SOMETHING A LITTLE MORE UP-TO-DATE
I has been pointed out to me that I often choose the more obscure, older, cult films to review, and since right now, the polls are saying you guys and gals want more reviews of new films, I thought I would choose one of the best film of the past year, 'The Dark Knight'.
There was a time when people thought it was crazy to try and have someone else take on the role of the Joker because no one could possibly fill Jack Nicholson's shoes. But after you see The Dark Knight you won't be able to think of anyone else besides Heath Ledger. Now Nicholson's Joker looks like a naughty clown while Ledger's Joker is downright nasty and disturbed (yet still oddly loveable). Ledger's maniacal performance as the psycho giving both cops and crooks nightmares is so riveting that it makes you sad for all the roles he'll never have a chance to tackle after he died at the beginning of last year just after finishing production on The Dark Knight.
Picking up essentially where Batman Begins left off, we find Gotham is marginally better off but still struggling with corruption and crime. Lt. James Gordon (Gary Oldman) is supposed to arrest the vigilante Batman (Christian Bale) on sight but instead he's been partnering with the Caped Crusader to try and capture a group of mobsters. It's difficult to determine who to trust but the new D.A. Harvey Dent (Aaron Eckhart) is looking like the hero Gotham needs. Although Bruce Wayne is a little suspicious of Dent's intentions with Rachel (Maggie Gyllenhaal), Bruce's former love. But throwing everything into chaos and panic is the arrival of The Joker. He feels no loyalty to the other criminals in the city and seems solely interested in destroying all he can.
The Dark Knight is a very long way from the camp cheesy Batman of the 60s TV show with Adam West. Nolan continues the darkening tone that began with Tim Burton and Michael Keaton. Nolan and Bale take a sombre approach to their material to deliver a sleek, dark Batman for the new millennium. Nolan delivers a B-movie dressed up very elegantly as a respectable Hollywood drama - just one with kick ass action and a leading man in a cape. Confusing what it means to be a hero is at the heart of this film, and Alfred (Michael Caine) is constantly reminding us of the weighty choices Wayne has to make.
My only reservations are with the ending. Of course they want to set it up for the sequel, which has now been announced, and will contain the Riddler as the villain, but it just petered off into nothing. There were just a few too many loose ends for my liking.
VERDICT - IT'S AN ACTION FILM, BUT NOT AS WE KNOW IT...
Tuesday, 17 February 2009
Sunday, 15 February 2009
Ooh, Look At Me With The Big Star!
As you may have noticed, I enjoy bad movies, as they give me plenty of ammunition, and a chance to vent my anger at them.
Probably the most famous version of the 'this film is crap so let's enjoy it!' genre is Mystery Science Theater 3000 (MST3K), the American TV show in which a bad film is run, and a group of people make jokes about it and point out its flaws.
The show's head writer and main star was Michael J Nelson, who I had a chance to talk to.
ELEMENTARY PENGUIN: Now you, Kevin, Trace, and all the gang had amazing success in the 80s and 90s with MST3K, and more now with rifftrax. Why do you think the public enjoy bad movies?
MIKE NELSON: It's the deflation of the expectation, I think: "You are about to be
entertained by experts" is what they're saying, and so seeing that go wrong is fun and surprising.
EP: Are there any set themes or moments that distinguish an enjoyable bad movie from a truly unwatchable one?
MN: Definitely. Fail spectacularly and it's fun, fail by not trying to do enough and it's just boring. Bad dialogue can be funny - flat dialogue is a snoozer.
EP: When was your last truly enjoyable trip to the cinema?
MN: What decade is it? Actually, I rarely go to the theater, and mostly I can't enjoy it because of the other patrons (texting, talking on the phone, just flat out talking) but I have a nice setup in my home. I think the last movie I saw in the theater was Tropic Thunder, and that had some very enjoyable moments.
EP: If you look at lists of the top 10, 50, or even 100 films, the majority of them will be from the 1950s to around the mid 90s. Why do you think modern films, even if very good, seem to be less prolific?
MN: Probably economics. There just is a lot more money to be made in foreign markets with genre and action movies, which can be very good, but don't tend to be as lasting.
EP: If you were only allowed to watch one movie, for the rest of your life, what movie would that be?
MN: Probably Casablanca. It's just so much fun, it's smart, and its steeped in true emotion and crisis and patriotism and heroism, partly because it was filmed in 1942 when the world was truly on the brink.
EP: In Kevin's book, A Year At The Movies, he talks about the decline of drive-in movies. Certainly here in the UK, there seems to be a decline in the number of cinemas altogether. Why do you think this is?
MN: Simply the dizzying array of entertainment choices available now. When I was a kid there was 4 channels of TV and you had movies.
EP: Has working on MST3K and Rifftrax affected the way you look at films you watch for pleasure?
