It's been two years since I started this. Two years ago, I started out by saying "I've spent two years living next to a $0.99 movie store. Therefore, I've seen a lot of movies and I want to review movies." Well over the last two years, I haven't seen a lot of movies. So it goes.
Now, I've moved again; and now I live near a $1.00 movie theater. Not only do I get to see recent movies for a dollar, I also get to see south-eastern Americans at their best. I hope to continue reviewing movies, and I will add a little flavor with scenes from an Alabama society - particularly of those who visit the dollar-theater on a Friday night.
You probably already see the discrepancy: who cares about reading reviews for movies that have already gone through the vetting process of theater sales? I don't know. What is the sound of one blogger typing? Wait, that probably does have a sound...
Saturday, March 21, 2009
Monday, October 13, 2008
Prizzi's Honor (1985)
[Well, well, well. It seems I've forgotten all about this idea I had for creating a blog. I knew I was prone to let things slide but this...this is unforgivable. I was moved to begin again this morning by a motivational weekend spent in Lafayette, Louisiana. Well...here...we....go.]
Charley Partanna (Jack Nicholson) was born into the Prizzi family via Don Corrado Prizzi (William Hickey) accepting him as his godson while Charley was still in the neonatal ward. Charley moves up the ranks and is the family's most esteemed hit man. While attending the wedding of the grand-daughter of the Don, Charley spots a beautiful woman in the church. He gives the wedding photographer a few bucks to take some pictures of her before getting a ride to the reception courtesy of the NYPD. Charley briefly dances with this mysterious woman before she runs off to "take a phone call" and never returns. Later that night, after calling around trying to uncover her name, he receives a phone call from her. Her name is Irene Walker (Kathleen Turner) and she lives in L.A. So Charley hops on a jet and meets her for pre-dinner cocktails at a hotel the next day.
Charley is immediately smitten and at dinner, in syrupy dialogue that is non-existent in modern movies, he asks Irene to marry him. Back in New York Charley shows the photos the wedding photographer took of Irene to his father, a warm-fuzzy mobster who is the right-hand-man of the Don's son. His father smiles and immediately burns them, "she was the professional we hired to take the contract on so-and-so during the wedding." Charley's dating a hit-(wo)man. Business calls and Charley has to fly back to L.A. to recover money taken from the family in a Las Vegas casino scam orchestrated by Marxie Heller. Marxie ends up dead in a trunk and Charley waits for someone else to show up to ask about the money. That someone is Marxie's wife.....(wait for it)...Irene. So now, Charley is dating a hitwoman who has also scammed the family out of money. The movie goes on to ask the question: does love conquer all (i.e., the mob)?
What I didn't like: The fact that this movie is billed as a comedy. Granted, I laughed the whole way through the movie. However, it's more accurately a self-deprecating mob drama. It's not a spoof (see "Johnny Dangerously"); the movie comes across as completely sincere while showing the lighter side of the mob. It's not the first time it's been done. Would you call "The Soprano's" a comedy? No, but you laugh every time Paulie Walnuts and Silvio open their mouths. In the same respect, Charley Partanna is very funny in the "not too bright" mobster catagory while being very good at his job.
Otherwise, there's really nothing else I did not like. There are little things here and there that may detract from the whole, but taken as a whole this movie is great. There is one other big thing: I should point out that Kathleen Turner is not my favorite actress. I knew that going in and was prepared. Some people like her, I guess.
What I liked:
Jack Nicholson as Charley Partanna. Yes, even the accent. He's just great. And he has some great lines.
Anjelica Huston as the scorned grand-daughter of the Don. I think this was her first big role, and she was good enough to recieve an Oscar for Best Supporting Actress. (The movie itself was nominated for seven, SEVEN, academy awards and won 4 Golden Globes as well as a BAFTA. Why in the world have I never heard of it until recently?!?!) Though I've excluded her role from the plot synopsis above, she plays an integral part in the movie, stirring up some family drama.
William Hickey as the Don. The make-up is hilariously bad but Hickey found the perfect role as a mafia Don.
