie Gyllenhaal was fine as Rachel, but her character was overshadowed by everyone else. She was mostly there as a plot device, which I found a bit disappointing. We also learn some back history on Alfred and I wonder if it jives with the comics.

Overall: Go see it. It’s long (2.2 hours) and it feels like it ends about three times, but it’s good. There are some plot irregularities and some weirdness with Batman’s super technology, but again, I can let it slide.

I mentioned before that it’s traumatic? Heath Ledger as the Joker will have you biting your fingernails…

Edit: One of the reasons I liked this movie was because I’m far enough away from the comic books that I didn’t know what was going to happen. Do yourself a favor: if you don’t already know what’s going on, don’t look it up beforehand.

Jenn and I saw Hancock on opening night, yesterday. Short and sweet version: It met expectations (Jenn says it didn’t quite meet her expectations, but close).

If you saw the previews, and how could you not if you own a TV or a computer, then you’ll be happy that they didn’t bait and switch like so many other movies do. A lot of the preview scenes occur during the first third to half of the movie, so there’s plenty that you don’t already “know” to see.

Spoilers Ahoy, but if you’ve seen the previews, then you’re safe. If you haven’t seen the previews and you want to go to the movie fresh, stop reading.

Hancock was fundamentally about the human condition rather than a straight up super hero action film. (I’m going to go out on a limb here because my observations may seem redundant to people who read a lot of comic books. I don’t therefore my insightful thoughts may be old hat.) Hancock is a super-being who is invulnerable, can fly, and is super strong. He is also alone, and the scenes of him as a drunken wino in the previews were, I think, the most telling part of the movie. Here is a guy who is fundamentally separate from the human race; he has no real brotherhood with anybody. He can take whatever he wants, and no one could stop him (there’s a scene which reflects on that). Think about how that could mess with your psyche! You’ve got skillz, but you don’t actually belong. There’s some deep-seated moral issues there that the movie touched on, but didn’t fully explore. I found myself wishing that I had had this idea five years ago, and had written about it. It’s a fascinating topic to explore, although I don’t think my ending would have been as happy as the movie.

Anyway. It was a good movie. I enjoyed it and would see it again in the theater. There were some weird things about it, though. For one, it’s rated PG-13 but I could swear I heard one of the characters say “fuck”. I thought that was an instant “R” rating? Beyond that, there was a lot of “shit” and “asshole” in the dialogue, plus the violence level was quite high, but other than the “fuck” I suppose they hit the PG-13.

I wondered during the movie where Hancock got his money. At no time does he ever do anything that might earn him cash, so how does he purchase his liquor? Hmmmm…

Another nitpick was… never mind. It’s a spoiler. Let’s just say that there was an abrupt character transformation that they milked a bit heavily to provide some slapstick. I thought it was over done in that scene.

It was good. Go see it.

14:21 Edit: I totally forgot to mention something! If you have an advanced degree, especially if you’re a college professor, there is a scene in this movie that you have to see/listen to. It’s a must. You will be tickled pink, I promise.

Jenn and I saw “Wanted” this evening. I’m sure our primary motivation to see this was Angelina Jolie, which shows what sort of literary taste we have.

Verdict: Not bad, but definitely not good. It’s a bloody action film with lots of un-ponderable and questionably crazy action bits. Doff your skeptic hat before you walk through the door and you’ll be fine.

If you’ve seen any of the previews then you know that this is about a group of assassins who are just so damn good that they can bend the flight of bullets by flinging their arms around while firing their weapons. My radar pinged on that one a bit because don’t bullets spin rapidly already? But I put that out of my mind. The only tooth-grinding unrealistic moment for me was when a passenger train car goes sliding down a gorge with it’s ends grinding against opposite rock walls and ends up stopping, intact and upright, before hitting the bottom. But, I took off my hat before going in, so I was ok.

Should you see it? Probably not in the theaters. Rent it. Much better to save the money to see “Hancock” twice.

Aren’t you glad you’ve got me who will go see these movies even knowing they will maybe suck?

