Category: Reviews
Public Enemies
I mentioned spoilers above, but please realize that the only way I could spoil this movie is by suggesting that you watch it. Picture this: fedoras, 1930s cars, submachine guns, pretty women, and Christian Bale clenching his jaw while inexorably tracking down an insouciant and gallant Johnny Depp. There. You just experienced the best this movie has to offer and if that were all, I would probably be its biggest fan. Unfortunately, there is more and, what is more, more to hate.
This movie is more self-conscious than a bald man in a barbershop. The camera was so distracting that it should have been given a name and listed in the credits in the role of “drunken eyewitness.” I could speculate that the director was going for a docudrama style, but that would be mere guesswork. What is certain is that there were several scenes, throughout the movie, where the action was framed in an incredibly distracting way. For example, twice, a straightforward walking dialogue shot was framed so tightly that the actors bounced up and down in the screen. Not only did it make them look like they were walking on springs, it distracted from the actual dialogue. I literally gasped in horror at later instances of camera shake so severe that I immediately pictured the camera operator, jacked up on energy drinks and suffering from muscle fatigue looking down at his watch and heaving a sigh as he realizes that lunch is still two hours away. This is an example of the medium distracting from the message in an unacceptable way. Watching it was like reading a book printed on insect wings – it’s hard to pay attention to the story when you’re wondering what the heck the publisher was thinking.
The camera work was not the only thing that marred the movie for me. Throughout, I kept noticing that the locations were sets, the clothes were costumes and the characters were modern actors – it all just wasn’t believable to me. At first, I couldn’t figure out why, since there was nothing really wrong with the props and acting, but just now, I had an epiphany! The reason I wasn’t convinced by Public Enemies is because I have watched so many movies that were actually made in the 1930s and ’40s. Compared to the acting styles of that age, modern actors’ mannerisms, intonations and body language seem blaringly anachronistic when set in the ’30s. At various intervals, a character would appear in Public Enemies who would be jarringly 21st century, despite a convincing costume. Why is this? I think it bears further analysis, but by someone more informed than I. I would be interested to hear the opinions of other people on this topic. Have others watched movies and noticed actors that do not fit the time period for some indefinable reason?
You may consider the previous points to be demented rantings on issues that don’t affect the average moviegoer, but let me give you a real rant about an issue that almost everyone would consider irrelevant. At the end of Public Enemies, Dillinger goes to see a 1930s Clark Gable gangster movie, Manhattan Melodrama. Clark Gable is cool, but I was more excited by the fact that this movie also starred William Powell and Myrna Loy, two of my favourite 30s actors, whom I have seen in numerous movies. I couldn’t believe it when Public Enemies included spoilers for Manhattan Melodrama in the scene! Why is that okay? How would Michael Mann feel if a director of the future included pivotal scenes from Public Enemies in a movie? It’s a disrespectful and cheap act.
Overall, I think that Public Enemies makes a good poster – crisp, pretty, atmospheric, and two-dimensional. The lack of character development and prevalence of clichés makes it seem that the main goal was to cash in on the popularity, action, romance and drama of the gangster genre. The characters were all archetypes we’ve seen a million times before – the morally ambiguous antihero, the loyal moll and the hardnosed lawman. If you want to watch a gangster movie with classic characters and storyline, then why not step outside your comfort zone and watch the originals. Sure they’re in black and white and the actors are unrecognizable, but consider it an education.
But wait, there’s something more!
Rules for living…in Dillinger’s world, but feel free to apply them to your own life, for maximum hilarity:
1. Tinted glasses and a tiny mustache shall be sufficient disguise for notorious criminals.
2. Ammo is unlimited and the enemy are bad shots, but keep in mind that your friends, unlike you, are not playing on God Mode and will be killed at regular intervals.