MN: Yes, you really do appreciate good movies more because you see how easy it is to fail. It is a very, very difficult thing to make a good movie, so bravo to those who do.
EP: What do you think is the most over-rated film of all time?
MN: Crash or maybe American Beauty.
EP: Do your children enjoy the films they go to see as much as you did when you were a child?
MN: They love movies, and though they like some of the silly comedies aimed at their age group, they also like quite sophisticated fare, and like old movies every bit as much as new ones. (For instance, To Kill a Mockingbird is a family favorite.)
EP: Do you think that bad films are made because studios know we will watch them, or that we watch bad movies because studios keep making them?
MN: I think the studios will do anything they can to make money - that is their job, after all, and I have nothing against that. For my part I'm glad they keep making them because it keeps me employed, too.
Probably the most famous version of the 'this film is crap so let's enjoy it!' genre is Mystery Science Theater 3000 (MST3K), the American TV show in which a bad film is run, and a group of people make jokes about it and point out its flaws.
The show's head writer and main star was Michael J Nelson, who I had a chance to talk to.
ELEMENTARY PENGUIN: Now you, Kevin, Trace, and all the gang had amazing success in the 80s and 90s with MST3K, and more now with rifftrax. Why do you think the public enjoy bad movies?
MIKE NELSON: It's the deflation of the expectation, I think: "You are about to be
entertained by experts" is what they're saying, and so seeing that go wrong is fun and surprising.
EP: Are there any set themes or moments that distinguish an enjoyable bad movie from a truly unwatchable one?
MN: Definitely. Fail spectacularly and it's fun, fail by not trying to do enough and it's just boring. Bad dialogue can be funny - flat dialogue is a snoozer.
EP: When was your last truly enjoyable trip to the cinema?
MN: What decade is it? Actually, I rarely go to the theater, and mostly I can't enjoy it because of the other patrons (texting, talking on the phone, just flat out talking) but I have a nice setup in my home. I think the last movie I saw in the theater was Tropic Thunder, and that had some very enjoyable moments.
EP: If you look at lists of the top 10, 50, or even 100 films, the majority of them will be from the 1950s to around the mid 90s. Why do you think modern films, even if very good, seem to be less prolific?
MN: Probably economics. There just is a lot more money to be made in foreign markets with genre and action movies, which can be very good, but don't tend to be as lasting.
EP: If you were only allowed to watch one movie, for the rest of your life, what movie would that be?
MN: Probably Casablanca. It's just so much fun, it's smart, and its steeped in true emotion and crisis and patriotism and heroism, partly because it was filmed in 1942 when the world was truly on the brink.
EP: In Kevin's book, A Year At The Movies, he talks about the decline of drive-in movies. Certainly here in the UK, there seems to be a decline in the number of cinemas altogether. Why do you think this is?
MN: Simply the dizzying array of entertainment choices available now. When I was a kid there was 4 channels of TV and you had movies.
EP: Has working on MST3K and Rifftrax affected the way you look at films you watch for pleasure?
MN: Yes, you really do appreciate good movies more because you see how easy it is to fail. It is a very, very difficult thing to make a good movie, so bravo to those who do.
EP: What do you think is the most over-rated film of all time?
MN: Crash or maybe American Beauty.
EP: Do your children enjoy the films they go to see as much as you did when you were a child?
MN: They love movies, and though they like some of the silly comedies aimed at their age group, they also like quite sophisticated fare, and like old movies every bit as much as new ones. (For instance, To Kill a Mockingbird is a family favorite.)
EP: Do you think that bad films are made because studios know we will watch them, or that we watch bad movies because studios keep making them?
MN: I think the studios will do anything they can to make money - that is their job, after all, and I have nothing against that. For my part I'm glad they keep making them because it keeps me employed, too.
Dogma
TIME TO OFFEND THE CHRISTIANS
I love it when a film causes controversy. Be it over religion, ethnicity, or even just taste, a film that proves to be controversial always seems to be destined for infamy, if not just fame. The only problem is that because of the controversy, these films are often not even given a second glance based just on their quality. One film that has really suffered this fate is 1999's 'Dogma', directed and written by Kevin Smith.
I thought this film would be appropriate, since with several wars, the whole Atheist bus sign arguement, and the general defensiveness of every religion, a film that both pokes fun at, and attempts to improve, religion would be a perfect subject for today. Also, I am huge fan of Kevin Smith, and really respect his attitude towards his films. He casts whoever he wants, instead of whoever is popular, and puts the film together practically on his own, instead of just passing it to a group of editors.