Finally, I liked how the movie had that "classic" feel. It's directed by John Huston, of course, and there's just something about those movies - so awkward, fake, and romantic - that you can't find anymore. It's movies for the sake of movies, not for how many things explode, what's the kill count, and "you spent how many millions?" The scene at the Mexican restaurant where Charley tells Irene that the mariachi song being played will always be their song is a fitting example. I'm taken in by the indescribable power of the scene as much as I'm laughing at how hokey and contrived the dialogue is. Similarly, I love the fact that a mob movie, complete with plot twists and double crosses, works well without resorting to gimmicky surprise endings or incredible tactics a la Ocean's Eleven, Twelve, and Thirteen (okay, I know those aren't mob movies, but you get my drift.) "Prizzi's Honor" deals with these twists as a mobster would, using leverage and cunning and plain old extortion. No explosions, no switcheroos, no pulling the blinds over the audience to reveal the fanciful resolution. These days, it seems Hollywood wants its crime movies to leave an audience wondering what happened, "how did they get from conflict to....wait was that the end? was that the resolution?" It was quite refreshing to see this film which was shot before "The Usual Suspects" and "The Sixth Sense." Before these uber-twists, something as simple as kidnapping someone who had been kidnapped is oddly satisfying.
Watch for: Rather, "Listen for:" The music, all classical, mostly opera. Perfect. The songs are used so well, in fact, that it's hard to believe some of them weren't written for the movie. I know that's a bold statement, I stand by it. Also, if anyone can send me a pair of the "reading-glasses" Robert Loggia used in the movie I would be grateful.
"Best Wedding" Award: Charley and Irene's Vegas-style shotgun wedding ceremony complete with an a la carte menu (for flowers, photos, songs, etc.)....in Cuba.
You should see this movie if: You find yourself in a relationship with someone who is just like you and you're not sure if it's going to work out....and you're both hired assassins. Wait...wasn't that "Mr. and Mrs. Smith?" weird.
Food for thought: Does the title refer to a specific Prizzi, or the family in general? Discuss amongst yourselves.
Charley Partanna (Jack Nicholson) was born into the Prizzi family via Don Corrado Prizzi (William Hickey) accepting him as his godson while Charley was still in the neonatal ward. Charley moves up the ranks and is the family's most esteemed hit man. While attending the wedding of the grand-daughter of the Don, Charley spots a beautiful woman in the church. He gives the wedding photographer a few bucks to take some pictures of her before getting a ride to the reception courtesy of the NYPD. Charley briefly dances with this mysterious woman before she runs off to "take a phone call" and never returns. Later that night, after calling around trying to uncover her name, he receives a phone call from her. Her name is Irene Walker (Kathleen Turner) and she lives in L.A. So Charley hops on a jet and meets her for pre-dinner cocktails at a hotel the next day.
Charley is immediately smitten and at dinner, in syrupy dialogue that is non-existent in modern movies, he asks Irene to marry him. Back in New York Charley shows the photos the wedding photographer took of Irene to his father, a warm-fuzzy mobster who is the right-hand-man of the Don's son. His father smiles and immediately burns them, "she was the professional we hired to take the contract on so-and-so during the wedding." Charley's dating a hit-(wo)man. Business calls and Charley has to fly back to L.A. to recover money taken from the family in a Las Vegas casino scam orchestrated by Marxie Heller. Marxie ends up dead in a trunk and Charley waits for someone else to show up to ask about the money. That someone is Marxie's wife.....(wait for it)...Irene. So now, Charley is dating a hitwoman who has also scammed the family out of money. The movie goes on to ask the question: does love conquer all (i.e., the mob)?
What I didn't like: The fact that this movie is billed as a comedy. Granted, I laughed the whole way through the movie. However, it's more accurately a self-deprecating mob drama. It's not a spoof (see "Johnny Dangerously"); the movie comes across as completely sincere while showing the lighter side of the mob. It's not the first time it's been done. Would you call "The Soprano's" a comedy? No, but you laugh every time Paulie Walnuts and Silvio open their mouths. In the same respect, Charley Partanna is very funny in the "not too bright" mobster catagory while being very good at his job.
Otherwise, there's really nothing else I did not like. There are little things here and there that may detract from the whole, but taken as a whole this movie is great. There is one other big thing: I should point out that Kathleen Turner is not my favorite actress. I knew that going in and was prepared. Some people like her, I guess.
What I liked:
Jack Nicholson as Charley Partanna. Yes, even the accent. He's just great. And he has some great lines.
Anjelica Huston as the scorned grand-daughter of the Don. I think this was her first big role, and she was good enough to recieve an Oscar for Best Supporting Actress. (The movie itself was nominated for seven, SEVEN, academy awards and won 4 Golden Globes as well as a BAFTA. Why in the world have I never heard of it until recently?!?!) Though I've excluded her role from the plot synopsis above, she plays an integral part in the movie, stirring up some family drama.