3. Women transform into willing accomplices if called “Doll,” “Sister,” or “Darling” and given a hideous fur coat.
4. Wanted. Bank Manager. Must be skilled at unlocking vaults under coercion and being used as a human shield.
5. Females with criminal friends may, with minimal interference from the authorities: date them, harbour them, lie to the police for them, spend their stolen money, or betray them. However, females must under no circumstances accompany them on missions, carry a gun, or help them escape from jail.
6. Notorious criminals on the run should under no circumstances significantly alter their appearance, such as by cutting their hair.
7. All you need to break out of jail is a wooden gun and a large man with a stick (sounds like the beginning to a great country song).
8. As a general rule of thumb, you must offer a lady your coat once for every four men you murder in order to keep in the public’s good graces.
9. If the new guy says about a hideout, “Don’t worry, no one will find us here,” he really means, “Don’t worry, no one will find us here until very early tomorrow morning.”
10. It is good form to have at least one epic train robbery in the works. Whether the heist actually happens is entirely irrelevant.
11. Three men in dark suits and fedoras can strut into a bank with their hands in their jacket pockets, look around forbiddingly and spread out to cover left, right and center without raising suspicion.
12. Even hardened killers like to snuggle sometimes. Just remember, it doesn’t have to be with you. Unless he says it does.
13. Your escape vehicle should have approximately four too few seats, since some of the gang members are required to stand on the running boards, clutching the vehicle with one hand and ineffectually shooting Thompsons with the other.
14. The guys with the chevron moustaches are up to something.
15. A movie theatre is an acceptable place to meet and hatch schemes.
16. If your double shoulder holster suddenly seems too formal, throw a handgun into your trouser pocket.
A Review of 300 in Three Hundred Words
What do you call 1800 abdominal muscles and three Olympic-sized swimming pools of testosterone? That’s right, the movie “300.” I was a little embarrassed to find that I enjoyed the movie, being one sex change and 10 years of maturity away from its target audience.
Surprisingly, the mythic cinematography gave 300 a surreal feel that worked quite well – it was like the embodiment of an oral storytelling tradition. After all, it all boiled down to the story. Apparently, raw courage, muscle and self-sacrifice can cover a multitude of anachronisms, including, but by no means limited to, dialogue containing the approximate vocabulary of a disgruntled high school football coach.
300 blithefully tramples the thin line between epic and laughably obnoxious. One less ounce of gore and I would have laughed gleefully at the sight of 300 men running around in dirty-looking undies and capes, like so many mutant halloweeners about to get arrested for indecent exposure. Perhaps the font choice for the title and credits is rather more ghetto than comic book, but, having little experience with either, I will refrain from further comment. I do feel qualified to comment on the soundtrack, though. Schizophrenic. Because nothing says “go out and kick ass” like a sound collage of pseudo-ancient vocal music and electric guitar.
The casting was fantastic, mostly because it didn’t include Megan Fox. I was a little disturbed by Butler’s distinctly Scottish accent at key parts in the script, but then, recollecting the bravery and sacrifice of William Wallace and Robert the Bruce, realized the connotation wasn’t necessarily an unreasonable one. More unreasonable was the fantastically gay Xerxes. While his effectiveness as a demigod was hampered by his bitchy persona, impractical piercings and preponderance of golden chainage, I prophesy his success in future music videos by Lady Gaga.
Stargate
A few random thoughts on Stargate (the movie):
~Col. Jack O’Neil’s hair looks like it was cut with a guillotine. I couldn’t manage to take him seriously because the top of his head was flat enough to land a diminutive plane on.
~Having a pyramid-shaped space craft is like having a cone-shaped boat – it may work okay, but it looks about as maneuverable as a water-logged emu.
~Daniel + Sha’uri = their eyes met + lame^10
~Killing off Skaara’s comic sidekick was not sporting and a blatant attempt to manipulate the viewers’ feelings. It worked – I felt betrayed when he died. That’s like strapping a bomb vest to Robin, drive-by-shooting Dr. Watson, or hanging Will Scarlett. It’s just not human.