'Dogma' is probably his most critically successful movie to date, as it has a much more exciting and involving storyline as any of the others. In it,Matt Damon and Ben Affleck play Loki and Bartleby, two angels cast out of heaven and exiled for all eternity to Wisconsin. They hear about a bishop (George Carlin) who is rededicating a cathedral in New Jersey in the image of Buddy Jesus, a Christ who blesses his followers with the A-OK sign. Anyone entering the cathedral will be immediately forgiven all sins, so as to be welcomed into Catholicism with a clean slate. Bartleby and Loki see the loophole: Walk through the church's doors, and they qualify again for heaven. The problem is, this will prove that God is not infallible, and all existence will cease to be.
It is up to Bethany (Linda Florentino) an abortion clinic employee, to stop them, as she is the Last Zion (the last living descendant of Christ) to stop them.
Smith is known for his silly, rude humor. He is known for references to nerd culture, specifically Star Wars and comic books. He is known for every other word being 'fuck'. What he ISN'T known for is his films containing a really strong, important message. In 'Dogma', the message is positive, strong, and not at all corny, being "It doesn't matter what you believe in, just that you have belief" So forget the controversy behind the film, and just enjoy the film, it's a bloody good one.
VERDICT - NOT EVEN GOD COULD HATE THIS
I love it when a film causes controversy. Be it over religion, ethnicity, or even just taste, a film that proves to be controversial always seems to be destined for infamy, if not just fame. The only problem is that because of the controversy, these films are often not even given a second glance based just on their quality. One film that has really suffered this fate is 1999's 'Dogma', directed and written by Kevin Smith.
I thought this film would be appropriate, since with several wars, the whole Atheist bus sign arguement, and the general defensiveness of every religion, a film that both pokes fun at, and attempts to improve, religion would be a perfect subject for today. Also, I am huge fan of Kevin Smith, and really respect his attitude towards his films. He casts whoever he wants, instead of whoever is popular, and puts the film together practically on his own, instead of just passing it to a group of editors.
'Dogma' is probably his most critically successful movie to date, as it has a much more exciting and involving storyline as any of the others. In it,Matt Damon and Ben Affleck play Loki and Bartleby, two angels cast out of heaven and exiled for all eternity to Wisconsin. They hear about a bishop (George Carlin) who is rededicating a cathedral in New Jersey in the image of Buddy Jesus, a Christ who blesses his followers with the A-OK sign. Anyone entering the cathedral will be immediately forgiven all sins, so as to be welcomed into Catholicism with a clean slate. Bartleby and Loki see the loophole: Walk through the church's doors, and they qualify again for heaven. The problem is, this will prove that God is not infallible, and all existence will cease to be.
It is up to Bethany (Linda Florentino) an abortion clinic employee, to stop them, as she is the Last Zion (the last living descendant of Christ) to stop them.
Smith is known for his silly, rude humor. He is known for references to nerd culture, specifically Star Wars and comic books. He is known for every other word being 'fuck'. What he ISN'T known for is his films containing a really strong, important message. In 'Dogma', the message is positive, strong, and not at all corny, being "It doesn't matter what you believe in, just that you have belief" So forget the controversy behind the film, and just enjoy the film, it's a bloody good one.
VERDICT - NOT EVEN GOD COULD HATE THIS
Saturday, 14 February 2009
Bride Wars
IT'S THE BIGGEST PILE OF CRAP I HAVE EVER SEEN
VERDICT - KILL YOURSELF, BUT DON'T GO AND SEE THIS
Thursday, 12 February 2009
3 Ninjas : High Noon At Mega Mountain
I SPENT TIME ON THIS VIDEO, SO ENJOY IT, OR ELSE
Hey folks! Really starting to regret saying I would do this daily now, since it's about 4.30am *yawn* but I am managing.
Today for something a bit different, I have included a video review I made for a film called "3 Ninjas : High Noon At Mega Mountain", a truly reprihensible film...enjoy!
Hey folks! Really starting to regret saying I would do this daily now, since it's about 4.30am *yawn* but I am managing.
Today for something a bit different, I have included a video review I made for a film called "3 Ninjas : High Noon At Mega Mountain", a truly reprihensible film...enjoy!
Tuesday, 10 February 2009
The Producers
A TREAT FOR ME
Having grown weary over the past 2 days from reviewing a duo of truly reprehensible films I decided today would be a treat for me in reviewing a favourite of mine, this came in the form of the 2004 musical comedy 'The Producers' written and produced by Mel Brooks, creator of some of the greatest comedies to be immortalised in celluloid in the past 40 years.
This film continues to show his quick wit and love of farce and double entente. To set the scene, the film takes place in 1950s Manhattan where struggling theatrical producer Max Bialystock, played perfectly by Nathan Lane, attempts to regain the popularity of his plays had at the height of his career. His latest play 'Funny Boy' (A musical adaptation of Hamlet) closes after one night. A member of the chorus announces “we've seen shit, but never like this” and “what he did to Shakespeare, Boothe did to Lincoln”.