William Hickey as the Don. The make-up is hilariously bad but Hickey found the perfect role as a mafia Don.
Finally, I liked how the movie had that "classic" feel. It's directed by John Huston, of course, and there's just something about those movies - so awkward, fake, and romantic - that you can't find anymore. It's movies for the sake of movies, not for how many things explode, what's the kill count, and "you spent how many millions?" The scene at the Mexican restaurant where Charley tells Irene that the mariachi song being played will always be their song is a fitting example. I'm taken in by the indescribable power of the scene as much as I'm laughing at how hokey and contrived the dialogue is. Similarly, I love the fact that a mob movie, complete with plot twists and double crosses, works well without resorting to gimmicky surprise endings or incredible tactics a la Ocean's Eleven, Twelve, and Thirteen (okay, I know those aren't mob movies, but you get my drift.) "Prizzi's Honor" deals with these twists as a mobster would, using leverage and cunning and plain old extortion. No explosions, no switcheroos, no pulling the blinds over the audience to reveal the fanciful resolution. These days, it seems Hollywood wants its crime movies to leave an audience wondering what happened, "how did they get from conflict to....wait was that the end? was that the resolution?" It was quite refreshing to see this film which was shot before "The Usual Suspects" and "The Sixth Sense." Before these uber-twists, something as simple as kidnapping someone who had been kidnapped is oddly satisfying.
Watch for: Rather, "Listen for:" The music, all classical, mostly opera. Perfect. The songs are used so well, in fact, that it's hard to believe some of them weren't written for the movie. I know that's a bold statement, I stand by it. Also, if anyone can send me a pair of the "reading-glasses" Robert Loggia used in the movie I would be grateful.
"Best Wedding" Award: Charley and Irene's Vegas-style shotgun wedding ceremony complete with an a la carte menu (for flowers, photos, songs, etc.)....in Cuba.
You should see this movie if: You find yourself in a relationship with someone who is just like you and you're not sure if it's going to work out....and you're both hired assassins. Wait...wasn't that "Mr. and Mrs. Smith?" weird.
Food for thought: Does the title refer to a specific Prizzi, or the family in general? Discuss amongst yourselves.
Thursday, May 31, 2007
Tideland
A little girl is growing up cooking heroin for her parents. Every night rocker/father (Jeff Bridges) "takes a little vacation" courtesy of the smack prepared by his daughter, a sweet little girl named Jeliza-Rose. She escapes "reality," as every kid is prone to, to a world influenced by "Alice in Wonderland" and her father's narcotic ramblings about Jutland. When her mother dies of a methadone overdose, Jeliza-Rose is taken by her father to her grandmother's house. The only problem is that grandmother has been dead for years and her house is in abandon.
What I didn't like: countless "Alice in Wonderland" references. It's almost cliche at this point for a child to fall back on their "imagination" that is always portrayed as influenced by Lewis Carroll. Perhaps this is all that we, as adults, can come up with. I agree, Lewis Carroll was "into" children and created a vivid portrayal of the active mind of youth. But come on, why can't a "child's point-of-view" be something other than "Alice in Wonderland?" Surely Terry Gilliam is the one writer/director who doesn't need this crutch.
What I liked: Perhaps I was too harsh in asserting that "Alice in Wonderland" permeated the film. It was, in a good way, grounded by and in the story. That is, it was not necessarily an integral part to the story, yet certain thematic elements were reinforced by knowing a little about "Alice in Wonderland."
All in all, this is definitely a Terry Gilliam film. I suppose no one is disputing that, so I'll elaborate. He's brilliant in the shaping and crafting of his movies. The viewer is constantly trying to understand what is happening and will happen while being engrossed in thought about what just happened. We're forced to live in each moment of the film. His magic is in keeping us barely comfortable in those moments with striking images, wonderful colors, and a lens that films beneath the characters. It's by no accident that you find yourself narrating in one of Jeliza-Rose's dolls' voices as you watch the film. You have, thus, seen what Gilliam sees. It's nice to get out of your head for a while; which is why I love Terry Gilliam.
Watch for: Jeff Bridges, he never disappoints. Also, make sure you pay attention to detail; these are important parts of a Gilliam film. If you've rented the DVD, pause it when in a room and make notes about what you see. There are no mistakes about which objects find themselves on the set. A little lagniappe for ya'.
Most importantly, make sure you listen and heed Terry Gilliam's introduction to the film. At first it seemed unnecessary and a little self-indulgent. However this intro. is appropriate for all of Gilliam's films.
"I remember that" Award: I want a submarine, too.