~Sci-fi desert creature – hairy costume – clumsy mechanical devices – fake slobber = horse
~The plot was of sufficient quality for a rather lame series of Super Bowl commercials.
~Ra’s Anubis-helmeted henchmen were the original Transformers.
~Showing the same psychedelic time-travel sequence twice was cheap. However, the shot was an admirable example of 90’s SFX. Message to all SFX artists: one day, your work will look like that. Kill yourself now.
~I want to meet the extra who can say, “See the noble and glorious charge of the enslaved natives? Well, I was the guy…right there… who falls down the sand dune on his face.”
~And they all lived happily ever after…except for the soldiers and natives who were randomly massacred in the fight scenes.
NB: The chicken dance seems to be a particularly traumatic phenomenon, judging from the comments I’ve received both in response to this post on Facebook and in person. Let’s clear a couple things up: 1) it was about as entertaining as watching a music video on mute with subtitles 2) I believe it was referenced twice in the course of the movie, which was three times too many 3) the director/writer had the humour level of a slightly retarded toddler.
NB: I know there are other events in Stargate which I should address, but please rest assured that yes, I saw your favourite cheesy parts, and yes, I agree that they are exceptional examples of lousy film making. Leave a comment and get it off your chest.
The Twilight of Humanity v. The Dawn of Stupidity
*SPOILER ALERT*
Last night, I read Stephenie Myer’s Twilight in 1 3/4 hours. The feeling of “Damn, I just wasted almost two hours of my finite life” was strangely familiar. Oh yeah, that’s how I felt immediately after watching the movie Twilight.
I have never before had the misfortune of reading more nauseating drivel than that which oozes from the 498 pages of this monumental tribute to human stupidity. Activities which I would consider more enjoyable and informative than reading this book would include: banging my head against the wall, pouring toilet water in my eyes, and going up six flights of stairs on my knees.
I am no snob – there is both a time and place for bad literature.
I’ve probably read around 60 Nancy Drew books in my short life. You know, the ones where she always gets “rendered unconscious” in the seventh chapter and the bad guys are easily recognizable by their inevitably “beady, darting black eyes”? I adore the Hardy Boys, though they are perpetually teenagers and experience the same lovely adventures over and over, clumsily disguised by disgruntled ghost writers. These books, and others like them, do not pretend to be quality. After reading them I feel amused and child-like.
After reading Twilight, I felt embarrassed to be a member of the human race. On the cover it says “THE #1 NEW YORK TIMES BESTSELLER” and on Amazon.com, it holds 5 of the 6 places on the bestsellers list. This means that it is popular. How could this compilation of excremental writing be popular? Are there that many people with bad taste in the world? I find it hard to believe that there are enough enthusiastic emo teenagers to boost this to the top of the lists. Perhaps I underestimate their power…or perhaps ordinary people also love this book. I need to check the stats – the IQ of the U.S. must have just dropped about 50 points.
I must have some pretty hard-core standards, right? Surprisingly, no. Perhaps that is one of the reasons that I rarely review books. In the subject of literature, I like to leave lots of room for individual taste, avoiding value judgments in most cases. Perhaps this is because I have meagre skill as a writer. However, I will not hesitate to say that Twilight is a stinking shit-load of putrid excrescense and a perfect example of unbelievably shallow and inept writing.
For example, there is no character development. At least it’s consistent… For 498 pages, Bella drools over Edward while Edward is angsty and beautiful (before, I didn’t think beautiful could be a character trait, but this book convinced me).
The writing is monotonous. Easily half the book consists of paragraphs such as, “But our eyes held, and the silence deepened – and changed. Flickers of the electricity I’d felt this afternoon began to charge the atmosphere as he gazed unrelentingly into my eyes. It wasn’t until my head started to swim that I realized I wasn’t breathing” (225).
The other half is mostly “I caressed his cheek, delicately stroked his eyelid, the purple shadow in the hollow under his eye. I traced the shape of his perfect nose, and then, so carefully, his flawless lips” (277).