I watched In the Name of the King last night, a movie that I was fully aware was supposed to be horribly bad. I still wanted to see it, despite the reviews, just to say I’d seen it and fully experienced its badness. If you feel the same way I did, that you just have to see the movie, I encourage you to resist.

The entertaining moments in this film are entertaining due to their “what the fuck is up with that?” factor rather than any contribution they make to the plot or story. The spinning-twirling-choreographed tree-ninjas are one such item, as are the amazonian cirque du soleil vine people. Also, it’s important to remember than if you’re going to go all bad-ass and place yourself in the catapult’s launch bucket, it’s much more fun to do it while on fire.

Burt Reynolds (Smokey Himself!) is the King and must have been stoned off his ass when he agreed to take this part. Leelee Sobieski has a speaking part in the movie although I’m not yet certain what her role was. She doesn’t even show much leg skin, which was disappointing. Jason Statham is the star and does a normal amount of ass-kicking, although the development of his ass-kicking-ness ability is handwaved away (he’s a farmer, after all, and always was). Ray Liotta has demonstrated that he’ll take any part, no matter how terrible, and Matthew Lilliard reprises his role from Scream with much derring-do but little resolution.

I saw it, now I can move on.

Speaking of bad movies, here’s a revised script of Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal OH MY GOD PLEASE LET IT STOP Skull.

There are no direct spoilers in this review but if you don’t want to know anything about the movie before you see it, don’t read

The short and sweet of this review: “Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull” is the worst movie you’ll see this summer. If it’s not, God help Hollywood.

These people are insane. These links are all glowing reviews of Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. They apparently did not see the same movie as I. Either that or they were shot up with an awesome amount of smack before they let Steven Spielberg ruin their summer. What’s really crazy about the reviews is that they talk about all of the things that made the movie so bad as if they were good things. When did having superflous scenes which end up being entirely throwaway turn out to be a bonus?

Even Rotten Tomatoes currently thinks the movie is good (78) but I’m willing to bet that the score will drop as the people who didn’t go to see it opening weekend start filing in. This is the only review that will admit an unclothed emperor and call it like it is: An action-packed flop that if it didn’t say “Indian Jones” in the title would probably not have broken $30M at the box office before being yanked.

Why am I down on this movie so much? Am I only lashing out because a favored franchise has been violated?

No. Not even close. This movie sucks entirely on its own merits. In fact, the film would probably have been better without Harrison Ford or all of the franchise trappings and throwaway jokes because Spielberg wouldn’t have been tempted to use them. This would have made people try to have a good movie instead of pulling scenes from the old movies and trusting them to do the job.¹

When I first heard that Indiana Jones 4 was being made I moaned and shook my head. I figured that they were going to make another “Last Crusade” and deliberately did not get my hopes up because I knew that I would be disappointed. It was too bad that I retained any expectation of a tight film because IJ4 is not it. The entire opening scene is a throwaway. Not a throwaway in the same sense that the openers of the first 3 movies were because they introduced us to important characters or plot devices. No, the entire first scene could have been cut and it wouldn’t have effected the movie. That was my first clue to the ultimate terribleness. The second clue to the ultimate terribleness was our being asked during the first conflict to suspend our disbelief not once, or twice, or even three times, but four times for different plot elements. That’s pushing it a bit far for me and that wasn’t the end of things we were expected to swallow.

Oh my God! I’m so worked up I can’t even finish this posting. It sucked! Don’t see it! I’m so glad that Sex and the City kicked its ass this weekend.

¹ They even, to my utter horror, pulled a line straight from Han Solo. Even if they didn’t deliberately do that, they should have seen it and changed the line.

-Ironically in the USA Today review I linked to above, they say the movie has “enough snap to satisfy” and end on an upbeat tone, but they only give it 2.5 stars. Huh? Shouldn’t that mean that the movie is mediocre?

-At least the review from Cinematical admitted that this movie wasn’t as good as “Raiders” but they still compare it favorably with “Temple of Doom” and “Last Crusade”, something which I entirely disagree with.