You should see this movie if: you like Terry Gilliam, his movies, and you remember when how much fun you could have by just Being when you were young.
Take home message: Watch "Getting Gilliam." It's a documentary. You'll like it.
What I didn't like: countless "Alice in Wonderland" references. It's almost cliche at this point for a child to fall back on their "imagination" that is always portrayed as influenced by Lewis Carroll. Perhaps this is all that we, as adults, can come up with. I agree, Lewis Carroll was "into" children and created a vivid portrayal of the active mind of youth. But come on, why can't a "child's point-of-view" be something other than "Alice in Wonderland?" Surely Terry Gilliam is the one writer/director who doesn't need this crutch.
What I liked: Perhaps I was too harsh in asserting that "Alice in Wonderland" permeated the film. It was, in a good way, grounded by and in the story. That is, it was not necessarily an integral part to the story, yet certain thematic elements were reinforced by knowing a little about "Alice in Wonderland."
All in all, this is definitely a Terry Gilliam film. I suppose no one is disputing that, so I'll elaborate. He's brilliant in the shaping and crafting of his movies. The viewer is constantly trying to understand what is happening and will happen while being engrossed in thought about what just happened. We're forced to live in each moment of the film. His magic is in keeping us barely comfortable in those moments with striking images, wonderful colors, and a lens that films beneath the characters. It's by no accident that you find yourself narrating in one of Jeliza-Rose's dolls' voices as you watch the film. You have, thus, seen what Gilliam sees. It's nice to get out of your head for a while; which is why I love Terry Gilliam.
Watch for: Jeff Bridges, he never disappoints. Also, make sure you pay attention to detail; these are important parts of a Gilliam film. If you've rented the DVD, pause it when in a room and make notes about what you see. There are no mistakes about which objects find themselves on the set. A little lagniappe for ya'.
Most importantly, make sure you listen and heed Terry Gilliam's introduction to the film. At first it seemed unnecessary and a little self-indulgent. However this intro. is appropriate for all of Gilliam's films.
"I remember that" Award: I want a submarine, too.
You should see this movie if: you like Terry Gilliam, his movies, and you remember when how much fun you could have by just Being when you were young.
Take home message: Watch "Getting Gilliam." It's a documentary. You'll like it.
Tuesday, May 29, 2007
The Prestige vs. The Illusionist
Again with the magicians. Okay, here it goes. I'm having trouble with these two, so I've decided to pair them in a match on blogspot to see who comes out victorious.
The basic premises: Amazing magicians, border lined wizards, are at the top of their game in 19th Century (?) Europe. They have acts that astound the masses and draw considerable attention by others, namely government officials and/or competitors. They, of course, are mysterious and unconventional. Then you've got some romance on the side, beautiful love-at-first-sight stuff. The conflict with competition/officials escalates. Magician is crushed by overwhelming odds and reduced to poverty only to wave his hands (as only magicians can without seeming psychotic) and say "abracadabra, nothing was as it seemed, the trick's on you." Happy ending... or at least pleasant music with an undertone of revenge/retribution.
Seriously, that summed up both movies.
The Prestige: Christian Bale, Hugh Jackman, Michael Caine. Nice line up. But can it compete against the power of...
The Illusionist: Edward Norton, Paul Giamatti, Jessica Biel, Rufus Sewell. Did I mention Edward Norton?
The Prestige: seemingly amazing magic tricks revealed with little(?) Hollywood magic.
The Illusionist: seemingly amazing magic tricks revealed with little(?) Hollywood magic....hmmm.
The Prestige: an insight into the lives of magicians and how fooling people for a living can lead to dangerous consequences.
The Illusionist: an insight into the lives of magicians and how fooling people for...a...living...touche....
The Prestige: What a horrible ending.
The Illusionist: Saw that one coming. Better luck next time.
Okay, that wasn't as tough as I thought it would be. The acting is fine in both movies. I would particularly like to mention Paul Giamatti's character. A beard will go a long way in dismissing you from your type-cast. Beard or no-beard, Giamatti did a fantastic job. I could say the same about another supporting actor, Michael Caine; but we all know he's going to be great, regardless. He's up there with Dustin Hoffman and the like; aging actors taking lessor roles but out-performing their leads.
"The Prestige" is presented more cloak-and-dagger than "The Illusionist." For some reason, I like the fact that "The Illusionist" is based on a short story; which gives it a leg-up in my book. In this sense, it has a better plot than "The Prestige," if that's what you're looking for.