In between these kinds of paragraphs, there is something bearing a slight resemblance to a plot line. Mostly just an episode, involving Bella’s mom and a cool vampire who kills people. Unsurprisingly, this bad vampire is no match for three or four of the Cullens. His only chance was Bella’s stupidity which, though carefully developed throughout the book, does not culminate in her death.
Myer’s first-person writing perspective, coupled with the incredible lack of character development, makes the prose almost unbearable. Slow-moving at best, it tends to pool at Bella’s incredibly mundane, daily activities and cross-eyed adoration of Edward.
Besides the mechanics of this book, the premise is also disturbing. Bella’s self-esteem is in the crapper and she displays hardly any traits to make her endearing besides her very ordinariness. She allows Edward to constantly manipulate her and make her “his own personal brand of doormat” (Cheri Windom, personal interview, 04/2009). Edward’s perfectness is almost as boring as Bella’s ordinariness in its predictability.
The Cullen family is basically the only part of this book that I found interesting. Despite their general kick-assness, they were unable to save Twilight from it’s mirky and soppy demise.
If you are tempted to read this book, despite (or perhaps because of) my criticism, there is a copy moulding in my dorm room. I would strongly suggest that you satisfy your curiosity and save your sanity by reading the title and then staring at the cover for two or three hours. You will have a better experience than I did.
In the Name of the King
In which I release some pent-up feelings.
I wasted 127 minutes of my life last night. It seemed like a good idea – he was hot, experienced and promised “a grand, epic adventure.” Unfortunately, Jason Statham (Transporter) reached an embarrassing low in a movie that can only be described as “abysmal.” Unless you enjoy torturing yourself with bad cinematography, cliched plot, incoherent flow, anachronistic script writing and a fair dose of bad acting, avoid In the Name of the King: A Dungeon Siege Tale.
If you happened to be eavesdropping outside my house last night, you would have thought I was watching a comedy, not a fantasy adventure movie. This movie made me laugh – hysterical, incredulous laughter that erupted at all the wrong times. The death and grief scenes were especially humourous, containing an incomparable mixture of tasteless acting, cliche and melodrama. The villain bore a remarkable resemblance to Bob Hope and his greasy, slicked-back hair seemed dreadfully inappropriate in light of his medieval surroundings.
Also horrendously inappropriate was the dialogue. It was like Sir Gawaine saying to Sir Pellinore, “Yo dude, did you see like when I totally owned that giant?” To which Sir Pellinore replies, “Yeah man, you like totally rock. We should hang out more.” Seriously, sucky writers should stick to modern stories, where we can laugh at them without feeling sick.
The storyline was the same as…every other hero movie. It was only set apart from the competition by the incredible lack of depth. Every scene had a point that could be guessed at least 5 minutes before it actually arrived. Do not be deceived, as I was…there is in fact no “twist.” What you think will happen does actually happen, though the acting may be worse than you expect.
If only the director had foregone the “storyline” and stuck with a montage of Statham fighting monsters and exuding awesomeness. His well-acted character was like a chocolate chip in a vegan raisin cookie – good, but not good enough to save the rest of the cookie.
Much of this movie looked like the unedited footage you expect to see in the extras. You know, the deleted scenes where the villain gurgles a few more times before he dies and the father-figure offers a lecture that is both pithy and incredibly boring. I do not know who the editor was, but I think he spent more time playing solitare and napping then working on the film. The lighting was dreadful and there was absolutely no “flow” to the first hour. I felt disoriented, confused and bored, like riding the kiddy rollercoaster at a traveling carnival with my eyes closed.
I feel a lot better now…having dissed this movie almost as severely as it deserves, I will never think about it again. If, on the off chance that you have watched this movie and enjoyed it, please comment on this blog, leaving the titles of any other movies you have previously enjoyed. This will save me considerable time, disappointment and frustration in the future.