Bialystock receives a visit from an accountant, Leo Bloom (Matthew Broderick) the day after 'Funny Boy' closes, who goes over his books. He finds that Bialystock raised more money than was needed, and so had kept $1000 dollars for himself. While considering this, Bloom realises that technically, a producer could make more money with a unsuccessful play, than one could with a hit, simply by raising more money than is needed, and putting on a cheap flop which is then closed.
They find a script, 'Springtime For Hitler', but it becomes a surprise smash when the actor who plays Hitler is so hilariously awful and camp, people find it a work of satirical genius.
They find themselves in a situation where they have sold a few thousand percent of the shares to raise the funds, all over the shareholders expecting to be paid back.
The thing is the story isn't the crucial element behind this film's brilliance. Don't get me wrong, it's a nice, quirky, clever little story but what really makes the film shine are the actors and more importantly the chemistry between them all. Broderick and Lane clearly get on well, allowing for a more relaxed, natural performance from both giving the viewer a real sense of the fun they had whilst filming.
Another major aspect of the film's greatness is the music. The themes in the music such as the 'big band' orchestration makes the viewer feel as if they are being transported back into the era in which the film is set. The music is catchy, upbeat and the lyrics are hilarious. I think it really helped that most of the main cast performed in the stage production. Usually in film musicals, the performances are toned down because the cameras and sound equipment show the performance more intimately, but in 'The Producers', it has been kept with the feel of a stage musical, which is very refreshing to see.
Most of all, this film contains the Mel Brooks wit. Little jokes weave into bigger ones, visual comedy one would easily miss, like a joke on a poster in the background, and many contemporary references in a film set around 50 years in the past. Every joke in it is perfect. It is obvious that each line has been rewritten again and again, filmed over and over until they all fit together perfectly.
The film is fresh, funny, clever, and contains brilliant musical numbers, bringing fond nostalgia of the old classic big band numbers from the 50s.
VERDICT – IMPOSSIBLE NOT TO ENJOY
Having grown weary over the past 2 days from reviewing a duo of truly reprehensible films I decided today would be a treat for me in reviewing a favourite of mine, this came in the form of the 2004 musical comedy 'The Producers' written and produced by Mel Brooks, creator of some of the greatest comedies to be immortalised in celluloid in the past 40 years.
This film continues to show his quick wit and love of farce and double entente. To set the scene, the film takes place in 1950s Manhattan where struggling theatrical producer Max Bialystock, played perfectly by Nathan Lane, attempts to regain the popularity of his plays had at the height of his career. His latest play 'Funny Boy' (A musical adaptation of Hamlet) closes after one night. A member of the chorus announces “we've seen shit, but never like this” and “what he did to Shakespeare, Boothe did to Lincoln”.
Bialystock receives a visit from an accountant, Leo Bloom (Matthew Broderick) the day after 'Funny Boy' closes, who goes over his books. He finds that Bialystock raised more money than was needed, and so had kept $1000 dollars for himself. While considering this, Bloom realises that technically, a producer could make more money with a unsuccessful play, than one could with a hit, simply by raising more money than is needed, and putting on a cheap flop which is then closed.
They find a script, 'Springtime For Hitler', but it becomes a surprise smash when the actor who plays Hitler is so hilariously awful and camp, people find it a work of satirical genius.
They find themselves in a situation where they have sold a few thousand percent of the shares to raise the funds, all over the shareholders expecting to be paid back.
The thing is the story isn't the crucial element behind this film's brilliance. Don't get me wrong, it's a nice, quirky, clever little story but what really makes the film shine are the actors and more importantly the chemistry between them all. Broderick and Lane clearly get on well, allowing for a more relaxed, natural performance from both giving the viewer a real sense of the fun they had whilst filming.
Another major aspect of the film's greatness is the music. The themes in the music such as the 'big band' orchestration makes the viewer feel as if they are being transported back into the era in which the film is set. The music is catchy, upbeat and the lyrics are hilarious. I think it really helped that most of the main cast performed in the stage production. Usually in film musicals, the performances are toned down because the cameras and sound equipment show the performance more intimately, but in 'The Producers', it has been kept with the feel of a stage musical, which is very refreshing to see.
Most of all, this film contains the Mel Brooks wit. Little jokes weave into bigger ones, visual comedy one would easily miss, like a joke on a poster in the background, and many contemporary references in a film set around 50 years in the past. Every joke in it is perfect. It is obvious that each line has been rewritten again and again, filmed over and over until they all fit together perfectly.
The film is fresh, funny, clever, and contains brilliant musical numbers, bringing fond nostalgia of the old classic big band numbers from the 50s.
VERDICT – IMPOSSIBLE NOT TO ENJOY
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