However, I cannot completely dismiss "The Prestige," though this decision is almost based solely on acting. Specifically, David Bowie as Nikola Tesla. Amazing. Absolutely amazing. It's David Bowie. We were aware that he acted: "Twin Peaks: Fire Walk with Me" and who can forget "Labyrinth." Bowie did a great job with this one. If you're into science and what-not, read up on Tesla. You'll understand why Bowie was perfect for, and did a perfect job with, this part.
So, see 'em both. Plot driven: "The Illusionist." Remember, based on a short story, not just crafted as an edge-of-your-seat screenplay. Character based: "The Prestige." Here, turn off the DVD when you think it's done. Don't worry, the "extra" ending will only disappoint. (Now I know you'll watch it all the way through, don't say I didn't warn you).
The basic premises: Amazing magicians, border lined wizards, are at the top of their game in 19th Century (?) Europe. They have acts that astound the masses and draw considerable attention by others, namely government officials and/or competitors. They, of course, are mysterious and unconventional. Then you've got some romance on the side, beautiful love-at-first-sight stuff. The conflict with competition/officials escalates. Magician is crushed by overwhelming odds and reduced to poverty only to wave his hands (as only magicians can without seeming psychotic) and say "abracadabra, nothing was as it seemed, the trick's on you." Happy ending... or at least pleasant music with an undertone of revenge/retribution.
Seriously, that summed up both movies.
The Prestige: Christian Bale, Hugh Jackman, Michael Caine. Nice line up. But can it compete against the power of...
The Illusionist: Edward Norton, Paul Giamatti, Jessica Biel, Rufus Sewell. Did I mention Edward Norton?
The Prestige: seemingly amazing magic tricks revealed with little(?) Hollywood magic.
The Illusionist: seemingly amazing magic tricks revealed with little(?) Hollywood magic....hmmm.
The Prestige: an insight into the lives of magicians and how fooling people for a living can lead to dangerous consequences.
The Illusionist: an insight into the lives of magicians and how fooling people for...a...living...touche....
The Prestige: What a horrible ending.
The Illusionist: Saw that one coming. Better luck next time.
Okay, that wasn't as tough as I thought it would be. The acting is fine in both movies. I would particularly like to mention Paul Giamatti's character. A beard will go a long way in dismissing you from your type-cast. Beard or no-beard, Giamatti did a fantastic job. I could say the same about another supporting actor, Michael Caine; but we all know he's going to be great, regardless. He's up there with Dustin Hoffman and the like; aging actors taking lessor roles but out-performing their leads.
"The Prestige" is presented more cloak-and-dagger than "The Illusionist." For some reason, I like the fact that "The Illusionist" is based on a short story; which gives it a leg-up in my book. In this sense, it has a better plot than "The Prestige," if that's what you're looking for.
However, I cannot completely dismiss "The Prestige," though this decision is almost based solely on acting. Specifically, David Bowie as Nikola Tesla. Amazing. Absolutely amazing. It's David Bowie. We were aware that he acted: "Twin Peaks: Fire Walk with Me" and who can forget "Labyrinth." Bowie did a great job with this one. If you're into science and what-not, read up on Tesla. You'll understand why Bowie was perfect for, and did a perfect job with, this part.
So, see 'em both. Plot driven: "The Illusionist." Remember, based on a short story, not just crafted as an edge-of-your-seat screenplay. Character based: "The Prestige." Here, turn off the DVD when you think it's done. Don't worry, the "extra" ending will only disappoint. (Now I know you'll watch it all the way through, don't say I didn't warn you).
Smokin' Aces
Buddy Israel (Jeremy Piven) is a Las Vegas magician; actually, he's the best in Vegas. Like any good Vegas act (or so Hollywood would have you believe) he's tied to the mob. Unfortunately, being a magician doesn't make you a good mobster. It's here that the story begins: Buddy "Aces" Israel got in over his head and is now working out a deal with the F.B.I. Holed up in a hotel penthouse in Lake Tahoe, Buddy's trying to lay low until the deal goes through and he enters the witness protection program.
As you might have guessed, the mob is not happy about this. Buddy now has a price on his head of one million dollars, for his death and his heart. The feds (Ryan Reynolds and Ray Liotta...no, seriously) learn of the hit and desperately try to get to Tahoe to save their star witness. At the end of the first act, the feds aren't the only ones who want to get to Buddy. Throw in some ex-cop bounty hunters (Ben Affleck, et al.), two sexy female assassins (Alicia Keys is one), at least three "professional" killers from around the globe, and three skinhead rednecks and you've got yourself a hitman/woman extravaganza.
What I didn't like: Acting-wise, Andy Garcia's accent was confusing (I don't know, maybe that's the way he really talks). As for the movie, itself, it seems as though Writer/director (Joe Carnahan) had a list of "cool things to do in a movie" and dumped the list into this movie. You're left with a leap or two in believability and a fair share of choppiness.
What I liked: There were a lot of "cool things to do in a movie." I'm sorry. I'm a sucker for it. I'm not talking about your conventional "shoot 'em up" b.s. ("Wow, aliens just blew up the White House, I hope Will Smith can save us" or "how many clips did it take John McClane to kill that guy?") I won't go so far as to say they're gimmicks, just interesting scenarios played out over the entire movie that leave you wondering "why hasn't that been in a movie yet?" A decidedly good effort by an okay director. Acting-wise, I like Jeremy Piven. He's great in this one. Whether he's a college dean, a frathouse guru, a car salesman, or a coked-up magician/amateur mobster he always does a great job.
I really enjoyed how the movie progresses. Each character is given their fair share of exposition. At the end of the first act you have no idea who to follow. Throughout the movie the focus is continually changing. The downside of this is that the resolution lacked...everything. I didn't care what happened because, when it came to it, I was too busy wondering what was happening with the other story-lines.
Watch for: great scenes, taken individually. The drive-by shooting, a kid on too much aderol, cleaning up prostitutes, an elevator fire-fight, Jason Bateman. Jason Bateman plays the epitome of the sleazy, self loathing lawyer. Brilliant.
Okay, fine, you're an actor award: Ryan Reynolds. Not bad, buddy. With this movie you've gone a long way towards divorcing yourself from Dean Cook. That's right, they're two different people. Weird, I know.
You should see this movie if: 1. you like shoot 'em ups but you're looking for something with a bit more involved. 2. you think anyone can be an assassin, provided they're crazy enough. 3. you've got this one idea for a great scene in an action/comedy movie but don't know how to convey it to a writer/director; look no further.
Take home message: if you work for the F.B.I. and you are being shot at on the 6th floor from a sniper in a building across the street on the 12th floor, don't shoot back.
As you might have guessed, the mob is not happy about this. Buddy now has a price on his head of one million dollars, for his death and his heart. The feds (Ryan Reynolds and Ray Liotta...no, seriously) learn of the hit and desperately try to get to Tahoe to save their star witness. At the end of the first act, the feds aren't the only ones who want to get to Buddy. Throw in some ex-cop bounty hunters (Ben Affleck, et al.), two sexy female assassins (Alicia Keys is one), at least three "professional" killers from around the globe, and three skinhead rednecks and you've got yourself a hitman/woman extravaganza.
What I didn't like: Acting-wise, Andy Garcia's accent was confusing (I don't know, maybe that's the way he really talks). As for the movie, itself, it seems as though Writer/director (Joe Carnahan) had a list of "cool things to do in a movie" and dumped the list into this movie. You're left with a leap or two in believability and a fair share of choppiness.
What I liked: There were a lot of "cool things to do in a movie." I'm sorry. I'm a sucker for it. I'm not talking about your conventional "shoot 'em up" b.s. ("Wow, aliens just blew up the White House, I hope Will Smith can save us" or "how many clips did it take John McClane to kill that guy?") I won't go so far as to say they're gimmicks, just interesting scenarios played out over the entire movie that leave you wondering "why hasn't that been in a movie yet?" A decidedly good effort by an okay director. Acting-wise, I like Jeremy Piven. He's great in this one. Whether he's a college dean, a frathouse guru, a car salesman, or a coked-up magician/amateur mobster he always does a great job.
I really enjoyed how the movie progresses. Each character is given their fair share of exposition. At the end of the first act you have no idea who to follow. Throughout the movie the focus is continually changing. The downside of this is that the resolution lacked...everything. I didn't care what happened because, when it came to it, I was too busy wondering what was happening with the other story-lines.
Watch for: great scenes, taken individually. The drive-by shooting, a kid on too much aderol, cleaning up prostitutes, an elevator fire-fight, Jason Bateman. Jason Bateman plays the epitome of the sleazy, self loathing lawyer. Brilliant.
Okay, fine, you're an actor award: Ryan Reynolds. Not bad, buddy. With this movie you've gone a long way towards divorcing yourself from Dean Cook. That's right, they're two different people. Weird, I know.
You should see this movie if: 1. you like shoot 'em ups but you're looking for something with a bit more involved. 2. you think anyone can be an assassin, provided they're crazy enough. 3. you've got this one idea for a great scene in an action/comedy movie but don't know how to convey it to a writer/director; look no further.
Take home message: if you work for the F.B.I. and you are being shot at on the 6th floor from a sniper in a building across the street on the 12th floor, don't shoot back.
Monday, May 21, 2007
"Who is Cletus Tout?"
He’s not Christian Slater’s character, an unlucky con-man sent to jail for forgery. He’s not Richard Dreyfus’s character, Micah Donnelly, an incarcerated aging magician who orchestrates an escape from jail with Trevor Finch (Slater). In exchange for helping him escape, Donnelly is giving Trevor a cut of the diamonds he stole, stashed, and was subsequently arrested for. Trevor’s side of the deal is to do what he does best: provide fake documents so each can start spending their fortunes with new identities. To do this, they enlist the help of Dr. Savian (Billy Connolly), a doctor at the morgue who provides Trevor with all of the information needed to assume a dead person’s identity.
Unfortunately for Trevor, his dead man’s name, Cletus Tout, has gotten into some trouble with the mob (hence, Tout’s untimely death-by-fire). When the mob hears the man they thought was dead is really alive (albeit a different man), they send out the expert, Critical Jim (Tim Allen). Without spoiling anything, mistaken identity, death, romance, jewels, nosy neighbors, and homing pigeons round out this “not-too-bad” movie.
What I didn’t like: No depth or development. Fortunately, most of the characters are archetypal (bumbling mob hit men, a mob based out of…..drumrolllllllll…an Italian restaurant!!!, criminals-with-hearts-of-gold, a quirky morgue attendant, etc.) so the lack of character depth isn’t a total loss. Additionally several key features of the plot are shaky (e.g., their escape from prison is as ridiculous as how the diamonds are stolen, and my personal favorite – homing pigeons only go one way….think about it.)
What I liked: There are only slight departures from these formulaic characters. These departures are distinctly the best part of this movie. For example, bumbling mob hit men have a hilarious dialogue in a coffee shop about the movie “Deliverance.” Nosy neighbor is RuPaul. etc.
Watch for: Quirky hit man, Critical Jim. He’s the prime example of how a little goes a long way in redeeming this movie. Critical Jim, so-named because of his incessant critique of everything, is not your typical assassin. You’ve seen this character before, John Cusack and Dan Aykroyd in “Grosse Point Blank,” James Gandolfini in “The Mexican,” actually…James Gandolfini in “Get Shorty,” hmm. And like Chili Palmer in “Get Shorty,” Critical Jim is a movie lover. He thinks that most of life should be scripted as a good movie is scripted. The majority of the movie unfolds as a story told to Critical Jim by Trevor while Critical Jim is …well, being critical of it, as any movie critic would do. It provides the important twist to an otherwise bland crime story.
Fast Forward Award: A montage about making fake documents.
You should see this movie if: 1. You like crime comedies/movies with a twist, especially movies that are about movies. 2. You’ve seen enough Christian Slater movies that you won’t be disappointed if he’s not great in this one either. 3. You like seeing a bare minimum of Richard Dreyfus in a movie.
Take home message: Make sure your fake identity isn’t in deeper than you are.
Unfortunately for Trevor, his dead man’s name, Cletus Tout, has gotten into some trouble with the mob (hence, Tout’s untimely death-by-fire). When the mob hears the man they thought was dead is really alive (albeit a different man), they send out the expert, Critical Jim (Tim Allen). Without spoiling anything, mistaken identity, death, romance, jewels, nosy neighbors, and homing pigeons round out this “not-too-bad” movie.
What I didn’t like: No depth or development. Fortunately, most of the characters are archetypal (bumbling mob hit men, a mob based out of…..drumrolllllllll…an Italian restaurant!!!, criminals-with-hearts-of-gold, a quirky morgue attendant, etc.) so the lack of character depth isn’t a total loss. Additionally several key features of the plot are shaky (e.g., their escape from prison is as ridiculous as how the diamonds are stolen, and my personal favorite – homing pigeons only go one way….think about it.)
What I liked: There are only slight departures from these formulaic characters. These departures are distinctly the best part of this movie. For example, bumbling mob hit men have a hilarious dialogue in a coffee shop about the movie “Deliverance.” Nosy neighbor is RuPaul. etc.
Watch for: Quirky hit man, Critical Jim. He’s the prime example of how a little goes a long way in redeeming this movie. Critical Jim, so-named because of his incessant critique of everything, is not your typical assassin. You’ve seen this character before, John Cusack and Dan Aykroyd in “Grosse Point Blank,” James Gandolfini in “The Mexican,” actually…James Gandolfini in “Get Shorty,” hmm. And like Chili Palmer in “Get Shorty,” Critical Jim is a movie lover. He thinks that most of life should be scripted as a good movie is scripted. The majority of the movie unfolds as a story told to Critical Jim by Trevor while Critical Jim is …well, being critical of it, as any movie critic would do. It provides the important twist to an otherwise bland crime story.
Fast Forward Award: A montage about making fake documents.
You should see this movie if: 1. You like crime comedies/movies with a twist, especially movies that are about movies. 2. You’ve seen enough Christian Slater movies that you won’t be disappointed if he’s not great in this one either. 3. You like seeing a bare minimum of Richard Dreyfus in a movie.
Take home message: Make sure your fake identity isn’t in deeper than you are.
Pick a movie
I like movies. That’s about it. I don’t have any formal education in cinematography. I can’t comment on how a “shot is framed” or why it makes this director great. I do appreciate the technical side of movies and movie-making. For me, it’s the stories; the characters, the plots, the subplots, the situations. The locations, soundtrack, and shots are all just icing on the cake.
I’m not a snob for genres: e.g., I’m not scared to walk out of a rental store with a horror film, a French documentary, and a spaghetti western in hand. However, I won’t deny my tendency to grab movies with grifters, magicians, geniuses, con artists, pool hustlers, maniacs, loners, rebels, and big invisible white rabbits. All of that aside, with such little discretion as to topic or genre the question of “how do I pick out a movie?” should be addressed. Some people can pick out a great movie. Some can’t. I’ve known both. I’ve been both. I don’t know what some people see in an inconspicuous movie box that tells them, correctly, “this looks like a good movie.” Similarly, I am constantly amazed at the crap people carry out of the movie store, myself included. What is interesting is that both of these sets of people go into a movie store with the same goal – to get that good movie. Yet only one succeeds. How do they do it? What’s their secret? Why can’t I pick out a great movie every time?!
For the last two years I lived next to a 99 cent rental movie store. What it taught me was that, for a buck a movie, who cares what you carry out? Besides, movies are great! Although the 99 cent store has passed along and I’m forced to shell out a bit more, I still enjoy taking home the rotten egg as much as I enjoy picking a great movie. With practice, I now can usually detect the stinker within the first 15 minutes.
In this sense, picking out a movie is easy for me. I walk into a movie store, spend a couple of minutes reading the backs of the boxes, think about them, get eight in my hand and whittle it down to two or three. I never worry about balancing my palate or making it a “themed” night. Just movies. The one rule I follow is that I never go straight to the new releases.
So, here it goes, a blog about movies. Some are good, some are bad. All were found the same way. Enjoy.
I’m not a snob for genres: e.g., I’m not scared to walk out of a rental store with a horror film, a French documentary, and a spaghetti western in hand. However, I won’t deny my tendency to grab movies with grifters, magicians, geniuses, con artists, pool hustlers, maniacs, loners, rebels, and big invisible white rabbits. All of that aside, with such little discretion as to topic or genre the question of “how do I pick out a movie?” should be addressed. Some people can pick out a great movie. Some can’t. I’ve known both. I’ve been both. I don’t know what some people see in an inconspicuous movie box that tells them, correctly, “this looks like a good movie.” Similarly, I am constantly amazed at the crap people carry out of the movie store, myself included. What is interesting is that both of these sets of people go into a movie store with the same goal – to get that good movie. Yet only one succeeds. How do they do it? What’s their secret? Why can’t I pick out a great movie every time?!
For the last two years I lived next to a 99 cent rental movie store. What it taught me was that, for a buck a movie, who cares what you carry out? Besides, movies are great! Although the 99 cent store has passed along and I’m forced to shell out a bit more, I still enjoy taking home the rotten egg as much as I enjoy picking a great movie. With practice, I now can usually detect the stinker within the first 15 minutes.
In this sense, picking out a movie is easy for me. I walk into a movie store, spend a couple of minutes reading the backs of the boxes, think about them, get eight in my hand and whittle it down to two or three. I never worry about balancing my palate or making it a “themed” night. Just movies. The one rule I follow is that I never go straight to the new releases.
So, here it goes, a blog about movies. Some are good, some are bad. All were found the same way. Enjoy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)